Comments

Today is the South Carolina primary — 161 Comments

1. South Carolina primary?!? Why?
   Is there an election going on? I hadn’t noticed.

2. Primaries should be national primaries. Instead of this piecemeal method that lets the Democrats gin up constructed setups.

   It also is pretty hypocritical, that a few states forces some candidates out, that even the rest of the American voters in America have no say about.

   In this age of the internet and credit card protection buys overseas and online, and people still need to hold piecemeal primaries in some states at a time?

   Talk about kleptocracy and oligarchy corruption.

   The system is so broken and evil, that people don’t even realize how broken it really is.

3. Not looking good for Bush, Kasich and Carson. Hope all three get out but I suspect Kasich will hang on for a bit.

   I need a hug.

4. Cornhead:

   “Not looking good for Bush, Kasich, and Carson” is music to my ears.

   We all need hugs. Group hugs.

5. And I don’t see any of those three drop-out candidates’ voters going to Trump. Three way race.

   Next debate Ted drops the “my own personal Vietnam” bomb on Trump. I love the smell of naplam in the morning.

6. Trump seems to have “won” with his usual third of the votes. I don’t see how he can get the nomination with that ceiling. Two-thirds of us Republicans will vote for anyone else.

7. I’m not convinced that Bush will drop out. It’s not like he thinks any of the other likely candidates are worthy. And what has kept him in this long except money and pride. The money may leave but he will still has his pride. At least for a while.

8. Wooly Bully:

   Boy do I hope you’re right. And boy do I hope the lower three get going. Now, if not sooner.

   I have not one whit of patience for them anymore. They are on a destructive ego trip.

9. Everything is going as expected, which is not great.
   If the bottom 3 don’t drop out before the March 1 primaries in a dozen states, Trump will win a boatload of delegates with 33% of the vote. He may be unstoppable after that.

   If the bottom 3 don’t drop out and end up handing this to Trump, I will think of them in the same way as I do Todd Akin; not fondly.

10. Wooly Bully:

    33% is perfectly adequate to win the nomination, as long as the remainder is split between 3 or more people.
    Many states like SC are winner-take-all and don’t award delegates based on percentage of the vote.

    I have to admit that the system was well-designed to prevent drawn out, parliamentary types of stalemate. But it means the nomination can go to someone with significantly less than a majority of support.

11. Would a Cruz/Rubio ticket work? Rubio/Cruz? They flip a coin?

    We had a Town Hall.com Meetup for several years. There were two people who got involved, got onto the e-mail ring, and, essentially brought the organization to its knees. They were really aflame about the “North American Alliance” or something.
    State office holders who came to speak to us were pelted with questions about the UN. They really did not ;like for me to remind them that Texas is not a member state. They sounded so much like this year’s Trumpists. They were so angry, but not really rational. I fail to see how these people could elect a President. I am equally uncertain how Trump would govern. All that bluster sounds far too much like “a pen and a ‘phone.” We have barely survived these seven years of that. When I looked, a few minutes ago, Trump was ahead, the Rubio and Cruz back and forth to tie for second.

12. Matt_SE:

    I will think of them much worse than I do Todd Akin.

    However, you are discounting a couple of things. They may be egocentric, but they’re not insane, nor are their donors—I hope. In addition, as their chances seem to fade, more people may jump off their trains and hop onto Cruz’s or Rubio’s. In other words, there is a kind of bandwagon effect, especially for people who don’t like Trump, which is quite a few. I hope.

    Compared to NH, there has been a dropoff for Trump, a rise for Rubio and Cruz, and a dropoff for Kasich and Bush. That’s at least a trend in the right direction. It may in part have to do with the differences between NH and SC, however.

13. the clueless electorate gave us Obama
    so why is Trump any kind of a surprise ???
    To me it s just celebrity driven, Trumps had his own TV show, they are familiar with him (ala Chauncy Gardner) & the guy promises to shut down drugs crossing our borders & *do something decent* for veterans who everybody else totally ignores when it comes to actually spending actual MONEY on those poor guys & gals. It s just an extension of what Obama rode into office, in my opinion.

14. So look everybody you got your Obama by election hi jinks now you ll get your Trump !

15. I see reports that Jeb is out.

16. I just got a news alert from WaPo: Jeb is out.
    Maybe he will start a trend.

17. Bush is stepping out. He is delivering a gracious “campaign suspension” speech right now.

    It’s the right thing to do.

18. OK. realistically, objectively, there’s a very good chance that the Republicans will be running a young, charismatic, intelligent conservative for the presidency this year. We’ll also be in a position to press hard on the immigration issue without being called racists.

19. The # of delegates to the convention is what matters, not the vote%. And here is what happens in a winner-take-all (delegates) primary:
    S.C. REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
    DELEGATES VOTES* PCT.
    Donald Trump 38 117,617 33.7%
    Ted Cruz 0 75,749 21.7%
    Marco Rubio 0 75,614 21.7%
    Jeb Bush 0 28,902 8.3%
    John Kasich 0 28,200 8.1%
    Ben Carson 0 23,222 6.7%
    *******************************************

    Not good news. The Donald sweeps the table with his usual 35% +/-.
    I despise winner-take-all, which, as I’ve previously posted, gave us McCain with about the same SC percentage. Only open primaries are worse.

20. About Cruz/Rubio and Rubio/Cruz: A coalition will never happen. That’s not how our political system works. But, who would each of the three candidates pick for VP?

    Cruz needs a woman to humanize him. Someone with executive experience. It won’t be Carly Fiorina, because she wouldn’t humanize Cruz. There’s a severity about her, at least on camera. I’d go with Nikki Haley.

    Rubio doesn’t need to be humanized. He needs an attack dog on the Right, to keep the Republican turnout high. I don’t think he could do better than Ted Cruz. Usually a candidate will go with someone who represents a different geography or demographic group, but I’m thinking of Bill Clinton going with Gore: youthful self-confidence.

    Who would Trump choose? The name I keep going back to is Mike Huckabee. Evangelical, on good enough terms with the Trump camp, an outsider with party credentials. None (or not much of) the baggage that Palin would bring.

21. So you see, Bush dropping out changes nothing. Not in winner-take-all states, which I believe is the majority (forgive me for not counting them up, whether by state or by delegates/state ).

22. Frog:

    South Carolina is a hybrid primary, not exactly winner take all but not proportionate either. Closer to winner-take-all than proportionate, but not totally.

    I hate winner-take-all primaries, too, particularly in early states. They should be proportional and anything else is stupid, although I’ve read why they do it.

    At this point, though, it’s about building momentum and getting the others to drop out as soon as possible. It’s the latter that’s especially important, and the possibility that they won’t is what worries me most.

23. I was hoping that Cruz would somehow pull out a victory as he did in Iowa. If not him, then Rubio. What a nightmare. Another Clinton in our future? I’m putting a movie on. It’s a toss up between The Edge or Enemy Of The State.

24. Jeb announced he’s leaving the race, and you can bet that the establishment will take the tongs to Kasich in a big way. He’ll be gone soon. Carson has decided to continue with his sad, quixotic campaign for the moment.

    The next primary will be more competitive because Jeb is gone, and more competitive still if Kasich leaves.

    Because there is almost no overlap in Trump’s and Rubio’s supporters, I think this will come out one of two ways:
    1) A very near-even three man race with a brokered convention.
    2) A two major, one minor (Cruz is the minor) race with a brokered convention.

    There are two other less likely scenarios:
    3) Someone makes a gaffe that’s ends their campaign. Much more likely to be either Cruz or Rubio. If Cruz falls, it’s hard to say what happens. If Rubio falls, his supporters go all to Cruz.
    4) Despite the race being near even, someone manages to get a majority of delegates before the convention.

    I sincerely hope Kasich and Carson leave before March 1, so we can get this party started.

    P.S.: I said Jeb would leave before the halfway point.

25. Michael Adams:

    It depends on what you think each man stands for. Personally, I think Cruz and Rubio are significantly different on most matters. I don’t think Rubio will reduce the size of power of D.C. by one iota, but Cruz would.

    That means whoever is on top of the ticket will call the shots, and the Veep will be a flunkie/figurehead. Like a Republican Biden, no matter what they want.

    In that case, there’s no point to either man accepting the VP slot. Also, it’s still a statistical fact that the VP office is poison for ever becoming president, so it’s not much of a consolation.

26. Jeb Bush is out. I am glad. I never disliked him, but I disliked the role he took on as this campaign has worn on.
    —————-

    I did actually dislike him. Early on, I noticed an unfortunate contrast with his brother. Dubya might not agree with you, but you never got the sense that he looked down on you. Some of Jeb’s early comments about immigration seemed to suggest that he only held contempt for anyone who disagreed with him on that issue.

27. Matt_SE.
    I sort of think Rubio would be held in a bit by congress, especially if people like Ben Sasse and Tom Cotton come out strong on issues. If he tried to pull some stunt on immigration, there would be a revolt.

28. Neo, SC may be a hybrid, but effectively it is winner-take-all. OK, nearly all!

    The GOP hopefuls dropping out of the bottom is not going to make a big anti-Trump difference, I fear.

    I fear also that we must pray for Sanders to hang tough. I would vote for him over Shrillary the unindicted, or Trump the Constitution shredder, both monsters, if for no other reason than his democratic socialism would hit the walls of the previously supine Congress.

29. Frog:

    I agree that it’s almost winner take all. But that’s not really the point, because the delegate totals are not the point right now. The real race starts now, and it depends on who drops out, when, and where their votes go.

    I understand what you’re saying about Trump, but I won’t believe it till I see it. A great many, actually the majority, of GOP voters cannot stand him. Kasich is a moderate, and Bush is a moderate, and I’m not at all sure a significant number of their votes go to Trump. Rubio should gain strength from Bush’s dropping out, and he is the more natural repository for Kasich and Carson’s votes if they drop out, as well (although I’m not sure about Carson; I suppose it’s possible that his staying in actually hurts Trump, in which case I would encourage him to stay in). If Rubio starts pulling ahead of Cruz in the polls and becomes the #2, and builds momentum, he could start winning.

    I have no idea whether this will happen. But it is based on my belief that those who like Trump have mostly already gone to Trump. In fact, that is borne out by the fact that in Iowa and SC (and to a lesser extent in NH), late-deciders have gone to the other candidates more often than to Trump.

    With 99% of the votes in, Trump has 32.5% in SC. That is lower than a great many polls predicted, and Rubio and Cruz did better, particularly Rubio who has slightly edged at Cruz in a state with a lot of evangelicals. That argues to me for Rubio’s strength. Now, you may not like Rubio (I prefer Cruz myself, but I’ll take Rubio over Trump any day). But these results indicate to me that Rubio has a chance.

    So, if Trump was up at 38% and 40% in SC at one point (assuming the polls were correct), the results indicate to me that he lost votes in the last week. Why? Was it his “Bush lied” position? I don’t know, but that’s my guess. Trump did worse in SC than in NH, but at many points his lead was just as big in the polls as in NH. This may (accent on the “may”) represent an actual loss of supporters for Trump. Again, I don’t know, but that’s my hope, and it is certainly a good possibility.

    I am hoping that it also represents a trend, and that Trump begins to wear thin even with some of his less rabid supporters. If Rubio or Cruz start taking more of the lion’s share of the remainder of Bush’s votes, and others drop out, things could change.

    We have in store for us a very bumpy ride. And its been bumpy enough already.

30. I for one am sorry to see Jeb go. I happen to think he would have been a good President. I know it wasn’t working, and he did the right thing.

    Now we are in uncharted territory with two first term Senators who have little to no leadership, or management experience; and a megalomaniac. Obviously, I do not count Kasich or Carson; and I hope that Bush’s withdrawal will spur theirs–but somehow I doubt it.

31. Watching Trump on the stage with his current wife and his only daughter I’m reminded that Donald said something to the effect that if Ivanka wasn’t his daughter he’d “date” her.

    How sick, sick is that?

32. I don’t think Donald would be a fiasco as President.

    He’d be a fiasco in November.

    The ONLY Republican nominees with a shot are Cruz and Rubio.

    Even Rodam-Clinton has figured it out.

    Trump CLEARLY under performed.

    &&&&&

    The Rubio on immigration nexus is SURE to become large.

    I refer to the ICE complaint about Rubio gaming them and shaming them.

    Carson REALLY needs to drop out.

    NO WAY will Trump offer him the V-P slot.

33. Watching Hannity right now and I am sick of Fox’s enabling of Trump and a certain GOP defeat in November. I think it is a New Yorker thing.

    We are New York! We are the best!

    When will that puke Sean Hannity some tough questions? Start with “my own personal Vietnam.”

34. The Dems will slaughter Trump on Facebook in the Fall. Beat down. We lose big.

35. I’ve come to hate Sean Hannity.

    I hate him so much that a dropped a word in that last post.

    All this worthless horse race stuff. No follow ups. Just stupid questions.

    Trump v Hillary puts the Clintons back in the WH.

36. Still in shock that Jeb!’s plan to win the primary without the base didn’t work out for him.

37. blert:

    That is one of the many many things I don’t understand this campaign.

    If I had a dime for every time someone wrote that Trump will win the general—and sometimes that he’s the only hope for the general—I’d have a nice little nest egg. And yet there is zero evidence for it, and all the evidence is the exact opposite. It’s like I’m in looking-glass world, and I’ve been there anyway during the Obama administration. I thought I had a chance to get out of it in 2016, but perhaps not.

    You read things like “Trump will win NY” or “Trump will get 30% of the black vote” and you wonder whether it’s just lying propaganda or whether they believe that stuff. A few months ago when the “Trump does well among blacks” articles got out, I actually looked at the polls they were talking about and they were ludicrous. They didn’t say that at all. For starters, they only measured Trump’s support among black Republicans in the primaries. What on earth does that have to do with black support in the general, against a Democrat? Absolutely zero. And even among black Republicans, the polls were meaningless. I remember that in one, the number of black people in the poll was 10 (out of something like 500 or 600 voters). Of those 10, Carson got 5 and Trump 4, and Cruz 1. The results were utterly meaningless, but you know what the headline said? “Trump gets 40% of black voters!!”

    Thus a myth is born.

    I guess if people are too stupid or lazy to figure it out, that’s what we get.

38. KLSmith:

    This is where I’m going to take a moment to blow my own horn. Please indulge me.

    In April of 2014 I wrote this:

    I’ve heard for years about the Republican “establishment” pushing this candidate or that candidate on the rank and file. Most of the time it’s seemed untrue to me.

    But it seems absolutely on target with the current talk of Jeb Bush for 2016. He has no natural constituency. There is nothing special–or especially appealing–about him as a candidate. His name, IMHO, is a liability rather than an asset, both with Republicans and with Democrats.

    So who would be voting for Bush in a primary? Darned if I know.

    …In choosing a category for this post, I thought about including him in “people of interest.” But the opposite is the point: he’s a person without interest.

    I never, never thought he’d get anywhere. You cannot make people vote for someone. It drives me nuts when people talk about the evil establishment forcing people to vote for someone. What really happens is that the GOP divides into three parts (at the moment): rebels without a cause, conservatives, and moderates. Each group has a candidate that appeals to them the most, but it’s a natural division based on different beliefs, not something pushed by the evil establishment. If they try to push a moderate on the group that likes moderates, that person won’t be accepted unless he’s the only choice in that class, or is a candidate with some reason to like him/her. Jeb was never that person. Rubio seems to be (although I don’t think he’s moderate except re immigration, and even that is not his current stance).

39. Cornhead:

    I’ve never liked Hannity. He just seems dull to me, and yes, he never asks follow up questions. I have stopped watching political TV entirely because at this point it only depresses me. They pretend to have principles but what I see is what they really care about most of all is ratings. Of course, that makes sense; it’s a business. But it seems to me they will kiss the derriere of whoever gives them ratings, and go out of their way not to ruffle that person’s feathers.

    But here’s my question: I notice a lot of people (not necessarily on this blog, but on other comment boards) seem to think that after tonight Trump is inevitable. I don’t see it that way. Are you of that mind?

    I think, as I’ve said in other comments, that it all depends who drops out and when, and who gains momentum.

40. Midst the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I submit the following article from Bloomberg:
    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-19/donald-trump-class-warrior

    I’ve seen, lived, and belong to both sides of the class divide. I understand where the Trump support is coming from. Those people (me) in “flyover’ country are damn tired of being put down by “their betters” on the Coasts, especially Washington, DC. “Their betters” have been running things for about thirty years, and have brought this country to a state of near collapse. This is the first chance they’ve had to rise up. All the previous politicians have promised things would change, things would be better. Things got better for the elites and the powerful, the Coasties, but nothing got better for the flyover people. It never does. And the elites have the gall to sneer at them.

    The flyover people know that if Hillary is elected, it’s all over for this country. But if some sell-out Republican is elected, it’s all over for flyover country anyway. Always is. I think they’re a little bit like Samson. If Trump pulls down the columns, the flyover people might get hurt or die, but I think they don’t care about that, because they always get hurt and die. At least this time, if the columns go down, the elites will go down with them.

41. Rubio sounded great in his speech tonight. I thought of how the Founding Fathers must have sounded to the people listening to them, and I thought he was in that category.

    That said, I think he is the real establishment in this race (except, of course, for Hillary), and I can imagine him going along with everything the bankers and the unions demand of him. I’m sickened by the whole thing. I would never vote for Trump, and I’m very close to saying the same thing about Rubio.

42. CapnRusty:

    Yeah, so they’ve become destructive nihilists in their rage at being ignored.

    I get it.

    And by the way, they are most likely facilitating the election of Hillary Clinton. Trump is the Republican candidate least likely to beat her, all the evidence indicates. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t beat her, if her support sinks low enough. But he’s the one most likely to lose to her.

43. Neo

    No way is Trump is inevitable. People are just repeating Trump’s stupid slogan. This is a three way race for a long time; maybe to the convention. Most of Ben’s voters will go to Ted.

    Cruz should go full lawyer on Trump at the next debate. Ted has the dirt and the data and knows what works. Draft dodger Trump banging coke head whores. His own personal Vietnam? Bone spurs? Ted probably has pictures.

    I’ve watched too many basketball games to think this thing is over. Creighton had a big lead over Georgetown with about two minutes left and we lost.

44. “I never disliked him (Bush)”. Short memory you have… If you search last year’s posts, you will find this quote “I loathe Jeb Bush.” You went on from there to say he was “boring” , among other things.
    Cruz and Rubio will battle over 2nd until it’s too late. Neither of their egos is going to let go out of some sense of duty. They’re both politicians to the core, and they’ve both demonstrated they will do whatever it takes to win.
    Not to mention there are a lot of people and donars who have invested in these guys for different reasons.

45. This is today, February 20th (still, here on the left coast). Tomorrow is another day, and my view tomorrow may not be what it is today. But I’m gonna contribute to the thread and dip my toe in the water. Here goes.

    Sez M J R . . .

    Trump, whatever his good points (significant) and whatever his shortcomings (legion and in some cases critical), is unelectable in November. (So far, I know I haven’t lost neo [grin]; PatD, you’re a good man Charlie Brown, but I can’t go where you are.)

    (Parenthetically, before Kasich was a big 2015-16 star, I *really* liked Kasich, in the mid-1990s. Since then I have become much more impressed by the absolute and utter viciousness and scowling determination of the hard left, who will do anything and everything to ram their utopia down our gullets, but I don’t see that Kasich has come with me. He’d earnestly try to work with the left, including the hard left, and they’d chew him up and spit him out like yesterday’s bubble gum. I do think both Cruz and Rubio know what they’re up against, and this will serve to introduce my main point.)

    To my best apprehension, . . .

    Cruz is much more trustworthy, in terms of doing what he says he’ll do, but is unelectable in November. The enemedia have all but Palinized him already.

    Rubio is much less trustworthy — I still remember Chuck Schumer leading him around Dee Cee by the nose in the Gang Of Eight days — and is less trustworthy for some other reasons, but *is* electable in November.

    So I’m finding myself left with Rubio.

    I’m not happy with that, and, to quote Scarlett O’Hara, tomorrow is another day.

    ‘Night-all . . .

    Last-second addendum: I fear that Starlord (12:24 am) is right: “Cruz and Rubio will battle over 2nd [place] until it’s too late.”

46. Starlord:

    Well, I definitely have always thought he comes across as boring. I think I’ve made that pretty clear.

    But when I did a search for “I loathe Jeb Bush” I couldn’t find a thing. Could you give me a link? I’d be curious to see the context.

    It certainly is possible that at some point I came to loathe him. I definitely very much have loathed Carson, Kasich, and Bush the last few weeks, when they wouldn’t drop out. Felt real anger at them, is what I mean (again, I assume they’re very decent human beings, all three, so it’s not a basic loathing, it’s a situational anger). And I’ve definitely felt Jeb Bush was a bad candidate right from the start (and even before he declared), very blah and low energy (yes, even though Trump said it).

    What I actually meant by saying I never disliked him is that I assume he’s a nice person. I have no personal basic dislike for him. I find him boring and a bad bad candidate. I got angry at him later on for staying in the race as a spoiler, IMHO. But I have no basic dislike for him as a human being.

    So, when did I write that I loathed him, and what was I saying as to why? As I said, it’s certainly possible I don’t remember, and I’d like to take a look.

47. M J R:

    I don’t know if I agree about Cruz and Rubio.

    First of all, if it comes down to it, one may pull ahead.

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that all of Jeb Bush’s support goes to Rubio. That would have brought him to 30% in SC, very close to Trump. Let’s say that Kasich drops out, and a significant percentage of his support goes to Rubio, too (I can certainly imagine that). Cruz starts sinking in comparison.

    Cruz is not dumb. Does he hate Rubio so much that he’d stay in in order to sink him? I don’t know; I assume Cruz doesn’t like Trump, either, but he’s not confiding in me. But I also think it’s possible that Cruz staying in the race splits the anti-establishment vote with Trump and helps Rubio.

    We really don’t know.

    I feel the same way about Cruz vs. Rubio as you do. Cruz is unwavering, Rubio not. But Rubio’s okay with me; I could live with him (as opposed to Hillary) and I really think he is “electable,” which goes a long way with me, too.

    I also don’t believe these fights they have are that deep that they can’t unite if they need to. For example, I can even imagine a Rubio/Cruz ticket. That is the best-case scenario, as far as I’m concerned. Wouldn’t Cruz prefer that to his lonely fight in the Senate? Maybe not, if he hates Rubio enough.

    I don’t know how old you are, but you can hardly imagine more hated rivals than Kennedy/Johnson in 1960. Eisenhower was unfond of Nixon, too. It happens. Ever hear the expression: politics makes strange bedfellows?

48. neo,

    (You are referring to my last-second addendum, in which I quote Starlord (12:24 am): “Cruz and Rubio will battle over 2nd [place] until it’s too late.”)

    I credit what you’re saying, especially as these thoughts are, in any event, very fluid right now, but I do think it’s worth focusing on the last four words of Starlord’s quote: “until it’s too late”.

    The question then becomes (for me), when will it be / will it have been too late? Yes, it’s gonna play out, but meanwhile, Trump will continue to roll up his yuuuuge 33 percent victories.

    It makes me pine for the bad ol’ days of party elders and party discipline, a scenario in which the elders sit the two down, read them the riot act, and tell them “this sh#t stops right now: YOU will head the ticket and YOU will be the veep, if you want a future in politics.” *Never* thought I’d pine for the bad ol’ days.

    (Yes, I’m aware how much JFK and LBJ disliked each other, and Ike and Nixon, and I’ll be happy to add, in my lifetime, Nixon and Spiro The Greek. I credit your points (as I wrote). But those president-veep dislikes refer to *after* they decide on a ticket — at which point, will it already be / have been too late?)

49. I am discouraged by Cruz failing to close within 5% of Trump in SC. Rubio neck and neck with Cruz is a bigger disappointment IMO because I see Rubio as totally in bed with the gope. All the gope cash will now flow to Rubio, better than the disaster of the left, but with Rubio the hand basket to the abyss slows by 10 mph max.

    This is an election to decide do we slowly turn around towards a republic bequeathed by the founders or do we rush towards the failed experiment of Europe socialism. This will not end well.

50. I’m sorry to say that Cruz and Rubio are not evenly matched: there’s more establishment in reserve for Rubio than conservatives in reserve for Cruz.

    Whether staying in or dropping out makes more sense, I trust that Cruz will make the right decision. I would love to see him pull off something unexpected.

    Or, there’s always the hope of making Rubio implode again at a debate.

51. I am also (very) grudgingly coming around on Rubio. Churchill famously said regarding his policy towards the Soviet Union after Hitler’s Germany invaded Russia in 1941, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

    So too if Rubio can defeat Trump, I may be forced to praise him, at least for a while.

    But there is still a lot of campaigning and voting before the election and I will be contributing to Ted Cruz’s campaign tomorrow. When Carson drops out I think many of his votes will go to Cruz. I hope that somehow Carson’s religious beliefs will get him to do the right thing.

52. M J R:

    I’ve been pining for those days of the smoke-filled rooms for a long time. I don’t think that for the most part primaries and populism have served us well, at least not as the primaries have been designed. There is too much vote-splitting, and it’s not just Trump that makes me say this. I’ve said it before.

53. Just correct someone on here: Trump has two daughters. One is in college. His 2nd wife’s only child. She’s going to Wharton just like all the others.

    I will vote for whoever the final Republican nominee will be. I hope everyone on here will. I’ve held my nose to vote for McCain and others. Everyone should be there at the polls in November no matter who wins.

    Can we all agree on that?

    I would like to see Carson stick with it. He is one of the ‘outsider’ candidates. You just never know where votes will go if someone goes down in flames in coming weeks. With Bush out, I’m curious to see where his supporters will go…

54. For those who are dismissing Trump’s political rise, watch Judgment At Nuremberg which was just aired on TCM. You think his praise of the general who dipped bullets in pigs’ blood, his vow to deport 12 million undesirables, or his other scapegoating is a fluke? No, it’s a pattern they all use.

55. I will not vote for Trump if it is a choice between Trump and X democrat. Instead I will waste my vote for the libertarian candidate. I wiill choose, if it comes to pass, not to dirty my hands for Trump. All Trumpians are enemies againist the Republic “if you can keep it”. Obviously, the concept of a republic versus mob rule is beyond their comprehension

56. Good for Jeb Bush. What a disaster.

    The one thing he needed to do in order to be a viable candidate, which is the one thing that would have helped the entire GOP field except Trump, was a vigorous defense and re-litigation of his brother’s (last Republican) presidential legacy, which necessarily would have included a vigorous rebuttal of the Democrats and Left, since their success has relied a lot on anti-Bush narrative.

    Instead, Bush ran away from the one thing he needed to do and pulled the rest of the GOP field down with him. The Kelly hypothetical was a gift opportunity to re-litigate the linchpin-premise Iraq issue with the full wattage of his vaunted wonk. Instead, Bush reacted with self-induced pratfalls, then decided the way to answer was tell everyone in earshot, for broadcast around the world, that his brother made “mistakes” with Iraq. Instead of re-litigate to set the record straight, he effectively stipulated the false narrative, which cornered the rest of the GOP field into doing the same. What a disaster.

57. Neo:
    “That is one of the many many things I don’t understand this campaign.
    … It’s like I’m in looking-glass world, and I’ve been there anyway during the Obama administration. I thought I had a chance to get out of it in 2016, but perhaps not.”

    Well yeah. A nomination race being warped by Trump-front alt-Right “jayvee” activists mimicking the Left would echo the cultural/political landscape shaped by the varsity Left.

    Don’t forget their principal objective is not the general election. Even if they’re against the Democrats, they’re also against the GOP, until they own it. They’ve commenced their Gramscian, long march. Their proximate goal is to displace mainstream conservatives like leftists displaced mainstream liberals. They’re willing to pay for that real estate with a Democrat win in November.

58. The Other Chuck:
    “For those who are dismissing Trump’s political rise, watch Judgment At Nuremberg which was just aired on TCM.”

    That hints at a diagnosis.

    If we’re at Weimar Republic, then what’s the diagnosis? Then what’s the prescription? Then what’s the treatment?

59. This year is pregnant by big, earth-breaking events, and all will be decided by how politicians would react to them. Too early to predict anything now, the world as we know it will be completely different in November.

60. Now it is giddiness and triumph on Fox this AM. Donald’s current wife is measuring drapes for the WH. The same wife whose naked pictures just surfaced. Memo to Roger Ailes: That would be news.

61. At least the passengers on the Titanic didn’t know at the start of their voyage that their ship would hit an iceberg.

62. I can’t believe what is going on. Meghan MeCain said it best this morning – Ben Carson and Kasich are a special kind of delusional to think they should continue. Like you, Neo, I am now boiling mad at Carson. I have been boiling mad at Kasich the whole campaign season, but now … they are selfish, selfish men. Bush dropped out a state too late. Personally, I think he wanted to minimize his humiliation earlier, but the family and the donors kept pushing him on. John Kasich just wants to give a victory speech in Ohio. I hope he is obliterated there. Between Trump’s lack of vocabulary and Hillary’s SHRILL shrieking – I am despondent.

63. Carson’s people just want more ad commissions. And Ben is too delusional to see that.

64. We also have to remember that the next 2 batches of primaries assign delegates proportionally. Trump can’t walk away with the nomination if he contines with 32%. I am hoping that Cruz and Rubio will be pointing this out to voters in their campaigns. They should be letting voters know that their anger has been felt but that now it is time to concentrate on issues and approaches to problems. Then they can attack Trump by saying that he is superb at saying things that express voter outrage, but now is the time to focus in on what to do. Trump is superb, like Obama, at drawing red lines in the sand, but he never says what he will do next. In fact he walks back all of his statements and tweets. There is no there there.

65. OMT, they could blame Trump for the attack tone of the campaigns so far and then say it is important to point out differences in approaches and priorities so the voters can decide who is best able to fix our country. They could even say that our country is still great but that right now it is in a ditch caused by Obama. All of us are needed to get out of that ditch. No one man can do it, especially if he doesn’t bother with details.

66. Janetoo, Carson has been promised the VP slot. Other websites with a connection to the Trump campaign have been talking it up for months. Since the Iowa incident Carson has been in Trump’s orbit, consciously.

67. Carson is a fool to believe it.

    1) He is all ‘wrong’ as a VP candidate.

    2) NO WAY will conservative Carson pull Black votes out of (D).

    3) It’s a MUCH safer bet for Trump — or any nominee — to select a woman as his V-P if HRC is certain to be the (D) nominee.

    &&&&&

    The kicker is that if anyone rained on Carson in Iowa — it was CARSON.

    Telling CNN that he’s off for home — instead of New Hampshire could ONLY be taken one way.

    &&&&

    From what little I’ve read, the “Carson withdraws” schtick actually came out TOO LATE to impact the Iowa vote.

    That’s how late it was.

    Which would then go a long way towards explaining why Carson’s numbers came so close to the polling numbers in the days preceding.

68. “I will not vote for Trump if it is a choice between Trump and X democrat. Instead I will waste my vote for the libertarian candidate.” parker

    If not in every way, I share your perception of Trump’s suitability as a President. That said, a vote for any other party’s nominee is, effectively a vote for the democrat nominee. How consequential your vote might be is determined by party domination in that state and whether that voter’s state is critical (swing state) in the electoral college total.

    Some thoughts;

    CapnRusty nails the motivations behind Trump’s supporters.

    There are highly plausible scenarios where Trump wins the nomination and then wins the Presidency. It is Sander’s supporters rage at the democrat establishment’s fixing of the nomination of Hillary, now 7 out of 7 tiebreakers… that will lead to them either sitting out the election or voting for the anti-establishment Trump. While if the GOPe reaches an ‘accommodation’ with a nominated Trump, then the 44% of republicans that do NOT feel betrayed by the GOP will vote for Trump. Which in an election with democrat voting depressed by 33%… that could lead to a narrow victory for Trump.

    Kasich and Carson now control whether Trump’s delegate count wins him the nomination. Delegate wise, if present trends continue, then mathematically, Trump cannot be stopped, if they stay in till after Super Tuesday.

69. The race is exactly where I predicted it would be back December- three way between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz after South Carolina. Rubio beating Cruz last night is the big news- that Bush, Kasich, and Carson were equal stragglers is no surprise. If Nevada were a primary, you might learn a lot on Tuesday about what will happen on March 1st which are all primaries but for Alaska and Minnesota.

    After March 1st, it should be a two way race, then we will see just how many non-Trump voters had him as an acceptable second choice. I think after March 1st, it will be head to head Trump vs Rubio in all but name.

70. Update; the more I look into it, the more complicated it becomes. It’s just too soon to make any firm statements. A brokered convention is a definite possibility.

    There are ‘hybrid’ states with winner take all, IF one candidate gains above a certain percentage of that state’s primary/caucus vote. There are various proportional states. There are winner take all states.

    It literally would take a computer program to illustrate all of the possible combinations. This site best illustrates the “2016 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State”

71. Geoffrey,

    Yes, it is possible that no candidate gets enough delegates to have the nomination wrapped up on the first vote. However, I think it will quite clear after the last primaries who the ultimate winner will be- it will be the candidate who finished first most often, which increasingly looks like it is going to be Trump.

72. And, for the record, I predict Trump wins every state on March 1st except for Texas.

73. I’m among those who think that a brokered convention is a realistic possibility. I even have a tinfoil-hat suspicion that Jeb Bush could emerge as the brokered convention’s candidate.

    For anybody who’s curious about what a brokered convention might be like, here’s a link to some speculation http://tinyurl.com/jcrcsa9.

    The link is to a blog entry written by John Mauldin, a well-known financial adviser. Mauldin has been a delegate to both national conventions and Texas state conventions, so his account and his speculation are based on experience. He describes it as an “inside baseball” analysis, and I’m a sucker for that kind of thing.

74. Eric:

    Oh, I’m well aware that the goal of the Trump activists is to destroy the GOP and take it over. I wrote about that in a post a while back.

75. KLSmith:
    “Still in shock that Jeb!’s plan to win the primary without the base didn’t work out for him.”

    If it’s either/or in a democratic contest, activism trumps donors.

    expat:
    “Trump can’t walk away with the nomination if he contines with 32%.”

    If that’s enough to reach a brokered convention, he’ll take that with a smile, roll up his sleeves, spit into his palms, rub them together, and wade into the arena to do what Trump do.

    At that point, Trump and his activist allies would have developed the leverage to negotiate. They’ll be in their comfort zone.

    On the inside, Trump will say the magic words and cut the deals that will sell him the rope that will hang the competition, be later obfuscated, or reneged altogether, (maybe even honored) whichever is advantageous.

    Surrounding the inside negotiation, wherever strategic pressure is called for to influence the inside politics, the Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists will be readying gameplay adapted from the Left’s proven playbooks for the virtual and, as needed, physical social space.

    Plenty of up-to-date proven Left-activist gameplay to sample from. Meanwhile, mainstream conservatives and Republicans have shown little-to-none of the competitive capability, appetite, or even comprehension of the counter activism that’s needed to cure their inviting vulnerability in the arena.

    For the cloistered setting, perhaps an adaptation of the recent Maoist-style campus cultural revolutions? Perhaps a sample from the classic, the 1968 Democratic convention?

    They can afford to play around and have fun with it. The game becomes easy when the competition allows an open field to run up the score and gobble up critical social ground. Even a “jayvee” team of Left-mimicking activists can score blow-out wins and wreak havoc against self-restricting competition.

    Heck, at that point, leftist-style environment-shaping activism may not be needed at all if the GOP is weak enough for Trump to set his price by his own devices.

76. Not just the GOP, Neo. The Right. Mainstream conservatives – “cuckservatives”.

77. Better phrasing: Heck, at that point, leftist-style environment-shaping ecosystem-constructing activism may not be needed at all if the GOP is weak enough for Trump to set his price by his own devices.

78. I’m with Parker: I’ll vote for the Libertarian rather than Trump. If that gets Hillary elected, that’s just too bad–not my fault. Moreover, I will exit the Republican Party for the Libertarians. If the Republicans nominate that charlatan, I’m through.

79. M J R Says @ 12:33 am:
    My thoughts exactly. I could not have said it any better. So, I won’t.

    Rubio is not the perfect candidate, but he has the Jack Kennedy type charisma that can win on a national level. He is inexperienced except as a politician. He is conservative enough to be rated by Conservative Review as the seventh most conservative Senator based on his voting record. That shows conservative bona fides that satisfy me. He has confidence, but may lack the toughness – the stainless steel spine – required to deal with the international bullies we are facing. I would be much more enthusiastic about his candidacy if we knew he was going to appoint a VP who has the military/executive experience he lacks. A few examples would include men like Tom Cotton, Allen West, or David Petraeus.

    Rubio’s Achilles heel is his role in the Gang of Eight. It is being touted constantly by the Cruz campaign. I watched the hearings on the Gang of Eight negotiations on C-SPAN. Rubio was pushing for better border enforcement, but McCain, Flake, and Graham were willing to go along with just the promise of better border security. For the Democrats in the group the bill was all about a path to citizenship and getting more immigrants here legally in the name of “fairness.” The unspoken 900 Pound Gorilla in the room was that most of these new immigrants and amnesty grantees would become Democrat voters. Rubio saw this, the other Rs didn’t seem to care.

    I believe Rubio when he states that nothing can be decided about the fate of illegals in this country until we have secured the border and everyone agrees that the border is secure. He and Cruz should both be talking about why sovereign nations need to have secure borders. Trump hints at the reasons, but never gets cogent enough (Is he too lazy to learn the material or is he consciously being vague and inflammatory?) to list all the good things about border security. Immigration reform starts with secure borders and a tracking system to make sure visiting visa holders leave when their visas expire. Rubio talks about this constantly, but many, many conservative organizations and pundits like Numbers USA and Ann Coulter discount it because he was a member of the Gang of Eight – a sin they will not forgive him for.

80. Eric:

    I’m preparing a post for tomorrow on the alt-right, you’ll be happy to hear.

81. It’s only February 21st, so it’s still early. Remember, in 2008, the Democratic primary lasted until June 3rd. Obama had a clear lead by the end of April, but Hillary still won several states well into May. Plus, there was a lot of trouble with the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

    Where it is not early is the matter of Hillary’s fitness for high office. Not only are there all the past Clinton scandals, but then Bengahzi in 2012 and now the secret e-mail server. Where are the Republicans on this? This is a golden opportunity to destroy a political opponent. Where are the major Republican leaders, saying everyday, until it sinks in, that this compromise of national security for personal gain is completely unacceptable? If a Republican had done the same thing as Hillary, would not every Democrat be pointing out how that person could not be trusted? On this issue, provide leadership, and oppose wrongdoing where it is so apparent. If not, what is the point?

82. Eric:

    Most of the success of the Trump candidacy is due to the activism of the alt-right, so I don’t think you can say that if the GOP is that weak, then activism isn’t needed. But for this activism, the GOP would be winning right now, I believe. The activism has been going on throughout this entire campaign and is to a large degree behind the result so far.

    Trump ran in 2012, remember? But he didn’t get far, because there was no alt-right to push him. People were already very angry at the “establishment,” but he didn’t get much traction.

    I also don’t think the GOP would cave in a floor fight at the convention. I’m not saying I am sure of that, by any means. But this sort of “deal” isn’t the sort of deal Trump usually cuts. Usually he’s just building something and negotiating with people who are going to help him, or there’s a city that wants his business—there’s a kind of shared goal, and it’s just how he can get the most bang for his buck. That’s simplicity itself compared to this, because the GOP is fighting for its own life. I don’t see any shared goals at all here. And the GOP is used to power negotiations, too.

    That doesn’t mean they will fight effectively. They have been WAY too late at understanding what game is being played.

    I have a question for you: do you think Trump understands the alt-right and what its goals are, and do you think he shares them? Just curious what you think.

83. Yankee:

    The GOP primaries have some winner-take-all states; the Democrats don’t. That’s why Democratic primaries can take a considerable amount longer. The GOP primaries were designed that way to help a winner emerge more quickly.

84. parker & Wooly Bully:

    That is precisely what I intend to do if Rubio is the nominee. He is flatly unacceptable.

85. “Cruz needs a woman to humanize him.”

    As you know, it’s not that Cruz needs it; it is that the worthless population of touchy-feely brain dead government-love addicts that comprise so much of our morally worthless populace, need it so they don’t feel anxious.

    They are not fit to be free; and soon won’t be if they get their own way.

86. Back in 2012 Sarah Palin gave in speech at an Iowa Tea Party event that was widely reported. A columnist for the NY Times did a write up that actually praised it.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=0

    One of the three points outlined is her attack on crony capitalism. This was also the starting point of the attack on the GOP Establishment, what she called the DC one party system. But the crony capitalism remarks were what got the attention of the liberal columnist. The irony of Palin now supporting a crony capitalist to supposedly overthrow the establishment is lost on her. Actually, she’s a good fit with Trump, both being unprincipled opportunists.

87. @J.J.

    “but many, many conservative organizations and pundits like Numbers USA and Ann Coulter discount it because he was a member of the Gang of Eight — a sin they will not forgive him for.”

    Actually, a lot of conservatives won’t forgive him for saying one thing on amnesty and immigration to his English-speaking audience and something altogether different to his Spanish-speaking audiences on Univision.

88. Irene:

    Actually, there’s a lot of discussion and disagreement about what he actually said and its translation, and whether it was actually all that different. I speak so little Spanish that I haven’t a clue which side is correct.

89. > I will vote for whoever the final Republican nominee will be. I hope everyone on here will.

    Not me, I don’t vote for Democrats. And I doubt Trump will be effective on immigration, which is pretty much the only issue in which he differs from the Democrat candidates.

90. The Other Chuck:

    Palin had become nearly irrelevant, a mere footnote. Her heady days of power and fawning fans were diminished. For a while she was a reality TV star, but that was pretty much over, too. For her, hooking up with the Trump campaign was an obvious choice. If she had to jettison a few of her former supposed principles to do it (as well as Cruz, whom she used to support), it was a small price to pay.

91. Back in June 2013, this was Rubio in Spanish on Univision (even if you don’t speak Spanish, there’s nothing to dispute):

    “Primero viene la legalizacié³n. Despues viene esas medidas de asegurar de la frontera.”

    (at 3:31 http://www.univision.com/shows/al-punto/el-senador-marco-rubio-habla-sobre-reforma-migratoria-video

    Here’s his full answer translated into English: “Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-in-immigration-reform-legalization-comes-first-it-is-not-conditional/article/2531504

    Yes, it was 2013, but it still makes me very uncomfortable. First, Rubio was willing to work with good ol’ Chuckie Schumer to get 10+ million illegal Latinos legalized and then he was willing to dissemble to his Gringo audience about it? Sorry. On this matter, I do not forgive nor do I forget.

92. Neo

    I am a native Spanish speaker, my first language was Spanish, and I agree with Irene’s translation. As a matter of fact, throughout the interview it is clear that Rubio’s and the legislation’s goal is “legalization”, then permanent residence status, then citizenship with voting rights. His current claim that he had reservations about the bill and wanted the House to clean it up is not in evidence at all in the interview. As a matter of fact, he gives strategies that he is going to use to convince other senators to approve the bill. The interview starts with the Spanish TV interviewer saying that the bill was in trouble and asking him how he was going to get 60 votes to invoke cloture. He then proceeds to tell her his strategy for passing the bill.

    BTW, I can see how people without good Spanish skills may have trouble understanding him. As in English, he speaks very rapidly. Plus he has a strong Cuban accent.

93. Bpb_CA:

    When was the Spanish language interview given? That was the goal at the time the bill was introduced, so that’s not at variance with his original viewpoint. He has explained (and I believe he said at the time) that the idea of the bill was that the border would also be closed, and he felt that Obama was going to grant amnesty anyway by executive action, so this bill would at least close the border, which Obama would not do. Remember also, that at the time the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party. He wanted to at least get some border control in there, and get the Republican House to try to tighten things up somewhat before they considered passing it, too.

    So I’m not sure where the disparity is with what he was saying in English at the time.

    He also thought the bill would be changed somewhat and made somewhat more conservative by the (Republican) House, and that the first step was getting it passed as is in the Senate. Given that he believed that Obama was going to do it anyway by executive fiat, minus the border part, it makes a certain amount of sense to me, and is in accord with what he was saying in English at the time, as far as I know.

    So I’m not sure what the disparity is here, unless this is something he is saying he still would like? I am pretty sure his current position (in English) is:

    The border must really be closed and that must be enforced. Criminal illegals deported. Various reforms of the legal immigration system (some sort of tracking of visas, etc.). And then the discussion about what to do with the illegal immigrants who’ve been here for years and years can commence. I’m pretty sure that even in English he’s kept open the idea of eventual citizenship for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants (not new ones; the ones who’ve already been living here for quite some time) as as a possible end result, if Congress and people were to approve it, after a period of years with work permits, and after a very long wait. I have heard him say that in English, I believe, and as a compromise solution—if the border is really closed, and the other reforms passed—I could live with it, although I don’t like it. That’s why I prefer Cruz, but I am realistic about all of this. In fact, this would be happening long after a president elected in 2016 would be out of office, it is such a long-range thing as he states it now (and not something done by executive fiat; it would be if Congress chose to do it).

    I’m doing this by memory rather than through research and links, because I’m busy this evening and in a hurry, but I believe I’m correct about that.

94. Irene:

    When I wrote my answer to Bob_CA above, I hadn’t seen that you had posted the date of the interview, but now I see that, as I thought, it indeed was during the time the bill was being proposed, as I thought it might be.

    By the way, there is always controversy about translation—in fact, even without translation, we sometimes disagree about what someone means when he/she is speaking English.

    But more importantly—and this is NOT a question of English vs. Spanish—you must look at the entire interview to see what he was saying. You may still disagree with what Rubio was advocating—but I think that one needs to look at more than that isolated quote to understand what he was saying, and why it was not substantially different (in my opinion) that what he was saying in English.

    Please read carefully.

    A sentence or two is not enough to judge what he was saying and meaning during that interview. Again, you may not agree that it’s substantially the same as his English pronouncements (and you certainly might not agree with the entire idea of the bill), but what he’s saying in both languages seems essentially the same to me.

95. Bob_CA:

    I don’t know whether you saw my reply to Irene right about this, but if not you should take a look.

    Also, I find it very odd that you think Rubio should have talked about his desire for the House to amend the bill and make it tougher, in the context of a Spanish language interview explaining the proposed Senate bill itself. That would be holding him to a standard I don’t think a single politician on earth would adhere to.

96. Neo
    The interview was from 2013. To me it shows, as does his appearances on conservative talk radio after the bill passed the Senate, that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the complete bill including giving the illegals the vote. He showed no reservations about it. He said nothing about Obama’s amnesty during the interview. All of these are prevarications added during the presidential campaign to make himself more palatable to Republican voters.

    He did push back a little against the interviewer on border security.She was complaining that there were already 20,000 border agents yada yada yada. He said some sectors like the Tucson sector had to be improved. We all know that many promises and even laws have been passed regarding border security but nothing happens.

    My beef with Rubio is that his participation in the Gang of 8 directly contradicted his promises to the Republican voters of Florida during his senate campaign. Given that, I do not believe anything he says.

    Couple that with the fact that Speaker Ryan is openly pro-amnesty, he has campaigned with Luis Guttierez, the radical La Raza congressman from Chicago, for the “poor undocumenteds” and I can easily see a scenario where Ryan pushes across amnesty in the House using Democrats plus RINOs and the Senate passes it since almost all the Republicans that voted for the 2013 bill are still there. I think a President Rubio would sign that in a New York minute.

    I do not agree that Ryan and Rubio would necessarily wait a long time to push this through. The fact that none of the establishment Senators lost primaries in 2014 and IIRC only Bennett in Utah in 2010 means that the increased immigration Republicans are not afraid of the voters. The fact that Rubio is doing so well now means that they may be right.

97. Irene, Bob in CA, even though I’m not happy with the prospect of legalization and possible citizenship for millions of illegals, the fact is that there is no way that these people are going to be rounded up and deported, even if Trump is elected. It simply will not happen. And I doubt if Trump will even attempt it. Can’t you see him pivoting on this by saying that the most important and urgent issue is getting his fence/wall built? For that he will need congressional support and money, unless you want to believe he will personally fund it. There will be hearings, legislation proposed, delays, and haggling with a reluctant legislature. Remember, this man is running against the establishment. He is not bringing in senators and congressmen on a Reform Party ticket or any other. And Democrats will try to block him any way they can.

    Now assume he gets authority to build the wall, and further assume that by some miracle of deal making he gets ICE, Homeland Security, the Border Patrol and possibly even state National Guards to take part in the daunting task of first finding the illegals, then arresting them, then placing them in holding facilities (FEMA camps), and finally deporting them. They are entitled to deportation hearings. Can you imagine what that would be like? They have children, many underage, who are U.S. citizens who cannot be deported. Where will they go? Will they be sent to camps with their parents or placed in foster care? They are also entitled to seek refugee status. More delays. We are talking about 12,000,000 plus people, the combined population of New York City and Los Angeles!

    Now again suppose that this process actually gets started. Do you not believe that there will be massive push back? The Catholic Church will offer sanctuary, as will cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. There will be demonstrations, marches, rallies, and civil disobedience the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Vietnam War days. Would that be the cue for Trump to show his true authoritarianism?

    At any rate, Marco Rubio knows that deportation will not happen for probably the same reasons I’ve laid out. His interview with Univision was an attempt to address the issue realistically and at the same time reassure those subject to deportation that there is a future here, and that the Republican Party is not their enemy. Rubio’s mistake was in not openly advocating his change in position and in not giving the reasons for it. Hold him accountable, but at the same time acknowledge that he is a rational, decent human being.

98. Neo, I did not see your response. Of course he did not say he wanted the House to clean up the bill in the interview. He was an enthusiastic promoter of it in 2013. What is total BS is his claim that he came to the view that the House needed to clean it up later.

    What I have a problem with is your giving credence to his dissembling. That gives him an opening to yell “liar-liar” whenever Cruz brings up his record. Apparently that had some traction in the election so Rubio will continue to do it as long as he is not slapped down for it.

    That being said, we do not have a fundamental disagreement. If it comes to a choice between him and Trump, I will take my chances with Rubio.

    But I hope it does not come to that and that Ted Cruz can win the nomination. As cornhead keeps saying, this is still early in the process. Cruz has the money and organization to fight this out in 50 states and I think he should.

    As a conservative, I think we are all responsible for our actions so the Trumpers are responsible for their votes but the actions of most of the GOP elected officials have been reprehensible and have provoked an understandable rage in the voters. Rubio is part of this cabal and he needs to be fought even if this provides Trump an opening. Cruz is the only candidate who gives the United States a chance. With Rubio or Trump or God forbid one of the Democrats, it is just a matter of time until we go down the tubes. So it is worth taking a chance to continue to support Cruz even if this gives the nomination to Trump.

99. Irene and Bob_CA, as well as everyone else:

    I urge you to read the immigration portion of this.

    I also urge you to read this about another Spanish/English controversy re Rubio.

100. Bob_CA:

     That is essentially what I’ve been arguing against Rubio since I’ve been on this blog. If he is POTUS, it’s just a slightly slower walk to one-party Marxist rule.

     Neo, Ryan’s been an open borders guy for 20 years. If the House and McConnell (or Schumer, since there is a damned good chance the Marxists take it back) pass a comprehensive immigration bill, or even in pieces where the one about border security is first, but filled with legalese like the DHS “may”, “should”, “can” “at their discretion” and other weasel words, do you believe that Rubio would veto any of it?

     I don’t.

101. The Other Chuck:

     Excellent comment. Your request that people consider the practical side of this will not be met by the vast majority of Trump supporters. He says he will do it, and apparently it’s the thought that counts. I am constantly amazed at this.

102. The Other Chuck

     I do not think we need to directly deport the illegals–self deportation works. My family lives in Arizona so I followed the aftermath of their passing SB1070. You will recall that was the bill that essentially got Arizona officials to enforce federal immigration law. They were enforcing the e-verify requirement and the federal penalties on employers hiring illegals. During the few months that the bill was in force before the Obama administration got the Supremes to slap it down, over 100,000 illegals left the state. Arizona has a population of about 6.7 million and illegals are a fraction of that so the 100,000 is a large number.

     Cruz has said that he will enforce the law including e-verify and the provisions that Arizona enforced.

     Of course that will not cause every illegal to leave but if a substantial fraction leave and we can stop the illegals entrants and visa overstays that will give us a chance to assimilate the rest over a long time.

103. Bob_CA:

     You write:

     What is total BS is his claim that he came to the view that the House needed to clean it up later.

     What I have a problem with is your giving credence to his dissembling. That gives him an opening to yell “liar-liar” whenever Cruz brings up his record. Apparently that had some traction in the election so Rubio will continue to do it as long as he is not slapped down for it.

     You are incorrect. See this for example (and please note the dateline: 4/30/2013):

     Sen. Marco Rubio acknowledged Tuesday on a conservative radio talk show that the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill won’t likely pass the Republican-led House.

     The comments from Rubio, perhaps the most influential congressional Republican on immigration, illustrate the challenges facing the prospects for reform after months of private negotiations by a bipartisan coalition of senators produced a wide-ranging, 844-page bill.

     “The bill that’s in place right now probably can’t pass the House,” Rubio told Mike Gallagher, a nationally syndicated talk show host. “It will have to be adjusted, because people are very suspicious about the willingness of the government to enforce the laws now.”

     He continued: “That is a very legitimate suspicion, it’s one that I share, and if there’s anything we can do to make [the bill] even tighter … that’s exactly what we should be working on.”

     In a separate radio appearance Tuesday, Rubio elaborated on the challenges facing the legislation in the House, saying the enforcement mechanisms in the Senate legislation would need to be much stronger in order to pass the lower chamber.

     One way to do that would be to require construction of a double-sided fence, which Rubio said he would support.

     ”I believe that double-fencing in the right places has been highly effective,” Rubio said on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

     The Florida Republican called the Gang of Eight bill a “starting point” and urged opponents to propose changes to the bill, not try to kill it altogether.

     There’s more at the link.

     And I would imagine there are other articles, too. I had remembered reading something of the sort. That’s just the first one I found right now when I searched.

104. By the way, I’m not a Rubio fan. He’s at the bottom of the list for a number of reasons, but still better than Trump.

105. I also urge everyone (and particularly The Other Chuck, but everyone) to also see this comment of mine.

106. Neo, I do not understand your point. Are you claiming that Rubio was actually against his Gang of 8 bill? I think that if he had problems with it he should have voted against it. Or at least voted with Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions on amendments that would strip the path to citizenship from the bill. His votes along with all the Democrats against these amendments indicate to me that citizenship was also his goal.

     I repeat that by quibbling about this you are giving him an opening for his liar-liar campaign. Do you believe that Ted Cruz is lying about Rubio’s record?

107. IIRC, the money for a “fence” or whatever was budgeted and appropriated back in 2006 or 2007. Unless Obama did something else illegal, that money, or at least a good chunk of it, should still be available w/o further Congressional approval for a POTUS who actually wants to build a wall.

     And it’s probably time we give up underestimating the number of illegals here. We’ve been hearing 11-12 million for the last 15 years, and it was probably deliberately undercounted back then. Since then, we’ve had a million or more a year new ones.

     I still like the idea of getting as many as possible to self-deport by punishing those hire them, enforcing E-verify, tightening eligibility for freebies, deporting Visa overstays, etc. But how likely is even any of that to happen with Ryan, McConnell/Schumer, and any new POTUS not named Cruz.

108. Bob_CA:

     No, I’m saying exactly what I said.

     Take issue with his support of the bill if you don’t agree, or take issue with his present position now. But don’t manufacture charges against him that don’t exist.

     Did you read this comment of mine and not understand the point I was making? I thought it was clear, but I’ll make it more clear, if necessary:

     (1) You made the following accusation towards Rubio: “What is total BS is his claim that he came to the view that the House needed to clean it up later.”

     (2) I offered an article that quoted him at the time the bill was under consideration, and in his quote he said that he wanted the House to clean the bill up and tighten it.

     What is there not to understand there? Or perhaps you didn’t see that comment of mine?

     Perhaps it would help to understand what happens in the Senate when legislation is crafted. It’s not a one-shot deal. There are discussions and negotiations and drafts before the vote, and then it is known that the bill will go to the House for revisions and a vote and then the new version back to the Senate again. Bills do not get passed by the Senate and go into law as is. That is the process, and it’s complicated. If the Senate is Democratic, it gets passed one way, and then a Republican House changes it, and it gets passed back. That’s not unusual; it’s standard. Rubio was on record at the time as saying he was hoping that would occur, and that he knew that as is the bill would never get by the House.

     What is there not to understand? It’s clearly there in Rubio’s own words.

109. geokstr:

     That’s one of the reasons Cruz has been my leading candidate for a while. But if Cruz is sinking (and there are indications he might be, for whatever reason), Rubio is next for me. I do not trust him on this issue to the same degree I trust Cruz, to be sure, but having read tons of pros and cons on why Rubio did what he did, I am about 80% satisfied with his explanation, and I would say it’s more likely than not he will support a wall, and tightening of visa tracking, and then over time he probably would try to legalize the illegals who are already here. I can live with that, and otherwise I like most of his policies and believe him to be conservative.

     I also think he can win, which is important to me.

     He was never my first choice nor my second, but he is acceptable to me and if Cruz looks to be going down the tubes, then I’m with Rubio.

     I do not trust Trump in any way shape or form, including on immigration (the wall with the big door in it), and I think his actual immigration policy would end up being at best the same as Rubio’s. And worse on everything else, including his character.

     So it’s easy for me. Cruz or Rubio.

110. Neo, our disagreement is the timing of his conversion. You say

     “I offered an article that quoted him at the time the bill was under consideration, and in his quote he said that he wanted the House to clean the bill up and tighten it.”

     The “under consideration” was not when it was under consideration in the Senate–it was while it was in the House. My point is that while he had anything to do with the bill, when it was in the Senate, he said no such thing. He was actually a promoter of the bill as written in the Senate.

     Further, his claim that the House could clean up the bill was also two-faced. If the House passed the Senate bill with the “clean up” it would go to a conference where the Reid and Boehner appointed conferees would strip away the changes and allow them to ram through the bill as Rubio wrote it with full citizenship to pass.

     I repeat, are you claiming that Ted Cruz is lying about Rubio’s immigration record?

111. Neo, your comment and link to Rubio’s 2013 interview highlights how he has been misunderstood. I hope others will give him just a little benefit of the doubt. There is a tendency to lump Republican office holders like Rubio, McCain, and Ryan together as open borders people and not look into their individual records. Even Ryan voted for a border fence.

112. Bob_CA:

     The bill passed the Senate on June 27, 2013.

     That article quoting Rubio was written on April 30, 2013, two months earlier.

     That’s the time frame. The bill was still under consideration in the Senate when he gave that interview; it had not been passed.

     As for what Cruz said about Rubio, I listened to the debates and I know Cruz said Rubio lied and Rubio said Cruz lied. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and study in depth exactly what Cruz said about Rubio. I would have to do that to know whether I agree with Cruz or with Rubio, but it doesn’t matter to me what Cruz says. I’m going on the history, and I make my own judgments.

     Nor, by the way, do I hold it against Cruz particularly that he said Rubio lied, even if I don’t think Rubio lied. Politics is the name of the game, and to a certain extent I accept that these charges will go back and forth. I have said several times that Cruz is my preferred candidate anyway, so the issue of what Cruz said about Rubio is not particularly relevant to me.

113. Neo, we are pretty much on the same page. We do have some disagreements on the amount we trust Rubio but I have stated that if it comes to choosing between him and Trump I will vote for him. If Rubio wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him.

     I am not as pessimistic about Cruz’s chances as you may be. I will continue to support Cruz in any way I can and will urge him to stay in the race even if it means it increases Trump’s chances for the reasons I have stated above but I am just an individual citizen so that does not matter much.

114. Bob_CA, those of us in California don’t get to make the decisions anyway. By the time our primary rolls around in June it is usually over.

115. @Neo
     Re: the article at legal insurrection where the writer says that Rubio does not support amnesty, here’s Rubio on the bill:

     “‘This is not amnesty,’ Rubio said on Fox News Sunday on April 14, 2013. ‘Amnesty is the forgiveness of something. Amnesty is anything that says do it illegally, it will be cheaper and easier.'”

     What a bunch of doubletalk. Yes, Senator Rubio, amnesty is the forgiveness of something called breaking the immigration laws of the U.S., so this was an amnesty.

     I’ve followed Rubio as much as anyone else in English, but also in Spanish. He’s not my cup of tea. Obviously, he’s not many peoples’ cup of tea in his home state of Florida. As of today, he’s trailing Cruz in Florida 19.0/13.7. That says something.

     For the record, my number 1 pick was Carly, number 2 is Cruz.

116. Bob_CA:

     You also wrote that the bill as written in the Senate had “full citizenship.”

     Let’s look at the Senate bill’s provisions:

     If enacted, S. 744 would require that a series of enforcement measures, or “triggers,” go into effect prior to completing the legalization process. For example, although undocumented immigrants will be allowed to register for the new Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) program almost immediately, before those in RPI status can apply to become lawful permanent residents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must certify that the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy is deployed and operational, 700 miles of fencing is complete, 38,405 border patrol agents are deployed, and the E-Verify employment verification system is in place, among other requirements. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) and Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act (AgJobs) are both incorporated into the RPI program, but applicants who qualify under those provisions will be eligible to obtain legal permanent resident status more rapidly…

     What goals must be reached before undocumented immigrants can gain legal resident status?

     One of the primary purposes of the bill is to provide a path to Lawful Permanent Residence (a “green card”) for the existing undocumented population via the new Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) program. Before Registered Provisional Immigrants can apply for Lawful Permanent Resident status, several security goals, or “triggers,” must be met: the Southern Border Security Strategy must be deployed and operational, the Southern Border Fencing Strategy must be implemented and 700 miles of fencing completed, a mandatory employment verification system for all employers must be implemented, an electronic exit system must be implemented at all air and sea ports where Customs and Border Protection officers are present, and at least 38,405 full-time Border Patrol agents must be deployed along the southern border.

     Recall that at the time this bill was passed, Obama was president and the Senate was in Democratic hands. Rubio (and others, including me) was afraid that Obama would grant amnesty and a path to citizenship on his own. This bill was a way to try to finesse him, before it was too late and he’d already done it.

     Whether you think that was a good idea or bad, that’s what was happening.

     Here is Rubio in January of 2013, when the bill was in the planning stages:

     President Obama said Tuesday that “now’s the time” for immigration reform, using an address in Las Vegas to try and energize renewed talks in Congress toward comprehensive legislation.

     “I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense comprehensive immigration reform,” Obama said.

     The president, setting out to achieve an immigration overhaul where many before him have failed, was running into trouble even before he gave his address. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., one of four Republican senators involved in a bipartisan effort to craft immigration legislation, earlier in the day blasted Obama for opposing a requirement to shore up border security before legalizing up to 11 million illegal immigrants.

     Obama’s speech, and a separate fact sheet handed out by the White House, made clear that the administration does not want to link the path to citizenship to border enforcement.

     The president said Tuesday that in order for immigration reform to work, “It must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship.”

     The comment, albeit subtle, was an apparent reference to a provision in the Senate blueprint that would not let illegal immigrants seek citizenship until border security is strengthened. Obama said that his conditions would only involve the illegal immigrants themselves — he said that they would have to submit to a background check, pay back taxes and fines, learn English and get in the back of the line in order to apply.

     The president described his plan as “earned citizenship.”

     Obama claimed a “broad consensus” was emerging on the issue itself, calling the plan outlined by Rubio and others “very much in line” with his own — aside from the path-to-citizenship provision. “For the first time in many years, Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together,” he said, calling legislation “within our grasp.”

     He said any plan should include the path to citizenship, but also a crackdown on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers — and a better system for verifying the status of those workers. He also called for streamlining the legal immigration system, providing visas for foreign entrepreneurs and retaining sought-after science and math graduate students.

     The president has run into complaints from conservatives that his plan is tantamount to “amnesty.”

     But the most problematic objection so far has come from Rubio — a prominent Hispanic conservative who is vital to the bipartisan effort on Capitol Hill.

     Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, Rubio insisted that illegal immigrants not be allowed to obtain green cards — let alone citizenship — “until the enforcement stuff is in place.”

     “I think that would be a terrible mistake,” Rubio told Fox News. “We have a bipartisan group of senators that have agreed to that. For the president to try to move the goalposts on that specific requirement, as an example, does not bode well in terms of what his role’s going to be in this or the outcome.”

     He said: “If that’s not in the bill, I won’t support it.”

     Obama stressed Tuesday that if Congress cannot move forward “in a timely fashion,” he will submit a proposal drafted by the White House.

     Again, you’re free to agree or disagree with the way Rubio chose to handle Obama’s threat, but it’s very clear that Rubio was trying to finesse him and that Obama was signaling an intention to do something much worse on his own. This was in the very early stages; Obama was just starting his second term, and now he no longer had to worry about being re-elected. He was free to pull all the stops out.

     In addition, by the way, if the bill had passed the House with stricter provisions, and gone back to the Senate and passed there with them stripped away, as I understand the way legislation works it would have had to go back to the House again in its new form. Reconciliation would not have applied to this type of bill.

117. Irene:

     For the record, my first #1 was Scott Walker, then Carly. Now Cruz. Rubio is next, however, and I have no problem supporting him.

     And I agree with Rubio’s definition of amnesty. That actually is what the word means. I think the word is thrown around carelessly to mean whatever people want it to mean, and that’s sloppy and confusing (sometimes purposely so).

     Amnesty is amnesty, legal status is legal status (and there are several kinds possible), citizenship is citizenship. I believe in trying to be precise.

     This entire issue has way too much propaganda and inaccuracy around it. The entire issue, not just the Rubio charges.

118. Bob_CA:

     You and I are indeed more or less on the same page. I am willing to support whoever is gaining momentum, Cruz or Rubio. I tend to prefer Cruz, but I could support either.

     But you did accuse Rubio of BS when all the contemporaneous evidence points to the fact that he was actually telling the truth, and that’s one of the many points I was trying to make.

     That he told the truth might make you rest easier if ultimately you end up voting for Rubio.

119. Cruz in May 2013 did not disparage Rubio’s efforts:

     “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.”

120. @Neo
     I like Scott Walker a lot too. Maybe in 4 years he’ll run again. What I found attractive were his down to earth policies and the way he handled all the recalls, boycotts, etc. A very admirable man.

121. I agree with TheOtherChuck — Carson is in it now for the VP nomination.

     blert — Carson doesn’t have to get blacks to vote Republican– he just has to get them to stay home in large numbers, which I think he will do, especially as against Hillary, Bernie, or, as I am increasing believing, Good Old Uncle Joe.

     Neo ands everyone (except PatD) — I dislike and distrust Trump as much as anyone, mainly because I have dealt with many, far too many, of his type in my 39 years as a tax lawyer.

     Trump is a real estate guy, one of the best. To a real estate guy, getting the Deal is the most important thing. If he has to lie, he will lie; if he has to bluster or insult, he will bluster or insult; if he has to sweettalk he will sweettalk; he will even tell the truth if he has to.

     DO NOT discount his desire and ability to get the greatest Deal of a lifetime! You may find yourself with the first Slovenian nude model as First Lady.

122. From Florida – from the Tea Party that helped Marco Rubio win against Charlie Crist – people are furious. We let Marco know what we thought at the time amnesty came up. Its a good thing we let the House know too. Add in Rubio’s support for Gillibrand’s bill to take out due process in college and you have the final straw. He is either stupid or unprincipled or possibly both. In any case so easily led and so uninterested in his constituents views that he could not win reeelection in Florida.

123. “…so weary of politics…” amen. Amen. AMEN..!!
     _________________________
     This is the first time I’ve been on your wonderful site since last week. The Bob_LA exchanges on this thread were worth the Monday a.m. curiosity. I’m totally on your side of the Bob/Neo debate with one exception: You’re for Ted and I’m for Marco. We both would strongly support the other if he’s the nominee.

     As you know, I’m a lifelong So.Californian who moved to Central Florida 10-yrs ago(Winter Park). I’ve been an enthusiastic Marco fan & supporter since he was Majority Leader in the Florida Senate. Smart, talented, nimble, principled, CONSERVATIVE and in-for-the-long-haul. Devout Christian, lovely family, fascinating roots, etc. My closest friend here in Orlando is a very smart, muscular attorney who had regular dealings with Rubio–face to face–while he was in Tallahassee and has shared those personally impressive experiences with me in detail. My friend is a Marco enthusiast(Big Time) to the hilt.

     I’ll save a place for you–HAPPILY–in the Rubio cheering section, Land Lady Extraordinaire!!

     Now….back to weary….. ((-:

124. https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/135705/ted-cruz

     Did Not Vote

     LYNCH GIVES COVER TO NON-CITIZEN VOTERS…

     90,000 DANGEROUS ILLEGALS GO FREE…

     so by doing nothing, not even a protest vote, what happens? millions of spanish get to play in our elections and favor who? nigerians?

125. “…so weary of politics…” amen. Amen. AMEN..!!

     The personal is political

     The personal is political, also termed The private is political, is a political argument used as a rallying slogan of student movement and second-wave feminism from the late 1960s. It underscored the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures. In the context of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, it was a challenge to the nuclear family and family values The phrase has been repeatedly described as a defining characterization of second-wave feminism, radical feminism, Women’s Studies, or feminism in general. It differentiated the second-wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s from the early feminism of the 1920s, which was concerned with achieving the right to vote for women.

     -=-=-=-=-=-=-

     guess who invited the state into every corner of your life as they made the personal political and now politics is in yoru personal business and you cant get away from it.. they are self exterminating… they are destroying social structures… they are FOR communism/socialism.. they hate half the population and want to do to them what they imagine was done to them… the blacks and other races are starting to realize that these women produce evil white males… they are for huge state… they are selling the society to the state for free birth control, twerking children, and free tampons…

     welcome to the new age…

126. at least we can all go see:
     http://www.balletboyz.com

     who needs women in ballet?
     we gots da boyz…

127. If Rubio wins the nomination, I will vote for him the general. However, I am reading way too much to be happy with him…those involved in immigration (ICE) came out against him (believe their words or don’t), Rubio in Spanish to spanish-speakers made it clear he is pro-amnesty. These are bad signs to me.

     I also think he has a huge inexperience problem.

     But if he is the nominee, I am voting.

     And if I am willing to do that, you all should be willing to vote Trump if he ends up being the nominee.

128. This is a really lively conversation. Many well thought out comments. I especially liked the comment by The Other Chuck Says @ 10:00 pm.
     An excellent and realistic analysis of what would happen if mass deportations were attempted. If you don’t mind, I’m sending it around to all my Trump supporter friends to see if they care about reality.

     The end game in the GOP primaries is that 65% of Rs are not favoring the Donald. A three man race will probably result in a brokered convention. If Trump’s unfavorables hold at 60%, higher than any other candidate in the race (Hillary is second at 52%), there is no way the convention can select him. Most Bush votes will go to Rubio. That puts him at around 30% with Trump at 32-35% and the remaining 35% being split among Cruz, Kasich, and Carson. If Kasich and Carson drop out, I see Kasich’s supporters gravitating to Rubio and Carson’s supporters to Cruz. Many scenarios and surprises ahead, methinks.

129. K-E, how generous of you. It is too bad that evangelicals and certain Tea Party types couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Mormon in 2012 so that we wouldn’t be in this position now. My ex-brother-in-law and his family in Arizona were in that group of Baptists who would rather see the devil incarnate elected than vote in a member of what they viewed as a non-Christian cult. They got their wish, didn’t they?

130. K-E:

     Did you read the article I linked about the Spanish interview with Rubio? Please read this. He is essentially saying the same thing in both languages. He is not saying he’s “favors amnesty,” and unless that’s in some other Spanish-language interview, it’s a false charge. He is describing the exact same process he describes in English interviews, which is that the legalization process—in terms of registering for it, to be eligible for it—comes before securing the border. But then the border must be completely secure, and benchmarks must be met, before the next steps towards actual legalization occur. At that point, there are many hurdles through which the person must go afterwards, and the process does not go forward until the border is secure.

     That is the process he describes in both languages, if you look at a longer except rather than a truncated sentence or two.

     As for the ICE people, it was one person (Crane, who already was very angry at Rubio), the head of the union. The interview is entirely with that one person. I have not a clue whether he is telling the truth or not, but the Breitbart site that reported it is not what I’d call an objective and trusted source on this, to say the least, since they are totally in the tank for Trump. I am not saying the ICE union head didn’t say it; I assume he absolutely did. But is it true? I have no idea, and he and Breitbart might just be starting a smear.

     In political life, you have to fact-check the stories that are published as best you can. When I do that, I very often find that the rumors are either exaggerations or outright falsehoods. That not just about Rubio, by any means; it’s everything and everybody. Due diligence is required, and that takes time, unfortunately.

131. K-E:
     I’m behind Cruz, but will vote for Rubio if he’s nominated because, based on his past, other than immigration, he does seem to be aware that there is this thing called the Constitution, and is rated as the 7th most conservative in ConservativeReview.com even by their tough standards.

     And the reason for voting for Trump, based on his past, is…uhm…what exactly? He has been a liberal Democrat his entire life, until relatively recently. Like Bloomberg, who switched parties because the Democrat primary field was too crowded, it appears, to me anyway, that he may be running as a Republican because he figured the fix for Hillary was in (probably correctly).

     What exactly would he have to change to run as a Democrat besides his new-found love of the 2A and (also new-found) giving up getting Sis on the SCOTUS. Even his immigration stand, examined broadly, isn’t that much different from Rubio’s. Lastly, he shows little respect for our Constitutional system of checks and balances or the principle of limited government.

     Before I vote for him, he’s going to have to show in detail why I should trust him to enforce the law and govern by conservative principles, difficult because he just said last week that he is not a conservative.

     If he becomes POTUS, and does not govern conservatively and/or messes thing up even more than now, he will only hasten the election of a Bernie or worse, because the media will tar him as a “conservative Republican” regardless of what he really does.

132. The Other Chuck: as I recall, Arizona went for Romney.
     Neo: Ace’s research comes up with a different result. Don’t know if either opinion is a game changer.

133. Neo:
     “…the border must be completely secure, and benchmarks must be met, before the next steps towards actual legalization occur.”

     I don’t recall precisely, but I do remember much discussion at that time about the mushiness of the language of the border security provisions. That’s why I mentioned earlier that the border security clause, or bill if done separately, and its measurables had better be damned airtight, with little discretion given to the DHS or anybody else.

134. I like Cruz. I like Carson. I like Trump. I could vote for any of these in primary. I can also vote for all remaining in a general election.

     Look, even if you truly believe Trump is 100% a democrat, isn’t he a better choice than Hillary???

     You’d rather stay home and let Hillary win if Trump is the nominee??? I don’t get that.

     As for Romney, I voted for him, even though I was very very disappointed that he didn’t go after Obama and was way too nice. That is what sunk him…besides the ‘100% black turn out’ in some parts of PA and OH that defy believability.

135. K-E,
     It’s not just that Trump is a democrat; it’s that he doesn’t know what he’s talkiing about when he spouts his venom. It’s all about him.

136. expat,
     We have had a lying mean SOB in the White House for seven long years. A man who in addition very often doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he spouts his venom.

     So your point is what? That Trump will be worse? Worse than Obama? You think he will be a Nero, following Obama’s Caligula?

     If 25% of Trump’s positions are OK with me, that surely beats my experience with the Bamster. He won’t be doing Iran deals, Ramadan in the White House or giving service to the Black Lives Matter movement or castrating our military or taking over all college student debt or blowing Federal debt sky-high….or…..

     Mind you, Trump scares me. A lot. But we have to live in the times we live in.

     Read Victor Davis Hanson today: https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/weimar-america/

137. Frog:

     You write of Trump “He won’t be doing Iran deals.” I tend to agree it’s unlikely, but I actually think that all bets are off with Trump. International relations are not like real estate deals, and Trump is so arrogant I think he thinks he knows a lot more than he knows about everything but real estate deals.

     There’ also this (watch the whole thing, except for the end when he veers off politics; and pay attention to 0:30):

138. Neo – sorry for the late answer. I don’t think I can, but as I recall, it was in an answer you gave in the comments to your post, not the body of it. I remembered it mainly because I pretty much had the same thoughts. I would guess it was some time in the summer.

139. Wow, that video was unbelievable. Trump is the most ignorant arrogant a** I’ve ever seen. How can the Trumpsters want to entrust our country to him.

140. For me it’s Ted through to the Convention.

     Then, it’s the nominee.

     I don’t regard Trump with loathing.

     I regard him as a WEAK nominee.

     He’ll have to run Rodham-Clinton’s negatives higher than his own.

     That’s a TALL order.

     &&&&

     With Bush out, Rubio ought to OWN the ‘Florida vote.’

     It’s not working out that way.

     Kasich is proving to be so self-deluded that NO WAY do I want his finger near the button.

     He has a Management personality — where as the office demands a Leader.

141. For a CONSERVATIVE Muscular Military/National Security/Foreign Policy: Marco Rubio.

     Trump is despicable. Ted, I’m afraid, is closer to Paul in outlook than Reagan or Bush. Rubio’s scale on the conservative Scale is 95-97%. Finding a Cruz colleague in the U.S.Senate with support and praise is…Impossible.

142. NeoConScum:
     The few, very few Senators with principle get along with Cruz just fine. Sessions, Lee, Cotton, Vitter among them.
     That most Senators find him irksome should come as no surprise. He’s not doing deals as best I can determine. He is not like that “loathesome Hungarian” in My Fair Lady, “oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way across the floor.”
     That is not Cruz.
     You deem it a negative. I deem it a plus.

143. NeoConScum Says:
     “Ted, I’m afraid, is closer to Paul in outlook than Reagan or Bush. Rubio’s scale on the conservative Scale is 95-97%. Finding a Cruz colleague in the U.S.Senate with support and praise is…Impossible.”
     Really? Are you talking about the same Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio the rest of us are discussing, the ones whose ratings are 97% and 80% respectively at ConservativeReview.com? Where did you get your rating for Rubio from, gangof8.con(sic)?

     Both Limbaugh and Levin say Cruz is as close to Reagan as we’ll see in our lifetime as far as a champion of conservative principle goes.

     And who cares about being close in outlook to any of the Bushies?

144. geokstr:

     Rush Limbaugh on Rubio:

     Marco Rubio is no moderate Republican centrist. I could sit here like anybody else could and try to make explanations for you for why he did the Gang of Eight. I’m not even gonna try to put words into his mouth. I don’t want to be seen as making excuses. I’m just telling you, I don’t see Marco Rubio as anything other than a legitimate, full-throated conservative. Nobody’s pure, and nobody is ever free of making mistakes.

     I know Senator Rubio. It’s like I was telling you last week: I know these people. I know that Senator Rubio in the Senate… In many ways, he agrees with Cruz about things. He’s worn out with the Senate. The Senate… I heard this from Allen West when he left the House. I’ve heard, “The incumbents, that’s all they care about is being reelected. You go there to make a difference and you run into brick wall after brick wall after brick wall.” I don’t think… You know, Rubio, I don’t think he wants to stay there 30 years to break through the wall to get a committee chairmanship or whatever.

     I just don’t like this idea that all of a sudden we’re gonna make Rubio the establishment bad guy, as though Rubio is no different than the McCains and the Bob Doles and the Romneys and the others that have come along and been nominated by the establishment. He just isn’t. He has not been talked out of his conservatism. He does not abandon it. He had the best end-of-the-evening speech of anybody last night. He had the best end-of-the-evening speech of anybody. And even the media was dazzled by the fact that he did it without a teleprompter.

     Scorecard on Rubio:

     Heritage action: 94% (fourth most conservative member of Senate; Cruz is first at 100%)

     From National Review:

     Despite infuriating many grassroots conservatives by pushing the failed Gang of Eight immigration-reform bill and advocating a path to legalization, Rubio has an indisputably conservative record as a senator. This is a man who has a lifetime ACU rating of 98 out of 100. A man who has a perfect rating from the NRA in the U.S. Senate. A man who earned scores of 100 in 2014, 100 in 2013, 71 in 2012, and 100 in 2011 from the Family Research Council. A “Taxpayer Super Hero” with a lifetime rating of 95 from Citizens Against Government Waste. A man Club for Growth president David McIntosh called “a complete pro-growth, free-market, limited-government conservative.” Across the board, Rubio’s stances, policy proposals, and rhetoric fall squarely within the bounds of traditional conservatism. Rubio’s the guy who earned a 100 from National Right to Life in two straight cycles, and a zero rating from NARAL.

145. Thank you Neo, El Rushbo & NR. (Not to mention the NRA, American CONSERVATIVE Union, Commentary, Weekly Standard, etc.) I was getting some of my info on fellow senators & full throated muscular military/foreign policy from yesterday’s Michael Medved broadcast. I hadn’t heard Ted’s rather pathetic Saturday night’s SC speech until yesterday…Rancid. Pitiable. Smarmy. Absence of class. A large ‘Tell’.

     Geokstr: “…who cares about (Rubio) being close in outlook to any of the Bushies?” Uuummm: I do. Big Time. Reagan would. Big Time. Military..? Non-Flabby foreign policy? Knowing that American weakness and irresoluteness is vastly provocative? 7+yrs of Obama has more than proven the folly of that. Reagan conservatives, us evil longtime neocons (35-yrs for me) do. Trump is a poster child for two pathologies that may be dandy running casinos, but NOT America: King Baby and Malignant Narcissist. And Ted? ALL about Ted, I fear…Though I’d certainly support him fully if nominated.

     Neo…I “sense” you getting closer to Marco and it puts a smile of relief on my grizzled face…

146. NeoConScum:

     I’m not a “neo” anything, I was protesting the anti-Viet Nam protesters within a month after returning from 19 months in that hellhole, a conservative over 50 years.
     Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought neo-cons were ex-leftlings only on foreign policy, while remaining liberal on domestic and cultural issues. Sure, it’s wonderful and vitally important to be strong on international relations and national security, but we are where we are now not just because of external threats. We’re rotting from within because of internal subversion and cultural takeover by the radical left because we failed to combat Marxism culturally and intellectually right here at home for nearly a century.

     Bush W was certainly willing to take on Islamists over there. However, he made a huge and deadly mistake in effectively legitimizing it here, to the point that criticizing the stone-age political system and civil and gender rights monster represented by the supposed religion a/k/a Islam is the new faux-phobia. Instead of profiling swarthy young men speaking Arabic tongues, his administration created a less than useless system where 90 yr old nuns in wheelchairs, blonde-haired Swedish teenagers and 9 year old girls all have to be felt up first – oh, almost forgot, fail 97% of the time to catch prohibited weaponry in tests.

     On top of that, his “compassionate conservatism” at home wasn’t conservative at all, at least as I understood it for the last 50 years. A brand new budget-busting entitlement to a Medicare system already in a death spiral due to demographics, the creation of the privacy-devouring DHS, and until Obama regained the World Championship Belt for the left, he was the biggest debt accumulator in our history.

     As for Rubio, I’ve granted many times in the past that he’s a solid conservative by almost all the current metrics, all except The Really, Really Big Nasty One that leads eventually to a one-party totalitarian state. Hint: it ain’t us.

     Now the Establishment GOP is throwing it’s weight behind Rubio because it dislikes the liberal Democrat Trump and fears Ted Cruz. That alone should tell you who conservatives, including neo and paleo and fossilized like myself, should be united behind.

     The United Establishment wants full amnesty with citizenship and voting rights. Do really think President Rubio would withstand that? Because behind all his misdirection, evasion and revisionism, he’s already at least halfway there.

     Neo, I guess ballet and trusting Rubio makes two things we don’t have in common.

147. Ted and Large Military Strength and a Tough Foreign with American Exceptionalism at the point. Sorry, Ted doesn’t fit there in this Vastly Dangerous Time. Oh…And Marco can beat Shrillery Big Time.

148. Yeah, Babyface will crush Hillary even worse than Mittens clobbered Obama.

     Oh, wait…

     He’s so much tougher than Cruz. Right. And what besides your feelings tells you that? He is a lot prettier than Cruz, so there is that.

     You completely ignore the amnesty problem, which if it happens, will moot all the other issues because the Marxists will be in charge.

149. ROTF’gFLMF’gAO…!!!

     As the muleskinner said to General Custer on the knoll overlooking the Little BIG Horn River…”Yes Sir, y’all go down yonder along that river, General, but they ain’t women and kids like at the Washita River, General…Them are thousands of Souix & Cheyenne warriors and when they get through with you…there won’t be nuthin’ left but a greasy spot.”

     Or am I being far too esoteric for’ya, Boyo?

150. geokstr:

     Your definition of “neocon” does not conform completely to mine.

     I’ve written a lot about this in the past, but just to review:

     “Neocon” is a word that has been used to mean a host of things, so it’s very variable. Lately it has come to be a pejorative, and its critics use it to mean any number of bad things, too (fill in the blank with almost anything). But I go by the original meaning—someone newly conservative, coming over not necessarily from the left, but even from a liberal Democrat background like me (and in the olden days, “liberal Democrat” meant something quite distinct from “leftist”).

     In addition, one commonality is to be somewhat hawkish on foreign policy, but that can take many different forms. As for the rest, a neocon can embrace social conservatism as well. Some do, some don’t.

151. goekstr:

     I don’t “trust” Rubio. I am willing to support him if he is the frontrunner, because I trust him 10,000 times more than I trust Hillary. Or rather, I know what she will do, and Rubio is better on almost every issue other than immigration—and he’s even better on that. I have studied his immigration stance in detail, and although I don’t have time to write about it now (I’ve written some, and linked to some things, in the past), I don’t see it as being as catastrophic as you do, although I don’t like it in some ways. In others I think it has been misunderstood and misrepresented to a certain degree (not entirely).

     You haven’t read much on this blog about Rubio, compared to Trump and Cruz (Trump nay, Cruz yeah). But I sense that Cruz is not going anywhere, and although I could be wrong, that’s what I see. I think Trump would be disastrous in almost every way (and by the way, his immigration policy, if you look at it closely and pay attention, is not all that different from Rubio’s—although you probably don’t believe me on that). So I would definitely support Rubio to stop Trump, but also because I firmly believe that Trump would lose to Hillary. Why? Because a huge number of Republicans have said they will not vote for him under any circumstances, and I see zero evidence that he has pulled any significant amount of Democratic support. I think he cannot win the general.

     That’s one of many reasons I don’t want him to win the nomination. So for me, Trump=Hillary.

152. Irving Kristol, the ‘Godfather’ of Neoconservatism, defined our species as: “A Liberal who has been mugged by reality.” My last vote ads a Liberal was in Nov. 1980 for Jimmah. I very soon regretted it and proudly supported and rooted for Ronaldus Magnus.” I remained a registered Democrat in So. Calif. , though never voting for them, until we moved to Central Florida nearly 10-yrs ago. So too has Dr. Thomas Sowell, Neocon Etraordinaire and 3-decades Hero of mine.

153. **Please excuse wacko sentence structure above. These Samsung Galaxy Light android thingies make me nuts!!!**

154. Neo:
     Thanks for the clarification of “Neo”. And all along I was thinking it just meant you took the red pill, but you’re saying it’s more like “libertarian”, so everybody can make up their own definition? From my daily readings here for the past number of months, you appear to be close to where you can drop the neo altogether.

     Trump has done so as well, and he’s definitely embraced the “con” part.

     Yes, we will have to agree to disagree on trusting Rubio, who has just today cancelled his upcoming appearance at CPAC. Probably in deference to his new voter base. 🙂

     I think I’ve been coming here about six months now and I read every post except the ballet and classic lit and stuff, so if you’ve written anything in defense of Rubio’s trustworthiness in either a post or a comment, I’ve probably read it. I’ve been retired for quite a few years now and following politics closely is one of my hobbies because I care deeply about this country. I followed the Gang of 8 from beginning to end, and Rubio’s subsequent “evolution” as well.

155. NeoConScum:

     We at least have a couple things in common:

     1) Sowell has been a favorite of mine for decades. No one can get to the heart of any matter in fewer words than he can

     2) I spent 22 years in 90210 until moving to Atlanta 12 years ago. I miss it. There was so much to do 24/7 there for a single person. That was before the invasion from the south conquered it, though.

156. Trump has embraced the “con” part. As long as you’re inferring the con artist/grifter in Donny, this delicate Reagan lover will agree. But, he ain’t NO conservative. One Value for Donald: Donald. One God for Donald: Donald.

157. Geokstr: Small world. 91020 was mine and a world class view from my/our living room out across LA, all the way to Catalina. AAAaaaaahhhhh…and mountains. They are in my DNA. Miss the geography and film…Never the Baatshit Crazy culture.

158. Oh, and, yes, Dr. Sowell is brilliant and a breathtaking (Neo)Conservative thinker-writer.

159. The kids move their body at the time of having fun with their
     toys as well because they operates their brain which help to build up
     their both mental and physical strength. Block toys are available in the market
     in a variety of colors, shapes, and patterns. bester nerf blaster under revolvers In the 1970’s, considered one of America’s most beloved
     toy franchises came increasingly under the paternalistic gaze from the Federal Government.

     In 2002, Ha – Pe successfully earned the ISO9001 quality system certification and became one with the first ISO 9001 certified
     enterprises among wooden toy manufacturers in China. Anal Sex Toys: These toys are made with anal penetration at heart.

160. Article Source: is part in the David Christopher Jewellery Group – loved ones
     business of two generations with fifteen retail stores during the entire Midlands and Southwest.
     We may not have a very ton of greenbacks to toss
     around, but no less than we can look great knowing we paid
     because of these designer watches at the fraction with the cost.
     Brand wallet Clock discount Please make sure you
     leave your comments within the post to permit the author know your viewpoint.

     Besides, you might have not one, but any variety of watches which are made
     for any occasion. Always acquire valuables including gold watches at a identified source so it really
     is possible to return it ought to a problem arise.

161. They make friends, engage in face-to-face meetings, as well
     as use paper-based systems like the day planners or simple note pads as tools for getting things done.
     This new Solar kindle cover principal purpose is by Solar Focus Technology.
     Technical newspaper Eighty trainees in heavy equipment operation and 39 trainees in specialized welding graduated from other courses in Tektone Global Technologies
     Foundation, Inc.

     Hope you enjoyed perusing this article do leave a comment should you felt I left something
     out make sure you read one other Examiner. mindset
     may be dangerous because time and money could be wasted
     without much output or benefit.

     The moral from the story seems to be, therefore, that when you are seeking cutting-edge journalism,
     skip this news networks and, instead, read the Blogsphere.
     possibly, cebu-jobs.com, latest
     developments in technology All the first choice during any community created for latest current news
     emits chances are offers to aid be Trusted world news.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>