Watch for all the times Trump jumps in and answers a question directed at Pence. And watch the body language. It reminds me of an old-fashioned husband-and-wife routine where the couple has agreed in advance that the husband should do the talking and the wife will perform silent theater with the message: This man is excellent. At one of the few points where Pence speaks, it seems as though he’s reciting the message he’s been on task conveying with his face: “I think this is a good man who’s been talking about the issues the American people care about.”
…Donald Trump is no lover of liberty. Donald Trump is no respecter of the law. And Donald Trump is certainly no man of character. We do not believe he is emotionally stable; we do not believe he is personally decent; he appears to be neither principled nor even particularly competent. And we believe the record shows, and his unreleased tax returns would further demonstrate, that he is not even a big business success – aside, that is, from having proven abilities at product branding, and at being a successful reality-TV showman. Apart from those two skills, Trump has a serial record – to use one of his favorite words – of being a loser….
Please join Ohio Gov. John Kasich for a Town Hall event in Wauwatosa on March 23rd. Doors Open: 11:30am Program Begins: Noon Be sure to sign up to get involved or learn more at: www.JohnKasich.com
Hey, it’s the “angry electorate,” the sole creation of the Republican Party.
Rural conservative voter are angry over large corporate farms, a GOP favorite that pollutes their wells and squeezes out family farms.
Rural conservatives are angry over closing community schools that end up destroying towns. They’re angry over cuts to school funding (for vouchers) that force teacher and school busing cuts. They’re angry over fewer local health care clinics.
So, Establishment Republicans, now what?
Yes, we’ve heard your “Never Trump” rallying cry loud and clear.
Ready to get behind Ted Cruz?
You want a conservative candidate?
You’ve got one.
I don’t know why, but suddenly an avalanche of stuff is coming out on Trump, and none of its good. Funniest thing? When Trump takes a jab at the reports, no matter how heinous, sick or brutal, he turns it into Trump loving ammunition against his critics…
The incumbent is a lame duck. The world is aflame; America’s inner cities are burning. Hillary Clinton is Hubert Humphrey, that uninspiring establishment candidate, challenged by a Gene McCarthy figure: idealistic but ungrounded, with no chance of success.
On the Right, demagoguery competes with competence. Like George Corley Wallace, one candidate appeals to nativist instincts. He courts violence with violent rhetoric. The rabble is easily roused.
Last weekend, I spoke at a panel at CPAC, a large national conservative gathering in Washington DC. Oh, I thought I was going to be brave. I resolved to let the chips fall where they may and boldly denounce Trump if given the chance. And I did. The subject was free speech and I said that Trump’s proposal to “open up” the libel laws so powerful politicians like him could sue their critics was antithetical to everything we believe in.
Huge applause. Turns out I wasn’t being so brave after all.
The only thing that really surprised me was the near uniformity and intensity of the anti-Trump sentiment. It is a running joke among movement conservatives and libertarians that, like Pauline Kael who knew no one who voted for Richard Nixon in 1972, we don’t know anybody who is supporting this guy. In fact, it seems that everyone we know not only does not support Trump, they can’t stand him.
Hillary Clinton is the Scott Walker of national politics: Identifying special interests with big money and pitching ‘give me money, I’ll do whatever you want.’
But the desperation of thecoronate-Hillary Clinton-now project is now apparent.
And by the way, as I said yesterday, Rubio has all the information he needs to know that if his goal is to stop Trump, he should get out now, endorse Ted Cruz, and give Cruz a chance to win Florida. If he doesn’t, he should be held responsible for the failure to stop Trump. And I’d assume it means that Rubio prefers Trump to Cruz, but that’s an assumption based on a weak foundation — that Rubio is good at making decisions.
Rubio thought he could play Trump’s game, but he had way too little respect for that game and thought he could jump right in and do it well, while provoking the man who’d developed it, practiced it in public for many years, and who came to that style as a natural expression of his thoughts and feelings. Rubio’s decision was either foolish or utterly desperate. If it was foolish, we don’t need a fool for President. If it was desperate, that means Rubio had already lost and he knew it.