Trump can’t be bought—and so what?
A lot of Trump supporters argue that they trust him because Trump can’t be bought.
But he can buy, and he’s been doing that his whole life. And, since he’s got more money than anyone running for political office [*see NOTE below] except Michael Bloomberg, his ability to buy is almost unlimited.
Plus, he can threaten, lie about, and try to ruin—which has been Trump’s m.o. for the vast majority of his adult life towards people who cross or thwart him. He’s shown no scruples or hesitation about it, and it doesn’t matter who his target is—for example, it can be a small landowner in Scotland, if that landowner doesn’t want to sell to Trump and Trump believes his run-down farm is spoiling the view from Trump’s luxury golf course. Then he becomes fair game to Trump: the “village idiot” who “lives like a pig.”
Hey, let’s give this guy the most powerful office in the world. His slogan can be: “In the world of politics, I’m a john, not a whore.” Or, “I’ll crush anyone who gets in my way.”
But perhaps if you support him you acknowledge all of this. You say that politics is a dog-eat-dog world, and influence is bought and sold, and you’d rather vote for the buyer than the seller. And you’d rather have the power-wielding thug wielding power on behalf of you.
Many Trump supporters must think this is a convincing argument, because I see it a lot. They seem to have arrived at a very advanced stage of cynicism, and they believe Trump would be their weapon in that world. Let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether such an extreme degree of cynicism and resignation is justified, just for the sake of argument (and this post). We still can ask why trust Donald Trump, of all people? Why think that his ends are your ends, and that it would make things better? Just because he says it?
Trump has no track record in office. His track record in life is to have done whatever it took to make money for Donald Trump, mostly through real estate development of large projects, and through marketing himself as a celebrity. Paid whoever needed to be paid. Said he liked whoever needed to be liked, and then when they didn’t do what he liked, badmouthed them. Lied when he felt he needed to. Been charming when it suited his purposes. Cheated on wives, seems to have been good to his children (who are, after all, an extension of Trump). Changed his political statements and stances with a rapidity that would make your head spin if you bothered to follow it. Paid people to help him write his books.
All of it in the service of the brand known as Donald Trump and the man known as Donald Trump. His goal has been to achieve personal power through money and fame. He’s made no secret of it, nor has he used his power for good in the world (or his money, for the most part; he’s been extraordinarily stingy with it in the philanthropic sense).
I imagine that those who want to give this particular man the highest and most powerful office in the world—particularly after Obama has shown the way towards making it more powerful by ignoring (and to a certain degree rendering impotent) the other supposedly co-equal branches of government—must in some way trust him. But I’d trust such a megalomaniac less with the reins of power than other people, not more. There is nothing—absolutely nothing—about Donald Trump that would make me trust him with that kind of power, and his braggadocio notwithstanding, he is one of those dangerous people who doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know. I’d rather trust a person who had shown some understanding of and respect for the Constitution, who had actually worked in government for conservative principles, and who we can assume might be beholden to a some special interests but who has acted on some principle in life other than pure self-aggrandizement. Trump’s only special interest is himself.
[*NOTE: On the topic of very rich people who have run for office, if you look at the Forbes400 you’ll see that Bloomberg clocks in at #8 with $38.6 billion, which makes Trump’s #121 and $4.5 billion seem like chump change. Another rich politician—in his case, ex-politican—is Ross Perot, who is #138 at $4 billion, very similar to Trump (I was very surprised to learn he’s still alive, and not even that old at 85). Except for Bloomberg, the really high political rollers on the list—but in the sense of being financial contributors rather than officeholders—are, as you might expect, the Kochs (tied at #5 with ) and George Soros (at #16 with $24.5 billion).
Most of these rich people you’ve probably never heard of. Few are celebrities like Trump, although there are some who are fairly well-known, or known for something else (like George Lucas). I was surprised to see someone on the list whom I’d known when he was a little boy of about 7 and had not seen since. Although I’d known he became rich, I never realized it was that rich.]
Stingy? But Jerry Falwell, Jr. told us Trump is very generous!
Actually the Smoking Gun website found that Trump donated 0.00013 of his income to charity. Worse than Biden.
Wrote neo-neocon: “I’d rather trust a person who had shown some understanding of and respect for the Constitution, who had actually worked in government for conservative principles, and who we can assume might be beholden to a some special interests but who has acted on some principle in life other than pure self-aggrandizement.”
Just this morning on a whim, having heard mention or rumor of Sen. Cruz’ thesis, I went hunting for it. And lo, here are the better part of the first two chapters (in pdf) of five total chapters, titled: “Clipping the Wings of Angels: The History and Theory of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution”
Whatever else this shows, it shows the man has been thinking about our central and bedrock issues for a very long time. I only suggest that people read it. It’s only 48 pages.
Arnold.
He was a different cat than Trump is, personality-wise, but subject to the same celebrity ego. Didn’t get paid to be governor (commendable) so thought to be unbuyable (was, instead, unreliable). Also rode into power on a wave of change with a discrete set of goals but no real world experience with enforcing governing principles. Overstepped and never recovered.
Immigration is the #1 issue and Trump won’t sell out like Rubio did the minute he gets in office. Rubio takes more time off from the Senate than Obama did. He’s not a hard worker like Trump. He needs his next gig and has shown he will sell out his principles to get it. I will be satisfied with any candidate but Rubio. Let him loaf off in office on someone else’s dime.
So what? Mitt Romney couldn’t be bought, either.
After you attain a certain level of wealth, money doesn’t mean as much. The way those kinds of people are influenced is through their social networks.
They can’t take an anti-establishment position on anything because otherwise they’ll never hear the end of it at the cocktail parties or country club…or in Davos.
boxty:
You haven’t a single clue what Trump will or won’t do. He has never actually done a thing about any of it—except utter contradictory statements, including a support for amnesty recorded on video in 2013, right around the time of Rubio’s Gang of Eight. (I don’t have time to find it again now, but it was in an interview with John Stoessel.) Oh, and the other things he’s done is import workers under H1 programs, and use some illegal immigrant workers on some projects. That’s all he’s ever done except mouth off out of both sides of his mouth about what he would do.
You are welcome to believe him. Maybe you’re even right, but I repeat that no one has a clue what Trump would do. I would submit that that includes Donald Trump himself.
You are another person who doesn’t know what he (or she?) doesn’t know.
By the way, if you want to read an alternate view of what happened with Rubio re immigration (one I assume you will reject), read this. I suggest you read the whole thing, and read it carefully. Obviously, I’d like you to pay particular attention to the history of the Gang of Eight, and Rubio’s role in the immigration bill negotiations.
Mitt Romney wouldn’t repudiate Romney care which was the template for Obamacare. So he gave away the #1 issue for that election.
Rubio won’t repudiate his backstabbing support for amnesty, so he gives away the #1 issue for this election. Cruz is wishy washy on H1B visas and stopping unvetted Islamic immigrants.
With the right leverage, Trump CAN be bought. Unethical men have no principled ground upon which to stand, when I’ll winds blow.
boxty:
Your thinking is so superficial and uninformed it’s not worth the time to refute.
During 2012, on this very blog, I probably spent about a million words explaining what Romney really said and did re “Romneycare” and Obamacare. Read them. Likewise, Rubio has repudiated his support for that bill, and he does not support “amnesty” (which people define in whatever way they want to, to prove their points). You’d rather reduce everyone to sound bites than to actually read the facts and the details and argue coherently on them.
And if you repeat your talking points often enough, people who think just as simplistically as you will believe them. That’s how politics works. But that doesn’t work here.
Neo, here is an alternative view of your alternative view on Rubio that I find a lot more convincing.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/about-rubio-my-take.php
And this view comes from Paul Mirengoff, the most liberal of the Powerliners.
Rush likes to joke about his memory division who sit around and remember things like the ones that the author of your endorsed view of Rubio sidesteps. Here is what the author says:
“With the immigration bill, conservatives made it clear to Rubio that the bill was unacceptable, and he dropped any effort to support it, publicly denounced it, and has said repeatedly that he no longer supports a comprehensive immigration bill.”
I call BS. Rubio was the gang of 8’s point man on selling the bill in its final form to conservatives. I remember very well his appearances on multiple talk shows like Rush and Levin pitching it. He did not flip-flop on it until he saw that it was not going to pass the House, BTW this was due principally to Ted Cruz’s efforts getting conservative house members to make it clear to Boehner that if he passed the bill with Democrat votes he would lose his position.
Even today when he is challenged on his full throated opposition to amnesty during his 2010 senate campaign, he weasels that he said he was opposed to BLANKET amnesty. I do not think his supporters heard it that way.
His attacks on Cruz for Cruz’s poison pill amendments shows that he is a slippery bastard.
As Mirengoff says, amnesty, which I define as anything that does not deport the illegals but instead grants them the vote, is an existential threat to the USA. Rubio’s treachery on that issue was YUUGE, to coin a phrase, and you are naive enough to believe that he will not betray conservatives at his first opportunity you are mistaken.
sdferr:
Cruz also memorized the Constitution in high school. By way of contrast, I can imagine Trump saying “What is this Constitution you speak of?” in the manner of the boy in the “Go to the Forest” ad.
Cruz can call his amendment providing legalization for illegal aliens a “poison pill” move now, but the problem is he’s on the record sounding very sincere about it at the time:
“And I’d like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system and, in particular, about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows. If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status. They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that happen, but what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship so that there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve. And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment, and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view, that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representatives. I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows. Then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromised to come together. And this amendment, I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically.”
Trump’s words and actions seem to be a playing out of Reality TV Trump. Although I never saw any of it, I know the TV stuff was always about “surviving ” by whatever means. Say this, do that, as long as it takes you to your next goal – some jerk gets neutralized, some jerk gets kicked off the show, some temporary alliance forged with the greatest guy ever until it’s time to bring out the dagger. Well, at least we all get to see the current seasons version of it.
Neo:
I just read the article you linked to. I have different take on it than you and I’ll save it for your upcoming proof of how Rubio isn’t for some form of “amnesty”. I have always liked Rubio and believe he’s a staunch conservative, but…
Any “solution” that involves illegals getting the right to vote in even the intermediate term is the end of two party rule. Propose a law that makes them citizens but states there’s a 25 year waiting period to vote because they need time to assimilate first and watch Democrat support dry up overnight.
They know Obama has finally woken up the majority and if they can’t get tens of millions of poor, uneducated new dependents fast to vote for them, they may be watching from the outside for a while.
We may notice that Jimmy Carter’s endorsement will not deter those so head over heels in love with Trump and so careless of our political compact. If not Jimmy-forcryingoutloud-Carter, then nothing and no-one, worldwithoutendamen.
Ann, Sen. Jeff Sessions the leader of the opposition to the Rubio-Schumer Gang of 8 bill says that Ted Cruz stood shoulder to shoulder with him trying to defeat the bill. Your quote just shows that Cruz was making it clear that Rubio and Schumer’s intentions were full citizenship.
After the bill passed the Senate, Cruz was a leader in stopping it in the House, showing he was opposed to the bill.
BTW, where was your man Trump during the fight?
Ann,
Can you enlighten us on the Cruz “poison pill”? Its a single sentence, so it should not be too difficult for you. I trust Sessions on this issue, he has been the go to guy for some time now in opposition to the invasion of illegal aliens. Can you tell us Sessions’ position on the “poison pill”? Can you tell us what Sessions said about Cruz and the Gang of 8 bill co-authored by Rubio?
I posted that statement from Cruz in response to Bov_CA’s comment about Rubio: “His attacks on Cruz for Cruz’s poison pill amendments shows that he is a slippery bastard.”
To me, Cruz’s seeming sincerity speaks against that amendment having actually been intended as a poison pill.
Or, if it really was meant as a poison pill, it shows awfully bad faith from a guy who said: “I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows.”
Its a single sentence, so it should not be too difficult for you.
Gosh, parker, was that really necessary?
Neo:
I think you have a typo in the middle of the last paragraph, before the final note on rich people.
You’ve written:
“But I’d trust such a megalomaniac less with the reigns of power than other people, not more.”
In Trump’s case, maybe “reins” should be “reigns,” but I doubt that you’d let politics drive spelling revisions. Sounds a little too progressive.
neo: Blog comments don’t lend themselves to complex writing. What you don’t realize is that I read many of the same sources that you do and probably the most important one that you haven’t (Adios, America!).
Bob_CA spells it out pretty well. I’ll just add that Coulter documents how every provision in every amnesty bill gets tossed aside almost immediately. Nobody pays the fines. Nobody pays the back taxes. Nobody has to speak English. Everybody gets through the door. That’s why Rubio is either a rube or a liar. He was either naive about this like you are, or he is a liar (which I believe you definitely are not). My bet is he is a lot of both.
In comparing Rubio with Cruz, I note that Cruz actually has some executive experience outside of politics and he did a good job. His stint at the FTC and service as Texas Solicitor General were impressive.
Rubio, though the same age as Cruz, has very little experience outside of serving in office. He did start a Law Firm, and, like Obama, did some teaching.
Any of the governors that ran probably had more executive experience than both of them, but couldn’t get traction. Perry, Walker, Bush, Christie, Jindal, Kasich and Huckabee are either gone or on their way out of the race.
If it came down to Cruz vs Rubio, I’d have to say Cruz would be the better choice because he actually has good executive experience.
BobCA:
If you want to start quoting Powerline as the authority, John Hinderaker endorsed Rubio, and Steven Hayward agrees. Mirengoff is the outlier.
No one’s pretending that Rubio was right on the Gang of 8 bill, including Rubio. The issue is what was he trying to do, why, and what has he learned from it.
And it is weird (as Hayward points out) that people forgive Trump all his backs and forths on it, but absolutely won’t forgive Rubio.
I am sure that commenters here can find an almost endless supply of people criticizing Rubio for it and saying he should never be forgiven and secretly lusts after amnesty in his heart. I don’t happen to agree with that last bit. Nor do I think Trump is going to successfully deport a lot of people, whatever the old windbag says he will and whatever he thinks he’ll succeed in doing (and if you actually pay attention to what he says, he doesn’t even plan to do what people imagine he plans to do).
@geokstr:
Learning the constitution is wonderful. Following it seems beyond anyone in politics or the courts.
boxty:
By the way, I found that interview of Trump’s (where he supported amnesty). I had mentioned it in an earlier comment in this thread, the interview I said I thought might have been with John Stoessel. It was actually with Bill O’Reilly this past summer, and quotes can be found here (in addition to quite a few other quotes where Trump speaks about immigration).
Well, now I see it’s not Bill O’Reilly (interesting how hard the quote is to track down). It was at a Chicago press conference in late June of 2015, and a tiny portion of it is on this video at around 2:01. I also found many many other videos where he says essentially the same thing: throw them out, then take virtually all of them back except for the criminal ones. This is as much “amnesty” as anything Rubio ever proposed, but Trump’s supporters won’t admit it. And Trump was saying this in the summer of 2015.
I wish we could ban the word amnesty from this whole discussion. Does it mean bringing illegals out of the shadows and imposing strict requirements for allowing them to stay, or does it mean giving them the right to vote as Bob thinks. The first option is worthy of discussion, while the second is foolish.
One other thing that the Rubio opponents do is assume that he will be able to rule from the WH. As far as I can see, congress will have to pass any new immigration laws. I certainly can’t see Rubio bucking congress on this. Even Cruz, who has bucked congress, would be far less likely to do so on any issue since he will need conservative support for many things he wants to do. I also think that if Ryan is successful in returning lawmaking to the regular order without all the unexamined omnibus bills full of pork, it will be much harder for representatives to hide their votes from the public.
I wish that instead of reducing Cruz and Rubio to one-line characatures, people would start to put pressure on their own people in congress.
PatD:
Between Cruz and Rubio, I think Cruz has some executive experience in Texas as an attorney with the government, and I think Rubio has what I would consider useful executive experience (although, strictly speaking, it’s legislative executive experience) as Speaker in Florida, one of the youngest ever in that position, I believe (he was also Whip).
Cornflour:
Oops! Thanks, will fix.
That’s the sort of typo SpellCheck can’t catch.
@neo-neocon:
There is quite a lot of commonality between the published positions of Cruz and Trump on immigration. In both cases they want existing law enforced. E-verify is a key. Eliminating welfare fraud is key. Actually deporting people is key. Both agree that anchor babies are a huge problem because it leads to welfare abuse and chain migration.
It is all about removing incentives for illegals to stay or come in the first place. Once the US gets serious, the illegals will start to go home and stay home.
Here’s what Mark Steyn had to say in 2007:
“Not long after 9/11 I chanced to be heading north on Interstate 87 between Plattsburgh and Montreal. At the border crossing from Champlain, N.Y., to Lacolle, Quebec, I noticed that what appeared to be a mini-refugee camp had sprung up. It’s not often that you see teeming hordes lining up to get into Canada… The immigration officer … explained that most of the guys waiting to get in were from Pakistan. In the wake of 9/11, the authorities had rounded up various persons of interest in the New York City area. Whether or not they were terrorists, they’d certainly violated immigration law, overstaying visas and so forth. And as a result many other illegal immigrants from Muslim countries had concluded it was time to liquidate their assets and break for the border.
In other words, the round-up of a relatively small number of persons sent thousands more fleeing to Canada.”
boxty:
It doesn’t matter how much you read, when what you write is simplistic—more simplistic than a great many of the comments here. So don’t blame the medium of comments.
I wonder whether you even read that link I gave, about Rubio and the Gang of 8. You have never referred to anything in it. You would rather call Rubio names without saying why those names are justified, and then call me names such as “naive.” That’s not much of an argument.
Ah, the Senate and its inability to rein in a lawless president who cares not one whit what it passes or doesn’t pass! Perhaps what you really mean is that Rubio is naive to think that the Senate would pass laws that might actually be enforced. But as a member of the Senate, he wasn’t elected to be dictator and had no ability to make Obama enforce the laws as written.
However, Rubio wasn’t such a rube that he couldn’t manage to do some harm to Obamacare, almost single-handedly.
PatD:
In fact, there is nothing very different in Trump’s immigration positions from most of the candidates.
So why all the excitement about him? Most people seem to think he’s saying things he isn’t saying—that he’s saying whatever they’d like him to say.
No way these deportations would go on, and as for self-deportation (which is what you’re relying on)—Trump himself has never said that’s what he was thinking of. In fact, he mocked Romney’s discussion of it, back in 2012, calling it “maniacal” and “mean-spirited” and saying it wouldn’t appeal to the Hispanic voters in this country. And Romney was just talking about economic hardship leading to self-deportation, not actual deportation leading to it (which is much more “mean-spirited”).
The thing about Trump is that you can quote him saying just about anything you want, because he’s said almost everything.
The proper term of art is “loose canon.”
He spins on a dime, so no-one can predict where he’ll land.
In a very real sense, his campaign is that of Adolf — ‘who’ll fix things’ because he’s not controlled by International Jewry… and is a true man-of-the-people… for the volk.
You do remember that one ?
It turned out that volk== Adolf anyway you spun the dial.
No, I don’t think Trump is Adolf.
IIRC, his own daughter is Jewish.
The deal is that he’s a LOOSE CANON.
And, he’s campaigning on being a loose canon.
Most odd.
I haven’t banished Rubio completely from the table, but after what he tried to pull with the Gang of Eight, I’m going to need a several-year period to build up trust again.
It hasn’t been long enough. It’s been so short, it’s more likely that the lesson hasn’t sunk in yet. If we let him off the hook, he may revert.
blert:
I don’t know whether you’ve seen my quote about the mindset of voters in Germany who supported the Nazis and Hitler, but the quote is here.
Trump is not Hitler, but his supporters are using a very similar reasoning—a very dangerous sort of reasoning. I think we should start calling Trump “the ratcatcher” (read the quote at the link to understand what I’m referring to).
In your comment, by the way, I think you mean “loose cannon,” not “loose canon.”
Yes, Ann, it is necessary when people gloss over Rubio’s deep involvement in the Gang of 8, and try to trash the senator who Sessions credits with being instrumental in the amnesty bill’s demise. No one has been fighting against the illegal alien invasion, visa over stay battle as long or arduously as Sessions. I will take his word over your word.
Hint: Its just a 38 word sentence.
Rubio’s Gang of 8 involvement is difficult (for me) to overlook or excuse as a naive slip by a freshman senator. I have a high opinion of his intellect and do not see him as a political neophyte when he entered the senate. He knew exactly what was the purpose of the bill; amnesty and a path to citizenship.
However, I am willing to entertain the possibility he has had a change of heart. But I require a sincere act of contrition. I will settle for a public apology to Sessions, Cruz, and the conservative base. Short of that, nope, don’t believe that he as POTUS would veto an immigration bill that includes amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
parker:
I don’t think Congress is about to pass such a bill, but I definitely think that would be a VERY worthwhile question for someone to ask Rubio. I certainly would like to hear his answer.
Actually, I’d like to hear an answer from all the candidates.
neo,
When it comes to integrity you have my highest regard. But I do not seek an answer to a question, I seek a sincere apology from Rubio to all who opposed the Gang of 8 bill which included a path to citizenship for criminals, aka illegal aliens, aka undocumented immigrants. Its a matter of the sovereignty of the republic and the rule of law.
I would accept a mea culpa from Rubio, but not from the donald.
First, anybody who thinks an immigration bill can get through Congress without some form of legalization, bracero or green card or both, has forgotten that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.
Second, being a lawyer of any type, except possibly a large city DA or US Attorney gives one no executive experience whatsoever. What do you think an FTC lawyer or a Solicitor General does?
Third, although I think either Cruz or Rubio would do fine against the Evil Empress, I don’t see either being able to beat Good Old Uncle Joe (TM), whom I think will be the eventual Dem nominee. Joe will just pat them on the head and say, “Now, young fella, you just go sit in the corner and wait your turn,” and that will be that.
It will take a grownup to beat Biden. I’m not sure which of the candidate will be the best for that, but I know it ain’t either Cruz or Rubio. (I don’t mention Trump because I think long before the convention, the Dems will make him an offer he can’t refuse.)
Hmmm,
I submitted a comment on this thread and it has disappeared into the ethernet.
It was all about admitting how stupid I was.
Oh well.
Well, PatD, we are all stupid from time to time. All I seek is answer to a simple question. Waiting, waiting… but now sleepy so answers will or will not arrive tomorrow.
Why does Trump say Mexico is going to pay for the wall? Isn’t that the stupidest thing you ever heard? The guy must be a complete moron. All agreed?
Where is the wall going to be built? On the Mexican side of the border or the US side? One of the huge stumbling blocks on the US side has been environmental impact studies. They can tie up a project for decades. But doing it on the Mexican side avoids all those problems. You see where Trump is headed? Or is he just stupid?
How things have changed — from the Houston Chronicle, 2013: Ted Cruz talks immigration, guns and Marco Rubio:
“Marco Rubio is a good friend. And I think Marco Rubio is one of the strongest leaders on the national scene. I think he is a tremendously effective communicator and he understands in a first-hand way the incredible promise of liberty for expanding opportunity for all of us to achieve the American Dream.” . . .
“Marco has worked very, very hard to tackle the very difficult problem of how to fix our broken immigration system. And I think he has worked in good faith in a sincere desire to craft a solution as to how to approach immigration.”
@Parker:
Ask me again. I’m pretty stupid but I’ll try to answer this time.
ABC and the RNC apparently plan to exclude Carly Fiorina from Sat. night’s debate stage. Sen. Cruz sez: bad idea, put Carly on — she deserves it, and we listeners deserve to hear her speak.
parker, Ann, whoever else is interested:
From Rush Limbaugh, back last April:
As I wrote earlier, he also thought the bill would be made more conservative by the Republican House.
These were miscalculations on Rubio’s part. And he was somewhat naive. But I think this is what actually motivated him, and that it was because of his felt need to do something that could be passed by the Democratic Senate, made more conservative by the Republican House, and had a chance of being better than what Obama seemed about to do anyway on his own.
That said, now he is obviously not behind deporting all the illegal immigrants here. Nor is Trump, no matter what he says about getting them all out and letting most of them back in. Nor are any of the other Republicans. But they are all for closing the border, for real.
sdferr:
Cruz is right. It’s a terrible idea, to exclude one candidate and only one, and to do it when she did better in Iowa than some of those included. It’s a travesty, actually, and all the candidates should protest. This overcard/undercard thing has been handled very very poorly right along.
It true and right that all should protest Carly’s exclusion, vehemently even. I doubt however that all will, or will join in solidarity to get their way. But we’ll see.
@neo-neocon:
When you have a young family member falling victim to the flood of cheap, high quality heroin flooding across the Mexican border, you take notice of someone who stakes their campaign on building a wall and deporting all illegals, and doesn’t back down.
My wife and I have twice been within striking distance of an Islamic terrorist attack. We missed being killed at the Temple of Hatshepsut by exactly a year and we missed being killed at the Boston marathon by exactly a year. Had my training gone better, I’d have been there, and my wife would have been close to the bomb.
The Donald says halt Muslim immigration and a firestorm erupts. Unlike a politician, he doesn’t back down.
Do Cruz or Rubio endorse Trump’s position on Muslim immigration (aka Hijrah)? Cruz rejected it. So did Rubio. They are both Ms. Merkels on the issue. You only have to see the news out of Germany to see how that’s working out.
Mr. Clown Car speaks to my issues and doesn’t back down. The other clowns drift with the political winds and betray us the day after they are elected.
Very interesting, Neo, and sounds right to me re Rubio’s intentions.
I also think those intentions may at least in part have been shared by Cruz. Which would support my contention that he was being sincere when he offered his amendment, and that it was not a poison pill move on his part at the time.
My judgment on this is furthered supported, I think, by what Cruz said in 2013 when speaking with Robert P. George at a reunion event for Princeton alumni. He sure sounds sincere about his amendment and in his desire to reach common ground with Democrats on an immigration bill. And, ironically, at around the 74:00 point he accuses the Senate Democrats of using poison pill tactics to “torpedo” the bill in the House.
Rush, along with Levin, have jumped the shark. So has the national Tea Party Patriots organisation.
They are all explicitly or implicitly endorsing or supporting candidates when they should have stayed neutral.
Looks like Salem media and Murdoch have a shared agenda.
Well my dad usually votes (D) and yesterday night he said he’s voting for Bernie Sanders because he isn’t part of a PAC. “Unlike Rubio,” he retorted.
I didn’t ask him what he thought about the man’s policies and if they actually would work. I’m not sure how I’d react to his response.
Neo:
However, Rubio wasn’t such a rube that he couldn’t manage to do some harm to Obamacare, almost single-handedly.
Unfortunately, that’s a catch-22 position. Preventing Obama from providing subsidies to insurance companies harmed by ObamaCare does punish them for helping enact it, but if it goes on too long it will weaken them too, which many surmise was part of the plan to begin with.
If he wanted to use tough love to torpedo O’Care, he could have slipped in an amendment preventing Obama from delaying implementation of the employer mandate and the tax on Cadillac plans, which together would have hit many tens of millions of average Americans and forced them into the ridiculously expensive plans in Obamacare.
Even before Obama started brazenly Grubering about keeping your doctor and your insurance, his own analysts calculated that IIRC 88 million people (others estimated 120+ million) would lose their current insurance.
That report was slipped into the Federal Register unannounced.
That’s why the implementation of the employer mandate and Cadillac tax kept being postponed.
Had they not, the outpouring of rage might have been enough to get impeachment started.
PatD (in response to your 1:18 AM post):
Trump’s position on immigration is really not what you think it is (if you go to that link, it contains many links to illustrate where the information was obtained):
I think Cruz has the best position, actually (from the same article):
I would add that Cruz has always favored a wall and fought for it in Congress. I’ve linked to many articles about that before; not going to repeat myself.
Unfortunately, communicating with you seems to often involve a great deal of repeating myself, and in response you keep repeating the same ideas about what you think Trump would do or what he has said, ignoring much of the contradictory stuff he actually has said (and said recently).
I’m sorry, but you are in fantasyland about Trump. You write about Trump: “Unlike a politician, he doesn’t back down.” And yet Trump has backed down many times, as his immigration stance (and even his statements on letting muslims in ) have proven. He comes on strong at first and then qualifies and qualifies and qualifies until it’s something quite different. And that’s just his rhetoric, and just his rhetoric in the months since he’s been an announced candidate.
And with Trump, he has the advantage because you’re evaluating “mere speech.” Has it ever occurred to you that your “Unlike a politician, he doesn’t back down” is leaving something very important out? Not only has Trump backed down repeatedly, but—unlike a politician—he’s never had to put any of his political statements on the line and act. Or to negotiate with other people to get a law passed, for example. It’s entirely in the realm of fantasy as far as politics is concerned, and real estate is not analogous. He’s never held public office, never governed, and the most that ever happens when he predicts things that don’t come to be in real estate is that he loses money (or gets sued, as with Trump University).
Your rhetoric doesn’t refer to anything that’s happening on this blog, either—“Mr. Clown Car”? I haven’t seen anyone on this blog saying that sort of thing, so why do you say it?
As for Trump and his Muslim ban, it would be unconstitutional, for one thing (I wrote about that in a post already, but I don’t have time to find which one right now, because I wrote a lot on the subject of his Muslim ban). For another, Trump did indeed walk back part of what he originally said. A better proposal than Trump’s—but one that Trump did not propose—is this one. There are many reasons to reject what Trump said without being the least bit soft on the subject. I reject Trump’s plan (and “plan” is really too kind a word for it), but I am not the least bit soft on this issue and never have been.
What you want is a dictator who will do what you imagine Trump will do. You have somehow decided his way is the only way, and also that if he were president he’d actually do what he says. The first is not true, and I doubt the second is, either. I realize that nothing will dissuade you, so I’m done arguing with you.
Neo: “You would rather call Rubio names without saying why those names are justified, and then call me names such as “naive.” That’s not much of an argument.”
You cherry pick from peoples comments just as they cherry pick from your posts. That’s why comments don’t lend themselves to detailed discussions.
Anyone in Congress who negotiates with Democrats is naive because they always lose, including Rubeo. Trump has a track record of winning. Not 100%. Nobody does. But better than the establishment.
If we lose on immigration it’s game over. I don’t care about Obamacare when immigration is the #1 issue. Ryan will give Obama what he wants in the next Omnibus bill or whatever I’m sure. Trump is our last best hope.
I read the article you linked and wasn’t impressed. Every immigration bill has penalties and restrictions on naturalization of illegals. Those get waived immediately. Coulter documents it.
De facto amnesty, Neo. That’s why negotiating won’t win. You and Rubio can’t seem to grasp that.
boxty:
Do you hear how illogical you sound?
Trump sometimes wins and sometime loses (I have read a great deal about his life, his successes and his failures). But he has NO record with Congress, because he has NO experience with Congress, or anything remotely like Congress.
Your argument actually should lead you to vote for Cruz, who has a record with Congress, and it’s of not compromising in Congress.
And pay attention to most of the comments here. Most people manage to mount very cogent arguments even with the restrictions of space inherent in a comment section.
My post was not about whether Rubio is the best choice for this. I actually think Cruz is. My post was about what might have been going through Rubio’s mind, and why he did what he did.
It’s very logical. Republicans in Congress have been losing on all fronts to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Knowledge of Congress obviously isn’t the key to winning. Trump has a track record of winning in many arenas, including the most important one, the media.
Obama, a one-term U.S. Senator with a lackluster career, beat one of the slickest political machines of modern history through the media.
Trump, a “nobody” in Congress is beating his nearest challenger, Senator Cruz, by almost a 2:1 margin in national polling through the media.
Obviously, a track record in Congress is not important to winning.
I would not mind a Cruz/Fiorina ticket. But I’m not sure Cruz can beat
Hillarythe media.boxty:
I think perhaps the word “winning” doesn’t mean what you think it does.
When the field winnows down and Trump gets a majority of the GOP votes the word “winning” might mean something.
Nor is Trump a “nobody.” Au contraire. He is by far the most well-known person in the race, and has been a huge celebrity for decades. Except for Jeb Bush and perhaps Christie, the other candidates have started from little name recognition at all from the majority of Americans. We blogosphere and news junkies knew a lot about them, but that’s a tiny tiny percentage of the voting population.
neo:
“If you want to start quoting Powerline as the authority, John Hinderaker endorsed Rubio, and Steven Hayward agrees. Mirengoff is the outlier.”
Hayward was just having fun with his readers.
Here is a post where he SEEMS to endorse Ted Cruz
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/jimmy-carter-endorses-ted-cruz.php
Actually, I do not follow anyone as authority. Did you even read Mirengoff’s post? How about responding to the substance of the post? I already did so with the post that you recommend.
Bob_CA:
I had read Mirengoff’s post before you even mentioned it.
I read Powerline nearly every day, and I read the majority of the posts there, or at least skim them.
I know what Hayward was saying in his post, and when I wrote he “agrees,” I meant that he agrees that Rubio might not be the devil incarnate because of the Gang of 8, not that he “agrees” in the sense of endorsing Rubio. That was not very clear the way I wrote it, so I understand how you might think I meant he was formally endorsing him, but that’s not what the “agrees” was meant to refer to.
“Winning” in the colloquial sense, i.e. succeeding in obtaining your goals or objectives.
To quote you, Trump “has NO record with Congress, because he has NO experience with Congress, or anything remotely like Congress.” In other words, he is a nobody in Congress.
I feel you are being pedantic with me.
Let me try again:
1. Republicans in Congress, despite decades of experience in Washington, have failed to achieve their policy goals.
2. Obama, despite very little experience in Congress or Washington, has achieved many of his most important policy goals.
3. Therefore, experience in Congress or Washington is not necessary to achieve your policy goals.
Where is the breakdown in my reasoning?
P.S.: Wrote this a few days ago but forgot to hit send. Rubio said as much on Saturday’s debate. Obama, a freshman Senator, has been very successful at passing his agenda. No experience in Washington or as an executive officer was necessary.