Many GOP Leaders Secretly Hope Trump Loses

[Vine Abider]

Well someone's finally put in print what I've been sensing - that it would be better for the GOP if Trump lost to Kamala (or quickly stepped down to let someone like Haley in, who may still have a shot at winning it).  Since Biden has stepped down, Trump & Vance can't seem to stop embarrassing themselves over & over with "routine self-sabotage."  I personally know stanch conservatives who wish it was anybody in there but Trump, but they generally keep quiet to avoid conflict with the over-zealous MAGA folks (my dad is so in the tank for Trump - he literally sent me something this week stating "Trump is The Savior of the Country" - my spirit was grieved within me)

“Moving past Trump in the aftermath of another defeat will hardly be easy,” Martin wrote. “But it’s essential if Republicans want to become a viable national party once more.” 

from here: https://www.mediaite.com/news/elected-gop-leaders-secretly-hope-for-trump-election-loss-report/

[other one]

we refer to those folks as RINOs.   Globalists that do not want anyone to put our nation back on a Republic foundation.  We'd better hope they don't get their way.

[Vine Abider]

30 minutes ago, other one said:

we refer to those folks as RINOs.   Globalists that do not want anyone to put our nation back on a Republic foundation.  We'd better hope they don't get their way.

Categorizing is always easy . . .

[NConly]

32 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

Categorizing is always easy . . .

Help me out here ; what in our world is not categorized?

[Vine Abider]

3 hours ago, NConly said:

Help me out here ; what in our world is not categorized?

Correct - of this world. 

[NConly]

2 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Correct - of this world. 

So I was doing some reading and ran across  this statement

Is applied thinking inescapably an act of categorizing?

It seems I'm going to need more reading to sort this out.

[other one]

7 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Categorizing is always easy . . .

You just look at their works.   Yes it is easy.   Pay attention to what they do and not what they say.

[Vine Abider]

19 hours ago, other one said:

You just look at their works.   Yes it is easy.   Pay attention to what they do and not what they say.

(this goes back to the "RHINO" label mentioned earlier) Just read an article in the monthly Imprimus from Hillsdale College (do you read that?) about the various factions of the conservative movement over the past 60 years.  The speaker put forth the idea that there are three main groups - the original conservative movement (Buckley/Reagan), then two competing movements:  the Freedom Conservatives ("freecons" typfied by both Bush's) and the National Conservatives or "Natcons" promoted by Trump.  I had not heard of this breakdown of ideals with the conservative framework before.

Here's the Imprimus article: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/national-conservatism-freedom-conservatism-and-americanism/

Here's a National Review article on Freecons vs Natcons: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/07/freedom-conservatism-is-different-and-that-matters/  (have to sign up to read)

Another more neutral article: https://www.deseret.com/2023/9/12/23817331/republican-party-romney-or-trump-freedom-conservatism-national-conservatism/

In reading these articles it helped me understand why someone who is a Natcon might call a Freecon a Rhino (republican in name only).  There are certainly overlaps between the two thoughts.  My take on it is Natcons seem to think the only way to stop liberals is for government to aggressively legislate against their woke actions and also the globalist agenda.  Freecons seem to take a less heavy-handed approach and also focus more on the economy and reducing debt.

FYI:  The speaker in the Imprimus article seemed to favor Natcons, while the National Review author seems to favor the Freecon approach.

Quote from third link above (talking about his article in 2nd link - National Review): Roy said “the fundamental difference between the freedom conservatives and the national conservatives” is optimism about a future where Americans are given freedom to choose their religious, economic and cultural lifestyles. National conservatives, according to Roy, “say free enterprise and individual liberty are all good and well” until they run up against what is determined to be in the national, or community, interest. 

The Imprimus author then suggested this interesting thing at the end: "I will conclude with a recommendation on terminology that could become the basis for a new conservative fusionism. The conflict today is not simply a normal policy argument between conservatives and progressives. It is over the future of the historic American nation, both its creed and its culture. Therefore, those who affirm the American nation—whether they are NatCons, FreeCons, or patriotic liberals—should be called Americanists. Those who find our inheritance deeply problematic and seek a revolutionary transformation of the American regime should, logically, be called Transformationists. Today’s polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists and Transformationists."

[Jayne]

On 9/4/2024 at 9:35 AM, Vine Abider said:

“Moving past Trump in the aftermath of another defeat will hardly be easy,” Martin wrote. “But it’s essential if Republicans want to become a viable national party once more.” 

from here: https://www.mediaite.com/news/elected-gop-leaders-secretly-hope-for-trump-election-loss-report/

I'll say this about the quote here.

There's a good bit of truth to it.  If Trump loses for a second time, the Republican party is going to be HARD pressed to recover - even if they found the perfect candidate.  And there is not one.

Does that mean that I want him to drop out?  No, it doesn't.  He's not my cup of tea for legitimate reasons and that's putting in in a way that is acceptable on Worthy, but there literally is no one else who can beat the Harris/Walz team.

If Harris/Walz go in - being the socialist/communistic believers and politically incompetents that that are - the Democrats will completely understand that they could put up anyone - ANYONE - and win.   And we can't have that.

Even if we have to vote for Trump.  And I am.

 

[Vine Abider]

33 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Does that mean that I want him to drop out?  No, it doesn't.  He's not my cup of tea for legitimate reasons and that's putting in in a way that is acceptable on Worthy, but there literally is no one else who can beat the Harris/Walz team.

I don't agree that there's no one else that can beat Harris.  I think Haley would have been a good alternative that many in the middle would have gone to as an alternative to the socialistic and baggage-laden Harris.  (plus, Haley being a woman of color would have balanced out those attributes in Harris)