Reluctant pro-Trump Republicans are kidding themselves |
Featured Commentary

Reluctant pro-Trump Republicans are kidding themselves

Whether in domestic or international politics, those who self-label as “realists” often are anything but. In presidential politics, those on the right lecturing their fellow conservatives to “recognize reality” in getting on the Donald Trump bandwagon are themselves in fantasyland.

The first canard is that unity is possible under the Trump banner. Trump’s nomination has begun the process of tearing apart the Republican Party, which, depending on your viewpoint, can be a positive or a negative thing.

One thing is certain, however: Trump is no more able to display fidelity to conservative principles for more than 24 minutes, let alone 24 hours, than he is able to stay away from Twitter. Furthermore, Trump is hugely vulnerable for many reasons, not the least of which is his refusal to turn over his tax returns after promising to do so. The Washington Post reports, “Six in 10 independents believe Trump should release his taxes, and almost all of them say they feel strongly about it. Even 44 percent of Republicans want the billionaire businessman to release his returns before the November election, though they are less passionate.”

Now that we know he paid zero tax in at least a couple of years, interest in his recent returns will only heighten. Hillary Clinton already has gone on offense, making a very persuasive argument: “If you’ve got someone running for president who is afraid to release his tax returns because it will expose the fact that he pays no federal income tax, that’s a big problem.”

Fear of a major bombshell is one of several factors still driving the effort to find a third candidate. Bill Kristol, who is front and center in the third-candidate search, queries, “Who knows what Trump’s tax returns will show? And can he sustain a posture of not releasing them?” He explains, “A good independent candidate is worth supporting in his own right, as an alternative to Trump and Clinton. But it’s also worth having someone else on the ballot in the event of a Trump implosion.”

A Trump implosion certainly is possible at many junctures and over many reasons. It is entirely possible he stays relatively close to Clinton in the polls until the presidential debates, when the shtick he used to bully Republican opponents does not work and, in fact, reinforces the image of an ignorant bully. Republicans had better pray there is a competent and electable center-right candidate on the stage who can seize the opening when Trump says something (or some things) so obnoxious or so foolish as to shake all but his hard-core fans.

Trump likes to say he got more primary votes than any other candidate (more than 11 million), but a record number voted against him (more than 14.5 million). Clinton will surpass 13 million votes soon. Trump will need more than 60 million votes to win the presidency. In an electorate with a shrinking percentage of white males (Trump’s base), that is a daunting challenge even for a candidate without serious issues.

In short, the realists on the right are those who recognize that Trump is not only unacceptable but also unelectable. It’s the Trumpkins who are whistling past the graveyard of the GOP.

Jennifer Rubin is a Washington Post columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.