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.
Trump Softens on Immigration, Coulter Follows Suit
My slight edit of Coulter’s book cover.
Talk about bad timing. Wednesday night at the Breitbart Embassy in DC, Ann Coulter held a book signing for In God We Trus… oops, I mean In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome. Earlier that day, Donald Trump told Sean Hannity that he was “softening” his position on immigration, the main issue that made Coulter and a plurality of primary voters select him as the GOP nominee. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at that confab.
Coulter’s book makes the argument that “[T]here’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.” On MSNBC’s “Hardball” she said, “This could be the shortest book tour ever if he’s really softening his position on immigration.” So there’s absolutely no way the passionately anti-immigration author could support her candidate’s flip-flop, right? Sorry, but we’ve got books to move:
Conservative author and Donald Trump supporter Ann Coulter isn’t giving up on her candidate yet, even as he appears to be shifting on an issue most dear to her.
Trump is now open to possibly “softening” his hardline stance on illegal immigration, and the candidate said Wednesday night on Fox News that he would consider letting many illegal immigrants remain in the country, instead of deporting them all.
…In an interview earlier that same day with the Washington Examiner, Coulter, whose own stance on immigration inspired Trump’s controversial views on it, said it’s not worrying her.
“It mostly worries me rhetorically … I mean, what to do with the illegals already here was never really a big part of it,” she said. “We’re getting a wall. We’re definitely getting a wall. That’s the one thing we know about a Trump presidency.”
She said Trump still offers more than any of the other Republicans had.
“I don’t think it is a change in policy,” she said of Trump. “The policy is anyone who’s here illegally is here illegally, does not have the right to be here. We’ll decide whether it’s in our interest to let them stay or not. Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay.“
Yep, “we’re definitely getting a wall.” Trump would never backtrack on a core campaign promise.
Published in General
This latest from Pew Research says that 79% of current Trump backers support the wall and 88% of current Clinton backers oppose it. Translation: fewer than 40% of Americans support the wall.
Same report says that during the primaries, only 42% of Trump supporters were in favor of mass deportation. Translation: fewer than 20% of Americans support deportation.
Er… good luck with that book, Ann!
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/25/5-facts-about-trump-supporters-views-of-immigration/
This summarizes the entire election perfectly.
Well… I’m not a huge Coulter fan. But I don’t think there is so much of a contradiction in what she has actually said over time, if we are talking about Trump’s move to an “Obama style” deportation system (“though possibly ‘more muscular'”).
Her major point is that an increase in the immigrant vote will mean more liberalism– more democrats elected, more democratic polices, more welfare spending/usage. That was what she was against. I don’t remember her really ever focusing on deporting people in Adios America. That was never really her deal.
I think in Adios America she allowed that she was fine with illegals “staying in the shadows” as long as they couldn’t vote. Which makes a bit of sense. It isn’t a problem that has to be solved by deportations or anything like that which would be time consuming and expensive. Just stay in the shadows. Her main goal was always to lower the amount of immigration into the country.
IIRC though, Trumps plan was to deport everyone, then invite a lot of people back in. Which is a strange strategy. Now it is deport less people (than originally proposed) and run the Gang of 8 “they’ll ‘pay’ back taxes” and so on. Its so funny. Trump was this immigration hawk. That was how “we knew he was ‘serious.'” No he is basically where Bush and Rubio were. Okay, I guess. Sure. Sure.
We could have had a candidate who was sane, competent and trustworthy.
And then Walker’s cash ran out.
Yes. Rubio joining the Gang of Eight was a reason to oppose him. I don’t think there are too many others, unless you don’t like that he’s too young or something. With Trump, there’s really no one thing that was worst about him. I have a hard time letting go of the Rafael Cruz thing, although it’s just one thing among many. That episode emphasizes that Trump is not conservative, and is some combination of dishonest and crazy.
What I find fascinating about all of this is the reaction of the nevers. First, Trump is labelled as an ignoramus and certain loser for his proclamations on immigration and statements regarding possible restrictions on non-citizens entering the country due to concerns over terrorism. Trump will never get their votes because of these radical “natavist” positions.
Now, Trump changes, “pivots” if you will, to a softer position more in line with what the nevers support as a policy.
Logic would assume that there would be joy in Mudville over this position change to something more palatable and helpful in the general election?
But all I see are sarcastic comments and ridicule. What gives? I thought this was all about principle, and absolutely nothing to do with personalities?
I can agree with this sentiment if by “entire election” you’re actually referring to “selection of the nominee.”
[edited for clarification]
I don’t recall the NeverTrumpers criticizing Trump on immigration in particular. For me, the only reason I could see to prefer Trump over the other GOP candidates was that he was so outspoken on immigration, when others like Jeb were so soft on the issue. Now that he is signalling his flexibility on the issue (again), what little justification existed for nominating Trump has evaporated.
I’m not saying I won’t vote for Trump. Hillary is still awful. But it’s tragic that the GOP utterly disarmed itself going into the general election against her.
Nevers over reach? Where have I heard this format of headline before?
Again – many NeverTrumpers had no problem with Trump on those policy issues (I had a problem with some of them). Although, your phrasing is not entirely accurate: he wanted to restrict all members of a certain religion even if they were citizens – at least initially. NeverTrump was about more than policy – about the character of the man, his trustworthiness, his policy, his lack of seriousness and yes his personality. He is unfit for the office regardless of if he manages to land on a policy we vaguely agree with.
Why do you repeat this inaccurate smear?
The following proves that I’m much more childish than Jon Gabriel. I just can’t help myself. I’ll be going to counseling soon. I was going to make an additional crack about Trump performing abortions in the White House but apparently it’s been done.
Since the Democrats nominee would have lost to anyone but our nominee I still consider it an accurate summary.
Admission is the first step to recovery. #Trump2016
I feel pretty sure that when I wrote “Need I go on?” that that allowed for a good many items I didn’t feel like listing. NeverTrump is not a monolithic movement, none of us feel it is. However, your original comment certainly implied that it was and, very mistakenly, suggested that it was based on his immigration policies. Though some of what he said in that line was offensive, I think that most of the NeverTrump people I have read are fully in support of strengthening our borders, eliminating illegal immigration and dealing with the problem of those illegals still in the country. The difference here is that Trump made his bones fighting the other candidates who were offering solutions which were not meaningfully different than the policies Trump is now expounding. The fact that he has come around to this view doesn’t discount his other faults that ProTrump people seem amazingly blind to, but which are blatantly obvious to NeverTrump people.
You prefer the Democrat?
Okay, we’ll disagree.
I think characterizing Hillary as competent is less than evident.
More importantly, summarizing this election with her in the role of “sane, competent, but not entirely trustworthy” greatly understates the peril of a HRC presidency at the head of our entrenched Leftist-led government agencies.
Both, I think. Echoes of Pope and Pascal in my head, I guess. Not to mention I have been binge listening to John Prichard’s wonderful audio readings of Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe books, and Nero appeals to a fixed human nature often enough. (He’d flunk out of modern college for that.)
BTW, I was going to write political passions, but changed my mind. Before that, I was going to refer to their need to defend their brand, but that would have been cynical and churlish.
I do tend to agree with much of what Coulter and the Hannity’s of the world have to say much of the time although I find the way they say it intentionally overly provocative(ie: Coulter) or too talking point/schmaltzy(ie: Hannity) to name two Trump cheerleaders.
But the rate at which these guys pump out books, radio shows, television shows, public appearances, makes you wonder where their true convictions begin and the addiction to making real money with this $chtick ends.
Yes. I was thinking today that Trump has always been motivated by the desire to make money. And Hillary, to gain power. Which frightens me more? Easy.
Right here. Perhaps the most succinctly stated damage Trump has done to the GOP. The real tragedy being that SO many minorities, ethnicities, etc. would be flocking to Conservatism had policies been framed and dictated not as saber-rattling threat but logistical necessity. Unfortunately, that is now just demonized as pandering–which is such a self-defeating virtue.
I’m sorry. Was that advice to me or Ann Coulter?
First, I just want to make sure were not talking past each other:
1> We agree that NeverTrump is not a monolithic movement.
2> We disagree that the sentence:
implies something akin to monolithic, even though “on margin” kinda’ argues the opposite.
3> We disagree that one is ignorant to assume that some NeverTrumpers might include immigration policy as a significant factor in their NeverTrumpness.
I’m not including Trump in my comment, I’m talking more about the Conservative talking heads that rallied around Trump when they are certainly savvy/bright enough to have known that Trump would work out badly as the GOP Presidential Candidate.
I like it straight up the way you wrote it. In fact, it would make a great post title. All you have to do now is write the post.
<g>
Speaking of Rich Lowry:
Lowry stated this back in January when NR published its Against Trump issue.
Ann Coulter has so covered herself in ignominy in 2016 that her career as a “conservative” is, for all intents and purposes, over. Once the giant dump that is Trump gets flushed away by the shameless whirlpool of corruption that is Queen Hillary, Coulter’s only option is going to be to renounce all her previous statements, brand her former fellow travelers as hatemongers, start decrying climate change and income inequality, sing the praises of non-heteronormative relationships, and become besties with Hollywood. In short, this disgraced Right Winger has no choice but to pull an Arianna Huffington.
By this time next year, Ann Coulter will be writing columns for Slate about her luxury eco-retreats with Elon Musk and Leonardo di Caprio and appearing on Rachel Maddow to talk about how wonderful Senator Kamala Harris is…
Because that’s what he originally said and then walked it back after he was criticized over it.