I have been somewhat critical of the #NeverTrumpers, for subjugating their concerns about policy to their hatred for Donald Trump. People like Patrick Frey and Bill Kristol and Max Boot have all advocated mostly conservative positions in the past, but have now decided that they would rather see the polar opposites of their policy preferences enacted if that’s what it takes to get rid of the President.
And here’s Jennifer Rubin¹, saying the same thing again:
by Jennifer Rubin | Monday, February 17, 2020 | 11:00 AM EST
Democratic rivals make a mistake in chastising one another about how they raise their campaign funds. It assumes that voters think someone like former vice president Joe Biden, former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg or Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is in the pocket of people who give a couple of thousand dollars. It assumes that no one should take money from rich progressives, something even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did a few years ago. (Nor did her solicitation of high-dollar donations at swanky fundraisers make her any less progressive in the Senate.) Indeed, when someone sends in $1,000, the candidates generally do not know whether this comes from a billionaire, a millionaire or a well-off doctor or lawyer.
Especially in a year in which the most critical factor in selecting a candidate is electability, it seems unlikely that the ability to raise money would disqualify a Democrat. (Until campaign-finance rules change, are Democrats really going to allow wealthy people to give only to Republicans?) Impugning a possible nominee with a very progressive record on unions, the environment or anything else on the grounds that he or she is secretly planning to double-cross the voters seems, as arguments go, a rather weak one. Judging from Warren’s attack on Buttigieg for his fundraising in wine caves, preening about fundraising seems to be a rather ineffective tactic with primary voters.
Beyond that, Democrats should be loath to demonize those who accept money from millionaires and billionaires who might be key to keeping their own campaigns afloat in the general election. Are they really going to turn away donations from, say, Tom Steyer or Mike Bloomberg (or Bernie Sanders, for that matter), who have vowed to support whomever the nominee might be? If, for example, Oprah Winfrey wants to spend $10 million helping elect Democrats, they will not, I assume, turn up their noses at the largesse from a progressive celebrity.
Note how the author, who is purportedly a conservative, used the word ‘progressive’ in each of her first three paragraphs. Her concluding sentence:
As someone who views Trump as a mortal threat to our democracy, I sure hope Democrats do not select a nominee who is going to allow himself or herself to be wildly outspent in November.
Somehow I must lack the sense of nuance Miss Rubin has, being that I am unable to understand how “a mortal threat to our democracy” is even allowing himself to be challenged for re-election. It would seem to me that such a mortal threat to our democracy would have cancelled the elections, dismissed Congress and chosen to rule by decree, but somehow, some way, President Trump hasn’t done that.
Why, it’s almost as though he isn’t a mortal threat to our democracy, but, there again, I must lack the moral and intellectual sophistication of a Washington Post columnist.
As for being “wildly outspent,” that’s what Mr Trump was in 2016:
Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump’s successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by considerable margins.
Mr Trump did get more in so-called ‘earned media,’ in news coverage of his unconventional campaign, but that simply proves that he was smarter than Mrs Clinton and her campaign. Further, much of that media coverage was negative.
I don’t particularly like President Trump myself; he’s an egotistical [insert slang term for the rectum here.] But I’ve never met the man, and almost certainly never will. How he is personally doesn’t affect me in the slightest. But the policies of the United States government do affect me, as they affect every American, and this far his policies have been far more good than bad. For a conservative, his increased enforcement of our immigration laws and actions to restrict and remove illegal immigrants in our country should be good things. For a conservative, his judicial appointments should be praised. For a conservative, his (too few) restrictions on abortion and efforts concerning social policy should be appreciated, yet all of these things would be ended and reversed is any of the Democratic candidates happen to win the presidency.
A supposed conservative like Miss Rubin should appreciate all of those things, but she is so consumed with #TrumpDerangementSyndrome that she’s lost sight of the forest due to all of the trees.
¹ – Jennifer Rubin, another of the Post’s supposedly conservative columnists, has gone off the rails when it comes to President Trump. “Rubin has been one of the most vocal conservative-leaning writers to frequently criticize the Presidency of Donald Trump, as well as the overall behavior of the Republican Party during Trump’s term in office. Writing in the Huffington Post, Dr. Munr Kazmir criticized Rubin for being “completely against policies she herself had championed for seemingly no other reason than Trump being in favor of them”. Rubin was criticized by Warren Henry of The Federalist for changing her view on John R. Bolton after he was named National Security Advisor of the Trump Administration.” This footnote taken from Wikipedia article on Miss Rubin.
Please visit my Red State story archive for more of my articles.
My personal website, The First Street Journal, includes articles not necessarily in Red State’s paradigm.
You can follow me on Twitter.