What will happen at the Republican Convention?

[Stacko]

But it reminds me, have we seen much news on that July 15th FEC report yet.

His fundraising sucks and is dragging the entire GOP fundraising down. New numbers due today.

 

[dudalb]

His fundraising sucks and is dragging the entire GOP fundraising down. New numbers due today.

A lot of the donors are bypassing the GOP funraising machinery entirely and contributing directly to the individual GOP congressional candidates;in effect, writing off the White House race and concenetrating on limiting the collaterial damage.

 

[Stacko]

That's a stretch in this case.

Ruh roh.

But there's another problem. Notice the letterhead of the statement: The Trump Organization, which is to say Donald Trump's personal business. And notice how McIver describes herself: As an employee of the Trump Organization, not the campaign.

If Trump used corporate resources to write a political speech, that could be illegal.

"On the face of it, this looks like a corporate violation," explained Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. And that is "a violation of federal law. It can result in civil penalties to the corporation and the campaign." If the campaign used corporate resources "willingly and knowingly," the offense is a criminal one.

Emphasis mine.

 

[dudalb]

No, Gates or Manafort. I'm not going to dispute that the RNC has been a total cluster without a coherent message other than Hillary bad, Trump good. Nothing about how their policies will improve the lives of Americans.

I'm just saying there should be no reasonable expectation that a speechwriter would plagiarize a speech and therefore it is unrealistic to believe that anyone should be checking for that.

Now, if your argument is that they should have had a staff of professionals who's experience would spot the similarity to a speech by the first lady I would agree. But allow me to offer this one caveat to that assertion. If the boss is expecting you to do a professional job but then fails to provide you with the resources to do the job, he shouldn't have an expectation of a high level of professionalism.

Sorry, but every professional campaign person interviewed said that in past conventions for both parties;EVERY major specch was vetted word for word,and any blatant plagiarisms would have been spotted. Politcial pros both left and right are aghast at how inept the Trump campaign is at basics.

 

[dudalb]

His fundraising sucks and is dragging the entire GOP fundraising down. New numbers due today.

He is still refusing to spend any money on a ground campaign,thinking he can do it all by twitter. That is driving the pros in the GOP mad.

 

[Stacko]

He is still refusing to spend any money on a ground campaign,thinking he can do it all by twitter. That is driving the pros in the GOP mad.

Money is coming in but none is going out. Where's it going?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm just saying there should be no reasonable expectation that a speechwriter would plagiarize a speech and therefore it is unrealistic to believe that anyone should be checking for that.

There is every expectation that the text of any political speech would be checked with a nit-comb by OPFOR. A professionally organized and professionally run campaign maintains control of the campaign message. Control of message was ceded to Mrs. Trump. Very poor political chess. Had her speech only included the rickroll, nobody would care for more than 15 seconds. Had the GOP or Trump campaign team have anything more interesting to report, reporters would be all over it.

But this is it - everything else has been a campfire kumbaya chorus of "Hillary is teh bad" which makes very weak copy.

Now, if your argument is that they should have had a staff of professionals who's experience would spot the similarity to a speech by the first lady I would agree. But allow me to offer this one caveat to that assertion. If the boss is expecting you to do a professional job but then fails to provide you with the resources to do the job, he shouldn't have an expectation of a high level of professionalism.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but it seems like you're attempting wrestle one end of a rag I'm not holding.

Somebody dropped the ball on maintaining message control. It says very poor things about the Trump campaign generally. There's no excuse. It's amateur and unprofessional. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Nah, Groot for Veep, Rocket Racoon for President.

Rocket for Secretary of Defense.

Drax for Press Secretary. "There was no gate present. I will kill the next man who asks about this gate!"

 

[GodMark2]

And Manafort tries to throw the dogs off the trail: Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Says Bill Clinton's Meeting With Loretta Lynch May Have Influenced Email Investigation

The Trumpundits continue trying to sell the message it was an unimportant paragraph, ignoring it was about how the error was mishandled.

They're sad.

GOP strategy for some years has been to ignore any actual problem and 'defend' a much more minor facet vigorously, while complaining that they are being attacked over such a minor thing. This creates feelings of sympathy in the populace while creating the illusion that they have answered for the actual problem. Should the original prosecution be pressed, they can pretend to have already answered it, while simultaneously playing the martyr card by asking "Why do you keep bringing up this minor thing?". It's an inversion of The Big Lie.

 

[acbytesla]

There is every expectation that the text of any political speech would be checked with a nit-comb by OPFOR. A professionally organized and professionally run campaign maintains control of the campaign message. Control of message was ceded to Mrs. Trump. Very poor political chess. Had her speech only included the rickroll, nobody would care for more than 15 seconds. Had the GOP or Trump campaign team have anything more interesting to report, reporters would be all over it.

But this is it - everything else has been a campfire kumbaya chorus of "Hillary is teh bad" which makes very weak copy.



I have no idea what you're trying to say, but it seems like you're attempting wrestle one end of a rag I'm not holding.

Somebody dropped the ball on maintaining message control. It says very poor things about the Trump campaign generally. There's no excuse. It's amateur and unprofessional. That's all I'm saying.

I'm actually not disagreeing with you. I'm saying, they are trying to run a National Presidential campaign on a shoestring budget and you can hardly blame the limited number of actual professionals trying to operate under that constraint.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And still the kid gloves, despite the obvious question, how did McIver come to put the passages verbatim in the speech? Did Melania not make it clear she was repeating passages when she supposedly told McIver of her admiration of Michelle's speech?

And why a three day delay to come up with the story and the staffer falling on her sword blaming a staffer for the error.

No one in the news media is willing to suggest Melania herself was the plagiarist, or at a minimum complicit.

And the follow up question, is Melania that stupid, thinking no one would find out? Think about it, when she was given the draft, how did she not notice the passages were verbatim if she originally gave them to McIver?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ruh roh.



Emphasis mine.

I didn't mean it wasn't illegal, I meant in the scheme of things, who would prosecute because letterhead was used? You'd have to show the speech writing was done on company time and all they have to say is, no, it was a friend helping on her own time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

GOP strategy for some years has been to ignore any actual problem and 'defend' a much more minor facet vigorously, while complaining that they are being attacked over such a minor thing. This creates feelings of sympathy in the populace while creating the illusion that they have answered for the actual problem. Should the original prosecution be pressed, they can pretend to have already answered it, while simultaneously playing the martyr card by asking "Why do you keep bringing up this minor thing?". It's an inversion of The Big Lie.

Straight out of Rove's Playbook.

 

[NoahFence]

Money is coming in but none is going out. Where's it going?

In his pocket no doubt.

 

[Stacko]

I didn't mean it wasn't illegal, I meant in the scheme of things, who would prosecute because letterhead was used? You'd have to show the speech writing was done on company time and all they have to say is, no, it was a friend helping on her own time.

I just love that their attempts to cover up that Melania was the plagiarizer has snowballed into a bigger problem because of their incompetence.

 

[Upchurch]

God help me. I actually find myself missing George W. Bush now.

He was a idiot and made really awful decisions, but at least he was not bat guano crazy.


The GOP nominee this time is all three.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ruh roh.



Emphasis mine.

Guilty!

Lock him up!

Trump for prison!

 

[Stacko]

Guilty!

Lock him up!

Trump for prison!

 

[Fudbucker]

God help me. I actually find myself missing George W. Bush now.

He was a idiot and made really awful decisions, but at least he was not bat guano crazy.


The GOP nominee this time is all three.

The Bush family boycotted the convention. I'm sure they got a lot of hate for it. I can't believe I would ever feel sympathy for the Bushes.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

To the poll, I answered

Someone else will be the nominee

In my defense, I thought the NeverTrump movement was actually going somewhere, and at the time, I didn't realize that so many of the late-voting states were winner-take all. If it had kept plugging along with Trump taking 30-40% of the delegates in each state, I don't think he would have had enough delegates to be the presumptive nominee (even though the clear leader). I thought Trump wouldn't get it on the first ballot, and then we'd get Romney or someone else on the 2nd or 3rd (or 7th) ballot.