Saturday, January 23, 2016

Had Enough Trump?

When it comes to Donald Trump it does not seem to matter what anyone says. It’s not just that the attacks roll off of him; they seem to make him stronger. If that does not shake your faith in humanity, I don’t know what will.

Yesterday, National Review launched a fierce attack on Trump. The mogul responded by trashing the magazine and evoking its founder, William F. Buckley, Jr.


The late, great, William F. Buckley would be ashamed of what had happened to his prize, the dying National Review!


National Review responded by reprinting an essay that Buckley wrote in 2000 for Cigar Aficionado. (I’m sure you remember the magazine.) In it, Buckley was talking about demagogues, and one in particular. Uh, oh.

He had this to say about Trump:

What about the aspirant who has a private vision to offer to the public and has the means, personal or contrived, to finance a campaign? In some cases, the vision isn’t merely a program to be adopted. It is a program that includes the visionary’s serving as President. Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.

He concluded:

In the final analysis, just as the king might look down with terminal disdain upon a courtier whose hypocrisy repelled him, so we have no substitute for relying on the voter to exercise a quiet veto when it becomes more necessary to discourage cynical demagogy, than to advance free health for the kids. That can come later, in another venue; the resistance to a corrupting demagogy should take first priority.

For further enlightenment on this snow day we look to Matt Labash in The Weekly Standard. Noting that precious few of the Republican candidates have run attack ads against Trump, Labash collected some of the opposition research, the better to prepare us for the deluge.

I will spare you the details, but, to brighten up your day, I am happy to quote a joke that is told by Trump employees around the Trump offices.

Labash writes:

What I meant to say is that I have a Donald Trump joke. Actually, it's not mine. It was told to me by a former Trump-world executive, who says Trumpsters liked to tell it amongst themselves, as it captures a certain essence. But since it's a little salty, with mature themes and adult language, and since I am a family-friendly writer, I will let him have the floor:

So Donald Trump is riding in an elevator. The elevator doors open, and a gorgeous blonde steps in. She sees him, and says, "Oh my God, you're Donald Trump!" And he says, "Yes, I am." And she says, "Can I suck your *$@!?" And he says, "What's in it for me?"

11 comments:

Ares Olympus said...

It is nice when archconservatives can come back from the dead to denounce Trump, but it certainly won't help sway Trump determined supporters.

And I don't know if jokes about Trump's conceit will help weaken his supporters passions. But its close enough to Bill Clinton's impeachable offense that "profamily" people might think for a second what they are invited into the White House for 4 years. Of course unlike Bill, Trump would side-step shame, and say "Of course I took a blow-job from my intern. Why do you think I picked her, for her filing skills?!"

Just 9 days to the Iowa Caucus, the center of White America, what outcome shall we wish for?
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-republican-caucus

We have Trump polling at 29%, Cruz at 26%, and Rubio at 12.9%, Ben Carson at 7.8%, Jeb Bush at 4.6%, Christie at 4.1%, and Rand Paul at 3.3%.

Apparently Iowa assigns delegates generally in proportion to caucus votes, so at one level exact percentages or plurality winners don't matter.

But if you want to knock down a narcissist, symbols are important so Iowa has to do its civic duty, and let Cruz beat Trump, even by a single vote, even by illegal ballot stuffing as necessary. That vote is worth a billion dollars of Trump's ego.

If Trump loses white Iowa, he'll rage, and then when he loses libertarian New Hampshire, he'll rage more, and when he loses socially conservative South Carolina, what will happen?

But will angry voters really unite on Cruz to help push Trump's angry-voters down? Maybe Cruz can win Iowa because of his glowing sand boast, and Rubio gets a surprise win in New Hampshire? And Cruz again in South Carolina?
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-republican-primary
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-south-carolina-presidential-republican-primary

Okay, the odds are not great, but we need to test Trump's temperament. Can he handle early losses?

It's a tough plan. Maybe underground jokes comparing him to lecherous Bill Clinton really can get the job done? It's worth a try.

Anonymous said...

Had enough Cruz

Lauren Stephens writes a letter to Mark Levin and exposes Cruz,

http://laurenstephens.com

Anonymous said...

Stuart, are you somehow thinking that you can change the minds of Trump supporters by calling them and him names? And saying things like "If that does not shake your faith in humanity, I don’t know what will."? How does spitting on people get them to come around to your point of view?

What I am amazed at is how so many people, like you, don't see what the Trump supporters like about him. It's got to be some sort of willful blindness, because it's right out in the open. He says it openly, and most of his supporters say it openly.

Hint: go watch a video of Trump's first TV ad.

That's it. That's why all the stuff that detractors say against Trump "seem to matter" It's like trying to convince a car buyer that a Ford is a terrible choice because it won't float and it won't go mach 2. Well, duh!! Nobody looking at a Ford cares that it isn't a boat and isn't a plane.

This could have all been stopped a long time ago. It's a simple thing that voters have been demanding for a long time, but all the other politicians want to keep illegal immigration. That's why Jeb and Rubio are down in the 3%-5% numbers.
The FIRST candidate who took the position that Trump took would be the runaway winner. But none of them did. Trump said it and that's the #1 issue what voters care about.

One commenter said it in a nutshell: "He had me at Build The Wall."

Marsh said...

I agree w/ the commenter above me. I've told Stuart before that he can never persuade anyone to his way of thinking while he insults them. That's persuasion 101.

So, once again, I read both links, Stuart. And I had to laugh at the second one. Some little pipsqueak pissed Trump off and Trump snubbed him at a party so he wrote the best hit piece he could.

Let's see; he cheats at golf, he cashed a check, he tried to gain someone's property by going to court, he's a jerk to the ladies, and he's experienced failure in his life.

Oh my. What will he do when Hillary hits him w/ those?

The second link was pathetic. I saw a red flag immediately when no link was provided to the original William Buckley piece.

Trying to use a sixteen year old comment as though it proves that Buckley would oppose Trump' s candidacy today was lame.

While he thought self-funded candidates were usually narcissistic, demagogues like Trump, he admitted that sometimes a self-funded candidate can actually be a sort of political missionary in service of a great cause...like Steve Forbes.

If Buckly were alive today and given the trouble our nation is in, particularly w/ our open borders, it's possible that he would say that the Trump of today is like Forbes in 2000, a self-funded candidate serving a cause, not just his own ego.

After locating the original piece, and having read it in its entirety, the editors of NR chose to cut out an important part of his essay, which can definitely be applied to today.

"In 1965(WFB) ran for mayor of New York City having no prospect whatever of prevailing. It could therefore be said of my political venture that I was an exhibitionist and a demagogue; except that what I said, and the measures I advocated, were in large measure what many voters did not wish to hear, accounting perhaps for the paltry 13 percent of the vote I won. But then five years later my brother, James Buckley, running third party ticket caused a great upset. He was a more persuasive contender, and he had the gift for giving life to common sense. It had been fifty years back in Wisconsin in the twenties since a third-party candidate had been elected to the Senate. WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR SUCH ANOMALIES IS A LATENT EAR IN THE VOTING PUBLIC THAT SUDDENLY AWAKENS TO THE TEDIUM OF ESTABLISHMENTARIAN CONTENDERS AND SAYS, ON VOTING DAY:CUT IT OUT!"

Let me repeat that last part again...The tedium of establishmentarian contenders, (awakens the voting public) and (it) says, on voting day, CUT IT OUT!

Marsh said...

The FIRST link was pathetic (the NR piece).

Marsh said...

And make no mistake, Trump is forming a third party. It's still called the Republican party, but he's forming a coalition of patriotic Americans. Some of them will be conservative, others moderates, and even some liberals. And if NR doesn't like it, that's too damned bad.

vanderleun said...

The fact that so many "rilly schmart intelleckualls" really want to line up against Trump tells me that he's worth watching and paying close attention to.

If they are so "schmart" why ain't dey riche?

I'll decide who to vote for in the fall of this year.

Until then anything that makes all these comfortable schmart cucks squirm is fine with me. Even the ones I like.

Anonymous said...

Dittoes, Vanderleun! Simply dittoes! Anyone who afflicts the comfortable and the elites who purport to be our betters, can't be all bad!

Andrew_M_Garland said...

Republican supporters see a UniParty.

Republicans first obtained a majority in the House. The Pubs said: "it isn't enough power to do anything. We only have the power of the purse, and the President negates that by shutting down parts of the Government and giving us a bad name." Pubs used the incompetence defense: "We don't know how to explain this to the people."

Pubs obtained a majority in the Senate. No bills were sent to Obama for veto, and few of Obama's judges were opposed. The Dems had previously changed the rules so that a simple maority could approve a judge (not requiring 60%), but still the judges were approved. Senate Pubs then claimed the incompetence defense.

Despite majorities in both House and Senate, Obama vocally and baldly rules with his phone and his pen. An executive order now changes the law in any way Obama desires. Both House and Senate Pubs claim incompetence.

Eventually, one must conclude that this is really a UniParty, with Republicans being merely a marketing position to acquire and neutralize base Republican dissent. "Support us, although we will lose, because otherwise the Dems will win".

Trump says he will shake up the UniParty. No criticism by members of that party has any weight. They have already exulted in their power to lie (eg. Reid, Obama, Hillary, and Boehner), so now they can't convince anyone that their statements matter. The Republican base doesn't care if the Pubs lose, because it doesn't make any difference.

Trump will either further the dictatorship or move the US back towards the rule of law. That is at least a chance. Under the UniParty and the importation of Dem voters as immigrants, the dictatorship would progress as a given.

The value of immigration is another policy imposed on the public. It is another thing that the UniParty does not explain. I'm for immigration on the economics, provided that the immigrants share the ideas of capitalism and freedom. I have no assurance that this test is applied.

When one or both sides discard the Constitution, and the Supreme Court bakes pretzels to explain why ObamaCare is perfectly fine, then there is only populism. The greatest power rules with the enthusiastic support of the people. Why is anyone surprised?

Ares Olympus said...

Trump now reflects on the blind loyalty of his supporters, whatever the National Review says, so he could shoot someone and still not lose votes.

It's almost an insult if anyone was paying attention to the implications, like a terrorist's boast that his human shield hostages are that loyal to him to the end.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/
-------
Sioux Center, Iowa (CNN)—Donald Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street.

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

After the event, Trump declined to answer when asked by CNN to clarify his comments.

The GOP front-runner has repeatedly pointed to the loyalty of his supporters, many of whom tell reporters and pollsters that almost nothing could make them change their mind about voting for Trump in the presidential race.

Trump's comments come as the debate about gun violence in America has taken center stage in American political discourse amid several highly publicized mass shootings.

Trump has repeatedly touted his strong support for the Second Amendment and slammed President Barack Obama's recent use of executive orders to expand the reach of background checks needed to purchase a gun.

The brash billionaire's comments also come less than two months after two ISIS-inspired terrorists killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, and ISIS-linked attacks killed 130 in Paris. In response, Trump has called for fewer gun restrictions and a harder stance on terrorism.

Asked about Trump's comment after a campaign event in Iowa, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's top rival for the GOP nomination, shook his head.

"I will let Donald speak for himself," Cruz said. "I can say I have no intention of shooting anybody in this campaign."
-------------

And this October article quotes his confidence he can fight off attackers because he has a gun. It's almost like a dare, although now he has secret service protection. But otherwise its almost like he has a death wish.

Being fearless is clearly a political advantage, at least in campaigning.

I wonder how his grandiosity would be affected if some crazy person did take a shot at him? I just hope its not a Mexican or Muslim shooter.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-tells-crowd-rally-licensed-carry-gun-article-1.2384527
-------
Donald Trump whipped a Tennessee crowd into a frenzy Saturday when he declared that he had a gun license and would emulate Charles Bronson in the film “Death Wish” if someone attacked him.

“I have a license to carry in New York, can you believe that?” the tone-deaf Trump bellowed in a bombastic defense of gun rights following the Oregon college massacre.

“Somebody attacks me, they’re gonna be shocked.”

Trump, speaking at a rally in Nashville, professed his love for the 1974 film that depicts a wealthy architect-turned-vigilante — and even led the crowd in chanting its name in unison.

“Today you can’t make that movie because it’s not politically correct,” Trump said.
-----------

lee woo said...

Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. See the link below for more info.


#symbols
www.ufgop.org