Saturday, February 06, 2016

Why Rand Paul supporters should vote for Trump

Long before the Trump phenomenon came into being, Rand Paul was getting grilled by the Republican establishment for not declaring Vladimir Putin global enemy #1, and by extension, not insinuating that Russia--a natural ally in the real third world war--should inherently be viewed antagonistically:
“Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”

It is not the only time Paul has come running to the defense of a despot. Paul defended Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the grounds that he is good for Christians.

His comments come at the moment Vladimir Putin is putting his troops on alert on the Ukraine-Russia border and after months of effort to prevent Russian bullying of Ukraine. The “tweaking” of Russia is consistent with 22 years of American foreign policy. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute reacted via e-mail: “What a sad day for America when a prominent senator believes that standing for freedom and justice should be labeled 'tweaking.'”
With Rand out of contention, Trump is now the least hawkish of member of the Republican field. Here he is responding to similar castigation from neocon outfits like National Review for not eagerly desiring to humiliate Russia, preferring instead for the US to work amiably with the bear on behalf of Western civilization:

Compare this to NR's Russian approach, which is mostly indistinguishable from the rest of the Republican field:
A new Russia strategy must be the projection of military strength in Europe: establishing a permanent U.S. military presence in the Baltic region, expanding joint training exercises with military allies in Eastern Europe, and providing arms to help the Ukrainian government resist the Russian invasion. Alongside this approach should be a robust reiteration of America’s commitment to NATO’s Article 5.
Article 5 is the one about collective defence, where an attack on one member is to be treated as an attack on all members. If Russia does something one of it's neighbors like Estonia doesn't approve of, the Russians must be prepared for US military retaliation!

What National Review really wants is for Ukraine to became a full-fledged NATO member so that, instead of acting collectively to thwart the invasion of the Global South into the Global North, we can focus instead on killing hundreds of thousands of Russians. After all, they're too intolerant of homosexuality (for white people), so they deserve what's coming to them.

Cruz, the least bad of the remaining non-Trumpian bunch, at least pays lip-service to averting civilizational internecine military conflict before launching into how the US should use everything short of military action to bend Russia to its will regarding the country's interactions with its neighbors:

And here's Rubio, giving his full-throated support to militarily arming Russia's neighbors free of charge:

Beyond his aversion to rekindling the Cold War, the establishment forces opposing Trump at every turn are the same ones who did all they could to destroy Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, to say nothing of destroying his impeccable character. This is why guys like Lew Rockwell, who has almost nothing in common with Trump, tacitly want him to win the nomination.

The Republican party, as currently constituted, needs to burn to the ground so that out of the ashes may rise Trumpian populism and Paulian libertarianism, among many other strands of dissident rightism, to occupy space that the neocons have monopolized and zealously guarded for the last couple of decades.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Election alert voter violation

Sending messages out about an alleged but unsubstantiated last minute dropout to 1,000 or so precinct captains for them to have incorporated into caucus location speeches prior to voting is slimy and evinces a lack of integrity.

For one, it'd be absurd to drop out the day of a caucus or primary. Instead, people drop out the following day because that caucus or primary is the last one on a candidate's record and, irrespective of what his next move is, it's always better for him if the numbers in that showing are higher rather than lower. Secondly, these are putative rock-ribbed Fox News-loving Republicans who are interpreting an insinuation from CNN as gospel truth?

But this "election alert voter violation" mailer takes the sleaze to another level:

It's impossible to spin away as anything other than a blatant attempt at coercing--through deception and perceived duress--low-information voters into showing up at caucus locations, many of whom presumably knew little about the caucus they'd shown up to participate in.

In a primary, this would be a questionable tactic from a strictly results-oriented perspective, since the people flushed out to the polls in this manner would just end up clueless in front of a list of names on a screen, but the Iowa caucuses are public. People make pitches for the candidates they're supporting, and campaign volunteers are crawling all over the place.

Ted Cruz, having campaigned for years in the state, had the most expansive ground game and the widest amount of personal contact with caucus participants of anyone in the GOP field. His people were everywhere, and they presumably all knew about these mailers. It's conceivable that they were on the lookout for people unsure of what they needed to do to make right this "voter violation" before "a follow-up notice" was "issued following Monday's caucuses" to them.

Unlike the shifty Carson play, Cruz didn't grovel on the mailer:
Cruz, however, was defiant to reporters when asked about the mailer in Sioux City, Iowa, on Saturday night.

"I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote," he said.
Keep your eye on the prize, (t)Eddie Cruz!

Parenthetically, as Heartiste pointed out, the results head-scratcher comes not from Cruz's performance, but from Rubio's. The polling averages were actually quite accurate across the board--off by a couple of percentage points here and there--except for Trump and Rubio. Trump's polling numbers putatively turned out to be over-hyped by over 4 points while Rubio's were more than 6 points worse than his caucus-day performance.

The narrative of fence-sitting Trump supporters switching to Rubio at the last minute is almost inconceivable, so why were the data so off the mark when it came to these two while managing to get it just about right on everybody else?

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Mother knows best

From a Pew report entitled "Parenting in America":

In this case, (educated white) mother knows best.

NAMs are more likely to attribute their children's outcomes to the specifics of their parental approaches than whites are. That's a recipe for perpetual frustration and heartache. Beyond making sure basic needs are met, a parent's two most important jobs are in choosing the other half of the genetic equation and ensuring the child gets in with a desirable peer group. (In fairness, for single-parent NAMs just getting these fundamentals nailed down is often a challenge. Coming up short is a real problem that may lead some to, understandably, attribute their children's shortcomings to their failures in this regard).

That's it. Everything else is qualitative, subjective stuff. Enjoy the journey.

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Cuck yeah!

Jack Cashill, a fantastic investigative journalist who has turned up a lot of big stories that would've otherwise gone unnoticed, is my favorite cuckservative. But a cuckservative he is:

Because liberals are the real racists.

One upshot of this trend is that a higher percentage of white Americans will be able to run for office in the future and they will be pitching themselves to progressively larger electorates! On the other hand, non-whites won't have anyone to vote for them!

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Iowa cucks

Some 99%--and that's not hyperbole--of Iowa's Republican caucus-goers are white. Here are candidate favorability percentages among Iowa Republicans from the last poll to be released before voting takes place tomorrow:

Do not underestimate the implicit self-loathing of even the most outwardly patriotic, traditionalist pink skins. The inchoate identitarianism that seemed so salient in 2015 is still a long, long way from maturity.