This what the media wants to see. We're hearing this is a huge debate where Rubio can some how manage to stop Trump from racking up a bunch of Super Tuesday wins next week.
I see this has pretty doubtful. Rubio's manager says he's not going to try to gun for Trump tonight like Jeb did.
1. I believe this.
2. The media has convinced itself that Trump had a terrible debate in SC a few weeks ago.
3. Yet Trump followed this by winning just about every county in SC.
4. The media responds that somehow Trump could have won by even more than 11 points if his debate was horrible.
5. If the debate was horrible for Trump it came in his sharp exchanges with Jeb.
6. Yet Jeb is the one who subsequently sunk in the polls and had to leave the race after such a disappointing finish in SC.
7. If Jeb won the exchange and Trump lost it, something is screwy.
8. The media wrongly took the word of the GOP Establishment that to criticize George W. Bush so sharply was costly.
9. If this is so, why did Jeb's numbers subsequently crater? Isn't it more plausible that Trump going after his brother and family actually hurt Jeb?
10. Which would mean that Trump didn't have a horrible debate, Jeb did.
11. As far as Rubio is concerned what makes anyone think he's got it in him to go after Trump aggressively in a debate format? People who say Trump had a terrible debate in SC need to watch Rubio in NH to see what a terrible debate looks like.
Doesn't his disaster of a debate in NH against Christie show that he's the last one who wants to try this? If he attacks Trump, Trump will have a response.
12. This Rubio understands which is why he probably won't try it. If he does he will regret it.
P.S. Harry Reid is having quite a laugh at Mitt's attempt to use Harry's game he used against Romney in 2012 against Trump now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/harry-reid-mitt-romney-taxes-219780
I see this has pretty doubtful. Rubio's manager says he's not going to try to gun for Trump tonight like Jeb did.
1. I believe this.
2. The media has convinced itself that Trump had a terrible debate in SC a few weeks ago.
3. Yet Trump followed this by winning just about every county in SC.
4. The media responds that somehow Trump could have won by even more than 11 points if his debate was horrible.
5. If the debate was horrible for Trump it came in his sharp exchanges with Jeb.
6. Yet Jeb is the one who subsequently sunk in the polls and had to leave the race after such a disappointing finish in SC.
7. If Jeb won the exchange and Trump lost it, something is screwy.
8. The media wrongly took the word of the GOP Establishment that to criticize George W. Bush so sharply was costly.
9. If this is so, why did Jeb's numbers subsequently crater? Isn't it more plausible that Trump going after his brother and family actually hurt Jeb?
10. Which would mean that Trump didn't have a horrible debate, Jeb did.
11. As far as Rubio is concerned what makes anyone think he's got it in him to go after Trump aggressively in a debate format? People who say Trump had a terrible debate in SC need to watch Rubio in NH to see what a terrible debate looks like.
Doesn't his disaster of a debate in NH against Christie show that he's the last one who wants to try this? If he attacks Trump, Trump will have a response.
12. This Rubio understands which is why he probably won't try it. If he does he will regret it.
P.S. Harry Reid is having quite a laugh at Mitt's attempt to use Harry's game he used against Romney in 2012 against Trump now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/harry-reid-mitt-romney-taxes-219780
I read somewhere that Cruz has been warned by donors NOT to go after Rubio too much because they don't want to see their back up plan too damaged. Rubio, however, has no such restriction, and can clobber Cruz all he wants.
ReplyDeleteThis is driving people like Erick Erickson (official neutral, but leaning Cruz) ape-shit. They don't like Rubio (he's "amnesty boy" and an establishment squish), and they HATE the way he's been dissing Ted. However, they very VERY grudgingly admit that Cruz too is to blame, and that they should both immediately stop going after each other and (in Erickson's words) "go nuclear on Trump." Here's Erickson's piece of advice to the both of them today:
http://theresurgent.com/dear-ted-and-marco-go-nuclear-on-trump-scorch-the-earth/
I hope what actually happens is just like you say: Rubio feels free to call Cruz a liar and beat him up as much as possible... and Cruz is forced to sit there and grin and bear it until he explodes (making his backers very unhappy with him), and Trump then can do whatever the fuck he wants to.
That will be like pulling teeth from Erickson's fat face with a rusty set of pliers... I hope it's actually physically painful for him. I hope he gets on his knees and looks up at the sky and wonders why Jesus has forsaken him. Lol.
One thing that's funny to me is they all thing over there (along the RedState/Erickson axis) that Cruz IS a paragon of truth and virtue... HELLO!... Does anybody recall when he suggested that John McCain was on the North Korean payroll? Now they're no fans of McCain over there, but still... what an outrageous whopper! The man's been a lying sack of feces from the start... it's just that they can't tell because they're used to evangelicals spoon feeding them horse crap I guess.
DeleteStill, I do hope Cruz & Rubio basically stay neck and neck as long as possible. I want as many right-wingers, neocons and establishment types to fill their panties with poo as is humanly possible.
Anybody who can watch an evangelical preacher in action, and not hear a three-alarm fire bell blaring out in their heads "Huckster Alert!!! Scam artist in action!!" has got to have a screw loose, in my book.
DeleteEvery time Cruz opens his mouth I get that. I think I'm not alone, and it's probably why he's reached his limit of support in the party. "Evangelicals" who don't actually go to church to hear that kind of sing-song nonsense (probably because it sounds fake to them), actually make up the bulk of the so-called "evangelical" segment of the party.
One thing the far-right and the neocons (like Rubin) agree on, is it's time for Ted to stop referring to Trump as "his friend." It drives them nuts ... totally inappropriate for this stage of the fight. I guess he's trying to maintain some continuity with the character he was playing earlier in the race, who had nothing but kind words for Donald.
DeleteMike, since 2004 I've watched the right-wing in morbid fascination, frustration, and disgust. I remember how John McCain was hated by the right-wingers back in 2008, but still managed to come out on top. They used to bellyache calling him all manner of names, and spoke of his "Maverick" status and his "reaching across the aisle" reputation with pure disgust. It was funny for me, because at that time I actually wanted both parties to select the least bad choice, so I was totally happy that it turned out Obama vs McCain in the end. (McCain was a warmonger, but he at least had the sense to call out "The emperor has no clothes" when Iraq was circling the drain... much to W, Rumsfeld's and Cheney's annoyance), and he was pretty much the only candidate to raise his rand to indicate that he believed in evolution (what a pathetic and shocking sight that was, BTW).
Delete2012 was WAY worse.
So is it my imagination that this year is totally off the charts? The infighting and internecine resentments that are building up seem to me to be a whole order of magnitude larger.
I really hope that's the case! I hope the damage done this year will keep the GOP paralyzed with long running Hatfield-McCoy-like mutual hatreds for years to come. But maybe this is a case of confirmation bias on my part. Perhaps it's not really all that, and they'll soon unify again.
One thing I'm VERY excited about is the prospect of religious hostilities boiling over. Sectarian strife, so to speak. There have been hints of that with Coulter going after right-wing Jews and Catholics, but I really hope this is a whole new level of hatred and spite that we are only just now beginning to see blossom.
Why would I want such a thing? I think one of the things that defanged the right-wingers of the past in relation to how they've been since the "Moral Majority" years was mutual religious loathing... to the point where candidates really didn't spend so much time blathering on and on about faith and god nonsense. You knew that Lutherans hated Methodists, so you just kept quite about that shit. But now that mainlines have declined so much, it seemed like there was a sick kind of "Harmonic convergence" of the right-wing faithful over the last couple of decades: suddenly you could be a Mormon or a Catholic or an SDA and nobody would really go after you too much. Right wing Jews practically became rock-stars. I'd like to see all that harmony smashed to bits. I'd like to see a return to the good-ole days when you were better off not talking about faith on the campaign trail.
I think if Trump gets the nod and doesn't disavow his neo-Nazi, white supremacist fans, then there's a good chance for religious hatreds to boil over. I'd especially like to see the right wing Jews essentially walk off the field: Levin, Rubin, Horowitz and Adleson... especially Adleson. Adleson should flat out say "You even THINK about supporting Trump, and you'll never get another cent from me or my wife as long as I live." That would be bee-yute-iful!
DeleteI'd like to see prominent conservatives, Christian Zionists, etc, be put in VERY uncomfortable positions: a return to pre-1948 antisemitism (and saying goodbye to the Adelson gravy train forever), or vow to publicly shit all over Trump and say "Anybody but Trump: I WILL NOT support the GOP nominee. Ever. Under ANY circumstances" like Erickson and Beck have essentially already said.
I want to see every right-wing radio demagogue out there be forced to choose. No more fence sitting for Mr. Limbaugh: pick a side, or risk being labeled an abject coward.
And really I hope the bulk of them chose antisemitism: that would drive the right-wing Jews back to the Democrats, who can then have the upper hand in the negotiations. You can join us on OUR terms.
Plus I think the rightwing would generally be more comfortable with antisemitism. They could be themselves! This "Christian Zionist" thing was never really all that comfortable of a fit anyway. Maybe Israel will see a need to diversify their support as well. Perhaps turn to the Russians again, like they did in the early years. Or the Chinese. It'd probably be best for everybody if the umbilical chord were snipped.
I want to see the rightwinger's yearning for purity fulfilled: each and every one of them in Klan sheets. In a sight that would have shocked Lincoln, I would like to see the GOP become a pure regional minority party: the party of the Old Confederacy: pro bigotry, white supremacist, and confined to the deep South. A party that will never win a national election again for a hundred years... (well, at least 50).