Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on January 8, 2016 by Allahpundit

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Reince Priebus said Thursday night that he is certain he can convince his party to rally behind its candidate no matter which GOP contender snags the nomination — even Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

“One hundred percent. You know the unifying thing about what I have to do is no matter who you’re for, everyone can agree that we have to have a national party and infrastructure that has its act together,” Priebus told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. He added, “Whoever the delegates of our party choose, that’s going to be the nominee and our party is gonna be behind that person 110 percent to save this country.”

***

Yet there is a nagging sense — at least nagging to rival campaigns — that Trump may be closer to Cruz than the Register suggested, and that the race in Iowa could be virtually even at this point.

“I look at Trump, and his ceiling is so much higher than everyone else’s,” says Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Iowa GOP who now runs the Iowa Republican blog. “His campaign has gone out and had people self-identify that they’re interested in him, and they’ve captured that data.”…

“Ted Cruz is swimming in a pond where the capacity is about 30,000 votes,” says Robinson. “I look at Trump and think that Trump is at that 30,000 mark now, and has the ability to blow past it, if they do a good job of turning their people out.”

***

As of Thursday evening, Trump held a 15-point lead in the RealClearPolitics national polling average and a two-to-one advantage over his closest rival in New Hampshire, which holds its primary eight days after the Iowa caucuses.

Referring to Cruz’s presumed expectation that Trump will fade, Mackowiak, the GOP strategist, said, “It could go the way he wants it to. But it could also go the other way, where Trump is too strong and is on a glide path to the nomination.”…

“The only person who really stands in the way of Trump is Cruz,” he said. “Trump is going to realize that and unload on him.”

***

It is more than an open secret that the Republican Establishment so hates Ted Cruz that they are more and more openly rooting for Donald Trump to win Iowa

The Establishment thinking is that if Trump beats Cruz in Iowa, they can then beat Trump with Rubio, Bush, or Christie.

But that is horse manure and if they were not all incompetent morons they would know it. These guys have not made a dent in Trump’s popularity. The only guys who has is named Ted Cruz, and he has done it by being humorous and kind to Trump.

If Trump beats Cruz in Iowa, the man still does not bleed. That makes him stronger and more and more locks Trump in as a viable contender. It makes it more likely that Cruz’s coalition breaks to Trump and sustains Trump, who can also pick up blue collar voters in northern states and the Rust Belt to sustain his candidacy.

***

Conservatives often find themselves in opposition to elites for two main reasons. One, because elites are often telling them how to live their lives (in contradiction to the idea of a government of limited enumerated powers); and two, because it’s hard to trust Republican elites to actually advance a conservative agenda once in power.

Somewhere along the line, hating the Establishment became so important to a certain group of conservatives, that it’s an end in and of itself. It’s now reached the point at which they’re willing embrace crackpot theories a reality TV celebrity is trying to use to tar a genuine conservative.

Sure, Trump is mocked by the media. He’s dismissed by pundits. And he gives nightmares to the party bosses. But that doesn’t mean he’s doing so in the name of advancing conservatism. Quite the opposite

Now, it is true that a lot of Trump’s support is coming from non-traditional primary voters and that most conservatives see right through him. But to those anti-Establishment conservatives who are backing him to the point of defending a smear against an actual conservative candidate, they need to realize that the enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend. And the whole point of combating the Establishment is to do so in the service of conservative principles, not to feed the ego of a celebrity.

***

With less than a month until the Iowa caucuses, followed immediately by New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary, it’s time the conservative base and Republican establishment destroy Donald J. Trump — before it’s too late for the party, the conservative cause, and the nation…

If his opponents can show Trump is the emperor with no clothes, they can win over voters. When attacked, Trump seems to grow stronger but to date Trump’s phony persona has yet to be unmasked. That’s his Achilles’ heel with his voters. An inauthentic and craven Trump would have little appeal to those seeking a candidate who would really fight for them.

The consequences of failure are huge. Not only is Trump’s support base incapable of winning 270 electoral votes and the presidency, his unpredictability and inconsistency are liabilities and deeply dangerous for those who want to govern as conservatives in a methodical and principled way.

If Trump continues to do well, there could be all kinds of consequences for Republicans who want to truly address the cultural, economic and personal struggles of the voters who now stand with him.

***

[T]he worst outcome for the party would be the nomination of Donald Trump. It is impossible to predict where the political contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton would end up. Clinton has manifestly poor political skills, and Trump possesses a serious talent for the low blow. But Trump’s nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the GOP’s ideological factions. It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be

All of his angry resentment against invading Hispanics and Muslims adds up to a kind of ethno-nationalism — an assertion that the United States is being weakened and adulterated by the other. This is consistent with European, right-wing, anti-immigrant populism. It is not consistent with conservatism, which, at the very least, involves respect for institutions and commitment to reasoned, incremental change…

American political parties are durable constructions. But they have been broken before by powerful, roiling issues such as immigration and racial prejudice. Many Republicans could not vote for Trump but would have a horribly difficult time voting for Clinton. The humane values of Republicanism would need to find a temporary home, which would necessitate the creation of a third party. This might help elect Clinton, but it would preserve something of conservatism, held in trust, in the hope of better days…

The nomination of Trump would reduce Republican politics — at the presidential level — to an enterprise of squalid prejudice. And many Republicans could not follow, precisely because they are Republicans. By seizing the GOP, Trump would break it to pieces.

***

Donald Trump isn’t going anywhere until someone attacks him personally, in a way so sharp-edged and relentless that the deflecting, dismissing, obfuscating and trivializing techniques that have so far served him improbably well stop working. It will require nothing less than a full-frontal assault on the Trump mythos, who he purports to be, the whole Trump mystique.

It will involve aggregating and dishing up every backroom deal, every tenant harassed, every questionable tax favor from a compliant politician, the eminent domain actions, all the bankruptcies, the racial discrimination charges, the bogus university, the pyramid scheme, the blustering and the posturing, the mob coziness, the unending go-to bullying stance, the taking credit, highlighting every community run roughshod over, even the cheating at golf, the immaturity, and the tax dodges masquerading as charitable contributions—all of it doggedly and, as must be the case with Trump, fearlessly.

Engaging in this process may not be pleasant or ennobling to contemplate, but once commenced it will chip away, chunk by chunk, and the moment Trump comes to believe that the vaunted Trump brand could be susceptible to being recast as an optical illusion, whether fairly so or not—and, truth be told, there’s reason to think it might be that, at least in some part—his instinct will be to protect it, and to do so he will find a graceful but speedy exit, slip-sliding off the stage like Bob Hope waving to the troops after a United Service Organizations roadshow, and that will be that…

More likely, a small crack in the dam will appear. Trump and his supporters will do their best to put fingers in the dyke, but eventually it will give way, and when that happens there will be the biggest political pile-on since… well, maybe ever.

***

There is no credible scenario in which a consistent 30 percent of the vote will deliver the delegates required to be the Republican nominee. So for Trump to lose, he doesn’t actually have to collapse; he just has to fail to expand his support. And in the states where candidates are actually campaigning, voters are paying the most attention, and the polling screens for likely voters are tightening, he hasn’t expanded his support meaningfully since he first climbed into the lead.

Foolish pundit that I may be, I don’t think he will. Instead, I think that Ted Cruz will continue to consolidate evangelicals as Ben Carson fades, and someone (probably Marco Rubio) will eventually consolidate the moderate-conservative vote — which is currently splintered among five candidates in New Hampshire, but which if it were consolidated would very easily beat Trump’s total in that state.

At which point — again, assuming that Trump doesn’t fade or collapse — we’ll have a three-way race, one in which the Donald could still win some states, could still pile up delegates, could even have a chance of pushing the race all the way to the convention — but would not, could not, emerge as the nominee.

***

I suspect that when we look back on the Obama years honestly—not just through the filtered light of the ceremonies as they dedicate his monument on the Mall—we will see that he ushered in a new era in American politics where ideology gave way to identity and tribalism.

And that by marrying the politics of identity to expanded executive authority and hyper-partisanship, he fundamentally changed America’s political compact. Think about the list of Obama’s most important accomplishments: the passage of Obamacare; the Obergefell verdict; mass amnesty; the Iran nuclear deal; the climate change treaty; and now his dictum on firearms. Not one of these programs had a solid majority of public support. And consequently, none of them were accomplished by normal legislative means.

It is difficult to imagine Trumpism arising in the shadow of either Bill Clinton’s administration, or George W. Bush’s—or even Hillary Clinton’s, had she been elected in 2008—because all three of these figures have traditional views on coalition building, legislative authority, and (small-r) republicanism.

Yet perhaps what’s most telling about Donald Trump’s rise is that the reaction of his supporters has not been (so far) to search for a leader who will return the political order to the old equilibrium. Instead, they seem to assume that the post-Obama political world will continue along tribalistic lines. And they want their own strongman.

***

“For anybody to say he can’t win is absurd.”

***

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Story out of Dallas Tx: saw it on WFAA Channel 8 ABC news this morning.

Area of Dallas on South Buckner that is big time little Mexico now has now been invaded by some islamics setting up a tire shop . Up to now it has been for years all Mexican.

So, over the last few weeks lots of back and fourth between the Mexican shop employees and the Muslims.

Some fist fights, some yelling, and calls to cops.

Now a young Mexican stormed into the Muslim run / owned shop shoring up the place and killed one of the Muslims .

The fire smolders all over the U S.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:05 AM

Yes it is up onWFAA in Dallas web site under local news.

It happened on Chridtmas eve.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:18 AM

The fire smolders all over the U S.

Good way to put it Apache. I wonder will happen the next time we suffer an Islamic attack. Especially if it results in a Paris size body count.

Racistanyway on January 9, 2016 at 6:20 AM

The media in liberal Dallas now have great conflict

They kiss up to the illegals

They kiss up to Islam

Now they have to deal with their love interest killing one another in turf wars.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:23 AM

The real fun will be when both the illegals and Islamist invade Oak Cliff were only Black Lives Matter.

Boom

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:26 AM

Lash. When trump said “take their oil”, it was a reference to the Irag war and g. Bush. Why should we have spent a trillion of our own dollars to give them their freedom??

Indiana Jim on January 9, 2016 at 7:18 AM

The real fun will be when both the illegals and Islamist invade Oak Cliff were only Black Lives Matter.

Boom

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:26 AM

Not really fun, but it is going to happen.
And what happens when American Muslims go after American gays?
Who will the Dems and the Leftists support then?
We already know women are at the bottom of the food chain, despite their yelling at the Right as sexists.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 7:24 AM

Not really fun, but it is going to happen.
And what happens when American Muslims go after American gays?
Who will the Dems and the Leftists support then?
We already know women are at the bottom of the food chain, despite their yelling at the Right as sexists.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 7:24 AM

All it takes to juggle the aggrieved groups is a common enemy, which happens to be us. Look at Israel: Ashkenazim hate Sephardim, Tel-Avivim hate settlers, poor hate rich, and everyone else hates Russian newcomers. And yet, as long as the external threat persists, it will remain the united, God-blessed country.

Rix on January 9, 2016 at 7:33 AM

. . . . . The very first “honor” killing and FGM case should have resulted in major sentences for murder and assault. The acceptance of the Muslim rape culture in Britain and here is depraved and despicable. The obeisance to CAIR and other Muslim terrorist spokesmen is treasonous.
.
AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 5:42 AM

.
HEY CONGRESS! . . . . . . . ARE YOU GETTING THIS?
.
A-men, brother.

listens2glenn on January 9, 2016 at 7:48 AM

Story out of Dallas Tx: saw it on WFAA Channel 8 ABC news this morning.

Area of Dallas on South Buckner that is big time little Mexico now has now been invaded by some islamics setting up a tire shop . Up to now it has been for years all Mexican.

So, over the last few weeks lots of back and fourth between the Mexican shop employees and the Muslims.

Some fist fights, some yelling, and calls to cops.

Now a young Mexican stormed into the Muslim run / owned shop shoring up the place and killed one of the Muslims .
.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:05 AM

Yes it is up onWFAA in Dallas web site under local news.

It happened on Chridtmas eve.
.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:18 AM

.
Where’s cozmo, when you need him?

listens2glenn on January 9, 2016 at 7:52 AM

Good way to put it Apache. I wonder will happen the next time we suffer an Islamic attack. Especially if it results in a Paris size body count.

Racistanyway on January 9, 2016 at 6:20 AM

This…

During a police press conference Friday afternoon, Mayor Jim Kenney stated that he believes the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer has “nothing to do with being a Muslim,” despite the suspect claiming he did it in the name of Islam.

Mayor Kenney said of the shooting, “It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings.”

He continued, “This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/01/08/mayor-kenney-on-officer-shooting-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-being-muslim/

The answer to your question is out there if you would bother to go find it.

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 7:57 AM

. . . . . The fire smolders all over the U S.
.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:05 AM

.
Good way to put it Apache. I wonder will happen the next time we suffer an Islamic attack. Especially if it results in a Paris size body count.
.
Racistanyway on January 9, 2016 at 6:20 AM

.
“Paris body count” ? !
.
I’m pretty sure they have much larger aspirations, than that … think “9-11-2001”.

listens2glenn on January 9, 2016 at 7:58 AM

rule of 72 before he saw where I was coming from and why I was getting there ahead of him.

oscarwilde on January 8, 2016 at 11:41 PM

Rule of 72 gets less accurate the greater the returns. They stopped teaching that rule of thumb long ago.

Sheesh, I learned the concept of future value back in the 60’s. Used to be determing ROI with unequal “payment” returns was harder, but a breeze now with financial calculators and such.

“DEFINITION of ‘Future Value – FV’

The value of an asset or cash at a specified date in the future that is equivalent in value to a specified sum today.”

Also, min/max is is still taught using derivatives to determine break even with many variables. Of course, the “second derivative” shows whether the curve is bending down or up.

To be honest it is all common sense. I just need a bigger yellow pad and a sharp number 2 pencil. Too many folks like to make things seem harder than they are in real life.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 8:00 AM

Opportunity Lost:

The one huge cost of liberal bull shi!.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 8:05 AM

Opportunity Lost:

The one huge cost of liberal bull shi!.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 8:05 AM

I had a lot of friends in Oak Cliff when I lived in the Dallas area. You say it’s being “invaded?”

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 8:08 AM

Scars–Book knowledge running into reality.

Common sense–Knowing how to avoid scars.

Basis for success–Being positive.

I have noticed a negative vibe in most of the threads lately. Anybody can succeed when times are good. You should judge your success when times are hard.

Hard times make life fun when the good times roll.

Let the good times roll.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM

Just for fun.

https://twitter.com/TweetsofOld

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 8:18 AM

Scars–Book knowledge running into reality.

Common sense–Knowing how to avoid scars.

Basis for success–Being positive.

I have noticed a negative vibe in most of the threads lately. Anybody can succeed when times are good. You should judge your success when times are hard.

Hard times make life fun when the good times roll.

Let the good times roll.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM

I will only speak for myself.

No negativity on my part, just speaking to reality.

Every day is good times in my little world.

I’m taking care of the “home front.”

Everything else can go to hell, nothing I can do about it.

Happy, happy, happy…

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 8:20 AM

Opportunity Lost:

The one huge cost of liberal bull shi!.
.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 8:05 AM

.
If you don’t agree with this, that’s fine … but I don’t believe the dominant culture of Journalism is spewing their “liberal BS” out of ignorance. Most of them know damn well what they’re DELIBERATELY, COGNITIVELY doing, and they view the effect of their “BS” as a ‘success’ … pure and simple.

They are a part of what Limbaugh was trying to warn us about, when he made the post election statement in 2008; “I hope he (Obama) fails.”

listens2glenn on January 9, 2016 at 8:24 AM

I don’t know about negativity. Some of us are actually looking forward to chaos and turmoil. Makes the day go by a lot faster.

Racistanyway on January 9, 2016 at 8:28 AM

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 8:18 AM

They all made me chuckle, this one made me laugh:

Jan 2
R.L. Ripples [email protected]
Ralph Nurse was “monkeying” with a shot gun Friday and suffered one finger torn off. Ralph danced a lively jig for a while. KS1909

Cleombrotus on January 9, 2016 at 8:41 AM

Cleombrotus on January 9, 2016 at 8:41 AM

Scroll down and read the “Dear Santa” ones.

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 8:45 AM

If you don’t agree with this, that’s fine … but I don’t believe the dominant culture of Journalism is spewing their “liberal BS” out of ignorance. Most of them know damn well what they’re DELIBERATELY, COGNITIVELY doing, and they view the effect of their “BS” as a ‘success’ … pure and simple.

They are a part of what Limbaugh was trying to warn us about, when he made the post election statement in 2008; “I hope he (Obama) fails.”

listens2glenn on January 9, 2016 at 8:24 AM

They’re not.

But it’s nothing new.

The French revolutionaries made use of pamphleteer propaganda, Hearst produced yellow journalism, the modern media is just following a long held tradition.

There is still straight news reporting out there, but it’s harder and harder to find. With the rise of the Internet, blogs, citizen journalist, it’s no holds bared. Entertainment has always been a part of reporting but now it’s escaped the culture and movie review pages and spilled over to hard news reporting.

The kiddie in Jschool are taught how to explain, it’s all explaining the news, not just reporting it.

Welcome to the brave new world.

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM

The kiddie in Jschool are taught how to explain, it’s all explaining the news, not just reporting it.

Welcome to the brave new world.

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM

I remember a TV ad for Time magazine several years ago in which a twenty/thirty-something was leaning against an overstuffed chair on which his father was sitting.

He was bemoaning his father stodgy new magazine and extolling the virtues of thime which “explained what the news means to me.”

Ever since Woodward and Bernstein.

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 8:53 AM

thime = Time

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 8:53 AM

Rather long but well argued post, AP.

The main error is your assumption that real conservatives will think that Trump nationalism is somehow a bad thing. Yes, he is a nationalist more than a true-blue conservative. But that is what we are looking for, after 8 years of active hostility by ruling Democrats and complicity by establishment republicans.

So, its OK if the GOP fractures. It’s desirable that the Democrat party is eviscerated. The voters no longer support Democrats and nobody trusts the GOP to step in and lead.

The GOP was given everything they needed to recover the Democrat trainwreck but they made it clear that the only train that mattered was the Washington gravy train.

So, all the rationalization about Trump needing to break 30% is wishful thinking. He is the front runner. Even priebus sees that.

Establishment hatred for Cruz is an obstacle, but his bigger issue is his appeal beyond the choir. The GOPe has shown no aptitude in getting anything it wants in this race so I don’t believe they are playing any long game to undermine Trump. It’s time for realism among the candidates and the establishment types who think they are running things.

virgo on January 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM

I was also troubled by Levin’s indefensible position on eligility. This matters. Cruz released a real document, at least, but it’s concerning to have a serious contender in this position. Rubio may have issues too.

It made me think Levin is basically backing Cruz from here on.

I’m sorry we are talking about this at this late stage, but the ruling-class now believes after the Obama obfuscation that they can run anyone they like. That’s not the law. We can’t elect people, especially at this level, who won’t respect it.

virgo on January 9, 2016 at 9:10 AM

The GOP was given everything they needed to recover the Democrat trainwreck but they made it clear that the only train that mattered was the Washington gravy train.

virgo on January 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM

+100

Love that sentence.

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 9:11 AM

Off topic, slightly modified news headlines.

El Chapo recaptured, to be put back in cell from which he escaped. Not clear if tunnel has been sealed. (just same jail, doesn’t specify cell)

El Chapo captured after seeking input from Michael Moore in biopic. (actually was just looking for actors, not specifically Moore as producer or director).

ISIS attack in Egypt thwarted when attackers come waving ISIS flags and were shot prior to claiming any victims. (That one is real. It would be nice if all of ISIS adopted that technique.)

Who needs the Onion when we have actual news stories like this and the one (noted above) where the Philadelphia mayor says the attack on the police officer had nothing to do with Islam, despite the attacker’s stated intentions, shouting Allahu Akbar and making a video recording of his intentions prior to the attack?

talkingpoints on January 9, 2016 at 9:12 AM

While Trump is in the Northeast, he may want to quote Robert Frost:

He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.”

Fallon on January 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM

From another thread:

Never let a good ISIS go to waste

SpongePuppy on January 8, 2016 at 9:26 PM

Suddenly, everything is clear, lol.

Fallon on January 9, 2016 at 9:15 AM

The real fun will be when both the illegals and Islamist invade Oak Cliff were only Black Lives Matter.

Boom

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 6:26 AM

You must mean south oak cliff.
Oak Cliff has been getting gentrified for years now. The Texas theater (where Oswald was arrested) is now a pretty nice place. And the area turned mex a long time before the gentrification started.

Never been to that tire shop, but I know just where it is. Little cozmo goes to high school right near there.

And why the heII do you have such a bug up your butt when it comes to Dallas. Dallas ain’t that bad.

Where’s cozmo, when you need him?

listens2glenn on January 9, 2016 at 7:52 AM

Sleeping. And y’all don’t need me.

The hate crime part of this is newish. Knowledge of the crime is not. As far as crime goes, a shooting in the grove isn’t really news.

cozmo on January 9, 2016 at 9:18 AM

And why the heII do you have such a bug up your butt when it comes to Dallas. Dallas ain’t that bad.

cozmo on January 9, 2016 at 9:18 AM

Because he lives near Rockwell, you know, where the real patriots are.

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 9:42 AM

Walter L. Newton on January 9, 2016 at 9:42 AM

Thought it was somewhere between Tyler and Longview.

Hell, Rockwall ain’t much of a town any more, all the good places there are gone. Its now a modern strip mall suburb.

cozmo on January 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM

cozmo on January 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM

Think we have yapped about this before. While working World Cup 1994, I was put up in an apartment in Oak Lawn.

Interesting area.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 10:58 AM

Interesting area.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 10:58 AM

Still is…

cozmo on January 9, 2016 at 11:20 AM

Dallas Texas is commie Democrat run, the city council full bore commie loon liberal, the Dallas ind. school dist. full commie nut job worthless, the County Commish’s only one Republican left and John Wiley Price took bribes, the FBI caught him with $500,000 cash in his safe, a odd titled Bentley in his garage and he still votes in County Commish votes on spending.

Dallas is a sanctuary city.

Other than that the traffic sucks.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 11:35 AM

All the elected judges, most of the justice of the peace, and almost all the constables are now loon Democrats in Dallas County Texas.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 11:39 AM

Walter,

Delta County.

Easy to find me, just ask for the crazy breed that drives to fast, drinks to much, and with the sign on his road.

‘APACHE DEAD END ROAD” enter at your own risk.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Dating myself a bit, but my late father and I caught a performance of H.M. Royal Marines and the Black Watch Highlander’s Band that did a cracking rendition of Garry Owen.

Nearly as good as seeing the Edinburgh Tattoo about a decade ago.

This year’s visit to Edinburgh was too early for the Tattoo, although they were building the stands for it. I did enjoy the Horse Guard’s Parade I referenced earlier – but dodged the crowds for the Queen’s Birthday. Saw her a few days later when she was acknowledging the Signing of the Magna Carta in the town a good friend lives in.

Athos on January 8, 2016 at 11:59 PM

What wonderful experiences you have had. JEALOUS!!!!!
Bit of an Anglophile myself.

Typicalwhitewoman on January 9, 2016 at 12:25 PM

All it takes to juggle the aggrieved groups is a common enemy, which happens to be us. Look at Israel: Ashkenazim hate Sephardim, Tel-Avivim hate settlers, poor hate rich, and everyone else hates Russian newcomers. And yet, as long as the external threat persists, it will remain the united, God-blessed country.

Rix on January 9, 2016 at 7:33 AM

But as Tom Lehrer put it in National Brotherhood Week “Everybody hates the Jews.”

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 12:36 PM

Back on topic this morning – sometimes I think HA should just put up one on-going Trump thread with occasional updates — 50K comments or bust!

Rather long but well argued post, AP.

The main error is your assumption that real conservatives will think that Trump nationalism is somehow a bad thing. Yes, he is a nationalist more than a true-blue conservative. But that is what we are looking for, after 8 years of active hostility by ruling Democrats and complicity by establishment republicans.

So, its OK if the GOP fractures. It’s desirable that the Democrat party is eviscerated. The voters no longer support Democrats and nobody trusts the GOP to step in and lead.

The GOP was given everything they needed to recover the Democrat trainwreck but they made it clear that the only train that mattered was the Washington gravy train.

So, all the rationalization about Trump needing to break 30% is wishful thinking. He is the front runner. Even priebus sees that.

Establishment hatred for Cruz is an obstacle, but his bigger issue is his appeal beyond the choir. The GOPe has shown no aptitude in getting anything it wants in this race so I don’t believe they are playing any long game to undermine Trump. It’s time for realism among the candidates and the establishment types who think they are running things.

virgo on January 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM

The GOP is in the position of being a liberal mugged by reality.
Nobody believes Trump is a true-con, NOBODY, including his supporters.
But the GOP has supported all of Trump’s leftist positions at one time or another, and the issues on which they differ RIGHT NOW are the hot-button ones that voters in both parties and all identity groups seem to be responding to.

Despite all the hand-wringing, I am no longer convinced that Trump is undeniably worse than all other possible R candidates — or all presidents in historical review.
We’ve had some pretty bad ones.
I agree that there are some positives in the position that Trump is a move to the Right on enough issues that he is a net gain for conservatives; and so are Cruz and Rubio despite their weaknesses.
Any of them (including the undercard) are better than Hillary and Sanders, or anyone else the Dems end up with in convention, because (between the health issues and the FBI) she isn’t going to make it that far.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 12:51 PM

Who needs the Onion when we have actual news stories like this and the one (noted above) where the Philadelphia mayor says the attack on the police officer had nothing to do with Islam, despite the attacker’s stated intentions, shouting Allahu Akbar and making a video recording of his intentions prior to the attack?

talkingpoints on January 9, 2016 at 9:12 AM

I’ve seen headlines on some sites explicitly announcing “Not The Onion” —

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 12:52 PM

Worth a bump this morning:

While Trump is in the Northeast, he may want to quote Robert Frost:

He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.

Fallon on January 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM

From another thread:

Never let a good ISIS go to waste

SpongePuppy on January 8, 2016 at 9:26 PM

Suddenly, everything is clear, lol.

Fallon on January 9, 2016 at 9:15 AM

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 12:53 PM

To be honest it is all common sense. I just need a bigger yellow pad and a sharp number 2 pencil. Too many folks like to make things seem harder than they are in real life.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 8:00 AM

Works for lots of things.
PS Han shot first.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 12:55 PM

Scars–Book knowledge running into reality.

Common sense–Knowing how to avoid scars.

Basis for success–Being positive.

I have noticed a negative vibe in most of the threads lately. Anybody can succeed when times are good. You should judge your success when times are hard.

Hard times make life fun when the good times roll.

Let the good times roll.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM

Comes and goes according to the negativity of the news, and sometimes the weather.
I think (over the long run) most of the regular Commentariat is pretty positive about life in general, and have shown a great deal of perseverance and good cheer when life in personal gets hard.
However, the trolls and socks always drag down the conversation — likely on purpose to get people riled up and posting more often.

But one should always let the good rimes troll.

Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be
The pains that are withheld for me
I realise that I can see
That suicide is painless*
It brings so many changes
And I can take or leave them if I please

*It isn’t, of course, but in the context of the show it made some sense.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 1:03 PM

I am just too excited, I must say (points for identifying the skit character).

ExpressoBold on January 8, 2016 at 9:14 PM

.
“I’ve never been so excited in my life.” (raps lectern lightly with balled fist)

Pat Paulsen’s run for president — Smothers Brothers.

meerbock on January 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM

For all you -phobes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/01/05/what-does-it-actually-mean-when-somebody-complains-about-political-correctness/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM

It’s only 1/9 and I’ve already read my quota of WaPo articles – refuse to subscribe and give them credits to charge more for ads.
So what did it say?

Google pulls up a few things, like this cartoon with the punchline
“I’m so sick of not being able to insult women and minorities” – which I assume is the burden of the WaPo piece since it’s credited to the newsrag.
There are several links from 3-4 days ago, but it looks like the cartoon is the well-spring of the meme.
A Reddit commentator hit back

The difference between “common decency” and “political correctness” is the exact same difference between having your child wear a helmet before they ride their bike and wrapping them up in bubble wrap.

Here’s a couple of leftists justifying the bubble-wrap.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/10/complaints-about-political-correctness/

https://reason.com/blog/2015/01/30/what-the-hell-does-politically-correct-m

BION, Vox does a fairly even-handed job of left ‘splainin’

People have been putting the words “politically” and “correct” together in various contexts for ages, but for our purposes the story begins in the middle of the 20th century, as various Marxist-Leninist sects developed a distinctive cant. One of the terms they liked to use was “politically correct,” as in “What is needed now is a politically correct, class-conscious and militant leadership, which will lead an armed struggle to abolish the whole system of exploitation of man by man in Indonesia and establish a workers state!” It was a phrase for the sort of radical who was deeply interested in establishing and enforcing the “correct line,” to borrow another term of the day. If you were the sort of radical who was not interested in establishing and enforcing the correct line, you were bound to start mocking this way of talking, and by the end of the ’60s the mockers were flinging the phrase back at the drones. In 1969, for example, when Dana Beal of the White Panther Party defended the counterculture against its critics on the straight left, he argued that freely experimenting was more important than trying “to be perfectly politically ‘correct.'” A year later, in the seminal feminist anthology Sisterhood is Powerful, Robin Morgan derided male editors who had “the best intentions of being politically ‘correct'” but couldn’t resist butting in with their own ideas. In the new usage, which soon superceded the old Leninist lingo pretty much entirely, “politically correct” was an unkind term for leftists who acted as though good politics were simply a matter of mastering the right jargon.

Meanwhile, a similar but slightly different approach to the phrase emerged. In ’80s issues of magazines like Mother Jones or Ms., “politically correct” could describe a consumer good or a lifestyle choice. The tone here was usually lightly self-mocking, as you’d expect when words once associated with a shifting Maoist party line were now being applied to an exercise book or a fake fur. But some people did use it earnestly, perhaps because they weren’t in on the joke, perhaps because they just thought the term was too good to go to waste. In the early ’90s, a woman told me that she and her friends had often said “politically correct” without any irony when she was an undergraduate at Bryn Mawr. She wasn’t happy when she started hearing people use the expression disdainfully.

For some on the right, “P.C.” began to be a vague way to refer to anything left of center. “Un-P.C.,” meanwhile, became a phrase people used to pat themselves on the back, not just on the right but in the culture at large. By proclaiming yourself politically incorrect, you were announcing that you were a brave opponent of stultifying orthodoxies, even if your actual opinions were as vanilla as the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.

On the left, some people embraced the term defensively (at Michigan, several student groups opened the 1991-92 school year by adopting the slogan “PC and Proud”), while others foreshadowed Taub by declaring political correctness a myth. More recently, it’s become common to claim that what conservatives call political correctness is really “just politeness.” (And indeed, if someone uneducated in the jargon of the week unwittingly uses the wrong language, he may receive the same reaction he’d get at a society dinner for using the wrong fork. But I don’t think that’s what they mean.)

So maybe Taub’s right; maybe we should drop the phrase from our lexicon. Not because it doesn’t describe anything, but because it describes so many things that you can’t use it without worrying that people won’t understand what you’re talking about. But I won’t scold you if you use it anyway. I wouldn’t want to come across as politically correct.

Now that the PCW have jumped the shark (clices are soooo useful!) they don’t want to claim the term anymore.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 1:19 PM

Formally. That’s a good word. Any example like what Trump is proposing? Or any example not even close? I can’t think of one.

LashRambo on January 8, 2016 at 9:19 PM

.
Ever read the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versaille? It bankrupted Germany and brought about Hitler’s rise ‘… because of the unfairness of it.’

meerbock on January 9, 2016 at 1:24 PM

For all you -phobes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/01/05/what-does-it-actually-mean-when-somebody-complains-about-political-correctness/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM

If you can’t access the WaPo link directly (I’ve already used up my quota of free articles and it’s only Jan 9) it’s a cartoon with the burdern that “I’m so sick of political correctness” means “I’m so sick of not being able to insult and belitte women and minorities.”

A Reddit commenter had a good retort.

The difference between “common decency” and “political correctness” is the exact same difference between having your child wear a helmet before they ride their bike and wrapping them up in bubble wrap.

Here’s a typical Leftist article from a couple of years ago justifying the bubble wrap.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/10/complaints-about-political-correctness/

Here’s one from Reason with some useful information (which would be totally unacceptable to the above blogger, I suspect).
https://reason.com/blog/2015/01/30/what-the-hell-does-politically-correct-m

Amanda Taub’s Vox piece denying the existence of political correctness does get one thing right: The phrase political correctness “has no actual fixed or specific meaning.” What it does have, though Taub doesn’t explore this, is a history of meanings: a series of ways different people have deployed the term, often for radically different purposes. Unpack that history, and you can unpack a lot of the debates going on today.

People have been putting the words “politically” and “correct” together in various contexts for ages, but for our purposes the story begins in the middle of the 20th century, as various Marxist-Leninist sects developed a distinctive cant. One of the terms they liked to use was “politically correct,” as in “What is needed now is a politically correct, class-conscious and militant leadership, which will lead an armed struggle to abolish the whole system of exploitation of man by man in Indonesia and establish a workers state!” It was a phrase for the sort of radical who was deeply interested in establishing and enforcing the “correct line,” to borrow another term of the day. If you were the sort of radical who was not interested in establishing and enforcing the correct line, you were bound to start mocking this way of talking, and by the end of the ’60s the mockers were flinging the phrase back at the drones. In 1969, for example, when Dana Beal of the White Panther Party defended the counterculture against its critics on the straight left, he argued that freely experimenting was more important than trying “to be perfectly politically ‘correct.'” A year later, in the seminal feminist anthology Sisterhood is Powerful, Robin Morgan derided male editors who had “the best intentions of being politically ‘correct'” but couldn’t resist butting in with their own ideas. In the new usage, which soon superceded the old Leninist lingo pretty much entirely, “politically correct” was an unkind term for leftists who acted as though good politics were simply a matter of mastering the right jargon.

Meanwhile, a similar but slightly different approach to the phrase emerged. In ’80s issues of magazines like Mother Jones or Ms., “politically correct” could describe a consumer good or a lifestyle choice. The tone here was usually lightly self-mocking, as you’d expect when words once associated with a shifting Maoist party line were now being applied to an exercise book or a fake fur. But some people did use it earnestly, perhaps because they weren’t in on the joke, perhaps because they just thought the term was too good to go to waste. In the early ’90s, a woman told me that she and her friends had often said “politically correct” without any irony when she was an undergraduate at Bryn Mawr. She wasn’t happy when she started hearing people use the expression disdainfully.

For some on the right, “P.C.” began to be a vague way to refer to anything left of center. “Un-P.C.,” meanwhile, became a phrase people used to pat themselves on the back, not just on the right but in the culture at large. By proclaiming yourself politically incorrect, you were announcing that you were a brave opponent of stultifying orthodoxies, even if your actual opinions were as vanilla as the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.

On the left, some people embraced the term defensively (at Michigan, several student groups opened the 1991-92 school year by adopting the slogan “PC and Proud”), while others foreshadowed Taub by declaring political correctness a myth. More recently, it’s become common to claim that what conservatives call political correctness is really “just politeness.” (And indeed, if someone uneducated in the jargon of the week unwittingly uses the wrong language, he may receive the same reaction he’d get at a society dinner for using the wrong fork. But I don’t think that’s what they mean.)

So maybe Taub’s right; maybe we should drop the phrase from our lexicon. Not because it doesn’t describe anything, but because it describes so many things that you can’t use it without worrying that people won’t understand what you’re talking about. But I won’t scold you if you use it anyway. I wouldn’t want to come across as politically correct.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 1:31 PM

LashRambo on January 8, 2016 at 9:19 PM

.
Ever read the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versaille? It bankrupted Germany and brought about Hitler’s rise ‘… because of the unfairness of it.’

meerbock on January 9, 2016 at 1:24 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315869/Germany-end-World-War-One-reparations-92-years-59m-final-payment.html

By ALLAN HALL FOR MAILONLINE
UPDATED: 19:19 EST, 28 September 2010
Adolf Hitler reneged on the First World War reparations, meaning they were delaying in being paid off before now. The German Chancellor was preparing for World War Two
German Chancellor Adolf Hitler reneged on paying reparations
Germany will finally clear its First World War debt by repaying nearly £60million this weekend.
The £22billion reparations were set by the Allied victors – mostly Britain, France and America – as compensation and punishment for the 1914-18 war.
The reparations were set at the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919, by the Allied victors – mostly Britain, France and America.
Most of the money was intended to go to Belgium and France, whose land, towns and villages were devastated by the war, and to pay the Allies some of the costs of waging it.
The initial sum agreed upon for war damages in 1919 was 226billion Reichsmarks, a sum later reduced to 132billion. In sterling at the time this was the equivalent of some £22billion.
The German Federal Budget for 2010 shows the remaining portion of the debt that will be cleared on Sunday, October 3.
The bill would have been settled much earlier had not one Adolf Hitler reneged on reparations during his reign.
Hatred of the settlement agreed at Versailles, France, which crippled Germany as it tried to shape itself into a democracy following defeat in the war, was of significant importance in propelling the Nazis to power.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 1:33 PM

Okay, peeps, time to move on with the day.

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM

If you can’t access the WaPo link directly (I’ve already used up my quota of free articles and it’s only Jan 9) it’s a cartoon with the burdern that “I’m so sick of political correctness” means “I’m so sick of not being able to insult and belitte women and minorities.”

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 1:31 PM

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/01/toles01062016.jpg&w=1484

I don’t know if that counts as a hit.

You could try finding the WaPo cookie and see if you can change the count.

IDontCair on January 9, 2016 at 1:37 PM

McCain HATES Cruz, politically and as a result of that personally.

This man’s arrogance knows no bounds, and I hope that Arizona Senate primary sends him off into a long overdue retirement.

Brian1972 on January 8, 2016 at 9:41 PM

.
I live out here and I’m not sanguine that that’s possible. He spent $25,000,000 to beat a damn radio talkshow host using part of his wife’s estimated billion dollars. (She owns the Budweiser distribution franchise and other brands for the desert southwest.) Vicious old coot would have no qualms about doing it again, even after the Arizona GOP(e) decided to censure him a couple of years ago. Love to see him fall — voted against him in every primary — but as I said, sadly, I’m not sanguine that it can happen here

meerbock on January 9, 2016 at 2:22 PM

Despite all the hand-wringing, I am no longer convinced that Trump is undeniably worse than all other possible R candidates — or all presidents in historical review.
We’ve had some pretty bad ones.
I agree that there are some positives in the position that Trump is a move to the Right on enough issues that he is a net gain for conservatives;

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 12:51 PM

Yes, this is a good way to explain why rational people support Trump. Every candidate has their “howler monkeys” and he has more than the others because he is ahead (by a lot, to use a Trumpism) but you can think about the upcoming election as a prom and you are deciding whether to go or stay home. If you go, it may not be with the ideal partner. If you don’t go, you missed out and you can only blame yourself.

So those who don’t find Mr Right should decide if they want a better country or if they prefer to polish their principles at home.

virgo on January 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM

Hard times make life fun when the good times roll.

Let the good times roll.

HonestLib on January 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM

It depends upon how you spend the hard time.

Laissez les bons temps rouler. :)

Axe on January 9, 2016 at 3:37 PM

I agree that there are some positives in the position that Trump is a move to the Right on enough issues that he is a net gain for conservatives;

AesopFan on January 9, 2016 at 12:51 PM

I’m no longer certain that he would be a net gain.

I’ll happily be wrong.

Axe on January 9, 2016 at 3:41 PM

Delta County.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 11:45 AM

So that is why you are the way you are.

cozmo on January 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There you have a ruling by the Supreme Court. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Even in the part you quoted, the opinion only echoes the reality that the specification of who is born a citizen isn’t to be found in the Constitution; and that “native,” “natural born,” and “born citizens” all mean the same thing; and that same thing is distinct from “aliens or foreigners,” i.e., people needing to be naturalized.

All that area of exposition in the opinion was to say that, even though exactly who is born a citizen isn’t defined in the Constitution, we don’t have to settle the issue “here,” since we can take for granted that people born within American territory to American parents were born American citizens, and that’s all that’s relevant to “this” case.

Here’s the rest of the paragraph:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

———-

Another paragraph from the same opinion that doesn’t get quoted:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

That alone should be enough to stop Minor v. Happersett from being cited to defend arguments against Cruz’s eligibility in particular, or to defend “third-way” citizenship arguments in general.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

Axe on January 9, 2016 at 4:39 PM

I accidentally clipped the quote. The above was in response to:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There you have a ruling by the Supreme Court . It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. So, Jumpintimmy, who exactly are the half-arsed moonbeam chasers? The ones that want to see the Constitution enforced, or those attempting to justify a candidate for the Presidency who doesn’t meet the NBC requirement?

Tarnsman on January 9, 2016 at 5:31 AM

Axe on January 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM

Two classes of citizen, “born a citizen” meaning “natural born” meaning “natural” meaning “born.”

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens . . .

The terms are not used as distinct from one another in Minor v. Happersett.

Axe on January 9, 2016 at 4:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6