This is in response to an earlier post Does Trump want Party Unity?
– It wasn’t those “political celebrities” who “buoyed Trump’s campaign…It was the abject failure of “the Party” to carry out its responsibilities…it’s contempt for its voting base…its cynical betrayal of its own stated principles and values
– That essential “party machinery”…where was it in 2012 when they had their hand-picked establishment candidate facing a failed and proven dishonest incumbent?
– “crankiness”? You bet! A nation in ruins, heading toward further disaster…tends to make a body “cranky”
– Trump’s dominant messages resonated with many conservatives, as no other GOP candidate’s did; that “Sunday go to meeting'” needs desperately to apply to that “party machinery”; their choice is to work with Trump, or support Hillary, actively or passively
– This isn’t about meeting with Paul Ryan”; The heck it isn’t; this is all about Paul Ryan and his standing as the “White Knight” of the GOP establishment; It’s Paul Ryan and who and what he stands for that got us here!
———————-
Divining what is in Donald Trump’s mind is way above my pay grade. But to the question as to whether or not he wants “party unity”, my view is that if he does or doesn’t it is hard to imagine that he could expect to win the presidency without it.
But that is a different issue than the matter of what some believe he must do to secure that “unity”.
And that “unity” is an elusive thing. It is a two-way street, and a fair question is, does the GOP establishment want “Party Unity”? That is, unity on nothing but their terms?
It’s suggested that a good place for Mr. Trump to start is to “apologize to conservatives”.
Maybe that’s a good idea. But to which ones and for what? And should it stop with conservatives? What about those “moderates”? And all those Mexicans Trump has “offended”? And certainly the Bush family was mightily offended. Fox News? While some at Fox are accused of “being in the tank” for Trump, should he apologize to Megyn Kelly who has a lot of Republican Party friends who strongly disapproved of Trump’s “mal-treatment” of her?
Once a politician starts “apologizing”, where does it stop? The demands for it never end.
And, how necessary is it in an arena where ‘bean bag’ is not a recognized sport?
Maybe a good place to start is to begin apologizing to anyone he offended during the primary campaign. But that could take awhile. In every political battle, most every participant, or at least their supporters, are offended, perhaps even “micro-aggressed against”.
It is hard to imagine that a serious primary campaign adversary of The Donald who really believes in the “cause” ( the “cause” being the desperate need for this country to stop and reverse the calamitous direction that 8 years of a ‘quasi-dictatorship”, and how many years and decades of feckless or willful stewardship of this nation before that, has produced) would resist joining the party in an all out effort because they were sorely offended by poorly chosen words exchanged in the heat of battle.
Personally, I don’t think so. Does anyone really think that Ted Cruz, the consummate professional and dedicated American patriot is so distraught over the bad things that Mr. Trump said of him and his father and his spouse that he would sit out the most important election in a century and allow a Hillary Clinton to take the reins of leadership of this country?
Are their some who devoted a good part of their lives and wealth over the past year in support of Senator Cruz’s candidacy who would? Yes, probably. Hopefully it is a small number and also hopefully when the senator announces his support, in the interest of party unity, many of them will change their minds.
And finally, as far as apologies, the name of Paul Ryan was mentioned in this piece. I believe that when the apology session starts, Speaker Ryan should be called upon to do one. I was personally “offended” by Mr. Ryan’s betrayal of his campaign promises and his abject surrender to President Obama’s complete agenda for his last year in office.
And Jeb. I don’t recall you added any codicil when you raised your hand at the first debate pledging to support the eventual nominee, “unless he says bad things about me”.
THOSE “MIXED SIGNALS”
As to Mr. Trump’s “mixed signals”? There have been some instances in which his early positions on some key issues have been muddied. I think, though, that they may not be as ambiguous as the media presents them to be.
When Trump calls for a temporary moratorium on the importation of many thousands of unvetted “refugees” into this country from predominately Muslim countries where anti-western terrorism is rampant and nurtured, it is not the same as an intent to oppress American Muslims, or a call for a campaign of hatred, discrimination, and violence against all Muslims.
When he says that he is for every worker earning enough to support a reasonable living for their family, one can interpret from his words that he’s promising a goal to foster the creation of good paying jobs by the private sector…not an unrealistically high “minimum wage”.
When he calls for a “wall” to halt the flood of illegal immigrants he’s calling for the effective enforcement of immigration law now on the books. Some say he’s backing away from that stance. But, then, “some” say a lot and I’ve not heard Trump take an any more definitive statement than he originally did.
On none of those issues and many more is there even a half-hearted attempt by the media or the “NeverTrumpists” to present or consider a true and balanced picture.
Admittedly, there are issues on which I find myself in serious disagreement with Mr. Trump. Mostly they tend to be on the “social issues”.
Do I believe that Donald Trump, marinated in that “New York culture”, is “pro-life”?
Not for a “New York Minute”!
How does Mr. Trump feel about the outsize influence and society-damaging activities of the LGBTQ movement?
I don’t think he has given a minute’s thought to its incredibly mindless premise or to the willfully destructive nature of it.
But I would ask, does anyone think that Paul Ryan or the GOP establishment really harbors any deeply held concern or opposition to it? Their most recent legislative “optical illusions” (“show votes”) don’t indicate any serious commitment.
And when it comes to possibly the biggest concern among “social conservatives” regarding the decay of western civilization and fundamental values, how much does one think the commitment to resist the “Planned Parenthood” definition of human values differs between the current GOP congressional leadership and Donald Trump?
On that score the new definition of “suckers” is conservatives who go to the polls to vote for establishment-backed Republicans who claim to share their deeply held Christian and natural human values.
THAT “SUNDAY GO-TO-MEETING”; WHAT PRICE “UNITY”?
Those who opposed Trump and supported other candidates (and I was one…Cruz was and is my choice) may need to have that “meeting”. But maybe those who remain steadfast in their opposition to Trump and demand that he come to some accord with the leadership of the Republican party on certain issues should also have a “Sunday-go-to-meeting “.
In other words, exactly what is the price for “Party Unity”? (I do agree that those who supported the “Trump insurgency” are obligated try to hold him to his promises and his initial positions.)
I think it’s fair to ask just what positions Trump has taken should he “modify” his stance on to be more “in tune” with GOP strategies.
Is it on “immigration”? That “wall”? On “deportation”?
IS IT ON A MORATORIUM ON THE IMPORTATION OF MIDDLE EAST REFUGEES?
– On those things don’t we know where Paul Ryan and the establishment stands? To become “more in tune” with Paul Ryan’s conception of GOP values what is the nature of a “compromise” on Mr. Trump’s part?
Is it on the excessive regulations on business?
– What serious attempt to stop them did the GOP congressional majority make?
Is it on “climate change” initiatives?
– Same question…and we also know many of the establishment “NeverTrumpers” are in accord with the Dems on this.
Is it on trade, specifically the Trans Pacific Partnership “agreement”?
– We know where Paul Ryan is on this; this monstrosity isn’t “free trade”; it’s a big step in Obama’s abdication of America’s sovereignty. One wonders if Messrs. Ryan and McConnell have even read the 5500 pages of secretly negotiated terms. Maybe the “compromise” here is to have Senator Corker draw up another of his famous “Iran Agreement” capitulations in which he gives away Constitutional Senate authority over international treaties.
Is it on national security? The awesome task of rebuilding the nation’s military strength?
– Didn’t we see the establishment GOP trade modest increase in defense spending in return for further growth in domestic entitlement spending, then abandon any pretense of congressional control by lifting spending caps and getting nothing for defense?
Is it on the growing national debt ?
– Again, Speaker Ryan and Mitch McConnell, in control of both Houses for the past 6 months have allowed Obama to increase the debt by another trillion dollars.
Is it on Trump’s position on Obamacare? Unfortunately, whatever The Donald’s position, it seems obvious that the “establishment” really has no opposition to Obamacare. If their concern is as great as they claimed when campaigning, wasn’t it worth forcing Obama to shut down the government to stop it. (Ooh no! That’s what caused the GOP to lose so badly in the 2014 mid-term elections…or wait! They won landslides across the board. That darn Cruz!)
All I know for certain is that, as of now, Donald Trump is the Republican Party nominee; Hillary is virtually certain to be the Democrat nominee. I would ask all those conservatives, moderates, and establishment Republicans whose first choice didn’t make it, what do you prefer? A rowdy, uncouth, unpredictable rogue political neophyte who promises to largely undo the devastation wrought on this nation in the last 8 years?…or Hillary Clinton, a totally corrupt leftover from the turbulent 60’s who is guaranteed to further and increase the decline and devastation of a once great nation?
What kind of choice is that? Hobson’s or Sophie’s?
DLH
