Who called Ted Cruz “worse than Hillary”?
Why, it’s our hero: Donald Trump (video is at the link; it happened Wednesday the 20th of January).
You can find more on Trump’s rhetoric and the substantive issues (or supposedly substantive issues) he discussed here:
What a strange soundbite for a Republican frontrunner, suggesting that his famously crooked would-be Democratic opponent has more integrity than the most conservative candidate in the race. Gosh, I don’t think even Mitch McConnell would say that. Not publicly, anyway.
This is a smear, by the way. [Trump’s] seizing on the revelation last week that Cruz never disclosed a margin loan from Goldman Sachs, where his wife works, during his first Senate run. That’s true, sort of ”” he never disclosed it to the FEC, which Cruz blamed on a “filing error.” But it’s not true that he never disclosed the loan publicly. Phil Kerpen dug up this form from Cruz’s filing with the Secretary of the Senate before the runoff with David Dewhurst in 2012.
The Goldman Sachs loan was noted by the media no later than June 2013, in a story by Roll Call. Trump wants you to believe that Cruz deliberately tried to withhold information about it from the public, but if that were true then obviously he would have omitted it from the Senate filing as well. It’s a smear…
He’s saying this, by the way, at a moment when Clintonworld is under FBI investigation for possibly having traded government favors for donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Democratic frontrunner is being scrutinized by federal law enforcement for public corruption and Trump wants you to believe that Cruz is arguably the shadier operator of the two. Here’s a question to ask yourself the next time Trump accuses one of his opponents of being “owned” by special interests: Who would own Trump the politician if he hadn’t inherited many millions of dollars from his father to build a business that made him financially independent today? Between the two of them, Trump and Cruz, who’s the self-made man? Independence from donors is no trick when you started your career with a pile of money and then eagerly handed cash to crony politicians in both parties to make it grow. When Trump fans say he has balls, they’re right. It takes brass balls for this guy to accuse anyone else of cronyism.
So, let’s recap:
Trump is lying about the substantive issue of Cruz’s disclosure.
Trump is insinuating that getting a bank loan puts a person in the pocket of banks? Has Trump the real estate developer never gotten a bank loan or been otherwise involved with a bank? It’s an utterly bizarre accusation against Cruz, and in fact:
A poster on twitter has pointed out that Donald Trump is “owned” by almost literally everyone according to his most recent financial disclosures. He has billions (with a “B”) of dollars of outstanding loans from virtually every major Wall Street bank, including Capital One, Deutsche Bank, ISB, UBS, and Merrill Lynch.
Citibank, in particular, played a major role in one of the Trump’s organization’s more notorious bankruptcies, when the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City was underwater and Trump owed over $550 million on it to various creditors, with Citibank at the head. In order to restructure his debt, Trump gave Citibank and other creditors a 49% ownership interest in the hotel.
As for Goldman Sachs, Trump is himself a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, which means he has a direct financial interest in its success…
There is essentially not a major Wall Street entity that Donald Trump or his companies have not taken out loans from or received financing from. In fact, that’s more or less his entire business model. This lengthy ABC piece details how each and every one of them has at one time been circling Trump or his companies as they have been left holding the bag for all or part of loans he took out from them.
I am beginning to think—I am really beginning to think—that Trump is out of his mind in some major way. Oh, he’s not out of touch with reality; not that. But his success in this campaign has fed his narcissism in a way that has untethered him from whatever devotion he ever may have had to the truth, and has made him feel beyond good and evil. He believes he can literally say anything and get away with it. And perhaps he can; how many people do you think have heard this story, or understand it?
I don’t know which is more frightening, Trump’s megalomania or the legions who defend it.
In addition—Trump’s insulting Cruz, of course, but it’s the form of the insult that’s both so low and so revealing at the same time. Trump is saying that Hillary Clinton is more honest and above-board with the American people than Ted Cruz. He’s saying that his Republican opponent Cruz is worse than his possible Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, one of the most corrupt and least honest people who has ever run for president. Well, Trump’s been a friend of hers for a long time, so I guess it makes sense that he’d say that.
As I have written elsewhere, Cruz is worse than Hillary Clinton. Without question. Cruz favors the Constitution of the United States above all other schemes of government.
Others don’t.
Not complicated.
Trump is sounding like the just like any other politician except meaner.
Trump is sounding more and more as though he’s working for Hillary.
Bottom line: I don’t trust Trump, not at all. But I’ll pull the lever for him, while holding my nose, if he’s running against Hillary. (So far as I know, Trump has never abandoned Americans working for him to their deaths.)
Daniel in Brookline:
I am beginning to think Trump may be worse than Hillary. I am not sure, but it is a possibility, and this statement is part of it. I distrust him to his very core at this point. At least I think I know what Hillary is about.
My RINO Senator (Richard Burr) just announced he would vote for Bernie Sanders over Ted Cruz. And Trump is crazy?
One can at least say that Donald Trump isn’t entirely incorrigible: He obviously learned something key from Barack Obama.
Trump is just using an argument that many anti-Cruz types have been using online for months. If you don’t understand his tactics, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Look what he did to Clinton’s poll numbers and the news after talking about Bill’s transgressions with women. Why do you think people like Lena Dunham and other young, liberal women are now discussing Bill’s past? Trump.
He brings up this stuff because it works. Not sure what else to tell you. Just the same as any political tv ad that dredges up the dirt. That’s what peple do when they are in a political fight…and Cruz’s wife being a Goldman Sachs employee rubs a lot of people the wrong way. (not me, but I’m just trying to explain it)
Agree with every word. And it’s scary that he appeals to so many Republicans. Some, sure that would make since. What I was getting at yesterday is that he really needs to be slowed down in Iowa. He had not been expected to win there. NH yeah. So if he wins among evangelicals in Iowa, that’s not good.
Would like an update from parker to get his opinion on if he’s seen a shift on the ground there.
“. . . because it works.”
Precisely what Trump learned from Obama.
No approach to truth is necessary. The opposite is necessary. Lie through the teeth. It works. There are so many believers out there to be mustered and gathered together on the road to victory. All else be damned.
K-E:
I don’t need Trump’s motives to be explained to me. I fully understand them.
And no, it’s not like the usual political ad and false accusation. I’ve never seen a political ad in a primary that says one’s opponent in one’s own party is worse than the probable Democratic opponent, particularly if the latter is probably a criminal. And not for something so mild, and something the accuser himself is guilty of (bank loans being part of it).
I’ve never seen anything to compare in this country from a major candidate, and I’m pretty old and have seen a lot.
For the record, he said that “that’s worse than Hillary”, not “he’s worse than Hillary”. A small distinction, but since the topic is fairness in accusations, let’s do it right. I heard Mark Levin making the same mistake yesterday.
If a small distinction Nick, then take the trouble to expand it, follow the implications of the distinction toward a fuller exposition. What does the alteration make of the point Trump seeks to put forward regarding the rule-breaking failure he cites?
Clinton’s willful disregard of high level national security classification procedures is lesser than Cruz’s failure to put his loan into all the proper public declaratory forms, rather than just some of the proper public declaratory forms? And this makes Trump’s point somehow more salient? Less a personal accusation?
While I still believe Trump served as tinder in changing the narrative of this election season, I never believed he possessed presidential temperament. My 26 year-old who put Trump just above Cruz in his preferred list called me this week and said he knew I wasn’t surprised and that he is disgusted with Trump. My husband feels the same. Let’s just say, Trump’s behavior in the last week finished him as a first choice for 2 people but contrary to some opinions here, we would all choose him over any Democrat. We have an active duty Marine in our family and Benghazi was a redline for us. Not to mention that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. In this I’m addressing both parties.
IMO it’s way too early to pay serious attention to the various ad hominem attacks in the campaigns (the upcoming Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire not withstanding).
I’m not a Trumpeter and, as noted above, Trump says certain things because (as with Obama) they have proven to work for him.
[Neo]
Yet, of the two, we know from her past behavior precisely what to expect if Hillary is elected. Trump, on the other hand, could still surprise us if elected. Given the importance of this election to the future of this country in my remaining lifetime, I’ll certainly back the devil I don’t know before I’ll vote for the she-devil I do know.
Stanley Kurtz, NRO: Against Defeatism, Against Trump
Not a single vote has been cast to date.
One other point as an old aphorism just came to mind.
If nominated,, Trump might just be the best house in an otherwise bad neighborhood (my position). In the past, serious conservatives have used this as an excuse to refrain from voting. IMO this would be a fatal mistake in this election cycle.
” . . . the best house in an otherwise bad neighborhood.”
If that isn’t a fatalist’s defeatism reflected or fit to a t, what would be, T?
There is an alternative, and a good one at that, still remaining to choice.
Further, a comment by Don Surber on the latest National Review:
The Link:
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2016/01/national-review-hoists-white-flag.html#more
“. . . some conservative purity test.”
Bullshit, plain and simple. The question is rather one of a Constitutional fidelity test. Obama has none. Now Americans will have another who reinforces this same disdain? Thanks, Surber, but no thanks.
sdferr,
Hardly fatalism. Please read what I wrote. “If nominated . . . .”. “If” is a conditional, not “when he is nominated”.
Trump consumes all of the media oxygen in the room; he knows precisely how to do that and is very skilled at it. While that hardly guarantees his nomination, to dismiss that he has a chance at being nominated after consistently leading in the polls is to dismiss reality.
Again IF nominated, whether he runs against Clinton or Sanders, he will be the best house in a bad neighborhood.
Stop me here, neo, but wasn’t our boy Ted the one who called the Senate Majority Leader a liar?
“I am beginning to think–I am really beginning to think–that Trump is out of his mind in some major way. ”
Funny, I have a friend who said the same about Ted last night, how he came into the Senate as a newbie, insulted everybody, declared for President after a scant 2 years in the Senate (like a certain BHO BTW).
But, on a more substantive note, now that he’s burned almost all his bridges behind him, assuming he goes all the way, how does Cruz govern?
Neo:
“I’ve never seen a political ad in a primary that says one’s opponent in one’s own party is worse than the probable Democratic opponent”
It’s not theirs yet. It’ll be the alt-Right’s “one’s own party” once they’ve taken ownership of the GOP like the Left wrested the Democrats from mainstream liberals.
‘Either with us or against us’ – until they take control and put mainstream (for now) conservatives in their place, the alt-Right activist movement will categorize, per the G.K. Chesterton formulation, the mainstream conservatives of the Right and GOPe on the same side of the ‘other’ line with the Left and Democrats.
KLSmith:
“it’s scary that he appeals to so many Republicans”
Scary perhaps, but expected. Activism works for anyone for any cause. Marxist-method activism is not ideology-specific. It’s the people’s game. Simply, it’s sociology weaponized.
Not all activism is the same. Activism is a workshop of tools, from which one can tailor one’s activism to personal preference, although the governing standard is always the competition.
In this case, it happens that the alt-Right activists comprising the engine of the Trump phenomenon have adopted the Left activist model that’s proven against the mainstream conservatives of the Right, such as with the Obama campaigns. Despite their long history facing Left activists, the Right yet seem helpless to compete in the activist game, which is a virtual invitation for other competitors like the alt-Right.
From a basic competitive standpoint, if mainstream conservatives continue to insist on eschewing Right activism and thus inviting attack upon a glaring, gaping vulnerability, then alt-Right insurgents reasonably will accept the Right’s virtual invitation to follow the well tested game strategy against the Right that’s been developed by Left activists.
Whether or not they win this particular nomination, alt-Right activists have tasted blood. They see decadence on the Right and the vulnerability of the mainstream conservatives who possess (for now) what they want. They’ve commenced their long march, and they’re not going away in the only social cultural/political game there is.
“Bullshit, plain and simple. The question is rather one of a Constitutional fidelity test” [sdferr]
So changing an adjective (conservative to Constitutional) is a justification for not supporting the anti-Hillary, anti-Progressive, anti-Marxist Democrats? Mitt Romney would not have passed such a Constitutional purity test either and does anyone doubt that this country would be better off under a Romney presidency that we are with the second Obama term?
Again, I’m not a Trumpeter. IF nominated, I hold out hope that Trump understands the difference between campaigning and governing (i.e, between closing the deal and building/running the business). As a do-nothing senator and an abysmal Secretary of State, Hillary, by contrast, has already put us on notice.
sdferr:
“The question is rather one of a Constitutional fidelity test.”
The principal question is one of dominant control. Absent the practical means to enforce it, your ideological preference is no more than academic.
And in the meantime, my granddaughter, born in 2010, $30,000 in debt and growing; our household, diminished by $20,000/year, paying for Obamacare-affected, inferior insurance (1-1/2 times the cost of the top coverage that used to be provided 100% by our small firm–a CHOICE, we sacrificially made per our own responsibility), the outside world set on fire by incompetent actions of our present government; and the mainstream party members of each camp are planning to fix this exactly how?? From where I sit, they are culpable for these very problems. Yes, years in the making, but we have been on a fast-track of destruction for these last 7 years. Of one thing I’m convinced, a Trump or Cruz presidency would surely ignite a Congress that suddenly recognizes its designed role in the process. And without the signature of the President, we won’t likely end up with the rogue actions of a Congress foisting unpopular legislation upon us (that hasn’t even been read!) like Obamacare. In other words, maybe there is a hope that the intended design of the government would be rediscovered.
Purity, T? I wrote fidelity. That means faithfulness to the ideas and particularly the procedures in the document. Trump doesn’t care about that so far as I can see. Do you? Trump says nothing about it. He explains nothing about it. He appears not to comprehend it. There are many schemes of government, nominally “regimes” (in political science parlance) apart from the scheme of government constructed in the Constitution of the United States. Progressivism isn’t the sole alternative which threatens to dissolve our former republican representative regime. Eric here shows the way. He too is dismissive, as you can see. What then comes next? Well, whatever the hell the “alts” think best, we suppose. Any idea what that is, besides their “control” of you and yours?
“Purity, T? I wrote fidelity.”
You did. Sorry for the error.
“Trump doesn’t care about that [faithfulness to constitutional ideas] so far as I can see.”
The blind spot is if the second half of your sentence: “. . . so far as you can see.” I see a potential Trump nomination more in the sense of Pascal’s Wager:
Likewise, I know and fully expect what Hillary or Sanders would deliver as president. If Trump does not surprise me, then it is no worse than another Democrat presidency. If, however, Trump does surprise me, then we will be better off.
The secondary issue here, is that you seem to be arguing about support in the primaries (i.e., there is a better choice than Trump). I do not disagree with that. Frankly, my ideal would be an electable Cruz as the Republican nominee (If the establishment fears him, then he must be doing something right). I’m writing about support IF Trump is the nominee. Two different issues.
The secondary issue? Why again is the primary made secondary? That seems absurd on its face, no? I mean, seems obvious. Why leap forward to an hypothetical which presupposes defeat on the central question: the central question to Americans being, will you retain your Constitution or will you not? Take a chance, Americans! Throw the dice, append all your lives and prosperity to an act of Fortuna! Machiavelli rolls in his grave.
Need we mention — oh wonder of wonders! — that Donald Trump himself went “corporately” bankrupt on gambling casino operations (and screwed not a few ‘little guys’ I knew in South Jersey and Philadelphia out of their payments for work done building and repairing them)? Why, he’s almost deserving of an Aeschylus to depict the tale in art, so heroically tragic is he.
KL Smith,
Heading out after lunch to knock on doors and distribute campaign literature. From Cruz supporters I speak with regularly (a 3 county area) their support holds firm. And now we are targeting those who have been identified as Carson supporters. However, the campaign coordinator I work for seems a bit worried that trump is gaining. State polls show its a real horse race.
Each individual caucus meeting is unique, there is always the possibility that the discussions can change opinions. I witnessed this in 2012 at my caucus when a Ron Paul partisan admitted that he realized voting for RP would be a waste of his vote.
Lots of radio ads running in Omaha against Ted.
His wife worked for Goldman!
He borrowed money from Goldman!
Big Oil!
Just some of the dirt on Trump at link.
Hillary makes 30 cheap YouTube videos on Trump and micro targets the right demo on Facebook. (e.g. Independent golfers).
Game over.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/nine-tales-of-trump-at-his-trumpiest/article/2000697
Like Parker said, consider the Trojan Horse.
Just to pour a little more gasoline on this fire, has anyone read Jeffrey Lord’s latest? I’ve always thought he was a pretty smart guy and apparently he supports Trump. He has some comments on the latest rash of anti-Trump articles in the establishment GOP press calling Trump “dangerous”. Trump-Cruz 2016
Why leap forward to an hypothetical which presupposes defeat on the central question . . . ?
Why discuss nuclear holocaust if nuclear holocaust is not occurring? Does discussing it make it imminent? Why make a chess move only after considering future possible moves knowing that your opponents next move will change those possibilities anyway?
It’s what we do. It allows us to better define the current and future “lay of the land”; it allows us to consider contingencies. Yes, the possibility of a Trump win presupposes the other candidates losing. So what? So too does discussion of a Carson win, a Kasich win, a Cruz win etc.You seem to treat the mental gymnastics of discussing a possible Trump win as pre-ordaining it. It does not. Would you like to discuss a Cruz primary victory? Go for it! Let’s hear what you have to say.
If Trump seems to be overplayed in this thread, it’s because he is the topic and subject of the thread. Why do I even need to point that out?
Of course, it’s a reprehensible and hypocritical charge on Trump’s part. Cruz is the only competitor Trump has at this time and Trump wants to knock Cruz down in the polls and never let him up. Against Cruz, he can’t win fairly on the issues, so he’ll fight dirty because for Trump, ‘winning’ is everything.
But Trump would not be as disastrous a President as Hillary because as President, Trump would never have the ideological backing of the democrats. Trump would, to some degree, restrict illegal immigration and limit legal immigration of Muslims into America. Those are crucial to America’s future. Trump will have the backing of RINOs and crony capitalists but that damage will be limited to business as usual.
On the other hand, Hillary would put her own spin on the continued “fundamental transformation” of America. Her lust for power is to further the ideology of the Left. She doesn’t disagree with Obama, she’s simply a competitor for influence and power.
As President, Hillary would make us wish for anyone else, even Trump because after Hillary, the path to America’s destruction will be irreversible.
I don’t think anybody “knows” what Trump will do if he becomes president. I doubt Trump even knows.
She doesn’t disagree with Obama, she’s simply a competitor for influence and power. [Geoffrey Britain]
Just as the Nazis and the Soviets were in the first half of the twentieth century. In either case, as you point out, the end is no good.
Trump and Obama are two sides of the same coin. we are losing our Republic, just as John Adams warned.
The American electorate is getting really dumb and I blame this on women’s lib. Used to be that all the most brilliant women taught our children as teaching was about the best profession women were eligible for. Not anymore…. (Neo, I am kidding. well, half kidding. OK. I’m not kidding at all.)
I’ve always thought he [Jeffrey lord] was a pretty smart guy and apparently he supports Trump [snopercod @1:36]
It prompts the question are he (and others) seeing something we’re missing? Are they simply being drawn in by some siren’s song? Do they see him as the only possibility of a non-Hillary presidency? Do they fear the possibility of Cruz dismantling bloated govt ?
If that last question is topical, then I ask were they really conservatives in the first place?
parker: thanks for the update.
Geoffrey Britain:
You have no idea whatsoever what Trump would do or wouldn’t do. None.
He has never held office. He has no track record in that respect. He has said things in the past that are the opposite of what he says now, on many issues.
He lies constantly and with no sense of shame, embarrassment, or contrition. He admits no errors. He insults anyone who crosses him, in terms that would get anyone else in trouble. He feels immune to the regular rules by which other people live. He has bragged about “screwing” people over for money. He sues anyone who gets in his way, and he’s got the money to do it. He has tried to buy political influence with his money by donating to whoever is in power, no matter what their politics. He is a narcissist. He is a braggart. He does whatever is good for Trump. He has no respect for the Constitution. He believes government should be able to take people’s property for the benefit of a real estate developer like, for instance, Donald Trump.
I repeat: no one should believe they can predict what this man would do if he had the power.
Making an ellipsis doesn’t replace one question with another T. The question I focused on wasn’t there directed at Ted Cruz as such, but at the retention of Constitution of the United States, albeit granted with Cruz as at least one candidate who seeks to retain it. Ben Carson may have much the same object in mind. So also may my Senator Mr. Rubio. Or others, if that is their particular argument. But each of these are in this respect distinguished from Donald Trump and seem to appear to be so even to you. That distinction is prominent. It is crucial. On the other hand, Trump himself seems to substitute a nebulous, undefined “great America” for the source of American greatness, which source is precisely what I accuse Trump of failing to understand, or to take care to attend to.
Lurch–We are losing our Republic? In the last 7 years, what evidence can you cite that our Republic, as understood by Adams, presently exists. The imposition of legislation, passed as “not a tax” and kept as law “as a tax”, along with the continued spending without a budget, that has indebted the young who have never even cast one vote, the making of a treaty with our sworn enemy…of course, I could go on. But I would love to hear your examples of how our Republic, again as understood by Adams, is still functioning in any meaningful way.
sdferr,
I do not disagree with a single item in your (2:01) post.
So just what is it that you think we’re arguing about?
Could we please get real? It’s increasingly likely that Hillary will be indicted or otherwise forced out of the race, in which case Good Old Uncle Joe(TM) will be the Dems’ candidate.
How do we beat Uncle Joe (or Hillary, if she manages to stay in)? All, and I mean ALL, Republican and conservatives (I realize that’s an overlapping but not identical set) must turn out to vote for our candidate, AND our candidate must get a substantial number of independents and Democrats AND a substantial number of young people and African-Americans must stay home.
I just don’t see Cruz as the guy who can do that. He’s a fine and brilliant man, a great Constitutionalist, and would be a great Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice, but I don’t see him as Presidential — he has no more experience than Barry O — and what is more important, I don’t see him as electable. I don’t see him pulling any crossover votes and I see the Dems turning out in droves.
Maybe somebody can convince me otherwise, I’d love to hear it. But having lived through the Goldwater campaign of 1964, I just fail to see how holding out for an ideologically pure candidate who will lose to Hillary or Uncle Joe is better than electing somebody that you agree with on 65-75% of the issues.
You think, as with Goldwater, that going down to defeat in a righteous cause will bring about a “true” conservative? Sure, in 20 years or so. But in 20 years, the Dems will have completely wrecked the country. Is that what you want?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “WINNING ISN’T EVERYTHING, WINNING IS THE ONLY THING!”
As to Jeffery Lord’s objection to G.W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism: Trump’s own compassion reaches to declaring he’ll make Apple and Ford bring the work they have performed at lower costs in other lands brought back to the United States at higher cost, so protecting American workers. Genius economist that Trump, with a genius once and for all to destroying the heretofore enduring insights of David Ricardo, which Karl Marx himself could not destroy.
Yuge — not Yugo!
Liberty? Oh, piss off, Apple, Ford and your millions of shareholders: you don’t know from liberty.
Neo, It occurs to me that just about everything you wrote about Trump can be said of Obama, and of course, to the people that ultimately gave us Obama (Soros & Ayers, et al). The difference is that Obama had a veneer and continues to have a veneer of the exact opposite (Constitutional scholar, for instance?!) When you consider how this President is still to this moment held in high esteem among our populace, we can begin to understand how deep are the problems of this Republic.
snopercod:
I just read that article you linked to (by Jeffrey Lord), and I think it’s awful.
First of all, anyone who uses the term “Bushies” to refer to supporters and aides of Bush reveals both a certain frivolity and a certain animus. But that’s trivial compared to the fact that he doesn’t even attempt to actually describe who Trump is and what he stands for, and especially why he can be trusted and why he would make a good president or (more to the point, considering the topic of the article) a conservative president. Nor does he try to say why Trump would NOT be dangerous as president (something he’s quoting all those other people as saying). He merely accuses them of being insufficiently conservative themselves by supporting Bush and Romney. Therefore the implication is that somehow they are hypocrites.
Well, I submit that, as insufficiently purely conservative as Bush and Romney no doubt were, they were both far more conservative than Trump, who is not particularly conservative and often doesn’t even pretend to be. So it is certainly possible to support both Bush and Romney and yet to object to Trump’s candidacy on the grounds of lack of conservatism.
Lord trots out the old objections to Romney as the author of Obamacare. On this blog I probably wrote about 100,000 words debunking that simplistic talking point. No doubt Lord doesn’t read my blog, but he’s not above using that sort of simplistic argument to make a point that doesn’t even touch on the problem posed by Trump (a problem he essentially ignores).
As far as I can see, his support of Trump is probably based on about as little research and knowledge as his dissing of Romney was. It seems to be motivated by animus against Bush and Romney and those other journalists/pundits/politicians who supported them.
Sharon W:
I have long found Obama and Trump to be superficially very dissimilar but otherwise in possession of many many shared characteristics.
Richard Saunders:
You don’t see Cruz as that person.
However, Cruz consistently does better than Trump against Democrat opponents in polls.
So what you “see” may not be what is or will be. There is actually no support for the idea that Trump would do better than Cruz in the general. I have written post after post showing why that is. However, there is a great deal of support for the idea that Rubio would. If winning is your concern, Rubio is definitely your man.
“So just what is it that you think we’re arguing about?”
So as to clarify that I’m not ignoring your question there, T, let me say I’m still mulling it over. It may prove to be an error or misunderstanding on my own part. Yet, I’m undecided as to that. Perhaps I should leave it for some other (nominally disinterested) observer to opine a conclusion or impression in sum, which may even shed light neither of us currently holds.
. . . what you “see” may not be what is or will be. [Neo]
Which is why I am paying little attention to the current ad hominem</I attacks in the primary campaigns.
Speaking of the two lead contenders: Trump has shown that there is little he can say or do that will sink him; Cruz has shown that he is clearly able to counter and ride-out the attacks thrown against him even by Donald Trump.
I'd like to say "pass the popcorn, please" since this is beyond my circle of influence anyway, but it is a serious matter. As I noted above, this election will substantially effect a very great part of my remaining life.
The problem for Senator and Mrs. Cruz is not so much that the loans were not disclosed, but that they may have been illegal under campaign finance law. A watchdog group has filed a complaint with the FEC. According to Conservative Treehouse:
You think Trump doesn’t know that Cruz could have a legal problem?
From an interview on Fox:
Trump is a counter-puncher. The battle started when Cruz hit Trump over his “New York values”.
you guys are funny, and pretty damn sad. You’ve been sold out by every single “conservative” pol and pundit yet you still cling to the label like it was a lifeline. Trump is no conservative, he actually has a pair of balls, unlike most of the DC crowd. He may not do what he says but after being LIED to so many times, I no longer give a crap about “conservative” principles. What good will they do when the GOP and Dems import another 25 million 3rd World peasants? DO you think you can sway these invaders with your appeals to small government and freedom? There’s a reason why the pejorative “cuckservative” has become so popular, because it’s TRUE!
T:
You wrote:
Can you spot the fallacy in your last sentence?
If Trump does surprise you, you do NOT know that “we will be better off.” Trump could be worse than Hillary or Sanders. If you don’t understand that, it’s a failure of imagination.
Eric:
What do you think the goals of the altRight are? I realize they may be an amalgam, but I’d like your opinion of their basic goals.
I don’t see them as conservative goals at all.
neo,
Every criticism you state of Trump, I am in agreement with but I disagree that, in a few areas, we cannot know what he is likely to do.
IMO, Trump’s patriotism is genuine, as were it not, he never would have declared so unequivocally his opposition to this administration’s policies on immigration.
Trump is an unusual capitalist in that he practices a form of enlightened self-interest. In that, unlike Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg, et al who evidently do not realize that their support of the Left is suicidal. Trump realizes that, “Come the Revolution” they will be the first to be shot.
Trump, at the gut level, does read the ‘writing on the wall’ and seeks to rein in the Left, out of self-preservation rather than on principle and that, I suspect is the source of his populism. I don’t think Trump’s populism is a reaction to public unrest. I think he’s articulating that unrest on an emotional level because he shares it.
you guys are funny, and pretty damn sad. You’ve been sold out by every single “conservative” pol and pundit yet you still cling to the label like it was a lifeline. [Ken @2:50]
I submit that the final word belongs to Milton Friedman:
Sharon at 2:06 pm,
Your freedom to make those comments is proof in and of itself that the Republic still exists. “Come the Revolution” comments such as yours will result in first being sent to a reeducation camp and, if still recalcitrant, permanent exile to either a gulag or a ditch.
Geoffrey Britain:
You comment reveals the flaw in your thinking.
You write that you think I’m wrong in asserting that “we cannot know” what Trump will do. Then this is followed by a series of speculations of yours on what you think Trump thinks and what you suspect are his motivations, thus proving my point.
I repeat: he has no political track record whatsoever except a host of inconsistent and contradictory statements from the past, and then the more consistent direction his rhetoric has taken during these last few months (although he’s contradicted himself many times even during this campaign). He is a liar and a self-promoter. You call his self-interest “enlightened,” but I ‘ve never detected enlightenment in his past—it seems pure self-interest to me, and if it benefited others (which of course it does, since he employs many people) that’s purely a side-effect.
He lies, he’s a showman, he’s a manipulator, he’s a braggart, etc. etc. etc.. You have no idea what he intends; you are guessing based on the self he has decided to present this time around. He could change on a dime; he is beholden to no one.
What are his core values? I think he does care about the US, but that could be said for nearly every candidate. He is an untrustworthy human being and a narcissist. That much I can say. The rest is unknown, and I don’t trust him at all, and I see no reason why anyone should, or why anyone would think he is the least bit predictable (except that he will do what he thinks is to his own benefit).
“Trump could be worse than Hillary or Sanders. If you don’t understand that, it’s a failure of imagination.” neo
Forgive my obtuseness, please explain exactly how Trump could be worse than Hillary or Sanders.
T,
Milton Friedman had the right of it. Words of wisdom.
formwiz:
So what? McConnell lied. And I missed the part where Cruz called McConnell “worse than Hillary” or “worse than Harry Reid” (which would be the better analogy, in Cruz and McConnell’s case).
I missed it because it didn’t happen. There was no comparison to a Democrat figure, and no saying McConnell was worse than those figures.
So I fail to see your point.
On the other question, how does Cruz govern if he’s burned all his bridges? First of all, just because the “establishment” Republicans don’t like him, doens’t mean he’s “burned all his bridges.” I haven’t seen conservative colleagues of his in the Senate speaking out against him. If Cruz were president, he would propose legislation and Congress would debate it. If it was good legislation they’d pass it. If he didn’t like it, he’d veto it.
I bet you didn’t use the “he works and plays well in the Senate” argument to argue for President McCain during the Republican primaries in 2008, did you? It’s also interesting to me that I don’t hear many people using the “he works well with others” argument to argue for Rubio, who certainly tried to do so with the Gang of 8. In that case, he’s often regarded as a betrayer who betrayed conservatives.
neo,
“I think he does care about the US, but that could be said for nearly every candidate. … he will do what he thinks is to his own benefit.
I do indeed ‘trust’ Trump to do what he thinks is to his own benefit. It is to his benefit for America to avoid the Left’s path which is suicidal for the wealthy.
I’m not saying that I KNOW what Trump would do as President. I am saying that my gut and intuition and perception of the man lead me to think it likely that he will use the power of the Presidency to obstruct the flood of immigrants into this nation.
Perhaps he will betray that assumption but so too might any other candidate, and that includes Cruz because we can’t KNOW what someone will do until they act.
I do KNOW however that whether Cruz, Trump or Rubio that we HAVE to vote for whomever is the nominee because if we don’t, Hillary, Sanders or Biden will not only continue America’s path to destruction but will accelerate it.
@neo-neocon:
Since conservatives have been sold out by GOP candidates ever since Reagan left, a lot of them simply refuse to trust any candidate associated with the GOP establishment. The latest sell-out, of course, was the Omnibus bill.
Trump steps into the arena and immediately raises illegal immigration as a threat to the nation and his poll numbers took off. He attacked Muslim immigration and further improved his position. He attacks our trade imbalance with China and his poll numbers go up. For all his flaws, and you list them, he still beats being betrayed again.
You say he has no political experience. I’d respond that his political accomplishments over the last nine months are testimony to his political skills and experience.
Cruz, BTW, better watch out if those loans do turn out to be illegal.
The rhetoric of Goldwater and Rockefeller in the 1964 Republican primaries was very harsh. Goldwater said Rockefeller was a debauched, super-rich elitist and Rockefeller said Goldwater was a dangerous crazy who wanted to use the bomb against the Soviet Union. Don’t think Rockefeller ever publicly said he’d rather vote for Johnson, though.
Neo — Fine, then Rubio’s my man. And if the mood of the country changes so that another candidate can win, I’ll support him or her. Even Kasich! Even Bush! Even Trump! As opposed to sitting home and watching Hillary, Bernie, or Joe get elected? People who are saying that — and I know you’re not one of them, Neo — are just flat-out nuts.
Geoffrey Britain:
Are you really so obtuse you can’t imagine it?
And you want me to detail exactly?
I’ll put it this way, more generally: destructive economic policies, inability to deal with international affairs, trampling on the Constitution, impulsiveness, erratic behavior, insulting behavior around the world (making the US a complete laughingstock), grandiosity and narcissism meaning he fails to take the advice of his advisers, emotional instability in general, thinking that the rest of the world (including, particularly, international negotiations) is like what he experienced in the business world, constant lies and coverups (which could be worse than Hillary’s, because he likewise believes that he’s immune to repercussions for them), lack of any ability to even consider that he is in error. In any or all of those ways, I see him as capable of being worse than Clinton et. al., because I see him as less known in the political role and more erratic and unstable, as well as at least as much of a liar and even more of a megalomaniac than she.
“If Cruz were president, he would propose legislation and Congress would debate it. If it was good legislation they’d pass it.”
??? You might want to rethink that assertion neo. ‘Good’ legislation that is in the nation’s interest but that does NOT advance their interests is NOT passed. Ever. Pork MUST be served for legislation to pass.
Trump could be worse than Hillary or Sanders. [Neo @ 2:51]
Not overlooked, rather dismissed. Whether wisely or unwisely so remains to be seen.
While Trump’s being worse than Hillary or Sanders may be a possibility, I am relatively convinced that it is an outlier so unlikely that I have dismissed it.
Trump is, first and foremost, a businessman. He has also convinced me that he has a fundamental love of this country, unlike Obama’s profound antipathy for it.
Trump has made his money; I suspect his goal is not necessarily more money (i.e., greater personal wealth a la Bill and Hillary), but success. I see those two factors creating beneficial coattails for the American people in opposition to the way Obama’s coattails have negatively contributed to the economy, race relations, etc.. Perfect coattails? No. But generally beneficial coattails? Yes. If so, then even his worst should be substantially better than anything I can expect from Hillary or Sanders.
So a logical error? Could Trump be worse? One should never say never, but at this point I’m willing to live with that.
T:
See this.
One more thing—you write that Trump is first and foremost a businessman. Yes, he has been that so far. But now he is reaching out into a completely new role in which he is a complete unknown. What served him as a businessman will not necessarily serve him as a president. I submit that actually, he is first and foremost a supreme narcissist. That, I believe, is the constant in his life. And I don’t mean the ordinary narcissism of any politician, I mean something quite extraordinary. And I’ve seen it grow, even during the campaign. It will continue to grow as his power grows.
Geoffrey Britain:
By “good” I didn’t mean in the moral sense, or “good” by your definition or mine, I mean “good” in terms of what Congress might want.
Absent a president such as Lyndon Johnson, who had been in Congress so long he knew where every body was buried and which arms to twist and just how powerfully to do it, I don’t think there’s a political figure today whose skills are such he or she could convince Congress to pass whatever they don’t want to pass.
By contrast … Trump vs Hillary where I live.
Month or so ago Trump had “overflow” crowd at Ford Arena (5k + capacity arena)
Couple days ago Hillary had “6” supporters at the local airport which she ignored and went off to $1,000 a ticket, $2,700 if you actually wanted to speak and take photo with her at private fundraiser.
My area has typically been union country but that has fallen off in recent years.
Ann:
That’s my point—none of them said their intra-party opponent was worse than their opponent from the other party.
And a string of pejorative adjectives is common. Trump has done much worse than that in his accusations re Cruz.
Were any other candidate given the “anal” supposed conservatives have given Donald . . .
No one would vote in November.
COme to think of it . . . hmmm . . .
PatD:
When I say Trump has no political experience I was most definitely not referring to political rhetoric and campaigning. Trump is a salesman and he’s been talking about himself and politics for many many decades. He’s very experienced at selling himelf.
By political experience I meant “experience holding public office and dealing with all the things in the real world a person in public office must deal with.” Including—keeping or failing to keep your campaign promises.
PatD:
Ah, some completely objective and disinterested party has filed a lawsuit. Why, then the loans must be illegal!
Funny, though, how the MSM (which hates Cruz) has been relatively mum about their illegality.
And of course the ever-litigious Trump has nothing to do with all of this.
Neo,
Clearly you and I are both making certain assumptions. It is clear that none of us in this discussion really know anything. We suspect; we “feel”; we assume, but we do not Know.
I sense in your 3:25 post a dislike for Trump even deeper than any dislike you may have expressed for Obama over the past seven years;”‘I don’t mean the ordinary narcissism of any politician, I mean something quite extraordinary, to me,” to me that describes Obama and Hillary to a T (no pun intended). Narcissistically speaking, I see them cut from much the same cloth.
. . . and this is worse than ore even different from the Obama/Hillary approach how exactly?
Is the assumption that the rest of the world shouldn’t operate as the business world does? Maybe it should. Maybe such an approach would be a welcome breath of fresh air. If the current system has led us to this point, then . . . .
lack of any ability to even consider that he is in error
and this is different from or worse than Obama/Hillary how?
Here we simply disagree. I do not think that such is possible.
jack:
Very few people are enthusiastic about Hillary. But very many will vote for her nevertheless.
Crowd attendance has never been an indicator of election results, fortunately or unfortunately. Plus, Trump puts on a mighty good show, and many people go there out of curiosity.
T:
We do disagree.
I started out with very little pre-campaign opinion of Trump, so I’m not bringing old baggage or old information to this.
As I’ve watched him—and I’ve watched him a lot—and studied his past, it is with a sense of slowly-growing alarm. And yes, I am very alarmed by him. Very. I see very intense deceptive, narcissistic, and megalomaniacal possibilities there, and not just mild possibilities. My gut is quite sensitive, and it is very very alarmed by him.
The same thing happened to me with Obama during the 2008 campaign—growing alarm. It is actually very similar to that, and I see Trump as unstable, which Obama was not. I see Trump as potentially very dangerous.
I have no idea whether this would happen if he were president. But my gut doesn’t usually steer me wrong about people. If he is nominated and elected, I hope my gut will have proven wrong this time. It wasn’t wrong about Obama.
I’m cracking up right now that there is an ‘alt’ movement that people think the elderly are part of. yes, the elderly. Including my mother, aunt, and retired pastor uncle. These are not crazy people. They are rational, educated people with money.
Not sure how you can possibly compare Obama and Trump. Maybe the ‘no political experience’ works, but Trump has run a very successful business for decades and has reams of executive experience in hiring, firing and making deals. If that is not experience, then I suppose Herman Cain was ‘just like Obama.’ I mean, really. They are NOT the same.
The terrified posts here are just unbelievable.
K-E:
Glad you’re finding it all so amusing. I think it reveals something about you when you say that. Ha ha ha, right? Funny stuff.
See my comment right above yours.
And by the way, I have no knowledge of the “alt” movement; other commenters talk about that. But I don’t think that even they are asserting that all (or even most) Trump supporters are part of it or even aware of it.
Neo, you correctly point out that Trump has no record in political office, but the fact that the political process has by and large become the domain of attorneys, not to mention, life-long “service” is no doubt a big part of our current problems and a reason that the Federal government was never intended to speak into the every day minutia of our lives as it presently does. Jefferson and the rest saw service in public office as being culled from the citizenry and of short duration. We are a long way from that, but even in the arena of the state (I live in California) the disconnect from every day life between the electorate and those in the legislature is vast. The fact that we have a President that has never so much as run a lemonade stand is a much greater problem for me than a successful businessman looking to enter the realm where so much harm is being done.
Sharon W:
There’s a big gap between career politicians and people who’ve never served in that capacity at all.
Nor am I saying a non-politician couldn’t be a great office holder, even president.
With Trump, that’ just one of many many factors that make me not support him, but it’s the combination of his character and what he actually has done and said (for example, what he did re eminent domain in his lawsuit, or the Trump University stuff), that is part of the problem. It is not just his lack of political office, by any means. It is part of the whole picture, and I was citing it to indicate that he’s a particular unknown in public office, not that lack of public office is necessarily a bad thing. For example, Romney, when he ran in Massachusetts, was also unknown in public office, but he was a successful businessman who had demonstrated a VERY different character from Trump’s, so one didn’t worry so much about his lack of purely political experience.
neo,
You sound a bit strident, so with all due respect, take a ‘chill pill’. I understand your concerns, Trump might well be a disaster but whether Hillary, Sanders or Biden… they will be a disaster.
I’ll deal with your imaginings in order;
destructive economic policies like Obama’s?
inability to deal with international affairs like Obama?
trampling on the Constitution like Obama?
Do you imagine that Hillary, Sanders or Biden’s will be anything other than equally certain in their destructiveness?
Possible erratic behavior is admittedly a concern and one reason why I strongly prefer Cruz but a possibility is not enough to prefer a democrat over Trump.
Under Obama, insulting behavior around the world (making the US a complete laughingstock is already accomplished and will continue under the dems. Our enemies recognize ‘birds’ with their heads firmly planted where the sun don’t shine.
Nor is putting America’s interests first and declaring our desire to restore America’s greatness… a basis for international derision. They all do the same but deride those who ‘guiltily’ apologize for it.
By definition, anyone is narcissistic who declares their candidacy for the Presidency, stating themselves to be the best candidate for the job.
Does he fail to take the advice of his advisers? My impression is that he privately gets qualified input and then reaches his own conclusions. Is that understanding in error?
Immaturity is not equivalent to emotional instability.
Are “international negotiations” like the collegial atmosphere of the Senate? Governorships? I would suggest that the projection of power and confidence is the first requisite in ‘international negotiations’. It is sadly, a dog eat dog world and, the alpha dog eats first and gets the choicest parts.
Trump’s constant lies and coverups are indeed a concern. However, if Hillary is elected she will KNOW beyond doubt that she’s immune… Whereas Trump will NOT ‘know’ that.
Trump will also KNOW that the dems will vote to impeach him at the drop of a hat and he will KNOW that the GOP will throw him under the buss if it suits them.
We know that Trump will not admit to error. We also have seen that he will ‘amend’ his position when it suits him, which disproves a lack of ability to even consider that he has erred.
Trump is certainly less known in the political role, at least as much of a liar and may be even more of a megalomaniac than she (don’t underestimate Hillary’s megalomania, she lusts for power).
Less known however does not equate to a certainty of being worse. He MAY be or he may NOT be. A willingness to fight dirty and unethically and to flip flop on issues is not necessarily an indication of being erratic and unstable. You in turn, cannot fairly ascribe that to Trump, as of yet.
To GB’s list I would only add that there are stories of Trump’s generosity and decency (both personal and corporate) that deserve as much consideration as those regarding his failures and weaknesses. I can’t think of a single account of such stories for Obama, the Clintons and when I think of Biden, I think of the beach house he somehow bought for a song as well as his meager record of charitable contributions. I haven’t bothered about Sanders and won’t because anyone who wants 90% of my earnings is a thief, pure and simple.
sdferr –
It’s the distinction between an attack on a person’s policies/statements/actions/whatever and an attack on the person. See this dishonest article about Ben Carson to see my point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ben-carson-nazi-germany-slavery_n_6263508.html
In one sense it doesn’t matter if Trump lies about Cruz or lies about Cruz’s actions. In another sense, this is exactly the time that we need to be precise in our statements, if we’re going to fight against unseriousness and slander.
I perfectly understand the distinction between “he” and “that’s” Nick. Don’t need that lesson. The question Trump raises, as it seems to me is this: Does Donald Trump understand the meaning of “worse”? See my point?
T wrote: “It prompts the question are he (and others) seeing something we’re missing?” I thought Jeffery Lord was pretty clear. He’s asking how Trump could be any less of a conservative than both Bushes or Romney or McCain. What would he do? raise taxes like Bush “read my lips” 41, limit free speech like Bush 43 did with his “campaign finance reform”, nominate losers like John Roberts to the Supreme Court, continue the runaway deficit spending like both Bushes did, and bail out Wall St. like Bush 43 did with TARP? It’s hard for me to imagine Trump doing much worse, although maybe I’m not trying hard enough.
Lord is simply pointing out that the Bush Dynasty and the GOPe have already destroyed conservatism, and asking how Trump could be any worse.
Pingback:Election 2016: Barnacles and Bilgewater | The Universal Spectator
It seems what a very large number of people in this country, a significant numbers of Republicans, as well as most Democrats, really hate, when faced with the possibility, is the concept of constitutionally limited government and the rule of law. That, and those who won’t go along to get along.
That ‘splains the Repub. establishment.
But Trump, unless his internal polling is showing him something alarming developing down the road vis-a-vis Cruz’s actual potential, is behaving like a man who has never heard of the cardinal virtues and whose one forward gear is “scorched earth”; a man who is convinced that in order to maintain an imagined “alpha male” status, he has to constantly trespass all bounds of decency in trying to assault and eliminate anyone around him who has an independent will and does not fall into line.
Trump seems to have no internal governor, and little sense of propriety, or even what we nowadays think of as “honor” – in the sense that a man who has it must first be honorable and not just a big shot with few inhibitions.
Maybe he has some primitive Homeric version of honor, but that seems about all I’m able to detect.
So, I think you are more right than wrong given the evidence so far Neo: there is some personality trait there that looks on the surface to be seriously out of balance. Does the man have any more conscience than the Clintons? Well, yeah, I guess I think he does.
But I think on the rules of engagement he’s remarkably like the Clintons in many ways nonetheless. More bluff, vain, hearty, and sincerely populist perhaps; less ideological, scheming, and deeply treacherous.
But these disproportionate looking behaviors need to be explained so they can be folded into a rational context. Otherwise the alarm bells keep ringing.
If I were consulting with him, the first thing I would tell him is to stop the mugging, for God’s and the nation’s sake. There have to be half a million screen captures of his Il Duce-like head tilts, just waiting to be released as election day nears.
Clinton of the quivering lip and sidelong glances got away with it. But he had a complicit press.
Trump may be worse than Hillary. Repubs will hold both houses and block most anything Hillary or Bernie proposes while Donald might be able to grow government (his idea of greatness) . even their choices of supreme court appointees doesnt inspire any confidence, Donald has said his rapid liberal sister , a proponent of partial birth abortions and the Kelo decision would make a great supreme court justice, he is also praising Larry tribe. Trump is not trustworthy but his https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw< steaks are the worlds GREATEST .
@neo-neocon:
You write:
These days, the primary occupation of politicians is fund-raising. They have to raise funds for their own campaigns. Then they have to raise funds for their party in order to secure committee appointments. There are actually listed prices for the various positions. Schweizer writes:
There is more. Politicians are allowed to have Leadership PACs. These are basically slush funds that can be used for many purposes, including contributing to other member’s PACs. You can guess how the Speaker uses his Leadership PAC when votes are hard to come by.
I’ve already posted how they raise funds. Mostly, it is by legal extortion.
How many politicians tell their constituents that a goodly portion of their time, up to 60% is spent fund-raising. Zero would be the correct answer.
Trump has spent his business life on the other side of that fund-raising operation, so he is as familiar with it as any politician.
When they are not raising funds, or flying off on junkets, they hold hearings and attend committee hearings. Mark Steyn attended one. He was not impressed.
As to campaign promises being kept. Few are, and those that are do not turn out as the politicians claimed they would.
Trump at least knows what he is dealing with in congress. As Microsoft’s Bob Herbold said, “They are only in it for themselves”.
What are Trump’s motives for running? He could be jetting around the world in his 757, spending his income on all sorts of head-lining grabbing activities that would feed his extreme narcissism. He sure knows how to get attention. It would be totally against character for him to take on extremely difficult job where the chances of failure are high, and popularity is sure to plummet. I think, from what I’ve read, that he believes his skills in management, delegation and negotiation would stop America from becoming the Argentina of North America.
You seem to have it in your head that Trump is fundamentally a nasty person, amongst his other unattractive features. This WPO piece paints a different picture. Yes, it is the Washington Post.
Thanks Neo, you accurately stated my opinion of Trump. (neo-neocon Says: January 22nd, 2016 at 1:58 pm).
DNW sums up why Trump scares the hell out of me as a potential President, with this statement: “Trump seems to have no internal governor, and little sense of propriety, or even what we nowadays think of as “honor” — in the sense that a man who has it must first be honorable and not just a big shot with few inhibitions.”
I really find it nauseous that some who support Trump feel they should disparage G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, and Mitt Romney. These were three honorable and accomplished men. Whether one agrees with all of their policies, they served with honor, dignity and to the best of their ability in the situations they confronted.
KL Smith,
I had 3 interesting conversations this afternoon. The first was with a Carson supporter who has shifted to Cruz. The second was with a trump supporter who was almost as unhinged as his chosen messiah when I calmly mentioned the donald’s past past statements and positions on issues that should concern any conservative. The guy was not interested in trump’s past. The most interesting discussion was with a woman who supports Rubio but has decided to vote for Cruz because “wild man trump must be stopped”.
These conversations were just snapshots in time, and may not reflect the situtation in my area or the state at large. They do indicate the ground game is fluid. It ain’t over till its over.
It turns out that the National Review has a history of smearing leading candidates. The Internet remembers: National Review Special Issue against phony conservative … Newt Gingrich This was the man who pushed through the Contract With America, remember? The GOPe hated him.
Trump’s not the only one who’s nuts — here’s Ace’s reaction to National Review’s anti-Trump issue:
Yeah, that’s the ticket — cut off your nose to spite your face. No thought at all about the bad stuff that will happen under more Democratic presidencies. Sounds like an angry adolescent more than anything else.
Ann,
On this blog, we had exactly this discussion during the 2012 campaign. Plus ca change. Plus ca meme chose.
Ann,
Not a big fan of Ace of Spades; the commenters are largely either silly or about being first or 4th or whatever. Yes, a few comments are worth reading, but I gave upon Ace 2 or 3 years ago. Ace is an angry adolescent. Finally we are in complete agreement. 😉
snopercod:
One thing I must say is that Trump is no Newt Gingrich.
As far as I can tell, they have four things in common. The first is that NR seems not to like them, as you point out. The second is that I don’t like either of them (that, I would imagine, is of somewhat less importance to them both). The third is that they were both born in June (irrelevant, unless you’re an astrologer). And the fourth is that they’ve been married multiple times and cheated on their previous wives, with a particularly messy divorce from their first wives.
The differences are enormous. Trump trades on his surface affability but is in fact a nasty piece of work. No one ever mistook Newt for “affable.” Newt has spent most of his life in public political office, Trump in business. And although Newt, like most politicians, hasn’t been absolutely consistently conservative, he has been a conservative thinker for decades, and was a conservative leader in the political arena for a long, long time. He can articulate conservative principles quite nicely, and has a history (for the most part) of acting on them in the political sense. Trump can do none of these things.
Oldflyer:
Don’t you know? “Honor” is so 20th Century. Maybe even 19th.
Too many American simply don’t care anymore, or admire the lack of it, or wouldn’t know it if they fell over it.
“Trump can do none of these things.” [Neo]
I would offer that Trump has done</I. none of these things. Whether he can do them or would do them is an open question.
PatD:
Politicians raise funds, but that’s not all they do. There are plenty of decent, hardworking politicians and office holders, and I respect a good many of them. What percentage? I couldn’t say, but it’s not an insignificant number.
Secondly, I couldn’t care less how a few female employees describe Donald Trump. I am sure he is nice to some people, and we can also find plenty of people saying he’s a son of a bitch. I don’t care. That’s not how I judge people, particularly famous and/or rich people who can either buy people off or piss people off because they didn’t meet with enough favor. Employees or former employees have their own reasons for voting thumbs up or thumbs down, and sometimes they have nothing to do with the qualities of the employer.
I observe people. I have observed Trump over quite some time, quite closely, and I have formed my own opinion of what and who he is in terms of what he has said and done during this campaign, and his public history. Have you ever seen me say I won’t support him because he treats his employees badly? I have no idea how he treats them; I assume he treats most of them just fine. It’s irrelevant to me (although I suppose if he were abusing them all it would be relevant, but I wouldn’t expect that from him).
Nor have you seen a lot of talk from me about Trump’s treatment of women. I assume he treats his female employees just fine. He cheated on his first wife (at the very least; I don’t know about the other wives), but that’s between him and her, although it shows that he breaks vows both personal and religious.
I have observed Trump to be a very very nasty piece of work, a manipulator and liar and narcissist. I’m not going to go on and on about it in this comment, because I believe I’ve covered it sufficiently in other comments. But if you think that some employees saying he’s a nice guy (or even a mean guy) is going to change my mind, you’re sadly mistaken.
I am just mortified to think Trump will win – anything at all. Certainly, the nomination. And, I’m utterly disappointed that Palin is backing him.
I agree Neo that he fights worse than dirty and politics are dirty. I hope that other people get it about him, that he’s a shallow egotist and not worth of public office, before it’s too late. I hope they note his bankruptcies and the fact that he has tons of loans to banks, which is what people do, but which is he is making into a bad mark on Cruz’s character.
Cruz is a tough guy so I am hoping he can pull out the stops and win. The “New York values” comment was not a winning one apparently.
T:
Trump has done none of those things in the past, and there is no indication whatsoever that he would be able to do them in the future.
He certainly can’t go back in time and change his history, and most of those things I mentioned involve his history. And the other things are things I actually don’t believe he can do, even in the future.
I wrote:
Trump can’t do that because that is not his history. He can’t say he was any sort of conservative leader or thinker at all.
I wrote:
I submit that Trump cannot articulate conservative ideas. Do you think it’s all in there, in his head, and he’s just stifling it? There is literally not a single thing he has ever said that indicates an ability to articulate conservative principles. Nothing. His strengths lie elsewhere. And of course he has no history at all of acting on his conservative principles in the political sense. His history is quite the opposite—donating to Hillary, Reid, praising Pelosi, saying Bush should have been impeached, etc. etc.—if words and gifts of money can be considered actions.
Now, you are correct that he could change and in the future he could do those things—articulate conservative principles and act on them. Pigs could fly, but it is highly unlikely. But I continue to think he would never be able to articulate conservative principles—for example, about small government—and there’s no indication whatsoever that he believes in that principle, either; quite the contrary.
No, you are decidedly not thinking. You are emotionally speculating.
Just as Trump is tactically smearing Cruz. And reality testing is just a few days more than a week away.
snopercod:
You’re not trying hard enough.
Here are a few quick one, just off the top of my head:
He could continue Obama’s reliance on going around Congress and doing everything by executive action.
He could appoint liberal SCOTUS judges (and I don’t mean “liberal” on the order of John Roberts, who most of the time votes with the conservatives).
He could clamp down on freedom of speech (I have a piece coming out soon about how little interest he has in freedom of speech, except his own).
He could push for single payer, which he admires.
And to get a bit more far-fetched (although not outside the realm of possibility, because I consider Trump a loose cannon, and I think he could become quite power-mad if he gets power) he could try to start detention camps for the Muslim population within the US. He could increase spying on US citizens he considers his enemies. He could institute REAL torture for detainees, not just waterboarding.
He could…:
And yes, that’s a bit of a joke. A bit.
Orson:
Unfortunately, there is nothing emotional about what I observe.
I you look back at my earliest posts on Trump, I wasn’t against him, although I wasn’t for him. I defended a lot of the things he said and did.
He has revealed himself to be a very low person. This is not speculation. Nor is what he did normal or acceptable politics. It is over-the-top lying demagoguery, the Big Lie. I’m pretty old. I’ve been observing politicians for a long long time. This is quite different. I also am a person trained in observing people and trying to be objective. Does that mean I always succeed, or am always correct? OF course not. But my track record is very very good.
In this case, if he is nominated and elected, I sincerely hope my judgment is wrong. But it is a judgment based on very careful observation and a certain amount of knowledge of human nature.
Sorry, you probably wish it were merely an emotional reaction and illogical. You know what’s not logical? Making excuses for behavior in a person you support, behavior that in anyone else you would abhor and condemn.
“He could increase spying on US citizens he considers his enemies.”
I’m afraid that this is standard operating procedure for the near future.
Why? Because look at how much they have got away with it to date. This won’t stop without any downside to doing it!
The establishment already told you who they fear, and it isn’t Trump. Anyone who wants to destroy the Washington establishment needs to vote for Cruz.
Matt_SE,
They do not want to destroy the DC establishment, they want a master of DC who will wield pen and phone for their agenda, never imagining that trump is a one pen to rule them all and in the darkness exploit them.
Neo, Your judgment is rarely wrong. You were right on Obama as others were “liking” him….
Trump has not ONCE elevated conservatism or helped people understand conservatism. People are sooooooooooo confused right now.
Authoritarianism is his brand. That almost sounds like Putin/Obama type of leadership.
Reagan led the charge to reduce the size of bills and the size of cabinets and departments. He was ABLE TO ARTICULATE a vision that WON people over towards conservtism.
He didn’t go around calling people names like Amanda Carpenter, Megan Kelly, etc etc. You aren’t changing minds and being pursuasive or listening and then having a reasoned argument Trump… You aren’t pursuasive during the debate when your argument is you are winning in the polls.
Articulate a vision. Not, “I’m winning”. Articulate conservatism. Speak about equal opportunity versus equal outcomes, national security, small government, personal responsibility.
Or… be honest and say you aren’t able to build relationships and articulate visions and therefore I will hand the nomination to people who can like Cruz or Carson.
@neo-neocon:
I trust very few politicians to be what they claim to be – decent, hard-working people looking out for our interests. Maybe they start out that way, but DC eventually owns them.
I’ve seen the damage they inflict with their excessively and deliberately complex legislation. Sarbanes-Oxley and Obamacare are the ones that impacted my work in one of the largest healthcare organizations in America. We had to triple our staff to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley.
As those who have dealt with politicians say, when they are free to tell the truth, they are only in it for themselves. There are a few exceptions – Jeff Sessions and Louie Gohmert come to mind.
The WPO could not find any current or former Trump female executives to bad mouth him as an employer, although some were critical of the outrageous things he has said, such as hs remarks on Fiorina’s face. Most praised him for giving them a chance in the male dominated world of construction. I find it difficult to reconcile that record with “nasty piece of work”. But I have no illusions that anything I write or Trump does will change your mind.
I have three issues. Shutting down illegal immigration and sending illegals home. Stopping Hijra into America. Getting government spending and debt under control. Fail on these and Adios America. Name a candidate I can trust on those issues and I’ll support him or her.
I assume, perhaps making an ass of u and me, that we who hang around at neo-neocon wish to see conservative values hold sway. My question to the neo-neocon gadflys ( i count myself as one) is this time around who is the candidate who has a career of fighting for the rule (a Constitusional Republic) of law?
Don’t blah, blah about anything else; just vote on the question: who?
PatD:
You seem to have trouble understanding what I’ve said. So I will try to make it crystal clear.
I chose my words very very carefully, and I’ll repeat some of them:
That doesn’t mean that even the “decent, hardworking” ones are not sometimes all the things politicians usually are (somewhat in it for themselves, sometimes not 100% truthful, sometimes break promises, etc. etc.). Nor does it mean most politicians fit the description “decent, hardworking.” It simply means that a significant number (more than 1 or 2 or 3 or 4) are pretty decent and do a lot more work than just fundraising.
And I don’t know how to say the following any more clearly than I said it before, but I’ll try: whether or not 100% of Trump’s female employees praise him or 100% diss him has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a nasty piece of work. I am not saying, never have said, never have implied, he treats his employees badly. I have no idea, and that is not the basis of what I’ve said said about him, nor would it be. I am talking about what I have personally observed of him.
As to your concerns about who to trust on those things: Cruz. I’m sure you can nitpick and find something wrong with some thing or things he once did, but you’d rather pick the blank screen (in terms of deeds, that is; and yes, “blank screen” was Obama’s word for himself in the eyes of his supporters) of Trump. But IMHO you cannot trust Trump on anything, because he’ll say anything he thinks will get your vote, and he has no record at all (except hiring illegal aliens in some of his businesses, using the H-1B, H-2A, and H-2B visa programs, saying Romney’s stance on illegal immigration was too mean).
parker: thanks for the info! keep us updated if you can. I would imagine most of the Trump supporters are a waste of your time unless they express any doubts. Good news about the Rubio voter.
(BTW one of my kids went to college in Iowa, )
The donald does not hold any alligence to the Constitution (he could not begin to discuss the 17th amendment for example), he is willing to cut down all laws and traditions to over throw the rule of law for the rule of donald. And yet you running dog lackeys (yes I am being unkind, but your thin skin is your problem not that of my 5 grandchildren) do not allow for 1 of 2 possibilities; he seeks to assure hrc wins or he wins and reaps benefits either way. A man or woman with no allegiance to anything beyond him or herself is _______, fill in your own blank.
Don’t look now, but you trump chumps will one day look in the rear view mirror and wonder how you could have been so gullible.
IMO neo, in regard to Trump, is the most right (as in correct) she has ever been about anything. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, of course, but I’m feeling a Hope and Change vibe from a lot of people. Which after 7 yrs of The Won is kind of understandable – but still.
@neo-neocon: We’ve not observed Trump in person. We have never met him. We’ve only watched the campaign videos, read some of his books, researched his history, and read the blogs, but only recently. Before that, he was a People magazine celebrity of no interest to us. I can see why he could inspire hatred in some quarters, ridicule in others, and even admiration somewhere.
My wife has the opposite reaction to Trump. She loves him and what he is doing. So do some of her Tea Party compatriots. He’s getting organized in Ohio and they are getting on board.
She worked in show business in the 70’s and 80’s and she worked with many of the great stars of the time. Some were wonderful people — Jack Benny, Liberace and Louis Armstrong were her favorites — and others were crazy or arrogant or just plain nasty. The public persona of a celebrity is often very different from the actual persona.
You might think Liberace was just a flamboyant flake and egomaniac. In person, he was charming, friendly, and humble. My wife took him shopping for a mini-refrigerator while he was in town and he was just fun to be with. She invited him to her theater’s apprentices party and he stayed till 3 am having fun and playing crazy stuff on the piano with a bunch of kids.
Just saying. I’ll carry on supporting Trump until he betrays me, just like almost every GOP candidate I’ve supported with actual money has done (Mia Love, Martha McSally, Allen West). Tim Scott is in my good books.
Now, back to Il Trovatore.
KL Smith,
I spend 30 or so hours a week, and gas and shoe leather at my own expense, to promote Cruz, and also to defeat the bombastic donald crony capitalist, megalomaniac.
Ask me when the mood strikes you about what I observe in 3 out of 99 counties in Iowa (the heart of flyover country).
PatD,
The donald betrays you, tiny person that you are, with every breath of CO2 and water vapor that you exhale. On second thought, he does not betray you; he does not give a rat’s ass about you, your family, friends, or your pets. You are merely a hand he might shake along the way and discard. When you cast your lot with for a personn who cares only for him/her self you agree to be a serf. May you wear your chains lightly.
Or be pop culture 15 minutes of fame, announce for the bern.
Patd, he came after malkin and you said, “as long as Trump didn’t come after me”.
Then he came after Amanda Carpenter and you said, as long as it wasn’t me”.
He came after person after person. Day after day. Not with a good argument or cogent logical point.
What will happen? The day he is inaugurated he’ll be pursuasive? Stop attacking with offensive name calling? Build relationships?
Mmmm. No. Obama didn’t change his traits and neither will Trump. Not advancing conservatism. Not my choice.
parker: I so appreciate the time and effort you are putting in. I’ve read that Cruz has the best organization in Iowa. I’m mostly only familiar with Poweshiek County. Had some pretty good steaks there.
@Parker: I hope your efforts are rewarded and Cruz wins for you. I don’t think it is going to happen, but kudos to you anyway for working so hard for your man. I find crow quite tasty.
My wife bought a Donald Trump cap. That’s how hard we worked for our candidate,
@Parker
I know Trump doesn’t give a rat’s ass about me, or you, or anyone he doesn’t know. I do know he gives a rat’s ass about America. Why else would he launch this quixotic quest to become POTUS?
Campaigning is really hard work, as Ted will tell you, and you know.
Trump could have spent the time making even more billions, or he could have retired and had fun spending what he had, making all the celebrity headlines he needed to feed his narcissism.
He’s running, he’s serious about it, and he is working harder than any other candidate that I know of. Maybe Ted is doing triple-headers, too.
Likewise, I know and fully expect what Hillary or Sanders would deliver as president. If Trump does not surprise me, then it is no worse than another Democrat presidency. If, however, Trump does surprise me, then we will be better off.
Exactly.
The choice, if you are right, Neo, is between playing Russian roulette with All cylinders loaded (hillary) or with Some cylinders loaded (trump).
I choose B. No, I don’t have great hopes of the guy, and won’t vote for him in the primary, but he’d be vastly preferable to Hildabeast. At least he has SOME competencies.
I sure as hell will vote for him in the general election, against anyone the Leftists run: they have been dead to me for the last 14 years.
Seen floating across the internet yesterday —
Our Principles PAC: The Trump Tapes: Vol 1
yeesh, and it’s only Vol. 1. What the hell story will Vols. 2 and 3 tell? That is, apart from further gusts of incoherence from the man’s own lips?
Obama set a precedent on what gets a president elected (twice) and a lot of conservatives who would love a President Cruz but are backing Trump are maybe just starting to catch on.
It’s a personality contest and the current population of Americans will eagerly pull the lever for audacity over any substance.
It is real simple.
Obama blazed the way.
We are now being Ruled.
Trump seeks to be the next Ruler.
A Trump-Hillary choice is really not a choice, except to those who are in a position to benefit from the one or the other.
We are being ruled, not led.
The fault lies with the ignorant electorate, and with the two other Branches of government. We are done.
It will take a revolution to install a Cruz. It ain’t gonna happen.
Of course I support Cruz with my $. What else can one do? But it is only symbolic, a mere gesture.
The Legions will get what they wish for, an Emperor. But they will have traded a dead Republic for a living Augustus.
As more people become scared of seeing the true power of the Leftist alliance and their Islamic Jihad allies bloom into fruition, they are pushed into the camps of another dictator in training. Reminds me of Hitler’s fascist party being the “anti communist” party which all the bankers and usual sorts rallied to.
They set it up that way almost on purpose. Later, Hitler gains the Chancellorship and then begins allying with the Soviets to divide up Poland.
That was some anti communist party there that people fled to because communism was so scary.
Trump will need to do a little bit more purging, as US patriots are harder to herd around, like cats, than the Democrats are for the Leftist alliance’s slave barons.
The trend is set though. The Republic has already been dead for some time. Now people are just competing for what it will become.
People keep talking about passing down the torch of freedom to the next generation. Has anyone thought about what if the torch of freedom was already sold by the previous generation for cash and all we have now is some fake constructed to fool us into thinking we’re passing something along?
I don’t trust Trump. I don’t trust Cruz either.
I still think the best ticket we’ll get this time around is Trump/Cruz.
I said the other day that I thought they were working together behind the scenes. But that was before the recent dustup.
Was my assessment wrong? Did they have a falling out? Are they playing 11-dimensional chess?
I have no idea.
Frog Says:
The fault lies with the ignorant electorate…
They are only what the unimpeded, unopposed long march of the Marxists through the institutions has created, while they’ve just been trying to live their lives as best they could and raise their kids, who were targeted all along for indoctrination. That’s what happens when a religion of conquest (Marxism) composed of amoral fanatics and zealots is allowed to operate openly in a freedom-loving, liberal society. Now we’re even inviting a second one in (Islam), but even the Marxists will regret that. They are not willing to die for their utopia, but Muslims consider it the highest honor to die for Allah, especially if they can take lots of unbelievers with them.
There is no longer any stopping this short of rivers and oceans of blood and even then I’m not optimistic about the outcome. It’s the only reason I’m happy to be old, because I’ll probably be gone before it starts in earnest. At least I hope so – I never thought I’d live long enough to see a Muslim/Marxist hybrid not only freely elected, but re-elected in this great nation. Never.
Was my assessment wrong? Did they have a falling out? Are they playing 11-dimensional chess?
An alliance of temporary mutual interest. It falls out for the same reason the Hitler Stalin pact fell out. Some faction thought they were winning, so they went for it all. And the response from Cruz was predictable.
Non aggression until the two think they are ahead of everybody else, then they compete directly with each other.
Same happens with Islam vs the Leftist alliance. Well in Europe, they are still working together for now. Eventually they will have to divide up the spoils, the slave girls and boys that is.
At least I hope so — I never thought I’d live long enough to see a Muslim/Marxist hybrid not only freely elected, but re-elected in this great nation. Never.
The power of the Leftist alliance goes far beyond most people’s imaginations. They are incapable, by fault of their upbringing, culture, and indoctrination, of seeing the dots or data points, so they cannot connect the dots either.
They are only what the unimpeded, unopposed long march of the Marxists through the institutions has created
In the end, they Will Obey. No matter what they think, no matter whether they like it or not.
Individuals in humanity who have achieved true independence, numbers in the rarest of percentages, just 3% usually over the centuries. 20% may qualify due to intelligence, economy, or inheritance, but just 3% actually achieve it.
Reagan was quite right, freedom was not passed in the American blood. Freedom got sold for some benefits and what has been passed along is decadence and slavery.
Every generation must prove themselves capable of independence, just as each generation needs to learn how to fend for themselves, outside of parental or government support. Heh, it used to be “family” support too. Family friends. Family allies. Friends of the family. Extended family. The whole network of clans linked together. Now it is just your “parents”, which might be just one person, vs the Might of the Government. So unfair a contrast and setup.
Beverly:
Let me be clear: I see Trump as potentially more dangerous than Hillary. I think we know next to nothing about what he would do in the negative sense. We know much more about what she would do.
However, I detest them both, in different ways. As Lindsay Graham said in another context, it’s like deciding whether to be shot or poisoned (he was comparing Trump with Cruz; I of course don’t agree with Graham there).
Also, there have no NO primaries yet. Trump is not the nominee. He is supported by about a third of the GOP. Why should I surrender to the inevitable? He’s not even the favorite of the majority of his own party (his own party at the moment, that is). If most of the others dropped out, I believe you’d see a new frontrunner.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded – here and there, now and then – are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
Robert Heinlein
I used to think he was speaking of economics: the risk-takers, the capitalists, the Jews, the Tamils, or others who similarly raised the greater populations they existed among to better standards of living.
I wonder if he also had in mind how rare the small group of men was who tried to design a system a couple hundred years ago that would protect even its most powerless from the ravages and rapacity of the ruling classes as well as the savage rule of the mob. They almost succeeded, too.
I fear we are about to experience a run of “bad luck”.
Why else would he launch this quixotic quest to become POTUS?
Does it matter… what matters is if Trump delivers on what his supporters claim he will deliver on. People in war want results, not words. Deeds, not words.
Which means dead Leftists or actual victories.
If Trump betrays even his own populist support… I doubt the fate of the rest of America will be very good.
The job of keeping Trump, I don’t have such intense dislike for him as Parker or Neo Neo does, to his promise is up to his supporters. American supporters, not foreigners who have no skin in the game or even expatriates.
The thing I like to tell people, though, is that once they elect a dictator to power, they won’t be given the option of restraining the dictator. Rome had a consul of two years, I believe, but there was always another consul keeping the other one in check. Like a dual monarchy. Americans backing Trump, can prove me wrong. They can prove anyone wrong.
Results is all that is needed in war. If Trump or his faction starts “winning” by shooting patriotic deserts in the back if they retreat… well, that changes things of course. That’s also a “result”.
“I do know he gives a rat’s ass about America. Why else would he launch this quixotic quest to become POTUS?”
Because he loves the idea of having all that power.
It seems to me that everything he says and does is evidence for that position. He is Obama without an ideology, purely power-mad. Thus extremely frightening. I agree with Neo. An unstable person driven only by a love of power is the worst possible choice. And her hypotheticals are pretty mild in my view. An unprincipled, power-mad hothead could very easily get us all killed. As we used to say in the 70s, one nuclear bomb could ruin your whole day. Not so funny now.
Neo, you said “I haven’t seen conservative colleagues of his in the Senate speaking out against him.”
Seems like they have been doing that recently. A quick Google search leads to this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/ted-cruz-senate-revolt/
which has negative quotes about Cruz from these GOP Senators:
Orrin Hatch
Dan Coats
Shelley Moore Capito
John Cornyn — his criticism was milder than many
Lindsay Graham
John McCain
I’ve never heard of Capito or Coats, but the rest are conservatives, aren’t they?
Or did you mean so-called non-establishment conservatives?
Sarah Rolph:
NO, the rest are not conservatives.
Lindsay Graham?? Orrin Hatch?? No, no a thousand times no. See this, for example (there are plenty more) and this, for example.
Sarah:
Mark Levin, who was favorably impressed by Hatch, Priebus and Ryan when he first interviewed them, now calls them all outright liars and frauds.
Are you familiar with ConservativeReview? Scroll down to see the list of those Senators who get a passing score of 70%. There are only about a dozen who do, and half of them just barely.
Believe it or not, Bernie Sanders and Fauxcahontas Warren are the second highest rated Democrats at 15%, most being way under that. But there’s a half dozen Republican(?) Senators not much better. Susan Collins is actually lower than The Bern.
Nearly all the R members are in the RINO party.