March 26, 2016

"Privately, and to some degree publicly, Republicans seem resigned to death in November by fire or by hanging."

"The prolonged nominating process is merely a means of determining the nature of the execution and limiting the risk to other candidates on the ballot. The normal pattern of GOP nominating contests for the past two decades is that the party endures heated primary fights between populist, evangelical and center-right candidates, only to settle on the leading establishment choice. No more...."

That's how David Axelrod puts it.

113 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

In other news, Karl Rove observed that Democrats are telling him privately and to some degree publicly that Hillary is their worst nightmare and that they are quietly preparing for twenty years of GOP domination.

mccullough said...

The GOP at the national level is out of ideas and has been for a long time. Paul Ryan still thinks those ideas, trickle down from tax cuts and trade and open borders, are gospel. The party leadership is out of touch with its voters. They might as well be running on the gold standard/

Sebastian said...

Or fire and hanging? Loss in the general and down-ballot, Hill in the WH and a Dem Senate: that'll teach the GOPe. Because, well, because.

The Godfather said...

You are actually quoting David Axelrod (!) about the Republican nomination process?

Birkel said...

mccullough: "...gold standard/"

I used to be surprised to see Nixon's policies defended by liberals.

Anglelyne said...

What's odd is that what's happening was obvious and inevitable, and yet so many of 'em appear to have never seen it coming. The interests of the "base" and the party have been out of sync for decades now, and surely they should have noticed that ginning up the culture war/"conservative" bullshit to fool enough of the people enough of the time wasn't really working any more. Surely? Guess not.

What can they do? It's not as if succeeding in getting rid of Trump is going to make it their fundamental problem go away.

Oso Negro said...

I expect no words of David Axelrod to serve any purpose but undermining the Republican Party.

aritai said...

If Cruz wins the GoP establishment has a chance of surviving. If your pTb wins, he'll gut both the GoPe and Dem establishment. Couldn't happen to nicer folks. I imagine half of his crossover votes are crossing because they also hate their own establishment. Housing prices in DC are already falling. What do they know? Similar to Goldman Sachs playing Soros when they new that those mortgages they'd been bundling and selling to you suckers weren't worth the electronic paper they were printed on save for what some rating agency was willing, even paid to lie about. But since Goldman had all this information they knew the bubble was bound to burst, like Soros did. The real question for Ms. Cruz is how much money did you personally lose in the GFC? Or even better, make? and why"? Granted, it'll be disappeared like Ms. C's "winnings" as a form of not-required to be disclosed political donation. strange world you've got. For more look up Well's Fargo Kovacevich.. After this talk I gave them my earthl accounts http: // www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2MV6CpGCwU

traditionalguy said...

I like Axelrod. He has no dog in this fight and is being a fair observer on CNN this cycle. Unlike total Partisan Hack Rove being treated as the expert of Fox News.

Trump will have to win a lot of battles on every side before he becomes Emperor Trump. But I bet he does it. His followers are strangely loyal to him.

Ann Althouse said...

"I expect no words of David Axelrod to serve any purpose but undermining the Republican Party."

Well, yes. That's not hard. The challenge is what to do with this. For one thing, I don't think he's lying. Okay... let's move the conversation forward. Of course, Axelrod is against Republican Party success. But he also talks to the insiders and knows what's being said, even as he's being selective in what to reveal and how to put it.

Let's move this conversations forward.

Birkel said...

And with that I recognize the trolling of traditionalguy.

Phil 3:14 said...

"Base" and "Establishment" like "Rebel forces" and "the Empire" get a lot of attention but in the end are mythical creations.

Bob Ellison said...

I doubt that Axelrod's access to GOP insiders is worth anything. What could motivate a GOP insider to tell him something meaningful? What could motivate a DNC insider to tell Rove something meaningful?

The conversation can't move forward because there's no fuel.

Birkel said...

"This conversation()" cannot be moved forward. There is no reason to believe David Axelrod has ever said a single honest thing. He is lying, always. There is no combination of words out of Axelrod's mouth that should be accepted as true without independent confirmation.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate who may well be president, to the detriment of all but her inner circle.

PWS said...

The Trump wave is not going to end well even if Trump wins the WH. Just like the Repubs before him, he's not going to be able to deliver on his promises; AND even if he were somehow to ban all Muslims, etc, Trump followers would soon realize that their lives have not gotten better and that feeling better for a few moments quickly fades. In fact, it's arguable that even if Trump actually got his policies enacted, things for his followers (and the country) would actually get worse, at least materially, if not in other ways too.

Birkel said...

PWS:
The Trump Wave may experience a Cruz shutout of Wisconsin electoral votes.

Worst wave since Obama at the Cuban baseball game attended by FARC rebels?

MadisonMan said...

Face it -- Trump and Hillary are both geezers. I don't expect either to be able to run for a 2nd term, or maybe even survive their first term. (To be clear: I'm talking natural causes, not assasins) So there is that to look forward to.

pm317 said...

That fucker Axelrod is like a cat drinking milk with its eyes closed thinking nobody would find that he is drinking milk. How is what he says going on the Dem's side? Is Bernie who has no path to nomination and absolutely no aptitude to run a country destroying Hillary enough?

Paco Wové said...

"Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate who may well be president, to the detriment of all but her inner circle."

I don't know about "all". Clinton is the true establishment candidate this time around. Who does Davos Man want to see elected? I'm sure Goldman Sachs and the Chamber of Commerce would be happy enough with her as well. Lots of well-connected people around the world will benefit from a Clinton presidency.

dbp said...

"He led the party over the cliff of a government shutdown in a vain effort to derail Obamacare."

Does he mean futile or arrogant here? Does he care?

Michael K said...

I'm sure Goldman Sachs and the Chamber of Commerce would be happy enough with her as well. Lots of well-connected people around the world will benefit from a Clinton presidency.

Yes and that has to be considered in the role of the GOPe, which has similar motivation.

This Cruz - Trump sex story has me depressed. It seems the battle has gone nuclear and suicidal.

bgates said...

The GOP at the national level is out of ideas

The Democrats are pushing for socialized medicine, as they have since Truman, advocating for a return of 19th century style open borders, and their economic policies were memorably captured by the words "You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument... is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it." - Abraham Lincoln, 1858.

Bay Area Guy said...

If Trump is the nominee, and I'm pretty sure he will be, I want him to win. In my view, The Left is far more toxic to this country than The Donald.

What I'm not hearing from Trump supporters though is their game plan to win the General. It's not too late either. But it would be nice if they started their pivot towards hammering Hillary and reconcilling with disgruntled members of the GOP.

Mark said...

The normal pattern of GOP nominating contests for the past two decades is that the party endures heated primary fights between populist, evangelical and center-right candidates, only to settle on the leading establishment choice

And the result in the general election for Republicans has been --
Loss, loss, loss (popular vote), win, loss, loss.

With a GOP record of 1-5, that does not sound like a recipe for success, unless you are a Democrat. If the GOP had nominated another Mitt McDole this year, likely they would have lost all 50 states.

Hagar said...

David Axelrod should look behind him. I don't think there is much of a party left there either.

Mark said...

If Trump wins, the GOP Establishment will not be destroyed, they will not be converted, they will only recede into hibernation. Donald Trump is all about Donald Trump. He is a one-off. He is not about lasting principle. The Establishment will not learn any lessons from losing to him, but will simply slink away and return when he is gone.

Meanwhile, on the Dem side, the Politburo will remain intact, as will the apparatchiks and entire intelligentsia. They have never needed the people before and do not need them now. They are the vanguard -- smarter and better than anyone and everyone no matter what.

Anglelyne said...

PWS: The [insert pol here] wave is not going to end well even if [insert pol here] wins the WH. Just like the [insert general reference to party here] before him, he's not going to be able to deliver on his promises; AND even if he were somehow to [insert policy here], etc, [insert pol here] followers would soon realize that their lives have not gotten better and that feeling better for a few moments quickly fades. In fact, it's arguable that even if [insert pol here] actually got his policies enacted, things for his followers (and the country) would actually get worse, at least materially, if not in other ways too.

True, that.

Nothing beats vague boilerplate when it comes to advancing discussions.

Jack Wayne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
M Jordan said...

Trump will save the Republican Party, win or lose. He already has. No longer are we chained to trickle-down theories and purist views of free trade. NATO is now on the table. Isolationism, too. I'm pobably as conservative ideologically as you can get and my center has shifted, thanks to Trump. I've grown weary if the Mark Levins of the world and their "constitution" drumbeats. Much as I appreciate the genius underlying that document, to make it the inerrant, divinely-inspired King James Bible has begun to turn me off.

Cruz is supposedly the true conservative and I can't stand the guy. He says nothing that interests me, nothing that makes me see the world in a new way. Trump, for all his failings, has done that and that's why I grudgingly support him.

Bob Boyd said...

Suppose for the sake of argument, just prior to the Convention, most Republicans in both camps come to the realization that neither Trump nor Cruz will beat Hillary because too many independents find both unacceptable. And suppose both camps agree they need another candidate.

Can you think of anybody who would fill that bill? Anybody at all?

Hagar said...

No, but by 2020 both parties will have different candidates (and different constituencies too).

ELC said...

Are these the same sort of insiders who, in March 1980, tried desperately to get GERALD FORD to come out of retirement because the washed-up, has-been actor from the Left Coast was going to get clobbered by Jimmy Carter in November?

And, though it's a dramatically different political situation now, Republican insiders in the summer of 1864 tried to get the likes of John C. Fremont to stand against Lincoln -- who had already been nominated! -- because there was no way Lincoln could get re-elected in November.

Anglelyne said...

Hagar:

David Axelrod should look behind him. I don't think there is much of a party left there either.

&

No, but by 2020 both parties will have different candidates (and different constituencies too).

Yup.

Mark said...

"trickle-down"

If you are going to try to pass yourself off as a conservative, you should not use such obvious give-aways.

mccullough said...

The Dems ideas are bad as well but there is an audience for them. They have no problem with trade and environmental regulations killing jobs. The GOP has no problem with trade killing jobs and did nothing to stop all the regulations that killed off logging and other industries. They draw the line at banning fracking. So the GOP plan is to cut taxes on the rich to stimulate job growth in China and expand lower paying service sector jobs while trying to maintain manufacturing and construction at their current levels and add some jobs to the 1 million workers in oil and gas. For those left behind by the growth in trade and technology, the GOP position is that they should start their own business, join the military that the GOP hopes to expand, or work 7 part time jobs in the vibrant advice sector in which Americans will continue to compete with the 10 million illegals the GOP wants to amnesty plus whatever more illegals come walking over the open Southern border. For those in tech, the GOP also plans to issue more H1-B visas so that foreign nationals from India and China drive down your wages or take your jobs. The GOP plans to continue running 500 trillion deficits because tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves sometime starting in 75 years from now.

The Dems plan is to keep adding to the 22 million government jobs (except not adding more jobs to the military) to maintain some semblance of a middle class killed off by trade regulation and environmental regulation and to just distribute more food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid, EITC for low wage workers and welfare payments for those who can't find a job in our 21st Century economy. They also will add $1.50 to the minimum wage so that the peasants are placated. They, like their GOP counterparts,will also amnesty the 10 million illegals so that it's even harder for Americans to find low paying service sector jobs. They will pay for part of this increased government spending by taxing more from those who benefit economically from our trade policies. Half of all those who made over $200,000 a year voted for Obama. The rest will be borrowed with deficit spending.

These are the visions of the two major parties. Id say the Dems hold the slightly better hand among the electorate. The GOP can win local and state elections by tweaking some school reforms and cracking down on rising violent crime. But they are done at the national level with their proposals. People realize that with so many low paying service sector jobs that the government has to supplement the low income with food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid. And that government jobs are better paying than no jobs and service sector jobs. The GOP's policies don't produce a vibrant private sector that produces enough good paying jobs in the US. And people aren't going to work 5 jobs and compete with illegals for those jobs.

Will said...

David Axelrod is a scummy political operative who made his name by leaking sealed divorce records to the benefit of candidates that hired him to troll the gutters. One of those candidates was Barack Obama.

Axelrod has tried to gussy up his reputation by being on TV and at Univ of Chicago, but this merely shows that corruption pays in politics.

Any "helpful" advice offered by partisan Axelrod should be taken with a giant grain of anthrax. He will say anything to help get a democrat over the line; even a flawed candidate with Character and Criminal and Judgement and Competence issues like Hillary.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Cracker Emcee said...


"The Trump wave is not going to end well even if Trump wins the WH. Just like the Repubs before him, he's not going to be able to deliver on his promises; AND even if he were somehow to ban all Muslims, etc, Trump followers would soon realize that their lives have not gotten better and that feeling better for a few moments quickly fades. In fact, it's arguable that even if Trump actually got his policies enacted, things for his followers (and the country) would actually get worse, at least materially, if not in other ways too."

By this reasoning, no President would ever be re-elected, certainly not Obama.

How long has it been since there's been a full-on primary knife fight? In an age of instant publicity, who benefits from the cut and thrust? The fighters or the old lady clucking about hooligans, while she tries to stay inconspicuous at the back of the crowd of onlookers?

Wishful thinking from Axelrod.

Mark said...

Sorry, wrong comment thread.

Bruce Hayden said...

You are actually quoting David Axelrod (!) about the Republican nomination process?

The thing here is that the Republicans are the democrats here, letting (hopefully) their unruly masses pick their candidate, while the Democrats are the authoritarians here, with the establishment picking one of the worst candidates they possibly could. If, as expected, Hillary gets their nomination, she will have the honor of being probably the most corrupt mainstream party Presidential nominee of the last century, if not longer. She went into the nomination fight with a big advantage in name recognition, money, and Super Delegates. And, indeed, she might still pull out winning the nomination with the latter, even if she lost most of the rest of the states. She is a horrible candidate - corrupt, robotic, sickly, with a serious case of charisma deficit. And, yet, Axelrod, and his ilk, support her nomination, because he and the other Dem power brokers believe that it is now her turn. And, they think that they will benefit from the Clinton ability to sell themselves (and if elected, the national government) for their advantage. They saw how well Obama did, selling such, and he was an amateur compared to the Clintons. Look at how well so many of the biggest Dem boosters have done financially under Obama's crony capitalism/fascist type socialism - we are talking many billions that the rest of us have shoveled to them over the last 7 years.

One question I would ask him though is why he thinks that such a horrid candidate as Hillary will generate the needed enthusiasm to get their prime demographics to the polls. She is neither black nor Hispanic, and doesn't play either one very well either, and a lot of the Dems traditional white voters seem ready to rally heavily and enthusiastically for Trump this time. Why would the rank and file Dem voter be that enthusiastic about voting for her, since that would just mean more money for the Dem elites, and worse living conditions for most of them?

Chuck said...

Right, Will; I join you in saying "Thank you very little," to the people who are in the business of fighting the Democrats' partisan wars for them, when they are offering helpful suggestions on how Republicans ought to behave.

Here are four paragraphs from the Axelrod piece:

First:

Having stoked anti-Obama fever in order to score midterm victories at the polls and then failed to deliver on pledges to derail major elements of the President's agenda, the party elite now finds itself overrun by a wave of outrage and discontent.


Second, third, fourth and fifth:

Playing base politics -- tolerating nativism, birtherism and promising obstruction at every turn -- could cost Republicans the presidency and threaten control of the Senate.

And if the GOP crashes and burns, it will probably get a more liberal court nominee than Garland from the next President Clinton.

For seven years, the GOP establishment knowingly and cynically rode the anti-Obama tiger, feeding the beast with a steady diet of red meat.

Now, whatever happens at the Cleveland convention, the party elite may wind up as dinner.


This is a repeated pattern on the left; they are really desperate to link Trump to the Republicans, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is increasingly easy to talk to my liberal-Dem friends, since we are united in our hatred of Trump, but as hard as ever to read the usual media blather, where "Trump" and "Republicans" are indistinguishable; or worse, where Republican ideology of some kind is cited as the proximate cause of Trump.

The mainstream media elites clearly do not read the comments pages of NRO, Weekly Standard or the American Spectator, (or even the Althouse blog!) where one Trump supporter after another declares that they aren't Republicans, they'd like to see the Republican establishment destroyed, and the only good Republican is a Trump-supporting Republican.

Amanda said...

"If Trump is the nominee, and I'm pretty sure he will be, I want him to win. In my view, The Left is far more toxic to this country than The Donald."

This is why I keep coming back to the realization that a full half of the conservative base is nuts.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Chuck,
The Trump-supporters-aren't-Republicans schtick you've pivoted to is laughably ineffective. It's like saying the insurrectionists of '68 who took down LBJ weren't actually Democrats because they weren't Dixiecrats or urban machine pols.

Michael said...

That's what's called "wish-casting."

Wonder what he'll say when the country goes on Cruz-control?

jelink said...

mccullough said... "People realize that with so many low paying service sector jobs that the government has to supplement the low income with food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid. And that government jobs are better paying than no jobs and service sector jobs."

************

"And where", any conservative would ask, "is the money going to come from to subsidize those tens of millions of low income people, and to reward do-nothing chair-moisteners in phony baloney government jobs???"

traditionalguy said...

The end of the Dynasteia of Preston Bush and his German connections over American politics is going to be a big messy end. All will seem disordered until the Trump Rule is established.

Thus spake Tradguy.

Have a nice day, Birkel.

dbp said...

I agree with most of what Bruce says, but have a different take on this part:

"And, yet, Axelrod, and his ilk, support her nomination, because he and the other Dem power brokers believe that it is now her turn."

I don't think they care about whose turn it is.

1. They think Hillary is the most electable of those running for the nomination and if she does nothing else, she will prevent a rollback of Obama policies and therefore cement them in place.

2. Hillary is expendable: If she doesn't win this year, she is finished forever and this is her last chance to try. If they ran one of their rising stars, like Elizabeth Warren, in what should normally be a hard year for them, then they have played a card they should have saved for 2020.

3. The reason the two fossils ran for the Democratic nomination this year and the "stars" stayed out is that they had no idea the Republican nomination would be such a cluster-fuck.

Chuck said...

The Cracker Emcee said...
Chuck,
The Trump-supporters-aren't-Republicans schtick you've pivoted to is laughably ineffective. It's like saying the insurrectionists of '68 who took down LBJ weren't actually Democrats because they weren't Dixiecrats or urban machine pols.

And what did those insurrectionists get? Two terms of Richard Nixon, the keel-hauling of George McGovern (a liberal who was, personally, one of the most decent and honorable Americans of his time), and the beginnings of the Burger-Rhenquist-Roberts era of the Supreme Court. Oh, and they succeeded in getting Tom Hayden elected to the California Assembly. Yay.

They won, when the insurrectionists were worn out and forgotten, and when two moderate southern governors (Carter and Clinton) could again cobble together the core base of the Democrats; union power, minority turnout, and most of all enough suburban moderates of the type that Donald Trump frightens.

Michael K said...

The reason the two fossils ran for the Democratic nomination this year and the "stars" stayed out is that they had no idea the Republican nomination would be such a cluster-fuck.

I suspect this is true and is how we got Bill Clinton since the logical D candidate in 1992 was Cuomo. Bush's numbers were high after Gulf War I and nobody knew he would sink himself with the tax increase and subsequent recession.

Bruce Hayden said...

One of the Dem demographics I forgot to mention is discussed in this Rolling Stone article: Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton. Young people just don't like Hillary. She exhibits all that they think is wrong with politics.

Chuck said...

Amanda said...
"If Trump is the nominee, and I'm pretty sure he will be, I want him to win. In my view, The Left is far more toxic to this country than The Donald."

This is why I keep coming back to the realization that a full half of the conservative base is nuts.


Amanda,

Very respectfully, I suspect that when I say to you that you don't know anybody who hates Donald Trump more than I do, you might actually believe me.

But you should count me as among the crowd who is likely to vote for the short-fingered vulgarian in order to prevent a Democrat from being elected in November and then tipping the balance on the Supreme Court.

The vulgar, insulting, stupid, misguided, phony, hateful Donald Trump. Yes, that Donald Trump. If he is the nominee, I may well vote for him. On the premise that Mitch McConnell and Jeff Sessions would go to President Trump at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and tell Trump who to nominate to the federal bench. Up and down, all over.

And on a more conciliatory note, Amanda; my greatest fear isn't that Trump would win the White House. That's my second-greatest fear. My greatest fear is that Trump gets the nomination, and then gets schlonged in the general election.

Amanda said...

Chuck, count me in the half of liberals and Democrats who don't want Hillary to be our nominee, I'd much rather Sanders gets the nomination. So in the same spirit in which you would bring yourself to vote for The Vulgarian, I could bring myself to vote for Hillary. What we disagree on is who is the lesser evil. I see Trump as being not only not worthy of the Presidency but destructive to the well being of this country.

And yes Trump will be schlonged by Hillary, the question is how badly will it hurt Republicans. Democrats will get back the Senate, if it's bad enough we'll get back the House. I think the only candidate Republicans could win with is Kasich, but it looks like that won't be happening.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Um, Chuck, Hillary and her peers are those insurrectionists. They've been pretty successful at reshaping society over the last 40 years.

Alex said...

mccullough said...
The GOP at the national level is out of ideas and has been for a long time. Paul Ryan still thinks those ideas, trickle down from tax cuts and trade and open borders, are gospel.


So what should the GOP be focusing on - being bigger socialists? What are the Dem ideas - oh yeah more socialism.

Alex said...

I do agree that Trump will probably lose by 10-15 points and get trounced in the electoral college by Hilterbeast. Have Americans gone insane? My guess is that Trump is speaking too much truth of the kind that the average American idiot doesn't want to hear and is going to vote Dem out of spite.

James Pawlak said...

I am NOT a member of an organized political party; I am a Republican.

Michael K said...

Chuck, I'm glad to see this.

If he is the nominee, I may well vote for him. On the premise that Mitch McConnell and Jeff Sessions would go to President Trump at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and tell Trump who to nominate to the federal bench. Up and down, all over.

I feel much the same way and I think, at least until this nasty business this week, that he would probably beat Hillary like a rented mule.

I fear the GOPe prefers to deal with Hillary who will not upset as many apple carts.

Roughcoat said...

Conservatism as a political ideology has failed. But it remains, for me at any rate, a way of life. I'm tired of fighting the culture wars--which conservatives lost. I'm tired of the Bob Tyrrells, Mark Levins, Bill Bennetts, etc. I'm withdrawing, "Canticle for Leibowitz" fashion, into my own conservative sensibilities. Which means I'm withdrawing from large areas and aspects of the culture. I have occasional dealings with the Amish and Mennonites and I've always liked both. But not, additionally, I understand why they have chosen their respective courses. I'm sympathetic. I'm maybe a third of the way there. I likely won't go any farther, but still. I'm not going the other direction.

Does anybody else feel this way?

Roughcoat said...

Above: Change to "But now, additionally" ...

Chuck said...

The Cracker Emcee said...
Um, Chuck, Hillary and her peers are those insurrectionists. They've been pretty successful at reshaping society over the last 40 years.


The Clintons have pretty odd resumes for "insurrectionists." Governor of Arkansas; President of the United States; Senator from New York; Secretary of State; Goldman-Sachs speakers; Davos participants.

The only extent to which they have been able to "reshape" anything was by winning elections with their union/NAACP/green activist/liberal media coalition. Party discipline and turnout is what allows them to win, on those occasions when they do win.

Are you by any chance one of those people who thinks that Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya? Because I expect that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board when they wrote at the very outset of the Trump ascendancy, that "Trump" as a phenomenon was an outgrowth of a really severe emotional backlash (among the Trump demographic) against Obama. Mind you, the WSJ editorial board never carried any brief for Obama. They just managed to criticize The Current Occupant without going all Muslim Kenyan.

Chuck said...

"Because I expect that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board was right when they wrote..."

Sorry.

Roughcoat said...

Also, professionally and on a personal level, I'm focused on working with various groups and people to help kill/destroy ISIS. There's a lot of clarity to this undertaking. And clarity = simplicity; which is to say, minimum bullshit. For instance I don't care about race issues at the Academy Awards, what the idiot kids are protesting on university campuses, sex issues, women's issues, gay issues, etc., etc., ad nauseum. I care a lot about doing my job which is to assist in my own very small and insignificant way in killing ISIS. It's very liberating. I don't matter much in the scheme of things but at least I can live with myself and look at myself in the mirror every morning and feel okay with what I see.

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...
"I expect no words of David Axelrod to serve any purpose but undermining the Republican Party."

Well, yes. That's not hard. The challenge is what to do with this. For one thing, I don't think he's lying. Okay... let's move the conversation forward. Of course, Axelrod is against Republican Party success. But he also talks to the insiders and knows what's being said, even as he's being selective in what to reveal and how to put it.

Let's move this conversations forward."

Yes. David axelrod talks to beltway GOPe types. They all go to the same restaurants, hang out in the same "jobs," and get paid by the same people. In the end they have the same goals. To keep their jobs, wealth, and influence. It is a game to these people.

Meanwhile out here in the real world we are getting strangled by government regulation. They are purposely killing off the entrepreneur. Both parties are doing this. Republicans and Democrats. They all come from the same paradigm and that paradigm is at odds with the average citizen.

You wouldn't understand this Ann because you are one of the credentialed elite. You have a tenure position that pays you 5 times what the average American makes. You can't be fired. You know what you will be doing in 5 years. You can plan for retirement because you don't have to deal with the uncertainty we do.

The governments at all levels change the rules on us daily. The IRS can audit any company and find enough violations to put us out of business no matter how hard we try. "Due process" against them is something only very large companies can afford. Labor and Industries in Washington state is a Mob operation. They are random and they are uncaring. The EPA literally makes shit up on a daily basis. And we have to live under it.

Paul Ryan doesn't have to suffer under this tyranny. He can get up there and give a wonderful speech about how we are all good people and friends. It is garbage. The government is not our friend. The people that run it are completely out of control. There is no civilized way to deal with this. Fuck Axelrod. He is a piece of shit and not a good person. Any of the Republicans that try to compromise with him are part of the problem. The government has grown whether democrats or republicans are in power. They have never rolled back the regulatory state. They just don't impose new ones as fast.

They are all part of the problem and I look forward to all of them getting jobs that reflect their value to society.

Writ Small said...

It is increasingly easy to talk to my liberal-Dem friends, since we are united in our hatred of Trump. . .

Same. I've been listening to lefty podcasts for similar reasons. Slate's "Trumpcast" is pretty entertaining and informative if you can stomach the left-wing world view that permeates. They had a clinical psychologist talking Narcissist Personality Disorder, which was educational.

Glad to hear you're not going to vote Hillary, but there is a case to be made for her. She is corrupt, which means she is likely to follow the winds of public opinion like her husband. She will be less damaging than Obama for that reason alone. She believes in free trade and a muscular national defense, so she is arguably to the right of Trump on both economic and foreign policy. Purely on the issues, she's something like the least bad Democrat available these days. I get sick when I think about the Supreme Court, but Trump has said he plans to nominate his pro-abortion sister. Is Hillary clearly worse?

I could imagine an anti-Trump Republican seeing it as enough of a "push" between Hillary and Trump to not vote for either. Maybe vote for Republicans everywhere else to limit the damage that will flow from whoever wins the presidency.

Birkel said...

traditionalguy:

Troll away, my curiously worried about ancestry, non-friend.

n.n said...

The prolonged nomination process is actually a democratic experiment in vetting candidates, which conveniently exposes special and peculiar interests that may not be compatible with the directives of our social compact and its two named parties: People and Posterity.

Birkel said...

Achilles:

Sadly, I must agree. The Federal Leviathan is strangling this country. Obama added 900,000 new federal government jobs.

The next president will either reduce government or America continues uses her decline. Laws and regulations must be undone.

Bay Area Guy said...

As much as I would like to, I can't dismiss Axelrod. Yes, he is a Machavellian weasel.

But he's also a member of an elite group of weasels, including Rove, Morris, Carville and the late Lee Atwater - guys who've won Presidential elections.

His views carry weight because he's a winner, despite the fact that I detest him,

Mark Penn ran Hillary's race in 2008 - and he got whooped by Axelrod. He's not part of the club.

If Hillary wins, we're gonna have lax immigration enforcement and lackluster fighting against Radical Islam. The Dems like chaos, they think it gives them more votes, more opportunities to expand govt power.

So, Trump seems to be an odd vehicle with which to battle the ignorant hordes of the Left, but alas, that's what we got.

Anglelyne said...

Roughcoat: Does anybody else feel this way?

Yes.

Eric said...

The GOP at the national level is out of ideas and has been for a long time.

The "ideas" from the other side are just warmed over nuttiness from the 1840s. The reality is there are no new ideas in politics, and it's idiotic to suggest otherwise.

Eric said...

BAG, you can't dismiss Axelrod if you think he's being honest. But how can you think that?

Michael K said...

"Does anybody else feel this way?"

I do but I'm old and don't have to worry too much about what the left is doing except for my grandchildren.

That's a helluva way to see things but it is comforting.

My son and I took his 10 year old son out to shoot the AR 15 a couple of weeks ago. I worry about him at college in 8 years but maybe he will join the military first.

His father is my only child without a college degree and the only one who owns his own house. He put in a gorgeous pool last summer that cost more than my first two houses combined.

They live two blocks away.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I do but I'm old and don't have to worry too much about what the left is doing except for my grandchildren.

Hahahahahahaaaa. Like right-wingers care about their kids or grandkids.

They care almost as little for their own kids as they'd care about anyone else's kids.

A right-winger's idea of raising his kids right is to drop him off in the set of Hunger Games.

Paco Wové said...

"Does anybody else feel this way?"

Me three; I've been tending my own garden more and more since 2008.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The challenge is what to do with this. For one thing, I don't think he's lying. Okay... let's move the conversation forward. Of course, Axelrod is against Republican Party success. But he also talks to the insiders and knows what's being said, even as he's being selective in what to reveal and how to put it.

Let's move this conversations forward.


No! Let's stand athwart it and yell, "STOP!"

Eric said...

Hahahahahahaaaa. Like right-wingers care about their kids or grandkids.

Contrary to your projection, it's because we care about our kids and grandkids that we fight you. Otherwise we'd go with the flow, register Democrat, and vote ourselves other peoples' money.

Rhythm and Balls said...

....vote ourselves other peoples' money.

You mean like Republican Leader Trump did when he went bankrupt four times and voted for other people's money to bail him out?

Dumbass.

Birkel said...

"Rhythm and Balls" thinks children should be treated like Democrats treat them in Chicago, NYC, Detroit, Saint Louis, Cleveland, and LA school systems.

And also how President Clinton and "great guy" (according to Donald Trump) Jeffrey Epstein treated them.

Democrats.

Amanda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amanda said...


"Hunger Games", what earth may very well devolve to in our grandchildren's and great grandchildren's future. Conservatives claim to be so concerned about their grandchildren's economic future, while completely denying that man made global warming is real. What good will money be when the earth is uninhabitable? The cognitive dissonance must be awful to live with.

Birkel said...

Amanda:

What temperature should Earth have, on average? Only after you answer that question will anybody take you seriously.

Next, you will have to explain how an average temperature can be deduced.

jelink said...

"They are all part of the problem and I look forward to all of them getting jobs that reflect their value to society."

***********

I suspect most of them fear that some fine day conservatives are going to go all "Che" on them.

narciso said...

Axelrod was the one who pushed the la and chicago papers to unseal the divorce records of blair hull and jack ryan, forcing out obama's strongest supporters, he gave that fatuous speech in 2004, because he had token opposition, his firm hired astroturfers who made up phony claims about the huntress in 2008,

Eric said...

You mean like Republican Leader Trump did when he went bankrupt four times and voted for other people's money to bail him out?

Yeah, Trump the big Republican who donated to Hillary's last campaign. Dumbass.

Eric said...

Amanda, Hunger Games is fantasy. Come back to the real world.

HT said...

Hillary is hardly “the left.”

“David Axelrod should look behind him. I don't think there is much of a party left there either.” This is true. Partly it’s a generational thing, but as I’ve been saying for some time, there is a leadership crisis everywhere, at every level.

M Jordan said...

Trump will save the Republican Party, win or lose. He already has. No longer are we chained to trickle-down theories and purist views of free trade. NATO is now on the table. Isolationism, too. I'm pobably as conservative ideologically as you can get and my center has shifted, thanks to Trump. I've grown weary if the Mark Levins of the world and their "constitution" drumbeats. Much as I appreciate the genius underlying that document, to make it the inerrant, divinely-inspired King James Bible has begun to turn me off.

Cruz is supposedly the true conservative and I can't stand the guy. He says nothing that interests me, nothing that makes me see the world in a new way. Trump, for all his failings, has done that and that's why I grudgingly support him.

__________________
That may be, but he doesn’t know jack shit about governing. That’s not nothing.

Terry said...

If you want to know the state of the GOP candidate selection process, ask a Democrat operative!

Guildofcannonballs said...

Anytime global warming is mentioned I encourage everyone to confirm that it will kill everyone and everything sooner than we think, and therefore Amanda and her ilk ought to spend their time, and their money, and their sacred honor, trying to persuade individuals to act however we should all independently act, at least when not mucking it up with government corruption and interference which we lack control over right! now! this! instant! today! and hence isn't a feasible option NOW!!! to this most-urgent-of-all-time threat.

When the truth is on your side, any hyperbole only hurts your case, which is why the Humanity Saviors can be persuaded to refrain from using force (like the IRS or Congress) as it might hurt their airtight case. Why are they waiting for bureaucrats when they can ACT POST HASTE? Keep assuring them they can save the world better and faster by allowing others to choose for themselves to do the right thing which is whatever Amanda has done, is doing, and will do, but only if Amanda and her ilk spend time teaching the proudly ignorant planet murderers how they can start saving every plant and animal existing and then take the credit themselves, as Angel Saints such as Amanda don't give a rat's behind about any credit given or taken, they just want people to do the right thing.

The key is, it will be a huge trollish waste of time, which is time not spent trying to take other people's money with a genuine chance of success.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I know one thing.

If I wanted a rocket ship to take me to the moon and back, I sure as hell wouldn't trust a dumbass like "Birkel" to design, manufacture and/or operate it.

But surely he knows more science than the people who can do and successfully did just that.

That's because he is a dumbass. There is no purpose for the Republican party. Other than to be anti-knowledge. Whatever they were paid to feel is knowledge enough for them, and they will kill anyone else who disagrees.

narciso said...

axelrod is why obama had virtually no opposition in 2004,


http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-09.html

narciso said...

another source, for the charge,


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2075850/posts

most recently romney was commiserating with axelrod, like a frog would a scorpion,

Rusty said...

Alex said...
I do agree that Trump will probably lose by 10-15 points and get trounced in the electoral college by Hilterbeast. Have Americans gone insane? My guess is that Trump is speaking too much truth of the kind that the average American idiot doesn't want to hear and is going to vote Dem out of spite.

I have just the opposite view. This is just from the people I talk to every day and people I meet on the street.
Evrybody is going to vote for Trump. Every legal hispanic is voting for trump. People who don't ordinarily vote are going to vote for Trump.Reagan democrats are going to vote foe Trump.
Here is why. And Ive heard this from a number people.
This is the last chance we have to keep our constitutional republic.
Many of these peole believe that if Hillary or Bermie is elected we can kiss what is left our rights and freedoms goodby.
Just tellin' ya what's out there on the street.

Michael K said...

Ritmo is on a roll. Today must have been payday at McDonalds.,

Drago said...

Amanda: ""Hunger Games", what earth may very well devolve to in our grandchildren's and great grandchildren's future."

LOL

Drago said...

R&B's: "I sure as hell wouldn't trust a dumbass like "Birkel" to design, manufacture and/or operate it."

As if you possess any of the requisite skills or knowledge with which to evaluate any space technology or system.

Oh, that's right. Simply being on the left ipso facto makes you a rocket scientist or something.

In the same way garage mahal felt quite comfortable judging the pediatric neuro-surgeon skills of Ben Carson.

Similar to Titus claiming that the republicans hate Lena Dunham because Lena "f***ing loves science", though she knows as much about science as garage mahal.

Drago said...

R&B's: "You mean like Republican Leader Trump did when he went bankrupt four times and voted for other people's money to bail him out?"

I guess we'll be waiting quite awhile for that all important link which demonstrates how Trump "voted for other peoples' money".

Paco Wové said...

Hey, lay off Ritmo. He's a certified Internet celebrity!

Birkel said...

When I did my fellowship with the American Chemical Society they asked me if I knew as much science as "Rhythm and Balls" on the application.

dreams said...

"This Cruz - Trump sex story has me depressed. It seems the battle has gone nuclear and suicidal."

It might be the establishment trying to take out both Trump and Cruz.

narciso said...

I've dubbed it priebus's hunger games, because of the open primaries, the openly biased moderators, of which cnbc were among the worst, the blatant support of the most clueless candidates like jeb, in the series, this state of affairs came to be because of a great rebellion against a tyrannical leader, who cared only to raid the provinces in order to
fill the Capitol, who does that sound like,

Drago said...

Birkel: "When I did my fellowship with the American Chemical Society they asked me if I knew as much science as "Rhythm and Balls" on the application."

You don't have to know any science, you just have to "F****** Love Science!", like Lena Dunham. Who didn't take any science courses because when you venture to the left of the political spectrum "science" simply becomes received wisdom!

Drago said...

Meanwhile, we have Amanda who thinks "Hunger Games" is some sort of documentary.

In her defense, she may be operating under the illusion that Michael Moore produces "documentaries".

Drago said...

In any event, I don't understand what all the caterwauling is about. We were assured, over and over again, in 2008 that the republican party was dead and destined to wander in the wilderness for 40 years.

We were assured the same thing in 2012.

Boy, the republican party sure has had many "deaths", hasn't it? This must just be the latest.

I can't wait to see how the republican party, which no doubt will (once again!) cease to exist in 2016, dies another death in 2020. It's almost like a pattern or something.

Birkel said...

See, Drago, that is my problem.I am indifferent about science because the Scientific Method demands it.

I am crazy that way.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Haters gonna hate. And science-haters gonna hate science.

NASA-haters gonna hate NASA. Physics haters gonna hate physics. Math haters gonna hate mathematics.

The only physicist that ever swung by here was a guy named Gabriel, who would school each of these dunderheaded motherfuckers on their home-schooled geophysics lab, pretend-to-do-it-yoursef, gut-level, non-experiements.

None of them ever got the better of him. Not once.

But that's why Republicans hate knowledge so much. They take the superior knowledge and/or judgment of someone who's had more success with it personally.They just don't know how to not take things like that personally.

To them, it's the scientific success's shortcoming for not making the ignorant Republican foot soldier feel more secure in his ignorance. That's how it goes with them.

Rhythm and Balls said...

See, Drago, that is my problem.I am indifferent about science because the Scientific Method demands it.

I am crazy that way.


What you are indifferent about is fact, evidence, and reasoning.

It makes you not only crazy, but a damn fool.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It's always reassuring to see that a Republican like Michael K has no argument or rebuttal to offer other than class hatred. He can't even tell a different joke or make it more interesting. Just the same class hatred, every time.

Eric said...

When I did my fellowship with the American Chemical Society they asked me if I knew as much science as "Rhythm and Balls" on the application.

Hahahahahaha.

Did you ever notice it's the "I fucking LOVE science" crowd that, when confronted with the choice of majors, decided math was too hard. Engineers tend to be pretty conservative - "progressive" engineering gets people killed.

Drago said...

Eric: " Engineers tend to be pretty conservative - "progressive" engineering gets people killed."

I would agree with that statement as it pertains to particular engineering disciplines: Petroleum Eng, MechE's, ChemE's, SystemsE's etc.

But these days I'd say the EE's and CSciE's are much more evenly split, and that's including all the self-selecting lads and lasses who are whizzing their way up the success ladder in the tech fields by the dint of their effort as opposed to formal credentials.

Drago said...

I would lob in Genetic/Bio/Medtech Engineering as well as much more evenly split.

If not actually tending to left side of the spectrum.

I could formulate reasons why I believe that to be so but I would much rather have an appropriate survey allow the voice of those individuals be heard rather than try to "explain" the distribution thru my own personal lens. The potential for bias is simply too high since I'm invested in one side over the other.

Birkel said...

Does anybody think "Rhythm and Balls" actually believes he is winning an argument?

Neener, neener is not an argument after all.

JamesB.BKK said...

Based on at least one turd flung here, he seems ignorant of how creditors' rights laws, including federal bankruptcy laws, and financed and structured project deals work, and also what it means to vote oneself other peoples' money. But, you know, hey, capitalism or communism; just go with what works. Doesn't matter whether one is voluntary and the other involves state-enslavement of the local population.