Look, I know you're going to resist at first---it's expected in your situation---but I think it's really time for you to think about deprogramming.
I wish you the best!
Posted on 08/14/2015 5:39:49 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
Did we just see Erick Erickson’s Red State draw a red line in the sand in front of Rush Limbaugh? And if so, is it another aspect of the booming dynamic known as “the Trump effect?”
That very case can be made – as Erickson used Red State’s daily email blast lead story from Dan McLaughlin on Wednesday to fire shots across the bow of all talk radio hosts who are in any way supporting Donald Trump. And while Erickson does not have the by-line on this indictment, it is right in line with his recent dis-invitation of Trump to speak at the recent Red State gathering. (snip)
(snip) gauntlet is thrown down on all talkers with the bombastic warning that “all those in a position of leadership…. cable and talk radio hosts, pundits, columnists, bloggers – (who are) actively encouraging the Trump phenomenon, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican anymore and should not expect anyone to take you seriously again.”
There’s nothing else to add to that, other than to notice that a direct endorsement of Trump was not a requirement here – no – merely the encouragement “of the Trump phenomenon” is in and of itself damning.
And just in case anyone still missed the main point of the article, it closed with the harsh notice that “Donald Trump’s feckless campaign is a millstone…. take it off your necks, or be drowned by it.” The close was dramatically stark on purpose.
Translation: Those talk leaders who now speak well of Trump’s campaign are heading for a major embarrassment down the line….and ole Erick will be there to remind them.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Oh, I agree with that... Iwas not not not not not validating the Trump Reagan analogy, which is absurd. I was simply commenting that Reagan was at times a bit rebellious...
I guess the degree is whether an ousted Trump leaves behind a new boldness in the remaining candidates.
Is the so-call Trump Effect about the issues (not yet policies) he's putting front and center that the other candidates would otherwise have run away from, or is it the "tone" of no-nonsense non-PC non-apologetic back-at-you engagement, or both, that has people energized?
If the remaining candidates revert back to focus-group tested safe pablum that moves and excites nobody, then the terrorists will have won.
-PJ
Is the so-call Trump Effect about the issues (not yet policies) he's putting front and center that the other candidates would otherwise have run away from, or is it the "tone" of no-nonsense non-PC non-apologetic back-at-you engagement, or both, that has people energized?
If the remaining candidates revert back to focus-group tested safe pablum that moves and excites nobody, then the terrorists will have won.
You think you are refuting me, but actually you are making the very point I have made...which is that the truth of Trump is somewhere between what EE is saying and what Rush has said. The good you point out above is something I've acknowledged from day one. I also point out his liberal reflexes, which he clearly still has, but to little avail to most.
So again, this would be "the degree" to which I think EE will be proven wrong....he doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that above. But the degree to which EE is right, are Trump's liberal reflexes, which Rush has almost totally ignored or excused or downplayed.
I would add this too: David Limbaugh was published and on Hannity talking about his major qualms with Trump. That was the day after a major Breitbart piece talked about EE's gauntlet to Rush. AND GUESS WHAT? Rush's Friday show did not mention Trump at all in the first two segments...and the first mention was taking to an anti Trump caller. Coincidence? There's no such thing. My theory? David was trying to gently reign in Rush on Trump.....
My question is if Trump is taken out, does that put an end to the Trump Effect, or can it live in on in someone else willing to pick it up if the people are still hungry for it?
Ted Cruz tapped into it. One might think that having the Senate floor and a filibuster is a strong bully pulpit, but Cruz was still limited in his reach by the MSM and GOPe leadership that ensured that the coverage was belittling and damaging to Cruz. McConnell used the government shut-down, which McConnell personally abhors, to blame Cruz for Republican leadership failures.
Trump has his celebrity, his wealth, and a boldness that comes from being on the other end of the chains that bind politicians, to enable his "damn the torpedoes" style. It's that style, right now, that is triggering the Trump Effect in people. I'm not sure that someone else can pick it up and run with it if Trump fumbles.
To mix yet another metaphor, it's almost like rooting for Rocky to win against the establishment Creed. Except that Trump, while being on the outside, is not the down-and-out underdog that usually draws the support. This makes me think that a second part of the Trump Effect is that this time, people think that he might actually be able to do it, because he has the resources that the others do not. Trump can withstand the gaffe or smear attack because he's Trump, meaning despite the old rules of engagement he can stay in the race, wounds and all. The old rules of engagement drove out wounded candidates due to lack of funding.
-PJ
Got it...here’s my prediction...Trump will fade (one of about four potential reasons) and Cruz will indeed take the mantle...with more conservative cred, more “already in DC fighting the establishment” cred, and more of a personality that will wear well over time.
Cruz cannot compete with Trump in the short term....Trump is too big, too over the top, too powerful...but I don’t think Trump can compete with Cruz over time. I also think they are good friends and are pulling for the other one if they don’t get the nod.
Yep and so are you.
Look, I know you're going to resist at first---it's expected in your situation---but I think it's really time for you to think about deprogramming.
I wish you the best!
I would disagree, they're (the MSM) creating the narrative and it's the typical MSM throwing crap on the wall and seeing how much will stick and who will fall for the bait...
They'll love nothing better than to see our side of the aisle ravage ourselves...........
>> I was not not not not not validating the Trump Reagan analogy, which is absurd. I was simply commenting that Reagan was at times a bit rebellious <<
Sure. I definitely get it. No quarrell.
Maybe one could say it’s another case of the old Goldilocks principle — not too rebellious, not too establishmentarian, but just right!
I”m not talking at all about the MSM in this post.
So what, does that preclude me from offering my opinion? And for what it's worth, was my statement off base and incorrect?
off base? yes. off topic? yes. correct? Yeah, but no duh, who doesn’t know that.
I don’t have much patience for out of context random comments that have nothing to do with the conversation they have injected themselves into...even when those random comments are in fact correct.
Then stick to your blog and get over yourself........
FWIW, I don't have patience for elitists like you either and I could care less who you CLAIM to write for........
Claim to write for?
Did you even read the article? (I’m thinking NOT after your last two comments.)
From your home page:
Contributor at Breitbart, American Thinker, Newsmax TV,
Your claims bro, not mine.......Now get over yourself!
Those are not claims. Those are facts. Maybe your FB and home page are a bunch of lies, but mine are not.
And stop with that spam bullshit..........You’re not proving anything.
Get lost poser..........
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.