No, Washington Post, The Republican Party Has No Obligation To Condemn Donald Trump, But Nice Try Anyway.

"Hey Republicans! Step HERE! It's your DUTY!"

“Hey Republicans! Step HERE! It’s your DUTY!”

I’m sure the paper’s editors will get a holiday gift basket from the Democratic National Committee for their nakedly partisan trap.

Erupting with indignation over Trump’s recent “let’s make fun of the disabled reporter” performer and his subsequent lie that he wasn’t doing what video shows he did, the Washington Post editors concluded with a demand that Republicans condemn Trump, or else:

[I]t is time for Republican Party leaders to make clear that they do not approve of Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration. If they do not, their party will be seen as complicit in his hatefulness, and deservedly so.

There are two reasons this is partisan and hypocritical.

  • First, an official or coordinated Republican Party attack on Trump would violate the terms of Trump’s deal with the party that if he was treated fairly, Trump wouldn’t run as a third party candidate should he fail to get the GOP nomination. Since I have never heard of either party ever specifically reprimanding one of its own candidates for the nomination—I don’t think it’s happened—doing so would surely be regarded as “unfair” by Trump, and I’d agree with him. Of course, an independent Trump candidacy would guarantee the election of a Democrat. Fiendishly clever, Post!

The party could have and, I wrote here, should have scratched Trump from the nomination hunt and the debates early on, before it had given him a platform and he had become, for the nonce, a front-runner in the polls. His third party threat would have been more bluster than reality then, and without a national TV audience, Trump would have probably been content to file a lawsuit and throw a few tantrums. But it’s not called “the stupid party” for nothing. The GOP missed its window of escape. Turning on Trump now would undermine the party’s primary mission, not that the Post cares, and that is electing a Republican President.

  • Second, the argument that the party not officially condemning what is done or said by its members, supporters or candidates constitutes endorsement is a “gotcha!” theory that appears to be exclusively aimed at Republicans. Does the Democratic Party have an obligation to condemn Hillary Clinton’s venal speaking fees, foundation conflicts, lies about her e-mails, hypocrisy about supporting the victims of sexual assault, and open designation of the opposing party in a democracy as an “enemy”? Does it endorse Bernie Sanders’ soft-Marxism, fiscally irresponsible proposals (increase Social Security benefits?) and class warfare by not condemning them? Every one of these things is far more material, unethical and outrageous from a presidential candidate than Trump’s mockery of a single Times reporter. It’s not the job of either party to officially attack the wrongs perpetrated by their candidates.

It is the duty of voters to do that. The parties’ duty is to provide sufficient options so voters can choose to reject disgusting and dangerous candidates like Trump, Sanders and Clinton. In that respect, the Republican Party is meeting its obligation.

In that respect, the Democratic Party is not.


8 thoughts on “No, Washington Post, The Republican Party Has No Obligation To Condemn Donald Trump, But Nice Try Anyway.

  1. Agreed. The Democratic liberals can’t have it both ways. If it’s the responsibility of the Republican to take after one of its own, then it’s surely the responsibility of the Democrats to take after Hillary for continuing to lie, lie, lie about matters that are not just attitudinal, but also provable with facts.

  2. As a precautionary measure in this presidential cycle all political parties should disavow all presidential candidates. Then each party should choose a random candidate from their rolls of registered voters. Each candidate should be a black woman aged 35 to 50. But not until October of 2016. No primaries. No conventions. No debates. Just blessed peace until October and then vote strictly on platform.

    Really, could we do any worse?

  3. The Washington ComPost is guilty of pure partisan hackery and blackmail here. This is no different than saying agree with us or risk being labelled a hater.


    “A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.

    No firearms dealer or gun range owner for that matter should be required to sell weapons to or train anyone that the dealer or owner has reason to believe is a terrorist threat. We all have a civic responsibility to prevent the next terrorist attack. CAIR’s lawsuit was an effort to prevent business owners from doing so,” AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise said in the statement.”

    Drip.. drip…drip…

    • From what I reasds, the case was dismissed because CAIR failed to allege any concrete, particularized injuries. As such, there was no case or controversy and the courts lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of the complaint.

  5. This is only another example of increasingly shrill and desperate sounding bulletins emanating from the Left’s propaganda organs. They sense that their power and political agenda is falling short… again. They’ve already invested all that remained of their credibility into electing and maintaining the Obama administration. Should power swing back hard to the Right, all will have been in vain. The days of the leftist grip and the press output is already over. Magazines, newspapers and broadcast TV are already faltering is they slowly sink into obsolescence. A powerful, unchecked central government might have carried them along, as it has other failed enterprises for the sake of political image. The media moguls doubtlessly sense failure, but also understand that they have nothing to lose at this point.

  6. I have been skeptical of Donald Trump’s popularity numbers since the beginning. I figured they were just protest responses and “He’s the only Republican candidate I can remember” responses. After watching part of a campaign speech, I see I was wrong. He has a real message and it is one that no one else has dared speak for a long time. His message is that America is a great country. We should be proud to be Americans. We shouldn’t have to apologize for being Americans. No one should force us to be embarrassed for being Americans. We shouldn’t have to defer to everyone else in the world. We shouldn’t let the rest of the world walk all over us. That is why Donald Trump is bringing in crowds to hear him speak and has the poll numbers he does.

    How sad is it that a buffoon can become a leading candidate just by stating such things (no plan, no real platform, no political experience). It points to a rejection of our leadership and a rejection of the hatred of America that the Democratic party has fostered in our society for decades. It suggests that there are still some Republicans who are proud to be Americans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.