Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Saving Crooked Hillary

Liberal bloggers knew it. They understood it. Many Republicans did not know it.

Liberal bloggers knew that the only way to save Hillary Clinton was for Republicans to nominate Donald Trump. How they managed to get Republican voters to do their bidding remains a great mystery. People who wanted, for the best of reasons, to defeat Hillary should have thought first about nominating a candidate who could have defeated Hillary.

Tyler O’Neill explained it all on Pajamas Media:

WikiLeaks released thousands of emails involving Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, on Friday. In one of the leaked emailsfrom March 2016, an adviser warned against Hillary's overall campaign strategy, afraid that her campaign was "almost entirely dependent" on Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination.

Brent J. Budowsky, a former congressional staffer and current liberal blogger who has written for The Hill, the LA Progressive, and The Huffington Post, told Podesta he was "petrified" that Clinton might lose the 2016 election, should someone besides Trump win the GOP nomination.

Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump....she has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify.....even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell out of me......

Even with a good debate performance last Sunday, Trump is looking like a loser. And, a big loser, at that.

Fair enough, Trump has large rallies. It may be the case that the pollsters have ignored his voters. As of now, this is becoming a less likely scenario.

As more and more Republicans abandon his sinking ship, Trump is attacking them. It does not make him look like a winner. It makes him look like someone who knows he is going to lose and who is preparing for defeat by shifting the blame. He might think that they are being disloyal, but he excoriated them in the primaries and has treated them with the utmost contempt. He should not expect that they will reward his disloyalty with a show of party loyalty. 

If Trump goes down to ignominious defeat, he seems to want to drag down the party with him. He ran his primary campaign against the Republican Party and its grandee class. He will need to tell himself that his campaign was sabotaged by someone other than Trump. This is not a sign of good character. 

For the record, great leaders give credit for success to everyone but themselves. When things go wrong they take the blame, entirely on themselves.

The strangest part is that the GOP now seems to be embroiled in a class struggle that has morphed into class warfare. We know where the ideology of class warfare comes from. It does not come from conservative thinking. 

13 comments:

Trigger Warning said...

If one dislikes Trump, I suppose it's comforting, in some sense, to conclude that Clinton "engineered" Trump's primary victory. But hey, why not just come out and say, as many have done, that Trump supporters are a bunch of ignorant rubes? As the Washington Post did when they referred to evangelical Christians, a core Trump constituency, as "undereducated and easily led". Or, as Kevin Williamson noted at National Review, the drug-addled Trump-voting residents of communities that "deserve to die" because they "whelp" children with the wisdom of "stray dogs". Suckers, the lot, falling for a clever Clintonian feint! Bitter clingers! Irredeemable!

As I see it, the people who "engineered" Trump's victory were Congressional Resmuglicans, aka The Party of Why Nothing Can Be Done, ably led by Paul Ryan and the excreable Mitch McConnell. And politically exemplified by the utterly feckless Jeb!, who couldn't spend money fast enough to defeat a novice spending next to nothing.

Get over it. The Resmuglican Party is dead. Trump's just pissing on the grave.

:-D

Sam L. said...

I'm with Trig on that. Ignoring those who've voted for you, dismissing their arguments and complaints, is no way to build or keep a party going. Trump is not the symptom, he is the result.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

If this is "class warfare," please identify and describe the classes. Because out here, we're talking about insider politics that benefits insiders, to the detriment of the people they're elected to represent (and claim to represent).

This Republican "revolt" (at the ballot box) is quite aligned with conservative thinking. The people who are most upset and running for the hills right now are the GOPe leaders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that's been running the Republican agenda for years. The Republicans who are really upset about Trump are those who want open borders and "free trade." What about our nation? What about our citizens? We have massive corruption in our Federal government. One thing we can see from the Hillary-related emails we've seen so far is that this is all an inside job: politicians-bureaucrats-big media. Standing up to centralized control and corruption is a conservative value! Robin Hood was not a bandit or a do-gooder, he was an insurgent against tyranny. This is a ballot box insurgency.

As for the "great leaders" comment, which of our current GOP leaders fits your description? Which of the primary candidates? Most all of them can't honor a pledge they made raising their hands on national TV!

And, to top it all off, we now have a neo-victorian Democrat Party wailing about an opposing candidate having used vulgar language 11 years ago. And Republicans are losing their minds, just shocked -- SHOCKED! -- at this, jumping off liked crazed rats running from a fire. Are we serious? Are we serious??? Can you not see the Democrat politico-media machine is playing us for fools, pretending moral outrage? This is the crew that willfully buried Bill Clinton's sexual past, when they have said "Whose values?" and "Whose morals?" and "Character doesn't matter" and "Move on" for 25 years!!! It's so phony. They don't care that their candidate's husband is a philandering rapist who performs cigar tricks on starry-eyed interns and flies around with pedophiles. My goodness, Bill draws bigger cheering crowds than Hillary does! Give me a break. When was the last time we ever saw Democrats abandon a "sinking ship?"

We've got to get a grip and realize what we're facing here. C'mon...

Trigger Warning said...

As Vox Day asks about Establishment "Conservatives", "What have they conserved?"

Ares Olympus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ares Olympus said...

IAC: And, to top it all off, we now have a neo-victorian Democrat Party wailing about an opposing candidate having used vulgar language 11 years ago. And Republicans are losing their minds, just shocked -- SHOCKED! -- at this, jumping off liked crazed rats running from a fire.

No, I don't think Democrats have become the party of neo-victorians, not yet at least, but the GOP does have a "Woman problem" and Trump exposes it most clearly.

Eventually some Christian evangelicals will see picking a loud mouth spokesman bent on destruction with false dreams of godlike ability to fix everything on earth isn't the way of Moses or Jesus.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-are-so-many-evangelicals-condoning-sexual-assault

Yet Trump is doing good work, just not the sort of work that wins elections. He is exposing the reality that Feminists have complained about for years, that women are not treated as equals by many powerful men, but instead valued entirely upon their physical attractiveness. And Donald and Bill are both surely guilty of this, but Bill is still not the same as Hillary, so it doesn't help.

Maybe Trump still has a second act coming up?
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/469816814591938560
@realDonaldTrump "Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. Don't ever get down on yourself, just keep fighting - in the end, you WIN!"

Is this 2016 race for presidency the battle or the war?

If Trump's true mission is to show what corruption of power looks like, he's doing well, shamelessly confessing his privilege, even as his character comes out as he tries to shame any accusers almost as well as a Democrat.

At the debate he says his recorded words were "just talk", now we'll soon see who steps forward to say otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
---
Aware that her company did business with Mr. Trump, she turned and introduced herself. They shook hands, but Mr. Trump would not let go, she said. Instead, he began kissing her cheeks. Then, she said, he “kissed me directly on the mouth.”

It didn’t feel like an accident, she said. It felt like a violation.

“It was so inappropriate,” Ms. Crooks recalled in an interview. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that.”
--

So Donald's "locker room talk" is very likely not just talk, and was boasting his actual behavior, and besides the general issues of asking him how should women rebuff his advances with the least harm to his ego, we can see this "obsession" with beautiful women is juvenile, something ordinary frat boys out grow by age 30.

Now at least we know why the president should be at least 35. Many men grow up, although clearly not a perfect line.

Perhaps the only lesson is that men's hormones are just as great a liability as women's hormones. Both lead to irrational and destructive behavior when self-awareness and discipline are absent.

Perhaps someday biologists will prove that men make better leaders when they're admired by hundreds of beautiful women whom he can choose a different one every night?

But probably they'll only discover sexual conquest only encourage men to take more foolish political risks, and claim "I couldn't help myself" when those risks end up badly.

Maybe in 2020 we can talk more widely about women's liabilies, but its the men who are now front and center for the cultural witch trial.

Hillary will be president barring disasters yet untold, although I'm not sure she'll be glad she won when the dust settles from the unavoidable false-economy implosion.

Anonymous said...

The idea that nitwit Jeb or gooey Rubio would have done better is nuts.

Look, it is Trump vs All the Power.

The problem isn't Trump. The problem is the total pile on media, wall street, big money, pentagon, and etc.

If media played this halfway fair, Trump would be leading.

That Trump has come this far against everything thrown at him goes to show his strength.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Here's how I think Trump can win: America first.

If there's one thing all the Wikileaks emails have shown thus far, it's that Hillary and her team have complete disdain for American institutions, including their own party, and the interests of the nation in the world. He should capitalize on that, as I suspect the Wikileaks releases will continue to punctuate that message.

If traditional working America are a bunch of rednecks and deplorables, that shows exactly where we are in her eyes. And we're providing all the money she wants to spend.

Liberals aren't on the side of the "little guy," and they can't portray themselves as prudes after all the cultural rot they've produced and advocated for the last 25 years.

Trump has never advocated for a moral code, never once. He's not a hypocrite like these folks are.

Liberals don't love America, they just complain about anything and everything, while delivering nothing of value. The way they talk, you'd think they've been out of power for the last 8 years.

I suggest Trump should exploit the "America first" theme. If Trump is the great businessman he claims to be, he'll close the deal on the greatest element of value he has. This is it.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, I think you're right, and Arnold Schwarzenegger agrees:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/arnold-schwarzenegger-not-supporting-donald-trump-us-election-a7352671.html
---
"I still haven't made up my mind about how exactly I will vote next month," he writes. "But as proud as I am to label myself a Republican, there is one label that I hold above all else — American.

"So I want to take a moment today to remind my fellow Republicans that it is not only acceptable to choose your country over your party — it is your duty."
---

Somehow a plurality of Republican primary voters chose Trump, while Republican leaders themselves do not choose Trump? Somehow Republican leaders see voting against Trump as voting FOR America first. (I know, Arnold is still trying to get Maria back, so maybe that explains it?)

So if there's an "America First" door here for Trump, apparently its a different America he sees than most of us so far, and it might take another election cycle for the majority to come to his view.

So we need patience, as Trump said. 2020, surely American will see the light? Just 4 more years of "liberal" i.e. procorporate leadership, and something's gotta break, right?

@realDonaldTrump "Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. Don't ever get down on yourself, just keep fighting - in the end, you WIN!"

The battle is 2016, but the war is 2020. Trump is NOT a quitter, and he has 4 more years to restart the Whig party. Wouldn't that be a great full circle? And Trump's hair can be the inspiration!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)
---
The Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency and favored a program of modernization, banking and economic protectionism to stimulate manufacturing.

Historian Frank Towers has specified a deep ideological divide:
"Democrats stood for the 'sovereignty of the people' as expressed in popular demonstrations, constitutional conventions, and majority rule as a general principle of governing, whereas Whigs advocated the rule of law, written and unchanging constitutions, and protections for minority interests against majority tyranny."
---

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @October 13, 2016 at 10:21 AM:

So maybe there's a possibility we could enter another period of Whiggism. Perhaps. I've often heard people comparing Trump to Andrew Jackson, whose presidency was the true inspiration for the Whigs. Who knows? Maybe Obama is Jackson in this case. I certainly disagree with Obama's imperial presidency.

"America First" is really not that crazy a notion. We are a sovereign nation, with our own distinct culture and national interests. Whether the globalists want us to be a homogenized globoculture or part of a global government remains to be seen. But Leftism is by definition a transnational movement, designed to bring the impossibility of equality to all. Historically, if people don't like what Leftists offer, the people get killed. We saw this with Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, the Kims, etc. Submit or die. And now we see it with Islamism. If we don't look after our own country -- its people and its interests -- who will? What else are we supposed to do? The globalist klepto-plutocracycracy seems to know no boundaries today, and that includes both parties. What Hillary's Wikileaked emails clearly demonstrate is that she doesn't care about the people she claims to care about, the issues she claims to care about, or really much of anything, save power. It's her turn because it just... is.

And this is why I have said that the political process is the worst way for our nation to allocate resources. Politicians want one thing: power. And they want more and more and more... there's never enough. It's a pull to centralization. That's why the 17th Amendment was such a disaster: the states lost their check on federal power.

'Twould seem today's American liberals aren't really liberal, in the classic sense of liberalism. They're not for liberty, but for the libertine. And they claim to want equality, while some are more equal than others. Their idea of equality seems not to be equality in treatment, but equality of results. And now equality seems to apply to emotional desires as well. If that's "something worth fighting for," the fight will never end. At what cost?

I am an American. And, to some, a deplorable and a redneck. Curious.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, I suppose the Constitution party largely follows the Whig party ideals.

Darrell Castle certainly hasn't got the attention he deserves, although my local conservatives have been rooting for him.
http://castle2016.com

So perhaps we can see Trump as the wrecking ball of the GOP, and once the GOP is weakened, third parties can rise, and get a few seats in 2018, and maybe a chance for a 2024 presidential bid, or sooner, if the economy really goes into the tank.

Decentralization is tough sell and it seems like it is only "real" when the central powers fail in their promises, and local government leaders stop demanding the central government do more, and just do things themselves. But its also hard, like when state governors refuse participation in federal programs like medicaid expansion, while then having to pay more with local taxes.

I wonder while ACA fails to be what we need it to be, that some bottom-up alternatives arises, perhaps accepting we need a "two tier" health system, with the base level "universal", possibly federally funded, but locally run, while expensive treatments will always go towards those with money and insurance. Death panels sound crude, but we already have them, like my uncle who was too old for a heart transplant. I expect Ron Paul would support something like this, and he seems to thinks family support structures can replace insurance.

I suppose calling for a "two tier" health system makes "some more equal than others", but it also rewards those who plan and act with prudence, while our current system says my good health is supposed to pay for your bad choices.

Incidentally, Minnesota's governor Dayton has admitted our health care system isn't working, between threats of all our "individual plan" providers threatening to leave the state earlier this year, and now accepting a 50% rise in premiums is needed to get them to stay.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/gov-dayton-affordable-care-act/

My individual plan premium would go up nearly 60%, and deductible would be over $7000, so I'm wondering how much more I can raise my deductible to keep my premium down. Maybe if I promise I'll die quick, they'll give me a discount?

Theranter said...

Ares Olympias, Schwartzenegger is mentioned in the Podesta emails. They were considering appointing him as head of one of the agencies. He's probably still hoping, thus the non-endorsement.

Ares Olympus said...

Theranter, looks like a big stretch there.

What does a 2008 email have to do with the 2016 election?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1536
---
> > On 9/24/08, Cassandra Butts wrote:
> >> Energy [8 names]
> >> -Schwarzenegger, Arnold
---