Posts Tagged ‘nikki haley’

Well the Nikki Haley boom turned out to be a bust. Did the MSM and Bill Kristol really think their (Temporary) support would carry her over the top in Iowa? The real question is how long will she remain a stalking horse to make sure that moderates who don’t want President Trump as their nominee have someplace other to go than DeSantis? I suspect Trump will want her in through Super Tuesday although a poor showing in South Carolina should finish her off.


I hoped to see a better finish by DeSantis but 2nd will do for now. Given the size of Trump’s victory the real question will be how long there are 2 alternatives to Trump rather than three. The squish republicans in NH don’t want Trump but I suspect they hate DeSantis more because he has the potential to be trouble for a lot longer and as he has proved as Governor of Florida, he really means it.

That why Gov Sununu will likely decide to die on Haley hill.


President Trump drawing 50% in the caucus is significant for several reasons:

  1. It indicates that he is the preferred candidate of a majority of Iowa republicans.
  2. It indicates that a majority of the GOP in Iowa approved of his performance as President
  3. It indicates that neither the rantings of the media have no effect on the majority of GOP voters
  4. It indicates that at the very least a majority of GOP voter don’t give a fig for the “interesting” charges against him

If the President keeps up with 20 or 30 point wins in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina this primary will be finished before we reach the first of the court cases against him.


There are two historic bits concerning yesterday’s primaries that would have gotten a whole lot more play if it had not been for the unprecedented and despicable tactics being used in an attempt to drag Trump off the national stage.

The first is that Donald Trump is the first ex president in over a century to appear on a primary ballot against members of his own party.

It’s a big difference from the last time President Trump won in Iowa when he was an incumbent running unopposed or the first time he ran in Iowa in 2016 when he was simply a businessman and one could only speculate has to how he would govern as president.

His victory in those circumstances would have been a great story even without the frantic (and highly satisfying) cries of the left and the relentless attempt of the left to eliminate him as a candidate.

The 2nd Historic event or lack thereof was the absence of a Democrat primary. This was a step taken to protect Biden from any primary challenge in a state that might have been iffy for him. While it’s not all that unusual for a party to make sure the slate is clear Biden’s record even among Democrats is not all that secure and a caucus would have been an excellent and useful test of his strength among the party.

That the party did all it could to chase away folks even driving RFK Jr. away from the democrat primaries to run as an independent speaks volumes as to how they percieve Joe Biden as a candidate.

Presuming he is the candidate that is.


Finally nobody is talking about what is normally called the Elephant in the room but in this case is the scythe in the room.

Donald Trump is 77, Joe Biden is 81. Most men their age…are dead.

Now it’s true that Donald Trump is a very vigorous 77 and Joe Biden is a comparatively frail 81 but no matter how you slice it if either one dropped dead tomorrow it would not be a gigantic shock, though perhaps it might be a bit of a surprise in Trump’s case.

The life expectancy of a man born in 1946 is under 66 years. In fact according to the CDC if you were a man born in 2015 your total life expectancy is less than Donald Trump’s age today.

People can say 60 is the new 40 but the reality is 60 is still sixty, 70 is still seventy and Bill Belichick interview not withstanding very few men of their age are generally hired to do a job of such responsibility.

Of course given the mechanisms of the dishonorable deep state left to try to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot and the hints that Joe Biden might be replaced by a candidate who doesn’t need to face voters age might be a moot point but in the end all the scheming and shenanigans are nothing if the call that all men face demands an answer.

Bart Maverick:Well it still smells of a con game but there’s too much money in the come-on.

Madame De Chauvrier: So?

Bart Maverick: Madame there isn’t a grifter alive who puts real gold in his “goldbrick” not over a million dollars worth.

Maverick Diamond in the Rough 1958

Now that the Civil war is suddenly in vogue thanks to Nikki Haley’s gaffe it’s worth noting a few things that are basic facts.

The south was fighting to preserve slavery, all you have to do is read the newspapers of the time to know this is true but if you really want to understand this, don’t take my word for it, take the word of the Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens:

The new [confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. 

Alexander Stephens: Crossroads speech

Keep an eye on that link we’ll be going back to that speech a lot in this post.

What would have been more accurate to say was that the North was not fighting to end slavery, although there were many in the union ranks who believed in its abolition. As Lincoln himself put it in his letter to Horace Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less  whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

This believe it or not is something that even Nikole Hannah-Jones of the phony narrative of the 1619 project understands and states publicly showing that every now and again when a person is trying to sell a salted mine or a fake narrative it’s necessary for a person to make sure there is enough gold in their gold brick or a bit of truth in the come-on to be able to make the sale.

Of course Hanna-Jones likely had little use for the final sentence of Lincoln’s letter

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

And I suspect that she thought even less of Alexander Stephens words concerning what the founding fathers thought of Slavery and the black race in that same Crossroads speech:

But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

All emphasis mine

This completely contradicts the narrative of the left on what the founders thought. Furthermore unlike Hanna-Jones, Stephens was in a real position to know what the founders thought not only because the founding of the country was still in living memory at the time of this speech but because he was one of the most educated men of his time:

Take a note of what he says here. He not only states that Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen were opposed to slavery and considered wrong on every count and that said idea was the prevailing idea of the time, but that those founding fathers held that idea based on an assumption of the equality of the races.

It’s important to note here that his was not mere rhetoric. Stephens despite poor beginnings was not only well read in an age were illiteracy was common, but well educated (Top of his college class) a successful lawyer, married to the daughter of a Revolutionary war colonel but at the time of this speech had been an elected representative in the state of Georgia and congress for over a quarter of a century. Few men in the entire nation were in a better position to know the history and the sentiment of the Founders than he.

The real irony is that Hanna-Jones argues for advantages and reparations and special privileges for Blacks in education, and the workplace and by law because they can’t make it in the biased “white” world. Stevens would and did agree completely with this argument:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

And he not only stated this but he noted that their opponents in the North arguments against slavery would be correct if they did not subscribe to what he considered a false premises of racial equality.

One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. 

emphasis mine

Is this not the same argument that the Nichole-smith and folks from DEI are making? Blacks must have separate graduations, gays must have separate graduations, they must have separate spaces, all of this is pretty much the argument that Stephens made that Blacks can’t complete on a level playing fields.

George W. Bush called it the: Soft bigotry of low expectation.

I call it “racism”, racism for fun and profit. Well fun and profit for those who make a living off the DEI grift, but for the vast majority of actual students of color who are going to have to make it in a world that doesn’t give a damn about DEI but skills and results It’s a sentence to failure, that ironically will be blamed on racism.


Note: Our days of Christmas fundraiser is in progress $2900 & 10 subscribers to go. Read more here or donate below:

Yesterday I had expected to be home in time to watch the GOP debate live because thanks to BidenomicsTM there has not been enough work at work for full 8 hour days but as two people were on vacation and two more had left finding other jobs I ended up working a full shift and getting home at 1:00 am after dropping off my car at the garage for a pre-inspection checkup didn’t get to see the GOP debate till 1:05 which meant a long night and given the repairs and inspection this morning for my 1999 LeSabre (it passed) I’ve not had time to comment till now.


The first thing that jumped out at me was Nikki Haley who much to my surprise sounded like the credible presidential candidate and make several excellent points, particularly on the fact that there was absolutely no chance of passing a national abortion ban. She seemed ready to showcase herself as a credible alternative to Donald Trump and without a question accomplished that mission. The proof will be if Trump comes after her.


There was a lot of speculation that everyone would be targeting Ron DeSantis but that wasn’t the case. DeSantis made his points very well and seemed to spend his time focusing on the failures of the Biden administration (something that it seemed to me the moderators were doing all they could to avoid dealing with that subject). While Haley was the star there is no question DeSantis did what he wanted to do which was make the case that he had produced and would continue to do so. Ed Morrissey put it best:

This reality is likely why the Trump campaign has apparently invested plenty of time claiming this was all bad news for the Florida governor. The facts alas don’t match with that rethoric.

In terms of entertainment Chris Christie was the primary source of it spending all his time throwing punches at Ramaswamy as there was no Trump to attack while occasionally touting his record as a conservative governing a deep blue state (a record that wasn’t as bad as people remember it to be) Ramaswamy handled it well and make me smile by forthrightly calling climate change BS and speaking truths concerning Ukraine and other subjects that were being dodged. I thought he acquitted himself well.


Most of the rest of the field was invisible, Tim Scott particularly, although he did better than Hutchinson & Bergum who showed they didn’t belong on that stage. As for Mike Pence he kept talking about the achievements of the Trump/Pence admin which is a legit move and was rather adamant that despite the Biden admin making a point to pass a law preventing a VP to reject electors after the fact (a point he never mentioned btw) he in his opinion had no authority to reject the electors in 2020. I think he’s dead wrong but I also think he actually believes he believes that


Finally several quick thoughts:

  • I think the debate moderation demonstrated little difference between Fox & the rest of the MSM
  • It’s apparently still possible to have an actual debate about substance, at least without Trump
  • The whole Trump “counter programing” plan really doesn’t work when in a streaming era
  • It seemed to me Youtube did all it could to steer people to the spin rather than the debate
  • When the first round of debate cuts come half of those candidates should be gone
  • I’ve yet to watch the Trump interview I’ll do so tonight when I get home from work
  • I suspect Trump will reverse his no debate position once the field is down to 3 or 4 but we’ll see

One of the things that I found during my Ga Trip is that people in the south really dislike the stereotypes that the media and frankly many in the North hold of the south.

What is the most frustrating thing when you are fighting such a stereotype? Having somebody decide to reinforce it:

This evening in an interview with Pub Politics, state Sen. Jake Knotts (R-SC) — who is supporting a different candidate — slammed Haley by using a racial slur:

We already got one raghead in the White House, we don’t need a raghead in the governor’s mansion.

I’ve been avoiding the whole who’s sleeping with who story story a bit because I think it’s tawdry political rumor (missing out on a google bomb here.)

The South Carolina Republican Party has issued a statement condemning Knott’s remarks:

“The South Carolina Republican Party strongly condemns any use of racial or religious slurs. Senator Knotts should apologize for his inappropriate comments, so that we can put this unfortunate incident behind us and focus on issues important to moving our state forward,” said Republican Party Chair Karen Floyd in a statement.

Said Haley spokesman Tim Pearson:

“Jake Knotts represents all that is wrong with South Carolina politics. He’s an embarrassment to our state and to the Republican Party. South Carolina is so much better than this, and the people of our state will make that quite clear next Tuesday.”

What a fool.