Image 01 Image 03

Trump endorsement Tweet of the Day

Trump endorsement Tweet of the Day

Trump was dealing from the bottom of the deck.

And double-dealing.

Mitt thought he was playing poker, but Trump snookered him.

It was a three-card Monte game, but only two cards showed up.

From James Taranto:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Trump snookered him.”

Not too difficult, I’m guessing.

Something involving fish, barrels, and shooting comes to mind.

GOTS to LOVE some Taranto…!!!

Funny…AND true…!!!

In a previous thread, I poked fun at the Donald about being irrelevant.

On the other hand, today Monica Crowley makes an interesting point:

Monica says, “Trump may prove to be a very valuable surrogate for Mitt. Romney is uncomfortable on the attack; Trump relishes it. To make this endorsement really mean something, let the Donald loose.”

after I take cover.
Okay, Professor, go ahead and let the dogs out!

    Ragspierre in reply to MerryCarol. | February 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Personally, I was tired of the KRACKEN…


    If there is anybody MORE calculated to reinforce the negatives of the Romney persona I can’t think of who they might be.

    “I like firing people!”

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to MerryCarol. | February 2, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Does Romney have a shortage of surrogates to do his attacking for him? Yeah, I thought not.

    Nice try at rationalization by Monica Crowley… but epic fail.


    You actually bring up a good point, about one of the only advantages I can see for Romney having Trump’s endorsement — as a built-in attack dog who is capable of throwing out red meat that Mitt is disinclined to do.

    However, what Trump may add to Mitt’s campaign may be neutered by the fact that it will have the appearances of two rich guys teaming up together, all in the aftermath of the OWS movement.

    Trump as a “surrogate”? Funny. You’ll never hear another word from Trump.

    As for “Romney is uncomfortable on the attack” — just as funny. Romney’s problem is his discomfort with himself, i.e., while he can’t do anything other than attack (can’t make a case for himself in any positive context), he hasn’t the presence or bearing or nerve to do it in person or even represent the case for the attack on behalf of others in person. This undermines the mission and authenticity of any surrogates. But above all, he can’t and won’t ever attack the Left and nor will his surrogates.

    This is the awful and tragic-comic bind we’re in with any RINO. To truly attack the Left in any meaningful way would inherently repudiate RINOism. This explains the current collective psychic meltdown in the RINO Establishment. Some simply deny Obama (Brooks and Frum) or block out his true nature and threat. To accept his true nature would lead to an internal conflict and choice over how to act which in turn would lead to a reexamination and rejection of RINOism. Way too traumatic. Obama energizes the conservative base because he strengthens our primal identification as conservatives and stokes our urge to do battle to protect our nation. But Obama enervates and even traumatizes the RINOs. This is why they’re rushing to Romney, who has become a kind of security blanket of a bygone era, an objective correlative of their denial. By nominating Romney they are essentially embracing an illusion and avoiding the internal conflict. RINOs can’t confront or defeat the Left because they can’t recognize the Left.

    RINOs are at the end of the line, and are actually in the process of psychotic collapse. This explains their uncharacteristic raging intensity, their weird (newly discovered and very shortlived) ruthlessness.

      Hope Change in reply to raven. | February 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm

      wow, raven, I hope yo are right that rinos are at the end of the line.

      this is do or die. this is where next fall’s election is being won or lost, IMO.

      Because NEWt will win next fall.

      And Romney will lose.

        I cannot believe the disconnect that sometimes occurs here.The issue with RINOs, the assumption that there is a huge constituency of a ‘cult-type” conservative base who is unwilling to compromise an inch, reminds me of the Paulbots who rally year after year.

        Get out more often, and talk to ‘real’ people and maybe you’ll see there is an array of people out there with an array of different ideas from your own. It’s not as tightly packaged in one ideological straight jacket as you might think it is.

        Reagan was not an ideologue, but a pragmatist, willing to compromise and be congenial to his enemies in order to accomplish the Country’s business. This is a lesson we would benefit from practicing — not dissing our conservative allies, but meeting in the middle to ferret out our differences, claiming the WH and the congress as a result of this willingness to coalesce around the less-than-perfect scenario.

          I want to recommend to you:

          “And in all of that time I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content.”

          raven in reply to tsr. | February 2, 2012 at 10:52 pm

          I don’t follow your line of thinking, or am confused by the relation of subject and object in your critique.

          In any case, I feel you go off the rails in the final paragraph. It is nugatory to bring up Reagan. We live in another era, and nothing is the same. The Left is now a force within the culture and politics beyond Reagan’s reckoning. It’s not so much being or not being “congenial” to the enemy which should concern us, but rather understanding – and being certain our leaders understand — who they are and what they want, that is, the essential truth of their absolutist and annihilationist nature – and bringing this to bear in the political conflict (congenially, if you’d like). This is what is lacking within the RINO mentality in confrotning the Left.

          Otherwise, I don’t see any other way to describe the behaviors of Jennifer Rubin and Ann Coulter – just as examples – than as psychotic, and representative of a fear and anxiety that the basic RINO incomprehension of the Left or inability to face them has led to this point and that they have no effective response (Romney?), know it down deep, and are simply coming apart at the seams over the fact.

Does anyone really care who Donald Trump endorses? Blowhard joins the plastic man. Does this mean his base of five people will also vote for Romney? I wonder if Romney offered Trump one of the looted companies Bain acquired recently. That is probably the only thing that could get Trump off his duff and endorse ths obama wannabe.

BannedbytheGuardian | February 2, 2012 at 7:25 pm

Obama cleaned out Trumps clock with one roast & the memorable “Carnival Barker”.

Obama is a master at this if he gets the chance. The method of his attack on Paul Ryan has finished him off . Even from a massively weak economic management position Obama took out 2 ‘economic ‘ parade leaders.

Pitting Trump with Romney is just a sitting duck.

RINO’s for Romney. Here is open secrets analysis of Trump’s political contributions:

In all, Trump has contributed to 96 candidates running for federal political office since the 1990 election cycle, the Center finds. Only 48 of the recipients — exactly half — were Republicans at the time they received their contribution, including ex-Gov. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) and ex-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who both of whom received their Trump contributions as Republicans.

Since the 1990 election cycle, the top 10 recipients of Trump’s political contributions number six Democrats and four Republicans. Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was censured last year by his U.S. House colleagues, has received the most Trump money, totaling $24,750. The most recent contribution from Trump to Rangel was a $10,000 gift during the 2006 election cycle.

The RINO list is getting longer with Meghan McCain topping the list.

Conservatives fed up with having Romney forced on you by all the “right” people should just re-register as anything but a Republican right after their primary. That sends an actual message in the form of hard numbers. I can’t see myself voting for Obama, but at least the Republicans can’t count me as one of “theirs” – I registered “decline to state”.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Jake Blues. | February 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    For another discussion but this registering & being able to be identified by public officials as either R D or else is very undemocratic.

    Citizens ought be just registered as eligible voters period.

Initially Trump was thrilled when told of the two candidates fighting over his endorsement. It must have been terribly disheartening to discover what the fight was truly about:

“No, you take it!”

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | February 2, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Newt is the only one who has the expertise, the ability, and most importantly, Reagan contrasting conservatism, that can decimate Obama on the debate stage, and in the national public arena. Only a Reagan Conservative like Newt can do it.

Of course, Trump knows this, but is abandoning his conservative principles, what little he has, for primary- jump on the bandwagon because everyone says so- expediency.. What else is new in Trump land.. Trump may be a good businessman, but when it comes to politics, he is as much of a politically convenient flip-flopper as Romney is, which is probably why they like each other..

Romney will never beat Obama.. and why, because their is no contrast between them. Their policies are exactly the same, and as such, Romney cannot say that the nation will be any better off than they are now, with his policies and him in charge, than with Obama and his policies. Both are exactly the same in content, in structure, in format, in implementation, absolutely no difference. This is the big issue, as Romney has already stated himself. The only difference are the party affiliations..

If Romney were to be the Nominee, what would they debate.. All they would do is agree with each other.

This is problem with the GOP RINO establishment and their big machinery apparatus, propagandizing Romney as their great leader. The American people will not vote for Romney if their is no clear distinction. Just gray and dark gray. A Republican liberal socialist, is just as bad as a Democrat liberal socialist..And the American people will just say to themselves- where’s the difference, and what’s the point.