Right Wing Fighter

Category: 2016 Presidential Election

Thanks for the ‘Endorsement,’ Levin

Levin has ‘endorsed’ Trump.

From Conservative Review:

At the beginning of the program, Levin made sure his real feelings were known. It was no secret that Levin’s first choice was not and is not Donald Trump. In fact, he boldly declared Tuesday that despite Trump’s holding some conservative policies, “Donald Trump is not a conservative … and he’s not reliable.”

Levin reiterated his position that Sen. Ted Cruz would’ve been a far better choice to champion conservative principles as president.

But that’s not what happened and … “at the end of the day, someone is going to be president.”

Levin then listed his critiques of Trump one by one. From his behavioral antics during the GOP primary to his lack of understanding when it comes to the Constitution and limited government, from his massive spending increase for infrastructure to his protectionist trade policies, and more.

It wasn’t all bad for Trump, however, as Levin later spoke positively about his tax plan, his positions on immigration, law enforcement, and foreign policy. Levin did offer a common and recurring disclaimer: Trump is NOT reliable.

Several points here:

First, to start an endorsement with a list of the faults of the person you’re endorsing robs it of all significance. What Levin did was to rob his words of all weight.

Second, Levin, like many conservatives, has a totem-like attachment to certain principles. Much of our infrastructure is falling apart. Yet because it involves government spending, Levin is automatically against it. Additionally, free trade is destroying our jobs and our way of life. Yet Levin is still glued to the dogma of free trade, no matter the costs.

Did Levin praise Trump towards the end? Yes. But that was only after railing on him for not being conservative. Additionally, constantly stating that Trump is ‘NOT reliable’ is, again, to rob his endorsement of any value.

So Levin has wasted everyone’s time with this. His endorsement means nothing.

There’s also this:

Before getting to Trump, Levin had plenty to say about Hillary Clinton. In short – she is far too dangerously liberal to allow anywhere near the Oval Office.
This is exactly what I noted in my post Anti-Trump Folks Backing onto the Trump Train, where I said in part:
When things start getting hot, election-wise; when November starts getting close, many anti-Trump folks are going to start talking about how we’ve “got to stop Hillary from getting elected. Oh I’m not saying we should vote for Trump: I’m saying we should vote against Hillary!”
Some of the most anti-Trump people, people who were attacking Trump literally day after day, are now talking up the need to stop Hillary! They usually have to assuage their consciences by throwing in a few attacks on Trump. But they are, as noted above, backing into the Trump Train.
And now Levin is following suit.

The Democratic Convention

Well, the Democratic convention is underway. It will be a not-stop festival of lies and distortions.

The speakers will talk about diversity, tolerance, and the lack of diversity and tolerance.

Hillary Clinton will make a good piece of her speech about women, their imaginary plight, and how she’s going to make things better for them. As noted before, she’s the Feminist candidate.

I expect the convention to feel unreal. All the emphasis will be put on non-whites, feminists, and perverts. This will be unreal, because most of the country does not consist of these groups. It will be strange to watch them run head-first into the arms of disparate groups who are actually fairly weak politically.

I plan to avoid as much of it as possible. There’s enough junk in politics as it is.

The Spin on Trump’s Acceptance Speech Begins

I’m listening to Fox News Radio’s coverage of Trump’s acceptance speech tonight. Already, one of the professional nincompoops is repeating, over and over, that there “wasn’t a lot of new material in this speech.”

So what? The things Trump said tonight are the things that got him the primary win in the first place. They are what got him,

(A), the most primary votes in Republican primary history;

(B), thousands of Democratic crossover votes;

(C), a reinvigorated party.

Trump has single-handedly given the GOP new life. He has done it by virtue of what he’s said on the campaign trail. Why would he change it now?

Obviously there’s no reason to change it. The Fox News commenters are just looking for something to dampen the speech with.

Cruz at Convetion: “Vote Your Conscience,” Doesn’t Endorse Trump

Well, this is interesting.

Ted Cruz, during his speech, didn’t endorse Trump and actually told viewers to “vote their conscience” in November.

During the primary, vote your conscience was his signal for “Don’t vote for that immoral New Yorker. Vote for me, the man that shares your values.”

He used the line over and over during the primary, and that was its meaning.

For him to say that at the convention that has nominated Trump by a 500 delegate margin is…strange? I can’t think of anyone with as much unbounded ambition as to not endorse the candidate. Even Reagan endorsed Gerald Ford, when Ford beat him by less than a hundred delegates for the nomination.

The crowd hated Cruz’s statement. They started booing him and chanting “endorse Trump.” They were right.

Cruz has fed a nice little item to the media to attack Trump with. They can take the “evangelical” Cruz’s non-endorsement and wave it around to “show” that Trump hasn’t united the party. Will it make much difference? I don’t know. But handing the opposition such a nice little soundbite is a lousy thing to do. It reflects on Cruz very badly.

For a long time I’ve considered Cruz to be abnormally ambitious. Now I think he may be ambitious to the point of political self-destruction. He can never seem to take a bow and let another run the show. Even during his speech, it had the bizarre feeling of being a campaign rally for him. He acted like everyone at the convention was there to hear him speak.

Strange man.

Donald Trump has won the Nomination

Welp, the impossible day has arrived: Donald Trump is officially the nominee of the Republican party.

He’s won the nomination by over 1700 delegates. He needed 1,237 to win. Hardly a fringe victory. It’s almost as if the Republican base actually wants Trump to be the nominee.

So I wonder if Bill Kristol will resign from punditry? He was one of the loudest anti-Trump guys out there. Long ago he was predicting Trump would never win. Honestly, I wonder why anyone listens to Kristol. He’s always wrong.

I guess it’s because he says the right things, not true things.

I wonder if all those honorable men who pledged to support the nominee, whoever he was, are going to follow their word.

Nahhh.

In other worlds, I just caught a headline from rollingstone.com:

“R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party”

Good thing we have conscientious people like the folks at Rolling Stone to watch out for us.

Anti-Trump Effort at Convention Fails

From the AP(scroll down to 8:10 PM):

A leader of conservatives making a last-ditch attempt to block Donald Trump’s nomination says she’s dropping her effort to force the Republican National Convention to vote on her plan to let delegates back any presidential candidate they want.

The convention rules committee has already rejected Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh’s proposal to “unbind” delegates from the candidates they were committed to by state primaries and caucuses.

Unruh had been saying that despite that defeat, she’d get enough support to force a full convention vote next week on her plan to let delegates vote their conscience.

So she wants them free to vote their conscience, eh?

What about the “consciences” that voted for Trump overwhelmingly in the primaries?

It aggravates me whenever I see these hollow nincompoops start preaching about “conscience” whenever they want to abuse the convention rules to get what they want. They could at least be honest about their cynical ploys. To hide them behind morality is disgusting.

It’s amazing the hollow, substanceless people politics attracts. It’s even more surprising, in a way, that we keep sending them back into power, as delegates and candidates. I imagine it’s more a matter of honest ignorance on the voter’s part than anything else.

The Psychology of Clinton’s “I’m With Her” Slogan

Have you shaken your head at Clinton’s “I’m With Her” slogan? You’re not alone.

Here’s what it’s all about:

Clinton’s campaign is little more than a feminist projection. Hillary has no qualifications to be president. She has no accomplishments. She also has no connection to an ethnic or economic group. For instance, Obama was the candidate of the non-white electorate. Romney, on the other hand, was the candidate of the wealthy.

But Hillary has no such group appeal. Instead, she’s trying to appeal to the female sex. The psychology of “I’m With Her” is this: it’s an invitation to women to imagine they are Hillary. She is inviting them to treat her as their avatar.

We’ve all seen those cardboard cutouts of muscle-men with the face missing so you can put your head in. That’s what Hillary is inviting women to do: imagine that, though Hillary is the body, the mind is theirs. “I’m With Her” would more accurately read “I Am Her.”

Sound bizarre? Consider this. We imagine ourselves to be heroes in books, movies, and music all the time. One of the main appeals of music to many people is that they can pretend they are the protagonist and thus escape their weaknesses. In their minds, they put on the character of a stronger person for a little while to ease their own thinking.

Many women in America are feminists. But since feminism is unnatural, it’s grinding them down over time. They are crossing into their later years, and losing hope in the Good News of feminism. The goal of the Clinton campaign is to connect with these women, make them treat Hillary as their avatar, and as such to give them a chosen one to justify and reinvigorate their faltering faith. The psychology is this: “if Hillary can do it, so can I. I can still succeed as a feminist if Hillary can”*.

To some extent it’s working. She’s doing pretty well with women at the moment. But it’s too narrow a strategy to win in the end. There simply aren’t enough women of that stripe to carry Hillary across the finish line. She’d need to pull in support from some other groups, and she’s not capable of doing that. Her only hope is that Trump destroys himself, which I highly, highly doubt.

 

*This is also going to give Clinton’s campaign a number of desperately devoted supporters. Since their whole world hinges on Clinton’s win, they are going to work hard to get her elected. Additionally, they are going to desperately hate anyone who opposes her.

Trump has indeed picked Pence

The rumors were true: Trump has picked Pence.

I’m not happy about it but I’m not bent out of shape by it either. Reagan made a similar move to win the moderates back in 1980 when he picked H.W. Bush as his running mate. Bush exerted little to no influence over Reagan’s direction. I think it will be the same with Trump.

The primary proved that nobody runs Trump but Trump. I highly doubt he’s the sort of man to be driven around by his VP.

If he were so easy to manipulate, what use would he be as president anyhow?

I don’t consider this pick to be a betrayal of reforming trade, immigration, or our foreign policy. Again, Bush Senior supported the populist, pro-growth policies of Reagan even though he disagreed with them. It’s certain that Trump extracted such a promise from Pence before picking him. Trump is far too good a businessman to have a divided ship before even sailing out of port.

As such, I believe Pence will be a disappointing but harmless bookend in Trump’s administration, should he win.

Trump’s VP Pick; Rumors Say it’s Mike Pence

Rumors are circulating that Trump is going to pick Mike Pence for VP.

I certainly hope not. Pence is an amnesty man and a go-along-get-along type of Republican. He backed and worked hard to get amnesty passed back during George W. Bush’s administration. Additionally, he’s a free-trade, business-first Republican.

Picking Pence would be a huge mistake.

I hope instead that Trump will pick Jeff Sessions. Sessions is a nationalist and a workers-first man. He’s one of the best men in politics on the issue of immigration. Additionally, he’s got the right temperament for VP.

What I’d like to see is Trump pick Sessions for his first term. Sessions is 69, and as such he’s too old to take over for Trump after eight years. The best thing would be for Trump to pick him for the first four years of his administration, and then pick a younger man for the second four years. The immigration fight will be hottest in Trump’s first term, and it will be important to have an experienced, old hand at the issue. Additionally, Trump will need a man he can trust.

With Trump, immigration will be the central issue. This will pull a lot of legitimate, America-first immigration patriots out of the woodwork. Thus I expect there would be plenty of choices for VP after the battle is over. There aren’t that many to choose from right now. But after four years of battle, the line will have been drawn and sides will have been chosen. It will be pretty easy to find a good man for the job then.

But for right now, Sessions is the best man.

Joni Ernst Essentially Turns Down VP

From, ahem, Politico:

“I made that very clear to him that I’m focused on Iowa. I feel that I have a lot more to do in the United States Senate. And Iowa is where my heart is,” Ernst said Wednesday. “I’m just getting started here. I have a great partner with Chuck Grassley, we’ve been able to accomplish a lot. And I think that President Trump will need some great assistance in the United States Senate and I can provide that.”

Good.

Ernst, contrary some silly people, is not a good person for VP. She’s essentially an establishmentarian. Anyone that has a great partnership with Chuch Grassley isn’t good for the country as VP.

Besides, I’m tired of her “mamma grizzly” nonsense. It started with Palin and Ernst has sort of adopted it. Surprisingly, many men have too. They have this bizarre liking for “strong” women, which just comes out to pushy women. Ernst is neither intelligent nor a good leader. Women generally aren’t good leaders. They aren’t made that way. As such, a “strong” woman is just a woman who shoves herself into the conversation.

I’m glad to see Ernst has taken herself out of consideration.

To explain my thinking a bit:

A leader is someone that can see what should be done. He is someone that knows how the world turns.

Imagine the world as a merry-go-round. We have to jump onto it or jump off of it as circumstances dictate. Now, a man that knows when and how to jump onto it can lead. But someone that doesn’t know and yet still wants to lead is just pushy.

Life, to many people, is chaos. It’s a swirling mass of thing going by too fast and with too little detail to be understood. As such, they follow leaders. Leaders are men who can see how the world is, and who have the strength to act on it.

Now, there are some people that want to be leaders, but who lack that critical ability to see. As such, they are just ignoramuses that are trying to push themselves to the top. We call them blowhards, egotists, and more impolite things. The reason is because we all know and feel the need for someone that can see. As such, we hate counterfeiters. We hate people that shove themselves into the conversation without anything to give. They’re just there because they like the laurels that leaders get.

History is full of men that didn’t see but wanted to be leaders anyhow. The earth is full of the graves of their followers.

There are also many men who did see. Take for instance George Washington, Bismarck, Churchill, Reagan. These men are rightly celebrated. One because they deserve it. But two because, by holding the real thing in front of our eyes constantly, we have a strong sense of what isn’t the real thing. People like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell: these are all pretenders. They all want to lead, because they like the rewards. But they don’t have the critical vision necessary to lead. They are blind leading the blind.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with being blind. But a blind man shouldn’t try to lead. That’s why our politics is so frustrating in America: the few people who aren’t simply bought and paid for have no idea what they’re doing. They aren’t in politics because they know what to do and they’re there to do it. No. They’re there for the laurels. They usually end up complete, frustrating failures.

So that is why I don’t like Ernst. She’s a pushy, headstrong woman that wants to lead, but hasn’t the critical ability to see. As such, she’s no use to America as a politician.