Proving, once again, that the NYT does not bother to know the meaning of the word “conservatives.”
NYT: Look! Over there! Fight! Fight! Fight!
I guess now we wait to find out if Palin is still relevant to “conservative” voters.
A VERY long time ago, I had an incredible amount of respect for Sarah Palin, and thought very highly of her. Any more, I can’t stand the mention of the woman’s name (including her offspring, their various romantic interests, and their children). She’s become a parody of the Republican party, an embarrassment, and a Kardashian level attention whore. The fact that she endorses Trump only serves to further reduce my already microscopic level of support for either of them.
Tom,
I agree. She had a chance to take a serious route but opted for the publicity and money.
God help us all.
I’m not mad at Palin, not at all. I am really angry however at Ted Cruz for not bringing her into his fold. Considering she had helped get him elected Senator, that they share the same fundamental Christian values like being pro-life, and the same basic conservative economic positions, this should have been a no-brainer. What it does show and highlight for all to see once again, is that Ted Cruz doesn’t have a genuine bone in his body, doesn’t have a clue about making or retaining friends, or know the meaning of the word “networking.” His elaborate game plan in Iowa with hired psychologists and messages geared to specific types of individuals shows that he doesn’t know how to connect with the average person, let alone his would-be friends.
Best wishes, Sarah. Hope you’re doing a better job teaching your other daughters about birth control than you did with Bristol.
This was talked about months ago. Not surprised at all that she endorsed Trump. I like Palin, and then I dislike her. LOL.
However, when it comes to Energy and ending corruption, she’s got the background. I’d trust her to clean up the department and focus it back on the right Energy issues.
I have no reason to doubt anything you write at 5:25,but to think for a moment that Trump has more of “a genuine bone in his body” than Cruz baffles me. Not that your saying it baffles me, but the possibility that trump is more genuine than Cruz in fact.
I’ll admit at the outset that I prefer Cruz over Trump (in fact I prefer just about any of the GOP candidates over Trump). But I try to keep an open mind before the NV caucus next week, when I have to make my preference public.
But just the possibility that anyone would believe Trump is more genuine than Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, or even Kasich, just baffles me. Trump and huckster come to mind for me simultaneously, and your comment just does not parse. Not saying you’re wrong, rather that it raises a big question mark in my mind.
TOC – Where’s the evidence that Cruz did not make an effort to go after Palin’s endorsement?
You are assuming he didn’t because that fits with Trump’s narrative about Cruz being a “nasty” guy that “nobody likes.” How about some facts before you leap to parrot the cult leader’s assumptions?
This is 2008 all over again. The personality cult leader who’s obvious toxic narcissism is viewed as “strong leadership” because his followers accept his frequently ridiculous pronouncements at face value and incorporate and extend the fraudulence into the political conversation without pausing to consider factual reality.
“whose”
Palin’s endorsement does signal that Trump’s camp is growing and encroaching on the center.
It also shows that those sitting in the outer ring of – let’s call them – the fringe Right, between the insurgent alt-Right and the mainstream-conservative or center Right that sits with the GOP, are sensing the center is decadent and vulnerable.
For now, gravity still pulls the fringe Right to the center, but the alt-Right activists aligned with Trump are generating a competing gravity whose mass is growing.
I had hoped she’d endorse Cruz, or no one, but I still like and respect her. I’m sure she has her good reasons for it and am less than thrilled by all the Palin hate from former supporters. (Not here, necessarily, but elsewhere.)
I must be one of the few Rs who love Cruz but could vote for Trump.
expat Says:
“I agree. She had a chance to take a serious route but opted for the publicity and money.”
Sometimes that’s not a bad thing… unelected spokesperson / public figures are good to have… when they explain things for your group properly and get the word out… but yeah… not here not now. This is just publicity seeking…
I also like Cruz, but, I donated a small amount of money to him last summer to make sure he stayed in the race. And I have to say, he has the WORST fundraising emails. I dislike them. They are fake and over-the-top and come across as insincere.
Doesn’t win me over to his side, unfortunately.
I also donate money to others, and their emails haven’t been nearly as horrible. Cruz’s emails seem to play to the worst, lowest ‘fears’ of voters. As if we are all redneck Neanderthals. 😛
No surprise.
It fits the WWE template of mine.
Palin is the Mama Bear from Alaska.
How disappointing.
Palin was awesome speaking ad lib.I’m appalled at some of the comments here attacking her family. One thing for sure she got right ‘You would never ever see the Democrats attacking their front runner” Even if Trump doesn’t win the WH he would have at least delivered the death blow to ‘The establishment’
The Cruz campaign is going as planned. It makes no sense to introduce a wild card into the game. Wild cards and Hail Mary passes are for losers.
After the way the Republican Party treated Palin, blaming her for losing the election, why shouldn’t she put her own interests first? Anybody here ever taken one for the team?
To me her endorsement speech sounded a bit unhinged, and watching Trump’s tedious, caricaturistic, faked expressions (as he stood a bit behind her and to her left) was painful. I hadn’t heard her speaking voice for quite a while, and had forgotten that she, too, really screeches, though at a higher, more feminine octave than does HRC. Still, she definitely screeches, and the very sound of that screeching grates on my delicate southern sensibilities….
It will be interesting indeed to see how this gambit plays out. God help us indeed.
Am I alone in thinking that this’ll hurt Trump? Or am I projecting too much?
I actually had the pleasure of meeting Sarah and Todd at the Iditarod Musher’s Banquet a couple years ago. She was gracious enough to let about 500 people wait in line to speak to her for a few moments. Each of us got to sit next to her for a few moments at her table, shake her hand, and say hello. I passed my camera to Todd and he took our photo together. It was funny because three former and one current governor of Alaska were also there, but nobody wanted to meet those guys – only Sarah.
I think this is a delicious bit of payback aimed at all those GOPe jerks who treated her so badly in 2008.
It’s a funny way to end “the Establishment” by touting how they love themselves a Trump. Maybe he plans to kill them with kindness.
K-E sez “I donated a small amount of money to him [Cruz] last summer to make sure he stayed in the race.”
Sure am glad you did that!
Ahh, the power of the small contributor!
Nick:
It occurred to me that it could hurt him with those Democrats people keep saying are thinking of voting for him.
But Trump supporters don’t seem to care about whether Democrats really support him or not, so I don’t think it will hurt Trump in the Republican primaries. Perhaps it will be a draw? There are plenty of Republicans who can’t stand Palin, and over the years their numbers have only increased. My guess, though, is that Trump appeals to the same GOP demographic as Palin did.
@F, Trump is NOT more genuine that Cruz. I totally agree with you about that and am sorry if by criticizing Cruz it left that impression. I’ve written a number of comments here about how I think Trump is basically a con artist. But Ted Cruz is what he is. On the plus side his positions on the issues are generally the most conservative and consistent. Also, you can’t fault him for any of his votes as Senator since he is not a compromising, turn-coat like so many of his Republican colleagues. He is an honorable man.
But he is far from perfect as a candidate, and has been VERY ineffective in office. I’m not mimicking others when I point out his inability to connect with people since I personally have been unable to ever warm up to the man. Hiring psychologists to advise his Iowa campaign on tactics, specifically how to gear his message to individuals based on personality types, is an admission of what he lacks. For all of her faults, Sarah Palin has shown loyalty to party and principle, as example campaigning for McCain. It would have been out of character for her to turn against Cruz had he bothered to keep her in his orbit and as a friend the last 4 years. Sorry, but he comes across as a very cold, calculating man. That’s why he’s made the TV ads with his daughters, to try to dispel and cover up that image.
I vote in a late primary and was set to go for Dr. Carson. Assuming Cruz is still a candidate by then, I will probably vote for him since Carson looks ready to drop out. I intend to sit out the election if Trump is the nominee.
It’s all about the oxygen of media coverage. Trump just sucked it all up in the lead up to the Iowa caucuses. The other candidates can’t get a whiff. He had CNN on hold for nearly half an hour waiting for him to come on stage. How much coverage did other candidates get during that period? Zero.
Fighting fire with fire, the Cruz campaign is reportedly getting Glenn Beck’s endorsement.
Completely unsurprising that Cruz couldn’t get much traction in Congress dominated so thoroughly by anti-conservative Washington establishment interests. The well-considered stands he did take earned him the enmity of the John McCains of this world. That’s a badge of honor as far as I’m concerned. Everyone complains about the GOP legislators not upholding conservative principles and not fighting to stem the tsunami of progressive policy but when someone sticks his neck out to do just that he’s criticized for being a “nasty guy” who “can’t network.” Feh. Make up your mind what you want and also realize there will never be a candidate who is perfect, all things to all people. Well, we had one in Obama but that was because his voters viewed him as some sort of religious leader who could do no wrong. That turned out super great! Also, I’ll bet a lot of the campaigns have analysts who scope us out to decide how best to deliver the candidate’s message.
AMartel @ 5:56
Right on.
Eric @ 6:16 said,
“For now, gravity still pulls the fringe Right to the center, but the alt-Right activists aligned with Trump are generating a competing gravity whose mass is growing.”
They SEEM to be generating…
I don’t trust anything from the media. The only result I’ll believe are actual votes, and then only if they’re beyond the margin of fraud.
The Palin endorsement is disappointing, whether it helps Trump or not. Palin has been going maverick since she endorsed that Democrat in Alaska. I get the feeling that she didn’t withstand the establishment’s attacks all that well emotionally.
Ace noted some odd business about the lead-up to this endorsement.
Cruz’s staff figured out beforehand that Palin would be endorsing Trump, and a Cruz spokesperson put out a statement saying that they’d be deeply disappointed if Palin endorsed Trump. Kind of silly before the actual endorsement, but other than that, not a particularly big deal.
Bristol Palin promptly went on the warpath, writing a short article that slammed Cruz, calling him unlikeable and disloyal. And Sarah Palin promptly linked the article in question on her Twitter feed, while also calling him unlikeable. Now Palin supported Cruz a while back. So if Cruz had attacked her for no reason at all, then there would definitely be a disloyalty issue. But if Palin’s backing Cruz’s opponent, then I’m not sure what Palin expects Cruz to do. Is Cruz expected to leap for joy because his former supporter is now supporting his opponent?
junior:
Interesting.
Here’s a theory, for what it’s worth. I’ve noticed that, when a person is going to reject or even betray someone they’ve previously supported (in this case, that would be Palin re Cruz)—for example, someone leaving a girlfriend or boyfriend for a new girlfriend or boyfriend—in order to justify what they’re doing, they have to find something about that person to dislike. That way they don’t have to feel guilty.
So, for example—sometimes when someone cheats on a spouse and then leaves the spouse, they add insult to injury by saying “I never really loved you.” And that, after they had vowed their love and said it hundreds of times!
Lots of people will do anything and tell themselves anything and believe anything to justify their actions when they’re doing something they might feel guilty about.
As far as I’m concerned, Palin can support whoever she likes. She can support Cruz for a while, and then decide she prefers Trump. But to avoid criticism for her disloyalty or betrayal or whatever one wants to call it (maybe just change of heart), she must create, as it were, a cause of action to justify it. “He’s a meanie!” “He’s unlikable!” “He dissed ME!” (when he actually hadn’t).
People have as much a clue about Trump’s campaign and all the intersecting connections with American factions, as they did with Palin’s governorship and her run as VP to McCain.
It’s about the same level of comprehension, people are still getting pulled around by Leftist propaganda. They just don’t want to admit it.
They SEEM to be generating…
I don’t trust anything from the media.
Which is why the Left’s propaganda organs are separated from my actual analysis and data points.
The only way to create a pure OS, is to ensure that all incoming viruses are firewalled or led into a dummy OS, virtual OS, for containment.
If a system is networked to other computers or online, then that’s a vector from which it can be attacked.
The Leftist propaganda organs often cite each other as “independent sources”. So the Leftist zombies can claim, if only to themselves, that the NYTimes, the AP, Reuters, CNN, and Al Jazeera all report the same thing, so it must be true, because it goes beyond the triple verification and “multiple sources of authority” line. The truth is, they all feed into and from the AP, the Associated Press, so it’s not 5 or 6 sources. It’s 1 source. And it’s attempting to verify itself. Doesn’t work like that.
They get the same news sources, the same stringers even, the same photos, and the same leads, all from the AP. It’s a carbon copy. That’s why the media kept reporting the daily casualty rates from Iraq, under Bush II, on local and cable shows. Are they doing that now? No. That’s cause it’s not necessary to undermine Hussein’s Iraq or Afghanistan, he was already going to do that on his own. Bush II had to be undermined, because Bush II was trying to make America win, and that’s not good when the Left is going to subvert America.
The Leftist propaganda arms like to complain about the exposure of the Planned Profit videos. Yet the Left was conducting psychological warfare and propaganda attacks every day against the Iraqis, the occupation (being careful to avoid blaming State Department), and the administration’s choice of Petraeus by Cheney or Bush II’s attempt to nation build a swamp of rag heads who are going to be a threat in the future.
They would know about exposure to grisly images, wouldn’t they, and how that would impact a subject’s support of A or B.
As for center of gravity vis a vis Trump, VoxDay, Baen independent authors, Sarah Palin’s specific Tea Party and grassroots/social media branches, right wing patriots and militia, internet propagandists and gamers, forum readers and content creators, internet baronies with fortified blogs, …. well, it’s hard to say at this point in time, but VoxDay’s specific kind of faction (the Ultra Right, or the non American nationalists, or the foreign Trump supporters, or the Golden Dawn/PEGIDA/anti ISLAM branch of the net) fell for the anti Sarah Palin propaganda from the Left. As well as the anti Carson propaganda too. As well as the anti neocon. So having a grassroots network supporting Trump, that has most of its firepower in the US, would naturally counter balance the foreigners and the oversea expatriate Americans. That may not be a sea change or a growth of power, but it is different at least.
Carl in Atlanta,
I had the same reaction (Carolina Girl here). It struck me that the crowd’s response to her was tepid, sporadic, and that she was rather nervous, and sensed their basic indifference, and was struggling with it.
It could have been a “Remember, Caesar, you are mortal” moment for the Donald, if he were the self-reflective type: she also used to have thousands cheering her every utterance.
I liked her enormously in the 2007 race and she really got shafted by McCain and the Usual Suspects. I DO wonder why she didn’t endorse Cruz, whom she helped in the past. It may well be that Trump sweet-talked her into it.
Still, there’s the fact that Phyllis Schlafly — who opposed Eisenhower as the “popular but not conservative” candidate in the 1950s — She has endorsed Trump, too. No one has tackled that amazing fact, that I’ve seen.
I think they’re both very bitter about the GOP’s swoon into the arms of the malevolent Left. Dunno what else explains it.
As for Sarah Palin, she has become a king maker, much like that evil adviser the Left often accused Bush of having, what was his name… Rove right.
Ted Cruz also benefited from Tea Party and other support.
Bush II and Sarah Palin both might have found Cruz too cunning or snakish, to be likeable. But of course, in this war, cunning is important for the insurgents, given the occupation by the Left, of the US Throne.
A king maker, the power behind the throne, isn’t good or bad. It’s effect depends on a lot of things.
There is no loyalty to candidates in a king maker, except the one they support. Supporting Cruz in his Senate bid and not supporting him in the Presidential… nobody ever made the deal that one would only obtain support in the Senate, if they also supported that person’s Presidential bid. That’s not how it works… unless you’re Hussein and did get that deal from Ayers and the like.
A king maker is loyal to his faction, and in this case, Rove is loyal to the established Republican fat cats or what not. Conservative in the English sense, even. Whereas Palin is loyal only to her faction, which is not the establishment faction but the one that the establishment tried to crush, the Tea Party’s base. Not the Tea Party itself, per say, but the people who compose it at the bottom or middle.
I think they’re both very bitter about the GOP’s swoon into the arms of the malevolent Left. Dunno what else explains it.
If Palin supports Cruz, she would have to deal with the GOP hanger ons to him. Same as with McCain’s case.
But, of course, if Palin supports Trump, the same thing will happen, except it won’t be the GOP. It’ll be the “Democrat lights” who fell for the anti Palin propaganda, back when they were still voting 100% Democrat. They probably still are, 99%, with Trump added in.
I liked her enormously in the 2007 race and she really got shafted by McCain and the Usual Suspects.
————————
There seems to be mutual loyalty between Palin and McCain. So I don’t think McCain himself shafted her (or at least, not intentionally).
McCain’s staff, on the other hand…
people, peeple PEOPEL!
I see lot’s of BOO, HISS, and rah RAH – but not enough facts or reasoning.
Ymarsakar Says:
“I think they’re both very bitter about the GOP’s swoon into the arms of the malevolent Left.”
I’m sure.
I saw the BBC American report, which cited “Palin’s gaffes” in the 2008 campaign. Specifically, using tape of Palin saying you can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska, which was not a gaffe at all – but rather a smart person’s factoid.
Not that it stopped the Lugenpresse (“lying media”) then, not the same now. And not that it matters to Iowa voters today.
Anyway, considering the Iowa Governor attacking Cruz over ridiculous federal biofuels subsidies to farmers growing corn, it was a day with lots of heat but no light in the coldest part of winter.
Ho, hum.
This is one of my favorite blogs, but I do visit others. One of them – another blog hosted by a conservative female – is strongly pro-Trump. I get depressed when I compare the comments on the two blogs, considering that we’re all supposed to be on the same side. The other blog is full of Ted Cruz birthers, and now I see that this one is full of Palin-haters. Shouldn’t our common goal be to get the f’n democrats out of power? This is yet another example of why Republicans always seem to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Palin got “taken out” by the Republican version of the “politics of personal destruction” and now, she probably sees that the same tactic is being deployed against Trump. Perhaps, this has drawn her to support him.
Yes, Palin was treated contemptuously by the talking heads during the 2008 election. And yes, she was unfairly criticized by McCain and/or his staffers, along with many of the old guard, when the financial meltdown led to an Obama victory. And that she was targeted by the ever-hypocritical left after the shooting of Giffords and others was despicable.
But since then, she has taken every opportunity made available to her to rant on any and every political subject, including many in which she has no apparent insight. She has made an ass of herself with comments that she’s made public after even the most insignificant actions by the current administration.
She long ago shifted imo from being a public figure whom I admired to just another busybody that I wished would just for once shut the f___ up.
Politician turned reality TV star endorses reality TV star turned politician.
Why not, indeed.
“Politician turned reality TV star endorses reality TV star turned politician.”
A literal talking point disseminated by the left. You see the verbatim quote on many progressives’ twitter feeds. Somebody coordinated that.
Very disappointed by Palin’s endorsement of Trump. There are some stylistic issues that may appeal to Palin, but Trump simply isn’t a conservative.
Trump may be a populist, which just means he has some idiosyncratic melange of positions, values, ideas. When it comes time to appoint judges what will be the basis for his choices ? When it comes time to decide all the myriad issues that come to a Presidents desk what will he decide ? When national security issues come to his desk what will he decide ?
Conservatives have been hoping for a real conservative since Reagan. Cruz is that man.
snoopercod : don’t know which comments you are referring to. I see a lot of disappointment in Palin and disregard of her relevance. I’m not seeing hate. My comment, which I presume some took as snarky or an attack on her family, was meant quite sincerely.
K-E – I donate to no one. Everytime I do, they drop out of the race.
KLSmith, I agree. Just because someone is disappointed in a public figure; or disagrees with positions or statements by such, it is way over the top to call it hate.
I really did love Sarah Palin during the campaign. I drove over a hundred miles and stood in the rain for the one opportunity to see her speak.
That said, I am profoundly disappointed in her. The disappointment has been growing for awhile, as she seemed to be changing–I suppose it was inevitable. The bottom was reached with this endorsement. I consider it highly hypocritical. She is not dumb enough to believe that Trump is truly conservative. At best Trump is a deal maker, and apparently he made a deal with her.
I do not think she now resembles the person I saw in 2008; or maybe I was simply fooled back then. I do not hate her, but neither do I admire her.
OlderandWheezier – ” She has made an ass of herself with comments that she’s made public after even the most insignificant actions by the current administration. ”
Being a Palinista in addition to a Cruzaholic, I have viewed her comments as proof positive that she still lives in Obama’s and the Left’s head, rent-free. I have greatly enjoyed her tweaks.
~~
While I haven’t looked into the reasoning behind Schlafly’s endorsement, I do trust her quite a bit.
Perhaps she senses that Trump can win, and Cruz can’t?
~
A comment I saw at Ace’s in mild favor of Trump: “We’ve got nothing to lose with Trump that we won’t lose anyways, and there’s a lot of potential upside. ” Somewhat cynical, but that represents my view of a Trump nomination/presidency.
~
Let’s say that Trump promised her a position in his administration. If she was head of Energy, I would break out the champagne.
Sarah Palin has reason to never trust MSM. Not surprised that she’d support Trump.
Has anybody considered that Sarah may have given this considerable thought and believes that Cruz will have more value to the Country in the Senate, and as a future Supreme Court justice? What I’m reading in these comments is that Palin is just a dumb bimbo has-been and is supporting Trump only to try and make herself relevant again. With friends like these…
I would vote for Trump as opposed to Hillary without a moment’s hesitation. Hell, I would vote for Howard the Duck against Hillary. But I don’t think that’s going to be the choice.
With the revelation that the Dowager Empress had Special Compartmented and Special Access information on her private server, and at least in one case, ordered a subordinate to delete the classification markings and send something to her as unclassified, I don’t see how she makes to to the nomination without being indicted or half the FBI resigning, which will make the Saturday Night Massacre look like an ice-cream social.
We’d better start thinking about with whom and how we can beat Good ‘Ol Uncle Joe(TM), because he’s almost certainly going to be the nominee.
snopercod:
“Shouldn’t our common goal be to get the f’n democrats out of power? This is yet another example of why Republicans always seem to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Principally perhaps, but not proximately for the alt-Right insurgency. Alt-Right activists proximately aim to displace and replace the mainstream conservatives of the Right, who are joined with GOPe, by following the precedent of the Left activists that displaced and replaced mainstream liberals.
Election win over the Democrats will no longer be the proximate goal for the fringe Right if they choose to uncouple from the center Right and muster with the alt-Right insurgency against the center Right.
Palin’s endorsement of Trump is a broadcast signal to the fringe Right to begin that factional switch.
The message of Palin’s endorsement is you’re either with us or against us in the movement to disfranchise GOPe, so that it’s not good enough to have one foot in the establishment like Senator Cruz.
Ymarsakar:
“So having a grassroots network supporting Trump, that has most of its firepower in the US, would naturally counter balance the foreigners and the oversea expatriate Americans. That may not be a sea change or a growth of power, but it is different at least.”
That’s an important point in terms of diagnosis for prescription.
The activist engine of the Trump phenomenon is not made of Trump followers. There’s little to no Trump faction as such. Rather, his core constituency is made up of supporters who weigh the utility of his candidacy as a vehicle to achieve their agenda. For his part, Trump evidently signals for their support by mirroring their rhetoric to stitch together his alternative constituency. In other words, it’s a deal between an outsider candidate and outsider factions that are animated to take over an inside that appears vulnerable to be taken.
There are strategic implications that I haven’t thought about in terms of prescription, but the first step of a prescriptive solution is a correct diagnosis of the Trump phenomenon.
Eric:
Trump has both supporters AND followers.
Neo,
I disagree. Trump the candidate has supporters acting in the role of followers.
Trump has BOTH is what I said. There are activist supporters who see him as a tool to reach their goals. And their are worshiping followers who follow him in a cult of personality. I see both types. In fact, the second types are the “useful” idiots used by the first types. I think, as with the left, the second type is somewhat more numerous, but there are many of the first type, too.
Neo,
Indeed, the Trump phenomenon exploits a market inefficiency by adopting the Left activist method that’s proven against the activism-deficient Right.
We’re referring to different levels. I’m referring to Trump’s “activist engine” and “core constituency”, the center of gravity of the Trump phenomenon. They’re more like outsourced or contracted than “worshiping followers who follow him in a cult of personality”.
That being said, a key component of their strategy is learning from the Obama (et al) precedent to build up an appearance of Max-Weberian charismatic authority. In that regard, they’ll act in the role of followers. If they’re successful, they’ll cultivate actual “worshiping followers who follow him in a cult of personality” and drawn more of the kind into their orbit as they build mass.
Fix: drawn more of the kind – draw more of the kind …
I did say, “There’s little to no Trump faction as such” in terms of followers, which I meant in the context of the Trump campaign’s “activist engine” and “core constituency”.
To align it better with my intended meaning, the sentence would be more precisely stated as, There’s little to no [core or natural] Trump faction as such.
I agree that they aim to cultivate a “cult of personality” following, which is part of learning from the Left-activist precedent exemplified by the Obama campaign.
@neo-neocon, eric: The Trump supporters I know are activists. They don’t believe he is a savior and they sometimes cringe when he insults people, although, to be fair, it is usually in reaction to a perceived or actual insult. For example, Megyn Kelly aired an unsubstantiated report that Trump had raped his first wife. That report was immediately shot down by the ex-wife in question, but it did not augur well when Kelly immediately went on the attack at the first debate. Trump responded crudely but she was obviously gunning for him.
We see corruption at the local level — living in a Blue city means living with it — at the state level and at the national level. We supported politicians who said they were Tea Party people interested in the three core values of the Tea Party – fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets. What did we get in return? Nada? No, not nada; far worse – Obama’s Omnibus package.
Take Marco Rubio, whose platform included no amnesty. The Tea Party got behind him and he pulled off an upset victory against Charlie Crist. When young Marco got to the Senate, he joined the Gang of 8 that sponsored an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. The bill passed the senate and was headed for passage in the house when Boehner was forced to pull it because the votes evaporated. David Brat had just won a stunning victory over Eric Cantor by running on illegal immigration. Rubio burned his bridge and cannot ever regain the trust he lost.
Ted Cruz seems like a strong conservative, but his position, especially on illegal immigration, shifts with the wind. Can we trust Cruz on illegal immigration, or will he be funding Teddy bears and Soccer balls for the flood coming across the border?
While he cast a symbolic vote against TPP, when it only needed a majority to pass, he did vote for cloture, that made such a vote possible. See how it works? The recorded vote looks conservative; the key vote wasn’t. Cruz’s ties to mega-church evangelicals is disturbing. They were behind his senate victory. Some of the left-of-center bloggers are onto Cruz’s connections with the dominionist Christian church. Bush’s “Faith based Initiatives” were strongly supported by Cruz and his allies. These initiative funnel billions of dollars of taxpayer money to churches and institutions on the religious right. Serving illegal immigrants is a big part of their business. Follow the money, as they say, including the $11 million that “Club for Growth” donor Bob Mercer gave to Ted’s $50 million Super PAC.
Can Cruz be trusted? I don’t believe so. But, then I’m biased against religious extremists of all flavors.
With a few notable exceptions, the GOP candidates voted in with conservative/Tea Party support in 2010 and 2014 lined up behind Boehner and McConnell to vote for Obama’s Omnibus package. For all her perceived flaws, Sarah Palin at least understood how much the base had been betrayed. Trump blasted the bill for a complete lack of budget discipline (no spending caps).
Why would the GOP in the House and Senate fold so easily? Because experience had told them that the base was irrelevant. All they needed to do, to stay in office, was milk the donor class, handing out or withholding favors as required.
Then Mr. Reality Star Billionaire with his clownish hair, trophy wives, and ego the size of Mars enters the race. The chattering classes on the coasts giggle. The pundits smirk and joke and write scathing columns. Trump announces that he is going to build a wall on the Southern border, make Mexico pay for it, and deport all illegal immigrants, though the good ones can come back legally. All hell breaks loose. Trump is denounced as a racist and worse for saying what everyone wanted to say, but couldn’t. Unlike a conventional politician, Trump doubled down instead of backing down. That’s when he started his rise in the polls. That’s when activists started taking him seriously.
After Paris and San Bernardino, Trump said we should halt all Muslim integration until “our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on”. Another firestorm erupts. When the smoke cleared, Trump’s poll numbers had risen again. He hasn’t backed down on that either. He’s gone further to say that strict gun-control made the victims sitting ducks. Then news reports starting filtering out about the rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated by young Muslim immigrants in Cologne, and across Europe. Trump starts to seem like the only guy who is prepared to stand up to Muslim immigration and intimidation.
Trump has tapped into an ancient well, Jacksonian America. It is alive and kicking, and found its voice in Trump. Walter Russell Mead gets it.
Trump would lose his support overnight if he backed down an inch on his positions on illegal immigration, Muslim immigration, defense (the strong part – not the minutia), lower taxes, stronger trade deals and repealing Obamacare.
But since then, she has taken every opportunity made available to her to rant on any and every political subject, including many in which she has no apparent insight.
Meaning she is equal to any commenter at Neo Neocon, including me for that matter. That puts us at an equal leveling plane, not Servant to Master, as is the case with many people in America who think themselves “equal”.
Why people think this is a bad thing… well, maybe they just want a Ruler telling them what to do.
Trump the candidate has supporters acting in the role of followers.
Me piping in on this exchange between Eric and Neo (just like the way people hate when Palin does it online):
I think Eric is accurate in his portrayal there. Eric and I have already had some previous discussions on this point concerning ALternative Right and how it relates to Trump and other factions inside and outside America. There are a significant number of people, with internet communities and pull (propaganda pull in effect, social media wise, larger than the SJWs even) who support Trump because they are anti Islam or anti American or pro American or whatever, not because they like Trump.
It gets kind of complicated, but Trump has access to allies, not necessarily followers. He should know that by now, because Trump also uses social media. That’s the point of contact.
I make note of that because a lot of Americans are only thinking about and talking about Trump followers, people who want him as their President (not someone else’s President). There are other factions than the ones in America.
Ymarsakar,
It’s striking how much of their rhetoric lines up with the Russian worldview and rhetoric.
To Clarify, Eric thinks along the lines that the Alternative Right or the ones backing Trump, are engineering a setup. Whereas I think the Alternative Right are not astroturf primarily, but composed of a super majority of individual communities, that haven’t been subverted by the Left. In fact, it would be near impossible for the Left to subvert true internet grassroots organizations.
I myself was surprised at this phenomenon, but the results speak for themselves. I think the similarity to Marxist and KGB techniques and manipulation methods, are due to the internet’s grassroots cultural teaching and lessons, which are absorbed by those fighting the Left or SJWs, who adopt those methods as their own, because they are inexpensive and effective.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Proving, once again, that the NYT does not bother to know the meaning of the word “conservatives.”
NYT: Look! Over there! Fight! Fight! Fight!
I guess now we wait to find out if Palin is still relevant to “conservative” voters.
A VERY long time ago, I had an incredible amount of respect for Sarah Palin, and thought very highly of her. Any more, I can’t stand the mention of the woman’s name (including her offspring, their various romantic interests, and their children). She’s become a parody of the Republican party, an embarrassment, and a Kardashian level attention whore. The fact that she endorses Trump only serves to further reduce my already microscopic level of support for either of them.
Tom,
I agree. She had a chance to take a serious route but opted for the publicity and money.
God help us all.
I’m not mad at Palin, not at all. I am really angry however at Ted Cruz for not bringing her into his fold. Considering she had helped get him elected Senator, that they share the same fundamental Christian values like being pro-life, and the same basic conservative economic positions, this should have been a no-brainer. What it does show and highlight for all to see once again, is that Ted Cruz doesn’t have a genuine bone in his body, doesn’t have a clue about making or retaining friends, or know the meaning of the word “networking.” His elaborate game plan in Iowa with hired psychologists and messages geared to specific types of individuals shows that he doesn’t know how to connect with the average person, let alone his would-be friends.
Best wishes, Sarah. Hope you’re doing a better job teaching your other daughters about birth control than you did with Bristol.
This was talked about months ago. Not surprised at all that she endorsed Trump. I like Palin, and then I dislike her. LOL.
However, when it comes to Energy and ending corruption, she’s got the background. I’d trust her to clean up the department and focus it back on the right Energy issues.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/06/politics/sarah-palin-energy-secretary/
The other chuck:
I have no reason to doubt anything you write at 5:25,but to think for a moment that Trump has more of “a genuine bone in his body” than Cruz baffles me. Not that your saying it baffles me, but the possibility that trump is more genuine than Cruz in fact.
I’ll admit at the outset that I prefer Cruz over Trump (in fact I prefer just about any of the GOP candidates over Trump). But I try to keep an open mind before the NV caucus next week, when I have to make my preference public.
But just the possibility that anyone would believe Trump is more genuine than Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, or even Kasich, just baffles me. Trump and huckster come to mind for me simultaneously, and your comment just does not parse. Not saying you’re wrong, rather that it raises a big question mark in my mind.
TOC – Where’s the evidence that Cruz did not make an effort to go after Palin’s endorsement?
You are assuming he didn’t because that fits with Trump’s narrative about Cruz being a “nasty” guy that “nobody likes.” How about some facts before you leap to parrot the cult leader’s assumptions?
This is 2008 all over again. The personality cult leader who’s obvious toxic narcissism is viewed as “strong leadership” because his followers accept his frequently ridiculous pronouncements at face value and incorporate and extend the fraudulence into the political conversation without pausing to consider factual reality.
“whose”
Palin’s endorsement does signal that Trump’s camp is growing and encroaching on the center.
It also shows that those sitting in the outer ring of – let’s call them – the fringe Right, between the insurgent alt-Right and the mainstream-conservative or center Right that sits with the GOP, are sensing the center is decadent and vulnerable.
For now, gravity still pulls the fringe Right to the center, but the alt-Right activists aligned with Trump are generating a competing gravity whose mass is growing.
I had hoped she’d endorse Cruz, or no one, but I still like and respect her. I’m sure she has her good reasons for it and am less than thrilled by all the Palin hate from former supporters. (Not here, necessarily, but elsewhere.)
I must be one of the few Rs who love Cruz but could vote for Trump.
expat Says:
“I agree. She had a chance to take a serious route but opted for the publicity and money.”
Sometimes that’s not a bad thing… unelected spokesperson / public figures are good to have… when they explain things for your group properly and get the word out… but yeah… not here not now. This is just publicity seeking…
I also like Cruz, but, I donated a small amount of money to him last summer to make sure he stayed in the race. And I have to say, he has the WORST fundraising emails. I dislike them. They are fake and over-the-top and come across as insincere.
Doesn’t win me over to his side, unfortunately.
I also donate money to others, and their emails haven’t been nearly as horrible. Cruz’s emails seem to play to the worst, lowest ‘fears’ of voters. As if we are all redneck Neanderthals. 😛
No surprise.
It fits the WWE template of mine.
Palin is the Mama Bear from Alaska.
How disappointing.
Palin was awesome speaking ad lib.I’m appalled at some of the comments here attacking her family. One thing for sure she got right ‘You would never ever see the Democrats attacking their front runner” Even if Trump doesn’t win the WH he would have at least delivered the death blow to ‘The establishment’
The Cruz campaign is going as planned. It makes no sense to introduce a wild card into the game. Wild cards and Hail Mary passes are for losers.
After the way the Republican Party treated Palin, blaming her for losing the election, why shouldn’t she put her own interests first? Anybody here ever taken one for the team?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64
To me her endorsement speech sounded a bit unhinged, and watching Trump’s tedious, caricaturistic, faked expressions (as he stood a bit behind her and to her left) was painful. I hadn’t heard her speaking voice for quite a while, and had forgotten that she, too, really screeches, though at a higher, more feminine octave than does HRC. Still, she definitely screeches, and the very sound of that screeching grates on my delicate southern sensibilities….
It will be interesting indeed to see how this gambit plays out. God help us indeed.
Am I alone in thinking that this’ll hurt Trump? Or am I projecting too much?
I actually had the pleasure of meeting Sarah and Todd at the Iditarod Musher’s Banquet a couple years ago. She was gracious enough to let about 500 people wait in line to speak to her for a few moments. Each of us got to sit next to her for a few moments at her table, shake her hand, and say hello. I passed my camera to Todd and he took our photo together. It was funny because three former and one current governor of Alaska were also there, but nobody wanted to meet those guys – only Sarah.
I think this is a delicious bit of payback aimed at all those GOPe jerks who treated her so badly in 2008.
It’s a funny way to end “the Establishment” by touting how they love themselves a Trump. Maybe he plans to kill them with kindness.
K-E sez “I donated a small amount of money to him [Cruz] last summer to make sure he stayed in the race.”
Sure am glad you did that!
Ahh, the power of the small contributor!
Nick:
It occurred to me that it could hurt him with those Democrats people keep saying are thinking of voting for him.
But Trump supporters don’t seem to care about whether Democrats really support him or not, so I don’t think it will hurt Trump in the Republican primaries. Perhaps it will be a draw? There are plenty of Republicans who can’t stand Palin, and over the years their numbers have only increased. My guess, though, is that Trump appeals to the same GOP demographic as Palin did.
@F, Trump is NOT more genuine that Cruz. I totally agree with you about that and am sorry if by criticizing Cruz it left that impression. I’ve written a number of comments here about how I think Trump is basically a con artist. But Ted Cruz is what he is. On the plus side his positions on the issues are generally the most conservative and consistent. Also, you can’t fault him for any of his votes as Senator since he is not a compromising, turn-coat like so many of his Republican colleagues. He is an honorable man.
But he is far from perfect as a candidate, and has been VERY ineffective in office. I’m not mimicking others when I point out his inability to connect with people since I personally have been unable to ever warm up to the man. Hiring psychologists to advise his Iowa campaign on tactics, specifically how to gear his message to individuals based on personality types, is an admission of what he lacks. For all of her faults, Sarah Palin has shown loyalty to party and principle, as example campaigning for McCain. It would have been out of character for her to turn against Cruz had he bothered to keep her in his orbit and as a friend the last 4 years. Sorry, but he comes across as a very cold, calculating man. That’s why he’s made the TV ads with his daughters, to try to dispel and cover up that image.
I vote in a late primary and was set to go for Dr. Carson. Assuming Cruz is still a candidate by then, I will probably vote for him since Carson looks ready to drop out. I intend to sit out the election if Trump is the nominee.
It’s all about the oxygen of media coverage. Trump just sucked it all up in the lead up to the Iowa caucuses. The other candidates can’t get a whiff. He had CNN on hold for nearly half an hour waiting for him to come on stage. How much coverage did other candidates get during that period? Zero.
Fighting fire with fire, the Cruz campaign is reportedly getting Glenn Beck’s endorsement.
Completely unsurprising that Cruz couldn’t get much traction in Congress dominated so thoroughly by anti-conservative Washington establishment interests. The well-considered stands he did take earned him the enmity of the John McCains of this world. That’s a badge of honor as far as I’m concerned. Everyone complains about the GOP legislators not upholding conservative principles and not fighting to stem the tsunami of progressive policy but when someone sticks his neck out to do just that he’s criticized for being a “nasty guy” who “can’t network.” Feh. Make up your mind what you want and also realize there will never be a candidate who is perfect, all things to all people. Well, we had one in Obama but that was because his voters viewed him as some sort of religious leader who could do no wrong. That turned out super great! Also, I’ll bet a lot of the campaigns have analysts who scope us out to decide how best to deliver the candidate’s message.
AMartel @ 5:56
Right on.
Eric @ 6:16 said,
“For now, gravity still pulls the fringe Right to the center, but the alt-Right activists aligned with Trump are generating a competing gravity whose mass is growing.”
They SEEM to be generating…
I don’t trust anything from the media. The only result I’ll believe are actual votes, and then only if they’re beyond the margin of fraud.
The Palin endorsement is disappointing, whether it helps Trump or not. Palin has been going maverick since she endorsed that Democrat in Alaska. I get the feeling that she didn’t withstand the establishment’s attacks all that well emotionally.
Ace noted some odd business about the lead-up to this endorsement.
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=361109
Short version –
Cruz’s staff figured out beforehand that Palin would be endorsing Trump, and a Cruz spokesperson put out a statement saying that they’d be deeply disappointed if Palin endorsed Trump. Kind of silly before the actual endorsement, but other than that, not a particularly big deal.
Bristol Palin promptly went on the warpath, writing a short article that slammed Cruz, calling him unlikeable and disloyal. And Sarah Palin promptly linked the article in question on her Twitter feed, while also calling him unlikeable. Now Palin supported Cruz a while back. So if Cruz had attacked her for no reason at all, then there would definitely be a disloyalty issue. But if Palin’s backing Cruz’s opponent, then I’m not sure what Palin expects Cruz to do. Is Cruz expected to leap for joy because his former supporter is now supporting his opponent?
junior:
Interesting.
Here’s a theory, for what it’s worth. I’ve noticed that, when a person is going to reject or even betray someone they’ve previously supported (in this case, that would be Palin re Cruz)—for example, someone leaving a girlfriend or boyfriend for a new girlfriend or boyfriend—in order to justify what they’re doing, they have to find something about that person to dislike. That way they don’t have to feel guilty.
So, for example—sometimes when someone cheats on a spouse and then leaves the spouse, they add insult to injury by saying “I never really loved you.” And that, after they had vowed their love and said it hundreds of times!
Lots of people will do anything and tell themselves anything and believe anything to justify their actions when they’re doing something they might feel guilty about.
As far as I’m concerned, Palin can support whoever she likes. She can support Cruz for a while, and then decide she prefers Trump. But to avoid criticism for her disloyalty or betrayal or whatever one wants to call it (maybe just change of heart), she must create, as it were, a cause of action to justify it. “He’s a meanie!” “He’s unlikable!” “He dissed ME!” (when he actually hadn’t).
People have as much a clue about Trump’s campaign and all the intersecting connections with American factions, as they did with Palin’s governorship and her run as VP to McCain.
It’s about the same level of comprehension, people are still getting pulled around by Leftist propaganda. They just don’t want to admit it.
They SEEM to be generating…
I don’t trust anything from the media.
Which is why the Left’s propaganda organs are separated from my actual analysis and data points.
The only way to create a pure OS, is to ensure that all incoming viruses are firewalled or led into a dummy OS, virtual OS, for containment.
If a system is networked to other computers or online, then that’s a vector from which it can be attacked.
The Leftist propaganda organs often cite each other as “independent sources”. So the Leftist zombies can claim, if only to themselves, that the NYTimes, the AP, Reuters, CNN, and Al Jazeera all report the same thing, so it must be true, because it goes beyond the triple verification and “multiple sources of authority” line. The truth is, they all feed into and from the AP, the Associated Press, so it’s not 5 or 6 sources. It’s 1 source. And it’s attempting to verify itself. Doesn’t work like that.
They get the same news sources, the same stringers even, the same photos, and the same leads, all from the AP. It’s a carbon copy. That’s why the media kept reporting the daily casualty rates from Iraq, under Bush II, on local and cable shows. Are they doing that now? No. That’s cause it’s not necessary to undermine Hussein’s Iraq or Afghanistan, he was already going to do that on his own. Bush II had to be undermined, because Bush II was trying to make America win, and that’s not good when the Left is going to subvert America.
The Leftist propaganda arms like to complain about the exposure of the Planned Profit videos. Yet the Left was conducting psychological warfare and propaganda attacks every day against the Iraqis, the occupation (being careful to avoid blaming State Department), and the administration’s choice of Petraeus by Cheney or Bush II’s attempt to nation build a swamp of rag heads who are going to be a threat in the future.
They would know about exposure to grisly images, wouldn’t they, and how that would impact a subject’s support of A or B.
As for center of gravity vis a vis Trump, VoxDay, Baen independent authors, Sarah Palin’s specific Tea Party and grassroots/social media branches, right wing patriots and militia, internet propagandists and gamers, forum readers and content creators, internet baronies with fortified blogs, …. well, it’s hard to say at this point in time, but VoxDay’s specific kind of faction (the Ultra Right, or the non American nationalists, or the foreign Trump supporters, or the Golden Dawn/PEGIDA/anti ISLAM branch of the net) fell for the anti Sarah Palin propaganda from the Left. As well as the anti Carson propaganda too. As well as the anti neocon. So having a grassroots network supporting Trump, that has most of its firepower in the US, would naturally counter balance the foreigners and the oversea expatriate Americans. That may not be a sea change or a growth of power, but it is different at least.
Carl in Atlanta,
I had the same reaction (Carolina Girl here). It struck me that the crowd’s response to her was tepid, sporadic, and that she was rather nervous, and sensed their basic indifference, and was struggling with it.
It could have been a “Remember, Caesar, you are mortal” moment for the Donald, if he were the self-reflective type: she also used to have thousands cheering her every utterance.
I liked her enormously in the 2007 race and she really got shafted by McCain and the Usual Suspects. I DO wonder why she didn’t endorse Cruz, whom she helped in the past. It may well be that Trump sweet-talked her into it.
Still, there’s the fact that Phyllis Schlafly — who opposed Eisenhower as the “popular but not conservative” candidate in the 1950s — She has endorsed Trump, too. No one has tackled that amazing fact, that I’ve seen.
I think they’re both very bitter about the GOP’s swoon into the arms of the malevolent Left. Dunno what else explains it.
As for Sarah Palin, she has become a king maker, much like that evil adviser the Left often accused Bush of having, what was his name… Rove right.
Ted Cruz also benefited from Tea Party and other support.
Bush II and Sarah Palin both might have found Cruz too cunning or snakish, to be likeable. But of course, in this war, cunning is important for the insurgents, given the occupation by the Left, of the US Throne.
A king maker, the power behind the throne, isn’t good or bad. It’s effect depends on a lot of things.
There is no loyalty to candidates in a king maker, except the one they support. Supporting Cruz in his Senate bid and not supporting him in the Presidential… nobody ever made the deal that one would only obtain support in the Senate, if they also supported that person’s Presidential bid. That’s not how it works… unless you’re Hussein and did get that deal from Ayers and the like.
A king maker is loyal to his faction, and in this case, Rove is loyal to the established Republican fat cats or what not. Conservative in the English sense, even. Whereas Palin is loyal only to her faction, which is not the establishment faction but the one that the establishment tried to crush, the Tea Party’s base. Not the Tea Party itself, per say, but the people who compose it at the bottom or middle.
I think they’re both very bitter about the GOP’s swoon into the arms of the malevolent Left. Dunno what else explains it.
If Palin supports Cruz, she would have to deal with the GOP hanger ons to him. Same as with McCain’s case.
But, of course, if Palin supports Trump, the same thing will happen, except it won’t be the GOP. It’ll be the “Democrat lights” who fell for the anti Palin propaganda, back when they were still voting 100% Democrat. They probably still are, 99%, with Trump added in.
I liked her enormously in the 2007 race and she really got shafted by McCain and the Usual Suspects.
————————
There seems to be mutual loyalty between Palin and McCain. So I don’t think McCain himself shafted her (or at least, not intentionally).
McCain’s staff, on the other hand…
people, peeple PEOPEL!
I see lot’s of BOO, HISS, and rah RAH – but not enough facts or reasoning.
Ymarsakar Says:
“I think they’re both very bitter about the GOP’s swoon into the arms of the malevolent Left.”
I’m sure.
I saw the BBC American report, which cited “Palin’s gaffes” in the 2008 campaign. Specifically, using tape of Palin saying you can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska, which was not a gaffe at all – but rather a smart person’s factoid.
Not that it stopped the Lugenpresse (“lying media”) then, not the same now. And not that it matters to Iowa voters today.
Anyway, considering the Iowa Governor attacking Cruz over ridiculous federal biofuels subsidies to farmers growing corn, it was a day with lots of heat but no light in the coldest part of winter.
Ho, hum.
This is one of my favorite blogs, but I do visit others. One of them – another blog hosted by a conservative female – is strongly pro-Trump. I get depressed when I compare the comments on the two blogs, considering that we’re all supposed to be on the same side. The other blog is full of Ted Cruz birthers, and now I see that this one is full of Palin-haters. Shouldn’t our common goal be to get the f’n democrats out of power? This is yet another example of why Republicans always seem to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Palin got “taken out” by the Republican version of the “politics of personal destruction” and now, she probably sees that the same tactic is being deployed against Trump. Perhaps, this has drawn her to support him.
Yes, Palin was treated contemptuously by the talking heads during the 2008 election. And yes, she was unfairly criticized by McCain and/or his staffers, along with many of the old guard, when the financial meltdown led to an Obama victory. And that she was targeted by the ever-hypocritical left after the shooting of Giffords and others was despicable.
But since then, she has taken every opportunity made available to her to rant on any and every political subject, including many in which she has no apparent insight. She has made an ass of herself with comments that she’s made public after even the most insignificant actions by the current administration.
She long ago shifted imo from being a public figure whom I admired to just another busybody that I wished would just for once shut the f___ up.
Politician turned reality TV star endorses reality TV star turned politician.
Why not, indeed.
“Politician turned reality TV star endorses reality TV star turned politician.”
A literal talking point disseminated by the left. You see the verbatim quote on many progressives’ twitter feeds. Somebody coordinated that.
Very disappointed by Palin’s endorsement of Trump. There are some stylistic issues that may appeal to Palin, but Trump simply isn’t a conservative.
Trump may be a populist, which just means he has some idiosyncratic melange of positions, values, ideas. When it comes time to appoint judges what will be the basis for his choices ? When it comes time to decide all the myriad issues that come to a Presidents desk what will he decide ? When national security issues come to his desk what will he decide ?
Conservatives have been hoping for a real conservative since Reagan. Cruz is that man.
snoopercod : don’t know which comments you are referring to. I see a lot of disappointment in Palin and disregard of her relevance. I’m not seeing hate. My comment, which I presume some took as snarky or an attack on her family, was meant quite sincerely.
K-E – I donate to no one. Everytime I do, they drop out of the race.
KLSmith, I agree. Just because someone is disappointed in a public figure; or disagrees with positions or statements by such, it is way over the top to call it hate.
I really did love Sarah Palin during the campaign. I drove over a hundred miles and stood in the rain for the one opportunity to see her speak.
That said, I am profoundly disappointed in her. The disappointment has been growing for awhile, as she seemed to be changing–I suppose it was inevitable. The bottom was reached with this endorsement. I consider it highly hypocritical. She is not dumb enough to believe that Trump is truly conservative. At best Trump is a deal maker, and apparently he made a deal with her.
I do not think she now resembles the person I saw in 2008; or maybe I was simply fooled back then. I do not hate her, but neither do I admire her.
OlderandWheezier – ” She has made an ass of herself with comments that she’s made public after even the most insignificant actions by the current administration. ”
Being a Palinista in addition to a Cruzaholic, I have viewed her comments as proof positive that she still lives in Obama’s and the Left’s head, rent-free. I have greatly enjoyed her tweaks.
~~
While I haven’t looked into the reasoning behind Schlafly’s endorsement, I do trust her quite a bit.
Perhaps she senses that Trump can win, and Cruz can’t?
~
A comment I saw at Ace’s in mild favor of Trump: “We’ve got nothing to lose with Trump that we won’t lose anyways, and there’s a lot of potential upside. ” Somewhat cynical, but that represents my view of a Trump nomination/presidency.
~
Let’s say that Trump promised her a position in his administration. If she was head of Energy, I would break out the champagne.
Sarah Palin has reason to never trust MSM. Not surprised that she’d support Trump.
Has anybody considered that Sarah may have given this considerable thought and believes that Cruz will have more value to the Country in the Senate, and as a future Supreme Court justice? What I’m reading in these comments is that Palin is just a dumb bimbo has-been and is supporting Trump only to try and make herself relevant again. With friends like these…
I would vote for Trump as opposed to Hillary without a moment’s hesitation. Hell, I would vote for Howard the Duck against Hillary. But I don’t think that’s going to be the choice.
With the revelation that the Dowager Empress had Special Compartmented and Special Access information on her private server, and at least in one case, ordered a subordinate to delete the classification markings and send something to her as unclassified, I don’t see how she makes to to the nomination without being indicted or half the FBI resigning, which will make the Saturday Night Massacre look like an ice-cream social.
We’d better start thinking about with whom and how we can beat Good ‘Ol Uncle Joe(TM), because he’s almost certainly going to be the nominee.
snopercod:
“Shouldn’t our common goal be to get the f’n democrats out of power? This is yet another example of why Republicans always seem to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Principally perhaps, but not proximately for the alt-Right insurgency. Alt-Right activists proximately aim to displace and replace the mainstream conservatives of the Right, who are joined with GOPe, by following the precedent of the Left activists that displaced and replaced mainstream liberals.
Election win over the Democrats will no longer be the proximate goal for the fringe Right if they choose to uncouple from the center Right and muster with the alt-Right insurgency against the center Right.
Palin’s endorsement of Trump is a broadcast signal to the fringe Right to begin that factional switch.
The message of Palin’s endorsement is you’re either with us or against us in the movement to disfranchise GOPe, so that it’s not good enough to have one foot in the establishment like Senator Cruz.
Ymarsakar:
“So having a grassroots network supporting Trump, that has most of its firepower in the US, would naturally counter balance the foreigners and the oversea expatriate Americans. That may not be a sea change or a growth of power, but it is different at least.”
That’s an important point in terms of diagnosis for prescription.
The activist engine of the Trump phenomenon is not made of Trump followers. There’s little to no Trump faction as such. Rather, his core constituency is made up of supporters who weigh the utility of his candidacy as a vehicle to achieve their agenda. For his part, Trump evidently signals for their support by mirroring their rhetoric to stitch together his alternative constituency. In other words, it’s a deal between an outsider candidate and outsider factions that are animated to take over an inside that appears vulnerable to be taken.
There are strategic implications that I haven’t thought about in terms of prescription, but the first step of a prescriptive solution is a correct diagnosis of the Trump phenomenon.
Eric:
Trump has both supporters AND followers.
Neo,
I disagree. Trump the candidate has supporters acting in the role of followers.
Chicken or egg, right? In this case we can answer which came first. His calculatedly déclassé shocking position statements are not original. They’re signals copied from existing rhetoric as overt dog whistles.
Eric:
Trump has BOTH is what I said. There are activist supporters who see him as a tool to reach their goals. And their are worshiping followers who follow him in a cult of personality. I see both types. In fact, the second types are the “useful” idiots used by the first types. I think, as with the left, the second type is somewhat more numerous, but there are many of the first type, too.
Neo,
Indeed, the Trump phenomenon exploits a market inefficiency by adopting the Left activist method that’s proven against the activism-deficient Right.
We’re referring to different levels. I’m referring to Trump’s “activist engine” and “core constituency”, the center of gravity of the Trump phenomenon. They’re more like outsourced or contracted than “worshiping followers who follow him in a cult of personality”.
That being said, a key component of their strategy is learning from the Obama (et al) precedent to build up an appearance of Max-Weberian charismatic authority. In that regard, they’ll act in the role of followers. If they’re successful, they’ll cultivate actual “worshiping followers who follow him in a cult of personality” and drawn more of the kind into their orbit as they build mass.
Fix:
drawn moreof the kind – draw more of the kind …I did say, “There’s little to no Trump faction as such” in terms of followers, which I meant in the context of the Trump campaign’s “activist engine” and “core constituency”.
To align it better with my intended meaning, the sentence would be more precisely stated as, There’s little to no [core or natural] Trump faction as such.
I agree that they aim to cultivate a “cult of personality” following, which is part of learning from the Left-activist precedent exemplified by the Obama campaign.
@neo-neocon, eric: The Trump supporters I know are activists. They don’t believe he is a savior and they sometimes cringe when he insults people, although, to be fair, it is usually in reaction to a perceived or actual insult. For example, Megyn Kelly aired an unsubstantiated report that Trump had raped his first wife. That report was immediately shot down by the ex-wife in question, but it did not augur well when Kelly immediately went on the attack at the first debate. Trump responded crudely but she was obviously gunning for him.
We see corruption at the local level — living in a Blue city means living with it — at the state level and at the national level. We supported politicians who said they were Tea Party people interested in the three core values of the Tea Party – fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets. What did we get in return? Nada? No, not nada; far worse – Obama’s Omnibus package.
Take Marco Rubio, whose platform included no amnesty. The Tea Party got behind him and he pulled off an upset victory against Charlie Crist. When young Marco got to the Senate, he joined the Gang of 8 that sponsored an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. The bill passed the senate and was headed for passage in the house when Boehner was forced to pull it because the votes evaporated. David Brat had just won a stunning victory over Eric Cantor by running on illegal immigration. Rubio burned his bridge and cannot ever regain the trust he lost.
Ted Cruz seems like a strong conservative, but his position, especially on illegal immigration, shifts with the wind. Can we trust Cruz on illegal immigration, or will he be funding Teddy bears and Soccer balls for the flood coming across the border?
While he cast a symbolic vote against TPP, when it only needed a majority to pass, he did vote for cloture, that made such a vote possible. See how it works? The recorded vote looks conservative; the key vote wasn’t. Cruz’s ties to mega-church evangelicals is disturbing. They were behind his senate victory. Some of the left-of-center bloggers are onto Cruz’s connections with the dominionist Christian church. Bush’s “Faith based Initiatives” were strongly supported by Cruz and his allies. These initiative funnel billions of dollars of taxpayer money to churches and institutions on the religious right. Serving illegal immigrants is a big part of their business. Follow the money, as they say, including the $11 million that “Club for Growth” donor Bob Mercer gave to Ted’s $50 million Super PAC.
Can Cruz be trusted? I don’t believe so. But, then I’m biased against religious extremists of all flavors.
With a few notable exceptions, the GOP candidates voted in with conservative/Tea Party support in 2010 and 2014 lined up behind Boehner and McConnell to vote for Obama’s Omnibus package. For all her perceived flaws, Sarah Palin at least understood how much the base had been betrayed. Trump blasted the bill for a complete lack of budget discipline (no spending caps).
Why would the GOP in the House and Senate fold so easily? Because experience had told them that the base was irrelevant. All they needed to do, to stay in office, was milk the donor class, handing out or withholding favors as required.
Then Mr. Reality Star Billionaire with his clownish hair, trophy wives, and ego the size of Mars enters the race. The chattering classes on the coasts giggle. The pundits smirk and joke and write scathing columns. Trump announces that he is going to build a wall on the Southern border, make Mexico pay for it, and deport all illegal immigrants, though the good ones can come back legally. All hell breaks loose. Trump is denounced as a racist and worse for saying what everyone wanted to say, but couldn’t. Unlike a conventional politician, Trump doubled down instead of backing down. That’s when he started his rise in the polls. That’s when activists started taking him seriously.
After Paris and San Bernardino, Trump said we should halt all Muslim integration until “our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on”. Another firestorm erupts. When the smoke cleared, Trump’s poll numbers had risen again. He hasn’t backed down on that either. He’s gone further to say that strict gun-control made the victims sitting ducks. Then news reports starting filtering out about the rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated by young Muslim immigrants in Cologne, and across Europe. Trump starts to seem like the only guy who is prepared to stand up to Muslim immigration and intimidation.
Trump has tapped into an ancient well, Jacksonian America. It is alive and kicking, and found its voice in Trump. Walter Russell Mead gets it.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/17/andrew-jackson-revenant/
Trump would lose his support overnight if he backed down an inch on his positions on illegal immigration, Muslim immigration, defense (the strong part – not the minutia), lower taxes, stronger trade deals and repealing Obamacare.
But since then, she has taken every opportunity made available to her to rant on any and every political subject, including many in which she has no apparent insight.
Meaning she is equal to any commenter at Neo Neocon, including me for that matter. That puts us at an equal leveling plane, not Servant to Master, as is the case with many people in America who think themselves “equal”.
Why people think this is a bad thing… well, maybe they just want a Ruler telling them what to do.
Trump the candidate has supporters acting in the role of followers.
Me piping in on this exchange between Eric and Neo (just like the way people hate when Palin does it online):
I think Eric is accurate in his portrayal there. Eric and I have already had some previous discussions on this point concerning ALternative Right and how it relates to Trump and other factions inside and outside America. There are a significant number of people, with internet communities and pull (propaganda pull in effect, social media wise, larger than the SJWs even) who support Trump because they are anti Islam or anti American or pro American or whatever, not because they like Trump.
It gets kind of complicated, but Trump has access to allies, not necessarily followers. He should know that by now, because Trump also uses social media. That’s the point of contact.
I make note of that because a lot of Americans are only thinking about and talking about Trump followers, people who want him as their President (not someone else’s President). There are other factions than the ones in America.
Ymarsakar,
It’s striking how much of their rhetoric lines up with the Russian worldview and rhetoric.
To Clarify, Eric thinks along the lines that the Alternative Right or the ones backing Trump, are engineering a setup. Whereas I think the Alternative Right are not astroturf primarily, but composed of a super majority of individual communities, that haven’t been subverted by the Left. In fact, it would be near impossible for the Left to subvert true internet grassroots organizations.
I myself was surprised at this phenomenon, but the results speak for themselves. I think the similarity to Marxist and KGB techniques and manipulation methods, are due to the internet’s grassroots cultural teaching and lessons, which are absorbed by those fighting the Left or SJWs, who adopt those methods as their own, because they are inexpensive and effective.