April 18, 2016

"There’s a lot of fuzz" on Hillary's record, says Eric Trump.

And his father is "going to go after her in a way that no one has gone after her before."

91 comments:

David Begley said...

And Hillary will respond with all the fuzz on Donald's record. From the outset of this campaign, this was my biggest fear of a Trump candidacy. A gold mine of dirt on Donald will sink him in any campaign against historic Hillary. So we get Obama's third term with a corrupt Hillary in the WH. Disaster.

madAsHell said...

Could Trump make the DoJ look bad as well?

The Cracker Emcee said...

I'm counting on it. Reason #1 to wish Jeb Bush back to the shadows.

Fritz said...

DoJ has almost reached the bottom. They are now almost the opposite of what they are intended to be.

robother said...

Ewww. What's with all this fuzz on Hillary's record collection? And whatever you do, don't touch the cigars; you never know where they've been.

M Jordan said...

In the name-calling Olympics, Hillary has no chance against Donald. First, what name can she call him that he hasn't already been called by his own party? Hitler? Wallace? Bankruptcy king? Eminent domain meanie? Angry? He will embrace whatever she throws at him as he has already done. Names glance off Trump like rain off a Rain-X windshield.

On the other hand, Crooked Hillary might have some legs (or at least, better legs than she does ... ba-da-Bing!). It's effective because, in one word, it captures the most troubling part of her resume and personality ... and it does so without being sexist. In fact, it's actually a bit of a compliment to her that she's like one of the guys: crooked as hell.

Limited blogger said...

Should be interesting dynamic. MSM can't and won't resist publishing everything Trump says or does, including the avalanche of negative Hillary stuff. In next column over, of course, they will act as Hill's shills and rebut everything Trump just said.

M Jordan said...

I just read on Breitbart that Hillary is calling Trump a "cancer." Think that's gonna leave a mark?

I don't think so. Trump will say, "Hell yes I'm a cancer. I'm a cancer on the tumor that is infecting the political establishment. I'm a cancer fire fighting a cancer fire."

Hillary should not try to out-name-call Trump'cause it's just gonna make her look ineffective.

Pat said...

What gene is missing in the Trump family that allows them to look in the mirror and like these hairstyles?

bagoh20 said...

Those who will vote for Hillary don't care about negatives in her record enough to vote for Trump.
Trump voters don't care enough about anything negative on Trump to not vote for him.

The election goes to Hillary, because there are simply more of the first than the second. The worst choice I have ever seen in an American election. I won't be bragging about my vote, even if I pick a winner.

Chuck said...

Well Trump had better have an all-new way of attacking Hillary, because we've never had any Republicans who were six-figure donors to the Clintons.

Michael said...

David Begley

Gosh, you seem really concerned. Do you think that perhaps the Cruz campaign or the Rubio Campaign or the Fiorina campaign or the etc campaign might themselves of thought of doing some "opposition research" into Mr. Trump? That maybe they spent a little on investigating him? And they found reams of stuff but were saving it for later?

Don't fret, David, I don't think there is as much on Donald as there is on the old lady.

Michael said...

Pat

See, you have your intellectual argument down pat. Pat pat.

Sebastian said...

"The election goes to Hillary, because there are simply more of the first than the second" Correct. Add the soccer moms and law profs who will buy the Donald-as-misogynist line, and the GOP will go down to crushing defeat.

Ann Althouse said...

What I'm picturing is: Hillary gets to be President, but only after going through the ordeal of fighting Donald Trump.

I am prepared to witness the playing out of that narrative, and I have acquired an attitude about it that I feel I should call: cruel neutrality.

If the story changes, so be it. But this is what I'm seeing, and I tend to adjust to reality.

Fernandinande said...

madAsHell said...
Could Trump make the DoJ look bad as well?


Billary beat him to it.

StephenFearby said...

Son of Frankentrump said: "...she’s [the Hilldabeast] been running negative ads against us in New York...”

Why on earth would she do that? The polls have shown for a long time Trump would be the easiest Republican candidate for her to run against.

(1) New York Republican voters inclined to vote for Trump would turn out in greater numbers because she's the enemy. That would great for her (if she's the nominee), and not indicted or wearing an ankle tracking device.

(2) New York Democrat voters dislike Trump a lot more than they like her. The ad campaign motivates them to vote for her instead of the Bern.

It's a deep, two-fer strategy.




traditionalguy said...

Hillary is a sitting duck. She is already known as a bribery facilitator for Bill and master cover up artist with the personality of a sick old gnome from another age.

All Trump has to do is giver her hell.

Michael said...

Trump has taken down his rhetoric a notch, softened his tone and removed some of his bombast. More to follow. By the general he will have laser focus on Hillary and will destroy her.

Hagar said...

Wait till Wikileaks or Anonymous or whatever, dumps the 30, or was it 50?, thousand "private" e-mails Hillary! thought she deleted.

Bill Roberts said...

Worst election choices in living memory . . .

If Trump does win POTUS, it will be because Hillary is truly indicted at a point in time where it's too late for a substitute, or it will be because he suddenly turns into the most amazing political genius that any of us have ever seen because he will have to win without people like me who have always been reliable Republican voters and just can't pull the lever for him, and (if his negatives hold, and I expect them to) he will also have to overcome fired up moderates and democrats (the majority of the country) who really, really dislike him.

Goodbye GOP. It was nice to know ye.

rhhardin said...

Fuzz is a conventional reference to the female brain.

Bill Roberts said...

"Hillary is a sitting duck. She is already known as a bribery facilitator for Bill and master cover up artist with the personality of a sick old gnome from another age."

It's not like any of that is new or shocking to anyone.

Let's look at the other side: Trump's personality is among the most obnoxious personalities I've ever seen and he is a transparent liar. Plus he's a statist and a "strongman" with uber-authoritative urges (a feature, not a bug, to his followers) who doesn't appear to have ever read the constitution. They are going to bang away on his bullying tactics, plus a plethora of public statements and private reports of his treatment of women, etc. He's Obama 2.0, a person that his supporters are projecting their wishes and deeply held desires upon. This is evident in all the talk along the lines of "any minute now he's going to be different, more polished, more presidential, more on top of policy", etc.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong (there is no such thing as "conventional wisdom" in this miserable election season), but I think many of you are wildly overestimating your hero's amazing skills.

Chuck said...

...and there will be a unified (by the prospect of Trump) Democratic Party, with absolutely all of its major donors locked and loaded for the general. A national press corps that will regard Trump as a historic menace to the national welfare. A billion in paid marketing, and another half billion in unpaid marketing. Oh, and a Trump promise that he will self-fund his campaign, with a Republican donor class that rightly feels that Trump treats them as adversaries. A wholly splintered party, in which lots of Republican candidates for U.S. Senate will need to actively run away from the top of the ticket.

We had the phenomenon of essentially 110% voter turnout among blacks in the '08 and '12 Obama campaigns. I expect that Hillary will approximate that, by putting. Corey Booker on her ticket.

Chuck said...

"Cory", not Corey .

That's two too-many Cor[e]ys for anybody.

Comanche Voter said...

"Fuzz" as in a healthy colony of mold? Is little Eric claiming that Hillary is a Moldy Oldy? Same could be said about The Bern. And what about that moldy raccoon pelt on the top of The Donald's head? There's more than enough fuzz in this race.

Dan Hossley said...

Crooked Hillary is going to stick. That will probably the theme of his attacks since it is such a treasure trove of material for Trump and it resonates with the voters.

The difference between Trump's and Hillary's high negatives is material. People don't like Trump because he's seen as a bully. People don't like Hillary because she's a liar.

Big Mike said...

Dear Eric, how quickly you have forgotten Carly Fiorina. And you'd best not forget her because she smacked down your Daddy pretty easily in the debates before she dropped out and Hillary may have learned something from that exchange.

Bill Roberts said...

"Don't worry Bill, you'll vote for Trump when the time comes. You may shake your head and even grit your teeth, but on election day you'll pull the lever for R, top to bottom, because you know the alternative is the death of Western Civilization. And because you want to see Althouse's face when the bitch loses."

I'm impervious to Trump-blackmail. I'm sure I'll vote all "R" on election day, except for at the top of the ticket, where I'll be voting third-party if there's a good alternative there or will be leaving it blank/writing in.

I live in a deep red-state, and if my lack of a vote in the Trump column has any effect on that it would mean a 50 state landslide for the Ds. So it won't matter. But even if I was in a swing state, there's no way I vote for Trump.

There's still time to get a better candidate, although I think the chances of a Republican winning this cycle went from somewhere north of 60% a year ago to less than 30% now. But it's either that or go over the cliff swigging the Trump vodka. Count me out.

Big Mike said...

@Dan Hossley, that's corrupt liar to you, son.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...What I'm picturing is: Hillary gets to be President, but only after going through the ordeal of fighting Donald Trump.

Yes, of course, Hillary will survive those nasty sexist Republican attacks (from Donald or whomever) and will emerge triumphant...you'll give her credit for toughness and for not being as mean or scary or unappealing as the Repub. nominee so you'll give her your vote in the end. You'll have company, of course--but you'll at least express some reservations as you help elect her. For the Media it'll be 'round the clock History In the Making! and they'll treat any attack on Hillary as out of bounds no matter how valid it actually is. There doesn't need to be a How the GOP Candidate Lost Me post, it's already written. (Well, unless it's to say "they didn't nominate Walker" maybe).
President Hillary, Dem legislature, 5 solid Left votes on the S. Court. Amnesty, expansion of the size, scope, and unsustainable cost of the gov; more intervention of the gov into private lives (college sex witch hunts, hate speech crackdowns, etc)...hooray.

Eric said...

"Fuzz" is an odd way to put it, but he's right. Most people have a skeleton or two in their closet - Hillary has a whole cemetery. Trump has a lot of stuff that will make you chuckle or question his business sense, but not, as in Hillary's case, outright corruption.

campy said...

""The election goes to Hillary, because there are simply more of the first than the second" Correct. Add the soccer moms and law profs who will buy the Donald-as-misogynist line, and the GOP will go down to crushing defeat."

And if the dems need it, the DOJ will steal it for them.

n.n said...

That "fuzz" is called a penumbra, or, in layman's terms, the twilight zone. It is the source of gods or emanations that envelope and instruct everyone in the Democrat Party and others who share their faith and religion.

However, the extra fuzz she recently acquired is from her forays into social justice-inspired humanitarian disasters, violation of national security protocols, leaving Americans behind, etc.

David said...

They need to get Ivana out there. Presumably she will be in fighting shape by the convention. If her father loses, she may be the next Trump to run for President.

Just an old country lawyer said...

Having a Trump presidency in exchange for a final knock-out of the Clintons would be a high price to pay, but perhaps worth it.

Beldar said...

Hillary better watch out, or Trump will return her & Bubba's wedding gift.

Michael said...

Chuck

Bernie's kids are going to stay home. Sorry, but they won't go for the old lady capitalist

Chuck said...

David -

Ivana is ex-wife #1. Ivanka is ther daughter. The flammable Chinese scarf-seller. Not to be confused with Marla (ex-wife #2) or Tiffany (step-sister).

tim in vermont said...

What I'm picturing is: Hillary gets to be President, but only after going through the ordeal of fighting Donald Trump.

Maybe, or maybe you've been conditioned by Western fiction going back at least as far as The Oddessy. But I would like to see Hillary face this shit straight up. Maybe it would be good for America.

tim in vermont said...

News flash! Chuck doesn't like Trump!

Ken B said...

This is the upside of Trump. The campaign will be interesting.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary better watch out, or Trump will return her & Bubba's wedding gift.

Ha! And ask for his vigorish, I mean political contributions back.

tim in vermont said...

This is the upside of Trump. The campaign will be interesting.

Halloween, just a few days before the election, would be epic.

Chuck said...

David - "Bernie's kids" never mattered. Presidents Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jerry Brown and Gary Hart can tell you all about the powerful Youth Vote. We Republicans have been rolling them for decades.

It's the black vote (turnout) that has won the Democrats their biggest elections. And lost them, when the turnout wasn't there.

Watch out, for Clinton-Booker.

tim in vermont said...

So who is Beowulf? Trump or Hillary?

Brando said...

What could he come up with that we don't already know? His problem is for too many people, Trump and Hillary are known quantities and more despise him than her. Plus, what's he going to say --"Hillary has awful company....including me"?

Anything negative on her that'll work will be used by any GOP nominee, regardless. To believe Cruz would hold back on any effective attack is delusional. The difference is Trump provides such a rich target that we're going to be deluged this fall. The Clintons aren't known for holding back, either.

hombre said...

Trumpkins ain't seen nothing's until they see Dem oppo research on the Donald.

Everybody knows Hillary is a scumbag. She's just waiting for him to "bully" her.

campy said...

"It's the black vote (turnout) that has won the Democrats their biggest elections. And lost them, when the turnout wasn't there."

That's why the GOP is completely dead forever. The dems don't need to motivate blacks to go to the polls any more. The votes will get counted whether the voters show up or not.

John Henry said...

Chuck,

I guess, though you were not clear, that the six figure donations means by Trump to Clinton.

I think he has answered that well already. If you are in business you need to pay off politicians. "Nice little project you have there. Be a shame if anything delayed the permit. Oh, by the way, we're having a dinner next week. How many tables should I put you down for?"

Of course he can't say that he is buying them off, that would be bribery and illegal. All he can say is that he is being nice to them so they will be nice to him. But we all know what that means.

Trump's extortion by the Clintons and other pols is precisely the reason so many people are fed up with politicians and are supporting him as an alternative.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Speaking of Trump donating money to Hilary, he could make a pretty good ad about that:

Shot of Hilary dancing at Trump's wedding

Voice over "She'll dance for you too, if you give her enough money"

Would a tag line of "Dance, monkey girl, dance" be too over the top? Perhaps for some. Perhaps not for Trump.

Something may be lacking. Perhaps it needs Lazlo's touch. Lazlo, have you ever considered applying for a gig with the Trump campaign?

John Henry

John Henry said...

Better than "Crooked Hilary", how about "Hilary Rob'em Clinton"?

Not my idea, though I wish it was. I forget where I saw it now.

John Henry

campy said...

"Hilary Rob'em Clinton"

IIRC, Rush used to call her that (or something similar).

Michael K said...

" I think many of you are wildly overestimating your hero's amazing skills. "

A lot of us are just sick of being lied to by the GOPe and are willing to see what happens.

I'm not at all sure that Hillary will even be the candidate. I do see Hillary/Booker but he is an empty suit and she is a criminal.

I have no idea what Trump would do as president but it cannot be worse than what we have had for 8 years.

Fortunately, I'm much older than most of you and know quite a bit of history, which is getting to be a rare phenomenon.

I think we are in a pre-Revolutionary period.

DanTheMan said...

VP Booker? Think bigger. Why not VP Booker, and VP Warren, and VP Sanders? Who says she can only have one? Who's going to stop her? There's no controlling legal authority, and Obama can give her immunity from prosecution in advance of election day.

I'd say she'd get at least 100% of the vote with that ticket. Maybe more....

tim in vermont said...

So for whom do we vote? The whoremaster, or the whore? Chuck seems to think the whore has the better case, and if this weren't a metaphor, I would side with him, but Hillary isn't whoring out herself for a crust of bread, she is whoring out our country for a life of extreme power and vast wealth, so that changes the calculus just a little. Especially when she has been such a fuckup in the past with the power with which the nation has entrusted her.

Chuck said...

I said no such thing, Tim. I have no idea where you got that idea. Absolutely the nicest thing I have ever said about Mrs. Clinton -- if you can call it nice -- is that I think that the Clintons and the Democrats would overwhelm Trump in a general election.

I took no "sides." But I'll describe "my side" for you if you'd like.

I am not a Democrat, and never have been. I am not a Clinton supporter, and never will be. I am a very contented Republican, rooting hard for Trump to be denied a Republican nomination because I think he'd be a terrible nominee.

Jack Wayne said...

The professor has laid down a marker for Tuesday. No one knows the outcome but the professor. Tell me, if Trump gets equal or more votes in his primary than Hillary, what then? If more people vote in the Republican primary than in the Democrat primary, what then? Maybe you should have waited for Wednesday morning before declaring "cruel neutrality". Side bet - what is the over/under that "cruel neutrality" votes democrat in the Fall?

Chuck said...

Michael K, I'm worried about the Zika virus, and too scared to wade into the Trump Fever Swamp myself, so I'll ask you to report back to me from the inner regions; describe for me "the GOP establishment."

Who is it?

What is their platform?

Is absolutely everyone in the GOP part of that establishment, or are their some True Believers who are acceptable to the Trumpkin base?

And who decides all of this? Are the eGOP boys carrying cards that identify them to their fellow establishmentarians? Is their a secret grip? I am going to be angry if there is a secret handshake because they haven't shared it with me. And in fact I'd like to know a secret grip.

Steve Uhr said...

What are the poll numbers for the percent of voters who under no circumstances will vote for Clinton or Trump? I am comfortably in that group and expect I have lots of company. Perhaps enough to elect a third party candidate?

narciso said...

well her hand is jammed in the honey pot.


http://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article72215012.html

Bruce Hayden said...

Here is the thing - Trump will call the surrogates what they are. When the MSM (Dem operatives with bylines) dump dirt on Trump, he will respond that they are Clinton surrogates. And, will usually be able to back that up, with some ties to the Dem party or the Clintons. And, he will logically ask why she won't say these things herself, but has to have surrogates do her dirty work. And, yes, that is how the Clintons in particular, and Dems in general, operate. Plus, she just isn't the type who can really get away with slandering her opponents - never really has had to. So, sure, there is a lot of Trump dirt, but I think that he will be able to shrug off a lot of it, and use it to show the MSM running interference for her, which is popular for his constituents.

The other thing is that I just don't see her having the stomach for the mud that will be thrown at her, much of it sticking. But, we shall see.

The other thing is that while the left will, of course, back her, will they come out in force to do so (besides the African American community)? And, it is the middle that is important. What does she have to offer them? More corruption? More money in the Clinton Foundation? More speaking fees for her husband? More sweetheart deals for her NYC financial contributors?

Bob Boyd said...

There was fuzz on her record
And fuzz all around
And a great big carpet of fuzz on the ground

A harpy lay on it for the long final snore
She'll never get paid to make speeches no more

Oh pity the lady all moldy and green
Trump came down on her like she'd never seen

There was fuzz on her record
And fuzz all around
And a great big carpet of fuzz on the ground

Eric said...

I think we are in a pre-Revolutionary period.

I agree. I think the US is the closest it's been to to a civil war since, well, the civil war.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
"Michael K, I'm worried about the Zika virus, and too scared to wade into the Trump Fever Swamp myself, so I'll ask you to report back to me from the inner regions; describe for me "the GOP establishment."

Who is it?

What is their platform?"

They believe in "Comprehensive immigration reform." When they control the white house and both branches of Congress they are the people who think passing a new entitlement is better than maybe balancing the budget or cutting spending. They created the EPA.

When obamacare is the defining issue of the 2012 race they insist on running the guy who wrote it and implemented it in his state. When that guy inexplicably fails to unite the base and loses they refuse to even try to defund obamacare.

They are the people who when given control of the house and Senate abdicate all power and let Obama have everything he wants. They become house Speaker, pine for open borders while building walls around their own mansions after living in DC for almost 2 decades.

Mark said...

Trump is "going to go after her in a way that no one has gone after her before."

And because, except for a handful of remaining sycophants, people are so disgusted and done with him, none of it will make a dent. Instead, it will be met with "shut the hell up you whiny jackass."

BN said...

Is there a difference between "cruel neutrality" and "neutral cruelty"?

Michael K said...

"Who is it?

What is their platform?""

You voted for them. You should know.

I suspect this is just trolling.

Achilles said...

Mark said...
"Trump is "going to go after her in a way that no one has gone after her before."

And because, except for a handful of remaining sycophants, people are so disgusted and done with him, none of it will make a dent. Instead, it will be met with "shut the hell up you whiny jackass.""

I am sure the country is ready for Hillary though. Nobody could possibly be disgusted with her. Nope. You are totally not delusional and talking out of your ass.

traditionalguy said...

Hillary has been an insider in the first Presidential Administration dedicated to destroying the United States so its parts can be sold for cash.

Living under a new President not openly at war with all USA strengths will feel like a Civil War.

Chuck said...

No, Michael; I don't think you've actually thought about it. What exactly is your supposed "GOP establishment"?

Is Mike Lee part of the establishment? Ted Cruz? Grover Norquist? The Club for Growth? Who was the "GOP establishment" in the famous Florida Senate primary featuring Governor Charlie Crist and state senator Marco Rubio?

Is former Governor Jan Brewer "GOP establishment"? Todd Akin? Christine O'Donnell? Sharron Angle?

Is former Senator Jim DeMint (now Heritage) an "establishment GOP" man? What about former senator Dr. Tom Coburn? Is Jim Inhofe "establishment"? Is Rick Santorum "establishment"? What is the basis for you answer, either way?

Jeff Sessions is the senior senator from Alabama, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, the Budget Committee and the Armed Services Committee. He supports Trump. Is he "establishment"?

Let's talk about GOP donors. Is Sheldon Adelson (he of the Rick Santorum super PAC) part of the "GOP establishment"? Why would a member of the GOP establishment force Mitt Romney into a months-long primary battle? Are libertarian donors Charles and David Koch "establishment"? Apart from donating lots of money, what makes them "establishment"? Are all donors "establishment"? Should the Republican Party be a no-donors party? Is that any way to compete in the marketplace of ideas with David Geffen, George Clooney, George Soros and Tome Steyer?

I'm serious about all of these questions. I don't think you are serious at all, Michael. You've been listening to too much talk radio, I fear. Where the "eGOP" gets blamed for everything the way that Mayans blamed the sun gods, or faithless virgins, or whatever.

narciso said...

Is he really that ignorant, Mike K, not to know foster friess backed santorum, and adelson backed newt, and for his troubles he incurred a justice department witchhunt, now neil bush,
the medici's brother, is certainly establishment, and he was the 'johnny appleseed' of ignite software, the core of no child left behind's constructivist templates.

Drago said...

Chuck continues to studiously avoid any criticism of Hillary while The Donald is in the race, justst as he said he would.

You know, just as any "lifelong republican" would.

BN said...

"Hillary has been an insider in the first Presidential Administration dedicated to destroying the United States..."

"I am sure the country is ready for Hillary though. Nobody could possibly be disgusted with her. Nope."

"Chuck continues to studiously avoid any criticism of Hillary..."

The Trumpets have stopped with bashing Cruz and are now blowing a quaint old tune:

"Yeah, but the Other Guy's Worse".

Doesn't matter. A country that chooses these two as the possible alternatives for their highest office is already lost.

See y'all on the other side. I'll be hangin' with (read "protecting") the feminists.

Drago said...

BN, I am a Cruz supporter.

The #NeverTrumpers have become operational defenders of Hillary, as in chucks case where he, gosh darn it, is just dying to offer up criticism of Hillary but just can't cuz Trump.

Yep. That darn Trump forcing all those wonderful "conservatives" and "lifelong republicans" onto the sidelines when it comes time for criticism of Hillary.

Of course you find nothing wrong with that position.

Qwinn said...

Chuck,

"Is Rick Santorum "establishment"?"

Well, he lost me when he supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in PA (as did Bush) in 2004. Based on that action, and the fact that Toomey is pretty much awesome from a conservative point of view, while Specter was a nightmare - yeah, I'm going with Santorum is GopE.

Qwinn said...

You know what no one talks about anymore?

The Tea Party.

The Tea Party is the anti-Establishment wing of the Republicans. Ted Cruz is definitely Tea Party. Most of the other candidates were not. Rubio was for a while, but he pretty much blew it with the Tea Party during the Gang of 8 deal.

I consider myself a full supporter of the Tea Party (and yeah, I still read National Review). If Cruz won, it would be a massive victory for the Tea Party as a whole. Yet we all talk about who counts as Establishment and who doesn't, without noting that pretty plain answer.

Qwinn said...

I mean seriously, doesn't anyone else find it really bizarre that the only actual Republican left standing in the primary is a member in good standing of the Tea Party... *and no one has said one single word about that*?

tim in vermont said...

Chuck is the Dem talking point spouting, Palin bashing, "life long Republican."

rcommal said...

Honestly, who gives a shit what Eric Trump says? I don't.

Also, since when does just being an offspring confer some sort of special status when it comes to spouting pronouncements?

rcommal said...

*Snort*

Brando said...

"I consider myself a full supporter of the Tea Party (and yeah, I still read National Review). If Cruz won, it would be a massive victory for the Tea Party as a whole. Yet we all talk about who counts as Establishment and who doesn't, without noting that pretty plain answer."

Well of course--as long as Trumpists have a say, Cruz is "establishment" simply because he is not Trump. That just goes to show how twisted the term "establishment" has become. In Trump World, where arguably the most hard core Tea Partier and "most hated man in Washington" is considered "establishment", and the longtime Clinton friend and donor, and donor to Charlie Crist and Harry Reid and proud crony capitalist is "anti-establishment." The term is meaningless the moment it comes out of a Trump fan's mouth.

Tommy Duncan said...

Is the prevailing sentiment that Hillary's e-mail scandal is over? Is the conventional wisdom that she won't be indicted?

An indictment might make Hillary's closet full of fuzz a moot point.

Brando said...

"Yep. That darn Trump forcing all those wonderful "conservatives" and "lifelong republicans" onto the sidelines when it comes time for criticism of Hillary."

Speaking for myself, I have never held back criticism of Hillary. In fact, if I liked or favored Hillary this whole Trump thing wouldn't be a problem--I'd have a perfectly acceptable Democrat to vote for. It is precisely because Hillary is so unacceptable that the unacceptable Republican nominee makes this such a disaster.

It is perfectly consistent to find Trump and Hillary deplorable as they share many of the same awful features. If those are our choices this fall (and likely they will be) it is a lose-lose proposition for this country.

Chuck said...

Qwinn -

I wish I had included Pat Twoomey in my interrogatories about "Who is establishment?" He's a perfect example if the quandary that the Trumpettes find themselves in defining their hated "GOPe."

I'm pretty certain that if I found ten Trumpsters who would answer questions in this regard, we'd get a dozen different definitions of "GOPe."

Chuck said...

Drago I don't much expect you to stop trying to troll me with your weird complaints about how I am insufficiently critical of the Clinton Democrats, simply for expressing some rather specific and careful criticisms of Donald Trump in the primary season.

I guess it no longer matters how much I say that I have almost never voted for any Democrat, and that there is no Democrat anywhere whom I foresee supporting in the future. You've shown that it does not matter to you that I have been involved in the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association for years and have been a Party volunteer for Election Day work.

You need a better angle, Drago. Think a of a smarter argument.

Mike said...

"Hillary is a sitting duck. She is already known as a bribery facilitator for Bill and master cover up artist with the personality of a sick old gnome from another age."

It's not like any of that is new or shocking to anyone.


Actually, given the mainstream media's aversion to accurate reporting on the Clinton's for over 30 years now, there are a LOT of people who have never heard of many of her scandals. In fact, they still avoid any reporting of the server/email scandal beyond the very shiny (polished like with a cloth) surface of the story. Her ever-shifting descriptions of what exactly was on her illegal insecure server alone would torpedo a normal candidate -- if she had an R after her name. Every answer she's given reveals the prior answers to have been lies.

Donald will be willing to "go there" and back over the last 30 years: the conflict of interest in the Global Clinton organization, the cattle futures, the 20 or so women who accused Bill of rape contrasted with Hillary's laughing derision for the 12-year-old rape victim whom she trashed on the way to a not guilty verdict for the perp (there's tape), her multiple lies and record-hiding over Benghazi, the "un-indicted co-conspirator" Hillary when it comes to the Rose Law Firm records, maybe other scandals and distasteful things that no other polite Republican would dare throw at her.

I don't want Donald being the face of the R party, but I do think a race between him and her would be one for the record books, and I laugh at conventional wisdom that says she'll trounce him. She is so scripted and so phony he will have a field day with her public persona, which has been carefully crafted by the media to aver she is so smart and so accomplished when actually there's no there there at all. She's almost entirely a creation of the Democrat-media-academic establishment. Everything she's actually involved herself in has gone to shit. For every "Donald hates women" ad her super PACs run he will run testimonials about all the women he's helped -- and all the one's she has trashed in order to preserve her Cosby-like husband's reputation. This far out the polling is always wrong.

She's as big a juicy target as he is, so it's really a toss up. But in an "outsider" year after 8 miserable "recovery summers" and a lawless executive is she really on such good footing? It's whistling past the emperor's new clothes, to mix a few metawhores.

So we may end up with a lifelong Democrat running as a Republican vs. a socialist running as a Democrat. Or it could be Bernie.

Bruce Hayden said...

Is the prevailing sentiment that Hillary's e-mail scandal is over? Is the conventional wisdom that she won't be indicted?

My guess is that there will likely be a criminal referral from the FBI to the DoJ, but that she won't be indicted. By the time (mid summer to early fall), she will be the Dem nominee, if not actually, at least all but, with enough delegates lined up to make it happen. And, Obama is not about to have his legacy being indicting the Dem candidate for President, to give the office to the Republicans. But, I don't think that he has the intestinal fortitude to tell the country why he isn't having Hillary tried, so instead I suspect that AG Lynch will just not get around to the indictment, running out the clock. And, maybe, as he leaves office, Obama can do some sort of deal with the Clintons, and pardon her, and her people (a number of whom seem to have been up to their eyeballs in this). No law really says that the AG has to file charges when they get an FBI criminal referral, and no law says how long they can sit on it. Can they sit on it for the next 7 months? Easily. This is the same DoJ that has been investigating Fast and Furious since Obama's first Administration.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add to the last. The reason that I expect a criminal referral is that apparently a lot of the FBI, along with the intelligence community is outraged over this. Director Comey is a Republican, and has the reputation of being a straight shooter, regardless of ramifications. But, if he could be suborned, those dissidents in both the FBI and intelligence community have apparently made it clear that there will be leaks if there is no referral. Big leaks. This is potentially one of the biggest security leaks of the last couple decades. There are assertions that Guccifer, the Romanian hacker who has been extradited to this country for this investigation, would read Hillary's emails over breakfast every day. Or something like that. They weren't secure, even with Secret Service agents in the house (who probably didn't know the server was there, and wouldn't have done anything if they had). The problem is that if Hillary gets away with this, it will be very hard to convict anyone of the far, far, lesser crimes that they normally deal with in this area, even what Gen. Petreaus was caught doing. How do you convict someone of mishandling one or two national security documents, when she clearly mishandled thousands, and maybe even tens of thousands of such documents?

poker1one said...

bagoh20 wrote:

" I won't be bragging about my vote, even if I pick a winner."

It's an election, not a day at the track, vote your damn conscience.

Paul said...

Sic'em Trump. He she-witch needs to be outed and kept being outed.