On perfection and the Republican field
I’ve noticed that Republican voters and especially the conservative base love to nitpick over the records of the candidates.
Now, that’s not to say that records aren’t important. They most definitely are; how else can you tell what or whom you’re voting for? And what that person is likely to do once in office?
But “nitpick” conveys something else, an obsessive attention to detail that can consume and misdirect energy from fundamentals to tiny elements that don’t mean all that much. To continue a rather disgusting metaphor, although one wants to rid oneself of lice if infested, to keep on looking for microscopic objects for too long can become a counterproductive and distracting end in itself. Where to draw the line is something on which we probably don’t agree. I’m not always sure, myself, but I’m sure that a line should be drawn.
I often think that people make up their minds about a candidate and then work backwards, examining all but the favorite with a fine-tooth comb (there’s that metaphor again) and ignoring the flaws in the favorite. Each frontrunner in turn (except the favored one) gets the obsessive treatment. The flaws get trotted out—Rubio once was a member of the dread Gang of Eight, a position he has since repudiated. Fiorina made a speech 14 years ago that praised Islam’s Golden Age and sounded like every other speech from nearly every other public figure (including President Bush) at the time. Even Cruz, who has been remarkably consistent, once voted for something-or-other that was less than strictly conservative. This candidate or that candidate is for “amnesty,” as variously defined by the voter doing the criticism.
It happened in 2012, too, most particularly against Romney but also against almost any other candidate in turn. It means, among other things, that no one who’s ever undergone political change can be supported. But as a person who has changed politically, I have deep respect for sincere and well-reasoned changes of mind.
It also means that no one who, like Romney, was once a governor of a blue state with a deep-blue legislature able to override the governor’s vetoes, and who thus had to compromise with that state’s legislature, can ever be supported. It means that, for those who practice such nitpicking, they are left with either no candidate or a far-out third-party candidate, and their vote therefore ends up contributing to the victory of the Democrats whom they profess to despise. Or it means that they champion one particular Republican candidate (in this case, it’s often Trump, but really it could be anyone) who is often guilty of much the same offenses, or worse, but whom that person supports because, well, because.
I acknowledge at the outset that any candidate I end up supporting (my leads right now are Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio, but that could change) will be imperfect. I will not like everything he/she has done. I will not agree with everything he/she will do. I will evaluate his/her supposed sins and look at the big picture. I will look at his/her character, ability to communicate, and temperament, as well as his/her accomplishments and promises. I will see whether I think that past utterances have been corrected or superseded by present ones, and whether those utterances have the force of conviction. I will use both my gut and my mind. I won’t ask for miracles, and I have no intention of voting in a way that helps the Democratic nominee–be it Hillary or Sanders or Biden—win.
Well, its just that Dr. Carson is….one of those.
You know what Im talking about.
I mean, would you let your sister marry a 7th Day Adventist?
I want to see how a candidate thinks about a topic. Is their position ideolgical or is it based on experience and questioning? The latter doesn’t mean that one is not conservative; it just means that they have found reasons why conservative ideas work best.
Most of us, from time to time and in differing circumstances, allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good (think Mitt Romney’s defeat).
We all occasionally do it and it is important for each of us to recognize when we lean in that direction. It does us well to remember that the Gramscian march was a slow progression and it will probably be likewise to abandon it; holding out fro the perfect conservative will keep us mired for quite some time.
This all has a familiar ring to it, déjé vu all over again, SOP (standard operating procedure). The shortcomings of the GOP/Cons field are not that “they are not perfect” but they are another batch of the highly, profusely, inadequate. In the three national elections (the last two and the one upcoming) the Democrats have put up two Alynskyites, and three Socialists – one of whom is also a Cultural Marxist. The GOP/Cons have a field of a series of Tweedle Dums and Dees.
The biblical injunction against looking always for the mote in the other guy’s eye and never your own, suggests another warning that ought be heeded. Look not at others when searching for LIVs; look first to yourself. The great cornucopia of “conservative” candidates such as there never had been either before or after the Republic had fallen turns out to be what? Wishful thinking? A resolution to always whistle when passing a graveyard? Another myth to cling to? Yet another desperate hope against hope?
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’
Them…
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 to fight fire with fire, ideology with eternal verities, Atheism with God, death with life.
Yet another election (gunfight) approaches and the GOP/Cons hone their shibboleths.
Megan McArdle has a good column on how negotiating works — excerpt:
Later in the piece, there’s this:
George Pal:
Your comment is an example of what I’m talking about.
Who on earth are you waiting for? What person on earth could suit you? Even Ronald Reagan, were he to come along now, would be considered an appeaser and compromiser.
If you can call this field (including, for example, Cruz) “highly, profusely, inadequate” and “a series of Tweedle Dums and Dees,” then it is you who are hopeless.
Nor do I say (and have never said) that electing a person, even if a conservative, would change everything. It would not. I have long talked about the need to counter the Gramscian march of the left in a host of ways.
You have given up and have thrown your lot in with this sort of attitude. I believe your attitude would allow the triumph of what you profess to hate.
Neo-neocon,
The Bewegung movement is precisely what I would have us avoid. It is precisely what awaits us if the Democrats continue as they do and the GOP/Cons continue as they do. In your own words “In reality, I think the public is disillusioned with both parties.”
The disillusion of so many, of the Leftist swing of managerial America is excacerbated by the disillusion that those purportedly opposed to that swing fail abjectly to stay or slow it.
Who am I waiting for? I’d thought I’d made it clear. I’m waiting for the anti-Socialist, the anti-Alynskyite, the anti-cultural Marxist, the anti-Gnostic. How will I know him? He will call “bullshit” on social justice abstractions. He will speak of eternal verities. He will not deny God. He will defend life against all appeals to choice. He will not back down or apologize for any of it.
Does such a candidate exist? Not on the near horizon. Will I make do with what there is should he be elected? Have I any choice? But I will not participate in the play acting.
With Walker out, I’m hoping Dr. Carson will emerge as a replacement compromise candidate if for no other reason than to mend some of the damage Obama has done to race relations. His soft spoken demeanor combined with what appears to be an iron resolve is in such contrast to the aggressiveness and in-your-face bombast of Trump that he could be “just what the doctor ordered.” Also, he would fill the apparent need for a non-politician.
Bush, Rubio, and Christie should get past their egos and face the fact that none of them are ever going to get the votes of the right even if they win the nomination. It will be a replay of 2008 and 2012. Boehner saw the light and they should too. I can almost guarantee that if either Bush or Rubio ends up the nominee, Trump will find a way to void his pledge and will go 3rd party taking the right with him and ensuring a Democrat win.
Fiorina and Cruz, each for different reasons, haven’t a chance in hell of getting the nomination. They should get out now also, but probably won’t since they are only in it at this point for the VP slot.
I’m waiting for the anti-Socialist, the anti-Alynskyite, the anti-cultural Marxist, the anti-Gnostic. How will I know him? He will call “bullshit” on social justice abstractions. He will speak of eternal verities. He will not deny God. He will defend life against all appeals to choice. He will not back down or apologize for any of it.
You are describing Dr. Carson, Mr. Pal
The term perfect politician is an oxymoron. It is through participation at the local caucus/primary where we have our opportunity to put forth the more perfect candidate. In the general election voting for the lesser of two perceived evils is not a sin. Staying home in 2012 because Romney was imperfect was truly an act of “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.
I’ve never been accused of neglecting the obvious, so here:
Those who are constantly accusing others of impurity are working hard to establish their own purity credentials. It’s about their own pose, about signaling. They don’t really care too much about the candidates, who are just an excuse for the poser’s theatrical breast beating.
On the other hand, I’m completely rational and always right. But I sometimes exaggerate.
Oops, I guess I was wrong tying George Pal’s definition of the anti-Alynskyite, anti-Marx, and anti-Gnostic to Dr. Carson. Like Mormons, 7th Day Adventists are considered Gnostic by the real, true, blue-blood Christians, the Baptists, Evangelicals, and Catholics.
A pox on all you True Believers if you think Ben Carson isn’t a Christian. A man with special gifts who has helped save who knows how many lives embodies the essence of Christianity, no matter his particular individual faith.
George Pal Says:
“This all has a familiar ring to it, déjé vu all over again, SOP (standard operating procedure). The shortcomings of the GOP/Cons field are not that “they are not perfect” but they are another batch of the highly, profusely, inadequate.”
Carly, Rubio, and Cruz are all actually pretty conservative… they all seem to get the left and seem ready to fight it with eyes open…
George Pal:
I have no idea what alternate universe you live in, but in mine quite a few of this year’s candidates fit your description.
The Other Chuck Says at 6:50 pm:
“Oops, I guess I was wrong tying George Pal’s definition of the anti-Alynskyite, anti-Marx, and anti-Gnostic to Dr. Carson. Like Mormons, 7th Day Adventists are considered Gnostic by the real, true, blue-blood Christians, the Baptists, Evangelicals, and Catholics.”
Sadly, the animus seems to be reciprocated by quite a few Seventh-day Adventists towards the other groups. Fortunately, Dr. Carson is interested in healing the divisions which separate our society including the sectarian divisions within Christianity. Incidentally, Ted Cruz’s wife was raised a Seventh-day Adventist and went to Adventist schools through high school.
Seventh-day Adventist politicians bring some strong qualities to the table. The Adventist movement arose out of the Second Great Awakening which occurred shortly before the American Civil war. As Neo’s son would say, Seventh-day Adventist theology is old fashioned. It was solidified at a moment when America was strongly Protestant, extremely individualistic, highly moral, and supremely self confident in their role as the vanguard of God’s purpose to better life on this earth. One could say that Adventist theology is a time warp of the 19th century. That’s not a bad thing today after the left have relentless attacked American’s belief in their own morality and have done everything they can to undermine their national self confidence.
Neo clearly doesn’t like the fact that people have unearthed Fiorina’s over the top panegyric about the glories of the Muslim Golden Age which she claimed was the greatest civilization in the World, better than Western Civilization, for about 800 years. Also the fact that people are concerned that in her speech she expressed great concern about the safety of Muslims from the rest of mankind while expressing no concerned about the safety of the rest of us from Muslim violence is supposed to be nit picking. She thinks that speech was from long ago.
Fair enough. Everyone can change over the years. On the other hand, perhaps she still believes exactly the same thing. Hopefully, in the near future she will present her plan for combating Islamic aggression against the rest of humanity. If she is prepared to address the ideological foundations which motivate that agression, then great! Until then, we will keep an open mind with a healthy dose of skepticism about her.
Dennis:
When did I ever say I didn’t like people having “unearthed” Fiorina’s speech?
Nothing I’ve said here or elsewhere indicates anything of the sort. I support learning about candidates’ present and past, but place much more emphasis (for all of them) on their present behavior and present statements and their present affect while delivering those statements.
Also, some types of past are much more relevant and important than others; it depends on the details, the frequency, and the context. For example, the total thrust of Obama’s past associations and activities pointed very strongly in the leftist direction. Trump’s indicate a flamboyant moneymaker who has given money to politicians in hope of influencing them to help him, while making some statements that have sometimes allied him with the right and sometimes with the left. Cruz has been consistently brilliant and to the right. Rubio is smart, charismatic, and almost entirely on the right except for that one “Gang of Eight” error. Fiorina was an HP executive, whose political statement have been almost entirely on the right (with a few center-right), and who describes her background and family as having been on the right. Her 2001 speech was, as I’ve said several times, very much in line with what everyone was saying at the time, including President Bush and Bernard Lewis.
I’m all for learning about people’s pasts and having perspective on that past, putting it in the context of the whole and of the times, and of the present.
The Other Chuck Says @ 6:17
“You are describing Dr. Carson, Mr. Pal”
You think? I think you have missed my point. To have it said of a man that he is “a God fearing man” is not enough. What has he to say on the point publicly? If the Democrats make an issue of ‘no god’ the GOP/Cons ought double down on God. If the Democrats make an issue of choice/abortion, as they had at the last national convention (had there ever been so great a jamboree celebrating the right to a choice to kill, anywhere, anytime?) the GOP/Cons ought to double down on the defense of life. Now, I realize many of the candidates are pro-life, but it’s not good enough. If ‘they’ make the issue public – choice/abortion – and defend it — publicly — with passionate fanaticism then it must be opposed — publicly — with passionate intensity. Instead, the GOP/Cons, collectively, assume an impression of a manner of indifference. Oh yes, they will note that candidates A, B, and D, are staunch pro-lifers — so rest easy everyone. If ‘they’ make an appeal, publicly, for social justice, attack the appeal publicly — twice as hard — as balderdash. If ‘they’ make a public case for SSM; attack the case twice as hard, as utter nonsense — publicly.
Now, I’m not a Pennsylvania rube with a gun and a Bible (I have a gun and a Bible, I’m just not Pennsylvanian or a rube). I hadn’t just come out of a coma Tuesday last. I am well aware of the utter embarrassment many, too many, Republican and conservatives feel at the public mention of God, morality, social/moral issues. That contingent that opposes social conservatism is the very same that controls GOP/Cons Inc. I doubt they wait breathlessly for it, but all in all, they’d rather hear another economic tutorial from Jeb on the difference between 2% and 4% growth. I expect there’d be a tingle up several legs if someone stood up strong for tax cuts. Don’t like to think about but wouldn’t be surprised if a few of them were to squirt their pants at the mention of Reagan and Morning in America, maybe even a “thousand points of light”.
This is all to say I don’t care how many, fine, upstanding, forthright, candidates there are. If they will not make the case publicly, unequivocally, if the Party will not help them make the case publicly, unequivocally then it’s all community theater.
I would note that Mr Trump’s political success will not be attributed to his charm, looks, demeanor, and personal opinions on various matters of general political interest interest. His success is purely a matter of his having taken up one issue that resonates with a good deal of the public. When ‘they’ made a public case for immigration, illegals, amnesty, he attacked, publicly, and doubled down with Americans first. That’s how to play the game.
I agree with the argument that some conservatives have a tendency to write people off prematurely. Personally, I think the Republicans have a fine field of candidates including Fiorina.
Conservatives do this everywhere. I don’t know why there is this sizable minority of them that is unable to settle, and insist that if they can’t have things their way, they’re going home. I’ve been watching this for decades now. The argument is always “Hey! I settled last time. It’s time we got ours.”
Observers sometimes speculate that conservatives actually don’t want to govern, they want to complain. That doesn’t feel true, but I have a hard time saying how things would look any different if it were.
I will point out again: if you lived in other countries your choices would be worse.
After seeing John Kasich today, I add him to my list. Carly is still my number one. Cruz and Rubio fill out the list. Trump and Bush? Never!
As to this great class of fine conservative candidates and the universe I live in, I note:
Carly Fiorina – supports keeping birthright citizenships and allowing anchor babies, calling attempts to change the law a mere “distraction”.
She supports amnesty for so-called “Dreamers”
Supported Marco Rubio’s gang of 8 amnesty bill.
She believes in global warming but doesn’t believe it warrants priority
Though not as accomplished a business executive as Mitt Romney, she does share his propensity for gullibility — for mythoi.
Marco Rubio – sponsored the “Gang of 8” bill
still supports amnesty for so-called “Dreamers” and at least a “portion” of Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals also supports keeping birthright citizenship i.e., anchor babies
is willing to consider admitting refugees from Syria.
when the pope started talking about admitting more waves of immigration, Marco started crying. I take it this was his Willy Clinton on the beach tear jerk moment.
introduced a bill that would essentially lift the university green card caps and triple the number of guest workers admitted on H-1B visas to replace American workers at lower costs.
Marco Rubio: The Newest Member of Black Lives Matter
Marco Rubio brings two new faces to the GOP This last appears to have all the appeal of the Islamic apologist — say one thing to your Muslim audience, say the opposite to potential dhimmies.
From Ace of Spades: “People” has broken a big story about the female Rangers.
Yes, they got MANY special breaks and multiple “do-overs” in order for the brass hats to force through even two of them.
http://www.people.com/article/female-ranger-school-graduation-planned-advance
Our soldiers will die because of this. These two women should show some REAL patriotism and go public with the truth. Then I’d be proud of them.
This blogger seems to have a clue about the race. The reality is that the game was to set-up to deliver Jeb Bush. Trump, and only Trump, is disrupting the game. The rest, including Fiorina and Rubio, are supporting players on the Jeb Bush train.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/09/24/major-tripwire-alert-new-florida-poll-reveals-there-are-only-five-currently-viable-candidates/
A pox on all you True Believers if you think Ben Carson isn’t a Christian. A man with special gifts who has helped save who knows how many lives embodies the essence of Christianity, no matter his particular individual faith.
That’s hard to believe coming from you Chuck, given your previous acclaims of support for the Gaystapo, or rather the homo marriage crowd.
Have you recanted your position yet?
Our soldiers will die because of this. These two women should show some REAL patriotism and go public with the truth. Then I’d be proud of them.
Beverly, did you hear about the Marine Corps experiment which the SecNav rejected because it was against his Leftist masters’ ordered results?
Rubio went on Rush Limbaugh’s show in April 2013 and had a lengthy discussion with him about immigration. The transcript is here. He explains why he reversed himself on the question of whether legalization or securing the border comes first. Rush doesn’t challenge him on the explanation, which starts like this:
Rush even ends the interview with “I appreciate your straightforwardness, a straight shooter”.
Sorry, wrong link. Here’s the link for the transcript of the Rubio-Limbaugh interview.
George Pal:
Your most recent comment contains some misleading statements, such as when you say that Fiorina “supports keeping birthright citizenships and allowing anchor babies, calling attempts to change the law a mere ‘distraction’.”
Since you don’t give a single link to any of your assertions, it’s hard to know the source of each. At any rate, I don’t have the time to discuss each one; that would be a post in and of itself. But Fiorina has stated her position on birthright citizenship, which is essentially the same as mine. I’ve read reams and reams of legal writing about the 14th Amendment by which it is granted, and the legal interpretation of birthright citizenship under that law, and have come to the conclusion (much as she has, and before I heard her position) that an amendment would have to be passed to undo it. How you translate this into “support” is unknown. I don’t “support” birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, but I have come to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment does grant it and that it could only be undone by another amendment. I agree with Fiorina, also, that securing the border must be done, and that deporting all the illegal immigrants now present is impractical, and that some path to legality and not citizenship might be considered only AFTER the border is secure.
This seems reasonable to me. I also happen to agree with Fiorina that a lot of illegal immigrants are people who came legally and have overstayed their visas, and that we need a way to track and deport them.
I have written about her immigration policy before, here. Watch the videos there. I am actually in agreement with what she says.
You are throwing the word “amnesty” around without defining it. Are you aware that even Trump spoke of something that could easily be defined as “amnesty”?
You are a very good example of what I’m talking about in this thread. You seem to want a candidate tailored to your exact and precise specifications, and otherwise you’re not voting for them and thus are enabling the election of someone with whom you disagree just about 100% of the time rather than 20% of the time. A very destructive point of view, coming from what seems to amount to a tantrum that you can’t order up a candidate exactly to your specifications.
I have an idea: why don’t you run for president yourself? Because that’s the only candidate of whom you’d approve, if you want to be consistent.
I’m really very tired of these misleading distortions of candidates’ actual positions. In the future, provide links, and make sure your descriptions match what is in the links, whether it be about Fiorina, Trump, Rubio, or any other candidate. You are allowing your anger to cloud your judgment.
As to the candidates:
Fiorina’s claim to fame as a CEO got blasted away in the NYT today by Steven Rattner. He is not alone in his criticism. The follow up is to ask why nobody else hired her after HP. She uses her top-level sales training to deliver her pitch, and it worked for her in the second debate. But, everything she said was a pre-rehearsed talking point she’s used before.
Cruz is my preferred candidate. But he has raised a lot of money through PACs, so he is beholden. He has had the courage to stand up to the GOP on principle, so I give him credit for that.
Rubio was a key member of the Gang of Eight that tried to ram amnesty down our throats. He betrayed campaign promises to do it, and no amount of recanting will earn my trust.
Carson is a brilliant neurosurgeon with the most compelling life story of all the candidates. I’m worried about his lack of executive experience. But he has surprising staying power so far. He is the anti-Trump yet attracting some of the same crowd; the people completely disillusioned with the political class. I’m disappointed in his weak stand on illegal immigration.
Jeb Bush is the candidate the GOP elite has designated to inherit the glorious mantle of John McCain and Mitt Romney. They’ve given him a $100 million war chest and loaded the field with also-rans to make Jeb look good in the polls. A vote for Jeb is a vote for Obamacare, Common Core, Amnesty and yet more Washington.
Donald Trump is the wild card. He is the ultimate outsider, despite being someone who has bought and sold politicians wholesale. He has deplored the system publicly. He isn’t bought and doesn’t need any favors. He is an egomaniac but can laugh at himself. He fights. Megyn Kelly broadcast a false report that he had raped his first wife; she followed that up in the first debate by asking questions designed to derail his candidacy. She exposed the fact that she had an agenda and could no longer be considered a journalist. He fought back. As other Fox News people piled onto him, he declared a boycott of Fox News. Stupid? Or smart negotiating? Trump got huge air-time at CNN, MSNBC and the late night shows. More importantly, he has exposed Fox News and many of its commentators as Washington insiders. (In case you don’t recognize her, the lady on the right is Valerie Jarrett.) Rich Lowry, bless his little heart, fell into Trump’s trap. Guess who Roger Ailes wants to talk to now? I don’t much care about Trump’s past positions and statements; as a businessman in liberal NYC, you don’t rock the boat. But his position papers, on immigration and the 2nd amendment match conservative values. I’m waiting for his tax paper. And, where are the other candidate’s position papers? At least Trump has had the “courage to see things as they are” when it comes to the Iran deal. In true Trump style, he berated Kerry and Obama:
None of the other candidates count, especially not Kasich, who is loathed with a fierce passion in conservative circles in Ohio (my home state).
The real fight is Jeb Bush (the favorite) versus Donald Trump (the outsider). Peel away all the layers on the onion, and that is what you end up with. If Trump hadn’t entered the race, there would be no onion.
Think back to 2012. Herman Cain surged. Out of the woodwork came people accusing him of sexual harassment. When he imploded, they crawled back into the woodwork. Newt Gingrich surged. He got killed by negative ads in Florida and faded. Rick Perry had a chance, had a senior moment, and faded fast. Last man standing? The GOPe candidate, Mitt Romney. No onion and no choice for true conservatives.
PatD:
For every Fiorina critic, there’s one who says she was a great CEO.
You act like the one you link is the only thing ever written on the subject.
And I’m really sick of these false and/or purposely misleading statements masquerading as truth, such as this one of yours:
What’s wrong with it? Quite a few things, such as, for example this:
So, what you wrote insinuated that Kelly was promoting or agreeing with something she was actually debunking. That is purposely misleading of you.
I saw that debate where Kelly asked the question you’re referring to. Here’s the transcript. If you read it, you can see that (a) Kelly and the other questioners were asking all the candidates tough questions that were critical of the person they were addressing, and Trump was not singled at in that regard in order to “derail” him (b) Kelly explained that her question was about temperament, and added “how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?” That’s an extremely valid point and makes the question of Trump a valid one. What’s more, her statements about what Trump had said were correct (see also this).
I’m not going to take the time to debunk point after point after point; it’s just too time-consuming. But as I said in a previous comment to another commenter, in the future, provide links, and make sure your descriptions match what is in the links.
I was a big fan of Martha McSally. She was an A10 Warthog pilot during the Iraq war. She stood up to the military brass who told her she had to wear Islamic dress when she left her Air Base in Saudi Arabia. She ran for congress twice and I donated to her campaign both times. She won on the second try. But she has turned into John McCain on illegal immigration and bowed to the leadership on too many issues. She is fighting to keep the A10 in service. I commend her on that.
I use her as example of conservatives expecting too much from GOP candidates. She looked like a fighter. She sounded like a fighter. But she doesn’t fight for conservative causes.
She scores an F at Conservative Review.
She is two places behind Mitch McConnell on the Heritage Action scorecard
I’m sorry I wasted my donations on her.
Compared to Ted Cruz, she is a wimp, a sell-out and a RINO.
Not picking on Martha in particular, but she exemplifies candidates who talk conservative but vote the way DC wants them to vote.
@neo-neocon: Even giving airtime to such an allegation gives it credence. That was the point. You can debate it to and fro on air but you leave an impression that something bad happened. Linking it to his comments about rapists coming across the border suggested a double standard on Trump’s part.
Trump has talked about a woman in her 60’s, a veteran, who was raped and murdered by illegal aliens. But leaving the impression that Trump was a rapist, despite denying it, impeaches his testimony about illegal alien rapists.
Do you see how this work? Alinsky would be proud.
Years ago, James Randi did a TV show that exposed Filipino psychic surgeons as frauds and exposed how they did their tricks with chicken parts. The net result was that the TV station was flooded with calls from people seeking psychic surgery.
Here is an interesting take from Powerline, especiall the letter from Tom McClintock at the end:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/what-next-for-the-house-take-2.php
It seems to me that many of the “true conservatives” have an issue of the day that they use to condemn all but their favored candidate. The big picture seems unimportant, as do steps to move in a new direction. It has to be all or nothing, meaning the lefties win.
Take for example the issue of abortion: From what I have read, pro-life attitudes are increasing. Right now we have Roe vs. Wade, so the question becomes how do we change it. How do we use the PP body-selling scandal to change the way people think. Do we chip away at support for late-term abortions and in so doing force people who were former ardent abortion supporters to think about what it means, or do we try to force the whole issue now when we perhaps force abortion supporters more firmly into that camp? Without changing minds, we will still have abortions, just as we had illegal abortions previously. Without changing the outlook of girls and women to the value of life, we will continue this fight forever. But if we can combine this issue with the problems of unmarried parenthood and its effect on children, perhaps we can get a lot of people to think differently about the responsibilties of parenthood and make better decisions about their lives, including pregnancy and abortion.
There are so many issues now that we can use to get through to former leftist supporters. Black Lives Matter is another. But we have to use these issues intelligently to chip away at loyalties. Standing up and preaching to our own choir is probably not the best way. We have to try to create more changers and allow them some time to deal with their own cognitve dissonance. I don’t think screaming is the best way.
I like what Paul Ryan is doing by going out to inner city groups to find allies on specific issues. This has much more potential for getting our thoughts into local arenas.
@neo-neocon Fiorina’s history at HP is not good. The stock price decline compared to Dell and IBM over the same period are a sad testimony. I had a long history as a Hewlett-Packard OEM from the late 70’s to the mid 80’s. They had a corporate culture that was unique. Bill and Dave managed by walking around and asking questions. Insiders say that she destroyed the “HP Way”.
HP did get caught out by the PC revolution. They slowly righted the ship, but, when Carly came aboard, the PC revolution was over. The next wave was the internet and smart phones.
Carly went out and bought Compaq, a struggling PC hardware company. Revenue went up, for a while, but profits shrank. Apple zoomed past HP and Dell captured a huge hunk of her PC business.
As I asked, if she was so good, why wasn’t she hired after HP fired her?
Ymarsakar:
That’s hard to believe coming from you Chuck, given your previous acclaims of support for the Gaystapo, or rather the homo marriage crowd.
You are the one who put me in the Gaystapo crowd. People can support the same thing even when they are at odds about most other things. Because I support same sex civil unions does not mean that I support what some call the gay agenda, and neither does Dr. Carson. He is on record as saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, but then goes on to approve of same sex civil unions. That is my position also.
Carson is a little too religious for my taste, but he is also a very fine moral man with intelligence and grace. Because of my libertarian leanings I don’t agree with him about pot and several other issues. But he is not part of the bought and paid for establishment, showed great courage in confronting Obama in person in a public setting, and has the ability to change the tone of this campaign. I really wish him well. We could do a lot worse, and have.
@neo-neocon: What I said was exactly true and confirmed by your transcript.
I said: “Megyn Kelly broadcast a false report that he had raped his first wife”.
I didn’t say she claimed it as true.
The whole point was that she saw fit to broadcast it at all. If she knew it was false, why would she do it? It was not like she was trying to exonerate him. They only point of airing such a report was to smear Trump and then claim she was defending him by casting doubt on the report.
Iago would understand her.
@neo-neocon: Kelly’s first question for Trump bought into the “GOP War on Women” Democrat attack line as its premise. It wasn’t a useful question, like, “how would you stop Iran getting nukes” or “how, exactly, do you seal the border”, or “how are you going to address youth unemployment”. It was a gotcha question. The premise was Trump was a sexist pig and Kelly was going to prove it with her question.
She lost, partly because people know Trump is an equal opportunity insulter. It is part of his charm. But also because he turned the question to more pressing issues. His response was, in part:
“I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble.”
Kelly was headed into Trump is a sexist pig territory with her question and lost.
Herman Cain, poor Hermain Cain, we remember you well. A rising star in 2011, until someone threw the sex card at you. Alas, poor Herman. We knew you well.
Trump is not going out like Herman, on bogus sex charges.
PatD
Steve Ratner is an Obama hack!
I first heard that “slam” on Carly not working as a CEO after
HP from a Clinton hack that teaches at Yale. Try this. She was already rich! Why bother?
After HP SHE did important charity work, helped McCain, ran for Senate and served on a CIA board. Also beat cancer.
The fact that Carly didn’t work again as a CEO is meaningless.
After reading the back and forth comments about Carli’ Fiorina’s time at HP it seems that we can infer that Carli was neither a great CEO nor was she a horrible CEO. She was probably average or perhaps slightly below average.
The question is why do we get drawn into the weeds over the subject? She is running for president of the United States not as CEO of a tech company. The skill sets for the two positions are quite different. It is undeniable that whether one views her stint as CEO as a success or a failure she has vastly more experience and understanding of the business world than most of her competitors. Therefore her stint as CEO is a strong plus in her resume – provided she can get elected. From the standpoint of the left her experience as a CEO is a strong argument against her electability whether she was successful or not.
I find the idea that the default position of a conservative should be that anchor babies are citizens and made so by the 14th Amendment curious. Is that amendment so cut as to make this a sensible reading? Does the amendment say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens”? Evidently not, it says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Here is an opportunity for contention. But can one of those contentions be, possibly, that those here illegally were subject to the jurisdiction thereof. As Ann Coulter reminds, for more than a hundred years SCOTUS rulings regarding the 14th amendment had, for the greatest part, dealt with Africans and slavery. Quoting Ms Coulter, “One has to leap forward 200 years from “the founding of the republic” to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982.”
It’s strange , the power of precedent in a living, morphing, deconstructed, penumbra emanating Constitution.
I throw the word amnesty about because it will not hit ground — it has been let loose, escaped gravity. It is synonymous with pathways to citizenship, pathaways to legality, pathways to stay, pathways further for family unification. Whatever the pretense, it will eventually be bestowed upon every one of them, with the dictionary meaning of amnesty, by SCOTUS. I’ll wager a hundred dollars that you are aware that this is the modus operandi of those who cannot pass unpopular legislation the old fashioned way.
I plead guilty to having exact and precise specifications but with extenuating circumstances. There are three critical questions before the nation, all existential — abortion (and all mongering of death), immigration (legal and illegal), and Islam. On the basis of a near fifty long year trend line, I will not give the benefit of the doubt to the wishy-washy, unsure, equivocatory, and the born-again (in the event an election looms) conservative.
So long as I am assured that I have not your support, I am not running for President.
Finally, had you ever considered that misleading distortions of candidates’ actual positions could not be so easily manufactured if the candidates themselves were not so pliable, plastic, and soft?
Dennis,
Plus Carly would have a definite advantage over Hillary on the issue of cyber security.
Today Carly said she had other CEO offers after HP and turned them down. She wanted to do something different as I outlined above.
But the Left never quits. Expect more.
George Pal:
The position that the 14th Amendment sets up birthright citizenship is not the “default position” of anyone. It is the enormous weight of precedent that dictates it. My original position, based on my own reading of the 14th Amendment, was actually that it did not dictate birthright citizenship. However, after I did a lot of research on it, I concluded that that dog was never going to hunt, and that the proper remedy would be a constitutional amendment.
That’s just realism, a question of where best to put one’s resources. If people want to take it through the courts and find out for sure, that’s fine with me. But the constitutional issues are fairly clear, I decided. I believe that Fiorina decided the same thing (recall, by the way, that her father was a very famous conservative jurist, and she learned a lot at his knee).
You write “had you ever considered that misleading distortions of candidates’ actual positions could not be so easily manufactured if the candidates themselves were not so pliable, plastic, and soft?”
No, I have not. I completely and utterly disagree with that statement, and I think it shows remarkable naivete about propaganda. I have watched people being destroyed by it, over and over, and if the opposition is determined enough and people are gullible enough it will happen. The people who survive the onslaught have to have a reserve of goodwill from the public that comes from many years of familiarity and rectitude, and newcomers don’t have that. In addition, they have to have overwhelming support to be able to survive the loss of support that comes from the lies.
Would you have described Sarah Palin as ” pliable, plastic, and soft?” She was and is many things, but those three are not among them. And yet she was destroyed by opposition propaganda that spread lies about her and about her positions. She retains her core support, but only that. Those others (moderates, etc.) who might have been impressed by her or gravitated to her were immediately turned off by all the lies they believed to be true.
It happens all the time.
This is a little late and a little off-topic, but I just noticed Cornhead’s comment on Kasich (9-26-205 at 10:33 pm).
Since I generally agree with Cornhead’s observations, I’d appreciate it if he took a look at this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=208&v=jZJKXvKe4D8
The video records an exchange, during the last debate, between Cruz and Kasich, on the Iran nuclear deal. My own view is consistent with the arguments made by Cruz, and I completely disagree with Kasich. If he becomes the nominee, I’d vote for him, but this is now our most critical foreign policy issue, and I think Kasich has misjudged it, so I definitely wouldn’t put him on my list of favorite candidates. I don’t know much about Kasich, so maybe there are other issues. My point here is limited to the argument over the Iran deal.
PatD:
Those talking points about “why wasn’t Carly offered another position?” are not only straight out of the leftist playbook, but they are illogical, or at least uninformed, if you think about them.
And Steven Rattner? Why on earth would you quote him as any sort of objective source on a Republican candidate? I guess you’re not above quoting leftist/liberal hacks as supposed authorities on a Republican candidate when it suits you.
How about this as an answer as to why Fiorina didn’t work as a CEO after her HP experience: because she didn’t want to. She decided to go in another direction.
You imply, without a single shred of knowledge about it, that Fiorina was begging to be a CEO again and was refused by different companies, and/or that if she’d gotten an offer she would have taken it and therefore she got no offers. In fact, we have no idea whether she wanted to get that sort of job again or whether she decided to leave the corporate world. Nor do we know whether she got any offers or not. After her firing she engaged in non-profit work, government work, and political work, and plenty of it. Take a look at her bio and you will see.
And of course she wasn’t hurting for money.
By the way, the idea that Fiorina did so poorly at HP also ignores the fact that one of her biggest critics at HP has endorsed her and explained that she actually was a very good CEO (see this article; there are plenty of other articles that praise her, as well, and there are others that criticize her).
I await with eager anticipation further leftist talking points from you.
Also, I wrote the above comment before I noticed this, from Cornhead, where he reports that Fiorina stated today that she did have other offers after she left HP.
PatD:
As for your further comments on Megyn Kelly vs. Donald Trump—
Let me get this straight. So when I write a post airing a story from the NY Times, for example, and I spend my time debunking it and pointing out the flaws in it (which I do quite regularly), I’m really an Alinskyite promoting it in some sly and cleverly twisted way.
Oh, clever me!
Absurd.
When you wrote that “Megyn Kelly broadcast a false report that he had raped his first wife,” and that’s ALL you wrote about it, the implication/insinuation of that statement is that Kelly was promoting or agreeing with that report, although she had in fact debunked the story (a little detail you didn’t see fit to mention). I repeat: that was purposely misleading of you.
In a later comment you wrote, trying to defend your thesis:
Look it up. She broadcast the piece, an interview with the reporter, Mak, who had already broken the “Trump is a rapist” story in The Daily Beast, because the story was already getting a lot of press. She debunked Mak’s story during the interview in several ways, with vigor, and said nothing in support of it. Actually, she made Mak look quite foolish, and what she said did pretty much exonerate Trump.
In addition, you wrote in one of your comments:
But the transcript shows that almost all the questions to all the candidates were in some way “gotcha” questions. Trump was not singled out. Kelly didn’t “buy into” the War on Women “attack line as its premise.” She noted the fact that Democrats would be using that attack line, and she certainly is correct in that observation, and it is relevant to Trump’s campaign. Trump had in fact said those things re women, and if Hillary Clinton runs they will definitely be relevant, and he needs to come up with an answer to her question and not cry, “Poor me! That mean bitch asked me a tough question! She tried to frame me!” Kelly correctly explained the premise of her question, which was that the left would frame the comments as sexist, and asked how he would answer.
Again, your argument makes no sense. Trump is no victim here.
You think you read Kelly’s mind, and know that she thought she could prove he was a sexist pig? There is no evidence for that. She was asking a hard question, bringing up a relevant fact, and giving Trump an opportunity to answer. He could have said any number of things—for example, he could have said what you yourself have said about him, that he is “an equal opportunity insulter.” That actually would have been a halfway decent response, quite clever and possibly even true. But he didn’t offer it.
Neo-neocon,
Whatever the 14th amendment does it does not provide citizenship to children born of illegal aliens. Quoting Coulter again — “But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court.” But the citizens just keep popping up, piggybacking on both treachery and indifference. I trust this will all work itself out when Justice Kennedy weighs in on the bigotry of denying equality but until then we the cranky must live with the aftermath of a tsunami having littered the land with flotsam and jetsam.
You choose to defend the position that candidates had been destroyed by propaganda though that was not the context of my contention. Certainly the LibProgLeft have done such. It may be what they do best of all. What I was getting at is the difficulty of nailing down the positions of the candidates of one’s own sphere of interest, in this case The GOP/Cons. How is it possible to pin to a candidate any confidence when that candidate traipses about like a maverick — quintessentially McCain, and now the irrepressible Mr Rubio.
George Pal:
This is the sort of thing I was speaking of.
I believe that the weight of history and of legal precedent would be that a new amendment would be needed to change things (I’ve read many more articles than that on the subject, but don’t have time to find them now). As I said in a previous comment, I would have no problem with a judicial challenge, but I believe it would be a case of wheel-spinning. That’s Fiorina’s position as I understand it, as well.
I think all intelligent people agree: Fiorina, Cruz, or Rubio. Supporters of anyone else are Communist 5th columnists (except Carson…they’re merely wrong).
PS: Is there something wrong with the preview button? It hasn’t been working for weeks.
Matt_SE:
Nothing wrong with the preview button for me, and so far I haven’t heard that anyone else has had problems with it. Perhaps your browser?
@neo-neocon: I see no reason for her to air such a report, except to hurt Trump. She may have defended him, but the clips are out there, and can be edited to use against him. He’s not the only GOP candidate to be attacked this way. In this day and age, a false smear denied is almost as good as a true smear validated. Remember Herman Cain and all those sexual harassment charges, that vanished as soon as he dropped, or Clarence Thomas, who was subjected to similar attacks?
As to the first debate, my wife and I had similar reactions. The first question was the show of hands about who would not support a fellow GOP candidate. Fox knew that Trump would stand alone on that. As it turns out, Trump did eventually sign the pledge. Priebus had to go to Trump Tower to get Trump’s signature, which worked in Trump’s favor. Both Wallace and Kelly asked gotcha questions all night and Trump got more than his fair share. He got more than his fair share of questions, too.
Of course Democrats will use the “War on Woman” line against every GOP candidate. That’s what they do. Fiorina’s stand on Planned Parenthood will also get her labelled as being anti-woman. This Salon piece is typical. There is need for Fox to play into that line.
We have been used to liberal hosts at Presidential debates asking questions that push their liberal agenda. We hoped Fox would use the occasion to let the candidates state and defend their policy positions. The first question to Trump set the tone for the whole debate. It was unfair to him, to the rest of the candidates, and the viewers.
There is a deeper game going on beneath the surface. Why would someone as smart as Trump deliberately attack Fox News? Coverage is the life-blood of a politician and Trump is boycotting the leading conservative news outlet. Why? Maybe he was expecting something like this. You can sense them gloating over what they presume is Fiorina’s great victory over Trump. What really happened is Fox just confirmed what Trump has been whining about; they are biased against him.
In the meantime, Trump has gotten tons of publicity on the other networks and boosted their ratings. The life-blood of a Television channel is ratings, and Trump is a ratings hog. He can afford to continue his boycott for a while yet. When he relents, it will be Fox that look’s like the loser.
As to Fiorina’s tenure as CEO. The reviews are mixed but the numbers don’t lie. Over her tenure, HP shares lost more value than the shares of IBM and Dell and, for that matter, Apple. HP lost 45% of its value; IBM lost 29% and Dell gained 12%. Apple way surpassed them all. In 2011, Fortune reprinted an analysis of the HP/Compaq mergeroriginally published in Feb 2005. It was devastating then and nothing has changed since.
PatD:
I’ve explained the reasons Kelly aired the report. In fact, they are evident if one watches it. I’ve explained (as did Fiorina) that all the candidates were asked tough gotcha-type questions in the debate. That was the format. It was obvious. And there are countless pro-Fiorina articles explaining the numbers. Numbers mean nothing without context. They actually do not speak for themselves.
You insist on ignoring all of this, so there’s really nothing more to say.
PatD:
I meant to delete “as did Fiorina” in my previous comment.
I’m inclined to agree with Pat in regard to Megan Kelly and Fox vis a vis Trump. Yes, all the candidates were asked “gotcha” questions. But to lead off with a question where the producers, the hosts and everyone else knew full well would single Trump out certainly suggests an intention to frame the debate with an anti-Trump tone.
I understand Neo’s explanation of the Kelly piece but Pat is right: soundbites matter, often much more than the context of the bite or any substance behind it. Kelly certainly knows this as well. Furthermore, this accusation did not have much credibility to begin with; there was little need to give it airtime even just to debunk it. I cannot speak to the motivations of Kelly or her producers. But it is rather curious.
I don’t agree with Pat as to Fiorina and her tenure at HP; however, the strenuous debate about these matters here and throughout the Blogosphere should give us all pause about her candidacy. She remains my second choice, and I’m actually quite excited by her candidacy. However, her background will be rich fodder for the Democrat/MSM attack machine. The reality is: most Americans (including centrists and a fair amount of conservatives) dislike corporate America and are particularly disdainful and distrustful of senior executives. The left exploited this quite successfully against Romney and would do so with gusto against Fiorina even though she (unlike Romney or Trump) is mostly self made. Now that Walker dropped out, every single GOP hopeful is part of the 1% (as is Hillary and even Bernie). That’s typical. But only three palpably personify the 1%: Trump, Bush and Fiorina. We need to be mindful of this fact and how it will be used/abused.
1. I can’t stress enough how important Tom Perkins’ support of Carly is. He is a VC giant in the Valley. He was on the HP Board and supported her ouster. And now he admits he was wrong. No better witness.
The HP Board at that time was dysfunctional and later had a crazy wiretap and spying scandal.
2. My take on John Kasich is below. He’s not conservative enough for me, but I would support him if he was the nominee. He has a Buckley Rule appeal and some other strengths. But right now Carly is my clear number one.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/live-from-council-bluffs-its-john-kasich.php
On the 14th Amendment fix, reasonable people can disagree on whether a statute or a constitutional amendment would do the job. I think a statute.
Note well how the Left says the GOP wants to “repeal” the 14th. False. But another example of how the Left captures the narrative.
The main thing to understand is that the most common anchor baby fact pattern has never been put squarely to SCOTUS. The current practice of recognizing anchor babies as citizens just happened. Congress never wrote a law and there might be some regs but that’s it.
At least we can agree to disagree on Kelly and Trump, and on Fiorina’s prowess (or lack thereof) as a CEO.
@Cornhead: The 2005 Fortune article I linked to predated her political career. It explains why the Compaq deal was bad and why it drove down HP’s stock. If Tom Perkin’s thinks she shouldn’t have been fired, then he is ignoring the great damage she did to HP shareholders.
And, since everyone is hating on Trump. coming out in support of Fiorino may as much a political act as anything else.
Cornhead Says:
September 27th, 2015 at 6:51 pm
1. I can’t stress enough how important Tom Perkins’ support of Carly is. He is a VC giant in the Valley. He was on the HP Board and supported her ouster. And now he admits he was wrong. No better witness.
The HP Board at that time was dysfunctional and later had a crazy wiretap and spying scandal.
&&&
And yet more than that. Successor management was involved in spending// embezzlement scandals. The whole enterprise was embarrassed.
Fiorina’s immediate successor admitted — Y E A R S ago that she’d turned the firm around… and that the Compaq merger saved the entire firm.
I’ve posted on this before, but Dell and MSFT are a Trust as defined by the Sherman anti-trust act.
This is something that the Justice Department finally figured out during the MSFT trial — along with the Congressional hearings into MSFT and Dell. You all remember those ?
It’s not for nothing that Gates left MSFT. That was the hidden deal — part of the settlement. He HAD to leave the picture.
Without his buddy, Dell didn’t want to run the store any more.
ALL of this coincided with a crisis for both Compaq and H-P. They had been manufacturing inside the US. (Texas, California and Oregon with some Idaho thrown in.)
Fiorina realized that Compaq and H-P HAD to merge to gain scale — AND to take their production to Taiwan and Red China.
If you’re not aware, for decades, the PC Notebook// Laptop market was monopolized by Taiwanese firms. The labels on the outside looked American, the actual product was assembled in Taiwan. This was true for EVERY laptop on the market. Outside of the industry, this hyper-dominance went unremarked.
Fiorina realized that she HAD to have the laptop segment owned by Compaq, HAD to take the manufacture to Red China, HAD to shut down the American assembly lines.
Any other course would’ve imploded both H-P and Compaq.
For reasons too obvious, this analysis was kept secret. The firms stock price would crater if the investing public realized that the light ahead was a gorilla with a flash light. (MSFT)
What had happened is that Dell (ie MSFT ) had entered the Enterprise Server market — that H-P made its ‘cake’ from — and revved up PCs// workstations were wiping out H-P’s entire customer base at a terrifying clip.
MSFT was subsidizing the ‘Dell’ attack. Heh.
They were — and are — economically linked at the hip. This is not two companies. It is one TRUST pretending to have an arm’s length relationship.
Gates MUST have a bust of Rockefeller somewhere on his desk.
The merged firm was able to lobby Congress // the Administration to put shackles on Gates and Dell. She also got H-P deep into the Security State — as H-P owned the ‘digital picture manipulation space’ — as their tie-in with Canon — digital printing — put H-P at the front rank of embedded digital processors.
( Laser printers were the core of the firm’s profits, BTW )
(Those ink cartridges = $$$$$$ )
Fiorina made all the right moves, but she’d hurt the feelings of one of the heirs, a board member. It was HE that led the fight. To my mind, his anger was entirely due to the fact that she was out thinking out talking him — and he had a PhD and a terrific pride.
Fiorinia had to have figured out that he was a ‘Dilly.’ { A much smarter version of Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi. }
And Carly didn’t suffer fools.
Too late, Perkins realizes he screwed up. She should’ve been running the store all along. Then all of the H-P scandals would never have transpired.
Yes, the problem really was in the Board of Directors. No kidding.
Supporters of anyone else are Communist 5th columnists
They may be a Fifth Column, but not for Communists or Leftists.
Although at this point, it’s hard to differentiate between the 12 dozen factions going around. And not all of them belong to the Left even.
You are the one who put me in the Gaystapo crowd.
Since you’re still promoting homo marriage and calling it something that doesn’t affect traditionals, calling those social conservatives with a sneer, what else are you supposed to be. Some objective fence sitter watching over us peons, is that it.
As for the Gaystapo, you denied that they even existed. Along with Hussein having already killed people. I suppose Planned Profit, Waco 2, Ft Hood 1, and all those other incidents are mere coincidences, like Benghazi, to you. Those social conservatives must have done it!