Will The Establishment's Stalking Horse for Hillary Blow Up the Republican Party?

Via Hot Air, Matthew Sheffield writes of the anger and (correct) feelings of betrayal rising among the base.

The Establishment's plan is very simple. They've pretty much announced it. Bret Stephens, for example, does not hide the fact that his plan is to help Hillary into the presidency with a "blow out" against Trump. Then, he figures, the rebellious Untermenschen of the Lumpenproletariat will come grovelling to the Establishment for its super-successful and popular policy mix of unchastened neocon foreign adventurism, favors for corporate cronies, and official, explicit Open Borders policy.

Here's Stephens admitting The Plan, which is hardly necessary anyway, as it was always pretty obvious:

This is the reason I’ve consistently argued that the only hope for a conservative restoration is a blowout Hillary Clinton victory, held in check by a Republican majority in Congress. If Mr. Trump loses the election narrowly, the stab-in-the-back thesis will have a patina of credibility that he might have won had it not been for the opposition of people like me. But a McGovern-style defeat makes that argument impossible to sustain except among the most cretinous. We can count on Mr. Hannity for that.

And we can count on Mr. Stephens for that as well.

These guys, who fancy themselves smart, seem to miss the point that the way to "teach a lesson" to Trump supporters is to just sort of stay out of the election, and let Trump fail on his own. Then they would have the makings of a "See, I told you so" argument.

But they're too stupid and emotional for that -- no, they have to insert themselves directly into this, agitate for a Hillary win, and then admit they're actually agitating for a big Hillary win because the bigger the win, the bigger the repudiation.

The smart play was to keep their fingerprints off Trump's loss so they couldn't be blamed. But they're egotistical, and highly emotional, and can't help themselves from signing the defeat in blood-red fingerpaint: "WE DID THIS."

But they also want to claim, post-November, "We had nothing to do with this."

Um, except for the part where you actively agitated for Hillary Clinton, and even put up a pawn of a candidate to try to throw a crucial state to Hillary Clinton.

One question:

You guys, having admitted you shivved the rest of the party in the back in order to scramble into a leadership position after the electoral debacle you admit you engineered --

why the fuck wouldn't the rest of us return the favor?

I will never again support the WSJ/Establishment/Rick Wilson/Brent Stephens wing of the GOP. Ever.

Why the hell would I help you assholes into the power positions you crave after you've admitted to tanking an election to "teach a lesson" to the rest of us?

You actually conspire with the enemy -- the Democrat Party, the socialists -- to give them the Supreme Court (all liberal justices older than 50 will retire under Hillary so she can pack the court with 40 year old liberals, and the conservatives except for Roberts and Alito are old) just to increase your own position vis-a-vis the base, and you're even brazen and stupid enough to admit this, and you think, what?

We line up to reward you for your betrayal?

Are you fucking insane?

Vote for Benedict Arnold

Now that I've taught you rebellious colonists a lesson about proper deference to the King, I am ready to resume a leadership role over you -- tanned, ready, and rested.

PS: Once you've delivered Hilary her four or five young liberal justices who will rule the country for 40 years, 2020 becomes a particularly low impact election.

So what would be my incentive to even help these assholes with their plan to come roaring back in 2020? Do they really think I'm as hot for subsidies for John Deere as they are?

If we lose 2016, I have no dog in the 2020 fight, except payback.

posted by Ace at 02:33 PM

| Access Comments