The RNC day 3: the consciences of conservatives
[NOTE: The title of this post is a riff on the title of Barry Goldwater’s book.]
I actually watched two of the speeches last night: that of Ted Cruz and Mike Spence, plus Rubio’s brief cameo video appearance. But of course, today all anyone’s talking about is Ted Cruz’s; see Memeorandum to catch the drift and the scope of the chatter: the Trump forces knew what was coming, the Trump forces had no idea what was coming, Ted Cruz has positioned himself well, Ted Cruz has poisoned his chances forever, the demonstration was spontaneous, the demonstration was staged—and on and on and on the pundits go, and disagree with each other.
First I’ll talk about the other speeches I saw. Rubio’s speech was minimalist and low-key. He looked like he didn’t want to be up there, and in fact he wasn’t up there. But he said just enough to avoid being accused of insufficient Trump support.
Pence was the amiable midwesterner he was expected to be, and he even got in a couple of jokes at the outset. It was the kind of political speech I tend to tune out, since I have trouble listening to speeches in the first place unless they’re very very stirring or very very funny. But I guess he did the job of introducing himself to the American public, and one of those Luntz focus groups of Independents featured a couple of previously “undecided” people who said that they will now vote for Trump because of Pence. So there’s that.
Cruz was the big suspense of the evening: would he or wouldn’t he—endorse Trump, that is. The moment had been hyped to the skies. His speech was emotional, beginning with a focus on a little girl in Texas whose father was one of the police officers murdered in Dallas. He also spoke of general conservative values and freedom, and added:
And to those listening, please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.
That would be a sort of endorsement, if Trump were the kind of person people “trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.” After all, Cruz is encouraging people to vote and not stay home, and to vote for freedom-and-Constitution-defending candidates both up and down the ticket. But of course, a lot of conservative voters don’t think Trump is that sort of person, and so a lot of Trump supporters at the convention appeared furious at Cruz, booing and carrying on in exactly the manner one would expect.
Today, the resultant clamor, criticism, and chatter.
I don’t know what Cruz should have done instead. Stay away from the convention and he’s criticized for not being a team player. Endorse Trump and he’s selling out his principles as well as supporting a man who insulted his family in the vilest of terms. Don’t endorse Trump and Cruz is a traitor to the party and to the pledge he supposedly signed. I think he did exactly the right thing, but I am probably in a rather tiny minority on that. And I think Trump and his people should have done exactly what Newt Gingrich did in his speech, in which Newt was uncharacteristically gracious (although characteristically intelligent):
“Now, I think you misunderstood one paragraph of Ted Cruz ”” who is a superb orator ”” said,” the former House speaker said. “And I just want to point it out to you. Ted Cruz said you can vote your conscience for anyone who will uphold the constitution. In this election, there is only one candidate who will uphold the constitution.”
The crowd let out a raucous cheer.
“So, to paraphrase Ted Cruz, if you want to protect the constitution of the United States, the only possible candidate this fall is the Trump-Pence Republican ticket. That way, we have a Republican ticket to implement Republican principles in Washington.”
In other words, treat it as an endorsement, and move on. But hey, that would run counter to the circular firing squad that is the GOP, counter to the Trump campaign, counter to the way this past year has gone so far.
Thank you. That’s exactly what I was thinking. Trump supporters. Whatreyagonnado? This got so hyped by the media as a Really Big Deal, will he or won’t he, big drama. Cruz’s message was clear to anyone who chose to see. And the commentators on Fox really don’t like Cruz, that’s clear. They’re taking their animus at Trump rolling over their candidate out on Cruz. They keep blaming Cruz for being cordial to Trump early on in the primary and only turning on him late in the game. Are you kidding me? Who are the sore losers again? Yikes. And all this drama does not play well at all to typical undecided voter slwatching at home. And it gives fuel to the snarky progressive media operatives. Trump and his supporters and the right wing media really lost an opportunity here.
There was really no way Cruz was going to thread the needle. He either had to endorse and be criticized by Republicans who don’t like Trump, or refuse to endorse and be hammered by the Trump crowd. He chose the latter and Brit Hume opined that he was washed up as a candidate in the future. I guess that presumes the Republican party will not evolve over the next 4 years into something different than what it is now. I personally believe the party must evolve, through demographic change if nothing else.
Does that mean Hume is wrong and Cruz has a future in the GOP? I don’t know. Listening to him last night I loved what he had to say. But I also heard the words of a Washington insider, even though he has the reputation of not being one. The party as currently constituted — with a lot of potential voters who have not formerly identified as Republicans — will either crash and burn as Trump loses, or will be diluted by Trump if he wins. I don’t think it can emerge from this election in the same form that it entered the process a year ago. If that is so, Cruz and all 15 other Republican candidates are probably out of the running.
I also thought there were equal amounts of boos and cheering. I am so sick of the media telling me what I saw and heard was not what I saw and heard.
This is one example of why (1) Gingrich is a better politician than Trump; and (2) Cruz is a better man than Trump.
I sent money to Cruz yesterday for his Senate election.
1. He should have said his word was his bond and despite the personal family insults he was backing Trump because Hillary can’t be believed to uphold the oath required by the constitution. Easy solution.
2. I think I wrote here about Trump’s WWE background. Ted probably doesn’t know WWE but Trump does. Trump let Cruz become “the heel” in front of a live audience of fans. Trump was the hero. And then upstaged him with his entrance at the end. Brilliant stagecraft.
3. The song “The Reynold’s Pamphlet” from “Hamilton” is now Ted’s theme. “Ain’t never going to be President now.”
Here is a well-thought out post along the same lines, from my favorite Recovering Psychologist:
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/07/standing-up-to-bully.html
Trump has to go straight to the 20% undecided. Hope he is up to the challenge. Big pressure.
I never realized how far out of the political loop I am until the response to the Cruz speech. I seldom watch/listen to political speeches, but my husband does. I saw 2/3 of this one, went to a meeting and then came home and read all the fall-out. I’m shaking my head. I don’t get it. He said vote your conscience and for the candidate that will protect freedom and honor the Constitution. Newt responded appropriately, Christie did not–unless he meant to declare that Trump will do neither of those things! I read a few of the comments over at PJ Media and for the first time I understand what Eric is talking about when he references “alt-right”. What a bunch of morons. Such childishness. So depressing.
Cruz is a backstabbing traitor. And I supported him until he dropped out.
I agree with Sarah Palin that he ended any hopes for a future run, just the way Christie did.
This election is much bigger then Cruz hurt feelings. If he can’t handle Trump he certainly can’t handle ISIS, Putin, the Chinese etc.
Very disappointed in Cruz. I will never support him again.
Neo, I agree with your take on Cruz. I also want to say that the best speech (by far) that I have seen to date at this convention was that of Laura Ingraham early yesterday evening. What a powerful (and brilliant) public speaker; too bad they gave her such a crappy time slot. And too bad the media kept cutting away from her (so much so that my wife and I switched over to C SPAN to watch).
If you missed it I urge everyone to see all 17 minutes of it. Here’s a link to it: (YouTube)
When “vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution” is automatically interpreted as “hey! He’s not supporting Trump!”, there’s a big problem.
Glad Cruz stood tall. For my part, 2016 is a lost cause, but we can recover, we WILL survive an HRC presidency if there is a loyal opposition intact, and if we can get some leaders who believe in being faithful to the Constitution we can win in 2020.
Elect Trump and you can kiss being faithful to the constitution goodbye. Because there won’t be any party left that holds that torch. The Democrats certainly don’t, and the Trumpublicans don’t either.
Vote your conscience.
1) Cruz did not have to speak last night. He chose to. Many others were not there: Fiorina, Bush, Kasich. He had that option.
2) Cruz signed the pledge to support the nominee when he first started running. (please no speculation about whether or not Trump would have lived up to the pledge…that is just speculation and not the situation we are in).
3) Cruz decided to accept a speaking spot and then not live up to the pledge.
Sorry, but that is just rude and deserved the boos. You can claim that his statement was ‘generic’ enough to include Trump, but to me it was a smack in the face. Why? Because it included the same exact language Cruz used to attack Trump during the primaries…’he is just like Hillary’ and made remarks that some of Trump’s policies skirted the Constitution.
If we are going to talk about how ‘nasty’ Trump was, then I can bring up how ‘nasty’ Cruz was. There is plenty of that to point to on both sides.
Compare Rubio’s short statement to Cruz’s speech. Rubio was all class in comparison. Rubio gets it. Cruz does not. Cruz is still under the illusion that the majority of voters somehow really wanted to vote for him, but made a mistake and voted for Trump instead. Honestly, Cruz does not realize it is the other way around for some in my family.
Trump let Cruz give his speech. Cruz must live with the consequences. Even Cruz delegates were upset.
Sharon W
It is mostly about the pledge that Ted didn’t honor. K_E has it right.
The burn it all down crowd are unhappy with the Senator. Put on your necklaces and pass around the matches I don’t want to watch.
Trump Fans. Whatreyagonnado? You can’t win with these people.
Bill–I agree with your first paragraph, but my vote for Trump is a vote for the Constitution. It will be up to the other 2 branches, as designed by the Founders. That will not happen under HRC. If she is elected we will continue with the same rogue government in violation of the laws and through immigration we will not recover. I don’t know where you live, but I live in Los Angeles (the San Fernando Valley). My office is in Van Nuys and within these last 8 years it has devolved into a 3rd world country: the flagrant traffic violations; cars that look like they belong in Cuba; trash EVERYWHERE; the drug and alcohol-addled homeless now wandering in and out of our building during the day, and believe me, the police are only citing those of us that look like we will pay our fines.
Cornhead-I’m a Cardinal Newman Catholic (conscience is the final arbiter). For me, Cruz honored his pledge.
Gotta disagree with those attacking Cruz over this. Cruz called off his campaign, and Trump kept attacking him [i]and his family[/i] even after Cruz had bowed out.
What do you expect Cruz to do in that situation?
It’s something that I consistantly see from Trump supporters. Cruz is expected by them to unequivocably provide full-throated support for Trump, but Trump’s paranoid conspiracy-theory attack on Cruz’s father after Cruz had dropped out is completely ignored.
If Trump is going to be a sore loser, then why should Cruz be gracious?
Oops –
That should have read, “If Trump is going to be a sore winner…”
I agree with Junior. The historical comparison would be King Henry VIII not accepting Sir Thomas More’s silence and outward respect. No that document had to be signed. We all know how that ended.
Showing up, bagging on Clinton, and telling people to vote their conscience WAS the endorsement.
You know that.
You just want to hate on the guy.
Because that’s satisfying in the short term. Beating the guy you’ve already beaten. Joining in the howling mob. Piling on. Nevermind that Trump needs all the supporters he can get. All of them. That’s long term thinking. That’s not Trump Fan’s forte.
Trump has already started the dumpster run. His undiplomatic comments on NATO have resulted in Pence getting an early start in “clarifying” Trump.
I’m sorry but Treaty commitments are serious stuff and Trump is not serious.
I wonder if old Donald has gotten his buddy Vlad Putin to put some Russian Cyber guys onto filling the comment sections with “Trumpkins”. The Estonians have been the victims of this and have organized their own cyber response team. Ask the Norwegians how this works as well. Pretty scary stuff.
And Laura Ingraham was brilliant. Best speech so far. Personal and abstract. Practical and passion. She is Trump’s best advocate. Amazing talent.
This might have been a good time for Trump to have come forward and to have said that he realized that the nomination process had been brutal, and that there was some skepticism abroad among some conservatives as to his own commitments not just to American ascendency which is clear, but to the deeper, more foundational constitutional and legal principles of rights and liberties.
But now that that the primary process is behind us, he would ask for the chance to prove himself to the skeptic, and ensure that no vote need be held back for reason of an unfounded fear.
That might have been a good idea – if that is, he was in fact capable of enunciating such a position, of “humbling” himself enough to do it, and if we assume that if he understood the issues at stake, he actually agreed.
Well, Harold your post lives up to the perception that many have of the Trump die hards.
I though Cruz gave a great speech in which he explained conservative values, and tied them to the Republican Party. Of course it is possible that he believes that the Republican Party is bigger than DJT, and hopes that it will survive his time at center stage. Not guaranteed.
A mature candidate, with a healthy ego would have reacted as Newt did to Senator Cruz. He would simply say something like; “Thank you Senator. I am pleased to assure the American people that I am exactly the candidate you endorsed.” No chance in this case.
As to the pledge. I do not think everyone understands just what was pledged. It essentially addressed the issue of a third party run–which Trump was threatening. I don’t think it specifies that everyone needs to go “in the tank” for any particular candidate. It is now convenient for some to distort; but, isn’t that always the case?
Ted Cruz is a valuable asset in the Senate and in national politics; we need Ted Cruz. I hope he can survive this tempest in the proverbial tea pot.
Could it be, junior, that Cruz’s continuing to push delegates behind the scenes and to orchestrate what happened on Monday (I 100% believe now that Cruz was behind that, plus the attempts last week to inject himself into the rules committee), is the reason Trump said anything about Cruz after the fact?
And, honestly, Trump sort of played to the audience at his rallies…the ‘Lyin’ Ted’ theme. But, to be fair, he would say that little bit about Ted and then immediately switch over to how it should be ‘Lyin’ Hillary.’
I think it is silly for Cruz to be acting this way. And it is ultimately hurting his career. The rest of his speech (before the dreadful end) was really good…although it was overly long. Cruz is the one that ended it on a sour note. He could’ve pulled back when he started to hear the boos, instead he kept trudging ahead.
I think his intent was to rile up anger and then prove to the ‘real conservatives’ that Trump supporters are unhinged. Bad idea.
Oldflyer–hear, hear!
My favorite part was how Cruz’s wife had to be escorted out with security to protect her from violence at the hands of Trump’s partisans.
Trump spent months calling Cruz a liar, he said his wife was unattractive, and he suggested Cruz’s father conspired to kill JFK.
But Cruz is the one who lacks honor. Got it…
Fair assessment Neo.
The trump campaign and the RNC were probably desperate to have Cruz speak.
An absence from the convention would have said way more than Cruz’s actual balance between complete endorsement and complete rejection of trump.
trump supporters should be happy they got that much from him.
Cruz has not been an “establishment” favorite for some time. Speculation that this hurts his political career ignores that, and assumes that trump wins, or, if not, that trump fans will dominate the GOP, and that there is no consequence for falling in line behind a man that far outside of what the GOP used to represent.
If trump loses, can the taint he brings to the GOP be easily reversed? IDK.
Oldflyer:
I am not a Trump die hard. I would have supported Cruz all the way through a floor fight if he had chosen to do so.
This election is way bigger then how Cruz feels. Trump is a perfect match for the typical Allinsky smear and demonize campaign that the Democrats always run.
At this point everyone should be focused on defeating Rodham. That is all that matters.
A pledge is not absolute, if later events abrogate it. I missed the part where Cruz took a Loyalty Oath with his hand on a Bible.
K_E –
You write that, and what I hear is, “I’m determined to make Cruz look bad, but I can’t think of anything better than this.” If you have actual evidence that Cruz was behind the maneuvering on Monday (and we already have some very good suspects – people like Bill Kristol), then by all means present it.
Also, Cruz issued a statement today stating that he’d told Trump three days in advance that his convention speech would not contain an endorsement of Trump.
Bill
Heidi Cruz is very slight. Maybe 5 foot and 110.
Heidi Cruz is very slight. Maybe 5 foot and 110.
I don’t understand this comment. It doesn’t matter how petite she is, she shouldn’t have to fear a stomping from the Trumpites.
Neo
Ted is going all legal here with breach of the pledge is justified by Trump’s slander of his wife and dad. That doesn’t work in a WWE arena. It is all about the crowd and beating the ultimate enemy, Hillary. Ted had to do a tag team thing with Trump.
Ted doesn’t get WWE. I did when I was 10. Harvard beat it out of him but I remember it.
Trump’s secret weapon is his WWE experience. Blue collar people love WWE. A big audience.
Bill
I’m not justifying it but she must have been very frightened. The people we see on TV are real. I learned that in my Power Line project.
“Trump’s secret weapon is his WWE experience. Blue collar people love WWE. A big audience.”
I don’t mean any disrespect, but this is one of the strangest statements I’ve heard in this entire strange season.
He can’t win if his main voting base is white blue collar workers.
WWE is as much a repellent for many people as it is a draw
He needs to gain ground with minorities, college educated white people, women, millennials, etc to have a chance at winning.
If WWE is his secret weapon, well, he’s doomed. But it would explain some things. What Trump desperately needs to be doing is trying to win back the votes of the Republicans who have abandoned him. But he’s just breaking chairs over their heads. We’ve been called whiners, losers, Hillary supporters, irrelevant, traitors, “cucks”, etc. and have been told that our votes aren’t needed.
That kind of attitude works in WWE. Not so well in presidential politics. If he wins, it will be because HRC is that awful. But he’s just alienating people and – aside from his very passionate rabid fans – a lot of the people who are planning on voting for him are the nose-holders. You don’t win without a passionate (and sufficiently large) base of voters.
I make no predictions. But this seems like bad strategy to me.
Sometimes I think Trump is just having fun, doesn’t really want to be President (don’t get me wrong – he wants to win the election, just doesn’t want to do the job), and knows that either way this turns out he’s going to make a lot of $$$ and boost his brand and the brand of his kids. I think that’s what he’s after
“Ted doesn’t get WWE. I did when I was 10. Harvard beat it out of him but I remember it.”
Geez. I hate to ask, but what is …
And by the way, if it is blue collar I should have some idea. I’ve gutted more damn deer, and been involved in more physical altercations than many … so …
Bill
It is about drama. Good v Evil. Big moves. Clean lines. Nothing subtle. Lizard brain.
If Trump wins blue collar Dems in IA, MN, WI, IN, OH, MI, PA, FL and NC it is a landslide.
If Trump names Cabinet people like CC and then they campaign hard it is lights out. NJ and NY in play.
I fully buy into the identity politics of the Dems. They can’t be flipped. It is all about the undecided 20% in a few states. Think Toledo.
“If Trump wins blue collar Dems in IA, MN, WI, IN, OH, MI, PA, FL and NC it is a landslide.”
… and if “ifs” and “buts” were fruits and nuts we’d have Christmas every day 🙂
Is there any indication in the polling data that this is happening? I realize it might – Hillary is that awful. But honest question.
@Cornhead
“I’m not justifying it but she must have been very frightened.”
Heidi, a well-renumerated Goldman Sachs manager, knows how to run with the big boys and she’s 5’6″ – hardly petite.
That aside, I don’t know how to square this circle: her husband lives and dies by being a strict constitutionalist while she works for the most corrupt bank in human history that has worked ceaselessly to undermine the rule of law and the economy both of the United States and countless other countries around the world.
Her entire resume (Council of Foreign Relations, etc.) actually, is a rebuke of her husband’s cherished ideals.
Incidentally, the news about Laura Ingraham’s speech today is all about how she supposedly gave a Nazi salute during it.
Because yeah, all of us EEEEVUL Republicans just *love* to publicly reveal how we take after one of the biggest evils of the Twentieth Century.
Bill
Trump is tied in CT. Prescott Bush was one of the last of the GOP to win CT.
Polls are tightening in all of those states. Not wishful thinking. Some national polls show it is tied.
Incidentally, the news about Laura Ingraham’s speech today is all about how she supposedly gave a Nazi salute during it.
When she turned to face Trump, she raised her hand in greeting but didn’t wave it. She wasn’t giving a Nazi salute but she’s media-savvy enough to know that it would look like one. When she turned to the audience she started doing the beauty pageant wave.
Small potatoes, but this is the world we live in. The media will be looking for anything
I don’t really care – she’s in the same pack with Hannity, Coulter, etc. Not a conservative anymore, but now a Trumpist. As he might say, “Sad!”
Polls are tightening in all of those states. Not wishful thinking. Some national polls show it is tied.
Well, he could certainly win. Although if he wins with “lizard brain” as you said earlier, I think we’re doomed.
But Irene, can you say anything differently about any of the people in the business world and politics? Our small construction office in LA is doing a project for a GS big-wig. We live middle-class lives and employ and subcontract with all kinds of middle-class people. Trickle-down. Where do you draw the line?
Irene
Goldman Sachs hires the best to make money for GS and the employee. Greed – for the lack of a better word – is good.
Why do you think GS bribes the Clintons? Because they can be bought and the ROI is great. Reason enough to vote Trump.
Scott Adams below. His third category is lizard brain and WWE.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see-the-world
So let me get this all straight: DJT is all about the WWE and should have CC for AG, TC is on the QT with GS, HRC will pack the SC with SJW, MP will deliver TLC from IN, and we’re all about to receive some B&D ASAP. That cover it?
Hillary Clinton must be defeated. That’s my bottom line.
A criminal in the WH who is looking to cut money deals for herself with foreign countries and her favored elites (including GS) would be a disaster. And she could never be impeached. Historic first woman prez and spouse of Bill. Unchecked power. We would be finished.
Appreciate comments contra. I’m a Devil’s Advocate guy and believe in that process.
The heart of Hillary is evil. Lucifer-like.
Brian
Right except for the B&D. No sex. We’re British.
@Sharon W
“Where do you draw the line?”
At Heidi Cruz’s feet. She is working for Goldman, your company is not.
@Cornhead, if you keep referencing Scott Adams, as if his theories stand up to any minor scrutiny, I’m just going to have to call you “Meathead” instead, in honor of his theories.
Adams’ theory is that humanity is just a bunch of mindless, emotional meat puppets, that rationalize our actions after the fact, all easily manipulated by a “master persuader”.
Of course, ironically, evidently Adams (and, maybe, his readership – he never really says so, but I’m sure they all assume so) is excluded from that category, as he has extra special powers of observation and rationality, which preclude him from succumbing to the persuasion, enabling him to explain this all to us.
My point is, in a way, we are. One of our subcontractors, an old man, who fits the description of the Trump supporter I question allegiance with, has made a big deal of Heidi Cruz, “they’re globalists!” I pointed out to him, one of the reasons we can still hire him is that we are doing a GS employee’s home.
“The heart of Hillary is evil. Lucifer-like.” – Cornhead
This is where you way overplay your hand.
You assume you know this, and, more importantly, know that trump is not.
Given trump’s fluidity with the truth, on that alone, he is up (or is it down) there with hillary.
@Cornhead
Within the rules of the game, greed is fine – Adam Smith, invisible hand, etc.
But we know that Goldman doesn’t play by the rules. They lied and committed serious sins of omission to get Greece into the Euro and are responsible for much, much worse.
Big Maq-to compare what we know about Trump with Hillary is a disconnect I cannot fathom. Seriously? The litany of unconscionable abuses of public power that constitutes HRC from the beginning is to have a encyclopedia of everything that was meant to be guarded against by the Republic. Even before being on the national scene, her role in going after Nixon proves she has been reprehensible from the very beginning. The complicity of the press and her connections to Soros, etc make her dangerous and powerful in a way Trump has not been proven to be. I do call Soros evil. She is connected to him. That is not hyperbole, it is fact.
Interesting mix in the comments.
“vote your conscience”
Those are code words for the NeverTrumpers Monday night. He could have been a team player but that is not his thing.
Some suggestions about what he could have done and didn’t.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/53524.html
DNW Says:
“This might have been a good time for Trump to have come forward and to have said that he realized that the nomination process had been brutal…”
The only reason the process was brutal and ugly and vile was Trump himself, and the Alinskyite sickos Eric loves to call the alt-right, left-mimicking whatever, who mirrored and amplified Trump’s nastiness. If “activism” means to baselessly and virulently character assassinate your allies more than the common enemy, then Trump and his minions can blame no one but themselves for those who will not support him now that he really needs them.
Was Carson attacking Trump in any way other than by gaining in the polls while Trump was repeatedly calling him a pathological, homicidal maniac, a barely average doctor, and questioning his religious beliefs?
The only negative about Trump attributed to Cruz in the early part of the campaign was that he told a small group of donors off the record in a private meeting that he didn’t think Trump had the temperament to be President. That was immediately leaked, whereupon Trump proved him right by launching into a dishonest, personal smear campaign of lies, innuendo and rumors against Cruz and his wife just as scurrilous and foul as what was done to Palin in 2008.
Now we’re all supposed to just laugh it off as politics as usual, boys will be boys, and get in line. Screw you, Donnie, and your fanboys, too.
Regarding Goldman, I say know who you are dealing with. Few – if any – criminals. Just sharp elbows. They have the money so they can make the rules. And they own Hillary. Bad combo.
Regarding Scott Adams, I don’t buy his whole theory but there is something to it. The “Make America Great Again” theme is pure WWE/lizard brain.
When I was a kid one of the “heels” was a Russian. We hated him. We wanted the American to win.
And Heidi was in Dallas. What was she doing? Retail broker? Drumming up IPO and debt business? Mergers? I don’t know.
Those are code words for the NeverTrumpers Monday night. He could have been a team player but that is not his thing.
——————
Code-words.
Are you going to start referring to “dog whistles” next like the media constantly does?
@Sharon W
“My point is, in a way, we are… [O]ne of the reasons we can still hire him is that we are doing a GS employee’s home.”
I understand your point of view, really I do! (Ha! I was a CA contractor myself once upon a time. ;))
But, in our society the money we earn is “clean” unless we broke the law to earn it. I don’t buy into leftist beliefs that money carries guilt, etc.
I would stress to any of my employees that our company is trying to do what is best for them and that is all the company itself can be responsible for. I’d also encourage them to get politically involved if they have strongly-held beliefs they feel are being ignored.
Cornhead:
Trump = Camancho of Idiocracy, or what is your point?
“Vote your conscience” is code words. I’m too familiar with history (and the current state of affairs in many parts of the world) to fool around with the idea that being faithful to your conscience is some sort of game. And I present that as a person who is dedicated to voting for Trump from the time he became the presumptive nominee, though I have never considered him a conservative; but the only possibility (however slight) of seeing the other 2 branches of government act in accordance with their historical mandate.
Irene, if your biggest bombshell against Ted Cruz is that his wife works for Goldman Sachs, you really need to let it go. I am sure you know that there has been a revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Democratic administrations. If Trump is President, there will no doubt be a huge revolving door between his administration and whatever corporate entities he favors; and whether Trump Jr will admit it or not, many of them will be Harvard and Wharton graduates.
This morning the conventional wisdom is that Trump will lose because Cruz did not endorse him. That is the level of silliness that passes for political commentary in the country at this point.
Sharon W: “The complicity of the press and her connections to Soros, etc make her dangerous and powerful in a way Trump has not been proven to be.”
Well, Trump never had his own nuclear arsenal, military, and executive branch. So he’s never had the power to be that dangerous to the wider world.
I vote we keep it that way. His comments on foreign policy (most recent example – suggesting we won’t honor our NATO commitments) are destabilizing, he moral-equivalences and runs down America worse than Obama (we can’t criticize what Turkey is doing because of what’s going on in our own country? Really DJT?), He wants to start trade wars, has suggested printing money as a way of dealing with the debt, has cooked up crazy schemes to make another sovereign country pay for a border wall (possible, but does anyone really think that’s going to happen?), etc. etc.
I can’t support HRC. But the idea that she is self-evidently worse than DJT doesn’t, in my view, exist. As PJ O’Rourke stated recently, like Donald Trump, she’s wrong about almost everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.
OM
No idiot built that real estate empire even though he may have overstated his net worth massively.
Hillary? Flat out criminal. A Burr without the charm.
Brian Swisher Says:
“So let me get this all straight: DJT is all about the WWE and should have CC for AG, TC is on the QT with GS, HRC will pack the SC with SJW, MP will deliver TLC from IN, and we’re all about to receive some B&D ASAP. That cover it?”
Good Morning VietNam was a great movie, wasn’t it?
“But the idea that …” should have been “But the evidence that … “
Bill — I’d love to hear your explanation of how we will survive the Evil Empress. Survive left-wing control of the Supreme Court for the next generation? Survive citizenship of millions of illegals who will then vote Democrat? Survive national control of police departments? Survive the endless flow of “free stuff?” Survive more Reset Buttons, more Libyas, more Syrias?
Do tell!
P.S. I don’t consider hiding in a cave in the Rocky Mountains and living on tree bark and MREs to be surviving.
Geokstr:
Good catch.
@Oldflyer
“Irene, if your biggest bombshell against Ted Cruz is that his wife works for Goldman Sachs, you really need to let it go.”
That was pretty aggressive of you, Oldflyer!
I didn’t mention anything about anything in Heidi Cruz’s career being a bombshell at this point in time and certainly didn’t merit a “you really need to let it go”. 😉
I just pointed out the contradiction of the two Cruz’s and what they stand for.
Would you like to square the circle of Ted’s stand and Heidi’s work with the Council of Foreign Relations?
“…but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” It would not be possible to disagree with this more. This kind of thinking is why the Republic is on life-support.
Bill–Progressive policies have resulted in my granddaughter, born May 2010, shackled with $30,000 debt upon her first breath. She is now $70,000 in debt at 6 years old. If that constitutes “wrong within normal parameters”, you’ll need to educate me of what abnormal parameters entails.
Sharon:
Thought police are needed.
And Trump has proposed as Sec. of Treasury a big muckey muck from Goldman Sachs who is a major fundraiser.
Keep buying the lies from the Don.
“The litany of unconscionable abuses of public power that constitutes HRC from the beginning is to have a encyclopedia of everything that was meant to be guarded against by the Republic.” – Sharon
clinton has been MUCH MORE in the public eye, under MUCH MORE scrutiny, than trump ever has been.
For as much as you “know” about hrc (the “litany”), you really don’t “know” about djt. Some of that is only becoming “known” during this campaign.
From what we have seen from trump during this campaign, he is so comfortable with lying (to pick one flaw), he does it even when it is absolutely not necessary. This is several steps beyond what is “normal” for politicians. So what, hillary is a liar too, you may respond. True. They should BOTH be disqualified on this basis alone.
From this flaw, trump is so mutable (thanks to Neo for reminding us of such an appropriate, descriptive word) on practically every policy statement he has made, that we really don’t know what he is going to bring to office. From his past statements, before running, he sounds likely to be every bit like the Dems whose campaigns he previously supported.
Then throw in his a penchant for taking extreme positions, his playing up white identity / racial animus, his reacting at a personal level to any opposition or criticism, his willingness to abuse the legal and political system for his personal gain, and his rejection of any fealty to conservative principles nor constitutional limits to presidential powers, the alternative to clinton seems a volatile choice that could turn disastrous very quickly.
NEITHER is a good choice.
There is no “win” to be had, if you hold conservative principles (and I would argue everyone loses, conservative or not), period.
OM–I guess you haven’t read my comments, because “buying the lies from the Don” doesn’t describe one thing about my beliefs or actions. Painting with your broad brush is a waste of time and energy.
Richard,
If I have to undertake the Herculean task of not defending, but painting a picture of how four years of HRC might be survivable, I guess I’ll have to do it. But I DON’T SUPPORT HER. It really stinks that the stupid party nominated DJT. There are few good paths. But let me start by saying this:
HRC is a really bad politician. The idea that she will have the political skills to sway the masses that she’ll need to truly turn us into the dystopia that all of you think we’re heading toward is unreasonable. I know, I know, this is the *MOST IMPORTANT* election in our lifetime. We will all be eating tree bark and MREs if she’s elected, etc. (I’ve been hearing this kind of stuff for at least 20 years).
It’s bad, no doubt.
But, here we go. Keep in mind, I’m not saying that HRC will be good. She’ll be awful. But you asked me how we would “survive”
“Survive left-wing control of the Supreme Court for the next generation?”
This is a tough one. I hate the fact that she’s going to nominate left wing judges. Stinks that the stupid party had to nominate DJT. Donald, by the way, doesn’t care about judges who will strictly follow the constitution (which is really all I want). My expectation is that he will nominate judges who will be sure to give the Executive branch more power, to the benefit of Donald.
But, bottom line, this election pretty much precludes the idea of us having Constitutionally-minded judges on the SC. Neither candidate cares about that.
It’s really unfortunate the GOP nominated DJT…
“Survive citizenship of millions of illegals who will then vote Democrat?”
Unless the GOP can quit treating foreigners like automatic Democrats and start selling to these oftentimes more traditional/conservative people the ideas around why Conservatism is better than liberal dependency, I don’t know what to tell you.
We wonder why immigrants vote for Democrats. It’s because the GOP has clearly communicated: “We hate you”.
“Survive national control of police departments?”
Since when is this going to happen? I know Obama has brought it up. It’s been an idea, floating around. I don’t see this as something the people will support, but I know you probably disagree with me.
“Survive the endless flow of “free stuff?”
We can’t spend money forever.
“Survive more Reset Buttons, more Libyas, more Syrias?”
DJT says all sorts of crazy things about foreign affairs. He seems to have a lot of affinity with Putin so I think there will be a reset there, and one that won’t end well. He’s already signaled that we might forgo our NATO commitments, and the GOP platform softened the language around Russia and what they’ve done to Ukraine. I’ll be frank – DJT scares me a LOT more than HRC when it comes to foreign affairs. He’s too thin-skinned, too centered on what’s best for HIM, too narcissistic, too childish to have his own military and nuclear arsenal. I vote we don’t give him one.
Big Maq–All true. My vote for Trump is predicated on my belief that the other 2 branches will conduct themselves differently than they would with a Clinton presidency. You may find that far-flung, but it is my hope and the impetus for my vote. Short of that possibility, I do not hold out hope for our Republic for numerous reasons–national security, financial, cultural, etc etc etc.
“A pledge is not absolute, if later events abrogate it. I missed the part where Cruz took a Loyalty Oath with his hand on a Bible.” [Neo 11:47]
Neo, Ted Cruz aside, I must disagree with you here. If a pledge is not absolute, then swearing with a hand on a Bible is not absolute either. A pledge is a pledge and one makes it with the intent of carrying it out, not with the intent of circumstantially twisting around it in the future. A man, or woman, is only as good as his/her word, and unfortunately, across the spectrum, words mean very little today (“If you like your doctor you can keep . . . .”).
Regarding Ted Cruz, (“Stay away from the convention and he’s criticized for not being a team player. Endorse Trump and he’s selling out his principles . . . .” [Neo]) I agree it’s a damned if he does–damned if he doesn’t scenario. However, IMO Cruz is responsible for a great part of that himself. He ran a campaign to pick up the pieces when Trump imploded, but Trump didn’t implode and Cruz was left holding a bag of his own making.
Now, with regard to the insults directed at his wife and father, I do, indeed, think that Cruz has justification (I try to think of how I would feel if my wife and father were the target of such nonsense), so I suggest that Cruz’s speech at the convention kind of split the difference, and I agree with you that it was probably the best that could be done to square this circle. Newt’s subsequent comments claimed Cruz’s tacit support without Cruz lionizing the man that savaged his wife and father.
“This morning the conventional wisdom is that Trump will lose because Cruz did not endorse him. That is the level of silliness that passes for political commentary in the country at this point.” – Oldflyer
Agree. Despite the polls and past election patterns, this one can be up for grabs, if we stick to the two party paradigm.
Given the high negatives on each candidate, there is another possibility, but that means people have to stop waiting to see some momentum behind a “viable” alternative and move themselves to create that momentum.
Hopefully, it is apparent by now that there is no “leadership” that will cut an ideal path and make that ideal choice for us.
But rather than being herded into the false choice between the terrible GOP and Dem candidates, we can make a choice we actually can live with, survive and fight another day.
For me that is Libertarian (with two experienced two-term GOP Governors) on top, and GOP down ticket.
Let’s suppose it is true that Trump knew Cruz would not endorse him (this I believe). I think Cruz would have been better to not speak at all in this case and should not have asked to speak. It would have served him personally better, and the party better. And let’s not lie to ourselves- Cruz’s point was that people who believe what he believes should not vote for Trump, but should vote for Republicans down ticket. I can certainly understand Cruz’s point of view- I wrestled with it, too- but the alternative is President Shelob with The Supreme Court behind her agenda fully. That is the conscience you need to take into the polling station in November.
Bill–This is simply not true:
“Survive citizenship of millions of illegals who will then vote Democrat?”
“Unless the GOP can quit treating foreigners like automatic Democrats and start selling to these oftentimes more traditional/conservative people the ideas around why Conservatism is better than liberal dependency, I don’t know what to tell you.
We wonder why immigrants vote for Democrats. It’s because the GOP has clearly communicated: “We hate you”.
That is just an out-and-out lie. I don’t know a single conservative that opposes lawful immigration. And frankly if you don’t oppose unlawful immigration then you care not for the principle reason for the founding of a federal government. The conservative message, the principles of the founding of this country are a tough sell because people, in general, and more than ever, are LAZY and STUPID. I can add greedy and a host of other unhappy attributes, but the Bell Curve of A, B, C, D & F pretty much tells the story of mankind in every sphere. When the 10 commandments were the byword of the culture, you could pretty much count on a semblance of decency. We are a post-10 commandment culture. Collecting hard-working taxpayers money (and printing more $$) and redistributing it has created a greedy “poor”. When I go to my local Costco in suburban Los Angeles and see a Burqa-clad woman following her husband who I know are here compliments of the American taxpayer, I hold little hope for a return of the “old normal”. So it is up to the “conservative” to stop making the “perfect” the enemy of the “good”. Trump is the best hope (however small) we have right now in the face of PROVEN BAD. Obviously we disagree about what constitutes “BAD” when it comes to HRC.
” My vote for Trump is predicated on my belief that the other 2 branches will conduct themselves differently than they would with a Clinton presidency. You may find that far-flung, but it is my hope and the impetus for my vote” – Sharon
Rather than “hope” that Congress will reassert it’s power (something that has been declining in the face of strong rationale to exercise), much rather put someone at the top who is less likely to similarly challenge Congress and further unbind Presidential limitations.
The hope would be that they actually fix that flaw.
If we are stuck on only these two choices, then these two choices are what we will have – we are participants in setting our own limitations this election.
But of course, a lot of conservative voters don’t think Trump is that sort of person, and so a lot of Trump supporters at the convention appeared furious at Cruz, booing and carrying on in exactly the manner one would expect.
Only because to them the idea of a conscience, an internal guide for right and wrong, no longer exists. They sold it the way Democrats sold their soul, for power.
Whether that power will save them or not, given that flaw, remains to be seen. I doubt the moral decay of a people and civilization can be saved by giving politicians power.
think Cruz would have been better to not speak at all in this case and should not have asked to speak.
Far as I know, Trump was going to bar Cruz from the Convention without an endorsement. It was up to Father Trump and Patriarch Trump to enforce that, but if he fails to, not getting an endorsement is his problem and the problem of the RNC establishment.
It’s not about Ted Cruz. He lost. It’s not about Donald Trump either. It’s about getting votes. For America. For us. That’s the point, right? Instead, they’re treating it like it’s a game.
Last night everybody behaved stupidly. Trump is a sore winner. How easy it would have been to be gracious … and smart and rise above it. And win over detractors. Surprise us for once. That’s the point, right? Really be the bigger man. But he ain’t up for that. Neither one of these guys was able to rise above the personal grudge. That should have been easy for a winner.
Sharon:
When someone ties Heidi Cruz to George Soros and makes a fuss about her having worked at Goldmann Sachs they are painting by pitching buckets of paint at a canvas not using brushes.
So yes you have bought the con.
Sharon W – we probably agree more than you think, and I like your comments, so if I’m terse in any of my responses know that’s just because I’m in a hurry.
I don’t know a single conservative that opposes lawful immigration.
Do you know a single conservative who wants to deport Muslims who are here legally based on an unconstitutional religious test?
That’s one of DJTs selling points to a lot of his followers.
T:
A swearing with a hand on the Bible is not absolute, either.
Ask the members of the Wehrmacht who swore loyalty to Hitler before they had a real clue what he would do in terms of the depths of depravity and destruction and murder.
Ask them.
Unless, of course, you think they did the right thing by sticking to their oaths despite the evil of the man.
Perhaps you’re also against divorce under any circumstances? Because most people who get married swear till death, before a clergyman and a host of people.
Cruz got the equivalent of a divorce from Trump.
By the way, Trump threatened to break his pledge for much less.
Big Maq–One of my mottos, mostly used when I encounter liberals both at church and otherwise is, “I try not to conflate what I wish were true, with what is true. I choose to live in reality.” Trump was never my choice, and that is true of most who read Neo. However, because of the “alt-right” (I understand that now, more than I ever did), he is our option. So wishing we had a different option is futile. Every fiber of my being believes HRC is more dangerous to the Republic than is Trump because of how the Founders structured this government. Recent history has proven that the other 2 branches are all-in for HRC (any Democrat). I believe they will arise, should Trump exert any kind of influence like what we have seen with the current administration.
The MSM has followed Trump through this whole Cruz charade. Tomorrow they will give Hillary lots of time to dump on Trump for what he said about NATO and Erdogan.
When are people going to start asking Trump some serious foreign policy questions? Trump doesn’t realize that the foreign press will be hanging on every misstep he makes. And the lazy b*stard has probably never read a book about foreign politics in his life. If he is elected, I’ll be tempted to send Pence a few cartons of duct tape for Trump’s mouh to keep him from starting a war.
We have been through almost 8 years of a president who doesn’t honor commitments and shhots his mouth off. Anyone who thinks things will be better after 4 years of Trump is a fool.
Yancey Ward:
You write:
I’m not lying to myself, and I disagree with you. You don’t read minds and neither do I, but I most definitely think that Cruz was NOT saying that. I actually think that Cruz is a good wordsmith and he meant exactly what he said, which was vote your conscience, and for the person you believe will defend freedom and the constitution.
Now, of course neither of the candidates will do that, but I don’t think Cruz meant to speak in absolute terms, but rather in relative terms. I actually think he himself might vote for Trump, with great great reluctance, as the person more likely to defend those things. And if you don’t think Trump is more likely to defend those things than Hillary is, there probably isn’t any reason to vote for him.
If I vote for Trump it will be for that exact reason: because as awful, disgusting, reprehensible as he is, he may be the one of the two who is most likely to defend those things.
And Cruz may vote for him too—and he was telling people if they believe that, to vote for Trump. He couldn’t say “vote for him” because Trump is a disgusting POS, not to put too fine a phrase on it. But he said what he said, and I believe he meant what he said and said what he meant.
I agree with you and I think the convention goers made themselves look bad. Cruz was classy and right.
Now I’ll go read your comments
“By the way, Trump threatened to break his pledge for much less.” – Neo
Naw. trump was just “nagosheeaytin”!
Every oath is taken in a context. We can debate the details of what that context is, but, roughly speaking, it has to do with what the set of ideas that GOP is supposed to represent.
Supporting a leader who is so far afield from what Cruz (and we) understood that the party stood for, is a game changer, as it destroys the context for that oath.
All that is aside from the flawed character that is trump, but the combination makes the “not-hillary” argument rather meaningless on several dimensions.
OM-I don’t follow.
Bill-I do not personally know anyone who wants to deport immigrants here legally. I personally would support a moratorium on immigration from parts of the world that are in current upheaval due to the Islamists. There is just no way to profile and thereby protect American citizens.
@Bill
“Do you know a single conservative who wants to deport Muslims who are here legally based on an unconstitutional religious test?”
Me. There are a lot of muslims who were allowed into this country based on our false belief that islam is just a religion but who are actually working as agents for foreign islamic governments to install sharia law here in the US (longterm) and undermine the US and the US constitution. I’d love to see them kicked out.
Neo–I also see it exactly as you do with regard to what Ted Cruz said and also disagree with Yancey Ward’s assessment.
Trump is a perfect match for the typical Allinsky smear and demonize campaign that the Democrats always run.
Trump _is_ all about the Alinsky smear and demonize campaign, and he did a really thorough job of it with Ted Cruz.
This is what bothers me. We’ve reached a point where people believe the only way to combat the left is to act like them.
Trump reflects the decision by Republicans is that the only way we can deal with the sleazy practices of the left is to adopt their sleazy practices. This is why I do not support Trump. He is so much like Obama and other lefties I cannot stand that it makes my blood boil.
A Trump presidency is a disaster in the making. However, odds are, it would be less of a disaster for most US citizens than a Hillary presidency. Thanks to the American public, that’s the choice we have: really bad or even worse. Hence, vote anti-Hillary even if you have to hold your nose for the goat-choking stench of having to vote for Trump to do it.
Cruz seriously has balls. No other politician in a similar circumstance would have shown up. Trump is probably one of the few public figures who would have walked on the stage even made a speech – and he would’ve said things worthy of a 12-year-old on the playground to get even, because that’s his mentality, maturity and ability level. To have backed Trump would have made Cruz a sell-out, since Trump doesn’t possess a single real conservative trait.
All Trump is, is pent-up anger at the GOP for not doing a better job of stopping Obama’s rampage. All he will accomplish is a generation of Democrat tyranny after imploding the GOP, the only entity that even hampers Democrats.
Even so, he’s STILL that much better than Hillary.
“I try not to conflate what I wish were true, with what is true. I choose to live in reality…. I believe (Congress) will arise, should Trump exert any kind of influence like what we have seen with the current administration. – Sharon
That is still a hope. If one goes by what we see today, the GOP folded under trump – no doubt about it, all out of political self interest.
Perhaps you are hoping for / expecting a Dem House and Senate?
Once elected, trump is beholding to no one, unless he is all show, and chumps out. That is his image. That is his mindset, that he hates to have challenged.
Trading one corrupt liar for another is not getting us anywhere we need.
There are other choices.
Dear Conceptor, Your blood may boil off into the infinite vacuum of outer space but, alas, Trump is right about the way to combat the left.
@ConceptJunkie
“We’ve reached a point where people believe the only way to combat the left is to act like them.”
In all of history, has anything else worked? It’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight if you don’t.
PS Unless you consider “winning” to include the total, eventual collapse of a leftwing society like Venezuela right now.
BigMag asserts: There are other choices.
Nope.
One thing I don’t understand.
If you make a pledge to support someone… then subsequent events are that the someone sullies your name by calling you a liar and attacks your wife’s looks and your father’s actions falsely….
oh why do I even have to type this. What the trump supporters have done is ENSURE I WON’T vote for Trump. Because they are without reason.
You can’t honor a pledge to support someone where subsequent events bring that contract to null and void.
And, essentially all you Trump supporters are saying (as Newt) said, is that Trump won’t support and defend the constitution.
You care more about being “mean” than the constitution.
I care about truth and accuracy. Ted inserted a qualifier which ALL OF you Trump supporters fell for. 🙂
I agree with Neo, Cruz handled it right. Whatever happens, he will be well positioned for 2020.
I have made up my mind to vote Trump, and I believe he will win.
We all know how Hillary would govern. Enough said on that subject.
In truth we can only guess at what Trump will do, and the predictions span the gamut from the second Mussolini to the second Reagan and all points in-between.
Cornheads comparison to the WWE and Trump is spot on. Trump has turned the political arena into the greatest show on earth.
AesopFan points to the Stuart Schneiderman post, in which he discusses the likelihood that Trump simply wants to be Prez, and would delegate the actual running of things to people like Pence, Christie, Gingrich and the like. This sounds about right.
Hold on tight, it’s going to be “interesting”.
In all of history, has anything else worked?
Well, yeah. Reagan did a stunning job of winning the Cold War and he never devolved into Alinskyism.
I believe the conservative philosophy of adherence to constitutional separation of powers, limited governance, responsibility, etc is a winning message. It’s just been forever since we’ve had anyone capable of delivering it.
If we have to, like the left, politicize everything in life, count me out. The “win” is not worth winning
If we have to, like the left, adore authoritarian strong-man type leaders, count me out. That’s not a win worth winning either.
If the only way to beat the left is to become the left, egad, what are we doing?
I don’t believe that’s the only way. But Trump’s rise tells me that I’m in the minority there.
We have been through almost 8 years of a president who doesn’t honor commitments and shoots his mouth off. Anyone who thinks things will be better after 4 years of Trump is a fool.
expat: I agree.
I keep waiting for Trump to prove Hillary wrong in her assessment of him, especially with regard to foreign policy:
Unfortunately, his interview yesterday with the NY Times did nothing to dispel that assessment, only reinforced it.
“Ted inserted a qualifier which ALL OF you Trump supporters fell for.”
Actually, what one element that defeated Cruz way back when was his overweening tendency to lawyer his way into and out of difficulty. People start to dislike the lawyering of language (What the meaning of is is.) at this point.
On the other hand this may just be Cruz’s way of perfectly positioning himself for the 2020 nomination by lighting himself on fire now and getting that over with.
“”il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”
Bill – you must live in a different universe than I.
Judges — Donald has designated strong constitutionalist judges from Supreme Court nominations. Why do you think he doesn’t mean it?
Immigration — you have bought the Democrat/MSM line conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration. Again, why? (I guess Nikki Hayley and Bobby Jindal didn’t get the memo about how we hate immigrants.)
Of course we can’t spend money forever — but we can spend it for a long, long, time.
National control of police — see https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/ — and of course, that’s just the first step.
NATO is completely disorganized and demoralized at this point for lack of American leadership. Trump has said he might not support NATO countries who don’t live up to their commitments on military spending. Whoa, you mean in an agreement BOTH sides have to live up to their commitments? I’m shocked! SHOCKED!
As far as Putin is concerned, it’s certainly possible to admire someone for strength, strategy, and doing what he thinks is best for his country, and still consider him to be a threat. I’m sure you know that Churchill, when asked how he could praise Stalin, said, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would rise in the House of Commons to make a few complimentary remarks about the Devil.”
Donald scares you a lot more than Hillary on foreign affairs? Hillary exposes all the information relating to national defense that passes through her e-mails to the world’s hackers, private and state-controlled, lies about it, gets the FBI and the Justice Department to take a dive on indicting her, and Donald scares you more? Hillary comes up with a plan to overthrow Kaddafi after he has been scared enough by Bush to give up his nuclear program, and then botches it and blows Libya to hell, and Donald scares you more? Hillary starts “negotiations” with Iran which end in what Trump calls (and everybody with half a brain agrees is) “the worst deal in American history” and Donald scares you more?
Defending Hillary’s acumen in foreign affairs is just a non-starter.
Maybe Trump will only succeed in changing the course of the ship of state 10 degrees to starboard, but that’s 100 degrees difference from the Evil Empress’s 90 degrees to port. That’s good enough for this old Barry Goldwater conservative.
As Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
Oops!
Judges – Donald has designated strong constitutionalist judges
fromfor Supreme Court nominations.Well, once again, I have proved I don’t know how tags work. I mean, “Judges – Donald has designated strong constitutionalist judges for Supreme Court nominations.”
vanderleun,
Cruz’s message was clear.
Is your intent that the constitution isn’t supported?
I’m an IT person. IF THEN statements are part of programming and every day language. 🙂
Richard – again, I think she’s awful. But I also don’t think she’s an evil genius. You think I’m naive and I’m OK with that. I think you’re underestimating the destructive force of Trump.
Judges – Donald has designated strong constitutionalist judges from Supreme Court nominations. Why do you think he doesn’t mean it?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Sorry, sorry. That was rude. Look – Donald Trump is a transparent liar, is not by nature a conservative, and is engaged in a long con to win the presidency. He is a liar and a bully. I don’t like liars and bullies and can’t support him.
No, I don’t believe him. He lies about nearly everything. Even when he doesn’t have to. Big lies, small lies. It doesn’t matter.
He might nominate better judges than Hillary (of course, if the GOP doesn’t hold the senate it won’t matter – DJT, though, is OK with being a “free agent”)
I’m neverTrump, neverHillary. He’ll have to win without my little vote.
@Bill
Reagan basically helped a communist country, the USSR, into bankruptcy (both economic and political). He never fought the USSR straight out (although he prepared for it).
Anyway,we are talking about something quite different, viz., a fight between forces for control of one country.
Irene
My point was that the Left in this country didn’t want Reagan to do what he did, on so many fronts (Not just the Cold War). They used all the Alinsky tactics of ridicule, etc on him. Didn’t work. He was the better communicator, had the better vision, and conducted himself Presidentially, with grace, style, honor, etc. He wasn’t perfect, but he accomplished a lot and re-routed us onto a better, more conservative path as a nation.
In other words, he beat the left without having to be Trump-like. It’s possible.
Cruz’s finest hour. I was afraid he was just a show-off and manipulator, but he’s really got some steel in him. And if you think he was rude, you should be commending John Kasich for his politeness in just staying away. (I seem to remember a number of comments here about how Kasich was angling for VP.)
Trump has ruined a generation of political talent. Who’s going to forget all those people being personally insulted in such a demeaning fashion, then signing on to kiss up?
And if you really believe in a limited government and a balanced budget, why on earth would you vote for Donald Trump? Vote for Gary Johnson. With Paul Ryan as Speaker, we might make some progress there.
Neo,
If that is what Cruz meant, then he needed to make it explicit, or leave it out altogether. “Vote your conscience” had a specific meaning for NeverTrump- it is precisely the justification phrase used for changing the delegate rules prior to the convention in order to deny Trump the nomination in the first place. To use it again in how to vote in November is too clever by half, especially to a politically savvy crowd composed of actual delegates.
This is why I think he shouldn’t have spoken at all, especially given that Trump apparently knew from Cruz himself that there would be no endorsement. This is a speech he would have better delivered to almost any other audience.
I won’t pass judgment on Trump’s response until the speech tonight. I am worried, based on some of the tweets, that Trump will handle it ineptly, but I am hopeful.
BTW, I’ve said this before. Haven’t commented much here lately. But I can’t tell my grandchildren that I voted for Trump. Why? It has nothing to do with his inability to be articulate. It has to do with his behavior. He’ll go on insulting Heidi Klum for her looks or whomever and I’m supposed to say I’ll vote for him?
Really?
Do you want to know the real winner in this election? Personal responsibility 🙂 Yep. Those with personal responsibility will move forward.
Those who make currency playing the victim (as Milo says) will fall backwards.
If that is what Cruz meant, then he needed to make it explicit, or leave it out altogether. “Vote your conscience” had a specific meaning for NeverTrump- it is precisely the justification phrase used for changing the delegate rules prior to the convention in order to deny Trump the nomination in the first place.
I’m not bothered by people who call evil good, and good evil.
Even if the Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists call themselves Christians, it’s not something I need to recognize or accept or Obey.
Having a conscience and making votes via one’s free will and agency, was something I and others already had. Before Trump won the primary as a result of deals with Clinton Ross Perot style.
This is why I think he shouldn’t have spoken at all, especially given that Trump apparently knew from Cruz himself that there would be no endorsement.
Making fun of Trump’s impotent threat that he would bar Cruz from the RNConvention without an endorsement has value in and of itself. How else are Trump supporters going to hold his feet to the fire, when they crown him Emperor of the USA? I am certainly going to hold his voters feet to the fire, and make them Accountable, personally.
Baklava–Personal responsibility? You don’t work in construction in Los Angeles. It now takes 1 + years and plenty of money to get a permit to work on your own home. And that’s just for starters. Keep giving the “progressives” the reigns of power and the bureaucracy (already upside-down) will crush and destroy all efforts at personal responsibility. It’s bigger than personalities, that’s why we need to come to the aid of the structure. Either the Founders gave us an institution that can facilitate correction or they didn’t. (The other 2 branches reigning in the Executive power.) This isn’t a dictatorship (yet).
There’s an interesting take on this kerfuffle at Red State: Ted Cruz Had His Vito Corleone Moment; Trump And The RNC Hate It Didn’t Backfire
My favorite part – when Cruz said to vote your conscience, up and down the ballot, for those who share your values and support the Constitution, why did the Trump supporters have a cow? Is it because they know that Trump doesn’t fit either of those?
Keep giving the “progressives” the reigns of power and the bureaucracy (already upside-down) will crush and destroy all efforts at personal responsibility.
Staying inside the evil of California is giving your resources to evil. That’s not Trump or Bush or whatever’s fault.
That’s what personal responsibility really means, it means exercising your free will and agency, to resist Evil. Staying inside California and complaining about it, isn’t exercising resistance to evil.
Also, a PJ Media article reminded me of something I forgot. In 1976, Reagan gave a speech at the convention about conservative values but did not endorse Gerald Ford.
Actually, what one element that defeated Cruz way back when was his overweening tendency to lawyer his way into and out of difficulty. People start to dislike the lawyering of language (What the meaning of is is.) at this point.
In interpret this to mean Vander knows Cruz is more clever, but can’t do anything about it, absent a shooting war. That, however, isn’t a mark against Cruz, nor is Vander going to take a bullet for Trump as a result of that issue either.
geokstr:
See my most recent post, above this one.
Yes … yes, I basically agree. He was the one doing the personal attacks, and who brought the level down with a kind of boss-punk puerility not usually seen in politics at this level.
And it was conscious, and deliberate, and seemed (as I have said myself before) to appeal by and large to a section of the electorate that was not made up of principled conservatives but of resentful and to some extent marginally educated middle class Democrats who had a problem not with the goddamned welfare state, but with its being taken away from them and bestowed on others.
All of that is true. And notwithstanding that, it seems that there was an opportunity for Trump to follow-up on his intimations that there was a time almost past, for campaigning New York style (or whatever style that was supposed to be) and a time for showing his presumably more presidential face. That is, if he has one – as I also in the comment your quote from, leave as an open question.
To be plain: I think Trump is a shit. But I think that Hillary represents a greater threat to the survival of constitutional principles than does Trump, simply because, as I have also stated explicitly before, both conservatives and liberals will line up against him when he oversteps, whereas when Madame Stalin does so, no one will.
So, the Comb-over Blowhard and his Dodge Ram fanboy assholes, are in my considered opinion, a lesser threat to the rule of law, and the republic, than is that murderous Stalinist SheDevil and her soulless black-eyed [Sid Blumenthal] stop at nothing minions.
Perhaps this will seem too temperate and hopeful to some; but I tend to look for the light wherever I can find it.
Maybe Trump will only succeed in changing the course of the ship of state 10 degrees to starboard, but that’s 100 degrees difference from the Evil Empress’s 90 degrees to port. That’s good enough for this old Barry Goldwater conservative.
As Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
The Left knows they are in a war. Do you, Richard Saunders?
Because the Left is in a war, but you are not, they will consider ensuring Trump doesn’t reach DC with his head attached to his body.
If you wish to wage war against the Leftist alliance, you will have to think of strategies more encompassing than merely getting rid of HRC. The LEft has dictators a thousand times worse than Hussein and Clinton put together. They also have more than a thousand replacements.
@Bill
Yes, he had to fight a really horrific left (remember the leftists in England, they were vicious!) who aligned themselves with the USSR. But my point is more that Reagan never had to lower himself in his presidential bids because his opponents were President Carter and Walter Mondale, neither of whom were utilizing Alinskyite tactics.
I think Cornhead has understated the matter.
Clinton delenda est.
Baklava:
Heidi CRUZ, not Heidi KLUM.
It’s Trump who’s married to the model 🙂 .
By the way, you might want to read my new post right above this one.
So, the Comb-over Blowhard and his Dodge Ram fanboy assholes, are in my considered opinion, a lesser threat to the rule of law, and the republic, than is that murderous Stalinist SheDevil and her soulless black-eyed [Sid Blumenthal] stop at nothing minions.
Trump is a 70 yo Democrat. While there may have been a few reasons to divide Republicans and Democrats over certain differences, the people who said the two parties are one and the same, may actually be accurate now, like a broken clock. If a 70 yo Democrat can become the Presidential nominee for the Republican party… well, why not.
HRC is not the only thing evil on the Leftist alliance. The Entire Alliance is going to be a problem for you. That includes Everyone in It. As for Demoncrats, they are all responsible for the evil they helped bring along. Including the Trumps.
Neo,
That’s just it. He insulted BOTH Cruz and Klum.
I’m so done with Trump. They are both human beings and women who deserve better treatment than that.
Sharon wrote: You don’t work in construction in Los Angeles. It now takes 1 + years and plenty of money to get a permit to work on your own home.
Sounds like you have an LA issue. Move out of LA or get your local LA issues changed!
But if you think I’ll vote for Donald because of your LA issue you are wrong.
There is only one thing you can change and that is your own words and actions. If through your words and actions you can’t change LA’s rules then move.
Honestly. That was poor logic. I’m telling you something tragic. I cannot tell my grandchildren (which I have two so far) that I voted for Trump.
Get that?
Do you get that?
The winner this election? Personal Responsibility?
Do you get that?
Baklava:
My goodness, really? I seem to have missed that.
What’s he got against Klum?
More importantly, what’s he got against Heidis? Next it will be the little girl with the goats who gets his goat–
Neo,
Trump badmouthed Heidi Klum, too.
He’s equal-opportunity that way.
Brian Swisher:
See my comment right above yours.
Well. I googled it and found too many links to find you the right one. There were links at HuffingtinPost and LA Times and everyone reported the Klum comments…. but it was not even necessary. It was gross because it showed lack of focus I’ve never seen before.
Baklava–Our family and business (58 years) is here. Point being that Los Angeles (California for that matter) is a great example of what happens when “progressives” run things over the long haul. Coming to a city and state near you. My granddaughter (born $30,000 in debt, 6 years old now $70,000 in debt–generational theft on steroids) is the reason I’m voting for Trump. As I stated, with the hope that the Republic functions as founded. Perhaps I’m misreading your comment, but it seems hostile. Can we agree to disagree respectfully?
Don’t ask Washington D.C. to swoop in and solve LA’s homeless or permit problems.
As a long time resident (58 years) sounds like you’ve been asleep. Did you just wake up? It is not logical to expect Washington D.C. to fix that, Detroit or do much more than the Constitution allows for which is the defense of this nation, forming treaties, etc.
As for being born in debt, I don’t know how somebody who can’t be a human being insulting every Heidi on the left and right side of the Mississippi can have your confidence.
Vote up and down the ticket. Ensure Kamala Harris doesn’t win. Ensure you make the Senate and the House stop whoever is in the White House.
I can agree to disagree respectfully. I just don’t know where LA permitting issues makes me have to vote Trump.
You seemed hostile to personal responsibility.
That’s the winner this election. I’m preparing my family as best as I can. I’m voting up and down the ticket.
Baklava-As I commented in the other thread, you have it exactly backwards. L.A. is an example of where things will go nationally w/a Hillary presidency. And you don’t know a thing about me, so insulting my sense of personal responsibility is below the belt. With that kind of interchange, I’m surprised you’re not a Trump supporter.
I don’t associate with people who stock up currency in victimology.
You had “personal responsibility” as the first two words with a question mark in your first post to me.
Yes. Personal responsibility will win. Not victimology which is what you are doing now. Have a great time in LA.
Sharon W
“My granddaughter (born $30,000 in debt, 6 years old now $70,000 in debt—generational theft on steroids) is the reason I’m voting for Trump.”
I too am very concerned about the debt. I think we’ll rack up even more under Hillary (although, to give him just a slight amount of credit, her less leftist husband did preside over a balanced budget [no, I never voted for him and I credit the loyal opposition Republicans for helping make that happen])
Honest question: what has Trump ever said that makes you believe he won’t spend just as recklessly as Hillary?
Baklava-Sorry if that came across as offensive. Never intended to. My point was once the bureaucracy comes in (and under Hillary Federal government will grow), personal responsibility isn’t allowed. Just look at taxes. The government acts as though they are our parents and they will determine how much of our income we can keep–like an allowance. I do not buy into victimhood either and you are wrong to assume that I do.
Bill – yes, Hillary is evil – a genius, no, but consummately cunning. Selling favors to foreign countries for money? Evil. Lying to the families of the dead of Benghazi? Evil. Then calling the families liars for calling her on that. That is not just evil, that is the most despicable act I have ever seen a public figure do. I would vote against her for that one reason alone.
Donald Trump is a low, crude, crass, ill-informed, infantile, narcissistic asshole, but compared to Hillary, he’s “the Diet Coke of evil. Only one calorie — not evil enough!”
Ymarsakar — that’s a joke, right? I’ve known we were in a war with the Left since I was 16 years old, working on the Goldwater campaign, and I’m a few months shy of Trump’s age now. Just like the 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions had to block the Germans before we could get the 82nd Airborne and the 3rd Army into action at the Bulge, we have to hold the line against the Evil Empress with the Donald until we can get some better troops into the battle. THEN we can go on the offensive.
Irene — Did I miss something? Was Ronald Reagan running? Was anybody like Ronald Reagan running? No? Then we go with what we have.
Baklava Says:
July 21st, 2016 at 5:32 pm
Sharon’s point is that she doesn’t want DC under Hillary RodDamn evil Clinton to come in and make it worse.
My point, in the next thread over, was that California is already fallen and corrupting, nothing DC can do about it. Can they make it worse? Maybe. Worse than a business deciding to stay in California? Probably not.
Take advantage of America’s open state borders while you can. Because I can almost guarantee it won’t last.
Then calling the families liars for calling her on that. That is not just evil, that is the most despicable act I have ever seen a public figure do.
Yes, that was awful
I would vote against her for that one reason alone.
Me too. I’m not voting for her. Where we differ is I’m not voting for him either.
Ymarsakar – that’s a joke, right? I’ve known we were in a war with the Left since I was 16 years old, working on the Goldwater campaign, and I’m a few months shy of Trump’s age now. Just like the 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions had to block the Germans before we could get the 82nd Airborne and the 3rd Army into action at the Bulge, we have to hold the line against the Evil Empress with the Donald until we can get some better troops into the battle. THEN we can go on the offensive.
Doing what on the offensive? Politically and elections wise, Republicans have been on the offense since when, 1856 perhaps.
No, I’m not joking. If you accept that you are war with the Leftist alliance, then how do you plan to break their power? Generalities, no need for secret details.
Bill–Trump has said and done nothing that makes me believe he will not ______(fill in the blank) like Hillary. I am hopeful that Congress and the SC will take a different approach with an unconstitutional, rogue Trump than they would Hillary. Even if the chance is 1%, that is 1% more than I can count on with a Democrat President.
Hold on tight, it’s going to be “interesting”. – Papa Dan
Gosh, that is so not right. Maybe not your intent, but it sounds like someone standing in line to a WWF matchup. There is a level of unseriousness that resonates from describing this election that way.
.
In all of history, has anything else worked? It’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight if you don’t. … PS Unless you consider “winning” to include the total, eventual collapse of a leftwing society like Venezuela right now. – Irene
Bill had the right response…“(Reagan) beat the left without having to be Trump-like. It’s possible.”. And, no, Alinsky tactics are not just some recent phenomenon. I recall the attacks on Reagan. Here is a link from a 1980 article talking about Alinsky tactics and Reagan.
https://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1980dec10-00002
.
I keep waiting for Trump to prove Hillary wrong in her assessment of him, especially with regard to foreign policy: Unfortunately, his interview yesterday with the NY Times did nothing to dispel that assessment, only reinforced it. – Ann
Even though I’ve been rather skeptical, but have been holding out hope to see a turn around. It is just not happening. Never will, and by now is rather too late.
.
As Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” – Richard S
Bad analogy. Rumsfeld f**ked up the war, beholding to a doctrine even when it was failing. Gen Shinseki had the right idea from the start, more troops, but was mocked and ignored, then eventually forced out.
Same thing here. We are so set on GOP vs Dem, that we cannot see that it is a losing proposition from any angle. Since the GOP no longer represent what it used to, we are now stuck in the mode of Green team vs Blue team. The only objective is “our” team wins.
.
Do you want to know the real winner in this election? Personal responsibility… Those with personal responsibility will move forward… Those who make currency playing the victim will fall backwards. – Baklava
In life we can follow the crowd and stick to Green or Blue, waiting for someone to give us a “viable” alternative. This is something of a shifting of responsibility and blame when there are alternatives.
Or, rather than acquiscing and ignoring alternatives, we can take the responsibility in our own hands and make another choice, even if the herd doesn’t follow. It seems this kind of thinking (G vs B) is how the Weimar transitioned into the disaster that succeeded it.
.
“Donald Trump is a low, crude, crass, ill-informed, infantile, narcissistic asshole, but compared to Hillary, he’s “the Diet Coke of evil.”
Not even sure how we come to this assessment. The man lies on things both big and small. We just DON’T and CANNOT know where he will go with the power of the presidency in his hands. To assume that he is benign is irresponsible.
There is a moral question in all this – just how bad does a GOP candidate have to be that we each “couldn’t” vote for them against a clinton? By my observation, from the many arguments given here and elsewhere on the web, even a would-be Hitler himself (though he wouldn’t announce himself as such, we’d have to suss it out ourselves, but a great many seem willing to ignore the obvious) would be acceptable.
.
I am certainly going to hold his voters feet to the fire, and make them Accountable, personally. – Ymarsakar
When we do have alternatives and can reject both these candidates, yes, it seems a vote for trump is something of an acceptance of the risks and consequences he brings.
Sadly, an “I told you so” won’t be of much value, after the fact, and I doubt folks would take the blame vs rationalize themselves out of it, if things go south with trump.
.
both conservatives and liberals will line up against him when he oversteps, whereas when Madame Stalin does so, no one will. – DNW
This seems to be a theme with some of those arguing to vote for trump. Problem is that is merely a hope, not borne out by how events have played out before our eyes these past 12 months. There is a “Resistance is Futile” aspect to how the GOP have behaved, and to much of the discussion surrounding trump vs clinton.
.
“There is no viable alternative to trump to stop clinton, so I acquiesce and declare I will vote for him” is the attitude. BUT, there is no viable alternative BECAUSE folks here are everyday reinforcing their willingness to vote for trump. They are perpetuating the trump train.
Reading elsewhere, it seems to be the same phenomenon on the Dem side, perpetuating clinton.
We are collectively tying our own noose, but nobody will acknowledge that and step away from the rope.
Big Mac-
That was “gallows humor”
“Republicans have been on the offense since when, 1856 perhaps.” – Ymarsakar
It is an eternal war, since these ideas intersect with power.
Some crave the personal benefits of power, and argue with that in mind – they will argue that which helps them acquire and maintain power, or influence over it.
Others dislike the disagreement, convinced they are correct, and want to force their will on others, ostensibly for their own good.
Sadly, there are examples of these on both the right and left, as we’ve learned this election cycle.
@Papa Dan – okay… just seemed too flippant, but that’s on me. Not in a humorous mood I guess.
Gosh, that is so not right. Maybe not your intent, but it sounds like someone standing in line to a WWF matchup. There is a level of unseriousness that resonates from describing this election that way.
Did you miss his likely reference to the Chinese curse? As in “may you live in interesting times”.
Bad analogy. Rumsfeld f**ked up the war, beholding to a doctrine even when it was failing. Gen Shinseki had the right idea from the start, more troops, but was mocked and ignored, then eventually forced out.
Shinigami Shinseki that loaded up veterans on healthcare so they could die horribly while suffering? That Shinseki.
I’ll repost what I told you before, although you continue to fall for Leftist and Demoncrat propaganda.
Shinigami Shinseki was put in charge of the VA, as a personal favor from Hussein Obola. Shinseki then went on to encourage and engineer the poor healthcare of veterans, including needless fatalities. The primary reason why Shinseki wanted more troops in Iraq, was so that more people would come back maimed, so he could say “I told you so” and get his desk job added on. Rumsfeld, who cared about minimizing US casualties, thought otherwise.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/07/20/day-two-of-the-rnc-plus-the-continuing-furor-over-melanias-speech/#comment-1427030
Maybe Big Maq grew up on Democrat and Clinton propaganda about Iraq. Doesn’t mean any of it was true. Not now, not back then.
Harold Says:
July 21st, 2016 at 11:06 am
Cruz is a backstabbing traitor. And I supported him until he dropped out.
Harold had better not have voted for a Democrat in his life. Cause otherwise… it’ll be like a Hussein voter lecturing me about healthcare and the national debt.
@Ymarsakar – I remember well the debate at the time with Gen Shinseki on the Iraq deployment. No doubt Rumsfeld had a good and convincing rationale for his adopted strategy. But, the strategy was wrong from the start.
In 2006, Bush orders a review of the war strategy, then Rumsfeld leaves, and we have a surge where things took a major turn positive by several measures…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/thegamble/timeline/
Now, as far as running the VA, that is another problem, and not sure of Shinseki’s qualifications to run something like that. However, that has nothing to do with war planning, nor speaks to the validity of his recommendations back then.
But, the strategy was wrong from the start.
I’m sure that Democrat Shinseki thought so, but you wouldn’t be able to win the argument on that alone.
However, that has nothing to do with war planning, nor speaks to the validity of his recommendations back then.
Of course it does.
Just as HRC’s pure white innocence about her server points back to her behavior in Benghazi and on Body Armor in Iraq.
In 2006, Bush orders a review of the war strategy, then Rumsfeld leaves, and we have a surge where things took a major turn positive by several measures…
None of that has to do with Rumsfeld leaving. In fact, Cheney brought in Petraeus.
Since they were fighting an insurgency, the national invasion of Iraq that Rumsfeld set up, no longer applied. However, the State Department is not mentioned here. You don’t mention it because the Leftists and Democrats never did. For State were traitors, especially under Powell.
Big Mac — Excuse me? How can you say Rumsfeld fracked up when his strategy won the war. It was over when he left. Unfortunately, because I have tremendous respect for the man, Dubya himself fracked up the war by not sending in an American Military Government to run the country. You don’t let the losers tell you what to do, you tell them what to do. We didn’t relinquish control of Germany until nine years after the war. We occupied and ran Haiti for 19 years. We had 300,000 troops in Germany when I got there in 1970! We know how to do this. We just didn’t, we sent in the State Department instead! I have to place the blame for that on Dubya.
Ymar,
I’m in California also. Came from Virginia in 1994 after my conversion.
It’s a lost situation here.
But personal responsibility has me moving forward and people smoking dope and spending unwisely moving backwards. THis state has the highest poverty rate. LA has hords of homeless and yet liberals retain power here.
@Richard – yep, we took Saddam out, so we “won”… just like the “mission accomplished” sign said.
And, you might recall that Gen Shinseki’s recommendation was with regard to the forces required to secure Iraq “post-war”, given the geography and ethnic tensions…
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm
The surge wasn’t some imaginary final phase of Rumsfeld’s grand plan. It was something new.
.
And the military has a monopoly on how to run government well? Not that anyone who implemented your examples were around to take command in Iraq. Or that Haiti is a comparable example. Anyway, DOD vs State – just a red herring, and who can prove which is better?
BTW, Rumsfeld is a cleaver man. It was just the wrong strategy / plan / doctrine to get Iraq to where it needed to be.
And when someone wants to use one of his (brilliantly worded and memorable) quotes as an analogy, it had better be a good fit.
It was/is not.
On second thought… maybe it is, as many are stuck on the binary paradigm of choice in this election – they see no other options, just as Rumsfeld was married to his doctrine.
Big Maq – Since I KNOW the U.S. military did a very good job running Panama, the Philippines, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, and I KNOW the State Dept. totally screwed up running Iraq, I just come to the conclusion — unwarranted at best, as I’m sure you’ll say — that a military government in Iraq would have done much, much better than the Iraq Reconstruction Authority, or whatever the hell its name was.
Not a hope: an expectation based on both how the left has been demonstrated to react to virtually anything a Republican executive does, as well as how significant numbers of conservative and libertarian leaning Republicans have stood on principle to resist the DC political machine.
Might it be futile? Yeah, possibly; perhaps even likely. But not as certainly futile as voting for Johnson and Bill Weld.
If they were creative however, they might actually use their platform, or positions, on abortion and legalized drugs to drain some Sanders supporters away from defaulting to Hillary.
LA has hords of homeless and yet liberals retain power here.
Silicon Valley and Hollywood pumps California up. Evil supporting evil, who would have thought.
Their “capitalist” dystopia the Left likes to disparage about Reagan’s so called trickle down economics… funny that they were talking about their own robber barons. Google has to BuS in their employees from LA and San Fran. In convoys. Shaded bus windows. Mad Max style even. I talked to a few programmers and such who work over Silicon Valley. They find it hilarious, because it is true.
Richard Saunders Says:
July 22nd, 2016 at 4:27 am
I concur with the bit about State Department. But that’s because Powell was in charge of it. When Condi Rice and some state ambassadors worked with Petraeus, such as Crocker, things got much better. Petraeus didn’t turn over Iraq in 2006 via COIN alone. He had State Department help. Or at least, State had no active orders to sabotage Iraq any more. Like the IRS though, they tend to be pro active. Like the ATF in Fast and Furious and Waco, they tend to be “pro-active”, strangely so depending on who their politicians are.
Anyway, DOD vs State — just a red herring, and who can prove which is better?
BTW, Rumsfeld is a cleaver man. It was just the wrong strategy / plan / doctrine to get Iraq to where it needed to be.-BM
I get to decide who is better or not. Why? Because I’m not your peasant or vassal, you ain’t Bush II’s enforcer nor Hussein’s enforcer. You talking about “can’t decide” only applies to your limited sphere of knowledge, based on Leftist propaganda that would tend to follow.
If Rumsfeld was clever, he would have replaced Diversity Casey with Petraeus, but that was Bush’s call to make. Cheney finally convinced Bush II. And no, Petraeus didn’t “replace Rumsfeld”, which is what you are trying to imply here, BM.
On second thought… maybe it is, as many are stuck on the binary paradigm of choice in this election — they see no other options, just as Rumsfeld was married to his doctrine.
Do you know why that was false? No, you actually don’t know, do you.
So I’ll state it here right now. Rumsfeld was not married to his doctrine because Rumsfeld wanted to resign several times, but Bush told him to stay. Rumsfeld also didn’t try to reject Petraeus, it was Bush’s decision politically to keep State and Diversity Casey in charge. That was a mismanagement of vassals from a King’s perspective, from 2001-2004.
So when people like you say Rumsfeld was married to his doctrine… that’s because your analysis abilities are near Zero compared to mine. Says who? Says me. Not Rumsfeld. Not Petraeus. Not any of your jack in the box idiots in DC.
You may “remember” stuff from 2003 Iraq, but all the stuff you know and thought came from Leftist propaganda, loyal adherents of the Democrat plan to get Americans killed just like HRC got them killed in Benghazi. Just as Hussein laughed about Americans being tortured and killed. You are guilty of supporting the same, BM. The Democrat Shinseki’s plan wasn’t to save American lives or to win a war, it was to perform a service to his real bosses.
The surge wasn’t some imaginary final phase of Rumsfeld’s grand plan. It was something new.
Btw, the propaganda that Shinseki and Petraeus had the same COIN plan which saved Iraq… even I have no idea where you are with that one.
“Not a hope: an expectation based on both how the left has been demonstrated to react to virtually anything a Republican executive does” – DNW
Well, if the world reacted the same old way we’ve always seen it react, trump would not be the nominee.
This time is different. trump is different. The electorate is different.
Assumptions like yours are as much a hope as someone saying that trump cannot win.
We are fooling ourselves if we refuse to be clear headed about the risk that comes with trump.
(Almost missed this response. Need to put my moniker on it when you quote me.)