Share This Article with a Friend!

Presidential Horse Race 2016: In questioning the system, Donald Trump is seeding the Tree of Liberty

With the effects of Wednesday night’s final presidential debate having begun to sink in, the majority of the major media-generated hysteria stemming from the event concerns Donald Trump’s assertion that he would wait until after the election to decide on whether he would accept the results.

Oh, the horrors! You could just imagine the establishment elites’ jaws agape all across the fruited plain as the Tree of libertyloutish Republican Trump hinted that maybe he wouldn’t concede without a fight.

The punditry instantly went nuts. Some even argued it would seal Trump’s fate in the election. Then there were others who said it merely cost Trump a “win” in the debate.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner wrote, “[I]n general, Trump had a good night, a solid performance. When [pollster Frank] Luntz asked [his focus group] who won, the decision was Trump 14, Clinton 12. That might as well be a tie, but it was certainly an indication that Trump had at least as good a night as Clinton.

“Until the question about the results of the election.

“… Trump was headed toward his best debate of the campaign — until those few seconds that turned the night completely around.”

I’m probably bucking the trend, but what Trump said about holding off from accepting the election results neither shocked nor scared me. In essence, Trump was merely preserving his right to object if the election is closer than expected and the media is pushing hard for not only a Clinton victory but some sort of “mandate” to go along with it starting next year.

But beyond the practical realities of the near future, what Trump did is very necessary to help change the way things are today. In our increasingly shallow and uninformed Facebook-dominated culture people seem to have forgotten that what made America great in the beginning -- namely the willingness to challenge authority and threaten a little revolt if the leaders don’t behave – has been subverted in favor of “playing nice” and submitting.

Thomas Jefferson once famously wrote in a letter (while in Paris to William Stephens Smith in November, 1787) , “What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

By suggesting that he might not passively abide by what the establishment claims is a legitimate election result, Trump is basically supplying a little “natural manure” to an American People that desperately needs a reminder that their leaders don’t always tell the truth and don’t always act in the public’s best interests. More than ever, we need that “Tree of Liberty” Jefferson spoke about.

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of a “leader” who has utterly betrayed us at almost every turn.

Perhaps Donald Trump isn’t the best person to carry such a message forward, but he’s got a strong base of support and many, many people back him in his quest to bring a dose of outsider shock treatment to the corrupted Washington establishment.

After the debate, Trump’s media spinners argued the Republican nominee would indeed accept the election result -- because he’s going to win. Time will tell if that’s correct but I for one am glad that someone is willing to repeatedly stick his finger (proverbially, of course) into the eyes of the establishment and chuckle about it afterwards.

Good for you, Donald Trump.

(Note: For a nice treatment on the left’s hypocritical outrage on the subject of “election illegitimacy”, check out Timothy P. Carney’s article in the Washington Examiner.)

Attention women voters: Hillary and the Democrats think you’re stupid

Let’s face it, the news media loves to talk about the gender gap that exists between the Democrat and Republican parties, a division that’s grown even wider by the controversial candidacy of Donald Trump vis-à-vis what would be the first female president, Hillary Clinton.

The media’s self-concocted “GOP War on Women” didn’t start with Trump but it’s only gotten worse this year since the Republican nominee doesn’t exactly have the most sterling reputation when it comes to treating the fairer sex gently.

Naturally Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are exploiting Trump’s character flaws for all they’re worth, producing women who claim Trump groped them years ago as well as dragging former beauty queen Alicia Machado out of media mothballs to assert that Trump verbally abused her as well.

But the all-out Trump’s-a-misogynist assault doesn’t end with witnesses or testimonials. There are other subtle hints to consider. Take for example Hillary’s white pantsuit she wore to the debate on Wednesday night. You know, white, the color of purity and innocence, the symbolic shade of confirmation and wedding dresses.

(Note: Hillary wore a similar outfit during her acceptance speech to the Democrat National Convention in July. I initially thought it was the same suit but comparing photos revealed otherwise.)

The old saying goes that the good guys wear the white hats and bad guys the black hats. In this election, Trump is definitely the bad guy and Hillary is, well, the good gal – at least to the media.

The only problem is Hillary isn’t good. Like “Pig-Pen” of Peanuts fame, she has an uncanny ability to make even the color white look soiled.

Why the intense media snow job on behalf of the Democrats?

It’s easy – they think women are stupid and gullible, just like they believe young voters are stupid and poor inner city residents are stupid. That’s the Democrats’ main modus operandi, having elites like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi playing on the ignorance of the uninformed.

Unfortunately in this election (actually, pretty much every election, really) Hillary has allies in the media that help her perpetuate the myth that women should always vote for Democrats.

Even Fox News’s Megyn Kelly was in rare form after the debate the other night, picking on every little Trump statement that conceivably could “upset” women voters, such as when Trump said close to the end of the program that Hillary was “such a nasty woman.”

While it’s true that polls indicate Trump is trailing Clinton by a wide margin with women, it also makes me wonder if some of this media hubbub over infinitesimal issues of style and personality isn’t a little insulting to women at the same time?

Doesn’t saying that women are so easily distressed imply that females don’t make up their minds based on the real issues, instead inferring the entire gender flies off on a tangent because Trump is “mean” and doesn’t have the “temperament” to be president?

Are women voters so concerned with making sure the federal goodie gravy train of the welfare state keeps steaming down the tracks that they ignore what big government does to them (and everyone)?

Commentator George Neumayr wrote in The American Spectator, “No sooner had the debate ended than the pundits in [Hillary’s] pocket resumed their tedious discussions about Trump’s imperviousness to the expected optics. He called her ‘nasty,’ they gasped. She is. He is going to ‘refuse’ the election results. He won’t, unless evidence of voter fraud justifies that conclusion.

“As usual, the chattering class devotes most of its time to judging debate performances (and campaigns) according to whether or not they conform to their superficial categories. Hillary has spent millions of dollars and hired an enormous staff to keep her safely within those categories at all times. That is what makes a candidate ‘presidential’ today. Who cares if she is a liar? Who cares if she has committed felonies? Who cares if she favors such policies as near-infanticide?”

Once again, lost in the talk over personalities and backgrounds is any semblance of the issues. That’s exactly what Hillary and the Democrats prefer because they know if people – and that includes women – concentrated on what’s at stake in this election, they’d turn away from Hillary in droves.

But there’s one additional sinister motive at play here. The Democrats and their media allies are already teeing up their natural defenses should Hillary actually win the presidency and take over the Oval Office.

Heather Wilhelm writes in National Review, “Trump’s various ‘sexist’ comments, wrote Ruth Marcus on September 8 in the Washington Post — a full month before the real doozies surfaced — illustrate ‘some of the gender-based challenges that Hillary Clinton confronts as she seeks to become the nation’s first female president, and that she would continue to face in office.’

“Translation: Even if Clinton wins the most powerful office in the world, America’s cloud of sexist oppression will always haunt her. She will forever suffer, even with butlers on speed dial and her fingers on the nuclear codes. The feminist victim narrative, you see, can never die.”

In her article Wilhelm argues Trump made all the criticism possible with his problematic relations with the opposite sex throughout his lifetime. Perhaps that’s true, but it only plays into the Democrats’ narrative that would have taken place regardless of who occupied the second podium on a debate stage with Clinton.

You could almost hear the audience snickering when Trump said “Nobody has more respect for women than I do” on Wednesday night. Trump’s claim is certainly debatable, but what’s beyond question is the Democrats’ condescending contempt for the women of America.

One can only hope women realize they’re being duped and demand better before it’s too late.

Yes, if Donald Trump loses, #NeverTrump takes a huge part of the blame

If it can be said that Donald Trump preserved his right to object by withholding an outright endorsement of this year’s election results, then #NeverTrump is similarly laying the groundwork for acceptance back into the conservative fold once Hillary takes the oath of office and the campaign has begun to fade from memory.

I can’t say for sure but I’m guessing there isn’t anyone who’s addressed the #NeverTrump insurgency more than me in this column. I’ve devoted many, many hours to rebuking them, encouraging them, persuading them and dismissing them.

Along the way, I’ve  basically come to the conclusion that the intransigent Republican outcasts known as #NeverTrump will have a very hard time getting back in the party’s good graces because not only did they fail to help stop Hillary when they had the chance, they willingly joined the left in shooting down Trump’s candidacy at the same time.

Already, some are pleading on #NeverTrump’s behalf that it’s not their fault.

Rich Lowry writes at Politico Magazine, “Never Trumpers didn't advise Trump not to prepare for the first debate, or to lash out wildly at Clinton during the course of it; they didn't tell him to attack Alicia Machado and tweet foolish things in the middle of the night; they didn't sanction him saying lewd things on tape years ago, or allegedly groping women, or attacking the looks of his accusers; they didn't recommend subsuming his entire message in a long plaint about the election being ‘rigged.’

“All of that is on the campaign, and especially the candidate. For more than a year now, Trump has had the biggest megaphone on the planet. His performance has mattered more than what any columnist or blogger says about him. It isn't Bill Kristol who gets to stand for an hour-and-a-half before 80 million people and shape their perceptions of Trump; only Donald Trump—and Hillary Clinton—gets to do that.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah…Trump did it to himself, blah, blah, blah. Hearing this argument again is like stepping on a decades old front door mat that’s so worn out and filthy that the trash can is too good for it.

Simply put, #NeverTrump will share in the blame for a Trump loss because they never acknowledged that the only other alternative was FAR worse.

The Democrats don’t play principle target practice with their own candidates as the clay pigeons. If anyone has a true reason to claim this year’s result was “rigged,” it’s Bernie Sanders. Yet Sanders is now going around the country trying to rouse his gullible young impressionables to support the lady devil who colluded with the corrupted establishment leadership of the DNC to deprive him of any chance to win the Democrat nomination.

He was doomed from the start. The Democrat primaries were all a ruse. It’s obvious.

Yet Sanders and the Democrats still realized the greater enemy (at least in their view) was Donald Trump. I can’t even think of one major Democrat who has come out opposing Hillary’s candidacy the way the horde of #NeverTrumpers has bailed on Trump.

If you know of one, please share. Enlighten me.

Meanwhile the #NeverTrumpers have dug at Trump (the “orange clown”), insulted his supporters (calling them all Alt-right racists), chastised people who decided to endorse him (like Ted Cruz) and laughed in the faces of anyone who claimed Hillary is bad enough on her own as justification to vote for Trump.

Is what #NeverTrump has said really any worse than what Rosie O’Donnell tweeted the other night about Trump? Foul is too kind a word for it.

I see the rift between the two sides as wide and deep. Trump certainly deserves some criticism/blame for the way he’s handled his campaign, but #NeverTrump’s not going to get off that easy by saying he did it all to himself.

John McCain offers Trump another unwanted piece of bad establishment advice

Finally this week, Donald Trump received a bit of advice on Thursday on how to gracefully accept defeat from someone who knows very well how to lose, John McCain.

Jordain Carney of The Hill reports, “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Thursday slammed Donald Trump for saying he may not accept the outcome of the presidential election.

“’I don’t know who’s going to win the presidential election. I do know that in every previous election, the loser congratulates the winner and calls them 'my president,'’ McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, said in a statement.

“’That’s not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It’s the American way,’ he said, adding that Americans should ‘respect the decision of the majority even when we disagree with it. Especially when we disagree with it.’”

Funny, McCain didn’t accept the will of conservatives when he ran for president in 2008 despite championing various liberal causes like amnesty and neoconservative foreign policy. He ran as a mushy moderate who wouldn’t fight for anything and lost badly to a first-term ultra-liberal senator with questionable associations and a resume lacking in any kind of achievements.

McCain is a classic example of an establishment loser who shouldn’t be dispensing advice to anyone, much less someone like Trump who represents a clean break with the stagnant leadership of the Republican Party that has held the GOP down for so long.

McCain’s going to have a hard enough time winning re-election to his Senate seat this year long after his time has passed.

Refusing to fight and “accepting the results” of the 2008 election has given us eight years of Obama, the most destructive president of all time. The United States is a very different place today because McCain was such a horrible candidate back then.

I think it’s about time that the Republican establishment fights a little more and “accepts” a little less.

Share this

#NeverTrump Backstabbers

First, let me note the absurdity of < rsklaroff> comment on Trump’s “dissing” of fellow {?] GOP’ers. During the RNC directed reality show “debates” there was heavy give and take that saw “moderators” (really news entertainers) become part of the show. The voters judged Trump the last man standing out of 17. Trump reached out to most all his primary contenders for endorsements (including those who worked for a rogue Convention). The only two notable standouts are governors Jeb & Kasich.
I think the #NeverTrump crowd should be likened to the Vichy French who have collaborated with the enemy. In a binary choice election (with Supreme Court and federal judge appointments at stake, that will be around for 10 or 30 years) the “Vichy conservative” elite chose to help the cause of “Crooked Hillary”. Even worse, these Vichy “conservatives” chose their elitist concepts (even considering rejecting the primary voters at the Convention) over a candidate who puts Americans first. Yes, Donald Trump got record millions of additional voters watching the primary tv debates and turning out to rallies and to the primary polls in spite of waiting time and inclement weather. In fact, in South Carolina, with a former President campaigning for his brother, the Trump rally drew thousands more the eve of that primary.
Even Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (certainly no Trump fan) recently observed, that because of Clinton advocating for establishing and enforcing a “no fly zone” in Syria, Hillary Clinton would be more dangerous than Donald Trump as president.
Excellent summation by Jeffrey Rendall.

the blame-game ... and its import

re: "Trump certainly deserves some criticism/blame for the way he’s handled his campaign, but #NeverTrump’s not going to get off that easy by saying he did it all to himself."

Omitted, again, is any suggestion that The Donald NOT ONLY dissed fellow-GOP'ers [initially], BUT ALSO failed to reach out to them [subsequently].

He demonstrated the capacity to apologize for quotes uttered a decade ago [a fortnight ago, via a midnight-video] and, thus, he has the capacity to apologize for quotes of far more recent vintage...with far greater policy-personality import.

The alternative is ongoing/ingrained lassitude harbored by 3-6M base-voters, and the secondary-gain would be to attract naysayers of all stripes.

Acknowledge defeat

It's the rules of the game. From football, crosswords to elections. Remember the movie "Riffi"? About a bunch of back robbers who drill through the ceiling of a jewellery store. Chief crook reminds us several times "You know the rules, you play the game".