GOP establishment deserves Trump, Cruz
"If John takes enough interest to comment on the state of the GOP, I expect he will say something like the dems are no different - look at Bernie. To which I likely will not care to reply, so just don't bother making a post." Laurie
11 comments:
Okay I have to say it... Look at Bernie and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Left has a large group who want to change the USA into a Democratic Socialist country. That is about as far Left as one can go in a Democracy.
A year ago Liberal commenters would go ballistic when I wrote that the Left side of the Democratic party is the Democratic Socialists. Now half the Democrats are apparently proud of this. Big changes are happening on both sides it appears.
WP Democrats too reliant on Government
NYT Too Far Left
As for Trump and Cruz, please remember that the Republican establishment would prefer the crazy somewhat Moderate narcissist over the somewhat crazy far Righter.
Whereas the Left is pretty well torn over the moderate Liberal and the Far Lefter.
Whenever I see a statement in the form Democrats are just like Republicans, or Republicans are just like Democrats, I know that I am just about always going to see an exercise in false equivalence. Democrats and Republicans aren't opposites, or mirror images of each other; they are fundamentally different from each other. The doctrine of equivalence was created not because it was true, but because it creates the appearance of even handedness and helps avoid the impression, as distinct from the reality of a lack of bias.
--Hiram
I disagree of course since I am a big fan of continuums, normal distribution curves and the Nolan Diagrams. All of which are symmetrical in nature.
For a while I thought the pundits were on to something, noting that Trump and Cruz were "non--establishment" candidates, with Carson, Fiorina and, in some cases Marco Rubio. Together they had something like 70% in the polls and this was widely seen as a rebellion against the "establishment" of both parties. That is, this majority was opposed to Democrats because they were taking us in the wrong direction, and opposed to the Republicans because they weren't STOPPING it.
I still believe that is the crux of this election, which is why Bush and Clinton, fairly or otherwise, are doing so poorly. Trump admits to being "angry" but says it is "because our country is being run by stupid people." That captures the sentiments and support of a wide range of the population without troubling them with specific policy proposals or even with concerns for the candidate's character. It is a near-perfect campaign for the times we live in.
A few days ago some wag said that if the "Republican establishment" really wanted to "get rid of Trump" they could do it easily, and without spending the millions of dollars on attack ads that they already have. All they would have to do to sink him is to get firmly and publicly behind his candidacy. By general consensus they already like him more than they like Ted Cruz because they believe Ted Cruz actually has some principles.
To me, Trump positioning himself in an adversary relationship with Fox News indicates that he believes he no longer needs the Republican establishment, and that the Republican establishment no longer has the ability to sidetrack his campaign. Fox News is no longer a Republican power, going forward it will be just another media Trump supplicant.
--Hiram
That was my point; that Trump succeeds only so long as he is seen as fighting AGAINST the Republican (and Democrat) establishments. Any specificity that would be perceived as liberal would align him with Democrats and conservatives would desert him. Any specificity that aligned him with current or previous Republican promises left unfulfilled and both Trump-leaning Democrats and disgruntled Republicans would leave him. I think that is inevitable, with the only question being how many delegates Mr. Trump will have amassed before that happens.
A big part of Mr. Trump's charm is his adversarial relationship with all media, while using his celebrity to dominate the news.
Robert Gates: Republicans' grasp of national security is at a child's level
Personally I think Obama had little understanding of Foreign Policy 8 years ago when he was a hopeful naïve candidate.
I saw or heard an interview with Obama recently and he said something to the following effect... Probably one of the wisest things I have heard him say.
'As candidate Obama I thought that many of the things Bush was doing were wrong.
Once I got into office on this side of the desk I had to re-evaluate some things and change.'
Gates has a point. There is a vast difference between sound-bite utterances on the campaign trail and a fully-formed and well thought-out policy on ANYTHING. It is the point I have made before, that the best CANDIDATE for president is usually NOT the best suited to actually BE the president. It is two different skill sets. I am still vacillating between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Ted I believe is the better debater, smarter, more principled and more "right" on the issues. I am /told/ that Rubio is the better policy wonk, with detailed plans for everything. Trump excels, in this competition, only in his ability to manipulate the media and stoke an unfocused anger against the "stupid people in Washington."
Post a Comment