Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Trump-Cruz-Rand Paul

My favorite Right wing buddy, Morgan Warstler, just tweeted me the results of the Drudge poll. According to it the winders of tonight were Trump, Cruz, and Rand Paul, and it wasn't even close.

"Jesus Kee-ryst! Look at Drudge poll... 85% EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT are pro-dictator in ME"

In my last post I suggested that this is the real faultine regarding foreign policy between the outsider and Establishment candidates. The insiders want regime change, boots on the ground, and what Pat Buchanan calls 'democracy worship'-regarding foreign policy is what he means with this."

Remember this was a foreign policy debate, so if the outsiders cleaned up then this seems to suggest that the GOP base is not about Neoconservatism but America First.

In the mind of the outsiders, being tough on terrorism is really all about border security and keeping the wrong people out. Yes, I agree this is counterproductive-hopefully you know that if you've read me for more than two days.

But I'm not a huge fan of the Neocon agenda either which is what Jeb, Chris Christie, Kasich, Carly Fiorina, and Lindsay Graham are about.

The outsider candidates are considered fringe but in many ways their Right wing populism finds not just resonance with the base but a good deal of it would be agreed even for many mainstream Americans.

Look, I'm a liberal and believe very strongly in immigration reform. But the fact is, a lot of Americans-not just Republicans but overall-actually want to see all immigration stopped-Matt Yglesias has documented this. I believe the number is 40 percent.

At the same time Trump talked about how the Iraq War was-what else-as disaster and how we should have used this money spent on the war building up our own country-the roads, the bridges, etc.
Heck, I myself agree very strongly with this though not with the nativism.

Carly Fiorina sniffed that Trump sounded like a Democrat there but I'm not so sure that the GOP base isn't fine with spending on roads and bridges as long as the 'wrong people' aren't benefiting.
Carly also was whining a lot tonight about not being listened to. Some argue Rand had a great night and I have to give it to him-when he called out Chris Christie, he earned my love.

He pointed out that Christie's absurd talk of setting up a no fly zone in Syria and shooting down Russian planes is the kind of wild talk that would start WWW III.

Ok, so we'll see if the polls in subsequent days mirror Drudge, and Morgan, et. al, but I want to believe.
P.S. More reason for optimism, here's Josh Marshall who I often find he is on the same basic wavelength as me-me as him, as the case may be:

"My own sense is that this debate will see Trump and Cruz continue to show strength and leave Rubio more or less where he is, perhaps even slip a bit. Rubio is polished but you can see in the split screens a guy who's studied up but basically insecure and unsure of himself in debate. That's not Trump or Cruz, to put it mildly. Bush definitely did better, showed more life in him. But even when he does better, there's just no rationale for his campaign, none that makes sense or resonates in this political moment. His platform seems to be: I hear what you guys think is messed up; I'll fix it; and I won't get weird. That argument just goes nowhere."

"I give the night to Cruz and Trump. I'm less certain about Rubio, but I suspect he'll still struggle to break through. Bush did much better but his campaign has no argument in its favor. Christie did well. But Bridgegate. He's been dead politically for going on two years. Fiorina seems increasingly pissed that her campaign is going nowhere."

"Trump's closing brought the whole thing full circle. It's clear, direct; it resonates. We don't win any more. We're losers. I'll make us win again."

I didn't think Jeb did so hot-I thought Trump got him good when he kept saying that Trump isn't serious and is not going to win the nomination. Trump pointed out that he's at 42 percent and Jeb is at 3 percent. 

But really, it's a good point. If Jeb is such an expert on what it takes to win why is he at 3 percent? His attitude is so patrician. He thinks just because he's a Bush he's entitled and a Noveau Riche like Trump isn't. I don't see who that appeals to. 

I agree with Marshall's take on Rubio. I think his being attached to Schumer and the Gang of Eight is a killer. What I'd add to Marshall's' analysis is that I think, as I said above, that the outsiders wont the foreign policy debate-America First not Keeping the World Safe for Democracy. 


  1. Mike, one thing I just can't understand for the life of me, is why the candidates don't INSIST on allowing the audience to come to the debates armed with assault weapons?

    I'm not a tweeter... maybe you can ask Morgan about that. Don't they want to maximize safety? What if there was a secret Muslim in the audience with a box cutter? How can they afford to take the risk of having an unarmed audience??? ;^D

  2. Tom my friend when you come up with reduction absurdems like this you're somehow hoping that there is a somehow a scenario that is so absurd the base will somehow finally see how absurd things are.

    I don't think such a thing exists. For these folks there is no dissonance too great. Remember Jerry Falwell' Jr. at Liberty telling everyone to pack in preparation for Muslims showing up

    1. ... I have no hope for them. I just think that would be fun and hilarious -- probably entertaining for anybody outside the bubble to hear. Really, what's absurd about it? I'd like one of the debate moderators to ask the candidates to explain why it's absurd. I'd also ask if they would pledge to open the white house to freedom loving gun owners... open it to them and their guns.

      Yes, I do recall Jr. Falwell's statement.

      I have a feeling that the candidates might have a double standard though: if it's good for Starbuck's and Denny's and schools and movie theaters... then why not at debates and political rallies?

      Will it take tragedy like a shooting at one of these debates for them to see the light? That gun free zones are NOT safe zones? That the only way to stop a bad audience member with a gun, is a good audience armed with guns? That a well armed audience is a polite audience? Why can't they see the pure truth of that simple common sense concept?

    2. Looks like I was not the 1st to think of this... (comments are interesting):

  3. What usually turns up is that real life outruns your reduction absurdem situation.

  4. I'd like to see Trump and Cruz threaten to boycott the next debate unless guns are allowed.

  5. Jennifer Rubin declared that Jeb, Christie and Rubio were the winners, and that Trump, Cruz and Carson were the losers. Ha!

  6. O/T: Mike, do you think President Trump would appoint Ted Nugent to the Supreme Court? How about Gary Busey? Why not both?

  7. I liked Roy Edroso's tweet this morning: "I couldn't watch the debate, but I hear when it came to foreign policy, all the candidates put flashlights under their chins."

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.