ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 15, 2016

So much for Republican loyalty

The Republican Establishment always demands loyalty from its base, but never offers any of its own:
I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I first became eligible to vote in 1980. I worked in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser. I have also worked for Republican presidential campaigns, although not this time around. Despite this history, and in important ways because of it, I will not vote for Donald Trump if he wins the Republican nomination....

No major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness. It is little surprise, then, that many of Mr. Trump’s most celebrated pronouncements and promises — to quickly and “humanely” expel 11 million illegal immigrants, to force Mexico to pay for the wall he will build on our southern border, to defeat the Islamic State “very quickly” while as a bonus taking its oil, to bar Muslims from immigrating to the United States — are nativistic pipe dreams and public relations stunts.
No wonder people have increasingly little use for Republicans. They stand for nothing but the status quo. They promise nothing but the status quo. They offer nothing but the status quo. They are, quite literally, hopeless.
For Republicans, there is an additional reason not to vote for Mr. Trump. His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism, in ways that Hillary Clinton never could. For while Mrs. Clinton could inflict a defeat on the Republican Party, she could not redefine it. But Mr. Trump, if he were the Republican nominee, would.

Mr. Trump’s presence in the 2016 race has already had pernicious effects, but they’re nothing compared with what would happen if he were the Republican standard-bearer. The nominee, after all, is the leader of the party; he gives it shape and definition. If Mr. Trump heads the Republican Party, it will no longer be a conservative party; it will be an angry, bigoted, populist one. Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions.
An angry, bigoted, populist party sounds a lot more appropriate and viable in the last days of a failing multicultural empire than a go-along-to-get-along Wile E. Coyote party. And a dramatic break with the Republican party's best traditions, which are stabbing its base in the back and caving into Democrats, is long overdue.

The most certain way to know that Trump is doing well is to observe the way in which the liberal mainstream media is affording these cuckservatives a national platform to take these futile shots at him.

Labels: ,

194 Comments:

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 15, 2016 11:35 AM  

The more these assholes talk, the more registered voters slip through their fingers.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling January 15, 2016 11:36 AM  

"... always lie"; from "Peter Wehner: The Bush Machine’s Progressive Hitman":

Peter Wehner arrived in Washington D.C. in 1983, and never left. He was hired by Bill Bennett as a speechwriter in 1987, very late in the Reagan Presidency, and that is how Wehner lays claim to being a Reagan alum, and somehow, in his mind, it makes him an expert in decoding the Reagan philosophy. But Wehner went on to be part of a team of speechwriters for the second Bush presidency, alongside Michael Gerson, and stayed with the Bush administration, in a capacity that the Washington Post described as, “paid to read, to think, to prod, to brainstorm — all without accountability.”....

Blogger The Other Robot January 15, 2016 11:37 AM  

Why do they always have German sounding names?

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 11:38 AM  

Isn't just like a Cuck to take to the pages of the New Mexico Times to declare his condescending scorn for the little people who dared go off script?

Blogger dc.sunsets January 15, 2016 11:39 AM  

They stand for nothing but the status quo. And the status quo isn't static. It's a swan-dive.

Anonymous TS January 15, 2016 11:40 AM  

"Why do they always have German sounding names?"

It ties in with the leftism/Scandinavian connection Vox observed in Minnesota.

Blogger dc.sunsets January 15, 2016 11:42 AM  

Is it me, or does every attack on Trump's supposed "benightedness" just enhance his attractiveness?

I think of politics as a waste of time and mostly view election cycles simply as barometers for the state-of-the-herd, but the more baseballs they throw at Trump, the more I want to grab a bat.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 15, 2016 11:43 AM  

He should say it louder, I for one won't stop him

Anonymous That Would Be Telling January 15, 2016 11:45 AM  

@2 WinstonWebb:

The more these assholes talk, the more registered voters slip through their fingers.

Somehow, I doubt their plans for defeating Trump depend entirely on registered voters.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer January 15, 2016 11:49 AM  

Trump just isn't the right sort to be governing a nation such as the United States, don't you know. He actually seems to be listening to those benighted peasants, and willing to actually address their silly concerns! He is a danger to how we do things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk47saogI8o

Anonymous I Am Irony, Man January 15, 2016 11:51 AM  

Vox: "The most certain way to know that Trump is doing well is to observe the way in which the liberal mainstream media is affording these cuckservatives a national platform to take these futile shots at him. "

Like saying he has New York values.

As if being from New York is really an insult....

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 15, 2016 11:52 AM  

Maybe someone should ask ass breath who exactly he is virtue signaling to with his effeminate babbling

Blogger Elocutioner January 15, 2016 11:55 AM  

"His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism"

Just like the Tea Party that was murdered in the crib. But everyone knows the game this time. That's why you can't stop him.

OpenID sigbouncer January 15, 2016 11:55 AM  

This should be titled:

Why I will never vote for Donald Trump. Signed, A Bush Mark.

"I worked in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser."

So you worked for both Bushes and you hate Trump. What a surprise.

Blogger Robert What? January 15, 2016 12:00 PM  

The Republican establishment have no core principals any more, so understandably the only thing they are interested in is keeping the Washington gravy train rolling. They know that Hillary will do that. They can't be sure about Trump. That is why they are so terrified. If anything desperately needs redefining, it is the modern day Republican party.

Blogger Anthony January 15, 2016 12:03 PM  

The Republican establishment isn't Wile E. Coyote, it's Charlie Brown kicking the football.

Blogger The Remnant January 15, 2016 12:04 PM  

I don't plan to vote for anyone, as I don't vote in federal elections anymore (voting legitimizes a system gone rogue). That being said, I'm happy to watch Trump strike fear and loathing in the hearts of establishment eunuchs.

OpenID Jack Amok January 15, 2016 12:05 PM  

They stand for nothing but the status quo. They promise nothing but the status quo. They offer nothing but the status quo.

An excellent windup to a stump speech.

As to the establishment republicans, the think to remember is that politics for them is not "public service" no matter how much they bleat about it. Politics is a career. This is what they do to pay their mortgage and buy their food. It's also where their status comes from. There's plenty of money and status for them in being #2. In fact, as I've mentioned before, #2 has it's advantages - 80% of the perks with none of the responsibility.

Quislings like this see Trump (or any other non-establishment candidate) as a threat to their jobs. They've seen him bellow out "You're fired!" That's what they're really worried about.

Fuck 'em.

Anonymous karsten January 15, 2016 12:07 PM  

The lies, they never stop:

"Why do they always have German sounding names?"

It ties in with the leftism/Scandinavian connection Vox observed in Minnesota.


Peter Wehner.

(((Wehner)))

Wehner is Jewish. None of these "German-sounding names" denote actual Germans. All Jews.

Blogger SamuraiJack January 15, 2016 12:10 PM  

Man reading crap like this from these john mccain style, neo conartists makes me want to puke. Fuck him and the illegal he rode in on

Anonymous DavidKathome January 15, 2016 12:10 PM  

I worked...in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser...No major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness.

LOL, except for a few others including his prior boss in the White House. Watching this cuckservative project the last Bush's failings onto Trump is hilarious.

Blogger Salt January 15, 2016 12:12 PM  

I will go further: Mr. Trump is ... a demagogic figure who does not view himself as part of our constitutional system but rather as an alternative to it.

He'd prefer Hillary, who, like Obama, is a demagogic figure, an alternative to our Constitutional system.

Anonymous TS January 15, 2016 12:14 PM  

"They've seen him bellow out "You're fired!" That's what they're really worried about."

A local pastor told me that because Trump can't say "You're Fired!" to government employees/"representatives" like he could in the private sector he would have problems. Trump would have to work with quislings.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet January 15, 2016 12:15 PM  

As if being from New York is really an insult

Yeah, it's a compliment, right? Best city in the entire world without question.

/s

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 12:17 PM  

A writer who writes for the NY Times will never vote for Trump. Will wonders never cease?

Hey, Wehner: https://twitter.com/empireofjeff/status/632271934907138048

> As if being from New York is really an insult.

You mean it isn't?

I'd never get along with Trump as a person. But that doesn't mean he can't be a the President we need at this time. And if he isn't, what have lost?

Blogger Chiva January 15, 2016 12:17 PM  

For while Mrs. Clinton could inflict a defeat on the Republican Party, she could not redefine it. But Mr. Trump, if he were the Republican nominee, would.

This is what they fear the most.

Blogger pyrrhus January 15, 2016 12:17 PM  

Mindless tripe, a specialty of the NYT....comments section closed, naturally.

Blogger FALPhil January 15, 2016 12:19 PM  

Why do they always have German sounding names?

Wehner is a prime example of the pathology within the GOP. The Republican Party = The Walking Dead. They have already sunken into irrelevance.

Wehner should change his name to Peter Weener. He is about as big a weenie as they come.

Blogger FALPhil January 15, 2016 12:20 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer January 15, 2016 12:20 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs

Blogger Cinco January 15, 2016 12:23 PM  

... as indifferent to facts... LOL. Here comes a Bush II speechwriter complaining about someone else ignoring facts. If I had a dollar for every time a bureaucrat ignored facts, I would start a reserve bank.

OpenID Jack Amok January 15, 2016 12:30 PM  

A local pastor told me that because Trump can't say "You're Fired!" to government employees/"representatives" like he could in the private sector he would have problems. Trump would have to work with quislings.

Your pastor is quite wrong. It's way too late to argue President's are actually constrained by laws - that train left the station years ago. We're a nation of men now, not laws, and bold men can do things timid men don't even dream of.

No, it shouldn't be like that, but it is, and pretending we're still a nation of laws when a Republican is in power is a very cuckservative thing to do.

Blogger Ingot9455 January 15, 2016 12:36 PM  

@1 You have VD's position wrong, as I've seen. VD doesn't claim Trump is going to win (that's Scott Adams). VD claims Trump is our only hope of dealing with immigration and setting the US on a course that doesn't go to general unrest to civil war to collapse and partition.

Blogger Nick S January 15, 2016 12:37 PM  

The most telling thing that shows the RNC is worried is the push to amend rule 40B (the rule that was put in place specifically to prevent a contested convention in the Ron Paul/Mitt Romney case).

Blogger Anchorman January 15, 2016 12:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Anchorman January 15, 2016 12:38 PM  

The real motivation for his screed is not Trump. If it wasn't Trump, he'd scream about Cruz.

The real reason he's angry is because no one's buying what he's selling anymore. He's suddenly shut out and that makes a Beltway Bandit furious.

Too many of the GOP rank and file and other voters have signaled they won't line up as Lucy holds the football for 2016.

And that confuses and infuriates people who were convinced middle America was full of suckers.

Anonymous Miso Hawny January 15, 2016 12:39 PM  

How is "His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism" a reason not to vote for him " if he wins the Republican nomination."??

Blogger Ingot9455 January 15, 2016 12:40 PM  

@35 Yeah, Obama fired plenty of people he didn't have the power to fire.

If he wants to engage (and he'll have to to clean out the stables) he has plenty of tricks he can play to get people to quit. Some may hang in there and take it to court, but they won't be 'working'. They'll be in 'rubber rooms' like the various New York school boards use - an office with no phones where you clock in and clock out and they don't give you anything to do because they can't trust you. For bonus points, install cellphone jammers to limit outside contact.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 12:42 PM  

> A local pastor told me that because Trump can't say "You're Fired!" to government employees/"representatives" like he could in the private sector he would have problems.

With respect to representatives, he's correct. With respect to employees, he's not. If they don't follow orders, they can be fired.

Blogger unconventional nazi January 15, 2016 12:42 PM  

I'm sure the Republican's plan was to give Trump the Ron Paul treatment of shady tricks and backstabbing. The problem is, Trump isn't a nice guy like Ron Paul was. Trump has contributed and rubbed elbows with so many of these people, one can only imagine the amount of skeletons he is privy to.

Blogger unconventional nazi January 15, 2016 12:46 PM  

Another thing I find humorous is the left's shortsightedness. They are so used to the Repubs playing their roll of the Washington Generals they can't imagine things not going their way. Case in point: in a recent interview Trump was asked about how Obama has essentially ruled via Executive Order. His response was something along the lines of, "Well he's set an interesting precedent" Who wants to bet the Republicans who have been impotent / silent as Obama has done this will set up the biggest "Muh Constitution" howl when/if a President Trump does so.

Anonymous trump me January 15, 2016 12:47 PM  

Turned on Fox News this am. Lindsey Grahamnesty is giving a speech endorsing Jeb.

Channel surfed a bit. Came back 5 minutes later.

Lindsey Grahamnesty is STILL talking.

Apparently this went on for 13 uninterrupted minutes.

Anonymous damntull January 15, 2016 12:49 PM  

These cucks are so f'ing contemptible. The urge to punch them in the mouth hits me like a tidal wave.

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 12:51 PM  

@24 Salt:
He'd prefer Hillary, who, like Obama, is a demagogic figure, an alternative to our Constitutional system.
It really doesn't surprise me the cuckservatives would rather have the Lizard Queen.
Like 0bozo she would have her use, as a scapegoat - for example, imminvasion.
In the '07 attempt at amnesty, who could the GOP blame? Mind you, if had been enacted or not it would have been a failure, but the GOP couldn't blame the failure of it's passage on the Democrats - they were even more eager.
Another example is, and you hear it on talk radio all the time, is ''that stupid 0bozo pulled our troops out of Iraq'' even though the agreement to do so was put in place by the Bush family.
Sure Hillary screwed the pooch on Libya, no doubt about it, but who were just as eager to bump off Qdaffy? The neoconmen, who were claiming the disarmament of Libya an example of ''success'' from the Iraq misadventure and then enthusiastically backed Hillary/0bama's 'regime change'.
When it turned into an epic failure, guess who's left holding the bag and guess who gets to roll their eyes and walk away whistling?
They weren't all that dismayed Romney lost were they? Because they got four more years of a scapegoat.

Anonymous DavidKathome January 15, 2016 12:52 PM  

If anyone says the President can't fire government employees anytime he wants, point that person to when Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers and busted their union. Point out to them that not one of those people ever got their job back.

Trump could literally spend his entire four years bringing individual employees into the Oval Office and firing them on camera and turn Celebrity President into a 5 day show each week. Those ex-employees can hire lawyers at personal expense to sue while Trump will have DOJ lawyers defending him for free*

*free = at taxpayer expense

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 January 15, 2016 12:56 PM  

"If anyone says the President can't fire government employees anytime he wants, point that person to when Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers and busted their union"

They went on strike. Technically, they fired themselves.


As for the article itself, it's the fucking NYT. They won't publish conservative anything.

Anonymous DavidKathome January 15, 2016 12:56 PM  

I'm sure the Republican's plan was to give Trump the Ron Paul treatment of shady tricks and backstabbing.

Republican fraud in vote counting is widespread but Trump's unprecedented polling numbers makes things more difficult. They can't have the poll numbers and ballot counts spread too far apart from each other.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 15, 2016 12:57 PM  

Trump could literally spend his entire four years bringing individual employees into the Oval Office and firing them on camera and turn Celebrity President into a 5 day show each week.

Finally! A reason to watch network TV again.
I would never miss an episode.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 January 15, 2016 12:59 PM  

And this very same guy had this to say about Trump's performance at the debate last night.


“This was Trump’s best moment, and this is his best debate,” Wehner said in an e-mail exchange with Bloomberg Politics. “People will remember the Trump answer, with even Cruz applauding his answer.” . . .

Blogger SQT January 15, 2016 1:00 PM  

What these people don't understand is that many of us would vote for Trump *because* he change the direction of the Republican Party. That's the whole point.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 15, 2016 1:03 PM  

The POTUS cannot fire civil servants. There are laws that controls how that is done. The POTUS can hire/fire at will all his political appointments. In some case, though, an uSA Senate impeachment and removal may have to be followed.

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 1:10 PM  

Oh, that ain't the half of it. The President is largely irrelevant to USG. At some point they will change the portraits in the halls, but other than that no one in USG really gives a damn who is President.

Blogger Anchorman January 15, 2016 1:12 PM  

#54 I think all Cabinet appointments submit a letter of resignation to the president when they take office. Goes back to Johnson's impeachment. Could be an urban legend I picked up in high school, but I seem to recall a president has letters of resignation to pull at any time, since they're approved by the Senate.

Blogger glad2meetyou January 15, 2016 1:12 PM  

"If Trump heads the Republican Party...it will be an angry, bigoted, populist one."

What a telling blunder! A populist party in a democracy?! Get out of town! This is awful diction, especially considering this guy's a speechwriter.

Blogger Rantor January 15, 2016 1:16 PM  

Peter Wehner is an idiot. The Republican party is not Conservative, Bush was not Conservative, I dare say Wehner is not Conservative. If anything is Conservative, it would minimally reflect fiscal constraint, defer to the States in accordance with the Constitution, and oppose Frankfurt School Marxist Progressive Liberals, perhaps jailing some for their crimes of terrorism and misuse of office. I bet there are not 20 members of Congress sufficiently Conservative and Christian that I would invite them to my home. A few did not attend the Circus of Sycophancy that is the SOTU, and only one walked out. A few Supreme court justices did not join that circus. The rest are lost, misbegotten members of a privileged elite that need to get knocked back to Peoria.

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 1:16 PM  

@56 If you are under the impression cabinet members are in control of their departments, you seriously don't understand how USG works.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 1:20 PM  

> The POTUS cannot fire civil servants. There are laws that controls how that is done.

Himself? No, he can't. There are procedures that have to be followed. But the people he appoints will be the ones issuing the orders, and refusal to follow orders is still grounds for dismissal, even for civil servants.

Anonymous Bastion of Insanity January 15, 2016 1:20 PM  

@42 With respect to representatives, he's correct. With respect to employees, he's not. If they don't follow orders, they can be fired.

Having some familiarity with a federal agency I can tell you that the leadership usually changes when a president from a different party is elected. Those appointed leaders usually bring in a cadre of upper management types with them.

The big thing though is the trend for presidential directives and big changes to the Federal Register completely bypassing congress. Most people don't know it, but truly staggering amount of regulations are added each year to the Federal Register.

An alpha male president could quickly turn this all upside down.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 1:21 PM  

> If you are under the impression cabinet members are in control of their departments, you seriously don't understand how USG works.

Just because they haven't been doesn't mean they can't be. Yes, it will be a big job. Yes, it could take a couple of years. But it can be done.

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 1:21 PM  

I don't consider Trump ''inevitable'', and here's why:
Right now Vegas has odds for all the remaining playoff teams to win the Super Bowl.
The (current) favorite is the Panthers at 3:1. Mind you, they have two games that it's quite possible they could lose, before they can even go to San Fran.
Likewise, somehow the Repukes could engineer a way to deny Trump the nomination - even if he gets enough delegates to clinch it.
After that Trump says 'fuck it' and doesn't run third party. Then the GOP limps to November with their hand-picked chump - just like they did four years ago.
Then the Lizard Queen finally does ascend to the cherry blossom throne - and then makes Huma First Lady.

Blogger Wrangler January 15, 2016 1:25 PM  

Cuck you, Mr. Wehner.

Blogger Dexter January 15, 2016 1:26 PM  

A lot of Republicans could write this op ed from exactly the opposite perspective - i.e., if you nominate another gracious loser establishment weenie like Jeb, I will not vote for him.

There are many reasons to abstain from voting for Mr. Trump if he is nominated, starting with the fact that he would be the most unqualified president in American history.

Ha, the current one takes that argument off the table.

During the course of this campaign he has repeatedly revealed his ignorance on basic matters of national interest

The current one did that on campaign and STILL does it after seven years in office!

Mr. Trump has no desire to acquaint himself with most issues, let alone master them. He has admitted that he doesn’t prepare for debates or study briefing books; he believes such things get in the way of a good performance. No major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness.

So, just like Obama then.

Mr. Trump’s virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness would do more than result in a failed presidency; it could very well lead to national catastrophe. The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief should send a chill down the spine of every American.

So, just like Obama then.

His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism

The Republican party is not conservative and needs to be destroyed!

many Republicans will find themselves in a situation they once thought unimaginable: refusing to support the nominee of their party because it is the best thing that they can do for their party and their country.

Base to Establishment: if you want to leave the party, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Anonymous Bastion of Insanity January 15, 2016 1:30 PM  

@56 If you are under the impression cabinet members are in control of their departments, you seriously don't understand how USG works.

You don't understand what you are saying. First, forget the constitution. Presidents ARE relevant to the level they want to pursue legislation by executive orders. This trend has been increasing with each administration regardless of party.

Secondly, appointed cabinet and department leadership have more sway than you might think. True the bulk of the middle management and worker bees stay the same, but I personally have seen department level upper management changed to carry out the President/Secretary's policies. The leadership writes up the changes in the Register, and the minions have to find ways to implement it.

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 1:30 PM  

@ 59 - No, James, it can't. Any move a real President took to re-assert this authority would be immediately tied up in the courts, who would then decide in USG's favor after issuing a stay freezing the status quo in place for years.

No, the change we want and need won't come through ordinary, electoral politics and that sort of change. Even an ideal President doesn't have the power or the authority to do it.

Change on the magnitude that we are seeking will require, at a bare minimum, a new constitutional convention, but realistically will most likely involve a coup or an outright revolution.

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 1:35 PM  

@ 63 - I hear you, and I wish I could agree with you, but I simply cannot. Yes, there are some changes that get implemented. I know colleagues who went from spending money one week on sex abstinence training in Africa to spending money on condom giveaways in Africa in two weeks, after Clinton to Bush.

But real change?

In my view, USG would hunker down, subvert policies at every corner, lawyer up, have the courts on its side, and ride it out.

No, USG needs to be dismantled, root and branch. It's not going to just change and follow new orders. Do you know how many people in this town have real power over huge budgets? You think they're just going to walk away?

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 1:36 PM  

And, again, to put my neck out once more: none of this will matter in any case, as Whites could vote Trump in the 55-60 range and we still will end up with Clinton as president.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 15, 2016 1:37 PM  

My first presidential election was 1988. I worked on the campaign of Bush the First. But after new taxes, Ruby Ridge, Panama, Iraq War I, and Somalia, I couldn't figure out just what the Republicans were interested in conserving. Since then, except for 1996 when I registered as a Republican so I could vote for Buchanan in the primaries, I have been a registered independent.

As for the firing civil servants debate, a truly practiced bureaucrat can obey every order given and still make sure not one thing gets done. Especially when you have 80,000 pages of rules that have to be followed.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 1:38 PM  

> Any move a real President took to re-assert this authority would be immediately tied up in the courts, who would then decide in USG's favor after issuing a stay freezing the status quo in place for years.

What move to re-assert his authority? He selects the cabinet. That's never changed. They (with his input) select the middle management. They're the ones that reassign/hire/fire the rank and file civil service employees.

The president sets the direction. He doesn't handle the day to day decisions. And he certainly does have the authority to remove any cabinet member at any time he wishes to do so.

Anonymous Bastion of Insanity January 15, 2016 1:39 PM  

@64 Jourdan, you are clueless. You fight with the weapons at hand, not the ones you wish you had. Your statement about needing a constitutional convention is tantamount to saying the constitution is no longer relevant, which is the operative fact.

Look at the damage done to the constitutional provisions by G.W. Bush's executive actions regarding the "war on terror".

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 1:39 PM  

@51 Jamie:
The POTUS cannot fire civil servants.
You sure? Remember what the Clintons did? Boy was that a mess.

Anonymous DavidKathome January 15, 2016 1:43 PM  

The POTUS cannot fire civil servants. There are laws that controls how that is done.

Your second sentence is absolutely true. But the President is above the law. I don't like that fact, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Who arrests the President when he breaks the law? The United Nations? The answer is no one. Now flippantly firing employees like Celebrity Apprentice won't fly well, so there would need to be justification for firing government employees. But a popular President can pull it off. And even if he isn't popular and breaks the law, he is effectively immune to lawsuits. Those fired employees will need to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get their jobs back, while the President won't pay a dime.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 1:44 PM  

"Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions."

The election of its first president helped spark the War of Northern Aggression, because it was viewed by the Southrons as an aggressively progressive party.

Clearly changing the direction of the party is not something outside of its tradition.

Of course, from the Yank point of view "Union!" is a conservative value. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Trump is the candidate standing aggressively behind preserving the union. A traditional Republican value.

"Wehner is Jewish."

Wehner is a common name in Germanic languages with no particular association with Jews. It certainly didn't arise among them. It translates into English as "Wagoneer," although the Germanic form has been preserved when used as a surname, "Wagner."

Being from NY, my initial reflexive impression is that he is of Dutch descent.

Anonymous greendarner January 15, 2016 1:46 PM  

And yet these same cucks demanded last year that Trump make a pledge/oath to the Republican party!

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 1:47 PM  

Okay, guys, you know better than me. I just showed the following to my actual-in-the-real-world-not-on-a-blog USG employees and they all laughed. But, please, proceed.

They (with his input) select the middle management. They're the ones that reassign/hire/fire the rank and file civil service employees.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 15, 2016 1:51 PM  

@66 Go play with this for a little bit:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

If assuming the White population votes at 64%, a little low compared to 2004 and 2008, and Trump pulls in 64% of the white vote, 10% of the Black vote (close to the historical average), and his share of the Hispanic vote drops to 13%, Trump still wins 300 to 238 in the electoral college.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 15, 2016 1:53 PM  

Trump's real sin, in this clown's eyes, is that he doesn't use speechwriters.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 1:55 PM  

> I just showed the following to my actual-in-the-real-world-not-on-a-blog USG employees and they all laughed. But, please, proceed.

Some of us have been USG employees, Jourdan.

Blogger Dexter January 15, 2016 2:01 PM  

"Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions."
...
Clearly changing the direction of the party is not something outside of its tradition.


No, no, no, he means a dramatic break with the party's tradition of cuckservative surrender to the Democrats and foreign invaders. That is clearly unacceptable!

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 15, 2016 2:01 PM  

Wile E. Coyote party

Nicely put.

Anonymous DavidKathome January 15, 2016 2:02 PM  

@74 I just showed the following to my actual-in-the-real-world-not-on-a-blog USG employees and they all laughed.

Of course they did. That is exactly what the air traffic controllers did, just before they were fired. Your fellows, like all bureaucrats, are very good at one thing. Focusing on the past. That is how they do their jobs, check the manual, see how it was done in the past, and that is how it will be done today.

Any thought of how things will be done tomorrow...for them, the answer is how it was done yesterday.

And yes, their jobs were absolutely protected yesterday, and for a long time before that. But what they can't see is change in the future. That is why the Federal Reserve got caught flat-footed by the housing crisis. That is why the US military lost the Vietnam War, the second Iraq War, and Afghanistan. That is why retired Detroit city employees lost their pensions. And that is why, at some point in the future, when the US government can't meet all of its obligations, some of your fellows, or their replacements, are going to be out of a job, no matter what the law says.

FYI, I don't think Trump will win. I think the Republicans would rather blow up their party then give him the nomination. So I do think your fellows are perfectly safe. But one day they won't be, and that day the law is going to be ignored.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown January 15, 2016 2:08 PM  

@19 Peter Wehner's name doesn't (((echo))).

Click on the link Vox provided and look through the columns he's written. He is a self-professed Christian, although I suspect of the "Churchian" variety.

We're splitting hairs, because he's totally cucked and an obvious shabbos goyim. I heard Wehner interviewed this morning on neocon talk radio, and he even brought up Pat Buchanan's 1992 run. I'm paraphrasing but he mentioned how Buchanan's "anti-Semitic tendencies" were completely unacceptable for the GOPe. (Apparently, not wanting to start endless wars in 'Stan countries is anti-Semitic.)

Regardless, after each of his rhetorical points about Trump, I kept thinking "Feature, not a bug."

Anonymous tublecane January 15, 2016 2:12 PM  

About redefining conservatism, what is his fear, exactly? That people will think of racism and walls when they hear the word instead of what? Wars in distant lands, prescription drug subsidies, and bailing out Wall Street? No one's done more to tarnish conservatism than the Republican party, so long as it's pretended to stand for the ideology (at least relative to the other party).

I don't think Trump is a conservative, strictly. But I don't much care for two reasons: 1). Who else is, really?, and 2). I'm not sure I am, if the result since its supposed ascendancy with Reagan has been this. This disastrous, feckless, nonsensical, pretend opposition.

Blogger Gaiseric January 15, 2016 2:12 PM  

@11 As if being from New York is really an insult....

It is. Although Trump fended off that comment masterfully—an indication of how an alpha male refuses to surrender frame, Cruz is absolutely right.

Here are some of The Mountain That Writes' tweets from earlier today: Here are some of Larry Correia's tweets from this morning: New York Values! Regular America loves things like gun control and bans on large sodas.

New York Values! Because Iowa wants plagues of rats and nowhere to park.

New York Values! Because Nebraskans would love to pay $3000 a month to live in a 400 square foot closet.

New York Values! Because Idaho just can't get enough Michael Bloomberg!

New York Values! Cause the liberal elite allow the working class to cross the bridge into Manhattan-but only through the servant's entrance.

New York Values! Because the rest of America can visit for about three days before we get tired of the constant honking and sirens.

New York Values! Means going to Central Park to "get back to nature" and only seeing 20,000 people in half an hour.

New York Values! By which standards Connecticut is considered a scary wilderness filled with menacing rednecks.

And sure enough, idiots like Bloombert, Cuomo, DeBlasio, etc. are out in force today proving his point. People will remember how Trump didn't lose frame, even if they only subconsciously understand that, but people will also remember Cruz's remarks and that they were nodding in understanding as he said them, because everyone knows how irritatingly smug and arrogant New Yorkers are.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 2:13 PM  

"No, no, no, he means a dramatic break with the party's tradition of cuckservative surrender to the Democrats and foreign invaders."

Wherefore art thou, Barry Goldwater?

Blogger FP January 15, 2016 2:15 PM  

Heh, the New York values brouhaha amuses me. This is NYC values:

http://nypost.com/2014/01/18/gov-cuomo-to-conservatives-leave-ny/

"Cuomo said Friday that members of the GOP with “extreme” views are creating an identity crisis for their party and represent a bigger worry than Democrats such as himself.
“Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show.

“Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

He added that moderate Republicans, such as those in the state Senate, “have a place in their state.”"

Blogger Dexter January 15, 2016 2:17 PM  

When I hear "New York values", I think of the line from Annie Hall:

"The rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing Communist, Jewish, homosexual, pornographers."

Blogger Dexter January 15, 2016 2:18 PM  

"Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are."

Yeah, everyone like that lost their job and had to move out of the state because the Democrats destroyed any possibility of running a business that isn't an investment bank or a hedge fund.

Blogger Anchorman January 15, 2016 2:19 PM  

This election cycle is a reverse of the last...I don't know...seven or so.

The base has had to suck it up and vote/support ($) RINOs for decades.

Now that the GOPe is being asked to possibly support a candidate who energizes the base (no certainty he takes the nomination), the GOPe is absolutely revolting. No way could they do it. No chance. They will work to sabotage the base pick by writing NY Times Op-Eds, appearing on MSM shows, etc.

Blogger Krul January 15, 2016 2:21 PM  

Unbelievable. This fucking idiot actually believes that he can persuade people to vote his way by appealing to their feelings toward... the Republican party (!).

Look, dumbass, I'll make this real clear for you. NO ONE actually LIKES the Republican party. No one EVER liked it. Those warm feelings of loyalty and affection you're appealing to don't exist now, and never did. The ONLY REASON anyone ever voted Republican* was to OPPOSE LIBERAL POLICIES.

So, naturally, when it becomes clear to the people that the Republicans have neither the desire nor the ability to do the only thing that could give their party value, the people look for alternatives. The R party isn't something people feel loyalty and affection for, like their country or their church. It's a means to an end, nothing more, and when it fails in that end, it gets replaced. Deal.

*Modern Republican, as opposed to the 19th century anti-slavery party

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 2:24 PM  

Here's a red herring for the cuckservatives to get their panties in a bunch over.
Does it really matter if Fed Debtbux Notes have 'In God We Trust' on 'em?

Blogger cavalier973 January 15, 2016 2:25 PM  

In the Spring of 1996, I was hired as an intern at Empower America. This was during the GOP primary, and Pat Buchanan seemed to be doing well. Bill Bennett had a staff meeting, and asked each of us if it came down to a contest between Buchana and Bill Clinton, which would we vote for. Everyone excepting myself and one other staffer (a guy named "Christian") said they would vote for Clinton. I was astonished and disheartened.

Blogger Sheila4g January 15, 2016 2:27 PM  

@81 Not to belabor the issue, but I think both views are correct. Wehner may well identify as a Christian - so does Michael Gerson, with whom he came to Washington. Gerson's grandfather was Jewish - more than likely some of Wehner's ancestors were as well.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 2:27 PM  

"Conservatives leave NY."

With the exceptions of NYC, Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo, that would pretty much empty out the entire state, which is mostly rural farmland and forest.

And Koch even referred to NYC North (Albany) as a "land of pickup trucks and gingham dresses."

When I tell people from The City that I live upstate I append; Upstate as in north of Albany, not as in north of 95th street.

Most of us here (who voted single issue Second Amendment against Cuomo in the last election) would be delighted if we could take a giant chainsaw and cut the lower state off at the upper Westchester county line and push it out into the Atlantic.

"New York Values! By which standards Connecticut is considered a scary wilderness filled with menacing rednecks."

OK, as an Adirednecker that made me laugh.

Blogger Unknown January 15, 2016 2:27 PM  

The bureaucrats might get the courts on their side... or might not.

A president could appoint 10 Supreme Court justices who would outvote the existing 9, and now the supremes are on the president's side. Or, the president could simply say ``The court have made their decision, now let them enforce it,'' and ignore the courts completely. There is precedent for both, from back when we still paid attention to the Constitution.

Now that we have entirely abandoned the Constitution, the president can do whatever the military will back.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 2:28 PM  

"Does it really matter if Fed Debtbux Notes have 'In God We Trust' on 'em?"

Nah! They burn just as well either way.

Blogger Groot January 15, 2016 2:29 PM  

I read "NYT" and assumed "Brooks," so I was amazed at the line about voting Republican since 1980. Like his predecessor Safire, I bet he hasn't voted Republican in decades, since pants-creases are paramount.

@5. dc.sunsets:
"the status quo isn't static. It's a swan-dive."

Nice use of imagery.

@62. Dexter:

Demonstrating adeptly that sometimes the best way to fisk someone is to read out loud what they wrote.

Blogger dienw January 15, 2016 2:32 PM  

And here is New York's response to Rafael Cruz

Blogger Sheila4g January 15, 2016 2:32 PM  

Does anyone here know who first used the term "nativism" in the US? I know it was from the 1830s and used initially against Catholic immigrants, but who first used the term pejoratively? I'll assume a journalist, but who? Same goes for populism. I recall being told about Huey Long by my father, and aside from Long personally, wondering what specifically was so evil about populism. When/why/by whom did those become terms of opprobrium?

Anonymous tublecane January 15, 2016 2:36 PM  

@23-You're right, and it's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, flaws in our system. It wasn't supposed to be this way, but during the so-called Progessive Era the powers that were changed our constitution (without bothering with the Constitution, though they changed that, too) for fear of Machine Politics and the attendant corruption. They sought to place the civil service above mere politics, and thus created what can be called the Permanent Government.

Ever notice how politicians disdain politics? How they accuse their opponents of "playing politics," and so forth? As if there's politics over here and the right thing to do over there, and some body of people who aren't politicians know the right thing and politicians don't. Those knowers of the right thing were Progressives, surprise, surprise. And everybody else was simply wrong and unprofessional. They had a point about nepotism, for instance. Machines were wont to empower moronic nephews, and it's a good thing we have tests to weed out morons from "public service." But does anyone think politics are less corrupt now, now that politicians have infinitely more power than in 1900? Or is corruption the right word for it? What do you call it when a paper pusher doesn't get paid to mess around with the natural order, enrich one party at the expense of another against common sense and often the law, but does so anyway. Not necessarily because of how he's been trained, his ideology or the ideology of his superiors, or for any reason you can pinpoint. Sometimes it just happens because he has the power. Is that corruption, or do we have to come up with another, eviler term?

The Permanent Government is what rules you today. Not elected officials, not the general will, not hidden conspirators (though they try). They get their training and guidance, if not marching orders, from the universities and the oddly named NGOs (foundations, think tanks, etc.) Together they represent the real power in this country. Wall Street money buttresses them, and Big Business gets to write laws directly affecting them, but they fell out of the saddle in the New Deal (even though the men still in charge happened to be Wall Streeters, like FDR, described as a "traitor to his class").

Nixon tried to gain control of the executive branch, which the public falsely believes is the executive's responsibility, by building a sort of supercabinet above the cabinet. Partly for this they called him an imperial president and threw him out of office. Trump won't do much better. The only way out, so far as I can see, is through a coup by the most old-fashioned sector of the Permanent Government, the military, or through revolution. But that's a crapshoot.

Blogger Anchorman January 15, 2016 2:40 PM  

kfg,
NY is similar to probably most (if not all) NE states. Many are "blue" because of one or two cities. The rest of the state couldn't be more different. As James Carville said (paraphrase), "Pennsylvania is Philly on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle."

Anonymous tublecane January 15, 2016 2:40 PM  

@91-I imagine people loved the Republican Party that won the Civil War. Because plenty of people are in love with power and success. Also, for decades they ruled Washington, and people love paychecks.

Anonymous tublecane January 15, 2016 2:48 PM  

@91-By the way, I know you said "modern," and I might assume that meant post-New Deal. But you also specified the 19th century, and Republicans ruled, despite the tragically important Wilsonian interlude, up to 1933. I hope this didn't distort your point.

Certainly since the revolution within the form that was the New Deal Republicans have been the opposition party at best, and the nothing party often. Since '33 there have been people who owed family and class loyalty to the party, and they might be said to have loved it. Also, people loved particular Republicans, like Reagan. But mostly, no, no one votes for them without it being mostly voting against the other guys.

Anonymous GreyS January 15, 2016 2:50 PM  

Notice that Wehner isn't some run-of-the-mill Congressman-lackey but is a big DC think-tank guy run by the CFR. These sorts of Op-Eds by insiders is a strong sign the establishment is going to go full Anti-Trump when it comes to him vs. Hillary.

This is basically another public signaling for the go-ahead to Republican leadership across the country to commence Anti-Trump speeches, interviews and activity .

Anonymous The SPY January 15, 2016 2:54 PM  

"The most certain way to know that Trump is doing well is to observe the way in which the liberal mainstream media is affording these cuckservatives a national platform to take these futile shots at him."

That sentence says it all.

Blogger Jourdan January 15, 2016 2:59 PM  

Of course, all of this is absurd from a certain standpoint, when one considers that the President is African, the opposition-appointed spokeswoman is Pakistani, the two other candidates who may challenge Trump are both Latino, and the S Ct doesn't have a single Protestant European-American man on it.

Here is what I'm saying goes: Don't get so excited about elections or candidates, even those as fun as Trump. The U.S. is dead, not just the Republican Party. The only way we get to where we need to go is by force.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 3:00 PM  

@103: Come the revolution, we burn the cities. Alabama might still not like us, but at least we'll be able to talk to each other again.

Blogger OGRE January 15, 2016 3:00 PM  

The pundit class is so far out of touch with America. They simply don't recognize the fact that middle America loves the guy and what he says; it doesn't register in their heads. What I hear online and what I hear in real life interactions are like night and day.

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 3:03 PM  

@93. cavalier973:
When I saw that I wondered did (Pat Buchanan) run in '96? Like I've said, Whackopedia is not useless:
1996 saw Buchanan's most successful attempt to win the Republican nomination. With a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) seeking re-election, there was no incumbent Republican with a lock on the ticket. Indeed, with former President George H. W. Bush having made clear he was not interested in re-gaining the office, the closest the party had to a front-runner was the Senate Majority leader Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, who was considered to have many weaknesses.
Can't call 'em wrong on that one :)

Anonymous JohnD January 15, 2016 3:03 PM  

Trump just isn't the right sort to be governing a nation such as the United States, don't you know. He actually seems to be listening to those benighted peasants, and willing to actually address their silly concerns! He is a danger to how we do things.

Reminds me of my new most hated phrase often repeated by liberal pussies and cuckservatives: "That isn't who we are." Speak for yourselves, cucks. It's exactly who I am.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 15, 2016 3:07 PM  

@42 trump me
Turned on Fox News this am. Lindsey Grahamnesty is giving a speech endorsing Jeb.

Channel surfed a bit. Came back 5 minutes later.

Lindsey Grahamnesty is STILL talking.

Apparently this went on for 13 uninterrupted minutes.
--

Linda Graham is one of the biggest attention whores. I found it crazy he was invoked so many times during that debate.

Blogger Krul January 15, 2016 3:07 PM  

@112 JohnD,

when a cuck says "That isn't who we are"

Blogger Positive Dennis January 15, 2016 3:08 PM  

Do Reagan democrats still exist? Like many here I have become apolitical. But I still wonder and actually expect Trump to do far better than anyone expects.

Anonymous John Steed January 15, 2016 3:10 PM  

`...defeat the Islamic State ``very quickly`` while as a bonus taking it`s oil...` I remember a bumper sticker from the `70s with a beragged Arab skull on the sands with the words, `Nuke their ass/Take the gas!` Putin however may beat him to it.

Anonymous DavidKathome January 15, 2016 3:21 PM  

I just showed the following to my actual-in-the-real-world-not-on-a-blog USG employees and they all laughed.

Of course they did. So did the air traffic controllers just before Reagan fired them. Your fellows, like all bureaucrats, are very good at one thing...focusing on the past. That is how they do their jobs, by checking the manual, seeing how it was done in the past, and doing it the same way today. How will it be done tomorrow? Same way, as it was done yesterday.

Their jobs were protected in the past, ergo their jobs will be protected today, and tomorrow. But bureaucrats are terrible at seeing change in the future. Change in the future isn't in the manual. That is why the Federal Reserve was caught flat-footed by the housing crisis. That is why the US military lost the Vietnam War, the second Iraq war, and Afghanistan. That is why Detroit city employees lost their pensions.

Your fellows' jobs will be perfectly safe, right up until they aren't. That is how it worked for Greece, and that is how it will work here.

My first reply got trapped, so this is my second attempt.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 15, 2016 3:23 PM  

@71 DavidKathome
Now flippantly firing employees like Celebrity Apprentice won't fly well, so there would need to be justification for firing government employees. But a popular President can pull it off.
---

How about the old chestnut of eliminating entire departments, such as Education or Energy. That would be a wholesale firing of a lot of people. Not that I think it will happen, just one way it could be done.

Blogger rumpole5 January 15, 2016 3:24 PM  

"An angry, bigoted, populist party sounds a lot more appropriate and viable in the last days of a failing multicultural empire than a go-along-to-get-along Wile E. Coyote party." -- AMEN Brother Day!

Blogger Were-Puppy January 15, 2016 3:25 PM  

@73 greendarner
And yet these same cucks demanded last year that Trump make a pledge/oath to the Republican party!
---

I think that was from the awesome dealings of Rinse Pubis.

Blogger Marty January 15, 2016 3:31 PM  

An angry, bigoted, populist party sounds a lot more appropriate and viable in the last days of a failing multicultural empire than a go-along-to-get-along Wile E. Coyote party.

And a lot more fun and interesting, too.

Blogger OneWingedShark January 15, 2016 3:37 PM  

Quoted Article: "For Republicans, there is an additional reason not to vote for Mr. Trump. His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism"

Oh? Conservatism that has fought to keep trillion-dollar spending omnibuses from passing? Conservatism that's prevented poor "trade-deals", like the TPP? Conservatism that has refused to enslave its people by continually acquiring debt in their names, vouchsafed against their earnings?

Conservatism that stands against federal agencies running roughshod against the Constitution? -- The NSA and its domestic espionage? The BATFE and its various gun-running operations? The funding/equipping of terrorists? The tax-courts, which deny jury-trials? The divorce-courts, which deny jury trials? -- Conservatism that treats citizenship as something valuable, instead of passing it out like candy?

I'm sorry, but when has the Republican party stood for any of that? What is this Republican Conservatism? What has it accomplished that is good for me?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 January 15, 2016 3:42 PM  

Apparently Trump and Cruz each offered the other the VP slot at the debate last night.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 15, 2016 3:43 PM  

@112 JohnD
"That isn't who we are."
--

This seems to be the Cuckiest of terms. All of the cucks are using it.

Blogger automatthew January 15, 2016 3:47 PM  

Obvious is banned. Don't reply to his comments.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 3:47 PM  

> This seems to be the Cuckiest of terms. All of the cucks are using it.

Well, at least they're telling the truth for once.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 15, 2016 3:48 PM  

@119 White Knight Leo #0368
Apparently Trump and Cruz each offered the other the VP slot at the debate last night.
---

I caught that part. Trump said if he didn't win he would probably just go back to building things.

Blogger Unknown January 15, 2016 3:48 PM  

@122 He is more brown than blue, and has a big zero on his chest rather than a big G. Other than that, it's a good likeness.

Anonymous Cadwallander J January 15, 2016 3:49 PM  

I was surprised by Trump's position on China and tariffs. At this rate, he's going to get all of the Democrat union votes, both living and dead. He walked all over the rest of the field last night - undeniably his best debate performance.

Who know if you can trust what the guy says, but the head-splodening has been a blast.

Blogger B.J. January 15, 2016 3:58 PM  

It's like they'd rather lose 'honorably' than use effective tactics.

Blogger B.J. January 15, 2016 4:00 PM  

Also, I don't understand why populism is considered an insult. Politicians usually argue that they are representing the will of the majority, even when it's not true. Now trump has popular support and suddenly that's a bad thing?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 January 15, 2016 4:09 PM  

@123

Cruz then said he might like Trump to build a wall. I thought that was a good line if he's still looking to grab Trump's supporters.


@125

I agree that he did well.

Blogger Anchorman January 15, 2016 4:13 PM  

Didn't know about the ban. Won't happen in the future.

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 4:17 PM  

The American Cuckservative chimes in:
The reader Deep South Populist and I disagree deeply on matters of race in America, and as a rule, I’m not going to post comments going forward that use the inflammatory (versus illuminating) term “white genocide” to describe the travails of the white working class. When they start talking about a Final Solution for Dan and Roseanne Connor, then we’ll start talking about white genocide on this blog.
And you wonder why I dubbed Rod Dreher that.
The people who support Donald Trump know what the Fareed Zakarias of the globalist establishment (both liberals and conservatives) think of them. They get it. Me, I’m certain that Trump is not a solution to the working class’s problems, or to anybody’s problems, but it is perfectly obvious why people would want to believe that he is.
See previous comment.
Do I think Trump can win? I answered that question already, not at all impossible, but the stench of kayfabe is strong.
Assuming he does, will he actually accomplish anything? Who knows? He may well realize you can make claims in politics that could be the ruin of business - Volkswagen, for example.
The only reason I'm rooting for ''Gorgeous George'' is to see him attack ''The creepy cuckservatives''.
At least he pretends to think America matters more than Israel, China, Mexico, and so on.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 January 15, 2016 4:29 PM  

"Me, I’m certain that Trump is not a solution to the working class’s problems, or to anybody’s problems, but it is perfectly obvious why people would want to believe that he is."

This is where I still sort-of am. I don't mean building a wall or limiting immigration; I can certainly see the merits of that. I meant a lot of Trump's economic ideas. Like eminent domain and 45% tariffs.

Seriously, just cut corporate income taxes to 25% and give it a couple years. If 3D printing hasn't destroyed the Chinese advantage by then, the Chinese bureaucracy will have.

Blogger Tom K. January 15, 2016 4:31 PM  

Seriously?

This guys name is Peter Wehner?

That a joke, right?

Blogger Tom K. January 15, 2016 4:33 PM  

You are right. But what he can do is move all of them into an empty room and then hire others who take over all their work. Much less waste of something actually gets done.

Blogger Tom K. January 15, 2016 4:35 PM  

You are right. But what he can do is move all of them into an empty room and then hire others who take over all their work. Much less waste of something actually gets done.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 4:50 PM  

@126: "It's like they'd rather lose 'honorably' than use effective tactics."

My God! They're French.

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2016 4:56 PM  

"Wile E Coyote Party"

That sums up the Republican Party for as long as I can remember.

The fact that THE WAR PARTY (the Republicans) that has STARVED, BOMBED and MURDERED millions in the Middle East and around the world has the audacity to lecture Trump IS DISGUSTING.

The Republican Party STANDS FOR NOTHING BUT WAR. They've surrendered on every issue. And they only get excited - and get a blood lust erection - when it comes to new wars to pursue. From the bottom of my heart I say F U Republicans.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 5:04 PM  

@Godfrey:

Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2016 5:05 PM  

The fact that a Republican piece of garbage like this thinks he stands on the moral high ground is disgusting. The filthy trash Bush family is responsible for the deaths and homelessness of MILLIONS!!!! in the Middle East. MILLIONS murder by the Bush crime family and THEY DARE TO BITCH ABOUT TRUMP?!!!

And suddenly they cry alligator tears about limitations on immigration. Like they give a shit about Mohammadians.

FU Republicans. The Republican Party should be thrown in the trash bin of history. That's where garbage belongs.

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2016 5:14 PM  

Oh right, the Republicans really care about people. The WAR PARTY that is directly responsible for the deaths of millions in the Middle East really cares about people.

Hey Republican... how about that WALL IN ISRAEL? Is that WALL IN ISRAEL angry and bigoted you blood-soaked hypocrite?

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 5:25 PM  

@132 Tom K:
Seriously?

This guys name is Peter Wehner?

That a joke, right?

No, this is.

Anonymous Godfrey January 15, 2016 5:30 PM  

The BLOOD SOAKED Republican leadership lectures Trump about compassion?

The Party that destroyed Christianity in the Middle East is lecturing us about compassion?

The Party that starved and murdered millions and left millions more homeless in the Middle East LECTURES US?

The Party that screams constantly about MORE WAR, MORE BOMBS, MORE INVASIONS and more "boots on the ground" LECTURES US?

The Party that supports torture LECTURES US?

The Party that supports detainment without trial LECTURES US?

The Party that supports spying without warrant LECTURES US?

I've got news for this guy... your shit Party pissed away its traditional "principles" along time ago asshole.

Anonymous Andrew E. January 15, 2016 5:38 PM  

All this stuff about how President Trump can't touch the permanent government because blah, blah, blah. Trump is changing all the rules. Paying attention to the campaign at all? If he needs to he'll persuade Congress to pass a law giving him plenary authority to hire and fire whomever he chooses throughout the entire federal bureaucracy. And once he gets in another Clarence Thomas or two into the Supreme Court the disparate impact lawyers can go pound sound and the people will love Trump for it. Because the people love Trump.

Anonymous Cyclone Bob January 15, 2016 5:47 PM  

"Cruz then said he might like Trump to build a wall. I thought that was a good line if he's still looking to grab Trump's supporters"


We dont need a wall; we need the will - to resist and expel. Cruztro has admitted defeat, and will not even TRY to deport the "eleven" million already here. With him in charge, a wall is only going to trap the invaders -- and their spawn -- in here with us.

Trump is the only candidate right now expressing the will to tackle the problem.

Blogger Dire Badger January 15, 2016 5:55 PM  

Vox-

It's a shame you cannot convince the busybodies to burn the presidential elections they way you got them to burn the Hugos.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 15, 2016 6:04 PM  

@144 Dire Badger
It's not the election that's the target. It's the GOP. And my, does it look flammable.

Blogger cavalier973 January 15, 2016 6:08 PM  

The people at Empower America (including Pete Wehner) were in a frenzy over the possibility that Buchanan might get The GOP nomination. I was given the task of looking up every anti-woman statement that Buchanan had made. I was unable to find any such statements.

If you'll remember, Dole won the nomination, and Jack Kemp was his running mate. Kemp was also part of Empower America, as well as Jean Kirkpatrick.

One of the decisions I've regretted was to intern with a think tank rather than with a congressman.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 6:11 PM  

> Seriously, just cut corporate income taxes to 25%

This has been brought up before. My various proposals are:

Businesses are equivalent to people under the law. Go with a 10% flat rate income tax rate on business and individuals alike with no exemptions (yes, businesses would be taxed on income, not profits, just like individuals). They don't like that, they can give up their treatment as people under the law. Do away with all other taxes and fees.

If you want to keep some deductions, raise it to 15% and allow each person and individual deduction of $10K or so indexed to inflation, and allow businesses to deduct a similar amount per employee. No other deductions allowed.

Or go with a similar sales tax on all things bought or sold by businesses (to be collected by the business) and do away with all other taxes entirely. Transactions between individuals would not be taxed.

If that's not enough to fund our current spending, then our spending needs to be cut till it is.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 6:58 PM  

"Businesses are equivalent to people under the law."

Corporations, not businesses. And while the law, it's still a legal absurdity. A corporation is a legal person, not a natural person. It can only come into existence by a grant of special privileges not available to natural persons by the state. The state has the right to impose responsibilities and limits as it chooses for granting those privileges.Privileges are not rights.

"Go with a 10% flat rate income tax rate on business and individuals alike with no exemptions (yes, businesses would be taxed on income, not profits, just like individuals)."

The income tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty (and a side effect of prohibition, the Fed ran on the liquor tax prior to). Address that issue.

But in the meantime: individuals can take investment deductions just as can businesses. In fact, the majority of businesses are individuals. Your scheme would kill most of these, as well as other businesses that chug along at a steady but low profit margin, like grocery stores, many of which would be thrilled to death to see a profit margin on sales of as much as 10%.

Why not just kill the income and sales taxes?

There's just no way to practically define the income of a business other than as its profit.

"Or go with a similar sales tax . . ."

The sales tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty. It requires all people who wish to do business to act as agent of the state, subject to all laws applicable to agents of the state.

OpenID basementhomebrewer January 15, 2016 7:06 PM  

The easy way for him to get rid of middle management and in fact 90% of the bureaucrats is play the same game the Democrats have been playing with the budget bills in reverse. Veto anything but spending bills individualized to agency/department level funding. Blame the Democrats when the government shuts down if they fail to send the funding bill exactly how he asks for him. Then veto any funding bills for the unnecessary departments/agencies. The decks would be cleared quickly this way. If the Democrats dug their heels in many bureaucrats would be forced to quit after not getting paid at all for months.

Blogger OneWingedShark January 15, 2016 7:12 PM  

@148 "The income tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty (and a side effect of prohibition, the Fed ran on the liquor tax prior to). Address that issue."

I disagree; the real problem with the income tax not being just is not the inherent nature, but because of two policies: (1) that they are not applied uniformly [that is, different tax-rates for different folks], and (2) withholdings [which are either forcing the employer into fraud (by not paying the agreed upon amount to the employee), or outright theft steeling the wages before the employee is paid].

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 7:23 PM  

> Corporations, not businesses. And while the law, it's still a legal absurdity. A corporation is a legal person, not a natural person.

Correct on both counts, but our legal system sees no difference.

> The income tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty .... Address that issue.

What's to address? Yes,it is. But we have it. It's easier to modify it than to do away with it.

> Why not just kill the income and sales taxes?

Because that's easier said than done.

> The sales tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty.

Not as much as the income tax is.

> It requires all people who wish to do business to act as agent of the state...

My statement obviously wasn't clear. The requirement would only apply to incorporated entities. Corporations, not businesses. They're already agents of the state.

OpenID basementhomebrewer January 15, 2016 7:23 PM  

@150 I would argue the most destructive part of it is it's coercive ability. This is addressed at a high level in your point one but to be more specific, the SCOTUS gave US Gov Carte Blanc to dictate individual behavior. This is accomplished through heavy taxes for not doing as directed. It is also the method used for much of the Cronyism that occurs.

Blogger SteelPalm January 15, 2016 7:24 PM  

Do these moron cuckservatives not understand that the more they take shots like this at Trump (and Cruz, for that matter), the stronger he grows?

At least the leftists have finally learned this lesson. Not so the cuckservatives.

Blogger Patrick January 15, 2016 7:26 PM  

Here's another one:
https://medium.com/@mindyfinn/i-m-a-republican-you-couldn-t-pay-me-to-vote-for-trump-bd0404df67e8#.518faki45

Why should any of Bush admin people be taken seriously?

Anonymous Eric the Red January 15, 2016 7:31 PM  

A new President could do, or at least attempt, the following:
- Issue an executive order that negates all executive orders of the prior 3 administrations.
- Even though Congress has the power of the purse, the President could cut 20% off the budget across the board of every allocated part of the USG, in the name of ensuring that the USG itself shall not go bankrupt.
- Declare that Congress has not done its Constitutional duty regarding regulatory bodies, and nullify all regulations enacted for the last 10 years until & unless Congress reviews and approves each individual such regulation.
- Declare all SWAT police that have proliferated in various federal agencies to be outside the scope of their regulatory purview, and force them to use local police instead, thereby slowing down to uselessness the whole enforcement part of anarcho-tyrrany.
- Declare that all regulations issued under the rubric of the precautionary principle do not meet Constitutional standards of prior restraint.
- Clean out the DOJ from top to bottom, and charge it with enforcing voter fraud and immigration fraud. Sic it on sanctuary cities, making a test case out of SF. Run a few companies out of business that have regularly hired illegals.
- Declare that SCOTUS' use of stare decisis is considered invalid and will no longer be observed by his administration.
- Declare that he will no longer sign into law or even accept laws from Congress that exceed 100 pages, and that do not include specific examples of what the law covers, and also what the law does not cover.

I could keep on going, but a traditionalist President could do a lot to halt the leftist establishment if he were a truly creative, single-minded SOB.

Blogger YIH January 15, 2016 7:49 PM  

@147 James Dixon:
Or go with a similar sales tax on all things bought or sold by businesses (to be collected by the business) and do away with all other taxes entirely. Transactions between individuals would not be taxed.
I've mentioned in the past why I don't care much for that idea - what is and isn't taxable, and when or even where is something taxable or not (for example in Arkansas groceries are sales taxable, most states they're not).
Another issue was brought up recently by 0bama in his latest 'gun control' push:
Where do you draw the line as what constitutes a 'private sale' and what constitutes 'an ongoing business'.
Sell a gun (or a car for that matter) for cash to a buddy, fine, private sale.
Sell another gun/car to another buddy a few months later now what? Are you a gun (or car) dealer? Not so clear now. Even the BATFE can't determine how many sales over what period of time means ''Now you need a FFL and must do background checks'' - the so-called 'gun show loophole'.
With cars that's actually easier: ''if X number of title transfers over Y time = must have car dealer license'' for, among other things, sales tax purposes.

Blogger ray January 15, 2016 7:51 PM  

"Why do they always have German sounding names?"


"It ties in with the leftism/Scandinavian connection Vox observed in Minnesota."




Been in towns in Wisconsin full of Empire-prosperous leftie Germans, too.

Dunno the demographics of Madison, but it is picturesque, energetic, and evil. In a prosperous and cheery way. I chewed out its Capitol Building one evening for pulling some bullshit. With the volume up. Some dood cheered afterwards.

As for Gerson and Wehner etc, think of them as the New Gestapo. More personable, a bit less ideological, but lots more tricksy, the East India Company gone west. Turns out the crypt at skull n bones isn't far removed from wewelsberg!

Anonymous patrick kelly January 15, 2016 8:02 PM  

The president can fire anybody in the executive branch he wants to.

This includes just about anybody in a bureau or department of anything.

Anonymous Eric the Red January 15, 2016 8:07 PM  

@147...
A President could lay down tariffs on all multi-nationals that import goods manufactured in other countries, as well as reduce corporate taxes on all those who have or ramp up real manufacturing (not just assembly) of goods within the US.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY January 15, 2016 8:09 PM  

If you threw some of those bastards in the pokey for hiring illegals along with a hefty, put your ass out of bidness fine,
You'd see Pancho (who knows damn well he should not be here)stay his happy ass on his side of the border where he belongs. Try it, bet it works.

Anonymous BGS January 15, 2016 8:17 PM  

Maybe someone should ask ass breath who exactly he is virtue signaling to with his effeminate babbling

Its obvious he is for bush

representatives" like he could in the private sector he would have problems. Trump would have to work with quislings

If he can't fire them he can transfer them to Benghazi.

The POTUS cannot fire civil servants.You sure? Remember what the Clintons did? Boy was that a mess

Do you really think Trump could get Bill Clinton to rape govt employees for him?

New York Values! Because Iowa wants plagues of rats and nowhere to park.

NY Values! Because Iowans won't wait for the bath houses to get cleaned up after hurricane Sandy to prevent a meningitis plague.

NY is similar to probably most (if not all) NE states. Many are "blue" because of one or two cities.

Voter fraud doesn't help matters.

It's a shame you cannot convince the busybodies to burn the presidential elections they way you got them to burn the Hugos

I guess you have not been keeping up with the news of the burning in Europe. Shut off the power to a die verse city and the free stuff army will burn it down for you.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 8:54 PM  

@150: "I disagree; the real problem with the income tax not being just . . ."

I did not invoke the concept of justice.

@151: "My statement obviously wasn't clear. The requirement would only apply to incorporated entities. Corporations, not businesses. They're already agents of the state."

That relieves a fair number of my objections.

" . . .that's easier said than done."

Any large change is difficult. Might as well go for a good one, but the idea that you should actually ask for what you want seems to be a difficult one for some people. A proper haggler asks for rather more than what he wants, he might just get it, but if he doesn't he has head room to work with. Don't make the other side's counter offers for them.

" . . .tax on all things bought or sold by corporations to be paid by the corporations and do away with all other taxes entirely."

This we might be able to talk about.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 9:46 PM  

> Where do you draw the line as what constitutes a 'private sale' and what constitutes 'an ongoing business'.

The devil is always in the details. And you can count on governments pushing the details as much as possible. But wouldn't it be better than what we have now?

> Any large change is difficult. Might as well go for a good one, but the idea that you should actually ask for what you want seems to be a difficult one for some people...

Incremental change is almost always easier and better than abrupt change. Even what I proposed is far to abrupt for most people.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 15, 2016 9:56 PM  

@156 "Even the BATFE can't determine how many sales over what period of time means ''Now you need a FFL and must do background checks''

Because the need for a FFL is not based on number of sales, in the main it is based on attempt to earn a profit. Nothing Obama did changed this.

If you are buying at a low price and selling at a high price, never taking the firearm out of it's box, then you probably need an FFL, even if you only sell one firearm.
If you buy a few guns, play with them for a few months, then sell at break even or a loss so you can buy some different ones, then you do not need a FFL.

The Pub the ATF put out within the last two weeks explained it fairly well, if you actually take the time to read it. Most of the internet gun culture just went full retard over the wrong thing. The attempt by Social Security to turn over it's records was a much bigger attack on the 2nd.

Anonymous kfg January 15, 2016 10:17 PM  

"Even what I proposed is far to abrupt for most people."

Q.E.D.

OpenID Jack Amok January 15, 2016 10:55 PM  

Folks saying President Trump can't fire executive branch employees... I disagree with you - just because things haven't been done that way before doesn't mean they can't be done that way in the future - but it wasn't federal employees I was thinking of when I said the cuck in Vox's original post was worried about Trump yelling "you're fired."

Trump as a GOP President can "fire" the political party hacks like Peter Wehner. If nothing else, he can freeze them out of the political appointments that always happen with a change of party. He may or may not be a threat to commies at the State Department, but he's absolutely a threat to cuckservatives at the GOP party headquarters.

Blogger John Wright January 15, 2016 11:20 PM  

@136, et seq
Civil War started = James Buchanan, Jefferson Davis (D)
Civil War ended = Lincoln (R)
WWI = Wilson (D)
WWII = FDR,Truman (D)
Korean War started=Truman (D)
Korean War ended=Eisenhower (R)
VietNam War started=JFK, LBJ (D)
VietNam War ended=Nixon (R)

Democrats start wars. Republicans end them.

Who is the war party?

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY January 15, 2016 11:35 PM  

Who is the war party?
BOTH.

Anonymous Mr. Rational January 16, 2016 12:05 AM  

@114 You could scrub whole sub-departments like Justice's Office of Civil Rights by assigning it tasks its employees find abhorrent and holding them to stiff measures of performance (I like the idea of giving OCR the task of prosecuting polar-bear hunters, robber/murderers and rapists for capital hate crimes).  There are hundreds if not thousands of such crimes meriting hate-crimes designation.  Lots will quit, or fail to perform and be dismissed.

The Carr brothers escaped capital punishment under Kansas law.  Now imagine a majority-Black OCR assigned to get them the death penalty under Federal hate-crimes law.  How many do you think would stay?

@160 One major problem is that OCR and EEOC have been prosecuting businesses for being "too diligent" in checking documents establishing eligibility for employment.  You HAVE to give everyone a pass for that... while REQUIRING all businesses to run their existing employees through E-Verify and discharging those who can't verify their status after e.g. 90 days.

Anonymous kfg January 16, 2016 12:08 AM  

@John Wright:

I'm so tired of that one that I just didn't have the mental energy to write down the list, again.

To be fair, as I recall Eisenhower started our involvement in Vietnam, but he didn't send American lives, only American dollars - to the French.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY January 16, 2016 12:43 AM  

Did the pope (who you follow ) give the OK for any of these wars? Is P.G.T Beuregard a bad catlick ?

Anonymous Wyrd January 16, 2016 4:39 AM  

Who is the war party?

John Carter desires a word with you.

Anonymous Haxo Angmark January 16, 2016 6:22 AM  

@3, @19, others: Wehner is a Jew out of the COMMENTARY magazine crowd. The original organ of the "ex"-Trotskyite communist Jews who broke away from their Red friends because the latter were anti-Israel. But otherwise maintained their Universalist/ "progresssive" Tikkun Olam. Thus the neo-conz: Wehner and Co. On the larger JP, it's like Limbaugh a session or two ago, nattering on about political issues and citing in quick succession 1) Michael Gerson, 2) David Brooks, and 3) Andrea Mitchell as particularly pestiferous. Though Limbaugh couldn't say so (his mike would've gone dead in 15 seconds), all 3 are Jews as well and perfectly representative of the Jewish networking of the entire chattering class and all the rest of the DemoncratRepubliscam one-party State. Incidentally, since Jews are about 1/50th of the population, the likelihood of a random distribution in this particular kosher tri-fecta is 125,000::1

Anonymous kfg January 16, 2016 7:06 AM  

" . . . the COMMENTARY magazine crowd."

Ahhh, well. There ya go.

Blogger Eric January 16, 2016 8:26 AM  

kfg,
"Wehner is a common name in Germanic languages with no particular association with Jews."

Wehner writes for Commentary which does have a particular association with Jews.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 16, 2016 9:32 AM  

@167
The War of Yankee Aggression did not start until a month after Lincoln was inaugurated. The war could have been avoided if the tyrant Lincoln had not called for levies of troops to invade the Southern nation.

Blogger Ron January 16, 2016 11:31 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 16, 2016 11:40 AM  

@132 Tom K.
Seriously?

This guys name is Peter Wehner?

That a joke, right?
---

A long time ago I saw a folder where the guys name listed was Richard Wacker

Blogger Were-Puppy January 16, 2016 11:46 AM  

@149 basementhomebrewer

Then veto any funding bills for the unnecessary departments/agencies. The decks would be cleared quickly this way. If the Democrats dug their heels in many bureaucrats would be forced to quit after not getting paid at all for months.
---

that would be beautiful. And imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth over things like the Department of Energy, EPA, Education, etc

Blogger Were-Puppy January 16, 2016 11:49 AM  

@153 SteelPalm

At least the leftists have finally learned this lesson.
---

It wont take them long to forget. They love Year Zero.

Blogger David January 16, 2016 12:22 PM  

Another way to get the entrenched LeftProgs to quit their government posts is to reassign them. Give each one a small, bare office with a chair. Just a chair. No desk, no computer, no pictures on the wall, no plants, nothing to read, nothing to do. The assignment is to sit in the chair for eight hours a day, looking at the wall. I doubt even the mentally deranged LeftProgs could keep this up for more than a few days. We would still be paying them, sure, but they wouldn't be doing anything [any damage!], which would be a plus.

Anonymous tublecane January 16, 2016 2:27 PM  

@127-Populism is partly an insult because the populists were losers, and not just run of the mill losers but losers that need to be perpetually made an example of,like the so-called isolationist. There aren't many around anymore to defend them, as their chief constituency has no power, aside from the various farm subsidies they command and the fact that primary season starts in Iowa.

There are a bunch of other reasons. They are potential reactionaries or radicals (whichever scares you most), they represent the loathed "paranoid style," they are thought of as bumpkins, they might be Bible thumpers and bitter clingers, etc. They are outside the sure control of the propaganda system, which is the means by which the ruling class maintains power.

I despise populism too, though not in every aspect. William Jennings Bryan's pacifism, for instance, I find intriguing. My problem, aside from sentimental elitism (not what passes for an elite in this country, but actual elitism), is that populists tend to be worse than our common enemies. I hate banksters, too, but please, God, let us carry the burden of the Cross of Gold.

Anonymous tublecane January 16, 2016 2:45 PM  

@142-Trump is not Caesar. I don't see him doing the impossible and undoing the New Deal revolution. Not even a reanimated FDR could do that.

The problem with resting his power on his appeal to the people over the heads of officialdom is that he still needs the MSM to do that. Can't do it with the internet and whisper campaigns yet. All he's mamaged thus far is to dodge persistent but halfhearted torpedoes and tge general sense that he doesn't deserve to be there. He has run wild with the slack they've given him, but what has it amounted to? Not enough popularity to give him the sort of power he needs to Lord it over Washington. They destroyed everyone who seriously threatened them, with admittedly a low bar for seriousness (see McCarthy, Nixon, etc.), every single time. Heck, they even snapped back against FDR himself.

The one area where presidents have it all over everyone else is foreign policy, and if Trump should find himself in a giant war, as for instance we seem to want with Russia, he could match our excuses for Caesars: Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. But the end result of such power has been disastrous, in my opinion, and I hope Trump never gets it.

Anonymous tublecane January 16, 2016 7:27 PM  

@167-I find the idea that the Civil War started under Buchanan highly dubious. The popular verdict is that it started at Ft. Sumter, and I think a strong case can be made for tracing it to when Lincoln ordered Southern ports blockaded.

Blogger Ken Prescott January 16, 2016 8:05 PM  

@178

"This guys name is Peter Wehner?

That a joke, right?
---

A long time ago I saw a folder where the guys name listed was Richard Wacker"

Back in the 1970s, there was a conspiracy guy with an audio cassette newsletter named "Peter Beter." Yes, the names rhymed.

You can find transcripts of his stuff out there...and yes, it's WAY out there (o8

Blogger Ken Prescott January 16, 2016 8:11 PM  

@178

"This guys name is Peter Wehner?

That a joke, right?
---

A long time ago I saw a folder where the guys name listed was Richard Wacker"

Back in the 1970s, there was a conspiracy guy with an audio cassette newsletter named "Peter Beter." Yes, the names rhymed.

You can find transcripts of his stuff out there...and yes, it's WAY out there (o8

Anonymous Discard January 16, 2016 11:44 PM  

WRT trying to fire government employees who resist by working to the rule book: Isn't tying up a government department good enough for a start? If the Dept. of Education can't get anything done, isn't that a gain for us? Provoking the employees to shut down the government is a good thing, isn't it? And clogging all the Federal courts with civil service grievance lawsuits has benefits too.

Anonymous Discard January 17, 2016 12:20 AM  

Maybe Trump can cut a deal with Putin: We make war on Russia and "lose" (After NYC is nuked), then they send us a few ex-KGBs to "occupy" us and purge us of progressives. All the boots on the doors will, of course, be actual Americans. After a year the Russians go home. In return, we stop invading the world.

Blogger Halifax Donair January 17, 2016 12:55 AM  

Point out to them that not one of those people ever got their job back

In the universe where "not one" equals 800, yes.

The Reagan bit was a good bit of showbiz but cost the government more in the end.

Blogger Halifax Donair January 17, 2016 1:11 AM  

@67 "President Trump has announced all government employees will now be paid in Trumpbux, honored at all GX (formerly Walmart) locations, and 5:1 Canadian Neuloons elsewhere."

Creative adversaries call for creative measures. Crash the dollar, disincentivize government work. "The frog asked, why do you rent-seek? The civil servants replied, it'seems my nature."

Blogger Halifax Donair January 17, 2016 1:21 AM  

@93 Lots of Catholic Poles in Buffalo. Many evenings the six alarm blaze in Cheektowaga would be bumped from the top story because either John Paul II or Lech Walesa, and sometimes both, were in the news.

Blogger Halifax Donair January 17, 2016 1:40 AM  

@187

In 1973, he published a book: Conspiracy Against the Dollar: The Spirit of the New Imperialism, which alleged that world events were controlled by three secret factions: the Rockefeller family, the "Bolshevik-Zionist axis," and the Kremlin. His intent was to warn everyone against the plans of the "Rockefeller Cartel", which he thought risked having the United States meet the same fate as France in World War II. In 1974, Beter publicly stated that most of the gold in Fort Knox had been sold to European interests, at prices vastly below market rates. According to him, international speculators had dishonestly obtained the gold.

/pol/, /fringe or /x/, you make the call. I'm going with /pol/ack. Hes's probably right about the gold.

Blogger Dire Badger January 17, 2016 1:57 PM  

He was wrong about the Gold, it was bought by Chinese Interests.

Fort Knox is a lovely, well-designed, and completely empty warehouse.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts