Powered by TypePad

« Chaos Ascendant | Main | Ask A Silly Question, Or, Defending The Donald »

April 01, 2016

Comments

DebinNC

I think daddy's suggestion of Newt is inspired. Unfortunately, Newt was a victim of Trent Lott's inept bungling in the Senate and resigned too soon. If we're going to lose by going with the polarizing Cruz, I'd prefer to lose with articulate, proven, likable Newt.

buccaneer morgan

As for Roger (redacted) stone, you may not have come up with the eumors, but you validated them, there was no news peg without it.

NK

do anything and say anything..... steal anything you can, give nothing back.
the one personal benefit I would get from a Trump nomination would be watching the shock and horror of his earnest conservative supporters when he stabs them in the back (family blog I can't use a more colorful but apt metaphor).

Truthbetold

MM

So you think the dems deciding what "republican" they want to vote against in November is a good thing?

jimmyk

the one personal benefit I would get from a Trump nomination

So should Trump prove you wrong, will you do appropriate penance? Maybe like DoT once promised, run naked down the [West Side] highway?

narciso

those are the (redacted) rules that priebus created, as a consequence, wisconsin will be closer then the polls suggest, trump doesn't have to win, he just has to show,

I have been ticked at a fair number of people, the zombie rockefellers, at #never trump, the huntress's supporters who don't see the same (redacted) pattern playing out with cruz, as they have for the last seven years, the people who treat red queen with any benefit of the doubt,

cheerleader

Rove was once thought of as a Republican asset, now he's just an ass.

NK

Trump proves me wrong... not worried about that on any level... but if it came to the West Side Highway? that's everyone else's problem

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Trump is taking on water.

Threadkiller

If Cruz tanks in the General, would that be an example of Trump proving you wrong?

narciso

of course, you call in an alpha strike, and you blow up some of your own stockpiles, what did they think would happen, this is the tack they took toward goldwater, cruz has been postponed from dealing with this,

narciso

how is he allowed to get away with this, the ndaa,

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-to-release-ex-fighter-bin-laden/

does the law even matter, rhetorical?

Threadkiller

Ig, isn't The Federalist tied to Red State?

I seem to remember that.

(Not shooting the messenger as the article makes a couple valid points, just a question)

derwill

Gus--in a weirdo bizarro way, I mother (redacted) dare the GOPe to pull a stunt.--

That's exactly the place where I am. It's like I find myself wishing that the GOPe will just go off and die already, even though the sane part of me also knows that as pathetic as they are, they are the last thin line standing between what's left of our republic and a totalitarian rule by people who want to destroy other people over slogans written on the sidewalk in chalk.

There is no doubt--absolutely no doubt--in my mind that if there is a contested convention, they will pick Jeb or Romney or some other tomato can-to-be-named-later to be the nominee and then try to tell us the shit sandwich they're feeding us is really pate. But too many voters are done buying that same old lie. And so the loss they will face in the general will be epic, and will include the Senate and possibly even the House.

Some will say, well the party can survive one bad election and at least we #nevertrumporcruzers got rid of the great unwashed ignoramuses that keet dirtying out togas. Little problem though if the ignoramuses turn out to be 2/3 of the party. It will fun, in a sick sort of way, to see how long the totalitarian Left allow a party that castrated to continue to feed at the trough.

Truthbetold

Face it TK your boy Trump is done.

DebinNC

Current law bars the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to detention facilities inside the U.S., but Obama has threatened to circumvent the congressional ban through executive action.

The more law-circumventing BOzo does, the more it helps the Rs running against them. Or would if the Rs ever start running against him and not each other, which won't be any time soon.

NK

inapt (as usual)- you can only plan on currently available information and the consistent information (with varying absolute but consistent relative percentages) is that trump does worse than other Repub candidates against Hilligula. Today's Federalist post sums up the available info.

narciso

where is the fun in that deb, it's all about pinatas, the federalist were the ones who first brought up the mob ties, I guess the national gazette would have done the same, to the other party,

henry

At least people are

henry

heh, selective typhus eating there. largest primary turnout since 1980.

squaredance

Curz will be the nominee? Great April Fools joke. What a card...

BTW, here is another funny one, from CERN no less.

NK

CERN--- EUTopian tax dollars at work. I love science research, but this...?

Theo

I think NK is right. By all available information and analysis (and yes, for Ig's sake, things can change but we do not know if they will or in what direction), Trump would be, in addition to not a good president, an electoral disaster for the Republican party. He should not be the nominee, at least if thought and not emotion rules us.

Cruz is looking problematic on the electoral front too. He may not be as unelectable as Trump and he would make a hell of a lot better president, but right now he does not look like our best chance to defeat Rodham.

So is our concerns about "tomato cans" and candidates who will not "rock the boat" (whatever that means) so great that we will not nominate someone who can actually win or at least provide the best chance to stop Rodham? I hope not.

None of this may matter. In my opinion, either the nominee will be Trump or it will be someone else. (I stand by that one firmly.) If it is Trump, the Republicans lose, pure and simple. If it is NOT Trump the Republicans probably lose UNLESS somehow the Trump supporters are willing to unite behind that nominee.

NK

1980 turnout was because of almost homeboy Anderson I take it.

sbw

The GOPe is sitting on a figurative powder keg and, Karl Rove is advising them to light a match.

henry

Sure Theo... "most electible" always is past due for a win.

derwill

It is also ironic, in a sick sort of way, to realize that Trump was probably going to self-destruct, as he now appears to be doing, all along. But the #nevertrump contingent just had to go out in a full bore panic and trash his voters and in such a vile manner that they will be lost to the GOP forever, and when that didn't stop Trump they openly bragged about how they were going to make sure he never got the nomination anyway even if they had to change the rules. Now they've turned him into a martyr, and his supporters will always believe he would have won the presidency if the GOPe hadn't set out to destroy him with their $100 million in negative ads etc.

So now the onus of a brokered convention and the resultant and epic tomato can loss in November will be all on the #nevertrumpers. It's like they blew off their own head with a howitzer.

Theo

henry --

Of course, reasonable people can differ about which of the candidates is in fact most electable. But it is very difficult for me to see how Cruz is more electable than, say, Kasich. I can fully appreciate that the people on JOM would prefer Cruz to Kasich. But if you KNEW as a metaphysical certainty that Kasich would win and Cruz would lose, I assume that you would want Kasich as the nominee.

I am not saying that such certainty exists. I am suggesting that since only about 35% of the voters identify themselves as "conservative" and around 40-45% identify as "moderate," it makes sense, all other things being equal, to have a candidate who has appeal to moderates as well as conservatives.

I think that conservatives will vote for a moderate Republican because no matter how much of a RINO/squish you can characterize Kasich/Ryan/Willard, etc., they are demonstrably MORE conservative than Rodham.

James D

Theo @ 12:08

I don't think it's a question of whether the Trump supporters are willing to unite behind another nominee.

The question to me is, will that nominee and his campaign team and the GOP leadership be willing and able to learn from the mistakes made in 2008 and 2012 (and in the primaries) and run a smarter, more effective campaign than the GOP has the last two times out?

Based on public statements and the way the GOP leadership has conducted itself, I think the answer so far is a resounding "NO!"

And if that's the case, we're guaranteed a loss even if every single Trump supporter becomes an enthusiastic supporter and volunteer and fundraiser and voter for whoever comes out of the convention.

Texas Liberty Gal

I for one am going to be furious if they choose someone other then the 3 current candidates. As much as I dislike Trump & Kasich makes me puke I'd rather have one of them because they've actually been running for President these past months.

sbw

I don’t know what is going to happen with the election, but I worry that someone will cross the Rubicon.

Truthbetold

Cruz not only can get the GOP support he can absolutely win in November

JMHanes

henry:

"Sure Theo... "most electible" always is past due for a win."

Yeah, so we'll go with the statistically "least electable" guy this time? That'll show 'em.

sbw

Choosing someone who has not been campaigning means the Republican Party is a front.

DebinNC

Amen, derwill. I think that widely reported "Hey, all fellow self-interested GOPE insider trough-feeders, let's meet at Sea Island and plot Trump's demise" was the capper. A truly "hold my sign" bit of politicking.

Theo

JamesD @12:18 --

I hear you. But I am not sure exactly what you mean. Who could be against a "smarter more effective campaign?" But what would that look like?

Your earlier posts have indicated that you think we lost in 2008 and 2012 because we were too polite and too civil and did not take on the opposition sharply enough or stand up enough for the candidate's beliefs.

I think that would be great, but I think that the Trump supporters being on board would be even better.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Andrew Klavan; What's the matter with Ted Cruz?
He says, not much.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

-- you can only plan on currently available information --

It's not the planning that is so objectionable.
It's the certainty and lofty, absolute pronouncements from on high attached to what is acknowledged as necessarily very incomplete information.

squaredance

Its a joke, NK, sorta like your hysteria over Trump.

James D

Theo, yes, a much more aggressive campaign that attacks the (breathtakingly many) weaknesses of the opponent (rather than casting him as a wel-meaning but simply ineffective gentleman, as Romney did with Obama) is absolutely vital.

Especially because that opponent is going to cast whoever our nominee is as the devil incarnate, and she will have over a billion dollars and the full support of the MSM to do it with.

Our candidate also needs to aggressively define himself, and maximize every advantage and positive trait he possesses, which Romney absolutely failed to do in 2012.

There are two things that I consider vital, and which I fear the GOP leadership still does not grasp the importance of.

derwill

Of for heavens sake, Theo, make up your mind. For months you were lecturing us that the only way we can defeat Hillary is to turn away from Trump and get behind a "true conservative" (your exact words, which you can hardly deny since you repeated them ad nauseam). Now, suddenly, a "true conservative" can never beat Hillary, and so we must instead rally around a True Moderate, who won't scare off the great muddle.

You seem to be arguing against yourself. Or rather against the self you were as little as a couple of weeks ago.

Theo

Choosing someone who has not been campaigning means the Republican Party is a front.

sbw--

I understand your point. For the party elites to reject the candidate who the primary voters have chosen is a sure sign of disdain for the primary voters, who they clearly believe have chosen unwisely.

But, to the extent that the primary voters have chosen Trump, they HAVE chosen unwisely.

What are the leaders of the party to do? Allow it to be hijacked by a charlatan TV reality show star who got 37% of the votes? Or pick a real candidate?

I understand the downside of doing the latter. It is still preferable to the former.

Theo

How do I turn off the italics?

NK

CERN April 1st? Cute.
Churchill was hysterical about Herr Hitler back in the day.... didn't make him wrong.

Theo

derwill --

No contradiction at all. I am still with WF Buckley's formulation -- vote for the most conservative candidate who can be elected.

Trump is not either a conservative candidate or electable. Anyone would be better than him.

I would be happy to have Cruz as president. The question is whether he is the best choice to stop Rodham. The recent evidence indicates that perhaps not.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--Ig, isn't The Federalist tied to Red State?--

Ben Domenech co founded Red State and The Federalist. He still writes at both, and other places.
I don't know of any other ties.
He was caught plagiarizing several people a few years back.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

fudge

Dave (in MA)

.
</i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i>

Seen on my Facebook feed:

"And the TRUMP bumper sticker is off the truck. I can't support a candidate that wings it, there is too much at stake."

DrJ

Off.

sbw

to the extent that the primary voters have chosen Trump, they HAVE chosen unwisely.

Guided, as they were, and have been for years, by the GOPe.

NK

TY Dr J. Having PhDs around is a big help.

Old Lurker

Ya know, if you just scroll past all of the "your mother wears combat boots" posts, JOM is a quick read these days.

Jimmy, "keeping the Senate in R hands is almost as important as having an R president, and having an R president means only 50 is needed for control."

Except for that pesky Filibuster Rule of 60. McTurtle already has his speeches written expressing his indignity that even though he has 50x seats, and the House is solid R, and the WH is finally R, his dear friends on the other side of the aisle just will not allow any of those conservative bills to reach the floor. Woe is me."

No.

Woe is us.

pagar a bacon, country ham and sausage supporter

Off topic but strange, IMO.

"Bankers may have been underpricing corporate bonds by as much as $18 billion"

"The firm estimates that the underpricing of new debt may have cost U.S. companies as much as $18 billion in extra interest in bonds issued between 2010 and 2015 by ratcheting up their borrowing costs at a time when benchmark interest rates were at ultra-low levels."

Is 18 billion not a big deal anymore?

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Ask Everett Dirkson, Pagar.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

War on [real] women alert;
A rape survivor speaks out about transgender bathrooms.

sbw

New York’s legislature, under the bludgeoning of Andrew Cuomo, is going to step up the minimum wage over the course of the next five years . . .

That violation of the laws of economics seems political posturing by Cuomo. I still say he is plotting to move in to the Democratic Convention as the only sitting governor who has taken care of the little people and successfully brought high tech jobs to people.

Optics. The consequences be damned! Optics!

--

To be sure, my area will benefit from the high tech jobs from the very expensive chip fab that will open at the end of 2017, with a whopping building funded by the state that has enticed AMS here. Ours was the best NYS site, but Cuomo backing the building made it happen.

jimmyk

Except for that pesky Filibuster Rule of 60.

There's that, yes, though 404care was passed via reconciliation so presumably can be repealed that way too. Then there's the nuclear option, but of course that would require McConnell to have [redacted]. Let's see if he sticks to his guns or folds on SCOTUS.

Theo

sbw --

I have no idea how you can argue that the GOPe "guided" people to vote for Trump. But assuming that they did so, they were also unwise. But casting blame does not change the fact that the best course of action now is to come up with a nominee OTHER than Trump. IMO this nominee should be the most conservative candidate available who can win.

Cruz is clearly the most conservative candidate available. Whether he is the one most likely to win is subject to a great deal of consideration.

derwill

So name him, Theo. Name this paragon who is going to be selected/not elected in a back room at the convention, yet who will be the most conservative candidate who can be elected, not too conservative, mind you, cause that would scare off the moderates, which would make him un-electable, but just the right amount of conservative, who will make him so electable that Hillary won't stand a chance. A candidate so just the right amount of conservative and yet also so charismatic that the Trump and Cruz voters who just got royally stiffed won't bolt the party, but will instead rally around him and join the charge to victory, overcoming the MSM who will paint this "most electable conservative" as Hitler incarnate 24/7 until even his own mother will consider voting against him, and Hillary will start to seem like the second coming of Mother Teresa.

Name him, Theo.

Truthbetold

Cruz.

NK

ObummerCare was repealed in 2015 by reconciliation. Vetoed by POTUS.

Old Lurker

That's too small a quote to be sure what they are saying, pagar. "...the underpricing of new debt may have cost U.S. companies as much as $18 billion in extra interest..."

The way it works is a company decides to borrow money by selling bonds to the public. The bond has to have a face interest rate that determines how much interest will be paid for each $1,000 bond sold. One they hit the market, the buyers will determine how much they are willing to pay to receive the stream of interest promised by the face rate times the bond amount.

Sometimes they sell at par, meaning the buyers agree that the face rate happens to be the market rate that day. Sometimes they trade below par, and that means the market wants a higher effective yield than the face rate printed on the bond. Or they might trade above par because the effective yield promised is more than the market wants, so the market will pay more for each bond.

Nowhere is there an evil bank in there "underpricing" so that firms "overpay".

DebinNC

I don't think it's conservative to live so far above your considerable means that your charitable giving doesn't top 1%, especially a southern baptist who touts his Christian commitment.

Old Lurker

and I don't think it is conservative for anybody to tell me how much of my own money I have to give to "charity" any time.

I broke my own rule. And your mother DOES wear combat boots.

Truthbetold

Debin

Did you ever consider that not all charitable acts are reported on IRS forms?

jimmyk

New York’s legislature, under the bludgeoning of Andrew Cuomo, is going to step up the minimum wage over the course of the next five years . . .

You are generous, sbw, in fact NYC's min wage will go to $15 by 2018. Good thing we have Republican leadership in the NYS Senate [not].

BTW, are you familiar with this Drudge imitation for NY?

http://empirereportnewyork.com/

Seems pretty good, maybe Drudge is involved, or if not should complain.

I still say he is plotting to move in to the Democratic Convention

And I thought Cuomo was going to be indicted. Of course I thought Hillary was too.

Old Lurker

And don't pick tax season to make such a pontification.

Those of us forking over more than 50% of our earnings to fed, state, local governments so they can retain their vig and pass off more than half of what they extract to other individuals, it is not welcome to question our charity. Even Southern Baptists.

Those are pretty combat boots you mother wears, though.

NK

we all know we should always give more to good charities. I also know I give a lot more now than when I had kids the age of Cruz's kids. Charity rightfully begins at home when you have kids that age IMO.

Miss Marple 2

It's going to take a lot for me to get reconciled to Cruz, and one of the things I want to see is an apology for his repeatedly saying "Donald should leave my wife AND KIDS alone."

There were 2 tweets and that is it. Neither of them had the children in them, nor were the children mentioned in the National Enquirer story, IF he persists in accusing Trump of that. (National Enquirer has already said Trump people were not the source of the story, but I am being charitable.)

Cruz keeps saying this and it is deliberately being done to make Trump look like Simon Legree or something. It is dishonest and this is one of many reasons I do not like him.

I have been pretty quiet today and read all of this stuff. Cruz can wave that Constitution around all he wants, it doesn't make me like him. I will grudgingly vote for him if he's the nominee (and I will hold that grudge for quite some time, let me warn you).

The crossover dems, independents, and alienated Republicans Trump brought to those rallies? They will stay home.

lyle

Occurs to me that Hilligula's whole life has been stuck in the first two stages of Kübler-Ross: constant, interminable Denial and seething Anger. But now she gets to deal with some...Bargaining. Should she be forced to withdraw from her campaign due to an unfavorable outcome of this phase--as unlikely as this will happen--she'll circle back to Depression. I seriously doubt she would EVER reach the final phase, Acceptance.

Me? Should she brazenly grind her way to the WH with the help of a corrupt press and a dysfunctional GOPe, I'll be perpetually stuck in phase 2 and 4. Which isn't too much different than how I've felt the last seven years or so...

NK

jimmyk, the NYS repub state senate leader is going to federal prison, and the State Senate will be controlled by the Dems in Jam 2107, I hope you'll be satisfied then as a NYS taxpayer.

boris

Doesn't it seem like those using the term "True Conservative" often turn out to be more or less moderate themselves?

As if "the only acceptable conservative is a clean white toga conservative pure as the driven snow" because either that's the only kind of conservative moderates will let near their social issues or more likely moderates know there are so few of them they don't have to worry about them winning anything.

Truthbetold

MM

Yet you have no problem with Trump telling lie after lie.

Old Lurker

tru dat, Boris.

Notice that liberals have no such barrier to entry.

James D

lyle, I think it's pretty much been all seething anger, all the time with Hill.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Where did the idea arise we have to like a candidate?
To paraphrase;
If you want a friend in the WH, vote for your dog.

NK

the fact that Dems will accept any candidate because they are a criminal enterprise, is not something I am willing to emulate with my candidates. In fact for people with resources and alternatives to corrupt pols tossing them a few pennies, it's a damned stupid way to go.

Old Lurker

James, your name came up the other night during cocktails when my wife asked with whom I had been associating that had added the phrase "XXX should die in a fire" to my vocabulary so much lately.

DebinNC

Ted Cruz' home church provides a handy "generosity calculator" for members, which indicates Cruz' 1% giving level was too low to register on the chart's lowest generosity rung. And no, I don't believe Cruz, who announced his presidency at Liberty University, is unaware of the tithing principle or is so godly that he gives in secret rather than make it known on his 2006-2010 tax returns.

James D

Good to know I'm having an impact out there in the world, OL!

jimmyk

the NYS repub state senate leader is going to federal prison, and the State Senate will be controlled by the Dems

Well not exactly, the current leader Flanagan replaced the one going to jail (Skelos). Of course the previous Dem house leader is also presumably going to prison. And the previous R leader Bruno just missed going. So maybe the forecast that the current one will go is pretty safe. But if 2016 is an R election nationally (which I still think it will be), I doubt your second prediction, not that it matters.

Miss Marple 2

Ignatz,

If I am going to have someone periodically appearing on my TV screen for the next 4 years, I would prefer that I not actively dislike them.

That's how I am. Others may vary in their requirements. So, if it's Cruz I have to vote for, I will, with as much enthusiasm as going to the dentist for a root canal.

NK

JamesD-- would you be kind enough to re-post the signed 4 book option link. I'd like to do that tonight. Thanks.

jimmyk

OL, I hope that made her want to buy James D's books. :)

Truthbetold


So you believe charity only exist when you prove it on your tax returns. Got it.

DebinNC

Ted Cruz is a long-time Southern Baptist, as am I. Tithing's been an important tenet as long as I can remember. Your giving is not made known, and there are no repercussions for not giving. It's a heart matter, but Cruz' lack of giving became an issue via Huckabee. Did Cruz or a surrogate rebut Huckabee's charge or did Cruz remain mute as with the recent "Have you ever been unfaithful to your wife?" questions/s? I see a hypocrite, but others' mileage may vary.

NK

jimmy what are you talking about, '16 being a POTUS election makes it a virtual lock that the Dems win the NYS Senate, no matter who the Repubs run for POTUS. The Dems probably win Skelos' LI seat, he held on there by bringing home $$$$ to his district, that's gone so the Repubs probably lose that seat then the Senate in Nov. '16 is a Republican year? If Trump is the POTUS candidate? ah......

Old Lurker

Jesus said so. I know he did.

Truthbetold

Debin

You want to see a hypocrite

James D

NK< here it is:

http://writingdreams.net/my-storie/buy-the-books-here/

If you do buy the books there, you'll be the first person to use the online shopping feature on my website. So I really hope it actually works the way it's supposed to!

(I did test it, but that was months ago...)

Old Lurker

So don't vote for him Deb and leave us out of it.

You don't need to use your particular church as the strong man backing you up.

We stipulate that you are a super person and that your own god will be very happy with you..

lyle

Of course the problem with my amateur psychoanalysis of the Pantsuit is the charitable description of her Pathological Lying as Denial, too, James. God help us all if this angry, lying harridan gets into the WH. She clearly thinks she's got some scores to settle...against the American people.

DebinNC

So you believe charity only exist when you prove it on your tax returns. Got it.

Would you please direct me to Cruz' rebuttal re his charitable giving? Or is it "crickets"?

Old Lurker

OK.

Back to my SOB rule.

I promise.

lyle

Mittens tithed--as all Mormons do. How did that work out for us?

Truthbetold

Debin

Yet you're all in for Trump who won't release his tax returns. "crickets"?

sbw

generosity calculator

Really? Dollars are the proper measurement for caring? And public shaming the proper tool for bringing outliers into conformity?

How conservative!

lyle

Have you been SOBing me, OL??

::crestfallen:: ;)

Old Lurker

Sale on Combat Boots for mothers in aisle nine.

DebinNC

You don't need to use your particular church as the strong man backing you up.

I was using Ted Cruz' church, First Baptist Houston, OL. I'm not talking about anyone but him, and only because he presents himself as a Christian crusader, when he's anything but imo.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame