The End Of The GOP?
Are we witnessing the end of the Republican Party? That's a pretty stunning question to ask, but we're living through a pretty stunning presidential nomination fight, so it can no longer be avoided or ignored.
Donald Trump actually did worse than expected in last night's Super Tuesday, winning only seven out of 11 races (some had predicted he'd win 10 or even all 11 of them). So far, he's got a total of 10 wins out of 15 primaries -- a commanding lead, but not quite enough to secure the nomination yet. But he's indisputably the frontrunner, and it's hard to even see a path for anyone else to wrest the Republican nomination from him, at this point (at least, a path that doesn't involve some hanky-panky with the convention's rules).
It wasn't supposed to end this way, obviously. Republicans, early on, bragged about what a "deep bench" they were drawing from, with an astounding 17 candidates running. This large field was diverse (much more so than the Democrats, this time around), with two Latinos, a woman, an Asian-American, and an African-American in the mix. Now, however, they're down to only four candidates left (Ben Carson dropped out today), and the only one who looks even remotely presidential is the weakest of the remaining bunch.
The Republican Party establishment didn't just drop the ball on this one, they may have actually allowed their party to be stolen away from under them. The two strongest candidates who remain are equally unsatisfactory to the establishment types, and the only other two guys left can't seem to beat the frontrunners.
This has led to a major freakout among many within the Beltway. Republicans are turning on each other with a vengeance, and this is only going to get uglier over time. Many had convinced themselves that Trump's popularity was some sort of fluke and that nobody would actually vote for him. Those delusions are now gone -- it is impossible to still believe this when Trump has won two-thirds of the states that have voted.
Parties have nominated presidential candidates before that party insiders disagreed with, but this somehow feels different. There is a palpable fear among many Republicans that putting either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz at the top of their ticket would mean absolute disaster -- not only for the party's chances of winning the White House, but also for a whole lot of down-ballot races. Loss of control of the Senate is a real possibility, although no matter what happens Republicans will likely keep the House (due to gerrymandering, mostly).
What is truly extraordinary is how many high-ranking party officeholders are already running as fast as they can away from Trump. Again, this feels a lot different than a normal intra-party feud. I can't remember ever before hearing a party leader in the Senate telling his colleagues that it'll be OK for them to run against their own party's nominee during the general election. And Mitch McConnell is not the only one making such pre-emptive moves. Many Republicans are openly stating that they'll refuse to support their party's presidential nominee, and it's only March. This is just the beginning of a very nasty battle within the ranks between those who accept and support Trump and those who openly are fighting against him. Within the same party.
Some said that when the Republican National Committee forced Trump to sign a loyalty pledge that Trump got the better of the deal because it meant that all the other candidates had to pledge to support Trump if he won the nomination. I didn't totally believe it at the time, but now it's pretty obvious that the loyalty pledges could become a major albatross for many.
There was much speculation, when Trump first began his run, that he'd eventually lose the GOP nomination and launch a third-party bid. Indeed, that's what the loyalty pledge was all about. But now the more-plausible scenario is that Trump wins the nomination, and the Republican Party leaves the Republican Party, to launch a desperate third-party bid of their own.
Not since Strom Thurmond stormed out of the Democratic convention (to form the Dixiecrat Party) has America seen a possible partisan schism of such magnitude. With Trump in control of the Republican Party, those who cannot support him may peel off and form some sort of Federalist Party (or whatever name they come up with) in response.
Of course, when parties split in two there are only two real possible outcomes, at least if American history is any guide. Either the new party lasts for an election cycle or two and then fades away or the old party they split from disappears eventually as everyone abandons it. The Dixiecrats were an example of the first outcome, and the last example of the second was the Whigs.
If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee by winning over half the convention delegates, what sounds highly improbable may actually come to pass. The Republican Party could split into two entities. How this might happen is anyone's guess. It could be a dramatic walkout at the convention, or it could be a behind-the-scenes gradual abandonment. The "can't support Trump" Republicans in the party establishment might quit en masse and immediately create a new party's establishment. Then all the current Republican officeholders would have to choose whether to stay with Trump's GOP or to move to the new organization. This could hollow out whatever's left of the Republican Party, which would mean Trump would have to rebuild the party apparatus from scratch. Hobbling his bid for the presidency in this fashion would be a big incentive for those who can't stand supporting him.
The Neo-Republican Party (or whatever it is called) will, of course, face a steep hill when it comes to getting themselves on all the state ballots. The two major American parties have long colluded over placing such hurdles in front of third parties, but with enough money and effort these stumbling blocks can be overcome (the question of how long it would take might be crucial, however, for ballot access in this year's election).
What this would mean in Congress is also anyone's guess. If everyone who now has an "R" after their name decided to switch to the new party, then Trump would be left essentially on his own. But there are already some senators and representatives who support Trump, so what is more likely is that Congress has three parties (at least for a while). This would, obviously, complicate the power structure, but probably wouldn't lead to a full-on parliamentary system of minor parties banding together. Who knows, though -- it's so unprecedented in modern times that anything could happen.
Like the famous line about a Vietnamese village, the Republican Party might have to be destroyed to save the (Neo-) Republican Party. Such a split would almost assuredly guarantee that Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election this time around, but if the new party grew in strength after Trump's defeat (while the old Republican Party faded away), then we could be back to the same two-party system by the next presidential election -- the only difference would be that one of those parties would have a new name.
Over the past decade or so, it has been a measure of faith within Democratic ranks that the Republican Party was doomed to eventual irrelevance because the demographics of the country have changed so much that their base is going to eventually disappear. Democrats have, after all, won five of the last six popular votes for president. However, during this time Republicans have actually grown in strength, outside of the race for the Oval Office. Republicans have improved their power base in statehouses across the country and in Congress. So even if they rename themselves, Democrats shouldn't automatically assume that this is the end of the opposition party. They could come back as strong as ever, under a new name.
Will Donald Trump go down in history as the man who killed the Republican Party? It's impossible to predict the chances of this actually happening right now. But if it does happen, it could happen very soon -- within the next few months (to give them enough time to get on all the state ballots). All sitting Republican officeholders will then have to make a choice -- stick with Trump or flee to the new party.
The vicious infighting has already begun. Chris Christie is taking a lot of heat from fellow Republicans for so prominently backing Trump. Some are so disgusted with what's going on within their own ranks that it wouldn't take much to convince them that the Grand Old Party was, indeed, over -- and that it was time to turn out the lights and move on.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Yep.
Will Donald Trump go down in history as the man who killed the Republican Party?
Not by any reputable historian.
If they are desperate enough to contemplate forming a new party, they would be desperate enough to change the rules so that Trump is not selected as the nominee at the convention. There will be a huge gnashing of teeth, but what are Trump supporters going to do? Vote for Hillary?
If Hillary wins in November then expect the 2020 primary to be under far stricter control, with the RNC vetting candidates who want to be part of the primary process, etc.
Today's winner of the Internet:
Dan Ewen @vaguelyfunnydan
"It is wrong to use Trump's father's KKK membership against him when Donald has worked tirelessly to become a horrific racist on his own"
No. We are not witnessing the end of the Republican Party. Not even close. The current vitriol will be neutralized as soon as one candidate (probably Trump) has enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.
Trump's candidacy will be noting but beneficial to the Party. Anyone who really objected (as distinguished from saying overwrought things in the heat of a primary season) wouldn't be a Republican in the first place. And Trump is bringing millions of formerly-apolitical TV fans into the electorate as Republican voters. He will have strong coattails, even if he loses.
dsws,
I couldn't have said it better myself..
Trump is truly the Big Tent Republican that epitomizes Reagan..
End of the GOP??
Shirley, they jest.. :D
Neil,
"It is wrong to use Trump's father's KKK membership against him when Donald has worked tirelessly to become a horrific racist on his own"
Says the guy who is part of the Party that CREATED the KKK and Jim Crow... :D
Why don't you invite this Dan Ewen guy over here so I can ask him exactly what racist comments Trump has made?? :D
Michale
Why don't you invite this Dan Ewen guy over here so I can ask him exactly what racist comments Trump has made?? :D
Speaking of invitations, I have to say that I am surprised that my recent foray into HuffPoo did result in any new Weigantians..
I had honestly thought that I had pissed off enough people that at least one or two would barrel over here, wanting to kick my ass!! :D
Michale
The Republican Party establishment didn't just drop the ball on this one, they may have actually allowed their party to be stolen away from under them. The two strongest candidates who remain are equally unsatisfactory to the establishment types, and the only other two guys left can't seem to beat the frontrunners.
"But here's the thing and there is just no getting around it.."
-LT Sam Weinberg, A FEW GOOD MEN
The Party ultimately is supposed to serve the needs of the country, not itself.. What the PEOPLE want is what is important..
I think both the Republican Party AND the Democrat Party have forgotten this..
Many Republicans are openly stating that they'll refuse to support their party's presidential nominee, and it's only March.
Exactly... It's only March...
Once the Party elites see the people rallying behind Trump and see how much Trump is going to decimate and destroy Hillary.... The elites will come around..
This is no different than 1976 and Reagan...
So refrain from dancing on the grave of the Republican Party...
News of it's demise has been greatly exaggerated.. :D
Michale
Such a split would almost assuredly guarantee that Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election this time around,
Not necessarily... There is still that tiny matter of an indictment for violations of the espionage act that Hillary is still facing...
A likely possibility that just yesterday took a HUGE step towards certitude....
But it does indicate a wild possibility...
Both Partys mortally wounded....
The Democrat Party candidate indicted for several felonies and the Republican Party split in two...
What a wild ride THAT would be, eh?? :D
Michale
What's so funny is that the GOP has the opportunity to create the kind of excitement that the Democrat Party had in 2008 with Barack Obama..
The GOP would be complete and utter morons not to jump at this chance...
My message to the GOP is this:
Swallow yer pride and do what's best for the country, fer christ's sake!!
Michale
It's worth noting that Trump has received to date just a bit over 1/3 of the total votes cast in primaries and caucuses.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R
Trump's best percentage was in MA, just shy of 50%, but does anybody think Trump is likely to turn that solidly Blue state into electoral votes? A Trump victory in Nov. is going to require picking up purple states like FL, where he got 1/3 of the vote last 2ZDay.
Trump seems to be doing best with, to quote a phrase used around here, "Joe and Jane Six Pack." Joe and Jane are white and over or pushing 60. They not going to produce any babies, and this is the worry of the Republicans Who Want to Win the Presidency = Establishment Wing. Not that the E-Wing has an especially good plan to do that, but backing Trump strikes them as committing suicide to avoid being killed.
Rare hidden footage of a Republican Establishment Strategy Meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdKa9bXVinE
"at least, a path that doesn't involve some hanky-panky with the convention's rules"
I think those rules are a bit like the rules of The Outback Steakhouse franchise.
Political Scientists, who should know, believe a coup de main is feasible,
http://blogs.rollcall.com/opinion-analysis/the-years-most-important-non-endorsement/?dcz
but this tactic may be equivalent to tossing an atomic hand grenade. Definitely a last resort.
A less risky approach might be to minimize the chances of Trump getting a first ballot win by convincing other candidates to drop out of races they have no likelihood of winning....effectively turning the next batch of races into 2 man winner-take-all contests. Kasich could be useful in Ohio for example, and Rubio should do well in FL. I'm not sure the numbers ultimately add up (and I haven't the inclination to research the numbers myself), but the idea is being bandied about in the media.
The response of the Betfair Market to Trump ascendant has been to turn a 60% chance of a Democratic President in 2016 into a 65% chance. In the words, the market views Trump as weaker than a generic candidate. Hillary odds have bumped up as well.
dsws,
I couldn't have said it better myself..
Trump is truly the Big Tent Republican
Not what I said. The "big tent" refers to making a wide range of ideological, ethnic, religious, cultural, and economic groups feel welcome in the Party. Trump is the opposite of that: narrow identity politics. He's all about hostility toward foreigners and Muslims. He refused three times to dissociate himself from the KKK, for goodness sake.
On Tuesday this week I thought the Democrats would attack Trump in the following ways:
1. Trump the bigot
2. Trump the con man (Trump University, some of the property deals that went south, why is he being audited, , what is he really worth, etc.)
3. Trump the failure (Trump Mortgage, bankruptcies, etc.)
I didn't expect Mitt Romney to do it for them.
Wow!
I was listening to the NPR Politics and the 538 Tuesday Roundup podcasts yesterday, and can't remember which I heard this on (probably 538):
The voters who decided closest to the election rejected Trump 80-20 - most of Trump's support came from an intractable group who will vote Trump regardless and made up their minds long ago.
Let's see if the Republican establishment hangs together united against Trump, or if some calculate that his coattails might help them rather than hinder them in the General. Politicians of all hues are pretty venal, so for all the high mindedness, I expect the coattails/liability calculation to be the most important.
My guess is that in the South we'll see a lot of people who go with the coattails, but in the rest of the country the Republicans will distance themselves as far as they can from him.
To HuffPost commenter Steven Tiger -
You might find an article I wrote a few weeks back interesting...
:-)
-CW
Michale, can you nudge him over at HuffPost for me? Thanks... (use the Permalink from this comment, and he'll be directed right to it)
dsws,
Not what I said. The "big tent" refers to making a wide range of ideological, ethnic, religious, cultural, and economic groups feel welcome in the Party. Trump is the opposite of that: narrow identity politics. He's all about hostility toward foreigners and Muslims. He refused three times to dissociate himself from the KKK, for goodness sake.
I was agreeing with your claim that the Republican Party is not dead or dying..
Michale
He refused three times to dissociate himself from the KKK, for goodness sake.
Maybe he was just getting tired of being falsely accused of being a racist...
No one on the Left has any moral authority to condemn Trump for his alleged racism unless they unequivocally and continually condemn Bill Clinton for his blatant racist statements...
Michale
CW,
Michale, can you nudge him over at HuffPost for me? Thanks... (use the Permalink from this comment, and he'll be directed right to it)
Done... :D
Michale
That's great, Michale!
"Some are so disgusted with what's going on within their own ranks that it wouldn't take much to convince them that the Grand Old Party was, indeed, over -- and that it was time to turn out the lights and move on."
Does anybody know the legal status of the National Republican Party? Is it a non-profit corporation of some sort? Can the board of directors vote to dissolve it? How would the assets be divided? Is a nomination an asset - and does the nominee automatically get to keep it? Who gets custody of Barbra Bush - or the bell jar containing Nixon's head (my nod to Futurama)?
Don't think you can simply consult the Party Rules for answers:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S
The answers may be in that link, but I defy anybody to actually stay awake long enough to find them. I did notice a rule 22, but no Catch 22 giving the Chairman broad authority to effectively tell Trump "You're Fired."
He's all about hostility toward foreigners and Muslims.
He's hostile to ILLEGAL foreigners and muslims that want to kill innocent people..
Guess what??
SO AM I!?
I can point to MANY black and hispanic groups who support Trump..
If that's not big tent, then what is???
Michale
On Tuesday this week I thought the Democrats would attack Trump in the following ways:
1. Trump the bigot
2. Trump the con man (Trump University, some of the property deals that went south, why is he being audited, , what is he really worth, etc.)
3. Trump the failure (Trump Mortgage, bankruptcies, etc.)
I didn't expect Mitt Romney to do it for them.
So, in other words, you were completely wrong... :D
It's funny how Mittens becomes the Sage Of Democrat wisdom...
Right when he says things Democrats want to hear.. :D
Michale
Liz,
That's great, Michale!
I'se aim ta please!! :D
Michale
My guess is that in the South we'll see a lot of people who go with the coattails, but in the rest of the country the Republicans will distance themselves as far as they can from him.
I admire a man who can ignore being completely and utterly wrong time and time and time again and STILL go with the same prediction..
You took my SCOTUS example to heart... Apparently.. :D
Michale
Mexico says won't pay for Trump's 'terrible' border wall
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mexico-says-wont-pay-trumps-terrible-border-wall-145016621.html
Yea??? How many billions of dollars in aid does the US give that corrupt and deadbeat Mexican government??
We can deduct the price of the wall from that..
Guess what morons! You just paid for the wall!! :D
Michale
M- "Says the guy who is part of the Party that CREATED the KKK and Jim Crow... :D"
Good point...I AM NOT Giving Woodrow Wilson my vote! Lousy segregationist.....
Seriously, I don't know what dumbass or which dumbasses, gave you the right to hand out certificates of moral authority, but can you at least please use it responsibly by recognizing the difference between the concepts of "Now" and "Distant Past."
Re: Making Mexico pay for wall by withholding aid.
Cost of wall (estimate): $12 Billion
Aid to Mexico (2013): 0.35B
# Years aid withheld: 36
# Years Trump can be in office: 8
Plausibility of plan: 0%
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Recipients
Re: Making Mexico pay for wall by withholding aid. (including interest on new debt to pay for wall up front):
Cost of wall (estimate): $12 Billion
Annual cost of interest on $12B at 3%: 0.35B
Aid to Mexico (2013): 0.35B
# Years aid withheld: Infinite
And, furthermore, what impact has that aid had on stemming the flow of illegal immigration into the US from Mexico?
Quite a bit, I would say since there is no net immigration from Mexico into the US according to the latest stats.
But, of course, none of this matters to Trump or his supporters.
Seriously, I don't know what dumbass or which dumbasses, gave you the right to hand out certificates of moral authority, but can you at least please use it responsibly by recognizing the difference between the concepts of "Now" and "Distant Past."
Ahhhhhhh Republicans are the only ones to get blamed for their past...
Democrats are pure as the driven snow..
The simple fact is the Democrat Party gave us the KKK and Jim Crow laws...
So them crying racism now and pointing at OTHER people seems, at BEST, to be disingenuous...
A hint.. When pointing the finger of racism at others, it's always a good idea to acknowledge where racism began...
That way, ya avoid the hypocrisy label.. :D
Michale
And, furthermore, what impact has that aid had on stemming the flow of illegal immigration into the US from Mexico?
Exactly...
Which is why I said the Mexican government was corrupt and incompetent..
Quite a bit, I would say since there is no net immigration from Mexico into the US according to the latest stats.
You switched from illegal immigration to immigration.. Hope such a 180 didn't hurt... :D
Michale
Cost of wall (estimate): $12 Billion
Source???
Regardless, that's probably how much it would cost a DEMOCRAT government to build it..
But when we have a POTUS who actually knows business, it would probably be less than a billion...
Which Mexico can pay off by doing without our aid for a few years..
Frak them... All they do is bad mouth the US anyways...
Michale
A hint.. When pointing the finger of racism at others, it's always a good idea to acknowledge where racism began...
And it's even a BETTER idea to have... yunno... FACTS to support such an accusation... Rather than just innuendo and word-play...
Am I wrong???
Michale
Trump's other amazing 'plan' to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
1. Build wall
2. We have a trade imbalance with Mexico, so take it out of that
Problems with this 'plan':
While we have a trade imbalance with Mexico (in 2015 it was $58.3B), it is because we are buying stuff from them (we import $294.7B and export $236.4B). If we deduct $12B, they will send us $12B less stuff. Since a lot of the trade is bi-directional that will mean they will be buying less stuff from us too, so we will need to not pay for even more stuff. And we will still need to find somewhere else to buy the $12B we didn't get - and it will probably cost more because if it was cheaper than Mexico's prices we would be buying it there already (something we like to call capitalism).
Source: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html
That’s right. Deport all the Mexicans so that there’s nobody to pick tomatoes, put a tariff on imported tomatoes from Mexico, and guess what? $10 tomatoes. Make America White Again!
Cost of wall:
$12B is a fairly low estimate.
Trump places the cost at $8B (using my calculation, including interest, means we would get paid back in 39 years with a PV of $8B, a payment of $0.35B and an interest rate of 3%).
This estimate came from the costs of the Israeli wall - 350+ miles cost $2.6B, scale that up and you get $8B - Bingo - Trump can use a calculator!
Slight problem - only 33 miles was a concrete wall like you see on TV. The rest of the 320 miles was a fence.
Cost of 320 miles of fence (using the cost of building our border fence) = $1B
Cost of 33 miles of wall = $1.6B
Thus, cost of 1,000 miles of great big beautiful wall: $48B
We can pay for it with tax cuts.
You switched from illegal immigration to immigration.. Hope such a 180 didn't hurt... :D
Damn.
Well, you know what I mean, right? :)
That’s right. Deport all the Mexicans so that there’s nobody to pick tomatoes, put a tariff on imported tomatoes from Mexico, and guess what? $10 tomatoes. Make America White Again!
Heh.
That kind of sums up what the Trump campaign is all about.
Michale,
Must I keep repeating myself!? Sheesh.
Ah well, we're pouring gasoline
So dance around the fire that we once believed in
We'll never be the same
The takers and the liars that we all believed in
Ah well, we're going down in flames
So dance around the fire, we dance around the fire
Cause there's nothing left for us to bleed
Give it up the champions of greed
So come around and have another round on me
Dance fucker dance, let the motherfucker burn!
From "Slim Pickens Does The Right Thing And Rides The Bomb To Hell" by The Offspring
Heh.
That kind of sums up what the Trump campaign is all about.
Actually, Trump is all about ILLEGAL immigrants..
But why let FACTS ruin a perfectly good comment. :D
Michale
Michale and other interested parties ...
Here is an op-ed by Vice President Biden on the responsibilities of the president and senate with respect to filling the current vacancy on the Supreme Court and on putting his 1992 comments into their proper perspective and context:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/opinion/joe-biden-the-senates-duty-to-advise-and-consent.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Michale, did I say anything about LEGAL immigration?
Well, we can always ask Kathleen Steinle if a wall would be worth it...
Oh... wait... We can't....
A shame...
All the Left Wingery cares about is the illegals voting Democrat.. Doesn't matter how many innocent Americans have to die...
A shame...
Michale
LizM,
"That kind of sums up what the Trump campaign is all about."
A really terrific message has to be delivered at Trump level in order to have any chance of getting through to poorly-educated TrumpThugs, OK? No numbers or politically correct insiderese. Ideally, it would be transmitted on Facebook instead of some commie blog.
We can pay for it with tax cuts.
Har har!
"A hint.. When pointing the finger of racism at others, it's always a good idea to acknowledge where racism began...
That way, ya avoid the hypocrisy label.. :D"
So racism "began" with the KKK and Jim Crow laws? I had no idea that before the creation of the Democratic Party, racism was non-existent. What legislation was it that created the KKK? "Hypocrisy" is performIng an action or taking a position that you currently claim to oppose. If we can never have a change of opinion, then we can never grow.
Trump's odds of winning the Presidency took a big drop today on the Betfair Exchange. From 27.5% to 17.5% with decent volume. What do the traders know, or think they know?
Michale, did I say anything about LEGAL immigration?
JFC did.. You agreed with him..
So, yes...
Michale
Here is an op-ed by Vice President Biden on the responsibilities of the president and senate with respect to filling the current vacancy on the Supreme Court and on putting his 1992 comments into their proper perspective and context:
Context was as clear then as it is now...
All Biden is doing is spinning..
And, when we have this similar situation with a GOP POTUS, Biden will write another Op-Ed and say that he actually meant what he said in 1992..
In short, he will spin the spin of the of the original statement..
And so it goes and so it goes... :D
Michale
In short, he will spin the spin of the of the original statement..
In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'see redundant'.. :D
Michale
The American people want Trump...
And that just KILLS ya'all, doesn't it?? :D
If the GOP EEs ignore the will of the people, then their Party DESERVES to die...
Michale
Everything is spin to you, Michale. And, that is what makes having a simple discussion with you so damned frustrating.
Michale, did I say anything about LEGAL immigration? JFC did.. You agreed with him..
Oh, really? I'm confused.
So, help me understand ... what are the 11,000 or so illegal Mexican immigrants who Donald Trump wants to deport doing in the US? What jobs are they taking away from real Americans, in other words?
And, when we have this similar situation with a GOP POTUS, Biden will write another Op-Ed and say that he actually meant what he said in 1992..
You think Biden or any of us will still be around by the time there is another GOP POTUS?
@liz [57],
yes. i predict the GOP will get their act together in 2020 and deny hillary a second term. it's not necessarily the future i'd choose, but the kind of chaos the republicans are in right now tends to result in a learning curve.
JL
Dept. of I have a friend in Rome named Biggus Dickus
Last night's debate confirmed that Trump is a big dick, but failed to answer the question of whether he has one or not. Stop the pointless arguing - call in the surgeon general.
On the Romney Speech:
He trial ballooned the Stop Trump From Winning The First Ballot By Voting The Strongest Candidate Not Named Trump In Your State Gambit that I brought up in comment 13. Also known by the catchy acronym STFWTFBBVTSCNNTIYS Gambit.
But...Is Romney or anybody in the Establishment Wing actually organizing at the National or State Level to educate the Resistance Movement and get this done? My guess is a big No, by the time they call a meeting, the moment will have passed. Run some ads guys, Jeb has a lot of money left. Does Rove still have his old Rolodex?
Webb has said he won't vote for Hillary, but he may vote for Trump...
Since ya'all go crazy over GOP'ers saying they will vote Hillary, you (of course) will give the same import to what Webb says, right?? :D
Michale
ListenWhenYouHear [50] -
First off, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments and see them instantly.
Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are held for moderation to cut down on comment spam.
Again, welcome to the site, and my apologies for not getting your comment up sooner.
-CW
So racism "began" with the KKK and Jim Crow laws? I had no idea that before the creation of the Democratic Party, racism was non-existent.
I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that... :D
You are, of course, correct... Racism didn't begin with the Democrat Party.. The Democrat Party simply organized it and made it mainstream in the United States...
"Hypocrisy" is performIng an action or taking a position that you currently claim to oppose. If we can never have a change of opinion, then we can never grow.
Actually, hypocrisy is defined as the behavior of people who do things or have done things that they tell other people not to do
My point is simple.. If the Left Wingery wants to rail against bogus racism, have at it.. It says more about them than it does about the accused...
But when the Left Wingery fails to acknowledge THEIR own culpability in CREATING the KKK and Jim Crow laws, then the false accusations are even MORE ridiculous..
It's real simple..
Oh... and...
"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Michale