Posted on 01/22/2016 2:09:35 PM PST by conservativejoy
He's not going to get fully pregnant, just a little bit pregnant. What's the harm in that?
"I think they're warming up. I want to be honest, I have received so many phone calls from people that you would call establishment, from people - generally speaking ... conservatives, Republicans - that want to come onto our team," Trump told reporters in Las Vegas before an appearance at the Outdoor Sportsman Awards...
At an earlier rally, Trump painted himself as a pragmatic dealmaker capable of working with lawmakers, in contrast with Cruz, his top rival in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses...
"You know what? There's a point at which: Let's get to be a little establishment," Trump told the crowd at the South Point resort and casino. "We've got to get things done folks, OK? Believe me, don't worry. We're going to make such great deals."
A fine soundbite for a general election candidate, which I think is the point of him talking like this. He's not puffing either when he says that establishmentarians are cozying up to him. They are, and some of them aren't shy about admitting their preference for him over Cruz.
In private, some veteran conservative Republicans have been reaching out to Trump. And Trump himself called the ultimate establishment figure in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, for a talk late last year.
"If it came down to Trump or Cruz, there is no question I'd vote for Trump," said former New York mayor and 2008 presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has not endorsed a candidate. "As a party, we'd have a better chance of winning with him, and I think a lot of Republicans look at it that way."
"Between Trump and Cruz, it's not even close," said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a longtime House moderate who has not endorsed a candidate. "Cruz isn't a good guy, and he'd be impossible as president. People don't trust him. And regardless of what your concern is with Trump, he's pragmatic enough to get something done. I also don't see malice in Trump like I see with Cruz."
"With Trump, hey, it's just a deal," said Alex Castellanos, a longtime Republican strategist. "The primary's one deal, that's done. If he were to be the nominee, the next deal's a general [election]. You can see him saying, ‘We had to do what we had to do to win the primary, but now's the general, and we've got to beat Hillary.' You can see him pivot on a dime.
Exactly. Trump is for Trump and he makes no attempt to conceal it. That's why his endless reversals over the past 15 years don't damage him the way Romney's considerably fewer flip-flops did: Trump barely makes a pretense of standing for something beyond his own success. The goal is to win. If muttering about "Mexican rapists" helps him win the primary, okay. If pivoting and presenting himself as a dealmaker who can build a centrist consensus helps him win the general election, okay. If and when he's president, he'll figure out whatever he needs to say to "win" at that point. One way he could "win" is by surprising his relatively small base of hardcore fans and signing a comprehensive immigration deal, which would earn him all sorts of Strange New Respect from his critics and signal that he's capital-s Serious about governing. He's an opportunist down to his bones. And he's so confident that he's going to win the primaries now that he's not even afraid of lending a bit of credence to Cruz's attacks that he's a phony populist who'll play ball with Mitch McConnell if given the chance. Maybe I will, says Trump. McConnell and Chuck Schumer know much more about how to "get things done" in Washington than Trump does. If you want to make America great again, they're indispensable aides in that task, right?
Never mind Trump. He can count on his cult of personality to forgive him anything, and the rest of the primary electorate has already priced his opportunism into his stock. The newsy part about the establishment flirtation with him this week is that conventional Republicans do make a pretense of standing for something beyond their own political self-interest. And yet, as Philip Klein says, "they've convinced themselves that the party would be better off choosing somebody who represents everything they claim to abhor." The Paul Ryan wing of the party may detest Cruz personally, but as Klein says, they have more in common ideologically - or claim to - with Cruz than they do with Trump, and yet the soundbites from congressional Republicans this week have almost uniformly signaled a greater openness to Trump than to Cruz. Not only that, but I can't recall even one of them quoted in the stories I've read this week claiming that Trump is a better conservative or Republican than Cruz. What they like about Trump, per Peter King's quote above, is that he'll do "deals," exactly the sort of compromise-for-its-own-sake approach that usually leaves conservative populists spitting at their congressional leadership.
There are only two possible ways to explain the Beltway preference for Trump, says Klein, given how poorly Trump polls in favorability surveys of the general electorate. Either they'd rather lose with Trump than accept a better chance of winning with the dreaded Cruz, or they just don't care about conservatism as much as they've always claimed. (Or both.) So here's my question to Cruz fans: If Trump wins this primary thanks in part to the "mainstreaming" benefits he's now receiving from people like Bob Dole and Terry Branstad and various Republican senators, why should any Cruz fan continue to support this party? The point of preferring Cruz (or Rubio) to Trump is that conservatism matters; this week you've seen various party chieftains essentially say, "Well, no, it doesn't matter much." If that's where the party is now, then let the rest of the electorate decide between the two non-conservative parties. Trump fans have every right to say they'll stay home if their guy isn't nominee because, without him in charge, the GOP doesn't really represent their interests. The same is true for Cruz fans at this point, no?
Exit question via Klein: Didn't we spend a good two or three years after the 2012 election hearing from establishment concern trolls that the GOP desperately needs to get right with Latino voters on immigration? Wasn't that one of the core arguments for the Gang of Eight bill, that the party is finished as a national force if it allows even one more presidential election to happen without reconciling with Hispanics? Did I dream that? Because here we are in 2016 and suddenly those same establishmentarians seem to prefer the candidate in the race who's utterly destroyed his standing with Latinos with rhetorical bombthrowing on immigration to the guy who's been mean to poor Mitch McConnell in his floor speeches. We're left now with this: "Pass amnesty or else we're dead as a party. Also, take the guy who likes talking about 'Mexican rapists' over the other guy." Huh?
Like the illegals, Trump is going to do away with Obama’s executive orders and then bring them back as laws.
Congress will go along with him because he’s a liberal.
HopeandChange2.0
Yes, as a fellow Freeper says ‘ Peace be upon him’.
It is amazing to me that the same mindless worship that put Obama in office could very well give us someone even worse.
This does remind me of Obama’s campaign and following.
They tried to give us Romney. that shows you the mentality of the people involved. They want revenge on conservatives from denying them their last liberal so they front another.
Yep, he’s an even bigger phony now! :)
Noting that I will vote for Republican presidential nominee, patriots need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and demand that the president respects those limited powers too.
I have compared Trump to Jesse Ventura. I apologize to Mr. Ventura.
Pretense: an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true
That's the problem with the GOPe. Donald comes across as authentic.
Pretense: an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true
That's the problem with the GOPe. Donald comes across as authentic.
IIRC, the day Cruz started down was the day he attacked The Donald! I am not sure if there is enough data to establish a pattern here, but there may be something to this: Attack Trump, Bye! Bye! thing.
I don’t think Trump hates his country like Romney or Obama, but the guy is what he is. I have said for years that records don’t lie. And regardless of all the personal attacks, screaming tantrums and calls to be shot by liberal Freepers, I have yet to be wrong in following a candidate’s record.
It’s sorta WHY people need to look at a person’s past. No one is perfect. Some are just more tremendously lib supporting than others.
And some want that.
Trump is openly becoming more establishment with each passing day. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t he start out claiming to be against the estblishment?
By the time the primaries are over, he will be a full-blown establishment guy, just like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. How is that working out so far?
Trump is an authentic NY liberal, all the way to the marrow of his bones. Beyond that, he’s a “promise anything” con artist.
LOL
No, thanks!
You mean the Cruz people. Please be specific.
If he wins, then I do too... but you assume that Trump's idea of "what must be done" matches yours exactly, in every detail. It likely does not.
My husban's argument against Trump always has been - he'll never be able to do anything because Congress will dig their heels in to stop him.
Exactly as they have with Cruz and everyone else who has tried.
My response, he's a dealmaker, he'll do what he has to get things done and if Congress won't do it, he'll go to the people.
Cruz built a 33-state consortium to defend the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court. Trump is not the "only one" who makes deals. In case you hadn't heard, that' how Congress has operated for a long time. As for "going to the people", do you really need to be reminded the number of times that We the People had a solid majority that Congress and SCOTUS Ignored anyway? ObamaCare, Term Limits, runaway spending, etc etc etc. What has that done? Honestly, how will it be different with Trump?
I don't know, we may have created a monster but I'm still behind him. Something has got to be done about the den of iniquity (DC) and he's the one that can do it.
Again, he is NOT "the one". To say that means that if he died tomorrow, the cause would be lost forever? Of course not, and it is silly to say so.
What happened to the graphs on realclearpolitics.com. ? I do not see them anymore.
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.