That was in answer to a question from Jake Tapper, just now, on his Sunday show, about what she thought of Paul Ryan's statement — after saying he would support the GOP nominee — that he was not yet ready to support Donald Trump.
She continued: "His political career is over, because he has so disrespected the will of the people. As the leader of the GOP — the convention, certainly — he is to remain neutral and for him to already come out and say who he will not support was not a wise decision of his."
To be clear, Ryan's statement was: "I'm just not ready to do that at this point. I'm not there right now." Is it fair to paraphrase that as saying "who he will not support"? The inaccurate word is "will." If she'd said "who he does not support," she'd be fine.
But "about to be Cantored" is the memorable language. Very harsh. Maybe you also jumped at "His political career is over." What happened to her political career?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६४ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 264 पैकी 201 – 264Good article on the electoral map. It is going to be pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Almost 200 replies and no signs of intellectual honesty here.
If this campaign had been about wanting to select a candidate that would not compromise but would instead fight for conservative values then Scott Walker would have fared better. Instead he was humiliated.
Trump came out on top because he is a genius at dog whistle politics which the Republican Party has encouraged now for decades.
But none of you will acknowledge that an anti-government conservative like Walker did not have a chance against Trump because really the Republican electorate could case less at this point about substantive issues.
That is why I call you the Althouse Hillbillies.
But none of you will acknowledge that an anti-government conservative like Walker did not have a chance against Trump because really the Republican electorate could case less at this point about substantive issues.
Not me. I have stated repeatedly it is about anger, not reason. Anger at the Government, anger at the Democrats and anger at the GOP Establishment.
Some facts that are useful to have restated. Paul Ryan won re-election 18 months ago with 64% of the vote. Trump lost Ryan's district by 18 points in the presidential primary last month. Ryan's pro-Trump primary opponent is an Ohio native who only moved into the district in 2014. The primary is in August, at which time Trump will either have consolidated mainstream Republicans like Ryan to his banner, or conversely he will be such a sure loser that people will bear no ill will towards those who prudently declined to join the man's cause.
So, in a nutshell, this talk from Palin is empty posturing designed to keep her in the news.
and since then the promises made to insure a victory, have been left unfulfilled, the House approved all of Obama's priorities including planned parenthood and robertscare,
https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/23/political-science-professor-forecasts-trump-as-general-election-winner/
Terry wrote:
f the Republicans in congress won't make a deal with Trump, Pelosi and Schumer will be happy to do so.
yes, I agree. This, by the way is the problem of Trump. He is not down with conservative small govt goals. And he is so valueless that he WOULD sign deals with Dems. I recognize that.
And if so, that will be the road by which we hang democrats, Trump, Trumbots and Trump supporters. Re pubs will say, this is what we stand for. This is what we've always stood for. If you want repubs to pass your agenda Trump, you will do so according to our agenda. If repubs in the senate or house told that to Obama he would say, "I don't need you". But Trump does. Or, he will abandon repubs and go with democrats. This is what those who hate Trump says he would do anyway. Do Dems want to embrace Trump on a lot of his kooky ideas? If they do, they will then own Trump.
I'm ok getting trump in power if he's neutered if he decides to leave the reservation. At least we don't get Hilalry picking the next judge.
Having a leader be so against his base is almost unprecedented. And I'm perfectly ok with Trump being placed in that position.
If he decides to become a dem, and gets dem support, you can be sure we will let Hannity and Sarah plain know what they wrought. He will be a one term president, unless he stops with his front and plays ball.
the gop has already shown it will surrender practically everything to obama in the lame duck sessions, and everything else like the iran deal, before the election, rhodes subterfuge,
@Once bitten,
But none of you will acknowledge that an anti-government conservative like Walker did not have a chance against Trump because really the Republican electorate could case less at this point about substantive issues.
Yes, that's true. But not because of the Republican electorate, but because no candidate has dealt with substantive issues this election. Every one of them is riding on a meme.
Does Sanders "make sense" with his economic proposals? Or, is he just riding a wave of disaffection with Hillary & Democratic politics in general on the Left?
Does Hillary Clinton have any "substantive issues"? She, who hasn't spoken unscripted to her press corp since mid-December? No, she stokes the ego of her followers by being the "reasonable, rational, experienced choice", when she is most clearly none of the above both in personal & ideological terms.
Did Cruz speak of "substantive issues" or was he just the "True Conservative, brainy but good Christian" guy? Jeb Bush was just "the man that all the guys at the top trusted & wanted to see in the office". Etc. Etc.
Your problem, Once, is that your thinking is so embittered & monochromatic that you just can't see the bigger patterns as they emerge from the fog. If you went into this endeavor with eyes unclouded by the spittle frothing from your mouth, you'd be better able to come to grips with the unexpectedly wild ride that is the election of 2016.
and gets dem support,
You mean like McConnell, Boehner and Ryan already have?
exactly her term of office foundered on lawfare, and the #willing for obama, that the state party was willing to entertain, the tea party was crushed by tactics a little more subtle then those visited on walker's supporters, by the arm of the osha, the epa, and the doj, she was blood libeled at tucson, as part of the narrative, to obscure the incompetence of sheriff dufuss, ailes did not protect against late serial libeler joe mcguinness perhaps because they were friends,
Does Sanders "make sense" with his economic proposals?
Of course he does.
Or, is he just riding a wave of disaffection with Hillary & Democratic politics in general on the Left?
That too.
The Dem debates were quite substantive. And compared to the Republican ones they seemed like the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Young Heg, answer the question. If Republican voters really wanted a candidate that would fight for conservative values why didn't they get behind Scott Walker? Or Ted Cruz?
"And he is so valueless that he WOULD sign deals with Dems. I recognize that. And if so, that will be the road by which we hang democrats, Trump, Trumbots and Trump supporters. Re pubs will say, this is what we stand for" How nice. But that would be a little late. Particularly after we have been told, on this very blog, that Trump was "never anything" politically. Someone like that can do anything.
Honest question to the Trumpkins here: is there anything, in particular, Trump can say, or promise, or do--something he has said or promised or done yet--that would cause you to oppose him?
walker was doomed by signing up dayspring, for his pac, and cruz ran perhaps too scripted, too sectarian a campaign, but he got to the playoffs, regardless,
If Republican voters really wanted a candidate that would fight for conservative values why didn't they get behind Scott Walker? Or Ted Cruz?
Because their Reagan impersonations weren't up-to-date.
Trump alone gives the impression that he's concerned with immigration and "free" trade. The others flubbed their lines or actually work for interests not aligned with a majority of Republican voters. Why is that so hard to understand?
I mean, Walker must have felt conflicted having been so well-funded by the Koch brother who then turn out to be Open Border advocates.
@Once,
If Republican voters really wanted a candidate that would fight for conservative values why didn't they get behind Scott Walker? Or Ted Cruz?
Because only a fraction of the Republican electorate wanted a candidate who would fight for what SW or TC consider "conservative values". Trump's folks had other ideas of what they saw as the most important "conservative values" (i.e. immigration).
Both candidates were also damaged goods. Scott Walker's dull as dishwater demeanor plays well in Wisconsin with a white, Scandinavian & German electorate. It doesn't translate to the rest of the country that relishes "the fire in the belly" in its candidates. Everybody who knows Ted Cruz seems to hate him. The fact that he's conservative & a believin' Christian probably doesn't fix the fact that he seems to be a pompous as shit Harvard lawyer, just like every other Harvard lawyer I've ever met.
I think it was Gen. Mark Clark of the Allied Italian Campaign who said that "the side that wins in a war is the side that makes the fewest mistakes". That saying could be the motto for Campaign 2016.
Walker was funded/supported by business interests opposed to public sector unions who also happen to be opposed to laws protecting other American jobs. So the people pick and choose and appear hypocritical -- but they're not. Public sector unions affected a minority of people; unrestricted immigration immigration affects everyone. It's just numbers adding up.
"Because only a fraction of the Republican electorate wanted a candidate who would fight for what SW or TC consider "conservative values". Trump's folks had other ideas of what they saw as the most important "conservative values" (i.e. immigration)."
Then his folks ignored any and all evidence that suggested his stance on immigration was a pose meant to capitalize on their reasonable anxieties about illegal immigration. The guy who thought Mitt Romney's stance in 2012 was too harsh is now suddenly tougher on illegal immigration than Ted Cruz? Give me a break.
I have to admit I am looking forward to the Republican convention if only to watch a lot of pained faces.
Add in some of that Trump style and it should be a beautiful convention.
@DiamondHead,
The guy who thought Mitt Romney's stance in 2012 was too harsh is now suddenly tougher on illegal immigration than Ted Cruz? Give me a break.
So, what did Cruz do with his immigration stand? Did he come out with a motto like "I'm gonna build a wall & I'm gonna make Mexico pay for it!". Did Cruz ever publicly call out Mexico for being the shits that they are?
No, because Ted Cruz couldn't sell a hamburger to a starving man he's such a sucko salesman.
Does the electorate know that Trump is pulling their leg more than a little bit? Well, back in the Bush I/Dukkakis election pollsters asked the voters if they believed that the Republicans wouldn't raise their taxes. The voters polled said no, but that the Republicans would probably raise it less than the Democrats. The American electorate knows what their politicians sell them a line. They just pick the brand of horse shit they prefer is all. Trump's no different.
@Phil,
I have to admit I am looking forward to the Republican convention if only to watch a lot of pained faces.
Democratic Convention's gonna be a doozy, too. You should see the arrogance & mutual loathing I'm seeing on FB between the Bernie-ites & the Hillary-ites. It's every bit as bad as what I'm seeing on the Right, and far, far worse than what we see among our little convivial crew here Chez Althouse.
well he did, three months prior, but the lesson is you have to sell the deal, with a megaphone if need be, of course mcconnell was soffocating any hope of such a plan,
"So, what did Cruz do with his immigration stand? Did he come out with a motto like "I'm gonna build a wall & I'm gonna make Mexico pay for it!". Did Cruz ever publicly call out Mexico for being the shits that they are?"
Yes, so Trump is a slick salesman and he sold his credulous voters on a line of bullshit.
Democratic Convention's gonna be a doozy, too. You should see the arrogance & mutual loathing I'm seeing on FB between the Bernie-ites & the Hillary-ites. It's every bit as bad as what I'm seeing on the Right, and far, far worse than what we see among our little convivial crew here Chez Althouse.
Lol. Bring it on.
Have the Bernie-ites shown the Hillary-ites the Asher Edelman video?
Do you get the sense that the Hillary-ites have decent arguments? All I hear from them is "electability" (which the polls don't back up), and what I suspect to be is a sense of reverence for the way Hillary has some kind of super-duper armadillo armor for surviving political attacks.
Every time I ask them what they're for, I hear crickets.
They sound to me like masochists who relish running detested candidates. I guess it gives them a sense of strength, or martyrdom. One of those, anyway.
@Diamondhead,
Yes, so Trump is a slick salesman and he sold his credulous voters on a line of bullshit.
Yes, but sell them he did. And your guy thought that he was just so fucking brilliant, wonderful, & Jesus-y that he wouldn't need to do a sales job to the electorate. And the electorate always needs a sales job.
an intellectual with few peers.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/paul-johnson-on-trump.php
@YoungHegelian: Don't forget that many of the anti-Palin people here probably admire Joe McGinniss, the man who destroyed his reputation and credibility by attacking Palin in a personal way. McGinniss wrote the best seller "The Selling Of The President," a cynical account of how Richard Nixon was elected in 1968.*
"Selling" anything political -- especially ideas -- is a no-no for them.
_________________
*Full disclosure: I never read it. But my mother did and told me about it plus it's Mothers Day.
"He was on Jefferson's payroll for that prpose."
I don;t know that is true. He wanted Jefferson to appoint him to a post office job.
Failed office seekers have been assassins before.
it made ailes reputation, he was a lowly producer for mike douglas, at the time,
"Selling" anything political -- especially ideas -- is a no-no for them.
When have you ever paid for an idea?
No one's brain should be for sale. That's a scary thought.
R&B: You're construing "selling" too narrowly.
My brain's for sale.
People buy my ideas.
That's what all my employers have paid for.
These days it doesn't work so well anymore, so I have had to supplement it with my spleen, liver and testicles. It's gross, but it will probably get me to retirement. Then I can rest my brain.
I've hired lots and lots of other people's brains.
Currently I have brains, hired for the purpose, helping me all across North and Central California, plus Chennai, Bangalore and London.
And your guy thought that he was just so fucking brilliant, wonderful, & Jesus-y that he wouldn't need to do a sales job to the electorate
One of the things the GOP Establishment is pissed about is that the Democrats can ignore and take for granted their base, knowing that their support is secure. As the Establishment is discovering, the Republican base is not so compliant.
R&B: You're construing "selling" too narrowly.
No I'm not. If it involves exchanging money or favors or something physical, it's commerce.
It's commerce when politicians are bribed with political donations and it's not commercial to engage in debates or persuasive conversations.
Billions of dollars invested into "marketing" programs at MBA schools may have convinced you otherwise. But they've also convinced the American people to let Wall Street deregulate its way to a declining living standard for our people over the last three decades.
Why the heck are you supporting Trump anyway, if you can't see that much?
My brain's for sale.
People buy my ideas.
Do you patent them and sell them by the idea?
Then no, you're wrong.
Otherwise, they're paying you to think and refrain from disengaging your brain while on the job - and yes that can be hard and perhaps even daunting for many people in this country.
But a good number of us still prefer to be using our brains for many other things than just what we can use them to get paid for.
You may or may not be one of those people. ;-)
well where does the bulk of the campaign fundraising for ads to run on networks, a sinecure if ever there was one, then staff like dayspring, weaver, murphy who crashed the ships into the rocks, then actual on the ground organization,
R&B: Your man Bernie is very proud of all the "contributions" he's garnered. That's commerce of sorts. Now hush before I rescind my offer of "giving" him my primary vote in June which I just discovered is possible due to some quirk in California election law.
Eric Canter, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan coauthored a book called "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders" which must have been difficult to write because none of the three are conservative. But Sarah is no longer capable of making such a judgement because she has turned populist.
David Brat made mincemeat out of Canter because he turned against the TEA Party by favoring illegals over citizens. But Ryan is not running against Donald Trump, Paul Nehlen is his opponent. Having watched the Wisconsin primary, it is difficult to believe that a Trump supporting outsider will help Nehlen much.
But the Trump Hive is trying to stir up a controversy by putting out the word through a fake news website, PRNTLY, that a new AMP poll shows Nehlen ahead 48-41. There is no such polling organization.
Having watched the Wisconsin primary, it is difficult to believe that a Trump supporting outsider will help Nehlen much.
I agree, but you have to admit that Ryan is in a tough place. He and his "right wing" radio cabal are still counting on a Trump implosion and triumph of Ryan: that's how people read the quirky Wisconsin results and why it didn't recur in Indiana.
I've talked to lots of conservatives who aren't ready to support Trump. Why should Ryan be any different?
" Don't forget that many of the anti-Palin people here probably admire Joe McGinniss, the man who destroyed his reputation and credibility by attacking Palin in a personal way. McGinniss wrote the best seller "The Selling Of The President," a cynical account of how Richard Nixon was elected in 1968.* "
Huh, I believe when that topic came up a couple of years ago most on this blog found McGinniss's behavior disgusting.
when her family was assaulted while she raising money for veterans, I don't recall the compassion,
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/an_epiphany_on_the_road_to_tehran.html
many of those who should have known better did not,
Freeman Hunt said...I've talked to lots of conservatives who aren't ready to support Trump. Why should Ryan be any different?
Are you implying that many Wisconsinites actually were not "strategic voting" in their primary? Because if they were, that alone distinguishes Ryan. Plus a leader should lead and not blend with his supporters.
Freeman Hunt said...I've talked to lots of conservatives who aren't ready to support Trump.
And that shows willful deliberation. They should also be free to reject Trump. But to declare a priori, months and months ahead of an election such an absolute as #NeverTrump forecloses any future "readiness."
Ryan:
Trump won the elections.
Under the rules of your party.
No other candidate was close. The voters rejected the candidates your party has produced.
In short Trump kicked your ass. And the ass of the entire party and its supposedly deep bench.
You are a leader of the party that made these rules and developed these mainstream candidates.
As such you have an obligation to back the candidate or resign the party and your leadership position.
It's only fair.
It's called democracy.
Freeman Hunt said...
I've talked to lots of conservatives who aren't ready to support Trump. Why should Ryan be any different?
Because Ryan is a major leader of the party which set the rules and procedures under which Trump won the elections. They were his rules. He shouldn't reject the result just because he does not like the outcome. Reflects badly on the party, among other things.
but ryan was running a shadow pac, all along,
@Sebastion "Honest question to the Trumpkins here: is there anything, in particular, Trump can say, or promise, or do--something he has said or promised or done yet--that would cause you to oppose him?"
Not necessarily a "Trumpkin", although I support him (mainly because he had the best chance of anyone that was running at beating Clinton) and so far, there is nothing he has said that I vehemently oppose.
The first thing that came to mind that he could do to lose my support is to select Cruz, Kasich, Palin, or Christie as his VP.
And a recent very strong concern was selecting his son-in-law (a democrat) as the one putting the potential White House transition team together.
In response to all these threats against Ryan, I just made a contribution to his campaign. If, G-d forbid, either the asshole or the witch is elected, we'll be glad we have Speaker Ryan in office protecting ordinary citizens.
A supporter of Donny upthread wrote, "there is nothing he has said that I vehemently oppose." I take it that this supporter is not offended then by any of Donny's serial lies. This is not surprising to me - I have finally realized that when Donny's supporters say, "he fights," what they mean is,"he fights dirty." So they aren't offended by his lies but rather see them as proof of Donny's amorality and willingness to do whatever it takes - lie, bully, threaten riots and violence, whatever - to win. For some reason these supporters are under the illusion that Donny will use his power, should he be elected, on their behalf. Donny's been taking suckers like them to the cleaners for years, so I guess this isn't all that surprising.
So they aren't offended by his lies but rather see them as proof of Donny's amorality and willingness to do whatever it takes - lie, bully, threaten riots and violence, whatever - to win.
It's called fighting fire with fire.........
If, G-d forbid, either the asshole or the witch is elected, we'll be glad we have Speaker Ryan in office protecting ordinary citizens.
How?
By passing another CR with Democratic spending priorities using Democratic votes?
Douglas said...
"In response to all these threats against Ryan, I just made a contribution to his campaign. If, G-d forbid, either the asshole or the witch is elected, we'll be glad we have Speaker Ryan in office protecting ordinary citizens."
Are you serious or joking? I don't see a sarcasm tag.
Phil: "So I guess what you're saying Trump can win without the "Establishment" Republicans"
No, I'm not saying that.
You can tell that I'm not saying that because I never said anything like that. Which is generally a good "first clue" about what someone might not be saying.
So I guess you are incorrectly guessing that is what I am saying since what I was actually saying makes it less difficult for you to appropriately virtue-signal.
"NeveerTrump = #AlwaysHillary!, not that it's important or anything.
If only Trump would be as consistent in defense of conservative principles as all of his legislator attackers. Oh wait. It's only because those "principled" conservatives in congress capitulated to Obama and attacked the conservative base that Trump even had the opportunity to rise.
"....was actually saying makes it MORE difficult for you to appropriately virtue-signal."
Republicans across the board cheered wildly when Sarah Palin accepted their nomination to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, so why should they have a problem with her male equivalent for the top job?
Its always fun when the John Edwards crowd shows up.
There once was a man who was cantored
when palin took after his mansword
some say he was schlonged,
some say he was wronged,
some say he's a veritable manturd.
"Conservatives might as well get some entertainment value out of this, observing from the sidelines. Including the entertainment in seeing the Donald go after Hillary! Bring on the Dem-on-Dem mudslinging."
That's the way I see it--if you care about the rule of law, limited government, rationalism, oppose political correctness and grievance politics, and would prefer competent and ethical leadership, you have no dog in this fight so you may as well sit back and enjoy watching the show. The downside is one of them has to win, the upside is one of them has to lose. And they can only do so much damage to this country. Pour a whisky and enjoy!
Brando said...
if you care about the rule of law, limited government, rationalism, oppose political correctness and grievance politics, and would prefer competent and ethical leadership
Which of these qualities do you feel Bush Jr brought to the table?
"Which of these qualities do you feel Bush Jr brought to the table?"
I'm not sure why you read my post as an endorsement of Bush Jr. On some of those points he certainly fell short. But next to Trump the man was a paragon of greatness. A low bar, I know.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Brando said...
if you care about the rule of law, limited government, rationalism, oppose political correctness and grievance politics, and would prefer competent and ethical leadership
Which of these qualities do you feel Bush Jr brought to the table?
Good god! Which of those qualities has any president since, since before FDR. Don't just single out your own particular boogie man. It's intellectually lazy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा