An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

Daily Pundit
September 7, 2015


A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion. Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

From your own writing:

[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities. I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget. We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

obama_delivers budget_The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

McConnell and Boehner

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?

Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?

Seriously?

All excellent points..

Spot on.

Agreed!

WORD............

Fer Khrist's sake, stop making sense!

+1 , it'll be over Goldbergs head though , send a copy to O'Reilly, and dare him to read it on air.

Excellent post. A couple of relevant points stand out:



That, and given the other post implying Fox and the GOP are in the tank for Rubio is pure fallacy. Chris Wallace HAMMERED both Cruz and Rubio hard, and frankly, they both deserved it. This race has become an EMARRASSMENT, and as much as it pains me, the only gent in the fight is Kasich (puke). Our ability to drive the nation back to it's senses has been taken away by all these buffoons and rest solely on the FBI Director. Otherwise, say hello to Madam President...

I'm trying to understand why you believe Fox is not supporting Rubio.
------


The 5 Basic Questions Megyn Kelly Forgot to Ask Marco Rubio

Fox Debate Mods and Rubio

Breitbart
Julia Hahn3 Feb 2016


In her Tuesday night interview of donor-class favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL),Fox News’s Megyn Kelly gushed over the young Senator’s ability to deliver a memorized speech without a teleprompter.

However, throughout the interview, Kelly failed to ask the candidate a single substantive question about his desire to enact the open-borders trade and immigration policies endorsed by Fox News’s founder Rupert Murdoch. Instead, Kelly began her interview with Marco Rubio by playing a clip of Rush Limbaugh praising Rubio as a conservative, in spite of Rubio’s push for open borders.

Kelly then asked Rubio these hard-hitting questions:

Let’s start with Rush Limbaugh’s comment, do you agree that you are no moderate centrist?

One of your competitors took a shot at you today, Gov. Chris Christie, who is really hoping to perform better in New Hampshire than he did in Iowa… do you take offense to that, sir, him calling you ‘a boy, a boy in a bubble’?

He says you’re too scripted. You are very smooth. Your acceptance– well, not acceptance [speech]– but your remarks last night were amazing. You were so articulate. There was no teleprompter. To those who say, ‘Oh he’s scripted’– is that scripted or is that just how you talk?

So now that you’re—you know— we got the marco-mentum, as they call it, you know who’s going to come after you both guns blazing. His name starts with D, his last name starts with T. And you’re going to be right in the middle of the cross-hairs for him now that you’re giving him a run for his money. How are you going to handle Donald Trump’s attacks on you?

Do you think it’s time for Jeb Bush to drop out?

What is winning for you in New Hampshire?

Kelly also added: “I will vouch for you — that you have come on the Kelly File regularly and you always sit for the tough questions. And I’ll note for the record, you never complain, never once — even if we ask really tough questions, which I appreciate.”

Noticeably, Kelly’s “tough questions” in last night’s interview did not include a single mention of his support for globalist immigration and trade policies. Below are some questions Kelly did not ask Rubio:

Your 2013 immigration bill would have tripled green card issuances, doubled foreign worker dispensations, and granted citizenship to illegal immigrants. Can you identify a single policy outlined in your Gang of Eight bill that you no longer support?

A supermajority of GOP voters want immigration reduced, but you have repeatedly called for more immigration. Why do you reject what most GOP voters want: less immigration?

You have said you joined the Gang of Eight to get the most conservative bill out of the Senate, but your bill was endorsed by every Senate Democrat, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
and La Raza. So that does mean you are an incompetent negotiator, or that you misrepresented the contents of your bill to the American people?

You continue to insist that your 2013 immigration bill—which would have granted citizenship, and by extension, welfare access and voting privileges, to illegal immigrants— is not amnesty. Why do you believe that every single Republican who campaigned in the 2014 midterm elections against the Gang of Eight bill and called it amnesty–such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
– is wrong and that your bill did not in fact grant amnesty? Under your definition of amnesty, could a President Rubio enact the same legalization provisions of the Gang of Eight bill and still tell voters that you did not grant “amnesty” to illegal immigrants.

You have previously said the Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would be a “pillar” of your presidency. Do you stand by that statement?

Kelly’s questions to Rubio in last night’s interview are reminiscent of her treatment of Rubio during the first FOX News debate, in which she and the moderators asked the following questions. In one question, Kelly essentially asked Rubio if he could put God and veterans in the same sentence.

Chris Wallace asked Rubio: “Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you… are better prepared to be president than he is?”

On immigration, Wallace asked Rubio: “Is it as simple as our leaders are stupid, their leaders are smart, and all of these illegals coming over are criminals?”

Bret Baier asked Rubio: “Why is Governor Bush wrong on Common Core?”

One Facebook questioner asked Rubio to: “Describe one action you would do to make the economic environment more favorable for small businesses and entrepreneurs and anyone dreaming of opening their own business.”

Kelly asked Rubio: “How do you justify ending a life just because it begins violently, through no fault of the baby?”

Kelly also asked: “So I put the question to you about God and the veterans, which you may find to be related.”

As Donald Trump’s campaign has pointed out, Fox News’s vice president of news and Washington managing editor, Bill Sammon, is the father of Marco Rubio’s press secretary, Brooke Sammon.

“The Fox News executive who oversees the debate process, [his] daughter is a senior executive on the Marco Rubio campaign,” Trump’s campaign manager told CNN. “He’s one of the executives on Fox that writes the debate questions so maybe he has his own ulterior motives… maybe he should disclose that before he’s writing the debate questions for Fox.”

Fox News’s founder, Rupert Murdoch, is a co-chair of what is arguably one of the biggest immigration lobbying firms in the country, The Partnership for a New American Economy. Via his lobbying firm, Murdoch has endorsed Rubio’s 2013 amnesty bill, as well as Rubio’s 2015 immigration expansion bill. Murdoch has also endorsed President Obama’s trade agenda, which Rubio has said would be the “second pillar” of a President Rubio’s three-pillar foreign policy strategy.

Interestingly, the name of Murdoch’s immigration lobbying firm relies on the “New American” euphemism commonly used to describe the demographic transformation brought on by immigration. For instance, The National Journal has launched “The Next America” project to chronicle America’s becoming a majority-minority country. Similarly, the White House’s immigration initiative is called the “New Americans Project.” And the Latino Victory Foundation and the “National Partnership for New Americans” recently launched the “New American Democracy Campaign” to get as many immigrants as possible to vote.

Marco Rubio’s campaign theme is “A New American Century.”

The GOP continues to form a circular firing squad using a long lived trusted cartridge: the 7mm Mouser.

I would agree with his points except he seems to try and disavow the Bush Tax cuts . Otherwise he is spot on as to the source of dissatisfaction of the base with Republican Leadership.

jorgeI,

You underestimate the power of charisma. Most Americans don't vote a platform, they vote a person.

I do believe after the first dust up with Kelly, her professionalism went toshit and the animosity is there. That said I do not believe the interview Rubio had with Wallace, or O'Reilly for that matter was anything close to a ballwashing (compared to for example, how O treats Trump).

The letter you quotes SPECIFICALLY states the GOP was against Rubio and while I agree with you he might now be (according to the GOP) the lesser of many evils and now support him, I view it as more or less the same support lip service they paid to Reagan. Bob as it stands I do not believe ANY of the three have what it takes to be President. All three have huge gaping holes in what I like to call the "whole man concept" of what it takes to be C in C. I DO know, that I really don't care who will be the nominee as I will vote for him regardless.

I actually am more than a little disappointed in Rubio and Cruz.

Look, I am Trump supporter, but in no way do I condone Trump acting like an ass when its not merited. I don't like his speeches when he riffs on people about petty stuff and I don't like him talking off the cuff like 'I won the poorly educated vote!".

Given the bigger picture in the world, I would like to have Trump elected president and then suddenly decide that he isn't going to act like an ass anymore and act more like a president.

Rubio and Cruz are different - they have decided they want to be president so bad they're going to lower themselves to becoming a bully ass in the attempt to be more like Trump.

And I agree - Kasich (while losing) is the only one saying "WTF is going on around here...this is the presidency we're talking about, have some decorum"

People keep forgetting that Trump is merely a vessel for the voter anger against establishment. If any other person had taken the position of Trump - positions that the GOP refuses to lock onto - Trump's presidency would be a running joke.

Instead, the running joke is that the RNC will not relent to the will of the people in policy and governance and in fact are telling them they are irrelevant. And they're counting on the Cruz people to join with them in the movement to dethrone Trump.

The problem is the RNC won't give them a Cruz, they're going to give them another Romney - hell, they want Romney now

and Romney is part of the reason Trump is being considered for the presidency!

Talk about not seeing the forest for all of the trees.

I'm fully prepared to take schit on here for years to come for supporting Trump. I see the same things in him that the detractors do, but he's also the only chance we have to address what the heartland wants.

Its a risk I think is worth it.

But the unfortunate side effect of that is the office of the Presidency being diminished even more than electing a 1 term senator from Chicago.

I never thought I'd support a guy with 3 divorces and a glamour model wife and talks off the cuff with insults and cursing

but that's the hope we have for changing the guard in the GOP

so that's who I'm voting for.

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!

But he won't.

MM

Rubio has actually gone batschit crazy and turned his already dubious campaign into a complete farce. Trump's insults at least have substance. When he calls Rubio a lightweight or Cruz a liar, it is impolite but they are comments on their actual qualifications. Even when he famously commented on Carly's face, it was instead of a comment on her looks, a comment on her purpetually scolding and lecturing demeanor. It was brash. It was rude. It was shocking to the hypocritical political set that will say nice things about you to your face while sticking a knife in your back.

But Rubio? He is now reduced to saying that Trump has a small dick. Yeah, seriously, that is the latest. His insults are neither bold nor witty. They are simply sophomoric and in keeping with the lightweight image that Rubio presents, like something that would be a huge hit in the sixth period gym class.

Read that this morning, that ship (Rubio) is going down fast.

I will accept two posits:
1. Trump is a vessel for anger and frustration
2. It is a risk worth taking.

But I will add: I am very worried once he is the nominee, the media (and let's face it MOST of the voting public are just as Trump says, a bunch of uneducated morons ( my word) and will swallow, hook line and sinker what the MSM tells them. I mean do you see the faces of those MORONS at Hillary and Sanders' rallies? Coupled with the fact 47% pay no incoe taxes, I have little hope. As far as Trump and his behavior goes, you can't really "unring" a bell, and he is one caustic, rude, classless jerk and who knows what skeletons lie in his closet. We're fugged.

Edited to add: Yes I saw Rubio's shameful comments about Trump's dick. Little difference in that and what Trump has said many times before.

the only way Trump beats Hillary is if there is unified support behind conservatives,

which at this point seems unlikely.

but lets not confuse that with this idea that Rubio or Cruz would actually have a shot at beating Hillary.

Trump is the best candidate in the Republican field to beat Hillary.

Your opinion is noted and respected. I don't happen to agree with it, then again I've been wrong many times before. In 2008 I would have staked my life this country would never elect obama, much less TWICE and here we are...

The latest polls show Trump beating Hillary in both New York and Long Island.

a single term senator from chicago with a checkered past and a muslim background beating a war hero WASP post 9/11

it may be be the bellwether that conservatives can never win an election with the demographics and mentality of the country.

The Republican party may need to disband and a new one take its place that is less inclusive, very limited on platform and more palatable to the masses.

or it may be that George Bush just left the country in economic ruin and tired of endless wars