They Will Shoot at Rick Santorum

Some of the NeverTrump crowd have had noteworthy political careers, Mitt Romney being the main example. But most are from the policy wing of the conservative movement. Intellectuals who may have been advisors, but are mostly commentators. And the fiercest critics among the NeverTrump crowd, the most intransigent of them, point accusing fingers at Trump’s character above all. The man is not fit to be president. Or, the man is a liar. Or the man is a liberal and so not-conservative. Or the man has no policy spine, only a lust for power. As if that is a disqualifying characteristic in Washington D.C. or any of the state capitals.

And they have denounced any and all who have boarded Trump's train as traitors, cowards, quisling supporters of the new Hitler even. And those who question their seething rage are written off as purveyors of histrionics. Really?

So what the living heck will they do to Rick Santorum? Who, unlike Paul Ryan's slow and cautious engagement, has come out to say he's 100% behind Trump. Santorum's endorsing Trump.

A question to the NeverTrump crowd. Have you abided as faithfully by your religious principles as Rick Santorum? Assuming you have a clear set of religious and not just policy prinicples? Can you impugn Santorum's character with no hypocrisy on your part?

Silly. Of course they can! Of course they will! Santorum will be condemned by the NTers as a labor-friendly fake conservative who voted against NAFTA. And perhaps a few stones will be hurled at his 2012 campaign where he placed the health and welfare of his kids over his ambition.

And they'll say: we're not running for president, Trump is! And Trump's not fit to be anywhere near the White House and anyone who endorses him is ... fill in the blank with linguistically agile insults.

Is their firestorm of anger merely a self-perpetuating bubble? Or do they - intelligent and experienced to a fault in most cases - sense that their time and place in the GOP is ending? And like hungry predators being head butted away from the water hole, they are baring their fangs and claws in one final mud-filled fight to the bitter end.

It's getting to the point where either they're wrong, or the political system in America is wrong. That's how far they're pusing this counter-revolutionary campaign. To use a little histrionic language. If Trump is elected president, will they turn on the party system itself? And grieve that the constitution has been deformed by most of the amendments since the time of, say, Andrew Jackson? Will this posse of conservatives be the ones to call for the dismantling of political parties in America? Rather than Trump or Sanders.

Or will they turn their rhetorical fire on each other in the end? Like the anarchists shooting at each other in a besieged Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War? There is perhaps nothing more dangerous than a wounded intellectual. It might be wise for Republicans - conservatives, moderates, and independents - to keep that in mind over the coming months.

Posted by Keeley at May 26, 2016 2:22 PM
Comment #404926

So conservatism has no future in the Republican party? The once vaulted ideology that guided great men such as Ronald Reagan is being relegated to history’s trash heap, only to be replaced with statism prefaced upon nativism, isolationism and nationalism.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 26, 2016 7:39 PM
Comment #404928

Just to be clear, there is no third party for disaffected conservatives. It is too late. Too many states have deadlines that have already passed for being on the ballot. The only plausible road involves the Libertarian Party, since it is on the ballot in all 50 states; however, it is doubtful the Libertarians would want any part of a Romney or Santorum.

Congratulations, conservatives! As of today Trump went over the 1237 mark for delegates, so the GOP has its nominee. Pat yourselves on the back. You earned this. And be assured, a lot of us will do everything in our power to make sure you own this for a long time to come.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2016 12:09 AM
Comment #404929


The libertarian party is probably nominating a ticket with two former GOP governors. It must definitely be tempting for a NeverTrump conservative.

Posted by: Warren Dean Porter at May 27, 2016 6:07 AM
Comment #404932

Every election it is normal for some voters to turn the backs on a nominee and vote for a third party, or stay home. Some people who normally would have voted for a Democrat stayed home or voted Republican, rather than vote for a black man. Some who normally would have voted for a Republican stayed home or voted Democrat rather than vote for Romney, a Mormon. Hillary will see the same sort of attenuation. This is normal.

Trump will see more Republicans turn their backs on him than any candidate in recent history. Traditional conservatives will not support him because he is not a conservative; for example, a well known pundit, Mary Matalan, announced she registered as a Libertarian. Others will reject him because he knows literally nothing about governing. He has no experience with government, and he hides his business experience by refusing to release his taxes. Some values voters will also reject him because he incites bigotry, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia, and they refuse to be associated with this. Some social conservatives will not support him because he represents a slap in the face for those who sincerely believe character matters in a president, and that three marriages, openly boasting about his philandering, and stating his battle with venereal disease in the 90’s was his “own personal Viet Nam.”


Only partisanship and an appeal to the basest impulses of the GOP will turn out vote. Hatred of Hillary Clinton- essentially another side of partisanship and the appeal to hatred- will also turn out the GOP base. But his appeal to the base at a 4th grade comprehension level comes at a price. It does not take a great deal of intelligence to note that his most recent appeal to push the Keystone pipeline is ridiculous because it is not economical, that increasing oil drilling in a saturated market doesn’t really help, and simultaneously pushing coal despite the fact it is uneconomical to do so, especially given increased oil production…

Trump also promises to do away with the Paris Climate Accord and reject the science behind Global Warming. This might appeal to the uneducated half of the GOP, but the other half knows AGW is real, and will question whether partisanship is worth supporting such a ludicrously bad candidate.

So it should be a good year for the Libertarians. Traditional, principled conservatives interested in limited government could very well turn to them, although the principled social conservatives will be left in the wilderness.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2016 12:31 PM
Comment #404938

phx8…shall we count the warts on your toady favorite?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 27, 2016 8:08 PM
Comment #404961

Royal Flush

Those aren’t warts. they’re puss filled boils, and they’re already draining. She’s unelectable, and the party knows it. They’re just waiting for the right moment to replace her.

Posted by: dbs at May 30, 2016 9:34 AM
Comment #404963

Donald Trump’s trial for fraud begins November 28th. The judge refused to dismiss the case or give a summary judgment. Trump retaliated by calling the U.S. District Court Justice a “hater” and suggesting he was “Mexican.” Yeah. Trump went there. BTW, there are several lawsuits, including one by the New York AG. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is happening. Normally, the two sides would settle, but in this case it looks more and more likely it will go to trial.

Have fun with that.

Posted by: phx8 at May 30, 2016 12:58 PM
Comment #404964

“Those aren’t warts. they’re puss filled boils, and they’re already draining. She’s unelectable, and the party knows it. They’re just waiting for the right moment to replace her.”

You know it’s funny, people have been saying this about Trump for the last year, and even funnier still, I would be willing to bet actual money you two laughing boys think Trump still has a shot.

The truth really is stranger than fiction.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 30, 2016 5:00 PM
Comment #404965

According to an article a few days ago in the Washington Examiner, the Trump campaign is almost out of money. There will be no television ads and no support for candidates down ticket until the RNC money becomes available after the convention in July. Until then, Trump will be completely reliant on free media, which means he will need to keep saying bizarre and outrageous things in order to attract attention.

Huge red flags are waving in front of GOP’s face: Red flag 1) Trump is supposedly incredibly rich and funding his own campaign, yet has no money to put into it for the next two months; Red flag 2) Trump will not release his tax returns, and Red flag 3) A trial on charges of fraud begins November 28th.

The entire campaign always seemed like a promotion that got out of control. There is virtually no ground game, little organization, and red flags all over the place concerning this guy.

Will he suddenly drop out?

Posted by: phx8 at May 30, 2016 11:43 PM
Comment #404966

Yet another red flag. Last week, on May 24th, WaPo ran an article questioning what Trump did with the $6 million in donations raised for veterans in late January. Occasionally the issue came up, but nothing happened. The money was never dispersed. Trump finally began dispersing the checks- on May 24th, the date of the article.

Posted by: phx8 at May 31, 2016 6:20 PM
Comment #404967

A check for one million dollars honoring his pledge for veterans was only issued by Trump after an interview with the Washington Post on May 24, 2016 questioning the status of his 6 million dollar veterans fund raising effort. Just a coincidence, I guess.

Posted by: Rich at May 31, 2016 7:05 PM
Comment #404971

Never dispersed?

“the foundation had received a $100,000 check from Trump’s charity in March

“On Jan. 30, just before the campaign’s leadoff caucuses in Iowa, he gave a $100,000 check to the Puppy Jake Foundation, which provides service dogs to wounded veterans.
The next day, in Council Bluffs, Trump presented another check, also for $100,000, to Partners for Patriots, which also provides service dogs to disabled veterans.”

“groups contacted by the AP did report receiving checks in February, March and April.”

Isn’t 41 vet groups receiving almost $6 million to aid veterans the important thing? Or is it appeasing blind partisans who spend their time and money complaining about how others spend their time and money?

If you guys are going to take Trump down, you are going to have to do much better than attacking him for his stance on national security and how he helps veterans.

Posted by: kctim at June 1, 2016 9:35 AM
Comment #404972

Trump dispersed about half prior to May 24th, when the
WaPo published its article. Trump claimed to have already donated $1 million. He did not. The remaining money was dispersed after the article appeared, with many checks dated May 24th.

In the past, Trump never showed any particular concern for veterans. That is fine. He was a businessman and he never volunteered to serve. His caring about veterans coincided with a need to escape a FOX debate with Megan Kelly, so suddenly he declared he would do this fund raiser. It is good that he made them the beneficiaries, but it also looked like he was using them as pawns to further his own interests, and that Trump then slow walked dispersing the donations.

As for Hillary Clinton and veterans, here is her response in an interview on CNN yesterday:

“Well, I, of course, have given money to veterans charities, and John McCain and I actually helped to raise funding for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund at Brooke Army Medical Center to build a rehabilitation facility for veterans to get the very best world-class rehabilitation services.”

“I’ve also worked starting as First Lady to deal with some of the problems veterans had, whether it was Agent Orange or whether it was the mysterious illnesses they were bringing back from the Gulf War. I worked as a Senator on the Armed Services Committee on many things. For example, increasing death benefits for families of the fallen from just $12,000 to $100,000, and I worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham to expand healthcare to National Guard and Reserve members, so much of the work I’ve done has meant tens of millions of dollars in increased benefits to veterans and their families as well as a personal commitment.“

BTW, did you like Trump’s latest endorsement? He had already been endorsed by the KKK and Storm Front, the biggest white supremacist groups. Now he has been endorsed by the government of North Korea. They think Trump will keep the US out of a war between North and South.

And how about Trump going to CA and publicly stating there was no drought? That was one for the ages. It must have come as quite a surprise to the people of CA, to be faced with the old ‘who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes’ approach to water management. Hurray!

Posted by: phx8 at June 1, 2016 10:51 AM
Comment #404974


From the Associated Press
“Among them was the big check from Trump himself, written to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.”
“It is obviously a wonderful donation,” said Sue Boulhosa, the group’s executive director and sole employee. She said the group had “an inkling” that more might come but the amount was a happy surprise.
Trump has a longstanding relationship with the group, which Boulhosa said typically raises a total of between $2 million and $3 million a year. The foundation had presented Trump with an award at its 2015 gala held at a New York hotel.”

Why is his not volunteering to serve an issue? It sure wasn’t for Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary or Sanders.

I made no mention of Hillary Clintons support of veterans. I am glad she worked with Republicans to help them.

I could care less about who endorses the candidates. IF I did, the KKK endorsement of Hillary would have meant something. As would endorsements from racist groups like black lives matter and la raza.
A candidate has no control over who decides to endorse them.

I wasn’t keeping up with the drought statement, sorry. Did Trump clearly state there was no drought, or that “state officials were simply denying water to Central Valley farmers?”

Posted by: kctim at June 1, 2016 11:14 AM
Comment #404984

“There is no drought.”
Donald Trump, May 27 2016

Many takes on his comments appear in this article:

If you do not care for that site, there are many others.

For many years I lived in CA. About 80% of the water is used by agriculture. When officials call for the population to cut back on usage instead of agriculture, it causes a lot of hard feelings. Trump opted to side with some right wing business interests in the valley at the expense of everyone else. Most likely he wanted their campaign donations, and has already written off CA in the general election.

Posted by: phx8 at June 1, 2016 12:47 PM
Comment #404985

Thanks for the link, Phx8. The USAToday article I read did not have that quote.
In context, he is clearly referring to government actions and we will probably get a ‘clarification’ stating something like he didn’t mean there wasn’t a natural drought, but that government was adding to it or something.
He does that a lot, doesn’t he. Says something and then needs to explain what he ‘really’ meant to say. Sounds really familiar, especially after the last eight years.

“Most likely he wanted their campaign donations, and has already written off CA in the general election.”

No doubt.

Posted by: kctim at June 1, 2016 1:04 PM
Comment #405023

Trump repeatedly claimed that he had personally contributed one million dollars to the veteran fund raising effort that he had initiated when he skipped the FOX debate.

That was false. Trump did not fulfill his personal pledge to contribute one million dollars from his own funds to veteran organizations until he was confronted with reporters questions.

“When did you realize that Trump hadn’t actually made the donation he said he made?

Not until Trump called me on Tuesday afternoon to say he’d just given the whole million at once. Until then, I hadn’t found proof of any gift of personal cash from Trump to a vets’ group.”

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2016 6:10 PM
Comment #405024

The Vets charitable contribution issue is a perfect example of how Trump manipulates the media. It’s time that the media wised up and kept their eye on the ball.

A reporter caught Trump in a bald face lie about having contributed one million dollars of his personal funds to the Vets charitable fund. So, what does Trump do? He spends an hour haranguing reporters and calling them “sleazy” for daring to question his veracity. So, what does the media do? It spends prime time reporting on Trump’s attack on the media. Once again, Trump successfully deflected attention from the primary issue.

If Hillary had done what Trump did, she would have been pilloried in the media as a pathetic phony.

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2016 6:44 PM
Comment #405025


If Trump had a longstanding relationship with the group, why did it take so long for him to “vet” them? And why did that vetting process conveniently end immediately after the Washington Post published a story documenting how Trump had donated other people’s money with ease, but hadn’t touched any dollars from his own pocket.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 1, 2016 7:30 PM
Comment #405026

Liberals are a real “HOOT”

Here’s a guy that gives a million dollars of his own money to support Vets and you argue about the timeline.

Politics certainly is a brain-drain on my friends on the Left.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 1, 2016 7:36 PM
Comment #405027


This is not about a timeline. He said that he had already given the money until somebody asked him a simple question: who did you give it to.

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2016 8:35 PM
Comment #405028


If Trump claimed he was giving vets a million but actually had no intention to do so, then he was being dishonest about it all. It’s as simple as that.
I’m not sure why you guys think a presidential candidate would make such an easily verifiable claim and then not follow through on it, or that people are going to care much about when the money was dispersed, but I guess it’s worth it if it changes even just a few minds.

And I totally agree with you that this is a perfect example of how Trump the media to his advantage, but you and I both know that the media will get him before the election.


“If Trump had a longstanding relationship with the group, why did it take so long for him to “vet” them?”

I have no idea how long it takes to check a group out and make sure nothing in its past can be used against you. Especially if you are a the Republican candidate.
Personally, I think one of three things probably happened:
1 - The donations were no longer front page news and fell off the priority list.
2 - The campaign wanted to disperse the money closer to the election for more publicity.
3 - The campaign knew the lefty media would overreact this way and planned this to work to their advantage.

Seriously guys, you all are all upset over Trump ‘lying’ about when he gave charity, but are perfectly fine when it comes to outright blatant lies about national security?

Posted by: kctim at June 2, 2016 10:05 AM
Comment #405029

It has been a long time since I have been to NYC. Trump reminds me of the skillful 3 card monte dealer in Times Square. The game is rigged, he has paid shills helping him milk the crowd and the dealer will always walk away the winner even if it looks like he may have lost to someone. This plays well for a short period of time and may even allow him to get support but the intelligent voter will watch the shifiting cards and listen to the spiel and then will walk away without making a bet. The dealer will move on to a new spot and try to bilk whoever he can convince that the game is legit.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 2, 2016 10:43 AM
Comment #405051

Trump’s charity debacle will blow over. It is not a story that has legs. The subject might rise again if the GOP attacks the Clinton Foundation, which performs charitable work.

The Trump University fraud trials are a much bigger problem, and it does not look like they are going to go away. Trump keeps attacking the U.S. District Court judge in San Diego. As a matter of common sense, one would think attacking a judge and continually referring to his ethnicity would be a bad idea. Not Trump. About the only way this can help him is to inoculate him against a guilty verdict, where he just pretends it was not about evidence, but about the bias and hatred of the judge for Donald Trump. Or maybe not. In the meantime, it keeps the story in the headlines, and going on trial for fraud is NOT a good story for a candidate who wants to refer to his opponent as ‘Crooked Hillary.’ That does not work at all.

The State of New York fraud trial might be even worse for Trump. Trump has attacked that Attorney General too. The AG has not been shy about advertising the strength of his case, and it looks REALLY bad for Trump. Just the fact that he called his for-profit classes a University will be enough to sink him.

I don’t understand how this could happen in the first place. I have been around public and private for-profit education for a long time, and there are strict restrictions in order for organizations can call themselves universities. There is a strenuous process of accreditation and on-going evaluations by the state. What in the world were Trump and his organization thinking? They are in a world of trouble with the state of NY.

Posted by: phx8 at June 2, 2016 2:21 PM
Comment #405062

All of this just makes Trump the ideal candidate for the Punk Know Nothing Party. They’ve let themselves become that. He gets a lot of free publicity that sinks his opposition’s response, because the media reports every idiotic response that he makes to anything. The media corporations should eventually figure out that he’s not paying for anything, and is manipulating them. Anyway, he is a product of the media. He is the message that has resulted from what the right wing has been broadcasting all these years. Appealing to the Know Nothings has gotten Trump set to be nominated, but the Punk aspect won’t win him a national election. At least I hope not.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 2, 2016 3:18 PM
Comment #405079

“As a matter of common sense, one would think attacking a judge and continually referring to his ethnicity would be a bad idea. Not Trump.”

Tonight, he told the WSJ that the judge had an inherent conflict of interest because he [Trump] wants to build a wall with Mexico. Wow! He just keeps doubling down on the absurd.

Posted by: Rich at June 2, 2016 9:24 PM
Comment #405086

Seems some good is coming from the whole Trump U mess.
I hear the few dissatisfied with Trump U all got full ride scholarships from Laureate Education.

Posted by: kctim at June 3, 2016 1:27 PM
Comment #405091

Judge Curiel was born in Indiana. Maybe Trump’s real agenda is to kill the Rpblcn party.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 3, 2016 7:28 PM
Post a comment