Cruz’s TRIUMPHANT Return

This image from Senate video show Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaking on the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013. Cruz says he will speak until he's no longer able to stand in opposition to President Barack Obama's health care law. Cruz began a lengthy speech urging his colleagues to oppose moving ahead on a bill he supports. The measure would prevent a government shutdown and defund Obamacare. (AP Photo/Senate TV)

Senator Cruz has returned to the Hill. And CNN’s blandly titled Ted Cruz Plans to Run for Re-election in 2018 published Wednesday May 11, 2016, 8 days after Senator Cruz suspended is campaign for President has some veeerrrry juicy nuggets in it for the knowledgeable watcher of all things palace intrigue.

Reminder: Cruz is widely and constantly reported to be haaaaaaated on the Hill. Not just hated, but loathed, despised, and wished a slow, torturous death. Preferably at the hands of a fellow Senator. On the floor of the Senate. In broad daylight. To loud applause. That kind of hated.

Fair observers note, correctly, that this is because he threatens their corrupt little fiefdoms. Cruz, ‘cravenly’ ambitious or not, really does believe his own bulls**t. He really does want to run a vice raid on the whore house – er – Hill. So to read that he was received “warmly” with “applause” from his fellow Senators, and that Senate President Pro-tem Senator Hatch said something nice about him is nothing short of a nuclear event. It just can’t be overstated how significant this is. It is, no doubt, why the headline was so bland. Gotta bury that news. Busts up the narrative.

No. Senator Cruz returned TRIUMPHANT to the Hill. Now hush. Mustn’t draw attention to that fact… but I will. The relevant paragraphs are below.


Cruz sat down for lunch with Senate Republicans, according to several senators who were at the meeting. Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who endorsed Cruz for president, made some introductory remarks, and Cruz himself addressed the group. The senators who were present said Cruz — who often railed against what he said was the “Washington cartel” during his presidential campaign — was warmly received and received a round of applause.

…When he arrived for a morning roll call (on the floor of the Senate), he spoke briefly with ..(some) senators (and) said hello. Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia gave him a fist bump on his arm to get is attention and then spoke for a few minutes. Sen. Dan Coats, R-Indiana, said “welcome back.” Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, stood talking with him for several minutes.

…Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, who is the most senior Republican in the chamber, pulled Cruz aside to have a heart-to-heart discussion about what Cruz had been through and what he will do now that he’s back to his legislative duties. “I was encouraging him to really get to work here,” Hatch told CNN later. “He’s got a lot of talent, a lot of ability.”

Hatch, who chastised Cruz last year when the Texan called McConnell a liar, said he didn’t tell Cruz he should make amends with his fellow senators but he did say he should be more open to the views of others. “I just encouraged him to understand that people have differences of opinions,” Hatch said. “He’s got a big role to play here if he wants to.”
###

Trump is Bat Guano Insane

Not an hour ago, a grown man, who happens to be the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party for President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, said this:


What does one even say? I’m utterly speechless.

Kevin Williamson at NRO, a favorite writer of mine, summarizes the book on one Donald J. Trump’s manifest unfitness for any office of public trust. I could not agree more. Enjoy.


This Election Is Not an A/B Test
‘Not Hillary Clinton’ isn’t good enough
By Kevin D. Williamson — May 6, 2016

As soon as it became clear that game-show host Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee, the usual radio ranters and Fox News mouths began the inevitable litany: If you aren’t for Donald Trump, then you must be for Hillary Clinton — it’s Himself or Herself.

There is more to this than A/B testing.

“If you aren’t for Trump, then you’re for Clinton” is a cheap rhetorical ploy. I’d write that any thinking adult would be ashamed for falling for that kind of sixth-grade debater’s stratagem, but a Republican electorate capable of choosing Donald Trump as its standard-bearer is incapable of shame.

The angry insistence — him or her! — is, for the moment, mainly an attempt to forestall further criticism of Trump. That criticism consists of stating a fact that is not a matter of degree but a binary proposition, a yes/no question. It is not that Trump is less mentally stable than Mrs. Clinton (probably true) or that he is more dishonest than Mrs. Clinton (difficult to say) or that he might do even more damage to the republic, or any other point of comparison between the candidates.

The issue, instead, is this:

Donald Trump is unfit for the office.

He is unfit for any office, morally and intellectually.

A man who could suggest, simply because it is convenient, that his opponent’s father had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy is unfit for any position of public responsibility.

His long litany of lies — which include fabrications about everything from his wealth to self-funding his campaign — is disqualifying.

His low character is disqualifying.

His personal history is disqualifying.

His complete, utter, total, and lifelong lack of honor is disqualifying.

The fact that he is going to have to take time out of the convention to appear in court to hear a pretty convincing fraud case against him is disqualifying.

His time on Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Island, after which he boasted about sharing a taste with Epstein for women “on the younger side,” is disqualifying.

The fact that he knows less about our constitutional order than does a not-especially-bright Rappahannock River oyster is disqualifying.

There isn’t anything one can say about Mrs. Clinton, monster though she is, that changes any of that.

Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president. He is not fit to serve on the Meade County board of commissioners. He is not fit to be the mayor of Muleshoe, Texas.

If he indeed is the Republican nominee, Donald Trump almost certainly will face Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election. That fact, sobering though it is, does not suddenly make him fit to serve as president, because — to repeat — the problem with Trump isn’t that he is less fit to serve in comparison to Mrs. Clinton, but that he is unfit to serve, period.

Paul Ryan is right to withhold his support, and those who have suddenly discovered that attending the Republican convention conflicts with their cat-shampooing schedule — both Presidents Bush, nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney — have in this matter chosen the better part, while former Texas governor Rick Perry has shown poor judgment. Trump, who long claimed (falsely) that he was self-funding his campaign and therefore was beholden to no one, has just named a hedge-fund boss and former Goldman Sachs partner to raise money, but donors are walking sideways away from him—as they should.

“Unite the Party” talk ignores the question: “Unite with what?” The answer, in this case, is a coddled, petulant, celebrity megalomaniac leading a small movement of cable-news-inspired populist drama queens whose motto is “Eek! A Mexican!” It is shallow, but celebrity is the most powerful force in American culture, more powerful than money and certainly more powerful than argument. Those of you joking about Kanye West running in 2020 shouldn’t laugh too hard.

But celebrity isn’t all-powerful. Trump had a smashing victory in the New York Republican primary, but he received far fewer votes than did second-place Democratic finisher Bernie Sanders, and barely half of Mrs. Clinton’s votes. The idea that a Trump candidacy is suddenly going to put into play states such as New York and New Jersey is fantasy. Those crying “Unite the Party!” might want to think about how closely they wish to be united with a candidacy that may very well lose 35 states and hand the Senate over to Chuck Schumer, who is of course another recipient of Trump’s many generous donations to progressives.

Those shouting “If you don’t support Trump, you’re for Clinton!” do not wish to speak or think very much about what the Trump movement and its enablers, from Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter, have done to the Republican party and to the conservative movement. They’re going to want to think about that even less as the months go by, and by January there’s very likely to be an outbreak of convenient amnesia. But the rest of us should be frank about what has happened.

The Republican party is preparing to nominate for the presidency a man grossly unfit for the office.

— Kevin D. Williamson is the roving correspondent at National Review.

###

Trump’s Stepford Wives: Palin, Carson, & Hannity

Endorsed Trump

Chris Christie’s conservative bona-fides fell away years and years ago, and O’Reilly’s just an ass, but the rest of them? WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU PEOPLE?

There’s been an Invasion of the Body Snatchers. A Stepford Wife transformation in Tea Party Land. There are humans among us who look normal (“normal” as in the same as they always were) but aren’t… Like really, REALLY aren’t.

We conservatives have experienced a kind of human earthquake. Fellow conservatives we thought were terra-firma conservatives have revealed themselves to be subject to liquefaction when nudged by a Trump on the richter scale. Think of it this way:

Having lived in San Francisco for five years, I can tell you one of the phrases you don’t want to hear, but is uttered too often for comfort is, “Did you feel that?” One of the most profound betrayals there is is an earthquake: when the earth itself betrays you. Where do you go? Aside from the superficial advice about doorways, you’re still, quite literally on earth. Terra-Not-So-Firma. You can’t FLOAT. You can’t all of a sudden DEFY GRAVITY. That’s why it’s so terrifying, on a primal, indeed cellular level. I’ve been through a big earthquake and I can tell you, it’s a transformative experience.  There’s your life before the earthquake and your life after. You don’t ever feel quite the same about the brown on our little blue dot on the Milky Way. You don’t ever trust it – the very ground beneath your feet – with the same confidence ever again.

Thus has been the great culling of conservatives lo these last months. People we thought were solid, bedrock conservatives, have given way.  Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the hardest. Many of us have spent years defending her. Until a few months ago, I can’t think of a single thing she ever said I disagreed with on the merits. Sure, you can mock her God-awful speaking voice, but the substance of what she said was true, in the truest sense of the word: she meant it, and it was consistent with the conservative principles she articulated, well, consistently! That’s the thing about principles: they don’t require a degree, or noble birth. They’re free. Accessible to all. If only you will claim them. And she did, bravely. There were millions of us who were horrified at how she was treated by the media (and even fellow conservatives) and came to her aid on blogs, social media, and comments sections, etc.

Then she endorsed Trump. To be stringently accurate, the first tremor was when she endorsed Newt in 2012, a progressive Republican. We hated it when she endorsed McCain for Senate in 2010 but we understood it. She was being loyal to the man who plucked her from obscurity and made her a household name, such as it was. But Trump…? What? Why? When she endorsed and campaigned for Cruz for Senate in 2012? With full-throated support, having clearly thought about it, and articulated her reasoning? She knows him. Knows him well. What happened to her?

Person after person after person has given way, so when I read this post at Red State, I thought I’d post it here as a kind of plea to her and all the victims of Trump liquefaction.  It’s addressed to Sean Hannity but is applicable widely. If you call yourself “conservative” or “Tea Party” please spend a few minutes with it take it on bravely and fairly and honestly.

We’re supposed to be better than this…


RED STATE: Dear Sean Hannity: Are You REALLY a Conservative?

Consider me your conscience. Your real conscience, not the one in which you are temporarily blinded by the campaign of one Donald J. Trump.

First of all, you claim you are a conservative. In fact, I don’t doubt that you are, and have been all of your life. In fact, you are a member of the Conservative Party, which means you are a practitioner of its tenets. You have professed you want a limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, real spending cuts, and a return to American values through individuals, not mandated by government. That type of government can only be presided by a limited government executive. The last such chief executive was Ronald Reagan, and you have constantly wished for someone like that to run and win in the primaries.

You have also espoused a strong dislike for the GOP Establishment. You, just like I and every other conservative that I know, have been horrified to see the leadership of the GOP sell out to the Democrats. You are tired of special deals being given to some corporate cronies of both the left and the GOP establishment, and you want it to stop, starting from the top.

So during the current campaign, we have two candidates running in the GOP primary who are left with a chance at the nomination. One of those candidates has stood out, displaying the conservative tenets that you yourself have craved. A candidate who has stood up to the establishment, not just rhetorically but through his actions. He is running against a candidate who, by any objective manner, is more in line with Establishment cronyism, shows a preference for making deals rather than using his core convictions to guide his decisions in line with his ideology.

In short, you have a no-brainer decision. One that you, a conservative, should not hesitate to make. And certainly not one that you can show ambivilance.

So why in heavens name are you promoting Donald J. Trump, a candidate with no core beliefs, a candidate who espouses not just moderate positions, but positions from every point of the political spectrum? And how can you NOT promote Ted Cruz, a man who checks EVERY box that a constitutional conservative could want?

To be honest, I am flummoxed. I don’t know if it’s your personal association with Donald Trump, your feeling that if you support Cruz that you will suffer a loss of ratings, or other reasons. But one thing I do know: You are NOT true to your professed conservative beliefs if you actively promote Donald Trump over Ted Cruz.

How do you do this? First, you let Donald Trump set the agenda for your interaction with Ted Cruz. When you interview Trump, you defer to his agenda, you don’t hit him hard on many issues as you would other candidates, you don’t call him out on his many flip-flops, and you aren’t even concerned about his lack of decorum.

Do this. Picture Donald Trump as a liberal. You would be constantly reminding the voters how we cannot elect such a candidate who has absolutely no core beliefs. One who constantly demeans his opponents. One who is ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of debating with his primary opponent without the filter of at 7 other people on stage. Seriously, Sean. Step back out of the fog and seriously rate Trump not as an anti-establishment champion of the “little guy,” but as someone who cannot even converse in a manner without sounding like a repetitive macaw.

So why are you dissing Ted Cruz? He matches your positions, every single one of them, more than Donald Trump, based upon your historical conservative position. In addition, you usually don’t fall for the diversional trick of callers claiming to be an independent, then trashing the conservative position. Donald Trump callers have mastered this art. They argue by criticizing everything Cruz has done, without arguing substance, and you fall for it. Every time. But when Cruz supporters try to call you out, you come out with that tired, worn out reply: “Well, if you lose, will you support Trump over Hillary? You won’t? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?”

Finally, your ignorance of how the GOP convention with regard to the nomination of the party reprentative for president is disappointing. Very disappointing. You don’t understand that nominating a president is a process that is not just about the popular elections. Yes, popular elections are important, but just as important is knowing the rules of all 57 states and territories with regard to delegates. You listen to Trump’s claim that Cruz is stealing delegates that Trump “won,” which is an ABSOLUTE falsehood. All (well, most) delegates are bound to the delegate allotment on rules for the first round, and Donald Trump has all of them. What he doesn’t have is the subsequent round support of those delegates. And you don’t think it’s fair that Cruz is getting them to vote for him if Trump doesn’t have the majority on the first round.

Then let me ask you this: Why even HAVE a convention? Why even have delegates? Well, you ignore the obvious reason: That a plurality is NOT a majority. For instance, Cruz split the vote with Rubio, Carson, Bush, and Kasich, of which added with his votes constituted 65-70% of the entire vote. So why does someone with a large minority of votes get the nomination? In addition, some voters aren’t even Republican, yet their votes factor in the delegates. How can that even be FAIR? Finally, the delegates are the epitome of grass roots activists.

Now, Sean, I can see your confusion. Since Ronald Reagan, we’ve not had a primary where the Establishment candidate was not the runaway choice as the nominee starting from March 15. Therefore, the Establishment candidate usually got his delegates to be selected or voted on by the state conventions, and those delegates were on the rulemaking committee. In turn, those delegates usually worked with the National GOP leadership, which was establishment.

But make no mistake: The DELEGATES are the rulemakers. And Cruz has been working the hardest to EARN…NOT “steal”…those delegates, while Trump has been sitting on the sidelines. Again, this is the epitome of grass roots activism, and in fact results in a candidate that is more conducive to all the voters at convention time.

For you to be ignorant of this process, Sean, is inexcusable for a constitutional conservative. There is so much more, and I’m sure others will add to this list of observations.

I doubt you will be making any changes, but this letter will be here after the convention. Then, after the general election. It will be here for me to remind you of your own ignorance. At least until the FCC shuts RedState down.

One word of advice: Have a long, long talk with your friend Mark Levin. Listen to his reasons. You’ve had countless meetings and discussions with him before, but you and he are as far apart as Levin is with Bernie Sanders. Well, now I’m being rhetorical, but seriously: Play the audio of your show and compare it with Mark. The contrast is stunning.

Sean, please come back. Before it’s too late.

Trumpfeasance

Trump’s entire argument for being President is competence as a manager & negotiator.

I ask you: What’s the first thing you would do if you decided to run for President? Hm? Answer: Hire a competent campaign manager. Someone who knows the rules. How’s it done. What you need. The candidate himself doesn’t have to be an old hand at politics, just have the wit to know you need to hire one. There are no mysteries to this. We have 50 individual elections (56 if you count the territories). We’re not a democracy. We’re a Constitutional Republic. We have a *representative* form of government. We have a whole series of emergency brakes built in in case there’s some kind of unforeseen disaster. Consider: what if the day before the convention Trump had a heart attack? Became incapacitated? You would want a failsafe in place to manage this. You can’t re-do the entire year of primaries, obviously. So there are rules & processes in place to manage these things.

The recipe to become the nominee has been unchanged since the days of Lincoln. 50% + 1 delegate = GOP nominee. If you don’t win 1237, you haven’t won. That’s why we have conventions. So if someone hasn’t won, or has a heart-attack, or there’s some other unforeseen situation, these people, these delegates, who our representative process has freely and fairly put there can finish the job. Every candidate has equal access to exactly the same process to get there. Despite what Trump would have you believe, nobody was handcuffed naked to his plane unable to read the rules.

With that in mind, consider the following April 12 article from AP* describing Mr. Art-of-the-Deal’s weapons-grade failure to manage his own campaign. To do the most basic friggin’ things.

How can anyone vote for this jerk?

*Bolds are mine, with a few snips […] taken out here & there for brevity.


Trump Amassing Delegates Who Might Not Be Loyal to Him

Already behind the curve in organizing for the Republican convention, Donald Trump has missed crucial deadlines in a number of states to lock up delegates who would stay loyal beyond the first ballot.

Trump’s shortcomings in this behind-the-scenes campaign, which hasn’t played much of a role in selecting the GOP nominee in decades, could doom his presidential candidacy if he is unable to win the nomination in the initial voting at this summer’s national convention in Cleveland.

After that first ballot, most delegates are no longer bound to support the winner of their state’s party primary or caucuses — they’re free agents who can support the candidate of their choosing.

Most of the actual delegates are elected at state and congressional district conventions run by party insiders, members of the Republican establishment that Trump has run against from the outset of his campaign.

And while Trump’s team has had little contact with these loyal party activists, his chief rival for the Republican nomination, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, has been actively courting them for months.

Trump has spent the past three days hammering at his party’s delegate selection process as “unfair.”

At a rally in Rome, New York, Tuesday evening, Trump angrily denounced Saturday’s final allocation of all of Colorado’s delegates to Cruz, blasting the party’s system as “rigged” and “corrupt.”

Trump’s team is only now starting to engage in the delegate selection process, the choosing of the actual people who will attend and vote at the convention. Republicans have already selected delegates in at least nine states. And in others, such as Virginia and Arizona, the deadline to apply to be a delegate has passed.

Indiana‘s primary, for example, won’t take place until next month. But the deadline to become a national convention delegate was in mid-March. “Are we concerned? Yes, definitely,” said Tony Samuel, vice chairman of Trump’s Indiana campaign. The Cruz team feels the opposite. “Even if (Trump) jumped into high gear, he can’t do it,” said Shak Hill, a Cruz campaign leader in Virginia. “That’s where he’s been shut out of the game.”

Trump’s delegates must vote for him on the first ballot at the convention. But if no one gets a majority, most of the delegates can then bolt if they choose. … Cruz has built an organization of volunteers who are working in state after state to get his supporters selected as delegates, even those who must vote for Trump at first.

Trump is just ramping up his operation, but in some states he’s too late.

In Virginia — a state where Trump won the primary — he has missed the deadlines to assemble lists of potential delegates. Cruz, however, has delegate candidates in 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts.

The application deadline was last month.

Indiana‘s primary is May 3, but 27 of the state’s 57 delegates — the actual people — have already been selected at congressional district caucuses. The deadline to register as a candidate for delegate was March 15.

In all, at least nine states have picked some or all of their delegates: Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Trump has won a total of 100 delegates in primaries and caucuses in these states. In most, however, the candidates had no formal role in selecting the people who will fill those slots.

To help manage the process, Trump’s campaign hired a convention manager, Paul Manafort, last week. … He said Trump was successful in selecting delegates in Michigan, and predicted the same in Nevada. “In fact, we wiped him out,” Manafort said in an NBC interview Sunday. “And we’re going to see Ted Cruz get skunked in Nevada.”

Former South Carolina Republican Chairman Katon Dawson, who has been publicly neutral in the race, said he’s seen no difference in Trump’s delegate strategy since Manafort’s hire. Said Dawson, a veteran national GOP strategist, “He’s not a household name or miracle worker by any stretch.” Trump won all 50 of South Carolina’s delegates. But in order to be a delegate at the national convention, you had to be a delegate at last year’s state convention. “The people that are going to fill those slots were already selected anyway,” said Republican political consultant Tony Denny, who has been a delegate to three previous GOP national conventions. Cruz has already done a lot of groundwork to get supporters selected as delegates in South Carolina. “The delegate selection process is in their DNA,” Denny said of Cruz’s ground operation.

###

Who’s Zoomin’ Who, Donny?

I have long contended that if the GOPe (GOP Establishment) were forced to choose between the two, Cruz or Trump, they’d choose Trump in a heart beat. Why? Here’s why (You can click the image on the right to enlarge it):


Gravy train. “Trump train” my ass . It’s the gravy train that’s now a’rollin’. Of the two, Trump will deal. Cash. Cruz will always choose the Constitution.

And cash is more fun, isn’t it?

Add in this excellent article below from American Thinker by Daren Jonescu, and it appears my thinking is now being actively validated.


 

Is Trump a McConnell-Rove Establishment Tool?

On January 19, Donald Trump, the loudest Republican claimant to the anti-establishment label, filled out his recent attacks on Ted Cruz in a very telling way, as revealed on Mark Levin’s radio program (click here, select the 1/19/16 podcast, go to the 23 minute mark):

We've been contacted by the establishment types.  They all want to know, how do they get involved with the campaign?  They're giving up on their candidates…and I mean these are real establishment people, that I've known when I was a member of the establishment -- meaning a giver, a big donor.  But they are contacting us -- Corey [Trump's campaign manager], I think we can say that very honestly, they're contacting us left and right about joining the campaign, and these are serious establishment types.

Who might these “real,” “serious” establishment types be?  Perhaps there is a hint in this subsequent comment, a follow-up to his recent pro-establishment assault against Ted Cruz:

So when you talk about temperament, Ted has got a rough temperament, I don't know.  You know, you can't call people liars on the Senate floor, when they're your leader.

This, of course, is a direct reference to Cruz’s criticism of Mitch McConnell regarding the GOP establishment leader’s secret deal with Barack Obama prior to a trade vote.

Donald Trump defending Mitch McConnell, you ask?  The answer is yes, and the explanation may be found by examining Trump’s recent history as a political donor.

Back in early 2013, Tea Party conservatives, fed up with McConnell’s feckless (to be generous) Senate leadership, his semi-tough talk that never seems to match his legislative decisions and results, and his relentless suppression of the conservative minority in the Senate, sought to supplant this establishmentarian’s establishmentarian by supporting a conservative rival in the 2014 Kentucky primary.

In response to this challenge, a super PAC called “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was formed to raise funds for McConnell’s scorched earth campaign against not only his own Tea Party rival, but the whole Tea Party movement.  I put the group’s name in scare quotes because, of its fifty-eight major donors — those who had given $1000 or more as of May 15, 2014 — the Louisville Courier-Journal identified only five with Kentucky addresses.  “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was in fact, as Tony Lee reported at Breitbart at the time, a re-branding of Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, an organization expressly dedicated to destroying the constitutionalist movement in favor of the old guard GOP establishment.

The big donors to Mitch McConnell’s anti-Tea Party defense fund gave amounts ranging from $1000 to $250,000.  In the upper half of this donor list appears one Donald J. Trump, who gave $50,000 to the group.  Five days earlier, he had already donated a few thousand dollars to McConnell’s campaign directly.  This total donation is far and away the largest contribution Trump has ever made to any individual Washington politician’s campaign — at least ten times larger than any other contribution he has made to a national Republican candidate.  Indeed, one has to cross over to the Democrat side of his donor history to find anything comparable to this contribution at any level of government.  That would be his $50,000 donation to Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral campaign in December 2010.

Mitch McConnell has been perhaps the single most prominent leader — certainly the most powerful — in the Republican Party’s long-standing effort to “crush” (McConnell’s word) the grassroots constitutional conservative movement that threatens the privileged status of the Washington Brahmin caste, aka the American political establishment.

In 2014, the Tea Party had the temerity to challenge McConnell directly on his own home turf.  He did indeed crush them there, as he would happily crush them in the Senate.  His effort to annihilate the constitutionalist resistance was funded heavily by a nationwide group of donors affiliated with Karl Rove, who presumably shared McConnell’s and Rove’s desire to defend the establishment against the belligerent serfs who were daring to assert their liberty against its permanent privilege.

Donald Trump was a major donor to that effort.  He even threw another $10,000 into the pot in October 2014, to bring his total contribution to McConnell to more than $60,000.

Now he is attacking his primary rival, Ted Cruz, on the grounds that “Nobody in Congress likes him,” and, more specifically, that “you can’t call people liars on the Senate floor, when they’re your leader.”

Donald Trump is no longer making a generic accusation against Cruz’s demeanor or reputation.  He is slapping him on behalf of the Republican he has supported most generously, Mitch McConnell.  I have previously argued that Trump’s reputation as anti-establishment is all hot air, corresponding to nothing he has ever really done.  Here we have just one more clear example of that.

A conservative blogger friend recently suggested to me privately that he is not ready to reject outright the possibility that Trump is actually the establishment’s clever creation — that, after years of deepening threats from an increasingly serious constitutionalist faction within the GOP, the progressive Republicans may have surmised that the best path to victory is, as my friend puts it, to “run against themselves.”

Whether strategic or merely fortuitous, the alliance between Donald Trump and the GOP establishment, which has lurked verifiably behind Trump’s brash mask for years, has now become an open feature of his primary campaign.  And the chief target, Enemy Number One, of both parties in this alliance is Ted Cruz.  Cruz is “nasty” and “nobody likes him,” as Trump says, because he is brazenly defiant toward the GOP establishment’s leaders.

And you thought the whole point of being anti-establishment was to be brazenly defiant toward the establishment’s leaders.  Silly you.  Apparently, a real anti-establishment candidate would not donate $60,000 to Mitch McConnell’s “crush the Tea Party” campaign.

###end###