Cruz takes the low road to victory

Senator-too proud for prime time-Cruz made a spectacle of himself in Cleveland. The former presidential candidate framed his prime time convention protest against Trump as a matter of “conscience,” which was the buzzword for the Never Trump people.

He called it standing on principled. But Trust Ted cannot be trusted to keep his pledge.

Memo: do not mistake pride for principle. His excuse is principle, but pride is the reason he cannot work with others or join forces to keep the country from falling off the cliff.

Ted Cruz and the Trump Takeover

Pat Buchanan | Townhall

The self-righteousness and smugness of Ted Cruz in refusing to endorse Donald Trump, then walking off stage in Cleveland, smirking amidst the boos, takes the mind back in time.

At the Cow Palace in San Francisco in July of 1964, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, having been defeated by Barry Goldwater, took the podium to introduce a platform plank denouncing “extremism.”

Implication: Goldwater’s campaign is saturated with extremists.

Purpose: Advertise Rocky’s superior morality.

Smug and self-righteous, Rocky brayed at the curses and insults, “It’s a free country, ladies and gentlemen.”

Rocky was finished. He would never win the nomination.

Richard Nixon took another road, endorsed Goldwater, spoke for him in San Francisco, campaigned for him across America. And in 1968, with Goldwater’s backing, Nixon would rout Govs. George Romney and Rockefeller, and win the presidency, twice.

Sometimes, loyalty pays off.

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2016/07/22/ted-cruz-and-the-trump-takeover-n2195889<

Ted has a problem. His political strategy is dependent on his theory that he has a lock on all the issues. He obviously doesn’t. Ted seems to believe he is an island to himself.

If there was any doubt about what he meant by conscience in the speech, he removed all doubt the next morning in a press conference with Texas delegates. He came out to say his problem with Trump was a personal thing, and that was same reason he broke his pledge to support the nominee.

And so Ted’s supporters based their support partly on the premise of his pledge to the RNC. But now breaking that is a righteous act to Ted — one of dissent. What a difference a few months makes. He deceived supporters and the RNC with his pledge, then backed out on his word, which he said was his bond. There’s principle for you. But for that pledge he was given access to the database of the GOP. He waffled on his part of the deal, while the RNC kept theirs. Now he said it was for a personal reasons he “abrogated” his pledge.

Convention Chaos in Cleveland

In researching the subject of the ballyhooed convention debacle, I was looking at the Repblican Convention.org site. Here is an excerpt.

“Talk of a brokered or contested convention is fast gaining popularity these days owing to the remarkably good performances of Donald Trump in the Republican primaries. The prospect of the businessman winning the Republican presidential nomination has spooked the Republican orthodoxy, leading to a strategic rethink on alternative solutions to prevent his nomination.

Even 2012 Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was roped in to assist in dampening Trump’s momentum.

A brokered or contested GOP convention would be the single largest political event in television and internet history. Reporters, media outlets and political junkies would probably trade their soul just to see it happen in their lifetime. It is worth noting though that discussions about a contested or brokered convention have in fact been circulating since December 2015, before the primary process even begun!

It is also worth pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, brokered and contested conventions are actually two different things; the former actually refers to backroom deals and negotiations involving senior party figures, while the latter entails delegates voting at the convention.”

Speaking of the resurfacing of Mitt Romney in cahoots with the RNC over the matter:
Mitt Romney Not Conservative — Donald J Trump (video)

Now carefully consider the descriptive words above and the impact. With all the TV coverage and popularity in this primary — namely on the Republican side along with medias’ interest — it is worth noting how much interest they have in a contested or brokered convention. Call it an investment.

They naturally would be all for it or “all in,” as they like to say. Even while that creates a diversion from Hillary’s emailgate and Benghazigate myriad of investigations or possible indictment of the frontrunner. It’s a great story for media.

So that puts the media, the RNC and much of the Left(including the Left media) all on the same agenda page. There is no interest among them in avoiding chaos and turmoil. Quite the contrary, they have a vested interest in creating it. And in the end, it’s good TV. So who are the reality TV freaks here, really? Sleepless in Seattle meet Chaos in Clevelend, coming to flat screens near you.

RightRing | Bullright

Fair is not fair – rhetoric or otherwise

John Kasich said that Donald Trump has created “a toxic environment.” So Trump is to blame, apparently, for these protests and large group that shut down a rally in Chicago.

Now I know people appreciate Kasich for his record and success, and so do I, but I have to take issue with his statements. Let’s put the blame where it lies, can we?

Trump is not an isolated factor nor the cause of everyone’s opinions. He is not the cause of the anger, it predates his run by far. What has failed us is our Party and leaders. To ignore the cause of this movement, the anger and disgust is to dismiss the purpose. Many people try to ignore and dismiss the purpose of this.

In Chicago, a protest organizer explained that, after they positioned themselves all around the venue, their goal was “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.” Now is that perfectly clear?

Then Kasich’s spokesperson came out, also condemning Trump, but saying we understand the reason people are mad as heck and he[John] understands that anger. Does he really? He seems to dismiss the voices of masses so easily, but put some blame where it belongs — with politicians and the establishment status quo.

How come when someone surges like that on the uber-Left everyone celebrates them, they gush praises on them? But on the right, they rush to condemn them. Why is that?

Rubio says he doesn’t know if he could support the nominee if it was Trump. “I don’t know.” He believes trump would shatter and fracture the [party] movement, as the nominee. Again, what has fractured and shattered the right has been the establishment politics as usual. Only insiders or estabo hacks could claim that… because it already is.

Cruz said the “responsibility for any campaign begins and ends at the top.” Maybe for others, not considering camp Cruz’s dirty tricks applied in Iowa. Cruz implies that if we just talk a certain way and act a certain way — like him — and have a dialogue, it eliminates problems like the Chicago protests. Please, is this really Ted’s understanding and knowledge of the Left?

Their Marxist purpose is to shut popular voices on the right down. It is not about dialogues or reasoning with them. All these front groups on the left operate the same way, or in concert with one another.But their objective is to stifle opposition to themselves any way they can. All of us should appeal to civility or appeal to our “better angels,” Cruz said.

Carly Fiorina said Trump “has taken advantage of [people’s] anger and frustration.” Blind are leading the blind. When she was talking about people’s anger that was different. Was she extorting that and her female credentials? Now just blame Trump for having given voice to the exact issues GOPe wanted to bury.

Obama, for the second time in a week, took his time to delve into politics namely on the right, in his roadshow tour. He said:

(Wa Po“)What is happening in this primary is just a distillation of what’s been happening inside their party for more than a decade. I mean, the reason that many of their voters are responding is because this is what’s been fed through the messages they’ve been sending for a long time — that you just make flat assertions that don’t comport with the facts. That you just deny the evidence of science. That compromise is a betrayal. That the other side isn’t simply wrong, or we just disagree, we want to take a different approach, but the other side is destroying the country, or treasonous. I mean, that’s — look it up. That’s what they’ve been saying.”

He went on to add that there are “thoughtful conservatives” out there — read who agree with him — that care about poverty, climate change, don’t insult people, who are concerned about what is going on. Well, everyone is concerned, supposedly, one way or another. But more of the same is not exactly the answer to any of it, or what they are asking for.

Then Obama said:

“We’ve got a debate inside the other party that is fantasy and schoolyard taunts and selling stuff like it’s the Home Shopping Network,” he joked.

“Now, the truth is, what they really mean is their reaction to me was crazy and now it has gotten out of hand. But that’s different. I didn’t cause the reaction. The reaction is something that they have to take responsibility for and then figure out how do we make an adjustment.”

We are being bamboozled people. This is the way the left operates and made to order for the party of Alinsky radicals. I’m not saying we are playing into their hands. Heaven knows they are going to do and act this way no matter what. I’m saying Trump presented them with an ideal opportunity for their tactics. Maybe this is one of the ways Carson can help Trump, by knowing and understanding their exact tactics.

What they have done is use Trump to personalize their attacks to broad brush the whole conservative country. Trump gives them a personal target. This is what they’ve always done. So while Ted Cruz rails about the Washington Cartel, that’s fine. But we also have to focus on left-wing fascism, too. Let’s not look at Trump as the problem when, in fact, he has been one person to speak out about the problems. So naturally he would be a target of theirs.They want to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way. Why should it surprise us?

Give me a break though, as everyone comes along to say “we know people are angry…” blah, blah and it is justified. Well, if they do know, then why do they face off with and criticize the people for taking action? In fact, they tell us they understand it that they too are angry. Really, what are they doing?

Maybe Trump is getting the hang of it and understands this radical dynamic of the Marxist Left. He has taken to pointing to the protestors as Bernie’s people, and indeed many were Bernie people in Chicago’s protest. He calls them out and personalizes who they are.

Hillary could not pass the opportunity to say “When you play with matches, you could start a fire you cannot control.” Let’s talk about playing with matches and starting a fire you can’t control sometime. It’s a long conversation.

Bernie continues to say Trump stokes anger while his campaign throws the “revolution” around loosely. Now considering Bernie’s chances against Hillary, what happens when he loses and when everyone does not get their totally free college education? Talk about stoking people’s anxieties, anger and expectations. What are those people going to do? You and I both probably have a good idea what they are going to do.

Now have you ever seen a candidate or someone take as much incoming attacks and criticism as Trump, especially from powerful places and the media? And it keeps coming.

Jekyll Island redux. A group of top Republican establishment, operatives and donors organize a meeting to take out Trump. Of, course the strange thing is it is not in secret, they are right out in the open about it. Jeb Bush has a private meeting with Kasich, Cruz, Rubio strategizing a take down before the debate.

I’ve already talked about Mitt Romney fiasco, also scheming behind the scenes. Then there is the matter where Republicans or Trump critics cannot oppose protests or Romney attacks because both comports with their own opposition. What kind of Party?

MSNBC has been reading motives into Trump all along, like racism. Other media jumped on to condemn Trump for what happened in Chicago. Glenn Beck a week ago referred to Trump supporters as Nazis and brownshirts. Talk about doing the Left’s work for them. Then another news broadcast said the rallies are WWE-type events where Trump incites and promotes violence. Two weeks ago, and still, they were stuck on a KKK message trying to tie Trump to racism. Is there anything they haven’t thrown at Trump? Not much.

“Imagine what Trump would say if he had a record like this – [his]?” Just imagine.
Barry, just imagine if you had half of your records (in question) thrown at you?

RightRing | Bullright

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

Romney to the RNC Rescue

Mitt Romney is apparently rolling out a sequel to his first two failed presidential bids.

Romney is the poster-child for what is wrong with the GOP and their thinking. So now Romney is giving a great national speech to remind us what a perpetual failed candidate really looks like. And he will remind us of the problem with RNC thinking and scheming.

He’ll remind us of all the problems and how elite arrogance really doesn’t sell, even to the RNC base. He’ll remind us that the elite don’t want us to pick or elect our leaders. Those choices must be done by the superior thinkers in the RNC, who if they don’t get their way, will fold up their tent in a Frankenstein heartbeat.

Romney wants to rescue the party from the people. Everything we despise about the GOP establishment is represented by Romney.

They told us we must accept their chosen candidates, that we must hold our nose, that we must support them when they are wrong. Ride to the rescue, Romney!

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?

What’s that, you’ll vote for neither?

This seething Trump complaint comes from the Senator in Nebraska

I guess anytime someone has to tell me “you are right to be angry” I am suspicious
Okay, I’ll cut to the chase:

At this point in Nebraska discussions, many of you have immediately gotten practical: “Okay, fine, you think there are better choices than Trump. But you would certainly still vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election, right?”

Before I explain why my answer is “Neither of them,” let me correct some nonsense you might have heard on the internet of late. – Ben Sasse

At this point, I could go on about that reasoning and rebutting the philosophy. But that’s his opinion, he’s sticking to it. (I looked to make sure that is his writing, far as I know it is)

And already I have heard this Senator quoted by many Democrats and media.

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

Trump might skip next debate

Trump might not appear in Thursday’s debate hosted by Fox News with Megyn Kelly.

Newsmax  

Trump May Skip Fox Debate for Own Town Hall

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump might skip Thursday’s debate on Fox News Channel and hold his own televised town hall at the same time if the network doesn’t drop Megyn Kelly from its team of moderators, his campaign manager tells New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman

Trump has been calling on Fox News to drop Kelly, who is scheduled to moderate with two other Fox anchors, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier. The trio moderated the first GOP debate of the season, in which Kelly and Trump sparred over a question about his treatment of women. …./

Article posted at http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/710694

In lieu of Fox debate he may do his own Town Hall. No statement from Megyn Kelly, “yours truly,” about the news. Or shall we now call it “The Yours Truly Debate?”

As Jeb’s world turns…upside down

This requires a Power Flush.

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

Reince suspends NBC February debate

So Priebus fires off a letter. Why didn’t he cancel it? That would be appropriate.

Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

But then the RNC has proved to not be great negotiators, so what good is suspending it? And NBC will do as it pleases anyway, so what is this about? How about also suspending the deal-maker in chief at the RNC (unpaid leave) since he made it? I also read CNBC promoting the debate online to be on Economy, Taxation, with some Climate Change. I never saw that mentioned elsewhere.

“In two parts, the debate focused on the economy, taxes, the national budget and climate change”.- CNBC

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.

Media meltdown on debate proves bias

It didn’t take long for the headlines to surface. Drudge was having a hard time tracking them.

Republican debate runs off the rails turns into all-out war as Donald Trump bashes John Kasich, Jeb Bush hits his protege Marco Rubio, and EVERYONE hammers CNBC’s moderators for losing control

Daily Mail

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com In Boulder, Colorado

  • CNBC hosts progressively lost control of the event
  • Texas Sen. Ted Cruz turned openly hostile, accusing them all of being Democrats intent on damaging the GOP field
  • Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie soon piled on the network
  • Donald Trump wrapped up his night by claiming he had strong-armed them into shortening the debate ‘so we could get the hell out of here’
  • ‘CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled,’ Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus said

Wednesday’s Republican debate turned into a steel cage match in Boulder, Colorado as Donald Trump tangled with Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called on Marco Rubio – his political protege – to resign his U.S. Senate seat.

As the CNBC hosts progressively lost control of the event, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz turned openly hostile, accusing them all of being Democrats intent on damaging the GOP field.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3294016/Republican-debate-turns-war-Donald-Trump-bashes-John-Kasich-Jeb-Bush-hits-protege-Marco-Rubio-hammers-CNBC-s-moderators.html

Correction it wasn’t about them losing control of the debate. They weren’t organized either though. It was a disaster of gotcha questions. Then came the all important one about fantasy football. The fantasy was about some modicum of objective moderators.

Even Reince Priebus threw out the criticism on CNN right afterward.

According to ABC 7 Denver, AP: (play by play coverage)

The chairman of the Republican National Committee says CNBC “should be ashamed” of how its moderators handled the third GOP presidential debate.

Reince Priebus (ryns PREE’-bus) says that the moderators did a disservice to their network, the candidates and the viewers. The two hours were dominated by candidates complaining that the moderators’ questions were hostile and based on inaccurate premises.

Priebus is calling the questioning “unfortunate” and says he will “fight to ensure future debates allow a more robust exchange.”

Well, when even Priebus gets his attitude on, it must be pretty obvious.  A venue more reminiscent of pro-wrestling, the moderators got into the fray breaking the one major rule of journalism: not to become the story.  But it won’t matter because the Dems will spin it as sore losers not wanting to answer tough questions. Hey, we saw what Dems did with the Hillary hearing, masters of propaganda….disinformation.

Economy on the docket

So Wednesday night’s debate is supposedly on the economy.

CNBC is live blogging here.

It won’t be hard to beat Obama’s economy. Count the ways. That should be a win win for the Republicans but we’ll see how they, and CNBC, manage to divert any gains.

Let’s see, how could this go bad? (not that I’m not optimistic, just reserved)

I guess it leaves Lindsey Graham out of the mix… er maybe not the ‘mixing’.

Trump to Iowa: “What the hell are you people doing to me?

Black Lives Matter seek debate forum

Washington Post reports on the BLM appeal to both parties for a debate style forum:

“The lessons of history are clear, and instructive for us right now. It is both protest and policy work that will get us the win, and we need every single possible strategy at our disposal in order to see real change,” Packnett [BLM organizer spokesman] said. “So I think we have an opportunity to be creative here in how we engage presidential candidates in the same way that our movement has been creative in how we have protested and created peaceful but necessary disruption around the country.”

Creative, in the same way they protest? Shutting down malls and townhall meetings, blocking traffic, storming police stations, just for a few of their creative efforts.

They since have been told by both Parties that the debate schedules are full and that they should have a townhall forum to showcase their issues. Talks continue but the DNC said it would sponsor such an event. RNC said it would be open to participating.

When they stand on their proud uber-radical protest tactics, disrupting and shouting down any dissent, calling for death to cops, and interrupting anyone’s lives they can, they still want people to support a public forum for their rhetoric. What happens if others, say more rational voices, protest them and their forum? I don’t suppose that is on their agenda.

What is pretty ironic is that they don’t want to debate. Their tactics and strategy oppose that. There is no other perspective but theirs. If you don’t get that then look at those they protested and how they do it. Now they say they want a debate?

First, they should debate themselves on why the cop killing is a common theme endorsed by their platform? But you never hear them address that every time they call for “pigs in a blanket…fry ’em like bacon.” Yet they want to mainstream their organization and expect everyone to respect and embrace their organization. Really?

Of course if you don’t endorse them you’re a de facto target. Dems, in their endless tolerance to all things radical, will not utter a peep to them. As long as they vote between calling for “death to cops,” what’s the problem? And as long as they vote correctly, which is pretty much a given. I suppose Cair will want a debate next. BLM chants death to cops but the DOJ and homeland security see white supremacists and right-wing “racist” groups as the biggest terrorist threat. (next to Global Warming) No public forum for them.

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)

Where have we gone?

“The Democrats would revise history to rationalize a return to bigger government, higher taxes, and moral relativism. The Democrat Party has forgotten its origins as a party of work, thrift, and self-reliance. But they have not forgotten their art for dissembling and distortion.

The Democrats are trapped in their compact with the ideology of trickle-down government, but they are clever enough to know that the voters would shun them if their true markings were revealed.

America had its rendezvous with destiny in 1980. Faced with crisis at home and abroad, Americans turned to Republican leadership in the White House.”

This is a quote from Republicans platform back in 1992. From then until now, one must ask “what happened?” We appear now to be a ship without a rudder, stranded in a stormy sea. Where are those tried and true principles that supposedly guide us? Have they been moth-balled in favor of Big-Government Lite rhetoric?

Along came George W who arrogantly claimed to have redefined conservatism and Republicans, (unbeknownst to conservatives) with his compassionate hubris he sailed us into uncharted waters of amnesty plans, appointments, enforcement failures, all while failing on most occasions to make the case for true conservative valuess. He waffled on this or that and then, after trying to foist crony Harriet Miers on us, gave us a nominees that again deceived. John Roberts turned into John Dud. He had already given a peace offering on the 4th circuit to Dems. (which meant nothing to Dems)

Then came not so popular President W deriding his own base who protested Miers. He steamed full speed ahead despite all conservatives lobbying efforts and letters to the contrary. But the Left didn’t like Bush and never would. Who was he fooling? What made him start down the road to concessions? Only he could know but it didn’t work. Appeasement was not the bomb, it never is with the radical left.

And leaders in Congress did virtually the same until turning over their majority to the libs — who were already quite skilled at minority power. Now along comes Trump to remind the RNC of its long trail of inconsistencies. Some deep irony there.

More from ’92… as painful a reminder as that is:

“While our goals are constant, we are willing to innovate, experiment, and learn. We have learned that bigger is not better, that quantity and quality are different things, that more money does not guarantee better outcomes. We have learned the importance of individual choice—in education, health care, child care—and that bureaucracy is the enemy of initiative and self-reliance. We believe in empowerment, including home ownership for as many as possible. We believe in decentralized authority, and a bottom-line, principled commitment to what works for people.

We believe in the American people: free men and women with faith in God, working for themselves and their families, believing in the value of every human being from the very young to the very old.”

Have we really learned the tough, necessary lessons? Are we now better for it? Are we now defining progressives, socialists and Marxists as they should be? Are we telling the truth about the Left’s agenda and schemes to correct the record? Are we seizing leadership opportunities to provide the kind of example of conservative values our country so desperately needs? Or are we cowering in a corner declaring to be beaten before we even throw the first punch? Shamefully, I say it is more of the latter. Time and time again we have seen deals being cut that display no conservative values, gaining nothing.

For a moment in time I almost lost my head and optimistically thought we returned to foundations and principles. But Jeb Bush came saying it’s his turn — to try the moderate, Rodney King approach to liberals who will never be appeased and always demand more. Compromise to progressives only amounts to doing it their way, and giving them the credit. I regained my sanity seeing the defense of Jeb Bush. Did we ever want to see a dynasty, be it on the Democrat side or the Republican side?

Yet here we are again fighting for our values to be relevant in a system given over to thugs, elites and special interests. We haven’t yet found the way to master real leadership. It must come from within, but our leaders still have not gotten that message. They even resign in a strategic way to hedge the opportunity for the establishment’s benefit.

But the RNC acts as if that is not an issue. We claim to want to move forward while estabos dredge up people who only exhibit the worst of the past. We provide the big hammer to our opponents and then ask them to hit us over the head. Only we don’t even play the victim very well. We blame everything only on ourselves — on stoopid people and “right-wing extremists,” not Estabo leaders. Then we proceed to ask for more of the same treatment. So reactionary disenfranchised voters embraced Trump as an Apprentice.

The shark-infested waters are just begging to be fed. Some in the Republican Party are determined not to disappoint them. It’s hard to stop this abuse of the base that’s been tolerated till it can’t be anymore. Yes, there are a lot of golden quotes in those old platforms and some good lessons, if we could only see them.

Now, true to the form of uncharted course, it threw Jeb Bush at us along with a wide selection of alternatives that were supposed to be chum to bait us so their selection would rise to the top. Ironically, his “Right to Rise” pac is in your face elitism. Jeb’s scolding lectures on the campaign trail aren’t much of an appetizer either.

Newsmax on Right to Rise pac:

There were also at least 20 donors who gave the super PAC $1 million, including healthcare investor Miguel Fernandez, California billionaire William Oberndorf, Iranian-American diplomat Hushang Ansary, along with his wife Shahla, and hedge-fund manager Louis Bacon.

The 236 donors who gave six-figure checks also include former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Citadel Investment Group founder Kenneth Griffin, and Houston businessman Robert McNair, Politico reports.

Jeb was a founding member and head of Michael Bloomberg’s foundation, which supports all kinds of liberal agenda items. Not in ancient history, he only stepped down prior to starting his pac and running for president. Just last year a major part of its effort was to lobby “foreign nations to ease restrictions on abortion.” Not exactly a Mexico City Policy.

Now he distances himself from the agenda that was a central priority of the foundation. I hope the money he got paid was worth it. He didn’t have to sign off or vote on it, as he asserts, but he was part and parcel to the agenda. For him to claim how pro-life he is/was is ludicrous when this is the very last place he was before running. What other GOP was promoting abortion around the globe? As for Jeb, no wonder George W is getting riled up.

Politico said:

“I don’t know if it’s panic or paranoia in Miami, but they are losing [Scott] Walker people to Marco, and if you say what’s true, they get mad,” said one Bush donor, who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity. “I think it’s just reflective of what’s been going on for the past month or so and the way the race, at least in the establishment lane, has shifted. It’s really Jeb or Marco now. Marco’s fundraising has picked up, and Jeb’s has stayed flat.”

Now they will begin shifting the estabo steam from Jeb to Rubio.

Maybe I’ll post more highlights and low expectations from the past.

RightRing | Bullright

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?