politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The Trump Goes On
Source:
Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs ... campaign-will-end_1007525.html
Published: Aug 8, 2015
Author: Steven F. Hayes
Post Date: 2015-08-10 07:34:18 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 8028
Comments: 146
It’s not over. And it’s likely to end badly. In an interview on CNN last night, Donald Trump suggested that Megyn Kelly’s tough questioning was inspired by her menstrual cycle. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. “Blood coming out of her—wherever.” He refused to apologize, of course, but after widespread condemnation, Trump, who is running on candor and straight talk, sought to explain his comments in a Tweet. “Re Megyn Kelly quote: ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’ (NOSE). Just got on w/thought.’” It’s a comment that might end any other presidential campaign. Trump is different, in part because this isn’t a campaign. It’s an extended media-driven ego ride. From the beginning, he’s played by different rules because the media have let him. Trump works just blocks from the headquarters of the major broadcast and cable outlets. But as he’s rolled out his Trump for President brand, he has gotten journalists to come to him. He sits for interviews in the gilded atrium of Trump Towers, a nice home field advantage and one that sets him apart from the other politicians sitting in boring studios. Trump has conducted frequent telephone interviews on cable networks, sometimes several times a day, and last weekend did “phoners” on two Sunday morning political shows. (Has any other candidate this cycle, in either party, been given an opportunity to do a television interview by phone?) If he were asked policy questions, the arrangement would give him an unfair advantage, with the opportunity to answer questions with a cheat sheet in front of him and Google at his fingertips. But substantive questions about the country and its problems are the exceptions in Trump’s conversations with journalists, who prefer to ask him about his latest controversial comment or seek to provoke the next one by asking him about his opponents. (Trump’s comments about Kelly didn’t provoke any follow-up questions from CNN host Don Lemon, whose interview with Trump continued for several more minutes). So the cycle continues: Trump says something outrageous that may or may not have any relevance to serving as president, he’s asked about it in a largely substance-free interview, and ratings climb—along with Trump’s name ID and poll ratings. Trump is right, sadly, when he boasts that he is partly responsible for the 24 million viewers who tuned into the debate Thursday night. He has convinced himself that people watch because they love him and in a limited sense, he’s probably right about that, too. While I suspect that the Trump hype is driven by curiosity more than admiration, there is no doubt some segment of the population that is properly understood now as “Trump supporters.” That segment is small and will be shrinking in the coming weeks, but it won’t disappear. The true Trump apologists are way too far in now. They've invested too much to bail on him. So his defenders will become increasingly desperate to convince people that this is all part of the establishment's failure to understand their anger and the media's failure to appreciate Trump’s appeal. That’s backwards. It's not that the media have failed to give Trump enough credit; we’ve given his supporters too much. We assumed that at some point they'd embarrassed to be associated with him: If not his slander of Mexican immigrants, then perhaps his mockery of POWs; if not his kindergarten Twitter insults, then perhaps his sad and compulsive boasting; if not his incomprehensible answers to substantive questions at the debate, then maybe, finally, his juvenile and misogynistic put-down of the female moderator Those who still remain Trump supporters seem to be beyond shame. It doesn’t matter that they’re angry about the incompetence in Washington. Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator. It’s embarrassing, but rather than embarrassment, the Trump followers will feel more anger and their pose will shift from self-righteousness to victimhood. And many of them will dig in further. More worrisome, for conservatives and for the country, so will Trump. As he’s abandoned by more rational beings, Trump, a man of deep and evident insecurity, will need these remaining supporters as validation that it’s the world that’s gone crazy, not him. They will encourage him to march on, guided by the misapprehension that there are many more behind them, perhaps hard to see, but following in the distance nonetheless. Trump will tout this support and insist, unconstrained by reality, that he can win. (This is the man who continues to say Hispanics love him and will support him, despite polls showing his favorability among Hispanics in the mid-teens). As Republicans scramble to distance themselves—with many candidates denouncing his remarks about Kelly, as they had his mockery of John McCain—Trump will feel the swelling pride of a man whose bluff is being called. Treat me nicely or I’ll leave, he warned repeatedly. This is why Bret Baier’s first question Thursday was the single most important question of the debate. Although Trump had left open the possibility of running third party, in the days leading up to the debate he had backed away from those threats. “I’m pretty confident in the answers I’ve gotten from him,” Sean Hannity said Wednesday night. “I’ve asked him a few times. I’m pretty confident he’ll never run third party.” Less than twenty-four hours later, Trump reversed himself again, raising his hand to show he wouldn't pledge support for the eventual Republican nominee. When Baier asked if Trump meant to be conveying what he seemed to be saying, Trump responded, twice: “I fully understand.” Trump threatened to leave if Republicans treated him badly. Now, because he’s a churl and a buffoon, Republicans have no choice but to treat him badly. It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: misterwhite (#15)
Not really a hidden agenda that much with Hayes. He did a big podcast on Walker, his fellow-Cheesehead, when he announced on 7/13. It was a total puff piece, real man-crush material. Hayes followed a few days later with Walker's Agenda: 'Reform, Growth, Safety'. So not much of a hidden agenda, the bias is obvious. I had the feeling he volunteered for or got picked as WS's main reporter on all things Walker, who is still expected to be a player for the GOP nomination. It does underline why some media figures were banking on covering certain GOP candidates through next year and how they end up calling Trump an "ape" because he's threatening their little tea party.
The Weekly Standard was one of the biggest shills for invading Iraq, see how that turned out? They have a track record of being very wrong. This neocon "invade the world, invite the world" crap is killing America.
Rupert is only kinda retired. He could unretire any time he wants. Ailes got a big new contract and continued unfettered control of FNC. The Murdoch kids have indicated they'd go in a more liberal direction if it was up to them but Rupert won't let them do it while he's alive. But Rupert himself isn't so conservative, going by that donation of a million to Hillary 2008.
While I mistrust Trump, Trump may be the voice that initiates a reconstructive violent revolution in this country. It's a housecleaning this country has desperately needed for more than 50 years.
Yep, 2016 as "Jeb! vs. Hitlery!". With maybe The Donald lurking around. Wish for a Trump and you'll get a Bush is the most likely outcome. I keep trying to find a quip for this, along the lines of "A Trump in the hand is worth two more for Bush". I can't make it work and sound funny.
It's the Weekly Standard. They have all the patriotism of Jonathan Pollard.
If the GOP throws out Trump, Hillary is the most likely outcome. If the GOP doesn't support Trump but wants a Republican to win the White House in November, the only choice is to back off. If the people grow tired of him, the poll numbers will drop. If they drop, Trump will simply fade away. But if they increase, then Trump is tapping into something the GOP isn't offering. Perhaps the GOP should come into Trump's "camp".
There's another one that used to be conservative.
They're cuckservative.
I'm in northern Illinois, so I hear and read about what Walker is doing in Wisconsin on almost a weekly basis. (Mark Belling -- a Rush substitute host -- broadcasts from Milwaukee.) I think Walker would make a great President, and he's my choice. That said, right now he's a voice in the wilderness, along with all the other candidates. Trump is sucking all the oxygen and blood out of the room. (A little "common phrase" humor there.) Quite frankly, I like what Trump is saying and doing. Perhaps he's the man we need today. Now when I look at all the other candidates -- even Walker -- all I see are establishment types, willing to go along to get along, same-o, same-o. I gotta admit. It's depressing.
The Weekly Standard was founded by Bill Kristol, the biggest neo-conservative in the nation. Look up neo-conservative in the dictionary and there's a picture of him.
You mean, like Roger Stone, Trump's long-time political adviser. For all the cuckservative talk lately, the only actual cuckservative anyone can actually name is Trump's close buddy for the last 25 years, Roger Stone. Anyway, since you are so bi-curious about cuckservatives, I thought you might want to discuss the only known cuckservative Republican, Trump's good buddy and (former) adviser, Roger Stone.
I didn't like that word when I first saw it, and repetition isn't helping. It's rude, crude, and ignorant. My opinion.
Maybe that's his actual purpose. A ringer for Xlinton? A ringer for Bush? A ringer for both Xlinton and Bush (who would both prefer to fight it out with each other in the general election rather than risk losing the nomination for themselves). Trump virtually guarantees a Bush v. Clinton 2016 matchup. With or without Trump as a third-party candidate. It's maddening how many different ways Trump can play this to his advantage. This could be purely a play by Donald for some sweet business deal he's after. He really is fully leveraged against the entire GOP primary field with options to be a player in the 2016 election. And he can cut all kinds of side deals along the way, like with Adelson. Or Soros. Whoever. Maybe Donald just wants to be worth $20 billion and he's going to screw with the 2016 election until someone gives it to him (or lets him buy into one or more of their upcoming sweetheart deals with them paying all the financing costs).
They're all part of the Klueless Kucks Klan.
Mainly, it makes the person saying it sound cruder and more repugnant than the GOP elite.
RINO's are self emasculating; it fits them perfectly.
Key word. Former. Could we please move on?
And the movement came from the followers of Leon Trotsky.
You spew a lot of bullshit. I want Trump to be President. I do not want Clinton, who is a murderess, or Biden, who is a conflicted Catholic babykiller, to be President. I will not accept any crony capitalist Republican. Republican economics are unholy, and unacceptable. I listen to Donald Trump, a rich man who has profited from the crony capitalist laws, and HE is talking about things like protecting American jobs by controlling the border, and HE is talking about a national common market in health insurance. And HE is talking about the way that the system is rigged to allow rich guys like him to buy the politicians. That's why HE is acceptable - because he is the only one who is actually challenging Republican ECONOMIC and POLITICAL orthodoxy. The Republicans are every bit as unacceptable as the Democrats. Murder is evil. And making an idol of money is evil. And for all the claims of people like you that the Republicans are "pro-life", I look back at history and see a Republican-appointed Supreme Court deciding Roe 7-2, the Republicans controlling the Supreme Court every day since, and Republican Presidents from Reagan to Bush, inclusive, appointing more pro- choice justices than pro-lifers. Republicans are liars. They have duped the pro-life Christians into thinking they are the pro-life party, but judged by their fruit, by what they do, and don't do, with the power they already have, they're just lying skunks. Unacceptable. Trump is acceptable BECAUSE he is not a party man. By winning, he will be effecting a takeover of the GOP from without, by a whole bunch of disaffected people who otherwise would not vote Republican. So, you can bray on about how I want to see Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat elected. It's false. I think both parties suck. With the Republicans, I get evil economics and purposeful inactivity and deception on abortion. With Democrats, I get race- baiting and babykilling. They both suck, but since neither one is going to do the right thing on abortion, the Democrats are BETTER on economics, consistently over time, than Republicans. I will not VOTE for them, but I certainly prefer to see Democrat economics over Republican nonsense. Of course, with Trump, I won't get nonsense at all. So I FAVOR him. I want him to run, get the nomination, win the election and be President, because he will be good for the country. If it's a choice between some Republican greebo and a Democrat, I say a pox on both houses and will vote for neither. But I will be less unhappy with a Democrat victory than you will be, because I think Democrat economics make more sense. So with them I get half a loaf. Trump will really shake things up in all senses. So I SUPPORT him. Every time you take the line that I support the Democrats and want to see them elected, think of how YOU get called a Republican shill and operative, because you won't take some other idiot's line regarding you. They are idiots when they do that, regarding you. And you are the same sort of idiot when it comes to me. I say directly what I think, and why. You should take it as direct face value. I know you're a Republican, and honesty simply does not come easily to Republicans. But I am always honest and very direct.
You've been openly pining for Biden as prez repeatedly on these threads just in the last week. And everyone knows it. Now you suddenly never heard of such a thing, being more holy than the pope on hating abortion.
The latest poll puts Trump at 23%. So if Trump goes away, you think that 23% will go to Bush? Sorry, but I see Trump and Bush supporters at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I think you know that isn't going to happen. : ) I am ready to post the adult swinger pix and more details, given any excuse to do so. And more documentation on how close Trump and Roger Stone have been for a very long time. And how similar they are, which is why they are friends. Up until Stone quit Trump, I would have said that Stone is quite obviously Trump's best friend over the decades.
LOL sorry you had to sleuth through the sewers to find that one:) "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
No. But some people really do just go with the biggest name they've heard. Now that is Trump. With Trump gone, it would be Bush. Assume that counts for 5%-10% of the total GOP vote (about a third of all Trump's supporters). Then figure another 5% are Dims who are just diehard Trump fans. Like those two crazy black ladies on YouBoob. Then 5% to Cruz, 4% to Carson, 3% to Walker, 2% to Kasich, 1% to Rand Paul. And you've accounted for where Trump's voters go (if they go anywhere and don't just stay home, many of them being inactive voters, just as they were with Perot). Do you see how, with his $120M initial warchest and Wall Street backing, Bush shuts down all the challengers after a big win in Florida? Look at how Romney mopped up the field slowly with his superior resources, despite Gingrich winning a state and Santorum winning 5 or 6 states (or was it more?). Wish for a Trump and the greatest certainty is that the GOP will nominate Bush.
Yuck...Please don't. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Meaning that cutting him loose was probably a difficult decision. Yet he made it. So I respect him for that. Unlike, say, Hillary with Huma Abedin and her creepy husband, Anthony Weiner. Nobody says anything about them. Yet if Trump is involved it's a big scandal. Why is that, Too Conservative? And, for the record, not all of my personal friends are clean as the driven, bloody snow. (Ah! See what I did? I did it again!)
I doubt that. It's probably headline news on all the liberal rags.
I always knew this stuff about Trump. Recall his threats to run third-party or indy in the Nineties through 2004. The Stone scandal was part of the Dole meltdown in '96, a bit before the Andrew Sullivan craze at TOS with the most gullible freepers ("Oh, gee, Andrew Sullivan may be gay but he is a True Conservative"). It's the exact same kind of gullibility and giddiness we see on the Right toward Trump. With Sullivan, the discussions came to an abrupt halt when he got outed for posting his own swinger ads on some gay website under the handle "Milky_Loads". At the time, Sullivan was gobbling hormones to bulk up and anti-AIDS drugs (at public expense!) and wasn't warning his gay partners that he was HIV-positive. At the time, there was a full archive of lurid nude photos of Sullivan. We kept posting them on Sullivan threads at TOS and calling him Milky_Loads and referring to his "Power Glutes" that he bragged about in his ads. Finally, JimRob banned any more Andrew Sullivan articles. : )
I went with the New Yorker story. Pretty respectable as NYC rags go. Read through it for Stone's Rules. You'll start to see all the similarities to Trump and you'll see why they were such good friends (and probably still are).
I think there are about 20-21 primary states before Florida, so a lot could happen before then -- with or without Trump. Yes, Bush should take Florida. But right now he has only an 8-point lead over Trump. So he is vulnerable.
IMHO this is because they still maintain their Marxist roots,while the modern Dim and Republican Parties have gone full-out Fascist/Globalist. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Florida is still #5. IA/NH/NV/SC/FL. Anyway, I think NV is after NH but maybe it's before NH. Floriduh is the first big contest. In 2008 and 2012, Florida tried to move up its primary and also award all its delegates as winner-take-all (whereas Florida is part of the bloc of states that have agreed to award delegates proportionally). Florida did this to try to make itself the kingmaker of GOP primary states (just like NH and SC both try to be the kingmakers). Supposedly in 2016, Florida will hold its primary on the allotted day and will award delegates proportionally. If this had been done in 2012, you might have seen a big move for Newt! as the GOP nominee as Newt (and the lovely Callista) drained tycoon Adelson and his wife dry on donations running an expensive media campaign in Florida, trying to wrestle the nomination away from Romney. After Florida, Adelson threw in the towel, Newt dropped out, and Santorum became the final anyone-but-Romney candidate which allowed him to win more states but always with Romney pulling further and further ahead in delegates. I think that is likely to happen with Bush too. It is the natural strategy for any party insider like Romney or Bush with the biggest warchest. This is exactly why they covet a big warchest so much.
Where did you get your list?
Memory. It really is not a very long list, you know. Woh, I see your point. RNC made a very major change. Florida got their ass kicked, way back in the pack from their old #5 spot. I guess if a state party flips off the RNC two elections in a row like Floriduh in 2008 & 2012, they get their asses totally kicked.
Another "Yuck" moment.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
I spared you the really lurid stuff. I try to avoid the truly NSFW quotes.
I see you take SurveyMonkey very seriously. It's a corporate cloud-based PollDaddy. Not real phone polling. Remember, when you see Chuck Todd, it's all lies. SurveyMonkey is just as silly as all those (self-selected) instant texting polls that FNC tried to in 2012 ("text #9921 if Romney won,text #9922 if Gingrich won, text #9923 if Ron Paul won", etc.). The Ron Paul techie types naturally figured out how to bomb them with fake votes for Ron Paul. I recall Vannity going completely insane over Ron Paul winning those, time after time despite Fox trying to get everyone to text their votes in just so Ron Paul wouldn't win again. Very funny stuff.
Here's the 2016 GOP primary line up month by month, state by state: Most of the 'damage' is done in March. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Weekly Standard has another anti-Trump piece today, this time by mousy Fred Barnes. Worth a glance. Republicans have been slow in recognizing the real damage Donald Trump is doing to their party. The harm is not to the party’s image. What Trump has done is exacerbate the increasingly bitter rift between the party’s leaders and its grass roots. He’s made the GOP’s future dicey. The quarter of the Republican electorate Trump has attracted consists largely of this alienated group. Since he voices their resentment of Republican elites – especially their arch-enemies in Congress – he’s become their champion. And champions are hard to dethrone. Trump doesn’t have to run as an independent to be a serious troublemaker. As long as he stays in the GOP race, the split in the party is likely to deepen and primaries may turn into nasty and divisive contests. And imagine if he wins enough delegates to disrupt the Republican convention by making demands. The media would again make him the center of attention. “The Republican party created Donald Trump, because they made lot of promises to their base and never kept them,” Erick Erickson, the conservative editor of RedState, told Molly Ball of the Atlantic. Erickson is right. “At this point, most of the people I encounter on radio and on the internet, they’re not really people who at the end of the day want to vote for Donald Trump,” Erickson said. “But they sure do like that he’s burning down the Republican Party that never listened to them to begin with.” In Washington, the rift isn’t taken seriously. But it should be. Even before Trump arrived on the Republican scene it was getting worse. It began to grow after Republicans won the House in 2010. A significant chunk of the rank and file, spurred by right wing talk radio, blamed Republican leadership in Washington for failing to thwart President Obama and reverse or minimize victories he’d won in his first two years of office when Democrats had large majorities in both houses of Congress. After Republicans captured the Senate in 2014, things got worse. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against John Boehner for another term as House speaker. This was an unusually large bloc of dissenters and reflected the dissatisfaction with GOP leaders of many grass roots Republicans. Now the conservative media is asking why Republicans, with their control of Congress and dominance in statehouses across the country, has achieved so little in Washington. “Why does the Republican party exist?” Ben Domenech wrote in The Federalist. He pointed to three Republican failures: to kill renewal of the Export-Import Bank, defund Planned Parenthood, and block the Iran nuclear deal. Republican leaders have credible explanations for each of these setbacks, but their critics are not persuaded. Domenech wrote: “Perhaps you believe the Republican party exists as a party of limited government and free markets.” But that is “impossible,” he said, after McConnell cleared the way to revive the Ex-Im Bank, whose charter expired June 30. Sen. Ted Crux (R-TX) accused Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of promising a vote to Democrats get their support for a trade bill. But it didn’t take a secret deal for a vote on the bank to occur, given its strong support (most Democrats, nearly half of Republicans). On Planned Parenthood, Domenech questioned whether the GOP is credible as a pro-life party after McConnell declined to allow an up-or-down vote on halting its federal funding, at least on funding for “taxpayer subsidization of harvesting organs from aborted babies.” Democrats had earlier blocked a vote on procedural grounds. The problem with raising the funding issue is simple: it might lead to a government shutdown. And McConnell is bent on avoiding just that. He fears Republicans would be blamed, even if the cause of a shutdown were an Obama veto. Chances are, they would be, and Democrats would be delighted. Still, there are many Republicans who think another bid to defund Planned Parenthood is worth the risk. On the Iran deal, Domenech faulted Senate Republicans for settling for a weak hand in taking up the deal, ceding “their Constitutional duty.” Obama packaged the deal as an executive agreement, which means it doesn’t require congressional approval, much less a two-thirds majority as in the case of a treaty. The downside for Obama is that an executive agreement can be rescinded by the next president. And several Republican presidential candidates, including Scott Walker and Rick Perry, have vowed to do that if elected. But how Republicans could successfully turn the agreement into a treaty that requires Senate ratification is unclear. Trump has barely touched on these three issues, but he’ll probably find his way to them. He has his following. It’s hardly a majority of the Republican party, but it’s sufficient to keep his campaign alive and to drive the wedge deeper between Republicans. There’s a larger picture here in which Trump is playing a part, though he may personally be oblivious to it. The two parties are redefining themselves. For decades, Democrats were a coalition party, Republicans a consensus party. Democrats remain a collection of interest groups – labor, liberals, feminists, minorities, etc. – but they’re no longer ideologically diverse. Conservatives aren’t welcome and moderates are barely hanging on. Left liberalism has triumphed in the Democratic party. Republicans have been a consensus party, generally agreeing on issues, for roughly a half century. Despite this, factions are now growing – that is, factions that don’t get along with each other. Grass roots conservatives, egged on by talk radio, loathe their leaders. Social conservatives feel slighted. Libertarians are scarce in senior GOP circles. Obama united Republicans early on. But the failure to derail his initiatives now divides them, mostly on tactics and strategy. Trump divides Republicans all the more. He’s a one-man wedge issue.
Comments (62 - 146) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Meaning we can hardly expect his article about Trump to be objective and fair.
#22. To: Stoner (#2)
No it will not. I believe in the end, it will be badly for the GOPe and their followers like the Weekly Standard.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)
I read Murdochs kids took over July 1, 2015. I also heard they are liberals.
#24. To: TooConservative (#0)
It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.
#25. To: misterwhite (#15)
And not in a good way. Which explain why Jeb Bush's campaign has signs saying JEB! (leaving out the Bush part).
#26. To: misterwhite (#5)
Bunch of little, immature kids in the MSM looking for their "Gotcha" moment.
#27. To: TooConservative (#25)
"Wish for a Trump and you'll get a Bush is the most likely outcome."
#28. To: nativist nationalist (#26)
"It's the Weekly Standard. They have all the patriotism of Jonathan Pollard."
#29. To: misterwhite (#16)
Here I thought National Review and Fox were conservative outlets...
#30. To: TooConservative (#21)
(Edited)
"Walker, who is still expected to be a player for the GOP nomination."
#31. To: nativist nationalist (#22)
"The Weekly Standard was one of the biggest shills for invading Iraq ..."
#32. To: nativist nationalist (#29)
They're cuckservative.
In the original ads, where this quotes "seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men", the actual phrasing is "seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men". Stone is one of those who denied that Roy Cohen was ever gay, he just liked having sex with other men. Nothing unusual about that. So maybe Roger Stone is also not gay but likes to have sex with other men too. Trump and Stone seem to share a Playboy lifestyle outlook out of the Seventies. Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined “Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,” reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card. “Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men,” the ad on the Web site stated. The ads sought athletes and military men, while discouraging overweight candidates, and included photographs of the Stones. At the time, Stone claimed that he had been set up by a “very sick individual,” but he was forced to resign from Dole’s campaign. Stone acknowledged to me that the ads were authentic. “When that whole thing hit the fan in 1996, the reason I gave a blanket denial was that my grandparents were still alive,” he said. “I’m not guilty of hypocrisy. I’m a libertarian and a libertine.”
#33. To: nativist nationalist (#29)
"They're cuckservative."
#34. To: misterwhite (#30)
That said, right now he's a voice in the wilderness, along with all the other candidates. Trump is sucking all the oxygen and blood out of the room.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#17)
National Review always sucked.
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
It's rude, crude, and ignorant. My opinion.
#37. To: misterwhite (#33)
I didn't like that word when I first saw it, and repetition isn't helping.
#38. To: TooConservative (#32)
"Trump's good buddy and (former) adviser, Roger Stone."
#39. To: misterwhite (#31)
Look up neo-conservative in the dictionary and there's a picture of him.
#40. To: TooConservative (#14)
Given how often you've stated your preferences for a Dem victory with Hitlery or Biden, I'm not too surprised. You like Trump in the hopes of their election, not Trump's.
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
I do not want Clinton, who is a murderess, or Biden, who is a conflicted Catholic babykiller, to be President.
#42. To: TooConservative (#34)
"Trump virtually guarantees a Bush v. Clinton 2016 matchup. With or without Trump as a third-party candidate."
#43. To: misterwhite (#38)
Key word. Former. Could we please move on?
#44. To: TooConservative (#32)
Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined “Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,” reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card. “Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men,” the ad on the Web site stated. The ads sought athletes and military men, while discouraging overweight candidates, and included photographs of the Stones. At the time, Stone claimed that he had been set up by a “very sick individual,” but he was forced to resign from Dole’s campaign. Stone acknowledged to me that the ads were authentic. “When that whole thing hit the fan in 1996, the reason I gave a blanket denial was that my grandparents were still alive,” he said. “I’m not guilty of hypocrisy. I’m a libertarian and a libertine.”
#45. To: misterwhite (#42)
The latest poll puts Trump at 23%. So if Trump goes away, you think that 23% will go to Bush? Sorry, but I see Trump and Bush supporters at opposite ends of the spectrum.
#46. To: TooConservative (#43)
I am ready to post the adult swinger pix and more details, given any excuse to do so.
#47. To: TooConservative (#43)
"I would have said that Stone is quite obviously Trump's best friend over the decades."
#48. To: redleghunter (#44)
"LOL sorry you had to sleuth through the sewers to find that one."
#49. To: redleghunter (#44)
LOL sorry you had to sleuth through the sewers to find that one:)
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
I doubt that. It's probably headline news on all the liberal rags.
#51. To: TooConservative (#45)
"Bush shuts down all the challengers after a big win in Florida?"
#52. To: TooConservative (#3)
Weekly Standard over the last few years has become far less GOP-establishment even if they still easily qualify as a GOP opinion source. They won't go populist but they are not aligned with the GOP elite in the Beltway on a number of issues, like the idiotic Corker Iran legislation and GOP strategy against the Obama agenda.
#53. To: misterwhite (#51)
I think there are about 20-21 primary states before Florida, so a lot could happen before then -- with or without Trump.
#54. To: TooConservative (#53)
IA/NH/NV/SC/FL.
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
Where did you get your list?
#56. To: TooConservative (#49)
#57. To: redleghunter (#56)
#58. To: TooConservative (#53)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
(Edited)
#60. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, liberator, CZ82, A K A Stone (#55)
#61. To: All (#0)
Donald Trump, a One-Man Wedge Issue, Threatens GOP Future
Fred Barnes
August 10, 2015 9:50 AM
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]