As indicated here, at the debate last night all three Republican Presidential candidates backed off of their pledges to support the eventual Republican nominee. I have listened to each of the squirrelly statements from all three candidates and only one warrants commendation and correction:
Trump should be commended for stating clearly that he does not intend to honor the pledge of support. This is something neither Cruz nor Kasich had the guts to state clearly. But, about Cruz, he also said:
He doesn’t have to support me. I really don’t believe I need his support…
Trump’s reasoning here is all wrong.
If we go back in time to the first debate, Trump was the only one unwilling to pledge to support the eventual nominee. He and the other candidates pondered it and then all of them eventually signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee.
Here is the content of the pledge signed by all three:
I, ________, affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is,
So my question to you is who is that pledge to? The RNC? Reince Priebus? The Republican Party? All fellow Republican presidential candidates? The media? Almighty God? No one?
That pledge was made to each person contemplating voting for one of those 17 Presidential candidates. It was a promise made that affected our decisions here in Virginia on March 1, 2016. It was a promise made that influenced decisions of voters and delegates in 33 separate primaries and caucuses prior to last night. It was a promise I took seriously. It was a promise that bolstered my comfort and confidence in the process. It was a promise that reminded us that we are all on the same team. It was a promise that when this was done we would all go off and gleefully or reluctantly pull the lever for our nominee in November.
The only problem with Trump’s statement above is that he acts as if he has the right to release Cruz from his pledge.
Maybe come November 9 the Republican party will be a largely empty shell because our candidates have forgotten who got them there.
Disclaimer: I was a Rand Paul supporter and now support Ted Cruz, and unlike our remaining Presidential candidates I will still support our nominee in November.
19 comments
I believe you have left out some important facts here. First and foremost this “pledge” was initiated and required by the national party solely due to their fear and in support of their then developing efforts to remove any possible third party effort by Trump specifically against a future establishment candidate, as they worked diligently behind the primary scenes post pledge to under cut his developing national campaign.
Since that event countless national and state party leaders as well as national party media figures have been unequivocal in their open opposition and denial at any cost of the Republican presidential nomination going to Donald Trump. Neither the intent nor the underlying practical application had much to do about the party’s consideration for it’s voting base. To try and present this as some type of team building exercise between the party and the base when it’s real intent was more along the lines of cynical manipulation of a candidate viewed as undesirable by the party leadership is some legerdemain with wordsmithing.
How will you depict the growing exposure of many national state party Trump delegate convention votes that are nothing more then cat paws for the accelerating effort by establishment party leaders to deny Trump the first round 1237 delegate count so these votes can be directed, on call, to what they are intended for in the first place, the establishment candidate walked on stage as the “compromise” having never spent a single day before any voter. Poor Ted Cruz, it’s one thing to realize when you are about to get screwed as the Trump insiders are finally coming to grasp, but to think the establishment party is coalescing behind your campaign when all you are is the dumb wooden horse being rolled through the gates of Troy as a parting gift, is pitiful indeed. So when the majority of the unbound delegates and large swaths of state delegates majestically appear with pre printed signs on the convention floor this July for the party establishment selection what will you depict that as “a voter miscommunication in the team huddle”?
Thank you for acknowledging the basic premise of my piece: this was not a pledge by voters to support the candidate, but a pledge by the candidates to engage in the nomination process with the intent to support its results. Even if you disagree with the premise, it makes quite a difference that you understood that basic point.
To a large extent I do not care what the Establishment does because I don;t view them as looking out for my interests. When casting a vote on March 1 I would have voted for someone else if Cruz had not given the Pledge. So I take it as an affront that these politicians willy-nilly renege on their promise while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that that promise was to us the voters.
Response to the convention issues below.
I sure hope you are wrong about the convention. If the rules are so drastically changed that a candidate that has not been before the voters and has not earned a single pledged delegate is nominated at the convention, I may reach a point that I am excised from the party. I am unfortunately a pessimist by nature. But your scenario outdoes my pessimism substantially. I guess I’m due to be accused of having rose colored glasses at some point.
As for the Virginia delegation. Given the substantial information I have about our delegate pool (no delegates have been selected other than Morton Blackwell and John Whitbeck, both by default) I highly doubt the Virginia delegation will be in the tank for some compromise candidate who earned no pledged delegates.
Only one rule needs to be modified and that is 40(b) and if that is actually done the game is on. I have asked the same simple question for some time now, if no rule modifications are under consideration (as national party figures have repeatedly maintained in the media) why not move the rules committee meeting to a week post convention nomination rather then pre convention as it is currently scheduled. One simple change and all the paranoid/pessimists regarding this issue (apparently like myself) can then just shut up as the mechanisms are off the table. Hasn’t occured and is not going to happen
Rule 40(b) will be changed, it is under consideration. But there is a big difference between changing it so that candidates that have won one or more state nominations can be on the ballot, or if anyone can be on the ballot. If it is the latter I would call that drastic change.
That will indeed be the issue. Do you have some pre knowledge that this rule is under consideration for change at the up coming rules committee meeting the week of July 11? National leadership claims very publicly that they would not consider or approve such a change. If the committee does modify the rule and it is approved I’m very dubious they will apply it to just candidates with one or more state delegate majority wins.
That would in effect still qualify only Trump and likely Cruz (I don’t believe Kasich”s Ohio win was a majority per current rule requirement) and Bush or Cruz still wouldn’t qualify for any consideration at all. The establishment national and state leadership angling for opening up the convention for other more acceptable individuals (to them of course) would accomplish little by taking that route. What would be the point to open the convention format for two candidates they equally detest?
I’m relying on the MSM for what its worth, e.g.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/republican-convention-rules-trump-cruz-221355
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rnc-rules-insiders-speak-out-contested-convention-n541146
The fundamental problem with the pledge is that adherents promise loyalty to a *person*. But the Republican Party is not about automatically affirming any particular person, whose beliefs and behavior can change. Instead, we should pledge loyalty to the *Republican Creed.* this goes for elected officials, too. In fact, it should be required of them most of all. Rank and file Republicans who believe in the creed consider it anathema to be required to publicly support underhanded politicians who do everything possible to undermine the creed. And those who don’t subscribe to the principles of the Republican Creed are, by definition, not Republicans. “Not Republican” refers to a person who doesn’t believe in Republican ideals. It should *not* mean a person who sometimes doesn’t publicly support others who choose to call themselves “Republican” also, even though “Republican” would be a misnomer. The second definition doesn’t even make sense. Even the president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to automatically defend and protect and support whatever person or thing is currently masquerading as an “American.”
I may vote for Hillary if Trump’s the nominee; if Americans want the kind big government control Trump suggested he supports last night at the town hall, then maybe they should get it good and hard,.
You probably would not have anyway who are you kidding!
Another Trump endorsement
This endorsement is impressive because this is the first ever by the NBPC in a presidential primary.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/30/breaking-national-border-patrol-council-endorses-trump-for-president/
Yes, that is impressive, and I wonder if that labor union’s gullibility, or greed perhaps, may explain in part why they are doing such a poor job on the border. I remember the days when I donated annually to the Fraternal Order of Police — then they endorsed Bill Clinton at the height of his corrupt regime, and I knew something had gone awry with that organization.
Or perhaps they know Trump supports big government and will be passing out those tax dollars to his friends.
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/03/29/donald-trumps-amazing-technicolor-dream-list-governments-functions/
If I may offer a rebuttal from Sept. 2015… http://virginiaconservative.net/the-republicans-foolish-pledge/
Rebuttal reviewed – I did read this when first published. You and I simply disagree. If you are running for a party office you need to be prepared to support the intramural opposition if you lose. Apparently most of the commenters here disagree with my premise, agree with the characterizations of the pledge as being to the party or to each other, and feel the pledge need not be honored.
Totally disagree. Trump is non-conservative and is damaging the reputation of the Republican Party. Nobody has the obligation to support him in November.
Disagree. The Republican Party has already embarrassed themselves. Trump’s strong showing is evident of that.
So double down on the idiocy? That’s the solution?
The continual harping on the pledge by the media is an attempt to damage Cruz and Kasich by tying them to Trump. The scenario goes like this: “Senator Cruz, Donald Trump has attacked your wife and is peddling rumors that you have had numerous affairs. You have called him a “sniveling coward” for this behavior. If he wins the nomination, will you support him??”
What the media is really asking is, “how many bat—- crazy things can Donald Trump do or say before you say you won’t support him for President?” It’s a lose-lose situation for Cruz and Kasich to be in. Their damned if they say they won’t support Trump, and damned if they say they will. For Trump, he doesn’t care, because he never intended to honor the pledge to begin with.
Let’s be realistic here. The only reason this question keeps popping up is because Trump is running the worst scorched-earth campaign in history. His antics and his personal attacks turn all the other candidates and their supporters against him. I think the reason Trump is now declaring he won’t honor the pledge is because he sees his campaign literally imploding before his eyes and he knows he won’t get enough delegates to win the nomination. This way he is setting up his excuse to go third party or support Hillary for President.
Right-on Mick! It was a rash pledge to begin with, but when Trump plumbs the depths of evil this far, nobody should support him, pledge or not.
Or, Trump doesn’t want the job.