UPDATE II: Cleveland Debate Stars: The Moderators And Question-Writers (Sisters For Donald)

Elections, Journalism, Media, Politics, Republicans

Joy! Text is back. TIME has the full transcript of the first primetime Republican debate, in Cleveland, Ohio.

My general impressions after last night:

Compared to previous debates overrun by Democrat journos, the quality of the journalism, courtesy of Fox News, was outstanding. I’d venture that the true stars of the debate were the ruthless, impartial, analytical Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. Perhaps the indubitably lousy, future Democratic-debate moderators of CNN will rise to the standard set by the Fox News three? Perhaps the left’s Idiocracy will omit, from future debates, bogus questions about bogus constructs that rape reality (such as structural racism)???!!!

The opening question was a brilliant example of strategic showmanship:

Is there anyone on stage, and can I see hands, who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican party and pledge to not run an independent campaign against that person.
Again, we’re looking for you to raise your hand now — raise your hand now if you won’t make that pledge tonight.

And Trump was magnificent in his response. Honest, too. From there on, it was downhill for Mr. Trump. He delivered the same slogans. He failed to flesh out positions and show understanding. The man is quick and engaging; but he came unprepared.

Rand Paul fell flat in his refusal to tackle the probe about his aversion to neocons. He’s a mean little man, too, although I loved his retort to Gov. Chris Christie on the latter’s eagerness to flout the Fourth Amendment and the governor’s bear hugs for Barack during the Romney campaign. Rand’s emphasis on negotiations in diplomacy was good, too.

Marco Rubio is a slick, smart, personable neocon. But if you want truly nice, then Dr. Ben Carson is lovely. A good man. Naturally, I disagree with him on almost every matter of policy. I just love the self-made, talented, clean-living, non-politician. Dr. Carson is also a beautiful-looking man.

Item: The audience was most certainly not comprised of The Republican Base. It was more establishmentarian.

Item: That buzzer noise must go. Use the opening bars to Beethoven’s Fifth, or something like it, instead.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Don’t ask me why, but I tune them out. It’s an automatic response. They are not that intelligent. My mind drifts when they talk. Ditto Jeb Bush. I did love his, “They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.”

Ted Cruz’s performance disappointed greatly—and not because he is not quick on his feet. Cruz is most certainly brilliant. His liberal professor, Alan Dershowitz, said as much. But he angered me when he did not turn the matter of providing jobs for ISIS into a principled point illustrating the role of limited, American government, which is not to lift the world out of poverty:

When I asked General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, what would be required militarily to destroy ISIS, he said there is no military solution. We need to change the conditions on the ground so that young men are not in poverty and susceptible to radicalization. That, with all due respect, is nonsense.
It’s the same answer the State Department gave that we need to give them jobs. What we need is a commander in chief that makes — clear, if you join ISIS, if you wage jihad on America, then you are signing your death warrant.

The bankruptcy questions to Trump were excellent; his replies were good, too. He’s the consummate businessman. We knew that.

One expects Huckaubee, who made thoughtful points on Social Security, to deliver a good turn pf phrase:

Ronald Reagan said “trust, but verify.” President Obama is “trust, but vilify.” He trusts our enemies and vilifies everyone who disagrees with him.

As for a Bush talking about the value of life. That would be funny, if it were not so sad. Allow me to quote from “It’s About Federalism, Stupid! (2006)”: “Would that Republicans fussed as much over the many fully formed human-beings dying daily in Iraq [and wherever else they choose to war], as they do over fetuses.”

The best closing lines in the evening Act were these:

HUCKABEE: “It seems like this election has been a whole lot about a person who’s very high in the polls, that doesn’t have a clue about how to govern. A person who has been filled with scandals, and who could not lead, and, of course, I’m talking about Hillary Clinton.”

CARSON: Well, I haven’t said anything about me being the only one to do anything, so let me try that. I’m the only one to separate siamese twins … The the only one to operate on babies while they were still in mother’s womb, the only one to take out half of a brain, although you would think, if you go to Washington, that someone had beat me to it.

THE END.

UPDATE I: COME AGAIN, T. CRUZ.

CRUZ: President Obama has talked about fundamentally transforming this country. There’s 7 billion people across the face of the globe, many of whom want to come to this country. If they come legally, great. But if they come illegally and they get amnesty, that is how we fundamentally change this country, and it really is striking.
A majority of the candidates on this stage have supported amnesty. I have never supported amnesty, and I led the fight against Chuck Schumer’s gang of eight amnesty legislation in the Senate.

Did Cruz really mean to imply that if Hillary ascends to the throne, and a good portion of 7 billion people are granted permission to come to the US legally, that would be OK? That’s the inference from what he said. Crazy.

UPDATE II (8/10): All your fav Republican females with short skirts are feminists. What did you expect from Megyn Kelly? A good wake up for her fans. Still, it’s better that Kelly ask crappy fem-oriented questions of The Donald than the Dem moderators. It neutralizes the latter.

Here are the two fabulous Sisters for Donald Trump. Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson unleash on Megyn Kelly or “Kelly Megyn, whatever you’re name is”: “Go back to reporting news for Sesame Street,” they recommend.

Trump Should Triangulate

Business, Economy, Elections, Free Markets, Government, Politics

“Trump Should Triangulate” is the current column, now on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine. An excerpt:

Working people warm to Donald Trump. He appeals to a good segment of real Americans. The circle jerk of power brokers that is American media, however, lacks the depth and understanding to grasp the fellow-feeling Trump engenders in his fans.

THE MEDIA STRUMPETS

Amid sneers about Trump’s “crazy, entertaining, simplistic talk,” the none-too bright Joan Walsh, Salon editor-in-chief, proclaimed (MSNBC): “I look at those people and I feel sad. That is really such a low common denominator. They’re all Republicans … they really don’t have a firm grasp on reality.”

For failing to foresee Trump’s staying power, smarmy Michael Smerconish (CNN) scolded himself adoringly. He was what “Mr. Trump would call ‘a loser.’” Smerconish’s admission was a way of copping to his superiority. From such vertiginous intellectual heights, Smerconish was incapable of fathoming the atavistic instincts elicited by the candidate. Nevertheless, the broadcaster “quadrupled down.” The country would be delivered from Donald by Mexican drug lord El Chapo, who’d scare Trump away.

Campbell Brown, another banal bloviator, ventured that Trump resonates with a fringe and was fast approaching a time when he would, like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, “max-out the craziness” quotient.

Trump supporters were simply enamored of his vibe, said a dismissive Ellis Henican.

As derisive, another Fox News commentator spoke about the “meat and potatoes” for which Trump cheerleaders hanker. I suspect he meant “red meat.”

National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein divined his own taxonomy of the Republican Beast: the “upscale Republicans and the blue-collar Republicans.” The group of toothless rube-hicks Brownstein places in Trump’s camp.

Pollster Frank Luntz provides his own brand of asphyxiating agitprop: The little people want to elect someone they’d have a beer with.

A British late night anchor—a CNN hire!—offered this non sequitur: Trump painting himself as anti-establishment and, at the same time, owning hotels: this was a contradiction. In the mind of this asinine liberal, only a Smelly Rally like “Occupy Wall Street” instantiates the stuff of rebellion and individualism. (Never mind that the Occupy Crowds were walking ads for the bounty business provides. The clothes they wore, the devices they used to transmit their sub-intelligent message; the food they bought cheaply at the corner stand to sustain their efforts—these were all produced, or brought to market by the invisible hand of the despised John Galts and the derided working people.)

I know not what exactly the oracular Krauthammer said to anger Trump, but it was worth it: “Charles Krauthammer is a totally overrated person … I’ve never met him … He’s a totally overrated guy, doesn’t know what he’s doing. He was totally in favor of the war in Iraq. He wanted to go into Iraq and he wanted to stay there forever. These are totally overrated people.”

Even media mogul Rupert Murdoch moved in on Trump, calling him an embarrassment to his friends and to the country.

Inadvertently, one media strumpet came close to coming clean about the serial failures of analysis among her kind. Wonkette, or Wonkette Emerita, aka Ana Marie Cox, spoke of “the superfluousness of the media’s predictions and its inability to perform the service of making sense of events.” Like Smerconish, Cox is hoping against hope that the little people are having fun at her expense and “are in some way in on the joke” that is Trump. …

… Read the rest. “Trump Should Triangulate” is now on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine.

UPDATE II: Things To Watch Out For In The Staged, Republican Match (The Matinée)

Elections, Media, Republicans

Come the big kiddie debate tonight—if one can call these ridiculously timed performances debates—there are a number of things to watch out for in the Orwellian newspeak deployed by our media strumpets, when putting forth the pontifications, predictions and pronouncements that never pan out:

When these strumpets use the refrain, “Donald Trump will have to do x and y in order to convince people he is a serious candidate,” what they mean is to lay down the conditions he must fulfill for them—media—to take him a wee bit seriously.

The GOP base already takes Trump seriously.

The other thing: Watch out for my new related essay on WND.

Right now the “GOP underdogs [have] hit [the] stage looking for big breakout in first debate.”

UPDATE I: The Matinée.

Unremarkable. My impressions:

Carly Fiorina: I’ve already commented on her high intelligence and wonderful facility with words. She’s very bright (and I say this without agreeing with a single words she says. Wow: I can chew gun and walk, too*).

Lindsey Graham: All roads lead to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and WAR. Who knew that the senator was 60 and unmarried? Hmm. A little journalistic shoe-leather here could prove delicious.

* To those robotic libertarains who will accuse me of daring to address the politics I reject and despise: I’m not lazy like you. I deal. With reality, that is.

UPDATE II: “How About Some LiveBlog?–Kid’s Table Edition.” Tom Knapp does a good job in providing much-needed text.

Wendy McElroy On The Invasion Of The Libertarian Body Snatchers

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism

Libertarian theorist Wendy McElroy worries that she might have to leave the movement she practically founded, because, to use a biblical quote, “there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.” A new generation of self-styled libertarians that doesn’t know the meaning of libertarianism has arisen, according to which Wendy, and certainly myself, are deemed “brutalists.”

I wrote “Fee-Fi-Fo-Fem, I Smell The Blood Of A Racist” about one of their luminaries, before I understood the extent of the revisionism in which the “humanitarians” were engaged.

So numerous are the libertarians who condemn me that I have long since stopped giving a damn. Most are like the proverbial (or metaphysical) tree falling in the woods. We know they say stuff, but nobody wants to stick around to hear them make the tedious sounds they make.

Over to Wendy, who is heartbroken over “the attempt to change the ground rules of libertarianism through introducing left-leaning attitudes and concepts”:

… the absurd and manufactured debates [is] about “”thin” and “thick” libertarianism – the “humanitarians” versus the “brutalists.” It is an attempt to introduce political correctness into libertarianism so that it is not enough to advocate nonviolence; you have to advocate it for the right reason, as defined by those who provide themselves as moral filters. They call me a brutalist. This means I will never violate your rights; your children, your property are safe in my presence because I respect your right to live in peace. But I don’t protect your children for the right reasons. For this, I am to be excoriated. This is the second approach to a new definition of libertarianism: People wish to analyze society not according to whether it is voluntary but in order to ferret out signs of power and privilege which they self-righteously condemn. Consider open source software. It has been castigated as a realm of privilege because it predominantly consists of white men. Open source software is source code that is thrown into the public realm so that anyone can modify and enhance it. It is a pure expression of free speech; the product is available to everyone for free; there are no entry barriers or requirements other than caring enough to learn code. Learning code is also available and free to all.

I think it was the condemnation of open source software that made me crack. Out of the goodness of his heart, my husband has devoted substantial time to what amounts to an intellectual charity. He pursues it for the same reason he repairs and gives computers for free to underprivileged children; he believes in the power of technology to lift people out of poverty. (BTW, I strongly suggest no one criticize my husband to my face on this point; I am likely to render the most Irish of all responses.)

Open source software is condemned for no other reason than it involves few women or minorities. This reflects nothing more than the choice of those women and minorities. It costs nothing to learn coding. Tutorials are available for free to all and everywhere. Correction: It does cost time and effort. The individual has to exert him or herself. I’m not willing to make the investment but neither do I blame the first white guy I see for my own inertia. If there is something in the culture of women and of specific minorities that prevents them from rising, then blame the culture. Don’t blame a white man like my husband who is falling over himself to provide a free service. (Correction: my husband is Hispanic … but that won’t give him a free pass. I mean, after all … the genitalia. And the grand critics of society don’t really care for accuracy.)

Last night, I contemplated my exit from a movement that considers me to be a “brutalist” after years of unpaid work promoting nonviolence. I found myself engaging in an emotional release that I’ve used for many years. I wrote a letter to my father. My dad died when I was ten years old. I loved him. …

Read “A Letter to My Father” By Wendy McElroy