On Sunday Reince Priebus said there could be consequences to former Presidential candidates who refuse to endorse Trump,
“People who agreed to support the nominee, that took part in our process, they used tools from the RNC. They agreed to support the nominee, they took part in our process. We’re a private party. We’re not a public entity. Those people need to get on board. And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process – of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.”
There are only two previous candidates who have not endorsed Trump, Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich.
When asked if those candidates would be penalized, Priebus said the party would be looking at that.
All candidates signed a pledge to support the candidate.
More here.
35 comments
Trump insulted Cruz’s wife and father. You can’t expect Cruz to endorse Trump under those circumstances.
If you can’t support the party, get out, which is what ideological conservatives and libertarians should do. Sasse, Cruz, Paul, etc. should start their own third party. The country is ready.
Closer to home we have Barbara Comstock. I’m not convinced she isn’t a never-trumper. Her inside the beltway – lobbyist – big corporate crony background is antithetical to the Trump Phenomenon. As Trump’s poll numbers rise like a home sick angel, I hope the Loudoun GOP will discard Babs’ poor example and do all possible to help Trump/Pence win in Northern Virginia.
Ray Farrell
Bluemont, VA
Hi Ray! Comstock is most definitely a ‘never-Trumper’. She has been quite clear about her opposition to Trump.
So then, the moment of political attention seeking and self-righteousness is just about over, the majority of these individuals having never recognized that a true “righteousness” never originates from a source that is one’s self. All the puffery on behalf of one against the other has come to a conclusive end state. Some have come to some self awareness but most will just move on to proclaimed martyrdom and total irrelevancy. Why punish the confused and self-centered for their own pride has already brought them low. For those that can move on they will, for those that can’t why waste your time and effort to be assaulted by their constant complaints and lack of humility. QED
As far as I know, Jeb has not endorsed Trump, which makes three former candidates refusing to to endorse Trump. I think the consequences for those three may be different.
It will be hard to punish Cruz. I think he will need support for his reelection in the Senate two years from now, and it makes no sense to primary him if control of the senate is still in jeopardy. Cruz may actually get away with his breaking his pledge.
Kasich is barely Republican anyway. Kasich is the kind of guy who would switch parties and be proud about it. If Trump wins Ohio, which looks likely, it will further embarrass Kasich who has harped incessantly about how he is the only guy that deliver Ohio for Republicans. He will never be more than Governor of Ohio.
Bush is the saddest case. I doubt he could get elected to national office even if the RNC was completely behind him. He has been on the wrong side of the most important immigration issue, has baggage to carry as a Bush, has been exposed as “low-energy”, and now has refused to support Trump. He seems to be finished.
Even if Trump turned out to be a horrible President (which is unlikely), the Republican base is never going to appreciate a message of “I told you so”. The base won’t be looking backwards for one of Trump’s opponents, they will be looking forward for somebody who has been on their side with Trump’s message, but who can deliver results better than Trump could.
How about Lindsay? Or GHWB, GWB, Mitt, John Mc??
They aren’t former candidates who signed the pledge. They aren’t worried about Reince Priebus, but I still think they hurt their legacy by refusing to endorse. They are putting themselves into the ‘has been’ category.
There are a substantial number of big government republicans who only desire to manipulate the existing levers of the bureaucracy. They have been summarily dismissed by the GOP base and they are hurt by the rejection. (Well, if they had kept their word trump wouldn’t be the nominee.)
I think it’s more about being a Republican than signing a pledge — Deeds not words.
There are more people than just Cruz and Kasich who have refused to endorse Trump. About 20% of Republicans are refusing to support Trump based on the latest polls, including sitting Republican Governors, Senators, and House members.
Are we going to kick them all out of the party and prevent them from running for re-election? Is the party going to take 20% of the Republican party and tell them to take a hike?
This is just one of the problems of the Trump campaign. They can’t win without uniting the party, but instead of trying to bring the party together, they are looking for more and more ways to split it apart.
Yes.
Because you and yours have not sufficiently explained to them why we have a party and how it works.
You yourself were elected delegate to the national convention yet continue to recognize and indulge the 20% — you’re not doing your job if you can’t bring those numbers down. You endorsed Donald Trump, is this 20% Republican class better than you?
Would you tolerate and accept this from your elected official???
We have no use for sometimes Republicans, and we have a higher responsibility to the electorate than power and primaries.
An enemy within is in no way an asset to the party.
Correction. I have not endorsed Donald Trump.
Then you have put yourself in a no-win position. How can you expect your fellow Republicans to help you, if you won’t help elect a Republican president. The purpose of the party is the influence public policy by winning elections. The public policy implications of not winning this election are enormous. You should be helping.
I am not expecting anyone to do anything for me based simply on who I endorse or don’t endorse for President. Last time I checked membership in the Republican party did not require me to affirmatively endorse any candidate for any office, much less a candidate who holds more positions in line with their Democrat opponent than the principles of the Republican party.
You write, “the purpose of the party is to influence public policy by winning elections.” I could not agree more, however we seem to have forgotten the INFLUENCE PUBLIC POLICY part of that statement and have become interested solely in winning at any cost. That leads us to the very situation we are in where the Republican leadership in Congress refuses to follow through on the promises made to the voters, and a current Republican Presidential nominee who holds the policy positions of a liberal Democrat.
Electing Donald Trump is not even remotely the same as electing a liberal Democrat, and both parties agree on that. Democrats want Clinton because they know Trump has a starkly different agenda. Republicans understand that, and so do you. You can pretend all you want that it makes no difference who wins, but your party will not forget who was helpful and who was unhelpful while this contest was underway.
“Electing Donald Trump is not even remotely the same as electing a liberal Democrat”
Yes it is. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump hold almost exactly the same policy positions on nearly every important issue. Based on Trump’s own statements during this presidential campaign:
Trump and Clinton both support abortion and Planned Parenthood.
Trump and Clinton both support gay marriage.
Trump and Clinton both support gun control.
Trump and Clinton both support letting men use the little girls room.
Trump and Clinton both support universal health care.
Trump and Clinton both support universal child care (paid maternity leave).
Trump and Clinton both support raising the minimum wage.
Trump and Clinton both support amnesty for non-criminal illegal aliens.
Trump and Clinton both support the Climate Change agenda of subsidizing so-called “green energy.”
Word has even leaked out that Trump has promised the socially liberal PayPal founder, Peter Thiel (the guy who is boycotting NC over their bathroom laws and told the GOP to stop fighting “fake culture wars”) Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court.
The list goes on and on…
The only difference between electing Clinton and Trump is which party gets to install a bunch of lobbyists into those cushy patronage jobs in the Executive Branch making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
A Trump win means Reince Preibus keeps his job.
A Trump win means the establishment retains control.
In short, a Trump win means nothing changes except we will have one more establishment Republican elected to the White House for the base to complain about.
I checked a couple of your comments. Trump has generally opposed gun control for honest citizens. Trump has said that the States should decide how the transgender issue should be dealt with. His positions have evolved as he has learned. He generally evolves toward conservative positions. Most important, he puts America first not the ideology of global socialist tyranny.
“Trump has generally opposed gun control for honest citizens.”
Really? He has proposed preemptively banning gun ownership for anyone unlucky enough to find themselves on a government “watch” list. How is that “generally opposing gun control?”
“Trump has said that the States should decide how the transgender issue should be dealt with.”
Where and when exactly did Trump ever say that? His website or his surrogates don’t count, because they are just putting words in his mouth on things he doesn’t believe. The only time Trump ever spoke on the topic was to say he supported it and invited Bruce Jenner to use the ladies room in Trump Tower.
“His positions have evolved as he has learned. He generally evolves toward conservative positions.”
No he doesn’t. Each “evolution” that is announced is away from the conservative positions he espoused in the primaries and towards the liberal democrat positions he has held his entire life.
Our elected delegate to the National Convention knows what’s best and can school us on how bad our nominee is — thanks for that.
If you think there is insufficient difference between our nominee and Hillary Clinton, it is a good thing you have once again retired from partisan politics.
And this truth that only you and your 20% can see and believe is more important than the electorate? You are above the party, and the pledge is for little people. Perhaps you should give us some Clintonesque parsing about how endorsing is different from supporting?
Held to a higher standard of which you fall woefully short. At least you got your primary. Thank you much for being such a fine Republican.
You should know that anonymous trolls don’t bother me in the slightest. It might save you some time in typing all those passive-aggressive attacks you enjoy so much.
Would it bother you if I didn’t try to be anonymous? Does calling me a troll make you feel better about ignoring my points? Does the name-calling tactics help you avoid responsibility for your actions?
You and yours endorsed and supported a guy for State Central who was a deciding vote for the Primary. In exchange, you got support to get elected to the National Convention as a delegate. Your side didn’t get to impose your will on the National Convention as you did at the State Convention, so I can understand your bitterness against our nominee and the 80% that support him.
Now you are saying you are not supporting our nominee — expected par for your course — not passive aggressive, just opposing your attempt to seize the moral high ground.
BTW, I was going for sarcasm saying you were a fine Republican.
Yet you ran for and were elected a delegate to the National Convention. Was it part of your platform that you would not support our nominee?
Actually, you raise an important point. If 20% is all that remains, then there is a need for a new party to represent the 80% – or the 20% can go form their own party. Frankly, I have no real sympathy for the 20% because they represent utter failure and have misused the good efforts and patience of the 80% who are the base.
This idea of uniting the party is really ridiculous. The 20% elite has spent the decades since Reagan insulting and attacking libertarians, conservatives, tea party folks and just about anyone who disagrees with RINOism. Lee Atwater had it right. Embrace the diversity and grow the tent. Unfortunately, his wisdom died with him.
,,, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ea4d34aa5abc7c2465a428248eb59f971302a36e1bea69c032eaa1762046b5c3.jpg
I will.
I didn’t hear about Jeb and the others. How about the second stringers and local noteables; (Nikki, Carly, Babs, Dave, Beau?)
The punishment is relatively simple. A reminder that these individuals did not keep their word and unethically used the GOP’s scarce resources in the process. However, this has happened before, recently here in Virginia, and after a bit of time, things settled down and nothing happened.
Yeah, but the times they are a changin.’ We have officially passed the ‘don’t give a damn’ and ‘nothing to lose’ high water mark.
The party has recently enacted discipline against those ‘held to a higher standard’ and there will be blood after the election. Note the weasel words used by the ‘named’ ‘#never’ commenters.
But don’t worry, the current SCC would never reject an appeal by a sitting Congresswoman.
They rejected a former Delegate, twice.
Babs owns more SCC votes and clout than the former Delegate who lost twice.
Yes. She owns the 10th district votes and many others.
For now. Some of the people some of the time.