Get Over What About Trump?

by C. Edmund Wright5/5/16

Now we’re told at this early date to “get over it.” We being those conservatives who aggressively opposed Donald Trump, of course.

So what exactly should we get over? What does getting over it look like? Let’s explore.

This notion was floated by no less than my friend, colleague and editor of more than eight years, Thomas Lifson, on this site yesterday.  The same sentiment was parroted across the internet and on talk radio yesterday as well.  Much of it by people with far less interest in serious adult conversation than Lifson.  I say far less serious because I don’t think a single pro Trump commenter to my article yesterday addressed the direct Trump quotes I presented.  Many of my comments below are directed at that mindset, not at Dr. Lifson’s.

And as Thomas knows, I both praised and criticized Trump here in April…of 2011…in American Thinker.  My position on Trump has been totally consistent for more than five years.  That is not a universal trait.  For five plus years I’ve warned about Trump — while praising him on many levels.  I recognized the good and the bad.  Thus, no I’m not over anything at the moment.  I’ve been warning about this since before Huckabee won Iowa.

So back to what it is we should get over: If you simply mean we should vote Trump to keep Hillary out of the White House, then I may already be “over it.” Or I might be by November.  But if you think I’m going to let anyone off the hook for disastrous decisions?  No way, Jose (a little border lingo).

So if the “get over it” posture is your position, may I inquire if this the standard Trump supporters will apply to themselves on the morning after Election Day 2016 if Hillary Clinton wins?  Hey, she won.  No biggie.  I’m “over it.”  Yeah, right.

For the record, I’m not among those who think that Trump will certainly lose to Hillary.  I believe Hillary is capable of losing to anyone, Trump included.WTF

So if that happens, for example, will you apply that same quickie “get over it” standard the day President Trump suggests replacing ObamaCare with something worse because he’s “gonna be fantastic for women’s health care” and conservatives are “cruel and heartless”?  Or signs a bill funding Planned Parenthood after “making a deal” with Chuck Schumer? Or sics the Internal Revenue Service on companies in your 401K portfolio because he doesn’t like where they make products? Or extends ethanol subsidies so your gas and your food both cost more while the corn distillate destroys your engine? Or plays golf with his big buddy John Boehner and a day later gives Nancy Pelosi everything she wants?

Or for that matter, when he does anything that flies in the face of his “position papers” on his website — words he clearly never read, let alone wrote? Words he contradicted every time he was in front of an open mic? Will you merely get over it?

These are serious concerns about Trump, and they remain today.  And if any of us who opposed Trump were over it today, then that would be a sad commentary on our depth of understanding and commitment.

I have never gotten over a bad election result that quickly, and I never will.  And it’s the elections that matter, not the candidate.  This is about the country.  We are on the precipice of a fantastic opportunity and we have squandered it.  Hell no, I am not over that.  And what I’m not over is far deeper than the idea that my favorite choice didn’t win.  That’s not the issue.  That little part I am over.

But no, I am not over the Constitution, although apparently many are, because they have thrown in with a man who never mentions it and often runs afoul of it.  Donald Trump was born “over” the Constitution and still is.  He’s never been concerned with it.  New York values don’t intersect with the Constitution.  No, I am not over the idea of liberty, and thus I’m not quite over the fact that the Republican nominee is a man totally unfamiliar with this concept and a man who never ever looks at increased liberty as the answer for out of control government.  Ever.

Please, show me where I am wrong on that.

Nor am I over the related concept of limited government.  Nothing, not a single syllable out of Donald Trump’s mouth, has uttered a whiff of anything to do with limited government.  When Carrier and Ford are forced offshore because of out of control government, what does Donald do? He threatens even more government power as the solution.  It never even dawns on the Orange One or his followers to perhaps remove some of the government obstacles in the way of Carrier, Ford and other once free companies.  What an idea!

When crony capitalism is destroying our free market, does Donald want to stop government from picking winners and losers? NO! He doubles down on ethanol subsidies.  He obfuscates the issue of eminent domain.  And he rails against trade, not even considering the obvious conclusion that the big stick of tariffs is centralized planning and government picking winners and losers on steroids.

And I’m not over fighting the establishment either — something I’ve been doing since 1992 — and yet daily I get savaged by many who likely didn’t understand the concept until maybe 2014 — if at all.  My first establishment target in 1992 was John McCain, even having a heated argument with G.  Gordon Liddy about McCain in early 1993.  There was no palpable anti-McCain sentiment until at least 2005-6.  I was alone here.

I owned the web URL www.firekarlrove in 2001.  Yes, 2001.  Think about that for a minute.  When did you figure Rove out? Just asking.

So certainly everyone is perfectly within their rights to call anyone an establishment hack, because in this country you are perfectly free to be embarrassingly wrong.  Speaking of which, the notion that Trump is this great wrecking ball to the establishment would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

Trump is the establishment.  His big check to party boss and establishment poster child Mitch McConnell has barely even cleared yet — a donation he followed up by insulting on Twitter those stupid Kentuckians who were willing to forgo McConnell’s crony gravy train to his home state in favor of a principled man like Matt Bevin.  Trump brags he has been giving to Republicans lately, but these donations are to establishment Republicans running against outsiders!

So no, I’m not over this kind of House of Cards attitude, and if you are, then you were never really in the fight to begin with.  You’ve been conned.

Alexander Hamilton said “if we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”  He was right.  Many of you haven not heeded that lesson.  I have, and I am proudly not over the nomination of big government New York liberal Donald J Trump.

CEdmundWrightC. Edmund Wright is contributor to StubbornThings, American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network and author of WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again. • (644 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Get Over What About Trump?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Although I usually find him far to squishy for my taste, I think Aaron Goldstein is spot-on with this article, #Nevertrump & #Neverhillary.

    Let me sum it up this way. The mob that supports Trump or Hillary only has needs. It doesn’t have duties or obligations. It has only one thing, a “feeling” of being betrayed by the Republican Establishment. How funny it is then that their lack of discernment has caused them once again to choose a RINO.

    And why would anyone in their right mind “get over” this fact? You’ve screwed up badly, Trump voters. You’ve put your petulance over your patriotism, not to mention your good sense, assuming you had any.

    It may be Thomas Lifson’s need to placate the mob he has over there at American Thinker pretending to be thinkers. But it is not my need or obligation. Trump is as ill-qualified by character and by ideology to be president as Hillary is. For Lifson to write such a blatantly stupid article the other day shows just how corrupt the conservative media is. Instead of calling a spade a spade they just ratchet left with the mob.

    Kudos to Edmund for spelling this issue out frankly. People are angry and frustrated and can’t be bothered with why this is so. Well, it’s because you have moved left too and have not been willing to do the hard work of discernment in terms of the candidates that you vote for and/or to get more active in the process. So what you’re doing now is just reacting like a bunch of spoiled children.

    Your obligation is to this country, not for you need to have your own bad judgment assuaged by some conservative leader telling the rest of us with any sense to just get over it.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I think David French gets it right exactly:

    Those of us who’ve pledged that we will never, ever vote for Donald Trump always get the same response: “You’d put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office instead?” Clinton’s name is spoken like an epithet, as if it’s unthinkable that any conservative would take any single action that could facilitate her election. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Clinton, but I also do not believe that Trump would make a better president. Not because Clinton isn’t as bad as you think, but because Trump is worse than you imagine.

    There’s no real difference in character between the two. They lie as easily as they breathe: habitually, transparently, shamelessly. Hillary lies like a lawyer, always parsing her words to provide a legal escape route. Trump lies like a thug, contradicting himself with each successive breath and daring anyone to call him on it. They both seek to destroy their political opponents, and they’d probably both wield the levers of power to do so and to reward their friends. In other words, they’re both fundamentally corrupt.

    And I think this is particularly astute and rational analysis of Trump:

    He’d also probably be better than Hillary on the Second Amendment. There is at least a chance that he’d nominate a Supreme Court justice who wouldn’t vote for the repeal of the individual right to keep and bear arms, and it’s doubtful that he’d initiate any meaningful gun-control measures. But who knows what he might negotiate in the heat of the moment? Any position he takes — most definitely including all of the “conservative” stances he’s adopted since launching his campaign — could be discarded at a moment’s notice if it became politically inconvenient. It’s impossible to know what he actually believes, if he actually believes anything.

    But virtually everything we do know about Trump is negative. He lies. He traffics in far-left conspiracy theories. He incites violence. He surrounds himself with thugs, cronies, and fools. He’s ignorant of the most basic realities of national security, foreign policy, and global economics. He has a decades-long record of corruption and a decades-long record of liberalism. In arguing that he’s better than Clinton, his supporters now ask us to trust his current “conservative” incarnation and disregard that record. We don’t really know how he’ll handle immigration, trade, ISIS, abortion, or judges. But trust him. He’ll do better. Yes, Trump has praised single-payer health care during this election, but trust him. He’ll do better than Obamacare. Yes, Trump has advocated touchback amnesty and increased legal immigration, but trust him. He’ll protect American workers. Yes, Trump has supported abortion-on-demand and gun control, but trust him. He’s changed. Yes, Trump has written large checks to leftist politicians, but trust him. He’ll fight them as president. Yes, his campaign team lives in the gutter, but trust him. He’ll appoint good people.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A very nice summation of the case against Trump. Ultimately, it comes down to he’s no better than Slick Hilly, but also no worse — and his appointments are likely to be better than hers overall. Most of us here seem to live in non-swing states, so we have a little bit more freedom to vote third-party. We shall see in November; I’m not #NeverTrump, but (as a a HotAir writer put it) I definitely am very #SkepticalOfTrump.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


        I think we should all be #SkepticalOfPoliticians, and keep an eye on them. We haven’t and that is a big reason we are in the mess in which we find ourselves.

        My old comparison used to be, “I would rather have pneumonia (Republicans) than lung cancer (Democrats)”. I think with Trump I will have to refine it to, “I would rather have stage 1 lung cancer (Trump) than stage 4 lung cancer (Hillary).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’m not #NeverTrump

        The only stupid hash-tag “Never” that I was was “Never Bush.” The reasoning behind that was that we are a republic, not a monarchy or oligarchy (or should not be). And it didn’t help that Jeb was just another squishy Progressive like Trump (although with far better character and manners). But the policies would end up at the same place.

        If we can’t come out and plainly state that Trump is just another “New York Value” liberal then we (or at least I) have absolutely no business in political punditry. Unlike Rush, I’m not paid millions to tell people what they want to hear. Our membership here could dwindle to nothing as low-information quasi-conservatives go over the Thelma-and-Louise cliff with Trump and need their bad judgment constantly validated. But so be it. Truth is truth. Squinting and pretending that Donald Trump is not who he is is not something I’m prepared to do. And this has nothing to do with a stupid hash-tag movement which simply trivializes substantive disagreements.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      What David French writes about Trump is all true.

      I am not one who buys the “if you don’t vote, you are supporting Hillary” meme. It could equally be said that one is supporting Trump against Hillary. But that does not change the situation in which we find ourselves. Since we live in the world, not Nirvana, inaction will have consequences just as action will.

      We are presented with a really bad “Hobson’s Choice”, but we still have a choice. I have not made up my mind whether or not I will vote for Trump in the end. But since I want to stop Hillary and the far Left radicals who inhabit the Democrat Party, I have to seriously consider what I will do.

      I will wait and see what Trump does between now and November before deciding. Much will depend upon the people he chooses to surround himself with. Will he choose someone like Sessions for V.P.?

      I haven’t turned off the TV yet. It is only on mute.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        If you are a Republican, aren’t you embarrassed? You can say ‘Yes’. — Dennis Prager

        It could equally be said that one is supporting Trump against Hillary.

        I have discussed ad nauseam with quasi-conservatives on Facebook this whole “electabitlity” thing. The conversation goes like this: “Brad, although candidate X is a good conservative, he is not electable. But candidate Y is still conservative but will not turn off people with an emphasis on divisive ‘social issues.’”

        Of course, candidate Y is your typical RINO, the kind that these people are suddenly so angry at that they’re willing to elect another one. And here we are again. What goes around comes around. People may say they are “frustrated” and “angry” but that is just an excuse for not doing your homework, for putting feelings over standards, and for very possibly being confused about what they do want. For these people, Trump is a shortcut for all the errors of judgment they’ve made in the past. And shortcuts like this rarely work out.

        And this has nothing to do with Ted Cruz. I think he was by far a better choice, but let him ripen another four years and he’ll be better. Still, compared to Trump he was indeed Ronald Reagan. And for conservatives to have gone with the buffoon instead of the constitutional conservative shows their bad judgement, bad faith, and just bad values.

        When we say the culture is moving Left, it’s always those “other guys,” of course, who are moving Left. But I’ve realized for some time that this is not the case. People have just mindlessly drifted with this cultural polution, anchored in very little other than go-along-to-get-along.

        We are presented with a really bad “Hobson’s Choice”, but we still have a choice. I have not made up my mind whether or not I will vote for Trump in the end.

        Mr. Kung, I will be voting for the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. It’s not a protest vote. He is by far the best choice amongst the three. And Trump’s choice for VP is almost irrelevant. It wouldn’t be the VP running things.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    I have a couple of minor observations on the article and comments (as a fanzine editor, I’m used to nitpicking). First, Huckabee won Iowa in 2008; Edmund probably meant Santorum, who won the state in 2012. Second, the idea of “get over it” is (as usual for pro-Trump arguments) a liberal one. They used it after Obama won, but never after Bush won. If Cruz had pulled it out, you can bet few of those Trumpbots making this argument would have “gotten over it”.

    I agree that Trump’s values are “New York values”, but it’s an interesting irony that the only county he lost in the 2 weeks of northeastern primaries was New York country (Manhattan), which went for Kasich.

    Hobson’s choice is “take it or leave it”. It comes from a stable manager who got tired of people waiting for a particular horse, so he would give each person the choice of the next horse in line, or nothing. In political terms, I would use it in the sense that I can vote Republican, or I can not vote (or the equivalent, such as voting for a third party or independent or write-in). Voting for a Demagogue is never an option.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      What Trump represents to the quasi-conservatives is a Hail Mary. It also betrays a mindset the believes in Big Government. We just want “our guy” to bully the others, thus Donald’s bully image was a positive for this mindset.

      I want a Constitutional conservative with a passion for conservatism, the rule of law, our country’s history, and being squarely at odds with the socialist ethic. I want him to make an argument for freedom and for America as founded. As Nik has often reminded us, we need to make the moral argument for our views.

      What Trump clearly represents, at least to me, is that the moral argument for conservatism is not what people want. They don’t want conservatism. They don’t want government pared back within proper limits. They don’t want the budget balanced. They don’t want socialism rolled back (and are still probably surprised that their healthcare premiums did not go down). Every argument I’ve ever had on Facebook with a quasi-conservative more or less ended with “But don’t touch my Social Security.”

      I don’t flinch from saying that the GOP electorate, much like everyone else, has been corrupted by the socialist mentality. I don’t want a “strong man” in office. I want a strong conservative and lawful man in office who is strong and organized in his principles. And any man (or woman) of this orientation is going to be automatically at odds with most people and certainly 98% of politicians and probably 100% of the bureaucracy.

      A selfish, nasty kind of self-interest has set into the country. We are now playing a game of lifeboat. Trump’s job is to throw them other guys overboard so we are safe. And they don’t care that Trump will simply put more holes in the boat.


    I actually agree with Wright’s analysis here, which I think is a bit more measured than French’s in NRO (no, Trump did not incite his followers to violence, and it’s wrong to suggest that he did, just as it’s wrong to say that he failed to distance himself from the KKK). I would ask, however, that we keep the big picture in mind here, as ugly a spectacle as it is: the unhappy fact is that once Walker and Jindal had dropped out of the race, Trump was actually the second-best man in the field.

    Let that sink in a moment. Of course Cruz was better – way better, miles better, mucho mejor as Jeb! would say – but consider the other non-Trump alternatives, in the order in which they dropped out: Santorum, Paul, Fiorina, Christie, Gilmore (was he even in the race?), Jeb!, Carson, and Rubio.

    O.K., Santorum is a better man than Trump and was sound on immigration, but he had no chance of winning against Hillary.

    Paul was a Libertarian, and while I suppose he looks a lot better to many people now that we’re stuck with Trump than he did before, he’s still an open-borders guy (and I am going to assume arguendo that everyone here agrees destroying this country with Amnesty and/or open borders is an immediate disqualifier since I’m not going to make the full case here).

    Fiorina was a female version of Mitt Romney, except a little tougher than he is. Wealthy, out-of-touch businessperson and Establishment-woman who did change her song on immigration (much like Walker) but wasn’t entirely believable. It is my belief that her star faded as more and more people began to see that she was, indeed, an E-woman rather than the outsider she first appeared to be. She also probably looks better now that we have Trump, and I have always thought just might give Hillary a run for her money, but there’s still that pesky fact that only last year she believed we needed lots of immigrant workers in agriculture and technology, because that’s what her big business friends and associates told her.

    Christie – pure RINO. ‘Nuff said.

    Gilmore – who cares?

    Jeb! – his open disdain for the working class, its outlook and concerns, doomed his campaign despite massive Establishment support. The fact that he lost – even ultimately to Trump – is perhaps the brightest spot we can point to.

    Carson – looked good in a lot of ways but for my taste was too much an unknown quantity. (I know – “Whaddya think Trump is?” is the logical rejoinder). And yet look where he ended up – endorsing Trump! So can we really lament that he never successfully built on his outsider status?

    Rubio – In some ways the worst and most dangerous of the bunch because he knew how to sound Conservative. And yet he was Mr. Amnesty, stubbornly unwilling to bow to the will of the people. And the people then humbled him, as well they should anyone of such colossal arrogance and deception. Rubio was, to put it simply, a liar – something I’ve wanted to remind the anti-Trumpsters every time they acted like we had such a great field of alternative candidates to choose from! He was a worst liar than Trump could ever be, telling voters he was against Amnesty in English or before an election, and then telling Hispanics (in Spanish) that he was for Amnesty, and doing his best to bring it about.

    [Later edit: forgot about Kasich] – Kasich was a sanctimonious fool with an ego perhaps larger than Trump’s, and with even less justification. Oh, and yes – he was pro-Amnesty, too.

    There is virtually no chance that any of these “great alternatives” to Trump would save the country from being destroyed by mass immigration. There is probably a 50% chance that Trump will – that makes him better than all of them, and as I said, the second-best man after Cruz.

    So let’s take the big picture here: all that happened is that the #1 and #2 men (Cruz and Trump, respectively) finished in reverse order! It could have been a lot worse (think Jeb! or Rubio). Trump, whatever his failings, is not a man of the Left and would not try to destroy America as Barry has and as Hillary would. Should he win, I think the nation can easily survive a President Trump.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As far as policy goes, I agree with you. The problem is Trump’s character, which is why many of us went from willing to vote for him if he won to very reluctant to consider voting for him. His vicious smears of Cruz’s family and Cruz’s success in acquiring delegates in Colorado and other states, and Roger Stone’s thuggish threats against delegates voting against Trump (which Trump never repudiated) turned me against him.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        We are not considering nominations for Pope, although some Popes would have been able presidents. This is politics at its most base level. It is brutish, obscene, and dirty. Its not any different now than it was 100 years ago, remember the Hays/Tilden deal that ended reconstruction?

        I think, that regardless of what you think of Trump you should admire him for besting professionals at their own game. Many will say “never Trump” but when they have to choose between Hillary and Donald, they may not like it but will vote for Trump. If it proves to be a landslide of Regan or Nixon proportions for Trump, as I think is possible, then you can ask for some ideological purity on some issues.

        I self identify as a gun-toting libertarian and Trump only has a few positions which he and I agree, but he is more libertarian than Hillary.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Kentucky isn’t a swing state, so how I vote between Trump and Slick Hilly is likely irrelevant. I certainly would never vote for her; the last time I voted for a Democrat in the general election was 1981, and I don’t expect ever to do so again. But I do have the option of a protest vote of some sort.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Jeb would have been a steady technician. That is precisely how the Establishment Republicans view themselves. They can run the bureaucracy better. And maybe they can. With Jeb Bush you would likely have the “conservatism” of no abrupt changes. Unless he had Medicare Part E, F, and G in mind like his brother.

      Fiorina is a feminist ball-buster. I don’t trust her. I think she’s a product of affirmative action. Combined with her shark-like rhetoric, I think she bullshitted her way to the top of HP. She no doubt made a nice token for “diversity.” I was not at all impressed when Cruz chose her for a running mate…which was an extremely stupid move for someone who hadn’t actually been nominated.

      Christie would be similar to Jeb Bush, a nice, safe, technician who believes he can run the machinery of state better and would almost certainly add a few more gears and ratchets while pretending to be “conservative” in doing to.

      Paul does indeed look a lot better because of Trump. What I will say for libertarians, aside from the drug issue, most of their policies would not be dangerous and destructive. Stupid an inane, maybe. But not particularly dangerous.

      Santorum: Well, I like that guy. I sort of like Kasich as well. But these guys are both consummate politicians. You can trust them as far as you can throw them. That said, Santorum would be a good president. He just wouldn’t do much to cut back government. But he’s got an excellent head on his shoulders and is of very good character. Kasich, on the other hand, seems a little squirrelly.

      Rubio (Eddie Haskel) is in the same category as Jeb and Christie. He would be a good technician in regards to keeping the bloated ship of state as-is while peppering us with rhetoric on how he damn near cries just thinking of George Washington.

      One area where I agree with Trump, on the overall, is that there is something not quite right about Ben Carson. I have no doubt that he’s a skilled surgeon. But behind his “aw, shucks, I’m just a Baby-Jesus-loving kind of decent guy) lurks a shark. Anyone who can so easily join with someone who very publicly equated you with a pedophile has some sick-puppy stuff going on inside.

      Truth be told, now that we have Trump, I would have been much happier with Christie or Rubio. If we’re going to have a big-government east coast liberal, I’ll take Christie. Why? Well, for starters, he’s not insane. And who really knows about Rubio? Yes, he made a very large error regarding immigration. But he’s hardly alone in this regard. Everyone, including Cruz at one time, was soft of illegal immigration. I think basically he’s a decent and smart man and indeed one day could be president. But he’s got some work to do.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think Rubio probably is conservative on most issues. Unfortunately, he missed on a key issue — and his handling of it indicted serious character flaws.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          In a normal election cycle (such as it ever exists), Rubio would have stood taller, particularly if he would have given an honest and thorough disavowal of amnesty.

          Like it or not, the nomination of Trump does one vitally important thing: It defines deviancy down. The things we disliked about Rubio pale in comparison to this nut, Trump.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *