Friday, November 4, 2016

I Confronted Sen. Jeff Flake at the Local Walmart

My girls needed new shoes, and I've been obsessed with this election, so our trip today to the Alma School/Warner Mesa Walmart worked out great.

I was going one direction and Flake was coming from another, but when I saw him I did a double-take: 'That's Jeff Flake'. I popped into his aisle and said, “Jeff Flake!” He smiled, and when I approached he shook my hand – he's very approachable. My first impression was that he's a born politician, ruggedly handsome and confident. He's also a strapping fellow, he appears to be strong and fit.
Not sure how to begin, I went with my gut, “You need to tone it down on the Trump stuff.” He asked why, and I said he should support the party's nominee. We spoke for about five minutes, most of it about his reasons for opposing Trump. He seemed very confident that “He can't win”. Here are the various issues we discussed:
  • He said that he wasn't supporting Clinton, and I argued that he was, by omission.
  • He said that Trump's policies weren't really republican, and when I asked him to clarify he went, of course, to trade. He misstated Trump's tariff desires, saying that Trump wanted to impose a 45% tariff on incoming trade. I corrected him (it's 35% on selected products), and noted that Trump wouldn't be a dictator - congress would have their say. He said that Trump's trade position wasn't really republican, and that only with multilateral trade agreements could we hope to close our trade deficits. To that I argued that past GOP presidents have supported tariffs, but more importantly, Flake was using an outmoded definition of the GOP trade policy which is no longer supported by the rank and file, a policy which has denuded America of manufacturing jobs. I said that with our tax and regulatory policies, no manufacturer has any incentive to produce goods here, unless the goods are too bulky or costly to ship – even high technology goods are largely made overseas. (Aside: This issue is what rankles the establishment the most about Trump. They have tolerated the tax and regulatory climate for decades, content to watch capital flight year after year. They could have made manufacturing jobs an issue in every election, but the truth is that corporations don't care where things are made. Why not locate your production in a low-wage/high pollution country if it helps the bottom line? Businesses respond to incentives, which is why Trump's combination of carrots and sticks is likely to work. Not everyone can be a computer programmer, particularly given the state of American education, and the promises made to improve education when NAFTA was passed have not been kept. This issue isn't going away, and if the GOP leaves it alone, the trade issue will eventually be addressed by democrats, in a decidedly anti-business fashion.)
  • He argued that Trump can't win because he's insulted too many people. I asked who in particular, and he said women and Hispanics. Regarding women, I noted that almost everyone knows some women who are pigs. Though the conversation was temperate and friendly, he started to disengage at that point. I recaptured his attention when I suggested that if you looked at a list of 100 people that Trump has insulted, 95 of them (aside: more likely 98-100) had hit Trump first. To that he said that Trump has also insulted Hispanics, and I said that in the last decade, 700,000 crimes have been committed by illegal aliens in Texas alone. To that he answered with Judge Curiel, and I asked if he was aware that Curiel belonged to a group that wanted to put Trump out of business. He questioned my claim and I said that Curiel belonged to a group that has advocated a boycott of all of Trump's businesses, so how could the judge be fair?
  • Finally, I said that I didn't know if Kelli Ward could defeat him in 2018, but that his opposition to Trump would generate more problems for him, particularly if Trump wins. He admitted that he has already lost support, but repeated that his opposition to Trump is a matter of principle for him.

That was the end of the discussion, aside from the senator saying he appreciates the fact that I am following the issues so closely.


Even with those closest to us, it is hard to know exactly what is in someone's heart. Does the senator favor open borders and globalist trade policies because he honestly thinks that they benefit Americans, or because his corporate donors support such policies? Low-cost labor is just one part of it: American companies and retailers don't care where people come from or where their money comes from (work or welfare) so long as it is green and it is spent on their products and in their stores.
I take the senator at his word that his opposition to Trump is based on principle, but that tells me that his principles are from another age: the country is circling the drain. It also tells me that he is more of an ideologue than a pragmatist: he could just as easily say something like this about Trump: “Mr. Trump is our nominee. Though I think that some of the things he has said are objectionable, none of us are saints, and almost everything about Ms. Clinton and her policies is objectionable, and decidedly bad for America. I would prefer not to campaign alongside Donald Trump, but I will vote for him because most of his positions are conservative, the party chose him, and the other candidate is unthinkable. I will have a hand in shaping Mr. Trump's policies if he is elected, so his divergence from republican orthodoxy can be mitigated. Ms. Clinton has no conservative positions.”

THAT is a statement of principle; it would have distanced him from Trump in the ways that the Senator says matter, but signaled a willingness to work with the party and support its voters. The fact that he has gone another way is troubling, both for the party and for the Senator's future. Whether Trump wins or loses this year, I will be supporting Dr. Kelli Ward in 2018.


If you missed it, please check out my recent piece from The American Thinker, and share it with republicans who are still reluctant to support Trump: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/13_headaches_republicans_against_trump_havent_considered.html

Thursday, October 13, 2016

WHAT TRUMP WILL SAY IN THE THIRD DEBATE

General playing field:
Based on criticism from the last debate, Clinton will be more active and 'engaged', which will work against her. She is naturally shrill, and her two default facial expressions are anger and a phony smile.

Trump will be aggressive with Clinton and the press; the gloves are off, and based on the last debate, he knows he can dominate her. He will be brimming with confidence.


Weaknesses:
Clinton doesn't have a closing argument. Her platitudes are so empty that there is no single issue that will mobilize voters to vote for her, aside from dislike of Trump.

Trump has had to play some defense this week, and the stories alleging misconduct will be fresh in the voters' minds.


What to watch for from Trump:

1. Unity
If Trump wins, he will work even harder as president than he has worked in the campaign. There won't be many days off, he's already played plenty of golf. The left and the corporate media will never approve of his presidency, but Americans will see hard work and real results that benefit everyone, and we will finally be unified. On the other hand, no matter what Hillary Clinton does, there will always be justified doubts about what she's already done and what is going on behind the scenes. She will never unify the country.

2. Trade
He will give a more effective outline of his plan to 'bring jobs back'. “We can't let these companies leave” isn't enough to satisfy Wallace, who has asked about this before and wasn't happy with the answer. Watch for Trump to turn the question into an indictment of the status quo: Hillary and her cronies have created the most hostile business environment in the country's history, from the web of high taxes and record-setting regulations to a dismissive and hostile attitude from the top, “You didn't build that.” He will say that he'll reverse the trends that make companies want to flee to high-pollution, low-wage countries, and will do so by creating the most hospitable job-creation environment the country has ever seen. He may even make the argument that America is the one of the cleanest places in the world to burn fossil fuels, so if voters are concerned about pollution and carbon, they should want to see a revival of the American economy. If some tariffs are necessary, they are logical: we pay for the infrastructure, education, policing, military, and all the rest that makes it possible for our country to import so many goods. While we brutally tax and regulate American producers, the rest of the world gets a free ride.

3. Corruption
Polling has recently shown that 'corrupt government officials' are a major concern for voters. After detailing Clinton's history of corruption, Trump will explain that he is the candidate to end corruption, while the press will let Clinton get away with an unprecedented level of corruption. Under a Trump presidency the press will finally do their job. They've already shown that they give Clinton a pass and even collude with her and her cronies. Trump will have one job: working for you. Even as Secy of State, with the limited power available to her, she corrupted the position by steering government funds to her cronies. Just imagine what she will do if she wins this election.

4. Immigration
This is Trump's last chance to hit this issue hard in front of tens of millions of voters, so expect a conciliatory attitude towards immigrants, and expect him to hammer Clinton on her past statements about the border, and her recently revealed dream of hemispheric open borders. This is a new day and age, and Clinton's open-borders dreams and her plans to admit 550% more refugees – whom she has admitted can't be vetted - show that she is living in the past, which is dangerous. For the same cost, we can take care of ten times as many Syrians if we protect them in Syria rather than run the risk of importing ISIS terrorists.

5. Terror
He will mention that Hillary Clinton has accepted tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees, campaign donations, and Clinton Foundation donations from countries that export Jihad and denigrate women and gays.

6. Rape
If Trump talks about Bill Clinton's rape(s), he will note that Hillary Clinton has already said that Bill will be intimately involved with the government and the country if she is elected. He will also mention the recent data showing that criminal aliens currently incarcerated are responsible for 70,000 sexual assaults. We need to rehabilitate our own criminals, we don't need to import more.

7. Honesty
This will be the most important part of the debate. Trump will say that it should be obvious that he is honest and speaks his mind, unlike Clinton, who has said she has public and private positions on many issues, and whose every utterance is scripted and calculated. Which issues does she have two positions on? We know of some, we don't know about others, so voters can never really know what her position really is – except that she basically favors more of the same. Voters know he is honest because he's not a politician and that has resulted in some trouble; he's said some things that the press has interpreted in the worst possible way. The corporate press lets her statements slide, always giving her the benefit of the doubt, which they will continue to do if she is elected. We will have the most dishonest and unaccountable government in history, when the country needs honesty and accountability more than ever.
This is the chance to offer a comprehensive apology to anyone who has been offended by some of his comments. He's not a perfect vessel, but he is perfectly suited to fight for Americans. He loves America and all Americans, and wants what is best for them. I don't know how he will craft an apology without sounding defensive, but it's important that he do so, so he probably will.

8. Change
Voters know that Clinton won't change anything. This is why she is so widely supported by the mega-wealthy who have benefited so much while everyday Americans – a phrase she reportedly hates – have lost ground, year after year: Less income, less opportunity, less security, etc. With Clinton it will be more of the same, when the country needs real change more than ever.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

TRUMP'S PERFECT VP PICK

Trump's  PERFECT  VP Choice

The widespread dissatisfaction with government incompetence and corruption virtually insures that Mr. Trump will be our next president. The current dust-up over his comments about the Trump University trial judge is a small bump in the road; in the end this and other 'racial' questions will be irrelevant. As usual, Trump has hit on the truth of the matter; the judge is biased, and he is biased at least in part because of his heritage and associations. So the issue is merely a matter of political correctness, of which most of the nation is sick to the point of anger.

There is, however, a large potential speedbump ahead, the VP choice. Some of the smart money is on Speaker Gingrich, but he has a long tradition of support for globalism, dating way back. Newt claims to have changed his outlook, and his conversion to a more nationalist perspective is probably honest, but Trump's safer choice is a pure nationalist. There are a number of high-profile nationalists available, notably Rep. Duncan Hunter of CA, and former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. But Hunter is relatively inexperienced, and Huckabee is seen by many as too religiously zealous.

There does exist the perfect choice, an individual who ticks off all of the most important requirements:
- nationalistic
- outsider
- female
- brilliant
- even-tempered
- tough
- beautiful
- impervious to accusations of racialism (she would be a minority, married to a minority, or her children would all            be adopted and imported)
- government experience
- up to speed on all the issue - no training necessary
- anti-PC
- widely-respected and well-liked
- reliable and hard-working
- excellent debater

Several of these attributes seem to contradict one another - particularly, an outsider with government experience. There is nary a woman in the GOP who currently holds office and can be considered an outsider, let alone a nationalist. To one degree or another they have all swallowed the globalist/PC kool-aid. Picking any of them would be seen as pandering to the female vote. But if Trump can find the perfect female VP, he can satisfy the desires of many women to have a woman lead the country. Not now, but in eight years - not too long to wait when the alternative is embarrassing, crooked Hillary. Trump's perfect VP pick would not suffer from any of Ms. Clinton's limitations, and men would eagerly support her because unlike Clinton, she is NOT a storehouse of the worst female attributes.

The selection of a minority or minority-friendly female who can blithely and convincingly dismiss charges that Mr. Trump is 'racist' may be an important factor if Mr. Trump continues his parade of honesty. A charitable perspective would be that Mr. Trump is not a trained PC speaker, so he should get the benefit of the doubt; there is no record of him saying anything derogatory about another race as a whole. Nor has anyone come forward to say that Mr. Trump confided racialist opinions in the past, indeed, it seems that all he cares about is honesty and competence. But there remains the outside chance that the American public will be so closed-minded and brainwashed that they will flush the bill of rights down the toilet by electing Ms. Clinton.

Another benefit to choosing this woman would be the ELECTRICITY it would send through the GOP and the electorate: it would be an unexpected shock that would quickly be heralded as another Trump coup.

I sincerely hope that this article finds its way to Mr. Trump. I'm convinced that Mr. Trump would be best-served by choosing Laura Ingraham as his VP.




Wednesday, March 30, 2016

BRUISE PHOTO FAKED - Princess Fields Cries Wolf

The explosion over Corey Lewandowski's alleged 'battery' of Princess Fields has exposed the fact that all objectivity has gone out the window. Essentially, if you were opposed to Trump before this story exploded you are taking Princess Fields' side – in spite of the lack of evidence of anything like intended battery.

Here are two arguments that I have not seen made, including one that should put this entire issue to rest if there is ANY objectivity left in our political discourse. Please tweet this link!

  1. RE Lewandowski's statement that he doesn't know her and didn't touch her:
    This was made when her version of the story still included the insane notion that she was almost thrown to the ground. In fact, in spite of wearing VERY high heels, there is no real sign that she even fought to keep her balance - no swaying, rocking, or stumbling. Lewandowski was responding to that narrative – he knew he didn't do anything violent to anyone, so the person making these claims must have seemed crazy. From the video, he doesn't even glance at her – it was a simple matter of protecting his boss from whoever was violating the SS cordon – two SS agents were reaching for her at the time CL moves her out of the way. So the idea that he lied is probably false, if considered in its proper context. That applies as well to the complaint that he didn't 'just apologize and move on' – apologize for what she claimed he did in her original statement? Not advisable, as it would be admitting to her version of events.

  1. RE Princess's bruises:
    The argument has been made that an instant of contact through a coat would not be enough to make these bruises. It has also been noted that at WORST, he grabbed her upper arm or elbow, not her lower arm as shown in her pity photo. It's hard to tell from the video whether she was grabbed at all, but it appears CL has a handful of her coat above the elbow.
    The argument that hasn't been made, which puts the lie to this bruise photo, is the position of the bruises. Take a look at the photo. The bruises would have had to come from fingertips. They are on the TOP of her arm. For CL to grab her arm with sufficient leverage to move her bodily, so that his fingertips were ON TOP of her arm, he would have had to be on his knees beneath her arm, or with his hand bent back at the wrist in an impossible position, one that would provide little leverage. The PALM of his hand would have to be on the underside of her forearm in order to make those impressions. It looks like Princess botched the frame job.
    Ty it with another person. See if you can grab their arm in such a way that your fingertips are on the TOP of their arm. Add in the fact that CL is taller than Princess, and it is clear that this photo is almost certainly a fake.  
                                                            Had he grabbed her arm in a pincer-type grab, not only would he have lacked the grip and leverage to move her, but she would have had an even deeper bruise on the softer underside of her arm, where one thumb would have to balance the force of all the fingers. No photo of that exists because apparently it didn't happen that way either. And had he grabbed her like that with enough force to bruise, the smile on her face would have been replaced by a look of anguish. 
                                                           
This entire story exposes the very deep rift in the party. But remember that the voices we hear in opposition to Trump are largely the paid operatives of the establishment. They know that their policies and ideas have failed or failed to gain traction, so they will be marginalized by a Trump victory. And though the anti-Trump chorus is loud, it is in reality small - the VOTERS who are saying 'never Trump' still have alternatives aside from Screech Clinton, and they are nowhere near as invested in maintaining the status quo as are the talking heads doing most of the moaning. Most of the voters will come to Trump's side when it is Trump vs Screech. And by some combination of common sense and persuasion by Trump, even many of the establishment anti-Trump crowd will come over, with reluctance and reservations, but come they will. When the only alternative looks like total marginalization  - and suffering the enduring hatred and rancor of most of the party - they will have a 'come to Trump' moment and their world will change. We will finally see some humility. 

Friday, March 25, 2016

The "Cuban Mistress Crisis" - Ted's Chinese Water Torture Begins

If Trump and Cruz could get past their mutual loathing, the pair would make a formidable duo and totally neuter neocon resistance. But it looks like that possibility is fading fast.

Earlier this week their ongoing feud boiled over when dual UK/US citizen, the androgynous 'Liz Mair' (why are dual citizens allowed to be involved in US elections?) used a salacious GQ photo in an ad aimed at puritanical Utah voters, as part of her anti-Trump PAC's advertising campaign against the real estate mogul. Ms. Mair said that she doesn't care if Melania Trump posed provocatively before she was married to Trump, but Utah voters might care, so, as the ad stated, 'why not vote for Ted Cruz?'



Androgynous 'Liz Mair'


It turns our she is married, to this fellow

The ad was designed to goad Trump, which it did. He has a weakness for defending his family - his feud with Rosie O'Donnell started when Rosie gratuitously attacked Trump's family, merely because Trump, as the co-owner of the Miss USA pageant, was required to make a judgment about the winner's behavior. To my knowledge, Rosie is the only thing that Trump has referred to as a 'dog' or a 'pig'. He noted that fact in the first debate, and Lyin' Megyn Kelly immediately lied, saying 'and others' (which others, Lyin' Megyn?). Now, thanks to Rosie and Megyn, it is common parlance that Trump regularly refers to all women, even those who have never insulted his family, as pigs and dogs. If you haven't seen it, here's Rosie's unsolicited attack that started their feud and has fueled the charge the Trump is a misogynist.

Mair is one to pile on, as she tweeted recently:
"(Also, we're willing to spend small amounts of money to just troll and annoy Donald Trump, which seems to be working very well this week)."

"How pissed are Trumpkins right now that their hero is talking to the Jooooooos?"
(Is Liz Mair Jewish? Why is she trying to imply that Trump's people are anti-Semitic? Trump's daughter CHOSE to be a Jew, for Christ's sake (err..... you get my point.))


Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Ted Cruz – Brilliant Moron


Growing up, my father told me, constantly, that there was a huge difference between being intelligent and being smart. My dad didn't know that at the age of 8 or 9, my buddies and I would go to the local gravel pit, looking for unspent/misfired .22 caliber bullets. We found a lot of them, and would gather around a big rock, dropping another rock on the unspent bullets, delighted by the deadly little explosions that resulted. Had my dad known that, he would have reminded me what 'smart' meant on a daily basis.
The fact that Ted Cruz has frequently had to explain and backtrack on comments shows us that he may be brilliant, but he isn't very smart. The latest example is his plan to 'patrol' Muslim neighborhoods in the US. Limbaugh contorted himself wildly today, arguing that Ted meant surveillance. The difference is that Ted's words give radicals all the oxygen they need to radicalize others: “See how the great Satan treats its own Muslim citizens? They put extra cops on patrol, harassing our people and following our women!” Surveillance is secretive in nature and is what we are already doing, and what many (Trump included) have advocated we do more – secretly monitoring suspect Mosques and individuals. That Ted can't see how the two different approaches would be viewed by Muslims and their defenders tells us that he is not a smart man, merely a brilliant moron. His choice of words - "patrol" - is the difference.


Similarly, his recent decision to side with paid anarchists and leftist extremists who violently protested Trump's rally in Chicago. Stupid. In doing so, he argued that a campaign takes its orders from the top and is what it is from the top down. That hangs the Cruz campaign's Iowa lies around Ted's neck. And today one of Ted's super-pacs, funded by Ted's owners, hit Trump's wife. Lyin' Ted says he had nothing to do with it, but it's a super-pac that supports him and speaks for him. The fact that they would run the ad tells us something about Lyin' 'Saint' Ted – his most fervent supporters thought he would be fine with it. Today he also said he would gladly accept the support of the #nevertrump/alwaysScreech crew, likely because he learned that Trump is the 2nd choice of more Kasich supporters, so even heads up with Trump, he can't win. That leaves convention bargaining as his only out. He said back on March 1st that he would support Trump, but now he welcomes the support of people who would hand Screech the white house. Why is all of this important? Because it reinforces the idea that Cruz is a liar, an opportunist, and a greasy, phony snake oil salesman who will do anything to win – even after he has already lost.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

The '#nevertrump/alwayshillary' Clan – Shapiro in the Dock

One of the leading proponents of 'never' voting for Donald Trump is former Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro. He produces a video and audio podcast four times each week, Monday-Thursday. He's typical of the anti-Trump cabal in a number of ways. For example:

  • He rarely gives people the benefit of the doubt. Because Ben Carson said that he will have a role of some kind in a Trump administration – perhaps an advisory role – Shapiro insists that Carson's support was a quid-pro-quo. Shapiro apparently can't envision a person who would lend support and incidentally have an advisory role. But Shapiro is open-minded when it comes to his friends. Former Breitbart reporter Michele Fields is known for her dubious personal crises; in addressing her claim that she was beaten with a baton by police, Shapiro noted that video of the 'incident' shows her being knocked down. That's close enough for Shapiro to gloss over the core of Fields' claim. More on Fields' newest lie - about Trump's campaign manager - in a few days, watch this space for a thorough de-bunking.
  • Shapiro's loose with his language and undisciplined. In the lead-in to his 'nevertrump' arguments outlined below, he says about Trump, “He is not conservative on any issue.” This is nonsense. Trump, unlike the other candidates, has named specific jurists that he would appoint to the supreme court, conservatives Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor. Shapiro has watched Trump roll over his opposition in the GOP and the press for 9 months, but must assume that he will fold instantly when it comes to the court. That is an argument for which there is no evidence or rationale. In addition, Trump has insisted that he will protect the 2nd Amendment, and rather than talking about it in esoteric terms, he brings it into the lives of his audience – as a bulwark of self-defense and defense of the country against radical Islamists. I have never heard Ted Cruz speak of the 2nd Amendment in that way, it's always a conservative touchstone for Ted, a mere talking point.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Trump Essentially Inevitable - 7 Takeaways From Jr. Tuesday

As of now, Trump is 2500 votes ahead of Cruz in Missouri, and that lead is likely to hold, 97% of the vote is in. That leaves about 25,000 votes outstanding, Cruz would have to win 55% of the outstanding votes. So Trump won 4 of the 5 contests.

Trump out-performed his RCP average in Florida and Illinois, Cruz outperformed in North Carolina and under-performed in Ohio.

I called Ohio for Trump, but also called Rubio's exit, so not a bad night for predictions. Here are some takeaways from tonight's voting:

Monday, March 14, 2016

Junior Tuesday: Grit Test For America, Predictions

After leftist mobs forced the cancellation of a Trump rally in Chicago Friday, the entire planet piled on Trump and his supporters. The supposedly incendiary rhetoric from the GOP front-runner was replayed endlessly, and even misquoted by the worst of the snakes: Lying Ted Cruz said that Trump encouraged his supporters to punch people in the face. In fact, Trump only said he'd like to do that himself - at a rally where the anti-free speech and anti-free assembly totalitarians were particularly nasty. But even if you construe what Trump said to be actual encouragement to punch people, apparently his supporters aren't too pliable: one 78-year-old man took his 'advice', sucker-punching a hapless black protester who was being led out of a rally. And that old man appears to be mentally unstable - he later burbled about killing the protester next time. So the sum total of Trump's provocations amounts to almost nothing, despite the fact that youtube is full of videos of leftist radicals screaming in the faces of Trump supporters at Chicago and elsewhere. Trump supporters may be some of the most peaceful people on earth.
The fact that the Chicago mayhem was planned long before the sucker punch from a solitary nutjob is known to Lying Saint Ted, Sweaty Little Marco, and Kasitch, but that didn't stop them from blaming the actions of thousands of angry leftists on Trump, saying he's created a 'toxic environment'.  Their slick advisers OK'd the hit on Trump because all three are on their last legs. Rubio and Kasitch are fighting for convention bargaining power, and Cruz has zero appeal outside his 'very conservative' base. The fact that the political and media long-knives are out for Trump tells us one thing for certain: he is a threat to their dominance. Their rhetoric is mostly tawdry self-justification.

Tomorrow we will find out of American still has a spine. If Trump falters badly, one of two things will be the case:

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Is Chicago Our Future?

Tonight 20,000+ Illinois residents showed up to hear Donald Trump speak. The event was cancelled by Mr. Trump due to security concerns, which included a threat to storm the stage. Given the number of protesters involved, it seems that Mr. Trump's concerns were more than warranted.

Mr. Trump has been dogged by protesters at nearly every speech he's given since he started getting traction in this race. Now the protesters have taken things to a new level. The reaction from the press and politicians should be unsettling, and the implications for the future of our political system are dire.

The following things are clear. I will be uncharacteristically blunt.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

SuperTrump - Debate Wrap

Trump was virtually PERFECT tonight in Miami.

He weathered a hostile audience and consistent attacks from Cruz, and he wasn't rattled once0.

The questions were sometimes explicitly and more often implicitly anti-Trump, and they went nowhere. He was blunt and tough enough that his image will be as strong as ever to his supporters, and he showed another side that he desperately needed to show.

Some takeaways from tonight's debate:

1. It's unlikely that Trump lost a single supporter. If anything, they will be more committed than ever.

2. He put to rest the idea that he is incapable of being presidential. Earlier in the week he promised to do so, and did - a man of his word.

3. None of his competitors said anything memorable. The debate will be remembered only for Trump changing his demeanor. There were a number of instances where he would normally have attacked brutally and didn't, each one must have been a gut-check to his detractors.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

GOP Establishment Died Tonight - 9 Takeaways + Bonus

I'm watching Trump's MASTERFUL press conference as I type this, and Trump's confidence is _off the charts_, but leavened with humor and humility. When I saw the table adorned with Trump wine and steaks, I wondered what would happen, and he handled it all beautifully.

Trump made a major investment of time in Michigan, and the voters rewarded him handsomely. For all of the talk from Cruz and Rubio about Trump's uncertain commitment to Kirkian conservative principles, no one doubts Trump's commitment to American workers. Many wonder what he will do to advance their interests (translation: we are stuck with the status quo failure FOREVER) but few doubt his desire to improve their prospects, if he is able. To the extent that his opponents mirror that desire, their mindset is a recent evolution forced by Trump. Cruz originally supported giving 'fast track' trade promotion authority to globalist cabin boy Barrack Obama, changing his position only last year - and he has the gall to cite a 17-year-old interview with Trump about abortion. Voters can often smell a phony, and Saint Ted's Zombie campaign's corpse can be smelled all the way from Calgary.
 
If I were Cruz or Kasich, I don't know what I would do now. Rubio's small penis/pants-wetting shtick fell flat on its smug face. Do they continue with the rabid attacks? Sadly, I think that is their only option: trying to take Trump off his game. Because after tonight, he is ON.

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Mark Levin: Trump Represents "PUKISM" - ANSWERED

A lot of  people are sick that Levin's radio show has degenerated into a foam party for Cruz and a platform to relentlessly trash Trump. Let's look at a few of Levin's tiresome talking points.

1. Trump is an establishment crony capitalist because he contributed to democrats.
This is in direct conflict with Levin's understanding that most campaign contributions coming from industry are PROTECTION MONEY. Did Trump lavishly fund the democrat movement, or just contribute to specific, high profile democrats, where his contributions would allow him to make a phone call if some bureaucrat is making a project impossible for him? Levin talks like Trump is the great liberal benefactor, when he knows that is an unfair charge. When government has vast power to disrupt things, it would be irresponsible for a businessman like Trump to fail to protect his business and his workers against them. That is a fact, and Levin twists it mercilessly into a charge of 'crony capitalism'. Where has Trump paid for a change in the law that would specifically benefit his business? THAT is the definition of crony capitalism - it doesn't apply to Trump, and Levin knows it.

2. Cruz can do nothing wrong.
It's been widely accepted that Cruz damaged his campaign with what he did in Iowa. Cruz apologized to Carson in front of 13 million debate watchers - why, if he did nothing wrong? Since apologizing, Cruz has repeatedly appeared on Levin's show to commiserate with the self-titled 'great one' (Grate One) about how pure Cruz's actions were - so his apology reeks of insincerity. Nothing is said by either Saint Ted or the Grate One about how they can even understand how people could think it was offensive to go WAY BEYOND what CNN reported, turning it into 'Carson's Out'. It's just a big mystery how anyone can think it slimy to suggest that Carson would throw away months of effort and diminish the lost life of his staffer by withdrawing from the race just as voting is starting.
Cruz's 'voter violation' mailer was roundly condemned because he dragged NEIGHBORS into it and 'shamed ' voters - unlike prior 'similar' mailers that were titled 'voter scorecard' and contained nothing to suggest a state sanction, explicit condemnation with almost universal failing grades, and mention by name of neighbors who had similarly transgressed.
So what's the bottom line, Grate One? Why did Cruz apologize? DID his actions damage his campaign? Before those actions he was widely viewed as the most honest candidate, and that status has been damaged. Was Cruz responsible for allowing that change of mind to occur? Did Saint Ted make mistakes, or is it all just so unfair?

Friday, March 4, 2016

Establishment Has ONE Remaining Option

In the current landscape, the establishment's case is hopeless:

Cruz - He has shot his wad: His delegate count is largely due to his home state, and the SEC states, where he was supposed to have his greatest strength. He won a dismal 9% in MA, and is polling poorly in relatively conservative FL. Forget the rust belt, those states are looking to Trump. Cruz will not be a favorite in any 'brokered' convention scenario, if Trump fails to secure a majority of delegates: The only scenario where a brokered Cruz outcome is remotely possible is if Rubio drops out soon and most of his support goes to Cruz, and that is unlikely to happen. There has been some speculation that Rubio will fold before Florida, since a trouncing there will make his future in politics grim. But Rubio is slippery enough that he is holding out some hope that the party elites will simply find a way to hand him the nomination at the convention. So assuming Rubio stays in through FL, the damage to his future prospects will already be done, giving him little incentive to exit to the private sector before the race ends in June, unless his support really plunges. If Rubio drops out before FL, that probably cinches FL for Trump. So either the race effectively ends in FL or Cruz is likely to be part of a divided field going forward.
A Cruz exit is also unkikely, he remains the truest conservative in the race (if one equates the current trade regime with 'conservatism') so an early exit would be seen as a betrayal of conservatism and his supporters. Beyond that, it would belie the idea that Trump is 'not a conservative' were Ted to exit and many of his voters go to Trump. Many are with Cruz because of concerns over immigration, so a lot of Cruz people would probably swallow their pride and go to Trump. Few voters believe that any of the candidates will abandon the 2nd amendment, appoint liberal judges, or increase taxes and expand government. But there is distrust RE immigration, with both Rubio and 'think of the children' Kasich. Many Cruz voters understand that immigration is issue #1: you can get all the rest right and demographics will turn it all around if we don't stop importing millions of dependents. So the best Cruz can hope for, if he remains true to his supporters, is to remain bogged down in a multi-player field. None of that addresses his main electoral weaknesses in a general election, which have gone largely unremarked - his Canadian pedigree (recently 'validated' as a legitimate concern by National Review) and his theocratic religion.

Kasich - He increasingly looks like a VP candidate. He's the 'sane' one in the room in the establishment's eyes, but they seem intent on backing Rubio. A victory in Ohio won't be meaningful unless Trump also loses FL _to Kasich_, who sits at around 10% in the polling there. If anyone other than Trump wins FL, the race will remain divided. In the best case for Kasich, he will be a sitting governor who barely won his home state - hardly the launching pad for a national comeback in a 3-4 man field. He's already conceded that a brokered convention is his only hope. If Trump remains strong that hope will dim, even if Kasich wins OH. He may be the next to leave the race regardless, and his support will be divided between Rubio and Cruz, with some undoubtedly going to Trump as well. Kasich is essentially a non-factor at this point.

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Detroit Debate Fiasco

Were some of the audience members literally drunk tonight? What a mess. People were yelling when there was nothing to yell about. It would be nice to see an audience composed of randomly chosen citizen voters. The RNC can throw a lavish debate viewing party in another location, where the donors can scream to their hearts' content. These are donors and elected officials, and they act like this? Why are they controlling our country?

Mr. Trump didn't take my advice about staying apart and above the fray. This may have been impossible, being attacked from all sides and even betrayed by the press (whoever leaked the off-the-record NY Times story should never work in media again, it's like exposing a whistleblower.)

If Americans reject Trump because of 'Trump University', we deserve to be owned by the rest of the world, which is still populated with serious people.