All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Saturday, February 17, 2018

"Prominent Republican Donor" can pound salt

"Prominent Republican Donor Issues Ultimatum on Assault Weapons" blared the headline in the New York Times. (Not linked because it is a pay wall.)

That fat-cat-calls-the-shots crap may work in the Democratic Party but in Trump's party, the people call the shots -- not Rich Uncle Pennybags.


The guy in the red hat is the only Prominent Trump Donor who matters.

Donald John Trump won despite this particular "Prominent Republican Donor," Al Hoffman Jr.

Hoffman is a real estate magnate in Florida who sided with Hillary and opposed Trump's election.

"We’re headed for destruction. I just hope we can find a group of conservatives and moderates who are rational thinkers to re-establish the party," Hoffman told the Times in August 2016.

Hoffman wrote a piece in USA Today on April 5, 2016: "Big donors can save democracy from Donald Trump."

Really?

He wanted to save democracy from people electing people that a "Prominent Republican Donor" decides is not worthy?

In his piece, Hoffman admitted: "Are mega-donors without sin? Of course not. Raising seven figures for a candidate grants you access that the average voter will never see. This unfairness has been a source of major voter ire this cycle. Injustice makes people angry. And it is angry voters who have been pulling levers for Trump."

Hoffman got the Portuguese ambassadorship from George Walker Bush.

In 2016, the big money went to Hillary. She collected a billion from big donors.

Trump put up $66 million of his own money, collected a record amount of small donations as well as big ones, and spent half as much as she did.

He won.

But Trump winning without Hoffman did not stop Hoffman from issuing an ultimatum.

"I will not write another check unless they all support a ban on assault weapons. Enough is enough!" Hoffman wrote his congressman.

Um, the ban expired on President George Walker Bush's watch.

The assault weapons ban did not prevent Columbine.

Hoffman said the Republicans are beholden to the National Rifle Association.

I prefer they cater to a group of 5 million people than one man who writes a check for $5 million.

@@@

From Leslie Eastman's review at Legal Insurrection:
Surber, a recovering journalist with over 30 years of experience, has been cataloging the #FakeNews that has been regularly offered as serious analysis of President Donald Trump’s actions, policies, and opinions. He has brought his enormous collection together in the longest, most serious book he has yet written: Fake News Follies 2017.
"Fake News Follies of 2017" is available on Kindle and in paperback.

Autographed copies are available. Email me at DonSurber@GMail.com for details. I am including a "director's cut." I'll email you back the original Chapter 1 that I cut because while the chapter was amusing, it really had nothing to do with the "Fake News Follies of 2017."

Ben Garrison did the cover and I am so happy with it. I told him what the book was about, sent him a copy of the manuscript, and he came up with a perfect cover. I am so pleased.



25 comments:

  1. Calling yourself a Republican doesn't make you a republican. Holding Republican values makes you a Republican. Disregarding the 2nd Amendment is not a Republican value. Ergo, this wanker is not one of us and never was. He and his money are unwelcome here. I'm sure John McCain would be happy to take it, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm with Don, and the NRA. Hoffman apparently does not understand firearms. Or NRA members.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Hoffman is as clueless - or disingenuous - as they come. Progressive Leftist background noise. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you aren't a member join now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only practical solution to the problem was yesterday's op-ed by Newt Gingrich. Concealed carry.
    And the question too few have ever asked about such stories: What psychotropic drugs was he on, and WHEN did he stop taking them?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like the idea suggested by quite a lot of people: armed teachers (and/or parent volunteers and school staff) on as many campuses as possible.
    1) when seconds count, police are minutes away
    2) kids from the many fatherless families will have (in many cases) a male role model who is safeguarding the school "family"
    3) people will learn the value of self reliance, community spirit and how to integrate firearms into everyday life

    JimNorCal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with arming teachers is that in some of the worst schools, there would be a risk of a teacher getting over powered for her gun. One solution would be a biometric storage container. Such a container would allow the teacher to access he weapon with a touch. It could also be set to notify the front office when the chamber is opened.
      I believe that if we required teachers to have two or more years of military service before allowing them to teach we would be better off. Then require them to take regular firearms proficiency courses. I want the drone teaching my grand kids to be more patriotic than Washington, and better armed than the police.

      Delete
    2. One solution would be to allow the teacher (or teachers) to blow away said student trying to get the gun from teacher.

      We are too soft on school violence, especially student (considered children, of course) against teachers and student vs student. Too often the vile miscreants, true psychos and murderers, are given a slap on the wrist and put right back into the same school to attack and hurt the same people they previously assaulted.

      Screw it.

      Time to get tough with the schools.

      Simple solution. Encourage Vets to teach, with a 10% increase in salary if they do so while packing. Get rid of our current crop of socialist pandering teachers and bring in more vets. My best teachers were all either vets or those who were not able to join for physical reasons yet still supported our nation and our military.

      More vets, less socialists. And gun up and nut up.

      Delete
    3. An essential requirement of arming teachers is trained, willing and able to accept the responsibility of CCW. Those who don't want to should not. I'm quite sure that there will be enough that are capable, and the whole point of "concealed carry" is that no one needs to know who they are.

      Delete
  7. So Hoffman is going to stop writing checks? hillary will be devastated in 2020.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The usual argument by authority. "Look! You are a conservative/Republican! See what this prominent conservative/Republican says! How can you do other than what that person has said?"

    Yeah, what ever. I say otherwise - why isn't that guy doing what I say?

    -Mikey NTH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I have a lot of money, so I'm smarter than you!"

      Yeah, he can go jump in a lake.

      Delete
  9. And when they ban the A-R, some kid comes in and shoots up a school and they're going to go for that weapon, and then the next time...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Washington Navy Yard shooter used a Remington 870 pump shotgun (available since the 1950's) that he sawed off. Banning specific types of weapons will make them feel good ("I'm helping!") but achieve nothing.

      Sort of like the Leftist lifestyle.

      -Mikey NTH

      Delete
  10. When one could mail order firearms in the 1950's and before, we did not have school shootings. NYC gangs ued at most zip guns. Firearms are restricted much more today, yet we have these shootings. The M-1 carbine was the assault weapon of that time having available 15 and 30 round magazines; and they could be mail ordered yet this 73 year old doesn't remember school or other shootings with that firearm..
    Rather than gun control, why aren't we talking about the disintegration of the family with many male children not having a father to instill self discipline and teaching males on how to handle failure in one's life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “Prominent Republican Donor" can pound salt”

    And him on a low-sodium diet too. That’s harsh, Don.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Methinks Mr. Hoffman is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Wait, no, that's not right. He's a sheep in wolf's clothing. We Surberites are the wolves, y'all. We be Junkyard Dogs. We got this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Hoffman supported Jeb! Me thinks he's still butt hurt from the primaries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha Evi! Goin to CPAC on Thursday and will pass along best wishes from you for all (any?) Shrubs I see.

      Delete
  14. What's next after your "assault weapons" ban, Hoffman, you ignorant rich fool? A BAR semiauto hunting rifle that comes in the heavier and more powerful 300 Magnum looks like a traditional hunting rifle, and even though it only takes a 4 round mag, packs a hell of a punch, and guys who practice changing mags can put out rounds damn near as quickly as somebody with a 20 round mag.

    Take a look at this chart, Mr. Hoffman, if you would like to learn some facts instead of just spewing emotional horse manure. https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

    ReplyDelete
  15. My thoughts when I read the first report from the so-called republican donor. NOT much of a rebuplican to me? If he went for jeb bushkie he is a USELESS TURD any way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The following two points are never mentioned when gun control/ rights/ ownership is talked about. And they seem important - and helpful - to me.

    *** 1) The 2nd Amendment is not the polar opposite of 'No private citizen can own a gun'. 'Every private citizen must own a gun' is the polar opposite.

    The 2nd Amendment has always been the middle ground. And it is the "natural resting state" between the two opposite solutions; which probably explains its enduring support.

    ***2) The campaign against Drunk Driving greatly reduced the number of deaths due to intoxicated drivers. The campaign focused on the animate (humans); not the inanimate (alcohol).

    Alcohol was not prohibited, and it's use was still permitted.

    The campaign "actions" - Legal, Financial, Social - were focused on a combination of the animate and inanimate (i.e., the consequences of human behavior when alcohol was combined with driving). And very importantly - those that were complicit were targeted too: Bars, Restaurants, Employers, Parents, etc.

    ***It strikes me that if the goal is to reduce deaths due to Mass Shootings, then the solution needs to be in line with the above.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Second Amendment is not just for hunting, self-defense or even supporting "the security of a free state". It is also to keep government from becoming tyrannical.

    If you want Americans to give up their guns, you might start by ceasing the efforts to overturn our elections by wiretapping and framing your political opponents. It doesn't really make people want to disarm.

    ReplyDelete
  18. One Anonymous Source = published article.

    Is it the reporter's Mom?

    I bet its his Mom.

    Did he "some say" in the article also? I love that! Every time a "reporter" wants to speak in his own voice in what purports to be a "news" piece, they say "some say..." and everything after that is the reporter's personal opinion.

    Sarah Huckabee Sanders ought to start refusing to take ANY questions about any "news" whose sole source is a report based entirely on anonymous sources. No source named? You have no source, you don't deserve an answer to your #fakenews based question. When you get a source to go on the record on this, if ever, then you can ask the question.

    Should be a basic ground rule for the press room. No named source = you get no comment in response to all your questions, because you don't have any basis for your question yet.

    ReplyDelete