Candidate vulnerability
It’s no secret that Marco Rubio is vulnerable with conservatives on his Gang of Eight history. On reading this Powerline piece about Cruz’s possible vulnerabilities (which don’t seem that bad to me, by the way) it occurs to me this is the price of having political experience in Congress, particularly as a senator.
Senators always have such a history of at least a couple of potential problem votes; it’s the nature of the Senate, which is nothing if not convoluted. Sometimes compromise is necessary, and a person votes for something that doesn’t represent his/her viewpoint 100% but is considered better than the alternatives. Or sometimes a person makes a misjudgment. There are so very many votes that a dedicated opponent can always find something to object to, and purist voters can say they’re not going to vote for senator candidates because the voter’s principles demand perfect adherence to the True Cause.
A candidate with no political experience or history—such as Donald Trump (he’s not the only one, but he’s the most prominent one)—has no history of votes which could pin him down. His supporters argue (paradoxically) that he can be trusted, probably in part because he’s never had to act on anything he’s promising. In fact, all we have with Trump are his business record and his words, as well as his previous campaign contributions.
He’s supported Kelo, with vigor. He’s had great things to say about Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, and contributed to many liberal candidates as well as having himself been a Democrat off and on for many years. His personal financial interests have always warped and shaped his behavior in the political sense, and he admits as much—that he’s long given political contributions of great magnitude to many Democrats because this will help him make more money. That’s his prerogative, but I fail to see how it increases his trustworthiness.
Getting back to Congress, today Ted Cruz is reported to be drafting a Senate bill to bar Syrian Muslim refugees but allow Syrian Christian refugees. This makes logical sense—Christians are being slaughtered for their religion alone, and it’s from the ranks of Muslims that the terrorists come—criticism from liberals will be fierce (read the comments section there to see some of it). Meanwhile, Paul Ryan is proposing a bill in the House that would call for better vetting of refugees.
It’s funny how so many from the left were so stupid and ill-informed that they thought they could get away with equating opposition to Islam, the religion of submission, with racism.
Apparently they never heard of Chaldeans or Assyrians.
Yet once they find out, “it makes no matter” as they say. The left just shifts footing. Now its religious bigotry, or some crap like that. But then they are leftists, and as everyone here has noticed many times over, totalitarians both east and west, secular and Islamist have much more in common with each other than they do with those who value freedom.
What DNW said. The progs don’t care at all that Muslims are religious bigots, only Americans (who have reasoned objections to Islam and therefore are NOT bigots). The progs go nuts when Americans criticize the homosexual lifestyle, but look the other way when Muslims toss them off the roof. The progs talk a lot about a “war on women”, but could care less when Muslims treat their women like chattel. When you get down to it, the progs just hate everything about America.
Paul Ryan’s true colors are emerging with the absurd proposed bill for better vetting of “refugees.”
Ryan has suckered in a lot of people who believe him conservative despite lacking any support for that belief.
He will be doing deals with Hussein before long to “show” that the House can get stuff done.
People who deem Rubio capable as just as deluded as those who voted for Hussein because he is black. Rubio is an opportunist pure and simple.
People who like Trump ignore the fact he is as narcissistic as Hussein.
Kasich is a Ryan-equivalent. Paul is a mere gadfly.
Which leaves us with the three Cs. I’m good with that.
From Wiki on Ryan’s legislative record:
“During his 13 years in the House, Ryan has sponsored more than 70 bills or amendments, of which two were enacted into law. One, passed in July 2000, renamed a post office in Ryan’s district; the other, passed in December 2008, lowered the excise tax on arrow shafts.
“Ryan has also co-sponsored 975 bills, of which 176 have passed. 22 percent of these bills were originally sponsored by Democrats.”
A real quiverful of accomplishments, no?
Hillary’s opposition research team is mining a gold mountain of negative stuff on Trump now.
He has had four bankruptcies and numerous lawsuits along with the rough and tumble of real estate development over many years. Add in his many media appearances and this huge negative is reason enough not to nominate him.
I kid you not. Just imagine the TV commercials. Mitt will look like a saint compared to Donald.
Frog,
The three C’s. I like that.
People who like Trump ignore the fact he is as narcissistic as Hussein.
That’s actually a feature for the new wave anti Leftists, since they were bred and conditioned on the premise that only a tyrant can depose another tyrant. That doesn’t solve the issue but since many of them live overseas, that isn’t all that important.
There resides, in the GOP/Cons Establishment, a certain type of “conservative” inextricably enmeshed in a seemliness with which they would not part for anything. Decorum ranks higher with them than all else. You would know them immediately upon hearing a mere phrase or several. They are in voice, word, manner, high toned, erudite, above, always high above the fray. They would adhere to Marquise of Queensbury even in the event they were being beaten with a bludgeon. There are just things they will not do — for propriety’s sake.
Foremost among such would be George Will, but there are many others.
Just a sample of the many available for the purpose
A conservative pundit most perspicacious — the name doesn’t matter. He let it be known that he thought Paul Ryan an excellent choice for House Speaker. As if to prove his judgment impeccable he noted that Trump was merely yahooism in a tailored suit. There were the conservative’s bona fides. Having taken the measure of Trump and found him a brute, how could he not know Ryan was the genuine item.
Quote: “Ryan, as smart and able and mature a tribune of ‘the people’ as you would ever wish to see wielding the speaker’s gavel, gave a smart and able and honest speech as he assumed the speakership just before Halloween. “The House is broken,” he said. “We are not solving problems. We are adding to them.”
And herein is where all such measures of men “smart and able and mature, and tribunes of the people” breaks down.
A video is unearthed of Paul Ryan, two years ago, mugging with Chicago political rat bastard and immigration wholesaler Luis Gutierrez, and boasting of his own efforts to get amnesty passed having this to say:
“America is more than a country. It’s more than Chicago or Wisconsin. It’s more than our borders; America is an idea. It’s a very precious idea.”
Aye, a land of make believe. Imagine there are no borders, it’s easy if you try. If America is a proposition, an idea, then whose idea? Ryan’s? Emma Lazarus’? Barack Obama’s?
Leaving aside the policy question, leave aside also the pronouncement that America is a proposition, not a country, not borders, not laws and you have that which has provoked conservatives for twenty-five long years. The GOP/Cons Establishment will always embrace the decent man with indecent ideas.
Just how cultivated does one have to be to opt for snob appeal and see the country burn before stooping to the likes of the uncouth yahoo who just might save it? If Trump warrants little in the way of trustworthiness, not a wild notion what with skepticism, being the first rule of political wisdom then how much more do the likes of Rubio and Ryan warrant it? The second rule of political wisdom — know what it is that is, not what you wish it to be. Trump the yahoo has it all over the extravagant visionaries. However he comes by it, he understands the conception of the nation as being chartered with Declarations, a Constitution and laws — no more than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY-ueR0OLlQ
Interesting vid about R and K strategies, as it relates to the Left and Islam at least.
Just how cultivated does one have to be to opt for snob appeal and see the country burn before stooping to the likes of the uncouth yahoo who just might save it?
People who still rely on Dear Leader to do the work you should be doing, are no better than welfare recipients kissing up to their sugar daddy, the Big Gov.
Make no pretensions that Dear Leader makes you a free human, because you won’t be one given that power imbalance.
Rubio may fare better than Cruz in this immigration vs. surveillance vulnerability contest.
A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll done Oct. 30 to Nov. 8 — before Paris — found that out of a list of possible threats, 22% chose illegal immigration followed by 18% who chose foreign terrorist groups. Pretty close in importance to Texas voters. I wouldn’t be surprised if that 18% has increased since Paris and overtaken immigration as most important threat.
A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll? Really? Is that a poll of residents of Austin, TX, the Berkeley of Texas? And the Texas Trib is apolitical, Eh?
Found it at the bottom of the Texas Trib article: “The University of Texas/Texas Tribune internet survey of 1,200 registered voters”, but does not say where those voters reside.
Internet survey, huh? “Click here to take the survey”? Would that be considered random?
Thanks, Ann.
From the PDF on the poll’s methodology (a link to it was provided in that article):
More here on how YouGov does its polls.
Frog @ 5:02 has the right of it. Ryan’s proposed bill for better vetting of “refugees” is either incompetent ignorance or mendacious political calculation. In either case, it’s demonstrable proof of unfitness for the position.
Jindal drops out, the donald says Cruz is his VP pick, jeb! Is wishy washy on refusing to import more jihadi, and the beat goes on.
It seems to me that Obama and the Democrats fundamental transformation is heavily dependent on adding to their base and substantially changing the demographics of America– via lax borders, sanctuary cities, increased illegal immigration, executive orders for amnesty, and now an Obama inspired invasion of Syrian and other “refugees” who cannot be vetted.
So, I will vote for the candidate that I believe can put a stop to this. Because if we don’t everything else will disintegrate.
If you say you contributed to politicians because it buys you access, then you are telling the truth. The ugly truth is every other candidate is receiving special interest contributions that count far more than our votes. Read Peter Schweizer’s book “Throw Them All Out” and you’ll understand how the system works. Trump’s message is that he could buy politicians but he can’t be bought because he is self-funding.
Trump supports eminent domain and explained why. Without eminent domain, you don’t get roads built, you don’t get factories built, you don’t get airports. He reduced it to a fair price issue. If the city needs your house to build a hospital say, it should pay a fair price. He said that.
I heard Trump on Hannity tonight saying it is far easier for a Muslim from Syria to enter the US compared to a Christian. He seemed rather agitated about that.
I said in an earlier response that the two big issues in 2016 will be illegal immigration and Islam. Trump surged from zero to top of the polls by attacking illegal immigration head on. He is also taking on Islam head on by talking about closing down radical mosques. No other candidate is saying that, yet. He also said he’d deport every Syrian refugee that Obama lets into the country.
Conservative Treehouse, a blog that seems to have its finger on the pulse, since it has predicted each GOP withdrawal on the button, has an interesting post on why Trump is succeeding. The basic theme is that Trump owns the downside on any issue.
Another example of “owning the downside”.
Do I trust Trump? I think he is driven to succeed at whatever he tackles and he is crazy like a fox. The idea of “owning the downside” is a new concept to me. But it explains crazy like a fox.
Imagine if other candidates would own their downside.
I’ll add a few of my own.
Imagine if Carly Fiorina said “Yes, I know I halved the value of HP shares in my tenure but I needed to expand our share of the PC market”.
Imagine if Carson said “Yes, I believed the Pyramids were build to store grain, but now I know that I was ignorant’.
Imagine if Hillary said “I lied about the Benghazi terrorist attack being caused by a video but I didn’t want to admit that we screwed up”.
PatD:
Of course Trump’s telling the truth about that. So what? Did I ever say he wasn’t?
It doesn’t make his behavior better, it doesn’t make him understand his own position papers any better, it doesn’t make his support of Kelo’s tyranny any better, it doesn’t make his praise of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton any better, it doesn’t make his support of single payer any better, and it doesn’t change the fact that he’s a narcissistic self-serving amoral son of a bitch.
Trump’s a blunt guy. I come from New York; I’ve met a lot of blunt guys in my life. That’s not really enough to make me support them as president.
@neo-neocon: My real point is that he is changing the rules of the game. Don’t let the media control the narrative. Turn it around on them. Own the downside. Did McCain do that? Did Romney do that? And answer came there none.
I’d be really happy if other GOP candidates could do that, rather than let the media control them. But none of them has done that. Except Trump. Of course Trump has celebrity in his favor, but now he is running for President, he has all the media guns aimed against him.
I admit he has a huge advantage over the rest of the field. It’s called celebrity status. He earned it and he’s got it. But why would he sacrifice so much money to do the worst job in the world? I really think he cares about America. I’m 100% convinced President Obama doesn’t.
I think you do a disservice to his mother by calling Trump a “narcissistic self-serving amoral son of a bitch”. I don’t think she was a bitch. I think he’s moral. People in the business, including Giuliani, agree on that. Of course he is self-serving. We are all self-serving. He has been very successful at it. But, when you run for the worst job in the world, you aren’t self-serving; you are sacrificing. I could be completely wrong and you could be completely right, but I think he is running for America. Why else would he step aside from a multi-billion dollar empire to do this?
PatD,
I think Trump is probably a bit bored and sees the presidency as a new exciting endeavor. Somehow, he must know that his financial escapades are pretty superficial. Does it really make a difference to sensible people whether there is marble all over the hotel where they spend the night? Does losing lots of money at a casino really bring more excitement into the lives of people than playing bingo with friends at the church social hall? Trump is selling people the superficial and pretending it is important. When kings built elaborate palaces, there was more than just personal luxury involved. The palaces symbolized for the average person not just wealth and power, but also a sense of who they were. Trump’s building bear his name; there is no sense of prestige for the wider populace. Trump would like to put his name in lights across the WH. He wants to make America great again, not because he cares about America, but because he wants to have more power and prestige for himself. In the end he would be willing to take our houses to build parking lots for his limos. And then he will tell everyone that they benefit because limo drivers now have jobs.
I would be willing to be a limo driver to take care of myself and my family, but I’d like to keep the house that i made into a home where my family could celebrate Thanksgiving together. I have very different priorities from Trump. And I think my priorities are more in line with the ethos that made America great.
I have one comment on Cruz’s bill to keep Muslims out. Would it have been better to say that we are prioritzing our help to Christians and those of other religions who are being targetted by ISIS. Many Muslims are obviously being hurt by ISIS , but that is internal to the religion and only Muslims can sort out what they believe and how they want to live. Those who want to move to the West bear the burden of proof that they are willing to accept our basic values and will pass these on to their children. There can be no silent support of radical imams who blame all the problems of Muslims on the rest of the world.
The Left feels a tremor in the force.
Something it has not felt in years …
Ah, yes … the old master.
parker Says:
November 17th, 2015 at 8:23 pm
Jindal drops out, the donald says Cruz is his VP pick, jeb! Is wishy washy on refusing to import more jihadi, and the beat goes on.
&&&
Trump’s staff is reading Neo Neocon.
I predicted just exactly that line up — and that it would be a tidal wave blow out.
Trump, say what you will, is drawing MASSIVE cross over support that is not showing up in these polls.
Cruz would be the perfect inside operator — as Trump’s management style is identical to Reagan: DELEGATE.
Trump will be Mr. Big Picture.
Cruz will be the COO.
This scheme is now required because the Presidency has gotten so big, so tasking.
At this time, Valerie Jarrett is COO.
Iran is the result.
I still would prefer Cruz as President, but he’s got a tougher November battle than Trump — who — like Reagan — seems to have teflon skin.
In the final run, the most damaging Trump statements will repel Republicans — yet garner cross over Democrats.
If I were Hillary I would need a wig — because I would torn all of my hair out.
And NO, I can’t believe that Trump is going to lie down for Hillary.
Do do so would ruin the Trump brand name — for all time.
Pat D…
Trump is NOT owning the downside.
He’s “agreeing and amplifying.”
There’s a difference.
You saw Agree and Amplify in:
“Clear and Present Danger”
Jack Ryan, the hero character, tells the sitting President that instead of denying his close involvement with a drug smuggler that he should crush the question with:
“He’s a life long friend of mine.”
After that, what can a reporter say to badger him ?
Nothing.
All of the questions that the reporter was going to lob are now dead.
Trump is “Agreeing and Amplifying.”
Trump isn’t a perfect man. We haven’t seen one of those in about 2,000 years.
But he has campaigning moxie in his bones.
The MSM is left gasping when dealing with him.
I regard undoing BHO as the primary mission of the next president.
HRC will extend BHO’s term in office, policy wise.
Which is clear by her stump pitch.
Blert:
I see Rubio on Monday and will put your oil tariff question to him.
If Power Line doesn’t publish it, I will post it here.
PatD wrote, “I’d be really happy if other GOP candidates could do that, rather than let the media control them.”
Carson with his 4.8 million FB followers and growing (more than Trumps, Clinton’s, all Democrat candidates combined) doesn’t let the media control him.
When the Politico story happened – he corrected the “record” by showing the Politico lies for what they were.. lies on the Naval Academy story. He had a few posts that gave people the information because the lineup of CNN, ABC, Politico, NBC, NPR were in lockstep of idiocy.
When the same happened on the Chinese equipment in Syria, Carson’s FB posts showed pictures of Chinese heavy equipment in Syria. Pictures and words setting the record straight.
You PatD, are letting the facts be unobserved which is the downfall of a person with the head in the sand.
Trumps negatives grow as his bombastic (Obama style rhetoric) dig his hole each day. There is a certain sector who “like” to hear his bombastic style and then there are people craving for substance.
We’ve had enough of the Obama/Trump bombastic non-listening style.
Trump isn’t running against McCain or Romney. He’s running against other people (Cruz, Carson, etc.) who are not playing by MSM rules either. Have you not noticed? It’s neither 2008 nor 2012.
Trump is getting the most coverage, of course, because (a) he makes good copy and video (b) he is already a celebrity, and (c) they want him to win because they think he’s the weakest Republican candidate. This is partly why he’s doing well. If he were to be nominated, the tone of the coverage would change, and the opposition research will come out.
Plenty of people who’ve worked with and for Trump say he’s an underhanded, conniving, narcissitic, power-hungry, near-crazy, lying, double-crossing, reprehensible person. There are documentaries and articles about it, some of which I’ve watched and read. Are they true? They certainly fit with my gut perception of the man and what I see of his behavior, but of course I’m not sure. But believe me, there are plenty of these people.
You are completely unrealistic about the man and the dirt that can very easily be dug up on him. Just a couple of quick ones: this and this.
And this kind of blarney.
neo…
I don’t doubt that there is a mother lode of snark that’s certain to descend upon the Donald.
He’s never been my first pick.
Cruz is the man for me — the moment Walker faded.
But, I’m reconciling with the polls.
I’m also looking at how heavily Trump pulls from across the aisle.
The stuff in VF and Fortune is pretty snarky — and just about meaningless to LIV — Low Involvement Voters.
It’s hard to comprehend the ‘frame’ that LIV use to make their minds up.
They certainly don’t immerse themselves in blogs.
Ticked off former business rivals and associates are not going to sway many — if any.
What I find astounding is that he has ANY positive relations with his ex-wives.
That’s so shocking that it outweighs the snark of rivals.
The oppo research that is sure to hurt turns on anything but Kelo. That’s too cerebral.
Obamacare cuts both ways. Like JFK, Trump was for it and now is likely to be against it. ( Tweaking it ? )
I’d suspect that Trump would NOT veto a bill to repeal or massively modify 0-care.
Stomping on Obama’s signature legislation WOULD be extremely appealing to Trump, don’t you doubt that.
So, Cruz is my primary pick. I’d rather have Trump as Commerce Secretary… Hoover style.
I think Fiorina would be fine as second, as she’s sure to pull votes.
MY ONLY beef with Carson is that he’s too White for Black voters.
They can’t cross over any more than “Progressives” can.
And he’s sure to take many harpoons over his prior religious statements.
He’s got no prior political office – compounded by not being seen as any kind of political player.
Whereas Trump has been a business-politician most of his adult life.
That Trump University bit — is pretty nasty stuff.
Carson pushed a product that is pretty dubious, too.
Then had an operation — just to be safe.
The end result is to make Carson look like a late night huckster.
BOTH might fade.
@neo-neocon According to the man himself, as detailed in his book, he has a net worth of $8,737,440,000. Since he published that information, it probably matches what he filed with the FEC and the IRS.
Of course, if the world goes into hell in a hand basket, which is where Obama seems intent on sending it, he’ll be worth a lot less. So will us middle class dupes.
Trump vs Clinton in the gossip stakes? Not even close.
@neo-neocon: Quoting Fortune Magazine, which is in the same stable as Time magazine, is using the leftist media attack machine. It is similar to quoting Bloomberg. These are Wall Street operations. They hate Trump and they hate what he is saying. They want Jeb or Hillary. They don’t care which.
Of course, if the world goes into hell in a hand basket, which is where Obama seems intent on sending it, he’ll be worth a lot less. So will us middle class dupes.
Actually he’ll be worth more, since real estate and solid assets, not fiat cash, goes up in value once the economy crashes.
More millionaires were made in the Great Depression than the periods before it, because wealth was redistributed into the hands of people who had leverage and assets, vs people who were reliant on currency or income.