The Republican Party is so overrun with internecine strife that it’s getting very difficult to keep score. Take, for example, the Club for Growth. There are fifteen candidates vying to win John Boehner’s seat in Congress next Tuesday and the Club is endorsing the same guy that the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), is endorsing.
Yet, when the Wall Street Journal tries to explain what is happening in Boehner’s district, they begin by talking about a bakery owner who was loyal to Boehner for years but is now on the pledge-and-salute Trump Train.
Trent Schuler, owner of the bakery founded by his grandfather in 1937, voted for Rep. John Boehner until the former House speaker quit in October. This November, he is backing the least Boehner-like candidate running for president: Donald Trump.
“At least I know I’m not getting more of the same,” Mr. Schuler said.
The Club for Growth is totally opposed to the candidacy of Donald Trump and they’ve been spending millions against him since before Iowa. They are reportedly dumping another million bucks into Florida to try to overturn the polls that currently show Trump on track to win all 99 delegates there.
You might think that Boehner’s downfall is a signal that the Freedom Caucus and other intransigent hardline conservatives are on the rise, but that’s not how things are working out exactly. If Donald Trump is going to do well in Boehner’s district, it seems like a repudiation of both Boehner and his enemies.
More like nativism which though violent and vile does usually attempt to improve the position of its’in group.’ Conservatism even radical conservatism is not intetested in that. Only regression. Sometimes it overlaps if the in group has lost power in the past but not required.
Battle of the Billionaires.
Trump saw an opportunity to horn in on all of the sweet sweet Grift and grabbed it. I’ll give Trump this: he knew what he was going for, and he seized the day.
It’s interesting, albeit also horrifying.
Too bad Trump is so awful, but he is.
Grift for brand Trump, but he’s not even close to any of the others in the grift for campaign cash. The top of that heap was Carson. And Jeb? was at the top of the PAC grift, but Cruz, Rubio and the drop-outs Perry and Walker haven’t been pikers.
Ironically the tabloid celebrity of infidelity, excess and bankruptcy was what built his brand back in the Eighties.
For example:
The GOP nomination has descended into a travelling ratf*cking circus; note the strategic use of the word ‘closet’:
Makes shipping jobs overseas seem a bit time by comparison.
LOL
Living together:
More from Caddell, as likely a ratf*cker as the market will bear, “”Republicans, and independents following Republicans, even more than Democrats are anti-free-trade… or, I should say, they have had it with trade deals, just as they’ve had it with the Washington establishment.” This would have been total heresy not six months ago.
Who indeed?
If she gets any closer to the triangulation event horizon she’ll just disappear before our disbelieving eyes.
Walked back. That was pretty quick.
Walk back doesn’t work. There’s no mistake from what she said that she was speaking of HIV/AIDs and included both Ron and Nancy as having been instrumental in starting a conversation. By the time Nancy “started a conversation about Alzheimers” Ron was too gaga to participate.
It’s possible that she slept through the 1980s. Busy minding her only little patch in AR. That could explain why see accepts nonsense talking points from her staff and goes on TV and repeats them like a MarcoBot. Or she could have serious cognitive problems. Either way, she’s scary.
She could get AIDS briefly confused with Alzheimers without having ‘cognitive problems.’ Probably don’t want to let that flying monkey loose here.
Bullshit:
Nancy only started to talk about and advocate for Alzheimers after Reagan was diagnosed and that was made public and that was 1994. Plus, the only people afraid to talk about Alzheimers were those that attempted to keep it hidden.
She’s got insensitive idiots directing her campaign, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. And she forfeited another news cycle and looks stupid after saying as recently as Friday, “when you run for president, it matters what you say.” Granted.
But that doesn’t mean it would be irresponsible not to speculate that “she could have serious cognitive problems.”
In real time 1981-1985 it was considered irresponsible to notice signs of cognitive impairment in Reagan. He just told stories — sometimes confusing movies for reality — ha ha. He was gaga and had no business being POTUS. If it were just the one instance with HRC, I wouldn’t suggest cognitive difficulties — but there are been too many not to get that sense that there’s something off with her that should be of concern.
Walking this path with you, Marie. Even if you are correct.
It’s always lonely being ahead of the curve — don’t much like being there myself and for that reason often censor myself — but not when it’s potentially dangerous and there’s a chance to avert a bad decision. If she gets the nomination, I’ll shut up.
The Democrats do have a candidate who can take advantage of this Republican chaos, right?