Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 170 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHenry Member
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    M.P.: Too much democracy leads to disasters like Trump. I have no problem with this.

    This attitude is a big reason we are where we are today.  Our leadership class’ betters’ looking down their nose at democracy and the voters.

    By the people, For the people.  As long as they do what we want, otherwise, too much democracy is a disaster!

    • #31
  2. Southern Yankee Inactive
    Southern Yankee
    @SouthernYankee

    PHenry: The party leadership should not be criticizing any of their candidates. They should be letting the primary voters decide.

    Indeed.

    “A good Republican would defend Ted Cruz after tonight,” he said. “That ain’t happening. … If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/26/lindsey-graham-if-you-killed-ted-cruz-no-one-in-senate-would-convict-you/

    • #32
  3. M.P. Inactive
    M.P.
    @MP

    PHenry: The party leadership should not be criticizing any of their candidates. They should be letting the primary voters decide.

    So they should let an emotionally unstable liberal Democrat become the face of the Party? They are under no obligation to do that. If anything, I’m angry at the GOP for not rejecting Trump outright or sinking his candidacy months ago.

    • #33
  4. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Hoyacon:

    Karen Humiston:Watching Mitt Romney speak, I mourn again at the opportunity this country threw away three and a half years ago.

    The same thought occurred to me, but I’m “establishment” as my support for Rubio proves. It’s fairly ironic that a portion of Trump’s support who stayed home in ’12 rather than support elitist Romney (and gave us Obama) are becoming disturbed about conservatives who are considering staying home this year.

    I don’t think there’s any evidence that any significant number of Republican voters “stayed home” in 2012. It’s just that more people voted for Obama, in the end.

    • #34
  5. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    The only argument that Trump supports have offered in this thread are insults of Mitt Romney.  He made specific claims about Trump, including:

    • He is not as successful a businessman as he claims
    • His economic policies would harm Americans
    • His foreign policies would harm Americans
    • He does not act honorably
    • His words and statements will be used by the press to destroy him in the general election

    Saying bad things about Romney does not make these statements false.  If they are false, please explain.  If they are true, why should we nominate him?

    • #35
  6. Karen Humiston Member
    Karen Humiston
    @KarenHumiston

    The supporters of Trump are a minority of the GOP — a plurality at this point, but not a majority.  A very large segment of Republicans (I believe a majority) look at the Trump phenomena with shock and revulsion.  I can’t quite wrap my mind around the argument that these Republicans are somehow morally obligated to shut up and keep quiet in the face of what we see as a clear and present danger to the conservative movement and to the country we love so dearly, simply because Trump is the front-runner right now.  I don’t want him to continue to be the front runner.  I have no doubt that the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are storing up mountains of dirt on this guy, and will unload it as soon as he gets the nomination.  Don’t Republican voters have a right to know this before they nominate him — before it is too late and we are stuck with him?  God bless Mitt for speaking up.  More of that please.

    • #36
  7. M.P. Inactive
    M.P.
    @MP

    PHenry:This attitude is a big reason we are where we are today. Our leadership class’ betters’ looking down their nose at democracy and the voters.

    By the people, For the people. As long as they do what we want, otherwise, too much democracy is a disaster!

    America is not a democracy and our founding document is one that tries to limit democracy as much as is reasonable. Our Founders knew that democracy was nothing but mob rule, which is why we are a constitutional republic.

    I believe your attitude–that a slim majority should always get its way, even if it wants to run the country off a cliff–is what is destroying this country. It’s the reason why the Constitution is under continuous assault by demagogues who wish to expand the authority and power of the state for their own ends.

    • #37
  8. GirlWithAPearl Inactive
    GirlWithAPearl
    @GirlWithAPearl

    “There’s a dark irony in trump’s boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam war…while at the same time John McCain – whom he has mocked – was imprisoned and tortured.”

    Powerful. Thank you, Mitt. My vote for you never felt so vindicated.

    • #38
  9. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    The message is one thing, but that is the wrong messenger.

    I mean, what happened when we tried things Mitt’s way?

    • #39
  10. M.P. Inactive
    M.P.
    @MP

    Richard Fulmer: The only argument that Trump supports have offered in this thread are insults of Mitt Romney.

    Insults is all they have, Richard. Not just against Mitt, but against the entire world.

    • #40
  11. Karen Humiston Member
    Karen Humiston
    @KarenHumiston

    PHenry:

    M.P.: Too much democracy leads to disasters like Trump. I have no problem with this.

    This attitude is a big reason we are where we are today. Our leadership class’ betters’ looking down their nose at democracy and the voters.

    By the people, For the people. As long as they do what we want, otherwise, too much democracy is a disaster!

    You really need to look into why the Founders created the United States as a representative republic, and not as a pure democracy.  Pure democracy always leads to mob rule and dissolution — something which is screamingly obvious this election season.

    • #41
  12. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    That was excellent.  That was needed.  That was a Marcus Tullius Cicero moment.  May his words effect the outcome for the positive.  In fact, Mitt Romney should have been president.  Donald Trump is a con man.

    • #42
  13. Karen Humiston Member
    Karen Humiston
    @KarenHumiston

    Vance Richards:The message is one thing, but that is the wrong messenger.

    I mean, what happened when we tried things Mitt’s way?

    Actually, we weren’t given the chance to try it Mitt’s way.  He never had the chance to be president, if you’ll remember.

    • #43
  14. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    PHenry:

    Hoyacon: So, as the present leader part of the way through the process, Trump should be immune from criticism by individuals within the party?

    Romney is not some random individual in the party. He, as their last presidential candidate, is in a party leadership position.

    The party leadership should not be criticizing any of their candidates. They should be letting the primary voters decide.

    Instead, now Hillary can say ‘Even the Republicans reject their own candidate, so you have no choice but vote for me’.

    Politicians have always criticized other politicians and always will.   Trump is especially good at it.  He questioned the religious beliefs of both Cruz and Carson (though when he was attacked himself on the same grounds, he declared that no leader has a right to question the religious beliefs of others).  He made rude comments about Carly Fiorina’s appearance.  He made disgusting remarks about Megyn Kelly.

    Why are you angered by Romney’s criticism of Trump but not by Trump’s attacks?

    • #44
  15. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    M.P.:

    PHenry: The party leadership should not be criticizing any of their candidates. They should be letting the primary voters decide.

    So they should let an emotionally unstable liberal Democrat become the face of the Party? They are under no obligation to do that. If anything, I’m angry at the GOP for not rejecting Trump outright or sinking his candidacy months ago.

    Just stop and think what you are saying here. You are advocating that “the Party” decides, not “We The People”. I think you are mostly angry at your fellow citizens, who happen to be angry at the Party (and in greater numbers than many here are willing to admit).

    And which form is closer to totalitarianism? The Party or The People? This is a Republic, with a representative democracy. And that’s a good thing. The best in the world as a matter of fact.

    • #45
  16. M.P. Inactive
    M.P.
    @MP

    Karen Humiston: Pure democracy always leads to mob rule and dissolution — something which is screamingly obvious this election season.

    Not to mention that if pure democracy were the way of the world, we’d be looking down the barrel of a third Obama term right now. (Or maybe a seventh Bill Clinton term.)

    • #46
  17. PHenry Member
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    M.P.: So they should let an emotionally unstable liberal Democrat become the face of the Party? They are under no obligation to do that. If anything, I’m angry at the GOP for not rejecting Trump outright or sinking his candidacy months ago.

    That is the job of his opponents in the race, not the party.  Why didn’t the 16 other candidates swamp Trump from day 1?  Is there any information in today’s speech that wasn’t available before this primary started?

    Or is it that there is NOTHING new here, and the very idea that Trumps supporters are just benighted and unaware of the party’s complaints about him until now is nonsense?

    I wouldn’t be unhappy with Romney endorsing someone, but he didn’t.  He just condemned one candidate, the current leader.  Not helpful, in fact, destructive.

    • #47
  18. mask Inactive
    mask
    @mask

    Richard Fulmer:The only argument that Trump supports have offered in this thread are insults of Mitt Romney. He made specific claims about Trump, including:

    • He is not as successful a businessman as he claims
    • His economic policies would harm Americans
    • His foreign policies would harm Americans
    • He does not act honorably
    • His words and statements will be used by the press to destroy him in the general election

    Saying bad things about Romney does not make these statements false. If they are false, please explain. If they are true, why should we nominate him?

    I think you are missing the point.  Romney didn’t say anything that hasn’t already been said by most of the pundit class for the past 5 months.  Romney’s comments join a long string of similar comments before him.

    People can keep screaming these things about Trump until they are blue in the face and it’s not going to have any more impact than it already has.

    Trump is the symptom of a problem and not the problem himself.  If Romney (or whoever else) addressed that instead then they might make more headway.

    Btw, I’m not a Trump supporter (Go Cruz!)

    • #48
  19. PHenry Member
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Richard Fulmer: Why are you angered by Romney’s criticism of Trump but not by Trump’s attacks?

    because as the last candidate for President, like it or not, he represents the party, not another candidate.

    • #49
  20. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Columbo:

    M.P.:

    PHenry: The party leadership should not be criticizing any of their candidates. They should be letting the primary voters decide.

    So they should let an emotionally unstable liberal Democrat become the face of the Party? They are under no obligation to do that. If anything, I’m angry at the GOP for not rejecting Trump outright or sinking his candidacy months ago.

    Just stop and think what you are saying here. You are advocating that “the Party” decides, not “We The People”. I think you are mostly angry at your fellow citizens, who happen to be angry at the Party (and in greater numbers than many here are willing to admit).

    And which form is closer to totalitarianism? The Party or The People? This is a Republic, with a representative democracy. And that’s a good thing. The best in the world as a matter of fact.

    It is you who are closer to totalitarianism by trying to deny Romney or anyone else of his right to voice his opinion.  People have a right to decide who their candidate is, but people also have a right to try to inform their decision.

    • #50
  21. PHenry Member
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Karen Humiston: You really need to look into why the Founders created the United States as a representative republic, and not as a pure democracy.

    but you are advocating NO democracy, not representative democracy.  You are advocating unelected party leadership deciding for us who our candidates for president are.  That isn’t even close to representative democracy.  That is far closer to Soviet democracy.

    • #51
  22. M.P. Inactive
    M.P.
    @MP

    Columbo:Just stop and think what you are saying here. You are advocating that “the Party” decides, not “We The People”. I think you are mostly angry at your fellow citizens, who happen to be angry at the Party (and in greater numbers than many here are willing to admit).

    And which form is closer to totalitarianism? The Party or The People? This is a Republic, with a representative democracy. And that’s a good thing. The best in the world as a matter of fact.

    No. The Party is a private organization. “We The People” have no right to a say. The GOP has every right to restrict its primary to people who share its values. That’s not totalitarianism, it’s the entire point of political parties in the first place. I think this is the first time in history when large numbers of people are suggesting that a political party has some obligation to allow candidates antithetical to its values run.

    Don’t like the way the GOP does things? You’re free to form your own party. That’s the way multi-party systems work. This “We The People” nonsense is what Trump supporters repeatedly fall back to, as if the Constitution were only those three words, which give carte blanche to democratic authoritarianism.

    • #52
  23. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Max Ledoux:

    Hoyacon:

    Karen Humiston:Watching Mitt Romney speak, I mourn again at the opportunity this country threw away three and a half years ago.

    The same thought occurred to me, but I’m “establishment” as my support for Rubio proves. It’s fairly ironic that a portion of Trump’s support who stayed home in ’12 rather than support elitist Romney (and gave us Obama) are becoming disturbed about conservatives who are considering staying home this year.

    I don’t think there’s any evidence that any significant number of Republican voters “stayed home” in 2012. It’s just that more people voted for Obama, in the end.

    Max, I’m not going to say that it was ultimately decisive, but Sean Trende (at least then of Real Clear Politics and a smart guy) produced an analysis that indicated Romney’s failure to appeal to blue collar workers (who I see, at least in part, as a segment of Trump’s constituency) created turnout issues.  I’m not sure if Trende’s thoughts are still around, but I’ll look.

    • #53
  24. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    PHenry:

    M.P.: So they should let an emotionally unstable liberal Democrat become the face of the Party? They are under no obligation to do that. If anything, I’m angry at the GOP for not rejecting Trump outright or sinking his candidacy months ago.

    That is the job of his opponents in the race, not the party. Why didn’t the 16 other candidates swamp Trump from day 1? Is there any information in today’s speech that wasn’t available before this primary started?

    Or is it that there is NOTHING new here, and the very idea that Trumps supporters are just benighted and unaware of the party’s complaints about him until now is nonsense?

    I wouldn’t be unhappy with Romney endorsing someone, but he didn’t. He just condemned one candidate, the current leader. Not helpful, in fact, destructive.

    Again, you’re not denying anything that Romney said.  Your only arguments against Romney’s charges are (a) Romney shouldn’t have made them and (b) they’re nothing new.  Do facts become irrelevant because they are voiced by the “wrong” people?  Does truth become false because it’s old?

    • #54
  25. M.P. Inactive
    M.P.
    @MP

    PHenry: He just condemned one candidate, the current leader. Not helpful, in fact, destructive.

    Destructive towards Trump. Which is very helpful if you want to prevent a Democrat from getting the GOP nomination and Hillary from easily winning the White House.

    Frankly, this whole idea that being “the current leader” makes Trump beyond criticism or reproach is senseless. The entire reason he is being attacked is because he is the current leader and he does not share the values of the Party.

    • #55
  26. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    PHenry:

    Richard Fulmer: Why are you angered by Romney’s criticism of Trump but not by Trump’s attacks?

    because as the last candidate for President, like it or not, he represents the party, not another candidate.

    And he has every right to voice his opinion.  He has every right to inform voters about his party’s candidates.

    • #56
  27. Cyrano Inactive
    Cyrano
    @Cyrano

    Max Ledoux:

    Hoyacon:

    The same thought occurred to me, but I’m “establishment” as my support for Rubio proves. It’s fairly ironic that a portion of Trump’s support who stayed home in ’12 rather than support elitist Romney (and gave us Obama) are becoming disturbed about conservatives who are considering staying home this year.

    I don’t think there’s any evidence that any significant number of Republican voters “stayed home” in 2012. It’s just that more people voted for Obama, in the end.

    In this post, I argue that a significant number of voters, who may have been accessible only to the Republicans, did stay home in 2012, and 2008.  The key point is that between 2004 and 2012, the number of eligible voters increased by 19.6 million, but Romney (and McCain) actually received fewer votes than George W. Bush.  Not just a smaller percentage of the electorate, but fewer votes total.

    • #57
  28. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Richard Fulmer:

    Columbo:

    It is you who are closer to totalitarianism by trying to deny Romney or anyone else of his right to voice his opinion. People have a right to decide who their candidate is, but people also have a right to try to inform their decision.

    Sir, please point out to me where it is that I did something so dastardly and I shall ask the Moderator to delete it immediately!

    • #58
  29. Karen Humiston Member
    Karen Humiston
    @KarenHumiston

    PHenry:

    Richard Fulmer: Why are you angered by Romney’s criticism of Trump but not by Trump’s attacks?

    because as the last candidate for President, like it or not, he represents the party, not another candidate.

    PHenry –Mitt does not “represent” the party any more or less than any other member.  If he presented himself as the leader of the party, you would reject that out of hand as well.

    A couple of posts before this, you state that it wouldn’t bother you if he endorsed someone.  Why is this, if you see himself as “representing” the party?

    Mitt is a patriotic American who sees a clear and present danger to the conservative movement and to the country, and he is speaking out about it.  He is laying out facts, not bullying insults as Trump does.  The Trump supporters admire Trump because he “calls it as he sees it” and “lays it on the line.”  Yet when his opponents call it as they say it, the response is “Shut up.”  I’ve been hearing this for long enough from the Left.  Apparently Trump and his followers use the same playbook.

    • #59
  30. M.P. Inactive
    M.P.
    @MP

    PHenry: but you are advocating NO democracy, not representative democracy. You are advocating unelected party leadership deciding for us who our candidates for president are. That isn’t even close to representative democracy. That is far closer to Soviet democracy.

    Do you not understand the very clear differences between a political party and a government? A political party is not a free-for-all. It’s a voluntary organization of like-minded individuals who share similar goals.

    By the way, our President was intended to be chosen by even less democratic means than the GOP is running this primary. The electoral college was intended to be composed of the elite who selected the next President, precisely to avoid popular election of the President. And that is the way it operated for quite some time. Today our Presidential elections have turned into a system of almost direct-election by voters and the quality of our Presidents has gone markedly downhill.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.