Thursday, July 2, 2015

3rd Poll In Row Shows Trump In 2nd Place;Macy's/Univision Confirmation of Serious Candidacy

I wrote the article after the asterisks a few days ago. The main points were that the naysayers, smart-alecs and haters in the leftist media wrote Donald Trump off as a publicity seeker who would never run. He did. Then they said he would not register with the Electoral Commission. He did.

Then they said he would not have any impact in the polls.He did.

He leapt into second place just a few points behind Jeb Bush in New Hampshire and they then said it was just a regional poll and he would have no national appeal. He did. The first subsequent nationwide poll put him in second place just behind Bush.

I discussed that Trump losing his Univison contract, a potentially great financial cost, on top of his walking away from his NBC 'The Apprentice' show to run proved his commitment. Subsequent to that the media reports that Macy's department store group will not carry his products which he must have considered a possibility before he ran and is yet another indication he takes the campaign seriously.

Now a third, reputable, nationwide poll has appeared which shows, once again that Trump is in second place.

The leftist media has had to face the reality of Trump's rise and commitment and are trying out a number of memes. They, grudgingly, admit Trump's poll placings, it's too apparent to be denied, but advise "Trump's rise hurting the Republican's." 

How they determine this is a mystery, something about his forthright statements, which other candidates are too cowardly to address, will put off the voters. What evidence they have to show for this assumption is well hidden.

That they can laud Socialist Bernie Sanders "populist message" and huge crowd attendance and not give a moments consideration to how that may "be an embarrassment to the Democrat's" is, on the other hand, hardly a mystery, just a symptom of the endless media bias.

Trump, no matter  how the campaign ends for him is, doing the Republican's a massive favor by drawing a huge distinction between the Democrat's record of failure and the positive prescriptions available to the Republicans. He is also doing the Republicans a favor by showing clearly which of the other candidates has the stuff to stand up to Hillary, the Dem machine and the media-so far it is only him.

**********************************************************************
Whether he's agreed with or not presidential candidate Donald Trump has, once again, proven the elitist naysayers wrong-actually wrong over and over again in a matter of days.

When he indicated he might run there was a chorus of derision from the Beltway pundits (here's a partial list) who said it was just a publicity stunt to promote his reality shows and he would never run. 

Then when he made the announcement that he was running they poured utter scorn on his announcement speech "rambling and incoherent." The they said, "he won't follow through and register with the Electoral Commission" which of course he did straight away.

Then they said he would never attract any support, straight after which he leapt into second place in the New Hampshire polls above all the other candidates except Bush who he is only a few points behind. "that's New Hampshire" they sneered-Pat Robertson did the same thing with his populist message which appeals to the Granite States populist leaning voters-but he won't get any traction nationwide"

Then, right on schedule, the next nationwide poll came out which showed Trump, once again, in second place. 

Next up the Beltway, having exhausted all the previous nay-saying, have resorted to the crystal ball; So now the chorus is singing in unison "he will damage the Republican brand because he is getting so much support and will have to be included in the debates."

And "he may have had a short term lift in the polls but in the medium term he will fail to get any traction." Well we shall see, all we can say with certainty is that the pundits have been dead wrong about him so far as they view him from their Olympian heights with the action of their nostrils skywards.

What has been enjoyable through all this is to see the Beltway pundit class show their true elitist colors, basically it's another version of their flyover country attacks circa 2008, but in Trump they have someone who fights back hard, who can't be bought by them, and owes them nothing.

Again, one may or may not agree with Trump, bearing in mind you have to sort through the media's grossly biased reporting to understand what Trump actually said and meant, before it is fair to decide ones views about his comments/positions.  But one thing is certain, rather than using his run as publicity tool Trump has taken one for the team in an amazing display of dedication to his political cause.

Trump's statements on Mexican immigration have cost him potentially millions of dollars in lost revenue. Both Univision, which is his beauty contest platform, and NBC, have announced they will no longer partner with him. He also left his big earning NBC show "The Apprentice" to make his presidential run.

This shows that Trump means political business no matter what the cost, is unafraid to take a political position no matter the media attacks that ensue, that he is beholden to no fundraisers whether overt or covert, and that he has put the lie to the pundits once again.


Ten Thousand Reasons Dem's Must Fear Bernie Sanders As New Nader



Ten thousand people jammed into Veteran's Memorial Coliseum in Madison Wisconsin yesterday to hear former Socialist now Democratic Party candidate Bernie Sanders "beating his populist drum, to the delight of his supporters."


Sanders advised;"The big money interests — Wall Street, corporate America, all of these guys — have so much power that no president can defeat them unless there is an organized grassroots movement making them an offer they can't refuse," 


This message is something that Hillary Clinton has had a go at but it sounds utterly ludicrous coming from a multi-millionaire with decades of connection to "Wall Street,corporate America." 


The Democratic machine and media initially dealt with the Sanders problem, if they gave it more than a cursory glance, as the quixotic campaign of an an eccentric uncle.  As Sanders started to rise in some polls, to within striking distance of Hillary in New Hampshire if the trend evidenced continued, a new meme appeared.


"Sanders is actually good for Hillary as it will allow her to distance herself from the more extreme "progressive' wing of the party. That may or may not be the case but the problem with that is if Sanders continues to grow and get mass support the public will begin to associate the "progressive wing' of the Dem's actually being the main element of the party and Hillary an out of touch leftover from the Clinton years.


Even if she gets the nomination, as she probably will barring Sanders rising so far that Biden or some dark horse steps in and causes another 2008 for her, if Sanders has caused such a deep impression on the public she would have great difficulty in disabusing them that she is just a front person for a socialist agenda. 


But the greatest danger for the Dem's is if Sanders creates such a groundswell amongst activists that, after losing a number of primary battles, he goes Independent or third party. 


That this could be a disastrous for the left repeat of the 2000 Bush /Gore election (with another Jewish candidate to add to the repeat mix) must be the stuff of nightmares for the Dem operatives.That it might involve another Bush and with the same result would be beyond a nightmare for them.


A "progressive" indie run by Sanders would, at one swell swoop remove the vital core of on the ground, get out the vote, door knocking young Dem's and their fund-raising abilities. That alone could be a disaster in such close and vital states as Florida,Virginia, Colorado and Ohio where the election most likely, will be won or lost. 


It would remove the massive social media support of Bloggers,Tweeters/Facebookers and the like from the Hillary support team. This would be even worse than in 2000 when such mass outreach was not available.


It would remove, to a large degree, the ever reliable leftist media cohort the Ezra Klein led leftist media "JournOlist conspiracy" which contributed so much to Obama's 2008 campaign as Sanders would most certainly appeal to these younger journalists than an aged Establishment candidate like Hillary could.


In the Electoral College history dwelt on the Florida recount in 2000 that sunk Al Gore's chances. What is often overlooked is that if he had carried New Hampshire its measly four Electoral College votes would have given him the presidency (New Hampshire went for Clinton previously, and Obama twice, subsequently).


The result in New Hampshire was G.W. Bush 273,559 (48.07%)  Al Gore 266,348 (46.80%) and

Ralph Nader 22,198 (3.90). It is hard to conceive Bush winning* the state if Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, the idol of progressives, had not run-even allowing for a pox on "both your houses" percentage of his supporters not voting.

With previous Electoral College history indicating a close result based on the four key states and New Hampshire the nightmare for the Dem's of a Sanders run (perhaps as a Green Party candidate) could turn into a waking disaster for them. 


That Sanders is from Vermont and is polling relatively well in new Hampshire at this early date only adds to the potential bad dream for them.


At the very least Sanders will force Hillary to deal with why the Dem's are so enamored with a populist message when they have supposedly had a reforming, progressive populist President in office for eight years. 


She would have to explain how she would address the issues Sanders raises and by doing so would either have to deny them and thus alienate the base, or agree with them, but state she would handle them better which would scare of the Establishment and centrist voters whilst alienating her Wall Street support.


Welcome to your nightmare Democratic Party Establishment, will it be a repeat of the one you had in 2000?




"New Hampshire was by 2000 considered to be a swing state in otherwise solidly liberal New England. While it had been a Republican stronghold for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the 1980s, Democrat Bill Clinton managed to win the state two elections in a row in the 1990s, and the state was a toss-up in 2000. Bush narrowly eked out a win, with a plurality of 48% of the vote over Gore's 47%. A major contributing factor to Bush's victory is that 5% of the state voted for a third party candidate, mostly for left-leaning Green Party candidateRalph Nader, who took votes away from Gore."



Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.







Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Trump Proves Beltway Elitists Wrong (Again),Great Financial Cost Shows He's Serious Candidate

Whether he's agreed with or not presidential candidate Donald Trump has, once again, proven the elitist naysayers wrong-actually wrong over and over again in a matter of days.

When he indicated he might run there was a chorus of derision from the Beltway pundits (here's a partial list) who said it was just a publicity stunt to promote his reality shows and he would never run. 

Then when he made the announcement that he was running they poured utter scorn on his announcement speech "rambling and incoherent." The they said, "he won't follow through and register with the Electoral Commission" which of course he did straight away.

Then they said he would never attract any support, straight after which he leapt into second place in the New Hampshire polls above all the other candidates except Bush who he is only a few points behind. "that's New Hampshire" they sneered-Pat Robertson did the same thing with his populist message which appeals to the Granite States populist leaning voters-but he won't get any traction nationwide"

Then, right on schedule, the next nationwide poll came out which showed Trump, once again, in second place. 

Next up the Beltway, having exhausted all the previous nay-saying, have resorted to the crystal ball; So now the chorus is singing in unison "he will damage the Republican brand because he is getting so much support and will have to be included in the debates."

And "he may have had a short term lift in the polls but in the medium term he will fail to get any traction." Well we shall see, all we can say with certainty is that the pundits have been dead wrong about him so far as they view him from their Olympian heights with the action of their nostrils skywards.

What has been enjoyable through all this is to see the Beltway pundit class show their true elitist colors, basically it's another version of their flyover country attacks circa 2008, but in Trump they have someone who fights back hard, who can't be bought by them, and owes them nothing.

Again, one may or may not agree with Trump, bearing in mind you have to sort through the media's grossly biased reporting to understand what Trump actually said and meant, before it is fair to decide ones views about his comments/positions.  But one thing is certain, rather than using his run as publicity tool Trump has taken one for the team in an amazing display of dedication to his political cause.

Trump's statements on Mexican immigration have cost him potentially millions of dollars in lost revenue. Both Univision, which is his beauty contest platform, and NBC, have announced they will no longer partner with him. He also left his big earning NBC show "The Apprentice" to make his presidential run.

This shows that Trump means political business no matter what the cost, is unafraid to take a political position no matter the media attacks that ensue, that he is beholden to no fundraisers whether overt or covert, and that he has put the lie to the pundits once again.



Monday, June 29, 2015

Rand Paul Main Benefactor From SCOTUS ?



The Supreme Court Decisions on Obamacare and same-sex marriage
have, as many observers pointed out, given the Republican Party a major fillip for the 2016 presidential election.

The decisions, once the hullabaloo has settled down, removed two contentious and, for the left, highly energizing issues which would, if not dealt with as they have been, ensured the largest potential Dem turnout.

Not only turnout, but also financial and propaganda support from the Gay lobby associated with the media and Hollywood/television. All that has been negated. As one commentator has noted it also may mean a swing to the GOP by Gays who can now look to their financial well being as a primary political concern, and may see the fiscal conservatism on offer from the GOP as a more logical home for their votes.

With, as usual, the presidential election turning on Florida, Virginia, Ohio (and now Colorado) where the margins of victory range from e.g. Florida at one half of a percent to the other three as easily winnable, any slight advantage can make or break the election for either candidate.

Sean Trende, writing at real Clear Politics produced an encyclopedic analysis of the 2012 presidential election and decided that yes, there were a substantial number of "missing White voters" who, if they had turned out for Romney would not have decided the election for him but would have made the result much closer.

Trende identifies these as "Perot voters" (others identify them as "Reagan Democrats" or "Blue Collar Voters" I suspect they are pretty much one and the same).

"For those with long memories, this stands out as the heart of the “Perot coalition.” That coalition was strongest with secular, blue-collar, often rural voters who were turned off by Bill Clinton’s perceived liberalism and George H.W. Bush’s elitism"


​How to attract these voters is of course a key​ and Trende identifies Perot type populism (which may be why Donald trump has jumped into second place in polls after he formally announced.)

"This GOP would have to be more "America first" on trade, immigration and foreign policy; less pro-Wall Street and big business in its rhetoric; more Main Street/populist on economics."

Trende acknowledges an outreach to Hispanic voters may be of value, but the fruits of such an outreach do not appear to be more valuable than the possible gains amongst Perot voters.

In another article Trende acknowledges that by themselves even maximum gains from Perot voters may not be enough to give the Electoral College edge and advised that a further outreach to other bloc's including Hispanics and Blacks could, if successful, and when added to the "missing Whites" provide the winning coalition. 

He makes the point that without President Obama running;

"Hillary Clinton, could have a greater appeal to these voters (current polling suggests that she does). But there are always tradeoffs, and Clinton’s greater appeal to blue-collar whites, to the extent it holds through 2016, could be offset by a less visceral attachment with young voters, college-educated whites and to nonwhites than the president enjoys."


This is where Senator Paul might be the best vote winner for the Republicans. "Young voters, college educated Whites" have clearly found Paul attractive for his libertarian views and he stands every chance of making inroads into that grouping. Further those who were energized by "Hope and Change" may find themselves disillusioned, or find Hillary Clinton not exactly a poster person for youthful enthusiasms as Obama was.

Black turnout, as Trende intimates, may also not be as strong for Hillary as it was, at near unanimous levels, for Obama. But there is another aspect which was highlighted By  Rev. Al Sharpton-Paul being  the only Republican candidate who has made substantial efforts to substantially interact with, and learn from, the Black community.

Sharpton, no doubt correctly, advises that there would be little chance of many Blacks voting for the GOP nominee because of this but, as he describes it, there is a real danger for the Democrats from Paul;

Sharpton, after describing how Rand Paul has interacted with the Black community  (and him) said  Paul’s efforts to engage black voters could present a strategic challenge for Democrats: 

"If the Republican senator runs for president, fewer African Americans may be motivated to show up and vote against him. If he becomes the candidate … and if you don’t get a huge black turnout saying ‘We’re afraid [of him],’” that could be a pitfall for Democrats."

Thus Paul could energize the youth vote, reduce the Black vote turnout and, given his father's populist reputation, appeal to the Perot "Missing White's" potentially mass vote turnout. With a pro-life history, and a personality that has brought grudging respect from Dem's for it's seriousness of intent, and no scandals, Senator Paul has a very strong case to present both to the voters and to the GOP bigwigs who can count Electoral College votes as well as anyone else.

As I wrote elsewhere, ("This Week Sewed Up The Presidency For The GOP") in my opinion what looked like a disastrous week for the Republicans could, with the right candidate, turn out to be a blessing in disguise with the distraction of the social issues removed from the campaign.

On the other hand those non-Perot "missing White voters" who are religious social conservatives who didn't vote for Romney because of perceived elitism, or his Mormonism, may also turnout because of SCOTUS because they are so upset by the decisions that they will vote for whomever the nominee is.

Is Senator Paul the candidate who can unite, or at least motivate all these disparate groups whilst depressing Dem turnout? Certainly the potential coalition numbers stack up very impressively and, allied with a Hispanic running mate, he could present a forwards looking alternative to "Hillary of the past."

UPDATE: Did Senator Paul just lose the potential conservative base support-one interpretation is that this libertarian approach validates any sort of contractual arrangement including group "marriage"/incest marriage if there is no regulation.

"Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether should not prevent people making contracts"




Saturday, June 27, 2015

This Week Sewed Up The Presidency For The GOP 2016

Yes of course the SCOTUS rulings on Obamacare and Same-Sex marriage plus the passage of the TPP Bill were huge setbacks for the Republican base. Note, not the Republican Establishment which enabled President Obama to have the TPP bill passed rather, the Boehner/McConnell coalition which had a great week.

The Democratic "progressive" base had a mixed week with same-sex marriage passing and the Palin family being once again in the wars. Oh how they savored that-the various Democratic luminaries family problems e.g. Biden's son being discharged  out of the navy with drug issues passing them by as "personal."

On the other hand the passage of the TPP bill against the wishes of the unions and many liberal Senators and Nancy Pelosi, saw them rail against 'traitor" Obama.

What this week brought for the Republican base was the potential for the presidency in 2016, and with it a continuing, if not even greater majority in the House and the saving of the narrow majority in the Senate. 

In the latter case that was further augmented by the decision of former Democratic senator for North Carolina Kay Hagan not to run in 2016, which means the likely retention of the previously contestable seat by the GOP.

But more than anything else the actions of an activist judiciary enabling, without the voice of the people being expressed in the ballot, universal same-sex marriage. There followed potentially subsequent opening of private individuals businesses to court directives as to whom they may wish to serve, and the possible implications for religious institutions and personal religious views. 

These actions will have galvanised conservatives.

To that electric shock can be added the spectacle of supposedly conservative Congressional leaders and various lawmakers enabling President Obama. then there was the near insane over-reaction to the Confederate Flag, and all things associated with the Civil War, to the point of calling for exhuming former leaders and withdrawing from sale historical war games videos which featured the flag on the 1862 battlefield!

There have been many calls from conservative leading lights to boycott the 2016 presidential election "if a RINO, especially Jeb Bush  is nominated" as, to quote Hillary, "what difference does it make." That was my opinion as well, which is part of the reason I sat out the 2012 election as did millions of other conservatives and "Perot voters and blue collar Dem's."*

The events of this past week have completely changed my mind. No matter who the Republican nominee is (with one exception, if the party is so mad as to nominate Romney again then I will vote for the Conservatives), even Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, I will vote for them. Of course I would prefer a genuine conservative, but there is too much at stake not to ensure Hillary is defeated.

The 2012 election was lost by wafer thin margins in Florida and narrowly in Virginia and Ohio. With the populist message from the likes of a Donald Trump (whether or not he is the nominee) in front of the missing voters, and the story of the past week relayed to the previous stay at home conservatives and Perot-ite's, then the election will be won. 

That being said, if the message from this week is not loudly, courageously and vehemently stated over and over, and the threat to traditional values and the best interest of what remains of the industrial base workers not highlighted, then the Republican Establishment will deserve to lose. 

Whether in the long run that is a good thing is a matter for another article. The impact and opportunity this past week has presented must not be squandered by a cowardly and gutless leadership running to the middle which worked out terribly in 2012 and would again.

*Addendum;

Yes, the Missing Whites Matter

By Sean Trende - July 12, 2013


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/12/yes_the_missing_whites_matter_119170.html#ixzz3eFaZNdMK



"If we use the census data throughout for all of our projections, we actually end up observing 5.9 million fewer whites than anticipated. We also end up with only about 1.3 million missing non-whites, rather than the 2.6 million missing non-whites from my original calculations, taken from the exit polls.** Again, many of these are Hispanics and Asians, who in reality have lower registration and participation rates than our 55 percent estimate. You can actually use the census data to estimate these things in multiple ways (this runs into some of the peculiarities of the census data I mentioned), but they all end up pointing back to the same conclusion: About 6 million fewer whites voted than we would have expected.
My conclusion is that Republicans should pay attention to the concerns of the millions of alienated working-class voters who sat out the 2012 election because the GOP needs them -- not at the exclusion of minority voters, many of whom are also working class, but in addition to them -- to form a winning coalition in the future."



Friday, June 26, 2015

M.Joseph Sheppard Post Report 06/26/15:Trump's Not Pat Robertson/Palin Hater Media Midgets Abound







Mitch Halperin and John Heilemann discuss presidential candidate Donald Trump's "surprising numbers" i.e. the fact that he is, immediately after launching his campaign, in second place in New Hampshire.

The pair, rightly show up the various talking heads who express shock and awe at Trump's rise. I have elsewhere described this as a rude awakening for a snobby media class who just don't get it because they don't have any connection with the real world where the person in the street lives.

Halperin is in error though when he states that Trump's rise should have been seen as it is a mirror image of Pat Robertson's success in the same state. He ascribes Robertson's and Trump's success due to a connection with the man in the street on populist issues (which again escape the media snobs).

The error is in not recognizing that Robertson's success also had a strong element of his Evangelical connection. That Trump is doing so well without an overt Evangelical connection makes his achievement, so far, even more impressive than Robertson's.

That is confirmed by Trump, in a poll subsequent to this video, also being in second place, remarkably, nationwide.
*******************************************************************

Sarah Palin, through her trials and tribulations,(the latest being of course her daughter Bristol's broken engagement and pregnancy) which would have made Jog give up altogether, stands as a rock of Christian faith and commitment through all the trials brought upon her by a hateful leftist media,mad haters and Democratic party scoundrels. 

I have expanded on this HERE ("Palin is Job") but will just add that my admiration for this woman is boundless and I am proud to have been a supporter for so long. Whether she advances politically or retires solely to business matters I wish her, and hers, every happiness. How she puts up with all the rubbish thrown at her is beyond my understanding-again it can only be a product of faith.
************************************************************************
Speaking of the above all the midgets,ankle biters and whale's lice have come out to froth and gibber and hate on Palin after she has parted ways with Fox. Special recognition for being absolute jerks goes to:

Vanity Fair's @JamesWolcott calls palin "brittle relic of yesterday" but he is a nobody, never was and never will be-she's done better

Doug Mataconis leads charge of nobodies/never were's 2pronounce Palin done (again)She'll be around when they are gone http://palin4president2016.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/doug-mataconis-finally-succumbs-to.html 

Politico's @mikeallen with site's PDS "Fox drops Sarah Palin" "Fox confirms amicably parted ways" So Palin may have quit not been "dropped'?

@DanielBukszpan<"freelance" i.e. unemployed writer another nobody hack attack "It's so over for (of 100 most important Americans) Palin"
*************************************



Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Biden For President 2016-Worse Things Could Happen (especially Given the Dem Alternative)

Bill Press at 'The Hill' asks "Why Not Joe (Biden) For 2016?

"During his 36 years in the Senate, he served as chairman of both the Foreign Relations and Judiciary committees, building an outstanding record on a wide variety of issues that reflect his own middle-class background, including consumer and environmental protection, the minimum wage, college aid, arms control and campaign reform.
Biden opposed the Gulf War in 1991. And while he voted to authorize the Iraq War in 2002 — as did Clinton, who was then a senator from New York — he soon admitted his “mistake,” becoming an early advocate of letting Iraq break up into three ethnic states — a solution that may still prove to be the best outcome. He himself cites the Violence Against Women Act as “the single most significant legislation” he crafted as senator.
Over the last six years, Biden has proven to be one of our most effective vice presidents ever, tapped by Obama to lead several critical initiatives, including managing the 2009 stimulus package and shaping gun safety legislation. He’s the president’s go-to guy in dealing with Congress, as evidenced by the presence of both Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic Leader Harry Reid, as well as many other senators, at Beau Biden’s funeral.
Of course, every candidate has his or her shortcomings. Biden has two — his age and his malaprops — but neither are serious. He may be 72, but he’s a vigorous and healthy 72, whom nobody doubts could handle the demands of the presidency. And while he may occasionally say something politically incorrect or just downright dumb, most people laugh and chalk that up as just Joe being Joe."More.
************************************************************************

My two cents: Bill Press ruins what is a reasonable exposition by a churlish reference to "The Republican clown car"
and advises the Dem's have "four credible candidates." These include Lincoln Chafee and Bernie Sanders. That Chafee and Sanders are 'credible" is in the eye of the (prejudiced) beholder-many would not agree with Press in his enthusiasm. 

It is beyond dumb to consider that there are not four candidates amongst the GOP declared ones who are not equal or superior to Chafee and Sanders, and who are perfectly capable of being president, as much as Biden and Hillary.

He then praises Biden's accomplishments and experience, and concludes with "And while he may occasionally say something politically incorrect or just downright dumb, most people laugh and chalk that up as just Joe being Joe." They laugh, if they do, (some may face palm in embarrassment) because Biden is not in any position to do any harm, except to  his reputation. If he were president it would not be a laughing matter.

He also sees no problem with Biden's age;  "may be 72, but he’s a vigorous and healthy 72, whom nobody doubts could handle the demands of the presidency." Where was the press with such an allowance for age when John McCain was constantly being attacked for his age-72- in 2008. McCain's now looking at running for reelection at 80-but, leftist hypocrisy never bothers with reality.

Now, if a Democrat has to be elected, which I hope is not the case, of all current prospective candidates I could live with  VP Biden. He could work with the GOP, is not combative by nature, at least from what can be seen by his interactions and lack of negativity from the Republicans.

Further he would, almost certainly, inherit a Republican House and possibly Senate and thus his room for any overt actions would be very limited-I see him in a Gerald Ford amiable sort of role if he did get into the office.

Above all he is a gentleman. Of all the cast of characters from the 2008 election on the Democratic side he stood apart for his amiability, courtesy, dignity and kind words towards Governor Palin which was clearly seen during their debate.

Biden 2016? Far worse things have happened.







M.Joseph Sheppard Post Report 06/24/15 Father Pfleger Hillary Video Hit/Trump For President? It's Kristol Clear

Will Father Michael Pfleger reprise his "HILLARY" routine for the 2016 campaign-a laugh a minute.

***************************************************************************** The

Art of the Con, by Donald Trump - Kevin Williamson, National Review

 Trump Is Running, But the Joke's On You - Charles Gasparino, Daily Beast

 From beyond the fringe, it’s Donald Trump. Again. Jeff Jacoby Boston Globe

Three massive hit jobs from the "Conservative Voice" the conservative Establishment and the loony left prove that Trump is "over target." Exactly what target  he is over is problematical but it is safe to surmise,
I believe, that there is a nascent fear in the above worthies minds (and the rest of the GOP Establishment) that Trump might actually do well.

And, right on schedule, a new poll comes out showing Trump leapfrogging Paul, Cruz, Walker, Rubio to second place in New Hampshire-only a few points behind Jeb Bush, and he hasn't got started yet! What these worthies need to do is to climb down from the snobbery of their respective high horses and do a proper evaluation of Trump's populist message and see how that is resonating with the base.

I am joking of course-pigs will fly before that happens. To get, what has been the only balanced view so far we have to turn to, of all people, Bill Kristol whom so many decry as a patrician and the last they'd expect a balanced Trump view from-but, and good for him, he has provided it.

Writing in The Weekly Standard "

"A Little Touch of Trump"


Kristol, after making it clear Trump is last on his list of preferred candidates he asks the unasked question

"What might we learn from listening to Trump?"

Trump understands that Americans aspire to greatness. His campaign slogan is “Make America Great Again.” Sound familiar? A prominent Ronald Reagan slogan in 1980 was “Let’s Make America Great Again.” In his announcement speech Trump repeated several times—and repetition may not be as foolish in politics as all the pundits who disapproved of Trump’s verbosity think—that “we are going to make our country great again.” And he concluded his remarks, “Sadly, the American dream is dead. But if I get elected president I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before, and we will make America great again.” Politics is about dreams as much as it is about deliverables, about pride as much as it’s about pocketbooks. Trump understands that. It’s not clear most of the rest of the field does."

And "Trump understands that Americans like winning:"

"Trump understands that Americans have deep doubts about the competence and probity of our political class. It’s not clear most of the rest of the field does." "Trump understands that Republican primary voters don’t want a nominee who will shy away from criticism of President Obama"

Kristol concludes, astutely :"But Trump could win significant support from Perot-type voters in primaries who will then be up for grabs in the general election."

He could have added: "Republican primary voters don’t want a nominee who will shy away from criticism of Hillary Clinton" which seems to be a major failing of the field so far.

If Trump moves into the lead in New Hampshire, which is entirely possible, and starts to move up in Iowa then it is all on. The obvious fear, disguised by snobbery, from the wonk class will turn to outright panic. Unfortunately for them Trump has the resources to fight back hard, which he would not shy away from. 


Bill Clinton is no political fool and can see the wood for the trees as Kristol points out "Bill Clinton has already begun sweet-talking him: Trump “has been .  .  . uncommonly nice to Hillary and me.' The GOP establishment might well be advised to take note before they are swept away in a Trump tide and it is too late for them to get on the gravy train. Can you say Palin and Trump?? It would be worth it to see the collective heads of the media, left and right explode violently.