His coalition includes not just rock-ribbed conservatives and God-fearing evangelicals but Ivy-League-educated professionals. Some realize he’s not actually that authentically conservative and look the other way. Some, who fancy themselves moderates, admire the businessman’s malleability....Isn't the strongest antagonism to Trump coming from conservatives? That's how it looks to me. But maybe that's because he's fighting other Republicans now and taking what they see as their party away. Democrats can still inhabit the place called denial, where reality is almost half a year away. It's a calmer, less frenetic place and the words of the day are not "panic" and "freakout."
The more that Republican elites express alarm, the more a swath of these folks think that Trump might be just the change agent that’s needed to nuke Washington.... From Massachusetts, for instance, The Post’s Ben Terris argues that Trump is the favorite because he’s perfectly channeled the voice and spirit of a loudmouthed sports fan from the state....
To be sure, many who harbor pro-Trump sentiments have not fully thought through the implications of making him the Republican standard bearer or, more significantly, the president of these United States.... It’s also undeniable that Trump terrifies up to half of self-identified Republicans. They worry that he’s making a mockery of conservatism....
ADDED: When I wrote "Isn't the strongest antagonism to Trump coming from conservatives?," I was thinking of Establishment Republicans as well as the more ideological conservatives who don't think the Establishment is conservative at all. That shows where I am. I'm a moderate!
And as long as I'm here, let me link to this Elizabeth Price Foley post at Instapundit, linking to Laura Ingraham on “The Suicide of the GOP Establishment.”
Posts
120 comments:
The strongest push back is from insiders / establishment / coastal elite in the party. I fell like the conservatives would like Cruz, the pro-amnesty Fox News establishment wing wants Rubio, and a whole lotta people (including some Democrats who feel out of sorts with THEIR weak choices of Communist or Liar) want none of the above, aka Trump.
It's because Donald Trump radiates positive energy on the campaign trail.
The failure to launch a winning plan on the part of doctrinaire conservatives does not constitute a panicked freakingout emergency on my part.
Wait. What is the difference between secretly, and not on the record? It's only a secret if I alone know it. If you know it, it's not a secret.
Trump is essentially a third party candidate that decided to run as a Republican. If he becomes POTUS, the GOP fears, with good reason, that he will take over the party and freeze out those who don't support him. A vote for Trump, is a vote to destroy the GOP as we know it.
Boyd for the early win.
Hohman: . Some realize he’s not actually that authentically conservative...
Some? Who are these people who think he is conservative?
He does says lots of the right things that professional politicians avoid like the plague, but he has no philosophical center, no basis for judgement by a prospective voter. And his mannerisms are that of a 14 year old who has never been told "No." I personally think he would be a dangerous choice for president, untrustworthy and lacking in controls or limits.
I'm don't know anyone who will admit liking Trump. I do know people who admit to liking Bernie Sanders. I cannot fathom either choice in a person of reasonable intelligence.
It's like the gradient scale of corruptness some commenters here apply to things - Wholly secret, partially secret, not secret-secret.
"A vote for Trump, is a vote to destroy the GOP as we know it."
And if I were a Democrat, I'd be delighted. Hmm.
Who are these people who think he is conservative?
Apparently tri-corner hat, Goldwater Girl conservatives do not dominate the Republican Party! Whodathunkit before now?
Due to the collective intellect of our Founders, I sort of look forward to a Trump Triumph.
Just eight years ago the country elected the most ideological President I can remember and gave him a veto proof majority in both houses. Even with all that, the new government was unable to "fundamentally transform" the US due to it being built upon the carefully thought out Constitution.
If Trump is, indeed, a disaster, then he is gone in 4 years either doing great things or very little. So I'm all for breaking up that old gang. Thank you Madison (the man, not the city) for you and all your amazing buddies.
Secret is one of those words that doesn't look spelled correctly after you write it a number of times.
"the GOP fears, with good reason, that he will take over the party and freeze out those who don't support him" Hence a Prez Trump vs. GOP House dynamic, with Trump reaching out to Dem allies to get things done.
That whole "conservative" act was just fake posturing adopted by GOP insiders after they realized just how popular Reagan was in retrospect.
Oh, and Rush.
So you had the spectacle of every congressman's mouthpiece running around assuring voting groups how conservative their boss was...of course...to some it meant antiabortion, to others it meant tax cuts, small government, WOT.
I could tell by their vagueness that a lot of flummery was going down.
Trump freaks out the Establishment more than Conservatives. The Establishment wants the gravy train to continue. Many Conservatives have given up, and are in search of fiddles to play while Washington D.C. burns.
“Nobody has been able to lay a fing-ah on Trump!” a Massachusetts man declared to a local radio station.
This made me laugh. Sounds exactly like swamp yankee AM radio. I can hear the lead-in in my head: "Hey, Frankie in Quincy, what's on your mind?"
Funny, but loud-mouthed Republican talk-radio-callers in Massachusetts are not going to deliver Trump the state in a general election, any more than disaffected farriers will deliver California.
Most voters are uneducated or rationally ignorant about policy issues. But the GOP primary voters aren't buying low taxes for the rich, ship jobs overseas and open borders for illegals to take the jobs that remain. Plus the stupid wars and increased debt of compassionate conservatism doesn't sell anymore. There aren't enough consultants and lobbyists to make a viable political party.
Not American conservatives, but rather Party conservatives.
"Trump freaks out the Establishment more than Conservatives."
I could have worded the post a bit differently and would have if I'd thought about how — to staunch ideological conservatives — the Establishment isn't conservative.
Many of us, like me, are fed up.
I think Cruz can send that fed up message as well as Trump. But, from the beginning they said, Never Cruz!
So, OK, you'll get Trump.
Amexpat said...
A vote for Trump, is a vote to destroy the GOP as we know it.
True, but there could also be a down side.
Trump will get a lot of crossover votes from Democrats, far more than Hillary will get from Republicans. Times aren't good, not getting better and Hillary can't disavow Obama and no one is suggesting Obama would win a third term if he could run again. As Gore discovered in better times that Bill Clinton just wasn't that popular Hillary is going to discover that Obama just isn't that popular. What remains to be seen is if Trump starts campaigning for Republicans in the House and Senate and if he does, does he have coattails? If he wins, and helps get Republicans in Congress elected he really could be a consequential president. Incidentally how many Congressional Republicans are going to vote against repealing ObamaCare, denying illegals welfare benefits and be against deporting criminal aliens? Right there is most of Trump's campaign pledge.
Funny, but loud-mouthed Republican talk-radio-callers in Massachusetts are not going to deliver Trump the state in a general election,
They delivered a Senate seat once.
I could have worded the post a bit differently and would have if I'd thought about how to staunch ideological conservatives, the Establishment isn't conservative.
True, thus the National Review freak out and George Will's and Charles Krauthammer's stringent objections to Trump as the GOP banner carrier.
For some reason, open borders and free trade has become holy writ for the "conservative" movement. I fail to see why that should be so. Though I would note that conservative thought on those subjects is compatible with the Establishment's and that conservative think tanks and magazines are not money making institutions, they rely on contributions.
It's the GOP establishment who's going crazy. If Trump gets in, all their lovely backroom deals become threatened.
The Republican Party was founded by former mainstream American Whigs after the Whig Party collapsed as a national party for being suspected of abolitionist sympathies in the South. As a decided minority party, the founders were not particular about whom they courted; just if you have a problem with the Democrats, whatever it is, come on down!
And the Republicans remained the rabble-rousing party right up to 1932. Teddy Rosevelt was the original "progressive" politician, and the "prairie populists" were Republican. That terrible Herbert Hoover, the "boy wonder," was the world's leading "bleeding heart" do-gooder of the age, who saved the Russian Bolsheviks' bacon in the famines following WWI, and the chief proponent of government intervention to relieve the economic collapse here in the USA after the stock market crash of 1929, but was consistently blocked by Franklin Roosevelt and the Democrat Party, who ran on a platform of economic responsibility and balancing the budget in 1932.
So, please spare me the hyper-ventilation about traditional "Republican principles!"
I've said before - Trump is not my kind of guy, but he has so many of the right enemies that it might be worth seeing him win just to see them cry.
Probably feel like a hangover the next morning.
Whatever.
"Many Conservatives have given up, and are in search of fiddles to play while Washington D.C. burns."
If it were just DC, I'd bring graham crackers, marshmallows and chocolate. And probably some accelerant.
But , but, but...what about the real and Pure Conservatives?
Yeah, yeah. You can find more people taken up and sexually assaulted by outer space aliens than you can find Pure Conservatives and KKK members combined.Those are non existent figments of the imagination.
Just because AM radio needs Rush Limbaugh's mind for entertainment does not mean Rush is talking about real things any more than if he was saying what type of Angels are coming over the Radio.
Trump's only crime is being an intelligent realist who is blowing the whistle on the fairy tales fed the traditional voters in need of a cult intervention.
Ergo: the educated and intelligent folks in every region of the USA are rooting The Donald on. The fantasists are all crying foul.
( See,Jack Shafer's article in Politico on a local Georgia man who ran a Trump style campaign for Senate here two years ago.)
Amexpat said...
A vote for Trump, is a vote to destroy the GOP as we know it.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The GOP establishment (GOPe) as we know it is almost indistinguishable from the Democrat establishment. They're both for their own empowerment and enrichment at everyone else's expense. Crony capitalism is equal across both parties with only some of the cronies changing. Even most of the cronies are the same because they know that the best return on investment you can possibly get today is to buy politicians of both parties.
Back in 2005 when Republicans controlled both sides of Congress and the White House, their number one priority was the porkfest known at the Highway Bill. That's when I knew they'd been completely co-opted by the Beltway Establishment. When Obama became president, he controlled both sides of Congress. Two years later, Republicans won control of the House. They promptly did nothing to stop Obama's abuses. In 2014, they got control of the Senate. Once again, they raced to be the fastest to cave to Obama. If that's the best the GOP can do, the party deserves to be destroyed. Quite frankly, I despise the GOPe about as much as I do the Democrats.
I'm going to vote for Cruz this afternoon. As much as the GOPe dislikes Trump, they despise Cruz. Odds are, Trump is going to get the GOP nomination. If so, I'll vote for him in November. There's no way on Earth that I'd vote for the corrupt, lying scumbag Hillary or an avowed socialist Sanders. Trump wasn't my first choice. He wasn't even in my top 5 choices. But as bad as he may be, I still think he'll be better than Hillary, Sanders, or anyone else the Democrats put on the ballot.
People like Ingraham keep saying that the GOP establishment doesn't listen to them; well, perhaps that's because people like Ingraham are either serial liars or hopelessly confused. They say they are tired of business as usual in Washington, and then campaign to elect an obvious con-man, a "deal-maker" who is so personally steeped in "business as usual" that he leaves a slimy trail for thousands of miles. I for one call bullshit.
I have no horse in this race, since I won't vote for any of the GOP candidates now running. I'd rather "throw away" my vote on a candidate I agree with than compromise my principles. But Ingraham's argument falls flat with me for one important reason: There is absolutely zero evidence that Trump won't do the same thing - or worse, he'll most likely pursue what amounts to Obama's policy on social issues. The only way anyone can call themselves "conservative" and embrace that alternative is if they are mentally ill.
Face it: whoever the GOP candidate is at this point, the people Ingraham claims to speak for are going to get screwed. All they are really fighting about is whether they're screwed by an ambitious handsome young Latino or a failed businessman and serial polygamist from New York.
"Many readers would probably be stunned by some of the people who are secretly supporting Trump and don’t want to admit it on the record."
Comprehensive Immigration Reform is bringing these people out of the shadows.
I love Drudge's main picture today, showing all the Republican debaters pledging allegiance. (And thanks to Ann for attuning me to his barely subliminal messaging.)
Perfect on a day that all the neocon/open border "Conservatives" are taking the "#NeverTrump" oath.
Trump is a winner. He will probably put up a car Dealer size huge American Flag on a 100 foot tall pole on his White House lawn. Just to say have a nice day, to the GOP Lobbyists as they look back on the City that they are leaving to find jobs.
A vote for Trump, is a vote to destroy the GOP as we know it.
Not seeing a negative on that.
Hence a Prez Trump vs. GOP House dynamic, with Trump reaching out to Dem allies to get things done.
The GOP House has reached out to Dems to pass bills conservatives hated for a while now. This would be nothing new.
True, thus the National Review freak out and George Will's and Charles Krauthammer's stringent objections to Trump as the GOP banner carrier.
I can tolerate Will and Krauthammer's stuff as Trump isn't an obsession --- but fuck, the NR is ALL about Trump. They spend no time discussing who is supported...it's all "We hate Trump". I don't see how that's useful for a conservative publication.
I have no horse in this race, since I won't vote for any of the GOP candidates now running. I'd rather "throw away" my vote on a candidate I agree with than compromise my principles. But Ingraham's argument falls flat with me for one important reason: There is absolutely zero evidence that Trump won't do the same thing - or worse, he'll most likely pursue what amounts to Obama's policy on social issues. The only way anyone can call themselves "conservative" and embrace that alternative is if they are mentally ill.
So Cruz is that conservative and you won't vote for him, either. I'm not sure you know what your principles are.
Ever since the Trump surge there's been this weird popular binary narrative: If you're a Republican and you don't love Trump it must mean
- you're a member of the establishment elite (or coastal elite or whatever).
- you're for amnesty.
- you're generally happy with the status quo in the GOP
It's as if you can't dislike Trump and disagree with all those other things. It's an idiotic narrative but I swear it's been assumed ad nauseam all over the place. Most pro-Trump arguments seem to tread these tired points. I'm sick of it.
I think the idea is that Trump might reach out to Democrats in Congress to pass bills the progressives hate.
I second nanopod.
The "letter to the editor...in yesterday's Financial Times quoted in the linked WP article is an astonishingly illogical and pretentious screed. Goes to show, fella can have big vocabulary but still be an "uninformed voter."
After dissing "neanderthal Republicans, noting Hillary's "email lapses", and marking Cruz and Rubio as "backward, foolish, and inexperienced," we get "...The Donald, really a moderate in wolf's garb, who would owe nothing to either party and might strike deals, for instance on tax reform."
TAX REFORM? Do you mean "re-forming" as "an adjustment in the shape of" like adding a few more special programs, exemptions, and credits here and there? Or do you mean REFORM as in REFORMED FELON or REFORMED ALCOHOLIC. If that, then go with someone prepared to eliminate special interests or better yet kill the income tax entirely. Your best bet for that is Cruz.
What Trump is, is a narcissistic cypher - Same as the current guy whose specific platform was Hope and Change to Make America Great Again. Pig-in-a-poke.
Hagar said...
I think the idea is that Trump might reach out to Democrats in Congress to pass bills the progressives hate.
Like what?
Some of who might support Trump are doing so for the same reasons that Spock ignited the Fuel in The Galileo Seven episode. When absolutely nothing else works, an act of pure desperation is logical. Can Trump really be any worse than what we have seen out of Washington over the last 15 years.
Everyone is just confused.
So many people on all sides claiming to know things they don't, fooling themselves as well as anyone listening. Trump this, Trump that, pro and anti-Trump, and Trump himself, everything said these days is in a fog of chaos.
Nobody knows where this is going.
I think the idea is that Trump might reach out to Democrats in Congress to pass bills the progressives hate.
Well the Congressional Republican leadership have been reaching out to Democrats to pass bills that conservatives hate for years, so turnabout is fair play.
"It's the GOP establishment who's going crazy. If Trump gets in, all their lovely backroom deals become threatened."-Jillie
What's that line from The Who song, "Won't Get Fooled Again"?
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Your projecting, since Trump is, by his own boasting, a tremendous deal maker.
Cruz is the candidate most likely to shake up Washington. Trump is the candidate most likely to shake up the world, and not in a good way.
While I would prefer to see Cruz elected, I think it is most likely that Kasich can slightly move the barge away from the precipice- the looming economic downturn.
Which is a reason we don't need a trade war right now, which Trump has threatened.
Rubio
Kasich
Cruz
Sanders
Satan himself
Clinton
Trump
IN THAT ORDER.
""Many readers would probably be stunned by some of the people who are secretly supporting Trump and don’t want to admit it on the record.""
Probably some of those folks who found the waiting room at a hospital emergency room looking like a bus depot in rural Mexico. Facist rightwingers one and all.
Tolerating massive illegal immigration is not "conservative".
The idea that we are discussing "principles" is mistaken.
Political principles are contingent. They aren't independent of circumstances, nothing is independent of circumstances - see Ortega y Gasset.
Much politico-philosophical argumentation from principles seems to me just complex exercises in rationalization.
They don't want to admit they are voting for Trump because they want to maintain plausible deniability. "I didn't vote for Trump! It was those other Trumpbots."
They don't want to have their names on the record if/when he implodes in the election or worse actually wins.
"Isn't the strongest antagonism to Trump coming from conservatives? That's how it looks to me. But maybe that's because he's fighting other Republicans now and taking what they see as their party away."
We conservatives don't like him because we know he's not actually a conservative. But we can't help watching in amusement as he rips apart the GOPe (because they are also not conservative and are a-holes to boot). We also like the fact that he's ripping into Clinton Inc. in the way we've wanted the GOP to do for at least 20 years. So yeah, Cruz is our guy, but if/when he loses, we'll reluctantly pull the lever for The Hair. Because we really hate Clinton.
jille wrote:
It's the GOP establishment who's going crazy. If Trump gets in, all their lovely backroom deals become threatened.
Trump literally brags about what lovely awesome great deals will be had once he becomes president. So, who do you think he will be having those deals with? You don't think they will be done in back rooms.
This is why I have so much contempt for trumpbots. You think the guy who wrote The Art Of The Deal who says "sometimes you have to be establishment and make deals" who told the Times, if we are to believe the rumors, that he actually is more flexible on immigration than he so up front about will somehow come to Washington and stop the back room deals.
That is his sole purpose. He is saying he is the BEST deal maker.
If teump wants to get things done he will need to work with either establishment republicans or establishment democrats and make back room deals.
"He is saying he is the BEST deal maker."
I don't know, but it seems to me that this is the most honest boast any politician can make.
Just got back from voting (for Cruz!) and talked to an acquaintance who is a big time Republican. He's also a big time broker (billion dollar+ book). He voted for Trump. He said most of the calls he's fielded in the last few weeks weren't about their portfolios, but about Voting for Trump. He said they were all very relieved as the establishment conservatives online, like Chuck, and the pundits and publications have all been so anti-Trump. Sorry, GOPe, the dam broke -- we're in charge now. You're Gang of Eight water boy is toast.
Assume the position.
**your**. Damn I hate fat fingers and autocorrect!
I used to like Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter a lot more than I do in 2016. I even liked Coulter's vituperation on immigration, except insofar as it would lose elections. If it won elections, I'd be okay with it.
But this is bullshit. I'll put Ingraham in bold type:
If Marco Rubio becomes president, we can expect:
1.) That he will work with Democrats and the GOP leadership in Congress to pass something that looks like the Gang of Eight amnesty bill.
No, wrong. The House will never pass anything like "amnesty." This House had that chance, once, and refused. The only way we will get "amnesty" is if Trump is the nominee and blows the election so spectacularly that we get another Democrat in the White House plus a Democrat majority of something like 55-58 votes in the Senate. And that could definitely happen.
2.) That he will urge Congress to pass any trade agreements that Obama has signed.
I'm not clear what this is supposed to mean. Is she talking about TPP? Most economists, most business leaders, on a bipartisan basis, support TPP. Is there some other big trade deal signed by Obama? Obama has actually bucked the influence of some of his union-boss supporters on TPP. I am trying to figure out what the problem is in all of this.
3.) That he will send significant numbers of U.S. troops to the Middle East.
Only if they are needed, and if they can do a whole lot more good than harm. And if that's the case, who WOULDN'T send U.S. troops to ensure the security of Israel, of global oil supplies, of general peace and stability? Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham couldn't even support their man Trump when Trump went off on his "Bush lied people died" jag.
4.) That his foreign policy will be developed by many of the same people who advised George W. Bush.
Who? How does Laura Ingraham know? Which people should Rubio avoid? And why? Which people from the G.W. Bush Administration should be included? And why? What sort of smear game is Laura Ingraham playing by even asking that question?
5.) That his economic policy will reflect the views of those who were in power when the United States was hit by the economic crisis of 2008.
Again; who? Who exactly is Laura Ingraham blaming for that economic crisis?
The subtext here is that "Rubio would be like Bush! You don't want that, do you?" The same Bush that Laura Ingraham largely supported, defended, and never questioned until Trump came along. If Laura is trying to appeal to folks who really were marginal Republicans previously, and who don't like any memories of the Bush43 era, that's okay, but she's written off that other demographic that I like to refer to as "Republicans."
Conservatism is a funny thing. I have known every flavor of "conservative", and my general impression isn't "principles", but diversity. The existence of conservatism as a political alignment is a negative reaction to a fuzzy set of truly homogenizing ideologies, the "left", "social democracy", "socialism", "communism".
A conservative who assumes that there is a specific box where one can gather all proper believers hasn't got much perspective.
Fabi, when you say "we're in charge now," just who is "we"? And how do you define "in charge"?
Trump has definitely gotten my full attention...and I'm fairly conservative. Peggy Noonan's recent column in the WSJ hit the nail squarely.
- Krumhorn
Trump's new theme song opening the GOP convention is going to be sung by the Momon Tabernacle Choir who will sit in the Establishment Donors vacant seats with the Battlehem of the Republic [ an old NYC values song} followed by It's My Party and I'll Cry if IWant To dedicated to Mitt and the entire Bush family.
"Fabi, when you say "we're in charge now," just who is "we"? And how do you define "in charge"?"
Precisely. This is a fine question for anyone to ask.
Who IS in charge? And what sort of powers have they got? This is not at all clear.
The only thing that's perfectly clear is that the people one assumes should be in charge as per the chain of command, explicitly defined powers and responsibilities, and etc. most certainly aren't.
The fundamentalist religious conservatives in my Facebook feed despise Trump.
Regular American voters, Chuck. Not the donor class or the morons at the National Review. They had their chance and blew it. They only have themselves to blame.
And remember that rant you went on the other day about putting people on a list who might put Trump in the White House? Try keeping your emotions under control, big boy -- there could always be someone else keeping a list, too. lol
I just don't get the Trumpkins:
If you hate Bush, McCain, Romney, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, Justice Roberts, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and pretty much every Republican whose name you can think of in Washington, why are you so intent on mixing it up in Republican Party politics?
Why not get your own party? Call it the Reform Party. Or the National Front Party. Or the National Socialists, or the Monster Raving Looney Party.
If there is absolutely no one in the Republican Party whom you like and respect and wish to follow -- and since Donald Trump is more generally regarded with the revulsion you see from me on a daily basis -- why do you keep coming back for more abuse from Republicans? Just go get your own party.
Chuck,
Perhaps it is their party and they are throwing out the others. Nothing stopping Ryan and McConnell from joining the Bull Moose Party. A political party belongs to those who control it.
The liberals in my Facebook feed really hate Trump. But then someone always pipes up and says how much "scarier" Rubio and Cruz are.
Fabi, you say you voted for Cruz. You can rest assured that you won't be bothered by me for that choice.
I am one of those people who really dig in on, "I told you so." It's my worst habit.
"The morons at the National Review" have been the avatars for fair-minded, articulate, non-racist conservatism for about 50 years. I'm not going to hold it against them, that they have decided not to support the most reckless, uncivilized, hateful candidate in American presidential politics in my lifetime.
I will never, ever regret opposing Trump. That is so easy to say. I don't care if he gets the nomination, or even if he wins the election. He doesn't stand for me, doesn't represent me, and I don't ever want to have to defend the stupid shit he says.
And as I have said before, if Trump is the nominee of my party, I will vote for him. Because I am a good Republican. A better Republican, than the mouth-breathers who say they don't like Obama but who didn't like Mitt Romney or John McCain enough to vote for them. Those are what ya'll call shitty Republicans.
They worry that he’s making a mockery of conservatism....
The beginning of conservative mockery was when Bush 41 capitulated to Mitchell and broke his "no new taxes" pledge. They turned and beat him silly.
When Paul Ryan lets a $4 Trillion dollar budget fly by without even a whimper, that mocks conservatism. Maybe Ryan could take the microphone to slam Obama as much as he does to denounce Trump when the media demands the ceremonial righteous indignation.
Ryan let himself look like a rookie last election while that smarmy VP Biden laughed at him. He was unnerved.
If there is absolutely no one in the Republican Party whom you like and respect and wish to follow -- and since Donald Trump is more generally regarded with the revulsion you see from me on a daily basis -- why do you keep coming back for more abuse from Republicans? Just go get your own party.
Because year after year the Republicans promise to give us what we want and then they don't follow through.
Poor little Chuckie. Thinks he owns the Republican brand. Sessions, Christie and Gingrich disagree with you -- but I guess the aren't real Republicans now. Keep condescending, Chuck. Being a sore loser isn't very becoming.
mccullough said...
Chuck,
Perhaps it is their party and they are throwing out the others. Nothing stopping Ryan and McConnell from joining the Bull Moose Party. A political party belongs to those who control it.
Then good fucking luck with that! "My" side owns the Senate leadership, every Senate committee, the House leadership, the party fundraising, practically every national Republican/conservative think tank.
What do you have? Besides 29% of the primary vote? You've got a lot of ground to make up.
There are plenty of Republicans I respect....just none of them are running for President this cycle.
Cruz gives off an faint whiff of Nixon and late afternoon beard shadow.
Rubio had my attention with his magnificent speech on the floor of the FL House when he resigned as speaker, and he has been on a steady decline since. I love Carson, but he just can't take it to The Hilldebeast. Plus, he's a little wacky in unpredictable ways. The Ohio governor (the spelling of whose name I'm too lazy to look up) is certainly qualified and a decent guy to boot, but W was qualified and decent and the lefties routinely ate his lunch without a single burp, protest, or blows thrown.
Trump can definitely take it to The Beast. When the Pope weighed in and then retreated in a hurry licking wounds, THAT got my attention. I don't insist that every conservative solution gets put into play; I'll be plenty happy if the leftie juggernaut is stopped and reversed...even a little.
-Krumhorn
Interestingly, fundamentalist Christians hate everyone they cannot control. Hate is a fundamental tenant. It comes down to God hating everybody with Moses Law, and they don't allow any escapes.
When asked about that, the answer goes into Dispensationalism. It seems God's Dispensation was mean until Jesus came. Then the Church that worshiped Jesus as God were loving everybody in a new Dispensation, but then God suddenly wrote the Bible, changed his mind again and got double mean.
"My" side? Oh, Chuck. Just lie back and think of the donor class.
I just don't get the Trumpkins: … Why not get your own party?
Why should Trump “get” another party when he already has the GOP firmly in hand? As for me personally, I have never been a member of the GOP; I am an independent who usually has to vote Republican – which I will do once again – for Trump, thanks all the same.
Newsflash! No one “owns” the GOP. Not the commentor, not the eGOP. The voters determine who leads the GOP. If the commentor does not like the voters’ chosen leader, which will shortly be Trump, he is free to jump ship and vote for Hillary, or, need I say it? Maybe the commentor needs to start his own party. He could call it the Really Good Party, the Compliant Party or maybe the Stop Trump Party.
Well, I guess I know how you feel, in part.
Chris Christie was that same sort of disappointment to me. I never voted for him, since I'm not from New Jersey. But I liked him, at first. I thought he would be tough on unions, and run a tight budget, and generally be good for NJ and later for the nation.
But then I saw what he did, in pandering for the federal Pork Bill for Really Bad Storm Sandy. And I lost all confidence in him. That's a severe disappointment. So I know how let down someone can feel from something like that.
"The morons at the National Review" have been the avatars for fair-minded, articulate, non-racist conservatism for about 50 years"
More like 60 years, since @1955
I was a great fan of the "National Review" for, oh, 30 years or so, 1975-2005ish. Always got my copy somehow. It is certainly not the magazine now that it was in WFBs day. It is not the witty, gracious, broad minded, piquant and deeply subversive thing that it was. It had truly eccentric, un-categorizable people then, like Florence King. The new one has homogenized itself with cookie cutter "intellectuals".
Krumhorn said...
There are plenty of Republicans I respect....just none of them are running for President this cycle.
Who? Kasich? (I can spell that one for you.) Who else? We might agree on some names! (Although I'd be delighted to support Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and/or Ted Cruz from this field, and I think that Mitt Romney was probably the best Republican presidential nominee in my lifetime.)
Isn't the strongest antagonism to Trump coming from conservatives?
Uh, no.
That's how it looks to me.
I can't help it if you're a low information voter.
" "My" side owns the Senate leadership, every Senate committee, the House leadership, the party fundraising, practically every national Republican/conservative think tank.
What do you have? Besides 29% of the primary vote? You've got a lot of ground to make up."
It seems more like it will be 45% at this point, and more perhaps, TBD, which counts for much more than every warm body in Washington. Look, every government and party creates a permanent staff plus an insider clique and dependent institutions. It is a terrible mistake to confuse these mechanics of the party with the people. I suggest open minds all around, and a bit of grace and humor.
I am a foreigner and haven't been beat up for criminal acts, so I don't suppose I can play Rodney King.
grackle said...
...
Why should Trump “get” another party when he already has the GOP firmly in hand?
Does he? He's got perhaps 90% of the Party leadership opposed to him, and perhaps 75% of the Party membership opposed to him. Trump has a small handful of supporters in Congress.
Trump might well be winning primaries with a plurality of 30% in very divided primaries; but there isn't a single solid metric by which Trump "has the GOP firmly in hand."
Then good fucking luck with that! "My" side owns the Senate leadership, every Senate committee, the House leadership, the party fundraising, practically every national Republican/conservative think tank.
What do you have? Besides 29% of the primary vote? You've got a lot of ground to make up.
Yet it would seem that Trump is going to be the nominee.
29% of the nominee vote is pretty significant (I will assume that your assumption is correct.)
If almost 1/3 of the people who select the party's nominee for POTUS are voting for someone you regard as a mountebank, a shyster, an opportunistic populist, perhaps instead of damning them as unprincipled poltroons and fools and patting yourself on the back about your own self-evident superiority you should instead consider:
1) The Democrats are correct, Republicans are a bunch of racist rednecks out to keep the black and brown men down (not to mention the women and gays and trans and whatnot.)
or
2) The establishment has so alienated a major portion of the party by refusing to address their economic and cultural concerns that they are willing to vote for anyone who purports to represent their interests and appears to be equipped to successfully do so.
Gahrie said...
Trump freaks out the Establishment more than Conservatives. The Establishment wants the gravy train to continue. Many Conservatives have given up, and are in search of fiddles to play while Washington D.C. burns.
As a constitutional conservative...the above comment is exactly how I am feeling...AND I have access to a fiddle!
@Chuck: I know these are rough times, but when you say things like 'go start your own party', I think you're quick to forget that the American voters gave the House and Senate to "your" Republicans. There simply aren't enough establishment R's to deliver elections like that. When you brag on having the leadership and committees, while simultaneously shitting on voters who aren't voting the way you like, then you're showing them extraordinary contempt. That's vulgar.
If you want the 'bad voters' to go start their own party, then "your" party ceases to have any relevance. It certainly won't have leadership or majorities in either chamber. People here will remember your attitude and your words. Not that we didn't know the truth, anyway -- but the Internet never forgets.
"To be sure, many who harbor pro-Trump sentiments have not fully thought through the implications of making him the Republican standard bearer or, more significantly, the president of these United States."
Well, that be me, except for the Ivy League part. (Little 3, Big 10 and ACC and proud of it.) It only slightly annoys me that some yahoo does not think I am thinking things through. I have thought through not wanting (a) another glib inexperienced first term United States Senator or (b) another ♆Clinton. So that leaves me with © The Donald.
To put it in NFL Combine terms, has some off the field issues, can be a little erratic on the field but his upside is Yuuuuuge. Think of him as Bret Favre. The gunslinger with big talent, big enthusiasm and a few too many interceptions. All in all better than anything except maybe Tom Brady. No Tom is Brady available. Just rookies and a career backup who thinks she is the 👁 in team.
(Meanwhile the U.S. General in charge of our Libyan forces says Libya can't defeat ISIS without US military help. ISIS has already moved from the Mediterranean beachhead they had to an organized effort throughout the country.)
Chuck,
It's not my party. I'm just observing. Things don't look good for the national GOP but the state GOPs might be fine. Much easier to have a coalition at state or local level.
If it's any consolation, things don't look too good for the national Dem either. Both parties have it coming.
I think Democrats should seize the opportunity to vote for Sanders, he can clearly be elected, even though the media has put him under a burka leading up to Super Tuesday.
" "My" side owns the Senate leadership, every Senate committee, the House leadership, the party fundraising, practically every national Republican/conservative think tank."
Pretty much proves the point by calling yourself a "side." Enjoy Siberia.
My Google news feed had one story on the Democrat Primary "It's time for the haters to get behind Hillary"
But don't worry. Google is not using their massive power as a corporation that knows everything about you to control the process or anything!
"If Marco Rubio becomes president, we can expect:
1.) That he will work with Democrats and the GOP leadership in Congress to pass something that looks like the Gang of Eight amnesty bill."
actulally it would be Congress's that came up with the bill. So, if congress is as bad as Laura thinks they would still come up with a gang of 8 bill if Cruz was in power. Would they not come up with such a bill when trump is in office?
Republican can keep Rubio honest. If they think he is getting too squishy just don't submit a bill to him that has amnesty and see if he signs it. I bet you he will. He's already stated security first. NOTHING until the fence is completed.
And frankly, what repubs did with the gang of 8 was because they didn't control the presidency. If they control the presidency AND congress they can dictate how tough or lax immigration laws can be. And if Rubio wanted to buck his base by siding with democrats he,d be a one term president.
Chuck's side dumped over $100 million on Jeb. That side of the GOP has money but no smarts.
Trump isn't a conservative. He is a rude social liberal masquerading as a rude moderate, like Chris Christie.
He isn't going to do anything to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, executive overreach, infringements on state rights, infringements on religious liberty, union privileges, abortion, or gun control.
He is perfectly fine with affirmative action, fair trade protectionism, entitlements, corporate welfare, a managed economy, touch-back amnesty, and probably campaign finance restrictions.
I don't mind the fact that he obviously has not read the Bible much. I do mind that he has probably never read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers.
"The Republican Party was founded by former mainstream American Whigs after the Whig Party collapsed as a national party for being suspected of abolitionist sympathies in the South."
No suspicion was involved. It was clear that a considerable portion of the Whigs were perfectly willing to have slavery continue to be allowed in new territories. They were completely open about it. The Republicans were developing a policy of no more territorial expansion of slavery, or of deciding the issue by "popular sovereignty"), which most viewed as the same thing. Territorial expansion not abolition was the center of the controversy (though the prior was definitely a stalking horse for the latter for some.)
The voters didn't abandon the Whigs as much as many prominent Whigs abandoned their party to become Republicans (perhaps anticipating voter abandonment but actual principal was involved.) Today we have a voter lead rebellion, not an officeholder lead rebellion. There are parallels but the dynamic is quite different.
I doubt that Rubio ever wins a single state, jr565, so all concerns about what he might do as president are absolutely moot. He should be very proud to finish 2nd in his home state of Florida. He can tell his lobbyist buddies all about it next year.
Then good fucking luck with that! "My" side owns the Senate leadership, every Senate committee, the House leadership, the party fundraising, practically every national Republican/conservative think tank.
...and this is a perfect example of exactly why the Trump candidacy exists and is succeeding.
You've succeeded in pissing off at least 30% of your base, is further insulting them...and suggesting they form their own party, really your best tactic at this point?
Chuck said...
Who? Kasich? (I can spell that one for you.) Who else? We might agree on some names! (Although I'd be delighted to support Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and/or Ted Cruz from this field, and I think that Mitt Romney was probably the best Republican presidential nominee in my lifetime.)
I like Walker, Ryan, Jindal, Haley, Scott...I tend to prefer governors. Romney was a complete disaster of a nominee. He was uniquely qualified to discuss economic issues, the inverse relationship between taxes and private investment, regulatory capture, and the unparalleled virtues of capitalism.
He did none of that. He was mealy-mouthed, defensive, and afraid of his own shadow. Yeah, I voted for him, but it was a wasted effort. It just gave Our Savior 4 more years to cement in his "revolution".
-Krumhorn
Chuck is still in the "anger" part of his mourning period.
Join the dark side Chuck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW6opMZg6wQ
Romney was the first guy to force people to buy something they didn't want. He was uniquely positioned to take that major political issue off the table. He also didn't connect with people who work for a living and his economic plan was the same bullshit the GOP has been pushing the last 25 years. Dole and McCain at least served in the military. Romney was a typical wealthy boomer.
And as I have said before, if Trump is the nominee of my party, I will vote for him. Because I am a good Republican. A better Republican, than the mouth-breathers who say they don't like Obama but who didn't like Mitt Romney or John McCain enough to vote for them. Those are what ya'll call shitty Republicans.
Chuck if you aren't being paid by the DNC, you should be. You, and people like you, are doing more damage to the Republican Party than Trump is.
Why should people continue to vote for your candidates when you patronize them, lie to them, and call them mouthbreathers and shitty Republicans?
Trump exists because of you and people like you, and your sense of entitlement to the votes of people you have absolute contempt for.
Chuck: "My" side owns the Senate leadership, every Senate committee, the House leadership, the party fundraising, practically every national Republican/conservative think tank.
And has done fuck-all with all of that to accomplish anything.
Unless the goal was to sit atop that big pile and have a good long wank, in which case, mission accomplished.
@Qwerty: "He isn't going to do anything to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, executive overreach, infringements on state rights, infringements on religious liberty, union privileges, abortion, or gun control. He is perfectly fine with affirmative action, fair trade protectionism, entitlements, corporate welfare, a managed economy, touch-back amnesty, and probably campaign finance restrictions." You forgot to mention: appoint conservative to SCOTUS. But Qwerty, he tells it likes it is, sticks it to the GOPe, and will make Mexico pay for a wall, so what more do we need?
Then again, who knows? This is the man who was for the wars in Iraq and Libya before he was against them, who insisted on deportation first before opening the door to being "fair" about it, and so on. Has he ever given any thought to most of the issues you mention--for example, would "infringements on religious liberty" ring a bell with him?
"Why not get your own party? Call it the Reform Party. Or the National Front Party. Or the National Socialists, or the Monster Raving Looney Party."
They don't need to do that--the GOP will give them their nominee. And now if he loses to Hillary, they can say it's not because Trump was an awful candidate, but that it was the fault of the GOP "establishment" that didn't get behind their guy.
That would probably be a better outcome for them than to have Trump actually take office and run smack into reality. Of course, reality won't be enough to keep Trump from declaring victory. This is the guy behind Trump Mortgage, after all. The key for him is to not actually put his own money behind anything, just license his name and when everything falls apart he can walk away unscathed.
Exactly the sort of man I want in charge of this government!
"A vote for Trump, is a vote to destroy the GOP as we know it."
...the GOP as we know it, is just a euphemism for Democrat boot licker.
The Donald doesn't appear, at this point anyway, to be anybody's book licker. More like a boot buyer.
Do liberals fear and loath The Donald because he's been roaming around their fever swamp so long that he knows where the bodies are buried? With all the money he's doled out to them and their causes, they'll have a difficult time coming after him as a radical right wing fundamentalist tyrant.
When establishment Republicans and conservatives criticize him for his past liberal positions, I don't understand why the Dems aren't standing on their chairs, shouting, yeah, that's our guy.
Charismatic leadership is why The Donald is at 33 and Cruz/Rubio are at 22...they both lack it. Strategically, the Cruz/Rubio campaigns are quite good, Cruz more so, in my humble opinion, but, tactically, they constantly shoot themselves in the foot and The Donald rolls right over them.
People like to point out all the business failures - BKs and so forth - that The Donald has accumulated over the years, but what the fail to see, either on purpose or from lack of vision, is his next big thing has investors standing in line to get in and be a part of it. So, if he's such a bad guy, such a failure, such a loser, why?
What The Donald possesses in abundance is ego, guts - he is running for President of these United States as a Republican, no less - think about that for a moment - vision, charisma and leadership skills. All the things the GOP establishment is lacking. They're not called, the stupid party, for no good reason.
Here's another thing about those head-to-head polls: they're done with an even mix of D's and R's and sometimes with a D bias. So in a poll of 600 registered voters (typical sample size) it might be 320 D and 280 R.
Turnout is the key. Where I vote, they keep books for the two parties and they're usually about equal in participation. At 11:00 they were on page 2 for the D's and page 5 for the R's. Around the country the D's have been off by about 10%, the R's up by about 30%. I'm not predicting a landslide, but I won't be surprised by one either.
"Here's another thing about those head-to-head polls: they're done with an even mix of D's and R's and sometimes with a D bias. So in a poll of 600 registered voters (typical sample size) it might be 320 D and 280 R."
A lot of that is based on self-identification though. So if a voter is middle of the road but is feeling good about the Republicans, they might say they are a Republican. This is what tripped up a lot of poll-watchers in 2012--they assumed the polls were weighted wrong.
Turnout is important though, but Trump is going to turn out a lot of people against him, not just for him. The question is which number will be greater, and where.
I think the lack of for (Hillary) out weighs the against (Trump), that's why the primary turnout has been so lopsided in favor of Republicans.
I understand your point, Brando. But when I see Trump winning with 35,000 votes in Nevada this year versus 32,000 total votes cast in 2012, I have to really take note.
Anglelyne: You complain that the Republican Congressional majorities in the 113th Congress haven't done anything.
And that's wrong.
They are preventing Obama from appointing a successor to Scalia.
They stopped Obama from normalizing relations with Cuba, and stopped Obama from putting a deal with Iran into a treaty.
They stymied the gun control legislation that Obama would surely have wanted.
They passed the Keystone XL pipeline legislation. Obama vetoed it. The Republican congress also prevented any new federal anti-fracking legislation.
They held -- mostly -- to the sequester spending cuts.
They opened investigations into the IRS, Benghazi and Planned Parenthood, all of which produced troubling news for Democrats.
So you see, it isn't always a matter of what gets passed as new legislation. Sometimes, it's making sure that bad legislation does not get through.
I hate Republicans. But I hate Democrats even more. I voted for Cruz today and if he doesn't carry Texas, I will abandon hope for the constitutional United States and look to move abroad. It appears to me that the majority of my fellow American citizens prefer socialism and large government to freedom and personal responsibility. Maybe it has always been so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUTnu1MaeX0
Ali G gets 1 minute out of Trump - compared to usually 20x that from your typical suit, who is usually afraid to offend an 'urban' youth (typically, they play along even with grave doubts). The contrast between Trump and Sasha Baren Cohen's other dupes is what gave me my first direct impression of Trump, and an *extremely* positive one (sure, I'd read about his bankruptcy and divorce in gossip rags like Time mag). I assume people who regularly watch TV got exposed to his 'you're fired!' apprentice thing, which I've seen 1/2 episode of and I think is also to his credit.
So I've wished Trump success for far longer than I took his candidacy seriously. You do have to overcome a lot of "but the educated folks hate him!", but I think it's reasonable to say that the many critics are on the whole not credible; it's an opportunity to flex some (motivated) skepticism muscles if you're rooting for him.
I'm rooting for him but I'm not sure he can win or what his effective competence will be. I'm absolutely opposed to really kicking off tariff-wars or bombing regions into glass, but other than that I'm happy to see where he can actually lead the nation.
I've for a long time been disgusted at the revulsion elites have for badwhites, and I've only visited badwhite areas. I grew up sincere goodwhiteliberal in SoCal. I imagine they resent having to take time out of their busy schedule to possibly give some handouts to needy *whites* (oh, you need a little protectionism to keep the factory going? so demanding!). I fully buy the elite conservative economists' preaching about "with free trade, you can grow Hondas (by selling corn)" really growing the economy, etc. The point is, if you have to care about their myopic, grubby little interests to not screw up the global system, maybe they'll stop killing themselves on oxycontin/heroin+booze.
Also, I think our virtue signaling immigration permissiveness is a sustained drain on the present+future of our economy. High-skill expected-profit immigrants only, please. (still, I'd rather we keep the status quo overall than kick off trade wars).
I also care about being thought-policed. I welcome a show of (speech+votes) strength against the mob dynamic that took control and ran too far - I'm not sure how to describe it, I'll just say 'left'. Wherever non-productive academia (+ their craven administrators) have gone.
I'm not going to engage hysterical folk who insist (like they insisted about Reagan) that the fourth or fifth reich is coming unless we stop it. I really don't know how anyone gets the energy to deal with that. I could be wrong but I see 0 risk.
"stopped Obama from putting a deal with Iran into a treaty."
But they got $150B and end of sanctions which is what they really wanted.
And the Castro boys are getting money too.
The consent of the Senate is irrelevant it seems. What does a treaty matter if there is no effect in reality?
"Keystone XL pipeline legislation. Obama vetoed it. "
But Obama blocked it through the bureaucracy. Not built.
So with coal. Fracking was saved through State-government threats, not Congress.
Etc., and etc., and etc.
Yes, Anglelyne, aren't you happy those scraps you've been fed? You ingrate!
They stopped a few things? How impressive! What did they do, Chuck? What conservative legislation did they bring to fruition? Two hearings that produced bad news for the D's? Color me fully fucking impressed!
p.s., Continuing Resolution
Trump freaks out the Establishment more than Conservatives. The Establishment wants the gravy train to continue. Many Conservatives have given up, and are in search of fiddles to play while Washington D.C. burns.
I agree. I just got home from work but have read the other comments as the thread had few from the loonies.
Chuck owns the Republican Party. Just ask him.
"They stopped a few things? How impressive! What did they do, Chuck? What conservative legislation did they bring to fruition? Two hearings that produced bad news for the D's? Color me fully fucking impressed!
p.s., Continuing Resolution"
Exactly, plus CONTINUING RESOLUTION !
Why is that still going on? I posted a link for a dullard yesterday that says maybe we will get 5 appropriations bills this year.. Why not 12 ? Why not last year ?
I have no idea what Trump will do but maybe blowing up the place will get somebody's attention.
The so-called "conservatives" like Michael Medved, who keeps explaining how immigration would be good for us, are going nuts over Trump. As I was driving home he must have spent ten minutes on Trump and the KKK. You'd think he was Grand Kleagal, like Byrd.
""The morons at the National Review" have been the avatars for fair-minded, articulate, non-racist conservatism for about 50 years"
Yeah, right up until they fired Derbyshire. They lost me then.
Chuck,
They stopped Obama from normalizing relations with Cuba, and stopped Obama from putting a deal with Iran into a treaty.
Wait, what?
The Donald doesn't appear, at this point anyway, to be anybody's book licker. More like a boot buyer.
Which is a good start, but it doesn't make up for the lack of a coherent ideology.
Do liberals fear and loath The Donald because he's been roaming around their fever swamp so long that he knows where the bodies are buried? With all the money he's doled out to them and their causes, they'll have a difficult time coming after him as a radical right wing fundamentalist tyrant.
No they won't, because they control the media. The truth doesn't actually matter that much. They made Romney, who's a pretty liberal blue-state guy, into the second coming of Barry Goldwater. I see a lot of people supporting Trump because they think he's immune to the media slings and arrows, but the truth is the Democrats want to run against Trump, and once he's nominated they'll rip him to shreds.
Yeah, right up until they fired Derbyshire. They lost me then.
And Stein. Both probably smart moves from a business standpoint, but cozying up to the academia-government-media axis doesn't make them noble, IMO. They've still got good writers (I still swing by for Williamson and Cooke), but they're not what they could be.
Virgil:
"Some of who might support Trump are doing so for the same reasons that Spock ignited the Fuel in The Galileo Seven episode."
I had the same though. Some kinds of minds think alike. :)
Post a Comment