Here goes: the Republican National Convention begins today
And it certainly promises to be somewhat more “interesting” than usual. Even if all goes according to the book and Donald Trump becomes the nominee (as I believe will happen), he’s such an unconventional candidate that it promises to be different.
Many prominent Republicans are absenting themselves from the festivities:
In a historic break from tradition at this week’s four-day celebration of the Republican Party in Cleveland, at least a dozen Republican senators, four governors, the past two Republican presidents and the past two GOP nominees intend to skip their party’s national nominating convention””just as presumptive nominee Donald Trump tries to show he is unifying the party.
It isn’t unusual for politicians to skip a convention, particularly for those who are facing tough re-election challenges and must devote their time to campaigning. But the sheer number of high-profile Republicans avoiding the party’s marquee event in 2016 is noteworthy, signaling the extent to which the billionaire businessman’s coronation has fractured the party.
I don’t blame those not attending, despite the incredibly high stakes and the need for the GOP candidate to win. If I were in their shoes I would find it difficult to stand up there, too, and speak for him—although I might try to force myself, if only to take a strong anti-Hillary stand.
But I don’t think Trump’s “coronation” (note the loaded word) has “fractured the party.” It’s not that I don’t see the fractures. But I think Trump’s nomination is a symptom, a result of an already-existing fracture that has widened somewhat but had already been getting large before Trump ever declared himself a candidate in the 2016 race.
Here’s a handy chart of who the speakers will be this year by category, as compared to previous years:
Here’s the schedule for some (not all) of the speakers, subject to change. C-SPAN covers the whole thing, including non-prime time events, if you’re really into seeing every little last bit (some of the following names were not at the link, but appeared in an email I got from the GOP about the convention):
Monday evening: Melania Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Joni Ernst, Willie Robertson (of Duck Dynasty), Rick Perry, Scott Baio (!), Marcus Luttrell (retired SEAL), Pat Smith (mother of one of the men killed in Benghazi), Jeff Sessions, and Tom Cotton
Tuesday evening: Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (otherwise known as The Bridesmaid), Ben Carson, UFC (that’s Ultimate Fighting Championship) President Dana White, Tiffany Trump, and Donald Trump Jr.
Wednesday evening: Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Eric Trump
Thursday evening: Ivanka Trump, Reince Priebus, Jerry Falwell Jr., Peter Thiel (libertarian tech entrepreneur), and of course the piece de resistance—Donald Trump himself.
I’ve never been a fan of political conventions, but the prospect of this one makes me feel especially sad. I suppose it’s a good thing that Trump has a lot of telegenic children to fill up those empty spots. I have no idea how a disaffected non-Hillary Democrat or an undecided Independent will feel about the lineup, but I comfort myself with the idea that I can’t imagine that the DNC lineup will be so very compelling either.
Of course, many people expect and fear that the more “interesting” events won’t be on the convention floor, but in the city of Cleveland, and that the racial unrest and political unrest that’s been escalating around the country will take disruptive and violent hold there. Let’s hope not.
What a year.
[NOTE: See also this.]
I find I haven’t even a minimal amount of interest in this convention.
@GB – Fully agree. That there are so many trump family members on stage really is off putting.
Are they THAT desperate to fill the space? Or is it just another self indulgent ego blast / victory dance? Rhetorical questions, as it is the latter. trumps just cannot help themselves.
I won’t reward them with any boost to their TV “ratings”.
I hope all members of the gop who endorse djt will suffer the consequences that are incurred from opening Pandora’s box.
Guess I’ll be washing my hair for the next four nights.
parker,
Is it fair to blame Trump’s supporters without acknowledging that had those not supportive of Trump, instead in a timely manner, coalesced around one candidate… that this never would have happened?
And does that failure not confer an equal amount of responsibility upon them for this state of affairs?
And if so, does that not point directly to the underlying problems on the right?
DJT supporters reluctant and otherwise, you brought him to the rodeo, now you get to wear the clown suit.
And you get to endorse Hillary… pluck the beam out of your own eye, before…
It’s been a long time since I’ve watched a convention. There may be one or two speeches I want to watch, but they’re usually running so far behind schedule that I’ll end up just watching them online later. I probably won’t do even that for the conventions this year. The people I currently like aren’t very good speakers.
I guess if there’s some train-wreck I’ll read about it on a blog and look up the video on YouTube.
GB
Once again you attempt to read minds and fail. The religion thread is elsewhere. The guilt trip doesn’t work, enjoy your ride with Caesar-Lite.
GB,
IMO the major problems with the right are that too many are not very right at all and poor messaging in general. I will give djt credit for his bluntness with the media. Not so much his messaging as he often pivots on the head of a pin.
And, I might actually watch the convention because instead of the usual dog and pony show it promises to be a three ring circus.
GB,
No one is endorsing hrc. Some, myself included, do not see much difference at all between the two nominees, and allow for a possibility that djt, as POTUS, might be even more destructive than hrc.
Yet, if Iowa looks to be a razor thin contest, I will vote for the troubled manchild from NYC. But that is something that is in the murky future many days away.
I think there’s a good lineup for the convention. There are two other things to consider. Because of the perception of failure from the previous Bush presidency (rightly or wrongly, an unpopular war & a financial crisis), no one from that administration can speak there. And, as Mark Steyn pointed out several months ago, it’s a lot easier for the base to get new leaders than for the leaders to get a new base.
For what it’s worth, just today Rush Limbaugh went all out with “Never Hillary” on his show. I found his sincerity touching. He basically said that if it meant losing his radio show, for the greater good of the country, if that’s what it took, then he would accept that to keep the destructive forces of the Clintons out of office.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/18/there_s_no_choice_never_hillary
OM,
No reading of minds needed to make that call, just unimpeachable logic. And it never occurred to me that guilt would enter the equation for you, nor was that my motivation, just pointing out the corollary to a rejection of Trump.
You just don’t listen do you. But you are cock sure of your own wisdom and discernment. Unimpeachable logic indeed.
My vote is my business and it isn’t for Caesar-Lite, Your vote for the tyrant is your choice. Keep carrying his water and crying crocodile tears for the country.
Lots of frustrated and angry delegates, entire Colorado delegation leaves the floor and 11 state delegations are steamed.
Parker:
Alternatives to the “manchild” are being closed out it seems, but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, (no not that one, she’s a democrat). One can hope against all odds.
Parker:
My unimpeachable logic leads me to the conclusion that the “manchild” has already begun his tyrannical approach to governance (as shown at the convention today) with full collaboration of the RNC. Inconceivable!
OM,
The rnc leaders, and enough others such as Sessions, have spoken, it will be djt. Trump has IMO accomplished his mission, namely, the implosion of the gop. Also, IMO, he does not actually want to be POTUS. What a drag to attend cabinet meetings, security briefings, meet with his lesser heads of state, deal with congress, etc. He cares not if he loses in November as he will find plenty of excuses and others to blame.
BTW, I think you misread GB as much if not more than you misread GB. We all have opinions, we all reach conclusions, and we are all occasionally wrong.
Perhaps a little off-topic, but yet another voice (William McGurn) raising the issue that a vote for Trump is a necessity this November (H/T Instapundit):
Blockquote cite=””>When presidents enter office, they bring with them about 6,000 people. From the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and White House assistants down to the lowliest Justice Department lawyer, Mrs. Clinton would fill her government with people who get up each day looking to tax, spend, regulate–and use the federal government to stomp on anyone in their way.
[snip]
Welcome to 21st-century American liberalism, which no longer even pretends to produce results. Whatever the shortcomings of Mr. Trump’s people, non-progressives simply do not share the itch to use the government to boss everyone else around. On top of this, an overreaching President Trump would not be excused by the press and would face both Republican and Democratic opposition.
Fair enough to argue that Mr. Trump represents a huge risk. But honesty requires that this risk be weighed against a clear-eyed look at the certainties a Hillary Clinton administration would bring.
The link:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-donald-trump-1468884328
Occasional idiot known as parker,
If not more than GB misreads you.
OM,
You continue to personalize. I guess you’re just congenitally incapable of objective evaluation when confronted with someone you dislike.
Logic is unimpeachable when premise, extending logic and conclusion are internally coherent and consistent. That is independent of whether the premise is viable, which is why logic cannot examine its own premise.
Instead of responding to my arguments, you instead attack my character. Evidently it’s lost upon you how badly that reflects upon your character.
“When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to slander” Socrates
GB:
Point out the flaws in your arguments and your arguments become facts. You continue to make the case for Trump, which could be a character flaw or a judgement flaw. You make claims of logic that cannot be proven.
Here is something to think about, beyond our disagreement.
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/07/19/battle-of-the-beams/
Yankee:
“the perception of failure from the previous Bush presidency (rightly or wrongly, an unpopular war & a financial crisis)”
I agree that the “rightly or wrongly” merits of OIF and Tarp are not the core of the issue because the core of the issue is in the politics, “perception”, the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game.
The general will of We The People is a function of activism.
On the merits, Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was evidently correct on the law and facts and TARP evidently forestalled a global financial meltdown. Both problems were inherited by the Bush administration and approached responsibly and dutifully by the President.
Yet in the politics, the “wrongly” perception is social political product manufactured by activists, including Left-mimicking (who may be Left) Trump-front alt-Right activists.
In that regard, activism-averse conservatives and, by extension, the GOP that has futilely depended on the Right for competitive activism are at fault for the unforced surrender of the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist to the Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right.
The compounding consequential cost of conservatives’ chronic aversion to activism is “the perception of failure from the previous Bush presidency” that has chiefly enabled the typically similar Obama and Trump phenomenons, despite that the merits of Bush’s OIF and TARP decisions are, in fact, sound.
President Bush was right. But if right is stigmatized, then wrong is normalized. The country has veered wrong because of the unchecked activist-manufactured “perception” that the critical decisions that Bush got right were wrong.
OM,
Except you haven’t pointed out the flaws in my arguments, instead you pretend that an unsubstantiated accusation is equivalent to rebuttal. Then you erect a strawman argument wherein you claim that I have claimed an opinion to be a fact.
Compounding your obtuseness, you assert that I “continue to make the case for Trump,” when in fact… I continue to make the argument that, Hillary is the far greater threat BECAUSE her supporters IDEOLOGY make her the far greater threat than does Trump’s mob of supporters.
I have repeatedly stated that were it an open convention, my preference would be strongly for Cruz. Which dismisses the claim that I am a supporter of Trump.
“You make claims of logic that cannot be proven.”
Logic 101; premise, extending logic, conclusion consistent with extending logic chain and premise. IF it has those elements, the ‘logic’ is ‘proven’, which is NOT to imply that the logic is correct or accurate, much less the truth of the matter. Logic’s great flaw is that it cannot examine it’s originating premise. So to disprove a chain of logic, you must disprove it’s originating premise, which if not based in known fact is an opinion, which is unprovable until factual confirmation is uncovered.
But if the premise is grounded in facts, then the logic is unimpeachable. Disprove that the premise is grounded in fact and you disprove a claim of unimpeachability.
The admirable Richard Fernandez, in the post to which you refer makes several noteworthy assertions;
“If events run relatively smoothly till November the advantage will be Hillary’s. If things blow up, it will be advantage Trump, or at least disadvantage Hillary.”
I’ve repeatedly expressed the same POV.
Fernandez makes the point that lies believed (Leftist public) have no defense when reality exposes them as lies. He makes the point that they believe in falsities and deny realities.
“Then they wake up to the realization that what they thought fixed isn’t and are mentally defenseless against the terror attacks they unexpectedly experience.”
Which is WHY, every attack that occurs strengthens Trump and weakens Hillary’s support. The same dynamic applies to Hillary’s support for BLM, when cops are shot.
That is NOT ‘support’ for Trump but dispassionate assessment. In reaction, you shoot the messenger, which changes the veracity of the message not in the least.
Except you haven’t pointed out the flaws in my arguments, instead you pretend that an unsubstantiated accusation is equivalent to rebuttal.
I had already pointed out that GB was using a tautology in his Caesar reference before. GB replied that I was personally attacking him.
So if you had wanted people to point out flaws in your argument, GB, you might have wanted to be more consistent over the last few months or years.
As for Trump, it’s actually pretty wise of him to use his own family as the inner circle. If Trump started trusting in DC hot heads, his head might not reach DC, on top of his body. If this reminds people of a Merchant Republic, a patriarchy, oh well. There’s a reason those clan systems worked before.
Well, if you pointed it out it must be true. And your past attacks are a matter of record. Nor am I prone to inconsistency.
You earlier said the Romans didn’t conquer the Germanic tribes because of terrain and now change your story again. But you aren’t inconsistent? Right.
And then there is the whole misapplied comparison of Caesar fighting the Gauls (warfare more than 2000 years ago) applied to the present situation. A bit of a stretch? Well yes. Ah, a master of military history, strategy, logistics, who knew?
But I’m sure you have a explanation for that as well. It will be logical and historically accurate too, you will tell us so, so it must be.
GB:
I don’t need your explanation or interpretation of Richard Frenandez. Once again, you aren’t Cassandra for the present.
Past conventions have sometimes had trouble filling the stage with celebrities – for example, Richard Nixon.
What I find interesting is the young people – they are on FIRE! They are hearing things not spoken of in Leftist schools; they are experiencing the birth of People’s Power in their lifetime. For the first time, they are “getting” what led the American revolutionaries to strike out.
Win or lose, these younger people will return to their homes, and spread the word.