Talk show host and Trump apologist Laura Ingraham wrote a piece titled “The Trump betrayal by Republican elites won’t soon be forgotten.”If this were an audio broadcast, here is where I would insert the “dramatic sting” Ingraham’s show used to use to poke fun at overly melodramatic headlines.
I was a fan of Ingraham’s show back then. She was irreverent, and often bucked the party line. Now, like Sean Hannity, she’s tossed that aside in order to cheerlead for a reprehensible candidate with an “R” next to his name just because he is running against another reprehensible candidate with a “D” next to hers.
The vast majority of Republicans want Donald Trump to be president. They’ve repeatedly told the pollsters, they’ve turned out in huge numbers for the GOP nominee’s rallies, they’ve given him a record-breaking number of small donations and they are trying to help him win. Some of them were for Rubio, some of them were for Kasich and a lot of them were for Cruz, but they have come together in an effort to save the country from Hillary Clinton.
A small minority of Republicans do not want Donald Trump to be president. They prefer Hillary Clinton.
If it’s a small minority versus a vast majority why is it worthy of making veiled threats? Also, saying that people who oppose Trump prefer Hillary is beyond disingenuous as many like Brandon Morse have noted. Saying that one prefers Hillary because they can’t vote for Trump is pretty much the attitude I would expect from what some call the “establishment elite.” Don’t think for yourself. The GOP is entitled to your vote no matter who they nominate because Democrats are bad. It’s that kind of nonsensical reasoning over time that got us into this Kobayashi Maru election scenario in the first place.
Unfortunately for most of the Republican Party, this small group of angry dissenters includes many of the people at the top of the party — officeholders, major donors, “strategists,” and “conservative” pundits. These people have been able to leverage their connections with the mainstream press to repeatedly attack Trump — even though they refuse to say anything nice about Hillary.
First, I love that a pundit stumping for a lifelong Democrat who loves eminent domain and Planned Parenthood has the nerve to put “conservative” in scare quotes when talking about someone else. It’s like sprinkles on the excrement sundae that is Trump-publicanism. Second, Why would they refuse to say anything nice about Hillary if they “prefer” her? Maybe, just maybe, they don’t. Maybe they prefer to vote for neither the con-man nor the criminal.
The Republican Party is led by people who have more in common with the Clintons than with the GOP base.
Since the presidential nominee is generally considered the party’s leader, I would agree with this statement, but Ingraham was only accidentally truthful here. Donald Trump indeed has far more in common with the Clintons than he does with the GOP base. And make no mistake, the majority of that “small minority” opposing Trump are members of the GOP base and not wealthy “conservative” media figures like Ingraham.
When this election is over, the vast majority of Republicans are going to remember that their supposed leaders — the same officeholders, millionaires, and pundits who told them that they had to “come together” and support John McCain and Mitt Romney — refused to do the same for Donald Trump.
(Millionaires. What’s Laura Ingraham worth these days?)
But there’s that “vast majority” again. If it’s so vast, why are they threatened by a relative few who can’t find a clothespin robust enough to hold their nose to vote for the “conservative” who bankrolled the campaigns of Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel, and even Hillary Clinton? Writing from her ivory tower, Ingraham has convinced herself that it’s only the “ruling class” Republicans who are opposed to Trump being president. Her presumption is that those who reluctantly held their noses to vote for Romney or McCain are entirely behind Trump. She’s dead wrong about that. That the divide over Trump runs along the same line as the divide between GOP leadership in DC and the grass roots is a false talking point.
In the 1990s while opposing one Clinton, conservatives said “character matters.” Now in opposition to another Clinton, many of the same people and pundits are taking the position that character only matters for players on the other team. It only matters when there’s no risk attached to saying so.
Something else won’t be forgotten after this election has finally hit the fan. It won’t soon be forgotten which “conservative” pundits gave away their right to be critical of a politician’s’ character and fitness for office.
When I first began dabbling in the political blogosphere, never did I think I’d find myself writing at odds with Laura Ingraham. I still have great respect for what she has done to promote the pro-life movement and other important causes, but it saddens me that I can no longer trust her opinion as I once did.