Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Louisiana gov: Trump helped 'shine a spotlight' on flood recovery
By Rebecca Savransky
(The Hill) Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) said Sunday that Donald Trump has helped draw attention to recovery efforts after the recent devastating floods in his state.
In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," the governor downplayed critical remarks he made before the Republican presidential nominee visited his state.
"I didn't dismiss his trip as a photo-op. Before he came down, I said we welcome him here, we want him to be helpful," Edwards said. "And we hope that it doesn't turn into a mere photo-op."
Edwards said Trump's visit to the state was positive for Louisiana.
"Because it helped to shine a spotlight on Louisiana and on the dire situation that we have here, that it was helpful," he said.
"I also appreciated the good phone call, the conversation that I had with Gov. [Mike] Pence [R-Ind.], who was sincere and genuine when he called, and we spoke for a long time on Friday morning about their desire to be helpful," he said about Trump's running mate... (continued)
Link:
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Donald J. Trump Responds to Speaker Paul Ryan
Donald J. Trump Responds to Speaker Paul Ryan
"I am not ready to support Speaker Ryan's agenda. Perhaps in the future we can work together and come to an agreement about what is best for the American people. They have been treated so badly for so long that it is about time for politicians to put them first!"
Donald J. Trump
Link:
Related:
Friday, April 15, 2016
Let Me Ask America a Question
How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.
By Donald J. Trump
(The Wall Street Journal) On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.
A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.
In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended the system.
“These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.
Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your family?
I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people. Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the American people grow poorer and more isolated.
No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders made a choice to cancel it. And it was the wrong choice.
Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.
The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of elites is a bold infusion of popular will. On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.
Why should we trust the people who have made every wrong decision to substitute their will for America’s will in this presidential election?
Here, I part ways with Sen. Ted Cruz.
Mr. Cruz has toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in Colorado. For a man who styles himself as a warrior against the establishment (you wouldn’t know it from his list of donors and endorsers), you’d think he would be demanding a vote for Coloradans. Instead, Mr. Cruz is celebrating their disenfranchisement.
Likewise, Mr. Cruz loudly boasts every time party insiders disenfranchise voters in a congressional district by appointing delegates who will vote the opposite of the expressed will of the people who live in that district.
That’s because Mr. Cruz has no democratic path to the nomination. He has been mathematically eliminated by the voters.
While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special interests. Yet despite his financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and trails me by two million votes—a gap that will soon explode even wider. Mr. Cruz loses when people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.
The great irony of this campaign is that the “Washington cartel” that Mr. Cruz rails against is the very group he is relying upon in his voter-nullification scheme.
My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign strategy is to win despite them.
What we are seeing now is not a proper use of the rules, but a flagrant abuse of the rules. Delegates are supposed to reflect the decisions of voters, but the system is being rigged by party operatives with “double-agent” delegates who reject the decision of voters.
The American people can have no faith in such a system. It must be reformed.
Just as I have said that I will reform our unfair trade, immigration and economic policies that have also been rigged against Americans, so too will I work closely with the chairman of the Republican National Committee and top GOP officials to reform our election policies. Together, we will restore the faith—and the franchise—of the American people.
We must leave no doubt that voters, not donors, choose the nominee.
How have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged delegate-selection process with more passion than they have ever defended America’s borders?
Perhaps it is because politicians care more about securing their private club than about securing their country.
My campaign will, of course, battle for every last delegate. We will work within the system that exists now, while fighting to have it reformed in the future. But we will do it the right way. My campaign will seek maximum transparency, maximum representation and maximum voter participation.
We will run a campaign based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.
Let us take inspiration from patriotic Colorado citizens who have banded together in protest. Let us make Colorado a rallying cry on behalf of all the forgotten people whose desperate pleas have for decades fallen on the deaf ears and closed eyes of our rulers in Washington, D.C.
The political insiders have had their way for a long time. Let 2016 be remembered as the year the American people finally got theirs.
Link:
By Donald J. Trump
(The Wall Street Journal) On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.
A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.
In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended the system.
“These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.
Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your family?
I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people. Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the American people grow poorer and more isolated.
No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders made a choice to cancel it. And it was the wrong choice.
Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.
The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of elites is a bold infusion of popular will. On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.
Why should we trust the people who have made every wrong decision to substitute their will for America’s will in this presidential election?
Here, I part ways with Sen. Ted Cruz.
Mr. Cruz has toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in Colorado. For a man who styles himself as a warrior against the establishment (you wouldn’t know it from his list of donors and endorsers), you’d think he would be demanding a vote for Coloradans. Instead, Mr. Cruz is celebrating their disenfranchisement.
Likewise, Mr. Cruz loudly boasts every time party insiders disenfranchise voters in a congressional district by appointing delegates who will vote the opposite of the expressed will of the people who live in that district.
That’s because Mr. Cruz has no democratic path to the nomination. He has been mathematically eliminated by the voters.
While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special interests. Yet despite his financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and trails me by two million votes—a gap that will soon explode even wider. Mr. Cruz loses when people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.
The great irony of this campaign is that the “Washington cartel” that Mr. Cruz rails against is the very group he is relying upon in his voter-nullification scheme.
My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign strategy is to win despite them.
What we are seeing now is not a proper use of the rules, but a flagrant abuse of the rules. Delegates are supposed to reflect the decisions of voters, but the system is being rigged by party operatives with “double-agent” delegates who reject the decision of voters.
The American people can have no faith in such a system. It must be reformed.
Just as I have said that I will reform our unfair trade, immigration and economic policies that have also been rigged against Americans, so too will I work closely with the chairman of the Republican National Committee and top GOP officials to reform our election policies. Together, we will restore the faith—and the franchise—of the American people.
We must leave no doubt that voters, not donors, choose the nominee.
How have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged delegate-selection process with more passion than they have ever defended America’s borders?
Perhaps it is because politicians care more about securing their private club than about securing their country.
My campaign will, of course, battle for every last delegate. We will work within the system that exists now, while fighting to have it reformed in the future. But we will do it the right way. My campaign will seek maximum transparency, maximum representation and maximum voter participation.
We will run a campaign based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.
Let us take inspiration from patriotic Colorado citizens who have banded together in protest. Let us make Colorado a rallying cry on behalf of all the forgotten people whose desperate pleas have for decades fallen on the deaf ears and closed eyes of our rulers in Washington, D.C.
The political insiders have had their way for a long time. Let 2016 be remembered as the year the American people finally got theirs.
Link:
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Monday, February 29, 2016
VIDEO: Time Reporter Grabs Secret Service Agent’s Throat at Trump Rally
According to The Independent Journal’s congressional reporter Joe Perticone, the man holding the camera in the video below is a journalist. Perticone writes, “Secret Service agent choke slams reporter. ” The video doesn’t show that, but it does show this reporter kicking the agent from an apparent defensive position.
Nevertheless, once whatever happened between the two men is over, and both are standing, watch the reporter suddenly reach out and grab the Secret Service agent’s throat....
Link:
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions Endorses Trump: "It Is Time To Make America Great Again"
By Ian Schwartz
(RealClear Politics) Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) endorsed Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Huntsville Sunday evening. Sessions ensured a "Gang of Eight" type of immigration reform bill would not will be passed in a Donald Trump presidency.
"There is an opportunity this year, Tuesday, and we have the opportunity -- we have an opportunity Tuesday. It may be the last opportunity we have for the people's voice to be heard. You have asked for 30 years, and politicians have promised for 30 years to fix illegal immigration," Sessions said.
"The American people have known for years these trade agreements have not been working for them," Sessions stumped. "We now have and will soon have a vote on the Transpacific Partnership TPP), Obamatrade, and it will damage America. It will create a commission that undermines our sovereignty, and it should not pass. Donald Trump when he gets elected president will see it does not pass."
Sessions said Trump is not perfect, but nobody is and endorsed the candidate.
"This movement, he doesn't take money from political groups and lobbyists. He is committed to leading this country in an effective way. You know, nobody is perfect. We can't have everything, can we, Mr. Trump? But I can tell you one thing, I think at this time in my opinion, my best judgment, at this time in America's history, we need to make America great again!" Sessions said, repeating Trump's campaign slogan.
"I am pleased to endorse Donald Trump for the presidency of the United States," Sessions endorsed...
Links:
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Governor Jan Brewer endorses Donald Trump
By Kristen East
(Politico) Former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Saturday endorsed Donald Trump for president.
Trump has made immigration a central issue in his campaign for president, vowing to build a wall along the southern border of the United States and promising to have Mexico pay for it.
Brewer, 71, was governor of Arizona from 2009-2015. Her endorsement follows those of Maine Gov. Paul LePage and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie this week.
Link:
Related:
Friday, February 26, 2016
Maine governor LePage joins Christie in endorsing Trump
By Scott Bixby
(The Guardian) Hours after New Jersey governor and former Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie endorsed frontrunner Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House, Maine’s governor, Paul LePage, has thrown his support behind the real estate tycoon.
In an interview on the Howie Carr show, a Boston-area radio show, LePage endorsed Trump’s presidential campaign, telling Carr, “You know, we could do a lot worse. We could have another Obama in there, or Hillary Clinton. And we can’t afford that.”
“I think the governors have got to come out and pick your poison, because I’m telling you, we’ve got to stop the charade that went on last night,” LePage said, referring to the dogpile debate in Texas that featured nearly a minute of four-way crosstalk. He has a message to senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who he accused of “killing” Trump: “You’re also killing the brand.”
“The one thing I like about Donald Trump, I’m not gonna say I agree with everything he’s saying... he’s showing a vision for the future,” LePage said. “He wants to make America great again, and he’s the only person doing that right now.”
LePage, who described himself in the interview as “just a schmuck from the streets,” told Carr that he had not spoken with Trump about his endorsement beforehand, although he had been considering doing so after Chris Christie dropped out of the presidential race... (continued)
Link:
Related:
Monday, February 22, 2016
The Teflon Don(ald): Why Nothing Sticks to Trump - with Scott Adams creator of Dilbert
Dilbert creator Scott Adams tells CNN's Jake Tapper that Donald Trump is going to win, and win big.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Post South Carolina Results – “The Looming Inferno”…
From Sundance at The Last Refuge:
Be
of good cheer and enjoy the removal of one-half of the globalists 2016
objectives; indeed a difficult Rubicon has been successfully traversed.
However, do not be naïve in thinking one significant battle means the
war has been won.
The bloodiest battle still lays ahead.
♦ Jeb Bush has been forced out of the race. It cannot be overstated how significant this victory is in the grand scheme of things. The foundational block, upon which the entire road-map was built, has been removed. However, the GOPe engineers will now shift attention to a scorched earth campaign to benefit their retention of power.
We would all be wise to remember in 2014 Chris McDaniels actually defeated Thad Cochran in the first GOP Mississippi primary. It was only after their initial defeat the GOPe decided to destroy anything that stood in their way – again, the retention of power was the ultimate motivator.
We can now expect those same DC influences, including the entire camp that supported Jeb Bush, the old guard, to work diligently (albeit under darkened cover) to assist Hillary Clinton, and destroy anything that would interrupt their grip on power.
Yes, the GOPe would rather lose to Hillary and retain their place at the trough than to see entry into their cloistered club by the Vulgarian Donald Trump.
That inevitable and predictable result was/is part of the original problem.
The full weight of the GOPe apparatus, Wall Street, the U.S. CoC, K-Street and the affiliated professional political class will now work hand-in-hand with the Democrats and left-wing media to destroy that which threatens them; namely Donald J Trump. Attacks in all forms are only going to get worse from here on out.
Trump refusing to thank the Bush Clan upon exit was simply recognition of his awareness of what’s to come. Trump, and the close circle around him, are well aware of what happens next….. They simply have to be.
♦ “Ceilings” – There will be much media obfuscation around Trump having ceilings, or limits to his appeal. These necessarily promoted memes and narratives will have to be pushed to provide distraction and gaslight those voters with common sense.
In reality election results are ceilings themselves, and while they may proclaim Trump has a 35% +/- ceiling, the reality is yesterday Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz had ceilings around the 22% range. Election results are ceilings. Ceilings move along with the thinning out of campaign contestants.
FACT – As long as Trump’s “Ceiling” is higher than his competition he will continue to win, and there’s nothing on the visible horizon to indicate he will lose. Talk of “ceilings” is merely obfuscation and denial of reality.
♦ John Kasich – Remember, Kasich will not even be competitive in most of the upcoming races. Nor is Kasich on all of the upcoming state’s ballots. So why does he stay in? He is a loyal soldier for the Old Guard. He still has a role to play, an agenda to deliver and promises to keep.
♦ Ted Cruz – Ted’s loss yesterday (as described here),
showcases what we have outlined for a long time. Team Cruz does not
carry a pathway to a successful nomination. Period. If Cruz cannot win a
single county in 75% evangelical voter friendly South Carolina, where
exactly can he win?
SEC primary states or not, Ted Cruz’s last and only firewall before an embarrassing, albeit lucrative, exit is Texas. If Cruz doesn’t win Texas, he’s done. But he needs to keep talking like it’s possible in order for the supporters to hit the donation buttons on the increasingly urgent and desperate emails.
Team Cruz talking points will center around beating Trump by a.) confronting Trump directly, or, b) taking down Marco Rubio. Except Cruz faces a reality problem. Taking support from Rubio only benefits Trump, not Cruz.
♦ Marco Rubio – We have continually referenced readers to weigh only polling that is not agenda driven polling. Meaning polling results which are not driven by insiders in the professional political game. You can see from last night’s results the NBC/WSJ poll was insufferably wrong (derived from a PR firm). So too was the Fox Poll, and almost all of the 48 hour polls prior to the actual voting in South Carolina.
However, in the non-agenda polling, done by actual political scientists without a financial stake in the outcome, you see a key point repeating over the past several months. If you take down Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s numbers increase but not Ted Cruz.
The Southern Political Poll is a great representative example – SEE HERE.
Only Donald Trump holds more than 50% when combining first and second preference in objective polling stats (again, agenda polls are useless for this analysis).
It is conversely true that Rubio would benefit from a Trump downfall or exit. However, it is also true that any benefit therein to Cruz would be minimal. Cruz’s base voters are the purest of ideological voters, as a consequence moderates do not traverse easily into that camp – even if their favorite issues are represented within it.
As we previously shared, in a three man race with Trump, Rubio and Cruz a generally admitted outcome would be:
America-first immigration policies; strong border security; Pro U.S. worker trade-policies; Main Street (not Wall Street) American worker interests; Local education (not common core); Strong national defense, but common sense non-intervention. All policies dominated by Donald J Trump.
One of the historic truisms in the past several election cycles is the “Cruz Coalition”, as currently assembled, is the first to stay home when their candidate doesn’t win. The socially-minded voter will never vote for a populist fiscal conservative/socially moderate candidate. Cruz voters, and their advocates, are emotionally driven by social issues. Hence they yell a lot (See Mark Levin) and only respond well to others who are inside their echo-chamber... (continued)
Link:
Be
of good cheer and enjoy the removal of one-half of the globalists 2016
objectives; indeed a difficult Rubicon has been successfully traversed.
However, do not be naïve in thinking one significant battle means the
war has been won.The bloodiest battle still lays ahead.
♦ Jeb Bush has been forced out of the race. It cannot be overstated how significant this victory is in the grand scheme of things. The foundational block, upon which the entire road-map was built, has been removed. However, the GOPe engineers will now shift attention to a scorched earth campaign to benefit their retention of power.
We would all be wise to remember in 2014 Chris McDaniels actually defeated Thad Cochran in the first GOP Mississippi primary. It was only after their initial defeat the GOPe decided to destroy anything that stood in their way – again, the retention of power was the ultimate motivator.
We can now expect those same DC influences, including the entire camp that supported Jeb Bush, the old guard, to work diligently (albeit under darkened cover) to assist Hillary Clinton, and destroy anything that would interrupt their grip on power.
Yes, the GOPe would rather lose to Hillary and retain their place at the trough than to see entry into their cloistered club by the Vulgarian Donald Trump.
That inevitable and predictable result was/is part of the original problem.
The full weight of the GOPe apparatus, Wall Street, the U.S. CoC, K-Street and the affiliated professional political class will now work hand-in-hand with the Democrats and left-wing media to destroy that which threatens them; namely Donald J Trump. Attacks in all forms are only going to get worse from here on out.
Trump refusing to thank the Bush Clan upon exit was simply recognition of his awareness of what’s to come. Trump, and the close circle around him, are well aware of what happens next….. They simply have to be.
♦ “Ceilings” – There will be much media obfuscation around Trump having ceilings, or limits to his appeal. These necessarily promoted memes and narratives will have to be pushed to provide distraction and gaslight those voters with common sense.
In reality election results are ceilings themselves, and while they may proclaim Trump has a 35% +/- ceiling, the reality is yesterday Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz had ceilings around the 22% range. Election results are ceilings. Ceilings move along with the thinning out of campaign contestants.
FACT – As long as Trump’s “Ceiling” is higher than his competition he will continue to win, and there’s nothing on the visible horizon to indicate he will lose. Talk of “ceilings” is merely obfuscation and denial of reality.
♦ John Kasich – Remember, Kasich will not even be competitive in most of the upcoming races. Nor is Kasich on all of the upcoming state’s ballots. So why does he stay in? He is a loyal soldier for the Old Guard. He still has a role to play, an agenda to deliver and promises to keep.
SEC primary states or not, Ted Cruz’s last and only firewall before an embarrassing, albeit lucrative, exit is Texas. If Cruz doesn’t win Texas, he’s done. But he needs to keep talking like it’s possible in order for the supporters to hit the donation buttons on the increasingly urgent and desperate emails.
Team Cruz talking points will center around beating Trump by a.) confronting Trump directly, or, b) taking down Marco Rubio. Except Cruz faces a reality problem. Taking support from Rubio only benefits Trump, not Cruz.
♦ Marco Rubio – We have continually referenced readers to weigh only polling that is not agenda driven polling. Meaning polling results which are not driven by insiders in the professional political game. You can see from last night’s results the NBC/WSJ poll was insufferably wrong (derived from a PR firm). So too was the Fox Poll, and almost all of the 48 hour polls prior to the actual voting in South Carolina.
However, in the non-agenda polling, done by actual political scientists without a financial stake in the outcome, you see a key point repeating over the past several months. If you take down Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s numbers increase but not Ted Cruz.
The Southern Political Poll is a great representative example – SEE HERE.
Horse race #1 = first choice, Horse race #2 = second choice.
Only Donald Trump holds more than 50% when combining first and second preference in objective polling stats (again, agenda polls are useless for this analysis).
It is conversely true that Rubio would benefit from a Trump downfall or exit. However, it is also true that any benefit therein to Cruz would be minimal. Cruz’s base voters are the purest of ideological voters, as a consequence moderates do not traverse easily into that camp – even if their favorite issues are represented within it.
As we previously shared, in a three man race with Trump, Rubio and Cruz a generally admitted outcome would be:
- Trump 45-50% (America-First Populists, blue collar and Reagan Dems, Blue dogs)
- Rubio 25-30% (Mainstream republicans, white collar, moderate GOPe)
- Cruz 20-25% (Right-Wing, Staunch Faith-Value voters, Evangelicals)
America-first immigration policies; strong border security; Pro U.S. worker trade-policies; Main Street (not Wall Street) American worker interests; Local education (not common core); Strong national defense, but common sense non-intervention. All policies dominated by Donald J Trump.
One of the historic truisms in the past several election cycles is the “Cruz Coalition”, as currently assembled, is the first to stay home when their candidate doesn’t win. The socially-minded voter will never vote for a populist fiscal conservative/socially moderate candidate. Cruz voters, and their advocates, are emotionally driven by social issues. Hence they yell a lot (See Mark Levin) and only respond well to others who are inside their echo-chamber... (continued)
Link:
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Trump, Sanders win New Hampshire Primary
By Stephen Collinson
(CNN) Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders have cruised to victories in the New Hampshire primary, CNN projects, in results that will rock the establishments of both parties and confirm the strength of outsider candidates in a wild presidential race.
Trump's victory restores the mantle of a winner to the billionaire reality star's campaign after he finished second last week in Iowa and validates him as a powerful new force in American politics...
Link:
(CNN) Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders have cruised to victories in the New Hampshire primary, CNN projects, in results that will rock the establishments of both parties and confirm the strength of outsider candidates in a wild presidential race.
Trump's victory restores the mantle of a winner to the billionaire reality star's campaign after he finished second last week in Iowa and validates him as a powerful new force in American politics...
Link:
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Iowa Poll: Men, Catholics Prefer Trump
A closer look at the GOP's Iowa Poll Results
By Jennifer Jacobs
(The Des Moines Register)
Horse race rank: No. 1
Support: 28 percent, up from 22 percent
Mainstream Republicans are helping carry the New York businessman into the lead.
Thirty-eight percent of likely GOP caucusgoers identify themselves as primarily mainstream, rather than tea party or evangelical conservative, and Trump does better than any other candidate with 34 percent of their support. Rubio is next at 21 percent. Cruz gets only 10 percent of these voters.
Trump also wins with voters who think the system is rigged against all but the very rich and powerful, with 39 percent of their support, followed by Cruz at 19 percent.
Men, Catholics, and first-time caucusgoers prefer Trump over others.
Link:
By Jennifer Jacobs
(The Des Moines Register)
Horse race rank: No. 1
Support: 28 percent, up from 22 percent
Mainstream Republicans are helping carry the New York businessman into the lead.
Thirty-eight percent of likely GOP caucusgoers identify themselves as primarily mainstream, rather than tea party or evangelical conservative, and Trump does better than any other candidate with 34 percent of their support. Rubio is next at 21 percent. Cruz gets only 10 percent of these voters.
Trump also wins with voters who think the system is rigged against all but the very rich and powerful, with 39 percent of their support, followed by Cruz at 19 percent.
Men, Catholics, and first-time caucusgoers prefer Trump over others.
Link:
Friday, January 29, 2016
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Jr. endorses Trump
By Robert Costa and Jenna Johnson
(The Washington Post) Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr., the son of the late televangelist, endorsed Donald Trump on Tuesday, giving the Republican front-runner the blessing of one of the evangelical community’s biggest names just days before the Iowa caucuses.
In a statement, Falwell called Trump “a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.”
Falwell’s move has long been expected since he has showered praise on the billionaire in recent weeks and developed a rapport with him. But the timing of the formal announcement is significant, coming as Trump and Ted Cruz compete intensely in Iowa for the support of social conservatives.
“It is truly an honor to receive Jerry’s endorsement. Not only is he a high-quality person, with a wonderful family, whom I have great respect for — I also consider him a very good friend and his support means so much to me,” Trump said in a statement.
Coming a week after evangelical favorite Sarah Palin endorsed Trump, Falwell represents the latest attempt by Trump to cut into Cruz’s deep support among born-again Christians nationwide and showcase his own popularity with prominent people of faith...
Link:
(The Washington Post) Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr., the son of the late televangelist, endorsed Donald Trump on Tuesday, giving the Republican front-runner the blessing of one of the evangelical community’s biggest names just days before the Iowa caucuses.
In a statement, Falwell called Trump “a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.”
Falwell’s move has long been expected since he has showered praise on the billionaire in recent weeks and developed a rapport with him. But the timing of the formal announcement is significant, coming as Trump and Ted Cruz compete intensely in Iowa for the support of social conservatives.
“It is truly an honor to receive Jerry’s endorsement. Not only is he a high-quality person, with a wonderful family, whom I have great respect for — I also consider him a very good friend and his support means so much to me,” Trump said in a statement.
Coming a week after evangelical favorite Sarah Palin endorsed Trump, Falwell represents the latest attempt by Trump to cut into Cruz’s deep support among born-again Christians nationwide and showcase his own popularity with prominent people of faith...
Link:
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
What Palin's Trump Speech Says About the State of the Conservative Movement
By Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Man, are we loaded today. I'll tell you right now, it's going
to take all three hours and then some. I'm gonna try to get it all in
here in three hours. Much of today is gonna build on points that I have
been making the past two days, evolving, growing, adding evidence to
it, all rooted around the question, who is and what is the conservative
movement, and why is it apparently behaving so oddly? I think I can
explain this and much else to all of you as the program unfolds today
before your very eyes and ears. It will explain the massive support for
Donald Trump that people can't figure out. It will explain why there's
abject hatred and panic over Trump in the Washington Republican and
even conservative media establishment.
Trump picking Sarah Palin, or Palin deciding to endorse Trump just exacerbates it. And, by the way, Sarah Palin is gonna help me make my points today, because I read the transcript for her speech that she made, and it's actually -- the speech that Palin made yesterday for Trump, I saw people pan it, say she looked like she lost her place, she was reading cue cards, she didn't seem to be all there. I didn't see it, but I read the transcript of her speech, and I'm telling you it is -- well, I don't want to overdo it and say brilliant, but I'll tell you, she's got substantive, logical reasons for doing what she's doing. And she explained it yesterday for anybody who really wanted to pay attention to listen to it. So I'm gonna explain that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: These are just thoughts that I had that I'm sharing with you. Don't attach any more to it. I want to warn you, this may not be good for me to say, and I'm gonna try to make it so it's not necessary, but you may need a lot of nuance listening to me today. Avoid knee jerks today if you can and hang in as I go through some of this stuff, because it's not complicated, but it is detailed. And of course I, ladies and gentlemen, excel at making the complex understandable.
This
actually isn't that complex. It's just so strange. I'm not trying to
be cryptic. I tell you, the last couple of days, remember the piece in National Review, David French,
where he speculated that one of the problems going on with the
Republican Party is they don't even know who their base is, that they
have overestimated who their conservative base is. They do not
understands it and overestimate it. In other words, the conservative
base is not nearly as conservative as they think it is, nor is it
conservative as they define it.
That's key. The way the Republican establishment defines conservatism is not what it is. To them it's hayseed hicks, pro-lifers running around in pickup trucks with shotguns in the back, bitter clingers. You know, Obama's not just speaking for himself on that. There are a lot of people in Washington in both parties who have that opinion of conservatives, and the Republicans might even look at their own base in that regard. But the truth is that they've overestimated the conservative base and furthermore they are clueless in understanding what it is that motivates their own base, and, as such, they're incapable of understanding why Trump has any support.
Now, I'm gonna explain all that to you today, and more. 'Cause I have been researching it, delving deeply into it. My own instincts in this from a year ago are being confirmed on a couple of things. Snerdley tells me... I didn't... I haven't seen this, but why would I doubt Snerdley? I mean, why would I think Snerdley would be wrong about this? Why would I think Snerdley would come to me with something wrong?
He's telling me that George Will... Is it a column today? (interruption) Well, you read it today. I don't know when it was published, but apparently George Will is saying that if Trump wins, he's advocating third party. (interruption) That he will go third party? (interruption) Oh, it was an interview? (interruption) It's not a column? (interruption) All right. All right. (interruption) Oh. If it's in your stack, I'll find it. I've been swamped in here.
I haven't had a chance to go through it. Anyway, George Will is talking third party. I can explain why that's happening, too, folks.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I think, folks, the thing that's happening here, the awakening that's taking place, and I think it's a serious awakening that is taking place within the Republican Party and the so-called conservative movement. When I talk about the conservative movement, to me I'm talking about Washington. I'm not talking about you in the grassroots. I'm talking about the establishment, conservative media, the brainiacs, the think tanks, the professors. And it's not bad, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying that there is a new understanding of who out in the country is actually conservative and who isn't.
I think what's actually being revealed here is that the Republican Party itself and even some of the conservative intelligentsia has misjudged and overestimated the conservatism of the base, negatively. They have a negative connotation of conservatism. They don't like it, obviously. They think it's the pro-lifers, the social issues, that's what they think conservatives are, and that that's all they are.
And they're embarrassed of 'em, don't like going to the convention with 'em, and their wives nag 'em about it. And what's being discovered here by virtue of the Trump candidacy is that this misunderstanding is being exposed. And it's now out in the open that the Republican conservative base is not monolithically conservative. It has lots of components that have been lumped together as conservative maybe for the past 30 years. And there are some people who think that this masquerade's over, is good that it's over, that the idea that conservatism is one type of thinking and one person and a monolithic thing, some people think it's a great idea to have this blown up.
I think the best way to explain it is that there are a lot of people in this country who are conservative. There are a lot of those people that won't admit it, for whatever reason, don't want anybody to know it, for whatever reason or another, and therefore they live and vote and do things for the most part which are conservative, certainly not liberal. But that's not the glue that unites them all. If it were, if conservatism -- this is the big shock -- if conservatism were the glue, the belief and understanding of deep but commonly understood conservative principles, if that's what defined people as conservative and was the glue that made the conservative movement a big movement, then Trump would have no chance.
He literally would have no chance. Because, whatever he is he's not and never has been known as a doctrinaire conservative. But neither is John McCain. Neither is 90% of the Republican Party, so it's not a criticism. It's not an allegation. The point is that if conservatism were this widely understood, deeply held belief system that united conservatives and united people as conservatives, then outsiders like Trump wouldn't stand a prayer of getting support from people. Yet he is. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that there are other things at play here that make people conservative. And look, I'm gonna go back to it.
The thing that's in front of everybody's face and it's apparently so hard to believe, it's this united, virulent opposition to the left and the Democrat Party and Barack Obama. And I, for the life of me, don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
Now, Sarah Palin and her speech. There she is in Tulsa. She's out making a campaign appearance. I guess Trump's in Tulsa. Oh, really? I just was told, "She looks better today." See? These poor women in politics, like Hillary. They can't get a break. "She looks better today." What, did she not look good yesterday? What, you didn't like that cowboy jacket or whatever it was? Why are they in Tulsa on the eve of the Hawkeye Cauci and the New Hampshire primary? Why are they there? The answer is easy. The answer is easy. I'm just asking it rhetorically.
Let's look at her endorsement speech. I don't have the whole thing here, but I've got most of it. It's not getting very much attention. Her jacket is getting more attention than what she said. I've seen people criticize her delivery, she lost her place, had to look at cue cards, Trump looked kind of out of place being not behind the podium. That, by the way, I said this in the first hour. I was surprised that Trump went the endorsement route. I mean, I am not surprised that he would accept it, but Trump just doesn't look like Trump giving up the podium and standing aside, I don't care who it is for. And endorsements are kind of the way it's done, right, in by-the-book politics, and Trump's not by-the-book politics. But what is by-the-book politics is win at all costs.
So if you have to suck it up and say you support ethanol, and if you want to accept endorsements from somebody that's gonna undermine Cruz, I guess you'll do it. But she, in her speech yesterday, she explained why conservatives are angry about what's happening to the country and why they are as angry at the Republican establishment as they are at the Democrats. And she explained how a permanent political class has been created and corrupted by what's now known as the donor class. And she made it plain that what she wants to do now is participate in a movement that holds every one of those people accountable for the damage they've done to the country, for the failures they continue to mount up and be.
"When asked why I would jump into a primary -- kind of stirring it up a little bit maybe -- and choose one over some friends who are running and I’ve endorsed a couple others in their races before they decided to run for president, I was told left and right, 'you are going to get so clobbered in the press. You are just going to get beat up, and chewed up, and spit out.' You know, I’m thinking, 'and?' You know, like you guys haven’t tried to do that every day since that night in ‘08, when I was on stage nominated for VP."
Her point is, and she got close to saying this in her own words but didn't. But really what people are complaining about, you know, why would you do this. What's the Republican Party ever really done for her? I mean, besides nominate, McCain chose her. But members of the Republican establishment did their best to destroy her, to impugn her reputation. The people that were assigned to handle her were out leaking to the press how stupid she is and how it was so bad, that she's so stupid. These people couldn't vote for their own candidate, McCain, because if something happened to him and she became president, they couldn't live with themselves if they'd made that.
So they were gonna vote Democrat or not vote at all. These were the people responsible for shepherding her through the campaign. So she's got a legitimate question. I've already been clobbered. I've been clobbered by the people who are gonna clobber me today before. "And, like you all, I’m still standing. So those of us who’ve kind of gone through the ringer as Mr. Trump has, makes me respect you even more. That you’re here, and you’re putting your efforts, you’re putting reputations, you’re putting relationships on the line to do the right thing for this country. Because you are ready to make America great again."
I think it's a salient point. It wasn't just Sarah Palin who was smeared by the media and the rest of the Democrat Party, and even the Republican establishment. It was her supporters, by extension, who were smeared and insulted. And now the same suspects, same usual suspects, are trying to do the same thing all over again, this time to Trump and his supporters, but Trump is fighting back, where she couldn't because she was part of the organization trying to win.
So she couldn't fight back even though I'm sure she was tempted to. I think this explains why so many Tea Party supporters and other conservatives are drawn to Trump even if he doesn't, you know, broadcast or display a bunch of conservative credentials. I mean, people have a bond and a connection here to people who are laughed at, made fun of, criticized, ripped to shreds and so forth just because of what they believe and who they are.
She said, "Now, eight years ago, I warned that Obama's promised fundamental transformation of America. That is was going to take more from you, and leave America weaker on the world stage. And that we would soon be unrecognizable. Well, it's the one promise that Obama kept. But he didn't do it alone, and this is important to remember. Especially those of you, like me, a member of the GOP, this is what we have to remember, in this very contested, competitive, great primary race.
"Trump's candidacy, it has exposed not just that tragic ramifications of that betrayal of the transformation of our country, but too, he has exposed the complicity on both sides of the aisle that has enabled it, okay? Well, Trump, what he's been able to do -- which is really ticking people off, which I'm glad about. He's going rogue left and right, man. That's why he's doing so well. He's been able to tear the veil off this idea of the system, the way that the system really works. And please hear me on this.
"I want you guys to understand more and more how the system, the establishment, works, and has gotten us into the troubles that we are in in America." So she's doing... You don't think she has wanted to do this for years? You don't think she's wanted to launch back at these people who tried to ruin her reputation and destroy her, and she wasn't able to because of the obvious requirements of party loyalty, loyalty to McCain and all that? She said, "The permanent political class has been doing the bidding of their campaign donor class, and that's why you see that the borders are kept open for them, for their cheap labor that they want to come in.
"That's
why they've been bloating budgets. It's for crony capitalists to be
able suck off of them. It's why we see these lousy trade deals that gut
our industry for special interests elsewhere. We need someone new, who
has the power, and is in the position to bust up that establishment to
make things great again. It's part of the problem. His candidacy --
which is a movement. It's a force; it's a strategy. It proves as long as
the politicos get to keep their titles, and their perks, and their
media ratings, they don't really care who wins elections," as long as
they get to maintain what they've got now.
She's not wrong.
She's more right about that even she may know.
END TRANSCRIPT
Link:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Trump picking Sarah Palin, or Palin deciding to endorse Trump just exacerbates it. And, by the way, Sarah Palin is gonna help me make my points today, because I read the transcript for her speech that she made, and it's actually -- the speech that Palin made yesterday for Trump, I saw people pan it, say she looked like she lost her place, she was reading cue cards, she didn't seem to be all there. I didn't see it, but I read the transcript of her speech, and I'm telling you it is -- well, I don't want to overdo it and say brilliant, but I'll tell you, she's got substantive, logical reasons for doing what she's doing. And she explained it yesterday for anybody who really wanted to pay attention to listen to it. So I'm gonna explain that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: These are just thoughts that I had that I'm sharing with you. Don't attach any more to it. I want to warn you, this may not be good for me to say, and I'm gonna try to make it so it's not necessary, but you may need a lot of nuance listening to me today. Avoid knee jerks today if you can and hang in as I go through some of this stuff, because it's not complicated, but it is detailed. And of course I, ladies and gentlemen, excel at making the complex understandable.
This
actually isn't that complex. It's just so strange. I'm not trying to
be cryptic. I tell you, the last couple of days, remember the piece in National Review, David French,
where he speculated that one of the problems going on with the
Republican Party is they don't even know who their base is, that they
have overestimated who their conservative base is. They do not
understands it and overestimate it. In other words, the conservative
base is not nearly as conservative as they think it is, nor is it
conservative as they define it.That's key. The way the Republican establishment defines conservatism is not what it is. To them it's hayseed hicks, pro-lifers running around in pickup trucks with shotguns in the back, bitter clingers. You know, Obama's not just speaking for himself on that. There are a lot of people in Washington in both parties who have that opinion of conservatives, and the Republicans might even look at their own base in that regard. But the truth is that they've overestimated the conservative base and furthermore they are clueless in understanding what it is that motivates their own base, and, as such, they're incapable of understanding why Trump has any support.
Now, I'm gonna explain all that to you today, and more. 'Cause I have been researching it, delving deeply into it. My own instincts in this from a year ago are being confirmed on a couple of things. Snerdley tells me... I didn't... I haven't seen this, but why would I doubt Snerdley? I mean, why would I think Snerdley would be wrong about this? Why would I think Snerdley would come to me with something wrong?
He's telling me that George Will... Is it a column today? (interruption) Well, you read it today. I don't know when it was published, but apparently George Will is saying that if Trump wins, he's advocating third party. (interruption) That he will go third party? (interruption) Oh, it was an interview? (interruption) It's not a column? (interruption) All right. All right. (interruption) Oh. If it's in your stack, I'll find it. I've been swamped in here.
I haven't had a chance to go through it. Anyway, George Will is talking third party. I can explain why that's happening, too, folks.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I think, folks, the thing that's happening here, the awakening that's taking place, and I think it's a serious awakening that is taking place within the Republican Party and the so-called conservative movement. When I talk about the conservative movement, to me I'm talking about Washington. I'm not talking about you in the grassroots. I'm talking about the establishment, conservative media, the brainiacs, the think tanks, the professors. And it's not bad, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying that there is a new understanding of who out in the country is actually conservative and who isn't.
I think what's actually being revealed here is that the Republican Party itself and even some of the conservative intelligentsia has misjudged and overestimated the conservatism of the base, negatively. They have a negative connotation of conservatism. They don't like it, obviously. They think it's the pro-lifers, the social issues, that's what they think conservatives are, and that that's all they are.
And they're embarrassed of 'em, don't like going to the convention with 'em, and their wives nag 'em about it. And what's being discovered here by virtue of the Trump candidacy is that this misunderstanding is being exposed. And it's now out in the open that the Republican conservative base is not monolithically conservative. It has lots of components that have been lumped together as conservative maybe for the past 30 years. And there are some people who think that this masquerade's over, is good that it's over, that the idea that conservatism is one type of thinking and one person and a monolithic thing, some people think it's a great idea to have this blown up.
I think the best way to explain it is that there are a lot of people in this country who are conservative. There are a lot of those people that won't admit it, for whatever reason, don't want anybody to know it, for whatever reason or another, and therefore they live and vote and do things for the most part which are conservative, certainly not liberal. But that's not the glue that unites them all. If it were, if conservatism -- this is the big shock -- if conservatism were the glue, the belief and understanding of deep but commonly understood conservative principles, if that's what defined people as conservative and was the glue that made the conservative movement a big movement, then Trump would have no chance.
He literally would have no chance. Because, whatever he is he's not and never has been known as a doctrinaire conservative. But neither is John McCain. Neither is 90% of the Republican Party, so it's not a criticism. It's not an allegation. The point is that if conservatism were this widely understood, deeply held belief system that united conservatives and united people as conservatives, then outsiders like Trump wouldn't stand a prayer of getting support from people. Yet he is. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that there are other things at play here that make people conservative. And look, I'm gonna go back to it.
The thing that's in front of everybody's face and it's apparently so hard to believe, it's this united, virulent opposition to the left and the Democrat Party and Barack Obama. And I, for the life of me, don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
Now, Sarah Palin and her speech. There she is in Tulsa. She's out making a campaign appearance. I guess Trump's in Tulsa. Oh, really? I just was told, "She looks better today." See? These poor women in politics, like Hillary. They can't get a break. "She looks better today." What, did she not look good yesterday? What, you didn't like that cowboy jacket or whatever it was? Why are they in Tulsa on the eve of the Hawkeye Cauci and the New Hampshire primary? Why are they there? The answer is easy. The answer is easy. I'm just asking it rhetorically.
Let's look at her endorsement speech. I don't have the whole thing here, but I've got most of it. It's not getting very much attention. Her jacket is getting more attention than what she said. I've seen people criticize her delivery, she lost her place, had to look at cue cards, Trump looked kind of out of place being not behind the podium. That, by the way, I said this in the first hour. I was surprised that Trump went the endorsement route. I mean, I am not surprised that he would accept it, but Trump just doesn't look like Trump giving up the podium and standing aside, I don't care who it is for. And endorsements are kind of the way it's done, right, in by-the-book politics, and Trump's not by-the-book politics. But what is by-the-book politics is win at all costs.
So if you have to suck it up and say you support ethanol, and if you want to accept endorsements from somebody that's gonna undermine Cruz, I guess you'll do it. But she, in her speech yesterday, she explained why conservatives are angry about what's happening to the country and why they are as angry at the Republican establishment as they are at the Democrats. And she explained how a permanent political class has been created and corrupted by what's now known as the donor class. And she made it plain that what she wants to do now is participate in a movement that holds every one of those people accountable for the damage they've done to the country, for the failures they continue to mount up and be.
"When asked why I would jump into a primary -- kind of stirring it up a little bit maybe -- and choose one over some friends who are running and I’ve endorsed a couple others in their races before they decided to run for president, I was told left and right, 'you are going to get so clobbered in the press. You are just going to get beat up, and chewed up, and spit out.' You know, I’m thinking, 'and?' You know, like you guys haven’t tried to do that every day since that night in ‘08, when I was on stage nominated for VP."
Her point is, and she got close to saying this in her own words but didn't. But really what people are complaining about, you know, why would you do this. What's the Republican Party ever really done for her? I mean, besides nominate, McCain chose her. But members of the Republican establishment did their best to destroy her, to impugn her reputation. The people that were assigned to handle her were out leaking to the press how stupid she is and how it was so bad, that she's so stupid. These people couldn't vote for their own candidate, McCain, because if something happened to him and she became president, they couldn't live with themselves if they'd made that.
So they were gonna vote Democrat or not vote at all. These were the people responsible for shepherding her through the campaign. So she's got a legitimate question. I've already been clobbered. I've been clobbered by the people who are gonna clobber me today before. "And, like you all, I’m still standing. So those of us who’ve kind of gone through the ringer as Mr. Trump has, makes me respect you even more. That you’re here, and you’re putting your efforts, you’re putting reputations, you’re putting relationships on the line to do the right thing for this country. Because you are ready to make America great again."
I think it's a salient point. It wasn't just Sarah Palin who was smeared by the media and the rest of the Democrat Party, and even the Republican establishment. It was her supporters, by extension, who were smeared and insulted. And now the same suspects, same usual suspects, are trying to do the same thing all over again, this time to Trump and his supporters, but Trump is fighting back, where she couldn't because she was part of the organization trying to win.
So she couldn't fight back even though I'm sure she was tempted to. I think this explains why so many Tea Party supporters and other conservatives are drawn to Trump even if he doesn't, you know, broadcast or display a bunch of conservative credentials. I mean, people have a bond and a connection here to people who are laughed at, made fun of, criticized, ripped to shreds and so forth just because of what they believe and who they are.
She said, "Now, eight years ago, I warned that Obama's promised fundamental transformation of America. That is was going to take more from you, and leave America weaker on the world stage. And that we would soon be unrecognizable. Well, it's the one promise that Obama kept. But he didn't do it alone, and this is important to remember. Especially those of you, like me, a member of the GOP, this is what we have to remember, in this very contested, competitive, great primary race.
"Trump's candidacy, it has exposed not just that tragic ramifications of that betrayal of the transformation of our country, but too, he has exposed the complicity on both sides of the aisle that has enabled it, okay? Well, Trump, what he's been able to do -- which is really ticking people off, which I'm glad about. He's going rogue left and right, man. That's why he's doing so well. He's been able to tear the veil off this idea of the system, the way that the system really works. And please hear me on this.
"I want you guys to understand more and more how the system, the establishment, works, and has gotten us into the troubles that we are in in America." So she's doing... You don't think she has wanted to do this for years? You don't think she's wanted to launch back at these people who tried to ruin her reputation and destroy her, and she wasn't able to because of the obvious requirements of party loyalty, loyalty to McCain and all that? She said, "The permanent political class has been doing the bidding of their campaign donor class, and that's why you see that the borders are kept open for them, for their cheap labor that they want to come in.
"That's
why they've been bloating budgets. It's for crony capitalists to be
able suck off of them. It's why we see these lousy trade deals that gut
our industry for special interests elsewhere. We need someone new, who
has the power, and is in the position to bust up that establishment to
make things great again. It's part of the problem. His candidacy --
which is a movement. It's a force; it's a strategy. It proves as long as
the politicos get to keep their titles, and their perks, and their
media ratings, they don't really care who wins elections," as long as
they get to maintain what they've got now.She's not wrong.
She's more right about that even she may know.
Link:
Monday, December 7, 2015
Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a
total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until
our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards
Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a
poll from the Center for Security Policy released
data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against
Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global
jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should
have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah
authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't
convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to
Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
Links:
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
Links:
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Marco Rubio: "I’d attend a gay wedding"
From Brett LoGiurato and AMERICA with Jorge Ramos at Fusion:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), the newest and youngest official Republican candidate for president, has said he believes marriage should be “traditional”—between a man and a woman.
So Fusion’s Jorge Ramos asked him: If someone in his family or on his staff were gay and getting married, would he attend the wedding? “If it’s somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,” Rubio told Ramos in an interview on Wednesday.
“I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be,” he added. “Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them...” (continued)
Link:
Related:
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Gingrich: The key ‘R’ word is Republican, not Romney
By Newt Gingrich
(Human Events) With all the efforts to understand the recent election defeat, a lot of the focus has been on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his campaign.
That is exactly the wrong way to begin analyzing the outcome of the 2012 campaign.
The focus on Romney as a candidate is profoundly misleading for those who want to prepare for future Republican victories.
Any analysis of recent Republican presidential results will reveal a systemic failure which can’t be ascribed to Romney.
The last clear Republican presidential victory was in 1988 when Vice President George H W Bush won with 53.37 percent over Dukakis.
Since then we have lost the popular vote in five out of six elections for president and dramatically underperformed in re-electing a president with the lowest margin in the history of presidential re-elections. (Other incumbents were defeated for re-election but none was re-elected with a narrower margin than President George W. Bush in 2004.)
Consider the results:
President George H. W. Bush lost re-election in 1992 in a three way race with then-Gov. Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. The Republican got 38 percent in a three way race.
Senator Bob Dole got 41 percent against President Bill Clinton in 1996.
Then-Gov. George W Bush got 543,816 fewer votes than Vice President Al Gore, but won because of a fluke in the electoral college. It was the fourth weakest winning performance in American history.
President George W Bush was re-elected with 50.73 percent of the vote in 2004. It was the weakest Presidential re-election in American history. This was against a candidate who on 53 issues averaged being in the minority position by 77 to 17 percent as a senator and whose record was more liberal than Senator Ted Kennedy’s.
By contrast, President Richard Nixon got 60.17 percent of the vote for re-election in 1972 and President Ronald Reagan got 58.77 percent of the vote for re-election in 1984. So the Republicans in 2004 were running between eight and ten per cent behind the norm for re-election.
Then Sen. Obama beat Sen. McCain in 2008 with the Republican only getting 45 percent and losing by 9,549,000 votes.
The defeat of Romney with 47.61 percent of the vote running 5,910,000 behind President Obama is about the norm for recent Republican candidates.
Instead of looking at the Romney campaign in isolation Republican activists and analysts should be looking at the culture, structure and system of the GOP and its consultants, people who are paid for campaign advice without long term institutional responsibilities.
Republicans need a thorough systematic lessons-learned approach because the problem is systemic rather than personality-based.
Any team which has had 20 straight years of underperforming ought to review the entire system and not simply focus on the newest scapegoat.
In the first weeks of our “Lessons to be Learned” project at Gingrich Productions, we have already begun to develop insights that are systemic rather than personality driven.
There are big problems from the failure to think strategically about issues, to the unwillingness to engage the proliferation of infotainment outlets, to the methodical failure to include minorities even when they agree with us on values and issues.
Over the next few months we will be issuing a series of reports on different aspects of the Republican failure to modernize.
As George Santayana warned: “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
We do not need to lose five of the next six presidential elections to learn that we have some serious thinking to do.
Link:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)