Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

LinkSwarm for February 5, 2016

Friday, February 5th, 2016

Presidential elections, Islamic terrorism, gun rights, crooked locksmiths: Something for (almost) everyone in your Friday LinkSwarm:

  • So why did Hillary Clinton take $675,000 for three speeches Goldman Sachs? “That’s what they offered.” I actually like the refreshing honesty about that answer, since we already know Granny Crooked McCankles is all about the benjamins. But Hillary saying she hadn’t decided to run for President yet when she took the money? That’s just pissing on our leg and calling it rain…
  • Why is the Republican establishment willing to consider one heresy to their worldview (subsidizing the working poor) but not another (actually enforcing immigration law and securing the borders)?
  • An inside look at Boko Haram.
  • According to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz gave us ObamaCare. By voting to confirm John Roberts. Before Cruz was even in the senate. Hey, why should Ted Cruz even bother to run for President if he’s capable of time travel?
  • Remembering the genocide Muslim Turkey committed against Christian Armenians.
  • The gun rights movement continues to win victories around the country:

    To recap: Gun-control activists declared Virginia their proving ground and poured unbelievable amounts of money into a state-senate election; then they lost that election; then they bet big on executive actions instituting new gun control; they watched as those actions were not only reversed but gun rights were expanded.

    If we take Virginia as the bellwether that the gun-control activists envisioned, then gun control is dead as a 2016 issue.

  • And according to this legal paper by Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, lower courts are scrutinizing even modest post-Heller gun rights restrictions.
  • West Virginia is on the brink of becoming a right-to-work state.
  • Who knew New Hampshire had such a serious drug problem? Or that they were the hardest-drinking state in the union? (Hat tip: Jim Geraghty via his Morning Jolt.)
  • Old and Busted: “The solution to misguided speech is more speech.” The New Hotness: “Your non-liberal speech is toxic. Goodbye comments!”
  • Debunking the “BernieBro” myth social justice warrior types are trying to gin up.
  • Rick Santorum stops pretending to run for President.
  • Male yahoo employee claims illegal sex discrimination in Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s ranking system.
  • Feminists freak out over people daring to point out how just how unlikable Hillary Clinton is. Then again, when are feminists ever not freaking out?
  • How fake locksmiths are gaming Google maps to rip you off. It’s an eye-opening piece, and another reason you should join Angie’s List
  • Cruz Bleeding the Man Who Would Be President

    Thursday, February 4th, 2016

    Ever see John Huston’s The Man Who Would Be King, the film starring Sean Connery and Michael Cain based on the Rudyard Kipling story of the same name? It features Connery as a British soldier mistaken for a god by a remote tribe, a mistake Connery plays to his advantage, right up until his would-be queen bites him, the resulting blood proving that he’s a mere mortal.

    His subsequent fall is swift.

    I’m reminded of that fall by news that, according to a PPP poll, Donald Trump has dropped nine points following his second place finish in Iowa. Trump’s sense of popular inevitability was always one of his greatest assets, but after Ted Cruz successfully smote him, Trump too has been revealed as a mere mortal, and that sense of inevitability is bleeding away…

    (Hat tip: Bad Blue.)

    More Analysis of the Iowa Caucuses

    Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016

    here are a few of the more interesting pieces pieces of Iowa analysis, along with a dollop of general Presidential Race news):

  • How Ted Cruz won Iowa.
  • Texas Monthly‘s Erica Grieder offers up a field guide to Ted Cruz for her fellow reporters. Including such nuggets as “Ted Cruz is not a fire-breathing extremist” (this is true; I’ve never once seen him breath fire) and “Cruz is smarter than us” (which is undoubtedly true for the vast majority of reporters covering him). While I have some quibbles here and there, the piece is well worth reading, especially if you’re unfamiliar with Cruz. (Hat tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)
  • More: “What they’re failing to perceive is that such an effort reinforced Cruz’s claim that he will work for the people. Trump has been making the same claim, and a lot of people believe him. But in Iowa, at least, Cruz had a chance to show the people that he meant it. That’s what clinched the caucus.”
  • “Cruz won Iowa the old-fashioned way: He earned it.”
  • 13 Quick Takeaways From The Iowa Caucuses. Including the fact that Hillary is a horrible candidate, and the media is far more obsessed with a Republican populist candidate that got 25% of the vote than the Democratic populist candidate that got 50%.
  • Cruz’s 51,000 votes were the most ever for a Republican in the Iowa caucus.
  • “The reason why we were reluctant to tip Cruz as the likely winner, however, was because we were all suckered by The Donald’s hype.”
  • Cruz 1, Ethanol Lobby 0.
  • Hillary Did Not Win Last Night.”
  • How Sanders caught fire in Iowa.
  • “Between the turnout and the result, Iowa’s caucuses provide an early indicator that Republicans are more excited and Democrats less enthusiastic than usual about 2016.”
  • Ace asks where were all those new voters Trump was supposed to bring in?
  • Frank Luntz says that Jeb Bush’s $100 million worth of anti-Rubio ads hurt Bush more than Rubio.
  • Rand Paul drops out.
  • Cruz gets endorsed by South Carolina congressman Jeff Duncan.
  • Winners, Losers, and Observations from Iowa

    Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016

    Now that was an interesting Iowa caucus! On the Republican side, Ted Cruz came in first (8 delegates), Donald Trump second (7 delegates), with Marco Rubio nipping at his heels for third (7 delegates).

    On the Democratic side, it appears that Hillary Clinton eked out a historically narrow victory over Bernie Sanders. I say “appears” since last night it was reported that results from 90 precincts had gone missing. Given her serial history of lawbreaking, and the entire weight of the DNC all-in on dragging her over the finish line, would anyone put it past Hillary to monkey-wrench the process to avoid a narrow loss?

    Let’s take a look at last night’s biggest winners and losers:

  • Winner: Ted Cruz: Given no chance at the beginning of the cycle, or even a few months ago, Cruz pulled out a clear victory against a candidate given eight months of unprecedented free media coverage. As I noted while following his 2012 senate race, Cruz is a smart, disciplined and indefatigable campaigner, a true conservative, and will make a great President.
  • Loser: Donald Trump: See above. A novice politician pulling 24% and second place in the Iowa caucuses would normally be cause for celebration, but Trump roared into Iowa like a juggernaut on a wave of unbelievable media interest and limped out like a hobbled mule. For all the talk about Trump’s money making a difference, there are few signs any of it was spent on an effective ground game. And for once he wasn’t bragging after the results came in.
  • Loser: Jeb Bush: Remember a year ago how everyone was predicting Bush’s fundraising machine and organizational muscle would bulldoze his rivals aside? Not so much. Bush ended up spending $2,884 per Iowa vote to come in sixth.
  • Winner: Marco Rubio: A strong third keeps him in the game, and he’s well situated to pick up deep-pocketed Bush backers who aren’t turned off by the huge amounts of money they’ve already thrown away.
  • Losers: Governors running for President. It used to be that Governor was seen as the idle perquisite for running for President (Reagan, Bush43, Clinton, Carter, etc.), but not only did Jeb Bush come in sixth, John Kaisch, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Jim Gilmore (who we’ll mention only because he was a governor, since he got a whopping 12 votes in all of Iowa) all did even worse, Martin O’Malley came in an exceptionally distant third on the Democratic side, and Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki didn’t even make it to Iowa. Huckabee and O’Mally have suspended their campaigns, and the other governors should follow suit.
  • Loser: Rand Paul: Few expected Paul to win, but few expected him to do markedly worse than his father. He should drop out
  • Losers: The remaining Republican candidates. At this point there’s no path to victory for Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina or Rick Santorum. They should drop out as well.
  • Winner: Bernie Sanders: He went from being a crazy old socialist with no chance of winning to a crazy old socialist who fought the Clinton machine to a virtual tie.
  • Loser: Hillary Clinton: She desperately needed to win Iowa and got it, maybe (the Iowa Democratic Party is refusing to release actual vote totals, as opposed to precinct results), with the help of some missing ballots and unlikely coin flips, by the skin of her teeth, but she vastly underperformed in a race that was supposed to be cakewalk for her a year ago. “Her inability to ride a first-class ground organization to a decisive triumph underscores the candidate’s weakness and the lack of a message that resonates with primary voters.” And there were accusations that Hillary was using paid staffers as precinct chairmen.
  • It’s now a three man race on the Republican side, and a dog fight on the Democratic side.

    Iowa Caucus Update: CNN Projects Cruz Win in Iowa

    Monday, February 1st, 2016

    “CNN projects Ted Cruz wins…On the Republican side, with 99% of the expected vote in, Ted Cruz leads with 28%, followed by Donald Trump at 24% and Marco Rubio at 23%.”

    On the Democratic side, things are much closer:

    “With 81% of the expected vote in, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders only 50.1% to 49.2%.”

    Edited to add: Fox News also projects Cruz as the winner.

    Early Iowa Caucus Results Have Cruz Ahead

    Monday, February 1st, 2016

    Early Iowa Caucus results show Cruz leading 28% to Trump’s 25%. Given the huge lead in free coverage and buzz Trump enjoyed the last eight months, that has to count as a big victory. Marco Rubio was running third, at 22%.

    Cruz also lead in the particular district caucus National Review attended.

    On the Democratic side, results also have Hillary Clinton barely edging Bernie Sanders 51% to 49%.

    Keep in mind these results are very preliminary, and the usual caveats apply.

    Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump Update for January 31, 2016

    Sunday, January 31st, 2016

    Another installment on the battle between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Many of these links come from http://conservatives4tedcruz.blogspot.com/.

  • In Iowa it’s everyone vs. Cruz.
  • Cruz blasts Iowa governor Terry Branstad for his family benefiting from ethanol subsidies.
  • Glenn Beck’s site on Ted Cruz the candidate:

    Ted understands the gravity of our situation, and he understands how to right the wrongs of the past eight years by holding true to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. It’s all there, written long ago by the brilliant men who fought the fierce battle for freedom and liberty. We don’t need a bailout, we don’t need any new government programs. We need to return to the First Principles laid out for us by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

    Ted Cruz is the George Washington we’ve prayed for. He’s here — the man who understands that government is not the solution but the problem. Ted Cruz understands that the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution are a good thing.

  • Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund endorses Cruz. The piece says that they’re the largest Tea Party group in the country, which makes me wonder what criteria they used and how they determined that.
  • Even Marco Rubio acknowledges that Cruz is the frontrunner in Iowa.
  • Is 135,000 the magic number in Iowa? Turnout below that and Cruz wins, turnout above that and Trump wins? I’m going to need confirmation from the haruspices before accepting that conclusion…
  • Anti-Trump ad running in the Des Moines Register.
  • Both Cruz and Trump have several events in Iowa between now and the caucuses.
  • This Washington Post piece is probably a pretty good distillation of current inside-the-beltway thinking on Cruz’s chances of winning. Just remember the same insiders were talking about Jeb Bush’s inevitable triumph six months ago…
  • “Gallup: Trump Has Highest Unfavorable Rating of Any Candidate Ever.”
  • Byron York interviews Donald Trump. When Trump says “the Republicans are fighting each other,” it rather suggests Trump isn’t a Republican, doesn’t it? His answer as to why he’s religious (“I went through my Sunday school, I’ve done everything that you’re supposed to do”) is deeply unconvincing, as is repeated answers to questions about how conservative he is (“I’ve had tremendous polling numbers with conservatives”). On the other hand, defending his fiscal conservatism, when he says “I mean, we owe $19 trillion, this is going to destroy our country, we’re going to be destroyed,” well, he’s not lying…
  • Thomas Sowell to Donald Trump: Grow up.
  • Democratic analyst John B. Judis: The birth of a Trump-Sanders constituency. Some of his points are wrong and others Democratic Party talking points, but there’s still some interesting analysis here. “Both are critical of how wealthy donors and lobbyists dominate the political process, and both favor some form of campaign finance reform. Both decry corporations moving overseas for cheap wages and to avoid American taxes. Both reject trade treaties that favor multinational corporations over workers. And both want government more, rather than less, involved in the economy.” That last one speaks, yet again, to the point that Trump is not a conservative. See also “How Trump fights against the free market policies Republicans embraced” and “He has had little contact with, and shown little interest in, conservative ideology.”
  • “Dear Trump Voters, Your Darling Is a Two-Timing Cad.” This message is objectively true. However, I do note that the same issue did not seem to harm Bill Clinton’s career…
  • I’m a Cruz supporter, but just look at this “Wah, Trump hurt my feelings, why won’t Twitter kick him off” Social Justice Warrior drivel Slashdot has posted to their front page. Note the central lie that Trump’s Twitter account is “a trolling stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter user to be terminated in a heartbeat” without actually offering any examples of same…
  • Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump Roundup for January 30, 2016

    Saturday, January 30th, 2016

    Another installment on the battle between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Many of these links come from http://conservatives4tedcruz.blogspot.com/ (no #CruzCrew email briefing today).

  • “Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign announced Friday it ended 2015 with $19 million in the bank.” That’s all hard money, and it brings Cruz campaign totals to $50 million.
  • “Don’t choose your candidate based on who you’d prefer to have a beer with, but whom you trust most to remain aligned with your principles. For me, that’s Ted Cruz.”

    Cruz doesn’t want or need approval from the political elite. He isn’t seeking to be well-liked among the electorate, probably because he knows he just isn’t likable. Cruz will never be Joe Biden or Marco Rubio. He doesn’t have a beaming smile or endearing anecdotes or a twinkle in his eye. But his shrewdness, calculation, and disregard for elite approval can make him a winning candidate—and, what’s more, a pretty good conservative president.

    Here’s the thing: I’ve met Ted Cruz, and I find him quite likable in person. Yes, Cruz does a very polished oratorical style and a laser-like focus on message that can make him seem overly scripted at the podium (though he’s gotten a lot better in this regard). But get past that he’s a smart, likable guy. What he doesn’t have is the almost pathological neediness to be liked that drove (for example) Bill Clinton to become so adept at emotional projection.

  • “Conservatives have been hoping that “another Reagan” will come along for decades and we finally have one: Ted Cruz….Cruz’s consistent conservatism mixed with his willingness to fight is why he’s the ONLY CANDIDATE RUNNING who can absolutely be counted on to get rid of Obama’s executive orders, kill Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood and build a fence on the border.”
  • “The very same group who has gotten everything else wrong about the 2016 election and the mood of the voters went on television tonight with well rehearsed, clearly orchestrated talking points and got the debate wrong too. Yes, I do think Marco Rubio had a really good debate and came across as more pleasant than Cruz in the debate. But that is not going to hurt Ted Cruz. After all, all the right people hate him and the voters love him. The voters, not the talking heads, matter.”
  • CNN admits that journalists are scared to criticize Donald Trump. That admission highlights two problems with modern journalism: When did it become a “journalist’s job” to criticize candidates rather than just report the news, and when did our reporting class become such cringing little cowards that they’re afraid to do their job because strangers on Twitter will be mean to them? (Hat tip: Ed Driscoll on Instapundit.)
  • Media sees Trump as identical to Rush Limbaugh. They have, what, 1/8th of a loaf there? Both love taking the piss out of the deeply unpopular national liberal establishment, and their followers love them for it. But admitting that would mean the mainstream media admitting just how deeply unpopular they actually are… (Hat tip: Ditto.)
  • But just because Trump gives the MSM the vapors doesn’t mean we should stoop to his level of crass vulgarity.
  • Cruz has the best ranked ads in the race.
  • Cruz praises school choice.
  • A look at the latest Iowa polls. President Howard Dean could tell you a thing or two about how reliable they are…
  • Republican Lujan Beats Democrat Urasti in Special Election for San Antonio State Rep District

    Wednesday, January 27th, 2016

    Well, I’m not sure many people saw this coming:

    Winning in a district long held by Democrats, Republican John Lujan outpolled Tomás Uresti in Tuesday’s special runoff in Texas House District 118.

    Filling a seat vacated last year by former state Rep. Joe Farias, D-San Antonio, the GOP candidate will serve out the remainder of Farias’ unexpired term, through the end of the year.

    Another election is set for March 1 to fill the seat for a two-year term starting in 2017. Lujan and Uresti are seeking their parties’ nominations in that race, and each has a primary opponent, so the winner won’t be decided until Nov. 8.

    “The district with about 87,000 voters handed Lujan the win by a 171-vote margin.”

    State District 118 is three-quarters Hispanic and largely suburban/exurban, and in the 2012 election it went 60/40 for Democrat Joe Farias, who resigned in August. Why he resigned, triggering a special election, is a good question, as he had already announced he would not run for reelection this year, and the House is not scheduled to convene until 2017.

    Despite the fact that the district is going to be hard to hold in November, it’s still an impressive feat for Republicans to have captured it at all. Proving that Republicans can win in clear majority Hispanic districts, and forcing Democrats to devote the time and resources necessary to effectively contest the seat, counts as a big win.

    (Hat tip: Moe Lane.)

    Rick Perry Endorses Ted Cruz

    Monday, January 25th, 2016

    Ted Cruz has picked up the endorsement of former Texas governor Rick Perry for President, and will help campaign as a surrogate for Cruz in Iowa. It’s not a huge endorsement, given how Perry’s own presidential campaign flamed out, but it’s a nice pickup for Cruz, and solidifies his odds for winning Texas on March 1. Also, it’s not as automatic a choice as some out-of-state commentators may believe, given that Perry endorsed (however tepidly) Cruz’s opponent David Dewhurst in his 2012 senate race. It may also indicate conservatives are coalescing around Cruz as the alternative to Donald Trump.

    In any case, it’s a worth a hell of a lot more than Lindsey Graham’s endorsement of Jeb Bush…