Posted on 12/03/2016 8:15:56 PM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
Republican NeverTrumpers are starting to come around.
During the course of the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump encountered unprecedented amounts of animosity from within his own party, largely over concerns that he would undermine American security and its role on the global stage.
But more than three weeks after Election Day, some of the same forces that once opposed him are beginning to reckon with the reality of a soon-to-be President Trump, and deciding that it’s better to work with the future commander in chief than against him.
Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who is under consideration for secretary of State, is the most prominent Republican whose heated criticism of Trump has turned into praise.
Months ago, Romney excoriated Trump as a “fraud” and “con man” whose “foreign policies would make America and the world less safe.”
Now, he has now spent multiple hours trying to win a spot in Trump’s cabinet, offering increasingly flattering praise.
After an elaborate dinner with Trump and future White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus this week, Romney claimed that he was “impressed” by Trump’s behavior since the election and has “increasing hope” that he “is the very man who can lead us to that better future.”
Romney is far from the only one.
In September, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed calling Trump “beyond repair” and “unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.”
This week, he visited Trump Tower twice, as part of what appears to be Trump’s ongoing effort to fill out his cabinet.
“I’m hoping I was wrong,” he said on Wednesday, the day before his first Trump Tower visit, on CBS’s “This Morning.”
“It’s critical for us, now that he is president-elect, for him to be successful as president,” added Gates, who led the Pentagon under Presidents Bush and Obama.
Earlier this year, former counterterrorism official Fran Townsend signed an open letter claiming that Trump would “use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world.”
This week, she too met with Trump in New York, and is under consideration to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
The meetings are part of a broader shift. While not universal, sizable numbers of Republican national security experts are beginning to come to grips with the idea of working for the future president.
“I hope that members of the Republican foreign policy community, even those who were critical during the election season, will be willing to serve and that the Trump administration will welcome them,” Matthew Kroenig, a former advisor to several GOP presidential hopefuls who also signed the letter, said in an email.
“The American people have chosen President-elect Trump to be the U.S. commander in chief for at least the next four years and the country will be best served if he is supported by the country's top national security experts.”
Several Republicans who had previously derided Trump said that they were growing increasingly heartened by his selections for key cabinet roles.
“The people who are being selected to go into important cabinet positions are responsible conservatives, and that suggests to me that the president-elect will govern as a responsible conservative,” said Seth Cropsey, a former Defense official now at the Hudson Institute. Cropsey also signed the letter critical of Trump, which garnered a total of 122 signatures.
In particular, Trump has been praised for his selection of Gen. James Mattis for secretary of Defense as well as Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) to lead the CIA and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has previously criticized Trump, to be the U.S.’s ambassador at the United Nations.
“I don’t see that these are shrinking violets who are going to be spear carriers for him,” said Roger Noriega, the former assistant secretary of State for the western hemisphere, who had criticized Trump during the campaign.
“It seems to be it's going to be a very dynamic process of foreign policy-making with some very serious people, and will serve up some good options for the president," he added.
The ultimate decision about secretary of State is likely to be incredibly telling about how Trump wants to run his administration.
While well regarded by establishment Republicans, the former Massachusetts governor is largely detested by the populist base that boosted Trump to power.
At Trump's first post-election rally this week, supporters repeatedly yelled “No Romney!” in an effort to sway the president-elect. Kellyanne Conway, a top Trump advisor throughout the campaign, clearly articulated the inner turmoil over the decision in recent days, when she took to TV news shows and Twitter to make the case against Romney.
Trump has also been considering former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) to lead the State Department, though many raised their eyes at his lack of foreign policy experience and aggressive personality.
As alternatives, Trump is also considering Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and former CIA Director David Petraeus, who resigned in disgrace and was later convicted of handing classified information to his biographer with whom he was having an affair.
Several former national security officials remain unconvinced by Trump’s early moves, even though they acknowledge them as a potentially positive step.
“President-elect Trump has obviously had inconsistent positions on big issues,” said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noting the president-elect's wavering stances on Russia, Syria and Iran, among others. “So until you develop some consistency there, this is a guessing game.”
Others remain resistant.
Eliot Cohen, a former State Department official who helped to coordinate the letter against Trump this spring, initially encouraged conservatives to warm to Trump, before reversing his position in a Washington Post op-ed
Working with Trump at this early stage, he wrote in November, “would carry a high risk of compromising one’s integrity and reputation.”
“Conservative political types should not volunteer to serve in this administration, at least for now.”
I didn’t vote for Trump because sounded just like every other RINO that has sold themselves as a conservative. Since the election he has back peddled on a number of his promises. However, to his credit, he has reached out and put forward some solid conservatives for his staff.
So better than I feared, not as good as I had hoped. Lets see what he does in office.
A Snake is always a Snake no matter what tune it’s humming.
It's like The Game of Thrones.
Red Eye Radio, a late nite supposedly conservative syndicated talk show starring Eric and Gary wouldn’t say anything good about trump even if held at gunpoint by ISIS. Anti-Trump trucker radio.
For the RINO crowd, and the “Trump isn’t a conservative” crowd - there is NOTHING he will ever do that is “good enough” for them.
He could eliminate ISIS and they would say “wasn’t fast enough”.
Create 200 Million middle class jobs and they would claim that they didn’t pay enough
Eliminate illegal immigration and they would say he is racist
Stop domestic terrorism and he would be picking on Muslims
Don’t try to placate a$$holes, as you can never do enough for them. They are just as bad as libtards this way
Joe Conasco (spelling) is pretty much A-OKay.
TheHill has several libtard writers.
IMHO, TheHill has become “click bait” and gossipy - much like the National Enquirer, which is precisely the name I call them on Twitter.
Was and still is, as this piece aptly demonstrates.
The loudest and most bitter #NeverTrumpers (including on this forum) are open borders freetraitors. Misstating the corps of the opposition gives it cover to continue.
It is no wonder how the liberals have been so successful in dismantling this nation. The majority of those so called ‘conservatives’ are mindless and spineless bots. This bunch of snobs have darn near made the word ‘conservative’ a curse word.
Ronald Reagan won 489 Electoral votes in 1980, defeating Carter by 9.74% of the popular vote - no thanks to Republican (running as an Independent) John Anderson, who gleaned 6.61% of the popular vote.
I used to listen to Red Eye and enjoyed it a lot; but I had to stop early in the primary season. They got my blood to boiling.
[So better than I feared, not as good as I had hoped. Lets see what he does in office.]
You didn’t vote for Trump yet you say “better than I feared, not as good as I hoped. Wishy-Washy much?
I voted for Trump because who the heck in their right mind would have voted for Hillary or any Dem.
That said, he could have done better by getting some smarter, more ideological people out there to project a conservative program. But maybe the more intellectual approach wouldn’t have worked, so who knows.
I’ve been happy with his appointments and I just hope he will be pro-Christian and small government.
While it is true the establishment preferred HW Bush in the primary, they supported and campaigned for Reagan in the general election. The two campaigns don't even compare.
So Bolton it is.
Rumors connecting president-elect Donald Trump with both current Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson and former CEO Lee Raymond have been getting multiple media attention. But some rumors are pointing in totally different directions as recently as today.
Just to muddy the waters a bit.
Some nevertrumpers saw Trump as another Romney. They agreed with him but didn’t believe he would ever follow through, such as a wall or pro life. Trump can prove them wring
Other nevertrumpers really do want to see a hands off position on trade deals, more h1b visas, taking out Assad and even amnesty. Sorry, but that goes off the platform
the only reason bush senior was put on the ticket was to unite the party if Reagan had not done that. I am positive that the bush family would of worked behind the scenes to have Reagan loose.
in my opinion the bushes were the worst thing that could of happen to the republican party after Reagan and set us up for the Clinton years and Obama years...yes I did support the bushes but after watching Bush senior and junior prostitute themselves to the Clinton foundation in the raising of money for Haitian relief I had my blinders removed and see them as corrupt as the Clintons but more skilled at hiding there corruption.
Good analysis.
What has he backpeddled on, according to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.