The GOP establishment (which the Refuge dubs “GOPe”) devised a wide-ranging set of tactics to achieve that goal:
1. Hidden within the massive CRomnibus bill to fund the government were obscure federal election law changes that allowed unlimited SuperPAC (large political action committees unaffiliated with specific candidates) contributions.
2. They funded SuperPACs in order to incentivize the desired candidate behavior
3. They changed the nomination rules of the 2016 primary (e.g., “winner take all delegates”) to allow an unpopular candidate like Jeb to secure the nomination with only 20% (one-fifth!) of the delegates
4. They altered the calendar dates of primaries to advantage a weak, establishment candidate (Bush) that had little, if any, grassroots support
All of these tactics were designed to support what the Refuge calls the “Splitter Strategy”: a plan to dilute the GOP field with as many candidates as possible in order to erode the support of a popular, grassroots candidate.
For instance, Cruz vs. Bush was projected to be an utter rout in Florida, with internal polling showing that Cruz would crush Bush. But what would happen if the GOPe added Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio to the mix?
With “splitters” fracturing the support of his biggest challenger, Bush might actually secure a bit more than a fifth of the vote. And — amazingly — that would be enough to dilute support for Ted Cruz sufficiently to win the state’s delegates.
It’s worth noting that Bush didn’t win by gaining support, but by employing “splitters” to fragment Ted Cruz’s support.
Note: the “Splitter Strategy” is not conjecture; the entire GOPe strategy has been copiously documented and exposed by The Last Refuge.
So who is funding the GOPe? While some point to Wall Street, I believe other forces are primarily responsible. Wall Street funds both Democrats and Republicans. They don’t care which party wins. After the 2008 financial crisis, for instance, did a single bankster see a courtroom? No, Barack Obama and Eric Holder were as beholden to Goldman Sachs as any Republican.
My belief is that the central banker for the GOPe is the Chamber of Commerce. While it threatens Republicans and sporadically funds Democrats, the Chamber knows that Democrats have moved sufficiently left that they are indistinguishable from European Socialists. And even they know that socialism is not good for business.
But the Chamber does need cheap labor. Which is where open borders and amnesty enter the equation.
The American people have embraced Donald Trump, in part, because the naked abuse of American sovereignty through open borders, chain migration, and administration endorsement of illegal immigration has resulted in a tidal wave of crime that is now too large to be ignored.
Willingness to Secure the Border as a Proxy for Dependence on the GOP Establishment
Given the GOPE and Chamber’s fervor for open borders, I suggest that we all do a gut-level candidate check: how likely is it that each of the GOP candidates would actually secure the border?
My ratings are as follows:
1. 100% Trump: his entire reputation has been staked on this tenet; failure to follow through would be an utter disaster for his reputation
2. 100% Cruz: unlike the rest of the field, Cruz has been unwavering in his opposition to amnesty and illegal immigration
3. 20% Huckabee: while his track record as governor is not encouraging, Huckabee has been a consistent and vocal opponent of illegal immigration
4. 5% Carson: while I don’t think Ben Carson is necessarily beholden to the GOPe, his positions on immigration are quite inconsistent and confusing.
5. 0% Bush: the third Bush is a lost soul when it comes to illegal immigration; he’s a Chamber man, plain and simple
6. 0% Fiorina: a two-time failure as a CEO (her stints at Lucent and HP were utter and complete disasters); she was also a massive loser as a Senate candidate in Cali. Fiorina is an establishment candidate who openly supports Amnesty for illegals
7. 0% Walker: his record as governor is outstanding; his secret dealings on amnesty make it obvious that he is a tool of the GOPe
8. 0% Rubio: his wavering positions on amnesty notwithstanding, as recently as last month Rubio asserted support for amnesty prior to a border closure initiative
9. 0% Christie: in-state tuition for illegals says it all; Christie has a long track record of tacitly endorsing illegal immigration
10. 0% Paul: a supporter of Mitch McConnell in 2014, Paul has transformed himself from a libertarian rebel to an establishment toadie. His record on amnesty is emblematic of his apparent ties to the Chamber
11. 0% Kasich: John Kasich is a vocal supporter of amnesty and open borders
12. 0% Graham: Lindsey Graham? Who?
To reiterate: my proxy for conservatism is now as simple as a candidate’s willingness to seal the border.
I encourage you to do the same thought experiment I engaged in. If you had to bet $1,000 on one candidate who would actually seal the border, on which person would you place your wager? (For more from the author of “SMASHING the GOP ESTABLISHMENT: Trump, Bush, Cruz and Me” please click HERE)