Bush is Supposed to Support the Guy Calling Him a War Criminal?

bushes“If Donald Trump literally spit in your wife’s face, would you still vote for him?”

It’s a question I’ve asked a lot of Trump supporters over the past several months, who are angry at (and can’t wrap their minds around) my NeverTrump stance.

Interestingly, none of these guys have ever answered it. They’ve all either ignored the question or called it absurd, stating that Trump would never do such a thing.

On that, they’re right. Trump’s a lot of things, but to my knowledge, he has never actually spat in someone’s face. But that’s not why I ask the question. I ask it because I want to know if there is absolutely anything Trump could possibly do to lose their vote.

After all, adopting the policy-positions and the incendiary rhetoric of the Left hasn’t done it. Lying each and every day on the campaign trail hasn’t done it. Neither has mocking American POWs for their capture, or throwing out racist and sexist remarks. Making fun of someone’s physical disabilities hasn’t done it. Comparing Republican primary opponents to child molesters, and linking their fathers to the JFK assassination hasn’t done it. Conning Trump University students out of their money hasn’t done it. Even multiple allegations of sexual assault have largely resulted in the turning of a blind eye.

Why have all of these things been ruled acceptable? It’s because the Right and a lot of independents have deemed Trump to be the lesser of two evils in this election. Believe me, I understand that sentiment.

Yet, when you narrow down the argument about Trump’s conduct, and put it in the most personal of terms (as I have with my question), even somewhat reluctant supporters can’t bring themselves to address it. It’s because they know that their honest answer to the question would be “no.” Anyone with any shred of dignity has a line that can’t be crossed, and a man spitting in their spouse’s face would be it.

Once a Trump supporter acknowledges the existence of this line, it becomes harder for them to deride those who say that Trump has already crossed theirs, with his real-life offenses.

Unfortunately, that level of self-examination doesn’t fly with much of this crowd. If you’re a conservative or a Republican, and you’re not supporting Trump, you’re called a RINO, a cuck, a traitor, an establishment-elite, a narcissist, and yes…even a liberal.

On the receiving end of a lot of this tribal anger, especially over the past few days, has been the Bush family. It was recently reported, based on some public speculation from George P. Bush (George W. Bush’s nephew), that the 41st and 43rd American presidents (both Republicans) will likely not be voting for this year’s GOP nominee.

Of course, we learned of the elder Bush’s preference toward Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago, when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend spilled the beans on social media.

A lot of Trump fans have been livid over this, and not just the scores of nameless, faceless individuals hiding behind anonymous social media accounts.

Radio host Laura Ingraham sarcastically tweeted that it “would be nice if the GOP had a beloved and willing former president to campaign for its nominee in the homestretch.”

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs declared that the Bushes are liberals, and always have been.

On Friday’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly had trouble fathoming the idea of George W. Bush not voting for Trump.

Speaking to presidential historian, Jon Meacham, O’Reilly said, “I can’t imagine, at this point in Hillary Clinton’s political evolution, Bush — the younger — pulling that lever for somebody who, as I pointed out in the Talking Points memo…abortion no matter when, for any reason…I just can’t imagine it.”

Meacham believed it was wrong to assume that Bush would vote for Clinton, just because he wasn’t voting for Trump.

O’Reilly stated that he believed it was Trump’s treatment of Jeb Bush during the primaries, that was instrumental in the Bush family’s decision. He voiced that conclusion again, in the following segment, with former Bush White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino.

Of course, anyone who has observed the Bushes over the years knows that they are incredibly gracious when it comes to how they respond to their detractors and political opponents. George W. and John McCain went through a bitter rivalry back in 2000, and came out of it as friends and mutual supporters. George H.W.’s affection for Bill Clinton, the man who unseated him after one term in the Oval Office, has been as admirable as anything I’ve seen in American politics.

But like everyone, the Bushes have a line that can’t be crossed. And as both Meacham and Perino eluded to with O’Reilly, that line wasn’t Trump’s harsh treatment of Jeb.

The real answer should be pretty obvious.

If we can all agree that spitting in someone’s face is unacceptable, and grounds for political opposition, how can the same not be true for calling someone a war criminal?

How can saying that someone “lied” to the world about WMDs in Iraq, and thus sacrificed thousands of American lives for nothing, not be proper justification for withholding support? How can saying that someone knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, and was complicit in the murders of thousands of innocent people, not be the ultimate spit in the face?

Back when Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Code Pink were spewing such garbage, we on the Right understood how patently false, damaging, and utterly disgusting it was. We condemned it. We fought it tooth and nail. Yet, when Donald Trump ran on this very rhetoric in the Republican primary, a decade later, it was admissible to the point that he actually won the party’s nomination.

CNN’s Jake Tapper tweeted the other day that “it’s astounding what’s been normalized this election season.”

He’s right, and I can’t think of a better example of it than the notion put forth by Trump fans, that party loyalty should compel individuals to relinquish every ounce of their dignity, and support the candidacy of a someone who’s essentially accusing them and their family of mass-murder.

It’s this kind of sadistic lunacy that drove me out of the Republican party a few months ago. You can only have your face spat in so many times, before you’ve finally had enough.




Priebus to Primary Candidates: Kneel Before Trump

kneelOn Sunday’s Face the Nation, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus suggested that if Donald Trump’s primary challengers don’t support the GOP presidential nominee, their political futures in the Republican party could be in jeopardy.

As is widely known, a number of Trump’s primary opponents haven’t offered endorsements (or even tepid support) to his candidacy. Notably among them are Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush. All could potentially throw their hats back into the presidential ring in 2020 or 2024.

“Those peopled need to get on board,” Priebus told host John Dickerson. “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process – of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.”

When asked specifically if the party itself planned to “penalize” these individuals, if they don’t make good on their pledge from last summer, to support the eventual nominee, Priebus framed it as a real possibility.

“I think these are the things that our party’s going to look at, in the process,” he answered. “And I think that people who gave us their word, used information for the RNC, should be on the board.”

Preibus referenced a ballot-access issue in South Carolina, where party candidates are actually required to pledge their support to the eventual nominee, in order to get on the ballot…regardless if who that person is.

This wasn’t the case, of course, with the “loyalty pledge” that was taken by the Cruz, Kasich, Bush, and 14 others; it wasn’t legally binding. Still, Preibus seemed to be suggesting that the South Carolina model had enough merit to be applied to national candidates.

“If a private entity puts forward a process and has agreement with the participants in that process,” he added, “and those participants don’t follow through with the promises that they made in that process, what should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years?”

My guess is that Preibus’s view actually mirrors popular sentiment among Republican voters. I’ve been surprised by the number of Trump supporters (even reluctant ones) who have responded to me on this website, and on social media, with the belief that the loyalty pledge is akin to a blood pact – one that must be honored as a show of true character.

I’ve found that viewpoint quite curious, being that:

  1. Trump disavowed the same pledge back in March.
  2. Trump has broken promises throughout his campaign, whether it be on policies (like immigration), or vows to provide information to the public (like tax returns).

Still, a lot of Republicans in this decisively anti-establishment election are insistent that the losing candidates now swallow their pride, and their concerns for the nation, and hold firm on the promise they made to – yes – The Establishment. And Priebus has become those people’s loudest voice.

Talk about irony.

I certainly can’t speak for the GOP holdouts, but if I were them, I know what my response would be: “Screw you, Reince.”

There was no RNC talk of penalties or demands for party loyalty when Donald Trump was insisting that our nation’s last Republican president “lied” about WMDs in Iraq. There was no retribution for when he placed the blame for 9/11 on that president, or for when he likened the administration to war criminals.

Where was the RNC when Trump was waging personal attacks on elected Republican leaders (including some up for re-election) for committing the dastardly act of endorsing other primary candidates? Reminder: We’re talking about a guy who later said that he “doesn’t mind” if the GOP loses the U.S. Senate.

When Trump compared one of his Republican opponents to a “child molester,” why wasn’t the RNC issuing him threats? Where was the committee when Trump suggested that another primary opponent’s father conspired to assassinate JFK?

Let me repeat that last one: A Republican presidential candidate accused another Republican presidential candidate’s father of being involved in the murder of an American president. And the RNC did nothing.

Get your signed, personalized copy of John Daly's thriller BLOOD TRADE

Get your signed, personalized copy of John Daly’s thriller BLOOD TRADE

Sure, there have been times when Priebus has publicly stood up to Trump and denounced some of his rhetoric, like when Trump called the Colorado GOP “corrupt.” And for that, Priebus deserves some credit. But there were never any public threats issued to Trump about his political future. There was never any talk about the RNC making it hard for him to ever run again.

The RNC took ownership of Trump, and now Priebus is warning others that they’d better debase themselves if they know what’s good for them.

He’s saying that they have to vouch for a guy who, in some cases, attacked their families. He’s telling them that they need to prop up a man who they believe is totally unqualified to serve as president, or else they will suffer political consequences.

In short, Priebus is demanding a show of party loyalty that would have never been (and never will be) demanded of Trump.

Because of that, those who don’t want to endorse the Republican nominee shouldn’t feel the slightest bit obligated to do so. In fact, they should be insulted by the public pressure now being placed on them.

 




Is Donald Trump’s Ego More Sacred Than 9/11?

Donald Trump 9/11Back in 2009, radio personality Glenn Beck created a national group (perhaps more accurately defined as a movement) called the 9-12 Project. Its purpose was to encourage average citizens to participate in a conscious effort to try and emulate the period of national unity our country experienced in the wake of the 9/11 terrorists attacks in 2001.

Beck said that he had grown increasingly concerned by the deep division that had taken hold of the American Psyche in the aftermath of a global economic catastrophe and a particularly nasty presidential election. The 9-12 Project was his “pay it forward” idea of making the country a better place through civility and guiding principles, rather than partisanship.

The movement did find some momentum in certain parts of the country, spawning local chapters and even some national rallies, but you don’t hear much about it these days. It kind of fizzled out. Still, I always admired the sentiment behind it.

I remember well the images of George W. Bush rallying the nation through a megaphone at Ground Zero, and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle spontaneously singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. I remember the American flags that flew from the windows of cars, and leaders who pointed fingers not at each other, but at al-Qaeda — the true enemy of our nation.

You can’t blame a person for wanting to rekindle a sense of national maturity and resolve, especially in today’s trollish political environment where sport is routinely made out of impugning the character of people, and pitting different demographics against each other.  That being said, even among the politicians who shamelessly work to divide us along lines of race, gender, religion, and economic class, there are certain topics that are still treated as sacred. 9/11 is one of them.

That’s not to say that 9/11 hasn’t been politicized over the years. It has…by both Democrats and Republicans, typically in the form of bolstering foreign policy experience or the highlighting of lessons unlearned. But very rarely do we ever hear a candidate or elected official use the attacks themselves as a weapon to inflict damage on a political foe.

The reason for that is simple. Anyone who was of adult-age in 2001 already understands that our country’s pre-9/11 government culture (that spanned at least two administrations) was one of relative complacency in sensitive areas of our national security. We understand that opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden months and years before the attacks were squandered because we didn’t understand the level of death and destruction his terror network was capable of. Simply put, we weren’t on war-footing with an enemy that had declared war on us years earlier, and there’s no one who didn’t realize that fact as we watched skyscrapers crumble to the ground on live television.

Above all, we also understood that America didn’t attack America on 9/11 and murder nearly 3,000 people. Al-Qaeda did that. Osama bin Laden did that. And as a country, we put aside our petty inclinations to vilify each other, and instead united together to seek justice and defend the nation against our common enemy. Even pandering politicians respect that. Even Barack Obama, who has spent years of his presidency blaming his predecessor for practically everything under the sun, has respected it.

Why then, did presidential candidate Donald Trump decide last week to commit political taboo, and needlessly resurrect the pain of 9/11 to infer that George W. Bush was to blame for the attacks? It’s because in this 2016 campaign, there is one highly sensitive topic that is even more sacred than the horrors of 9/11: Donald Trump’s ego.

We can pretend (as many Trump loyalists have) that there was some cogent point being made by Trump in his remarks. We can pretend that he truly took exception with Jeb Bush saying that his brother “kept us safe”, but I don’t think any intellectually honest person believes that explanation. Trump understood, just as everyone else did, that Jeb was referring to the sweeping, consequential steps taken by George W. Bush (and wholeheartedly supported by Congress and the American people) after 9/11, to wage a War on Terror. Those steps prevented follow-up attacks on the United States (that everyone believed were inevitable) from ever materializing on Bush’s watch.

I doubt even Trump would disagree with that, which is why I don’t believe for a second that he has any objections to what Jeb actually said. What he almost certainly objects to is the huge ovation Jeb received (at Donald’s expense) for saying it at the nationally-televised CNN debate.

The incident clearly embarrassed Trump, and if we’ve leaned anything from this campaign, it’s that Trump hates — and I mean HATES — having his ego bruised. It’s what compelled him to mock American POWs for being captured. It’s what began his months-long obsession with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that continues to this day. It’s what drives his insistence that anyone who disagrees with him is “stupid” and “a loser.” And now, it’s what is compelling him to re-litigate a topic as sensitive as 9/11.

Breaking: Presidential candidate Donald Trump endorses John A. Daly's new novel.

Breaking: Presidential candidate Donald Trump endorses John A. Daly’s new novel.

None of these things have been done in the name of advancing the country or conservative governance, of course. The nourishment of a billionaire’s damaged pride has become the overriding media narrative of this campaign, rather than dueling ideas or records of leadership.  Some would even say its the entire basis for Trump’s candidacy — a thumb in the eye of the pundits who unanimously laughed off the notion of “President Trump” four years ago.

Regardless, we on the right are getting the primary we deserve by joining the liberals in flocking to breathtaking hyperbole and tit-for-tat displays of adolescence instead of serious leaders with serious visions. We have it within our power to change that, but if we’re content with relinquishing our country’s future to the whims of one man’s id, let’s by all means continue down this road.




“If I Were Emperor” and “A Bush League Candidate”

For several years, Barack Obama insisted that he didn’t have the constitutional authority to change our immigration laws. No matter how Hispanics put the question to him, his answer was always the same. He kept pointing out he was the president, not the emperor. Then one morning he woke up, discovered an ermine robe hanging in his closet, and decided that he was either the star attraction in a gay musical revue or he was the emperor, and decided that either way he had the authority.

Well, I don’t have anything better than a flannel bathrobe in my closet, but I would certainly like to be able to make or remake the laws to my liking. And to start with, I would pass a law ensuring that no congressional bill would ever run more than two pages or deal with more than a single issue.

It is simply too easy to shove everything including the kitchen sink into one of those 1,500 page monstrosities, knowing that nobody in Congress is about to spend a month reading the damn thing, meaning that, in the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, people will simply have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

We all know that these gargantuan pieces of legislation are merely Trojan horses used by both parties to conceal pork and to play politics. How many times have we heard that the Democrats will tie, say, military allocations into bills dealing with things they need Republican support to pass? And, let me add, vice versa. I say let each and every bill stand alone. If either party can’t muster the votes to pass its pet legislation, we can probably live without it.

For the longest time, I was aware that certain high-profile people have only a passing acquaintance with the English language. I mean, it’s downright embarrassing listening to most Hollywood celebrities, professional athletes, members of the Black Congressional Caucus and pinheads like Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, attempt to express a single coherent thought.

Recently, I had occasion to add to the list Bill Cosby, who chose to refer to the two dozen accusations of rape as “innuendo,” and Jonathan Gruber, who dismissed the numerous occasions when he called Americans stupid for believing the lies about ObamaCare as his attempt at “glibness.” As any dictionary would have been only too happy to explain, being glib is to be facile and linguistically fluent. I, Herr Gruber, am glib; you, on the other hand, are a lying piece of egotistical chicken poop.

Speaking of liars, Obama strove to put the best possible face on partisan hack Sen. Feinstein’s CIA-flaying report by declaring, “When we do something wrong, we acknowledge it.” Come again? This putz hasn’t even come clean about his travel visa or his college application from 35 years ago, let alone Benghazi, the IRS targeting of the Tea Party or his unconstitutional reversal on amnesty.

While the widow and the daughter of Eric Garner have gone out of their way to state that in their opinion, the unfortunate death of their husband and father at the hands of white police officers had nothing to do with racism, we had Obama and his lackey Eric Holder leading a crusade against so-called racial profiling. The irony is that if such profiling is a sin, it’s one the president and his attorney general never tire of committing, so long as those being profiled are white men wearing blue uniforms.

Instead of attacking racial profiling, how about suggesting to those allegedly being profiled that Muslims stop waging war against all us Jewish and Christian infidels; that Hispanics stop sneaking across our border and making themselves wards of the American taxpayer; and that urban blacks stop committing violent crimes at a rate far exceeding their percentage of the population?

Something else that I would like to see changed is the kid glove approach that the media adopts with our presidents. I didn’t like it when the press pretended that FDR wasn’t an invalid. I also didn’t approve of the media’s concealing the fact that JFK, who not only suffered from back problems that had him addicted to pain pills, still managed to carry on like an over-sexed fraternity boy. It didn’t help that in addition to winking at his sexual shenanigans, they propagandized on his behalf by showing him posing for Hallmark cards at the Kennedy compound, pretending there was nothing he enjoyed more than playing touch football with his dysfunctional clan.

The media also provided cover for Clinton, who was not only a sexual predator, but had a foul mouth and a hair-trigger temper. But the media conspired to portray him as a good old boy who was all “shucks” and “golly gee whiz,” and could have stepped right out of a Norman Rockwell painting.

The only reason I now know that Barack Obama behind closed doors is even more appalling than the one I’d come to despise over the years is because news reporter Ann Compton is retiring after 40 years of underreporting the news for ABC, and finally let on that Obama hurls obscenities at members of the media who even dare refer to his numerous scandals as scandals.

For reasons that elude me, my wife and I continue to receive requests, seemingly on a daily basis, to donate to Ben Carson’s bid for the presidency. As I’ve written in the past, I have nothing against the man. He has a pleasant voice, we agree about ObamaCare, and he seems like a nice guy. But, heck, the very same things can be said about me, and I know I’m not qualified for the job.

I’m sure Dr. Carson would advise people who haven’t attended medical school not to perform surgery, but he thinks someone who has never even been a mayor is just what we need in the Oval Office. Isn’t it enough that we’ve gone down this amateur road before with Herman Cain and Barack Obama?

Finally, every time I see Arabs and Muslims firing their guns into the air, I’m reminded once again that these schmucks are so backward, they’ve never even heard of gravity.


A Bush League Candidate

I must confess I wasn’t surprised that Jeb Bush announced that he is considering making a run for the GOP nomination in 2016. When properly translated from politician-speak that means that nothing short of a nuclear bomb will derail his ambition. But when all is said and done, I can’t help being fascinated by his apparent strategy.

Inasmuch as he has essentially rubberstamped Obama’s granting clemency to illegal aliens and endorsed Common Core, his plan, I take it, calls for him to receive the nomination after losing every single Republican primary and then going on to win the general election when a lot more idiots are allowed to vote.

I imagine the Democrats are as anxious for Jeb to head up our ticket in 2016 as we are to have Hillary Clinton carrying the banner for the pinheads. If both sides get their wish, it could be the first time in history that “None of the Above” receives more votes in a presidential election than either of the candidates.

Speaking of wretches named Clinton, someone should remind Bill that Eric Garner isn’t dead because he sold untaxed cigarettes, any more than Hillary’s husband was impeached and disbarred for having sex with a White House intern. In Garner’s case, he wound up on a slab because he resisted arrest. In Clinton’s case, it was because he committed perjury while testifying before a grand jury.
But I guess when you’ve spent your entire adult life spinning the truth and sucking up to minority voters, those are tough habits to break.

It seems a court affiliated with the European Union has concluded that Hamas, whose charter calls for the extinction of Israel, is not a terrorist organization, as we’ve all been led to believe…mainly by their terrorist activities. But, then, most of the European nations have had a warm place in their hearts for any group, no matter how odious, that hated Jews as much they did.

In related news, the member states of the EU have determined that Adolph Hitler wasn’t really evil, but merely misunderstood.

A reader, Brian Harmon, sent me a report that measured the business ethics in four nations, Mongolia, Japan, Korea and the United States. The respondents were business leaders who were asked to compare the rise or decline of ethics over a 10 year period. In the case of Mongolia, they were comparing 2010 to 2000; the Japanese were comparing 2004 to 1994; the Koreans, 2005 to 1995; and the Americans, 2000 to 1990.

The Mongolians were split 50-50 between those who felt things had improved or remained the same and those who saw a decline. In Japan, the good outweighed the bad 84% to 16%. In Korea, a mere 0.8% thought ethics were getting worse, while a resounding 99.2% thought things were getting better or at least staying the same. In the U.S., however, a scant 14.3% saw improvement, 50.3% thought things were getting worse.

Keep in mind that the polling of our business leaders took place in 2000. One can only imagine how awful the numbers would be today, with the schools, the media and a great many parents having had an additional 14 years in which to undermine traditional values, compounded by six years of Obama’s cynical, self-serving lies and immoral scandals.

Consider that in New York City, Mayor Bill De Blasio (born Warren Wilhelm, Jr.), who, like Obama, is a former community organizer, has accused the NYPD of being a gang of racists, even though, in the words of the old American Express slogan, he never leaves home without them. But it just goes to prove that once a community organizer, always a putz.

Black thugs and white morons clog up New York’s streets, chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” And the best that the city’s mayor can muster is a resounding “Yeah, me, too!” It’s no surprise that a great many New York police officers are now signing documents in which they state that if they should die in the line of duty, De Blasio is forbidden from attending their funeral services.

But none of this should come as a surprise to the voters in New York, who knew that this schmuck was a communist lamebrain when they gave him 73% of their votes, and would no doubt do the same today. Some of us assumed that New Yorkers couldn’t do much worse after electing Michael Bloomberg to three terms, but it just goes to show that one should never be too quick to overestimate the intelligence of the New York electorate.

Speaking of morons, even though I try to avoid watching football and basketball games on TV, there has been no way to avoid seeing LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers and a bunch of Cleveland Brown players wearing their “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirts. Clearly they can all breathe. Therefore, a more appropriate sentiment would have been “I Can’t Think.”

The world of technology has now come up with the Luce X2 Touch TV vending machine. Apparently it has the ability to identify customers and remember their snacking patterns. That enables the machine to deny would-be customers certain items it deems unhealthy for them. It sounds as if the folks at Luce have somehow managed to turn nanny Bloomberg into a annoying little vending machine.

It’s reassuring to know that some research scientists have retained their sense of priorities and aren’t wasting all their time seeking a cure for cancer.
Finally, I am happy to report that I have received hundreds of holiday greetings from my readers, some of whom take pains to wish me a Happy Chanukah instead of a Merry Christmas. For the record, I actually prefer Christmas, which has been a national holiday for as long as I’ve lived and will continue to be one, no matter what the ACLU claims to the contrary.

What’s not to love? The music, both sacred and popular, is great. The decorations are beautiful. .The classic Christmas movies are among the best films ever made. Plus, the sense of universal brotherhood is quite moving, even for those of us who actually had older brothers and should know better.

Let’s face it — you Christians know how to throw a holiday!

Burt’s Webcast is every Wednesday at Noon Pacific Time.
Tune in at K4HD.com His Call-in Number is: (818) 570-5443

©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@fastmail.com.