Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: Trump incompetence or media bias. Which do you believe?

Isn’t it funny how every four years there are a series of stories from the news media describing conflict in the Republican presidential campaign, but there never seems to be any internal problems with the Democrats?

If the recent silence in media circles is to be believed, Hillary Clinton’s campaign must be the most harmonious ever, despite desperately needing to hide a candidate who appears to have channeled favors for cash while acting as Secretary of State and compromised national security along the way with her private very hackable Donald Trumpemail server.

Where the Republicans are concerned, it’s all a big show according to the media. Hollywood even made the movie “Game Change” about the tumultuous campaign of 2008 with wacked-out liberal Julianne Moore playing Sarah Palin. In the film, Palin was portrayed as an out of touch backwoods bumpkin who simply wouldn’t bend to the will of professionals like McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt. The movie was a typical liberal treatment of anyone who’s conservative and an outsider.

Not surprisingly, the media is setting up the Trump campaign for a future theatrical depiction in similar fashion, complete with a defeated candidate and a colorful cast of characters who are looking very much the part of a band of bumbling, beaten warriors.

Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times report on Trump, “He broods about his souring relationship with the news media, calling Mr. Manafort several times a day to talk about specific stories. Occasionally, Mr. Trump blows off steam in bursts of boyish exuberance: At the end of a fund-raiser on Long Island last week, he playfully buzzed the crowd twice with his helicopter.

“But in interviews with more than 20 Republicans who are close to Mr. Trump or in communication with his campaign, many of whom insisted on anonymity to avoid clashing with him, they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.”

The balance of the article covered the full spectrum of Trump setbacks, from trying to compete in too many states to over-relying on advice from his family to failing to trust professional campaign professionals in setting the direction for his political effort.

According to Burns and Haberman, Trump even supposedly met with Steve Schmidt at one point, though there was no offer to connect (I personally think bringing in an establishmentarian like Schmidt to run the show would make things much worse).

As far as Trump’s reported mood swings are concerned, if true, it would only make sense that a 70-year old man would be exhausted after over a year on the campaign trail, attending fundraisers and dealing with a hostile media on an almost hourly basis.

But in observing Trump, I would have a very hard time believing the man is ever “downcast” for long periods of time.

Trump simply did not project that image at all in the primaries, even in the darkest times when it looked like Ted Cruz might catch up and potentially overtake him.

I can see Trump having moments of non-belief – everybody does – but in terms of his “mood” being sour, I just don’t buy it.

And what about Crooked Hillary Clinton’s mental state? She’s a 68 year-old woman with some purported physical issues of her own who avoids talking to the media like a hypochondriac fears the plague. Hillary’s likely buoyed by positive polls, but there are only so many times she can tackle real questions about her many and varied crooked dealings and still put a smile on her face.

There is little doubt Trump could use a change of direction in his campaign, but there’s no reason to believe he’s given up at this point. There is still time for him to get control of the narrative and highlight Hillary’s many flaws.

(Note: For what it’s worth, Trump is threatening to revoke the New York Times’ media credentials over this story.)

The media obviously isn’t going to help him; but Trump loves a good challenge.

History provides an important lesson for misinformed #NeverTrumpers

After having just spent another week in Colonial Williamsburg witnessing the reenactment of the gut wrenching thought process our forefathers went through in finally deciding to break away from the Mother Country well over two hundred years ago, I noticed an interesting trend in listening to the comments of my fellow visitors who were in attendance.

People today are just as frustrated and confused as the folks were back in the 1770’s in weighing the notion of self-rule versus loyalty to the only sovereign they’d ever acknowledged.

We all know how the Colonial story ends. The gentleman who plays George Washington pointed out the other day that the difference between the people back then and now is they were doing these things – declaring independence – without the advance knowledge that they would win. The colonists had no way of knowing there was a happy conclusion to the effort.

At the time, the patriots thought they were signing their own death warrants in picking a fight with the most powerful nation in the world. But to them, it was worth the risk to pursue the most precious of all principles – liberty.

At the end of most of the Williamsburg programs there is a question and answer session where visitors can quiz the historic figures in character. This is usually the most interesting part of the presentation since it’s anyone’s guess as to what the visitors might ask and how the Founding Fathers will respond.

It usually boils down to the values they were advancing back then aren’t all that different than those we’re fighting for today.

In a similar manner, it turns out that leading #NeverTrumper Jason Taylor from The Resurgent has a question for us in the #NeverHillary contingent as well.

“I have a question for all the Donald Trump supporters who see him as a courageous man who has the guts to say things that others won’t: Why does he always backtrack what he said in the heat of the moment at his rallies? And afterwards why does he send out his handlers to hit the airwaves to ‘explain’ what he meant?”

Later in the post, in typical #NeverTrump fashion, Taylor answers his own question for us:

“Trump has no interest in being president. He makes these constant ludicrous statements at his rallies because he’s all about the reaction he gets from his supporters. He says something, they go nuts, the media gets all riled up then he walks it back as a ‘joke’ or ‘sarcasm’. He loves getting attention and that’s it.”

Lastly, Taylor gets to the real business at hand, gratuitously insulting Trump supporters:

“I have, however, come to the conclusion that Trump’s followers perfectly exemplify that word (“hater”). They are haters. Their hate eats away at them and at the threads of unity that should bind us all together as Americans. Donald Trump is the worse candidate for office in the history of our republic because he exacerbates that hate on a daily basis for his own gain.”

If Taylor truly believes this, he should study some of the early elections in America, particularly that of 1800, which resulted in the first peaceful transfer of power the country ever experienced, from the Federalists to the anti-Federalist factions. You want to talk nasty? Please. People back then were just as angry and vitriolic towards the other side as any politician today. The difference is they didn’t have electronic media to spread their bile at the click of a button.

History offers priceless lessons in perspective. I would highly suggest Taylor and other #NeverTrumpers invest some time in reading about differences in the first two party systems in the country; they may not be so angry if they see this year is really just in keeping with what’s already gone before us.

As far as Taylor’s characterization of Trump supporters as “haters,” herein lies the main problem (there are many) with the #NeverTrumpers as I see it. They automatically assume that everyone who supports Trump’s candidacy for president automatically accepts his brazen style and all he represents.

Nothing could be further from the truth. And yes, there are some Trump supporters who cross the line of taste and civility.

But by and large, we support Trump because he represents the best chance we have in breaking up the Washington cartel, preventing the almost certainly disastrous presidency of Hillary Clinton and saving the entire American constitutional system (through judicial nominees) for generations to come.

Just like the citizens of the American colonies all those years ago, there isn’t much middle ground involved with the binary choice in this year’s election. It’s either take Trump with his considerable flaws or accept complete defeat for the Constitution and the American ideal that we’ve worked so hard to foster since the mid 1760’s when Americans first started questioning whether being tied to England was such a good idea in the first place.

Far from being “haters,” Trump backers want a return to the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Trump wasn’t the first choice of many of us to lead that effort but he certainly does appear to love the country and desires to “Make America Great Again.”

And his policy proposals are superior too. Let’s not forget about that.

#NeverTrumpers like Taylor will continue their anti-Trump diatribes, but don’t be fooled. When assessing who the real “haters” are, look to where the “hate” is coming from. I’m thinking the #NeverTrumpers should probably avoid mirrors for the next three months.

Setting the odds of hearing the words “President McMullin” in January, 2017

Speaking of history and perspective, some in the #NeverTrump movement are continuing to advance the prospect that someone other than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could still end up being the next president.

Admitting at the outset that the possibility of recently announced independent candidate Evan McMullin winning the office is extremely remote, Josh Gelernter writes in National Review, “It’s very, very unlikely — but new conservative independent candidate for president Evan McMullin can win. But only if he runs only in Utah.”

Before you get a headache from rolling your eyes at such a crazy notion, Gelernter says the scenario is plausible if somehow Trump or Clinton ends up with only 269 electoral votes (the other would have 263) and McMullin wins in Utah, sending the matter to the House of Representatives.

In his favor, apparently McMullin is Mormon, went to BYU and is a Utah native. When combined with Trump’s unique unpopularity in the Beehive State this year, it’s not completely out of the realm of possibility that an independent could beat the Republican nominee and Clinton there.

It’s the rest of Gelernter’s proposal that I have the biggest problem with. He suggests once the election reaches the House of Representatives that the heavy preponderance of Republican majority delegations (32) will automatically rule out Hillary from winning, so the Democrat dominated states (15, three are tied) would feel compelled to choose McMullin as less “dangerous” than Trump.

All he’d need then is to tip the Republican delegations of seven states to win the vote 26 to 24...If all of this happens, there would be a President McMullin next January even though the barely known insurgent would have won only six electoral votes and one state total.

Here’s the kicker. “Note, however: If McMullin were to run anywhere but Utah, he will tip the race to Hillary, Ross Perot–style. If he does that, he kills any chance he has of winning, because if Hillary wins outright, the House will play no role. Which means, if he does run anywhere besides Utah, he’s making it clear that he isn’t interested in winning, just in guaranteeing that Trump loses. Which would be perfidious, to say the least,” Gelernter concludes.

This is one of those fantasy proposals that could earn blockbuster status as a Hollywood movie (see above) but has just about zero chance of every becoming reality. Yes, technically it could happen, but the much more likely scenario is Trump and Crooked Hillary ending up with a 269-269 tie and the House going with Trump as the next president.

And for his part, McMullin says he plans to compete in all fifty states. So much for only trying to win in Utah.

Of course, if such a thing were to happen, Gelernter could retire as the greatest forecasting genius of all time, likely coupled with a cushy position in the McMullin administration and plenty of cable news commentating jobs after that.

For now, we’ll just keep on with the more realistic probability of Trump or Crooked Hillary winning the election. Sorry to squelch your dreams, #NeverTrumpers.

The voting bloc that gave us eight years of Obama is now in the tank for Hillary, too

Finally today, it only seems fitting that the least knowledgeable and informed voters in the country are now supporting Crooked Hillary in a big way.

Rebecca Savransky of The Hill reports, “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton holds a large lead over Republican nominee Donald Trump among millennial voters, according to a new USA Today/Rock the Vote poll.

“Clinton is favored by 56 percent of voters under the age of 35, while Trump is backed by only 20 percent, according to the survey of millennials.”

Millennial voters are the ones who pushed “senile old coot” Bernie Sanders along in the Democrat primaries and now it looks like they’ve cast off one decrepit old goat for another in the person of Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps if these young people were paying attention they would see:

1. Virtually stagnant economic growth, which means they’ll have a hard time getting a good job and paying off their student loans…or buying a house;
2. Crumbling infrastructure that will need to be upgraded at some point, without the public monies to fix them;
3. A candidate in Clinton who is literally wedded to the powerful influences in Washington that they pretend to despise;
4. A candidate whose dangerous Muslim immigration policies promise to bring further terrorist attacks to our shores;
and,
5. A national debt that will likely top $20 trillion in the near future and has virtually doubled in the eight years of the Obama presidency.

The debt burden will be paid by theirs and their children’s generations. Such incredible short-sightedness is shocking.

The Founding Fathers created this country with the notion that an informed future populace would make good decisions on who should lead it. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be happening. Ignorance rules the day, at least among the young.

Share this

NeverTrump or Always Hillary

The NeverTrump people are living in a vacuum chamber of willful ignorance. They know they're going to be responsible for the eventual termination of stable Judiciary on the SCOTUS but for them it's always NeverTrump. They know about Hillarys Pay for Play (if not go to Breitbart.com and see "Clinton Cash" for free), they know she'll usher in the New World Order, energy independence will be a dream gone awry, as Clinton's are in the pocket of the Saudis, they know the threat of 50,000 or more Muslim terrorists will find their way to America through Clintons Open Border Policy (Democrats call it hate speech), they know H1b Visas and other work type Visas will be implemented on a much larger scale ensuring more unemployment and financial collapse, but for their very FLAWED PRINCIPLES, they'll remain tried and true Republican Obstructionists, even if it means the New World Order is ushered in at 100 miles an hour, and first they'll take your rights, then they'll take your guns, then they'll take your life....but always remember that you'll always be NeverTrump who helped that all come to fruition.