GOP Establishment Trains More Fire on Trump

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 groupâ€™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 buyersâ€™ 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 groupâ€™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 weekâ€™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 Trumpâ€™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 Trumpâ€™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 Trumpâ€™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 Trumpâ€™s resilience, expressed confidence that Ben Caronâ€™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.

Let's take a look at your comments re Trump versus Cruz on immigration. I will note that Cruz has had an epiphany on immigration in the last few months. Is it due to a real change of heart or political expediency as he sees the success that Trump is having with the issue and how it resonates with the American people?

Anybody familiar with the history of wild swings in immigration law understands that the big problems in the last century began with Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The Slave Party goal has obviously been demographic:

Yes, the 1965 Immigration Act changed the demographics of this country forever. Other landmark events included Reagan's 1986 "one-time" amnesty, Bush 41 doubling the legal immigration caps approximating now over one million legal permanent immigrants annually, and the two Obama executive amnesties beginning with the 2012 Dreamer amnesty that has legalized 580,000 Dreamers (up to the age of 30) giving them work permits and SSNs.

87% of legal permanent immigrants are minorities as defined by the USG. Since 1990 we have admitted over 35 million legal permanent immigrants, almost equal to the population of Canada. In 1970 one in 21 was foreign born; today it is less than one in 8, the highest in 105 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history.

Immigration drives 80% of our population growth. Non-hispanic whites will be a minority by 2043, compared to 63% today; and 89% in 1970. There are electoral consequences. Minorities and immigrants vote more than two to one Dem. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities. Unless we significantly reduce legal immigration, the Dems will soon be the permanent majority party.

So nobody needs to tell me the problems the demography of illegals have posed; they are legion. They have destroyed my once beloved, admired, and idyllic California and turned it into a degenerating cesspool of crime and corruption. It is a continuing and unfolding tragedy.

LEGAL immigration is far more destructive than illegal aliens. In the case of CA, both have combined to destroy the state, which has the same demographics as the US will have in 2050, if we don't decrease drastically legal immigration.

Trump's proposal is to deport them all and allow only "the good ones" back in on an expedited basis. The more one reads what Trump has to say the more one realizes this will be a VERY expedited step over the border and back for the majority of current illegals, wall or no wall. Current illegal aliens will become LEGAL immigrants or "guest workers," which is not at all clear in his plan.

Trump has never indicated how many would be allowed back in except that it will be done legally. If that is the case, the numbers could be very small given the fact that most of the lawbreakers have violated many laws including those that are felonies. Nor has Trump provided a detailed plan on how the lawbreakers will be deported. He does however support such things as mandatory e-verify, the elimination of catch and release, and a host of other measures meant to enforce our laws. Deportation is required by law for those here illegally. It goes on every day now. Under Trump and now Cruz, attrition thru enforcement will winnow down the illegal alien population. We will always have to deport people. And Trump says unequivocally that if you are here illegally, you must go. Cruz has equivocated.

There seems to be this quaint notion that we have a static population of 11 million illegal aliens. The reality is that it is constantly changing. 60% of all green cards are due to a change in status, in many cases from illegal to legal.

One legitimately has to ask why Cruz never talks about mass deportations and avoids the question when asked in debates. Many here presume he therefore doesn't mean for illegals to leave. I think there is another explanation beyond that unsupported assertion: To state such flatly without ambiguity would be to give his RINO/crat enemies a weapon against him.

Cruz is trying to have it both ways. In the past, he has supported legalization of the lawbreakers and criticized Romney's self-deportation (as has Trump in the past.) Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration Cruz parsing of words is Clintonian, hence his avoidance of defining what is amnesty.

Reporter asks Ted Cruz four times: â€œHow do you define amnesty?â€

So no, his plan is amnesty in all but name, and worse if the courts shut him down. Everything I've heard on this forum to the contrary is nothing more than wishful thinking unsupported by reality.

The courts will have a hard time stopping the President from enforcing the law. How can they stop deportation of the 40% of the illegal population who are visa overstays? Unlike Obama who has used his power to thwart the enforcement of existing laws, Trump will be enforcing existing law that was passed by Congress. He will not be using executive orders to legalize the lawbreakers. He will enforce the laws against sanctuary cities.

Unlike Trump, Cruz has promised to curtail legal immigration until employment conditions have improved. Trump has made vague promises to favor Americans in his policies but has not explained what he means.

Cruz is not proposing to curtail legal immigration. He is proposing not to increase it. Here is what he says:

Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high. The purpose of legal immigration should be to grow the economy, not to displace American workers. Under no circumstances should legal immigration levels be adjusted upwards so long as work-force participation rates remain below historical averages.

Compare that to what Trump is proposing. Trump wants legal immigration to return to historical levels, which means 195,000 a year (1925-65) compared to 1.1 million today. From Trump's plan:

Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.

One feature I applaud in Cruz' plan is that he does not propose to make e-Verify mandatory nationally as Trump does. Mandatory e-Verify is clearly an unconstitutional search and a usurpation of the power to control EVERY employment agreement. It is ripe for the kind of abuses that make the current IRS scandals look like a tea party. Cruz DOES propose to make e-Verify mandatory for federal employment and or contracting, which is within his Constitutional authority as an employer. He gets the Constitutional distinction.

BS. The Supreme Court ruled in AZ's favor on making e-verify mandatory. We need to shut off the job magnet now. E-verify is a tool that makes it easier and quicker for the employer to ensure that he does not hire illegal aliens, which is against the law. Are you against the I-9 process which currently requires. All U.S. employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. Is it unconstitutional? Does Cruz support the elimination of the I-9 process? Cruz says in his plan that he wants to "strengthen e-verify," What does that mean?

FYI: People like Jeff Sessions and Steve King want mandatory e-verify as do NumbersUSA, FAIR, etc.

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.

The Trump plan was written for the most part by a staffer in Jeff Sessions' office. I know that for a fact. As someone who has been working on the immigration issue for nine years as a member (read President) of a grassroots immigration group that lobbies on the Hill, Trump has presented the best position paper of any presidential candidate in recent memory. Cruz has made a belated attempt at a knock-off of the Trump plan and it is not as good. I don't trust Cruz to deliver on immigration.

Trump was the first high profile political figure to highlight the American victims of criminal alien crime. Cruz has never done that. Cruz wanted a 500% increase in H-1B visas, one of the Cruz amendments to the Gang of 8 bill that Sessions did not support.

Phyllis Schafly, who gets it on immigration, has called Trump the "last hope" for America." She said Cruz would make a good VP or member of the Supreme Court.

This election is about OUR mandate regardless of which anti-establishment name wins. And we can use that mandate to amend the Constitution. THAT is the end game.

To put it plainly, your [CO’s] research leads you to conclude that Cruz is tougher than Trump on illegal immigration, but he’s scared to say so:

“So I see it as tactical. Let’s face it, Cruz knows he will face the same media character assassination that Reagan did and worse: “warmonger, racist, elitist, uncaring, enemy of the poor...” it will go on, and on, and on...”

This policy of caution might have helped him when the Establishment RINOs fell like flies. By keeping his head down, he might well have out-foxed them. They all dropped off the poling radar.

... Phase One Complete ...

Time for Phase Two:

NOW or never, FRiend. Cruz darn well better start making waves by explaining how he’s tougher on illegal immigrants than Trump, particularly unskilled ‘unregistered border crossers’. If he fails to do so, he loses his chance. [Assuming your research is accurate.]

It’s up to Cruz. If he gets into the specifics, I can support him over Trump. Otherwise, I’ll remain ‘all-in’ for Trump due to his willingness to fight.

Cruz is now in the Top Two. You and others at the grassroots helped him get there. [Even here online.] Now it’s his job to confront the RINOs and define himself. So I’m off the hook — monkey’s on his back. And unless you are part of his strategy team, you’re off the hook too.

There is only one serious mistake we must avoid — if this primary is not brokered, we need to rally behind either Trump or Cruz — whichever wins.

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.