Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

First Republican for Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump Emerges
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/first-republican-for-clinton-over-trump-emerges.html

By this point, the vast majority of conservative intellectuals have publicly denounced Donald Trump. Most of them depict Trump as an ideologically alien force, more liberal than conservative, whose very affiliation with the GOP is to be dismissed as an inexplicable mistake. But https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html (Robert Kagan’s anti-Trump column) today differs from those others in two important respects. First, he connects the rise of Trump to the Republican Party’s generalized anti-Obama hysteria. He calls Trump “the party’s creation, its Frankenstein monster,” attributing his rise to “the party’s wild obstructionism,” its “accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks,” and — most daringly — its “Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified.” Republicans have challenged the party’s failure to develop legislative alternatives, but none of them have attacked its strategy of massive uncompromising opposition to the entire Obama agenda. (Except David Frum, who was quickly fired from his think-tank post.)

More daringly, Kagan does not merely denounce Trump, or even swear he will never support him (as other conservatives have done). He states plainly he would vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump. And that, of course, is the only real statement that has force in this context. It is one thing to staunchly oppose a candidate in the primary, but however fierce your opposition, there is always room to come home to the party if you lose the primary. Kagan is connecting Trump to the GOP’s extremism and saying that a Trump-led party is unsupportable. That is the sort of opposition that could turn a Trump defeat into an opportunity for internal reform.

Now, Kagan is a bit atypical. A prominent neoconservative intellectual, he has moved closer to the center and defended aspects of the Obama record. It is also interesting that Kagan, like Frum, hails from the neoconservative tradition. The neoconservatives were originally moderate liberal critics of the Democratic Party, who objected to its leftward turn in the 1960s and 1970s and began their exodus from the broader Democratic Party around the McGovern campaign. Most of them are deeply enmeshed in the conservative movement now and have views about the role of government indistinguishable from those of other conservatives. But, eventually, some faction will break loose from the GOP and form the basis for a sane party that is capable of governing. Who knows? Maybe that faction will be the one that moved into the party a half-century ago.
 
Trump's Birther Libel
Trump Is Redefining What It Means to Be American

From mass deportations, to torture and waterboarding, to dipping bullets in pig’s blood, Donald Trump is systematically redefining what is acceptable to say in American politics and perhaps eventually what is acceptable to do in American government. Election year 2016 is coming to seem like a remake of Eugène Ionesco’s play Rhinoceros, a surreal cautionary tale in which ordinary people, one by one, give up their humanity to the twin fevers of totalitarianism and rage.

Trump’s challenge to the U.S. Constitution is only one subchapter of that story; but the damage he is doing is real, and he’s not finished yet.


Rubio: My disastrous failure to stop Trump is the media’s fault
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/26/rubio-my-disastrous-failure-to-stop-trump-is-the-medias-fault/ (Rubio: My disastrous failure to stop Trump is the media’s fault)

At last night’s debate, Marco Rubio finally unloaded the oppo file on Donald Trump after anxiety-stricken GOP-aligned elite opinion-makers tearfully pleaded with him to finally step up and take on the Trump juggernaut before it’s too late. There’s no question that Rubio had a good showing — he and Ted Cruz did a decent job of shining a harsher light than usual on Trump’s policy shallowness, his ideological opportunism, and his murky business dealings.

The question, of course, is whether it’s too late. Ed Kilgore captures the larger meaning of what happened very well:

That this unholy mess of a debate excited Republican elites is the best sign yet of how desperate they’ve become for anything that might take down Trump. Maybe he will underperform on March 1 and things will turn around – but we shouldn’t believe it until we see it.

Here’s one thing that indicates Rubio isn’t too confident in that regard. This morning he went on CBS News and blamed the media for failing to do its part to stop Trump’s march to the nomination — suggesting that the media is deliberately pumping up Trump in order to help Democrats win the general election.




Twilight of the Apparatchiks
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/twilight-of-the-apparatchiks.html

Lack of self-awareness can be fatal. The haplessness of the Republican establishment in the face of Trumpism is a case in point.

As many have noted, it’s remarkable how shocked — shocked! — that establishment has been at the success of Donald Trump’s racist, xenophobic campaign. Who knew that this kind of thing would appeal to the party’s base? Isn’t the G.O.P. the party of Ronald Reagan, who sold conservatism with high-minded philosophical messages, like talking about a “strapping young buck” using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks?

Seriously, Republican political strategy has been exploiting racial antagonism, getting working-class whites to despise government because it dares to help Those People, for almost half a century. So it’s amazing to see the party’s elite utterly astonished by the success of a candidate who is just saying outright what they have consistently tried to convey with dog whistles.

What I find even more amazing, however, are the Republican establishment’s delusions about what its own voters are for. You see, all indications are that the party elite imagines that base voters share its own faith in conservative principles, when that not only isn’t true, it never has been.




The Governing Cancer of Our Time
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-time.html



Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.

Ultimately, they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total victories for themselves and their doctrine.

This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy.



And in walks Donald Trump. People say that Trump is an unconventional candidate and that he represents a break from politics as usual. That’s not true. Trump is the culmination of the trends we have been seeing for the last 30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of rhetoric that makes conversation impossible; the decline of coherent political parties; the declining importance of policy; the tendency to fight cultural battles and identity wars through political means.

Trump represents the path the founders rejected. There is a hint of violence undergirding his campaign. There is always a whiff, and sometimes more than a whiff, of “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

I printed out a Times list of the insults Trump has hurled on Twitter. The list took up 33 pages. Trump’s style is bashing and pummeling. Everyone who opposes or disagrees with him is an idiot, a moron or a loser. The implied promise of his campaign is that he will come to Washington and bully his way through.

Trump’s supporters aren’t looking for a political process to address their needs. They are looking for a superhero. As the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams found, the one trait that best predicts whether you’re a Trump supporter is how high you score on tests that measure authoritarianism.




The Dilemma of Conservatives Who Say They’ll Never Vote for Donald Trump
The Dilemma of Conservatives Who Say They’ll Never Vote for Donald Trump - The New Yorker

The completion of Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party is now within reach. If a lot goes right for Marco Rubio, he has a narrow shot at defeating Trump—Karl Rove and David Wasserman have their own detailed explanations—but Trump, after winning three out of the first four contests and demonstrating that he appeals to a wider and growing swath of the Republican electorate, is the overwhelming favorite. Prediction markets now put the odds of Trump securing the G.O.P. nomination at seventy-four per cent.

The historic nature of a Trump victory can hardly be overstated. He could very well stand at a lectern in Cleveland at the Republican National Convention, in July, accepting the nomination of a party whose top elected officials—governors, congressmen, and senators—have either refused to support him or actively opposed his nomination. Yes, there are some cracks. This week, two House members endorsed Trump, and other elected officials will surely jump aboard, especially those representing Trump strongholds. “A lot of our base is supporting Donald Trump,” South Carolina Congressman Mick Mulvaney told me late last year, during negotiations over the budget.

But Trump represents such a radical break with the Republican consensus on important issues that a significant segment of the Party will never back him. Among the Party’s intellectual and strategist class, the number of figures on the anti-Trump right has been growing in recent weeks in direct proportion to Trump’s successes.

 
Donald Trump is not a joke: A warning to Americans from an Italian who survived Berlusconi
Donald Trump is not a joke: A warning to Americans from an Italian who survived Berlusconi

Donald Trump is hilarious, you guys.

The Republican presidential candidate literally went from being that guy trolling the world on Twitter to being that guy trolling the Grand Old Party’s campaign. He says he’ll build a wall between the United States and Mexico and it will be huge and Mexico will pay for it and America will be great again. His sexism is nauseating, his ignorance cringe-worthy, his conduct baffling. He provides https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/01/15/know-your-trump-meme-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb/ (more memes), gifs, jokes and video games than one could possibly have time for.

And he really is winning.

In advance of the South Carolina primary on Sunday, a joke circulated online asking women if they’d have sex with Trump, if it meant he’d drop out of the race. My answer would be “no” for at least three reasons:
  1. I am not an American citizen, and this is not the kind of thing one should even remotely consider doing for a foreign country.
  2. Even if Trump dropped out of the race, what would we do about the people who support his brand of hatred? Would they give up their claims to US citizenship, too?
  3. I’ve heard this question before.
Well, not exactly this question. As an Italian citizen, I have heard different variations on this question–with former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi subbing in for the Donald.
 
Amazing that David Duke, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Dennis Rodman, and Joe Arpaio all back the same candidate for president.

56cff2291e0000220070ecc6.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster. Now he’s strong enough to destroy the party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html (Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster. Now he’s strong enough to destroy the party.)

When the plague descended on Thebes, Oedipus sent his brother-in-law to the Delphic oracle to discover the cause. Little did he realize that the crime for which Thebes was being punished was his own. Today’s Republican Party is our Oedipus. A plague has descended on the party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics. The party searches desperately for the cause and the remedy without realizing that, like Oedipus, it is the party itself that brought on this plague. The party’s own political crimes are being punished in a bit of cosmic justice fit for a Greek tragedy.

Let’s be clear: Trump is no fluke. Nor is he hijacking the Republican Party or the conservative movement, if there is such a thing. He is, rather, the party’s creation, its Frankenstein monster, brought to life by the party, fed by the party and now made strong enough to destroy its maker. Was it not the party’s wild obstructionism — the repeated threats to shut down the government over policy and legislative disagreements; the persistent call for nullification of Supreme Court decisions; the insistence that compromise was betrayal; the internal coups against party leaders who refused to join the general demolition — that taught Republican voters that government, institutions, political traditions, party leadership and even parties themselves were things to be overthrown, evaded, ignored, insulted, laughed at? Was it not Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), among many others, who set this tone and thereby cleared the way for someone even more irreverent, so that now, in a most unenjoyable irony, Cruz, along with the rest of the party, must fall to the purer version of himself, a less ideologically encumbered anarcho-revolutionary? This would not be the first revolution that devoured itself.

 
Time to fire him
Donald Trump is unfit to lead a great political party
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...nfit-lead-great-political-party-time-fire-him

IN A week’s time, the race for the Republican nomination could be all but over. Donald Trump has already won three of the first four contests. On March 1st, Super Tuesday, 12 more states will vote. Mr Trump has a polling lead in all but three of them. Were these polls to translate into results, as they have so far, Mr Trump would not quite be unbeatable. It would still be possible for another candidate to win enough delegates to overtake him. But that would require the front-runner to have a late, spectacular electoral collapse of a kind that has not been seen before. Right now the Republican nomination is his to lose.

Worse, it might not stop there. Polls show that 46% of Americans of voting age have a “very unfavourable” opinion of Mr Trump, which suggests his chances of winning a general election are slight. But Mr Trump’s political persona is more flexible than that of any professional politician, which means he can take it in any direction he wants to. And whoever wins the nomination for either party will have a decent chance of becoming America’s next president: the past few elections have been decided by slim margins in a handful of states. When pollsters ask voters to choose in a face-off between Mr Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner wins by less than three percentage points. Mr Trump would have plenty of time to try to close that gap. An economy that falls back into recession or an indictment for Mrs Clinton might do it for him.

That is an appalling prospect. The things Mr Trump has said in this campaign make him unworthy of leading one of the world’s great political parties, let alone America. One way to judge politicians is by whether they appeal to our better natures: Mr Trump has prospered by inciting hatred and violence. He is so unpredictable that the thought of him anywhere near high office is terrifying. He must be stopped.

 
4 reasons why Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/4-reasons-why-chris-christie-endorsed-donald-trump/?tid=sm_tw (4 reasons why Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/26/new-jersey-gov-chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-christie-107pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump's presidential candidacy) on Friday in Texas, a stunning development sure to add to the growing sense of inevitability around Trump's bid for the Republican nomination.

The only question anyone was asking in the wake of the endorsement was "why"? Or, more accurately, "WHY??!?" After all, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/chris-christie-just-endorsed-trump-a-few-weeks-ago-he-said-trump-had-no-experience-and-would-hand-the-race-to-democrats/ (Christie had savaged Trump as unelectable just a few weeks ago). So, why the abrupt about-face?

I have four ideas that I think make sense.
 
4 reasons why Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/4-reasons-why-chris-christie-endorsed-donald-trump/?tid=sm_tw (4 reasons why Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/26/new-jersey-gov-chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-christie-107pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump's presidential candidacy) on Friday in Texas, a stunning development sure to add to the growing sense of inevitability around Trump's bid for the Republican nomination.

The only question anyone was asking in the wake of the endorsement was "why"? Or, more accurately, "WHY??!?" After all, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/chris-christie-just-endorsed-trump-a-few-weeks-ago-he-said-trump-had-no-experience-and-would-hand-the-race-to-democrats/ (Christie had savaged Trump as unelectable just a few weeks ago). So, why the abrupt about-face?

I have four ideas that I think make sense.

Do you actually read all of these or just post them???
 
Trump driving neocons to return to the Democrats from whence they came:


Why Trump Is Panicking Robert Kagan
Why Trump Is Panicking Robert Kagan

Jacob Heilbrunn
February 26, 2016

Robert_Kagan_Fot_Mariusz_Kubik_01.jpg

That neocons would exit the GOP to support Clinton was clear from the start.



Anyone looking for further converts to the Hillary Clinton campaign might do well to look at the Marco Rubio campaign. If Clinton is the leading liberal hawk, Rubio is the foremost neocon candidate. In 2014 National Review published an article about him titled “The neocons return.”

Whether it’s Cuba or Iran or Russia, he stakes out the most http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/events/2012/4/25-rubio/20120425_rubio.pdf%5C: “I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go ‘abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.'” Not surprisingly, he’s surrounded himself with neocon advisers, ranging from Max Boot to Jamie Fly to Elliott Abrams.

If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html (Robert Kagan) announced in the Washington Post on Thursday that he intends to back Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump receives the GOP nomination. The fact is that the loyalty of the neocons has always been to an ideology of American exceptionalism, not to a particular party.

This is what separates the neocon conversion to Clinton from previous examples of Republicans endorsing Barack Obama. Colin Powell wasn’t making an ideological statement. He was making a practical one, based on his distaste for where the GOP was headed. For the neocons this is a much more heartfelt moment. They have invested decades in trying to reshape the GOP into their own image, and were quite successful at it. But now a formidable challenge is taking place as the GOP reverts to its traditional heritage.

The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the 1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic Party. George McGovern’s run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency, sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.

But it wasn’t until the George W. Bush presidency that the neocons became the dominant foreign policy force inside the GOP. They promptly proceeded to wreck his presidency by championing the war in Iraq. Today, having wrecked it, they are now threatening to bolt the GOP and support Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump for the presidency.

Something like this scenario is what I predicted in the New York Times in July 2014. Trump wasn’t around then as a force inside the GOP. But already it seemed clear that some of the leading neocons such as Kagan were receptive to Clinton. Now, in a Washington Post column, Kagan has gone all in.

He decries Republican obstructionism, antipathy to Obama, and the rise of Trump. The tone is apocalyptic. According to https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html (Kagan),

“So what to do now? The Republicans’ creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

This itself represents a curious case of neocon hyperbole. Kagan is an eloquent writer, but he elides the fact that many of Trump’s positions are not all that different from what the GOP has espoused in the past when it comes to domestic issues. It is on foreign affairs where Trump represents a marked shift and it is this that truly troubles the neocon wing.

Trump has made it clear that he’s dubious about foreign interventions. He’s indicated that he would treat with Russian president Vladimir Putin. His entire foreign policy credo, such as it is, seems to have a Jacksonian pedigree—don’t tread on me.

For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration.

Here we come full circle. The origins of the neocons are in the Democratic Party. Should Clinton become the Democratic nominee and Trump the Republican one, a number of neocons may make common cause with Clinton. Watch Rubio’s ranks first.
 
4 reasons why Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/4-reasons-why-chris-christie-endorsed-donald-trump/?tid=sm_tw (4 reasons why Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/26/new-jersey-gov-chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-christie-107pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump's presidential candidacy) on Friday in Texas, a stunning development sure to add to the growing sense of inevitability around Trump's bid for the Republican nomination.

The only question anyone was asking in the wake of the endorsement was "why"? Or, more accurately, "WHY??!?" After all, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/chris-christie-just-endorsed-trump-a-few-weeks-ago-he-said-trump-had-no-experience-and-would-hand-the-race-to-democrats/ (Christie had savaged Trump as unelectable just a few weeks ago). So, why the abrupt about-face?

I have four ideas that I think make sense.
Didn't mind Christie because he's a Cowboys fan. Now not so much lol
 
Enough denial, Trump is made in America
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...7/Enough-denial-Trump-is-made-in-America.html

...

The history of the 20th century is full of dictators, autocrats and strong men manipulating gullible masses. Trump and his supporters at times wallow publicly and crassly in their contempt of different social groups. Once again, Trump displayed his contempt to free speech, when he threatened the American media the day after the debate. “We’re going to open up those libel laws folks and we’re going to have people sue you like you never got sued before.” Trump added: “we have many things to do. We have many, many things to do.” Trump’s supporters hate the media because they are told it is part of the establishment. When I say there is something rotten in the land, I mean that I see it afflicting some leaders and the masses that follow them.

...
 
Last edited:
Inside the Republican Party’s Desperate Mission to Stop Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html

The scenario Karl Rove outlined was bleak.

Addressing a luncheon of Republican governors and donors in Washington on Feb. 19, he warned that Donald J. Trump’s increasingly likely nomination would be catastrophic, dooming the party in November. But Mr. Rove, the master strategist of George W. Bush’s campaigns, insisted it was not too late for them to stop Mr. Trump, according to three people present.

At a meeting of Republican governors the next morning, Paul R. LePage of Maine called for action. Seated at a long boardroom table at the Willard Hotel, he erupted in frustration over the state of the 2016 race, saying Mr. Trump’s nomination would deeply wound the Republican Party. Mr. LePage urged the governors to draft an open letter “to the people,” disavowing Mr. Trump and his divisive brand of politics.

The suggestion was not taken up. Since then, Mr. Trump has only gotten stronger, winning two more state contests and collecting the endorsement of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

In public, there were calls for the party to unite behind a single candidate. In dozens of interviews, elected officials, political strategists and donors described a frantic, last-ditch campaign to block Mr. Trump — and the agonizing reasons that many of them have become convinced it will fail. Behind the scenes, a desperate mission to save the party sputtered and stalled at every turn.

Efforts to unite warring candidates behind one failed spectacularly: An overture from Senator Marco Rubio to Mr. Christie angered and insulted the governor. An unsubtle appeal from Mitt Romney to John Kasich, about the party’s need to consolidate behind one rival to Mr. Trump, fell on deaf ears. At least two campaigns have drafted plans to overtake Mr. Trump in a brokered convention, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has laid out a plan that would have lawmakers break with Mr. Trump explicitly in a general election.

Despite all the forces arrayed against Mr. Trump, the interviews show, the party has been gripped by a nearly incapacitating leadership vacuum and a paralytic sense of indecision and despair, as he has won smashing victories in South Carolina and Nevada. Donors have dreaded the consequences of clashing with Mr. Trump directly. Elected officials have balked at attacking him out of concern that they might unintentionally fuel his populist revolt. And Republicans have lacked someone from outside the presidential race who could help set the terms of debate from afar.

The endorsement by Mr. Christie, a not unblemished but still highly regarded figure within the party’s elite — he is a former chairman of the Republican Governors Association — landed Friday with crippling force. It was by far the most important defection to Mr. Trump’s insurgency: Mr. Christie may give cover to other Republicans tempted to join Mr. Trump rather than trying to beat him. Not just the Stop Trump forces seemed in peril, but also the traditional party establishment itself.

Should Mr. Trump clinch the presidential nomination, it would represent a rout of historic proportions for the institutional Republican Party, and could set off an internal rift unseen in either party for a half-century, since white Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party en masse during the civil rights movement.

Former Gov. Michael O. Leavitt of Utah, a top adviser to Mr. Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, said the party was unable to come up with a united front to quash Mr. Trump’s campaign.

“There is no mechanism,” Mr. Leavitt said. “There is no smoke-filled room. If there is, I’ve never seen it, nor do I know anyone who has. This is going to play out in the way that it will.”

Republicans have ruefully acknowledged that they came to this dire pass in no small part because of their own passivity. There were ample opportunities to battle Mr. Trump earlier; more than one plan was drawn up only to be rejected. Rivals who attacked him early, like Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal, the former governors of Texas and Louisiana, received little backup and quickly faded.

Late last fall, the strategists Alex Castellanos and Gail Gitcho, both presidential campaign veterans, reached out to dozens of the party’s leading donors, including the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and the hedge-fund manager Paul Singer, with a plan to create a “super PAC” that would take down Mr. Trump. In a confidential memo, the strategists laid out the mission of a group they called “ProtectUS.”

“We want voters to imagine Donald Trump in the Big Chair in the Oval Office, with responsibilities for worldwide confrontation at his fingertips,” they wrote in the previously unreported memo. Mr. Castellanos even produced ads portraying Mr. Trump as unfit for the presidency, according to people who saw them and who, along with many of those interviewed, insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.

The two strategists, who declined to comment, proposed to attack Mr. Trump in New Hampshire over his business failures and past liberal positions, and emphasized the extreme urgency of their project. A Trump nomination would not only cause Republicans to lose the presidency, they wrote, “but we also lose the Senate, competitive gubernatorial elections and moderate House Republicans.”

No major donors committed to the project, and it was abandoned. No other sustained Stop Trump effort sprang up in its place.

Resistance to Mr. Trump still runs deep. The party’s biggest benefactors remain totally opposed to him. At a recent presentation hosted by the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, the country’s most prolific conservative donors, their political advisers characterized Mr. Trump’s record as utterly unacceptable, and highlighted his support for government-funded business subsidies and government-backed health care, according to people who attended.

But the Kochs, like Mr. Adelson, have shown no appetite to intervene directly in the primary with decisive force.

The American Future Fund, a conservative group that does not disclose its donors, announced plans on Friday to run ads blasting Mr. Trump for his role in an educational company that is alleged to have defrauded students. But there is only limited time for the commercials to sink in before some of the country’s biggest states award their delegates in early March.

Instead, Mr. Trump’s challengers are staking their hopes on a set of guerrilla tactics and long-shot possibilities, racing to line up mainstream voters and interest groups against his increasingly formidable campaign. Donors and elected leaders have begun to rouse themselves for the fight, but perhaps too late.

Two of Mr. Trump’s opponents have openly acknowledged that they may have to wrest the Republican nomination from him in a deadlocked convention.

Speaking to political donors in Manhattan on Wednesday evening, Mr. Rubio’s campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, noted that most delegates are bound to a candidate only on the first ballot. Many of them, moreover, are likely to be party regulars who may not support Mr. Trump over multiple rounds of balloting, he added, according to a person present for Mr. Sullivan’s presentation, which was first reported by CNN.

Advisers to Mr. Kasich, the Ohio governor, have told potential supporters that his strategy boils down to a convention battle. Judd Gregg, a former New Hampshire senator who had endorsed Jeb Bush, said Mr. Kasich’s emissaries had sketched an outcome in which Mr. Kasich “probably ends up with the second-highest delegate count going into the convention” and digs in there to compete with Mr. Trump.

Several senior Republicans, including Mr. Romney, have made direct appeals to Mr. Kasich to gauge his willingness to stand down and allow the party to unify behind another candidate. But Mr. Kasich has told at least one person that his plan is to win the Ohio primary on March 15 and gather the party behind his campaign if Mr. Rubio loses in Florida, his home state, on the same day.

In Washington, Mr. Kasich’s persistence in the race has become a source of frustration. At Senate luncheons on Wednesday and Thursday, Republican lawmakers vented about Mr. Kasich’s intransigence, calling it selfishness.

One senior Republican senator, noting that Mr. Kasich has truly contested only one of the first four states, complained: “He’s just flailing his arms around and having a wonderful time going around the country, and it just drives me up the wall.”

Mr. McConnell was especially vocal, describing Mr. Kasich’s persistence as irrational because he has no plausible path to the nomination, several senators said.

While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination, assuring them that, if it threatened to harm them in the general election, they could run negative ads about Mr. Trump to create space between him and Republican senators seeking re-election. Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.

He has reminded colleagues of his own 1996 re-election campaign, when he won comfortably amid President Bill Clinton’s easy re-election. Of Mr. Trump, Mr. McConnell has said, “We’ll drop him like a hot rock,” according to his colleagues.

There is still hope that Mr. Rubio might be able to unite much of the party and slow Mr. Trump’s advance in a series of big-state primaries in March, and a host of top elected officials endorsed him over the last week. But Mr. Rubio has struggled to sideline Mr. Kasich and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is running a dogged campaign on the right. He has also been unable to win over several of his former rivals who might help consolidate the Republican establishment more squarely behind him.

Mr. Rubio showed a lack of finesse in dealing with his fallen rivals’ injured egos.

Mr. Christie had attacked Mr. Rubio contemptuously in New Hampshire, calling him shallow and scripted, and humiliating him in a debate. Nevertheless, Mr. Rubio made a tentative overture to Mr. Christie after his withdrawal from the presidential race. He left the governor a voice mail message, seeking Mr. Christie’s support and assuring him that he had a bright future in public service, according to people who have heard Mr. Christie’s characterization of the message.

Mr. Christie, 53, took the message as deeply disrespectful and patronizing, questioning why “a 44-year-old” was telling him about his future, said people who described his reaction on the condition of anonymity. Further efforts to connect the two never yielded a direct conversation.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, made frequent calls to Mr. Christie once he dropped out, a person close to the governor said. After the two met at Trump Tower on Thursday with their wives, Mr. Christie flew to Texas and emerged on Friday to back Mr. Trump and mock Mr. Rubio as a desperate candidate near the end of a losing campaign.

Efforts to reconcile Mr. Rubio and Mr. Bush, a former governor of Florida, have been scarcely more successful, dating to before the South Carolina primary, when Mr. Rove reached out to their aides to broker a cease-fire, according to Republicans familiar briefed on the conversations. It did not last.

Mr. Bush has been nearly silent since quitting the race Feb. 20, playing golf with his son Jeb Jr. in Miami and turning to the task of thank-you notes. In a Wednesday conference call with supporters, he did not express a preference among the remaining contenders. When Mr. Rubio called him on Monday, their conversation did not last long, two people briefed on it said, and Mr. Rubio did not ask for his endorsement.

“There’s this desire, verging on panic, to consolidate the field,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former supporter of Mr. Bush. “But I don’t see any movement at all.”

Mr. Rubio’s advisers were also thwarted in their efforts to secure an endorsement from Mr. Romney, whom they lobbied strenuously after the Feb. 20 South Carolina primary.

Mr. Romney had been eager to tilt the race, and even called Mr. Christie after he ended his campaign to vent about Mr. Trump and say he must be stopped. On the night of the primary, Mr. Romney was close to endorsing Mr. Rubio himself, people familiar with his deliberations said.

Yet Mr. Romney pulled back, instead telling advisers that he would take on Mr. Trump directly.

After a Tuesday night dinner with former campaign aides, during which he expressed a sense of horror at the Republican race, Mr. Romney made a blunt demand Wednesday on Fox News: Mr. Trump must release his tax returns to prove he was not concealing a “bombshell” political vulnerability.

Mr. Trump responded only with casual derision, dismissing Mr. Romney on Twitter as “one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics.”

Mr. Romney is expected to withhold his support before the voting this week on the so-called Super Tuesday, but some of his allies have urged him to endorse Mr. Rubio before Michigan and Idaho vote March 8. Mr. Romney grew up in Michigan, and many Idahoans are fellow Mormons.

But already, a handful of senior party leaders have struck a conciliatory tone toward Mr. Trump. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority leader, said on television that he believed he could work with him as president. Many in the party acknowledged a growing mood of resignation.

Fred Malek, the finance chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said the party’s mainstream had simply run up against the limits of its influence.

“There’s no single leader and no single institution that can bring a diverse group called the Republican Party together, behind a single candidate,” Mr. Malek said. “It just doesn’t exist.”

On Friday, a few hours after Mr. Christie endorsed him, Mr. Trump collected support from a second governor, who in a radio interview said Mr. Trump could be “one of the greatest presidents.”

That governor was Paul LePage.
 
Mexico’s top diplomat calls Trump’s policies ‘ignorant and racist’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mexicos-top-diplomat-calls-trumps-policies-ignorant-and-racist/2016/02/27/fabbb5f0-dd65-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?tid=sm_tw (Mexico’s top diplomat calls Trump’s policies ‘ignorant and racist’)

MEXICO CITY — In the sharpest official Mexican government comments to date on Republican front-runner Donald Trump, the foreign minister called Trump’s policies and comments “ignorant and racist” and his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border “absurd.”

...
 
The Importance of Disclosing This Immediately #NeverTrump [By Erick Erickson]
http://theresurgent.com/the-importance-of-disclosing-this-immediately/

I will not vote for Donald Trump for President of the United States even if he is the Republican nominee.

He is an authoritarian blending nationalist and tribal impulses, which historically has never worked out well for the nation that goes in that direction or the people in that nation.

He will not win in November. He will not win because he turns off a large number of Republicans; he turns off women; he turns off hispanic voters; he turns off black voters; and the blue collar voters who support him are not a sufficient base of support to carry him over the finish line. His supporters who claim he carried hispanic voters in Nevada are deluding themselves. Nevada’s turnout of hispanic voters was less than one percent of Nevada’s hispanic population, amounting to around 100 people in the exit polling with a margin of error of at minimum ±10%.

Trump is a liberal who has supported big government, interventionist policies. He defends Planned Parenthood, says he can cut deals in Washington, and believes in a socialist government run healthcare scheme.

At a time when so much is on the line for people of faith and conservatives, Donald Trump believes judges sign bills. He said so himself in the Houston, TX debate, while lying about the jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito.

Trump is also a con-artist and the media, which has built his campaign is going to destroy his campaign. After he secures the Republican nomination, the media will trot out every victim and perceived victim of Trump’s actions. All the people hurt by repeated strategic bankruptcies, all the people swindled by Trump University, and anyone who got food poisoning from Trump steaks will be in a 24/7 cavalcade on national television.

By the time the media and Democrats, but I repeat myself, are done with Trump, he will be radioactive.

Donald Trump will not win in November. Period. End of story.

But, on the off chance Satan pulls a grand slam out of hell and Trump were to do it, he would be an authoritarian despot, deeply destructive to the ideals of this nation and the constitutional principles of the republic, and he would destroy the remains of the Republican Party and much of the conservative movement as conservatives whore themselves out to be close to power.

In fact, I dare say that as if Trump secures the nomination, some of the first people to come out and demand we all kiss his ring will be the people who immediately came out to attested to the credibility and competence of Harriet Miers. They will demand our fealty to a man who thinks judges sign bills.

It is absolutely important to disclose that we will not support Trump in the general election now. It shows that we are not sore losers whose nominee preference did not win, but rather are stating that if Trump does get the nomination, we will not support him and are making our declaration with enough time to stop him if his supporters listen to reason.

For those who say Trump can beat Hillary, it gives them time to decide if they can beat Hillary without us.

Explicitly stating our opposition, before he secures the nomination, will not stop people from saying we cost him the nomination. But in the historic record it will be clear we saw the rise of an authoritarian jackass, rejected him, and gave people ample time to heed the warnings before jumping off the cliff.

I will not vote for Donald Trump. Many people I know feel the same way. So as you go vote for Donald Trump, know you are casting your lot with a man who cannot beat the Democrats and who will lose support of long time Republicans in the process.

If Trump supporters choose to proceed, history will show what they will never concede — his defeat is on them, not us. With the rise of an authoritarian menace to our republic, it is important to go on record now, while he can be stopped, that we will play no part in his rise.
 
Trump Suggests Judge in Trump University Case Is Biased Because He’s Hispanic
Trump Suggests Judge in Trump University Case Is Biased Because He’s Hispanic

“The judge should have thrown the case out on summary judgment. But because it was me and because there’s a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief––I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine, he’s Hispanic, which is fine, and we haven’t asked for a recusal, which we may do, but we have a judge who’s very hostile.”
 
Back
Top