Featured Post

Why I Will Vote for Trump

On June 7, I will vote in the California primary. I will vote for Donald Trump to become the GOP nominee for President. This statement will ...

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

GOP Better Get Its Act Together

Ok, Ok, already. I don't really know. If I have engaged in "microaggressions" or violated somebody's "safe space" just insert, "I don't really know" every time you read something of mine below with which you disagree. The "I" in that phrase, by the way, refers to me, not you, dear reader.

Let's look at the state of politics in our beleaguered nation.

Super Tuesday. Was it really that "Super"? I don't know. The highly-paid media pundits seem to think so, and the Twitterverse is on fire about it, so, then, who am I to say otherwise? Nobody, that's who. That, of course, doesn't stop me from saying my piece.

On the Democratic side, Gangster Hillary won seven contests and Comrade Bernie won four. Has Hillary got the nomination locked up? Seems so, but . . . the phrase, the phrase . . . I assume that some time in the process, the FBI will get to vote on Hillary, and that might affect how things turn out . . . the phrase, please, the phrase. Emailgate doesn't seem to be going away . . . but, yes, you know what to put here . . .

On the GOP side, things seem even more confused. Did Trump and his seven victories put it away for him on this Super Tuesday? Does either Cruz or Rubio have a viable path to the nomination? Insert the phrase. The pundits seem to be saying "yes" to the first and "no" to the second, but . . . .

I refuse to predict who will get the nomination on the GOP side, and have tossed my poorly functioning Made-in-China crystal ball into the recycle bin (because, of course, I love Gaia, polar bears, and snail darters.)

My concern is more deep than just who gets the Republican nod next July in Cleveland.

I am worried by the savagery with which Republicans, candidates and supporters, are going at each other. This is not good. Look, I know the GOP leaves a lot to be desired, and have written about that (here and here, for example.) I thought the Tea Party rebellion was a great thing and the tragedy was that the clueless GOP establishment did not take it seriously enough or managed to co-opt it instead of the other way round, as I naively had hoped. Some Tea Party stars, e.g. Senator Rubio, and even Governor Palin, let the side down, plain and simple. The GOP has done nothing with its Congressional majority exempt give in to Obama and his media echo chamber. I grant you all that.

The fact, remains, however, unless we go through a Whig-like destruction of the GOP and the rebirth of a new viable party, those of us opposed to the insanity that has become the Democratic Party have one option. Our system is just not construed for third parties, certainly not on a national basis. The Democrats are a threat to our national survival. There. It is that simple. Their economic, foreign, defense, immigration, and "social justice" policies have but one end result--no crystal ball needed. I refer, of course, to the end of the United States as a powerful, prosperous, and free country. The destruction is already far advanced; look back over the wreckage of the past 7-plus years of Democratic rule and tell me you disagree. Think Detroit. In addition, of course, as I have mentioned before (here) the Democrats are going to conduct electoral fraud on an unprecedented level; rest assured, the polls will be crowded with non-US citizens voting unchallenged.

Can a GOP victory reverse this? It's possibly a start, maybe, insert the phrase. Look, I do not know if Trump, Cruz, or Rubio will be a great or a lousy president. I do know--no crystal ball needed--that four to eight years of Hillary will be a disaster, the tipping point will be reached.

For that reason I will support the GOP nominee. The current debate within the GOP makes it increasingly difficult for the GOP to win. The brutal personal assaults are leaving all sorts of ammo and weapons on the floor which the Dems will pick up. We need to take it down a notch or two, or we will have yet another disaster in November.


  1. Not sure I agree.

    As a distant observer, brutal exchanges during the primaries seem to be par for the course; look at Obama and HC in 2008.

    The real questions are whether Trump will make a peace with the GOP establishment (and there are signs today that he is softening his rhetoric for that reason; and Murdoch has come out to say the GOP would be mad not to support Trump if he locks up the nomination), whether the GOP establishment will accept the inevitable, and a peace of sorts, and support him over HC, or, far worse, they decide that they can buy what they want from HC in the White House.

    It all rests with the people who will lose or suffer diminished influence with a Trump nomination. What is clear at the moment is that the GOP voters don't rate a consideration for the GOP establishment, which is precisely why they are in this predicament.

    1. Robert of OttawaMarch 2, 2016 at 8:41 PM

      What is clear at the moment is that the GOP voters don't rate a consideration for the GOP establishment, which is precisely why they are in this predicament.

      Nailed in one!

    2. Trump cannot change character. If he does win the nomination, here's the bumper-sticker I suggest:


    3. Elections are always about the lesser evil.

    4. For most of American history, not literally the lesser evil.

  2. Agreed. I don't trust Trump. He says the right things, but has no history to back them up. But, he can only be as bad as Clinton. And if he follows through on any of his promises will be much better. I'd rather it be Cruz, but will vote for the GOP candidate.

  3. I will still vote for the rest of the Republicans running in my area(Colorado) but not Trump. Trump's party affiliation has changed over the years. Until 1987, he was a Democrat; then he was a Republican from 1987 to 1999. He then switched to the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001. After a presidential exploratory campaign with the Reform Party, he wrote an OpEd in the New York Times stating that he was leaving the Reform Party because of the involvement of "David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep." From 2001 to 2009 he was a Democrat again;[3] he switched to the Republican Party again from 2009 to 2011.[3] An independent from 2011 to 2012, he returned to the Republican Party in 2012, where he has remained.

    1. Robert of OttawaMarch 2, 2016 at 8:26 PM

      Trump's party affiliation has changed over the years

      Well, so did Churchill's. What's your point?

      For 8 years, Republicans have been running "conservative" but, even with a majority in both houses, give Obama and the left everything they want. So, espousing "conservative principals" isn't a litmus test either.

      How about the RNC recognize several facts, instead of hysterically screaming that Trump will lose to Clinton.

      1. Trump is drawing support from all demographics.
      2. Republican turnout is at record highs in the primaries, while democrat turnout is hitting big lows (if one can have a big low).
      3. Trump is speaking of things forbidden the political class. He isn't a politician and the people like that because they have had enough of politicians - especially those who tell them how to live and behave but not perform the basic functions of government, such as border enforcement.

      As an aside: I've heard vegetarians state that Jesus was a vegetarian; no he wasn't but Hitler was. I use this example illuminate the level of discussion I hear propagated by the media, even here in Canada.

    2. Let's see how Trump does in closed primaries where you have to be a registered Republican to vote. If he carries those, he's for real and the GOP better start getting used to it.

    3. It's possible the Donald Would have fared even better if he had decided to run for president as a Democrat. Given his history, and even some of his current positions on the issues, the choice of party could have been just about a coin toss for him last year. And if he's as tough as his supporters think he is, he may have even been able to face down the Dems' social justice warriors.

      Alternate reality: Some would thank Trump for bringing the Democratic Party back from the abyss and to something resembling sanity once again. (And it would have been really, really entertaining to see a Trump-Hillary cage match.)

      Well, at least one can fantasize in the midst of all this craziness.

    4. No, he was a registered Republican from 1969 to at least 1985. The Village Voice once did an article twitting him for how infrquently he voted, which included a photostat of his buff card.

    5. Robert, GOP turnout apparently beats previous years even subtracting Trump.

      Also, you may not be aware that Trump was recently claiming to not know who David Duke was after being endorsed by David Duke.


  4. I rather it be Cruz as well. Perhaps he pulls it out in the remaining primaries. However, I have to say, Sanders would be worse than Hillary. Hillary is a graft machine and would work in the furtherance of graft. She would belong to the donor class, and remain fairly moderate as to not upset the money train. Of course foreign policy would suffer worse than it does under the current administration, but Sandy Berger is dead, so he won't be getting his old job back. So it might be tolerable. But Sanders, he would drive the economy into depths not seen since 1929. He would actively work to destroy wealth and success. The best that would happen with Bernie is stagnation. The worst would be total collapse of our economy. His proposal to tax securities transactions. Oh his supporters love it, tax the rich they say. I think of my 401k and retirement funds all invested into mutual funds. Which every time a trade is made, part of those proceeds are taxed, and margin per trade has to be higher to over come the tax. This will stagnate the markets. People will turn to hard investments and gold will go from through the roof off into the stratosphere. Bernie's minimum wage requirements would result in much increased unemployment and the evaporation of "Entry Level" positions. Bernie rewarding those with loan forgiveness and "Free everything" will encourage slothful behavior in society. Why work, when I can just sit here in my subsidized apartment, receive my food rations, and enjoy a life of sloth. To a Bernie supporter, that is a dream come true. Even worse, is that the stress of the office will likely take more years than a 2 pack a day habit on Bernie and his VP could be worse, eg Stalin.

    1. The only way Bernie is the nominee is if Clinton gets indicted and the Democrats fail to sub Biden.

    2. Robert of OttawaMarch 2, 2016 at 8:57 PM

      Bernie is a sock puppet candidate.

    3. Nope. Bernie's his own man. I think the problem for Bernie is that the states where Hellary had an advantage were front-loaded, and that may generate a bandwagon effect for her candidacy. She was losing ground steadily in national surveys from mid-December to mid-February and Sanders was just behind her and beginning to register in the lead in outlier surveys.

  5. "As a distant observer, brutal exchanges during the primaries seem to be par for the course; look at Obama and HC in 2008."

    Actually, through an All-American 70+yo lens, GOP primary fights have been comparatively tame over the decades. The Democrats however have been known to engage in scorched earth National politics, and leave their candidates as just so much damaged goods by Election Day. Twas only in recent times methinks, with the ascendancy of an unaccountable GOP elite leadership, and their deployment of primary campaign kill tactics, that the Grand Old Party has shown the bad taste to consume their base! Not too surprising that the rank n' file Indians in response, called for a Tea Party, and now a NEW and different type of CHIEF! Do agree with our host that the GOP so-called leadership would be wise to back-off before they destroy what remains of their crony- constructed featherbeds.

    On Watch
    "Let's Roll"

  6. Kissinger is said to have asked, "If I want to speak to Europe, whom do I call?"

    The same can be asked now of the GOP, to which you direct your advice to get it together. Whom do you address?

    1. Kissinger was far too intelligent to ask such a stupid question.
      I wonder who attributed it to him, and why.

    2. It's not a stupid question. Just a question you don't understand.

  7. Um... I am in Texas, where "we were all Democrats once". Sometime in the 1990s, as the Democrat national party became anti-religion and anti-American, Texans walked en masse over to the Republican side of things.

    If the GOP disintegrates, we will just all move en masse back over into the Democrat party and divide it back into the two wings it used to visibly display, and turn it back into the party we want. Divide and conquer. It may not look so simple, but it really is that simple.

    As to Mr Trump's various registrations, he attended the 1988 Republican Convention as a guest of George H W Bush, has spoken 4 times at CPAC, and on and on. At least two of Mr Trump's party changes were because he supported Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in the Reform Party.

    Texas never had closed primaries (that I recall), so we never needed to "officially" declare on our registration. We just go vote in ONE primary, our pick! Other states - like New York and Oklahoma - do force the issue when registering, so people have to decide which primary candidate is most important, a local Democrat or a national Republican. In a big city, as a builder, yep, I can see lots of times when it would be more important to vote for a local candidate than the national one in the primary...

    1. That is a good suggestion. We used to be known as the "Solid South" when I began voting- North Carolina. Only a few Republicans around. "Democrats" have done their damage within the party and within the system. We may not be able to beat them from the outside as Republicans, especially since we don't control the culture. For now, we have to fight those who appear to be on our side, but really aren't. Sort of like the factions within the French government and army at the start of WW2.

    2. We would not even have to hide, because the numbers - and the level of determination - would be "Yuge" :-)

      What I am hoping for is that the large number of Democrats who are coming over to vote for Mr Trump will be a part of envigorating the Republican party. They are really old-line conservatives like we were, that just didn't get around to changing parties yet, because you know, our memories are long in the South :-)

    3. Yep, long memories, never forget and rarely forgive. In other words, carry a grudge for generations.

  8. what is troubling about trump being the gop nominee is not his level of "republican-ness" but the rabidly insane reaction of the gop establishment, e.g. kristol today is quoted as saying that he will support clinton if trump is the gop nominee. if i were undecided until now, comments such as kristol's put me in the trump camp.

    1. What is even more troubling is that same rabid, insane reaction from the visible "Christian" writers and business leaders like Max Lucado... repeating outrageous false witness and basically telling believers they will be going against God if they support Mr Trump. It is not only the Republican Party that will explode over Mr Trump's candidacy, watch for an earth-quake level "shaking" in the non-demoninational churches. I am a non-denominational Evangelical. It is a heartbreak (although it does not threaten Christ's Church, only the commercial worship houses).

    2. We know that the media can cover up stories, but are only able to do so in the short term. The alternative media uses more time to find the story over the long term.

      We also know that the media is in the tank for the Dems.

      If Trump is nominated, the media will go all out to destroy him in the general election.

      Suppose that there is a known secret that would destroy Trump.

      It wouldn't be in the media's interest to use it now, as Trump can still be replaced.

      It might not be in the interest of a GOP insider to reveal it, because of fear of it spilling over on the party, or fear that Trump would still be nominated.

      This would be a rational reason for someone to go all in on opposing Trump. Given Hillary's age and health, she isn't going to be lasting eight years anyway.


    3. There is far more likely to be something that could destroy Cruz or Rubio than Trump. Mr Trump is nothing like the media say he is. I have no concerns there. However, I think your premise has something to it - except that it was on the Democrat roadmap, to replace Hillary.

      I don't think they have ever planned to run Hillary all the way to the General. I think the plan has been to let Hillary fight the campaign battle in a very "off" year, and then to ride Elizabeth Warren in as an 11th hour replacement for one reason or another. Warren has been being positioned and packaged for the white horse for the past couple of years, and notice how silent she is right now, in hiding. I think they plan for Hillary to bow out in September, and for Warren to leap into action, pretend to be Tea Leoni, and overwhelm before anyone can mount an opposition to her.

      In other words, the plan was for Warren to be the "the Uniter" but she was supposed to drag RINOs over to the Dems. Mr Trump has really thrown a monkey wrench into those plans. And... I think he is using their own game against them to good avail. The Trump Presidency is going to be the stuff of legends! :-)

    4. Robert of OttawaMarch 3, 2016 at 4:51 PM

      Yes, the GOP is frothing at the mouth at the thought oof someone being nominated by the populace. How dare they! It is an affront to democracy!

    5. O Canadian, you confuse two distinct things.

      A Democracy and a Republic are not at all the same sort of thing.

      A Democracy is whatever the voters want at that particular time. A Democracy doesn't have memory.

      A Republic is a deal negotiated amongst a people at one, and considered binding afterwards. Sooner or later every one will be unhappy about at least one point, but the deal allows for stability.

      The United States has long been divided among emotional adherents of each model.

      The explicit reason the Democratic Party started the War Between The States was slavery, but the implicit reason was taking their marbles and going home. (Yes, yes, there were other legitimating narratives, which date to later, during or after Reconstruction.) Taking their marbles and going home, because they really wanted to, was a democratic thing for the Democrats to do.

      Conversely, the Republican (Union) side of the conflict could be understood as mandated by a careful reading of the deal, The Constitution of the United States of America. (Take a look of the wording of the presidency being granted the executive power, and compare to the other branches. Or the bit about ensuring that the states would have a republican form of government.) Hence, Lincoln was a Republican acting according to a republican ideology.

      There are grounds to say that the republican/democrat emotion divide continues to match the Republican/Democrat Party divide to this day. For one, the #BLM reaction to a bunch of druggies getting themselves killed was rioting. 'People are angry', 'they want x done', and 'no justice, no peace' were democratic slogans, and the agitators and enablers were Democrats.

      Obama, a Democrat, ruled in contempt of the deal, because he was elected. He acted as a democrat. Trump has promised the same sort of execution of policy, democratic rule. Hence, he is often disliked by Republicans who are fanatics about republican means of government.

      The Republican Party has a deal about how to decide who gets nominated. The 'populace' and 'Democracy' are not relevant in many states. In some states, the deal is that Republicans will decide the delegates. Explicitly excluding Democrats who like democracy, and hence are more inclined to favor Trump.

      If the deal is void, we can slaughter Mexicans, Canadians, druggies and Democrats as they deserve, but then the deal is void. Letting people fulfill their highest and best purpose, slit trench filler, may not be worth that.


  9. Trump is a populist and not a Republican. He is winning the open primaries with cross-over voters which sounds good but they aren't likely to vote for the other Reps on the ballot. This off course may mean Trump Pres. and a loss of a number of Republicans being elected. There is nothing that could keep Trump from doing a Bloomberg if he wanted to after the election. He's all about doing deals,

  10. Question 1: Will Trump win any honest closed Primaries?
    Question 2: After 3/8, presuming one or two more drop out, will Trump be able to break 50% for the WTA states?
    Question 3: Are polls this cycle going to stop being garbage?
    Question 4: How would you disprove the thesis that Trump is piling up all the negatives he can without hurting his base? If you need a reason, pick your favorite of 'ringer for Clinton' or 'culturally alien and unable to pander to Texas/Oklahoma type sensibilities'.
    Question 5: Presuming that originally people didn't do due diligence opposition research on Trump because he didn't seem a serious candidate, what has been recently discovered about Trump?


  11. What does IDK stand for?
    A: I don't know.
    Q I know that, but what does it stand for?
    A Repeat until your "a twitter" quitter.