Last year I explained the difference between a normal Republican/conservative voter and a Trumpanzee – the shit-flinging, frothing, simians, who have no concept of policy, objectivity, or common sense, and who simply toss turds at anyone who voices disagreement, concern, or even doesn’t display enough love and adoration for the President.
…not the normal Trump supporters, or those who voted for him merely to keep the C-Hag out of the White House – but the smirking, shit-flinging chimps who think Trump can do no wrong, claim that any criticism of their deity means you’re a Hillary supporter, and insist on doing their smarmy little happy dance by rubbing their “victory” in the faces of the #nevertrumpers (those who chose not to vote for Trump), chortling about us eating crow or gnashing our teeth in bitter angst.
These are the same puerile shit swaddlers who called those of us who are ostensibly ideological allies “idiots” and “tacit Hillary supporters,” due to our refusal to worship at the altar of Trump. Any criticism or refusal to cast a vote in his direction was met with derision and the math-challenged claim that a vote for anyone other than Trump meant a vote for Hillary.
Today’s Trumpanzees are no different. Much like the hysterical left that shits its diapers at every single word 45 utters and refuses to acknowledge the positive things he’s done so far or simply misinterprets and outright lies about every act he takes, the Trumpanzee is the creature that creams its diapers at every single assertion the President makes – whether true, partially true, or false – swings its schadenboner around like a drunken frat boy, jumps into defensive mode every time it perceives an attack on its deity, has no concept of policy, and merely supports any and all policies 45 advances, because he happens to be the one who advanced them.
These are the people who have no actual knowledge of events, they have no comprehension of economics, foreign affairs, military affairs, or diplomacy. They toss their allegedly “conservative” values aside and twist like a yogi on meth in their frothing zeal to mold policies they would have never supported before Trump came along into something they can claim is a “victory” or a “conservative” value. They are also the ones who hurl ad hominems at their opponents, who answer every challenge with “Oh, you must be a liberal/Oh, you must have voted for Hillary,” and who accuse their interlocutors of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, because they had the unmitigated gall to be critical of the President.
Right Wisconsin editor Charlie Sykes recently penned a column in the New York Times, discussing anti-anti-Trumpism. If you don’t want to give the NYT a click, the meat of the piece is here. What is anti-anti-Trumpism? Well, to me, it’s a nicer way of describing the Trumpanzee.
Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”
So I figured I’d give you my handy list about how to recognize a Trumpanzee – the frothing, dick-swinging, “WINNING!” lunatics who gleefully promote 45 merely because they “WON!” and despite the fact that the policies they may be promoting are the very antithesis of those they claim to espouse. To do this, I’m going to borrow Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck if…” format for some of these, but if you recognize yourself in this list, you might want to engage in some introspection before engaging with others.
1. If your instinctive reaction to any criticism of the President is to hurl the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) accusation, you might be a Trumpanzee.
2. If your loathing of the left and your schadenboner at WINNING overshadow your belief in liberty and limited government, you might be a Trumpanzee.
3. If your first response to a criticism of 45’s policies is to accuse your interlocutor of being a Democrat/Hillary supporter, you might be a Trumpanzee.
4. If you rationalize outrageous conduct and defend policies that clearly fly in the face of the conservative values you purport to uphold…
5. If watching the left’s heads “go splodey” is more important to you than advancing the principles of limited government and liberty…
6. If your reaction to opposition to Trump’s policies is an immediate attack on the person who voices said opposition or even death threats…
7. If everything except for Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Conservative Treehouse, Conservative Tribune, Young Cons, *insert any other “conservative” site here* is FAKE NEWS…
…you might be a Trumpanzee.
8. If you accuse the “deep state” of trying to sabotage the President by presenting misinformation, outright lies, or completely inaccurate/uninformed analysis by one of the above sites, you might be a Trumpanzee.
9. If you share positive “news” about the President without checking sources, merely because it strokes your turgid confirmation bias…
10. And if you refuse to read anything that might challenge your perceptions regarding the President, because it happens to be published in the Washington Post/NYT/*insert EEEVIL mainstream media source here*, and swear off any media – conservative, liberal, or otherwise – as soon as they publish anything critical of the President, but will gleefully share memes that don’t actually mean a thing…
…You might be a Trumpanzee.
11. If you cannot defend specific actions by the President, but choose instead to revert to the tried and true “Well, Obama…” or “Hillary would have been worse…” you might be a Trumpanzee.
12. If the liberals hate one of the President’s policies, and you automatically love and ardently defend it, merely because the liberals oppose it, regardless of whether or not it upholds the principles of conservatism, you might be a Trumpanzee.
13. If instead of defending conservative policies, you find yourself only saying things like…
“Trump is doing fine as the political weapon I voted for against the Washington Establishment!”
“While The Republican Congress is playing checkers, Trump is playing Chess!”
“FAKE NEWS!” in response to everything.
“…still infinitely better than Hillary,” in response to everything.
“…you would rather have Hillary…”
“You lost get over it and move on.”
“…your [sic.] bitter and upset that Trump won.”
“You have no clue what the art of the deal is.”
“Your [sic.] cluesless [sic.] how negotiation and leverage works [sic.]”
“Feels good to win. We won, you lost. Now sit down and shut up.”
“I don’t care. I voted for Trump because I didn’t want to lose the Supreme Court for the next 50 years. I didn’t count on him keeping any promises except for the promise to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court which he will follow.”
“Would anyone want Hillary Clinton in office instead? Hillary would have been the death knell for us all.”
“They’re trying a coup! Obama Administration and Obama Loyalists still in the NSA, DNI and FBI didn’t get the memo about the American Tradition of ‘Peaceful Transition of Power.’ They were using their power for political ends, in conjunction with the MSM.”
But he’s draining the swamp!
…you might be a Trumpanzee.
14. If you accuse anyone who disagrees with the President of being a “leftard,” “leftist,” or of hating America, you might be a Trumpanzee.
None of these are plausible reasons to support bad policies, and yet, these turd bombs are what I see the Trumpanzees hurling when they can’t defend the President’s decisions.
And to be sure, there have been some good decisions so far. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court is, in my opinion, fantastic. Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster make up a competent, intelligent, informed national security team. Steven Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury is an informed, engaged, sharp principal. I applaud those appointments.
But I’m not giving him a pass on the “we’ll build a big, beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it” promise – a wall which he now expects the American taxpayers to fund.
I’m not giving him a pass on the ObamaCare repeal or the reversal on ExIm Bank.
I’m certainly not giving him a pass on appointing Flynn as National Security Advisor and then blaming Obama for giving him a clearance, even though he had been out of government service for more than two years, and done a lot of engagement with the Russians, among others, as a civilian when he accepted the position.
Look, people, there’s not a single President who deserves your blind devotion. Not. A. Single. One. They are human, and they are hardly perfect.
And yet, we see rabid Trumpanzees hysterically attacking anyone who has the temerity to voice a critical opinion of the President – without any knowledge of economics, politics, military doctrine, or understanding of intelligence – just because WE WON, AND YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
If you find yourself blindly supporting the policies of the President merely because they piss off the left, you are not doing yourself, your country, or your conservative principles any favors. By refusing to acknowledge when one of your own screws up or goes back on a promise, or making excuses for his actions, you’re doing harm. Real harm – both to the conservative movement, and to America. And if you’re defending actions that a year ago you found indefensible due to your conservative principles, you’re doing harm. Real harm.
We should hold all our elected officials accountable to the people, holding their feet to the fire for broken promises or policies that contradict the principles on which they were elected, and that is what should be important, rather than basing our judgments on whether or not the left is unhappy. If you fail to be objective because you’re so busy swinging your dick around about WINNING, you don’t deserve to win.
Allowing the left to dictate right and wrong based on their histrionic screeching is not particularly bright, and it reflects poorly on conservatives writ large.
We have a duty to be objective when it comes to our leaders. We have an obligation to question them when warranted. We have a responsibility to be informed.
I realize it’s a whole lot easier to just pop some popcorn and defend the indefensible just to watch the left’s heads explode. It’s certainly more fun than doing some research and actually admitting that your guy isn’t even close to perfect. I get it. You voted for him. You would feel responsible.
It’s much easier to deflect attention for a President’s failures to his enemies, and it’s certainly a lot more entertaining to simply ridicule the unhinged left than to face possible failures in the people for whom we cast votes.
And it’s certainly much more superficially satisfying to shove your fist down the “enemy’s” throat, while loudly proclaiming your WINNING! while pouring dirt on those who take the time to research and understand the policies involved, because they’re not jubilantly proclaiming the greatness of the leader you worship.
That’s not conservatism. The fact that the Trumpanzees are in the process of transforming conservatism into the turds they eventually fling at their perceived enemies is disturbing.
Cue flood of Trumpanzees engaging in some or all of the above behavior in 3…2…1…
Last night, addressing the Arlington County Republican Committee, the leader of the 8th Congressional District VCN/NextGen State Central Committee slate implied that the Conservative Fellowship was some ‘special interest,’ while also claiming her ticket was not beholden to any special interest. This is a complete falsehood, and saying it with a straight face requires unmitigated gall.
Indeed, in her quest to make the case for open primaries (more on this later), this candidate has lied numerous times in this campaign about the state of RPV’s finances and about the history and financial impact of statewide conventions.
I don’t subscribe to the “participation trophy” view of the nomination contest, so I favor party-run processes to choose our nominees. Nevertheless, even if you don’t, you should still support the Fellowship ticket in the 8th. Let me share a number of reasons why.
First, we really AREN’T beholden to anyone. The Fellowship doesn’t stand monolithically for anything beyond a commitment to ensuring the grassroots are given a voice, and to adhering to the values of the Virginia Republican Creed in a broad sense. There is a large diversity of opinion in our group.
In contrast, our opponents are cat’s-paws for many of the folks who seek to control the party from the top down, and are willing to cripple it to make that happen.
The Virginia Conservative Network is the Young Guns Virginia group rebranded. Its core is the same crowd. Eric Cantor, George Allen, Mike Thomas, Mike Wade, and the list goes on. These people see RPV as a cash cow, and believe it is their sinecure to run the party, and that the hoi polloi (the rest of us, actual grassroots Republicans) should simply shut up and take our marching orders from them.
Not least among them is our old friend Ray Allen, who infamously bragged that he would starve the party financially by keeping the donor class from supporting it. Interesting that the main criticism last night by this same State Central candidate was that RPV raised 10% of what DPVA did in the first quarter. If true, she and her allies had a direct hand in ensuring a low fundraising haul. With one hand, they do their best to deprive RPV of the funds needed to be competitive, while on the other, criticizing Chairman Whitbeck and the State Central Committee for a situation of their own creation
[As an aside, the bulk of the Conservative Fellowship wanted a Presidential Nominating Convention. Does anyone seriously doubt that our coffers would be overflowing with cash right now if we’d had our convention in late March, as originally proposed, and it was used to bind our delegates? Even without that contest, this year’s convention is poised to clear hundreds of thousands of dollars. A conservative estimate for a presidential convention had RPV clearing north of $500,000.]
If this lobbyist/consultant-driven crowd regains control of RPV, which they had until 2013, and really until John Whitbeck became Chair, RPV will again be run with the interests of current and former elected officials, establishment candidates, and consultants, and the profit margins of McGuire Woods and Creative Direct in mind. The conflict of interest is massive.
NextGen GOP is a Republican ‘millenial’-themed group founded by former staffers and supporters of Bill Bolling, and allies of the Kilbergs, who supported Terry McAuliffe once Ken Cuccinelli became the obvious gubernatorial nominee for 2013. At the same time, the Rexrode/LaCivita crew somehow got control of Cuccinelli’s campaign, hired this very same State Central Candidate as a staffer, and then tried to turn Ken Cuccinelli into a warm, fuzzy, more moderate version of himself, rather than run him as the unapologetic conservative who won by landslide margins for Attorney General in 2009! You can’t make this up.
Part of the VCN crowd’s claim is competence, supposedly in contrast to the Fellowship. Judging from what I’ve seen out of them, I wouldn’t trust this crew to assemble even a single IKEA bookshelf.
Fun fact: Bobbie Kilberg and her allies held a fundraiser in Virginia for George P. Bush in 2014 for his run for Texas Land Commissioner, but couldn’t manage to assist Virginia’s own conservative candidates. She also couldn’t make up her mind between Chris Christie and Jeb Bush for President this past time. How’d that work out for her?
These are the puppetmasters, along with elements of the House Republican Caucus, behind the VCN/NextGen State Central slate. One of the goals of the VCN is to ‘forestall as many primary challenges as possible.’ These folks are elitist in elemental form.
The candidate in question actually WORKS for George Allen, yet claims she will be an independent conservative voice on State Central, right alongside George Allen’s campaign manager, Mike Thomas, who serves as First Vice Chairman and as a lobbyist for McGuire Woods. Even better, the registered agent for the Virginia Conservative Network is actually located at the address of George Allen Strategies!
I debunked the lies she spread about RPV finances and conventions publicly at several candidate forums, and in emails.
She claimed RPV was broke, and could not afford to pay off the costs of the 2015 Advance to the Homestead. I spoke with both RPV Chairman John Whitbeck and Treasurer Rich Nilsen about this, and learned that our leadership was negotiating a potential price break for holding the advance there in future years, which is why the payment had not been made. There were plenty of funds to cover the cost in RPV’s account.
She also claimed that conventions lose money. This was clearly false, as was easily proved after some research. In 2013, the convention made hundreds of thousands of dollars for the party, allowing it to survive the starvation diet imposed by the VCN crowd. In fact, every convention has made money for RPV, with one exception. This was 2009, when she and her bosses and associates conspired to have the State Central Committee remove the sitting party chairman and install a willing conspirator as his replacement, and then handed the reins on the convention over to the McDonnell campaign. That convention ran far over on expenses, including over $140,000 on production alone. (Remember all the fancy audio-visuals in that convention? Really nice, but not really necessary). That convention lost $76,000 thanks to them. McDonnell’s campaign, to their credit, reimbursed RPV for the $76,000 of RPV’s money that they overspent.
Faced with this evidence, my opponent did not attempt to defend her previous errant assertions, but suddenly stopped using them, without apology or even acknowledgment. This not only demonstrates where her bread is buttered, it goes to her character.
Since then, she’s encouraged delegates to speak to her and her ticketmates privately about conventions. I have little confidence she will be any more truthful in such conversations. Such dishonesty should be a disqualification for election to the Party’s governing body. (For the record, I know several VCN folks who are fine, upstanding individuals, and this is not aimed at them).
I can promise you this: I and my ticketmates will be TRULY independent grassroots conservative voices on the State Central Committee, accountable only to 8th Congressional District Republicans who sent us there. Bank on it.
At the end of the day, THAT is what this election is about: Will Republican Party of Virginia maintain its hard-fought financial and operational independence from the Richmond establishment machine? Will current leadership be allowed to continue reversing the horrible ruin inflicted upon it by its former lobbyist and consultant overlords? Or will we once again make the Party a meaningless empty shell, whose principal usefulness to elected officials is a bulk mail account and as a place to park loyal staffers? Will the Party serve the grassroots, or will it go back to being at the beck and call of current elected officials and their minions?
The choice is clear for grassroots conservatives, and really any Republican interested in having a voice in the party: Elect Robert Kenyon, Paul Blumstein, and Anna Urman to the State Central Committee from the 8th District.
Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.
“Those who aim at great deeds must also suffer greatly.”
Many of us in the liberty movement saw the handwriting on the wall some time ago, as far as the Rand Paul campaign was concerned. He came in a distant fifth in Iowa, a state many thought he would win a year ago, his polling looked bleak in the other early states, and he was short on resources. He likely could have gone on, but instead, ended his campaign Wednesday morning. He’ll focus on securing re-election to the Senate, which he should easily accomplish. This turn of events has caused many of us in the liberty movement to despair, and even question the viability of the movement itself.
This must stop. What, did some of us think this would be easy? That the neoconservatives, the authoritarians, the entrenched interests, and all the rest who stand in our way inside the Republican party, would simply step aside? This sort of wishful thinking is all too common among those of us in the liberty movement. Reality is that it took over a century for the state to grow as it has, and for our liberties to be endangered the way they are now, and we won’t reverse that in a single campaign, a single election cycle, or even over the course of one pro-liberty presidential administration. We have a long fight ahead of us, and only over the past few years has it seemed as if we can begin to turn the tide. The sooner we realize this, the better our chances of making an actual impact. Our adversaries understand the value of incremental progress. So must we.
To that end, we must take Senator Paul’s defeat in stride, assess our options, and recommit to the fight, supporting the best possible outcome for the advancement of liberty.
We cannot simply throw up our hands, take our ball, and go home. To do so would validate every criticism the establishment makes about liberty Republicans. That we’re not really Republicans. That we don’t understand the value of coalitions in politics. That we’re children who pitch a screaming fit the moment we don’t get exactly what we want. This will not do.
To that end, I believe wholeheartedly that liberty Republicans must work to elect Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, the next President of the United States.
Along with Senator Mike Lee, he’s stood with Rand more than anyone else in the Senate. True, he’s not perfect, but he’s very good, and we can’t let the proverbial perfect be the enemy of the good.
He’s the only candidate still in the race who subscribes to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He’s the only candidate in the race who stands firmly against warrantless surveillance. He’s made some unwise comments about ‘making sand glow’ and ‘carpet bombing’, but for the most part, he rejects the ridiculous neoconservative foreign policy agenda. He’s with us on privacy and data security. However socially conservative he might be, he understands federalism, and would leave such issues largely in the hands of the states. He’d eliminate the odious TSA, along with a host of other superfluous federal departments and agencies. He understands the desperate need for sweeping criminal justice reform. Ted Cruz is our staunch ally most of the time.
Case in point: The USA Freedom Act. While it was much weaker than the original bill, it still ended warrantless government access to phone metadata, which was the major problem. That data is still collected by phone companies, and no bill yet seriously contemplated would stop that. Yet, many liberty activists are angry because he supported that version of the USA Freedom Act. That bill was the epitome of an incremental victory for liberty. We should thank him for supporting it.
The man just rolled into Iowa and beat the ethanol lobby in its backyard, winning Iowa with flying colors. The significance of that cannot be overstated.
He missed the latest vote in the Senate to audit the Federal Reserve, but that bill had vanishingly small chances of getting the 60 votes need to invoke cloture, and exactly ZERO chance of getting the 67 votes needed to override the inevitable Obama veto. Yet liberty Republicans skewered Cruz for missing the vote! Where was he? Winning, apparently. He knows we need a pro-liberty President if such a thing is to become law.
Once one compares Senator Cruz to the competition, the choice becomes even more clear.
I won’t spill a lot of ink here dealing with Donald Trump, as it’s been done elsewhere to great effect. Suffice it to say he’s a horrible demagogue with a long history of supporting Democratic candidates and policies, and for all the world seems like the bastard political child of Silvio Berlusconi and Benito Mussolini, with a dusting of liberal Yankee jackass for good measure. No. Just no.
Marco Rubio embraces the neoconservative “Invade The World/Invite The World” policy panoply with both arms and grinning enthusiasm. So on foreign policy and immigration, he’s a fresh-faced rerun of George W. Bush. No, thank you.
Rubio, Trump, Chris Christie, ¡Jeb! Bush, and to a lesser extent, John Kasich (who is the worst of the lot other than Trump), brag about how we need get back to violating the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans to stop terrorism. All are on board, to varying degrees, with perpetual entanglement in the Middle East.
Ben Carson, while a fine man, suffers upon close examination, and has looked feckless and inconsistent in debates and on the campaign trail. His campaign is fading, and with good reason.
Carly Fiorina will be a strong surrogate for whoever our nominee is, but her moment in the sun in this race has passed. Jim Gilmore is somehow still running, effectively as a fundraiser for Boyd Marcus. He was never a real factor.
For the first time since at least 1980, we have a chance to elect a President who will actually try and make a dent in the growing leviathan state, and strike a blow for liberty. We can win! Let’s prove the doubters wrong. Let’s join the rest of the wider conservative movement, defeat the establishment catspaw candidates, and WIN.
Cruz for liberty. Cruz for President.
Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.
…because he’s one of them, in many ways. These papers practically fawn over Kasich, while slandering conservatives. For starters, the Boston Globe:
He has a record of pragmatic Midwestern conservatism, and has demonstrated an aptitude for the horse-trading and coalition-building that’s so lacking in today’s Washington. (It’s no small irony that one of Kasich’s finest accomplishments as a congressman — joining the bipartisan deal to impose a 10-year ban on assault weapons — is one that he barely mentions now.)
Well, how ’bout that. Then, of course, we have the infamous New York Times:
…he has been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives. He favors a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he speaks of government’s duty to protect the poor, the mentally ill and others “in the shadows.” While Republicans in Congress tried more than 60 times to kill Obamacare, Mr. Kasich did an end-run around Ohio’s Republican Legislature to secure a $13 billion Medicaid expansion to cover more people in his state.
Lovely… and telling. Moving on to Iowa, here’s the Quad City Times:
John Kasich is the poster-child for all thinking Republicans left behind by a party overrun by an irrational, seething fringe. The Ohio governor is the antithesis of the shrill, bigoted screaming heads dominating the Republican Party field. He should carry the GOP standard heading into November’s presidential election, if re-injecting reason into GOP rhetoric is of any concern.
Kasich won’t wage the dehumanizing ground war against immigrants looking for work. Kasich sees immigrants as human beings, supports bolstering U.S.-Mexico border security, while providing a much-needed pathway to legal status for the 11.5 million people already illegally in the U.S.
And in New Hampshire, the Keene Sentinel:
While in Congress, he voted for an assault weapons ban and favored background checks at gun shows.
In Ohio, he stood out as a Republican governor willing to implement the expansion of Medicaid services through the Affordable Care Act. Criticized by his former tea party supporters for the move, Kasich said two things that are indicative of his leadership style. He noted the program would be paid for mainly by the federal government, including with money Ohioans had sent to Washington and deserved to see return to the state. More to the point, he noted it was simply the right thing to do to help those most in need in his state. While opposing the ACA, he acknowledges that any reworking or replacing of that law needs to include continuing to care for those Americans who have gained coverage through the program.
…and the list goes on. In nearly every editorial supporting him, they laud his ‘pragmatism’ (read: selling out to the left) and trash conservatives at every turn. As I explained a couple of months ago, Kasich is no conservative, as evidenced by his demeanor, debate performances, and rhetoric. The betrayal on the 1993 Clinton ‘assault weapons’ ban is enough to exile him from consideration from the Presidency, no matter what good works he’s done as Governor. His (at best) checkered record on federal mandates, his failure to press for right-to-work legislation, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (made exponentially worse by how he demonizes anyone interested in enforcing immigration law) and his embrace of Medicaid expansion all make him an absolute non-starter for conservatives. Let’s hope he’s out of the race after New Hampshire, the state he’s placing all his chips on.
Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.
Once again, certain Republican members of the General Assembly are advancing bills to call a constitutional convention, as detailed in Article V of the Constitution. Scott Lingamfelter, Jim LeMunyon, and Emmett Hanger are the parties responsible, all part of Republican leadership. It nearly passed last year, and was only defeated thanks to the heroic efforts of Dick Black in the Senate.
All the same concerns remain, and have not (and cannot) be addressed by either the General Assembly members who support this, or by Middle Resolution PAC, Convention of States, or any of the other outside forces behind this effort. They can’t limit the scope of a constitutional convention. They can’t guarantee it won’t be hijacked by the left. They can’t explain how they’ll force Congress to adopt a ‘one state, one vote’ format for the convention.
Please lobby your representatives in the House of Delegates and the Senate of Virginia to oppose all three of these bills when they show up on the floor, as they will surely make it out of committee, thanks to leadership support. Possibly as early as this week.
Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.