On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:03:01 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov <
ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:30:10 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cstein1@rochester.rr.com> said:
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 12:59:52 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
news:8hm0ebpnooafv6299t40vgvm4p0me8jjob@4ax.com...
Call it "the Trump Effect" :-)
I don't get it.. Why do you call it "the Trump Effect"?
----
The "Trump Effect" is apparently the trend/need for the Republican Executive Committee to distance itself from an elected official with racist, radical ideas (in this situation, the radical racist in question is not Donald Trump but Robert Morrow).
Apparently, we are starting to see a pattern.
You say "trend/need" and I think "need" is the right word, and not
trend when it comes to TRump.
When it came to Trump it took 6 or 8 months of attacks by Trump on
people from many categories (except Jews, Norwegian-Americans, and a
few others). He attacked cripples, Mexicans, all Moslems, John
McCain, several women, and some I'm sorry to say even I have
forgotten.
Oh, and more to the point: When did the national Republican Executive Committee or the equivalent, or any state Republican Executive
Committee ever distance itself from Trump? At least one Rep.
Senator and one Rep Representative said they wouldn't vote for him,
Mitt Romney disavowed im, and his opponents did, and some more did***.
Paul Ryan didn't mention his name and only referred to TRumps delay in disavowing in the KKK ...
But I think the party has kept its mouth shut.
***As of March 2,
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/meet-republicans-speaking-out-against-trump-n530696
6 elected officials currently in office
4 formerly in office
14 campaign and party strategists
7 conservative commentators.
But not the Republican Executive or National Committee.
Yes, that's prettu much it - the voters elect someone from whom the
party leadership feels the need to distance itself. And yes, it may be
a pattern, like when the DNC disavowed Cynthia McKinney... oh, wait,
did it?
AFAICT it was her father who made the antisemitic remarks and he was
defeated for re-election the same year, 2002. Maybe that was thought
to be enough disavowal. Certainly not many would bother after he
lost. His words "Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S." were
hateful and stupid ("everybody"), but it's probably true that a lot of
money was contributed by Jews to defeat her. I sure hope so. I can't
put in words why this matters, but IMO it does. But he lost.
His daughter was anti-Israel but was she ever explicitly anti-Jew? I
think they are the same thing because a non-biased look at Israel and
the middle east shows that Jews bought land and moved peacefully to
Israel and were greeted with attacks and murders, but like I say
below, people have a short memory and many seem to start with no more
than 3 months before whatever date it is now. So they certainly
don't remember 1920 or 1948.
Anyhow, running for re-election, McKinney lost in the Democratic
primary that same year, so that seems like a disavowal of her various
ideas, her anti-Israel as well as her crackpot ideas.
When the guy who defeated her ran for the Senate two years later, she
did win again for the House. One of my major complaints is how short
the memory of the voters is, and maybe I should include in that the
memories of party officials. But it seems if someone doesn't say
something obnoxious (or something good, for that matter) in the next
campaign, everything that was said a couple years earlier is
forgotten. Even if the issues raised were never resolved.
It's worse than every two years. It actually takes only a week or two
before sins seem to be forgotten by most of the voters, by party
officials, and even by the opposing candidates. You can see that
often but especially with Trump. He'll finally say something about
policy, and that's what gets discussed for the next week, what gets
challenged in the Rep. debates, as if the problem with Trump are his
policies. When they've never resolved, or even been raised by some of
his opponents (although they were probably raised by several of the
many opinion journalists), opponents who have never even complained
about his lying or his mocking, or his lying about his mocking. That's
already old news and seemingly (to me at least) forgotten by 80% of
the voters including 99.9% of those who support him.
As to McKinney again, she won in 2004, but lost in the Democratic
primary again in 2006. Another disavowal of her ideas, as well as
her hitting a Capitol policeman. The Forward says, "After learning
of McKinney’s unexpected runoff, several of the country’s largest
pro-Israel political action committees are rushing to make
contributions, with an eye toward arming Johnson with sufficient cash
to purchase valuable television and radio advertising". Of course
there are loads of groups, not just Jews, who give money to campaigns
out of their districts.
Even those Republicans who have disavowed or opposed Trump have mostly
done so because a) he's not a Republican or he doesn't have a long
list of Republican values, b) they think he will lose to Hillary and
the others won't, c) he's threatening to run as an independent and
they don't like that, and being a pig is only the reason offered by
1/3 or 1/4 of them. I say that if it weren't for the first 3
reasons, it would be down to 10% of the current total number of
outspoken opponents, who are committed to positive values and who
would disavow or oppose him. (Though there would be more who wanted
to but would fear being criticized and punished by other Reps. for
weakening the party.)
(Hmm. I see that the Green Party tried to recruit her to run for
President in 2000 and 2004 and that she did in 2008. I've already
decided not to vote for anything Green until Ralph Nader is dead, but
at the rate they're going, I guess I won't ever vote for one of them.
)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0
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
===See? His complaint is about Trump losing, along with down-ticket
candidates for Congress and in state elections, not about Trump's
evil. And even then they couldn't get any action.
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.
Well that's good, but there was no letter.
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.
Interesting that I have suggested the only good plan to stop Trump
from the nomination, but as the Ides of March draws near, it's very
likely they won't do it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)