Thread: Ready or Not

Ready or Not
Paul Ryan’s Donald Trump Problem
By Amy Davidson
(May 9, 2016 Issue)

“I’ll never support Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz does very little to appeal to me as a young voter,” Connor Maytnier, a Republican and a junior at Georgetown, told Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, at a town-hall event at the university last Wednesday. The night before, Trump had decisively won primaries in five states, widening his delegate lead over Cruz—and, much farther behind, John Kasich. Maytnier wanted to know if Ryan had any advice for young Republicans like him, who didn’t see a candidate to support. Ryan was sitting on the stage in shirtsleeves, and he tilted his head and shifted his body into a pose that communicated wry but earnest bemusement. “Unfortunately, this is not the first time I’ve had this question,” he said.

The audience laughed, and Ryan went on to say that, as the chair of the Republican National Convention, a responsibility that came with his speakership—there was another bit about how he’d been told that only after he’d taken the job—he tried to be neutral, and “so I’m not trying to push you one way or the other.” Instead, he brought up the “agenda project” (a.k.a. #ConfidentAmerica) that he and his congressional colleagues were putting together for the Party, and, for the next few minutes, he spoke about everything from replacing Obamacare to rewriting customs regulations, reforming taxes and entitlement programs, bolstering national security, and ending the tyranny of “unelected bureaucrats”—everything, that is, except getting behind a particular Presidential candidate.

As Ryan ticked off items on his fingers, he urged Maytnier not to approach the November election as “a vote for a person.” (“Republicans lose personality contests anyway,” he said, unmindful of the ghost of Ronald Reagan.) The proper way to think about it is in terms of “ideas,” as “a choice of two paths,” Ryan said. “So I would just ask you to raise your gaze and look at the horizon we’re trying to paint.” Presumably, if Maytnier raised his gaze high enough, and squinted, he’d be able to avoid seeing Donald Trump. That could be difficult in July, however, if Trump is standing on the podium at the Convention, in Cleveland, accepting the nomination.

Before Trump’s latest round of victories, another question often heard was whether Ryan might offer himself up as an alternative to Trump, at a contested Convention, if no candidate arrived with an absolute majority, of twelve hundred and thirty-seven delegates. (Ryan could be safely picked at short notice, since he was vetted for the Vice-Presidential ticket just four years ago.) But it looks as if Trump, who heads into this week’s Indiana primary with an estimated nine hundred and fifty-four delegates to Cruz’s five hundred and forty-seven, has a good chance of reaching the magic number. There are historical precedents for how a Convention challenge could still be mounted—the 1940 Republicans offer one—but the more recent examples are not encouraging for insurgents. In 1976, Reagan used uncertainty about Gerald Ford’s narrow majority as the premise for a floor fight; with all his charisma, and despite the controversy over Ford’s pardon of Nixon, he lost.

Reagan had tried to win over uncommitted delegates by announcing, weeks before the Convention, that, if nominated, he’d make Senator Richard Schweiker, of Pennsylvania, his running mate. Cruz copied that move last week, naming Carly Fiorina, the former C.E.O. of Hewlett-Packard, as his. The way the delegate math is working out, though, he is more likely to be in the position of Ted Kennedy, who arrived at the 1980 Democratic Convention hundreds of delegates behind Jimmy Carter, and then tried to get the rules changed, so that all delegates would be unbound. This was framed as allowing them the “freedom” to vote their “conscience”; Carter’s supporters called it attempted theft, as Trump’s would, too. (And Ted Cruz is no Ted Kennedy, in the eyes of his party. Last week, John Boehner, Ryan’s predecessor as Speaker, called Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh,” adding, “I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”) Both Reagan and Kennedy, after their defeats, gave mesmerizing speeches, offering visions of what their parties might become. Many Republicans cringe at the thought of what Cruz would say in their place—namely, that he would portray Trump as not extreme enough.

The absence of a contested Convention would present the Party with another problem. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s campaign was brought into the Convention planning early on. The result was a session devoted to Romney’s personal ministry as a Mormon, a prime-time speech by Ann Romney, and a day planned around the theme “We Built It,” meant as a rebuke to President Obama’s suggestion that individuals don’t build things alone—they need the coöperation of others. A drawn-out fight this year would give the Party an excuse to avoid turning the Convention over to Trump, with “America First!” banners waving, and evenings devoted to Melania or Ivanka Trump, or to the theme “I Will Build It,” with scale models of the border wall and the Trump International Hotel, in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps Paul Ryan sees himself as the one who will make a Reaganesque, or a the-dream-will-never-die, speech. At certain moments during the campaign, such as when Trump said that all non-citizen Muslims would be excluded from the country, Ryan has spoken up for a more respectable Republican brand. Last week, though, he focussed on the “principles” that he and Trump share, adding, on MSNBC, that he had spoken to the candidates about his agenda and believed that Trump was “comfortable” with it. Ryan sounded, for a moment, like a contestant on “The Celebrity Apprentice,” explaining the merits of the charitable organization he has chosen to support.

If Ryan is holding the gavel when Trump or one of his surrogates disparages a religious or ethnic minority, will he turn his gaze to the horizon? (If he does, he might see the Democrats, about four hundred miles to the east, in Philadelphia, preparing for their Convention.) Pretending that Trump wasn’t there, rather than truly confronting him, is how other Republicans ended up losing in the primaries; once each party has picked a candidate, it won’t be so easy to stay neutral. The most jarring thing about Donald Trump, after all, isn’t really his personality. It’s his ideas.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...-trump-problem

About the Author:

♦Amy Davidson is an American author, journalist and magazine editor. Davidson grew up in New York City, graduating from Hunter College High School,[1] and attended Harvard University, where she received a BS in Social Studies. Before joining The New Yorker she lived and worked in Germany.[2]

Davidson joined The New Yorker magazine in 1995. In 1997, she became head of the magazine's fact-checking department; in 2000, she was named an associate editor; in 2003, she was named senior editor. She became a staff writer in 2015[3] and focuses on politics and international affairs.[4] Her editing contributions to The New Yorker have won the National Magazine Award and the George Polk Award. Davidson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Davidson_%28author%29

It's such a strange time, isn't it? The clear mood of the nation is a vehement support for removal of illegal aliens, reduced immigration, enforcement of US immigration law and the end of these disastrous free trade treason agreements. Yet, the Speaker of the House of Representatives supports amnesty for illegal aliens and the TPP, the worst free trade treason agreement in US history.

And he's a Republican.

How does this happen? How do we end up with a Globalist leading the US House of Representatives who is automatically the chairman of the National Republican Convention as we fight and strive every day to put a Nationalist in the White House to fix our trade and immigration problems?

Just more of our Period of Ironies and Opposites.

Originally Posted by Judy

It's such a strange time, isn't it? The clear mood of the nation is a vehement support for removal of illegal aliens, reduced immigration, enforcement of US immigration law and the end of these disastrous free trade treason agreements. Yet, the Speaker of the House of Representatives supports amnesty for illegal aliens and the TPP, the worst free trade treason agreement in US history.

And he's a Republican.

If we had illegal migrant criminal problems as much in US you have as far i know my people we will definitely have a far right wing party coming to rule government

Yes, EK, I know. No sane country would allow what is happening in the US. I'm sure as globalist leaders in Europe and Canada criticize our movement to stop this insanity criticize US and our candidate, Donald Trump, the people of these countries including France especially, are rooting for US to prevail on both our trade and immigration problems. While leaders in these countries are all bound up to ending nations and marching towards One World Government, the people of these nations still remember the Americans, wish well for US, and worry that we are in trouble. We are in trouble, deep trouble.

Several years ago I read an interesting statement by Putin, an eloquent, caring and concerned statement about what was happening to the United States, he couldn't understand it, or why we were allowing it. Many forget that Russia was an ally during WWII.

Saving our nations will depend on the people of these countries far more than the leaders. I hope Trump wins, and then he and we inspire other countries to oust their globalist leaders and elect candidates who support the viability of their own nation rather than merging into unions and alliances all designed to end the nation-state and establish Global Governance through the UN and the WTO.

Thank you so much for being a part of our forum here, EK. It really means a lot to have you here tracking and contributing to our cause.

True americans and true honest legals immigrants are with Donald Trump they will vote for him

I honestly feel if Trump is elected and we can remove some of the career politicians from office this fall and the next elections. We need to break up the professional politicians and we currently have a chance to do this. They have forgotten who put them in office and who they work for. They are to busy stuffing their pockets and owe to many favors. They certainly won't work with Trump. I see the world following our lead giving them hope to change. This will take a while but Trump has opened our eyes to the possibility and we have a chance to change things in Washington now like never before. Of all the millions of people in the country I am sure there are people that would be more qualified and honest than what we currently have in office. If they don't work out then vote them out also. There should be no more career politicians in office it is to easy for them to become corrupt as we have seen. We need term limits. We need to put America first for a change. Build our country back up, we need jobs, we need decent healthcare, we need to remove and put in prison the criminals that are here to start trouble, we need to use our immigration system the way it was originally planned. They need to go through the process, background checks, learn our history, learn our language learn to blend in like our ancestors. Is this to much to ask for a chance to live in the best country in the world? But mostly we need to slow down; Everyone wants to come to Americans we need to get Americans back to work first. Why would this be such a bad idea? It would build a strong country and unite the people. Then we can think about immigration again. We just need to step back and take a breath.

Exactly, posylady. So well said. Who indeed would think protecting our nation is such a bad idea?! It makes no sense at all, except to those who believe in Hegemony and think they've figured out a new sneaky way to achieve it.

We need a 10 to 20 Year Moratorium on All Immigration and we need it now.

STAY TRUE! STAY TRUMP!!