Friday, May 6, 2016

Jeb Bush Works to Remain Relevant in National Politics

Obama In No Position To Say The Presidency Isn’t a Reality Show

In response to Donald Trump's impending ascension to the Republican Party nomination, President Obama does what he does worse - lecture:
"We are in serious times, and this is a really serious job. This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States. Every candidate, every nominee, needs to be subject to exacting standards and genuine scrutiny."
Oh Really. And what would President Obama know about being subject to exacting standards and genuine scrutiny? After making a mockery of the office of the Presidency, Obama is in no position to criticize Donald Trump's candidacy as a reality show when his entire 2nd term has been little more then a reality show with a fawning press in tow.

Let's not forget that this is the same man who consented to being "interviewed" by a woman who eats Fruit Loops in her bathtub, also had time to sit between two ferns with Zach Galfianakis, hang out in the wilderness with Bear Grylls and get coffee with Jerry Seinfeld
to name just a few.

It's hard to listen to Obama say we live in serious times when he was perfectly content to watch a baseball game in Havana with Raul Castro and dance The Last Tango in Buenos Aires as Brussels burned. I'm sure President Obama would have hit the links if he could have, but I guess he reserves that for really special occasions such as when American journalists are beheaded by ISIS.

While I believe Republicans may have got us into a fine mess by seeing fit to nominate a Hillary donor to be the standard bearer, Obama is not the person who can credibly deliver that message where it concerns Trump's shortcomings. If not for the incompetence, condescension and disingenuousness of a Barack Obama there would be no prospect of a Donald Trump in The White House to begin with.

[New York Times]
[American Spectator]

The Class Assignment for the Next Six Months

The Silliness of an Anti-Trump Protest Vote Campaign

Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post details how multiple sources confirm there are several groups with access to funding, in communication with one another,working on a third-party run for an anti-Trump protest candidate and how they fantasize they could win the election:
"With an optimistic, down-to-earth candidate with some crossover appeal, a third candidate could well pick off states including Arizona, Utah and Texas from Trump and challenge Clinton in states like Ohio, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada that she needs to get to 270. Let’s also remember that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson may be in the race, further dividing the vote. At some point, one sees that we might realistically have a situation in which no one gets to 270 electoral votes. (By then, Clinton’s and Trump’s unfavorables would be astronomically high.) The House of Representatives then decides the presidency, and the Senate picks the vice president."
This is obviously nonsensical fantasy in the vain of websites like....well you know, but let's go through the scenario to appreciate fully why it can't possibly work: 
The protest candidate will likely start off with far fewer resources than the major candidates, virtually no national name recognition, and practically no campaign infrastructure. Supposing that he can somehow best both Trump and Clinton in one or two small Republican states, the electoral votes he takes will all come out of the total that the Republican nominee needs to win. The protest candidate isn't going to “challenge Clinton” in purple and blue states. He is going to deliver those states to her on a silver platter by splitting the Republican vote. These are states that Republican nominees with total party unity have struggled to win in good years and have lost in the last two elections, but we're supposed to believe that the anti-Trump protest candidate is going to be competitive in them? That's silly. Anti-Trump Republicans grossly overestimate how many voters they have on their side.
The more successful the protest candidate is, the larger Clinton's margin of victory over Trump could be. The protest candidate won't be taking any votes that Clinton was likely to get anyway. An anti-Trump protest campaign will achieve two things: it will give Clinton a victory she maybe would not otherwise have, and it will give Trump supporters a scapegoat for their defeat. Instead of preventing any candidate from getting to 270 electoral votes, it will make it easier for Clinton to get over 350. No doubt Trump loses badly in this scenario.  All that a protest campaign does is give Clinton the biggest election victory for the incumbent party’s nominee since 1988. The rift that will create on the right will not be healed anytime soon.
It is often said that a protest candidate would give anti-Trump Republicans a reason to turn out to vote in down-ballot races, but presumably the Republicans most disgusted by Trump’s nomination are ideological voters and strong partisans who turn out to vote for all their party's candidates no matter what. These are voters that are probably most aware of the need to turn out for state and Congressional races, and so will already be showing up whether there is a protest candidate or not. In other words, these are the people that don't need a reason to show up, so the one possible upside of the protest campaign would be redundant. 
The protest presidential candidate isn't going to bring that many people to the polls who weren't already going to be there, and his presence in the race will give a lot of state and House candidates headaches as they will be forced to declare for or against the spoiler candidate. 
Anti-Trump Republicans can do as they like, and they are certainly under no obligation to back a nominee they find so unacceptable. But they should do so fully understanding that a protest campaign is a pointless exercise that will cause them blame for Clinton’s victory.

Is Donald Trump a giant Douchebag? Yes he is. Will a self-aggrandizing business man who comes off as a Carnival Barker who promises us the moon be the leader the country needs now? We don't know. But one thing is for sure, we know what we will get with a corrupt, treasonous Hillary Clinton.  And as you can see above, a protest vote, or a non vote protest for that matter gets you just that, a Hillary Clinton victory. As of now, Donald Trump is the only thing standing between Hillary and the White house. Now, just think about that for awhile. 

[The Washington Post]
[The American Conservative] 

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

It's Now Officially Hog Season

Donald Trump’s Vice-Presidential Choice: Will It Be Conventional, Or Crazy?

At least for the moment, there don't seem to be many top Republicans who would be interested in being Donald Trump’s running mate.  It’s a time-honored tradition for politicians to deny any interest in the vice presidency. But this year, with the possibility of Donald J. Trump as the Republican nominee, they really mean it.’
“Never,” said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who is still running against Mr. Trump. “No chance.”
“Hahahahahahahahaha,” wrote Sally Bradshaw, a senior adviser to Jeb Bush, when asked if he would consider it.
“Scott Walker has a visceral negative reaction to Trump’s character,” said Ed Goeas, a longtime adviser to the Wisconsin governor.
Or, as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, “That’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic.”
A remarkable range of leading Republicans, including Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, have been emphatic publicly or with their advisers and allies that they do not want to be considered as Mr. Trump’s running mate. The recoiling amounts to a rare rebuke for a front-runner: Politicians usually signal that they are not interested politely through back channels, or submit to the selection process, if only to burnish their national profiles.
But Mr. Trump has a singular track record of picking fights with obvious potential running mates like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has indicated a lack of interest in the vice presidency generally and has yet to reconcile with Mr. Trump publicly. Ms. Haley and another potential pick, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, have sharply criticized Mr. Trump at recent party gatherings and do not want to be associated with his sometimes-angry tone, according to advisers and close associates who have spoken with these Republicans.
Several Republican consultants said their clients were concerned that Mr. Trump’s unusually high unfavorable ratings with all voters and his unpopularity among women and Hispanics could doom him as a general election candidate and damage their own future political prospects if they were on his ticket.
But Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, as well as Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, said in interviews that they would consider joining the ticket if Mr. Trump offered. Two governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, have also told allies that they were open to being Mr. Trump’s running mate.
Asked if he was surprised about the array of Republicans who are uncomfortable being his running mate, Mr. Trump said:
“I don’t care. Whether people support or endorse me or not, it makes zero influence on the voters. Historically, people don’t vote based on who is vice president. I want someone who can help me govern.”

Given the controversy surrounding his campaign, it’s not surprising that Trump may face some difficulty in finding a top tier candidate to fill the position of Vice-Presidential running mate. Indeed, from the perspective of a either a younger Republican politician who may have ambitions aimed at higher office of their own, or a more experienced politician whose selection would be intended to give a ticket with Trump at the top a sense of experience and gravitas that it might lack, signing on to a ticket with Donald Trump could end up being a political death warrant. For one thing, losing Vice-Presidential candidates have historically faded away into political obscurity, rarely heard from again.

Of course, Trump has spent this entire campaign succeeding by doing the unexpected so maybe those jokes about him picking a former Celebrity Apprentice contestant like Gary Busey or Meatloaf isn’t far off off the mark. 

[New York Times]  
[Outside the Beltway]

Monday, May 2, 2016

Press 1 for Spanish, Press 2 for English.

They are taught to believe the US stole Mexican land. It's called the Reconquista. They believe in a fairytale of a magical Aztecan land called Aztlan. They've been pumped full of this garbage by a fascist named Jose Vasconcelos who was in charge of culture and education after the revolution. Vasconcelos called for the extermination of Anglos and capitalism.
Their goal is to populate the SW states, drain the US of its resources through welfare, and then reclaim it for Mexico through violent uprising.

Kids, wearing sombreros and ironically holding signs reading “No hate,” screamed “F*ck you!” repeatedly at the passing motorists. One of the children in the center of the action can be seen holding a Bernie Sanders sign.
Hillary Clinton campaign signs could also be seen in the crowd. 

Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor

Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit, according to a new report.
The total bill to taxpayers: $1.3 billion in benefits to "unaccompanied children," more than double what the federal government spent in 2010, according to an analysis of the administration's programs for illegal minors from the Center for Immigration Studies. The average Social Security retirement benefit is $14,772.

A Good Monday Morning