Today’s meme: “Any GOP candidate would have been slimed by the MSM and the Democrats”
You see it on this blog among some commenters, and you see it from highly esteemed conservative bloggers such as John Hinderaker at Powerline: the argument that the current attacks on Trump are much like attacks on previous GOP candidates such as McCain and Romney (although somewhat different in content for Romney), and that much the same would have happened (and will happen) to any GOP nominee:
Did Romney and the GOP get credit in the press for the candidates’s outstanding character? No. Romney, who helped to create tens of thousands of jobs at Bain Capital, was denounced as a “vulture capitalist” and blamed, absurdly, for one woman’s developing cancer. The Washington Post made a front page story of the fact that 50 years earlier, when he was in high school, he and others had cut a classmate’s hair. Oh, and Romney was a racist, too. Does anyone remember why? I don’t.
The cycle before that, GOP voters nominated John McCain. McCain is a great patriot, a man of extraordinary character and courage who survived years of torture and abuse as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Did the liberal media give Republicans credit for nominating such a hero? No. The New York Times, to its everlasting shame, peddled a false rumor that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. (Bill Clinton would have done that before breakfast.) It also berated McCain for failing to release his medical records”“which, actually, he did, unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama…
What’s the point? I’m not really sure. I certainly am not in favor of nominating candidates of poor or marginal character. But the hypocrisy of the liberal media is galling…
What is the point of nominating someone of extraordinary moral stature, like Mitt Romney, if the political press will not only unanimously refuse to acknowledge the fact, but worse, join in a campaign of deception to smear Romney in the eyes of voters?
Hinderaker further links the MSM perpetual war against Republican candidates as causative in the decline of our political culture.
And I would say all of this is true. Very true. Extremely true. And also somewhat irrelevant this year.
As I’ve said in the comments section, Romney didn’t lose because of those attacks. They sure didn’t help, but here are some reasons he lost that were much more important:
(1) He was running against a rather popular incumbent. Not popular with you or me, but still pretty popular with a lot of people. That counts for a lot.
(2) He had a manner that was seen as distant, stiff, and patrician.
(3) The “47%” remarks that were leaked.
(4) Some people think Hurricane Sandy was a big factor in giving Obama a moment to shine, right before the election.
(5) Some conservatives didn’t vote for him because he was considered a RINO. No one knows how many did this, or whether it would have made a difference, but the election was relatively close and it might have.
Those were the ones that came to mind for me. There were more offered by commenters “geokstr” and “Spiral” here and here.
What’s more, George Bush won despite the attacks on him. Remember those last-minute stories about his drunk driving? That was an attempt to administer the coup de grace, but it didn’t work. The election was close, of course, but I don’t think it was because of those smears.
Same for McCain. He did not lose because of some last-minute accusations of infidelity. Of that I am nearly certain.
As I’ve said many times (and as Hinderaker also acknowledges), Trump was and is uniquely vulnerable. These attacks are working because they are congruent with what we already know of his character. They are plausible, whether or not they are true, and so they hit home. What’s more—and this is important—they began with the words of the candidate himself as the lead-in to the later revelations by the women.
And he already was losing, before these attacks. He was already a highly unpopular candidate. So much that, although the attacks may deal Trump a (metaphorical) death blow, he was already (metaphorically) ill in the sense of appealing to voters in the general. In that sense, they are more the equivalent of the anti-Goldwater Daisy ad than anything else, even though the subject matter is very different. Goldwater, a very upright and moral man, was already losing without that ad, but it got traction (and those of us alive back then remember it today) because many people already saw him as a wild extremist politically. If that had not been the case, and if LBJ hadn’t been extremely popular at the time, the ad wouldn’t have mattered one whit.
Had Cruz or Rubio or Fiorina been nominated, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have been smeared. For Cruz it would have been religion (and more of the type of stories Trump winked at during the primaries, involving Cruz and affairs, although that was absurd). For Rubio, probably more stuff about the Gang of 8, in order to turn conservatives even further against him. For Fiorina, Hewlett-Packard. And although the stories might have succeeded in harming their chances, I don’t think they would have, in the end—especially and most particularly for Rubio, who has the most attractive personality of the three. We have no way to know for sure, of course. But I strongly strongly suspect it.
It’s moot now. As many have pointed out, Trump is the nominee. But it’s something to keep in mind in the future. There are those who say there is no future for the right. I disagree, although I agree that its future looks very very shaky right now. But the right won’t get anywhere nominating candidates with such major personal negatives.
From my viewpoint, Kasich was probably the only Republican that would have easily defeated Hillary. But as you say, it’s a moot point.
Anybody notice that Trump has rebounded in the polls and is leading in several important states again.
Trump is a flawed man. But candidate Trump has indentified critical issues that need attention now.
1. Not starting a shooting war with Russia over a no-fly zone. It won’t be a proxy war. Trump is right on this.
2. Reign in the excesses of Wall St. Carry interest is a start. Repealing Dodd-Frank would be a good second step.
3. Secure our borders. A nation without defensible borders is not a nation.
4. Repeal Obamacare before it fails to the point that we can’t correct the implosion of the health care sector.
5. Restore the concept that Washington insiders will be subject to the same laws as we are.
6. Supreme Court. Notice that HIllary did not say she would nominate Garland. Her ideal justice is far to the left of Garland.
7. Negotiating trade treaties that represent the interests of American workers and stem the bleeding of manufacturing jobs leaving the country. We need free trade with countries that have similar wage and environmental laws. We need to discourage currency manipulation to gain favorable balance.
Women that will support Trump have already factored in his boorishness. I suspect women that are unwilling to accept his apology will not.
But we need to return the debate to the critical issues, not character flaws. There are plenty of those to go around. I guess you’ll have to weigh Hillary- corrupt, untrustworthy, horrible temper, etc. against Donald– vulgar, braggart, etc.
Of course, Trump hasn’t taken tens of millions dollars, from Arab oligarchies that repress women or received $27 million in speaking fees from Wall St. Might want to factor that into the equation.
The attacks against Romney were lies, but he wouldn’t fight back (not effectively, anyway). The attacks against Trump are true, so he can’t fight back effectively even though he’s trying.
The alt-right held the theory that decency was a weakness. They inflamed a portion of the base to join them. Many of the nose-holders are now regretting their decision, and the alt-right’s theory is collapsing in front of us.
Next cycle (and yes, there will be one):
1) No jerks
2) No squishes
3) No incompetents
This cycle, there were maybe 9 candidates who met those criteria. Trumpkins have to lie about that fact in order to make Trump seem like a rational choice.
For all those who are frustrated (as I am) with the fact that trump’s own behavior and focus (or lack of it) overshadows the recent wikileaks revelations, expect them to serve as a foundation for future electoral opportunities, as it is about much more than clinton, it is about dem and leftist attitudes towards the rest. And, contrary to popular belief in “conservative” circles, it is not limited to conservatives.
Peggy Noonan has a good article, of which this is a part of the revelations she speaks of…
https://www.google.com/search?q=America%E2%80%99s+Decadent+Leadership+Class&rlz=1CAACAG_enUS711US711&oq=America%E2%80%99s+Decadent+Leadership+Class&aqs=chrome..69i57.105j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=America%E2%80%99s+Decadent+Leadership+Class+-+WSJ
(this is the RCP link to google, which hopefully works for those without a subscription).
“The attacks against Romney were lies, but he wouldn’t fight back (not effectively, anyway).” – Matt SE
Definitly saw this wrt Benghazi – twice!
The first was when he backed down after the criticism that he was “too quick” to “politicize” the tragedy.
The second was when he let Crowley’s “correction” stand without effective rebuttal.
Was disappointed on both counts.
.
Only thing about your list of requirements – “squishes”.
The original trumpsters would undoubtedly cast all but one of the primary candidates as “squishes”. I recall some labeling Cruz as either a “RINO!!!!” or/and “Establishment”.
I think we need to do without labels like that, and measure them against a checklist of core principles.
I’d almost go so far as to say that any candidate who runs under the GOP label has to sign a pledge to a set of core principles, and that only those who have consistently supported those principles for some reasonable period of time (e.g. eight or ten years, or two POTUS election cycles?) are eligible to run.
No future for the right? Quite the contrary. Insofar as an opposition party is allowed to exist (after IRS and DOJ attacks of all varieties), I think of America as more naturally right-leaning than left-leaning. The left that has bloomed since Obama took office, and as anticipated under a Hillary administration, is a more European and feudal society with strong statist influence. This is not America of the past century or two, and except insofar as Hillary manages to buy her way into office, it is not our future either. Even presuming Hillary can buy the office for the next 4/8 years, there comes a time when she’ll run out of goodies to distribute or victims to defend. I cannot see how Trump can win the election, but I can see various ways Hillary can lose, and I hear a lot of voices out there fighting against everything she has to offer.
Big Maq Says:
The original trumpsters would undoubtedly cast all but one of the primary candidates as “squishes”. I recall some labeling Cruz as either a “RINO!!!!” or/and “Establishment”.
This was one of the biggest smears against Cruz (after the bizarre birther crap had outlived its usefulness). It was all over the Breitbart comments section for months, based on his wife’s employer, his fully-secured and repaid campaign loans from 2012, and a claim that he was for amnesty because of the poison pills he tried to insert in the Gang of 8 bill (with the full support of Jeff Sessions), a complete distortion of reality. Unfortunately, lots of pissed-off Tea Partiers fell for it.
I’d almost go so far as to say that any candidate who runs under the GOP label has to sign a pledge to a set of core principles, and that only those who have consistently supported those principles for some reasonable period of time (e.g. eight or ten years, or two POTUS election cycles?) are eligible to run.
Isn’t that pretty much embodied by the Republican Party platform that all their candidates, including socialists, cronies, and Rockefeller Republicans like Snowe, Murkowski, McCain, Boehner, McConnell and many others claim support for, election after election, and then turn their backs on once elected?
If we could only re-harness the energy of the Tea Parties and have them continue the great work they did early on finding and supporting conservatives at the state and local level who can one day assume the seats now held by the squishes as they retire.
The future of the GOP?
I’ve said this before, and it’s a pretty ordinary observation; but it looks as if small-government conservatives will be a minority, within the Party, for quite a while. Eventually, federal government debt levels will force a smaller government upon us, but I don’t know whether it will be conservative.
If small-government conservatives are a minority and populists are the majority, then who will be the next presidential candidate? I have no idea. I pray that it’s not Trump, but why should he go away quietly? Why should the damage he’s done end with this election? If the GOP can’t rid itself of Trump, then it will become little more than a punchline. To write the jokes, the media will hardly need to rouse itself from its self-induced left-wing stupor.
Cornflour – Both groups are numerically minorities within the GOP. Every group is a minority within its party. That’s nature.
Yes, well, the IRS.
Neo,
What is it that you want to happen now, given the lay of the land?
Ok. So, it’s bad.
What do you do with the material and choices at hand?
Big Maq Says:
I think we need to do without labels like that, and measure them against a checklist of core principles.
If you like, although I use it as a shorthand. Here’s a more specific definition: “Nobody who voted for Gang of Eight or crony capitalism like the Ex-Im Bank.”
Rubio *might* have learned his lesson, and I’d be willing to take another look after 4 years of good behavior.
Rubio was more attractive and I think quicker on his feet than Cruz but the media would have damaged him heavily with his severe anti-abortion stance. And the flip-flops. The establishment turned on Rubio and wouldn’t allow Cruz. The party is responsible for Trump. They should have said adios at the beginning when he said he might not be able to support the nominee. What political geniuses decided that taking the hit early with Trump supporters wasn’t preferable to a jackass candidate that would embarrass and drag down the party weeks before the election. The stupid party.
I’m putting the most blame for Trump on that huge crowd of candidates in the primaries who were ruled by their over-sized egos. Imagine if many of them just hadn’t gotten into the race in the first place. Or if they’d pulled out later when there was still time for just one other candidate to stop Trump.
Gallup poll Oct 5-9,
Americans satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S.:
28% are satisfied with the direction of the U.S.
8% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats are satisfied
Satisfaction similar to level seen before 2012 election
49% of Democrats, 24% of independents and 8% of Republicans are satisfied with the country’s direction. Republican numbers are almost identical to four years ago — when 7% were satisfied.
Obama’s approval rating; 53%
“Isn’t that pretty much embodied by the Republican Party platform that all their candidates, including socialists, cronies, and Rockefeller Republicans like Snowe, Murkowski, McCain, Boehner, McConnell and many others claim support for, election after election, and then turn their backs on once elected?” – geokstr
“Cornflour — Both groups are numerically minorities within the GOP. Every group is a minority within its party. That’s nature.” – Eric
@geokstr – well, not sure the platform remains a constant, as that seems more like election year policy stands, but, yes, the politicians have been less effective as we’d like them to be.
Maybe that is because of the coalition of groups, as Cornflour and Eric discuss – each one have differing levels of influence on the representative.
Even the GOP “principles” page seems to read more like current in the news policy issues (e.g. “Veterans should have the best care and opportunities in the world”).
.
” I pray that it’s not Trump, but why should he go away quietly? Why should the damage he’s done end with this election? If the GOP can’t rid itself of Trump, then it will become little more than a punchline.” – Cornflour
You and I and many others.
Frankly, with “the shackles off”, trump (and his supporters like bannion) may be making a play for their own party or, at minimum, some media empire of their own with permanent agitator status.
Someone said that maybe a blowout is needed to discredit the trump movement. Maybe true.
But that won’t work without some recognition and addressing many of the issues behind what has moved folks to trump. To the extent that such a void exists, it gives trump / bannion and others life after the election.
All the while, the dems and the MSM will do their best to sow the seeds of division.
Thanks for that link to the Peggy Noonan article, Big Maq. Made me wonder how the Catholic vote will be affected by those leaked emails showing Democrats disparaging Catholics. Pennsylvania specifically, since Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia took notice of those emails, and was not a happy camper about them; see here.
@Ann – thanks for your link!
The menu is indeed rather small. I hope they write in for the top of the ticket and GOP down ticket.
.
Frankly, we might be shocked at the content of emails from those on the GOP too, if we ever were to get to see them.
Sometimes, getting a look into how “the sausage is made”, it becomes rather unappetizing.
DNW:
Your question seems to me to be a false choice to a great extent, in much the same sense as it would be if you were to ask me on the day after the election who I want to win it.
Ever since this past April I have basically thought the election was over, and Hillary has won. You can disagree with that, mock it, call it negative (that latter is certainly true). But that’s what I believe I know, and although I cannot be 100% certain I feel extremely strongly that that is the inevitable drift of things. What I want is irrelevant.
If Trump could win, however, I’d want something I think is also nearly impossible, so why wish it? I want him to become an effective, thoughtful, wise, decent, conservative president. But that’s what I’d want.
Same for Hillary. That is, if she’s elected (much more likely, in my book), I’d want her to suddenly have respect for the Constitution and the opposition, be stronger on immigration, be more moderate in terms of issues on right/left, stop lying, be strong on fighting terrorism—you get the drift.
I don’t think any of this will be happening. But those would be my wants.
There were reasons why in the old days people were so stogy about mixing and very very guarded in letting women around. It wasn’t oppressing women, it was protecting reputation against something that only zero contact could result in safety! No matter how absurd or not, there will always be a percentage to side with the accuser and another percentage who will play it safe, and another percentage and so on. The number of women who would do this is incalculable, because its easy for someone who says never, to suddenly have some reason to get back at that they find OK. There doesn’t have to be a lot though, in a lifetime people cross paths with literally hundreds of people and all it takes is one person with a bee in their bonnet male or female (though few believe men comparatively).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Trump camp puts forward witness to refute sex assault claim
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
And hell hath no fury like a woman scorned… and even my ugly self has met the woman who did not react well to someone not being interested when they went to all that trouble, and did all those embarrassing things, that if it worked would be ok… but since it didn’t, made the mortified.
not much you can do about it if you mix with people
though it becomes easier to understand why wealthy and famous isolate themselves so much… (then end up marrying their personal assistants, dating their makeup persons, etc)
As the ‘saying’ goes, you don’t pay a prostitute for sex, you pay her to leave after sex…Dashiell Hammett
who knows?
I certainly don’t…
but most people of means are not like huma’s husband. AW aka Carlos danger. they have too much to lose and often too much self control – yeah, there are some and they are notable, but if it was very common the salacious stories would not titillate.
Well, “the right” did not nominate Trump, despite Neo’s closing line: “But the right won’t get anywhere nominating candidates with such major personal negatives.” Millions and millions of voters nominated Trump, and they were obviously not the ones who voted Cruz or Rubio or Fiorina or Carson.
The primary election process varies widely from state to state, with some “open” primaries (Dems voting GOP), some primaries where the plurality winner gets many or most of the delegates, and so forth.The Democratic primary process is less than democratic, with the unelected Democratic Superdelegates bought and paid for regardless of primaries. I know I’m plowing old ground, but still…The primary process stinks.
Further, many (most?) #neverTrumpers are on the right and refuse to vote for him, endorse him, work for his election.
Those of you who will not vote Trump are enabling Hillary, to once again state the obvious. It is OK with me if you all are willing to commit political suicide and elect a corruptocrat, but it is not OK with me for you to elect a murderer of the Constitution and take the rest of us down with you. Oh, I see, I could be wrong; Hillary will destroy the country by following the rules, and Trump is horribly dangerous because some of us don’t know what he’ll do! Nuclear button, etc., an argument for hysterics.
C’mon people. “His personal negatives”? A century ago the US elected a man who’d fathered an illegitimate child!
Let us not say “the right” nominated The Donald.
Big Maq:
You write:
I’m not sure what you think “effective” rebuttal might be. I wrote at some length about that and other questions related to Crowley’s “fact-checking” during the debate, and Romney’s response, here.
This post might also be of interest, but it’s that first link that is especially pertinent.
“It is not OK with me for you to elect a murderer of the Constitution and take the rest of us down with you” – Frog
And you are absolutely certain that trump is nowhere near such danger?
The hysterics are with the “all is lost”, “flight 93” crowd, who won’t even acknowledge the risks with trump, and, worse, mocking any such concern.
With an almost certainty that trump has lost, what is your plan B?
Frog:
“The right” does not just refer to those who voted for Trump. I was speaking generally, for the future, not about the most recent cycle.
In addition, “personal negatives” for Trump are most definitely NOT limited to his character and sexual issues. It was meant to refer to everything negative about Trump, as opposed to the mere fact that he’s the GOP nominee.
The post was about how any of the nominees would have been smeared by the MSM, but Trump was uniquely vulnerable to those smears (because of his “personal negatives”—meaning, those things specific to him alone, and negative).
@Neo – You do a good job of explaining how Romney might have been feeling and thinking at the time, and it sounds something like performance jitters, mixed with some naivite. And, how it was probably a set up all along.
But, even if true, I still am disappointed.
Surely, by that debate he should have all the facts on that well understood, after having been beaten down on that first instance I mentioned, and therefore been well versed and confident in his knowledge.
Like we have seen in debates this year (I don’t remember them from 2012 well enough now to compare, without re-watching them), the candidates will continue on to make a point if they feel they did not have the time, and not be boxed in by the moderator on timing and framing.
Something like “Excuse me, Candy, but I don’t think you have your facts right, and it would be fair as the moderator if you left the debating to Barack Obama and myself, rather than adding your own comments, thank you very much!”
Yes, that’s a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. But I did (and still do) expect our candidates to handle those situations better than Romney, evidently, did.
Bottom Line: This is a lesson to be learned from the Crowley incident. What you describe is one area that GOP candidates need to be prepared for if, indeed, Romney was not.
Anyone else remember about a year ago when the New York Times came out with that story about Marco Rubio’s boat? I think it got the most attention on conservative sites making fun of media bias, and liberal media dropped it fairly quickly.
I don’t think the Times was pulling any punches with that one. It was their honest attempt dishonestly smear a man who had a good chance (that’s how it looked at the time) of being the Republican nominee .
It’s certainly possible someone could have found or invented something worse about Rubio if he’d been the nominee, but I doubt it would be anything like what we’ve seen with Trump.
The important thing to remember is that Obama could get away with nasty attacks on Romney because people mostly thought Obama was likeable while Romney wasn’t. This time around, people don’t like Clinton, but they like Trump less so the nastiness still works. If she were running against someone with less baggage and less tendency to say insulting things, these attacks wouldn’t work as well.
AWFUL! Wikileaks Reveals Clinton Camp Was Posting FAKE “Sexist Trump Job Ads” On Craigslist
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-clinton-camp-posting-fake-sexist-trump-job-ads-craigslist/
From the Podesta email:
Mark and Luis — digital created a fake craigslist jobs post for women who want to apply to jobs one of Trump’s organizations. This will be a microsite and we still need to send it to Perkins. Since we will be pitching this, need your approval please.
The top Clinton advisors, including Podesta, approved of the ads.
This is the type of smear campaign Hillary has been running against Donald Trump!
Disgusting!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On another note, Putin has recalled a lot of people on order recently and among other interesting things…
baltimoron:
Oh, I remember it, all right. The boat, and his wife’s speeding tickets.
That was it. That was all they could find.
They also probably would have made up some stuff, worse than that. But I doubt there was all that much that could have stuck. No, the thing that hurt Rubio most was the Gang of 8, and that only hurt him with the right.
That was one of many reasons that, although Rubio wasn’t my first choice, I thought he was an excellent candidate with the very best chance of winning.
Big Maq:
I was disappointed too. Very. But he was in a tough position.
I wrote more about it here, and also advised Romney as to what he should say in the third debate. He didn’t take my advice. Maybe if he had, they would have called him a nitpicker. But I thought then—and I still think now—he should have done it.
I have lots of advice for candidates. They never seem to take it 🙂 .
But I very much disagree with you that Romney was unprepared. He was very prepared. The only way to have prepared for that question was to have memorized Obama’s rose garden speech and to have been able to recite it to Crowley. He was as sure of his facts as someone could be without having memorized the speech.
In addition, Romney had the problem of trying not to be too heavy-handed in slapping down Crowley. He would have been accused of attacking a female moderator if he had.
I was contacted today by a producer at ABC News in New York. She is wanting to question me regarding the Miss Teen USA allegations. They also let me know that they are reaching out to All of my fellow contestants from 1997. I am going to be very truthful and let ABC know that Donald Trump was an absolute gentleman. I never witnessed any inappropriate behavior whatsoever the entire 2 weeks that I participated in the pageant. I’m sure that none of my interview will make the news since I have nothing but positive things to say about my experience with Donald. I do find it interesting and important for people to know that these are the depths the media is going to for their smear campaign. – Natasha Rickley
FWIW, I distinctly remember Rubio emphatically defending his position on abortion. No exceptions, including the life of the mother. Yeah, I bet that would have been acceptable to the general electorate.
Just in case you all don’t have something else to think about:
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.ql9h74yco
Dive in or not.
Abortion for saving the life of the mother is such a hackneyed, Gruberesque idea that has almost zero bearing on reality and real medicine and real maternity.
KLSmith:
You may “distinctly remember” it that way. But memory has a way of playing tricks on people.
Here is a statement of Rubio’s position, and here is a further elucidation of his position and how it worked in practice for him.
I am sure he would have been attacked for the position, but he had discussed it already and it didn’t seem to hurt his polls any, nor was it as extreme as what you remember.
Thanks for this Neo. While I think Trump is a cad, he’s no worse and may even be a tad better than Bill Clinton in his actions. That’s not a true defense of the man, but it does offer some sense of proportion. Listening to all the latest outraged attacks on Trump from the Dems, I am starting to gag a bit since they seem to so conveniently forget that Bill Clinton did numerous sex acts with a young INTERN while in the Oval Office. And, while I honestly don’t know if all the rape allegations against are true, or the assault allegations, there’s no doubt he’s gone over boundaries of women, more than one or two, or maybe three or four — in his life. I am sure he’s at least been very aggressive and also taken advantage of his political position. So all this outrage is very politically motivated and convenient.
That said, the GOP picked a winner! But what can you do? The voters wanted him, that’s the score.
You are right that they would have gone over anyone they could, however they could. Trump has left himself wide open on this and he’s a jerk, so there you go.
The self-righteousness is wearing a bit thin though.
And, I didn’t proofread that comment, so what I mean is that while I am not sure that the rape allegations against Bill Clinton are true– there’s no doubt that * Bill Clinton * has gone over boundaries of women, more than one or two etc. It is really the pot calling the kettle black. That’s politics though!
I left out an identifying phrase there. Any way.. people here probably figured it out anyway.
Those of you who will not vote Trump are enabling Hillary, to once again state the obvious. It is OK with me if you all are willing to commit political suicide and elect a corruptocrat, but it is not OK with me for you to elect a murderer of the Constitution and take the rest of us down with you. Oh, I see, I could be wrong; Hillary will destroy the country by following the rules, and Trump is horribly dangerous because some of us don’t know what he’ll do! Nuclear button, etc., an argument for hysterics.
Frog: It’s good to know to whom I report so I know what’s OK and what’s not OK for me to do.
Seriously, where do you get off?
This is what I expect to hear from leftists who are sure that humans, especially conservatives, are destroying the earth or the US is on the verge of becoming a right-wing totalitarian state, and therefore the left is entitled to badger and bully everyone else because the stakes are high — survival itself actually — and they know they the truth.
I agree the stakes are high, though I don’t believe it’s a matter of suicide just yet. However, if that is the case, IMO it is Trump and his supporters who have pulled the lever for suicide and guaranteed Hillary’s victory.
Nonetheless, I don’t see it as my job to enforce what’s OK and not OK for Trump supporters or to call them hysterics if they get out of line. I understand their concerns and their arguments. I just don’t agree.
neo: not gonna argue with you cuz you are the boss. But I do remember him saying his Catholicism dictated this belief. He surely had a better chance than Trump to beat Hillary. But like you said before, it is all moot now. Maybe he would have played better in the general cuz he sure didn’t break through in the primaries. What do I know anyway? Early on, I thought Jeb would be forced on us by the money onslaught and that Trump would fade.
neo: thanks for the links. So, he’ll save the mother. Big of him. But make you carry your rapist’s child, and what would probably be an underage victim of incest’s child. I stand corrected. Still think that sounds pretty extreme to most of America.
“I have lots of advice for candidates. They never seem to take it 🙂 .” – Neo
We will have to disagree wrt what Romney could have done.
But, yes, we all have advice – yours is rather more prominent, but, up to this year, Hannity might have had first dibs.
From now on, your voice probably has raised several steps in stature, increasing the likelihood someone in those circles would be listening, while Hannity’s has gone down (in flames?) for anyone running a serious conservative candidacy.
Let’s hope that the preparation future candidates includes preparing them for this type of scenario.
@OM – thanks for the link.
This one item resonated as true and particularly dangerous…
“Fascists take action without considering the ramifications. … Sources close to his campaign constantly leak stories to reporters about his inability to focus, his hatred of debate preparation and his determination to, well, just wing it.”
Cannot say I completely agree with his list of characteristics of a fascist (some of them might also simply be populism) and how they line up with trump, but he does highlight the salient points about how they do line up.
For a simple list of those characteristics, folks can go here…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
And read more detailed definitions here…
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
KLSmith:
Did you see the part where he voted for a bill that allows abortions in the case of rape or incest? He explained why.
Personally, I think he could have surmounted the problem by explaining he wasn’t planning on banning them, and had voted for bills that allowed abortion for rape or incest. He wasn’t forcing anyone to do anything. But he was by no means the only alternative to Trump that would have done much better than Trump. It was obvious that most of them would have. That does not mean they didn’t have drawbacks—of course they did. But their drawbacks didn’t hold a candle to Trump’s, and they did consistently better in the polls against Hillary during the primaries. It was clear that Trump was the worst of the candidates. Period.
Neo: “It was clear that Trump was the worst of the candidates. Period.”
So what does that say about voters?
What does the Clinton nomination and coming Clinton victory say about voters?
Let us avoid hubris. Hard for me to do though I try.
Frog:
What it says about voters is what I’ve been saying all along: some are desperate, some are gullible, some are misinformed, some are hopeful, some want to burn it all down, some are trusting, some are on the left but wanting to crossover in order to screw the right, some are Nazis, some are frustrated patriots, some are frightened—well, I could go on, but you get the picture. Some are several of these things at once.
And some didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries. In fact, the majority didn’t.
And that’s just the voters in the Republican primaries I’m describing.
I don’t feel hubris, either. I feel grief and frustration.
As for the Clinton victory, it speaks to the power of propaganda, the need for many people to feel they are do-gooders, growing cynicism, and in some cases fear of Trump as a loose cannon.
http://rightasusual.blogspot.com/2016/10/why-anti-trump-message-does-not-appear.html
LindaF:
Well, it might not be getting through to YOU or to many other fervent Trump supporters, but it’s getting through loud and clear to millions of other people who vote, and his poll numbers are dropping in important swing states.
I’m not sure anything gets through to his most fervent supporters.
neo: no, I hadn’t seen that part. You are a heck of a lot more thorough than I am. Post 2012 I’ve just felt too saddened, frustrated, hopeless, etc. to spend the energy getting down in the weeds on much of this stuff. I did watch in wonder and horror all of the primary debates but I will admit not doing as much reading (except for your blog and a couple of others) as I used to. I’m in the acceptance stage now. Admire and appreciate the hard work you do. I have to confess though that I only agree with you 97% of the time.
KLSmith:
Well, I’ll take 97%, although I’d much prefer 98% 🙂 .
By the way, I didn’t actually remember the details about Rubio from that long ago. It’s just that when I read your comment it wasn’t quite what I had recalled, and so I Googled it and the information came up pretty quickly.
Can’t wait for this election to be over.
I heard the first fifteen minutes of Trump’s rally today. He used various forms of ‘rigged election’ about a dozen times.
This quit being funny a long time ago. He’s doing battlespace prep for his coming loss by questioning our democratic system and inciting his followers to consider the election illegitimate (unless of course he wins). Some of his more excitable followers are already talking about revolution, riots, etc
When does it become not OK to be a Trump supporter? Just the fact that he’s a sexual predator would have been enough, I would have thought.
I know, I know, so is BC. So don’t vote for HRC either.
Trump is walking a dangerous line. Can’t believe the stupod party nominated this sham of a reality star, this cruel narcissist, this betrayer of what I thought the party stood for.
Sorry for the uncharitablr tone I’m taking here. I was sickened by what I heard today and concerned some of the alt-right brownshirts are going to wreak havoc. I believe in our country still and don’t believe the alt rifht thugs’ impact will be lasting, but it’s still potentially going to get worse before it gets better.
The GOP has covered itself in shame this cycle.
*stupid* & alt *right*
My typing skills suck
Bill:
Trump has returned to themes he used in the primary, rigged crooked system, violence if he didn’t get the nomination. I can only hope his business tanks after he looses in November (as it appears now). It would be just deserts IMO.
trump has messed up his “brand”.
Used to be “high end” and glittery “success”.
He has now associated himself with “low-brow”, and, pending the likely election results, a “loser”.
He and bunion from trumpbart might have designs on starting trump tv later on, but that audience is not going to generate near the revenues trump used to tied his name to.