Trump’s operational tactics explained

Maybe not completely but here is an outline in sort of fighter pilot jargon.

Okay, so what is a loop and how does it benefit Trump? This is from Politico Magazine. I think he described it nicely.

The Fighter-Jock Doctrine That Explains Why Trump Is Winning

It’s called the OODA loop, and it keeps him ahead of everyone.

By Jack Shafer – March 23, 2016 | Politico Magazine

Who was the first candidate for president to comment on the Brussels bombing Tuesday? Who issued the most assertive, saber-rattling denunciations on the morning shows, making the rest of the field look timid? Of course, Mr. First was Donald Trump, whose verbal fleetness and willingness to talk to almost any reporter at almost any time of the day about almost any topic have made him the pacesetter this election year.

According to MSNBC, Hillary Clinton declined interview requests yesterday “until she saw that Trump was calling in to morning news shows,” and then went on the air to criticize him, although not by name. By diving in so late, Clinton was reduced to replowing a field that Trump had already turned. Like the Republican candidates before her, Clinton was already caught inside Trump’s OODA loop.

OODA loop? What’s that? I had never heard of the OODA loop until Wednesday morning, when one of my editors, Blake Hounshell, introduced me to the concept.

Who before Trump convinced TV hosts to accept lengthy phone-ins from a candidate? […/]

Read more:
Follow us: @politico on Twitter

Hillary can’t catch up to Trump. Of course she couldn’t, whether she’d even try.

That was a big part of Romney’s problem, he just didn’t have the skill to actively respond. Often he calculated and ended up in the next news cycle before he did. And even then it was filtered through advisers and staff. It was a bureaucratic approach to a personalized message. And Hillary, we know how she functions — never mind the scripted code.

Are you ready for Jeb 2.0?

You might be ready for the newest technology or the latest Iphone or gadget, but I doubt you are ready for the newest Jeb. That’s if you are like most people polled who show less than room temperature for him.

Way before he announced his run I said if he’s in it then I’m loaded for bear. I wasn’t alone. But up until now the critics have been pretty quiet, almost as quiet as his supporters. There just is not any enthusiasm for him and those that dislike him as a nominee are everywhere.

Still Jeb puts forth this line that he is not in it for the short run but the long run. He also muttered something before announcing about not wanting to get dragged into current debates. (read relevant issues)(1) No, he was above that. Then he said he doesn’t want to be lumped in with his brother and father that he’s his own man. (2)

Now he makes this call it the state of his campaign speech(3)

Politico reports that Bush was meeting with family and wealthy, big donors. So it was originally supposed to be a pep rally for the third heir in the dynasty, like sort of a send off into securing the nomination, at least by best guesstimates. Only now on skid row, the same meeting looks more like he is bringing up the rear with no sign of gaining traction, he is forced to cut back on his campaign’s expenses.

“The patient is either in intensive care and in need of some good doctors who can save him or being put into hospice and we’re going to see a slow death,” said one K Street lobbyist supporting Bush.

Now infamous line

Then came the line from Bush that did make it to front page news, from same article. Sounding angry himself he says:

“I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke,” he said in South Carolina. “Elect Trump if you want that.”

Whoa, let’s stop right there. He has a lot better things to do. I guess managing director in Bloomberg’s fund was really cool compared to this, even if it was engulfed in a global abortion agenda. He can always return to that. No one forced him to do that either.

We didn’t exactly force or draft you to run. It’s all your decision. (2)The family thing you didn’t want to be known for is exactly who you are. Nothing will change you being a Bush, Jeb. America does not like dynasties. But you knew all that before you plunged into what you expected to be a rocket climb only to be burned out on the launch pad.

Now you can blame Trump or whomever you want. You won’t blame 43 or the Bush dynasty syndrome. So maybe it is a good thing, for your sake, Trump is there to blame? And you wouldn’t dare blame the establishment or RNC Party for sabotaging your run with its questionable reputation.

How bad is the dislike for Jeb Bush? Its so bad that it is just a symptom of a greater problem that doesn’t even deserve the specter of the press to cover it in detail. Yet it is emblematic of the whole establishment problem.

(1)He didn’t want to get drawn into current issue debates like all other candidates. He shouldn’t have to, he’s a governor and a Bush. We don’t play that. Other candidates should have to go through that not a favorite son. It sounded elitist and arrogant.

He didn’t want to be labeled a Bush, which is why he used only the Jeb name. Buried in hypocrisy and contradiction he keeps saying he’s his own man but proves himself a Bush at every turn. His donor list looks typical and probably a hand-me-down like everything else. He’s been planning this run for years. But don’t play the Bush card against him. More elitist arrogance, he relies on the Bush Dynasty to seal the deal.

It doesn’t seem to matter that people have moved on and said no dynasty. Establishment, dynasty, elite, insiders are not in vogue. He’s still a Bush with all the baggage. He doesn’t seem to understand the word no — so typical. We aren’t smitten any more with you for the long run than we are for the short run. Evolve away it won’t pay. 3 big strikes….

Sexist web of infighting circling Jarrett

Still more post election lashing out by the Liberal Left, now to defend the first female of the White House. Not Michele but Valerie Jarrett.

Enter old strategist turned pundit from the Clinton era, Donna Brazile, who seems to think Jarrett is being martyred by the media and pundits — i.e. scapegoated. Golly, Valerie is like the most powerful female in the White House, and she is exempt from critique?

Veteran strategist Brazile writes on CNN:

No sooner was the hunt on for a fall guy for the Democratic midterm losses than some in the press predictably went after a fall gal — President Barack Obama’s senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett.

Reporter Carol Felsenthal in Politico and others have decided that the best way to address Democratic losses is to have a “shake-up” at the White House, and the person they most want to see shaken out is Jarrett.

She is pilloried for everything from run-ins with other staffers to playing herself in a cameo role on CBS’ “The Good Wife.” That’s how much they object to the job Valerie Jarrett is doing — they don’t even want her doing it in the fictional realm. The Politico story, headlined “Fire Valerie Jarrett,” even notes that “nobody knows precisely what Jarrett does in the White House.” But whatever it is, it’s wrong enough that she needs to be fired.

(she suggested Holder receives more palatable criticism than Jarrett)

So let the friendly fire begin. The Politico story said:

” The morning after the elections, Democrats and their top staffers were hopping mad, blaming Obama and, by extension, his staff for the defeat…. We’re at that point in an already long-toothed presidency when things inside really need to change.”

No scorn like the scorn of a Liberal.

If the stories all confirm it, Valerie was the one holding down the White House during Benghazi attack. That’s when Obama’s whereabouts were a complete mystery. She was the one who went down to the situation room, according to reports, where the stand down order would have been given. Someone in such an importantly critical role, as top adviser to Obama at every move, duly invites criticism on herself. She was likely key in the video blame strategy. She was instrumental in the bin Laden mission delays on a few occasions, for fear of problems. She’s instrumental on most appointments.

But the critical point with Jarrett is that she is there at every turn. She’s been there with all the controversy, when these policies that were apparently on the ballot — which are all politically driven — were made. She is one of the designers and would have been privy to the Obamacare lies.

Yet Brazile has problems with people picking on blaming her for the fallout post election. If anyone deserves much of the responsibility for our political state, it would be her. (not that there ever is accountability) If ever there was a deserving target for criticism other than Obama it would be Jarrett.

So Brazile does what Liberals do best, turn it into a sexist attack on Jarrett. All the criticism of Valerie is just because of her sex. They lost the election, as many people are growing weary of their war on women mantra. There must be a major estrogen shortage, and women are now on the protected species list. Now she defends one of the chief advisers using the standard “sexist” dribble. Maybe they just haven’t gotten new talking points out yet. Dirty Harry must have bestowed his gun to Donna Brazile. She has a round chambered and the hammer back. She just can’t decide who to aim at first.

Brazile’s piece in CNN is a tortured battlefield of straw men bloodying every trail. It’s a nasty job but someone has to do it. From comparisons with Karl Rove to Condi Rice and back to Hillary Clinton, she lathers on the self-serving criticism of how Jarrett has been skewered by zealots, while knighting her to martyr status. Forget the reality about why she has been a target of blame. The author of “Cooking With Grease” puts the blow torch under this entree, then doubles up on her famous sauce.

She then leans on the titan of spew, Maureen Dowd’s commentary on prior women, for evidence. She tries to pass it off as bipartisan sexism. It’s everywhere. In all the flurry, her grievous examples of “sexist” criticism came from her own kitchen — the Stalingrad Left. If those are her examples, the context is a bit lost. So she succeeded in pointing out the Left’s robust criticism of the ‘other sex’. That would be like turning the gun on herself, or her own allies. It ends up smelling more like friendly fire than a valid indictment of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Always credited with being a smart gal with an instinct for politics, her diatribe sort of fell flat in baking.

So for all the valid Valerie criticism from various inside sources, Brazile chooses to turn it all into a montage on sexism. The author, Carol Felsenthal, rendered sexist as well. Maybe the problem is that it is also other women saying it.

It seems ironic that what Donna vilifies as a menial, sexist job as librarian is probably what Jarrett wants to spend the rest of her prestigious career/life immersed in – after creating the legacy. That doesn’t look like a sexist demotion to me. Considering all the details and Obama’s secrecy of records, it’s more like overseer of the vault. But I won’t hold my breath for any action.

Or maybe this was just Donna Brazile’s folksy way of telling Valerie, “call me.”

RightRing | Bullright

Adios to Holder

So finally the news that Holder is going to resign. If there was an inevitable resignation it was Holder’s, the only question was when. Most people on the right correctly assumed he would hold out as long as possible — to the benefit of Obama and himself.

eric holder photo: holder holder.jpgSo that it is finally on the table for real means a lot. He can no longer hold down the scandalous problems to the extent he would like. But now the real problem is, with his resignation, will start the complete white wash of the Obama regime.

A rally for a new Attorney General will strain Obama’s agenda before January.

With Eric Holder, Obama’s favorite son, on the way out they will believe they can cleanse all the scandals that happened under his tenure. Oh, those wheels on the bus get bigger and bigger.

That means Obama’s executive amnesty is on the way soon.

Only in August, Politico reported “Why the hell is Eric Holder still around?”
“The Survivor” by Glenn Rush

How did he do it? To start, it helps that he is one of the few administration figures to cross the threshold from employee to friend of the famously reserved president. Holder, in fact, is one of the only Cabinet members Obama routinely invites over for dinner and drinks (Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a hoops buddy from Chicago, is another) and the only one who times his summer vacation to hang out with the president on Martha’s Vineyard.

According to the piece, Obama has told his staff:

The job of attorney general is a “shit magnet” for the most intractable controversies.

What a creative visual for the Turd-in-Chief to use. Now that magnet is stuck to it.

RightRing | Bullright

Databases, Dems and Intimidation

Silicon Valley isn’t buying GOP’s data plans


A California investor — with help from Karl Rove — won the highly competitive contest to help build the Republican National Committee’s data platform.

But he’s having trouble winning over Silicon Valley.

Dick Boyce, once a partner at Bain & Co. and the former CEO of J.Crew, launched Liberty Works with the goal of helping Republicans catch up to Democrats in the digital data world.

Liberty Works was hired to create an open-source voter data platform, meaning outside groups and campaigns would have access to the information for outreach and fundraising and also be able to build on it with their own applications. The RNC describes the goal for the shared data as “iPhone-like.”

Since the RNC announcement on May 1, Liberty Works has gotten off to a shaky start. Top engineers in Silicon Valley who have been looking for ways to help Republican campaigns question Boyce’s vision and say the company’s outreach is underwhelming — as are its salary offers.

“At a minimum, they should buy a round or two of drinks before they ask the tech community to get into bed,” said Garrett Johnson, the chief executive of SendHub, an Internet communications firm in Menlo Park.

The big risk for the RNC is that any delay or failure to keep up with the Democrats’ vaunted data operation could hurt their already uphill efforts to win the Senate next year and further cement the GOP’s reputation as behind the times in the digital data world.

Read more:

So they label it “an already uphill battle to take back the Senate”. But of course, I see no criticisms or singling out individuals from the left about Obama’s massive, even secretive, database operation. All that matters is the Republicans building one — and the more scrutiny they can give it the better.

I expect to hear some statements soon from Obama or his top operatives. Next comes the intimidation campaign

Not buying Republicans’ plans? What a crock. But what is next for Obama, send some goons to intimidate and attack anyone working with Repulicans? Let’s see, the IRS may be a little busy and indisposed right now. Have no fear, they’ll find a Chicago way.

From Breitbart February 6, 2013.


“It’s very powerful what [Obama’s] leaving in place.”

See Breitbart video

Maxine Waters says:

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin…. “That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

Poll: 36% think Obama is hiding something

Leave it to pollsters to finally have a provocative survey.

So 36% of Americans believe Obama is hiding something. Wait a minute, just 36% — around a third of the country? That doesn’t say much for the rest of Americans.


More than a third of Americans — and 64 percent of Republicans — believe that President Barack Obama might be hiding something, according to a new poll Thursday.

Thirty-six percent of the surveyed voters think the president is possibly “hiding important information about his background and early life,” the Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind survey found.

Sixty-four percent of Republicans think the president isn’t coming clean, 33 percent of independents agree, and 14 percent of Democrats say so, too.

Poll source:

The most popular of these conspiracy theories is the belief that President Obama is hidingimportant information about his background and early life, which would include what’s oftenreferred to “birtherism.” Thirty-six percent of Americans think this is probably true, including 64 percent of Republicans and 14 percent of Democrats.

I thought it was a matter of fact. He sealed off his records. He had one composite in his book that we know of. Say nothing of aliases.

But “Hiding important information in his background”? Call me a conspiricist, but do people go to that much trouble to hide unimportant, insignificant things? Obama’s campaign hounded Hillary over records asking “what is she hiding?”