GOP embracing idea of Trump as the nominee

myrtlebeachonline.com ^ | Andrew Shain

[RoosterRedux]

Republican National Committee members, meeting here Friday, said they will support New York billionaire Donald Trump if he wins the GOP's nomination.

Beating Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is more important than worrying about Trump's impact on the party, those leaders said. Some GOP leaders have expressed concern that caustic statements by the GOP front-runner could damage the party with women and minority voters.

"Whoever it is, we'll get behind them and do our best win the White House," said Glenn McCall, a Republican National Committee member from South Carolina.

Cindy Costa, an RNC committeewoman from South Carolina, said she came away impressed with Trump's economic expertise after chatting with him backstage before a recent campaign rally.

"He was such a gracious gentleman," said Costa, who has not picked a favorite in the GOP presidential race. "The Donald Trump sometimes that we see on stage is a little bit different from the real man."

Just a few weeks ago, Republican leaders fretted about how Trump's rise could hurt the party with women and minority voters, who did not back the GOP in 2008 and 2012.

But Trump has remained the leader in Republican polls since August, and the Iowa caucus is less than three weeks away.

[Lurker]

It seems one of the last stages of grief has been reached.

[gogeo]

Several cliches come to mind...something about seeking to make a virtue of necessity. Or recognizing the inevitable, relaxing and enjoying it.

[RoosterRedux]

Ping

[BobL]

They’ve either reached “acceptance” or are trying some reverse psychology on us.

Either way, makes no difference, the ONLY WAY Trump can be defeated is if he defeats himself - no strategy from the GOPe, the Dems, the media or anyone else will affect his march to the White House. It is all in his hands.

[doug6352]

They have figured out that Trump is a Liberal like they are, and a lot smarter.

[Gaffer]

They’re doing this with the realization and resignation that they have a collective voter gun to their heads.

They’ve finally realized a large part of the people that supported their tricks and lies these last 2-3 decades are wise to them and ready to pull the trigger on the whole damn lot of them.

[Pravious]

Cruzers’ definition of “liberal”:

lib*er*al - (noun) - Not Ted Cruz.

End of thought process.

[RoosterRedux]

Bob, at this point, I don’t even think Trump could defeat himself.

[Tzfat]

Or Trump supporters are now on the same side as GOPe.

[AndyJackson]

No. It is like the scorpion and the frog. They have finally figure out that Trump is the only one crossing the river and they want to climb on his back.

What GOPe needs to be is gone, nuked into oblivion, so that the green shoots of a new party can start to take root in the wasteland they have left.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

BTTT

[sockmonkey]

Look at this:

http://dailyhaymaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/FullSizeRender.jpg

Are they really gonna go there?

[Yosemitest]

Where's the surprise in that?

A bunch of "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" (who are SOCIALISTS at heart) see their coming LOSS OF POWER, finally decide to accept another SOCIALIST.

Remember WHO those SO-CALLED Republicans ARE !

George Will is a DemocRAT who got SO OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all those "CRAZIES" .
Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS:
The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.

But read this"
Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons - - - Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014

Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way -
formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,
but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.



Jack Kerwick elaborates.

Read this:
Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post - "Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" - by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
America is, at bottom, a "center-left nation,"
for while "30 percent" of self-described "liberals" are consistent in endorsing "liberal" policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only "15 percent" of "conservatives."
And another "30 percent" of "conservatives" actually advance "liberal" positions.

In short, Americans may TALK the talk of "conservatism," but they WALK the walk of "liberalism."
That is, they favor Big Government.

Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are "liberals."
It doesn't require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate "liberals," and "liberals" ALONE, with such virtues as "consistency" and such lofty ideals as "a cleaner environment" and "a stronger safety net" is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
"conservatives" see the media as PROMOTING "conservatism,"
the verdict regarding their "liberalism" is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.

There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides', Ellis', and Stimson's ideological PREJUDICES:
They equate the term "liberalism" with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat "liberalism" synonymously with its modern, "Welfare-Statist" incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, "liberalism" referred to
a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if "liberalism" is now "an ugly word,"
it is because the very same socialists who made "socialism" an ugly word hijacked "liberalism" when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for "socialism."

In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that "liberals" are secretly socialists.

Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
most "conservatives" are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is that
the vast majority of contemporary "conservatives"; are neoconservatives.

Now, "neoconservatism" is a term that hasn't the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an "anti-Semitic" SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
"Conservatism" is a more marketable label.

Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called "Godfather" of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
that neoconservatism exists
and that "conservative" "can be misleading" when used to describe it.

Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term "neoconservatism."

Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are "not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state" -
even if they reject the "vast and energetic bureaucracies" created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE "social security, unemployment insurance," and "some kind of family assistance plan," among other measures.
But what's most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
neoconservatives SUPPORT "some form of national health insurance."

In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
neoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is "exceptional" in being, as Kristol puts it, "a creedal nation,"
the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an "ideology" of equality, of "natural rights."
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

And it is by way of a potentially boundless military - i.e. Big Government - that this "ideological patriotism" is to be executed.

Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most "conservatives" are secretly neoconservatives.

So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .

[RC one]

If you can’t beat him...

[twister881]

No party, candidate, or PAC ever will get my money — stopped financial support of the liars, which is all of them, long ago. The only things I owe the political process are my voice and vote (or no vote).

PS: If you don’t understand a ballot measure, proposition, or candidate vote NO, for another candidate, or abstain. Also, do not vote for any career politician, which is most of them.

[patq]

Have you seen Trump’s tweet this morning? 6 months ago I used to cringe and say this is the end for him, now I laugh and say it’s a little harsh, but they are valid points.

[RasterMaster]

Only the LIEberal wing of the party. The rest are disgusted by the idea an avowed DUmocrat would get any traction or garner any support.

[napscoordinator]

If you want your little Cruz to win the primary, then get out there and convince your American voters. Otherwise deal with Trump and don’t complain because obviously you didn’t do enough. Sorry to be blunt but that is as true as can be.

[doug6352]

Trump recently criticized Antonin Scalia because Trump supports affirmative action.

Trump is a big-government Liberal, who also has very good positions on illegal and Muslim immigration, which have earned him a lot of conservative support. He also has an America-first attitude to foreign trade which is attractive, although I’m doubtful how well it would work out in practice.

Personally I’d prefer a real conservative as President, but I guess many people want another big-government Liberal, just a much smarter one than we have had in the past.