Pages

Friday, October 23, 2015

Trump's Public Service on Calling Out Jeb on 9/11

I've never said I'd vote for Trump-unless I was in some Bizzaro universe where the choices were Trump or Jeb Bush!

But while I don't think he will be President-that's HRC;s job-he is doing a good job of making sure Jeb Bush never will either.

"The Donald will be the end of Jeb: There’s no coming back from his latest assault on W’s legacy
Trump has gone where even Democrats won't, and it could finally spell the end of Bush's bumbling presidential bid "

"And here, Trump makes perhaps the most honest, sanest, and above all, unassailably correct statement he’s uttered during this campaign season thus far. Though endless outlets criticized the billionaire for blaming Bush for the attacks (and I’ll defer to Peter Beinart’s excellent Atlantic piece on why that’s also true), the question of blame is essentially irrelevant. What’s unquestionably true is that Bush did not keep us safe, a basic reality revealed by the fact of 9/11. It’s not rocket science. And yet, for 13 years now, even Bush’s foes haven’t said as much."

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/22/donald_will_be_the_end_of_jeb_why_the_one_time_gop_favorites_family_name_is_finally_catching_up_with_him_partner/

We can always argue cause and effect but today we hear that Jeb's campaign is cutting back in a major way.

"Jeb Bush slashes pay, spending as campaign struggles"

"Jeb Bush on Friday ordered a wholesale restructuring of his struggling campaign after suffering miserably in the polls despite massive spending and a deep donor network."

"The campaign will cut payroll costs by 40 percent, downsize its Miami headquarters by more than 50 percent, reduce travel costs by 20 percent and cut 45 percent of spending on things other than media and voter contact."

"The cuts will begin on Nov. 1."

"Although campaign officials insisted they're still in strong shape, the cuts — combined with Bush's stagnant poll numbers — suggest otherwise. According to donors, some of whom called for Bush to rein in its spending, the campaign's assurances about its organizational and financial advantages had worn thin; and the third-quarter financial report, filed last Thursday, gave further definition to their growing concerns about the state of a big-spending campaign failing to deliver results."

“These donors are not finding these explanations by the Bush team believable," said one bundler, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "There’s a lot of frustration that a lot of money’s been spent and it hasn’t moved anything."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/jeb-bush-orders-across-board-pay-cuts-on-campaign-215106#ixzz3pPmMAL90

"I mean obviously campaign officials are not going to admit this is bad news. But this talk of focusing in NH is also disconcerting as it kind of sets him up for having to do well there or the campaign is in trouble."

This is what happened to Scott Walker who was all in for Iowa yet his numbers there were dismal. Jeb is third in NH but a dismal third at 9.3% with Ben Carson at 14.7% and Trump at 26.7%. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

P.S. A lot has been made about Trump falling behind Carson in a couple of recent Iowa polls. Iowa is certainly Carson country with its religious conservatives.

It remains to be seen whether religious conservatives follow and leave to Carson in other states like NH. For now Trump continues to dominate nationally and other states.

Anyway, if Trump can sink Jeb he has earned his keep. I'd be fine with Carson winning nomination as well. Anyone but Jeb-or Rubio. But I doubt Carson works outside of Bible Belt country like Iowa.

13 comments:

  1. The only one less qualified than Trump to be president or even the GOP nominee (according to Jennifer Rubin) is Carson. Lol.

    She's no fan of Cruz either. Those are the three that she really detests. Now what percentage of Republicans does she speak for? 5%? I'm not sure, but I would agree with her about Carson and Cruz.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My hope is that trey nominate someone other than Jeb or Rubio. Anyone else would be great.

    I don't rank my preferences in terms of who's qualified. But then I'm a Democrat. My interest isn't in the GOP getting the most qualified candidate
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "My interest isn't in the GOP getting the most qualified candidate"

      Yes, I realize that. You've made that abundantly clear! Lol

      In a "perfect world" I'd be happy with the candidates that both parties put forward. But I realize we don't live in a perfect world.

      But as an incremental step towards a better world, I'd like to see the extreme right of the GOP be discredited as much as possible: so if they get their way (i.e. get their nominee), it's only good if he loses in a landslide. If he wins, it's a disaster, and if he gets anywhere close, it only encourages them.

      I believe the talk radio listening base are victims of BS talking liars. Not all those base people can be written off as stupid. They're victims of indoctrination and of being lied to. Sure they share responsibility in their indoctrination to some extent, but I can imagine some of them have been indoctrinated since birth... just like they were in whatever religion they hold to.

      So an incremental improvement in the world in general is less indoctrination. Discrediting those who do the indoctrinating is a good thing. An incremental improvement in our nation.

      Thus I'd be very disappointed to see Cruz or Carson be the nominee... and then lose 49.9% to 50.1%. That's just a sad sign. MUCH MUCH better than them winning, of course, but still, not good in my view. If they lose 61% to 39%... then that would be a good outcome. That would sow some seeds of doubt.

      Delete
    2. Well that's my presumption. A Cruz, Trump, or Carson nominee would end in a landslide HRC win whereas in theory a Jeb or Rubio nominee would be closer.

      Though I do think that Jeb's name is a killer.

      Delete
    3. As I've explained I'm a partisan and-as Garry Wills explained so well-those most knowledgeable of politics usually are as he puts it 'the frankest partisans.'

      To me a better world means Democrats at all levels of government with super majorities.

      I have this whole theory going that maybe one day will be a book that the key to a happy republic is one party domination.

      Most of our history has had this-the Dems till 1860, the GOP till 1932, then the Dems till 1968.

      Most of these periods were happier times for most Americans. The whole trouble is that the GOP has managed to compete with the Dems despite being ideologically bankrupt.

      My concept that the modern GOP is Nixonian. Yesterday's hearings were right out of Tricky Dick's playbook.

      Delete
    4. For Trump to win the nomination or Carson or Cruz would be a major embarrassment for the GOP and more or less proof it's in big trouble if the House mess doesn't connote this well enough.

      Which will to my mind get us closer to that better world. Remember for me a better world is just a world with more Democrats in higher office. It's that cut and dried in my mind LOL

      Delete
    5. I'd like to see the GOP move incrementally towards non-ideological bankruptcy.

      You might be correct that one party domination for fairly long periods of time works out best. I don't know, it could be. I'm not convinced either way. However, I personally don't like not having a choice. I'd like at least two viable non-crazy parties to compete for my vote. I don't like the choice being crazy vs non-crazy, especially when crazy is competitive. I'd like each party to keep the other on their toes as much as possible.

      I do think that power eventually corrupts, and that people do eventually learn (when their party loses over and over and over) to make changes.

      Delete
    6. See to me its like the King's Peace. The GOP was less bankrupt when it accepted being second class citizens.

      Mostly though American history doesn't show you ever really get to rational parties.

      In a way if the parties agree on most things you don't have any real choice anyway.

      Indeed, in the 50s this was a complaint-the parties didn't disagree enough.

      Dwight Eisenhower agreed with the liberals on many things.

      I don't think the GOP moves to anything like that except through many years in the wilderness.

      In fact according to my reading the party has been bankrupt since FDR. So I don't see the real historical basis for two reasonable parties.

      Delete
  3. Jennifer is gloating about Trump falling behind Carson in Iowa... however, according to her own words, that's not really good news for her world view, since Carson is even less qualified than Trump is.

    Trump may not do it, but I'd love nothing more than his fan club (Ingraham, Coulter, Breitbart and Levin) to start laying into Carson in an attempt to tear him down so that Trump can rise. Coulter has already shown a bit of a propensity to mock Republicans for pandering to evangelicals. I love that Trump tweeted that the people of Iowa may be suffering from brain damage (in response to is numbers falling there). He even blamed Monsanto for it! ... Lol... I'm starting the think "conspiracy theory" and "Republicanism" are pretty much the same thing these days. Ingraham has already taken a baby step in the direction of tearing Carson down by putting up a meme of Carson doing a book tour (that is, mocking him for it). I'd imagine Red State taking the opposite view. Good: strife on the right is good.

    If in some alternate universe the only three choices left for president were Trump, Carson and Cruz, I'd go with Trump. If it was Cruz or Carson... I'd go with Carson. I guess I have to agree with W on this: regarding Cruz... I just don't like the guy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Right that's exactly it: from her standpoint as an establishment Republican there is little to gloat about here.

    I'd say Carson is no less 'nuts' than Trump maybe more even. And Carson would be more acceptable to the establishment than Trump.

    If I were a Republican either one would fill me with dread.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only acceptable establishment candidates left are Jeb and Rubio.. Possibly Kasich but his reputation is too Centrist to be viable.

    Fiorina might be a little more acceptable as a total political novice but she's already a lost cause.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I mean he would be 'no more' acceptable to establishment of course!

    ReplyDelete
  7. O/T: Mike, I just heard a pretty good joke from New Jersey dweller David Silverman:

    "You know why people from New Jersey swear so much? Because FUCK YOU!"

    Lol

    ReplyDelete