Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Senior writer at so-called "right wing" Daily Caller in August 2016 advocated Republican surrender to Hillary since she was definitely going to win, and Trump couldn't possibly win. GOP should offer 'negotiated surrender to Hillary', maybe one judge, a few policy concessions, says Hillary would likely be better for country anyway-Jamie Weinstein, 8/8/2016, Daily Caller

So-called "Right-wing" news site, The Daily Caller, exemplifies what passes for "right wing" media. It published a piece by "senior writer" Jamie Weinstein in August 2016, calling for Republican surrender to Hillary. Meaning not that The Daily Caller is a Democrat or liberal site but a Deep State site. Its general business model may be to attract certain readers, but when it mattered most, it stabbed a large portion of its customers in the back. Its founders are Tucker Carlson (also a Fox News host), and Neil Patel (former VP Dick Cheney's chief policy advisor) who is also its publisher. Article follows 3 "right wing" link citations:
  1. The Daily Caller, in case you needed more confirmation, is ...

    The right-wing news site helped unleash a torrent of online bigotry ... in case you needed more confirmation, is garbage. ... The Daily Caller covered this under ...
  2. Right-wing rag Daily Caller rails against ... - Salon

    Jun 21, 2017 · In any case, the truth about the Daily Caller’s wine club is that it— like many cynical right-wing websites — presents an opportunity to monetize the ...
    1. Right-wing rag Daily Caller rails against “coastal elites...

      news8grandrapids.com › News
      Right-wing rag Daily Caller rails against "coastal elites," then asks its readers to buy $90 cases of "Deplorable" brand California wine The mass email from The Daily ...

8/8/2016, "The Case For A Negotiated Republican Surrender To Hillary," Daily Caller, Jamie Weinstein, Senior Writer

"It’s time for Republican leaders to consider a negotiated endorsement of Hillary Clinton."...

[Ed. note: "Republican leaders?" You're not a "leader" unless you have followers. As of August 2016, no elected Republicans had any followers. Trump, the GOP nominee, was the party's de facto leader. As of Nov. 2016, he had nearly 63 million followers.]

(continuing): "Barring a Wikileaks revelation showing Clinton to be a secret member of ISIS, she seems to be on a glide path to the White House. Instead of Donald Trump attempting to expand his base since securing the Republican nomination, he is politically self-immolating on a national stage. Trump apologists keep saying he will soon change course. But the only way for Trump to change course is to change who he is. That’s not going to happen.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps humiliating the Republican bigwigs who reluctantly endorsed him, be it by attacking the parents of a fallen U.S. soldier [Deep State GOP hoped this non-issue meant the end for Trump] or refusing to immediately reciprocate their endorsements of him.

Why do Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other Republicans continue to allow Trump to sap their dignity, especially as it becomes increasingly clear he is going to lose?

And even if he did win, what would there be to celebrate? Trump stands against so much of what conservatives have been fighting for since Ronald Reagan."...

[Ed. note: "Have been fighting for?" What "fighting" has taken place (apart from writing articles)? Who are the "conservatives" that have done this alleged "fighting"? What results have they had in the past 30+ years?]

(continuing): "So what to do? The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza recently posed an interesting question on Twitter.

“What if Hillary offered Republicans one SCOTUS pick? Would that open the floodgates for skeptical Republicans to rescind support for Trump,” he asked.

Why not go one step further? Given that Trump is on track to lose and given that his presidency might very well be worse for the country and conservatism than Hillary’s anyway, why don’t Republican lawmakers band together and see if they can come to some sort of deal with Hillary?

More precisely, top Republican and conservative leaders should band together and offer Hillary a deal to rescind their endorsements of Trump and endorse her in exchange for some policy concessions.
What would a possible deal look like, you ask?

In exchange for an endorsement, Hillary might promise Republicans the right to choose whom she nominates to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. She should also be pushed to agree to some entitlement reform, perhaps in the form of Simpson-Bowles (not the best fix to our entitlement crisis, but better than anything Republicans can hope for when even the Republican presidential nominee rejects the need for entitlement reform). Maybe Republicans could even get her to commit to putting together a bi-partisan (or non-partisan) national security team to include widely respected figures like former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and retired Gen. James Mattis."...

[Ed. note: Truly nauseating. "Widely respected" Bob Gates is among the worst of Deep State phonies.] 

(continuing): "In addition to a public endorsement, the Republican legislators might agree to do everything they can to push through a Gang of Eight-style immigration bill if Hillary is elected. They might also promise to do their best to get her an up-or-down vote on any Supreme Court nominations she makes during her first term. 

If she demands it, they even agree to help her achieve a federal minimum wage increase.

This wouldn’t be a bad deal. In fact, it would be a pretty damn good deal given where the Republican Party finds itself.

Ideally, the Republican delegation would include a wide range of respected Republicans and conservatives from both the establishment and anti-establishment,"...

[Ed. note: "A wide range of respected"? Pal, you don't have even one, much less "a wide range." By August 2016, Trump had resoundingly defeated whatever "respected" Republicans had to offer.]

(continuing): "but for it to matter to Hillary, it must also definitely include Republican congressional leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (and as many other members of Congress as possible) who would actually be in a position of fulfill the commitments of a deal.

The real question isn’t whether such a deal would be good for Republicans given their current circumstances, but why Hillary Clinton would even contemplate such a deal at this point? Every day, Trump seems to do something new to ensure he will lose in a landslide, and possibly take the Republican Senate and House with him. As the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg recently observed, he is not so much running a national campaign as a national speaking tour.

Given all this, Hillary might say, “no dice. I am on track to win this election with possibly a Democratic Senate and even a Democratic House. I don’t need to come to any accommodation. Thanks, but no thanks.”

But there are a couple reasons why Clinton might be inclined to come to an agreement. For starters, while Trump looks like he is tanking, you can never be so sure. A deal would make it more likely Hillary wins the White House, something she cares more about than any policy initiative.

Beyond that, a deal could be good for Hillary’s presidential legacy. If she can enlist Republican support in achieving some of her big policy goals before she is even sworn in, why not take it? Even the entitlement reform plank is something deep down she must know is necessary. History would remember her fondly for breaking from party orthodoxy to achieve something important for the country.

No matter who wins in November, conservatives have very little to look forward to politically over the next four years. A deal like this, fanciful as it may appear, would temper the pain."



Added: NY Times Editorial Board said this on May 3, 2016:

Above, headline of NY Times Editorial, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition 

Even the NY Times Editorial Board admitted that the 2016 Republican voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them."...
May 3, 2016, By The NY Times Editorial Board:

"Republican leaders have for years failed to think about much of anything beyond winning the next election. Year after year, the party’s candidates promised help for middle-class people who lost their homes, jobs and savings to recession, who lost limbs and well-being to war, and then did next to nothing.

That Mr. Trump was able to enthrall voters by promising simply to “Make America Great Again” — but offering only xenophobic, isolationist or fantastical ideas — is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them."...

Added: "The real landslide of 2016" was what Trump did to the GOP in the primaries;

1/3/2017, "Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016."...CNBC, Jake Novak


Added: The two major parties are really one UniParty, extreme globalists who share views on loose borders (if any at all), endless military interventions, and massive free trade deals. That leaves half the electorate without a political party:

6/27/2016, "The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists." 

"He managed to prevail—to mount the most astonishingly successful insurgent campaign against a party establishment in our lifetimes....He won the GOP’s untapped residue of nationalist voters, in a system where the elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists. He won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American.

He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable. He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation....
In foreign policy, the liberal interventionists who would staff a Hillary administration line up seamlessly with neoconservatives in support of continued American “hegemony.” Opposition to this establishment consensus has been advancing, by fits and starts, and is now too large to be ignored."...

6/27/2016, "Why Trump Wins," "He knows border wars have replaced culture wars." The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell

Added: More on so-called "right wing" or "conservative" media by Doug Ibendahl in his Jan. 2016 article. He says Conservative Entertainment Complex "nattering nabobs of negativism" have been "hanging around and chattering for decades, and some are active cogs in the Conservative Entertainment Complex, deriving their income by pandering to conservative anger while offering no real solutions." The following article on this topic by Mr. Ibendahl was prompted by National Review's Jan. 2016 issue entitled, "Against Trump." (image at end of post) featuring 22 anti-Donald Trump missives from "self-appointed conservative potentates." "The Gang of 22 had their chance. They’ve done a lot of bitching over the years, and it paid well for some. But Americans care about results. They can plainly see that all of the empty talk from the Gang of 22 [alphabetical list] got us eight years of Barack Obama, and a loss in pretty much every conservative battle there was to lose:"
1/22/2016, "National Review just handed Donald Trump the Election," Republican Newswatch, by Doug Ibendahl "Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party."

11/9/2015, Trump in Springfield, Illinois

"National Review’s publication of the collective anti-Donald Trump missives from 22 self-appointed conservative potentates has caused quite a stir in Republican circles.

The nationwide responses range from, “Wait, I thought National Review went out of business years ago,” to “Ed Meese? Seriously?

The Gang of 22 have officially become parodies of themselves. One would have to reach back to the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew to lift an adequate quote to describe them.

“Nattering nabobs of negativism,” “vicars of vacillation,” “pusillanimous pussyfooters,” “the decadent few,” “ideological eunuchs,” “the effete corps of impudent snobs,” or “the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history” – take your pick, because they all apply about equally well to each and every one of them.

So clueless is the Gang of 22 they can’t even see how they’ve stumbled right into the narrative Trump’s been communicating so successfully for months. Just like the elected officials from both parties, the Gang of 22 has been GREAT at complaining about stuff, year, after year, after year.

But getting anything accomplished? Not so much.
Many of the Gang of 22 have been hanging around and chattering for decades, and some are active cogs in the Conservative Entertainment Complex, deriving their income by pandering to conservative anger while offering no real solutions.
Donald Trump represents a threat to these ineffectual poohbahs in the same way he represents a threat to do-nothing public officials.
Jealousy is also seriously at work here. Trump is inspiring and exciting a broad spectrum of the country like no member of the Gang of 22 ever has, or ever will.

In just seven months of campaigning, Trump already has more Americans listening to a Republican message than the entire Gang of 22 could muster over decades. Trump understands that before you can advance the ball, you have to convince people to take time from their busy lives to listen. No one on the GOP side since Ronald Reagan has accomplished that like Trump.

No one else has come close, and certainly no one from that “effete corps of impudent snobs” to which the National Review thinks we should defer.

The Gang of 22 had their chance. They’ve done a lot of bitching over the years, and it paid well for some
But Americans care about results. They can plainly see that all of the empty talk from the Gang of 22 got us eight years of Barack Obama, and a loss in pretty much every conservative battle there was to lose.
At the same time when Americans look at Donald Trump’s life they get a lot of assurance that here is finally a man who shares their focus on actually getting results. And Trump returns the respect by recognizing regular hard-working Americans are a lot smarter than any of the “ideological eunuchs” in all of their pontificating glory.

The “pusillanimous pussyfooters” love to nitpick Trump’s words, but what voters are looking for this year is competence and accomplishment. Donald Trump has an actual record of delivering both in spades.
The Gang of 22 is right to be terrified. A President who could get things done would expose them as the irrelevant creatures they truly are.
It can’t happen fast enough."
Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party." image via Republican Newswatch


Added: Image of National Review cover, "Against Trump," Jan. 21, 2016
Jan. 21, 2016 NR cover


No comments: