Patterico's Pontifications

2/29/2016

Would It Even Make A Difference To His Supporters If Trump’s Immigration Policy Was Just The Candidate Paying Lip Service To Get Elected?

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:27 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I’m not convinced it would.

I heard Ted Cruz interviewed today and he referred to a story about Donald Trump having met with the NYT editorial board last month. The meeting apparently involved a portion of an interview that is off the record where Trump suggested that he doesn’t really believe in his immigration policy and the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants, but is instead playing politics and saying what he needs to say in order to get elected.

“I will say there was a very disturbing story that broke today. That apparently there is a secret tape that The New York Times editorial board has of Donald Trump saying that he doesn’t believe what he’s saying on immigration,” Cruz said. “That all of his promises to secure the border are not real and if he’s president he doesn’t intend to do what he says.”

As a result, Cruz, and now Marco Rubio, are both asking Trump to give his permission for the NYT to release the tape. As it is off-the-record, the NYT would need his approval to release it.

“I call on Donald, ask The New York Times to release the tape. And do so today before the Super Tuesday primary,” Cruz told reporters. “There are one of two instances. It is either false. If Donald didn’t say that to The New York Times he deserves to have this cleared up. And releasing the tape can clear it up. The alternative is that it is true,” Cruz added. “He recently said he loves the poorly educated. Well, I hope it’s not the case that Donald Trump is telling The New York Times editorial board that he is deliberately misleading the voters and he has no intention of doing anything he’s saying right now.”

“The voters deserve to know if he says something different when he’s talking to The New York Times than he does when he’s talking to the voters and we deserve to know before Super Tuesday,” the Texas senator continued.

This weekend, NYT columnist Gail Collins offered this speculation about Trump:

The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn’t believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you’re making a deal. So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session.

Coincidentally, Collins happened to be present at the January 5 meeting with Trump and the editorial board.

And according to BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith:

Sources familiar with the recording and transcript — which have reached near-mythical status at the Times — tell me that the second sentence is a bit more than speculation. It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hardline anti-immigration stance.

Question: Would it even matter to Trump supporters if any of this were true? I’m inclined to think it wouldn’t. Not really. Why would this matter when so many other negative revelations about Trump haven’t caused him to lose any support? But, given that his hard-line immigration stance is the lifeblood of his campaign, without it, what does he really have?

Trump supporters have been unshakable and loyal to a fault, a really big fault, and if this story is true yet doesn’t make them scurry to another candidate, nothing will. Am I right??

–Dana

Trumpstraction

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:28 am

So, have we heard the last of:

  • Trump University?
  • Trump hiring foreign workers to do the jobs Americans would do, but can’t because he won’t hire them?
  • Hiring illegal Polish workers?

I guess so. Trump creates a racial controversy over David Duke — which, to his fans, plays out as Little Guy vs. Media — and everyone immediately forgets the stories that showed his contempt for the little guy.

And the media plays right into it. They have the burglar’s neck in their jaws, and let him go to chase a car driving by. If they caught the car, they wouldn’t know what to do with it.

Someone tell Lincoln that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but apparently you can fool enough of them for a con artist to get control of his party.

Republican Senator Announces He Will Not Support Trump – Even If He Is The Nominee

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:30 am

[guest post by Dana]

Republican senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said back in January, ““I am not endorsing anybody in race and being pro-constitution just makes me anti Trump,” stuck to his guns when he announced this weekend in an open letter to his supporters that he would not be supporting Trump, even if he were the nominee:

The Trump coalition is broad and complicated, but I believe many Trump fans are well-meaning. I have spoken at length with many of you, both inside and outside Nebraska. You are rightly worried about our national direction. You ache about a crony-capitalist leadership class that is not urgent about tackling our crises. You are right to be angry.

I’m as frustrated and saddened as you are about what’s happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump.

Please understand: I’m not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. I’m a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment. My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.

Sasse then goes on to explain that he cannot support a candidate who lacks a fundamental understanding of how government works, as well as the dangers of Trump’s apparent belief that he is running to become the king rather than a public servant of the people.

He also suggests a Trump presidency could put the First Amendment at risk:

So let me ask you: Do you believe the beating heart of Mr. Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe it’s been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment – or an attack on it?

Which of the following quotes give you great comfort that he’s in love with the First Amendment, that he is committed to defending the Constitution, that he believes in executive restraint, that he understands servant leadership?

Statements from Trump:

***“We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”

***“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak…”

***Putin, who has killed journalists and is pillaging Ukraine, is a great leader.

***The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”

***On whether he will use executive orders to end-run Congress, as President Obama has illegally done: “I won’t refuse it. I’m going to do a lot of things.” “I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you.”

***“Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”

***On the internet: “I would certainly be open to closing areas” of it.

***His lawyers to people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt…”

***Similar threatening legal letters to competing campaigns running ads about his record.

And I’ll just throw in this portion:

Given what we know about him today, here’s where I’m at: If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.

I do not claim to speak for a movement, but I suspect I am far from alone. After listening to Nebraskans in recent weeks, and talking to a great many people who take oaths seriously, I think many are in the same place. I believe a sizable share of Christians – who regard threats against religious liberty as arguably the greatest crisis of our time – are unwilling to support any candidate who does not make a full-throated defense of the First Amendment a first commitment of their candidacy.

Coming on the heels of Alabama’s Sen. Jeff Sessions surprising announcement that he would be supporting Trump, Ben Sasse’s unwavering stand for true Conservatism provides a welcome reminder that the surrender is not across the board.

Read his letter in its entirety.

–Dana


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1578 secs.