October 18, 2015

Trump wants "to be unpredictable, because, you know, we need unpredictability. Everything is so predictable with our country."

That's his clever answer in case you're looking for specifics about anything he can't or doesn't want to answer, as stated on "Fox News Sunday" this morning when Chris Wallace asked him about how he'd use the debt limit. Pushed, he used the magic word again: "I do not want to say that because I want to show unpredictability. You have to. You can't just go around and say that." What a concept! It reminded me of Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War back in 1968, but Meade said Nixon never said he had a "secret plan." That was how his opponent's put it, mocking him. So Trump isn't like Nixon in that respect. He's getting out ahead of his opponents. It can't be mockery or he's self-mocking. It's a mockery inoculation, an inmockulation.

Later, in the panel discussion, WaPo's Charles Lane said about exactly what I had been thinking:
... I found myself smiling, and laughing at times at his performance, and feeling very entertained, but when I actually read the transcript of it, right, and looked at the actual words coming out of his mouth, none of it made any sense.  He said we have too much predictability in this country.  I want to be unpredictable.  Well, that is a new campaign slogan, right?  Vote for me, who knows what I'll do in the White House?  I mean, the next minute after he says how great it is to be unpredictable, he says we absolutely must defund Planned Parenthood.  Right?  He waffled on affirmative action.  That's an issue that has been out there many years.  It's a fully digested issue in the political system. Lots of people have a position on that, one way or another.  Not Donald Trump, who wants to be the leader of the conservative party in this country.  So it is this incredible disconnect between the affect, and the demeanor and the show that he puts on, and the actual substance behind it, which I insist is still lacking....
I guess from Trump's point of view, Lane is lagging, not getting it, thrown off by all that wonderful unpredictability that we need so much. Americans don't want details, we want unpredictability.

What echoed in my head as I wrote that last sentence was: I don’t want realism. I want magic! Yes, yes, magic!



I try to give that to people. I misrepresent things to them. I don’t tell the truth, I tell what ought to be truth. And if that is sinful, then let me be damned for it! – Don’t turn the light on!

107 comments:

eric said...

And yet, he has laid out quit predictable plans on immigration and taxes.

Charlie Currie said...

"Vote for me, who knows what I'll do in the White House?"

Had Trump actually said that - actually said that in those words - it would be the most honest statement by any politician, ever.

Ann Althouse said...

"And yet, he has laid out quit predictable plans on immigration and taxes."

Which is why I said "That's his clever answer in case you're looking for specifics about anything he can't or doesn't want to answer..."

He chooses the issues he wants to be specific about (and those specifics can be quite far-fetched, so that we don't really believe he's going to do it).

Ann Althouse said...

He's got an all-purpose question-evader: Unpredictability!

Why that would work is another matter. It sounds loony.

Anonymous said...

What the hell are Republicans thinking by not finding a way to get rid of this loose cannon? Do we want this fool to have his finger on the switch? Have people gone insane? What a laughingstock the Republican Party has become.

campy said...

"I don’t want realism. I want magic! Yes, yes, magic!"

Wasn't that the foundation of Obama's win?

David Begley said...

Other than his tiresome bragging and name calling, his erratic nature is the top reason not to vote for Trump.

He has no principles much less conservative principles.

That being said, if he were a true patriot he would become Commerce Secretary and do all the deals he constantly complains about.

Trump goes on and on about his polls, but 75-80% of Republicans support someone else. If it was only Trump v Carly, she would win in a landslide.

Charlie Currie said...

Charles Lane seems to believe it is better to vote for someone who promises things they can either never deliver on or are completely lying about it, than to vote for someone who he thinks is saying, vote for me because who knows what I'll do in office. Either way it's a crap shoot, but in the later instance, you won't be disappointed.

The Bergall said...

As my 86 year old mother often says "It's over"..............

Original Mike said...

"And yet, he has laid out quit predictable plans on immigration ..."

Really? All I'm aware of is he's going to make Mexico pay for the fence and he's going to send them all back (and the "good ones" will get to return to the U.S. quickly). Neither of those pronouncements are a "plan". They are, in fact, ridiculous. If there's more (and I'll be the first to admit I don't pay slavish attention) please direct me to it.

Original Mike said...

And while we're at it, where's his tax plan?

wildswan said...

"And yet, he has laid out quit predictable plans on immigration and taxes"

Yes, but he isn't going to do them - or is he?
"I told you I was going to be unpredictable"

"You liar, you know that when you said you were going to do them we would think you were not going to do them because politicians lie."

"But then I said I would be unpredictable".

"You liar, you know that when you said you would be unpredictable we would think you would think we would think that you were going to do them if you said you weren't and that's predictable so you weren't if you said you were. And all along you were going to send them to Pinsk in Crete and then divide by zero to balance the budget."

rehajm said...

Given a candidate driven by such extreme paranoia or drive to commit and conceal crimes she placed a private server in her house, loony is in the eye of the beholder.

Charlie Currie said...

Ann says, "He's got an all-purpose question-evader: Unpredictability!

Why that would work is another matter. It sounds loony."

Most winning strategies, in business, sports, war, chess...are unpredictable. You may be able to correctly guess you competitors move, but that's just luck.

Of course, there's the old axiom: It's better to be lucky than good.

Hagar said...

Do you believe that what Hillary! says now will still be "operative" if she is nominated?
Will you believe that what she says if or when she is nominated will have any bearing on what she will do if elected?

Trump may be slightly preferable here with regard to honesty!

rehajm said...

Unpredictable can make for good policy if the fed wishes to intensify the impact of policy shifts, as in lowering rates it can control or providing added liquidity.

Also good for waging war.

Hagar said...

And another thing,
Trump is running Trump, the Republican Party (capital P) regard him with horror.

The Democratic Party is backing Hillary! all the way, and then some.

Unknown said...

Unpredictability.. Here's the right way to do it:

https://xkcd.com/325/

(don't forget the hover text)

Hagar said...

Perhaps we need to set a system so that prospective candidates must pass an interview before the Supreme Court, or something, before they can run for office?

traditionalguy said...

Mitt Romney is the epitome of "just trust me"and it won't hurt. Then he calls Trump a bomb thrower.

It is a style point only: do we prefer a secret plan we guess will be what we wanted done until it is too late, or do we prefer a secret plan that is really kept secret from the fowls of the air.

EDH said...

I interpreted Wallace's question differently, and as a result think Trump made perfect sense.

That's his clever answer in case you're looking for specifics about anything he can't or doesn't want to answer, as stated on "Fox News Sunday" this morning when Chris Wallace asked him about how he'd use the debt limit. Pushed, he used the magic word again: "I do not want to say that because I want to show unpredictability. You have to. You can't just go around and say that."

The question to me sounds like Trump was asked how he'd use the debt limit, strategically as a tool of negotiation, presumably against the Washington establishment, to achieve the policy goals Trump wants.

After all, the "debt limit" is not a policy issue per se in and of itself.

And as the self-professed Artist of the Deal, I would expect him to say unpredictability when it comes to strategic positioning is the strongest hand when entering negotiation.

Isn't Trump saying that what is so predictable is a Republican strategy of inevitable capitulation to the Washington establishment on the debt limit?

Michael K said...

I can't watch Trump just as I can't watch Obama. They are just not genuine. As for Romney, I still think he was the last best hope for the country as he is a guy who knows the right buttons to push. I would still vote for him in a nanosecond.

I am very pessimistic but that just means I won't be disappointed.

Spiros Pappas said...

So 9/11 wasn't W's fault? Sectarian violence in Iraq wasn't W's fault? Katrina? Our financial system collapsing? Plenty of stuff wasn't W's fault. And our national nightmare started when Jeb did his big brother a solid and helped him steal the election. Trump is just speaking the truth: George W. Bush was a worthless, incompetent drunkard and coward.

Sebastian said...

"It sounds loony."

As opposed to saying that, as a Christian, you believe marriage is between a man and a woman (before you "evolve" on the issue), or that your health care plan will save everyone $2,500, or that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, or that if you take one step over the red line you will be obliterated, or --. Well, all of that is just "pragmatic."

n.n said...

Another pro-choice president?

rehajm said...

Romney certainly understood the limited power of the position for which he ran. He wasn't running for king.

Larry Nelson said...

Romney really was the last best hope.
Smart, ethical, pragmatic, bi-partisan problem solver.
The only predictability we have left is the unsustainable nature of what the near majority thinks they deserve.
Well, that and Hillary talking Ebonics to select audiences for street cred.

n.n said...

Sebastian:

While the "Theory of Evolution" is perceived as progressive, the physical process is actually chaotic. Monotonic change is dysfunctional when directed by the wrong principles (e.g. pro-choice) that leads to normalization of congruences, debasement, murder, and cannibalism. Chaos is a process that when uncoupled from a suitable conservative fitness function is unstable and, in fact, degenerative, and equivalent to the human ideologies of generational or progressive liberalism.

Original Mike said...

"So 9/11 wasn't W's fault?"
Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

"Sectarian violence in Iraq wasn't W's fault?"
This you can make a case for.

Katrina?
Presidents don't control the weather (nor the LA levee commission).

Our financial system collapsing?
Nope.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"What the hell are Republicans thinking by not finding a way to get rid of this loose cannon? Do we want this fool to have his finger on the switch? Have people gone insane? What a laughingstock the Republican Party has become."

Exactly how I feel about Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats. Isn't that interesting? Last night I had an, otherwise very sane and competent, liberal tell me that all the freeway construction he had seen lately meant the economy is booming. I honesty don't know how to reply to that level of delusion. It's much more disturbing than 9/11 Truthers and Sanders supporters.

wildswan said...

Unpredictability.

So there are three new kinds of wars - cyber war, drone war and demographic war - all going on right now. And a Maunder minimum, the sun vs. Al Gore - a climate war. So how will everything be differently affected from conventional wisdom expectations that don't factor in these wars? It's unpredictable. So vote for Rubio.

Demographic war is what Angela Merkle is making on Syria. If she went to war and killed 600,000 young Syrians (mostly men) on the battlefield, we'd know she at war with Syria. But when she permanently lures 600,000 young Syrians away then everyone acts as if that will mean nothing. It will mean something. There were 270,000 babies born in Syria in 2014 and so Merkle has transformed the Syrian birth rate into below replacement level in one year. And she is getting the most liberal and best educated and most daring of the young Syrians - the ones that hate Assad. They would go back to Syria from Jordan or Turkey but I think they won't go back from Germany. And Germany has a low low birthrate and needs people of the age of these young Syrians so the majority of the migrants should get jobs. So I say Merkle wins the demographic war.

And Russia, which has the same demographic problem as Germany, should do the same. Instead of invading and seizing the Ukraine and trying to hold down 40 million people who don't want to be Russian, open the border with Iran. It's quite predictable what will happen.




AJ Lynch said...

I thought Romney was the answer in 2012 but I now realize he is a pussy. He would have tried to thread the needle on every policy to appease the far left librul Dems so he would not hurt anyone's dumb feelings. And that would have been impossible. It would have been like electing George Bush again.

chickelit said...

Hillary will be predictably bad. Trump, not so much, despite the Left's caterwauling.

cubanbob said...

Ann Althouse said...

He's got an all-purpose question-evader: Unpredictability!

Why that would work is another matter. It sounds loony.
10/18/15, 12:06 PM
Vivianne said...

What the hell are Republicans thinking by not finding a way to get rid of this loose cannon? Do we want this fool to have his finger on the switch? Have people gone insane? What a laughingstock the Republican Party has become.
10/18/15, 12:07 PM "

Ladies I know two things that are certain: Trump is no crazier and probably a lot more stable than the current schmuck in the white house and there is zero doubt that Hillary is any less crazy and stable than Trump plus she will raise my taxes.

campy said...

"Perhaps we need to set a system so that prospective candidates must pass an interview before the Supreme Court, or something, before they can run for office?"

Nice idea, but it should be an unbiased, non-political group. Say, e.g. the NY Times editors.

Achilles said...

EDH said...

"I interpreted Wallace's question differently, and as a result think Trump made perfect sense.

...

The question to me sounds like Trump was asked how he'd use the debt limit, strategically as a tool of negotiation, presumably against the Washington establishment, to achieve the policy goals Trump wants."

This. Trump has been in business for a long time and he is a negotiator. He is also smarter than people give him credit for. Lesser minds like to caricature people who are more successful than them. How many conservatives rail against Boehner when he says he will not shut down the government under any circumstances and basically signals his surrender? So the original blog post and most of the commentators here either willfully miss the point or are not smart enough to understand it.

wildswan said...

Hilary will confiscate our guns which reminds me of this poem about the last royal idiot who wanted to confiscate guns:

The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

"In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere."

Achilles said...

Hagar said...
"Perhaps we need to set a system so that prospective candidates must pass an interview before the Supreme Court, or something, before they can run for office?"

Are you people going insane? Are you serious? This is why we can't have nice things.

Carthage must be destroyed.

cubanbob said...

Spiros Pappas said...

So 9/11 wasn't W's fault? Sectarian violence in Iraq wasn't W's fault? Katrina? Our financial system collapsing? Plenty of stuff wasn't W's fault. And our national nightmare started when Jeb did his big brother a solid and helped him steal the election. Trump is just speaking the truth: George W. Bush was a worthless, incompetent drunkard and coward.
10/18/15, 12:58 PM

What drugs to you take? You should seek immediate medical intervention.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
"I can't watch Trump just as I can't watch Obama. They are just not genuine. As for Romney, I still think he was the last best hope for the country as he is a guy who knows the right buttons to push. I would still vote for him in a nanosecond.

I am very pessimistic but that just means I won't be disappointed."

Romney wrote, passed, signed, and implemented Romneycare which was nearly identical to the ACA before the ACA was passed.

He sure knew the right buttons to push. I wonder what new entitlement Romney would have passed had he been elected?

I thought you people were smarter than that. If this country cannot figure out who the enemy is and how they are using big government to destroy us we are done as a republic.

rich hahn said...

Why reveal his hand when he might end up negotiating with a Democrat controlled Senate?

Paul said...

I agree with those who understand his answer. I too think he is way smarter than his opponents in both parties.

And anyone who fell for Obama's utterly transparent schtick is automatically consigned to the "fools who have zero credibility" heap.

Spiros Pappas said...

Obama killed Osama bin Laden! W let him get away so he could be re-elected!

Original Mike said...

"W let [Obama] get away so he could be re-elected!"

Because if W had gotten Obama voters would have shunned him. Riiiiight.

chickelit said...

Spiros Pappas said...
Obama killed Osama bin Laden! W let him get away so he could be re-elected!

Obama looked like a small frightened man slumped in his pajamas (or whatever he was wearing). You can see by the look in his eyes that he profoundly disgreed with what was going down. That's anger in his eyes when bin Laden was taken out.

Original Mike said...

Obama, Osama. Can't keep the players straight without a score card.

Michael K said...

" And she is getting the most liberal and best educated and most daring of the young Syrians "

No, they left years ago. She is getting the jihadis.

Spiros Pappas said...

Not killing Osama can't be explained away as yet another failure in Bush's miserable life. Mr. Bush had concrete intelligence and could locate bin Laden on numerous occasions before this bastard disappeared and the trail went stone cold. Bush didn't pull the trigger. Maybe Mr. Bush didn't want to piss off the Pakis or the Saudis (Bush family bff's) or maybe Mr. Bush wanted to give al Qaeda more time to develop into a global threat (killing bin Laden early would have also killed al Qaeda). Or whatever.

eric said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"And yet, he has laid out quit predictable plans on immigration and taxes."

Which is why I said "That's his clever answer in case you're looking for specifics about anything he can't or doesn't want to answer..."

He chooses the issues he wants to be specific about (and those specifics can be quite far-fetched, so that we don't really believe he's going to do it).


That's not how I see it. He seems to believe (And I agree with him) that there are certain issues where unpredictability are a good thing. And I prefer Trumps answer to the normal political answer. When a politician, like Scott Walker, is asked, "Will you use ground troops against ISIS?" or something along those lines, they blurt out the political answer, "I won't rule it out." or something. They don't give specifics, but instead of saying, "I'd prefer not to lay out our secret strategies for everyone before we're even able to implement them." they go with the political answer. Probably because of how effective the mocking of Nixon has been over the years. Now every politician is afraid of being labeled like that. And it's their fear that disgusts me. So they come up with some lame political answer that really means and says nothing.

Trump, on the other hand, is being straight foward and honest. He's saying, hey, I'd rather be unpredictable in this area (And it has only been very few specific areas where he's made this point, war and negotiation).

Blogger Original Mike said...
"And yet, he has laid out quit predictable plans on immigration ..."

Really? All I'm aware of is he's going to make Mexico pay for the fence and he's going to send them all back (and the "good ones" will get to return to the U.S. quickly). Neither of those pronouncements are a "plan". They are, in fact, ridiculous. If there's more (and I'll be the first to admit I don't pay slavish attention) please direct me to it


And how does this differ from any other politician ever? When running for office you lay out a plan, you don't write a law that you want passed. Instead, it's policy papers. It's how you'd like to see things go. I understand if you don't like Trump, but don't hold him to a higher standard than you hold everyone else.

eric said...

Blogger Achilles said...
So the original blog post and most of the commentators here either willfully miss the point or are not smart enough to understand it.


Yeah, I suspect that they can't see the truth through the blood coming out of their eyes and whatever. They don't like Trump so much, that they reflexively interpret whatever he says in a negative way.

Paul said...

"Yeah, I suspect that they can't see the truth through the blood coming out of their eyes and whatever. They don't like Trump so much, that they reflexively interpret whatever he says in a negative way."

This.

And you know that if it came down to voting for Trump or Hillary Althouse would choose the latter in a heartbeat which is all the proof you'll ever need that she's a fool.

Robert Cook said...

No, Nixon didn't have a secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

He did have a secret plan, though.


A secret plan to prolong the war for his own political benefit.

chickelit said...

Vote for me, who knows what I'll do in the White House?

That reminded me of Lincoln Chafee at the last debate and why he should drop out. Asked to defend a vote which went against the Democratic grain, he said it was his first vote and that he was distraught over his father's death.

So vote for Chafee and hopefully nothing bad happens to him during his first days in office. It impairs his decision making.

Original Mike said...

No worries, eric, I'm not holding Trump to a higher standard. I just thought from your post I had missed some actual plan on immigration or taxes. Guess not, huh?

Original Mike said...

That's funny stuff, Spiros. Do you do stand up?

Michael K said...

Spiros, we would love to see your Facebook page and see what other theories you have. Why be anonymous ?

Birkel said...

Cover the Meet the Press interview with Ted Cruz.
That was a better interview because Chuck Todd cannot or will not understand.

eric said...

Blogger Original Mike said...
No worries, eric, I'm not holding Trump to a higher standard. I just thought from your post I had missed some actual plan on immigration or taxes. Guess not, huh?


Not sure what you mean. He has released three plans on Immigration, Guns and Taxes.

Here is his immigration plan:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

At that same link you can click on the other two plans.

R. Chatt said...

I listened to Trump and thought what he was saying was that in the case of certain negotiations, like the debt ceiling, it's better not to be predictable. In a negotiation you gain leverage if the dire alternative to what you are suggesting is a real possibility. If everyone knows you'd never pull the trigger, there's no fear and no incentive to compromise.

Original Mike said...

Thanks, eric!

rcocean said...

Asking for specifics about future potitical tactics is stupid, and its even stupider to answer them. And why is the MSM demanding Trump provide details on every policy? Why don't they demand Hillary or Carson or Jeb! provide details? The answer is obvious. They want Trump to provide details - a year before the election - so they can have a target to shoot and criticize.

Also, I find it humorous that the liberals and wise old greybeard GOPe types are trying to paint Trump as "Stupid" and Uninformed". As opposed to who?

Sounds like Reagan all over again.

rcocean said...

Republicans need to wake up. Somebodies going to get nominated and if it isn't Trump it'll be Rubio or Jeb! He's the only one that stands in their way.

So all they attacks on Trump are really designed to help Jeb or Rubio.

Birkel said...

rcocean:
Forget Cruz as long as you like.

Eustace Chilke said...

Whichever not-Jeb candidate is chosen eventually will, let us fervently hope, have to show more than that he's not Jeb Bush and have his particular not-Jebness compared with what else is on offer. Trump gets full marks for not being Jeb. He'll need to cut the crap to make the second cut. I don't think he's got much left after the crap is subtracted.

Robert Cook said...

Yes...why ask anyone asking "us" (sic) to vote him or her into the most powerful position in the world what they intend to do once they get there? How silly! Can't we just trust they'll do "whatever it takes" to "make America great again?" Do we need to know what "whatever it takes" involves? Or what it means to "make America great again?" Or whether the candidate's intended means to do these things are even do-able?

When did we become such an untrusting people?

Birkel said...

Robert Cook,you crack me up pretending you think America was once great.
Funny stuff.

Brando said...

With a solid chunk of the GOP electorate ready to follow this joke candidate (and note there is nothing Trump could ever say or do that would get them to lose faith in him--this is every bit the religious mania that got the Left behind Obama) and the fact that the Dems are handing their crown to Hillary, it's clear we're going to have the Clintons back in the White House, stealing and selling out everything they can. There is no real opposition party, not this cycle and probably no more. If enough Republicans have gotten to the point they seriously would support Trump, then how will they react to a Hillary presidency?

Michael K said...

Interesting column by Russ Douthat on Trump.

So far he’s running against the Republican establishment in a more profound way than the Tea Party, challenging not just deviations from official conservative principle but the entire post-Reagan conservative matrix. He can wax right wing on immigration one moment and promise to tax hedge fund managers the next. He’ll attack political correctness and then pledge to protect entitlements. He can sound like Pat Buchanan on trade and Bernie Sanders on health care. He regularly attacks the entire Iraq misadventure, in its Bush-era and Obama-era manifestations alike, in a way that neither mainstream Republicans nor Hillary Clinton can plausibly manage.

Excellent column.

Brando said...

Jeb is not going to be the nominee.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook,you crack me up pretending you think America was once great.
Funny stuff."


You're not too swift, there, Birkel. I'm just mocking the pandering boilerplate that every phony running for President trots out ever four years and that every yokel who swallows it thinks is sincere.

rcocean said...

"challenging not just deviations from official conservative principle"

Depends on what you mean by "official Conservative principles". Trump's certainly challenging the GOPe and the Neo-cons. Who ever thought the "eminent domain". illegal immigration and open borders, tax breaks for hedge fund mangers or cutting SS benefits were "conservative principles".

You only need to compare the National Review hysterics over "eminent domain" to their muted criticism about Obama's trillion dollar deficits to realize how shallow and silly their so-called "conservatism" is.

Douglas said...

Has anyone asked Donny which Supreme Court justices he respects and likes? Is there any reason to think his nominees would be any different than Hillary's?

Achilles said...

Brando said...

"With a solid chunk of the GOP electorate ready to follow this joke candidate (and note there is nothing Trump could ever say or do that would get them to lose faith in him--this is every bit the religious mania that got the Left behind Obama)"

You can't figure out why other people would support Trump so it is religious zeal and stupidity. Trump isn't my first choice either but he has positive traits. If your goal is to defeat Hillary, it is absolutely retarded to Trash Trump's supporters.

You GOPers need to get past your own ignorance and douchieness. In 2012 when you trashed in personal and vitriolic fashion not only all of Romney's opponents, but their supporters also. You people got Obama elected when you trashed the people who would have voted for a republican in that election.

Achilles said...

Douglas said...
"Has anyone asked Donny which Supreme Court justices he respects and likes? Is there any reason to think his nominees would be any different than Hillary's?"

Maybe we can get another Roberts!

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
"Interesting column by Russ Douthat on Trump."

Decent enough article. The money graph is the last graph.

In an unhealthy system, the kind I suspect we inhabit, the Republicans will find a way to crush Trump without adapting to his message. In which case the pressure the Donald has tapped will continue to build — and when it bursts, the G.O.P. as we know it may go with it.

Keep on trashing Trumps supporters. That seems to be the best path.

eric said...

Blogger rcocean said...
Republicans need to wake up. Somebodies going to get nominated and if it isn't Trump it'll be Rubio or Jeb! He's the only one that stands in their way.

So all they attacks on Trump are really designed to help Jeb or Rubio.


Instapundit is fond of saying, about Global Warming Alarmists, that he'll believe them when they start to act like it's true.

Well, I keep hearing that the Republican party really doesn't like Trump, that they are really worried about Trump, that Trump is going to destroy America, yadda yadda yadda.

If they really believed this, they could stop Trump easily. They could coalesce around Cruz or Carson, or some other candidate that we conservatives really like. But are they doing that? Nope. They continue to prop up the losers like Jeb, Kasich and Rubio.

When they are serious about defeating Trump, they'll give up on their own lame candidates.

Original Mike said...

"If they really believed this, they could stop Trump easily."

No, "they" can't. The days of the smoke filled room are long gone.

Birkel said...

Sure, Robert Cook. I am not too swift for laughing at your mocking. That makes sense.

Next you will tell me I have no right to notice your preferred politics leads to deprivation and inequality. What a rube, am I.

Birkel said...

Original Mike,
You misread 'eric' wildly.

Original Mike said...

Bickel,
I think he said: "If [The Republican Party] really believed [Trump will destroy America], [The Republican Party] could stop Trump easily."

What did I miss?

Original Mike said...

Why does auto-correct change "Birkel" into "Bickel"? What is Bickel?

Birkel said...

You missed the part where he suggested coalescing around a conservative candidate, e.g. Cruz.

He suggests Trump is a GOP creation because it has ignored its conservative wing. He suggests the GOP establishment will not so coalesce around a conservative.

Bush was underwater in 2006 because the GOPe left conservatives outside the party. There was a mass exodus from GOP voter rolls. Many, such as myself, have not returned to the GOPe because it has no principles.

There was a lot of subtext you missed. But mainly you missed that 'eric' is suggesting the smoky rooms are precisely why Trump exists as a candidate. Smoky rooms are the problem.

YMMV, as always.

Birkel said...

No idea on that last question. WTF is a 'birkel' for that matter?

Birkel said...

GOPe deal making have us Pelosi/Reid in 2006 and Obama in 2008.

The GOPe is precisely the problem the Tea Party recognized.

Birkel said...

gave not have

Why would it auto-correct gave to have? Gave is a regular word.

Does not like its either. Wants to make a contraction.

Original Mike said...

"But mainly you missed that 'eric' is suggesting the smoky rooms are precisely why Trump exists as a candidate."

I didn't miss that. I just think he's dead wrong. I keep hearing people rail against the GOP establishment but I see no evidence that the "establishment" is in control of anything.

Birkel said...

Control comes in more varieties than your comment suggests to me. Part of the control is saying 'no'.

Achilles said...

Original Mike said...
"But mainly you missed that 'eric' is suggesting the smoky rooms are precisely why Trump exists as a candidate."

"I didn't miss that. I just think he's dead wrong. I keep hearing people rail against the GOP establishment but I see no evidence that the "establishment" is in control of anything."

It manifested in 2012. Romney was the GOPe candidate. All the smart people were behind him. But some of us noted that Obamacare was destroying the economy and making healthcare unaffordable. The roll-out and implementation was a complete failure and it generally proved that government is not the right solution to this problem. We wanted to repeal Obamacare. The GOPe wanted the guy who wrote, passed and implemented Obamacare as governor.

Also remember what they did to every other candidate that threatened Romney's coronation. Not only did they viciously attack the candidate, they trashed their supporters. Newt Gingrich was the person most responsible for the last balanced budget we had. He drug Clinton kicking and screaming through a government shut down to limit spending. The GOPe let Clinton take credit for a balanced budget and trashed Gingrich then, and during the 2012 primary.

If it looks like the Republicans nominate someone who will upset the apple cart they will give their money to Hillary. She is "reasonable" you see.

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Moneyrunner said...

Is anyone disappointed that Ann deliberately misquoted the question to trash the answer? She's not a Trump fan, and the lie was just a little one. Women can do that.

damikesc said...

Really? All I'm aware of is he's going to make Mexico pay for the fence and he's going to send them all back (and the "good ones" will get to return to the U.S. quickly). Neither of those pronouncements are a "plan". They are, in fact, ridiculous. If there's more (and I'll be the first to admit I don't pay slavish attention) please direct me to it.

I'll say this: Obama and the media are discussing gun confiscation at this point. Deporting all illegals is an immeasurably easier task than confiscating guns.

Also, professor, Hillary claims she has been completely consistent all of her life. So Trump has "unpredictability". Hillary just has "blatant lying"

Not killing Osama can't be explained away as yet another failure in Bush's miserable life.

Hillary's only "qualification" is that her husband was President.

He had a chance to kill OBL and failed. Miserably. Didn't even try.

Brando said...

"You can't figure out why other people would support Trump so it is religious zeal and stupidity. Trump isn't my first choice either but he has positive traits. If your goal is to defeat Hillary, it is absolutely retarded to Trash Trump's supporters."

I think it is absolutely like religious zeal--Trump's supporters will let nothing dissuade them from the idea that he will not only win the general election but be a terrific president. And based on what? His entire history has been one of ripping off those who trusted him, and changing with the wind, then lying about it afterwards. Anyone who falls for that is in the grip of a cult of personality.

Now, from what you wrote it sounds like you don't buy into him fully, but agree with some of his "traits"--perhaps his "tell it like it is" manner or one of his stances (immigration and taxes are the only policies I know of where he has been even slightly specific--I don't cound "I can make better deals" or "with me the winning will be fabulous" as anything serious). But how do you not see this guy as the ripoff artist he has always been? He's left a long trail, and after Obama it's hard to believe so many on the right would fall for some pied piper just as the Left did.

"You GOPers need to get past your own ignorance and douchieness. In 2012 when you trashed in personal and vitriolic fashion not only all of Romney's opponents, but their supporters also. You people got Obama elected when you trashed the people who would have voted for a republican in that election."

I may often vote GOP but don't count me as a GOPer--that party is incompetent and poised to put the Clintons back in the White House, when it shouldn't be hard to stop them. As for Romney's opponents, which of them could plausibly have done better than Romney? Newt Gingrich? Santorum? Mr. "9-9-9"? I don't recall trashing their respective supporters, though, but if those supporters didn't vote because they were so pissed with Romney then I hope they have not been bitching about Obama since then.

walter said...

A strategic level/strain of unpredictability is certainly desirable in foreign policy..at least a strain opposite the drawing of unenforced lines on others and promised limits on our actions folks like Clinton (1.0) and Obama favor.

Regarding Merkel's supposed defertilizing immgration strategy, not sure it's that simple..as even this largely sympathetic article hints at.


For instance:
"44 percent of the migrants arriving in Germany came from the Balkans. Their reasons for coming may be totally legitimate, but their home countries are free of both war and totalitarianism."

"Germans have only recently become used to the idea that they live in a country of immigration and now, the next illusion is being destroyed: that there is such a thing as controlled immigration. It isn't just the best minds that are coming to us; it is people fleeing Assad's barrel bombs and Islamic State brutality. They are running for their lives, whether they are illustrious or illiterate.

The good news is that most Germans don't have a problem with this. Sixty percent are of the opinion that the country can absorb the huge numbers of refugees currently arriving. And a new form of civility is developing, one that isn't just being driven by pricks of conscience and the weight of the past. Rather, it is fueled by the joy of doing good. But how long will it last?

During the World Cup in 2006, Germany presented itself as a joyful country. Finally the world liked the Germans. But it was an easily earned affection. A bit of good weather and a few people waving flags for football instead of for fascism was enough.

Now, though, the situation is a different one. The refugees are going to be a burden on the country; that much is clear. They will move into apartments that are already in short supply in some cities. They will present a challenge to teachers, because children who speak no German will enter the school system. This will not be the kind of summer fairy tale that 2006 was."

walter said...

Whoops..
Full article here

Original Mike said...

"If it looks like the Republicans nominate someone..."

The Republicans who nominated Romney were the primary voters. There was a day when the party establishment choose the nominee, but I don't see the mechanism by which they exert much control anymore. I think nowadays it's in the hands of i) the candidates and, ii) the media (who are certainly an establishment but not a Republican one).

Brando said...

"The Republicans who nominated Romney were the primary voters. There was a day when the party establishment choose the nominee, but I don't see the mechanism by which they exert much control anymore. I think nowadays it's in the hands of i) the candidates and, ii) the media (who are certainly an establishment but not a Republican one)."

Yeah, I'm not sure why people seem to think there's some shadowy cabal that pulls the strings. It happens that a large portion of the GOP electorate simply preferred Romney over the alternatives.

Original Mike said...

"Control comes in more varieties than your comment suggests to me. Part of the control is saying 'no'."

Well, maybe. I thought they should have just said no to Trump (if they could, I don't know the law) but how would that have worked out? Trump threatened to third party them. No, I see little they can do to exert control. I'm willing to be educated, however. What can the party do?

Original Mike said...

"Yeah, I'm not sure why people seem to think there's some shadowy cabal that pulls the strings."

I think it makes people feel better to think they are the victim of powerful forces.

Original Mike said...

"If it looks like the Republicans nominate someone who will upset the apple cart they will give their money to Hillary. She is "reasonable" you see."

I read this a little closer (sorry, haven't had my coffee yet). The people you refer to here are not a Republican establishment. They're just rich.

Anonymous said...

It would seem every weekend stories about Trump begin circulating after he appears on the Sunday shows that few people watch. On Monday Trump supporters begin making plans to attend whatever rally he is having that is within driving distance. At his rallies thousands of supporters stand in line waiting for a bleacher seat in some high school gym to hear Trump be mostly predictable. "What a great crowd," he says over the applause when he first settles in at the podium, "I love (fill in name of state he's appearing with a nod to New Hampshire and Iowa too)," and he loves the people in that state, and they are always, "...smart, strong, and hardworking." He hopes people will think of him as nice - because, "... he is," He talks about the wall he'll build, what he'll do to ISIS, what he thinks of China, and that the Chinese he speaks to think, "...we're crazy." Like a comedian telling airline food jokes, he talks about the potholed runways of LaGuardia airport. He rarely doesn't mention how feckless politicians are, "They are all talk," to which the crowd always responds. He always asks the media present to pan the room, "Go on, pan the room, show your viewers how many people are here." People react to the media in attendance in a negative way. He always mentions Bergdahl, calls him a deserter who would have been shot in previous wars, mentions the terrible trade Obama made to secure his release, invokes both Patton and MacArthur, always mentions that MacArthur was first in his class at West Point. I've been to four rallies and the script is pretty much the same although he adds something different every time, the unpredictable factor of this post.

Trump is the new paradigm of politics - a huge (one of his words) breath of fresh air. He's uniting an electorate outside of the politics of identity groups. I continuously meet people at the rallies who start their answers to my questions with, "I've never done anything like this before." Young and old, men and women, mostly white, all rock solid Americans. All are extremely concerned about the direction the country has taken. On election day they'll vote. The pundits will be surprised by the size of the turnout.

Birkel said...

Original Mike,
I see you are still denying the GOPe has any control. Donor lists must be a complete mystery to you. I mean, surely everybody has access to the same lists, right? They are not proprietary, of course.

Also, the leaks to conservative news outlets, preferred columnists and a variety of media sources is worth nothing. So the establishment has no (or so few) tools at its disposal to bend public opinion. And thinking it does have such tools is conspiracy mongering.

In reality:
Big government is about buying access and preventing competition. That is no less true for the insurance companies than it is for the GOPe.

Anglelyne said...

Birkel: I see you are still denying the GOPe has any control.

OM and Brando must be the only two people left in the universe who don't seem to grasp what needing donor money to run and not needing donor money to run means, despite the very obvious explanatory lesson being played out this election cycle.

They're not entirely wrong about "control", though, just a bit fuzzy about "lacking control" vs. "losing control".

Moneyrunner said...

Reading Ann and the MSM I'm struck by how incredibly limited her generation - who created a cultural revolution - are when it comes to strategic thinking. They seem to believe that once their revolution is settled, the possibility of another one vanishes.

Robert Cook said...

"Next you will tell me I have no right to notice your preferred politics leads to deprivation and inequality. What a rube, am I."

Wait...what? You scorn me for hating the American capitalist system, yet at the same time you claim it is my "preferred politics?"

Birkel said...

Robert Cook,
That level of feigned stupidity must get hard, eventually.

Annie said...

Walter, most of those 'refugees' are not Syrian. The EU admits that only one in five, are. Most are 'economic migrants', shopping for the best welfare. In Germany, most muslim immigrants get paid very well on welfare and remain on it for years. My neighbor lived there for years and said they prefer them on 'benefits' so as not to compete for jobs with the citizens. I don't understand why they are taking in so many when there aren't any jobs. Their own young people are leaving the country in search of work.

Annie said...

Also, of all their immigrants, the muslims are least likely to finish school and assimilate.