GOP Debate #1

by Brad Nelson8/6/15

The discussion starts here!

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

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (4359 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 Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to GOP Debate #1

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Will the Establishment candidates elbow out Trump? Will Trump show some fire or is he going to stay a little more scripted as he’s been lately? This is hosted by Fox News, so I expect fewer stupid questions and “gotcha” questions, but “journalists” (those quotes are well deserved at this point) are still journalists.

    Lastly, will someone ask Jeb Bush, “What? Do you think you and the Clintons are some kind of royal lineage? When are you just going to go away?”

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Well, there seems to be a consensus that Carly Fiorina was the star of the JV debate. She got in a mild dig at Trump receiving a call from Bill Clinton, but also noted that his popularity resulted from GOP voters’ rage against the Beltway Bandits and politics as usual. Incidentally, this might be a good time to mention a Red State article referring to Boehner and McConnell as Vichy Republicans and comparing them to Marshal Pétain emotionally as well as in terms of similarity of results. The link is:

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Looking at the first round of questions, I have a few comments. Elizabeth was very impressed with Rand Paul’s response to Trump on the question of guaranteeing not to run independently if he lost (that he was used to buying and selling politicians). Of course, she voted for Paul in the 2010 primary. (I voted for Trey Grayson, and later told her she had been right.) Of course, we appreciated Trump’s defense of his insults to many women as a rejection of PC (and I can see a point; he in fact insults plenty of men as well).

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I saw the first round of questions or two and then I went to dinner with a friend.

    My goodness, how low the state of journalism has become. Those opening questions were amateurish and fit for the Jerry Springer show. I remember now why I stopped watching these things. The only reason I watched was because of Trump.

    Trump was (from what I saw): good…then mediocre, then bad. He didn’t handle the border question well. And Rush was right. This thing is set up to forward the Establishment candidates and they tried to cut the legs from out under Trump — including the so-called journalists.

    Christie sounded extremely scripted, like he was just reciting from memory. So did most of the others, particularly Rubio. This guy bothers me. I don’t trust him. Fat Boy I suppose I could sort of warm to.

    Rand Paul doesn’t belong up there. Not a chance in hell. He doesn’t look or sound presidential. Carson answered his first question very well.

    Cruz was Cruz. The shame is, we have become such a degenerate country, he’s not likely to strike a chord. People want styrofoam Greek columns, not straight-talking adults.

    Walker doesn’t look or sound presidential. His closing statement was bland. Huckabee is Huckabee. He’s a good speaker and lousy thinker.

    If Trump does get dumped (or bores of it all), that will allow some room for Carson to really play the outsider.

    Bush…wants to fix everything. Basically a Progressive.

    Trump showed a distinct lack for the vision-thing in his closing. “We can’t beat China.” Okay. Not much there, as I said, for a vision-thing.

    Good god, I’m so glad I don’t waste time watching Fox News. What a pathetic excuse for journalism.

    One of the guys on the abortion question (I forget who) did just what Rush suggested — show that the real extremist is Hillary. Oh, yeah. Now I remember that was Walker who did that. He seems bland. He needs a little fire in his belly. But at least he took a shot a the true opposition (which isn’t Trump).

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Charles Krauthammer just concluded that Cruz, Rubio, Huckabee, and Christie (mainly for his putdown of Rand Paul on security, though I certainly like Paul’s emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and he’s right about the importance of general warrants in raising colonial ire). He thought Carson had a great closing. The Frank Luntz focus group was unhappy with Trump, partly because he refused to run out an independent run, partly because he was bombastic and lacked specifics (which is peculiar, because this included some previous Trump backers, and their complaint was basically that Trump acted like Trump).

      Addendum: Luntz’s focus group that the best overall performances were by Cruz and Huckabee. Most of the members who switched candidates went to one of them.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        From what I heard of Huckabee, he was good. Again, I think he perhaps speaks well but (from what I’ve read) has some of the weaker policies. He’d be a natural for Secretary of State.

        Rubio is Rubio. He impresses me as being way too glib and earnest. Pencil him in as Attorney General. I don’t care if he’s a lawyer or not. (Are any of them not?) I think Fat Boy did okay from what I saw. But what can you do with ten guys on the stage? That really isn’t a debate but a soundbyte machine.

        I like Cruz but I’m not so sure he comes off well on TV. Rand Paul comes off worst of all.

        What impressed me about Jeb Bush is how unimpressive he is. The Establishment will have to shove a lot of money down our throats to get this guy elected. Who wants him? He just looked so out-of-place up there. Bush? Bush? We’re still dealing with a guy named “Bush”?

        Walker is girly-man enough in his approach (Job #1 is not to scare the ladies…that’s the truth) to be fine for the top of the ticket. Put Carson on the bottom half and let’s just skip all the preliminaries. They can make Fat Boy Secretary of Sausages and just leave Cruz in the Senate where he can do the most good.

        Paul, of course, we’ll make ambassador to Israel. 😀

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, Rand Paul and Ben Carson clearly aren’t lawyers, they’re physicians. I rather liked Carson’s line about removing half a brain, especially the implication that a lot of Beltway Bandits had already received the same operation.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Carson impressed me as a real person (foibles and all) rather than a Mr. Potato Head pieced together by political consultants. I thought he answered the first round of embarrassingly amateurish questions from these so-called journalists very well.

            And how sad to see how politics has been reduced, like everything else, to mere entertainment. Granted, I admit the only reason I watched was to see the drama of Trump. But I self-consciously knew it was a drama (a political soap opera) and didn’t fool myself into thinking I was taking part in a civics lesson.

            The whole Fox News presentation was a disgrace. These talking-heads haven’t got one ounce of humility or civic pride. I kept yelling at the TV for the first five to ten minutes “Shut the hell up and use this time to let the candidates talk.” But it’s all about them. To know why journalism is a profession now on par with that of prostitution is because, well…what’s the difference between the two? At least with a prostitute, she doesn’t talk and talk and talk and talk.

            All three question-askers were jokes, abject disgraces to their profession. This was no thoughtful debate but simply a chance for these hack journalists to try to play “gotcha.” Again, just a disgrace.

            As my brother said, they would have been better off with Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, and Ann Coulter asking the questions, although I would have preferred Mark Levin over Coulter.

            What a joke. What an embarrassment for our great republic that politics has been reduced to this kind of shallow sideshow. At least at the sideshows of old they would hand out free liquor.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    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.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I did not hear the question or answer, but I don’t think it is a bad thing to avoid too much sensation this early on. He has made some strong statements in the past and the base knows where he stands.

      From the poll numbers on the Drudge Report, Cruz came out second after Trump.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Well, good for Cruz then. I’m certainly pulling for him, although Senators are better deliberators than executives. Trump must have lightened up a little then. He came across early as way too prickly. Or else (as I suspect) people are just voting “none of the above” when they pick Trump.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I think the “none of the aboves” have it. As Mark Steyn said recently, Trumps popularity among the conservative base is a sign of how much the base hates the establishment figures running the party.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          One item on HotAir noted that Eugene Robinson (who was invited to watch the debate with some conservatives at a bar) and the Red State Gathering both witnessed conservatives cheering at moments that the media generally thought Trump had blown it. Basically, grassroots conservatives are very disaffected from their party, and no one inside the Beltway seems to understand how they feel and why.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I do not have cable so didn’t watch the puppet show. Sounds like I didn’t miss much.

    I did see that Trump answered Kelly’s question, about bad-mouthing women, with some zest. Great one-liner about Rosie O’Donnell. Also good line about he and the country not having any time for political correctness.

    The question was typical of the rubbish which passes for journalism today. Who cares what he said about some women or some men, for that matter. In case Megan hasn’t noticed, some women are fat, dogs, slobs, etc. So are some men. So what?

    As was done in Communist countries which required people humiliate themselves by mouthing the party line, even when it might constantly change, political correctness has resulted in dishonesty reigning over our country. This has the effect of humiliating too many of our citizens as well as lowering the characters of others. It is impossible to maintain one’s self-respect if one must lie and avoid giving one’s honest opinion about virtually everything. It causes distrust between citizens.

    People like Kelly lie for personal gain, and the little guy lies to avoid trouble. Thank God Trump did not bow down to the false god which Kelly tried to humiliate him with.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Kelly is a journalistic tramp.

      • The Gateway Pundit has published a link of an interview Kelly did with Howard Stern where she discussed her breast, sex life and her husband’s penis:

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Thanks, Patricia. It’s sad to see the state of journalism sink so low. Last time I checked, the Leader of the Free World was an important office. And people such as Kelly (and those other panelists with her) have no regard for the gravity of it. No dignity. No sobriety. Just gutter reporting.

          • Brad,
            You have GOT to watch this clip of two black women defending Trump and assassinating Kelly! It is pure gold:


            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              “Maybe you should go back and report news for Sesame Street.”

              LOL. Great idea for Megyn Kelly. I don’t think they pay as well, and that’s what it’s all about for her. Frankly, I wouldn’t have expected a couple black women to come to such a stirring defense of Donald Trump. Not that Trump is in any way undeserving of a defense in regards to Kelly. But if his support is that ethnically diverse (playing the part of a slimy political consultant at the moment), he may have something.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Not that Trump is in any way undeserving of a defense in regards to Kelly. But if his support is that ethnically diverse (playing the part of a slimy political consultant at the moment), he may have something.

                I believe that the support for Trump is broader than the disaffected tea party types. There are also others who have finally woken up and figured out that the oligarchy which is Washington D.C. is not ruling in the interests of “Americans”. They are ruling in their own interests which are 100% at odds with the interests of “The People”.

                But I believe Trump’s support is broader than that. Trump is, by far, the best known candidate in the Republican pack. And his fame is not based on political office. It is based on being famous, reality TV, egotistical self-promotion. Millions know him who don’t know the difference between the Revolution and Civil War.

                This is the sad state of our culture. But it is what it is. Trump’s persona and fame are magnetic to these people, the know nothings of our society. They relate to him somehow and see a hyperbolic American success story. They like to be entertained and do not have much more demands from a president.

                I think Trump could pull a significant number of votes from Democrats and perhaps entice million of low info types to come out and vote just to vote for him.


              • If what you say is true Kung Fu Zu,
                Then the left’s pandering to the low information voter has backfired on them with Trump.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Patricia, I am not sure I am completely correct, but it would explain the popularity of his candidacy in terms of our present culture.

                Everyone wants to be entertained all the time, even in politics. The criminal occupying the White House, or at least some of those advising him, had an inkling of this with his first campaign. I can not forget the styrofoam pillars standing behind him at that stadium.

                Trump, being a professional showman, has taken this to a higher level.

                Throughout history, people have liked spectacle, the old bread and circuses bit, and it would appear we are now in for a real show.

                I am not saying this bodes well for our society, quite the contrary. I think it means things are going to hell pretty fast. But I am not sure it would be any better continuing on the present path or a path as laid out by the Republican establishment.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Rush just mentioned this video on air. Once again (thanks to Patricia), ST is ahead of the curve. 😀

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I think this is further confirmation of part of my thesis. Social media and technology let us take bread and circuses to new heights.

                Entertainment is the message.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    And notice that Perry’s outrage over Trump’s words about illegal immigrants didn’t give him the spike he needed in the polls to get on that stage tonight . . . which is what that was all about.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Perry is dead. I believe the only thing he was ever running for was a cabinet appointment or, a really long shot at VP nomination.

      From everything I am reading, it looks like Paul and Christie assassinated each other. If this is true, the Fat Boy should be out of any further 1st line debates. I don’t know if this will be the case with Paul, because he has a strong support among the more mindless libertarians.

      It sounds as if Bush damaged himself as well, but with his money and establishment support, he will hang around until the Iowa and N.H. primaries at least. Maybe even S. Carolina and Florida, but if he doesn’t win any of those he is finished.

      I guess a couple more of the guys on the stage tonight will not be there the next time.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The problem for Fat Boy is that Trump stole his shtick. What has he got Left for mass consumption other than bluster? And who doesn’t remember that photo-op with him sticking his nose up Obama’s behind during whatever emergency there was at the moment…while slicing the legs out from Romney.

        I’m surprised Fat Boy, instead of Trump, isn’t more of a target for the Establishment Gang. But because he truly is a Progressive, I guess that’s all that matters. He may even be Left of Jeb Bush.

        I’m glad to hear the Jeb Bush damaged himself. And you’re surely right that he could have run naked across that stage clucking like a chicken and his money would carry him through the primaries.

        I’d like to be Ben Carson’s political consultant. Maybe he is just another Establishment wanna-be. I hope not. But he needs to understand he’s not running for Surgeon General but president. Enough with the “brain smart” stuff. We want a leader. We’ve had our share of smart people. In fact, if people want smart people it’s Hillary who is said to be the smartest woman in the world. We don’t want or need a black Woodrow Wilson or Adlai Stevenson. Lighten up, loosen up, crack a joke or two. Connect with the home viewer.

        But he’d be a safe choice for the bottom of the ticket.

        Oh, let’s hope we’ve seen the last of Perry.

        • Patricia L. Dickson says:

          One the guys at the debate party that I attended said that he was surprised that Christie was not doing so well in the polls. I told him that I would never vote for Christie because he deliberately threw the election to Obama by hugging him so tight. I will go to my grave believing that he did it on purpose because he was angry at Romney for not selecting his fat behind for the VP. I have no more trust for him no matter how much he claims to love the country. No one who truly loves the country would have basically sabotaged the election because of his her own ego. He spent the first 15 to 20 minutes of his speech at the Republican convention talking about himself before he finally decided to say a few words about Romney.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I told him that I would never vote for Christie because he deliberately threw the election to Obama by hugging him so tight.

            Fat Boy ain’t ever gonna be able to walk back that photo-op.

            Why did he do it? We can only guess about any animosity between him and Romney. Who knows? A lot of stuff goes on that we never hear about. But at least the above-board (so to speak) reason would be because he thought it would help him politically. Why? How? Again…there may be things beneath the surface that explain that. But it’s not unusual for someone to try to buy-off the favor of someone by playing nice. With people such as Obama, that rarely works though.

            Or it’s simply because his very blue state (New Jersey) is so insanely liberal. I still find it interesting that two secret-handshake, back-slapping Establishment Republicans such as Romney and Christie weren’t automatic allies, at least in regards to Obama as an opponent. It was a very interesting and public back-stabbing by Fat Boy.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I still find it interesting that two secret-handshake, back-slapping Establishment Republicans such as Romney and Christie weren’t automatic allies, at least in regards to Obama as an opponent. It was a very interesting and public back-stabbing by Fat Boy.

              They are politicians so self-interest comes 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Helping others in your own party come a distant 4th or 5th.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I think the liberalism of New Jersey is enough to explain Christie’s hug. He was running for re-election next year and wanted to maximize his vote to impress presidential voters (and donors). Had it not been for a certain bridge problem, it might well have worked.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    And from what little I heard, I don’t think Trump helped himself. He didn’t come off as the straight-shooting outsider. He seemed embattled and defensive. I missed over an hour of this, so maybe he did very well in the part I missed. But he did nothing to solidify himself as the populist savant.

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    When all is said and done, I think this debate will have little effect except on culling the people on the margins. I would guess Christie is finished, as is Perry and everyone else in the second tier except perhaps Carly and Jindal.

    I would like to see the group shrink to about 7 or 8 pretty quickly.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I really think it’s time for people like Carly and Jindal to sponser their own damn debates. I think someone talked about this last time (or actually did it). Okay, maybe you don’t have to go as far as the Lincoln-Douglass debates. But get a couple people together and really hash out the issues. Do an end run around the GOP Establishment and those horrible Fox News pseudo-journalists.

      No pie charts. No “30 seconds to answer.” What, are we back in Kindergarten? Let two or three people, with an agreed-upon modus operandi of bashing the Democrats, get together and have at it. It could be entertaining and educational, for I did not find tonight’s pseudo-debate in the least entertaining, and certainly not informative.

      Carson – Carli – Cruz. Let’s get these three together with a moderator such as Sarah Palin. Let’s chew the fat, issue by issue, but in an entertaining and informative way. This is how these people could potentially negate Bush’s money.

      How to buy the air time? Forget TV. Go straight to radio like in the old days where ideas have some chance of getting through.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I wonder if we could get Rush or some radio host to host such a debate?

        I have looked at other sites and the German newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeina and Die Zeit, say Trump, “dominated” the debate, Die Welt was a little less strong in its judgment, the Suedeutsche Zeitung says, “Bush was bloodless, Rubio strong and Trump was Trump”.

        The Daily Telegraph in London, a supposedly conservative newspaper said Trump “rants”.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Bush as Bloodless. Has a certain ring to it. He’s sort of the Bush’s family equivalent of Ted Kennedy. Oh, I don’t mean because he’s immoral. But that he didn’t quite get the charisma of his older brother(s).

          I think that was Trump’s problem from what I heard. He did rant. He was way too defensive when he should have been confidently swatting the questions like flies. He didn’t come across as strong (from what I heard…and I did miss have the debate) or coherent. I wonder how many who saw Trump in a positive light aren’t doing so despite his performance.

          And if he did have a good answer to a question or two, talk about it here. I’d love to know what he said.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The sad thing about Jeb Bush is that in terms of policy he’s probably the best of his family. If he had won the 1994 gubernatorial race, we probably would have had him instead of George in 2000, possibly with better results. But he lost, George became the Bush to run, and Jeb’s time is past.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the aspects of this is that you can always think of what you *should* have said the day after. When asked about his Rosie O’Donnell comment, Trump could have said, “I thought this was the Fox News presidential debate, not The National Enquirer debate. Look, Megyn, we have Iran nuking up because of a weak and Marxist president and you’re asking me question kids used to ask each other on the playground.”

    Donald, I’m available for political consultation.

    Bizarrely, these hack pseudo-journalists were praised by Thomas Lifson for being entraining:

    From the standpoint of entertaining, memorable moments, the work of Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, and especially Megyn Kelly in the prime-time debate triumphed.  It was far livelier and more entertaining than I expected. 

    I guess they could have handed out Silly String to the ten debaters and let them have at it. That would have been even more entertaining. But one commenter to this article had the right perspective:

    I was very disappointed in FOX News cavalier presentation of what should have been a serious introduction of the candidates. FOX News is becoming MSNBC.

    Perhaps they should change their name to American Entertainer.

    And having slept on it, Ted Cruz could have also answered the “liar” gotcha question by saying, “It’s odd that you’re criticizing me for a breach of decorum when you’ve started this debate in the trashy style of a Jerry Springer show.”

    Patricia Dickson emailed me and told me that she was interviewed following the debate by Fox 11 in her area. Here’s the clip of that coverage.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    And I must say, I’m still shocked by the journalistic narcissism shown by that Fox News panel. More and more these things are about attempts to make the journalists look good, not hold a serious debate.

    We were much better off when the liberal Jim Lehrer hosted them. These Fox idiots simply did the job for the Democrats. While stumbling all over themselves to look like “tough journalists,” all that they accomplished was to demean all of the candidates and give an aura of unprofessionalism and flippancy. There was nothing weighty about this despite the fancy sets.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Jeffrey Lord has a related article: Trump and the Reagan-Bush Divide:

    Will it mean what it says, and do what it says? Or will it continue to be what it has become in the Bush Eras 41 and 43. A country club party, filled with calls for “civility” as a substitute for bold conservative policy, always waiting for a “next time” to fight that somehow never seems to arrive.

    “I have never seen the backlash of Fox News personalities as I have seen today” — Rush Limbaugh

    According to Rush (someone was doing it with a stopwatch), Fox moderators got 31% of the air time. No other candidate came anywhere near it. This completely jibes with my complaint of these narcissistic pseudo-journalists.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      They also weren’t entirely fair in terms of who they questioned (and thus who get time), as Ben Carson pointedly observed once.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I believe it is pretty clear the object of Fox’s lackeys was to damage Trump. I suspect they did no such thing.

        The more the MSM and pundits belittle Trump and his chances, the more many people will support him. I am convinced millions upon millions of Americans hate, despise and loathe the MSM and politicians as a class.

        Anyone and anything which damages both will be welcomed and supported by the these people, many of whom are not even particularly political.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I believe it is pretty clear the object of Fox’s lackeys was to damage Trump.

          It sure seemed like it.

          From listening to Rush this morning, it sounds like there’s a lot of backlash against Fox. Again, StubbornThings is ahead of the game. I dumped that awful network (though perhaps better than most) over two years ago. For a serious discussion of politics, one must come here…or read Jeffrey Lord, Mark Steyn, Andy McCarthy, and perhaps a half dozen other reliable analysts.

          The more the MSM and pundits belittle Trump and his chances, the more many people will support him. I am convinced millions upon millions of Americans hate, despise and loathe the MSM and politicians as a class.

          We must be careful of projecting our own views onto a larger section of the population. There is every possibility that at the end of the day Jeb Bush will be the eGOP nominee. It would be nice if more people were getting disgusted with the eGOP, but I’m not going to count those chickens before they hatch. And, in the scheme of things, Donald Trump is a poor substitute for a true insurgency from the right.

          Still, if he can help to take Bush out (not sure how that scenario works, but saying “if”), he will have done a service.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            This warning about projecting is exactly the reason (in the opinion of Jazz Shaw of Hot Air in the article I mentioned earlier) thinks everyone keeps erring in their expectation that a new Trump “gaffe” will finally bring him down. Incidentally, the link to that item (which I didn’t have available when I first mentioned it) is:


            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              The only “gaffe” Trump can make is to apologize, be politically correct, or to lack the kind of tough-guy New York smart-guy bravado expressing (however coarsely) a core truth that needs to be spoken. It’s not going to work for him just ranting or being angry.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Exactly. That unapologetic nature is precisely what the voters want. He who is stubborn can hopefully be counted on to stand up to the Left.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            We must be careful of projecting our own views onto a larger section of the population. There is every possibility that at the end of the day Jeb Bush will be the eGOP nominee.

            I think there is little doubt that a large percentage of Trump’s supporters back him because he is willing to hit back at the MSM and career politicians who control the levers of power in this country.

            I will go further and state that this state of affairs is, in main, due to the treacherous way the Republican establishment has treated the base since the base brought about a huge win for the Republicans in 2012.

            While it is true that most people in the country seem to be drifting through existence in an electronic and drug induced stupor, the conservative base is not. And, thankfully, this base is millions strong. While we have, in all probability, lost the nation, but we are not giving up quite yet.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I think there is little doubt that a large percentage of Trump’s supporters back him because he is willing to hit back at the MSM and career politicians who control the levers of power in this country.

              I agree. But I think there’s a lot of “inside baseball” in regards to this. These people are a little more politically and culturally aware. They are (sadly) the likely exception. I’m not sure if Trump’s appeal will extend past just solid disgust with the eGOP and (as Jeffrey Lord notes) the hack media. Anyone who takes a shot at either will get the “guns, god, and gobsmackhim” crowd.

              One of the prime questions is how large that disgusted base actually is. How many people are willing to put the well being of their country and their children’s future over their own short-term “free stuff”?

              I’m onboard in regards to using Trump’s head (and hair) as a battering ram. I just don’t know how much legs that has. That is no doubt what is behind the conspiracy theory that Trump is just doing Hillary’s bidding. It’s a logical point to wonder what the end-game can be for this. Trump has to get polished, and fast, but without losing his braggadocio.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Note that polls show Trump’s support is not confined to conservatives or Tea Partiers. In fact, he does as well among moderate Republicans as he does among more conservative ones. There’s a lot of anger at the GOP by its own voters. Sooner or later they’ll pay a serious price unless they’re able to understand why this is so and what to do about it before that reckoning comes.

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    My younger brother pointed out something to me that I had been thinking myself (and may have already said up there somewhere). When it came to the closing arguments, many of these guys sounded like scripted robots, Rubio in particular. Good god, what a girly-man. We don’t care about your family. We don’t care that you personally fought your way up the Amazon river, battling crocodiles and piranha in order to grace us with your presence on this presidential stage.

    Is anyone else getting tired of this shtick?

    In contrast, Cruz was a little better with his closing.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ben Carson had a very nice closing, as in fact I pointed out earlier — especially his discussion of having removed half of a brain, and the implications for Versailles on the Potomac.


      Rubio is the phoniest of the bunch. He fooled a lot of Conservatives in Florida who are now experiencing buyer’s remorse, and even now has charmed his way into the hearts of people who should know better (e.g. Jim Geraghty over at NRO). But too many of us will not forget his sponsorship of the Democrats’ Amnesty bill to allow him to go all the way.

      Cruz did come off o.k. He is still the most intellectual, and for me, understanding the nature of our enemy, the Democratic Left, is far more important than the much-touted “executive experience” which many people insist on for some reason. You can’t fight the Left without understanding them and being able to hit them where they’re weakest – their corrupt and bankrupt ideology.

      Christie was loathsome, but I console myself with the thought that every primary vote he gets is one less for ¡Jeb!.

      Kasich and Huckabee are Progressives (of somewhat different types). Kasich can’t be trusted and loves Big Government as much as ¡Jeb! does.

      Rand Paul was his Libertarian self – ’nuff said.

      Carson came off well but has never held public office before.

      Of the ten, that leaves us with Cruz and Walker. From the second tier, Jindal and Fiorina deserve consideration. I’m with you, Brad, on Rick Perry: in 2012 he attacked Romney for “vulture capitalism”; this time, he attacked Trump over immigration, which took some nerve after his own support for discounted tuition for illegal aliens. I think he’s finished.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Rubio is the phoniest of the bunch.

        Ha ha, Nik. You definitely saw the same debate that I did. And yet I saw Obama as the biggest phony since Uri Geller. A scary thought is that this may mean Rubio is a real possibility with the electorate. He’s surely got that multiculturalism down. And unlike Jeb, he doesn’t have to pretend to be a “person of color.” And, yes, that amnesty bill is a problem in the GOP primaries. But in the general, he might wear it as a badge.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Rubio is the phoniest of the bunch. He fooled a lot of Conservatives in Florida who are now experiencing buyer’s remorse, and even now has charmed his way into the hearts of people who should know better (e.g. Jim Geraghty over at NRO). But too many of us will not forget his sponsorship of the Democrats’ Amnesty bill to allow him to go all the way.

        If you wish to freshen your memory of the dishonesty of the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, have a look at the link below. I wrote several pieces exposing the dishonesty and insanity of the immigration policy being pushed by our political masters.

        NRO has, for many months, been a shill for Wall Street type interests. I don’t go there anymore unless someone here mentions an article which needs to be read in order to see how “in the tank for RINOs” they are.


          I don’t believe I saw your article at the time, KFZ, so thanks for the link as I did read and enjoy it just now.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Thanks Nik. When this and the other articles on amnesty came out, I think about 4 people read them. It took me hours to research and write them.

            By contrast, my short piece, “Atheistic Fundamentalists” took me about fifteen minutes to write and was an immediate hit.

            Such are the vicissitudes which we amateur writers are subject to. Oh fickle public, where is thy sting?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I’ve noticed similar things regarding the “likes” in blogging. I write something I consider a brilliant comment and get no reaction; I write something I consider a nice if obvious content, and get lots of approvals. Who knows what will strike a spark?

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                That kind of stuff can drive you crazy if you’re not careful. And a time or two, I haven’t been careful.

                No man is an island, but living for “likes” in this superficial world of gauged Rocket Scientists is a recipe for frustration. Let your toes tingle by immersing yourself in excellence, whether your own or perhaps via reading a good author.

                It’s not easy being a leader. But in regards to producing excellence, that is precisely what it takes. I love the story of Michelangelo, commissioned (and coerced) to paint the Sistine Chapel, starting over after it was apparent to him that what he was doing was going through the motion.

                In this culture, you can routinely say the most amazing, accurate, witty, concise, wise, and wonderful things and not get a “Like.” You’ll hear crickets chirping. Look at it this way. (And, yes, you know what’s coming. Wait…for…it…) Imagine Frank Sinatra singing some of his classics today. We have no ear for it. And I’m not talking about the middle-to-late-age lounge singers who are always in demand. I mean the young, vital, youthful Frank who got the bobby soxers hotter than all hot.

                Talk about putting new wine in old skins. This culture has been so degraded by rap, rock ‘n’ roll, and just general low-brow vulgarity that there is little room left for true artfulness and pizzaz.

                I try not to go around with a chip on my shoulder about this or wear a martyr complex. But if you’re looking for ten minutes of fame in this culture, you’re going to have to put Jesus in a jar of piss or something because you’re not likely to get it via quality. Decide if man is the measure of all things. Or not. The former answer will drive you crazy. There’s refuge in the latter.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          NRO continues its anti-Trump rants today, and I will point out that Jonah Goldberg’s weekly article (today entirely an anti-Trump rant) generated some excellent responses, In particular, bob.sacamento did a superb job of explaining why many conservatives find Trump appealing.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            One thing I know that ruffles the feathers of these intellectualoids like Jonah is that Trump just isn’t playing according to their rules. So these Establishment types (or just Beltway types) dismiss him as a “populist.” They’re letting us know who the Smart People are and who the supposed rabble is. We must be tidy and polite and intellectually rigorous — at all times.

            And this is why guys such as Goldberg have a career. They’ve carved out a working conceit that what they say matters. And it bothers them to high hell that they see someone who they think is clearly inferior mattering more.

  14. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Mr. Kung pointed out to me that Ann has an article on the debate: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz Understand the Immigration Primary:

    Jeb looks more like Caitlyn Jenner every day.


    Kasich said nothing memorable

    Well, according to Rush, the libtards loved his views on expanding welfare. And, with all due respect, this guy sounds like a Christian flake. Apparently Jesus died on the cross — not for the Redemption of our sins — but as an anti-poverty program. Kasich has never impressed me as anything other than a douchebag. No wonder he got elected by Ohio, a state that has run off the rails.

    Rubio is a field mouse. He looks 14.

    I agree. He’s not presidential material. If he wasn’t a “person of color,” would he even have been on that stage?

    Kasich’s humble origins, Abe Lincoln, I-walked-50-miles-to school crap seems to be contagious because we also found out… RUBIO’S FATHER WAS A BARTENDER!

    Thank you, Ann. I’m glad I’m not the only one bothered by that baloney. And I hope Ted Cruz takes note of this as well.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Nice article. I noted that Kasich’s argument on social welfare is right out of the Social Gospel. It implies no limit on government spending and activism as long as it’s justified on the grounds (however false) of helping the poor. Kasich has his good points (they’re all better than the Fire Witch), but at no point have I considered voting for him in the primary.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        It implies no limit on government spending and activism as long as it’s justified on the grounds (however false) of helping the poor.

        Exactly analyzed. And those who espouse the “Social Justice/Gospel” get to be the do-gooder. I guess one could distinguish between the progressivism of the never-ending builder of infrastructure as opposed to the never-ending moralizing do-gooder. Both require other people’s money. With the former, at least you’re left with some useful roads and bridges.


        Yes, Kasich displays all the terrible vices of the Establishment-man: he accepts an unlimited welfare state (and seems to think we should care whether he or some Democrat is running it), he will betray any principle for expediency (he couldn’t resist taking Obamacare cash in Ohio even though he’s helping to entrench the program and the State will be on the hook for more money later), etc. He also tried and failed to do in Ohio what Scott Walker did in Wisconsin with Act 10, which means there’s absolutely no reason to vote for Kasich while Walker’s around – and I’m no Walker fan, as I think everyone here knows.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Kasich chose to include police and firefighters in his move against government unions, and Walker didn’t. The results show that Walker was sensible in this decision, though Kasich was more logically consistent. But note that after Kasich’s plan was overturned by a referendum, he doesn’t seem to have made an effort to get the state legislature (totally controlled by the GOP) to pass the more limited Walker version. Kasich had a decent record in the House and started off well as a governor — but then he went all Schwarzenegger.

  15. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    In fact, he does as well among moderate Republicans as he does among more conservative ones.

    Timothy, I would certainly have expected some cross-over appeal to a sort of new batch of “Reagan Democrats.” Chris Christie has (or had) that kind of appeal. (Trump, for the moment, has completely stolen his thunder.) But I was not aware the Trump polled well with so-called “moderate” Republicans. (What is a “moderate” Republican? I have no idea. I don’t think they do either.)

    Well, I keep waiting for the GOP to fall off the edge of the world. You’d think there would be a price to pay, just as there should be a price to pay for the Democrats. But with so many prices to pay, it’s like a fire sale.

  16. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the nice things about Ted Cruz is that his voice sounds a little like Dana Carvey doing his George H.W. Bush impression. My brother has been playing a few clips of the debate and Cruz has some good sound bytes. As did Carson with his “half a brain in DC” comment. Good show, Carson. And even the Huckster got in on the humor with his “And I’m, of course, talking about Hillary Clinton” comment when it sounded as if he was building up for yet another bash of Trump.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I liked that Huckabee bit. I thought he was going to name Obama rather than Hillary, but I knew he wasn’t going after the obvious target. Did you notice that Trump thanked him when he named Hillary?

      Actually, I considered Bush 41’s voice a little whiny (unfair, but that’s how it sounded). Unfortunately, Cruz also sounds a bit that way, though not to the same extent. Considering how well Bush did in 1988, I don’t know how much a problem that really was.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Everyone tries to personalize themselves, to draw out the warm-fuzzies and make an emotional connection with people. (And probably the overriding point for Republicans is to show women voters “I’m safe, I’m caring, I’m nurturing, I’m not part of the ‘war on women’.”) You can’t do that personalizing with canned log-cabin sound bytes. Even Bill Clinton didn’t do that exclusively. He depended upon his personality. But a good joke, told well, can go a long way.

        And it’s a little late to graft on a personality and it’s not something that political consultants can do. But one’s personality can be unleashed, and I think that is one of the Huckster’s strengths, even though he sounds a little bit like a TV-variety bible huckster every time he speaks.

        But they’re all phonies. I suppose in some real sense, we all are. Whatever the case may be, the presidential race has become little more than a reality show, with consequences. It’s all staged theatre. Nothing is real. Choose your fantasy, the federal debt will still continue to grow, the bureaucracy will continue to grow, the devaluing of all things classy, respectable, or decent will all continue to grow.

        As Rush noted the other day, the GOP Establishment just wants to get in there and control the money. Oh, there are other motivations, but I don’t think you can believe what any of them are saying, including Cruz. A truly honest man would say, “This is what I hope to do if elected president, but I know the forces arrayed against such actions are enormous, thus the most any politicians can hope to do is throw around a few vapid sound bytes such as ‘eliminate the Dept. of Education,’ ‘we need to build a wall,’ or whatever, because there is little chance of that happening.”

        And I don’t think a bit of that is cynical. Oh, a president (or party) certainly has the means and the power to *increase* programs and create new ones. And certainly foreign policy doesn’t go away and is something presidents have to react to one way or another (which makes the rube, Rand, a bad choice). But domestic issues are already now pretty much decided. Government will continue to get bigger, people will continue to expect more of it, and politicians will be glad to promise “services” of various kinds to buy (with borrowed money) constituencies. Unless and until the culture wars are engaged in any meaningful way, this is just the way it is.

        In the meantime we can get all hot and bothered because Trump said an unspeakable truth or Cruz made a good patriotic argument. But it’s Kabuki theatre at this point. We’re sort of a Weimar Republic waiting to be toppled. Or, perhaps more apt — I don’t expect a sudden toppling — the republic is bit by bit dissolving and being replaced by the unelected bureaucracy of a regulatory state. Not even Hitler could overthrow the EPA. (Well, he could. That was what the SA was for. We don’t have an SA. We have John McCain and Lindsey Graham.)

  17. Timothy Lane says:

    The first poll results are in on the debate, from Gravis. They found that Carson was considered the winner by 22% of respondents, compared to 19% for Trump and lesser amounts for the others. Rand Paul was considered the loser by 34% (a very bad night for him) and Trump by 30%, with lesser amounts for the others.

    Most of the candidates were viewed more favorably by far more respondents than more unfavorably in the poll. Paul, again, fared poorly, and Trump was a net negative (45-36) with Chris Christie not that much of a positive (he was also in the negative on the winner or loser questions). One link to the poll results is:

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      That’s good news for Carson (although I have no idea about the veracity of that poll). He’s certainly a guy who can stand only to gain as he becomes more familiar. Reagan was somewhat in the same boat.

      But who hasn’t heard of Bush? Rubio is Bush Lite, so who cares? Cruz, as correct and courageous as he is on most issues, is likely out of his realm as a chief executive. Senators don’t tend to make good presidents. Who hasn’t heard of Trump? I find it unlikely his poll numbers can increase without a dynamic and coherent message. He has to be more than just the Wild Man with Eff-You Money (although that’s enough for now, but he’ll wear that out in short order).

      Chris Christie (if he wasn’t Fat Boy) I would say is the shell of the man we saw in those union-haranguing videos of a few years ago. What’s Fat Boy’s plan? Is he going to sit on ISIS?

      If Carson made a positive impression last night, that could be the take-away story. And it sounds as if Carli did as well in the junior varsity debate. She should be moving up. Rand should go down along with Mr. Social Gospel from Ohio. I trust the slipperiness of Fat Boy far more than Mr. Kasich because Kasich has always seemed a bit unhinged to me.

      Polls can be notoriously meaningless, but I do agree that Walker (at 7% of “who won?”) was weak, almost forgettable. Still, he didn’t do himself any real harm.

      I agree with the “Who lost?” numbers. I think Trump has shot his wad. He didn’t make it in prime time. No major gaffs, but also no reason to believe he has any answers that no one else has. I didn’t catch why Rand Paul lost. But it doesn’t help in a GOP setting to be having to say, “But, really, I’m not an enemy of Israel.” Those who know libertarians know that that is likely a falsehood (I didn’t say “lie,” Megyn, you poor excuse for a journalist). Whatever the case may be, he was somewhat defined by his denial. I wonder what else he said to make him the big loser?

      With Donald Trump being both the big winner (in 2nd, anyway) and 2nd as the big loser, I don’t know what to say of that. The vapid analysis by Doherty is to use the five-dollar platitude word “polarizing.” What I think those numbers mean is that a lot of people wanted him to win…and a lot of people realize he didn’t live up to expectations. Even Ross Perot made his moment last longer than it appears Trump will.

      Carson will be a long shot. I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist, but if this man every strayed from his wife or so much as stole a pack of gum from the supermarket when he was fifteen, Jeb Bush’s opposition research will find it and feed it to the media. Anyone who thinks that “Shucks, I’m just a preppy boy from Texas” is the real Jeb Bush is fooling themselves. Nothing inflames Establishment Men like conservatives or outsiders. They tend to pull out all stops even while treating their Democrat opposition with kid gloves.

      So steel yourself, Ben.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I think Trump has shot his wad.

        I am not so sure. If I were a cynic, heh, heh, I might think that Trump and his advisors understand exactly where Trump needs to be at this time in the cycle. Jesus, we are five months away from the first caucus and even further from the first primary. Furthermore, we are in the most dead time of the year, as regards TV viewing.

        But look at the viewership numbers of the debate last night. They were apparently huge. Does anyone think that is because the public wanted to watch Jeb, Chris, John, Ted, Rand, the Huckster or the others I can not even recall? I don’t think so. I think the big draw was Trump. And I think all Trump has to do is stay belligerent vis-a-vis the establishment party and add a little detail to his message bit by bit.

        If Trump does this, and refines his message oh-so-slightly, he will maintain his popularity. And as time goes by, the weak sisters will start falling giving Trump the opportunity to develop his presentation and message further. In other words, let attrition take its toll and once the field is narrowed down, start a serious attack on Hillary and the Left.

        Maybe he won’t do this, but Trump is not stupid. I think this would be a winning strategy.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I’ve seen it estimated that Trump’s presence probably doubled or triple the audience, which makes him in fact quite helpful to the rest of the field.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            The *only* reason I tuned in last night was to see Trump. So, yes, his presence probably did serve to help some of the other candidates get exposure. Good point. Even then, some of those guys barely got a word in edgewise. Ten people in a debate is too many, especially with these unprofessional and narcissistic pseudo-journalists taking up 31% of the time preening for the cameras. Made me sick. These ass-wipe journalists they produce these days just can’t help making themselves the story.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I think the big draw was Trump.

          I agree. And he didn’t do particularly well. He’ll need to up his game, and quickly.

          Oh, his belligerence will surely gain him some short-term notoriety. And god knows we all miss having a little red meat tossed into GOP politics. But I’m not sure how far that red meat will go. He didn’t dispense any memorable sound bytes (that I’ve heard) last night. So what’s the point of Trump if he won’t be Trump?

          That’s why I see him fading. He’ll get bored with this whole process. But, as you say, if Trump develops his presentation and his policies, who knows? But because I think he’s a bit of a narcissist (they all are to some extent), I think we’re in a Hitleresque situation where we’ll be the bad guys for not understanding just how damn brilliant he supposedly is…even while rambling on incoherently.

          What I heard last night didn’t impress me. And I didn’t expect to be impressed. But I thought he’d at least have some clever quips at the ready. And I didn’t hear any so far.

          A narrow field may help him. And yet I think he stands tall now if only because the field is broad. But when narrowed down from a circus to, say, three or four serious politicians, he’ll likely do a Ross Perot and self-implode. That’s how I see it. Anyway, I admit that Trump adds an air of interest to the race if only because he’s taking part in the biggest reality show of all. And that’s the appeal.

  18. Pst4usa says:

    Thanks for the analysis one and all. I could not watch, we were out campaigning for my favorite school board candidate. (my wife). It seems to be such a shame that we/they wasted a golden opportunity, I think we have the best field we have had in my life time, not the best single candidate, but taken as a whole the best field. Why does the GOP seem so good at snatching defeat right out of the jaws of victory?

    I think Dennis Prager has the answer to this question. “There are two parties, the destructive and the stupid. I am a member of the latter”. The only problem is, by being so stupid, they are part of the destruction.

    Again thanks for the comments and reviews, I think I had more fun getting yelled at by angry voters than did those that watched the bread and circuses, without the bread.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      “The destructive and the stupid.” There’s some truth to that, although I don’t think Republicans are stupid as much as they are merely collaborators — Democrats Lite. And the “Lite” part includes not having a vision for America other than running the parts of government created and enlarged by the Democrats. They’re quite happy to take the reins of power and then do nothing to fix anything.

      It’s a large field, for sure. And as Rush says, he’d take any of those over Hillary, which isn’t saying much. The only acceptable ones (in the early going…some could disqualify themselves) worthy of being president are Cruz, Walker, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, and Jindal. I suspect Carson will top-out soon. I think he’s just too nice to play the kind of hardball he needs to. Fiorina has nowhere to go but up, but if she gains traction you can depend on her to water down her message. Walker is more like, “Okay, mom, if I have to.” I’d vote for him, but not enthusiastically. Sure, I’ll take Cruz, but he still has to sell himself as a leader.

      Rubio is another “Okay, if I have to” candidate. The dark horse is Jindal. This guy turned me way off a few years ago when he did that Mr. Rogers-like impression in his opposition speech to Obama’s State of the Transformation address. But since then he has showed some balls. I think of all of these guys, he has it inside himself to be a true, strong, principled leader. If so, the large crowd is certainly a disadvantage to him. There’s a lot of static and noise, including Trump.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        And as Rush says, he’d take any of those of Hillary, which isn’t saying much.

        Like I say, I’d rather have pneumonia than lung cancer. These have been, essentially, our choices.

      • Pst4usa says:

        Brad, I am afraid that putting party over country is, to my way of thinking, a good definition for stupid.
        I have to agree with your comment Mr. Kung, that has been our choice, but although Cruz may not be perfect, he is by far the best I have seen in a long time, and I would say Brad has a good list of better than pneumonia candidates, in my opinion.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          The model of government as protector of basic rights and provider of basic infrastructure was one that worked. The model of government as everybody’s sugar daddy and nose-wiper doesn’t.

          To fix a problem, you first have to identify it. And all of Trumps raging at illegal aliens (although an important issue), doesn’t do that because illegal aliens are part of this larger sugar-daddy issue. The nanny socialist creed says it’s just not fair that some nations do better than others, so the richer nations must “share.” The open border is a symptom of this attitude. Build all the damn wall you want (which we should), but that still won’t fix the bigger problem which is this socialist attitude.

          Who will say that? Well, before you answer that, I don’t have any intention to run for president. But, again, I’d be more than willing to work for cheap for the right candidate.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            As Margaret Thatcher observed, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. But that can take a long time, and until then it looks good to those who don’t mind mooching off of strangers.

            There can be other problems as well. In Williamson’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, he noted that Sweden worked fine for a while, but eventually third-world immigrants who came to mooch off their social welfare benefits created problems . Until then, the Swedes were basically paying now to benefit later, and helped by a strong work ethic. The immigrants lacked the work ethic and received the benefits without having paid in, and that corrupted the native culture as well.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Until then, the Swedes were basically paying now to benefit later, and helped by a strong work ethic. The immigrants lacked the work ethic and received the benefits without having paid in, and that corrupted the native culture as well.

              When people see others getting something for nothing from the State, it is quite normal for a large percentage to say to themselves, “am I a fool? I am supporting Muhammed and he does nothing. Why shouldn’t I just quit and go on the dole as well?” It doesn’t take everyone to take this path to bring down a State. But the number who follow this path will likely increase over time as the more people who do this, the more people will eventually say “why should I work?”

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              My guess is that in a fairly non-diverse native culture that still has shaming, socialism would be less dysfunctional. It’s still just shuffling money around. But conceivably in a culture with a manly work ethic and where there is a stigma against mooching, you could make socialism last longer. I don’t know if Sweden is such a culture or not.

              But certainly multiculturalism/hatred-of-self throws a monkey wrench in the works. It’s moocherism on steroids. Moochers are considered victims. The hard-working are exploiters (simply because of the success they wrought from hard working).

  19. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Kevin Williamson is obsessing over Trump again. I like what this commenter said:

    I am not a “Trump follower”, I support Dr. Carson.
    However, I do find Kevin Williamson’s rants far more distasteful than Trump’s. He has now written 5 (or 6, I’ve lost count) consecutive columns where he basically reduces himself to hurling grade school level epitahs at Trump and his followers. It’s completely pointless and quite unbecoming for a venerable publication like National Review.

    At some point, how do we tell Williamson from Trump? He seems obsessed by him. And this bit of rationalization has Establishment Republican written all over it:

    That is one of the problems with Trump that the Trumpkins don’t understand. It is true that the our inability to control our borders is an existential threat to these United States and that the crisis of illegal immigration is felt most intensely in downscale communities that do not register on Washington’s radar or Wall Street’s. But Trump’s buffoonery makes it less likely rather than more likely that something substantive will be done on the question.

    Got that? Given the success of those with proper decorum fixing the illegal immigration problem, we must be close to a fix because Williamson says that Trump shouting about it is setting the cause back. Geez, is this guy an idiot? How many million illegal aliens do we have now in this country? How high power of a telescope to you need to even see “back”?

    What this tells you is the Williamson has morphed into a knee-jerk Establishment mouthpiece, for Trump must be a threat to them. Any reasonable commentator (or an astute one such as yours truly) would note that Trump is an outlet for the frustration people have for the duplicitous and back-stabbing Republican Establishment. And continued support for Trump is like them saying, “We’re going to keep rolling this nitroglycerine-with-big-hair down the aisle toward you unless and until you actually change your ways. And if you don’t, we’re all going to blow up anyway, so we might as well have some fun doing it.”

    NRO. RIP. StubbornThings is now where you can find clear, relevant, and insightful commentary…not political hacks and Establishment mouthpieces.

    • Pst4usa says:

      I’m not so sure how much P. I wish them in that RIP. Lots of R though.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This continued today, though some of the articles (such as Goldberg’s) at least made valid points. One of the responses to Goldberg (by bob.sacamento several hours ago) nicely explained the motivation of many Trump supporters. There was another excellent explanation at HotAir earlier today, which can be found at the following link:

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There is a growing contingent of people in this country who are totally and completely fed up with our entire political system.  They don’t care about pragmatism, or policies, or outcomes.  They just want to give everyone from the pundits to the politicians both middle fingers and they don’t care who else is looking when they do it.

        Yes, I think that’s a reasonable analysis by this guy. We’re then left to see if Trump has any kind of positive vision-thing. I don’t believe his act can hold up without more coherence being thrown in.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          But the basic point could be that if McConnell and Boehner had genuinely sought to live up to their promises instead of making deals with Barry Screwtape Obama, there would be no Trump boom. I think it was their fecklessness (at best) or betrayal (at worst) that finally drove the grassroots voters to a desperate rage at the GOP leadership.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I agree. And the breaking of faith with the right goes back decades now.

            And since The Donald is obviously a politically androgynous character, it would be interesting to see what his appeal is to those who don’t identify as conservative or Republican. What kind of discontent does a modern “Reagan Democrat” suffer? It would be very interesting to know.

  20. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I believe that the support for Trump is broader than the disaffected tea party types.

    I’m truly interested in what issues are central to disaffected Democrat voters. Or is it perhaps better to say there are at least a couple appeals to The Donald. One, he is the Acme anvil falling on the head of Establishment Republicans instead of on the head of Wile E. Coyote. Two, he represents one of the largest parties (no pun intended) in America: the entertainment party.

    Perhaps Trump’s biggest appeal is that he’s not a professional politician. Both reliable Republican and Democrat voters have come to know that they are all liars. One of the problems this has created for “issues” politics (assuming there are any), as well as impartial and wise conservative prognosticators (assuming there are any), is that with both parties being almost sociopathic liars, nobody really cares about “the issues” or the fine points of political philosophy because they know it doesn’t matter if you care or not, if you know or not. So why fret over the fine points of Trumps platform? And I think few Trump supporters do. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are dumb or low-information voters (although they might be). I think it means that they know it doesn’t matter what either party says.

    I mean, as a thoughtful conservative, Mr. Kung, wouldn’t it be sort of foolish to sit down and read the various position papers of the GOP candidates regarding illegal immigration? Whatever is on paper, chances are they won’t actually do anything if elected.

    Again, I don’t know how much disaffection there is in the Democrat base. But certainly for those conditioned from birth to believe that Republicans and Christians are the bad guys, I think Trump gets around that political prejudice. He has a chance for popular appeal. And no wonder this leaves guys like Kevin Williamson almost apoplectic. They’re taken completely out of the loop (assuming conservative prognosticators ever were in the loop).

    And it’s going to be difficult to undercut Donald Trump because people already know him. He had (has?) a #1 rated show on TV. And if it’s on TV, it’s automatically important.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes, the crucial reason for the final disaffection of grassroots Republicans from their party came this year, with the feckless (at best) performance of Republicans in Congress. The voters saw this as a betrayal, and I’m not sure the party will be able to recover their support. Nor does it deserve to. On the other hand, as in 2006, we don’t deserve the result (i.e., a win for the Plunderbund).

      Incidentally, I’m most of the way through Ann Coulter’s latest book. It would make me passionately hate liberals (as a group) along with their willing GOP accomplices — except I already did. But she does make a devastating case against immigration, and reminds me of why I once asked Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller if he really wanted Tea Partiers and Occupiers to combine.

      Addendum: I noticed on Mark Steyn’s “Song of the Week” column that there was a different list at a site called The Camp of the Saints. Naturally, this clear reference to Jean Raspail’s novel interested me, and I checked it out. Included is a copy of Raspail’s 1985 introduction to the book (I believe I have an earlier edition), dealing with the West’s loss of its soul. For anyone interested, the link is:

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I’m truly interested in what issues are central to disaffected Democrat voters

      I am not sure how many of them there are, but I suspect there are a few things which irritate some Democrat voters.

      1. Wage stagnation.
      2. Low job growth, despite the lies reported about how great it is.
      3. Inflation which hits working people harder than the crony capitalists
      4. Increased racial tensions which this administration has fostered
      5. The diminution of America’s place in the world and traitorous manner this administration has handled our foreign relations.
      6. The promotion of barbarism by institutions such as Planned Parenthood.
      7. Constriction of religious rights and queer marriage.

      I am pretty certain these points could be developed with fair percentage of Dem voters. At least with those who work and go to church.

      As for the mind-fogged rabble who are the Dems largest base, well, Trump just might be entertaining enough to seduce a fair amount of them to the dark side.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Thanks, Mr. Kung. I wonder about #7. I was reading an article the other day (by a conservative Jew) who noted that 70% of Jews back the Democrats even though they are even now facilitating a holocaust of Jews in the Middle East. His main argument for why they support Democrats was a dislike of Christians.

        I mention this because I think there are lots of “moderate” Democrats who would let the nation burn rather than join sides with those awful fundamentalist wacko Christians in the Republican Party. Still, I did ask the question and appreciate the response. Ultimately, Who knows? It would be great to have an in-house honest liberal who could give us an insight on this, what it would take to vote for a Republican, and what he or she doesn’t like about the Democrats and the Left.

        You’d think #6 would be an issue. But, again, I suspect a fair number of “moderate” “blue dog” Democrats would rather that Rome burn than join forces with the hated enemy, the GOP and fundamentalist wacko Christians. I could be wrong. But one of the major unwritten stories is the prejudice that has been built up in this regard. It is the true thread (other than “free stuff”) that holds the Democrat coalition together (and Dennis Prager concurs): hatred of the right.

        In that sense, certainly Donald Trump flies under the radar of that prejudice. If he plays his cards right (unlikely…but you never know), he could be in contention until near the end of the nominating process. I don’t know how many crossover votes he’d get in the various primaries, but he might get plenty from normally Democrat voters.

        I think the jobs/wage stagnation issues certainly are ones that resonate with many Democrat voters. And whether they have any true patriotism left so that they are bothered by the Democrat’s traitorous politics, I don’t know. But I doubt it.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Partisanship (tribalism) does afflict most Democrats, but that still doesn’t keep them from being upset about certain issues. A number of black pastors recently came out against certain aspects of social liberalism. Note that in 2004, homosexual marriage was voted down in heavily black areas that voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (as I noticed from the precinct results in the Curious Journal). Republicans can’t hope for a large black vote, but they can probably get as many blacks as they do Hispanics (20-30%) — and that would have a decisive effect in many states.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            A number of black pastors recently came out against certain aspects of social liberalism.

            Funny how black (or whomever) disgust with certain aspects of liberalism rarely turns into actual votes. And the RINO way to get those votes is to soft-peddle. Don’t say or do anything that upsets anyone, but give big rhetoric to “reaching out.”

            Maybe if Republicans actually painted in bold colors and made an issue of the terrible schools in black neighbors, single parenthood, crime, whatever, they might connect. But most have been cowed by the entire Cultural Marxist meme that to bring any of this out is to “blame the victim.” So blacks remain on a Democrat plantation where at least their conceits and grievances are catered to. Actual solutions to their problems? No one seems to really care.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              It worked for Jesse Helms in 1984; he got about 15% of the black vote, far more than would have been expected, by means of a brief campaign based on common social issue stances. That increased black vote may have given him his vote margin over Jim Hunt.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Republicans can’t hope for a large black vote, but they can probably get as many blacks as they do Hispanics (20-30%) — and that would have a decisive effect in many states.

            That is why I say a “fair percentage” of Dem voters. I don’t expect the majority to switch. But if the Reps got 20-30% of the black vote and the other voting percentages stayed the same, the Dem party would pretty much disappear.

            I have never understood why blacks don’t “get” this.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              No, the question is why the GOP doesn’t get this and campaign actively among black voters on socially conservative issues. One reason blacks vote for the Demagogues is because the latter campaign actively for their votes, and the GOP doesn’t (unless it’s to pander on social welfare issues, where they can never outbid the Left).

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                That too. I pushed this point a lot before the last couple of elections.

                One hears the pundits wondering what Reps must do to increase the percentage of minority votes and they never come to the answer which is, “to get votes the party has to first be present in voters’ neighborhoods. Show you have interest and the rest will slowly follow.”

                But I don’t believe the Rep establishment has great interest in going into such neighborhoods.

  21. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m not saying this article confirms my suspicions of Carly. Just make sure you hear her out before turning her into a Ronald Reagan, or even a Sarah Palin. Nearly everyone who has been to college believes this fairy story about Islam. And I can’t say that at the time of 9/11 I had anything but a rudimentary understand of just how dark and violent that religion is.

Leave a Reply

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