Althouse: "A lot of people who in their hearts know that they are irrelevant are about to have it demonstrated."

January 23, 2016

"A lot of people who in their hearts know that they are irrelevant are about to have it demonstrated."

"In their minds, that's their fear. And so it's circle the wagons time, and the Republican Party, for these reasons and others, is really animated, motivated, energized by taking out both of their front-runners, so much so you have heard many of them say they would prefer to lose the presidency of the United States. They would prefer to lose the most powerful office in the world if it meant somebody other than them within their party that they don't like or approve of winning that office."

Said Rush Limbaugh on his show yesterday, in a monologue that his website titles "Have You Ever Seen Anything Like It? GOP Tries to Kill Both Its Front-Runners."

43 comments:

mccullough said...: This is astute. The national Republican Party hasn't accomplished much in the last 25 years and the GOP pundits are DC/New York douchebags, for the most part. The National Democratic Party is no better to most of their supporters.

Wars, debt, mostly uneducated immigration, trade that benefits the wealthy and burdens the working class.; 1/23/16, 4:10 PM
n.n said...: Diverging interests.

A major advantage of the Democrats, is that they are capable of tolerating, or rather ignoring, conflicts arising from diametrically opposed positions. This is the source of both their short-term strength and long-term corruption.; 1/23/16, 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Rush is right -- this time.; 1/23/16, 4:13 PM
Jimmy said...: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible," Trump said.
USA Today had this quote they attributed to Trump.
The GOP really doesn't have a clue about either Cruz or Trump. they are popular, and nothing the GOP or NR does will change that.; 1/23/16, 4:15 PM
Michael K said...: "The national Republican Party hasn't accomplished much in the last 25 years "

Yup. I discuss the failures for which I blame Reagan for choosing Bush as VP. Kemp was in his prime. Reagan knew he was hated by the "Establishment" and sought to pacify them with Bush. It was a mistake that we are now paying for.; 1/23/16, 4:21 PM
Fabi said...: He makes a valid point -- and you can see it reflected in the comments here. I was called a Trump apologist the other day. It's why the GOP is called The Stupid Party.; 1/23/16, 4:24 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Its the establishment, and one of the big things that these two are pushing is to get a handle on illegal (and some quasi-legal) immigration. They just don't get that they are in the minority, esp. for Republicans, and open borders aficionados already have a party - the Democratic one. I think that most of these establishment types, including the National Review, consign themselves to insignificance every time they try to do this sort of thing.; 1/23/16, 4:25 PM
David Begley said...: Somewhat overstated.

Just the normal adversarial political process of going negative on your oppenents.

Politics ain't beanbag.

Previous sentence not original with me. Famous political axiom.; 1/23/16, 4:26 PM
Sebastian said...: "They would prefer to lose the most powerful office in the world if it meant somebody other than them within their party that they don't like or approve of winning that office."

Yes and no. Yes, GOPers are too tough on each other. Yes, people on all sides--including Trumpkins--too rashly reject supporting potential allies. Yes, people should care about winning. But no, it's not about fear of becoming "irrelevant." Unlike Progs, most GOPers care about power as a means to an end. Therefore, their enthusiasm diminishes considerably when someone they fundamentally disagree with looks like a winner--for most on the right, that applies especially to a billionaire Dem posturing as GOPer who takes populist positions at odds with the standard GOP line on government, foreign policy, and trade, who conveys no sense of preferring conservative judges as SCOTUS nominees, and who has no clue about resolving long term the one issue that propelled his candidacy. No, the resistance to Trump is not about fear of losing relevance--speaking for myself only, it's about fear of losing: losing moderates and women and evangelicals and some Hispanics that the GOP needs to prevail in FL, OH, and VA.; 1/23/16, 4:28 PM
Dan in Philly said...: Conservatives have owned the GOP for a long time. Maybe not much longer though. That's the big fear. There's no GOo charter saying you have to believe this or that to be a member, it was probably Buckly who really captured it as a home for conservatism. But now that hold is loose and may have slipped entirely from conservative ideals.; 1/23/16, 4:28 PM
Unknown said...: There are reasons why I have for many years said that the only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat. And vice versa. I told a relative of mine, who is a straight line Democrat, that to see the reality of one party rule demonstrated clearly it's only necessary to watch them gang up on an outsider. Nothing could validate Cruz's bona fides as an outsider more clearly. I'm not foolish enough to expect one man to make any lasting difference but I do expect to cheer him on every day if he should be inaugurated. The insiders can eat a bag of dicks.; 1/23/16, 4:31 PM
Michael K said...: " who has no clue about resolving long term the one issue that propelled his candidacy."

It is more important that someone say the emperor has no clothes. Then we can come up with solutions,

I have no idea what Trump would do as president but I suspect it will be at least as good as the alternative.

I could live with Biden, even. Hillary belongs in prison and Bernie belongs in an asylum but anybody else with a GOP Congress that has seen the elephant (As they said in the Civil War) would probably be OK.

Every Congress critter will be thinking about the primaries if they fuck this up.; 1/23/16, 4:35 PM
Michael K said...: "Conservatives have owned the GOP for a long time."

No, they may call themselves that but they are not conservative in terms of real policies.

The only conservative I have seen in the Senate was Coburn. There are some in the House but they have no power.

Cruz may well be a conservative but he has been a Gingrich-like bomb thrower so far.; 1/23/16, 4:38 PM
The Godfather said...: It's not "the GOP" that's trying to "kill" both front runners, it's one faction within the GOP that's trying to "kill" Tromp, and another that's trying to "kill" Cruz. Limbaugh actually says this, but saying "the GOP" is the actor makes it a lot more dramatic.

In the last several decades I have become increasingly disenchanted with the Establishment Republicans. It started with GHW Bush. I was a long-time supporter (I grew up in Connecticut and we spent a month in Maine every summer). I really thought that after Bush spent an 8-year apprenticeship under the Master, he would do great things. He didn't. Later, I had great hopes for GW Bush, who managed to shake off the blue-blooded soil of Connecticut (boy is THAT a bad metaphor!) and frankly (many disagree) he was a fine wartime president for the GWOT. But he took his eye off the ball domestically with sub-prime mortgages, even when he knew better, and that lost the war because it assured the victory of a Democrat in 2008. The less said the better about Dole, McCain, Romney, Boehner, McConnel, and (now Ryan -- what a disappointment!).

Republicans face a choice between Tromp and Cruz. If this were the time for an Establishment president, Jeb would be great, but it's not, and he's not. I would be happy with Rubio, both as a candidate and as a president, but he hasn't gotten any traction. Cruz is imperfect, but at least he wouldn't be the "Apprentice President".

But if a Democrat wins in November -- ANY Democrat -- this country is going to be dug into such a deep hole that even Tromp couldn't build a big enough casino to fill it.; 1/23/16, 4:41 PM
Fabi said...: According to Sebastion, Trump only acts like a member of the GOP, and takes populist positions at odds with the party. At the same time, he says that Trump will lose moderates (populists) that the GOP needs to win the election. Am I missing a step?

Step 1. Insult the leading candidate
Step 2. ??
Step 3. Profit!; 1/23/16, 4:54 PM
Sebastian said...: "Am I missing a step?" "moderates (populists)"

"Step 1. Insult the leading candidate" I called Trump a "billionaire Dem posturing as GOPer who takes populist positions at odds with the standard GOP line" etc. Why is that an "insult"? It's a correct description, it alludes to a source of his appeal, and no doubt Trump would take it as a compliment.; 1/23/16, 5:05 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Michael K:
Don't be fooled - Biden is as far left as Warren and maybe Bernie. Plus he is certified moron. And lastly he is very much like Obama in that he has never had a real job - 44+ years in the Imperial City.; 1/23/16, 5:18 PM
jr565 said...: this ties into my theory that Trump is actually being used deliberately by the media to take out the nominees and strike discord in the Republican party. Make it so that they all turn on one another. It makes perfect sense.; 1/23/16, 5:20 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I would ask anyone who thinks that Trump is a closet Democrat, etc., why any rational Republican would support open borders? So far, it is the defining issue on the GOP side of the election. It is rational for Democrats to support such, since their avowed and realistic goal is to recruit so many new Democratic voters from the newly franchised illegals that they will have a demographic lock at the national level for the next generation or so. The Republican establishment supports fairly open immigration, but that says to me that they aren't really that close to the GOP mainstream. The two Republicans that the Establishment is trying to destroy, that are doing, by far the best right now, are the two who oppose open borders the most vocally.

This thing for open borders by the Republican elites for the last couple years has driven me crazy. A large percentage of the rank and file in both parties oppose such. The Dems at least have the excuse of sacrificing for the long term benefit of the party. Not so the Republicans. There is no upside, and a big downside. And, yet, they continue. Everyone should have gotten the message when Eric Cantor got primaried out of his seat in the House. But, no. Instead, most of the rest of the first tier Republican candidates seem to be in agreement with him.

BTW - there are a lot of reasons why the elites like legalization of the illegals. One is that Harry Reid was able to keep amnesty for illegals connected to increase in H-1B visas. The latter has a lot of support within the Republican establishment and elites, and many seem willing to give the Dems their amnesty, as long as they get their H-1B visas (i.e. below market cost of foreign high tech workers).; 1/23/16, 5:22 PM
jr565 said...: (cont) Is Trump in on it? Is he a manchurian candidate? or is he just a blustering idiot. And there are people out there hearing him say stupid shit, and then say to themselves. What if we prop this idiot up, and say he has this massive support. Its going to drive the republicans crazy. The actual conservatives are going to be marginalized. Hire some front groups and start an organization called "Democrats for Trump" or blacks for Trump. Hire people to go to his events.
Have the media tailor the debates around republicans responding to the latest Outrage that Trump said. Bush, did you hear what Trump said? Please respond. Say he won all the debates, even if he says nothing.
Maybe its just Trump. Maybe he's hiring people to suggest everyone is following him. And people who want to follow the winner, think he is and so rally behind him.

Its probably really easy to manipulate an electoin this way, especially if you have a candidate who opens his mouth so constantly.
I'm sure there are many actual followers of Trump. But a lot of it is distorted. If he becomes the nominee, I expect to see a lot of stories about how everyone thought he was the front runner Because of polls. What happened?; 1/23/16, 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Sebastian: Therefore, their enthusiasm diminishes considerably when someone they fundamentally disagree with looks like a winner--for most on the right, that applies especially to a billionaire Dem posturing as GOPer who takes populist positions at odds with the standard GOP line on government, foreign policy, and trade...

The "standard GOP line on government" is endless burbling about "small government", as opposed to standard GOP action on government, which is endless government expansion that the GOP likes to pretend is all the fault of those debbil Dems. The "standard GOP line on foreign policy" is "conservative" only its claim to supporting a strong military; the standard GOP action on foreign policy is different only in degree from the incompetent messianic interventionism pursued by the left side of the aisle. Nothing could be less "conservative". The "standard GOP line on trade" is the standard Dem line on trade: globalist and neo-liberal, the occasional impotent populist or protectionist in the ranks nothwithstanding.

As for the rest of this comment @4:28 PM, that's what people sound like when they're being carried away gibbering in a straight-jacket.; 1/23/16, 5:28 PM
Fabi said...: Didn't think the Underpants Gnome riff would be a distraction, Sebastion.

I'm curious to why a populist would scare off moderate voters. What am I missing?; 1/23/16, 5:35 PM
Jicarilla said...: The republican party has got to face the facts, the Conservative Media (first Conservative Radio, then FoxNews, followed by the Conservative Web) has more influence over their voting bloc, than any other institution. The power and influence of Conservative Media has grown stronger year by year over the past twenty-five years. Only those conservative voices that can leverage these media outlets to their advantage can dominate. Conservative ideas, not matter how extraordinary, that are not embraced by Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, Murdoch, Ailes and company, at best, do not exist, and at worst are deemed traitors to the cause.; 1/23/16, 5:37 PM
Jupiter said...: "They would prefer to lose the most powerful office in the world if it meant somebody other than them within their party that they don't like or approve of winning that office."

Well, duh.; 1/23/16, 5:59 PM
Sebastian said...: @Anglelyne: Take it easy. I agree, GOP action differs from the line. For people who like the line and would like to see it taken seriously, that's no reason to support a man who doesn't even pay lip service to it and may change his mind tomorrow about anything he said yesterday. Of course, anyone can define "conservatism" as they like, but at least since Reagan smaller government + strength & interventionism + free trade have been pretty much the trinity for self-professed conservatives across the land. In theory. Throw in pro-life and judicial restraint and you cover most bases of the base. None of that addresses the immigration issue, hence Trump's opportunity. None of that suggests there are enough conservatives among GOP voters or in the country to produce a conservative president.

I also agree with Rush that many people "would prefer to lose the most powerful office in the world if it meant somebody other than them within their party that they don't like or approve of winning that office." Assuming you are not an "independent," I take it you are one of them.; 1/23/16, 6:06 PM
Roy Lofquist said...: Wisdom from my father: "It's better to be a big fish in a little pond".; 1/23/16, 6:11 PM
Jupiter said...: Sebastian said,

"Of course, anyone can define "conservatism" as they like"

Well, no, I don't think so. There is room for some debate about what should be conserved, but conservatism is about conserving. And a lot of people who have been conservatives for a long time are starting to think that what we wanted to conserve is gone. Buh-Bye. I mean, Adios.

For as long as I can remember, the Democrats have been hammering chisels into the cracks in the Union, while the Republicans try to maintain the pretense that we are all in this together. Well, the Dems won, and the reelection of Barack Obama sealed that victory. What was, is no more. The US government now functions as a straightforward engine of redistribution. The question now is how to manage the coming bloodbath so the bastards on the other side supply most of the blood.; 1/23/16, 6:40 PM
grackle said...: … this ties into my theory that Trump is actually being used deliberately by the media to take out the nominees and strike discord in the Republican party. Make it so that they all turn on one another. It makes perfect sense.

It also makes perfect sense if you are a Democrat working to undermine Trump’s support at an influential blog to try to drum up a conspiracy theory involving the leading Republican candidate. If that were the case you would of course feign occasional support to disguise your real intent.

Your media/Trump conspiracy “theory” is far-fetched, even laughable. Try something more believable and less obvious. I know, I know! Change your handle and have heated debates with yourself. Your other self could claim that Trump is a pawn of Putin. “Putin’s Pawn!” But you could object, mildly of course, to show how “supportive” and “defending” you are of Trump and maybe get some credibility.

Or … how about this: Trump is being used by the Clintons to break up the GOP. Or .. Trump is a secret Nazi. Anything except that comical media/Trump thing. Have fun with it, man!

Oh, and keep hammering away with the Trump isn’t a real Republican/real conservative/ real wealthy memes. Yes, I know most Trump supporters care very little about ideology but it will probably convince a few. Learn to treasure those small victories.; 1/23/16, 6:45 PM
Michael K said...: "It started with GHW Bush."

Yes and I have a post on this at Chicago Boyz where I blame Reagan for flinching from choosing Kemp. He was so hated by the east coast establishment that he took Bush to reassure them, just like he chose Senator Richard Schweiker, a leftie, to be his putative VP. He didn't get the nomination but he came close.; 1/23/16, 6:49 PM
Michael K said...: The Schweiker thing was in 1976, I should have added.; 1/23/16, 6:50 PM
PB said...: It's going to be an interesting year (in the Chinese proverbial sense). The Democrats have a president whose destroyed the party to the sense that all they have running is a wimp, a commie, and a criminal.

Unfortunately, the electorate is usually swayed by more and more free stuff and free healthcare is one of the ultimate freebies. Socialism rarely gets stopped halfway down the toilet, but an economy and government usually have to be flushed clean to restart.; 1/23/16, 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Sebastian: Take it easy.

We nevuh, evuh do anything...nice...and...easy...

(Sorry. Old person pop culture reference.)

I agree, GOP action differs from the line. For people who like the line and would like to see it taken seriously, that's no reason to support a man who doesn't even pay lip service to it and may change his mind tomorrow about anything he said yesterday. Of course, anyone can define "conservatism" as they like...

Agree with everything here. (Though I'd cavil with the last "change his mind" clause on tu quoque grounds.) If you've judged that Cruz (or Rubio, or whomever) can deliver on the things that matter to you, of course you should support them. But the same applies to Trump supporters. They've judged that the "establishment" candidates are not going to deliver on the things that they prioritize. So let's drop the whole "not a conservative" thing. Goes nowhere.

...but at least since Reagan smaller government + strength & interventionism + free trade have been pretty much the trinity for self-professed conservatives across the land. In theory. Throw in pro-life and judicial restraint and you cover most bases of the base.

No, there has always been a principled, patriotic, loyal opposition to interventionism within conservatism, and it goes way back. It's been (slanderously) anathematized by ascendant strains of "movement conservatism". That worm is beginning to turn. Same with "free" trade. That's a complicated (and very interesting) issue, and it deserves better than the "they stole our jerbs ha ha ha" knee-jerk reaction it gets from "movement conservatism".

None of that addresses the immigration issue, hence Trump's opportunity.

Ding ding ding ding! The beef with "movement conservatives", GOPers, is that they don't seem to recognize that the current mass immigration regime (with which the GOP establishment is completely on board, and then some) is incompatible with the maintenance of the "conservative" values they claim to care about. Any conservative who thinks the immigration issue is of secondary (or lower) importance is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with his fussy obsession with other "conservative" issues.

I also agree with Rush that many people "would prefer to lose the most powerful office in the world if it meant somebody other than them within their party that they don't like or approve of winning that office." Assuming you are not an "independent," I take it you are one of them.

I am an independent. My state has open primaries, though, and I am considering being a wrecker and going to vote for Trump in the primaries. Not because I am an enthusiast (I am immmune to political enthusiasm), but because I'm taking the long view that that the present one-party state (and it is a one-party state) has to go for this country to have any future that isn't Brazil North. (Nothing against Brazilians, the world ought to have a Brazil. But I'm an American, and I want to live in America, not Globo-Labor-Exchange-Flophouse #001.) But I agree with Jupiter @ 5:59 PM that Rush's comment is poorly formulated. I think I know what Rush was trying to say, but, as Jupiter says, "Well, duh." Why the hell would I (or you, or anybody else) vote for someone who's views I don't approve of?; 1/23/16, 7:36 PM
wildswan said...: Hillary is the most grotesque candidate running. She expects to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution but intends to continue executive orders if she doesn't like what Congress likes, she gave away national secrets on her private server, she sold her influence through her husband, she tore down the reputations of women who dared object to being raped and groped by her husband, she obviously has health issues, she intends to continue Barack Obama's policies which 70 % of the country thinks have taken the country in the wrong direction, she her people to die in Benghazi, she lied over and over and over about the cause of Benghazi.

Then people try to say that Donald Trump is a dangerous demagogue or some sort of joke.; 1/23/16, 7:49 PM
chickelit said...: mccullough said...Wars, debt, mostly uneducated immigration, trade that benefits the wealthy and burdens the working class.

GOP retorts...But, but, but, we gave you bigger and better flat screens and affordable lawncare!; 1/23/16, 8:01 PM
chickelit said...: Bruce Hayden wrote The latter has a lot of support within the Republican establishment and elites, and many seem willing to give the Dems their amnesty, as long as they get their H-1B visas (i.e. below market cost of foreign high tech workers).

Case in point, my Congressional Rep, Darrell Issa. He was long a thorn in the side of the Holder DoJ but he has gone into sleeper mode or something.; 1/23/16, 8:07 PM
eric said...: He is right though.

There is a lot of argument over who is the "Establishment?" And people make fun of those who throw out the word without really identifying who these people are.

Most of the establishment folks are behind the scenes and we don't know who they are. But when I use the term, I'm talking about George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jennifer Rubin, the writers at NRO, Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, etc. I'm talking about all these opinion makers who try and steer the Republican Party.

Cruz and Trump both don't listen to those people. They've tried to steer Cruz by telling him what a dummy he is by filibustering or shutting down the government. Wow they hated Cruz for that and explained, patiently, to all of us idiots out here how dumb we were for shutting down the government and using our only tool we had to fight Obama. Their answer was always, "Elect more Republicans. Be patient. Wait. Elect more Republicans."

These same people want more immigration. Think it's a good thing. They tell us amnesty is the only way.

But we aren't listening to them. And now with Trump and Cruz? Well, it just tells them with it tells jr who comments here. Trump followers and Cruz followers are just a bunch of idiots who won't listen to reason.

They're about to find out just how influential they really are.; 1/23/16, 8:08 PM
eric said...: Blogger chickelit said...
Bruce Hayden wrote The latter has a lot of support within the Republican establishment and elites, and many seem willing to give the Dems their amnesty, as long as they get their H-1B visas (i.e. below market cost of foreign high tech workers).

Case in point, my Congressional Rep, Darrell Issa. He was long a thorn in the side of the Holder DoJ but he has gone into sleeper mode or something.

He used to be my rep too, back in 2007 when I lived in Temecula.

I gave up on Issa after he cried because Arnold was going to run for Governor. Ugh, that was pathetic.; 1/23/16, 8:09 PM
chickelit said...: Gentlemen, he said
I don’t need your organization, I’ve shined your shoes
I’ve moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning, either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards

Read more: link; 1/23/16, 8:10 PM
JackWayne said...: Trump is not a conservative and NR was correct to point that out. He will probably rule like a Rockefeller Liberal which is good or bad depending on your view. No matter his politics, Congress has shown they'd rather quit than fight so the next President will rule using a lot of Executive power. Cruz is a conservative but he has no chance of transforming government into a limited government. So he will rule pretty much like Bush except with more Executive power. The Constitution is a failed document so it really doesn't matter too much who gets into office. A criminal apparatchik like Clinton will hasten the ultimate denouement but what's a couple of years really?; 1/23/16, 8:48 PM
Saint Croix said...: A lot of people who in their hearts know that they are irrelevant are about to have it demonstrated.

We say this in Bible study sometimes. "It's not about me!" It's a reminder, you know, that we are not the center of the universe. Most of us start off life as a baby. (Dare I say, all of us?) And when you are a baby, you are the center of the universe. I can't remember who I once compared to a giant baby rampaging through a city, knocking over skyscrapers. But that would fit Donald Trump, too, I think. Anyway, we start off thinking, "it's all about me!" So I might mock Trump for wanting to impose his name upon the world. But I have this urge, too! I'm a struggling artist, wanting to move the culture or the universe. Wanting to play God. It's a big sin, of course, but also completely normal.

Anyway, there's a strange dichotomy. I'm a small, insignificant human being. Just one of a few billion. In a universe with billions of stars, and other planets and other species. So, yes, I am irrelevant in the large scheme of things. As is Trump, and Rush, and you and you and you. We are all very, very tiny and insignificant, if you start thinking of the big picture. But here's the thing. God cares about us, on an individual level. Each and every one of us is not insignificant to God. In fact, a microscopic organism, a human zygote, is not insignificant to God. It's a miracle of creation. We cannot design human DNA, or understand it. I feel like we ought to have a bit more respect for this creation. Flushing it down the toilet is rather like putting your foot through a Monet. It pisses people off. In fact, many of us would suggest that the creation of a human being is way more amazing than some oil on a canvas.

So, yes, we are irrelevant to the big picture. And many billionaires and presidents and kings and Caesars and Supreme Court Justices think we are irrelevant, too. "We'll just ignore these little people." But understand that we are not irrelevant to God, that there is meaning in the universe, and these pompous people--and Lord knows I can be one--might need to get over themselves, too.

I mean, how many Caesars can you name off the top of your head? Julius, Nero, Augustus, Marc Antony, Cleopatra (joke). You know what I mean? I think of that President who wrote the longest Inaugural Address in U.S. history, and insisted on reading the whole damn thing, even though it was raining, and he caught pneumonia and died. So, longest speech and shortest presidency.

Don't get too caught up in the politics. Go to a church or a Bible study or a mosque or a temple. Try to find a holy connection. You'll be happier, I swear. God bless.; 1/23/16, 9:18 PM
Will said...: Reince Priebus strikes me as someone who should have hit his Peter Principle ceiling as an assistant pharmacist at the CVS in Appleton.

Too many of these hangers-on are just middlemen who soak up the cash but get nothing done.

Spending millions on Project ORCA to get out the 2012 vote, only to see it crash into useless jelly? Allowing biased CNBC hacks to moderate the debates? Who do they think they are, Obama's VA, healthcare.gov, EPA? Is there not a single competent person left in Washington DC?

Many of us are ready to try something new. I've been ready for 30 years.; 1/24/16, 8:18 AM
Jupiter said...: Saint Croix ...

just wasted about 400 words explaining that he doesn't think his opinion counts for much. Spare me the faux humility, Big Baby. This alone is enough to prove you are a moral idiot;

"Go to a church or a Bible study or a mosque or a temple. Try to find a holy connection."

A mosque? You left out a Black Mass or a Santeria rite in your list of uplifting experiences. Maybe one of those heart-cooling ceremonies the Aztecs used to hold? You know, they can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.; 1/24/16, 1:00 PM
ken in tx said...: Here's what I read and heard, Trump was involved in a business deal with the Chinese, and he thought it would benefit him if he was seen as a big political figure. He threw his hat in the ring for that reason. Then, when some people started taking his candidacy seriously, he thought, "Why not?" That's where we are now. He's just playing a role and seeing where it goes.; 1/24/16, 10:13 PM