[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: The GOPÂ’s Loyalty Pledge Targeting Trump Is Ridiculous. HereÂ’s A Better Idea. GOP circulates loyalty pledge to box Trump in, reports Politico, adding The GOP is taking its most aggressive step yet to force Donald Trumps hand. What is the text of this loyalty pledge? I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is, the pledge reads. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party. Really? Really? Listen, I thought the question at the first debate asking whether candidates would support the eventual GOP nominee was more than fair. Donald Trump had already threatened to make a third party run and thats something Republican voters might want to have clarified during a Republican debate. But Trump already answered the question saying that he wouldnt make such a pledge and theres no reason to up the ante here. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol nails one of the real problems with the pledge, though: Problem: Party seems like a closed group of insiders resistant to new faces and ideas. Solution: A loyalty pledge. https://t.co/GC7u1pcMkK It couldnt be easier for Trump to turn this request for a loyalty oath into an advantage for himself. Kristol said the pledge was counterproductive because Trump could easily respond, I pledge loyalty only to my country. I hope to support GOP candidate, but it depends what the GOP stands for. Unlike some others perhaps, Im a patriot, not a partisan. Seriously! I actually think maybe all the candidates should say that. At a time when voters are sick of their impotent party, why do RNC leaders think theyd like to hear that Jeb Bush will support George Pataki if hes the nominee? Thats the whole problem! a lack of principle mixed with no ability to communicate any conservative principles. Why in the world would it matter at all if other politicians clung to the nominee and the party? Its actually a liability to express this level of mindless devotion to a party, particularly one that has this massive a disconnect between its Washington insiders and actual voters. Im not sure that Republicans quite get the nature of the problem and their obsessive focus on Trump is giving them an excuse to ignore it. A few days ago the user behind the Twitter account ThomasHCrown began tweeting out sarcastic explanations for why he votes Republican, using the hashtag #WhyIVoteRepublican. Here are some of them. No, you dont need to read them all but a good skim is rewarding: Thats not a Trump voter, mind you. Pretty sure he finds the man to be a joke, in fact. Every Republican might have a slightly different mixture of complaints but this list shows a problem in no way fixed by a loyalty pledge for Donald Trump. Over at National Review, Charles Cooke has a piece headlined Trump Has Succeeded in Convincing Conservatives To Discard Their Principles Overnight. He looks at all the many non-conservative positions Trump holds from guns to abortion to the economy. And its absolutely true. But if you look at Mr. Crowns list above, why would we think it was Trump who convinced Republican voters that principles didnt matter? That bed was made by a GOP long before Trump showed up. Some days I like to reread Neal Freemans excellent warning from a September 2014 issue of National Review about the poor treatment of one of the only things the GOP had going for it in years. A relevant portion: Imagine if you would a prayer breakfast in Washington attended by the leadership of the GOP Messrs. Boehner, McConnell, Priebus, and their associates. They drop to their knees, bow their heads, and invoke divine intercession in the countrys troubled affairs, and in the partys parlous condition. Would it be too much to ask Him to deliver unto them a mass political movement, self-financed and benignly led, God-fearing and well-mannered, almost all of whose members believed in the literal version of the Republican platform and almost none of whose members wanted anything from the federal government but constitutional restraint? Sometimes when you repeatedly tell someone to get lost, they actually take you up on it. And while everyones focused on Trump, theyre not noticing that many other people have lost interest in the party as well. I think most Americans are smart enough to understand that no political party will be ideal. Parties represent a coalition of interests, some of which an individual might care deeply about and some of which said individual might be apathetic about or even somewhat hostile to. Parties exist to advance general causes or groups of interests and people work together to get as much done as possible. Instead of asking Rand Paul to support Mike Huckabee if hes the nominee, what about a pledge that the leaders in Congress pick one thing to work on and actually get done. Im not sure people would even care what it was, so long as it wasnt, you know, once again help out crony corporate interests. Just pick one thing. One thing to show that there is a reason to be loyal to the GOP. Maybe something worthwhile on foreign policy. Maybe something worthwhile on the budget. Immigration. Maybe something to do with the harvesting of human organs from federally funded Planned Parenthood. I dont think it matters what it is. But it should be something of note. Maybe its simply communicating a message about conservatism and the threats posed by the expanding administrative state. Or standing up to President Obama. Or standing up to a media establishment more or less completely aligned with the Democratic Party. They can take their pick! If the GOP leadership wanted to stop Trump and the other hemorrhaging, they wouldnt enact a pledge, theyd do something to make voters want to stay. Theres simply no substitute for actually doing something or communicating something conservative. Lets say, however, that House and Senate leaders are truly incapable of doing any such thing. Heres another, somewhat counterintuitive idea for the GOP. Stay with me for this as I tell a quick story. A few days ago some friends were discussing Sen. Marco Rubios support of sugar subsidies (GOP support of which would make an excellent addition to Mr. Crowns list above, Im sure youll agree). One friend didnt like that Rubio had this position. Another friend asked who could possibly do anything to change the subsidy situation? Still another said Rubio should be pressed on the topic. On the one hand hes expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would ever-so-slightly free up the sugar market, but then he turns around and endorses price supports, import quotas, loan guarantees, and other anti-market contrivances that cost U.S. taxpayers $1.9 billion annually. The second friend says he doesnt see the point in harassing Rubio over his stance, particularly since other candidates such as Bush, Cruz, Carson, Trump and Walker might have it as well. The first friend says all candidates should be held accountable because if their stated intentions are to maintain the status quo, whats the point? He added that he knew some people have hope more in slowing the car than hope in the GOP. Well, the third friend says in response, Maintaining the status quo is a pretty good idea if the status quo involves inertia rather than forward momentum off of a cliff. Or even just into a ditch. See, the problem with the GOP is that theyve been micturating in our mouths and telling us its raining. They promise us over and over and over again that theyre going to actually do something about the administrative state and its many encroachments in our lives. But then they never do. They actually make things worse if less worse, sometimes, than other people do. But what if instead of telling us that if we vote for them just one more time, this time theyll be better, they just got much more honest with us about what would actually happen. What if they flat out admitted they were too incompetent, inarticulate and cowardly to effect any real positive change, but they could pretty much guarantee a slower roll off the cliff than the one offered by more ardent progressives? I think voters might appreciate the simple honesty of it. No, its not as inspirational as actually giving voters a contrast to progressivism, but could it really be worse than whatever the pledge-writers are doing now? Poster Comment: I liked the #WhyIVoteRepublican list. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#3. To: TooConservative (#0)
Yes it was clever and scathing.
#4. To: redleghunter (#3)
Yeah, but there is a point they're making with that list. If Republicans don't stand for anything anyway and have no guts for any fight, then why should we pick any of the "serious" candidates instead of Trump? So, on this, I do get why the Trumpsters are so cynical about the usual suspects. Who can blame them for observing, accurately, that the GOP seems to stand for almost nothing but compromise and Beltway-oriented business as usual. It was a good laundry list.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|