You know, like *this*:
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.
Oh for heaven's sake, dearest 'pipe, would you please quit with "hedging your bets?"
You got a beef with The Donald?
If so, please be specific about your objection(s).
Otherwise, would you kindly suspend your "invasion of the zombies" point of view? At least until such time as you actually get better footing on the ground?
If so, that would be great. HUGS!!!
I think you’re projecting that Trump is worried about “demographic trends.” There’s nothing in his history to suggest he cares about that. He once said Romney should’ve had a softer message towards hispanics before flip-flopping to being hardcore against illegals.
As for loving the great America “before” Obama, he’s been complaining about our bad trade deals since at least 1988 on the Letterman show. He’s always had things to complain about.
He has also been being asked about and thinking about running for president since at least 1988. He’s an over-achiever and he wants to win because it would be a great achievement. We can assume he would govern according to his values. It’s just a little bit hard to ascertain what all of his true values are.
LOL...nailed it.
You know, like *this*:
Megyn Kelly's a different situation. The moderators are already part of the story. Kelly asked the kind of question a candidate should probably expect. Reporters shouldn't have to throw softballs or be accused of trying to "get" a candidate.
There were plenty of ways a candidate could deal with a question like that and disarm or maybe even win over a reporter. All of the complaining and back-tweeting wasn't very impressive.
Trump has said and done some good things, but he may have too thin a skin to be president. Somebody used to taking risks and putting himself forward -- good things -- shouldn't be so sensitive. I think his candidacy may crash and burn and leave a lot of trouble behind.
You got a beef with The Donald? If so, please be specific about your objection(s).
OK.. Gotsya...
Donald Trump is a RINO... IF he’s a republican at all..
He’s the Anti-Cruz Missile.. a Ringer.. Poseur.. Person “sent in” to derail Ted Cruz...
You know.. the Ted Cruz that WILL reduce the size and scope of federal givernment.. that there->> Ted Cruz..
Donald Cruz WILL NOT.. he will expand federal gov’t AND raise Taxes..
Literally the ONLY way he can do some what he talks about..
To his credit— he BOASTS he can make americas Socialist federal gov’t more efficient, which is IMPOSSIBLE..
He says he will bring business back into America by better “DEALINGs” with foreign gov’ts.. and much more of “that” kind of talk..
However; WITH a BIGGER STRONGER and more ROBUST more efficient federal giv’t.. conservatives should be going.???.. WAZUP wid dat?
THATS SOCIALISM... maybe even COMMUNISM.. like China.. or Russia.. Since THEY don’t know Russia and China ARE NOT communists ANYMORE they have converted to Fascism.. Which is actually the same thing different clothing..
BUT THEY DON’T, they Don’t WHY?.. TRUMP has made them STUPID.. or dyslexic..
TRUMP has SOCIALIST ten foot pole marks all over him...
MY OPINON: The ONLY way America can be FIXED is by RESTORING the US Constitution.. Which is Ted Cruz’s ballywick.. REDUCING federal givernment to Constitutional LIMITS... GUTTING it in stages..
Ted Cruz is ALL ABOUT the Constitution Donald TRUMP IS NOT.. Neither is Obama..
The US Constitutions ONLY purpose and reason for being IS TO LIMIT the Federal Government..
So that the federal gov’t DOES NOT GO ROGUE.. like NOW..
WHY liberals, democrats aka progressives DESPISE IT..
UNLESS they can spin it to bring in Socialism or Fascism (same thing)..
Both of Which MOST people(even freepers) have no idea about.. they don’t even know socialism and fascism AND EVEN communism is the same exact thing..
TRUMP is a RINO leaning toward WHERE?.. socialism, fascism or a new design brand of Monarchy.?... I don’t want to find out..
TRUMP should not get anywhere near the presidency maybe the on the Cabinet where he can be watched.. and PROSECUTED by a new Justice Department.. IF shows any socialist treasonous characteristics...
*** This was gleaned from a screaming eye rolling foot stomping pissed off session after.. listeing to Trump selling his Trumpahol.. to poor gullible Conservative INDIANS.. YOU KNOW... Native Americans..
I only use internet for viewing ... cable has been off my grid for years now.
Trump wants to put a leash on a ROGUE(monster) federal givernment and take it out so it can do it’s business..
Cruz just wants to SHOOT IT.. and get a new dog..
Actually have found foreign news does a better job of reporting then here in the states. It's so 'controlled' now it reminds me of Russian news! I agree with you about MSMBC.....they left the planet a long time ago..ha! CNN has been trying to pick itself back up from lousy ratings...but they still have a long way to go imo.
Cable is disappearing everywhere. It’s on its way out, replaced by streaming services.
I’m pretty sure OAN is making the transition from cable to streaming.
The reason I point out OAN is they seem pretty good with sticking to conservative viewpoints. I don’t need to see any more leftist viewpoints. There’s no logic or merit to their positions, policies or ideas other than to trash the right incessantly.
I tust Bernie Sanders. I just don’t like what he says he will do. However i believe he is being honest about it.
Although it’s advantageous to hear conservative reporting...I do want to know what the left is saying and so view other networks.... as well as overseas.
It’s not about hearing leftist positions as much as recognizing their plans and how they’re working it....”Know your enemy” thing.
I agree but there are plenty of sources for leftist viewpoints. I see plenty of the enemy right here everyday on FR. But if I want to relax and watch video of some deeper conservative reporting I will turn to something like OAN. But I also don’t have cable in my home so I have to resort to prerecorded videos.
The problem with Fox and its Fair and Balanced model is that the left constantly spews out illogic, lies, half-truths, out of context gotcha anecdotes, and on and on to the point that it makes no sense to argue with them, they will never change their viewpoint. There’s no point in debating them. It’s a waste of time. Even if a conservative champion succeeds in getting out worthy debate points it’s not satisfying because the left doesn’t care.
Case in point, the Abortion videos are devastating to pro-choice leftists. Yet they will say the videos are fake, they are fraudulent, edited and will file for courts to stop their release. And the leftists news networks ignore the videos altogether.
It makes no sense to watch them, one can predict what they will do. I will read them or actually scan them because 90% of what they say and write is predictable to me. They bore me and I can see through them so easily.
I have read two of his books. One published in 2000 and one published in 2011.
I guarantee he will not cut Social Security or anything to do with Veterans.
He talks a great deal about the government keeping promises it has made.
The following is from Chapter 5 of "Time to Get Tough":
Save Social Security and Medicaid
"Now I know there are some Republicans who would be just fine with allowing these programs to wither and die on the vine. The way they see it, Social Security and Medicare are wasteful “entitlement programs.” But people who think this way need to rethink their position. It’s not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their money’s worth—that’s not an “entitlement,” that’s honoring a deal.
We as a society must also make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can’t make one for themselves. At least that was President Reagan’s stance.
On April 20, 1983, Reagan signed a bill to preserve Social Security. At that bill signing, the president said words every Republican should heed:
This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire.
President Reagan had it right: Social Security is here to stay. To be sure, we must reform it, root out the fraud, make it more efficient, and ensure that the program is solvent beyond the Baby Boomers. But to listen to some Republicans vilify a system that’s been around for over seventy-six years and that taxpayers have paid into for decades makes me think they should go back and watch President Reagan’s speech again."
Trump, Donald J. (2011-12-06). Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again (p. 69). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
It wasn’t Christie’s brash style that turned people off.
It was the Obama hug.
Correction... You have no idea what he would do because you haven't taken the time or made the effort to learn anything about him.
How do you know for a FACT that he hasn't become a Conservative who actually will be better for this Country than any of the others?
From what I've seen and heard, he's actually saying in PUBLIC what alot of us are saying around our dinner tables?
Post the proof you have, or let it go.
People want to believe what they are hearing, Trump cannot be any worse than what we've got.
That’s all true.
What makes you think he's not, his campaign rhetoric? Did you also believe Mitt Romney had changed? If not, why do you believe liberal Donald Trump?
How do you know for a FACT that he hasn't become a Conservative who actually will be better for this Country than any of the others?
When have I say I knew anything "for a fact"? I said I did not trust the man and I don't. I don't trust him because his past says he is a liberal.
From what I've seen and heard, he's actually saying in PUBLIC what alot of us are saying around our dinner tables?
And you are free to buy into his campaign rhetoric if you so choose. I'm not that shallow, I look at a candidate's past and consider it also.
People want to believe what they are hearing, Trump cannot be any worse than what we've got.
I'd like to shoot for something far better than just doing better than we've got. I'd like a conservative, not someone with a long liberal past who says what conservatives want to hear during an election cycle. Mitt Romney did the same. Did you fall for his ruse also?
Post the proof you have, or let it go.
Let go defending conservatism in this conservative forum? No, I don't think I will. I certainly won't do it because you told me to. As for proof, while this is enough for me I know the average Trumpbot won't agree. But I don't really give a damn.
1. Trump has been a liberal most of his adult life, registering as a Republican as recently as 2009.
2. Trump has contributed generously to some of the most far left democrats in politics including Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Harry Reid (D-NV), Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA), California state attorney general Kamala Harris (D-CA), Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
3. Trump is a crony capitalist, explaining his large contributions to democrats as a necessary tool to conducting business. He apparently believes buying the votes of politicians is an acceptable way of doing business. That, by definition is political corruption. But liberal Donald Trump supports it.
4. Trump supported the ban on "assault weapons", even though there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". Far left anti-gun democrats wanted to ban gun ownership completely. Unable to accomplish that goal they created the term "assault weapon" and applied their own definition for the term so they could ban guns based solely on cosmetic appearances. Being the gullible liberal that he is, Trump both fell for the scheme and supported the ban.
5. As recently as 2013 Trump praised former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg for "Putting his money where his mouth is" in trying to take guns from law-abiding citizens. Michael Bloomberg has spent tens of millions in his quest to disarm America and Donald Trump praised him for it.
6. Trump has been pro-abortion until which time he flirted with running for president. He now claims he no longer is. Believe his campaign rhetoric if you will, but his history says otherwise.
7. While he may claim to be an opponent of Obamacare, Trump is an advocate of single-payer socialized healthcare similar to what is in place in Canada. Yes, Trump supports the worst version of socialized healthcare. He has said, "The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America. We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing. While we work out details of a new single-payer plan, there are a number of ways to make the health care system now in place work more efficiently."
8. Trump believes in using eminent domain for the taking of private property from US citizens for his personal gain. He proved this when he tried exploiting such laws to take elderly widow Vera Coking's property so he could build a parking lot for limousines. Fortunately, the widow prevailed. He also said he supported the United States Supreme Court's Kelo decision which resulted in the taking of private land from a private party so Pfizer Pharmaceuticals could build a plant. That family lost their land and to date nothing has been built on it. It should be noted that conservatives Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia all voted against this rotten scheme. Liberals on the court supported it, as did liberal Donald Trump.
9. Trump has said the economy does better under democrat control (we're $18 trillion in debt and climbing thanks to the dems). He also said George W. Bush was the worst president this country has ever had. Worse than the lying rapist Bill Clinton? In the mind of Donald Trump, that answer is YES because he has also said of the past four presidents, Bill Clinton was his favorite.
10. As of 2009, Donald Trump is a registered Republican. But in an interview with CNN's Wolfe Blitzer, Trump said, "I probably identify more as a democrat." His record above lends credence to that comment. You are supporting and putting your trust in a liberal.
Summed up, while Donald Trump may be saying and doing things that appeal to conservatives, he is a lifelong liberal who only now claims to be conservative. That considered, he is just like any other liberal in that he cannot be trusted.
Fair ‘nuff.
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.