We are the drain the swamp people

Do not read inevitability of Trump into this, half the Republican Party is still unconvinced of Trump for the nomination and we support DeSantis.  This is a mere exercise in Trumpology.

Trump should ask himself: Are there no “suburban women” in red states, or in red counties in blue states? Don’t they vote for Republicans? If pro-life “anti-choice” Republicans are so bad how do they get any votes from ‘suburban women’  impliedly the code word for Republican-voters-if-only-it-were-not-for-the-abortion-issue?

We also wonder, what is the key criterion now for Trump in deciding on a VP  – is it perhaps having never said “Trump lost” even though Trump has said as much?  If that is the case it leaves out all of the debate participants of late. And now, whether or not that is the reason, it has been “confirmed” by Trump’s campaign that they can pound sand.

One thing we recommend to Trump, his VP pick needs to be a strong articulate pro-lifer, announced prior to the nomination process to allay concerns about him in the primary given his, surprise, inarticulate ways on the right to life (that and other issues).

Trump Crosses 7 Prominent Names Off His VP List .   

As to the Mar-a-Lago course leader board, we note that many have said that this or that candidate for the Republican nomination for president is really running to be Trump’s pick for VP, auditioning as it were.  We have engaged in a bit of that here as well.  We have noted that Vivek Ramaswamy had seemed to be very gentle in any criticisms of Trump earlier on. Same for Tim Scott. But alas the official campaign report is that, so to speak, their apprentice auditions have been cancelled (link above). Look for Ramaswamy to be, shall we say, more critical of Trump unless of course he is angling for  Secretary of This or That. Gone are a group, with a couple of negative exceptions, as pro-life as Trump, including Ramaswamy and more articulate than the leading candidate.

It will likely be a woman

So with all of the Republicans who honor Republican rules out of the picture, either for saying the anathema “Trump lost” or perhaps most telling, pleading support to the nominee of the party, (an oblique sign of disloyalty to Trump) . . .  what about Kari Lake?

It is hard for fans of hers to know what campaign to send the checks to. Conservatives were importuned to cover costs for her challenge to the Arizona gubernatorial results. We may have even kicked in a few bucks for that. But more recently we are told she is running for the Senate.  And yet she seems not willing to put a stop to rumors of being Trump’s VP pick.  So what happened to her legal challenge — is it over/over? No more appeals?  She should level with people if she has given up on the governor thing.  Does she want to be Governor, Senator or VP?

As articulate as Lake is, precise diction with stiletto heels and word choices, she really hasn’t paid her dues to the party apparat or the body politic.  People thought Sarah Palin was a superficial pick, she was not, and neither would Kari Lake be, given her abilities on the stump.  But a jump from Phoenix area newscaster to unelected Arizona politician to VP candidate in about two years is not much of a concern for Trump we guess.  She is over-the-top fan girl in some ways but she has more experience than Ramaswamy who is out anyway, being male and all.  It is always delicious to see the media discount Lake as it impliedly denigrates their own. The only way the dominant liberal media can deal with her is to ignore her, which they will. So inspite of her ABILITY to skewer the media it only gets out at rally’s of people who are going to vote for Trump anyway.

Trump lawyer leaving courthouse. Seriously folks it was not an audition for The Apprentice

We can probably scratch Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds off the list also. Although she is plenty attractive, a pretty consistent plus for Trump when he picks his coterie, including his lawyers we note, Reynolds may have done the unpardonable:

Governor Reynolds was forthright in admonishing Trump, telling him that protecting unborn babies at any stage is not a terrible idea. You don’t dis The Donald. He is not in the mood. She seems to have disregarded the memo or something and while  abiding by the Republican Party of Iowa admonition for leaders not to endorse lest they taint the independence of the Iowa Caucuses. The rule does not apply to defending against considered judgement of the Republican led legislature when Trump pops off about sensitive matters.

Trump’s clumsiness with the issue of abortion is the result of the superficiality of his political analysis. He thinks the abortion issue is his woman problem. But Trump’s problem with “suburban women”, young or old, is not issues per se, it is him, his countenance and life history. Instead of shaving that, he thinks he can get by by shaving issues.

Even though Democrat leaning women are misinformed, ignorant, hypocritical and superficial, they are what they are.  They are likely going to vote Democrat, abortion is just agitprop. Voting Democrat is the perceived gravy train. Trump is going to get hardly any more of them no matter what he does.  He might think he dampers hostility by tossing some babies out of the boat, but only at the expense of  tempering enthusiasm from pro-family women on the edge due to the other aspects of his “women problem”.  Democrats are going to focus on turning “their” women out and Trump cannot affect that much, Trump being Trump.

Trump should ask himself: Are there no “suburban women” in red states, red counties in Blue states anywhere? Don’t they vote for Republicans? If pro-life “anti-choice” Republicans are so bad how do they get any votes!

Take Iowa for example, for decades it was a purple state — a split US Senate, intermittent Democrat governor, mixed House delegations, a state legislature split, a horrible Supreme Court, a liberal AG entrenched for decades, the everyday media dominated by the liberal Des Moines Register and Lee Enterprises group, a public educational system considered tops decades ago descended to one that is barely average among a declining average.

But yet in 2022, POST DOBBS,  one (aged male) US Senator up for reelection, the entire House delegation, most of the state legislature, a governor who by the way promoted and signed “6-week” heartbeat legislation, were all reelected —  indeed the pro-life GOP advanced its standing, a virtual clean sweep. In some ways most significantly the AG office is now held by a pro-life proponent having defeated the incumbent.  Only one “statewide”office is held by a Democrat – the Auditor of State position.

Abortion was practically the only issue the Democrats talked about in their campaigns in Iowa in 2022. It was featured in practically every communication they spewed. And yet the pro-life GOP advanced its standing. Pro-abortion already leaning Democrat suburban women and young, often welfare dependent women are going to vote Democrat, big surprise. It was not enough. Continue to defend the culture and the GOP will win.

People are longing for something and it is not abortion on demand, transgender insanity, open borders, cashless bail and deferred sentencing, runaway inflation, . . .try those on suburban women indeed all women whatever their zip code along with protecting life rather than running fearful that abortion on demand is the sine qua non for women votes. Trump shouldn’t bargain some girl babies out trying to entice older women.

So where does that leave Trump as to early picks for VP given recent developments. We doubt it will be a congressman but it could happen and likely a woman if he does pick one. Given the tendency to superficiality from the Donald (a concept with no small political cashe) our deflated dollar bill bet today is on South Dakota Governor Kristie Noem, who coincidently is not a superficial pick anyway, but our bet is subject to change tomorrow if Noem says something Trump does not like.

0

0

A Fox poll from two weeks ago supposedly suggests there are five million voters who will only vote for Trump in the general, whether or not he is the Republican nominee, no other candidate need apply, practical politics be damned.  

Some of them toss around the shibboleth “RINO” with little self awareness (not unlike The Donald).

Ironically, Donald Trump who uses and encourages the epithet,  violates Republican norms by refusing to debate other candidates or to pledge support for the Republican nominee should he not make the cut.  His apparent attitude is if he does not get the nomination, the party be damned.  So the term RINO should not apply only to liberals. It is our view it also applies to the detached (if ever connected ) “Only-Trump”  “Republicans”.

They call themselves Republicans in order to be able to vote in the Republican primary and further their candidate.  Their candidate, while coveting the Republican ballot placement and the good will of the half of the party who may not be enamored with him as their first choice, refuses to say he will support the duly elected nominee of that party. A party by the way who’s Chairman Trump essentially placed.

How is refusing to support the nominee of the Republican Party not the key operating trait of a RINO?

Regarding the Fox presidential preference poll of a couple of weeks ago:

Gary Bauer, writing at Campaign for Working Families on September 15th * certainly does not call Only-Trump voters a cult (that is our provocative word choice because we believe when push comes to shove it is much smaller than suggested). Instead he credulously refers to the figure derived from a recent Fox News poll that 5 million voters will only vote for Trump. Even though we think it is a fraction of that, by not definitively putting an end to such reverberations, Trump is playing a disgraceful dangerous unpatriotic power ploy. The tone or implication from Bauer by not being critical of the attitude leaves open the interpretation that maybe Republicans better do what the Only-Trump people say or risk electoral disaster.

We see the “only Trump” threat all the time in comment sections of various conservative publications we read. Often even stated as such, the attitude from them seems to be that if Trump does not win the nomination the process must be corrupt or the Republican party is made up of a bunch of liberals and deep state operatives.

We are not suggesting that is Bauer’s position.  But we do not believe despite our own desperation to defeat Democrats it is necessary to raise our hands in subservience to threats. Rather it is incumbent on seasoned observers to point out that:  pursuit of the perceived perfect can be the enemy of the good.  That sitting out the presidential election or as a matter of practical politics, writing in a candidate enables Democrats and all the evil they propose. That the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils is to be shunned because it is “still voting for evil”  — is a ridiculous juxtaposition because no candidate is perfect and we are all fallen.

Our view is that insisting on voting in Republican primaries but with no intention of supporting the nominee other than your own favorite, — such a group could be termed either brigands or idiots, but RINO’s still has application. They are either “my way or the highwaymen” or they have little intellectual balance.

We realize full well that Republican Party processes can be corrupted by power brokers and there are prominent members who should be shamed, punished, and given ultimatums for not following the GOP platform in fundamental areas. But a fundamental rule to protect the furtherance of the party at the national level, the one that sustains its claim to be inclusive of the grassroots, the acknowledgement that the membership has spoken, something a priori,  is the rule that the prospective nominees agree to support the results of the legitimate  nomination process and the candidate it produces. Otherwise the honest thing to do is start your own party with your own rules.

Trump’s refusal to play by the GOP rules is, as he so often mouths about others, a disgrace. Now he and his Only Trump supporters have every right to create their own political party and pursue getting on the ballot in all the states  (but of course it is already too late and Trump knows that). Since they are so Trump centric they can call themselves Trumpeters or perhaps POT (Party of Trump), because they are sure that’s the way the country is going.

No need to have party rules. Trump will write the platform, changeable or ignorable at his whim of course, but to which POT members will pledge undying support, because Orange Man Good. And rules schmooles, there won’t even be guidelines, only the days profundities from his excellency.

Responding to the charge by Only Trumpers that the likes of George Bush proves that some Republicans do not deserve support

There is a formulation by Only Trumpers to excuse his refusal to pledge support to the nominee (other than Him of course) to the effect that the Bush administration proved that Republicans can be just as bad, just as evil, crooked, big-government liars as Democrats and therefore Republicans nominees deserve no deference.  It is an obtuse opinion.

For example GW Bush was not perfect on judicial appointments but neither was Trump. But had a Gore or a Heinz-Kerry been in office we would have had a federal judiciary replete with liberals in entrenched positions. Bush nominated Alito and Roberts. The latter had a pretty good resume, was generally applauded by conservatives but has been a huge disappointment — but who really knew it would go that way? Alito has been excellent.

But for Bush, Trump would not have had Kavanaugh or Gorsuch to credibly choose from in replenishing SCOTUS as Bush nominated both to Appeals Courts.  Neither has been perfect in my judgement, Bush’s Alito closer to the loadstar for SCOTUS.

Bush was a bid spender, guns and butter, so was Trump increasing deficits and signing a debt ceiling increase. But Bush had a war to fight. Regarding that, one can properly fault the conduct of the war under Bush as to definable mission, but 1) we were faced with a growing Muslim jihadist movement of serious import poised to hold hostage critical energy needs of the world — and 2) a creepy dictator in the person of megalomaniac mass-murderer Saddam Hussein who refused to abide by the conditions of the armistice he agreed to, thus frustrating the critical need for absolute confidence he was not developing or hiding WMDs (which he had used). By the way he was in violation of the armistice not only preventing inspections but he WAS maintaining and secreting WMD precursors and weaponry however old.

A useless argument is how effective or extensive Saddam’s program was because we could not have known with adequate certainty without the inspections. Given the volatility of the region it was justified to roll through and assure the world that the maniacal creep who signed the armistice abided by it. 

As to Afghanistan we were after the perps who attacked our country who were given or otherwise getting sanctuary in that country. When faced with bloodthirsty creeps, secular or religious, threatening your country or our allies with which we have treaties, you do something. That was true of the Vietnam war when an ally is faced with godless communist takeover.

The alternative to the Bush years — Gore and Kerry — was and is horrible to contemplate.

Environmental and public health wackos, seriously out to depopulate the planet, would have been more entrenched.  The scale of their policies would have been worse beyond any credible accusation about Bush. Bush at least pursued energy independence so that the hegemony of radical Muslims over peaceful Muslim nations would be less a threat.

Bush signed pro-life legislation and did a lot with executive orders to protect life and culture none of which would have happened with Gore or Kerry or any Democrat. Trump similarly did a lot with EOs as well. But one wonders who they prefer issuing EOs (other than Trump) — Gore or Kerry? Do they really believe theirs would be equally bad or equally good?  Most Republicans judged they would be far worse. But not Only Trump people.

Bush pushed and achieved tax cuts, reduced capital gains rates and deregulated government (not enough) — and none of that would have happened under a Democrat. Bush tried Social Security reform and while a so-called compasionate conservative (all conservatives are but it does not equate with big-spending welfare state) he did inculcate some welfare reforms, again none of which would have happened under a Democrat, no doubt the other way around.

Bush layed the groundwork for energy independence, he was an oilman for crying out-loud. The lamp for new development and techniques (fracking) was lit by him. His policies  were subverted by Dems (which vociferous Only Trump people are somehow indifferent to because non-Trump presidents are just as bad as Dems or something. Those energy programs were ripe for exploiting under Trump, which to his credit he did, but it would not have been as timely without the groundwork laid by Bush.

The Patriot Act was overwrought legislation, inadequately protective of civil liberties. It hugely enabled the deep state. Charitably, it was well intentioned.

Project Warped Speed was well intentioned by Trump but three years into his presidency, Mr. Personnel Chief,  the hammer on The Apprentice, put in charge or kept in charge a deep state public health apparat that gave us a novel gene altering non-vaccine which, distributed with Trump’s blessing, was more effective immunizing Big Pharma from liability than people. The iatrogenic effects are way beyond any vaccine ever foisted on the public and that it done with Trump’s encouragement albeit later weaponized with mandates by who — oh yes those Democrats who are no worse than Republicans in POT calculus. Yes we will trump their criticism of the Bush Patriot Act with Trump’s project Warped Speed for the avoidable harm rendered.

After especially Obama but also Carter, Bush is the worst, manipulative in his own way, wrong-headed hurtful to Republican interests past President we have seen. I do not want him back. But there is an order of ranking there that POT people equivocate on. But saying Bush policies were as bad as Dems is incredible.

The primary being what it is, now is the best time to evaluate who would not have the side-tracking drama, not be prone to stepping on his appendage with comments against interests, would not flail about, presenting an aura of revenge seeker, and have the demonstrated discipline to be the best President going forward.

Trump overall was not a very good administrator and invited avoidable drama with his demeanor. Nor was Trump an articulate defender of his policies. DeSantis has laid out policies as good, better thought out, every bit as fundamental. He can defend them better, and has better judgement about key people.

We favor DeSantis because he is a better tactical and strategic thinker with better appeal to no-party women due to his military service, his young photogenic family, his superior performance as an administrator, and his superior ability to articulate and defend them. Trump is inferior as to those markers and won’t be as productive as DeSantis because he tends to flail and has signaled vendetta (even when it is appropriate it is not politic to taint your entire approach).

However if Trump obtains the nomination he covets while dissing Republicans, he will have my vote even though his refusal to offer the same to another candidate, judged superior by the people Trump courts, properly disqualifies him in the primary. Trump’s refusal to pledge to support a nominee of the party other than himself establishes him as a RINO.

We will support the nominee of the Republican Party because Democrats are that dangerous even if Only Trump people think there is no difference in the two parties or how their candidates operate.

*Bauer’s commentary was also entirely too credulous over other results in the Fox poll which we will address in our next post.

0

0

Devastating news a “significant loss” to Trump

CALSIFIED MISTAKES BY TRUMP CITED AS REASON

Anonymous potential donor says “Trump will never up his downside the way he is going”

“Millions for defense. And somewhat less for tribute” said not to be a good fundraising slogan.

A PAC can definitely get more attention shutting down then starting up depending on the mendacity of the reporters. Just maybe such could be a new click-bait technique useful to do a number on a given target. How about:

Pledged donors to Friends of Puppies and Trump PAC with goal of $50 million pull out when they discover Trump has no pets

Of course we are having a little fun with yowling strident pro-Trump publications and supporters trying to declare the primary over. Even when the gist of a conservative publication’s story was reasonably objective (if people went beyond the headline) the come-on for some was a grossly biased distortion. One such was this one at Townhall which was up for awhile: “DeSantis $50 Million Super Pac Shuts Down Operations Due to ‘Rookie Mistakes’ .  It parroted the press release of the totally failed grift which having been repudiated by DeSantis from the get go — shut down with a BS statement. Such operations we caution may move on to other grifts.

The truth is DeSantis-supportive pacs have raised more money and have more in the bank than any other candidate-supportive pacs including of late those for Trump. And most of the money raised for Trump might be going to his legal defense, shortchanging everything else that needs to be done to win the general (his nomination should not be assumed).

The further truth is there was never $50 million,  that is what the grandiose grifters said they were going to raise. According to objective reports the outfit only raised a few thousand dollars and had nothing in the bank in its closing report to the FEC.

In PAC world anyone can create a political action committee and grift off a cause  or candidacy. Even announce an ‘intention’ that is totally pulled out of their backside. Sometimes only a small percentage makes into actual program expenses.

Sarah Arnold writing at Townhall initially lead with such a distorted headline and lede  even though the body of the article was more truthful. To their credit Townhall later completely changed the headline and appropriately changed the tone of the story as well.  Townhall originally led with:

“DeSantis $50 Million Super Pac Shuts Down Operations Due to ‘Rookie Mistakes’

After many complaints in the comment section it was changed to:

Grifter ‘Scam’ Pac Shuts Down Operations.

(note there is a disclaimer regarding the revision in the linked article as it now appears)

By the way, the link associated with Liberty Daily the conservative news amalgamator which appears in the format of the Drudge Report of old, also employed such a huge distortion. Many of their links have rather juvenile click bait come-ons.

0

0

“It must be white people’s fault” and in great part it is — current white liberals and their equally clueless Hawaiian “natives” (a me ka poʻe Hawaiʻi ʻike ʻole)*

Our condolences to all the victims of this tragedy.

We understand the loss of life was the result of a perfect storm of vulnerability and the fire (however started) advancing at 60 miles and hour from dry winds across a landscape where inhabitants had hardly anywhere to go in time.

We have over the years referred to Stilton Jarlsberg posts (Stilton’s Place) as among our favorites in all of commentary- land.  His take on the situation, informed by experience on the islands, is instructive in his classic style.  Read it here.

One of his commenters offered an analysis that is consistent with climate authorities  we have read and we think likely spot on:

John the Econ said…

I’m not sure which is worse: “Laid-back” governance or “We’re gonna fix everything!” governance.

My usual retort is “You guys can’t even manage pavement. I have absolutely no reason to believe that you are capable of addressing the bigger problems.”

As to the Maui fires: Over the weekend I took note that the media was beating the “Climate Crisis!” drum, as in “Your SUV and first world living is responsible for this! Shame on you!”.

Actually, humans were somewhat responsible. But it wasn’t the climate. It was the decline of agriculture on the islands that has allowed formerly managed acreage to go fallow to be taken over with invasive grasses that grow quickly when it rains, but dry out and become highly flammable within hours of any dry spell. And as @Stilton points out, this has been identified as a problem for some time now, but nobody had taken any steps to address it.

Of course, there is also the weather, but it has nothing to do with spewing out CO2. Last year, we had a volcano that spewed literally trillions of gallons of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. Whereas CO2 is a mediocre greenhouse gas, water vapor is a very potent one. In fact, last year NASA predicted rising temperatures due to this, which of course the media immediately flushed down the inconvenient memory hole.

It’s also an El Nino year, where the Pacific ocean belches its stored up heat. Oh, and we’re headed towards the peak of a very active solar cycle.

But until Progressives figure out a way to hold you responsible for volcanoes, El Nino, or the Sun, they’ll continue to harass you over our gas stoves.

August 14, 2023 at 9:47 AM

John the Econ’s comments were quickly accentuated by:

Drew458 

A little extension of what John the Econ said, re: invasive grasses. When the fires first started, I read an article at CNN that essentially blames white people for this. See, the big bad greedy destructive capitalist patriarchy came to Hawaii and planted sugar cane, coconuts, pineapples etc. When the market for these things dried up, the white farmers left, and the bad “introduced” grasses moved in. No mention was made that all of this nice well cared for farmland could have been used for local crops by the slothful natives.

*Having a little fun with Google translate

0

0

All of the top Republican contenders are now saying Trump lost. 

As a political calculation DeSantis (who we favor for the nomination at this time as events unfold) saying Trump lost was in our judgement unnecessary and impolitic especially given that 68% of Republicans believe with plenty of evidence including their own eyes (D’Souza videos and book and more recent revelations) that Biden “won” the 2020 by fraud.

We wish DeSantis would have responded with something like our basic contention about the election, a rendition of which follows in italics below.  Keep in mind any statement at this stage ought to be intended for Republican voters even if with some artful vagaries but with a definitive end to the discussion.

in retrospect it is apparent that the election was fraught with illegalities and appearance of illegalities, sloppy or non existent signature voter verification processes, chain of custody issues, incongruous data dumps and anomalies, eye witness testimony to be investigated, and more, sufficient to justify pausing the election certification in relevant states pursuant to emergency judicial hearings on the evidence combined with forensic audits if necessary, prior to the final declaration of a winner in those states. That was not done and the republic would have been better served had political leadership insisted on it, Democrat and Republican together. But that ship has sailed. Returning to practical politics he might have gone on to say  . . . Regardless, at this point we are faced with the destruction wrought by the Biden Crime Family presidency and the question now is who is the best candidate to go forward unencumbered who can win in November and restore America’s economy,  protect the border, deal with China from a position of strength,  and reduce overreaching government as I have done in my state . . .

But DeSantis didn’t ask us nor any of the others and “the ship has sailed” for all of them  although maybe DeSantis has the most room to revise and extended his remarks. Here is what we have so far regarding quotes about election 2020 from the most notable contenders. They are pulled from links in a WaPo article in no particular order:

Nikki Haley

Baier asked Haley during their interview whether she believed the 2020 election results were legitimate.
“Do I think Joe Biden is the legitimate president?” she said. “Yes. He’s a bad one at that.”

Tim Scott 

“I do not believe the election was stolen,” Scott said in response to a question at a town hall event here. “There was cheating, but was the election stolen? There’s a difference. I think [in] every election there’s cheating.”

Chris Christie

It is noteworthy that here Christie is criticizing DeSantis for being reticent about definitively saying Biden won

CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, look, I still don’t think he (DeSantis) answered it. Right? He lost. Well, we all know that, as a matter of law, he lost the election. Right? 

The deeper question and the one that I think he is dodging is, do you believe it was a full and fair election? That’s really the question. And with respect to the interviewer, I think she let him off the hook. I mean, in the end, did he lose? Of course, he lost, and I believe he

 lost because he lost in a full and fair election.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Also noteworthy is that Ramaswamy is said to be the number two pick of many Trump supporters

Vivek Ramaswamy, It was a dark day for democracy. The loser of the last election refused to concede the race, claimed the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters, and is considering running for executive office again.
I’m referring, of course, to Donald Trump.

Asa Hutchinson

We know, why bother, but here goes:

“First of all, I don’t believe the election was stolen, and I respect the results,”

We were initially chagrinned, and still are to an extent, hearing DeSantis’ unprepared, clumsy kind of rambling comments about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Trump voters never got their day in court and DeSantis should realize that many of them perceive the nomination and general election as their chance to make the case. Not understanding and accommodating that sentiment was why we say his response was a missed opportunity and does not help his chances.

That said, it does not seem that any of the Republican candidates except Christie want to spend their time fighting 2020 (Christie is in tune with praising the result) when it is most important to deal with 2024.  And with what is coming out about the Biden Crime Family, Biden is well on his way to delegitimizing himself. 

We understand that DeSantis may be thinking that saying that 2020 was rigged or acknowledging the evidence of rigging and the appropriateness of a timely, even if emergency, process to verify evidence etc, which was never entertained by the system, would be to say Trump deserves election this time around. But putatively wronged in 2020 does not make Trump the best candidate in 2024.  There were many internal Trump administration dynamics that were problematic then and we are not confident have been resolved.

But back to the current situation.

Assuming the enemy, violating the rules of war, cheated in earnest and blockaded and later severely damaged Battleship Trump — that does not make Battleship Trump the best vessel to lead the next battle. However it is reason to authenticate the matter with deliberate speed and if “war criminals” are found send them to jail. But the decisive 2024 battle needs to be addressed first. Everything needs to be about winning in 2024. Getting to the bottom of 2020 is actually secondary given the state of emergency. Fighting the last war is not the best strategy.

We are not convinced Trump is the best candidate to win in 2024 or even to get to the bottom of 2020. He does not have an unassailable record, seriously so in several areas we have elaborated on in other posts.

Trump supporters insist he has learned a lot. OK, and others can’t learn from his mistakes or what he was up against? We are not convinced Trump has learned enough positive until he is drawn out on the various subjects and that requires debating others. And keep in mind ours is not properly a government entirely of executive orders.

We need the best person who can win and smoothly perform the extensive governmental house cleaning that needs to happen. We saw that the star of The Apprentice is a lousy personnel chief. But we have not seen adequate evidence he has learned thoroughly enough not to be his own worst enemy.

We believe Governor DeSantis has in the crucible of Florida exhibited far more acumen in all that is necessary to successfully do what needs to be done.

Trump double taps his foot

Trump, while a good man otherwise, has exhibited unbecoming arrogance and petulance on two matters that deserve to be in the first case onerous and in the second disqualifying for Republicans wanting a ballot position.

First off — not debating the other candidates should be treated as an affront to Republicans. Trump is toying with not doing so. His expressed attitude is to the effect ~~ Why should I when I am so far ahead~~.  Our response  is that: because half the party is not in your corner for the nomination and failing to debate will not improve your standing with them and is an insult to the party and its functions. I think it smacks of Biden hiding in the basement avoiding real confrontation even if Trump does get out and give basically canned rallies.

Furthermore Biden may not be the actual Dem nominee and we need to see who performs the best with today’s issues and what Trump has learned. Which candidate is more incisive on the attack against what the Democrats have done and expressing what he or she will do.

The clincher as to disqualifying someone for the party nomination as far as we are concerned is in refusing to pledge to support the nominee. If we remember correctly Trump played that game some back in 2016 although he did sign.  He has not signed a pledge as yet.  Toying the issue was unbecoming then but far worse now.

He could sign the pledge and be viable and still not debate, the latter stupid but not formally disqualifying in and of itself.

With regard to Trumps refusal to sign a pledge one must ask, who the heck does Trump think has any chance of winning the Republican nomination, that is so bad compared to a Democrat? Even Chris Christy or Asa Hutchinson for that matter, both impossible wins, would be better than any Democrat.

Even publicly toying with the idea tears it for us as it is insulting to the majority of Republicans. Does Trump think the Republican apparat has the inclination and will  actually fix the results, extending from his handpicked RNC Chair? The same apparat that in state after state organized to benefit all Republican candidates. How might that be done? Our message to Trump is we are not cheating Democrats so don’t imply it while pleading to be the party’s standard bearer. With his continuing demurral it seems he just wants to breed resentment and hurt party unity.  He is the only candidate who has not signed the pledge.

Refusing or being coy about not supporting the nominee if it does not go your way is the attitude ~~ I’ve been scorned (never mind that Trump as a matter of course in his 8 years as a politician unfairly scorns others) . . . and now I will take my ball home and the hell with the country~~.

To fulfill such a pledge he does not have to do anything other than say something to the effect ~~  I hope everyone votes for the Republican nominee ~~ and not act against that.

Or the refusal is an utter ego trip, used as a veiled threat to run as a third party candidate. There is no third party on the ballot in all the states that he could win with. There is no opportunity for any more to get on the ballot. It is politically insane. Even toying with the idea given the threat Democrats pose precludes Trump as thinking straight or being in line with the best interests of the country. It is rightly disqualifying.

0

0

Eaton Davenport plant on Hickory Grove Road. Rainbow, flag to lower right has been up for weeks beyond ‘pride’ month. Over the years the plant has changed hands from Bendix, to Litton , to Cobham to Eaton with passing defense contract buyouts.

It seems flying a “rainbow flag” for months does not make Eaton inclusive, just a harborage for ES&G management types intent on being as superficial and creepily offensive to orthodox believers as possible.

A properly functioning union there might say something on behalf of their members who find the implications of going to work under such a flag offensive such that doing so might infer agreement with the political movement claiming the flag. That is not something to be proud of.  

Such a union might grieve that differences in opinion from workers are stifled while corporate management blatantly foists theirs.  

As we suggest below, Eaton’s symbolization is selective, argumentative, and  not tolerant of cultural diversity. (more commentary follows the pictoral depictions of Eaton’s flag hypocrisy).

Do any Muslims work for Eaton? How do they or would they feel about going to work each day for a company so insensitive, so in your face as you enter the company’s front office portico that champions not merely a focused culturally unsettled cause in all its manifestations, but a celebration of a sexual license their religious teachings find abhorrent?   One that for example insists on “drag story hour” for children promoted in local publicly funded institutions where you see the same flag.

The “rainbow flag”  is the recognized in-your-face symbol of not merely “gay” tolerance, the flag of the United States and its laws represents that, but a political movement. We will consider any rebuttals or demurrals from the company as regards that point as authentic when they hoist for example, some of the following flags as prominently and for the same extended periods of time.

Here are some flags that represent a cause or “constituencies” that many of their employees may well hold dear. When do these flags and movements get their weeks in the sun at Eaton?

Just wondering why they have not run this one up the pole. Do Black lives not matter at Eaton?

The Tawheed flag commonly used to represent Islam. Certainly Muslims have experienced discrimination in this country. Where is Eaton’s sense of fairness?

Or this Juneteenth Flag. But then maybe they did. If not it is unforgivable

This lovely batch of sloganeering touches a number of leftist politically correct bases. Why “no human is illegal” might even attract Eaton some unlawful non-citizens. If not to  work at the plant but perhaps to care for the management elite’s lawns

Sheesh, where’s the love.  Why not fly this thin blue “police, firefighter, soldier” flag.

The not common enough (less than the rainbow flag) thin blue line flag supporting police service is missing in action at Eaton!

Christian symbol. We will bet this flag will never be flown at Eaton. Way too controversial.

Vegan Flag. We suspect they have a LOT of vegans working there in management. But darn it there is not one vegan restaurant in the west end.Maybe flying this would help the Door Dash folks know what door to deliver the tofu delicacies.

Well they are making a lot of money off that war thing in Ukraine so maybe Eaton should show how brave and in your face they can be on behalf of  Ukraine now that they have exited Russia

Air Force Flag. Now for such a good customer flying this flag would seem apropos. But we guess Eaton has decided there is “no room on the pole” for supporting one of its best customers

Now for this one — the rumor is Eaton is just shopping for a taller pole. They do a lot of business there and have one or more plants.  Deployed properly this flag could really earn them some “international’ creds. The left that Eaton management caters to would not object. Now  Red China would never entertain the rainbow flag but Eaton is happy to do business with them while Xe laughs as the whole rainbow thing hurts this country’s military readiness.

The above selections are just a sampling of the flags of a variety of causes or viewpoints some of which are certainly less controversial than the gay “rights” rainbow flag.  Eaton does not bother with flying those flags. But understand well, we agree and support that a company is not obligated to.

But by prominently displaying a rainbow flag, with its loaded symbolization,  and not providing a similar or alternative venue for a competing viewpoint is discrimination. Private employers are allowed to do that. We do not object overall to that right but we do believe Eaton shows lack of judgement and evenhandedness  because getting involved in the political culture wars forces at least some workers to cringe and even consider the company hostile to their religious beliefs. We freely admit to our own prejudices that we would applaud companies  supportive of traditional values along the lines of some of the “flags” and movements identified above.

All that said, perhaps there are some elements of this ES&G crapola that might be actionable by employees. Consider:

In order to hold their jobs at Eaton it requires some employees to deal with the pall cast over them of a noxious philosophy at odds with their religious upbringing. Flying such a flag is a culturally provocative political statement because of its recognized associations and manifestations in public policy which an employee may find anathema.

Are Eaton employees allowed an accommodation to compensate for the sacriligious insult dealt them embodied in such a flag and political movement?  If the flag is considered merely passive are employees allowed the ability to “passively” disagree on sight by showing their religious views  either on another flagpole equally prominent or to wear a garment, hat, or pin showing their disagreement with the rainbow propaganda?

As far as we know they are not. Speaking up about such things is rare and is what management counts on while preening for kudos from the left. Plus they are protected in their speech and employees are not.

Evenhandedness in the flag propaganda are not accommodated as far as we can tell in passing by their facility. Eaton appears to be rigid and non-accommodating to alternative religious and philosophical beliefs based on the history of its flag policy.

Perhaps these “safe” workplace environments “under the rainbow” claimed by ESG reprobates are for example only for transgenders and not straight women who are uncomfortable and understandably might not feel safe with a biological man in the bathroom.  Castigating the fear does not overwhelm the cultural fact. Now if all bathrooms at Eaton are single use facilities with a lock and no gang dressing areas then that criticism is abated but not the issue of propagandizing employees (the rainbow flag).

To turn the supposed justification coin on Eaton: in spite of their pretense the Eaton propagandistic flag policies reflecting the religion of secularization can cause people to hide their true selves less they be ostracized in various ways by management.  Certainly for many the fear of speaking up pertains. It seems that with such companies a man who believes he is a woman is free to flaunt his feelings and demonstrate through garb those feelings, which Eaton management will ignore or accommodate, but orthodox Christian or Muslim views to the contrary in this country they will not.

Again management is free to impose its blatant or subtle anti-religious propaganda on campus, and as corporate policy, to deny such speech to others on campus, cultural denigration be damned.  And in all this it should be well understood that we are not advocating discrimination in hiring or firing,  only the propagandizing without recourse of  cultural matters that companies should leave to the political process lest they be politicized and reap that whirlwind.  We think it stupid for companies to get on the ESG bandwagon often against interests and join the culture wars (witness Bud Light).

Eaton management is not brave.  If any virtue entered into it they would be more interested in being even-handed and not propagandize against or limit passive  orthodox Christian expression as they do. But by the standards they pretend to exhibit here they are cowards elsewhere. Try hoisting that flag outside their property and plants in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Kenya, China. Here they get to attend fine cocktail parties and extol their participation in an agenda of cultural denigration, in Muslim world they would likely have it torn down as an offense and be the scene of protests.

There is more than enough expression of tolerance in the colors of the flag of the United States.

So while we recognize the limited legal right for the company to engage in propagandizing we mostly object to the arbitrary ESG assholes fighting the culture wars on behalf of the left.

So the question arises whutareyagunnadoaboutit.

You mean besides vent?

We would suggest do what the left would do. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”* In doing that consult a labor law attorney and check on the extent of the protected right in the workplace to organize union and non-union members as to labor and workplace conditions which might include wearing organizing paraphernalia.

For example perhaps a labor organizing pin or perhaps t-shirt focused on ending a certain workplace condition.  We believe the pin is “allowed” under the law to at least obliquely send a message beyond the particular objection. Check with a labor law attorney but advocacy of a work policy accommodation would seem to be a protected right under labor law. An example might be a pin that encourages adoption of a workplace accommodation right by the company and or union or an end to objectionable practices by either.

We believe such paraphernalia can contain a message or refer people to a fuller understanding of the arguments along with the call for even-handed treatment.  An action item such as inviting them to sign a petition to management and or the union is a labor organizing feature regarding workplace policies and issues.

Check on the parameters but it seems to us the legal protection of advocacy regarding a work-place condition does not require official union acceptance or that the messaging come from a union member. Indeed in this case a union could be a part of the problem given their notorious encompassing of all things Democrat Party.

It is our understanding that a pin with a union label or indicia that also has a candidate image or logo is protected. So politics is not an excuse for forbidding such advocacy. Associate the protest in terms of and aligned with workers rights.  The official union does not have to endorse or agree. It may well be that neither management or the union can stop such advocacy. Assuming that right,  if any intimidation or retaliation ensues then sue them.

The idea may take years to settle into something workable but in the meantime orthodox believers can make their point, demonstrate resistance to management or union nostrums,  and evangelize the reasoning. Ideally a union should embrace the matter but don’t hold your breath.

These pins and an accompanying organizational effort are mockups that might apply to a company that makes it a point to prominently fly a rainbow flag while denying workers the right to prominently symbolize their own belief. Other possibilities — better phraseology, designs, etc. no doubt abound.

0

0

SUPPORT OHIO’s 60% CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL

HELP A GROUP HELPING THE GOOD FIGHT – DETAILS BELOW

Ohio has a special election ballot question for voters on August 8. The proposal will require any amendment be passed by 60% of the electorate instead of the the current 50%.  For constitutional questions that seems eminently reasonable.

The interest of conservatives in protecting constitutional freedoms against well financed assaults on culture by leftists is manifest. While this question for many readers seems another state’s problem, those trying to protect the low threshold are liberals well financed by out of state interests intending to use the low threshold for their liberal power plays using unions, NGO’s, campus agitators, knee jerk Democrats, legacy and social media avenues virtually owned by them.

So given liberals current demeanor —  distain for what should be supermajority protections for basic rights the appropriateness of helping constitutionalists in Ohio help prevent such assaults is important. A 50% constitution does not seem like much of  a constitution or protection for basic rights.*

The effort is likely to be fought within a low turnout electorate.  Churches can properly play a critical roll in influencing such ballot questions.  The communication set forth below is from an effective organization focused on turnout among Catholics. However because the interest is non-secular we hope you will consider helping them help get the 60% proposal passed by kicking in $20 or more (follow the active links). If you know of another organization doing allied work there by all means  give to them. We happen to be on this groups e-mail list.  Time is of the essence.

Paid for by CatholicVote Ohio.   Update your email preferences or unsubscribe here. CATHOLICVOTE  |  PO Box 3310  |  Carmel, IN 46082  |  (317) 669-6127

* Should the 60% proposal fail it will invite conservatives to respond in kind with amendment after amendment proposal as that is what liberals are asking for. It is really not a good way to run a state.

0

0

The Biden clan scandal in about more than Humper Biden — it is about weaponized Democrat control of media and institutions. Here is a collection of evocative cartoons from Townhall media:

0

0