Thanks for Trump endorsement, Mitt

Romney did his planned, debut 2016 speech about Trump.It was claimed he would eviscerate Trump in his national speech covered live on all the news channels.

Whatever he said and his motives, it read like something else. It was a reminder of Romney’s failures — a reminder of RNC failures. Maybe he should have paid more attention to the optics. It was what Romney does, he makes big speeches to convey his specious thoughts about something. It’s what he did in 2012. Romney makes a speech to address this or that. But of course, the one thing he didn’t address was Obama’s record. And he failed to tap into the people’s sentiments about it all. (we were wrong)

Considering who Romney is what he did in 2012, it should read more as endorsement for Trump. So it was Mitt raising his finger and pointing it, at us as usual. In condescending elitist character he lectured us on how we should vote. He called Trump names and attacked his character, sometthing he could not do to Obama. I have no respect for Romney. He acted the political hack that he is.

So in view of that and his harsh criticism for Trump, I take that as a compliment. Sorry Romney, you as the loser don’t get to decide who the nominee is or is not. You should be the last person to decide that. But his elite arrogance never ends. Though the performance gave away his motives. It’s fair to attack his motives or speculate wildly about them. It’s nothing compared to the speculation he did on Trump. Speculate freely and often.

Romney’s Mitt the Hit — “scathing indictment?” Please.
Romney out!

RightRing | Bullright

What’s wrong with Cruz

Does Ted not know he is on the same extermination list as Trump, by the RNC establishment? Apparently he doesn’t… or doesn’t want to remember.

The same people would attack Cruz as the wrong guy and unacceptable. If not for Trump, they would be focusing their aim on Cruz. And it would be coming from both sides, conservatives and estabo marshmallows, for the same reasons as Trump.

Could Cruz handle that or sustain under that pressure? I don’t know. Trump is clearly drawing all the fire. Even media diverted its attacks to Trump. Good cover for Cruz.

Maybe he should be thanking Donald for running interference for him. Which reminds me, with this campaign against Trump, why hasn’t Cruz done better? He should be able to clean up with all this help against his biggest opponent.

So why has Ted not soared? If he hasn’t done better in these conditions, what’s wrong?

Tale of 2 wealthy candidates

This is a comparison between Trump and Romney. Both independently wealthy but the contrast couldn’t be any greater.

When Romney ran, his wealth was an embarrassment used against him. Trump’s wealth is a good thing. He self funds. There are pros and cons to that but…like it or not.

Trump doesn’t hide from his wealth, it’s part of who he is. Yet he relates to working class people just as well. Romney had difficulty relating to regular or working people.

Romney’s wealth was used a weapon against him. They don’t seem able to do that with Trump. Are Democrats going to go with the old rule book and demonize him for being rich? Nice try, what will that do? Trump’s wealth is an asset not a liability.

What a difference. Romney would wait to see which way the wind was blowing before making a position statement, parsing it any way he could. Romney had his circle of advisers, who also blew it. Remember the debate where he finally took on Obama and Benghazi? Then he dropped the ball and fumbled the rest of the race. He swore he was the only one who could stand the heat and take on Obama and his long train of abuses. But the left defined him early and often, which he had no answer to. He was disconnected from the actual voters. Romney had his political record and his schizophrenic stances. Finally some concluded he really didn’t care if he won — even with all the RNC’s help and defense.

Trump, on the other hand, has none of the Romney attributes. He does not play by the politically correct rule book. Romney was all about political correctness. Trump is not the wall street insider. He is not predictable as the morning dew. He does respond and answer critics without taking days, even weeks, to formulate a palatable response. Trump swings hard. For a guy who wrote a book on “no apologies,” Romney certainly was apologetic for a lot of things, especially his wealth. Finally for losing. Romney had a history and dynasty aspect to his political career. Trump is very much all on his own, with no family baggage.

Romney allowed himself to be defined by the critics. Trump refuses to fit their mold and play their games. In fact, Trump changes the game. He defines his opponents. Refreshing.

Romney stepped on the conservative vote. Trump broadened the playing field. Trump points to the exact Romney-type people who created the messes. How many people sat out the vote and didn’t participate in 2012? The fix seemed to be in with Romney from early on. Trump redefined what the Washington fix is.

Trump can identify with people where Romney could not. Romney gave the impression of the Northeast RINO. Trump exudes the street fighter persona that Mitt only wished he had. Romney got lost in staff bureaucracy. Trump owns the face of his campaign. Romney was perpetually on defense. (don’t ever run again) Trump is on the offense to spite his critics. Trump attracts attention, Romney put people to sleep. Romney had the golden opportunity handed to him. Trump was attacked from the onset. Trump has the scruffiness of a cab driver. Romney would not think of such things.

Oh but now Romney resurfaces as a backseat critic in the primary process — I guess that’s all you could say Romney won — with his widespread team of gurus and composites in tow. Romney was entrenched in the establishment which separated him from the working class. Romney had the top down approach, Trump has the bottom up “movement” approach. When did you ever see anyone get a tattoo of Romney on their leg? Trump has a brand, like it or not, and a following. Romney had his family and a close set of advisers and hacks. Romney was the carefully scripted candidate, Trump is not.

We were told Romney expanded the party tent. RNC pushed that one. Trump actually does and attracted new and young voters. Actually, a study in December showed Trump had at least 5 points more support among young voters than polls suggested.

So Romney decides he knows better than all injecting his criticism for Trump — possibly on behalf of the RNC establishment et al — to call for a release of Donald’s tax records. There might be a “bombshell” in there he says. Romney goes down the maybe road. Romney takes Harry Reid’s slimy strategy, then asks “What’s he hiding?”

The Romney campaign was train wreck of record chases. No one bests the Democrats at their own game. Romney could not even use Obama’s spurious record trail to his benefit. Failure defines Romney. Winning defines Trump. Still, Trump’s own opposition research turns up things when needed, unlike Romney’s. Now Romney calls for records all over the liberal mainstream media. He even uses their catch phrases like a weapon. Romney is no friend to conservatives, he’s the consummate political hack carping from the bleachers. So the guy who couldn’t take on Obama now plays Mr Rough and tumble critic with Trump. This just shows Romney as the elitist establishment insider he is.

Mitt makes Trump look better, if that’s possible. Thankfully it is not 2012, again.

RightRing | Bullright

Open Letter to Pope Francis

I’m not much for these open letters, but in this case I’ll make an exception.

Open letter to Pope Francis

… and the cadre of Leftists who push these critiques on the American people.

Pope Francis, since you have taken aim at our dialogue on policies in this country, I thought it fair to ask you about your recent Mexican visit tour.

Why did you not say to the Mexican government and the people:

Why are you allowing such an exodus to happen from your country? These are good people that make great contributions to society. Why do you let them go off to improve their lives and the culture in other countries. This is a terrible loss to Mexico. Why are you not doing more to prevent this?

Francis, why are you not more concerned about the cause of this huge problem than you are with our security policies? These people could do a lot to make Mexico much better. Why not attack economic policies that cause such hopelessness in these countries?

Since your suggestion was people who want to build a wall rather than a bridge are not Christian, then the same condemnation applies to most people (many Christians) in the USA. Virtually every Republican candidate supports building the wall. So you are calling them all, and people that agree with them, not Christians?

Surely, if you cared to look, you would know that this a problem stemming all the way to the 198o’s. It is more than 3 decades old. Now that we are finally preparing to take action on it, you criticize our extremely patient and deliberative response. Why can’t you criticize the circumstances in these countries behind such mass exodus and migration to America?

In fact, you must be aware that you are putting your Papal approval on the policies in these countries that are exporting their citizens across borders. Why are you not critical of their policies? Why don’t you call that behavior Unchristian? You are de facto endorsing the mass illegal invasion of the US. As I said, this has been going on over 3 decades.

Why do you not address the gangs and the coyotes who make their living on transporting these people? Or criticize their behavior that is taking advantage of these people and exploits them like some material object? How about all those who have died or fallen victim to crime en route to America? Where is the Christian compassion for them? What about the American victims created by gangs of thugs or criminals which illegally come to this country and assault good Christians and American people?

In the context of the Biblical example of Jesus, are you calling on Mexicans and their leaders to put down their stones? Do you call them Unchristian for exporting people? Yet you can criticize us for deporting illegal aliens back to their country of origin.

Franklin Graham, in a FB post , said “My advice to the Pontiff—reach out and build a bridge to Donald Trump. Who knows where he may be this time next year!”

Why be so divisive in your words and actions rather than building bridges with Christians and other countries? You were awarded a lot of good will among Americans in your visit. You squandered that on divisive rhetoric injecting the RC Church into our politics. Unfortunately you are building walls not bridges. Now Pope John Paul II knew something about building bridges — and maintaining them.

Signed,
A sincerely disappointed American Christian

RightRing | Bullright

Bill O’Reilly pleads with Trump

Bill O’Reilly does the please don’t back out on Wednesday night.. Comical really, See video.

Published on Jan 28, 2016
This one is just for laughs folks! If Donald Trump’s appearance on O’Reilly talking boycotting the Fox News Debate was an old school short film it would go something like this.

Oh well, Bill O gets his big ratings boost, 3.79 million viewers.
Donald Trump Hands Bill O’Reilly Cable TV Viewership Win

Trump the Metaphor

Donald Trump has become the metaphorical candidate, at least for the right. I would say ultimate, but that’s another story.

I was thinking of the debate and what would happen. I pictured Trump standing up there center stage, like he always does. looking back and forth nodding or gesturing. Actually, like a big metaphor. Face it, most of the attention has been on him like it or not.

So what I mean is he has become a symbol or a metaphor of a candidate. He has given voice to opinions and concerns of people. He has taken on the persona of an outsider, non-politician, not the faux outsiders who ran before. Obama tried to run as an outsider pretender. Even as an incumbent in his reelection, the campaign strategized it as an insurgency campaign — a huge stretch. But this is about Trump and the right.

Trump is a branding genius too. Where others play politics, his expertise is in branding and he knows how to make that work to his favor. So he’s given voice and a shelf life to these positions that politicos don’t want to hear. Concerns people have about the country.

0cde1ae3-acb8-459b-b357-ccab97903610But taking on those positions is one thing, he hasn’t really backed off or changed his mind in the face of critics. Whether right or wrong, he stays with it.

He also hasn’t taken just the easy popular opinion but the difficult non-politically correct ones. And he has appeared to be a flame thrower. He has media and pundits alike at a loss to how to deal with him. Yet at the same time he does plenty of interviews and answers questions, something even career politicians shy off on at times. (like when they go into lock down mode) We haven’t seen Donald in the lock down mode yet. Even Obama and Hillary have had those in their campaigns.

Now you see what I mean, he has become a metaphor even more than an actual candidate. He is a symbol for conservatives and a fly in the ointment all at the same time. He is not dependent on or looking for money because he is self-funding. That irritates insiders and outsiders alike. It’s the worst thing that could happen from the estabos’ point of view and the best for many conservatives because he gives voice to off-the-table issues. One you cannot ignore. We were always told if you do not like something, wait till the election and we’ll have that conversation. This is the metaphor election for all those “next election” lectures. Trump became a metaphor for what is wrong with our country and system.

Yet all he has to do is stand there, and by doing so he represents all those concerns and issues along with being a representation of many popular sentiments in the nation. Like him or hate him. And Obama is a backdrop reminder of what’s wrong. Trump is a giant symbol, whether you agree with his positions or not. He claimed the turf.

So what has the media done? They have made him the poster child for these so-called radical positions. And then they parlayed that over the entire conservative, right-wing Republican Party.(Bernie Sanders eat your heart out) But that has not hurt Trump, in fact he embraces it. As do his supporters. (as if you can ‘out-brand’ a brand master)

Of course that infuriates the GOP establishment, because they don’t want to be tainted(branded) with all his statements and positions. Tsk, tsk, but that is the establishment Donald s running against and at odds with, the establishment people are so infuriated with. Media sort of does his work for him. You know the drill: one Republican says some inflammatory thing and media goes person by person to ask if you condemn these remarks? If not, then one is condemned for the same statement.It’s the outrage game. He’s branded Republicans against the will of the elites and establishment.

Trump is a metaphor for what is wrong, a metaphor for what people want, a metaphor for how people feel, a metaphor for the voiceless public. He’s a metaphor for our anger about it all. He’s a metaphor for the furor about fixing it. He also branded the establishment.

 

Judge Judy:

“I think that if he wants to be considered as a real candidate, he has to start to temper some of that rhetoric because… while the truthfulness , the candor and the directness of his speeches was appealing for a period of time… in order to be considered, to me — and I’m crazy about Donald – presidential timbre, there has to be a measure in the way you present your argument. They were hungry for plainspeak and Donald is plainspeaking. “

So, give up and tone down on everything that has worked for him, so far.

RightRing | Bullright

TRUMPED UP BAN

So with all the flurry over Trump’s remarks it is easy to get swept away in the ensuing flood of criticisms.

But really, what was so bad about his ban proposal? Forget the Marxist Left, they call everything names and they were licking their lips at this one. But if reason prevails, then there is a lot to consider on his proposal. Religious, Islamic fascists declared war on us.

Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Not ‘Fascist,’ and Is Not Unconstitutional

by John Hayward | 8 Dec 2015
Breitbart

Because it has caused a great deal of controversy (to put it mildly), it seems appropriate to quote the “Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration” in full:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/trumps-muslim-ban-not-fascist-not-unconstitutional/

Great article on it. Have people realized that if we plan on screening out ISIS from our border, then that is a religious test? Why kid ourselves? That’s who is at war with us.

This all made me think that Hitler made a critical error. It was dumb that he didn’t just declare the the Third Reich a religion. Then he would have had our hands tied.

It seems that the people are ahead of the government and lawmakers. We understand what is happening. Obama loves to lecture that we just don’t understand, yet we are way ahead them. Of course they don’t listen to us which, is the second part of the problem.

When Trump makes a sensible statement that people agree with, their knee-jerk response is to blame him and all those who support him. Instead of realizing the people understand the problem, the ruling class elites stick their heads in the sand and tell us what they cannot do. Obama says, “What I will not do is…” That’s a confidence builder.

Person of the year

It’s about that time of year when media and their minions pick Time’s Person of the Year. I haven’t read or seen suggestions or names yet, though I’ll take a shot at who they pick. My best guess would be Pope Francis for his contribution to Climate Change and the leftists’ social agenda. Leave it to them to play the Pope card.

But they could very well go with the burn of Bernie Sanders. Then they could say “feel the Bern”. Putin could be in the running but that wouldn’t make Obama look too good.

However, it probably should be Donald Trump for his influence but I don’t expect it for the same obvious reasons. They cannot play the Trump card. Hillary’s server should get honorable mention because she says they are not investigating her but her server. So it is as good as a person.

I don’t know what ideas anyone else has but they’d be as good as my guess. The correct person always gets bragging rights.

Update: wow surprise, Bernie is running ahead of Francis in their poll by 6.5 points.

War on Trump — spoiler alert

The establishment has declared war on Trump, after coming to terms that he actually could win the nomination. No word yet how Democrats feel about this declaration.

US Presidential Election News

Imagine the race on the Republican side is frozen in the polls from now until January with Donald Trump on top and Ben Carson a close second. Down the list is the establishment favorites including Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, unable to gain any traction or land serious punches against the frontrunners. That is the very scenario which several conservative and Republican-aligned political groups are planning for should the need arise. The crux of such a plan would include wall-to-wall negative advertising against Trump in the early primary states.

More: 2016 Election Central

Washington Examiner

“The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win,” noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. “I’ve heard that from everybody. I don’t hear anybody saying he can’t win the nomination anymore.” …/

Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party’s likely nominee.

That’s right, take Joe Scarborough’s word for Republican establishment.

Prepare for the 10,000 points of light offensive, to co-opt a GHW Bush phrase:

I don’t think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire,” says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. “It would force him to spend money. That’s when this starts to get real for him.” (“Points” refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)

says [Club for Growth] McIntosh. “There are a large number of donors and political activists who want to do it.”

So someone has to do the dirty work. And someone has been planning — and no doubt creating — ads for their eventual onslaught. Translation, this could get real ugly, real fast. But ugly for the most part on the establishment side.

Indeed, other sources inside the RNC say chairman Reince Priebus has stressed to staff that they must stay out of candidate fights.

More: Washington Examiner

So then, let the bombardment begin. Well, since I wrote my main objection to Trump here before, it is now a moving target. On one hand there is Trump, on the other there is the establishment status quo. (the guys who blew almost every opportunity over ten years.) All bets are off. Want to consolidate Trump support?

Now if/when that onslaught starts, like others, I’ll oppose establishment RNC elites, which surely they must have factored into their calculated battle plans. This means that all their negative ads they run just could cause more negative scrutiny of the establishment.

Funny how these guys weren’t prepared to go to battle over the debt or over Planned Parenthood funding, or the Iran nuclear festival. But dammit they must take a no-holds-barred stand against Trump. Now he’s just a bridge too far. It’s almost comical.

However, when they force the criticism toward the estabo elitists, well it will only help Trump. So if that is the case, score one for the Donald once again. I guess that will make me a de facto defender of Trump. Cheers GOP. Watch your own Party torpedo itself.

(I don’t think you declare war without really going to war…but that’s just MHO)

Trump letter to CNN prez

What ad revenue, rates!? They should take him up on the offer, win win.
And if not, it will make them disliked even more.

The Next Trump Question

In the last debate, Megyn Kelly had the gotcha question and they asked the Trump question: if everyone would sign a pledge to not run on a third Party? Of course that was a question for Trump and not really an issue for anyone else.

As the very first question it got the desired result, Donald Trump raising his single hand amid sneers from others. Rand Paul registered strong protest. That moment and question was supposed to set the tone for the debate and future campaign.

Now that we see media’s agenda, what will the Trump question be for the next debate — or gotcha question? Hugh Hewitt hinted at one in an interview with Trump. He asked him about leaders names of Hezbollah and Iranian Quds Force. Trump muddied the interpretation saying we aren’t doing enough to help the Kurds.

We know the process: liberals get “respectful” softball questions; for conservatives questions must point out what they don’t know. Make conservatives look dumb. What will the question be this time? Seems Mid Eastern leaders are in the mix.

So Trump has now signed their mandatory RNC pledge but that shouldn’t be the end of it.

Here is the real Trump question: Roll reversal 101

As they say, turnabout is fair play. Their Trump question only prompted another question about that pledge. How does the RNC demand someone sign a loyalty pledge to the Party while the Republican party has not been trustworthy? Just what are it’s intentions? It almost routinely stabs conservatives in the back.

Suppose someone turns RNC’s question around and works it into the debate. It would be great. The people should be asking how can we trust the Republican Party to stand by us and be loyal to conservatives? Where is that pledge? I’d like to see the RNC and Rience Priebus answer and sign that pledge. Maybe they all should be asking that and demand an answer. Enough of the horseshit about promise your loyalty to the grand GOP. How about the RNC pledge its loyalty and mean it? A pledge and contract. Trump could do that. But anyone and everyone should be asking. That could even be the theme of the convention.

RightRing | Bullright

The contract on Trump

No holds barred, takedown plans to rub out Trump in September. Wait, well maybe a few holds, like not by reluctant fellow candidates. They don’t want their fingerprints on that. Still it comes from the estabos anyway.
CNN

It’s no secret the Republican establishment is unnerved by Donald Trump and his lead in national and key state polls./…

“So they’re looking to more establishment PACs to potentially take him down in post-Labor Day ads.”

That opens it up to contract for hire. I wonder what the reward is? Rally the pacs to crank out the ads. All this might sound like a conspiracy if I didn’t know better. Knowing Trump and the way he handles things, who can rule out a backfire? They just might take aim to drive his poll numbers up even more.

Remember what Newt did in South Carolina. Now perhaps the same ire as the media got then will be turned on the estabos and their pacs. (their credibility is waning already) Just saying, at this point it is a possibility. And this being only the first unified attempt at the mission.

People are about to find out how nasty the estabos can be in a turf war. Never mind how nasty you think Trump is. That puts lamestream media and the establishment on the same page. Will they conspire (ally) with Democrats? Sounds like a job for the Cosa Nostra.

Rather-be-biased takes jabs at Trump and Fox (tin foil hat zone)

Then referring to the Fox Trump dust-up, Dan Rather told the same network he could not be sure that Trump and Fox did not preplan their dispute.(conspiracy zone) Rather went on to compare Trump to George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Perot, denying he was directly comparing them of course. (Maddow had already done a Nixon-media comparison to Trump vs. Jorge Ramos)

Too bad it went against their narrative that the Fox is in collusion with Trump and that Fox decides, or runs, elections on the right. But immediately coming to mind is Obama’s sycophant media advocates who thought it was their job to get Obama elected.

Dan Rather ‘Suspicious’ Trump and Fox Are Faking Feud

By Mark Finkelstein | August 26, 2015 | MRC Newsbusters

When it comes to fake news stories, if anyone’s an expert it’s Dan Rather . . . The disgraced former CBS News anchor has a new twist on the vast right-wing conspiracy. Instead of plotting against poor innocents like Bill and Hillary, those conspiratorial conservatives are now creating phony feuds among themselves!

On Rachel Maddow’s show tonight, Rather declared himself “suspicious” about the battle between Donald Trump and Fox News, suggesting that Trump and Roger Ailes might have “gotten together and planned out” the feud for their mutual benefit.

For good measure, Rather went on to analogize Trump to segregationist presidential candidates George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

Note: while floating his conspiracy theory, Rather admitted that he was “without very much evidence.” But when has that ever deterred Dan from attacking a Republican?

**See video interview

RACHEL MADDOW: Could Donald Trump, or could any of these candidates win the Republican nomination while also being at war with the Fox News channel specifically? Never really had anything like the Fox News channel in a previous era in history. It seems to me, that I believe that there can’t be a nominee without Fox’s support.

DAN RATHER: I tend to agree with that. However, Trump is raising that question anew. Now, having said that, and keeping in mind that reporters such as myself get paid not to be cynical, never cynical, but to be skeptical.

I’m a little suspicious, without very much evidence, but I’m a little suspicious of this battle between Trump and Fox. What we do know is that Trump is really smart. As I said when he started this run, don’t underestimate him. And Roger Ailes, whether you agree with his politics or not, another smart guy. Whether they’ve gotten together and planned this out or not, it works to their mutual benefit right now. Fox can argue, listen, we don’t give sweetheart deals to every Republican candidate and Trump can say: I tell you I’m independent and when I say I’m independent I’m really independent. Cause look at even Fox.

Original see posted at Newsbusters.org

Dan Rather is “a little suspicious.” Well, Dan, we’re more than a little suspicious of you. Keep that tin foil hat shined up,  I’ve a feeling you are going to need it.  Trust me on that,  just a feeling.

I’m learning a lot: Trump is now conspiring with Hillary Clinton, and he’s plotting with Roger Ailes at the same time. Oh, Donald is busy.  And according to some, many of  the pointy hat left, he’s conspiring with the RNC — has been since the Dark Ages.  Rachael said he was created by Fox — who is just a mediabot for RNC.  (that’s a double one) And he cannot get elected without Fox’s approval, per Maddow.(con-spir-acy)  So there we are.

So if Fox is not “rubber stamping” Donald, get ready for Trump’s crash and burn– unbeknownst to him, wait… he must know —  because, presumably if Fox made Trump, they can take him out. But so everyone throws a hissy fit if conservatives simply say, Fox tried to take Donald down. We’re nuts for suspecting that. But the rest of that Wallace, Goldwater, Perot, down the twisty road to the Fox conspiracy stuff….. woo-hoo-hoo!

They haven’t mentioned where Jeb Bush is in all this but it has to be coming. (Rather is drawing the schematic) The network who ran/runs interference for Obama. Is there a complete meltdown coming?

See no evil, say no evil, spew no evil vs. Trump phenomenon

By now, unless you’re living under a rock somewhere, you have become keenly aware of the Trump phenomenon. It’s even been referred to as such from the right to the left. The George Wills and Charles Krauthammers have been as flummoxed over all its notions as have been the Occupy, Move On, and Ferguson fanatic Leftists. This has been interesting indeed, with widely different nuances or excuses across the spectrum substituting for reasoning, applied liberally in most cases.

Someone at the Daily Kos put it this way:

I don’t get all the stuff and nonsense about the “Trump Phenomenon”. … He’s been roaming the halls of the Republican mausoleum for more than 25 years, like the doomed servant in some Gothic novel castle. – [read here]

Straight for the dark medieval theme. That’s why I include this example, there are plenty others. (Obama mentioned Crusades) I’m a little more careful with loaded metaphors. Perhaps rather than focusing on gun control, progressives should enforce strict metaphor control on themselves. But it’s heresy to self-regulate their own language.

Who could make sense of or draw political wisdom from the left — or their invective? It’s not so much “nonsense,” or as the Donald would say, “I’m leading in all these polls.” There is more to it than the specious reasoning and slick gimmickry suggested by the left. Probably much of what is wrong in politics is the naivete of people — including some on the right — to be sucked into the wind tunnel of the left that believes it is bestowed with the divine right to frame the political narrative for everyone in earshot, and for mouthpiece-drones who occupy the podiums of the virulent Left. Where what passes for mainstream is the equivalent of mainlining the same communal dose of opiate from a single dirty needle soaked in sulfuric acid. But such is the current political landscape, littered with the corpses of notable challengers that succumbed under the wind tunnel stress test, after their halfhearted attempts to buck the progressive system — or agenda — failed.

Now I don’t expect to be able to completely explain the Trump phenomenon either but offer a little of what it portends for our political future, which may actually be the more important thing. First, look at that ‘one-world wonder,’ Barack Obama. When he rose to prominence it was all about as choreographed as a cattle chute at a stockyard. You basically knew what was going to happen. Not really many surprises there, as impressive as they claim it was. He came, he conquered. Oh and he divided, boy did he divide.

Ah ha, then the way he did it using internet, social media geeks and campaign gurus working in unison to paint the picture they schemed up. That was the major notable achievement. Sure, a lot of people bought into the whole theatrics of it, which were actually mundane but they made it sound and look exciting to people. The marketing was more clever than the substance ever was. Well, that’s because any substance in reality was nothing like the packaging made it appear. Hope and change was just a vessel into which he would pour the endless amounts of trademark Koolaid later.

I can leave it to plenty of others to draw parallels in politics. However, where there is commonality in both Obama and Trump is that it was something new. Both considered a phenomenon, thus the phenomena effect. Well, what was new with Obama was the campaign: the techiness of his staff to seem to be everywhere to put the glitter on the fortuitous pyramid scam he was running, at the same time using his campaign as a resume to qualify for the political office he was running for. Bernie Madoff had a “new” thing working, too. But under the sheets it was just a scam. And under the hood of Obama it was the same old, tired ideas of the left, just new packaging. In fact, the similarities were so close between Obama and Hillary you had a hard time remembering who was who. Much the same ideas, and the roots were almost eerily identical to a T. That became a problem in debates. Hillarycare meet Obamacare 1.0. Choose wisely, grasshopper.

Here is where there is a difference with Trump. It’s not filled with smoke and mirrors as in Obama or Hillary. It’s the uncanny non-political correctness that’s embedded in almost everything. Refreshing as many have said. With the Left, the political correctness is a central ingredient. (or the Cultural Marxism as it is also called) It hurts my brain to force any comparison to Obama’s campaign or euphoric rise — probably being patented by his gurus. Obviously so taken by their own success they have since taken it on the road to Canada and Israel. Its the formula, stupid.

That much is different when it comes to the Trump phenomena: it is not a packaged identity politics recipe for winning. (winning is always the single objective with the left) Plans are a distant second or third, contingent on the first priority, of course. But I didn’t set out to draw a comparison of Obama to Trump. Though it is helpful to see the difference when understanding the whole. Obama’s vague campaign soundbites still echo for nostalgia sake more than their legitimacy. It’s a dangerous thing when you can capture hearts and beliefs of people in empty rhetoric. By the time they realize what happened, they will be caught up in newly orchestrated political pursuits. (or pantsuits as the case me be)

So the Trump wonder is a different animal, and different than the strategist-run backroom operation of most other campaigns. One of Bush W’s operatives has criticized the trump campaign and said a presidential campaign is akin to building one of the largest corporations in the world. Scary when you think of the size and scope of that idea, and money involved. But the Trump model, if we can start calling it that, is different in those respects. It so far has emphasized the actions not campaign organization and rhetoric.

Now we are to what the point of it is, or will be in the future. No, it doesn’t matter if he wins or loses, the point is the model, or the replicable nature of it all. Surely, as it is in business, others are watching now with curiosity wondering how it can be repeated in the future? They see the popularity and the potential, compared to other hum drum campaigns, and want to duplicate those results. Even the Left is studying it, don’t be fooled. Trump has not left a clear path for any followers. But he has, indirectly or not, established some touchstones. For those who have the guts, fortitude, and adventure to try to emulate it, they could have some success. Of course no one has that recognition that Trump has, but still some of the same formula is available to tap.

I saw some reactions to Trump’s Iowa speech from the left on MSNBC. They had a lot of analysis to do. (none of their simpleton attacks on him have worked yet, which keeps them trying) They decided to frame the whole thing as more of a conspiracy. Rachael Maddow tied him hand in hand to the establishment RNC. She then declared RNC/Fox had designed and built the Donald into the Frankenstein he became, and now he is uncontrollable. Nice try at the ‘built by RNC’ explanation. He is following none of the RNC prototypes. What is it with the Left and their obsession with monster-style analogies?(dark Gothic castles and such) But when they see videos of Planned Parenthood’s culture of death develop a meme of ‘it’s honorable research to benefit humanity.’ And you are anti-medicine, anti-humanity, anti-science and research to argue otherwise. Sacrifice humanity on the altar of science.

Meanwhile, what Trump does is about as far removed from RNC politics as usual as you could get. Funny how they don’t ridicule Bernie Sanders as a creature of the black lagoon, or Godzilla, for being anti-establishment on the left. No dark references. No, in fact they all love that model. See the Left is fine with anything as long as they control it, and it leads back to their central ideological trough. They have that in spades with Sanders. No medieval or foggy Gothic comparisons for Bernie, even though he could have lived through them. No headlines: “The Sand Man cometh, threatens civilization with his speeches.”

There is much more to say on the Trump example in (conservative) politics. I’m not sure the Right studies and applies the lessons? They do on the loony left. Anything that works is analyzed and they try to replicate it. Conservatives need to learn and incorporate lessons learned. The examples in Trump keep unfolding before our eyes. It’s not too early or too late to start taking them in. The attacks wouldn’t be that dark if it wasn’t working.

We reached the point…maybe of no return

We have reached the point. No, not the point of fusion, antimatter, or quantum physics squared, or the missing link. We may have reached the point where estabo candidates think Trump could win Iowa and potentially the nomination and, according to some, possibly the White House. Granted there is a ways to go, but that sort of sentiment is bound to have an effect on the election.

But then leave it to a politico like Mark Halprin to state the obvious, and cause everyone to start to talk about it, gasp, openly. Sea change is here?

Halperin: Trump Reached ‘Turning Point,’ ‘Most’ Estab Cands Think He Can Win Nomination

by Ian Hanchett17 Aug 2015 | Breitbart

Bloomberg Politics Managing Editor Mark Halperin stated that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has “reached a turning point” where the “establishment candidates” think he can win Iowa, “most” believe he can win the nomination, and “a significant number think he could win the White House” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Halperin was asked his writing that “Most importantly, we’ve reached a turning point with Trump, the major establishment campaigns of both parties now think Trump could win Iowa, and most of them think he could win the nomination, and a significant number think he could win the White House.” And that the campaigns were in “full freak out mode.”

More: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/17/halperin-trump-reached-turning-point-most-estab-cands-think-he-can-win-nomination/

I’m not sure which part scares the estabos most: that he could win the nomination, or that he changed the race? (it may seem like the same thing but I don’t think it is.)  Apparently it has them in scramble mode. Perhaps because they now see anger on both sides?

Is that all it takes a Trump to come along and do this? Heaven knows we’ve been sending them the strongest possible messages for six years, or longer. Finally, maybe because they see it in black and white in the polls and in popular opinion?  Maybe because they see a potential threat with the popularity and money? At any rate, the establishment are finally sitting up and taking notice.  And they don’t like what they are seeing.

Well, they tried dismissing him, ignoring him, calling him names and ridiculing him….. never mind media’s evolution. It’ll be interesting to see if they see him as the problem.

Fox kicks the Golden Calf, then tries to melt it down

Hours after the debate, it was clear Fox was boasting about having a record number of viewers tune in to the debate. I imagine on Thursday night there were lots of things people could have be doing. But we knew the numbers were going to be big even before it, judging by the political interest so far. Why? We knew that too.

Fox tries to pat itself on the back for the debate coverage, which is pretty self-serving. I mean the nation is a train wreck: Obama just nuked us with an Iran deal, sanctuary cities are failing the citizens in them, riots and racism abound, inner city crime is spiking, terrorism even at home is on the rise, stagnant economic growth, scandal palooza, distrust in government and leadership, with a record number of candidates … and Fox is worried about the number of viewers it gets watching the first debate? Give it a break. Who is doing reality TV here, Fox or Trump? I think its the former.

This was not supposed to be a long post. I wanted it short. I don’t get what I want. But how can you do that with these continuing circumstances in this primary?

Everyone knows that Trump has been a boon for the campaign. We cannot measure what interest would be without him? You can’t do it. In fact, Trump brought in lots of viewers because of statements they cannot stifle, against their desires, and what has been happening in the last couple months.Like him or not he exploded interest, not a bad thing considering we always hear how few people are actively engaged in the process. So it is revealing that the very guy who brought in record numbers of viewers would also be the subject of attacks, even from media who have been gunning for him as a non-serious candidate from the beginning. What you’d expect. Trump has been their Golden Calf.

But then it goes to a different level. The opening question was about pledging allegiance to the GOP Party — an evolution in progress, controlled by some powerful interests. It was talked about already and they knew the answer. This was about getting him in front of a record millions of people to decline a pledge not to run on another platform. About making that the opening question, to force him to make a stand everyone already knew. They could have even worked it in somewhere else. It was the lead.

It was reminiscent of Newt in South Carolina where the opening is the gotcha personal question. By design we had an over-engineered debate from the onset. Then hardly allow him to explain why not. Trump was on the stand testifying. Now I am not a great fan or Trump supporter, you don’t have to be. But one cannot deny what he already brought to the table and contributed, at his own expense. So the gotcha was front and center. Who knows what Fox expected to accomplish?

What’s in a pledge?

I see the reason he should not swear to it based on principle. Why take it off the table? And why do that without getting something in return? Sounds like the opening act of Obama’s negotiation with Iran. You don’t give away your chips. But the word leverage should not be used. It’s negotiation 101. Others have reneged on the pledge. Others do not want to take pledges on many things, as a rule. I thought the estabos, as I call them, were against pledges? Think Grover Norquist. Politicians and RNC certainly oppose pledges when we demand their loyalty. Secondly, at this stage with the RNC, and what they have done over the past 5 years, what good is their word? So pledge to stand behind an organization; and pledge unwavering loyalty to a Party apparatus we can’t trust. Logical?

Now Fox is trying to kick the Golden Calf that brought the attention to this process and debate, as hard as it can. At the same time they pat themselves for the interest in the process as if it were their doing. And they were quick after the debate to congratulate themselves. Twenty four hours later and they are still bragging about it. Frank Luntz wasted no time afterward, showing his focus group was pissed at the pledge decline. But if explained in Trump’s terms, can they understand why pledging unwavering loyalty is such a problem?

In fact, it is part of the reason we are here. We have a disconnected Party leadership problem. Even Ted Cruz said multiple times that we conservative Republicans keep winning elections, and then leadership of the GOP fails us. It’s true. We elected the majority in Congress, then we elected the majority in the Senate. Did you see John Boehner or Mitch McConnell have a problem with taking that leadership role? Nope. They could have refused we would pick another. Now they run the RNC like its their private liberal lite committee, even holding it and the process hostage against the will of the people. Do we get mad? Sure. Do they care when we do? Nah.

So in that backdrop, along comes Trump who criticizes all the pols for being self-serving, career pols. Accurate? Relevant? Sure is. Now the first question on the docket in the first debate was will you swear unwavering loyalty to the Party — not to oppose it? Trump declines. The real point here is how do we know we can trust the RNC? We’ve been screwed and sold down the river so many times.

It is not like Democrats, who have ultra-left wing progressives determine the agenda. Obamacare, Iran, appointments, IRS, EPA, Keyestone Pipeline, drilling, energy, spending, executive orders, sanctuary cities, illegals, amnesty. It’s not the first time we’ve heard scuttle about a 3rd Party. Its been an active part of the Tea Party conversation. Does the Tea Party want to work with the GOP? Sure. Does the RNC want to work with the Tea Party candidates? Not so much. See how this works? We don’t need a GPS to see there are problems with this paradigm of theirs. So there is a reason that topic exists.

Now to just wipe that all off the table as if it does not exist? Can you? It should be the fear in the GOP that they are going the way of the Whigs. It should be a growing concern in the RNC that they are losing touch with the base or people. These Tea Party and disgust symptoms are only reminders that it needs to pay attention and show some loyalty to conservatives who make them and can break them. Ones they need to turn out to support their candidate. But now after the people develop a consensus and get behind someone with momentum, who actually speaks up; then all of a sudden it’s, wham, “we really need a pledge here.” Yep, they need a pledge and we need a credible Party with chutzpah.

RightRing | Bullright

Election strategizing begins

Brent Bozell: ‘I Support Ted Cruz for President Unconditionally’

by Breitbart News 25 Jul 2015

President of the Conservative Victory Committee Brent Bozell III endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for president on Friday, urging conservative Republicans to rally behind Cruz “immediately.”

“I wholeheartedly endorse Ted Cruz for president of the United States, and urge all conservatives nationwide to rally behind Ted, immediately,” said Bozell in his endorsement video. “The Republican party establishment is counting on conservatives to be divided, so that they can nominate a moderate, do-nothing candidate. Make no mistake: If the Republican Party repeats what it’s done for the last two elections, Republicans will lose. I guarantee it.”

Bozell praised Cruz as a brave candidate who would defy the entrenched interests of Washington’s political class.

“If, on the other hand, we nominate a principled, passionate conservative America can count on to restore her greatness, there will be an outpouring of support,” he continued. “We need a courageous conservative who tells the truth and does what he promises. We need to nominate an inspiring leader, who’s proven he’s willing to take on the Washington cartel and buck the political establishment of both parties. We need a leader who will win and reignite the promise of America.”

“And there’s some good conservatives running for president,” Bozell added. “But we need more than a ‘campaign’ conservative. We need a consistent conservative who has led the fights important to us. Ted Cruz is this leader. I support Ted Cruz for president unconditionally and enthusiastically.”

WATCH:

Original article

I’ll call this the first of many pleas. I knew it was a case of division, but I was hoping it would be with a number of establishment RINOS. Apparently the fearless establishment have been thinking of this too.(Bozell is no establishment) While the number of candidates and conservatives is great, it does raise those prospects.

So short of dividing the establishment RINOs, we have a limited choice. Though I think it too early to consolidate to that degree. But has anyone noticed the one guy that has not seemed very concerned is Jeb Bush? Trump has just been a weird distraction for him so far. Meanwhile, Jeb horded lots of money and his pac is poised like a vulture.

If the doors aren’t breaking down with more estabos, then we have to start strategizing. I take it RINOs are being shooed away by Jeb’s committee. I like Cruz but consolidate just yet? We also haven’t seen a debate or vetted anyone. I am a little surprised by this.

And if so, Cruz better be prepared for the ambush to follow if he unifies support. He will have incoming from both sides. Jeb has in effect had years to plan this run. Frank Luntz already seems to be concentrating on Cruz. Then the Left. I hope he’s ready.

Hillary, illegals to Trump to guns roadtour

Here’s Hillary’s comment to Trump

Hillary has just one word for Trump, “Basta…enough!” Coming from Hillary, that’s funny because that is exactly what we have been thinking about the Oval Office Heiress.

When we saw your actions on Benghazi and what you said. Enough comes immediately to mind.

When we saw you used a personal server for State Department business and email, we said enough.

When we saw your staged theatrics as Sec of State with Russia over a “reset button,” we said enough.

When we hear you talk about moving the country forward, we say “enough”

When we hear you say you followed all the rules and law at State, we say enough.

When we hear you testify to congress on Benghazi lecturing us: “what difference at this point does it make” we said that’s definitely enough.

When we look at your perpetual trickle-down scandals, we said that’s quite enough.

When most people in the country don’t trust you, we say enough. “Basta…

(another clip and @ 23 minutes)

“Failed, top-down policies that wrecked our country before,” Hillary told Arkansans.

“You know, Democrats are in the future business, but from the Republican candidates for president we see the opposite. They may have some fresh faces but they are the Party of the past”.

“We Democrats look at America and see limitless potential. We believe in a basic bargain, if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. And we believe that the measure of our success should be how much incomes rise for hard working families, not just for CEO’s and money managers.”

Whoo-hoo! “Basta,” for sure. She doesn’t want to go to the past, well neither do we want to go back to the old Clinton years, especially after seeing BO revision 2.0

[At 23 minutes]”Yes, Donald Trump”… “but there is nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and their families, and now the insults he’s directed at a genuine war hero, Senator John McCain.”

I seem to remember the queen of attacks going to Senate hearings claiming General Petraeus’s’ — whom Hill’s village comrades called “General Betrayus” — testimony “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

“Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”… “I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive …a view of a rather grim reality,” Sen Clinton told Gen. Petraeus in ’07 (5 yr before conducting her own Libyan adventure.)

She never condemned the viscous “General Betrayus” campaign or those mocking a hero. She’s shown contempt for our military, its leaders and efforts. But now she is concerned about comments toward John McCain, and criticism of his Senate record? What a condescending hypocrite. Talk about trying to “present a positive view on grim reality!”

The Basta Grandma in another speech blamed Trump’s remarks for the Charleston Shootings. Then railed about her other favorite theme, guns — or the real problem.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like this.

Clinton continued, “People need to stand up against it. We should not accept it. I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You know you don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, it’s not just him, it’s about everybody. The second thing is guns. Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns.”

“You gotta build it from the bottom up and top down” she claimed. “So maybe on a local and State level we have to keep building towards a more sensible, balanced kind of policy.”

Hillary can’t even pay lip service to the policies enabling a felon deported 5 times and released to murder Kate Steinle. Policies she’d be familiar with as Secretary of State.

Isn’t it disturbing how she talks about guns as another program to hoist on us? Even with her current record of non-stop scandal, she bluntly talks about what she’ll do to the people

McCain, politics as usual

Now for the other side, since all we hear from media and mouthpieces is about the Trump remark besmearching McCain. Then McCain attempted to broaden the comments as insulting to lots of other militray — not “in the arena.”

Others have criticized Trump because he is a candidate but McCain is not in the race. Though McCain did and has injected himself, as he usually does. That’s the problem with political control, it becomes a very personal thing to those wielding it.

McCain Calls Some Arizonans ‘Crazies’ ‘Fired Up’ by Trump

by Michelle Moons16 Jul 2015 | Breitbart

Five-term U.S. Senator Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lashed out at his constituents, calling some Arizonans “crazies” and telling a reporter that recent remarks from 2016 Presidential candidate. Donald Trump are “very hurtful” to McCain.

This performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain tells a New Yorker reporter. “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

Trump has been decrying the lax state of immigration enforcement in the U.S. and related problem of sanctuary cities. He has brought to national attention the stories of families killed by illegal aliens. Since his announcement, Trump has catapulted to the top of polls for 2016 GOP Presidential hopefuls.

Now he galvanized them,” McCain said. “He’s really got them activated.”

McCain is considered vulnerable in his 2016 bid for re-election.

We have a very extreme element within our Republican Party,” McCain says, apparently referencing January 2014 when members of his own party formally censured him. Those spearheading the censure said McCain had pushed liberal views.

Breitbart News reported that McCain had been censured in a whopping 1,150-351 vote of Maricopa County Republican Party members in January 2014. The resolution read in part, Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both. For too long we have waited, hoping Senator McCain would return to our Party’s values on his own. That has not happened.

McCain even copped to lashing back at those GOP leaders, “We did to some degree [to] regain control of the Party.”

Reports indicate that following the censure McCain and his allies launched a political cleansing of the Arizona GOP leadership, ejecting one conservative Republican after another. Politico reported that McCain’s team sought to, “unseat conservative activists who hold obscure, but influential, local party offices.”

Close McCain ally Sen. Lindsay Graham has joined his friend with name-calling and condemning Trump, referring to the real estate mogul as a “wrecking ball.” [latter a jackass]

Arizonans vividly remember a 2010 McCain campaign ad in which he promised to “build the danged [border] fence.” Since that time McCain has not only failed to make good on that promise, but has participated in the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill that would have granted de-facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward on Tuesday announced her bid to serve the people of Arizona in the U.S. Senate and replace Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). She called for border security measures that would further national security. Attendees repeatedly expressed a desire to see McCain removed from his Senate seat with calls to “retire McCain.”

Breitbart

John McCain is actively playing politics as much as anyone.  And he doesn’t like being on the receiving end of criticism. Enter the made to order comments from Trump to rescue an out-of-step McCain already on the defense. Disguising his enemy as “friend” doesn’t sell. Crazies added to hobbits, wacko birds, extremists, agents of intolerance etc…wrecking ball, jackass… as his ‘hit’ list and attacks go on.

Dump on Trump bandwagon

After the statements from Trump on McCain’s war hero status, the road tour began.

Here were McCain’s statements on Morning Joe. Note the demeanor.
If you don’t want to watch all, see opening 2 min. and then @ the 12 min mark.


It’s alright when McCain calls whole swaths of people crazies. Ha ha ha, we’re all used to it. (Wacko birds was funny too, and hobbits etc.) He laughed that he talks to his people all the time. He considered the “crazies” label “a term of endearment”, a compliment.

He even tried twisting it around that he is called crazy by his constituents. Only Obama calls us as many names as McCain. He expects people to side with him against trump. He’ll be watching the polls.

Here’s Lindsey Graham calling Trump a Jackass. Way to go…keep yourself relevant

“This is the beginning of the end of Donald Trump”…”I am really pissed.” — says angry Lindsey Graham. He got the jackass in twice. (see a scheme of Mc-Graham?)

Unless McCain didn’t get the message from Obama, he lost the election with the GOP nomination. Now he’s right back here lecturing us and calling us names, as usual. What about the apology he owed the GOP base since about 2000?

Now McCain is playing politics with an insult he started, while he calls his own constituents names along with the Party base. And Graham is one pissed off cracker, for sure.

Update: Des Moines Register Editorial calls on Trump to drop out.