Ron, I’m Not a Pretend Republican
Hi, Ron
I was a little surprised to see your Facebook post last night, and frankly, I was a bit upset. I figured I’d respond this morning after I had a chance to think things through, but I see you’ve blocked me, so I thought I would respond here.
We go back a ways in the Republican Party. I’m a past vice chairman of my county party, have worked on many campaigns, both local and statewide, and was awarded our party’s Volunteer Award last year. You are currently the Georgia GOP’s 80,000 and under counties chairman, and before that, the Second Vice Chairman. You’ve donated a lot of time as the chairman of the Georgia GOP Veterans Committee. I’ve spent much of the last six years working with our College Republicans and Young Republicans, trying to grow the party by getting them more involved.
This week, Donald Trump became the presumptive candidate to challenge Hillary Clinton for the presidency in November. His victory exposed a divided party. I don’t want to get into specifics, but there are plenty of Republicans who are unsure that a first time candidate with a history of moderate to liberal political leanings is the right person to lead our great nation. There are others who, after supporting one of the losing candidates, are still in shock, a pretty common reaction when your candidate loses.
And that brings me back to your Facebook post. In it, you tell anyone who is not fully committed to vote for Donald Trump in the fall that they aren’t real Republicans. You don’t show any interest in finding out their concerns about him, and indeed insult their intelligence by calling them idiots. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. And, may I remind you that millennials use Facebook and other social media to get their news. They will hear your message loud and clear. And they might just decide that the Republican Party doesn’t want them, and they should look elsewhere.
Donald Trump is at the top of the GOP ticket, but there are many down ballot races that will be contested in November, from Georgia senator to county commissioner and school board seats, and everything in between. If people don’t show up at the polls because they don’t like the top of the ticket, they won’t vote for the down ballot races either. Your thoughtless insistence that one isn’t a real Republican unless they are immediately willing to fully support Donald Trump will discourage GOP leaning voters from participating in the November election. Your comments may drive away many of our College Republicans and Young Republicans who were planning to go on express trips this fall to go door to door for down-ballot Republicans in seriously contested races.
Here’s some advice, for what it’s worth. First, give everyone some time. No one is voting in the presidential race until early voting begins in October. Second, think long term. If we drive out everyone who is not 100% faithful to our controversial candidate, we will be a much smaller party. Finally, let’s not base our campaign for the presidency on fear and loathing. Instead of telling voters to vote GOP because Hillary is going to be awful, tell them how their vote for Republicans will benefit them and their children.
Oh, and what about me? Last July, I was asked on Facebook, “Question of the day: Suppose Trump wins the nomination, do you vote for him over Hillary?” My friend and I had a long conversation, and came to no firm conclusion. As summer stretched into fall, and then to winter, I thought every so often about that conversation. Trump would make what seemed to me to be an absurd promise, like banning all Muslims from entering the country, and I thought about that conversation. Trump began to win primaries, and I began to realize In would have to take the “vote for Trump or Hillary” question more seriously.
Tuesday evening, I messaged my friend:
“And so here we are, Trump is the nominee. And at this point, I can’t vote for him.”
“I’m extremely sad at this point,” he said. “My options for president are a woman who has voted for partial birth abortion and a man who has promised war crimes.”
Will I eventually decide to vote for Donald Trump? I still don’t know. It’s a long way until November. Sadly, though, I won’t be able to talk about the issue with Ron Johnson. Not only did he say he wasn’t going to listen to my opinion, but he blocked me.
About Author
Jon Richards
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Let’s hope Trump and Ryan sit down, pour a cup of decaf and have an adult conversation on the issues. Quickly.
My testimony: My best friend, a will-help-you-get-rid-of-the-body best friend, not a facebook friend, is, a hardshell Democrat. There, I’ve said it.
I have voted for Republicans 98% of the time going all the way back to Bo Callaway. The 2%? Occasionally the Republicans have run a crook or three. No, not Nixon, I voted for him both times. I have abstained from voting for the President once before and it appears likely will again, as I couldn’t vote for a second term for Cheney, nor could I vote for Mr. Heinz. So yes Ron, I have SINNNNNED! And I wouldn’t want an idiot like you who places party over Country as a friend either, facebook or otherwise.
Now, I’m a solid Democrat. But if I were a Republican and cared about preserving conservative governance, I’d vote for Hillary over Trump. In a heartbeat. Say he gets in power, do you have any confidence he wouldn’t be a disaster for the party worse than 2nd term Bush? You’re talking about empowering a guy who mixes total ignorance with dangerous impulsiveness, who is utterly unfit for the office he seeks. Even if you agree with him on policy (such as it is) do you have any reason to believe he wouldn’t be a total disaster as an executive or a Commander-in-Chief?
Almost the only way the Democrats could take back and hold the House and countless state houses would be on the wings of the disaster that would be a Trump midterm and a Trump reelection bid which would deliver a 2008-style Democratic majority at the same time as redistricting in every state. Instead, you elect Hillary now. Even if the Trump undertow substantially narrows the GOP House majority or even narrowly flips it, it will come roaring back with normal midterm turnout patterns and reaction in 2018 just as it did in 2010 and 1994. Ditto the Senate, as there are 23 Democratic Senators up in 2018 including in Red States like WV, IN, MO, ND, and MT plus swing states that can go red in midterms like FL, VA, OH, WI, and PA. So in January 2019, you could easily have two huge Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, in the run up to a Presidential election where, hopefully, the Trump style nutter side of the party will be thoroughly repudiated and Republicans can nominate and win with a mainstream Conservative while Democrats will be trying to hold on and be the first party to win four straight terms in the White House since Harry Truman. Who would you rather be in that scenario?
Jon, if you’re surprised by Mr. Johnson’s post I have to ask where you’ve been the past 20 years or so? I don’t belong to any party but his attitude is one I’ve heard a lot from goper officials both grand and petit at least since Bill Clinton won office. To me Johnson sounds some combination of mean, stupid, and close-minded. Maybe he was just having a bad day but he should know that’s not how you grow the party.
Saltycracker, I fully expect to read reports of ‘productive meetings’ between Trump and Ryan in the next few days where Trump says Ryan is great, Ryan says Trump should be prez, and wardamngop.
Will Durant, party over country is really the issue, isn’t it? And shouldn’t it be?
David C, regardless of who wins in November, 2018 should be a good goper year strictly because of the numbers you mention. I am curious how you think the ‘Trump style nutter side of the party will be thoroughly repudiated’ since those folks seem to be winning everywhere lately.
On 2018, I’d say a bad President can overcome a lousy midterm map. After all, that same map is the seats that were up in 2006. Democrats entered that election needing to gain 6 seats to win a majority despite already holding 17 seats in that cycle to the Republicans’ 15. As part of that, they were defending seats in solidly Red States Nebraska and North Dakota. (Also West Virginia, but that was still Robert Byrd and so an easy hold.) They won the six seats they needed to swing it. Of those six seats gained, one was a deep blue state (Rhode Island), two were swing states (Ohio and Pennsylvania), one was a swing state trending red (Missouri), one was a red state trending swing (Virginia), and one was a deep red state (Montana). Their red state incumbents in North Dakota and Nebraska won by 30 points, not least of which because a Republican party playing defense couldn’t bother to target them.
So, say you’ve got a world where Trump is doing terribly, is down to say, 30% approval. All of a sudden, that map shrinks: You give up on challenging entrenched swing state incumbents in Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, with no DC Dem villain to be tied to, coast on their own personal popularity and independent reputations for narrow wins. Challenging first-term Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin’s a lost cause. Claire McCaskill, running against President Todd Akin this time, hangs on in Missouri. That leaves you maybe, maybe picking off Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota or Joe Donnelly in Indiana…except that one gain gets cancelled out because Nevada Latinos, outraged at Trump’s immigration laws and mobilized by Harry Reid’s machine, vote out Dean Heller. And so you have no gains, and the Dems survive that map in a midterm again.
Meanwhile, that’s nothing compared to the Gubernatorial map, where you’ll have 24 Republican held governorships up, with ten of them term-limited. (And even some that aren’t term limited, like Wisconsin and Iowa, will be guys who have served two terms and may retire). Ten of the Republican governorships are in blue or swing states. Of the six Democratic gubernatorial gains in ’06, five were open seat races. Of the 17 governors mansions that changed hands in 2010, 15 were open seat races. So Democrats would have a good shot of picking a lot of those up, especially in blue or swing states. If that happens, some big Republican gerrymanders, like Florida (17-10 Republicans in a 50-50 state) Michigan (9-5 GOP in a 55-45 Dem state), and Ohio (12-4 GOP in a 50-50 state) could get wiped out the next time redistricting comes. And the Democrats suddenly get a bench full of people who can run for POTUS or other things down the line.
As for the repudiation, I think that a mainstream conservative could argue that “We tried it that way, and got our butts kicked. Let’s do it this way.” But I do think in some sense you may be right: Democrats respond to defeats by trying to move to the middle, Republicans tend to double down on the march to the right, not least of which because that’s where a lot of the loudest media voices on the right always seem to take them. So not real confident that the GOP would respond to three straight defeats the way the Dems did in 1992, but you never know.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Unfortunately, those who do learn from history are condemned to repeat it because others do NOT learn….
https://youtu.be/LiG0AE8zdTU
Barry Goldwater was the father of the conservative movement that led to president Reagan. I am confused, your point is you are against the conservative movement, so do not vote for Trump? This is why this anti Trump movement led by Erick Erickson and Romney failed, the message made no sense.
Washington Times:
The father of American conservatism
……….A half-century ago, Sen. Barry Goldwater strode to the podium of the Republican National Convention in San Francisco to accept his party’s presidential nomination
He declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vise.” Let me remind you further: “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”……
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/17/goldwater-the-father-of-american-conservatism/?page=all
John, you’re misinterpreting the relevance of that commercial to the 2016 election cycle. The parties in the 1960s were much different than they are today. In some ways, the Democrats were the more conservative party, and the Republicans more liberal, at least from the lens we use to view political history today. Goldwater wasn’t the birth of the conservative movement. Think of Buckley, who founded National Review almost ten years earlier. The John Birch society was preaching its version of conservatism in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Goldwater provided the first real opportunity for the party’s rank and file to vote on whether they wished to support this new conservative direction for the party, The ad, which was actually a product of the Johnson campaign, was an attempt to stoke doubt about the new direction. Republicans can look back at it in hindsight and say that the man’s fears were unfounded, that Goldwater’s conservatism led to Reagan, so of course he should have voted for Goldwater. But no one knew that Reagan was waiting in the wings 16 years later.
Compare that to today and Donald Trump. As with Buckley / Birch in the 50s and the 60s, pressure has been building on the GOP “establishment” for at least ten years to change the way things are done. Along comes candidate Trump, who posits a new paradigm for the GOP. But, is Trump’s populism the right direction for the party to take?
That question, rather than a debate over the merits of Goldwater conservatism is what makes this commercial relevant today. And in the middle of Republican agonistes, many people can imagine themselves as the man in the commercial.
Jon,
At the end of the day Sanders and Trump movement is all about economic. Obviously the majority of people are not buying what the establishment is selling. The question is will come down to how many disenfranchised Bernie supporters, will vote their pocket book verse social issues. Both sides of the establishment cannot figure out why the 80 percent of people are so pissed off living pay check to pay check. Hillary will run on Trump being mean verse any real debate on economics and foreign policy. Not saying Trump has all the answers, but he at least is putting this issues on the table.
Well Jon, Never in a million years did I think Trump would pull this off. I said early in the race that his star would fade and a more establishment Republican would be the nominee. I greatly underestimated the anger out there. I knew some of it was there. Now that I look back and reflect this anger has been building since G H W Bush was elected. I walked away from the Republican Party during G W’s term. That’s OK I don’t have a party any more that wants people like me, fiscally very conservative but somewhat socially liberal. I guess the Tea Party is the closest thing but locally it’s run by people I don’t see eye to eye with. So I’m in no man’s land at the moment.
So enough with my boring history and on to a few observations. Now that the last 2 challengers have dropped out emotions are running very high. Now’s a good time to keep quiet and listen. I must tell you that I have heard over and over again that you must vote for the Republican nominee unless you want the policies of the Democrats to have the Executive branch of government. I heard it with Dole, McCain, Romney, and GW. I considered Dole to be the closest to my political philosophy out of all since Reagan. The rest of them were all big government advocates to me, but still I voted for all of them. I think the correct term is voting for the lessor of 2 evils. Considering how bad congress rating is compared to Obamas it’s pretty clear. People are very unhappy with them. Is a change in the wind? Maybe so after what’s happened with the primaries. Is this anger over yet? I don’t think so.
I’ll leave you with simply this. I hope you and your friend will take a deep breath and reconcile somehow BUT, and this is for all, if you want to hear Good Morning Mrs. President after Jan 1 and have the most liberal Supreme Court ever seated don’t vote. It really is the same as voting for the other party. I made that choice for me a long time ago. Looks like it maybe time again for the lessor of 2 evils. Good luck with your decision.
Jon, Thank you for your eloquence and understanding of the relevance this Democratic ad has today. I picked up on this piece up as a result of researching how the Dems plan to spend $91M to beat Trump.
We will need to weather attack ads that will claim Trump hates women, Brown/Black and is a xenophobe.
The GOP has certain immutable Party positions that are speciously staked as conservative and are hated by many women. While I understand and respect these positions, these are not necessarily the same positions that Trump offers. This ONE single point is going to be a division within the GOP that cannot be bridged.
Those who share a single, Litmus test viewpoint cannot stay home or not vote for Trump, even if he doesn’t have a ‘perfect score’ on here. Simply put, the Democratic choice is far worse on these highly personal views.
Happy Mothers Day.
Amen, Jon. In the wise words of the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want. A choice between two great people isn’t always possible, so sometimes it truly is choosing the lesser of two evils.
There are four groups of Republicans in this election cycle. One group, approximately 35%, worship Trumpet. The love him because he is an outsider and a “businessman.” Issues and policies are unimportant to this crowd. All they know is that he “will make America great again.” These folks are difficult or often impossible to dialogue with.
The second group, approximately 50%, will vote Trumpet because he is the Republican nominee and he is not Hilly. These folks are mostly rational individuals.
The third group and fourth group, approximately 15% total, consists of those that won’t vote for the pseudo Republican candidate under any circumstances and those waiting to see if he will become a rational candidate. I am in the fourth group but based on what I have heard from Trumpet over the past year, I doubt he will change his style or tactics prior to Election Day.
GCP,
I saw an interesting poll that showed Trump has a 58% to 42% advantage over Hillary on the economy in the rust belt. Which puts places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia in play ie people tend to vote pocket book at the end of the day. In a national poll it is basically a tie on this issue. Trump could win this, but not win popular vote. If Trump takes a few traditional rust belt states that are blue, it changes the math. Also the other wild card is terrorism, bubble busting pre election and Middle East getting worse.
Its still early but Republicans should be concerned. WSB has it Trump 42.3 Clinton 41.4 and 15.6 undecided in Georgia.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279119-poll-trump-clinton-in-statistical-tie-in-georgia
gcp,
I agree that this is why, this could be very interesting race. The issues make for strange alliances…..
I dont know what poll you are looking at, but I’ve seen nothing remotely resembling your numbers. What I HAVE seen is a piece in the Cook Political Report that states that in the rustbelt states, if Trump got every white voter Romney got and every other white voter registered on top of it, it STILL would not even come close to helping him win any of those states. He wont win those states. He wont win the election. He wont change his over the top rhetoric which is fine for base voters in a primary but repulses most other people.
“Sometimes”….
if only…
The ISIS horror show is not stupid. I do not think any major attacks will occur before November 4, it would cinch the deal for Trump.
Never under estimate the GOP leadership’s ability to loose direction and shoot themselves in the foot. If they can’t control their family member they’d rather have a devious amoral sociopath quietly stealing the silverware at the party.
I’d take my chances with Trump appointees in the government before letting the looters in.
So when ISIS moves to kill, Trump benefits.
Because the fear in the herd runs deep?
What a fascinating comment!
And your comment added what?? Trolling early this am..:
Let Ryan and the Bush’s continue to act like children. Plays right into Trump’s anti-establishment message. “Throw me into that their briar patch…” Votes for Trump roll in for him in November by the truckload. How long you figure the Repub bigwigs can hold their breath and stomp their feet?
I find it odd that the GOP still refuses to accept the message of Trump. For years conservatives elected republicans who in turn promptly proceeded to screw them once they got to DC, that goes for the TP know nothings too. What Trump proves is people will not be buying the republican brand of tax cuts for the top, hysterics about debt they could care less about which is also a symptom but not the root cause. His message to the party is that for years they have been intellectually vacant on policy that helps lower and middle class voters, but instead relied on the dog whistle, and the “other” as villain to win. Proselytizing that they are coming to take whats yours. Thats why republicans were winning down ballot but couldnt win the WH. Problem is Trump isnt all about a dog whistle…he uses a megaphone, and while some people will overlook a signal only dogs can hear, people are repulsed by the megaphone.
As an aside, anyone who would vote for a republican at all costs isnt a very intelligent person anyway, and is surely in denial about what I just stated.
“while some people will overlook a signal only dogs can hear, people are repulsed by the megaphone” +1.
“As an aside, anyone who would vote for a republican at all costs isnt a very intelligent person anyway, and is surely in denial….”
Almost correct But let’s be inclusive.
Blind party allegiance ? number one by a long, long way:
“I don’t care what she did or will do for herself, she is a Democrat”