Ed Takes On The Pro-Establishment Wall Street Journal – A Brokered GOP Convention, MY ASS!


Regarding the recent Wall Street Journal article titled Trump, Voters And The GOP Convention:

WSJ – “Donald Trump may pile up more than enough delegates in the primaries to make his GOP presidential nomination this summer a formality. But what if he doesn’t? Mr. Trump, Ted Cruz and their media mouthpieces are claiming it would be political theft to choose the nominee at a contested convention. These timid souls need an education in party rules, political history and muscular democracy.

Ed – “Timid souls”? What’s timid about either of them or their respective supporters? And just what in hell is “muscular democracy” anyway? Is that another way of describing a system in which the opinions of everyone who isn’t a party official, lobbyist or major donor are ignored?

WSJ – “The Republican Party’s rules say a candidate needs the votes of 1,237 of the 2,472 delegates at the July convention in Cleveland to win the nomination. They don’t say all one needs is a plurality, or to have won the most primaries. There is no moral right to the nomination because a candidate wins 40%, or even 49%, of the delegates. He needs a majority, and the 1,237 number is no secret.

Ed – True enough, yet anyone who thinks it’s reasonable to ignore the most popular candidate in this race – simply because he didn’t win the aforementioned number of delegates – and then gladly hand the majority of them to someone who garnered far less delegates (or maybe none at all) is mentally unstable.

WSJ – “Parties set this public requirement because they exist to win elections, and a nominating majority is the best indicator of the rough consensus necessary to unite the party behind the winner. A candidate who can’t put together a majority of delegates is unlikely to unite the party and is probably a loser in November.

Ed – Yet, handing the nomination to someone else, who cobbled together even LESS delegates, is somehow LIKELY to unite the party? Please explain how that works, exactly.

WSJ – “Before the primary system became the norm in the decades after World War II, party nominees were always chosen at the convention. But even in the primary era, a convention fight has been possible.

Ed – Nobody gives a shit.

WSJ – “As recently as 1976, Gerald Ford came into the convention with more delegates than Ronald Reagan, who offered the vice presidency to Senator Richard Schweiker to turn the Pennsylvania delegation his way. The influential Drew Lewis chose to honor his pledge to Ford, kept the Pennsylvania delegation in line, and denied Reagan the nomination.

Ed – Is this supposed to strengthen your argument in favor of a brokered convention? In case you forgot, Ford got his ass kicked in the general election that year. Reagan, on the other hand, won back-to-back landslides starting in the very next presidential election cycle.

WSJ – “Democrats had to go three rounds of balloting in 1952 to produce Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson as their nominee. In 1956 Democrats staged a floor flight over which of more than a dozen candidates to nominate for vice president. Estes Kefauver won. And in 1980 there was a short-lived effort at the Democratic convention to change the rules to help Ted Kennedy catch Jimmy Carter, who had lost nearly every late primary to the Massachusetts Senator.

Ed – Somebody just shoot me now.

WSJ – “With this history in mind, each party continues to have rules for how long delegates are pledged to a candidate. Under the GOP rules, about 1,700 delegates out of 2,472 (69%) are bound in the first ballot to vote for the candidate for whom they are pledged – usually by a primary or caucus result. The 31% who are unbound come from states that don’t hold binding presidential preference contests, or from states that allow some of their delegates to remain uncommitted.

Ed – *Yawn*

WSJ – “If the first ballot doesn’t produce a majority, nearly 80% of the delegates then become free to vote for the nominee of their choice on the second ballot. By the third ballot, 89.4% are free to choose. This gradual liberation is designed to prevent a stalemate and let the delegates work their will to coalesce eventually around the best nominee. This isn’t cheating or “stealing the nomination.” It’s how the process is supposed to work.

Ed – That “process” is complete bullshit, and every rational person knows it! Look, if a candidate gets close but doesn’t win the required number of delegates, then the “process” SHOULD work this way: the top candidate still wins the nomination, but the second-place candidate gets to be his running mate. In essence, the winner forfeits his right to choose a VP while still retaining his top-dog status.

Why is this both the fairest and smartest way of choosing nominees? Because NO OTHER CANDIDATE is more representative of the will of Republican voters than the one who garnered the most delegates in the primary race, and to argue otherwise is just plain idiotic! Furthermore, combining the support bases of the two most popular candidates is far and away the best means of beating the Democrats in the general election. It’s common-fucking sense.

WSJ – “Ah, but aren’t the delegates part of the “establishment”? If by establishment you mean stalwart party members in the provinces, then yes. They are often the rank-and-file GOPers who run state and local party operations. But others are activists chosen to become delegates by the various candidates.

Ed – You can refer to them as the “establishment” or the “Mickey Mouse Club”, for all I care, but the fact remains that they’re not representative of the rest of the GOP voter base, and the “process” they’re engaged in is still completely asinine.

WSJ – “It’s true that three delegates from each state are Republican National Committee members. But the rules this year require nearly all of those RNC members to vote in the first ballot for the candidate who won the most at-large votes in a state primary or caucus. So those RNC members, a small minority of delegates, are expressing the will of the voters in the first go-round.

Ed – Which means nothing to anyone who understands basic math.

WSJ – “The premature protests by Messrs Cruz and Trump are entirely self-serving. Both men think they have a good chance to win a plurality of delegates but can’t be sure they’ll get all the way to 1,237. They want to cry havoc in advance so party members will shrink in fear of a GOP breakup if there’s a nominating fight at the convention.

Ed – “Self-serving” or not, what they’re saying with respect to a party” breakup” is not only highly likely, it’s about as close to a certainty as one can get without owning a magic, crystal ball. If neither Trump nor Cruz is chosen as the Republican party’s presidential nominee – assuming they both garner large numbers of delegates yet fail to gain the required 1,237 – not only will all hell break loose on the convention floor, but the party will utterly disintegrate as a result. It’ll be finished as a viable, political institution from that moment forward, and God help any GOP power-broker who can’t spot this eventuality coming a mile away.

WSJ – “These candidates and Republicans generally should toughen up. If Messrs. Trump or Cruz couldn’t sway a majority at the convention, it would be because they couldn’t convince their fellow Republicans that they have the best chance of winning. Every candidate entered the race knowing the rules, and every candidate has an equal opportunity to exploit them. Mr. Trump certainly has used the accelerated primary calendar to his advantage, racking up a delegate lead before he’s been subject to any real scrutiny.

Ed – “Toughen up”? Excuse the hell out of me, but these guys have been toughening up since last summer, running a grueling race, day in and day out, and taking more shit from the leftist media – as well as establishment-fluffing assclowns like you – than any of the party’s limp-wristed, spineless, kneecap-sucking leaders ever will.

Oh, and just in case this little factoid escaped your attention, the current race – like every other – has less to do with the candidates and far more to do with the people who vote for them. Why? Because a politician’s job is to represent WE, THE PEOPLE. So you can take your well-articulated, yet nonetheless scatterbrained, notions of what is or isn’t an equitable nomination “process” and shove them with a red-hot poker!

WSJ – “It’s always possible that a losing Mr. Trump would bolt the GOP and run as a third-party candidate or urge his supporters to boycott in November. But the same might happen in reverse if Mr. Trump becomes the nominee despite what is growing opposition from traditional Republicans. If the businessman can’t rally a majority at the convention, then he can’t unite the GOP enough to beat Hillary Clinton.

Ed – Bullshit! There is no reverse scenario here. Either one of the two leading candidates gets hosed by the party’s leadership, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, it’s anyone’s guess how the general election plays out, but if he does, it’s bye-bye Republican party, and don’t let the door smack you in the ass on your way to oblivion.

WSJ – “Many primaries have yet to be held, and the odds are that the voters will give one candidate a clear majority before Cleveland. But if they don’t, the voters themselves will have set the stage for the convention fight. The event could a great education in party democracy, and it certainly would do better in the ratings than the usual four-day infomercial.

Ed – I agree that an education in “party democracy” is certainly possible in this case. The lesson, however, may well prove to be that you, the Republican elite, have spat too many times in the faces of your constituents, and now you’re about to be bludgeoned to death with your own convention gavel.

…figuratively speaking, of course.

.

Another lesson to be learned from observing kids

Playing with my niece, Savannah Grace, that name was my idea BTW, who is now 4, I learn a lot. She likes to pretend to be a princess, or a knight, of a firefighter, or a dragon, and she likes me to pretend to. And, it is obvious that although she is just 4 she understands pretend from reality. Why does she not confuse the two? Because she is a normal child, and normal people can distinguish between fantasy and reality, which brings me to this post at American Power which lays out the case against zero tolerance policies in schools

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, “Educators can’t distinguish between childish games and real threats“:

Last week, the Wall Street Journal’s Alison Gopnik reported on research from professors Jacqueline Wooley at the University of Texas and Paul Harris at Harvard that showed a surprising degree of sophistication among preschool kids. Apparently, though they spend a lot of time in fantasy pursuits, they’re actually quite good at distinguishing fantasy from reality:

Children understand the difference. They know that their beloved imaginary friend isn’t actually real and that the terrifying monster in their closet doesn’t actually exist (though that makes them no less beloved or scary). But children do spend more time than we do thinking about the world of imagination. They don’t actually confuse the fantasy world with the real one; they just prefer to hang out there.

So simple really isn’t it? So very, very simple. Yet, some Conservatives forget this when some nut shoots up a school, or movie theater. They will play the “it is video games” card. Ignoring the fact that millions and millions of other people played those same games and never caused any harm to anyone. So, to my fellow Conservatives who continue to beat that dead horse of stupidity, I offer two words of advice “STOP” and “THINK”

 

Welcome to Marxism 101 America. ObamaCare punishes those who had insurance

Donald Douglas has a link to a WSJ piece that looks into the truth about how bad ObamaCare REALLY is. Odd isn’t it the “Affordable Care act” is proving to be anything but affordable, or Americans or America. Even odder, perhaps, is that this bill shows how little Democrats “care” about working Americans.

Another essential analysis, at the Wall Street Journal, “ObamaCare’s Plans Are Worse“:

Liberals justify [ObamaCare’s] coercive cross-subsidies as necessary to finance coverage for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. But government usually helps the less fortunate honestly by raising taxes to fund programs. In summer 2009, Senate Democrats put out such a bill, and the $1.6 trillion sticker shock led them to hide the transfers by forcing people to buy overpriced products.

This political mugging is especially unfair to the people whose plans on the current individual market are being taken away. The majority of these consumers are self-employed or small-business owners. They’re middle class, rarely affluent. They took responsibility for their care without government aid, and unlike people in the job-based system, they paid with after-tax dollars.

Now they’re being punished for the crime of not subsidizing ObamaCare, even though the individual market was never as dysfunctional or high cost as liberals claim. In 2012, average U.S. individual premiums were $190, ranging from a low of $123 in North Dakota to a high of $385 in Massachusetts. Average premiums for family plans fell that year by 0.5% to $412.

Those numbers come from the 13,000 different policies from 180 insurers sold on eHealthInsurance.com, the online shopping brokerage that works. (Technological wonders never cease.) Individuals can make the trade-offs between costs and benefits for themselves. This wide variety is proof that humans don’t all want or need the same thing. If they did, there would be no need for a market and government could satisfy everybody.

That is precisely what the Obama health planners believe they can do. Regulators mandated a very rich level of “essential” health benefits that all plans in the individual market must cover, regardless of cost. This year eHealth reported that its data show individual premiums must be 47% higher than the old average to fund the new categories in the individual market.

The ugly face of Marxism has begun to show itself hasn’t it? The promise of ObamaCare is far removed from the reality of ObamaCare. But that is true of all promises made in the name of Marxism. That anyone would still defend this gargantuan power grab is inconceivable, unless you accept the truth about those people. They are Marxists, or are blindly supporting Marxism out of sheer ignorance. Even though they see the train coming, they refuse to accept that it is, indeed, a train.

 

B-52’s “violate” Chinese air space, China whines

I cannot believe Team Obama actually let this happen

In an escalating standoff reminiscent of the Cold War, China on Tuesday responded angrily to news that two U.S. B-52 bombers had flown over a contested chain of islands in the East China Sea without first alerting Beijing — just days after China unilaterally announced an expanded air-defense zone around the islands.

The Pentagon’s sudden dispatch of the bombers was meant as a show of support for close ally Japan, which is in a protracted sovereignty dispute with China over the islands. But the move risks escalating an already heated situation, according to an editorial posted on the website of China Daily, a state-supported newspaper known to closely track Beijing’s official positions on such matters.

“The Japanese and U.S. hysteria is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, because it is based on a serious misreading, if not intentional distortion, of Chinese strategic purposes,” states the editorial, which claimed Washington has no legitimate basis for challenging the new air-defense zone, known in Chinese military parlance as an Air Defense Identification Zone, or “ADIZ.”

“Dozens of countries, including Japan and the United States, have their own ADIZs. And the US, as the inventor of such zones, should be well aware of their defensive nature,” the editorial states. “If the world’s sole superpower, with an unrivaled military, needs multiple ADIZs to fend off perceived threats, why should China not need any?”

Publication of the editorial came as The Wall Street Journal first reported that the Washington had dispatched the two B-52 bombers from Guam Monday evening specifically to challenge the Chinese claim to exclusive control of the airspace.

China is testing us, I pray we have the resolve not to blink

 

President Obama redefines lying

At American Power, Donald Douglas links this piece at the Wall Street Journal and makes this observation about the “apology”

He didn’t really apologize, actually. It’s more like he feels sorry that people got screwed, not that he’s sorry for actually screwing people. It’s a few huge difference and people have noticed.

No, he did not apologize, he is, once again, refusing to step up and take any responsibility for the harm his “signature” legislation is causing. Consider this from the WSJ

The president’s comments marked a departure from his previous defense of the law and his oft-repeated vow that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” Before Thursday, he had stood by his words, while adding some caveats. He had argued that the small percentage of people forced to buy new coverage would find more comprehensive plans in the new marketplace.

About 15.4 million people—about 5% of the population—are covered by individual health plans. Industry experts have said many of them will see their policies terminated by the end of the year as insurers switch to plans that comply with the health law.

Mr. Obama repeated Thursday that only a small percentage of Americans were seeing their plans canceled, but he acknowledged it was “scary” for those people and conceded the law was responsible for their situation. “Obviously, we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law,” he said. “That’s something that we’re going to do everything we can to get fixed.”

That is a bald-faced lie and nothing more. Obama KNEW, that the HHS regulations would so narrowly define the grandfather clause in Obamacare that any change, no matter how minute, in existing insurance policies would make those policies illegal. He knew this, yet he continued to lie, and continued to lie, even after NBC News and others exposed the lie. This “apology” is as phony as it gets. Obama could have “fixed” this by not allowing the HHS to over regulate the grandfather clause. Sorry but this is nothing more than Obama going back into campaign mode. 

 

Your Blog Quote of the Day; It is a Mobius Loop of Bullshit.

That comes from The Other McCain and describes the strategy of Team Obama to avoid talking about the failure to end all failures, Obamacare

You know what this reminds me of? President Clinton claiming that the Lewinsky scandal was distracting him from “doing the work the American people sent me here to do,” as if sodomizing interns was not a distraction.The Wall Street Journal:

Problems with the government’s health-care website are forcing President Barack Obama to redraw his plans for the rest of the year as he looks for ways to regain political momentum.
Scrapping a planned push to drive people to the balky website, the White House is organizing a flurry of events on the economy and immigration, as well as health care, a senior administration official said. . . .
The president’s senior aides had at one time planned for him to be holding events aimed at encouraging Americans to shop for insurance on the new federal health-care website, with stops in places with high numbers of uninsured people.But the problems plaguing the site have forced them to shift strategies.

It’s amazing how the media cooperates in these administration propaganda campaigns: “Senior aides” tell reporters what the White House message strategy is and the reporters then help push the White House message. Then the media report the story of how successful the White House message strategy was — as if they were covering something other than their own coverage. It’s a Mobius loop of bullshit.

So, here Obama goes again, back into campaign mode. Leadership? HA! How about he admit he KNEW that tens of millions would lose their health insurance and lied anyway? How about he look into the camera and, for once, for once put the country? How about he delay not only the individual mandate, but the entire Obamacare fiasco? If he was a man of any integrity, or honor, or gave a damn about this nation or the people, he would admit Obamacare will not work, and join Congress in repealing and replacing the horrible piece of legislation. Of course, I am silly for even suggesting such things I guess. After all, the sad truth is that the failings of Obamacare, and the millions who will lose their insurance are EXACTLY what Dear Leader wanted. See all of this is just another part of that fundamental change Obama the candidate vowed to bring.

 

When Leftists tell the truth

Anyone who gets the Democratic Party understands that it is all about the end with them, the means are not important, it is the end goal. Did Democrats want this government shutdown? Yes Do they want to make it seem as as as possible to heap more blame on “mean” Republicans? Yes. Do they want this to roll on and on? Yes. Why? because they think they are winning the battle of public opinion, and this will lead to retaking the House in 2014. We all get all of  this. We all understand that the very last people Democrats give a rip about are the people. But, usually, they will never admit that fact. But every so often, one of these weasels allows the truth to slip out.

Although the government shutdown continues, it appears President Barack Obama and the White House are not getting any closer to negotiating with Republicans. A quotation from an unnamed senior administration official in today’s Wall Street Journal explains why.

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

With this view, it explains why President Obama won’t agree to any piecemeal legislation that would keep Veterans Affairs and NIH open during the shutdown. And it explains why President Obama would rather cancel his Asia trip than negotiate with Republicans. 

It’s because the White House (or, at least this unnamed official) believe it is “winning” by shutting down the government and blaming Republicans. And when one’s winning, he’s not likely to change course.

Ah yes, they are “winning”. But are they? I suspect they are over playing their hand, and that the fallout will land back on them.