Sunday, August 30, 2015

Fake Conservative PAC, Conservative Strike Force, caught fundraising using a candidate's name without permission. Group made millions begging 'patriots' to help beat liberals and was headed by former Reagan admin. official and longtime RNC and ACU exec

5/26/15, "Cuccinelli Wins Court Victory over PAC that Raised Money Off His Name," Breitbart, M.P. Leahy

"Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the 2013 Republican nominee for governor, is celebrating a court victory over a PAC that raised money using his name without his permission.

In a signed settlement dated May 20th, the Conservative Strike Force PAC (CSF) has agreed to pay the Cuccinelli campaign $85,000 and turn over ownership of its mail and email donor list
Cuccinelli lost the race for governor of Virginia to Democrat Terry McAuliffe 48 percent to 46 percent in November 2013.

In a complaint filed in Federal Court in September, Cuccinelli’s attorneys argued that: “Over a period of several months leading up to the Virginia gubernatorial election on November 5, 2013, the Defendants in this case engaged in a national fundraising scam aimed at small donors supportive of Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign.

According to the complaint, In this scheme, Defendants explicitly promised donors that all money donated in response to Defendants’ solicitations would either be contributed by Defendants directly to the Cuccinelli campaign or spent by Defendants as independent expenditures in support of the Cuccinelli campaign.

“Upon information and belief,” the complaint continued, “a substantial proportion of the approximately $2.2 million that Defendants raised through political fundraising in 2013 was directly attributable to solicitations invoking Ken Cuccinelli, as Virginia’s gubernatorial election was the marquee contested race of American politics in 2013.”

In an exclusive interview, Cuccinelli tells Breitbart News he never authorized Conservative Strike Force to use his name in the solicitation of donations.

“They raised $430,000 [from July to November of 2013] … from many email messages, 300 pages of which we got in discovery, in which they were very explicit, including saying that all of your donations will go for Ken Cuccinelli,” Cuccinelli tells Breitbart News.

Cuccinelli notes that the CSF ultimately donated $10,000 to the his campaign, but “the only reason that $10,000 got to that one of their email solicitations was sent to one of our donors who recognized the name of the defendant who signed the solicitation, that donor then called up the defendant directly and asked that CSF contribute to a fundraiser for my campaign.”

“After election day they sent an email out to their donor list, saying CSF donated over $15,000 to Ken, did all these things for his campaign, just preening for their donors. None of it was true,” Cuccinelli says.

We were nothing but a vehicle for them,” Cuccinelli says. “They tricked some people who thought they were donating to me.

Initially, Cuccinelli tells Breitbart News, his team approached the CSF and asked them to open their books. They refused to do so.

That’s when, in September 2014, the Cuccinelli campaign filed a lawsuit against the CSF and key members of its management team, alleging false advertising and violations of the Lanham Act, a federal statute, as well as the Virginia False Advertising Statute.

“Defendants, however, have admitted that they did not use the money raised invoking Ken Cuccinelli to actually aid the Cuccinelli campaign, either through direct contributions to the campaign or through independent expenditures in support of the campaign, other than a single $10,000 contribution to the campaign on October 4, 2013—which amounted to less than one-half of 1% of the approximately $2.2 million that Defendants raised in 2013,” the complaint alleged.

“Instead,” the complaint continued, “Defendants used the balance of the money so raised to enrich themselves. In short, Defendants’ political fundraising in 2013 invoking Ken Cuccinelli was not a means to the legitimate end of supporting the Cuccinelli campaign, but rather was an illegitimate end in itself, with the Virginia gubernatorial election merely serving as ‘cover’ for Defendants to prey on unsuspecting small donors across the country.”

In the complaint, Cuccinelli presented a copy of an email sent out by CSF on July 30, 2013:

Dear Patriot,
Conservative superstar Ken Cuccinelli is in real trouble in his race to be Virginia’s governor.
Money is pouring into his opponent, Terry McAuliffe’s campaign at an unbelievable pace. He just unleashed a new negative ad against Ken. This conservative hero needs your help NOW!
Please make an urgent contribution of $25, $30, $50, $100, $250, or more to help elect Ken Cuccinelli.
* * *
Please, please help Ken by making the most generous contribution you possibly can today. This is urgent.
* * *
Without the help of independent conservative groups like Conservative StrikeForce, Ken Cuccinelli could be outspent by over two to one by McAuliffe!
* * *
McAuliffe and his liberal allies have more money for hate ads than they know what to do with.
That’s why I am begging vou to please make vour very best donation to Conservative Strike Force to help elect Ken Cuccinelli today.
We  MUST  come to Ken’s aid if he’s going to stand a chance in this race. He’s already falling behind, and we have to help him get back in the fight before it’s too late.
Ken has no chance without the help of independent grassroots conservative groups.  NONE.
We must pay for phone banks, get-out-the-vote programs, mailings, rallies – whatever it takes.
Please donate whatever vou can right now. Ken Cuccinelli needs vou!
But CSF failed to deliver any of the promised support to the Cuccinelli campaign.

“Contrary to the representation contained in the 7/30 email, Conservative StrikeForce [CSF] never paid for any ‘phone banks, get-out-the-vote programs, mailings, [or] rallies’ to support the Cuccinelli campaign,” the complaint read.

In addition to CSF, “an unincorporated association operated and controlled by Defendant Strategic Campaign Group,” according to the complaint, Dennis Whitfield, chairman of CSF, and Scott Mackenzie, treasurer of CSF, were named as individual defendants in the law suit. Two additional individuals associated with CSF, Kelley Rogers and Chip O’Neil, were also named as defendants.

According to its website, CSF was created in 2009 by a small group of devoted conservatives who wanted a way to effectively support candidates by motivating like-minded voters at the grassroots level.

The chairman of CSF, Dennis Whitfield, has a respectable conservative pedigree."...

[Ed. note: Not so-a "respectable conservative pedigree" is by no means suggested by Whitfield's executive positions at Norquist's ACU, Bush's RNC, nor his tenure as a Reagan administration official. Reagan beat the Establishment to win the nomination but immediately nullified his victory by naming George Bush his VP.] 
(continuing): "According to the website, “Mr. Whitfield served as the executive vice-president of the American Conservative Union from 2008-2011. Before ACU, he served as the senior vice president for the National Federation of Independent Business from 1998-2002. Prior to NFIB, Mr. Whitfield was the former deputy secretary of labor under President Ronald Reagan from 1985-1989.

The website also states that “Conservative StrikeForce [CSF] is advised on compliance matters by the leading authority on election law matters, E. Mark Braden of the law firm of Baker Hostetler.”

Baker Hostetler is a high powered Washington, D.C. based law firm co-founded in 1916 by Newton D. Baker, who soon after the firm’s founding took a leave of absence to become Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of War during World War I. Its representation of CSF in the settlement agreement with the Cuccinelli campaign was handled by Elizabeth A. Scully, a partner based in the Washington, D.C. office.

With this settlement CSF is, in effect, out of business.

Breitbart News attempted to reach Dennis Whitfield, chairman of CSF, for comment, but has not yet received a response." via Lucianne


"Who is Conservative StrikeForce?"

"Conservative StrikeForce is a federal political action committee (PAC) that operates under the strict guidelines of the Federal Election Commission.

Our Chairman is Dennis Whitfield. Prior to joining Conservative StrikeForce, Mr. Whitfield served as the executive vice-president of the American Conservative Union from 2008-2011. Before ACU, he served as the senior vice president for the National Federation of Independent Business from 1998-2002. Prior to NFIB, Mr. Whitfield was the former deputy secretary of labor under President Ronald Reagan from 1985-1989.

Conservative StrikeForce is advised on compliance matters by the leading authority on election law matters, E. Mark Braden of the law firm of Baker Hostetler.

Scott MacKenzie operates as an independent treasurer for Conservative StrikeForce as an outside consultant.  All monies are processed and handled by outside, independent processing firms under the direction of Mr. MacKenzie.

Conservative StrikeForce exists to provide assistance to conservative candidates across the country running primarily in federal races.  However, on occasion when federal and state law allows Conservative StrikeForce does support candidates running in state races such as Governor.

Conservative Strike Force relies on the voluntary contributions of conservatives across America.  The vast majority of StrikeForce’s contributions average less than $50.00 and are solicited through direct mail, the internet, telephones and our website.

The long term goal of Conservative StrikeForce is to build a nationwide donor file of 500,000 grassroots donors by the year 2016 to be able to impact the presidential and congressional campaigns.  In the short term, Conservative StrikeForce is focused on electing six conservative Senators in 2014 and removing Harry Reid as Majority Leader of the Senate.

StrikeForce assists our endorsed candidates in three ways. First, we make significant direct cash contributions to our endorsed candidate’s general election fund in October of the election year.  Second, we make independent expenditures on behalf of our endorsed candidates in the weeks prior to the general election.  Third, we encourage our supporters to get directly involved in our endorsed campaigns by directly contributing or volunteering to help in some grassroots capacity.

Conservative StrikeForce provides an opportunity for conservative grassroots donors to collectively contribute to an organization so their dollars can be combined and used to benefit conservatives in campaigns of national concern."

Image of CSF logo from its website

Chairman of now defunct Conservative Strike Force:

"Dennis E. Whitfield

Born: c. 1950
Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Activist, Government
Party Affiliation: Republican
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: American Conservative Union
Wife: Linda
    University: BA Journalism, University of Georgia (1972)
    American Conservative Union Executive Vice President
    Member of the Board of Direct Impact Chairman
    Member of the Board of BKSH & Associates
    National Federation of Independent Business Senior Vice President (1998-2003)
    The Brock Group Managing Partner (1989)
    US Labor Department Deputy Secretary of Labor
    US Official Chief of Staff for the United States Trade Representative
    Commitment '80 National Director
    US Agriculture Department Special Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture (1976-77)
    Republican National Committee National Political Director
    Republican National Committee Director of Education and Training
    Republican National Committee
Regional Political Director, Southeastern U.S.
    Bush-Cheney '04
    Friends of Katherine Harris
    George W. Bush for President
    National Association of Republican Campaign Professionals Board of Directors" 


Saturday, August 29, 2015

Trump tops Iowa poll by Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics with 23%. Favorability rating rises to 61%, poll dates Aug. 23-26, 2015 (Sun-Wed), likely Iowa Republican caucusgoers

Poll dates Aug. 23-26, 2015. Trump 23, Carson 18, Cruz 8, Walker 8, Bush 6, Rubio 6

8/29/15, "Iowa Poll: Trump blazes to lead; Carson quietly rises," Des Moines Register, Jennifer Jacobs

"A new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll finds that Trump, the flamboyant real estate entrepreneur, has 23 percent support here. But Ben Carson, a soft-spoken retired neurosurgeon, has been a submarine, quietly cruising into second with 18 percent, just 5 percentage points from the front-runner....

All the other candidates are grinding away in the single digits, in this order: Ted Cruz and Scott Walker (both 8 percent), Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio (both 6 percent), Carly Fiorina (5 percent), and Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul (both 4 percent).

"Wow," said Kedron Bardwell, a political science professor at Simpson College. "This poll will have Republican consultants shaking heads in bewilderment. Not since 1992 has anti-establishment sentiment been this strong."

Bringing up the rear are Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and John Kasich (all with 2 percent); Rick Perry and Rick Santorum (both 1 percent); and Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki (all with less than 1 percent)....

Candidates who are political outsiders don't seem to be just a summer fling, as some analysts had predicted, but a budding long-term relationship five months out from the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses....

They're not just mad at Democrats: Three-fourths are frustrated with Republicans in Congress, with 54 percent unsatisfied and 21 percent mad as hell.

Electing a nonpolitician is "becoming more important as I realize that the Republicans in Washington are no different than the Democrats," said retired engineer Craig Wiegel, 63, of Bettendorf, who participated in the Iowa Poll in May. "They tell you one thing until they're voted in, and then just go along with the Democrats."...

The Iowa Poll of 400 likely Republican caucusgoers was conducted Aug. 23-26 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points....

Carson beats Trump with Christian conservatives (23 percent to 16 percent) and also with women (20 percent to 16 percent).

Melanie Hobbs, 45, of Sioux City, a stay-at-home mother who home-schools her seven kids, names Carson as her first choice because he's "totally against abortion, and that's one of our biggest issues."

Hobbs also thinks Carson aligns with her thinking on immigration.

"We need to build a fence. We need to stop the influx of illegals," she said....

Trump now viewed favorably by most

In the last Iowa Poll, in May, Trump had the highest unfavorable rating of all the Republicans, back when he was tied for ninth place with 4 percent. Trump has almost completely reversed his rating. Then, 27 percent had positive feelings about him and 63 percent negative. Now, it's 61 percent positive, 35 percent negative.

"People asked if he could right the ship of his upside-down favorable scores. The answer is: Yes, hell yes," said J. Ann Selzer, the pollster for the Register/Bloomberg Iowa Poll.

Poll respondents might not know many specifics about Trump's positions, but they don't really care. The majority of likely Republican caucusgoers say they're willing to put trust in their top candidate to figure out the issues once in office (57 percent).

Among Trump supporters, the feeling is even more widespread (65 percent).

Like Democrats in 2007 who looked for their savior in Barack Obama, Republicans in 2015 seem to be looking for their savior in Trump.

Scott Walker, governor of neighboring Wisconsin, led in two Iowa Polls earlier this year, in January and May. In July, Trump came to Iowa to ask Republicans to toss Walker off the first-place perch, and they complied. "He's got that Type A personality to go out and get what he wants and not back down," said Trump supporter Garrison Reekers, 43, a deputy sheriff from Belle Plaine who considers himself a business-oriented establishment Republican. "There's too much money in politics, and Trump can afford to take care of himself, and then he doesn't have to put on somebody else's agenda."

Large swaths of likely caucusgoers from both parties share Reekers' frustration with the amount of money in politics. Forty percent of Republicans are mad as hell about it, and 61 percent of Democrats, their highest number in that category.

Respondents keeping their options open

The poll is bad news for Walker, who is collapsing in his firewall state, shedding half the support he had in May.

 "I don't think he's dynamic enough at this point," said Christian conservative respondent Julie Roe, 47, of Eldora, who works in ag marketing.

Roe likes Huckabee and Cruz, and says she would never caucus for Bush, because "all he wants to do is make government bigger" and he has "no concept of how the real world lives" because he "has never lived anything close to a middle class life."

She also said she detests political dynasties.

Bush continues to struggle in Iowa. Only 45 percent of likely caucusgoers have favorable feelings about him; 50 percent view him negatively. Bush has yet to spend a dime on TV advertising here, but his super PAC launches ads in September, hoping to use its financial advantage to tell the story of Bush's conservative record to a larger audience.

Politics watchers also might be surprised to see Huckabee and Fiorina so far back. He's a previous winner of the Iowa caucuses, in 2008, and she's hot on the national scene after a widely praised national debate performance a month ago....

Ten percent of likely GOP caucusgoers are uncommitted or not sure of their first choice. Every voter quoted in this article is keeping an open mind, expressing willingness to swap to a different first-choice candidate....

Poll respondent Barbara Olson, 63, of Burlington says Trump is now her first choice because of what he has said about stopping illegal immigration and repealing Obamacare, and because he's "a very good, savvy businessman.""...
"About the poll"

"The Iowa Poll, conducted August 23-26 for The Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 400 registered Iowa voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Republican caucuses and 404 registered voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Democratic caucuses.

Interviewers with Quantel Research contacted 2,975 randomly selected active voters from the Iowa secretary of state's voter registration list by telephone. Responses were adjusted by age, sex and congressional district to reflect all active voters in the voter registration list. Interviews were administered in English.

Questions based on the subsamples of 404 likely Democratic caucus attendees or 400 likely Republican caucus attendees each have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the percentages shown here by more than plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error."



Elites are most terrified of Trump's embrace of American nationalism. He offers Americans the chance to be unbound from an unelected 'international community' of rulers-Julius Krein

"What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community”."

9/7/15, "Traitor to His Class," Julius Krein, Weekly Standard

"Nothing is more terrifying to the elite than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism." 
"It would seem to be the duty of every American pundit today to explain the inexplicable and problematic rise of Donald Trump. The critical question, however, is not the source of Trump’s popularity but rather the reason his popularity is so shocking to our political culture. Perhaps Trump’s candidacy threatens a larger consensus that governs our political and social life, and perhaps his popularity signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion.

Why is Donald Trump so popular? Explanations range from mere celebrity, to his adoption of extreme positions to capture the most ideologically intense voters, to his explosive rhetoric. These explanations are not entirely wrong, but neither are they entirely right.

To begin with, his positions, as Josh Barro has written in the New York Times, are rather moderate. As Barro points out, Trump is willing to contemplate tax increases to achieve spending cuts. He supports some exceptions to abortion bans and has gone so far as to defend funding Planned Parenthood. He has called for protective tariffs, a position heretical for Republicans, who are typically free traders. Although opposed to Obamacare, he has asserted that single-payer health care works in other countries. Even on the issue of immigration, despite his frequently strident rhetoric, his positions are neither unique—securing the border with some kind of wall is a fairly standard Republican plank by now—nor especially rigid. 

With respect to his rhetoric, whether one characterizes his delivery as candid or rude, it is hard to ascribe his popularity to colorful invective alone. Chris Christie, who never misses an opportunity to harangue an opponent, languishes near the bottom of the polls. Or ask Rick Santorum, as well as Mitt “47 percent” Romney, whether outrageous comments offer an infallible way to win friends and influence voters. Trump’s outré style, like his celebrity, helps him gain attention but just as certainly fails to explain his frontrunner status.

Most candidates seek to define themselves by their policies and platforms. What differentiates Trump is not what he says, or how he says it, but why he says it. The unifying thread running through his seemingly incoherent policies, what defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests. 

What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community” and permission to wish to see that interest triumph. What makes him popular on immigration is not how extreme his policies are, but the emphasis he puts on the interests of Americans rather than everyone else. His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense. 

His least practical suggestion—making Mexico pay for the border wall—is precisely the most significant: It shows that a President Trump would be willing to take something from someone else in order to give it to the American people. Whether he could achieve this is of secondary importance; the fact that he is willing to say it is everything. Nothing is more terrifying to the business and donor class—as well as the media and the entire elite—than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism. The fact that Trump should by all rights be a member of this class and is in fact a traitor to it makes him all the more attractive to his supporters and all the more baffling to pundits....

(p. 2) Conservative pundits have complained for years about the base and its desire for “ideological purity.” Trump shows that what is most in demand, however, is not ideological purity but patriotic zeal. Only a fool would believe that the fate of the Export-Import Bank could motivate millions of voters. It is not a minor and complicated organ of trade promotion that motivates but whether the ruling elite is seen to care more about actual national interests or campaign dollars and textbook abstractions like free trade. 

Trump’s critics misunderstand his political appeal just as they fail to comprehend his business appeal. Indeed, Trump is almost certainly not as rich as he claims he is, nor is his record as glittering as others’, nor is his a rags-to-riches story....For Trump, business is about winning and losing, and for real human beings, that’s what gives it life....

“Serious politics” is believed to be the politics of rational beings on the path to perpetual peace—not men, and certainly not Americans, with real interests that sometimes conflict with those of other nations. Questions of basic policy, if not argued from some victim narrative, are inevitably situated in arcane disputes over economic theory. The words victory and defeat have been banished from our discourse. “Serious politics” is now confined to detached rationality. 

Trump, however, is eros and thumos incarnate, and his very candidacy represents the suggestion that these human qualities should have a role in our political life beyond quivering sentimentalism. Trump alone appears to understand that politics is more than policy and ideology. Beneath the bluster, he offers an image of Machiavellian virtù long absent from American politics.

Nothing in our politics seems worthy of being taken seriously anymore. The White House takes to Twitter with Straight Outta Compton memes about the Iran deal....This is precisely the precondition for Trump’s popularity, and his unapologetic mockery of more conventional forms of political theater makes him in some ways the most serious candidate in the race."

"Julius Krein is a writer in Boston."


Added: Related themes by Dr. Angelo Codevilla: 

2/20/13, "As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned," Angelo Codevilla, Forbes
"Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old."...  


"The debate is over."...

10/20/2011, "The Lost Decade," Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Institute (2001-2011)

"Rule by Experts" (subhead, scroll down)

"Decision-making by "experts" rather than by people and procedures responsible to the American people has always been American progressives' prescription for American life. During the past decade, the pretense that America was at war has given this practice a major boost. For example, official and semi-official panels of experts from government, business, and the academy generated "studies" on the energy and health-care sectors of the economy. Based on these, the government promulgated regulations and presented Congress with demands that it approve massive legislation to "stop global warming" and to "establish universal medical care." These government-business-academic experts, i.e. this ruling class, presented their plans as demands because, they shouted, 

"the debate is over,"

and opponents are not qualified to oppose. Regardless of these demands' merits, such claims to authority are based strictly on the proponents' credentials. My point, however, is that these credentials are based largely on the government endowing these proponents with positions and money. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, such expertise is a circular function of government power.
The event for which the decade is most likely to be remembered, namely the "great recession," was a similar phenomenon. When the financial bubble in mortgage-backed securities burst in 2008, the leaders of both parties, and pundits from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, assured Congress authoritatively that appropriating some $800 billion for the Treasury to buy up "toxic assets" would fix the problem. Three out of four Americans dissented, in part because of widespread recognition that the U.S. government's increase in expenditures from $1.86 trillion in 2001 to $2.9 trillion in 2008, due in part to the war, was unsustainable. Yet Congress bowed to "expert" opinion. But the markets tanked, the fix did not work, and the economic collapse gathered momentum. The subsequent Democratic administration increased spending even more radically, to $3.7 trillion, roughly doubling federal expenses in a decade, and pushed the national debt over $14 trillion—almost equal to America's GDP. By 2011, 40 cents out of every federal dollar spent had to be borrowed. .

As a prescription for salvation, the very same spectrum of experts that had certified the efficacy of bailing out big banks emphasized to Congress that the country needed to borrow more money and pay more taxes. Three fourths of Americans wanted neither to borrow more nor to pay more. The experts labeled them "irresponsible" and even "terrorists."

The markets tanked again, and the great recession got a second wind. The 2010 census reported that in 2009 the inflation-adjusted median family income was $49,445, down from $51,161 in 2001. Although the official unemployment rate at this writing is only 9.1%, a truer measure of America's condition is that only 45.4% of Americans of working age are employed full time—a true definition of depression."....


...................."No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place."...(parag. 3)
July-August 2010, "America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution," by

"Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind.

Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it."...

America's ruling class lost the "War on Terror." During the decade that began on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government's combat operations have resulted in some 6,000 Americans killed and 30,000 crippled, caused hundreds of thousands of foreign casualties, and spent—depending on various estimates of direct and indirect costs—somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion dollars. But nothing our rulers did post-9/11 eliminated the threat from terrorists or made the world significantly less dangerous. Rather, ever-bigger government imposed unprecedented restrictions on the American people and became the arbiter of prosperity for its cronies, as well as the manager of permanent austerity for the rest. Although in 2001 many referred to the United States as "the world's only superpower," ten years later the near-universal perception of America is that of a nation declining, perhaps irreversibly. This decade convinced a majority of Americans that the future would be worse than the past and that there is nothing to be done about it. This is the "new normal." How did this happen? - See more at:


Trump reaches new high in latest Reuters Ipsos poll, 20 points higher than nearest competitor. August 22-26, 2015 (Sat.-Wed.) poll, Jeb Bush ranks 4th

8/28/15, "Ipsos/Reuters Poll (August 28): Core Political Approval,"

"Donald Trump continues to hold a clear lead in the Republican primary, with support from 30% of Republicans in our tracking poll this is a new high for “the Donald” and 20 points higher than the next Republican. The top 4 Republicans (with Republican voters) are: 1) Trump; 2) Huckabee; 3) Carson; 4) Bush."...

Trump 30
Huckabee 10
Carson 8
Bush 7
Cruz 5
Fiorina 5
Paul 5
Rubio 5
Walker 5

Trump also leads among Independents, the only Republican in double digits (page 7):

Trump 30

Topline Results 

"These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted for Thomson Reuters August 22-26, 2015. For the survey, a sample of 1,152 Americans, including 455 Democrats, 415 Republicans, and 155 Independents ages 18+ were interviewed online. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points for all adults, 5.2 percentage points for Democrats, 5.5 percentage points for Republicans, and 9.0 percentage points for Independents. For more information about credibility intervals, please see the appendix.
The data were weighted to the U.S. current population data by gender, age, education, and ethnicity. Statistical margins of error are not applicable to online polls. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error and measurement error. Figures marked by an asterisk (*) indicate a percentage value of greater than zero but less than one half of one per cent. Where figures do not sum to 100, this is due to the effects of rounding. To see more information on this and other Reuters/Ipsos polls, please visit"


Friday, August 28, 2015

Pathetic Jeb Bush tells media he 'thought you guys would, you know, unite,' surprised not more backlash by reporters about Jorge Ramos being taught he had to wait in line like everyone else

8/26/15, "Bush hits Trump over Univision controversy," CNN, Ashley Killough, Pensacola, Fla., via

"Bush...was asked by journalists after his town hall to more specifically address Trump's encounter with Ramos. 
"I think people in the press ought to be treated with a little more respect and dignity," Bush said. "How about that?"
He added that he was surprised that he didn't see many reporters pushing back against Trump at the time of the battle between the real estate titan and Ramos.
"I didn't see a whole lot of like people in the press saying, 'Woah, woah time out, wait a second,'" he continued. "I thought you guys would, you know, unite.""...via Michael Savage


In nationwide poll Trump beats Bush in 'strong leadership qualities' 84% to 68% among Republicans, 71% to 57% among independents-Quinnipiac Poll, Aug. 20-25, 2015

Poll dates: Thurs-Tues, Aug. 20-25, 2015. Trump up 8 points since July 30. In 'strong leadership qualities' Trump beats Bush 84% to 68% among Republicans, 71% to 57% among Independents.
8/27/15, "Biden Runs Better Than Clinton Against Top Republicans, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Trump GOP Lead Grows As Clinton Dem Lead Shrinks,"

"Donald Trump leads the crowded Republican pack with 28 percent, up from 20 percent in a July 30 national survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. This is the highest tally and widest margin for any Republican so far in this election. Ben Carson has 12 percent, with 7 percent each for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. No other Republican tops 6 percent and 11 percent are undecided....

If Republican primary were held today for whom would you vote?

Trump 28
Carson 12
Bush 7
Cruz 7
Rubio 7
Walker 6
Kasich 5
Fiorina 5
Christie 4
Huckabee 3
Paul 2


Trump leads in all 7 categories polled: Very conservative, Somewhat conservative, Liberal, Men, Women, Tea Party, White Born Again Evangelical


In "strong leadership qualities," Trump beats Bush 84% to 68% among Republicans, 71% to 57% among Independents:

Question 60, "Would you say Donald Trump has strong leadership qualities or not?"...

"Yes:" Republicans 84%, Independents 71%, Men 68%, Women 60%, Whites 69%, Blacks 48%, Hispanics, 48%

Question 62, "Would you say Jeb Bush has strong leadership qualities or not?"

"Yes:" Republicans 68%, Independents 57%, Men 55%, Women 53%

Poll provides no racial data on Bush as it did for Trump above, ie, white, black, hispanic.


"From August 20 - 25, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,563 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 666 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points and 647 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points....Sample and Methodology detail."...


Thursday, August 27, 2015

Rush Limbaugh: What's driving Trump supporters is love for this country and optimism about real change. They're shocked and stunned that so many elected officials don't seem to hear them. They have every right to be angry but that's not what drives them to Trump

8/26/15, "People Have Every Right to Be Angry About What's Being Done to Their Country, But Anger Doesn't Explain the Trumpsters," Rush Limbaugh

"Let me expand on a theme here, the idea that Trump's followers are not comprised of anger--at least that's not the animating aspect of them.  And yet all of these people in the establishments of both parties -- the elites, the consultants, the so-called political science experts at universities, the punditry -- have these formulas to explain human behavior in the political sphere. And "anger" is at the top of the list. If you want to discredit a group of voters, if you want to impugn them, you just accuse them of being "angry." And if you really, really want to rip 'em, you call 'em "angry" and "white."  I've been dealing with this angry-white-men BS since 1990.

It's further illustration of just how dense and insulated and ignorant these experts are in understanding, in this case, the supporters of Donald Trump. These people are not angry. Well, they're angry. I mean, it...I think, in fact, folks, we're all entitled to our anger here. If we aren't angry about...Are you angry about what's happened at Planned Parenthood? You damn well should be! Anger is a legitimate reaction to certain things. But it is not, in this case, the energy. It's not the animating thing. It's not the reason that Trump has supporters. It's not because people looking for a way to express their anger and be done with it. It's far more than that."...

[Ed. note: "Anger" was considered perfectly fine and normal in 2008 when it was said to be the reason for electing Obama: "Unerring faith in the premise of the Obama candidacy that many Americans are angry, anxious, and engaged as never before." 7/20/2008, "Obama's paid staff dwarfing McCain's," Boston Globe, Brian C. Mooney]
(continuing): "Now, back to the Trump supporter. Well, story, for lack of a better word.  It's starting to happen again.  It's all being chalked up to anger, just like angry white men was a way to impugn Republican support back in the early nineties, and it's been used interchangeably with soccer moms and the War on Women, and, you name it, angry white men. And my contention to you is that Trump supporters are not negative. They're not angry.  I mean, that's not their state of mind. They are legitimately angry, I mean, wouldn't you be? If you have kids and grandkids, are you not angry over what's been done to their future? Are you not angry over what's been done to this economy? 

Stop and think of something here for a second, folks. Stock market. Five trillion was printed by the Federal Reserve. It was called quantitative easing, and it all ended up on Wall Street for the purchase of securities. Interest rates were kept low. So while Main Street and the rest of this economy was just plundering along at a no-growth, static rate, Wall Street is going crazy, new wealth is being created, but not because of any reason other than the Federal Reserve pumping $5 trillion into it.  Okay, so now after this crash that has occurred over the past week, almost, just a little over a third of that $5 trillion on paper is gone, just wiped out. 

Now, can you imagine what would have happened if they had decided to put $5 trillion that they printed on Main Street? Can you imagine what might have happened? I'll guarantee you that there are a lot of smart middle-class people in this country who know full well what's going on.  They have every right to be mad about it. They have gone to the polls and they have voted for people who they believed were gonna help them stop this. They have voted for people who told them that they were this going to stop it. They were gonna do their best to repeal Obamacare, for example. They were gonna do their best to make sure that there wasn't any more damage done to the United States economy via Obama policy.

They were promised by people campaigning for office that they were gonna go to Washington and do everything they could to save this country as founded, and they haven't done it. Wouldn't you be mad?  The anger is not illegitimate. But my point is, it's not what's driving this.  What's driving this ultimately is love. What's driving the support for Trump is love. It is optimism and it is positive. It is real hope that there might be a chance for real change, not just sloganeering. These are people who believe in the greatness of America. These are people who want it returned.

These are people who believe that it is possible to recapture some of the great traditions and institutions that made this country great. They are shocked and stunned that so many elected officials don't seem to hear them, are not even interested in that themselves. But here come the predictable catcalls. "Well, you know, it's just a bunch of anger being fed by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It's anger populism." These elites that think they're smarter than everybody else continue to misunderstand this, because they're plugging everything in in their phony formulas or their incorrect formulas that they use to try to calm themselves or mollify themselves or explain all this to themselves, because right now they can't explain....

So it's a natural protective circle the wagons kind of thing the establishment's doing. In the process, what they always do, when something happens like this they don't understand, they blame all of it on stupidity and anger on the part of their own voters. It ends up their own voters are stupid and mad and they run around and they actually say so.  Now, why they think down the road sometime these voters are gonna change their mind and leave Trump or whoever and come back to them after they've been insulted this way makes no sense to me. It makes no common sense. And, no, don't misunderstand, I'm not sitting here endorsing anything. Hey, I've got my Journalism 101 cap. I'm America's Real Anchorman here. I'm just analyzing this as I see it, objectively as I can from afar....And I have countless years experience guided by my intelligence to be able to understand why Trump is resonating and why he's growing."... 



Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Looking at Donald Trump focus group numbers, Frank Luntz says, 'Honestly my legs are shaking,' Trump may be 'impossible to take down...He's not going away.'-NJ Advance Media

8/25/15, "Trump may be 'impossible to take down,' top Republican pollster says," New Jersey Advance Media, Claude Brodesser-Akner, for

ALEXANDRIA, Va.. "A new focus group commissioned by GOP pollster Frank Luntz shows Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is virtually invulnerable to attack by rival 2016 candidates and the media, leading Luntz to say that it is now "totally conceivable" that Trump will become the Republican Party's nominee for president....

"This is a different cat," Luntz added. "It's not like Ross Perot in 1992, where people were simply unhappy with the two major parties; they're choosing Trump affirmatively. Honestly, my legs are shaking looking at these numbers. All those people who think he's going to implode are wrong. He's not going away."

Assembled in a room behind mirrored glass in an Alexandria, Va. office building, 29 current and former Trump supporters held forth on what they like and dislike about the controversial real estate tycoon, who owns three New Jersey golf courses and once owned three Atlantic City casinos.

Most notably, the intensity of the group's support for Trump was matched only by their dislike of establishment GOP candidates and politics as usual. At one point, a woman named Rhiannon explained her support of Trump by lamenting that "it appears that there's only one party." A whopping 25 of 29 participants in the focus group immediately and heartily agreed with her.

"Nobody is listening to us," echoed another supporter identified only as 'Suzanne.' "
(But) he's listening to us, he knows what we think and he's successful just like we want to be.""...via Free Rep.