Yesterday he basically said to his fellow Republicans: I have to support Donald Trump, but you don't have to.
"House Speaker Paul Ryan says it’s his responsibility to support Donald Trump, even if the presumptive Republican nominee’s bombast occasionally makes him uncomfortable."
"Ryan told Chuck Todd of NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he feels an obligation as leader of the House Republicans to back Trump, warts and all. To do otherwise, he said, would divide the party and ultimately lead to a third consecutive Democratic victory in November’s presidential election."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/ryan-trump-respontibility-paul-donald-224521#ixzz4C88xnXjJ
So beating the Democrats is the most important thing in the world-even preferable to stopping Hitler 2.0? Stopping someone who represents an existential threat to the very Republic?
Ryan himself has suggested that if Trump does his Muslim ban, he will sue him. Other Republicans like Mitch McConnell say 'Don't worry, our separation of powers are strong.'
You have someone who might threaten our separation of powers and yet the most important thing remains to stop Hillary Clinton?
Chuck Todd quite rightly asked him if he's putting party over country?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-trump-over-clinton
But, listen, I'm fine with it, really. I'm happy to hear Ryan is standing behind Donald Trump. He doesn't owe me an apology. I'm happy for him to support Trump and put down any kind of last gasp convention coup.
Jennifer Rubin has been holding out hope that there is some sort of cloak and dagger scenario to stop Trump at the Convention.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-reality-check-for-jennifer-rubin.html
I'm happy to see Ryan is not with that.
Seriously. I don't want Rubin's fantasy to come true-though it's doubtful it will. This is a party that can't unify on anything anymore.
The RNC is also throwing cold water on some anti Trump convention coup.
https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/743936610371256320
Meanwhile. Jennifer Rubin is asking the right question today:
"It is increasingly likely that either Trump will get dumped or he will lose by as healthy margin to Hillary Clinton. The Republic, it seems, may escape a brush with authoritarian buffoonery. (All caveats apply about Clinton’s FBI investigation, a severe economic downturn and other developments that could upend the race.)"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/20/six-weeks-to-sanity-the-anti-trump-surge-is-finally-here/
Her latter-that he loses by healthy margin-is much more likely than her former-that he's dumped, per Sean Spicer.
"House Speaker Paul Ryan says it’s his responsibility to support Donald Trump, even if the presumptive Republican nominee’s bombast occasionally makes him uncomfortable."
"Ryan told Chuck Todd of NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he feels an obligation as leader of the House Republicans to back Trump, warts and all. To do otherwise, he said, would divide the party and ultimately lead to a third consecutive Democratic victory in November’s presidential election."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/ryan-trump-respontibility-paul-donald-224521#ixzz4C88xnXjJ
So beating the Democrats is the most important thing in the world-even preferable to stopping Hitler 2.0? Stopping someone who represents an existential threat to the very Republic?
Ryan himself has suggested that if Trump does his Muslim ban, he will sue him. Other Republicans like Mitch McConnell say 'Don't worry, our separation of powers are strong.'
You have someone who might threaten our separation of powers and yet the most important thing remains to stop Hillary Clinton?
Chuck Todd quite rightly asked him if he's putting party over country?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-trump-over-clinton
But, listen, I'm fine with it, really. I'm happy to hear Ryan is standing behind Donald Trump. He doesn't owe me an apology. I'm happy for him to support Trump and put down any kind of last gasp convention coup.
Jennifer Rubin has been holding out hope that there is some sort of cloak and dagger scenario to stop Trump at the Convention.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-reality-check-for-jennifer-rubin.html
I'm happy to see Ryan is not with that.
Seriously. I don't want Rubin's fantasy to come true-though it's doubtful it will. This is a party that can't unify on anything anymore.
The RNC is also throwing cold water on some anti Trump convention coup.
https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/743936610371256320
Meanwhile. Jennifer Rubin is asking the right question today:
"It is increasingly likely that either Trump will get dumped or he will lose by as healthy margin to Hillary Clinton. The Republic, it seems, may escape a brush with authoritarian buffoonery. (All caveats apply about Clinton’s FBI investigation, a severe economic downturn and other developments that could upend the race.)"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/20/six-weeks-to-sanity-the-anti-trump-surge-is-finally-here/
Her latter-that he loses by healthy margin-is much more likely than her former-that he's dumped, per Sean Spicer.
https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/743936610371256320
But I'm glad Rubin is asking the question:
"That does, however, raise the troubling question: Why couldn’t the GOP have figured all this out before Trump got to 1,237 delegates? Right-wingers will smell a plot. (The MSM held back until he had the nomination!) But there were a number of factors in the primary — a huge field (dividing the not-Trump vote and shielding him in debates), a press entranced with his media show, the novelty of his “act,” and the collapse of his opponents at critical times (e.g., Sen. Marco Rubio’s pre-New Hampshire primary debate) — that aided Trump."
"Still, there is something fundamentally amiss on the right that in a mere six weeks the country has figured out Trump, whereas Republicans in nine months plainly could not see the character they were embracing. That should highlight some troubling deficiencies on the right."
"Absolutely. By no means was Trump's rise accidental. It could not have happened to the Dems no matter how many candidates were running. Trump was able to garner the kind of plurality of GOP primary voters that no other Republican was able to come close to."
"Yes, Trump is a joke. But this highlights the fact that the GOP itself is an even bigger joke. As pitiful as his spiel is, this worked brilliantly in the primary."
"First, the anti-immigration obsession that had transfixed the right-wing inured many supposed gate-keepers (e.g., magazines, pundits) as well as the base to a candidate peddling a dangerous brew of nativism, protectionism and isolationism. If the “respectable” publications rant and rave about “amnesty,” one can imagine why Trump’s idea for a wall might have gotten traction rather than guffaws. It’s no coincidence Trump’s closest ally is Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), an anti-immigration zealot who found Trump the perfect spokesman for his cause. Thankfully, the general electorate, including Republicans who did not vote in the primary, take a dim view of his xenophobia. They oppose mass deportation and a Muslim ban."
"This is very true. None of his opponents really pushed back in a consistent way on 'amnesty.' Jeb sort of did at times but other times he also talked about 'anchor babies' and wanted to ban Muslim refugees and only admit Christians."
"Second, over the past seven years, the anti-government tirades from talk radio, from Beltway groups such as Heritage Action and even from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) saturated the base, convincing them that everyone with experience “betrayed them” and only outsiders devoid of exposure to governance had the secret sauce for peace and prosperity. In the general election, by contrast, Clinton has skewered Trump’s inane ideas and ridiculed his ignorance in ways the GOP field did not do consistently and zealously from the get-go.
Third, the “establishment” — the officialdom of the Republican National Committee — facilitated Trump’s rise, convinced he’d run as an independent (did they not realize how cheap he is?). Refusing to condemn him, declining to press him on releasing his tax returns, maintaining an excessively large debate contingent and actively condoning his candidacy all enabled Trump to achieve a degree of legitimacy he otherwise would never have gotten. A soulless party chairman who lacked fidelity to the ideals of the party unwittingly may have handed the election to Clinton and decimated the party itself."
Yes. What we have now discovered in the general is that Trump is not a billionaire. Not in terms of liquid assets anyway.
Otherwise why is he begging for $100,000 dollars?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/you-have-more-money-than-donald-trump.html?showComment=1466368646478#c8606006902487613700
As for Rubin's dream of a coup, the question is what candidate would want to be the sacrificial lamb at this point? Whoever would emerge-Ryan, Rubio, Cruz-would be so tarnished-both with the GOP base in terms of legitimacy-and in terms of everything Trump has said and done-that it would be a Kamikaze mission.
But I'm glad Rubin is asking the question:
"That does, however, raise the troubling question: Why couldn’t the GOP have figured all this out before Trump got to 1,237 delegates? Right-wingers will smell a plot. (The MSM held back until he had the nomination!) But there were a number of factors in the primary — a huge field (dividing the not-Trump vote and shielding him in debates), a press entranced with his media show, the novelty of his “act,” and the collapse of his opponents at critical times (e.g., Sen. Marco Rubio’s pre-New Hampshire primary debate) — that aided Trump."
"Still, there is something fundamentally amiss on the right that in a mere six weeks the country has figured out Trump, whereas Republicans in nine months plainly could not see the character they were embracing. That should highlight some troubling deficiencies on the right."
"Absolutely. By no means was Trump's rise accidental. It could not have happened to the Dems no matter how many candidates were running. Trump was able to garner the kind of plurality of GOP primary voters that no other Republican was able to come close to."
"Yes, Trump is a joke. But this highlights the fact that the GOP itself is an even bigger joke. As pitiful as his spiel is, this worked brilliantly in the primary."
"First, the anti-immigration obsession that had transfixed the right-wing inured many supposed gate-keepers (e.g., magazines, pundits) as well as the base to a candidate peddling a dangerous brew of nativism, protectionism and isolationism. If the “respectable” publications rant and rave about “amnesty,” one can imagine why Trump’s idea for a wall might have gotten traction rather than guffaws. It’s no coincidence Trump’s closest ally is Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), an anti-immigration zealot who found Trump the perfect spokesman for his cause. Thankfully, the general electorate, including Republicans who did not vote in the primary, take a dim view of his xenophobia. They oppose mass deportation and a Muslim ban."
"This is very true. None of his opponents really pushed back in a consistent way on 'amnesty.' Jeb sort of did at times but other times he also talked about 'anchor babies' and wanted to ban Muslim refugees and only admit Christians."
"Second, over the past seven years, the anti-government tirades from talk radio, from Beltway groups such as Heritage Action and even from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) saturated the base, convincing them that everyone with experience “betrayed them” and only outsiders devoid of exposure to governance had the secret sauce for peace and prosperity. In the general election, by contrast, Clinton has skewered Trump’s inane ideas and ridiculed his ignorance in ways the GOP field did not do consistently and zealously from the get-go.
Third, the “establishment” — the officialdom of the Republican National Committee — facilitated Trump’s rise, convinced he’d run as an independent (did they not realize how cheap he is?). Refusing to condemn him, declining to press him on releasing his tax returns, maintaining an excessively large debate contingent and actively condoning his candidacy all enabled Trump to achieve a degree of legitimacy he otherwise would never have gotten. A soulless party chairman who lacked fidelity to the ideals of the party unwittingly may have handed the election to Clinton and decimated the party itself."
Yes. What we have now discovered in the general is that Trump is not a billionaire. Not in terms of liquid assets anyway.
Otherwise why is he begging for $100,000 dollars?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/you-have-more-money-than-donald-trump.html?showComment=1466368646478#c8606006902487613700
As for Rubin's dream of a coup, the question is what candidate would want to be the sacrificial lamb at this point? Whoever would emerge-Ryan, Rubio, Cruz-would be so tarnished-both with the GOP base in terms of legitimacy-and in terms of everything Trump has said and done-that it would be a Kamikaze mission.
Romney already learnt in 2012 there is no etch a sketch in American politics. And Romney didn't have a fraction of the things Trump has to etch.
If you're Ryan, Rubin, or Cruz, you'd be much smarter to wait till 2020. Ted Cruz might be the exception to this: as he'd get nominated in a normal year, he might go for it. But then, it'd be tough to see the party delegates unifying around stealing it for Cruz.
"But that still leaves two core problems. The first is that any replacement nominee would be almost guaranteed to lose. With that kind of voter disenfranchisement and lack of campaign infrastructure for the new nominee, scores of republicans who support Trump would stay home on election day. Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. That means the already difficult task of finding a replacement nominee, in a year where almost no viable republicans wanted to run for President to begin with and the field was filled with losers, would get even harder. Anyone who accepted the nomination would go into it knowing they would lose, and it could derail their political career and reputation. Even Mitt Romney, who has spent months trying to find a republican candidate willing to take on Trump, doesn’t seem willing to be the sacrificial lamb himself."
"Still, the republicans do have one overwhelming motivation for trying to oust Donald Trump. At this point they know they’re likely to lose the White House in 2016 whether they stick with Trump or replace him. But if they can get rid of him by July and regain control of their party soon enough, they might be able to limit the damage to their congressional reelection races. The longer Trump remains the nominee, the greater the odds the democrats end up taking back congress, thus giving Hillary a majority with which to hit the ground running. The republicans wouldn’t mind four years of Hillary, but only if they can use congress to obstruct the biggest pieces of her political agenda."
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/the-odds-of-the-republicans-replacing-donald-trump-as-the-nominee-just-went-up/24979/
If you're Ryan, Rubin, or Cruz, you'd be much smarter to wait till 2020. Ted Cruz might be the exception to this: as he'd get nominated in a normal year, he might go for it. But then, it'd be tough to see the party delegates unifying around stealing it for Cruz.
"But that still leaves two core problems. The first is that any replacement nominee would be almost guaranteed to lose. With that kind of voter disenfranchisement and lack of campaign infrastructure for the new nominee, scores of republicans who support Trump would stay home on election day. Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. That means the already difficult task of finding a replacement nominee, in a year where almost no viable republicans wanted to run for President to begin with and the field was filled with losers, would get even harder. Anyone who accepted the nomination would go into it knowing they would lose, and it could derail their political career and reputation. Even Mitt Romney, who has spent months trying to find a republican candidate willing to take on Trump, doesn’t seem willing to be the sacrificial lamb himself."
"Still, the republicans do have one overwhelming motivation for trying to oust Donald Trump. At this point they know they’re likely to lose the White House in 2016 whether they stick with Trump or replace him. But if they can get rid of him by July and regain control of their party soon enough, they might be able to limit the damage to their congressional reelection races. The longer Trump remains the nominee, the greater the odds the democrats end up taking back congress, thus giving Hillary a majority with which to hit the ground running. The republicans wouldn’t mind four years of Hillary, but only if they can use congress to obstruct the biggest pieces of her political agenda."
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/the-odds-of-the-republicans-replacing-donald-trump-as-the-nominee-just-went-up/24979/
No comments:
Post a Comment