Any idiot can make a big noise; can you aim and hit the target?
Mr. Trump, who Iowa polls show is neck-and-neck with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, may well win the caucuses, now less than three weeks away. But if he does, it will probably be in spite of his organizing team, which after months of scattershot efforts led by a paid staff of more than a dozen people, still seems amateurish and halting, committing basic organizing errors.
…Compared with the well-oiled machines of other leading candidates in both parties, particularly that of the Cruz campaign, the Trump ground game in Iowa seems partly an afterthought, as if Mr. Trump’s strategy is to leverage his charisma — the appeal that draws thousands to his rallies — to motivate voters [Trip Gabriel, “Donald Trump’s Iowa Ground Game Seems to Be Missing a Coach,” New York Times, 2016.01.13].
Those of us who recognize Trump as a fascist blowhard aren’t surprised by his reliance on cult of personality over straightforward, unglamorous work. Trump may still petering-outfully coast to a meager win in Iowa, but as South Carolina Nikki Haley said Tuesday (in a State of the union rebuttal that has gotten more play as an attack on Trump than a flimsy denial of the reality of President Obama’s successes), simply having the loudest voice in the room doesn’t mean you’re qualified to run a country… or even a campaign.
Rod, Ron, meet Donald. You three should be very happpy together. Idiot is a word that tempts me so….
leslie
2016-01-14 07:59
R u paying attention Spencer?
Porter Lansing
2016-01-14 09:15
Glenn Beck in all his paranoid charm proposes that the mainstream media is holding back their assault on Trump in hopes he can beat Ted Cruz, whom is despised by nearly all in Washington. It would be easy to topple Trump in the general election but Cruz not so much.
larry kurtz
2016-01-14 13:26
Trump is plowing the road: it’s just that simple. He’s the best thing that’s happened to the GOP since Eisenhower.
larry kurtz
2016-01-14 13:34
Trump is out-Reaganing Ronny Raygun. This GOP primary has been the very definition of silly season: perfect infotainment for Republican voters. I love it.
larry kurtz
2016-01-14 13:36
$20 says Jebya/Fiorina will be their team.
larry kurtz
2016-01-14 13:42
Clinton, Jeb, Bloomberg, Trump and Gary Johnson on a debate dais would be like winning the Politics Powerball.
Porter Lansing
2016-01-14 14:36
No bet. I picked Clinton vs Bush the day after Barack got elected the first time. I wouldn’t double down but I haven’t switched to Cruz as the “Dark Candidate”, yet. ☠ ☠ ☠
bearcreekbat
2016-01-14 14:43
Porter, have you seen the analysis of Professor McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School. McManamon makes an interesting and compelling argument that Trump is correct about Cruz’s ineligibility to be president.
Apparently the research and contrary conclusions of former solicitors general Neal Katyal and Paul Clement in their Harvard Law Review Forum comment relied on obscure English statutes rather than the settled common law for their interpretation of our Constitution “natural born citizen” provision. McManamon points out that all authority from the period indicated the Constitution was to be understood from the common law alone, not English statutes.
From commenter Budo: “Today’s Cruz-killing leak had to come from the Senate, the one place where he did file disclosure of these loans. The place where everybody in his own party hates him.
Suetonius tells us that when the Roman doctors autopsied Julius Caesar, they found 23 stab wounds from Senators.
When Cruz’s political postmortem is conducted, they will find 53.”
You Dems are willing to crawl into bed with the birthers? Does not matter what anyone says on birth if the party nominates Cruz as was done for Obama’s approval to the ticket.
I’ve said all along, Donald Trump is possibly the best thing your failing party could have wished for. Thanks, Hillary. Can Sanders and Warren possibly beat him?
Porter Lansing
2016-01-14 15:36
Yes, I have. She certainly has the cred as a constitutional law professor to make the assertion.
bearcreekbat
2016-01-14 15:36
Les, if you checked out the article I linked you will see it is not a “birther” argument, nor a “liberal” argument. The “birther” argument against Obama was about where he was born, in Kenya or Hawaii. There is no argument about where Cruz was born, hence no “birther” issue or argument.
Rather the legal question is whether someone born in another country to an American citizen meets the definition of “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution. This is an issue that does not depend on political party, rather, it depends upon two legal questions:
(1) Is language used in the Constitution based on the common law? Apparently all legal scholars and writers in the 18th and 19th centuries answer this question in the affirmative.
(2) If so, was someone born in another country to an American citizen considered a “natural born citizen” under the common law? According to the Professor’s research, someone born outside the US was never considered a “natural born citizen” under the common law. This view is based on research indicating the legal commentators of the times (such as Blackstone’s Commentaries) supported this view, and that because of this common law limitation the first Congress enacted statutes to make sure children born to citizens outside the US would become naturalized citizens.
Check out the article and analysis – you will be surprised. I certainly was.
Porter Lansing
2016-01-14 15:40
Failing party? Republicans won’t see the White House for another 20 years. Welcome to Loserville, Les. Population ….. YOU!! ➴
Les
2016-01-14 15:56
LOL. Pretty sure of how I’m voting, Porter? And I’m the only one voting against the Dems? How funny.
I read the article, hence the Budo comment from it i I posted. I call it birther because it calls to question his birth and the laws around it.
There are also arguments as to the constitutionality of Obama’s father giving Barrack naturalized status. I’m no constitutional expert. There are many questions surrounding the validity of documents. Questions I’ve not seen answered and truthfully don’t care about. It is too late in the game for that. I believe the party can certify Cruz as a legal candidate and it will be accepted as it as with Obama.
JonD
2016-01-14 16:07
I’m not concerned at all about a Trump presidency because I don’t believe that he’s running. Trump is a stalking horse being managed by the GOP to find out just how far they can go in stirring up the Tea Party extremist wing of the party, how far they can push the hatred before even the stupidest among them turns away in disgust. He constantly presents ever more outrageous and obnoxious notions and ideas and still his followers eat it up; it’s now gone so far beyond absurd that it’s no longer remotely believable to anyone with the least capacity for rational thought. They’ll keep him out there until a couple months before the election and then some excuse will be made for him to bow out, and after listening to him for more than a year even the young earth creationist will sound sane.
One might ask, what’s in it for Trump then, why would he make such an ass of himself if he’s not going to get the presidency? I’m guessing money. Trump claims to be incredibly, amazingly, fantastically (his words) wealthy but if you can’t believe anything else he says why believe that? It’s just as likely he’s fumbled it all away and is diving into the very deep pockets of the GOP. It isn’t like he would be too proud for that.
bearcreekbat
2016-01-14 16:19
In any event Les it will be fascinating to see how this constitutional interpretation issue plays out if Cruz gets the nod. Before reading McManamon’s analysis I thought that the arguments in the Harvard commentary settled the question so that as long as someone had a citizen parent it did not matter whether he was born outside the US.
Now it looks like a reasonable legal issue that the SCOTUS will have to resolve, although given the conservative makeup of that Court and Scalia’s downward drift from originalism in constitutional construction to a more politically influenced attitude, McManamon’s position may well be rejected on a 5-4 vote.
(By the way, I didn’t read any comments to McManamon’s article so I was unaware that your quote from Budo was related in any way to the article.)
I can see how a flurry of contradictory statements can confuse and direct traffic possibly throwing Cruz under the bus in Iowa before the voters get their feet under themselves.
I enjoy the comment sections of these links as much or more than the analysis, bear. It often shows the fine line between insanity and genius amongst the commenters and I definitely walk away with some interesting perspective.
So what about Sanders moving in for the kill on Clinton? Won’t that be a fun ride to the finish line. He’s such a darn nice guy, how can she ding him? I’m about ready to send him $100.
Trump has shattered the GOP, JonD. That he is being paid by the GOP doesn’t fit nearly as well as being paid by the Clintons. The TP extremist if they even exist couldn’t elect the dog catcher.
M.K.
2016-01-15 05:28
Mr. Trump doesn’t have — what the article calls ‘charisma” appeal; but I would go along with the definition of a “cult following”. Mr. Trump said on TV that “I’m an angry man”. I believe it shows in the way he presents himself. His whole persona, is frightening.
mike from iowa
2016-01-15 06:30
President Raphael “The Chosen One” Cuban cum Canadian cum Texas wingnut has a nice ring to it.
Les, that is another interesting take on the issue. If that guy’s analysis is correct about the impact of his father’s connection to Britain, Obama was lucky that his qualifications were never successfully challenged in Court after his election.
Bill, the arguments in your link seem to misread Article I, section 5, and overlook the impact of Marbury v. Madison. Section 5 says that members of each House shall judge the qualifications of its members, but says nothing about the President’s qualifications. And Marbury has long stood for the proposition that it is the Court that decides questions about the meaning of the Constitution, not Congress or the President.
Good point Bat! If I were Mr. Cruz, I’d be really nervous, wouldn’t you?
bearcreekbat
2016-01-15 12:49
Bill, if I were Cruz I would have myself involuntarily committed in the hopes that through heavy psychedelics and extreme counseling and therapy I could somehow get rid of the hatred and insanity that seems to lead me to do so many things to try to hurt others.
Bill Fleming
2016-01-15 13:04
LOL, love the idea of “involuntarily committing” yourself, BCB. Especially in light of all the discussions you and I have about the nature of “self” backchannel. I agree, Ted deeds to lose his mind.
Roger Elgersma
2016-01-15 19:22
The staff seems to get into trouble. The charisma does not. So why increase staff when people see the facts has not worked for him, he decides not to have a staff that gives more facts. Not a good candidate, just a great strategist.
Les
2016-01-15 20:41
Cruz needs to worry. His party doesn’t want him around. As bad as Trump may sound, anyone that speaks of melting the desert down should not have their hand on the red button.
Rod, Ron, meet Donald. You three should be very happpy together. Idiot is a word that tempts me so….
R u paying attention Spencer?
Glenn Beck in all his paranoid charm proposes that the mainstream media is holding back their assault on Trump in hopes he can beat Ted Cruz, whom is despised by nearly all in Washington. It would be easy to topple Trump in the general election but Cruz not so much.
Trump is plowing the road: it’s just that simple. He’s the best thing that’s happened to the GOP since Eisenhower.
Trump is out-Reaganing Ronny Raygun. This GOP primary has been the very definition of silly season: perfect infotainment for Republican voters. I love it.
$20 says Jebya/Fiorina will be their team.
Clinton, Jeb, Bloomberg, Trump and Gary Johnson on a debate dais would be like winning the Politics Powerball.
No bet. I picked Clinton vs Bush the day after Barack got elected the first time. I wouldn’t double down but I haven’t switched to Cruz as the “Dark Candidate”, yet. ☠ ☠ ☠
Porter, have you seen the analysis of Professor McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School. McManamon makes an interesting and compelling argument that Trump is correct about Cruz’s ineligibility to be president.
Apparently the research and contrary conclusions of former solicitors general Neal Katyal and Paul Clement in their Harvard Law Review Forum comment relied on obscure English statutes rather than the settled common law for their interpretation of our Constitution “natural born citizen” provision. McManamon points out that all authority from the period indicated the Constitution was to be understood from the common law alone, not English statutes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_p1most
From commenter Budo: “Today’s Cruz-killing leak had to come from the Senate, the one place where he did file disclosure of these loans. The place where everybody in his own party hates him.
Suetonius tells us that when the Roman doctors autopsied Julius Caesar, they found 23 stab wounds from Senators.
When Cruz’s political postmortem is conducted, they will find 53.”
You Dems are willing to crawl into bed with the birthers? Does not matter what anyone says on birth if the party nominates Cruz as was done for Obama’s approval to the ticket.
I’ve said all along, Donald Trump is possibly the best thing your failing party could have wished for. Thanks, Hillary. Can Sanders and Warren possibly beat him?
Yes, I have. She certainly has the cred as a constitutional law professor to make the assertion.
Les, if you checked out the article I linked you will see it is not a “birther” argument, nor a “liberal” argument. The “birther” argument against Obama was about where he was born, in Kenya or Hawaii. There is no argument about where Cruz was born, hence no “birther” issue or argument.
Rather the legal question is whether someone born in another country to an American citizen meets the definition of “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution. This is an issue that does not depend on political party, rather, it depends upon two legal questions:
(1) Is language used in the Constitution based on the common law? Apparently all legal scholars and writers in the 18th and 19th centuries answer this question in the affirmative.
(2) If so, was someone born in another country to an American citizen considered a “natural born citizen” under the common law? According to the Professor’s research, someone born outside the US was never considered a “natural born citizen” under the common law. This view is based on research indicating the legal commentators of the times (such as Blackstone’s Commentaries) supported this view, and that because of this common law limitation the first Congress enacted statutes to make sure children born to citizens outside the US would become naturalized citizens.
Check out the article and analysis – you will be surprised. I certainly was.
Failing party? Republicans won’t see the White House for another 20 years. Welcome to Loserville, Les. Population ….. YOU!! ➴
LOL. Pretty sure of how I’m voting, Porter? And I’m the only one voting against the Dems? How funny.
I read the article, hence the Budo comment from it i I posted. I call it birther because it calls to question his birth and the laws around it.
There are also arguments as to the constitutionality of Obama’s father giving Barrack naturalized status. I’m no constitutional expert. There are many questions surrounding the validity of documents. Questions I’ve not seen answered and truthfully don’t care about. It is too late in the game for that. I believe the party can certify Cruz as a legal candidate and it will be accepted as it as with Obama.
I’m not concerned at all about a Trump presidency because I don’t believe that he’s running. Trump is a stalking horse being managed by the GOP to find out just how far they can go in stirring up the Tea Party extremist wing of the party, how far they can push the hatred before even the stupidest among them turns away in disgust. He constantly presents ever more outrageous and obnoxious notions and ideas and still his followers eat it up; it’s now gone so far beyond absurd that it’s no longer remotely believable to anyone with the least capacity for rational thought. They’ll keep him out there until a couple months before the election and then some excuse will be made for him to bow out, and after listening to him for more than a year even the young earth creationist will sound sane.
One might ask, what’s in it for Trump then, why would he make such an ass of himself if he’s not going to get the presidency? I’m guessing money. Trump claims to be incredibly, amazingly, fantastically (his words) wealthy but if you can’t believe anything else he says why believe that? It’s just as likely he’s fumbled it all away and is diving into the very deep pockets of the GOP. It isn’t like he would be too proud for that.
In any event Les it will be fascinating to see how this constitutional interpretation issue plays out if Cruz gets the nod. Before reading McManamon’s analysis I thought that the arguments in the Harvard commentary settled the question so that as long as someone had a citizen parent it did not matter whether he was born outside the US.
Now it looks like a reasonable legal issue that the SCOTUS will have to resolve, although given the conservative makeup of that Court and Scalia’s downward drift from originalism in constitutional construction to a more politically influenced attitude, McManamon’s position may well be rejected on a 5-4 vote.
(By the way, I didn’t read any comments to McManamon’s article so I was unaware that your quote from Budo was related in any way to the article.)
Here’s an interesting supplement to the conversation BCB and Les are having vis a vis Trump, Cruz and who’s eligible to be president: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/opinions/amar-cruz-trump-natural-born-citizen/index.html
Interesting link, Bill.
I can see how a flurry of contradictory statements can confuse and direct traffic possibly throwing Cruz under the bus in Iowa before the voters get their feet under themselves.
I enjoy the comment sections of these links as much or more than the analysis, bear. It often shows the fine line between insanity and genius amongst the commenters and I definitely walk away with some interesting perspective.
So what about Sanders moving in for the kill on Clinton? Won’t that be a fun ride to the finish line. He’s such a darn nice guy, how can she ding him? I’m about ready to send him $100.
Trump has shattered the GOP, JonD. That he is being paid by the GOP doesn’t fit nearly as well as being paid by the Clintons. The TP extremist if they even exist couldn’t elect the dog catcher.
Mr. Trump doesn’t have — what the article calls ‘charisma” appeal; but I would go along with the definition of a “cult following”. Mr. Trump said on TV that “I’m an angry man”. I believe it shows in the way he presents himself. His whole persona, is frightening.
President Raphael “The Chosen One” Cuban cum Canadian cum Texas wingnut has a nice ring to it.
More contrary analysis. http://www.unslaveamerica.com/usurper-obama/
Les, that is another interesting take on the issue. If that guy’s analysis is correct about the impact of his father’s connection to Britain, Obama was lucky that his qualifications were never successfully challenged in Court after his election.
Bill, the arguments in your link seem to misread Article I, section 5, and overlook the impact of Marbury v. Madison. Section 5 says that members of each House shall judge the qualifications of its members, but says nothing about the President’s qualifications. And Marbury has long stood for the proposition that it is the Court that decides questions about the meaning of the Constitution, not Congress or the President.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/wpcbe160111.jpg
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/cwjmo160114.gif
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/tt160114.gif
Good point Bat! If I were Mr. Cruz, I’d be really nervous, wouldn’t you?
Bill, if I were Cruz I would have myself involuntarily committed in the hopes that through heavy psychedelics and extreme counseling and therapy I could somehow get rid of the hatred and insanity that seems to lead me to do so many things to try to hurt others.
LOL, love the idea of “involuntarily committing” yourself, BCB. Especially in light of all the discussions you and I have about the nature of “self” backchannel. I agree, Ted deeds to lose his mind.
The staff seems to get into trouble. The charisma does not. So why increase staff when people see the facts has not worked for him, he decides not to have a staff that gives more facts. Not a good candidate, just a great strategist.
Cruz needs to worry. His party doesn’t want him around. As bad as Trump may sound, anyone that speaks of melting the desert down should not have their hand on the red button.