Michael Walsh:
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Donald Trump is what the small but obsessive, increasingly deracinated, band of “never Trumpers” says he is. He’s not a “movement conservative” – true. He’s often crass and vulgar – true. His quasi-grammatical flights of oratorical fancy often get him into trouble –also true. “Words matter” they remind him, while calling him a “witless ape,” a “white nationalist,” and — most childishly — a “turd-tornado,” who’s “dark,” “condescending,” and a “lunatic,” to list some of the more printable epithets in the conservative press. (You can find plenty of the unprintables here, at Diana West’s “Trump lexicon” link.)
Okay. Therefore… what?
Remember that his opponent in this fall’s presidential election is former secretary of state Hillary Clinton – a woman so breathtakingly corrupt and at the same time so unaccountably privileged that FBI Director James Comey practically indicted her on national television, and then declined to prosecute over her unauthorized and leaky private email server. As a profile in cowardice, Comey is tough to beat.
Just recently Mrs. Clinton provided an honored place at a rally in Orlando to – unbelievably – the father of the Muslim terrorist who murdered 49 people and wounded scores of others at a local gay nightclub two months ago. This enormity was followed by the Freedom of Information Act-forced release of 44 additional Clinton emails not hitherto disclosed that pointed at a too-cozy relationship between Foggy Bottom and the money-laundering operation known as the Clinton Foundation, whose lineal and historical ties to the Genovese crime family really cry out for investigation by some enterprising reporter.
Considering the alternative, then, what option does an American patriot have but to vote for Trump, no matter how distasteful one might find him, or how offensive his gaucheries? The “never Trumpers” proclaim their fidelity to checklist conservatism, and thus would rather see Trump lose and the country consigned to at least four more destructive years of Democrat rule than vote for the brash New Yorker.
Trump’s opponents on the right fall into two main categories – conservative opinion journalists (most of whom are under 50, who came of voting age after Ronald Reagan left office) and the political-consultant class. The latter’s opposition is easy to understand, as Trump has essentially dispensed with their services, running a bare-bones primary campaign that resulted in the largest vote total in the history of the GOP nominating process. No wonder they’re sore:
“Those of us who believe, who know, that Trump is dangerous can’t just settle for him being beaten in November,” wrote GOP consultant Rick Wilson recently. “We need to ensure that he is on the business end of a decisive, humiliating defeat — so that the terribly divisive forces he has unleashed are delivered a death blow.”
My Southern grandmother often used a phrase that a lot of folks south of the Mason-Dixon line of a certain age will remember. It was always delivered in a low, calm voice: “Go outside get a switch.” You knew at that point that whatever childhood misbehavior you were engaged in was about to come to a halt, painfully.
Well, Trump voters, it’s your turn. Go get a switch. I’m not going to coddle you and say you’re really smart and good people and this is just a misunderstanding. That’s just what the PC crowd does on the left.
Trumpkins don’t deserve a participation trophy for wrecking the party and saddling the nation with Hillary. They made the crazy the enemy of the good, and centered an entire campaign on rage, fear and an eternally shrinking spiral of cult-worship and fanaticism.
They dragged one of America’s great political parties from the back of a truck.
To begin to repair the damage done, they need to see not that their way almost succeeded, if only one or two states had broken differently. They must absorb the painful reality that their way cannot, will not, ever work again.
What’s more puzzling is the entrenched opposition by a die-hard handful in the right-wing media, whose increasingly desperate (and mind-numbingly repetitious) anti-Trump columns read more like a personal cri de coeur than reasoned political discourse.
The Nevertrumpers are shooting themselves in the foot and its going to cost them big in the long run
With all of the name-calling and foot-stomping, the NeverTrumpers are acting like spoiled little liberals.
Oh…
Just saw the headline and wanted to see. Glad someone on this site recognizes the disaster the nevertrumpers are trying to bring to the US. Time for them to join their co-conspirators on the left in their quest to put the hildebeast in office.
Look 2 out of the first 3 posts name calling Trump backers, why would any reasonable conservative voter not run to be part of that?! Or would someone on the edge but not quite a Never be disgusted and walk away?
Ya liberals never call names, or use stupid ass backwards arguments ,who is it that are behaving like liberals who is driving away allies?
I do say the handful of rightwing media that print or comment anti-trump need to just focus on Hillary and her plethora of flaws. We are stuck with the candidate, but they are stuck with theirs too.
The author, Michael Walsh, spent too much time calling everybody names for me to bother reading the whole thing.
But the point he’s seemingly trying to make is, that if the few committed to be Republicans Against Trump remain such they will cost Trump the election.
The polls are showing Trump slightly behind Hillary as we are about 80 days out.
But Hillary is showing pretty obvious signs that she can’t even campaign with energy, much less be president, which is a 24-7-365 job.
Compare schedules of events for the two over August 1st through the 20th.
Notice that Trump takes Sundays off.
But he often has two events in one day, also.
Hillary takes off all Saturdays and Sundays PLUS a Tuesday, a couple of Fridays and a Thursday.
Notice Trump has an average attendance of 5,487.
Hillary’s average attendance is 1,318.
So, he has 25 rallies in 20 days with an average of over 5,400 at each.
She has only eleven rallies in 20 days and pulls in only just over 1,300 at each.
So, perhaps she has a whole lot of ”supporters-in-name-only,” who don’t care enough to see her. Perhaps they also won’t care enough to come out and vote for her, either.
Not in the above stats is the fact that almost every Trump rally has to turn away many who simply can’t get inside the venues because of health & safety codes.
Seems to be an enthusiasm gap.
Toward the end of his primary campaign Trump pointed out how the (to use the term, Michael Walsh uses) NeverTrumpers planned to try to use the rules committee to give the nomination to someone else (never named). Trump then asked his supporters to fight this by giving him an overwhelming victory instead of a squeaker.
They did so.
The Dems, no matter who is on their side of the ballot, have a lock on an almost automatic victory in the Electoral College.
All they need are a few more states.
Trump needs all the so-called Red States PLUS many ”swing states” to garner a win.
If people in his own party divide off away from Trump in the election he will lose.
Their party will lose.
But, for those professional pundits on this part of the ”right,” their jobs will be more secure if Trump loses.
I think that, before supporting any of these professionals in their quest for Trump to lose, we ask ourselves how that benefits US, we might not support them at all.
After all, they might be out of a job if Trump wins, but a whole lot of Americans will be out of jobs if Trump loses.
Hillary is 4 more years of this.
Hillary is four more years of this, too.
@Petercat:
they are thin skinned, intellectually dull, uneducated, have no idea of what soap is, no teeth and a lot of tasteless tattoos, multiple illiterate children feeling free to empty their bowels on city streets. this sounds like the current congress?
@kitt: Trumpists like Nan and Petercat don’t like name calling–now that’s funny.
Got any good throwback videos?
@Richard Wheeler: Just this one on names, I couldnt find a piece by laurel and Hardy from Way out West, but this may do
@kittFunny: Thanks. Trump’s smartest move to date is naming Cruz’s gal KellyAnne Conway as campaign manager. Will he listen to her?? Doubtful
I cant say, I do know she is very frugal with funds. As Trump is no longer self funding….or kicking out all the illegals…
I have to wonder if the addition of KellyAnne Conway to the Trump team will put to bed most of the Cruz followers’ animosity.
Probably not.
Seems those who love Cruz more than a paid PAC president won’t change their vote just because someone else is paying this woman.
After all she worked for Newt, for Jack Kemp, for Mike Pence, for Fred Thompson, even for Ronald Reagan.
She also worked for Dems like Dan Quayle.
If anything this should educate people about the pundits being paid, so saying certain things.
In her case, it is her entire career.
When people take a paid pundit’s word for what Donald Trump said or did they must remember who signs the check of the pundit pushing the narrative.
As to her helping add women voters…..
One thing I keep seeing and hearing about is how the ”shy-Tory” syndrome is affecting polling of local women voters.
Women have told me they felt embarrassed to say they were supporting Trump because of the way the pollster went about asking the questions.
So, they claimed they were voting for the ”1st female President,” Hillary Clinton.
Is it a ”push poll,” when one candidate is referred to as a ”one-percent’er billionaire businessman,” while the other is referred to as potentially the ”1st female president?”
It is in my mind.
@Nanny G: Dan Qualye Repub Veep under Bush Sr.
May help slightly with women Trump trails badly at about 35% Needs about 45%-46% to win