Category Archives: debate

What they’re saying about Trump and Clinton

I scored Trump as the victor in the debate because he did what he needed to persuade, whereas Hectoring Hillary’s “teacher’s pet” stylings and grackle voice were offputting. Here’s are some excerpts from what other commentators have to say about Trump and Hillary. What a lot of them have in common is something I noted, which is that Hillary emitted “fried air” — a bunch of orotund phrases that meant nothing.

Scott Adams (whose persuasion filter informed my own analysis):

By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.

Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.

Ace:

Many commentators on the right — I included — are thoroughly colonized by leftist memes. How could we not be? We are constantly mesmerized by them, a thousand cult chants a day whispering at us from our electric soma boxes.

Many are looking at Hillary Clinton’s answers and saying “She won on points.”

Did she?

Because what did she really say? On national security and ISIS, she offered the novel thought that we must work more closely with our allies.

Really. You don’t say? I’m glad someone had the guts to finally say it.

Now, those whose brains are colonized by leftist viral memes will call that a “good answer.” It’s the accepted Conventional Wisdom answer of the Davoisie and the Davoisie wannabes.

But is it a good answer?

Or is it just insect-talk? (Insect talk being my own word for something so trivial and brainless it doesn’t even rise to the level of small-talk.)

Clinton said a lot of crap like this last night — she said that to improve race relations, we needed to build more trust in the community in police, and more trust in police in the community.

Um, that is not an answer. That is simply a way of re-stating the problem.

To see more excerpts about the debate, please go here.

The post What they’re saying about Trump and Clinton appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Debate analysis and open thread

I tried to watch the debate, not as a politics nerd who is up on a lot of data, but based on what I’ve learned about persuasion techniques from reading Scott Adams’ posts. This meant tuning out a lot of the words and focusing on the key points Hillary and Donald made during the debate. With that in mind, here are my impressions:

Hillary: Very prepared. Best little girl in the classroom. Teacher’s pet. Hectoring voice of an angry mother figure or your nagging ex-wife. Condescending. I found her debate performance offputting, but I’m biased.

Hillary announced that she had a plan about everything. No details, just plans. When I did listen to what Hillary was actually saying, I kept thinking, “This is just another four years of Obama.”

Hillary was greatly helped by Lester Holt, who asked Donald about the tax returns but quickly glossed over Hillary’s server and deleted emails (and asked no meaningful follow-up questions when Trump brought it up), and framed things from the Leftist point of view (income inequality, wages higher, etc.).

Hillary struck me as simultaneously incredibly prepared and completely empty. I thought she made a terrible mistake when she said everyone is racist. I don’t think of myself as racist and I bet you don’t think of yourself that way either. She’s one giant talking point.

Oh, and of course Hillary lied here and Hillary lied there. She obfuscated, exaggerated, misrepresented, and was generally . . . Hillary.

To read more, please go here.

The post Debate analysis and open thread appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Rubio: Go To War to Defend UN Resolutions! That’s Outrageous (Especially in Light of Women and the Draft)!

Almost forgotten in the midst of the entertaining fight between Donald Trump and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (finally a debate to listen to again and again!) were these words by Senator Marco Rubio (from the Time official debate transcript with emphasis by the blogger):

SEN. MARCO RUBIO:
09:35:50:00 I just wanna say, at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) And you can– I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple things, but he kept us safe. And not only did he keep us safe, but he– no matter what you wanna say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolutions, in open violation, and the world wouldn’t do anything about it. And George W. Bush, enforced what the international community, refused to do, and again he kept us safe. And I am forever grateful to what he did for this
09:36:29:00 (OVERTALK)

It is outrageous to even consider going to war to enforce United Nations resolutions.  Especially in light of the ideas that women can be required to register for the draft and serve in combat.  War should be declared in some manner by Congress and only for a compelling national interest.  I don’t want my children fighting in war to enforce UN resolutions.

I think that pretty much rules out Sandy’s support for Senator Rubio.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Forum: Trump’s Boycott Of The FOX Debate; Huge Error Or Smart Move?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Trump’s Boycott Of The FOX Debate; Huge Error Or Smart Move?

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD : Well, reckon we’ll find out very soon. On it’s face, it shows Trump doesn’t need to dance to the media’s tune. Yet it actually helped and hurt. The other candidates at the debate answered the same jazz we’ve heard before, and nothing new was set up. In that regards, hanging out with vets was better optics.

On the other hand retail politics – selling people on you – could be a detriment by not showing up.

Bookworm Room :Had Trump gone to the debate, he would have been one among many. By boycotting the debate, he created another story about himself. Trump understands the old Hollywood adage that all publicity is good publicity. He’s aiming for product recognition, and the media is providing it.

My hope, with Trump out of the debate, was that it would be a substantive debate, rather than a gladiator’s fight aimed at ratings rather than informing the public. I was really saddened that Fox decided to go the gladiator route anyway, using out-of-context videos as “gotchas” against Rubio and Cruz, without giving them adequate time to respond. It was ugly TV and I turned it off because I wasn’t learning anything.

JoshuaPundit : I pretty much said what I had to say about this here. I think this actually helped Donald Trump no matter who wins in Iowa. We’ll see what happens on caucus day.

Iowa has a very unique setup, a new blizzard is forecast for tomorrow and in the end it just amounts to whose supporters brave the weather and show up.

Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : Trump’s boycotting of the Fox debate neither hurt nor helped his campaign. Those who support him will continue to support him and those who oppose him still do. It will be interesting to see how he does in the Iowa caucus this week.

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

View article: 

Forum: Trump’s Boycott Of The FOX Debate; Huge Error Or Smart Move?


Article written by: Tom White

Heather Cordasco Under Undue Fire in James City County Board of Supervisors Race

The Virginia Gazette, has been rolling out a series of hit pieces against Republican Heather Cordasco, who is running for Board of Supervisors in James City County, Virginia. Folks at the Virginia Gazette are seemingly terrified that if Cordasco wins, recent property taxes levied against the residents of James City County could be struck down.

These three candidates – incumbent Mary Jones and challengers Heather Cordasco and Sue Sadler – are single-issue candidates whose only strategy is to roll back modest property tax increases approved earlier this year by a Republican majority board of supervisors.

The problem with the property tax increases in James City County, isn’t merely that taxes were increased unnecessarily, but that the process implementing those tax increases made absolutely no sense. The new property tax increase goes into effect in December, just a month before new property assessments will be completed in January. In other words, not only do residents face a current tax increase, but the possibility of their tax assessments rising in the beginning of 2016.

Mom+HeadshotElderly residents on a fixed income were certainly not considered in the Board’s strategy for raising revenue. Heather Cordasco has said repeatedly that she would prefer raising revenue from businesses over residents, an idea I think is spot on. If the economy in James City County improves, businesses and commerce will aid in the increase of revenue, but if the economy stalls, the County Board of Supervisors is not simply dipping into the pockets of the people who need that money the most.

Heather Cordasco isn’t playing into their tax and spend narrative.

They have even taken to printing lies about Cordasco. Responding to reports that Heather supports an unpopular proposal to run power lines across the James River – From Heather’s Website:

At the debate on Wednesday night, I clearly stated that I oppose the power lines over the James River. I said it is a decision of the Army Corps of Engineers and we will be bound with what they decide. I said IF they decide we are getting them, that the decision will be which locality gets the tax revenue, Newport News or James City County, revenue that could total over 300,000 dollars.

A typical twisting of context turned hit piece, by insinuating that Cordasco is actually for a highly unpopular project such as the James River Power Lines, the Virginia Gazette has attempted to strike doubt into the minds of Cordasco’s supporters. Cordasco, merely addressing the issue from a point of rational pragmatism pointed out that while she doesn’t want to disturb the pristine landscape of the James River, that its not up to her, it’s up to the Army Corps of Engineers, and if it’s going to happen, then the decision facing James City County residents is whether Newport News or James City County gets the revenue. Her ability to evaluate what is actually at stake is exactly the kind of thinking required of someone wanting to represent constituents on the Board of Supervisors. In other words, if we’re going to have a debate about an issue, then we ought to debate the entire issue.

Williamsburg Yorktown Daily quotes Cordasco from the debate:

In response to Dominion’s proposal to build power lines over the James River, Cordasco referenced Larson’s comments, categorizing the power line issue as a result of the state’s heavy energy importing, rather than uncontrolled growth.

“I’m in favor of more revenue coming from businesses, so if it is a matter that we have no choice whether or not it comes across the water, I would certainly wish to have the revenue in the county,” Cordasco said.

That’s a far cry from actually coming out in favor of the project! That’s merely a demonstration of the ability to deal with reality. Maybe someone willing to deal with reality, i.e. what is known, and making decisions on the basis of what is known is a preferable alternative to a Board of Supervisors that raises taxes to pay for unknowns in the future, abandons land to conservation on the assumption that such land will never be needed in the future, and grandstands on issues actually outside of their purview. Or maybe that’s just me.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Forum: What Did You Think Of The Democrat’s Debate?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:What Did You Think Of The Democrat’s Debate?

The Noisy Room : Boring. Flat. Torturous. The Walking Dead. Apathetic. Pathetic. Need I go on? That is what that debate last night was. All the print media this morning are claiming that Clinton nailed it. Nailed what? Propagandic lies? What a bunch of horse manure. Both Clinton and Sanders are revising history as they go – just pure fabrication. Donald Trump got more attendance live-Tweeting the debate last night than the debate did. In fact, I can’t find anywhere just how many attended. It must have been very, very bad. The attendance was the first thing you saw on the Republican debates. Not even the local press showed, much less national and international. They didn’t want to die from sheer boredom. I lived in Vegas for over 20 years… drag queen shows had far better attendance. In fact, I’ll bet that’s where a lot of the Dems were. That and the Bunny Ranch. Bill Clinton was in Vegas, but didn’t attend the debate. Any bets where he was? Unless the vote is entirely rigged, the Republicans are going to stomp all over the Democrats in this election. That is unless they deliberately hand it to Clinton.

From the Daily Mail:

This was the scene inside the press filing center at the first Democratic presidential primary debatejust an hour before the event began.

Empty seats. Lots of empty seats.

In all, 354 numbered seats were set aside for journalists at the Wynn Hotel and Casino – not in the debate hall, but in a separate ballroom lined with TV monitors and flanked by snack tables.

But two-and-a-half hours after the hard deadline for reporters to check in, 61 of those seats lay undisturbed, with the CNN- and Wynn-branded swag remaining neatly lined up where staff had placed it.

‘They’ve managed to bring apathy to Las Vegas,’ a reporter from a Washington, DC-based news outlet told DailyMail.com on background. ‘Who’d have thunk it?’

Journalists on the scene with three separate media organizations said, also on background, that they had been offered more seats in the filing center than the number of reporters they brought to Sin City.

None of them would allow their names, or the names of their news organizations, to be used in print.

‘We don’t want to tick off CNN, to be honest,’ one reporter said. ‘It’s not their fault the energy is so low.’

After a pair of Republican debates that brought TV audiences of 23 and 24 million viewers, CNN has conceded that expectations for a repeat perfomance are low.

The elephant who’s not in the room – Donald Trump – could explain the dramatic difference between the two vibes.

Trump himself plans to live-tweet throughout Tuesday night’s debate.

‘Should be interesting,’ he wrote on Twitter just minutes before go-time, ‘but too bad the three guys at《1% will be taking up so much time – but who knows, maybe a star will be born (unlikely).’

DailyMail.com was present at the first two Republican debates, in Cleveland, Ohio and Simi Valley, California.

Both events drew complaints on-scene from journalists who were denied entry because of overcrowding.

For those who don’t know, Vegas is a Democrat town. The mayor is a Democrat – big time. The fact that there weren’t thousands demanding entrance says something. Sanders drew 20,000 in LA… I wonder why he didn’t have numbers in Vegas? Unless his rallies are somehow rigged by the Democratic Socialists of America. I wouldn’t be surprised. Clinton can’t fill a supply closet. Biden is in the mist somewhere and no one knows what gives with him. There are a lot of gays and feminists and liberals in Vegas… what happened? I’ll tell you what… it’s too boring even for them. Plus, the candidates just aren’t radical enough I guess. They also didn’t get the living dead and vampire vote in Vegas – bummer. Trump, Carson and Cruz are all beating Hillary hands down. The media is waxing poetic this morning on how wonderfully Clinton did, but I have one question… if a Marxist shrills into an empty forest of chairs in Vegas, does anyone hear them? Or give a crap?

Trump believes that Hillary won this snooze fest, but a Drudge poll tells another story. The geriatric, authentic socialist won. Bernie Sanders was perceived as the winner hands down. And if you really want to get grossed out, look no further than Joy Behar, who is hot for Sanders. He arouses her. May I just say, ewwww! I knew she was sick and twisted, but come on. It must not take much to turn a commie on.

The real winner of the debate was Donald Trump, who got more attention than any of the lame donkeys in Vegas. That guy gets more free air time than anyone I have ever seen. It’s brilliant.

They’ve got the moron vote locked… and the slacker vote. Looks like it’s up to the rest of America to make sure these Marxists don’t somehow slither into the White House. They’ll tax, regulate and bore us to death. That’s if we don’t get invaded or nuked first. Death or cake?

The Independent Sentinel :The Democratic debate was a real snooze fest and there isn’t much I can add to what people have said. Obviously they were all in competition for who could give away the most “free” stuff except for the one normal person, Jim Webb, who needs to rethink his shift to the Democratic party.

I don’t know how people can say Hillary won when her competition was a stuffy military guy, two really unintelligent people including a failed Governor, and last but not least, a crazy old and angry commie. Oh, wait , I’m being unfair, she didn’t fall flat on her face-that makes her a winner!

JoshuaPundit : I freely admit that being familiar with the specimens involved, my chief interest was threefold; how the actual event would play out as opposed to how the media would spin it, what it would signify in terms of the Clinton/Obama war and how Jim Webb would go over.

To put it briefly, here’s what I gleaned from it:

Even though many after-debate polls showed the old commie winning, the media uniformly crowned it a Clinton triumph, often in what seemed like a co-ordinated collusive effort – ah, but we’ve been there before, haven’t we?

It’s obvious to me that the Clintons and the Obama’s have come to a grudging rapprochement. The entire scandal surrounding the Clinton’s ‘charitable foundation’, the e-mail servers scandal and people championing a Joe Biden candidacy without going into hysterical laughter were all attacks by President Obama and his creatures on Mrs. Clinton.

However, as I’ve mentioned previously.Mrs. Clinton has some potent weapons of her own. First of all, a simple call from her attorneys to certain members of congress offering candid testimony on any number of issues she has intimate knowledge of in exchange for immunity from prosecution could make Barack Obama’s final months in office extremely complicated.

Second, even Barack Obama has to sometimes bend to reality. Ironically, the Democrats have a unique system where the party insiders choose the nominee via a vehicle called super delegates rather than basing it on the more democratic reliance on the results ofp[lo-0 votes in the primaries. That’s why Mrs. Clinton was not the nominee in 2008.

Apparently, a number of these female super delegates who are in positions of power in the party have anointed Hillary based on her gender and have let it be known that any attempt to sideline her would have extreme consequences. So it’s no surprise to me that the usual suspects would trumpet a Clinton ‘triumph’ in the media, that the noise about a Biden candidacy would be muted and subside into silence or that President Obama would take steps to curtail the FBI investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal and the almost certain breaches of national security involved. Remember, they work for him.

In view of that, the response to Jim Webb was almost an anti-climax. I’m amazed he was allowed to speak at all.

The Democratic Party used to combine economic populism with love of country and the backing of a strong national defense. What they’ve morphed into is an American version of the British Labour Party – philosophically Marxist, anti-freedom, rabidly isolationist, anti-military, hysterically vitriolic towards those with different views. The party’s leadership and yes, much of the rank and file have hyper criticism of America combined with appeasement of the country’s enemies as their default stance. And I’d also add that like the British Labour Party, a good chunk of the Democratic party is now firmly anti-semitic, oh pardon me , ‘anti-Zionist,’ something a lot of American Jews are now struggling to come to terms with if they haven’t already chosen sides.

As such, Jim Webb is a courageous dinosaur of what the Democrats once were, and yet another symbol of our dysfunctional politics – a man who might make a superb president, but whom hasn’t a remote chance of obtaining the office. Not as a member today’s Democrat Party.

Maggie’s Notebook : The Lincoln Chaffee –– Hillary Clinton exchange on the Iraq War caught my attention:

Lincoln Chaffee:

“If you’re looking at someone who made that poor decision in 2002 to go into Iraq when there was no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which I knew because I did my homework, that’s an indication of how someone will perform in the future. And that’s what’s important.”

Hillary Clinton response:

“I recall very well being on a debate stage about 25 time with then-Senator Obama debating this issue. After the election, he asked me to be Secretary of State. He valued my judgment. I spent a lot of time with him in the situation room going over some very difficult issues.”

I remember, well, when Obama announced he would put Hillary in charge of the State Department. I figured Bill Clinton had made it clear to Obama that Hillary would tell Obama’s life story better than he could ever tell it, if he didn’t appoint her to State.

I thought the questions were useless. They gave us nothing we didn’t already know. They all agree on almost everything, including what has since been estimated to be $18 Trillion in giveaways. I say “almost,” as I excuse Jim Webb from this sorry lot.

When Bernie Sanders made himself proud by saying “enough of the “emails,” the commentators failed to scale the remark down to facts. Why is everyone but Democrats concerned about the emails Bernie Sanders has had enough of?

1) March 2013, Hacker Guccifer released emails from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary regarding the attack on our Special Mission in Benghazi. Various committees both in the House and the Senate were trying to get answers about the deaths of four Americans, and the life-threatening, and forever changing wounds of others. It’s my opinion that Congressman Trey Gowdy pushed long enough and hard enough that Speaker Boehner had to give in and allow a Select Committee to investigate.

There was more than sufficient reason to investigate, and Guccifer releasing correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal made it necessary. So, no we haven’t had “enough of the emails” because we, the peons out here following every smidgen of information about Benghazi, know some of what she did and didn’t do, and we are not amused that she has not been held responsible, at any point for sheer negligence and for trying to cover-up yet another America weapons smuggling operation out of Libya. We know one other thing for certain. She blamed an anti-Islam video for the attacks, and through her own videos, she spread her testimony of that clear lie around the Middle East, at taxpayer expense.

Martin O’Malley called illegals “new American immigrants.” He also said no one on the Democrat stage had spoken “ill” of another’s religion That was the only time religion was brought up, I think, and it was for the sole reason of protecting Islam. Damn the facts.

Late term abortions and the dismembering and selling of human tissue and baby parts was not mentioned on the stage. Neither was Planned Parenthood mentioned, along with the fact that taxpayers are forced to fund it annually. They have no shame, as Democrat Congressman Zell Miller once said.

Climate Change (not global warming) was the star of the evening. for one reason, and one reason only: Democrats rake in big bucks from their bogus Climate Change claims, and it binds us tighter and tighter to the United Nations.

While Syria and Russia were mentioned, I don’t think “ISIS” was uttered.

Nothing about our hideous debt or the seemingly insurmountable problems our Veterans face every day. The commentators were not alarmed at the surfeit of skunks in the room.

Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : If I were one of the low information voters Rush Limbaugh speaks about who does not follow politics, I would believe Hillary Clinton won the debate and will most certainly be the Democrat nominee. According to CNN, “Hillary Clinton delivered a poised, polished performance”, while AP reported “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s polished performance in the first Democratic debate…” and US News and World Report wrote “The former secretary of state was feisty and polished…” One might think the media had collaborated with one another in their reporting, but that might sound conspiratorial, huh?

At several points during the debate I couldn’t help thinking about Oprah Winfrey years ago when she gave away cars to everyone in her studio audience. It seemed like a competition on who could give away more free stuff. Free college tuition… free health care as a right… you get a new Obama phone … you get a new car. Of course, I believe Oprah used her own money to give away those cars. The only ones mentioned who would be paying for the “free” stuff were the evil one-percent. It doesn’t take a numbers cruncher to know that does not compute. Who could out-socialist Bernie Sanders? Apparently Hillary Clinton is up to the task, although she prefers calling herself a “progressive.”

Several other candidates mentioned our need to combat climate change and take America off of fossil fuels and completely transition to cleaner, greener energy in less than a couple of decades. Again, there was no discussion about the skyrocketing costs of alternative clean energy nor the billions of tax dollars wasted on failed clean energy companies.

Americans must be made to realize all of these utopian promises cannot and will not ever be kept. The sad fact, however, is there are an overwhelming number of low information voters too eager to drink the Koolaid and depend on the government taking care of their every need.

The Glittering Eye :Didn’t watch it. Don’t much care. I said what I have to say about it in my post on the subject:

I did not watch the Democratic candidates’ “debate”. I won’t watch it and you can’t make me. However, based on John Cassidy’s remarks I have a question. Did Hillary Clinton convince anyone not already predisposed to vote for her to do so?

***************************************************************************
Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Link – 

Forum: What Did You Think Of The Democrat’s Debate?


Article written by: Tom White

Hanover Republicans Peace and Peterson Ducking Debates – The Cantor Lesson Didn’t Go Too Far

There is only one word that can describe elected representatives who refuse to answer to the people that put them in their position. Arrogant.

ar·ro·gant
ˈerəɡənt/
adjective
adjective: arrogant
  1. having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.
    “he’s arrogant and opinionated”
    synonyms: haughty, conceited, self-important, egotistic, full of oneself, superior;

    informalhigh and mighty, too big for one’s britches, too big for one’s boots, big-headed, puffed up;
    rarehubristic
    “success has made him arrogant”

These elected representatives arrogance multiplied with every year they are in office. They start believing they  are somehow our masters. Our “leaders”. Perhaps because some voters seem to bestow the title of leader upon them through ignorance.

With the exception of the President and the Governor, nearly every person serving in elected office is a representative. An employee of the voters. And they serve at the pleasure of the voters. And when they reach the point in their self absorbed arrogance where they think they are above the voters, where they are no longer beholden to the voters because they have served so long they believe themselves untouchable, along comes that bitter taste of Humble Pie when the voters throw them out on their ear. Eric Cantor is a perfect example of that arrogance.

Too big to fail.

Usually that phrase “too big to fail” is reserved for banks and institutions that hold a lot of economic cards. But elected officials believe that they, too reach a point where they are too big to fail. Too important to lose an election.

I reached the point with Eric Cantor a couple of years before he was tossed out by a strong majority of voters where I could no longer support him. I began writing my feelings in these blog posts about the arrogance and his failure to vote the will of the people who put him in office. I reminded him over and over that he was employed at the will of the voters.

Just after Cantor’s last victory in 2012, I was done with him and his arrogance. And sent out a warning that was carried to him by at least one former Delegate. And he blew the warning off in this post that I wrote a month after the 2012 election:

Since the election, I have been hoping that I would be wrong, that history would not repeat itself. Now there was little hope that Speaker John Boehner would provide leadership to once again position Republicans as the standard-bearers for the Constitution and it’s Conservative, Free-Market ideals. Boehner is a squishy liberal in Republican garb that has sold out the country and the Republican Conservatives time and again.

I had no such hope for Boehner. But I thought there was a glimmer of hope for my Congressman, Majority Leader Eric Cantor. But Cantor, too, turned his back on the Conservatives and was not only a willing participant in the efforts to purge all remnants of Fiscal Conservationism from the GOP, he was a ring leader.

And absent a radical and immediate change, Cantor has lost my vote. The numerous speeches I have listened to from the Majority Leader have all been lies. He has no intention of restoring fiscal sanity to the nation and is only interested ion holding onto power for as long as he can.

Republicans did not lose this election because they were too far to the right. They lost because they alienated too many Conservatives by running yet another liberal candidate for President. Conservatives refused to vote for Mitt Romney. They didn’t vote for Barack Obama, that’s for sure. But the stayed home just as they did with John McCain. The only reason George W. Bush won election was that the Democrats managed to find two candidates that were even worse.

And it was really hard to find a candidate worse than Obama, but Republicans have managed. Twice.

The last few years I have been working within the Republican Party to help move things back to the path the founders, and more recently Ronald Reagan laid out. A number of my friends called me crazy for trying. I now admit that they were right and I was wrong.

The leadership of the Republican Party on a National level can’t be fixed because they are too blind to realize they are broken.

I tried. I gave it the best I had (along with a lot of other people). And I failed to make a dent.

On a personal level, I resigned my seat on my local Republican Executive Committee. I cannot in good faith continue to support a jobs program for Republicans like Eric Cantor that talk the talk, but the minute they fear for their jobs, they eliminate the only members of important committees that are more interested in fixing American than personal gain.

And I finished the post with this promise:

Now what my readers can expect from here on is an open and honest truly independent Conservative point of view. I have overlooked Republican transgressions more times than I have those from Democrats.

If you are looking for a Republican rubber stamp perspective and undeserved accolades and endorsements, those will not be found here.

And I am not planning to start a Conservative Party, but if the idea happens to catch on, I will be in the mix. But I will no longer blindly follow “leaders” who tell you one thing to your face and do the opposite behind your back

And I would have to say, much to the chagrin of the Republican Committee that has been at war with Conservatives, I have held true to that promise.

And I will say that I am seeing the same patterns of arrogance with some of Hanover’s elected representatives. Last night the Mechanicsville TEA Party held a forum that was supposed to include the candidates in the 97th House District. And Chris Peace, the incumbent, did not show up. His challenger, Erica Lawler impressed the attendees with her knowledge and intelligence acording to one of the attendees. And tonight, the challenger in the Mechanicsville District for the Hanover Board of Supervisors seat Glenn Millican will hold an open meeting at the Mechanicsville Library at 7 PM without Canova Peterson. Millican and Peterson had a debate hosted by the Mechanicsville TEA Party that, in my opinion, Peterson lost badly. Read the coverage here. I thought my head would explode when Peterson defended the elimination of proffers and $52 million by saying the county lost nothing because the money wasn’t actually payable yet. And besides, they really never collect the full amount due.

I thought my head would explode on that one.

So when our Republicans incumbents refuse to debate and defend / explain their records, in essence what they are doing is refusing to submit to a performance review by their boss. We the people.

So they will use scheduling conflicts as an excuse, or pretend there was a failure actually schedule the debate as was the case with Peace. And there was absolutely no effort on the part of either of these men to facilitate another date. Which is the first hint that they are ducking the debate.

As I predicted in 2012, Cantor’s arrogance would be his downfall. And that followed by Boehner’s downfall as the dominoes continue to fall.

And I predict that both Chris Peace and Canova Peterson are on their way out because they have reached the same point that Eric Cantor did in his egotistic belief that he was invincible. It may or may not be this election, but this is the same shot across the bow I gave Eric Cantor.

And as Chris Peace and Canova Peterson read this post, if you need proof of your own arrogance, I would ask you both when you reach this point of this post, are you feeling ashamed at your own arrogance and thinking you need to start remembering that you work for us? Or are you directing your ire towards me, the messenger?

I know the answer. It is the same answer Eric Cantor arrived at.

Arrogance prevails. Until it doesn’t.


Article written by: Tom White

Media Pushes CNN Poll showing Trump Drop and Ignore Zogby Poll, NBC Poll showing Trump Bump

Did you watch the debate on CNN last Wednesday? No? Well neither did 54% of the people that responded to the CNN Poll that the media headlined as Trump drops, Fiorina jumps. The largest block of respondents – 32% – admit that they only listened to the media coverage after the debates and not the debate itself. And add in another 18% who offered an opinion on the debates yet neither saw the debates or listened to the coverage in the days that followed. That means that half of the respondents either made up their opinions without facts or allowed the biased media to mold their opinion.

And to set the debate in proper perspective, 44% of the questions were either to Trump or mentioned Trump. And I do not recall a single question mentioning Trump that was not some kind of attack on him. There were no questions designed to give a sense of Trump’s accomplishments, only those that focused on what CNN hoped would be negatives as far as Trump is concerned. And there were no questions that highlighted the failures of the Obama Administration and how the candidates would handle things differently. In fact, it seemed to me that whenever any candidate started criticism of either Obama or the Democrat candidates, the moderators shut them down.

So it is my opinion that both the debate and the poll are seriously flawed and any conclusions one may draw from either are basically useless.

However…

While the media talked up Fiorina as the big winner and Trump falling like a stone (after a debate designed to do just that) there are a number of questions and statistics in the CNN poll that the media simply ignored because they didn’t fit the narriative that CNN was trying to push. And don’t think for one minute that Fox News wasn’t on the same page as CNN. There were several other polls that have come out since the debate that no one was reporting. More on those later. For now, let’s look at the internal numbers in the CNN poll and what they tell us.

If you want to look at the numbers CNN released, the poll itself is here in pdf format.

One of the first things I noticed is 20-30% of those polled had never heard of most of the candidates. Trump and Bush had the highest name recognition where pretty much everyone had heard of Trump and 7% had not heard of Jeb Bush. And I would wonder how many of those 7% thought Jeb was a former president. Fiorina was the 3rd least recognized – even after the debate – with 30% never hearing of her. Only Scott Walker (35%) and John Kasich (39%) did worse.

Now let’s take a look at some of the demographics within the CNN poll between Trump and Fiorina.

Sex

Men Women Winner
Trump 26% 21% Trump
Fiorina 14% 17%

Trump gets support from more men and more women than Fiorina.

Income/Education

< $50,000 > $50,000 College? Winner
Trump 21% 25% 21% Trump
Fiorina 10% 19% 16%

Trump wins in all income groups and does better among college educated voters.

Political Ideology

Independent Republican Conservative Winner
Trump 14% 28% 21% Trump
Fiorina 21% 12% 19%

Fiorina bests Trump with Independents, but Trump does far better among Republicans and Conservatives

On Issues

The Economy Illegal immigration Foreign policy Social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage
Trump 44% 47% 22% 15%
Fiorina 11% 4% 8% 14%

So while the media chooses to focus on the fact that after a barrage of 44% of the questions being designed to damage Trump he falls 8 points from the previous poll prior to the debate, no media outlet is reporting on the areas that did not change. On the economy Trump fell just 1 point from the previous CNN poll, he gained 3% on illegal immigration and fell 4 points on Social issues. There was no prior polling on foreign policy.

So despite falling in the overall numbers in the CNN poll, Trump remained steady on the important issues and blows the rest of the candidates away.

But as I watched Fox News this weekend, they reported over and over on the CNN poll, but not a peep on the Zogby Poll that was released on Saturday showing Trump increased his lead to 33% up from 31% pre-debate. Zogby does show Fiorina with a bump, but only to 7% up from 2%. And Zogby also shows the same in the demographics – Trump leads among every group.

Real estate mogul Trump has widened his lead to 20 points in a brand new Zogby Analytics poll taken after the second Republican presidential debate. The new poll of 405 likely Republican primary/caucus voters nationwide with a margin of sampling error of +/- 5.0 percentage points, conducted September 18-19, shows Mr. Trump with 33% (up 2 points from his pre-debate 31%). In second place is neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson who actually dropped 3 points to 13%. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, widely considered to be the big winner in the debate, moved up from just 2% last week to 7% and fourth place in the new poll – just 2 points behind former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s 9% (which is exactly where he was last week).

Texas Senator Ted Cruz moves up a point to 5%, followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and Ohio Governor John Kasich all tied at 4%. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who by many accounts, had a good debate night, stayed at 3%.

The biggest losers in the post-debate poll – besides Dr. Carson’s drop – were Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who fell from 5% to 2% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who polled 2% (down from 4%).

Mr. Trump’s lead is across the board, among most major sub-groups – 36% among men, 30% with women, 30% Republicans, 39% independents, 29% moderates, and 31% conservatives.

And another poll ignored by the media for the most part (NBC and MSNBC reported the poll, but it was their poll) was a NBC poll conducted 9/16 – 9/18 with the bulk of responses after the second debate. Fiorina showed a bump in this poll, but the bump was more in line with Zogby’s findings as she went from 8% the previous poll to 11%, a 3 point bump. Trump, however, went from 22% to 29%. Also in line with the Zogby poll direction for Trump. And this poll showed similar drops in support for Scott Walker as the others.

So with 2 out of 3 polls showing increased polling numbers for Trump, it seems pretty clear that the media – including Fox News – have an agenda for selecting the next president that excludes Trump.

Establishment Republicans, Democrats and mainstream media have all united against Trump and in favor of any other candidate. And a lot of people find that to be a good reason to support Donald Trump.

 


Article written by: Tom White

Yes it is Indeed Ron Paul’s 80th Birthday!

I am in the throes of a head cold, and it feels terrible and you certainly do not want to blog.  It is a pained effort.

But it is indeed former Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s  80th birthday.

Where were you when you first heard the news?  In early 2007 – when Paul first announced that he was going to set up an exploratory committee to run for the White House, I mean.  I was working from home and had just sent my resume to Jim Gilmore (Yes, really) to offer to help him with his campaign.  Then I saw it:  On the ticker screen – probably Fox News – it said:  Paul was thinking about running for President.

Now I had researched Paul before 2007 and he was a good solid representative with positions I agreed with (Paul had briefly beat back a pernicious idea called “Know Your Customer” in which the banks in effect were spying on their depositors.  After 9/11, Know Your Customer was brought in for good.)

I immediately switched to the Texas congressman!  I did not see live the famous scene between Paul and Giuliani about the origins of 9/11.  And to be fair, I am not completely comfortable with some of his foreign policy positions.  But it was refreshing to hear such an iconoclast on the stage, zestfully going after some of the most sacred cows in the GOP playbook.  Sometimes I have to see some of those great debate scenes in 2007-8 and 2011-12.  I remember watching the first November 5 money bomb raise $4.3 million and then the December 16 Tea Party one raise even more.  Ron Paul was Tea Party before Tea Party was Tea Party.  Limited government, respecting the Constitution, personal liberty.  Ron Paul gave me back the rich history of the American Revolution – I respect what happened so much more now – Patrick Henry, Paul Revere’s ride, Bunker Hill, Yorktown, George Washington, the fervency of those who organized the various means of resistance to the Crown.

I think that Paul has profoundly influenced the political debate and gave liberty a place at the table.  I wish he was running again frankly.  Yes I admire and respect his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.  He has some useful ideas, especially in the field of corrections.  But it is not the same.  We need to have more persons in politics like Cong. Paul.

Have a blessed birthday, Congressman Paul.

 


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

What Everyone Seemed To Miss After The GOP Debate

It’s been 22 hours since the 9pm debate began Thursday night in Cleveland, Ohio. The last 20 hours have been filled with talk of winners and losers, moderator decorum, and howls from every conceivable angle. What have we learned?

In a shocking turn of events, those who loved The Donald at 9pm yesterday, still loved The Donald at 11pm. Their mission over the last 20 hours has been to slam the FOXNews moderators and praise Trumps’ courage at standing alone as the only candidate willing to jettison all hope of a Republican victory in 2016 with a 3rd party challenge.

More astonishingly, establishment Republicans still support the establishment candidates. Not one big government Republican came out after the debate and said, “You know, I’ve been for Jeb Bush for months, but after watching this debate, gosh, that Ted Cruz really is impressive!”

After Rand Paul went toe to toe with the raucous Chris Christie, none of the Rand Paul supporters said to themselves, “Damn it, that Christie is right! Screw the Fourth Amendment!”.

There are many wings to this Republican Party and each candidate is drawing upon their own base within the party. Rand Paul and Donald Trump actually had the easier job. Rand Paul had to inspire his libertarian-leaning Republican Base, convince them he was willing to fight, and that their donations would not be given in vane. Meanwhile, Donald Trump just had to be Donald Trump. Easy-Peesy.

Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio had the most difficult job. They are all fighting over the conservative Republican Base. This is a base comprised of Constitutionalists, grassroots activists, and Social Conservatives. These were the candidates that needed to have the biggest nights. They all did well. There were no knock out punches thrown. They introduced themselves, their identities, their political philosophies, and highlighted the central themes of their particular campaigns.

politifact-john-kasichjpg-6f115f6be0489742On the other side of the Republican divide we saw Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich attempt to appeal to the establishment wing of the Republican Party. This was maybe the most interesting grouping to watch and evaluate. I can’t remember anything Jeb Bush said last night, to be perfectly frank; but Kasich, whom I absolutely loathe and would never vote for under any circumstance whatever, had a great debate. He was overly emotional and caring, which led many analysts to assume that he might have crossover appeal to moderate Democrats. Also, if Jeb Bush isn’t going to show up to these debates and John Kasich does, the Governor of Ohio has a real shot at earning the full throated support (and most importantly the money) of the billionaire class and their underlings.

It seems obvious to me that John Kasich and Carly Fiorina are in this campaign to win the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican Party. After last night, however, Governor Kasich might just think he has a chance to win this thing. That’s the storyline everyone’s missed. Can Jeb Bush and his Goliath SuperPAC actually be dethroned by the Governor of Ohio?  It’s an interesting question and in the next debate, we’ll see how much of the hype Governor Kasich has bought into; because if he thinks his real competition is Jeb Bush, he’s going to have to start making the case for why the establishment Republicans ought to vote for him over Jeb. This is risky, because what he really wants is to be Jeb Bush’s VP… but maybe, just maybe, Jeb Bush might have to fill another position held by his illustrious father: Vice President of the United States. We’ll see.

 


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker