Trying To Buy A Crucial Election

Obviously some elections are more important than others. However, in keeping our focus on national elections, we sometimes forget the words of Tip O’Neill, “All politics is local.” The phrase was originally used by Washington AP bureau chief Byron Price in 1932. Tip O’Neill first used the term in 1935. We also need to remember that some local races are more important than others. That fact is not lost of those who pour exorbitant amounts of money into political races (see Rocky Mountain Heist). George Soros has evidently figured out that the District Attorney race in San Deigo will be key in the future (destruction) of California.

Yesterday FrontPage Magazine reported:

Leftist billionaire George Soros is injecting big money into a San Diego district attorney race as part of his larger effort to install extremist prosecutors across America who will refuse to enforce inconvenient laws that liberals and progressives don’t like.

Soros, who turns 88 in August, has been underwriting district attorney races across America in an effort to dismantle the criminal justice system, empty the prisons, and sabotage the enforcement of immigration laws. Soros supports state and local efforts to resist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and wants to cripple police in order to advance the neo-Marxist abstraction known as social justice that simplistically breaks the world down into race, class, and sex or gender. Radicals claim that American laws and institutions are inherently corrupt and that these systems protect, for example, wealthy, white, native-born, non-disabled males at the expense of everyone else.

Getting people who share Soros’s worldview into public office at every level is key to promoting his ugly vision of how America, which he calls “the main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” should look.

Months ago Soros saturation-bombed his Open Society Foundations philanthropy with an $18 billion donation, likely guaranteeing OSF will remain one of the most important players in left-wing activism for decades to come. According to the New York Times, this was “one of the largest transfers of wealth ever made by a private donor to a single foundation.” (Click here for a brief video primer on Soros narrated by yours truly. Click here for an in-depth Discover The Networks profile of Soros.)

George Soros is putting the money into the race through the California Justice & Public Safety PAC.

The article details some of the positions of the candidate George Soros is funding:

The current DA, Summer Stephan (R), launched a website called ThreatToSanDiego that provides a laundry list of leftist positions embraced by Jones-Wright. The site states that “anti-law enforcement $$$ is coming into San Diego,” and highlights quotations from Soros, such as his statement that he has “always harbored an exaggerated view of self importance” and that he thinks of himself as “some sort of god.”

Stephan campaign strategist Jason Roe told the Washington Free Beacon that Jones-Wright “has fully embraced his [Soros’s] positions on decriminalizing sex crimes, closing jails and prisons, and eliminating bail.” Roe added that the Democrat candidate is “committed to not enforcing what she calls ‘quality of life crimes’ like breaking and entering and other things that are not necessarily violent crimes.”

Money can’t buy elections (Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush proved that), but voters around the country need to be aware of who is funding various candidates. Open Secrets is a good source for that information. You might want to bookmark that link for the 2016 primary campaigns.

Remember The Pledge?

At the beginning of the Republican party nomination process, there was a lot of focus on whether or not Donald Trump would support the nominee if he did not win in the primary election. Much was made of this until he finally signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee. Other candidates were asked to sign a similar pledge. Well, that was then; this is now. What has transpired is a shining example of the reason many Americans have chosen to ignore our political system. Two people who signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee have already broken that pledge–Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham. Has it occurred to either one of these men that their actions have been partially responsible for the rise of Donald Trump? As I have explained before, I am not a Trump supporter, although I will vote for him in November. Hillary Clinton represents four more years of President Obama. I know I can’t afford that. Donald Trump might do a little better. I am willing to take that chance.

Now that Donald Trump seems to have sewn up the Presidential nomination, it’s time to watch the spin by those members of the media trying to elect Hillary Clinton and to discredit Donald Trump.

Referring to Donald Trump signing a loyalty pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, on March 30, The Washington Post reported:

Trump never had any intention of staying true to that piece of paper he signed at the behest of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. At the time, the field was still large, no one had voted yet, and there were questions swirling about whether he was a “real” Republican. Trump signed the pledge — and made a giant event out of it — because it helped solve a problem for him. Period. Now, with the delegate lead and his front-runner status totally cemented, Trump feels no compunction in walking away from the pledge. None. (Worth noting: Neither Cruz nor John Kasich was willing to unequivocally state his support for the eventual GOP nominee, either.)

Trump does what is good for Trump. Always. When it made sense to be for Republican unity, Trump was for it. Now that he doesn’t need to be for it anymore, he isn’t. His logic is totally transparent.

So, if you are stunned at Trump going back on his loyalty pledge, you just haven’t been paying attention.

That’s something of a leap.

Be prepared for more shenanigans from establishment Republicans. They are very unhappy with their candidate. There are many Republican party regulars who would rather see Hillary Clinton win than Donald Trump. Why? A Hillary victory does not impact their current power and could destroy the non-establishment wing of the Republican party–a definite goal. (Donald Trump is not a conservative, so the conservatives will have no reason to give up–except that many of them voted for Donald Trump out of anger rather than any principles.) A win by Donald Trump would negatively impact the current power structure of the Republican party–it might even force them to actually listen to the voters.

 

 

Random Comments On The Republican Presidential Primary Race

I need to state up front that I voted for Ted Cruz. If Donald Trump is the nominees, I will vote for him. Generally speaking (with a few exceptions), I will vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton. I don’t want to put her in the White House because I think she is corrupt and has no respect for the American people. It is also deeply troubling to me that she does not believe unborn babies have Constitutional rights. I wonder if there will be other groups of people in the future that she will decide do not have Constitutional rights.

Ted Cruz won in Wisconsin. That temporarily slows down the Trump train. However, it does not alter the fact that the Republican establishment does not want either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as the nominee. The hope of the Republican establishment is a John Kasich, a Paul Ryan, a Jeb Bush, or someone else of that ilk. Obviously the Republican primary voters do not share that idea.

So where do we go from here? We can expect all sorts of news stories describing horrible actions of both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Some of them may be true; some of them may not. So far the big charge against Ted Cruz involves the DC Madam before he was married and a statement his father allegedly made. The charges against Donald Trump tend to change daily. Watch for a lot of news stories trying to sell the idea of a ‘fresh face.’ That trail balloon was put up earlier in the week. I am sure it will be back.

The GOP establishment has about six or seven weeks to sell the idea of a Presidential nominee that is not currently running. I see that as an impossible task, but I have been wrong before. Paul Ryan says he is not interested. I hope he stays with that position. John Kasich wants to win at pretty much any cost. Do any of these people realize how many people will stay home in November if the establishment picks a candidate that did not run?

Watching the Republican establishment fight Ted Cruz and Donald Trump makes me wonder why they have been AWOL in the fight against President Obama’s policies during the past eight years. It confirms my suspicion that the Republican establishment is no different than the Democratic party. That is the reason the voters are revolting during the Republican primary. We have given the establishment a chance, and they have failed. It is time to give the outsiders a chance.

Yesterday In South Carolina

Yesterday Donald Trump won the primary election in South Carolina. These are the numbers (from Townhall.com):

SouthCarolinaPrimaryElectionAfter the primary, Jeb Bush suspended his campaign, so there are essentially five candidates remaining–the top three are Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. So what can we conclude from this? The only Republican establishment candidate left is March Rubio. He is not the Republican establishment’s first choice, but he is the only remaining establishment candidate. The only true conservative in the race is Ted Cruz. We can expect to see more vicious attacks against him in the coming weeks both from the media and the Republican establishment.

This is the current delegate count in each party:

DelegateCountFebruary21*Party leaders who are free to support any candidate.

This is the beginning. If you truly want America to move in a positive direction in the future, I believe that Ted Cruz is your candidate. Be ready for the Democrats, the media, and the Republican establishment to go after Ted Cruz in a noticeable way. He is the candidate that is truly a threat to the status quo.

Why Is The Pope Getting Involved In An American Presidential Race?

The headline today is that the Pope says that Donald Trump is ‘not a Christian.’ Big Whoop. Are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz Christians? Is it possible to be a Christian and support abortion? Is it possible to be a Christian and demand that the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for contraception that includes abortion-inducing pills? Is it Christian to oppose Israel every step of the way and not defend them when they are attacked? Is it Christian to sit in Jeremiah Wright‘s church and hear racist shouting week after week? Who knows if Donald Trump is or is not a Christian? If he says he is, we need to take him at his word. We also need to evaluate his actions in light of what he says.

Sean Hannity posted what is essentially the essence of the story:

Specifically, the pontiff takes issue with Donald’s plan to build a border wall with Mexico. When asked about Trump, the Pope was quoted by The New York Times saying:

A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not getting involved in that. I say only this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.

Just for the record, this is a picture of the Vatican posted by a friend on Facebook:

PopeAndDonaldTrumpPeople who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

 

About That Last Republican Debate

I will confess that I did not watch the entire Republican debate. I don’t deal well with cage fights. However, I did see the part of the debate where Donald Trump attacked Jeb Bush for the actions of George W. Bush in Iraq. Aside from the fact that it was totally tacky to attack George Bush on his brother’s record, all of the charges made were simply false.

Donald Trump seems to have forgotten that there were a number of reasons why we went into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was consistently violating a United Nations established no-fly zone–therefore, the credibility of the UN was at stake (I would just as soon get rid of the UN, but that was the situation). Saddam Hussein had already used poison gas on the Kurds (WMD). Saddam Hussein had previously fought with Iran and invaded Kuwait, and was not a stabilizing force in the region, and Saddam Hussein was training terrorists (google the airliner frame that was used to practice hijackings).

In 2006, Fox News posted a story about the discovery of WMD’s in Iraq. The Bush White House decided not to make a big deal of the discovery. I think this was a mistake, but you can follow the link to read the article.

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article that sheds some light on the fact that we were not ready for 9/11.

Some excerpts from The Washington Times article:

As Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump hammers away at former President George W. Bush for not stopping the September 11 attacks, another factor could be added to the debate: Mr. Bush inherited from Bill Clinton an intelligence community in terrible shape.

This fact comes not from a Republican partisan but from George Tenet, President Clinton’s CIA director, a post that at the time made him the country’s top intelligence officer.

…In addition to Mr. Tenet’s book, other intelligence sources have told The Washington Times that the CIA in the 1990s dramatic cut the number of case officers — the people who recruit spies — from 1,600 to 1,200. The CIA closed operating bases, even the one in Hamburg, Germany, where September 11 Islamists plotted the attack. The NSA, the nation’s listening post, was not keeping up with the Internet revolution and was stymied at times by cell phone technology.

Mr. Bush reversed that trend by pouring billions of dollars into the CIA to hire new officers and into the NSA to set up new technology development units.

Mr. Tenet wrote that he personally asked President Clinton for billions more, but received no increase.

…“Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?” Trump said Saturday at a debate in South Carolina.  “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none.”

With that line, Mr. Trump is picking up the slogans of the left wing which said, “Bush lied, troops died.”

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a special blue-ribbon panel looked into the claim, and both unanimously concluded the WMD finding was solely the product of the intelligence community, free of White House interference. Neither Mr. Bush nor the CIA lied, the panels said.

So I have a few questions about this attack. Why was Donald Trump spouting Democratic talking points? He also failed to mention that because of the actions of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, President Bush was not able to put his security team in place in a timely manner–his election was declared later than usual and he was delayed in putting his people in place. Donald Trump also failed to mention that Iraq was on its way to being a stable ally before President Obama prematurely withdrew his troops.

I am not a supporter of Jeb Bush, and I believe that his response to this attack was totally ineffective, but the attack was totally out of line and inappropriate. If I were a supporter of Donald Trump (which I am not) his actions during this debate would cause me to reconsider.

Why I Think The Republican Debate Is A Joke

I am watching the Republican debate. This is a collaboration between the Republican establishment and the media to make sure a non-establishment candidate does not win the Republican nomination. The media would like Hillary Clinton to win the presidency, but a lot of Americans are not necessarily following the media in this plan.

Note that Carly Fiorina is not on the stage and the John Kasich is. The only voting that has taken place in this election cycle has been in Iowa, where Carly Fiorina got more votes than John Kasich. Since that number represents actual votes, rather than inaccurate polls, I believe the people on the stage tonight were not chosen fairly. The establishment candidate is on the stage; the non-establishment candidate is not. Admittedly, the difference in the number of votes is small, but the fact remains that Carly Fiorina got more votes than John Kasich.

To add insult to injury, Breitbart.com has posted an article today about one of the moderators of the Republican debate. Martha Raddatz is married to a Harvard Law School classmate of Barack Obama. President Obama attended her wedding. President Obama appointed Julius Genachowski (Ms. Raddatz’s husband) to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Ms. Raddatz is one of the moderators of the Republican debate. Does anyone actually believe that she will be an unbiased moderator?

The Republican Party needs to choose the moderators for the Republican debates. These moderators need to be people who do not have strong ties to the Democratic Party. What is happening now on ABC is an attempt to use the Republican Presidential candidates to ensure a Democratic victory in the Presidential election in November.

Some Thoughts On The Republican Debate

Late last night The Weekly Standard posted an article about the Republican Debate last night. The debate on CNBC was a tutorial on media bias. The questions were ridiculous, and the candidates called out the moderators on the silliness.

The article reports:

The three winners of the night were pretty obvious: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

Rubio ended Jeb Bush’s campaign with the kind of body shot that buckles your knees. That’s on Bush, who never should have come after Rubio in that spot for a host of strategic and tactical reasons. But what should scare Hillary Clinton is how effortless Rubio is even with throwaway lines, like “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.” Most people have no idea how fearsome raw political talent can be. Clinton does know because she’s seen it up close. She sleeps next to it for a contractually-obligated 18 nights per year.

Cruz was tough and canny—no surprise there. He went the full-Gingrich in his assault on CNBC’s ridiculous moderators. He did a better job explaining Social Security reform than Chris Christie, even (which is no mean feat). And managed to look downright personable compared with John Harwood, whose incompetence was matched only by his unpleasantness. If you’re a conservative voter looking for someone who is going to fight for your values, Cruz must have looked awfully attractive.

Then there was Trump. Over the last few weeks, Trump has gotten better on the stump. Well, don’t look now, but he’s getting better at debates, too. Trump was reasonably disciplined. He kept his agro to a medium-high level. And his situational awareness is getting keener, too. Note how he backed John Kasich into such a bad corner on Lehman Brothers that he protested, “I was a banker, and I was proud of it!” When that’s your answer, you’ve lost the exchange. Even at a Republican debate.

And Trump had a hammer close: “Our country doesn’t win anymore. We used to win. We don’t anymore.” I remain convinced that this line (along with his hardliner on immigration) is the core of Trump’s appeal. But he didn’t just restate this theme in his closing argument. He used it to: (1) beat up CNBC; and (2) argue that his man-handling of these media twits is an example of what he’ll do as president. It was brilliant political theater.

I am not a Trump supporter, but I am supporter of the way he handles the press–he doesn’t back down. He’s not afraid of calling them out when they lie.

The article at The Weekly Standard regards the six candidates with an actual shot at winning the nomination as Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, and possibly Fiorina and Christie. I think they are on to something. I will say that whoever wins the nomination will have some really smart potential cabinet members to choose from.

North Carolina Holds A Constitutional Caucus

PRESS RELEASE

NEW BERN LOCATION

North Carolina TEA Party Constitutional Caucus

TEA Party Constitutional Caucuses were held in 9 locations in North Carolina today, and the results are in. In the Presidential Caucus, a total of 789 votes were cast across the state. Ted Cruz was the clear winner with 391 votes. This means that Ted Cruz took 50.13% of the vote. Since there was no limit on how many presidential candidates that could be nominated (so long as each was seconded), this was an impressive showing.

Ben Carson got 328 votes, or 42.05%. Another impressive showing, but Ted Cruz was the clear winner with more than 50%.

Constitutional conservatives in North Carolina who so choose can vote for Ted Cruz in the primary knowing their votes are likely to align with those of other Constitutional conservatives.  They can thereby use the caucus results to counter the RNC’s “spliter” strategy designed to split the conservative vote and get Jeb Bush elected.

Donald Trump got 31 votes, Rand Paul received 18, and Carly Fiorina got 6. Marco Rubio received 4 votes, and Bobby Jindal, 2.

Ninety five people participated in the Caucus in the New Bern Location. Locally, Cruz got 41 votes, Carson got 39, Trump got 11, and Paul, 1. There were 3 people who abstained from voting.

After a brief break in each location, the speeches, caucus, and voting process resumed. This time, the conservative choice for U.S. Senator from North Carolina was sought.

Statewide, Larry Holmquist got 169 votes (58.28%). Dr. Greg Brannon got 106 votes (36.55%). U.S. Representative Mark Meadows got 13 votes (4.48%). Incumbent, Richard Burr, got 1 vote.

In the New Bern location, Greg Brannon received 29 votes, Mark Meadows got 13, and Larry Holmquist, 2. Anecdotally, there was much conversation during the caucus period questioning whether Greg Brannon can be talked into running, and whether it might not be better to keep Mark Meadows where he is for now.

Statewide results can be seen at www.teacaucus.org

 

Unfortunately Sometimes The Bad Guys Win

Yesterday I posted an article about the shadow Republican Party created in the state of North Carolina. Today The Daily Haymaker has the update. The bill to move the North Carolina Primary Elections to March 15th passed. That is the good news. It consolidates local and state office primary elections and will save the state money. The bad news is that there was a last-minute amendment to the bill that essentially sets up a shadow Republican fund raising party in the state.

The Daily Haymaker article explains one of the reasons this is a problem:

Right now, the rules bar state parties and caucus groups from overt involvement in primaries.  Some politicos may see the changes as a good thing (protecting incumbents.) But this legislation allows for the money raised by these committees to be used anyway the leaders want in primary races.  Cross your party leaders, and you may find yourself with a primary challenger loaded with cash provided by one of these new “affiliated committees.”   

(“Troublemakers” like, oh, Mike Speciale, John Blust, Larry Pittman, Chris Millis and Justin Burr should pay especially close attention to THAT part.)

It’s going to be A LOT harder for some “Mr. Smith Goes To Raleigh”-style amateur to compete with an incumbent now that this legislation has passed.  (On the Democrat side AND Republican side.)

Transparency. This lifts donation limits for individuals and groups.  It MAY allow for the skirting of the rules about donations from lobbyists during session.  It will now be a lot easier for these “affiliated committees” to get involved in primaries and hide from donors what exactly the money will be used for.  The reporting requirements are a lot more lax than current standards.  It will be much easier to fire off checks to these ambiguously-named Independent Expenditure groups to run attack ads and promotional efforts for select incumbents.

This move takes power away from the grass roots (which happened to seize power at the State Republican Convention in June) and allows the establishment to use Republican money to attack non-establishment Republicans.

The Craven County Republicans have responded to this move.

The Craven County Republican Party posted the following on its website yesterday:

The Craven County GOP Executive Committee unanimously adopted the following resolution Thursday night:

A Resolution to Remove David Lewis from National Committee Chairmanship Immediately for Failure to Comply with NCGOP Plan of Organization

Whereas David Lewis introduced language into H373 in the “11th hour,” establishing shadow parties in direct competition with the Republican and Democratic Parties, in direct and overt retaliation to the newly-elected GOP leadership; and

Whereas the “affiliated party committees” created under § 163-278.8B are permitted to use the identical names of the parties represented by their leaders but are established to operate with their own bylaws and bank accounts, not subject to the same campaign finance restrictions of the state parties, thus bypassing accountability to the state parties’ own authority and respective Plans of Organization; and

Whereas the NCGOP Plan of Organization in 7.a.1 (correction: VII.A.7.a.1) allows for any member of a committee organized under the plan to be removed for “failure to comply with the State Party Plan of Organization,” and the establishment of a competing “affiliate party committee” using the same trademarks as the State Party is obvious noncompliance;

Resolved, that Craven County GOP encourages all delegates to the NCGOP Executive Committee to move, second, or vote in support of any motion made to remove David Lewis from his position as Republican National Committeeman for the cause of Party Noncompliance.

Unfortunately, this is going to get ugly. The establishment Republicans are working hard to make sure Jeb Bush is the Presidential nominee. Unfortunately, they are not necessary being transparent, fair, or honest about it. The establishment Republicans have also become as addicted to big government and big spending as the Democrats. Unless we want to continue to take money from our children and our grandchildren, it is time to remove the establishment Republicans and the Democrats from power. That is the only way our states and our nation will survive economically.

The Price Of Liberty Is Eternal Vigilance

Our Founding Fathers understood that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Many of us have forgotten that. We live in a busy, complicated world, and it is hard to stay tuned to the nuances of the political world around us and how those nuances impact our lives. In recent years there has been a power struggle between the political class and ordinary citizens attempting to exercise their voice in America‘s government. We are a Representative Republic–not a Democracy, and unfortunately we have reached a point where we have a political class that does not always respond to the needs of the people they are supposed to represent. In fact, in many cases, the political class desires only to hold on to their power to the detriment of the people they are supposed to represent. We are seeing that situation unfold today in the North Carolina legislature.

On July 26, I posted an article about the date of the North Carolina Presidential Primary. If the Primary Election took place in February, North Carolina would lose most of its delegates. If the Primary Election took place before March 15th, the delegates would be awarded proportionally, giving more weight to the delegates of the liberal states that hold later primary elections. Having the Primary Election before March 15th allowed the more liberal establishment Republicans to control the outcome–the desired outcome of the establishment being the nomination of Jeb Bush. The North Carolina legislature has written a bill to change the date to March 15th, which would solve the problem. Unfortunately, the establishment Republicans have decided to add a poison pill to the bill. If the bill is passed with the “Affiliated Party Organization” Amendment, it will strip the existing state Republican Party of its power. Why would they want to do that? Because at the North Carolina GOP Convention this summer, two political outsiders were chosen to head the party.

The Daily Haymaker posted the details of the story yesterday.

The article explains:

Since that happened (the election of political outsiders to lead the party) at the NCGOP’s June convention, party establishment insiders have been scheming about how to wrest control of the funds from these *filthy tea partiers.*

There have been attempts to go around the two new elected party chieftains by inserting highly loyal (to the establishment) senior staffers inside the party HQ.  Several attempts at that have failed, and it appears another one is on the way to doing so.  

House insiders are hot under the collar about these last minute changes.  One quipped to me that the bill should be renamed “The Shumaker-Stewart-Leis-Dollar Retirement Guarantee Fund.”

Basically, these changes allow for Jones Street “honorables” to create FOUR new party organizations THEY FULLY CONTROL and thereby weaken / neuter their existing party apparatus.  It’s establishment weasels thumbing their noses at the worker bees outside the beltline.  

It is time for the American people to take back their government. This begins at the local and state level. The “Affiliated Party Organization” Amendment is an effort by the political class to prevent the average citizen from having a voice in the government. The Amendment was introduced by State Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett), chairman of the House Rules Committee. The Primary Election needs to be moved to March 15th, but not in a bill that includes this amendment. The establishment Republicans in North Carolina should be ashamed of themselves. The people of North Carolina need to stand up and take back their state. They began with the election of Hasan Harnett and Michele Nix to lead the party. Now we need to fight to make sure what we have done stays in place.

Last Night’s Republican Debate

I am a football fan. One of the great things about football is that when you turn on a football game, you see a football game. It is played like a football game and reported like a football game. Last night I turned on the Republican debate. I am not exactly sure what I saw. I am a Hugh Hewitt fan. He was there, sitting in a special chair. I believe he had less talking time than most of the candidates. I guess that’s okay–the candidates were the ones having the debate, but why was he there? Also, why was the debate reported as if it were a football game. It’s not a football game–it’s supposed to be a serious discussion to help voters determine who they want to run for President. Or is it?

Now I am going into some tall grass. In August, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the establishment Republican’s strategy to make sure Jeb Bush was the party’s nominee. Basically, the strategy was to split the conservative vote in every early primary state so that Jeb Bush would win, even without a plurality of votes. If you look at the candidates, the theory cannot easily be dismissed. Marco Rubio will take Florida, Ted Cruz will take Texas, Lindsey Graham will take South Carolina, etc. Therefore, by the time you get to the more liberal Republican states, no conservative will have enough votes to challenge Jeb Bush.

In July I posted an article by Mark Jones which explained a new rule by the GOP:

Any state, other than the four exempt states already mentioned, that holds a Primary the first two weeks of the month will be forced to allocate those delegate on a proportional basis.  This means that if 5, or even 15, candidates are on the ballot, each candidate will receive a percentage of our delegates commensurate with the percentage of the vote they receive.This may sounds like a fair process on the surface, but as usual, there is more to the story.  The RNC’s penalty will mean that a number of very conservative states,with high delegate counts like Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina, that intend to hold early Primaries, will be forced to divide their delegates among multiple candidates.  In fact, 10 of 15 Southern states plan to hold their Primaries in this window. Conservative stalwarts like Colorado and Utah also plan to hold Primaries in this window.  It is highly unlikely any candidate will emerge from these conservative states with enough delegates to establish a significant lead or gain momentum in the race to be the Republican nominee before March 14.

The purpose of the debate (in the mind of the establishment GOP) is to divide the support among the conservative candidates. The media tends liberal, so they are going to play along so that the Republicans put forth a weak candidate. Unless the conservatives running for President agree among themselves on who gets out of the race and who remains in the race, we are going to have Jeb Bush as a candidate. I can assure you his candidacy will result in a Democrat President. The success of Donald Trump has thrown a bit of a wrench into the establishment plan, but I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans support a Trump presidency.

There are some good conservative Republican candidates. If nothing else, the assembled people on the state would make an amazing Presidential cabinet. The problem is finding a conservative leader. I am sure Jeb Bush is an intelligent and very nice man–I just don’t want to see him as the Republican candidate–I don’t think he can win.

Where Is The Money Going?

On Wednesday, the National Review posted an article showing where the donations are going in the Republican Presidential Primary. The results are somewhat surprising.

Here is the chart:

The article points out:

In the 2016 presidential race, Scott Walker has a couple advantages based on his electoral experiences alone: His back-to-back election victories after changing the state’s public-union rules drew attention and support from grassroots conservatives across the country, and to help win those races, he was all over the country raising millions of dollars from big national Republican donors. No other Republican contender has fought a national fight like that. It’s hard to measure grassroots cred, but just how dramatic is Walker’s first-contact advantage with big donors?

Frankly, I think there is a message here. Many conservative Republicans are getting very tired of being expected to vote for the establishment candidate. It has become obvious that establishment Republicans don’t want to cut spending in Washington–they simply want to control the money instead of the Democrats. Conservatives are getting tired of voting for Republicans and watching government grow and taxes increase. Scott Walker is a Republican who represents the conservatives within the party. Hopefully the establishment will not try to undermine his candidacy. (Although they are already moving to dilute conservative influence in the Republican primary–see rightwinggranny).