We Are Republicans, and We Want Trump Defeated
Category: Op/Ed
Via: ender • 5 years ago • 245 commentsBy: By George T. Conway III, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver and Rick Wilson
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics. As Americans, we must stem the damage he and his followers are doing to the rule of law, the Constitution and the American character.
That’s why we are announcing the Lincoln Project , an effort to highlight our country’s story and values, and its people’s sacrifices and obligations. This effort transcends partisanship and is dedicated to nothing less than preservation of the principles that so many have fought for, on battlefields far from home and within their own communities.
This effort asks all Americans of all places, creeds and ways of life to join in the seminal task of our generation: restoring to this nation leadership and governance that respects the rule of law, recognizes the dignity of all people and defends the Constitution and American values at home and abroad.
Over these next 11 months, our efforts will be dedicated to defeating President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box and to elect those patriots who will hold the line. We do not undertake this task lightly, nor from ideological preference. We have been, and remain, broadly conservative (or classically liberal) in our politics and outlooks. Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain, but our shared fidelity to the Constitution dictates a common effort.
The 2020 general election, by every indication, will be about persuasion, with turnout expected to be at record highs. Our efforts are aimed at persuading enough disaffected conservatives, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in swing states and districts to help ensure a victory in the Electoral College, and congressional majorities that don’t enable or abet Mr. Trump’s violations of the Constitution, even if that means Democratic control of the Senate and an expanded Democratic majority in the House.
The American presidency transcends the individuals who occupy the Oval Office. Their personalities become part of our national character. Their actions become our actions, for which we all share responsibility. Their willingness to act in accordance with the law and our tradition dictates how current and future leaders will act. Their commitment to order, civility and decency is reflected in American society.
Mr. Trump fails to meet the bar for this commitment. He has neither the moral compass nor the temperament to serve. His vision is limited to what immediately faces him — the problems and risks he chronically brings upon himself and for which others, from countless contractors and companies to the American people, ultimately bear the heaviest burden.
But this president’s actions are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Republicans. They have done no less than abdicate their Article I responsibilities.
Indeed, national Republicans have done far worse than simply march along to Mr. Trump’s beat. Their defense of him is imbued with an ugliness, a meanness and a willingness to attack and slander those who have shed blood for our country, who have dedicated their lives and careers to its defense and its security, and whose job is to preserve the nation’s status as a beacon of hope.
Congressional Republicans have embraced and copied Mr. Trump’s cruelty and defended and even adopted his corruption. Mr. Trump and his enablers have abandoned conservatism and longstanding Republican principles and replaced them with Trumpism, an empty faith led by a bogus prophet. In a recent survey, a majority of Republican voters reported that they consider Mr. Trump a better president than Lincoln.
Mr. Trump and his fellow travelers daily undermine the proposition we as a people have a responsibility and an obligation to continually bend the arc of history toward justice. They mock our belief in America as something more meaningful than lines on a map.
Our peril far outstrips any past differences: It has arrived at our collective doorstep, and we believe there is no other choice. We sincerely hope, but are not optimistic, that some of those Republicans charged with sitting as jurors in a likely Senate impeachment trial will do likewise.
American men and women stand ready around the globe to defend us and our way of life. We must do right by them and ensure that the country for which they daily don their uniform deserves their protection and their sacrifice.
We are reminded of Dan Sickles , an incompetent 19th-century New York politician. On July 2, 1863, his blundering nearly ended the United States.
(Sickles’s greatest previous achievement had been fatally shooting his wife’s lover across the street from the White House and getting himself elected to Congress. Even his most fervent admirers could not have imagined that one day, far in the future, another incompetent New York politician, a president, would lay claim to that legacy by saying he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.)
On that day in Pennsylvania, Sickles was a major general commanding the Union Army’s III Corps at the Battle of Gettysburg, and his incompetence wrought chaos and danger. The Confederate Army took advantage, and turned the Union line. Had the rebel soldiers broken through, the continent might have been divided: free and slave, democratic and authoritarian.
Another Union general, Winfield Scott Hancock, had only minutes to reinforce the line. America, the nation, the ideal, hung in the balance. Amid the fury of battle, he found the First Minnesota Volunteers .
They charged, and many of them fell , suffering a staggeringly high casualty rate. They held the line. They saved the Union. Four months later, Lincoln stood on that field of slaughter and said, “It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.”
We look to Lincoln as our guide and inspiration. He understood the necessity of not just saving the Union, but also of knitting the nation back together spiritually as well as politically. But those wounds can be bound up only once the threat has been defeated. So, too, will our country have to knit itself back together after the scourge of Trumpism has been overcome.
Photo: Samuel Corum for The New York Times
Tags
Who is online
134 visitors
I have to be gone for a few hours so be nice. Haha
All the never Trumper 3% of the party came out of their cage. Let’s just feed them a banana and send them back to bed.
Maybe you missed the fact that one of the people who wrote this was Kellyanne Conway's husband, a longtime Republican who worked for many administrations.
Kind of hard to dismiss him.
Says who? You?
It cracks me up when people who don't know anything about these people's personal life's make such judgments.
What was Kelly Conway's great accomplishments before she this last gig?
She did some TV.
then she said:
On January 25, 2016, Conway criticized Trump as "a man who seems to be offending his way to the nomination." [42] On January 26, Conway criticized Trump's use of eminent domain , saying "Donald Trump has literally bulldozed over the little guy to get his way." [43]
and then hooked up with Trump, showing that she had no ethical issues.
Well done!
"Kind of hard to dismiss him."
No it is not I have already discounted what's his name's opinion.
Her wiki page says none of that so it couldn't have been in a notable position and I am not sure why you think I am angry, because I am not, though you do try to insult me.
Such silliness and foul language is no way to win an argument.
I'm not shocked. How convenient of you. And I think you mean what's their names.... 4 men wrote that op/ed. So you actually forgot more than you thought
" So you actually forgot more than you thought "
No I just didn't care about what any of the had to say.
Worked for could have meant anything. I read that, but they didn't provide any positions that were notable.
I didn’t miss that. He was why I was as hard on them as I was. Carville and Matlin were much more respectful toward their spouses boss than Conway. He’s simply being a class one jerk
So is trump.
Not shocking.
Stop insulting people on my seeds please.
Huge difference. Carville and Matlin were in different parties and knew that from the get go. Oddly, the Conways have been long stewards of the Republicans, so that is why this is so much more shocking.
there is nothing shocking about mr conway being anti trumper.
since day one.
Is that supposed to be a trick question? I suggest you look at this post here for all the information on all the men who wrote this: 4.1
I only mentioned what was worth mentioning.
None that I know of. He's been a lawyer and argued in front of the SCOTUS. Now that takes real talent.
What did I make up? I'm afraid it is you who is making up facts, except on a very personal level. Best to quit when you are ahead.
I meant worked with, not for. And it still doesn't make a difference. His career speaks for itself, hence why I supported it in full in this article.
And oddly no I didn't flag you, nor do I want you flagged.
You are going on about a slip I made since I was referring to the 4 men who wrote that op/ed. He didn't. The other ones did. It still doesn't mean anything to this discussion, since that is an op/ed. You might not like his opinion, but I think he knows more about what goes on in the White House than either you or I.
Loki,
Don't take this the wrong way, but after 10 years of doing this, I have heard a whole lot of claims about people with top security clearance. Now maybe you do, but for the sake of this discussion, I think the woman who talks directly to the guy might know more than you.
Which then is in jeopardy due to the comments you have made on a public site.
No it's not !
My comment was not personal (yours was to me), and I even acknowledged that maybe you do have that clearance. I didn't question you. I made a comment in general. And the fact remains, that you might not like the guy, but he is married to the woman who works directly with the president and since they are still married, apparently, she doesn't think her hubby is a "low life". In fact, I save that term for people who do awful things. All he did was not like Trump.
Schmidt sabotaged Palins campaign from within in 2008. A total establishment tool. Last I heard he actually left the Republican Party.
I remember her work as s pollster on several campaigns when she was still Kelly Ann Fitzpatrick. She’s self made never riding her husbands coat tails to get where she is.
Trump is a great American President. His accomplishments are legendary and positive for the country.
Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers do that a lot as well. Some of them even become federal judges themselves. They truly do have talent.
Well, aren't you Christian. As much a Christian as Trump, it seems. Oh. And then there's that incest thingie that you overlook. Seems you're a proponent of incest because you support your president who often openly lusts after his daughter.
Why aren't you spending this holiday time with the children you rescued from abusive homes? Were you on this site on Christmas Eve and Christmas instead of spending all your time cultivating their little minds and making the occasion special for them? If you did not appear on this site for those two days, then my apologies.
He leches over his own daughter and pays off hookers after screwing them while his third wife sits at home with their newborn.
Ridiculous nonsense.
WTF do you GET this type of crap from? Does the DNC send out emails or something to the faithful puppets?
I've linked the videos and audios countless times and you refuse to acknowledge that he openly lusts for his daughter. Would you like me to link them again? When Howard Stern asked him if he could call Ivanka a piece of ass, Trump gleefully gave his approval. He talked about Tiffany's future breasts to Robin Leach when Tiffany was in a bassinet in front of Trump and Marla. Are you disavowing having knowledge of those admissions of his lust for his daughter?
Your scurrilous claims are stupid, inaccurate, stupid, ridiculous, stupid, and unsupported.
Did I mention they are STUPID????
Here's a quick snippet , Texan. I can find many more for you if you like. Let's see who's inaccurate.
Find away!!!!
I am sure you'll feel better for it.
But it all is mere conjecture and pure bullshit.
Some of us know that, and don't get down and gutter-dirty by thinking weird-ass thoughts about incest.
You have fun now, y'hear?
BTW, to which law enforcement body did you report your proof of incest regarding the President and his daughter to? What did they do with your information, and have you bothered to follow up on it?
I know if I believed someone had committed incest and had proof of it, I would CERTAINLY report it to the proper authorities.
I wouldn't let anyone suffer because I couldn't be bothered to report it.
Whether or not he's acted upon it is another issue, but he has no compunction about vocalizing his lust for his daughter. Did you open the link, Texan? Did you watch the scant few minutes of his creepy disgusting comments? And according to Christians, thinking about it is the same as doing it.
King James Bible
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
If you say he didn't make those lustful comments about his own daughter, you'd be wrong. Again.
I just love it when people resort to using the Bible as some sort of source or litmus test. Unless you WANT the Bible to be used in government, and WANT religion in government, I would suggest you find a more suitable source, It is stupid, yes, stupid, to quote the Bible and expect people to live to some code contained in the Bible while also screeching hideously about the separation of church and state.
You seem to make a lot of assumptions. Just like when you told someone they must support incest if they support the President--STUPID, IGNORANT, BASELESS.
Not me, Texans. It's those religious right hypocrites that say it's okay that he lusts after his daughter all the while claiming to be religious and followers of the bible.
The supporters of trump are hypocrites of the highest order. Let's see what else Trump hands us with blue bows on it. The giving season has just begun.
They know he's made it known he wants to "date" his daughter. If you turn the other cheek to his base and disgusting moral character, then you support everything he stands for ... including wanting to 'do' his daughter. For them, incest "ain't no thang." That's you, Texan. You know what he wants to do with his daughter, he hasn't hidden it, so you support it.
If Obama said he wanted to do his daughter, I wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. trump's moral character is not only out of whack, he's morally rudderless.
Not you? LMFAO! YES, YOU! Who else am I directing my comments to? Who posted something from the Bible?
I'll assume you have no proof that anyone said it was okay for Trump to lust after his daughter (unproven, of course) or you would have posted links to THAT.
An outright lie. Nothing else needs to be said to such a ridiculous claim.
Yet another LIE.
Aren't you tired yet of having your posts called out for being lies?
Yeah, Texan. Lie. You support a man who wants to 'date' his daughter. It was reported before he became a candidate. Here's the video .
No, because they're aren't lies. They're videotaped. They're audiotaped. You're not even looking at the videos or you would know they aren't lies. People here are watching you deny the obvious. The proof has been handed to you.
Nope, still lies.
"Assuming" is such an Evil thing !
No lie from me, just from you. Even your little video doesn't show Trump saying what you claim--that he wants to date his daughter.
tell the truth.
Just have to love it when, in their frenzied hysteria to degrade and demean their President, they post a lie, get called on it, then post proof that they lied!
it is freaking HILARIOUS!
Ha!
You mean Trump's not saying he'd like to date Ivanka? Is that what you're saying?
It still means he lusts after her. Like Jimmy Carter, he has lust in his heart. And according to the religious, that's as good as doing it. It's creepy and you know it. Would you look at your daughter and say if "she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"? Is that what you're saying? You find that normal? Wow. Just wow. Now I know that you find nothing wrong with it. Just like Texan. He probably would say the same thing about his daughter thinking it's normal. Again. Wow you two. Texan and loki think it would be fine to say that about their own daughters. Yikes.
The only frenzied hysteria exhibited here is by you, Texan. And he's not my president. He's yours.
Yep. They own this mess. Travesty. Abomination. Plague. Shitshow. etc.
Less than that of course, but because someone was evil enough to post my first name, my maiden name and my married name on another site, I removed my more current pictures. I didn't hide the fact I lived in Texas and worked in Sundance Square so it was suggested to me by people who were as appalled as I was that I doxxed that I use younger pictures in order to quash stalkers. There are some ignorant and spiteful people on sites just like these, and I agreed. Several people here know me personally however, and I don't think they'd puke in the nearest trash can at the sight of me.
Funny you would attack a picture, loki. But then again, you love transsexual pictures too and get a big ol' kick out of them. And, of course, there's that little thing that you don't think it's creepy as hell to say you'd like to date your daughter. And talk about her body. And say on a 'Newlywed Game' scenario on the View that he had "sex" in common with his daughter. Her answer to "what do you and your dad have in common" was "real estate and horses [or something]" and his was "Well, I would say sex, but she's my daughter."
Creepy as hell. And you and your buddy Texan think that's normal. Wow.
And yet, I am not the one posting lies about the President, getting called out on them, and then posting videos proving the people calling me out on them right!
My mistake, I thought you were an American citizen. Where ARE you from then? Just curious.
That is true. Congratulations on truth-telling there. He IS my President, because I am an American citizen.
Such a thing would be unthinkable to most people. Perhaps there are just some places left in America where that's not as rare as most of us would like to think, in those places where family trees have very few branches. Maybe that's why dirty Donald is so popular in some hollars… his apparent lust for his own daughter isn't seen as a bug, it's a feature. I'm sure some of his supporters see Ivanka and simply agree with him, "Yeah, I'd wanna do her too!" and don't see anything vile about her own father expressing such disgusting sentiments.
Texan and loki think it's just fine to state those disgusting sentiments. Hmmmm. That says a lot, doesn't it.
Or maybe a few adults have read what he said, heard what he said, and our minds didn't automatically go into the gutter and jump to incest as some folks have managed to do.
To each their own interpretation, I suppose.
Other than loki, who also thinks those statements are 'normal', I don't see anyone else here agreeing with you that it's perfectly uncreepy to say he wants to date his daughter.
You and loki are two peas in a pod. That's nice.
Best description ever.
Please QUOTE me on that.
Just because everyone's minds don't go in the gutter over every comment doesn't mean they support anything, or think it is fine.
But please quote me or retract your statement, which is a lie.
How clever.
You claimed one thing and then got called on it. Your very own videos don't prove what you want it to. Don't get mad at me for your telling of tales and lack of proof for those fairy tales.
Don't try to twist it around now.
I had the best daddy, the best mentor, my best friend who would beat the shit out of Howard Stern for even asking if he could call me a piece of ass. Of course, you feel differently about that, don't you. Hate for the insensitive, name calling, berating-of-the-dead president? Yeah. Pretty much.
Why would I retract that? You're just being silly now. It's audiotaped and videotaped. You think it's normal. I don't.
Are you religious now?
Is that what decides things now---religion?
I don't see anyone here but you and loki believing those are normal comments for a father to say about his daughter. They've seen the videos. They've heard the audios. Even most of the right wish he would have never have gone there. But you and loki. Nice.
Obtuseness is very unbecoming.
Seriously, you think I wanted you to retract the videos and audiotapes???
WTF?
No, I'm saying the hypocritical religious right who defend their president believe in the bible ... until it comes to their president. Hypocrisy at its finest. Don't forget now ... the religious right say that lust in the heart is the same as actually doing it. So they would think trump has been doing his daughter in his mind.
Their beliefs. Not mine.
If you want to go argue with the religious right, I suggest you do so.
Why are you trying to argue it here with me?
You're kidding, right? I wouldn't retract my statement, or any statement regarding this issue, because there is proof of everything I've said about this issue on audio and video. Who's being obtuse? Good grief, Texan. How the fuck did you get 'retract videos and audios' out of that?
Sheesh.
Okay. You said he didn't act on his lust. I said according to the religious right, who support trump, thinking about it is just as good as doing it. So you think it's okay for him to lust after his daughter and loki think it's okay to lust after his daughter, and the religious right think it's as bad as actually doing it ... unless you're trump. You're all supporters of trump that think his comments are perfectly fine.
This comment is to everyone in this thread.
The comments are getting way to personal in nature. Stop it immediately, or tickets will be given out.
I understand. However, I didn't bring anyone's father into it or anyone's age into it as they did mine. I merely responded to their denial of proof. Which isn't proof to them.
I must have gotten from one of your posts.
I believe this one in particular:
Please stop saying I believe in something I don't. If you wish to claim such crap, please document it and quote me.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Please get it right. "They" didn't do shit. I never wrote one word about your father or your age. Your statement is FALSE.
Tell you what--you stop posting things which aren't true, and I'll stop calling you out on it, okay?
Please tell me in what post I stated that. I don't remember writing that--refresh my memory!
Yes, and I suggested you argue that with them.
Where did I state THAT?
Please quote me or refrain from pretending to know what I have stated, or what my position is.
Just FYI, doxing on this site is one of the few bannable offenses. If you do it, your gone.
You should brush up on some facts about coat tails and lawyers.
Clerkships with Federal Judges are like scholarships, very stressful and hard fought for during the final year of law school,
a highly sought after prize that keeps on giving throughout a good lawyers career.
Ask Trey Gowdy or Ted Cruz. Clerkships go to the smart kids, not to the one's too dumb to get hired by a law firm.
Who knows what Kellyanne could have been without George's connections.
Do you know why she "put's up" with George and his independent streak and anti Trump screeds?
Do you think that Kellyanne could afford to live here on $171,000 per year ?
Her salary probably doesn't cover the annual outside maintenance for their home.
George & Kellyanne bought this $8 million dollar estate in D.C. based on George's income as a
partner at WLRK. ( I'm sure they considered Kelly's income also, for what it's worth )
He started at that law firm after he clerked for that Federal Judge for the
Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit in 1988. The couples net worth is supposed to be $36 million,
based on his 1million plus Partner's annual income from his tenure of 31 years at WLRK
Your definition of "abject failure" and "marrying well" need a lot of updating.
Cheers
So in your mind, expressing a desire to date someone has nothing to do with looking for a mate and a potential sexual partner? And here I thought all the other defenses of dirty Donald were thin, this takes it too a new level of translucent sheer. There is no other way to take his multiple comments about his daughter. Calling his own daughter "hot" when she is just 16 years old exposed him as the letch that he is, but actually proclaiming his desire to date her if only she weren't his daughter just can't be interpreted any other way unless your head is currently in the rectum of the wannabe incestual pedophile. Then, perhaps your perspective would be skewed enough to not see it as disgusting. I suppose it must be a bit like not being able to smell a fart when you're digging through a garbage landfill, pretty hard to pick out specific bad smells when everything smells like shit in there.
Hot: adjective - (1) : sexually excited or receptive It's obvious he's hot for her. (2) : sexy ' That guy she's dating is really hot' .
“Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?” - dirty Donald
“By the way, your daughter…” - Howard Stern
“ - she’s beautiful" - dirty Donald
“Can I say this? A piece of ass.” - Howard Stern
“Yeah.” - dirty Donald
So please do go ahead and try to play the "Your the one with your mind in the gutter" game in an attempt to defend a serial adulterer and admitted sexual predator who has made blatantly licentious comments about his own underage daughter, the only one you're fooling is yourself.
Interesting shit. Thanks
Being doxxed is something we have in common. I remember our discussion of that issue when we were both on newsvine.
My statement stands, and you seem intent on proving it.
Kudos.
You throw a grenade and expect it not to explode?
More like a nothing burger 🍔
And that's why you responded?
Ha. Sorry. Was longer than expected. Shifter cable broke off on suv. Things are held on with plastic bushings.
I’ll take a shot at Conway any chance I get.
Instead of spending time with his children who are on winter break.
Nice guilt trip trying to use my kids who were visiting friends at the time to keep me from participating here. By the way, they are not on winter break. They are on Christmas vacation
No one wants to keep you from participating, you're too entertaining !
Clearly. If nobody is presenting bad ideas those who consider the ideas bad do not have the opportunity to publicly challenge them.
To tease out truth there needs to be opposing sides.
It is no wonder the once Grand Old Party of Abe Lincoln is now known merely as "the gop". Or, more and more often, as "the damn gop"...
The last few Big R Republicans there are left out there had better do something drastic quickly before Trump and his looney toon wacko "damn gop" faction sink what remains of that once great American political party...forevermore!
More and more people are realizing Trump is sick...
That was kind of cute the first few times you posted it, but by now it is just stale.
It is known as the GOP to most folks---the ones who can see clearly.
Trump thought it was Grab Our Pussies.
That comment is rather stupid.
Wow. Hadn't realized you were the arbiter of what is stupid on a newssite such as this. Does your position come with a crown and scepter? So I guess "grabbing pussies" is stupid. Too bad you didn't think so when videotape appeared of trump saying that exact same thing. If Obama would have said he could grab pussies, I wouldn't have voted for him. But you did. So now you think it's stupid. Too little too late, wouldn't you say?
No crown or scepter, but it DOES come with a modicum of common sense and decency.
Oh. Like trump, your president?
I thought that you are an American citizen...?
She must not be, because if she is an American, it would be bizarre and STUPID to proclaim that the duly elected President of the United States isn't her President.
You mean like John McCain? That was their chance in 2008. What happened? He was soooo honorable he wouldn't even raise a peep about Obama and Bill Ayers or Obama and the Rev Wright! He supposedly voted as a matter of principle to leave Obamacare alone! He was a man of ethics and values and I'll bet none of the "Republicans" who wrote that article in the Times voted for him. So much for the BS about values and ethics!
I mean like Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins and Ben Sasse and Lisa Murkowski. Do you think Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Martha Mcsally won't turn if it looks bad for them? Slowly they turn. Step by step. Inch by inch. Then...POW. Right in the US Senate. CONVICTED!
It ain't over till it's over. I'd sweat it if I was in the gop. Trump is in boiling water...
Dream on!
Ain't no way 20 GOP Senators will vote to remove Trump.
It isn't anything but a Democratic pipe dream.
They should put the pipe down and slowly back away.
Vic,
You have no idea what these men did or didn't do, other than what is on their resume. What we do know, is that they have their reservations and one of them happens to be Kellyanne Conway's husband.
And are you going to tell me you voted for Obama instead of John McCain? I think not, but I could be wrong.
I was going initially to go for Obama over McCain in 2008. Two things changed that. 1. McCain chose Sarah Palin for VP. 2. The stuff about Obama with Ayers and then Rev Wright came out. The energy level spiked when Palin was picked. She set the stage for Trumps run when the party tired of the establishment
"Dream on Streibeck"
Kellyanne's husband dosen't have reservations. He simply hates Trump and he has openly & widely expressed that.
And are you going to tell me you voted for Obama instead of John McCain?
Why would I say that? I voted for John McCain knowing he had no chance. In addition, I not only voted for, but volunteered work for Mitt Romney and I did that holding my nose. Sometimes it's only a matter of voting to avoid the worst possible outcome. Let's put aside voting for a minute. You are an independent, right? As you look at the demeanor of this President and contrast that with what he has accomplished for this country, under fire at all times, what do you think of the man?
Then I want your opinion of the impeachment brought against him, the one that was promised by democrats on inauguration day. What of the validity of the charges of impeachment? And the demeanor of progressives? Where are the democrats with a conscience?
And why do you think that is? He is not an ill informed man.
Because I am trying to figure out if you will only vote Republican.
Agreed! And sometimes that comes from one party and other times it comes from the other since really we are not given a true choice, as in a third party.
I think he has done a few good things but on the balance of it all, I think he has been terrible and demeanor aside, which is the most unpresidential ever, (maybe tied with Johnson, but at least he was disgusting in private), he has done more to hurt the very simplest things, like clean water that we drink, all for the sake of business.
I was not for impeachment. But then again, the same thing happened from day 1, when Clinton came to office and we spent $70M on "Whitewater". This is why I am not in a party.
Not sure. Still waiting. Newest information seems worrisome.
There is a difference between progressives and democrats. I think they behave like most partisans.
Most likely because he dosen't like the way Trump talks. That is not a good reason. What Trump does is vital to all of us. Thank God Trump got us off the road we were on.
Because I am trying to figure out if you will only vote Republican.
You should have simply asked. As far as presidential politics go, I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 (his second term), that was the only time I have ever voted for a democrat for the office of president. In MA politics Iv'e voted for democrat Mike Capuano for every office he ran for (and he ran for many). Other than that Iv'e always voted Republican since the days of the Vietnam protests and it seems Iv'e been voting against those "protesters" all my life. It's incredible how much influence and power that rotten rabble had.
Agreed! And sometimes that comes from one party and other times it comes from the other since really we are not given a true choice, as in a third party.
A third party would really be impractical. It would always be at a disadvantage.Think about what that would be like?
I think he has done a few good things but on the balance of it all, I think he has been terrible and demeanor aside, which is the most unpresidential ever, (maybe tied with Johnson, but at least he was disgusting in private), he has done more to hurt the very simplest things, like clean water that we drink, all for the sake of business.
Johnson? LBJ or Andrew Johnson? Either way I'd love to know what would make either of them unpresidential. If that was your only complaint I would have to classify it as a concern for form over substance. But it does sound like you have a policy disagreement with Trump. You want a more comprehensive environmental policy. That is a different matter and that is the way the argument should go. Saying somebody is a terrible human being is a divisive argument. Bill Clinton was arguably not much of a human being but he was never the less a good president. Barak Obama was the finest public speaker of my lifetime, a master politician but unfortunately a far left radical and without a doubt the most dangerous man to ever be elected to high office. Do you see what I'm getting at?
I was not for impeachment. But then again, the same thing happened from day 1, when Clinton came to office and we spent $70M on "Whitewater". This is why I am not in a party.
Whataboutism? Not a lot of similarity. I didn't like that impeachment either. When they couldn't get a conviction on the Whitewater inquiry the investigation should have ended. Instead they investigated everything Clinton and thus Clinton eventually committed crimes that never would have happened if they stopped when they should have. BTW I don't know if that happened from day 1. Nobody was going insane because Bill Clinton won and unlike Trump, Bill Clinton always had the media on his side!
Not sure. Still waiting. Newest information seems worrisome.
Well that's the thing. The House already did their investigation and wrote up & voted on Articles of impeachment. The fact that they want to do a little more digging should tell you something.
There is a difference between progressives and democrats.
Very true, there is a big difference.
I think they behave like most partisans.
Sorry, I disagree. They are well beyond that.
You are a true believer Vic, but this is just silliness.
You make it sound like America was about to go down the tubes until Trump came along. That is an EXTREMIST position, at best.
Lets say you got lucky and Cruz or Rubio or Jeb Bush were president now, do you really think life in America would have deteriorated before your eyes? Same thing if Hillary had won.
The idea that only Trump can save us and he is NEEDED is extremist, and frankly, should be offensive to just about everybody.
Especially since he is a known liar crook bigot and moron.
You could say that.
That is an EXTREMIST position, at best.
No, John, It's a patriotic position. One that wants a decent place to live for my descendants.
Lets say you got lucky and Cruz or Rubio or Jeb Bush were president now, do you really think life in America would have deteriorated before your eyes?
Lucky? At the start of the GOP primaries I was a Rubio supporter (before he melted on the stage one night). What would have happened if Rubio became president? I can't say. We would first have to assume he survived the foul play of the Clinton machine. You saw what they did to Trump. Remember that back then the Clinton campaign rated Rubio as most likely to win. He was a young, Hispanic moderate. Can you imagine what they had in store for him? The day after his famous meltdown, the clinton campaign had protesters dressed as robots labeled Marco Ruboto. Protests against the moderate Senator continued into 2017. Never underestimate the strength of the Clinton machine.
However, let's assume for the point of your hypothetical that he did win. President Trump made a recent statement that I thought was true and applicable to someone like Rubio. Trump said any other president who had been subjected to what he had endured would probably be under a table sucking his thumb. Based upon Rubio's timid actions in the primary debates and his thoughts about retiring from the Senate after his defeat, I would have to say he would have been a very weak leader unable to deal with the powerful forces of the left.
You also mentioned the runner up Ted Cruz. Cruz once represented the right wing of the Republican Party. You may recall his recent hard fought win for his Senate seat tempered him quite a bit. The fact that Cruz could be so easily intimidated makes me doubt that he would have been much stronger that George W Bush. George W Bush was the one who ceded much of his authority to his Vice President. He was the first president to face intense harassment by the left. A weak link.
There would have only been a few good things to come out of a Rubio or Cruz Presidency. Their Conservative values governing legislation and choice of judges and the fact that the election of either would have given the GOP claim to the first Hispanic President.
I'm afraid only Trump could have had the force of will to overcome the power of the old leftist order and all the enormous obstacles hurled in front of him. The Obama legacy is all but obliterated, the border is slowly being secured, the Judiciary is being restored and the disreputable American media has been exposed. I'm convinced only Trump could have done it!
The idea that only Trump can save us and he is NEEDED is extremist, and frankly, should be offensive to just about everybody.
To quote another man of strength & vision: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Especially since he is a known liar crook bigot and moron.
Keep saying it, John, I want them to hear it so they run out and vote for him and against the radical left again.
Why isn't it a decent place for your descendants now? What is it that makes it indecent for you?
I want a place where people are free to say whatever they want and think whatever they want, rather than Orwell's Oceania where one day the government may declare that felonies are no longer crimes and the word felony may not be used.
Can you link a credible site's claim that the government is heading in that direction? Particularly where felonies will no longer be crimes? And since you want to go back to a time when America was great again, how far back is it you'd like to go? And do war crimes count? It seems war crimes committed by Americans are being overlooked under this administration. I'm assuming you support that.
Do you think my opinion is based on some article I read? My opinions are based on life. Where you living in the US during the 8 years under Obama? During those years what would happen (hypothetically) to your son if he was going to college and had been accused of rape?
Particularly where felonies will no longer be crimes?
And since you want to go back to a time when America was great again, how far back is it you'd like to go?
We can never go back. America has had it's high point. I simply want to preserve some freedoms.
And do war crimes count?
I've never been a fan of war crimes.
Cite
Okay. What does Obama have to do with it?
Good on you.
That information you cited was just a prelude to what Obama made the Universities do under that "Dear Colleague letter. I can provide plenty of the follow up. Let me start here:
The Constitution provides for due process for the accused. Only Obama could get away with taking it away. I admit that rapes on campus was a serious problem, but taking away the rights of the accused is what they do in Authoritarian regimes.
Well that was fairly easy. I like when people can find common ground.
You may not remember, but we have agreed on a few things. And you have made me laugh really hard a couple of times over the years that we've interacted on this and another site.
Authoritarian regimes insist on small shit ... like insisting football players be fired for peaceful protest. The only thing I know is that many men and women have fought on foreign soil to keep our country one where peaceful protest is protected under our nation's First Amendment. Authoritarians claim repeatedly that press/media that don't agree with them are enemies of the people. Authoritarians are those that claim that they are denied due process yet they don't allow witnesses to answer subpoenas, they refuse to cooperate with any court jurisdiction, etc.
I do remember...vaguely
Who insisted that football players be fired for peaceful protest, when did they do so, and who was fired?
That seems to be well aimed. I just want to know how you feel about the rape policy that the Obama administration pursued?
No one was fired. Because they're protected by the First Amendment.
Cite
Good question. I think it was an attempt to give voice to the victims. Most rapes go unreported, for the obvious reasons. It usually ends up with the victim being treated like the accused. From questioning what they were wearing, how much they drank, her previous consenting partners, etc., women in general are loathe to report it. It's shameful and demeaning. It's as if they're on trial. Add to the that the guilt women feel for NOT reporting it. They question if they put other women in harm's way by not reporting it. I think President Obama hoped to afford women a safe place for reporting. Or men, for that matter. Men who have been raped are equally damaged by reporting it. It's an ugly crime and perpetrators count on not being reported knowing that men and women who are the targets will be treated as if they're to blame. It's a defense lawyer's mantra. Blame the victim. Find a way to blame the victim.
All of what you say is true, except for the old adage that two wrongs don't equal right. There are men who have been falsely accused as well. Plus that little thing called the Constitution.
"With regard to the rape allegations made to police or campus authority that are proven false after a thorough investigation has established that no crime was committed or attempted, estimates generally vary from 2% to 10%. Due to varying definitions of a "false accusation", the true percentage, however, remains unknown."
"Rape is a severely under-reported crime with surveys showing dark figures of up to 91.6% of rapes going unreported"
"The 2011 Obama guidance for the first time pushed school district, college and university leaders to combat sexual harassment, including sexual violence, saying the institutions were required to do so under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination. Women's groups hailed that as a crucial step in cracking down on sexual violence on campuses. But critics said it trampled the rights of the accused."
So I guess for some, their precious wittle boys might be accused of bad things and have their life ruined. Sure, the odds are that up to 98% of the claims made against them are truthful, and that's only of the less than 10% of rapes that actually get reported, but we have to protect those possibly falsely accused! /s
I guess for Republicans it is better that 98 rapists go free than to even wrongly accuse 2 young men, and better that the 92 young women out of a hundred who get raped but are too scared to come forward because they know they will be further victimized by their rapist, the rapists parents, friends and right wing media than to have the 8 young women who statistically do come forward believed and protected. Just another sick and disgusting reason I will never be part of the new Republican party that was hijacked by an admitted sexual predator who immediately shredded the protections for young women when he took office.
So you are against due process?
i think it's over
due process
Not at all, and those two who are wrongly accused will have their day in court and be shown to be innocent if they are. But to proclaim we have to protect the young boys and just throw our daughters to the fucking wolves is sick and disgusting. To say we shouldn't believe our daughters because we just "might" ruin a young mans reputation if we openly speak about things the girls he's dated say about him is beyond weak, it's a sniveling cowardly retreat into more worthless bigoted misogynistic patriarchy that has fucked over women for millennia. Saying we can't believe our daughters just in case the 2% that get wrongly accused might have a hard time living as an "accused" even though it means we have to throw the 92 girls under the bus is just fucked up and I honestly don't even have a response to someone who is out there banging the "defend the boys!" drum. The group of wrongly accused is SOOOOOOO fucking small anyone using it as an excuse to disbelieve the accusers knows they're just protecting rapists, and apparently they just don't care and are just as guilty as those pieces of shit they protect who were never taught to respect women.
Not under the system the universities had via Obama's interpretation of Title IX in the "Dear Colleague" letter !!! The schools were treating the accused like they had already been convicted.
But to proclaim we have to protect the young boys and just throw our daughters to the fucking wolves is sick and disgusting.
Fairness for all is what I want. Constitutional protections - Not Social Justice!!!
I don't think the damn GoP has to worry about the dnc, when all the can run on is stirring up their triggered base and pushing their socialist viewpoints they are bound for failure.
Except, the damn gop suffered its worst elector vote loss in history in the 2018 Congressional midterms. That is not a good sign at all here in reality. Where most, um, American people live...
My God, you seem to focus on what isn't important in elections.
Tell you what--you concentrate on winning the overall vote totals, and the GOP will be focused on winning the most seats.
We'll see how it works out.
The overall vote is irrelevant. You could have California and New York vote 90% for Democratic candidates and Dems could still lose seats everywhere else.
But, by God, you will have the most votes, right?
Now we know why your Abuela lost, right? She tried to win the popular vote as opposed to winning the actual election.
LMMFAO!
Why was the do nothing President that lost the most seats ever in the house and Senate during midterms?
There are good people in both parties that are not too extreme. Sadly, the extreme parts of both parties are wagging the dog.
BOTH SIDES are at fault, of course. It's all Hillary's fault, right Perrie? Even though she has been out of politics for 3 years.
Keep blaming both sides for the plague of Donald Trump and see where it gets this country.
Actually I agree with her that there are extremes on both sides, which are usually louder.
The difference I see is that now trump seems to be the leader of all republicans. Those who cross him or disagree are attacked and considered to be not party loyalists.
He seems to even have top members of congress either afraid of him or being total yes men.
I appreciate the fact, that someone else can see what I am trying to say.
I'm sorry John, but please tell me where I brought up Hillary? In fact, I didn't.
The argument that "both sides": are responsible for the rise of Trump will normalize him and get him re-elected.
Its interesting to see this group (The Lincoln Project) being promoted. Does everyone know that the main point of the Lincoln Project is to elect a Democrat president in 2020 ?
Yes. all these prominent Republicans are going to tell people to vote for the Democratic candidate NO MATTER WHO IT IS. Rick Wilson has already specifically said this.
He says that the danger Trump is and the damage Trump is doing is more serious than anything ANY Democrat could do and that of course includes Warren or Bernie Sanders.
Under that circumstance I am not sure why we are talking about "both sides".
we have 7 of 53 seats in Ca and are still a good coat tails election away from a majority even if we don’t even add one here.
I sometimes wonder if it is to late. It seems the party has completely changed. I have said it before but I wonder what is going to happen when trump is no longer in charge. I can see chaos as there is no one or thing to fill the void.
I think there will be a huge sigh of relief from ALL sides when that happens. Many are dealing with trump fatigue at this point.
Bring the void ! Now !
Didn't we just have a seed on these fakers a couple of days ago?
Why are they fakers?
Let's look at their history:
George T. Conway III
Steve Schmidt
John Weaver
Rick Wilson
They look like they gave a whole lot of time to their party. I think they get a say more than anyone here does.
And none of that makes their opinion more relavent than anyone elses. I, for one, could give a rats ass for the opinion them or anyone else for that matter. That is why I am not a lemming, I mean a jackass, oops, I mean a democrat.
Well then, we would have that in common than other than I must add that I have known as many jackasses that were Republicans.
But there allot fewer of them in Republican Party than in the democrat Party and a damn sight lower number of lemmings.
Says who? You? A Poll? Here is the thing anyway, most people are not in a party right now. They are indies like me and you have no idea how we think.
Yeah, I see that. And now they are saying let's just chuck all that and vote for someone (most likely a Democrat) who disagrees with Republicans on the issues they care about simply because they think Donald Trump is a terrible human being.
Now, my point is not to dispute their dissatisfaction. I have a problem with their implied solution.
Considering the lack of Republicans challenging Trump for the nomination, that sounds a lot to me like they plan on backing whoever the Democratic nominee is.
It seems to me that a more genuine Republican response would have been to find a Republican alternative to Trump and get behind that person. They have some ready examples in their résumés. Notably,
Blind loyalty, just supporting Trump no matter what he does, no matter the facts, seems a lot like something a lemming would do.
These Republicans above are the ones refusing to be the lemmings. They refuse to be told what to believe, what to like, what to accept from their political candidates and they make their own minds up regardless of party. They, unlike the republican lemmings they rebuke, have a back bone and are using it.
It now seems that anyone that dares go against anything trump are automatically held in contempt.
Funny that I don't think he was even a republican before he decided to run and now he is their king.
I think there is a reason he chose the party he did.
that contempt started around the time the terms bible thumpers, bitter clingers, and teabaggers were first being thrown around.
but if ya want to blame that on trump? Okay... LOL
Are you going to deny people that go against trump are disparaged...
The blame is always thrown to others.
correlation does not equal causation.
so yeah it is the same group of people but not because they hate trump. the bs started 8yrs before "trump" it is not who the left hates that matters it is why they hate. they can hate the next president as well it won't change a thing.
but ya know. look on the bright side - progressives had a good run. it is over now, but they will always have the memories
It’s interesting to note that when the GOP has a big primary for governor or a federal office that when the establishment candidate wins the base always holds its nose and still supports the nominee in the general election yet if the favorite of the party base actually wins then primary the establishment either sits on its hands and doesn’t support the nominee or outright supports the democrats that election cycle. I’ve seen it happen repeatedly and especially since the TEA Party came to be. These four are just more of the same from the establishment. We don’t care what they have to say and openly invite them and their like minded to declare themselves as democrats. Seven million of Trumps voters in 16 voted for Obama 2x. There are a lot more working class every day Americans seeing the light and coming our way than there are establishment elites going over to the dark side.
A bunch on RINO’s. Nothing more, nothing less.
some anti trumpers think they can sway votes.... that is hillarious.
every attack on trump just makes him stronger.
cheers
Nothing makes him look stronger. He tweets way too much. Besides, it will be more about who runs against him.
impeachment helped his poll numbers and a couple neo cons will not get a different result.
nobody will beat trump in 2020
but yanno... people need hobbies and with a little luck the house will try to impeach trump again... LOL
Personally I think that impeachment is a waste of time.
I would just rather focus on a person more befitting that office.
that person does not exist on the left. and after all the crap thrown at trump before during and after the election, they spied on an incoming president and spent every day since looking to impeach him - but now a few never trumpers are going to move the ball against him? try again.
There is no such person in the democrat party primary. Gabbard is the only one worthy of any consideration at all. At least as an active national guard person she’d keep us out of needless military engagements and keep the military strong.
The left is not the democrats just like the right are not the republicans. And there are more than a few never trumpers out there..... this is for them.
as 2016 has shown... not enough.
trump will have more support than he did in 2016
barr and durham bringing down the house this summer will seal that deal.
people vote for winners not whiners.
This is a silly conversation. We'll talk after the election.
after trump wins in 2020 this conversation will be pointless and a waste of time.
it already is
yepp but it is timely... LOL
the left and never trumper neo-cons have thrown every bs accusation they could think of at trump for bout 4 yrs now. they threw the kitchen sink, the driveway, and recently they threw the whole damn house. all to no avail.
thinking a few never trumper neo-coons are suddenly going to move the ball because they say "we are republicans - is damn silly.
those are the people we have been trying to get rid of from the start. "drain the swamp" is not just about democrats. it is about getting rid of the neo-cons as well.
all that's happening is the swamp is flailing its arms for help. and they are probably just out to make a few bucks along the way... LOL
the last 20 yrs has been one hell of a show.
summertime for the reckoning
Exactly.
Amen to that. If the truth were actually told, at least 60 % of Americans feel that way. Right now the polls are running at 51 to 55% against Trump. It still boils down to the hard core "R" voters who vote for any candidate with an "R" beside it which is less than 40% of voters, subtract people who vote 3rd party and we are constantly trying to be marginalized by a less than 40% voting bloc who will never ever admit they were wrong about voting for Nixon, voting for Bush or voting for Trump. They do not care about America or the majority, they want to force the "R" candidate on everyone and that has to stop. Hillary won 3 million more votes and if foreign influence, sloppy media narratives, and peeved 3rd party voters who didn't get their preferred Democrat had just done what the "R" voting bloc does, Hillary would have won by a landslide. I know that the majority of the country regardless of party wants Trump out of office.
Then the election will give you what you so fervently wish for, right? A new President?
A guaranteed win, just like in 2016, right?
We will wait and see, Texan. You just might be ... wrong. Again.
I damn sure ain't wrong about LOTS of folks predicting that Trump would lose in 2016. After all, we were all told that he had absolutely no path to 270 electoral votes.
Funny that the Democratic Party keeps twisting things around, depending on the day.
Russia, Russia, Russia turned into collusion, collusion, collusion turned into conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. The Great Mueller Report would sink Trump for sure!
It was supposed to be a Constitutional crisis--and yet, after 2 1/2 YEARS, no crisis--Nancy refuses to send the articles to the Senate.
People will see that the Democrats have no viable candidate to defeat Trump, so they must impeach now, right? LOL!!
We will see, Texan. It's like guessing whether or not a woman is pregnant. Time will tell.
And if he gets elected again, we'll deal just as we have already. If he hadn't handed Congress to us, he wouldn't have been impeached because of his sycophants. He didn't get the wall built even though he had both houses for two years. He's inept as a businessman and he's just full of shit as a president. He gave away Congress. With a nice big beautiful blue bow on it.
I don't care if he gets reelected. He'll forever have that impeachment asterisk after his name. He's a joke, he's a punchline, he has the entire world laughing at his yuge ass. He's impeached and that will forever be his legacy.
Wow, such an enlightened statement. DUH! Just like we saw in 2016, right?
Laughable. Screaming at the sky, wearing pink pussy hats, incessant bitching is NOT "handling it". At least in any normal sense of the word.
Handed Congress over? LOL! Trump lost fewer seats than Obama or Clinton in his first midterm than they did. Virtually every President must have handed Congress over then.
The wall is being built. Large construction projects aren't built in a day. I know you have heard it parroted here that it isn't being built, but that is simply not proven by the FACTS.
Hell, that is so damn preposterous I don't even think you believe that crap. if you didn't care, why would you spend so much time bitching and demeaning your President?
Doesn't seem to have had any effect on Clinton. But keep your hope that it will for Trump, because you don't care, right?
Oh please. Get over your bad self. HA!!
Time will tell, Texan. You're a dreamer and fantasizer.
Oh, but Trump cares. He hates to be such a big loser. The difference is that Clinton got a blowjob in the White House and lied about it. Trump went foreign countries to get a big fat leg up on his opposing candidate. He's a traitor, Texan. A big fat traitor. Who wants to do his daughter. trump's a failure at business, relationships and presidency. A big fat loser.
I believe that fact has been established and agreed on by all parties.
Gee, why didn't Democrats impeach him for THAT then?
Prove it!
I find it hard to believe you actually continue to peddle that falsehood, deliberately even.
I dare say many successful people have had ventures that failed at one time or another. A baseball player may make an out 7 out of 10 times, but is still considered to be a good player.
Many successful relationships have been enjoyed by people who have gone through prior divorces and break-ups. I find it very unusual for people to never have had an unsuccessful relationship in their lives.
Maybe you have never experienced such, but I feel pretty safe that at LEAST 9 out of 10 reading this would say that they have had a failed relationship before. Even the ones happily married for 28 years!
Oh. I see. It's okay for trump to wanna do his daughter. You have attempted to defend his right to do that. You've indicated you find absolutely nothing wrong with it. You think it's absolutely fine. So, in some sort of what you hope is a retaliatory statement, now it's just terrifically horrible that President Obama let his daughter intern for a perv. That's not her father. Hmmmm. Interesting, loki. Very interesting.
I didn't peddle a falsehood. I provided you proof. You and loki think it's fine, so there's the difference.
Keep on reading and believing the National Inquirer - you'll learn everything and all the trash you didn't know.
Now, why don't you stick to the topic.
Cite
If you exchanged the word "trump" for "Obama", I would hope you would question the motives behind this debacle. If President Obama did one tenth of what trump has done, I would have wanted him out of office. I would not have blindly defended him despite evidence to the contrary that he believes foreign countries' leadership (dictatorship leadership) before he believes his own administration.
The moment he said during his campaign, "I wish someone would find Hillary's emails. Someone like ... I don't know ... Russia?" he was a traitor. Inviting a foreign government to insinuate themselves in American politics. He can't win without cheating.
If he hadn't handed us Congress by his inept bumbling and ridiculous false assertions about everything from crowd size to audited taxes, he wouldn't be in this mess he alone created for himself. So, in answer to your question, obstruction of justice and abuse of power will have to do. Good enough for me.
I have to wonder what a politician has to do to lose the support of people. It seems some people will defend a politician they support against any behavior. Even when that politician calls his supporters stupid, they stay steadfast.
Well stated. Very well stated.
That explains why the Gray Lady eagerly published the op-ed. The Washington Post was apparently outbid.
To characterize that as political schizophrenia may well be the understatement of the year. It’s clear they hate Mr. Trump with the fire of 1,000 suns — so much so, apparently, that it doesn’t even matter to them who the Democrats nominate as his November opponent.
The prospect of a ruling triumvirate of President Elizabeth Warren (or President Bernie Sanders, or whoever), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — and what that would portend in the way of radical left-wing public policies — doesn’t enter their equation. Nor does it appear to give the backers of the Lincoln Project any pause.
As such, their New York Times op-ed left unspoken the likely consequences of full Democratic control of both the White House and Congress. The last time Democrats ran everything, in 2009 and 2010, they gave us Obamacare, a nearly $1 trillion economic-stimulus boondoggle, and a wasteful and counterproductive Cash for Clunkers program, among other things.
All of that seems almost centrist, however, compared with what the American people could expect from a newly empowered Democratic Party, which has lurched headlong to the left in the decade since: Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, uncontrolled open-borders immigration, taxpayer-funded abortion, the full LGBTQ agenda, the evisceration of the Second Amendment, an end to school choice, massive tax increases, and two or three more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the U.S. Supreme Court.
For these failed Republican operatives from the McCain-Romney wing of the party — who clearly resent being on the outside looking in — all of that is a wholly acceptable trade-off in exchange for getting rid of Mr. Trump, whose bombast, bluster and sometimes boorish behavior they view as an existential threat to the country as we know it.
In the process, they would also sacrifice a second term in which Mr. Trump could build on a remarkable record of a booming economy that has given us historically low unemployment rates and historic highs in the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500.
If “It’s the economy, Stupid,” the Lincoln Project has its work cut out for it when polls show Mr. Trump continues to enjoy 90-plus percent job approval among Republican voters.
Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, correctly characterized those behind the Lincoln Project as a “pathetic little club of irrelevant and faux ‘Republicans’ who are upset that they’ve lost all of their power and influence inside the Republican Party.”
Kellyanne Conway — a top Trump adviser whose husband is nonetheless one of those “Never Trumpers” — concurred with Mr. Murtaugh’s assessment, dismissing them as a gaggle of failed campaign managers who never got a candidate elected to the White House. “I’m sure that hurts very much,” she said. “But they never really accommodated the growing Republican Party and understood how to beat Democrats, and we did.”