(Click image to enlarge.) I scroll down a full screen, and it looks like this:
Oh, there. See? Down at the bottom? "Kasich: Trump 'probably going to win' all Super Tuesday states." Sigh. I'll just say, he made a good impression on me. And I thought it was interesting that he was rejecting the #NeverTrump hashtag — which Marco Rubio is using. The GOP candidates made a pledge to support whoever wins the nomination, and Kasich, directly asked, said he would keep the pledge, because he respects "the arena." In politics, the winner wins, and he means to win. But Rubio is getting pretty close to saying he will not keep his pledge. And I note that none of those clips up there refers to all the discussion of the pledge that I heard on the show, including some strong statements from Trump, hammering Rubio for threatening to break the pledge.
पोस्ट्स
२८५ टिप्पण्या:
285 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»It was pointed out today by a pundit on CNN that the only way to get free media time is to do what Trump has done, and Marco Rubio is now doing....be outrageous. Marco got no attention for his serious policy positions. Same is happening to Kasich. Same happened to Jeb.
"some strong statements from Trump, hammering Rubio for threatening to break the pledge." Did R in fact do that?
I'm curious what Kasich's game is during this election. He can't win and he knows this, so why is he so intent on playing the spoiler?
Does he expect Trump to win and reward him, or is he trying to make sure he can run again in 2020? Or is this just him saying if I can't have it nobody can?
Maybe Lindsay Graham will offer the coveted Meadhouse endorsement to John Kasich.
That could do the trick.
Kasich could have beaten Mitt. And also Obama.
Trump's interview with Chris Wallace was unhinged. Wallace asked him some good questions about his taxes, and Trump just fouled them all off. Actually, for baseball devotees, "fouling them off" would have been a good thing. It would have meant that Trump had a crafty, deflective answer. Trump had nothing; nothing but the usual inane bloviating. And, as is ever the case with Trump, lots of repetition wherein he was using the same lines over and over again.
Best line of the morning: Rubio's calling the Trump plane "Hair Farce One."
I'd rather get some good policy arguments on the Sunday morning talk shows. But since Trump has turned things into a Hair Farce, that's the way it goes.
(btw: if you missed Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Trump at least twice to simply supply his gross income, effective tax rate and the amount of his charitable donations, all already known from his past returns that Trump signed under penalty of law. Trump wouldn't do it.)
Oh, and Trump continues with his insanity about defamation law in the U.S. Trump cited UK libel laws as a model. He didn't answer the question about changing the First Amendment in order to accommodate his view in light of Supreme Court decisions on past libel cases. Trump did supply the perfectly nonsensical answer that if a newspaper knowingly published false information about someone with malice, that they should be subject to a lawsuit. Which, if you give Trumpspeak the benefit of the doubt without legal fine-touches, is EXACTLY what the law is now!
A real, true, amazing idiot.
Here's the Infowars story Drudge is headlining.
BOMBSHELL: INSIDER LEAKS KOCH BROS, RUBIO PLAN TO STOP TRUMP
Bombshell: Roger Stone reveals establishment using Mitt Romney as Plan B if Rubio fails!
Insiders who were at a recent meeting between the Koch Bros. and Marco Rubio leaked intel on how exactly they’re going to try and steal the election from Donald Trump, GOP strategist Roger Stone revealed.
The Koch Bros. met with GOP millionaires and billionaires Thursday night to pool together over $75 million to stop Trump and are going to use Mitt Romney as ‘Plan B’ if Rubio fails to gain traction on Super Tuesday, according to moles who were inside the meeting.
“$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he’s got to win the Florida primary or he’s out and Mitt Romney’s in,” Stone revealed. “That’s the plan.”
“First they’ll ramp up an enormous, negative campaign on TV against Trump and they’re going to hit this phony Trump University issue,” he continued. “They claim to have personal dirt on Trump – I doubt that – and they are also going to try and delve into his business affairs, but if Rubio fails to grab the Florida primary, then Rubio’s out and Mitt Romney’s in.”
“The plan is for Romney to file for the New Jersey, New York and California primaries in an all-out ditch effort to stop Donald Trump and you heard it here on Infowars.com.”
Additionally, Marco Rubio’s wife called Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, to desperately beg Cruz to exit the race and aid Rubio, but Heidi said no, Stone said.
“The power structure’s desperate, the Rubio and Cruz teams are going back and forth but they can’t agree as to who will be the candidate,” he added. “I still believe Mitt Romney is totally dressed up, already made up, waiting in the wings… to step in as the last, best hope of the ‘stop Trump’ movement, and frankly I think Trump will bulldoze him as well.”
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-insider-leaks-koch-bros-rubio-plan-to-stop-trump/
Kasich can speak in reasonable tones because he still has a paying job to return to even if he loses.
Marco doesn't, so his shorts fit quite a bit tighter these days.
Kasich is more grounded and sensible than Trump, Rubio or Cruz. Grounded and sensible isnt what wins this year. Not yet at least.
I saw that interview with Kasich and he wants the VP spot.
I get the sinking feeling that the Stop Trump movement is going to get physical at some point. And that will be the end of politics as we know it in America.
Kasich could have beaten Mitt. And also Obama.
Nobody could have beaten Obama, {thus spake the voting machines, in unison}
It's so funny to see the 'Republican party' collapsing on itself. Funny thing is Trump will walk out of the wreckage unscathed. America loves a winner.
Kasich said he would quit the race if he didn't win Ohio.
I'd scoff at the Democrats' Superdelgates for Hillary, if the Republican Establishment was not doing the same thing by threatening Romney and thus a brokered convention: keep lowering the value of the actual votes of the People until you get the result you desire.
Fuck them all.
And.
Bring back the Guillotine.
I am Laslo.
I mean, too many Chucks and Begleys feel personally threatened by Donald Trump.
@Althouse, suddenly you like Kasich? Weren't you writing a few weeks ago that all the candidates except Cruz and Trump should rally behind Rubio?
Pm317, I agree Kasich wants the VP slot--and he'd be great, but I'm not so sure how that will fly in the general. To be blunt, two older caucasion guys might bring a few more R's over due to Kasich, but not sure it would woo any in the middle or non-progressive D's. Even though we've really had our first woman president--Valjar--I'm thinking whomever wins the general will pick a non-caucasion female. Irrational to me, as I could care less about gender or race, but a yuge chunk of the idiot electorate does. If it's Trump, I'm thinking Kasich will have some close advisory role in the admin.
I'd like everybody who cheers the end of the Republican Party do me a favor; stay the fuck out of Republican primaries. If you don't like the Party, fine. Get your own party. Just don't come to the Republican Party, insult Republican donors and Republican incumbents who were all elected with solid majorities and in some cases against great opposition in purple states, and expect to be treated nicely.
chickelit: I don't feel threatened by Trump. I'd vote for Trump, if he's the Republican nominee. I just feel intellectually insulted by Trump. I don't want to have to defend him as any sort of representative of what it means to be a Republican.
I get the feeling chickelit is exaggerating.
Chuck said...I'd like everybody who cheers the end of the Republican Party do me a favor; stay the fuck out of Republican primaries. If you don't like the Party, fine. Get your own party.
You can cry if you want to.
Pm317, I agree Kasich wants the VP slot--and he'd be great, but I'm not so sure how that will fly in the general. To be blunt, two older caucasion guys might bring a few more R's over due to Kasich, but not sure it would woo any in the middle or non-progressive D's.
Kasich would make great VP. I think he'd bring in a lot of crossover votes. But things are still fluid.
Kasich is plodding along. Of the GOP governors who ran, he's done the best job as governor. He is who he is and isn't going to change. Who is Marco Rubio? He's self destructing with his antics and showing he has no core.
Kasich and Carson are the only ones coming off well. Trump is Trump. He's always been the buffoonish show man. There's som comfort in consistency of behavior. Rubio is unhinged.
There was a reason for Reagan's 11th Commandment. It's on display.
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party pushed for amnesty under George W. Bush and betrayed its voters.
Deal with that, Chuck.
Matt Taibi said that that all the histrionics played out on cable TV soundbites about Trump is a very small part of his stump speeches. Much of what he says on the stump is populous, dealing with money in politics and corruption and not getting things done. I believe that. Trump is using the media in a masterful way. So 'Chuck' like people should tune out of cable TV and the media whores and calm down. Trump is every bit intellectual in what he is doing.
chickelit: I'll cry, if Trump is the nominee and he loses by 100 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton, Republicans lose the Senate, and Democrats succeed in getting three Supreme Court justices.
And mccullough enters the fray, only to ignore Cruz.
I enjoy watching people purposefully ignore Cruz. He is problematic. Althouse and mccullough play that game. Others too.
Trump, talking about campaign finance reform, sounds just like every Democrat (and even some Republicans) talking about campaign finance reform.
Justice Scalia would turn over in his grave, at the sound of that talk.
Trump touting his own use of money in the campaign and saying he is not beholden to anyone is resonating well with the people, especially after finding out that Obamacare was written by the insurance lobby.
Well, Chuck, you should've been less enthusiastic in your support of such GOP luminaries as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, because it's those guys who foisted Trump on us.
Chuck
Best interview ever of Trump. He dodged all the tax questions. Failed to deny KKK support three times.
EDH
Roger Stone is the king of dirty tricks and disinformation and everyone knows it.
Drudge was dishonest to report it.
Chuck wrote: I'd like everybody who cheers the end of the Republican Party do me a favor; stay the fuck out of Republican primaries. If you don't like the Party, fine. Get your own party.
FYI, I'm a registered independent and so won't be voting for Trump in the CA primary because we have a closed primary system and I respect that. I would vote for him in the general however. CA politics are mostly predestined, one-party affairs these days so my vote will be symbolic anyway.
pm317:
I knew that as Obamacare was being written. Adam Smith, lo these 240 years ago, witnessed it in his day.
Where the fuck were you?
McCullough: Actually, the guy with the best record as governor (and worst record as campaigner) was Jeb Bush.
I'm not knocking Governor Kasich. I've said all along he'd be the ideal VP. Determined, scrappy, prickly in the way that a President should never be, and with an encyclopedic knowledge of Congressional budgeting processes. Rubio/Kasich.
At least with Rubio and Kasich, we'd stand a good chance in Florida and Ohio against the Dems. And Rubio and Kasich wouldn't have to spend 90% of their time between now and Novmeber explaining stupid hateful quotes about their running mate, like Trump and/or a Christie will.
If you really want a good look at the future national politics, take a good hard look at California politics. It is exactly what the DNC wants.
Nobody "foisted" Trump on anybody. Trump is an opportunist. For all of the searing criticism I could write about Trump, he is still winning an narrow plurality in primaries. Nobody held a gun to those voters' heads.
I just wonder how many of them have anything more than a passing connection with Republicans.
@birkel, ?
I was responding to @Chuck pooh poohing campaign finance reform, that more people are seeing what is going on.
Chuck:
Who tried to "foist" illegal aliens on the country under George W. Bush's presidency?
Look at voter registration numbers since then.
Re: McCullough:
Who is Marco Rubio? He's self destructing with his antics and showing he has no core.
Nothing he's tried before worked, so he's in the desperate flailing stage of his campaign. He's the only one (of the three "main" candidates) who hasn't won a single primary or caucus. Polls are suggesting he's going to lose his home state, possibly by double digits, even after Bush III has left the race. He has to do something to get over the finish line somewhere if he wants to present himself as a plausible alternative to Trump. He's adaptable. And it just might work. Who knows?
chickelit: About California. There was a time when Republicans were a force in the Golden State. Not a majority, but at least a force. Pete Wilson was your governor. And such an able governor, and such an attractive person, that he was pegged as the Next Reagan. And then he signed on to a nativist, anti-immigrant platform. And it has been downhill for California Republicans ever since. The one big electoral victory, statewide, was Prop 8.
Trump would not resonate with so many voters but for the GOP establishment's corruption.
I just feel intellectually insulted by Trump.
Unfortunately, Chuck, we need a majority...
campaign finance reform = entrenched interests raising barriers to entry from non-establishment sources
IOW, abrogation the First Amendment to protect current politicians.
Jeb's record as governor was good but he was governor from early 1999 to early 2007. Those were good years for the economy and Florida was one of the leading states in the stupidity of our housing boom, which was still going strong when Jeb left. Much tougher to be governor of Florida after the bust. Jeb was like Bill Clinton, did a good job during good times.
Kasich took over at a tough time and has done a decent job in much tougher circumstances.
Kasich said he would quit the race if he didn't win Ohio.
Smart tactic as he has a much better chance of carrying Ohio than Rubio has of Florida. So he's trying to make carrying your home state the litmus test for staying in the race.
I also watched the interview on State of the Nation, and I think Kasich did a good job. It seems he's getting more focused on his message. If things continue to get nasty with the top three, he could benefit with the experienced adult in the room meme.
@Chuck: have you apologized yet for calling me a Trump supporter? This is a good chance.
Stop with the threats to the voters, Chuck. It's not the voters who are destroying the brand -- it's idiots like you. You've made a complete fool of yourself.
Hey Birkel, do you understand what the fuck I said in my comment?
Universally, the people I meet who deride Citizens United v FEC know next to nothing about the case.
The worst media malpractice in the 21st century has been the terrible, ignorant, one-sided reporting of that decision. That, combined with the fever-swamp muckraking concerning "the Kochs."
I've never believed in "the Kochs" buying elections. This is the first year I wished it could be true.
Anyway, if anybody wants to debate Citizens United where we aren't cluttering up our gracious hostess' blog, I'm up for it. Particularly if it helps to discredit Donald Trump at this time.
Trump doesn't like First Amendment protections for electioneering speech. And he doesn't like First Amendment protections for publishers in defamation actions. And he's been against Second Amendment protections for so-called "assault weapons." Just what part(s) of our Constitution does Trump like?
Blogger Chuck said...
I'd like everybody who cheers the end of the Republican Party do me a favor; stay the fuck out of Republican primaries. If you don't like the Party, fine. Get your own party. "
Sorry chuckie, us trumpets want to build a better party. Also the tea partiers that put you guys in congress have a little something to say about it as well. You guys have been pretty miserable at it for decades. You are going to be fired.
pm317:
Yes I do. Now what?
Nothing.. thanks I guess.
rehajm said...
"I just feel intellectually insulted by Trump."
Unfortunately, Chuck, we need a majority...
lol. Senator Adlai Stevenson. Count me very much not insulted by your post.
"If you don't like the Party, fine. Get your own party. Just don't come to the Republican Party, insult Republican donors and Republican incumbents...and expect to be treated nicely."
Your precious party and its lifestyle accoutrements... no!
(Mildly) sorry to join the pile-on here, but Chuck – don't you see you are coming across as ever more hysterical and unhinged?
@Chuck: "Trump's interview with Chris Wallace was unhinged." I haven't followed Trump's complete oeuvre and am allergic to most political talkshows and political speech, but are there any examples of Trump not being "unhinged" in interviews? You know, articulating principles, supplying reasons for policies, based on actual study of evidence?
Chuck,chuck,chuck. Where are the blowouts??
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Florida Hillary vs. Trump.. Trump +0.6.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html
Ohio Hillary vs. Trump.. Trump +0.2 in the latest.
Chuck
Citizens United produced a movie about Hillary and wanted to show it before an election. The movie was critical of Hillary. Hillary, of course, wants the Citizens United case overturned. She's against the First Amendment if it hurts her. NYT would never do that and it hasn't re her criminal conduct with her email.
My turn, pm317.
Do you understand why campaign finance "reform" is an effort by entrenched politicians to give themselves an open run to the end zone?
This just in: even "public servants operate in their own self-interest.
Trump will not be defeated because of personal insults from his haters.
About the Tea Party: They rebelled against ObamaCare. Which passed with Zero (0) Republican votes. I recall the Tea Party being angry; angry at Democrats and at the Obama Administration. Not "Republican donors."
I also recall a few very good "Tea Party" primary wins over "establishment"-type Republicans. Rand Paul won the U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky over a McConnel-backed candidate. (That was a choice between two excellent Republicans; I opposed Paul but I'm not sorry he's a Kentucky senator.) Ted Cruz won in Texas. Marco Rubio beat the odious Charlie Crist. Funny; remember when Cruz and Rubio were Tea Party heros? I do. The Tea Party then gave us some howler-losses. Todd Akin; Christine O'Donnell; Sharron Angle.
I wish the Tea Party could get back to the business of beating Democrats and winning a bigger Senate majority so that Democrats couldn't block a Republican budget.
If you don't like the Party, fine. Get your own party."
I hear Rubio likes 'foam parties'. Does that count?
An inevitable Venn Diagram of Republican Party and Foam Part would undoubtably intersect on a pair of thick-heeled Cuban boots.
I am Laslo.
"public servants"
Second double quote was missing but necessary.
Chuck: I'd like everybody who cheers the end of the Republican Party do me a favor; stay the fuck out of Republican primaries. If you don't like the Party, fine. Get your own party. Just don't come to the Republican Party, insult Republican donors and Republican incumbents who were all elected with solid majorities and in some cases against great opposition in purple states...
Nice party you got there, Chuck. Shame if anything happened to it.
...and expect to be treated nicely.
Try to be a little more ridiculous, Chuck. You've almost made it to Peak Ridiculous.
Chuck:
The first proto-Tea Party event I attended was after President Bush tried to foist illegal immigration on us.
Shorter Chuck: Timmeh!!!
boycat said...
Trump will not be defeated because of personal insults from his haters.
Trump's entire platform is personal insults. Insult immigrants. Insult the media. Insult your primary opponents. Insult Bill Clinton, and then Hillary Clinton.
Is it a "personal insult" to talk about Trump's understanding of the Supreme Court? Is it a personal insult to ask about Trump's tax returns? Is it a personal insult to wonder about the Trump University civil fraud lawsuit?
"@Althouse, suddenly you like Kasich? Weren't you writing a few weeks ago that all the candidates except Cruz and Trump should rally behind Rubio."
1. I don't write here to push candidates or to take down candidates. I react to things in real time.
2. Rubio seemed like the one with the shot and one needed to be chosen by those whose aim is to stop Trump.
3. Rubio has been very unappealing lately. I loathe his flop-sweat insult-comic routine.
4. Kasich is the adult in the room. Probably not enough to make it, but it would be enough for me, me, a nonpartisan observer who likes moderation and feels pretty neutral most of the time. I'm not a political type person. I find you people who are rather strange.
Anglelyne:
Just as "Peak Oil" was bull shit, so is "Peak Ridiculous". You just have to drill deeper or event new extraction techniques.
Althouse ignores Cruz, again.
Birkel.. duh, it is not complicated.
I don't think trying to imitate Donald Trump when you are not Donald Trump is a very good idea.
I think Marco Rubio is toast.
Rubio isn't toast. No way! He's only trailing Trump by 15+ points in the Florida primary. Forward! lol
Hagar:
The big question is whether, after Rubio loses big on Super Tuesday, the GOPe rallies around Cruz, Trump or Kasich.
My money would be on the GOPe encouraging Rubio to stay in to split the vote in hopes of a brokered convention. We will know more Wednesday.
You know, I didn't barge into this website telling people how to vote. It was only after about the 100th time somebody gleefully talked about a "Republican" primary candidate whose purpose (they thought) seemed to be to tear the party apart, did I weigh in on that.
Even now, I'd cordially invite anyone who didn't like the Republican platform to work to change it. But insulting the party's donors isn't part of that.
Some of you sound like the privileged college youth of the 21st century. You want to remove the names of historical donors whom you don't like, and oh by the way you'd like free tuition too.
Chuck:
"I don't want to have to defend him as any sort of representative of what it means to be a Republican."
Chuck, you are in the midst of a preference cascade.
Trump is the vehicle but there is nothing to tell us how he might govern except a few GOP politicians who are signing on. I watched Christie this morning on ABC and he did a pretty good job.
"I wish the Tea Party could get back to the business of beating Democrats and winning a bigger Senate majority so that Democrats couldn't block a Republican budget."
Chuck, I have news for you. There was no "Republican Budget." What we got was not what the Tea Party was about. We wanted normal "order" with 12 appropriations bills debated and passed in the House. What we got from Boehner and Ryan was another "Continuing Resolution" that Obama can threaten to veto and shut down the National Park Service again.
We got Trump because the GOP leadership did not lead.
Richard Fernandez had a pretty good column today about how Nicolae Ceausescu found out about his preference cascade.
Per the Trump haters: "Trump is Hitler, authoritarian, a liar, a clown, bankrupt, a con artist, a vulgarian, a coward, a bully, a secret Liberal, a secret KKK member, and an idiot."
And you know what's the worst thing about Trump? He insults people.
Insulting the party's leading candidate I'm not sure is part of it either. But the "donors" are actively trying to back-room this. Should they not be criticized? Yes they should.
rcocean:
You can say that Trump's only sins are "insults," because Trump has never, ever held a position of responsibility where others' interests were at stake.
Well, maybe not; there was Trump University. How'd that turn out?
I don't think the GOPe is going to rally around anybody.
But then neither are the Democrats.
However, it is still 9 months before the election; Trump and Hillary are both 69 +/- years old and have health and other issues.
How come we are not hearing about and discussing the Democrats and their issues?
I blame the media. Not so much for giving most of the coverage to Trump, which they do, but for lacking the will and the ability to report on the substantive differences between the candidates. The media always focus on the politics, which is so much easier than trying to describe what policies each candidate would adopt and emphasize as president.
The real issue of course is war.
Bill Kristol and et al have worked for decades to establish War War War as the one and only thing
the GOP does & stands for (well War and the occasional tax cut).
Literally nothing else since 1994 has been accomplished, no government reform,
no reduction of government, no nothing.
Just war and sometimes, a tax cut.
Trump, with all his flaws, is clearly not going to have this. War can not be the GOP's One and Only thing.
This not just challenges the leadership of Kristol but also his income/funding.
As well as the war-income/funding of about 87% of the GOP professional & pundit class.
It's amusing to see all these "conservatives" on twitter w/ their Never this and Never that,
b/c Trump 'isn't a conservative' and yet these same people basically allowed
Dubya (despite his 1999-2000 campaign pledge NOT to be the World's policeman and to
have a more 'humble' foreign policy of non-intervention) and Kristol to
burn over 2 trillion dollars, kill millions of people, including thousands of Americans
and wreck the European Union & Middle East, to illegally & immorally invade Iraq.
All this NeverTrump business is merely the dying rage of an embittered, entitled, and over compensated
failed elite.
Here's a simple exercise to prove my point. Go on twitter, hit up one of the hundreds of professional GOP-ers on it
and state "Hey, I want peace & prosperity, so I don't want anymore War" (which is a sentiment shared by probably
99.999% of human beings) and their reaction is apoplectic. Who's the real crazy?
& 50% of them will accuse you of being Semitic, literally just for posting "Hey, I want peace & prosperity, so I don't want anymore War."
They need the boot.
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
No apology yet, Chuck?
Birkel: Just as "Peak Oil" was bull shit, so is "Peak Ridiculous". You just have to drill deeper or event new extraction techniques.
Yeah, but ridiculous, unlike oil, is pretty much self-extracting.
Funny, Michael K; I saw Christie on ABC being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos and I thought he was terrible. I ended up thinking, "The conventional wisdom is right; endorsements don't mean much. Because this guy is not helping Trump this morning." It was an uncharacteristically excellent interview by Stephanopoulos.
birkel said:
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party pushed for amnesty under George W. Bush and betrayed its voters.
Deal with that, Chuck.
But the GOP also voted for amnesty under Reagan, and he is still revered among conservatives. Is this just a case of "Fool me once..." In your opinion?
I guess I don't understand why conservatives became convinced that it is heretical to support the interests of big business- because that's always been a big part of what the GOP stood for. If people feel they went too far on this issue and haven't been listening to the objections of voters, OK, but that really isn't the party changing its the party staying the same and voters deciding it's no longer in their interest to support them.
A very seious issue for the Democrats is that their turnout in the primaries are down about 25% according to the reports.
I think the ballot stuffing is going to get ferocious in the general election.
Fabi you seem desperate to not be associated with Trump. I don't blame you. When and where did I assert that you were a Trump supporter? Because I frankly wouldn't want that hung around my neck either.
What did you write, that caused me to write something like that in response? Because you haven't been on my mind much (at all), and I truly don't remember.
Hagar, I wonder how many of those 25%ers are now Trump supporters.
So David Ragsdale, would you care more explicitly to blame the Jews?
Well, they may not support Trump exactly, but I think a lot are voting for him.
Hagar wrote: Well, they may not support Trump exactly, but I think a lot are voting for him.
If R voting is up and D voting is down, that means crossover voting.
Rubio's jibes are a sure sign he's resigned himself to losing. He's moved past denial to anger.
Imagine a Republican candidate who boldly and loudly spoke the truth about illegal immigration, crony capitalism, Hillary's corruption, and the Democrat's cynically vicious exploitation of minorities and who refrained from attacking his Republican primary rivals. That guy or gal would win the nomination in a walk. Is it really so hard?
@David
You are right. We get better analysis of who said what from Althouse here than the so called journalists in the media.
4. Kasich is the adult in the room. Probably not enough to make it, but it would be enough for me, me, a nonpartisan observer who likes moderation and feels pretty neutral most of the time. I'm not a political type person. I find you people who are rather strange.
I don't think you have to be a political type person to feel that this election is immensely important and that we should vote strategically. To me, this is a time when you vote for the person that you feel has a shot and is better than the others who would be very harmful. I'm still not sure who that is but I can't see how it is anyone other than Rubio or Cruz, and to rule out Rubio in a pique over his tactics is foolish.
CStanley mused I guess I don't understand why conservatives became convinced that it is heretical to support the interests of big business- because that's always been a big part of what the GOP stood for.
I think they crossed a bridge when they started supporting expanded H-1B visas for skilled workers (not to mention highly-educated workers). They were getting away with collusion with the Dems killing off unskilled native Americans. It was a bridge too far which led to barriers as the Pope might say.
Peggy Noonan had a piece the other day on Trump's popularity. It's a pity that Althouse didn't link it.
pm317 said...David
You are right. We get better analysis of who said what from Althouse here than the so called journalists in the media.
It makes me wonder who actually pays them.
@ Ann I'm not a political type person. I find you people who are rather strange.
You do realize that what you have here, for the most part, is a political blog.
It's nice, free and easy to hover above it all, but many Americans have skin in the game and don't like to see it swirl down a corrupt toilet.
On this thread, Chuck -- your comment at 6:51.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/02/despite-all-forces-arrayed-against-mr.html?commentPage=2&m=1
"2. Rubio seemed like the one with the shot and one needed to be chosen by those whose aim is to stop Trump."
Only to people in your income bracket. And that's not an insult, that's data backed by the entrance/exit polls. For everyone else, Cruz has been and remains that guy. He's been ahead of Rubio everywhere the whole time. Except of course South Carolina, where 1%ers comprised 17% of the vote, pushing Rubio above Cruz.
If the insiders were serious about stopping Trump, they'd have jumped on the Cruz wagon long ago. But they're more serious about making sure they can push amnesty than they are about stopping Trump. To them, Cruz is even worse than Trump. They both say they oppose amnesty, but unlike Trump, they know for dead certain Cruz means it.
If Kasich were a Democrat, running for the Democrat nomination for president, and the Republican party coughed up a hairball (again), I'd consider voting for Kasick.
I really don't want to support a democrat for the Republican nomination.
Why I have reservations about Trump and Kasich (for different reasons)...They are both democrats. Though certainly I agree that Kasick is delightfully mild mannered.
CStanley,
If it can be agreed that some legal immigration is preferable to none, that does not make it preferable to allow unfettered illegal immigration. It is a difference as to type and as to kind.
Kasich is a compassionate conservative, smarter than GW and the most reasonable and normal sounding Republican candidate, but I'll understand if you people choose Trump.
Not only are the Democrats down 25%, but the Republicans are up 50%.
So, yeah, chickelit, there has to be a lot of crossover voting.
Wonder why we don't read much speculation as to what that may be about?
I haven't followed Trump's complete oeuvre and am allergic to most political talkshows and political speech, but are there any examples of Trump not being "unhinged" in interviews? You know, articulating principles, supplying reasons for policies, based on actual study of evidence?
Good luck with the google, Ethical Voter. You've got a lot of shit to dig through to find that pony.
I didn't watch... How fawning was the hack DNC press to their chosen candidate, Hillary?
Actually, it is good to have 'nice, free and easy to hover above it all' people so we can get objective analysis on ALL of them. In fact, it is freeing to be an independent voter not wedded to either party. I changed my registration to Independent on May 31, 2008 after DNC's Rules and By Laws Committee propped up Obama and gave him delegates that he didn't earn and more egregiously they took it away from Hillary and gave it to him. I have not supported the Dems after that. I don't think I would align solely with either party. Let them sweat for my vote.
Birkel the gist of my comment though is who moved, you or the party?
It seems to me that the current establishment GOP isn't substantially different than the establishment GOP of the 1980s, but the voters have changed. The reason I think the distinction matters is that I think people who felt that they could no longer support either of the two parties should have started their own party- I think it was a mistake for the Tea Party to remain a fledgling movement trying to insert itself into the GOP. And I think the party is now imploding, and I don't think the results of that will have a good result for anyone.
"I saw Christie on ABC being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos and I thought he was terrible."
I thought he brushed off the questions that Steph was making as a Hillary surrogate. He was saying they don't have to agree on everything.
If you think that was terrible, how about his speech at the 2012 GOP convention that was supposed to be about Romney?
Look, if the GOP convention comes up with Romney as a compromise I'd vote for him in a nanosecond but I think he would lose.
Trump is a pig in a poke but I think he is going to be it.
Birkel said...It is a difference as to type and as to kind.
It is a difference as to degree and as to kind.
So I re-read my first comment (which was a link to a column by Steve Hayes in the Weekly Standard; you weren't mentioned in any way shape or form); and then I re-read your post, where you wondered why I would be cheering the rhetorical destruction of a leading Republican candidate. The "Republican" candidate was Trump.
And then there was my 6:51 post, which I still like. Now, I gather that you say you are not a Trump supporter (have we got that right?) but you didn't exactly like me attacking Trump. (Have we got that right?) Um, okay. So I should retract all of the content in which I suggested that you were a Trump "supporter." I hereby make that retraction. If you are not a Trump supporter, I regret suggesting that you were a Trump supporter. If you are a Trump supporter -- and as to anyone who is a Trump supporter -- I stand by every word.
But I want the record to be clear; I never called you "Little Fabi."
@GOPe,
"I do not like the, Dr. Fell.
The reason why, I cannot tell,
but one thing I know full well,
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell."
chickelit:
Your non-correction is unwelcome.
Very good points, Sayyid. Cruz has the conservative CV and was never part of the Gang of Eight, indeed helped defeat it, but they're backing pro-amnesty Rubio. That says it all.
CStanley wrote: I think it was a mistake for the Tea Party to remain a fledgling movement trying to insert itself into the GOP. And I think the party is now imploding, and I don't think the results of that will have a good result for anyone.
Doesn't the apparent crossover voting say something about the Democratic party imploding as well?
Hillary! I'll vote for her if Kasich doesn't get the nomination, which doesn't look promising. Kasich sounds like an honest, stable, moral man. Too bad the majority of conservatives have fallen under the spell of the bad boy. I understand they are still angry that Obama won the Presidency twice, but isn't it time to stop the tantrum and grow up now?
"I think it was a mistake for the Tea Party to remain a fledgling movement trying to insert itself into the GOP."
I was hoping the Tea Party would take over the GOP but I think the IRS was successful in kneecapping them.
I am a libertarian/GOP type. I supported Iraq as a reasonable attempt to see if Arabs could govern themselves without tyrants.
The reasons Bush invaded in 2003 I have discussed at length elsewhere.
I think he botched the occupation. By 2008, though, we were doing pretty well. It was not paradise but it would have held with a modest effort on our part. I have read a number of books about that and am convinced that if Obama had not abandoned it, we would be living in a different world right now.
Instead, the Islamic danger will grow and the PC politicians here and in Europe will be overwhelmed by angry citizens.
I expect a nuclear war by 2020.
A vote for Hillary is a vote admitting: "yeah - I'm cool with corruption."
The "stop-Trump" crowd is late. And, after Super Tuesday, if it doesn't pivot into a "Go-Trump" crowd, it effectively becomes a "Go-Hillary" crowd.
Like all candidates, Trump has his flaws. But those who predict apocalyptic visions of catastrophe if Trumps wins the nomination or, God forbid, the Presidency, are just nutty.
Soon, we will face a binary choice: either you will be: (1) for Hillary or (2) for Trump. Is this a good choice or easy choice? For many folks it is not. But so what? Realists deal with the world as it is; utopians live in fantasy-land.
Hillary Clinton is a left-wing, statist, authoritarian feminist and likely felon. She also allows/enables her husband to systematically cheat on her, which reeks of something insidious. Ergo, I will not be for Hillary.
I did and do support Rubio in the primaries (for some of the reasons articulated by Chuck and Begley), but it looks like Rubio has been vanquished by Trump.
Ergo, due to the binary choice we soon will face, I will be for Trump.
@Birkel: Sorry, but "type" and "kind" are synonyms. I thought you were going for both quantitative and qualitative.
"Its better to live on day as a lion, then 100 years as a sheep".
MSM: You tweeted that - and it was said by...OMG...OMG...Mussolini!!
Trump: So?
Example of why people like Trump. Not a PC weenie.
I expected that level of mendacity from you, Chuck. Cruz is also an anti-establishment candidate.
Keep trying though, Chuckles, you haven't reached peak retard yet.
CStanley:
I understood your question and answered. That you do not like my answer leaves me unmoved.
"It's nice, free and easy to hover above it all, but many Americans have skin in the game and don't like to see it swirl down a corrupt toilet."
I agree. What about the mess in this world that we're leaving to our children or nieces and nephews.
"I think it was a mistake for the Tea Party to remain a fledgling movement trying to insert itself into the GOP. And I think the party is now imploding, and I don't think the results of that will have a good result for anyone."
Ah finally someone recognizes what really happened to the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party is solid. There will be an extremely small amount of crossover voting if Trump is the nominee. Also, Clinton may have the ability to move past her negatives with Democratoc voters. She has moved to the left, has adopted many of Bernie's policies and ideas, even sounds like him at times. The vast majority of Democrats and liberals are not going to vote for Trump,
"...In 1989, he was assigned to serve as a minority member of the House Budget Committee. Kasich began to prepare and offer for consideration his own budget proposals. His alternative budgets began to garner support among his peers. In 1993, the budget he jointly sponsored with Democrat Tim Penny from Minnesota missed passage in the House by only six votes.
When the Republicans took control of the House in the midterm elections of 1994, Kasich was appointed chairman of the House Budget Committee, bypassing more senior members. This is a position he would hold until his retirement from Congress in 2000. As chairman, Kasich was the architect of the balanced budget agreement of 1997. He also chaired the House-Senate committee that wrote the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill."-- http://www.westervillelibrary.org/kasich-bio
A couple of points here. Kasich began offering a balanced budget in 1989 when most congressmen considered the idea as a pipe dream. Kasich is a determined guy. He found an ally in the democratic party, demonstrating that he can work across the aisle to achieve goals beneficial to the country.
He left the House in 2001, because he felt it was time to do something else. He resisted re-entering politics until 2006, so he didn't leave for political ambition. He's been re-elected as Governor in a state that is crucial to a Republican presidential win.
He expanded took the Medicaid expansion while opposing Obomacare, which is one of the knocks by conservatives.
"We are going to extend Medicaid for the working poor and for those who are jobless trying to find work," Kasich said at a news conference in Columbus Monday that was broadcast online. "It makes great sense for the state of Ohio because it will allow us to provide greater care with our own dollars."
It was obviously what Ohio wanted to do, because he was re-elected Governor the next year.
I think the other objection by conservatives is his immigration position. Here are bullet points from website "On the Issues":
•It's a silly argument to ship 11M illegals back to Mexico. (Nov 2015)
•Focus of immigration should be to keep families together. (Sep 2015)
•Latino immigrants will continue to play critical role in US. (Sep 2015)
•Focus on border & guest workers, not birthright citizenship. (Sep 2015)
•1993: end birthright citizenship; 2015: not part of approach. (Aug 2015)
•Seal the border with Mexico, support legal immigrants. (Jul 2015)
•Open to pathway to citizenship, but doesn't like it. (Feb 2015)
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htm
Interesting website that offers bullet points on all the candidates positions.
I said he as a moderate with conservative tendencies. I think it is fair to say he is conservative with moderate (pragmatic) tendencies.
•Post-Sept-11 open-door melting-pot is essentially intact. (May 2006)
•Limit the number of legal immigrants, and their benefits. (Nov 1996)
•Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
•Declared English the official language of the US. (Jan 1999)
I like that Rubio is fighting and fighting hard.
And I like that he got a prom date, that's funny.
If the Republican Party were to have had honored their own principles, they would've stopped Trump long ago.
Its amusing that the RINO establishment is willing to push a 3rd party candidate rather than support the will of the voters.
Any 3rd party run against Trump will simply guarantee a Hillary win. The so-called Republican moderates would rather burn it to the ground than give up power.
Looks like "RINO" is simply a descriptive term for the Establishment rather than an insult.
"I think he botched the occupation. By 2008, though, we were doing pretty well. It was not paradise but it would have held with a modest effort on our part. I have read a number of books about that and am convinced that if Obama had not abandoned it, we would be living in a different world right now."
Such a shame and in effect all those lost lives were in vain.
Doesn't the apparent crossover voting say something about the Democratic party imploding as well?
It does and both parties are in peril, except that it was easier for Trump like character to take over the Rs. Look at how weak the Democrats are that they have to prop up that ancient angry old man to take on Hillary. They don't even have the guts to mount a younger and more plausible opponent to her. After 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Obama, why would anyone still fight for their respective parties? It is as though, the establishment in both parties are grasping at the last straws to hold on.
if Obama had not abandoned it, we would be living in a different world right now
I agree with this. After Bush did what he did, the successor needed to make it right/er and build on whatever was there and weak and incompetent Obama didn't do that.
CStanley:
I guess I don't understand why conservatives became convinced that it is heretical to support the interests of big business- because that's always been a big part of what the GOP stood for. If people feel they went too far on this issue and haven't been listening to the objections of voters, OK, but that really isn't the party changing its the party staying the same and voters deciding it's no longer in their interest to support them.
Well, there's conservatism, and there's the GOP. There was a historical moment when this attenuated "all about business" form of conservatism coincided with the interests of "conservative base" Americans, but those interests have been diverging for a while now, and a showdown was inevitable. In "for dummies" terms, it's globalism v. nationalism. In the decades after the war, globalism, the "neoliberal consensus", cruised along nicely with the economic interests of American workers. That all began falling apart in the '90s, and here we are.
Also, it's a mistake to conflate American conservatism with contemporary "movement conservatism", which is the "intellectual" support for the contemporary ("big business" for shorthand) form of American conservatism. There are far older and deeper traditions and strains of nationalistic, and more Burkean, American conservatism, that pretty much got buried in the last half-century. Unsurprisingly, they begin to re-emerge when interests started diverging.
But the GOP also voted for amnesty under Reagan, and he is still revered among conservatives. Is this just a case of "Fool me once..." In your opinion?
Back in '86 only a few Cassandras saw where amnesty would lead. And they, as well as later restrictionists-crying-in-the-wilderness, were ignored or vilified as cranks and racists by left and right.) As time rolled on, it became more a matter of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me 2,487 times..."
pm317:
It's not about guts. There are very few young people in positions of power in the Democrat Party. Obama has effectively destroyed Democrats at the state level.
Obama has destroyed everything he has touched.
I support Ted Cruz, based on his principled defense of small government conservatism, but I also see this election as pivotal to whether the country joins third-world economic status (OK, little hyperbole but you get the point).
I think the best chance to win would be with Kasich at the top of the ticket with Cruz or Rubio as VP.
Kasich has no skeletons. He has never been afraid to express his positions.
Cruz or Rubio, at this point, are the future of the party, but really need more seasoning-- Rubio more than Cruz.
And this compressed primary season is ridiculous. I think Kasich using Ohio as his litmus test is smart. The longer he is in the race and the more people actually learn about his positions, the more reasonable they become. And yes, he is conservative.
Hillary V Trump guarantees a Hillary win. And I think Trump is cool with that. He hates the GOP more.
I don't understand the "win your own state" strategy. If you win, who cares? If you lose, you're prob done.
Is it all over? Scott Adams has disavowed Trump.
All the pro-Trump folks forget that there is a political process and political reality in play. We don't hold the white house. The R party did in fact hold Obama back on items of importance.
If the Dems had the house and senate, extreme anti 2nd amendment gun control would have been shoved down our throats by now. Like ObamaCare - a pile of crap legislation built on Gruber and lies, & cost us billions in waste and fraud, NOT ONE R VOTED FOR IT.
Save the whining about the power of the purse. I do agree that the R party should have dealt with that better, but with a presidential veto, there is only so much they can do. Reality.
Clinton is a left-wing, statist, authoritarian feminist and likely felon. She also allows/enables her husband to systematically cheat on her, which reeks of something insidious. Ergo, I will not be for Hillary.
Trump is a leftist authoritarian lying sleazeball who can't disavow David Duke's endorsement without research and defends planned parenthood. He will never, ever get my vote. And if Trump's low information voters need four years of Clinton to atone for their credulity, then so fucking be it.
steve uhr:
If we turn these comments into a discussion of what you don't understand, there will be no end. Stay on topic.
Maybe Bill Clinton put up Trump to do this so that Hillary can easily win the General. Too bad the angry old man faction of the Dems didn't get that memo.
Fabi - Now I have lost all understanding of you. If you don't like Trump, you'll certainly have no problem with me. I don't like Trump.
If you like Ted Cruz, you'll have no problem with me. I can't recall a single unkind word I've said about Ted Cruz. Which puts me and Trump in entirely different categories. Trump has called Cruz every name in the book. Trump has said that Cruz is constitutionally unqualified to be president (I take exception to that) and Trump has "blamed" Ted Cruz for the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts. On that last point, I have spoken against Trump for two reasons: (1) is that Cruz had nothing to do with the Roberts nomination, and nothing to do with the Roberts confirmation. And (2) Roberts is a pretty great Supreme Court justice for conservatives. I didn't like his opinion in King v Burwell, but that is no reason to condemn him. His dissent in Obergefell tells us where he stands.
In a sentence, can you clearly say what your gripe is with me?
"Save the whining about the power of the purse. I do agree that the R party should have dealt with that better, but with a presidential veto, these is only so much they can do. Reality."
April Apple, hurrah! You got it. So how are Republicans going to win the Presidency with Donald Trump as their candidate? I predict during the debates Trump will completely lose his shit and make Hillary look really really good. Plus all the skeletons in his closet will be out. The Clinton's don't play bean bag. She win in a landslide of historic proportions.
"If I've lost Scott Adams, I've lost middle America..."
I'm not sure how I missed this brain fart from Chuckles:
"...insulting the party's donors isn't part of that."
Got that you stupid unwashed losers -- how dare you insult the GOPe donors!
It's early in the season, but an appeal to not insult the GOPe donor class could certainly be the stupidest and most asinine comment of 2016.
Amanda:
How do you plan to survive the economic catastrophe that a Hillary Clinton presidency will bring?
"There was a historical moment when this attenuated "all about business" form of conservatism coincided with the interests of "conservative base" Americans,"
Yes, there was a time when business was less interested in being intertwined with government. That was the era when we built the Golden Gate Bridge and The Empire State Building in less time than it would not take for permits to be obtained. Eventually, people like Trump learned how to work with the politicians and that palms had to be greased. I don't really blame him for it. The Trump U thing may be more serious but it seems similar to Fred Thompson selling reverse mortgages.
World War II saw the business community, which had been demonized by Roosevelt, come to his rescue. There was certainly lots of mixed motives but the guys like Knudson knew how to get things built.
Now, the manufacturing economy seems to be gone but much of that is because of regulation and not just cheap labor in other countries.Try to build a factory in California. The Japanese learned where to build them.
Much of our economy is with the manipulation of money and here we get the crony capitalism problem. The cronies seem to like Democrats more then Republicans. Maybe that is because the Democrats have more to sell.
The GOP is now pretty much small business and they have been getting screwed for 25 years.
Scott Adams decided, oops, that's not funny.
"Trump is a leftist authoritarian lying sleazeball who can't disavow David Duke's endorsement without research and defends planned parenthood. He will never, ever get my vote. And if Trump's low information voters need four years of Clinton to atone for their credulity, then so fucking be it."
Oh man, I love this comment. But he's the Republican party's sleazeball, not the Democratic Partiy's. He never would have gotten as far as he has if he were to have run as a Democrat and he knew this full well. That is precisely why he ran as a Republican.
@Chuck: you have been very condescending and insulting to lots of the commenters here. Saying that Trump does it too, is no defense. Be positive. Promote the qualities of your own candidate. Forget about Trump. Attacking him is a sign of weakness.
Marco, time to call Sarah Palin! Let's get a disavow from her, too. Reverse cascade, bitches. Battle of the bulge! Bring it!
Amanda - I think Trump and Hillary are almost the same person. That said, Hillary is more corrupt. Trump has no problem with corruption as long as it benefits his bottom line.
Yep, I was surprised that Trump was so weaselly about the klan stuff -- oh we will do research, haha. He was very PC about it. You know how the media will spin it? He wants their votes on Super Tuesday and after that he will denounce them. For a non-PC politician he is very PC (toward the klan).
I'm kinda sad that Gruber doesn't get more attention. That was/is quit a bombshell....
Warts and all, bottom line, Trump is preferable to Hillary or Bernie.
Why would an astute politician want the KKK vote? Say goodbye to the black vote. Not a very good exchange if you ask me.
CStanley wrote: I think it was a mistake for the Tea Party to remain a fledgling movement trying to insert itself into the GOP. And I think the party is now imploding, and I don't think the results of that will have a good result for anyone.
Doesn't the apparent crossover voting say something about the Democratic party imploding as well?
2/28/16, 12:22 PM
Those aren't mutually exclusive events.
Warts and all, bottom line, Trump is preferable to Hillary or Bernie.
I think so as well, but, do we really think most Americans will agree? Especially after the Clinton war-room sleaze-slime oppo-reseach scorched-earth desperate-to-win-at-all-costs media blitz gets a hold of Trumps skeleton closet?
quite
I appreciate how the big money donors give much more to Democrats but somehow the GOPe is the party of Big Business.
"I think Trump and Hillary are almost the same person."
April Apple, I can almost agree with you.
Micheal K said ..."Much of our economy is with the manipulation of money and here we get the crony capitalism problem. The cronies seem to like Democrats more then Republicans. Maybe that is because the Democrats have more to sell.
The GOP is now pretty much small business and they have been getting screwed for 25 years.
A-men to that.
Hillary is the biggest crony capitalist of all.
Why can't the press film Hillary boarding her airplane ?
I still wonder about her health.
I could see Trump coming out with her medical records.
AS far as the KKK vote. He said, as I understand it, that Duke endorsed him and that he had had no contact with him. I think this may go to Trump's identity as the non-PC guy. He was not going to be stampeded into a response.
Warts and all the vast majority of Democrats will choose Hillary over Trump. So will the vast majority of rational independents. The David Duke endorsement surely will put off many normal people. Also Trump's behavior will get worse when he's under greater pressure, coming closer to the general election. Trump isn't nearly as controlled as Clinton. She will come off looking rational, intelligent and cool as a cucumber, Trump's face will get a darker shade of red and he will flail his arms and it will be pretty evident he doesn't have the basic smarts or personality to be President of the most powerful nation on earth.
I'd give Scott Adams' "disavowal" a 1/4 chance of being sincere (I really don't know). If he's serious, I'm guessing he'd say he feels Trump is damaging the white brand with his perfunctory approach to "disavowing" David Duke types who support him. In other words, the usual double standard. Obama can tell the FBI to drop cases against black panther groups practicing illegal voter intimidation and nobody dares rebuke.
I do see a time+place for the white-guilt double standard. Namely, as long as it's credible that whites will seek to wield majority power KKKing around town (*is* it? in the CURRENT YEAR?), they'll be pummeled until they repeatedly and desperately disavow any expressly pro-white-interest thinkers (ok, fine) and further, anyone who doesn't disavow hard enough (WHAT?).
But Fabi -
My hatred of Trump is my overriding concern. Unlike most of "the GOP establishment" -- whatever that means -- I don't dislike Ted Cruz. I like Marco Rubio. I like John Kasich. I liked Scott Walker. I liked Jeb Bush. I liked Mitt Romney, maybe the best of the bunch!
The only candidate that stirs up strong feelings for me is Trump; and while it is easy to pick on Trump for his stupidity and recklessness, Trump isn't answering the calls of pollsters and he isn't voting in New Hampshire or South Carolina. I am condescending to Trump supporters only because they deserve it. The people who are supporting Trump, and who are voting for him, ought to answer for that.
Here's Kevin Williamson; archly-conservative columnist for the National Review and a wonderfully vivid writer on Trump and libel:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432037/donald-trump-libel-first-amendment
The attacks on Trump that I like best, are the substantive ones. The ones where Trump's own understanding of events and issues are put to the test. I know that some people like to get all bent out of shape over this insult or that insult; hair or makeup or whatever. The latest is Trump's fumbling around on David Duke and the KKK. Ho hum. Whatever. I prefer the issues where Trump himself has said something jaw-droppingly stupid. Trump, talking about the law is like Trump, talking about astrophysics.
Ho Hum. Trump has already disavowed KKK support before. The recent question was just a repeat. By bringing it up they are trying to smear Trump.
This time Trump said he doesn't know anything about Duke.
If you want to make that into Trump being a Klansman, go at it.
Now he's a secret Klansman and a liberal Democrat.
Saint Croix's link: "Hair Force One" - That's funny.
"Boom, crush. Night, losers. Winning, duh."
Charlie Sheen
Yeah, that's my party.
rc - Trump needs to disavow that crap right away if he doesn't want it to stick.
PC or no PC.
Trump/Sheen 2016!
Apocalypse Now was sort of a preview to the Koch Bros sending a Rubio Assassin team up river to kill Col Kurtz Trump.
Marlon Brando did a good Trump impression. They are both seeking to destroy the CIA's goals, and for no good reason...except to do it.
"Now he's a secret klansman and a liberal democrat"
And these are mutually exclusive in your mind? He's not a secret klansman but if you don't think this means something about him, you're through the looking glass.
If Trump truly didn't know who David Duke was, that in itself shows he's not ready to be President, but of course he knew who David Duke was. Trump thinks he can shoot someone and his followers would still like him, that probably holds true for a David Duke endorsement too.
We don't disagree about Trump except for approach, Chuck. I'm of the opinion that attacking Trump and his supporters is counterproductive. I believe those attacks only enhance Trump and solidify the vote of his supporters. Nobody -- especially in this election season -- responds to "You Trump supporters are fucking morons! Won't you please vote for Rubio?"
Let's agree to disagree about approach, Chuck, and defeat Hillary in 2016.
Bay Area Guy: Soon, we will face a binary choice: either you will be: (1) for Hillary or (2) for Trump. Is this a good choice or easy choice? For many folks it is not. But so what? Realists deal with the world as it is; utopians live in fantasy-land.
The problem with this is the assumption that all the "realists" really do share the same views and goals. (I mean here all the realists who in the past would have found their interests better represented by the Rs than the Ds.) They don't.
"Real conservatism" is a chimera. It's a label that means something until it doesn't. That's why, though I despise them for other reasons, I don't fault the "I'll vote for Hillary before Trump" conservatives for being disloyal or unprincipled. The current Democratic party really is a better fit for a lot of "conservatives" than the nationalism and populism represented by Trump.
Marlon Brando did a good Trump impression.
Trump will do a great Marlon Brando, when the wig comes off and he gains 100 pounds, eating those depression oreos.
"The horror...the horror..."
He [Adams] clarifies that he's distancing himself from incoming fire:
"Update: Just to be clear, what I’m doing here is getting out of the splatter zone. I am aware that Trump has disavowed David Duke and the KKK in the past and I am certain he will do more of it. But any ambiguity on this topic is his problem, not mine. I’ll let him sort it out."
Basically he'll continue to support Trump if and only if Trump doesn't turn out to have fatally wounded himself with his astoundingly anti-PC response to the usual demand for anti-racism performance.
"ambiguity" is a good way to make Trump continue to bleed on this no matter what Trump actually says+means.
Amanda wrote "Trump isn't nearly as controlled as Clinton."
I must agree. Clinton is controlled by a long list of foreigner domestic billionaire donors. Trump is less controlled.
"What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?”
"And if you are a Republican, please be ready with a candidate you can defend using “real” electoral math. “I have not given that question any thought” is not an acceptable answer and could result in a potential landslide for the Democrats in 2016"-- Myra Adams
I heard Trump on TV on Friday I think it was say that he disavowed it after someone in the crowd hollered out that Duke had endorsed him.
First, Rubio et al are going to keep their pledge, because they're party men and know if the system of sticking with their nominee breaks down then they really have nothing more to fight for. They probably won't go all out--they know that whether Trump gets elected or not, the conservative agenda is stalled in a way that makes conservatives pine for the effectiveness of Boehner and Bush. But they will go through the motions.
Rubin's new found comedy routine (which the Professor is disgusted by, but frankly is more likely to be effective than serious arguments, because Trump has the mentality of a child) is too little, too late. At this point he and Cruz can best hope for a contested convention, but even that chance is slim.
Odds are Hillary will get what Bill wanted when he talked his old friend Donald into running. Let no one say the Republicans fail to find defeat in the jaws of victory.
It could be that Trump taking down the national GOP and ensuring a severely despised and distrusted Hillary getting elected may be the best thing in the long run for the country.
The national GOP and national Dem parties are filled with ossified fools with their hand outs. Enough people of all political beliefs think that Congress should have term limits. It's a good place to start with some structural reforms. The people support it and the politicians are against it. So it's probably a good idea.
Well, Fabi, I'd be a fool not to accept that beating the Democrats is the absolute goal for 2016. So we're in genuine agreement -- not any negotiated agreement -- about that.
...foreign and domestic billionaires...
AprilApple: Trump needs to disavow that crap right away if he doesn't want it to stick.
PC or no PC.
No, that's exactly what he doesn't need to do. That is exactly why conservatives are always on the defensive, and why they fail. Do you ever see Democrats falling all over themselves to "disavow" the nasty crap on non-stop, loud-and-proud parade in lefty-land? No, you don't.
There is no end to the "crap" that can be thrown up to provide opportunities to demand that dumb Republicans grovel and apologize and disavow. Stop enabling and encouraging the crap-throwers.
Say goodbye to the black vote.
Yeah, because asking "how high" whenever the cadres say "jump" has always helped to really rake in the black vote before.
Press gets even more backlash from Trump supporters on this. Trump haters continue to hate.
However, this does make public expressions of support for Trump momentarily uncomfortable. We're waiting to see how this plays out.
By the way, it's deeply dishonest to say that trump was responding to "KKK" with "I have never heard of them". Reporter mumbles "and the KKK" on top of Trump's answer and all the usual liars spin it as Trump's definitive position on the KKK "I'll have to google them, never heard of them". As if. Enjoy your backlash, establishment scribes.
"It could be that Trump taking down the national GOP and ensuring a severely despised and distrusted Hillary getting elected may be the best thing in the long run for the country."
Yes indeed, that is a possibility.
"Say goodbye to the black vote."
LOL, yeah say goodbye to that 10% of 10%.
Republicans can win the election without PA or OH, but not without FL. And the reality is they need FL with either PA or OH.
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map/combinations.php?party=Republican&num_rem=79&st_remain=FL,PA,OH,NC,VA,WI,CO,IA,NV,NH&me=&ne=
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
No Anglelyne. The KKK? The sad tired and dying skin color supremacist organization called the KKK should be kicked to the curb. Not worth it. I'd say the same for black skin supremacist groups. Time for this shit to end.
Trump can win with the white supremacist vote! you betcha.
those two black ladies who love Trump - screw them, man,. David Duke is fresh!
rc - Trump needs to disavow that crap right away if he doesn't want it to stick.
If you'd been paying attention, you'd remember that he's disavowed the KKK on Friday and in August.
This is just the same old MSM con game. You keep asking someone to disavow Bad group X and then keep at it until you get a response you can twist.
And lets be honest, you're never going to vote for Trump anyway.
"Say goodbye to the black vote."
Hillary has got the black vote sewn up. Trump never really had that much of a chance with the back vote anyway. She'll make hay with that David Duke endorsement you can be certain of that. So what is the demographic that will vote for Trump? The majority are angry xenophobic white middle aged to older white males, with a few white women who like those kind of misogynistic creepy type males, go figure.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा