Blinking Cruz

TedCruz2by Brad Nelson3/13/16
Clarice Feldman gives a rather scathing reproach to Cruz, probably deserved, regarding his weak wobble words of non-defense of freedom regarding the mob’s shutting down of a Trump rally in Chicago. Cruz instead found a way to take a narrow and cheap shot at Trump:

This makes Ted Cruz ‘s spineless rejoinder to the violent demonstrations in Chicago so galling to me.
Some years ago I wrote here of my contempt for conservatives who flee the forum for fear of getting their spotlessly white togas spattered with mud and blood when their colleagues are being savaged by liars and thugs. This week my White Toga award goes to Ted Cruz. As thousands of rent a mobs from Soros funded Move On, the White House approved Black Lives Matters fabulist race baiters, and Bernie Sanders fans mobbed and threatened the thousands of people who’d waited in lines for hours to attend a rally in Chicago for Donald Trump. . .

Did Ted Cruz criticize this effort to deny thousands of people their right to free speech and assembly or the violent nature of the demonstration? No, he feebly offered up this on Fox News’s The Kelly File: “A campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence.”

This is a big problem because one of the central issues with the eGOP is always running from a fight by speaking evasive wobble-words. Anyone intent on real reform must be able to face down these rent-a-mobs and speak plainly.

It’s yet to be seen what Trump will do. But Cruz blinking regarding this issue does not bode well for him. It’s not a way to catch up when you are already behind. Nor does it shine credit on him for throwing the First Amendment under the bus in an attempt to take a political whack at Trump.

Let’s remember that Reagan did not blink as governor of California when it came to facing down the mobs. In 1969, he sent the National Guard to face down the mobs of UC Berkeley.

Cruz blinked, and blinked regarding an enormously important issue, for all the rhetoric in the world is useless unless you are willing to take away one of the Left’s primary means of enacting and holding power: the mob.

But let’s keep some sense of perspective. Trump has capitulated on socialized medicine, Planned Parenthood, and other primary things. He’s even waffled on his stance on illegal immigration.

And it’s not at all clear that conservatives and Tea Party members won’t be “the mob” that needs to be controlled by a Trump administration. Trump is a mercurial man, seemingly grounded in little more than his ego, and who uses bluster to counter his weaknesses. We may cheer if Trump doesn’t capitulate to the mob. But we should remember that men ungrounded in good morals, and who are instead grounded in the mob of populist-opinion, find it easy to turn on a dime and, like Kasich, to jettison Oregon cake-bakers in favor of the Pink Mafia.

However this all plays out, Cruz made a tactical error and one that runs counter to his strength as the man of manners, thoughtful ideas, and sound American principles. If you throw that away, what’s left?

Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (1651 views)

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 Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Blinking Cruz

  1. GHG says:

    Clarice – not Clarence.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Feldman seems to be quite the Trump supporter, absolving him of any blame for his violent rhetoric and the occasional violence that has resulted. Of course, she may well be right that those peaceful protestors weren’t so peaceful. I’d like to see the evidence if they aren’t. Certainly the man who stormed the stage in Dayton wasn’t — but he was stopped by the police, not a Trump supporter.

    But whether the earlier protestors were peaceful or not, the Obamathugs currently attacking his events are definitely violent liberal fascists seeking to suppress dissent as they routinely do on college campuses. And it was definitely remiss of Cruz to fail to emphasize that. They acted not because of Trump’s rhetoric or his supporters’ occasional acts, but because they seek to suppress dissent as a normal tactic of dirty politics.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    For what it’s worth, here’s National Review‘s endorsement of Ted Cruz. I think they make a lot of good points.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Cruz is walking a very narrow line. If he continues to say that Trump is creating the environment for “violence”, he will lose a lot of support.

    If he is smart, he would now follow up his earlier statements by saying that regardless of what Trump or any other Republican has said, the and BLM crowd are professional malcontents who have been planning to disrupt the rallies during the runup to the election.

    If Cruz still wants to gig Donald, he could say that the problem with Donald is that some of his more silly statements “like punching people in the nose”, simply give the Leftist thugs some slight amount of cover for their actions. “We need to be smart and not stupid. Don’t give anyone the slightest excuse to get violent.”

  5. GHG says:

    And it’s not at all clear that conservatives and Tea Party members won’t be “the mob” that needs to be controlled by a Trump administration.

    A few years back I attended a couple Tea Party rallies in my little town out here in midwestern farm country and I couldn’t be more proud to be associated with a group of people than the people I met there. They weren’t vigilantes and I doubt any of them would condone let alone participate in mob violence. I don’t know if our local chapter is typical and I don’t doubt there are people on “our side” that could get caught up in the passion of a mob, but I really don’t think there is reason for concern in that area. Maybe I’m naive though?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I suspect that your experience is typical. Note that when the Demagogues tried to arrange a racial incident a few years ago, they failed utterly — so they simply lied and invented one, knowing that the synoptic media would willingly repeat their lie without demanding any evidence, and the liberal sheep would eagerly believe it.

      But that (and the claim of some Trump supporters that the occasional violence at his rallies was started by the protestors, which is certainly very plausible) reminds us that just because someone doesn’t provide a legitimate excuse for suppression, that doesn’t mean such an excuse won’t be invented and acted on.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      They weren’t vigilantes and I doubt any of them would condone let alone participate in mob violence. I don’t know if our local chapter is typical and I don’t doubt there are people on “our side” that could get caught up in the passion of a mob, but I really don’t think there is reason for concern in that area. Maybe I’m naive though?

      I tend agree with you. Do you remember the huge Tea Party Rally in D.C. a few years back? The Washington mall was packed, but once it was over those who took part cleaned up after themselves and there was very little litter left.
      Such people are not natural rioters.

      On the other hand, if pushed too far, such people may be filled with righteous indignation and be difficult to control.

      But I think Brad was trying to make the point that we do not know how Trump will act in the future. Who knows? He may decide to label conservatives and the Tea Party as “the mob” for political reasons.

      This may not be as far-fetched as one may think. Trump has already shown a distinct dislike of parts of the First Amendment, (read Mark Steyn’s take on this) and his love of imminent domain for private ventures are not good signs.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        But I think Brad was trying to make the point that we do not know how Trump will act in the future. Who knows?

        Absolutely, Mr. Kung. And I’m supposing Mr. Lesser understood that despite his defense of the Tea Party (which I also defend). The succinct point is: The definition of “radicals” is particularly fluid when this definition is in the hands of a dictator.

        As you noted, there are warning signs in regards to Trump that are not just the usual trumped-up charges. Like I’ve been saying, we need a president who lives and breathes Americanism and doesn’t try to put it on after-the-fact like a cheap perfume. We need someone who bleeds red, white, and blue.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Ditto. But just as Joe Biden can equate the Tea Party with “terrorists,” so perhaps could a President Trump, given his unbalanced nature, come down hard on them for one thing or another. That’s the problem with power-tied-to-populism. It’s a fickle thing.

    • David Ray says:

      You’re not naive. It’s those OWS jokers that finally get run off so the city can send in haz-mat teams to clean up.
      One OWS rally had their fellow fools getting stoked & tried to blow a bridge. (yet it was Tea Party events slandered as “mob”, or “violent”)

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The Occupiers were so juvenile they weren’t even properly toilet-trained. Reading about them taught Rush a word he hadn’t come across before: scabies. If you called them “lousy leftists”, you’d be literally as well as figuratively accurate.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I don’t know how much this will sway people, but Ann Coulter has come out and called Cruz and Fox traitors for blaming the violence in Chicago on Trump.

    I really do think that Cruz has made too many mistakes of recent.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Holy smokes, Ward. I thought I was being a little tough on the Beaver. I think Coulter is off her rocker in designating Cruz as part of the “unified oligarchy.” Heavens to Betsy, I do believe the little princess has a case of the vapors. Lest we forget, the Establishment hates Cruz, even though they are coming around to endorse him as the only viable alternative to Trump.

      Whatever happened to “measured response”? But Coulter blows hot and cold. She fell in love far too fast with Christie and now she’s having a honeymoon with Trump.

      Geez, I hate to say it, but maybe some of the critiques regarding the right are true. We are closet authoritarians. (Hint: That’s part of human nature.) But nowhere near like the Left who have the blood of 100 million on their hands from the last century alone.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Ole Ann does have the tendency to hyperbole. So I am never really sure where she actually stands. Today Cruz is a traitor. Tomorrow, he might be back in her good books.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” A lawyer like Coulter, who makes such a big point about following the Constitution in calling Cruz not a natural-born citizen, ought to know better. But just as many at NRO (especially Kevin Williamson) have Trump Derangement Syndrome, Coulter is developing the opposite affliction.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Great points, Timothy. And this unfortunately adds just a little merit to what Michael Medved is saying:

        …this entire fight isn’t about policy or populism, it’s about personality — nothing more, and nothing less.

        I won’t get into the obvious point the Medved is a regular dolt as far as letting the Establishment Republicans off Scot-free. But if you put a bag over all of the candidate’s heads and judged them simply by what they are saying, Trump would sound exceedingly shallow.

        And I also disagree with the typical ivory tower smug approach of Medved which suggests that to be enthused about someone is irrational and is a mere cult of personality. Ideally, you have both. You have a deep philosophical content married to a pleasing package. One needn’t be over/against the other. Nor should these ivory tower dweebs suppose that they are the cool, reasoned, intellectuals that they think they are.

        I have no problem with someone really liking Trump. But it’s just my opinion that his policy package is extremely thin. And, frankly, I’m not all that enamored with the personality either. Cruz is a bit dry. But I’ll take a boring “Silent Cal” type of president over another egomaniac.

  7. pst4usa says:

    I am going to comment on this even though I cannot find the video, I did read the article though. There seems to be a double standard going on here. This is the statement made by Cruz, granted maybe a little weak but if you could add one word to the statement, “some” in between the words bears and responsibility, I find no other fault in this statement.
    “I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment, when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence — to punch people in the face. The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates and today is unlikely to be the last such instance. We earlier today in St. Louis over thirty arrested. That’s not how our politics should occur,” Cruz said Friday. “You know, the City of Chicago in 1968 saw some ugly days when politics descended into hatred and incivility and even violence and it is my hope that in 2016 that we can appeal to our better angels and avoid going down that road once again.”
    Cruz could have and should have come out with a stronger statement about free speech, and the right to protest, but like I said I could not find the video so I do not know the context. Was this sprung on him to respond without knowledge of the event? What were the questions proceeding this? All of those things come into play.
    At a Trump rally, after Trump talked about punching someone in the face, someone did get punched in the face by a Trump supporter, what did the campaign have to say about it? “He, (the heckler) should not have been there”. Now I have to admit that what some campaign worker has to say about an event should not be held against the candidate, but this is not true for Cruz or any of the other candidates. If you ask a person that calls Cruz a liar, to give an example, the first one out of their mouth or keyboard as the case may be, is the Iowa tweet about Dr. Carson, taking some time off to go home and not go to New Hampshire or where ever that was. (Which by the way was all true by the way) That is held against Cruz, but what a Trump staffer says does not apply.
    Trump can say or do anything and there are seemingly no consequences. His said himself that he could walk down 5th avenue and shoot somebody and he would not lose any supporters. (I am not implying that he wants his supporters to go shoot someone) But his own over the top racist rhetoric and bombastic style are OK, but Ted Cruz tries to tone down some violence and bring things back to a little more civility and he is weak.
    If this is where we are today, we are truly doomed. This is what the left specializes in, screaming at the top of their lungs total crap, but those moved by emotions buy into it hook line and sinker. We can all sit back and say this candidate should have said this or done that, but we have to allow or candidates to make mistakes from time to time, this comment in no way reduces Ted Cruz’s principle’s or what he has proven time and time again, that he is willing to go against his party, to call the Senate majority leader a liar to the world when the leader lied, to take the heat for standing against the party when they just want to fold over 0bamacare. I will stop because this is sounding like a commercial, but we are willing to be so smart that we are going to tear down someone that has actually stood in the gap, and really fought for us, because he could have been stronger in one statement? Or we going to fold because Trump has never stood in the gap or done one thing for the American people, but hey, no matter how dumb his comments are, he does not apologize for them. And I guess that makes him a winner.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Pat, the problem with Cruz’s statement was the linkage. He’s blaming Trump for the thugs on the Left. Trump certainly may have helped finance them in the past via his healthy campaign contributions to Democrats. But he’s not the problem here. I think Cruz stumbled badly in the way he framed this.

      As for a candidate advocating punching people in the face, my policy is that it should occur only as self-defense or a matter of retaliation. But you’ll certainly note that I’m on record saying Trump is woefully inadequate to be a president of the United States (as was Obama). But there are separate issues involved here.

      As for why Trump seems to be Teflon, I’m very surprised it’s lasted this long, especially when there is a strong anti-Establishment alternative in Cruz. My best guess is that his supporters are indeed low-information voters of a sort. I’ve already written that I think the same people who now find Trump acceptable were asleep at the wheel when they found McCain, Paul Ryan, or your average RINO acceptable. Let’s remember that the retention rate for these guys (of either party) is extremely high.

      Give this man’s uncouth and mercurial behavior, I think reasonable people would conclude they won’t know what the heck he will do when in office. Perhaps some are just angry and Trump is the beneficiary of that. Perhaps some think he’ll be an entertaining change of pace — the culmination of politics-becomes-entertainment. Perhaps some really expect him to ship the illegal aliens back over the border. Perhaps some think that a slogan (Make America Great Again) contains all the details of how to do that. It doesn’t. And other than blaming China for all our economic problems, I don’t see any evidence that this man has any kind of overall grasp of basic economics.

      It was enormously difficult and risky for even the well-schooled Ronald Reagan to turn things around after the Carter years. But he was well schooled. He knew what to do. Broadly speaking, he knew he had to get government out of the way, reduce the tax burden, and all the usual conservative things in order to re-start the economy. Where has Trump demonstrated he can do anything but brag and bluster?

      Again, didn’t we just have a “hope and change” candidate who fooled us, who knew very little but whose persona was that we was the expert on all subjects?

      And I’m not off the Cruz bandwagon because of one mistake. You’re right. We can’t ditch a candidate for one mistake. We need to measure the entire package as best we can and as kool-aid-free as we can. But I think it was a mistake. Just because I’m a Cruz supporter does not mean I’m going to turn a blind and and mimic the zealotry and narrow-mindedness of many Trump supporters. Ya gotta call a spade a spade. After all, I’ve got a reputation for Solomonian wisdom and impartiality to uphold. 🙂

      • pst4usa says:

        Fair enough Brad, but again without context, I really am at a disadvantage. I think you are right that Cruz did error in the linkage, but it is true that campaigns and their rhetoric can have an impact on the crowds. It sure seems that 0bama’s does and has had an impact on the Black community and there reactions to 0bama calling for riots, not in so may words mind you, but calling for them none the less.
        I do not think you would ever turn a blind eye Brad, this one just seemed a bit nit-picky, but then again I am a Cruz zealot, as well as an America zealot, and although I do not think Cruz perfect by any means, if we are to turn this country around, it will not be because we install a more right wing version of 0bama, (if Trump even could qualify as center right, remains to be seen).

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I think you are right that Cruz did error in the linkage, but it is true that campaigns and their rhetoric can have an impact on the crowds.

          “It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.” (Attributed to several persons, including Talleyrand)

          Politics is not a fair business and can be very unforgiving. Some politicians are able to get away with illegal acts, others are held to higher standards. Why this is so, is something we can probably never know.

          Perhaps those who get away with “murder” can do so because they do not claim to be moral people to begin with. Lovable rogues. Perhaps some who are not able to get away with “murder” can not, because they openly stand for a moral order. Who knows?

          But someone like Cruz ought to know he is going to be held to a different standard and do his best to avoid making silly blunders.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I suspect media bias plays a major role in this double standard. Note that while they would absolve Slick Willie for his sexual misconduct on the grounds that he was amoral, they never tried to hold him to his own professed standards, such as how he treated women. Not do they ever judge leftists for their greed, even as they denounce others’ greed ferociously.

            I think one reason Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich all chose t ouse the Chicago mob action to attack Trump had to do with the nature of politics. They need to gain on Trump somehow, and his rhetoric has been very ill-advised in that respect. In this case, their quick political reaction led them astray.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I suspect media bias plays a major role in this double standard.

              Absolutely! But this has been known for decades now and anyone running for office, as a conservative, must take it into account and act accordingly.

              In this case, their quick political reaction led them astray.

              This is one reason it is so important to have good advisors who are in contact with the people and who are willing to tell candidates unwelcome truths. Of course, if the candidates are so arrogant of out of touch as not to be able to find, hire and heed such advisors, they will stumble even more than is normal in such campaigns.

          • pst4usa says:

            Agreed, Cruz ought to know and be better than this. But as I just got the chance to see Ted Cruz at a rally in Idaho after traveling to 3 other states, in the same day. (Maine, Louisiana, and Kansas), I can understand how fatigue could set in and cause a problem like this.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Pat, I don’t know all the details either. But if a Leftist rent-a-mob broke up or otherwise significantly interfered with a GOP political rally, this is not a function of what some candidate supposedly said.

          As conservatives, we know — or ought to know — the context. We know that Ann Coulter and other conservatives typically require a body guard when going to universities to speak. We know that the largest tool for the “fundamental transformation” of America has been the Leftist agitating mob.

          I try to assess these situations as fairly as possible. And I don’t easily either trump up the charges or dismiss them depending upon whether someone is “my guy” or not. But you’re right that we need to keep all this is context.

          And the context is that the rent-a-mob, agitating (aka “community organizing”), and intimidation are the main game of the Left. And if Cruz really is as smart and eloquent as we think he is, he should know this. He surely does know this. Perhaps he spoke in a moment of frustration. And it’s got to be frustrating to see this buffoon, Trump, get the poll numbers when hard-working and thoughtful people such as Cruz are in a distant second.

          Hasn’t it been frustrating, and downright embarrassing, to see a buffoon such as Joe Biden as vice president? But at the end of the day, when I approach these subjects and write about them, I do so with the object of making things plain so that if, say, some low-information voter were reading over my shoulder, he would get it (provided he could set aside his ideological blinkers).

          In order to change the culture, to change the game, we need to first teach people what that game is. And Ted Cruz, as far as I was concerned, lost an excellent opportunity to inform people about it. He could have both scored points and been right. As it was, he bled off a little of his credibility.

          Granted, it’s a crazy world we live in where some blabber-mouth is leading in the polls (which, I guess, is better than having the usual eGOP liar). But if we’re not going to just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, we need guys out there like Cruz explaining the game being played.

          I think Mr. Kung is right. People with an engaging criminal personality are judged differently than someone who stands for something better. It’s not perhaps fair to judge Cruz by a higher standard, but it’s to his credit that this is so. We just have to make sure that we don’t expect perfection, for it may be a while until Jesus Christ himself runs for office.

          But when it comes to these central conservative issues — such as the danger to our republic of the various rent-a-mobs and agitators — a guy such as Cruz can’t fumble this issue.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            And Ted Cruz, as far as I was concerned, lost an excellent opportunity to inform people about it. He could have both scored points and been right. As it was, he bled off a little of his credibility.

            Had he informed people as you say, he might also have done himself an enormous amount of good with all law-abiding Americans. Many people might have thought, “Heh, Ted gets it. Maybe he could be president.”

            Public opinion is swayed in such moments.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Kurt Schlichter has a nice article on Town Hall that discusses this and related issues. He endorses Cruz for the presidency, but also worries that his reaction to the Chicago attack may indicate an inability to face up to the fact that the Demagogues are at war with us, and intend to do whatever it takes to win. He doesn’t care for Trump but will vote for him over Hillary if it comes to that. The link is:


            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I like Mr. Schlichter’s (another Kraut?…maybe that’s why) style. He’s a little sassy without being obnoxiously so. God bless writers who aren’t too dry.

              And aside from his style (and quite because of his style), he makes a tremendous point using a Godfather analogy I wish I had thought of:

              This nonsense in Chicago was a preview; to the extent Rubio and Cruz hinted that somehow Trump himself was even partially responsible for an organized mass of leftist thugs shutting down his speech they were at a minimum wrong and possibly strategically confused in thinking they can ride the progressive tiger for a bit until it eats Trump. If the left wants to make it a rumble, then we need to say “Let’s go,” not “Use your words.” Never take sides against the Family with the anti-American left, Fredo. Never.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I found a couple of interesting items on the subject at HotAir a short while ago. One one was a piece by Taylor Millard saying that no one’s free speech had been violated in Chicago because the First Amendment only applies to government action. He’s right as far as that goes, but he does seem not to understand that just because it wasn’t a violation of the First Amendment, that doesn’t preclude its violating the free speech of Trump and his supporters.

      The other item was an article by Byron York on his interviews with a few Cruz and Rubio supporters who very much disagree with their political focus on blaming Trump. At the moment, it doesn’t appear that anyone will turn from Rubio or Cruz (or Kasich) to Trump because of it, but he doubts that they will gain anything either. (Nor should they.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        One one was a piece by Taylor Millard saying that no one’s free speech had been violated in Chicago because the First Amendment only applies to government action.

        I haven’t read the article, but that betrays an increasing secular/legalistic attitude…even libertarian. “If it’s not explicitely forbidden then it must be okay.”

        There is miles of importance regarding mob behavior other than how it intersects on the First Amendment.

  8. GHG says:

    If so much were not at stake, the renting of the eGOP commentariat would be good theater. Not that they were in lock step before, but with the emergence of Trump and the only other viable alternative being Cruz, even those conservative opinion makers who normally strike a more measured tone are getting a bit screechy. At least Ann can claim that she hasn’t changed her tone, just her opinion.

  9. GHG says:

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    We all hope the day never comes when American blood is spilled by fellow Americans, but it may actually come to that. I believe the only way it will be avoided is if the right continues to meekly capitulate to the left’s transformation of our culture. If the right stands up against the violence from the left then bloodletting may be the only way to heal the patient.

    Unlike 1968, they have the levers of government at their disposal and I don’t think it’s far fetched to think they will use them if necessary. The left knows that we are at a crossroads and they will use every measure available to quell any potential threat to their objectives. Civil unrest is a good reason to activate the National Guard or other draconian measures.

    If a fight is to be fought, it may be better sooner than later, and that time might be fast approaching. I’d rather go down swinging, if it comes to that, than discover too late I’m the frog in the pot and the water is really getting hot.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      True, but I suspect most of the voters know where the violent is coming from given all that’s happening on college campuses (and they’re responding, with Mizzou enrollment considerably down). And those National Guards are under the control of state governors, most of them Republican.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Splits are happening over at Breitbart over Trump. According to Thomas Lifsen, Michelle Fields, who allegedly was man-handled by Trump’s campaign manager, has resigned from Breitbart along with Ben Shapiro.

    Either Fields is a drama queen and making this whole thing up (or heavily exaggerating it) or it’s another case where, damn the facts, we must support the Trumpster! Shapiro wrote in his resignation letter:

    Andrew built his life and his career on one mission: fight the bullies. But Andrew’s life mission has been betrayed. Indeed, Breitbart News, under the chairmanship of Steve Bannon, has put a stake through the heart of Andrew’s legacy. In my opinion, Steve Bannon is a bully, and has sold out Andrew’s mission in order to back another bully, Donald Trump; he has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda, to the extent that he abandoned and undercut his own reporter, Breitbart News’ Michelle Fields, in order to protect Trump’s bully campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who allegedly assaulted Michelle. I spoke with Michelle the night after the incident. She told me her story. That story was backed by audiotape, eyewitness testimony from The Washington Post’s Ben Terris, physical bruises, and video tape.

    Score another one for Trump kool-aid?

    Here at StubbornThings — a mere speck on the wall compared to Breitbart — we endeavor to try to see all sides without doing anything as brain-dead as splitting the differences for the sake of kumbaya. At some point we have to make a decision in this world of imperfect choices. But having made that decision, it is always incumbent upon rational human beings to maintain a sense of proportion. I can assure you that if our resident Koch Brother, Pat, was a Trump supporter, I’d still buy him pizza and would still publish his articles (and still take his generous contributions).

    But has Breitbart ranged into the kind of one-sided reporting that we damn MS-NBC for? I don’t follow Breitbart but I have heard in the last few montha that they were pro-Trump all day, in every way.

    I personally don’t think that Donald Trump in any way deserves the kind of loyalty he’s receiving.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I personally don’t think that Donald Trump in any way deserves the kind of loyalty he’s receiving.

      What????? Go back into the hole you crawled out of you phony, RINO, establishment, egg-sucking, misbegotten, anti-American, foreigner-loving, Cuban supporting, pansy TROLL.

      Trump is the answer!!!! Trump 2016!!!! Aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, that last part sounds more like Dean 2004. As for the Michelle Fields incident, there seems no doubt it happened, and there seems to be evidence that Lewandowski was the one responsible. At the same time, she didn’t see who assaulted her, but got it from a Washington Post reporter.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Well, that last part sounds more like Dean 2004.

          You got it!

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          From the video I saw, there’s no assault apparent. I suspect Fields is exaggerating. I also suspect that Breitbart has become very pro-Trump. What a mess.

    • pst4usa says:

      Trump’s response to this was, had I known she was from Brietbart, this would never have happened. So in other words, it is OK to assault those that do not agree with me. Or as Mr. Kung has put it;
      What????? Go back into the hole you crawled out of you phony, RINO, establishment, egg-sucking, misbegotten, anti-American, foreigner-loving, Cuban supporting, pansy TROLL. Or as I have put it;
      “Trump” A lot like Obamacare, we need to vote for him, just so we can see just what’s in him.
      I agree that Cruz missed an opportunity to defend American values. And when I look at it from the rent-a-mob perspective I see how much of a mistake it was. I was however looking at it wrong, I was coming at my defense of his statement from the perspective that rhetoric can have consequences. Here is Trump in his own words.
      Now there is someone that is presidential.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Surely there are these two factors that you talk about. I’ll list them as:

        1) The freedom-depressing nature of the rent-a-mobs of the Left. They must be confronted. We must be united about that. No questions asked. No quibbles. No prevarications. Stand up and be counted.

        2). Yelling “fire” in a crowded movie house is irresponsible.

        I don’t know how anyone can look at Trump and not be a little embarrassed. To say that he is unpresidential is an understatement. I *suppose* the rules have changed temporarily. Given the lie that the Establishment Republicans have been, little things like decorum don’t mean so much. In fact, it was this fake “decorum” that was one of the prime methods the eGOP used to deceive us and offered as an excuse not to oppose the Left. (It’s always “divisive” to oppose them, always supposedly ruining our chances for the next election when then we might have enough power to do something. Rinse and repeat.)

        Hey, I’m the first to understand that we have been badly abused by our own party. But now is the time to get smart, not emotional about it. Let’s not run to Mussolini lite when we have perhaps Ronald Reagan lite in our midst.

        • pst4usa says:

          As I said Brad, my original comments were about your second point, and I was wrong.
          I guess all the arguing that I have been doing with the Trumplestilskins has me too emotional. (whaaaa)
          I think I will go find so safe space so I can suck my thumb.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Pat, we will soon be opening a “Safe Space” sub-blog here. Topics will include:

            1) A lyrical analysis of “Home on the Range” (where never is heard a discouraging word)

            2) The many uses for Jell-0

            3) Jet-Puffed vs. Jet-Puffed JUMBO marshmallows

            4) A guide to sanding off all sharp edges in your home

            5) Bubble suits: taking your safe-space with you

          • Timothy Lane says:

            How can you be so unfair to Rumpelstiltskin? It wasn’t his fault that the girl’s father falsely bragged that she could spin straw into gold, and it certainly wasn’t his fault that when he did it for her, she ended up backing out on her agreement. And certainly no liberal today would object to his taking her first-born. They happily sacrifice theirs for a lot less.

            • pst4usa says:

              You are right Timothy, I was way too harsh. What is could be wrong with taking any unborn? Just ask Trump, he’s all for partial birth abortion. More time in the punishment room for me. 3 hours of listening to Trump speak without saying any thing, the same length of the Lincoln – Douglas debates without any substance.

  11. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    Wow, what a lengthy and spirited discussion. But, and I apologize to this fine crew of informed and patriotic souls, you may be missing the elephant in the room (sorry).

    This wholly new political phenomenon of Trump’s ascendance, an event understood by few, is due to the Silent Majority becoming vocal and involved. Political party affiliation has precious little to do with his enormous popularity. This country has always been peopled by those who work hard and are essentially moral actors. But, in all but extraordinary times, they are silent and only tangentially politically involved; they are too busy working and raising kids. That dynamic changes when our basic way of life is threatened, however. Nixon won a huge landslide in response to the extraordinary malfeasance known as the Great Society that was perpetrated on our citizenry. Reagan won another huge landslide in response to the treasonous and ineffective leadership of Carter.

    In both of those epochal elections, the division in our country was not political party based, but a resounding response to injuries sustained by middle America. Another epochal election is imminent, and again, as in the previous two, the run up to the election reveals no understanding of this dynamic by our current political class or the neutered media. Everyday citizens recognize that they are disenfranchised, but also, and even worse, criminal and illegal elements within our borders are franchised, laying claim to the work product of honest citizens, in the form of taxpayer funds.

    I’ve read a multitude of scholarly analyses of the broken ideology within the GOP, the demographic affects on elections, of the nearly limitless number of craven and deadly faults that Donald possesses, how given such a stark and unappetizing choice next November GOP turnout will be depressed, and on and on, ad infinitum.

    Those supporting Trump come from a very broad spectrum and are the ones who recognize the stakes in this fight, and they’ll be the ones bringing a howitzer to a knife fight. Trump is not fomenting violence, but surely actors like Rubio and Cruz are by their adherence to the long-standing tradition of GOP passivity in the face of Progressive/Fascist aggression.

    Trump may be a new type of rough character for our presidency, but he is likely the alternative to at least eight more years of fundamental transformation. I say at least, because another term or two with a treasonous progressive at the helm will irrevocably shift our demographics due to assured open borders, along with the rampant ballot manipulation through fraud, and thus may permanently disenfranchise the Silent Majority, inviting actual violence.

    So my message is certainly not to shut up, a prescription popular with the left, but to think more about the Silent Majority, and far less about political parties and the attendant minutia about their planks and positioning.

    • GHG says:

      Yeah, what he said.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Nixon didn’t exactly win by a landslide in 1968, thanks partly to the Wallace vote (but he probably wouldn’t have even in a 2-way race). And Trump definitely has incited violence on several occasions, though to be fair we have no way to know what the protestors were doing. He does seem to have a dislike of peaceful as well as riotous protest. I would be happier if Rubio and especially Cruz criticized the leftist mob, but implying that as a result a Cruz presidency would mean “a treasonous progressive at the helm” is excessive.

      • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

        Has he funded rent-a-mob protesters or mass produced the signs they carry? Neither the GOP nor any conservative/libertarian/tea-partier have ever executed protests like the left has for centuries. One slight whiff of response to the aggression of the left and you characterize it as incitement? We already know what the protesters were doing; it is nothing new. Shutting down opposing points of view is always their goal. Is it an accident that Ayers tweeted out jubilantly that they “won” after Trump canceled to protect people?

        Cruz would be my choice. The treasonous progressives are all in the donkey party. I just wish Ted hadn’t shot himself in the foot slightly. He’ll survive, I hope!

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      It is clear that a huge part of the the swell of support for Trump is a protest against the venal and criminal political class which has been ruling us. I see Trump as merely the vessel which gives this protest form. Throughout history, such vessels have appeared when the times call for them.

      The predictions one reads about Trump doing this or that are based more on hope than fact. In my opinion the best that can be definitively said about Trump’s future actions, should he become president is, “He can’t be any worse than what we have now.” A very thin thread indeed upon which to hang the hopes of a nation.

      • GHG says:

        … the best that can be definitively said about Trump’s future actions, should he become president is, “He can’t be any worse than what we have now.” A very thin thread indeed upon which to hang the hopes of a nation.

        Yes, it is. But is there really an alternative? The money changers are firmly ensconced. It’s going to take a bull in a China Shop to make a difference.

        • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

          That is the realistic response, GHG. Ya gotta play the hand you’re dealt. If Trump is the only arrow in our quiver, then let him fly! We can always offer positive influence and help him to govern as well as he can.

          Money changers. Perfect!

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            If Trump is the only arrow in our quiver, then let him fly! We can always offer positive influence and help him to govern as well as he can.

            You beat me to what I was going to say, but I will go ahead and say it anyway.

            I have long thought Trump will be the Republican nominee, and nothing that has happened in the last few days has changed my opinion.

            That being the case, I will vote for him.

            But if the country is to have any chance of turning the Leftist tide, it will take the “silent majority”, which is now supporting Trump, to STAY ENGAGED and keep reminding Trump and the rest to fulfill their promises. And tell them that if they don’t fulfill their promises, the people have not gone to sleep and will demand justice.

            Will the people do this? I don’t know.

    • pst4usa says:

      I think that this is part of the problem with some of the Trump supporters; they claim that anyone that opposes Trump is some kind of Republican hack. Or as Mr. Kung noted above ”Go back into the hole you crawled out of you phony, RINO, establishment, egg-sucking, misbegotten, anti-American, foreigner-loving, Cuban supporting, pansy TROLL.” Why the hate for those of us that oppose Trump?
      He has tapped into an emotion, anger, which he is using to perfection. That anger is justified, but he may be the biggest fake of all. We watch actors all the time playing roles in movies or on TV where they do not represent themselves or their own character in anyway and yet we believe them for a time. Such is what I see in Trump, he is a reality TV star, that has fooled some of the masses, the silent (and not yet a) majority voters.
      The silent majority is mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore. But what is it they are mad about? It is not what this party or that party has done, it is about the fact that they, the politicians, of both sides, continue to lie to us, and continue this leftist march, while telling us to trust them, they will fix everything. And now we have an answer, the solution is to elect a better liar? To elect a guy who has no problem lying to us to get into power so he can continue his lifelong path of using the government to line his own pockets? To elect the guy who has taken every side of every issue? That’s the guy the silent majority loves so much, well no thank you.
      So I disagree, it is not about party, it is about principles. In my opinion, the so called silent majority needs to think more about the future of this nation and to think more about its founding principles and values; and “feel” less. Emotional voting is a big part of what has gotten us into this mess, voting based on anger, is not going to get us out of it.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I think that this is part of the problem with some of the Trump supporters; they claim that anyone that opposes Trump is some kind of Republican hack.

        With many of Trump’s supporters its worse than that. Unless one shows complete devotion to Trump, one is attacked.

        I have tried to have some reasoned exchanges with Trump supporters and it is very difficult. They hurl insults even before one can make a point. Ask a question and they can explode.

        I am not surprised at this as there have always been types who search for and latch on to a “Hero”. Unfortunately, such behavior generally is manifested in those who do not allow facts to get in the way of what they wish to believe. It can become worrisome when times are difficult and people start getting agitated.

        • pst4usa says:

          I am not surprised at this as there have always types who search for and latch on to a “Hero”

          The Israelites said give us a king, and God told them you don’t want a king, you won’t like it. We want a king, and so they got one and it did not turn out so well for them either. So if Trump is to be king, then it will be because we deserve one. I know he won’t be king, but in his mind he will be. If we think we can depend on man, any man, and not God, then I suppose that is how it will go.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        So I disagree, it is not about party, it is about principles. In my opinion, the so called silent majority needs to think more about the future of this nation and to think more about its founding principles and values; and “feel” less. Emotional voting is a big part of what has gotten us into this mess, voting based on anger, is not going to get us out of it.

        I quote agree, Mr. Tarzwell. Well said.

        • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

          All these freshly presented ideas about the responsibility of the Silent Majority to exercise more forethought and care about candidate choice are interesting, but they avoid the main point I tried to make a couple of pages ago. The time for niceties and decorum is over! The only candidate offering a different approach to remedy our internal rot is Trump. Maybe sad, but true. This electoral conundrum is not about emotion vs. logic and conservative principles, it is about the survival of our nation, and although I prefer Cruz, if Trump is the tool we must use, then at least he’s not a simulacrum of the fascists in the Democrat party.

          This infighting must stop at some point; we must realize who the real enemy is. Hunger Games was not just juvenile movie bait. Satan has many disguises and presentations, and only two of them are Obama and Clinton.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            The time for niceties and decorum is over!

            Tom, if I was in Congress and could pass a law that would require every member of Congress to participate in a dunking both (or a pie-in-the-face carnival-like booth) where citizens could get some payback every year, I would be for it. Both parties are ruining this country. We need a restructuring.

            The problem with Trump is that I cannot see that he understands the problems. And unless he can do so, all that is likely to happen will be a lot of motion and fury with very little actual reform taking place.

            Reagan ran for office against Carter with a specific governing philosophy, and one that he matched point-for-point against the bumbling of Carter. All we have with Trump is a collection of insults and some vague ideas. Okay, I get that people are angry. And I understand that the apples in the applecart are rotten. But simply overturning the applecart does not serve us a batch of good apples.

            I think in many ways Trump himself is a bad apple, therefore I can’t see him doing much good. I think it’s more than likely his incoherent, ego-based policies will wreak further destruction on us.

            And regarding who the enemy is, I don’t think Trump supporters fully appreciate just how far left this guy is. Cruz may have been politically unwise to trash Trump’s “New York Values.” But he was technically right about that. At the end of the day, there is every possibility that a Trump victory will represent the desire of the masses to move Left in order to gain victory…something they would then have in common with the Establishment Republicans.

          • pst4usa says:

            You have one part absolutely right there Mr. Riel, Trump is a tool.
            And since you are using a movie analogy, I will give one for you to ponder. Lord of The Rings, Gandalf says about Gollum, he has a part to play in this, whether for good or evil, is unclear. paraphrased I know but you get the point. This is Trump, he could go either way, I feel fairly confident that he leans to the evil side, regardless of his rhetoric that sounds a lot like Smeagal/Gollum to me.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              LOL. Trump as Gollum. Love the LOTR analogy.

              One Trump to rule them all
              One Trump to find them
              One Trump to bring them all
              And in the darkness…whatever

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Yesss, my preciousss. Is Rubio scrumptiousssly crunchable? (The late Perry Bramlett, an expert on Tolkien and Lewis, thought I did a nice Gollum.)

  12. Steve Lancaster says:

    “The time for niceties and decorum is over!”
    I am not sure that there ever has been any nicety in our politics. This is the first time since 1824 that any candidate has generated this kind of passion. As I have mentioned before Trump is riding a true mass movement and the only counter is another mass movement and there is not one one the horizon. My guess is that Trump will carry at least 40 states in November.

    Ideological purity would be nice, but, “these are the time that try men’s souls”. What remains of our country is balancing on the tip between the anarchy of the left and the cozy acquiescence of the right.

    In 1850 if anyone had predicted that in 10 years the nation would split, they would have been called bat ship crazy. In March of 1861 they would be named prophets. I don’t know what is in the future but the next 20 years may truly be historic.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      My guess is that Trump will carry at least 40 states in November.

      Steve, put me in the “win” column regarding Trump-vs-Hillary. And nothing would do my heart more good than to show these weak and wobbly Establishment Republicans that if they just fight for something, they can win.

      I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday. He once again said, in essence, “Such-and-such didn’t win in year whatever because he/she didn’t appeal to the moderates and independents.”

      Nothing is more sacred to the eGOP, or ill-defined, as the “moderates” and “independents.” There is no “moderate” set of ideas, although there is moderation in behavior. There is no “independent” political philosophy either. The secret to getting so-called “moderates” and “independents” is having a clear agenda and pursuing it with vigor and winning these fence-sitters to your side.

      Say what you will about the evil of Obama, but he certainly attracts people because of his confidence and his willingness to utterly trash his opposition.

      So despite the fact the polls apparent show Cruz winning, and Trump losing, in a head-to-head matchup with Hillary, I think merely opposing this corrupt bitch forthrightly and boldly will win a lot of votes from her — something Romney or McCain did not do in the face of the Marxistly evil Obama.

      That does not mean I think this is a particularly good thing. I think the only positive thing you can say for Trump is that he will battle the opposition. But I think his advocates will be quite surprised when they see the clusterfuck of a presidency that his term in office would be.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        All excellent points and it is unlikely that any polls will show Trump ahead of Hillary at any time during the coming election summer. I suspect most polls will show Trump behind by 5-10 points until Nov. 9th at which time they will say what went wrong?

        My personal choice is that come Jan 17 Trump appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court, it a better fit for Cruz and at his age his influence on the court will outlast Trump and the next 5 or 6 presidents that will follow.

        We have been at (C)harlie (F)oxtrot since the election of G H Bush a little more will hardly be noticed.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I think what Rush says is basically true: polls are often used not to reflect public opinion but to shape it.

          If Trump and Carson can kiss and make up, surely Cruz and Trump can. We’ll have to wait and see what Trump’s thinking is regarding his VP choice. Some of the wheeling and dealing could, of course, come as a result of gaining the necessary delegates at the convention.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I’d like to see Jeff Sessions as the VP. We want a nominee who can provide something of a conservative conscience for Trump, since he doesn’t have one of his own. And then naming Cruz to replace Scalia.

            One must always be cautious about polls, but it’s also dangerous to assume they’re wrong.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              We need to get some kind of pool going on this. That’s certainly a plausible scenario.

              Despite the hopes, I fully expect Trump not to pick Cruz as VP. Get ready to swallow down Kasich. Again, I think the criteria are:

              1) Someone who won’t upstage Trump
              2) Someone who can bring in a marginally blueish state like Virginia
              3) Something that says “pizazz.” To achieve both #2 and #3, this is why I think it’s certainly possible he’ll put a Democrat on the ticket. I think it would be a yugely smart move.

              • pst4usa says:

                I am afraid that I have to disagree with the last point there Brad. Trumps biggest problem if he can, (and that is a big if) get the nomination, is all the Republicans that will shove their hands in their pockets and stay home, because they refuse to vote for the ass-hat named Trump.
                Adding a Democrat to the ticket will just fuel that fire. By the way I am not among them, I will fight against the serial liar named Trump with everything I have in the primary, but if we Republicans are foolish enough to buy his crap, I will vote for him, because although he is a Democrat, he is better than the socialist that their party will put up.
                It takes a lot of votes to win, and although those that have drunk the Kool-Aid don’t see this, my hatred of Trump is not unique, my willingness to vote for him just may be.
                Republicans have no history of loyalty; they will decide not to vote for a scumbag over selling out to their principles. How many evangellyfish refused to vote for Romney just because he was a Mormon? Not that this is the group that will not support T rump, who knows, it is just an example of the way Republicans will let a proven piece of crap, 0bama, get re-elected rather than vote for someone they find so offensive. Democrats do not have the same problem, they play the long game.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Elizabeth has so nose clamps she got a few years ago for dealing with nose bleeds. She recently pointed them out to me as a reminder that she was ready just in case Trump gets the nomination. I wonder if she would actually put them on to symbolize an extreme example of holding her nose to vote for him. (We may both need them.)

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I have seen comparisons to 1824 already, in particular comparing the election itself with the GOP campaign — and what the reaction is likely to be if Trump doesn’t get the nomination (in 1825, it was a “corrupt bargain” by “the Judas of the West”). Many similarities have been noticed between Jackson and Trump.

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One thing I noted during the first presidential debate was that Ted Cruz often fumbled moments when he could have made a bold and effective statement. He could have diffused Trump by boldly addressing some of his same issues, and in a more refined and thoughtful package.

    Quoting from the original thread about the first debate:

    To me the big loser tonight was Ted Cruz. He was thrown a real softball question about how he dared to call another Senator a liar.

    He wasted his chance to connect with people. Instead of saying something like, “Well, he lied. And I see no reason why we need to pretend that just because someone has a title that they can’t tell a lie.”

    Instead he watered-down his answer. The answer he gave, while technically okay, was politically and theatrically dull. He missed a big opportunity there to distinguish himself from the same-old same-old. I cringed as he avoided stating the obvious (that sometimes politicians actually do lie).

    Geez. Too bad. I don’t think he’s going to recover from that. No one will see it as a flub, which is something they’re all trying to avoid. But he needs to do more than just “avoid.” He has to score points.

    We talk about Ben Carson not being ready for Prime Time, but Cruz has time and again given “safe” answers when a bit of plain-talking was called for. This was especially the case in regards to the Leftist rent-a-mobs shutting down a Trump rally. His answer was only not weak, it was pure RINO. At the very least, he should have shown solidarity against the mob. And it was certainly a chance to point out a key difference between the right and the Left. There are many “liberals” who truly believe that it is the right who are a bunch of authoritarians. And when an opportunity emerged (once again) to set the record straight and inform the low-information voters, Cruz showed himself to be a weak partisan rather than an engaging and straight-shooting presidential candidate.

    Cruz needn’t have ever tried to out-Trump Trump. But he needed to speak plainly and connect with voters on the important issues of the day. Trump did, even if his prescription may be misguided. Cruz, if you were grading him on the overall, did well. But the overall lacked genuine passion that connected with enough of the voters. And in some of his (what I consider horrible) ads, he tried to raise his voice and inject some energy. But it just came off as grating and false.

    Cruz may be right, but he’s too careful and doesn’t take the kinds of chances he needs to take. If he gets the chance to be on the ticket as VP, maybe he can learn a thing or two from Trump about how to engage a foe.

    • pst4usa says:

      On this we agree Brad, but remember that Cruz has spent a lot of years in front of the Supreme Court. All of that experience leads him to be very measured in rhetoric, learning to be a fire brand takes time. being measured may not the best thing in this particular cycle, but it is the best way for a president to be.
      As far a being a weak partisan, well I would have to disagree with the partisan part of that. Remember it was Ted Cruz that took the sitting Republican President to the Supreme Court to stop Bush from selling US sovereignty down the river and he won. Now that is not something a weak partisan would do. He may be a weak candidate, but he in no way is a weak as a man, I can go down the list of where he stands his ground from “yuge” amounts of pressure from both sides, We may not like his weak candidate answers from time to time, but make no mistake, as president, he would stand up to anyone when it comes to Constitution or the founding principles and values that made this nation great.

  14. Millstone says:

    I too was worried how Teddy handled the lunes shutting down the Trump rally…What will he say when they come for him? If he somehow passes Trump they will come…I am a Teddy supporter but his stance on this issue worried me tremendously. I really thought he was smarter than that…

  15. Timothy Lane says:

    I was reading Charles Krauthammer’s March 4 article on why so many evangelicals support Trump over Cruz in Conservative Chronicle at dinner, and it hit me that reading this after the Chicago mini-riot makes a difference. Krauthammer’s argument was that these evangelicals see Trump as someone who really will protect Christianity against its enemies, domestic and foreign. Supporting good religious candidates like Huckabee, Santorum, and now Cruz hasn’t accomplished anything; maybe a tough guy will do the job.

    Then comes Chicago. Trump might have been vulnerable for letting the mob shut down the rally. But then the other candidates all criticized Trump — not for backing down, but for inciting violence. Since most intelligent voters realized that the mob was incited by their leaders, not Trump, and were there to suppress the rally just as similar mobs have acted on college campuses across the nation, Cruz would only have encouraged their belief that they need a tough guy. Whether Trump really is that guy instead of a blusterer is a good question, but that argument won’t work in the hands of people who can’t even bring themselves to condemn the liberal fascist mobs.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      So namby-pamby Christianity might be on the wane? Let’s hope so.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Take your pick, John Brown or Stone Wall Jackson. Both were rather vigorous types.

        But I like to think of the present situation as something like 1683 at the siege and Battle of Vienna where the Christians finally put an end to the Ottoman Muslim attempts to conquer Christian Europe. It took the combined forces of the Habsburg Empire, the German Nations and the Polish to defeat the Turks. The French were of no help then just like today.

        Interestingly, the Battle of Vienna took place on September 11th and ran through the 12th.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I just hope we can find a genuine Jan Sobieski today. Is it Cruz? Is it Trump? Or will no one fill the role?

          As for France, they were persistent opponents of the House of Habsburg from the early 16th Century to the Diplomatic Revolution in the mid 18th Century (by which time their main enemy was Britain, not Austria, helped by having converted Spain to an ally earlier in the century).

  16. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was listening to a little Rush today and he was talking with a Trumpkin. And while talking to this guy (who seemed fundamentally dishonest, and even Rush confronted him on this), Rush brought up some fascinating background info. He says a number of people behind the scenes have admitted that they will disavow Trump and vote for Hillary if it comes to that. And Rush said that these are very people in the conservative media who have aspirations of appearing on Fox News, speaking at CPAC, basically the whole climbing the greasy pole crowd. They believe that trashing Trump is a necessary career move.

    Truly, it makes me realize how tremendous freedom is. Here at StubbornThings you are free to sing the praises of Trump, Cruz, or whomever. Not in isolation, of course. Criticism (or praise) will abound. But look how quickly these geek types become ideologically corrupt. They want to appear on Fox News.

    Well, I wouldn’t appear on Fox News if they asked me, although I do have a soft spot for Hannity still. But if we are honest, the conservative media — including Rush Limbaugh — has done little to stem the tide of liberalism. Analyzing it, entertaining others over the absurdities of it, and writing books and giving lectures about it has not worked to stem the tide. And it’s offensive to me to use the degeneration of our country as a stepping-stone to a career.

    This is one reason this site will remain non-profit, although anyone who can drop a dime in the PayPal bucket in order to defray costs is welcome to do so. Here we are free to speak the truth, damn the consequences. And the truth is, there are severe commercial constraints on anyone who would dare to do so. But I can live with that. Can’t you?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I wonder about some of that. FNC has been accused of being mostly in the tank for Trump, with one article I read saying that’s true of most of their weeknight shows (except for Bret Baier’s report and, of course, Megyn Kelly — who’s a lot fairer to Trump than he will ever be to her again). This may be an exaggeration, but it brings home the point that being the Anti-Trump is a good career move mainly at NRO. (Did you see Kevin J. Williamson’s latest rant today? As a matter of fact, I asked if he realy wanted Hillary appointing Scalia’s replacement, given the inevitable consequence of her doing so.)

  17. Timothy Lane says:

    According to reports, Cruz was properly critical of the left-wing rioters who have been attacking Trump speeches in recent days in California. One conservative thinks these could in fact not only elect Trump, but give him a decisive victory over Slick Hilly — people don’t like rioters who block roads and smash police cars. This also helped Nixon win in 1968. Fortunately, one consequence of liberals rejecting reality for ideology is that they have a hard time learning from their mistakes.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      This also helped Nixon win in 1968. Fortunately, one consequence of liberals rejecting reality for ideology is that they have a hard time learning from their mistakes.

      I couldn’t disagree more, Timothy. Although the Left might experience a few electoral setbacks, it’s this kind of push that has gotten them to where they are today…while conservatives sit on their hands, tsk tsk, and bemoan the most unsporting behavior of the rioters.

      True, I don’t think people particularly like the immediate disruption of the rioters. But the rioters have been winning in the end by pushing their agenda and moving the bar a little further. Tomorrow the rioters won’t have to riot about the things they are pushing today. Keep pushing for twenty years and your ideas are accepted and then you can move on to riot about something else.

      It’s this kind of sheer blindness of the electorate as to what is going on that is the real problem…and gutless and collaborating GOP politicians who go along with this stuff if only by “tsk tsking” and/or actually actively getting in the way of other Republicans who would do something about it.

      My hat is off to the rioters. At least they are effective at pushing their agenda.

Leave a Reply

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