A Squidish Night in Detroit

Sorry Chris Wallace. It was a Red Wings game in Detroit Motor City. And rather than a slippery, dead squid that got thrown onto the ice, we had raised hands that meant … you know what. And you know something Chris, I think everyone is getting a little tired at some level. Especially you, Megyn, and Bret; who were crisply demanding of The Donald with some persistent questioning that got answers that were not that satisfying.

But Marco Rubio is also getting a little tired. Like the kid who's pushed into a brawl with the playground bully by the older kids who want to see a scuffle and even some tears, and maybe a little bruising and blood; Rubio seemed to yearn to return to his bright, wonkish ways. He managed to do that on occasion. Yes, a debate broke out between the sweating in Detroit. But only sometimes. So we had Who-Duh-Longer-Hands Part II (III? IV? ...). And a little Yoga even as a way to highlight Trump's shifting on issues like immigration.

Was Megyn dressed up as a power crusader? All that saintly white barely concealing her mutual hostility towards Trump? But her focus on the numbers seemed effective. At least on the debate stage. Will it matter in terms of delegates? Maybe a little. Maybe a little too late.

Rubio was angry and wonkish, and angry he couldn't be more wonkish, because Trump had mad him angry with his demeaning of the debate and nomination process. So he brought out the hands. For the sake of the late-deciding voters in Kansas and elsewhere, who need to know who has the biggest hands. Not a bad night, but not Rubio's best night by far.

Cruz and Kasich were more convincing in Detroit. Cruz by keeping his attacks on the policy rather than the personal side, with an exception about the tenuous truths of Trump. And Kasich really seems to believe he could be the nominee. It's not just a stubborn old warrior's refusal to see the reality of what his staying in the race has done to Rubio's numbers. He really seems to believe that he should be the one, and he will kindly and persistently keep talking until potential delegates break down weeping and promise him their votes if he'll just stop.

So after a squidish night in Detroit, all we need now is for Mitt Romney to join the race.

Posted by Keeley at March 4, 2016 2:02 PM
Comments
Comment #403220

I wouldn’t count Kasich out just yet. He is positioning himself as the only sane and civil candidate left. While the three maniacs were hurling insults and talking over each other, Kasich would occasionally appear to calmly and rationally answer a question.

If the fragmentation strategy of the Republican establishment is successful in denying Trump a first ballot victory and Kasich can take Ohio and possibly Michigan, he may be a very viable candidate in a brokered convention.

Posted by: Rich at March 4, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #403226

Keeley, what on earth are you thinking? Romney is no better than the 3 bozos. He has embarrassed himself by hiding out in Utah and insulting Trump. To make matters worse Trump is right Romney is a loser who cannot even hold his own against Trump how do you think he would fare against Putin or the Chinese?

Romney showed us his low character when he got on TV and used his time to attack Trump. A real man would have rode on his white horse into Detroit and confronted Trump man to man just like Rubio did. Instead Mittens the silver spoon hide 1500 miles away and sounded like some spoiled privileged whiner who just hours later was put into his place by Trump.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2016 1:06 AM
Comment #403229

j2, I’d take any of the 3 BOZOS or Romney over what the Democrats put up. I will say though them BOZOS are in one of the dirtiest election cycles and one of the most immature ones in a long time.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 5, 2016 1:17 PM
Comment #403230

That is sad KAP. Have you checked out the size of Romneys hands, which seems to be how repubs measure who is qualified for the office of president. Then there is Cruz, Raphael Cruz, a man who uses the alias of Ted for some reason, Sounds kinda weak doesn’t it? What kind of reaction would we have seen from the right wing had Barry Obama ran for office. You guys droned on for years with “Barrack Hussein Obama” . Seems to me this display of weakness from “Ted” shows a lack of character.

Which brings me to my point. What has happened to republican values? Have they abandoned them completely? Just a short time ago the republicans were declaring the moral highground yet today they debate “hand” size as an issue for the American people to decide which candidate is best qualified to run the country. They tell us, all 3 Bozos, the others are liars and cannot be trusted. Yet should the other guy win they will support them. Support known liars! People of low character! Weak candidates who uses an alias! Yes these guys have made this the dirtiest election cycle we have seen. Especially when compared to Clinton and Sanders.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2016 2:13 PM
Comment #403231

j2, No I really support Ohio’s Gov., but as far as Clinton, a known liar compared to any of the Republicans, Clinton has all of them beat in the lie category. Sanders is a different story promising free stuff he damn well knows he can’t produce. So j2 when you compare Democrats to Republican Presidential candidates there isn’t a one who is worth a S**T on either side. But when it comes down to the General election if it’s anybody besides Ohio’s Gov. I’ll vote 3rd party.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 5, 2016 3:55 PM
Comment #403232

j2t2 is always amusing. “Then there is Cruz, Raphael Cruz, a man who uses the alias of Ted for some reason, Sounds kinda weak doesn’t it?”

“Jack” Kennedy
“Tip” O’Neil
“Scoop” Jackson
“Barry” Obama

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 5, 2016 3:59 PM
Comment #403236

Royal, You seem to miss the crux of the issue, the lack of character displayed by conservatives and their candidate with the double standard. My point is the backlash from conservatives with the use of “Barrack Hussein” because it wasn’t American enough for them. Looking back there was no backlash over the names of these politicians you have brought up. John Jack Kennedy, Thomas Tip O’Neill and Henry Scoop Jackson all have one thing in common Royal. The typically American names.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2016 10:59 AM
Comment #403237

After the primaries last night it looks like the GOP race will narrow to Trump and Cruz. That is shocking. From the very beginning I thought it would be Cruz because conservatives had become so extreme and radicalized, they would go along with a candidate who would say or do anything to cater to them- anything. But Cruz AND Trump? Unbelievable.

Who would be worse? An inexperienced freshman Senator with no significant legislative accomplishments who is best known for leading a shutdown of the federal government; a theocrat who treats liberals as the enemy; who seems bent on engendering a cultural war against Democrats in order to establish evangelical Christianity as the state religion; whose economic agenda is based on the fundamentally wrong premise that the economy is stagnant, who believes the gold standard would be ideal, and whose repeal of health care reform without an alternative would be catastrophic? Who wants to disband the IRS based upon the false premise that the IRS writes the tax code, and wants to disband the Department of Energy despite the fact that a large part of the DOE role is to secure the nuclear arsenal and power?

Or a businessman with no political experience and no understanding of the legislative process, who treats minorities and illegal immigrants and Muslims as the enemy, and routinely engages in the crassest kinds of rhetoric, and who has no viable economic agenda, or any other agenda for that matter; whose appeal is authoritarian, as if the process of governing the country is done by one man, rather than a constitutional republic consisting of three balanced branches?

This is the best the GOP can do? It is blessing for Democrats, but it comes at too high a price, for it is also a national nightmare. Surely the GOP can put the good of the country ahead of the party, reject these terrible candidates, and run a respectable candidate!

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2016 11:22 AM
Comment #403239

Go Cruz.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 6, 2016 2:23 PM
Comment #403241

So here we are the best possible choice for the repub presidential candidate is lying Ted or the Donald. Where is the leadership of the repubs? Where is the integrity, the honor of the RNC? Are they totally devoid of any character? Why do they continue this charade? When do they not pack it in and admit they have nothing to offer the country but third world nation status?

They should at least have the decency to provide big red clown noses for all the candidates to wear at the debates. I am watching CNN’s presidential race history between Kennedy and Nixon. I didn’t get the impression clown noses were called for then so I can only think how far we have fallen over the years. My god Trump or Cruz will run for president! WTF are you guys thinking? Do you really want government this small?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2016 11:36 PM
Comment #403243

The front runner for the Republican nomination usually refers to the Senator from Texas as Lying Ted.

It is not unusual for partisans to call politicians on the other side liars. It is rather remarkable when the charge comes from a fellow conservative. He calls him Lying Ted. And this is not just any conservative, but the leader in delegates to represent the Republican Party. Apparently primary voters agree with Trump. And I don’t see any other Republican presidential candidates coming to the defense of Cruz.

Posted by: phx8 at March 7, 2016 11:22 AM
Comment #403245

If I remember, even RF refuses to defend Ted’s lies.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 7, 2016 1:35 PM
Comment #403246

Sorry Warren, you’re memory is incorrect.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 7, 2016 1:56 PM
Comment #403247


So, Warren, what RF is saying is that he will defend Cruz’s lies.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 7, 2016 2:35 PM
Comment #403248

No lies…no defense needed.

It is obvious that my liberal friends are worried that a true conservative may be nominated. What great fun to watch and hear Cruz destroy Clinton. Can’t wait.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 7, 2016 2:48 PM
Comment #403249

Ted Cruz lied to the American people regarding his personal Obamacare healthcare plan and you refused to defend it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 7, 2016 2:59 PM
Comment #403250

First the right claimed we were afraid of Trump, now the right claims we are afraid of Cruz.

Seems strange that the right can only talk about fear.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 7, 2016 3:03 PM
Comment #403251


And stranger yet, Cruz was near crapping the bed during a recent speech at the possibility that, OMG, if a Democrat won the election the right wouldn’t get to pick a Supreme Court Justice for a generation.

My stars and garters…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 7, 2016 3:14 PM
Comment #403252

Liberalism, as we know it today, is dead. You’ve had your turn at bat and struck out. Keep whining and spinning…who cares.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 7, 2016 5:21 PM
Comment #403253

God bless Nancy Reagan and may He welcome her into his presence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 7, 2016 7:50 PM
Comment #403255

If Trump loses a good many of his votes will go to Bernie and Hillary in the general …

Trump is the only candidate that can best Hillary, IMO.

Posted by: roy ellis at March 7, 2016 9:01 PM
Comment #403256

Roy,
Truly, I don’t think any of the Republican candidates ever really had a chance, but if one of them did, it might be Trump. Demographics and the map made it virtually impossible for any of the other candidates to compete. Obama won with over 50% of the vote in 2008 and 2012, and Democrats have won 5/6 of the last popular votes. Demographics have moved even further in their favor for 2016. Kasich might have made it close by virtue of holding onto OH, but that was about it. Cruz and other conservatives fantasized that they could increase conservative turnout by so much, it would overcome demographics, but there never was anything solid behind that wishful thinking.

Trump at least has the virtue of shaking up the electoral map. Hillary Clinton would have forced the other candidates to spend all their time defending the southern states. It was just an impossible situation for conservatives. Trump could take the campaign to northeastern and Midwestern states and maybe force Hillary to play defense. However, Trump has so many negatives to overcome; the most likely outcome will be a landslide, and I think most people already realize it.

And Trump probably will be the nominee. Cruz already took his best shot. Most of the states that might have supported Cruz have already voted, and caucuses favor Cruz’s superior ground game, and almost all of them have already voted too. If Trump does even ok on 3/15, nothing will stop him.

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2016 12:20 AM
Comment #403257
Liberalism, as we know it today, is dead. You’ve had your turn at bat and struck out. Keep whining and spinning…who cares.

I have to agree with you Royal, it has been on life support for over 30 years now as the country veered to the right in its politics. Look at the Clintons, right of center on many fiscal issues, as corrupt as any repub, according to repubs. I guess we can thank Reagan for that. It sure explains a lot doesn’t it. Just look at the damage conservatism, self inflicted damage at that,has done to the country as it has propagated through out the country. Jindal in Louisiana and Brownback in Kansas come to mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/frustrated-gop-lawmakers-weigh-move-impeach-top-judges-193740406.html

http://news.yahoo.com/office-jindal-looms-over-louisiana-budget-crisis-154442444.html

It is a shame but I think credit is due to conservative movement leaders who have relentlessly dumbed down and deceived American people, but as they say if you fail to learn history you are condemned to repeat it. How long do you think before indentured servitude becomes the norm again?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2016 9:42 AM
Comment #403258

Indentured servitude? Talk to any young person with a gargantuan student load debt, sometimes more than their mortgage payment if they can afford a house. It’s the new and improved “indentured servitude”. Make it impossible to maintain any kind of life without a good degree, then make that degree inaccessible unless you pay the piper, then offer loans that border on loan shark comparisons. Voila it’s the new and improved “indentured servitude” for twenty years or more. Oh and if you don’t take advantage of that be prepared to live a less than subsistence life working at Walmart or some other big box store company that do not have to pay a decent wage because they know their employees can get help from the government just to keep their heads above the flood of debt that comes with just regular living, transportation, insurance, housing, food and utilities. Yes thanks Ronaldus!

Posted by: Speak4all at March 8, 2016 10:10 AM
Comment #403265

Yes thanks Ronaldus!
Posted by: Speak4all at March 8, 2016 10:10 AM

Really?

“What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html

“Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett was mostly right when he said federal aid programs enabled colleges to raise tuition fees, helping to fuel the academic arms race.

No government agency forced universities to add armies of sustainability coordinators, diversity specialists, communications officers and assistant deans of everything. IT growth has been large, but in most of American life this has brought productivity advance and lower costs. The opposite is true in higher education.

The federal government and accrediting bodies could play a positive role here by developing regulations that force institutions to spend a certain percentage of resources on instruction and [by] writing regulations that would reduce competition over luxury items.

Significantly reducing the federal presence in financial aid would serve two desirable goals: reducing enrollments somewhat (improving the imbalance between the availability of good jobs and the number of graduates), and by reducing the demand for higher education, lowering the ability of colleges to raise prices. It would lower college revenues and force schools to take steps to economize: reduce administrative bloat, force professors to teach more, stem the collegiate edifice complex that raises capital costs, etc.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324549004579068992834736138

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 8, 2016 2:00 PM
Comment #403269

RF, yes really. So I guess you would support the notion that a less educated populace is a better manipulated populace? Maybe I misread your comment but it seems that way at first glance.

President Reagan had much to contribute to a variety of issues but I find his overall contributions as detrimental. Some of this is supported by the false contentions of today’s conservatives as outlined here.

An abbreviated listing follows:

1 Reagan was a serial tax raiser.
2 Reagan nearly tripled the federal deficit.
3 Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
4 Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously.
5 Reagan did very little to fight against a woman’s right to choose.
6 Reagan wrote that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons”.
7 Reagan gave amnesty to more than 3 million undocumented immigrants.
8 Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid Act.
9 Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.
10 Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.

I would never intentionally attempt to denigrate a President of our country but I don’t believe today’s conservatives really look at him for what he was and what he did.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 8, 2016 4:49 PM
Comment #403272

OK Speaks, I’ll play your silly game.

“GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent – 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.

Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total . Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate.

Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama.

How about Reagan’s spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend” that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 percent in 1989, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent. Total accumulated debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is at 102.7 percent of GDP, a level unprecedented since WW II. The debt has exploded by 66 percent in the Obama years.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/09/11/sorry-obama-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/#312fa7013c92

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 8, 2016 6:16 PM
Comment #403283

Royal you seem to be bragging about how well crony capitalism, ushered in by the most corrupt administration in modern US history, works is that the case? I mean when you consider the debt before Reagan took office was under 20% and almost 25% when Obama took office this praise may be unwarranted.
It looks like Obama has lowered this figure considerably despite it being out of control prior to his administration. What isn’t said by Forbes is how debt was trending down until Reagan and then has risen dramatically, and once the cat is out of the bag it is tough to get it back in especially when we charge wars on the credit card.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 9, 2016 9:56 AM
Comment #403285

RF, my comment regarding President Reagan was meant to bring attention to the anomalies in regards to what conservatives believe he accomplished and what he actually did do. That you seek to use his accomplishments in some type of comparison to our current President while admirable in your respect for a President that you favor is not an apples to apples comparison. How about we allow President Obama’s accomplishments stand the test of time that President Reagan’s have been afforded. Let’s say you and I revisit this in about 30 years or so. That way we will have the benefit of retrospect for each of their terms in office. Whoops, wait a minute that would make us both over 100 years old! I am content to let the test of history judge the abilities of each of them and their values to our country. Your position would seem to hold that we must come to some lopsided conclusion based on your cherry picked observations.

If I were fortunate enough to meet or have met President Reagan I would thank him for his service to his country. Can you say the same about President Obama, or does your partisanship not allow you to make that gesture?

Posted by: Speak4all at March 9, 2016 10:14 AM
Comment #403294

j2t2, please provide some facts, not just your supposition.

Speaks, history doesn’t change economic facts we know today unless they are not facts, but mere speculation.

Sure, I will thank Obama for his service just as I thank all who serve our country in whatever capacity.

I will not thank him for his policies. I will not thank him for the disunity he promotes among our citizens. Those are the things history will judge.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 9, 2016 1:53 PM
Comment #403295

Carly Fiorna announced she is support Tex Cruz.

“Ted Cruz has always been a constitutional conservative. He is a fearless fighter and reformer and he didn’t much care whether he got invited to the cocktail parties in D.C. We know Ted Cruz is a fearless constitutional conservative because he has fought for our liberties over and over again.”

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Carly-Fiorina-Ted-Cruz/2016/03/09/id/718236/#ixzz42QxAqAyp

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 9, 2016 1:59 PM
Comment #403297

RF, just another reason to not support him and to add to the many I already have regarding Cruz. Your thankfulness is not required by President Obama and thankfully you will not be part of the history that judges him. We are all very aware of your disapproval of his policies and the manufactured disunity that you contend he “promotes”. Your contentions have always sought to detract from his abilities. Fortunately we don’t pay much attention to the partisan whining and won’t in the future. Thanks for your halfhearted thanks but it’s not necessary, there a plenty of us who disagree with your imaginative estimations and gladly thank him for his service to his country.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 9, 2016 2:15 PM
Comment #403298

How odd. Speaks asks if I will thank Obama for his service. I do. He writes; “Your thankfulness is not required by President Obama…”

I have heard of split personalities but this…?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 9, 2016 2:21 PM
Comment #403300

Carly Fiorina endorsing Cruz. That is both funny and appropriate. Fiorina could not stand on a debate stage and talk for 10 minutes without telling at least one whopper of a lie on national television. When called on her lies, she would invariably double down. I’d say she has found her soul mate in Lying Ted.

Her statement is awesome. Ted Cruz is “a fearless fighter and reformer…” Except that he picks fights and loses them, thereby causing terrible harm to his party, and he has NEVER actually reformed anything. Not one thing. Lol. Oh! This is nice: “… he didn’t much care whether he got invited to the cocktail parties in D.C.” True that. Good thing he didn’t care. This tends to happen to people no one likes. No one wants to socialize with them. How a person with such a terrible personality would be an effective leader is a complete mystery. And this is the guy conservatives want to unite behind in order to defeat Trump? Have fun with that.

Rubio tanked badly last night. Zero delegates, and only two relatively small wins after over 20 contests. He is down in the FL polls by double digits. I’m thinking Marco “Talking Points 3000” Rubio, aka Little Marco, is done. He’ll be out of a job with no political future. Maybe he will wait a few weeks, pull a Chris Christie, and endorse Trump in exchange for $ or a job for himself or his family. That, or take become a lobbyist.

It is down to Kasich to stop Trump. Kasich can’t win. But there are a lot of Midwestern and Northeastern states left where he could do well enough to draw delegates from Trump and deny him the nomination. That’s a last gasp, and dependent on his winning OH next week.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2016 4:44 PM
Comment #403301

We feel the hate phx8. And…we don’t care.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 9, 2016 4:49 PM
Comment #403302

Sheesh, RF, this is like beating up on a kitten. You really can’t defend what is happening. What I said is absolutely true.

Ted Cruz has never won a significant political fight.

Ted Cruz has reformed precisely nothing. Not. One. Thing.

A long time ago I told you so- I told you people who knew Cruz did not like him. Now we have Trump braying it from the stage, and everyone knows it is true, even Fiorina with her little ‘doesn’t get invited to parties’ comment. And ‘Lying Ted’ is what the Republican front runner calls Cruz. I don’t see any pushback from conservatives. What does that tell you?

The so-called GOP establishment might unite behind Kasich- that is, if there were any point, any chance of his winning. Any talk of uniting behind Cruz in order to defeat Trump is just paying lip service to the billionaires.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2016 5:06 PM
Comment #403306

phx8, we’ve read your political prognostication drivel for months. Same old BS. Get a life.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 9, 2016 7:10 PM
Comment #403307

The Dems have a Soviet style socialist and a loser closet socialist for candidates. Even Romney could beat these losers.

Can’t wait to see Hillary doing the “Perp” walk on TV.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 9, 2016 7:18 PM
Comment #403309

Since when was Scandinavia a part of the USSR?

So far, much of what phx8 has written has come to pass. At the onset, I was sure that neither Cruz nor Trump would gain any traction in light of their lack of establishment support. Boy, was I wrong and phx8, was right to predict that Cruz would do well.

As for Romney, he was actually one of the strongest candidates Republicans have run in recent years. The problem is that he just couldn’t compete with Obama after the latter implemented policies that turned around a desperately broken economy.

Speaking of Obama, have you seen his approval rating? Obama is back in positive territory for the first time since 2013. Definitely makes one wonder how someone as intelligent as you would think someone who supports the President would vote for a Republican this November?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 9, 2016 10:15 PM
Comment #403310

WP,
This is one of the great mysteries of the campaign: why do Republicans imagine running against Obama, his policies, and his record in 2016 will work better than running against him in the previous two elections? Obama won both elections with over 50% of the vote, and right now his approval rating is even higher than it was back then. So what gives?

Cruz and other conservatives imagine the reason Romney lost in 2012 is that evangelical Christians did not turn out. There is no evidence for this. The results of the 2016 primaries bear this out.

Trump at least has the virtue of bringing so-called independents into the tent, but they are mostly white males with no college education, and attracting them comes at the expense of driving away women, gays, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and other minorities. Trump is not attracting the majority of GOP voters in the primaries.

The whole conservative effort looks like a mass exercise in delusional thinking. But why?

Part of the problem was the decision by conservatives to oppose Obama at every opportunity, right from the very beginning. Conservatism stopped standing for anything positive. It became the party of ‘no.’ Obstruction became a goal in and of itself. Conservatives primaried any Republicans out of the party who were willing to compromise, and conservative Republicanism moved the Overton Window. It shifted further and further to the right, and became increasingly extreme and more radical. When facts and statistics contradicted the ideology, conservative Republicans developed conspiracy theories to explain it away.

They closed their eyes to the recovery of the value of their house and 401k. They pretended Obamacare killed jobs, though all statistics indicate otherwise. Non-farm payroll and unemployment numbers were dismissed as fraudulent. Low interest rates and negligible inflation did not matter, because roaring inflation was always just around the corner… year after year after year… Global Warming was hoax.

Now, here we are. Donald Trump, a crass charlatan who is clearly unfit to be president, has successfully appealed to the worst parts of the American character, and looks primed to take the nomination.

Also, I’m nervous about his tiny sausage fingers. How can he make America great again with such small hands? Just sayin’

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2016 11:59 PM
Comment #403311
j2t2, please provide some facts, not just your supposition.

I did Royal, you chose to ignore them and make a foolish comment instead.

Fact 1 ” I mean when you consider the debt before Reagan took office was under 20% and almost 25% when Obama took office this praise may be unwarranted.” Perhaps what you want is proof seeings as Forbes didn’t bother with the whole story choosing instead to do a fluff piece on Reagan.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S

Fact 2 “What isn’t said by Forbes is how debt was trending down until Reagan and then has risen dramatically, and once the cat is out of the bag it is tough to get it back in especially when we charge wars on the credit card.”

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S

Posted by: j2t2 at March 10, 2016 12:41 AM
Comment #403322

I am beginning to think that I need to start working on a story that I can tell my great grandchildren about a once proud political party that was a vibrant part of our country and it’s history until it self immolated.

The moral of the story would have to be something like “Don’t allow greed, avarice and hatred of the other to overcome your love of country and your fellow man, for that way is the road to perdition my children”.

Or perhaps I can just send them a link to the history of the Republican party circa late 20th century to early 21st century?

Posted by: Speak4all at March 10, 2016 11:50 AM
Comment #403331

It is entertaining to read the liberal rantings about Conservative and Republican failures in politics.

Following are quotes from Wikipedia and Yaho0. The socialist/liberal “dreamers” will no doubt counter with their usual crap about Gerrymandering. Really? Is that the best they can do?

These deniers greatly resemble their Pied Piper leader who, even today, continues to blame Bush for his lack-luster performance.

My liberal friends on WB are terrified of losing big in November and consequently spin fairy-tales. But then, what else can they do?

“The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952).

Large Republican gains were made in state houses as well when the GOP picked up twelve gubernatorial seats and 472 legislative seats. In so doing, it took control of 20 state legislatures from the Democrats. Prior to this, Republicans had not held the majority of governorships since 1972. In addition, this was the first time in 50 years that the GOP controlled a majority of state legislatures.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

“Washington (AFP) - Republicans cruised to victory in US midterm elections, gaining control of both houses of Congress in a stinging setback for President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats and ensuring fractious co-existence in the last two years of his presidency.

The Republicans padded their control of the House of Representatives by at least 12 seats, and in the big prize of Tuesday’s midterm election they retook the Senate.

The Democratic implosion put the Republicans in position to shape if not dictate the congressional agenda, and their priorities are likely to focus on the economy.”

http://news.yahoo.com/us-republicans-eye-senate-control-close-midterm-vote-203204347.html#

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2016 2:12 PM
Comment #403332

How about this liberals…?

“The dozen failed ObamaCare cooperatives have not repaid any of the $1.2 billion in federal loans they received and still owe more than $1 billion in additional liabilities, according to recent financial statements cited Thursday at a congressional hearing.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/10/failed-obamacare-co-ops-have-not-repaid-1-2b-in-federal-loans-docs-say.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2016 2:15 PM
Comment #403333

Best quote from the latest Dem debate comes from Hillary on Benghazi.

“”This was fog of war,” she said, saying that she regrets the lives lost in the crisis.

She added: “I wish there could be an easy answer at the time but we learned a lot.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/10/clinton-sanders-join-in-vow-not-to-deport-illegal-kids-non-criminals-at-latest-dem-debate.html

I wonder what we “learned”.

Hurrah for the commie socialist Sanders in overcoming a 20 point deficit in the polls to win Michigan.

GO BERNIE

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2016 2:23 PM
Comment #403334

Bernie Sanders is the new face and direction of the Dem Party. Having already discarded the Constitution, capitalism will soon follow it into the dustbin. Our Democratic Republic will become a revitalized USSR under Bernie’s rule.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2016 2:27 PM
Comment #403335

Best quote from Obama this year…

“Free riders aggravate me,” Obama said in a wide-ranging interview with The Atlantic that was published online Thursday and will be featured in its April issue.”

LOL…this guy is a laugh a minute.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2016 2:29 PM
Comment #403339

j2t2 and Royal,

The Forbes opinion piece that was linked was in response to a prior article which went viral contending that the Obama economy has actually been better than that under Reagan. The prior article can be found here. http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/#6bdc645320bc

You might want to review this more recent article from Forbes comparing Democrat vs. Republican presidents in modern times.

“The GOP has created an illusion that it is a better economic steward by promoting itself as the party with better business acumen; frequently touting elected officials from business schools and with MBAs rather than law degrees. The GOP, and the media leaders who identify with the GOP, tell Americans every chance they can that Republicans are the party of financial acuity and have the policies to create economic prowess.

Yet we found through our research that these claims were little more than myth. In the modern era, post Great Depression and with a strong Federal Reserve in place, Democratic administrations have been far better stewards of the economy and caretakers of the government’s wallet.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2015/03/10/obamas-trifecta-democrats-continue-economically-trouncing-republicans/#3782f9ca1d8f

Posted by: Rich at March 10, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #403341

Rich…the article you linked is writing about equity markets…not the entire economy or individual well-being. We are all aware that equity markets are doing well especially after the decision to print trillions in new money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2016 5:44 PM
Comment #403342

RF,
If “trillions in new money” had been printed, there would be inflation. The problem is NOT inflation, and never has been. The problem is deflation. Furthermore, the example of superior economic performance under Democrats (and inferior performance under Republicans) goes back to WWII.

Rich,
What would happen to the economy if the GOP actually won the White House and controlled the economy?

The economic platforms of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio all resemble the previous conservative platforms of George W Bush, and they are a recipe for disaster. Tax cuts would send deficits and debt skyrocketing again. Deregulation and repeal of Dodd-Frank would set up another collapse in the financial sector, just as we saw at the end of the Bush administration, and as we also saw at the end of his father’s administration, with the Savings and Loan disaster. It would take time to develop, but it would happen.

People aren’t stupid. The statistics about economic performance for the two parties are well known, and we already have seen what happens when a conservative agenda is enacted. If there was a real chance of the GOP controlling the White House and Congress, it would just be a matter of who could sniff it out first, and rush for the exits with their money.

Most likely, people would put their money abroad. Commodities such as gold might be tempting, but most likely the dollar would tank, and that would make international investing far more attractive. A lot of people might say ‘I’m moving to Canada’ if a Trump or Cruz or Rubio won, but the big money wouldn’t say anything- it would just go, and run as fast as it can.

That would be a tough way for the last few months of Obama’s presidency to end. I don’t think it will happen. Hillary will probably win, and the Democrats will probably take over the Senate. But there is always that outside chance of something going terribly wrong, and conservatives taking power and killing the economy again. No one wants to see that.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2016 6:36 PM
Comment #403343

If Trump won the White House (an unlikely outcome), the economy might fall for a different reason. I don’t want to scare the children before they go to bed, but all that talk by Trump about tariffs, walls, and hostile relations with Muslims and everyone else would kill international trade. Foreign economies would tank along with us, and there would undoubtedly be a worldwide slump as a result of trade wars. Safe haven would be hard to find. Presumably a weak dollar would cause the US to slump faster than its allies, so money might flee to EU bonds, or even the equivalent of EU money markets and safe, short-term investments in other countries.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2016 6:55 PM
Comment #403344

phx8 as usual forgets our real debt and unfunded liability. Liberals and big government play well to the uninformed. Poverty is as high as I can remember. Wages suck. The LPR is lower than ever in some forty years. Welfare is exploding. Social morality is nearly gone. Illegals are swarming over existing jobs.

Progressive policies of today simply suck.

Hillary and Sanders battle each other over how to fix America. What needs fixing if Obama is so great?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2016 7:43 PM
Comment #403346

The unfunded liability of Social Security (is that what you are referring to?) can be immediately solved by increasing or lifting the cap. This is a very easy problem to solve, as long as you favor everyone paying in, including the rich.

“Poverty is as high as I can remember.”

The number of people in poverty as of 2011 is higher than it was in 1959, 46 million versus 40 million. However, there are many more Americans. As a percentage, it was 22% then versus 15% in 2011. Due to the ongoing economic recovery, the current poverty rate is lower than 2011, which was not long after the peak of the Great Recession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG

“Wages suck.”

Minimum wage needs to be increased. You are right about that. In general, over the past few decades, too much value has been placed on ownership and not enough on labor. Despite large gains in productivity, wages for most people have remained flat. There have been HUGE gains in wealth, but all of it went to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

“Illegals are swarming over existing jobs.”
False. We are near full employment. With the last jobs report, 242,000 non-payroll jobs were added, and the unemployment rate was 4.9%. The problem with jobs and the economy in general is that too many of the additional jobs do not pay enough, and too much manufacturing was allowed to move overseas, then ship back cheap product to the US.

Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2016 9:58 AM
Comment #403349

phx8, I read some of your Wikipedia link and did not find your conclusion about poverty.

Poverty, can not be solved by doling out more money from Washington. If that were the case, we would have no poor today. The “War on Poverty” would have been won.

Some believe that raising the minimum wage will solve the problem of low and stagnant wages. It will benefit those who are below the minimum wage who remain employed. However, there are many others, not minimum wage earners who will be adversely affected.

Artificially increasing wages by government mandate helps very few. When the cost of anything increases; the demand for that “anything” almost always decreases.

Government artificially increased the cost of tobacco to reduce its use. It worked, fewer smokers. Why would artificially increasing the cost of labor increase the demand for labor?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2016 1:39 PM
Comment #403350

“Why would artificially increasing the cost of labor increase the demand for labor?”

Because it increases demand. People with lower wages tend to spend all of their money. It re-enters the system in the form of consumption, which boosts business, which invests in more capital to satisfy demand.

This is why tax cuts for the rich do not work very well. It turns into wealth capture. The money does not re-enter the system in the form of consumption; instead, it is invested in stocks and bonds, or leaves the country entirely in order to evade taxes. Eventually money placed into American markets will ‘trickle down,’ but it is very inefficient compared to boosting spending among large numbers of people.

Unemployment benefits work the same way. They are the most effective form of short-term stimulus for the economy. They must be paid back eventually, but most people would choose help in the short run that has to be paid back when times are good, rather than falling into extreme poverty from which it is so difficult to return.

Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2016 1:53 PM
Comment #403351

” People with lower wages tend to spend all of their money. It re-enters the system in the form of consumption, which boosts business, which invests in more capital to satisfy demand.”

We have heard this argument many times. Let’s test this policy. If what you say truly increases consumption, tax revenue and GDP, we should increase the minimum wage to $100 or more per hour. Using your assumptions, this would be a tremendous boast to our entire economy to an extent that we would eliminate unemployment for those willing to work, create such huge tax revenue that we could balance our budget and quickly pay off our national debt.

Those employing labor at a minimum of $100 per hour would not raise prices, move their business to some other country, or quit their business. They would just take the extra cost for labor out of their own profits.

Please rate this as true or false.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2016 2:04 PM
Comment #403354

False for obvious reasons.

Are you advocating slavery or indentured servitude instead? Should laborers work for free, in exchange for room and board? If low wages are good, aren’t no wages even better for business owners?

Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2016 3:17 PM
Comment #403356

Pitiful attempt to change subjects phx8.

Government can not ever legislate prosperity for any length of time. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Real wage increases can be accomplished. Create incentives for business to form and grow. I have in past posts explained how this can be done. Business is the engine of growth, not more legislation and regulation.

Business is the employer of choice, not government. Our government is fully responsible for all the jobs that have moved elsewhere. We created incentives for business to move. This can be undone. We can bring those jobs back to America.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2016 3:33 PM
Post a comment