3/3 Republican Debate

Headline tomorrow will be that Trump, Cruz and Rubio all melted down into sputtering bullyboys who call each other names.

The "moderators" were encouraging sniping rather than discussion of the issues.

There was also an unhidden agenda by the moderators to catch Trump in any number of "gotchas." The attack on Trump is now official.

Unbelievable, this is national politics. It sounds like a school board meeting.

And, all during it, audience members could be heard continuously shouting, booing, jeering, yelling incoherently.

Kind of like at school board meetings.

NY Times article referred to some rhetoric as "junior high school taunts."
Is this really the best Republicans can come up with?
The quality of their candidates has been sinking for a few decades now. How low can they go before they become insignificant?

_Howard wrote:

How low can they go before they become insignificant?

That benchmark was passed several years ago.

This is the party that hired a washed up actor to play the president, while unseen party operatives labored behind the scenes to enact their unpopular agenda.

This is the party that put forward an alcoholic C- student frat boy who went AWOL on his military service, while unseen party operatives labored behind the scenes to enact their unpopular agenda.

If the GOP goes to a brokered convention, look for the sudden emergence of a dark horse candidate -- somebody who hasn't suffered the primary -- someone who seems "presidential" -- someone with public recognition but no political experience.

Someone like Clint Eastwood.

NoCoPilot wrote:

_Howard wrote:

How low can they go before they become insignificant?

That benchmark was passed several years ago.

This is the party that hired a washed up actor to play the president, while unseen party operatives labored behind the scenes to enact their unpopular agenda.

This is the party that put forward an alcoholic C- student frat boy who went AWOL on his military service, while unseen party operatives labored behind the scenes to enact their unpopular agenda.

If the GOP goes to a brokered convention, look for the sudden emergence of a dark horse candidate -- somebody who hasn't suffered the primary -- someone who seems "presidential" -- someone with public recognition but no political experience.

Someone like Clint Eastwood.

Is it me or is the Republican party the "military industrial congressional complex" Eisenhower warned us about?
And I am not being a conspiracy theorist- I don't think. But every one of the Reps weird moves from the washed up actor to now Trump seems to serve that CIA/contractor agenda to keep us out in the world taking and trading arms and starting shit where it helps that agenda. I don't even think Reagan had any power it was all Bush I. Then with Bush II it was all Cheney's deal. The "president" is the front man. So who's Trump's real agenda source? Who are we getting if we get Trump?

Jenni wrote:

The "president" is the front man. So who's Trump's real agenda source? Who are we getting if we get Trump?

That is what has the Republican apparatchiks running scared. It may well not be business as usual if Trump finishes up winning, and they don't know who will really be calling the shots.

NoCoPilot wrote:

_Howard wrote:

How low can they go before they become insignificant?

That benchmark was passed several years ago.

Intellectually and effectually insignificant, no doubt, but they are still very significant politically. They hold the majority of the governorships and state legislatures as well as much of the local political positions. They hold the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS. Hardly insignificant.

If that great mass of non-wealthy voters ever took a clear, strong look at the Republicans and what they have done, and started voting for policies that benefit them most, then that grand old party would wilt away.

_Howard wrote:

Intellectually and effectually insignificant, no doubt, but they are still very significant politically. They hold the majority of the governorships and state legislatures as well as much of the local political positions. They hold the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS. Hardly insignificant.

I disagree and here's why.

The governorships, the state legislatures, the local political positions have been a multi-decade project of the Koch brothers and a few like-minded donors. These people are libertarians.

They are not Republicans and only worked with Republican politicians to bring about their libertarian revolution because they're cheaper to buy.

However Republicans get more expensive the higher you go on the ticket. Representatives, Senators Supreme Court Justices and Presidents get pretty pricey, and the donor class has been less successful ensuring victories there, or ensuring moral purity/obedience once they're in office.

The GOP has had the props kicked out of their structure in the last twenty years. There is no longer such a thing as "down-ticket cohesiveness" because all the races below the national races are now dominated by, and beholden to, an ideology and paymaster that does not belong to the RNC.

The RNC has been powerless to put forward a viable national candidate since the disaster of the former President's son.

The GOP is already dead. It just hasn't toppled over sideways yet.

That's the way you see it, and essentially the way I see it. That is not the way the majority of people on the right see it.

The Republican Party still has a large mass of dedicated voters. All they have to see is the "R" next to a candidate's name and that's where their vote goes. When that practice dies out, when people quit automatically voting for the "R', then the Republican Party will be politically insignificant.

Jenni wrote:

So who's Trump's real agenda source? Who are we getting if we get Trump?

This is a very good question, but my fear is the answer is "Donald Trump."

I don't think Trump is intelligent enough to have a hidden agenda.  I think, like Ross Perot, he's just a very rich egotist who thinks he could do better.  A person nobody ever says "no" to (at least not more than once), who has absolutely no idea what he's getting himself into.

At least with Shrub we had "Bush's brain" Karl Rove standing behind him moving his lips.  With Ronald Reagan we had a cabal of former Nixon aides & secretaries pulling the levers.

With Trump I fear he is not a puppet of someone else.  If he was, they would have reined in the nonstop spew of stupid by now.  

Whether Trump could invite another Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld into his administration to actually do the work of governing is an open question.  He's not known for asking for help.

He's bankrupted four casinos.  He's failed with Trump airlines, Trump vodka, Trump University, Trump clothing, and several other ventures.  He's not scared of failure -- because he personally always comes out smelling like a rose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-business-record-media_us_56d70cf9e4b0bf0dab340def

Even many of Trump's lesser-known ventures have failed.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The governorships, the state legislatures, the local political positions have been a multi-decade project of the Koch brothers and a few like-minded donors.  These people are libertarians.

There are no real libertarians in the political movements today. They are only those who use the label to gain undeserved support from idiots and, of course, the idiots.

The definition of libertarian is one that is in flux. No working man or woman should embrace the current vision of the libertarian. The dominant characteristic of the libertarian, as defined by those powerful people who espouse and publicly promote the concept, is freedom from government regulation of the economy. Specifically, the removal of any regulation of big business. Any working person who claims to be a libertarian is an uneducated fool. Most of the people had never even heard the word ten years ago.

Today's libertarian is a very wealthy corporatist who wants to be able to do anything to increase his profits. If it means destroying the environment, well that's just fine. If it means driving millions of people into poverty, that's also just fine. If it means driving the country into a war, well so be it. They are economic anarchists who believe that the only valid function of the government is to protect their property and business activities.

Well said.  

I shouldn't have used the term "libertarians," I should have said "self-serving economic anarchists."

I saw some clips from this debate yesterday.

Holy Shit! It was like watching adolescent boys on the playground.

If I was a Republican, I would be very embarrassed by this collection of idiots.

I've never seen anything like it in American politics.

Nobody has.

The Republican primaries are not election politics this year. They're reality TV.