Yeah – I know The Darnold has been sucking up all the political air lately, but this just might be the exception to the “No such thing as bad publicity” trope.
It all started with Teddy Cruz breaking ranks:
Ted Cruz: ‘I do not agree’ with Trump’s Muslim moratorium WashTimes ^ | 12/8/15 | Seth McLaughlin –
Posted on 12/8/2015 10:56:22 AM by VinL
GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he disagrees with rival Donald J. Trump’s plan to ban Muslims from coming into the United States until the federal government can ensure that those coming into the nation do not pose a threat to the country.
“I do not agree with his proposal,” the Texas senator said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. â€œI do not think it is the right solution.â€
Mr. Cruz said that some have encouraged him to criticize Mr. Trump, but said he will not to so. Instead, he said he is pushing solutions aimed at putting a three year moratorium on refugees from Syria and Iraq, and giving governors more power to stop refugees from being resettled in their states.
Mr. Trump has tangled with most of the candidates in the GOP field ..with the exception of Mr. Cruz .. though he warned at a rally in South Carolina that he will respond in kind if Mr. Cruz attacks him.
“Instead, he (Cruz) said he is pushing solutions aimed at putting a three year moratorium on refugees from Syria and Iraq, and giving governors more power to stop refugees from being resettled in their states.”
1 posted on 12/8/2015 10:56:22 AM by VinL
Good morning, everyone! Let’s suit up and catch up on the GOP clusterfuckPresidential race clusterfuck, shall we?
First up – Fire The Handicapped!
Donald Trump under fire for mocking disabled reporter BBC ^ | 4 hours ago, 2015-11-26 | BBC
Posted on 11/26/2015 7:41:06 AM by WhiskeyX
Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has been criticised for mocking a disabled New York Times reporter.
Mr Trump performed an impression of Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a congenital joint condition, at a rally.
He has used a 2001 article by Mr Kovaleski to back up widely disputed claims that “thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the 9/11 attacks.
The New York Times called Mr Trump’s actions “outrageous”.
The press has lied, because Trump never said there were thousands or hundreds of Muslims celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. He only used an analogy to indicate the term “tailgate” used by the The Washing post reporters signified there were far more than two such Muslim celebrants.
1 posted on 11/26/2015 7:41:06 AM by WhiskeyX
So, Freepers – are you going to let the lamestream media paint The Darnold and his supporters as intolerant bigoted assholes?
Hey BBC, take your Brit white faggotry and kiss my American Ass!
20 posted on 11/26/2015 7:55:19 AM by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
Ross Perot: why did the chicken cross the road? To criticize Bill Clinton’s record as Arkansas Governor.
I had planned to NOT write anything this week about a certain Republican Presidential candidate who’s vying to be the first insult comedian elected Oval One. I didn’t think I could top A’s brilliant post yesterday but it *is* the silly season and I *am* a member of the silly blogger party, after all.
The thing that has been bugging me is how the fog of history has descended on the campaign coverage, leading many people to compare Trump to Ross Perot. Some, mostly GOPers, think Perot cost Poppy Bush the 1992 election by taking Republican votes from him. The evidence suggests otherwise: that year’s exit polls showed the tiny Texas tech tycoon (I nearly called him a tiny titan but thought better of it) taking 38% of his vote from both Bush and Clinton. The other 24% would have stayed at home and watched Cheers reruns.
Perot didn’t cost Bush the election even though, as a real Texan, he visibly despised the faux Texan. It seems to have been forgotten is some quarters that, while Poppy Bush is a popular former President, he was unpopular when it mattered. As I’ve said many times before, it’s good to be ex-King. Furthering this misguided narrative has been a lot of lazy MSM chatter about the chance of a third-party billionaire helping another Clinton defeat another Bush.
What really happened with third-party candidacies is frequently lost in the fog of history. Looking back, one might think that George Wallace’s 13% of the vote in 1968 came exclusively from Tricky Dick. In fact, Wallace took millions of blue collar union votes (there were lots of them then) from Hubert Humphrey. HHH’s comeback in that race was based on bringing blue collar voters back into the Democratic fold. It nearly worked but Tricky won anyway. The fact that Wallace took votes from both big parties is one reason Nixon cherry picked some liberal domestic policies in his first term. Additionally, Tricky was an opportunist who gave even less of a shit about domestic issues than Poppy Bush. But he knew how to fake it. Poppy did not.
Back to the Trump-Perot comparison. The *main* reason I object to it is that Ross Perot ran a substantive campaign as opposed to implying that his latest media foil is on the rag. Perot went old school and bought 30 minute teevee slots, pulled out charts, graphs, and other (even then) low tech techniques to show how he believed the deficit was choking the country. Deficit hawkery was big in the post-Reagan era: Paul Tsongas did quite well on the Democratic side running as one. He even won the New Hampshire primary, which was rightly discounted at the time since he was a New Englander.
He supported abortion rights; Trump used to be pro-choice, but is now pro-life. He promoted higher taxes, specifically on wealthy Americans, as part of his ambitious plan to reduce the deficit. He emphasized the need for more education funding; Trump emphasizes school choice. He argued against the right to own machine guns; Trump has supported some gun control in the past, but now does not. Perot also made a striking plea for stricter environmental regulation (Trump’s disdain for the environment is one of the only constants in his long public career) and proposed large cuts in defense spending (Trump proposes the opposite).
That was a contrast to Trump that works since it’s based on the facts as opposed to lazy journalism, group-think and the whole “they’re both eccentric rich dudes” meme. It’s true that Perot was eccentric but he wasn’t a shallow blowhard whose public persona was based on picking fights and pulling media stunts.
I didn’t vote for Perot, but I know Democrats who did before coming home in 1996. People also forget that Bill Clinton was viewed as a fatally flawed candidate until a successful convention and Perot’s temporary exit from the race. Viewed through the prism of the present, many see Bill Clinton as a charismatic charmer with high approval ratings. Once again, it’s good to be ex-King. One reason that Clinton was elected in 1992 was that he was a fighter who was at his best with his back to the wall. True Grit will help you every time. I think, however, Bill is more like Jeff Bridges in the Cohen Brothers version than the Duke. Bill *might* be able to pull off the Dude. Oops, I forgot about the whole “I didn’t inhale” thing.
I am resigned to the fact that we’ll have the Donald to kick around for awhile even after he broke up with Nixon tattoo wearing, veteran GOP ratfucker Roger Stone. Trump is good for the satire business but enough already with the Perot comparisons. Trump will never run as a 3rd party candidate. Why? Because he’d be a LOSER.
Donald Trump will NOT be the first insult comedian elected President.
Remember when the MSM was madly in love with Senator Aqua Buddha? He was the great white brogressive hope who would woo crossover voters and have a chance to be the first weirdly licensed physician to be President. Things haven’t worked out very well for Crazy Uncle Liberty’s baby boy.
Like every other GOP Oval One wannabe, Aqua Buddha has been overshadowed by the tycoon typhoon that is Donald Trump. How can one possibly compete with a man out to be the first Insult Comedian President? Trump talks loudly and carries a big shtick. Perhaps that’s why Rand has countered with some physical comedy involving the tax code:
He claims to have “new ideas” for the tax code but he’s merely recycled the old Laffer/Kemp/Forbes notion of a flat tax. It is as exciting as it is original. Yawn.
Easily the biggest problem confronting Paul is his fundraising — or lack thereof. Paul has taken in just $13 million, a fraction of what all of his major rivals for the Republican nomination have raised and far less than Paul hoped.
Those close to Paul say there’s a simple reason for his lack of success: He’s simply not willing to do the stroking and courting that powerful donors expect. He’s downright allergic, they say, to the idea of forging relationships with the goal of pumping people for dough. And while he’s had no shortage of opportunities to mix and mingle with some of the Republican Party’s wealthiest figures, Paul has expressed frustration that donors want so much face time.
Poor baby, he doesn’t want to mingle with the mean old plutocrats who would most benefit from his regurgitated flat tax proposal. One would think that he’d focus on wooing one fat cat to finance his campaign, even Ted Cruz has his own personal billionaire. I hate it but it’s the way it works in the post-Citizens United world. Rand seems to lack the proverbial fire in the belly or desire to do what it takes to win an election. Holy campaign cliches, Batman.
That brings me to the post title. My friend Robert wondered the other day why the Paulites had not created a category for top-tier donors. The Bushies had their pioneers, after all. His suggestion: Aqua Buddies. I like it. Small contributors could be called Aqua Babies. I think we’re on to something big, y’all.
In the end, it looks as if what Sen. Aqua Buddha really needs is a Sugaree daddy:
H/T: Monkeyfister for turning me on to that killer version of Sugaree from the Dead’s glorious year of 1977.