Lou Dobbs tracking the estabo GOP

Lou Dobbs – The Horrible Three-Headed Monster Of The GOP Elite

It’s Horrific – Three Headed Monster Of The Republican Establishment
Posted on June 1, 2016 by Rick Wells

It’s a horrible thing, the three headed monster that Lou Dobbs says is “lurking within the GOP establishment.” It sounds downright disgusting from his description, a hybrid of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Bill Kristol. He notes “none of them is particularly aggressive, at least publicly, they’re more passive aggressive. They’re how the party of no was first formed, in fact.”

Dobbs continues, “Trump today slammed Kristol as a loser in his new conference,” point to an interview with Sean Hannity in which he says Kristol is just trying to sell copies of his failing magazine. Trump asked, “Who would do it? Look, it’s a guaranteed loss, you can’t even get on in Texas now because they missed their deadline and now they’re missing other deadlines. And all he’s doing, I guess, is trying to get publicity for his failing magazine, I imagine.”

Dobbs points out the weak track record of Kristol when it comes to predicting political winners and losers, including the prediction that Hussein Obama would not defeat Hillary Clinton in a single Democrat primary in 2008 and a Romney victory in 2012.

Dobbs notes that Kristol’s boss, billionaire Philip Anshutz, who owns the Weekly Standard, generally tries to remain out of the spotlight, but he’s stepped into it with both feet on this one. He’s donated over $1 million to establishment GOP candidates this cycle but Dobbs can’t imagine Anshutz either permitting or dispatching Kristol on this fools’ errand.

In response to Trump’s comments about Kristol, he replied, “I’ve won some and I’ve lost some but one thing I’ve always tried not to be is a roaring jackass.” Dobbs adds, “In my opinion, Kristol has obviously failed in the latter regard and in recent years he’s been almost always been wrong in his choice of candidates and indeed public policies.”

Wrongheadedness,” says Dobbs, “doesn’t deter elites like Kristol, all uncomfortable with the democratic reality that votes do matter and that majorities and not special interests, not even really rich elite interests rule.”

Dobbs adds, “And they fear Trump mightily, precisely because he’s likely to make the establishment very uncomfortable for a very long time.”

I’m Rick Wells – a constitutional conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. I’m not PC; I call it like I see it. –  Please SUBSCRIBE at http://RickWells.us or http://constitutionrising.com to receive our posts directly. Thank You

Article at: http://rickwells.us/lou-dobbs-horrible-three-headed-monster-gop-elite/

Could it be as simple as Trump says, he’s “trying to get publicity for his failing magazine?” I don’t know. However, it is clear that Kristol is willing to risk it all, or what is left of it, to oppose Trump. A losing cause for himself and potentially the country.

What makes a person that driven to obsession? He has said he didn’t mind supporting Hillary or if she won. He can try to run from that. So Kristol is not about winning, he is about Trump losing. That his subscribers flee, so what? Apparently his establishment ties are stronger and more important. Love for country? Please.

Like Dobbs said, Kristol’s pick record is not good. And then he has been palling around, scheming with Romney for months — with Romney’s record. Ryan’s record is confirmation. But if Trump would lose, they can all come back in 2020 for another round.

Here is another one for the estabo record from Rick Wells:
“Boehner Got $5 million, Ryan $2 Million, McConnell $9 Million – Any Doubt Why TPA Passed?“

Eric Erickson drafting Romney

Update….. apparently, as us ignorantly blissful folks are prone to do, I spoke to soon about Romney. We’ll see what he says about being drafted by Erickson and Never Trump.

Pat Dollard | May 20, 2016

Excerpted from Ballot Box: Conservative blogger and radio host Erick Erickson wants Mitt Romney to launch a third-party bid for president.

Erickson wrote Friday that he would “gladly work for a Romney presidency given the choices between Clinton and Trump.”

“There is more and more data out there that the time is right for a third party bid,” Erickson wrote. …/

Read: http://www.patdollard.com/erick-erickson-calls-for-mitt-romney-to-launch-third-party-run/

This should be interesting how ridiculous Romney responds. What’s another failed run between friends? Just call it the Dumb and Dumber ticket.

Now back to the cow shit, 2 pies for them and one for the pile….

Captain Iggy Bliss

Camp Cruz attacks on Trump’s wife

When did the attacks on Trump’s wife start? Somewhere around March 8, right before the primary, and here is the video showing it

Texas lobbyist, Andrea McWilliams delivers the goods on Cavuto FBN. (video)
Slippery slime. (@ 4 min mark)

Sea also Gateway Pundit
Nice. Cruz Supporter Trashes Melania Trump for Posing Nude as Model

Then along comes Romney who can’t resist partaking in the attack of Melania Trump. At a dinner for the Republican Congressional Committee he let fly a gutter remark joke about Trump’s wife. Seem like a coordinated effort? Then Ted says about the Utah attack ad that it didn’t come from his campaign. But he couldn’t condemn the ad or the comments about Melania.

Right, the same guy who cried about cartoonists characterizing his children, which everyone condemned. Now Cruz claims he is being attacked, and the chief victim, by Trump’s response. But this is just politics to Cruz. He also could not stand up to the protestors who are trying to silence Trump at rallies — he condemned Trump. No, the cat got Cruz’s tongue, he can’t even condemn an ad by a pac supporting him.

Then when Ted responded to Trump’s response to the attacks, Ted calls him a coward using a movie quote. He really has a thing for movie lines and scripts. Too bad he doesn’t have a thing for doing the right thing. It took some time, after this recent incident, before Cruz admitted the ad was inappropriate, though it was used and he himself was the beneficiary. It’s been a part of his campaign since at least March 8th. Where was Ted?

Now Ted says, “I don’t make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family,” Who attacked his wife or family? Oh, Cruz is the victim? Sorry Ted, it’s your campaign doing personal attacks on your opponent’s family. Right, the Ted who claimed he(his campaign) does not do personal attacks, staying on the issues. What issues are these? Note campaign Cruz is talking about Melania being a foreign born while Ted was foreign-born in Canada. (someone memo McWilliams) Crisp hypocrisy.

Just cheap suits and cheap movie lines.

Hillary’s shattered armor

I am kicking around the old notion that “you get the government you deserve”. And if that is true — it seems to have some merit — then suppose that a Party also gets the candidate it deserves. Obviously just a theory. But if so, my working theory is Democrats are getting the candidate they deserve with Hillary.

Everything they said about Romney in their pack of lies they have in spades now with Hillary.But for real not an illusion. They got a rich, fat-cat politico that is so out of touch with regular people that she can hardly hide it. Someone who puts political ambitions above concerns for the people. Someone who very much plays the influence, pay-to-play game. Someone obsessed with and addicted to power. Someone involved in crony capitalism who takes money from the shadiest players. Someone who operates as above the law unaccountable for her actions.

Remember the big story was how Romney’s were buying a new house with an elevator. Using it as a metaphor, all the Clintons’ elevators only go in one direction, up. Hillary really does not care about average people.(that’s how she got where she got) It’s quite the show she puts on but everyone knows her only real, first concern is Hillary. She has all she can do to defend herself from the truth — a full time job. Like Obama, truth is her enemy. Who just makes speeches for a 7 figure income?

In New Hampshire, Hillary was asked about the allegations coming in a new book about money and influence surrounding her tenure as Secretary of State, she said:

“Well, we’re back into the political season and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distractions and attacks and I’m ready for that. I know that that comes unfortunately with the territory,”

“It is, I think, worth noting, the Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don’t know what they’d talk about if I wasn’t in the race. But I am in the race and hopefully we’ll get on to the issues and I look forward to that.”

Worth noting is it? “Distractions and attacks and I’m ready for that.” So if she’s ready for that then why can’t she answer the question? Doesn’t she have an answer ready, or does she think she doesn’t have to answer questions?

“Ready for Hillary,” who is not ready for questions.

Does she take everyone for dummies? It’s a central issue in her campaign, whether she likes it or not. She can go on ignoring it as if it doesn’t matter but it maters to the people. Especially since folks are jaded about political influence peddlers, and after 2012 when that is all Democrats talked about. So now tell us none of it matters. She can talk about what she wants till she’s as blue as Monica’s dress, but it won’t make information on her record go away. And what was the big topic in her first run? It was Hillary Clinton’s records. Axelrod and Obama wrote the screenplay.

All she wants to talk about is her Scooby Van and her script. She can’t talk about her record as Secretary of State because that is relegated to ancient history now, buried in the deep with her personal server she used. All they want to talk about is me, she said. What does she think we will talk about, she does not have a primary challenge. She said she is the most transparent person out there. Wherever did I hear that before?

But as busy as Hillary has been in the influence racket, she is whistling past her leftist base. For fifteen years they’ve been making the charge about big money and influence in the administration or the White House. It goes back to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Of course, you remember because we still hear about it. That is a favorite whipping post of the left. Then along came Romney who they painted into a poster boy for big money and influence. It still goes on in the left. Ironically, liberals don’t move on quickly.

Now here is Hillary Clinton, who if not for big money would have a giant identity crisis. Her and Bill in their private jet-setting lifestyle passed the tradition along to Chelsea. But of course Hilary thought she was entitled to her own personal server, why not? Raising millions from the same people she was dealing with at the State Department? Whatever could be wrong with that? In fact, isn’t that expected? The hypocritical left goes right along with it and the corruption she exudes. Yes, they got the candidate they deserve. They would be disappointed if she was not that way.

You heard of the military industrial complex but this is the political industrial complex. The thought that she stands a good chance of wining only adds to that. Consider if she even gets close, let alone wins, what it says about Democrats. It means even knowing how corrupt she is, they will elect her anyway — knowing full well the person Hillary is. It will mean not only don’t they care but expect it in their nominee.

The quiet operator

Someone is out there beneath the distractions and radar actively framing a run for 2016. This is not an endorsement, but I saw this interesting article. I’ll put a couple excerpts out here. Sort of like some spy story.

GEORGE PATAKI—QUIETLY CONNECTING WITH CONSERVATIVES UNDER RADAR: “National Media Clueless”

Dec 20 2014 | Conservative Base

Enter George Pataki. The former New York Governor is best known for his leadership on 9-11 and its aftermath. However, after recent trips to New Hampshire and South Carolina, conservatives are finding out that he is rock solid when it comes to issues they care about like immigration and common core. “I was surprised,” one long time observer of GOP politics told Conservative Base. “He articulated, better than anyone I’ve heard, why conservatives must oppose common core and why immigration must respect the rule of law.” Other observers noted that instead of well-rehearsed and carefully scripted 15-second sound bites, Pataki is able to go 3 and 4 layers deep on just about every subject, telling you the history and what the conservative, pro-free enterprise solution should be. “He’s Gingrich with discipline,” summed up one attendee at a recent Pataki talk.

With the GOP establishment trying to shove a nominee down the throats of the rank-and-file, the possibility of a Pataki candidacy is refreshing. The recent University of North Carolina Study of the 2012 Election, which revealed that it took 22 aides and handlers for the Romney Campaign to send out a “tweet” on Twitter, is not lost on the grass roots.

Now this is not an endorsement of him. Just someone else in the mix that no one seems to pay attention to. I don’t know if “Gingrich with discipline” is a slap or compliment?

There is a need for someone who isn’t tongue-tied when it comes to making a case. I get the impression he’s not someone who can be shoved aside, if he has the drive. Maybe someone can influence discussion besides Jeb? And Jeb demands a big stage.

Who knew Romney was so communication challenged?

A fast moving analogy

[barely satire]
My friend Gene and his wife are big NASCAR fans. (duh!) Recently, he was comparing politics to racing: ‘If drivers promise not to do certain things, to try to win, it would be ridiculous’, he said. To which I said ‘if they did, somebody would take advantage of it. Or, someone would lie.’

It dawned on me that technique could give the race to the worst guy. Everyone promises not to do this or that, and the one guy who does not live up to the bargain wins. But isn’t that how we got Obama?

McCain said “I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

And “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man…not an Arab,” McCain said. “We want to fight, and I will fight, but I will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him.” Then Romney took certain things off the table and wouldn’t talk about them. What happened?

In Illinois, team Obama successfully played the record chase. When Republicans tried that with Obama it was deemed out of bounds, off limits. “Records… you’re just birthers.” Republicans agreed. Then Obama used the worst tactics. That’s just politics, they said.

Republicans said, ‘we won’t play dirty politics, we’ll run a clean campaign.’ Obama ran the dirtiest campaign he could. He won. Then he said I won fair and square, “I won.”

Would they do that in NASCAR?

However, candidates and drivers would do well to remember, there are always plenty of diehard fans waiting for a 4-car pileup, and are disappointed when they don’t see one.

Update:
In Gene’s words — “I would never get in a race car if the crew said this car can’t win”.

What if Romney won

If Romney had won, we would be a few weeks into a new administration and the questions would be flying fast and furious from the media. There would be so much to harass criticize Romney over. Media would have to hold secret group sessions just to decide which of the many criticisms they would attack Romney on, since his taxes were published and still fodder for attack dogs. (no shortage of them) “Is he a certified criminal?” Why even ask?

They would no doubt ask, “what are you doing about the sputtering economy?” … “and what exactly are you going to do about the debt CRISIS? You cannot ignore it.” They would chant about bringing the troops home from Afghanistan.  His innaugural speech would be labled one of the worst, completely lacking content or specifics.

By now we would be still going through a massive list of pardons and a final of flurry executive orders Obama left. All irreversible they say.

Of course, mad dog media would be all over the initial appointments, looking for every minority. The word “controversial” would be attached to everything Romney says or does.  They’d tell him he has no mandate for judges or anything else.

The Senate would be in denial and telling him they will not rubber stamp anything he wants.  And they’d be making sure he understands the limits of executive power. They would lecture us on the “Advice and Consent” responsibilities of the Senate. The word “bipartisan” would be used in every other paragraph just to remind us how partisan Mitt is.

Everyone who remotely knew Romney would be interrogated to find the “secrets” and “truth” Mitt is hiding.

They would debate on how many weeks of a honeymoon he deserves while they aggressively go after anything he says or does. And they’d pick apart any White House trappings or changes the first lady makes. And all the stories about his family they stumbled across over the campaign would be lined up and ready to hit the front pages — after a brief, invisible honeymoon of course.

Oh, what a different story it would be, from the Marxist left.

There suddenly is a whole ot of front page material with all the issues they’ve been ignoring for four years. There had better not be any vacations planned soon with all this urgency about the economy, debt, and this mountain of issues to deal with.

And then the first lady “is no Michelle Obama…how will she ever manage – if she can?” Basically, the media declares they’ve been given a mandate to challange everything.(its a whole different world now) After all, Mitt had no mandate for anything.

Of course there’s always the blatant racism…. so much to write and say about that. All those disenfranchized voter suppression problems to have months of hearings on. “Racism” would be a byline in news broadcasts and echoed from street corners. “Remember, he’s a Mormon too.” So much to say about that.

And we would be less than a month into his term. Who knows what they’d be like in the second year.

Oh well, back to an even uglier reality.

A Meeting: Obama, Romney?

So Obama wants to have a meeting with the guy they labeled a tax cheat, that killed a woman, who is out of touch with Americans, who wants to outsource all our jobs, and who has money in a Swiss bank account. (etc, etc.)

A while back, Dana Perino said on Fox that Romney should get off the stage, go away, suggesting we don’t need to hear from him. I agreed and havent’t changed my mind. It seems every statement he makes is more fodder against Republicans, and the left calls it a gaffe anyway.

So why a meeting? Is his role as a whipping post for Democrats not quite finished? What is the deal? Does the Liar in Chief want new ideas? Seriously, would Obamassiah be interested in anything Mitt says? Is this another self-serving grandstanding of Obama….to tell everyone “I won”?

No doubt all we will hear is Obama’s side of it anyway. Or is it yet another opportunity for Obama to pander to his base?

Why oh why?

America’s mayor calls out America’s failure, Obama

WATCH: Rudy Giuliani Hammers Obama At Romney Rally in Ohio: “He Should Resign”…”He Lied”

 

November 3, 2012

“He doesn’t want a second term he wants a second chance because he screwed it up the first time” Rudy said at the Romney rally in West Chester, Ohio

(CNN) Not long after taking a few seconds of silence for those affected by Superstorm Sandy, Rudy Giuliani began ripping into President Barack Obama on Friday while speaking at major campaign event for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in Ohio.

The former New York City mayor delivered a series of blistering zingers against the president, rallying the massive crowd with line after line of reasons why Obama should “resign” and faulting him for “incompetence” over the Libya consulate attacks.

From: http://therightnewz.com/?p=13274

Rudy ties it all together. “They should be ashamed of themselves!”

The incredible lying machine

 

The only question I have is which lie will Obama lead off with tonight, in the last debate, and what new ones will he add to the list?

I especially look forward to one about his off-mic words to Medvedev where he promised him after his last “election” he could be more flexible. There is no way to parse that remark, like he always does, to try to mean anything else. The lie about that might be historical. 

     (AP Photo)
“I understand you. I transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this can be solved.
But it’s important for him to give me space. This is my last election…
after my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand,” Mr Medvedev responded. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

The one I always look forward to hearing is that he is so great on foreign policy. Maybe he will lead with that one, just to break the ice and try to raise expectations. But the best part of all will be the finale, it usually is. Which one will he end with to seal the deal? So many to choose from.
 

Let the spin begin.

[photo credit to AP]

Blinders of Women and a phony media

 

While liberal-progs and their lamestream media salivate over what Romney described as a policy to hire more women in his administration — supplied to him in “a binder” — they could ignore the flagrant searching and appointments of Muslims in Barry Hussein’s administration to key positions.

Obama’s policy was reported by a few websites, but other than that the media couldn’t touch it with a hundred-foot pole. And they certainly did not question it.

Cal Thomas reported in Feb. 2010: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/32840

President Obama’s appointment of Rashad Hussain, his deputy associate counsel, as special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference — the second largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations, charged with safeguarding and protecting “the interests of the Muslim world” — should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.
/….

In 1991, a memo written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood spelled out the objective of the organization. Akram said the Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Remember the James Clapper testimony where he said that Muslim Brotherhood was “heterogeneous[diverse] and largely secular”. That was in discussion to the Brotherhood in Egypt and their influence.

No real outrage over either of them; certainly no questions.

But Mitt Romney mentions a binder of women’s names given him by a women’s group for prospective appointments, and they feign outrage across the media before the sun can come up. “Sound the sirens, man the guns!”

Which one of those is worse, and which one more bizarre behavior? Just a cursory look at Hussain’s record should raise concerns, not only about his appointment but in the process and intentions of Obama. But no cries from media about that.

When Romney speaks about what he did as governor they are outraged about “binders”. Maybe they should look at the prez, show some outrage over lack of transparency, secret records, and appointments that pander to some group. Never happen.

Romney looks to hire women and Obama seeks out loyal Muslims. Which one do you care about?

Star Search of the Right

There have been a few news dribbles about the convention.

Much has happened under the radar, at least behind the media’s back. One of Obama’s campaign co-chairs is getting a speaking slot at the RNC convention in Tampa. The now former Democrat, Artur Davis, is the big notable mention. This ought to shine a light on the sweeping disenchantment with the Hopenchange bandwagon from hell.

I’m not sure that giving a prominent spot is justifiable though. I mean especially from someone who actively worked so hard to ring in this inexperienced divider in chief and his class warfare brigade in 08. Sure its worth acknowledging. But other than being seen as just a turncoat now, I don’t know the larger purpose. Is it to say, “many of us have woken up” and give voice to the disenchanted former supporters? I’m just not sure how much good it will do.

But much like a few people have already said about the convention, it may be more informative to see who is not on the speaking roster than to judge it by those who are. That may be more the point. It doesn’t seem they will be enlisting Allen West for a much-celebrated slot.

Then there is McCain. Well, at the risk of being redundant, I’d much rather hear what Allen West has to say than endure another canned speech from McCain. (especially as some of his former advisors seem poised to sabotage this ticket) And who knows what McCain might say or do by election day? “Stay tuned…”

So the real story might be who is not on the RNC roster.

Hey, how about Robin Leach opening the convention? Seems they are doing everything else to try to choreograph the event with just the right ambience.

Ref:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/meet-the-republican-national-convention-speakers/2012/08/14/36b1f242-e18c-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_gallery.html#photo=14
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/16/gop-convention-to-feature-former-obama-co-chair-artur-davis/