August 25, 2015

We need bullies to toughen the wimps.

I'm paraphrasing.

The actual headline (in the NYT) is: "Jeb Bush Takes a Cue From Donald Trump’s Playbook: Punch Back."

61 comments:

Scott said...

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man puts on the brass knuckles.

Bob Ellison said...

The shorter version is "He's an idiot. I'll say 'Trump' because you publicity whores force me to."

gspencer said...

Hard to hit back when you're nothing but a Girlie Man.

And Jeb Bush is the very definition of a Girlie Man.

I want, crave, beg for, a confrontational president. Someone who will actually stand up for the principles of the Constitution of actually LIMITING the frapping government.

The Bushes, from dad to the 2 sons, ain't what I want or what America needs.

Bob Ellison said...

gspencer said, "The Bushes, from dad to the 2 sons, ain't what I want or what America needs."

Your argument rests on the fallibility of hereditary power.

What if Jeb is, in fact, just what America needs?

A scientific voter would not care what his last name is.

MayBee said...

Punch back twice as hard?

pm317 said...

Well, if you have on the other side a hoodwinking media working in consort with a crooked politician, yes, you need a brash person on your side calling it what it is.

Brando said...

The upside of all this is that a good candidate would be able to fight off Trump's silly attacks and emerge for the general election fight stronger than ever, as the Dems will show no mercy. And if the nominee emerges weakened and unelectable--or if the nominee is Trump himself--then the GOP deserves its fate.

Bay Area Guy said...

"We need bullies to toughen the wimps"

In life, it's kinda true. Who's ever had a tough teacher, a tough coach, a tough boss? Or a tough competitor in some phase of your life?

The wimpy ones I've had have faded from memory or made no lasting impression in the first place.

Maybe Trump will toughen up a bit some of the candidates. Even Ted Cruz, whom I respect immensely, seems a little bit wimpy.

Fandor said...

Bush is not being bullied. He's being "shown up" by Trump on the pertinent issues of the day the American people want addressed. Trump may not be giving us all the answers to our challenges, but he has brought them front and center to be examined and not swept under the rug of political correctness.
Breaking the law is not "an act of love" as Gov. Bush says about illegal aliens wanting to make their home in the USA.
There is a process for legal immigration and Trump is correct in saying it is a process.
Trump is also right in saying we are a nation goverened by laws.
Those laws have been ignored by the Obama administration.

MayBee said...

I do agree with Bay Area Guy.
Maybe we don't need bullies, but at least people with a "toughen up, buttercup" attitude.
Coddling does create delicate crystal snowflakes.

MayBee said...

I'm thinking of the fraternity that was just suspended for hanging "Freshman Daughter Drop Off" signs from their house.

An obvious joke. All the people are adults. Yet I'm watching CBS This Morning, and all the anchors are tsk-tsking about how horrible this was. Imagine how the parents must feel, seeing such a thing!

Someone needed to come around and tell everyone to buck up, it was a joke. But no, it had to be seen as something that could not be handled.

Bob Ellison said...

MayBee, The Today Show did the same thing. Almost as though they had talking points or something.

Robert Cook said...

"A scientific voter would not care what his last name is."

Correct. A "scientific voter" can listen to his campaign rhetoric and make the prudent decision to never cast a vote for this miserable candidate. (And it has nothing to do with any nonsense about him being a "girly-man.")

Sebastian said...

"Someone who will actually stand up for the principles of the Constitution of actually LIMITING the frapping government."

You strongly oppose Trump, then. Good, that's a start.

There may be one person, perhaps two, on the GOP side who knows anything about the Constitution. It ain't Trump.

Dems don't need to know. The Living Constitution is anything they want it to be.

Robert Cook said...

"Who's ever had a tough teacher, a tough coach, a tough boss? Or a tough competitor in some phase of your life?"

1) A "tough" teacher/coach/boss/competitor is not a bully. Or should not be.

2) If, by "tough," you mean someone who demands and expects your best, and will help you achieve it, yes. If, by "tough," you mean abusive or hectoring, then that teacher/coach/boss/competitor is just an asshole and a bully.

pm317 said...

I must say I am surprised by Jeb! I expected more from him, more confidence, more eloquence, more something, at least as much as his idiot brother. There is nothing there.

Brando said...

"There may be one person, perhaps two, on the GOP side who knows anything about the Constitution. It ain't Trump."

Ah Sebastian, you know by now nothing you point out will change the mind of a Trumpite. That he is a brilliant superman speaking truth to power, an outsider who tells it like it is and a true blue conservative hero is an article of faith to them. He is their cult hero, and if he were caught with the bodies of a dozen nursing students in his trunk, his fans would say every one of those nursing students had it coming.

damikesc said...

An obvious joke. All the people are adults. Yet I'm watching CBS This Morning, and all the anchors are tsk-tsking about how horrible this was. Imagine how the parents must feel, seeing such a thing!

Apparently, the fathers never pursued co-eds during their days in college. They were too busy studying super hard and not, you know, drinking or partying ever.

Hell, I RARELY drink and don't chase tail and I did that stuff in college regardless.

Kids TODAY cannot because their parents raised utter pussies.

Ah Sebastian, you know by now nothing you point out will change the mind of a Trumpite. That he is a brilliant superman speaking truth to power, an outsider who tells it like it is and a true blue conservative hero is an article of faith to them. He is their cult hero, and if he were caught with the bodies of a dozen nursing students in his trunk, his fans would say every one of those nursing students had it coming.

Not quite.

But he seems to be the only one to say "You know, our immigration system is fucked up and is screwing over American workers. And our government is incompetent and won't do a damned thing to fix itself". The other candidates tiptoe around these two basic realities.

Market immigration reform to the legals. "Why should you be the suckers for following the rules? You worked hard and did the right thing and we're bending over backwards for people who couldn't be bothered to do the same? Doesn't that sound insane and simply wrong to you?"

MayBee said...

Apparently, the fathers never pursued co-eds during their days in college. They were too busy studying super hard and not, you know, drinking or partying ever.

And the mothers, of course, never wanted sex or to be pursued by men when *they* were in college.
I mean, it was the 80's and 90's! Everyone knows how well behaved people were way back then.

Apparently, it is up to the parents and universities to protect the chastity of the modern freshman girl.

damikesc said...

Chastity belts seem to be the next step.

Brando said...

"But he seems to be the only one to say "You know, our immigration system is fucked up and is screwing over American workers. And our government is incompetent and won't do a damned thing to fix itself". The other candidates tiptoe around these two basic realities."

I get that that's his appeal--his tone and method, because substantively what he has to say on immigration isn't unique in the GOP field--but what I haven't seen from Trumpists is any acknowledgment of the man's faults or weaknesses. For example, I'm not seeing a Trump fan saying "well, I like how he is blunt about our immigration problems, but I think he's blowing hot air about intercepting remittance payments to Mexico" or "I like that he stood up to his interviewers, but his position on health care is all over the place and I want to see a candidate who has a real plan for replacing Obamacare."

The thing with this "cult" status is that much like Obama's supporters, it seems that the hero can do no wrong. I'd love to see a candidate deliver straight talk and address serious national concerns, cutting through the chaff, but Trump strikes me as being as fake as any of the others if not more so, and doing a giant put-on.

Anglelyne said...

pm317: I must say I am surprised by Jeb! I expected more from him, more confidence, more eloquence, more something, at least as much as his idiot brother. There is nothing there.

Sailer has an an interesting post up this morning, comparing Jeb! to ¡Jeb!. Sailer claims he comes across much better in Spanish:

"Comparing the Spanish and English videos from the same event, Jeb strikes me as a more appealing speaker in Spanish. He seems more like a plausible leader when speaking his confident, personable Spanish than he does when speaking English, a language in which he seems weak, tedious, and furtive..."

I am of course tempted to snicker "Well surprise surprise", but my Spanish is too poor to make any comparative "tone" judgment. That he is appalling in English, both in style and content, I can attest.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

But punch back doesn't mean with a sissy slap. That just makes it worse, Jeb!

MayBee said...

I'd guess Jeb is much more comfortable in Spanish because he isn't as coached in Spanish.

When he speaks in English, he knows any slip will get jumped on by the press. Even previously un-controversial terms like "anchor baby" will cause days of negative reports.
I don't know how we expect our candidates to talk like normal people when there is a well-funded campaign industry out there, waiting to twist any slip into a career-ender. Not enough of them speak Spanish to be able to make every word of Spanish so fraught.

(once again, binders full of women!)

Bob Ellison said...

Brando said, I'm not seeing a Trump fan saying..."I like that he stood up to his interviewers, but his position on health care is all over the place and I want to see a candidate who has a real plan for replacing Obamacare."

No. REPEAL OBAMACARE. Let's get straight on that. There is no replace requirement and no "hey, let's fix it" requirement. REPEAL IT.

The right seems to be falling into this leftist trap. I've seen people on Fox News talking about how GOP candidates can't talk about Obamacare without a plan to replace it.

REPEAL IT.

rhhardin said...

He's going after the wetback vote.

D.E. Cloutier said...

Re: "We need bullies to toughen the wimps."

You are either predator or prey.

Brando said...

"No. REPEAL OBAMACARE. Let's get straight on that. There is no replace requirement and no "hey, let's fix it" requirement. REPEAL IT."

Ok, assuming that's the plan--then I'd need to see how the votes are going to happen. We'd need majorities in both houses and a president willing to sign it.

Which is possible, but that depends on (a) winning the White House with a candidate committed to repeal with no replacement; (b) GOP holding the Senate, if only to scuttle the filibuster for this.

The stunts over the past five years--the House voting to repeal dozens of times, the Senate doing nothing, repeat--have made everyone skeptical of this plan, so I'd be interested in how it might work this time.

Robert Cook said...

"You are either predator or prey."

Why? Do you not believe human beings, possessed of a modest, though useful, modicum of intelligence, can establish social relations that are more cooperative than merely "predator or prey?"

glenn said...

Jeb punch back? In your dreams. He's a lover, not a fighter.

Robert Cook said...

I agree with Bob Ellison...we should repeal Obamneycare and establish Medicare for all. Let's throw out the for-profit private health insurers, which Obamneycare simply makes more entrenched.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Punching back does not, in fact, make you a bully.

Was the United States a bully for attacking Lithuania when Italy bombed Pearl Harbor? I think not!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not going to stand here and listen to the Professor bad mouth the United States.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I actually watched that rally, briefly, and I joked with my wife about Trump kissing a baby, or eating it. Either way, his supporters would have been ok with it.

Anglelyne said...

MayBee: I'd guess Jeb is much more comfortable in Spanish because he isn't as coached in Spanish.

When he speaks in English, he knows any slip will get jumped on by the press. Even previously un-controversial terms like "anchor baby" will cause days of negative reports.
I don't know how we expect our candidates to talk like normal people when there is a well-funded campaign industry out there, waiting to twist any slip into a career-ender. Not enough of them speak Spanish to be able to make every word of Spanish so fraught.

(once again, binders full of women!)


That's a good point, MayBee, but pols have brought this state of affairs on themselves. "[P]reviously un-controversial terms like 'anchor baby'" can "cause days of negative reports" only because the pols refuse to tell the overgrown children running the media to go pound sand.

Trump had an "anchor baby" attack a week or so ago, and essentially told the puling journo to stuff it. The media babies whimpered for a bit, realized that the target wasn't going to play by their script in response to their "anchor baby" tantrum, and went looking for, and found, a weaker one, who's still lamely trying to untangle himself.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The media babies whimpered for a bit, realized that the target wasn't going to play by their script in response to their "anchor baby" tantrum, and went looking for, and found, a weaker one, who's still lamely trying to untangle himself.

I think that is as much a part of Trump's appeal as his stance on immigration. Most people think that speech policing is lame, despise the practice, and instinctively know it is an attempt to control the political discourse in a way that favors the speech police, even if they haven't read 1984.

MayBee said...

Angelyne and Ron- yes yes yes yes!

jr565 said...

Why is describing anchor babies as anchor babies offensive? It's almost likely talking about a thing is deemed offensive so as to not talk about the thing. Should we call anchor babies x instead? Fine lets talk about x. A rose by any other name is just as sweet.

campy said...

"Why is describing anchor babies as anchor babies offensive? It's almost likely talking about a thing is deemed offensive so as to not talk about the thing."

A talking republican is always offensive.

Big Mike said...

The moneyed crowd has thrown more than a hundred million dollars his way, and the media shill (or perhaps I should type "shrills") have tried their darnedest to paint Jeb Bush as the one, true alternative to Donald Trump.

The former have wasted their money and the latter are failing, and getting desperate about it.

A political consultant needs to answer one question: what is the reason to vote for Jeb Bush?

Any answers, anybody? (Cue Ben Stein.)

In IT terms, he is lacking a use case.

traditionalguy said...

Trump is a bombastic, school yard taunting attack machine that beats JEBBIE to the punch every time. Bush the Third is innocently waiting in the grass for his paid TV ads produced by high paid media consultants skilled at character assassination to carpet bomb Trump.

But Trump IS in the present, and in hours he is attacking Bush audaciously with weaponized memes smarter than the Bush Dynasty"s media consultants have thought of while they carefully plan on re-fighting past campaigns.

kcom said...

That's just it. There's nothing offensive about the phrase. The offense is to have the gall to broach the topic. It highlights yet one more problem with illegal immigration and they don't want that dirty laundry aired in public. At all costs. Hence, the ginned up demonization.

kcom said...

And when I say illegal immigration, of course I mean illegal border crossing. Immigrants apply and have paperwork. They come in through the front door. Anyone coming in the back door is not an immigrant. They are a border jumper.

Carol said...

we should repeal Obamneycare and establish Medicare for all. Let's throw out the for-profit private health insurers,

Our state's Blue Cross is a "nonprofit" with a hundred for-profit affiliates. Gotta make money you know.

So if we get Medicare for all, who supplies the medigap policies? or do you propose Medicaid for all as well?

Robert Cook said...

"So if we get Medicare for all, who supplies the medigap policies? or do you propose Medicaid for all as well?"

Why must there be gaps in coverage? If we were to expand Medicare to all, we could also expand coverage.

D.E. Cloutier said...

Robert Cook: "Why? Do you not believe human beings, possessed of a modest, though useful, modicum of intelligence, can establish social relations that are more cooperative than merely 'predator or prey?' "

You can find cooperation in a wolf pack or a lion pride.

We are animals, nothing more. Most basic human desires -- the desire for status, the desire for territory, the desire to attract the opposite sex, etc. -- exist in other species.

A forthcoming book (available April 2016): "The Genius of Birds" by Jennifer Ackerman

Link:
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/312321/the-genius-of-birds-by-jennifer-ackerman/

Sebastian said...

"what is the reason to vote for Jeb Bush?"

I suspect I'm a little more conservative than most commenters here, so I'll have plenty of reason to consider someone else myself, but here's part of the answer:

1. second-most-conservative record of governors running
2. Florida
3. radical (gasp) plan to change immigration system

"Trump is a bombastic, school yard taunting attack machine"

True. So far, he's taunting his classmates. When he starts bullying the principal, we'll know he's serious.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
I agree with Bob Ellison...we should repeal Obamneycare and establish Medicare for all. Let's throw out the for-profit private health insurers, which Obamneycare simply makes more entrenched.


You're nearly there , bob. One more little step and you'll have it.

Brando said...

"what is the reason to vote for Jeb Bush?"

Well, he happens to be a fairly successful, conservative two-term governor of the third largest state (and largest swing state). Now, that can be quibbled with--if you want to elect someone less conservative, or think his record in FL wasn't all that great and he benefitted from a housing boom that collapsed after he left office, or you consider him too hawkish in foreign policy or too prone to compromise on immigration, I could see being less thrilled with his nomination. Maybe you also fear that his last name could mean disaster in the general election, and you want above all to keep the Dems from winning. Perhaps also there's the "it" factor--he doesn't seem to fire up the crowds or generate excitement. Still another possibility is that right-wingers object not so much to Bush's politics but his tone--his laid back style lacks the combat they're looking for this cycle.

But some of the anti-Bush criticism makes no sense--calling him a "liberal" for example. If Jeb is a liberal, Reagan was a dreadlocked Sandersite patchouli stinking hippie. Which is fine, if you believe that, and define the "right" as something much different than it used to be. But denying Bush's conservatism is taking all meaning from that word.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook: "Why? Do you not believe human beings, possessed of a modest, though useful, modicum of intelligence, can establish social relations that are more cooperative than merely 'predator or prey?' "

Today , socially, you're viewed as a threat, or not a threat. For all the rhetoric that we , as humans, have evolved. We really haven't very much.

Interesting,not crazy said...

Here is a clue for people making up cute names for Trump supporters. He doesn't need to be particularly good at anything other than hiring the right people. Not a fan myself 'cause I have watched his program and seen him obviously fire competent people in favor of keeping ones he liked.

I would die happy if he wins the nomination and picks BIG DICK Cheney as a running mate. Fuckin' hilarious.!

Big Mike said...

@Sebastian, @Brando, what has Bush been doing for the past 10 years?

Brando said...

"@Sebastian, @Brando, what has Bush been doing for the past 10 years?"

Yeah the 10 year gap doesn't help much. Romney had the same problem, though only for six years. Voters want to see that you were doing something other than cashing in or running for president during the time out of office. But I don't think it's fatal--Reagan and Nixon were both out of office a while before getting elected president.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Interesting, not crazy

"I would die happy if [Trump] wins the nomination and picks BIG DICK Cheney as a running mate. Fuckin' hilarious.!"

I share your enthusiasm (somewhat), but do you think that ticket would win?

Big Mike said...

@Brando, Ronald Reagan had been out of the California governor's mansion for 6 years, Nixon out of office for eight. Both were very visibly politically active during the interim.

Alexander said...

...or too prone to compromise on immigration

What compromise? He's for it. It's like saying a six year old is too prone to compromising on ice-cream before broccoli or ten-thousand christmas presents.

Curious George said...

"Robert Cook said...
"So if we get Medicare for all, who supplies the medigap policies? or do you propose Medicaid for all as well?"

Why must there be gaps in coverage? If we were to expand Medicare to all, we could also expand coverage."

Fuck yeah! And as long as we're at it, how about a BRAND...NEW...CAR! Woooot!

The Godfather said...

Oh, Bush is punching back HARD! He called Trump's immigration plan "unrealistic"! Hit 'em again, Jeb, hit 'em again! Maybe call it "impractical"?

Look, Trump has figured out an issue a lot of Republicans are angry about, and he's got a Thesaurus, so he can express that anger in strong terms. He's made clear that he's mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore. But what the f*ck would he do about it? His proposals are ridiculous.

Bush is the wrong person to respond to Trump, because what Bush really wants to do is figure out a way to normalize the status of the illegals who are here right now, and figure out a reasonable way for a lot more of their relatives and friends to join them. That won't quiet the anger in the Trumpists' breasts.

Trump won't begin to fade until some other candidate persuades those who are worried about illegal immigration that he (or perhaps she?) is not only mad, but also has a workable plan. And that candidate doesn't even need to mention the word "Trump".

Bay Area Guy said...

@ The Godfather

"Bush is the wrong person to respond to Trump,...."

Au contraire -- if, like me, you don't want Trump or Bush to win the nomination, a fight between them may wreck them both, and allow a more suitable candidate, cough, Walker, cough to emerge from the pack. Just sayin'

Beach Brutus said...

"We need bullies to toughen wimps" -- reminds me of the scene from Back to the Future when George McFly was in the High School hallway surrounded by bullies. They had taped a "Kick Me" sign to his back and were taking turns doing so. The principal comes along and shoos the bullies to class. He grabs McFly by the arm, not to console or counsel him, but to snatch the sign of his back, shakes it in George's face and calls him a slacker for letting people do that to him him.

The Godfather said...

@Bay Area Guy: I take your point. Perhaps Trump and Bush are like matter and antimatter and will annihilate each other, clearing the field for Walker or another suitable candidate. Based on what I see in the MSM, Bush is the only GOP candidate who is portrayed as the anti-Trump, which would suggest that things are working out the way you'd like. But I feel uncomfortable hearing constantly that Trump is the leader of the Republican pack. Might that not harm the brand (which isn't all that attractive to begin with)?

And BTW are you really from the San Francisco "Bay Area"? I didn't think there was anyone in that region who had political common sense.

jr565 said...

Robert Cooke wrote: Why must there be gaps in coverage? If we were to expand Medicare to all, we could also expand coverage.

And if we printed up enough money, no one would ever have to pay bills again!