An Open Letter to Mitt Romney

 

Dear Mr. Romney:

I read your opinion piece in The Washington Post under the interesting heading: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. You called it: “The president shapes the public character of the nation. Trump’s character falls short.”

You say, “A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”

If the president shapes the character of a nation to a degree, what if that shape created confusion, division, and fueled anger under a one size fits all mantle called hope and change? You gave President Trump some credit, but do you realize the impact that his policies have had so far? Crime is actually down in Chicago for the first time? Could it be because unemployment among minorities is at the lowest its been in decades?

As President Trump entered office I think he looked for honesty and integrity, starting with our justice system and found glaring shortfalls to say the least. Do you remember Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? How about destroyed emails, bleach-bit servers and the spider web called Fusion GPS?

As President Trump entered office eight years of resentment, anger and division were already in place. Eight years of spewing out phrases like white privilege, intersectionality, being too male, and gender-neutrality. At Christmas dinner, someone mentioned neighbors who are letting their three-year-old son determine his sex. They put a dress on him and braided his hair. Three years old. Trump found a drug epidemic, a rise in teen suicides and cyber-bullying. Where was the promised hope and change?

You state: “Several allies in Europe are experiencing political upheaval. Several former Soviet satellite states are rethinking their commitment to democracy. Some Asian nations, such as the Philippines lean increasingly toward China, which advances to rival our economy and our military. The alternative to U.S. world leadership offered by China and Russia is autocratic, corrupt and brutal.”

When Trump entered office he found an already emboldened Russia and China, who had plenty of time to make gains politically, financially, and militarily as the last administration stepped into the background on foreign policy. During that time, a group called ISIS formed and tore human life to shreds. They were called the JV team of terror. The Middle East was on fire.

You also said: “Our leaders must defend our vital institutions despite their inevitable failings: a free press, the rule of law, strong churches, and responsible corporations and unions.”

When Trump entered office a free press gave token amounts of time to the silencing of free speech on campuses across the country, the harassment of Christians and churches across the world, the increase of Antisemitism, the spiraling of the healthcare industry under The Affordable Care Act, and instead focused on picking apart the new administration even before their new pencils needed re-sharpened. There was nothing this administration could do right.

When Trump entered office the European populist movement was already well underway. Trump didn’t create the Paris we are seeing on the news. Europe was glad to have America pay most of their defense tab, so they didn’t have to think about it. They were stunned for a few days while Russia sailed its military might through the English Channel onto the Middle East, then went back to letting America worry about it.

I lived in Massachusetts when you were governor. I was a newly minted Republican and voted for you. I also voted for you in 2012 as president. That was six years ago. It feels like sixteen. What has happened to our country and the world in a short amount of time is nothing short of shocking. Your opinion piece sounds like a campaign speech that might have worked back then, when you ran for president. Back then you also knew better. Obama once told you the cold war was over and the 1980s wanted its foreign policy back. You were right and he was wrong. His foreign policy, and lack of leadership on many other fronts is why we have a Donald Trump for president. Review this segment through the lens of where we are today – only six years later.

With all due respect, if this opinion piece is a presidential campaign launch, I won’t be voting for you again. If you can do great things as a senator, bold things, and call out with clarity, for truth and justice on behalf of the American people, like Tre Gowdy and others have done, then you will inspire hope, and be doing what the people in your state have elected you to do. I believe you are a good man. Good luck, Senator Romney.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 90 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    PHenry (View Comment):
    Not even close to a fair comparison. When we get credible evidence of rape, sex with interns in the white house, and lying under oath maybe you have a point. 

    Paying off porn stars and playmates you cheated on your (3rd) wife with is insufficient?

    Was Trump’s endorsement of Romney solicited or simply accepted?  I can’t imagine Trump’s endorsement in UT was a net benefit.

    Your characterization of Romney and Jonah’s position is badly flawed.  They both want conservative policies and good character.  That used to be the case among virtually all conservatives.

    • #61
  2. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    MSJL (View Comment):
    but rather why must I make a trade off.

    It has always been a trade off.  No man is perfect.  Reagan was a divorcee.  Ike had a mistress.  Etc.  So sure, when you find the perfect human who is also a perfect conservative, by all means, vote for him over the flawed one. (Good luck with that…)  Until then, it is trade offs.  Which is more important, a squeaky clean candidate or conservative policy?  Or to put it another way, which is better, an imperfect conservative Republican or a Democrat/socialist.  Because that is exactly what the choice was…

    If you put character first, you won’t find many politicians that deserve your vote. And if you only vote for the ‘best’ character candidate out of the field, you won’t  get much conservative policy, because they will usually lose, and when they win, they will get bowled over by the left.  As we have seen.  Politics is a dirty business full of dirty politicians.  That is the nature of the beast. 

    There is a famous quote often attributed to Orwell:

    We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

    That is about the kind of man who dedicates his life to the military, but on some level it also applies to the political arena.  Some fights call for rough men.  Trump is a rough man.  We need him now.  I’m sorry so many just can’t stomach that, but in the long run, the virtuous will benefit, despite the flaws of the standard bearer. 

    • #62
  3. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    PHenry (View Comment):
    It has always been a trade off. No man is perfect. Reagan was a divorcee. Ike had a mistress. Etc. So sure, when you find the perfect human who is also a perfect conservative, by all means, vote for him over the flawed one.

    No one is asking for perfection, perhaps just less than 3 standard deviations from the mean.

    • #63
  4. MSJL Thatcher
    MSJL
    @MSJL

    PHenry (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):
    but rather why must I make a trade off.

    It has always been a trade off. No man is perfect. Reagan was a divorcee. Ike had a mistress. Etc. So sure, when you find the perfect human who is also a perfect conservative, by all means, vote for him over the flawed one. (Good luck with that…) Until then, it is trade offs. Which is more important, a squeaky clean candidate or conservative policy? Or to put it another way, which is better, an imperfect conservative Republican or a Democrat/socialist. Because that is exactly what the choice was…

    If you put character first, you won’t find many politicians that deserve your vote. And if you only vote for the ‘best’ character candidate out of the field, you won’t get much conservative policy, because they will usually lose, and when they win, they will get bowled over by the left. As we have seen. Politics is a dirty business full of dirty politicians. That is the nature of the beast.

    There is a famous quote often attributed to Orwell:

    We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

    That is about the kind of man who dedicates his life to the military, but on some level it also applies to the political arena. Some fights call for rough men. Trump is a rough man. We need him now. I’m sorry so many just can’t stomach that, but in the long run, the virtuous will benefit, despite the flaws of the standard bearer.

    Classic false choice:  If I don’t take Trump with all his faults, the exclusive alternative is perfection.  Trust me, there is a universe of perfectly acceptable options between Donald J. Trump and perfection.

    I’m with Klaatu on this one:  No one is asking for perfection.  But our daily politics right now are defined by Trump’s self-destructive behavior, and I am not particularly clear what more of an agenda I’m going to get out of this Administration.  For what I did get, I could have gotten from any other generic Republican with less baggage and disruption.

    I’m not looking to elect a saint to be the president and I’m not asking for Donald Trump to be a saint.  I’m not offended by this man because he uses the wrong fork or can’t quote from the Bible or Shakespeare, but because of the way he treats other people on a daily basis, his increasingly chaotic decision making, and generally the way he creates endless turmoil.  He creates legal liability for himself and he creates political liability for the rest of us, and I don’t think putting up with his behavior is worth the candle.  And I don’t know what benefit we derive from turning a blind eye to it and keeping silent.  In this whole thread I see a lot of people ticked off at Romney calling out Trump, but I don’t see anyone explaining what I would gain if he hadn’t.

    Since we are now only to discuss the political ends we want without regard to the means, let’s take a closer look of where this might go.  In ’74 Nixon cost the GOP 48 seats in the House (getting down to 144) and 3 (to 38) in the Senate, with the Democrats having an effective veto-proof majority.  For a more recent example, in Virginia the GOP has been systematically crushed since Bob McDaniel imploded.   Do we have to suffer a blow-out like that before we take seriously the number of voters who continue to say they have a problem with Trump’s conduct and behavior?  We may not be so lucky to have a Jimmy Carter follow Trump.  You’re crying about your agenda losing a cycle because Romney was “too nice”; what happens when you lose a decade because you squandered public trust?

    If Ike and Reagan were less than perfect human beings and public figures, they were nonetheless public men who stood for good government, good conduct, and reinforcing and strengthening our institutions.  Is that really too much to ask for?

    • #64
  5. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Let’s see the man whose leverage buyout firm, Bain Capital stripped both KB Toys and then Toys R US, among many other firms,   of their best assets and left them for dead wants to talk about character of our President.

    Mitt Romney, the man who  caused thousands to lose their jobs over the years of strip mining companies now  wants to talk about character.

    This “man of character” is the same weasel attention grabbing politician  who also backed the illegal Obama bailout of GM and Chrysler shafting bondholders in the process, while granting the unions nearly $50 billion.

    His Op-Ed  says nothing of the gi-normous QE mess  left Trump by Obama, Bernacke and Yellen, that he, Romney,  should have thoroughly educated the American public on in 2012, but chose not to.  A man of just reasonable character would have brought the public up to speed on that disaster, just for the political value alone. But by refusing to do so, he in effect put his stamp of approval of the unmitigated disaster of QE and allowed it to go on unfettered.

    But Mitt this  man “of character” is also a man  and protector of Wall Street and Wall Street through Goldman Sacks and Deuthesc Bank and other Big Banks literally raped Greece and Cyprus fomenting the crisis of confidence and distrust of government across Europe that he thinks Trump now should mitigate with the same old globalist Big Banks lies.

    But at his self serving argument’s  core, when the Democrats are screaming ” Impeach the M—–f—r”  all on criminally constructed frame-ups  and trials, illegal FISA warrants and other Gestapo tactics that threaten the very integrity of our Republic, Mitt “this hallowed man of character” chooses to loudly pile on the dump Trump parade without ever mentioning the reprehensible tactics of Mueller and the Democrats.  For this ,  Romney is  truly a despicable man and no lover of American values.

    • #65
  6. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Unsk (View Comment):
    Romney is truly a despicable man and no lover of American values.

    Not a single thing you said holds up under the slightest scrutiny.  You are libeling a good man and should be ashamed.

    • #66
  7. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Neil, I guess the biggest crime Trump has committed for you and your fellow Trump Haters is the fact that he fights back when the Democrats slander him. How dare he! He should sit back and do nothing like Romney and Bush did!

    I guess that also means that you approve of Mueller’s Gestapo tactics, right?Talk about despicable and un-American. 

    By the way, Romney’s argument  doesn’t   “hold up under the slightest scrutiny” either. 

    • #67
  8. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Neil, I guess the biggest crime Trump has committed for you and your fellow Trump Haters is the fact that he fights back when the Democrats slander him. How dare he! He should sit back and do nothing like Romney and Bush did!

    I guess that also means that you approve of Mueller’s Gestapo tactics, right?Talk about despicable and un-American.

    By the way, Romney’s argument doesn’t “hold up under the slightest scrutiny” either.

    Have we moved to the straw man portion of tonight’s entertainment?

    Everything Romney wrote is supported.

    • #68
  9. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    PHenry (View Comment):
    Not even close to a fair comparison. When we get credible evidence of rape, sex with interns in the white house, and lying under oath maybe you have a point.

    Paying off porn stars and playmates you cheated on your (3rd) wife with is insufficient?

    Was Trump’s endorsement of Romney solicited or simply accepted? I can’t imagine Trump’s endorsement in UT was a net benefit.

    Your characterization of Romney and Jonah’s position is badly flawed. They both want conservative policies and good character. That used to be the case among virtually all conservatives.

    It still is what all conservatives want. 

    It just isn’t what we got. 

     

    • #69
  10. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Jager (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    That guy is in the mud and it is a problem, unless I need/want something from him then it is just fine, does put the speaker in the mud.

    Not sure when Romney has needed something from Trump but regardless, how so?

    Trump was who he is in 2012. An awful lot of this existed then. In 2012 Romney didn’t have a problem with Trump, he went to Trump to ask for his endorsement. During the campaign Romney spoke out against Trump. When Trump was elected and Romney was hinting about the Sec State job, Romney no longer had a problem with Trump. In 2018 Romney wanted or even if it was just accepted Trumps endorsement. In 2019 Romney no longer had any need of Trump so his character was again a big deal.

    Nothing happened, no new insight between October of 2018 and January of 2019 that created a “last straw”. Trump was OK when Romney could get something and not OK when Romney would never need him again.

    It seems that character is the issue here….

    • #70
  11. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    TBA (View Comment):

    It still is what all conservatives want. 

    It just isn’t what we got. 

    I hope the former is true and despise the fact the latter is.

    • #71
  12. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Classic false choice: If I don’t take Trump with all his faults, the exclusive alternative is perfection. Trust me, there is a universe of perfectly acceptable options between Donald J. Trump and perfection.

    I’m with Klaatu on this one: No one is asking for perfection. But our daily politics right now are defined by Trump’s self-destructive behavior, and I am not particularly clear what more of an agenda I’m going to get out of this Administration. For what I did get, I could have gotten from any other generic Republican with less baggage and disruption.

    I’m not looking to elect a saint to be the president and I’m not asking for Donald Trump to be a saint. I’m not offended by this man because he uses the wrong fork or can’t quote from the Bible or Shakespeare, but because of the way he treats other people on a daily basis, his increasingly chaotic decision making, and generally the way he creates endless turmoil. He creates legal liability for himself and he creates political liability for the rest of us, and I don’t think putting up with his behavior is worth the candle. And I don’t know what benefit we derive from turning a blind eye to it and keeping silent. In this whole thread I see a lot of people ticked off at Romney calling out Trump, but I don’t see anyone explaining what I would gain if he hadn’t.

    Since we are now only to discuss the political ends we want without regard to the means, let’s take a closer look of where this might go. In ’74 Nixon cost the GOP 48 seats in the House (getting down to 144) and 3 (to 38) in the Senate, with the Democrats having an effective veto-proof majority. For a more recent example, in Virginia the GOP has been systematically crushed since Bob McDaniel imploded. Do we have to suffer a blow-out like that before we take seriously the number of voters who continue to say they have a problem with Trump’s conduct and behavior? We may not be so lucky to have a Jimmy Carter follow Trump. You’re crying about your agenda losing a cycle because Romney was “too nice”; what happens when you lose a decade because you squandered public trust?

    If Ike and Reagan were less than perfect human beings and public figures, they were nonetheless public men who stood for good government, good conduct, and reinforcing and strengthening our institutions. Is that really too much to ask for?

    We did ask for it. But we didn’t get it. We got what we got and we aren’t going to get anything different by missing and pwning about it. 

    Indeed when we do that we aid the other side. 

    • #72
  13. MSJL Thatcher
    MSJL
    @MSJL

    TBA (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Classic false choice: If I don’t take Trump with all his faults, the exclusive alternative is perfection. Trust me, there is a universe of perfectly acceptable options between Donald J. Trump and perfection.

    I’m with Klaatu on this one: No one is asking for perfection. But our daily politics right now are defined by Trump’s self-destructive behavior, and I am not particularly clear what more of an agenda I’m going to get out of this Administration. For what I did get, I could have gotten from any other generic Republican with less baggage and disruption.

    I’m not looking to elect a saint to be the president and I’m not asking for Donald Trump to be a saint. I’m not offended by this man because he uses the wrong fork or can’t quote from the Bible or Shakespeare, but because of the way he treats other people on a daily basis, his increasingly chaotic decision making, and generally the way he creates endless turmoil. He creates legal liability for himself and he creates political liability for the rest of us, and I don’t think putting up with his behavior is worth the candle. And I don’t know what benefit we derive from turning a blind eye to it and keeping silent. In this whole thread I see a lot of people ticked off at Romney calling out Trump, but I don’t see anyone explaining what I would gain if he hadn’t.

    Since we are now only to discuss the political ends we want without regard to the means, let’s take a closer look of where this might go. In ’74 Nixon cost the GOP 48 seats in the House (getting down to 144) and 3 (to 38) in the Senate, with the Democrats having an effective veto-proof majority. For a more recent example, in Virginia the GOP has been systematically crushed since Bob McDaniel imploded. Do we have to suffer a blow-out like that before we take seriously the number of voters who continue to say they have a problem with Trump’s conduct and behavior? We may not be so lucky to have a Jimmy Carter follow Trump. You’re crying about your agenda losing a cycle because Romney was “too nice”; what happens when you lose a decade because you squandered public trust?

    If Ike and Reagan were less than perfect human beings and public figures, they were nonetheless public men who stood for good government, good conduct, and reinforcing and strengthening our institutions. Is that really too much to ask for?

    We did ask for it. But we didn’t get it. We got what we got and we aren’t going to get anything different by missing and pwning about it.

    Indeed when we do that we aid the other side.

    So this is it?  This is all we ever look for or nominate for office is a guy whose conduct is perpetually disruptive and questionable because we need the emotional satisfaction of schadenfreude?  We can do no better?

    I have always accepted the argument about giving as well as we get, but now we are saying there must be no bounds as to the message and the messenger.  And we must all go to the mat to defend to the last measure every stupid act and utterance, and we will dump over anyone else who doesn’t shut up and fall in line.  I have never seen this demand of obedience extended to any other Republican in my life.  What’s next, a new Oath to the Leader, because it’s absolutely clear we cannot look critically at the man without a mountain of whataboutism.  I clearly remember the Reagan years, a man who really made a difference, and there was none of this and he was not a punching bag, either.

    If the Republican Party is going to beclown itself to take up a mindless cult of personality, then why Donald Trump?

    • #73
  14. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    MSJL (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

     

    We did ask for it. But we didn’t get it. We got what we got and we aren’t going to get anything different by missing and pwning about it.

    Indeed when we do that we aid the other side.

    So this is it? This is all we ever look for or nominate for office is a guy whose conduct is perpetually disruptive and questionable because we need the emotional satisfaction of schadenfreude? We can do no better?

    Of course we can do better. But not for – at the earliest – another year. And frankly we could easily do worse than Trump for the next term because we might get a Dem. But no, we’re not going to get Trump-style presidents for the rest of forever any more than we got repeats of any number of prior ‘worst’ presidents. 

    I have always accepted the argument about giving as well as we get, but now we are saying there must be no bounds as to the message and the messenger. And we must all go to the mat to defend to the last measure every stupid act and utterance, and we will dump over anyone else who doesn’t shut up and fall in line. I have never seen this demand of obedience extended to any other Republican in my life. What’s next, a new Oath to the Leader, because it’s absolutely clear we cannot look critically at the man without a mountain of whataboutism. I clearly remember the Reagan years, a man who really made a difference, and there was none of this and he was not a punching bag, either.

    If the Republican Party is going to beclown itself to take up a mindless cult of personality, then why Donald Trump?

    I reject categorically the cult of personality idea both as a general concept (even Obama didn’t actually have such a thing – the cultist qualities of some of his sycophants were not about his personality) and the idea that the Republican Party could ever take up such a cult. 

    No one is saying criticism is out of bounds. am saying concentrated criticism from the right, amid foaming-at-the-mouth Trump derangement from the left is destructive to Republican aims. 

    I could make a long list of Trump’s flaws, missteps, and inexplicable about-faces. 

    But to what end exactly? Who would be served by this list? Would people who either like or hate Trump learn anything new from such a list among the plethora of detractors’ lists? Would Trump see this list and say, ‘that TBA is spot on – what a fool I’ve been; I shall change my ways henceforth’? 

    The only things that list could do is make things a little worse for Trump and maybe get me some cred with Trump haters.

    But I don’t want either of those things. 

    • #74
  15. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    TBA (View Comment):
    The only things that list could do is make things a little worse for Trump and maybe get me some cred with Trump haters.

    Or, it could make a statement that such behavior is unacceptable, future support is (at least in part) dependent on a change in behavior, and give warning to others who may wish to behave similarly.

    • #75
  16. MSJL Thatcher
    MSJL
    @MSJL

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):
    The only things that list could do is make things a little worse for Trump and maybe get me some cred with Trump haters.

    Or, it could make a statement that such behavior is unacceptable, future support is (at least in part) dependent on a change in behavior, and give warning to others who may wish to behave similarly.

    And if we are not going to have a cult of personality, and if we are not saying that any criticism is out of bounds, what is the harm to Trump, specifically, or the GOP generally by pointing these things out?

    • #76
  17. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):
    The only things that list could do is make things a little worse for Trump and maybe get me some cred with Trump haters.

    Or, it could make a statement that such behavior is unacceptable, future support is (at least in part) dependent on a change in behavior, and give warning to others who may wish to behave similarly.

    And if we are not going to have a cult of personality, and if we are not saying that any criticism is out of bounds, what is the harm to Trump, specifically, or the GOP generally by pointing these things out?

    Read more Codevilla.

    • #77
  18. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):
    The only things that list could do is make things a little worse for Trump and maybe get me some cred with Trump haters.

    Or, it could make a statement that such behavior is unacceptable, future support is (at least in part) dependent on a change in behavior, and give warning to others who may wish to behave similarly.

    And if we are not going to have a cult of personality, and if we are not saying that any criticism is out of bounds, what is the harm to Trump, specifically, or the GOP generally by pointing these things out?

    Read more Codevilla.

    Point of order: ‘a cold civil war’ is properly credited to William Gibson. 

    • #78
  19. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    MSJL (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Classic false choice: If I don’t take Trump with all his faults, the exclusive alternative is perfection. Trust me, there is a universe of perfectly acceptable options between Donald J. Trump and perfection.

    I’m with Klaatu on this one: No one is asking for perfection. But our daily politics right now are defined by Trump’s self-destructive behavior, and I am not particularly clear what more of an agenda I’m going to get out of this Administration. For what I did get, I could have gotten from any other generic Republican with less baggage and disruption.

    I’m not looking to elect a saint to be the president and I’m not asking for Donald Trump to be a saint. I’m not offended by this man because he uses the wrong fork or can’t quote from the Bible or Shakespeare, but because of the way he treats other people on a daily basis, his increasingly chaotic decision making, and

    I have always accepted the argument about giving as well as we get, but now we are saying there must be no bounds as to the message and the messenger. And we must all go to the mat to defend to the last measure every stupid act and utterance, and we will dump over anyone else who doesn’t shut up and fall in line. I have never seen this demand of obedience extended to any other Republican in my life. What’s next, a new Oath to the Leader, because it’s absolutely clear we cannot look critically at the man without a mountain of whataboutism. I clearly remember the Reagan years, a man who really made a difference, and there was none of this and he was not a punching bag, either.

    If the Republican Party is going to beclown itself to take up a mindless cult of personality, then why Donald Trump?

    You mention: “And we must all go to the mat to defend to the last measure every stupid act and utterance, and we will dump over anyone else who doesn’t shut up and fall in line. I have never seen this demand of obedience extended to any other Republican in my life.”               On the contrary – we’ve never seen this much trashing of an American president of either party in my life and it never lets up.  Your grievances are shared by all – and character matters.  He’s like the uncle who works two jobs to support the family, volunteers at the local men’s shelter, and tells dirty jokes at the dinner table.  Father Rutler of Brooklyn in his sermon this week said “this may be the most pro-life Executive Branch since Roe v. Wade”. What is more important?

    • #79
  20. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Classic false choice: If I don’t take Trump with all his faults, the exclusive alternative is perfection. Trust me, there is a universe of perfectly acceptable options between Donald J. Trump and perfection.

    I’m with Klaatu on this one: No one is asking for perfection. But our daily politics right now are defined by Trump’s self-destructive behavior, and I am not particularly clear what more of an agenda I’m going to get out of this Administration. For what I did get, I could have gotten from any other generic Republican with less baggage and disruption.

    I’m not looking to elect a saint to be the president and I’m not asking for Donald Trump to be a saint. I’m not offended by this man because he uses the wrong fork or can’t quote from the Bible or Shakespeare, but because of the way he treats other people on a daily basis, his increasingly chaotic decision making, and

    I have always accepted the argument about giving as well as we get, but now we are saying there must be no bounds as to the message and the messenger. And we must all go to the mat to defend to the last measure every stupid act and utterance, and we will dump over anyone else who doesn’t shut up and fall in line. I have never seen this demand of obedience extended to any other Republican in my life. What’s next, a new Oath to the Leader, because it’s absolutely clear we cannot look critically at the man without a mountain of whataboutism. I clearly remember the Reagan years, a man who really made a difference, and there was none of this and he was not a punching bag, either.

    If the Republican Party is going to beclown itself to take up a mindless cult of personality, then why Donald Trump?

    You mention: “And we must all go to the mat to defend to the last measure every stupid act and utterance, and we will dump over anyone else who doesn’t shut up and fall in line. I have never seen this demand of obedience extended to any other Republican in my life.” On the contrary – we’ve never seen this much trashing of an American president of either party in my life and it never lets up. Your grievances are shared by all – and character matters. He’s like the uncle who works two jobs to support the family, volunteers at the local men’s shelter, and tells dirty jokes at the dinner table. Father Rutler of Brooklyn in his sermon this week said “this may be the most pro-life Executive Branch since Roe v. Wade”. What is more important?

    Well, ‘character’ obviously. Because bad character will doom Trump and doom us all. DOOM, I say! Heed my words, we will have doom…doom – doooooooommm. 

    • #80
  21. MSJL Thatcher
    MSJL
    @MSJL

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    “On the contrary – we’ve never seen this much trashing of an American president of either party in my life and it never lets up.”

    I remember the tirades against Reagan, globally.  And the general melt down over W with the snuff film fantasies was also quite remarkable.  

    And what of it?  What does it justify or excuse?

    Assessing a man’s character is not an audit of sins and omissions, but also taking the mark of his judgment, discipline, and treatment of others.  I said before I don’t care about the man’s manners, I care about his decisions and priorities.  He overcame my initial distrust of him by appointing a first-class cabinet, but now he is throwing them over the side, in the midst of withdrawals that seem as premature and thoughtless as those we criticized Obama for, and I don’t understand why he should be immune from scrutiny or criticism.

    • #81
  22. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    “On the contrary – we’ve never seen this much trashing of an American president of either party in my life and it never lets up.”

    I remember the tirades against Reagan, globally. And the general melt down over W with the snuff film fantasies was also quite remarkable.

    And what of it? What does it justify or excuse?

    Assessing a man’s character is not an audit of sins and omissions, but also taking the mark of his judgment, discipline, and treatment of others. I said before I don’t care about the man’s manners, I care about his decisions and priorities. He overcame my initial distrust of him by appointing a first-class cabinet, but now he is throwing them over the side, in the midst of withdrawals that seem as premature and thoughtless as those we criticized Obama for, and I don’t understand why he should be immune from scrutiny or criticism.

    Who exactly has taken the position that anyone should be immune from scrutiny or criticism? 

    • #82
  23. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    TBA (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    “On the contrary – we’ve never seen this much trashing of an American president of either party in my life and it never lets up.”

    I remember the tirades against Reagan, globally. And the general melt down over W with the snuff film fantasies was also quite remarkable.

    And what of it? What does it justify or excuse?

    Assessing a man’s character is not an audit of sins and omissions, but also taking the mark of his judgment, discipline, and treatment of others. I said before I don’t care about the man’s manners, I care about his decisions and priorities. He overcame my initial distrust of him by appointing a first-class cabinet, but now he is throwing them over the side, in the midst of withdrawals that seem as premature and thoughtless as those we criticized Obama for, and I don’t understand why he should be immune from scrutiny or criticism.

    Who exactly has taken the position that anyone should be immune from scrutiny or criticism?

    You.

    I could make a long list of Trump’s flaws, missteps, and inexplicable about-faces. 

    But to what end exactly? Who would be served by this list? Would people who either like or hate Trump learn anything new from such a list among the plethora of detractors’ lists? Would Trump see this list and say, ‘that TBA is spot on – what a fool I’ve been; I shall change my ways henceforth’? 

    The only things that list could do is make things a little worse for Trump and maybe get me some cred with Trump haters.

     

    • #83
  24. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    MSJL (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    “On the contrary – we’ve never seen this much trashing of an American president of either party in my life and it never lets up.”

    I remember the tirades against Reagan, globally. And the general melt down over W with the snuff film fantasies was also quite remarkable.

    And what of it? What does it justify or excuse?

    Assessing a man’s character is not an audit of sins and omissions, but also taking the mark of his judgment, discipline, and treatment of others. I said before I don’t care about the man’s manners, I care about his decisions and priorities. He overcame my initial distrust of him by appointing a first-class cabinet, but now he is throwing them over the side, in the midst of withdrawals that seem as premature and thoughtless as those we criticized Obama for, and I don’t understand why he should be immune from scrutiny or criticism.

    Who exactly has taken the position that anyone should be immune from scrutiny or criticism?

    You.

    I could make a long list of Trump’s flaws, missteps, and inexplicable about-faces.

    But to what end exactly? Who would be served by this list? Would people who either like or hate Trump learn anything new from such a list among the plethora of detractors’ lists? Would Trump see this list and say, ‘that TBA is spot on – what a fool I’ve been; I shall change my ways henceforth’?

    The only things that list could do is make things a little worse for Trump and maybe get me some cred with Trump haters.

    Nonsense. TBA is questioning the utility of such criticism, not taking the position Trump should be immune from it. I’ve been doing the same. To what end? What is the point of repeating things we already know and acknowledge about the President?

    • #84
  25. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Nonsense. TBA is questioning the utility of such criticism, not taking the position Trump should be immune from it. I’ve been doing the same. To what end? What is the point of repeating things we already know and acknowledge about the President?

    You are making a distinction between telling someone they should not do something and telling him doing so is useless?  Not sure that distinction makes much actual difference.

    • #85
  26. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Nonsense. TBA is questioning the utility of such criticism, not taking the position Trump should be immune from it. I’ve been doing the same. To what end? What is the point of repeating things we already know and acknowledge about the President?

    You are making a distinction between telling someone they should not do something and telling him doing so is useless? Not sure that distinction makes much actual difference.

    Pointless repetition is foolish, but no one is saying Mitt and Jonah and others can’t do it. We’re just pointing out the foolishness of it. Is that criticism permissible?

    At some point, though, when the country is facing real problems like corruption at the highest levels of our institutions, like runaway debt and spending, like China advancing on the moon and threatening Taiwan, like Congress abdicating its power to the executive and the judiciary usurping the power of same… one begins to wonder if the distraction is intentional. Cui bono?

    • #86
  27. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Pointless repetition is foolish, but no one is saying Mitt and Jonah and others can’t do it. We’re just pointing out the foolishness of it. It that criticism permissible? 

    At some point, though, when the country is facing real problems like corruption at the highest levels of our institutions, like runaway debt and spending, like China advancing on the moon and threatening Taiwan, like Congress abdicating its power to the executive and the judiciary usurping the power of same… one begins to wonder if the distraction is intentional. Cui bono?

    The issue was whether people believe Trump should not be criticized, not that he cannot be criticized.  Telling someone that their criticism is pointless (or even harmful) is not meaningfully different than telling them they should not make such criticism.

    Some of the criticism of Trump is,not only is he actively against dealing with some problems (entitlements/debt) but his behavior makes dealing with other problems more difficult.

    • #87
  28. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Pointless repetition is foolish, but no one is saying Mitt and Jonah and others can’t do it. We’re just pointing out the foolishness of it. It that criticism permissible?

    At some point, though, when the country is facing real problems like corruption at the highest levels of our institutions, like runaway debt and spending, like China advancing on the moon and threatening Taiwan, like Congress abdicating its power to the executive and the judiciary usurping the power of same… one begins to wonder if the distraction is intentional. Cui bono?

    The issue was whether people believe Trump should not be criticized, not that he cannot be criticized. Telling someone that their criticism is pointless (or even harmful) is not meaningfully different than telling them they should not make such criticism.

    Some of the criticism of Trump is,not only is he actively against dealing with some problems (entitlements/debt) but his behavior makes dealing with other problems more difficult.

    It’s beyond tiresome when everyone (including Mitt) has to grab the whack a mole mallet and get their thump in, while the American people just want solutions to problems. Trump tries to find solutions – he isn’t a saint, but he’s made some very good progress, and you know what he’s done so don’t ask me to list – Unless the opposition can stand on progress and positive solutions, they will fizzle out.

    • #88
  29. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    It’s beyond tiresome when everyone (including Mitt) has to grab the whack a mole mallet and get their thump in, while the American people just want solutions to problems. Trump tries to find solutions – he isn’t a saint, but he’s made some very good progress, and you know what he’s done so don’t ask me to list – Unless the opposition can stand on progress and positive solutions, they will fizzle out.

    What I, and others, find tiresome is Trump’s behavior and people telling us to shut up and deal with it.

    I’m not going to be quiet now because the next time a president on the left behaves abhorrently I do not want to hear, “Well Trump did the same.”

    I don’t want a day to go by without Trump hearing his behavior is unacceptable and Americans hearing conservatives say his behavior is unacceptable.  

    • #89
  30. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    It’s beyond tiresome when everyone (including Mitt) has to grab the whack a mole mallet and get their thump in, while the American people just want solutions to problems. Trump tries to find solutions – he isn’t a saint, but he’s made some very good progress, and you know what he’s done so don’t ask me to list – Unless the opposition can stand on progress and positive solutions, they will fizzle out.

    What I, and others, find tiresome is Trump’s behavior and people telling us to shut up and deal with it.

    I’m not going to be quiet now because the next time a president on the left behaves abhorrently I do not want to hear, “Well Trump did the same.”

    I don’t want a day to go by without Trump hearing his behavior is unacceptable and Americans hearing conservatives say his behavior is unacceptable.

    You need a hobby. 

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.