"Donald Trump ... You MAGNIFICENT BASTARD !" ...
. 
.
Posted on 08/25/2015 10:27:54 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
In the past couple of weeks, ever since the Fox News GOP debates (yes, plural, there was the "kiddie table" debate with Perry, Fiorina, and Jindal, among others), there is one name on the GOP side who has dominated not only the airwaves, but most of the time and efforts of the punditocracy.
Donald Trump.
He arouses wild excitement, and withering contempt; he is an object both of fear and of hope; and his support, like his opposition, comes from all demographic groups, many different political backgrounds, and is not limited to any one state or geographic region. He is, it seems, the very embodiment of the "Big Tent" vision for the GOP (more accurately, the GOP-e, which shall be its name for the remainder of this piece) once espoused by Karl Rove.
But there's only one problem.
It's the *wrong tent*.
The GOP-e had a vision for reaching out according to the conventional wisdom: 40% of the voters, it is said, would vote for Karl Marx himself if he only had a (D) after his name; another 40% of the voters would similarly vote for Mickey Mouse if he but exhibited the (R) in the right column; and the winning and losing of elections is based upon gaining as much of your own base as possible, depressing the opponent's base, and capturing as much of the other 20% ("the mushy middle") as possible.
The GOP-e essayed to do this, over the past several elections, by quietly throwing a significant portion of their own 40% under the bus: the "crazies" or "Tea Partiers" or "closet racists" or "anti-abortion fundies" or "Fox News viewers" or "Dittoheads"... but quietly: not open repudiation, but behind-the-scenes backstabbing and betrayal, in committee assignments and deals cut with the Democrats and creative incompetence in the Kabuki theatre of opposing Obama and all his new initiatives. (The idea being that those dumb kooks in flyover country would be too, well, unsophisticated to notice the difference; and any losses could be made up by appealing to the broad middle, and to reaping the anticipated rewards of the growing immigrant class, who in the meantime make a swell source of low-cost labor for the oligarch donors behind the GOP-e.)
Or, in a more cynical light, as expressed by a number of commenters, the GOP-e might just have been infiltrated by "entry-ists" (Donkey's nose in the tent) or moles, or the leadership subject to dirty-tricks pressure; bribes, fear of exposure (Denny Hastert's structuring of withdrawals which were later connected to payments of what might have been hush money for sexual escapades with a teenage boy)...this being Washington, the possibilities were endless. And in that case, there was no longer a true two-party system, but a Uniparty, pretending to be at each other's throats, the better to exact money from partisan voters, but really with a gentleman's agreement not REALLY to advance either agenda; and to take turns, more or less, on who got to run the government and distribute the spoils.
But then...two things happened.
First, the Obama election: young, charismatic, far-left, with no executive experience except (he actually said this with a straight face on Anderson Cooper 360, once upon a time):
"...my understanding is, is that Governor Sarah Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect."
The economy melted down. Obama doubled down.
Obamacare raised its ugly head: the American people raised their voices to a fever pitch: to the point that a Republican was elected, in Massachusetts, for the express purpose of stopping it.
Obama was re-elected in 2012, and put the pedal to the medal.
To stop him, there was another wave election of Republicans in 2014; all the best efforts of Obama's magic team could not prevent the GOP from taking the House and the Senate. The people were frantically signally that they wanted effective opposition to Obama and his policies. All to no avail.
Take a brief look at the "fundamental change" loosed upon the land by Obama. Surely, the talking heads said, Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
No -- and in a surprise, it was the supposedly conservative Chief Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote, with the more liberal Kennedy begging him not to pass it.
An economic slowdown worthy of comparison the Great Depression: the number of people in the country in the labor force, gainfully employed, at the same level as the CARTER years, despite nearly 40 years of population growth since then.
What else? The virtual imposition of Gay Marriage and its newfound discovery as a Constitutional Right, not on legal reasoning, but on flowery language worthy of a New Age greeting card. Followed by the White House being lit up in rainbow lights in a cultural "in-your-FACE!" not seen in modern times. Except maybe for Obama's vacations costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Supreme Court again affirming Obamacare by overwriting the express text of the law with a sense of the intent behind the law.
Obama declaring a de facto Amnesty for illegal aliens.
The rise of a small group mocked by Obama as being "the JV" but now a household word on account of their atrocities, from on-camera beheadings to the sexual slavery of Christian women. The White House's response? The President's wife sending out a selfie of her holding a hand-written hashtag: "Bring Back Our Girls." Even Dhimmi -- err, excuse me, Jimmy -- Carter (prayers up for his cancer, btw!) had more balls than that.
The throwing away of all the gains made by the Bush administration in the Middle East, the dissolution of Libya.
With the loss of Libya, the death of Ambassador Stevens; whereupon the Secretary of State lied through her teeth to the families of the victims, blaming the violence on a YouTube video.
The open targeting of conservative groups by the IRS (one of the things which got Richard Nixon in trouble), followed by the defiance of the IRS by destroying the evidence in the teeth of a Congressional investigation.
Oh, and the Secretary of State conducted her business on a non-governmental server, refusing to hand over the server entire to investigators, despite the security risks...and the presence of Top Secret material on an unsecured computer.
Did I mention computer problems? The Russians hacked the Pentagon; the Red Chinese STOLE over twenty million sets of personal information: and that from background checks, to include social security numbers and fingerprints, from the Office of Personnel Management.
Oh, I almost forgot. The deal with Iran, the country who held US citizens hostage for 444 days, the world's leading state sponsor of terror...the deal which would give them nuclear technology: with the US committed to defend their nuclear program against Israel, with Iran allowed to submit its own samples for testing, and not even to the US...being pushed for by Obama.
In addition to an Environmental Protection Agency run amok, issuing regulations governing coal which are likely to DOUBLE electricity prices.
And did I mention all the racial healing which Obama (as the first black President, second if you count the left's fawning over Bill Clinton) was supposed to bring?
Ferguson, anyone? How about Baltimore?
And finally, an exploding national debt: under President Obama, the United States will have spent more, in the last eight years, then it has spent IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY. More than every other President PUT TOGETHER.
It was all this, that the GOP was supposed to prevent: which they had been explicitly ELECTED to prevent.
But now, it's time for another Presidential election. And the GOP-e feels it's "their turn." Or, more specifically, Jeb Bush's turn(*).
And so, when Trump first made a splash, prior to the first GOP debate, he was dismissed. "It's a publicity stunt." But as he refused to fade away, word went out from the power donors behind the GOP-e: "Take him out. NOW." Curiously enough, it wasn't the other candidates in the debate who went after him, but the moderators: and at that, those at "Faux News". The supposed propagandists for the right.
We all know how that turned out. And yet, the Trump candidacy has not been stopped; indeed, his popularity has *grown*.
Watching the reaction to this is interesting, because in their panic an desperation, the powers-that-be are inadvertently showing the contents of their ENTIRE bag of tricks for upending a non-approved candidate:
So, with all these items, what is it that motivates Trump? A large number of hardcore conservatives distrusts him, pointing out how he cannot name a specific verse from the Bible which inspires him, the fact he has been married multiple times, that Hillary Clinton got invited to his wedding, that he donated to Democrats in the past; the list goes on and on. But even more telling, they say, is the fact that he seems, not exactly uneasy while saying conservative memes, but rather unsteady: it is as though either the thoughts themselves are foreign concepts, or at best, he has traveled so long in circles where one would have to hide being a conservative, that he is still uneasy saying conservative things out loud. They compare him to Reagan, who, though he only went to Eureka College (where?), had studied conservative thought for years, had internalized it and made it his own, so that he could instinctively defend it with with, and grace, and honor. Besides, it is reasonably pointed out, if we conservatives have already been burned by those playing Ass in Pachyderm's clothing, why should we trust someone who didn't even make a show of pretending first? Isn't that just begging for trouble?
Those are fair questions; and to my mind, not only fair, but legitimate.
But -- I do not think that they necessarily disqualify Trump. Let me explain.
When a member of the GOP-e ran for the Presidency, he did so for number of reasons: the ego boost (Giuliani, Specter), or "it was his turn" (Dole, Bush, McCain), or even because they could enhance their resume -- for a run at another office, or for lobbying positions (supply your own names here).
But Trump, (if we are to be fair), is not, and cannot be motivated by these. He's a billionaire already: any lobbying money would be Chump Change compared to what he already makes; and further, he has already lost a number of business deals and partners over his run : burning bridges is not a career enhancer within the elite. Further, he's already THE DONALD: he's already bedded and had children with supermodels. And he's 69 years old. There isn't anything left of a ladder for him to climb for money or fame's sake.
What then is left? Oddly enough, I think the clue comes from another famous former RINO and failed-candidate for the Presidency, Mitt Romney.
Romney, for whatever reason, after winning the first debate with Obama, rolled over and played dead: or was ambushed by Candy Crowley (note, in passing, how different Trump's response was to an attempted shiv from a female moderator: he turned on her with all guns ablaze, and holed her underneath the water line). But over and over, throughout the campaign, his message, though boring, was constant: America is a pretty good place, let's hire someone competent to administer it. And I, Mitt Romney, am a pretty competent administrator.
Is this quite what Trump intends? Close, but not quite, for two reasons.
First, I think Trump is personally concerned, because he is 69 years old, and he remembers the America that used to be: the America before Obama, before "fundamental transformation," before 9-11: an America where everyone believed in America, and where (unlike Michelle Obama's whine), almost everyone was PROUD of America. His very campaign slogan, and the themes of his campaign, reflect this: "Make America Great Again", the push to exclude waves of crime from illegal immigrants, the promise of tough negotiations with trading partners to America's benefit, of taking a forceful, effective stance against countries and terrorists who deign to kill Americans with impunity.
Second, Trump is looking at the country, and he sees the demographic trends: not racial, but cultural: if one imports millions of people who do not share our language, who have not grown up with stories of Washington and Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, of Lincoln, and the Old West...whether they be from Mexico, Somalia, Syria, or India...and if one does NOT require them to assimilate, but only sees them as fodder to be used for cheap labor, or cheap votes...
how can that be called anything but a betrayal of America, as those who share a heritage and a history going back centuries, are displaced in favor of foreigners?
Trump may not have the political theory of Burke, and Locke, or the rhetorical skills of Jefferson or Lincoln. But he DOES love the country. And I believe, he is running, he is standing his ground, he is fighting, to preserve, protect, and defend, that which he loves.
Were it only true that the other candidates -- or, for that matter, current office holders -- did as much.
(*) It is this fact, that gives considerable credence to the idea of a uniparty: Hillary Clinton has done nothing of merit but put up with (and lie about) her husband's making oral sex a household term, adding a new word to the dictionary: Lewinsky. And she has capped this with a disastrous stint as Secretary of State. Against anyone but Bush, she would likely lose in a landslide. Similarly, Jeb Bush has little to recommend him to the common voter ("Two Bushes in the White House is enough!"), but a lot, in terms of favoring illegal immigration, to recommend him to the GOP-e; and there's always this to recommend him to the Uniparty: if he's running against anyone but Hillary, he would likely lose in a landslide.
Very similar observations were made in 1980 about a Republican candidate for President.
For those inclined to brevity...
There are two problems. His sincerity and his ability.
Many are questioning his sincerity, and they have substantial reasons. But beyond that, there’s reasonable doubt as to his ability. Political, not business ability. He has never held political office so there’s no experience to judge.
Where these two converge is the field of his political choices. And that is cause for concern.
Still, if he’s the nominee I’ll vote for him. More than I can ever say of Jeb Bush!
“I think Ted Cruz is the best candidate but Trump has the best chance of getting elected.”
Cruz is clearly the best candidate but Trump doesn’t stand a chance of being elected.
Just look at what happened to the love affair everyone had with Chris Christi and his brash get in their face style.
Didn’t take long for people to get sick of it and take a look what was behind the talker.
The only thing behind the big talker was a big ass.
Notice how silent Hillary is. It’s because people quickly get tired of the sound of her voice.
Same is going to happen with Trump.
After 8 years of listening to childish crap out of Obama people aren’t going to want to listed to childish crap out of the next president for another 4-8 years.
. .
The places where Cruz spoke in those terms was back in 2013 when he was offering an amendment to the Gang of 8 bill. Got any thing recent that verifies he still wants to do that because I am not seeing it
No candidate will ever please me completely. Reagan came the closest, and I worked for him both in and out of office. Cruz is 80+ % for me, and I can live with that.If it weren’t for his visa crap, he would be close to 100%. Trump is not a conservative. He is a pragmatic businessman. We have no clue what he would do as POTUS. Sorry folks. Bubble burst time is here.
Most of this was from a recent speech. The fast track vote was last spring, whenever that vote was.
Trump has zeroed in on the one big issue that gets America’s goat. He has done it dramatically and with excellent advice.
I can’t vote in the primary but I am still watching the show. A lot is being revealed here.
What a total canard! The Donald does not hate women. The Donald pays them the ultimate tribute of regarding them as equal to men. Especially if they are attacking him. Then, the gender issue just melts away altogether: An enemy is an enemy, regardless of their sex.
Megyn Kelly should have known better than to try to lay a "gotcha" trap on Donald Trump. Obviously, she didn't. She placed her bets, in the very first debate question, on being able to achieve one of two outcomes: (1) isolating Trump as the only candidate who would state his support of the eventual GOP nominee was not guaranteed (implying he would consider mounting a third-party effort "if he were not treated well" by the GOP); or (2), putting The Donald into the position of limiting his future options to statements made today, which are binding on him. A hard-core negotiator like Donald Trump does not want to give away his negotiating leverage in the future, just to give Megyn Kelly a "big score" — and make himself look like a fool in the process.
And in this process, Megan Kelly broke the first rule that they try to drill into you at journalism school: Do not ever, ever, ever allow yourself to become "the story." But then, Ms. Kelly is not the product of j-school, but of law school (where I imagine she was a brilliant student).
Anyhoot, Ms. Kelly seriously miscalculated and underestimated the man. I gather she may have felt that some kind of "female privilege" would be her best defense, if things went wrong.
That didn't happen. She was criticized for her behavior. And then — mirabile dictu!!! — comes Roger Ailes, charging in on his big white steed, like the second coming of Sir Galahad, to rescue the "damosel in distress." And takes further opportunity to remind us that Fox News is ever "fair and balanced."
Sure. And that explains how Fox News increasing appears to be an unofficial mouthpiece of the RNC?
I almost choked from laughter at these claims.
If I were Megan Kelly, I'd be absolutely humiliated by this intervention. She wants to play with the big boys. But she can't prevent some big boy from barging in to rescue her when she falters? And yet IMHO, to accept such "help" is to prove one's self a wimp; or worse, a helpless, hapless female....
Ambitious woman really can't ask, or expect, to have it "both ways."
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Thank you ever so much, dear grey_whiskers, for your outstanding essay. Your summary of the Obama Administration's achievements is totally spot-on, and amazingly comprehensive. Thank you so very much for writing, and for pinging me to your article.
Do they really teach that in journalism school?
Jorge Ramos must have been absent that day.
A television journalist participating in a debate is necessarily part of the story.
If Megyn Kelly turned out to be a big part of the story, that has more to do with Donald Trump's response than with her question.
Old Journalism School: The Story is: "Who, What, When, Where, and Why."
New Journalism School: The Story is: "Who, What, When, Where, and Why Not Me?"
How so???
An excellently-trained legal mind anticipated that she would "get" Trump, one way or the other, with her opening question. That is, she had an end in view from the first. (How does that comport with "fair and balanced" reporting?)
Even I could see in advance what his response would likely be to such a question. And I'm no lawyer.
I'd say that makes her a BIG part of this "story."
Jorge Ramos is not even a journalist. He is a proselytizer of the Reconquista school. In the referenced debate, Ramos simply barged in, using the usual thug tactics, after another journalist had already been called. Trump politely asked Ramos to get into line, for there was another journalist before him. Ramos did not take the hint, but continued to barrage Trump with questions, even after the other, recognized journalist began his question. Trump tried to tell him to calm down, wait for his turn. But Ramos would not relent.
So Trump had Ramos removed. For a time. Later, he brought him back in, to tell his "two-cent's-worth."
This scenario tends to show me that Trump is "tough," but "fair."
So, what's your problem with him, x???
....” In the referenced debate, Ramos simply barged in, using the usual thug tactics, after another journalist had already been called. Trump politely asked Ramos to get into line, for there was another journalist before him. Ramos did not take the hint, but continued to barrage Trump with questions, even after the other, recognized journalist began his question. Trump tried to tell him to calm down, wait for his turn. But Ramos would not relent”....
And he continued to do so even after Trump invited him back in...
Now Ramos and Kelly will further make the story about them on Fox tonight. This junk may very well cause me to stop viewing Fox at all....
I’m starting to see Trump as the revenge of the mushy middle. As a guy who’s switched parties 5 times you really can’t say Trump is a member of either side, sure he’s a Republican NOW but give it a few years. Meanwhile we know the mushy middle are the people that really decide elections. The mushy middle’s primary political belief is “the guys in charge suck”, these are the folks who ebb and flow between sides and cause the party of the sitting president to lose seats in mid-terms and make it so sitting VPs don’t become Ps. Well with the Rs solidly controlling Congress and a D in the White House who’s “in charge”? Both of them really, and if you look at approval numbers you can see the mushy middle is quite convinced they both suck. And in comes mister party flipper, a guy who has praised and insulted every sitting president since he became famous, who is clearly not part of those that are “in charge”. So they love him. Forget the fact that he demonstrably has no actual core beliefs, that’s he a serial liar, and often just plain doesn’t make sense. He demagogues really well, and he’s not in charge, so he doesn’t suck.
LOL!!! Well, I wouldn't go that far. Though they have been appearing rather stinky of late, in terms of failing to deliver on their much-touted "fair-and-balanced" news position, they are the "least bad" of the crowd.
I also turn on CNN and MSNBC from time to time, just to see what those idiots are saying. CNN comes across as somewhat respectable; as for MSNBC, I don't even know what planet they are living on....
The problem for me is, in the past, I have overwhelmingly relied on Fox News for "fair and balanced" reportage.
Given recent events, I suspect my faith in Fox may have been misplaced.
But you still have to watch them — Fox, CNN, MSNBC — just to find out what they're doing. If they are carrying water for the Enemy, then we need to monitor the details.
Still, I'm not terribly worried about any of this. :^)
Well said, betty boop!
Dear betty,
Have a look at OAN.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3329211/posts?page=212#212
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3329211/posts?page=219#219
Trump—>> Fool we’re talking about Fools.... and it starts with F and ends in an L.. we got trouble in River City.. right HERE..
The boy is doing Robert Preston and Buddy Hacket to a tee... brilliant rendition as a republican Music man, con man..
very nice act... The democrats must be getting a charge out this.... republicans are totally FooLed..
Anyone thats been watching knows the next President will be elected by VOTER FRAUD.....
you know like the last “ FEW”.. except voter fraud on an enormous scale.. like last time..
ONLY BIGGER..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI
Bring America back to former financial glory..
AND make america's Socialist Givernment WORK...
THUS preparing his way to be Anti-Christ in WAITING..
If he does all that (that he brags) America in both partys WILL ENSHRINE HIM..
Follow him to HELL and BACK,,,
AND make ... Reagan merely an ancient historical figure....
AND Trump a wonder to the WORLD... amazing and lauded if not actually WORSHIPED..
Setting him up to " solve " other of the World's so -called problems..
----------------------------------------------
WOULD MAKE A KILLER NOVEL, MOVIE, or Documentary..
even IF what I propose is NOT actual.. i.e. I'm only partially kidding..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.