2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!

An Unconventional Season

Let's start with the lede from the Las Vegas Review-Journal↱:

A spokeswoman for the Republican National Convention offered assurances Monday the event will be secure after U.S. Sen. Dean Heller said he may skip it over concerns of his own safety.​

That's right. This is what the Republican nominating contest has come to.

"Things could get pretty testy," the Nevada Republican told KSNV-TV, Channel 3, which reported Heller had seen recent protests at Donald Trump rallies.

"Frankly my biggest concern is security, whether or not I feel it is safe enough to attend a convention."

Kirsten Kukowski, the convention's director of communications, said planning is underway to keep the convention, events and community secure while balancing local impact.

"The democratic process is playing out across the country and if no one candidate reaches a majority of the delegates there will be an open and transparent process in Cleveland," Kukowski said.

"Either way voters are enthusiastic about this process, and we will have a safe and productive convention in July."

She added the Secret Service is the lead agency for the National Special Security Event.​

Perhaps Sen. Heller is getting ahead of himself, though. Or maybe not. Last week, USA Today↱ brought us one of the best worst lines of the season:

Donald Trump has warned of "riots" if he fails to secure the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in July, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says Trump didn't mean what everybody thinks he meant.

"I don't think he meant literal riots. I think he meant political riots, and I think that is what would happen," Christie said on Friday.​

Nobody is quite certain what New Jersey's infamous governor meant.
____________________

Notes:

Jordan, Bob. "Chris Christie: Donald Trump didn’t mean 'literal riots'". USA Today. 18 March 2016. USAToday.com. 25 March 2016. http://usat.ly/1UpBnev

Myers, Jim. "Heller expresses safety concerns about ‘testy’ upcoming Republican National Convention". Las Vegas Review-Journal. 21 March 2016. ReviewJournal.com. 25 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1q5VEbS
 
Just when you thought it couldn't get stranger, it gets stranger. The National Enquirer, a journal popular with Canadian Ted's base, has reported Canadian Ted has 5 secret lovers. Now the National Enquirer has been known to print some pretty strange stories. But, it has a pretty good track record with this kind of reporting. It discovered and accurately reported John Edwards's affair along with others.

Canadian Ted, darling of the right wing. with 5 secret lovers. Wow! John Edwards only had one. This couldn't have come at a worse time for Canadian Ted. Now Canadian Ted is blaming Trump and of course Trump is denying it. But this is bad news for Canadian Ted.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-mistresses-cheating-claims/
 
Republican Family Values

​

I remember, as a kid, falling over laughing the first time I read the junkyard scene in "The Body" by Stephen King, having never before encountered the insult, "Your mother blows dead rats!"

Never mind.

It gets less funny after the first time, and, well, this if things were playing out like a Stephen King novel, at least we would have that.

Cruz apparently disavowed the allegations in part by saying that Stone is someone who “copulates with rodents,” to which Stone replied that “knowing what a couple of these women looked like, I actually feel he's the one who's been copulating with rodents.” In addition to shaming largely anonymous women, Stone also explained why Cruz's non-denials were so unconvincing.

(Kaufman↱)​

I wonder if at some point Mr. Stone will actually attempt to fall back to the fucking-like-rabits bit.
____________________

Notes:

Kaufman, Scott Eric. "Donald Trump proxy Roger Stone claims to have seen women Ted Cruz allegedly had affairs with: He's 'copulating with rodents'". Salon. 28 March 2016. Salon.com. 28 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1RFI5WH
 
Tiassa said:
Donald Trump has warned of "riots" if he fails to secure the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in July, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says Trump didn't mean what everybody thinks he meant.

"I don't think he meant literal riots. I think he meant political riots, and I think that is what would happen," Christie said on Friday.
Nobody is quite certain what New Jersey's infamous governor meant.
____________________
Click to expand...

What Christie meant, is not hard to infer. However, it may be hard for liberals to understand.

Everyone in the Republican party knows the establishment on both sides are afraid of Trump and Cruz. Both men have vowed to alter business as usual in Washington, and confront the corruption. Those who ride the gravy train; bloated Washington, feel desparate about their future livelihood; desparate times call for desperate measures. Some of the leaders in the Republican party threaten to vote for Hillary, since she is for business as usual.

If these desparate measures include stealing the nomination away from Trump or Cruz, then that will prove there is corruption in Washington to all those who are on the fence; in denial. At that point, honest citizens from both sides, who vote for Trump and Cruz, will feel it is their to duty to oppose corruption, in ways that go outside the political process; fight fire with fire.

The corruption in the Republican party is not as well engrained and obvious as in the Democrat party. For example, from day one, even when Sanders wins states, the corruption in the Democratic party gives Hillary all the super delegates. What is up wth that? The Democrat voters don't seem to mind a stacked deck that voids the popular vote. Honest and thoughtful people are different, in that they assume their vote needs to count and is not just window dressing, for a corrupt establishment who can stack the deck.

The Republican party is not as skilled at corruption, as is the Democrat party. Dirty tricks are relatively new to them, since part of being conservative are moral values. Mitt Romney was taken out with a lie. He let Obama off the ropes in the debates because he is a good guy who did not have the heart for the death blow.

The Republican leaders lack of skills in corruption is why their attempts to take out Trump and Cruz, have had very limited success; Alter boy at a cussing contest. They lack the will to lie and cheat, 100%. The Democrats are helping them, since they have a common enemy. However, the prospect of honest people rioting, will impact the Republican leaders and make it hard to act like democrats.

One wild card that is not discussed is if neither Cruz or Trump get enough delegates, Trump and Cruz might decide to team up their delegates, and pull a fast one. Right now, the two of them have 1204 Delegates, combined. They may be waiting to see, who their enemies are in their own party, so when they take over, they know where to begin the pruning. It is easier to cut those first, who to tried to cut you. Also you have them by the short hairs, when it is time for Hillary. You can make use of their fear, to be more cut throat.

This master plan could explain why Cruz still pulls his punches with Trump. Cruz gets lied about and calls Trump a scoundrel; talk about easy. Cruz is young enough to be VP for 8 years and still be a young President. He is the real ax-man of the two, who knows the weakness and secret passages in government . Cruz knows how move a boat that will be moored in the mud by both party establishments. He can spend 8 years modifying the government, so when he becomes President, he can sail the country to the future, and leave liberalism stranded in a museum.
 
Last edited:
Memory Game: Cruzin' with the Anointed One

​

It is true I have a minor fascination with the idea of what history people are willing to forget how soon and why. Today I need not ask my own age peers to harken back to that youthful decade of the eighties; rather, I would simply ask people in general to think back seven or so years.

The Obamassiah. The One. Whatever they wanted to call it, many conservatives raised a strange, messianic straw man, most forgivingly interpreted as a blend of reaction to the First Black President and an echo of the longstanding anti-communist sentiment depicting liberals as zombie-eyed left-wing cultists incapable of forming an independent thought.

Then again, time has passed. There might be some young enough to not remember.

If you're old enough to legally buy a drink in the U.S. today, you will have a hard time claiming to not remember.

There is, of course, the expected ironic punch line.

Whatever else one might think of Janet Allon's↱ five-worst-things article for AlterNet, there is this:

4. Glenn Beck agrees with Ted Cruz's father that Ted is "divinely anointed" to be president.

It is not enough for Glenn Beck just to endorse Ted Cruz. It is not enough for him just to agree with Cruz's far-right Christian agenda, his dangerous Islamaphobic and anti-government positions, and to speak out against that philistine Donald Trump. For Beck, there has to be an element of the divine in all of this, and hallelujah, he has found it.

The Lord has come, Beck told his listeners on Friday, and he has anointed Ted Cruz, who was "raised from birth" to save this nation to lead us out of the darkness.

Turns out a certain Baylor professor by the name of Thomas Kidd has argued that Ted Cruz is not the divinely anointed alternative to Trump.

Sacre bleu!

Not so, Dr. Kidd, Beck responded with great emotion. He knows, because he has prayed about it, alone, with his family and with his staff. And Beck has this rhetorical question for Kidd and other doubters of Cruz' divine anointment: "Are we that inconsequential? Are we really not important enough for Him to raise someone up, at this critical juncture?"​

We might also note that this is, when we cut through the neurotic façade, what the noise and chaos is all about; it is the utmost neurotic priority, a fundamental component of Camusite Absurdity. In this iteration, human beings want to feel somehow special; it is a sensation associated with the comfort of authority within an environment wildly unknowable. To wit, all creation myth centers on the people who tell it. The Hebrew creation story leads to the Hebrews; the Hopi creation story leads to the Hopi. Where on Earth might we find a creation story that says, "In the beginning God made and loved those people over there. Us? Don't ask, got no clue."

We are to be the apple of God's eye.

And, you know, it really is a useful warm fuzzy.

But, you know, seriously. I'll side with the bit about beer in its own way, but I just have no idea how it works that Ted Cruz is proof that God loves us.

This is our rebellion against the Universe: We are not inconsequential!

And Ted Cruz is apparently the symbol of our importance unto all things.

In truth, this is going to take some reading. But this is actually happening; this ongoing construction of mythopoesis is predictable, though it really is difficult to countenance the proposition that we are actually watching the process happen. It's arcane, but while we often use a colloquial expression of "fundamentalism" and "fundamentalist", we are actually witnessing a transitional period. You're watching one of the building blocks assembling; this is a piece of the superstructure describing a rising iteration of and end-product fundamentalist statutory ethic. One might, for instance, attend Riesebrodt↱, and wonder at phrases like, "search for authenticity" and "identical authenticity", or the potential usurpation of the "literalist" assertion of authenticity by the "experiential", or the "rational" fundamentals by the "charismatic", and our colloquial tongue might have much to say about "antievolutionary" thought, but this is something deeper. This is the valence that involves carefully-wrought phrases like anthropohistorical thematics, because what we are really watching is a crisis of myth; as the old way of seeing things falls away, the old stories are redefined in order to accommodate and assimilate new contexts of necessity.

​

And we might actually get to watch it happen right before our eyes.

This is one to grab the popcorn for.

Don't try to make it a drinking game, though. God help you, don't try to make it a drinking game.
____________________

Notes:

Allon, Janet. "5 Vilest Right-Wing Moments This Week: Trump and Cruz Blow Our Minds". AlterNet. 26 March 2016. AlterNet.org. 28 March 2016. http://bit.ly/22UM21L

Riesebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Trans. Don Renau. Oakland: University of California Press, 1993.
 
wellwisher said:
What Christie meant, is not hard to infer. However, it may be hard for liberals to understand.

Everyone in the Republican party knows the establishment on both sides are afraid of Trump and Cruz. Both men have vowed to alter business as usual in Washington, and confront the corruption. Those who ride the gravy train; bloated Washington, feel desparate about their future livelihood; desparate times call for desperate measures. Some of the leaders in the Republican party threaten to vote for Hillary, since she is for business as usual.

If these desparate measures include stealing the nomination away from Trump or Cruz, then that will prove there is corruption in Washington to all those who are on the fence; in denial. At that point, honest citizens from both sides, who vote for Trump and Cruz, will feel it is their to duty to oppose corruption, in ways that go outside the political process; fight fire with fire.
Click to expand...

I find it funny in a sad sort of way, but all too typical of Republicans, is that they blame Obama and Democrats for everything regardless of the fact and regardless of merit including every woe real or imagined which vexes the Republican Party.

Democrats have no role in who Republicans select as their nominee. Democrats will not riot of Republicans select Trump or Cruz. If the Republican leadership, the Republican establishment, takes the nomination away from Trump through scurrilous methods, that has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats or Washington corruption. That has everything to do with the corruption of the Republican Party. At some point, Republicans need to step up and take accountability for their actions.

wellwisher said:
The corruption in the Republican party is not as well engrained and obvious as in the Democrat party. For example, from day one, even when Sanders wins states, the corruption in the Democratic party gives Hillary all the super delegates. What is up wth that? The Democrat voters don't seem to mind a stacked deck that voids the popular vote. Honest and thoughtful people are different, in that they assume their vote needs to count and is not just window dressing, for a corrupt establishment who can stack the deck.

The Republican party is not as skilled at corruption, as is the Democrat party. Dirty tricks are relatively new to them, since part of being conservative are moral values. Mitt Romney was taken out with a lie. He let Obama off the ropes in the debates because he is a good guy who did not have the heart for the death blow.

The Republican leaders lack of skills in corruption is why their attempts to take out Trump and Cruz, have had very limited success; Alter boy at a cussing contest. They lack the will to lie and cheat, 100%. The Democrats are helping them, since they have a common enemy. However, the prospect of honest people rioting, will impact the Republican leaders and make it hard to act like democrats.

One wild card that is not discussed is if neither Cruz or Trump get enough delegates, Trump and Cruz might decide to team up their delegates, and pull a fast one. Right now, the two of them have 1204 Delegates, combined. They may be waiting to see, who their enemies are in their own party, so when they take over, they know where to begin the pruning. It is easier to cut those first, who to tried to cut you. Also you have them by the short hairs, when it is time for Hillary. You can make use of their fear, to be more cut throat.

This master plan could explain why Cruz still pulls his punches with Trump. Cruz gets lied about and calls Trump a scoundrel; talk about easy. Cruz is young enough to be VP for 8 years and still be a young President. He is the real ax-man of the two, who knows the weakness and secret passages in government . Cruz knows how move a boat that will be moored in the mud by both party establishments. He can spend 8 years modifying the government, so when he becomes President, he can sail the country to the future, and leave liberalism stranded in a museum.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you have any evidence of any of that? Of course you don't, you never do. Because what you are declaring simply isn't true.
 
Toss-Up

​

"And in case it's not obvious, no corporation wants to see photos of fist fights at a national convention with its logo featured prominently in the background."


It is a conundrum I would not have imagined except, obviously, my imagination is not yet expansive enough to account for the Republican Party: There is a question of marketplace considerations↗, which suddenly rears its head in a new context; and there is also the question of how things have gone so far that Steve Benen↱ gets cans of corn like that. For that latter we might turn to the inimitable Martin and Haberman↱, for NYT:

Some of the country's best-known corporations are nervously grappling with what role they should play at the Republican National Convention, given the likely nomination of Donald J. Trump, whose divisive candidacy has alienated many women, blacks and Hispanics ....

.... The pressure is emerging as some businesses and trade groups are privately debating whether to scale back their participation, according to interviews with more than a dozen lobbyists, consultants and fund-raisers directly involved in the conversations.

Apple, Google and Walmart are among the companies assessing their plans for the convention, which will be held July 18 to 21 in Cleveland.

In addition to Mr. Trump's divisive politics, there is the possibility that protests, or even violence, will become a focus of attention at the convention. Mr. Trump has suggested that there will be “riots” if he is not chosen as the party's nominee, and the city of Cleveland recently sought bids for about 2,000 sets of riot gear for its police force.​

Walmart has yet to commit any funds to the Republican National Convention; Coca-Cola dropped its contribution to $75,000, down from $660,000 in 2012. The Atlanta-based beverage company made the news cycle earlier this week leaning on Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R), encouraging a veto of HB 757, an anti-gay, "religious liberty" bill↱. Rachel Maddow↱ even asked the question of marketplace political influence to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose answer rightly suggests he sees a difference between this manner of corporate influence and other, less apparent means. But he also managed to support the current wielding of corporate influence without directly addressing the larger question society will, inevitably, come to address.

As I noted yesterday, we might actually be in a particular transitional period between an old iteration from the comfort of supremacy to a new counteriteration to rise from the uncertainty of plurality; it would behoove us, then, to attend, over the middle and long terms, what society does with the proposition of marketplace solutions.

So, yeah, there is that.

But there is also the fact that this is the Republican National Convention we're talking about. Whether one says that with exasperation cynical or mystified, we really are witnessing a dramatic chapter in American politics. Once upon a time I could at least sympathize with a certain amount of conservative frustration; but when the Democratic Party comes apart, it doesn't come to all this. And it won't come next time, so let's not even pretend this is merely another normal escalation of melodrama in these United States such as we see with each e'er more tawdry scandal expected to be so much more shocking than the last.

This is how weird it's getting: There was this great moment on Lawrence O'Donnell's↱ show, Monday, discussing delegate maneuvers in the Republican contest with Robert Costa of the Washington Post and attorney extraordinaire Ben Ginsberg. When O'Donnell introduced them, there was Costa on one side of the screen looking like the overgrown nerd he is, and then there was Ben Ginsberg on the other, looking like too many mornings with bad coffee and continental breakfast but also catbird-seat comfortable like a Sith Lord having the time of his life.

It's like my whole life there has been this pattern where a bunch of overlapping groups of people have been warning the end is nigh, and it turns out they were very nearly right insofar as they sort of turn out to be bringing it on, themselves. I don't know, anything to tell us they told us so, you know?

And it's happening again, in the most blatant of ways; it's almost like they're trying to rub our noses in their own excremental misery. The cycle keeps getting quicker. In this case, I thought overriding the will of the people was supposed to be a liberal evil. And, yes, I'm ware of all the technical arguments, but this is just another contradictory bit of conservatives swirling 'round their own myths in order to make them come true.

What makes no sense is what Trump actually gets by systematically destroying the Republican platform. Certainly he will say it was all to plan, later, when he's not being inaugurated. But the RNC finds itself in an untenable situation entirely of its own making. We might suggest we have seen it coming, but this really is the strangest of seasons; what is happening defies imagination. Earlier this month msnbc↱ talked with screenwriters Jeremy Pikser (Bulworth) and Chris Henchy (The Campaign):

What's one real thing from the 2016 campaign season that would be too unbelievable to pitch to a film studio?

Pikser: Nothing's too unbelievable to pitch a film studio. As long as they think they can make money on it. The campaign has just caught up with the stupidity Hollywood has been peddling for years. Are Cruz and Trump any stupider than a normal Adam Sandler movie?

Henchy: The debate the other night between Cruz, Trump and Rubio – discussing Trump's finger-to-d*ck ratio. We would've gotten notes that it's too far. I just watched the press conference between Conor McGregor and Nate Diaz, MMA guys who are going to fight this weekend. Those two guys were more eloquent. But watch those side by side – they're not much different. Conor McGregor's better dressed.​

Henchy, for his part, also noted that "we're right in between The Campaign and Idiocracy―so right on schedule with election comedies". Strangely, that sounds about right.

But while the people clamor and thirst for their moment of generational legend, it's worth pointing out that this is going to hurt. There is and will continue to be a human cost to this mythopoesis.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Corporate sponsors think twice before backing Republican event". msnbc. 31 March 2016. msnbc.com. 31 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1MY2NQy

Greenberg, Eric. "Hollywood screenwriters compare primary to campaign comedies". msnbc. 5 March 2016. msnbc.com. 31 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1prM0A0

Maddow, Rachel. "Sanders on when corporations take political influence too far". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 30 March 2016. msnbc.com. 31 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1TjZ3j0

Martin, Jonathan and Maggie Haberman. "Corporations Grow Nervous About Participating in Republican Convention". The New York Times. 30 March 2016. NYTimes.com. 31 March 2016. http://nyti.ms/1MY2uVZ

O'Donnell, Lawrence. "Trump at odds over LA delegates". The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. msnbc. 28 March 2016. msnbc.com. 31 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1RMgnhp

Yu, Elly. "Atlanta Businesses Again Lead Push Against Social Conservatives". National Public Radio. 29 March 2016. NPR.org. 31 March 2016. http://n.pr/1M4SsHK
 
It's increasingly looking like this will be a contested election. Trump really has to do very well, better than he has done to date, in order to avoid a contested election. He may be able to pull it off, but he must do much better than he has thus far. Trump's foes are banking on a contested convention. Cruz and Kasich don't have a prayer of winning with the pledged delegates on the first ballot.

For those who don't know, after the first ballot delegates are no longer pledged. They can vote for whomever they want, and it's not illegal to offer them bribes (i.e. incentives) to vote for a particular candidate. Cruz has been working very diligently and successfully to get people who favor Cruz elected as delegates. So at this point, a second ballot favors Cruz. Thus far, Trump hasn't done much in this space. Trump only recently hired someone to help him "manage" the delegates. This year is shaping up to be a very good year for Republican delegates. What will be the price for a Republican delegate vote this Summer? Who has the most money to spend buying Republican delegate votes? If this comes down to a contested convention as it now looks, who will win? At this point, it looks like Cruz. But it depends on how loyal the delegates he has been able place - that includes Trump delegates - and how much money Trump is willing to spend buying delegate votes. Is Trump willing to pay more than the "Stop Trump at All Costs" folks? That remains to be seen.
 
Threshold

​

Phyllis Schlafly is the founder of Eagle Forum, and instrumental to the rise of the phenomenon we now know as the "religious right". Fourty-four years on, however, the face and voice of female self-loathing appears to be facing the greatest fight of her career.

Steve Benen↱ offers an overview:

Schlafly, now 91, is still the face of the organization she created 44 years ago, which made it all the more interesting yesterday when the Eagle Forum's founder issued a press statement describing what appears to be an intra-party coup:​

“At 2 pm today, 6 directors of Eagle Forum met in an improper, unprecedented telephone meeting. I objected to the meeting and at 2:11 pm, I was muted from the call. The meeting was invalid under the Bylaws but the attendees purported to pass several motions to wrest control of the organization from me. They are attempting to seize access to our bank accounts, to terminate employees, and to install members of their own Gang of 6 to control the bank accounts and all of Eagle Forum.

“The members of their group are: Eunie Smith of Alabama, Anne Cori of Missouri, Cathie Adams of Texas, Rosina Kovar of Colorado, Shirley Curry of Tennessee, and Carolyn McLarty of Oklahoma.”​

It's worth emphasizing that this is as much an intra-family fight as an intra-organization fight: note that Schlafly's statement called out Anne Cori, an Eagle Forum board member who also happens to be Schlafly's daughter.

And why is this coup attempt underway? It appears to be a dispute over, of all things, Donald Trump.​

Schlafly isn't wrong; six Eagle Forum directors are preparing to oust the anti-civil rights titan. Director Cathie Adams suggests the Trump endorsement is the result of manipulation, and that his campaign took advantage of an aging Schlafly. Benen notes that the current president of Eagle Forum told the Washington Post that an ouster is "clearly the plan".

Donald Trump is clearly a problem for evangelicals, though in truth it seems tiresome to remind yet again that they brought this on themselves. Nonetheless, the Trump effect seems jarring; William Saletan↱ covers the Ethics and Public Policy Center Faith Angle Forum, and last month logged an article for Slate under the headline, "The Religious Right Is in a Battle for Souls, and It's Losing to Donald Trump":

Many of the attendees and organizers are evangelical. For them, Trump's support among self-identified evangelicals is an embarrassment and a puzzle. Smith suggests that many of these voters are only “nominal evangelicals.” They say they're evangelical because in South Carolina and similar states, that's what you're supposed to say. But they don't live a Christian life or even go to church. According to Cromartie, Trump's support among putative evangelicals plummets when the sample is narrowed to those who attend church at least once a week.

It sounds as though Smith and Cromartie are just making excuses. But they go further. Smith calls out the “straight-up xenophobia” among Trump's supporters. “Their religious identity is a stalking horse or code for something else,” he argues. Evangelicalism, Smith suggests, can be used as a fig leaf to “cover your American nationalism.” He accepts pastoral responsibility to confront the underlying prejudice, through “theological correction within the Christian community.”

One thing you'll learn from a conference like this one, if you didn't know it already, is that there are thoughtful, responsible people in evangelical circles and in the right-wing media world. These people aren't yahoos. They don't even hang out with yahoos. But that's part of the problem: How can they reach the yahoos when they don't know them? Smith pokes fun at secular liberals who have no contact with devout Christians, but he seems totally unfamiliar with Trump's evangelicals. In a side conversation afterward, a conservative writer makes a similar confession: She interviews people at churches, but Trump's people don't go to church, so she doesn't meet them. Liberals, it turns out, aren't the only elites who are out of touch with today's angry white voters.​

As strange as it seems, this isn't exactly new; to wit, I occasionally deploy some version of an argumentative point about why the non-bigoted Christians aren't making more noise to shout down their bigoted brethren. Clearly the question of these angry, hateful zealots tries the patience and faculties of other evangelicals, but we haven't really seen a seismic break between Christian factions; the evangelical Corpus Christi generally holds.

Meanwhile, within the angrier, more vicious sectors of evangelical conservatism, the players are apparently lining up, knives out.

Once upon a time, certain evangelical Christians stayed out of elections; given a choice between the Devil they know and the Devil they don't know, they chose as Christians to not vote for a Devil. That changed in 1980, and, yes, I find myself reiterating the occasional suggestion that the nation has been paying for the Reagan Awakening ever since. This point is worth recalling as evangelicals consider the question of whether or not Donald Trump is a Devil too far.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Religious right leader faces coup following Trump endorsement". msnbc. 12 April 2016. msnbc.com. 12 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/22ro3Fx

Saletan, William. "The Religious Right Is in a Battle for Souls, and It’s Losing to Donald Trump". Slate. 15 March 2016. Slate.com. 12 April 2016. http://slate.me/1Vm6Lti
 
On Message

​

"I'd also give you one bit of advice: Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol."


One would expect it obvous that telling women to not participate in society is not a viable solution to misogyny and sex crime. Then again, such a sweeping statement is unjust if one is named John Kasich. Steve Benen↱ notes that, asked about sexual violence, harassment, and rape at a New York town hall, Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) discussed reporting and rape kits, and then offered women advice: "Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol".

So consider a Lysistrata year, in which a substantial number of women participate in a movement excluding themselves wherever both men and alcohol are present. And, sure, you can man up and go find a drunk bitch to suck you off at the gay club, but let's face it, you're more likely to just get pissed off at women for doing what they're told.

Mr. Benen is far more patient than I:

The problem with such a response should be obvious. If a woman goes to a gathering and gets assaulted, it's insane to think it's her fault for having gone to a party where people were drinking. The solution is for men to stop committing sex crimes; encouraging women to make different choices in their social habits badly misses the point.

As news of his comments spread, Kasich turned to Twitter to make clear his belief that "only one person is at fault in a sexual assault, and that's the assailant."

In the broader context, there are a couple of angles to keep in mind.

The first is that incidents like these keep coming up on the campaign trail. Remember the time Kasich asked a woman, unprompted, "Have you ever been on a diet?"

In October, a college student tried to ask Kasich a question about undocumented immigrants, but when the young woman raised her hand at a forum, the governor told her, "I don't have any tickets for, you know, for Taylor Swift or anything."

According to the report from the college newspaper, the Republican presidential candidate told another young woman at the event, "I'm sure you get invited to all of the parties."

A few months later, Kasich told a Virginia audience that, during one of his early statehouse races, women "left their kitchens" to support him.

Remember, this guy has literally spent decades on the campaign trail, honing his communications skills with the public.​

And there is a cursory mention, right after that, of Mr. Kasich's abysmal track record as a politician; he is after Planned Parenthood because that's the in thing to do among conservative bigots, and there was that awesome time he signed an anti-abortion law into the budget, including a contradictory trap law requiring doctors to enter agreements with hospitals and then forbidding hospitals from entering the agreements with doctors. And, sure, that sounds about right because we all know government just doesn't work when Republicans are in charge, but we might also consider that it might be more important to note that the so-called moderate in this year's Republican presidential field is a raving bigot.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Kasich is sometimes his own worst enemy". msnbc. 15 April 2016. msnbc.com. 15 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1RZnjpw
 
Unconventional

​

The word is astounding, except these are Republicans, so some part of me just shrugs and says, "Sounds about right."

The chairman of the Senate Republican campaign arm is telling vulnerable colleagues in tough races to stay away from the GOP presidential convention this summer.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman, warns that a fight between supporters of candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz at a contested convention in Cleveland is the last place vulnerable Republicans need to be.

“If there’s going to be a brouhaha, I’m advising candidates to be present for more unifying events,” Wicker told The Hill.

And he’s far from alone in his opinion.

(Bolton↱)​

Last month we heard↑ from Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), who wondered aloud, in public, whether or not he considered the Republican National Convention safe. A week ago we took note↑ of Jeb Bush's reluctance; Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) also weighed his options, and Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC05) declared he would not attend. House Republican aides suggested at the time there were more refusals to come. One Republcian Senate aide↱ was allegedly heard explaining that there isn't any reason to attend any convention unless it's in a candidate's home state, and that's kind of new.

And now we hear the advice from Sen. Wicker.

Alexander Bolton's↱ article for The Hill also notes that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee, will skip the convention, pretending that this is normal in a year when he faces re-election despite having attended in previous election years in which he had to defend his seat. Additionally, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) have announced they're skipping out on this year's convention. It seems somewhat important to also note that Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has said he is uncertain whether he will attend the convention taking place in his home state. So much for that unnamed Senate aide.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who served as NRSC chairman in the last Congress, said Cleveland could be a “bruising convention.”

“That convention has the capability of people going home with a poor taste in their mouths,” he said. “We may have a nominee before the convention, I don’t know. But in the absence of that happening, tough decisions will have to be made.”

Moran, whose Kansas seat is considered safe Republican territory but was threatened last month with a possible primary challenger, is also staying away from Cleveland.​

Add in Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), as well, who answered the question of his attendance, "I don't have any idea."

Meanwhile, Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI), both considered vulnerable, have announced they intend to be at the convention; Johnson, considered one of the GOP's most vulnerable senators in this cycle, hedged his bet: "Those are my plans," he explained, "but things could change". Toomey, told of what Mr. Wicker said, reminded that, "Everyone will make their own decision."

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN), though, gets the last word. Calling the decision between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "potentially toxic", the conservative stalwart who will retire at the end of this term suggested, "You're better off being in your own state, running your own race and not being caught up in all the machinations that may take place at the convention."

This is your Republican Party, and oh, how they shine. 'Tis a sickly radiance, to be certain, but the GOP continues to blaze hellbound trails.
____________________

Notes:

Bolton, Alexander. "Campaign chief to vulnerables: Stay away from GOP convention". The Hill. 19 April 2016. TheHill.com. 19 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1SrTe0W

Raju, Manu and Deirdre Walsh. "Top Republicans may skip GOP convention". CNN. 12 April 2016. CNN.com. 19 April 2016. http://cnn.it/1pfSscQ
 
Charles Koch said today he will not spend a dime on any of the Republican presidential candidates. That says a lot. Even Charles Koch recognizes the Republican presidential candidates are a lost cause. But it is also bad news for Democrats. That 900 billion will be spent. Instead of spending it on the presidential race, it will mostly likely will be spent at the congressional and state levels.

Democrats need to take heed. They need to be raising money for the fall congressional and state races. The Koch money isn't going away. It's just moving down a different tributary. And of course, Koch can always change his mind in a few days or a few weeks as he has been known to do.
 
wellwisher said:
What Christie meant, is not hard to infer. However, it may be hard for liberals to understand.

Everyone in the Republican party knows the establishment on both sides are afraid of Trump and Cruz. Both men have vowed to alter business as usual in Washington, and confront the corruption. Those who ride the gravy train; bloated Washington, feel desparate about their future livelihood; desparate times call for desperate measures. Some of the leaders in the Republican party threaten to vote for Hillary, since she is for business as usual.

If these desparate measures include stealing the nomination away from Trump or Cruz, then that will prove there is corruption in Washington to all those who are on the fence; in denial. At that point, honest citizens from both sides, who vote for Trump and Cruz, will feel it is their to duty to oppose corruption, in ways that go outside the political process; fight fire with fire.

The corruption in the Republican party is not as well engrained and obvious as in the Democrat party. For example, from day one, even when Sanders wins states, the corruption in the Democratic party gives Hillary all the super delegates. What is up wth that? The Democrat voters don't seem to mind a stacked deck that voids the popular vote. Honest and thoughtful people are different, in that they assume their vote needs to count and is not just window dressing, for a corrupt establishment who can stack the deck.

The Republican party is not as skilled at corruption, as is the Democrat party. Dirty tricks are relatively new to them, since part of being conservative are moral values. Mitt Romney was taken out with a lie. He let Obama off the ropes in the debates because he is a good guy who did not have the heart for the death blow.

The Republican leaders lack of skills in corruption is why their attempts to take out Trump and Cruz, have had very limited success; Alter boy at a cussing contest. They lack the will to lie and cheat, 100%. The Democrats are helping them, since they have a common enemy. However, the prospect of honest people rioting, will impact the Republican leaders and make it hard to act like democrats.

One wild card that is not discussed is if neither Cruz or Trump get enough delegates, Trump and Cruz might decide to team up their delegates, and pull a fast one. Right now, the two of them have 1204 Delegates, combined. They may be waiting to see, who their enemies are in their own party, so when they take over, they know where to begin the pruning. It is easier to cut those first, who to tried to cut you. Also you have them by the short hairs, when it is time for Hillary. You can make use of their fear, to be more cut throat.

This master plan could explain why Cruz still pulls his punches with Trump. Cruz gets lied about and calls Trump a scoundrel; talk about easy. Cruz is young enough to be VP for 8 years and still be a young President. He is the real ax-man of the two, who knows the weakness and secret passages in government . Cruz knows how move a boat that will be moored in the mud by both party establishments. He can spend 8 years modifying the government, so when he becomes President, he can sail the country to the future, and leave liberalism stranded in a museum.
Click to expand...
ah yes another worthless bullshit anti liberal crackpot post from wellwisher that rewrites history to suit his fucked up and transparent purposes.
 
Now Kasich and Cruz are tag teaming to prevent Trump from receiving the delegates Trump needs to win on a first ballot. Canadian Ted and Kasich cannot win the delegates and the votes they need to win so they are tag teaming against Trump in order to deny Trump the delegates he needs to win on a first ballot.

The presidential hopes of Canadian Ted an Kasich depend on winning a contested election. Canadian Ted and Kasich have performed so poorly in the primaries an caucuses the only chance they have of winning the party's nomination is in a contested primary and backroom politics.
 
Canadian Ted selects Fiorina as his running mate. Go Ted, I couldn't have selected a better running mate for you. :) You make quite a pair. :) It's funny Canadian Ted is even selecting a running mate given the fact Trump has about twice as many delegates and Canadian Ted doesn't have a chance in hell of catching up.

The only way Canadian Ted can possibly win the nomination is through a contested convention and stacking Trump's delegates with his supporters as he has done.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...nning-mate/ar-BBskSVN?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UP21DHP
 
Cruz Line Disaster

​

You know ... okay, I don't know. I kind of chuckled my way through Cate Carrejo's↱ explanation, a few days ago, of why Bernie Sanders needs to name a running mate as soon as possible. This was, of course, in advance of the Acela primary:

You're probably thinking "Hold up. Candidates don't pick vice presidential running mates until after they're the official nominee. Isn't that jumping a gun a bit?" Well, yes and no. It's most common to pick running mates after the candidate is confirmed as the nominee, and there is definitely a sense of counting chickens before they hatch involved if a candidate chooses to reverse that order. But it's not totally unheard of to choose a running mate before the nomination is official. John McCain chose Sarah Palin in 2008 before he had technically gotten the nomination (though he had clinched it by delegate count at that point), and President Obama did exactly the same with Vice President Biden.

Some pundits even claim that Clinton has already decided on Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro as her running mate, or at least that he's at the top of the short list, like CNN reported. Castro's support and stumping help has undoubtedly boosted Clinton's reputation with Latinx voters. Sanders needs that kind of connection to the demographics he's failing to reach, so choosing a running mate at this point in the race could only help Sanders fight some of the doubts that have haunted his candidacy since the very beginning.

Part of the reason Sanders' campaign has struggled so much is due to his perceived foreign policy inexperience and unrealistic campaign proposals, both of which could be softened by the right running mate. The problem is that Sanders doesn't have a ton of political allies in Washington due to his more radical politics, which is part of his appeal as a populist candidate. He isn't even officially a Democrat, so getting an established politician to sign on as his running mate could be a significant challenge at this point (Sanders didn't even have an endorsement from a Senate colleague until a few weeks ago).​

I mean, I get what Carrejo was after, but oh, my goodness, that analysis both is and paints a disaster.

Still, for whatever reason, I'm not surprised to hear that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has named a running mate, and, you know, of course it's Carly Fiorina.

Honestly, I'm waiting for Kasich to complain that he was going to nominate Fiorina as a running mate.

And then we'll have our consensus alternate; how's that for a tinfoil-wrapped potsherd?

But, seriously, what the hell? Carly Fiorina? How does she help Cruz's appeal? How is she going to help broaden his voter appeal? Where in the voter marketplace is this going to pay off?
____________________

Notes:

Carrejo, Cate. "Why Bernie Sanders Needs To Pick A Vice President Right Now". Bustle. 24 April 2016. Bustle.com. 24 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1QBo5Ue
 
Tiassa said:
Cruz Line Disaster

​

You know ... okay, I don't know. I kind of chuckled my way through Cate Carrejo's↱ explanation, a few days ago, of why Bernie Sanders needs to name a running mate as soon as possible. This was, of course, in advance of the Acela primary:

You're probably thinking "Hold up. Candidates don't pick vice presidential running mates until after they're the official nominee. Isn't that jumping a gun a bit?" Well, yes and no. It's most common to pick running mates after the candidate is confirmed as the nominee, and there is definitely a sense of counting chickens before they hatch involved if a candidate chooses to reverse that order. But it's not totally unheard of to choose a running mate before the nomination is official. John McCain chose Sarah Palin in 2008 before he had technically gotten the nomination (though he had clinched it by delegate count at that point), and President Obama did exactly the same with Vice President Biden.

Some pundits even claim that Clinton has already decided on Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro as her running mate, or at least that he's at the top of the short list, like CNN reported. Castro's support and stumping help has undoubtedly boosted Clinton's reputation with Latinx voters. Sanders needs that kind of connection to the demographics he's failing to reach, so choosing a running mate at this point in the race could only help Sanders fight some of the doubts that have haunted his candidacy since the very beginning.

Part of the reason Sanders' campaign has struggled so much is due to his perceived foreign policy inexperience and unrealistic campaign proposals, both of which could be softened by the right running mate. The problem is that Sanders doesn't have a ton of political allies in Washington due to his more radical politics, which is part of his appeal as a populist candidate. He isn't even officially a Democrat, so getting an established politician to sign on as his running mate could be a significant challenge at this point (Sanders didn't even have an endorsement from a Senate colleague until a few weeks ago).​

I mean, I get what Carrejo was after, but oh, my goodness, that analysis both is and paints a disaster.

Still, for whatever reason, I'm not surprised to hear that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has named a running mate, and, you know, of course it's Carly Fiorina.

Honestly, I'm waiting for Kasich to complain that he was going to nominate Fiorina as a running mate.

And then we'll have our consensus alternate; how's that for a tinfoil-wrapped potsherd?

But, seriously, what the hell? Carly Fiorina? How does she help Cruz's appeal? How is she going to help broaden his voter appeal? Where in the voter marketplace is this going to pay off?
____________________

Notes:

Carrejo, Cate. "Why Bernie Sanders Needs To Pick A Vice President Right Now". Bustle. 24 April 2016. Bustle.com. 24 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1QBo5Ue
Click to expand...
I can only interpret this development as another Hail Mary attempt by Cruz to some how reverse his decline in the polling and somehow damage Trump. But it's difficult to see how this damages Trump given Fiorina never got more than a very tiny sliver of the vote when she was running for POTUS. A few days ago we had the Raphael-Kasich alliance which seemed to have dissipated as quickly as it was created. And now we have the Raphael-Fiorina alliance. It's bizarre.

Assuming somehow, miracles of miracles, Cruz wins the Republican nomination, Canadian Ted (i.e. Raphael) would never be elected POTUS even if his nomination didn't cause the Republican Party to split in two. As if Canadian Raphael wasn't far enough to the right, a Cruz-Fiorina ticket is a double down on right wing extremism. The nation just isn't that stupid.

The Republican Clown Car is more clownish now than at any time in modern history, and given recent history, that says a lot. It's really difficult to out clown the Republican Clown Car, but Republican candidates this year have managed to do it, and we are just getting started.
 
At this point, I have to wonder if Cruz will even make it to the convention. This may be over after the California primary. Cruz is losing his base, and that maybe why he has named Fiorina as his running mate and named her so early. Normally running mates are named at the conventions by the presumptive nominee. The convention is months away and Cruz is far from being the presumptive nominee. Raphael (i.e. Canadian Ted) may well wind up ending his campaign (i.e. suspending his campaign) in the not too distant future. Canadian Raphael Cruz may not make it to the convention as he had planned.

This is really interesting. Republican talk radio hosts, for the most part, have turned against Trump and for Cruz. Yet Trump is still winning. After controlling the Republican Party for so long and so completely, the powers of Republican talk radio seems to be waning. Limbaugh may no longer be the de facto head of the Republican Party.
 
Boehner calls Cruz, "Lucifer in the flesh". Sadly, I have to agree with Boehner. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life," former House Speaker John Boehner said of GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz" said Boehner. That's bad, especially when you consider it's one senior Republican speaking of another fellow Republican colleague.

Cruz is so obsessed with becoming POTUS, he would do anything to become POTUS, even it that means destroying the nation. Canadian Raphael (i.e. Ted) has on several occasions attempted to engineer a US debt default. That should scare everyone. Cruz has no qualms with sacrificing the full faith and credit of the US in order to advance his political ambitions. He has demonstrated such on multiple occasions.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/john-beohner-ted-cruz-lucifer-222570#ixzz47886wNh9
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top