I actually had a Donald Trump nightmare last night. There he was at the U.N., telling all the diplomats that they were “losers,” then giving the State of the Union address off the top of his head, blathering about how smart he was, and generally “making American great again” by making the country look like a sequel to “Idiocracy.” I have a long day today with a seminar to teach, and the bastard ruined my sleep and kept Kate Upton away: I think she went over to my neighbor’s house and enlivened his dream. I woke up an hour too early, and will be a basket case all day.
But it was worth it. I know what needs to be done.
The Republican Party should simply tell Donald Trump that he’s not welcome in their party, and that he is free to go over to the Democrats and make them miserable. No political party is obligated to accept someone, and especially not allow them to take over, if he won’t abide by basic standards of decency and decorum. Deciding who will be the next President is a vital job, and providing a competent, electable nominee is a patriotic duty—one that both parties have failed far too often. This means that the Republicans have an obligation to protect the integrity of the process, and that means that it must not allow a crude billionaire narcissist with dubious motives to turn it into his personal Chuck E. Cheese’s.
Sure, they should be fair about it. They should give him a public warning as well as some conditions to remain. He needs to deliver a formal apology to Megyn Kelly for saying she was “on the rag,” * and to all women for presuming that a menstrual insult is culturally acceptable anywhere, much less from a supposed presidential candidate. The part should demand that pledge—in writing— not to denigrate his fellow candidates, and also to apologize to everyone in the party for sullying its name so far.
Oh, sure, he’ll refuse, and he’ll throw a public tantrum. He might even sue. Let him. Hell, dare him. Trump Trump.
I know: the Republicans are afraid he’ll mount a third party campaign and draw the crucial moron vote. They should stop being weenies. He might do it anyway: which is better, for him to run as a spoiler after mortifying the party and ruining its nomination process, or starting now, so the nation has a chance to get good and sick of the jerk? Meanwhile, the Republicans can do what they almost never do: cause everyone with any sense and decency, no matter what their partisan leanings, to applaud.
It is the right thing to do. I would throw someone who acted like Trump out of my house. Any competent business would fire him. Any club—well, if there’s a club for assholes, maybe not that one— would expel him. If the Republican Party can’t demonstrate that there is some conduct so low that it will not tolerate it from its Presidential nominee, then the party has no standards, and deserves to lose—yes, even to <gag! ack!> Hillary Clinton.
Tossing Trump would show integrity. It would show courage. It would show determination not to let this slob throw mud all over the organization and legacy that gave the nation Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, and Reagan; that won the Civil War and the Cold War, ended slavery, built the national highway system, and at its best has joined with the Democratic Party to make this audacious, idealistic, crazy idea for a nation do some remarkable things, to be, in fact the light of the world. It would demonstrate seriousness, and best of all, it would end the opportunity for those who hate the Republican Party and who want to see it destroyed to say for the next twelve months , “See, Women? This guy is the most popular candidate, and he thinks you are emotional slaves to your tampons! See, Veterans? This is the front-runner for the nomination, and he thinks your comrades at arms who were captured or killed were losers! See, Hispanics? The Republicans love this guy who thinks your relatives and countrymen are rapists!”
Throw him out, and the Republicans rebut those smears for all time. The action says, “Donald Trump isn’t good enough to be President, and he’s not good enough to be a Republican. He is scum, to be blunt, and we reject everything he stands for.” Their words in taking it should say, “Mr. Trump, like any American, is free to run for office. He is not a Republican however. He does not and apparently can not meet this party’s standards for statesmanship, fairness, dignity and respect for American institutions and this nation’s citizens, and we both reject him personally and forbid him to participate in our nomination process. We wish him well in his future endeavors.”
The party should do this because it is right, but I also think it is smart. Trump reacts badly to conflict, and the best way to finish him, as it was with Joe McCarthy, is to be direct, call him what he is, and treat him as he deserves. He’ll do the rest.
The Republicans can end their nightmare, and the nation’s too.
I feel better now.
* I guess I need to point out, since some have complained, that these are scare quotes and “on the rag” is what Trump clearly meant and conveyed but did not literally say. I have quoted the actual line here and here and linked to the clip. I used the vulgar phrase for emphasis, assuming every reader knew what the actual quote was. I still assume that.
86 thoughts on “Dear GOP: Throw Out Trump. It’s The Ethical Thing To Do.”
I feel you, Jack.
Unfortunately, you can’t “throw” someone out of a political party, as you no doubt know. Yes, the GOP could disavow him as a Republican, but that would have virtually no force. He would still be on every ticket as a Republican. I suppose they could insist that he not be allowed in GOP debates, but the people who host those debates would have to agree, and there’s virtually no doubt, given his profile, that he would get “equal time” from the media even if that happened.
I can see it now, just like the State of the Union – Trump gets excluded from the debates, but CNN offers him a timeslot to “respond” to the debate.
Defenestrating Trump would be great fun, but I’m afraid that the Republicans are just stuck with him. Their calculus could place them on the horns of an ethical dilemma at best, and at least from their perspective, I’m sure they wouldn’t agree that Hillary would be preferable.
They can toss anyone out of the party they have the guts to. It’s an organization. They can make a precedent. He can’t run under their banner without their consent. The party can disavow him, and refuse to hold a debate in which he is permitted to attend. I don’t know what you mean “force.” If Jimmy Carter suddenly said he was a Republican, the party could say, officially, “You’re nuts.” And that would have force.
Let him respond. So what? He’s an exile. A man without a party. There is no legal or logical reason the GOP can’t declare him persona non grata.
Jack, I agree with you that they could do everything you say, except for one thing:
Yes, he can… no. Oh hell yes he can. You don’t need GOP consent to run as a Republican. I need only offer one example — David Duke. He ran as both a Democrat and Republican. The GOP went so far as to surrender the primary to a candidate other than the one they endorsed to avoid Duke’s participation in a runoff, but run as a Republican he did despite their strident opposition.
So yes, he can run under their banner without their permission and even against universal GOP opposition, which could never practically exist. Yes, Jimmy Carter could run as a Republican if he were so inclined, and on the ballot, his name would appear under the GOP banner (or at least on the GOP primary ballot).
No legal reason, for sure. Logically, it would not be in their best interests. This country has a strong predisposition to let the voters choose their candidates. Logically, that is a very good reason to let the chips fall where they may, and trust their voters. If Trump doesn’t bring enough delegates to the convention for nomination, then the GOP can exercise their leverage to nominate someone else. So they also have a backstop.
On a Presdidential ballot, only one Republican can be listed. In a primary, it’s anyone who can meet the qualifications.
The country has a greater interest in a major political party standing for ethical standards and values. Are you saying that A trump could spout racial slurs and misogynist insults and the party should just look the other way? That’s much worse. I just saw a CNN interview in which a GOP State Senator was asked his assessment of the Trump candidacy, and he literally repeated his previous non-responsive sentence to avoid answering, getting a trademark, but deserved, Carol Costello smirk. How hard is it to say “He is a self-promoting boor, and demeans the the Party, the process, and the office he’s seeking. He is a Republican in his own mind, and the party should reject him outright”?
I am not. I am saying that there is no mechanism for throwing him out of the Republican party, since the party has no formal membership process. You cannot excommunicate a person if your organization has no rules or qualifications for membership. As far as I know, neither political party has either one. David Duke is proof of that, should it be required.
The GOP can do whatever it likes, but they can’t make him remove his name from the GOP primary ballot. They can insist that he not be allowed to participate in the debates, but the people putting on the debates don’t have to comply, and the news media would certainly see it as an opportunity to make more money by giving him ample opportunity to respond. Of course, that doesn’t stop the GOP from disavowing him as you suggest, but as a practical matter, I question whether it would have the presumably desired effect of marginalizing him. Maybe it would, but I personally doubt it.
My point is that if you say you are a Republican, you are, for the purposes of primary politics, which is where we are now.
Not hard at all, and your complaint is fair. Having said that, the party can only reject him rhetorically. As far as I know, no matter what the Republicans say, if he wins enough delegates he is their nominee. Their own rules, I believe, make this mandatory. They can always arm-twist the delegates to change their votes, but if they refuse, I think there’s nothing they can do.
So while the Republicans can do everything you suggest, they can’t make Trump not a Republican if he says he is.
I’ve been assuming that at some point over the next year his attention span will be exceeded and he’ll put on his jammies, find his Teddy bear and wander off to bed.
That’s an expensive teddy bear too, very nice. Trump makes a lot of money you know, and a man like him needs the best, most classy, gold-plated teddy bear out there. By the way those Trumpy bears will be in stores soon, we’re not talking about K-mart here, high class stores you should buy one, you’ll love it. And let me tell you, when he went to china to see the factory it was him who told them how he wanted to do things and they listened because the Chinese always listen to him, they love him, he has a lot of influence there….
He doesn’t actually make the bears, he just licenses his name to the outfit that does for cash, and a bear or two. Besides, I don’t think The Donald does China. It’s full of Chinks.
What we are seeing is the result of the wussification of America. Trump is an uncouth bully, and no one knows how to deal with him. Andrew Jackson would have challenged him to a duel. Teddy Roosevelt would probably have slapped him. Our Presidential ‘Candidates’ are all standing around waiting for someone else to do something about him. Do something yourself! Call him out. Boycott any debate with Trump in it. At least make a speech explaining why Trump does not represent the Republican Party and how you are different.
I still want to see one of them challenge him to a duel. First candidate to challenge Trump to a duel has my support.
Please. Teddy would have punched him.
Teddy would only punch a man.
Actually he would probably be so deep in what would now be the safari scandal to be punching anyone at all.
But only in the ring. Teddy would never sucker punch anyone. I think slap is right: That was a humiliation,in his era, not an attack. Ray Donovan slapped a game show host in the current episode to send a message. Same here.
And I was gonna make the same point but that out of consideration I didn’t want Beth to pop off with a “you’re so literal tex” or a “you’d argue about anything with me, tex”
It’s vital Teddy, though.
I think Jackson might have shot him without a duel, by the way. Which President would have cold cocked him for the comment about McCain or Kelly?
Washington, maybe? Grover? Ike? Bush I? Reagan?
I don’t know if you’ve seen this one. It’s been around for a while.. https://faceintheblue.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/in-a-mass-knife-fight-to-the-death-between-every-american-president-who-would-win-and-why/
It’s a hard guess who wouldn’t. But I’d be certain the ones prior to 1950 would have been extremely likely.
Truman, who wrote someone a letter about needing beef for black eyes, ice, and perhaps a supporter below?
I tend to not get upset over jokes.
46% support currently. He may not represent what the GOP likes to think it is, but he represents close to a majority of GOP voters.
The rest hate him of course, most GOP voters are sane and at least moderately ethical.
The DNC has a similar issue with HRC. Not the sanity, the ethics, there.
He doesn’t represent the GOP voters. The press has covered Trump almost exclusively. When the pollsters call people, the only name they can remember is Trump. They don’t have any other answer to give.
Where did you see 46%? The numbers I have seen are mid-20’s. The 17-person race makes Trump appear more popular than he is. He would lose head-to-head against any of the serious contenders.
And will, eventually. As the unknowns and unwinnables drop out, he is going to be faced with two or three legitimate candidates, who will split the remaining 85% of the votes and he will still be stuck at 15%. As far as a third party run, unlikely, that. He is using it as blackmail…vote for me or I’ll be sure that you lose.
I heard this morning that Perry has already stopped paying his staff in Iowa. Meanwhile, T. Revagina is plugging expansion of another dimension of the dictatorship, via more funds for colleges and universities.
Let’s not give any ammunition to those who claim only want her to loose because she is a women….
Please, let the Republican Party see this and realize the wisdom of it. Please let someone somewhere in politics have an ethical bone in their body.
We are so screwed.
I want to throw him out physically myself.
Two parties so intimidated by lying bullies we’re going to end up with a choice between Hillary and Bush and Trump.
Bill Clinton must be delirious with joy.
I heard today that Trump’s number has jumped to over 30 percent (up from about 25) since the debate. Doom, your timetable is ever more clear. The slimier they come, the harder it is to make them fall.
I’m on mobile so can’t elaborate but the courterpunch article gives an interesting scenario.
I know shit’s bad right now with all that starvin’ bullshit. And the dust storms. And we runnin’ out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.
— President Camacho
But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang, and various grunts.
Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator had come to replace water virtually everywhere.
After several hours, Joe finally gave up on logic and reason, and simply told the cabinet that he could talk to plants and that they wanted water.
That movie was so awesome. And chilling, sometimes.
What is the movie? I didn’t see it in this posting.
I don’t disagree with you, but it also seems he’s not an extreme case out of left field. It’s a case of the GOP lying down with dogs and getting fleas.
Misogynist? Who was that Kansas guy who believed women could will themselves away from pregnancy in the case of rape?
Racism? Birtherism was a TeaParty phenomenon, Trump just signed on to it.
Irresponsible economics? Mr Bush has made the fundamentally absurd claim that he can create 4% growth – by cutting expenditures no less. Trump isn’t any dumber than that.
Remember: this is the party that only a few years ago put up Sarah “I read all the papers” Palin as an honest to god VP candidate. And even more recently, the GOP treated us to front runners like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Backman. They don’t call it the Party of Stupid for nothing.
My point is not to disagree with anything you say about Trump or what the GOP should do with him, but merely to point out that if you just connect a few dots from the party’s own recent past, it’s not all that surprising that The Donald is happening.
The Democrats have their own issues, to be sure; but I’d say Bernie Sanders isn’t as fundamentally unhinged.
We still don’t know what Bill Clinton’s wife reads.
They’re all fundamentally unhinged.
The Demorcat’s bull pen is worse than the Republican’s.
There is no possible way the country would be in worse shape if McCain/Palin had won.
I’m no fan of Republicans, but this mess is just as much a Democrat failure as it is Republican.
I think there is evidence that both sides are responsible for Trump.
What is truly fascinating about charlegreen’s capacity for sound reasoning is that he denigrates Republicans for putting up Sarah Palin as *merely* the VP using a tone that he clearly thinks she was a completely incapable moron, while simultaneously believing that Obama *wasn’t* less qualified than she…and his people put him up for the Presidency.
Another fascinating aspect of his “reasoning” ability is that he thinks a candidate that wants free pretty much everything isn’t unhinged. It’s as though using sound mathematical principles doesn’t matter.
Bernie is unhinged, but there is no basis for tossing him out of the party, and I never hinted that this was a proper analogy.
Charles’ comment here really pisses me off, in case you can’t tell.
I don’t give a damn who’s responsible for him. The stupidity of too many of the American people, the same ones who make the Kardashians rich, is responsible for him, so what? If my child brings head lice into my house, it’s up to the adults to deal with it.
That’s a partisan and biased statement, and also dead wrong.
No party can toss out every politician and elected official who utters something offensive, or who has a non-conforming belief, or who sticks his foot in his mouth, or who periodically embarrasses the Party. Todd Akin is an idiot, but Trump is not just an idiot. Akin is ignorant, but hell, half of the figures in both parties are ignorant. If you can’t distinguish in direct and material terms what is different about Trump from those you mentioned, then you shouldn’t be in this conversation: you just don’t like conservatives and Republicans, and “they all look the same to you.” It’s unconscious bigotry, essentially.
When has Michele Bachmann or Santorum ever used gutter language about a member of the media, or a woman? Herman Cain never embarrassed the Party by acting like a boor. None of these people attacked media members, war heroes, wounded veteran, or were so inarticulate in registering legitimate points (like illegal immigration) that whole nations took offense.
You really equate opposing gay marriage and being a religious zealot, and the tea party–the TEA PARTY, which is a patriotic grass roots truly populist movement begun in response to Obama’s complete and utter refusal to pay any attention to the deficit and the anti-democratic way Obamacare was passed. It was an anti-politics as usual movement, and for all its nonsense and all the wackos, is healthy for any democracy–with Trump? I’m sorry, put that’s pathetic.
John Avelon, supposed non-partisan moderate who pushed the “no-labels” movement, has said that those who oppose abortion on demand are “wing-nuts.” Are they “dogs”, Charles? Sarah Palin??? Because Palin, who I am not in any way a fan of, uses her genius for blunt mockery and catch phrases to push Democrats face in their own crap on occasion, that makes her a dog?
This is why it is nearly impossible to talk about ethics in politics—because so many (though I have to say I am shocked that the group includes you)—can’t distinguish between views they disagree with and unethical conduct, between bad character and holding opinions they don’t like. None of those you mentioned have engaged in the behavior Trump has…
Open defiance of public standards of civility; gratuitous insults and locker-room slurs in response to criticism, disloyalty to the party, refusal to be responsible and to take proper preparation and thought, open endorsement of unethical conduct and unethical principles, intentional defiance of discipline, complete lack of concern for long term consequences to the party, lack of sufficient evidence that they were even members of the party, rejection of basic community standards of decency.
I did my research, you know. There is no one who has been on the national scene, running for President, who comes within miles of Trump, or who demonstrated unwillingness to moderate, be civil, be dignified while supposedly standing for the party. The closest the Democrats have is Alan Grayson, but he never insults anyone but Republicans. He has been told to cool it, and when he has been told, he’s tried. (He’s an utter jerk, and can’t help it.) The Southern Racist Democrats like George Wallace had an offensive and reactionary position, but they were not unprofessional. If Howard Dean had started screaming at every appearance, over and over, saying, “I’m Howard Dean and I’m running for President, YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHHHH!!!, and refused to stop, that would be getting into Trump territory….bit. Huey Long was dangerous as hell, but he was a pro, and acted like one. Joe McCarthy was also dangerous, but he had been elected to an office: the GOP can’t over-rule voters after the election. Yes, I would have kicked Joe Wilson out of the party for “You Lie!”, but still, that was just one incident, not a pattern. I think Harry Reid’s statement embracing lying to hurt Romney should have been repudiated by the Party, if it had any integrity, but he is also an elected Senator and a party leader—essentially can’t happen
So you think there’s no difference between Trump and those you named? That’s like me saying there is no difference between Mike Brown and Barack Obama—which, by the way, is something TRUMP might say any minute.
Bias check, Charles. This was an embarrassing comment, just blatant GOP bashing, the equivalent of Hillary tying Trump’s idiocy to “all GOP positions”, a cheap shot and partisan garbage.
Very disappointing. Critical thought requires making fair comparisons and distinctions, and based on this comment, when it comes to conservatives, you can’t.
One quibble with your rant. I believe the Tea Party began under Bush.
I do agree that you can’t be ethical while behaving like .. well, like a Trump. That was my problem with AM — I didn’t mind him spouting his ultra-orthodox libertarian views at everyone — but he needed to use his big boy words. AM should run as VP with Trump!
AM knows what he is talking about though. Trump doesn’t. That’s a key difference.
Embarrassing… But who is AM?
Ablative Meatshield, aka Scott Jacobs.
Resident hyper-Libertarian. More than you or I.
Also had a penchant for expletive and obscenity.
Coulda sworn the 2 of yall were concurrent for a time before his exile during a marijuana discussion.
We were, I just remember him as Scott Jacobs.
I forgot when he dropped his screen name for his real name, but the occasion was one of the handful of times he invited another commenter to meet him at his house where they could “discuss” in person. The commenter accused him of cowardice and hiding behind a screen name so he changed to his real name.
Self-evicted former resident.
I would vote for Scott over Trump. Easy call.
It started under Bush, but was obscure… It flowered under Obama, in direct response to his budgets and spending, which by the way, were partisan as heck.
This should be a fallacy “Someone else started it” The national debt started a hundred years ago, and was there long before Obama too, but he’s more than doubled it.
I wasn’t suggesting that it didn’t flourish under Obama. I will say, however (having very close friends who are involved in the movement), they are angry with the Republicans right now too. None of us have a crystal ball, but I believe that the movement would have grown even if McCain had been elected President — albeit not as dramatically.
I was just correcting a minor error in Jack’s rant — nothing more.
1. It was not a rant. It was a dressing down. Charles’ comment was offensive
2. You are wrong, not me. The fact that some websites had been put up and that the name was used does not mean the tea party movement as it is currently constituted began under Bush. Most sources give the launch date as 2009. Wikipedia:
The movement began following Barack Obama’s first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to give financial aid to bankrupt homeowners. Following calls by Rick Santelli for a “tea party” by Chicago bond-dealers, conservative groups coalesced around the idea of protesting against Obama’s “liberal” agenda and a series a of protests took place, including the 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington. Supporters of the movement subsequently had a major impact on the internal politics of the Republican Party.
From INFO PLEASE:
History of the Tea Party Movement
New Political Movement Quickly Found Loyal Following
by Beth Rowen
Since its inception in February 2009, the Tea Party movement—with the help of viral videos and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter—found a large and loyal following that quickly gained traction and supporters. However, the movement’s electoral success in 2010 did not carry over to the 2012 or 2014 elections. In fact, by the 2014 elections, the consensus among many Republicans was that the Tea Party was too radical and was costing the GOP votes and seats in Congress.
CNBC’s Rick Santelli is widely credited with launching the grassroots movement. While standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, he unleashed what can only be called a rant against the Obama Administration’s proposal to help homeowners facing foreclosure refinance their mortgage.
I’m not crazy about being corrected when I’m wrong, but I really hate being corrected when I’m right.
I can’t believe we’re arguing about this. According to the Tea Party website — it was founded in 2004. http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/
I can. Organizations often pull that: the fact is neither I nor anyone else ever heard of them before 2009. The account I posted is the fair and accurate one. What a surprise: the Tea Party engages in puffery. This is like the Democratic Party website saying that it has stood for civil rights since it was founded. Still not true, even though that’s what they wish we would believe.
From “civil liberty”:
2004: Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) splits into two organizations: FreedomWorks, which provides funding and institutional support for the Tea Party movement, and Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which will go on to organize an astroturf anti-health care reform movement called Patients United Now in 2009. Both organizations, by all appearances, played a critical role in the outcome of the 2010 national elections.
This is like calling the Whigs the Republican Party.
Egads. 1. I don’t even care what the date is — I thought you would, which is why I posted the correction. 2. That being said, I think you should give a little more weight to the Tea Party website than Wiki. 3. No one disputes that the Tea Party took off under Obama, but I actually remember the rumblings from the Tea Party while Bush was still in office — that’s why I recalled the date.
You get a pass and brownie points for “Egads.”
Looking into it a bit, the wayback machine shows a site registered with that name in September of 2004, which was lost in 2005. I suspect the original group had little to do with the later movement (which was truly grassroots at first as far as I can tell) but they could have provided some impetus. I would say they are using the truth to deceive, by specifying teaparty.org rather than the tea party movement. There was just a discussion on something like that in the comments on one of Jack’s posts I believe.
No Jack, don’t you realize, it’s the 1860-1865 Democrats who are the Republicans, the 1776-1782 Tories who are republicans and the Optimates party of 100 -49 BC who are the republicans and I think the Nazi Party of Germany 1920-1945 who are the Republicans.
Oh I almost forgot the current ruling Party of Iran also became the Republican Party.
It’s hard keeping track of all the roots of the Republican Party.
Don’t forget the Know-Nothings!
I just happened across this blog while looking for something else.
I’m a late (REALLY LATE) to this discussion as to when the Tea Party started; but, here it is anyway. Since this blog so old, don’t bother to reply to my comment to rehash anything, just watch the video.
It started just after Obama began his presidency, about the time of TARP 2. Unless you want to treat PorkBusters as a the same movement by a different name, but that seems like a stretch to me.
I should have finished reading the comment chain. I see that my comment was redundant…
Partisan and biased I’ll cop to; “dead wrong,” not so much.
First of all, I just got finished watching H&H who, when asked who Donald Trump’s supporters would vote for if he got hit by a bus, said it would clearly be Ted Cruz and Rand Paul – the Tea Party candidates, along with Huckabee. Not Bush. Not Christie, not the establishment figures – the Tea Party figures. (By the way, my memory is yours about the origins of the Tea Party, it was Rick Santelli’s rant against mortgage relief, during Obama’s time). Members of the same branch? Absolutely.
(And by the way, it’s no accident that Cruz is the one guy who refuses to jump on the bash-Trump bandwagon. And Cruz, I don’t need to remind you, is one very smart cookie).
To add to that identification, Rand Paul has overtly recognized that threat, cautioning Tea Party supporters against supporting Trump the “fake conservative.” And just because Rand’s paranoid doesn’t mean he’s wrong – indeed, Trump is the preferred choice of the roughly 20% far right Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. That’s not me making it up, that’s Rand Paul.
Trump is mainly a variation on a theme – the theme is far-right Tea Party-ish politicians. And yes, I agree there’s a lot of grassroots validity in the Tea Party – but there’s plenty of Party of Stupid too.
I think where you and I differ is that you feel far more strongly about the ethical issues of couth, respect, etiquette, civility, locker room language, etc. I drove a cab in New York; Trump is a New York constrution business guy, there are millions who talk like him. You take those virtues so importantly however that you say, with more than faint praise, that “at least George Wallace and Joe McCarthy and Huey Long were professional.” I don’t put that much weight on professionalism and good manners considering the horrific policies they held to. I just don’t think good manners can excuse George Wallace’s role in history.
Where you and I ARE in agreement is his ego-centrism; his thin skin; his disregard for taking policy seriously; his cynicism about the bankruptcy laws; his apparent willingness to toy with a major party’s mechanism just to get his point of view across; his inability to hold a thought if provoked by any red flag. He is shockingly selfish. And as dangerous as any of the others, for that reason.
(By the way, I may be the only one who heard Trump’s “blood coming out her…” comment the way that Trump says he meant it. I thought he was going to say “ears,” and when the Times article suggested he implied menstruation, I honestly expected a post from YOU jumping down the Times’ throat for presuming such a thing. Apparently I’m in the minority on that one, but I’m still skeptical of Carly Fiorina’s lack of direct language on the issue – she condemned him in a curiously oblique way, I thought).
Anyway – is he a jerk? Yes. Should he be kicked out of the GOP? Yes, I hope they can figure out a way to do it. But I only half agree with you on why he’s such a danger.
As to being part of the Tea Party movement? Let’s see: more than a little misogyny, a businessman who rants against Washington, occasional hints of racism, someone who argues no political experience is a virtue, who thinks the US needs more individualism and less government, who thinks our foreign policy is one of weakness, who thinks we need to assert ourselves more in the world and shut down the porous southern border – hey what part of that is NOT Tea Party?
Focus groups done on Trump in New Hampshire say that him supporting an occasional liberal, or getting HRC to come to his wedding, those are all trivial items compared to his disdain of Big Government. Sounds a lot like core Tea Party to me; and Rand Paul knows it and fears it, and Ted Cruz it knows it and respects it.
Why do you think it matters who Trump supporters will vote for? It doesn’t matter if it was Donald Duck. Stipulated: these people are morons. What does that prove? Nada. Nor does it demonstrate any causal nexus between Trump and the tea party. The tea party consists of largely unsophisticated voters who still have a right to participate and make their voices heard. A responsible party gives them responsible choices. If you give them Mortimer Snerd, Pauly Shore and Beep-Beep the Egg Boy, they’ll support them. So Trump objects to Big Government—so do I. So does George Will. So did Thomas Jefferson. I don’t even have a rationalization or a fallacy for whatever you are doing here. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, maybe?
My point was simple: Donald Trump is not a unique one-off phenomenon, he is a connect-the-dots not-far-from-the-tree Tea Party mouth. He is channeling exactly the rage that the Tea Party members have always felt, and continue to feel, about getting double-crossed by the mainstream members of their own party.
I still think he’s a jerk, just like you do. But I think the conservative establishment is kidding themselves if they don’t see him as a serious Tea Party fave. “The party of David Brooks and Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney have stuck it to us Tea Party long enough,” they’re thinking, “and if they think they’re gonna get us to do another Bush, they’ve got another think coming.”
There is a seriously disaffected group out there, which is getting right-wingier and madder and they’re not going to take it anymore. They like Trump because he tells everyone to stick it. Period.
And if the GOP sticks it to Trump in a way that his supporters don’t like, they’re not going to just disappear. When you call 20% of the GOP morons, I’m not necessarily going to disagree with you, but they sure as hell are, and they’ll be vocal about it.
YOU say the party has to give them responsible alternatives.
THEY’RE telling you what you can do with your responsible alternatives, loud and clear. THEY, in their Tea Party mode, have been saying the same thing for a while, and Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are making considerable hay from it. So far the party hasn’t served up a solution they like.
I guess all I’m saying is that, to a Tea Partier, Donald Trump looks a lot more like a Tea Partier than he looks like a “responsible alternative,” and that’s their point. I’d watch Cruz very carefully as a guide to how to read it.
Why? Cruz is a demagogue, and because he’s an elected Senator and has some sense of decorum, not quite over the REJECT line, again, so what? I’m not talking about Trump’s so called policy positions—I wouldn’t care if he was a policy whiz. He promotes values no party can embrace, and he’s a fick—he is not publicly presentable. If a brilliant CEO keeps showing up in public drunk, he gets fired. So what if the stockholders like him: he-gets-fired. To a German who was beaten down over WW 1, Hitler looked good too, because people see what they want to see. Again, so what? That doesn’t make the Republicans responsible for Trump. If anything, the Democrats and the media are responsible for lying about illegal immigration and suppressing criticism and debate by race-baiting. Naturally, a figure emerges who doesn’t give a damn what anybody says about him. I was also glad Trump spoke the truth about the disgrace of the illegal immigration enabling. That doesn’t excuse his demeanor, style, incivility and conduct, nor does it make me responsible for it, nor is it logical to “connect the dots” from other anti-illegal immigrant advocates.
If the most brilliant man in the world comes to my party and starts pissing on the carpet, he’s out. I don’t care what he said, and don’t care who says, “But he’s so smart!”
Jack, it’s not up to you or the GOP to throw Trump into his gold-plated trash basket, if indeed you didn’t realize that it too, would likely continue to be propelled, even if steered recklessly, by rocket fuel. You fall prey to the same devolution that has become so common nowadays: Ban somebody if you don’t like his message (it’s only an undercurrent here, since you reject the Princeton/Harvard Law Senator from Texas also), but most especially if you don’t like the WAY in which he expresses it. He will make good on his promise to run a third party campaign if he is not treated “fairly.” This of course would elect HRC as the next and likely last president of what remains of the United States of America. It is up to the other GOP candidates to tap into the gathering mainstream with more civility, more substance, more thoughtfulness (think Carson, Fiorina, and yes Cruz), so that Trump and his message are “trumped” by something or someone more presentable, but just as willing to eschew political correctness and tackle the issues he has raised. Until that happens, Trump needs to keep pressing your nose, and that of many others, into the doggy-do until you realize it is indeed doggy-do.
You managed to argue against the post without indicating that you read it. I addressed all of that, you know.
1. Trump will or will not run as an independent whether of not the GOP gives him a platform.
2. So they shouldn’t. It’s up to every organization to control and police its membership.
3. Nothing requires a group to maintain and keep a member that defies standards of civility and good behavior in definace of the best interests of the group. Where did you get that idea? No responsible organization behaves like that.
4. It’s idiotic to keep a skunk at a party because you’re afraid of the skunk.
5. Hillary is NOT going to be the nominee.
6.Trump never “promised” to run a third party bid. He won’t, in my view.
7. The GOP can only gain by dissociating from him.
8. After I posted this, I saw that Michael Gerson, Bush speechwriter, wrote the same basic opinion, but less directly.. Smart guy!
And how have YOU been, old friend???
I can assure you, from some considerable experience of that world outside the U.S.A., that that view – that that is a fact – is less often held in that world outside the U.S.A. You should not rank it any higher than an aspiration.
Quite a statement from a citizen of a nation that would be heiling today without the sacrifices of the US and, among others, my father. Amazing. Yes, gratitude is hard for the rest of the world. That’s their tragedy.
Let him weep his sorrowfully sweet tears over the loss of the bloomin’ colonies.
230 years later and still resentful. Or maybe just resentful that the American Pax Oceana has secured world commerce far better than the Bri’ish Empire ever did, leading to massive increase in economic, technological, and community advancement for all nations involved- all while those nations could keep hating us.
Maybe we should have policed the oceans exactly like all the old world nations would have- that is to say vengefully and spitefully towards our friends or kindred nations.
I have no idea why you keep pushing that line despite being told repeatedly that, if I were biassed in this matter, my background with Irish Republican forebears would have led me to be anti-British. Perhaps you sincerely believe that any objections to American exceptionalism are ipso facto proof of your assertions, but perhaps you merely seek to blunt the criticism – which is meant to bring people to understanding – with ad hominem slurs. If there is any other reason, feel free to share it.
No it’s just you and your readily apparent tone. Your ancestry is irrelevant.
Even if that were all true, and you did deserve gratitude of that order, that would include – as it does for me – recognising that we owe you the truth (which we owe you anyway, for our own sakes and safety if not yours). Even the greatest of gratitude would not require me to lie to you that the U.S.A. has ever been “the light of the world”, whether it had made material contributions to the world or not, even if it had made great ones for the most selfless of reasons. The thing is, being “the light of the world” would involve setting standards for the world, not in having standards common in much of the world and in living up to them; we (where I am, at least) have those standards anyway.
I am only trying to set you straight about where these things come from and what they are. It is weird that you should be so touchy about the idea that it doesn’t come from the U.S.A. It’s not as though I am telling you that you are mere imitators who ought to be grateful for a lead set by others, the way that you just told me.
“He needs to deliver a formal apology to Megyn Kelly for saying she was “on the rag,” ”
what are the ethics involved with putting in quotes something the man did not actually say ?? funny how some people view ethics…..
The quotes signify a cliche, slang or standard phrase, and since what Trump said is quoted exactly in multiple places and a matter of extensive public exposure, there is nothing misleading in the least. What’s your point? That it wasn’t what Trump meant? (of course it was.)That you don’t comprehend this common use of quotes that is neither inappropriate nor misleading in this context? Or to deflect the issue with a “gotcha” because you’re a pro-Trump troll?
Since when does putting something in quotes not mean it was a quotation? And there are a few people, me included (and I’m far from a Trump fan) who actually believe he meant the actual words he said – which were NOT the words attributed in quote marks.
“Nothing misleading in the least?” Au contraire, it’s the essence of misleading. He says he meant “…out the ears…” and honestly that’s what I heard him to say. So to quote him as saying “on the rag” is about as misleading as you can get. How can you be more misleading than falsely attributing a quote?
And how does arguing for truth in quote marks make someone a “jerk”?
Sorry, I think you went over the line on this one.
Charles, you’re nuts here. There is no way you can hear the tone and pause he uses to say “whereever” and think he meant “ears.” I direct speech for a living (among other things), and if I wanted an actor to make certain everyone thought he was saying “on the rag” (an expression that is crude and that I only use to show how crude Trump was. That is an appropriate use of quotes, always. ) that is exactly how I’d direct him to say it. And if he meant “ears,” why did he say he meant “nose”?
Every woman who has weighted in on the question says they know what he meant. After all, Kelly didn’t look or sound angry–she was smiling! She was pleasant and professional! Trump is referring to bleeding he can’t see. Obviously.
I’ll happily double down on this one. You’re giving Trump the benefit of a doubt that does not exist.
My use of quotes in this case is categorized in punctuation manuals as “scare quotes.” I agree that it was potentially ambiguous, and improper for that reason: it’s misleading to use scare quotes for a phrase categorizing what someone said but did not literally say. However, the quote was given fully and accurately in two previous posts.
Jack, please. I give you a factual piece of information – the FACT that I did not hear “menstrual” implied when I first heard Trump’s quote.
You tell me therefore I’m “nuts.” Come on. I gave you a factual statement, and you tell me – what? I’m insane? I heard what I heard. Which happens to be what Trump says he said. Trump may be many things, but liar doesn’t seem to be one – his whole attraction is that he appears to speak directly what he thinks.
You then go on to say “every woman who has weighted in on the question says they know what he meant.” That purports to be a factual statement, and it’s demonstrably not true.
From a Reuters article interviewing female Trump supporters:
“It doesn’t matter what Donald Trump says. The news media is going to twist it. I heard the original comment and it shouldn’t have been taken that way,” she said.
“Women are not offended by that at all,” said Lori Pesta, creator of Facebook group Women for Donald Trump, referring to Trump’s comment about Kelly.”
“Shame on the public for presuming something, for putting words in his mouth,” said Evonne Groody, 28, a nurse in Allentown, Pennsylvania. She said Trump seemed so straightforward that if he had wanted to say Kelly was irrational because she was menstruating, he would have just said it plainly.
So there’s three women who have weighed in the question who disagree with you. You can call them “nuts” but they’re far from alone.
I’m with another woman, Camille Paglia, on this one; she accuses the GOP and Fox News of having been suckered into Political Correctness so much that they can’t recognize one euphemism (“blood coming out her eyes, ears, nose”) for some mock horror.
All right, mea culpa, I left out the implied “objective” in “female.” Trump isn’t a liar? Nose? Paglia is a reflex anti-Republican more interested in Fox bashing than Trump. Listen to the recording? Have you? Really? I’m stunned. Here’s a sample of the consensus…
Plus many others—all the British papers, Al Jareeza, left, right, center—you’re way, way in the minority here. I know why…I don’t think like that either. When I read the quote, after Professor Althouse said he went “menstrual” on Kelly, I thought SHE was nuts. Then I heard the clip. There is no doubt.
Charles, you are obviously several degrees more intelligent and fair than our friend JM. he is the typical liberal who probably calls himself an “independent” because it makes him feel smarter than the average R or D. You cannot argue facts with these people, because on the clearest summer day they will point to the sky and say “look at that beautiful green sky.” Now quotes are not quotes, went talking about a specific statement from a specific individual……unreal….. And his comments about throwing trump out because he disagrees with him, is classic liberalism. “we have a big big tent, but only if you agree with us…”
the final lib-marker for ole JM is that he resorts to name calling….. just like the man he is castigating in his post…. oh the irony and oozing integrity…..
-and just for the record I could care less about trump, but my love for freedom of speech, and his right to make an arse out of himself greatly outweighs any disdain for the man. and this goes for JM too…..
but hey, what do I know. I am just a “jerk” …..
I LOVE this comment! Self-indicting bias! Because I correctly criticize Trump and call him what he is, and don’t twist logic and experience to pretend that Trump wasn’t being gross and boorish and misogynist as he usually is, I must be a “typical liberal”!
You know, Charles—like Jamelle Bouie!
Charles is just deluding himself because he is trying to be fair, though in a misguided effort. This guy, who is a jerk (a diagnosis based on data is not name-calling but accurate communication) obviously thinks—GET THIS!!!–that Charles must be a sympatico Trump supporter!!!!! See what kind of eels you’re swimming with, Charles, when you bend over backwards to give Trump the benefit of a fainter than faint doubt? HE doesn’t think Trump was making a misogynist comment, of course not! He thinks Megyn Kelly was unfair, and deserved what she got!
I have an IOU for one spamming for ol’ dlh for misrepresenting my post—if the guy could read (as I surmised, he was just looking for gotcha’s, hence the irrelevant quotation marks complaint, which sucked in Charles) he would know that I wrote Trump’s positions have nothing to do with why he should be thrown out of the party. The post is clearly and directly about his CONDUCT, not his opinions. This statement—in quotes as a hypothetical quote—“Mr. Trump, like any American, is free to run for office. He is not a Republican however. He does not and apparently can not meet this party’s standards for statesmanship, fairness, dignity and respect for American institutions and this nation’s citizens, and we both reject him personally and forbid him to participate in our nomination process. We wish him well in his future endeavors”..refers to his positions not at all. (Trump has no real positions.To the extent that he has sort of stated his positions, I agree with more of them than not) Nonetheless, this guy says I think the GOP should reject him because I disagree with Trump! Did he read the post? Can he read the post?
So because I enjoy this clown embarrassing himself with his “Marshall is a typical liberal” stuff, and because he proved my initial assessment (pro-Trump troll) 100% correct, and because I have always given those who put words in my mouth that I would spit out like bad milk one more chance, but mostly because dlh IS a jerk and can’t help himself, I won’t ban him now. I’ll wait for a comment that really asks for banning, and given that this comment is signature significance, the chance that it won’t be coming along soon is ZERO. And it will be fun to have one of the people I wrote about here around for a while, though, since being a Trump defender—Charles excluded, of course—is proof of ethical emptiness—it can’t possibly be for long.
But THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT! Makes my day, and it’s not even 8AM!
What a great comment! Wa-HOO! Did I have this guy pegged from the start, or not? Come on, I want to hear some applause!
Jack, you say “every woman who has weighed in on this one says they know what he meant.”
I gave you three female counter-examples, but here’s the best one yet – Maureen Dowd. She says “I don’t think he meant it that way.”
As to female, MoDo is highly qualified: as to weighing in, there are few more heavyweights.
As I said, you are still way, way on the minority side on this. In your case, it’s because you are so far from beinga boorish thug that the comment didn’t compute. Maureen is a professional curmudgeon and contrarian—I don’t trust or believe her. She heard what she thought would make the best column.
Oh, well. It looks like Jack beat me to a reply. But seriously, Charles, what can you hope to gain by citing one of the most discredited and empty-headed ideologues in the commentary racket? If she told me the Earth circles the Sun, I’d start boning up on my Ptolemy!
If he can chase away Kate Upton, He has no business being in America! I guess I’ll have to vote for Lincoln Chafee then. (sigh)
Now that Trump is the official Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, I can’t wait to see how they put lipstick on a pig in the 2016 Republican Platform.