The Stupid Party Figures Out How to Maximize Trump’s Support

Just when you thought the GOP establishment couldn’t be any more condescending, elitist, and . . . well, repugnant, along comes George Will to prove you wrong.  Tin-eared, out-of-touch, and clearly suffering a memory lapse regarding the past two presidential and the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Will has penned a column that argues, in essence, that the GOP should “purge” the GOP not only of Trump but of his supporters, as well.

Will, writing at WaPo, explains:

When, however, Trump decided that his next acquisition would be not another casino but the Republican presidential nomination, he tactically and quickly underwent many conversions of convenience (concerning abortion, health care, funding Democrats, etc.). His makeover demonstrates that he is a counterfeit Republican and no conservative.

He is an affront to anyone devoted to the project William F. Buckley began six decades ago with the founding in 1955 of the National Review — making conservatism intellectually respectable and politically palatable. Buckley’s legacy is being betrayed by invertebrate conservatives now saying that although Trump “goes too far,” he has “tapped into something,” and therefore . . . .

Therefore what? This stance — if a semi-grovel can be dignified as a stance — is a recipe for deserved disaster. Remember, Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond “tapped into” things.

We can argue about whether or not Trump is conservative (I have argued that he is not) and about Trump having tapped into something that is meaningful to a lot of people (this is clearly the case), but what is galling—and short-sighted—is Will putting out there, front and center, his cavalier attitude toward the people who support Trump.  This is the same attitude that may well keep Jeb! from winning the GOP nomination. Fingers crossed.

Unlike Ted Cruz who purposefully, and wisely, embraces Trump supporters, Will wonders who these star-struck hicks who would support such a clown could possibly be.  He just doesn’t get it.

Conservatives who flinch from forthrightly marginalizing Trump mistakenly fear alienating a substantial Republican cohort. But the assumption that today’s Trumpites are Republicans is unsubstantiated and implausible. Many are no doubt lightly attached to the political process, preferring entertainment to affiliation. They relish their candidate’s vituperation and share his aversion to facts. From what GOP faction might Trumpites come? The establishment? Social conservatives? Unlikely.

They certainly are not tea partyers, those earnest, issue-oriented, book-club organizing activists who are passionate about policy. Trump’s aversion to reality was displayed during the Cleveland debate when Chris Wallace asked him for “evidence” to support his claim that Mexico’s government is sending rapists and drug dealers to the United States. Trump, as usual, offered apoplexy as an argument.

What Will doesn’t seem to understand is that it doesn’t matter if Trump’s supporters are “Republican”; the ones on the right, conservatives, clearly intend to vote Republican . . . if there is a palatable nominee.  That nominee doesn’t have to be Trump, but it will have to be someone who is not, like Will and Jeb!, dismissive of and disdainful toward the conservative base.

Will concludes his piece calling for, and I’m not making this up, “excommunicating” Trump and his supporters from the GOP:

So, conservatives today should deal with Trump with the firmness Buckley dealt with the John Birch Society in 1962. The society was an extension of a loony businessman who said Dwight Eisenhower was “a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” In a 5,000-word National Review “excoriation” (Buckley’s word), he excommunicated the society from the conservative movement.

Peter Whener, writing at Commentary, agrees, quite enthusiastically, with Will:

Fortunately there are conservative commentators who are doing just that [“excommunicating” Trump and his supporters], including Bill Bennett, David Brooks, Mona Charen, Charles C.W. Cooke, Michael Gerson, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Matt Lewis, Rich Lowry, Michael Medved, Paul Mirengoff, Dana Perino, John Podhoretz, Karl Rove, Jennifer Rubin, Kevin Williamson, regular contributors to this web site (among them Max Boot, Noah Rothman and Jonathan Tobin), editorial page writers for the Wall Street Journal and others.

These individuals, while differing on various matters, understand the difference between angry populism and conservatism. They don’t believe crudity is a conservative virtue. And they don’t want conservatism stained by an unprincipled interloper and cynical opportunist, which is what Mr. Trump is. (It’s been well documented that until a few years ago, Trump was a registered Democrat, a large financial contributor to leading liberal politicians, and held liberal positions on a wide range of issues.)

In that sense, this is a clarifying moment for conservatism. Those on the right who have become Trump defenders have, I think, made a serious error in judgment that is the result of a rather profound misunderstanding of conservatism (for more, see here). You can cherish and champion conservative principles, or you can support and praise Donald Trump. But you can’t do both.

Not being a fan of Trump, I can see the argument for not supporting him.  What I cannot see is the need to purge the GOP of anyone and everyone who does support him.  What will be left of the GOP if they start purging everyone with whom they disagree or those whom they feel are beneath them?

Writing at Townhall, Pat Buchanan sums it up perfectly:

For there is a plot afoot in The Washington Post Conservative Club to purge Trump from the Republican Party before the primaries begin.

“A political party has a right to … secure its borders,” asserts the Post’s George Will, “a duty to exclude interlopers.” Will wants The Donald “excommunicated” and locked out of all GOP debates until he kneels and takes a loyalty oath to the nominee.

“Marginalizing Trump” carries no risk of “alienating a substantial Republican cohort,” Will assures us, for these “Trumpites” are neither Republicans nor conservatives. Better off without such trash.

The Post’s Michael Gerson says “establishment Republicans” must “make clear that [Trump] has moved beyond the boundaries of serious and civil discourse.” He loathes the Trumpites as much as Will.

Trump’s followers are “xenophobic,” Gerson tells CNN. They have a “resentment of outsiders, of Mexico, of China, and immigrants. That’s more like a European right-wing party, a UKIP or a National Front in France. Republicans can’t incorporate that.”

But if the GOP has no room for Trump’s followers, it has no future. For there simply aren’t that many chamber-of-commerce and country-club Republicans.

The Chris Christie-Barack Obama School Of “Punishing Your Enemies” Thuggery

Well, someone I like very much and respect a great deal is asking that we not pile on Christie for Bridgegate.  Yikes.  That poses a dilemma for me because, quite frankly, I don’t see the logic in the argument that, essentially, we defend the indefensible because one day the same media now screeching for Christie’s head will come screeching for some other GOP head (one we value more than . . . not at all).  I don’t want to “feed the beast” that is the leftist commie propaganda machine.  Of course I don’t.  But frankly, the beast doesn’t need our feeding, it’s self-sufficient and well-fed all on its own.  My tossing a well-earned crumb its way doesn’t tip the scale, and it certainly doesn’t endanger any future conservative I may support.

Such a conservative would not believe his own press, for starters.  Christie apparently thought, as have useful idiots McCain and Graham before him, that hugging Obama and chirping happily about gay marriage and carbon taxes would win him support among the regressive media . . . that they’d see him as one of their own.  This has been tried by every RINO of the past forty years, and it’s always a fail . . . not because they aren’t recognized as like-minded regressives, of course they are, but because the media has to pretend to the ignorant masses that (R) is the “enemy” to keep the balance of power off-kilter with regressives from both parties winning in “opposition” to the last regressive.

And it’s worked.  We haven’t had a conservative in the White House since Reagan.  Not because we refuse to “feed the beast” but because we don’t speak up against the real beast’s latest incarnation when we should.

Let’s face it, nothing we have said or done or can say or do will change the propagandists’ game one whit, and if we try to play their game, we start out with a losing hand.  It’s their game, their rules (to be changed without notice), their playing board, their pawns and pieces.  Playing on that field is folly, particularly if it also requires that we support that which we claim to hate as long as it’s Obama or any (D) being the petty tyrant.  According to this logic, we love tyranny, big government, big spending, and corruption as long as it comes from a (nominal) Republican.

No, thanks.  I don’t think I’ll play the role of useful idiot in this regressive commie farce.

I also don’t want to fall into the trap that regressives set for themselves when they defend every horrible, bad policy, including ones antithetical to their own principles, simply because the person behind it is another regressive.  Doing this damaged not only the “progressive” brand but their credibility on all their own pet issues.  They know this.  We know it.  So why would we jump on that loser machine and do the exact same thing?  They at least have the power of the media on their side to mask their hypocrisy and lack of principles.  We’d have nothing but the knowledge that we did not stand for anything at all.

I can’t live with that; I must stand by my principles to hold my head high each day.  I’m not a soulless scheming creature who can protest something one day and then loudly support it the next.  The thing is wrong or it’s not, no matter who does it.  Do I want to be a regressive who loudly and correctly protests the historic lynching of innocent black people and then equally loudly and incorrectly proclaims that modern-day lynching of TEA Partiers is well-founded and just?  Do I want to have to defend lynching itself as a legitimate course of action against peoples we dislike. . . if only the “correct” party were lynched?  Um, no thanks.  Lynching is either right or wrong, and it is wrong.  The persons being lynched should not be the root of contention as it is on the radical left.

Sure, we’re not talking about lynching when we talk about Christie’s abuse of power to “punish his enemies” but if it’s wrong for Obama to use the IRS and other government agencies to punish his enemies, then it’s wrong to do for Christie. I suppose there’s always the argument that abusing power to punish political enemies is not wrong . . . , but I would hope that no one is arguing that.

So, no, I’m not falling on my sword for any Republican (nor any politician, period), and certainly not for one who has called me a “crazy” and “ignorant.”  If Obama’s abuse of power via the IRS targeting his political “enemies” was repugnant then so is Christie’s abuse of power to target his own political enemies.  That the latter only involved a New Jersey bridge few have heard of and fewer care about and not the entire nation is only a function of his own limited power as governor of New Jersey.  Anyone who would be that petty, spiteful, and vindictive, anyone who would use their power to use as pawns and dupes the people he “leads” on a state scale would be exponentially more dangerous and horrible at a national level.

There is no “but” there.  This is about the character of the man, and Christie’s character is, to me, indiscernible from Obama’s: Chicago thug meets New Jersey thug.  As is his stance on any number of issues:  he’s pro-amnesty, prosharia, pro-AGW hoax, pro-gun control . . . I can’t think of one thing about which he is conservative.  Maybe his fiscal policies . . . but hasn’t he actually raised taxes in New Jersey?  Embraced the 0Care Medicaid expansion?  We defend him . . . why?  I just can’t wrap my head around it.  I can’t stand Chris Christie; I think he’d do well to become a democrat, actually.  He may yet.  But then the whole early-1900’s “plan” would fall apart, wouldn’t it?  I mean, if all the commie regressives joined together in one party, how could they possibly convince people to vote again and again for more regressives by plastering a fake (R) or (D) after their name?

Principles matter to me, and I will not stand by someone whom I deem to be unworthy of my support.  And Chris Christie embodies everything that I cannot stand about Obama:  he uses his power to “punish his enemies,” he’s petty, spiteful, mean-spirited, nasty, and thin-skinned.  There is nothing admirable about Christie, nothing.  And for those who think his firing and “holding accountable” his staff members is laudable, let me just remind you that they did not “go rogue” any more than the IRS agents did under Obama.  They’re merely new bumps under the heartless, egocentric Christie’s bus.  Bumps that will pile up just as surely as they did under Obama’s bus . . . or perhaps to be redistributed in his administration.

Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:

 

Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

Of Ted Cruz, the Obamacare fiasco, and America

Okay, I started this post after getting no sleep (having been up all night watching the Ted Cruz not-a-filibuster), but I thought I’d pick it up and run with it (the first bit from a comment I left on a Telegraph article by the ever-insightful Nile Gardner), so here goes:

Ted Cruz’s Efforts to Shine Much-Needed Light on ObamaCare

The reason that I haven’t slept is that one senator (two, actually, because Mike King matters hugely in this) stood up in Jimmy Stewart fashion and told the truth.  Americans aren’t used to hearing the truth (and haven’t been in decades, so this isn’t a swipe at anyone in particular–yet), so I watched it all (well, I was a bit late getting to the party, but only by about an hour or so). I literally stayed up all night to support Senator Cruz in my own inconsequential way: I thought if he can stand there on the Senate floor in suit and tie to speak for the American people, the very least I can do is to sit in my jammies on the couch for every minute of it (bonus: I got to take “bio” breaks, he didn’t).

Here’s the thing, I listened to all 20+ hours of that not-a-filibuster, and while I cringed a tad at some of the stuff (the Darth Vader impression was . . . weird), I can’t say that anything he said or read of substance was off-key, off-base, or in any other way off.

People forget how the Obamacare monstrosity was forged and then passed, but it really does matter because even the Dems would never have made this thing law if they could help it.  What happened was the law was written, passed through committees (with this, that, and the other tacked on . . . because they can), and then . . .

Boom.

Scott Brown got elected to the Senate.  He ran as the 41st vote against ObamaCare, and he won Ted Kennedy’s seat (as we all remember, Teddy was a progressive, single-payer fanatic).  That was supposed to send, should have sent, a message to Washington that we, the people, didn’t want ObamaCare.  Even uber-regressive Massachusetts was willing to send a (faux) conservative, running primarily on voting against ObamaCare, to the Senate.  And not just to the Senate, but in Teddy’s seat.

It mattered.

But it didn’t change a thing:  Dems saw it, understood fully that the people rejected ObamaCare, shrugged, and moved on with ramming this national disaster down our throats.

That special election meant that the haphazard, crazy, tacked-on, willy-nilly nature of that bill had to be either: a.) voted on as is (with Reid pulling a fast one and going with a”budget” vote that required only a majority vote), or b.) given the ideological divide, pretty much it being trashed and started over.  Reid, as majority leader in the Senate decided to pass a major piece of legislation, one that directly affects every American’s life–mostly for the worse–with an up-down vote on budget rules (it all passes or fails and does so by a majority rule).

Laws in the U. S. are supposed to be passed by a 2/3 majority, a thing Reid didn’t have when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the 41st seat. So he fudged it, used a budgetary gimmick, and slammed ObamaCare through with exactly zero input from Republicans and without a single Republican vote.

Americans don’t like, don’t trust, and generally ensure there is no one-party “rule.”  No major piece of legislation has ever been passed without votes from the loyal opposition.  This was shocking to us all, left and right.

We like our Dem presidents to have Republican houses of Congress and vice versa.  Some split is also desirable to we Americans, and generally-speaking, we avoid like the plague any one-party rule–one party’s control of the executive and both legislative branches of government.

Americans were–and, importantly, are–angry.  In America, our representatives are supposed to (oh, with the crazy!) represent us, our voice, our wishes to DC.  What happened with ObamaCare was that DC decided what was best for us and then tried to represent that to the people.

That’s completely backwards.

America is just not a nation of sovereign rule, Americans are not subjects of some ruler, and we don’t take kindly to being treated like subjects who must bend to the will of some centralized power that is far removed from us.  That’s how revolutions–all revolutions–start.

So what Ted Cruz tapped into was almost primal, it’s in an American’s DNA, soul, collective unconscious (whatever you want to deem it) that we are a free people, that liberty comes first, that our government and its elected officials represent us; they do not rule us, they are not our “boss,” and they damned sure aren’t our “masters,” and we are not their “servants.” Indeed, they are “public servants,” and if anyone is “master,” it is we, the people.

And that, ultimately, is what Cruz’s not-a-filibuster was about: America, our republic.  What it means to be an American, what it means when your American-ness is stripped away against your will, and that is what the fight for the soul of the republican party is ultimately about: do we continue to support weak-willed, self-serving GOP elites who are big government, big spending pawns of the Washington machine that sees us as servants and ATM machines for their largess, or do we enforce our will, that of the people of these United States, and reject that tried-and-failed socialist-communist-fascist rubric?

My vote is for the latter.

Fuzzy Rant: GOP Traitors, Snowden, AGW Hoax

It is so time for a rant here at Fuzzy Central; I can feel it coming, so grab some popcorn and stand well away from your computer monitor.

Amnesty and the Traitorous GOP Who Support It

Seriously?  I am spitting mad about this, and my anger is directed not so much at McCain the Regressive Clown or Graham the Closet Case but at Ayotte and Rubio.  Those two ran on, courted, and were accepted by the TEA Party . . . the same TEA Party they are now pledging–behind closed doors, of course–to destroy.  I don’t know diddly about Ayotte, and after this, I don’t really care if she can cure cancer with the mere bat of her eyelashes.

As for Rubio . . . I haven’t trusted him since I found out that he was charging his own personal expenses to the state GOP credit card, of particular, damning interest was that he only paid it back years later–after he was caught.  Really, that was it for me with him.  Notice how after I posted about that, I just kind of shut up about him? He was a disaster in the making, but he seemed a better deal than Crist and that other guy, and conservatives seemed determined to see in him what they waned to see, so . . . I shut up.  No more.  Never forget that the one and only reason Rubio is in the United States’ Senate is the support he got from the TEA Party, the same TEA Party that he snubbed by refusing to join the Senate TEA Party Caucus.  The same TEA Party that he lied to–repeatedly–about his views on illegal immigration and amnesty.

Do not, DO. NOT. let the GOP sneaky snakes who voted for cloture and then voted against amnesty get away with their treachery.  They KNOW that a cloture vote ensures the bill goes forward–just as they did on ObamaCare, and they do it anyway.  Yes, they really believe we’re that stupid.  Enough!

et tu Paul Ryan?  I have no words.  Just lots of sad.  I carry it in a big suitcase with wheels now.

Snowden, the ManBearPig er, TraitorHeroWhackJob

Dude, I’m not sure what Snowden is; his “tyranny tour” is not helping his case with anyone who might be inclined to land on the “hero” side.  He exposed illegal government activity. That’s whistleblower stuff, but . . . *shrug* what the heck ever.  Like he really matters in the grand scheme of America’s destruction.

More on the ManBearPig as Deluded and Frightened Obama Pivots to Global Warming Climate Change (or whatever)

Poverty is skyrocketing, electricity bills are to follow that skyrocketing trajectory (as Obama promised), the number of people collecting welfare and food stamps is fast quadrupling.  Millions upon millions of Americans either have no job at all or are working only part-time (which, thanks to the ObamaCareTax monstrosity is now less than 30 hours per week, further crippling the hourly-wage-earning lower and lower-middle classes).

So what does Obama deem–the very week that the world learns that the earth has not warmed in at least 15 years–the key, most imperative item on his agenda?  Yep, killing U. S. coal.  And along with it, still more jobs, and pushing people who are barely hanging on to their lower and lower-middle class status into the poverty/government-dependent classes.  Oh joy!

It’s not enough that we all actually know now that the whole AGW hysteria is utter and complete bullcrap–oh no, now we need the Divider in Chief pontificating on how he’ll heal the planet.  Again.  Or something.  Sick-making.  I love how he and his horrendous nightmare of a wife flew off–in separate planes, Air Force One AND Two–to the same place and essentially, give or take a couple hours, at the same time.  Yeah, that’s a man who is really worried about his carbon footprint.

Typical commie regressive: laws and rules and government-dictated morals are for thee, not for me.

Sick. Of. It.

So what, you may ask, of the recent Supreme Court rulings, of the ongoing assault on Obama’s “political enemies” while he courts America’s enemies in our White House, of the blatant military and arms support of al Qaeda, of the embarrassing place that America now holds in the world with Putin laughing in Obama’s face and Afghanistan, etc. dictating terms to him, of the Common Core nightmare, the impending amnesty’s effects on America and her people, of the major scandals that reveal a third-world mentality in this country’s president . . . of a million other things that this administration is doing, has done, intends to do.  What of all of it, you ask?

I have no words.