TrumpTrumpTrumpTrumpTrump

Dr. Ben Carson at Council Bluffs' Bayliss Park.
Dr. Ben Carson at Council Bluffs’ Bayliss Park.

Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina gave resoundi…

…WAIT! WHAT DID TRUMP SAY? HE ONLY SNEEZED? ARE YOU SURE?
IT SOUNDED LIKE IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING OUTRAGEOUS!
WE’LL JUST HOLD ON HERE TO MAKE SURE.

And so went the weekend news.
Whom I don’t blame. That’s their gig. Every other candidate is dog bites man, and who really cares.

But Trump! Did he mean what he said? Did he say what he meant?

OK, here’s my Trumpitudes, and then we will try to be done…with this episode.

***

I wasn’t sure about his whole, “blood coming out of her where ever” comment until KFAB’s Scott Vorhees played the soundbite.

Just so you can be part of the conservation, here it is:

Now Vorhees sounded like he was trying to be judicious to his lunatic Trump fan listeners, but here it is:

Abso-friggin-lutely Trump was referring to Megyn Kelly menstruating. Ab-so-lutely.

He gave a slight pause and said, “coming out of her…what ever…”, with a lilt in his voice. Feel free to disagree. If so, you’re wrong.

He definitely meant that.

So…what then?

Erick Erickson disinvited him from his forum to be petulant. And frankly it made Erickson a little news. Had he kept Trump invited, and then Trump said something outrageous again, or had to defend himself there, or whatever, only Trump would get the news. Now a few more people have heard of Erick Erickson and RedState.

But frankly, disinviting Trump only gave his proponents more steam. I say let Trump speak to as many people and events as often as possible.

His only card (his trump card, har har har) is bombast. Beyond that he has nothing. When asked what his proof was that the Mexican Government was sending criminals, etc. over the border, you could hear him panicking. His answer suddenly was “border patrol people” told him so.

Right.
Great.

So here is the deal. Trump in a debate or a gathering or an anything is like Tiger Woods in the final day of a golf tournament (pre-divorce). He is a ratings magnet. And the more bombastic thing he says, the better.

Until it’s not.

He will go over the top on any issue, and THAT will be the news of the day. Just wait, and he will say something over the top about the Iran deal — insulting Iran or the President, just up to the edge of needing to apologize. Then it will be Planned Parenthood. Or whatever next issue he can hit without needing to provide details.

Look at him when he talks healthcare. He cites the cross-state sale of insurance as his answer. Which has been discussed forever. But when he is asked to drill down, he cites Canada and Scotland as his champs of socialized medicine?

It is hilarious that his top advisor quit, citing Trump’s failure to run a serious campaign. Because that isn’t his plan. I could just hear Trump telling his minions to “do one of those Get Out the Vote things” a week before Iowa or New Hampshire, as they stare at him blankly.

But even more hilarious is Republicans — who actually vote — who think he is the answer to whatever ails America.

Unless they think what ails America is not enough Trump.

***

By the way, after Trump declared on the Twitter (at 3am!) that Erick Erickson is a “Loser”, I wondered who all was on his Loser list.

Thankfully, someone at the Washington Post took care to calculate it:

Losers: A list by Donald Trump

***

Dr. Ben Carson drew the peeps out to Bayliss Park in Council Bluffs on Sunday.

It is clear that people do still crave the non-politician — like The Donald — and Carson is someone who comes across just a tad more cerebral than Trump.

A frequent reader attended the event and noted how surprised they were at the crowd for this type of event. It was pretty much just Carson, and getting a crowd like that on a Sunday afternoon — in the heat — is impressive.

Carson seemed to give his main stump speech, and many are still impressed.

It will be interesting to see if he can keep that rolling with Trump and Scott Walker. The latest Public Policy Polling shows Trump now on top in Iowa with 19%, and Carson and Walker at 12% (Jeb at 11%).

But Carson also seems like a candidate who could survive on a shoe-string for quite a while. It waits to be seen how far he can rise.

(And to hear more from Carson, listen to my podcast interview of him here.)

***

Funny that when the President announced the proposed Iran nuclear deal, he presented it as either this deal, or WAR with Iran.

The jets and tanks are all gassed up, and ready to tear out, just in case Congress cancels the deal, right?

Well of course, as Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer pointed out, that this is a false choice. Remember all of those people who were suggesting, before this deal, that the U.S. go to war with Iran?

No?

Uh…well…but…Israel!

Well, perhaps if this administration hadn’t crapped all over Israel from the start, the U.S.’s realtionship with them would be better, and we would have a better handle on whatever their plans are.

Nonetheless, it is chuckleworthy that pundits are STILL pushing the “This deal or WAR” narrative. You know, like the LJS’s Don Walton:

“…the Iran debate is the question of whether we are more comfortable risking war than risking peace.”

Of course, maybe he is right. If this deal is signed, the risk of war DOES rise. Though it is always interesting that when talking about “Climate Change”, Don and others couch it in terms of kicking the can down the road to let “our children deal with it.”

But apparently The Don (Walton, this time) has no problem kicking this little 10 year proposed deal with Iran down the road to let MY children deal with it. The Iranians know that’s only a blink of the eye.

And then…

“Chuck Schumer’s careful study and consideration before announcing he would oppose the agreement was all theater.”

Right. But had Schumer come out in favor of the deal, you can guarantee Schumer would have been deigned a dignified Statesman.

And so it goes…

***

And just in case The Don was wondering, the Kansas City Royals, parent team to the Omaha Storm Chasers, with many members of the Royals from the Chasers, including Lincoln and Nebraska’s own Alex Gordon, continue to be the best team in the American League.

36 comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Trump will continue to do well because he is what Republican voters want. The party’s strategy of getting the nuts’ votes succeeded, but now they control the party. Good luck winning another presidential election, especially since it can’t be gerrymandered!

  2. Early States says:

    After Trump doesn’t come in the top 3 in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, it’ll be the biggest narcissistic ego burst since the 2013 Steve Lathrop statewide listening tour that not one person showed up to.

  3. Sparkles says:

    In case any of you would be interested in an explanation for Trump and why the non-gerrymandered portion of Republican party is f$%^ed –
    Harvard Kennedy School has available a new study on the radicalism of right-wing American media entities, featuring a number of quotes from prominent Republicans despondent over how crazed conservative commentary has become.

    Google:
    Harvard Kennedy School They’ve Don’t Give a Damn about Governing

    It’s a lengthy, but fascinating read, accompanied by a 14 minute podcast.
    Synopsis –
    The ultra right wing echo chambers are a cancer on the party.

    What the study fails to properly address (in my humble opinion) is the institutional rot of the GOP. A disease crafted and deposited by Newt Gingrich while Speaker of the House 20 years ago.

  4. Sparkles says:

    You need to attach an audio clip to that TrumpTrumpTrump.. headline;
    The Edgar Winter Group – Frankenstein.

    (Come to think of it, Trump does slightly resemble Peter Boyle, so maybe the above is best pronounced ‘Fronkensteen.’)

  5. Anonymous says:

    So far I’m totally right (1:01pm). A Morning Consult poll shows Trump at 32%, 7 points above last week’s poll, with Jeb! next at 11%. Reuters/Ipsos has Trump at 24%, with Jeb! next at 12%.

  6. Lacking credibility says:

    The credibility that Erick Erickson had just took a nose dive in my book. He (and his staff) have helped provide a firewall for Trump over the past year. A day late and a dollar short, Erickson is now taking the measures to correct that.

  7. Sparkles says:

    Erick Erickson gives The Donald a solid run for the title Misogynistic Little Turd.

    It was Erickson who repeatedly called Wendy Davis ‘Abortion Barbie’ during her TX gubernatorial run.
    It was Erickson who called a predominantly female lineup at a Democratic convention, the ‘Vagina Monologues’.
    It was Erickson who called the First Lady of the United States a ‘Marxist Harpy’.

    Toxic.

  8. The Grundle King says:

    Sparkles,

    In the months leading up to, and after, the 2008 presidential election, conservatives across the country learned how to treat women from their liberal counterparts, as the left launched a number of disgusting slurs, condescending skits, and a variety of porno vids aimed at defaming Sarah Palin.

    Toxic? That stuff was toxic.

  9. The latest piece of bottomless stupidity discovered to have explosively evacuated the anal aperture sometimes mistaken for Donald J Trump’s mouth is this tweet.

    “Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn’t feel good and changes – AUTISM. Many such cases!”

    Folks, there is no contemporary area of mass stupidity Trump will not wade into.

  10. Sparkles says:

    Gerard,

    Re your statement – “Davis fervently embraced late-term abortion”

    According to PolitiFact-Texas, this is yet another right wing lie.

    The record clearly shows –
    Davis opposes late-term abortions except when the life or health of the mother is endangered, in cases of rape or incest or in the case of severe and irreversible fetal abnormalities.

  11. Oh good grief Sparkles, sipping a little koolaid is OK, but you can’t live on it. It lacks essential nutrients.

    Don’t you remember what he famous pink sneaker filibuster was about? Never mind; here’s MSNBC, your primary news source, to remind you about Wendy Davis’s great abortion flip-flop.

    Google: Davis falls into abortion question trap.

  12. Macdaddy says:

    Those exceptions that Davis wanted are more than enough to drive a speculum, a pair of scissors, and a suction catheter through. Those exceptions would have ensured that thousands of late term fetuses are dragged out and sold off for parts.

  13. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Sparkles: Wendy Davis embraces late term abortions through her “exceptions.” Citing for the “health” of the Mother is code for abortion on demand, through all nine months for any reason whatsoever due to the health exception language contained in Doe v Bolton, the companion case to Roe. That language is so broad as to allow abortion for any reason. If she also cited “for fetal anomaly” that is mostly brought up during debate on late term abortions though the majority of late term are done not for reasons of fetal anomaly nor the Mother’s health. She also had a 100% rating from NARAL as a Texas State Legislator and was endorsed by Emily’s List in her run for Governor.

  14. Lil Mac says:

    Once the field narrows, it will be up to Trump to shift from playing clown to candidate. This race just started. Trump isn’t close to throwing out his net. He is chumming and getting lots of nibbles.

    Trump wants Americans to see this as “GOP vs Trump” because the only thing Americans hate worse than Congress are Republicans in Congress. When polled, Americans see the GOP as elitist, hypocritical and inept. And more than a few GOP bloggers want to skin Boehner and McConnell for ineptitude. The last two GOP presidential nominees were RINOS.

    Americans see Republicans pose as champions of the truth who then constantly fudge truth whenever political correctness demands. Average Americans find that repellant, a lukewarm hypocrisy that gags worse than Democrat excesses pain.

    In any case, Trump is driving this boat. He’s chopping up GOP hypocritical effeteness, which Americans love to hate, and he is using it to chum the electoral waters.

    To Americans, Trump is Captain Quint. To GOP leaders, Trump is the shark.

    To paraphrase Quint, “you start poundin’ and hollerin’ and screamin’ and sometimes the shark goes away… Sometimes he doesn’t go away.”

  15. TexasAnnie says:

    Julie, I have noticed that whenever the ‘A’ word is mentioned on this board, you jump right in! And I have tried, and tried, and tried (for a couple decades now) to ascertain whether you NOTICE the disparate state expenditures in support of “the best and the brightest” as compared to those expended for “the worst and the weakest.”

    I know the DD population is not your gig, but, but, but, if only ONCE you would acknowledge that they do need SOMEONE in the so-called PRO-LIFE advocacy to take up their case, I’m sure your input would go a long way to helping ordinary Nebraskans realize that folks with disability are human too. Do you know anyone who will help them???

  16. TexasAnnie says:

    …And it’s Trump again! This time he is considering taking the pledge: He might not run as an independent. Whew. If Trump can be persuaded to take the pledge…

  17. Sparkles says:

    Julie,

    You’re clearly one of the most well-informed citizens of our state re abortion laws.
    But, respectfully, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.

    You state:
    “Citing for the “health” of the Mother is code for abortion on demand”

    No.
    No it’s not.
    On it’s face this statement is, to all objective observers, false.
    A medical doctor can clearly document and substantiate, in each and every case, the risk to the mothers health. There’s nothing subjective or whimsical (‘on demand’) about the process or decision. A medical professional diagnoses an immediate and potentially life threatening health risk to the mother. Then, in what must be a heart-wrenching consultation with said medical professional, the mother makes an informed choice.
    A constitutionally protected, informed choice.
    (And this intensely private conservation and ultimate decision is NOBODY’S f*^&ing business! – NOT Bill Kintner’s, NOT Mike Foley’s, NOT Beau McCoy’s and respectfully – NOT yours!)

    In addition, a quick glance at the statistics shows that fewer than 1% of all abortions performed cite the reason being for the health of the mother.
    So your entire argument, this strawman you’ve constructed for the purposes of inciting the base, lies at the very extreme fringes of the debate.

    Certainly you’re aware, the rise of the TEA party and a more radicalized conservatism (and their subsequent nationwide assault on a woman’s right to choose), has proven disastrous to your cause.
    According to a recent Gallup poll (May 29, 2015):
    For the first time since 2008, significantly more Americans identify as pro-choice (50 percent) than pro-life (44 percent)
    The poll found that in the past three years, women have become more pro-choice (54 percent) than men (46 percent). Since 2012, Democrats, Republicans and independents have all become increasingly pro-choice.

  18. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Sparkles:
    It sounds to me like you might be confusing the “life of the mother” exception with a “health of the mother” exception. National Right to Life and its State Affiliates use boiler plate “life of the mother” language in all of our legislation so as not to get struck down in the Courts. Language that speaks to “avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” That is much narrower and different than the “health exception” contained in Doe that you can drive a Mack truck through. Doe stated that the “health” included “physical, psychological, mental, emotional, age and even family situations.” We reject the “health” exception as its intent is to neuter any legitimate attempt to restrict or regulate abortion. We accept and use the boiler plate “life of the mother” exception to get through the Courts.
    TA: What is Disability Rights Nebraska or were they not an active lobbying presence when you lived here?

  19. Anonymous says:

    Americans hate Republicans in Congress? How come so many are in there, then?

    It’s called gerrymandering. Explains why their were more votes for Democrats than Republicans in House elections, but the House has a very solid Republican majority. Not fair, but one side is only concerned with fairness when their ox is gored. (And I know, the other side isn’t perfect either.)

  20. The Grundle King says:

    Anon @10:59 asserts the New England Patriots defense.

    “Sure our team cheats, but so do all the other teams!”

  21. “It’s called gerrymandering. Explains why their were more votes for Democrats than Republicans in House elections, but the House has a very solid Republican majority.”

    This is actually total crap. The GOP got 52% of the vote in House races.

    Both parties gerrymander, and the result is largely a wash. The real issue is the Democrat vote tends to be highly concentrated, and so Democratic majorities are huge, whereas the GOP vote is more disperse.

    Google “Republicans Got Only 52 Percent of the Vote in House Races”. It’s from The Nation, hardly a right-wing source

  22. Anonymous says:

    This is actually total crap. The GOP got 52% of the vote in House races.

    Sorry. I should have been more specific. I was referring to the 2012 election where Democratic candidates received more votes than Republican candidates, but the House Republicans had a 33 seat majority. It’s not all explained by Democratic voter concentration (i.e. Austin TX with 6 congressional districts)

  23. Sparkles says:

    Google:
    Republicans Brag They Won House Majority Because Of Gerrymandering

    A little closer to home, maybe Scott can chip in and explain why Bellevue and Offutt AFB (coincidentally, an area w/a large minority population) are better served lumped into District 1, a heavily Republican district including the cities of Norfolk and Fremont.
    Does a plausible explanation exist as to why these constituents would somehow benefit by being severed from their immediately adjacent, highly urban counterparts in D2?

    We know what the political scholars have said. They noted that the move was clearly partisan, and clearly intended to dilute the Democratic presence which helped Barack Obama win one of Nebraska’s electoral votes in the 2008 presidential election.

    Of course, that’s just pointy-head talk, I’m sure there’s nothing to it.

  24. The Grundle King says:

    “A little closer to home, maybe Scott can chip in and explain why Bellevue and Offutt AFB (coincidentally, an area w/a large minority population) are better served lumped into District 1, a heavily Republican district including the cities of Norfolk and Fremont.”

    Maybe you can ask that same question of the Democrat state senators that signed off on the redistricting plan.

  25. Sparkles says:

    Grundle,

    There were no Democratic Senators that voted for LB 704.
    A blatantly gerrymandered redistricting, proposed by Scott Lautenbaugh, filibustered by the full Democratic contingent, and ultimately passed on’y upon the third attempt.

    Try again.

  26. The Grundle King says:

    My apologies, you are correct.

    BTW, what ever happened to all those threats from Bill Avery and Heath Mello to challenge the redistricting map in court? I mean, if it’s such an obvious case of blatant gerrymandering, they should have easily been able to win their court case…no?

  27. Sparkles says:

    That’s a good point Grundle.
    Maybe Sens. Avery and Mello should have indeed pressed their case. They would have won.
    It was only a few weeks ago (June 29th) that Justice Anthony Kennedy served as the swing vote in the 5-4 decision, siding with the liberal justices in allowing Arizona and other states to use independent redistricting commissions in order to combat partisan gerrymandering.

    Of course, Sens. Avery and Mello are both known to be serious legislators, pursuing many warranted and productive causes on behalf of their constituents. Considering the overwhelming Republican majority the faces, they may have deemed the odds too long.
    And, unlike our recent Attorney’s General, it is not in their nature to engage in lengthy, often costly lawsuits solely for partisan political purposes or padding of their political resumes.

  28. The Grundle King says:

    “They would have won.” Pfft. Methinks that conclusion is based more on hubris than legal precedent. Even if Mello and Avery have been just too darn busy to press the case, certainly it could have been pressed by any number of left-minded individuals who practice law, and who are always looking to pad their political resume. Gosh…who in Nebraska’s Democratic Party would fit such a description? I wonder…

  29. Sparkles says:

    Grundel

    “more on hubris than legal precedent. ”

    Matters not.
    It’s now the law, thanks to a SCOTUS, stacked 5-4, with Republican appointees.

    Although, your original question remains valid. It’s puzzling why not a single Dem chose to take up the cause.
    The answer likely includes timidity and weakness as operative terms.

    Ta-Da!

  30. The Grundle King says:

    It is the law that Arizona and other states can use independent redistricting commissions. That’s it. None of that means that Nebraska’s 2011 redistricting was inherently a clear case of illegal gerrymandering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.