Lion of the Blogosphere

Anti-trump ads

The so-called “Club for Growth” is spending a million dollars to run two anti-Trump ads.

The first one says that Trump is a liberal. (My comment is that a real liberal could never in a million years even dream of faking Trump’s hostility to immigration.)

The second one says that Trump supports eminent domain. Of course, only a tiny percent of voters even know what “eminent domain” means, but they make it apparent by showing a video of a house being torn down by a big yellow Caterpillar thing.

Trump’s response to the ads is that the “Club for Growth” asked him to donate a million dollars, and he turned them down, so now they are out to get him.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 15, 2015 at 12:01 pm

Posted in Politics

45 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Trump will go up to 40 percent after this ad campaign.


    September 15, 2015 at 12:08 pm

  2. Trump really shouldn’t be so hostile to SuperPac monies. He’ll need their help. I know that it’s a great sound byte that he isn’t taking payola, but some of these guys really are friends and on his side.

    He should encourage small donation through the website or something similar.

    The club for growth, however, is not his friend. They are pro immigration.


    September 15, 2015 at 12:09 pm

  3. Is that really the best use of Club for Growth’s funds? To spend a million to go after a Republican candidate 6 months before the first primary vote? That’s totally insane. Of course the direction of the Conservative Communtariat is still arguing that, “Hey, Trumps not really a conservative!” They can’t grasp that we know that already.

    Mike Street Station

    September 15, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    • That’s their MO. To get to the candidates at their most vulnerable, during the primaries. Also keeps them from repeating FAIRs mistake where FAIR did hard hits against Spencer Abraham only to end up with Stabenow who has arguably done them more harm than Abraham ever could have.


      September 15, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    • I’m inclined to agree, but it’s possible they have a couple moneybag donors who *want* them to go after Trump (and ponied up funds specifically for these ads).


      September 16, 2015 at 1:17 am

  4. In the future inverse condemnation will become much more politically contentious than eminent domain. Millennials are gradually recolonizing our cities. The ghetto has to go somewhere… the recent SCOTUS ruling on Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project suggests more public housing will be built in the suburbs. This of course will depress property values but any suggestion of government compensation will be called racist.


    September 15, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    • Isn’t that like busing but an order of magnitude worse? How is it not political suicide?

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      September 15, 2015 at 1:28 pm

      • Yep. The feds / courts imposed low income housing on Westchester, New York. It turned a solidly blue voting liberal district red. Of course, the socialists at the NYTimes editorial board wasted no time bashing Westchester and comparing it to “Die-hard resistance to civil-rights laws” in the South 50 years ago. I’m sure some will bristle at the comparison but the comparison isn’t wrong. It’s easy to be self-righteous when another person’s ox is being gored. But no one wants sewage pumped into their own schools and neighborhoods… not even liberals.


        September 16, 2015 at 5:04 am

    • There’s plenty of housing projects in NYC. The ghetto is not going anywhere, in the BIg Apple.

      What’s really important to many White Millennials, is their NAM millennial counterparts, who are just as prevalent in the big cities. I see many of them heavily staffed at SWPL Whole Foods and now Hipsterish Trader Joe’s.


      September 15, 2015 at 1:48 pm

      • NYC has a very different public housing model from the rest of the country. It’s an outlier considering how much public housing stock exists and that the city hasn’t been tearing any of it down. The Atlanta model of tearing down government owned public housing stock near the urban core is the general procedure for most places now. There are some privately owned large housing and some publicly owned projects that generally persist in these cities, but the goal has been to suburbanize the poor. Ferguson, for example, is a result of this policy in action. The ideological basis comes from the flawed Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity studies. The “official” justification is that there’s no way someone living in a modernist apartment near the central business district could ever find job…


        September 15, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    • The Obama Administration has been pushing for inverse condemnation via expanded Section 8 and Fair Housing laws over the past year. It has received very little attention in the mainstream, liberal media because of how controversial it undoubtedly would be.

      The whole idea is to push low iq, criminal nams onto nice, white suburban neighborhoods. That way all the white people can pay their fair share and have their wealth redistributed, have their good public schools ruined and have their grandkids miscegenated. What do you say? Any takers?


      September 15, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    • It isn’t condemnation because nobody lost the use of their home even if the value is greatly affected. Condemnation is a taking. Section 8, as horrible as it is, isn’t a taking.


      September 15, 2015 at 11:14 pm

      • You are right. It is not technically a legal condemnation. But when the federal government creates an incentive for developers to ruin neighborhoods, pressures local zoning and hearing boards, and willfully ignores the wishes of local residents I consider it a condemnation all the same.


        September 16, 2015 at 6:47 am

  5. Trump posted a letter from Club for Growth asking him for money:


    September 15, 2015 at 1:18 pm

  6. “(My comment is that a real liberal could never in a million years even dream of faking Trump’s hostility to immigration.)”

    About 40% of Democrats are with Trump or even more restrictionist. Before Republicans wiped out the private sector unions it was even more. I run into them at party events all the time.


    September 15, 2015 at 1:20 pm

  7. If anybody who isn’t into Inside Baseball knew what Club for Growth is, then their anti-endorsement would be good for him. Candidates would pay good money to be opposed by Club for Growth.

    Greg Pandatshang

    September 15, 2015 at 1:37 pm

  8. According to Roll Call, CFG is currently demanding that any spending bill to keep the government running include a provision defunding Obamacare. House leadership hates this. I have no way of knowing who’s right.


    September 15, 2015 at 1:56 pm

  9. This is why Republicans can’t have nice things. They are always so busy shooting each other over minor doctrinal differences. Progs have differences as well (“I am more trans than thou” kind of stuff), but at the end of the day they always come together to vote when it matters.

    In any case, any organization that doesn’t recognize immigration as Problem #1 is worthless anyway.


    September 15, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    • n any case, any organization that doesn’t recognize immigration as Problem #1 is worthless anyway.

      So its not a minor doctrinal difference then is it?

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      September 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    • Club For Growth = John Fund, you know, of the Wall St. Journal. Chamber of Commerce guys love cheap labor.


      September 15, 2015 at 11:17 pm

      • John Fund has been writing quite a lot of anti amnesty/ high immigration articles over the past couple of years. As a “moderate” that’s quite unusual.

        Mike Street Station

        September 16, 2015 at 6:56 am

  10. Trump doesn’t appear to be hostile to Muslim immigration.


    September 15, 2015 at 3:01 pm

  11. Trump, doing his thing. I swear he’s a breath of fresh air that’s been sorely needed.

    Who elected these *Club for Growth* guys. No one. Only Trump would point that out.


    September 15, 2015 at 4:02 pm

  12. The Club for Growth has been a powerful group keeping Republican House members and to a less extent Senators in line with “lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations” agenda of the Republican elites. Any Republican House members that strays can expect to face a Republican primary opponent funded by the Club for Growth. They are famous for dropping a million or two into select Republican House primary elections to unseat candidates they don’t like. In a house primary election that is huge money. At the state wide level with US Senate seats they have less influence.

    On a presidential primary, it is hard to see how this money is going to be that much of a factor. Jeb Bush’s superpac is reported to have just dropped $24 million into advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire.


    September 15, 2015 at 4:18 pm

  13. My comment is that a real liberal could never in a million years even dream of faking Trump’s hostility to immigration.

    Real liberals used to be immigration hawks, because they wanted to defend wages. e.g., Samuel Gompers.

    Of course, only a tiny percent of voters even know what “eminent domain” means

    Ten years ago, the Kelo case actually got a lot of airplay on conservative talk radio. But the saliency of the issue has dropped since then. You need to own something to worry about eminent domain, and home ownership rates have dropped since then.

    Dave Pinsen

    September 15, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    • And don’t forget Ceasr Chavez, Walter Mondale, and Ralph Abernathy marching at the Mexican border against illegal immigration back in 1969. Cesar Chavez in particular was a vehement opponent of illegal immigrations.

      I Am Prolier Than Thou

      September 16, 2015 at 2:49 am

  14. The Club for Growth did him a favor. Anything that keeps Trump in the news is good for him. That he has this letter and posted it makes it even better. The biggest danger for Trump is being ignored by the media, in which case there is great danger that his campaign will fizzle out. He really needs a big primary win to establish his staying power and legitimacy.


    September 15, 2015 at 5:49 pm

  15. CFG is the first of many establishment, Republican operatives that will come after Trump. Look for all the hacks to come out of the word work over the next 6 months.


    September 15, 2015 at 7:30 pm

  16. BTW, I was listening to the radio, and checked out CNN briefly, this afternoon.

    The media is going full court press against Trump. The radio report I listened to was all about how Pete Wilson wanted to enforce some immigration rules in CA, and then he lost. The concern trolling is strong.

    CNN’s article was about this delightful family of Salvadorans that Reagan let in in his amnesty.

    No talk, at all, on any negative consequences of immigration. And did Reagan say open borders?

    I hate to be conspiracy minded, but it’s obvious there’s only one correct perspective here.

    Very USSR we’ve become.

    Looking forward to the imminent destruction of the GOP. May she rot in hell.


    September 15, 2015 at 9:14 pm

  17. I consider Club for Growth to be just as hostile to American interests as any leftist who is seeking to bring in refugees to America. They couldn’t care less about the state of our Nation.


    September 15, 2015 at 9:22 pm

  18. Rick Perry is out.

    If he enters the race, Perry’s 1% is Lion’s for the taking.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    September 15, 2015 at 9:27 pm

  19. Hey Lion, what’s your opinion on Trump? I’m curious.


    September 15, 2015 at 10:17 pm

  20. HP laying off another 30k. “moving from high cost to low cost areas”

    Majoring in STEM is for chumps.


    September 15, 2015 at 10:42 pm

  21. The Club for Cheap Labor is attacking Trump?

    This will only help him.

    I Am Prolier Than Thou

    September 16, 2015 at 2:44 am

  22. “(My comment is that a real liberal could never in a million years even dream of faking Trump’s hostility to immigration.)”

    Oi! Disagree with liberalism all you want, but there are plenty of us who are viscerally hostile to immigration. Making this a conservative only club will only hinder you and stop a lot of us on the center and left from adding our energy and votes to patriotic immigration reform.


    September 16, 2015 at 5:33 am

    • You’re not a real hardcore liberal, you just don’t like Republicans for a few reasons, like maybe because of their anti-abortion platform and tax breaks for the rich.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 16, 2015 at 8:12 am

      • Wait, what do you mean by hardcore liberal? We might be/probably are looking at different things here?

        I want the squishy liberal social democratic state, just without the populations most likely to ruin it for everyone else (where I live, that’s still just about feasible.) I don’t care about single mothers – if they do that badly single, they’ll do that badly if they marry first. I want an equal society. I’m pro choice, pro gay marriage. I want the charities – especially the religious ones – to pay their goddamn taxes, as well as the churches, businesses etc. I’m against charter schools.

        I’m not a socialist, but I always assumed that my politics made me a liberal. Pretty much the only common cause I have with the right seems to be that I’m vehemently against immigration – mostly on racial grounds, but I’ll also object to white people being shipped in to break the blacks/unions/race mongers/whatever bete noire the right has.


        September 16, 2015 at 9:41 am

      • @Jesse
        Why should charities pay taxes? They aren’t money making enterprises. If your opposition is related to their employees, well, they pay income tax like everyone else. Wrt churches. Who do you think runs soup kitchens, atheists?


        September 16, 2015 at 12:26 pm

      • “Why should charities pay taxes? They aren’t money making enterprises.”

        Any number of reasons, not least is that they’re very often taking vast amounts of public money and then whining at any attempt at oversight. Catholic Charities, for instance, gets almost 2/3 of its money from the govt.

        You think it’s going to submit itself to the govt just because it depends on it for its existence? Nope. That would be logical and fair. You look at the “resettlement” rackets, what the charities do is get them in, process them and then put them on the public dole.

        Charities are menaces, and that’s not counting the ones that simply exist as a tax dodge.

        “Wrt churches. Who do you think runs soup kitchens, atheists?”

        Who do you think is responsible for the continued need for them? Seriously.

        If the churches (and yes, other religious organizations) weren’t trying to replace the uppity, secular Americans with pliant (and subsidized) immigrants, then vastly more Americans could earn a living. If the housing costs hadn’t gone up, if local public schools weren’t being ruined…The churches have an extreme interest in replacing the American people and keeping the new population poor. They need poor people who need their largesse, and they need these people to need strict social controls? How will they keep bums on pews if people don’t need charity and are smart enough to control themselves?


        September 16, 2015 at 12:59 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: