A new way to spell tyranny: TYRNC.

BananaRepublicTrumpby Pat Tarzwell5/27/16
Editor’s note: This is stream-of-consciousness writing by Mr. Tarzwell, fresh from a red-eye flight as a delegate to the Republican National Convention. I don’t have time to clean up the spelling nor do I want to. This gives you a glimpse of a man tired, abused, and beaten by scoundrels, but still trudging on (we hope).  •  I have to admit to a large amount of naiveté!  I actually thought that I was elected to go to Cleveland to represent the people that voted to send me there.  I mean I worked hard for this, I went through 3 separate elections to get there.  So color me foolish.

The RNC set the tone early on, even before the majority of the delegates arrived, the rules committee threw around their weight and with better parliamentarians, and very well paid lawyers from the Trump campaign, the piddley little grassroots never had a chance.  If anyone thought that Trump was an outsider, well I hate to burst your bubble, he is not.  The combination of his head up the butts of the RNC and theirs’ up his, it really is hard to know where one begins and the other leaves off.

I digress, on Sunday morning our state rules committee members let us know that they got killed in the meetings, and that there will not be any chance to free the delegates and that not one of us will have any say what so ever, on anything. (them’s the rules).  But they did have a minority report that we should fight for.  That was all about an attempt to close Republican primaries across the nation.  We were so subversive that we wanted to have only Republicans chose the Republican nominee, (I know right, the nerve of us pee-on’s).  Well that was unacceptable for the GOPe, you see that would be an admission that it really did happen this time and the Donald is not the golden boy that some think he is.

Well since that was not going anywhere the little folk asked if we could just incentivize states to close their primaries by giving additional at large delegates to the states that have or changed to closed primaries. Still too far!  So when vote was to come to the floor we would do our duty to fight for the people that sent us there.  Sorry I am getting ahead of myself.

A funny thing happened on that very first morning, the first vote, a temporary convention chair.  Now I am not sure who all these radicles were that did not fall into line.  But some of these little people, (guilty as charged), decided that Mitch McConnell was not a good choice for temp chair.  So when the voice votes were taken, (from down on the floor), it sure seemed like the nay’s had it by a wide margin, in fact hardly anyone that I saw voted aye.  But just to show us who were in control, in the opinion of the chair the aye’s have it. (just to be fair, he did tell one truth when he said it wasn’t even close).

So with that message sent, it was on to bigger and better things!  “The rules”, ah, the rules, no better way to shut people up.   So here we go, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, hearing no objection we will move to the vote. And it was just that fast, well here again he was not lying, he heard no objection because there was no pause to make one.  But it did not work, the pee-on’s would have none of this and we yelled until would could yell no more, (clever these little fascists, we could be easily out voted because we all lost out voices).  So even though we lost our voices, the rules vote came up and again we defeated it, but in the opinion of the chair the aye’s have it, (ain’t house rules grand).  Well you would think that in an important vote even if it were close either way you would like to know which way it went, wouldn’t you. So we yelled a lot more for a roll call, (even a lot of honest Trump supporters joined us in this).  Oh I forgot the Trump whips were illegally voting, and the results had been pre-determined.

So this is how it is going to be.  The best analogy that I came up with was like sitting in a theater with an audience watching a very bad movie and a lot of the audience members are yelling at the screen in hopes to make a better movie, in the end it just screws up the movie for the ones that are enjoying it and frustrates the people hoping to fix it.

Break for lunch, we are in suits, ties and such things and they send us outside in 90° and 99% humidity, heard us into pens and say wait, there is a protest outside and for our own safety we cannot go forward or back into the arena,  very nice.  Some did make it out and they got a giant meatball with one small tooth pick to eat it with, no utensils allowed, a candidate might show up and get forked, (seriously, that is what one delegate was told). But for some of us, all we got was a bit of dehydration for lunch.

Now we return for the evening and there were some good speakers and some not so good, but just to let anyone that is reading this know it will speed up.

Tuesday afternoon; the big day, we are going to nominate someone, oh the anticipation, who will it be who will it be.  Well remember that little rules thing that we passed almost unanimously, (well according to the chair).  It has this great clause that I will paraphrase; All delegates are bound to vote for the candidate that won their state caucus or primary, apportioned as we see fit; provided that we GOPe approve of the candidate chosen by the voters, else we can just change the outcome to fit our wishes and we will come up with any necessary rule to take care of the discrepancy.  Just like Utah, we know that Utah supported Ted Cruz by almost 70%, so when the Utah chair got up and said all of their votes go to Cruz, the chair promptly repeated the count as all in for Trump. Like I said before, ain’t house rules great.  Well they made it, Trump is the nominee, not that there was any doubt about that, it just seemed so unifying to keep kicking us while they had us down.  Nothing more unifying then repeatedly being told to sit down and shut up loser. More speakers, some good some not so good, but the fight was taking its toll on us, but tomorrow was the day that us Cruz supporters were waiting for.

Wednesday afternoon, we went to a private reception for the Cruz supporters and he and Heidi were there to personally thank each and every one of us.  It was great and a preview of his speech about freedom and the fight that is ahead of us; that none of us will be able to stay in the fight alone, we need each other, but the main focus of this speech was to thank us all from the bottom of his and Heidi’s hearts. This you may have heard about, at one point Ted said that the party has chosen its nominee and the crowd started to boo, just at the moment of the booing, Trump had organized a low altitude flyover with a Trump plane, I am sure to disrupt, but timing was perfect and very funny.

Wednesday night, on the floor;  Ted gives a good speech about pulling together to fight for freedom, fighting against Hillary, stopping the leftist surge and other such hateful things.  But the Trumpster was not done, he has his goons, the ones in the green yellow hats if you saw video, organize the effort to disrupt the speech, the media likes to say spontaneously, but I can assure you that there was nothing spontaneous about it.  Just Trumplstilskin being the man-child he is. So someone will have to tell me about the Pence speech, I was done, and I left.

I did not return to the convention, you see God had mercy on me and gave my wife a migraine so I stayed back at the hotel to take care of her and I was happy to give my credentials to an alternate who had jumped that train; he would enjoy it and I would not besides they warned us that the freedom loving fascist would be locking the floor down so no-one could leave the floor and embarrass the nominee with the mass exodus when Trump came out to speak.  Don’t you feel proud to be a Republican, political theater at its finest?  And by the way, if you live in Washington State, you should know that our state party chair, decided to go accost Ted and Heidi after his speech and call him a traitor in front of a few of the media, the story has been reported that she had to be physically restrained; classy to the end.  I am lucky to live in a state that is going to elect Hillary no matter what the Republicans do, so when I am asked who will I vote for, I can honestly say neither of the Democrats running this year will get my vote and my vote in this presidential race will not make any difference  anyway. There is a lot more to say but I think I have covered most of the low lights.

Thank you to those that commented on my question prior to the convention, I appreciated your input.

Pat Tarzwell was born conservative, runs a successful hi-tech business, and lives a red-state life in a deep blue one. • (2070 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to A new way to spell tyranny: TYRNC.

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    So how’s that hope and change working for you? What? It was that other guy who said that? Well, natural mistake, I’m sure.

  2. oldguy says:

    You thought you could step outside your representation and influence other representatives to see it your way. I imagine you are used to getting your way a lot in your private life. Welcome to democracy.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I’ll answer for Pat…until he gives a better answer. I know a little about his life and business.

      Having lots of employees (as he does) can be like herding cats. A boss would like to have his way, but he doesn’t always get it. Running a business (as I do as well) is full of instances where you Press Button A in order to get Result B and something misfires, either through miscommunication or just Murphy’s Law. Really, I have respect for anyone who can run a medium-to-large corporation. I don’t know how they do it. I don’t know how they herd the cats. You can’t beat employees anymore. So there is an inherent “democracy” about it, especially now that the government has nanny-stated much of the workplace.

      Pat is married, and I can assure you that he’s not used to getting his own way in his private life, although if I could be lucky enough to marry someone like his wife, I’d be set. She’s smart, hard-working, fair, wise, and is not addicted to drama. (Like Frank said, She’s My Kind of Girl).

      Enough of kissing Pat’s ass. He may be our main benefactor here, but he has his faults as well. Let me think about what they are. Give me a moment.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      What are you talking about? Did you not read the piece?

      When did Pat “step outside his representation” as you so artfully ask?

      When does trying to follow the rules of one’s state primary, brand one as a non-democratic type? And when does trying to influence others in future decisions make one non-democratic? Does trying to get Republican primaries to allow only Republicans to vote, make one non-democratic?

      As to your gratuitous remark about Pat’s private life, well, that reflects more on you than it does Pat.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the things to keep an eye on here is understanding that Donald Trump is now the right’s Ted Kennedy. Trump has adopted a politics that ratifies his own moral shortcomings. There is a reason that he hates Ted Cruz and it’s not because Cruz said “vote your conscience.” It’s because the mere presence of Cruz shames a guy like Donald Trump.

    The New World Order of Progressiville is that Thou Shalt Not Look Inward for Faults. Thou Shalt Blame Others. And if one has faults, Thou Shalt Be Redeemed by Left Wing Social Justice (in its many guises, including cheering for LGBT’s* at the GOP convention).

    I’m not saying that Cruz is an angel. I recognize he’s a political animal. But we need such animals. We just need ones with the right stripes (Constitutional stripes instead of progressive ones…mama grizzlies, if you will, instead of RINOs).

    Conservatism inherently includes a fairly precise moral sphere because you can’t have liberty and limited government without one. That is one reason the Trump family (who believe believe you can be socially liberal but fiscally conservative) is either stupid or dishonest.

    In regards to balancing the budget, for instance, they are either stupid or being dishonest when they say they can do so via merely eliminating waste and fraud. When 2/3 of the budget is entitlements, you could remove dozens of departments (waste, fraud, and legitimate functions as well) and not put a dent in the yearly budget deficit, let alone the accrued national debt.

    Aren’t we all sinners? Only an honest man will admit that he is a hypocrite on many subjects. We all fall short of our ideals, but better to have our ideals in the first place. And this is a shockingly novel concept to the dolts raised on progressivism.

    On the other hand, the Left is run on stupid and soupy slogans that were stale even when they came out in the 70’s. “Love is never having to say you’re sorry.” Basically they’ve adopted that to “Liberalism means never having to say you’re sorry.” That was the formula used by Ted Kennedy and others. No matter how much of a dirtbag you are in your private life, all was forgiven because you support Leftwing policies. The Great Redeemer is “social justice” in the world of the Left. All sins can be washed away by socialism and legislation.

    The reverse of that is a very different moral sphere, and one that Ted Cruz represents. Ted makes tactical errors here and there. But they don’t hate him because of his haircut. They (and the Establishment Republicans) hate him because he shames them by his very presence.

    *And don’t forget the “Q” which stand for “queer” or “questioning”…I forget which.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    DC, like Utah, complained that their votes were given to Trump instead of allocated as per the primary. (Trump was also given all of Iowa’s votes, though apparently they didn’t bother to complain.) In that case, the argument was that their local party rules said their votes could only be cast for a candidate who was formally nominated — as only Trump was.

    • pst4usa says:

      Not that it would have mattered, but 3 votes from Washington were not to go to Trump, but they did anyway.

  5. GHG says:

    Pat, I’m sorry you had to have that experience, as I’m sorry myself and my fellow conservatives have been disenfranchised by our elected representatives. The GOPe not caring about the will of the people is not a new phenomenon. The fact that Trump has thrown in with the GOPe is not too surprising and may be a necessity for him to beat Hillary.

    I still believe it will be worse for the country if Hillary wins.

    • pst4usa says:

      Thank for the offer, but condolences for me are not necessary, they may be appropriate for the conservatives and their movement. I think you are right GHG about Hillary, but the nominee was not what we thought we were fighting for or against no matter what lies the press wants to tell you. We had the goal of preserving the platform from the liberal Trump supporters that tried to push abortion and gay marriage unto the platform as well as kill all free markets trade deals. Our platform committee members did just that. I do not know why Trump is opposed to free trade, but I suppose it fits his shtick. I heard he also wanted to promote single payer in the platform but that went nowhere.
      We also tried unsuccessfully to fix some of the problems in the rules, and to preserve the historic ideals to be a republic and allowing the elected representatives, delegates, to have a voice, but Trump focused all his might on that committee and he won through force, intimidation, rules and loopholes.

  6. Bell Phillips says:

    Am I the only one who detects the irony in complaining that you didn’t get to vote on the matter of nominating someone other that the winner of the primary? Or awarding extra delegates to states who do things the “party”way?

    That said, I do genuinely want to thank Pat for taking on a thankless job.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The question I have for Pat is not if a kind of fascist/totalitarian/bully atmosphere was perpetrated by the Trump machine. After all, for his supporters that is likely a feature, not a bug. The question I have is whether or not this one-side, definitely non-democratic, method was typical in prior conventions. I have no knowledge or perspective on this. Pat? Anyone?

      • pst4usa says:

        This was my first and unless we make some major changes in this party, my last convention Brad, so I cannot say how this compares with others before, but some that did go through previous conventions said this was mild compared to others, very civil they said.

    • pst4usa says:

      Thank you for the comment Bell, but as I said, or at least I think I wrote, that a different nominee was not on the table, so no irony there. I do find it odd that the GOPe and the Trump team refused to even allow the discussion about closing primaries across the nation. What is it about having Democrats involved with choosing the Republican nominee that sounds appealing in any way? You write “party” way as if that is somehow bad. Should not a party get to choose its own leadership?
      I live near Seattle so I will use the Seahawks in this analogy. Why don’t the Seahawks allow the 49’rs to choose their QB? Because that would be stupid, as is allowing Democrats to have a say in the choice of the Republican nominee. If having Republicans only vote in Republican primaries, is the “party” way, then count me in as a party hack.
      Just for the record, if the morons at the GOP would have un-bound the delegates we probably would have been stuck with the POS we have now anyway, there just might have been a little unity come out of the convention. But unity is only good if it is forced unity, uniting people can only work when you hold a proverbial gun to their head. I am sure that was the foundation of our party, to force people to do things that they don’t want to do, right? No wait, I think I may have read somewhere we were formed to promote freedom.
      As a delegate I did not know how I would vote and I asked that question in a different post. I had really only two option, break my word to vote for the nominee on the first ballot, or vote for the better option; as it turns out my conscience won out and I would have found myself in the terrible position of having to vote for Trump on ballot #1, because in the end my honor and my word were worth more than all the crap I would have had to endure from fellow Cruz supporters. (at least they would not have made any death threats like the Trump supporters did).
      And as to being welcomed to Democracy, Oldguy, thanks but, no thanks. We are a republic and if I am not mistaken, that is the root word of our party. But it is crazy to think what we went through had any resemblance to either political system, if it was democracy, they would have gone by the vote of the people, but they did not do that, and had it been republican in nature, those of us that were elected would have had a say in the outcome. Neither one of those happened in Cleveland.
      Good news there, the GOPe cowards took that problem right away from us by stripping our voice and our vote. If you support Trump, I still defend you; I cannot support him, but if you want to help him win, start showing us why he is so good and why he deserves our vote. He is better than Hillary just does not cut it for me, Bush was better than Clinton, Dole was better than Clinton, Bush II was better than Gore, Bush II was better the Kerry, McCain was better than 0bama, Romney was better than 0bama and so it goes on. The debt keeps growing at about the same rate, the size of government continues to grow, the words limited government seems to be a foreign phrase now. A progressive by any other name still spells the slow destruction of the nation, no matter what letter they put behind their name.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Perhaps the Beltway Bandits like Democrats and Independents voting in the primaries to reduce the influence of conservative grassroots voters (such as they are). Trump would no doubt agree with them on this.

        I see a place for occasional open primaries, because they can provide some degree of test of general election power. But there shouldn’t be many, especially early in the process. Of course, many states (mostly in the South) have no party registration at all, which makes their primaries inherently open.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It occurs to me that the only possible reason that Trump and the Establishment would want open primaries is because it dilutes the hated conservative voting bloc.

          I just hope people wake up and understand the Trump and his type are the enemy of conservatives and Christians.

        • pst4usa says:

          I think you guys are right and I had not considered that reason, it does make the most sense.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But unity is only good if it is forced unity, uniting people can only work when you hold a proverbial gun to their head. I am sure that was the foundation of our party, to force people to do things that they don’t want to do, right? No wait, I think I may have read somewhere we were formed to promote freedom.

        It is clear that Trump and those nearest to him are out to marginalize conservatives. They are doing this with the eGOP.

        Anyone who truly believes that the establishment is anti-Trump is off their rocker. They will cooperate to eradicate conservative social values from the nation as they know that it is harder to undo cultural damage than economic mistakes. Tax laws, regulations and such are the normal province of government and these can be and are constantly modulated/amended.

        The culture is something else altogether. Once there is acceptance of “transgender” bathrooms, and other insane laws, there is no going back. Trump and his more intelligent acolytes know this. And the idea that some “Christians” accept this nonsense is beyond belief.

        The destruction of the family unit has been a 200 year goal of the Left. They truly are close to realizing it. And with the achievement of that goal, little stands between Big Brother government and the rest of us.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          They will cooperate to eradicate conservative social values from the nation as they know that it is harder to undo cultural damage than economic mistakes. Tax laws, regulations and such are the normal province of government and these can be are are constantly modulated.

          The culture is something else altogether and once there is acceptance of “transgender” bathrooms, and other insane laws, there is no going back. Trump and his more intelligent acolytes know this.

          Agreed. I just wrote something similar, the idea the primaries are open likely because it helps to dilute the conservative and Christian vote…the most hated voters of all for Establishment Republicans and progressives (like Trump).

          You’ve been had, Trumpkins.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I just added a couple of points to that quote.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            the idea the primaries are open likely because it helps to dilute the conservative and Christian vote…the most hated voters of all for Establishment Republicans and progressives (like Trump)

            I have to laugh at those people who talk about the separation of Church and State. They are either blind to what is happening or what they mean is separation of Christian Church and the State.

            What is now arising is a symbiosis between a Secular Church and State. One sees the force of the State being used to enforce the Secular Church’s creed across the country.

            The Secular Creed is more insidious than any traditional belief, as it is not interested in telling you what you can’t do. It uses the force of the State to demand you do what it commands. There is no “religious exemption” because no other religion is valid.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Again, many states don’t have partisan registration. In those states, an open primary is inherent. I suspect that (at least for the southern states doing this) the reason has to do with the Jim Crow South.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I success that (at least for the southern states doing this) the reason has to do with the Jim Crow South.

              I believe that as well. There are always reasons that things are the way they are. We just have to try to figure out why or, better yet, find out for sure.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I live near Seattle so I will use the Seahawks in this analogy. Why don’t the Seahawks allow the 49’rs to choose their QB? Because that would be stupid, as is allowing Democrats to have a say in the choice of the Republican nominee.

        Great point, Pat. Probably shouldn’t have opposing quarterbacks or their helpers be in charge of inflating the football either.

      • Bell Phillips says:

        To be clear, I was for Cruz in the primary. I’m not in any way arguing that Trump is the better candidate. Nor is it relevant in any way to my comments about how the nomination process works. Also, I agree with you that primaries should be closed – my objection was about the method of your compromise.

        I’m not altogether sure how this process works, so please correct me where I’m wrong. I probably have at lot of things mixed up between the party nomination process and the electoral college process. (The opacity of the system does not engender a lot of confidence from the public, or me.)

        My understanding is that no one actually voted for Donald Trump in the primary elections or caucuses. They voted implicitly or explicitly for an RNC delegate or group of delegates who had, in essence, campaigned on the basis of supporting Donald Trump at the national convention. If it had turned out that Trump did not have a majority of delegates, they would then be expected to use their own judgement to come to an agreement about which candidate should be nominated – with John Q. Public expecting it would be the guy with the most votes.

        And so I don’t misunderstand your position or the process, you would like to have the delegates “unbound”, which would mean that they (you) would be under no obligation to support Trump at any time, and therefore would be free to take whatever procedural steps are necessary to have someone besides Trump (or whoever received the most primary votes) appear on the presidential ballot come November. Right?

        Whether you personally would have done it or not, or whether the issue was moot for other reasons, I find it baffling that you can advocate for ignoring the fact that seven times more people in the state of Washington voted for Trump than for Cruz, while simultaneously complaining that even though the nay’s had a wide majority on the McConnell vote, the chair chose to ignore it and do what he wanted. Let me simplify that, since you are right about the second half: I find it baffling that you can advocate for ignoring the fact that seven times more people in the state of Washington voted for Trump than for Cruz.

        I also find it troubling that no one has jumped into concur with me. I hope it’s out of a deserved respect for you personally, but I have to call a spade a spade.

        What would we be saying here if Bernie had beaten Shrillary by a comfortable 60/40 margin, yet she were nominated because of the DNC super-delegates? For that matter, how would it be morally different if Trump were to win, but be defeated 4 years from now in a bid for a second term, and then say “I don’t think the voters really knew what they were doing, so I’ll stick around for a second term.”?

        If we start ignoring the results of a valid election, technicalities or no, the damage will be far greater than anything either candidate will inflict on us via the supreme court or otherwise. Frankly, we have Donald Trump precisely because republican voters are sick and tired of their representatives ignoring the implicit results of their wishes. Which is certainly not to say that selecting Trump was the correct solution to that problem – but that’s what unequivocally happened.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Your description better fits the general election, in which you actually vote for a slate of electors chosen and pledged to vote for the party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees.

          In a primary, the popular vote serves 2 purposes. One is a “beauty contest”, a test of popularity, not necessarily creating an obligation for the delegates. (In 1968, Nixon and McCarthy each got about 3/4 of the votes in Pennsylvania, but most of the delegates voted for someone else in each party.)

          Pure “beauty contests” no longer seem to be held. So in addition to expressing popularity, the vote also either commits the delegates (according to various, often complicated, formulas that vary from state to state), or actually elects delegates (which can also be complex, as it was in West Virginia), or both.

          • Bell Phillips says:

            Thanks for the, I hesitate to call it a clarification, whatever it is.

            Something so basic as choosing your government officials should really be much more straightforward and predictable. This level of complexity is not a good way to avoid abuse.

        • pst4usa says:

          Bell, I am not sure what you mean by, “method of your compromise”, but we Republicans here in Washington have a bit of bi-polar-ism, we elect delegates that are expected to vote for a candidate at every level, then we have a primary and tell them they are bound to vote for the winner of the beauty contest as Timothy described it, regardless of who they were elected to support. It gets even more convoluted when the candidate that you took an oath to support suspends his campaign.

          The process has been, (for all but three times in the history of the Republican Party). In our republic, our party gets to choose its nominee however they would like. Every other time, sans 3, we have had a subset of the people, (the ones that get involved), select people that will go and represent them, using the representatives own judgment, based on a set of principles and values he or she campaigns on, (un-bound); (Republican form of government)

          So down to the reason I would have voted the way I wrote. My oath was to vote for the party’s nominee on the first ballot and to support Ted Cruz on every ballot after that. That was not the oath of a lot of the delegates; they said they would vote for Cruz on every ballot, in fact our delegation was elected at the state convention to represent a candidate; it was made up of 40 out of 41 Ted Cruz delegates. The majority of those pledged to vote Cruz on every ballot. Since you do misunderstand the process and what a republican form of government is, I hope this clears up both my position and the process.

          Prior to Cleveland, you are right, the delegates were unbound. Except for all but two elections to that point, unbound delegates had been the check and balance against changes or revelations about a candidate’s character or some possible violation of the law. For me nothing changed in the character of Trump, and no new evidence came out that would override my oath; he was the same man before convention as he was after. That was not the case for some and they should be under no obligation in any way other than their own conscience to vote for anyone. No procedural steps other than counting the votes needed to be changed or added. We are supposed to be a republic, understand?

          Let me try to un-baffle you, when the vote for temporary Chair came up and our vote was ignored, they were not ignoring the voice of the us individuals, they were ignoring the voice of the elected representatives; elected by those that got involved and sent us to do a job. This same thing happens in Congress all the time, mostly when Democrats have the majority, but more and more under Republican majorities, and I bet you might get just as angry when that happens as I do. By sending me to Cleveland, I was, in essence, holding a proxy for approximately 100,000 voters in the congressional district I represented, with clear instructions to vote my conscience based on the principles and values I campaigned on. Same as what we should, (but do not), expect from our Congressmen and women. By this point this had nothing to do with Trump getting the most votes; he was for all intents and purposes the only candidate in the race.

          I am happy that no-one here has jumped to concur with you it shows that they truly understand what is at stake for this nation. You are entitled to call it whatever you would like, but this is the Republican Party so called because it used to believe in republican principles. If we want to be a democracy as you seem to advocate, then we have the technology now to let everyone vote on everything that the government does or wants to do. Why not, we are lurching towards socialism because of this push to become more democratic. In 1913 we took the biggest steps towards this end, with the 17th amendment; there by taking what was 1/6 of our government which was to be democratically elected and turning it to 1/3. Now the Democrats and some moronic Republicans are calling for a National Popular vote, taking us to 2/3rds of our government democratically elected. If they succeed, you can kiss the country goodbye for good!

          If we start ignoring the results of a valid election of our delegates , by changing the rules as the party did in Cleveland, the damage has been done, and is far greater to our party and this nation then anything either candidate will do, (well not really). Frankly, you are right, we do have Trump because people are angry and they let their emotions override the brains. But with the process you are advocating, the people will vote to have a $50 minimum wage soon, free housing for all, free food for all and 9 months of paid vacation for everyone; So until the people get angry enough to get off their butts and learn history and figure out what made this country great and how our system was meant to work, we will continue to slip downwards to the ash heap of history. I you would like I can go into much greater detail, but this post is too long as it is.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Pat, I’m not sure I understand all that…and it’s not because of your explanation. But I just have one question: Am I free to vote for the candidate of my choice come November? Or for none of the above? In some countries you are required to vote (which is great for the welfare state and is advocates).

            That is, have the liberals in King County (who dominate all Washington State politics) not yet outlawed a Republican from appearing on the state ballot? Sounds silly, but the one-party state is precisely what their end goal is. Too bad that we nominated a nincompoop who agrees with the one-party advocates much more than he does with Constitutionalists.

          • Bell Phillips says:

            Ok, there’s a lot going on here. Let’s see if we can have some back and forth and get on the same page.

            First, let’s forget, or at least postpone, the open primaries compromise and all that. It wasn’t my major beef and I don’t want to get side tracked. We can come back later.

            Second, could you edit your second paragraph? I think I know what you’re saying, but it’s kind of mangled.

            Thirdly, I get republican government. I’m not confusing it with democratic government. I have, admittedly, somewhat conflated the legal/procedural aspects versus the moral/ethical/philosophical aspects of it.

            For now, can we try to clarify the strictly legal/procedural parts?

            You are saying that in all elections prior to 2016, the delegates to the Republican national convention were unbound, meaning they had no obligation under the rules to vote for any particular candidate as the nominee. True? Would that apply to all of the delegates based on national rules, or only Washington delegates based on state rules?

            For the 2016 elections, the rules changed to require delegates to vote for the winner of their state’s primary (or by some apportionment)? Whose rules, state or national? When did they change, at the last convention, shortly before this one, or at the beginning of this one? Who changed them?

            How were you selected as a delegate? Was it by a statewide vote, a popular vote in some district, or by a vote of delegates to a state level convention? If the latter (which is what I think you said), where did those delegates come from?

            How did you come to be pledged to support Trump on the first round? Was that your position (either by personal choice or recruitment) before you were selected as delegate, or were you given those instructions later?

            And my last question for this post, what appeared on the ballot in Washington – Donald Trump’s name only, or was it the name of some delegate with the notation that they supported Trump in some way?

            I know I’ve asked a lot of questions here. I do hope you have the patience to go through them.

            • pst4usa says:

              Bell I will start with the first question, yes, that is my understanding from folks that study these things, all but 2 previous conventions the delegates were unbound, 1976 and 2012. The state party can have rules to bind their delegates, but if they are in conflict with the national rules, the national rules supersede the state rules.
              National rules were changed to bind all delegates, thereby overriding states that had unbound delegates. These are the rules that the rules committee wrote the week before this convention. The rules committee is where some of the most egregious violations took place, threats and intimidation were the normal actions of the Trump thugs and GOPe’s that were allowed into the committee room and outside after committee or subcommittee meetings. The final change happened when some number of the floor delegates, plus most all of the illegal Trump floor representatives and non-delegates in the stands voted for the rules to pass so they did not have to hear or even discuss the minority report about closed primaries. The bound or unbound idea was not going to be discussed, that is where the threats and intimidation were used to prevent enough votes to get a minority report, but they were such good fascist that they would have stopped that anyway. Nothing like making sure your conservative opposition is really, really, dead, not just mostly dead.
              The process for delegate election starts out with precinct caucuses, where about 18 of my precinct neighbors, (low turnout this year), got together at the county caucuses and voted for the 4 people that would go to our County Convention to represent the candidate we pledged to support. Just to put that into perspective, (190 people bothered to vote in my precinct, 133 Trump, 32 Cruz, 15 Kasich, and 10 Carson). At the county convention, a larger group, around 150 selected the 18 County delegates that would go and represent us at the state convention and there several thousand chose the 41 delegates to go to national convention, 30 of those 41 separated into congressional districts. All of the delegates come from either a county convention or in some cases a legislative district convention, (King, Pierce and Snohomish divide up that way I think).
              The Washington state ballot for the presidential preference primary had 4 Republican names, (Trump, Cruz, Kasich, and Carson). The Democrats had Hillary and Bernie. The state of Washington GOP rules bound us on the first ballot to support the nominee, so if the national rules committee could have restored the delegate’s freedom to vote their conscience, we would have been un-bound. But in fact they went the other way, the 2012 rule to bind us was not strong enough for them, so they made the binds stronger and it allowed them to steal votes from states like Utah who voted for Ted Cruz at around 70% when there were 4 or 5 candidates still in the race. But if you watch the convention you will see how the rules worked out in that case, the delegation chair went to the microphone and said Utah gives all of their votes to Cruz and then the GOPe said thanks but screw you, we controlled the rules and we do not like that choice so all of your votes go for Trump. (can’t you just feel the loving unity that promotes?) And that happened in several other states as well.
              The state parties get to choose how they will apportion their delegates and whether they are bound and how they are bound or if they are bound. I find it funny that the Republicans that went with the so called democratic way and the Democrats went with the republican way of allocating the delegates, although what the Republicans did really was neither form. Washington should have had 41 votes for Trump if we were bound to the outcome of the primary, based on state rules, and 3 for anyone else, so the chair of our delegation chose three people to unbind that could vote their conscience as long as they promised to make their conscience vote for Trump

              • Timothy Lane says:

                An interesting complexity came in Virginia, where party rules bound the delegates on the basis of proportional votes in the primary, but state law was winner-take-all. This was the basis for a lawsuit, which decided that party ruless would prevail.

            • Bell Phillips says:

              I believe this accurately sums up the process.

              A few thousand people who bothered to show up at local caucuses got together to select the people(county) who select the people(state) who select the people(national) who select (if their votes are accurately counted) the party nominee.

              Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are participating in a popularity poll being held under the trappings and facade of an election.

              Then, the people picked through the caucus/convention process will look at the results of the popularity poll and will optionally (if unbound) or temporarily (if bound) use that information to guide their votes at the national convention.


  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Pat, I was reading through some direct-mail literature I received this morning from a Republican running for re-election to the Washington State House (not our good friend, Dan, but somebody else whose name I won’t bother to mention). He states on his list of positives that he’s…

    + Pro-life (good)

    + Has an A+ Second Amendment rating (good)


    + “…is the only R in western Washington to have a WEA teacher union endorsement.”

    Gee, isn’t that sort of like being endorsed by Stalin? I mean, if you can measure yourself by your enemies, I’d rather the teacher’s unions (a hive of Leftwing radicalism) be against me. Or maybe the WEA is more conservative where this chap comes from. It’s possible. I guess. Maybe. Stranger things have happened. Chickens might one day fly south for the winter.

    • pst4usa says:

      Well Actually Brad I think Olympia is south of us and they have sessions in the winter, so, I suppose you are right, Chickens do fly south for the winter.
      As the proud husband of the number 1 target in the state of the WEA in the last election, I could not agree more about their endorsement.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I thought RINOs walked or waddled to the Capitol. Thanks for filling me in on the correct natural history, Pat. You learn something new every day.

  8. Gibblet says:

    The ladies with whom I’m enjoying a few days at the lake put on the documentary “Agenda” last night. Homeschooling the children to teach them correct history, critical thinking skills, and spiritual truth is so vital! But they should (must) be encouraged to seek political office and other positions of influence, rather than join the spectators of the last few generations who have sat back to grumble and watch with disgust the rapid decline of our great nation. Also, if we are going to put up any type of opposition to the left we need to be as focused and organized as this video has shown them to be. Pat has suggested a plan. And I’m sure the great minds of ST could come up with a workable agenda to expand upon it over an intense weekend of brainstorming. Then all we need is a few men and women with passion to lead the way!

    There, Brad. I followed the rules didn’t I? Now I’m probably on some Watch List.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Sounds great, Gibblet.

      But first off, there are no rules for commenting. The new rules were only for submitting new articles. And the purpose of that is to acknowledge that much of what passes for conservative opinionating is simply mental masturbation, although some of it is brilliant analysis. But the conservative blogosphere has been doing this for well over 20 years now and we just keep moving left. I don’t want to be a part of mistaking blabbering for actually doing something.

      I’d much rather hear (in regards to politics) reporting, as it were, from the field. I’m not saying that an article has to be about what someone has materially done to beat back the Left. But, Jesus H. Christ, people need to read the daily headlines at American Thinker and see what not to do. What anyone could do is what Jay Leno did: Take a microphone (or a pen) into the world and ask ten people (or friends) at random a few questions. And then write about that.

      Or attend a school board meeting and write about what’s going on there…good or bad. Or use your imagination. Have your son or daughter hold a conservative bake sale where you charge more or less according to the color of your skin as some students did a few years ago (and caused quite a stir, but they made a great point).

      Go to a nursing home and talk to the elderly and get their perspective of what’s going on. But, good god, does anyone really care what is coming out of the mouth of Michelle Obama? Does anyone really care (to read, that is) the minute and detailed philosophy of some Scottish or French philosopher? It’s like fiddling while Rome burns. And Rome is burning and yet most people are fiddling.

      But it sells a lot of books in the conservative blogosphere. And it makes a lot of people feel better about adapting to the Left if they can just get online and vent a little.

      Well, vent on your own damn dime. (And please note, not one person other than our personal Koch Brother, Pat Tarzwell, has made a contribution in months…and I’m not taking any money from Annie, so Annie this isn’t directed at you!). 🙂

      That’s the nature of the beast. When I started this site, the idea I had was that a bunch of people would share in the work. But it was like pulling teeth to actually get people to do anything. So I resigned myself to the fact that, even though this was a non-profit site, if something was going to get done, I would have to do it. I’m appreciative of all the people who wrote articles and I hope they continue to write articles. Content for a site like this is most definitely material help.

      But with the ascendancy of Trump, it’s just a particularly convenient time to say, “Okay, enough of this baloney. I won’t be joining in this Kabuki theatre any longer. Either piss or get off the pot.”


    There are many complexities in the way we nominate candidates for general elections, and no doubt many reforms are needed (beginning with closed primaries), but for this discussion I would simply like to clarify how things should be done in the most general possible terms.

    Pat’s position, as I understand it, is that the delegates should be totally and completely unbound from the beginning. He and others have attempted to justify this stance by pointing to the evils of unlimited democracy, in which the majority simply votes itself the property of the minority, and ascribing it to “democracy” unqualified by the adjective “unlimited”. In attacking this position, I think it is necessary to clarify that America is and should be a democratic republic, that is, it is both a republic and a democracy.

    The first consideration is that of course government is supposed to be limited, which means that those who govern are limited by law in what they may do. We call this law a constitution (in our case, that constitution is written to make it more secure than the unwritten constitutions of nations such as Great Britain). But having agreed on a limited government, the problem remains of how those who govern are to be selected. There are only two possible answers: either the people will choose, or some elite group, apparently superior to the will of the people, will choose. Pat is opting for the latter. As I think everyone at ST knows, I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

    America should be a democratic republic – the people choose those who hold public office, but those who hold office are then controlled by the law. By this means we hope to avoid the situation of a majority voting itself the property of its fellow citizens. Our current welfare state and ascendant Democratic Party tyranny are the result of unlimited democracy, and more generally, unlimited government. This happened because the fundamental law, the Constitution, was not obeyed. It did not happen because the people actually have a say in who governs.

    I refuse to be told that I am to have no say in who governs. I do not believe that there is a superior class of persons who will choose more wisely than I and my fellow common citizens and I will not acknowledge their superior status. I take seriously the phrase “government by the people” which can only refer to the right of the people to place in office men of their choosing.

    And to those who think otherwise – who think delegates should be “unbound” and free to substitute their own judgment for that of the people from whom any just authority they may have is derived – I have a warning: the people of America tolerate the current system only because they still maintain (or at least believe they maintain), to a considerable extent, control over placing in office the men and women of their choice. The moment they realize you are trying to effectively disfranchise them by vesting some elite body with control over who may become President (or even who may hold lesser offices), you are going to have your heads handed to you either by repeated electoral drubbings followed by much stricter control of the parties until you cry “Uncle!” or by another American Revolution that restores popular government even if that means those “heads” become literal.

    • Bell Phillips says:

      You have restored my faith in humanity.

    • Anniel says:

      Amen. I agree totally Nick.

    • Rosalys says:


    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think the point of “unbounding” delegates was jettisoning Trump. If the Constitution is not a suicide pact, as they say, neither are political conventions.


        Of course the point of releasing the delegates was to dump Trump, Brad, but there was absolutely no justification for doing that and there would have been hell to pay if the GOP had tried it. That’s why the GOPe decided to make peace with Trump – they didn’t like him, but couldn’t afford to lose all his supporters.

        If the people who make up the Party are to choose their leaders but not by direct election, then those they delegate the task to must be bound to support a particular candidate on at least the first ballot. This is even more important when we realize that delegates do not have to run for re-election, thus fear of being voted out of office cannot control their behavior as it can, say, with state legislators.

        It doesn’t matter if the people have chosen a candidate the David Frenchs (or even the Niks and Brads) of this world find odious; the operative principle here is that they do have the right to choose, and no plea that their choice is unwise or even “suicide” can alter the fact, for we are here not construing the constitutionality of a statute but affirming the right of the people to be self-governing. And this would be true even if a far more odious candidate than Trump (think Kasich) had been their choice: I wouldn’t have supported him, but I would never have sought to circumvent the Party’s own rules (at the time the primaries were held) and break state election laws in order that Cruz or someone else I found more appealing might be installed against the expressed will of the people.

        Like it or not, Trump had (I believe) 45% of the popular vote – while running against 16 other candidates! Under the rules, a majority of Republican delegates were bound to him. That should have ended all discussion of the matter, but it didn’t. It didn’t because, in effect, a few people didn’t like the outcome of the game and decided they wanted to change the rules, not for next time (which would have been understandable provided they did not intend anything truly obnoxious like allowing unelected “super-delegates” to control the process) but for this time. It was like a losing baseball team wanting to change the rules and then play the whole game over again! And it was never going to happen.

        By all means, let’s talk about some necessary reforms – but letting “delegates” run loose and do as they please (for they are no longer truly delegates or representatives of any kind once that happens) is exactly the wrong direction in which to head.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          A New York Values liberal won the Republican Primary. Only his overt crudeness, dishonesty, pettiness, and lack of policy smarts makes that surprising, for Chris Christie is Donald Trump in a better package.

          Meanwhile, the Catholics elected a Marxist pope and the Democrats nominated a corrupt Nixonian stormtrooper. All is right in this alternative universe that I somehow got accidentally transported to in 2007. I’m still trying to get back. When my space pod is complete I will accelerate it towards the sun in order to gain faster-than-light speed and then slingshotting back through a wormhole to my home universe. I’ll be throwing the captain’s log out of the porthole. I don’t want to remember any of this.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I understand your sentiments. Incidentally, the Peron Pope has done it again, in this case moral equivalence between Christians and Muslims. After all, members of both murder people, so they’re all the same. No doubt this is also why he thinks it would be great if we got rid of borders.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            When my space pod is complete I will accelerate it towards the sun in order to gain faster-than-light speed and then slingshotting back through a wormhole to my home universe.

            Hello, hello. Is that you Calvin? Hobbes speaking. Over.

    • pst4usa says:

      You can refuse all you want Nahalkides. But I have some bad news for you; you have no say in who governs, at least at this level any way! The nominees, this year for sure and I suspect for a long while have been chosen by a different type of elite than you posit; this year, it had nothing to do with the delegates, nor did it have to do with voters, this was the GOPe making all the decisions the whole way.
      You may like having Democrats choose the Republican nominee, but I do not. I do think that Republicans voters would be superior to Democrats in the choosing of the parties nominee, contrary to your opinion. Your definition of elites could use some work as well, grassroots and elite do not usually go together except in some fantasy world.
      America should not be a Democracy and a Republic as you say, it is, and should remain a Republic, you may need to brush up on your definitions, because you really do not understand a Republican form of government at all.
      And for your last paragraph, why did heads not roll in all the other Republican primaries, save 3, that the delegates were unbound?
      You know you really should consider a move to France, they had your type of revolution,(heads rolling) and have the type of government you are advocating, seems like a perfect fit for you.

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Since I don’t want to go back through pages of articles, I am attaching this piece from the Daily Mail about the Donald’s wife.


    Anyone who thought about things, would have predicted this. More will be coming, I am sure. How tasteful, what decorum!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      These may be the ones. Nice rack. More here.

      This could actually be a plus to New York Values voters. That makes Trump hip, not one of those stodgy conservatives. I can see it now. Hillary’s advisors are advising Chelsea (goodness please, not Hillary) to go take some nude shots to buff up Hillary’s hipness image.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I had heard about these (especially the one on the Post, but hadn’t known about the implied lesbianism. No inducement for me, that’s for sure.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Every red-blooded American male knows that the only gender-bending allowed is two gorgeous fake lesbians in a nude photo shoot or video. Just supply the pretzels and beer.

          Now, as to whether or not this enhances Trump’s campaign, well, many Christians and Tea Party types sold out a while back, rationalizing everything because Trump would supposedly choose better Supreme Court justices. So what Trump said a while back is true. He could shoot someone and his supporters would still support him.

          But there’s support (lip service) and then there’s support (actually going out and voting for this creep). Trump could face a rather large stay-home contingent. But the Religion of Leftism is much like Catholicism. Catholics don’t particular care that their pope is a Marxist. They’ll adapt. Their main identity as Catholics remains, if perhaps gradually changed into something unrecognizable to Jesus.

          So it is with the Left. The most important thing to these religious believers is that they have a secular pope in the election, not that she’s particularly clean. Their personal religion doesn’t require Hillary to do anything but forward abortion, welfare, victimhood, grievance, “climate change,” diversity, “equality,” and multiculturalism. What she does in her own private life (reflecting the inherent absolution the Left provides) doesn’t matter.

          No one knows if the right has reached that same point, but it’s beginning to look as if we have. Trump is our battering ram and we don’t particularly care what he batters because we’re in a battering mood. Mood. Did you catch that word? Specific principles and values don’t matter. Just follow the mood. But you would expect this as we morph from a more masculine self-reliant republic to a nanny-state social democracy.

          With the new calculus concerning public morals, it’s difficult to know if Trump could actually peel off a few voters from Hillary who is old, stodgy, Nixonian, and not every appealing, even for a secular pope. Trump’s wife is hot, nude, and entertaining. Not that entertainment and nudity alone will trump the various Leftist secular sacraments (such as abortion). But it could swing a few votes. As for how many it loses in stay-home “support” of Trump, we won’t know that for a long time. That will probably be very difficult to gauge via polling.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        My favorite is the bottom photo in the New York Post. Just what one expects of a potential First Lady.

        Can you believe all the dumb-asses (who claimed to be conservatives) who not only parroted Trump’s outrage about some photos which his wife was paid to pose for, but were more extreme than Trump in their attacks on Cruz and his wife.

        This truly shows the knavery and/or stupidity of this class of Trumpkin. Scoundrels.

        Martha Washington, where are you (or your analogue) when we need you?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Me: But dammit, Mr. Kung, he’ll appoint (nominate) better Supreme Court justices.

          Mr. Kung: But Brad, you ignorant slut. With his naive views of the world he’s likely to start a major war.

          Me: Don’t forget they’ll he’ll appoint better justices.

          Mr. Kung: Hey, stupid, they just found out via Trump’s tax returns that he’s in bed with Putin.

          Me: Did I mention the better Supreme Court nominees?

          Mr. Kung: I’m not getting through to you, moron. WikiLeaks just divulged that Donald Trump is actually a sock-puppet. If you look closely at some of the photos, you can see the strings.

          Me: Would you believe he would bring back Diana Ross and the Supremes?

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            We need to write a series of movies,

            “Laughing on the Way to Oblivion”

            “Crying on the Way to Oblivion”

            “We’re on the Road to Oblivion; No Prob’ Dude, Have a Toke”

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Talking Heads has the soundtrack for that.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I am not a Talking Heads fan. I always found them somewhat Dadaish. Perhaps that is why the song seems appropriate.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Well, as a Sinatra fan, it’s hard to defend yet another pop vocalist who doesn’t have the most sonorous voice. I think David Byrnes’s “Little Creatures” is a charming little album, less atonal, pretentious, and nihilistic. I guess fatherhood can do that to a fellow. In fact, if I had to be honest, most of pop music since the 60’s has been empty calories…with some exceptions here and there, of course.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Most of the music I play is from the 1960s and early 1970s, though I have some from later (including some Petula Clark material from this century).

              • Steve Lancaster says:

                Its Dorsey or Miller for me Song of India and Moonlight Serenade, although Sinatra Come fly with me and Bennett I left my heart in San Francisco are near the top.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I have a version of “Moonlight Serenade” by Carly Simon, who in her later years has done a lot of older songs. One of her CDs includes “Jamaica Farewell” (sung without sexual reversal), “Oh, Susanna”, and “The Riddle Song”.

            • Steve Lancaster says:

              The late great Fred Allen,
              “One more day on the treadmill to oblivion” sometime about 1950

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I love him on “What’s My Line” re-runs. His was the fastest wit I have have ever seen.

                Robin Williams just seemed to be on drugs, but Fred Allen was sharp.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Most of the music I play is from the 1960s and early 1970s, though I have some from later (including some Petula Clark material from this century).

    Petula Clark, Mozart, Beethoven, and Frank Sinatra are sort of Leftist-like “get out of jail free cards,” Timothy. As long as you sometimes listen to one of those, you can listen to whatever crappy modern music you like. You can even drunk-drive into a ditch and drown your passenger as long as Piano Sonata No. 11 in A Major is playing on the car radio. It’s all good.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I will say that when it comes to classical music, I mostly play Tchaikovsky. Now, Elizabeth is a big Mozart fan, and we have a certain amount of both Mozart and Beethoven along with Tchaikovsky, Bach, and others in our MP3 images (and a lot of Mozart on CDs not converted yet to MP3).

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        Mendelssohn is my go to, the somewhat brooding 3rd, the airy 4th and the complex 5th. Also in no particular order Beethoven 7th, 9th, Mahler 1st, Dvorak 9th (New World), Schubert, 8th, 9th. and about 300 others.

        If there is one gift to humanity from western culture, it is classical music

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          In “The Seven Year Itch,” Richard Sherman thought that Piano Concerto #2 by Rachmaninoff was just the thing to set the atmosphere for a romantic evening with Marilyn Monroe.

          I don’t believe in date-rape, so I’m not even going to mention the Sinatra songs to induce a romantic evening.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I believe Tchaikovsky will never be mistaken for Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus. I think you’re quite safe with that preference.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, they used a portion of the 1812 Overture in ads for Quaker puffed rice back in the 1960s, “The Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy” at one point in Pocketful of Miracles, and part of Romeo and Juliet was used at an appropriate point in the Bond movie Moonraker.

  12. Glenn Fairman says:

    Would it be out of character for me to say “Fuck the Republican Party?”

    I resign………

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Jay Nordlinger over at NRO writes about leaving the Republican Party. Same with me, although I was never a card-carrying member. But as Reagan said, I didn’t leave the party. The party left me.

      I’m not even sure I’m comfortable calling myself a conservative anymore. It’s not that I disagree with the principles. It’s just that I don’t think anyone has my back. I was just thinking about this today (deep thoughts, or semi-deep thoughts, on a mountain top). I think if someone asks I’ll call myself an “independent.”

  13. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Regardless of what thinks of Trump, the fact that these people are supporting Hillary with large sums of money, is one rational reason to support the Donald. If these people, particularly the hedge fund types, are for Hillary, then almost everyone else should (logically) be against her.


    • Timothy Lane says:

      The argument for Trump is almost entirely negative: the alternative is the Fire Witch, with all her supporters and all her prospective appointees. It’s possible evil vs. certain evil.

  14. Timothy Lane says:

    There’s an interesting article on RealClearPolitics suggesting something like the Australian ballot system (in which voters give additional choices so that eventually you get someone with a majority). He thinks proportional representation is a decent alternative. When you have only 2 main candidates this isn’t necessary, but when you have multiple candidates you have the problem of a Trump — someone with a sizable number of dedicated followers but also a large number of intractable foes within the party. In such a case, you might end up with a contested convention, at which point delegates such as Pat come into their own. The link is:


    • pst4usa says:

      That system would be a yuge improvement Timothy. But unless actual Republicans take the party back, reform will be impossible. And from what I have seen, most of the folks that could help the party, are done with it, and are washing their hands of the GOP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *