Oh, sure. Out of everything that Donald Trump has said or done, this was supposed to be the thing.
But it won't be, because I don't know which primaries Mitt and the rest of the genteel establishment Republicans have been watching, but Donald Trump has said a great many outrageous things over the last half-year and the everfrothing base continues to lap it up. And not for nothing, but it rings a bit hollow to feign outrage over Republican Trump not properly distancing himself from David Duke and David Duke's white supremacist friends when the current Republican House Majority Whip got the job despite (1) personally giving a speech to David Duke's white supremacist group and (2) describing himself to would-be supporters as a "David Duke without the baggage" while (3) racking up a series of votes that seemed to demonstrate his commitment to David Duke's ideals. And even as Republican pundits and big names profess their shock that this other fellow seems to be splishing around in racist puddles, it comes on the heels of some of the party's grandest mongers of race-based fears endorsing the man.
Trump has just claimed the endorsement of celebrated ass Sen. Jeff Sessions, who had to pass up fellow senators Rubio and Cruz both in order to get to a man whose rhetoric seemed most in line with his own. Trump nabbed former Arizona governor Jan Brewer, a Republican who ably helped steer her state into an anti-brown-people froth so extremist that the resulting boycotts of the state continue to this day. And, of course, he has the support of previous competitor and deeply "serious" Republican Gov. Chris Christie, a not particularly racist man who was once considered one of the party's potential saviors himself, back before his own brand of being an insufferable ass was eclipsed by Trump's carnivalesque reinterpretation of what true blowhardism might look like.
But let's keep looking—no doubt the condemnations from true conservatives and serious Republicans will sway the party from Donald Trump's malevolent grip, sooner or later.
Surely the party will have distanced itself from now from Trump's opening campaign salvo, in which he denounced Mexican immigrants as mostly drug-dealers and "rapists"—and indeed, Trump's vicious immigration rhetoric caused the first real fireworks between himself and fellow candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in this last debate—
—in which they pilloried Trump not for his plan to summarily deport 11 million people in the biggest forced migration since [insert a great many examples we are not supposed to compare things to], but for Trump's intolerable anti-conservative notion that he might let some of the "good" ones back in.
That's right, Donald Trump is being roundly attacked for his ultra-radical anti-immigrant views—but from the right. Specifically, say his fellow Republicans, his plan to deport all the probably-just-rapist-drug-dealer-immigrants doesn't go far enough.
What of Trump's declaration that all persons of the Muslim religion, worldwide, ought to be barred from America while we sort out if there's any of the lot that can still be trusted?
Crickets.
What of his claim that Muslim Americans in Gov. Chris Christie's home state of New Jersey turned out by the thousands to "cheer" the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City?
Zippo.
His entry into Obama-era Republican politics, a long and drawn out claim that the sitting (black) president was probably not really even an American, according to conspiratorial information only Donald Trump and his invisible investigators might be privy to?
Republicans can't exactly denounce that when many of their own House members have spent years implying or stating outright the same thing.
Nonetheless, there are quite a few voices in the Republican Party who are quite put out by Donald Trump, and who have at this point subjected themselves to writing groveling pieces begging their fellow conservatives to do something, anything, to stop the racist blowhard with a child's notion of American democracy from becoming the standard bearer for their patently insane party even if the actual Republican base keeps voting for him to become exactly that. The National Review, a magazine that has devoted itself to exploring just how overt the handholding between conservatism and white supremacy can be for five decades and counting, has devoted itself to stopping this particular blowhard. The Washington Post editorial board, which may fairly be called the kitchen table of "serious" Republicanism, has pronounced themselves mortified. Individual pundits have written pleading columns asking, begging, or outright demanding the serious voices of conservatism take hold of the reins and keep Mr. Trump from sending the whole Republican carriage off the cliff and into the sea.
The result? The National Review is relieved of their duties shepherding Republican debates. The Republican National Committee chair reaffirms, repeatedly, that if the party base decides they want the man who thinks the Mexican government is sending us their "rapists" to be the voice of Republicanism, then he will be the new voice of Republicanism. Chris Christie stands on stage and declares his fealty.
All this talk of how the Republican Party can't possibly let this xenophobic, anti-Constitution blowhard represent conservatism has accomplished jack shit, in other words. On the contrary, as Donald Trump rises in the polls, serious conservatism seems more and more happy to attach itself to his wagon.
Do we really think, even for a minute, that a party that has become so devoted to red-faced partisanship that they have spent the last six years to show votes, witch hunts, faux-"journalist"-led conspiracy theories, and shutdowns will decide that they are too wedded to their principles to stand behind this usurper to the conservative throne? Or will "conservatism" happily stand for whatever the xenophobic half-fascist says it does?
If you want a prediction, here's one: By October, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney will be singing his praises. He will enjoy the near-unanimous support of elected Republican officeholders. The Washington Post will be writing op-eds on how inspirational his still-sketchy economic policies are, at least compared to his unreasonable and viciously anti-business Democratic opponent. The National Review will be writing about how his anti-immigrant policies are only common sense. He will make the military strong, Dick Cheney will be wheeled out to declare. He will be the very embodiment of conservatism, at least until he loses.
Do we really think there would be a brokered convention just so the Republican Party could rid themselves of a man known for cozying up to racism? Do any of these pundits really suppose a grassroots movement of Republican billionaires will support a doomed third-party candidate, rather than suck it up and nominate a jackass who nonetheless promises to cut their taxes yet again, as all good Republicans must?
Are we talking about the same Republican Party, you and I?