Anyone else miss the days when we thought the worse that could happen would having to choose between a candidate even more crocked than her husband and one even dumber than his brother?
” … Seizing on the opportunity to claim his smashing victory over Clinton, Sanders give a speech that went on like the Communist Manifesto. What a farrago of ignorance and hatred. …”
__________________________________________
Seems, for now, it’s a Trump v. Cruz (and maybe still v. Rubio) race.
But who can predict in a year like this one.
I still can’t fathom a Bernie getting the Democratic party’s nomination — but you know the party has gotta be in a panic by now with Clinton’s rather spectacular downward plunge.
““People are angry. But there’s also hungry. They’re hungry for solutions. What are we going to do?,” Clinton said.
“I know I have some work to do, especially with young people,” Clinton said. “Even if they are not supporting me right now, I am supporting them…It’s not whether you get knocked down that matters, it’s whether you get back up.”
Clinton devolved into an angry, ranting style by speech’s end, calling for “human rights” for gays, women, workers, and others. She also pivoted to focus on South Carolina, which will be decided by the black vote, talking about how African-American parents should not have to worry about their kids being “harassed” or “shot,” and immigrant families should not have to “lie awake at night waiting for a knock on the door” signaling deportation.”
People who think Bernie or anyone else is going to pass a law that take the money of the Kennedys, Clintons, Bloomberg’s, Trumps, Pelosi’s, Reads, et. al. are out of their minds.
Or lying to us.
“Using the Freedom of Information Act, Gawker obtained an exchange of emails between Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines and Marc Ambinder, a writer for The Atlantic magazine, that demonstrated how the process worked.
Ambinder asked Reines on July 15, 2009, for an advance copy of a speech Clinton was to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Reines returned a three-word reply saying he’d supply the speech — with conditions.
The writer answered OK, and then Reines sent his demands:
“1) You in your own voice describe them [Clinton’s remarks] as ‘muscular’ 2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say [is] certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something 3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!”
Ambinder delivered the gushing story Reines wanted after getting the speech early to scoop rivals.
Ambinder told Gawker he regretted cutting the deal.”
—————————-
And yet he failed to bring it to the public’s attention.
“In the lede to Ambinder’s published piece, he appears to have followed Reines’ request to a tee:
When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross.”
“A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama’s sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.”
“If you seek to understand Barack Obama and his views, the best place to go is his speeches. But you have to read them in their entirety, not rely on hearing them or on the media’s summary of them. When you do, you realize how often what Obama says is morally and intellectually confused and even untrue.
The most recent example was his speech last week at a mosque in Baltimore. In addition to reassuring Muslim Americans that they are as American as Americans of every other faith — President Obama spoke a lot of nonsense, some of it dangerous.
President Obama: “So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”
Why did Obama say this? Even Muslim websites acknowledge that “Islam” means “submission” [to Allah], that it comes from the Arabic root “aslama” meaning submission, and that “Islam” is in the command form of that verb.
That’s why “Muslim” means “One who submits,” not “One who is peaceful.”
Obama: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Quran.”
The reason Jefferson had a copy of the Quran was to try to understand it in light of what the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli had told him and John Adams. When asked why Tripoli pirates were attacking American ships and enslaving Americans, the Muslim ambassador explained that Muslims are commanded to do so by the Quran: “It was written in their Quran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise.”
I have to say on behalf of the kids, given what my generation has done to them, and how ignorant so many are of history and political/economic theory, I can’t blame them for voting their (lack of) pocketbook and (limited) future.
And the Republicans–they can’t seem to grasp that their behavior for the last 20 years is the reason so many are NOT voting for the party favorites. Why should I? They’ve used the pro-life folks for decades, for example.
Gee, as a registered Independent, I wonder who MY party is running?
Our Framers would despair about the winners of the nation’s first presidential primaries in New Hampshire. Though polar opposites with very different ideological starting points, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have set the Framers’ hair – or wigs – on fire.
They designed the Constitution to moderate the people at home while preparing a president to act quickly to counter emergencies, crises, and war abroad. Instead, the Republicans have a demagogue and the Democrats have an economic radical who promise swift, extreme change.
The men who met in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a new constitution designed it to prevent someone like Donald Trump from ever becoming president. One of their great fears was of a populist demagogue who would promise the people everything and respect nothing. As Alexander Hamilton, the key theorist of executive power during the Founding, warned in Federalist 67: “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honours of a single state.” …
….
The Framers would also be aghast at Bernie Sanders. His calls for a political revolution, fomenting of class hatreds, and desires for a socialist economy also run directly contrary to the Framers design. The Framers believed our Constitution and our government should not view or think of people as economic classes or special interests. They were not naïve – they knew that what they called “factions” were an inevitable product of democracy. “Liberty is to faction what what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires,” James Madison wrote in Federalist 10. “But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air.” …
donna j: Why wouldn’t Sen. Cruz be electable? He is the candidate who would best defend the Constitution, and is the strongest advocate of Conservative principles. The electorate is basically fed up with politics as usual, and it seems that we’re witnessing the demise of the Republican moderate as a viable option in a presidential election. And what does the other side have to offer?
Remember, there’s a range of views on this blog among all of us who consider ourselves to be good conservatives. It’s still the primary season so that’s to be expected. We support candidates for their views first of all but also for how well we think they’d do in a general match-up that requires more than just the base, especially nowadays when it comes to conservatives.
Come the general election, I’d be able to vote for any of the Republicans running now (though some I like a lot less than others) — with the possible exception of Trump.
Donna, I watched CNN last night and as they were doing exist polls in NH BOTH sides Dems and Reps said that “electability” was not as important to them as honest and empathy.
I think we are all fed up with being told we must compromise in order to put forth the candidate who has the best chance of getting elected. I have paid more attention this year and waffled back and fort about “wasting” my vote on someone who can’t get elected, etc. I am going to vote for the candidate I agree with most and let the chips fall where they may.
The only two thinks I have said is that I will NOT vote for Trump and I will not vote for the Hildabeast. I do not agree with Bernie Sanders politically but I do think he is honest (to the degree any politician can be honest and in his own way) and I think he has empathy.
I have identified why I dislike Cruz as much as I do and can read more about him rather than look and listen to him. Rubio may be the guy that gets my vote. The far, far right hates him and the party hates him…might make him just what we need.
Kim, people will “say” that, of course. But … Electibility is simply a very important factor when it comes to the general elections. Rubio is a solid conservative, by the way. This is not a “compromise” on principles. It’s being wise as a serpent …
And thanks to Christie (good riddance) — while he made some valid criticisms of Rubio during the debate, his continued hammering on it afterward, in ads & in collusion with both Bush & Kasich apparently, was just unnecessary overkill causing damage on a fellow Republican.
In that regard, Christie eagerly collaborated with the Democratic Party press. The Democrats are determined to damage Rubio, whom they see as the Republicans’ most formidable candidate, and Christie happily obliged. He helped the press to keep Rubio’s three bad minutes in the news, and in return, his face was on television. When have Democratic news outlets been so anxious to hear what Christie had to say? I can’t think of another occasion.
Christie’s disloyalty to his party didn’t do him much good. He announced today that he is dropping out of the race, as did Carly Fiorina. …
_______________________________________
Oh, I won’t vote for him but I do think he cares and is as honest as he can be.
Christie lost me a long time ago. I remember watching him slobber all over Obama when Winterstorm Sandy hit. I haven’t trusted him since.
I can’t even listen to Hildabeast without my blood pressure going up.
I think most of the people of NH need a civics lesson. The President is not a king or a dictator. He cannot wave a magic scepter and give them everything they want or get rid of everyone they dislike. Most of what Trump and Sanders are promising won’t sit well with the other two branches of government.
Obama spoke in Springfield, IL, today to the legislature. It was the anniversary of his announcing his candidacy. He was going to talk to them about the budget crisis in Illinois. Hah! “How not to fix the budget” would have been a good title. In the speech, he said he was disappointed that he couldn’t get people to get along in Washington like it was in Illinois. He fails to see he is one of the main reasons for the division in DC. And when he was in Springfield, he worked with a large Democratic majority. So of course people “got along”. The Republicans couldn’t get anything passed if they tried!
So what is electability, anyway? wiktioinary.com defines it as, “The capability of a candidate to be elected.” Doesn’t that pretty much define most of the candidates? I think we err when we vote for someone in the primary based on a vague notion of “electability”. Vote the one you think will make the best president, whether the media or establishment think so. Don’t listen to them. For most of the last 40 years, if the media or establishment promoted a candidate, that person turned out to be either the loser, or a bad to mediocre president. I like Cruz and Rubio because they are conservatives and are not liked by the establishment or media. Right now, Cru=z is my choice because he comes across as a little more solidly Constitutional.
And the candidate you think could most effectively govern in the climate we face now — a lot of factors go into choosing a candidate after you determine that you match up with their views on issues
I’m afraid that the larger the field remains, the more it continues to help Trump. He could simply wind up with the delegates he needs in a couple months’ time. Then what?
Better now to narrow the primary field as much as possible. Time to get serious. There are still way too many candidates splitting the vote. The primaries and caucuses roll out fast and furious over the next several weeks.
Donald Trump got everything he wanted in New Hampshire primary—and a whole lot more. He’s not only a stronger frontrunner in the Republican race than ever; he’s now in the driver’s seat on the road to the presidential nomination.
Trump is dominant. …
Every Republican candidate who finished first and second in Iowa and New Hampshire has won the presidential nomination. Having done so, Trump is now in a class with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney. …
… (And) the Trump magic appears to be spreading to states with upcoming primaries. A political group polling in House races found recently that Trump’s lead in Alabama and North Carolina is roughly 2-to-1. That’s what Trump beat runner-up Kasich in New Hampshire.
Trump should be pleased Kasich was his closest rival in New Hampshire. Kasich is a weak challenger post-New Hampshire. ..
The funny thing is that once the nominee has been officially chosen, the others will line up behind him & start acting as if they always agreed with him anyway.
(But maybe if that nominee turns out to be Trump, someone might decide to run as an Independent or write-in.)
I read Sanders New Hampshire speech. I didn’t find it anymore radical than FDR or Johnson. Certainly not a Communist Manifesto.
And the attempts to pigeon hole Sanders as the Trump is rather ridiculous. Trump is buffoon with a giant size ego who rails against the Other. Sanders is the exact opposite. And most people realize this; hypothetically Sanders would win by at least 8% over Trump.
This was written for liberals, but is good advice for serious conservatives, too.
“But here’s the problem. Trump shaming is not working. It is backfiring badly because the bulk of Trump’s supporters have been on the receiving end of these kinds of sneering, sarcastic, superior comments for much of their lives. When liberals (and in culture-war terms, this includes Democrats, media outlets, and establishment Republicans) make sneering and disparaging remarks about Donald Trump, the people in his core audience feel even more affinity with him; the same liberals have been making disparaging remarks about them for years.
“Shame and sarcasm are not going to defeat Trump because shame and sarcasm created him. Those who do not want to see a Trump presidency (and I include myself in this number) need to change tactics quickly. Mockery and derision have been complete failures.
“Ironically, I would suggest, the best chance to defeat Trump lies in calm and civil engagement with the ideas he has advanced so far in his candidacy. I do not believe that Trump’s candidacy could survive a serious debate about his platform. . .”
Ricky – That’s kind of the point, I think. The mockery & derision seems to be making his supporters love him even more, but if his ideas were actually debated & challenged, they may start to see through him.
I forgot. He’s going to bomb the #%*¥ out of people. He will let New Hampshire residents tell returning businesses to “#%^} off!” The man is a buffoon, a joke and a farce.
People have repeatedly pointed out the asinine statements he has made. His supporters don’t care. They aren’t very bright. For years Republicans have written off the idiot vote. This year Trump gives us a chance to compete for that demographic.
“Hillary Clinton is expected to leave New Hampshire with just as many delegates as Bernie Sanders, even after he crushed her in Tuesday’s presidential primary.
Sanders won 15 delegates with his 20-point victory Tuesday while Clinton won nine.
But Clinton came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.
Superdelegate support is fluid, though, so some of those delegates now backing Clinton could switch to Sanders before the Democratic National Convention in late July.
But as it stands, the superdelegate support gives Clinton a total of 15 New Hampshire delegates.”
Wandering Views 
It must be really tough to be broke!
LikeLike
Anyone else miss the days when we thought the worse that could happen would having to choose between a candidate even more crocked than her husband and one even dumber than his brother?
LikeLiked by 4 people
I saw that 7:12 before. I missed it too.
LikeLike
Is that video true????
LikeLike
Michelle, I don’t know if it’s true, but I have seen similar reports from other sources.’
E-mails, that is.
LikeLike
Don’t worry. Bernie will take away Hillary’s $$ in a heartbeat. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh good. I’m not alone in my reaction to Sanders’ speech last night:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/after-last-night-10.php
_________________________________________
” … Seizing on the opportunity to claim his smashing victory over Clinton, Sanders give a speech that went on like the Communist Manifesto. What a farrago of ignorance and hatred. …”
__________________________________________
LikeLike
Looks like Christie’s heading to drop out:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/10/cnn-christie-talking-with-advisors-about-campaign-expected-to-pull-out/
Maybe others?
Seems, for now, it’s a Trump v. Cruz (and maybe still v. Rubio) race.
But who can predict in a year like this one.
I still can’t fathom a Bernie getting the Democratic party’s nomination — but you know the party has gotta be in a panic by now with Clinton’s rather spectacular downward plunge.
LikeLike
And I tend to agree with something Krauthammer has said — that Christie’s attack on Rubio has, essentially, in the bigger picture, only helped Trump.
Great.
LikeLiked by 1 person
World Magazine got it right when they referred to Trump & Sanders as “America’s two crazy uncles.”
It’s come to this …
LikeLiked by 2 people
The great thing about Sanders is he’s dragging Clinton to the left, and into an untenable position with voters. 🙂
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/09/hillary-9/
““People are angry. But there’s also hungry. They’re hungry for solutions. What are we going to do?,” Clinton said.
“I know I have some work to do, especially with young people,” Clinton said. “Even if they are not supporting me right now, I am supporting them…It’s not whether you get knocked down that matters, it’s whether you get back up.”
Clinton devolved into an angry, ranting style by speech’s end, calling for “human rights” for gays, women, workers, and others. She also pivoted to focus on South Carolina, which will be decided by the black vote, talking about how African-American parents should not have to worry about their kids being “harassed” or “shot,” and immigrant families should not have to “lie awake at night waiting for a knock on the door” signaling deportation.”
LikeLike
People who think Bernie or anyone else is going to pass a law that take the money of the Kennedys, Clintons, Bloomberg’s, Trumps, Pelosi’s, Reads, et. al. are out of their minds.
Or lying to us.
LikeLike
And I’ll note that the saddest thing here is how the press just rolls over and takes it.
http://nypost.com/2016/02/10/hillary-blackmailed-media-to-get-positive-coverage-report/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow
“Using the Freedom of Information Act, Gawker obtained an exchange of emails between Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines and Marc Ambinder, a writer for The Atlantic magazine, that demonstrated how the process worked.
Ambinder asked Reines on July 15, 2009, for an advance copy of a speech Clinton was to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Reines returned a three-word reply saying he’d supply the speech — with conditions.
The writer answered OK, and then Reines sent his demands:
“1) You in your own voice describe them [Clinton’s remarks] as ‘muscular’ 2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say [is] certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something 3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!”
Ambinder delivered the gushing story Reines wanted after getting the speech early to scoop rivals.
Ambinder told Gawker he regretted cutting the deal.”
—————————-
And yet he failed to bring it to the public’s attention.
Here’s more…
http://www.mediaite.com/online/email-the-atlantic-reporter-agreed-to-tailor-article-to-clinton-spokesmans-demands/
“In the lede to Ambinder’s published piece, he appears to have followed Reines’ request to a tee:
When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross.”
LikeLike
Here’s some good news. 🙂
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/09/us-supreme-court-blocks-obama-carbon-emissions-plan.html
“A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama’s sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.”
———————–
Of course they would…. 🙄
LikeLike
The Liar in Chief….
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/09/you_dont_know_what_obama_said_at_the_mosque_129596.html
“If you seek to understand Barack Obama and his views, the best place to go is his speeches. But you have to read them in their entirety, not rely on hearing them or on the media’s summary of them. When you do, you realize how often what Obama says is morally and intellectually confused and even untrue.
The most recent example was his speech last week at a mosque in Baltimore. In addition to reassuring Muslim Americans that they are as American as Americans of every other faith — President Obama spoke a lot of nonsense, some of it dangerous.
President Obama: “So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”
Why did Obama say this? Even Muslim websites acknowledge that “Islam” means “submission” [to Allah], that it comes from the Arabic root “aslama” meaning submission, and that “Islam” is in the command form of that verb.
That’s why “Muslim” means “One who submits,” not “One who is peaceful.”
Obama: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Quran.”
The reason Jefferson had a copy of the Quran was to try to understand it in light of what the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli had told him and John Adams. When asked why Tripoli pirates were attacking American ships and enslaving Americans, the Muslim ambassador explained that Muslims are commanded to do so by the Quran: “It was written in their Quran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise.”
That’s why Jefferson and Adams had Qurans.”
LikeLike
Saw a link to the Supreme Court story on FB with this intro/reminder comment from the liberal who posted it: “We’re electing more than a president” …
So true.
LikeLike
I have to say on behalf of the kids, given what my generation has done to them, and how ignorant so many are of history and political/economic theory, I can’t blame them for voting their (lack of) pocketbook and (limited) future.
And the Republicans–they can’t seem to grasp that their behavior for the last 20 years is the reason so many are NOT voting for the party favorites. Why should I? They’ve used the pro-life folks for decades, for example.
Gee, as a registered Independent, I wonder who MY party is running?
Isn’t that pathetic?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good read:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-and-sanders-the-founders-worst-nightmare/article/2001014
_______________________________________________
Our Framers would despair about the winners of the nation’s first presidential primaries in New Hampshire. Though polar opposites with very different ideological starting points, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have set the Framers’ hair – or wigs – on fire.
They designed the Constitution to moderate the people at home while preparing a president to act quickly to counter emergencies, crises, and war abroad. Instead, the Republicans have a demagogue and the Democrats have an economic radical who promise swift, extreme change.
The men who met in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a new constitution designed it to prevent someone like Donald Trump from ever becoming president. One of their great fears was of a populist demagogue who would promise the people everything and respect nothing. As Alexander Hamilton, the key theorist of executive power during the Founding, warned in Federalist 67: “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honours of a single state.” …
….
The Framers would also be aghast at Bernie Sanders. His calls for a political revolution, fomenting of class hatreds, and desires for a socialist economy also run directly contrary to the Framers design. The Framers believed our Constitution and our government should not view or think of people as economic classes or special interests. They were not naïve – they knew that what they called “factions” were an inevitable product of democracy. “Liberty is to faction what what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires,” James Madison wrote in Federalist 10. “But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air.” …
_______________________________________________________
LikeLike
Quoting Rush as closely as I can:
“If conservatism your only passion, you have no other choice than Ted Cruz.”
LikeLike
I liked Carley Florina, but I never thought she had a chance.
LikeLike
But is Cruz even electable? If not, then what’s the point?
LikeLike
donna j: Why wouldn’t Sen. Cruz be electable? He is the candidate who would best defend the Constitution, and is the strongest advocate of Conservative principles. The electorate is basically fed up with politics as usual, and it seems that we’re witnessing the demise of the Republican moderate as a viable option in a presidential election. And what does the other side have to offer?
LikeLiked by 2 people
If vote for him but …
I see Carly has dropped out
LikeLike
I’d vote for him if he’s the nominee
But gut feeling in part along with more than a few negative reactions from Republican friends which just doesn’t bode well
We’ll see
It may all be a moot point anyway
LikeLike
Frankly he’s just not very likable
And that always speaks to a candidate’s electability factor
And if they don’t win, well, we’re back to where we are now with a Democrat I suppose
LikeLike
And when it comes to radio, I much prefer Dennis Prager and others to Rush.
But that’s me.
LikeLike
Why do you think he’s not likable?
LikeLike
I suppose he’s always come off as too abrasive for my tastes — scorched-earth as someone called it
LikeLike
Remember, there’s a range of views on this blog among all of us who consider ourselves to be good conservatives. It’s still the primary season so that’s to be expected. We support candidates for their views first of all but also for how well we think they’d do in a general match-up that requires more than just the base, especially nowadays when it comes to conservatives.
Come the general election, I’d be able to vote for any of the Republicans running now (though some I like a lot less than others) — with the possible exception of Trump.
I still favor Rubio.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Donna, I watched CNN last night and as they were doing exist polls in NH BOTH sides Dems and Reps said that “electability” was not as important to them as honest and empathy.
I think we are all fed up with being told we must compromise in order to put forth the candidate who has the best chance of getting elected. I have paid more attention this year and waffled back and fort about “wasting” my vote on someone who can’t get elected, etc. I am going to vote for the candidate I agree with most and let the chips fall where they may.
The only two thinks I have said is that I will NOT vote for Trump and I will not vote for the Hildabeast. I do not agree with Bernie Sanders politically but I do think he is honest (to the degree any politician can be honest and in his own way) and I think he has empathy.
I have identified why I dislike Cruz as much as I do and can read more about him rather than look and listen to him. Rubio may be the guy that gets my vote. The far, far right hates him and the party hates him…might make him just what we need.
LikeLike
Kim, people will “say” that, of course. But … Electibility is simply a very important factor when it comes to the general elections. Rubio is a solid conservative, by the way. This is not a “compromise” on principles. It’s being wise as a serpent …
And thanks to Christie (good riddance) — while he made some valid criticisms of Rubio during the debate, his continued hammering on it afterward, in ads & in collusion with both Bush & Kasich apparently, was just unnecessary overkill causing damage on a fellow Republican.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/the-fatal-three-minutes.php
___________________________________
In that regard, Christie eagerly collaborated with the Democratic Party press. The Democrats are determined to damage Rubio, whom they see as the Republicans’ most formidable candidate, and Christie happily obliged. He helped the press to keep Rubio’s three bad minutes in the news, and in return, his face was on television. When have Democratic news outlets been so anxious to hear what Christie had to say? I can’t think of another occasion.
Christie’s disloyalty to his party didn’t do him much good. He announced today that he is dropping out of the race, as did Carly Fiorina. …
_______________________________________
LikeLike
And an honest socialist just doesn’t do anything for me, sorry.
🙂
LikeLike
Oh, I won’t vote for him but I do think he cares and is as honest as he can be.
Christie lost me a long time ago. I remember watching him slobber all over Obama when Winterstorm Sandy hit. I haven’t trusted him since.
I can’t even listen to Hildabeast without my blood pressure going up.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Stopping Trump won’t be easy
LikeLike
I will work towards it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think most of the people of NH need a civics lesson. The President is not a king or a dictator. He cannot wave a magic scepter and give them everything they want or get rid of everyone they dislike. Most of what Trump and Sanders are promising won’t sit well with the other two branches of government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Obama spoke in Springfield, IL, today to the legislature. It was the anniversary of his announcing his candidacy. He was going to talk to them about the budget crisis in Illinois. Hah! “How not to fix the budget” would have been a good title. In the speech, he said he was disappointed that he couldn’t get people to get along in Washington like it was in Illinois. He fails to see he is one of the main reasons for the division in DC. And when he was in Springfield, he worked with a large Democratic majority. So of course people “got along”. The Republicans couldn’t get anything passed if they tried!
LikeLike
So what is electability, anyway? wiktioinary.com defines it as, “The capability of a candidate to be elected.” Doesn’t that pretty much define most of the candidates? I think we err when we vote for someone in the primary based on a vague notion of “electability”. Vote the one you think will make the best president, whether the media or establishment think so. Don’t listen to them. For most of the last 40 years, if the media or establishment promoted a candidate, that person turned out to be either the loser, or a bad to mediocre president. I like Cruz and Rubio because they are conservatives and are not liked by the establishment or media. Right now, Cru=z is my choice because he comes across as a little more solidly Constitutional.
LikeLike
We don’t vote vote for someone ‘based in electability’ — it is rather a factor we wisely would consider as part of our overall decision.
And while a president isn’t a king, you can already see how the envelope has been pushed by Obama and other modern-day presidents.
LikeLike
And the candidate you think could most effectively govern in the climate we face now — a lot of factors go into choosing a candidate after you determine that you match up with their views on issues
LikeLike
I’m afraid that the larger the field remains, the more it continues to help Trump. He could simply wind up with the delegates he needs in a couple months’ time. Then what?
🙄
LikeLike
Better now to narrow the primary field as much as possible. Time to get serious. There are still way too many candidates splitting the vote. The primaries and caucuses roll out fast and furious over the next several weeks.
LikeLike
Other issues: The ability to inspire and lead — and experience.
One candidate won’t have it all. But I think we all try to get as close as we can to all of that in our individual and personal “picks.”
LikeLike
From Fred Barnes:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001015/
________________________
Donald Trump got everything he wanted in New Hampshire primary—and a whole lot more. He’s not only a stronger frontrunner in the Republican race than ever; he’s now in the driver’s seat on the road to the presidential nomination.
Trump is dominant. …
Every Republican candidate who finished first and second in Iowa and New Hampshire has won the presidential nomination. Having done so, Trump is now in a class with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney. …
… (And) the Trump magic appears to be spreading to states with upcoming primaries. A political group polling in House races found recently that Trump’s lead in Alabama and North Carolina is roughly 2-to-1. That’s what Trump beat runner-up Kasich in New Hampshire.
Trump should be pleased Kasich was his closest rival in New Hampshire. Kasich is a weak challenger post-New Hampshire. ..
______________________________
LikeLike
The funny thing is that once the nominee has been officially chosen, the others will line up behind him & start acting as if they always agreed with him anyway.
(But maybe if that nominee turns out to be Trump, someone might decide to run as an Independent or write-in.)
LikeLike
I read Sanders New Hampshire speech. I didn’t find it anymore radical than FDR or Johnson. Certainly not a Communist Manifesto.
And the attempts to pigeon hole Sanders as the Trump is rather ridiculous. Trump is buffoon with a giant size ego who rails against the Other. Sanders is the exact opposite. And most people realize this; hypothetically Sanders would win by at least 8% over Trump.
LikeLike
Sanders compares to Trump in that they are both telling the ignorant what they want to hear, despite the slim chance of being able to deliver.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This was written for liberals, but is good advice for serious conservatives, too.
“But here’s the problem. Trump shaming is not working. It is backfiring badly because the bulk of Trump’s supporters have been on the receiving end of these kinds of sneering, sarcastic, superior comments for much of their lives. When liberals (and in culture-war terms, this includes Democrats, media outlets, and establishment Republicans) make sneering and disparaging remarks about Donald Trump, the people in his core audience feel even more affinity with him; the same liberals have been making disparaging remarks about them for years.
“Shame and sarcasm are not going to defeat Trump because shame and sarcasm created him. Those who do not want to see a Trump presidency (and I include myself in this number) need to change tactics quickly. Mockery and derision have been complete failures.
“Ironically, I would suggest, the best chance to defeat Trump lies in calm and civil engagement with the ideas he has advanced so far in his candidacy. I do not believe that Trump’s candidacy could survive a serious debate about his platform. . .”
http://ivn.us/2016/02/10/dear-liberal-friends-trump-shaming-isnt-working-stop/
LikeLike
Trump doesn’t advance ideas. He insults, he brags, he curses and he pouts. Those things deserve only mockery and derision.
HRW, FDR and LBJ were also commies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky – That’s kind of the point, I think. The mockery & derision seems to be making his supporters love him even more, but if his ideas were actually debated & challenged, they may start to see through him.
LikeLike
What ideas? That Fiorina is ugly? That Megyn Kelly is having her period? That Bush is “low energy”?
LikeLike
But what ideas has he advanced? At least Sanders has a platform and wants to debate it. All Trump does is call people losers.
LikeLike
I forgot. He’s going to bomb the #%*¥ out of people. He will let New Hampshire residents tell returning businesses to “#%^} off!” The man is a buffoon, a joke and a farce.
LikeLike
And that’s the point. His lack of substance will be exposed.
LikeLike
People have repeatedly pointed out the asinine statements he has made. His supporters don’t care. They aren’t very bright. For years Republicans have written off the idiot vote. This year Trump gives us a chance to compete for that demographic.
LikeLike
This just seems …. crooked.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates
“Hillary Clinton is expected to leave New Hampshire with just as many delegates as Bernie Sanders, even after he crushed her in Tuesday’s presidential primary.
Sanders won 15 delegates with his 20-point victory Tuesday while Clinton won nine.
But Clinton came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.
Superdelegate support is fluid, though, so some of those delegates now backing Clinton could switch to Sanders before the Democratic National Convention in late July.
But as it stands, the superdelegate support gives Clinton a total of 15 New Hampshire delegates.”
LikeLike
Sanders had to pay Hillary the “white straight male” tax. If Hillary were black or perverted, Sanders might not have received any delegates at all.
LikeLike