Posted on 01/27/2016 1:39:03 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The central question for conservatives, on these and other issues, is whether Trump truly experienced radical conversions on issues they care about, or whether he has just learned to say the right things when he needs conservatives' votes. Even on his signature issue of immigration, Trump faulted Mitt Romney for being too tough as recently as 2012. In 2013, he told a group of immigration activists that he supported giving DREAMers a path to citizenship, and was shocked that they didn't have one already. Only now, running for president, has he sung a different tune.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump last week on behalf of what she called "the rest of us - right-winging, bitter-clinging, proud clingers of our guns, our God, and our religion, and our Constitution."
This was a garbled reference to what candidate Barack Obama once said sneeringly behind closed doors to disparage conservatives to wealthy donors. But is it appropriate to describe the Trump bandwagon as a home for such voters?
Conservative voters are known for skepticism about Republican rhetoric. They are especially skeptical when Republicans come on the scene promising to hew to conservative principle, because they have seen so many tiptoe away from those promises once they've been safely elected.
So why exactly would conservatives credulously accept Trump's word that has spun 180 degrees on so many issues dear to conservatives? This is especially true on the issues to which Palin alluded.
The "gun-clingers" are traditionally among the most skeptical voters, justifiably concerned that paternalistic politicians hope to erode their rights if not to confiscate their firearms. They should be especially wary, then, of a politician who wrote of his enthusiastic support for President Clinton's assault weapons ban as late as 2000.
Trump praised that ban in his book and criticized the National Rifle Association for its intransigence in opposing it. By the time Trump wrote these things, it was abundantly clear that the ban had been an utter failure at preventing gun violence. Its primary effect had been needlessly to hassle law-abiding gun owners.
Pro-life voters tend to be skeptical as well of Republican promises, too, after decades of bad Supreme Court appointments by GOP presidents, and the consequent blocking of democratic limits on abortion. Pro-lifers are not unwilling to accept converts even from among abortionists, but they are hesitant in primary elections to back candidates who have converted on their issue just in time to ask for their vote.
This is precisely what Trump has done. In a recent op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he tried to explain how he had gone from opposing even a ban on partial birth abortion as recently as 2000 to a pro-life position today. "I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me," he wrote. He had described that experience in vague terms in one of the GOP presidential debates.
"[F]riends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted," he said. "And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances. And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life."
Later, a publication asked Trump if he would still have become pro-life if the child had grown up to be "a loser?" Trump replied that it was "an interesting question," and added, "Probably not, but I've never thought of it." This does not especially inspire confidence about the value he places on human life.
As recently as August, Trump defended government subsidies for Planned Parenthood. He said the organization, which performs 30-40 percent of all abortions in America, does many things and that abortion is only "a small part" of what it does.
Meanwhile, Trump has dodged questions about what sort of Supreme Court nominees he'd choose — a question on which pro-lifers, like other believers in self-government, have rightly demanded orthodoxy in the past.
The central question for conservatives, on these and other issues, is whether Trump truly experienced radical conversions on issues they care about, or whether he has just learned to say the right things when he needs conservatives' votes. Even on his signature issue of immigration, Trump faulted Mitt Romney for being too tough as recently as 2012. In 2013, he told a group of immigration activists that he supported giving DREAMers a path to citizenship, and was shocked that they didn't have one already. Only now, running for president, has he sung a different tune.
Conservative voters are not known for blind credulity, and that partly explains why the Republican Party establishment has lost control of the nomination process. That is not a bad thing. But it does highlight the question of why those same skeptical voters accept Trump's current claims at face value.
Why did he need Hillary?
You posed the question.
I gave you Trump’s stated reason.
To all conservatives I ask...Why risk it?
Do we want a wishy-washy wheeler & dealer selecting the next 3+ Supremes?
I like Trump. He’s very entertaining...but I trust Ted.
So what, what?
Are you saying so what that Trump paid for Hillary to come to his third wedding to his new bride, the nude model? If so, you asked how this was known, as if it was not a fact that he’d paid to get the Clintons to hobnob with the very, very insecure Trump.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/donald-trump-donated-millions-to-clinton-foundation/209112/
Thanks.
You are wonderful. Just the best!
Do you actually care about Our Nation?
If so, why?
Oh give it up, Wife. You’re like the plague, spreading your anti-Trump hostility thread by thread. So tiresome. You love to back losers, first Walker and now Cruz. Oy, the aggravation you cause us.
Okay, and that translates to what?
“................All this week, Trump blustered and threatened that if Megyn Kelly wasn’t removed as a debate moderator, he would not attend the debate. He had reason to think, based on his past experiences with virtually every other media entity in the country, that he would succeed. Fox News finally called his bluff and told him to take a hike. According to Trump’s campaign, Trump will now definitely miss Thursday’s debate. Whether this is a bluff or not, we don’t know. Certainly Trump could change his mind at the last minute and his dedicated supporters would not care.
But the important thing here is that finally, an alleged news organization has decided that they will not let a subject of their coverage dictate the content thereof. The importance of this step cannot be understated. If Trump can cow the media this successfully when he’s just a candidate, imagine what he might attempt if he is elected? I think it’s no exaggeration to say that this might be one of the many ways in which Trump genuinely wishes he could emulate Putin.
Thank God that Fox News finally realized that they are strong enough on their own merits that they will continue to be healthy and profitable without the presence of The Donald in one of their debates. At long last, someone in the media realized that their long-term credibility might be more important than a one-time boost in ratings for a debate that will frankly draw pretty well even without Trump’s presence.
Trump meant what he said earlier this week. He really does believe that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and no one would say anything to him about it. For the first time this election season, someone in the media has decided to prove that maybe he really can’t. Thank God it finally happened; now we just hope it isn’t too little, too late. [end excerpt]
http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/27/finally-fox-news-grows-pair/
mano a mano
“Thank God that Fox News finally realized that they are strong enough on their own merits”
You can add shill for Fox News to your list of credits.
These threads are a hoot. Thanks, just keep posting.
That right there is the crux of it for every thinking conservative.
The only consistency Trump has shown is self-promotion and the willingness to shift any position to gain favor.
There is absolutely no reason to expect him to hold his current positions once elected. He’s making a deal, and he doesn’t even have to sign the contract.
If Trump loses Iowa, how will he react?
I think we’ll hear the following within 24 if not 2 hours:
1. Iowa has a stupid caucus system
2. Iowans are stupid, backward people, who love pigs
3. No one cares about Iowa
4. Iowa doesn’t pick winners, so its good to lose Iowa
5. The people of New Hampshire are smarter than Iowans
6. Iowans are bad, bad people
What if Mr. Trump wins in Iowa?
Any predictions on his dictions?
You forgot #7 - “Ethanol sucks”.
I think we can add shill for the GOPe...For Bush and Hillary...
I'm convinced these people don't fear what Trump will fail to do; keep his promises...They fear that he will succeed...It's not Trump they hate, it's his policies...After watching them for years they seem to represent everything that is wrong with America...
Sure. Tweeted during the night before the sun comes up:
1. People love me, they really, really love me
2. The caucus system is probably the best system
3. Really, really good people tell me that Iowa is the most important state to win
By 7am it will be that last words or thoughts he'll ever have about the dumb pig farmers of Iowa. He'll be moving his circus to New Hampshire and barking for the crowd there.
The answer is easy: They don't.
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.