Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jeb Boasts of His Endorsement by… Eric Cantor?
A few days ago I recommended that Jeb Bush drop out of the primary. After sitting out the Obama years, Jeb’s political instincts are rusty, he’s far out of step with GOP voters, and he’s making the whole party look bad with his constant mistakes.
Little did I know Jeb was just warming up:
Eric Cantor, former House majority leader, will endorse Jeb Bush on Thursday evening and will be named a Virginia state co-chair of his presidential campaign, Republican sources tell POLITICO.
Cantor was courted intensely by other candidates. Cantor retains a strong political network in Virginia, a key primary and swing state. And he has enviable connections among Jewish business leaders who can be key supporters and donors.
“This is a big deal for Eric, and a big deal for Jeb,” said a top Republican involved in the negotiations.
A Cantor source said: “They have known each other for a long time, speak regularly and have great mutual respect for one another. Eric believes he is the only candidate with a real long-term vision for the country who can also actually implement it – not just talk about it.”
Eric. Cantor. The once-promising conservative who soon succumbed to the Beltway machine. The avatar of the self-interested, double-dealing GOP establishment. The target of the Republican base’s wrath who was tossed on his ample ear by unknown Tea Party candidate Dave Brat, despite the latter being down 30 points and many millions of dollars. Eric Cantor, who answered these anti-crony critics by immediately taking a job with massive investment bank and running their DC office.
Let me close with a quote by my favorite writer:
Published in GeneralJeb seems like a nice man. He had an excellent tenure as governor many years ago. But it’s obvious that his heart is not in this race, he doesn’t understand our Alinskyite political climate, and he is confused by both his base and modern media. The longer he vies for the nomination, the more he hurts himself and the GOP.
For the good of his country and his party, Bush needs to sit 2016 out.
We agree on this: there’s no possibility of an “overwhelming lead” in the delegate count after a non-primary in Iowa, tiny New Hampshire, and mid-sized South Carolina. As I just added to my earlier post, based on today’s numbers Bush isn’t going to be in the running AT ALL. He’s in single digits and has been falling for weeks.
My point is that the only thing that matters to Jeb! right now is February 2016, not Super Tuesday in March. If he doesn’t have at least one credible victory or several very strong showings in February, it’s extremely unlikely March will be any better for him. March tends to solidify February, not overturn it.
You have fallen into the ‘angry-ignorance’ trap. Trumpsters are not ignorant about his positions. They don’t care. Big difference.
They fought the hard slog you commend and all it got was a knife in the back from the GOP. They will not be fooled again.
Needham went on to say:
I hold by the statement. I am sure the most informed supporters — the ones on Ricochet — know. I do not believe the vast majority of them truly understand what his support for single-payer means, for instance. That’s certainly not what he’s being asked about. I do know what that means, and it concerns me deeply.
There is no other alternative to the hard slog. Saying you won’t be fooled is not an alternative. That is the nature of our Constitution. I knew the Republicans could not block Obamacare after the 2014 election. And I know that No Child Left Behind powers on worse and worse regardless of reauthorization, and that the bill currently on offer adds nothing significantly new that is bad, repeals much of the worst of it, and blocks federal imposition of Common Core into the bargain. And I know that this one is not a done deal yet, and that conservatives should actually be paying far more attention to it and making sure it stays that way and pushing back on Democratic attempts to include more federal accountability.
That is what counts. There is no easy way.
I’m curious to know: why is it more important to focus on what Trump said about this or that in the past, as opposed to focusing on the GOP promising specific things in 2014 that it could deliver on in 2015, but chooses not to? Help me understand why the typical voter should care more about the former than he or she does about the latter.
Also, isn’t the point that Trump is a political opportunist? So why should I care that his past position was thus and such? He’s an opportunist! He’ll flip-n-flop wherever we pressure him to . . . shouldn’t my concern be keeping the right pressure on him? I mean, you don’t seriously look at the Donald and have the word association “ideologically committed” do you? He’s a great salesman of brand Donald, with a keen sense for under-served markets. He doesn’t care about single payer unless it benefits brand Donald. The trick is to make sure single payer never benefits that brand, not to worry about his past ramblings about policies he probably doesn’t understand.
Really? I guess that’s what I get for going to public schools. I could of sworn I learned somewhere around middle school that the nature of our Constitution included the notion we citizens are able to vote any damn way we please, including against people who lie to us, fail to keep their promises, and the like.
I was about to get off Ricochet and go accomplish things. Is this a serious request for my opinion, or a sarcastic question? Because if I answer, I’m going to put thought and effort into it. Which promises are you focusing on?
In part, though, it obviously depends the specific candidate you have in mind. If evaluating Rubio, Cruz, or Paul, any promises they broke are relevant.
If evaluating Walker, Perry, or Jindal, it is obviously absurd to blame them for anything congressional Republicans say or do. In that case, you are putting Trump’s past statements up against their past record. Of course, Congress is still relevant: for example, in making that comparison one learns not only that Walker’s conservatism is well-proven compared to Trump’s, but that Walker also has a solid record of getting legislators to do the kinds of things Congress can’t seem to get done. And you might look at the congressional GOP and think that kind of conservative is exactly what they need — if you want them to actually repeal Obamacare.
Sure you can. You can even vote for Mickey Mouse if you like. But you and I individually — or even 55% of the country — voting for Mickey Mouse won’t put Mickey Mouse’s platform into law. That takes time, hard work, and repeated victories, because our constitution makes sweeping change hard. The Founders gave certain rights even to the minority, and if the minority is going to resist with every tool it has, it’s not going to happen overnight.
Now, if you can elect Mickey Mouse and give him 60 votes in the Senate, then we’re talking. Then you can do things. But that is extremely unlikely this cycle, as we know.
And if Mickey Mouse is telling us otherwise, Mickey Mouse is lying to us just as much as any Republican who said they could unilaterally repeal Obamacare without the White House.
I’m sincerely interested in your opinion . . . I think you represent a large body of GOP opinion which I genuinely don’t understand. For now, my focus is only on Trump, not the others you cite.
Why are you and so many GOPers convinced that Trump’s past infidelity to conservatism (how’s that for putting it mildly? :-) is a winning counterargument to those of us throwing up our hands and saying, in effect, the hell with the GOP! Trump is not a conservative, which any fool can figure out in five minutes. Why is that a selling point in favor of people who manifestly will not ever do what they say they will?
From my perspective, Trump is manageable . . . just need to keep him painfully aware what side his toast is buttered on. Jeb! on the other hand, there’s no reason to think he’ll do anything other than sell out conservatism at the first opportunity. It’s instinctual, whereas the instincts of a Trump are very different. I’m not saying Trump is a great option–just the only one that makes sense given the cards as dealt. You all seem to think this is an abstract issue . . . it’s not. We have a series of crappy options and Trump is the least crappy. Why don’t you all get that?
I’m just top-of-the-head here, but it sort of seems that while you are making excuses the class bully is spending your lunch money on ice cream. A few recent events might challenge your thesis.
Obamacare for one . . . that’s rather sweeping and your erstwhile opponents managed it.
How about illegals pouring across our border in violation of law and collecting a huge array of benefits I pay for? If they commit felonies they get to stay indefinitely. Your opponents got that accomplished.
Then there’s same sex marriage, selling infant body parts culled by those getting government funding, Iranian nuclear weapons deals that are just plain humiliating.
If there’s one thing CON LAW professor in chief Obama never concluded, it’s that the Constitution is an impediment to doing whatever his ideology dictates.
What we do get from GOPers is buckets of condescension, for instance being equated with Mickey Mouse. And then you wonder why Trump seems attractive by comparison! Brilliant!
OK. Then I’ll put the time into it that the question deserves… hopefully tonight, but I need to take care of some things.
Can I ask you one equally serious question? Have you truly researched and considered your opinion of Bush? Or is it instinctual? He is nearly my last choice, but I don’t share your impression that he will simply “sell out conservatism at the first opportunity,” and that is not what I hear from those who know his Florida record best. The man has some principles, including a genuine commitment to life for which he has taken political heat.
And you say you’re not interested in the others, but shouldn’t you at least consider them before declaring Trump the least bad option? You say you’re done with the GOP, but your complaints are all about the congressional party. I asked above if you had really looked at Bush: I have researched Walker, who was my governor, quite thoroughly. I have a decent idea of most of his weaknesses, and of his political strengths. I have a pretty solid sense what his actual convictions are — because ultimately he acts on them.
And I look at what I know of Walker and say: if it can possibly be done, he will repeal Obamacare.
I completely lack that confidence in Trump. Or Bush, if you want to know. I think Cruz would try; I have less confidence he could build the coalition.
If you want to know, I originally wrote “Donald Duck” and realized that would be taken as an obvious comparison to Trump. No condescension intended, simply trying to take it out of the realm of anything real. If you prefer, take Mickey Mouse out and insert Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. The point stands.
You overlooked my point that with 60 votes much more can be done. That, of course, is what Obama had. He gained a certain control of the system, and we are trying to claw that back — without the White House. It does not work well. And I also completely agree that Republicans are in part responsible for some of these things — including same-sex marriage, courtesy of Anthony Kennedy. I know. But I see the simple “establishment vs. base” divide as shallow — the problem is ideological, not elite vs. grassroot, and some “elitists” are more conservative than some “grassroot” politicians. And I don’t believe the answer to anything is to burn the party system down, and still less Donald Trump.
I also agree that Obama does not see the constitution as an impediment, when he can get around it (he can’t always). That is part of our dilemma: do you want us to act likewise?
Will be back.
1. The promise to do more “if only” is what the GOP says post-election. Sorry, it’s what you promised you’d do “if” we delivered you the Senate on top of the House and we did—that’s what we’re talking about. Why. can’t. you. do. what. you. promised? You ask us to trust that you will honor your “if only” when you don’t honor your own “if” clauses? You are not fighters; you’re appeasers. Trump caught you out, laid bare your weakness and moral corruption.
2. I want you to act. I want Grant; Fire McClellan, already! You figure out “how.” Just get it done. Your opponents do; you don’t. I’m tired of playing with the team that thinks losing is a moral virtue. It isn’t. I realize you think I’ve nowhere else to go. Sitting on my hands is a place to go, however. As far as the Republic goes, at this rate it’s going down either way . . . with me holding your hand or with me kicking you to the curb. I’ll maintain some self respect in the latter scenario.
3. Me too . . .
Longer response below. But you’re addressing me as if I’m Boehner. I’m not. To the extent I have a candidate, it’s Walker, who has done those things. This is not a thorough answer, and I’m sorry if it is rambling. I’m more than out of time.
First, conservatives keep reiterating Trump’s obvious lack of conservatism partly in response to the constantly implied argument that we’re following the “Establishment” or “GOPe.” So we respond with our real objections, which are to his ideology. I made this point in much more detail in a response to BDB which I can’t find (and will try again). For me, things I saw in the UK have influenced me. I do not believe the idea that losing will clean up the center-right coalition.
Second, as I wrote earlier this month, I believe what we still have in this country is precious, and worth defending, and very fragile. I believe our most precious liberties hang in the balance this election. And I believe a protest to burn it all down is likely to take them with it. Don’t imagine that this is abstract to me. I believe it is a time for clear purpose more than angry protest, and perhaps that seems like detached logic. It is not.
Third (and I put this better in the other thread), I believe you are focused on the symptom, not the disease, and apply the wrong treatment. (cont.)
There are unprincipled elitist politicians and wealthy out-of-touch donors. And they do real harm. But it is a basic characteristic of human nature and democracy in a Republic, and nothing you do — up to and including destroying the Republican Party and creating a new one — will end that. I also believe the desire for power corrupts as much as the actual possession of it. I am not convinced by any argument that any candidate whatsoever is an outsider or not a politician.
Better Republicans might pick up a few more points, flip an election or two, win a few more battles — but that’s at the margins. Our politics — Democrat and Republican — reflects our culture. If the Republicans fail, it is because they are a political party opposing the culture and struggling to deal with that situation. There is no unique disease affecting them: the problem is rooted deeply in human nature and in politics. I do not say to simply accept it. But we should recognize they are not unique in the world, and far from the worst. And we should not speak as though a broad coalition were a single entity. Jeb Bush is not Paul Ryan, and Olympia Snowe is not Ken Cuccinelli. Republican Party or no, the center-right coalition includes all those people, and the best we can do is promote the Cuccinellis over the Bollings. We will win some and lose some: in our culture, there is no quick fix.
I also believe movements to burn it all down tend to end badly. I do not believe a president can simply “make America great again,” and with Trump’s other promises it rings dangerously hollow. Most politicians makes empty promises, but I mistrust above all the charismatic one who can convince people he transcends politics and has some capability others do not. I do not believe he can be “controlled” in office and honestly am puzzled that you do. How? The same way Republicans are controlling Obama?
This sounds pessimistic, perhaps. I don’t necessarily mean it that way. Long-term, I believe only a cultural change and the grace of God — things beyond politics — are all that can make a difference. Short-term, I believe an effective conservative president could repeal Obamacare, prevent (perhaps) a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and preserve those liberties a little longer yet. If we live in 21st-century America on those terms, we will be among the most fortunate who have ever walked the earth.
So I’m not trying to find the candidate who punishes the GOP. I’m looking for the one who seems most likely to be that effective conservative leader. Which means I’m looking for basic conservatism (not perfection) first, and proven governance second. The experience is negotiable if necessary; the conservatism isn’t.
This is one of the reasons we can’t take your side seriously. First you whine about how our candidates are “too conservative”. You guys fought against Reagan, for God’s sake. And as soon as he was out of office, you stuck us with Bush “Read my lips” the Elder. Ever since, with the exception of Dubya Bush (who turned out to be a disappointment, if not as bad as his father) you’ve stuck us with colorless, odorless, and tasteless Certified Pre-Owned Moderates™. And you’ve lost. Now you tell us our candidate isn’t conservative enough???? Don’t even go there. You guys have no standing to complain about a candidate not being conservative enough.
You don’t dislike Trump because he’s not conservative enough. You dislike him because he’s beating your guy. And if your guy isn’t someone like Jeb, Rubio, or Kasich, show us he can win. Because until you can show us someone better who can beat Jeb & Co., you’re not going to move us.
My side? I fought against Reagan? I’m not sure it will help to date myself, but if you read my profile you’ll realize how absurd that is.
In turn, honestly, this is why I can’t find the contrary arguments convincing. You misunderstand what side I am on. I don’t think the thought “too conservative” has ever crossed my mind. I will vote for any actual conservative over Bush, and hope I get the chance.
If some bigwig who funded Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, and so on back to Rockefeller tells you Trump isn’t conservative you can throw that response at them. At me, one lowly conservative deeply troubled that the Republican frontrunner thinks socialized medicine is just fine, it is not an argument.
And the second paragraph of the comment you cite addressed the issue of genuinely conservative, non-GOP establishment Republicans who don’t like Trump. Show me a conservative who can beat Jeb & Co. and I’ll happily vote for him.
Show me a more conservative winner. That’s all I ask. It’s also the minimum I’ll accept. Jeb must be beaten, period.
First: I assume comments were made in good faith, and would appreciate that being reciprocated. If we are going to have a conversation, accept that I mean and believe what I said.
Are you interested in only beating Jeb & Co, or in beating the Democrat and actually putting someone in the White House, by any chance?
For someone else to beat Bush, they have to be able to get airtime (other than for every verbal stumble or attack on or from Trump). It’s not yet clear who would be best; given a non-circus primary, we could get a better answer.
I do believe Scott Walker would be the best president of the bunch, and if it were essentially head-to-head he would defeat Bush (and Clinton). He’s not great at the flash needed to break through in a field; he is solid in a long campaign and has won many more elections than the others.
Trump’s current trajectory means Cruz is the most plausible beneficiary. I’ll vote for Cruz without hesitation. I’m less sure Cruz could beat Bush.
I also believe Bush beats Trump. But he waits until after Iowa to fully unloose — to let Trump push Walker out first. Which is partly why I think this strategy backfires badly in the end.
Yes I want a Republican president. But not Jeb & Co. No how, no way. He cannot possibly be part of the solution because he’s at the heart of the problem.
I’d love to see Walker become President. Show me he can beat Bush.
Cruz is certainly trying to position himself to inherit Trump’s supporters if Trump fades. And I’d happily vote for him, too.
If it goes to convention, I don’t see Trump throwing his support to Jeb. And if Trump can’t stand up to the full fury of the Jebbernaut, I don’t see anyone else doing it. With the exception of Carson, the other conservatives are barely hanging on to Jeb’s draft as it is.
I’ll try to make the case.
I agree with this. As I understand it, and you know Virginia much better than I do, most Virginians have no meaningful views of Eric Cantor. The number who will be significantly influenced in their primary vote by his endorsement is even smaller. I suspect that almost none of those who are strongly moved against Bush will have been seriously considering Bush beforehand. The Bush-Cruz contest is one of base turnout, not persuasion, and I doubt Cantor’s endorsement is likely to persuade many to get out of bed in eight months’ time.
The Bush-Rubio contest, though, is one of persuasion, and is one where the views of a guy like Cantor can make a real difference. It’s hard to judge who has the soundest foreign policy views, and so endorsements can be helpful.
Sure. That’s true. He’s also perceived as an experienced and Israel loving hawk, both regarding battlefields and budgets. This confirms what people love about him and adds local flavor to give it emphasis.
It also makes his events more compelling. Cantor wasn’t just the only GOP Jew, and a major finance guy, he was House Majority Leader. That’s three categories of substantial significance in the Virginia primaries, and Jeb doesn’t have to win a majority of votes to win in Virginia. By the October 28 CNBC debate, it’s likely that the main debate will exclude Kasich and Christie, currently polling at the bottom of the top table. By February, that seems likely to be lethal, which means that Jeb shouldn’t struggle too much to win New Hampshire. The non-Jeb vote will be pretty divided, though. Jeb can go for outright majorities in Massachusetts and Vermont, and pluralities in Alabama, Colorado and Virginia, and still be the clear winner. It’d mean a drawn out primary, but if there’s Jeb and a bunch of dwarves, and a series of large easy wins for Jeb ahead (Illinois, Florida, New York, maybe Ohio with Kasich’s support, and Portman’s), it’s pretty easy to see the party coalescing behind the winner and wanting to move on and focus on Clinton.
The GOP wouldn’t be attacking them at this stage anyway; most primary factions focus on positive messages at this stage. The left is attacking them anyway, and Trump gets a bigger audience for those attacks.
Incidentally, if you want a scary thought, note that Carson, whose policy depth and general approach to the campaign mirrors Trump’s, but through rose tinted, smiley, polite, glasses, is coming second in a lot of polls. The national HuffPo poll just out had Trump leading (30), then refusing to vote (10), then Huckabee (10, but apparently lower), Carson (8), and Jeb (7). No one running on conservative policies, rather than straight up identity politics, gets more than 5%.
This ought to be our candidate’s chance to define themselves before the gaffes hit. Instead, the google pages are being filled with hostile stories and the good stuff isn’t making it to the front, because stories about the substantive part of the primary are mostly coming from the left, while the right focuses on the Trump show.
I have absolutely no time, and obviously one can’t prove ahead of time what happens in an election.
But I do not believe Trump has really changed all the rules of the game. People are still people. There are a million things about Trump we still don’t know, and the Bush campaign will make sure we find out. Personal stuff. Political stuff. Yes, it will be nasty. Trump has never been through that before. Did it look to you like he was comfortable dealing with those questions from Megyn Kelly? As though she didn’t get under his skin at all? That was just the beginning. History doesn’t favor Trump’s kind of candidacy.
Walker has done this time and time again, under a more intense microscope than perhaps any state in the country. The media in Wisconsin are thorough. There is no new dirt on Walker. The Bush team cannot say much that has not already been said before. And the simple fact is that what Walker is offering is what most Republicans want — far more than what Bush wants.
Of course he can’t do it with Trump sucking out the oxygen. Nobody can.
I love this, as it makes so very many assumptions about those you disagree with. You really believe those of us who are fighting against Trump opposed Reagan? You honestly believe that?
A lot of Reagan’s support came from single payer enthusiasts.
Seriously, though, if your selection process involves a heavy weighting against people on TV, you’d oppose both.
Also, if you had a strong opposition to people who were alleged to be ignorant about foreign policy, without caring much if it was true.
Okay, that’s me complete. If anyone else wants to chime in with any other similarities (both Trump and Reagan look like they could successfully audition for a film in which one lead was a human and the other an ape?), go ahead.
Do you think Ronald Reagan was not “opposing the culture and struggling to deal with that situation”? The heart of this issue is leadership, which based on your passage above you think is beyond the realm of possibility. That’s utter nonsense; the GOP leadership is choosing not to lead.
Go no further than today’s Three Martini Lunch on the Ricochet homepage. What McConnell says about defunding Planned Parenthood is perfectly explained by the reasoning you offer above. As Jim Geraghty makes clear, however, what McConnell is doing is a choice. Voters who feel they have empowered the GOP precisely so it can fight back against the Left—which never adopts your ‘surrender first’ ethos, BTW—are enraged by the failure of leadership we see every day. I thank you for helping me understand why McConnell is the GOP’s top elected official . . . the Party exists for people like you, not me.
Of course Reagan likewise struggled. Remind me about how he repealed Medicare again? You say you want to understand, but if you insist on interpreting through a binary “establishment vs. Trump” lens you will not understand.
I am not saying the GOP is doing the best they can do. I am saying that we need to realize why they are doing what they are doing, and address it accordingly. Again, there is nothing unique about them. Are you at all familiar with the recent history of the British Conservative Party?
I am saying, primarily, that politics is not the solution. Did you notice how the Democrats won that SSM fight? Actually, it wasn’t because the Democrats courageously stood up and advocated it. The Republicans did much more to oppose it (pushing through constitutional amendments nationwide) than the Democrats did to push it. They let the cultural forces do the pushing for them.
And while those cultural forces are overwhelmingly against us and human nature and politics remain what they are, any set of politicians — Republican, Libertarian, Trumpist, call them what you will — are going to have limited success. That is reality, and I don’t even see you arguing against it.
Which does not mean I am arguing for “surrender.” Absolutely not!
And in fact, that’s why I don’t want to nominate Trump. There are two things I’m very glad you brought up.
First, Ronald Reagan. Don’t you realize that’s exactly what I want to do again? To elect a conservative former governor, proven and capable but hardly the pick of the moderates? To give the conservative revolution that swept the party in 2010 and 2014 a chance at real power? Again, Reagan proves how much a President can do — as opposed to Congress. Before we despair and throw it all to the wind, let’s try. The amazing thing is that this election we have choices. Governors alone, we have Walker — easily as conservative as Reagan — or Jindal, or Perry.
But I’m told they can’t beat Bush. We don’t know that! Isn’t the country and conservatism at least worth the effort?
Second, Planned Parenthood. This, again, is — among others — exactly why I want one of those governors over Trump. Speak of weak Republican leadership — is this kind of talk from the Republican frontrunner likely to shore up that leadership?
By law no money is supposed to go directly to abortion anyway. The push in Congress is to follow the states in defund it completely, on the principle that you can’t just fund the “good parts” of an organization that does terrible things. Money doesn’t work that way.
So the presidential frontrunner is cutting the ground under Congressional Republicans’ feet, and you’re surprised by their response? It is precisely because I refuse to surrender on abortion that I oppose Trump!
Meanwhile, those governors defunded PP in their states.
Likewise Obamacare. Count on it, the Congress of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will not repeal Obamacare after Republicans vote for someone who says Canadian single-payer and Scottish socialized medicine work “incredibly well.” Obamacare repeal is as dead under Trump as under Kasich. I oppose both precisely because I refuse to surrender on that issue, to accept it is the finalized law of the land. I want to fight it with someone who has the ability to get tough measures into law and the conservative principles to do it well.
To be clear, I’m not accusing you in turn of of surrender. Rather, if you’ll forgive a cultural reference, it seems you are proposing Denethor’s decision: if we must lose, we choose the way we go up in flames. If we can’t have it all, we will have nothing, and we will not be dictated to. Or at least let’s throw everything up and let the chips fall where they may.
I will fight for the slightest hope rather than that. The city still stands, and we should not be the ones to burn it down. Disagree if you will, but do not present that position as surrender or cowardice.
The GOP establishment did oppose Reagan. Remember Jerry Ford? They managed to stick us with him in 1976. He got beat by Jimmy Carter. Carter sold out the Shah of Iran. Khomeini took over, and now we’re worrying about Iran’s nuclear program. Thanks GOP establishment.
Reagan became the nominee in spite of the GOP establishment’s opposition. They never liked him.
Is everyone who opposes Trump a GOP establishment Jebite? No. Have I discussed how to beat Trump? Yes, and at some length. If you want to beat Trump, either get Jeb to drop out or find someone who can beat him like a drum the way Trump is doing. Show me that Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, or any other conservative who’s credible on immigration/border security can beat Jeb, and I’ll be glad to jump on their bandwagon. But Jeb must be beaten, and Trump’s the one who’s doing the best job of it, so far.