Florida GOP Make Electoral Decision – Few Paying Attention To What It Means….

Exactly a year ago, May 2014, we shared the predictable factual activities, specific tripwires, which outline a specific path to a very specific destination.

Here’s an update:

tom donohue   grubering us bush murdoch jarrett =

Any questions?

Team Jeb’s path is brutally obvious to those willing to accept it. Intellectual honesty is required in order to accept what each of the tripwires represent.  Here it is again, as written previously:

It is not far away from the Romney path, although the GOP learned a lesson from when Ronald Reagan beat “their guy” Bush in 1980, and therefore with a few minor modifications it is considered a successful strategy in the GOP primary.

A man places a corn kernel in a jar as he places a vote for U.S. Republican presidential candidate and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, IowaIowa kicks off the campaign, but Iowa is not strategically as important as the Fourth GOP Primary state, Florida. The establishment plan for Iowa has always been just to show face, make nice, and move on. Iowa is mandatory, but essentially irrelevant. [In 2012 Rick Santorum won Iowa]

New Hampshire is more important than Iowa – but again, it’s not important to win per se’. A top three finish is all that’s needed and a little money will get that done. A centrist GOPe will place in the top media tier for New Hampshire and rarely will the Iowa winner stand a chance. The decepticon establishment’s goal in Iowa is a top three finish.

The race then moves to South Carolina. South Carolina becomes more important than the prior two, but only slightly. The State that has given the conservative base such solid leaders as Jim DeMint and Tim Scott has also continued to deliver the ever pliable Lindsey Graham. Graham is to South Carolina what his buddy John McCain is to Arizona.

nikki-haley-170032_thumb_585x795In South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is the wild card, but can generally be predicted to come down on the side of the GOPe. More so now than years past as her record aligns with more in-state political adversaries having issues with her.

Between Iowa and New Hampshire the media will stick relentlessly with discussions of the two completed primaries and will focus on South Carolina only right before the actual voting (a week or less).

For the establishment the goal in South Carolina is to thread the needle between the Demint/Scott minded folks, and the in-their-pocket Graham voter. There’s usually a debate in this mix which can sway this outcome. A GOPe win would be great, but a second or even a third place finish is ok too.

Then comes the BIGGIE, Florida. A massive and immensely expensive market for a closed GOP only primary.

Welcome%20to%20FloridaFlorida is big in both geography and diversity of opinion. At 800 miles tip to stem it takes a long time to campaign inside Florida and the apparatus within the state must be top shelf.

This is a financial and logistical nightmare for any campaign not prepared. Such a construct favors the establishment from the outset, so any candidate not part of the GOPe national apparatus will have a tough time.

You might remember that strong candidate, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, emphasized Florida 100% in his 2008 GOP primary bid. But even with his approach to focus -almost exclusively- on Florida, he failed. Although most of that failure was due to the Florida economy in absolute freefall (turning attention away from national security) his failure in Florida reflects a reality; Florida can be, and is, exhausting for a candidate in numerous ways – and it is a financial bottomless pit.

The 2016 establishment GOPe know they will hold favor in the Miami-Dade area (South East) where there is a large population. The decepticons also know the Panhandle (NW) is too conservative, but fortunately not population dense.

The GOPe will spend most of their efforts in the I-4 corridor between Tampa (large population) and Orlando (another large population) – with less, but still considerable, effort in the Jacksonville/Tallahassee market.

florida donors 2

Florida costs BIG BUCKS, but also holds BIG BUCKS. Events in the Country Club cocktail class areas will yield huge financial fundraisers. However, the mindset within those Bentley polished communities, filled with unused marble swimming pools, is that no-one likes to be on the losing side. Having been their Governor, Jeb already has all the GOPe constructs to succeed.

Oh yeah, and… Mr. Jeb also has a Latino wife, family, and speaks fluent Spanish. “Fluent” as in “better than” Marco Rubio….

The thought of Scott Walker and/or Ted Cruz vs. Jeb Bush in Florida is a formidable exercise. For all of the aforementioned reasons Jeb Bush holds an arguably solid advantage. He can speak Spanish at outside events in Miami-Dade, Tampa and Orlando, and still raise his pinkie higher at the 5:00pm cocktail party hour.

One can easily see the GOPe winning the South-East (Miami Dade), South-West (Naples/Ft. Myers), West/Center (Tampa/St. Pete to Orlando) and North East (Tallahassee/Jacksonville down to Daytona) and only losing the North West and North Center.

I predict that prior to Florida Chris Christie will be the attack dog for Jeb Bush as Christie positions himself favorably with the GOP apparatus. Similarly, when the race reaches Florida Marco Rubio will take that role.

Yes, Rubio will run in 2016 also, {ADD: as predicted he did}  but he’ll be the type of candidate perfect for the GOPe plan. Rubio would split the Walker/Cruz constituents and take 3rd in Iowa, 2nd(ish) in New Hampshire, and skewer the field with a possible win in South Carolina.

This will position Rubio to be the ultimate decision-maker/power-broker in Florida AND provides him the ultimate opportunity to repay his friend, colleague and father-like mentor, Jeb Bush.

BOOM – primary over.

#1 Iowa = Walker/Cruz, Rubio, Bush

#2 New Hampshire = Rubio/Walker, Bush, Cruz

#3 South Carolina = Rubio/Walker, Bush, Cruz

#4 Florida = Bush/Rubio, Walker, Cruz… field.


→ Exiting Iowa the GOPe will work diligently to continue the Ted Cruz too polarizing message. They’ll want to keep him in the race, but only so that folks will be torn away from Walker. The media will be more than happy to assist in selling a Polarizing Ted Cruz.

→ Entering New Hampshire the GOPe will leverage Rubio to tamp down Walker and they’ll attack Walker as unintellectual, not smart enough. The GOPe will use Rubio to ‘Out-Intellect’ Walker and make Walker appear small, over-his-head. The media will be more than happy to assist.

→ Exiting Hew Hampshire both Walker and Cruz will be damaged goods. Both Campaigns physically, emotionally and financially being drained from the onslaught. Enter Chris Christie to finish them off and continue the marginalization.

→ Entering South Carolina Nikki Haley will be leveraged by the GOPe with a possible VP spot on Team Jeb. The goal is to keep her from endorsing Walker or Cruz and rescuing their now exhausted campaigns. If she wants to endorse Rubio, fine. If she wants to endorse Jeb, even better. If Haley endorses Rubio that will only aide Bush when Rubio endorses him later.

→ Exiting South Carolina Bush and Rubio enter their massive home state with friendly and large political constructs already in place. They tour the state as their campaigns talk to each other insure their paths don’t cross, and they don’t hit the same donors too closely together. The airwave campaign is massive and $$$$$$$$. Cruz/Walker or Walker/Cruz are ground up like cornmeal for cornbread, and exhausted as donors begin to worry if they stand a chance.

√ Exiting Florida the Decepticon GOPe machine has ground-up their opposition and Bush / Rubio teams enter negotiations to divide up the spoils in what they both hope will be another Bush administration.

…. and so it goes.

rubio bush

Things could be different than this; however, it would take different actions than are currently visible to avoid it – and highly doubtful.

If we are to accept history, and also openly accept what is evident, well, this is what you get:

clinton bush

This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Election 2016, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Florida GOP Make Electoral Decision – Few Paying Attention To What It Means….

  1. mazziflol says:

    Thanks for ruining my 2016…

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sentient says:

      Agreed. I was about to write “well why don’t I just go f’ing kill myself right now?” Alternatively, why don’t conservatives all just give up these fantasies about a win by (Huck, Rubio, Jindal, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, etc) and just vote for Scott a Walker to save us from a Bush candidacy? If Walker were to win IA, NH and SC in succession, he might be able to beat Jebito in Florida, especially if Rubio peels off support from Juan Eduardo Bush.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Skookum says:

        Cruz, Rubio, and Jindahl are not natural-born citizens. If the NBC clause would have been enforced in 2008, 2012, or even now, that would unclutter the GOP field for 2016. Someone needs to take out the non-NBC trash.

        Walker’s only flaw is that he has been weak on enforcement of immigration laws, and if we can’t shut down the open border after 2016 we’re doomed. However, Walker can hopefully see the light on the matter, while Jeb is all for formally erasing the border.

        As far as I can tell it’s gotta be Walker or we may as well have sHrillary.


          • Darrell W says:

            Mark Levin is seldom wrong. But in this case he is wrong…..wrong……wrong.


          • Agree. Skookum reads somewhat troll-like, n’est pas?

            Liked by 1 person

            • Skookum says:

              Facts bother you, IfO? An empty ad hominem is the best you can do? What makes you think the foreign-born of a Cuban father Cruz is an NBC?

              As much as I like Cruz’s political philosophy, I cannot, as a thinking and principled citizen, cast a corrupt vote for him any more than I could cast a corrupt vote for the British/Kenyan-born citizen, Obama. If the US were a democracy, rather than a constitutional republic, I would be thrilled to vote for Cruz. Ironically, a vote for Cruz for president is a vote to legitimize the Obama agenda.


          • jetstream says:

            Mark Levin is a very accomplished man but he is not infallible. Why does he insist that Cruz is a natural born citizen? For that matter, why does he believe that an Article V Convention will be enforced in any more meaningful way than the abrogated and unenforced original Constitution? Levin refuses to even debate the subject with others. How strange (and lacking in humility) for a scholar seeking the truth. Or perhaps I am wrong and he is in the illustrious position of dictating truth.

            Levin’s conclusions are disputed and based on discredited references, as explained by other Constitutional legal scholars. Any legal scholar knows that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed. If it still existed today, it would not be a valid way to change the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” as it was understood when the Constitution was written. Other references would have to be used to confirm a different meaning of a term used in the Constitution, not just one reference from a repealed law. See here http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ and here https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

            If you place value in your own thinking and reject blind allegiance to any mortal, ask yourself these questions to determine if Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal are “natural born Citizens” and eligible to run for President of the United States:

            Why does the Constitution require a President to be a “natural born Citizen” (Art. 2 Sec.1), but requires a Representative (Art. 1 Sec.2) or a Senator to be just a “Citizen” (Art.I Sec.3)?
            As the Constitution refers to the two different terms “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” and for the sake of argument you accept that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born on US soil to two “Citizen” parents (whether natural born or naturalized), which type of Citizen would have the greatest allegiance to the Republic without ties to any other nation…a “natural born Citizen” or a “naturalized Citizen”?
            Who could place the Republic in the most danger if their decisions were influenced by childhood or family ties to another country (as would be the case with a naturalized Citizen), a President or one of many Congressmen?
            If a person became President whose allegiances were divided because he was raised in another country, possibly born in another country, whose father was not any kind of Citizen of the United States, and whose mother rejected her birth country…how much damage could that person do to the United States?
            Who would you choose to enforce the Constitution to the benefit of the Citizens of the United States first and foremost?


            • jetstream says:

              Sorry for the formatting. WordPress eliminated my spacing and numbering.


            • Lordchamp says:

              Exactly correct in your description and the exact meaning the Founders intended.

              This is just yet another way to chip away at the true meaning of the Founding Documents. To slowly and through 1000 cuts, make us forget. Each little piece that is chipped away makes the whole mean less and less.

              If you will bear with me I will give you a little history behind what you stated.

              It is evident from multiple sources that the book The Law of Nations by Emer Vattel was used as a reference by the Founders in the writing of the Constitution.

              Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Charles Dumas in reference to Dumas’ gift of three copies of Vattel’s book. In the letter of December 9, 1775, Franklin says:

              “… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

              So as you see from this, Franklin knew the importance of getting this book into the hands of the writers of the Constitution.

              This is an excerpt from Vattel’s book:
              Section 212: Citizens and natives

              The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

              So as you read above, the Founders had a very definite knowledge of what “natural born citizen” meant. In short, it meant a child born to a father that was a citizen of the United States. That meant the father would have to be born here also to be able to pass that on to the child.

              Here again is the clause from Clause 5:

              “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

              If you are interested in more information, I’ve written a short class on the Founding Documents using the Founders own words to show their intentions. I tried to keep my own opinions to a minimum. I think the writers of the documents most certainly knew what their intentions were and can speak for themselves. You can find it here if interested: http://wheresthecommon.com/founding-documents-class/

              I still have to complete the amendments portion but the rest is there.


              • jetstream says:

                Vattel is a very important reference in determining the meaning of “natural born Citizen”, if not the most important. Thanks for your excellent comment and appreciate the link to your blog. It looks like you’ve put a lot of effort into researching and thinking for yourself. Keep up the good work and sharing the information with others.

                One point – I believe your statement “That meant the father would have to be born here also to be able to pass that on to the child.” was possibly mis-written? I am of the belief that the father of a “natural born Citizen” can be either a naturalized Citizen or a natural born Citizen, as long as the father is a Citizen and not an alien.


                • Lordchamp says:

                  The Founders are pretty clear that initially the fathers were naturalized citizens until the generations progress to the point that they then were born here, becoming natural citizens. The statements by Vattel in reference to that are “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers…”

                  The terms natural and native were many times used interchangeably and Vattel does that in thise statement: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

                  Knowing that Vattel had a definite and strong influence on the Constitutional Congress, if you used the term native born in place of natural born the meaning becomes clearer in present day terms.

                  Bottom line is that the Founders intended for the fathers to be born in this Country for their children to be eligible to be president. It’s very clear. Any other interpretation seems to be veering away from the intentions of the Founders. Whether it fits into our societal thinking of today matters not unless and until we offer an Amendment to change it.

                  Also, taking into consideration that at the time of the writing, men were dominant in the society, the head of the households, it is also not a stretch to believe they meant both parents were to be natural/native born citizens. Since the male spoke for the household in total, that is an easy step to make in my opinion.

                  As you can tell, I like a strict interpretation according to the words of the ones that know best what they meant, the Founders, not some random group of individuals in black robes with an agenda.


            • Skookum says:

              “Levin’s conclusions are disputed and based on discredited references, as explained by other Constitutional legal scholars. Any legal scholar knows that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed. If it still existed today, it would not be a valid way to change the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” as it was understood when the Constitution was written. Other references would have to be used to confirm a different meaning of a term used in the Constitution, not just one reference from a repealed law. See here http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ and here https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

              Well said, js.

              I suspect the Naturalization Act of 1790 was quickly repealed, because back then someone pointed out that Congress has no authority to redefine NBC. They can certainly interpret it, but an interpretation outside the scope of Vattel would be difficult to uphold. Vattel based his book on natural law, so any different interpretation of NBC would have to show how Vattel is wrong or how Vattel failed to address a particular circumstance.

              Levin’s clip is further weakened by the way he broaches McCain’s citizenship status. Vattel allows that one born to citizen parents on a flagged vessel of the parents’ nation is an NBC. He further allows that a child born to citizen parents who are serving the government overseas are NBCs. Thus, McCain is an NBC, and questioning his status has always been a stalking horse for the proggies.


          • rashomon says:

            With all due respect, Mark Levin is wrong. Vattel and others formulating The Constitution wrote extensively about this. Why else would they make a distinction about eligibility for the Presidency (and, therefore, the Vice Presidency in case of the President’s inability to serve?

            Refer to the comments by Acacia titled “What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen?” at American Thinker “Why Ted Cruz is constitutionally qualified to be president” 3/3/15. I quote from part of the comment which concerns our Founders protecting our government from a Commander-In-Chief who may not have the best interests of the United States at heart (which we certainly have had demonstrated by the present administration):

            [quote}§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

            Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

            How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:
            The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

            “…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

            According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:
            “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”[/quote]


        • Jindahl born Baton Rouge and Rubio born Miami- they are natural born


          • Skookum says:

            Jindal and Rubio were born on US soil of parents who were not US citizens; thus, they are born US citizens (due to SCOTUS interpreting the 14th Amendment poorly), but they are in no way natural born citizens.


  2. BertDilbert says:

    Who will win in 2016? The CIA.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mike says:

    Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:

    primaries, primaries, primaries…


  4. franker01 says:

    Isn’t the upper left picture Ted Baxter?
    What does his opinion matter about anything?
    I thought he was dead.


  5. Lordchamp says:

    Yep all bought and paid for but keep on voting, it really will make a difference. Yeah right.

    National elections no longer matter except for making lousy theater.

    Focus on State and local elections that you can influence. Those are the people that ultimately will either stand between you and the feds or sell you out to them. Make sure you know which side they are on and replace them if they are on the feds side.

    Liked by 3 people

    • RJ says:

      If memory serves me right, the person who some years back tried to tell her party, the GOP, that this is where the action should be, was none other than…Sarah Palin.

      Further, if recent memory serves me, this past November the vast majority of voting Americans told the democrats to go to hell! They told the republicans to stop this liberal/progressive train wreck!

      Does it feel like the republicans got the message? Does it look like the democrats realized they were defeated seven months ago?

      Why not? Could it be that our national politicians don’t care what the voters want? That “representative” government is a thing of the past for them? Too big to fail attitude?

      As I’ve been saying…”throw the bums out!” seems to be our only answer. This article above does not offer a bright future for everyday citizens, just more of the same crony crowd who feed at the government trough giving us more debt and less national security.

      Will ISIS come to “save our bacon” with all their hatreds by waking up America? Or will the state of Israel be the lightening rod that will galvanize our focus? Maybe Vladamir Putin will take one step too far and change the whole game.

      Within these potential crises a true and real leader might emerge, is this our only hope?
      I am beginning to think so, sadly. Keep your eyes open for the person with the white hat.

      Liked by 2 people

      • A new teapartier says:

        The democrats have taken over the GOP .


      • Lordchamp says:

        The person in the white hat is in the mirror.

        It is each and every one of us in whatever capacity we can provide.

        The solution is simple but not easy.

        Prepare ourselves spiritually, mentally, and physically.
        Exercise the 4 boxes of Liberty. The soapbox, the jury box, the ballot box, and the ammo box.
        Once the first 3 have failed, revisit #1 and then exercise the ammo box until we have the solution we want. The ammo box includes both civil disobedience and armed responses. Naturally we use non-violent means first then if required we stand on the “Green” in self defense.

        It really is that simple so let’s not make it more difficult.

        It’s a decision. A choice.

        You either choose freedom and liberty or you choose the chains of slavery.

        In my humble opinion, we have pretty much exhausted the first 3 boxes.

        That does not mean we don’t still pursue and use them though, we must keep trying.

        However, the reality is, we are at the point where we must begin applying the final box. We must begin the use of non-violent civil disobedience to let the government know that we do NOT consent to their actions. We will not Comply. We will not obey that order. We do NOT give our consent.

        Hopefully all of you read my other post stating who really has the power in this Country. If not, please go read it and do as I ask in reading and research. That is part of #1 above.

        If we don’t approach this prepared, we will fail. We MUST know why we are doing it and we MUST do it for the right reasons. If not, we are no better than what we seek to replace.


        • RJ says:

          You see, there are many who will not go willingly into the night! You are not alone.

          Warriors will again answer the call! Even some of us old types who can remember when and how these seeds of hatred were sown back in the 60’s.

          What drives us is LOVE, not hate. There is a difference.


  6. conservalicious says:

    This is so depressing.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Meyer says:

    Every time Bush is mentioned as the GOP frontrunner, I throw up in my mouth a little.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. yakmaster2 says:

    Arrrgh! Clinton vs. Bush for the White House, the bad sequel of a mediocre movie. “Been There, Done That, Part II” showing 24/7 on any media device nearby.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Max says:

    When did America fall in love with the idea of these perverse dynasties? Who’s next, Mickey Øbama for president?


  10. doodahdaze says:

    This is my point. Why bother with these primary elections? Just have their convention and nominate who they want in the back room.


  11. Attorney says:

    Depressing. I would vote Hillary over another Bush, though they are both vile. But a vote for Hillary may finally kill the Establishment GOP. And that would be healthy.


    • realitycheck says:

      “a vote for Hillary may finally kill the Establishment GOP” ….. and convert us to the United Socialist States of America

      Liked by 2 people

      • doodahdaze says:

        I would vote for a Kangaroo before Hillary.

        Liked by 2 people

        • RJ says:

          I would consider becoming a transgendered asexual who developed chronic suicidal dream fantasies of epic proportions where Karl Rove was hitting on me at a fund raiser for lesbian wanna bees within the GOP party of Vermont.

          I don’t live anywhere near Vermont; this tells me just how depressed I have evolved since Barry came into office and Hillary decided she loves pants suits.

          Where are my leisure outfits and gold chains of the disco 70’s?

          This crazy is just going to get worse!


        • Judgy says:

          Is the kangaroo born here? Never mind, I’m in!

          Liked by 1 person

      • triper57 says:

        You think we are not there yet? Just look at our budget. How much goes for the giveaway social programs? And how much is really going to fund Constitutionally mandated programs?


  12. J. F. says:

    Dynasties replace thoughtful politics when electors are too poorly educated to follow the issues at stake in elections. The intellectual base for representative government is destroyed by poor public education. Dewiism is triumphant.


  13. screwauger says:

    Guess if that’s it, I’m not a participant.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Looks like I’ll be writing Cruz in on my ballot.

    Why don’t they just save time and run Clinton and Bush on the same ticket?

    Liked by 3 people

    • And premark our ballots for us. That will help the illiterate folks to vote “the correct way”

      Liked by 1 person

      • doodahdaze says:

        In Baltimore they just put the photo of the candidate. The voters can’t read. They mark a check but not an X so the voters don’t think they are signing the ballot.


        • EnterTheDragon says:

          You know, I believe that. My 7th grade teacher years and years ago did NOT vote for someone because he had a moustache.

          Illiteracy and ignorance must make for a larger-than-we-would-like-to-believe portion of voting.


          • Draqon – was that mustachioed candidate Thomas Dewey? Not the guy that ruined US education, but the former Republican governor of NY, defeated by Truman in the um, 1948 election? I wouldn’t have voted for him either. My DDH was from upstate NY.


  15. kafir says:

    This is all great inside baseball stuff. But what difference, at this point, does it make?
    Florida will be a blue state in the 2016 general election anyway. And Texas will be blue in 5 years with amnesty. There will never be another Whig, or Republican, president.

    There will never be another conservative Supreme Court justice nominated. The “power of the purse” has proven to be useless. No more holding our noses and voting “R” because it truly does not matter anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. acumenmac says:

    The very thought……………….Bush vs. Clinton. Ad nauseam! The last flush circle before the US goes down the proverbial drain, toilet drain that is.


  17. William says:

    …and remember, Jeb Bush is Hispanic.
    The Republican Party needs to be destroyed. They are corrupt nearly as much as the Dems. I am conservative, but I would rather see Hillary win than one of those other phony balonies. I wish for the death of the Republican Party.


  18. Dixie says:

    Geez…those guys in the back conference room, all sitting around a l-o-n-g polished conference table smoking cuban cigars deciding who will be the winners of elections and Wall Street make me sick. We, the people, don’t count anymore.

    Unless you here on CTH decide who our write in candidate will be and we all get behind that idea, I quit.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. texan59 says:

    I lay my head on my pillow every night hoping and praying that you are wrong SD. I don’t know if that’s enough, but I pray you are wrong. Here’s an interesting piece, updated from a question that was asked “The Lion of The Senate” over 35 years ago. I think someone needs to ask John Ellis the same question out loud and in a setting being covered by the LSM. If done well, it could torpedo his POTUS aspirations once and for all.



  20. David In TN says:

    And the terminally stupid “conservative” Republican primary voters will fall right in line. They vote on name recognition without bothering to study the candidates’ policy positions.


  21. crazy says:

    Bush may survive in Florida but his support is way softer than it was a decade ago and his inability to handle an obvious, but stupid, question is only going to increase the gotcha game. Unfortunately none of these guys has solved the riddle of how Reagan could say the same things Goldwater did and be both admired and popular. The angry populists and the turn-the-other-cheek pleasers just aren’t going to gain the all-spectrum appeal needed to prevail over the power hungry rent-seekers leading the angry and easily offended tribes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Brilliant, crazy!!! That’s the best comment I’ve read in years full of memorable phrases (“all-spectrum appeal”) and intelligent observation (how COULD Reagan say the same things Goldwater did and be admired and popular)! If we can solve that question, we win the next election! I’m working on it now. I have, ahem, written some pretty compelling and convinced political copy in the past.


  22. Arkindole says:

    Love for the slower Bush is still scarce as hen’s teeth down here. The Tampa/Port Charlotte RINOs are dropping like flies and/or moving into special care facilities with heavy doses of Aricept or Sinemet. The east side weenies are still whining about their cancelled Lobsterfest at West Boca Country Club–They’ll cross over to Clinton for an open bar somewhere. Previous conservatives have mostly registered as independents/NPA on this 7 year driver’s license renewal cycle.
    Write. It. In. (if we make it there)

    Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      Agreed. Bush carries roughly 20% support inside the voting base. However, it is the absence of large support for Bush which outlines the dilution strategy of the GOPe.

      If they can get Republican voters to divide themselves amid a set of 5 candidates (Rubio, Walker, Bush, Perry, Paul, “others”) then Jeb Bush can win 100% of the electoral votes with 15-20% support of primary voters.

      The Donohue/McConnell plan is to do just that. More candidates favors the GOP Bush strategy.


      • One way to “out” that strategy is to identify and publicize all suspect sources of campaign support for some of our more squirrelly candidates for Presidential nomination. I do believe some are actually running for VP, but nevertheless, we need to out them loudly and often as soon as we have the facts to back us up.

        Long $Walker. [This is financial lingo for being a long-term holder (bullish as opposed to bearish and shorting) of a stock, using the company’s stock exchange symbol. Could be useful here in the TreeHouse for our political discussions.]


      • ctdar says:

        The 5+ should have a summit, honestly(if possible) vet themselves and bow out to support the best candidate for GOP. If they really loved their country & wanted to take it back to its original design have to work together as a whole, not fractions.
        I know I’m dreamin:/


  23. CrankyinAZ says:

    This IS depressing. Makes me want to break out the booze with my breakfast… and not stop until 2020. Will we even have a country by then? / Long depressed sigh


  24. Rodney Plonker says:

    The whole candidate system is obsolete in the modern day.

    All registered GOP members in all states should vote for their selection on the same day with the same voting system.

    It is farcical that likes of Iowa and New Hampshire should have so much influence over such an important Nationwide position.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Democrats wouldn’t win anything again if candidates weren’t marked with (R) (D) or (I)


  26. mcfyre2012 says:

    Florida’s urban counties were blue in the last presidential election. Right now, I ‘d be surprised if they changed.


  27. Lordchamp says:

    Speaking of the Constitution, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the supreme court said “Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance will be the only enemies able to destroy it. … Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution. … By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend.”

    That is where we are. “Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance” HAVE destroyed the Constitution and this Country.

    If you read the Founders words, you find they predicted exactly where we are today and how we would get here. They told us what we should and should not do. They told us how to prevent it.

    John Jay also told us who the authority is under the Constitution to control our destiny:
    “Your lives, your liberties, your property, will be at the disposal only of your Creator and yourselves. You will know no power but such as you will create; no authority unless derived from your grant; no laws but such as acquire all their obligation from your consent. … Security is also given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of the Deity.”

    “The people are the sovereign of this country.”

    To me that is pretty clear. We are to read and understand the Constitution. It was written in plain english terms used at that time in history, nothing hard for the common man to understand and grasp. Then we are to understand that all power given to the government is by OUR decision and consent as we created it.

    Read that one statement again, “You will know no power but such as you will create; no authority unless derived from your grant; no laws but such as acquire all their obligation from your consent.”

    THAT IS POWERFUL. There is NO power given to the federal government unless we grant it and give our consent.

    This goes hand in hand with the statement by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 33 that the federal government is our “creature”, meaning we are the creator.

    Folks, I see many here and other places asking what are we to do?

    We have already been told what to do and how to do it but we do not listen. Some of the wisest men in history gave us all the instruction we need and we have ignored them completely.

    Start by curing your ignorance. Ignorance is curable with knowledge. Arm yourselves with knowledge.

    First, take time today and read the Founding Documents. It really takes very little time to read everything our Country was founded on. Maybe 20-30 minutes tops. Read both the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of independence. Encourage others around you to do the same both online and off.

    Next, read the words of the Founders. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Tench Coxe, George Mason and many others. You’re here so you have internet, their writings are easy to find. Put forth the effort.

    Once you’ve done that, you should have a much better feel for who you are as an American citizen. You are not some ruled, enslaved peasant serf so quit acting like it.

    There is a saying that has been around since the early 1800’s. It’s called the 4 boxes of liberty. It states that we have available to us 4 boxes with which to control our government.

    Those 4 boxes are:
    The soapbox – Internet, on the street corner, wherever we happen to be to speak up
    The jury box – through the legal system
    The ballot box – through the voting system
    The ammo box – through civil disobedience or armed revolt

    You will find that the Founders, in their own words, recommended the use of all 4 of those boxes also, as often as necessary to maintain our control.

    In your reading, pay particular attention to the Declaration of Independence and the list of grievances against England. I dare say you will find most, if not all, of those grievances as something you are suffering today. In many ways, even more than they did.

    Once one box is exhausted or doesn’t work, we move on the the next until we get the solution we seek and the problem is resolved to our satisfaction.

    Our Founders used those 4 boxes in founding this Country, how much less should we in reclaiming and rebuilding it.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Darrell W says:

    I still think that Elizabeth Warren will throw her hat in and Hillary will fold


    • ctdar says:

      I think Hillary just vacuuming up as much cash while she can until she can escape to another country without extradition to US.


  29. TG says:

    I really wish someone had a credible plan to break the establishment’s strangle hold over the GOP or way to build an meaningful third party. IMHO, at some point, we who are conservatives,we who love the Constitution,we who love liberty,are going to have to have the courage to walk out on the GOP and form our own party to save this country.


  30. 2x4x8 says:

    This is only chess strategy

    the April Florida poll had Rubio over Bush 31 to 30
    Bush has not been in Gov office in over 8 years, way too long to be away from the arena for the top post, Rubio is the sitting Senator and represents Florida
    House eRupublican Majority Leader Eric Cantor is a lock to get re-elected
    Sarah Palin gives out endorsements, and she endorsed outsider long shots Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz over their eRepublican, I would expect the 3 Musketeers to stick together
    Many candidates does divide the vote, but if Rubio wins Florida, Bush is gone, he can’t carry the conservative south, mountain and central
    a look back to the 2008 Mike Huckabee run, and we see character and not money got him a long way and he kept going as folks were not happy with McCain
    Rubio has to give up the Senate seat to run, not likely to get VP (2 Floridians?) can get any other office from a President Jeb Bush from a re-elected Senate seat, not likely just being a decoy
    there is also a new generation, and the young vote will go for Paul, Rubio Cruz (Paul lead against the NSA bulk collection, Appeals Court called it illegal, House votes 338-88 to strike it)
    the older generation is more TeaParty Conservative, fits Rubio as does Hispanic, Bush only speaks it

    should get behind candidates that are best for our side and co-ordinate support for ’em


  31. cclarke116 says:

    I respectfully disagree. As evidenced by how Jeb was trounced in both the mainstream and conservative media this week, I have absolutely no doubt that Scott Walker will be the GOP nominee and Marco Rubio will be his VP running mate


    • sundance says:

      Jeb was “trounced” by the MSM to soften him up on behalf of their support for Hillary.

      Beating up Jeb is nothing more than a strategy to keep attention away from the fact that Hillary is hiding from the sunlight upon her numerous flaws.

      The DNC, the MSM and the GOP, all want Jeb Bush VS. Hillary Clinton for 2016. That way they can guarantee her election. The base of the GOP (Walker, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, etc.) will “stay home” out of frustration – and the Paulbots are notorious for walking away with the football angry at everything and everyone. Ergo, Hillary wins by default.


  32. peppie says:

    Man that just makes to much sense and really sucks.


  33. Pingback: Florida – The Center of the Universe | The Radio Patriot

  34. wullfe says:

    “From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

    In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

    Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

    S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

    However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the termnatural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”

    The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

    Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.”



  35. radioman_abq says:

    Come and listen to a story ’bout a man named Jeb
    Poor gov-ern-or barely kept his family fed
    Then one day he was looking for a perk
    so he joined the board for Tenant Heath Care work
    (Med-i-care, quack gold, Taxes Fee)

    Well the first thing you know old Jeb’s a millionaire
    ‘Stablished folk said Jeb move away from there
    Said Washington is the place you oughta be
    Now he’s for big gov-ern-ment, common core and am-nes-ty
    (hill that is, grubbing pols, swanky bars)


  36. Pingback: Trump Leading Latest PPP Poll In North Carolina… - Rage and War

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s