Roger Simon Says The NeverTrumpers Owe The President An Apology. Well, He’s Not Getting One From Me…

Hollywood screenwriter turned conservative writer and blogger Roger Simon wrote a post last week titled, “Why the Remaining NeverTrumpers Should Apologize Now.” If, by NeverTrumpers, Simon meant those who refuse to this day to accept the fact that the President was duly elected and continue to work to undermine his Presidency by any means possible, the headline would be too restrictive. Those unethical citizens and dangerous insurrectionists owe everyone an apology, including the founders and children yet unborn. They have done incalculable damage to the nation, society and our institutions, and we will suffer grievously because of it, if the U.S. survives it at all.

It is clear, however, that he is directing his screed at people like me, non-ideological moderates and conservatives who proclaimed during the 2016 campaign that they would never support the candidacy of Donald Trump, for all the self-evident reasons. Simon writes,

“Nevertheless, it is time for the remaining NeverTrumpers to apologize for a reason far more important than self-castigation or merely to make things “right.” Donald Trump — whose initial victory was a shock, even, ironically, to those of us who predicted it — has compounded that shock by being astoundingly successful in his first year, especially at the conclusion. (He’s a quick study, evidently.) More conservative goals have been achieved or put in motion in eleven months than in any time in recent, or even distant, memory. It’s an astonishing reversal for our country accompanied by the beginnings of an economic boom.”

It is true that any objective and fair observer should be able to acknowledge that the Trump administration has been far from the nightmarish failure Democrats and the news media have misrepresented it to be. It is also true that the cataclysmic bungle that the Left was certain Trump would sink the country with has not occurred. (Progressives consider conservative policies as cataclysmic, and thus are useless for this analysis.)  Unlike the Left, I will give the President credit for what he has presided over and facilitated, because all Presidents get credit for that. ISIS has been greatly weakened. The economy and consumer confidence are improving. The stock market is soaring. Illegal immigration is no longer being encouraged and sentimentalized by the federal government. We are backing away from world government, and refusing to be extorted by North Korea. As promised, the glut of federal regulations is being decreased, rather than expanded.

All of this is worthy of respect, especially since the President has been trying to do his job in the teeth of unprecedented obstruction and hostility from “the resistance” and the mainstream news media. For a candidate who seemed to equate popularity with virtue, and who constantly cited his poll numbers, the United States finally appears to have a leader who is not guided by or intimidated by polls at all. I did not foresee that, and admit that I am pleasantly surprised.

Nonetheless, as a former NeverTrumper who supports the office of the President of the United States and always will no matter who occupies it, I view none of my 2016 opinions of Donald Trump and his fitness for office as unfair or badly reasoned. Good results are always in part moral luck; what beneficial results that have been achieved this year were not inevitable, and at several junctures, notably before General Kelly was brought on as Chief of Staff,  disaster seemed more likely than not. Competent and responsible leadership is not only made up of what a leader does, but how he does it. How Donald Trump operates as President is divisive, obnoxious, politically self-destructive, undignified, chaotic and scary, just as I expected. This conduct, which is entirely a product of his character deficits and near complete lack of interest in ethical values, does harm far beyond the benefits any policies he may advance that I agree with, or that are improvements over the mess left by Barack Obama. He is, day by day, week be week, diminishing that strength and credibility of the Presidency by lowering it to his thuggish, crude, juvenile level. He is also provoking his opposition and the news media to lower themselves to his level or lower, doing further damage to our democracy.

So no, I have no regrets about my warnings about electing Donald Trump President, and nothing I have seen indicates that I have anything to apologize for, or that my analysis was incorrect. No one with the character and proclivities of Donald Trump should be elected President; I believe that as strongly as I believe that once a President is elected, he deserves and must receive the traditional loyalty, respect, deference and support of every citizen, who should sincerely wish for his success. Lots of Americans owe President Trump an apology.

But not me.

43 Comments

Filed under Character, Government & Politics, Leadership

43 responses to “Roger Simon Says The NeverTrumpers Owe The President An Apology. Well, He’s Not Getting One From Me…

  1. valkygrrl

    especially since the President has been trying to do his job in the teeth of unprecedented obstruction and hostility from “the resistance” and the mainstream news media.

    Pffft *snort* heh

    Ha

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *choke* *cough* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    • Chris

      As much hostility and obstruction as Obama faced, I think Trump is facing more.

      Of course, Trump deserves it, and brings it on himself.

      • Rich in CT

        Well no, the point is that he does not deserve unnuanced total “resistance” meant to drive him from office.That he “brings it on himself” is a rationalization, albeit a predictable one he could avoid by behaving remotely presidential.

      • valkygrrl

        As much hostility and obstruction as Obama faced, I think Trump is facing more.

      • It’s the people who voted for the President who deserved a peaceful transition. More than a year in, it hasn’t been provided.

      • “As much hostility and obstruction as Obama faced,”

        Agreed; the clearest example? He should have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before he took office rather than an unconscionable (read: racist) 11 days hence.

        “I think Trump is facing more.” (bold mine)

        You think so? Lefty’s Bible (WaPo) thinks so too. They’re not alone: MSN, Politico, etc., etc., etc.

        “Of course, Trump deserves it”

        THERE it is!

        • An even clearer example: 90% of the media coverage. Political hostility is one thing; journalist hostility is something else entirely.

          • valkygrrl

            Fox Breitbart Worldnetdaily

            • Jeff

              New York Times Washington Post CNN NBC ABC CBS NPR ESPN Salon Daily Kos Huffington Post…

              Actually, this could take all day, but you get the idea.

              • valkygrrl

                We could take all day so long as keep missing the point.

                • Jeff

                  Perhaps it would speed things up and help us to not miss your point if you used cogent arguments instead of meme video clips.

                  • valkygrrl

                    Trump is not receiving unprecedented obstruction and hostility.

                    It is very much precedented.

                    • That is completely, absolute, without question and shockingly wrong in every possible way. No President has received 90% negative press coverage. No President has a mass democratic boycott of his Inaugeration—you know, before he had done anything as President. No President had an impeachment resolution, based on nothing, be made by the opposing party after less than a year. There have been more filibusters against Trump-nominated judges than against the past three Presidents’ nominees. Never before has a party maneuvered to have an investigation of a Presidential campaign simply to further a false narrative that its candidate’s defeat was tainted. Never, EVER, has vile and uncivil language been used against a President by officials of the opposing party. Nver has a President been required to withdraw from basic ceremonial functions, like hosting Kennedy Center Honors, because of coordinated partisan attacks. Take all of that, multiply it by 100, and we might be approaching the ways opposition and obstruction in 2017 exceeded all traditions, norms and precedents.

                      That you would make such an asinine statement in a public forum undermines your credibility as someone capable of fair and honest analysis. Shape up.

                    • valkygrrl

                      here have been more filibusters against Trump-nominated judges than against the past three Presidents’ nominees.

                      Did you just make that up out of thin air? You do know that the senate went nuclear and there’s no filibuster for executive branch nominees at any level now right?

                      Democrats attempted to filibuster one, the stolen SCOTUS seat and McConall changed the rules so total nominations successfully filibustered. Zero.

                      No President had an impeachment resolution, based on nothing, be made by the opposing party after less than a year.

                      The articles of impeachment were 1. Obstruction of justice regarding the Russia investigation and firing of FBI Director James Comey 2. Violation of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution – Foreign Emoluments 3. Violation of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution – Domestic Emoluments 4. Undermining the Independence of the Federal Judiciary and the Rule of Law 5. Undermining Freedom of the Press.

                      Whether that’s impeachable is a question for the house but I wouldn’t say any of the accusations are made up out of thin air.

                      Never before has a party maneuvered to have an investigation of a Presidential campaign simply to further a false narrative that its candidate’s defeat was tainted.

                      How carefully worded. It’s sort of like saying, never before has a president been made fun of for both the size of his hands and his hairstyle at the same time.

                      What is the longest and most expensive investigation congress has ever run? Benghazi.

                      Never, EVER, has vile and uncivil language been used against a President by officials of the opposing party.

                      You’re joking right? You mean aside from the office-holding birthers, oh and the ones who’d email metastatic racist pictures to each other from time to time, and we can expand a bit for how Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have been treated or go full on to what Trump tweets and says about anyone he doesn’t like. There’s no presidential privilege to dish it and not take it after all.

                      The man implied that Kirsten Gillibrand is a whore. So here’s some uncivil language for you. The man is a braggart, a cad, a knave, and, and, not the least bit gentlemanly at all.

                      Nver has a President been required to withdraw from basic ceremonial functions, like hosting Kennedy Center Honors, because of coordinated partisan attacks.

                      Required?

                      Well I do suppose given his behavior there are many people who wouldn’t want to be in the same room as the man but I know of no rule that forces one to interact with a boor socially, even if the boor is POTUS.

                    • 1. “Nuclear” didn’t ban the filibuster. It just ended the 2/3 majority to stop one. From multiple sources: “On November 21, 2013, the Democratic controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.”

                      2. You’re not having a good day. We were talking about opposition and obstruction, not “rules.” The respect accorded to Presidents is a tradition and basic respect, not a “rule.” Trump is far from the only boor, and far from the most odious personality, to hold the office.

                    • “the senate went nuclear”

                      Thank Harry Reid (D[eluded]-NV) for that, seemed like a good idea at the time, am I right? FTR, he was warned of the precedent.

                      “the stolen SCOTUS seat”

                      Speaking of precedent, but please explain.

                      “The man is a braggart, a cad, a knave, and, and, not the least bit gentlemanly at all.”

                      I sense you’re talking about Trump; had you included perjuring Serial Sexual Harasser/Abuser/Predator/Rapist, we’d be in Bill Clinton territory.

                      But I guess you can’t say WJC isn’t gentlemanly, he did recommend Jaunita Broaddrick get some ice for her lip, am I right?

                    • 1. I don’t think it’s mannerly to rebut obvious desperate foundering in the absence of facts. I had to point out the common misconception about the filibuster, however.
                      2. Since you mentioned it, the seat was no more “stolen” than any time the Senate rejects a nomination. It was within the rules—I put the GOP treatment of Obama’s nomination about on par with the Democrats rejecting Bork, who was obviously qualified. Both were withing the rules and legal, both were unethical and set bad precedents.

                      When Republicans reject a qualified SCOTUS justice on naked partisan ground, it’s theft. When Democrats do it, the ends justify the means.

                    • valkygrrl

                      1. “Nuclear” didn’t ban the filibuster. It just ended the 2/3 majority to stop one. From multiple sources: “On November 21, 2013, the Democratic controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.”

                      3/5 not 2/3 as you noted in your quote.

                      Aside form not being a difference I don’t really think that’s a distinction. Save the odd case of a majority of senators voting in the negative, his nominees are going though. The democrats lack any ability to obstruct so you can hardly use it as an example of obstruction. Confirmation hearings, such as they are, are held, floor votes are held, a simple majority which he has in the senate gets his nominee. What exactly is your complaint?

                      2. You’re not having a good day. We were talking about opposition and obstruction, not “rules.” The respect accorded to Presidents is a tradition and basic respect, not a “rule.” Trump is far from the only boor, and far from the most odious personality, to hold the office.

                      President Obama was denied a lot of basic respect, and by the current occupant of the oval office no less, but even if that were not the case, his lack of respect for others, not presidents, would still make him unworthy of respect. Office or no.

                    • Have you no decency? You said there was no more filibuster, but there is, so the stat about Democrats filibustering nominations—per se obstruction—was not dreamed up, as you suggested without knowing what you were talking about. If there is no difference between “none” and “not none,” then why are Democrats filibstering at a record rate? It’s in order to impugn the nominations, as in “Obstruction.”

                      Your proper response to my correction was “Oops. My mistake.”

                    • valkygrrl

                      Bork’s participation in the Saturday Night Massacre made him unfit. But even so, he was given a confirmation hearing and an up or down vote.

                      Was Merrick Garland?

                      Was Reagan still allowed to fill that seat? Did he still get an idiolog?

                      No one stole a seat from Reagan, he was allowed to fill it.

                    • No one stole a seat. You’re stretching like Mr. Fantastic: obeying a legal Presidential order cannot by any stretch of the imagination, law or the English language make a Justice Department official “unfit.”

                    • joed68

                      “Never before has a party maneuvered to have an investigation of a Presidential campaign simply to further a false narrative that its candidate’s defeat was tainted. ”
                      Especially when you consider how much cheating was done by the defeated candidate, and on her behalf, to give her an unfair advantage.

                    • “Especially when you consider how much cheating was done by the defeated candidate, and on her behalf, to give her an unfair advantage.”

                      Well, if you want to look at it that way…

          • Chris

            90% negative media coverage doesn’t necessarily prove that Trump is being covered unfairly; it’s possible 90% of what he’s done is objectively bad.

            (That said, yes, sometimes he is treated unfairly, and I say so when I believe that’s happening.)

      • Chris wrote, “Of course, Trump deserves it [hostility and obstruction], and brings it on himself.”

        That’s the 2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming” rationalization.

  2. Chris

    Competent and responsible leadership is not only mad up of what a leader does, but how he does it. How Donald Trump operates as President is divisive, obnoxious, politically self-destructive, undignified, chaotic and scary, just as I expected. This conduct, which is entirely a product of his character deficits and near complete lack of interest in ethical values, does harm far beyond the benefits any policies he may advance that I agree with, or that are improvements over the mess left by Barack Obama. He is, day by day, week be week, diminishing that strength and credibility of the Presidency by lowering it to his thuggish, crude, juvenile level. He is also provoking his opposition and the news media to lower themselves to his level or lower, doing further damage to our democracy.

    Well said.

    Your summation of Trump aptly matches this description from the recent NYT report:

    Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.

    Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never “go back to their huts” in Africa, recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office.

    Of course, you could argue that the NYT reporting on this matches your description of the news media’s behavior as well, and you probably will. And you’re probably right.

    The White House, of course, isn’t apologizing for the alleged comments, and is in fact denying them. I’m sure Trump will call it “fake news.” But their denial has little credibility given that the comments are not much worse than things Trump has said publicly.

    Well, we’ve almost made it a year. You’re right: the Trump presidency isn’t quite the disaster many of us predicted. I didn’t think he’d make it this long. Perhaps we can make it three more years.

    • “They all have AIDs” is the kind of hearsay leak that should never be reported as fact. Never. That’s the lowest sort of gossip-mongering.

      • Chris

        It wasn’t reported as fact, it was reported as the word of two anonymous sources.

        • That’s not news, that’s not fact, and publishing it is widely taken as proof it is true. Newspaper are ethically bound not to print what they cannot verify. This was unverifiable, therefore it should not have been printed.

          If you are admitting that newspapers can publish non fact, then you are conceding that they should not be trusted.

        • Chris wrote, “It wasn’t reported as fact, it was reported as the word of two anonymous sources.”

          As far as I’m concerned that’s a unethical rationalization and should somehow be defined in Jack’s list; maybe it already is and I’m just not finding it. A rationalization that included something along the lines of “but they really they didn’t mean for it to be taken as fact”.

          They (the anti-Trump media) will put anything to “print” that might diminish the public opinion of President Trump; it’s unverified rumor; it’s fake news; it’s published because they know damn good and well that the public will absorb it as fact; it the ends justifies the means.

  3. dragin_dragon

    Jack wrote: “As promised, the glut of federal regulations is being increased, rather than expanded.”

    May I assume you meant’decreased?

  4. I was advocating for “Never Trump” and “Never Hillary” during the campaign and not a sole on this earth will get an apology from me for my stand on that.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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.