46 thoughts on “The Case Against The GOP Establishment”

  1. You’re making the mistake of thinking Trump is part of the conservative camp, and that his supporters are. Trump is obviously not a conservative and can barely even pretend to care about typical conservative issues. He has redrawn the political division and conservatives, used to the Dem/GOP game can’t seem to understand this.

    His constituency is not conservatives but Pro-Americans. People don’t care what his politics are, except that he puts Americans and America first. The rump supporters of the Dems and GOP are the anti-Americans. The ones who keep voting for the statist ruling party even when their bipartisan actions hurt America and Americans. The GOP conspired to pass the Iran deal and then construct failure theatre to hide that fact. If you support the GOP this cycle, you are voting to support their actions. This is the anti-American voting base, many of whom call themselves conservatives solely because they vote GOP. Trump is carving out his support from the Pro-American left, centre and right. Arguing the “GOP conservative” case against him is to be blind to the reality of what is happening.

    1. You’re making the mistake of thinking Trump is part of the conservative camp, and that his supporters are.

      I am not making that mistake at all. I do not delude myself that Trump is in any way a conservative.

      People don’t care what his politics are, except that he puts Americans and America first.

      And we know that how?

      No, he puts himself first.

      1. Because he SAYS he will. The exact same guarantee all the other candidates give. Except they can’t even bring themselves to lie about it. Instead they give some sort of weak-tea statement about “protecting values” while Trump says “we’ll build a wall and round up anyone not supposed to be here”. The first type of statement is only meant to imply “America first”. It doesn’t actually mean anything.

        If all I have to base my decision on is trust in the word of the speaker, I’d rather trust a man who says clearly and boldly that he is for America rather than a man who squeaks out some cliché about values and duty.

          1. Apparently, Rand, you have not been paying attention during the every Democratic party speech in the last 8 years.

          2. Well, it was pretty obvious to see how Obama would govern by either ignoring his speech or assuming he would do the exact opposite of his speech, because you could look at his record of voting present and his desire to hide inconvenient, yet common to everyone else, things like his birth certificate and college transcript.

            We know Hillary is lying now, because of her record.

        2. “Because he SAYS he will. The exact same guarantee all the other candidates give. Except they can’t even bring themselves to lie about it.”

          Yes. People want to be pandered to before being sold out, which is exactly what the GOPe has done over the last 15 years. Always promising to fight but then caving into Democrat media theatre.

          Trump is doing the same thing, only with better showmanship, and he is viewed as anti-establishment when really he is just another RINO.

          1. “Trump is doing the same thing, only with better showmanship,..”

            Yes. Trump at least knows what it is the electorate wants to hear. He knows they are sick of wishy washy, dissembling and prevarication.

            But in the end I have no confidence Trump can or will do what he says.

  2. Records of what? Making speeches full of lawyer talk that could mean virtually anything in practice because they don’t want to upset their GOP friends and their donor class masters. Many of those on the right want the GOP burned to the ground. Why would such people want to vote for anyone who is part of the GOP machine? A machine with a track record of lying and betraying their own supporters on every issue that counts.

    And yeah, perhaps Trump does change his positions and it’s probably because he doesn’t have any real ones on those issues. But whatever he says, it always puts Americans first. If that’s his guiding principle, it’s enough.

    People want a leader, not a detailed policy paper. Wonks would be happy to have a computer as President, so long as their programmed it with their own policies. If you attack a leader with a handful of notes and demand he explain how he’d deal with paragraph 3, subsection 4, you don’t even understand the game. What did all the policy promises of the GOP get their base? Policy is bullshit because circumstances change. Principles matter. America First is a good place to start.

    1. Someone who simply blathers about whatever they think the hot topic of the day is, and thinks that insulting people’s appearance is political discourse is not leadership.

        1. Did you hear the latest scandal, that Carly Fiorina’s HP sold (get this) LaserJets to Iran?

          Think of how Iran having squadrons of LaserJets upsets the power balance in the Middle East!

          They can blanket their neighbors with crisply printed documents. They can wage bio-war with infected paper cuts . . .

          2. I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of ITAR – laser printers contain microcontrollers or microcomputers that can be reverse-engineered.

    2. @Mr. Black
      +1

      If Trump didn’t enter the race, ¡Jeb! Bush would’ve been the nominee due to the huge number of ¡Jeb! supporting splitter “candidates.” Does anyone actually think Senatoress Lisa Graham is “running” for President?

      http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/09/11/tripwire-crossed-rick-perry-exits-race-whos-next-media-continues-baiting-candidates/

      That said, I suspect that multiple billionaires are beginning to notice the decline of The West and the treachery of The Cathedral… not just ordinary Westerners. Billionaire Peter Thiel (Elon Musk’s partner at PayPal) noticed that American elections are fake. Mark Cuban appears to be aware of the treason of the social elite who rule The West. Billionaire Donald Sterling certainly isn’t fond of The Cathedral. I suspect that Elon Musk knows too… hence the effort to establish a large Mars settlement. Donald Trump isn’t alone. The appearance of rogue elites who challenge the established elite (in the manner of Robert-The-Bruce or the Founding Fathers) is a strong indication of incipient revolution and civil war. The successful revolutions were all started by rogue elites who noticed the misrule of the established elite.

  3. I’ll start off by admitting I’m a bit biased; I’m undecided but leaning Cruz at the moment. (there are things about him that bother me, but at the moment, less of them than with other candidates).

    However, while I agree that Trump may be just saying what he thinks will help him, I’d have a lot more respect for some making that particular argument if they’d also call out candidates in this field who have done precisely that in recent campaigns (Run as one thing, then flip as soon as the votes are counted). Rubio, for example, has done this. So, while I have grave suspicions on this issue regarding Trump, in the case of Rubio it’s not a suspicion, but proven fact. (Caveat: I do see why Trump gets more fire; because he’s the longstanding frontrunner. But, the proven perfidy of some should not be ignored while expressing legitimate concerns on the veracity of Trump, or anyone else.)

    I’ve also got policy concerns with Trump even if he does mean what he says (biggest one is he does not strike me as a fiscal conservative, nor a respecter of property rights).

    If the field narrows to establishment candidates (such as Bush and Rubio) and Trump by the time my state votes, I’ll vote Trump. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

    1. To be clear, I’m not attacking anyone on this site regarding ignoring the flaws of some candidates. It’s the full time political commentators elsewhere that are irking me on that.

    2. “I’m undecided but leaning Cruz at the moment. (there are things about him that bother me, but at the moment, less of them than with other candidates). ”

      Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to a Cuban father who fought on Castro’s side in the revolution. He is not a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to run for President. And if he is the candidate, low-info voters will find out about his birth in a foreign country about 3 days before the election. Don’t expect the Democrats to play fair.

      I keep bringing this up, and others indulge in wishful thinking saying “but his mom was American, so he is too!”. Sorry, no, not under Canadian law, which is the applicable law where and when he was born.

      1. Further: the circumstances of his birth means that Cruz actually has triple citizenship – Canadian, American and Cuban. He has recently (just a few years ago) renounced his Canadian citizenship but has yet to renounce his Cuban citizenship.

        Cruz is not eligible to run for President, period, full stop. The sooner he drops out of the race, the better. If he does get the nomination, then by November 1 the Republicans will be scrambling to get an eligible candidate on the ballot.

          1. I’m quite confident that no U.S. court (or at least not the supreme one) would agree with you.

            Better get read on your Moldbug, Rand.

        2. Cruz is not eligible to run for President, period, full stop. The sooner he drops out of the race, the better. If he does get the nomination, then by November 1 the Republicans will be scrambling to get an eligible candidate on the ballot.

          Good catch Ed.

        3. @ Ed Minchu;

          I strongly disagree that it’s Canadian law that applies. It’s American law that applies for American purposes, regardless of where Cruz, or anyone, was born. For example, suppose Canadian law said that anyone born in Yellowknife on the first Tuesday of every month, of parents who had no connection to the US whatsoever, was a native born American?

          I had no issues with McCain on his native born status, because he was born in what was, then, US territory to deployed US military parents (Panama Canal Zone). Also, both his parents were citizens.

          However… when it comes to American law, I do have issues regarding whether Cruz fits “native born”, because I don’t see how he fits the intent as written in the constitution (I would seriously be delighted to be shown I’m wrong on that). I’d have fewer constitutional qualms if both his parents were American and were on foreign soil short-term. So, that’s one concern I have with Cruz. However, at this juncture, I have stronger problems with the rest of the field, so…

          At the moment, I’m only leaning Cruz, not decided. Besides, the field will be smaller by the time my state votes, so I’m taking a wait-and-learn approach before making up my mind.

  4. NR lost credibility as an authentic conservative organ some time ago. It’s tough to support the Republican base and still hobnob with the academic, political and financial elite. They are “conservatives” in the sense that they will conserve whatever the status quo is. If that’s Obamacare, Chief executive overreach, existential debt, open borders and 24/7 universal surveillance, well there’s no reason to be rude about it. The fact that the writer has to explicitly make reference to the couple of times he made some statement that supports a real conservative case but can not point out condemnations of the near zero accomplishments of establishment Republican efforts to get those things done says volumes.

      1. It’s still way early times. I expect there will be lots more crash and burn between now and my state’s primaries so I’m not getting very exercised about alla the early posturing. I’ll be pretty much voting for anyone but Hillary!, Bernie!, SlowJoe! unless the GOPe nominee is Jeb!. If that happens, well, guess election day is going to be one long bender, after which, the piper will be paid, and paid.

        1. “It’s still way early times. I expect there will be lots more crash and burn between now and my state’s primaries”

          Which makes it stupid for anyone to quit now, Trump or Perry.

          2. Perry is a vote splitter. When the GOPe finally noticed that Perry was no longer useful in splitting votes to help ¡Jeb! Bush in Texas (because rogue billionaire Trump threw a wrench in the works), they dumped him to conserve resources. They hope Ted Cruz might pull votes away from The Donald in Texas, but Cruz isn’t GOPe… thus, the original GOPe roadmap to elect Bush is in tatters.

      2. Well, no politician is our savior.
        Now the Dems voted for their savior, and it seems Obama has done a good job of destroying the Dems. Nor has Obama done anything beneficial for the American people or the world.
        Obama has proven that American leadership is needed in this world, because Obama has what world without American Leadership looks like.

        I don’t like Trump, though I would vote for Trump over Hillary or Bernie. That dems could possible pick the only socialist in the US Senate, just indicates how much Obama has damaged the Dems. Wow!
        Now I would say if there is US cowboy, Trump is one of them.
        I don’t think think Trump could be described as conservative, but nor are cowboys.
        The way I would describe it, is the that conservatives aren’t winning, rather the Dems are losing.
        But it seems conservative have had idea of having a big tent, and Trump should fit in that tent.
        I am not a conservative, I am more of libertarian- and Trump not libertarian, either. But I think it’s good idea for conservative to support Trump.
        If nothing else Trump makes Lefties batshit crazy. Trump is not a Lefty, though he might have voted for or supported a lefty at some point.
        What is needed is someone with executive experience, I believe Trump has some, unlike Obama, Hillary, or Bernie.
        I don’t think Trump will get the Rep nomination, I think Trump running in Rep primary is good for Rep, and America- and of course good for Trump.

        1. “The way I would describe it, is the that conservatives aren’t winning, rather the Dems are losing.”

          Yup, but Trump isn’t going to be helping conservatives win.

          “But it seems conservative have had idea of having a big tent, and Trump should fit in that tent.”

          Yup, Trump is essentially an establishment RINO squish candidate. Well, maybe he wouldn’t be squishy.

          “If nothing else Trump makes Lefties batshit crazy. ”

          Everything does, heh. It’s a bit like worrying that doing or not doing something will offend ISIS. They will make up offense regardless.

  5. Trump does one thing absolutely right: He doesn’t let political correctness stand in his way.

    But he apparently doesn’t let good manners or a moment to consider his words slow him down either.

    1. I saw something astounding on the national TV news — was it NBC? It would be semi-unremarkable for Fox, but I think it was one of the Big 3.

      They ran a story with the lede that ICE agents run considerable risk rearresting aliens they want to deport, who were let out of jail. These persons were in jail for serious crimes, but cities and counties won’t keep them in jail any extra time to allow ICE to deport them. It isn’t just a Sanctuary City mindset — a new Federal law was mentioned and the locals are afraid of lawsuits.

      But the ICE agents have to knock on doors to take into custody persons who might have guns, who just hours before were safely in jail where they were behind bars and without guns. The ICE is just asking that they be notified of the immigration status of persons in jail, but the cities and counties are reluctant.

      Even more astounding was mention that two California women were shot dead by two men here illegally in separate incidents. The piece closed with Immigration Advocates protesting the reporting of the immigration status of persons jailed for drug or violent crimes to ICE, with a spokesperson claiming these reports would “undermine cooperation with police in the immigrant community.”

      OK, the Social Justice Point-of-View got into the story as a counterpoint, but the very airing of this story suggests a seismic shift. Who would have thunk 6 months ago that the TV news would run anything even mildly critical of deporting-aliens-who committ-crime-is-unjust.

      1. Those illegal immigrants who commit violent crime should by all rights be at the head of the line for a rapid deportation after sentence is applied. And the immigrant community in general should welcome their removal.

  6. Rand, Trump’s support is much more against the GOP establishment than actually for Trump himself. You’re looking for reasons of affirmative support that for most of his supporters, simply aren’t there. He’s supported because he promises to stop illegal immigration, because he’s not a member of the GOP establishment, and, more recently, because he’s driving “the right people” absolutely nuts. If I were still a member of the GOP, I’d surely vote for him. As I’ve posted here before, I believe social conservatives have been pretty much defeated, and abandoned by even the GOP, so I don’t expect any socially conservative moves from the GOP nominee whoever it turns out to be.

  7. The first thing to remember is that the Conservative electorate is mighty angry at being taken for suckers over the last 8 years….by the GOP establishment. McConnell, Boehner et al who kept whining that they were not in power but if they could only win one house…..

    and they were given one house but did nothing and whined that they were only 1/2 of 1/3 and powerless but if they were only given the Senate!

    And they were given the Senate and did nothing.

    Obamacare was rubberstamped; Dreamer act; Iran deal the list is endless.

    But look at how effective the Dems were on the Iran deal. They showed that the minority party has real power if they are willing to use it. It’s clear the GOP Establishment (GOPE) were simply not willing when they were in the Minority.

    NOW the GOPE is whining they need the White House to be effective.

    Part of that is power play perhaps – GOPE being just ineffective enough to make us vote for them again and give them what they want.

    So after all of the above, Conservatives are ripping mad. They say what Trump *says* every day in their heads and to each other. The source of Trump’s power is that he’s effectively read their minds and knows what buttons to push. Furthermore, as others have said in here, Trump is not worried about PC – that’s “yyugely” attractive.

    At this point I tend to think that a poll response can be cavalier and emotion driven because it’s nowhere near real voting time. What the responders will think and say when their primary is near can be quite another thing.

    Also I think Trump is doing us a service by blasting the barriers to straight talk. He’s demonstrating to the GOPE cowards that – contrary to GOPE thinking – straight talk is a winner not a loser. He’s sharpened up several of the candidates.

    Yes I would vote Trump over the 3 Socialists on the Dem side. Reluctantly though because I think it wouldn’t be good. I’m hoping it doesn’t come to that. I’m hoping Walker can make a comeback and that Cruz can continue to build.

    Carson’s recent popularity is, I think, due to the same thing: he stood face to face with Obama and gave Obama a verbal thrashing in public.

    But I also think that we will see the same thing this year as we did in 2012 – a “flavor of the week” followed by a crash in the polls of that flavor until we are left with a couple of options. Could be wrong about that though.

    1. To be fair, Barrycade’s signature legislation was passed without a single Republican vote while the democrats has majorities in Congress. The Republicans didn’t retake the House until 2010, and still don’t have sufficient majority in the Senate to convict on impeachment or overcome a veto. Their only remaining weapon to contain the lawless goobernment is the budget, which is a nuclear option.

      1. Peter H, what you say regarding Republican options is true on some issues.

        On others, however, it isn’t. For example, can we seriously say that the Republicans had no options on Obamatrade? How about not voting FOR it? They voted for a measure that most Democrats were willing to break with the white house on (and did so). The fact that it’s a lousy deal, was unpopular with the public, and would have handed Obama a much needed defeat (at the hands of a revolt in his own party) didn’t seem to register with them, so Bohner and McConnel did all they could to pass it – and succeeded.

        And let’s not forget other perfidy. For example, what was the immigration platform the Republicans ran on in both midterms? Contrast that with Bohner repeatedly bringing up “immigration reform”. And let’s not forget Rubio and the other R members of the Gang of 8.

        There are other examples where the Republicans could have done more to stop this or that lefty agenda, but in the above two, the leadership didn’t just not try to stop it, they were, and are, on the other side.

        1. While there are plenty of those things that can only be described as ‘dim’, it’s the unwillingness to at least prepare to actually do -anything- not liked by the Left that is a key problem.

          Say you want -actual- cuts.
          And recognize “Hey, a shutdown doesn’t work well for us because A, B, C are needed.”

          Bill 1: “Budget & Appropriation for the dept A (say, Parks Dept). Fully funded to the tune of X (an increase) for 2015-2016). In the event of a general government shutdown, the pay of all field agents (definitions here) and operational maintenance (def here), are considered ‘necessary and non-discretional’. Any failure at any step in the process of cutting the checks (direct pay, and all aspects of benefits) for personnel and facilities deemed necessary and non-discretional on time shall be a felony, explicitly revoking (and superseding all wording to the contrary) all governmental immunity for everyone involved from the head of the department to the mail clerk. Any -orders- to ‘stand down’, enact a work slowdown, or strike shall also be a felony and open the individual up for personal lawsuit. (Every citizen shall have standing to sue.)”

          Yes, I’ve left 500 pages out of my Bill, but the net effect is pretty clear. A ‘government shutdown’ (if enacted) would then completely stop paying the entire bureaucratic layer while keeping Rushmore open. Unless, of course, Obama refuses to sign such a generous increase in the Parks department. Which is fine. Just keep marching around the entire budget funding the publicly/immediately-desirable parts and failing to fund the cruft.

          Re-pass them all a week before the next ‘shutdown fight’.

          1. And:
            If they -don’t- work, rewrite the bloody thing with the same intentions for -next- time. There should be a wall of these at all times to pass for every immediately-post-election period.

          2. @Al,

            I like the strategy you lay out (the Democrats used similar quite often), and I do agree that the R’s should have done more such things, but what I find even more objectionable is when they actively and deliberately pursued courses that directly helped the other side AND hurt the US.

            Doing nothing in such situations would have been a vast improvement, and even a tree stump can accomplish that.

            Is it any wonder that so many are utterly furious with the establishment types?

      2. ” The Republicans didn’t retake the House until 2010, and still don’t have sufficient majority in the Senate to convict on impeachment or overcome a veto. ”

        But the republicans were in the very same position that the Democrats are in now and look at how much more effective the Dems are at blocking the majority.

        The RINO’s didn’t even try. They never fought hard.

  8. There are, what, 15 to 20 Republican candidates in the mix now? Each has to grab a mind-share and one minute of fame (shared among the others) by one of two strategies: 1) Be seen as the “strongest” on an old issue, (say, the most anti-abortion candidate) or 2) Be seen as the “inventor” of a new issue. (say, saving the Ex-Im Bank, which few had heard of a year ago.)

    I’m not supporing Trump. I am supporting his promotion of the old issue of border control into the leading or strongest issue all dozen or so candidates should address. Any who tell me “we can’t” enforce immigration law and so much change the law is telling me in effect we can’t enforce ANY existing law. We can’t audit enough tax payers to enforce compliance with voluntary filing. We can’t stop enough speeders on the interstates to enforce traffic laws. We can’t fine enough polluters to enforce EPA regulations. Why bother at all?

    I don’t like Trump at all. But at this stage in the contest I support him because he supports MY number one issue. When and if another champion on the issue comes up, I can be persuaded to listen.

    1. Is Mr. Trump really that ‘strong’ on immigration policy. Just the other day he spoke ‘off the top of his head” that reluctantly but on strong humanitarian grounds that we cannot shrug off, we needed to admit Syrian refugees. When confronted with the concern that even, no, especially Arab countries are concerned about admitting large numbers of refugees from that multi-party civil war who may bring with them the horror they are fleeing, Mr. Trump reversed himself.

      Is his stance on immigration heart-felt concern for the American citizens not sheltered in poverty-exculsive gated enclaves who may bear the brunt of the social upheaval and “friction” brought about by unrestricted immigration (say, by immigrants in the Bay Area not benefiting from NRA firearms safe-handling courses)?

      Or is this a cynical attention grabber calculated to differentiate him from every other candidate?

      I guess his coordination with Senator Sessions suggests that he is treating this as a serious public policy issue rather than just an applause line in a stump speech. And his “adjustment” on Syrian refugees suggests that he is not deaf to his natural constituency here. But one can still ask questions.

  9. Trump has hired illegal aliens and has said we need to take as many Syrian refugees as possible.

    Two reasons to doubt his sincerity on his signature issue.

    The first candidate to point this out, and simultaneously embrace the sane portion of his immigration stance (take out the “make the mexicans pay for it” and “end birthright citizenship) while hammering him for his unprofessionalism wins this thing.

    He/she better hurry, it’s still early but not that early.

Comments are closed.