Comments

Why support Trump when there are other non-establishment, bona fide conservatives in the race? — 162 Comments

1. Who’s abandoning Cruz? I’ve walked neighborhoods for him. I’d gladly vote for him.

2. Dear Donald: There is One God for you: DONALD. One Value System: DONALD. One Mono-Maniacal Being: DONALD. That arm waving in the air as The Only “Republican” on-stage Thursday night willing to split the Party and give Hillary the election summed YOU Up, Hair Boy.

   Oh, and the OCD-Late Night Tweeties regarding Ms.Kelly are unvarying ‘Tells’ of your sorryazz illness. Despicable. Cowardly and Pathetic. Soooo happy that Red State flushed your deserving carcass.

3. Randy:

   The 25% who support Trump over Cruz are abandoning Cruz. Because Cruz needs them to vote for him to win the primary.

4. Cruz and Carly are my dream ticket; in any order.

   One minor correction. Carly is only worth $56m and she is NOT self-funding. Last I heard she had only raised $1.8m. Nothing. But that was before the debate. Ted had raised $14m.

   Carly has a smart approach.(No surprise there.) A donor can chip in $3. I predict that she will soon say something to the effect that 100,000 Americans have contributed to my campaign since the debate. Grassroots support.

5. Because Cruz, Fiorina, Walker are not television celebrities.
   I wonder, and I don’t know how to find out, are the Trump supporters voters who would, absent Trump, support any other Republican candidate, or if when asked declare themselves undecided?
   Or even Democrat?
   Why support Cruz? I have perception problems with him like I do Paul. Some visual cue. Fiorina also, and I am not alone in this.
   Walker I like.
   But I would support the others in the general.

6. Seriously? Didn’t we just try a minority president? The one thing, from what I can tell, that Trump brings that I don’t really trust from Cruz or the woman is something about immigration. It’s not good, but honestly, it sounds more honest and about as good as will be gotten. The rest of them are full of… promises. We’ve seen those before.

   I don’t think Cruz is that far off mainstream, just talks a lot. And she? She is a woman. Just like Hillary, she would be owned even more than the sellout men. Women have a nasty penchant for dictatorial actions and reactions too. Bleh.

   You DID ask. Oh, and, I probably won’t vote, not even for Trump. I kid, I tease, but… yeah… no. If that is as good as it gets, it’s not worth my time.

7. I see that one of the guests at his wedding, Hillary Clinton, convinced Trump to get into the race as a way of splitting the GOP block.

   Well played, Hillary. So well played it was probably Bill’si idea.

8. Conservatives v The “Let It Burn” Cohort

   Tonawanda White-Knights the Conservatives (08-07-15 comment to Further reflections on the Trump phenomenon:
   “Why, of all possible circumstances and opportunities over the last decades, would a true “conservative” NOW abandon hope when finally brilliant, principled, articulate persons who “get it” unequivocally are offering wonderful leadership??

   Neo-neocon takes issue with the “let it burn” bad temper (tantrum?)

   What we have here is two failures to communicate — one a misnomer, the other, a conviction in the form of a notion.

   Of what use is the term ‘conservative’? It had outlived its usefulness as anything more than political epithet a century ago, as noted by R. L. Dabney*. Still it persists, at the insistence of those who use it as meaning something good, welcome, forthright; someone who wishes to conserve. But what is there left to conserve? The use of the term, in that meaning, is so prevalent that it had become necessary to surrender to the parlance and establish a new word. Those upon whom the true nature of the word was lost can now make better known their disgust of the tractable opposition (those purporting to agree politically, philosophically, culturally with them, i.e., their own side) with the word ‘cuckservative’, i.e. cuckolds of the Lib/Prog/Left.

   Seems a bit much to me, like re-inventing the wheel, but what’s done is done. Revive ‘conservative’, though ‘reactionary’ would have been better for being illustrative; better still would be ‘traditionalist’. Still, I have trouble even imagining what there is to conserve. Which brings me to ‘let it burn’.

   As I’d mentioned, ‘let it burn’ has everything of a conviction and little of the notion. It can hardly be true that I wish to ‘let it burn’ when it all is already nothing but ashes and the foundations cracked and useless. I am not at all uncertain that you understand our predicament, nor the extent of it. I believe though, that there exists in that realization something too sanguine – that it can be saved. How does one save what is not salvageable? How does one conserve what no longer exists?

   I take it that all will be well if just one of the conservative presidential contenders, in a veritable cornucopia of conservative contenders would be elected… and… and evermore conservatives to fill the Congress right up to its Capitol Dome… and… and SCOTUS will be, ipso facto, conservative… Constitutionalists at last! I am skeptical, and not by nature. Does anyone really believe that the institutions, organizations, associations that had been marched through will sing hosannas and shout “free at last”! Will the Boy Scouts of America rescind their decision to allow pederasts to serve as scoutmasters? Will high church Protestants revoke SS marriage? Will… well you get the idea.

   What we need is not a conservative government but a conservative people. And you can’t vote them in.

   *R. L. Dabney
   The time is the late nineteenth century, the topic — conservatives (and —ism), the context, suffering women’s suffrage:
   “It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”
   – R.L. Dabney (1820 — 1898) Christian theologian, Confederate States Army Chaplain, architect. Also chief-of-staff and biographer to Stonewall Jackson.

9. The time is the late nineteenth century, the topic — conservatives (and —ism), the context, suffering women’s suffrage: …
   Wow!
   Let it burn!

10. I don’t even like to think about Trump, but if I were to drive by a train wreck, I know I couldn’t look away. So here I am doing what I shouldn’t.

    Unfortunately, this reminds of Jesse Ventura’s campaign for Minnesota’s governor. I’m sure I’m not the only one to make the connection, but I haven’t read an in-depth comparison, and I’m feeling too lazy to do the search.

    Anyway, as I remember it, Jesse Ventura was elected by a lot of people who don’t usually vote. They were mad and relished the chance to stick it to all the people who always acted as if they were their betters. They had fun doing it.

    I’m not saying that Trump will be elected, but I’d bet on him running as an independent, unless he can’t clear all the legal hurdles for getting his name on enough states’ ballots to matter. If he does run, I’d bet he draws a lot of votes from people who wouldn’t otherwise vote for anybody. They’d do it for much the same reasons that so many Minnesotans voted for Jesse Ventura. Why not Cruz or Carly? No fun. They want to throw the pie in the face.

    Yes, I’m seriously arguing that Trump is the Three Stooges candidate, and that the Stooges have a lot of fans. I admit that a long time ago, I thought the Stooges were sometimes a little funny. And I know I sound like I’m one of those boring people who think they’re too good for Trump, but that’s exactly my point. This is the politics of slapstick, not conservatism.

11. A pattern has developed: a few conservative candidates get in the race, only to be shoved aside by the establishment’s preference, who we are told is electable despite the fact that they are an obvious loser. McCain, obvious loser. Romney, obvious loser. And, sorry, Jeb, obvious loser. He’s got even less chance than Trump. He’s one Bush too many, and unlike Dubya he’s already alienated the base. He’s alienated women. He’s alienated everybody but the establishment. Jeb is a crater waiting to happen.

    There is no evidence that shows that the pattern has broken. The establishment has already decided on their safe loser, Jeb. I love Cruz, I love Fiorina. But unless some major game changing event happens, they’re going the way of all previous conservative challengers. As always, the candidate will be decided early by the wishy washy states; every time, it’s a fait accompli before we even get to have a say in it, down here in Texas. The establishment candidate has already snowballed, and any reasonable alternative has already dropped out.

    I don’t support Trump, but I support Trump running. He’s the major event. He’s our one chance to set the political world on its ear, to rob the establishment of their “safe” candidates who are literally destroying the rest of us. We can’t take any more of the establishment’s games. Trump is a one-man wrecking crew.

    Once Jeb is demolished (crossed fingers), hopefully there will be time for conservatives to finally rally around Cruz or Fiorina or Carson. But the first order of business is shoving the establishment out of the way. Trump may be a clown, but he’s the clown we need right when we need him.

12. I don’t think Trump is a serious candidate. He’s a protest candidate. A lot of his “supporters” either won’t vote at all or won’t vote for Trump when the time comes to get serious. I expect he’ll be gone after a few primaries, if he makes it that long. Also, his shtick gets old fast.

13. Trump’s populist campaign is exploiting a market inefficiency.

14. Agreed, and I’m heading to Carly’s site right now to make a contribution. (I just think Cruz has been “Sara Palin’ed” and he’s too damaged to be elected in the general.)

15. eric,

    The anxiety produced by your explanation is it’s reminiscent of the conversion of the Weimar Republic.

16. Maybe there’s many people that the stakes are far higher than good or bad management.

    Everyone likes a good captain for the ship who knows how to navigate. But when the ship sinks, the best captain is useless if he refuses to address that problem and keeps acting as nothing happened.

17. Tom: “(I just think Cruz has been “Sara Palin’ed” and he’s too damaged to be elected in the general.)”

    I go the other way.

    The activist mechanisms used to stigmatize Palin need to be targeted, seized, and redirected. Accepting them as is and conforming to their narrative frame in the corrupt hope of mercy by the mechanisms’ current operators is a self-defeating strategy.

    Of course, that task belongs primarily to Right activists, not the GOP.

18. I should have used a more unique name to begin with. Am redesignating myself eric12.

    I agree with the eric who says that the “activist mechanisms” used to stigmatize conservatives needs to be sabatoged in some way. That was just my point about Trump being the clown we need — as good as Cruz and Fiorina are, I’m not sure how at this point just the power of conservative arguments changes the rules that have been written by the establishment. I see the same thing happening to conservatives, over and over.

    However, I don’t understand the other eric comment about anxiety and the Weimar Republic. I’m looking for the disruption of a rotten machine. I don’t think Trump will capture the Republican nomination, but he is certainly disrupting the rotten establishment machine. And there has been much speculation that his main purpose is some sort of Bush payback, which means he may not be interested in taking the nomination even if it were handed to him. In that respect, his goal and that of conservatives thankfully are in sync.

    Slap Jeb down. Get him out of there. Only then can there be an honest horse race between the real and viable candidates.

19. Trump probably won’t get nominated as a Republican, but it’s possible that when he fails he may pull a Perot and run as an independent. He’s certainly got the money and the need for attention. If that happens, he won’t win but may put Hillary in the White House. Any “conservative” who supports him now should think about that.

20. Well reasoned and well stated, Neo.
    I’ve read that a lot of people dislike Cruz because they think he was grandstanding instead of taking a principled position. I’m starting to realize that the Republicans, just like the Democrats, have some not very bright people in it.

21. Cornflour:

    Check out this comparison between Trump and Ventura. The author is MN resident Scott Johnson. Very good.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/the-trump-factor.php

22. If Cruz is the nominee, I will show up and vote for him. If you want someone who knows how to creatively turn the wheels of government for good effect, then elect Walker. If you want to make sure that your empire can safely navigate through the next administration, then give some access bucks to Hillary and Jeb. But if you want to know how voting decisions are really made in the macro world, read THE RIGHTEOUS MIND by Haidt and brush up on branding. And then wake up to the staggering disadvantage we have in countering the branding biases against the Right. I think this is the gut appeal for Trump: He’s gambling that he can change the branding focus from a contest on who makes you feel good, to who will bring a critical mass of power and determination to reverse course.

23. Cornhead:

    Thanks for the link. I’m a pretty regular reader of Powerline, but missed this one. I liked the piece, but thought that Scott Johnson was a little too generous to Ventura — and to those who voted for him.

24. Firstly off, I am philosophically attuned with Ted and Carly. Secondly, I have witnessed, more than most folks here, that Don Quixote is the archetype of political crusaders.

    The underlying problem that confronts us is the centralization of power in the hands of the political class. This started about 100 years ago. It will not be undone in a day. We face powerful, entrenched interests that permeate our society. They cannot be unhorsed en masse. They must be defeated in detail. We must construct a political abattoir where they are led individually to their fate without stampeding the herd. The political crusader will get the blood flowing but it is “sound and fury signifying nothing”.

    There two most effective Presidents in my lifetime were Eisenhower and Reagan. What they had in common was that they were not confrontational. They never insulted nor disparaged their opponents. They did not discomfit the tribe. They always allowed the other guy to save face. Much has been made of the apparent comity between Reagan and Tip O’neill. They actually hated each other but Reagan puffed up O’neill to the point that public opposition to Reagan would appear to be churlish.

    Which brings me to Scott Walker. Walker overthrew the entrenched power structure in Wisconsin, the birthplace of the American labor movement, and came out of it looking like a nice guy. He did this by goading his opponents into rash acts that didn’t play well with the people of Wisconsin. He politely tolerated the over-the-top demonstrations at the Capitol. He panicked the Democrats into fleeing the state to prevent a quorum, making them seem juvenile.

    In sum, it is going to take a long time – perhaps a generation or more – to get us back on track. Any faster and we will have turmoil. The Democrats, in the persons of Obama et. al., got terribly impatient and have apparently awakened a sleeping giant. Giants are powerful beasts. Unconstrained they wreak havoc.

25. Let’s pretend for a moment that the job of choosing the Republican nominee falls exclusively to readers of Neo’s blog. Here’s what I think would happen.

    First of all, I think we’d agree that the ideal candidate would be (1) a real conservative who can articulate our core values clearly and persuasively (2) someone who can beat the Democrat nominee (3) someone who, if elected, could be the President we’ve all been waiting for since Ronald Reagan.

    Item #1. This is low-hanging fruit. Very quickly we’d eliminate all the RINO’s. Jeb, Kasich, Christie, and everyone from the second seven except Perry and Fiorina are gone. (Personally, I’d also put Trump and Huckabee in this group, but for the sake of argument let’s let them survive round one. Others would include Rubio, but in my mind he’s as conservative as it gets and I would fight hard to get him into Round Two.)

    Item #2. We’d have a vigorous debate here, but I don’t think there’s any way on earth that Ben Carson (sweet, but too inexperienced), Mike Huckabee (articulate but too religious), Ted Cruz (brilliant but too easy a target for the left), and Rand Paul (great on the economy and the Constitution but too isolationist and too sour) could ever beat Hillary in a general election. (Again, I’m tempted to put Trump in here, but America has become such a different place in my lifetime that celebrity might actually be enough to sway millions of low-information voters)

    Item #3. Pretend we’ve won the election. Now it’s time for President Trump, President Walker, President Perry, President Rubio, and President Fiorina to lead the country for the next four years. Here’s my take:

    Presidents Walker and Perry have the not insignificant advantage of having been governors. Presumably they know how to staff an administration and act as an executive. I think both would be competent — Walker in particular might be the second coming of the underappreciated Calvin Coolidge — but I don’t think either of them is capable of lighting the kind of fire Reagan did in the 80’s.

    President Trump. High risk, high gain. Boom or bust. For me, this is all about character. For the last seven years we’ve had a thin-skinned, animus-filled narcissist who never admits a mistake in the Oval Office. Do we really want another one? I’d be excited but I’d be holding my breath.

    President Rubio. He’s young and he’s exciting. He can think, and he can talk. Even with an only moderately successful term in office, he’d change the Republican brand (which I consider HUGELY important) in a positive and significant way.

    President Fiorina. Our own Margaret Thatcher? (Be still my heart.)

    What do the rest of you think?

26. I doubt the vast majority of people reading here will be able to nail the answer to your question. I think the answer boils down to “Trump is NOT a cuckservative.”

    That’s (a) with apologies for using the term and (b) realizing that the full exploration of what NOT-a-cuckservative means is *apocalyptic*.

    But there you go.

27. Wooly Bully: since Trump has the means to run a third party candidacy anyway, it hardly makes a difference right now if individual conservatives support him, hornswoggled or not.

    And what if he runs a third party candidacy against Jeb and, say, Hillary? He’s not a spoiler, he’s an excuse. McCain and Romney didn’t need “spoilers” to be establishment losers, and neither does Jeb. He’ll achieve establishment losertarianism with or without a Trump challenge.

    Let’s go a little further. Let’s say that Trump succeeds where no third party candidate has before, and beats the pantsuit off Hillary. Well? I don’t like saying “the lesser of two evils”, but–the lesser of two evils. If it’s a choice between Hillary-Jeb-Trump, then it’s really only a choice between Hillary and Trump.

    That’s why I say the only way to change the game is to shove Jeb out in time to rally around a conservative pick. Until the nomination process is done, all the conservatives can do is knock heads with each other, with only a minute or two to talk. The conservative needs the opportunity of the full nomination, so that he or she can talk about the serious issues facing us, in contrast to the clown show of the Democratic party on one side, and Trump on the other.

28. ”The underlying problem that confronts us is the centralization of power in the hands of the political class. This started about 100 years ago. It will not be undone in a day. We face powerful, entrenched interests that permeate our society.”

    And for just as long that centralization had been aided and abetted by the other side, the loyal opposition, who saw and still see themselves as no less a political class than the Progressives — and no less managerially minded — they were and are still known as ‘conservatives’.

    “Giants are powerful beasts. Unconstrained they wreak havoc.”

    Please tell me of these giants as I trust you mean something more formidable than a conservative voter with a ballot and fingers crossed and, eventually, a purple blush?

29. eric12,
    You may be right that there’s no stopping Trump from running as an independent, but conservatives should not be encouraging him. He thrives on the attention. Ignore him. “Don’t feed the troll.”

30. Went to a small meet-and-greet today for Walker near the main RedState.com 2015 confab going on in Atlanta. I like him and Cruz both, though not as much as Carly. I think she plus either of them would be a very solid conservative ticket.

    On Trump, I’m beginning to believe that he’s up to a very cynical game of playing to the Perot-voter types that gave us the Clintons in the first place. Bear in mind the phone call made to him by Bill Clinton in March 2015 as you review this replay of his refusal to pledge not to run as an independent, then listen to what Rand Paul actually says as he rudely yells across the stage; maybe Dr. Paul is not as crazy as everyone makes him out to be:
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YtiiTe9onww&autoplay=1

    BTW,Erik Erikson and the RedState.com folks are going a great job down here. Most of the candidates are coming (or have already come) and speaking to a packed house. They are live streaming and their agenda is worth checking out. The event is on right now and goes through tomorrow (Sunday). Go to http://www.redstate.com and check it out.

31. Back in the day, I talked to a couple of folks who were going to vote for Perot “to show the republicans” or to teach them a lesson.
    The establishment republicans didn’t learn the lesson, and they never will. They have to be overcome.
    See, they all have jobs no matter who’s in the WH.
    Somehow, that has to change.

32. Buddlehahat:

    I like your analysis especially the part about only neo’s readers get to vote.

    I like Rubio as he is brilliant in many ways but I don’t trust him on immigration and, frankly, he is inexperienced. He has never been an executive.

    Trump is off the map for me.

    But Carly! I have refrained from writing this before but I ‘m beginning to think she is the next Reagan.

    Running HP when she did was a massive challenge. She has the experience and conservative principles to turn the ship of state around. She is fearless. She owes nobody.

33. @George Pal

    Dear George,

    In order not to bore others, or myself, I sometimes get a little cryptic. I could certainly go on interminably with answers to your questions, however the price of pixels being what it is I hope to economize.

    I offer an excerpt from Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles which I believe apropos:

    “conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.”

    The Kirk essay is, to my mind, by far the best exposition of conservative philosophy to be found.

    http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

    Give it a look. Let me know what you think.

    Regards,
    Roy

34. Trump supporters are motivated by petulance. They want to stick their fingers in the eye of The Man. Many of them are so far down the rabbit hole that they think things are hopeless; they want to have one last hurrah before the end.

    They would love Trump acting as spoiler for the GOP, sheerly out of spite.

35. It’s not spite or petulance, it’s frustration. This spite/petulance junk is the lingo pushed by the establishment in order to invalidate individual opinion. Party bosses don’t want the people to decide, they want the people to obey.

    I’m not a Trump supporter, but it’s pretty obvious to me that the motivation TheOmnivore cites is right on target. People are sick of the PC police, and they’re sick of weasels. When Trump says that he gave money to politicians because that’s how it’s done, it’s not a damning admission; it’s a damning indictment of the rest of the politicians in power. Chris Matthews demands that you show Hillary Clinton total respect, and not dare call her a liar, just because she lies her ass off. It’s not hard to see why Trump appeals to people.

36. By the way, notice that Fiorina’s breakthrough was due to much the same thing Trump’s doing, just more disciplined. She’s saying things that you’re not supposed to say.

    That’s the common denominator. People are sick of being lied to and pandered to. They “petulant” voters came out for Republicans in the mid-terms for a reason, and establishment Republicans thanked them by hugging Obama.

    If anybody’s a big baby in all this, it’s the Republican establishment. It’s the Boehner crowd, who think none of this means anything except “my turn!”

37. “They would love Trump acting as spoiler for the GOP, sheerly out of spite.”

    Speaking for only myself, I want him acting as spoiler not out of spite, but rather because the GOPe gave up opposing the growth of the all-encompassing state long ago, but continues to draw financial and other support from those who haven’t noticed.

    It’s time for the GOP to die and be replaced by – if we are extremely lucky – an actual conservative – traditionalist! – party.

    I hope Trump can help with this.

    If any reader is tempted to ask how enabling Hillary in ’16 (thorough support of Trump) will help, I ask “what did elections of Republicans to the House in 10, 12, and 14 accomplish? What did adding the Senate accomplish in ’14?”

    The fact is, the GOPe is now just a disguised faction of the leftist/elitist/statist party. Hillary! or Jeb! – no real difference except the speed of our vehicle as it leaves the cliff.

    Which is also what our future holds if we are NOT extremely lucky and cannot create a replacement, conservative (traditionalist) party before our vehicle hits the valley below.

38. @Roy Lofquist

    Mr. Lofquist,

    I have read Kirk and am entirely in agreement with him. His opening line:
    “Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata”
    is as brilliant a distilled exposition of the essence of Conservatism as had ever been made in twenty-five words or less. Of such Conservativism, and Burke’s also, I have none but the greatest admiration. I only wish those who had commandeered the word and so diluted it, and so greatly denatured it, and who now identify as conservatives, having no idea of its meaning, would give it up. But if that is to change I suppose it will have to happen organically, as that prospect is no more likely than Liberals respecting classical Liberalism.

    It is the very idea of the principle of prudence that modern conservatives lack — being entirely as imprudent as the Lib/Prog/Left and entirely without principle. And for that, they are a greater bane than the panoply that is left of center. Their (LPL) deceptions are calculated to have things their way; the present day ‘conservative’ calculates to get his turn at skimming, looting, and wielding hammer upon gavel. I have no use for them and measure the difference between the two as no greater than the thickness of a sheet of paper.

    BTW, It more than a bit refreshing to read someone mentioning Burke and Kirk. It takes the utter dullness off all the Trump, Fiorina, Cruz, Rubio, et al. claptrap.

39. By the way, notice that Fiorina’s breakthrough was due to much the same thing Trump’s doing, just more disciplined. She’s saying things that you’re not supposed to say.
    Oops! Why did she step… in this?

    Not mentioned Lindsey Graham opines.

    The Kelly creature has opinions, many!
    We need more opinions ….

40. Keep up the pep talks Neo. The low information voter, crazy feminists, minorities, and welfare mothers will all vote for the Democrat, no matter who it is. Count on it. That’s where the term “yellow dog Democrat” comes from. Meanwhile, some conservatives are already deciding who the RINOs are and who they would never vote for. The allure of the lost cause is beckoning. That’s how we got Obama. Guess which group understands how to win.

    Every one who was on the debate stage but Trump would be better than Obama. None hates America.

41. G6loq: Lindsey Graham saying better a Democrat win the WH than Trump is kind of like any random Democrat saying better a Dem win the WH than Trump. I’m not sure I see any point in even bringing him up.

    On the other hand, you’ve quoted Fiorina criticizing something arguably stupid that The Donald said. The arguably stupid thing Trump said won’t hurt Trump, as usual, but Fiorina didn’t “step” in anything by commenting on it.

    Trump support is one thing, but nobody better start kissing his ring. That’ll be projectile vomit time.

42. Mr. Frank,

    Surely you jest. Anyone but Trump would be better than O? Your line in the sand is Trump? Your druthers would have Mephistopheles over Trump? It’s no wonder conservatism is in such deep doo-doo.

43. A two-and-a-half-minute video segment of the comments on Trump by the focus group on Fox after the debate is here. Worth a watch.

44. http://youtu.be/sRUgFG5XQiM

    Above should be a 35 minute interview with Carly before the debate. Interviewer is a comedian. Some new and good stuff.

45. I think the word “conservative” has become empty and meaningless. I see people throwing it around, without any idea what they mean by it. It’s become just a shorthand word for a variety of ideas and concepts. As such, it’s not hard to realize why it isn’t getting any traction among people who should support it but don’t.

    It has become a tribal signifier, to use Ace’s terminology.

    We could speak of the rule of law, limited Constitutional government, free-market capitalism, Western Civilization, and Christianity, but we don’t. Neither do our political leaders. We just use the word “conservative” as a placeholder for all of those concepts, then expect everyone to know what we mean by it and agree.

46. A tough foul mouthed drill Sargent. His work is not yet done.

47. If you’ve got a favorite conservative candidate that you want to get in the White House, then there are two things that need to be done, imo.

    The first is to discourage Jeb from running. He had a weak showing in the debate, and the people I’ve talked to were very unimpressed with him. This was a debate seen by nearly one in thirteen Americans, so it wasn’t like it had a limited audience. He’s got a handicap at this point. And that can be worked on. If the enthusiasm isn’t there, then the establishment can’t run the candidate. McCain and Romney had a certain level of enthusiasm among the primary voters. Enthusiasm for Jeb could easily be killed.

    Further, I don’t think Jeb really wants it. I suspect that he’s running at least in part because his family has long expected him to run (Bush 43 was never supposed to have run for the White House; the family plan was that Jeb would do so, but Jeb fumbled and his brother had an opening that was seized on). And voters will pick up on that.

    So I think Jeb is very much beatable, even with establishment support

    The second is that Trump needs to be discouraged, hard. And by discouraged, I don’t mean “beat down by the moderators in the debate”. Trump came away from the debate looking like a victim who (arguably) successfully fought off his assailants. Otherwise impartial people tend to be impressed by that sort of thing. The only thing marring the performance was his idiotic tweet afterwards about Megyn Kelly bleeding “from her… whatever” (in fairness, it was in response to something that Kelly said post-debate; but that doesn’t change the fact that it disgusted a lot of people who might otherwise have been sympathetic). Trump needs to lose his support in a very noticeable and emphatic fashion, and not as the result of something that can be perceived to be the work of the “establishment” (even if the GOP establishment has nothing to do with it). If he’s seriously considering the possibility of a third party run, that’s probably the only thing that would convince him not to try.

48. I think “spite” was the correct word because as OriginalFrank shows, Trump supporters have already made up their minds: the System is too sick and perverse to be allowed to survive.

    I will further note that a good deal of the supporters’ venom is directed at fellow citizens whom they feel let them down. Hence, the “cuckservative” nonsense. It is both a tribal signifier for the put-upon right, and an attempt at disqualification.
    Both things that are usually hallmarks of the left.

49. Cornhead. Crowder is more than a comedian.
    He’s a local talk show host with a national following.
    Louder with Crowder Friday mornings 6-9 am.
    http://www.mainstreamnetwork.com/listen/player.asp?station=waam-am&listen=Listen+Live
    And his video Jihadi Witnesses is one of the funniest vids out there.
    http://louderwithcrowder.com/watch-ding-dong-jihadi-witnesses/

50. It is name recognition and nothing else. I think, Neo, you overestimate how informed the general public actually is. If I poll a random selection of people, what fraction of them do you think would even know who Ted Cruz is?

51. Trump is like the boychild in that he wants you to see him as portraying all your desires. Trump is always, 100 percent, in it for himself. He does not care about flooding the country with illegals, he simply recognizes an issue that has frustrated the base to the nth degree and made it his soapbox. I am frustrated and angry with the rino establishment as much as anyone, I also fear its too late to turn around our suicidal course to collapse as a culture and an economy. But trump??? If you think the donald gives a flying f about what you care about, you sir or madame are delusional.

52. Grasping the Trump phenomenon? Let me offer an alternative political analysis to Neo’s, yesterday.

    We have the choice of either having an “Elective King” to put things right, again; or else elect another “President” who is really a fascist (Democrat) or crony capitalist (“D” and “R” alike). Which one is better?

    According to GMU law prof F. H. Buckley, an elective Kingship is what we really have now, constitutionally speaking. (See his “The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America.) But between the media, professional pols, and the rest of the ruling class – and going by the past two terms for President (or MORE, in some plausible accounts) – we only get the latter: well-connected class corruption.

    Granted – everyone here knows that this is false, simplistic choice because the real-world alternatives aren’t so binary. And if we follow Neo’s analysis, smart people can make the valid and necessary distinctions and choose better.

    My point, however, is that the remaining Tea Party angst and the abject populist lust to find a voice that champions their cause, combined with the deep, pervasive and valid distrust of the media and professional pol corruption leads us, as a nation, to this stark, simplified hinge point.

    I deeply distrust cult leadership. Nevertheless, the Obama era has driven us here to make it, I believe. Why? Beginning with the Bush era, but expanded under the blanketing cult of “First Black President Evah” era, the media has almost completely abandoned its traditional public role to expose government corruption. No one will hold them accountable – certainly not Pubbies.

    Like the fact that we have an Imperial capital in D.C., where most of the top ten richest counties are, thus ruling over the provinces like Rome did, to the fact that those who “Represent” us in government are exempt from Obamacare; from the Noblesse Oblige arbitrary privileges that Obama grants for corporations and interest groups to ‘opt out’ of Obamacare, to the traditional corruption of subsidies like Solyndra and “alternative energy,” and educrats, bureaucrats, Planned Parenthood, etc, nauseatingly, etc…. It is a sewer unmeasured, unmanaged and unaccounted for, but we know this dangerous public dump exists.

    Early Saturday morning, I spent a few hours watching Youtube videos of Trump speeches, interviews, as well as interviews with his presidential backers – mostly people who’ve worked with him like Gene Simmons, Patrick Baldwin, and Ann Coulter. (I admired the “Celebrity Apprentice” era for its smarts, but I don’t watch any “Reality TV,” the root of Trump’s popular name recognition.) What I learned is this:

    People connect with his unfiltered honesty, his earnestness, and the need to “Make America Great Again.” His followers love the American Dream, and see it embodied in Him and his business success. This identification, coupled with his self-made and self-sufficient wealth (133rd wealthiest in the US, according to Forbes) being a billionaire, insulates him from the usual cynical suspicions of corruption, which would normally disqualify him from office-holding. This generates exceptional trust in – and passion for – Trump.

    Sure, the Man Who Would be King will be like one – but the usual cautious filters will not apply, they believe.

    If Trump thumps the FNC-Cleveland GOP debate fiasco, it will be continuing testament of the depths of rejection the media have – quite properly, I think – received by the public.

    From last month, a survey summed our situation up in the headline, “Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased.”

    “The 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center and USA Today, was released Friday. It shows that only 24 percent of American adults agree with the statement that ‘overall, the news media tries to report the news without bias,’ while 70 percent disagree.

    “When the question was asked [in 2014], 41 percent agreed, a 17-point difference.”

    (SOURCE http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-70-percent-of-americans-believe-news-media-is-intentionally-biased/article/2567583)

    The chattering classes – and that’s us, here, too, not just FNC and the MSM – have missed this charged development. And therefore we have not figured it into this cycles political calculus.

    Thus, we discount the Trump phenomenon, and miss its deeply mistrusting passions and why it’s succeeding. Furthermore, we misunderstand how Trump may…well, “move the football” towards to end-zone and win the coming Big Game – and help reverse the Tragic Obama Error sooner than later.

    To put this data point in international context, a recent book on Europe puts the highest level of media distrust there at 70% – belonging to little Estonia, a Baltic Republic about the size of our state of Delaware.

    Now, consider what damage the same levels of distrust reveal about a big country, the leading nation in the world – the Greatest Nation, the Great Republic? If you do that “emotional math,” Trump’s appeal and succes makes enormous sense.

    And therefore the fact that the GOP debate in Cleveland witnessed the largest non-sports cable TV audience ever! 24 million – about 7% of the USA. The hunger is real, it is huge, and who will answer its call? Trump.

    If you want an alternative messenger, you’ve got to first understand the messages Trump’s followers are receiving.

53. PS THANK YOU, Neo – for the several, rich and thought-provoking posts in recent days, and this week. (Mwah!)

    You are greatly appreciated.

54. ‘I think “spite” was the correct word because as OriginalFrank shows, Trump supporters have already made up their minds: the System is too sick and perverse to be allowed to survive.’

    Not what I said, unless by ‘System’ you mean the GOPe as currently constituted. If that is your meaning, I’d be interested in s substantive response rather than a drive-by dismissal. Please outline how the GOPe has been effective in ANY defense of conservatism in the last six years.

    Re: tribal signifiers and disqualification being left hallmarks, I would add ‘othering’ and strawmen.

55. CORRECTION – make “several” to read “MANY.”

56. Orson nails it.

57. If you want an alternative messenger, you’ve got to first understand the messages Trump’s followers are receiving.

    We should also look squarely at the phenomenon that is Trump himself. He has a showman’s appeal and he craves attention. Powerful combination. And very hard to compete with, if not impossible, even if you have the same messages.

58. We should also look squarely at the phenomenon that is Trump himself. He has a showman’s appeal and he craves attention. Powerful combination. And very hard to compete with, if not impossible, even if you have the same messages.
    ——————-

    That last sentence has been pretty clear throughout the last few weeks, unfortunately. There are candidates who have been coming down firmly against illegal immigration and amnesty. Perry even talked about how a “wall” might possibly be constructed along the southern border during the first debate. But from the way people go on, it’s easy for the less informed to come to the conclusion that Trump’s the only one speaking out against illegal immigration.

59. Orson nails it if you fervently believe the donald is sincere. Otherwise, its wishful hope and change. We already got the tshirt 7 years ago.

60. 1. Semantics are important and I use the term “non-left” to describe the self-conscious opposition to the government/media/academic/401[c][3]/plutocrat/Hollywood complex (what Cruz wonderfully calls the “Washington Cartel”), but now does not seem like the right time to debate the word “conservative”. We all know what we are talking about.

    2. As good as the comparison of Ventura to Trump is, a better comparison might be Carl Paladino to Trump (except that Paladino historically took consistent, well-thought-out positions, and Trump never has). Paladino got the Republican nomination for NY governor by adopting a fuck-you approach to all the usual nonsense, and he succeeded wildly temporarily, until folks realized his “outspoken” temperament was actually a starkly negative trait. He lost disastrously, as would Trump, for the same reason.

    3. It makes zero sense to assume anything other than Trump is here for Hillary. Trump treats people like chumps, and there is no reason to think he is not treating Republicans as chumps for Hillary’s ultimate sake. Look at the answers he gave in the debate. They were not simply incoherent, they were insultingly incoherent. To Trump, his bizarre support for socialized medicine deserved no more respectful consideration or concern that his explanation for calling Rosie O’Donnell a fat pig.

    4. The reason to cheer for Trump – – his justifiable disdain for political correctness and his willingness to not snivel and whimper before the media overlords — is being done by Cruz and Carly to far better effect. To mangle metaphors, C and C are running circles around the media and establishment, Trump is blowing a foghorn in their face. Yeah, part of me gets immense satisfaction to see their stunned looks when getting blasted, and yeah, I am angry enough to punch them in their faces myself. But C and C show in real time their mastery of so much we need in a leader, plus they actually educate in doing so, always brilliantly explaining the reasons we never get from Trump.

    5. Trump implicitly stated that he was blackmailing Republicans, that he did not see anyone else on the stage he respected and that he will run as an independent if the party does not nominate him. To my mind, only a chump would be blackmailed like that. But he sees conservatives a chumps, so why worry about a little blackmail.

    6. The non-left cannot rationally act other than by assuming Trump is brazenly helping Hillary, his wedding guest. As a spiritual soul mate to Bill, why assume otherwise? So, who is best to run against Trump and Hillary? As for me, I would want the only two people who have already shown themselves to be Clinton and Trump’s superior in every respect. C and C understand the cultural hegemony of the left, part of which is the celebrity bullshit and disrespectful arrogance which are Trump’s (and the media’s, and the establishment’s) low information weapons.

    7. Cruz cannot be palinized. Impossible. I love Sarah, but she was palanized because she could be, for reasons beyond her control.

    8. As I suggested in another thread, Cruz and Fiorina should ally themselves now (I am brain storming). They should create a show with Jindal and Carson, and air it every Friday night, just the four of them. They should pick a topic, make it fun, show each other respect, be entertaining and classy, and wish each other well. Let the chips fall where they may.

    THEY SHOULD CREATE THEIR OWN COUNTER-CULTURAL, NON-MAINSTREAM, DOWN TO EARTH SHOW, and let the others, Trump included, jealously resent the sight of real human beings with integrity discussing our country’s problems seriously, wittily, and intelligently, no baloney or lies.

61. First time in my life that I’ve ever financially supported a candidate, and it is Cruz. You are right on the mark about him. I truly believe he could win if nominated, because he presents a definite contrast to the left.

62. Cornhead Says (August 8th, 2015 at 1:13 pm)
    Cruz and Carly are my dream ticket; in any order.

    AGREED.
    But given the “train that’s left the station” isn’t either of ‘em (see my post above), better to be Trump-fanboy than a “pajamas boy” – and they surround me!

    “Cornflour” (August 8th, 2015 at 1:43 pm) observes a nice parallel between Trump’s role today and Jesse Ventura rising to become a one-term Governor of Minnesota in 1998.

    I left my native Minnesota a decade before that, but have family and friends there throughout the period, before and since.

    This may be a very fruitful parallel for us to consider. But if I follow it, it doesn’t end well. It ends with entrenched, corrupt socialism because an ideologically corrupt media in famously “clean government” state overwhelms his populist rise. (And maybe because – concomitantly – the aging population grows too corrupt to rouse itself from a rich, slothful soul-corruption?)

    The only hopeful alternative to make is this one: why do Minnesota and neighboring Wisconsin go down different roads, ultimately? The latter so spectacularly with Walker?
    And I don’t have any quick answer about this.

    “Eric” outlines the sad pattern of defeat brilliantly! (August 8th, 2015 at 1:47 pm)

    “There is no evidence that shows that the pattern has broken….I don’t support Trump, but I support Trump running. He’s the major event. He’s our one chance…[to change it]…. We can’t take any more of the establishment’s games. Trump is a one-man wrecking crew.” Indeed.

    “Eric12” says “I agree with the eric who says that the ‘activist mechanisms’ used to stigmatize conservatives needs to be sabotaged in some way.” Which is Trump’s transcendental competitive advantage – so far.

    “Cornhead” – the PL folks (maybe it was Paul Hinderaker most of all) don’t or didn’t get Ventura’s populism either – no more than they do Trumps now.

    I’ll read Scott’s post comparing the two with interest this weekend. THANKS for sharing!

    “Eric12” – “The establishment [will] invalidate individual opinion. Party bosses don’t want the people to decide, they want the people to obey.”

    Exactly – and this Truth makes me want to yell “Go Trump, GO!”

    Populism is a consequence of American egalitarianism. Europe lacks this because of its close history with monarchy and aristocracy. (Legal recognition of “Aristocracy” was abolished with our Constitution – in Central Europe, only with the end of WWI in 1919, not even a century.)

    We may have an “elective Kingship,” but our character as an exceptional nation means that we still have this leveling spiteful spirit against purported (or ruling class inflicted!) experts, whether about climate change dangers or political expertise.

    It has been a long, long time – Reagan really , and perhaps Truman before him – that we have elected a non-professional pol as president.

    We may well greatly deserve to!

63. It has been a long, long time — Reagan really , and perhaps Truman before him — that we have elected a non-professional pol as president.
    ——————-

    Ike?

64. Tonawanda writes: “Trump implicitly stated that he was blackmailing Republicans, that he did not see anyone else on the stage he respected and that he will run as an independent if the party does not nominate him.”

    TRUE – but this burnishes Trumps “I cannot be bought” APPEAL! The Pubbies can be – he himself said it during the debate, “I’ve bought them” here, he boasted!

    Trump cannot be corrupted, overtly – ideologically, is a populist businessman outsider easily fooled by it? (We know the usual deferential over-educated idiot can be easily intimidated by charges of racism, sexism, transgenderism, etc, blah blah.)

    But Trump? I doubt it – and at his age and independent station in life, not for long.

    Trump’s signal appeal is that he cannot be corrupted like the RINOs and the rest can, are and will be.

65. Trump is in the tradition of another populist, Huey Long:

    In 1934, Long created the national Share Our Wealth Society and hired a staff to spread the word about his plan. By the end of the year, the group had 1 million members. It published a newspaper, filmed promotional messages for use in movie theaters, and even had an official song–“Every Man a King”–supposedly penned by Long himself. By early 1935 the organization was still growing and claimed more than 7 million members. The Share Our Wealth Society’s growth increased its income, but its operating expenses also grew because many rich people who opposed the New Deal covertly funneled money to Long, hoping to harm FDR. Long soon toyed with a third party run for the White House, hoping to draw enough votes from Roosevelt to cost him the presidency. Then, Senator Long would rebuild the Democratic Party in his own image in 1940 and sweep Roosevelt’s Republican successor from power.
    The Democrats’ own 1935 political polling showed Huey Long with 11 percent of the vote, and Roosevelt moved to stem the tide, increasing efforts to aid Long’s Louisiana enemies. In addition, Roosevelt ordered an Internal Revenue Service investigation of Long’s finances, which quickly blossomed into an investigation of official corruption in Louisiana generally.

    Here’s a clip of Long giving a speech.

66. TRUE — but this burnishes Trumps “I cannot be bought” APPEAL! The Pubbies can be — he himself said it during the debate, “I’ve bought them” here, he boasted!
    ———————–

    Except, of course, for the roughly half or so of the candidates who raised their hands to indicate that Trump had not given them any money.

67. Consider this counterfactual:

    The RINO leadership were delivered a message of protest in the 2010 elections not seen since the 1930s. And another in 2014, not seen since the 1920s.

    If they had simply said Obama is taking our Great Country into decline – declining work and home ownership and youth income levels (and living with their parents) not seen since the 1970s – and median income levels not risen in six years! WE WANT real CHANGE! Reverse your job-killing, income losing policies!

    Then there would be no Trump” phenomenon.

    So, WHAT THE HELL’S THE MATTER WITH ‘EM?

68. Orson: what Trump is doing is corrupt.

    Running for the nomination of a party in hopes of helping it lose is corrupt.

    Trump could possibly have sincere motives, but only a chump would give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

    If he is not sincere, he is corrupt. He is corrupt in precisely the way BO is corrupt, in the arrogant exploitation of chumps, low information marks, and the ends justify any means crowd.

    Don’t vote, criticize anyone you want, move to a cave and eat spiders, and I say God Bless, best of luck.

    Support Trump, and I say your corrupt-o-meter is broken, probably busted by over-use on BO.

69. Orson: what is the proof of Trump’s charge that he “bought” Cruz? Walker? Carson?

    Orson, please say something for me, just so I truly am confident I understand you.

    Please say, Trump has the same or greater integrity, the same or greater belief in “conservative” principles, and the same or greater respect for other human beings as Cruz, Walker and Carson, who were all on the stage with Trump.

    Please say that, so I can better understand where you are coming from.

    And just to humor me, do you share Trump’s disrespect for Cruz, Walker and Carson?

70. Our entire political class is thoroughly corrupt.

    This is all a show to entertain the rubes. It’s all a game, and the game is rigged.

    Anybody who still thinks that voting makes a difference is an idiot.

71. Trump is a cat chasing its tail to the wonderment of those who believe the cat will catch its tail. He is Mr. Know it all, the man with the plan of empty platitudes. Go ahead and stand in line to drink the kool-aid. He pisses on you from atop the trump tower.

72. Trump is good for long comment threads.

    I don’t think Trump is a serious candidate. He’s a protest candidate.

    Who knows. I think he is more of a Democrat than a Republican. His supporters remind me of the Ron Paul! groupies back in 2008. Oh, and he is an Alpha male, so they say. I would think Perry far more Alpha than Trump. Hell, Fiorina is more Alpha, and can push back without being a churl.

    The comment thread following Roger Simon’s post got overrun with nasty anti-semites. I say overrun even though the numbers of different posters wasn’t that large, but they were all shouty and nasty. What does surprise me is the number of Trump supporters in the Ace comment threads. I thought they were better than that.

73. Tonawanda @ 8:52 . . .

    You said:

    “8. As I suggested in another thread, Cruz and Fiorina should ally themselves now (I am brain storming). They should create a show with Jindal and Carson, and air it every Friday night, just the four of them. They should pick a topic, make it fun, show each other respect, be entertaining and classy, and wish each other well. Let the chips fall where they may.

    THEY SHOULD CREATE THEIR OWN COUNTER-CULTURAL, NON-MAINSTREAM, DOWN TO EARTH SHOW, and let the others, Trump included, jealously resent the sight of real human beings with integrity discussing our country’s problems seriously, wittily, and intelligently, no baloney or lies.”

    EXCELLENT idea. I hope someone influential reads your comment and acts upon it.

74. rickl (10:07 PM): “Our entire political class is thoroughly corrupt.

    This is all a show to entertain the rubes. It’s all a game, and the game is rigged.

    Anybody who still thinks that voting makes a difference is an idiot.”

    I always respect and enjoy rickl comments, but disagree with this one.

    I think everyone on this site “gets” the depth and breadth of the corruption in America, fueled by the immense wealth in our country, as well as the now couple of centuries long learning process of how to game the system in a democracy, from dog catcher to president.

    People “get” how American culture has been transmogrified (thus corrupted) for reasons we all discuss regularly.

    We here see how facts themselves have been made irrelevant by propaganda and The Narrative.

    Just to use one example, the word “racist,” so ridiculous and absurd in 98% of the contexts it is used, has entranced and killed intelligent discussion in this country.

    But we (rickl, Tonawanda, and the rest of us) still don’t know how this will all turn out.

    True, very true, a President Cruz or Fiorina could not possibly undo what we know must be undone (see Lofquists’ posts above, and GeorgePal’s, on why) but ….

    If I am a man or woman of good will, and compassion toward my fellow Americans, I want Cruz or Fiorina because despite the objective limitations on their ability to do what must be done, they keep the possibility alive.

    They are offering hope, based on their articulate and brilliant assessments of where we are. Not baloney hope, or political nonsense hope, or BO style or Trump style chump directed hope, but coherent words based on fact.

    Maybe I am the jerk who holds on to the rubber ducky in a tsunami. But I am not the guy who dives under and deliberately swallows a mouthful of water.

75. Yancey Ward:

    You suggest I overestimate how informed people are. I’m not addressing random people here, I’m addressing a very specific audience: conservative political-junkie blog readers and commenters.

    And they most definitely know who Ted Cruz is.

76. rickl:

    The word “conservative does stand for those things you enumerate, and we don’t enumerate them every time because that would take too long and “conservative” is a time-tested and mostly-well-understood word that does stand for something.

77. Trump is a bull in a china shop. The more china he breaks the better. He is shifting the debate away from where the political class wants it. Illegal immigration? He has forced that into the mainstream. Political Correctness? Ditto. Yet another RINO GOP candidate (think Dole, McCain, Romney)? Trump has said he will use his leverage — i.e, the threat to run third-party — to stop that.

    Jeb (illegal immigration is an “Act of love”) Bush must be terrified of Trump.

    I don’t think Trump really wants the job, but he wants to use his money and influence to stop the GOP from ramming yet another Rino down our throats. For that we should be thankful.

78. I’ve taken the grassroots approach – supported a conservative for Congress. Kept contacting his office on things that matter.

    He moved up to Senator and I supported his replacement. I now have two conservatives to send weekly comments concerning matters.

    I’ll keep reminding them of my very conservative needs – mostly fiscal and national security issues.

    I’ll support the candidates that closely align with my views, but I realize that I won’t get a 100% match. That’s ok.

    It’s better than a democrat in the white house again. I don’t understand those who refuse to support the candidate closest to their views. To refuse to vote or go third party only means that the country goes further down the hole.

    If there are conservatives representing me and if others in all of the states take the same view, then we can hope that we can succeed in turning things around.

79. @Tonawanda,

    It is emotionally gratifying to ride to battle behind a Napoleon. But he and France didn’t end up too good. Sun Tzu has the better of it. Sun Tzu said the greatest feat of war is to achieve victory with no casualties. Remember that we want a peaceful revolution, not a civil war.

    I believe that Walker has no major policy differences with Cruz and Fiorina. I say this because what he did in Wisconsin could have easily come from Cruz or Fiorina. The big difference is that the opposition didn’t see it coming, thus panicking and making blunders.

    We saw Acorn taken down quite handily by the element of surprise. We just may see Planned Parenthood suffer the same fate. That’s two major power centers of the left blindsided and taken off the field.

    I go back to Eisenhower and Reagan. Actually I go back to Truman, but that’s beside the point except that I saw it all live and in living color.

    Eisenhower was perhaps the greatest commander in history. He directed the forces of some 15 countries in the largest war ever fought. Yet he was never regarded as an inspirational leader. As President he was characterized as lazy and somewhat detached, yet somehow he wrapped up Korea handily and presided over an almost idyllic period of peace and prosperity. To the public he was the kindly yet stern grandfather. To the people who actually run things we don’t know how he operated but he seemed to get his way.

    Reagan was the amiable dunce, amiable being the key. His message was optimistic and aspirational, Morning in America. Yet he was hard as nails in the important things.

    The trait they shared was they maintained a studied ambiguity. Their adversaries could never be sure that they knew what was really going on.

    By announcing what they would do on their first day in office Cruz, Fiorina and others have given their opponents a year and a half to plan their defenses. Not a good idea. Damned stupid, in fact.

    Walker seems to understand these things. He perplexes his opponents, keeps them off balance. Wisconsin is now a right to work state. Up until he actually signed the bill into law he said he wasn’t sure he would. Political judo at its finest.

    I learned a lesson when I voted for Barry Goldwater. You can’t defeat a strong, entrenched enemy with a force majeure. You must defeat him in detail. Acorn yesterday, Planned Parenthood tomorrow, EXIM on the menu, the agencies (IRS, EPA, HUD, etc.) when they present the opportunity.

    The great frustration with getting old is that you see that great things take time, which is the one thing that is in short supply. I hope that when my time comes I can see a better world, an America restored on the horizon. That’s for my children and theirs. I think that Scott Walker is the best chance we have.

    Regards,
    Roy

80. @Roy: I don’t think Fiorina made a mistake by saying she would call Bibi on day one. Nobody with an ounce of common sense thinks Obama’s capitulation to the Mad Mullahs, and his betrayal of Israel, is a good deal. It was a safe bet on her part. Ditto with Cruz. By attacking them on these issues, all the Left will achieve is to bring more attention to how bad the Iran deal really is.

81. Think of the film classic “Network”. Trump is Howard Beale – “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more”. Trump will never get past the “mad as hell” stage. The question is whether any of the other candidates can.

82. @PatD,

    You are, of course, correct. Not only did I not get my point across but I also discredited it. I blame the gin.

    Let me try again. Announcing specific strategies as a campaign device can bite you in the nether regions.

    Bush 41 famously said “read my lips, no new taxes”. Nemesis arrived in the person of Ross Perot.

    Obama promised early on that he was going to close Guantanamo. That has dogged him throughout his administration with criticism from the left. His announcement of a red line in Syria concerning the use of chemical weapons has certainly not redounded to his benefit.

    Ronald Reagan demonstrated how it is done properly. You will perhaps remember his supposedly terrible gaffe where he said into an open mic “the bombing will start in five minutes”. That was no gaffe. I assure you that it caused great consternation in Moscow without being provocative enough to cause a public response.

    Rick Perry’s gaffe in 2012 about not remembering which agencies he wanted to eliminate was worse than a gaffe. The very mention that you intend to eliminate an agency serves to goad the entire bureaucracy into active resistance.

    In re PPACA (Obamacare), I think it is a mistake to pledge to repeal it. That will result in enormous contributions to the Democrats from the insurance industry, big pharma and the hospital corporations. If you say that we have serious problems with healthcare and I’m going to work with Congress to make it better then these vested interests are more likely to look out for themselves individually than band together.

    Again, I have no real problems with Cruz, Fiorina, Perry and others about goals. I am concerned with how to achieve those goals.

    Regards,
    Roy

83. Cruz is my 2nd choice after Scott Walker. My first reaction to him was that he has a bit of a smart-ass quality that I doubted would play well with half-lib or lib voters or softies in general who see Alan Alda in MASH and Woody Allen and the metrosexual male as admirable, safe versions of the male. I don’t really want to see someone elected who can easily be demonized like Bush was for about six years. I think it’s much harder to actually view Walker as the Devil but can without much difficulty imagine such a characterization adhering to Ted Cruz. I’m not sure he’s that likeable, and I still believe that matters. It remains early days.

84. Why Donald Trump Is Winning

85. Neo, I’m finally reading your post – it is SUPERB, but fomr one thing:

    Neither Cruz nor Carly (nor anyone but Trump) came up with Let’s “Make America great Again!”

    This campaign slogan requires its opponents to assume the America-hating posture that Obama has gotten away with for so long without serious opposition!

    It is a brilliant bumper-sticker slogan for a campaign to reverse Obamunism and return to…Growth, opportunity, and achieving the American Dream!

    The slogan is also an ideal indictment – by implication – of the many long years of the Obama er(a)or.

    Trump is not only a reality TV star, but a very successful salesman.

    As much as Cruz and Carly stimulate the intellectual inside me, I’m not sure either can reach the forgotten man – the working man, the entrepreneurs, the shopkeepers, and those who aspire to be like them.

    It’s those who’ve been abandoned by both the Dems, the RINOs, and the Media and the ruling class. And it is they who must to be captivated and mobilized if anything like the Reagan Revolution is going to happen.

86. None of the other GOP candidates are willing to gut the Republican Party and purge the GOP Establishment. Not even Ted Cruz or Carly “I stand with Megyn” Fiorina are willing to do that.

    As for stabbings in the back, do I need to point out who over history has been back stabbing us? Yes, I can – the Republican establishment.

    #BurnItDown

87. Excellent analysis Neo. Thanks.

88. “Japan” links to an editorial at The Nation, who list the threats to the progressive (actually fascist)program. This is meant to rouse their interest groups.

    Then it concludes by invoking “The Paranoid style” of American thought – a sweeping ritual charge stemming from the 1950s (think Read Scare and McCarthyism) and the prize-winning and influential historian at Columbia University, Richard Hofstader.

    (SEE his piece from 1964, HERE http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/)

    This spins from an informal school of pseudo-analysis that claims if you can label something memorably, then you have understood it. A bumper sticker slogan can therefore substitute for real thinking, insight and empathy.

    Just as the Left will never be conflated with Patriotic Americanism, so the Right must be labeled – or more often simply smeared – as anti-intellectual, jingoistic, and atavistic. (Hofstader wrote the book on that, too – since then exposed as deeply flawed, and misusing its sources, risibly.)

    Donald Trump fits the bill very well! That The Nation has chosen this line of attack so early is encouraging: “If you are not getting flack (from the enemy), you’re not over the target.”

    “Roy’s” thoughtful endorsement of Walker reminds me of the fact that virtually ALL of the people we’ve talked about supporting here have their own campaign bio books. How many of us are ambitious enough to read all two, three, four (or more) of them?

    The sheer depth of this cycles field, together with the long breaks between the debates, encourages me to think that more of us will than other election seasons.

    Eisenhower has ben mentioned a few times. Was he “non-political” careerist? Yes – my bad to neglect.

    I once did a head count on veteran presidents for research. Early in the Republic, almost all had military leadership experience. Then, in Lincoln’s time, it became half. By the end of the century, one-third. And the quality of service clearly declines, since fewer are officers or generals.

    Thus, Eisenhower was truly and exceptional man, whose whole time in the military led up to the Second World War.

    The late historian Stephen Ambrose began as a hot-headed radical, who was consistently critical of American foreign policy.

    Then he began doing a multi-volume biography of Eisenhower. He saw how unfairly the media treated him, how deliberate Ike cultivated the image as a mere golfing duffer “Presidency” could be used to make his enemies underestimate him – an important lesson not lost on Reagan, which also contributed to his success.

    Ambrose turned and became a more pro-American but balanced writer of history because by using Eisenhower’s own private papers, he discovered that Eisenhower was really an important strategist and thinker as president. And thereafter, historians have consistently raised his reputational stock, and lowered JFKs.

    Since voting for President is really choosing a leader, I would be remiss if I didn’t add that Peter Baker’s book “Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House,” is very much worth your time and effort to read.

    How many in the current field measure up to George W Bush in the years following 9/11?

    Given the deranged and dangerous “Iran Deal,” we may need a wartime president much sooner than we wish.

    Thus, as much as we focus on domestic needs here, I want to add another consideration for choosing a President worthy of your vote: who will make the best leader on the international stage? Who is likely to grow well in the office of President?

89. he discovered that Eisenhower was really an important strategist and thinker as president. And thereafter, historians have consistently raised his reputational stock, and lowered JFKs.
    Renaldus Maximus’s diaries. Well worth the read.
    and:
    The Notes: Ronald Reagan’s Private Collection of Stories and Wisdom.
    Reagan’s brain! As ‘they’ used to say dismissively.
    Bastards!

90. Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

91. I expect Trump to bust down Jeb Bush.

    Getting Jeb out of the race is THE most important task at this time.

    Jeb is being stood up by Democrats — because he couldn’t defeat a baby rattle.

    Many of the contenders are actually running for the Vice Presidency. I would put Carly in that crowd — she’d be perfect as the attack dog.

    I favor Walker because he has the grace to jujitsu the opposition.

    I would be astounded if Trump runs a Perot style campaign.

    He’d be headed for certain defeat. And look what happened to Perot. His business reputation NEVER recovered from his 1992 bid.

    Trump is leaving the Perot gambit open as a CLUB to beat up on the party insiders.

    Many want to just kick him to the curb — right now.

    Christie is another candidate that needs to leave the field. His sole function is to be a spoiler. He has absolutely no chance for the nomination. His vanity his as epic as Trump’s — perhaps even greater.

    Cruz — at this stage of public exposure — is simply not well known. I expect that Cruz and Walker will have the strongest legs.

    BTW, Trump is drawing A LOT of voters from Democrat circles.

    It took Nixon to go to Red China.

    It may take Trump to crush crony capitalism.

    He knows where the bodies are buried — ’cause he interred them.

92. If…
    In the past one hundred years Progressive Managerial State rule had not been not only contained, but had gained breakneck downslope speed
    If further…
    In the past one hundred years Conservatives had failed to conserve anything and had determined “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”
    If yet further…
    the blips (Reagan Revolution, Contract With America) in the precipitously plunging trend line that plots our demise had not even the life, relatively speaking, of a mayfly (or the significance of one)
    If still ever further…
    You still have it in mind that the election of Joe ‘Studly’ Conservative will provision you with ‘hope’ for ‘change’
    Then…
    You have committed the cardinal sin of having read the history but failed to learn from it. That lesson, should you wish to take it to heart is: “If you want to change the course of history the first course of political action is not to take over the Congress or the Oval Office but to take over the schools/school Boards.

93. Neo, very well said. Thank you!

    But, I would like to add that maybe some on the right claim that they cannot support such and such a candidate because he “isn’t conservative enough” or they claim that they simply will not vote because the GOP has “once again failed to produce a good candidate” are really just looking for failure. They won’t be “happy” unless they have someone/something to complain about?!

    Lastly, in the end you said:

    “In sum, it seems to me that in your anger you are stabbing yourselves in the back. This requires a certain amount of gymnastics, but it can be accomplished nevertheless.”

    Man, I couldn’t agree more; but, would also like to add – fine go ahead and stab yourself in the back, folks; but, please don’t take the rest of us down with you!

    Remember what Donald Rumsfeld said – you don’t go to war with the army you want; you go to war with the army you have. The same is true with politics – you don’t get to vote for the candidate you want; you have to vote for one of the candidates available. And Trump is not really one of them.

94. Roy Lofquist’s post above is very good.

95. I made a small contribution to the Cruz and Fiorina campaigns before the debate; and I made another small one to Fiorina afterwards as a matter of principle.

    She has a very good line; “I can win this job. I can do this job”. I believe the second part, and hope she has a chance to compete to make the first part true.

96. Those who think Trump is in the race to harm Jeb Bush, or that his popularity will harm Jeb Bush, are ignoring the fact that his candidacy has drawn from other candidates (such as Walker) and has helped Bush move in front of the others in the polls.

97. I think Codevilla does a fine job of summing up the situation that has brought us to this ugly pass:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/does-trump-trump-angelo-codevilla-on-our-present-moment.php

    The only thing I would add, at the very end when he says that Trump is not that man, is that sadly, he is the closest thing we have to that man (or woman, with deference to Carly) who has any chance of winning the general election.

    At best, Cruz may well act on the courage of his convictions if elected. Walker and Carly as well. But they will not pull the mass of independents needed for election and Trump could.

    Moreover, lacking self-funding, they will need vast financial support from the GOPe to be elected, and so will be introduced to the need to accept the GOPe strings that accompany those dollars.

    Trump, an unprincipled, unpredictable but self-funding candidate will continue to call ’em as he sees ’em. His ego demands that, if nothing else does. I do believe he loves this country, though many of the same attributes horrific in Obama are in potential in Trump. At this late stage, IMO, that is the best we can hope for. Thank the Demoncrats, the Media (but I repeat myself) and the GOPe for bringing us to this evil pass.

98. Neo,

    The Trump supporters can’t see beyond Trump’s attack of the day. They see people like us as being controlled by the establishment, obviously unable to think for ourselves. Probably lots of big donors have moved to Bush because they don’t trust other candidates to escape a circular firing squad.
    Most of the thoughful people I see here have expressed interest in some of the candidates, but few are making firm commitments this early. They know it’s a long time till the elections and a lot can happen. Most know that is better to think than react to an emotional pitch.

99. One reason Trump resonates with some is because of his willingness to say what needs to be said about immigration, political correctness be damned. It’s a refreshing thing. None of the other candidates are willing to be anywhere near as blunt and to the point as he is on the subject. He was also that way about Obama’s birth certificate, which, probably, many of these same supporters remember.

100. Original Frank,
     Don’t you think Dems will have some problems with turnout, too?

101. expat:
     I dunno about your notion, “Probably lots of big donors have moved to Bush because they don’t trust other candidates to escape a circular firing squad.” They did this way before Trump got in. Big donors are not nearly as ideological as the (bless them!) Koch brothers. The Biggies are counting on Jeb to deliver for them, as Hillary’s Biggies are. The Chamber of Commerce, that’s what Jeb’s squishiness and pro-Latino is about. The others are not yet worthy of investment, and may never be, not for the Chamber. I suspect a lot of the Jeb Biggies have also contributed to Hillary, just as Trump has hedged in the past.

     As to the “few” here who have made contributions, that is not the same as a commitment. We want a productive race, and it is to that end that I have contributed to several campaigns…to keep it going. Not to Christie though.

102. At this point it has become the Trump/Megan Kelly show and that needs to stop now. The other candidates are being smothered by this.

     Trump won’t stop it because it keeps him front and center. Megan Kelly needs to step up and somehow stop it.

     Now I’m not knocking Megan. She struck a nerve with Trump and he hit back hard … just what his supporters love!

103. In a sane system, all the primary votes for Trump, if he fails to secure a position, goes to the second highest priority pick of the voters. In a sane system that works.

     In the current system, they just go from Democrat saboteurs to Democrat sabotaged candidates, to primaries that the Democrats rig just as Demoncrats rig national elections.

104. I’ve sent some $-donations to Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina post-debate. Like both very much and loved both their Thursday night performances. Marco is a hugely attractive candidate in various “today” ways. Carly is more and more impressive.

105. Frog,
     I think you are right about many big donors, but there are probably some who liked what Bush did in FL and others who don’t want to get involved in social issues and haven’t identified a viable alternative. If they see someone else credible who is rising in the polls, they may donate to them.

     I didn’t mean to imply that people like us who contribute to someone like Carly are fanatically committed to her. I actually think they feel she and a few others are interesting enough that they just want to keep them in the game till they know enough to make a commitment. I personally like to hear all the ideas that are out there. Ultimately we can get a decent platform out of some civilized give and take among the candidates, and maybe provide some good people for cabinet posts.

106. re Codevilla the essential point is missed, (it’s not Trump):
     “Republicans brahmins have the greater reason to fear. Whereas some three fifths of Democratic voters approve the conduct of their officials, only about one fifth of Republican voters approve what theirs do. If Americans in general are primed for revolt, Republican (and independent) voters fairly thirst for it.”

     It’s a long time happening, decades long, – conservative institutions slowly but resolutely disestablishing discrete members for being… indiscreet. The episodes, in essence excommunications, had, all of them, constituted an ideological cleansing not from ideological disagreement but for the sake of remaining relevant in the mainstream. William Buckley’s National Review had first purged from its midst the Birchers* – when they took issue with the ’64 Civil Rights Act; or, rather because — mainstreaming. After Jewish Lefties saw the light on the road and became ‘born again’ ‘neo-conservatives’, the poohbahs at Commentary Magazine still regarded criticism of Jews, American Jews, Zionism, Israel, as anti-semitism. Joseph Sobran had to go — and off he went — ring the bell, close the book, quench the candle — because, mainstreaming. Most recently, first John Derbyshire was banished then Mark Steyn and NR parted ways — because, mainstreaming.

     If there is a difference between National Review and The New Republic it’s not so much as the thickness of a page of either. If there is a difference between National Review and The Nation — give it (NR) time.

     Conservatism cannot stay the course, never has.

     Every crisis is an opportunity for and will be taken advantage of by the Lib/Prog/Left, for if they are deceitful and untrustworthy — and they are — they are ten times that, intrepid. The GOP/Cons, on the other hand, when presented with a crisis, an opportunity, jelly up, break out in flop sweat and break out with the chorus from“Sit Down, You’re Rockin’ The Boat”.

     As well as Codevilla, Matthew Vadum makes the same charge against the GOP and writes in
     Slash And Burn:
     How Democrats Defend The Indefensible — And Why Republicans Are No Match For Them
     Were Republicans trying to let Obama’s Democrats curb-stomp them on the Planned Parenthood vote?

     Anyone from GOP Inc. is anathema from the get-go and for good cause. Anyone ‘conservative’ has much to prove — doubt to allay. Talk is cheap; mainstreaming is surrender. Act the pusillanimous wimp, repeatedly, and then wonder why no-one will trust you. Talk like Patton, vote like Quisling, rule like Vichy, and then wonder why the fed up citizen/voter would rather stay at home than consort, let alone vote for, featherbedders, whiffenpoofs, skimmers, looters, dissemblers, narcissists, gasbags, self-enrichers, turncoats, buggers, tree-huggers, circus car clowns, egalitarians, and/or PC compliant oikophobes.

     It’s not the nation the ‘let it burn’ cohort wishes to see ablaze. It’s the GOP and their conservative enablers they wish would suffer autos-da-fé. Once for failing, repeatedly, to fight, once again for, repeatedly, colluding with the opposition in defense of the zeitgeist.

     *traditionally conservative John Birch Society – anti-communist, for individual (not group) rights, for ownership of private property. It promoted U.S. independence (free of strange alliances – NATO), sovereignty (free of supranational jurisdictions — UN), and opposed globalism (the establishment of international regional groups – eventually the EU, and the ever in the wind North American Union.

107. Expat: “Don’t you think Dems will have some problems with turnout, too?”

     Yes. But they will use the Chicago way to more than compensate.

108. I asked my sister about this. She used to back Cruz 150%, and now she’s backing Trump. She says that Cruz supports increasing legal immigration, in particular the H1B visas, and they’re direct competitors with her for lab tech positions.

     She’s trained with a BSc. Right now she’s working as an armed security guard, because she can’t get a job in a lab.

     Personally, I can’t see Cruz or any true conservative president raising legal immigration numbers until American citizens have a better employment picture. But getting that through her red head… ehhh, gimme a hammer.

     Gunnar

109. George Pal,

     You should read this William F. Buckley article on the John Birch Society; highlight for me is this on Russell Kirk’s estimation of the group’s founder:

     It was [Kirk’s] opinion, he said emphatically, that Robert Welch was a man disconnected from reality. How could anyone reason, as Welch had done in The Politician, that President Eisenhower had been a secret agent of the Communists? This mischievous unreality was a great weight on the back of responsible conservative political thinking.

110. Interesting post at Conservative Treehouse about the GOPe’s machinations of the primary process to ensure that Jeb is the nominee:

     GOPe 2016 Road Map To Victory — Tree House Challenge…

111. Gunnar: ‘I asked my sister about this. She used to back Cruz 150%, and now she’s backing Trump. She says that Cruz supports increasing legal immigration, in particular the H1B visas, and they’re direct competitors with her for lab tech positions.’

     Coming from a long-time tech career, I have seen my fill of this (H1B) and it is a one factor in my belief that the GOPe must go. Unfortunately, I think Cruz is amongst the best of the current crop of candidates on this – unless you count Trump. Rubio lost me long ago on the immigration issue, as did Jeb, etc. Those who are not adamantly opposed to the continuing massive immigration levels (illegal and legal) are complicit in the current leftist/elitist/statist program of replacing the U.S. population with one they like better (i.e., can control better).

     If you think this is tin foil territory, read Victor Davis Hanson’s descriptions of how this has played out in California. Coming soon to a community, neighborhood, and profession near you.

112. Neo said: “Those who think Trump is in the race to harm Jeb Bush, or that his popularity will harm Jeb Bush, are ignoring the fact that his candidacy has drawn from other candidates (such as Walker) and has helped Bush move in front of the others in the polls.”

     I agree. Trump will scare the people with clout and money to Jeb in droves.

     People rush to write Jeb off, and generally disparage him. I do not agree. He is not my first choice, but he is not what people paint him to be either.

     I am mystified as to why so many people, including on here, accept that Trump is speaking honestly, or even in good faith. And I am shocked and dismayed that anyone could imagine him as President. A truly frightening prospect. He is closer to that fool in N. Korea than to anyone else I can think of on our national scene. In case I didn’t make myself clear; I consider him no more than a blustering bully.

     One point for what it is worth. Most people do not seem to realize that Trump was born with a silver spoon. He attended a private school in New York where his father, a wealthy New York real estate developer, was on the board. He left due to behavioral problems and attended a military school. He graduated from the prestigious, Ivy League, Wharton Business School and went directly into his father’s New York business. A few years later he was “promoted” to head the company. One more point. Although he is less than candid, he missed the Vietnam draft due to a student deferment, then when that ran out, a 4F (physical disqualification) classification. His story is that he just lucked into a high lottery number. Clintonesque. You can look it all up if interested.

113. Ann,

     I find it both interesting and informative that Mr Buckley responds in the pages of Commentary Magazine. He seems to have had a thing for Jewish intellectualism.

     Mr. Buckley:
     “The fallacy,” I said, “is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.”

     Well said under the circumstances but not all circumstances fail to rise to the occasion. Occasionally there’s yeast in the buckwheat.

     We lost Iraq to ISIS, Iran is going nuclear, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished it to happen.

     Well yes.

     And yes, Mr Welch was indeed a problem. So they threw out JBS (the baby) with the bathwater (Welch).

     Perhaps a more perspicacious anti-communist soul, when he had not found commies in the closet would have looked under the bed. The year was 1962, the universities were chockablock with them and they all came out from under the bed round about 1968, just six years later. The rest, as they are wont to say, is history.

     From the New Orleans Progressive Examiner, August 2012, a diatribe seeking to make of the Tea Party a recrudescence of JBS:
     “The John Birch society warned in a recorded 1963 speech that still survives on tape in a University of Michigan archive, that “Americans must always be on high alert against a takeover of America in which Communists would infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until eventually the office of the presidency is occupied by a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.”

     I’m not sure whether the critical theorist was being tonguey-in-cheek (ironic) or cheeky-in-tongue (impudent).

     I wonder, if in the event the Tea Party ever got a good second wind up, how long it would take for the calls that the racist organization (there’s bound to be either a racist or nut or a racist nut, or someone who has a Stars and Bars flag there) be denounced is denounced and who will do it.

114. Whatever Welch’s failings, the Birchers turned out to be largely correct about the extent of Communist infiltration.

     That is now pretty much undeniable, as we have learned to our chagrin.

115. John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago
     John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago
     Excruciatingly precise.

     It shall be bloody – from all apertures.

116. rickl: So, you believe Eisenhower was a communist? Really?

117. Fiorina on Islaaam:
     …There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.

     It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.

     One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.

     And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.

     Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things.

     When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.
     While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.

     Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth. Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.
     Cough, cough ….

118. Fiorina’s better live the Donald alone:
     Live him ALONE!

119. G6loq,

     Thank you. From every precinct of the truly conservative world.

     Bah-bye Carly. Or, as is their wont – al-salām ῾alaikum.

120. Wooly Bully:
     Where did I say that?

     G6loq:
     Holy crap. And I was starting to warm up to her.

     Good find. Arfldgr was right about her.

121. Post debate polling is indicating that Fiorina has jumped to 8%

     Dr. Carson has also surged way up. ~8%

     Jeb Bush lost ground.

     Trump held steady.

     Fox News hurt their brand name by slamming Trump and elevating Huckabee. ( recently of that network )

     Kelly took major image damage — not Trump.

     Anger does not present well, worse yet coming from a young woman.

     Women hugely judge a man by his wife… and are wise to do so.

     That relationship is the single best evidence of how a man treats women. ( cf Clinton )

     When even an ex praises a man — wow.

     Hence, Kelly’s game had no premise. We already know what Trump thinks of women — he treats them like queens.

     We know how Clinton treats women. — and how.

     %%%

     Fiorina is breaking through to the top tier. Jeb and Christie are carrying the wrong messages for this election.

     Huckabee will never break out of his core of support — ditto for Rand Paul.

     If there’s anyone that’s a candidate for a third party it’s Paul.

     But my bet is that no-one is going to leave the GOP to start a Bull Moose effort.

     Every candidate sees himself working with a Republican House and Senate to flail through BHO’s travesties.

     Trump is not so vacuous as to see his efforts elevate HRC — who is leading the charge for the Big Money elites.

     BTW, having the elites kissing his a$$ is a huge ego motivation for Trump.

     Trump’s tendency to play it by ear — is a plus for these crazy times. It calls for a personality that focuses on the Art of the Deal.

     Fiorina, Walker and Trump all figure to be top notch deal crafters. I still favor the first two.

     I expect that Trump will fade in the standings as the polls move off to classic Republican strongholds. His 0care position will be a HUGE drag on his coattails.

122. rickl: You didn’t say it. The John Birch Society said it. What you said is: “…the Birchers turned out to be largely correct about the extent of Communist infiltration. That is now pretty much undeniable, as we have learned to our chagrin.” Care to take it back?

123. Not in the slightest. The Birchers were absolutely dead bang right in the main about Communist infiltration in American society. That doesn’t mean that Welch was right about Eisenhower being a Communist.

124. rickl: Were they also right about fluoridation of water being a communist plot?

125. Nice way to change the subject.

     Are you implying that they were wrong about Communist infiltration?

126. Wooly Bully,

     I can’t remember the time I’ve seen such a disingenuous attempt to debate here at Neo’s place. She usually has a better class of troll.

     rickl,

     Don’t feed the trolls man. It only encourages them.

127. “Immigration without assimilation is an invasion” : Gov Jindal

     http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422249/bobby-jindal-immigration-assimilation-republican-debate-cleveland

128. In Fiorina’s defense that speech about Islamic culture was made in 2001 …a lot of people have studied up a lot more on Islam since then……

129. The title of this post contains its answer: there are no bona fide anti-establishment conservatives in the race. Look closely at Cruz for example. He backed the fast track trade deal until his presidential aspirations got in the way and then cravenly changed sides at the last minute. Or Rand Paul who stood on principle with an old fashioned filibuster forcing the administration to back away from targeting citizens for extermination inside this country went on to propose a European style nationwide VAT tax like any good socialist.

     I could go on, but the point is that ALL of these candidates except Trump are politicians first, principled patriots last. The proof is the fact that after gaining control of both houses of congress in 2014 the party they represent has turned coat on its conservative base, even going so far as to openly target candidates who don’t play along. Neo, it is all a charade, one that Trump is exposing because he is not a pol subject to blackmail, at least not yet.

     I’m not good at predictions, but I’ll bet that even with a Republican president elected but without a very solid 2/3 control of the Senate, absolutely nothing will change. Obamacare will not be repealed, the border will not be secured, and it will be too late to undue the Iran non-treaty. So tell me again, why I should vote Republican when they have shown themselves to be completely ineffectual. What difference will it make?

     And besides I’m thoroughly enjoying Trump forcing them to confront what ALL of them want, amnesty as the price of Chamber of Commerce financial support.

130. The Other Chuck:

     If that’s the standard you’re going to use for “bona fide conservative”—then no one is, including Ronald Reagan.

     Certainly NOT Donald Trump.

     Cruz is as close to perfect in that regard as you’re going to come on the face of the earth and when dealing with actual human beings.

     As for “what has the GOP done?” or “what difference has the Republican Party made?”—I’ve dealt with that and related questions time and again, at great length. I can’t find all the relevant posts and comments of mine right now, but one of my answers involves the things that wouldn’t have happened if a Republican Congress and a Republican president had been in place. Do you think Obamacare would have been passed, or the Iran deal taken place, just to take two examples? The answer is a resounding “no.”

     Also read this, this, this. See also this.

     I want you to pay particular attention to this. Your idea that even with a Republican president like Cruz or Walker in there that it would take a 2/3 control of Congress to get anything done has no basis in fact (unless you think George W. Bush was a conservative, which he really was not). We have never since Coolidge had a situation where a conservative was president AND there was a majority Republican Congress (Reagan had a House controlled by Democrats his entire time in office; Nixon—if you consider him a conservative, which I don’t—had neither House nor Senate, and Hoover was not a conservative; only Coolidge was a conservative and had both House and Senate with him). So you have no basis on which to make your claim.

131. jon baker Says:
     August 9th, 2015 at 11:52 pm

     In Fiorina’s defense that speech about Islamic culture was made in 2001 …a lot of people have studied up a lot more on Islam since then……

     September 26, 2001. At that time my thoughts tended more towards wiping Islam from the face of the Earth, not praising its history. And the “history” she cited was wholly ignorant and fictitious.

     That speech is indefensible. Unless she specifically repudiates it, she is done as far as I am concerned.

132. rickl, if someone is “mostly right” about Communist infiltration but also says that Eisenhower is a Communist it tends to undermine the message. And I don’t think you can separate Welch from the JBS, he was its founder and longtime leader and they didn’t dump him for saying it. It’s like Ron Paul, he is good on some things, very good on government spending but is a crackpot on others so he is marginalized.

     In terms of Trump though, I don’t think Trump is a “crackpot”, just a brash loudmouth. NTTAWWT.

133. I’ve been thinking lately that Carly is the one, then found the speech that G6loq posted. I then dug around some more: just google her position on global warming, as it’s certainly not listed on her website…… another wolf in sheep’s clothing???

134. I just read a good piece on the inevitability of Trump. It was published at “The Federalist.” I think it’s relevant to Neo’s remarks and the comments that have followed. So, if anybody’s curious, here’s a link http://tinyurl.com/pq3socr

     Also, I took a look at the speech that Fiorina made in Minneapolis right after the attacks of September 11th. The passage about Islam’s history is glossy nonsense, but it was widely expressed at that time, for reasons that should be obvious. Most of the mainstream media, and everyone on the Left, still promote that view. The passage comes at the end of Fiorina’s speech, which is about leadership. Since this was made by Fiorina while she was CEO of Hewlett Packard, to what I assume was an audience of HP employees, I assume that her speech was an effort to convey a sense of steadiness and stability, to both employees and stockholders, after a tragic catastrophe. Her comments on Islam’s history would not have been mine, but I can understand why she made them.

     Anyone who can embrace Trump, after all the foolish things he’s said, but reject Fiorina because of these brief remarks on Islam’s history, is demonstrating a singular lack of judgement and logic.

135. physicsguy:

     I’m an enthusiastic but tentative supporter of Carly Fiorina. How’s that possible? Well, it very, very early. As more information becomes available, maybe I’ll change my mind. Right now, I’d most like to see a ticket of Walker and Fiorina.

     So, I took up your idea to google “climate change” and “carly fiorina.” I didn’t look through a lot of the search results, but I did notice many references to an interview that Fiorina recently did with Katy Couric (http://tinyurl.com/pacvhe4). I watched that and didn’t find much to quarrel with. Can you tell us why you think Fiorina should be rejected because of her views on this issue? Serious question here. Am not trying to attack your view.

136. Neo, Nixon never had the House or the Senate, both were pretty heavy Democratic majorities in both of his terms.

     Trump is not conservative, does not work in any way to advance conservative causes, is not Republican, and is a house-wrecker only. Those frustrated people who tolerate him because of their fury at the political class or on immigration issues have lost their perspective. Maybe they are not cut out for the American political system, its checks and balances, and its buffers for accommodating very diverse views and interest.

     Let’s hear some candidates speak to the needs of the nation, not just factions, and move on from this neo-fascist revival of so-called “Progressivism”

137. … didn’t find much to quarrel with…
     Hmmm: Cough, cough .. :coffeesip:
     Then in 2013, when Ted Cruz was counseling defunding Obamacare in the next budget, and Boehner wanted capitulation, Carly sided with…John Boehner.

     Everybody could see this train wreck coming. I actually feel badly for John Boehner. I think this is Ted Cruz and President Obama’s shutdown. I think Ted Cruz’s tactics were wrong.

     There’s no honor in charging a hill that you know you can’t take, only casualties, although Ted Cruz maybe got name recognition and money along the way. But President Obama wanted this shutdown. And Ted Cruz played right into his hands.

     Well, Boehner’s “tactics,” which ended up being employed, were to fully fund Obamacare, which is what we still have today. Carly was clearly against putting up a fight to defund Obamacare. ..
     Cough, cough .. :coffeesip:

138. Cornflour,

     I watched the Couric interview you linked, and she basically used the same talking points I found other places. Her approach to “climate change” ( a BS term as the climate is always changing, and has been), is based on a faulty premise. She states quite emphatically that she believes the “scientists” that global warming is real and human induced….that’s my BIG beef with her.

     She walks a fine line by then saying that because places like China are producing so much CO2 that we are hurting ourselves economically by regulations that won’t help the “problem”. Her mistake is that there really is no problem…it’s the biggest scientific scam since Lysenko. The fact that she accepts the premise of the AGW crowd leaves her open to actually endorsing the AGW premise later on. I think her position is very politically based where she is not going to offend the AGW crowd by telling them they are full of it, but instead point out that the solutions will hurt economically.

     The “walking on both sides of the track” bothers me, but I can see the practicality in terms of getting elected.

139. Trump was predicted.

     Why read fiction?
     Why read satire?

     I blame the voters ….

140. rickl: So, you believe Eisenhower was a communist? Really?c

     Why does Eisenhower have to be a communist if his government was full of them? Most Presidents, including Reagan or Bush II, didn’t clean house. No bureaucrats were executed, Plame and WIlson weren’t banished or exiled. Where else would the communists from P Wilson and FDR’s reign be at?

     Most people thought the Indian numerals were invented by the Arabs. They also thought a lot of Persian mathematics were the result of Islam or Arabic civilization.

     This is the cultural appropriate conducted by conquerors, such as the Islamic Jihad, which occupied much of Spain even in 790 AD. The Hagia Sophia was built as a Cathedral to Orthodox Christianity. The Muslims took it over as a Mosque, to convert heathens and tax infidels with the jizya. Only recently do they “allow” you to visit it as a museum, but it could become their Mosque at any time if they wish t, it isn’t yours any more. It has been Appropriated from your culture. Your secular and religious leaders don’t get to say a damn thing about it one way or another, it isn’t yours any more. It’s been conquered.

     That’s how come Islam or Arabia was thought to have created a super empire that had all these inventions and civilization results. A bunch of Bedouin camel riders and Mohammedan conquerors created such a super civilization? I don’t think so.

     If anyone at 2001 thought the Indian numerals were Arabic, or that any Islamic conquered invention was rightfully Islam’s, they have little standing to criticize others who also believed the Islamic Empire was supreme.

141. The policies of a leader doesn’t actually matter. Policies are conducted by their subordinates, vassals, or allies in the bureaucracy. The habit of Americans in critiquing potential leaders as having a big hand in politics, is erroneous. The leader doesn’t need knowledge about policies. That’s what their advisers and cabinet members are for.

     The leader, however, has to have certain traits, like justice, courage, patriotism, loyalty or a kind, and so forth. These traits or virtues, inherently boost the wisdom of policy decisions. But you could have a bad leader that undertakes your policies, but fails to execute them, such as intentionally sabotaging immigration, minimum wage taxes, homosexual relations, or the economy.

     Even if such a leader agreed to your “policies”, that isn’t necessarily a good thing.

142. physicsguy:

     You wrote: ” … The “walking on both sides of the track” bothers me, but I can see the practicality in terms of getting elected.”

     Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. On global warming, my views are closer to yours than to Fiorina’s, but I can live with her statements as policy — not science. In fact, I wish that politicians would stop pretending to know the science, because — for example — they’ve read a summary of a deeply flawed paper that purports to describe a scientific consensus. I’d rather see politicians acknowledge that they don’t understand the science, but that it seems to be inconclusive when it comes to the human contribution to global warming. The politician’s role would then simply be to craft the best policy. Hard enough.

     In fact, by walking both sides of the track, her policy has a better chance of getting enough support to pass enabling legislation.

     I know this is the sausage-making aspect of politics that everybody hates, but I don’t see how that’s ever going to go away.

143. “So, what’s the problem with Cruz for you? ”

     Nothing. At this point that is who I would support if for no other reason than the fun I got out of listening to Chrissy Matthews’ alarm over Republican candidates with those dangerous “black Irish” looks.

     Actually, and this might annoy Neo, if I had the authority to merely appoint a president I’d probably appoint Romney for one term and see how it worked out.

     He’s the most grown up man in the political room at this point.

     Of course I could be wrong. I misjudged Ryan, thinking him stronger than he proved to be.

144. But President Obama wanted this shutdown. And Ted Cruz played right into his hands.

     Well, Boehner’s “tactics,” which ended up being employed, were to fully fund Obamacare, which is what we still have today. Carly was clearly against putting up a fight to defund Obamacare. ..
     Cough, cough .. :coffeesip:

     Since you like judging this from hindsight, what’s the solution to this lose lose strategic scenario? Because if you don’t have the power to shut down the government, when they come to execute you, your family, and your known associates, you won’t have the power to shut them down either. And if funding HusseinCare was going to happen on the other route, then you’ve lost before you’ve begun, since if you shut them down, they shut down the life support of their hostages.

145. I misjudged Ryan, thinking him stronger than he proved to be.

     That’s less Ryan’s fault and more the fault of people who underestimate the power of the Left in their home den, DC.

146. rickl, if someone is “mostly right” about Communist infiltration but also says that Eisenhower is a Communist it tends to undermine the message. And I don’t think you can separate Welch from the JBS, he was its founder and longtime leader and they didn’t dump him for saying it. It’s like Ron Paul, he is good on some things, very good on government spending but is a crackpot on others so he is marginalized.

     Of course it undermines the message, but the reason why the John Birch Society failed is because they became a political party. They had no concept of the proper tactics to counter the Left’s advance. All they had was one answer “voting”. Voting wasn’t going to stop domestic traitors from gaining power. Not unless you vote to outlaw their political parties at least, like Europe did to the Nazis or Nazis did to the Socialists and Communists (less competition from their buddies).

     It’s like having two generals who both agree that Objective A must be taken, that enemy Z must be pushed back. Except they use completely different tactics. One will win, the other has a high chance of failure.

147. James Sullivan

     Maybe it’s a new form of Leftist zombie rapist and child molestor.

     The old method on the internet was to ignore trolls. The new method of GamerGate and anti Leftist insurgents is to ridicule them until they collapse from a lack of willpower or Authoritarian imperatives.

     Freezing is cold.

148. Why to support Trump for the time being?

     Pour encourager les autres.

149. The direct questions posed to Bully were “Why does Eisenhower have to be a communist if his government was full of them?”

     And Rick’s “Are you implying that they were wrong about Communist infiltration?”

     Generally Leftist harassers will dodge direct questions, because it prevents them from monopolizing and occupying territory. Which is why some anti Leftist tactics have been developed where such people are removed or otherwise countered, once a certain pattern develops.

150. Nice piece, Neo. The tendency of the media to hype the bizarre and ignore the strong and sensible alternatives is frustrating. Basically, politics has become a spectator sport and the news organizations are in the entertainment business. Sad, because elections and policies are important, but profitable for the purveyors of knowledge.

151. I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism of Cruz. After all, he was the proximate cause of the awful drubbing of the Republicans in 2014.

152. Ed:

     My error; I was reading the chart on that page too hastily. You are correct; I will go back and fix the comment.

153. physicsguy, Cornflour:

     I’m going to stick for Carly on the global warming thing. I just re-watched the Katie Couric clip twice. Listen to the first 28 seconds or so. What Carly actually said was, “We’ve got to read the fine print. Every one of the scientists who tell us that climate change is real and being caused by man-made activity also tells us that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all.” She doesn’t say she believes in it or that it’s man made.

     She goes on to discuss innovation (in the clean-coal effort) rather that legislation as an approach, warn=s about the trade-offs of “green energy (e.g., wind power killing thousands upon thousands of birds) and won’t concede until repeatedly pressed near the very end that “climate change” is “a serious issue”. Hell, yes it’s a serious issue: The Left is using it as a propaganda pretense for all kinds of totalitarian laws and (worse) rule-making. It’s the greatest fraud in human history since “The Silent Spring” led to DDT being banned ( I was going to say since the Piltdown Man hoax, but compared to CAGW, that was child’s play).

     She’s chosen her words very carefully and never says that she “believes in” CAGW. Remember: (1) she wants to be elected and (2) the MSM pillories anyone who calls CAGW a fraud (ask Mark Steyn).
     If anyone has a clearer declaration by CF that she believes in the MSM- endorsed version of “Climate Change”, please point it out.

154. I am with you on Cruz and on Fiorina. Cruz is my first choice and I am frankly surprised he is not getting more attention from even the right wing press. He’s so clearly brilliant, does hold elected office (the weakness of Fiorina) and is extraordinarily eloquent. His values are the right ones. And, he’s Hispanic. While that shouldn’t matter, it can’t hurt. I honestly don’t see why he is not getting more attention but maybe that will change when Trump finally deflates.

     Fiorina is getting attention and that is fantastic. She is definitely in the running.

     Maybe they can team up — time will tell.

155. Jesse Ventura has already endorsed Trump. And indicated he would be interested in becoming Trumps running mate.

     This, during Ventura’s interview with Trump advisor Roger Stone:

     “I decided to go rogue. I still support Donald Trump, very strongly, even though we have some disagreements on issues. On the No. 1 issue: cleaning up the special interest corruption of our government, I agree with him,” Stone said about his split. “People are ready for blunt talk. They don’t want these politicians that are scripted or that are handled, or practiced, or coached. This is why you were successful, in Minnesota,” Stone said.

     Ventura asked him who he thought should be Trump’s vice president.

     Dr. Ben Carson is the only non-career politician and a straight talker, Stone said, calling a Trump-Carson ticket “very strong.”

     But Ventura didn’t want to be left out of the mix.

     “That throws me out of the equation because I’m a former governor. Do you think Donald would ever think of asking me?” Ventura asked.

     http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/12/jesse-ventura-id-like-to-be-trumps-running-mate/

156. Orson:

     Well, right off the bat Ventura is wrong about the number of non-career politicians in the race. He’s leaving out Fiorina. She ran for office once, but is most definitely not a career politician or even close to it.

157. Oh, neo – of course! I don’t see Ventura as a likely prospect; the current, more viable talent pool is too deep.

     Jesse was a suburban mayor with a sports-star, B-actor past, who became an important – and I’d argue, successful – reform governor.

     It’s too bad the Pubbies didn’t learn from his example but got cowed by an icily hostile Left media in Minnesota. The LIVs there got played by ’em.

     9/11 drove Ventura off the rails, into exile in Mexico, and out to Truther nuttery. I haven’t followed him since then, almost a decade ago.

     Again, the pertinent parallel question is this (given their ethnic, demographic and geographical propinquity):

     HOW and why has Walker succeeded in turning around a similar state, Wisconsin (with an original Progressive tradition); while Minnesota (with a later Democratic-Farmer-Labor Left tradition) has almost doubled down? Getting Loonier (Senator “Al Franken” the unfunny TV comic), and less functional (Dems in both state Houses controlling things, and Governor Mark Dayton from the rich ruling class re-elected, and Senator Amy Klobichar, daughter of a famous “Strib” columnist).

     In Big Year upsets, 2014, the best opportunity to toss out the Old Dems in Minnesota belonged to the North East state Congressional district, pitting at 70 year-old party time server against a hip 42-year old from a popular regional ag & sports retailing family business. (http://www.startribune.com/nolan-in-political-fight-of-his-life-vs-mills-in-8th-district/274980361/)

     The Pubbie lost last November by a mere 1.4%.

     My hunch is that it has much to do with Minnesota’s comfortable wealth: it has more “old money” via large,
     older firms (per capita, the equal of the state of NY in the 80s, with 3M, Target, General Mills, Cargill – the latter, long-time the largest privately held corporation in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill_family), than Wisconsin. And with more high-tech firms in Minnesota (Honeywell, Medtronic), while Wisconsin remained more rust-belt (ie, declining heavy manufacturing base) oriented, with typical rust-belt transition challenges.

     With wealth and comfort more widespread than pain, and the spirited struggling to overcome its challenges, the small business ethos dies among the people. And with it, dies the veneration of the opportunity society, replaced by Leftist Utopianism, “inclusive” PC-nuttery, and dreamy stagnation.

     In related news today, neo – Hannity (radio show) asked Newt Gingrich about the seriousness of the now surging anti-RINO candidates. Can they go all the way?

     His first message is that together with surging Sanders, Washington, DC had better WAKE UP! The anti-establishment voice in politics is singing loud and clear. Hillary’s future is declining and Sanders’ is looking much more likely.

     Democrats may be in a situation like the election year of SoDak Senator McGovern, in 1972. In that year, Maine’s Edmund Musky was supposed to walk to the nomination. But grassroots opposition nominated the anti-war McGovern instead.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972#Primaries

     McGovern then lost in a historic Democrat slap-down – in great part because of his far-Left positions.

     Gingrich the historian clearly sees no history repeating itself, but certainly threatening to rhyme with throaty vigor!

     Gingrich further noted that Carly, Carson, and Trump are now, collectively polling 47% in Michigan – one of the mid-season Big State primary prizes.

     Gingrich says he can foresee a viable path for the anti-RINOs, but longer odds for Carson than the rest. Including Trump, asked Sean?

     We may end up with eight Pubby candidates going into the “winner take all” mid-season primaries of March, said Gingrich. Trump may then win with, say 24% of the vote, wrapping up the Republican nomination by April of next year.

     In sum, with the huge interest in anti-establishment candidates in both parties this year, the Fat Lady is already warming up!

     Gingrich added that an amazing 24 million watched last week’s debate, but I understand that’s only the TV count; the real “eyes on” is estimated at an incredible 38 million.

     A final story from Hannity’s radio show, with an emphatic anecdotal validation of the foregoing, notes – to Sean’s shock – that a bar in a hip section of Brooklyn advertized “come on in and watch the (Republican) debate!” The event brought out Democrats and independents to gander at the Pubbie prospects, too.

     The rising voice against ruling class’ neglect, abuse, and misrule has bred such widespread mistrust this year that we may get outsiders nominated to lead BOTH parties! (Damn time, too.)

     So Speaker Gingrich warns. But will the DC-insiders heed the clear warning signs? Will they, can they, heed the anti-establishment messages? Stay tuned….

158. Trolling this thread’s later comments, Gl6oq – together with physicsguy and Cornflour – have raised a hidden defect in Carly’s positions, it seems: Endorsing the conventional stupidity on global warming. That is, It’s Real and REALLY Dangerous! And We’re ALL gonna DIE! DO SOMETHING!

     This raises my Irish up! Because in the last British election, PM Cameron won a huge re-election and neither before nor since has reflected any realism about the issue – just continued currying favor with the insane and committed alarmists. Nor has Mutti Merkel grown wise, as she looks ahead to gain a record-setting fourth term as German Chancellor.

     My guess with Carly is simply that she reflects a California and Big CEO ’s prejudice that it’s bets to simply go with the pro-Enviro flow. Concede the realm of science to the hysterics and move on.

     There is a case for this, but it is wrong, seriously and dangerously wrong. And the task ahead is even bigger than the one for economic realism and straight-talking that we’re all familiar with.

     The two arguments in summery: one the one hand, federal monies going to global warming science make it second in science expenditure to medical research. So let it go. Growth and unsustainable government spending are far more urgent problems we face. And so on.

     One the other hand, the total world cost of the global warming hoax is estimated to cost the planet $1.5 trillion dollars – each year. STOP THIS MADNESS!

     The old science warned of the threat of warming over 2C degrees per century – up to 5C or so, centering at about 3.5C.

     But the hardest and best data (satellites) tell us that while we have added 25% more CO2 to the air, temperatures have stalled for nearly 19 years. Since the truly global measurements have gone on for 36 years, this means that the hypothesis of enhanced global warming from man-made (or more accurately “human released”) CO2 is clearly false.

     Instead of coming century-long warming over 2C, we have a measured projection of about one degree – a rise lost in the natural rise in temperature over the previous century (since 1890s) of about 1C degree. In other words, there may be no “global warming.”

     Or there may be some, but all of it below what environmentalists and scientists alike have worried and wailed about for three and-a-half decades! (The long enviro nightmare is truly over! Save for the bureaucrats and corrupt NGOs and their media enablers.)

     Add to this the fact that we now have hard, concurrent measurements that mean great benefits from added CO2 to the atmosphere. Higher CO2 levels has meant more staple grains for humanity at lower cost and effort, with hundred’s of billions of dollars in annual benefits mostly for the poorest on the planet. The human capital benefits? I have not yet run across this estimate, but I would guess they are many trillions, life-long.

     To the planet itself, we have hard satellite measurements
     that over the recent 32 years or so, over 20% has gotten greener – and less than 30% browner. (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-greening-of-the-planet.aspx)

     Friends on the Right have long touted these benefits during the last decade. But now we have hard measurements that are difficult to gainsay, and document the great benefits of burning fossil fuels

     And finally, lone voices of dissent from the collective madness like BBC’s favorite documentary botanist (until after the 1990s), David Bellamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy#Views_on_global_warming), and recent also nonagenarian James Lovelock – father of the “Gaia hypothesis http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change), can be vindicated by path-breaking new political leadership.

     The way is sound – unless you are “religious” about the environment and slavish (eg, the media about bureaucracies), or else corrupt, hostile and defensive (bureaucrats all)!

     Thus, if a candidate like Carly is almost entirely rational on the Big Stuff, I don’t worry about the lesser stuff. The case for rational optimism is too damn strong!

     In the event that Romney was already president, we may have regretted the ways in which he enabled the madness to continue because he had other priorities and worrisome preoccupations.

     The whole international fiasco presents an opportunity to reform corrupt Big Science.

     Climatologist Patrick Michaels at CATO’s Center for the Study of Science has pioneered the policy option of privatizing bloated, corrupt Big Science. Research (Spend 20 minutes here, at Heartland’s Climate Conference, July 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMX2DBEiI08 and be prepared to be disgusted.)

     Science corruption is WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT! “Climate science” is just the most obvious tip of a giant iceberg. The data indicate that “We are destroying science with federal money,” concludes Dr Michaels.

     The entire incentive structures of Big Science have to be changed. Got a presidential candidate that can whistle that shocking tune? Of course not. Not yet.

     In summary, from April 2015, surf over here (https://www.masterresource.org/niskanen-center/taylor-vs-taylor-1/), and enjoy the HOT LINKS contained in the set-up of the piece, below, to go deeper into the current state of climate change debate:

     ”[The case for] climate alarm has become weaker since its heyday (1988—98) for several reasons. First, temperature rise has slowed significantly in the last 18 years (the warming “pause” or “hiatus“). Second, sensitivity estimates have been coming down toward long-held “skeptic” levels. Third, “fat tail” extreme-warming scenarios for risk analysis are under  assault. Fourth, hurricanes and other major alleged indicators of climate change do not indicate alarm.”

159. FOOTNOTE: Who are the ultra-wealthy Cargill family in the Minneapolis area?

     A fortune derived from agricultural products, international trading of commodities, and the financing them since 1865, including a $10 billion hedge fund (says Wiki).

     According to Forbes in 2011, they ranked 7th among America’s richest families. As a Fortune 500 corporation, Cargill would rank #9; of all American families, they have the most billionaires with 14 all.

     However, other public data at Wikipedia (eg, 90% of Cargill’s assets) suggest a collective family fortune of $45 to $50 billion (2013).

     With Forbes ranking the Walton’s (Wal-mart) first, the three Koch brothers the second, the 14 Cargill billionaire’s would then rank 3rd, and ahead of the Mars family.

     In other words, Forbes 2011 may well understate the truth. (But then, with Cargill being privately owned and its heirs owning 90% – from which my number comes – other data is arguably more opaque.

160. Forbes LINK from 2011
     http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/nation/richest-families-in-america/

161. Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry likes Carly – a lot!

     Her blog headline (dated August 12th) reads “Carly Fiorina hits the ‘sweet spot’ on climate change.”

     Curry links to a National Review piece by Carly, and thence to an interview with Katie Couric. And it is Carly’s reasoning about the utility or disutility of Obama’s policy actions that she most agrees with.

     “The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. Indeed, the Chinese are only too happy to watch us constrict our economy as they capture the market in clean coal. California enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. The Obama administration enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. Yet Americans are asked to pay the price for – to take one example – climate regulations that, by 2030, would only save the world the equivalent of slightly over 13 days of Chinese emissions.”

     From there, things get mystical for the Left, or else a vain incantation for leadership.

     Curry concludes, in part:

     “As a political tactic, Carly Fiorina hits the sweet spot. She doesn’t challenge the scientific consensus, but rather focuses on the fact that if human caused climate change is real, we can’t stop it on the timescale of a few decades. Her emphasis on innovation rather than regulation is exactly on target; wind and solar just aren’t going to cut it.”

     MORE HERE
     http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/12/carly-fiorina-hits-the-sweet-spot-on-climate-change/

     Carly Fiorina hit a ‘home run’ in the first Republican debate and is starting to rise in the polls.

162. Trump is like the tough football coach without remorse for what he says, weeding out the team weaklings.

     Why should anyone be surprised?

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>