Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Is the corporate wing of the GOP leading the party to disaster ?

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on July 11th, 2015 (All posts by )

    SF killing

    There are a number of national stories recently that seem to resonate with voters. A big one is the killing of a San Francisco woman by an illegal alien with seven felony arrests who was deported five times.

    The fatal shooting of a woman in San Francisco last week, allegedly by an illegal immigrant man convicted of seven felonies and previously deported to Mexico, has sparked a debate about the extent to which local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities should cooperate.

    At issue is the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of seeking to identify potentially deportable individuals in jails or prisons nationwide by issuing a “detainer,” a request rather than an order to extend the individual’s detention.

    San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City” which has pledged to resist efforts by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to deport illegal aliens.

    On March 26, Mr. Sanchez was booked into the San Francisco County Jail on a local drug-related warrant after serving a federal prison term, the city’s sheriff’s office said. The next day, Mr. Sanchez appeared in San Francisco Superior Court and the drug charges were dismissed.

    After San Francisco officials confirmed that Mr. Sanchez’s federal prison term had been completed and that he had no active warrants, he was released from jail on April 15. He was freed despite a request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of DHS, to the city’s sheriff’s department that would have enabled the federal agency to take him into custody.

    This is routine, plus of course, the fact that the Obama Administration has chosen to facilitate illegal immigration and resist deportation.

    Between Jan. 1, 2014, and June 19, 2015, there were 10,516 detainer requests declined in California and 17,193 declined nationwide, ICE said. More than half such requests in California.

    National outrage followed.

    The outrage was largely dismissed by the political left and the Hispanic activist community.

    Later in the segment, Kelly said of President Obama, “He picks and chooses the victims he wants to highlight and apparently this victim wasn’t deemed worthy.”

    Those words come from an anchor who said, “I’m a straight-news anchor. I’m not one of the opinion hosts at Fox.”

    Fair enough but Obama has ignored the matter while sending multiple administration officials to funerals and other demonstrations concerning incidents involving black victims. What is puzzling is the absence of concerns about illegal immigration on the part of Republican presidential candidates. Jeb Bush has called statements by Donald Trump about illegal immigration “offensive.”

    Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush says he is personally offended by rival Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Mexico and immigrants and calls the remarks far outside the mainstream of Republican thought.

    “I don’t think he represents the Republican Party, and his views are way out of the mainstream of what Republicans think,” Bush told reporters after marching in Fourth of July parades in Amherst and Merrimack, New Hampshire.

    I can’t find any comment by Bush specifically on the incident in San Francisco. He has said no more than President Obama. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has said plenty.

    Donald Trump, who declared during his presidential campaign announcement that Mexican immigrants were rapists and killers, took to Twitter on Friday to use San Francisco’s fatal shooting at Pier 14 to once again slam illegal immigration and call for stronger border control.

    Trump tweeted out his “heartfelt condolences” to Kate Steinle and her family. Steinle, 32, was shot and killed Wednesday by 45-year-old Francisco Sanchez while she was walking with her father and a family friend along the pier.

    Trump actually did not say all illegals were “rapists and killers” but the Contra Costa Times represents the mentality of the Sanctuary City supporters. The other Republican candidates are largely silent on the matter.

    Arizona’s major Chamber of Commerce group, both U.S. senators and a host of other GOP backers heaped their ire on Trump as the visit to Phoenix drew near. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who met presidential hopefuls Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker when they were in the state, is snubbing Trump. Protesters like the ones who greeted Trump in Los Angeles were expected.

    The Chamber of Commerce support of the Republican party is not on the side of the immigration skeptics but the voters are.

    GOP candidates are actually running away from the issue.

    Candidate after candidate used appearances on Sunday talk shows to denounce Mr. Trump and distance themselves from him after the billionaire real estate mogul criticized Mexicans and immigrants who come to the US illegally as “rapists” and “killers.”

    I don’t trust Trump as a Republican and worry that the party is opening a gulf between the concerns of voters and those of donors who are largely unconcerned about illegal immigration. That is not the only issue where the party is drifting away from the base voters. The Confederate flag hysteria is making some Republicans look like fools. Corporations are overreacting.

    Elaine Glidewell told KFSM someone from the store in Fort Smith called her to pick up the ring she’d ordered for her nephew, but when she arrived on Tuesday, a clerk told her she couldn’t have it. The ring had been ordered before Walmart stopped selling items bearing images of the flag, in the wake of controversy that stemmed from a racially-charged shooting in South Carolina.

    “I wanted to cry,” Glidewell told KFSM, adding that the store clerk said the ring would be “melted.”

    This is just ridiculous. That is not to say Republicans should be doing stupid things like proposing amendments to keep Confederate flags in national parks. They should just shut up and vote with the people.

    Trump is drawing huge crowds of Republican voters and the other candidates are drifting away from the base.

    The planned speech is already attracting a storm of attention. Even as city leaders have asked Mr. Trump “to stage his hate-filled circus” elsewhere, ticket requests have been so high the campaign has moved the speech from the swank Arizona Biltmore hotel to the convention center downtown.

    The city leaders of Phoenix include Democrat Mayor Stanton, who of course, is taking the Democrat position.

    “Mr. Trump certainly has a First Amendment right to bluster as much as he wants, and even to pander to our worst instincts in a sad attempt to win votes at the expense of hard-working, honorable, law-abiding Latinos,” Daniel Valenzuela, a Democratic councilman and the city’s vice mayor, said on Thursday. “However, we should draw the line at allowing him to use the Phoenix Convention Center — a public building funded by all of our taxpayers’ dollars.”

    I am not surprised that Democrats, who rule most large cities and who support the same Sanctuary City policy, would oppose Trump. A few Republicans, like Tom Cotton are doing something. Cotton has proposed ending federal funds for sanctuary cities.

    In the Senate, freshman Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas has introduced an amendment to an education-reform bill that would withhold law-enforcement and immigration funding to local governments that don’t cooperate fully with federal immigration agents. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana also introduced an amendment to defund sanctuary cities. A similar bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

    Cotton says he is unsure if his amendment will get a vote this time around, but “I have received very good feedback that they want to address this problem. I will continue to push for Senate floor time.”

    Some Republicans, on the other hand—even those who are deeply troubled by the existence of sanctuary cities—believe that cutting off federal funding may be too harsh a punishment.

    “That is a pretty blunt instrument. There are other ways to deal with it,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas.

    Eradicating sanctuary cities pits two core Republican priorities against one another: enforcing immigration policies versus making sure that the federal government doesn’t get overly involved in local and state affairs.

    That’s a fair question but why are federal funds going to cities now ?

    The usual corporate backers of immigration are making the usual arguments.

    With few exceptions, Republican presidential candidates have lined up in strong opposition to legal status for undocumented immigrants. Not by executive action, not by legislation. “No amnesty,” said Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Donald Trump’s incendiary comments on Mexican immigrants as he entered the race has placed a renewed focus on the issue in the crowded primary contest.

    But there’s one question that neither The Donald nor his fellow Republican candidates have been willing to answer: What should the U.S. do with the estimated 11 million people already in the country illegally?

    I could answer that question, which is of the “Have you stopped beating your wife ?” variety. Once the border is closed, we can deal with the long term illegals who have clean records. The more serious question is why have Republicans, except Ted Cruz, left the field to Donald Trump who is a self promoter and very unreliable as a Republican loyalist.

    Trump looks to me like Ross Perot in 1992. He has a history as a Democrat and a friend of Bill and Hillary. Perot had one issue in 1992.

     

    77 Responses to “Is the corporate wing of the GOP leading the party to disaster ?”

    1. vxxc2014 Says:

      Why should anyone who isn’t an actual employee or crony of the GOP care?

      No they’re not leading they’re cashing in on their arrangement with the actual governing party since 1933 to deliver us up to poverty, degradation and increasingly slaughter.

    2. A_Nonny_Mouse Says:

      To echo “vxxc2014” above:

      The GOP is alleged to represent the conservative half of the country.

      If THEY refuse to represent ME;
      if they will not address my LEGITIMATE CONCERNS about the future of my country;
      if they show no interest at all in the PROPER role of Government (“preserve and protect” from “enemies domestic and foreign”);
      why in the ever-lovin’ !@#$($&#! should I vote for them?

      Short answer: I SHOULD not, and I WILL not vote for them.

      I’d vote for Trump over Jeb Bush, and that’s a fact, Jack.

    3. Mike K Says:

      The problem is that I felt much the same way in 1992 until Perot imploded over his daughter’s wedding. He still got 19% of the vote and elected Clinton. I fear a rerun. Bill was intelligent enough to see what happened in 1994 and compromise. The entire Democratic Party is now in opposition to compromise. Hillary is a worse, if possible, SJW than Obama.

      Does that worry you ?

    4. Grurray Says:

      Bush’s wife is Mexican, and he met her teaching ESL classes in Mexico. He’s probably not going to budge on immigration.

      Regarding the Confederate flag, Richard Fernandez made a good point in his column yesterday;

      “America may well emerge best off by ironically being the least competent at being incompetent.”

      It could be worse in other words. The flag issues aren’t as serious as existential problems other parts of the world are facing. Devoting so much attention to them keeps us from addressing issues that can really mess things up.

    5. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      I now view the 2014 election as being the last chance to peacefully save the country. And it was squandered the day after the election, when the new Republican majority in both Houses of Congress [after a landslide that we busted our butts to give them] functionally merged with the Democrats. Name one thing they have done that would not have been done by a Congress run by Reid and Pelosi.

      Last month I was tasked with doing a report card on our new Republican Senator Cory Gardner, who we elected. On every vote of concern to the TEA Party, he voted against us [and with McConnell] AND with our Democrat US Senator Michael Bennet. Makes me ask why I spent no less than 4 hours a week [and up to 28 hours a week] for a freaking year before the election doing get out the vote.

      And I am TEA Party, not Republican [since January 2, 2013]. And I was not the most active of our people by any means. We did it without help at all from the Republicans because our county Republican party collapsed completely during the campaign [everybody quit because of disgust with the National and State Party, and since after the election we of the TEA Party are running the County Republican Party].

      We were promised explicitly by the Republicans that they would resist Obama and the Left. What we got was active collaboration. Fool me once . . . .

      The DIABLO’s intend to force the nomination of ¡Jeb! Bush regardless. They just put $103 million in his PAC when Trump hit 15% popularity. Look at ¡Jeb!‘s background:

      In December, ¡Jeb! resigned from all his corporate boards in preparation for his run. One board he resigned from was the Bloomberg Foundation, which is the group funding anti-Second Amendment laws and lobbying. Another was the Tenet Corporation, which sets up and runs Obamacare exchanges. He is pro-Permanent Open Borders and Amnesty. He is pro-Common Core. He has been openly contemptuous of Conservatives. Where is the significant difference other than she is more open about being an enemy of the country and Constitution?

      What is the chance that a Republican president like this is going to actually oppose Democrats on anything, especially considering that the Republicans probably are going to lose the Senate . . . all of which is dependent on there actually being elections in 2016 [something I consider to be not certain].

      The Republicans are intent at all costs to ignore their own voter base. They are willing and eager to reject 50 million Conservative voters in order to try to win the votes of 5 million illegal Mexicans.

      Do I think Trump would be a good president? No. But he would be better than Obama, Hillary, or ¡Jeb!. Bloody low bar, that. Do I think he is the best of the Republican field? Probably not, unless they all knuckle under to the RNC. Do I expect to vote for Trump? Only under very limited circumstances: a) he either actually wins the nomination [which is not in the normal realm of possibility], or b) it comes down to ¡Jeb! [or Rubio, or any other DIABLO] -v- Hillary and Trump is on the ballot as an independent, or c) the conditions in b) and he is not on the ballot, in which case I may write him in.

      Am I enjoying the fact that he is making the DIABLO’s disconnect from the country blatant and open.

      Ab-so-freaking-lutly.

      Will I support him in what he said about illegal invaders and crime? I am a retired Peace Officer. I have seen it. Damn straight I agree with him.

      Subotai Bahadur

    6. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Yes. Next question.

    7. Ginny Says:

      Well, this is pretty depressing. Trump is a blowhard. What he has to say about immigration isn’t hard-line, it’s silly. Vanity Fair isn’t great, but if my failing memory serves, I also don’t thing it’s wrong.

      Surely, with Trump we have a bullshitter like the Democrats – asserting competence loudly as he piourettes around questions and history. Sure, he’s more competent than Hillary and would probably put in people of somewhat more competence than Obama, but then I can see better than Roy Orbison. It has nothing to do with the competence of the Republican field. Why the hell is anyone taking him seriously? And why is anyone taking this crony capitalist as a conservative?

      The field is full of people who’ve done things – useful, productive things. Like improving the schools in Wisconsin or the budget in Ohio or medical care in Texas, with thoughtful positions on foreign policy.

      I can understand Tea Partiers who have gotten irritated with not winning – I can understand people who don’t like what McCain did to Palin or the attitude of the establishment to some of these candidates. But how in the hell not trusting the Republican establishment gets you to Trump is beyond my understanding.

      On the most vulgar level (one below any comments here or, indeed, hardly ever on chicagoboyz) I am (trigger warning) moving to ad hominem. I don’t want to hear Hillary’s grating laugh and condescending harsh voice for four years; I didn’t want to hear Obama’s vaporous and maddening theorizing baselessly for an election cycle, let alone eight years; but does anyone really want to listen to bombast for 4 or 8 years? He makes O’Reilly and Hannity sound like the calm voice of reason, carrying on a gentle man’s reasoned argument. I can’t imagine a world in which we heard on a regular basis or were represented by “the Donald.” Has Obama (and in his own way Clinton) so accustomed us to braggadocio and adolescent assertion and raw egoism that we see Trump as acceptable in any way? Have we gone so far from seeing prideful arrogance as a sin – and not humility, traditionally one of the great virtues we ask of presidents, the greatest of whom who were humble before the office – and the electorate.

      Okay, the Donald has his opinions – I don’t know if we can call them thoughts – on immigration; these are diametrically to his opinion of a few years ago and apparently diametrically opposed to that of the managers who work for him, now, and hire illegal aliens, now. What opinion do you think he’ll enforce? We see, for instance with Perry, examples of how some have acted and have thought.

    8. Mike K Says:

      Ginny, I feel much the same way. I am also frustrated with the governing class which includes both parties but the Democrats have gone so far into irrational stuff that almost anyone would be an improvement. Personally, I still believe that, if the candidates trash each other enough, we could see a Romney draft. I know that strikes some with horror but I am still concerned about a big blowup,

    9. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >> in a sad attempt to win votes at the expense of hard-working, honorable, law-abiding Latinos.

      That’s rich. Meanwhile Obama and the Democratic Party break the laws is a sad attempt to win votes at the expense of hard-working, honorable, law-abiding non-Latinos. Which is worse, really? Far worse.

    10. PenGun Says:

      I think you may have painted yourself into a corner. A common mistake.

    11. Mike K Says:

      “I think you may have painted yourself into a corner. A common mistake.”

      I guess you know what you are intending to say,. I don’t.

    12. Tyouth Says:

      Trump is, so far, it seems, a wild card. Only someone desperate would vote for him at this point.

    13. Mike K Says:

      I have talked to Democrats who say they would vote for him. In the end, most will go home to Hillary, I think. I just think he is too mercurial and too much like Perot. A lot of us were unhappy with Bush I, in fact I was not that fond of Bush II, but Perot took enough votes to elect Clinton. That was not so bad because he was a DLC Democrat but the whole Obama coalition is anti-DLC.

      I was a McCain volunteer in 2000 but he was too old for 2004. The only good thing he did in 2004 was Sarah Palin and the Democrats thought so too which is why they destroyed her with some help from McCain people like Nicole Wallace,

    14. newrouter Says:

      >Okay, the Donald has his opinions<

      20,000 people in az like his views:

      20,000 PATRIOTS Turn Out to See DONALD TRUMP in ARIZONA!

      Read more: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/wow-20000-patriots-turn-out-to-see-donald-trump-in-arizona/#ixzz3fdR5XM6R

      the donald knows marketing. here's a product that sells. the 15 other candidates might notice.

    15. morgan Says:

      Ginny, I think more Tea Party people are madder at working to help winning candidates and then getting stabbed in the back once they are in Washington than there are at not winning. Winning and losing is part of the process but working your butt off for a candidate and then see him or her going back on what they campaigned on once elected should make anyone angry.

      Re: the Donald: yes he is a blowhard and probably all the things you say about him, but he seems to be striking a responsive chord–illegal immigration–which seems to gin up support for him. The question, in my mind, is why aren’t other candidates picking up on this seemingly widespread feeling? Couldn’t they tap into that feeling in ways more genteel than bombastic rhetoric?

    16. Mr Black Says:

      The Donalds appeal is obvious. People want leadership, not policy papers. Trump stakes out a position and loudly defends it, even when it’s stupid. The GOP candidates waffle and shift and follow media trends and basically behave as anything but leaders. Their policies and competence may be vastly superior, but any academic can create sound policies. Leadership is more emotionally engaging and rarer.

    17. newrouter Says:

      >Trump stakes out a position and loudly defends it, even when it’s stupid.<

      are you saying highlighting foreigner crime against americans is stupid? anywho, running against the fed gov't/ruining class is a winner.

    18. Mike K Says:

      “why aren’t other candidates picking up on this seemingly widespread feeling? Couldn’t they tap into that feeling in ways more genteel than bombastic rhetoric?”

      They are cowards. They are professional politicians. The appeal of Trump and Perot is that they say things that appeal to people but the risk is that they are either not serious or have a screw loose like Perot.

      The other problem, and the reason for this post, is that there is a branch of the GOP that is all in for immigration; legal and illegal.

      They are the money men, mostly men. The Democrats have a similar group which is the ecology warriors which are leading them down the garden path of global warming. At least the illegals are potential voters and blacks seem passive in the face of the huge damage illegal immigration is doing to them. The gay marriage thing should offend blacks but they have stayed on the plantation so far.

      Bear markets can outlast most optimists and the GOP may not get enough traction with illegal immigration in time. The Whigs were destroyed over slavery. Maybe the illegal immigration issue will destroy the GOP. I hope not but it worries me and so do pied pipers like Trump.

    19. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >>The only good thing he did in 2004 was Sarah Palin and the Democrats thought so too which is why they destroyed her

      I agree. I always smile to myself when leftists smear Palin. I always think, You have no idea why she was destroyed and how much effort went into doing it, do you? And you have no idea how manipulated you were and are by the left. I think it’s funny because they always say it in a way that demonstrates they feel intellectually superior. Rubes. LIV’s in action.

    20. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >>Re: the Donald: yes he is a blowhard and probably all the things you say about him, but he seems to be striking a responsive chord–illegal immigration–

      Which is why everyone is keen to make him out a nut. I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him, but on this issue he is correct. And he’s striking a chord with lots of voters. The Left can’t have that. They’re in on illegal immigration up their eyes, and if this issue resonates it will drag them down badly. Therefore, he and his message will be attacked relentlessly. Fully coordinated attacks in the leftist media underway.

    21. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Trump will pull a Perot. My only question is, Has it always been his intention to do so?

    22. newrouter Says:

      >Therefore, he and his message will be attacked relentlessly. Fully coordinated attacks in the leftist media underway.<

      ted cruz should go to the podium in the senate and start reading the names of americans killed by illegals, since 2009, with the help of the fed gov't

    23. newrouter Says:

      >Trump will pull a Perot.<

      with 16 candidates available, how stupid is the stupid party not to run with trump's excursion into the electorally possible? start with that and start hitting O!care. jeez it is not difficult.

    24. newrouter Says:

      indeed, as a candidate for president of the usa you hammer all the failings of the gov’t loudly and vociferously.

    25. Xennady Says:

      If the corporate wing of the GOP is leading the party to disaster- which I take to mean the defeat of their candidate in 2016, along with a bad election otherwise- I’m sure that they’re fine with it. Their problem is that the people who vote for the party aren’t, and are tired of the relentless failure and betrayal.

      Hence, Trump.

      In my view the GOP establishment is essentially nothing more than that corporate wing of Republican party, which figures it will do pretty well financially with either Hillary or Jeb as president. However, it fears will NOT do well with any actual reform candidate who would potentially upset their crony capitalist applecart.

      Thus, the pants-piddling terror now displayed by the GOP, inspired by the Donald. It’s fascinating- but also typical- to watch the establishment unite with the left in response to a threat. I’m sure once they have destroyed Trump, if they can, they’ll immediately resume their kabuki dance theater of pretending they have disagreements about open borders and amnesty.

      Anyway, if the GOP actually made a winning political case for secure borders it would advance the cause for that oh-so-lucrative open borders and amnesty not at all, so the party establishment is very careful to never make such a case. In fact I’m amazed at how careful the GOP is to avoid actually involving itself in the political affairs of the country, on many issues.

      For example, the Trayvon Martin case was a political cause celebre for months, yet the party had nothing to say about it. The left attempted to use it to de-legitimize the entire concept of self-defense, and the GOP said nothing. After the Newtown massacre, reportedly the party was ready to concede to the left’s demands on gun control- but as they were already planning to betray the base on amnesty, they were unwilling to betray the base on gun control. Global warming fraudsters get caught phonying-up data again and again, to justify insane demands, with no response from the party. Etc, etc.

      A political party that is unwilling to make a political case has no reason to exist.

      The GOP is about there, and hence, is about done.

      Good riddance.

    26. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >> A political party that is unwilling to make a political case has no reason to exist.
      The GOP is about there, and hence, is about done.
      Good riddance.

      Sadly, I have to agree with that.

    27. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      A political party that is unwilling to make a political case has no reason to exist.

      The GOP is about there, and hence, is about done.

      That is a key point. I spent much of the morning over at NATIONAL REVIEW arguing about Trump and matters akin to this thread. As one can expect, much of the commentariat there is DIABLO. I kept trying to get any one of them to answer one set of questions:

      1) Can you give me a REASON to vote FOR you, other than if I don’t the Democrats will win?
      2) After the last election where you flatly lied to us, why should I believe that you will do whatever that reason is?

      All I got was variations of, “If you don’t vote for the approved Republican candidate, the Democrats will win.”.

      Even if I admit that the Democrats will lie, cheat, steal, and break the law and the Constitution to get whatever they want; the Republicans will break their word to their voters to make sure that the Democrats get whatever they want.

      Subotai Bahadur

    28. Whitehall Says:

      I’ve spent the morning watching his recent campaign speeches. He connects and he isn’t a mealy mouth. He may not be a “True Conservative” but he seems close enough for me. Put aside your stylistic objections – who wants another polished stump speech that says nothing and is even less believable? Trump can communicate on issues that are important to people yet are on the “hush-hush” list for more PC politicians. Remember, that was Reagan’s great advantage – he had courage to speak out.

      Listen to the speeches – he’s building coalitions of voters. He’ll get the blue collar Democrats, many union members, seniors, Tea Party people, and patriots of all sorts. The SJW types will slime him but he came out hitting hard – he called the press “dishonest” – one of his biggest applause lines.

      Yes, he can threaten to pull a Perot and mount a third party. The only vote I’ve ever regretted was voting for Perot. But that threat must be taken seriously by the GOP establishment and it might get him the nomination. He can self-fund and the other GOP prospectives need large donors.

      One challenge is for him to convince us he can govern effectively. Personnel is policy – who would be on his executive team? Who would he appoint? His dealmaking ability is proven in business – is that skill transferrable to government and state craft?

      Please, give Trump a chance. I’m not sold yet either, but he’s just started to pitch his deal to the American voter.

    29. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Rubes!

      Trump has given over $100,000 to the Clintons and counts Shumer a friend. He’s the ultimate go along to get along guy. Sure he does a great huff n puff, but at the end of the day he’s all about deals. You want deals, talk to Boehner and McConnell.

      We’ve got great choices in Cruz, Walker and Fiorina. If one of them, long term supporters of limited government in fact, can’t get the job done, then the rot in the party is truly so deep it deserves to go Whig. But the Donald is not the answer. He’s a side show.

    30. Tyouth Says:

      I disagree Mrs. Davis. Trump has greased commercial wheels in what is a fascist environment and he has greasy “friends”. But, are these traits of a failed business man or the traits of an adaptable creature? Whitehall, above has it about right, IMO. We’ll see who is around him now and (hopefully) who might be around him if he wins. It’ll be quite interesting to see what other approaches to problems he espouses as time goes by.

      BTW, I can’t hold the egotistical personality against him as my wife, Ginny, and (I’m sure) many of their sex do.

    31. Mike K Says:

      “Personnel is policy – who would be on his executive team? Who would he appoint?”

      This is a big question. We need a conservative version of “The Wise Men” of the 50s. Reagan had guys from California who had been in his governor administration. I am a big fan of Cheney and Rumsfeld and we need people like them. Where are they ?

      Read Rumsfeld’s book, if you haven’t. It gives me a new appreciation for Nixon. Nixon appointed Rummy to OEO, a bureaucracy. Rumsfeld said he was opposed to the while idea and Nixon said, “That’s why I am appointing you.” Rumsfeld’s job was to look at proposals and discard those that seemed useless. What a refreshing idea !

      Cheney came to Rumsfeld looking for an internship so he could work on his Poly Sci PhD. Cheney wound up Ford’s White House Chief of Staff at 36.

      Ryan could be another Cheney but he still looks 21 and let Biden get away with clowning away the VP debate.

      Can you imagine Trey Gowdy as AG ?

      I have a bad feeling about Trump. I fear he is a demagogue. If only the GOP can use him as an indicator of policy preferences.

    32. PenGun Says:

      This is amusing. Your problem is racism basically. Trump is your choice because of this. Nothing will ensure Hillary’s victory more surely than a Trump win in the primaries.

      Can’t you people count?

    33. Mike K Says:

      “Can’t you people count?”

      Yes and I notice that you do not include yourself in “you people.”

      Thank you for your interest. Goodbye,

    34. Xennady Says:

      I freely admit that I’ve paid just about as much attention to Donald Trump as I have to Kim Kardashian- that is, I know that they exist and that both are famous- but so far I like what I’ve heard from him.

      He seems to be saying the right sort of things, and collecting the right sort of enemies, while burning too many bridges for me to think he’s merely out for fun. I wonder if Chuckie Schumer is still his friend, for example, and would pick up the phone if Trump gave him a call.

      That said, I still figure Trump will flame out, and my current favorite is Scott Walker.

      However, I’ve long had a notion that the person to fix or at least resolve the terrible political dysfunctions we suffer from would be someone from outside the present DC political regime. It would be someone rich enough to not require vast sums of money from that establishment, thus avoiding the need to make any promises. It would someone brash enough to say unpleasant truths, gutsy enough to defend them, and tough enough to fight back against the inevitable backlash from the establishment’s media lapdogs. It would be someone able to avoid any sort of blackmail from the establishment, either because everything embarrassing was already out in the open or because that person would have enough highly-paid lawyers to fight back.

      Or perhaps that person wouldn’t have anything to be blackmailed with, because they were so squeaky clean.

      In any case Trump seems to fit that bill, to my stunned amazement.

      The rest of the gopes? Not so much.

    35. Mike K Says:

      Except for “brash,” you are describing Romney. I would vote for him in a minute.

      I wonder how many buyers remorse Democrats would do so ?

    36. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      My absolute favorite so far is Carly Fiorina. She’s a very clear thinker who sees what needs to be done and is willing to do it. She strikes me as a real fighter too – a trait Romney lacks, and was his downfall. Romney is a status quo dealmaker, think Boehner as president, if you will.

      Walker I’m somewhat impressed with because of his history of accomplishment as Governor of Wisconsin. He did fail to stand up to Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm as he targeted conservatives in the infamous John Does investigations. That bothers me.

      As for Ted Cruz, I don’t want another senator, or anyone who’s made a living running their mouth, for president. I want to see a governor or CEO, someone who’s got a clear record and experience running a large organization successfully. To me, Fiorina is the most impressive candidate in the field.

    37. Jonathan Says:

      What Mrs. Davis said.

      Trump fills a public need by saying things that other Republican candidates should say but won’t. However, he benefits personally from the attention, and he has a history of exploiting political opportunities when it benefited him and then disappearing. He does good to the extent that he encourages serious Republican candidates to address the issues they don’t want to address. He does bad to the extent that he confuses voters, weakens the Republican field and helps Democrats.

      He is rhetorically sloppy. His statements about illegal-immigrant murderers are typical. He was correct to raise the issue, but he did it in a gratuitously provocative way that needlessly divides. The comparison with Sen. McCarthy is not entirely off. He gets attention and perhaps primary votes (if he stays in it that far, which is a big if). A better leader might try to use the problem to create a dominant new coalition.

      I’m not sure what his business experience counts for here. He has gone bankrupt after borrowing large amounts of other people’s money. He has cut many deals to his own benefit. He’s never held elected office. Is he a competent executive? Who knows.

    38. Xennady Says:

      “Except for “brash,” you are describing Romney.”

      You’re spot-on correct, as long as you define “brash” as “having political skill and talent.”

      As I’ve said I’ve never paid much attention to Trump, but I do fondly recall watching him make Barry dance in 2012, when he forced the release of Barry’s birth certificate. Mitt Romney and the rest of the GOP were terrified of raising that issue, even to the extent of refusing to simply ask publicly why Obama wouldn’t release such mundane documents as his college transcripts, etc. Of course they loudly denounced the people who did have the guts to ask that question, because leftists would have said mean things about them if they hadn’t.

      To be blunt, Trump had more political impact upon Obama than the entire Republican party, because Trump at least made Barry do something he didn’t want to do.

      “He did fail to stand up to Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm as he targeted conservatives in the infamous John Does investigations. That bothers me.”

      It bothers me too, and it may well be a deal breaker. It seems to me one of the key functions of the President is the willingness and ability to make a political case simply by their choice of words. One important aspect of that is the willingness to name names and point fingers directly and personally at political opponents, with the goal of informing the public of their corruption, lawlessness, and failure. Scott Walker has ample cause to go after Chisholm, personally and directly, yet he has so far failed to do so. This reminds me of the usual behavior of Republicans, who ignore the endless provocations from the left, perhaps as part of their typical idiotic strategy of striving to be politically irrelevant and invisible. One of the reasons Walker is thought of as a potential president is because he seemed to be different.

      Perhaps he ain’t. Perhaps the whole taking-on-the-left thing was just a fluke, and he really didn’t want to do it. Maybe he just wanted to be another Republican go-along get-along nobody, with a nice pension and his portrait in the Wisconsin statehouse later- but the left just wouldn’t let him get that job done. I hope not, but he damn well should go after Chisholm, and I’m not interested in hearing any excuse why he won’t. I consider it part of his political duty to stand up for his supporters, and I consider the usual GOP failure to do so a key failing of the party. Walker- and the rest of the GOP- need to do better, much better.

      “He was correct to raise the issue, but he did it in a gratuitously provocative way that needlessly divides.”

      I suppose, but I recall what Strauss and Howe wrote about Fourth Turning-era presidents- i.e., they seek to highlight political divisions to drive a resolution, with clear winners and losers. That certainly describes Obama, and I expect any near-term successful Republican president will do the same.

    39. Mike K Says:

      “think Boehner as president, if you will.”

      That is a bit unfair. I think Romney has been spectacularly successful as a manager and as a savior of troubled projects like the Salt Lake City Olympics.

      What has Boehner done ?

      I like Carly but she was not very successful in her first political campaign. She took quite a bit of ridicule over her “Demon Sheep” ad.

      And it was against a fellow Republican.

      I don’t know about her record at HP. Meg Whitman, who I consider another lost opportunity for California, has decided to break the company up.

      Whitman was an entrepreneur and Carly was not.

    40. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Here’s a good medium length look at Fiorina: https://youtu.be/ZL5LXzkNUzY

      Here’s a longer one:
      Center for Strategic & International Studies: https://youtu.be/27nbj2yGcS4

      She’s one of those rare people where the more closely I look at her, the more impressed I am.

    41. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Mike K Says:
      July 12th, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      Romney is a spectacular manager, with the note that if you are the head manager, your word ultimately is law and you do not have to deal with people openly fighting with you, trying to destroy you, and to sabotage every thing you do and the entire country.

      Which job description does not fit a non-Democrat president dealing with a Democrat party and TWANLOC population.

      Romney is not a fighter. He is not an inspirational leader who can get people out of their comfort zone or to sacrifice. And at heart he is part of the “Comfortable Class”. [See ACE OF SPADES’ piece http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=357766 “Donald Trump and the Class War within the GOP”. I don’t agree with everything by any means, but it has some interesting insights.]

      And I admit that I worked my butt off for Romney in 2012. As did our TEA Party. The number of conservatives sitting out 2012 has always been exaggerated. I have noted elsewhere that our county’s Republican party dissolved during the 2014 campaign, because of disgust with the National party. In 2012, they still had bosses, but no one to do the work, so it was the TEA Party that did their entire campaign, and the County Chair admitted it. We have tried to work within the system, to no avail. We now control the County Republican Party and are re-invigorating it, but as a brand name the party is pretty damaged.

      Romney would not be a good president, for the same reason he lost. He is not a fighter. He would be a Boehner at best, believing that if he surrendered enough, the Democrats would come around.

      Assuming a legitimate election in 2016 [not guaranteed by any means], if the Democrat is defeated the new president would have to be a fighter. And able to inspire. None of the candidates preferred by the Republican Party fits that description.

      What scares the Republican Party, is not that Trump is a shoe-in to be president. It is that he is reminding Republicans and Americans what it was like to have someone who was not intimidated by the PC Left in the party. And like having someone who, however nominally, is a Republican who actually opposes the Left on something. It makes the Republicans’ “teats-on-a-boar-hog” status inescapable and blatant.

      Subotai Bahadur

    42. Mike K Says:

      “He is not an inspirational leader who can get people out of their comfort zone or to sacrifice.”

      I disagree. How do you explain his work st the SLC Olympics ?

      Harry Truman is alleged to have said, “Poor Eisenhower. He is used to people doing what he says. What will he do when he can’t give orders ?”

      Eisenhower was an excellent president. Truman was too but he had the Congress and Eisenhower didn’t.

      Truman had patriotic Republicans like Vandenberg, which would not be the case now with the opposite party.

      Reagan had huge problems with disloyal Democrats. Still, he got things done. The guy who disappointed me was Bush, both of them really. Bush II had a GOP Congress and ignored everything but Iraq.

      Hastert was a big problem but Bush should have done more.

    43. Xennady Says:

      Mike K,

      Forgive me for clubbing the bleached bones of the long-dead horse of the Romney campaign, but if Romney was actually a great political leader he would have defeated Barry in 2012.

      Obviously, he did not. I could write a lot of nice about him, but there’s no point.

      He lost, and is well on his way to joining James Blaine and Wendell Wilkie as historical footnotes.

    44. Grurray Says:

      I’m not sure if Fiorina is a good politician. Maybe not, but she gets a bum wrap for her time at HP. Without that deal with Compaq it would never have survived. It took a lot of courage to do it and stick with it when there was so much criticism from all sides. The most profitable divisions that are getting spun off are the ones she aquired.
      Trump is entertaining and gives voice to many people’s frustration, but Fiorina is a real leader.

    45. ErisGuy Says:

      I sure hope so. The Republican Party by its actions is in favor of Obamacare, massive immigration, trillions in debt, and multiple wars. This is indistinguishable from the Democrat Party. Comparing the Republicans to the Washington Generals is accurate but for one thing: no one is actually a fan of or expects the Generals to win.

      The Right complains when Republicans win, they govern like a Democrats. And vice-versa. This is correct. Both parties represent the elite who own the country and most “issues” are piñatas, meant as colorful distractions.

      If the Republican Party collapses, it may expose the one-faction governance that has destroyed the USA. After that, who knows.

    46. Grurray Says:

      The only person to emerge from this Confederate flag idiocy looks to be Nikki Haley, who just had her “shooting Old Yeller” moment. She’s already in the lead for Vice President.

    47. Mrs. Davis Says:

      It is that he is reminding Republicans and Americans what it was like to have someone who was not intimidated by the PC Left in the party.

      I doubt that many people remember Bob Taft.

    48. ErisGuy Says:

      Representative government was a nice theory, and with a restricted franchise, I suppose it might work, but a universal franchise of the disenlightened in a populous nation, the representatives are freed from representing any constituency but money.

    49. Mike K Says:

      “if Romney was actually a great political leader he would have defeated Barry in 2012.”

      I think this is a bit unfair. Romney ran as a guy who could fix things and knew how to run things. Just about everything he said in 2012 has been proven true. He was not ” a great political leader ” I’ll grant but we are talking about others who aren’t as well.

      There was only one Reagan and there may not be another for decades if ever.

      The best politician we’ve seen since Reagan is Bill Clinton. Not exactly who I would choose to run the country although, once he had a GOP Congress, things went pretty well, except in foreign policy.

      Bush, either of them, was not a good politician. GHW Bush was Reagan’s third term. GW Bush had Gore as an opponent, a guy so dumb he couldn’t win that election.

      Obama is as though we had elected Bill Ayres.

      Then guy who sunk Romney in 2012 was Gingrich who knows only how to throw bombs. He got the Congress elected in 1994 and threw it away over a stupid book deal. The whole “Vulture Capitalist” theme that the Obama people used on Romney came from Gingrich.

    50. Whitehall Says:

      Carly talks a good game, but unlike Grurray, I blame her for her ruinous tenure at HP. As a long-time Silicon Valley engineer, the loss of our iconic company, HP, still hurts. Her campaigns in California were not so hot either.

      I appreciate her participation, but I won’t vote for her in the primary. In the general, yes, of course.

    51. Xennady Says:

      “I think this is a bit unfair. Romney ran as a guy who could fix things and knew how to run things. Just about everything he said in 2012 has been proven true. He was not ” a great political leader ” I’ll grant but we are talking about others who aren’t as well.”

      I can agree with all this, even that my complaint is a bit unfair- but still, Romney blew it. No doubt it was a near run thing, and Romney could possibly have been a great president as you say- but I just don’t believe that- because more below.

      “Then guy who sunk Romney in 2012 was Gingrich who knows only how to throw bombs. He got the Congress elected in 1994 and threw it away over a stupid book deal. The whole “Vulture Capitalist” theme that the Obama people used on Romney came from Gingrich.”

      I disagree here, though. Romney sank Romney, because of his tone-deaf lack of comprehension about how the electorate would evaluate his actions. For example, he was accused of murdering a woman by closing a steel mill. I’m sure you recall that incident, and I’m sure you know it was nonsense.

      Nothing Newt Gingrich did required Romney to make no sort of response at all, thus convincing some electorally significant segment of the public that he HAD no response to make, because he was guilty. He wasn’t, but it didn’t matter. Similarly, it didn’t matter that Romney actually paid his taxes despite because accused of not doing so by Harry Reid, because Romney made no response to the charge. My guess is that Romney felt that refusing to dignify such stupid charges with direct responses would signify to the electorate that the charges were baseless- but that was yet another of his political missteps. Alas.

      Newt is a different set of failures. It seems to me that anytime he had any sort of real success, it ran right to his head, locked common sense and good judgement in a closet, and compelled him to make a fool of himself. Hence, I just don’t believe he ever had the power to derail Romney.

    52. Mike K Says:

      “Nothing Newt Gingrich did required Romney to make no sort of response at all ”

      There was a critical error by the GOP. The convention was schedule;ed very late, in September. Romney was not the nominee and could not respond to the DNC use of Gingrich’s slander until he had been defined by the Dems.

      This probably goes back to the old Nixon rule that no-one pays attention to elections until Labor Day. That is no longer true. Notice the convention is early next year,. Priebus fixed it but too late for Romney. Had Romney been Reagan he might have overcome the handicap but he isn’t. Nobody is.

    53. newrouter Says:

      >Priebus fixed it but too late for Romney.<

      do recall that chris christie was a featured speaker at the rnc 2012 and talked about chris christie. and then a few days before the election after hurricane sandy hugged baracky in new jersey. grifters the lot.

    54. Mike K Says:

      Yes, Christie was totally disingenuous and did nothing for Romney.

    55. Jonathan Says:

      It bothers me too, and it may well be a deal breaker. It seems to me one of the key functions of the President is the willingness and ability to make a political case simply by their choice of words. One important aspect of that is the willingness to name names and point fingers directly and personally at political opponents, with the goal of informing the public of their corruption, lawlessness, and failure. Scott Walker has ample cause to go after Chisholm, personally and directly, yet he has so far failed to do so.

      Most of our journalists are too partisan and/or incompetent to put the screws to Walker on this issue. The lefty media don’t want to draw attention to abuses of power by Democratic officials. The conservative media don’t want to hurt Walker’s chances. The Internet/blogs/Twitter don’t seem to be adequate to break the dysfunctional equilibrium here.

    56. Bill Brandt Says:

      My father at 95 is a bit cynical about politicians – calling them all whores. As for me I am amazed that we all work so hard getting this Congress – they elect the same tired leaders and it seems all the change promised disappears.

      I am pretty much fed up with the GOP at this point but where else do you go?

    57. Bill Brandt Says:

      I disagree here, though. Romney sank Romney, because of his tone-deaf lack of comprehension about how the electorate would evaluate his actions. For example, he was accused of murdering a woman by closing a steel mill. I’m sure you recall that incident, and I’m sure you know it was nonsense.

      The best explanation of the Romney loss was that he did nothing to address middle class concerns – he seemed like the stereotypical multi millionaire Republican looking out for corporate interests.

    58. Whitehall Says:

      “Trey Gowdy as AG”?

      Heck yeah! As Trump proves some bona fides as a serious candidate, he’ll attract high level supporters who could serve in his cabinet. Who could fill the roles of Weinberger, Schultz, Rumsfeld, Cheney?

      Let’s fantasize:

      Treasury? Romney

      State? (tough one)

      Commerce? Carly maybe

      OMB? I like Rep. McClintock from NorCal. He was great as budget watchdog in California.

      Defense? McCain – but he’s a bit too old

      Homeland Security? Tony Soprano

      Interior? Yosemite Sam

      OK, so I’ve run out of ideas…

    59. Dan from Madison Says:

      Walker is getting in today. The adults are getting ready to enter the room.

    60. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Jonah Goldberg hits the nail on the head here

      I truly, honestly, and with all my heart and mind think Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters are making a yuuuuuuge mistake. I think they are being conned and played. I feel like a guy whose brother is being taken advantage of by a grifter. I’m watching helplessly as the con artist congratulates him for taking out a third mortgage.

    61. Xennady Says:

      “Most of our journalists are too partisan and/or incompetent to put the screws to Walker on this issue. The lefty media don’t want to draw attention to abuses of power by Democratic officials. The conservative media don’t want to hurt Walker’s chances. The Internet/blogs/Twitter don’t seem to be adequate to break the dysfunctional equilibrium here.”

      All true, which is why I’m disappointed with Walker. If the GOP ever wants to become the political party that actually governs the United States (instead of merely winning elections) it absolutely must stop letting leftists like Chisholm ignore all aspects of the law and human decency in their pursuit of power.

      Sooner or later the political left must be engaged and destroyed, if the country is to avoid ruin. It seems this is a job the GOP just won’t do, which is yet another reason why the party is worthless.

    62. TimL Says:

      Trumka issued a six-word press release: “Scott Walker is a national disgrace.”

      Expect more of the same on Walker. He opposed Right to Work in Wisconsin until it passed the Legislature. He opposed reform of prevailing wage to placate big donors. Walker is not the answer. Don’t take Trumpka’s word for it but he is a Romneyan squish who will be unlikely to shrink Government. That is the one necessary non-negotiable position for me. Walker will not do it. He will triangulate against the GOP. As will most of the other candidates.

    63. Jonathan Says:

      Sooner or later the political left must be engaged and destroyed, if the country is to avoid ruin. It seems this is a job the GOP just won’t do, which is yet another reason why the party is worthless.

      The candidates are flawed. The GOP is worthless. That is just the way things are.

      The GOP is all that we have at the moment.

      The kinds of reforms that many of us want may not happen. If they do happen it will probably be through the GOP, and not as soon as we would like.

      It’s a mistake to say, as many conservative commentators do, that it has to happen this election or it’s too late, or that a particular candidate is our last hope. That way lies demoralization when the inevitable disappointments occur. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. Better to assume it will be a long, hard process. It took the country a long time to get to its current state. It will probably take a long time to reverse the decay.

    64. Xennady Says:

      “I am pretty much fed up with the GOP at this point but where else do you go?”

      Perhaps you go to Trump.

      “The best explanation of the Romney loss was that he did nothing to address middle class concerns – he seemed like the stereotypical multi millionaire Republican looking out for corporate interests.”

      Perhaps. Yet I still recall the theory by Professor Paul Rahe (at Ricochet.com) that Romney deliberately pulled his punches against Obama, because he believed he would win but wanted an excuse to not repeal Obamacare.

      Meh. None of that matters now.

    65. JNorth Says:

      Trumka is a Marxist thug and his opposition to Walker means Walker is doing something right. Walker also has been reducing the size of his state government.

    66. Ginny Says:

      venting more than thinking:

      My disgust with Trump is great; my sense is that to be human is to err so you can find problems with anyone in the Republican field, but the bench is full of others, honest people who have tried to solve problems. If we consider every act of trying as tainting them, then we can pretty well give up. If we can look at the budgets of the states run by Republican governors, though, I think we can see hope for the national budget with one of them in charge. Rubio is right about Cuba and Iran; Walker about the schools. Perry and Bush have dealt with borders and hurricanes, with damn little help from the feds. And look at how Jindal took a tragedy and made it into a chance to reform the worst, or second worst, school system in the country into something that both conservatives and inner city blacks have long agreed on – school choice.

      The greats know which hills are worth fighting for and which aren’t – and the greats took a while to know who to trust and who not to. (Don’t trust the democrats, of course, but how necessary that has become takes a learning curve. Lincoln, after all, made some mistakes. And he’s a lot better than we deserve – or perhaps ever did. Indeed, he and Washington sometimes seem an argument for a national grace – we’ve been blessed more than we’ve earned that blessing sometimes.

      None of these may be Lincoln, but I don’t think we’d recognize those virtues if they were in front of us. All of us have become too cynical.

      I think the bar is higher on the Republican side; I’ll say this for Trump – I may think he is a blowhard ass but given the resources of the State Department he could get one word in English translated properly into a language that surely some experts in its vast bureaucracy knows. (Or maybe no one knows Russian anymore, what with it being such an eighties problem – somehow Sidney Blumenthal’s crony requests and information was listened to when requests for more security at an embassy were not.) The level of incompetence to which we have become accustomed under Obama is not likely to improve under the “Queen’s” rule – as we have seen from her obliviousness to what one would assume were large responsibilities she shrugged off at State.

      Why are we even considering Trump, Hillary, Bernie Sanders seriously? What does it say about us? Well, it says that we are the kind of country that elected Obama, I guess.

    67. Xennady Says:

      “It’s a mistake to say, as many conservative commentators do, that it has to happen this election or it’s too late, or that a particular candidate is our last hope. That way lies demoralization when the inevitable disappointments occur. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. Better to assume it will be a long, hard process. It took the country a long time to get to its current state. It will probably take a long time to reverse the decay.”

      Sure, but there’s another mistake to be made.

      That is, to assume that nothing is wrong with the Republican party, or that things will turn out OK in the end, if only we stay the course and keep voting GOP.

      I have the sense that the people in charge of the Republican party simply don’t understand how unhappy the base of the party has become, or maybe they just don’t care.

      As a result they’ve been completely blindsided by Trump. I expect they’re going to go out of their way to attack, mock, denigrate, and otherwise express contempt for Trump supporters in yet another of the quadrennial exercises to prevent the concerns of rank-and-file Republicans from impacting the public discourse and possibly harming their bottom line. Same old, same old, I’ve seen it all before. Yawn.

      I’m done with this game, is all. If the GOP is all we have at the moment, then maybe we actually have nothing at all. I’ve already written above about the GOP’s unwillingness to make a political case, or soil its metaphorical hands by meddling in the internal affairs of the United States.

      But I’ve also noticed instances of an off-the-reservation political figure upending the polite status quo with what are essentially offhand remarks. For example, Rand Paul and his response to an abortion question, which supposedly caused the democrats to back away from their war on women shinola- or Trump and his remarks about illegal immigrants, which suddenly made their endless criminality an issue the elite decided they suddenly needed do something about. All of a sudden, after a problem that festered for many years.

      Rand Paul won his seat by defeating an establishment GOP figure, name I forget. If the party had its way he’d still be an eye doctor, with all the political influence that entails. I probably don’t need to mention Trump, but plainly he’s outside the elite mainstream too. And the political establishment, left and right, is trying to marginalize him in every way they can.

      Bottom line, for me at least- the GOP isn’t failing because we’re in the midst of a long hard process to fix what ails us. The GOP is failing because it is betraying us, and in fact I suspect the party establishment doesn’t even have the same definition of failure that most Americans have. Or the same goals, for that matter.

      Again, I’m done with this.

    68. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Ginny Says:
      July 13th, 2015 at 2:54 pm

      …The greats know which hills are worth fighting for and which aren’t …

      I know that I sound like a smarta**, and I am really not trying to be; but we have been fighting to preserve something akin to Constitutional government for at least 6 years and arguably for over a generation. And we have lost. Can you name one “hill” that the Republican Party decided was worth fighting and maybe dying on in that time, where they actually stood and fought instead of posturing and surrendering? The longer an army retreats, the harder it is to keep them from giving up and dissolving. Or joining another army. The only time the Republican Party fights, is when they are fighting Republican conservatives of whatever label.

      The longer the retreat, the more strategically necessary it is to stand and fight for something.

      Looking back at Lincoln as you did, Lincoln followed the conventional political wisdom of the time and appointed generals with political interests in mind. And came close to losing the Civil War. It was not until he appointed Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan; specifically because they fought, that the tide turned.

      Those who would preserve the Constitution through political means desperately need a general who will fight. Or otherwise, we will be fighting by kinetic means, without doubt. For even successful Collectivist seizures of power are not bloodless.

      I don’t want that, for the sake of my family; but if it must come I hope it comes in my time so my descendents will not have to do it.

      The best predictor of future performance, is past performance. And based on past performance the Republican party has no intention of fighting. I’d love to be proved wrong. As to why, incompetence or deliberate treachery; I will use the same measure I use to evaluate the same question in regards to Obama. If it was incompetence and not intentional, at least sometimes by the law of averages something would come out well for the country. Which argues for intent.

      We have lost the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the rule of law, and the Legislative power of the purse. The government routinely breaks the law with no consequences. There are reasons to believe that an election in 2016 is not guaranteed.

      So if we do not fight politically now, when are we going to do it?

      And at this point insisting that anyone who fights do so in terms that both Emily Post and the Dalai Lama would use is not fighting politically.

      I do find it amusing the the Republican Party through Reince Priebus is telling Trump to “shut his mouth”. And that escaped Mexican Drug kingpin Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman, head of the powerful Sinaloa Cartel just told Trump the same thing, with added death threats. You are known by the quality of your allies, and of your enemies. And it applies to all concerned.

      Subotai Bahadur

    69. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Count me in with SB – I am still looking for the establishment Rs to find that hill and their balls and quit running and sniveling. The Donald might very well be a show-boating loon – but he isn’t afraid to speak up.
      And, oh yeah – I am still incandescently angry over how the establishment RINOS threw Sarah Palin to the wolves, just because she wasn’t one of the Right Kind of People, dontchaknow. I got a call from the national Repub committee a couple of years ago – the ears of the poor woman who made the call must still be ringing over what I said to her.

      Either lead, follow or get the h*ell out of the way.

    70. Tyouth Says:

      Subotai, I like the analogy of Trump to Grant – Lincoln found a general who would fight. I’d like to see Trump, once the hub-bub from his border comments die down a bit, enflame again with an attack on crony-capitalism. Might gain support from surprising places.

    71. Mike K Says:

      “Romney deliberately pulled his punches against Obama, because he believed he would win but wanted an excuse to not repeal Obamacare.”

      I don’t agree at all. The Massachusetts law was one that was passed by the 80% D Mass legislature over Romney’s veto. I”ll grant that he individual mandate was AEI policy at one time but they recognized that the “free rider” issue was not going to be a major cost driver.

      Romney NEVER supported the employer mandate which the Mass legislature and Deval Patrick imposed after he left. I hope you have noticed that Obama has recoiled from trying impose this even though it is the law. It would lead to a revolution.

      Obamacare is Medicaid for all, or at least for everyone below 160% of the “poverty line.”

      Romney pulled his punches because I think he is not used to the lying and hurly burly of politics. That may be handicap for a candidate but not for a president. Gingrich provided the Dims with the ammunition, the phony “Vulture Capitalist” label to smear him and it worked. I blame the 2012 loss on Gingrich and on the Silicon Valley kids who know nothing but database construction, data mining and gay marriage,

      The Democrats and their top-bottom coalition are ignorant of how to run a country. They have figured out elections, especially with the aid of lying and stupid LIVs.

      Trump is no Grant and Grant might have failed without Sherman who is our greatest general since Washington.

    72. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Sherman who is our greatest general since Washington.

      Amen.

    73. Xennady Says:

      “Can you name one “hill” that the Republican Party decided was worth fighting and maybe dying on in that time, where they actually stood and fought instead of posturing and surrendering?”

      Subotai, I can think of a hill the GOP has fought and died on, although likely not in the way you mean.

      Opens borders- and by extension, endless amnesty.

      They’ve gone back to that again and again, even after suffering terrible political damage and even after enraging the base repeatedly, for no gain.

      Specifically, I’m thinking of George Bush, circa 2005, when the GOP controlled Congress and the out-of-control border was a red-hot political issue. Bush was even forced to give a prime time speech. I recall hope before it that Bush would announce serious border security measures, but that didn’t happen. Instead he announced that family values didn’t stop at the Rio Grande, and refused to do anything.

      This was followed by the GOP losing control of congress in 2006, which I believe was connected, even if no one else does. Anyway, Bush’s response was the 2007 amnesty bill, with hundreds of pages of dense legalese intended to conceal the lack of border security. It was defeated, as everyone knows, after great efforts by the grass roots of the party and people like Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt.

      Later, House majority leader Eric Cantor lost his seat and his career because he was unwilling to stand against amnesty, and in fact was scheming with Obama to get one.

      Pardon me for writing all these tedious words to describe what everyone already knows- I’m sure this will look like a huuuge lengthy post to anyone who reads it on a phone- but my point is that the GOP does in fact have principles it will stand and fight for, no matter what.

      They just aren’t what the people who vote for the party want them to be.

      That completes my point, but I’ll add a personal aside. I describe the sacred principle the GOP establishment will actually fight for as open borders and not mere amnesty because I think that there are multiple occasions during which the party could have very easily obtained an amnesty for everyone already here as long as they also secured the US border for real. I figure this would have quickly and easily ended the controversy over the amnesty, because neither myself nor anyone I’ve ever discussed this topic with have had any personal animus against the illegal immigrants themselves, only the illegality. However, desiring permanent open borders, the establishment was unwilling to accept that.

      Alas. Anyway, I apologize to everyone for making so many comments in this thread, but I’m on vacation, and this is what I do for fun, God help me.

    74. Xennady Says:

      Well, one more comment.

      Mike K, forgive me, because I left off an important part of Professor Rahe’s hypothesis. Rahe theorized that Romney pulled his punches, figuring he’d win anyway, so the GOP would not end up controlling the Senate. Thus, he could plausibly tell the angry rank-and-file that he could do nothing, because the GOP couldn’t overcome the demonrat filibuster.

      Oops.

      Anyway, from what I recall about Romney’s failed campaign, he never made much effort to explain how he disagreed with the assumptions and schemes of Obamacare. I’m sure he had disagreements, plenty of them, he just never made me believe they were for reals.

      Meh. Footnote theater, who cares.

    75. Mike K Says:

      “he just never made me believe they were for reals.”

      My own theory, which I shared with the Romney people, is that the rallies were so enthusiastic that he and Ryan thought they had it won. After the first debate, it looked as though Obama thought so too. The VP debate was a clown act by Biden but it made Ryan look even younger then he does anyway. Ryan could have interrupted Biden to ask why he was acting the fool but I guess you don’t do that in debates. Reagan kind of did it. “There you go again.”

      I have to agree that Romney was not that good a politician but he would be a great president, I believe. Eisenhower was somewhat similar but the country was more serious then. Can anyone imagine the Kardashians in the 1950s ?

    76. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >>I’d like to see Trump…enflame again with an attack on crony-capitalism.

      Carly Fiorina already has. Repeatedly. And the Iran deal. And the ‘culture of dependence’.

    77. Tyouth Says:

      “Trump is no Grant and Grant might have failed without Sherman who is our greatest general since Washington.”

      After reading “Grant and Sherman” (“the friendship that won the civil war”) by C.B. Flood, it was clear to me that Grant was the senior partner and the more solid (like a brick) soldier. Sherman was clearly Grant’s tool. Grant settled Sherman, who was subject to “the black dog”, guiding him at such times and defended Sherman from “friendly fire”. Sherman counseled Grant poorly a number of times…Grant did not take the bad advice. The loyalty and bond between them was very strong but Grant commanded Sherman.

      As far as “Trump is no Grant” goes, Grant was “no Grant” either, until he got a command.