A Republican 'Firewall" against Trump
We are beginning to see a plausible Republican “firewall” against Donald Trump. You’d expect to read about it in the New York Times, but the paper is too busy helping the Clinton campaign (Bernie can’t win, Bernie faces cool reception from Blacks, etc) to strike out editorially against a clear and present danger to the Republic: Donald Trump.
No, I first ran across the vision of a blueprint for blocking Trump in The Washington Post. In early December the Post Editorial board wrote:
“As Mr. Trump’s fellow Republican candidates now acknowledge, there is a real-world cost to a campaign that gains traction by spewing hatred, bigotry and rage. Criticizing Mr. Trump is no longer sufficient. It is time to say clearly he is anathema to the Republican Party, and to the nation.
The full editorial is HERE.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ending-the-gops-season-of-denial/2015/12/08/b8549424-9dd3-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html?tid=a_inl
Then, yesterday (Feb. 21) Danielle Allen, a Post contributing columnist, gets down to cases urging those Republican candidates who have dropped out, or should drop out, to, as a “great act of public service” revoke their pledge to support whomever the Republican party nominates.
“Be bold,” she writes, “stand up and shout that you will not support Trump if he is your party’s nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference.”
She calls for the also-rans to endorse Marco Rubio, not because she does (she plans to vote for Hillary Clinton), but because Rubio is NOT Trump, whom she calls an opportunistic demagogue. Trump’s tactic of exploiting a divided nation are akin to Hitler’s, she says, citing Hannah Arendt’s book “Men in Dark Times.”
In closing, Allen calls on Sen. Ted Cruz to withdraw as well and to support Rubio. Addressing Cruz directly, she writes, “You are drawing too close to Trump’s politics. You too should change course."
She points the finger at the non-Trump Republican candidates, saying, “You are the ones on whom this burden falls. No one else can do it.”
Her column can be read HERE:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/moment-of-truth-we-must-stop-trump/2016/02/21/0172e788-d8a7-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
The dilemma for anyone-but-Trump Republicans is clear. Should the Republican convention reject the billionaire bully, Trump no doubt would launch an independent campaign that would ensure victory for whomever the Democrats nominate. On the other hand, with Trump carrying the Republican banner into November, there’s no certainty either Clinton or Sanders would win (although the polls, for what they’re worth in this wacko year, suggest that Sanders has a better shot.)
So the Republicans have a choice: Do they want a wing-nut, unstable, racist Republican demagogue in the White House or one of those shifty, lefty Democrats?
No, I first ran across the vision of a blueprint for blocking Trump in The Washington Post. In early December the Post Editorial board wrote:
“As Mr. Trump’s fellow Republican candidates now acknowledge, there is a real-world cost to a campaign that gains traction by spewing hatred, bigotry and rage. Criticizing Mr. Trump is no longer sufficient. It is time to say clearly he is anathema to the Republican Party, and to the nation.
The full editorial is HERE.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ending-the-gops-season-of-denial/2015/12/08/b8549424-9dd3-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html?tid=a_inl
Then, yesterday (Feb. 21) Danielle Allen, a Post contributing columnist, gets down to cases urging those Republican candidates who have dropped out, or should drop out, to, as a “great act of public service” revoke their pledge to support whomever the Republican party nominates.
“Be bold,” she writes, “stand up and shout that you will not support Trump if he is your party’s nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference.”
She calls for the also-rans to endorse Marco Rubio, not because she does (she plans to vote for Hillary Clinton), but because Rubio is NOT Trump, whom she calls an opportunistic demagogue. Trump’s tactic of exploiting a divided nation are akin to Hitler’s, she says, citing Hannah Arendt’s book “Men in Dark Times.”
In closing, Allen calls on Sen. Ted Cruz to withdraw as well and to support Rubio. Addressing Cruz directly, she writes, “You are drawing too close to Trump’s politics. You too should change course."
She points the finger at the non-Trump Republican candidates, saying, “You are the ones on whom this burden falls. No one else can do it.”
Her column can be read HERE:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/moment-of-truth-we-must-stop-trump/2016/02/21/0172e788-d8a7-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
The dilemma for anyone-but-Trump Republicans is clear. Should the Republican convention reject the billionaire bully, Trump no doubt would launch an independent campaign that would ensure victory for whomever the Democrats nominate. On the other hand, with Trump carrying the Republican banner into November, there’s no certainty either Clinton or Sanders would win (although the polls, for what they’re worth in this wacko year, suggest that Sanders has a better shot.)
So the Republicans have a choice: Do they want a wing-nut, unstable, racist Republican demagogue in the White House or one of those shifty, lefty Democrats?
Labels: Bernie Sanders, Danielle Allen, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, New York Times, Republicans, Ted Cruz, Washington Post
posted by Rick Seifert at
5:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home