I've Noticed This: Trump Going Commonsense

[Kathianne]

Not going with the 'off the wall' candidates:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-endorsement-roll-election-candidate-5fd6dcf9?st=0aiett6o9dqggo3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


OPINIONPOTOMAC WATCH
Trump’s Endorsement Roll
This year, the former president gives his primary support to sensible candidates.
Kimberley A. Strassel
By
Kimberley A. Strassel
Follow
June 13, 2024 5:25 pm ET




Donald Trump can be unpredictable, but at least for the moment he is opting for strategy over self-sabotage.


Against all odds, Republican voters across the states are largely nominating candidates that have the best shot of winning this fall—instead of rowdy loudmouths who campaign against the “uniparty.” Efforts by Republican rebels to knock off House moderates or to nominate more of their own in open races are failing. The surprise factor in this campaign for November success? Mr. Trump.


The former president on Sunday offered a last-minute endorsement of Sam Brown, a retired Army captain recruited by Steve Daines, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to challenge Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada. Tuesday’s GOP primary featured 11 other competitors, including Jeff Gunter, Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Iceland, whose own bid for the endorsement involved savaging Mr. Brown for disloyalty to Mr. Trump. Polls showed Mr. Brown has the best shot at beating Ms. Rosen, and Mr. Trump’s endorsement helped him to the nomination.


While the press won’t admit it, this is becoming more norm than aberration. Tim Sheehy—a former Navy SEAL and another Daines pick—last week won the GOP nomination to challenge Montana Sen. Jon Tester. Mr. Sheehy also got the Trump nod despite Rep. Matt Rosendale’s campaign of Trump-attention seeking (including a vote to depose former Speaker Kevin McCarthy) and despite prior Trump endorsements of Mr. Rosendale.


Two years ago, Mr. Trump savaged David McCormick’s run for the Pennsylvania Senate nomination in favor of TV personality Mehmet Oz. This April Mr. Trump gave Mr. McCormick full support in his challenge to Sen. Bob Casey. In March Mr. Trump endorsed former Rep. Mike Rogers for the Michigan Senate nomination, despite Mr. Rogers’s past criticism of him. According to a Thursday Fox News report, Mr. Trump is even endorsing Larry Hogan, the party’s moderate (and therefore electable) nominee for Senate in Maryland.


READ MORE POTOMAC WATCH
A Flagging Campaign Against Justice AlitoMay 23, 2024
A Hunter Biden Debate, FinallyMay 16, 2024
Same in the House. In numerous recent primaries, incumbents and other candidates have fended off challenges from volatile contenders backed by Freedom Caucus members—thanks either to a Trump endorsement or Mr. Trump’s decision to stay neutral. They include South Carolina’s William Timmons, Illinois’s Mike Bost, West Virginia’s Carol Miller and Nebraska’s Don Bacon. Virginians next week will choose between House Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good—who also voted to oust Mr. McCarthy and is backed by rabble rouser Rep. Matt Gaetz—and state Sen. John McGuire. Trump is vocally supporting the latter.


These Trump plays are a notable break with his past quixotic endorsements, which last cycle landed the party with Mr. Oz, Herschel Walker, Blake Masters—and the triumphant return of Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader. The plays are also at odds with Mr. Trump’s image as even more unleashed, even more fixated on loyalty than in past campaigns.


A great deal of credit for the Senate course goes to Mr. Daines, who doggedly and skillfully continues to walk a minefield of competing party factions, even as he’s pushed and cemented top recruits. The Montanan understands that, GOP divisions aside, Republicans want to win. That requires some party leadership in the primary stage, and getting the top guy on board.


But whispering amounts to little if it falls on deaf ears, and Mr. Trump has decided to recognize that this election is about far more than a grudge match—about who has the most presidential votes on Nov. 5. It’s sunk in that any future Trump legacy will hinge on what comes in the four years afterward.


Trump 45 enjoyed a GOP Senate all four years and a Republican House for two. He was able to pass a tax reform, install a cabinet that dramatically slashed regulation, and reconstitute the Supreme Court. A Trump 47 would be dead in the water with a Democratic Senate that blocks his executive and judicial appointments and kills any possibility of legislation (even via budget reconciliation).


Mr. Trump’s House endorsements suggest he’s also looking beyond simply retaining that chamber, toward the bigger question of governance. Plenty of Republicans lobbied him in recent primaries to back their insurgent candidates against incumbents or opponents branded “establishment.” Yet a GOP that keeps or increases its House majority via the election of more bomb throwers is a House that continues to sit and swivel in its own chaos—as it has for the past eight months. A Trump who can’t seek re-election may have less sway over members than did a first-term Trump.


The primary season still has months to go, and weather is always changeable. But for the moment, the Trump team—including its captain—is quietly acknowledging that candidate quality matters after all.

[Gunny]

Not going with the 'off the wall' candidates:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-endorsement-roll-election-candidate-5fd6dcf9?st=0aiett6o9dqggo3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalinkI've noticed recently while keeping his MTG's on the leash, he still supported Johnson.

In historical context, Hitler used Rohm and his Brownshirts until they became a political liability AND expendable. Only question is which ones he's using.

[Kathianne]

I've noticed recently while keeping his MTG's on the leash, he still supported Johnson.

In historical context, Hitler used Rohm and his Brownshirts until they became a political liability AND expendable. Only question is which ones he's using.
good comparisons!

[revelarts]

Simple honest question.
So once/if all these "electable" republicans get in there, what are they going to do?

[Black Diamond]

Simple honest question.
So once/if all these "electable" republicans get in there, what are they going to do?

I don't know what you're responding to, but i can answer your question i think. They'll cave to 3 or 4 dems to pass a budget and the potus will sigm it. Then we get things like transgender studies in Pakistan. And the national debt increasing. I still can't believe it.

[fj1200]

Simple honest question.
So once/if all these "electable" republicans get in there, what are they going to do?

Do they have a big enough majority? Are some of them crazy? Do they keep trying to oust the speaker? Do they have to waste time chasing down trump pipe dreams? So many questions.

[fj1200]

Are these "electable" Republicans like Lake, Oz, Walker, etc.?

[Gunny]

Simple honest question.
So once/if all these "electable" republicans get in there, what are they going to do?


I don't know what you're responding to, but i can answer your question i think. They'll cave to 3 or 4 dems to pass a budget and the potus will sigm it. Then we get things like transgender studies in Pakistan. And the national debt increasing. I still can't believe it.

What is it the obstructionists have accomplished while the World has watched Congress accomplish little to nothing? Besides empower the minority party and make themselves look like fools?

[revelarts]

Do they have a big enough majority? Are some of them crazy? Do they keep trying to oust the speaker? Do they have to waste time chasing down trump pipe dreams? So many questions.

Are these "electable" Republicans like Lake, Oz, Walker, etc.?

What is it the obstructionists have accomplished while the World has watched Congress accomplish little to nothing? Besides empower the minority party and make themselves look like fools?


Soooo once/if all these "electable" republicans get in there, what are THEY going to do?

[Black Diamond]

What is it the obstructionists have accomplished while the World has watched Congress accomplish little to nothing? Besides empower the minority party and make themselves look like fools?

So go ahead and pass woke legislation as long as nothing is obstructed. Things have been accomplished but in the wrong direction.

Trump caught holy hell on this board for signing a budget that raised spending drastically because three or four Dems wouldn't buckle. It was said he should have shut down the government which is an obstructionist move.

Then when his term was almost up he passed another package that was just as bad with more woke. At least he didn't obstruct.

[fj1200]

Soooo once/if all these "electable" republicans get in there, what are THEY going to do?

Simple minded question is simple minded. But if all your scenarios come up roses then who knows what a bunch of "conservatives" with a populist bent will come up with. I'm not sure I want to find out.

[revelarts]

Simple minded question is simple minded. But if all your scenarios come up roses then who knows what a bunch of "conservatives" with a populist bent will come up with. I'm not sure I want to find out.

That's a LAME dodge FJ.
Just say you don't know.
Or you HOPE they'll do x, y or z that you like... Based on...what?

At this point, the ONLY thing I think they'll do for you is dress presentably in congress and not upset anyone there with any harsh questions or talking out of turn.
And continue supporting big biz donors... for the the good of the economy-cough-

If you know of ANY conservative policies they are focused on to promote and get through using all of their ability (within proper decorum of course) please let me know.
(as apposed to empty promises and posing of the past 30+ years)

[fj1200]

That's a LAME dodge FJ.
Just say you don't know.
Or you HOPE they'll do x, y or z that you like... Based on...what?

At this point, the ONLY thing I think they'll do for you is dress presentably in congress and not upset anyone there with any harsh questions or talking out of turn.
And continue supporting big biz donors... for the the good of the economy-cough-

If you know of ANY conservative policies they are focused on to promote and get through using all of their ability (within proper decorum of course) please let me know.
(as apposed to empty promises and posing of the past 30+ years)

Oh brother. I can hope what they'll do. I can think what they'll do. I can look up what THEY said they'll do but it's all vapor at this point. I'm not sure why you're asking people here what you can find out. And even then I'll just point you up a few posts and reiterate the very important factors that will actually determine what THEY can actually do. But I'll tell you this those who are acting out of decorum and harming the ability for Republicans to do things will still be there. Maybe some bold agenda moving comments about eyelashes will advance the return to Constitution-based governing.

Oh, one thing I did here trump said he'd do is move the corporate tax rate from 21% to 20%. That's bold thinking there. :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I'm not sure why you're asking people here ...

Because Kath made a post about them and She, you and gunny seem VERY pleased.
I'm just wondering WHY you're so pleased BEYOND a return to decorum, and going back to pretending that establishment Ds& Rs are very different.
Are there any policies you're expecting to see that the crude crazy people aren't working on (or are working against) or aren't working on 'as team players'.

[fj1200]

Because Kath made a post about them and She, you and gunny seem VERY pleased.
I'm just wondering WHY you're so pleased BEYOND a return to decorum, and going back to pretending that establishment Ds& Rs are very different.
Are there any policies you're expecting to see that the crude crazy people aren't working on (or are working against) or aren't working on 'as team players'.

Hmmm, just did a double check and it appears I haven't thanked or liked any posts in this thread and haven't replied to anyone other than you. You've asked in what seems like a hundred threads about policies liked or disliked, want or don't want, etc. and there are probably a hundred things that fall into that category but the bottom line is that MTG, Gaetz, etc. are not accomplishing anything and are stumbling into a possible future Dem majority and certainly a weaker current Republican majority. The point of this thread is trump is seemingly avoiding some of the crazier endorsements he could likely make and that bodes well going forward IMO. This is important because it is exactly his fault that the Republicans do not have a majority in the Senate. I want what I always want, small-government that follows the Constitution. I don't get that from Democrats, populists, trump, or the crazies. Some of them may stumble into it but that is almost entirely by accident or convenience.

[revelarts]

Hmmm, just did a double check and it appears I haven't thanked or liked any posts in this thread and haven't replied to anyone other than you. You've asked in what seems like a hundred threads about policies liked or disliked, want or don't want, etc. and there are probably a hundred things that fall into that category but the bottom line is that MTG, Gaetz, etc. are not accomplishing anything and are stumbling into a possible future Dem majority and certainly a weaker current Republican majority. The point of this thread is trump is seemingly avoiding some of the crazier endorsements he could likely make and that bodes well going forward IMO. This is important because it is exactly his fault that the Republicans do not have a majority in the Senate. I want what I always want, small-government that follows the Constitution. I don't get that from Democrats, populists, trump, or the crazies. Some of them may stumble into it but that is almost entirely by accident or convenience.

So have the sane "electable" Republicans been walking us soberly into more Small-Government that follows the Constitution for the past 40+ years?
Really?
I wish they'd start stumbling into it a bit more.
At that point no one would be looking for crazy people to do it.

[Black Diamond]

So have the sane "electable" Republicans been walking us soberly into more Small-Government that follows the Constitution for the past 40+ years?
Really?
I wish they'd start stumbling into it a bit more.
At that point no one would be looking for crazy people to do it.

It doesn't seem to matter. If rand Paul won, he'd either cave to the Dems or risk being called an obstructionist.

[SassyLady]

Hmmm, just did a double check and it appears I haven't thanked or liked any posts in this thread and haven't replied to anyone other than you. You've asked in what seems like a hundred threads about policies liked or disliked, want or don't want, etc. and there are probably a hundred things that fall into that category but the bottom line is that MTG, Gaetz, etc. are not accomplishing anything and are stumbling into a possible future Dem majority and certainly a weaker current Republican majority. The point of this thread is trump is seemingly avoiding some of the crazier endorsements he could likely make and that bodes well going forward IMO. This is important because it is exactly his fault that the Republicans do not have a majority in the Senate. I want what I always want, small-government that follows the Constitution. I don't get that from Democrats, populists, trump, or the crazies. Some of them may stumble into it but that is almost entirely by accident or convenience.
When have we ever got it? Under which administration and who were the movers and shakers that made it happen? Gringich?Boener?

[Black Diamond]

When have we ever got it? Under which administration and who were the movers and shakers that made it happen? Gringich?Boener?

Newt

[Gunny]

So have the sane "electable" Republicans been walking us soberly into more Small-Government that follows the Constitution for the past 40+ years?
Really?
I wish they'd start stumbling into it a bit more.
At that point no one would be looking for crazy people to do it.Not sure how replacing them with worse = better. I'm all for change for the better. Not seeing it.

[Black Diamond]

Not sure how replacing them with worse = better. I'm all for change for the better. Not seeing it.

Point i wss trying to get at yesterday is it doesn't seem to matter who the potus is. In the best circumstances a few dems can give us a pile of crap. Especially when it comes to budgets where 60 votes is required for passage?? IIRC maddog Mattis talked trump into signing the budget because of the military stuff that was in it.

[revelarts]

It doesn't seem to matter. If rand Paul won, he'd either cave to the Dems or risk being called an obstructionist.
No. Crazy populous Obstructionist!
Politicians can only TALK about small-government that follows the Constitution, actually DOING whatever it takes to get some of that is extreme crazy populous & obstructionist.
plus Chicanerous and Deplorable.

Can't have that, You know, just like in the revolution. Where everyone acted sane and responsibly with the British gov't and then created the constitution.

[fj1200]

So have the sane "electable" Republicans been walking us soberly into more Small-Government that follows the Constitution for the past 40+ years?
Really?
I wish they'd start stumbling into it a bit more.
At that point no one would be looking for crazy people to do it.


When have we ever got it? Under which administration and who were the movers and shakers that made it happen? Gringich?Boener?

You both seem to be under some mistaken impression that SGC is what the crazies want. Nothing they say tells me that SGC is the very core of what they believe. Rev now loves populism. Sassy wants chaos. Rev thinks everyone is the same. Sassy thinks anyone in power is an attention-seeking whore. You two do not seem to have any sense of where this leads or how it gets to your favored outcome or the outcome is a net positive. My sense is that the current road leads nowhere good.

The country has been moving right since Goldwater. Reagan had to change the culture first. Gingrich had to break decades of Dem majorities. And along the way fits and starts with now the majority of states being led by Republicans and SCOTUS with a 6-3 majority. You two expect magic. The only thing I wanted from trump was a conservative SCOTUS majority and for him not to screw up the rest of his time with his populist leanings which he managed to do. We've got the former and the latter is still my best outcome if he wins again.

[revelarts]

You both seem to be under some mistaken impression that SGC is what the crazies want. Nothing they say tells me that SGC is the very core of what they believe. Rev now loves populism. Sassy wants chaos. Rev thinks everyone is the same. Sassy thinks anyone in power is an attention-seeking whore. You two do not seem to have any sense of where this leads or how it gets to your favored outcome or the outcome is a net positive. My sense is that the current road leads nowhere good.

The country has been moving right since Goldwater. Reagan had to change the culture first. Gingrich had to break decades of Dem majorities. And along the way fits and starts with now the majority of states being led by Republicans and SCOTUS with a 6-3 majority. You two expect magic. The only thing I wanted from trump was a conservative SCOTUS majority and for him not to screw up the rest of his time with his populist leanings which he managed to do. We've got the former and the latter is still my best outcome if he wins again.

Well, ya know what would be magic? Getting all the "conservatives" who vote for establishment Republicans they think are electable to vote for candidates that reflect their true policy values rather than for establishment place holders with Rs attached to their names.


moving more right? really
Is Romney more right than Goldwater or Reagan?
McCain?
Are Mike Johnson, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, John Boehner? even Gingrich?

Is the country more right leaning now than when Goldwater ran for president?
What aspects of the right are you thinking of exactly that the nation is more ready for?

[Black Diamond]

Well, ya know what would be magic? Getting all the "conservatives" who vote for establishment Republicans they think are electable to vote for candidates that reflect their true policy values rather than for establishment place holders with Rs attached to their names.


moving more right? really
Is Romney more right than Goldwater or Reagan?
McCain?
Are Mike Johnson, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, John Boehner? even Gingrich?

Is the country more right leaning now than when Goldwater ran for president?
What aspects of the right are you thinking of exactly that the nation is more ready for?

Depends on how the labels "left" and "right" are defined

[fj1200]

Well, ya know what would be magic? Getting all the "conservatives" who vote for establishment Republicans they think are electable to vote for candidates that reflect their true policy values rather than for establishment place holders with Rs attached to their names.


moving more right? really
Is Romney more right than Goldwater or Reagan?
McCain?
Are Mike Johnson, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, John Boehner? even Gingrich?

Is the country more right leaning now than when Goldwater ran for president?
What aspects of the right are you thinking of exactly that the nation is more ready for?

Your problem is essentially that you demand this perfection of the American populace that is just not there. The problem is that the "conservatives" are exactly that. "Conservative." As I've stated before I've come to the realization that people I thought who were SGC prior to 2016 have proven themselves to not be. Fact.

Is everyone since Goldwater incrementally more right than the guy before? That would be a stupid expectation. You want to be this big picture person but you miss the obvious rightward moves that we have had. If this great rightward migration ends and we move left as an inevitable outcome of populism then so be it. I'm just not going to fool myself into thinking left is actually right.

[fj1200]

Depends on how the labels "left" and "right" are defined

Those two labels are nebulous just as RINO is now nebulous. Smaller government vs larger government. More liberty vs less liberty. Things like that are definable even if more liberty is better than it was yesterday but not where we want it tomorrow.

[SassyLady]

You both seem to be under some mistaken impression that SGC is what the crazies want. Nothing they say tells me that SGC is the very core of what they believe. Rev now loves populism. Sassy wants chaos. Rev thinks everyone is the same. Sassy thinks anyone in power is an attention-seeking whore. You two do not seem to have any sense of where this leads or how it gets to your favored outcome or the outcome is a net positive. My sense is that the current road leads nowhere good.

The country has been moving right since Goldwater. Reagan had to change the culture first. Gingrich had to break decades of Dem majorities. And along the way fits and starts with now the majority of states being led by Republicans and SCOTUS with a 6-3 majority. You two expect magic. The only thing I wanted from trump was a conservative SCOTUS majority and for him not to screw up the rest of his time with his populist leanings which he managed to do. We've got the former and the latter is still my best outcome if he wins again.
I have never used the word "whore" so I have no idea how you came up with that.

[Kathianne]

I have never used the word "whore" so I have no idea how you came up with that.

I think when I said something to the effect that MTG was an attention whore, you responded with something like, 'aren't they all?'

[fj1200]

I have never used the word "whore" so I have no idea how you came up with that.


How do you make this connection? I'm a fighter so I don't see realty? What reality am I not seeing here Kath?

BTW ... who do you support that isn't a publicity seeking whore? They're all publicity seekers. That's how they get their votes.

That wasn't the takeaway I was looking for.

[Black Diamond]

I think 90% of politicians are narcissists who love being the center of attention. I don't think that's a fringe view

[Black Diamond]

Maybe the issue is the difference between the terms "whore" and "attention whore". :laugh:

[fj1200]

I think 90% of politicians are narcissists who love being the center of attention. I don't think that's a fringe view

I won't argue the point. ;)

[SassyLady]

That wasn't the takeaway I was looking for.
I stand corrected. Can't belive I agreed with you on something.