Imagine if the Democrats nominated someone like … George Wallace, or Lyndon LaRouche. Let that thought simmer for a moment, and perhaps you can start to understand how many Republicans feel this morning. No, this isn’t hyperbolic “I don’t like Clinton she’s a neoliberal oligarch” level disgust. This is “my party is nominating a megalomaniacal villain who will destroy everything I believe in” level of disgust.
Now my operating theory has always been that ill will over primary battles tend to dissipate by the time of the convention, and the vast majority of people who say they won’t vote for their party’s nominee end up doing so anyway. And we should still assume that’ll happen this year as well. But the level of disgust from much of the Republican punditry is cranked up to 11. Take a look:
Townhall.com’s political editor and Fox News contributor:
The managing editor of the conservative Washington Examiner, and author of some book called Overcoming Obamacare, which apparently is about how great it is for so many people to have health insurance:
Ha ha ha you know this buffoon:
A Red State editor:
Red State also begged Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland ASAP:
Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call. There is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer. Garland is not a great choice, but he is not a terrible one, either. And more than anything, he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30.
Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it.
That’s actually the smart play for Republicans. Politically, it helps us to have that seat open as a campaign issue heading into the fall. And there’s no doubt that whoever Clinton nominates would be a hell of a lot better than Garland (who is sketchy on justice issues, and at 63, means he’d be up for replacement too soon).
A National Review guy and supposedly a syndicated columnist:
Throw this into a commercial, please? (From the guy who gave us Sarah Palin...)
Elected Republicans sure aren’t in a celebratory mood:
Then there’s Ted Cruz, whose “concession speech” was actually a 2020 announcement speech. (“But hear me now: I am not suspending our fight for liberty.”) He has every incentive to see Trump lose, as do many Republican presidential wannabes—hopeful of what the presidential landscape might look like after 12 years of uninterrupted Democratic rule. I mean, as voters hit the polls in Indiana, Cruz did say, “The man is utterly amoral. We are looking, potentially, at the Biff Tannen presidency.” Who wants one of those? I mean, other than Donald Trump’s Nazi-saluting bro supporters (and asshole golfers)?
Next up, we get to tally up all the non-endorsements and stories of Republicans skipping the GOP convention in Cleveland this year. Trump is genuinely toxic, and a genuine danger to this nation. That’s why so many Republicans are recoiling at the thought, and it’s why it’s time to focus on defeating not just him, but to take advantage of the turmoil he’ll cause to Republicans down the ballot. We don’t get opportunities like this one often.
Update: More here and here.