All Things Trump

by Brad Nelson8/12/15

The official position here at StubbornThings is to insist on a formula that ensures we don’t get rope-a-doped — either by Trumpism or the Establishment Republicans. For every one criticism of Trump, there should be two of the Establishment Republicans, and four of the Left (particularly Hillary).

We should never forget that, whatever Trump’s shortcomings, the Republican Establishment has disdained conservatives and regularly lied to them. They have actively and sometimes openly worked against conservatives and have been lapdogs for Obama. And Hillary, well, she’s a nightmare x 4.

I ran across a couple articles this morning. One said that Trump’s poll numbers were slipping. No surprise there after his lackluster debate. Another pointed out something I noticed the other day: On Trump’s official website, he has no policy positions. Some apologists have said, “Yes, but Trump is running a new type of campaign. Don’t expect him to act like the usual politician.”

I suppose there’s some merit in not listing policy positions that you’re not going to stick to anyway, which is how it tends to work for GOP candidates. But Trump is running for a specific office with specific powers. Without knowing his philosophy of governance, I think it’s difficult to find a way to vote for him, although certainly one can understand that support of Trump can equate to a poke in the eye of the Establishment which deserves more than just a poke in the eye. That party needs to be dissolved and replaced.

A third article I encountered this morning was a good one by Cindy Simpson titled The Shrinking of the GOP Tent. She makes some good points, especially about the coarse, down-talking outrageousness of such pundits as Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson who have no problem trashing Trump supporters. It’s an ignorant move and shows the inherent elitism of these types.

Surely there are some Trump supporters who have been swept up into little more than a cult of personality, further degrading American politics into little more than another reality show. But I would guess most are just out of options regarding the GOP and are grasping for straws, even willingly using Trump as a cudgel to whop the degenerate and disingenuous GOP over the head. That party has broken faith with the base. Instead of chiding people for being disgusted with the GOP Establishment, pundits (assuming the point of punditry is to dispense wisdom and truth) should look in the mirror and aim criticism at where it belongs.

A fourth article, this one by George Neumayr, makes several good points, especially the point that if this is such a dad-blame great GOP field of candidates, and if Trump is such a charlatan, then why all the support for Trump?

And we know the game being played. I think it’s right to expect Trump to fade. He’ll get bored with this process and/or his lack of a deep political philosophy (even a feigned one, as Establishment guys do) will leave supporters with very little to support. Ranting at Megyn Kelly, even if she is a journalistic tramp, will get old. There’s not much future in that. So when things settle down, we know the drill. We’re all supposed to fall in line and eat our Establishment spinach. We are to shut up and do as our betters say. And for the first time in a long while, I do see a path, and an easy one for Hillary to be elected: nominate another RINO.

I do not draw from this whole Trump business how supposedly naive the rank-and-file conservative voters are. I draw from it that they are fed up and grasping at straws….even possible straw men. But that grasping is understandable given the corruption and dishonesty of the Republican Establishment, which isn’t exactly news. What is news (to some) is how corrupt and elitist much of the (supposedly) conservative commentariat is.

Is this worthy of Goldberg?:

“How Donald Trump became the dashboard saint of mouth breathing anti-Semites and white nationalists would be great subject for a novel.”

Is this worthy of Williamson who said Trump supporters are:

“engaged in the political version of masturbation: sterile, fruitless self-indulgence”

Even if these comments were true of some, it reveals a severe lack of wisdom and perspective. The problem, dear fellow prognosticators, is not in the Trump, it is in the Establishment. So say so and quit embarrassing yourselves and fracturing the base with your juvenile insults. At least point those insults to where they belong: Hillary, Obama, and the Left.

Funny how people can find the gumption to go after anyone who challenges the Establishment but it’s all polite and proper etiquette when it comes to the Left. That should tell you something. It tells me something, and I know that others have noticed this as well and thus aren’t all that worried about whether Trump is real or not because the Republican Establishment and their lackeys have proved they are decidedly not.


Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (2716 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to All Things Trump

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    The smart pundits (and there are many) understand that the Trump boom springs from disgust with the party leadership, especially but not exclusively in Congress, as shown repeatedly this year. The fecklessness of the congressional GOP, combined with the eagerness of some candidates (such as Kasich and especially Bush) to bash their own voters à la Jon Huntsman) have finally broken the connection between the GOP Beltway Bandits and its grassroots voters.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      …have finally broken the connection between the GOP Beltway Bandits and its grassroots voters.

      Indeed. And they certainly want our vote. But according to Rush, they mean to dispense with us anyway. They’re trying to build a new base, and that is one reason they’re soft on illegal aliens. They’re pandering to the hispanic vote. And soft-peddling things like Ferguson is their way to also supposedly show blacks that they’re not the mean, racist, intolerant people as . . . as, well, their normal base supposedly is.

      So there is treachery and down-talking coming and going amongst the Establishment. It is not hyperbole when I say that it really doesn’t make all that much difference if you vote for Jeb Bush or Hillary. These Establishment guys are actively hostile to conservatives but find all sorts of reasons to do a belly-roll for the Left.

      The conservative base has noticed this. Trump is completely bullet-proof in regards to the protest vote. And if there are others who are supporting Trump for reasons other than that, I can’t really criticize them because what is worse, supporting Trump or being Charlie Brown who thinks that *this year* he will kick the football? But Lucy always keeps pulling it away at the last minute.

      Frankly, with Trump as a sort of blank slate, the odds are at least even that he would be no worse than an Establishment Republican in terms of supporting things that conservatives care about. And if not, well, at least we *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt going in that Establishment Republicans do not support conservatism. So what’s to lose?

      And all that the Wizards of Smart at NRO can think to say is how stupid Trump supporters supposedly are.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Some of my overseas friends are asking me what is going on with Trump and American politics. I think I can use this site to explain things.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One commentor at The Spectator says it well:

      Oh I agree Mr. Neumayr the GOP is the reason that Trump is now running at the top of the polls. However, not for the reason you gave of a weak field. That weak field is a symptom not the cause of Trump. It is because the GOP has been behaving in an utterly feckless manner and has been doing so for years especially since taking back control of congress. The GOP dislikes its own voter base and does everything to marginalize or exclude that base’s wishes. Is it any wonder why that base sat home in 2012 and is now getting onboard with Trump. The truth is most Trump supporters are doing so as a great big up yours to the GOP establishment. I know for myself, I am just simply disgusted with the GOP. Whenever I see a Bush, McCain, Graham, Boehnor or a McConnell all I see is just another feckless, craven, cowardly loser. Hell this bunch can’t even muster the gumption needed to stop Obama’s surrender to the Iranian nuclear bomb. I guess the crazies and wacko birds as McCain calls the GOP base simply cannot hold their noses and vote for yet another squish.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s been pointed out that Trump’s insult of McCain came after McCain referred to Trump supporters as “crazies”. The GOP and their lackeys complained about the insult to McCain, but NOT the insult of their voters. Those voters notice, and act accordingly.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Good point. People you can insult with impunity, as least as far as conservatives are concerned: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rosie O’Donnell, John Boehner, reporters who ask stupid questions, Jeb Bush, and Darth Vader.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I don’t think Darth Vader should be assigned to such low company.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              That’s right. He eventually threw the Emperor (Obama) over the ledge while giving him a jolt of Jedi power. On the other hand, Christie had a photo op with him.

              But give Vader his due, he was taking part in “fundamentally transforming” the galaxy. Like Obama, the Emperor (and his minions, including Vader) did what they could to subvert the republic.

              And I guess we could say the equivalent of Jar Jar Binks (who was used in a crucial vote to unwittingly overturn the empire by giving Palpatine dictatorial powers) has many analogues: McCain, Boehner, Bush (take your pick), NRO, Megyn Kelly.

              But after helping to destroy some worlds, Vader at least did a death-bed conversion as we see him sitting all sparkly next to Yoda on the log at the end of Return of the Jedi — a scene that I thought sucked big-time. As my brother and I joke every time we see this stupid scene, “And then the camera pans a little more to the right and we see the smiling faces of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, sparkling in their newfound beneficence.”

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                And then the camera pans a little more to the right and we see the smiling faces of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, sparkling in their newfound beneficence.”

                I am glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                That certainly was a treacly scene. One can find a lot of flaws in Return of the Jedi, but that may be the worst. One also wonders how the Jedi ever fought successfully if doing so meant giving in to the dark side. If not, then why didn’t Yoda teach Luke how to do it?

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. has a good article: He Never Said It:

    In the first paragraph of the New York Times’ front-page story on Sunday the Times said that because Megyn Kelly “questioned him forcefully at the Republican presidential debate” Donald Trump said she did it “because she was menstruating.” He did not. Whether the Times was perpetrating a lie on its gullible readers or simply confused I cannot say. In the next paragraph readers can see for themselves what Trump actually said.

    He said that “You could see there was blood coming out of her [Kelly’s] eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” when she rather bluntly questioned him on indelicate subjects. The Times went on for more than half a page recording the observations of people such as ex-Senator Judd Gregg and Senator Lindsey Graham who, by the way, trails Trump badly in the polls. It turns out that they did not hear Trump mention menstruation either. Their observations were merely speculations.

    Dare I say it? They were the speculations of dirty minds. Hey, Lindsey, get your mind out of the gutter. As Trump quite aptly said later, “Only a deviant would think I was saying anything about blood somewhere other than her eyes or her nose.” He explained the word “wherever” as a typical rhetorical device for brevity and for moving on to other matters. It was not an anatomical reference.

    The idiot, pandering governor of Texas, Perry, lost me when he pulled Trump out of context and purposely misrepresented what he said about illegal aliens. Again, we in the conservative base notice how these supposed GOP conservatives get their heckles up when it comes to someone who punctures the GOP Establishment sacred cows (aka “immigration reform”). But you’ll never hear that passion directed to those who really are an enemy of this country (Obama and the Left).

    So go to Hell, Lindsay Graham. Damn Trump for being Trump but not for your transparently dishonest portrayal of him. And every time one of these scoundrel politicians takes a shot at Trump, his stature grows.

    I don’t agree with Tyrell’s summation. (“In truth, the Republican Party the other day gave us reason to take heart. Any one of the Republican candidates could do a terrific job running against the field of Democratic gerontocrats.”) But he certainly pointed out the politically correct pandering of Graham and others which he adroitly analyzed:

    Supposedly, political correctness is employed to prevent hurting the feelings of whatever group of people might be aggrieved. Actually, it is more often resorted to by opportunists intent on being treated as a privileged class.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Political correctness is the active attempt to abridge free speech. It is simply another type of coercion which the Left uses to build complete uniformity of thought and action in society. Marxists on the loose.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Tim said:

    That certainly was a treacly scene. One can find a lot of flaws in Return of the Jedi, but that may be the worst.

    Great use of the word, “Treacly.” I have some geek friends who barely acknowledge the existence of the Ewoks and think Return of the Jedi should have been targeted by the Death Star. Hard to dispute their dislike for the Ewoks. We saw the beginning of the cute-ification that Lucas would double-down on in the prequels. Good gracious.

    One also wonders how the Jedi ever fought successfully if doing so meant giving in to the dark side. If not, then why didn’t Yoda teach Luke how to do it?

    With all due respect to Master Yoda, that little hand puppet was one gigantic eff-up as far as battling the Dark Side was concerned. With him as the head, the Dark Lords of the Sith devastated the Jedi and made them all but extinct. And yet he has the balls (if his species has them) to bust Luke’s chops about not being ready to battle the Dark Side. Good gracious again. This little green man couldn’t detect the Star Wars equivalent of Hitler even when he was sitting right next to him.

    And then later Yoda went to work writing for Galactic Review. I mean, in many respects he is what you don’t want a Jedi to be. Luke, on the other hand, had the instinct not of a bureaucrat but of a hero. He wasn’t going to just let his friends suffer. He knew he was walking into a trap, but he also knew the Force would be with him — something that little bald-headed Sesame Street character never seemed to figure out. (In today’s lingo, “Conservatism works every time it’s tried.”)

    That’s one reason I really liked Calgon. (Sorry…Qui-Gon…a running joke.) He seemed like a real Jedi, as did old-man Obi-Wan, I suppose. But Calgon had the vitality and zeal you’d expect of a Jedi. By the time of “A New Hope,” Obi-Wan was a bit worn out and had turned into an old man, not quite as brash as he once was, but he was at least still willing to follow his ideals. Luke helped to reignite that spark in him.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a terrific article by David Limbaugh:

    It seems that those attacking Trump most vociferously are the ones who generally attack Cruz. They mainly condemn Trump, I believe, because they see him sucking the oxygen from their beloved establishment candidates. His brashness and perceived crudeness are mostly an excuse, and it is quite convenient for their purposes . . .

    They are yawningly unpanicked about the threats facing America and confuse their own apathy with adulthood. They are not, despite their apparent calm, the adults in the room, nor are the conservatives the unruly children. Adults realize true dangers facing their children (and their nation) and take action. They don’t congratulate themselves on appearing mature while letting their children or their nation be destroyed.

    The one objection was astutely noted by a commenter:

    The GOP must not be reconciled with the base. They must be defeated.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I disagree with that commenter. I would much prefer that the GOP be reconciled with its base — as long as that means the GOP surrendering, not the base.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Well, I think he was saying that the Republican Establishment is inherently incompatible with the base, which I think is true. So basically to “reconcile” would mean the surrendering of Establishment beliefs and the acceptance of conservative ones. I’m all for that. I’ll be glad to be the one to dunk them in the river upon their conversion.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I am more inclined to the solution Arnaud-Amaury used with the Cathars of Beziers. At least figuratively. Get rid of them all and the god of the Federal Reserve, better known as Mammon, will know his own.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Really, now. “Kill them all, and the Lord will know his own.” I don’t think it’s quite that hopeless. Yet. And he was using that comment to justify killing the Catholics along with the Cathars. Do we really want to get rid of Cruz, Lee, and Sessions?

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I did say, “at least figuratively”, which in this case could be to rid them from government.

              I would be willing to say adieu to Cruz,Lee and Sessions if we could fumigate the rest of the government.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I hope you’re right, Timothy, that the conversion of wobbly Establishment Republicans to stout conservative patriots is possible. But rarely has a king climbed down off of his thrown willingly. And these Wizards of Smart do indeed think they are a cut above. And they have all the power, prestige, and money to prove it. And only a true love of this country, moral acumen, humility, and sacrifice stands a chance against those trappings of superiority.

              This is the corruption of the GOP. They have lost touch with the moral underpinnings of this nation.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      They are not, despite their apparent calm, the adults in the room,

      They are a lot of time-serving, amoral, lotus-eating parasites.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s another reason Trump is popular. He’s standing up against the mob. M. Catherine Evans (I’m a huge fan of hers) has an article about this. Trump is quoted regarding “Black Lives Matter” activists taking over the stage in Seattle from Bernie Sanders:

    “I would never give up my microphone, I thought that was disgusting,” Trump told reporters at a press conference in Michigan on Tuesday night. “That showed such weakness, the way he was taken away by two young women. They just took the whole place over!”

    That will never happen with me…I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself, or if other people will, but that was a disgrace,” Trump added. “I felt badly for him, but it showed that he’s weak.”

    I believe him. That’s what we need, someone who will stand up to the rent-a-mob. For all the things Trump does that I sometimes don’t like, you have to give him his due. How many GOP candidates would have caved to the activists? Probably most.

    Evans writes:

    Even Trump’s detractors have to admit his vow not to let these bullies rule the day is refreshing. Besides, he’s footing the bill for his campaign and some serious security detail. As Ronald Reagan said in 1980 when a debate moderator tried to mute the sound of the future President’s mike, “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green.” Same for Trump.

    • Pst4usa says:

      I preferred the example of when Reagan had a heckler in the audience, near the end of the campaign, he just said,”Oh shut up!, that is how he backed down. The crowd did the rest.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Jeffrey Lord asks a question that has been on my mind: Are Reagan Democrats Becoming Trump Democras? (subtitled “Rand Paul channels Gerald Ford when he should be channeling Nixon and Reagan”).

    Lord makes the outstanding point the Establishment Republicans are always mouthing the idea that they must “broaden their appeal” and “reach out.” But when someone actually does — whether Reagan or Trump — they are appalled.

    Amazing, no? On the one hand Senator Paul is demanding outreach to become a “broader, more diverse party.” When Trump does just that — like the 1976 Ford campaign and GOP Establishment suddenly Paul recoils, professing outrage at Trump’s background as a Democrat — precisely the same charge hurled at Reagan by Ford.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Oh, they’re quite willing to reach out — to racial minorities oriented toward Big Brother Barry and his Behemoth. But they have no interest in reaching out to those who want to be left alone (even among the racial minorities).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        In my experience, “reaching out” means to take as a given all the assumptions of the various grievance groups. And that’s fine, but there’s already a party for that: the Democrats.

        I also think when Establishment Republicans do this is it all for show and/or it’s a nice bit of stagecraft to maintain the conceit that they simply “care” more than those right-wing homophobe Christians and conservatives who would, if they would just go away, allow Establishment Republicans to secure an ongoing ruling majority.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Mr. Kung sent me this link. Trump is getting more specific about his policies. This is exactly what he needs to do to show people he’s more than just a ranter. Things like this should push his poll numbers up further. I think there are a lot of people out there wondering if they can trust him or not. In this article, we’re hearing what we need to hear. It’s a fairly coherent and common-sense approach…what conservatives have been screaming for while the Rubio asses of the party soft-peddle and call for “immigration reform” which means amnesty. Go, Trump, Go.

    Whether Trump will stand by this or not, who knows? But it seem likely that if he doesn’t stand by it, it won’t be because he heard a bit of criticism in the media which always causes RINOs to wet their pants and back-pedal.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Meanwhile, the Fox News poll shows that Trump has fallen a whole percentage point after the debate, with 25% to Carson’s 12% (up 5%) and Cruz’s 10% (up 4%). With Fiorina at 5%, this means that 42% of Republican voters want a non-politiian. It also reports support for “Kate’s Law” at 58-37 (of course, this is a Bill O’Reilly cause, so naturally Fox would check it out).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s an interesting take, that 42% want a non-politician. I would have expected Trump’s poll numbers to go down after that first debate because he did not live up to expectations in that debate. He was supposed to be the cool, witty fighter who could get the core of things without a lot of baloney. But when he wasn’t getting sidetracked by the questions, he was giving pretty simple-minded analyses of the issues.

        That’s what my first thought (the second was to hire me as a consultant for $500/hr…he can afford it) was that the needed to move beyond the bravado (which would inevitably wear thin) and deepen his stance on the issues. Yes, by all means, use that straight-shooting non-pansy bravado to make your point. But you first have to have a point. This policy statement on immigration should help him.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      What I find particularly clever about Trump’s White Paper on Immigration is that he not only lays out what needs to be done, but explains why this needs to be done , how it will improve the situation of real people and some of the different things which might be done with the savings the country would gain by following this program. It is not all just anti-this, anti-that, which is one of the memes the pro-Amnesty types use to attack those who do not agree with their selling out the country.

      This is a winner.

      I am becoming more convinced that Trump means to stay in this race. He can now hammer those who claim he has no detailed response to the important issues facing the country. And he should be able to ride the immigration issue for some time before coming up with his next White Paper.

      I was talking to my wife about Trump this morning and she agrees with me that the media and political types are truly not very sharp when they accuse Trump of being less than brilliant and not understanding the issues or not have a program.

      First of all, one does not build a business like Trump’s without having a talent for organization. One must also have a fair degree of intelligence. Such intelligence does not have to be of the academic sort which is so popular with the political, academic and media elites of the world.

      Second, given the huge organization he has, plus his money and contacts, Trump can formulate a general idea in his head and then call up any number of employees and say, “be here tomorrow at 10:00am. I want to talk to you about xyz.” For example, on health care he could call up his HR vp and get all the ins and outs of health insurance.

      Third, he clearly understands how to communicate with a large portion of the populous. I believe this is not only because he is Trump, but because he knows it works. In no way do I believe he is loose cannon which many believe he is. He knows what he is doing.

      Fourth, he is a winning and America loves winners. Like they say, nothing succeeds like success. He is a billionaire who does not act like a plutocrat ala Romney and Bush. The public likes this. Perhaps one day, they will also be able to make it.

      Fifth, it would appear he truly likes to be among people and press the flesh. One does not feel this is the case with many politicians.

      This man has experience in the real world and enormous resources at his finger tips which he can use to formulate policy and key in on the inefficiencies which abound in our government. If he doesn’t know something, all he has to do is ask and he will get expert real world information.

      He is being tremendously underestimated by the establishment. Good, I hope they continue to misunderstand what is going on.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One good thing about his immigration policy is that it specifically discusses the issue of American jobs. This is a direct attack on the Cheap Labor Lobby. It could be better (such as getting rid of H-1B visas instead of merely raising the prevailing wage), but it’s a very good start, and better than one can expect from most of the other candidates.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I am becoming more convinced that Trump means to stay in this race.

        I think you’re probably right. Whatever the case may be, by issuing clear, reasonable, and common-sense policy prescriptions, he’s making fools of Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, Glenn Beck, and many other Trump-bashers. (And I almost feel like donating to his campaign just for that.)

        I don’t think Trump is the next Ronald Reagan. But imagine if they wake up one day and realize they are the Jerry Ford (or the Ron Paul) of this age, rejecting the political Messiah when he has come, and for the same reasons. (He’s a crank. He can’t win. He’s just a dumb populist.)

        Trump’s very existence is a refutation of the Ruling Class mentality. Politics is considered the province of the specially anointed by these fellows. But who was the greatest American of all? That’s right. A plantation owner. Who is the worst? That’s right, the community agitator who spent his life in politics.

        This site, frankly, was founded on the idea that most of these guys online and in the Establishment are full of it. Whatever Trump is full of, that will unfold. But we already know the stench wafting over from the Wizards of Smart.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I think this is the article Rush was referring to this morning: Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    Esther gets to the heart of the elitist, ruling-class, Wizards-of-Smart mentality that infest both parties when she writes:

    What exactly does Will mean by “vulgar”? Is it an epithet that Washington arbiters of taste use to describe the regular vernacular and humor of everyday Americans? If you eschew complex ambiguity in favor of language that everyone can understand, does that make you vulgar?

    The George Will types would have this country go down the tube as long as we are polite about it…the very definition of the Establishment Republicans and their lackeys. It’s always been the case that those who feel they are of a higher class must make sure that they distinguish themselves from the supposed lower classes. That’s what all this is about.

  10. Timothy Lane says:

    There was an interesting article on RedState by Leon Wolf about the “outside fallacy” which makes an interesting point. Hardly anyone in the GOP runs as an insider; even John Boehner and Mitch McConnell once were outsiders. Some didn’t really mean it (though Wolf fails to consider this), but a lot of them did, only to find the temptations of Versailles on the Potomac too tempting. Thus, the best candidate is not a complete outside (who might be corrupted as most others have been), but someone who has faced all those temptations — and rejected them.

    This is similar to the idea that the ideal GOP SCOTUS appointee is someone who has already been tested in the fires of DC society and remains a conservative. Those who come from out-of-town too often find it so easy to “stand tall in Georgetown” (which is one of the major DC temptations).

    The link to the article is:

    http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/16/outsider-fallacy/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here are a couple articles worth reading.

    Trump Takes on the New Nativists by Jeffrey Lord. Lord not only bashes Reason magazine (a Libertarian fever swamp) but outs the elitist types (Republican Establishment or otherwise) as the “Know Everythings” as a refutation of the attempt by so many holier-than-thous to paint those who want illegal immigration to stop, and for law-breakers to quit being treated like victims, as “Know-Nothing natavists.” Kudos to Mr. Lord for his continued excellent writing.

    He also mentioned Victor Davis Hanson’s excellent article that Mr. Kung had pointed out to me the other day and that I think Rush partially read on the air: How Illegal Immigration Finally Turned Off the Public.

    I’ve watched people turn all ninny on this subject for the last couple of decades. We all know how the “Press 1 for English” has crept into the culture. Anyone who wasn’t a Jeb Bush-like multiculturalist (anti-culturalist, in practice) ninny wondered why Spanish was being singled out for special treatment and not German, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or some other language.

    Somehow the “compassionate” ninnies had made illegal aliens from south of the border into victims. And they were used as mascots or puppets to show that, gee, *I’m* not a racist because look how nice I am to the illegal aliens.

    Whether there is a true backlash brewing against this “social justice” nonsense that will be effective in countering this idea has yet to be seen. I highly doubt it. Still, Trump has taken the bulls by the horns and is doing well with the issue…while ninnies such as Jeb Bush speak Spanish on the campaign trail. I wonder when he will go in for skin-darkening treatments (which, as you know, I think is a main motivation of white people covering themselves in tattoos).

  12. Timothy Lane says:

    Those were indeed nice articles. I appreciate anything that strikes back against the liberals smearing their opponents as “racist”, especially pointing out that La Raza is, by name, explicitly racist. As for a backlash, that all depends on which polls, which also depends on how they’re worded. I suspect that most people would be quite willing to get rid of most illegal aliens. And the Kate Steinles of the world only strengthen this pull on normal people (as opposed to the political class, who don’t care).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Hugh Hewitt just lowered himself a notch in my eyes as well. Rush was talking about Hewitt’s “gotcha” questions he gave to Trump. Here’s an article by Rick Moran on the subject: Did Hugh Hewill ambush Trump with ‘gotcha’ questions?

      But were they “gotchya” questions, as in Hewitt attempting to embarrass Trump by exposing his ignorance of foreign policy issues? Not hardly. Any reasonably informed adult should know that Soleimani is the second most powerful military figure in Iran next to the Supreme Leader, and that Hassan Nasrallah has been the leader of Hezb’allah since its founding.

      That’s pretty lame, Rick. I don’t know these names either. Nor are any of us here impressed when Obama tries for a native-sounding “Pahk-E-stahn” instead of “Pack-ih-stan.”

      And it’s shocking that Trump didn’t know the difference between Hamas and Hezb’allah.

      That’s what I say, Rick. What’s the different. (Donald, you can use that line.)

      Another lame article by the Establishment press. How many of you know the convoluted names of these leaders? Hell, it’s hard keeping track of who the prime minister is in England. What I want is someone who knows who the bad guys are, not necessarily their names. As Trump said, you can hire guys to brief you on those details.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Nor are any of us here impressed when Obama tries for a native-sounding “Pahk-E-stahn” instead of “Pack-ih-stan.”

        What??????

        This is a gift not everyone has. I believe you have heard my “sub-continent” accent, Brad, which is quite fetching. Add a little head bobble and one has it.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Hell, I still think Pluto is a planet. I’m not impressed by the various revisionists in all walks of life. And don’t you laugh when our pretentious, idiotitc president says “Tall-E-bahn” with an Islamic-like twitter instead of “Tal-uh-ban”?

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I don’t know who Rick Moran is, but I just read his article. It says plenty of nothing.

        The guy shows a deep lack of understanding how large organizations work. It also shows a certain lack of understanding about recent presidential history. Before Zero, Jimmy Carter was supposed to be the smartest president. You know he had a degree in physics and helped design nuclear submarines, or something to that effect. He also had all the details of everything which touched the presidency in his brain.

        How did that work out? Nobody, not even a Churchill, can know everything which needs to be known in order to run a government.

        What is necessary? One must have a pretty clear idea as to one’s guiding philosophy, very specific ideas on a couple of large questions and be a good manager.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It was a “style before substance” approach. If you’re more worried about names (which, as Trump noted, tend to be here today, gone tomorrow) than who the bad guys are, that’s complete baloney.

          There seems to be no getting around the Wizards of Smart. I’m I supposed to bow down to Rick Moran because presumably he knows the difference between Hezbolah and Hamas? I have no idea offhand. One is is creature of Iran. The other is a creature of another Islamic beast. What I know is that both are enemies.

          As Rush was saying, What do you care about more, someone who knows the name, “Soleimani,” or someone who took this guy off the hit list because of the recent capitulation to Iran? (I think that was the name. But, again, an Islamist by any other name would be as evil.)

          The Wizards of Smart have cornered themselves over the years by lording over us their supposed technical expertise while often missing the larger moral issue. And this continues to be the bane of recruting people for this site. They actually assume they have to know every god name in the news or else they will look like a fool.

          I’ve tried to articulate that things work differently here. Here we don’t play “gotcha” with the details if your overall is good. Corrections on the details are welcome as long as they don’t take the place of understanding and acknowledging that someone’s overall is good. (I often fail at this, for lack of time, but that is the standard and the goal.)

          Do I give a crap if someone knows, let alone can pronounce, the name of some of these bastards? No. I care only that they know Iran is the enemy, Israel is the ally, and America, as founded, is the biggest Good Guy in the world…or should be.

          What is necessary? One must have a pretty clear idea as to one’s guiding philosophy, very specific ideas on a couple of large questions and be a good manager.

          That’s a crucial point, Mr. Kung. And it didn’t occur to this Wizard of Smart in question over at American Thinker. Sometimes I’m amazed at the lack of thoughtfulness out there.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s useful to know the names of the leaders, but (given that they do indeed change periodically for one reason for another, such as the effects of drone strikes) a relatively minor point. Knowing who the organizations are is another matter. Someone who has been running for President for months now should know who Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Quds force all are.

        I will also note that Hewitt has a history of asking tough questions, often about the Levant, as I believe has been mentioned here before. It’s ridiculous to expect him to change for Trump’s sake. The unfortunate thing isn’t that Megyn Kelly and Hugh Hewitt ask tough questions of the Republicans; it’s that the Democrats never give them the chance to ask them equally tough questions (as they undoubtedly would).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It’s ridiculous to expect him to change for Trump’s sake.

          I didn’t read the whole interview, just the portion quoted in that article. But if I ever get a chance to interview Trump, you can bet I’ll be asking him more meaningful and strategic questions about Iran, Islam, the Middle East, etc. It won’t be a spelling test.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Oh, I’d never ask for the spelling of anything in the Levant, given the various alternative ways Arabic names can be transliterated in English. Is it Osama or Usama? Koran or Quran? Mohammed, Mahomet, or Muhammad? The correct answer is another question: Who cares?

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Here’s how I think about this, Timothy.

              Of course having knowledge about leaders and such is important. But knowledge is not quite the same thing as wisdom. Most of these world leaders know each other’s names. And yet they’re full of excrement regarding most subjects. Many are outright evil.

              There has been a huge over-emphasis on factoids, especially in the conservative establishment. And it’s not that I don’t think having a recall of facts isn’t important. I haven’t exactly surrounded myself with stupid people here at StubbornThings, for instance.

              But the implications of living in a complex world full of enemies should not be turned into a mere pissing contest where conservatives measure the equivalent of the length of their penis by how many factoids they can regurgitate. It is one of the huge elephants in the living room that no one talks about. Most articles around the web are stunningly obtuse about the overall ideas, although they’ll likely have most of their factoids right. If professional writers are good at anything, it’s looking smart.

              Being smart is a whole nuther thing. And we’re very short on that these days. Reagan was thought be the establishment to be a rube, a dullard, a hick. (And thought the same by Democrats, but at least you know where they’re coming from as an opposition…they would have opposed Jesus, and are active opponents of God.)

              If Rick Moran or anyone else wants to school us about the ins and out of Hezbollah (note I don’t use the sort of creepy “Hezb’allah” spelling which I find to be self-consciously elitist), please do so. Use some white space for that.

              The point is not to honor ignorance. But let’s have some perspective here. And was the point of his article to inform us or simply to smear Trump? I still live by the ST Rule: For everyone one criticism of Trump there should be two of Establishment Republicans and four of Democrats and the Left.

              I envy people who have a bazillion facts in their head such as Michael Medved. But let’s remember that this guy’s view of conservatism is that John McCain was a great presidential candidate. That’s doesn’t mean Michael isn’t a nice guy. He is. I’ve met him. But these types live via elitism, the idea that because their head is stuffed full of facts, they should be credited for it.

              And they tend to get annoyed when mere “hayseeds” are spouting truths they have long ago forgotten or ignored because they were spending too much time making a show of how supposedly smart they are.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                But knowledge is not quite the same thing as wisdom.

                The establishment Rep’s have adopted the idea of “technocratic” rule, i.e. they will manage our decline better that the Left. This is, in itself, indicative of something which is not wisdom. I don’t know if it is defeatism, self-aggrandizement, condescension or what.

                As to facts, they are useless unless applied properly in any given situation. It is helpful to have lots of facts at one’s disposal, but foreign policy decisions are not made off the top of one’s head and immediately implemented. They are normally made after a huge amount of information and analysis is presented to those in power, after which decisions are made.

                A superficial knowledge about the differences between Hamas and Hezbollah is no better than zero knowledge about them in such circumstances.

                Having lived overseas for about twenty-five years and having been in international business for about forty, I find the preenings of such people as Hewitt quite humorous. He is not unlike the many so-called multi-culturalists whose closest understanding of the term is having sushi on Friday night.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          From the reporting on it, I was not too concerned about Hewitt’s questions. But I just heard the actual exchange and will say unequivocally the whole episode was disgraceful and contrary to his lying contention that he does not ask “gottcha” questions. He, in fact, did just that. Apparently, another liar for the RINO wing of the party.

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    A superficial knowledge about the differences between Hamas and Hezbollah is no better than zero knowledge about them in such circumstances.

    Well said, Mr. Kung. I would say a meaningful knowledge of the difference is important. And that difference, for all intents and purposes, is simply knowing which Islamic cell a person belongs to, merely for operational logistics. What is truly useful and relevant is something between no knowledge and encyclopedic-detailed knowledge.

    It seems we’re always caught between the Momma Bear (too soft) and the Papa Bear (too hard) places. Either we have Leftists (or Libertarians) spouting simpleton slogans (politics via bumper stickers) or we have conservatives finding a way to use 500 words to say “I’ll have a ham sandwich, hold the mayo.”

    The Baby Bear “just right” is relatively rare. Rush calls it “making the complex simple.” Reagan was able to often do the same thing. But that’s not enough for most. Understanding isn’t the point. The most important point is that you understand how gosh-darn smart they are.

    I guess it’s still just that lingering idealism in me that think it’s sometimes more important what is good for your country rather than what other back-slapping, towel-flicking elitists think of you.

  14. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Poll: Donald Trump Beats Hillary Clinton.

    Thanks to Mr. Kung for pointing this article out. Parapharsing what I wrote to a friend recently,

    I think Trump is going to be attractive to a LOT of so-called Reagan Democrats. No one wants Hillary. No one wants Bush. Given the makeup of the current electorate, if Donald can show that he’s strong, doesn’t apologize, and agrees with most people on a few major issues, that’s all it’s going to take. People are becoming fed up with political dynasties.

    Donald will be a “moderate” in policy without the eunuch-style rhetoric. He’s likely going to skirt the so-called “social issues” having already declared homosexual marriage a sort of “settled science” because of the Supreme Court decisions. I think he’ll concentrate on the major issues of the day, such as illegal immigration, jobs, and “making America great again. I don’t know if he buys into global warming, the “religion of peace,” or any of that.

    But they say the best candidates will concentrate on three issues and stay with them. We see illegal immigration as one of his issues, as well as American exceptionalism which has economic implications (jobs), foreign policies implications (stop giving money to countries that hate us), and general attitudinal implications (make America great again). What his third general issue might be, I’m not sure. I haven’t caught all of his speeches. Maybe you know.

    I see that as a winning formula. Whether he is conservative or not, it hardly matters. What good has that litmus test done us? I’m not falling toward pragmatism but just admitting the obvious: We’ve been lied to by hundreds of Republicans who have ran as conservatives and governed as ninnies. And if Donald seems like the real-deal instead of another lying political mouthpiece, he’s got a chance. He may be right or wrong, but I don’t expect a long drawn-out series of waffles from him which killed the Scott Walker campaign (probably no big surprise there…Nik had sort of outed this guy).

    And anyone who can bash Megyn Kelly and come out of it better is the kind of guy we’re looking for. “Women hater” isn’t going to stick to him, neither will “nativist.” Why? He’s not stupid and he’s not gutless. He’s willing to battle back. Geezuz. That’s something everyone could learn from. Instead of folding like a cheap tent and thus implicitly verifying your opponent’s accusations, fight back.

    I’m not just raving when I say this culture have been infected by a bunch of nancy-boys. But Trump is not one of them. People realize that. People like me can respect that even if we don’t agree on some major issues.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I think Trump is going to be attractive to a LOT of so-called Reagan Democrats

      I suspect, that among a large percentage of the population in both parties, there is an uneasy feeling that nobody in the political class is truly sticking up for, and is proud of the country. Trump makes no bones about his love for the USA and how America has drifted over the last years. He is plugging into this dissatisfaction which the elites do not understand or more likely do understand, but wish to dampen. It is clear to anyone who is honest that pushing “multiculturalism” and “diversity” is not pro-American. These are, in fact, code-words used by those who wish to destroy not only American ,but the whole of Western Civilization.

      It is difficult to flood a nation with immigrants if the local population is proud of their own country and believe anyone who wishes to come here should do so legally and assimilate once they arrive.

      I believe the elites understand this very well and will do anything they can to paint Trump as a racist, nativist, etc. They know if he is elected it will be in large part due to his “Make America Great Again” and that means the country explicitly seeing itself as special i.e. going back to a traditional view of the USA. The elites don’t like this.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The immigration issue works in a lot of ways for Trump. It’s an admission of “I know our country is under assault.”

        And we have to recognize that the next Reagan, if he be the one, is not going to be as conservative as Reagan. The country has moved Left. And more than just Left, we’ve moved from thoughtful engagement to vulgar narcissism. No one can be sure what a right-ish winning coalition looks like anymore.

        I’ll watch from the side lines and adhere to my rule. I won’t bash Trump in isolation for things the GOP Establishment is doing (even invented). And always in the background is the knowledge that ever single person who voted for Obama is a ignoramus. That person is part of the problem. He or she is pillaging our culture for one stupid idea or another.

        And with this being the case, how stupid is it to keep offering up Bushes and Romneys? Trump paints a contrast. It’s getting to the point if Goldberg doesn’t like him, hey, that’s all the more reason to take a second look. The conservative establishment has badly failed this country. And they have lost the right to pick and choose. They are part of the problem.

  15. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The guy who embraces homosexual marriage says No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative.

    One commenter gets to the meat of things:

    One thing I have noticed from your Trump articles is you repeatedly fail to hold the GOP responsible for their failures. On the one hand you tell us again and again politicians will always fails us, disappoint us. Then you move straight to how you are disappointed by conservatives. Well OK, I don’t have an issue with you being dismayed over what you see as conservatism being hijacked.

    But your failure to note that the GOP has portrayed itself as the vehicle in which conservatism can thrive, and then turned around and attacked conservatives, and conservatism itself, is what makes your argument easy to set aside for most. If you and other conservative writers spent half the time holding the GOP accountable, as you do conservatives, we might take these arguments more seriously.

    If conservatism is now defined as accepting progressive advances as eternal, the continuing disdain of the GOP, and the constant nagging of conservative intellectuals towards those who want to see results, why would someone want to remain in your precious movement. Results matter. Trump’s popularity represents the failure of conservative intellectuals to understand we aren’t abandoning our principles in hard times because we can no longer afford piano lessons for our children, but because conservative intellectuals have failed to hold the GOP accountable for allowing the progressives to drive the piano teacher out of business. Things are really that bad out here Jonah, and all we get from you is the constant reminder how much we are letting you down. We shake our heads in amazement at just how out of touch you are.

    Jonah Goldberg remains the poster child for the hopelessly baffled at National Review. National Review is now little but a mouthpiece for Establishment and big-money interests (and/or columnists who are way past their sell date). We could take people like Jonah seriously if they were as deeply put off by the treachery of the GOP who have been calling themselves “conservative” but acting liberal.

    I doubt that anyone here would deny any of the drawbacks of Trump. No one is making a saint out of him. But we have to choose among candidates in the real world. And the real world includes brain-dead GOP Establishment hacks such as Rubio, Perry, Bush, Kasich, Walker and others. Then there are the pretenders such as Carson and Carly. The only real conservatives in the field are likely Cruz and Jindal. If you want the status quo, vote for any of these Establishment guys who will tell you they are for building a wall but never do. If you want a fighter and hope to hell he throws his punches as the people who deserve it, vote for Trump.

    And Jonah is becoming about as dishonest as you can find in the “conservative” media.

    Trump’s glass-bottom id lets the whole world see his megalomania. He talks about himself in the third person all the time.

    Anyone with an ounce of objectivity would note that it’s long now been an obnoxious practice for political candidates to say “Bob Dole doesn’t believe in such-and-such.” Good gracious. This is little more than a hit piece. Driven by what? I don’t know. But it’s not objective writing.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      You’d appreciate my own response to him — I could understand his complaints against Trump, but not his absence of similar complaints about Bush and Kasich.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        But you’ll never get an answer from him. The ivory tower is never more explicit than the fact that these guys tend to say really stupid things, get their asses handed to them in the comments section, and pretend they never saw it. Maybe they didn’t. That adds to the problem. There is no dialogue. No discussion. Just top-down pontificating. For what purpose? Selling books and Fox News appearances, I guess.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Courtier-An attendant at the court of a sovereign, one who seeks favour, especially by flattery or obsequious behaviour.

          People like Goldberg and Williamson are just low-level courtiers. Their bosses are higher level courtiers. Our politicians are at the apex of this system.

          Notice how closely related the word is to courtesan-A prostitute or kept woman, especially one associated with men of great wealth.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Kevin Williamson sometimes responds to the bloggers. I don’t recall seeing Goldberg or Cooke do so.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I’ve always been impressed by Kevin’s willingness to do so. I think he needs to get out of there before the stench begins to stick to his clothes. He’s better than that. I know he is.

  16. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This is little more than a hit piece. Driven by what? I don’t know. But it’s not objective writing.

    Trump disturbs the sensibilities of those such as Goldberg. He does not act like he is one of Plato’s benevolent autocrats, letting everyone know how benighted they are and how superior he is. He also does not come over as an undertaker or an undertaker’s client, which is quite common for Republican candidates.

    Trump is common, vulgar, energetic and loud. In case anyone didn’t notice, these are commonly thought to be very American traits and part of what makes the country great. The public notices this and understands the simpering faux humility of types like Jeb is not only a lie, it is stupid.

    In Trump, the public perceive someone who, though a billionaire, is not so different from themselves and who they would like to have a beer with. More importantly, they have a feeling that he wouldn’t mind having a beer with them!

    I am convinced many of the liars in the establishment, of both parties, know very well that Trump is connecting with people and they know why. That is why they are in a panic and doing their best to pull a Sarah Palin on him. But Trump is no Palin and knows how to play the game like few others. He has the name recognition and money to hammer the pygmy scribblers, such as Goldberg and Williamson, who have never done anything other than churn out words. Most people don’t even read these words. And those who do understand the difference between writing and action. They also understand that scribblers can be bought and ordered what to write.

    I think Trump is playing the game very intelligently. He should keep hammering away on a few subjects, concentrating on illegal immigration. He should not let the press sidetrack him on other subjects. He should release more detailed policy papers, like his immigration piece, but only one every few months. I am sure he understands this as he knows show-biz. You have to keep the public waiting and begging for more.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      He does not act like he is one of Plato’s benevolent autocrats, letting everyone know how benighted they are and how superior he is.

      By George I think you’ve got it. A truly honest and self-aware man would have stated it like that, let alone an eloquent one.

      I don’t suppose I share a lot of political or social views with Trump. But my calculus is that I know this is true regarding Jeb Bush and the Establishment Republicans who will swear up and down that they are conservative. And to be lectured by Jonah that Trump isn’t a real conservative is not only cynically manipulative but it’s not particularly relevant.

      Rush was talking the other day about this. He says that conservatives aren’t supporting him because they think Trump is a conservative. Period. He says it isn’t conservatism on trial here in regards to Trump. We’re converging on other issues, including the fact that the GOP has proven itself to be completely unreliable at governing conservatively no matter what they say.

      Trump is common, vulgar, energetic and loud. In case anyone didn’t notice, these are commonly thought to be very American traits and part of what makes the country great. The public notices this and understands the simpering faux humility of types like Jeb is not only a lie, it is stupid.

      Jesus. They should dump Goldberg and hire you in his place. I’d rather have truth than this false narrative from the right (making the generous assumption that Goldberg is still on the right…I’d say he’s just another elitist).

      More importantly, they have a feeling that he wouldn’t mind having a beer with them!

      I think you’re right. As much as Obama screams that the latest hoodlum or Leftist radical is “Just what America looks like,” most don’t believe this lie. America looks more like Donald Trump than Jeb Bush or Trayvon Martin.

      He has the name recognition and money to hammer the pygmy scribblers, such as Goldberg and Williamson, who have never done anything other than churn out words.

      Hahaha. Great line again. You’re hired.

      He should keep hammering away on a few subjects, concentrating on illegal immigration. He should not let the press sidetrack him on other subjects. He should release more detailed policy papers, like his immigration piece, but only one every few months. I am sure he understands this as he knows show-biz. You have to keep the public waiting and begging for more.

      That’s a great idea. Turn these policy statements into press events…show-biz. I think you’re right on. But we’ll see. As Rush noted the other day, what other politician could have made a spectacular and effective press event out of merely pledging not to run as a third party candidate?

      I think there’s a considerable amount of jealousy here. When you see a guy take the bull by the horns and make headway doing so, it leaves many of the others feeling foolish and exposed as lightweights for many of their views which are hedged, filtered, wavy, blurred, or often otherwise milquetoast. Any of these guys had their chance to take these issues by the horns and run with it. Instead, they sit in their ivory towers and pontificate…and heaven help those who actually do something instead of talk, talk, endless talk.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, I am disappointed that his response to Rowan County was that he sympathized with Kim Davis (at last, a Democrat I could support) but the law has to be obeyed. I prefer Ted Cruz’s stance — if we’re going to talk about obedience to law by public officials, we could start with the Obama Gang and the sanctuary city mayors.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I prefer Cruz’s stance as well, but this is exactly what I meant by not letting the press sidetrack him.

          Let Cruz and others push back on this and if after some time, Trump can formulate a simple reply let him come back to it. Do not let the message wander too much.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          There’s as aspect of this of fiddling while Rome is burning. I’d hate for Trump to get stuck on the homosexual fake-marriage issue. I don’t know what he believes. But I’m willing to trade emphasis on this issue for dealing forcefully and effectively with the invasion of illegal immigrants. I can deal with a few ass-pounders in and around me who are smarmy enough to believe they are actually “married.” What I don’t want to deal with is turning my neighborhood into a third-world country.

          Yes, rolling back the rule-by-courts is necessary. And I think Trump should address this instead of just going for the “settled question” aspect. Clearly he’s choosing his battles. But because he agrees with Jonah Goldberg on the question of sodomy-as-marriage, where’s the problem? I mean, seriously. How can he dump on Trump when he aligns with someone on this question and still call himself a conservative and Trump is somehow not?

  17. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Jonah Goldberg, the fool (or simply the man who is bought a paid for) is ripped a new one by a couple articles. The first was mentioned by Rush this morning. The second was brought to my attention by Mr. Kung (although Rush did mention this one today as well).

    An Open Letter to Jonah Goldberg

    and

    National Review’s Jonah Goldberg: ‘Count me Out’ of any Conservative Movement with Donald Trump

    There is a lot of material out there that is ripe for giving criticism to Trump. But Jonah’s criticism seems cynically and dishonestly selective. Whatever ultimately happens with Trump, I hope people are keeping an eye on the conservative media. Many of them (Red State and Fox News, for example) are being outed as little more than bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces for entities that are actively hostile to conservatism.

    And all of this is quite independent of what Trump does or doesn’t do, believes or doesn’t believe. The GOP Establishment has not been conservative. They’ve been openly hostile to the agenda of conservatives. And for anyone to make Donald Trump the poster boy for what is wrong with conservatism or the Republican Party is being either foolish or dishonest, and I think both are possible.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The Open Letter to Jonah Goldberg is excellent.

      Jonah is a whorish lackey of the Crony Capitalist Establishment RINO Wall Street wing of the GOP.

      I believe he has long been less than a true conservative, but the moment he started commenting on Fox News his writing changed considerably.

      It is now best to ignore him, but if this is not possible, ridicule is a good second option.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I have no problem with an honest disagreement. But it’s clear that Goldberg isn’t being honest. And he’s too smart to simply be momentarily blinkered.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Look who Jonah works for. What’s the old saying? “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.”

          As you mentioned earlier, these so-called conservative media companies are being un-masked for the corporatist statists that they are.

          As the open letter mentions, the Chamber of Commerce is for Obamacare. Why would that be?

          It is because their goal is to “socialize” health costs. They don’t want to have these on their profit/loss accounts. Once these are gone, they will have much larger profits and costs will be transferred to the “people”.

          Americans have been in something of a stupor and need to wake up. Trump is waking them up and this is very worrying to the elites. They know that Trump is a bull-horn saying the things which many Americans say in private. As long as this was said in private or by some obscure pundit, the elites were not too worried. But the fact a very well known personality who does not back down, is saying it is dangerous. Once people know that others, in fact millions, agree with them, a movement with a leader could result.

          One of the weaknesses of the Tea Party is there was no leader. It is unfortunately the case that in our system, any movement must have a leader to organize and focus the energies of a political group. As the Tea Party had no such focus, the RINO’s mouthed a few platitudes and then went after a number of “Tea Party” candidates who were perceived as a danger to the establishment.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            What would most people prefer? “Let’s make America a winner again” or “Let’s cave to Obama again”? The GOP stands for the latter. Trump stands for the former, although the devil is alway in the details. But if he’s president, one could actually foresee him treating the GOP like the opposition party (which it would mostly be) and him reaching out to Democrats (“reaching out” meaning cajoling and making necessary deals).

            One of the weaknesses of the Tea Party is there was no leader.

            That sort of went with the territory because the Tea Party was a complete and embarrassing exposure of the Republican Party as anything but an opposition party to the Democrats. There was nowhere for people to go. There was no leader (or at least no party) forwarding their views.

            There’s probably no reforming the Republican Party. It needs to be scrapped and replaced by something else. Whether there is support for a party that in is opposition to the Left is a good question. I think “no” at this point.

            And the failure of the GOP (and its inherent character of being anti-conservative) is a different issue from the strengths and weaknesses of Trump. Jonah shows his dishonesty by framing the question as Trump as the leader of a new conservative movement. The honest answer (assuming Trump wouldn’t be a good president, and I don’t make that assumption at this point) would be to note that Trump — exactly like the Tea Party — exists because of the GOP’s duplicity, failure, dishonesty, and outright hostility to conservatism.

            Some day perhaps this site will be financed by some big business interest and I’ll change my tune. But if I do, I’ll say so. I’ll say “Now that Corporation X is paying my bills, I will necessarily not bite the hand that feeds me. So just know that I’m now at least half full of shit and will not actually be telling you what’s on my mind. But money talks. Have a nice day.”

            No one is that honest these day. So we’re left trying to divine why an otherwise intelligent man writes such complete and utter non-sense that is self-evidently so. I mean, he doesn’t even make the effort at a smart subterfuge. I don’t get it.

            • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

              I believe that Goldberg has been subtly corrupted ideologically as much as materially. As I put it before, he watches too much television, by which I mean he has absorbed too much of the prevailing culture through TV and other media – and we know what kind of culture that is.

              Of course there must have been some weaknesses in his character that made him susceptible to being corrupted, and his intellect was never close to being first-rate. I doubt, for example, that he understands the significance of the gaystapo attempting to jail all those who refuse to say “Gay marriage is good” just as he failed to understand why the Left fought so hard for SSM in the first place.

              He was a decent writer, but he seems to be going downhill even there, affecting a sort of Jay Nordlinger casualness (what a model to choose!), so his style now suggests a phony bonhomie I don’t think most NRO readers are buying.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Nik, I remember a while back Goldberg writing about how supposedly conservative the cable series, “Breaking Bad,” is. Well, yours truly will gladly tell you of the guilty pleasures he engages in in regards to movies and TV. There are things I like that I wouldn’t even begin to try to defend as conservative. Why should I? Sometimes you like something just because there’s a lot of blood and gore, or sex, or action, or just stupidity. Yeah, we all have our guilty pleasures. But to defend “Breaking Bad” as conservative? You have to be daft.

                Perhaps the main occupational hazard of being an “intellectual” is getting lost in one’s own thoughts. Clever minds can rationalize anything. Clever minds are very good at casting reality into terms of Narrative A, Narrative B, or Narrative C — whichever narrative one prefers or finds useful (financially or otherwise).

                Anyone who couldn’t see the downside of the ascendancy of the Pink Mafia has a screw loose. One may be for or against “gay marriage.” But “gay marriage” is merely one element of an overall push for “celebrating” gender weirdness even as normalcy is targeted for destruction. Anyone who claims to be a conservative and doesn’t know how “gay marriage” fits into the overall thrust of the Left is little more than a useful idiot. And that’s what Jonah has become.

                One interesting thing about Jindal — who also threw himself on the Trump pyre — is his criticism of Trump as a “narcissist.” And that might even be a somewhat valid criticism. But what of the narcissism of Jeb Bush who believes it is “compassionate” to allow illegal aliens to flood over the border? If that isn’t political narcissism, I don’t know what is.

                So, perhaps unlike many on the internet, I don’t mind criticism of Trump. But, for god’s sake, let’s keep some perspective here. And Jindal did not do so and therefore flamed out, as far as I’m concerned, as a serious person. Had he aimed some of that rhetorical mojo at Hillary or Jeb Bush, I’d have some respect for him. But using The Donald as a punching bag, as the disgraceful governor of Texas did, did not show him in a good light. Trump isn’t our problem. The “ruling class” mentality of both parties is the problem.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A pair of interesting articles. It’s noteworthy that Shapiro actually agrees with Goldberg about Trump (as do I, to some extent) — but also points out that Goldberg seems remarkably unable to see the flaws in Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and other non-conservative Republicans. One thing I don’t think either article noted is that, unlike Bush and Kasich, Trump doesn’t run against grassroots GOP voters. And the first article provided a necessary reminder of why Goldberg’s concerns are so utterly insincere.

  18. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Rush just read part of a speech that Bobby Jindal gave that rips Trump a new one. The Blaze has an article about it, but I don’t know if that video has the entire speech.

    Rick Perry crashed and burned trying the same thing: Using criticism of Trump to try to jump-start a flagging campaign. This has definite soap opera potential to it. It was pure character assassination by Jindal who didn’t (at least in the parts that Rush read) address a single issue.

    Perhaps Trump has a character that deserves rhetorical assassination. But I’m not sure the trope of “He’s not really one of us” is going to work since Trump’s appeal is, in part, the realization that the GOP Establishment is surely not one of us.

    My initial impression? Trump has rope-a-doped another insider.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A short piece on Town Hall or Hot Air on Jindal’s speech made the same point, that unlike Perry he identified no issues on which Trump isn’t conservative. In fact, as Rush noted, Jindal agreed with Trump’s arguments while arguing that Trump isn’t the person who can actually deal with them.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        In fact, as Rush noted, Jindal agreed with Trump’s arguments while arguing that Trump isn’t the person who can actually deal with them.

        So it was, in fact, a hope to get a “bounce” from doing a little Punch-and-Judy routine on Trump. I guess I just lost a little respect for Jindal. Has anyone ever heard him give a speech like that ripping Boehner or McConnell a new one? Or McCain? Hillary? Trump isn’t our problem. Jindal should know that. Shame on him.

        Beware of all those who find the gusto to rip into those they deem “are really not conservatives” while giving a relative pass to the Establishment Men and the Leftist horde. I know Jindal has given Obama some criticism in the past, but nothing like this. And has Trump actually done anything to merit this verbal smear?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Jindal has been critical of the GOP leadership, and in fact part of his agreement with Trump was on that subject. I don’t recall his ever making the sort of personal attacks on Boehner or McConnell that he did against Trump.

          • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

            Jindal needs to watch his step. The main reason Perry is now gone is that he attacked Trump in a way that showed his utter lack of respect for the base. He was, in effect, doubling down on his mistake in saying that those who didn’t want illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates lacked compassion.

            Attacking Trump directly is likely to be futile. The other candidates should do all they can to get closer to the GOP’s base, because those are the votes they need. As was noted further up in this discussion, by no means is Trump’s support coming entirely or even mostly from the Tea Party/Conservative part of the party. Even less-Conservative Republican voters are fed up with the Establishment’s betrayals.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I read an item today by David McIntosh (it was one of those linked to at Hot Air) that pointed out that the best way for te GOP to stop the Trump boom (which he didn’t like, given that Trump is no conservative) is to finally DO something to fulfill their promises to the voters. The uninterest of the GOP leadership in challenging Barry Screwtape Obama after promising to do so has led to the current party debacle.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Right on, Nik.

              Michael Bargo has some interesting comments in Why Voters Like Trump’s Rudeness:

              Not only do they tolerate Trump’s rudeness; they crave it.  They intuitively see that anyone who has a smarmy, go-along-to-get-along attitude is not going to get things done.

              The more that Carli, Ben Carson, and Trump speak, the more we can tell they’re not even remotely conservative. Ed Straker blasts Trump for his comments about high executive salaries which Trump called “a complete joke.”

              Why not a defense of the free market? Why not a quip about “Well, do you really want government telling people what they can earn?” Instead, as we see by what is dribbling out of the mouths of Trump and Carli and Ben as well that these guys are about as conservative as a latte. They are products of their culture, not of any stout political philosophy. They are all Angela Merkels in the making (who can’t think her way out of a wet paper bag but she sure can emote, and she can surely find a way to blame Christians for anything and everything…a built-in reaction when criticism of Islam comes up).

              But the calculus we make with Trump is a little different from the excuses supporters might make for Carli or Carson. We acknowledge that Trump not only isn’t particularly conservative on a number of issues, but we have no idea what he thinks on many of the issues of the day. But we see him doing two things we like: Bashing Establishment Republicans and bashing Hillary.

              We understand that, other than Ted Cruz, there is no conservative in the race. But we do have a fighter and not the kind of intellectual prevaricator of a Jonah Goldberg who will tell us every which way from Sunday why everyone else isn’t a conservative even while he has fallen for about as un-conservative a dogma as you can imagine: homosexual marriage.

              Part of the enjoyment of Trump is that he is indeed a bit rude and doesn’t play the smarmy game of “nice.” But when do we see the Establishment Republicans become un-nice and start raving (nothing less than) as Bobby Jindal recently did? When the Establishment is threatened, either by an outsider or a conservative. So, for now, the sound of stuck pigs squealing is music to many people’s ears. Whether Trump shows himself to be just another politically correct clown on the issues of Islam, global warming, and even capitalism is left to be seen. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Ed Straker blasts Trump for his comments about high executive salaries which Trump called “a complete joke.”

                I read Straker’s piece on Trump and think it is largely a load of rubbish and disingenuous at that.

                He says:
                CEO’s get paid a lot more than entry-level workers because they have much more valuable skills. Someone who went to business school and has 30 years experience in senior executive positions is a lot more valuable than an unskilled entry level position. Furthermore, a CEO can produce tremendously more value than an entry level position and probably can produce 350 times more value than an entry-level worker. (or even more!) Doesn’t that merit significantly higher pay? Does anyone really not believe that Steve Jobs didn’t produce 350 times more value than a van driver for Apple?

                First, Trump didn’t say CEO’s didn’t have more valuable skills than unskilled entry level workers. He said CEO pay is a joke. Straker is using a leftist device, i.e. put words in his opponent’s mouth and argue against them.

                Secondly, if one has followed what Trump has said about this subject, I would like that person to disprove what he has said. He maintains that CEO’s of large corporations tend to put their buddies and yes men on their companies’ boards. Nothing untrue about that. He also says that hedge fund managers are ripping off the system. If anyone has an idea about carried interest tax they know what Trump is talking about.

                Thirdly, does anyone doubt that the financiers in New York, the Hedge Fund operators and the Chamber of Commerce types don’t write the laws under which they operate? Does anyone believe these laws are written with the interest of “the nation” in mind? So “free markets” don’t really come into the equation. If the government were not to step in and bail out these companies when things go wrong, maybe I could agree that “free markets” were at work. If the government didn’t make entry into such industries so difficult (see Dodd-Frank), then maybe I could agree with the idea of “free markets”. We don’t have free markets in this country. We have restricted markets and business areas which are highly regulated by the government, which as regards financial law, is in the pockets of the financiers. This is nothing new.

                And as to Jobs’ salary, I believe he took $1 per annum, not 350 x the average of one of his employees.

                Straker goes off on a tangent condemning Trump for not attacking government employee salaries. And he closes with,

                Not knowing very much of Trump’s political ideology, I grow uncomfortable when he bashes the capitalist system while remaining silent about the excesses of government, which has a much stronger coercive power than the biggest business in the private sector ever will.

                I find the way Straker does this to be somewhat oily. He changes the subject and condemns Trump for not talking about it. He claims Trump bashes the “capitalist system” but not the government. Again, Straker argues like a Leftist. I have already remarked how free our “free market” system is, so I don’t need to say anything more about that red herring. But as to attacking Trump because he did not comment about Straker’s pet peive; how about finding out what Trump thinks about the subject before condemning him for not yet talking about it?

                None of this is to say that Trump is a conservative. But Straker sounds like another Chamber of Commerce Republican who is desperate to get rid of Trump while drawing attention to himself.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                A friend in the finance industry once noted that the Boards of Directors of large companies tend to consist of executives of other large companies. So they’re all quite generous with executive pay for “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” reasons. This is one reason why I favor stockholder votes on executive pay.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Your friend is absolutely correct. The insiders get the jobs and the scratch each others’ backs. There is nothing new about this.

                Trump comes from this milieu and knows exactly how things operate. If he wishes to correct things, then this experience should work to his and the country’s advantage.

                FDR appointed Joseph Kennedy to the SEC because of Kennedy’s insider knowledge of the equities markets.

  19. Timothy Lane says:

    Sunny Lohmann (houseofsunny.tv) is back from a year-long hiatus (pregnancy and birth will do that, I guess), and her most recent video parodies Trump’s bombast (she likes a lot about him but does seem him as basically a fascist). She also has an earlier video parodying the “white privilege” movement, especially an MTV video on the subject. The link is:

    http://houseofsunny.tv/

  20. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I read Straker’s piece on Trump and think it is largely a load of rubbish and disingenuous at that.

    I think, Mr. Kung, the entire emphasis on CEO salaries is driven by the envy and anti-capitalist mentality that is predominant today. It’s one of the favorite slogans of the Left. All that you’ve written is not going to make it into the mindshare of the culture. When Trump says “CEO salaries are a joke” that is rightly translated by most as “CEOs make too much money.”

    If one lives by the soundbyte one can die by it as well. You filling in what you think are the blanks is a different thing from the message that Trump sent out. Trump, not Straker, is using the Leftist device.

    He maintains that CEO’s of large corporations tend to put their buddies and yes men on their companies’ boards. Nothing untrue about that.

    That’s a separate issue. And one wouldn’t expect a CEO to put people who are hostile to him. How is this not demagoguery to suppose otherwise? Some people are put on boards as sort of beauty queens. Steve Jobs had Al Gore on the Apple board of directors. And it’s not even marginally possible that Al Gore could have had much to offer in terms of technological or marketing expertise. Likely he provided Apple with some inoculation against the anti-capitalist sentiment that is so widespread — and for being totally compliant to the Will of Jobs. As for Jobs’ salary, I think it was a “for show” $1.00. But his actual income was in the tens of millions…through gifts of stock, jets, etc.

    He also says that hedge fund managers are ripping off the system. If anyone has an idea about carried interest tax they know what Trump is talking about.

    That may be true. I don’t know. But apparently Trump has his own issues with using eminent domain in acquiring properties that he could redevelop.

    All of these may be vital issues. But CEO salaries being “a joke” seems, at best, a populist plea from Trump. And the take-away from the soundbyte is hardly a conservative one.

    This Straker guy has been pretty hard on all the candidates from what I remember. He’s the “Newsmachette” guy who now writes under his own name. And “Newsmachette” has been catching a number of these candidates on a number of things over the last months. I don’t think he’s a mere front for the Chamber of Commerce. I think he makes a point. And I think criticism of Trump can come simply because Trump has said some stupid things here and there.

    I’m not sure why you would suppose that Straker is merely trying to draw attention to himself. Nor am I to the point where the Chamber of Commerce is turned into convenient hobgoblin to pull out to explain what is “really” going on. It should trouble you that this has become an instinct.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I’m not sure why you would suppose that Straker is merely trying to draw attention to himself. Nor am I to the point where the Chamber of Commerce is turned into convenient hobgoblin to pull out to explain what is “really” going on. It should trouble you that this has become an instinct.

      I am not at all troubled about my instincts. They are finely tuned and developed on basis of observation and reason. I do not fall for the cant about free markets as we don’t have them and have not had anything like them for about a century. I find many of the people who cry out about free markets are similar to the libertarians who cry out about liberty. They both live in a Never-Never-Land and concentrate on peripheral problems without getting to the bottom of the problem. The libertarians will give up any amount of liberty in other areas as long as the can get sex, drugs and rock-in-roll, while the puritan “capitalists” will do the same as long as they have low taxes, cheap wages and don’t bother me with the social issues candidates.

      I have followed what the Chamber of Commerce is pushing as regards immigration. I have followed what they have pushed as regards many other issues in my community and much of it flies in the face of what the people voted for.

      I have had some experience with the phony purveyors of “free markets” such as those in the power industry in the State of Texas. My own state rep. admitted that a major law effecting this industry was written by advisors from the power industry themselves.

      I have had some experience with large company boards, and there is a difference between appointing competent people who are supposed to give honest advice to the CEO and appointing one’s friends.

      No, my instincts don’t trouble me at all, nor do they fail me.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I find many of the people who cry out about free markets are similar to the libertarians who cry out about liberty.

        One of the realities seems to be that the market is over-regulated. It is arguable (Thomas Sowell did argue so in “The Housing Boom and Bust”) that it wasn’t “greedy Wall Street traders and bankers” that created the housing bubble. It was socialist policies which had as an aim home ownership for all. That’s a worthy goal, but rigging the markets (forcing banks to make high-risk loans) is not the way to do that.

        I don’t know if Mr. Starker is a libertarian or a member of the Chamber of Commerce. I really don’t care. One man’s opinion doesn’t change the reality that Trump is using a lot of anti-capitalist and populist demagoguery. That’s troubling.

        Yes, indeed, some people are for “free markets” as an excuse to rig things for themselves. So what? You’re simply pointing out the obvious, that many people in business (or politics, or wherever) will say one thing and do another. But the principle would remain that, all things being equal, people (and business) being allowed to make their own choices is far better than government mandating those choices.

        The real problems we face are not CEO salaries. And although I’ll concede there seems to be no upside for a politician to face reality, the reality is that our budget deficit, our debt, and our unfunded entitlement liabilities are going to one day crush us. And my somewhat reliable instinct is that when any kind of a crash or downturn comes, we will suffer from the seeds of populist “eat the rich” demagoguery that has been espoused by both parties for some time now.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          And although I’ll concede there seems to be no upside for a politician to face reality, the reality is that our budget deficit, our debt, and our unfunded entitlement liabilities are going to one day crush us. And my somewhat reliable instinct is that when any kind of a crash or downturn comes, we will suffer from the seeds of populist “eat the rich” demagoguery that has been espoused by both parties for some time now.

          I do not disagree. But we are drowning, as a country. And a drowning man will grasp at straws. The straw being Donald Trump. Nothing is clearer than the fact that if a “conservative” such as Jeb or Kaisich or Christie or any of a number of others is elected, we will simply continue to be sucked into the vortex which is presently pulling on us.

          I believe the country tipped over the edge with the re-election of Zero. And business as usual will not save us. There is no perfect candidate. There is no perfect platform.

          At the moment, there is only the Wall Street-K Street Axis, which virtually all national and most State politicians belong to vs. the rest of us. If that is an “eat the rich” populism then I’m on board. It has nothing to do with envy, it has to do with saving the culture from tyrannical materialists whether they be of the Left of Right disposition. There is no guarantee this can be done, but I know damn well that it will not be done with Jeb and his gang.

  21. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This is one reason why I favor stockholder votes on executive pay.

    Absolutely, Timothy. But perhaps one reason this isn’t always a big issue is that the CEOs are making a lot of money for a lot of people.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I have no objection to high CEO pay — as long as they’re really doing a good job for the company and its owners.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Let the market decide CEO salaries, whether I like it or not, whether they’re doing a good job or not. I just don’t see any other alternative except some form of government takeover of business.

        Yes, I undoubtedly would have little problem with a highly paid CEO if he was making a lot of money for me. And if he wasn’t, I have the freedom (or should have) to put my money elsewhere. Is it naive to think that’s how it should work? Is it economic purism? I don’t think so. I just have a hard time working up a good “Eat the rich” mentality where I envy what some CEO is making. I have a liberal friend who obsesses on that. And I wonder why. It’s almost as if he’s thinking, “How dare someone make more than I do when they’re no smarter than I am.”

        There may even be some truth to that. I don’t suppose that many of these CEOs are brilliant. I’m guessing the Carli was an affirmative action “break the glass ceiling” type of success whereby HP could insulate itself from the anti-capitalist crowd who see inequality and a “war on women” everywhere. But Steve Jobs, on the other hand, was likely under-paid if you look at the actual value he added to that corporation.

        Maybe its time for more and more shareholders to revolt and assert their power. I don’t know. I don’t know that ins and outs of all that. But I do know that government involvement into either setting CEO salaries or choosing board members would make things worse.

  22. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Trump comes from this milieu and knows exactly how things operate. If he wishes to correct things, then this experience should work to his and the country’s advantage.

    Mr. Kung, so we need someone in the SEC setting CEO salaries? Do we want even more regulation of the economy by bureaucrats?

    Here’s the Washington Post story linked from that article:

    “I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax, and I think it’s outrageous,” Trump told Bloomberg News’s “With All Due Respect” in August.

    Trump also said he wouldn’t mind paying more taxes himself.

    His economic platform has earned him praise from progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D).

    Other Republican candidates also have begun to speak out against income inequality.

    If one is on the same side with de Blasio and Warren, that’s worrisome. It’s worrisome that this kind of populist, anti-capitalist demagoguery is being spouted by Trump. As Bill Whittle noted, Eating the Rich is not the answer to what ails us. Is Trump the guy who could ever actually cut government if his demagoguery is basically the same as a socialist regarding economics, when no cut can ever be made to government that effects the average citizen because someone, somewhere, is making a lot of money?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Mr. Kung, so we need someone in the SEC setting CEO salaries? Do we want even more regulation of the economy by bureaucrats?

      I have not said that. I merely mentioned that Trump understands want is actually happening in boardrooms. And I have not said we need someone in the SEC setting the salaries of CEO’s. I have never heard Trump say anything like that either. What I have heard him hint at is that, specifically, hedge fund managers are not paying the same % of taxes as others. And he is correct.

      Now you can argue about higher or lower taxes on specific groups, but I am not a tax fetishist like many who cry “free markets”. I would gladly concede something on taxes to get the fucking borders closes!!!

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Okay, so bemoaning CEO salaries is just a pastime? 😀 If you’re not for Somebody do something then what? Do you suppose Trump is of the same mind? He wouldn’t actually try to regulate CEO salaries but it just doing a little ranting that he thinks will be politically useful?

        I think it matters to be careful about anything we say that sounds like envy or “eat the rich.” As Timothy noted, I’d be all for shareholders having far more say in CEO salaries (and I’m not sure why they already don’t).

        Board of Directors tend to be made up of pals, prestigious notables, compliant notables, and perhaps powerful investors or movers and shakers. But I’m not sure what one can do about that. To complain that CEO’s tend to surround themselves by a friendly or useful board would suggest the only alternative is to let some governmental entity do the choosing. And I’ll just flatly state that for all the problems of overly-compliant board members, that would be far far worse.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I am not advocating further control of boards. However, I see no problem with pointing out such things.

          That being said, I do believe there is a danger in the growing gap between the inhabitants of such boards and the general population.

          Something I have seen developing since I was young has gained momentum. That is the huge power which is accruing to a small number of people who use it to shape national policy. Now you can worry all you want about government having the power to do things, but how about government which is, to a large degree, in the pockets of persons and industries which advise government what to do?

          This type of thing has always been around, but the USA once was in a position that neither the government nor billionaires had such power or interest so as to intentionally change the demographics of the nation. Now they do and are actively pushing it. If fighting that means “eat the rich”, please make mine medium rare.

          Immigration is absolutely the most important single issue facing this nation at the moment. Churchill was willing to ally with Stalin and the Communists, in order to fight Hitler. I would work with most anyone to help stop the flood of illegal immigrants into our country, have those here leave and close the border.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            In a biography of Clarence Darrow, leftist John Peter Altgeld (sometime governor of Illinois), is quoted commenting on the Pullman strike (in which the federal government under Grover Cleveland actively collaborated with the railroads to suppress the strikers) that though he wasn’t a socialist, he did think it would be better if the government owned the railroads than if the railroads owned the government. Of course, he failed to realize that you get the same undesirable results either way (cf. Gabriel Kolko’s Railroads and Regulation).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Robber baron capitalists are in the same league as robber baron government officials. And I suppose that each covets the power of the other. Each needs to be compelled to a certain overall societal rules of moderation in its own way.

              Having said that, such a general guiding principal requires men of goodwill or else you just add layers of corruption upon layers of corruption. And I do believe we are short of those at the moment.

  23. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s an interesting take by Jeffrey Lord: Ronald and the Donald.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A very good article. I like his Krauthammer quote. People should never forget that Kraut supported Jimmy Carter. He is simply another left of center elitist who has great disdain for the great unwashed.

      It is clear to me that the Republican Party is, at its core, nothing more than a party which represents special moneyed interests. It has no philosophy other than serving these interests. I realize some in the party have conservative beliefs, but the establishment running the party doesn’t.

      The Republican Party is run by greedy pigs whose main interest is feathering their own nests by hook or by crook. This greed automatically leads to cutting corners and dishonesty. It also leads to the desire for power in order to maintain hold of one’s particular golden goose.

      I am not saying the Dems are better. I am saying we need to wake up and figure out was is happening and why we are being screwed.

      Our founding fathers understood this inherent greed in human nature. They knew government would be infiltrated by and abused by such special interests. This is a major reason they wished to keep government becoming a Leviathan.

      Taking the government away from the special interests is the long term problem facing this country. Closing the borders and getting immigration under control is absolutely necessary if this task is to be started.

Leave a Reply

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