Going for the full Whig implosion…..

Further erosion of American society, and of course Trump would be fine with that, because what the hell, he’s a NYC Dem in drag to begin with.

GOP now looking at inserting left-wing ‘equality’ language about same-sex marriage


I am very disgusted/revolted with the choices that we have this year, especially when we had a chance to nominate, then elect, a real constitutional (Reaganite) conservative, Ted Cruz. 

Trump is a disaster.

U.S. building and gambling kingpin Donald Trump speaks to the media on his arrival at Aberdeen airport, Scotland Friday April 28, 2006. Trump will visit the site of his planned 300 million pound (US$542 million; 432 million euro) golf development, where he wants to create the "best golf course in the world" on the 800-acre site at the nearby Menie Estate. (AP Photo/Andrew Milligan, PA)   ** UNITED KINGDOM OUT NO SALES NO ARCHIVE ** LON808 05182006xquick 06052006xGUIDELIVE

The very fact that we are left with such desperate options is not only a rebuke to the professional politicians, but also a painful revelation about the voting public.

Immediately after electing a president with virtually no track record, on the basis of rhetoric and symbolism, and seeing disaster after disaster during his administration, many are now prepared to do the same thing all over again.

More than two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” If so, can people who cannot be bothered to look up from their electronic devices expect to remain a free people?

Grim Choices

by THOMAS SOWELL May 17, 2016 12:00 AM

We must frankly face the fact that the front runners in both political parties represent a new low, at a time of domestic polarization and unprecedented nuclear dangers internationally. This year’s general election will offer a choice between a thoroughly corrupt liar and an utterly irresponsible egomaniac.

The Republican establishment, whose serial betrayals of their supporters created the setting for a Donald Trump to arise, must now decide how best to deal with the apparent inevitability of his candidacy.

Read more at: 


 More ”flippy floppy” from Trump campaign after hidden mic revealed game plane (using voters as useful stooges)

Chris Wallace (of whom I am no fan of) actually takes it to the pin stripped huckster….


More here at Red State:

Trump’s Political Hitman Flip-Flops; Suggests Donald The ‘Candidate’ Will Not ‘Evolve’ But ‘Campaign’ Will


Rather than explaining his campaign’s inconsistencies, Manafort opted to attack GOP rival Ted Cruz instead. “There’s the liar, not Trump. I mean, he’s got to change the narrative,” Manafort barked. “He’s losing”


Anything for dear leader……

Drump Report

Then there’s Trumpbart:

trumpbart colrado vote

Then there is what really happened…….you decide.From Right Scoop

NOTE: I might piss off some of my readers who are Trump supporters, but I do have integrity towards my readers and to the truth, no matter where the chips may fall. They are really going to have to ask themselves, do they really want this kind of man representing them that does this kind of nonsense?

Then there’s more:

Donald Trump speaking at event.
  • From 1912 to 1988, and since 2004, Colorado used the current system for delegate selection, with no preference vote binding.
  • Even in 1992, 1996, and 2004 delegates were bound by vote, but were free to vote conscience on second ballot.
  • In 2012, Santorum won the non-binding straw poll but Romney received more delegates at conventions.
  • A 2012 rules change at the RNC required any state that held a straw poll to bind their delegates, Colorado chose not to hold the straw poll, to enhance grass-roots participation.

If you’ve been on the internet this morning, you’ve seen the scathing headlines: “Republicans cancel presidential election in CO…” and “Fury as Colorado has no Primary or Caucus,” among others. The problem is that this is not exactly true. Colorado only briefly flirted with a binding primary, but even then the delegates were selected by a caucus-convention system. From 1912 – 1988, and 2004 to the present the delegates were not bound by a preferential vote. This year was no different.

In Colorado, a caucus is held to elect delegates to county assemblies and the county assemblies elect delegates to state and district assemblies where the delegates to the RNC are chosen. That is how it has worked over the past four presidential cycles, and it is nothing new for this year.

First, a little recent history. Conservative Review spoke to Florence Sebern, a member of the 2012 RNC Convention Rules Committee from Colorado. Sebern outlined how the Colorado Republican Party started holding non-binding straw polls to coincide with their caucuses in 2008. Sebern explained the process: “Prior to 2012 RNC rules changes, Colorado’s presidential preference poll (instituted in 2008), did not bind delegates. Delegates could choose to pledge, via the National Delegate Notice of Intent form. A pledge bound delegates through the 1st round of voting.”

The New York Times description of the caucus system in Colorado in 2008 and 2012 confirms this account. In both instances they describe how the delegates are unbound from the results of the straw poll.

So why the change this year? According to Sebern, RNC rules instituted in 2012 said that any state that holds a preference poll in conjunction with their caucuses must bind delegates according to the results. The new rule was 16(a)(1):

Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.

The caucus system was not fundamentally changed. What was changed was that a meaningless straw poll was not conducted — one that wouldn’t bind the delegates anyway.

– See more at: 


True conservative? eh ….no, vote Ted Instead!

Marco Rubio’s 7 Top Achievements in U.S. Senate

Following Rick Santorum’s inability to name a single achievement of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 79% , the media sought to answer the question for themselves. Yet many reporters appear to have come up empty handed.

As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes, a “major part of the problem is that Rubio doesn’t have all that many accomplishments in the Senate.”

“When Rubio is asked to name his single greatest achievement in the Senate, do you hear crickets?” tweeted the National Journal’s Ron Fournier.

Though Rick Santorum was unable to name the accomplishments of the man he just endorsed, there are indeed several accomplishments that are quite noteworthy. Below are a few of Sen. Rubio’s achievements that Rick Santorum could have identified on MSNBC this morning:

(1) The Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight Bill

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York has described the 2013 Rubio-Schumer bill as Rubio’s “signature accomplishment.” Although Santorum seemed reluctant to mention it, Rubio’s immigration bill is probably the first accomplishment that comes to mind when anyone thinks of Rubio’s very brief career in the U.S. Senate.

Rubio’s immigration bill would have tripled the issuances of green cards, doubled the dispensation of foreign worker visas, and granted citizenship — and, thereby, welfare access and voting privileges — to illegal immigrants.

Reports ranging from the The National Review, to the Tampa Bay Times, to the Washington Post, to the New Yorker have all suggested that the Gang of Eight bill would have likely not passed the Senate if not for Sen. Rubio’s tireless efforts. Indeed, Rubio was the key salesman of the Obama-backed immigration agenda. As Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker reported at the time, Rubio served as “the Gang’s official ambassador to the right,” and was able to convince prominent conservatives to promote the open borders legislation.

Lizza wrote: “[Democratic Senator Bob] Menendez told me that Rubio’s role was to ‘work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion-maker universe,’ in order to ‘neutralize them’ and, in some cases, ‘proselytize them.’ Schumer said, ‘He’s the real deal.’”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin told Lizza, “[Rubio] has been invaluable… He’s willing to go on the most conservative talk shows, television and radio, Rush Limbaugh and the rest.”

Moreover, Rubio was also able to successfully strike down all conservative amendments to the Gang of Eight’s proposal. As Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 94% pointed out, ““Marco and Schumer basically had a secret deal to block all amendments.” Indeed, Rubio joined Chuck Schumer in voting down an amendment offered by Sen. Thune, which would have required the completion of a double-layer border fence. He also successfully defeated an amendment offered by Sen. Vitter, which would require the implementation of an exit-entry tracking system in order to prevent foreign nationals from illegally overstaying their visas.

(2) Obamatrade

Sen. Rubio cast the 60th and deciding vote to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. By giving President Obama fast-track powers, Rubio essentially helped to ensure the passage of not only the TPP, but all subsequent trade pacts, which are now liberated from Senate filibuster, amendment process, and constitutional treaty vote.

This represents a significant legislative victory for the young Senator, who previously endorsed TPP and described Obama’s trade deal as the “second pillar” of a President Rubio’s three-pillar foreign policy strategy.

Moreover, Rubio was also successful in promoting foreign currency manipulation by helping to vote down a provision to crack down on the illicit practice that had been proposed by Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) 50%.

(3) Blocking Curbs to Muslim Immigration

More here.


With the long haul ahead though…..

Cruz Draws First Blood

On Monday, Senator

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97% performed the singular feat of simultaneously proving that a Republican can win Iowa without backing the ethanol boondoggle, and toppled The God Who Does Not Bleed, Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-) 79% finished stronger than expected, beating poll estimates by six percentage points; Trump finished more than four percent below expectations, while Cruz finished nearly four percent above expectations.

Naturally, the media rushed to declare Rubio tonight’s big winner.

That’s nonsense. Cruz, the most consistent conservative in the race, was the big winner. Bronze isn’t gold. And as Trump has tweeted:

Cruz had to win Iowa in order to remain competitive in future states. He dealt Trump a blow that will test Trump’s mettle, and withstood The Donald’s biggest campaign haymakers in order to do it. He beat back a media assault on him that ranged from his birthplace to his Goldman Sachs connections. “Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee…will not be chosen by the media, by the establishment, or by the lobbyists,” Cruz said.

We can only hope that’s true going forward.

What’s more, Cruz utilized a serious ground game and data plan to pound out a victory over a candidate with significantly more media exposure. Some may say that makes Trump look strong – he didn’t utilize the same resources. But that actually just demonstrates that boots on the ground always defeat an air-only campaign. As Cruz put it in his victory speech, “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots.” And Cruz worked those grassroots.

Cruz isn’t done yet, either. Unlike Mike Huckabee in 2008 or Rick Santorum in 2012, he has the resources to run a long, grueling campaign before he even begins. His campaign has $19 million on hand, more than any other candidate. He’s running second in South Carolina already to Trump, who will take a polling hit there. He’s currently tied for second in New Hampshire, and unhampered by the four-way crab pot that is the establishment lane. Should Trump hit the skids, Cruz will be right there to pick up the pieces – as he should be, given that he’s the man who put Trump on the mat.

More here.


mitt the milk toast moderate

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win

November 12 at 10:07 PM  

Less than three months before the kickoff Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety bordering on panic among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them.

Party leaders and donors fear that nominating either man would have negative ramifications for the GOP ticket up and down the ballot, virtually ensuring a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency and increasing the odds that the Senate falls into Democratic hands.

The party establishment is paralyzed. Big money is still on the sidelines. No consensus alternative to the outsiders has emerged from the pack of governors and senators running, and there is disagreement about how to prosecute the case against them. Recent focus groups of Trump supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire commissioned by rival campaigns revealed no silver bullet.

In normal times, the way forward would be obvious. The wannabes would launch concerted campaigns, including television attack ads, against the ­front-runners. But even if the other candidates had a sense of what might work this year, it is unclear whether it would ultimately accrue to their benefit. Trump’s counterpunches have been withering, while Carson’s appeal to the base is spiritual, not merely political. If someone was able to do significant damage to them, there’s no telling to whom their supporters would turn, if anyone.

More here.

Time for a replay? NO!

etchn sketch romeny


He should be fired for his name alone.

Just to remind everyone exactly why he should be removed:


Top 3 Reasons Reince Priebus Should Be Fired

Conservative talk show host and former Reagan administration staffer Mark Levin has called for the firing of the chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. Levin’s main reason: With the way Priebus has handled the Republican debates so far, he appears to be committed to making sure that Hillary Clinton gets coronated in 2016. As he so often is, Levin is right. It’s time for Priebus to go.

Here’s the top three reasons Republicans should remove the current chair before he does any more damage to the candidates and the brand.

1. In the end, the debate debacles are on him. 

Despite his attempts to distance himself from the debate debacles, in the end he is responsible for Wednesday and the previous two events.

After the CNBC travesty Wednesday, the spotlight has fallen more than ever on Priebus’ role in scheduling the increasingly hostile and unprofessional debates. Though before the debate was even over Priebus was already crafting his statement rebuking the network for how it handled the instantly infamous debate, the reality is that Priebus hand-picked the committee tasked with negotiating the debate schedule and rules. Priebus made the selection himself with no real input from the 168-member committee.

More here.


Who knows, perhaps one day the “Independents” will become the “Independence Party” (from big government statism).

I believe that if matters do not change soon, it will eventually have to come to that. The GOP has been totally subverted, the RNC a roost for anti-conservative strategizing. I don’t want it to happen, and have been hoping, cajoling others to get active in the party in order to change it, but we see time and time again the cards are stacked against us as the Paul Ryan ascension shows us.

If the GOP breaks up, as its current trajectory indicates, it will usher in a few decades of full blown tyranny, but perhaps a light at the end of the tunnel will eventually emerge. I also believe that huge numbers of traditional republicans and Reagan Democrats would follow such a bold lead, so the wait for the complete end of the GOP might be sooner than expected.


In a panel discussion at the University of Colorado after the recent Republican debate, I was asked by a student why she should be a Republican. The question forced me to ask myself the same thing.

I gave the young woman the standard talking points–that Republicans believe in smaller government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility, and free enterprise. But as I drove home, her question–and my inability to respond with any level of real conviction–got me thinking: Does the Republican Party leadership fight for these values and principles today?

After much thought, I reluctantly concluded that the answer is “no.” The proudly socialist Democrats are full of passionate intensity, while the Republican leadership is full of pathetic excuses. After this week’s House GOP “budget deal,” which betrays nearly every promise made to grassroots conservatives since 2010, I have decided it is time to end my affiliation with the Republican Party.

This decision has been incubating over the past 17 years, years of watching the downward spiral of the Party of Lincoln and Reagan into the Party of Democrat Lite.

  • As a Member of Congress for ten years (1998-2008), I was subjected to threats and pressures from the Congressional Leadership and President George W. Bush to support the creation of an expensive Medicare prescription drug program–even though creating a new government spending program financed by massive debt flies in the face of the Republican Party’s core principles.
  • Our most powerful and influential “leaders” were shoving this down our throats in a crass political effort to use taxpayer money to buy the votes of senior citizens–particularly in the state of Florida in the next presidential election.
  • I was incredulous about the fact that the most intense lobbying I had ever seen undertaken by our “leadership” was not an effort to limit government or the dollars it spends; it was to do just the opposite.
  • That incident came just months after I was told by President Bush’s top political operative, Karl Rove, “never to darken the door of the White House again” because of my criticism of the administration’s dangerously lax immigration policies in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

When I first arrived in the U.S. House of Representatives, I naively believed that it was primarily the Democrats who were committed to open borders. But I quickly learned the entire Republican establishment also supported a policy of immigration non-enforcement.

I was repeatedly pulled into the office of the then-Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and threatened with dire consequences if I continued to speak out publicly for common-sense immigration policies and true border security – particularly if I was doing so in the districts of other Republican Members of Congress.

For most of those years after 2000, we had a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, but the conservative agenda was largely ridiculed and abandoned.

More here. H/T: Levi Vladimirovich


In that case, send in Mark Levin.

Enough with this treacherous loon, time for some conservative to really step up to the plate and be made speaker.

Congressman: Boehner Likely to Remain House Speaker — Until 2017!

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Attends Republican Election Watch Party

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) acknowledged on Breitbart News Sunday that since no candidate has a clear pathway to becoming the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner could remain Speaker through January 2017.


Making the woman out to be a loon to be laughed at was an easy way to skirt the issue.

Wait Till The Donald Finds Out About This

Written by: Diana West
Saturday, October 17, 2015 6:15 PM

Speaking of 9/11 and who was responsible, when Jeb Bush was asked at a New Hampshire townhall in August about whether he would try to help release the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 report, he said he didn’t know what they are.

From the website

There are two potential explanations for Bush’s answer, and neither is flattering to the former Florida governor. Bush is either so poorly informed on national security matters that he is truly unaware of a well-documented and intriguing 13-year old controversy surrounding his brother’s decision to classify a full chapter in the report of a 2002 joint congressional inquiry into September 11, or he was feigning ignorance to dodge discussion of yet another sensitive Bush family topic.

There are many reasons why Bush’s claim of ignorance on this topic invites skepticism. First, of course, is the fact that his brother sits at the center of the controversy.

Then there’s the fact that, for more than a dozen years, the most prominent voice calling for the declassification of the 28 pages has been Bush’s fellow Floridian Bob Graham. While Bush was governor, Graham represented Florida in the Senate and co-chaired the unprecedented joint inquiry that produced the 28 pages. When the 28 pages were released, Graham publicly decried the redaction and was among 46 senators who signed a letter to Jeb’s brother urging their release.

Also during their governor-senator overlap, Graham published Intelligence Matters, a book that was very critical of the Bush administration’s actions before and after the September 11 attacks, including the decision to redact the 28 pages.

More here.


He was a loser, the GOP RINO’s loser.

weeping boehner

Just make sure that they do not make the same mistake again. This time elect a real conservative and stick it to Obama!

John Boehner, House Speaker, Will Resign From Congress


Speaker John A. Boehner announced on Friday that he will resign his position and give up his House seat in October.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date September 25, 2015.

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio barkeeper’s son who rode a conservative wave to one of the highest positions in government, said Friday he would relinquish his gavel and resign from Congress, undone by the very Republicans who swept him into power.

Mr. Boehner, 65, made the announcement in an emotional meeting with his fellow Republicans on Friday morning as lawmakers struggled to avert a government shutdown next week, a possibility made less likely by his decision.

Mr. Boehner told almost no one of his decision before making it Friday morning. “So before I went to sleep last night, I told my wife, I said, ‘You know, I might just make an announcement tomorrow,’ ” Mr. Boehner said at a news conference in the Capitol. “This morning I woke up, said my prayers, as I always do, and thought, ‘This is the day I am going to do this.’

More here.



The prone to weeping, orange, speaker of the house will be out for blood.


WASHINGTON, D.C. — A full-scale revolt against House Speaker

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) 35%  —including a looming resolution that could come up for a vote at any time that would remove him from the speakership—has thrown into disarray the House GOP leadership’s previously carefully laid plans to push President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran through Congress without a fight.

Amid a rebellion in the House GOP conference meeting on Wednesday morning, leadership canceled a previously scheduled rule vote that would have set up the House putting through a resolution of disapproval of the president’s Iran deal under the terms of legislation previously signed into law from Sens.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) 51% and Ben Cardin (D-MD). This all happened as a result of an argument furthered by Reps. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) 78% and Pete Roskam (R-IL) that Congress shouldn’t even vote on the Corker-Cardin resolution, either approving or disapproving of the Iran deal, since the president has not yet complied with the law regarding the release of text of the deal including “side deals” cut with Tehran.

Politico’s Jake Sherman reported midday on Wednesday about a new plan cooked up by House leadership that he later reported via Twitter that Pompeo and Roskam say they support.

“They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) 56% (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership,” Sherman, a close confidante of Boehner’s office, wrote of the new Boehner plan. “Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution.”

This came after a wide scale full rebellion by House Republicans conference-wide—with five thousand Tea Partiers rallying on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol—against Boehner’s push on this matter alongside 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, fellow candidate

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96% , former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and several other top conservatives on the hill.


What of the Republicans? The Republicans, the Republicans control that building behind us right now. You see that scaffolding up there? They should take some of that and use it on their damn spines.



Wednesday in front of  the U.S. Capitol at the rally against President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement titled “Stop the Iran Deal Rally,” conservative radio host Mark Levin attacked Republicans in Congress for not having gumption to reject the deal.

Levin said, “We are here to tell the world that we, the American people, are more resolute than ever. We are more resolute than ever to destroy those who threaten to wage war against us, our society and our ally, Israel. This enemy makes a grave error in confusing the appeasement of a president and a Democrat party and the capitulation of a Republican Congress with the strength and fortitude of the American people. Never before has a president of the United States, never before has a political party consented to funding or arming the enemy. Never before has a president entered into agreements with a terrorist regime that holds Americans hostage.

That has killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers and that seeks nuclear weapons and ICBMs to attack his own country. Barack Obama makes Neville Chamberlain look like George S. Patton. This phony deal allows the Iranian terrorist regime to inspect its own nuclear sites, to continue uranium enrichment, to build advanced centrifuges, to perfect their ICBMs, to spend $150 billion on terrorism and in the end, to secure nuclear warheads. And as one Democrat after another, one conga line of Democrat after another supports this surrender, it’s clear that the Democrats no longer represent the party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. It’s now the Democrat party of Bill Ayres and Barack Obama. And the Democrat party will have the blood on its hand as a result of this deal for the rest of time.”

More here.


These fake Republican RINO’s are more detestable than the Democrats.

How the GOP Pretends Not to Authorize Obama’s Agenda

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY September 8, 2015 11:00 AM


Here is how the Surrender . . . Then Play-Fight razzmatazz works — and follow closely or you’ll lose track of where Republicans are hiding the ball.

Step one: Obama wants to do something bad. The Republicans decide to let him do it, while appearing to oppose it. Why? Maybe because they secretly agree that it should be done but know it will infuriate their base (think: raising the debt ceiling). Maybe because, although Republicans know it is bad, they are less concerned about the danger to the country than about the media-Left wrath that will rain down on them if they block Obama. Making a calculation rooted in politics rather than statesmanship, they conclude: It’s better to let the bad thing happen than be blamed for “gridlock,” “partisanship,” etc.; plus, if they can pull off the “enable Obama while ostensibly opposing Obama” trick, their empty rhetorical opposition will poll better than taking real steps to stop the president (think: Iran deal).

Step two: The legislative template — Surrender . . . Then Play-Fight — is deployed. Republicans engineer the enactment of an authorizing statute that fully permits the bad thing Obama wants to do, but it attaches a “process” that has two conditions: 1) Obama must take certain measures to formally propose the bad thing (even though the bad thing has already been conditionally authorized); and 2) congressional Republicans must be given an opportunity to “disapprove” of the bad thing they have already approved in the authorizing statute. As GOP leadership well knows, this opportunity to disapprove is sheer theater: Obama will veto the “disapproval” and needs only one-third-plus-one support in just one chamber (i.e., 34 senators or 146 House members) to prevent an override.

Read more:


It’s what Iv’e been saying all along, this is something to rally around and behind, Trump is not going to be the GOP nominee, but he can help rally the base to pick a true conservative who can properly articulate the issues Trump is zeroing in on.


Donald Trump will not be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. He does not have the infrastructure, he does not have the organization, he does not have the discipline. So why are so many Republican ThoughtLeaders intent on casting him from the race like a leper?

Why does Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 80% say that Trump should be “disqualified” from the race? Why does Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) say that Trump is a “cancer on conservatism” that must be “discarded,” a “barking carnival act”? Why does Senator Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 43% deride Trump’s supporters as “crazies,” while the rest of the Republican establishment nods silently?

Is any of this smart?

The answer, of course, is no. Alienating Trump’s voting base will lead Trump to run third party, destroying any opportunity for Republicans to beat Hillary Clinton. Establishment characters calling curses from the heavens down upon Trump grants him credibility with the same group of conservatives who believe that establishment attacks are a badge of honor. If those conservatives feel Trump is treated unfairly, it will widen the gap between the donors in the Republican Party and the base of the Republican Party.

Republicans should, instead, see Trump’s presence in the race as a grand opportunity. That’s because it is an opportunity. Here are seven reasons why:

Trump Is A Stalking Horse. Let’s imagine that you could design a candidate who would draw nearly 100% of the media attention at the beginning of a race, long before polls mattered or primaries were scheduled to take place. Let’s also imagine that this candidate had no real shot at winning any of those primaries, and that the candidate would eventually either blow himself out or fade away after the curiosity factor worked its way through the public system. Wouldn’t you, as a rival candidate, beg for such a candidate to enter the race? After all, it would give you the ability to raise money quietly, do grassroots work without media scrutiny; it would force the media to lavish its attention on your rivals across the political aisle while spending their focus on this Big Name Candidate. That candidate is Trump. According to polls from Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia this week, Hillary Clinton loses to Rubio, Governor Scott Walker (R-WI), and former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL). Does that happen if the media spend all their time and effort debunking those three candidates? Or does it happen because the media are so distracted by Trump that the other three get an opportunity to fly under the radar? Barack Obama was able to use Hillary Clinton’s high name recognition in 2008 to fly under the radar all the way to the nomination; by the time Hillary tried to define him, it was too late. Other Republicans could do the same here.

Trump Generates Attention. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently pointed out, “Trump is in that debate, it’s going to get three times the audience.” That’s exactly right. Primary debates aren’t exclusively designed to help Republicans pick their candidate – the debates are also designed to allow future general election voters to get first impressions of the other candidates. The more direct contact between voters and candidates without the filter of the media, the better. Furthermore, Republicans have been caught in the vice of media malpractice when it comes to issues like illegal immigration: the media won’t cover such issues unless a Republican makes a mistake, in which case the cameras descend en masse. Trump solves that conundrum: he says outrageous things, the media show up, and the other candidates get a chance to speak rationally on topics the media nearly always ignore. Never underestimate the benefit of someone who can bring busloads of media down to Laredo, Texas just to listen to him talk.

Trump Draws Contrast With Other Candidates. So, you don’t like Trump. Then you should love Trump in the race, given that he offers the greatest opportunity to his rivals to draw a contrast. Senator Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 47% is charmless and vanilla as a politician – and even he has become likeable in response to Trump. If Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) seeks to become a beloved figure in mainstream media circles, all he has to do is continue to attack Trump. If Jeb Bush doesn’t like Trump’s position on immigration, Trump provides him a painless opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment. Free debate is the essence of primary season. Embrace it, or fall to the power of Trump.

Trump Attacks The Media. In 2012, Newt Gingrich played the designated anti-media attack dog. He did it well, and he did it effectively: it moved him to the top of the polls. Trump does the same now. He has rhetorically punched members of the media ranging from CNN’s Anderson Cooper to MSNBC and Telemundo’s Jose Diaz Balart. He seems uncowed by media pressure – in fact, he embraces it. Were Trump not attacking the media, someone else would have to do it. Thankfully, other Republicans like Carly Fiorina have jumped on the anti-media bandwagon, and are punching just as effectively – or even more effectively – than The Donald.

More here.


What a traitor, don’t remind me of his military record anymore, even Benedict Arnold had one.

And if that was not enough to convince of the man’s lack of intelligence and integrity, earlier this year it became known that McLame had colluded with the Democrats in and outside the IRS to attack conservatives in the Tea Party.

NOTE: McLame is not a conservative, more likely a democrat operative who needed to get into politics because he couldn’t do anything else, so he chose the GOP to run for, out of opportunistic reasons.

BREAKING: John McCain Pressured Obama IRS’s Lois Lerner to Attack Tea Party Conservatives

EXCLUSIVE: Levin Unleashes On McCain Iran Vote – He Voted To ‘Surrender Power To Obama’

WASHINGTON — Conservative radio host Mark Levin unleashed on Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain Wednesday, after The Daily Caller told him McCain claimed the Senate had no ability to advice and consent on the nuclear deal the Obama administration made with Iran.

Sponsored in April by chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 came under scrutiny by conservatives, like National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, who say that such an international agreement is not binding because the Constitution requires that Congress approve it by one of two ways—either by supermajority approval by two-thirds of the Senate or enactment through the legislative process. […]

When pressed further on the issue, McCain said, “Not when the administration doesn’t call it a treaty–okay? They’re the ones that label it. It is not a treaty. We can’t designate it. They have the ability to call it an agreement. We do not. Those are the facts.”

He went further, “The Congress cannot designate it as a treaty. Ask a Constitutional scholar. We cannot call an agreement a treaty. The administration has to call it a treaty. Ask anyone who is an expert on the Constitution. Yes, you’re frustrated. I am terribly frustrated, because I think this is going to be a new nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and further destabilizing the most destabilized part of the world.”

Levin, a constitutional attorney, calls McCain’s claims about treaties wrong. “Reading is fundamental and John McCain doesn’t know how to read the constitution, “ Levin told The Daily Caller. “The treaty power belongs to the Senate. The president doesn’t get to designate whether the Senate is involved in the treaty process or not. The Senate has independent power to make that determination.”

Levin explained, “And John McCain voted to surrender that power to Obama. Otherwise, why bother to have a vote at all on the Corker bill? The Senate could have taken up this agreement as a treaty and had a full debate on the Senate floor and involve the entire nation on what’s taking place and the Senate either ratifies or does not ratify.”

“If two-thirds of the Senators present vote ‘yes,’ it’s ratified. If two-thirds do not, it’s not ratified. The president simply cannot designate that he has negotiated as something that it is not and then the Senate simply abide by a president’s declaration,” Levin said. “I would suggest that Senator McCain take A few moments off from his appearances on Cable TV to read the history of the treaties clause of the Constitution.”

Read more: