Former Republican Strategist Tells the Truth about Trump Supporters
Steve Schmidt does, IMO, an excellent job of representing the (seemingly dying) rational Republican while discussing the current state of his party.
A few excerpts from the transcript:
But I have always recognized that Donald Trump was a profound threat to the republic along with every other person in the Republican Party.
The difference is when a few of us said ‘never’ meant it.
And overwhelmingly, as in 99.99% of every person involved in the institutional Republican Party allowed themselves to capitulate, appease what I regard as the most dangerous threat that the country has faced internally since the Civil War.
And what I view the Republican Party as as a in a two party system in this country is a profound threat that has been hijacked by a faction that has turned against fundamental American concepts such as democracy and pluralism.
And all of it is is deeply ground in walking away from the results of an election.
So I don't think that you can look seriously into a camera as a Republican and say, hey, this is a fiscally conservative party. There is no fiscally conservative party in America. You have two wildly spending political parties that have accumulated $32 trillion in national debt. If you look at baby boomer presidencies, Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible. Barack Obama was number two. George Bush was number three, and Donald Trump was the wildest spender of them all.
Look, at the end of the day, it's a position that's rooted in a fundamental delusional dishonesty. And if you look at what a presidential contest is, the race for the presidency in the United States is the greatest non-lethal competition in the world. There's nothing there is nothing like it. There is no game. There is no sport. There is nothing that is as intense as focused as this. And so what this is, as David Axelrod once said, is an MRI for the soul. Right. This is a character test.
And so each of these people put aside their beliefs, their ideology, their political label. They're weak and they're afraid. They're terrified of being tweeted about by Donald Trump. Mike Pence's race has no rationale whatsoever. His former boss, the president, tried to have him hung and he just now will only say, well, he endangered me and others in my family. The American people in our full range of our vast menagerie. Right. Of beliefs and everything else, from left to right, the American people will not vote for weaklings, will not vote for spinelessness.
Right. So so every one of these people inexclusively right there, all the people that played a previous role as Trump sycophants who won't tell the truth about him now, what they what they prove is their softness and it is disqualifying.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Biden and the Ds is off topic.
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
I look at it like this. Any republican politician that will not condemn Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election is disqualified to hold any high office. And that description covers a lot of them, if not most.
The media wants us to just accept things as a "difference of opinion", and that is also unacceptable. It is not a matter of opinion if Trump is a traitor, it is proven fact.
MAGA does not care if he is a traitor, that is perfectly clear at this point. So we have what will be a long lasting conflict in our national life. It is in a sense a "war", and a war that people who believe in democracy have to win.
Here's something I saw yesterday that bears repeating:
"Prolonged exposure to the former 'president' is injurious to intelligence and fatal to principles . . . it is like a disease . . . you are exposed to it, become infected and succumb to it. The people I know who I once thought well of who have now lost their minds are legion, it's depressing."
I didn't note who made that remark but like I said, it bears repeating as it is oh so true.
an excellent job of representing the (seemingly dying) rational Republican while discussing the current state of his party
ah yes, Sarah Palin's number one supporter who decided partnering with a child molester to grift Democrats was the best way to make generational wealth.
That is all you can offer, attack the source while disregarding the content?
When its an absolute scumbag like Steve Schmidt, yes. Might as well offer Roger Stone's opinions.
If Schmidt is a scumbag in your mind, what is Trump?
The same. Both are grifters. I know better than to take what an obvious grifter says seriously. Why do you allow them to manipulate you?
Are you not going to vote for Trump, Sean?
For the 1,000th time on this site, I’ve never voted for trump and will not in 2024.
It begs the question that you responded to an issue you would have been better served passing on.
Since you did render a remark, however, what I would like to know is what "child molester to grift democrats" you are bringing up @2.1.3?
Not good enough, [Deleted]
John Weaver
The idea that Steve Schmidt is a "scumbag" is silly, but even if it werent it would be irrelevant. It is not who is saying it that matters, it is what he is saying, and he pretty much nails the whole situation.
It's funny. They say they are not going to vote for Trump but spend endless amounts of time either minimizing his traitorous activity, or excusing it, or attacking the people who do try and hold him to account. You dont have to necessarily vote for Trump to help him, you can also help him by the pretense that he deserves to be a viable candidate. There are two choices, throw Trump under the bus once and for all, or dont. There is no middle position.
Child molester, . . . what does any of of John Weaver's problems and legal matters have to do with Steve Schmidt character? We're individuals, right. . . right? And is this an instance of guilt by association you are referring to. . .where am I wrong?
Note: This line of questioning is a bit off the direct topic, but we ought to clear the 'air' on this one!
It shows a serious inability to accurately judge character on Schmidt’s part.
Duh!
He's also an Avenetti promoter.
More empirical data that supports my premise.
[Deleted]
Exactly. I posted this because of the content. What he is saying is largely spot on IMO.
I think it is cognitive dissonance. Loyal Rs want to defend the party (are driven to) so they will NOT criticize Trump (the likely nominee) and will attack those who do. Yet some of them say they will not vote for Trump and others say they will but they want someone else.
This is the counterproductive behavior that we have seen for years from the GOP. They do not seem to understand that the more they support Trump, the worse for the party and for the nation. It is baffling.
What?!!!! So you are (helping) play the guilt by association card! How ridiculous. . . . Duh! You can only judge the character you know about and can attest to-are you suggesting the Lincoln Project founder/s deliberately placed a questionable John Weaver on its founder committee/team? Be clear! DUH!
My post was crystal clear. [Deleted] Ergo …. The reason for the DUH!
Lordiy, this is what can happen when individuals and groups have irreconcilable differences. . . .
you play that same card all the time.
You can only play the cards that you have and some don't play with a full deck.
In what ways do you consider him to be a "scumbag"-- and worse yet-- an absolute one?
(curious minds want to know).
Why not?
And overwhelmingly, as in 99.99% of every person involved in the institutional Republican Party allowed themselves to capitulate, appease what I regard as the most dangerous threat that the country has faced internally since the Civil War.
This is one mans opinion and he is welcome to it.
But what about Nikki Haley?
What about her?
...."the American people will not vote for weaklings, will not vote for spinelessness."
They didn't realize that Biden was both weak and spineless, and a very real threat to our democracy as the last three years have shown. Lefties are famous for attacking the source and ignoring the truth of the content for a long time now.
Deflection to Biden instead of discussing the topic.
Schmidt is here speaking of the current R candidates. He is arguing that by not challenging Trump they are looking weak and that the American people will not vote for weaklings.
Do you agree or disagree?
Weak and spineless?
(Provide a link or it ain't so!)
Turned against democracy-yes! Turned against pluralism. . . not yet! Well, only if they, MAGA, can be the dominant 'order' over the people they would 'enslave' to their selfish interest and authority/control!
Trump is a symptom of the problem. The problem is an active minority voter base that expects to be pandered to even if they are a minority. Take the database built to help states keep voter rolls up to date - ERIC. Every super red district that did not pander to anti-ERIC voters got primaried by those who did. It defies reality. Without Trump they would still back some other sociopath to office.
I dont disagree. But that describes an awful lot of groups, tbf, which exacerbates the situation.
The Trump minions are just more active at the polls.
And thus have more power to sow chaos. One good things is - as soon as they get a little power they start attacking each other.
That's fair. Although I doubt it feels that way when your business is being burned or looted. Nevertheless, you are correct.
Yeah.
Generally speaking, none of them are smart enough to move beyond that.
Substantially more!
Looters aren't a political party and the few populists on the left don't carry a lot of clout. The Freedom Caucus has something like 45 members, which chair major House committees. The other side has "the Squad" which is 6 people and most voters could probably only name 3 or 4 without looking it up.
Well... neither is the Freedom Caucus.
To be clear, you said "active minority voter base that expects to be pandered to even if they are a minority". (To be very clear, the use of the word "minority" here is purely mathematical and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, in case anybody else is confused on that.)
"Protesters" are exactly that. They are small groups of people attempting to demand that the rest of us adopt their nonsense and intentionally causing chaos in that pursuit. No, they don't have as much clout as people like the Freedom Caucus, but only because they fail to organize as well.
Still yet, the Freedom Caucus only represents a little over 10% of the House. In ordinary circumstances, that wouldn't be enough to hold much sway, but we don't have ordinary circumstances at the moment.
The Freedom Caucus is currently running the Republican Party.
The alt-right is less than a quarter of the population.
and thus irrelevant to this conversation.
They are responsible for retiring the last 3 Republican Speakers. More and more people are getting tired of their bullshit.
I would say there is a difference between "running" and "holding hostage".
Possibly even less than that. But my point is simply that there are also plenty of other groups who also meet your definition.
Groups who are an "active minority voter base that expects to be pandered to even if they are a minority" are somehow irrelevant to a discussion on "active minority voter base that expects to be pandered to even if they are a minority"?
I think Nancy Pelosi had something to do with one of those.
No doubt. But not just theirs.
That's the problem. We've been in a period where the choices are all varying varieties of bullshit, and... as you say... people are getting tired of it.
You would, but most wouldn't. The Presidential nominee, the head of the RNC and the Majority Leader (and maybe new Speaker) in the House - so 3 of the top 4 positions are far right populists ARE running the party.
It's been quoted anywhere from 17% to 23% depending on who's doing the reporting.
I know that's your point, but since they don't have any real political power beyond temper tantrums they are NOT the equivalent of right wing populists for this discussion. IF you just want to talk about political minority groups so be it... I'm not interested and it's not the topic of the article.
I know I am.
Yes but OTOH its good entertainment. Many of the MAGA folk do keep the boredom away.
Time to get the popcorn!
Marjorie Taylor Greene attacks Lauren Boebert, calls her childish and mocks her struggle to get re-elected
Why do these political provocateurs accuse Republicans of being a threat to democracy and pluralism as a way to justify their 'fiscal responsibility' bullshit? Worse yet, why do people keep falling for this tripe?
Supply-side neoliberalism has never, ever been about democracy and pluralism. Supply-side neoliberalism has not been about fiscal responsibility, either. Over 95 pct of the national debt has been created since Ronald Reagan took office. Supply-side Republicans and Democrats really have destroyed the economy. Supply-side Republicans and Democrats are the real threat to democracy and pluralism.
Barrack Obama harmed the United States far, far more than did Donald Trump. Supply-siders may be able to hide that fact with mountains of mendacious manure. We ain't gonna strengthen democracy by reviving supply-side economics as Joe Biden is attempting. Rich assholes telling us how government (and the country) ought to work aren't doing that for our benefit.
I totally agree. And yet these MAGA idiots keep on voting for him (Trump) anyway. How can they possibly be so downright stupid?
The MAGA idiots, as you call them, are voting against a political status quo established by Democrats and Republicans over the last 45 years. Our modern two party political system has devolved into opposition politics. There isn't anything aspirational about today's Presidential campaigns. Joe Biden was elected on a campaign promise of not being Trump. Voters supported Biden as the anti-Trump candidate. Biden did not win the White House on Biden's merits.
In fact, voters don't care that much about the Presidential candidates. The politically appointed cabinet level bureaucracy creates the agenda for an administration. Biden, as the anti-Trump candidate, promised to nominate specific types of individuals for appointed positions within the executive and judicial branches of government that would establish the agenda for Biden's administration. Biden's political appointments would establish and implement an agenda consistent with the Democratic Party platform. Biden's political appointments are only accountable to a political party but are not accountable to voters. That's the Deep State.
We know that Trump was elected to change the direction, priorities, and agenda of the bureaucracy. Trump had to defeat the Republican establishment before he could run against the Democrats' establishment candidate. Trump was elected on a promise to change the political status quo within government. We also know that during Trump's time in office a political opposition engaged in resistance within the bureaucracy to thwart the agenda of politically appointed cabinet members. Voters are not supporting Trump because of Trump's merits. Support for Trump is really about overturning the political conventional wisdom and political priorities established by both parties over the last several decades. That's why the MAGA idiots, as you call them, are attacking establishment Democrats AND Republicans.
Just to make it clear that I know what is going on with conservatives and MAGA let me say that all conservatives see the country through a lens of themselves losing status, position, prestige if pluralism and democracy is allowed to 'break out' fully in this nation. This country for centuries has been 'golden' for conservatives. They want to survive and flourish and to that end. . .others must be denied.
It's uncanny in a way. Our nation for centuries honored the conservative tradition and its majority even while liberals were its minority who would pushback for liberty's sake!
In the Civil War, liberals beat the conservatives. . . and then. . . with all the grace they could muster gave the conservatives back their statuses, positions of power, and let them regain their standing in society. True compassion. Even though a myriad of liberal children died at the hands of conservatives.
And conservatives have never been gracious to liberals. . . . They have kept their quarreling, bad conduct, demonizations, and outright hatred of liberals up to this day! Even to the point where as you point out Evil One that they are willing to split the GOP from top to bottom to purge anyone who dares agree and provide "aid" with a liberal!
MAGA hate Democrats to the core of their being. It's not any more complicated than that. And there really is a lot to hate about Democrats.
Thanks for the enlightment. Really. Speak this truth. Often and loudly! Make it clear.
“MAGA hate Democrats to the core of their being.”
Indeed.
And to what end? An uncivil war with blood running in the streets? No end game? Or just raging dysfunction where we forget all we have in common and focusing on the inane?
[Deleted] And they're quite proud of it. [Deleted.]
Exactly and so unlike the cheerful, kindness that [deleted usually display.]
[deleted]
Exactly, I saw your comment as your usual, cheerful and kind.
And I'm sure you will realize of course, that was especially true during the four terms of President FDR-- an extreme right winger if there ever was one!
(And what was the makeup on Congress during those years? Probably 80-90% Republican eh Nerm?)
Wasn't Franklin Delano Roosevelt a populist President? Weren't FDR's politics built upon a national American identity? FDR certainly did not advocate diversity, equity, and inclusion. FDR incorporated the traditional priorities of God, family, and country into the New Deal. FDR was not a liberal or conservative; FDR was a progressive.
Keep in mind that during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Presidency the Democratic Party was still the party of Jim Crow and segregation. Democrats' Blue Wall during the 1920s and 1930s was the Deep South. The Democratic Party was the small government party; that's what FDR changed.
That not quite true. The people we are talking about watched their grandparents hand off positions of power in smaller communities and towns, until trickle down dried up their towns and communities. They were promised a certain lifestyle if they waited their turn, but now that their turn has come they are being told they have to share with working women, gays, hippy liberals and foreigners. Worse some of these people want to be treated as equals. It's really hard for them to understand they aren't the center of the universe anymore.
'Golden,' I placed in scare quotes. Because compared and relative to what those who were not conservatives were experiencing in a heavily religious nation with conservative control, cultural values and traditions . . . . Is my rationale for using the word.
Your point is well-understood and accepted, of course!
Therefore I think I can speak for all of us when I say that compared and relative to non-conservatives-- conservatives generally tend to be much more conservative.
You paint with a broad brush.
Dem machine has controlled the urban cities for almost two hundred years and the Congress many more years than not since the 1930's.
Lincoln won the Civil War and Lincoln and he was a conservative. The Whig Party was conservatives. Lincoln was a corporate lawyer representing banks, factories, canal shipping, railroads, etc. As a politician of the newly formed Republican Party he said:
In regards to Lincoln: Ultimately , he was compelled to bring about liber ation (al) and progress ( ive ) acts as president. Thus, drastically changing the status quo of his time. No mediocre presidency for him and history records the fact!
As the quote says (and damn it keep up!) :
T he Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men . . .
99.99 percent of conservatives want the return of the old status quo which places conservatives squarely in charge of the national politics of this country. As it turns out it was not a good thing then and will not be a good thing today! Progress is needed in this country, not 'old-school' political stagnation! Even with all its current issues this is a dynamic nation and we can't ignore that by pretending to lead the world (from behind). Leading from behind will expose our 'weakness' in a 'Misssissippi minute.'
Keeping the Union together (a conservative idea) was most important to him.
With you knowledge of US history? LoL
You ignored the point of my comment. Par for the course coming from you. I am not going to waste any more of today dealing with people who do not even try to find common ground in discussion.
You have an odd approach to finding common ground.
As I leave you to whatever it is you do here let me add this about Lincoln: He said a lot of things which did not help/assist/appease conservatives in the democratic South and so he had no choice except to ACT liberally and progressively to grant freedom where freedom was not before and aid in moving this country to 'new horizons' unheard of before his presidency.
With that I don't have anything else to discuss with you about Lincoln if your intention is just to be frustratingly annoying with counter-narration!
Which histories of Lincoln have you read?
With that I don't have anything else to discuss with you about Lincoln if your intention is just to be frustratingly uninformed!
When, exactly, did that "status quo" exist?
Was that when Obama was president? Or Clinton? Or LBJ? Truman? FDR?
Do enlighten us.
If you really don't have a clue as to what being a conservative/MAGA is, why engage in discussion? Go get some understanding and then you can join in with us gracefully. Seriously—yes seriously!
MEGA doesn't necessarily equal conservative. Those twice Obama voters that voted for Trump are p[populists not conservatives. Seriously!
So you have apparently invented a time that never existed.
you should know as well as everyone else that conservatives have never, ever, ever controlled national politics.
Hard to play victim to imaginary scenarios.
Cluelessness never seems to slow you down.
Now tell us about these halcyon days when conservatives were supposedly squarely in charge.
Pun intended?
Well, when you think about it-- isn't that true of everything that anyone has ever invented? After all, if something had already existed-- then having or producing it wouldn't be called an invention!
By definition, the term status quo means the current state of affairs-- it means what currently does exist. When does "the existing state of affairs" mean something that currently does not exist! WTF-- what's up with all this "sound of one hand clapping" brouhaha??
noun
Schmidt tried to get a job with the Trump campaign but was denied because Trump thought he was untrustworthy and a total idiot:
Still attacking the source while completely ignoring the content.
For example:
Is Trump (and his following) a profound threat to the Republic?
Did the institutional Republican party capitulate and appease Trump?
Is the R party being driven by a faction (MAGA) that has disregard for democracy and pluralism?
yes,yea, and yep
sorry, couldn’t wait for Sean
lol
This is remarkable. Do you think that Trump thinking someone is untrustworthy and a "total idiot" is worth any consideration whatsoever?
Clearly Schmidt is not an idiot. And someone who Trump does not think will be a loyal sycophant is a major plus.
And by the same token, what about General Mattis, eh?