Republican bigwigs are distressed by their Nominee-Presumptive. This is quite a statement:
But seriously, is Donald Trump any more of a hater than California Governor Pete Wilson was in 1994 when he surged to re-election behind Prop. 187? That initiative to denied health care, education and social services to undocumented children and adults. For months Wilson's TV ads blanketed the state featuring a voice intoning "they keep on coming" while shadowy figures ran across roads and scrambled over fences.By late morning, Stuart Stevens, who was a top adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012, had heard enough. “It’s becoming obvious that supporting or not supporting [Trump] isn’t a political choice,” he tweeted. “It’s a moral choice. The man is evil.”
“To support Trump is to support the hate and racism he embodies. That is simply an intolerable moral position for any political party,” Stevens elaborated Monday in the Daily Beast. “If Trump wins the nomination, politicians who support him will be acquiescing to, if not actively aiding, his hate.”
The Republican strategist said that losing the presidential election wouldn’t be as bad as “the shame of pretending that an evil man was not evil and a hater really didn’t mean what he said. We hold elections every two years, and there is always the chance to regain lost offices. But there is no mechanism to regain one’s dignity and sense of decency once squandered. That defeat is permanent. To support Trump is to support a bigot. It’s really that simple.”
Wilson's great success at mobilizing resentment made him a potential Republican presidential nominee in 1996 before he faded. Backlash among California's Latinos also reduced the California Republican Party to a feeble facsimile of a functioning organization within a decade. But hey, Wilson won his race and we didn't hear Republicans complaining about "evil" and decency squandered.
Trump is only voicing what has long been there.
5 comments:
Geeez, Jan, way to bury the lead! "But seriously, is Donald Trump any more of a hater than California Governor Pete Wilson was in 1994 when he surged to re-election behind Prop. 187? That initiative to denied health care, education and social services to undocumented children and adults. For months Wilson's TV ads blanketed the state featuring a voice intoning "they keep on coming" while shadowy figures ran across roads and scrambled over fences."
Strictly speaking those quotes are taken out of context. He said he would ban Muslims from entry until we can figure out which ones have terrorist ties. And he's talking about one end of the immigrant problem-- not the immigrants but the drug smugglers who bring them up, the one we call coyotes in Arizona.
I am not interested though in defending Trump because I don't want him either (nobody knows what he'd do given some of his speeches). I will have to literally hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November, but the reason the establishment doesn't want him is not for racism or David Duke. They are just using it. Their real reason is they are afraid he'll blow up their tidy little system. They know she won't. They worry about him helping the working middle too much. And a lot of those voting for him are not racists. Chris Hayes did some interviews after Nevada. Many of them are mad at the system. Same reason people like me support Bernie while the Dem establishment is saying it's all over for him and he should get in line behind Hillary now. What they don't realize or want to face, in their fear he'll kick over the lucrative setup they have, is this is what the Occupy movement needed to move to and didn't-- get into the political system and make changes through voting. Bernie stands for what Occupy did, and his speeches all say that he's not getting out because this is about a movement and a LOT of Americans are behind him even though the Dem establishment is doing all it can to elect Hillary.
Hi Rain: As far back as October 2013, I called electing Clinton a "sickening prospect." And I haven't ceased to feel that way. And as long as Bernie is available as a choice, I'll vote for him. But he, and his movement, just isn't broad enough to prevail. The fact that some people within it still vacillate between Bernie and the Donald tells the tale.
What this election is revealing is that popular revulsion against a rigged system is STILL, as it has been throughout US history, easily sidetracked by elites into nativism, xenophobia and racism. Trump is a current manifestation.
When we grow a populist movement that can genuinely encompass poor people of color AND poor whites, I'll be a believer. Separated, we're all screwed and the need to elect the available lesser evil kicks in.
The media wrote Bernie off long ago. When they do mention him they usually say he can't be elected. If he received half the interviews, news mentions, extended coverage that Hillary has received he would be in much better shape. When people haven't heard of him, you know the media has ignored him. I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November.
The Democratic party, the establishment, wants her and they have weighted the system with their super delegates and how they held the debates to make it happen. It's very frustrating and I'll hate having the Clintons back in the White House (I don't trust him either), but it's better than any possible alternative on the other side. Just the Supreme Court should have people voting what has to be best of what we have possible. I hear those saying they can't vote for her. I so get it but there are bigger things at stake and no Repub is going to take a stand on any of the issues I care about. She will on some of them at least... I hope ;) And I know her Supreme Court pick will be better. Let's hope we have a Democratic Senate to actually let her make one...
Post a Comment