Jeff Sessions endorses Trump
Everyone’s making a fuss about Jeff Sessions’ endorsement of Trump.
Before I get into the details, I want to establish one thing at the outset: personally, endorsements mean zero to me and always have. Of course, I understand they matter in general, because they matter to many other people. But it seems to me they only should matter to someone who hasn’t got the time to do his/her own research and make up his/her own mind based on the candidate’s character and stand on the issues, and who would rather just adopt someone else’s pre-digested opinion.
It’s kind of like a movie critic’s review, which I find equally worthless except to give me an idea what a movie is about. I guess I’ve never been a big one for following the opinion of others. And with politics, I think I qualify as someone who does her own research.
Now, with Jeff Sessions and Trump it seems that a lot of people found it shocking that a man known and respected for his conservatism would come out for Trump. But I don’t find it the least bit shocking and not even at all surprising, because of special circumstances connected with Sessions. In fact, I would have considered it a shock had he not endorsed Trump. Here’s why.
Sessions has been the go-to conservative guy in the Senate for handling illegal immigration issues, a hardliner who advised Trump heavily almost from the start when Trump put out his policy paper, which was apparently either written by Sessions or written with heavy consultation with Sessions. I also would guess that for Sessions the immigration question trumps (sorry, could not even begin to resist) everything else. Everything.
Put yourself in Sessions’ place and imagine you’d been working for years and years in the Senate, casting your pearls of immigration wisdom before Senate swine and having them rejected. An intensely frustrating and wearisome task, like so many in the Senate. And then a black swan named Trump swims or flies into view. He not only says he’s tough on immigration, he says how much he respects you and to prove it he has you basically write his platform and plan his program for him.
Wow and double wow. So when Trump rises and rises in the polls, for you it is like a dream come true. Instead of spinning your wheels trying to convince your fellow senators to do things they aren’t ready to do, you can hitch your wagon to this star (yeah, mixed metaphor) and ride it all the way to the power to create your own system to your own specifications on an issue that has mattered to you for so very long. Trump’ll be the nominal head and have the final say, but he’ll give you free rein.
Or so Trump says.
I don’t think there’s a politician in the world who could resist that sort of enticement. My guess is that Trump also explicitly offered Sessions something, an “immigration czar” position or something of the sort.
Another reason the temptation could not be resisted is that if Sessions were to back Cruz—far more aligned with Sessions in background and general conservative philosophy—he would have to face the problem that Cruz isn’t doing very well and that the odds for his victory are not good. My guess is that Sessions delayed his Trump endorsement until that fact was fairly clear, and that if Cruz had been doing a lot better, Sessions would have jumped on his bandwagon instead and probably have been a lot more happier deep down inside about it than he is about backing Trump.
But that didn’t happen, and Sessions decided that, if he didn’t get aboard with Trump now, Trump might turn to someone else to help him design the program if elected. And that would shut Sessions out. He could not run that risk, because he thinks Trump has a much better chance of being elected.
Hence, the Session endorsement. Really, I couldn’t imagine that he would have done otherwise.
[NOTE: A very different attitude was expressed by a different conservative senator, Ben Sasse.]
Neo,
I’m going to draw in a large breath and say this:
Pls bear with me …
Invoking a lesson from Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, paradigms (the word Kuhn made famous) often stagnate until an outside entity comes in and changes things. The incumbent powers within the obsolete organization resist mightily the creative changes that are introduced. Some will go to their graves refusing to recognize the need for change or the efficacy of the change [See Joseph Priestly and dephlogisticated air].
This is exactly where the Republican Party stands today. It is an organization enmeshed in obsolescence. Not in it’s essence, but in its structural values. What it does, does not work. Party leaders are either unable to see their folly, or they are unable to make the necessary changes. Trump is the outside entity; he is going to bring change. The great thing that any outside entity brings is the element of uncertainty. It is very powerfully frightening to those who live in the old structure. But it is exhilarating to those who see the need for change.
Ten years into quantum mechanics the initial framework was so bogged down that Wolfgang Pauli wrote: “I wish I had been a movie comedian or something of the sort and never heard of physics.” Less than five months later, he was writing: “Heisenberg’s type of mechanics has again given me hope and joy in life. To be sure it doesn’t supply the solution to the riddle, but I believe it is again possible to move forward.”
I know you know this. I know your entire blog is a refusal to live in the cognitive dissonance that is the left wing of western civilization, firmly in control of the Democratic Party.
But that process of change is happening now within the Republican Party. The party has polarized and the two sides are locked. There’s nothing within the Republican Party today that can bring about the change that is necessary to go forward with a viable structure than can realign with its essence. Ted Cruz knows what direction to take, but the party can successfully resist him, especially given his (rather surprising) campaign strategy centered too narrowly on evangelicals.
The party cannot resist Trump. He is going to bring a change that m-a-y allow the party to move forward. There is no possibility of that in any other option.
Julian T:
Here’s why I disagree with you–
I am convinced that but for Trump, Ted Cruz would be running away with this. The party would no more be able to stop him than they are able to stop Trump.
Trump has the vote that would have gone to Cruz—the GOP protest vote.
And I’m convinced Cruz could have won.
I don’t have time to go into all the reasons why, but I am quite convinced of it. I am also completely convinced that Cruz is 1000 times the man that Trump is.
The situation is a tragedy.
Disagree with the second and third paragraphs.
All voters are not rational like Neo. Some go with feelings and want to get on the winning team and so endorsements can influence voters without strongly held positions.
On movie reviews, I fairly agree with Joe Morganstern of the WSJ and always agree with John Podhoretz of the NY Post. So I highly value their opinions before I spend time and money.
Testimonials are great when one is working a con. I’m sure many “students” at Trump University saw people say it was great and money well spent.
Analyze every aspect of Trump through the con artist lens. It all makes sense.
The latest is he won’t really deport all those illegals, but people believe what they want to believe.
Trump adopted Sessions policy papers WRT immigration months ago.
What else is there to say ?
Julian T
The problem with your theory is that the guy you are banking on is a serial bankrupt who has extremely poor character.
Cornhead:
I don’t see that you disagree with my second and third paragraphs (maybe about movie critics, but not about endorsements). I said I was describing my own feelings about endorsements, not the feelings of many or most people. I added ” Of course, I understand they [endorsements] matter in general, because they matter to many other people.”
Ben Sasse expressed many of my thoughts. Trump is no conservative and has a very poor character. Character matters in the Midwest. I’m just sorry to see so many good people being duped by a practiced con man. Desperate people will believe anything.
Sessions was no surprise to me. It was only a matter of when. Jan Brewer was a welcome addition to the group of endorsers. She held the line with Obama and wasn’t afraid to point out his errors.
The primary marches on. Tomorrow should be fun.
The problem who more convincing its different what voters see and vote for.
In the end of the day who got more votes he is a winer, at that moment all the blame should goes to the voters, and that where “The situation is a tragedy”
Yes, Cornhead, character matters in flyover country. Having some southern hertitage, I know it also matters below the Mason Dixon line. A person is judged by his word. Sessions could have hitched himself to the Cruz campaign at the very start. If Sessions does not realize Trump has zero interest in the illegal alien border crash, and that it is all a big con, he is diminished in my eyes.
Walker, Fiorina, and Cruz; in the beginning we had 3 good, conservative candidates to choose from. Now it looks like we have the Donald. I will not vote for that south end of a donkey headed north. I would rather let the leftists own the coming great recession 2.0 and the hyper-jihad that will fill the void left by bho.
Donald Trump and KKK: A History
K-E:
Tomorrow should be fun?
You of course know that for most people here it will not be “fun.”
Interesting comment of yours, considering that fact.
True believers, kool-aid drinkers, lynch mobs, and wishful thinkers. I think you are sincere K-E, and I would gladly have a ‘beer summit’ with you because I see you as a wishful thinker, but don’t be surprised when the pantsuit Stalinist or your worse, cringing, nightmare, Trump the con artist usurper, mounts the throne.
My dad schooled me to judge people by their past words and deeds; not by their sudden good behavior. Dad was a fount of wisdom.
Cornhead, as an attorney you may find this interesting. I had a working lunch today with my attorney, a man I’ve known a long time but not socially. When the subject of Trump came up he lost it. Tyrant, bigot, con-man, and racist were the polite descriptive words, you can imagine the adjectives. He tried to apologize until I let him know that I agreed. Among his clients are a handful of independent labor contractors for the agricultural industry in California. He explained that they are terrified of what will happen if Trump is elected. They try their best to verify legal status but never know for sure when counterfeit documents are presented. We agreed that if he gets elected there will be a pall of fear and uncertainty. He likened it to what Japanese-Americans went through during WW2.
Neo and others here like Ann, libertybelle, Richard Saunders, etc. I hope you and the rest fight the good fight and keep pointing out what this guy is all about. I’ve come the conclusion that he’s already got the nomination wrapped up, and will very likely get elected in November.
I won’t be posting about this anymore. This is a kind of a final straw and the excuse I’ve needed for an early retirement. Going Galt. Good luck and G-d bless all of you.
The Other Chuck,
The final straw is death. Hang in there. 🙂
Sessions did surprise and bother me. I did not realize that he and Trump had collaborated previously. Sessions is well respected by the typical conservative; but, he is a bit quirky.
I wonder if the Senate “Old Bulls” have aligned against Cruz, and people like Sessions, who should be in tune with him, are reluctant to stick their necks out too far.
I don’t understand Brewer. I know that her state has borne a heavy burden in the illegal alien invasion; but, surely she also knows Trump’s record on importing foreign workers. As well as his thoroughly documented record of not living up to promises.
Maybe the bandwagon effect is taking roots.
Despite the presumed sophistication of the 21st century, it is clear that bombast still sells. I think they made an allegorical (?) movie about a con man selling musical instruments in a presumably simpler age.
While I agree that immigration is a very important issue, I don’t think it is the most important one, especially if you consider that even Rubio, who many consider to be a sellout, would be very restrained by both congress and popular opinion.
Foreign policy, on the other hand, is extremely important and requires a president capable of deep understanding of foreign cultures and political systems. Trump shows no interest in learning or thinking before he speaks. He could wreck our relationships with other countries and further isolate us in the world. Thomas Sowell talks about this in a NRO piece today. I observed first hand what it was like for Bush, who was deemed outside the pale even before he took the oath. Because of Trump’s bombast, he will have an even harder time than Bush at getting other countries to stick with us.
I think neo is right about Sessions, but I trust my experiences more WRT Trump’s ability to serve us well as president.
“I am convinced that but for Trump, Ted Cruz would be running away with this. The party would no more be able to stop him than they are able to stop Trump.
Trump has the vote that would have gone to Cruz–the GOP protest vote.
And I’m convinced Cruz could have won.
I don’t have time to go into all the reasons why, but I am quite convinced of it. I am also completely convinced that Cruz is 1000 times the man that Trump is.
The situation is a tragedy.”
Some of the best words I’ve ever read on this blog.
Kudos!!
Sorry, but Cruz is unelectable. It’s be the height of stupidity to nominate a guy who nobody personally likes to be your guy to run for an office traditionally won by the more likeable candidate. Cruz, meanwhile, is a jejune open borders and pro-amnesty lightweight. So that leaves us with Trump, who’ll win it all in a cake walk.
Other Chuck:
As I lawyer I’ve dealt with many con men, liars and sharp operators. Trump is the biggest – and best – that I have seen.
That should be Rubio in the second sentence.
Lawyers name call when they have no evidence.
This may be one of the bombs that the MSM–in this case, the NYT–is holding back to set off after Trump is nominated:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/trump-tape?utm_term=.njkMgejKr#.jbPgZV2wj
The Republicans better get off their butts and beat him before he’s nominated and then torpedoed by the MSM, and Hillary/Sanders is our next president.
Nobody with a business issue should over-worry. Trump can be bought and you will have ample opportunity.
Sessions is first and foremost a politician. He voted for all of the TPP type trade agreements in the past until it became du jour unfashionable. He also, despite protesations to the contrary, resents Cruz for not opposing amnesty. AH yes, Cruz proposed legal residency as a reasonable compromise not a poison pill as be now claims 3 years later. Look up his YouTube testimony at the hearings reassuring the 11m illegals they would be able to come out of the shadows. He wasn’t lying. He also voted against every single one of Sessions’ 12 actual poison pill amendments. Sessions didn’t forget that.
Cruz’s position now is indistinguishable from Trump. Why wouldn’t he endorse an actual conservative in Cruz over a Bloombergian liberal Republican like Trump? Because of the above. People who support Cruz have not considered all of his statements at the time which support the idea that he was interested in a compromise. Huge increase in H1-B visas and path to legal residency. He meant it. It’s why he never fundraised off his efforts to supposedly sink the Go8 legislation like every other one of his efforts.
Thank you neo. Excellent information on the Sessions endorsement. Senator Sasse seems to believe that if Hillary is elected, conservatives will live to fight another day. Perhaps that is what the Anglo-Saxons believed when asked to send troops to fend off those annoying Normans.
It’s disturbing to me how uninterested Cruz folks are in the above. They dismiss it with a wave of the hand. But how is it possible Cruz was such a sincere liar at the time and is not lying to you now? Conservatives used to be interested in facts not wish casting. No, Cruz is our hero! He would never be betray us! And by that we mean take up a reasonable position that has become anathema
G Joubert – So, you don’t like name-calling and you support Trump?
Joubert
I’ll just give you the most recent evidence. Trump claims not to know who David Duke is and won’t condemn the KKK. He clearly knows who Duke is as he refused to join the Reform Party. And then he blamed the earpiece but repeated the names of Duke and the KKK.
Trump was at one time in favor of an assault weapons ban and he now says he backs the Second Amendment.
Your being conned. You believe what you want to believe about Trump despite the evidence in front of your face.
Also what Expat said.
“Instead of spinning your wheels trying to convince your fellow senators to do things they aren’t ready to do, you can hitch your wagon to this star (yeah, mixed metaphor) and ride it all the way to the power to create your own system to your own specifications on an issue that has mattered to you for so very long. Trump’ll be the nominal head and have the final say, but he’ll give you free rein.
Sessions decided that, if he didn’t get aboard with Trump now, Trump might turn to someone else to help him design the program if elected. And that would shut Sessions out. He could not run that risk, because he thinks Trump has a much better chance of being elected.”
I think you do Sessions somewhat of a disservice there neo, at least in tone if not entirely in specifics. I don’t read Sessions as motivated by anything but the seriousness of the issue. Sessions is a patriot and while others such as Cruz are equally serious, he knows that, in a Trump administration, he will fight to create administration policies that enforce the laws and work to create a bill that actually addresses the problem. (Chance of passage, nil) Someone else might or might not fight equally hard. Sessions simply wants the job to get done. I do agree that his preference would have been Cruz but “needs must, when the devil drives”…
“If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate — a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.” Ben Sasse
Sasse seems sincere, nevertheless that is a vote for Hillary.
[Trump] “is going to bring a change that m-a-y allow the party to move forward. There is no possibility of that in any other option.” Julian T
Sadly, tragically… that is exactly correct. Even had Trump never run and Cruz been elected, nothing of consequence would have changed. The democrats would obstruct all legislative efforts and the GOPe would work to undermine Cruz on all levels and areas. Perhaps 25% of the public would support Cruz as the MSM would ‘Bushify’ him. That is not a criticism of Cruz, rather it is an honest assessment of how far off course has become the American public. Cruz is indeed 1000 times the man that Trump is and the situation is literally a modern ‘Greek tragedy’.
Cornhead,
Self-confirming analysis always does make perfect sense. I don’t think Trump will really deport all those illegals either, but he may allow ICE to enforce the laws and, go after the employers. If he does, all within his Presidential powers, many will leave and the flood of illegals will dwindle to a trickle.
“Now it looks like we have the Donald. I will not vote for that south end of a donkey headed north. I would rather let the leftists own the coming great recession 2.0 and the hyper-jihad that will fill the void left by bho.” parker
Given the ability of the MSM to define the narrative, you do realize that letting “the leftists own the coming great recession 2.0 and the hyper-jihad that will fill the void left by bho” may result in the end of the republic and the beginning of a 1984 style dark age? That is potentially what we risk by letting Hillary win. Perhaps that is the only way to awaken the LIVs but its a real “roll of the dice”.
“don’t be surprised when the pantsuit Stalinist or your worse, cringing, nightmare, Trump the con artist usurper, mounts the throne.”
“My dad schooled me to judge people by their past words and deeds; not by their sudden good behavior. Dad was a fount of wisdom.”
I can’t argue with past behavior being an indicator of character. But it’s may well be a moot point. I’ve reluctantly been coming around to the view that it’s either the pantsuit Stalinist or the con artist (is he coning us or himself?). Regardless, the public will have it no other way.
Geoffrey- Trump will bring the Republican party, the only conduit for conservatives, to ruin. Sessions has done eveyone a disservice. He’s no conservative bellweather.
Just a lot of rationalizing here. Sessions is a frontrunner. If he were in Massachusetts he would have supported Romneycare.
“Design the program.” What program is there to design under Trump? What color to paint the wall and how many agents does it take to deport 11m people in 4 years? (About 10x many as we have now, not to mention immigration judges.)
Holmes,
Cruz was willing to trade increased H1B LEGAL immigration for no path to amnesty/citizenship for ILLEGAL aliens. The first has a visa, the second is a criminal. Why did Sessions triibute Cruz with being instrumental in causing Go8 to fail, if as you claim, Cruz was overtly/covertly supporting amnesty? Which is it? Cruz is no saint, but he is a Constitutionalist. If you doubt that….vote for the bern.
“If he (Sessions) were in Massachusetts he would have supported Romeycare.” So why didn’t Sessions vote for obamacare? Again, which is it? Sessions is true blue or bleeds red? Enlighten we idiots in flyover landia with your acumen.
Cornhead:
“As I lawyer I’ve dealt with many con men, liars and sharp operators. Trump is the biggest — and best — that I have seen.”
I practiced law, too, and then started my own software company. When I dealt with con men, liars and sharp operators, at least I knew who I was dealing with, and could be prepared.
When I dealt with the government, I expected them to obey the law. Silly me! None of my competitors ever harmed me as much as the government.
There’s a wedding-cake baker out there somewhere who knows what I mean.
Holmes,
The GOPe leadership brought the Republican party to ruin quite some time ago. Trump is simply dancing on the dead body.
Conservatism itself however cannot be brought to ruin, truth being eternal. A people can lose their way but truth stands as its own confirmation.
Living within our means, loyalty to the Constitution’s principles, the rule of law, these and other conservative principles are truths derived from reality and confirmed by fact, reason and logic. Only principles of governance in alignment with reality are, in and of themselves, sustainable. All else is deluded pretense and illusion.
‘Ted Cruz would be running away with this.’
OK, I’ll bite. Why do you think that? It would probably be Cruz and Rubio (or another like Jeb Bush) to the wire. Cruz would likely win in the end but he would not run away with it.
Speaking of endorsements, Trump also picked up the support of Governor Paul LePage of Maine, just a few days ago. You can’t find two people with a more dissimilar background than Trump and LePage:
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/20/the-early-years-paul-lepage/
http://www.maine.gov/governor/lepage/about/index.shtml
As governor, LePage has blundered around a lot, and has made many bombastic and non-PC statements. But he has also done, on balance, a net amount of good for the state, and has put through some much-needed reform.
Maybe Gov. LePage could give us some idea of what Trump would be like as President, if he is nominated, and if he is elected. And maybe someone like Trump could win those northeastern and midwestern states that have voted Democratic since 1988?
‘Sasse seems sincere, nevertheless that is a vote for Hillary.’
Actually, no. Do the math. That’s only half a vote for Hillary.
But a half a vote is still more than she deserves. But you fail to understand his point that voting means more than just a vote.
@XRock: “at that moment all the blame should goes to the voters,”
I mostly agree.
It is good that Julian’s is the first comment in the thread- it says what needs to be said- the Republican Party needs to change, and like it or not, that change is personified in the form of Trump, not Ted Cruz.
Neo, Trump gets his supporters from the people who normally would have either not participated in the Republican primaries and caucuses, or would have supported the main-line candidates like Bush and Rubio- that is why those candidates have spent the season gasping for air- and it is one of the reasons for the decline of participation on the Democrat side.
The Republican Party can implode or explode- it really is up to the individual voter whether or not he/she can support Trump against Clinton, but change is coming one way or the other.
GB,
I think you know better. Trump or hillary? A choice between cancer or cancer. We, extended family, are prepping our Nothern Minneota lake cabin (dehydrated/canned food, firewood, ammo, fuel). With the extra new cabin we can fit at a tight squeeze 40+ extended family members. We are all from 12 to 70 excellent shots. Teach your grandchildren well. Aim small, miss small.Its an old mantra learned with practice. We can hunt, fish, grow, and preserve. BTW, your prep blog does not touch on the importance of salt, sugar, or wood smoke as a preservative. Country boys and girls can survive
I’ve been thinking about this article, and I just can’t buy Neo’s analysis. We’re conservatives here; we understand free will. A person is responsible for his actions. Sessions may have reasons for supporting Trump, as may Christie, but they both made the decision to do so. So will, probably, a lot of voters tomorrow. And they’re wrong to to so. If it’s easy to support Trump or it’s hard to support Trump, I don’t care: it’s wrong to support Trump. Shame on them.
Yancey and Julian – Change is always coming, and it’s always here. But change isn’t a thing that automatically moves us from A to B. It moves us where we want it to (or where we allow it to). There definitely would have been a change in both parties in 2016, because neither one was going to nominate the person they nominated last time. This cycle’s change could have been Perry, or Carson, or a bunch of other people, each of whom would have changed our political landscape. I’m not calling either of you Marxists, but it’s important that we don’t depersonalize specific changes as inevitable, the result of powers beyond our control. We still have a choice to decide what kind of change 2016 will represent.
Since the blog topic was Sessions’ endorsement of Trump, folks might be interested in knowing that Hugh Hewitt, who was rudely insulted by Trump during the last debate, has said that of course he will vote for Trump over Hillary.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/six-reasons-trump-still-better-clinton/
Steve D,
Actually it is one net vote for Hillary. If a Republican does not vote for their candidate it is one net vote for the Democrat. If they then vote for the Democrat it is two net votes for the Democrat.
A story in the Daily Caller claims that Cruz has called on Trump to release the tape of an interview with the editors of the New York Times in which Trump allegedly says that he does not believe what he has been saying on illegal immigration and does not intend to take any meaningful action if elected. NYT says that they will only release the audio if given permission by Trump. Somehow I don’t see that happening. However, it is highly possible in the extreme that should there be a candidate Trump, then somehow the publics’ need to know will bravely prevail and trump all else.
I believe that “You can hitch your wagon to this star” is a metaphor with pun added, not a mixed metaphor. However I don’t really know from metaphors and if I am gramatially all wet , kindly disregard this paragraph, which reads like another spambot.
I commented to a local radio host that I might not vote for Trump in Nov.
He reminded me yhat the Hildebeast is a communist and Trump, only a liar.
No one has said it better than Mitt @MittRomney:
A disqualifying & disgusting response by @realDonaldTrump to the KKK. His coddling of repugnant bigotry is not in the character of America.
Thr Republican party that holds 60% of states and both branches of Congress is dead? You guys need to stop believing your own sanctimonious drivel. Yes McConnell is terrible as was Boehner, so what? Ryan is an enormous improvement and we finally have young conservatives on the way up. ThW Republicans have held both elected branches of Congress 6 years in 60. Maybe let’s not pull a Peter III here and mose a very winnable battle?
Nick:
Oh, believe me, I agree with you.
This post didn’t even get into whether I think it’s right or wrong of Sessions. I think it is wrong. However, it’s pragmatic, understandable, and entirely predictable.
The post was explaining my theory of the why, that’s all.
Please don’t leave Other Chuck. Really. Take a deep breath and please keep commenting.
Yancey Ward:
Your comment reminds me of this book. A terrible argument.
Ed (from Ypsilanti) Bonderenka Says at 12:18 am
“I commented to a local radio host that I might not vote for Trump in Nov.
He reminded me yhat the Hildebeast is a communist and Trump, only a liar.”
Well stated. An evil ideologue with the support of millions of other ideologues who would cut granny’s throat to gain power are much more dangerous than an opportunist blowhard.
Yankee:
Paul LePage and Donald Trump have nothing in common except bluntness and a tendency to say non-PC things, as well as a dislike of the press.
By the way, Paul LePage and Chris Christie are somewhat joined at the hip, in the political sense. In fact, LePage campaigned for Christie heavily in the NH primary, and Christie was a very early supporter of LePage in Maine when everyone else had written LePage off. Like Christie, also, shortly before LePage endorsed Trump he was condemning him roundly.
LePage is the quintessential self-made man, unlike Trump. But LePage (unlike Trump) is very different politically, too. He had executive experience in politics, for example, before becoming governor, and therefore a track record in that sense:
LePage is many things, but one of them is not con man or a liar, nor is he a litigious megalomaniac. Nor could anyone accuse him of being a closet liberal, or a liberal of any sort. He is very much a small government conservative.
And here’s his history vis a vis Trump. Like Christie’s, it’s not a pretty one:
I guess he won’t be signing the letter himself. 🙂 .
Politics. Bedfellows. Strange. And that’s the kindest thing I can say about his endorsement.
Oldflyer:
Your analogy to “The Music Man” is one I’ve thought of myself in relation to Trump. Many weeks ago I even went so far as to go to YouTube to see if there was a musical number by Preston as Harold Hill that I could put up on this blog, as a joke of sorts re Trump.
Instead, I found myself getting lost in admiration for how wonderful Robert Preston was in that role. It’s great that there’s a movie (which I’ve never seen) that records his wonderful performance.
I saw the play on Broadway as a very young child, the original production with Preston in the role. I fell in love with him, and I mean that literally—I was in love with him as a child. He had the most amazing energy and charisma. He just lit up that stage.
When I watched those YouTube videos, it brought that memory back, and I could not in all good conscience use any of the clips to compare to anything about Donald Trump, a real con man and not a fictional one, and a nasty guy rather than a charming one like Harold Hill.
Although I am aware, of course, that some people are charmed by Trump, his charms have always eluded me, long before he got into this race.
The Other Chuck:
I hope you’re not planning to stop commenting! That would be a loss.
I do agree with you that Trump is very likely to be the nominee. However, I do not think he will win the election.
I can’t say that gives me a particle of comfort, however. Once he is nominated and the alternative is Hillary, that will be a sad sad day, IMHO. We had many good options, and we would have blown them.
Just released over at American Thinker: the article deals with the death of the GOP. I agree, and I think the last paragraph sums it all up very well:
“The real blame rests on the Republican leadership in Congress. They created the vacuum that made Donald Trump possible. Absent opposition to Obama, looking with disdain upon their voters, ignoring all of their campaign promises, and governing against the will of their voters is why Donald Trump is even in the race. Porous borders, a record low labor participation rate, disdain for American culture and traditions, and a pervasive sense of hopelessness and helplessness did not register with the Beltway elite. Now the GOP is on a rendezvous with destruction. Perhaps out of the ashes a new conservative party can emerge, but the transformation will not be ‘grand’ and it won’t be the ‘old’ party.”
physicsguy:
I disagree.
I would amend that to say that is was the perception of what the GOP in Congress was doing or not doing, and at least in part a misperception about what they actually could do to stop Obama, that is responsible.
I have written on the topic over the years so many times I cannot count them, both in posts and in the comments section (a few of the many examples are this, this, and this). Because I write in the blogosphere and check in with blogs and comments around the blogosphere, and have done so for years, I have been hyper-aware of the growing and increasingly bitter anger and disdain.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Congress has covered itself in glory or has done what it promised. But it has done more—and more to stop Obama—than most people realize. I don’t have time right now to write a tome about this, especially since it’s a tome I have written before. Trump is a demagogue, but he has following the path prepared by other demagogues in the blogosphere, on Twitter and other social media, and on talk shows, who have had their own reasons for whipping people up into a veritable frenzy of rage.
I’ve watched it happen. Trump is the fruit.
Neo:
Uh, for the record, I voted for Paul LePage twice, both in 2010 and 2014. And by having seen LePage as governor, I see less reason to panic over a hypothetical Trump presidency.
Both Christie and LePage are smart guys. They see how the political landscape is shaping up. We’ll all have a clearer understanding of things within the next two weeks, as more primary results come in. Looking further ahead, I would be surprised if the primary went past April 19th and April 26th.
And would it not be a good thing, later on in the general election, if Maine went for the Republican candidate, as that state has not done since 1988? Maybe increased turn-out in favor of a candidate could help, when only about half the electorate votes in a Presidential election?
I think the core of the American socio-political structure is still strong and resilient. The only candidate who really concerns me is Hillary Clinton, not any of the others.
Yankee:
But LePage is nothing like Trump, politically, as I explained. So the only comparison is that they’re both blunt and they both hate the MSM. That’s NOT what I object to about Trump.
In addition, as I’ve said many times, I do not think Trump will be elected, but I think his nomination guarantees Hillary’s win.
expat:
“Foreign policy, on the other hand, is extremely important … I observed first hand what it was like for Bush”
Keep this handy to make a fix at the premise level of the political discourse that’s needed to revitalize strong-horse American leadership.
G Joubert – describing someone of a type that Cornhead, I, and every other business lawyer in the country has dealt with for years is not a calumny, it’s simply description. Trump is a real estate developer. He will do anything, say anything, to get his deal. Much of the time, he’s told so many stories that he doesn’t even remember if what he is saying is the truth, a lie, or something in between.
That’d not name-calling, that’s just the way he is. Yu know the story of the scorpion and the camel, right? It’s his nature.
SteveD — Cruz would lose and lose big. He’s another Goldwater, a principled conservative. That means he would get no votes from independents, undecideds, or Regan Democrats. Don’t believe me? Ask some of your lefty friends, or even better ask some of the middle folk.
That’s why Trump is picking up endorsements: The endorsers want to WIN, not go down to a Goldwater-scale defeat. If that means going with a broken clock who will at least be right twice a day, as opposed to the Evil Empress who wants to destroy the clock, they’ll go for the Donald.
Neo,
For the record, I am a Cruz supporter, including financially. I cheered every shutdown he threatened.
But he’s not going to make it.
I don’t dispute any of the things you say about Cruz; out of a very talented field of candidates he was my choice. But the political landscape wasn’t there. Yes that is a tragedy, in my opinion. But that doesn’t count for anything.
There are monumental shifts going on. Charles Koch agrees with Bernie Sanders (okay, not really a shift). The Democratic Party candidate may very well face extensive felony charges before the election, and neither that candidate nor the party is stepping back. One Republican candidate is winning practically every state and every demographic; every demographic except for the Republican elites. (We now even have a new acronym: GOPe.) We could very well see large segments of Democrats rejecting their party’s nominee. And likewise Republican. The monumental shifts are not just political. No one knows how powerful they are, or what the consequences will be — whether political, economic, financial, cultural, or even fundamental security, starting with our streets. Global hot spots are not going to cool down; they most likely will continue to get worse and continue to spread. The good guys are not calling the shots; it no longer appears they are even capable of doing so. The Marine Corps has been directed to remove the word “man” from training manuals?! Have the warriors left the military, leaving the careerists in charge?
I spoke about the essence of the Republican Party. That has to be maintained. But the structural values are now worthless. What is the Party going to do? Fighting Trump will very shortly no longer be the answer.
I am not a nihilist; but I think I know pretty well the patterns of change. And we are in a massive state of change. None of us knows what, when, where, or how. We’re pretty sure we know who; and that’s something.
JulianT:
I agree that there is change, but change always is occurring. I see this change as having been happening for a long time; I’ve watched it happen for at least the last 5 years that I’ve been blogging. The only thing different lately is that Trump is a candidate and this time he’s getting traction. In 2012 he tested the waters at the beginning of the campaign season and he was leading in the polls for a while (you can look it up); then when Obama released his birth certificate the support for Trump fell and he never formally announced, and stopped acting like he was running. But at the beginning of that campaign he was doing very well, and that was 4 years ago.
The stage has been slowly set in the four years since then, with the rage being fanned to the point where Trump is now a viable candidate.
I keep seeing people saying what you said: “One Republican candidate is winning practically every state and every demographic; every demographic except for the Republican elites.” My answer is that that one Republican candidate is getting a plurality of every demographic except for the “Republican elites” in a field of five candidates.
Consistently that candidate is getting a one-third plurality of GOP voters, and 2/3 are voting for someone else. Now, maybe if all but one opponent dropped out, he’d get more than 50% and of all those demographics. But right now, I don’t think he’s getting 50% of any demographic.
I have no idea what strength above that basic 1/3 Trump actually has, or would have, in a contest with fewer candidates. I also don’t know if we will ever see fewer candidates.
The Left is causing everyone to make a big deal about it, of course. It’s all about puppets and puppet masters.