This article has kind of a funny thesis.
First, “conservatives” rely on the NY Times for lining a birdcage or containing the leavings of a puppy, little else.
Secondly, IMO “conservatives” are not especially “fooled” by Trump; in the sense that conservatives do not especially consider him a conservative. Certainly not a consistent one, perhaps a late-to-the-party one. I think Cons are interested and entertained by Trump, but do not thoroughly trust him. They like his immigration rant. On other issues his record is spotty. They appreciate that a Ted Cruz, as ideal a candidate as he is...and flame if you wish...is going to be a difficult candidate to get nominated by the existing political machine.
Trump’s appeal is because he’s a political outsider, speaks his mind, is brash. He’s really the only one who brought up immigration, every other pol has been co-opted on this to some extent. Trump is certainly not a long-time conservative.
So whether Trump speaks at this event is pretty much a nothingburger. If you or I reject Trump because of his one crass comment to M. Kelly, that’s pretty lukewarm support. He said one awkward thing? Two? Ten? OK, chuck him out and let Jeb or Chris Christie be the nominee, life will be so good.
Events like this are primarily designed to force anyone with differing ideas to mold themselves to the great mediocre average, as far as I am concerned.
What we really really learned from debate #1 is: The GOPe and the Dems are quite afraid of Trump and are going to escalate their efforts to take him out. 8 months from now if he is a surging 3rd party nominee, they will probably assassinate him, making it look like an accident. The stakes are too large for those who have access to the present day power structure.
Please don't use that slur to describe conservatives. It's a recent invention of liberal commenters around the web.