Arguing for and against Trump
Commenter “Tonawanda” is puzzled and disturbed by the following exchange on Mark Steyn’s site. In it, Steyn reports receiving the following query:
You insist that Trump has traction because ” … ‘real’ Republicans and ‘real’ ‘conservatives’ in Washington [haven’t] managed actually to ‘conserve’ anything during their time in office”.
One of Rush’s common points is that we haven’t had one of those in the White House since Reagan. Now we actually have several running. So not sure why it’s reasonable to turn to a candidate that is the farthest thing from one in the race. Cruz? I’m not onboard but I get why people would turn to him. Trump? … Trump???
I agree that immigration is an existential threat to the country. It needs to be at the top of the list in terms of priority. Where I guess I diverge from the Trumpkins is their seeming belief that it’s the ONLY issue of import. Is a debt to GDP ratio on par with Greece not ALSO an existential threat? Is a bumbling, unprincipled foreign policy not also in that category? Is the ever expanding police state that shuts down July 4th parades for lack of compliant signage not a concern? Pray tell, then, how it’s reasonable to support a candidate that VIGOROUSLY supports eminent domain? One that believes having bankruptcy law expertise is a useful tool when dealing with multi-trillion dollar governmental debt? One that “doesn’t particularly care” whether Ukraine joins NATO or gets blown to smithereens?
Yes, build a wall. But when the dollar collapses it’ll just make it harder for illegal immigrants to get out as they head back home for work. Let’s hope by that point the place doesn’t resemble East Berlin and the wall is repurposed to keep people in.
I really like Mark Steyn’s work. I’ve discussed him many times on this blog, always with approval, as far as I can recall.
That said, here is Steyn’s reply to the query:
All you say might well be true. It could be that Trump is just a phony and a liar, but the last people in the world in a position to complain about that are the Republican establishment. What’s the old saying? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. 2010 was fool me once, 2014 was fool me twice, 2016 would be fool me thrice, which is asking a lot even for the stupid party. Which is why, collectively, Trump, Carson and Fiorina, who haven’t a day in elected office between them, now command some 42 per cent in recent polls.
I confess that I find Steyn’s response both strange and disheartening. Trump supporters seem to me to be moths flying to a flame they find absolutely irresistible. They know it might and in fact probably will burn, but they don’t care anymore. They ignore all rational arguments that might dissuade them because they want to fly into it (yes, I know, the metaphor doesn’t hold up; moths don’t ignore rational arguments, nor do they follow them. But I think you get the idea.)
But the author of the email to Steyn never said Trump’s a phony or a liar (although many certainly say it). What he does say is that Trump is not a conservative, and there are actual conservatives running in this race to choose instead, such as Cruz. Steyn inexplicably goes to the “phony and liar” strawman, and then says that the Republican establishment shouldn’t complain about Trump being either because they are, too.
Well, that would be an argument against (a) a member of the GOP establishment, who (b) is a phony and/or a liar, who is (c) complaining about Trump being one. But it certainly isn’t an argument against Cruz, who is neither phony nor liar nor member of the GOP establishment (in fact, he has been the major voice in Congress opposing it), and is also not calling Trump a liar or a phony. So it certainly isn’t an argument for Trump over people such as Cruz, or Walker—or (as Steyn seems to concede) Fiorina or Carson, who are also running this year.
So Steyn doesn’t even begin to answer the question. Instead, he calls the Republican establishment phonies and liars. Even if he’s correct (I believe that the charge is true of many, and not all), his point is quite simply irrelevant to the query.
I’m not sure what’s going on here. I merely observe that quite a few people on the right such as Steyn—who is an extremely gifted writer as well as ordinarily a logical and clear thinker—is writing and thinking in a way I’ve not seen from him before.
This is true of others on the right, as well. It seems to me that they have reached such a pinnacle of frustration and anger at the GOP that they are not thinking straight.
If you look at the polls, Trump is around 20 to 25%. That is not a majority as far as I can tell. We have so many candidates right now that the support for a ‘true conservative’ is being diluted. Don’t worry, when those lower ranking candidates drop out (and they will), the support will move to someone else. And it could be we end up with 3 or 4 candidates (including Trump) who are polling about equally.
What I have liked about Trump since the beginning of all of this craziness is that he is speaking the truth about how many of us feel toward the federal government, international policy, illegal immigration, trade, etc. He is not afraid to speak his mind, put out his ideals and ignore the screaming from the press and from the left. That attitude is the kind I would like to have in a presidential candidate. Maybe Trump is not a ‘true conservative,’ but I sure wish some of the other candidates would start speaking like him…be honest about what you believe. Don’t let your handlers create your words for you. Don’t hedge your bets with donors and be weak on conservative principles.
I am tired of weak Republicans who put out positions that are centrist, who are worried about being called out in the press, who are scared to be called ‘racist’ or something else. If you can’t stand up to the left or to the press, then how in the heck are you going to stand up to our enemies? How in the heck are you going to put this country back on a path to success?
I repeat;
“My reading of Steyn is that he is well aware of Trump’s flaws but thinks that highlighting the political and cultural danger of millions of illegal immigrants and the GOP’s repeated betrayal of the conservative base supersedes ALL other considerations but one, that being Islam’s fundamental incompatibility with Western civilization’s precepts.”
Frankly, I don’t see either Walker or Cruz harping on those themes. Fiorina has just begun to do so but time will tell whether she fully addresses them. And, answering an occasional question is not highlighting those issues. Which is the only attention I’ve seen from the candidates we here favor.
Since those three issues, along with the democrat’s embrace of what is essentially communist doctrine are ‘800lb gorillas in the room’… giving scant attention to those subjects is a serious failing in any candidate for the Presidency.
We are far past the time, where polite debate is appropriate.
What Steyn doesn’t seem to understand is that Trump and Carson and Fiorina have the luxury of no actual political voting record. They have not had to weigh the pros and cons of voting on the many issues that come up in Congress or as Governors. In short, they have no history of flip flopping because they have never been politicians.
There is this ideal belief among many partisans that politics happens in a vacuum. As if a Republican should be able to enact every single piece of political legislation that comes their way. The ideal belief is simply not possible unless you have 2/3 control of Congress. Even then, all politicians do not walk in lock-step. Compromise and agreement is a key part of legislation. Many on the right [and left] seem unaware of this fact. If Trump wins he will have to compromise some of the time. Right now he can say he wouldn’t but it’s a lie. A lie that many voters will buy.
Geoffrey Britain:
Fiorina has NOT “just begun” to do so. A while back I posted a video of her addressing those issues in mid-June, and a link to her doing it before that as well. I also posted of video of her speaking up forcefully and rather radically to advocate charging employers who hire illegals—back in 2010. She has made opposition to establishment Republicans and their betrayal of the base a cornerstone of her speeches since before Trump got into the race.
Cruz has certainly spoken out about illegal immigration, and has made his entire reputation on bucking the establishment GOP and its betrayal of the conservative base (at some risk to himself, I might add). As a governor, Walker has understandably talked much more about his record as governor, but he started saying this sort of thing back in March, and this back long before Trump was in the race. And he just indicated his plan (that he discussed on a news show in March) was quite similar to Trump’s.
Just Google around and you’ll find lots of information about it.
Are you criticizing them because they are not single-issue candidates? That seems absurd to me. And what has Trump ever DONE but in regard to politics and policy but shoot off his mouth and contribute to a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans in order to earn favors for himself? And to call Bush evil and a liar?
MDL:
Those are excellent, excellent points.
I’ve spent many many hours of the last four years or so arguing more or less the same thing. You say it very well and very succinctly, however.
I think they’re sending a message to the GOP and the other candidates: Stop groveling. Make the conservative case honestly and forthrightly and with pride and passion. Stop buying into the “progressive” view that everyone divides up into demographic categories, that you have to “appeal to the middle,” not upset the status quo, that you have to run a bloodless campaign so as not to offend anyone, etc etc. And DON’T BACK DOWN or weasel-word your position because that just gives away how you’ll govern in the unlikely event you’re elected.
I am highly suspicious of Trump and I don’t like his heavy-handed insulting style BUT he gets his message out and even with all the negativity he still looks the part of a happy warrior.
People in general are tired of being lied to by their government. THEIR government. Everyone knows Obama lies constantly, probably more than he tells the truth. He gets away with it because he’s basically a religious leader to the left including the media and they’ve shouted down the opposition for years. That’s exhausting and it’s not going to hold true for his replacement. The discontent and dismay on the left with the establishment DNC means that the right needs to field a candidate who will not motivate the lefty horde to swarm out to vote against (since no one will want to vote “for” any of the Dems who are actually running). That’s why Trump makes me nervous.
The worst thing the GOP keeps doing is treating its most loyal voters with contempt, as “low information” voters, when they are in fact very educated and knowledgeable (due to a long history of watching and waiting), better informed than a lot of the GOP “insiders” who have bought into false beltway conventional wisdoms about the politics and the electorate. This is unbelievably rude and stupid and bumpkinish. It’s more embarrassing that Trump, actually.
Like the establishment DNC, the GOP establishment is wedded to a candidate that most of their voters don’t like very much, and with good reason. Will they wise up and start promoting somebody more electable? If they do, I bet Trump gets out.
Sorry, more embarrassing THAN Trump.
Steyn has a particular dislike for “establishment” Republicans, especially since his falling-out with National Review a year or so ago. I think that he, Rush, Levin, Coulter, et al. have gone all Trump because of the media exposure it gives them. We really should remember that they are all entertainers at heart.
AMartel:
If they do, I bet Trump does NOT get out.
He might even run 3rd party, although I’m not at all sure of that.
Trump is in love with Trump, and he adores all the attention. I don’t see him getting out unless he starts doing really, really poorly. And I don’t see that happening, either.
Ann:
I completely agree with you. I’ve written as much before—they are pundits and talk-show hosts, and controversy and ratings are their bread and butter.
K-E:
But there are several candidates besides Trump who already ARE speaking out that way.
Cruz, Walker, Carson, Fiorina come to mind.
You write:
The four I mentioned fit that description very well, I think. So what on earth are you talking about?
Cruz is practically the poster child for what you describe.
Today’s Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial is about Trump and his immigration rants and proposals. WSJ’s concern is that Trump and his enthusiasts will damage the image of Republicans in the minds of so many that the Republicans will suffer landslide defeat. I am very hawkish on immigration and disappointed ing the GOP. I like the WSJ or foreign policy, but they want too much legal immigration. But, I don’t want the desire to vent my frustrations to undermine the GOP’s effort to defeat the much more misguided Democrats.
There are good conservatives in the race early on, every time. By the time the primaries reach Texas each and every one of them has already been shoved out by the establishment in the more wishy-washy states. If we had a conservative running against McCain in Texas, we would have sent that anti-conservative jackass packing.
But
We
Never
Get
The
Chance
Conservatives around the country are looking ahead and seeing the Exact Same Damn Thing happening this time. My preference would be President Cruz. He’s my senator! But facing reality, I know that he can’t do anything more than try to push the party right in a candidacy that will be terminated before we get a say.
End result: we’re stuck with pathetic sure-loser Jeb Bush who has been persuaded to say a few half-hearted things to mollify the base on his way to winning the right to give a concession speech to our first openly socialist president.
I am not a Trump “supporter”. I prefer Cruz. I hate Trump. But Trump seems to be our only chance to punch the Stupid Party in the nose, and make it stop forcing “electable” losers on us every single freaking year.
btw, I think Cruz understands the dynamic of what’s going on better than anybody else in the party ranks. afaik, he’s the only candidate who is not out there talking smack about Trump.
“I think the reason why he’s getting the attention he is and the support he is — is that bold and brash, and he’s willing to speak the truth. And he’s taking on the Washington cartel. And in particular he’s focusing on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities and a great many of the candidates in 2016 for the Republican nomination have been vocal aggressive advocates of amnesty.” — Cruz
The frustration with the establishment GOP in general and current GOP leadership in particular is not just that they’ve failed to block the Obama administration. Most understand that can be very difficult to do with a simple majority. But it appears that they’ve repeatedly refused to be advocates for the conservative positions and have indeed worked to undermine the Tea Party and conservative members. Perhaps they should take some notes on Pelosi and Reid. To turn Clausewitz’s statement on its’ head; Politics is war on a different level. And it appears the establishment GOP has waved the white flag before the first shot was fired.
I wouldn’t vote for Trump. Largely because I think he is motivated more by his self interest than what this country needs. But it is good to see him forcefully address the issues that many find of concern. It is very good that Cruz, Walker, and Fiorina are also speaking out now. From what I now know I could gladly support any of them and would love a ticket with any two of the three involved.
Eric12:
You write:
That is the myth that angry anti-establishment conservatives tell themselves. It’s the equivalent of the German “stab in the back” myth from the 30s.
However, it is a myth. I wrote about it at some length here and here.
Take a look at those posts. Please read them very carefully.
So, in 2008, who are those good conservatives in the race early on who lost in the early primaries because the establishment put the kibosh on them? These are all the candidates who were running, including of course the conservatives, and a description of how the race went. The conservatives in the race, by the way, were considered to be Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. The latter—who in my opinion was not a “good” candidate in that even as a conservative he had major flaws, and his religious social conservatism was a turnoff even to a lot of conservatives—won quite a few primaries. He simply wasn’t that popular, and the conservative vote was also split between him and Romney (who again, let me remind you, was considered a conservative option at the time).
kaba:
They’re not just speaking our now. They were speaking out about it before Trump ever got into the race.
One of the lies Trump tells is that no one was talking about it before him. Of course they were. However, it is certainly true that because of him it’s become a topic that the MSM has focused on almost to the exclusion of any other, and therefore the others have been talking about it more lately.
I think Steyn does a good job explaining his thinking in his “Two-Party One-Party State” article on Aug 12. (Don’t use the Mac reader, it wipes out half of the article.)
The line I liked most was, “When the left wins, they’re in power; when the right wins, they’re in office…”.
He states that he is not a Trump supporter and that he is just enjoying the show. And that Trump is doing something useful by disrupting the Republican nominating process that failed the last two cycles. And he’s enjoying that Trump is making a mockery of the consulting class.
I am of the opinion that Steyn is thinking quite clearly and it’s more a matter of some here not agreeing with him. I’m also not sure why so many are letting their blood pressure get elevated over this. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Nothing we read or write here will change things. The Republican party will get the nominee they want and if by some miracle they don’t – that is probably a good thing.
I’m not a fan of Trump, I think he’s a Democrat in sheep’s clothing. However, I do think that he’s doing a very valuable service in softening up the MSM by beating them up and not accepting what they think is the default and “moderate” position. Carly Fiorina does the same but she does it as a lady and not a boor. It’s important to put fear into the MSM reporters so that they will treat the conservatives a little more fairly, even if it means going nuclear on one or two of the more egregious ones.
There is no other way to get a fair hearing for conservative thought. It will, of course, be misreported and misrepresented in the papers anyway.
neo-neocon:
(by the way, if I sound heated, it’s because of the issue, not you — I love your blog! 🙂 It’s just that I’ve been watching this since the Reagan years, and I’m getting tired of seeing the Stupid Party pull this crap *every single time*)
With that said, your lists of candidates in indicated blog posts are incomplete. You’re citing the candidates who lost towads the end, but not candidates who dropped out early on, often due to heavy pressure from the combined weight of media establishment and party pressure. And guess who they were?
It’s like I said: once the candidates get to Texas, the conservatives have already been shoved out. I mean, seriously: I’m in Texas, and I get to choose between McCain, Romney, and HUCKABEE? Whee! Kill me now.
For example, in 2008, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson also ran, but dropped out due to weak support in the early primary states (we here in Texas are so happy to have New Hampshire decide all this for us!). There are conservatives not in your lists, such as Steele, who were subject to early dirty tricks, such as political operatives rooting through trash (while McCain and other “safe” candidates are protected by the press, until they are chosen and conveniently and easily trashed in favor of the media’s choice). It could be argued that any of these prior conservatives were not “good candidates”, because they were effectively mowed down and discredited early on, but we get the strong impression that the party will fight harder to protect McCain and Lindsey Graham than it will to support Sarah Palin. We watch the Republican party throw conservatives to the wolves over and over, then tell *us* that we need to behave and act like adults.
The Republican party has become synonymous with “tear down conservatives early”, which is why conservatives aren’t hanging around to see if anybody decent makes it through the early states. We know they won’t; any one of the people identified as great conservative candidates *now* will be thoroughly dragged through the mud and destroyed by the time the early, wishy-washy states begin voting; Cruz and Fiorina and Rubio will all appear dangerous, because the press is trashing them, and the Republican party doesn’t lift a finger to support them. They will then be forced to drop out early, and be forgotten just like all the others.
Case in point: Rubio threw a football to a kid, and it was a perfect pass, but it slipped through the kid’s fingers, and it hit him in the face. The press has pounced on this, and all over now we’re starting to see headlines about how Rubio PUNCHED A KID IN THE FACE WITH A FOOTBALL. The Republican party will also use this to discredit him, to make sure that he receives as little support as possible in the early states. They’ll only prop him up later if they decide they need him for Jeb’s running mate.
The first thing I’d say about Trump is take a deep breath. Trump isn’t the anti-Christ. A much better case could be made for Obama in that regard. The second thing is note that real honest to God voting by real Republicans doesn’t start until next year.
Rush, Steyn, Coulter etc. and most conservatives all know that Trump doesn’t have a voting record. They also know that you can’t win every political battle. They all know that compromise is necessary to get actual legislation passed.
I’m pretty certain that what they are all furious about is the failure to fight. Our leaders, McCain, Romney, Boehner, McConnel all chose to surrender then to fight. What people need to understand is that fighting and losing emboldens your supporters. Not every battle will be won. The Republican party needs some Scotts-Irish blood in them (see Jim Webs book on this).
What I used to love about Jimmy Connors (tennis star) is that he fought like bloddy hell for every point. Even at the end of the last set. Even if he was going to lose.
We conservatives want William Wallace (Braveheart), Jimmy Connors or some other Scotts-Irish like fighter in the lead.
“Winning isn’t everything. It’s the ONLY thing.”
Ordinary frustration causes one to buy tools or hire someone who promises a fix. Enter Boehner and McConnell. Their repeated acts of cowardly surrender have led to ascending levels of frustration, which has taken us to the hallowed “pinnacle of frustration.” There we found a cosmic narcissistic clown awaiting our arrival. Unfettered by any fear or consequence, he feeds on a diet of the extreme levels of compounded frustration that Boehner and McConnell have refined for him.
This development is not entirely unique in human history. Let us hope the next chapters are not as dark as those past.
The Trump-mania — both for and against — has been somewhat maddening to me, because I DON’T CARE about him and am uninterested in the minutiae of anything e’s ever said or done.
I’m also uninterested in Jeb Bush. If he was somehow elected we’d very see Code Pink on the front page again, or the equivalent, and I would just tune out.
I declared early that I favor Walker, and I still do, though sure, either Cruz or Fiorina look reasonable as well. It’s hard to keep reminding oneself how early it still is, and how often polls and predictions have proved wrong.
Howard Dean seemed halfway inevitable for a long time, and back in 2012 Mitt Romney seemed unlikely to be the GOP nominee until fairly late.
Because of Trump’s celebrity factor, a lot of people are either overexcited (looking for “the Big Man” like they do in Africa or Latin America) or flummoxed, seeking to be rational about the irrational, where ordinary analysis is useless until after the fact.
KLSmith:
Steyn is wrong about that, too, in my opinion.
The right has not been in power in my lifetime—in terms of having both houses of Congress and the presidency—except for 4 1/2 years of Bush’s administration—and even then, in the Senate they have not had enough power to overcome the 60-vote cloture rule since the early parts of the 20th century. However, Democrats have been strongly in control of both houses AND the presidency many times,
Steyn is leaving out a lot there. “In power” doesn’t mean “controls the Senate with under 60 votes, and the House, but has a Democratic president in power who is willing to veto everything you do and therefore you have to have enough votes not just for cloture but for an override.
And by the way, Republicans almost managed to stop Obamacare because they came close to having 40 votes to stop it. They would have stopped it but for the Democrats’ reconciliation deal.
No, most of the time the only power the Republicans have had against the Democratic presidents they face is to shut down the government, and that is a very difficult and unpopular stand to take, although they certainly could have done it.
Cruz is the only one who seems to have his head on straight.
At this EARLY stage of the play, Trump is an ASSET.
Ultimately, Trump is destined to draw all of the arrows, too.
That’s the price of being the first ‘pilgrim.’
It’s like a horse race: Trump is first out of gate — but will flag in the stretch — and fade seriously long before the wire.
I’m sure Cruz sees that.
Cruz understands that Trump is setting the pace. Perfect.
Then the peloton can cruise in his draft stream.
You don’t shoot the pace-setter in the turns!
The REAL threat is Jeb Bush — a certified LOSER.
Trump might actually make it to the big chair.
Jeb doesn’t have a prayer. He’s there to put HRC in the wheelhouse.
Tonawanda has EVERTHING backwards.
By this stage of play NO WAY is Trump going to ‘drop out’ to save the race for HRC.
SHE’S headed for race departure ALREADY.
So Tonawanda’s paranoia — that Trump is a stalking horse for HRC — will prove unjustified.
HRC is just never going to make it to the convention.
Camille Paglia — and I — see the same thing: she’s TOAST.
She’s barely begun to speak. The more she speaks, the worse her numbers must get.
HRC is NOT going to cause the Black vote, the Latino vote, to pour into the streets. She’s a turn-off.
The ultimate vote will be decided by the mass of unemployed blue collar tradesmen and assembly line workers — over immigration… LEGAL immigration.
BHO is Cloward-Piven’ng the welfare state — and it’s imploding in slow motion right in front of our eyes.
The SSDI fund is now blowing up. It’s the PRIMARY Federal largesse directed towards immigrants, as it is health based, and we are taking in the cripples of the Third World.
Once inside the US of A they can legitimately drain the trust fund. If this were but a few… no biggie. However, immigrants — many are aged grandparents — have no shot at Social Security. Their play is to drain Social Security Disability, and they are doing so.
This is topped off by BHO’s OfA campaign to put all disabled Black citizens on the SSDI dole. Activists are trolling the ‘hood to find candidates. With a staff of Black civil servants calling the shots — those applications FLY through the ‘system.’
Sometimes these grifts become public scandals: civil service unionized lay-abouts disabled by a paper cut — fishing off the Hamptons — get snagged by social media. Just too blabby about the good (disabled) life.
BHO has brought the end of the welfare state — it’s just not apprehended.
The wealth is running out, and BHO is a BIG factor in its reduction.
kaba, well said!
The GOP establishment/insiders/whatever you want to call them, have been double-talking on the topic of immigration for years in order to please the big money corporate donors who want cheap labor in the short term. Any deviation from the GOP establishment plan for comprehensiveamnestyandapathwaytocitizenship is “totally unworkable” and ermahgerd. The GOP establishment pulls its punches with the Dems but not with its own people. It cooperated in vilifying the Tea Party and delivered some very low blows in a certain senate race in MS in order to get a reliable establishment guy back to DC. Also, if you don’t like Trump (and I don’t) then you really won’t like this Rick Wilson character who is out and about on the internet defending the establishment and saying really awful things to and about Trump enthusiasts.
Lastly, I’m tired of hearing conservatives characterized as “angry.” I’m not, personally. Generally, the whole country is angry. Or mad. One of the two. Constantly singling out one group of people for that appellation is lame.
As if a Republican should be able to enact every single piece of political legislation that comes their way. Really MDL, that’s how you see the Republican party as it exists today?
How about a partial list of reasons conservatives are angry enough to support Trump (in no particular order):
During GWB’s administration (don’t forget that during six of his eight years Bush had a congress where republicans controlled both houses):
-Oversaw a doubling of the burden of federal spending
-Expanded a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs
-Signed McCain-Feingold which he called “unconstitutional” more than once while it was working its way through congress.
-Increased federal intervention in education and housing
-Continued subsidies in agriculture and transportation
-Signed Sarbanes-Oxley which created a new massive overreach of regulations
-Signed No Child Left Behind (which he allowed Ted Kennedy to write, lest we forget)
-Oversaw the rise of the police state. Specifically the indefensible practices of the TSA and police departments getting MRAVs, tanks, and other military hardware that have no place in policing
Announced: “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”
During Obama’s administration with republican controlled house and/or senate:
-Fully funded Obamacare.
-The senate ceded their constitutional authority to consent to a treaty.
-Ceded the power of the purse to Obama.
-Acquiesced to Obama’s “executive amnesty”
-Rubio joins the “gang of eight” to attempt to pass an amnesty bill after promising during his campaign that he would not support amnesty.
-McCain and other establishment types call tea partiers and conservatives “Hobbits”, “wacko-birds” and worse.
-Passed the Ryan-Murray Bill to remove the so-called Sequester which imposed across the board spending cuts.
-Passed the “CRomnibus” spending bill (1600+ pages)
-Failed to support Cuccinelli resulting in a hard left governor of Virgina
-Fully funded Planned Parenthood
Hear, hear, Harold.
It should be remembered that George W Bush wasn’t much of a conservative, either. But he won conservative support by promising to support at least a few important conservative issues, and then not caving on them after the fact.
What is factually irrefutable is that the establishment candidates lose without conservative support. Conservatives only supported George HW Bush the first time around, because Regan campaigned sincerely for him. He lost the second time around, not so much because of Perot (lame excuse) but because conservatives couldn’t support him after caving. Perot was just a side effect.
McCain famously trashed conservatives. Nuff said.
Romney was right about a lot of stuff, but you don’t have to be a conservative to be more right about things than the endlessly wrong Barack Obama and John Kerry. He was simply a good man and a good businessman who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He never had conservative support, and part of that was due to the fact that we could see his prior track record: he had a habit of losing political races. Anybody who had bothered to look up his record could see that, for whatever reason, every race he had ever run, he generally *lost support* over time.
He was not a campaigner, and that’s also a big fault with the Republican establishment. They are all looking for “my turn”. And they always want “my turn” with a “safe” guy who sounds like he could make David Brooks smile, but has no idea how to actually sway an audience or win an argument.
Eric12:
You wrote, and I quote again:
That implies that there were good conservative candidates at the outset who lost primaries in the early (“wishy-washy”) states. This did not happen, as you can see. That was the point of my post.
Also, I linked to the entire list of republican candidates in 2008 from Wikipedia, and referred you to that (here it is again). It includes the candidates who dropped out before the primaries even began. Do you really think that someone like Tancredo ever had a chance?
And of course the MSM is going to trash Republican candidates they don’t like. But unless you think that establishment Republicans control the MSM, I don’t see how that’s relevant.
Glad you like the blog, though 🙂 .
RayH:
Republicans did not cede their constitutional authority to consent to a treaty by passing Corker-Menendez. Do a search for Corker-Menendez on my blog and see why I say that.
Trump amplified the discussion on immigration, he most certainly did NOT start it. Not that you’d know it from reading the papers or watching TV but the majority of the population opposes amnesty. And Trump was assisted by the publicity generated around the Kate Steinle murder which in turn generated more publicity for the other murders and mayhem caused by illegal immigrants. But somebody had to get the ball rolling at the presidential candidate level in a way that caught attention. Not just mealy-mouth pathtocitizenship talk about people doing the jobs we “won’t” do in the nationofimmigrants and have endured privation on their guilt trip. Hey, how about starting the application process to become an American citizen? Haven’t managed to get around to that in 10, 15 years?
blert:
I think Hillary will be the nominee, only because there is no viable alternative. The only person who might change that is if Warren enters the race. It could also change if Hillary is actually indicted (possible, but unlikely). That’s my prediction at the moment. Hillary is still way ahead in polls of Democrats.
Banned Lizard:
Agreed.
neo: good point. I took it mean things like passing Ocare with 51 votes and ignoring polling on it’s popularity.
I just want to repeat a logical point neo already made about Steyn’s response.
I think it shows how bizarre things have become.
Steyn says: “It could be that Trump is just a phony and a liar, but the last people in the world in a position to complain about that are the Republican establishment.”
But the fellow “complaining” to Mark was not from the Republican establishment. He was just a guy. Mark: hint, hint?
If a guy says to Mark, “You’re fly is open,” how much sense does it make for Mark to say, “Yeah, my ex-wife used to say that in front of other people to humiliate me”?
What saddens me is that Steyn and Rush (and others) do not see the integrity question involved.
Here is a scenario I do not advocate or believe in, but something to consider, inspired by MDL’s great comment above, and Steyn’s chronology of wounded grievance.
What if STEP ONE turns out to be 2011?
STEP TWO turns out to be 2015?
STEP THREE turns out to be 2017 President Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Jindal?
Would it be possible in retrospect to say, we now have a conservative president with the unprecedented political ability to do what needs to be done?
Possible to say (for instance), whatever that quisling bastard McConnell did, he did not rock the boat, and in the long run, the even keel got us where we have long since wanted to be?
Or has a pod been placed under my bed?
BTW neo, I don’t think you are giving yourself enough credit. You say:
“They [moths] ignore all rational arguments that might dissuade them because they want to fly into it [the fire] (yes, I know, the metaphor doesn’t hold up; moths don’t ignore rational arguments, nor do they follow them. But I think you get the idea.)”
Rocks are not dumb, but we all know folks who are dumb as rocks. Don’t know why some cannot be ignorant as moths.
neo-neocon:
Like you, I used to be a Democrat. I had it stamped on my voter registration card, went to primaries, and everything. 🙂
OK, just a misunderstanding about your list of candidates. I was looking at just who you literally listed in the blog post, and didn’t even notice the link.
Whether Tancredo would have been a credible candidate or not I think is a moot point. I might also want to ridicule Ron Paul for being something of an ultra-isolationist, but he certainly had a passionate fanbase for a while. Giuliani was arguably responsible for the renovation of one of our most important cities (which we’re all watching go to pot, now that his policies are being reversed), but his early campaign was reduced to: “thinks he deserves to be president because of 9/11”.
These various candidates all demonstrate the fact that no one candidate will ever be perfect. Despite the taunts against conservatives as hardliners, I think most know that, and are open to some variance. As I mentioned, most conservatives knew that George W Bush wasn’t that much of a conservative, but they felt that he had at least learned his lesson on taxes because of his father’s famous cave-in. For a lot of conservatives, that alone was enough to warrant support for two terms. As some others point out, though, he tried the patience of conservatives in many other ways.
Even if we cede that the selection of conservatives from election to election isn’t that great, that still reflects on the party. The Republican party doesn’t help conservatives prepare for races down the road because it doesn’t like them. It has a record of pushing them down, when they don’t have the independent means to overcome them. It doesn’t want a roster of great conservatives to choose from. That’s fairly obvious. The party from the very beginning of Cruz’s term has tried to make him out to be a nut, and a trouble-maker, and they are simply not going to let him steal the nomination from their pick.
The conduct of the Republican leadership since the mid-terms has made it clear that they haven’t learned their lesson. It’s still John McCain’s party.
Here’s the thing: no matter how many good conservative candidates are in the race, I have not seen anyone suggest how the primary will *not* tilt in Jeb’s favor and eliminate the challengers, as it did for every previous establishment candidate, and of course that automatically means President Whoever-The-Democrats-Pick. Yes, Cruz and some of the others are good conservative debaters. They wil do what they can with grassroots donations, but ultimately the party’s well-funded “safe” candidates will be the only ones left in the final stretch, which means that the final draw will be something like Bush-Graham-Huckabee.
(Huckabee is like the good-natured conservative that networks used to invite on the news shows, pre-cable, when they could get away with having one token conservative in a panel conversation who was guaranteed to make a weak case and get argued down easily by the six liberal co-panelists.)
I’ve been following Steyn since the 1990s. It might interest people here to know that he used to be a regularly syndicated columnist in the U.K. (The Spectator, etc.), Canada (Conrad Black’s various outlets, McCleans (sp?)), and the U.S. with beats including obituaries, popular music, and much more. One by one, he lost almost all of his print positions and is now mostly relegated to a handful of second-tier publications, his website and occasional radio stints. And then there was also the lawsuit against him in Canada by the “Human Rights” Commissars, which he fought valiantly.
Steyn has been a conservative warrior, beating the drum in warning about what has been going on in the West (immigration, birthrates, Islamism, etc.) longer than most. Despite all the hits he’s taken professionally – and I’m sure to his wallet also – the man has maintained his perspective as well as his sense of humor about what life has thrown his way.
I read his answer. It was a typical Steyn, cut to the chase reply. It seems to me that all he was saying was that the Republican establishment has betrayed the voters.* What’s so controversial about that? They have. Repeatedly. And they continue to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while the Dems play fast and dirty. So, they are liars and they are stupid.
*And no, Cruz is not Repub establishment.
Your mention of the moth suggests that you might be familiar with “Archy and Mehitabel.” Don Marquis was a humorist, philosopher and columnist for the the New York Sun and Herald Tribune for many years before the war. Archy was a cockroach who had been a free-verse poet an earlier life. Archy left poems in Marquis’ typewriter, which he wrote by diving onto the keys. Mehitabel was an alley cat of ill repute. Here’s a sample of Archy’s work:
the lesson of the moth
i was talking to a moth
the other evening
he was trying to break into
an electric light bulb
and fry himself on the wires
why do you fellows
pull this stunt i asked him
because it is the conventional
thing for moths or why
if that had been an uncovered
candle instead of an electric
light bulb you would
now be a small unsightly cinder
have you no sense
plenty of it he answered
but at times we get tired
of using it
we get bored with the routine
and crave beauty
and excitement
fire is beautiful
and we know that if we get
too close it will kill us
but what does that matter
it is better to be happy
for a moment
and be burned up with beauty
than to live a long time
and be bored all the while
so we wad all our life up
into one little roll
and then we shoot the roll
that is what life is for
it is better to be a part of beauty
for one instant and then cease to
exist than to exist forever
and never be a part of beauty
our attitude toward life
is come easy go easy
we are like human beings
used to be before they became
too civilized to enjoy themselves
and before i could argue him
out of his philosophy
he went and immolated himself
on a patent cigar lighter
i do not agree with him
myself i would rather have
half the happiness and twice
the longevity
but at the same time i wish
there was something i wanted
as badly as he wanted to fry himself
Could be there are a lot of moths out there amongst the great unwashed American people. Maybe they’d like to see the light of liberty one last time.
neo-neocon at 4:54 pm,
Firstly, I have never expressed support for Trump, in fact just the opposite. I share your view of Trump and have said so more than once. Secondly, identifying the current most important issues does not equate to being a single issue voter.
That said, in the particulars you mention in regard to Fiorina and Cruz I stand corrected.
Regarding Walker, I read the linked articles and refer you to “Walker: ‘There’s a Way’ You Can Have Path to Citizenship” and “Walker MIA During Immigration Flap”
Note the dates and that Walker admits to favoring extending “legal status” to law breaking (entering the US), illegal immigrants, which given the support for amnesty on the left and Republican establishment is a ‘backdoor’ means to citizenship.
I saw Walker interviewed with his family and detected ‘wiggle’ and obfuscation. Qualities that men and women of principle do not engage in, ala Fiorina and Cruz. There are disturbing accusations and rumors that Walker plays both sides of the political isle. IF true, he’s another “read my lips” politician.
I have been disappointed in Limbaugh and Levin since 2012. Now, I put Steyn in the same category.
I do not know exactly why Limbaugh cannot accept any candidate that is broadly acceptable to GOP voters, but he apparently cannot. None pass the Limbaugh test for conservatism.
Steyn now seems to be in the Limbaugh mold. Maybe it comes from substituting for Limbaugh so frequently. He has an almost knee jerk antipathy to anyone who comes close to establishment. I really used to enjoy Steyn, but he has simply left me. (Actually, on his blog he now spends most of his bandwidth hyping his new book–and slamming Mann.)
Levin is brilliant in my opinion. I believe he is truly a constitutional scholar. But, he is just so angry that he becomes irrational with respect to GOP politics. As compared to my comments about Limbaugh, it is obvious to me that that is why he will never accept a GOP “establishment” candidate, no matter the credentials.
It is amazing that given the wide range of candidates vying for the GOP nomination; given that so many of them have solid governing experience and sound conservative principles, the only one these three can tout is Donald Trump. Others do it because Trump is the flavor of the week, but with these it is different.
blert @ 6:29 PM: That is a great post. The disability scam (in particular) is absolutely part of the plan to bankrupt this country.
I just want to clarify a logical point about something else you said.
No one knows (least of all me) whether Trump is in fact collaborating with Hillary.
I think there is a “significant possibility” he is. I have asked everyone to give me a reason why it is not a significant possibility, and no one has; doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
The point I have been making is strictly a prudential one, based on my experience in life.
If there is a significant possibility a person can hurt you, and there is no necessary reason to deal with that person, then why?
Having nothing to do with the person makes more sense. Just me.
Neo I happen to like Cruz, and I voted for him in the primary and in the general. That said, he had zero success with the GOP establishment as a senator. He was marginalized, and labeled a fringe guy by his own party and the media. Now that in itself ought to cause you and those who argue Trump can’t get along, or will need to compromise, etc etc to take pause and ask yourself 1) how is Cruz going to get the support from the GOP and financial backing? 2) why would he be better at negotiating and dealing with his critics – many in his own party, as president?
But somehow you and supporters of the ‘better’ candidates forget they have had no success moving the ball forward in current their respective careers. As the saying goes, “better is the enemy of good enough”
Enter Trump. Is he the best policy person? No. I like Fiorina and will support her.
But does he know how to get attention and get people to listen to him? Yes, better than any other candidate in the race. That is what has been missing in the GOP presidential duds that have been offered up in the past 3 elections. Boring, overly polite, and easily painted into a corner by the media elites, their opponents, and the DNC. It’s been embarrassing to watch as the GOP offers up one wimp after another.
Trump doesn’t have trouble with campaign financing. Cruz will never raise the money, good as he might be, and again, after he’s in, the Bohners, McConnels, and McCains will not be thrilled, and WILL NEVER support him on anything controversial. They will portray themselves as “reasonable” and whatever other adjectives translate to throwing him under the bus if it hints at risking re-election.
As for the Dems, it goes without saying they will not support him on anything, whether they like the policy or not. So – what’s to lose in a Trump?
The worst he can do is use the bully pulpit effectively to call out his own, to manage the media, etc. In short, Trump has charisma. Like it or not, offensive or not, he gets his point across. With a sledgehammer or a business deal, but to suggest he’s unable to work with others and cut deals is idiotic. He’s made a living wheeling and dealing — with people. Investors, customers – everyone. That’s how people like him work. With people, making decisions, taking risks, calling bluffs, and often compromising to get what they want most. But they never let on what that is. That’s an art in negotiation, and that’s what Trump knows. Not the case for most of the Republican establishment, or most of our leadership on either side. Trump has rightly pointed out we have had our asses handed to us in trade negotiations, treaties, etc. And trade negotiations have been awful well before Obama – Republicans share as much blame as Dems. Why is that?
I’m really stunned at the some of the criticism I’ve heard about being unable to work with people or compromise. It’s ignorance at it’s height to believe that, and the candidates and pundits who mistake his public blustering for the same way he handles himself in a board room, are totally off their rockers.
There are a lot of good people running Unfortunately, their names have not, and will not get recognition, and the marketing arm of the GOP is the worst on earth. Marketing is everything in getting elected.
We have a lot of people here wearing the garb of rationality, so I’ll offer my 2 cents.
Trump’s assets are that he is a billionaire, and he has been a popular entertainer. None of the other candidates can hold a candle to him in those regards. Those give him instant power.
Second, this is not the time for position papers. This is the time for potential leaders to lead their charge.
Third, Trump can indeed form a third party. He will give the RINO-haters, of which I am one, an alternative. Unlike anyone else, he can pull blacks off their “I always voted Dem” habit, because the black Dems I know see voting for the GOP as endorsing evil, but they like Trump and if he’s not GOP they’ll vote for him too. That will spell the death of the RINOs.
Is Trump dangerous? Yes.
CapnRusty, what a spectacular poem. Thanks.
“I like Fiorina.”
“I like Walker.”
“I like Cruz.”
This is one big reason the conservatives tend to drop away more quickly. The establishment makes it a point to form ranks behind their chosen candidate because they know there is no organized conservative union that will oppose them. Conservatives are too enamored with the idea of the candidate being chosen by the people, and the people always get skunked by the party bosses.
The people, like it or not, have to be as forceful as their enemies, the party bosses. The Democrat rank and file of today, insane though they may be, aren’t sitting around waiting for the coronation of Hillary Clinton. They’re going for broke — they’ve had two full terms of a Socialist-in-all-but-name president already, why not go whole hog and make it official? It’s not like the press has let their current Socialist president take the blame for any of his disasters so far, so there’s literally nothing for them to lose. Sanders is no longer a fringe candidate.
Conservatives meanwhile are still fiddling around with Cruz, Walker, Fiorina, Rubio, blahblahblahblahblah. It doesn’t matter how good any one of them is, if conservatives don’t hurry up and pick one *officially*. But there’s no way to do that because conservatives are merely the *base* of a political party that ignores them. There is no party apparatus for conservatives to arrive at a preferred candidate, and so all candidates they favor will be left behind.
There should have been some kind of conservative union, or even secessionist party by now, but conservatives don’t have a boss or bosses. They are better described as concerned citizens than howling ideologues. It’s the extremists who hold power who gaslight concerned citizens into thinking that they are “unreasonable” and “rigid” and “unable to cooperate”.
eric12:
I agree, and have said in the past, that conservatives should get behind one conservative candidate. The fact that they do not, however, is not some establishment conspiracy; it is just that (a) it would be hard to organize; how would it be done?, and (b) trying to get conservatives to agree on something like that is nearly impossible. Conservatives are stubborn, nitpicky, and individualistic. Those may or not be good traits, but they are bad traits when trying to focus on picking one candidate and winning. But conservatives have only themselves to blame for not doing it. And I say that as a person who wish they would do it.
The only way I can see it happening is if all the other conservative candidates drop out and one remains. But it would have to happen early enough that it leaves time for the conservative to win the nomination. I don’t see any way it would happen.
I’ll tell you one thing—I consider myself a conservative but am very very tired of so many conservatives taking the victim role and whining about how they are being done in by others.
Steyn the Great going to bat for Trump..??
I despair. Truly cannot believe this exceptional writer/thinker/conservative would be for that lout.
Gasping…!
neo…
In 2007 I thought that HRC had it ALL rolled up. BHO was strictly a fringe candidate.
Even now, I think his performance in Iowa shocked him.
HRC has a GLASS JAW.
She also has a heavy drinking problem — plenty of video on that — that has very, very, likely led to high blood pressure and a mild stroke.
She’s no spring chicken — and running for the big chair is brutal on the body. Even the young BHO was gassed, hence his bizarre stump behavior — from time to time.
Biden’s another very, very, heavy drinker — and I’d bet he has hypertension, too.
I’m quite baffled that O’Malley and Webb have not gained any traction — perhaps they’re running for Vice President? I must guess so.
If I were a heavy-weight Democrat — I’d be absolutely freaking out. The party has no ‘farm team.’ Its position in Congress stinks. Its position across the legislatures stinks.
Like any one-party state/ dictatorship the top ranks have gutted everyone — below — that might make a run at the top slot.
Despotic is as despotic does.
As for Jeb and HRC — either one is a TOTAL disaster, complete political whores — and that’s giving professional lovers a bad association.
While immigration — legal and illegal is issue number one — the other gorilla sized issue is the crony-capitalist axis. It’s the back story to the trade deal with Red China.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chinablue/film.html
China Blue is pretty shocking — and illustrates that given half a chance, the crony-capitalist axis is not ashamed at re-inventing human slavery — by another name, of course.
Taken together, the crony-capitalists of China and America are ruining the economies of the world. China’s ability to transition to a sane economy utterly depends upon rising real wages in China. Slaves can’t support a consumer led economy. And that’s what many Chinese assembly workers are — in every practical sense.
Which then exposes American labor markets to hyper-competition. Even a highly effective and efficient American assembly line worker can’t compete against no labor costs at all. If it weren’t for the horrific transportation bottlenecks within the Chinese economy — they’d be the universal manufacturer.
Trump is right: Red China is gaming us — but we are gaming them.
The end result is that blue collar labor in ALL markets is denied negotiating power.
This is politically destabilizing at home — and ruinous for the aspirations of foreigners, everywhere.
Lastly, the First World is going to have to ‘pull a Japan’ and STOP accepting legal immigration. The next generation will see a horrific bloodletting in Muslim lands.
We can’t stop the essential character of Islam: human suffering.
Bringing that social infection home — is the worst kind of compassion. Just don’t do it. Don’t allow Muslims to become Americans. They can NEVER fit in. The problem is Islam — not the US Constitution and the US society.
I feel that while there are many who are moths using your analogy. There is another group of supporters that are acting quite rationally in supporting him.
As Ace regularly states. The Republicans like to engage in failure theater. The establishment wants the same or very similar goals to the Dems. And once they have accomplished this feat engage in some act that lets them say “well we tried”.
My opinion is that they feel they have successfully done this on multiple occasions . And that the base has not noticed. While the reality is the base has noticed and this is the only way to fight back against how they have rigged the system.
Trump is a fool, but one that serves a purpose. The establishment cant simply go out and sabotage him as they have done others. The chance that he would run as a 3rd party is too big. A point he has exploited by refusing to rule it out during the debates.
Trumps presence is accomplishing numerous things. Its allowing many who feel they have been betrayed by the Republican fecklessness an outlet. A way to express how unhappy they are with the all show,no go agenda of the last decade. It also is preventing overt double dealing by the RSC in trying to sabotage him. His current voting bloc is too large and would throw the election against him.
Its been clear for some time that the RSC prefers Bush. I think voters recognize this and Trumps rise prevents them from simply ramming him through as their candidate of choice. While at the same time shifting the debate in a direction more to the bases liking. The fight at this point isnt Reps vs Dems. It the base vs the RSC.
In the end I think this ends up with Bush as the establishment choice. And Walker as the final choice of the base. If things work out that way I can only hope that Walker is able to prevail.
starlord:
I have no idea where you got the idea that I have criticized Trump by saying Trump “can’t get along, or will need to compromise.”
Not only did I not say that, but I don’t recall other Trump critics saying it—at least not here, although I suppose someone somewhere may have said it.
I’m not going to go back and repeat my actual criticisms of him, since they’ve been quite well-aired here.
You also write, “ask yourself 1) how is Cruz going to get the support from the GOP and financial backing? 2) why would he be better at negotiating and dealing with his critics — many in his own party, as president?”
As an example of what gives you pause about Cruz, you write “[Cruz[ had zero success with the GOP establishment as a senator. He was marginalized, and labeled a fringe guy by his own party and the media.” Absolutely true, and irrelevant. The first reason it’s irrelevant is that Cruz was a senator among other senators, and a junior senator at that. His power was extremely limited although he did the best he could under the circumstances. There is no comparison to the power of a president, to influence, to pressure, to twist arms, to veto—a president is more powerful by many orders of magnitude.
Other items on your list that you think I should ask myself are also irrelevant because Trump is marginalized as well, by the very same people—if anything, even more so—and by the MSM, which considers him a clown. In addition, as far as your other item (financial backing) goes, Cruz actually has raised a surprising amount of money for his campaign. Of course, no one can compete with Trump’s access to his own enormous store of money. But if conservatives were to unite behind Cruz (which they might do if the other conservative candidates start fading out) he could get far on the money conservatives give him and if he does well in the debates and attracts a lot of voters that way he could do well without tons of money, and then if he becomes the nominee the RNC would not deny him some money whatever they may think of him.
Trump has negotiated with people as a businessman, with the enormous power that money gives him. As president, the power he would have would be as president—just the same power Cruz would have. Cruz had no power as a junior senator dealing with other senators, so as I said earlier his inability to get anywhere in the Senate is irrelevant.
Trump has written a book about what a great, great negotiator he is, and instructing people on how to negotiate. But so far I haven’t been able to find much written by other people about what he actually did in negotiations and what was so great about it. I’d like to know the details. I see things such as this, which doesn’t paint him in such a good light. It may or may not be true, but as I said I don’t see much that tells me what sort of a negotiator he is even as a businessman, much less whether any success in that field would carry over into negotiations with Congress or foreign powers—or the government of Mexico.
Mythx:
I’ve noticed that many of the “rational” reasons for supporting Trump seem to rely on the idea that he will ultimately not win the nomination. I have gone on the assumption that he actually could win, or if not, that his candidacy will pave the way for a Bush nomination. I think Bush would be a terrible terrible candidate.
What I see so far is that Trump’s candidacy has helped Bush and Bush alone of all the other candidates. Trump has actually drawn a great deal of his support from Walker (and other conservatives). Bush’s numbers have risen since Trump has become popular.
I think Bush would be a terrible terrible candidate.
Terrible in terms of being able to win? In that regard, what if the ticket were Jeb Bush—Susana Martinez? It’s very interesting that back in June, Bush hired Danny Diaz, who previously worked for Martinez, as his campaign manager.
But perhaps you mean terrible in terms of his policy positions?
Ann:
Terrible in both senses.
neo-neocon Says:
RayH:
Republicans did not cede their constitutional authority to consent to a treaty by passing Corker-Menendez. Do a search for Corker-Menendez on my blog and see why I say that.
Really, neo-neocon. That’s your response to my (very partial) list of Republican party betrayals of the nation and of conservatives? Well, I guess I see why you’re having so much trouble understanding the support Trump is getting.
Still, I’ll try one more time. Here is the first paragraph from an article by Kurt Schlichter at townhall.com that sums up Trump’s appeal rather nicely:
“Let’s be absolutely clear — Donald Trump is entirely the fault of a GOP establishment that lied to conservatives and refused to do what it promised it would do. Trump is no secret Machiavellian genius cunningly outmaneuvering his enemies from his super-classy Atlantic City volcano lair. He’s a finger-to-the-wind charlatan who will say whatever he needs to say to maximize his own personal adulation. And he would still be merely a tiresome reality TV catch-phrase generator if the GOP establishment had not treated the rest of us like dirt.”
Add to that the fact that Trump refuses to be cowed into submission (as Republicans, establishment and otherwise, routinely are) by the usual suspects in the MSM and you know all you need to know to understand why Trump is getting the support of so many conservatives.
RayH:
Yes, that’s my response, which you have misconstrued. You have also misunderstood my attitude.
I have written many times about the problems conservatives have with the “establishment” Republicans, and that I understand and share them to a fairly large extent.
I merely was pointing out that Corker-Menendez was not a valid case of establishment betrayal. I have written a lot about Corker-Menendez, and I had no idea whether you were familiar with what I’d written, and I was calling your attention to it, because I don’t think it belongs on that list that you made of betrayals, although I realize a lot of people disagree.
That’s the sum total of what I was saying.
I have also written many times about why Trump is getting support from disaffected conservatives. It is not a puzzle to me at all. I simply think their support will hurt the conservative cause (for all the reasons I’ve stated over and over in my posts), and think that they would do better to support a different anti-establishment candidate like Cruz.
Hey, friends, I have an idea: Why don’t we take what we like, and leave the rest?
We can take a leaf or three from Trump’s book about how to kneecap our enemies, and use it; praise him for landing telling blows; and get behind the conservative of our choice. We don’t have to do the circular firing squad thing.
For now, for whatever reason, he’s landing some heavy ammo on target. Rejoice, brethren! and load up the cannons to the right of him, and fire at will!
Per esempio: watch how the Leftists fire at us, in concert. Each one is part of their unholy broadside against the free people of the nation. And that’s how they see themselves. They’re also quite good at taking advantage of any blows rained upon us by even a temporary ally of theirs.
Just a thought.
He’s also a portent, a sign of sorts that we’re off the political map we’ve used for decades. Obama was the first “Dragon” we’ve sailed past; here be many more.
It’s gonna be interesting.
Neo,
I have noticed how well Bush is doing. But I think that he is essentially a poor version of Romney. He has a baked in amount of support being the primary choice of the RSC. But I think overall Bush is a worse candidate than Romney and running against a stronger field.
There are only a few people I truly like in this group. Which frankly is a huge improvement over the last few election cycles. But I recognize that most of them have little chance at the nomination.
I see Trump as a fad. One who has peaked far too early to secure the nomination. Had this been 2016 I would take him more seriously. Once his support begins to fade it will go to another candidate. I just dont see how that could be Bush. I admit with a field this large I could be guessing wrong that it will be Walker. But to me he seems like the guy who the disaffected conservatives could get behind. Without totally losing the big money donors who Bush appeals to.
To my mind, Jeb Bush is THE threat to the GOP field.
Jeb not Trump is the foil that HRC can tear to ribbons.
Trump’s ego is such that I just can’t see him running a Bull Moose effort — which is that of a pure spoiler — aka LOSER.
Perot never recovered — in the business world — after his run for the big chair.
Trump may be brash and full of IT — but he’s not publicly embarrassing himself beyond what he’s already done on The Apprentice.
Jeb would never have to take a dive to throw the election to HRC. He’s THAT weak.
And the big money sustaining him HAVE TO KNOW THAT. Jeb is nothing more than insurance for them. They already own HRC.
The sole purpose of these big money players is to queer the nomination process of the GOP.
They’ve ALREADY queered the nomination of the Democrat party: HRC.
Between BHO’s ’email server of Damocles’ and the hacks of Moscow and Beijing — HRC is destined to be nothing less than an apprentice Sith lord… instructed in the dark arts.
She will not be able to control her own policies — as if a gal who gives Moscow an “over charge” button has any wit at all.
%%%
OT
Moscow looks headed for “NSF.” The KSA price war upon crude oil is utterly destroying Putin.
Ukraine is slipping out of his grasp — even though he’s got the bullets.
Have you been following his war on food ?
It’s largely directed at his own political base, as they are the only Russians able to afford imported European treats.
( American luxury foods are exported to Asia not Russia. We have entire farms dedicated to Taiwan, Japan, … )
Ray H at 12:42 AM –
In explanation of the Trump phenomenon, you approvingly quote someone who says (in part):
Let’s be absolutely clear — Donald Trump is entirely the fault of a GOP establishment that lied to conservatives and refused to do what it promised it would do.
The author you approvingly cite calls Trump a “charlatan” and describes him as an unstable narcissist who is insincerely aping what he knows will sound good to disaffected conservatives.
You conclude in your own words: Add to that the fact that Trump refuses to be cowed into submission (as Republicans, establishment and otherwise, routinely are) by the usual suspects in the MSM and you know all you need to know to understand why Trump is getting the support of so many conservatives.
We disagree.
First, I do not think it is wise to support or cheer a narcissistic charlatan merely because he is insincerely using words which he knows will excite some deeply felt emotions. To the contrary, I would regard him as a charlatan who is treating me like a chump.
Second, to attribute the Trump phenomenon “entirely” to the GOPe is misleading. Rush, Steyn, Hannity, Coulter, Levin and others are praising and promoting Trump, are they the GOPe? Do they play some part in his success so far?
Finally, you really do put your finger on an vital aspect of the phenomenon. Trump spits in the eye of the MSM and gets away with it. But instead of merely cheering the well deserved humiliation of the MSM, some conservatives conclude that Trump’s “victory” over the media makes him a desirable conservative candidate and presidential material.
Conservatives made the same sort of mistake with Nixon and W. Bush. Neither men were conservatives, and both in their own way hoodwinked conservatives and knowingly and gravely harmed the conservative cause.
When the media unfairly attacked both, though, conservatives took it personally and lost all perspective on both men (and on the political situation entirely), further harming the conservative cause in their banshee hysteria defending both men.
Lesson: conservatives are easily manipulated if the MSM is the bogeyman. The MSM understandably drives conservatives crazy. Not a day goes by when the media (a highly successful leftist enterprise) does not commit some lunacy or unjust distortion of reality. That creates a lot of frustration.
Here are two situations to put things in perspective.
1) When Rush was crowned king of the 1994 Congress, I could not have felt more ecstatic or euphoric. It truly looked like our nation was going to be saved.
But then a narcissist with a highly defective character decided to make it all about him, him, him, acting the clueless buffoon. He destroyed his own credibility immediately. And the buffoon, because of his narcissism, lack of character, and lack of wisdom, easily became the unpleasant face of former success, throwing it all away.
2) I think of Steyn, and cannot think of a more courageous man in the world, short of our battlefield soldiers. Steyn faces physical peril everyday, and yet he continues on, giving me hope.
I cannot adequately express my admiration for him as a man (not even to mention the pure enjoyment his writing gives me).
But I also think of Scott Walker. I admire him as a man because of his courage, and I mean physical courage. The left he has confronted and defeated are not sentimentalists. Labor unions and the left always and every where use violence and the threat of violence. Walker is always in grave danger, as is Steyn.
Walker has actually effected conservative reform, and no, not in Texas or Utah. He has done something, remarkable things.
And all the stories about Walker discuss his low key, amiable style, and a personality even his enemies concede is marvelous. He appears to be of good character.
You would think Steyn would see a soul mate in Walker. Two very courageous conservatives.
But Steyn describes Walker as an “alleged non-buffon” and promotes the gasbaggery of a charlatan. With Steyn’s help, the charlatan has apparently wiped out the chances of the brave man of substance.
I wish the Trump supporters would finally get it, and stop their needless explanations on getting it to others who got it a long time ago, and got it more sensibly.
The Conservative Treehouse describes in great detail how the GOP primary process was discreetly altered to ensure the selection of Jeb Bush, as the GOP presidential candidate.
The GOP is controlled by the Chamber of Commerce, which wants the retention of Obamacare, open borders & amnesty, Common Core and to continue funding Planned Parenthood.
Many of the current candidates are intended solely to split the anti-Bush vote.
Donald Trump, alone, is not controlled by the Chamber of Commerce, or any other special interest group.
Whatever failings Donald Trump has as a perfect conservative, it should be borne in mind that the GOP has a consistent policy of making promises to conservatives, which its leaders (or owners) have no intention of honouring.
If any establishment candidate is selected, then the presidential election will be fought, with theatrical vitriol, between two candidates, both of whom support open borders, amnesty, Obamacare, Common Core and the Transpacific Trade Treaty, whose proponents have already admitted that it will destroy jobs in America, diminish American sovereignty and compel the US to accept many millions of additional immigrants.
Except for Donald trump, all of the other candidates are beholden to the GOP leadership and despite their rhetoric can be relied upon to do as they are told, by their donors, after they are elected.
Neo: “This is true of others on the right, as well. It seems to me that they have reached such a pinnacle of frustration and anger at the GOP that they are not thinking straight.”
Some are so frustrated and angry by what has happened that they are lashing out at the wrong people. Instead of blaming Obama, the Democrats, and their supporters; let’s bash the candidates who have run against him and lost – sort of like: “see you’re so stupid you couldn’t even beat Obama!”
Such an attitude doesn’t help at all.
And, MDl: “Trump and Carson and Fiorina have the luxury of no actual political voting record . . “
I totally agree (and with the rest of what you said).
With no voting record, folks can project almost any belief they want on a candidate since there is no voting record to prove or disprove said belief.
Sort of like Obama voters when he first ran, no? (Only Obama did have a history – one that the media quite ignored) Since he was such a blank slate, they filled in what was missing with whatever they “supposed.”
Trump supporters seem to be doing the same.
It’s Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). The derangement goes the opposite way from the usual derangement syndromes.
Neo-con…I didn’t see your response to my comment until today. Sorry, I am at work!
What I said is that people should stop worrying about Trump’s poll numbers, because the rest of the voters (75% of them) are split among a bunch of candidates right now. I did not say there weren’t other conservatives being forthright about their principles. However, I will say that Trump is ‘more real’ when he speaks than some of the others you listed. Because he stumbles, he says politically incorrect stuff, he isn’t ‘rehearsed’ in his answers, etc.
Even Fiorina and Cruz can be accused of sounding rehearsed. I have watched a lot of Fiorina interviews, and she does use the same wording over and over. Not that it isn’t her ‘real’ self, but it does come across as a memorized line after you watch her in action. Cruz is so educated and good at what he does, that he can also appear to be ‘rehearsed.’ That’s all I’m saying.
The people I’m really pointing the finger at would be Bush, Walker (he’s vacillated on topics…immigration is one that comes to mind), Kasich, Graham…I can’t even think of them all. But many of the candidates come across as rehearsed and afraid to say the wrong thing.
Once again, I am NOT saying I think Trump is awesome, should be the nominee, etc. But I appreciate his style, some of the topics he has discussed with no concern for political correctness, and his willingness to keep pushing even when both sides are claiming he’s a nut.
We would not be talking about illegal immigration in quite the same way without Trump. That’s a big deal to me. I’d like him to get as much attention for other conservative issues.
BTW, did you watch the two videos of a legal, Mexican immigrant and a black woman who appeared at a city meeting in CA and went ballistic on illegal immigration? Those people would both vote for Trump in a heartbeat, when they possibly would not vote for another conservative. Illegal immigration is NOT a ‘white person’ issue…and I was glad to see proof of that in those videos.
K-E:
I agree (and I’ve written somewhere) that although Trump is leading, he actually has only a small percentage of voters. My fear, however, is that he will remain in the lead and could even win if many of the other candidates fail to drop out, and if enough remain in to split the vote effectively.
I also agree that many of the others sound rehearsed or scripted. I read that as “polished.” It certainly is careful rather than spontaneous. It used to be that’s what people wanted in a president—someone who thinks and is careful, not a blusterer who shoots from the hip (although apparently that’s the desirable thing right now to a lot of people). They (Walker and Fiorina) still sound human and sincere and not like robots. Fiorina is particularly un-PC and blunt, and manages to do it without blustering, which is a neat trick.
I understand your point, however. To some people Trump seems refreshing.
John G. McLachlan:
I beg to differ.
First of all, the conservative treehouse is not the last word on everything, or even lots of things. I notice you don’t include a link so I could go to the post and read it, however, so it’s hard to be specific.
However, I have no quarrel with the idea that there is a GOP establishment, that the Chamber of Commerce is allied with it, that money is a big part of it, and that they do what they can to get and support and elect the candidates that they like. Is that some sort of surprise? That’s politics. Instead of acting as though it is some sort of crime, conservatives should get together and fight it, for example supporting one candidate and raising money for that purpose and stop whining about what the terrible establishment has done to them.
And I don’t see that Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Ted Cruz (who has bucked the establishment time and again), for example, are beholden to the GOP leadership.
I’ve already said my piece many times about Trump’s flaws, so I won’t repeat them here.
Neo is spot on regarding the GOP establishment — they have the right to support the candidates and policies they like. And we have the right to oppose them.
Not in defense of them, but in explanation — I was there in 1964 when we conservatives took control of the party and ran a “true conservative” and were crushed, obliterated, wiped out — either the worst or second worst, I forget which, presidential defeat in American political history. I think McCain, McConnell, Boener, and the rest of them are probably very constrained by that memory.
Which to me says we have to run somebody who at least sounds reasonable, who can’t be caricatured by the media. If that means somebody who doesn’t agree with me 100%, so be it.
To quote myself, Harold, and Vince Lombardi — “Winning isn’t everything, winning is the ONLY thing!”
I’m FLOORED that ANYONE conflates Trump as a conservative.
He’s a Liberal straight through the core.
With enough past video clips to make my assertion redundant.
n the latest revelation from David Sirota and team at International Business Daily, we learn that:
For Florida taxpayers, the move by the administration of then-Gov. Jeb Bush to forge a relationship with Lehman Brothers would ultimately prove disastrous. Transactions in 2005 and 2006 put the Wall Street investment bank in charge of some $250 million worth of pension funds for Florida cops, teachers and firefighters. Lehman would capture more than $5 million in fees on these deals, while gaining additional contracts to manage another $1.2 billion of Florida’s money. Then, in the fall of 2008, Lehman collapsed into bankruptcy, leaving Florida facing up to $1 billion in losses.
But for Jeb Bush personally, his enduring relationship with Lehman would prove lucrative. In 2007, just as he left office, Bush secured a job as a Lehman consultant for $1.3 million a year, Bloomberg reported.
From ZeroHedge
Well isn’t Jeb just ‘special’ ?
I confess that I find Steyn’s response both strange and disheartening. Trump supporters seem to me to be moths flying to a flame they find absolutely irresistible. They know it might and in fact probably will burn, but they don’t care anymore. They ignore all rational arguments that might dissuade them because they want to fly into it (yes, I know, the metaphor doesn’t hold up; moths don’t ignore rational arguments, nor do they follow them. But I think you get the idea.)
The natural decline of those that still believe in elections to save them. They are getting desperate and desperate people sometimes make irrational decisions.