PostHeaderIcon Now I Remember Why

In a previous article, I mentioned that, while Donald Trump seems to say the right things, there was still something about his candidacy that bothers me. After hearing segments of his rant last evening, I clearly remember what it is.

Back in the 90’s, when Bill Clinton was running in opposition to incumbent president George H W Bush, my then wife and I both worked our tails off in support of H Ross Perot – as did many others who were equally taken in. Why? Because he seemed to be saying all the right things, making us believe he was just what the country needed. And, it seemed to be working. Indeed, his candidacy became so strong that he himself had to intentionally screw it up for apparent fear that he might actually win!

At that moment, we (and a lot of others) realized that we had been had. We had spent our time, our energy and our resources supporting a man who had no wish whatever to be president. In retrospect, it seems that all he wanted was to keep G H W Bush from being re-elected, because of some personal spat that should have concerned only them. However, H Ross Perot willingly did damage to our entire nation in pursuit of personal revenge.

My attitude toward Perot today is such that, were I walking down the road literally bursting from the need to urinate and I came across Perot sitting in the road engulfed in flames, I would hold it in a bit longer and walk right on by.

Hearing Trump ranting about Ben Carson in such an irrational manner brought all this immediately back to mind. Here is a candidate that sounds like he is trying to damage his own candidacy while, ostensibly, trying to take down his closest competitor – a competitor that, according to most polls, would handily beat Hillary Clinton in a national election. Indeed, a candidate whose reputation, manner of speaking and personal conduct would combine to make Hillary look like the piece of human waste that she actually is.

So, I cannot help but wonder if history is repeating itself in a way. That is: Is Donald Trump in the GOP primary for the express purpose of taking down other GOP candidates best positioned to beat Hillary (rather than actually seeking the presidency for himself)? The more I ponder this, the more comfortable it feels to my mind. After all, was not Trump a progressive Democrat until just recently? Don’t many of his current proposals still seem more progressive than conservative? Yes, I understand that Ronald Reagan is clear proof that such a change in political attitude and intent is entirely possible. But, unlike Trump, Reagan offered clear, simple to understand policies for fixing America where Trump, so far, offers only unlikely pie-in-the-sky promises delivered with an excess of bombast and almost no supporting substance.

My friends, our national condition is far too fragile to be the subject people who are simply playing games with us.

Yet, the idea of another GOP establishment wonk (like Romney or Rubio) at the helm is also fraught with danger.

What to think, what to do??? Will someone please tell me?

Troy L Robinson

47 Responses to “Now I Remember Why”

  • Jerry Elkins says:

    I think you may have it backwards Troy. Like many others you are taken in by Carson who is not qualified to be president. He has nothing except religion. We are not looking for a Pope. Very meek. He has strange ideas and copies Trumps ideas. Amnesty. Friends with Sharpton. Congress would flatten Carson in a week. Forget the Chinese and Mexico. Putin. Can’t get his stories straight. Has NO business experience. NADA. Painting of him and Jesus together in his home. Why does Carson want to be president? He would be another Obama. Clinton would bury him.

    • Agreed. I don’t know if Clinton would bury him; but it wouldn’t bother me much if she did. 🙁 â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I support Carson — I don’t. I merely stated the apparent opinion expressed in most polls that he is more favorable to the masses than Clinton. The overwhelming probability is that I will support the Libertarian nominee, just as I have done for as long as I can remember.

      Were I to even consider a GOP candidate, it would be Cruz but even he is a bit too Jesus for my taste.


      • Chris says:

        Jesus is the least thing to worry about this trip around. He has to be there otherwise he goes the route of Romney. Without the Christian vote any republican loses.

        • Troy says:

          I fully understand that one must proclaim a faith in order to have the slightest chance of election in the current climate. Heck, even the Muslim-in-Chief has to claim to love Jesus.

          But, there is a difference between having faith and letting fundamentalist dogma warp your perspective. The latter type of believer is, IMHO, a danger to the country.


  • Jeannine Daigneault says:

    What to do? Work like heck to support a candidate who IS worthy of your vote. I’m ready for an outsider, and any of the current ones would be way better than Obama and Biden – I can’t imagine anything worse than those two. However, I don’t have a good feeling about Trump, and I’m stumped that he still has so much support, given his lack of clear goals, details, and his repetitive “you won’t believe it” platitudes. I’m in for Ben, Carly (how about that ticket?), or any of the other top 5.

    • None are worthy of my vote, J9. I suppose I will again vote ‘None of the Above’ by the simple expedient of not bothering to go to the polls. Your dream ticket is inverted. Were Carly to win the Primary, I would actively support her, even if she were somehow foolish enough to choose Carson as a running mate. Were that reversed, I would stay home. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      I can’t imagine anything worse than those two. (Obama and Biden)

      Come on — surely you have heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton?


  • Interesting theory. I have not heard any of last night’s rant yet. My interest in Trump all along has been his potential for being a new Perot, to effectively destroy the Republican wing of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. I reckoned that he had the money to start a new TEA Party, modeled somewhat after United We Stand, after the Republicans drove him out of their party’s primary. As I see it, the only hope for American politics is to break-up the stranglehold the duopoly has on it. I would support the devil himself if he could accomplish that. When Trump signed the agreement to support whoever won the Republican Primary, that pretty much ended any such dream on my part.

    Our national condition is more than fragile; it is terminal. Changing the POTUS to any of the current candidates from either wing, will do next to nothing to fix that. No matter who wins, the entrenched bureaucrats who actually make the onerous laws we are oppressed by are automatically reelected.

    The only candidate who seems to have a grasp of how our Constitution was meant to limit government is Cruz; but born in Canada, with only a Canadian birth certificate, he is not even close to being a Natural Born Citizen. After all the stink I raised over Obama, I could not ever vote for him. The same goes for Rubio and Jendal, both of whom were born here; but their parents were not citizens at the time.

    Carson and others are hopelessly flawed as religious nuts, who would use their power to ignore the Constitution to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Good grief; I don’t see how anyone could take seriously a man who actually believes the (solid) pyramids were built to store grain. 🙁

    The only candidates besides Trump I find worth even considering are Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina. Neither has a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning the Primary, and neither want the job bad enough to consider trying to start a third Party. At this point, they are both running for VP. Bottom line… we are screwed. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      Yep, screwed again.


    • Jeannine Daigneault says:

      I am not a religious nut, just the plain garden-variety nut, but given Carson’s response to the Muslim in the Cabinet question, I trust he would uphold the Constitution first and foremost. I still like Carly, but Troy thinks she’s too snarly…Snarly Carly he calls her.

      • Notice carefully why he said a Muslim wasn’t qualified. Not because their culture was alien to ours, or that Sharia law conflicted with the Constitution; but because the POTUS must adhere to and conform with ‘Judeo Christian Values.’ Personally, I would pick a candidate in spite of his religious beliefs, not because of them, and I’d as soon have a devout Buddhist with a live and let live attitude, as Huckabee or Carson and their ilk. â—„Daveâ–º

    • My interest in Trump all along has been his potential for being a new Perot, to effectively destroy the Republican wing of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. I reckoned that he had the money to start a new TEA Party, modeled somewhat after United We Stand, after the Republicans drove him out of their party’s primary. As I see it, the only hope for American politics is to break-up the stranglehold the duopoly has on it. I would support the devil himself if he could accomplish that. When Trump signed the agreement to support whoever won the Republican Primary, that pretty much ended any such dream on my part.

      Wait… My dream may not be dead after all! â—„Daveâ–º

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Hey All….well, I guess Dave and I are on the same page here. The religious righteous, including Carson, have no regard for the Constitution and would do whatever they can to turn government into a tool for forcing their view of religious values on the rest of us. Snarly Carly might be just what we need. I would love to see a debate between she and Clinton. Paul might just be able to pull back the military budget a bit, if that is possible any longer.

    Overall, it is very difficult to see how any can really do much in the face of the big money interests controlling the system.

    Perhaps we can agree that the system may just work the way the founders intended….inefficient, difficult to pass legislation, constant fighting and bickering. Maybe we need to give the states back their power to deal with issues of primary import with limited federal functions related primarily to national defense.

    • Troy says:

      Welcome back Mr. Andrews!

      This has become our best exchanges in years. I only hope we can find more topics that spark as much interest and exchange.

      BTW, I am not anti Carly. In fact, I rather like the fact that she is so well prepared, informed and articulate. I simply wish she could practice getting across her message “sans-snarl”. I might even support her if she had a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

      As Dave noted, I also suggested some months ago that Carly is actually running for the VP slot — and, she may well get it. But, that will make no difference (to me) if the number 1 spot is occupied by a BAU candidate.


    • Our founders never envisioned a two-party system with the concept of caucuses, where members agreed to vote the party line established behind closed doors, Larry. They despised the very notion of political parties, which they termed ‘factions.’

      We shouldn’t have to ‘give back’ States power. They need to simply reclaim it, and tell the Feds to get the Hell out of their way.

      As for ‘national defense,’ I am increasingly fed up with that concept too. I have lost interest in defending (or feeding, for that matter) the idiots residing in the ghettos of large cities in blue States. When the Jihadi religious nuts get to my little town, I’ll be on the ramparts with my neighbors; but let the perverted and voluntarily disarmed fools in NYC and DC et al defend themselves. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    Trump is not and never was a serious candidate. Heck why would he want the job? He already has his own Air Force one. Trump is there to jam a thumb in one guys eye and it has worked beautifully. Jeb can’t get an ounce of traction with Trump and Carson in there. If it weren’t for them he would be polling as at least a solid contender. Figure out what the Bush clan did to Trump and your answer is clear. They are the only ones in the race with enough juice to get under Trumps skin or in his wallet. On the same note look at the one candidate that Trump doesn’t rip apart on his way down and you will have your nominee.

    Of note we haven’t met the democrat nominee yet. Something is going to break and turn it into a whole new ball game. The progressives think they have won the day and they won’t leave their progress to chance on someone as shaky as Hillary.

    • Troy says:

      Yet, Trump’s poll numbers continue to rise, especially now that info from Paris suggests that at least some of the attackers there may have been “refugees” from the Syrian fiasco.

      Clearly, a majority of us wants the immigration flood (the “invasion”) to stop. At a minimum, it is destroying our culture while draining us financially. At the extreme end, it lays out the welcome mat for those who would annihilate us. How can any candidate claiming to have the ability to stop this madness not get attention and approval?

      What you suggest about a tiff with the shrubbery clan may well be true. However, it is possible that Trump actually does want to be elected simply to stoke his enormous ego — which making more $$ can’t really do.

      It is becoming apparent (to me) that the “establishment” are settling on Rubio as their best chance to continue their choke-hold over the GOP. Am I correct that Trump’s attacks largely spare Rubio as well?


      • Agreed. I doubt that Trump’s ego is in this to deliberately lose, just to be a bushwhacker. It may have been a bit of a lark in the beginning; but his early and sustained success in the polls has him hooked. I suspect he now intends to win.

        Trump called Rubio a clown in a speech to a conservative crowd, and Rubio has been rather dismissive of Trump as well. I believe it is Trump and Cruz who have studiously avoided trashing each other, and have occasionally actually said kind things about the other. Cruz may have hoped to get Trumps supporters once he flamed out; but at this point if the trend continues, he might be lucky to be selected as his VP. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        You know before the Paris thing it seemed he was starting to engineer the decline and he actually did start to drop in the polls. Now he’s back up. I’m still confident he won’t be the nominee but if he is what the hell. It won’t be Bush, Christie, or Kachik. LOL and certainly not Graham. Any one of the rest would be a far superior choice than the Chappaqua hag.

    • I don’t know, Chris. I saw somewhere recently that she already has enough committed ‘super delegates’ to insure her nomination. I always wondered why O’Malley or Webb were never regarded as serious candidates by the press and punditry. It looks like the fix was always already in. It would probably take an actual indictment to stop her now.

      Therefore, the R’s had better choose Trump or Carly (or both!), because neither would hesitate to say and do what it would take to defeat her. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        I don’t know Dave. Somebody with some juice doesn’t like her either or at least thinks she’s too vulnerable in the general which I most certainly can’t argue with. If Hillary doesn’t lose there’s no sense ever having another election. The progressives own the country.

  • Chris says:

    This has been a good thread and it shouldn’t die here. You guys have caused me to take a closer look at Trump over the past few days. I watched a few of his speeches and may have to rethink my position on his legitimacy as a candidate. You know the guy really connects to his audience. Not unlike Reagan but in a different way. Even if you want to say it’s his ego that’s causing him to run how many candidates are there that aren’t stroking their own ego. It takes a pretty big ego just to think yourself qualified for the job. What may have started out as Trump wanting to make noise may be surprising even him with the success. I’m going to watch closely. He could well be the real deal.

    One thing I’m curious about and folks here may be able to help me out. Rand Paul’s numbers are pretty much in the tank. (>1%) I would expect him to be polling better with libertarian support alone. Is Trump actually sucking the air out of the room on Paul or is there another factor such as the libertarian base evaporating or going for another beside Trump? Who that would be I can’t imagine.

    • Troy says:

      IMHO, Rand damaged his own candidacy, especially in the debates. Instead of calmly articulating his Libertarian philosophy and explaining its rationale, he came after other candidates like a petulant teenager. This left him looking like little better than a hothead without the demeanor to be president. It is a shame (for me) because he was my favorite going in.


      • Agreed. That and he wanted the job too much to actually stick to libertarian principles, which turned off all those inclined to libertarian orthodoxy. He seems more inclined to try to fix big government’s ills, than actually diminish it. He is not his father… â—„Daveâ–º

  • brauneyz says:

    Hey, are we getting the band back together here or what? 🙂

    Might be fun to discuss how our POV has diverged over the years, so I’ll go first.

    As a pro choice, pro gay marriage, libertarian atheist I fell for Ted Cruz years ago and have not swayed. (Wait! What did she just say?) Just now finishing up his book “Time for Truth” and there is no doubt he is the only candidate I am actually excited about. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say I will most likely pass on yet another election if he is not the candidate. He’s the real deal IMO.

    *Do not trust Trump as far as I can spit, tho I do appreciate that he is causing so much consternation about the GOPe!
    *Rubio = amnesty. ‘Nuff said!
    *Carson – um, just no. Not ready for prime time, or anywhere else.
    *Rand Paul lost me when he started sucking up to Mitch the Bitch in KY. Too bad, cuz he’s the most libertarianish of the bunch. Stay in the Senate, Rand, and do more good there.
    *I like Carly, but she just doesn’t stand a chance. Perhaps for VP.
    *Everyone else needs to just go away. Starting with !Jeb!

    Welcome back y’all. (Well, you know what I mean. :))

    • Great to hear from you, Mary. How have you been? How is scruffy? Still traveling? I like the idea of getting the band back together; let’s do it. 🙂

      I am still pro choice and anti marriage; but if the government insists on involving itself in this essentially religious rite, I am ambivalent about ‘gay marriage.’ If they are foolish enough to desire a government license to cohabit with their lovers, and the government continues to offer tax (and other) benefits to all those who do so, then go for it. It is certainly of no consequence to me here in my hermitage. 🙂

      Of course, I too remain a libertarian atheist; but I fail to see how our basic political principles translates into enduring love for Ted Cruz. I appreciate his brilliance, debating ability, and basic legal stance on the Constitution, as well as his willingness to regularly stick it to the GOP establishment in the Senate; but he panders too much to the religious right for my taste.

      I have not really delved too deeply into his positions, because he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and is thus patently ineligible for the office of POTUS. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father, and only has a Canadian birth certificate. Thus, I could never vote for him, no matter how well qualified he might be. He too should remain in the Senate and battle with Rand for Mitch’s job.

      I concur with the rest of your assessment of the field, ultimately including your mistrust of Trump. I have stated above my interest in him, which basically equates to your cheering on his effect on the GOPe. Only, I want to destroy them, not just cause them discomfort and consternation. 🙂

      Yes, welcome back all, and thanks Chris for keeping this thread alive long enough to get Mary’s attention. I’ll admit that I have missed her. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        My pleasure Dave. You have no idea how difficult it is to find intelligent conversation these days.
        I understand your NBC status position on Cruz. Thing is for me that ship has sailed and is already docked in another port. He is in my mind exactly the administration we need for these times so I won’t let that stop me. As far as the “social issues” go he has to take that stand. With all that’s happening it’s going to be so low on his to do list he won’t waste any political capital on it. He knows the must win battles and will pick them well.

    • Chris says:

      I personally can’t argue a single point with you Mary. I’m a Cruz guy myself and believe somehow he will win the nomination. He’s the most qualified to get done what needs to be done.

      • brauneyz says:

        Nice to make your acquaintance, Chris. Dave, Larry, Troy and I have some history so are pretty well versed on the above topics. I look forward to getting to know yours better.

        In short, despite my bio above, I am not a single issue voter. Or perhaps I am, if one includes adherence above all to the Constitution. Short of another candidate of either stripe upping Obama on abuses of Executive Orders, I am comfortable trusting Cruz to be guided by the Big C, as always. The fact that he and I disagree on 100% of social issues concerns me not at all.

        I’ve always maintained that I can handle anything as long as I see it coming. I see no disappointing surprises with Cruz, but I cannot say that about any others. (Of course, it’s early still…Ted may break my heart yet!)

        Nor am I interested in diving into a birther argument. Ted is smarter than I am. Ted says he’s eligible to be POTUS. QED.

        This might be fun!

        • Chris says:

          Great to meet you too Mary. I have a pretty good idea of these fine gentlemen’s positions. Particularly Dave. He spent a lot of time in my sand box. We agree much more than not and enjoy agreeing to disagree when not.

          I’m a bit of the odd man out as I am pro life and pro traditional marriage. That said I don’t use biblical verse to justify my positions. It’s just my opinion and as such carries that much weight in my political decisions and if I weren’t forced to finance it or tolerate it being shoved down my grand kids throats by activists I would care little. In other words there are much bigger fish to fry.

          Anyway that’s me through a very wide lens. Again great to meet you.
          GO CRUZ! 🙂

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Hi Mary…I have been aware for a while of your interest in and support for Cruz. Your post answers my question as to how that is possible given your atheist beliefs. Somehow that I cannot understand you seem to have been able to separate out your views on social issues and religion to identify Cruz as a defender of the constitution despite his overt pandering to the religious right.

    I decided long ago that Cruz was simply too arrogant for my taste. Reminds me too much of all the ego driven politicians I have met in my life. If one considers his views on how religious values should drive policy I also cannot accept that he is a defender of the Constitution but, rather, is on a par with Huckabee in his willingness to force the population to accept his religious values as the law of the land.

    Not to worry tho, he has the same chance as anowball in his version of hell.

    The primary process seems to force candidates to pander to the religious right. There may be some candidates that will not implement such views despite the demands of their supporters but, as mentioned by others, those do not have much chance either. So…I’m probably also going to sit this one out. Last time I went with the Libertarian and might have supported Paul if he made the cut. Now, he may not even win the contest for his senate seat.

    • Well said, Larry, and good call on the arrogance of Cruz. One must consider the source, of course; but there are some really cautionary tales in this NY Times piece:

      My lol favorite was:

      Another Bush 2000 alumnus said to me: “Why do people take such an instant dislike to Ted Cruz? It just saves time.”

      I also recall reading somewhere recently how GW Bush, whom he used to work for, said out loud at a fundraiser that he really disliked him, apparently on a personal visceral level.

      Caveat Emptor! 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Larry Andrew says:

        Thanks for the Times reference, Dave….His views match mine. My immediate reaction to Cruz does save time. Tho the Times op-ed writer said what I want to hear he also received an instant dislike from me for his use of the term “solipsist”. I had to look it up.

      • Chris says:

        LOL Dave you do realize that when GWB said that his brother was thought to be a serious contender in a primary election against Cruz. Just say’in.

        • Understood, Chris. I was under the impression all of the candidates were being discussed by the group, including those like Trump and Carson, who were way ahead of Jeb. Yet, it was only Cruz, who I think Jeb was actually ahead of at the time,that GWB reacted to forcefully and viscerally.

          BTW: speaking of initials, did you know JEB is actually the initials of John Ellis Bush? I have known quite a few guys who went by their (2)initials; but I guess it takes a proper patrician to need at least three. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

  • brauneyz says:

    Everyone hates him so you should too? What is this? High School?

    Personally, I don’t find his ‘arrogance’ offputting at all. Anyone running for prez is confidant (on steroids!) bordering on egomaniacal and narcissistic. One would have to be in today’s climate. While I would certainly pull the lever for Carly if that were the only choice against the Hildabeast, I find her far more arrogant and grating of personality.

    I do think the media’s portrayal of him as difficult to work with has both sides eager to condemn him, which will hinder him going forward. Too bad, because it is his scrappy ‘arrogance’ that has brought the abundance of conservative voters back into the fold. (More of a successful fighter than Trump, with deeds over words.) It’s never been his ability to work and play well with others, it’s telling the truth about the despicable behind-the-scenes machinations of Wash, D.C. that makes Cruz attractive.

    Hoping that his intelligence and focus don’t render him invisible to the masses. Too many looking for ideological perfection stayed home in ’12 and we wound up with Obummer again. I find it beyond baffling that one would make that choice against HRC. THAT scares me witless!

    • It really shouldn’t be so baffling, Mary. The lessor of two evils is still evil, and regardless of who wins the ‘bread & circuses’ POTUS contest, the entrenched bureaucracy always wins the election. Since Cruz is ineligible for the office, it is a moot point; but even if he were and won, not much would really change in D.C., because of the Civil Service statutes. We need a return to the spoils system, so that after a change election, ALL the rascals get thrown out! â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        Very valid point Dave. The establishment bureaucrats. The hidden machine probably more devastating than elected officials. The ones that don’t change with an election because they aren’t elected. Thing is by down sizing the machine as Cruz proposes to do, and I think Trump will as well, (someone like him will see that system as a crime against humanity) a lot of them will go. Most likely the cocktail party crew at the top. One can only hope.

        • Agreed. I can remember when Congressmen got paid $35K a year and just free postage was considered a big perk. Then, civil servants made less than similar jobs in the private sector; but they had a good benefit package. Then, a whole movement to raise the pay and benefits for both these classes of Federal employees, in order to attract ‘professionals’ to these jobs, came along. Big mistake. When one thinks about it, the last thing we need is professional politicians and professional bureaucrats. They should both be temporary volunteers with just a stipend for income while serving, and no retirement benefits. The value to their resume for a job after serving, would be reason enough to attract plenty of volunteers for these temporary government jobs. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

  • I just enjoyed rereading this post, and all our thoughtful discussions in its comment section. You might too… 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

  • My My how things change … lol

    Now we know “the wrecking ball” is toe to toe with “the criminal”.

    We all realize just how down the tubes our government is for allowing “the criminal” to remain in the race.

    The American voter was wise enough to cull the next “NBC fraud” … in spite of those who CLAIM TO LOVE THE CONSTITUTION … but would support another “ineligible” anyway.


    Is there a bright side to any of this?
    Like perhaps when Trump wins he appoints SCOTUS judges that actually follow “the Constitution” TO THE LETTER.
    Sets up a DOJ who will investigate, try and jail, set up a firing squad for traitors to this country.

    Concept of The Wall and Mexico paying for it is child’s play for anyone with 2 functioning brain cells.
    As is getting rid of illegals.
    Crack down on who hires illegals and no job, no assistance and no education … it is called self-deport.

    As far as state rights?
    It is up to the people to have enough and TAKE BACK what they so freely gave up … THEIR RIGHT to tell the government to GET OUT OF OUR HOUSE.

    CA needs to start by booting “Moonbeam” out of office … he is better suited for TESTING THOSE COW FARTS that worry him so much. 😉

    • CA needs to start by booting “Moonbeam” out of office … he is better suited for TESTING THOSE COW FARTS that worry him so much. 😉

      LOL… it is a messy job:

      Bovine Preg Check

      …but they do make elongated exam gloves, and somebody has to do it. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links