http://townhall.com/columnists...n-turncoats-n2208575

The Republican Turncoats
Stephen Moore Stephen Moore |Posted: Aug 23, 2016 12:01 AM Share (521) Tweet
The Republican Turncoats

I asked a successful businessman the other day what he thought about Donald Trump. He turned his thumb down. Wow. "Are you going to vote for Hillary?" I asked with trepidation. "Of course not," he replied, almost insulted by the question. "I understand the concept of a binary decision."

I got a similar response when I asked oil magnate T. Boone Pickens whether he would vote for Trump. He looked at me with a quizzical expression and replied: "Well, who else is there to vote for?"

Right. Who else is there? Yet, amazingly, a caucus of lifelong Republican politicos in Washington are announcing to the world with defiance and self-righteousness that they will vote for Hillary Clinton.

They are mostly former Mitt Romney and George W. Bush operatives. They lost, and now they want people to believe that their anti-Trumpism is a principled act of heroism. They ingratiate themselves to The New York Times, Washington Post and team Clinton -- the sworn enemies of free markets and conservative values.

Somehow this doesn't offend their moral compass.

I certainly don't mean to disparage conservatives who say they won't vote for Trump. One's vote is a matter of personal conscience. But to actively support Clinton is to put the other team's jersey on and then run a lap around the stadium.

It's worth examining the case of the Republicans for Clinton, because none of the arguments make much sense.

First, many say that Trump can't win, that it's hopeless. These are the same political geniuses who a year ago assured us that Trump could never win a primary (he won most of them), then that he couldn't win 50 percent of the vote (he did), then that he couldn't win 50 percent outside of New York (he did), then that he couldn't win a majority of the delegates (he did). On every occasion, the Trump haters were wrong. How about a little humility, since they are batting 0.00?

The "Trump can't win" mantra isn't just wrong; it's subversive. Of course he can win. He is running against Hillary Clinton, for goodness' sakes. So why do they say this? Because the never-Trumpers want Trump to lose, because he is to the political class (Republicans and Democrats) the disruptor that Uber is to taxicab drivers.

Second is the complaint by some economists that Trump can't be supported because he is not for free trade. Longtime Washington insider Vin Weber reportedly has said: "The world economic order and the Republican Party" would be "all in shambles" if Trump wins. "I think markets would collapse."

Really? Hillary Clinton flip-flops every day on free trade, so why is it that only Trump would cause a recession? He doesn't get that the Trump movement is a revolt against the world order.

Meanwhile, Trump is calling for the biggest tax cuts and reforms since Reagan. He supports massive regulatory relief and school choice. Trump wants to kill Obamacare. On energy, Trump wants a pro-America drilling policy. Clinton wants to soak the rich, increase the debt, stop energy development, expand entitlements and double down on Obamacare. How is this a difficult choice for a free marketeer?

Third, the Trump haters say we must throw Trump under the bus and concentrate on saving the Senate and House.

This is a foolhardy strategy, because one can't win without the other. As economist Donald Luskin puts it in his historical analysis of presidential races and Senate gains: "It is clear from history that the House and the Senate move in the same party direction as the White House, and with the same magnitude. That means the presidential candidate is like a boat that congressional candidates are riding on. It's really stupid to torpedo that boat."

Finally, there is the view expressed by Bret Stephens, my former colleague at The Wall Street Journal, who wants to "make sure Trump is the biggest loser in presidential history" so that we can "rebuild the conservative movement."

If Obama/Clinton win a third straight presidential race, there won't be a conservative movement left to rebuild. The Republicans will move to the left. Worse, for Obama to effectively win a third term will validate all of the destructive policies of the last eight years. This will be one of the greatest victories for liberal governance of all time.

Do the "never-Trumpers" want to facilitate that? Do they want to hand the left its greatest victory for liberal governance of all time? If they do, they are the unforgivable betrayers of conservative principles.

The neverTrump people make my blood boil.

They would rather sabotage the Trump campaign so they can say "I told you so", than win one of the most important elections of our times.

If Trump loses, you can bet your bottom dollar that many of these elected officials will pay dearly for their selfishness.

I have a hard time believing the Nevertrump idiots will actually vote for Hillary. Now if they do, you know they were never conservatives and do not care about the country. They are merely selfish Aholes that profit from the current administration's corruption.

That's encouraging, and I think these people are going to be the key.

My wife WAS a huge Mark Levin fan, not any more,now she doesn't even like to hear his name.
I also have not seen him on any interview shows in a long time.
Too bad.

Bill Clinton announces that this will be the final annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative.

Obama has been a regular attendee. Even though Obama will be in NY the week of the final mtg, he has announced he will not be attending the final mtg.

A White House official confirmed Obama won’t attend, but said that the questions in the air about the Clinton Foundation, which runs CGI, had nothing to do with that decision

http://www.politico.com/story/...al-initiative-227295

if you like your doctor, ....

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
If Trump loses, you can bet your bottom dollar that many of these elected officials will pay dearly for their selfishness.

It pays to be a winner!

For those who fret about the choice we have, have a look at this letter from Harry Truman to Dean Acheson, after the 1960 convention, in which Truman is "blue as indigo" about the choice.

Link

Thanks to the roofing project going on down the street, I was stuck at Firestone yesterday for about 2.5 hours buying new tires......

While there, the waiting room had on nothing but CNN. 2.5 hours of CNN. It was bad enough I was there dumping out $550 for tires but I was also sentenced to 2.5 hours of CNN. First time I had seen the network in at least 10 years.

Want to know how Hillary is staying in the race? All you have to do is watch 2.5 hours of CNN for the answer. The manufactured, fabricated world they have built to benefit Hillary and damage Trump is nothing short of amazing. They never really outright lie to you but they package what they choose to report in a way that leads you to believe, without them bluntly saying so directly, that Hillary is good and Trump is bad. They pick out the things they want to report, avoid what they don't want anyone to know, and then spin it for maximum help to Hillary. They shape the conclusions of the easily manipulated without seeming to bash Trump at all. It's a well-oiled scam and they are very good at it.

Someone in another thread asked how to change the Constitution to avoid the types of elections we are having this year. Not sure how to do so but I'm sure the Framers never anticipated the influence and deception of today's media. Had they, what we know today as the 1st Amendment would likely have been worded much differently.

Headline on Drudge:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2016-08-23-14-35-04

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press.

Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives.

Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

^^^^^^



in·flu·ence ped·dling
nounNORTH AMERICAN
the use of position or political influence on someone's behalf in exchange for money or favors.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
That's encouraging, and I think these people are going to be the key.

Yes sir and, if thats a measure of the voting public, hillz gonna lose big time.. One more time with feeling...Big Time !

regarding the above post on "More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation"

http://www.nationalreview.com/...ent-associated-press

Today’s blockbuster report from the Associated Press about Hillary Clinton’s meetings with Clinton Foundation donors during her time as Secretary of State contained the following nugget: “The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.”

Three years ago. The long wait was in keeping with a practice of slow-walking such requests for information.

In April, the State Department explained the fact that Clinton ignored 237 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by saying that she was sitting Secretary of State at the time the requests were filed.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton received 240 FOIA requests from 2009 to 2013 but only responded to three of them within the legally required timeframe.

Gotta love the james caravelle spin on the clinton foundation:

quote:

What the Clinton Foundation does, it takes money from rich people and gives it to poor people. Most people think that's a pretty good idea," Carville said.

http://www.politico.com/story/...ation-attacks-227305

Trump is in Austin, TX this evening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64zgSMlcFHs

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Gotta love the james caravelle spin on the clinton foundation:

quote:

What the Clinton Foundation does, it takes money from rich people and gives it to poor people. Most people think that's a pretty good idea," Carville said.

http://www.politico.com/story/...ation-attacks-227305

If that's what they did, all they did, everyone would be singing their praises, but it doesn't work that way.

They accept money from rich people who want something from them. If they weren't in a position to deliver, influence, a favor, a recommendation, that money would dry up in a heartbeat, as it will in January, 2017.

quote:

What the Clinton Foundation does, it takes money from rich people and gives it to poor people. Most people think that's a pretty good idea," Carville said.

If only that were true.