PDS

Here' s a little "inside baseball" on Cruz: I've mentioned that I'm not a big fan of his, but I do happen to know his top campaign manager. We are not great friends or anything, but I've known him 20+ years. The dude is a wizard. And he gives new meaning to the term "brass knuckles". I'm starting to wonder of Cruz may have this figured out. Those Cruz taunts of Trump yesterday were pure gold. Talking about his twitter addiction--that's out-Trumping Trump. I know where that came from. The timing was perfect. And, is it just me, or does Trump look a little more red-faced than usual? I think his blood pressure might be a problem. Here is a great article about Cruz. You can't help but admire the guy, even if you (like me) wouldn't vote for him.

Here is how Trump acts when has been smacked in the nose: Cruz is a liar, he steals, and now he deserves a "do over". Not a pretty sight. This is a real opportunity for Trump not to act like a sniveling son of a rich daddy who just got jabbed in the nose. So far it would appear he is not used to being on the recieving end of things. He better man up before New Hampshire. Calling in the lawyers ain't exactly manning up.

Come on, Adam. Is this supposed to a big deal? D man: It was an observation. It carries segments of Scott's constituency in a state where The Donald can use an organization in the primary. Damn, folks are getting really sensitive! A... Sorry. I thought you passed this on because thought it was significant--which it pretty clearly is not.

David, Does that mean you are critical of Sarah Palin? Michael Yes. Is that allowed?

William, You missed a nuance. That's not how the video loops. It does it like this: Passion is the fabric of America. Work ethic, dreams, drive, and faith in the all my Passion is the fabric of America. Work ethic, dreams, drive, and faith in the all my Passion is the fabric of America. Work ethic, dreams, drive, and faith in the all my Passion is the fabric of America. Work ethic, dreams, drive, and faith in the all my Passion is the fabric of America. Work ethic, dreams, drive, and faith in the all my... It's not "almighty" then "passion." It's "all my passion." That's the crossword puzzle I was talking about when I discussed highbrow literary values somewhere around here. And that game never changes. Michael Is it the case that "passion is the fabric of America"? I don't think so. I can think of about 10-12 words that would be more accurate than "passion". Palin really has become something of a caricature of herself.

Come on, Adam. Is this supposed to a big deal?

David, Let 'er fly. Seriously. I won't get offended. One does not get into crow bets without the stuff to take it. However... This will make it all the more sweet when, in the end, you have to say "President Trump." (I wish we had a devil emoticon because I would use it right here. Maybe I will try to fix that crap on the server end if I can figure it out.) Michael The next week is going to be interesting to see how The Donald responds. This is the first election he has ever run and he kinda got punked by Cruz. I don't think he's going to respond very well to getting actually punked by Cruz and de facto punked by Rubio. I think we're going to see a mean streak that makes the past dozen or so insults look like child's play.

And this: So the second round begins with a good solid frame. It will take a bit for the frame to cut through the mocking in the mainstream, but it will cut through. Go Trump! Michael Trump is a very fine contortionist. Just like most politicians. On a different note, it is remarkable how often Trump is "told" things by unnamed people that support his current narrative. These unnamed people who are constantly calling him and telling him things like, for instance, how he was not going to do well in Iowa (see above), or how wonderful a ban on "the Muslims" would be, and etc., etc.,sure must have tiny little shriveled-up stones.

If I weren't so funadmentally kind, I would be make a joke about crows this morning. But that's not me.

Cruz rubs me the wrong way almost equal to Trump. Tithing 1% is very lame, and that's best he could do when he knew he was in the hunt for public office. Imagine what he would have given if he didn't have his eye on the future prize...(although there's not much room between zero and 1...)

I thought crows only crowed, and then only over 2 facts at a time. It is ironic indeed that Trump's campaign can be seen as a political version of the famed "crow epistomology".

Regarding the Rush point: nah--too complicated. Politics is about winning. That is all. I think the term "establishment" has become a shibboleth, i.e., it really means almost nothing, and I was using the term a little bit tongue-in-cheek. On the outside, I look, dress and appear every bit the dreaded "establishment conservative", except that I'm not, as even the slightest gander at my 1700 posts on the website should reveal. There is no conspiracy among establishment types--they just don't like losing, and they are on an 0-2 streak of late... If I am correct that the sine qua non of politics is winning, I think the main gripe against Trump from "the establishment" is that he is likely to lose really, really BIG, and that, by the time the course can be reversed, the Supreme Court will be gone and the country will irretrievably down the toilet. I believe eight more years of the current trend means we have no "republic" left. All for one man's apparent vanity.

MSK: I know you know this, but want to state it anyway: it is clearly possible to admire Trump's achievements in business and still believe is he simply another bullshit artist politician. That's my view of Trump. With that said--i.e., that Trump is just like the rest of 'em--I have asked myself why it is that Trump rubs me the wrong way, and the answer is that I believe he will not only win the nomination, but that he will lose BIG against Hillary, taking down the Senate and maybe the House with him. So, my primary objection is a tactical, made with not all that much to back it up--other than a naval gaze...** **Full disclosure: A source of my bias is that I am what you have been calling an "establishment" conservative on this thread. I was the lead election lawyer for George Bush in my jurisdiction in 2004 and am also theoretically a lead (election) lawyer for Jeb Bush in my jurisdiction should he (1) ever get nominated, and (2) get in legal trouble...--neither of which looks very likely...

David, Broaden your time frame. Trump got up to bat several times. Then walked right off the field. So even though the press covered his announcement, look at the content of what they were saying. The erudite wisdom being handed down from on high to Plebeians like myself was that Trump was not really in it to run. Nor would he stay in it long. Go back and check the articles. That is ignoring. They didn't ignore the celebrity Trump. They ignored him as a serious candidate for the presidency. Then, when it looked like Trump was not going away this round like he did in previous ones, there was an outpouring of mirth along with the outrage that started with his illegal immigrant statement. Everybody fully expected the media and establishment backroom machinations to take out Trump, so they laughed and yukked along with their gotcha rage (most of which I believe is phony). Now nobody's laughing. I think pattern holds just fine. Michael MSK: have you thought about attending law school? Your ability to change directions is pretty impressive...

I'm not a big fan of Trump or Hitler analogies... Neither am I. I dont spend much time ruminating over either. One is dead and the other is a side show that resonates with a populace over little other than his confrontational stance. But since I listened to some history yesterday, it seemed appropriate to the discussion in the sense that those attitudes aren't new to the human condition. Lo all those years ago. It mostly revealed something personal about myself. When I first voted, for Reagan, it was the mans charm, not his assessment of states affairs. In the Kenndy/Nixon run up, I was chanting ditties based on personalities. Now that I can vote, based on my objective assessment, I find choices so poor that the choice available to me is my choice to not choose any candidate. ) I agree with your third sentence.

I'm not a big fan of Trump or Hitler analogies...

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too. --Brant Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal... Well, Trump made a lot more money than Rand and . . . . --Brant appeal to whom? It wasn't my point to judge someone's efficacy (moral virtue of productiveness) by looking at their net worth. My point was that Rand highly valued businessmen who earn their money by virtue, and Goldwater isn't close to being the same kind of businessman using this standard. Nor was I saying that Rand would give full moral approval to Trump, she'd have a lot to value, including (some, to whatever degree) his architectural aesthetics that Goldwater didn't possess. (Reminder that Rand wept when she saw the skyscrapers of NYC...) Patent stealing doesn't have the same hierarchical root as imminent domain. If imminent domain is used correctly, as Trump has adequately shown over the years after responding to attacks, I don't have a problem with it. Eminent domain is explicitly endorsed in the Constiution, so there is no doubt it is legal. But, as John Cougar might say, "hey, calling it your job ole' Hoss sure don't make it right."

There's another event pattern I forgot about, but the lefties over at Salon picked right up on. The five stages of grief. Here's an article where they totally trash David Brooks and peg his articles to the five stages of grief. It's a hoot. David Brooks is freaking out: Why the voice of the conservative establishment is finally panicking The NYT columnist has been going through the five stages of grief in full public view. What's next? by Gary Legum Salon Jan. 27, 2016 I'll let you read it, but with this thought in mind. David Brooks is what Lenin called a "useful idiot." He thinks he will be rewarded by the leftie folks for the leftie altruistic compromises he preaches to the right-wing masses while posturing as a moral authority. Right now they are skinning him alive and preparing the barbecue spit. That's how they treat useful idiots after they become useless. Apropos, I wonder if a five stages of grief analysis can be applied to the establishment Republicans in general about Trump. Or even to the lefties. I bet it can... Michael When was there a time when nobody paid attention to Trump's candidacy? A quick google search shows that, on the day he announced, it was covered by every national news organization, including the New York Times. I would call this the opposite of being "ignored." And, given the wall to wall coverage of Trump ever since, I think we would need to amend the Ghandi reference rather dramitically to try to shoehorn it into reality. In fact, this thread has made it clear that Trump fancies himself as something of a master of the just the opposite of being ignored. He has trolled the national and local press for publicity since day 1. Isn't that why he announced no more Muslims, i.e., so everybody would go ape-shit and he would reap the free publicity that came in its wake? Hasn't he done this again, again, and again?

Korben, You see exactly what I see. I can't channel Rand, but I would bet as you if I could. And I think we would win that bet. Michael No, I think you would lose this bet. Big time. Rand's bullshit detector was incredible, except when turned on herself. I think she would see right through Trump for the Bullshit Artist that he is.

David, You call that magical thinking? Whereas the business plan of hope and change was not? Or how about laws that tell you exactly all the details--ones that the Congress doesn't read? Ones that even the major proponent says we have to pass before we know what's in it? That's not magical thinking using your standard. Trusting that a man who has a constant history over decades of developing specific plans to deal with specific problems and implementing those plans will keep doing that apparently is magical thinking using your standard. But let's play a little. The four drivers of balancing the budget according to Trump, (which will be familiar if you have followed his speeches and interviews) are the following: 1. An easy, rational tax plan that is slightly tilted to getting more from the wealthy and nothing from those at the bottom. This is based on the hand-up not hand-out perspective. The assumption is that with fewer loopholes and an easier simpler process, there will be more compliance, thus greater income. 2. Cutting waste. Not just cutting waste. Cutting entire portions of the government, for example, the Secretary of Education (and it's Hail Mary pass at untold insider riches called Common Core). 3. Making the country more business-friendly, thus physically creating more wealth. If there is a bigger pie to cut up, the government will obviously get more than it gets now. 4. Repatriating at least two trillion dollars from overseas with a plan the owners of the money will find acceptable. I probably could go on (like getting foreign governments to pay for stuff they get for free today, taking part of the oil when we fight a war to protect the people who sit on it, etc.), but I have a feeling you already know all this. I get the impression you just don't agree that it fits whatever standard you are using for "knowing how" and you automatically put it in the category of "magical thinking." In other words, if it comes from Trump, it's magic. If it comes from elsewhere, it's rational. Michael Michael: there is no need to make this personal. It's not about me. You are not as good at discerning motives as you think you are-- this is now at least the third time on this thread you have tried to switch the topic to my motivations for asking questions, etc. Please don't do that. You and I are not strangers. We have a track record together. It's beneath you, and starting to become predictable. You are the one who said Trump would balance the budget. Not me. Balancing a budget is about as "objective" as something can be. Either the math adds up, or it doesn't. Either a blueprint exists for such a thing, or it doesn't. If you don't know how Trump plans to do something you so boldly claim he will do, it is okay to admit it.

Dave, You could start here. When he builds a skyscraper, I seriously doubt he tells the public the make and model of the bulldozers he will use during demolition. He just says he's going to clear the land and lay a foundation. It's the same kind of principle with his positions. Trump's a competent manager. He's been that way all his life. And he always gotten great stuff done. On time. Under budget. I think he will do a hell of a lot better than the community organizer we have right now. That guy didn't tell anyone how he was going to implement hope and change. People didn't and still don't bother to ask. But for some reason, Trump, a professional builder, saying he is going to build a wall makes people ask suspiciously how he is going to do it. Go figure... Michael The link you provided doesn't say anything about how he is going to balance the budget. I know you are fond of contrasting Trump with Obama, but that is not an argument in favor of Trump; that argument would favor almost anybody other than Obama. Michael: your statement about Trump balancing the budget seems almost like magical thinking to me. When Trump builds skyscrapers, he doesn't identify the bulldozers, etc. But he does have a blueprint. And he does have a budget for the building. And when he sees cost overruns, he develops a specific plan to bring the project within budget. If he can do that with a skyscraper, why can't he do it with a something like the economic future of the country?

The more Trump insults and attacks Cruz, the more I like him. I still think they will be Prez and VP nominees together, going down in a flames in a landslide loss to Hillary and whoever.

MSK: up above, you state the following: "Trump will balance the budget and he will do what he says he will. I base this on his past performance of bringing projects in on time and under budget and always doing what he said he was going to do." May I ask how he plans to do this? Has he told anybody how he plans to do this?

WSS: happy birthday, belated. You are a good man, and the world is more interesting with you in it. This website too!

Congratulations!