Header Image (book)


Monday, May 9, 2016

Paradigm Shift?

The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines "paradigm shift" as the following:
a time when the usual and accepted way of doing or thinking about something changes completely.
Last week, I said at at Ed Bonderenka's blog Not of This World...
If what we are witnessing [in this election cycle] is a paradigm shift, we shouldn't be surprised that there is a great deal of animosity. And I've come to believe that we may well be in the early stages of a paradigm shift. I lived through the huge paradigm shift of the Sixties followed by a smaller paradigm shift (Reagan),and, of course, the more recent paradigm shift (2007-present).

When a pendulum swings in reaction to a very recent swing, the pendulum will swing hard. If time allows and the clock doesn't implode, the pendulum will come back to center.
From Trump: What American Conservatism Needs:
...“True” American “conservatism” cannot be saved by the executive branch or the Republican Party. It can only be preserved in the family, the home, the small town, and the political communities that make up America, what truly makes “America great.” When Americans subscribe to a national prescription as a remedy for all that ails us as a people, they unknowingly invite the type of executive abuse we have weathered for the past twenty-eight years.

If Americans wish to “conserve” anything, it should be hearth and home, freedom to have your local political community reflect your values, and the possibility of upward mobility unrestrained by unconstitutional federal regulations. It should be a revival of the rugged individualism that provided the blood and sweat of American greatness. More than anything, Trump has tapped into these values. The establishment can’t stand it.

Trump’s victory has made establishment “conservatives” angry. It may even signal the demise of the Republican Party (I doubt it). It may drive some people to support Clinton or a third-party alternative in the general election. But it won’t destroy American conservatism. Trump has, whether the establishment wants to recognize it or not, rekindled it....
Please read it all HERE. We have a lot to consider before we cast our ballots in the 2016 National Election six months from now.


  1. More than anything, Trump has tapped into these values.

    Disagree. Trump has tapped into nothing more than the worst of us; the vile, base, self absorbed instant gratification of the temper tantrum. The unquestioning fealty to a man who uses lying as his currency, is intellectually unmoored, and has an utter deficit of meaningful policy, is reminiscent of the tenor of crowds in 1920's Italy.

    1. CI,
      The article you cited over at Ed's site stated in the opening paragraph:

      THERE are many lessons that conservatives need to learn from the rise of Donald Trump. There are elements of his message that the party should embrace. There are grievances among his voters that the Republican Party must address.

      So, maybe not values per se. But grievances -- and valid grievances -- are clearly in play.

      As for Trump's being intellectually unmoored, he ain't the only one.

      The GOP's management seems to be intellectually moored, but what they actually do when faced down is cave.

      The GOP has done this to itself -- and had fair warning (Eric Cantor's fall). The GOP doubled down and let the party be taken right out from under them. Fair warnings were given. Over and over again on many levels.

      Trump is not the cause but rather the consequence.

      On November 8, each of us voters will have to make a decision.

    2. The GOP has done this to itself....

      Yep, both the management and the voting base.

    3. The shift is simple. The Neocons are O-U-T. Pat Buchanan and the Paleocons, formally exiled in 2000, are back I-N. All that NAFTA open-borders cr*p the Bushies were selling didn't work out all that well.

    4. Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology." The paleoconservatives argue that the "neocons" are illegitimate interlopers in the conservative movement. In 1986, historian Stephen Tonsor, who rejects the label paleoconservative", said:

      "It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far."

    5. Fly Over American,
      The Neocons are O-U-T.

      Not yet. They will not go gently.

      Get ready for "the 12th Amendment option":

      ...The U.S. president is elected by the 538 members of the Electoral College, not a popular vote of the American people. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, if no candidate for president earns a majority of the Electoral College (270 votes), then the U.S. House of Representatives elects the president. When doing so, each state gets only one vote, so the House members of each state internally vote to decide which way that state will vote, and whoever gets most of the 50 votes becomes the president.

      That was how Thomas Jefferson became president in 1800. No candidate gained a majority, and the U.S. House eventually elected Jefferson on the thirty-sixth ballot, after weeks of debate.

      The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution added one more condition: If the election goes to the House, the House may only consider the top three candidates from the Electoral College that resulted from the normal election process. The House cannot bring in any “white knight” who was not already running on Election Day.

      Because a majority of state congressional delegations are Republican, a presidential election going to the current Congress essentially guarantees a Republican president.

      With these constitutional provisions in mind and the reality that Republicans will control the House at least until January 3, 2017, NeverTrump activists are considering selecting five key states, then running a candidate in each of those states—and those states only—who could win that state with a plurality of the statewide vote, beating both Trump and Hillary. So long as neither Trump nor Hillary wins a landslide of the remaining states, these single-state candidates could result in no candidate receiving 270 Electoral College votes, sending the entire matter to the House. Then the House could elect the non-Trump Republican as the forty-fifth president of the United States....

      Mark Levin's brainchild.

    6. Yes, and the Senate make Hillary Veep.

    7. FJ,
      Interesting essay.

      I wonder how many people today even know about that period of the GOP's history.

    8. Ed,
      and the Senate make Hillary Veep

      I may be reading it wrong, but it looks to me that the some in the GOP's management might well moving in the direction of "the 12th Amendment Option."

      No proof. Yet. I'm waiting and watching.

      Four candidates in the race -- Dem, GOP, LP, and 12th Amendment candidate -- would be a game changer, IMO.

    9. That would take this electoral cycle from sad...to quite interesting.

  2. We gave the GOP the House, nope not enough to do anything, ok, we gave them the Senate, nope can't do anything. We are starting to catch on to the scam. So now, the GOP has Trump. Whine on, I don't feel sorry for you.

  3. Constitutional Insurgent,

    You have called me vile, debased, self absorbed, someone who believes in the instant gratification of a temper tantrum. All of this, without even knowing me.

    I am Tammy Swofford:

    Former LCDR in Naval Reserves
    Registered Nurse
    International correspondent with expertise in geopolitical Islam
    Patient, kind, generous
    Wife, mother, daughter, sister
    Have marched on the Texas capitol without jumping on cars
    Have voted since college
    Educated (and even if I were "uneducated") have a lot of innate wisdom to offer. I would rather have dinner with my "uneducated" mother than with Paul (no testicles) Ryan.

    When you throw out your barbed and nasty attacks at all of us you forget that the attack is also against the one.

    Every damn American has a right to cast a vote without being vilified. I do not name call against Clinton voters.

    I will vote for Trump. My flag is tied to the rebel's mast. I prefer the truth of his words to the fictitious narrative and deceit of our non-representative GOP.

    1. I called you names huh? Sounds like you're a bit defensive. Insecure in your political fealty by chance?

      "Attacks at all of you?" Are you a Roger Stone surrogate? Thanks for the resume, but it doesn't impress me if you're using it to enable the whiniest little bitch ever to enter the political fray. Your flag is tied to the mast of idiocracy, with a realty show buffoon who is unacquainted with the truth, at the helm.

      Either way, in November...we'll be getting what we deserve.

    2. CI,
      That ain't the way to advance your views or your cause.

      For your information, Tammy is one of my dearest friends. We don't walk in lockstep with each other, but we are dear friends.

      Back off. Now. I will not put up with your calling one of my dearest friends the whiniest little bitch ever to enter the political fray.

    3. Tammy,
      Every damn American has a right to cast a vote without being vilified.


      Furthermore, such intimidation tactics light up my board.

    4. I will not put up with your calling one of my dearest friends the whiniest little bitch ever to enter the political fray.

      You don't have to....because I didn't call your dear friend any names. I called Donald J. Trump the whiniest little bitch to ever enter the political fray.

      And please spare us the insinuation that anybody is proffering that every American cannot vote for whichever candidate they choose. This argument has never been introduced, and is quite frankly...a tactic more suited to the left.

    5. CI,
      Ah! Now I see that.

      But you did cross a line and make your comment too personal.

      Tammy was making a particular point with her resume: that many of Trump's supporters are not low information voters or an ignorant subset of white America; those terms are used all the time by the "journalists" who are an arm of the neocon GOP management.

      Nobody is saying that every American cannot vote for whichever candidate they choose. But many are saying that Americans who vote for whichever candidates are scum. I do not accept that narrative.

      The ongoing vilification spewing FROM ALL SIDES is disgusting. How did we get to that point? To the extent that this vilification is now so apparent.

    6. But you did cross a line and make your comment too personal.

      I apologize.

      ...those terms are used all the time by the "journalists" who are an arm of the neocon GOP management.

      Sure, but they're used with regards to a candidate that is utterly and completely intellectually unmoored. He's an uglier, oranger Sarah Palin.

      How did we get to that point?

      By lunging for the bottom in search of a 'leader'.

    7. CI,
      These "journalists," who are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the GOP neocon leadership are corrupt and more worried about losing their gravy train (think tanks, etc.) than what is good for our nation.

      I came to that conclusion independent of Trump's run for the White House. I admit that I had some "inside" information completely independent of the blogosphere. Rocked my world!

    8. So there's one exception to the rule that Trump supporters are blithering idiots?


    9. I thought you liked Newt, beamish. :)

    10. When did Newt stop being a neocon?

      Or am I supposed to not try to rationalize apologetics for Trumpism?

    11. Newt would kick ass as Secretary of State....

    12. Beamish,
      When did Newt stop being a neocon?

      Newt is of the Reagan generation of neocons: a Reaganite neocon. The vast majority of neocon politicians and "journalists" are a different kind of neocon animal -- and they are parasites.

    13. Newt's a neocon who hearts Donald Trump... and so must be a blithering idiot.

    14. Newt's candidacy for President was trashed by people who wanted to fantasize that they were one of his ex-wives left for dead or however that myth went.

      With Trump it's clear the electorate disliked Newt because he wasn't hostile to conservatism.

    15. "Reaganite neocon"

      Ozymorons and caveats are no substitute for informed opinion.

    16. Perhaps there should be a moratorium on use of the word "neocon" until it means the same thing to more than one person.

    17. Beamish,
      Who trashed Newt's candidacy? Name names?

    18. The very people who pushed Romney into that slot on the 2012 ticket say that they are the continuation of Reagan. Do you buy that, Beamish?

      I say that "the party of Reagan" is gone. What say you about that matter?

      I also say that "the party of Reagan" was gone years before Trump ran for 2016 POTUS.

    19. I don't have to name names. You know as well as I there was a anti-Gingrich smear campaign after he won the South Carolina primary. You can turn your own stomach (if that's still possible) visiting your favorite blogs that attacked Newt that now support Trump.

      Romney drove all the principled conservatives out of GOP. Let the "team players" dress up like Democrats and share the urinal.

    20. But Trump's not "milquetoast" when he tells the media how it's a shame society frowns on incest because he realm would otherwise have sex with his daughter.

    21. Beamish,
      Actually, I don't know the names. In 2012, I didn't pay attention to primary season. I was struggling with some health matters and the final days of my beloved cat Dusti. What's more, I wasn't interested as much then in domestic politics.

  4. All this talk implies that the paradigm shift has been completed with the nomination of Drumpf.

    I can't imagine him getting elected but if he does we will continue with the same supply side hollowing out of the middle class and growth of the under class.
    You'll get the same from Hillary.

    Both of them will kill plenty Muslims as we see ISIS set up shop in Libya.
    If Hillary is elected, the damn fools will keep holding Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi hearings rather then actually examining our M.E. policy.

    Nothing much will change. Both parties will continue much as they are now with the main difference still the culture war.

    The only difference between Dem and Rep is that Dems won't be afraid to walk into a Target rest room.
    Meanwhile we'll hear the usual Libertarian background noise that as long as you're strapped there is no need fear the Target rest rooms.

    I fear that when the next four years brings no relief, the right will descend further into madness.

    1. Duck,
      All this talk implies that the paradigm shift has been completed with the nomination of Drumpf.

      No. There is a question mark in the title of this blog post. And my own statement in the body of the blog post contains the words "if" and "may."

      So far, Trump hasn't said all that much about certain social issues.

    2. Duck,
      Muslim "migrants" are busy making more enemies:

      Swedish Mother Invites Refugee Into Her Home Who Promptly Rapes Her 10 Year-Old Daughter.

      BTW, my own family had a similar experience some years ago when we befriended "an Afghan hero" who had saved several lives (helicopter crash, I think).

    3. Trump on social issues: fund Planned Parenthood, support LBGTQ.

    4. Not exactly sure what support for LGBTQ means, but don't forget Trumps support for Social Security and his claim that two of the three TOP priorities for the Federal government are housing and healthcare.....but here's Trump on veterans. He really supports vets dontcha know...just ask him. Just don't ask him any questions on veterans issues:

      CHRIS CUOMO: We tried to get your campaign and the other campaigns to hold forth or whether or not they supported the current GI bill. In congress, a sneaky vote in the house — no roll call - is going to cut money from the GI bill to allow for other expenditures for vets. Vets were upset. “No, don’t take money from us and reallocate it. Find the savings elsewhere.” Do you support maintaining the GI bill the way it is and growing it instead of cutting it?

      DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to hurt our vets. We treat illegal immigrants better than our vets. I’m going to help the vets. I’m going to only help them. — unlike Hillary Clinton who thinks the vets are getting too much? They’re not. I’ve traveled, seen so many vets I know so many vets now and have a lot of friends. I have developed great friendships among the vets. Our vets are —

      CHRIS CUOMO: Is that a yes, “I do support the current GI bill?”

      DONALD TRUMP: No. I want to bring jobs back to our country and make the country grow again. I just traveled. I won so many states in a row in massive landslides and part of the reason was trade. Not what you brought up at the beginning of the show, totally inappropriate. Part of the reason I won was because of trade and I talk trade and I’m the only one that can do anything about trade.


      Surely the irony cannot be lost on anyone, that the Trump supporters who whine about the GOP establishment giving them not-terribly-Conservtive candidates [who they then voted into or for office]....now cast their protest vote for a candidate who's not remotely Conservative.

      Just cut out the middleman and vote for Hillary.

    5. A bit of hyperbole there with your last sentence. Overdone hyperbole doesn't work. Just sayin'.

    6. "Just cut out the middleman and vote for Hillary."

      I resisted the Buckley rule - vote for the most electable conservative - when I decided not to vote for Obama over his further to the left opponent Mitt Romney. (I rejoined the LP and voted for Gary Johnson). I plan on voting for Gary Johnson again - he's polling double digits against Hillary Trump and Donald Clinton - not because he'll win, but because THIS YEAR is the year Libertarians break the rigged two-party duopoly on our choices.

      Hillary Trump and Donald Clinton will be facing a Libertarian in 2020, and the Republican Party won't exist.

    7. Beamish,
      [By 2020] the Republican Party won't exist.

      I personally tried to warn one of the "big players" of that very thing when I sat down with the man on October 12, 2015. The response from him: "There will always be the Republican Party."

      No, I didn't come into that meeting as a Trump supporter, but rather to explain the level of anger among the peasants beyond the moat.

      At this point in this forum, I will say no more about that meeting, which lasted 2.5 hours -- other than to say what I learned rocked my world.

    8. Overdone hyperbole doesn't work. Just saying'.

      How does it not work? And it's my hyperbole you have a problem with......not Trump's arrogant, self-centered Leftist ignorance???

    9. CI,
      I didn't say that I a problem with that particular hyperbole. I merely said that I thought that bit of hyperbole didn't serve your intended function. No way does Donald Trump = HillaryBeast. That's my opinion.

      Take a chill pill. We have six months to go before Election Day 2016.

      PS: Advocating border control and repudiating globalism as a failed doctrine -- two positions which Trump has taken -- are not Leftist positions.

    10. "At this point in this forum, I will say no more about that meeting, which lasted 2.5 hours -- other than to say what I learned rocked my world."

      Did they discuss how the moon landings were faked with anti-gravity tech extricated from the Roswell UFO crash?

      This is not the first time you've cryptically mentioned some alleged meeting with the party illuminati or some such. If you have beans to spill, spill them. Otherwise consider bullshit called.

    11. "Advocating border control and repudiating globalism as a failed doctrine -- two positions which Trump has taken -- are not Leftist positions."

      They aren't Trump's positions either, if you check the label where his clothing lines are made and the citizenship status of his construction workers.

    12. Beamish,
      I don't engage in BS. You know me better than to insinuate that I do so.

    13. You know me well enough to know I will point out you didn't answer my question.

    14. Beamish,
      Discussion over.

      But if and when I can answer, I will. More likely a when than an if.

    15. Ah. We have radically divergent definitions of the term "bullshit."

      You have super-secret insider info that changes everything and to even mention it endangers the lives of...

      No, you're full of crap.

    16. Beamish,
      I didn't say a word about nor did I imply endangering lives.

      Again, who destroyed Gingrich's chance to run? Karl Rove or one of his proxies?

      I'm serious now...Just who all are manipulating these nominations for the GOP?

    17. You claim to have info, but can't / won't share it. That does nothing but minimize the importance of it. Are you sworn to secrecy? Then why mention having the info?

      As far as Newt, when the Florida primary gave Newt's delegates to Romney - in violation of the relevant rules - I lost interest in the machinations of the GOP. I dislike Trump even more than I dislike Romney, and I freakin hate that MFer.

      I think Trump said it best. "I'm running the Republican party, not the conservative party."

      That's why he'll lose. He gets 4% more against Hillary than against Bernie. And gets trounced by both.

    18. Beamish,



      HOW did the Florida Primary give Newt's votes to Romney -- and in violation of the rules?

    19. Addendum: Who was behind that matter of shifting the votes to Romney?

    20. Florida held their 2012 primary ahead of a certain date, and the rules stated that their delegates would be awarded proportionately if they held that primary then. Instead, the rule was bucked, and Romney got all the delegates. Despite winning less than half.

    21. As far as "who" - 2012's rulebook for the GOP was meaningless months before the convention. "Who" would be the RNC chair...

    22. Newt was pretty much the frontrunner until the Florida fix.

    23. I see that Priebus was the RNC chair at the time.

  5. _________ The Paradigm Shift _________

    To start where everyone would love to go

    Exerts a pressure on the one so blest,
Nurtured in privilege, sheltered from the low

    And desperate, untoward struggling of the rest.

Foisted on us, guilt at our good luck
Let loose a sense of deep unworthiness

    Yielding urges to immerse in muck
Our untried selves, and live on earth with less.

    Unravelling the stitches parents sewed
Released a spring propelling downward thrust

    Helping once safe havens to implode.
Our heritage betrayed then turned to dust.

Maniacally would our forebears laugh to see
Everything they won lost –– willfully.

    ~ FreeThinke

    Try to see this as a parable attempting to explain in capsule form the destructive effects misplaced, manufactured guilt foisted on us surreeptitiously by malevolent influences has perpetrated on far too many born since –– let us say –– 1950. - FT

    1. FT,
      A malevolent influence on those those born 1950? I'm curious as to why you chose that date.

    2. Those of us born earlier were handed a more wholesome, benign orientation to life. The overweening influence of an increasingly SEPTIC media and DEBASED Pop Culture set in by 1955 and has had a deleterious effect on even those with the best of intentions ever since.

  6. COPY of an Email Just Sent to a Group of Liberal Friends:


    Dear Friends,

    I've said next-to-nothing about politics lately, as you may have noticed, because I've been afraid if I truly spoke my mind, it might alienate too many in our eGroup, and I would hate for that to happen. Nevertheless, at this point I think it only fair that I share some of my insights in hope of providing a responsible opposing view while promoting better understanding of our differences.

    For your information I have nearly as many problems with the "traditional" Establishment GOP as I do with the Democrats. I am one of an enormous number of disaffected souls who feels unrepresented by those who appear to own and operate Washington, DC. None of them represents, or even bothers to consider, my point of view.

    I believe Donald Trump has gotten where he is today largely because a huge percentage of the rank and file members of the GOP feel BETRAYED by their elected representatives, –– as do a growing number of Blue-Collar Democrats whose standard of living has decreased steadily because their wages have been depressed and virtually frozen for the past fifteen years, –– IF they've been lucky enough to earn any wages at all.

    A reported 94-million Americans are not participating in the work force currently, and many of the jobs President Obama claims to have "created" see former owners of small businesses driven into bankruptcy, mid-level executives and highly-paid factory workers now waiting on tables, driving cabs, selling shoes, acting as bank tellers, or stocking shelves in places like Walmart.

    Should anyone in Washington, DC properly feel proud of that?


  7. 2


    That ain't the way to advance your views or your cause."


    Just exactly what is your cause? I'm just asking.

    1. My "cause"? If I have a "cause": To see a viable counter to Leftism. Conservatism....genuine Conservatism [what we used to refer to a classical liberalism, and ironically prior that, Liberalism]. Free minds...free markets, a shift from merely enabling Leftist policies and programs slightly better than the Democrats. Individual liberty, property, sovereignty and accountability. And a paradigm deeply rooted in intellectual reason instead of pop culture political consumerism.

      The GOP has represented none off this....and Trump even less so.

    2. Free minds?
      You're going to have to do something about the electronic media in that case. Get rid of the soporific effect.

      But to do that you'd have to deal with the operation of your precious "free market" (LMAO). Or should I say capitalist market. The GOP has done a fine job absolutely destroying political thought in America.

      As others like Silverfiddle have brought up, you first have to deal with so called "social media". The cacophony has only led to more closed minds. I wonder how you can call yours open when it has so much trouble going beyond gun rights and being a lap dog to Locke.

      Your desire for free markets is fine but incompatible with capitalism. Just as political parties lead to oligarchies, capitalism leads to monopolies so you really have to keep an eye on those guys.

      To me a free mind would realize we do in fact need a paradigm shift but we are doomed if we think we can do that without rethinking capitalism. Good place to start is to stop conflating it with the market economy.

    3. You're going to have to do something about the electronic media in that case. Get rid of the soporific effect.

      I couldn't agree more. The conundrum for you however, is that the pop culture, consumer infotainment model of our electric media, is largely driven by and consumed by, the Left.

    4. Do WHAT, precisely, with the electronic media? Go the Orwellian route as in controlling the media a la "1984"?

    5. It's a lot more than the GOP destroying political thought!



    Why do you think the Republicans won such large majorities in the last two congressional elections? Those victories occurred, like it or not, because the so-called Tea-Partiers and Evangelical Christians, and others designated as "Extreme Conservatives," –– all of whom are despised, reviled, dismissed, rejected, lampooned –– and studiously ignored whenever possible –– by both the Democrats and GOP Establishments ––, made Herculean efforts to get out the vote in high hopes of getting rid of Obamacare and overturning many of Obama's initiatives regarded as odious.

    What happened after that? ––– NOTHING!

    This does not mean I am enthusiastic about a Trump candidacy, but I believe it may provide an adequate explanation for what so many see as "Something That Should Never Have Been Allowed to Happen" –– as though anyone could or should have stopped it.

    I don't understand precisely why, but Boehner, McConnell and other aged, ineffectual RINO types such as McCain, Romney, Hatch, and most of the "Northeastern Republicans," and other middle-of-the-road types like John Kasich who are anything-but-conservative, have done everything in their power to balk the dozens-if-not-hundreds of conservative initiatives produced by the newly-elected conservative members of the House.

    The feeble performance of the Senate Republican majority is explained away as the lack of a GOP veto-proof SUPER-MAJORITY, which makes advancing strongly conservative legislation "impossible."

    The perception out here in "the real world" is that the RINO Establishment would prefer to roll over, play dead, and thus hand victory after victory to Obama and the Democrats in order to avoid appearing, "uncooperative," "unduly contentious" or –– HEAVEN FORFEND! –– RACIST!!!

    I hope I have not offended any of you on this Mother's Day? I also hope you would agree that I am hardly a lowbrow, a redneck, a lout, or a moron? Neither am I uneducated. After all, I have earned three college degrees.

    Nevertheless, I find myself intensely sympathetic to the vehement, often uncouth anti-Establishment faction driving the bizarre, improbable figure of Donald Trump to victory.

    "The People" –– a long forgotten, discounted factor in American Politics –– have awakened to some degree at least in large numbers, and now realize, however dimly, how badly they've been hoodwinked, trapped, bullied, insulted, harassed, bilked, and callously dismissed by what-has-transformed-itself-into an illegitimate, self-anointed, increasingly arrogant Ruling Class.

    Given that can you honestly blame them for feeling wrathful and acting unruly?

  9. "The world is filled with endless woe by pompous fools who THINK they know.

    ....... Old Arcadanian Proverb

  10. @FT -- Why do you think the Republicans won such large majorities in the last two congressional elections?
    They didn't.
    There were more votes cast for Democrats than Republicans in House races. Gerrymandering was the difference for the Republicans.

    In the Senate there was a typical non presidential year swing. In Obama's first term only the filibuster maintained the Rethug presence.
    Look for Drumpf to swing it back.

    1. Canardo, you're a dirty commie LIAR as well as an unmitigated ass!

    2. My, my, such nastiness.

      I actually thought of you last evening, Freethinke.
      My copy of "The Kennedy Films" which Criterion just released arrived. One of the first uses of cinema verité (which I know you hate) in America.

      It's unfortunate that the form is disappearing, replaced by the far less interesting Ken Burns talking head style but so much of the energizing pop culture of the 60's is gone, pity.

      What struck me in the first film, Primary which covers the Wisconsin primary between Kennedy and Humphrey was how absolutely primitive the process seemed and at the same time how much closer people could get to the candidates.

      But the visual media were coming in to lay and it became clear that Kennedy was able to use them even in their infancy and so much for substance.

      You should take a look at them if you have the opportunity. Robert Drew, The Kennedy Films . His team included the Maysles brothers and D.A. Pennebaker who went on with Fred Wiseman to forge a golden age of documentary.

      Back in the 60's when we tried for an independent voice an were denied by mass media. It was a valiant attempt.

      Just why did our minds snap shut not that long after the 60's?
      I don't think you are going to even ask the question, just chalk it up to the supposed horrors of the Frankfurt School.

      Oh well, remember, the Left is here to help you live the life of the mind.

    3. Duck,
      Pfffft to your last sentence above.

    4. There is a great deal you could learn from the Left, AOW.

      Right now the right is in shambles and in danger of embracing an autocrat unless the right is able to admit some of the serious flaws in the right's core beliefs.

      The Left has been through a lot of that and is more open and less doctrinaire.
      The neocon supply side regime needs to be ushered off the stage as soon as possible.

      Dialogue sure beats the Freethinke way of just calling your opponent a commie.

    5. Duck,
      FT calls 'em like he sees 'em.

    6. There are only a VERY few Leftists who live the life of the mind. The VAST majority live the life of the closed mind.

  11. The pendulum could only swing back to center when the next generation was still pro America, still honored our laws, stuck to the Constitution, understood her history and learned from it.
    I'm afraid that generation is gone. Forever.

    1. Z,
      Yes, many things ad gone and probably forever,

      Paradigm shift(s).

    2. Another iPad typo.

      "many things ARE gone"

    3. Remove the "f" from the term, and you'll have a more accurate depiction of what it is.

  12. Proud NOT To Be A ProgressiveMay 9, 2016 at 12:27:00 PM CDT

    It is my humble opinion that the Liberal, Marxists, Socialists, Democrats, aka Progressive, aka the Losers Carter, Clinton, and the incumbent President Obama are responsible for the current decline of United States of America allowing our most fierce enemies to develop nuclear weapons! Starting with the father of Iranian Islamo-Fascism, Jimmy Carter, with Clinton selling technology to China and allowing North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, to Obama who has single-handedly elevated Iran to a clear and present danger! Along with the other crises ! And this election should be a wake-up call to everyone.

    1. @anon -- Obama who has single-handedly elevated Iran to a clear and present danger
      To whom, Saudi Arabia?

  13. @Proud NOT To Be A Progressive,

    "Progressive, aka the Losers Carter, Clinton, and the incumbent President Obama are responsible for the current decline of United States of America"

    I respectfully disagree, somewhat. Those of whom you mention, ascending to the White House, are a testament to the fact of a society (electorate) in steep decline. While we are at it let's not forget LBJ.

  14. At the very least, Trump popularity says that a very large part of the "Intelligent" citizenry has committed to rejecting standard issue politicians. That can only be good.

    1. To be replaced by?
      The French Revolution (among others) was committed to rejecting standard issue politicians.

  15. Here's a paradigm shift: a "conservative candidate" saying we should print more money.

    Trump: U.S. can never default because it prints money


    As for calm reasoned discussion, I spoke to the co-owner of the local conservative station on air (a friend of a friend) who is very friendly to me about being civil in our disagreement.

    Her husband who has his own show that I used to enjoy posts stuff like:
    "Hey all you 'nevertrump' (and by-default pro Hillary Obama voters) cult member pussies, tell me again why you don't like Donald Trump. If you don't get your collective head out of your collective 'nevertrump' ass you're voting against this truly Constitutional Carry candidate--and you'll be voting for shredding 2A (and the rest of it all). Don't doubt that. It'll be YOU that has to look yourself in the eye, look into the mirror, and drool over your so-called 'principles'. Good luck with that!"

    How to win friends and influence people.

    1. Ed,
      Both sides are being ugly toward one another. I could hypothesize the reasons, but I don't see any point in doing so.

    2. Wow, I just heard Brit Hume say what I said on the radio Saturday almost word for word.

    3. Trump supporters aren't interested in honest dialogue. I mean, look how upset they get she you point out that they're mentally retarded.

  16. Like it or not, the reality is the number of votes which Trump garnered in many primaries. More than either McCain or Romney got.

    1. Imagine the changes that could be made if your neighborhood's Homeowners Association allowed the ghetto across the tracks to determine policy.

      Trump won in open primaries - where non-Republicans could vote without joining the GOP. The only closed primaries he won were in liberal strongholds that won't vote Republican in the general anyway. Most of Trump's NY campaign staff couldn't vote for him because they held onto their Democratic Party memberships.

      Check the membership rolls. People are leaving the GOP. Most of them are joining the Libertarian Party if they join anything.

      Trump is going to get his thoroughly sodomized ass handed to him in November.

  17. But not more than the non Trump candidates got.
    He's got some 'splaining to do.
    Seriously, Why do we have to hold our nose and support a guy going increasingly left because he's not Hillary?

  18. But not more than the non Trump candidates got.
    He's got some 'splaining to do.
    Seriously, Why do we have to hold our nose and support a guy going increasingly left because he's not Hillary?

    1. Ed,
      Why do we have to hold our nose and support a guy going increasingly left because he's not Hillary?

      I keep hearing the response: "SCOTUS!"

      Furthermore, Hillary has basically stated that she would be a continuation of Obama's policies.

      Those who voted for Romney and held those noses have little room to criticize those who refuse to hold their noses again. They want a different approach to politics. Is Trump that different approach? Could be.

    2. If I have to sell my soul for SCOTUS picks, I need to be convinced they'd be better that Clinton's.
      Bushes and Reagan picked some clunkers as it is.
      I did not "hold my nose" for Romney.
      I was convinced he was better than Obama.

  19. A few celebs who'd leave the country were Trump to be elected to the Oval Office (from the WaPo)

    1. Al Sharpton In February at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event, Sharpton said, “If Donald Trump is the nominee . . . I’m also reserving my ticket to get out of here if he wins. Only because he’d probably have me deported anyhow.”

    2. Whoopi Goldberg On Jan. 20, the “View” co-host said: “Listen, he can be whatever party he wants to be.What he can’t be is he can’t be the guy that says it’s your fault stuff isn’t working. That’s not the president I want. Find a way to make stuff work.” She added: “I don’t think that’s America. I don’t want it to be America. Maybe it’s time for me to move."

    3. Cher On the day Trump announced his candidacy in June, Cher tweeted, "If he were to be elected, I’m moving to Jupiter!"

    4. Samuel L. Jackson During a taping of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!," the actor said, “If that [expletive] becomes president, I’ll move my black [expletive] to South Africa.”

  20. Two recent comments to another article at the WaPo:


    5/9/2016 1:19 PM EST

    Is building a hotel a credential to be the leader of the free world?
    Ignore User


    5/9/2016 1:23 PM EST

    Is building a malfunctioning Reset Button a credential to be the leader of the free world?


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective