GOP Establishment Trains More Fire on Trump

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 20, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, we know The Politico's where the Republican establishment goes to leak. The Politico, that's where the Republican Party establishment leaks their plans. That's where they leak their intentions. That's the mainstream. The Republican establishment has chosen The Politico as their jumping-off point to have people in the establishment know what they're doing, as opposed to leaking it to me, as opposed to leaking it to, take your pick of a conservative, they go to the Politico.

So here it is, the headline: "GOP Group Plans Most Aggressive Anti-Trump Campaign Yet." And there is a companion story here about how frustrated they are. There's a companion story that they can't find any donors. They're out of donors, they just can't find anybody to fund their anti-Trump activity, the establishment. The Republican establishment is just at their wits' end. They thought Trump would be gone by now and they can't find anybody willing to help them because nobody thinks it can be done now.

And amidst all that is the story from The Politico. It's by Alex Isenstadt, and what this is is a pro-Kasich super PAC is on a mission to take down Trump once and for all. And again they've leaked all this to The Politico. Here are the details. "John Kasich has attacked Donald Trump relentlessly in debates and now his super PAC is planning to invest $2.5 million in the most aggressive takedown of the poll leader yet -- on behalf of an increasingly anxious GOP establishment. The attack, according to a blueprint shared with Politico --" They haven't even leaked it. They shared it with them. "The attack will play out over the next two months on radio, TV, mail and online in New Hampshire. Strategists with the pro-Kasich group, called New Day for America, say the budget for the anti-Trump campaign is likely to grow.

"The offensive comes as some in the GOP are beginning to plot how to combat the real estate mogul and entertainer, who many are convinced would essentially deliver the White House to Democrats if he were the nominee. In launching the effort, the group hopes to position Kasich, who has lagged in the Republican contest and is searching for momentum, as a central Trump antagonist. 'We will be the tip of the spear against Trump,' said Matt David, a spokesman for the super PAC.

"Rather than go after Trump for his business dealings or his past support for liberal causes, as some of his opponents have tried to do, the super PAC will depict Trump as someone who would be a deeply ineffective commander-in-chief and ill-suited for the demands of the Oval Office.

Fred Davis, the group’s colorful Hollywood-based ad-maker who is best-known for producing the 'Demon Sheep' ad in the 2010 California Senate race, is working on a pair of anti-Trump TV ads. The commercials, David said, are designed to 'accelerate what we believe would be buyers’ remorse' that would arise from a Trump presidency." So they're readying ads out there at the Kasich PAC, super PAC that will be showing people regretting they voted for Trump at a mysterious time post-Trump inauguration.

"The group’s first volley came Thursday, when it released an ad that pictured the billionaire side by side with President Barack Obama. 'On the job training for president does not work,' says the ad, which invokes last week’s tragic Paris terrorist attacks. The group is currently spending about $600,000 to air the commercial, though David said more airtime is being purchased. For all the nervousness about Trump’s candidacy, however, few in the GOP have directed resources toward defeating him." By the way, that's bogus. I mean, in each of the first two debates we heard how this Republican faction or that was assigned to take Trump out. Maybe they mean this is the first serious expenditure of money. "Republican groups such as the Chamber of Commerce --" really? The Chamber of Commerce is a Republican group still? Who would have thought. Yeah. Here we go.

"Prominent Republican groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove-founded ... American Crossroads, both establishment vehicles, have not spent any money against Trump.Yet with the Iowa caucuses just a little more than two months away, and with Trump still riding high, the calculus may be changing. This week, as top party operatives and donors gathered in Las Vegas for the Republican Governors Association meeting, many contributors privately expressed unease about Trump’s consistent lead in early state and national polling.

Trump responded to the news by lashing out at Kasich on Twitter." (laughing) Trump responded to the news.

Well, anyway, so there you have it, the GOP -- and I can't find the companion story here. I thought I printed it out. Here it is. It's a Breitbart story and the headline is pretty indicative here. It says the GOP admits it can't raise money to defeat Trump. "GOP Establishment Operative Can't Get Donors for Anti-Trump Super PAC."

Now, this is not New Hampshire, this is South Carolina, this is a whole different super PAC. This is not the Kasich super PAC. Apparently the Kasich super PAC have got no trouble here getting money. Or maybe they've already got the money. They're just allocating how they're gonna spend it. This story says this.

"On Tuesday, in an unwitting and probably grudging admission that Donald Trump’s power is not going to erode any time soon, Politico published an article acknowledging that efforts by Katon Dawson, the former chairman of the South Carolina GOP, to form a super PAC for the express purpose of derailing Trump have found no donors willing to commit. Dawson acknowledged, 'I specifically did not find the right donor to get me to go to that effort.' The GOP establishment, befuddled at Trump’s resilience, expressed confidence that Ben Caron’s discomfort in answering foreign policy questions --" Oh, did you hear what Carson said? They're all over him, too.

Yeah, he was talking about Syrian refugees and others at this moment in time, he said, "If you had a rabid dog in the neighborhood, what would you do?" And so they're now running around saying that Carson compared Syrian refugees to rabid dogs. And again everybody knows that's not what he meant. If he was comparing anybody to rabid dogs, he's talking about these terrorists that just wantonly kill like a rabid dog does. But these are the broad base generalizations and assumptions the media is only too happy to make about Republicans.

END TRANSCRIPT

[SamAdams76]

His creditors took a risk too. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It’s amazing how few people understand how business works. No wonder our country is in the shape it’s in.

[Carry_Okie]

His creditors took a risk too. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It’s amazing how few people understand how business works. No wonder our country is in the shape it’s in.

I've done project management for a Fortune 100 company. This isn't about what I don't understand; it's about a reality you refuse to acknowledge. Trump signed papers with a promise to pay. He renegged on those promises. Did he have the money to pay? Sure, squirreled off in some other corporation. It may be legal, but it's still breaking a promise. He went through marriage vows. They say "until death do us part." He renegged on those promises too. That's evidence he breaks promises.

Got it now?

You chumps for Trump have your heads so far up your asses defending him you can't even read a post for what it says. So, what makes you believe that he will do what YOU BELIEVE he will do (without any evidence or plan as to how). The man has told you UP FRONT that he plays to people's fantasies with hyperbole. That's how he uses people. That's how he stiffs their intentions. But you're just A-OK with all of that because his promises make you feel just a little less desperate?

[SamAdams76]

So I suppose you did not vote for Reagan. He “broke” his marriage vow too.

[Carry_Okie]

So I suppose you did not vote for Reagan.

At the time he ran for governor of California, I was 13. Once he ran for President and I could vote, I had plenty of indication Reagan was not a fraud and did vote for him.

Not the case with Trump.

[SamAdams76]

But you are not consistent. You said that Trump is not to be trusted as president because he broke his marriage vow. Yet you state you voted for Reagan even though he did the same thing.

[Carry_Okie]

I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal, 1987.

Note that the obvious implication is that there is a difference between what Trump actually intends and what his victims believe he means AND HE PLAYS TO THAT DIFFERENCE.

What makes you believe that he will do what you BELIEVE he means to do, with plenty of historic evidence (not to mention systemic factors beyond the control of the President) to the contrary?

[Carry_Okie]

But you are not consistent. You said that Trump is not to be trusted as president because he broke his marriage vow.

No, that is not what I said. I said there is evidence he breaks promises. You are playing word games, not debating. You have yet to answer a single question I have posed to you. Cut the crap or we're done.

[SamAdams76]

The quote you pulled from Art of the Deal is a good one. People do get excited by people who think big. Reagan tapped into that sentiment as well. After the moribund 1970s and Jimmy Carter, Reagan's can-do spirit entered the scene at just the right time.

[Carry_Okie]

People do get excited by people who think big. Reagan tapped into that sentiment as well.

Not with the intention of using it against them, rarely was he deliberately hyperbolic, nor did he regard their belief in America as a fantasy.

You are still spinning and you still haven't answered a single question. We're done.

[SamAdams76]

I know it must be a kick in the stomach to you that Trump is doing so well. But if Trump does fall, I will support Cruz.

[Carry_Okie]

Look at the final results and get back to me.

Why should I when the handwriting is on the wall?

Mr. Trump lists 515 companies in which he is a trustee, president, chairman or member. Many are limited liability corporations attached to Mr. Trump's real estate holdings, including properties in Panama, Istanbul, Mumbai, Puerto Rico and Dubai. Source

Let's see, he's investing big in Istanbul and Dubai (where they pay virtual slave wages to the workers). I wonder how many "good ones" he wants to permit from there? I wonder how hard on Islamic jihadis or Erdogan he's really going to be?

Now, repeat after me, "He can win, He can win, He can win..."

No, he can't. His negatives are nearly as high as Hillary's. He won't carry the conservative evangelical base, especially after they learn he does major business with our enemies. Unless she's indicted, he's a sure loser.

[DoughtyOne]

CO, please look a the election results.

If your Gore/district info meant anything, it would have meant something big in the state. It didn’t.

Even after it being shown McClintock couldn’t pull it together, you’re blaming me for it.

Guy, that just doesn’t make sense.

[Carry_Okie]

Even after it being shown McClintock couldn’t pull it together, you’re blaming me for it.

It was many like you who were the reason he couldn't, because you voted your fears, with the rationale, "Arnold's not so bad; he can WIN." Well, he was, and California lost. Trump is just as bad and you are in denial now just as you were then.

Accordingly, the post you are ignoring was about the Donald and his investments in Istanbul and Dubai. Pray tell, what is he going to do for the Kurds with a hotel in Istanbul? How is he going to expel jihadists with big investments in Dubai?

[DoughtyOne]

For the record, I have lamented Schwarzenegger's record as governor.  I have never had second thoughts about voting for him.

Cruz Bustamante was an unacceptable man to be our governor, and in my estimation and that of the numbers from that election, he was too big a threat to become governor if you got your way.

This is how I saw it then and how I see it now.

Here was the registration breakdown in that October, 2003, Special Election:  LINK

43.68% Democrat
35.30% Republican
21.02% Independent (1.9%) and mostly other (19.12%)

64.70% Non Republican Registered Voters at the time of the election

Republicans were outnumbered almost two to one.  To be totally acurate, 1.832 to 1.

Cut that 35.3% down considering only about half of the Republicans are die hard Conservatives and what do you get?  (And I would probably peg that at about 1/3rd, but for this discussion I'll go to 50% for argument's sake.)

You get 17.65% of the electorate voting for hard line Conservative principles.  (only 11.8% if I am right and only 1/3rd are actually die hard Conservatives)

You observed this and thought McClintock was a sure winner if only I and other FReepers would have voted for him.

So going into that election, silly me, I thought it was impossible for McClintock to get the 17% or so the polls were stating he would get.  What did he wind up with?

In that Special Election McClintock wound up with 13.5% of the vote.  Let's recognize this for what it was.  He needed 33.3% of that vote plus one if you break it down to Schwarzenegger, Bustamante, and McClintock.  Of course that's an in your head calculation.  Again, for accuracy's sake, it would work out to a bit less, because some folks did vote for others.  Here's the actual breakdown.  LINK

48.60% Schwarzenegger
31.50% Bustamante
13.50% McClintock
93.60% between them
09.40% others

This means that McClintock actually needed 31.2% plus one providing the others section didn't shift, if the vote was dead even.  In actuality Bustamante pulled 31.5%.

If McClinton pulls 31.50% plus one (Bustamante's final tally plus one vote), where does the excess over and above the 13.50% come from?  It isn't going to come from Busamante.  It would come from Schwarzenegger.  He would need at least 18.00% (plus one vote) from Schwarzenegger.  Let's say he gets it.  Where does that put the numbers?  It puts McClintock at 31.5% plus 1 vote, Schwarzenegger at 30.60%, and Cruz Bustamante at 31.5%.  Now, what would have happened if Schwarzenegger had been seen as vulnerable?  Truth is, he would have bled off Democrat votes too, not just Republican votes.

This would have left this result:

30.60% Schwarzenegger  (31.69% between the three)
31.50% Bustamante (32.65% between the three)
31.50% McClintock (plus one more vote than Bustamante) (32.65% between the three)

This doesn't even take any Democrat bleed off from Schwarzenegger into consideration.

I've tried to tell you it was a dead heat if McClintock had bled off votes from Schwarzenegger.  You've never admitted it.  Look at those figures.  There's no way McClintock could have run the game on the other two, considering registration in the state.  This would have left the three men with less than 1% difference in the vote.  Who would have been McClintock's biggest rival?  Curz Bustamante is the answer.

I've tried to tell you this for 12 years now.  You still won't admit to it.

[HomerBohn]

We’ll always wonder what #84 stated and why the hall monitor found it to be excessive.

[Carry_Okie]

Unfortunately, the only Internet Archive capture goes only to post 74.

I take it you liked the plan?

[itsahoot]

I'm with Cruz' plan as opposed to Trump's because the former shows a far better understanding of both existing law and how the government is structured.

We expect Trump to change how the government is structured not work within the structure. He may not do any of the things we would like to have done, but we know for sure none of the other candidates will. I for one believe Trump loves America first and foremost, he may do the country harm as in being stupid, but no one believes he will harm it on purpose.

[Carry_Okie]

We expect Trump to change how the government is structured not work within the structure.

Under the Constitution, that's not a Presidential power. If you think Obama was bad, just wait until we get the next Democrat after all the precedents Trump would set.

You want a king, as do most of Trump's supporters, which means you have no respect for limited government at all.

[itsahoot]

which means you have no respect for limited(or otherwise) government at all.

By jove I think you are on to something.

[Carry_Okie]

By jove I think you are on to something.

There is no consistency in your position: If you have no respect for government per se, they why are you advocating for a person who promises despotism?