Tuesday, August 2, 2016

What do Paul Ryan and John McCain do Now?

They have taken so much crap for endorsing Trump. In an earlier post I argued that whatever the implications for Ted Cruz's snub-and maybe he pays for it in major loss of donors-and least he hasn't lost every shred of human dignity he ever had.;postID=2091930961820305916;onPublishedMenu=overviewstats;onClosedMenu=overviewstats;postNum=8;src=link

Obama also laughed at them standing by Trump.

"President Barack Obama has blamed Republicans for creating Donald Trump, and on Tuesday, he predicted the political juggernaut they’ve unleashed will destroy its creator."

"After eight years — eight transformative years, Obama would argue — the president will leave in his wake a Republican Party so damaged that Republicans are forced to condemn their standard-bearer, even as they’re unwilling or unable to repudiate Trump. Obama might have failed to transcend partisan divides, but on Tuesday he argued that the opposition party has taken itself out of the governing equation."

“The question you have to ask yourself is, if you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him?” Obama said on Tuesday. “What does this say about your party that this is your standard-bearer?”

He added, "There has to come a point in which you say, enough. The alternative is the entire party and the Republican Party effectively endorses and validates the positions being articulated by Mr. Trump.”

Read more:

The knock on Cruz is that by snubbing Donald Trump he has really hurt his future. Trump claims he's finished.

But what has Trump given GOPers like John McCain and Paul Ryan for their trouble?

"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan in his upcoming primary election, saying in an interview Tuesday that he is “not quite there yet” in endorsing his party’s top-ranking elected official."

"Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily.

With Ryan’s Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House speaker’s underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running “a very good campaign.” Trump said that Ryan has sought his endorsement — an assertion that a Ryan spokesman denied later Tuesday — but that as of now he is only “giving it very serious consideration.”

“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”

"Trump’s refusal to back Ryan represents an extraordinary breach of political decorum and signals that the Republican Party remains divided two weeks after a national convention in Cleveland staged to showcase party unity."

"McCain could not be reached immediately for comment. The Ryan spokesman, Zack Roday, issued this statement: "Neither Speaker Ryan nor anyone on his team has ever asked for Donald Trump's endorsement. And we are confident in a victory next week regardless."

Some are wondering if finally this is the impetus that allows GOPers to just say not to Donald Trump.

Ryan Lizza:

"This could be the exit ramp McCain and Ryan are looking for."

We'll see about McCain and Ryan. Kelly Ayotte shows she sure knows how to hurt a guy.

Ayotte tweeted a response later Tuesday: “I call it like I see it and I'm always going to stand up for our military families and what's best for the people of New Hampshire.”

She also still plans to vote for Trump, according to her campaign."

Remember when Reagan back in 1980 said to the Moral Majority: 'You can't endorse me, I'm endorsing you.'
Kelly Ayotte: 'You are endorsing my opponent but I am voting for you.'
You see my point on Ted Cruz. Maybe he pays the price for not endorsing Trump. But even if you endorse him you still may pay the price.

UPDATE: Russ Douthat and I agree:

"Ted Cruz is feeling pretty good this afternoon."


  1. Mike, here's a short one from Erick Erickson (in it's entirety):

    I’d like a point of order, please.

    For months now, Trump supporters have told me and others that we should focus on Hillary Clinton. In fact, they are prone to say that we never spent as much time opposing Hillary or Obama as we have Trump.

    And lately they tell us that we need to focus on Hillary or we are helping Hillary.

    I’d like to note that the braying jackass they are supporting has today attacked the parents of a dead soldier, the Republican Speaker of the House, the Republican Senator from Arizona, and babies.

    Yesterday he was attacking the junior Senator from Texas, and continued his attacks on Ted Cruz today.

    Maybe they should worry about their candidate’s lack of focus on Hillary Clinton instead of my focus on pointing out they’ve been conned by a braying jackass.

    I added a link to a RedState article regarding the babies. The last sentence from that one is worth quoting as well:

    In Trump's defense, his conventions are only big enough for one big baby.

  2. The more this goes on the more laughable it becomes. Even Mark Halperin was apologetic tonight. He wants to do false equivalence but there's no way to claim anything near as crazy is happening with Hillary as is happening with Trump every other minute

    It's so bad they can't even pretend false equivalence

  3. Mike, perfect timing would be for Ryan, McCain, McConnell, Ayotte, etc, to run for the exits on Trump about a week or two before election day.

    Right in that sweet spot where it's too little too late to do their campaigns much good, but with plenty of time to nail the lid on the coffin of Trump's candidacy and the dingle berry candidates desperately still clinging to his anus hair (e.g. Rubio).

    Hopefully the bad blood w/in the GOP is still there in time to sink Ted Cruz's reelection bid in 2018 as well (and maybe Mike Lee and Ben Sasse to complete the purge).

    A bunch of anti-Trump conservatives excluded from the Brave New World of xenophobic populism (a la Tump) w/in the GOP might just make a play to take over the Libertarian or Constitution parties (even though the current leadership of those parties is unacceptable to those free-agent conservatives).

    I can't think of a better outcome for continued Dem domination. Hopefully the divided conservatives will be at their weakest in time to lose a bunch of statehouses and redistricting battles prior to 2020.

    Dems can get more serious about border security once Texas is bright blue. =)

    And maybe Zika will drive the current residents of Puerto Rico to the mainland further diluting hill-billy power centers (if they move to the right states). 3.5 million Puerto Ricans could totally dominate a half dozen states along the NW to SE swath of continental US (CONUS) that constitutes the heartland of GOP power. Realistically, they'd probably end up in bluer states, and the whole population wouldn't depart... but then again, if they're fleeing Zika they might just end up in Northern Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas, etc.

    My fantasy is to flip Wyoming, and North and South Dakota (since that would require only a few people), but that may not work out. Think of the senatorial spoils that would come with such a coup though!

    Wyoming currently has 30% going for Clinton and about 57% for Trump. Just 175,000 Dem people (and only a fraction that many voters) moving to Wyoming could make it a purple state. 300,000 (10% of Puerto Rico's population) could make it bright blue. Of course not all Puerto Ricans are Democrats... but maybe 75% are (based on the non-voting members of congress they elect). So I still think that would be plenty to turn a bright red low population state bright blue. Do that to a few other similar states, and the GOP will be eager to get behind efforts to turn PR into a state! Lol

    But what are all those people going to do in WY, ND and SD? Well, my plan (really a fantasy) has a few shortcomings, I'll admit. However, it might just take one multi-Billionaire "hero" willing to break the back of hill-billy power for good to come up with something in that regard.

    But that's just the senate... Texas, Georgia, NC and maybe even AZ might be good targets for the house. If Texas and Florida were shoved firmly into the blue column, it's game over for the GOP.... at least until they put down the hillbilly contingent and get on board making a play outside their base tribe.


    1. BTW, have you noticed that the electoral map seems to be hardening into definite blue and red states. Totally unlike the era from 1960 to 1984 when states could swing either way. At least since 2004, the battle lines seem pretty stable.

      I've spent my whole life here in CA, and I've seen a transformation. Back in the days of Pete Wilson (our 1990s Republican governor) we had an infamous proposition 187 that was supposed to crack down on illegals. I voted for it then as well as Wilson. That was back when Limbaugh was taking the WSJ's more open borders stance, and thus was not a supporter (if I recall correctly). But soon afterwards the courts threw out most of 187 and the needle really swung decidedly into the Dem camp. My personal attitude is to embrace the change. I would never support 187 today. I imagine a lot of my white co-Californians have had a similar reduction of racial and cultural anxieties since then. It's with curiosity that we look at the rest of the nation go through what we did in the 90s.

      It really is a sort of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude shift IMO. I hope that takes hold in TX and AZ and maybe Georgia too. I'm not really for open borders, but I'm vehemently against race baiting politics. I'd like to see it definitively crushed.

    2. It's sometimes said that if you want to know what the future of America will look like look at California