Change in – Estabos out makes establishment mad as hatters

2016 was claimed ‘the year of Change.’ So why is it that they — Hillary media et al — trot out all the old, tired political operatives that are part of the Washington establishment culture as examples of why to oppose Trump? Estabos become political talking points.

Like Duh, what would you expect? Media repeating it over and over doesn’t make it any more valid. In fact, it should be a glaring positive that they are not happy about it. That’s a compliment. They have been groaning for months, it’s nothing new. “National security officials?”…..how about national establishment officials?

Yet media keeps repeating their establishment disagreement to scare us. We are in this position because of establishment hacks and career politicians serving their own interests. Let’s be very afraid of their loud opposition. Hayden, Ridge, Negroponte etc, shocked!

Those people are not exactly change agents and never have been. So let them bet against America. Let them vote their establishment ties. It’s the year of change not Status Quo establishment rule. Using these people to try and impress or convince people otherwise is useless. It won’t work. So they can either be part of the wave of change or be out.

Related — Never Trump schemes continue:
BREAKING: THREE Republicans Ready To Enter Presidential Race, Challenge Trump For President!?

______________________________________________________________

RightRing | Bullright

It’s personal – note of discontent…. aka “friends”

On hurling invective, insults …and shooting the moon.

It has become personal now. Politics has become personal, very personal.

Brainy Quotes:

“When people start hurling insults at you, you know their minds are closed and there’s no point in debating. You disengage yourself as quickly as possible from the situation.” — Judith Martin

That is usually good advice. However, there are times you cannot just ignore it.

Normally that is the case, but these are not normal times. Nor are the politics normal. As for the people, let’s see how “normal” they are? Who knew how abnormal it can get?

Prelude

A good friend and blogger was recently the target of a drive by that made little sense to me. At first, I chalked it up to spilling vindictive insults at someone for the sake of it. The question was why? This is not a tedious back and forth but a street level synopsis. I don’t often go into personal matters but one must make exceptions when necessary.

Though when someone uses you as an example of their perceived problem with the political climate, it warrants your attention. First, a couple things to keep in mind: what is said on a blog post and what is said in comments and conversation are different. IOW, when someone makes a person or group of people the target of their wrath in a post, singling you out, it is on a higher level. When comments include their wrath it is a lesser degree. That’s how I quantify it anyway.

I’ve said before “on this blog I don’t claim “no bias” and do not provide or guarantee a politics free or politically correct zone.” So there is no hypersensitivity about a person’s feelings, including mine. Sometimes in criticizing others it reflects on our own shortfalls.

Friends, to example….to straw men

From the piece found here at Pesky Truth.

“This is just one example of how the rift between Trump supporters and Cruz supporters has come between people who used to be friends. We all called ourselves “conservatives” and supposedly believed in the same smaller government, lower taxes, strong military and so on. But then the 2016 presidential election intruded. People chose sides. That’s normally not a big deal, but this time it’s different – very different.”

Choosing political sides is one thing choosing friends another. Choosing is the operative word. We define ourselves. Like Cruz’s lines,”Donald said” this or that and “this is who Donald is.” But who is Ted? That’s the problem. Who knew it was controversial?

What drew me to the article on a blog I occasionally read in the first place was the title. It was about “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” So there I am ignorantly reading an article when it references a good friend of mine sort of indirectly, at first. I expected from the title maybe it was a self-reflective thing. It was anything but. It was a slash and burn (IMO) about certain people he personally called into question.

People talk about “feeling the Bern,” but I was really feeling the burn.

The author was someone I even associated with as a contributor at another site. I thought I’d call him a friend, as others. That’s where it gets dicey… ‘I thought.’ I allow that rarely people agree on everything. Sometimes, as the quote above says, you just disassociate with others. So there are times when we should back away from the keyboards; and then there are times when we should take to the keyboard.

So it was to my surprise when I read the piece that skewered a friend as his “example,” along with her associates and participants, as “farm animals”. Later in one one of his comments he labeled them, presumably myself included, as flawed.

Here are some selected excerpts to his piece.

“The Trumpanzees have taken on the demeanor of Donald Trump. They lie, disparage, insult and ridicule Cruz supporters as if we were *ignorant rubes who couldn’t tie shoes without help.” – [*remember that, it returns]

Straw men have invaded the internet, everywhere, even among “friends”.

“I just happened to stop by one of the blogs that I used to think of as a “friendly” site. I thought that we were friends and I can recall commiserating with her when her husband passed away….

…but some of the miscreants that she’s gathered around her look like a Who’s Who of the Animal Farm.”

So we are called names. Trumpanzees: or anyone not digesting Cruz, as delivered. Then the farm animal reference. And we’re flawed, according to his comments. Might as well say flawed farm animals.

“Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

His piece was complete with a pasted part of her article and the date. Then he took issue with it and said

“You’ll also note that they provide no LINK to the PolitiFact site (so you can’t immediately verify the statement).”

He went on about her post without linking to it. So he put obvious links to his referred content but couldn’t bother to link or pingback the article he based an entire piece on.
Fair? I digress. This would notify the person that: one, he used their material; two that he did a subsequent attack. One set of ethics for others, another for him.

Then he took issue with what she put up.

“ the point here is that you shouldn’t use something like this unless a comparison to your candidate comes off looking good. “ / “Isn’t it only FAIR to COMPARE the two gentlemen?” / “Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

See, the thing about a blog is the author writes or includes what they want, it’s that simple. Unless he is trying to employ some “fairness doctrine.” He is citing a fairness standard?

I didn’t plan on going into the political nuance of what the author had in mind. The insult and invective was my focus here. You might note his title started with “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” What of them?

Finally, in closing he refers to the ignorance of us, and or, Trump supporters. Apparently, it is open season, who knew. I’ll have to check the regulations.

“The most satisfying thing about this is that the readers of Pesky Truth know the TRUTH, those that frequent that other blog don’t. They’re so pumped full of Trump’s lies they’re oblivious to the truth – let’s let them stay that way – after all, “ignorance is bliss,” so they’ll remain blissful in their ignorance.
Garnet92.”

Again, I am not parsing politics. I’ll do my own politics in other posts. The personal assault was the subject. So we’re flawed, weak, miscreants, farm animals, and chimpanzees crossbred with Trump supporters. So add ignorant or ignorance to the list.

BTW: the same guy did one of his lengthy trademark satires, if you are so inclined. I did wonder exactly who he had in mind in the hog farm, redneck, hillbilly saga?

Links to politi-fact sites but he can’t bother to ping his central source.

And what of the friends part? I guess not. No problem.

RightRing | Bullright

To change or not change…rules

What’s a little rule change between friends? (okay, enemies)

Come one, come all, come and see the show.

RNC rules official warns lack of transparency could ‘blow up the convention’

Washington Examiner
By Daniel Chaitin • 4/16/16

A lack of transparency in the nomination process threatens to have dire consequences for the party, a member of the Republican National Committee’s committee warned Saturday.

Days after Donald Trump called the GOP nomination “rigged” after Ted Cruz swept the entirety of Colorado’s 34 delegates, two members of the RNC’s rules committee debated whether the party should change the delegate rules.

While members of the RNC rules committee meet this week to debate delegate rules, Randy Evans, a national committeeman from Georgia, told CNN’s Michal Smerconish that its too late in the game to start changing the rules.

“There is a sense in the committee that we really shouldn’t change any rules this late in the process,” said Evans.”

///

“We’re operating in a supercharged political environment. We could blow up the convention as well as the Republican Party,” Yue said.

Though he didn’t mention any particular examples, Yue said another threat to the party is Chairman Reince Priebus making decisions on his own without consulting the majority of the delegates.

See video

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rnc-rules-official-warns-lack-of-transparency-could-blow-up-the-convention/article/2588749

Blow up the Party? Hmmm seems the GOP demolition experts have already done a bang-up job of that. Wow, they all better watch that incendiary language.

George Will the Team Player

I’ve occasionally been tempted to take a spirited personal issue with someone. Temptation won out in this case. It has been festering a while.

George Will is the quintesental lemon in a basket of oranges. No one knows exactly what it is doing there, and everyone is at a loss to explain the problem with it.

Will has an obsession with baseball often littering his columns with analogies to bring home his point. Sometimes it’s a strike and sometimes it’s a ball. But the man has a cultish crush on it as much as his lust for words.

He uses his high-brow style, occasionally citing ‘inside baseball’ factoids that co-opt his pros adding a sports flair to the editorial page. He short circuits his intelligence with vignettes proving baseball has been very good to George will.

Here is where the pine tar gets a little thick

His elite inside politics overdubbing of Washingtonian issues lends itself to criticism as ivory-tower academia crossbred with elitism. His writing is condescending to the masses he hopes to cleanse by his rhetorical palate. We are not as intelligent as he is.

So the irony is thick here in that today the tables have turned and Washington’s “inside baseball” politics is now the chief problem, not the anecdote to it.

It was not long ago that he declared the anger of people was off base. It was more like frustration, as far as the Dr Good-Will diagnosed it. We are having a childish pout.

I’m sure in certain sections of snobsville his critiques fit like a well-worn ball glove, but in other places they fall on deaf ears — bored as much with his rhetoric as with a rain delay at Wrigley Field, or by sipping watered-down Gatorade during a no-hitter.

I don’t suppose George would see the waste deep irony in his soliloquy. He has bashed inferior folks of rural America as “incapable of cognitive thought or rational argument.” He insisted people may only come into the Republican Party “on our terms, not theirs.” He referred to the grown-ups in the conservative movement, himself among them.

There’s that inside baseball mantra again that they just don’t understand how the game is played. Barring that problem would render their co-opting strategy unnecessary.

Birds of the feathered nest

Who could forget Obama’s words:

“It’s not surprising. Americans get bitter. They cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or their anti immigrant sentiment (racists) … as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Though dripping in arrogance, it is water drawn from the same trough Will drinks from.

So what this really comes down to is George Will is a poster child for the elite-ruling class establishment. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with it, while demonstrating how little is right about it. If not for their media-accommodated, cushy chairs of news punditry — covering the very DC cesspool they are immersed to their eyeballs in — they would lead hum drum but far less lucrative lives. Rather they’ve become self-anointed adherents in ‘lifestyles of the affluent and influential.’

The Last Refuge:

“…the John Birch society tapped into something, George Wallace tapped into something, and it was up to the grown-ups in the labor movement in the late 1940’s, and the grown-ups in the conservative movement in the 1960’s to read those elements the riot act, and say: come back in, but come back in on our terms because we are not going down the road you want to go”…

And George Will tapped into something, as noted, plugged in and then hard wired his worldview into it. He’s been running on that straight juice, with an occasional baseball analogy to break up the arrogance. In 2015, Will said “there is no frontrunner. There won’t be a Republican race to speak of until this course and vulgar man, who is at the center of this argument, is marginalized.” No frontrunner?

RightRing | Bullright

GOP suicide or rebirth — Pat Buchanan

Suicide of the GOP — or Rebirth?

Patrick J. Buchanan | Friday Mar 18, 2016 | Human Events

“If his poll numbers hold, Trump will be there six months from now when the Sweet 16 is cut to the Final Four, and he will likely be in the finals.”

My prediction, in July of 2015, looks pretty good right now.

Herewith, a second prediction. Republican wailing over his prospective nomination aside, Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton like a drum in November.

Indeed, only the fear that Trump can win explains the hysteria in this city. Here is The Washington Post of March 18: “As a moral question it is straightforward. The mission of any responsible Republican should be to block a Trump nomination and election.”

The Orwellian headline over that editorial: “To defend our democracy, the GOP must aim for a brokered convention.”

Beautiful. Defending democracy requires Republicans to cancel the democratic decision of the largest voter turnout of any primaries in American history. And this is now a moral imperative for Republicans.

Like the Third World leaders it lectures, the Post celebrates democracy — so long as the voters get it right.

Whatever one may think of the Donald, he has exposed not only how far out of touch our political elites are, but how insular is the audience that listens to our media elite.

Understandably, Trump’s rivals were hesitant to take him on, seeing the number he did on “little Marco,” “low energy” Jeb and “Lyin’ Ted.”

But the Big Media — the Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times — have been relentless and ruthless.

Yet Trump’s strength with voters seemed to grow, pari passu, with the savagery of their attacks. As for National Review, The Weekly Standard and the accredited conservative columnists of the big op-ed pages, their hostility to Trump seems to rise, commensurate with Trump’s rising polls.

As the Wizard of Oz was exposed as a little man behind a curtain with a big megaphone, our media establishment is unlikely ever again to be seen as formidable as it once was.

And the GOP?

Those Republicans who assert that a Trump nomination would be a moral stain, a scarlet letter, the death of the party, they are most likely describing what a Trump nomination would mean to their own ideologies and interests.

Barry Goldwater lost 44 states in 1964, and the GOP fell to less than a third of Congress. “The Republican Party is dead,” wailed the Rockefeller wing. Actually, it wasn’t. Only the Rockefeller wing was dead.

After the great Yellowstone fire in the summer of ’88, the spring of ’89 produced astonishing green growth everywhere. 1964 was the Yellowstone fire of the GOP, burning up a million acres of dead wood, preparing the path for party renewal. Renewal often follows rebellion.

Republican strength today, on Capitol Hill and in state offices, is at levels unseen since Calvin Coolidge. Turnout in the GOP primaries has been running at levels unseen in American history, while turnout in the Democratic primaries is below what it was in the Obama-Clinton race of 2008.

This opportunity for Republicans should be a cause for rejoicing, not all this weeping and gnashing of teeth. If the party in Cleveland can bring together the Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich forces, the White House, Supreme Court and Congress are all within reach.

Consider. Clinton was beaten by Bernie Sanders in Michigan, and pressed in Ohio and Illinois, on her support for NAFTA and the trade deals of the Clinton-Bush-Obama era that eviscerated American manufacturing and led to the loss of millions of factory jobs and the stagnation of wages.

Sanders’ issues are Trump’s issues.

A Trump campaign across the industrial Midwest, Pennsylvania and New Jersey featuring attacks on Hillary Clinton’s support for NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China — and her backing of amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants, and for the Iraq and Libyan debacles — is a winning hand.

Lately, 116 architects and subcontractors of the Bush I and II foreign policy took their own version of the Oxford Oath. They will not vote for, nor serve in a Trump administration.

Talking heads are bobbing up on cable TV to declare that if Trump is nominee, they will not vote for him and may vote for Clinton.

This is not unwelcome news. Let them go.

Their departure testifies that Trump is offering something new and different from the foreign policy failures this crowd did so much to produce.

The worst mistake Trump could make would be to tailor his winning positions on trade, immigration and intervention — to court such losers.

While Trump should reach out to the defeated establishment of the party, he cannot compromise the issues that brought him where he is, or embrace the failed policies that establishment produced. This would be throwing away his aces.

The Trump campaign is not a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It is a rebellion of shareholders who are voting to throw out the corporate officers and board of directors that ran the company into the ground.

Only the company here is our country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, The Death of the West, The Great Betrayal, A Republic, Not an Empire,Where the Right Went Wrong, and most recently Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

Originally posted at: http://humanevents.com/2016/03/18/suicide-of-the-gop-or-rebirth/

Trump is not just an anomaly. He proves how out of touch the other candidates and establishment GOP really are. He champions what others refuse to see. It shows they would all rather play insider baseball than go play the game on the field.

See also by Pat: http://humanevents.com/2016/03/14/the-sea-island-conspiracy-2/

In the end, it’s Trump

After months of deliberating and looking at candidates, I whittled down on my options to one. I thought I had a second choice but alas that was just an illusion.

So I decided on Trump. Since people already criticized and attacked me for supporting Trump, I suppose I might as well. Kidding aside, I tried all along keeping an open mind. In the end, I decided Donald Trump gets my vote. Unlike other people, I won’t hate on those supporting another candidate. It’s their choice.

First, it was not about popularity or favorites. I often support underdogs. In this strange case, Trump is a little like an underdog.(in some ways) He is not the favorite of the establishment. In fact, he is about the least favorite.

But there was a purpose and an objective. It was a 75-25 decision. I was already 75% behind Trump before. Then events of the last few weeks put me over the line. What a few weeks it has been for the panic-stricken arrogant elite. Plus the media has been casting its vote all along. That all made it easier. So there’s a hashtag NeverTrump making the rounds. But my hashtag would be not again. So I settled on Trump.

Reasons for my choice were broad. Enough is enough. Well, it has been enough for a while but this was the opportunity to voice it and do something different that hadn’t been done. Every election they tell us who our choices are and ram their establishment choices down our throats. We’re told we just have to accept it. Well, this is a bit of irony.

Some say he is not the best choice. I say he is not perfect. No candidate seems to be -particularly these three. But this offers more than a usual choice between two evils. This choice goes back a long way with me. In fact, back to 2000. That’s where Cruz took it, too. He brought John Roberts into the Bush vs. Gore battle. The rest is history, punctuated by Cruz’s advocacy for Roberts as a SCOTUS pick. He’s complaining about him?

Now that we are to decide who the outsider insurgent is, between three, the other two candidates have taken to the air to raise every suspicion possible. The roles reversed and Rubio is channeling Trump. Cruz pulls out every accusation he can dream up.However, it is not just them. The RNC and every operator within the establishment has been scheming to oust the Trumpster. Who’d have thunk something would cause such a stir in the establishment? Venom and tempers flare.

Romney, probably the king of the establishment, came out to personally launch an attack and whisper campaign against Trump. He was shopping for surrogates to do the dirty deed and then decided he would do it himself. Rubio contacted Christie after he dropped out, also after the smack down debate attack. Rubio boasted to Christie that he has a very bright future ahead. (you thought the Donald was the one with the over inflated ego)

Then Christie endorsed Trump, attacking Rubio in his speech as not ready for prime time. Cruz is too slimy for prime time. The RNC flung itself into the toilet threatening to flush itself down over Donald Trump. (hint: it might take a double flush, Reince)

The establishment had a meeting, according to NYT, to brainstorm how to take Trump down. They fear Trump threatens the Party(as they know it) and could cost them Congress and the election. Camp Rubio is making plans for a brokered convention scenario. Mitch McConnel is planning a Senate coup to abandon Trump.

At least one report says RNC has people strategizing some independent run. Kasich and other candidates are hypothesizing parsed out spoils of a post Trump era. They all complain about why more or somethimg wasn’t done to stop Trump much earlier? I thought they had tried. (everything they could think of) If these guys are this baffled over fighting off Trump, how can they deal with Hillary?

Little does this Party establishment elite realize their real fight is with the people, base, and conservatives. The more they dig in the more obvious it becomes.

Establishment RNC are boldly trying to connive a candidate ‘choice’ for the Party. Gee, you thought that’s what elections were for? So did I. It just reveals the true character of the RNC and estabo elite and how far they will go. It’s like gang turf war to them.

So in view of all this I made my decision. This all made that easier.
In the end, it’s Trump. Or is it Trump till the end?

RightRing | Bullright

Interesting election dichotomy

With another win safely tucked under Trump’s belt, the message is becoming clearer. Trump seems poised to take the nomination, surprising some and pissing off others.

However, there is one interesting thing I find. The estabos are mad of course, but they seem powerless against the up and comer. Well now, when you parse it down it reveals something else. With Cruz and Trump relying on conservatives — frustrated ones that is — they tend to split up that vote. The various ways don’t mean much except that a split should work to the favor of the establishment, RNC types. But then when you see Rubio barely tying Cruz now for the second time, it reveals how weak the establishment is.

If I read it my way, that implies establishment support is less than a third. That would be bad news for establishment. Then when you parse down how much of that candidate vote really is by and for the establishment, it looks worse and worse. Not all Rubio’s vote is establishment support. No, I don’t know the particular numbers and don’t have to to make some generalizations on how weak that establishment support really is. So it is not just a year of the outsider but also the year of the shrinking establishment.

Then there is the strange desire that estabos want either Cruz or preferably Trump out of the race. But that would only further consolidate conservatives, except for the ones who swear they won’t vote for Trump. So their strategy would tend to work against them.

There is the other problem: the ‘sworn-off’ vote. When it comes to the general, they will have to support the nominee or nothing. How many times have we conservatives been told we have to hold our noses? So that part of the vote seems to be irrelevant in the end.

Then there is the problem, so they say, of the high negatives of Trump. Really? Have you seen Hillary’s negatives? But how meaningful are those high negatives in the general election between two candidates? Now with an outsider, insurgent, anti-establishment election, I would expect some high negatives to surface. …Just my observations.

RightRing | Bullright

A Hard Self-Therapy in a Word

This is a difficult yet therapeutic post to write that has been a long time coming. I’ll start with a simple word that frames up my sentiments at the moment, goodbye.

I’ve felt and lived through the difficulties of saying goodbye at the bedside of dying friends and loved ones. It’s one of the hardest things to face. But this is not that kind of goodbye. There is another type that has a brighter hope and opportunity attached promising new adventures ahead. It’s more that type I’m referring to.

It’s been a strange few years with many disappointments, pains, and the agony of defeat. Sure, there were a few short-lived successes here and there. Just enough to create temporary optimism about what lays ahead.

Okay, before misleading any readers to what this is about, what I am talking about is the country’s current situation — through my eyes at least — in the 2016 election. We have had a few good times in recent years but they soon turned back to a dark cloud.

What on earth am I rambling about? Well, I’ll tell you. It’s just possible that there are some things we might finally bid farewell to. (at the time of this writing anyway) They are things that have been with us for a while, etched into our minds and factored into any serious political discussion.

Picture an episode of Twilight Zone where Rod Sterling says,
“Imagine, if you will, a country without these…..”

Politics as usual: It’s probably the biggest one. Politics as usual may finally be changing. Too early to say if it will stick or not. But it feels pretty good in the short term that politics as usual could be grinding to an end. It outlived its utility and is now called into question. Could there really be something else? There may, in fact, be some life outside it after all.

Race hustling: This one may still be in effect but it seems to be losing traction fast. It might have worn out its welcome. Since things like traffic and road closures, detours, and mall demonstrations inconveniencing millions of Americans, this one may be in search of a new cause which was inevitable. Likely a migration into other areas like plain political activism.

The Democrat plantation: May be heading off into the wild blue yonder. It seems the old blue identity plantation may have outlived its fertilizer supply. This one goes with politics as usual. The primaries are revealing some serious fractures in the same old, such as taking voter groups for granted.

The establishment: Well, this one is not so much what it is but the incessant influence it has. Now its influence could be challenged. It remains one of the biggest factors in our politics today and may lose its control on our system. This one will not go quietly.

Race card: Just as race hustling is called into question, the time has come when the narrative finally got so old and predictable, and less believable than ever. It suffered from overuse and abuse. Imagine a place where it is frowned on to play the race card at every opportunity?

Woman card: This one was a little surprise, but again it suffers from overuse and abuse, especially where abortion is concerned.If the objective was fairness, we may have come full circle with the latest idea to mandate that women also register for the draft.

Interesting, too, in the first Iowa caucus that women went for Sanders. In New Hampshire the 18 to 34 yr old women overwhelmingly went for Sanders over Clinton. 87% for Sanders and 9% for Clinton… says something about choice.

Political correctness: This one is still hanging on by the skin of its teeth but has suffered some serious blows in this election cycle. We’ll have to see if it goes on life support but it is in intensive care. Some wonder now if it is really worth saving.

“It’s my turn now” — This old standard may finally be going the way of the Edsel. It never was very flattering anyway. It looks like it has been challenged from every side and found wanting. How the “rightful” heirs will feel about its absence has yet to be determined. Will they cry and demand it? Will even they be too ashamed to pursue it all the way? Time will tell. But patriarchal families are considering the dire consequences. It could be a bit too much for them to accept all at once.

Note: this claim may seem a little premature. However, chances are good for some of them, better every day in this political climate. It would require vigilance to enforce their absence. Well, that is what this formality is all about — with optimistic hope — bidding them farewell and goodbye. Can’t say I’ll miss them, dibs on the epitaphs though.

RightRing | Bullright

Tales of Two Candidates

There are two candidates that I have questions about this week. They are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. I won’t get into the details everyone knows.

Maro Rubio is lying about Ted Cruz. He was basically pointing to Jeb and to Ted Cruz saying everyone’s hands are dirty on amnesty, so that is supposed to mitigate himself. He was a chief designer of the gang of eight and amnesty.He lies about Cruz supporting it by his amendment to kill it. Marco now wants to be credible that he doesn’t want amnesty. So Rubio’s plan seems to be to call everyone else a liar. Media is pushing Rubio.

Jeb Bush finally comes around to embrace his family. That was bound to happen sometime. Now he is desperate so his mother made an ad, what I call the “push comes to shove” ad.

Then at the debate he sort of accepted the “establishment” mantra about him. But the heirloom name is not the only thing branding him establishment. Then he employed the help of brother Dubya to help him in Iowa. in the last days he hands out a letter from George Dubya supporting him. So the I’m all by myself, Bush disassociation campaign he was running is over. It is the next heir to the Bush throne campaign after all. I say, “Read my lips. no new dynasty.” Jeb’s attack ads don’t appear to be working either.

RightRing | Bullright

Against: part II

I thought I was but apparently I wasn’t done with my rant on the right-wing establishment. You know how sometimes you are sitting on the toilet and think you’re finished and then all of a sudden you realize you aren’t?

Who anointed these guys and NRO kingmakers and the patriarchs of politics? No one I know of. In case they missed the season lesson, their “thou knowest better” elitism is exactly what people detest right now. It has been building for a long time.

Many of them would be content to support Jeb. They supported Romney. They supported McCain. Now they tell us to check our credentials at the door if we don’t line up in their corner. And they browbeat us about being patient. Patience wore thin some time ago.

Sorry Ted, but that is no way to win an election, or even win over conservatives. What of all those grassroots which was the impetus for any real success recently? Easy come easy go, according to right-wing estabos. Who has really succumbed to the left?

Who preaches the doctrine of tolerance? It reminds me of the lectures to us as “agents of intolerance” from McCain in 2000. Now it’s coming from stale, upper crust conservatives. We’ll tell you who to support. Ask no questions.

Since their formula and picks have been working out so well, why change? You know the saying “if you keep doing what you always did you get what you always got.” Maybe it is time for something different? Maybe something that is not Kosher or conventional thinking is needed to break the chain of loss? Somewhere, a record of winning calls out.

I’ve had more on this in the works for months but maybe this is the time to drop it?

RightRing | Bullright

The coalition against: NRO spells NO

Now that we have NRO and the misfit coalition “against Trump,” it tells us a lot more about their views than it does about Donald’s.

They lined up far and wide to add their names to a hit list to denounce Trump as the Republican/conservative candidate. Fine, if that is your thing. Seems to me that we have been lectured for about a decade now that it is not enough to be against something. What is important is to be “for” something, they say. So this piece just tells you about who they are against, not who they are supporting.

NRO “Against Trump” | January 21, 2016

But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones. – Read more>

But therein is the rub. To include who they support would shatter their coalition into pieces. And there likely is not a big consensus on who they do support. Some of those names in there would be Jeb supporters. There are RINOs in the mix who probably would support Christie. But at least they can all agree on who they don’t support.

I like many of the pundits and conservatives in the No coalition. However, how much have they done for us in their influential capacity over the years? Not much and that is the reason we are in the spot we’re in. They can’t show you a recent record of success. That is one of the charges they levy against Trump.

Which all brings us to the next point. When you dissect this so-called conservative circle, you find that there are establishment conservatives. Surprise, what a timely reminder. Here we are with everyone against the establishment (staus quo) even on both sides. Along come these gurus of politics to out one person for not being a pure enough conservative. Skillet meet the kettle. But what do they mean by not pure enough? That’s the question.

Many of them live and breathe the beltway politics. They are interconnected to the RNC and establishment. Some are staunch supporters of amnesty. Some attack conservatives on a regular basis. Many think Cruz is too far right or extreme for them. But for the time, they all get on board to oppose the Donald. Some back big-government spending.

Then there is the net effect. Who gets hurt in the mix, members of the coalition of “No” or the Trumpster? My money is on Trump weathering the storm. If bringing people together to oppose something was their goal, then mission accomplished. Can they core an apple?

Here is one disgruntled viewer of the Kelly File which debuted the sultans of No. In her own words she has a message for them.

Published on Jan 21, 2016

“I am livid, I am angry, I have a voice and I am going to use it!“

The list of 22 conservatives in the coalition Against Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

Horse trading, South Carolina

There seem to be some similarities on the Dem and Republican sides. My observation is the establishment on both sides is looking past New Hampshire and Iowa to South Carolina. They are planning or hoping to build a consensus from there forward for the establishment candidates and establishment itself.

Establishment is taking it on the chin this year. Both sides are lining up paying close attention to Iowa and New Hampshire. That may be the usual course but both seem like they are following a similar pattern. We are trying to judge the races(each) by events in Iowa and New Hampshire while those are looking increasingly irrelevant. Could they cancel each other out? But the establishment on both side is looking at South Carolina.

That’s why I chuckled as Jeb rolled out the endorsement from Lindsey Graham. It reveals the importance of SC to Bush — his only chance. Not only for SC but for establishment to break the barriers it has so far been unable to do. It’s all Jeb can hope for.

The establishment seems to be playing virtually the same strategy game, with Jeb Bush being a harbinger. While we are consumed by Iowa and New Hampshire, they are betting their estabo marbles on some momentum they can build from South Carolina on.

So my point is estabos on both sides are looking to start hijacking or stealing the election there. I said on both sides. Dems are engaged in a social debate, and queen-estabo- Hillary plans on South Carolina being her firewall and beginning of her victory. Bernie does not seem to have an answer for that. I don’t know if conservatives have an answer yet for the big establishment roll out? They both can be very persuasive when they want to be.

How does the establishment RNC deal with a lead candidate who is not going to be begging for money and groveling? A candidate who looks past estabos like they do anti-estabo front runners? That scenario looks more like war, politically. Finally the establishment is on defense against the ropes. Can they endure the onslaught and still survive? Or are they beaten clear back to their respective corners? Is the RNC forced to try making concessions to save themselves, just like they do with Democrats everyday?

RightRing | Bullright

Stories R US

I was going to do a post on Obama’s statements and threats. But why give them more attention if we aren’t going to do anything about them anyway? They get plenty.

I thought about doing a post on Hillary’s latest lies. But they are just like all the other lies, and all the other posts. All blend into the septic stew.

I thought about doing one on the real principles Jesus espoused, you know, opposed to lessons liberals harp about. Nah. He drove the money changers from the temple and look where they went.

I thought about doing one of my trademark satires but they end up being too true.

Well, I did notice something weird about this presidential race. Everyone says it’s about the outsiders vs the establishment. It probably is; though this election also seems to be about story lines. Most every Republican candidate has their own story line they are pushing. Not to mention most of them also have a book.

They have constructed or extorted these story lines so that, in turn, it is not an election about a certain individual, it is about the story he/she is promoting. I’m led to think that we are supposed to vote for best story line. It’s not just an outsider story. It’s an outsider, non-politician, neuro-surgeon. It’s about a mega-mogul, celebrity, real estate developer and builder.

So with that background, someone like Cruz has a problem that even his story line is not that big of a deal. Then you have Carly vying for any attention as a woman and business executive turned politician. We’re not asked as much to judge their qualifications as their degree of separation from establishment and their creative story line. Some are naturally better at promoting their story lines than others.

I wonder if we have not now entered the age of the story lines in politics? Is that the natural extension of identity politics? I think it might be. Look on the ither side and you have Hillary running as … are you ready for it…a woman. Then she adds that she would be the ultimate outsider as the first woman. And she already has her own story line which she doesn’t even have to promote. Everyone knows it and does it for her. So the first woman, who was also first lady, married to the serial rapist president doesn’t really work but all the other parts of it are there for the extorting. Now, whether they planned or want it to, this becomes a battle of story lines. That is if you follow the tactics the left uses in politics. Obama was much the same way. The Kenyan, Indonesian black kid rise to president. (we’re still trying to digest that story line and some of us cannot)

Now Trump takes that to the next logical stage. He gave a speech wherein he goes on a rant talking about the details of Ben Carson’s story line — in brief: angry poor black kid to Christian, to top surgeon, to candidate. Media has already gone all-in after Carson’s story. Knocking the candidate’s story is a twofer for the media, it also attacks his trustability polls that are higher than anyone’s. Of course Jeb Bush’s story line that he tries to ignore is the third in line to the Bush dynasty. So instead he promotes his preferred story line, and also tells it in Spanish — a real plus in his case. That includes leaving out the part about Bloomberg’s Foundation promoting abortion around the globe. He tries to make it as attractive as possible.

So we also have Rubio pushing his Cuban ancestry, only in America, story-book story line. Christie pushes his tough guy prosecutor thug image. Trump pushes his anti-P/C story line which allows him the freedom to say just about anything that in some way fits or works in his favor. People seem to like that ballsy approach even if they occasionally blush. Kasich has his own story line, a player all the way. Oh, Carly promotes the ‘woman’ secretary to CEO, to president story. Fill in the others. Cruz may be out-storied.

Is it not about character or ability anymore but about the story line? You can expect that blunt approach from Democrats in the general election.(who are still searching for a black or Hispanic transsexual woman candidate – man doesn’t work) Whoever promotes their story line narrative the best wins. Bernie Sanders has his own story working. He and Hillary are vying for historical firsts. Trump is an expert promoting his. Do people just want a story? Are we bored with positions and policy preferring a narrative instead?

RightRing | Bullright

As Jeb’s world turns…upside down

https://twitter.com/DavidRomeiPHD/status/663874276391448578

https://twitter.com/peddoc63/status/662419429322579970

Jeb Ebbs & Exclamation Mark Goes Flaccid https://t.co/25CCPvChRU via @audioBoom #jebbush #jebcanfixit

— David Knight Show LIVE 9am EST, M-F (@libertytarian) November 4, 2015

Flush #JebBush.
That is all. @AmPowerBlog pic.twitter.com/ktGBu9JoKx

— Serr8d (@serr8d) November 1, 2015

This requires a Power Flush.

I think Jeb Bush is the Spruce Goose of presidential campaigns.

Fallen trees, forests, and witnesses

Here is a good article worth a read. We know political connections in Washington run deep, How deep? And to any observer, the establishment wing of the RNC acts very odd and aloof in spite of the base of the Party. Sometimes acting as its own worst enemy. This article goes a long way in explaining what could be behind much of it. It’s just a matter of connecting dots and events over nearly 30 years. The piece is over a year old. The same issues seem important again in this election.

Government Coverups Behind Islamic Invasion of America

Walid Shoebat | February 15, 2014 | Freedom Outpost

If ever there was a political ‘odd couple’, George H.W. ‘Felix’ Bush and Bill ‘Oscar’ Clinton fit the bill. Sure, living U.S. presidents share things in common no one else on earth shares but the relationship between the 41st and 42nd Presidents respectively, always seemed to smack of being suspiciously close. In 2006, I saw Bush 41 speak at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and he referred to this relationship as such; he acknowledged it without explaining it.

The subsequent and logical unanswered question “why?” asked by several people, silently in their own minds, hung in the air and was never answered.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/government-coverups-behind-islamic-invasion-america/

The expression is is “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?” You might say in this case it was also a pretty quiet tree. But any witnesses aren’t saying much about it either.

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)

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.

Conservative poster boy, scape goat

There was an old Helen Reddy song “You and me against the world.”

You and me against the world,
Sometimes it feels like you and me against the world,
When all the others turn their backs and walk away,
You can count on me to stay.

Remember when the circus came to town
And you were frightened by the clown,
Wasn’t it nice to be around someone that you knew,
Someone who was big and strong and looking out for

You and me against the world, …/

 
That’s certainly what it feels like now. Trump rolled out his campaign and it seemed to take on an awareness. However, what it really showed is how far we have to go, and how much establishment really is against (opposed)  to conservatives. You can say what you want how conservative Trump really is or not but he took on the face of conservatism and drew the fire — right or wrong

It only proved what an agenda they have against conservatives or only reminded you, either way. As if all anyone had to do was mention illegals and crimes to light everyone on the left on fire.  All the advocacy groups sneered — media, liberals (is there really any difference), establishment, even some corporate concerns. The outrage was swift and fierce. Much of those real problems are directly a result of Obama’s policies, but who cared about that? They wanted Trump to pay for such statements. Contracts were shredded, endorsements held hostage, deals lost, boycotts and all the rest ensued. Media balked.

Sometimes our memories will have to get us through.

Case in point this race. As much as things change, politically and otherwise, one realizes how much they remain the same. This is as much an us vs. them paradigm as it is a disagreement on issues. It’s an institutional one, the establishment verses the people or voters. It really is that basic. They’ll have us believe that it is only on this issue or that one, but it’s a far bigger problem. And that is what they want us to do, get bogged down saying we are wrong or “out of touch” on a particular position. The default is to support the establishment, across the board, on all these issues. That will eliminate problems.

George Will recently has been making the case all by himself on what the establishment thinks of Trump. They want him gone. But they want all that noisy support of his gone too. Will called himself and his fellow cohorts the adults in the room. Anti-establishment, dissenter types are welcome in the Party, he says, but that it needs to be on their terms. As far as I’m concerned, Will can go back to ABC now.

Beyond comparing Trump to George Wallace and saying that he does not belong near the nuclear football, and his supporters are Birchers and nuts, he also let fly:

Mediaite:

Will also compared Trump to primal scream therapy, a fad from the ’60s in which patients just yelled to make themselves feel better. “He’s a one-trick pony. ‘I’m rich, everybody who disagrees with me is stupid, and all our problems are simple. Put me in power.’”

“One trick pony [pot meet kettle] and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, and all the problems are simple,” sounds like the elitist establishment GOP. Yet we are the ones called angry?? How has that establishment GOP been working for you? Not. One trick pony: ‘you must support McCain or doomsday’, “you must elect Romney, he’s the only one…’. Soon to be you must support Jeb Bush and the dynasty or lose.

Sounds like a lot of someones need to have a serious Pogo moment. Aka: “We have met the enemy and they are ours”. This is from an article in the Canada Free Press
(H/T to Pepp for the article).

There is an astounding amount of groupthink among the Washington set – the journalists, pundits, lobbyists, consultants, politicians, and dealmakers. These types of folks – the George Wills and the Steve Schmidts and the Karl Roves and the rest – don’t like new ideas. They don’t want anybody rocking the boat. As a result, anyone who threatens to do so, who seek to inject fresh perspectives into the ossified mold of Washington political society, will be viewed with fear and mistrust, and will be demonized and ostracized. This is especially the case when the ideas being injected happen to be popular with the masses (such as ending illegal immigration) but unpopular with the “elites.”

But then it went further than just ridiculing and attacking Trump, they had to go straight at his supporters, or anyone unwilling to join the attack against him. This is the typical establishment style and M/O. It’s herding the cattle into one chute, as opposed to a renegade chute that may stray from the ranch.

So tell me again, how it’s “you and me against the world.” This is a concept Christian conservatives are very familiar with. They understand, at least, that we are in the world but not of the world. We are to be salt and light in the world. A very different thing than being owned by the world or, in this case, by the GOP establishment elites.

RightRing | Bullright

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.

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.