GOP Experiencing Trump Fatigue

Donald Trump has been President of the USA for just four months, and the Republican Party is already experiencing Trump fatigue. That is a summary of recent reports coming out of D.C.

Niall Stanage writes, “Republican unease with President Trump is building, and if it snowballs, the White House could suffer significant political damage. Asked about the mood among conservatives, GOP strategist Rick Tyler replied with a single word: “Fatigue.””

Jordain Carney elaborates:

“Exasperated Republicans in the House and Senate are growing tired of having to defend President Trump.

Daily dramas from the White House are increasingly frustrating Republicans on Capitol Hill and threatening to derail the party’s agenda heading into the midterm elections.

“Can we have a crisis-free day?” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked reporters on Monday, according to CNN. “That’s all I’m asking.”

GOP lawmakers kept the president at arm’s length as they reacted to the White House controversy that Trump revealed highly classified information during an Oval Office meeting last week with two Russian officials.

“I think we could do with a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things so that we can focus on our agenda, which is deregulations, tax reform and repealing and replacing ObamaCare,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg Live.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), also a member of GOP leadership, echoed that sentiment, telling reporters, “Less drama from the other end of Pennsylvania would be a good thing.”

There’s no sign of that happening, however.”

During the 05/16/17 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer stated, “I think what’s really stunning is that nobody, not even from the White House, has come out under their own name in defense of the president here. You got an anonymous statement. We don’t see any Republicans on camera.”

From ABC News deputy political director Shushannah Walshe:

“The Trump era has been a torrent of revelations — bombshell after bombshell, day after day. Even so, early signs suggest that this latest scandal just might mark a breaking point for Republicans who have been generally loyal to President Trump.

. . . few, if any Republicans, are rushing to defend the president, a departure from every previous scandal. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told reporters today he is seeking “more clarity” and the “handling of classified information is a critical thing.” And even rank-and-file members who like to usually hide from the Trump controversy of the day are issuing statements calling the story troubling and demanding classified briefings.”

From Bloomberg:

“Some rank-and-file Republican members are starting to express impatience with Trump. After the Comey memo revelation, Representative Carlos Curbelo of Florida said that he wants Congress to create a select committee that would solely focused on Trump and the Russia allegations.

“The administration also needs to be held accountable,” he told reporters Tuesday evening.

Representative Barbara Comstock of Virginia, whose district is home to large numbers of FBI and CIA employees, said Trump’s disclosure of classified intelligence to the Russians is “highly troubling.”

“We need to have immediate classified briefings on what occurred at this meeting so that Congress can at least know as much as Russian leaders,” she said in a statement.

Representative Steve Knight of California also said in a statement that he’s joining “many of my colleagues in supporting the assignment of a special prosecutor to take over the ongoing FBI investigation” into Russia’s activities and any possible Trump links.”

From The Hill:

“Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) says that Republicans should have serious concerns if the details of former FBI Director James Comey’s memo about President Trump are true.”

. . . and . . .

“Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Wednesday said if the reports about Trump’s pressure on Comey are true, it would merit impeachment.”

President Trump has been playing with fire, and he will have nobody but himself to blame if he ends up being burned. He needs to keep in mind that he wouldn’t be the POTUS if the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee had been an honest person.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich Identified as Russian Agent By Democrat Leadership
  • Vagabond661

    Drain the Swamp and it will fix itself.

    • Retired military

      Trump should hold a press conference every day. Give about 5 min of talking points and end it with “thanks for coming. There will be no questions as you wont write the truth anyway”.

      Do that for about 4 months and see how the press likes getting shut out.

      • Paul Hooson

        Trump’s presidency may not last four months. The clock is ticking.He’s proven himself too erratic and making too many poor decisions about his own conduct and ethics.

        • Retired military

          I think he will last out at least his 4 years.

          • pennywit

            That’s a distinct possibility, but he may be politically neutered before then.

          • Retired military

            He will still be 100000 times better than Hillary as President.

        • pennywit

          Trump’s presidency may not last four months

          It took years before Nixon’s scandals boiled over.

  • Retired military

    the ones that are tired of Trump are the GOPe and RINOs who want nothing more than to sit back and go to DC cocktail parties and read good things about themselves in the NY Times and WAPO.

    Every day republicans are tired of the MSM and their constant barrage of Hair on fire lies.

    • Brucehenry

      “Every day republicans” are a distinct minority.

      http://progresspond.com/blog/2017/05/16/why-partisans-are-slow-to-turn-on-their-president/

      So silly deflection-attempt stories like Rodney’s new Vince Foster conspiracy squirrel will fail to divert attention from the real issue:

      https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aauEzpJ_AAA/WRs99EvBvCI/AAAAAAAAVt0/4WIktJZhS6084YvTdI3YUKaf1RWJJoi8gCLcB/s640/dave%2Bgranlund.jpg

      • Retired military

        Bruce
        You don’t hear much from “Everyday republicans” because the MSM doesn’t like what they say. People whom I talk to every day love the stuff that Trump is doing. And above all they love the fact that he isn’t Hillary.

        There has been NO evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians about anything. And no one in the MSM media ever recalls Hillary and Obama’s RESET button fiasco.

        • Brucehenry

          I talk to diehard Trump fans every day, too. I also talked to lots of diehard Nixon supporters back in the day, too, but Nixon went, deservedly, down in disgrace.

          The investigation was always about the Trump CAMPAIGN, or members of it, possibly colluding with Russia or being unduly influenced by it. I don’t care if Trump himself consciously advanced Putin’s interests in return for Putin’s help or was just a useful idiot; the investigation was to find out which.

          The “reset button fiasco,” as you call it, did not occur in the context of being helped, unwittingly or not, by the Russians in the 2008 campaign, as did the actions and statements being questioned re Trump and associates.

          • Retired military

            ” I don’t care if Trump himself consciously advanced Putin’s interests in return for Putin’s help or was just a useful idiot; the investigation was to find out which.”
            You left out option C. Trump and his campaign did nothing wrong regarding Russia.
            And regarding the RESET button you leave out the fact that Panetta while working for Clinton campaign received millions from a Russian bank with direct ties to the KGB. Nobody on Trump campaign team has anything close to that.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s already been established that Flynn improperly took payments from both Russia and Turkey. Manafort is suspected of shady dealings as well. As are both Carter Page and longtime Trump friend and Nixon’s dirty-trickster Roger Stone.

            So no, I didn’t consider Option C.

          • Retired military

            Meanwhile we may get to see the last of Hillary’s emails from the state dept in ohhhh 2020 or so.
            It has been established that Huma had classified information on an uncleared laptop. It has been established that Hillary transmitted classified information on an uncleared server. It has been established that Hillary’s “foundation” took money from numerous govts like Russia, and others in exchange for access and consideration.

            What did Comey say? Oh yeah. “NO INTENT” Funny how he found said the same thing about Bill with the pardon scandal back in 1996 aint it.

            So if Trump is guilty by association as you proclaim then can you say he intended to do it? And where is your proof?

          • Brucehenry

            I didn’t say Trump is guilty of anything. It sure looks like Flynn is, though, and if Trump tried to impede an FBI investigation into Flynn that would be obstruction of justice. Trump seemed to admit to that in his interview with Lester Holt.

          • Brucehenry

            It wasn’t Panetta, it was Tony Podesta, the BROTHER of John Podesta, who worked for the Clinton campaign. And it was for normal, duly-disclosed lobbying work.

          • News flash: diehard Trump fans =/= everyday Republicans.

            Nor is the intersection of the two significant.

          • Brucehenry

            Semantics. The people RM talks to every day are, I assume, a lot like the folks I interact with — white, suburban, working- to middle-class middle-aged Republicans.

            Forty years ago they would have defended Nixon, and did.

          • Inconvenient facts.

            Trump was a registered Democrat most of his adult life and contributed significantly to Democrat Candidates and Issues. At best he is a Republican by convenience.

          • Brucehenry

            True but irrelevant

        • Brucehenry

          This article at OTB helps explain why idiots like a certain fedora-sportin’ kook who haunts these pages believe debunked nonsense:

          http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fox-news-channels-alternate-reality/

          Check out the second comment on the thread, by a person calling him/herself “KM.”

        • pennywit

          There has been NO evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians about anything.

          So far, I haven’t seen evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, but some of his staffers are a bit too close to Russia for comfort. In this realm, there are two beefs with Trump:

          1) Trump may be covering for members of his staff who have ties to Russia; and,

          2) Trump’s authoritarian instincts seem to coincide with Putin’s a bit too much for comfort.

          • Retired military

            Or how about Clinton’s RESET with Russia had something to do with Panetta getting millions in KGB bank money.

          • Brucehenry

            Link?

          • Scalia

            So far, I haven’t seen evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, but some of his staffers are a bit too close to Russia for comfort.

            And if he colluded with Russia, what crime did he commit?

          • Brucehenry

            That is what the investigation is for — you know, the one he asked Comey to back off on. (ALLEGEDLY lol)

          • Scalia

            No, the investigation is to see if a crime was committed. What is the crime? pennywit specified “collusion.” If there was collusion, what statute does that violate [EDIT, in the context of this issue]? Hint, there isn’t one.

            If it is obstruction, then Comey should know what obstruction is. He is obligated to report it. The fact that he didn’t is clear evidence that nothing of the sort occurred.

          • Brucehenry

            IANAL, but we will see what the special counsel says about this and several other things.

          • Scalia

            …but we will see what the special counsel says about this and several other things.

            Well, since I’m right-wing, my views are suspect in your eyes. Perhaps the opinion of a Clinton voter and fellow liberal (Alan Dershowitz) may suffice:

            Advocates of the current grand jury system correctly point out that a grand jury indictment is not a conviction. The defendant has the right to a fair jury trial, with all the safeguards provided in the constitution. But this ignores the real impact of an indictment on the defendant. Based on a one sided indictment alone, the “ham sandwich” [As lawyers quip: they will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them to.] can be fired from his or her job or suspended from university. Consider what happened to the Arthur Andersen company and its thousands of employees when it was indicted for obstructing an official proceeding by destroying records relating to one of its clients. Although Andersen was ultimately vindicated, the indictment itself forced it into bankruptcy causing a loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in shareholder values. Many individual have been indicted on the basis of one sided grand jury prosecutions and subsequently acquitted after a fair trial. Many of these individuals also suffered grievously as the result of being unfairly indicted.

            Consider the consequences of an indictment by the special counsel’s grand jury in this matter. Not a conviction – just an indictment handed down by a grand jury that heard only one side in secret. It depends, of course on who the indictment named. In the Nixon case, for example, the president was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate grand jury. This meant that he could not even defend himself at a trial. I was on the national board of the ACLU at the time. And although I despised Nixon and campaigned for his opponent, I wanted the ACLU to object to the unfairness of a one sided grand jury naming him as an unindicted co-conspirator.

            So I will be standing up for civil liberties during the duration of this investigation. As a civil libertarian I care more about due process and the rule of law than I do about politics. But many people conflate my advocacy for civil liberties with support for President Trump. I have been bombarded with tweets such as: “Alan loves Donald. He’s throwing him lifelines;” “Has he been hired by Trump? Time to come clean;” “@AlanDersh I thought you were a smart guy. After hearing you support Trumpie, guess not;” “Has Trump already hired @AlanDersh to defend him? Clearly sounds that way;” and “No matter the subject, he inserts himself in the conversation with a full-throated and nonsensical defense of Trump.”

            Let me be clear: I voted for Hillary Clinton and oppose many of President Trump’s policies. I would be taking the same position if the shoe were on the other foot – if Hillary Clinton had been elected and she were being subjected to an unfair process. Indeed I did do precisely that when she was threatened with prosecution. Remember the chants of “lock her up” during the campaign?

            I will continue to monitor the current investigations into President Trump and his associated for any violation of civil liberties. I will call them as I see them, without regard to which side benefits.

          • Brucehenry

            May suffice to do what?

            I don’t disagree with anything Dershowitz said in your blockquote. I’ll click on the link but doubt I’ll find anything there either.

            BTW this is funny coming from a guy who insisted throughout the campaign that Hillary was a crook of the worst kind, despite never being convicted of or indicted for anything.

            Also BTW I read this book Dershowitz wrote about 10 years ago. It takes issue with the notion that rights come from a “higher power.”

            https://www.amazon.com/Rights-Wrongs-Secular-Theory-Origins/dp/0465017142/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

          • Scalia

            This is not an open thread, but if you’d like to continue the discussion of rights on the other thread, you may do so over there.

            HIllary was a liar of the worst kind, and I proved that repeatedly. With respect to the email scandal, Comey unambiguously showed that laws were broken, but he refused to recommend prosecution because he ridiculously believes that false exculpatory statements do not indicate intent. Moreover, he tried to weave the laughable narrative that an attorney who was trained on how to handle classified information didn’t have a sweet clue what she was doing as Secretary of State. Anybody worth his salt would find fault with that kind of argument.

            And if you agree with everything Dershowitz wrote, then why haven’t you called for an end to this “special counsel” business?

          • Brucehenry

            As I understand it, and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, the special counsel isn’t empowered only to see if Trump and Trump alone broke any laws. He is also looking into whether anyone on the Trump campaign acted improperly or illegally in regard to Russia. It seems pretty clear that Flynn did, from what I read, and he seems to have acted as a paid agent of Turkey as well. (Without registering as one.)

            The special counsel will continue to investigate and, I assume, build a case against Flynn and any others he finds may have acted illegally. The only crime Trump personally would have to worry about is if he asked or directed others to cover up Flynn’s wrongdoing. Like, say, maybe asking the FBI director to “let this go, let Flynn go.” Does that rise to the level of obstruction? I don’t know, IANAL.

            Any normal politician would say something like “I welcome the appointment of a man of integrity like Bob Mueller as special counsel so we can put these divisive allegations behind us. I will cooperate willingly and enthusiastically.” Not Trump, he claims victimhood and a “witch hunt.”

          • Scalia

            My brand of politician would oppose special counsels on a matter of principle. Law enforcement may obtain warrants and interview witnesses. If there is evidence of a crime, then they should by all means prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. This special counsel stuff is antithetical to our concept of civil liberties.

          • Brucehenry

            Except Trump put himself in this position by saying Rosenstein AND SESSIONS recommended the firing of Comey. Sessions was supposed to have recused himself from any Russia-stuff, but Trump made it clear in his interview with Holt that he was going to fire Comey{ EDIT: BECAUSE OF RUSSIA STUFF], so why did he need Sessions’ concurrence? He put a cloud over both Sessions and Rosenstein so that whatever happened next would be viewed with suspicion.

            Would anyone trust a finding by newly appointed FBI director Joe Freaking Lieberman that nobody on the Trump team did anything wrong?

          • Scalia

            Would anyone trust a finding by newly appointed FBI director Joe Freaking Lieberman that nobody on the Trump team did anything wrong?

            And on what basis would anybody object unless they have information that conclusively shows a criminal connection? With Comey and Clinton, Comey acknowledged that crimes were committed, so his “exoneration” of Clinton was justifiably criticized.

            I am again wondering how you can agree with everything Dershowitz wrote and still support this kind of setup.

          • Brucehenry

            On the basis that Trump’s word cannot be trusted. He said his inauguration crowd was YUUUUGE. He said a carrier task force was on its way to Korea. He said Mexico would pay for a wall. All lies, or at least, all wrong.

            He said Sessions and Rosenstein recommended Comey’s firing. Because, you know, Comey was so mean to poor Hillary. Then he said he was already going to fire Comey BECAUSE OF THIS RUSSIA THING.

            His word can’t be trusted. His chain of command can’t be trusted. GOP-chaired Congressional committees, more interested in leaks than actual wrongdoing, can’t be trusted.

            And I said I didn’t disagree with what Dershowitz said in your blockquote about how unfortunate it is that innocent lives are sometimes blighted by Grand Jury proceedings, not that I “agreed with everything he wrote.”

          • Scalia

            Ok, so not disagreeing with anything he wrote does not mean you agree with everything he wrote. I’m out.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, I clicked on the link like I said I would. The first couple of paragraphs are typical whining about victimization, designed, I assume, to appeal to readers of Newsmax.

          • Vagabond661

            Blah blah blah. he also said he was going to close Gitmo, lower the sea level and reduce our health insurance. OH WAIT!!!

            You just want him gone and you will cling bitterly to any whispered inuendo and hold it up as vertiable fact and it has to be investigated.

            The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Do you really think we take the Looney Left serious?

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha. Said the guy who fell for every fake “scandal” propagated by the Noise Machine from 1993 to 2001 and from 2009 to Jan 2017.

          • Vagabond661

            Prove it

          • Brucehenry

            Tell me one “scandal” involving the Clintons or Obama you don’t think has some basis in fact. Pizzagate and birtherism not included.

          • Vagabond661

            Your accusations. You provide proof. Otherwise shut up.

          • Brucehenry

            Nuh uh YOU

          • Vagabond661

            Thought so.

          • Brucehenry

            Vince Foster? Yes or no?

          • Vagabond661

            Who is he?

          • Brucehenry

            My apologies, I’m just messing with ya. I should have said ALMOST every fake “scandal.”

          • And here we see brucehemorrhoid reversion to the mean; Making false accusations which he cannot prove and will not retract. This is why he should be served his walking papers.

          • pennywit

            Scalia, this question doesn’t make any sense to me.

          • Scalia

            What part of “what crime did he commit” don’t you understand?

          • pennywit

            What part of “I haven’t seen any evidence” eludes you?

          • Scalia

            Sigh.

            You said you haven’t seen any evidence of collusion. That implies that there’s something wrong with collusion. So, one you’ve seen it, them please tell me what crime had been committed.

          • pennywit

            As I said, there doesn’t seem to be anything that directly implicates Trump. But there are allegations floating out there (of various levels of credibility) that employees of the Trump presidential campaign may have coordinated with Russia during its attempts to covertly influence voters in the 2016 election.

          • Scalia

            More precisely, you said that Trump wasn’t implicated with collusion. That’s why I asked the question. I didn’t ask Bruce because I know he’s not an attorney. I only replied to him when he posted a snark about my question to you.

            Since you have legal training, I took your comment more seriously. If you’re aware of a statute that forbids candidates from “colluding” with another nation in the manner that Trump is accused, I’d like to know what it is. If you’re not aware of any statute, then why comment on whether or not you’ve seen evidence of a legal act?

            To be certain, collusion in that sense would be political disaster, but that has nothing to do with the law.

          • pennywit

            Right now, the chief allegation (as I understand it) is that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election, and that members of the presidential campaign (right now, Manafort and Flynn are the prime suspects) assisted Russia in that effort. I honestly don’t know which statutes are implicated, but somebody in the FBI, and now Mueller, seems to think it’s worth investigating,

            If you’re not aware of any statute, then why comment on whether or not you’ve seen evidence of a legal act?

            I was specifically emphasizing that so far, there are accusations against some of the people in Trump’s orbit, but not Trump himself, the Comey memo/notes notwithstanding.

          • Scalia

            Conservatives aren’t the only ones asking on what basis the investigations are being conducted (see my quotation of Alan Dershowitz above). It seems that this is a political issue, not a legal one. And if you’re not certain which statutes apply, then we should be united in our insistence that our political leaders quit conflating politics with the law.

          • pennywit

            And if you’re not certain which statutes apply, then we should be united in our insistence quit conflating politics with the law.

            I’m not certain because I’m not up on the arcana of this area of the law; but I have reasonable confidence that the people conducting the investigation are.

            The problem, though, is that there’s a lot of smoke here. We need to find out if there’s a fire.

          • Scalia

            And if you read Dershowitz’s comments, there were other people who were supposedly “up on the arcana” of the law with respect to other special prosecutors. It’s not hard to ask the smoke police just what laws they think were violated.

          • Scalia

            And this is why it’s more mirrors than smoke.

        • Don’t forget about that Russian Agent employed by the DNC who leaked all those e-mails to Wikileaks…

      • You are confused as to which stories are credible. Then again we know you to be an ill educated fool who was educated beyond his native intelligence.

  • Retired military

    Meanwhile CNN newsroom breathlessly thanks Obama for deigning to spend time out of his day and visiting them.

  • Paul Hooson

    I pretty much expected that either Clinton or Trump would lead to scandal burdened administrations bogged down with problems and possible impeachment of either one. As much as I do not like Hillary, she seemed marginally more likely to run a more mainstream and business as usual administration than the erratic, unstable and unpredictable Trump. It’s deeply sad that the previous election came down to a contest between two scandal plagued candidates who both stood a strong possibility of being impeached and removed from office. Mr. Trump is moving closer to this disgrace, by his own hand and his own conduct, proving himself unfit to be president.

    • Retired military

      ” two scandal plagued candidates ”
      Hmm
      Trump – Guilty of saying things about women that about 90% of other men say in private to each other.
      Clinton – Has bodies dropping around her like flies, makes millions in corrupt donations, had to have the primaries rigged for her to win her party’s nomination, classified information on just about any device her and Hoover Abedin touched, Benghazi, uranium to Russia and about a dozen other things.

      Yeah Paul, I can see how the two candidates were equal. Why it is plain as day.

      Trump’s biggest problem is that he is not a DC insider and that is why the DC insiders (GOPe) don’t like him and he ran as a republican which is why the dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) despise him.

    • Retired military

      Just remember Paul that the main Trump “scandal” was how he supposedly treated women.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63c736bddfba2f1e9f619ff40ff120807c4e975aa087279d962dea440bc10b33.png

  • yetanotherjohn

    Trump continues to fulfill the main reason I voted for him … he is not Hillary.

    • Paul Hooson

      I can’t be proud of either one, myself.

      • yetanotherjohn

        As I said during the campaign, Trump may turn out to be worse, as bad, or better than Hillary. While there are no guarantees, the odds were that he would be better. So far I think he has been. As I also said, this doesn’t mean I think he is the best person for the job or even competent to count to 21 without removing his shoes and trousers. Just that between the two, Hillary would be worse.

        • Even if for some reason Trump is worse than Hillary would have been, I blame the Democrats for thinking they could coronate the most odious candidate ever as Queen of the United States.

          • Paul Hooson

            Hillary is indeed horrid. A very objectionable personality. I don’t agree with the politics of Bernie Sanders, but he is an honest and decent man without any scandal by comparison…

          • yetanotherjohn

            Can you point to any accomplishment Bernie Sanders has that does not involve him sucking on the taxpayer teat? From my knowledge he has accomplished nothing more than getting elected and then trying to tell other people how to live when he wasn’t very successful organizing his own life prior to getting elected. He is also against the one historically proven system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. I’m not that impressed with him at all.

          • Paul Hooson

            I don’t agree with him politically, as every issue with him involved blaming big business or people with money for every problem. But, he’s not Hillary, which means a great deal…Probably not an electable candidate in a general election for president or offering a balanced and rational set of opinions on foreign policy issues either…

          • yetanotherjohn

            I’ll give you that. He’s not Hillary.

          • Retired military

            About his only positive trait

          • Non-responsive.

    • …and he nominated a ‘non-activist’ jurist to the Supreme Court.

    • pennywit
  • Hank_M

    Jordain Carney elaborates:
    “Exasperated Republicans in the House and Senate are growing tired of having to defend President Trump.

    Charles Krauthammer stated, “I think what’s really stunning is that nobody, not even from the White House, has come out under their own name in defense of the president here. You got an anonymous statement. We don’t see any Republicans on camera.”

    Maybe we can get some more anonymous sources to reconcile these statements.

    What we’re really seeing here is a political assassination by the media and the democrats. And as usual, the spineless republicans are ready to surrender.

    • pennywit

      What we’re really seeing here is a political assassination by the media and the democrats. And as usual, the spineless republicans are ready to surrender.

      Disagree here. Some of the scandal would have come at Trump no matter what. With their ties to Russia, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort were going to create headaches for President Trump no matter what. Trump is having issues right now because of a confluence of issues, mostly revolving around his management style, his poor management of scandal response, and his tendency to undermine his own staff’s attempts at damage control.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    The GOP is suffering from fatigue – period. Its ossified, elitist leaders made Trump the only alternative to a disastrous 3rd Obama term, guaranteed to be more politically corrupt than Obama’s two terms.

    Victor Davis Hanson, in his inimitable way, skewers the “Never Trump” swells’ rationale. As posited by Hanson, “…there have appeared four implicit tenets to the conservative ‘Never Trump’ position that, we are supposed to understand, justified not voting for him, actively opposing him, or voting for Hillary Clinton:”

    #1 Character is Armageddon?

    …Trump, it is rightly said, is his own worst enemy. The Never Trump mantra that “character is destiny,” and thus Trump in Nixonian style is doomed, may one day prove true. But for now the media is reduced to obsessions with Trump’s daily portions of ice cream (two scoops instead of one?) or peddles fake news that his wife was once an escort or that Trump frolicked in sick sexual antics in Moscow, and on and on. In the grand scheme of things these obsessions are far less important than the resumption of the Keystone and Dakota pipelines, a 70 percent drop in illegal immigration, and the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court….

    Introspection is not advice to withhold criticism when Trump exhibits his character flaws, but a call to at least appreciate the tragic situation that half the country finds itself in: a flawed character has a better chance of enacting key conservative correctives than did his occasionally moral superiors—a paradox to be explored by reasoned conservative audit rather than through hysteria or self-referential snark.

    #2 Backsliding Conservative?

    …There may well be widening fissures ahead in the conservative/Trump divide, as establishment Republicans find no need for a wall on the southern border. They may worry about Trump’s jawboning of private companies that have a right to outsource/offshore as they please. Trump’s tax cuts and refusal to address entitlement spending will acerbate already swollen deficits and debt. Yet, these are still not existential differences—at least not yet. So far Trump’s first 100 days are more conservative than the policies that both John McCain and Mitt Romney ran on.

    #3 Nuts, Bigots and Assorted Unhinged Populists?

    So far all the political violence associated with the election of Trump, from Inauguration to the latest campus rioting, has been on the Left. No pro-Trump crowds don masks, break windows or shut down traffic. The crudity in contemporary politics—from the constant sick jokes referring to First Family incest, smears against the First Lady, low attacks on the Trump children, boycotts of the Inauguration, talk and dreams of killing the president—is on the liberal/progressive side. The entertainment industry’s obscenity and coarseness have been picked up by mainstream Democratic officials, who now routinely resort to profanities like s–t and f–k to attack the president. Almost every ethical code—television journalists do not report on air private conservations with their guests during breaks, opposition congressional representatives do attend the Inauguration, Senators do not use obscenities—have been abandoned in efforts to delegitimize Trump.

    #4 A Preferable Clinton Agenda?

    From the opposition to Trump’s first 100 days, we can sense where the Clinton agenda was headed: a Supreme Court pick further to the left than Merrick Garland; expanded race/class/gender themes across cabinet offices; a likely single-payer health system; higher taxes and more regulations, a radical climate change menu, and increased identity politics.

    [Conclusion]

    Finally, there was something deeply wrong in the Republican Party that at some point required a Trump to excise it. The Republican Party and conservative movement had created a hierarchy that mirror-imaged its liberal antithesis, and suggested to middle class voters between the coasts that the commonalities in income, professional trajectories, and cultural values of elites trumped their own political differences. How a billionaire real estate developer appeared, saw that paradox, and became more empathetic to the plight of middle-class Americans than the array of Republican political pundits is one of the most alarming stories of our age.

    Trump was not so much a reflection of red-state Americans’ political ignorance, as their weariness with those of both parties who ridicule, ignore, or patronize them—and now seek to overturn the verdict of the election.

    • pennywit

      I maintain that a potted ficus could have beaten Donald Trump in the general election. I also maintain that a potted ficus could have beaten Hillary Clinton.

      • Retired military

        Yet 16 top republicans couldn’t defeat Trump in the primaries.
        Meanwhile Hillary could only beat a 74 year old socialist after the DNC cheated.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          The R establishment [“Re”] pissed all over their base, including the Tea Party. The Re begged for high turnout in 2010 and 2014 elections – which they received. After gaining control of Congress, the Re did nothing – I would have rather had Obama veto several bills [such as a budget, wresting control from various bureaucracies, deregulation, tax relief, building a wall on southern border, deporting illegals, etc.].
          Instead, the Re treated its base as if the base was something the Re stepped in and couldn’t get off its shoe.
          The Re then couldn’t get one or two candidates to run. Instead, as you said, 16 ran. I’m not sure if the Re was self-aware enough to know that someone like Jeb Bush would simply not do.
          Trump was blessed with enough of his own money [and ego] to tell the Re to piss off. He capitalized on the Re’s complete ignorance of what was happening in the country and how angry people were at do-nothing, politically correct, back-slapping elites who curried favor and then turned their backs on their own people. I still don’t think the Re has any real sense of what its base wants/expects. Or, it does, and cynically lies to get elected. We’re in a bad place.

          • Retired military

            Yep it helped Jeb when he said “Da base. I don’t need no stinkin base”
            IMO Jeb would have lost to Hillary. Also Trump ran the leanest presidential campaign in probably 40 years.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Ficus for President!

        • pennywit

          You’ve clearly taken leaf of your senses.

    • Retired military

      Yes McCuckold McConnell and RINO Ryan need to GO

  • Wild_Willie

    All the ‘scandal’s’ are press generated with no facts of evidence. This is how sad D.C. has become when the establishment does not get it’s way. A huge wake up call for most of america. They don’t want change. Prayers going big time for Trump’s success. ww

    • Brucehenry

      Trump admitted, on camera, to Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of “this Russia thing.”

      Obstruction of justice, admitted to on camera.

      Trump disclosed classified information to the Russians about intelligence shared with us by Israel, and the source of that intel “may well be dead” by now. At the very least this will make allies think twice before sharing info with the US again.

      • Hank_M
        • Brucehenry

          Surely you are not suggesting that offering to share, in an orderly. though-out manner, cherry-picked intelligence is equivalent to blurting out in a braggadocious impulse information that will get sources killed?

          Because the latter is what happened in the Oval Office meeting.

          • The “on the record” eyewitness accounts are incongruent with your description.

          • Brucehenry

            Not according to the Washington Post they ain’t.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.4bdde3560d47

            Besides, what if they are? Did you believe what the Obama administration said “on the record” about Benghazi? Or about anything?

          • Retired military

            Oh yeah WAPO. The same one that said Hillary was going to win the election in a landslide.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cac93e85cb1a663ee09812bd7c410d65ab5dfcc4d1028c99c159f585304c4a6a.jpg

          • Brucehenry

            Prediction of the future is a different game than reciting the events of the past.

          • Retired military

            That is especially true when the name Clinton is involved.
            Sex isn’t Sex. Perjury isn’t perjury. Handling of classified material has to have intent when the statue states no such thing.

          • Brucehenry

            So, if sharing classified information with unauthorized personnel is a crime regardless of intent, what is blurting out classified information to the Russian ambassador called?

          • Retired military

            I wouldn’t believe Obama as far as I could throw Michelle’s ass.
            As far as the MSM. I think this says it all about their fairness.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6cbeb7ae2a1b29741e2be30592641a7aa56169c5d06785595d9d373e7e3b428d.jpg

          • Brucehenry

            They are talking about the inaugural speech. Didn’t you watch it? It WAS dark.

          • Wild_Willie

            America sees what is going on. The election commission is showing millions voted illegally for the dem’s. All of the actions are predicated on the fact Hillary did not plan on losing. President Trump will come out good but the dem’s will need a decade or two to recover from trying to put aside the will of the american people. ww

          • Brucehenry

            I was unaware that the “election commission” had finished, or even started, its work. Maybe you can show us a link.

          • Retired military

            And you know that how? Who is the source of this revelation. Who has gone on record stating this?

          • Brucehenry

            The Washington Post has.

          • Hank_M

            Bruce, how do you support stating that what Trump did was “blurting out in a braggadocious impulse information that will get sources killed?”

            What we know about the meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister was based on the word of an anonymous source who has said he/she was not in the meeting, What that person said happened was denied by those who were at that meeting.

            And you claim to know what happened at that meeting?

          • Brucehenry

            Hilarious how you give the benefit of the doubt to Trump on this matter when you are certain you know the motivations and impulses of every move Obama made. You know, hatred of America and capitalism, sympathy for Muslims, anti-Semitism yada yada all based on internet yak yak.

            The Post said that Trump “seemed to be bragging” about the quality of his intel.

          • Hank_M

            There it is.
            You got your information from the Post who got their information from someone who was not at the meeting.

          • Brucehenry

            And you got your characterization of the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting from someone who was not there. Tell me, do you believe that they discussed their grandchildren and nothing else?

            Is it difficult to believe that Trump, a man so insecure he had to reassure us all about the size and functionality of his penis in a televised debate, would do such a thing?

            You watched this clown throughout the campaign. You’ve seen the hamhanded gaffes he’s made and the amateurism of his “administration.” But if you choose to accept the “eyewitness accounts” carefully parsed so as not to technically lie (he didn’t reveal “sources and methods” lol) that’s up to you.

          • Hank_M

            You’re flailing Bruce and trying to deflect. It isn’t working.

            And yes, I’ll take eyewitness accounts over unnamed sources any day.

            You can continue to make shit up.

          • Brucehenry

            Am I “flailing?” Ok if you say so.

            So just to be clear, you accept the version of events offered by the eyewitnesses to the Bill/Loretta tete a tete, yes? No?

            If not, why not?

          • Scalia

            And so what if Hank accepts the version of events from a person who was not there? Does that make it acceptable? Is your position a “you-did-it-so-I-can-do-it-too”?

          • Brucehenry

            That seems to be the go-to response around here. Whataboutism.

            But in this case I point it out to demonstrate the idiocy of asking “HOW DO YOU KNOW WERE YOU EVEN THERE?” after every allegation of Trump’s buffoonery. We’ve all seen him at his pathetic, insecure worst. It is as easy for me to believe that he was boasting about the size of his pec….er, um, I mean intel-gathering capabilities as it is for Hank, or you, or anyone else, to believe that something nefarious was up at the Bill/Loretta confab.

          • Scalia

            That’s mostly irrelevant. The rational reply would be, “Good point. The source of the information was not present, so the report is suspect. On the other hand, your willingness to accept matters second-hand undermines the coherence of your argument.”

            Your reply smacks of “you did it too,” which is, of course, ad hominem.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes your honor lol

          • Hank_M

            I thought I stated that I tended to believe people that were at the meeting. Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

          • Scalia

            Yes, your reply is clear. I’m just pointing out the fallacy of Bruce’s response. Conceding arguendo that his charge is true does not justify his fallacious response.

          • Hank_M

            As far as I recall, some reporter saw Clinton board the plane that Lynch was on. I do not recall anyone else being in the meeting they had.

            The timing seemed suspicious.

          • Brucehenry

            Right. So they were the only eyewitnesses, and they said everything was on the up and up. Both of ’em.

          • Hank_M

            Without evidence to the contrary, fair enough.
            They said it, nothing contradicts what they said.

            So why aren’t you giving the same benefit of the doubt to those who were at the Trump/Russian Diplomat meeting?

          • Brucehenry

            I am. I have expressed, in the past, some incredulousness (Incredulity??) that Bill and Loretta would hold a conspiracy confab on an airport tarmac in front of God and everybody. But I leave open the possibility that the meeting was just as wingnuts say it was.

            Because the eyewitnesses to that tarmac meeting, especially Bill, have told some whoppers in the past. Just as have the eyewitnesses, especially Donald, to the Oval Office meeting.

          • The only way to stop him from making shit up is socially unacceptable and frowned upon legally.

          • Brucehenry

            And you couldn’t do it if it were acceptable.

          • I am your huckleberry.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I’m sure in your mind you are as dashing and fearless as Val Kilmer in “Tombstone” you are hilarious.

      • Retired military

        And Comey said IN SWORN TESTIMONY to congress that Trump didn’t try to pressure him in any way shape or form to drop the Flynn investigation yet the left is screaming “obstruction of justice”. yet you have Bill meeting Rice on a tarmac during Hillary’s investigation and we are supposed to believe they just talked about their grandkids.

        • Brucehenry

          You’ll have to refresh my memory as to Comey’s sworn testimony of no pressure from Trump.

          And I guess you mean Lynch, not Rice.

          • Retired military

            Yes Lynch. My bad.

            As far as Comey’s sworn testimony before congress. Go here. There are a few videos.

            http://www.bing.com/search?q=comey+may+3rd+no+pressure&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IENTTR&conversationid=

            Last post today Bruce. It is my birthday and it has been a pretty crappy one.

          • Brucehenry

            Saw three different videos, none of which say that Trump didn’t pressure him. The questioner asks if the Justice department could stop an investigation, and if it had ever happened. The name Trump or the title “president” is never mentioned.

          • Brucehenry

            Looked at several articles from that search page and they are all talking about Comey’s response, on May 3, to questions from Sen Hirono of Hawaii. They have nothing to do with the dinner meeting at which Trump allegedly asked Comey to “let this go” meaning the Flynn thing.

            Go ahead, watch ’em yourself. No there there.

          • Brucehenry

            Missed that last line. Happy Birthday RM! Go do something fun.

      • Wild_Willie

        IF Trump was to order Comey to stop the investigation it is obstruction. Pinhead. No such order came. That is why Comey never reported it and swore he was never told to stop the investigation. Presidents have every right to talk to their employees about specific matters. Pinhead.

        Any president can share anything with anyone. He is the one that classifies it, or unclassifies it. No one in that room thought imformation of a classified nature that is unknown was shared. Pinhead.

        What will be fun to see is who actually was connected to Russia and Wikileaks. Hm? I think I know what party. ww

      • Wild_Willie

        For reasonable well educated people President Trump said Comey’s appearance at the congressional hearing was embarrassing and confusing and he knew he had to go then. He did get by in like anyone would. Pinhead. If you liberals had a meaningful job you would know how the world works. ww

        • Brucehenry

          I guess you really told me! And that “pinhead” thing again — ouch!

  • Brucehenry
    • Retired military

      Bruce we never expected anything else from the GOPe and RINOs.

  • Vagabond661

    The GOP experiencing Trump fatigue….the GOP didn’t want Trump so this is hardly news.

    The story is how Trump supporters are experiencing GOP fatigue. And Big Media fatigue. And Washington fatigue.

    Drain the Swamp.

  • Brucehenry

    Perhaps this is why Trump allegedly asked Comey to go easy on Flynn. If it was to avoid the embarrassment of having it shown, AGAIN, that his national security adviser had been a paid stooge of a foreign (Islamic!) power, that would be obstruction of justice, no?

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article151149647.html

  • Brucehenry

    He’s like the son I never had:

  • Retired military

    Bruce

    In response to your responses to my posts.

    1. Link (between RESET button and Panetta taking money from KGB linked Russian bank).

    I assume you asked for a link to a story or else a link between the two events. THere is no link to any story. At that the same time consider this.

    Proof of ANY action of collusion between Trump and the russians – currently none

    Proof of Hillary’s foundation taking LOTS of money from the Russians – check

    Proof of Podesta’s brother taking millions from Russian bank – check (sorry for the mix up of names)

    Proof of Hillary signing off on Russian uranium deal – check

    So tell me again why we have a Special counsel investigating Trump’s ties to Russia during the election yet no special counsel investigating Hillary ties to Russia?

    2. Comey’s testimony before Congress.

    I thought that the question asked had Trump in it. It did not. Yet Comey responded that any attempt to influence an FBI investigation especially due to political reasons was a very big deal. yet we hear nothing about Comey’s supposed memos until after he is fired. Also who are the anonymous sources and why do they have access to an official FBI work document and why are they talking to press instead of DOJ? WHy are anonymous sources saying Trump team had 18 contacts via email and phone during the election? How did they get this information? If true it must mean that folks were unmasked and now that information is being illegally given to the press instead of being taken through proper channels (are there proper channels for reporting information which was illegal to obtain).

    3. Regarding Flynn. If he is guilty of something he should be charged.

    4. Trump supposedly giving classified info to the Russians. A. Trump is President and can choose to share classified information with whomever he deems fit. I am not saying that he should but it is legal. And also other folks in the room have gone on record with statements that nothing wrong happened. Yet WAPO uses anonymous sources. THere were 4 people in the room. THe Russian, Trump, and the 2 peopel who have gone on record stating nothing happened. Who is WAPO’s source? THe Russian? Also why isnt the Press screaming for Hillary’s and Hoover Abedin’s heads when Comey has outrite stated that Hillary did much worse and it has been prove that Hoover did much worse. Comey says intent yet the word appears nowhere in the statue. And why exactly did the left cheer when Bradley Manning got released from prison yesterday when he has given away more classified information than Trump, Hillary and Hoover combined? Also why is it okay for WAPO and NY Times to print classified information in the press when it apparantly isnt okay for POTUS to talk classified information with people he deems appropriate? While we are on the subject didnt Biden and Panetta give out the names of the Seal Team 6 members who killed Bin Laden and those team members were subsequently targetted and killed due to their identities being outed?

    5. Podesta’s brother taking money from Russian banks. Yet if Trump’s team talks to someone who visited Russia 10 years ago then somehow Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia (per leftist politicians). How about Hillary’s brother getting the gold mine in South America while she was SOS (the only foreigner to that country to ever get control of a gold mine in the past 50+ years)? But nothing untoward there according to the dem politicians.

    6. “if Trump tried to impede an FBI investigation into Flynn that would be obstruction of justice” . And there is zero proof of this. Trump said something like (ref Flynn) “I hope you can get past this”. Comey neither resigned nor was he fired for this and nothing was sent to anyone regading the issue (unless you count anonymous sources to WAPO). No other action was taken other than MAYBE some memos were written which anonymous sources to WAPO have claimed to exist. Where are Comey’s memos regarding Hillary and Obama? Oh wait. Nothing in the press about them. Obama publically tried to impede in at least 3 FBI investigations with public statements stating how he felt about the issue yet nothing is said in the press nor from Comey.

    7. “At the very least this will make allies think twice before sharing info with the US again.”

    Did you know that Obama shared serial numbers and locations of nuclear weapons WITH THE RUSSIANS that we sold to the Brits over the objections of the Brits? What? You didnt? That is because the MSM didnt report it.

    “But sure, yeah, all these scandals are “press generated.”

    At least with Trump the press prints bad things. Ever notice how that stuff wasnt in the press when Obama was being adored by them?

    8. Ref the “Dark” convention and inaugural speech. I didnt watch the convention speech. I am assuming anyone who fits on the left poltiical spectrum saw both as dark (not a knock against you just a simple statement of my feelings). I did watch the inaugural speech and saw nothing dark about it. Probably a matter of perspective. Strange how all the MSM perspectives mentioned the word dark. I mean if we were talking about anything else one could possibly use the terms collusion and talking points. And funny how those talking points seem to fit the left’s point of view isnt it.

    9. “So, if sharing classified information with unauthorized personnel is a crime regardless of intent, what is blurting out classified information to the Russian ambassador called?”

    As stated above. Trump is authorized to tell whomever he wants whatever he wants. Am I saying it is the smartest thing to do so? No. But at the same time none of the four in the room has stated that this occurred despite anonymous sources in WAPO.

    10. Thanks for the birthday greetings.

     

    I think I covered every thing. If I left anyting out please let me know.

    • Hank_M

      “I think I covered every thing.”

      Yes, and extremely well. Thx.

    • Brucehenry

      Well I’m not gonna get into every point you made in your wall of text but I did chuckle a little at the idea that I didn’t know something because the “MSM” didn’t report it but you DID know because of your Super Sekrit Sources. Presumably the same ones that told you about all the people Hillary had murdered over the years.

      Bu I will address the assertion that what Trump did in the Oval Office with the TWO Russians (not one, but the Foreign Minister AND the ambassador) was totally legal. You’re right, it was. It was also stupid, reckless, unwise, and may have cost an Israeli agent his life. It may well have also cost us the full cooperation of the Mossad for the foreseeable future.

      But you go right on telling yourself that Trump is better than Hillary would have been.

      Do you think someone who is smart enough to have gotten away with 100 murders, LOL, would have blurted out code-word level intel to the Russians?

      • Retired military

        Bruce

        Ref: wall of text. I tried to consolidate the several different threads. Wasn’t trying to inundate you (but I think you knew that).

        “but you DID know because of your Super Sekrit Sources”
        You mean like the MSM anonymous sources. LOL.
        Also I never accused Hillary of murder. I merely pointed out the trail of dead bodies which could have harmed her politically vs the trail of dead bodies of people who could hurt Trump politically. Coincidences seems to happen a lot around Hillary don’t they?

        And again. Folks in the meeting have gone on record stating Trump said nothing wrong vs WAPO anonymous sources. Meanwhile the DNC leadership seems to be backing down from the idea of impeachment now that a special counsel has been named.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/466069c2cb06a30e4e3c888880b3d0c152271bada299b0943c68630f9cb886bb.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d15652848bcda964a3c341359d6d75d43628d14089a0fba1dc84e04e0aa907b8.png

        • Brucehenry

          Sure. And folks have gone on record saying neither Bamz nor Hillary did anything untoward in the whole Benghazi thing but anonymous sources said they did. Who do you believe?

          • Retired military

            Well I don’t believe Hillary LOL. With Trump the MSM is reporting the discussion (and everything else). With Hillary it would be “nothing to see here, let’s move on).

            Good discussion. Two different viewpoints. Respectful disagreements.

            One last coincidence to consider.

            Donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up pretty fast after election day, didn’t they? Just saying.

            (Not trying to get in last word, just trying to bring closure until next time)
            Hope you have a good weekend.

          • Brucehenry

            You too sir!

  • Retired military

    You know it is plain as day when Harvard says the media is negative towards Trump

    https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

  • Wild_Willie

    It has been reported by the Washington Inquirer that Obama has used cocaine frequently in office making the Secret Service nervous since they had to provide it.

    The Washington Sun reported Obama cried for his mother when Seal Team 6 got Bin Laden. He had to be sedated and put to bed before the raid.

    It has been reported that Obama has abused one of his daughters during a drunken celebrity party.

    I say a special counsel needs to check this out. ww

    • Retired military

      If the first one is true then I say yes.
      The second one is not a crime.
      Bringing up the 3rd without any reliable evidence is disgusting.
      I had a friend going through divorce who had to go through a custody hearing because his exwife during the divorce accusded him of being gay (with me), oversexed towards her, a pedophile (with his son) and he was going to blow up the house. It wasnt funny to him or to me. And the $30k+ laywer bill he had to pay wasnt funny either.
      Especially since I was active duty and we both had TS clearances.
      Trying to stall Trump’s agenda through ridiculous charges is also disgusting but accusations of incest are more so.

  • Retired military
    • He doesn’t want to read anything that might contradict the progtard narrative.