Patterico's Pontifications

10/5/2023

MAGA House Members’ Wacko Idea: Trump For Speaker of the House!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:26 am



[guest post by Dana]

Sure, why not. Crazy is as crazy does:

Texas Rep. Troy Nehls said in a statement Tuesday afternoon his first order of business when the House reconvenes “will be to nominate Donald J. Trump for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

“President Trump, the greatest President of my lifetime, has a proven record of putting America First and will make the House great again,” he said.

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., followed suit in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Tuesday evening: “@realDonaldTrump for Speaker.”

Additionally:

Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Troy Nehls (R-Texas) have been the most vocal proponents of electing Trump to the speakership, with the former saying Trump is the “only candidate” she is supporting at the moment, and the latter vowing to nominate him.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who introduced the measure to dethrone McCarthy, has also said that “’Speaker Trump’ has a great ring to it.”

While a speaker does not have to be a current sitting member in the House, Trump may be ineligible because of Rule 26 (from the House Republican Conference Rules of the 118th Congress):

A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years’ imprisonment may be imposed.

So, is Trump interested in the position?

“Lot of people have been calling me about speaker, all I can say is we’ll do whatever is best for the country and for the Republican Party…My focus is totally on [the presidency]. If I can help them during the process, I’ll do it. But we have some great people in the Republican Party that could do a great job as speaker,” Trump said.

Of course he’s interested…

P.S. Only House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan have announced that they are running for the speaker of the House.

-Dana

61 Responses to “MAGA House Members’ Wacko Idea: Trump For Speaker of the House!”

  1. Good heavens!

    Dana (932d71)

  2. This idea of making Trump Speaker of the House has been touted for maybe two years – long before he became ineligible (or required to resign) because of his indictments.

    Sammy Finkelman (7661fb)

  3. As Paul Montagu noted on an earlier thread, Republican Conference rule 26 prohibits anyone from becoming Speaker who are under indictment. However, I would believe that if enough Republicans wanted Trump to be Speaker, they would overturn that rule. Also, Trump could be exempt from rule 26 since he is not a member of the House of Representatives:

    All Republican Members of the House of Representatives (including Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and other Members of the House as determined by the Republican Conference of the House of Representatives (“the Conference”) shall be Members of the Conference.

    Comedy Gold!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  4. The Gaetz people will block all of these as their demands are extreme. I doubt that even Trump would submit.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  5. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:54 am

    Trump as Speaker fantasy camp.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  6. There are probably a dozen Democrats would would vote for someone more to their liking. It might be hard to get the tank & file on board, but it would be easier than what Gaetz demands.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  7. * who would

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  8. Rip, I still don’t believe that Trump can get around the “indicted for a felony” language, per Rule 2. The Speaker is part of elected Republican leadership, and Trump would have been be elected to the Speakership, just not in the way other representatives got there. Of course, they could change the House rules, but wouldn’t they need a Speaker for that rule-change to happen?

    But I think it’s all moot. IMO, Trump won’t throw his hat in because Speaker’s job takes real work, and he’s got other things on his plate.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  9. There are probably a dozen Democrats would would vote for someone more to their liking. It might be hard to get the tank & file on board, but it would be easier than what Gaetz demands.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:59 am

    Won’t happen. Reposted from the last Weekend Open Thread:

    Only once in past 70 years has a member of one party voted for the Speaker candidate of another:

    Notably, in 2001, a Member who bore the designation of one major party voted for the nominee of the other. Although the table below does not indicate the party affiliation of the Members voting for each candidate, examination of other available records confirms that no such action had occurred at least for the previous half century.9

    9Subsequently, in organizing for that Congress (the 107th), the party caucus against whose nominee the Member voted declined to provide him with committee assignments.

    Source.

    So it is highly unlikely that any Democrats will vote for a Republican Speaker (or vice versa). It’s a Republican problem.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  10. Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:03 am

    As I said, Trump as Speaker fantasy camp.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  11. Of course, they could change the House rules, but wouldn’t they need a Speaker for that rule-change to happen?

    No. It’s a Republican Conference rule, not a House rule.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  12. No.

    Trump needs to drop out and focus on defending his indictments.

    Especially probably the most dangerous, is the NY civil case that effectively sentenced the Trump company to death in NY.

    whembly (5f7596)

  13. Trump needs to drop out and focus on defending his indictments.

    Especially probably the most dangerous, is the NY civil case that effectively sentenced the Trump company to death in NY.

    whembly (5f7596) — 10/5/2023 @ 11:14 am

    LOL! Highly unlikely. He could always relocate the Trump Organization, Inc. to a more friendly state (or country), like Texas (or the Cayman Islands).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  14. I would consider the Federal election subversion, Espionage Act, and Georgia indictments far more dangerous than anything else, since each one of them could end in the loss of his freedom for a theoretical total of nearly 600 years.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  15. Trump will love being considered but the whole speakership is nonsense until we get a defining election…and a broad majority. It can be a vehicle to throw Ukraine funding into uncertainty…maybe…but otherwise it’s just posturing up to 2024. Few in that body are earning their money and demonstrating leadership.

    Trump can’t be distracted from his cases or the swing states. And Trump offers no hope of compromise…just more theater.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  16. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 11:22 am

    . He could always relocate the Trump Organization, Inc. to a more friendly state (or country), like Texas (or the Cayman Islands).

    He’s got assets in New York. Buildings, golf courses. Turning their entire management over to lawyers could be a license to steal money, like probate.

    Trump’s lawyers can be expected to argue against at least the punishment, if Trump will let them.

    Trump has left New York and gone back to Mar-a-Lago. He only attended probably so he would have an excuse to ask to delay some other proceeding.

    At one point he claimed the judge had knocked out 80% of the case and the judge issued a clarification. (there was some testimony about instructions he had given in 2011 – and the case does not go back further than 2014)

    Sammy FInkelman (c5132f)

  17. whembly, demonstrating he’s a rational person, gives the right answer to this idea at #12. Campaigning for President and attending trials gives Trump no time to actually work as Speaker.

    When this idea first came up in January, I thought it not that bad an idea. Trump is the leader of his party after all, and this formalizes that relationship. I just can’t visualize Trump doing what the Speaker does.

    Appalled (721968)

  18. LOL! Highly unlikely. He could always relocate the Trump Organization, Inc. to a more friendly state (or country), like Texas (or the Cayman Islands).

    Yeah, but he’d have to leave behind his money and possessions.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  19. I think that Trump’s biggest problem is his own big mouth. Eve3ntually, he is going to violate trial rules or otherwise piss off a judge so much that the idea of locking up a Presidential candidate will look better than not doing it.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  20. In the future, people will look back at present times and shake their heads that so many people fell for Trump. Just as we do when looking back at the Salem witch trials. I mean, how could those New Englanders have been so stupid?

    norcal (cccc9b)

  21. I just can’t visualize Trump doing what the Speaker does.

    I can:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzbhbetwYFU

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  22. https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/shooting-the-hostage/

    AllahNick grasps the dilemma in the Republican Party.

    I often compare the GOP to a hostage crisis. Populists have taken the party hostage and are forever threatening to shoot it by boycotting elections if conservatives don’t support their preferences, which in practice means supporting Trump unthinkingly. Conservatives could shoot the hostage themselves by boycotting elections until the Trumpists relent, ending the crisis. But they can’t bear the thought of Democratic victories. They’re too partisan to let the other party win. Populists are not. And so the crisis grinds on.

    Emphasis mine.

    I see some people here and elsewhere who continue to fit this partisan description, thus letting the crazies win.

    norcal (cccc9b)

  23. I read that the House passed a separate bill to fund aid to Ukraine before the continuing resolution was passed. So all the Senate would have to do is pass that House bill. Or was that wrong, and they only passed the rule?

    I found this:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4228785-house-advances-ukraine-aid-
    after-leaders-strip-money-from-defense-spending-bill

    …The chamber voted 217-211 to adopt the rule — which governs debate on legislation — for the five-page bill, kicking off debate in the chamber. The legislation appropriates the $300 million for fiscal 2024.

    The $300 million in aid for Ukraine, which had initially been included in the Pentagon appropriations bill, has been a source of controversy within the House GOP conference, prompting Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to flip-flop on the matter three times ahead of Thursday’s vote.

    House GOP leaders moved late Wednesday night to strip the funding from the Defense bill and hold a separate vote on it amid uncertainty regarding the legislation’s chances of passing. Top Republicans made that decision even after the House — including a majority of Republicans — overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to strip the $300 million from the Defense appropriations bill.

    The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), failed in a 330-104 vote.

    The late-night decision marked the third time the game plan for the Ukraine funding had changed.

    Last week, McCarthy told reporters that he would strip the funding from the Defense bill and hold a separate vote on the aid after Greene joined a band of conservatives in voting down the rule for the appropriations measure, which was enough opposition to tank the procedural vote. It was the second time in three days that hard-liners sank efforts to advance the Pentagon spending bill.

    But the day after McCarthy vowed to separate the Ukraine aid from the Defense bill, the Speaker reversed course, telling reporters that he would keep the funding for Kyiv in the legislation. He said he made that decision after recognizing that another appropriations bill set to come up — one funding the State Department and foreign operations — also included money for Ukraine.

    The Speaker said stripping Ukraine aid from the State Department bill “became too difficult to do,” so he decided to keep the money in both. The two appropriations bills were included in the same rule, along with two others.

    The House ultimately advanced the rule containing the four bills Tuesday, with Greene as the only Republican to vote “no.” But amid uncertainty over the Defense bill’s chances of passing, the House Rules Committee convened a last-minute hearing to remove the funds and hold a separate vote on them.

    Sammy Finkelman (c5132f)

  24. There is a third path: A full party schism. Leave the party to the hostage takers and form a new one.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  25. I actually hope something like that happens.

    Sammy Finkelman (c5132f)

  26. How long would a schism persist…maybe until Trump no longer wants to play the part….or maybe one of his sons can assume the role….or Tucker…or Ramaswamy. The right-wing infotainment sphere might tell us how long things go. How long does it remain profitable? One would hope it collapses in disgrace with Trump’s crashing legal affairs, but who knows? If 50% of the GOP stays with “clown car” what happens with the other 50? Do the Democrats win for generations or will the 50% wed to Trump end the honeymoon? Some will say that they will absolutely not leave after 8 years in the run up to 2024…but in a year from now, they will. Maybe.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  27. You need to split the Democratic Party, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (c5132f)

  28. Ouch! Discussing the worst Republicans, AllahNick has this observation:

    …Cruz never seemed to be anything other than the panderer and grandstander that he was, willing to follow populist Republicans down any hole in hopes that they’d make him president someday. If you find yourself disappointed by his career trajectory, that’s less a matter of him behaving uncharacteristically than you having been a poor judge of character to begin with.

    Emphasis mine.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  29. Although, to read AllahNick these days, I have a prediction: No matter who the GOP candidate is he will unable to vote for them.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  30. There is a third path: A full party schism. Leave the party to the hostage takers and form a new one.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:43 pm

    I agree too.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  31. You need to split the Democratic Party, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (c5132f) — 10/5/2023 @ 2:19 pm

    LOL! Why should we care?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  32. How long would a schism persist…..

    How about permanently? Let the Trump deadenders have their party that becomes more and more irrelevant, and create a new moderate conservative party that starts by winning state and congressional elections in 2026 and fields a presidential candidate in 2028.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  33. @31. We should care because unless there’s a new coalition party of the non-crazies from both sides, a GOP schism would mean the current Democratic Party, including their crazies, will govern for the foreseeable future.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  34. We should care because unless there’s a new coalition party of the non-crazies from both sides, a GOP schism would mean the current Democratic Party, including their crazies, will govern for the foreseeable future.

    It’s not something that requires any effort: The moment that partisan Democrats no longer fear that jettisoning their crazies will mean Emperor Trump, they’ll do it too.

    After that? Hard to say. Maybe a coalition party in the center for a while, but so long as we have a first-past-the-post electoral system that’s rather unstable. I’d expect a realignment, on different fault lines. Perhaps libertarian-lite versus statist-lite. Right now the two parties are a mixture.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  35. We should care because unless there’s a new coalition party of the non-crazies from both sides……

    lurker (cd7cd4) — 10/5/2023 @ 4:33 pm

    Coalition parties rarely work. I can’t think of any that are successful.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  36. Those who feel that social issues require government control are generally willing to agree that other things (e.g. money and business) need government control, so long as they get their issues controlled. ANd the flip side is also true.

    Right now we have one party that supports [fairly] free economics, but has a sizable contingent that opposes social freedoms. The other party would command the economy from the top, but not only supports radical social freedom, but would use the state to insist on it.

    One of the reasons that Trump took over the GOP is that the tension between the social statists and the economic libertarians had reached a peak of tension. The GOP is now realigning to a fully statist party. Which makes two of those.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  37. Coalition parties rarely work. I can’t think of any that are successful.

    It depends on the electoral system. Ours tends to reward strong differences. If there was a system that favored moderation (like my oft-repeated one-vote, multiple victor system) then a centrist party could work. After all the People are mostly in the center of whatever Overton window is active, but the differentiation that out electoral system reinforces means that we have bimodal representation of a Gaussian population.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  38. Comedy Gold!

    Former President Donald Trump told Fox News Digital that he would accept a short-term role as speaker of the House of Representatives to serve as a “unifier” for the Republican Party until lawmakers reach a decision on who should take on the post.
    ………..
    “I have been asked to speak as a unifier because I have so many friends in Congress,” Trump told Fox News Digital. “If they don’t get the vote, they have asked me if I would consider taking the speakership until they get somebody longer-term, because I am running for president.”

    “They have asked me if I would take it for a short period of time for the party, until they come to a conclusion — I’m not doing it because I want to — I will do it if necessary, should they not be able to make their decision,” Trump said.
    ………..
    Trump stressed that if Republicans cannot come to a consensus, he would take the speakership for a short “30, 60, or 90-day period.”
    ……….
    ……….Trump told Fox News Digital that he will visit Washington, D.C., on Tuesday and plans to be on Capitol Hill to speak with members of the House Republican Conference as they consider who will become the next speaker.
    ……….

    Chuck Schumer on Speaker Trump:

    “We’ve seen a Trump rally at the Capitol already”.

    LOL!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. There is no evidence that factions of either the Democrats or Republicans have an interest in working together.

    US political parties fantasy camp.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  40. There is no evidence that factions of either the Democrats or Republicans have an interest in working together.

    Elected officials? No, they don’t. But they are part of a system that is DESIGNED to avoid the center, when the people who vote have views more towards the center.

    People have views like this.

    Elected politicians fall into camps, like this.

    A centrist party is unstable. It can exist (e.g. the British Liberal Party), but it is never going to control. Then again, a 30 vote centrist party in Congress might have a big effect. Unlike the Brits, though, our system makes that a lot harder.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  41. Speaking of other things on Trump’s plate, add another indictment for spilling nuclear secrets to a foreign businessman. This is maddening.

    Also, Trump has had five private conversations with Putin, details concealed by Trump.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  42. Take the current situation, and imaging Biden vs Trump vs a truly centrist party ticket.

    Not only would both parties be aghast, they would spend a lot of their time and money to convince voters that the centrist party could not win, or would give the “wrong” side the victory.

    “Don’t waste your vote!!! Vote for someone you despise!!!”

    Although they probably would try to be less transparent.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  43. This is maddening.

    What’s worse is I have a growing feeling we have not yet heard the worst of it.

    And part of me expects Biden to have a sleaze eruption as well. Perhaps involving little girls considering how handsy he gets.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  44. Mr. Kerr has a point, Kevin…

    If Trump was volunteering U.S. nuclear secrets to a foreign businessman at Mar-a-Lago, imagine how much stuff foreign agents have gotten out of Trump by posing as friends and allies there. So easy anyone could do it.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  45. Coalition parties rarely work. I can’t think of any that are successful.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:25 pm

    You asked why we should care if the GOP splinters, but the Democrats don’t. That’s the question I answered, not whether a third party solution would be viable.

    As for the latter question, I agree that in our system, third parties are a long odds proposition. But as anyone with a passing familiarity with probability knows, one out of eleven times the ten to one shot does come in… but only if it takes the field. I’ll bet the Baltimore Orioles are pretty stoked they didn’t just stay home waiting for the oddsmakers to give them a chance in Hell of winning anything.

    I’m on record as opposing third parties in our current prisoner’s dilemma. As awful as the Democrats are, I believe they’re a far less dangerous evil than a Trumpist-led GOP. That form of GOP returning to power is a risk I’m unwilling to take. But if sane Republicans were to shed the Trumpists, the currently configured Democrats would become the greater evil. In those circumstances, trying to form a coalition of the sane, however difficult and unlikely, would be a worthy project. What would there be to lose?

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  46. “I often compare the GOP to a hostage crisis. Populists have taken the party hostage and are forever threatening to shoot it by boycotting elections if conservatives don’t support their preferences.”

    It was nevertrumpers like AllahPundit who not only threatened to shoot the hostage by boycotting elections (or voting Democrat) but actually carried out the threat through two election cycles. Now a third. I suppose that’s “good” hostage taking, as opposed to the “bad” kind. I’m sure AllahPundit has this hypocrisy all sorted out in his head.

    lloyd (0636c2)

  47. But if sane Republicans were to shed the Trumpists…….

    Not in this election cycle…..

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  48. In those circumstances, trying to form a coalition of the sane, however difficult and unlikely, would be a worthy project. What would there be to lose?

    lurker (cd7cd4) — 10/5/2023 @ 6:59 pm

    As I have made very clear, I see and deal with politics as it is, not as I wish it be. I find the latter to be too speculative and not worth the time spent.

    Rip Murdock (840fa1)

  49. “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

    –G B Shaw

    Then there are those who look at things the way they are and ask nothing.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  50. Populists have not taken the party hostage they have taken it over! Populists are 65% of the party another 20% conservative republicans ;but don’t hate trump. That leaves an ever dwindling 15% never trumpers like here. Check out the lake/robeson primary election for what the future holds. When I hear the word “culture” I reach for my gun! H. Himmler and your average trump voter/

    asset (63f3ca)

  51. Jim Jordan taking the early lead for Speaker. The same Jim Jordan who probably had as much advance warning of the J6 Capitol siege as anyone…and who was in close contact with the principals. If the GOP is committed to self destruct, yeah, vote for Jordan. Personally, I think Jordan should also be showing up on Jack Smith’s radar.

    AJ_Liberty (76244f)

  52. And unlike McCarthy, whom Trump left to dangle back in January, Trump has now endorsed Jordan.

    What I am worried about, though, is that both the Russians and the Chinese are working on hypersonic, long-range Speakers with stealth capabilities, and we are going to be left behind in the international Speaker race.

    Anyway ….

    nk (e4e01d)

  53. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s deplorable supporters.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview on Thursday with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour called for a systemic deprogramming of Donald Trump’s MAGA “cult members.” Clinton acknowledged that the former president will likely be the Republican party’s presidential nominee.

    Clinton said Trump’s “negative, nasty form of politics” resonates with his supporters because they may not like migrants, and are homophobic, racist, and misogynistic.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/10/05/hillary_clinton_there_needs_to_be_a_formal_deprogramming_of_the_trump_cult_members.html

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  54. I cannot see Jim Jordan getting 217 votes.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  55. Comedy Gold!

    Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) said House Republicans would change House rules if need be to make former President Donald Trump the next House Speaker.
    …………….
    Rule 26 began trending online as users were considering whether Trump could be Speaker given his felony indictments. ………..

    In a Thursday interview with NewsMax, Steube brushed off the users’ concerns, saying “First of all, Trump wouldn’t be a member of the House. So at the current moment, the rules don’t apply to him.”

    Steube said that if Trump’s prospects of becoming Speaker were to progress he could guarantee that Republicans would make it happen.

    “We are in the majority, we can change the rules at any time. There are things that we can do to change the rules and it will not be a problem,” he said.
    ………….

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  56. I cannot see Jim Jordan getting 217 votes.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:10 am

    Adam Kinzinger predicts Jordan will be next Speaker
    ………..
    In an interview on CNN’s “AC-360,” Kinzinger said he expects that the candidacy of Jordan — who has entered the race for Speaker along with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), McCarthy’s longtime No. 2 — will become a “new litmus test” for conservatives.

    “Jim is going to be now the new litmus test of: Are you a true conservative or not? Steve Scalise won’t be. It’ll be Jim Jordan,” Kinzinger said. “And so there will be a slow acquiescence of everybody to Jim Jordan. That’s my prediction.”

    “I certainly hope, for the country, I’m wrong,” he added. “But I’ll also say this: If he becomes Speaker, it will be interesting to see how a shut-it-all-down kind of guy actually governs a country.”
    …………….
    “I think if it was secret ballot, Steve Scalise would win overwhelmingly, or anybody but Jim Jordan,” Kinzinger said.
    ……………

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  57. I would love it if every vote in Congress was by secret ballot. But the lobbyists wouldn’t know who to pay.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  58. Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:23 am

    Under that idea the public would have no idea who to hold accountable for the laws that are passed. So much for transparency.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  59. I cannot see Jim Jordan getting 217 votes.

    With Trump’s endorsement he’s the man to beat.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  60. It might be hard to see anyone getting a majority of the votes unless some Democrats decide to make a choice.

    But the Democratic leadership probably doesn’t want Republicans deciding who the Democratic leadership is.

    There will be a debate on Monday between the three candidates hosted by Fox News

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/10/06/fox-news-debate-house-speaker/71082325007

    − Republican candidates running for speaker of the House will face off Monday night in a joint interview hosted by Bret Baier on Fox News, the network confirmed to USA TODAY.

    The segment, first reported by Punchbowl News, will feature House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla. The interview begins at 6 p.m. Monday…

    Sammy Finkelman (c5132f)

  61. As I have made very clear, I see and deal with politics as it is, not as I wish it be. I find the latter to be too speculative and not worth the time spent.

    Rip Murdock (840fa1) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:41 pm

    That’s fine as far as it goes, and I agree that the GOP nominating anyone but Trump is an extreme long shot this cycle. But my comment was about the desirability of a unified centrist third party after sensible conservatives have excised the Trumpists from their realm, whenever that may be.

    Also, I’m not entirely clear on what you mean by “deal with” and “as it is.” I assume there’s a tacit cost-benefit calculation behind your “deal with” decision, based on the then-current value of “as it is,” right? Specifically, the costs and benefits of action presumably rise and fall with the margin of Trump’s polling lead? So how close would the race have to be for you to expend time/money/interest on one or more of his competitors?

    The only candidate of either party I’ve given financial support is Chris Christie, and since he’s the only extant Republican who promises not to vote for Trump, he’s the only I’ll give further support if he miraculously shows signs of life. I know his chances of winning are minuscule, but the reward of his wining would be so huge that the calculation comes out positive. To my mind, that’s dealing with politics as it is, not as I want it to be. How does yours differ?

    lurker (cd7cd4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1312 secs.