Trump: I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi and was close to Chuck Schumer in many ways

posted at 1:21 pm on January 26, 2016 by Allahpundit

The key bit comes at 5:40 of the clip. Money line: “I always had a great relationship with Harry Reid. And frankly, if I weren’t running for office I’d be able to deal with her [Pelosi], I’d be able to deal with Reid, I’d be able to deal with anybody.” This point has been made often, most recently by Andy McCarthy, but it can’t be repeated enough: This guy is on the verge of beating Ted Cruz as an “outsider” by touting his record of cronyism. How can you be anti-establishment, wonders McCarthy, when you’re crowing about your history of essentially bribing politicians, including politicians from the other party? It’s a perfect complement to Trump, the least socially conservative candidate in the Republican field, landing the endorsement of the son of the man who founded the Moral Majority. Trump’s success is like a flashing road sign, “Republicans don’t actually care about most of the things they claim to care about.”

Three points. One: To reiterate the takeaway from last night’s post, Trump feels free to tout his chumminess with Pelosi et al. only because he has absolute confidence that there’s nothing he could say or do that would alienate his base. (In this case, the right side of his base, although it’s the right who’ll decide Iowa.) Cruz’s brand as a full-spectrum conservative is a form of accountability: If he’s elected and tacks towards the center, he can be held to account for why his principles don’t match his actions. Trump’s brand is a total lack of accountability. My fans won’t abandon me no matter what I do in office, he says, and he’s testing that theory by talking up his relationships with Democratic villains in crunch time before a conservative electorate goes to vote. Not even a centrist like Kasich would tout his relationships with Pelosi and Schumer, not even in order to draw a contrast with Cruz’s obstructionism. Trump does it because he thinks his cult of personality will forgive him anything. And they will — but are there enough of them to beat Cruz in Iowa? If there are, how might a president who’s convinced he’s unaccountable to anyone behave in office?

Two: I don’t understand how Trump fans reconcile the fact that this guy spent six months running as a strong man, who’d impose his will on Washington through a combination of charisma, an electoral mandate, and raw executive power, but has spent most of the last month touting his willingness and ability to make deals with every Democrat in Washington, as if Pelosi and Schumer will accede to his demands out of sheer admiration for his testicular fortitude. Neither one of them’s going to care if Trump wins big in the fall; their base is the left, not centrist Democrats, and the left despises Trump. In particular, Schumer will be eager to show the left as the Democrats’ new leader in the Senate that he’ll drive a hard bargain for their agenda, especially knowing how eager Trump will be to prove he can broker deals. Meanwhile, if Trump turns into the “radical centrist” everyone expects as president, he’ll gradually lose the support of House conservatives, creating a new headache for Paul Ryan in building a coalition that can get to 218. Point being, Trump will have to work much harder than he expects to make enough people happy in Congress to move legislation. And it’ll take plenty of palm-greasing. One of the reasons earmarks were such a curse word for grassroots conservatives even though they were a tiny part of the federal budget is what they symbolized about Washington culture — namely, federal money being doled out to special interests in the name of brokering legislative compromises that frequently left no one happy. The logic of Trump’s “I’ll make deals!” pitch is that the earmark mentality would be back in force. It’s nice that he’s finally starting to level with his fans that he won’t be the Green Lantern as president (unless he gets frustrated by gridlock and decides to go Full Metal Obama with executive power), but I hope they know what that means.

Three: It’s going to be endlessly enjoyable watching Trump’s fan base in conservative media, especially among radio talkers, turn rhetorical somersaults to defend his “comity and compromise” approach to Congress after spending the last three years applauding Ted Cruz for extending a middle finger to everyone there, starting with his own majority leader. If Trump can convince the dean of conservative talk radio to claim that he’s opposed to big government when nothing of the sort is true, it’ll be a snap to convince him that the only way to achieve lasting conservative victories is by bringing Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on board in new legislative packages. If Trump ends up beating Cruz on Monday night and Cruz fades from the race, I think Cruz will come to realize that his strategy was sound, his organization was sound, but his campaign was based on a fundamentally flawed premise, which is that conservative populists were more deeply committed to conservatism than they were to populism, even when “populism” is presented as “bargaining with Wall Street Democrats.” Sorry, Ted. Exit quotation from a Twitter pal: “Old and busted: BUT HE FIGHTS. New Hotness: BUT HE REACHES ACROSS THE AISLE.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Trump has also had a good relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. That didn’t stop Trump from saying Hillary should be in jail for her mail-server shenanigans or from reminding everyone about Hillary’s role in strong-arming the women Bill molested, did it?

I’m not seeing the problem here. Apparently this is supposed to mean that Trump will work with Pelosi to unleash Son of ObamaCare on the nation or something.

Aitch748 on January 26, 2016 at 5:39 PM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on January 26, 2016 at 5:39 PM

Leftists tried to tell sincere conservatives that their movement was populated by people entirely motivated by racial animus. We pointed out that Reagan Democrats responded to his “states rights” appeals. We talked about the racialization of welfare, we warned about the exploitation of anti crime and anti Muslim rhetoric. You ignored us. And now, reaping the whirlwind. Sorry mom…

libfreeordie on January 26, 2016 at 5:41 PM

Hey, all of you oh, so smart, principled, conservative people:

You say that Trump is simply a total narcissist, worse than 0bama.

He gets along fine with Pelosi and Schumer…

Now, for a Complete Narcissist to get along with people, they have to do what the Complete Narcissist wants them to do.

So, apparently, Trump, unlike any of the other gutless, emasculated Republican Elitists, trump is apparently able to make Pelosi and Schumer do what he wants them to do.

Seems to me like that is pretty good…. Even 0bama can’t always get them to do what he wants them to do.

LegendHasIt on January 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM

RockyMtnGirl on January 26, 2016 at 5:07 PM

Kudos, well said.

Athos on January 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Hey Bmore

How much more?

Schadenfreude on January 26, 2016 at 5:45 PM

. Sorry mom…

libfreeordie on January 26, 2016 at 5:41 PM

See you at your next evaluation hearing.

libfreesMom on January 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM

As to healthcare, he certainly leans towards a more British or Canadian style system, however you are assuming that this is a huge issue for me when it isn’t. This is probably the main issue where a convincing argument can be made that he has a more genuinely liberal view, although he has modified it for now by saying that a Canadian system wouldn’t work in the US, to get rid of the differences between ststes, etc.

Redstone on January 26, 2016 at 3:54 PM

It should be a big issue. Once healthcare becomes a complete creature of the federal government, no one will ever get elected who doesn’t promise to spend more on it. Why do you think the very first thing the Democrats did when Clinton won in 1992 was to try to take over healthcare? Why do you think the very first action of the Obama administration, once they finally had complete control of Congress and the White House, was to try to take over healthcare?

Because they want everybody in the country dependent on the government.

This is actually a BIGGER issue than immigration.

Pay attention to the Obama administration and how they sell their agenda. Remember “The Life of Julia?” That was the Obama administration fantasy of an all-encompassing government.

We’re gradually being ensnared by the federal government. Head Start for your toddlers and above? Federal funding. Kindergarten? The federal government funds part of it. Do you want your children to be educated? The federal government is setting the standards for the public schools. You can only escape by home schooling or paying tuition to a private school — and you still have to pay the taxes to support the public school you’ve decided is not good enough for your children.

And once your children are out of school, do you want them to go to college? Federal Pell grants and federally controlled student loans. Try to pay your own way? Good luck. With all the federal money pumped into colleges and universities, they can just keep raising the tuition, because 80% of the student body is on some kind of federal financial aid.

And now they want to make you dependent on Congress and the President to pay for medical care.

Every one of these things makes a conservative less likely to win an election. The first thing a Democrat says in any election you want to name is, “My opponent wants to take away your Medicare and cut your Social Security.” With Obamacare, they can now add your medical care to that list.

Immigration is important, but if you get everything you ever asked for in immigration reform without repealing Obamacare, you’re still going to wind up with Democrats running everything from now on. The only way a Republican will ever win an election will be to promise to protect Obamacare.

And what did the GOP do in 2012, but nominate the architect of Obamacare to be president. Although he at least pretended he would do something about it once president. Trump won’t even go that far.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM

liblikeaslave, you are about the 3rd most racist pig on HA.

Schadenfreude on January 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM

liblikeaslave, you are about the 3rd most racist pig on HA.
Schadenfreude on January 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM

Silly Schade.
Only old, straight, white people can be racist. Mr Chocolate Rainbow it the complete antithesis of Racist.

LegendHasIt on January 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM

It should be a big issue. Once healthcare becomes a complete creature of the federal government, no one will ever get elected who doesn’t promise to spend more on it. Why do you think the very first thing the Democrats did when Clinton won in 1992 was to try to take over healthcare? Why do you think the very first action of the Obama administration, once they finally had complete control of Congress and the White House, was to try to take over healthcare?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM

In the UK healthcare is such a large industry that it employs enough voters to become it’s own special interest. That in itself is the best reason to oppose universal healthcare. However, that it still ranks below immigration.

DFCtomm on January 26, 2016 at 6:02 PM

You want to sink SS Trump, ask him which Washington departments he’s going to close.

Rix on January 26, 2016 at 4:19 PM

hell, ask every candidate that. over and over.

imagine a candidate when asked about who he would pick for secretary of state answers ” oh, I’m going get rid of the State Department”

johngalt on January 26, 2016 at 6:03 PM

GOP ESTABLISHMENT “PEER PRESSURE” ISN’T WORKING

Keep flailing, you screeching fools. Maybe eventually we “brainwashed cultists” will listen to you and help you eject Al Czervik, er, I mean Donald Trump, from the country club. Or not.

Aitch748 on January 26, 2016 at 6:04 PM

That’s it. I’m all in for Cruz now, no matter what. If he doesn’t make it, I’m not voting. None of the others are principled enough.

Wait, I just checked Cruz’ principles…

Merry Christmas and enjoy the circuses.

This is what’s the best of the day.

Note, that the Schemer, with a muzzie burqa wife, didn’t comment on it.

Schadenfreude on January 26, 2016 at 4:57 PM

My friend, I honestly do not care for whom you vote.

It’s not Christmas. It’s nearing Carnival and every good Mardi Gras needs great court jesters.

What will you be giving up for Lent?

How about you give up saying ‘Merry Christmas’ between Ash Wednesday and Easter?

Lime in the Coconut on January 26, 2016 at 6:12 PM

Merry Christmas!

Now I have a machine gun

Ho, Ho, Ho.

;-)

LegendHasIt on January 26, 2016 at 6:16 PM

Doh! Forgot the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0si6wsZWn6g

LegendHasIt on January 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM

As to healthcare, he certainly leans towards a more British or Canadian style system, however you are assuming that this is a huge issue for me when it isn’t. This is probably the main issue where a convincing argument can be made that he has a more genuinely liberal view, although he has modified it for now by saying that a Canadian system wouldn’t work in the US, to get rid of the differences between ststes, etc.

Redstone on January 26, 2016 at 3:54 PM

He was backing universal healthcare ‘paid for by the government’ in Aug/Sept of 2015.

The British NHS is the 5th largest employer on Earth.

#1: US Dept of Defence (3.2mn)

#2: The Chinese Army (2.3mn)

#3: WalMart (2.1mn…and they are closing over 200 stores nationwide so they will probably fall somewhat)

#4: McDonald’s (1.9mn)

#5: NHS (1.7mn)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/23/the-worlds-biggest-employers-infographic/#13192d6351d0

Lime in the Coconut on January 26, 2016 at 6:20 PM

Economic suicide? Do you not realize that we’re already in freefall, plummeting to our deaths (economically speaking), because we haven’t elected an advocate of small government since Reagan?

Reagan increased the size of the government. He’s also the guy who turned America from the world’s biggest creditor nation to the world’s biggest debtor nation. He’a also the guy who started sending American jobs overseas.

Magicjava on January 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Were you not alive in the 80s, or just asleep?

The deficit was already out of control when Reagan ran in both 1976 and 1980, so you can’t pin the creation of deficits on him. We had a steady drumbeat of media during both terms of his administration complaining about budget cuts. Stand-up comics made jokes about the draconian budget cuts that Reagan implemented. The only government he increased was military spending, and the result was the winning of the Cold War. When the Cold War was over, all Congress could talk about was how to spend the “Peace Dividend,” so it’s absurd to claim that Reagan didn’t ultimately cut the cost of government. But first, he had to win the Cold War.

Reagan ran on accomplishing three big things: a) Increase military spending b) Recover from the disastrous Jimmy Carter economy, and c) Cut the deficits. Once in power and once he found out the true extent of how much military spending would be required, and how long it would take to recover from the economy, he realized that all three could not be accomplished at the same time. So he shifted resources to the first two, and let the deficits temporarily increase. The “Peace Dividend” confirmed he had made the right choice. He actually accomplished all three goals, but the third one didn’t get finished until the end of the Bush 41 administration.

But the ultimate measure is not the size of government, but its function. Military spending is part of the job the government should be doing. If it has to spend more money to keep us safe, then it should spend more money, even if it makes the government bigger.

But if you cut out the things government shouldn’t be doing in the first place — health care, education, and “welfare spending” — then you will ultimately wind up with smaller government.

Which is why the Democrats always want us committed to that kind of spending, because then you can’t cut the government size without taking money away from voters.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 26, 2016 at 6:23 PM

and btw, i have not heard trump say he wants more goverment…

nathor on January 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM

You cannot have ‘healthcare for all paid for by the government’ without more government.

Lime in the Coconut on January 26, 2016 at 4:38 PM

And let’s not forget that it is we the taxpayers who are the government. Whee, we will provide healthcare for all via our taxes.

onlineanalyst on January 26, 2016 at 6:30 PM

And let’s not forget that it is we the taxpayers who are the government. Whee, we will provide healthcare for all via our taxes.

onlineanalyst on January 26, 2016 at 6:30 PM

Yeah, I love how Trump says that the ‘government will pay for it’ as though there is going to be a banner crop of funds grown from the government’s magical money trees.

Lime in the Coconut on January 26, 2016 at 6:36 PM

Lime in the Coconut on January 26, 2016 at 6:20 PM

There’s no such thing as the US Department of Defence.

Christien on January 26, 2016 at 6:43 PM

But that would be a great name for the agency that builds the wall.

Christien on January 26, 2016 at 6:44 PM

Trump on universal healthcare waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back on 27 September 2015:

Donald Trump: Obamacare’s going to be repealed and replaced. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what’s going on with premiums where they’re up 40, 50, 55 percent.

Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?

Donald Trump: There’s many different ways, by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But–”

Scott Pelley: Universal health care.

Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably–

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-60-minutes-scott-pelley/

Lime in the Coconut on January 26, 2016 at 6:46 PM

[Obamacare] is actually a BIGGER issue than immigration.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM

It’s sorta the same issue. What you describe is how can we make people who don’t pledge to spend more money on healthcare unelectable. What immigration is is creating more voters that are used to social programs from their socialist countries and have no memory of what America used to be.

This president is 100% about electing Democrats for ad-infinitum. There is little he has done that is not about funding Democrats or inhibiting conservative politics or migrating the voters to a more socialist bent. He stole 60% of GM away from senior investors and awarded it to the unions, who put money in Dem coffers.

Who are the most conservative? The elderly (who can also remember what America is supposed to be like). That’s why Emmanuel judged that the “return on investment” of paying for healthcare for the elderly was negative. The ACA bell curve is about migrating demographics as well. Take the pain pill, Grandma, take some end-of-life counselling. And the hip crowd has reaffirmed it, repeatedly as well: “I can’t wait for you dinosaurs to die off”.

The “will of the people” means nothing if the governors take it upon themselves to change the demographics.

Axeman on January 26, 2016 at 6:47 PM

You can try to thwart nature all you want, but we’re herd animals. We want to identify with a group. Again Libertarians have a problem with reality.

DFCtomm on January 26, 2016 at 5:29 PM

No, we aren’t herd animals. We are all capable of individual thought and free expression. It’s a shame that only some of us use it.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the human race has come a long way since the warring clans of the Medieval era. Stop trying to take us back to it.

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 6:57 PM

hell, ask every candidate that. over and over.

imagine a candidate when asked about who he would pick for secretary of state answers ” oh, I’m going get rid of the State Department”

johngalt on January 26, 2016 at 6:03 PM

Ask Rand Paul, but take a seat first, because it’s a pretty long list.

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM

Axeman on January 26, 2016 at 6:47 PM

+^+^+^
Great way to put it.
Unfortunately –
It’s might already be past the tipping point.

BoxHead1 on January 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM

It

BoxHead1 on January 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM

See that truck? No, no, the one that just drove through the hole in your argument without scraping.

Immolate on January 26, 2016 at 2:18 PM

Perhaps you’d care to articulate exactly what that truck looks like.

It just struck me. What if all 3 of your requirements for federally-mandated, installed, and monitored bedroom cameras (to catch rapists, paedophiles, and adulterers) had been met and in effect when Trump was shagging Marla Maples while married to Ivanka?

What would you have wanted to happen to Donald J Trump for being caught on tape committing adultery?

lolz

Lime in the Coconut on January 26, 2016 at 2:26 PM

I certainly think jail time is appropriate for adulterers, and in a better world he would have been held to that standard by the law. As reality currently stands though, those weak laws which do exist are frequently not enforced.

None of that, however, has any bearing regarding my earlier statements though in terms of where candidates have positioned themselves. Of the candidates’ stated positions, he is in the middle of the pack when it comes to social conservatism, and is acceptable. I never claimed that his conduct as it regards that, however, is worthy of admiration or acclaim, and it is part of why my vote is still going to Mike Huckabee.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2016 at 7:10 PM

Axeman on January 26, 2016 at 6:47 PM

Assuming that immigrants will vote socialist is just plain incorrect. Immigrants will vote for whatever they came to this country to find.

If we let the government implement more socialism, then socialists around the globe will be scrambling to come here in search of socialism.

If we make the government implement more liberty, then immigrants from around the globe who favor liberty will be scrambling to come here.

Stop wasting your time blaming one demographic after another for the rise in socialism, and start actually fighting to eliminate the socialism!

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 7:12 PM

ITT:

Trumpsters attacking conservatives for being consistent instead of abandoning principles the Trumpsters apparently only pretended to hold.

CanofSand on January 26, 2016 at 7:12 PM

Trump: I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi and was close to Chuck Schumer in many ways

He thinks this is supposed to be a good positive thing?

Is The Donald moving to the center already? Or has he really always been somewhere around there? Just a little one way or another, depending on how much money was involved?

farsighted on January 26, 2016 at 7:34 PM

He thinks this is supposed to be a good positive thing?

Is The Donald moving to the center already? Or has he really always been somewhere around there? Just a little one way or another, depending on how much money was involved?

farsighted on January 26, 2016 at 7:34 PM

He has been trolling his followers ever since he announced.
He wants to see just exactly how far he can go with them before they wise up.
So far he is certain he could shoot someone in cold blood and not lose any support at all.
He can enact touch back amnesty, with no negative impact on his numbers.
He can pass something far more extensive than Obamacare and they will still love him.
He can pass massive taxes to pay for that medical care, and they will still be there.

If you think Obama got huge amounts of bad things passed, wait until Trump is president. $900B stimuless? HAH HAH HAH, that is pocket change. $1 trillion Obamacare? HAH HAH HAH, more pocket change. His will be bigger, better, the best and will come with a price tag and curtailing of freedom to go along with it.

Constitutionalist on January 26, 2016 at 8:01 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Who is the dishonest one? Cruz is out performing Trump by 4 points NWnonconservative.

KMav on January 26, 2016 at 5:00 PM

Yeah, I don’t care about head to head polling 11 months out from an election, especially when you use a site that cherrypicks polling.

I am talking about the ability to win over crossover votes.

Ted Cruz appeals to evangelicals and open borders advocates.

Trump will win 20% of the black vote, get 20% of the Democrat base to crossover, possibly win New York state.

Cruz is already writing off whole states and regions. So please, stop lying.

NWConservative on January 26, 2016 at 8:22 PM

TBSchemer, you don’t get to create your own definitions on the fly, a nationalist is exactly the opposite of a globalist.

A nationalist owes allegiance to a singular country and upholds the sovereignty of it above all other outside powers, whereas the globalist discards the idea of a nationstate and subjects himself to international law in all things.

So actually, that would describe you perfectly. A globalist who believes in an extreme anarchist view of society, except when someone disagrees with you then you are all for the government to destroy them. And then childishly say you will vote for democrats because you believe that this will magically make your globalist, anarchist concept of liberty come about. You are never going to persuade people to this viewpoint, because it’s insane.

NWConservative on January 26, 2016 at 8:31 PM

Donald Trump Rally Iowa City – 8:30pm Live Stream…
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/26/donald-trump-rally-iowa-city-830pm-live-stream/

Garyinaz66 on January 26, 2016 at 9:15 PM

So, when a candidate who actually seems conservative gets in office and turns out to be a Big Government Liberal, we all act surprised and disappointed.

This guy who praised Obama in 2009, donates to Bill and Hill, wants George Bush thrown in jail for the only conservative things he’s ever done, and loves Nancy Pelosi…how exactly do we pretend that he’s something other than a Democrat? Because he laughs at Mitch McConnell?

Wow.

Jaibones on January 26, 2016 at 10:40 PM

It’s funny, really. When we said “let it burn”, I had no idea that meant “Vote Democrat!”

We could have saved a lot of angst and just supported O’Bozo the Clown President…

Jaibones on January 26, 2016 at 10:42 PM

Trump: I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi and was close to Chuck Schumer in many ways

Why does this guy remind me of Crapgame (Don Rickles) towards the end of Kelly’s Heroes?

“What kind of a deal?”

“A deal deal!”

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 27, 2016 at 12:21 AM

Trump: I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi and was close to Chuck Schumer in many ways

He really doesn’t get it, does he?

Cleombrotus on January 27, 2016 at 3:00 AM

The kinds of voters supporting Trump are the same type of people that were fine being liberal Democrats until the Democrats stood up for the Civil Rights Act in the 60’s and then they switched parties. They were all for unions in the 50’s until blacks started wanting to join. They loved social welfare programs in the 40’s with the New Deal until Republicans started with the dog whistles about welfare queens and etc. In the 80’s and 90’s you could scare them to vote for you because you were tough on crime caused by the scary black men. In the early 2000’s it became the brown terrorists hiding under your bed coming to get you. Now it’s the brown rapists and criminals coming across the southern border.

For some reason, claiming serial killers are lurking around your suburbs and pedophiles were out to get your children just doesn’t seem like it would work as well. Nope, but there’s always some colored boogeyman you can use to get a certain segment of the white population to vote for you. You just need to rile up their inner angry, racist, hatred of the “other”. The Republican Party is really owned by corporatists that used these dog whistles to get these types of people to vote for them.

These people have never been conservative. Trump understood that and him calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, calling for a ban on all Muslims, and saying he’ll build walls to keep the brown people out were all they needed to hear and they were sold. But the problem is Trump is no conservative so the Republican elites no longer have political cover for their “Southern Strategy”. Conservatism was left standing at the altar wondering what happened. The old coalition the corporatist rich elite Republicans formed with the conservatives and racists is now exposed for what it truly is.

Now conservatism has to stand on its own two feet. True conservatives are much smaller in number. But don’t be too sad as it could be worse… You still have the evangelicals, at least for now. ;-)

proverbs427 on January 26, 2016 at 4:24 PM

Much as it pains me, I think you’re right. I tried to deny it but reading the blogs and some Twitter feeds of the Alt Right (i.e. the neo-neo-Nazis) and their enthusiasm for Trump means I could never pull a lever for him even if I did believe his claptrap.

If the Democrats would put up a credible centrist candidate, I think I could vote for them this time. Alas the best they’ve got is the felon crone and the lying commie (but I repeat myself) so I might be sitting out for the first time since I could vote.

evergreen on January 27, 2016 at 7:45 AM

Slowly the truth starts to come out. If he wins just wait to see the left wing wacko birds he puts on the supreme court.

pwb on January 27, 2016 at 9:38 AM

If the Democrats would put up a credible centrist candidate, I think I could vote for them this time. Alas the best they’ve got is the felon crone and the lying commie (but I repeat myself) so I might be sitting out for the first time since I could vote.

evergreen on January 27, 2016 at 7:45 AM

There’s nothing like staring the possibility of President Hillary in the face to make Trump seem not so bad.

Of course, that’s the problem. We always wind up settling for a bad candidate because the Democrat is always so much worse. The only time to fix that problem is during the primaries, and … I have a bad feeling we’re about to blow it on Trump.

It matters, because the White House keeps changing hands from Democrat to Republican and back. If every Democrat elected is a hard-left extremist pushing us towards socialism, and every Republican is a centrist not wanting to rock the boat, then every new government intrusion started by the latest left-wing Democrat becomes institutionalized forever by the centrist Republican.

I believe the appeal of Trump is the hope that he’ll be a flamethrower who won’t hesitate to dismantle what Democrats have done before him. But I don’t believe he’ll have any real interest in doing that, because he’ll mostly agree with them.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 27, 2016 at 2:02 PM