The Self-Immolation of the Republican Party

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This is predictably what happens when one elects a celebrity populist with no regard to the principles that the party stands for.

Well, perhaps you predicted that we'd be so short-sighted as to give a free pass to Obama and Hillary, but I didn't.  Clearly, I was wrong and we are...less aware than I had believed.

Without standing upon those principles, there is *no* unity, as the principles are what bind us....

You're missing my point.  I'm not saying that we should abandon our principles.  I'm not saying we should unify behind Trump, vote for him, or defend a single stupid word that comes out of his mouth.  He doesn't deserve it. 

What I'm saying is to stand up for our principles by defending them from attacks being made by Obama, Hillary, the Democrats in general, and the MSM.  We can be united on the attack, even if Trump doesn't deserve unity on defense.  Obama's comments about the shooting should have been savaged here.  But they got little attention, because everyone was too eager to jump on the bandwagon of focusing only on what Trump said.

I'm not saying to attack Hillary for the purpose of helping Trump win in November, but to defend those principles from attack by the Democrats.  What is important is not Trump winning, but rather us confronting those on the left who challenge/violate our principles, and who will go completely unchallenged by the MSM unless we raise the issue and challenge them.  But we're too busy ganging up on Trump to point out how truly horrible Obama and Hillary are.  The voters need to be reminded of that when they go into the polls, so even if they don't vote for Trump, they at least are clear on the idea that Hillary cannot be given a Democratic Congress with which to work.

You will have no unity *whatsoever* sowing fear of Hillary Clinton as the only reason to band together.

I've given up on us unifying behind a candidate, regardless of who the nominee will be in 2020, or who it could have been this year.  I'd just like us to stand up for our principles themselves against the assault from Obama and Hillary.

[Chieftain]

I just want to say that I don't like Trump, and didn't intend to vote for him.  But what I've been reading on TBR has convinced me otherwise.

I absolutely cannot stand Trump.  I think he's vile, and unworthy of the office.  My hope/thought was that defeating him would clear the field for the GOP to run a much better, actually conservative candidate in 2020.  What I've been reading here over the last week or so has convinced me otherwise.

The sheer nastiness of so many conservatives towards those supporting Trump here has been pretty stunning.  I'm sick of the "bleep" and all that crap, and yes, I know that the Trump supporters at FR, and some here, have been doing the exact same thing or worse.  But here's the difference:

Very predictably, the mass media that enjoyed stirring the GOP pot by going easier on Trump has completely reversed course now that the general election is in sight.  It is 24/7 anti-Trump by the MSM, Hillary will have over a billion dollars to run an anti-Trump media campaign, and now, a great many Republican office holders and "#Nevertrumpers are hopping on board.  Many Republicans and conservatives in general, both here and in the larger world, are almost tripping over themselves to shout from the rooftops how rotten Trump is, with barely a mention of Hillary, or what Obama has done to the country.  The result of that can be seen in the aftermath of the Orlando shootings, where the entire narrative has become 1) Trump is an a-hole, and 2) we need more gun control.  The Republicans who should have been front and center pointing out Obama's responsibility in all this, and how Hillary wants to bring in 60,000 more refugees and deprive people of the means to defend themselves, were instead gleefully just bashing Trump.  Pathetic.

The net effect of this is that Obama and Hillary Clinton are getting virtually a free pass by those very same Republicans and conservatives who are busy expending all their ammunition at a guy whom the Democrats and media are already attacking 24/7.  I don't ask or expect anyone to defend Trump -- he's vile, and underserving of defense.  But good grief, how about directing some fire at the horrible people who are going to be running the country when Trump gets clobbered in November?  Where's the thoughtful criticism of Obama's statements?  Or Hillary's?  If you look at the threads here that get the most traffic here, they are almost invariably the anti-Trump threads.  Obama and Hillary are barely an afterthought.  And this is supposed to be a Republican/conservative website?

If someone doesn't want to vote for Trump, fine -- don't vote for him.  That's where I was as well until all this.  But what seems to be getting overlooked is that the more we (and Republicans/conservatives at large) spend their time attacking Trump and not attacking Obama/Hillary, the more likely it is that we are facilitating a Democratic sweep in November.  We need to convince voters that a Hillary Presidency must be balanced by a Republican Congress.  Instead, this uniting with the MSM and Democrats is just making Hillary look much, much more attractive in comparison to Trump.  We are doing their work for them, and actually amplifying whatever anti-GOP effect Trump has on his own.  We're making things worse.  Why can't we just disregard Trump and go after the Democrats?  The only answer I can come up with is that people take more pleasure in venting their anger over the primary than in challenging the left.

I'm just looking at what we've become.  I read the threads on who is really a conservative, and have concluded that we're not going to elect a conservative in 2020 no matter what.  We are simply too balkanized, too eager to go nasty on anyone who varies from our individual orthodoxy, and we will never be able to assemble a coalition necessary to unseat the Democrats.  We'll just tear each other to shreds again in 2020 even without a toxic joker like Trump.  I can already see it coming from those who have a particular candidate in mind, and seem to view him as the only acceptable choice come 2020.

I suppose I've come around to @INVAR , and have concluded that we're screwed.  We won't win, and frankly, we really don't even deserve to win anymore.  So given that Trump is going to get clobbered anyway, I'll vote for him solely as an FU to my fellows who seem to take much more pleasure in attacking an orange headed joke doomed to lose anyway, than the leftist schmucks who are ruining this country.

@Mesaclone

Could not agree with you more.

[MACVSOG68]

Well, perhaps you predicted that we'd be so short-sighted as to give a free pass to Obama and Hillary, but I didn't.  Clearly, I was wrong and we are...less aware than I had believed.

You're missing my point.  I'm not saying that we should abandon our principles.  I'm not saying we should unify behind Trump, vote for him, or defend a single stupid word that comes out of his mouth.  He doesn't deserve it. 

What I'm saying is to stand up for our principles by defending them from attacks being made by Obama, Hillary, the Democrats in general, and the MSM.  We can be united on the attack, even if Trump doesn't deserve unity on defense.  Obama's comments about the shooting should have been savaged here.  But they got little attention, because everyone was too eager to jump on the bandwagon of focusing only on what Trump said.

I'm not saying to attack Hillary for the purpose of helping Trump win in November, but to defend those principles from attack by the Democrats.  What is important is not Trump winning, but rather us confronting those on the left who challenge/violate our principles, and who will go completely unchallenged by the MSM unless we raise the issue and challenge them.  But we're too busy ganging up on Trump to point out how truly horrible Obama and Hillary are.  The voters need to be reminded of that when they go into the polls, so even if they don't vote for Trump, they at least are clear on the idea that Hillary cannot be given a Democratic Congress with which to work.

I've given up on us unifying behind a candidate, regardless of who the nominee will be in 2020, or who it could have been this year.  I'd just like us to stand up for our principles themselves against the assault from Obama and Hillary.

WORD!

[roamer_1]

Well, perhaps you predicted that we'd be so short-sighted as to give a free pass to Obama and Hillary, but I didn't.  Clearly, I was wrong and we are...less aware than I had believed.

Again, trying to find unity in fear is not possible.

You're missing my point.  I'm not saying that we should abandon our principles.  I'm not saying we should unify behind Trump, vote for him, or defend a single stupid word that comes out of his mouth.  He doesn't deserve it. 

What I'm saying is to stand up for our principles by defending them from attacks being made by Obama, Hillary, the Democrats in general, and the MSM.  We can be united on the attack, even if Trump doesn't deserve unity on defense.  Obama's comments about the shooting should have been savaged here.  But they got little attention, because everyone was too eager to jump on the bandwagon of focusing only on what Trump said.

Under what aegis? Using what mechanism? Until there is a means to fight, there is no rallying cry that will suffice.

I'm not saying to attack Hillary for the purpose of helping Trump win in November, but to defend those principles from attack by the Democrats.  What is important is not Trump winning, but rather us confronting those on the left who challenge/violate our principles, and who will go completely unchallenged by the MSM unless we raise the issue and challenge them.  But we're too busy ganging up on Trump to point out how truly horrible Obama and Hillary are.  The voters need to be reminded of that when they go into the polls, so even if they don't vote for Trump, they at least are clear on the idea that Hillary cannot be given a Democratic Congress with which to work.

The enemy within is more of a threat than the enemy outside the gate.

I've given up on us unifying behind a candidate, regardless of who the nominee will be in 2020, or who it could have been this year.  I'd just like us to stand up for our principles themselves against the assault from Obama and Hillary.

Here we return to Reagan. The only thing that has ever unified the Conservatives is to embrace ALL of the principles of ALL of the factions. There is no leader to do this. There is no clarion call. Without organization and one to lead, there is no means. That is why we stand upon the principles that will unite us together. But it's too late now - barring a miracle at the convention, or a black horse rising in a third party, you may as well be barking at the moon.

[sitetest]

I just want to say that I don't like Trump, and didn't intend to vote for him.  But what I've been reading on TBR has convinced me otherwise...

I reject your post.

[Jazzhead]

Cut the Thread

By William Kristol

In his final letter, shortly before his death and 50 years after the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson reminisced about his fellow signers, "that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country." The choices the signers of the Declaration made were truly "bold and doubtful." On the other hand, the choice to mobilize against Trump, the choice to try to save the party and the country from Trump and Clinton—such a choice isn't even doubtful and doesn't really require much boldness.

Major Bill,  we cannot take the fight to the left without first removing the cancer in our midst.   There's a lot of time between July and November.  But first things first - our moral imperative to remove the fascist interloper.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Again, trying to find unity in fear is not possible.

Of course there can be unity in opposition (not "fear") -- it happens all the time.  By your logic, it should have been impossible for us to criticize Obama except during Presidential election season because we otherwise didn't have a single candidate around which to rally.  Yet, didn't we all argue against him? Didn't we criticize the things he said and did?  Weren't we perfectly able to be united in opposition to him even if we didn't have a candidate around which to rally?  Heck, I'd submit that we are at our most united when we are focusing our attention and criticism on the Democrats/left, when we didn't have a standardbearer..  We only become disunited when we're supposed to rally around someone.

Under what aegis? Using what mechanism? Until there is a means to fight, there is no rallying cry that will suffice.

The same aegis and mechanism we've used for the past seven years.  Public debate, criticism, openly challenging what Obama -- and now Hillary -- are espousing.  Even if it doesn't affect the ballot box for the presidential election, it sure as hell may have an effect downticket.  Did we not successfully oppose Obama in the 2010 and 2014 midterms despite not having a Presidential candidate around which to rally?

The enemy within is more of a threat than the enemy outside the gate.

Trump already has 24/7 incoming fire from Obama, Hillary, and the MSM, and he can't even handle that.  Why should we spend our efforts on adding to that massacre rather than going after Hillary and Obama?

Here we return to Reagan. The only thing that has ever unified the Conservatives is to embrace ALL of the principles of ALL of the factions. There is no leader to do this. There is no clarion call. Without organization and one to lead, there is no means. That is why we stand upon the principles that will unite us together. But it's too late now - barring a miracle at the convention, or a black horse rising in a third party, you may as well be barking at the moon.

Oh, I agree.  And I'd suggest that there's no way self-described conservatives would rally around even Reagan at this point.  He'd get the Rubio treatment because of IRCA.  We're balkanized, and unable/unwiling to rally around anyone.  You could rerun the 2016 primary without Trump, and there'd still be a whole lot of people sniping at the nominee.

That's why I'm going to be voting for Trump out of sheer spite.  It's pretty much all that's left at this point.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I reject your post.

You've got me curious -- exactly what does that mean?  Are you a moderator, and you're going to delete it?  Or is that just the drama queen version of "I disagree"?

[Oceander]

Nice sentiments, but they founder on the fact that Trump simply cannot be trusted and his past history is distinctly liberal.  His words cannot be taken either at face value or even as a commitment, because he has admitted, in print, in his own book, that he says things for effect in negotiations - a candidacy is nothing more than a negotiation at bottom - without any intention of being held to those words or to the promises they appear to be.   We have already seen how "promises" morph from day to day depending on the effect he thinks he can get from them:  first it was a real, ocean to ocean wall, then it became a virtual wall, then it became something that wasn't a priority at all (according to what he told Ryan).

In the past Trump has supported liberal positions, like single payer health care, and has definitely come out in favor of the governments right to take an individual's private property and give it to other private companies because the government thinks the company would make better use of the property.

Finally, Trump's political milieu is distinctly liberal.  He is of a type with Michael Bloomberg, another wealthy NYC businessman who became a republican at the very last instant, just so he could run for mayor; Bloomberg definitely governed as a big-government liberal.  And they both fit into a larger group: the Rockefeller republicans; these are generally wealthy liberals who are too embarrassed to be seen in the same room with the unrich liberals who  protest in the streets.   Trumps family are also all NYC liberals, most particularly the son in law he is taking advice from on media matters: Kushner. 

The only reliable facts say that Donald Trump is a political liberal - a Rockefeller Republican - and will govern as a liberal if elected, notwithstanding what he says, the same way that Bloomberg did when he was elected Mayor. 

In other words, the only reliable facts say Trump will be just as liberal as Clinton.  I prefer to base my decision on reliable facts, not on mealy-mouthed "truthful hyperboles" spoken solely because of their intended emotional effect on the listener, not because they represent anything real about the speaker.  When I do that, I find that I cannot on principle support Trump because he will be just as bad as Clinton.  The facts say so. 

[sitetest]

You've got me curious -- exactly what does that mean?  Are you a moderator, and you're going to delete it?  Or is that just the drama queen version of "I disagree"?

Oh, heck.  I'm no moderator.  I've only been here maybe a month.

Merely, I reject your post.  If you prefer, "I disagree."  I don't think "I reject your post." is especially melodramatic,  but to each his own.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Nice sentiments, but they founder on the fact that Trump simply cannot be trusted and his past history is distinctly liberal.  His words cannot be taken either at face value or even as a commitment, because he has admitted, in print, in his own book, that he says things for effect in negotiations - a candidacy is nothing more than a negotiation at bottom - without any intention of being held to those words or to the promises they appear to be.   We have already seen how "promises" morph from day to day depending on the effect he thinks he can get from them:  first it was a real, ocean to ocean wall, then it became a virtual wall, then it became something that wasn't a priority at all (according to what he told Ryan).

I guess I'm not making myself clear despite my fear that I was being repetitive.  My post is not about rallying around Trump -- it really has nothing to do with him at all.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with not voting for Trump, but instead attacking Obama, Hillary, and the left to help out our downticket candidates.

But your only response to all that is only that Trump is really, really bad -- which I never disputed.  I suppose we disagree on the conclusion, but you actually made my point for me.  Your entire post only mentioned Clinton twice, in passing, and only in comparison to Trump.  You didn't mention Obama at all.

For far too many Republicans/conservatives, this election is about Trump, and nothing else.  And that's the problem as I see it.  I don't mind people standing against Trump.  What bothers me is that people are only standing against Trump, and not against (or even for) anything else.  It's a one-sided narrative that does nothing to actually advance our principle.

[sinkspur]

The net effect of this is that Obama and Hillary Clinton are getting virtually a free pass by those very same Republicans and conservatives who are busy expending all their ammunition at a guy whom the Democrats and media are already attacking 24/7.  I don't ask or expect anyone to defend Trump -- he's vile, and underserving of defense. But good grief, how about directing some fire at the horrible people who are going to be running the country when Trump gets clobbered in November? Where's the thoughtful criticism of Obama's statements?  Or Hillary's?  If you look at the threads here that get the most traffic here, they are almost invariably the anti-Trump threads.  Obama and Hillary are barely an afterthought.  And this is supposed to be a Republican/conservative website?

So post some anti-Hillary articles and fire away.  Nobody's stopping you from leading the charge against Hillary.  I might join in.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So post some anti-Hillary articles and fire away.  Nobody's stopping you from leading the charge against Hillary.  I might join in.

There have been plenty of anti-Obama/Hillary articles posted.  They get little traffic and drop swiftly compared to the anti-Trump articles.  I just went and looked -- other than one article questioning sampling in a poll, the first 15 or so articles were all anti-Trump.

[sinkspur]

That's why I'm going to be voting for Trump out of sheer spite.  It's pretty much all that's left at this point.

Whatever makes you happy.  Don't know who you think you're spiting. 

Doesn't matter to me who people vote for.   It matters to me who I don't vote for.

[sinkspur]

For far too many Republicans/conservatives, this election is about Trump, and nothing else.  And that's the problem as I see it.  I don't mind people standing against Trump.  What bothers me is that people are only standing against Trump, and not against (or even for) anything else.  It's a one-sided narrative that does nothing to actually advance our principle.

Nope.  This election is about voting against two unworthy candidates.  Why trash Hillary here?  I only know of one or two people who've said they'll support her.

The reason there is so much railing against Trump is that he is supposed to be the standard bearer for the GOP and conservatives.

He's not, and those of us who oppose him find new reasons every single day why he's not.  THAT, my friend, advances my principles, which is to not back a man who is unfit for the White House.

[sinkspur]

There have been plenty of anti-Obama/Hillary articles posted.  They get little traffic and drop swiftly compared to the anti-Trump articles.  I just went and looked -- other than one article questioning sampling in a poll, the first 15 or so articles were all anti-Trump.

And that tells you where the membership is.  I don't see any reason to bash Hillary since I have no intention of voting for her and almost nobody here is either.

But, the wolf is at door in the person of Trump, and he must be stopped.

[MACVSOG68]

And that tells you where the membership is.  I don't see any reason to bash Hillary since I have no intention of voting for her and almost nobody here is either.

But, the wolf is at door in the person of Trump, and he must be stopped.

And you have no intention of voting for Trump either, yet...

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Nope.  This election is about voting against two unworthy candidates.  Why trash Hillary here? 

Trash Hillary because she directly threatens our principles.  Argue those principles in the context of what the Dems in general -- not just Hillary -- are trying to do.  I've posted a bunch in the military thread about what this Administration is going to our military.  But apparently, our leadership in Congress is too focused on Trump to pay much attention to what they're doing to the Armed Forces.

The reason there is so much railing against Trump is that he is supposed to be the standard bearer for the GOP and conservatives.

Okay, and he fails miserably at that.  That's been repeated here hundreds of times, though, so you'd think at some point, going after the people who the media is letting off scot free would have some appeal.

He's not, and those of us who oppose him find new reasons every single day why he's not.  THAT, my friend, advances my principles, which is to not back a man who is unfit for the White House.

Not casting a vote advances nothing.  It's simply silence.  Not voting for Trump and publicly focusing attention on how the Democrats are attacking our principles does advance those principles.

[sinkspur]

And you have no intention of voting for Trump either, yet...

Yep. No "yet" to it.  Won't vote for Trump, period. 

[mystery-ak]

And that tells you where the membership is.  I don't see any reason to bash Hillary since I have no intention of voting for her and almost nobody here is either.

Do you have enough in the account now to spread out flame retardant chemicals?  in the person of Trump, and he must be stopped.

I had to reread that twice...

You don't intend to vote for Hillary so you won't bash her

You don't intend to vote Trump but will bash him...

Your logic is confusing to say the least.

The wolf is at the door and she is wearing a pantsuit....

[MACVSOG68]

Yep. No "yet" to it.  Won't vote for Trump, period.

I sense you missed my point. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Maj., you've made your choice.  I can't make it for you.  As for me, it's NeverTrump and NeverHillary.  I refuse to choose to be party to handing either of them the power of the Presidency.  Honestly I view Trump as AT LEAST AS BAD as Hillary.  AT LEAST!!!  Just a different kind of bad.  All roads lead to disaster.

Hey, I'm totally fine with that, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Trump.  I'm doing it because I doubt it will matter.

My issue is not people refusing to support or defend Trump.  It is that people (including elected Republicans) who are refusing to support or defend Trump don't seem to have much interest in going after Hillary or Obama either.  And that is going to facilitated a Democrat sweep in November, because the prospect of a Hillary presidency won't seem that bad, and so a GOP Congress isn't really necessary to restrain her.

To me, the most moral, conservative option for those who won't vote for Trump is "Yeah, Trump is ridiculous.  But an unfettered Hillary would be an absolute disaster, and here's why."  Then focus on helping all our downticket candidates to keep Hillary from having her way once elected.  But we are not laying any of that anti-Hillary groundwork for November, and the MSM sure as hell isn't going to do it.

[Oceander]

There are two wolves, both equally nasty and equally liberal.  That is the problem.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yeah that's the problem with anti-Hillary posts, because I often have little to add to them but "I agree", which I find not to be a terribly interesting reply. You want "Dem plants" and "Cruz says trump voters will bear their responsiblity" type threads you will need to make controversial posts, having to do with Trump. That's just human nature IMO.

[Oceander]

Everyone's free to say what they wish, and I certainly don't expect anyone to defend Trump.  What I see as deplorable is the preference for attacking a guy who already is getting blasted by the MSM, Obama, and Hillary's $1B anti-Trump warchest, and essentially giving (by comparison) a free pass to both Obama and Hillary.

That's enough for me to punt on the "movement", and just cast a spite vote at this point.

You mean that there are people here who do not already know/believe the worst of Clinton and Obama and need to have that pointed out to them?  I hardly think so.