Lion of the Blogosphere

Serious question: Will GOPe sabotage Trump and get Hillary elected?

One sort of common sense is that politicians will support their nominee in order not to sabotage their own party. The better Trump does in November, the better for Republicans.

But, in recent days, just as Trump is on the verge of demonstrating that there isn’t any realistic chance of anyone else becoming the nominee, a lot of establishment Republicans like Romney and Paul Ryan seem to be going out of their way to join in with the liberal MSM in calling out Trump for being racist.

Is it possible that the liberal MSM has done such an effective job with it’s PC-mongering that establishment Republicans will actually commit political suicide in a pathetic attempt to grovel to the liberal MSM, desperate to do anything to show they aren’t associated with “racism”?

(I should point out that, in reality, everything “racist” that Trump has allegedly said is the mainstream media intentionally misrepresenting his statements, or expanding the definition of “racism” to include opposing open borders and amnesty.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 1, 2016 at 1:24 pm

Posted in Politics

50 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Lion,

    I’m absolutely shocked that this KKK and David Duke “controversy” has actually become “a thing”. This is a complete non-story. There is literally nothing to this story and people are actually talking about this. It’s insane!

    JerseyGuy

    March 1, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    • Welcome to American political coverage.

      I take it that the “Jersey” in “Jersey Guy” means the Jersey Islands and you just moved here?

      Ed

      March 1, 2016 at 4:36 pm

  2. I don’t think they will sabotage Trump because it is not in their self interest to do so and because it sounds like the party hacks have resigned themselves to a Trump victory and can live with in. I certainly don’t rule it out though. I’m not a loser like gayboi Nate Silver who substitutes wishful thinking for analysis.

    A more interesting question is will the establishment steal the nomination from trump even if he shows up in Cleveland with an absolute majority of the delegates? Legally they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and would be throwing the election but they might be willing to do it to maintain control of the party.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 1, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    • “A more interesting question is will the establishment steal the nomination from trump even if he shows up in Cleveland with an absolute majority of the delegates?”

      No, I don’t think they will do that. But if they want to sabotage him, they could invite anti-Trump speakers to call him racist and urge the nation to vote for Hillary.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 1, 2016 at 1:37 pm

  3. Michael Brendan Doughtery doesn’t think they will. I’m on the fence on whether they will.

    I know we always say this but this time it may be true…They really may be a revolt against the Establishment this time. I think a lot of good-hearted Republicans will realize that its elites and corporations in general do not have their best interest in mind.

    JerseyGuy

    March 1, 2016 at 1:35 pm

  4. To me, Romney’s and Paul’s actions feel like a last ditch effort to bring Trump down before the nomination. I think that the establishment will, reluctantly, line up behind him to an extent.

    Now will the ultra conservative and Religious Right wings do the same? That’s a bigger question, I think.

    onereasonableperson

    March 1, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    • If the GOPe falls in line, so will everyone else.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 1, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      • I’m not so sure about that. Look at the motivations of the leaders on the Religious Right. Their peeps have voted for a candidate without their consent. They’re in danger of losing their relevance. By “making a stand,” they can re-establish their importance.

        Of course, if the Repubs win despite their attempt of sabotage, they risk falling into even more irrelevancy.

        onereasonableperson

        March 1, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    • Romney is running for president. Rubio is just a stalking horse for Romney.

      Romney really wants to win and he knows his only remaining shot is a brokered convention so he’s doing whatever he can to keep Trump from winning on the first ballot.

      If it looks possible to hold Trump down, Romney will declare right after the Florida primary and start filing to run in all the subsequent states.

      owentt

      March 1, 2016 at 5:12 pm

      • They are delusional enough to try this, and in so doing will elect Hillary as president. After which we will have four years of useless Libya hearings, Mitch McConnell’s obstructionism, Paul Ryan, more Central American kids flowing over the border, and China invading Japan. In short, pure hell.

        Just joking about the China thing.

        gothamette

        March 1, 2016 at 6:19 pm

  5. If Trump is not a loyal Republican, which neither he nor many of his most vigorous supporters seem to be, then it is not illogical for Republicans to root for his downfall.

    If America is becoming a three-party system in which there is a conservative party, a liberal party, and a populist-nationalist party, then conservatives have just as much obligation to cheer for the downfall of the populist-nationalist option as they do for the liberal one.

    A lot of conservative Republicans believe Trump is a hostile infiltrator turning their party into something completely different than what it is supposed to be. Trump is the one engaging in sabotage. Republicans don’t have to play along with it just because he’s successful.

    Janos

    March 1, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    • The problem is, the GOPe thought they could simply have the voters while doing the opposite of what they want.

      Dan

      March 1, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      • I don’t know if that’s the case. I heard Paul Ryan give an exasperated interview the other day in which he said “I find myself constantly having to give people third-grade civics lessons,” and I could sympathize where he was coming from. Just because people elect lots of Republicans to Congress doesn’t mean they can overturn Obamacare, stop illegal immigration, outlaw abortion, etc etc.

        The president can veto things, and has. There’s this idea that Republicans merely haven’t been “fighting hard enough,” and that why things haven’t changed to their liking, as opposed to because the constitution BY DESIGN makes it very difficult and rare for one party to control everything. We have a democratic system based around stagnation, checks, balances, and compromise, but some don’t want to acknowledge that.

        Janos

        March 1, 2016 at 2:12 pm

      • >>because the constitution BY DESIGN makes it very difficult and rare for one party to control everything.

        Well, that’s the way it should be, but Democrats install political plants as supreme court justices, who just vote their policy preferences and contrive a reason for it being constitutional as an afterthought. I have never seen a Republican go after the Democrats on this evident fact. Republicans always play footsie with the issue and imagine they can get a stealth conservative on the bench without the Democrats calling them out. Sometimes that works (Scalia, Thomas, Alito), other times it has been a disappointment (Kennedy, O’Connor, Souter, Roberts) or an outright disaster (warren, brennan). Republicans don’t play to win on this matter

        Daniel

        March 1, 2016 at 3:24 pm

      • “I don’t know if that’s the case. I heard Paul Ryan give an exasperated interview the other day in which he said “I find myself constantly having to give people third-grade civics lessons,” ”

        Paul Ryan is part of the problem. He’s constantly trying to push open borders and bad trade deals. But the issue he was referring to here is that he doesn’t think that Congress has the power of the purse if the media is going to say bad things about you. So, he doesn’t think he has any power because he wants the media to like him.

        Mike Street Station

        March 1, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    • then conservatives have just as much obligation to cheer for the downfall of the populist-nationalist option as they do for the liberal one.

      Now that’s a robotic way of framing things. But if we apply a little common sense, it becomes clear that regular conservatives are much more comfortable with pop-nat than with leftism.

      Fiddlesticks

      March 1, 2016 at 2:06 pm

      • I don’t think it’s clear at all. Isn’t the idea that you shouldn’t settle for the “lesser of two evils” the whole spirit of the Trump campaign? Why should conservatives settle for Trump?

        Brenan

        March 1, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    • I don’t see how conservatives can claim to be “loyal Republicans” if they bolt the first time they don’t get their way. That’s the rub; people like myself, who have voted Republican all my life, thought we were in a coalition. I never liked a lot of the previous candidates or the policies, but fair’s fair, they won the votes, and I sure wasn’t going to vote Democrat. Better luck next time. The party decides.

      Now I find out that we weren’t in a coalition. That was just a ruse the rump conservatives like Janos used to prop up their lame candidates to over 50% of the vote. My guy wins the election fair and square, that’s “sabotage”. As soon as we start winning, you tar your coalition partners as “hostile infiltrators”.

      Well, it’s your right to see it that way. But it also means the Republican Party is dead. Only a minority of the public (and probably a minority of the Republican Party) believes in movement conservatism as a governing ideology, but what success it has had was dependent on its role as part of a coalition with populists and nationalists subsumed under the GOP banner. The bargain only works if the other members of the coalition believe its terms will be honored. It’s the conservative #NeverTrumpers who are sabotaging that.

      If enough conservatives bolt to deny Trump the presidency, then no conservative Republican will ever be elected President again. You can’t reconsolidate a coalition that you deliberately blew up because you didn’t get your way. I would never vote for such a Republican ever again. There would be no thread of quid pro quo holding the different parts of the Republican Party together. Establishment Republicans think that if they backstab Trump and let in Hillary they’ll get things back the way they were, but in reality it would lead to the Whiggification of the party and most of its current leaders and strategists would be forced out of politics within 10 years.

      Richard

      March 1, 2016 at 4:50 pm

      • There is bitterness at not having “your guy” win the nomination, then there is outrage at watching the nominee be a complete entryist opportunist with no loyalty whatsoever to the party, its politicians, its platform, or values.

        Janos

        March 1, 2016 at 7:52 pm

      • Like Paul Ryan?

        Richard

        March 1, 2016 at 8:02 pm

      • You are kidding me, right?

        I don’t see how conservatives can claim to be “loyal Republicans” if they bolt the first time they don’t get their way.

        They did not get their way in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, or 2012, and yet they held their noses and voted for the “moderate” candidate.

        people like myself, who have voted Republican all my life, thought we were in a coalition.

        That coalition does not benefit conservatives, but always betrays them.

        it also means the Republican Party is dead.

        Good. It is evil and treacherous and deserves to die.

        what success it has had was dependent on its role as part of a coalition with populists and nationalists subsumed under the GOP banner. The bargain only works if the other members of the coalition believe its terms will be honored.

        Conservatives got little or nothing from belonging to that coalition. Their belief that the terms of the coalition would be honored was always misplaced.

        If enough conservatives bolt to deny Trump the presidency, then no conservative Republican will ever be elected President again.

        So what? The last time a conservative Republican was elected was 1984. They already don’t get to have their guy be President.

        You can’t reconsolidate a coalition that you deliberately blew up because you didn’t get your way.

        Why not? The GOPe always thinks the conservatives will come crawling back after the latest betrayal, and they’re usually right.

        Tarl

        March 1, 2016 at 11:22 pm

      • GWB was a TrueCon. Everyone loved him. Even though he accomplished nothing useful.

      • From 2001 to 2008, the late and ever-lamented Lawrence Auster decisively demonstrated that Bush was not a conservative, but a betrayer of conservatism. Just another cuck!

        Tarl

        March 2, 2016 at 6:42 pm

      • Movement conservatives who’ve rallied around Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and considered it heresy to repudiate George W. Bush’s pernicious Iraq War, and attacked Trump at the debate for refusing to let “people die in the street”? Who slam the table about abortion, but do nothing about the border or wage stagnation? Get real, Tarl. The people threatening to bolt with #NeverTrump (Ben Sasse, Eric Erickson, Ken Cuccinelli, Jim Geraghty, Max Boot, Dan McLaughlin, Ben Sasse, Rick Wilson, Rich Lowry, Jennifer Rubin, NRO, RedState, etc. etc.) have owned this party and been enthusiastic proponents of its follies which have brought people around to Trump.

        Richard

        March 2, 2016 at 4:32 am

      • RIchard, I think you/re taking one election too seriously. The Republican party has a long history. And the conservative movement and Christian Right have been part of it for decades. By contrast, Trump is a newcomer to the party. He’s not someone who’s reflected most of its policies for very long. And he has a history of supporting and funding the other side. The point of movement conservatives denying Trump a victory is to show the party’s voters that someone not loyal to conservatism won’t win the presidency as a Republican. The party is not going to break apart forever due to Donald Trump. The primary voters will realize later on that making Trump the nominee in a fit of emotionalism was a mistake. The GOP voters and the conservative movement will need each other in the future. Yes, there will be bitterness due to 2016, but both sides will get over it.

        Maryk

        March 2, 2016 at 8:16 am

  6. Lion,
    Here is a question for you and your commenters. I know people always talk about a 3rd party and it never comes to fruition…however, perhaps this time it actually may happen?

    JerseyGuy

    March 1, 2016 at 1:37 pm

  7. I don’t put anything past these sleazeballs. They’ve sold the country down the river – they are capable of anything. But I don’t think they are capable of suicide.

    “Is it possible that the liberal MSM has done such an effective job with it’s PC-mongering that establishment Republicans will actually commit political suicide in a pathetic attempt to grovel to the liberal MSM, desperate to do anything to show they aren’t associated with “racism”?”

    Yes, but not commit suicide. They believe they are taking back the reigns of power from the idiot masses, in the interests of sanity and maturity. And will they lose their jobs? The elected ones among them such as Ryan and McConnell truly believe that they will never be booted out of office, that Cantor was a one-off, and they are in the club for life. The unelected ones, the commentariat, really won’t lose their jobs. Murdoch will continue to support WS in perpetuity. What do they lose by hating on Trump and slandering him?

    gothamette

    March 1, 2016 at 1:47 pm

  8. There are many in the GOPe who would prefer Hillary to Trump. They are terrified of his immigration policies and his criticism of the big trade deals. They also fear that Trump will unleash a variety of populist/nationalistic impulses that they want to lie dormant. The GOPe views Trump as a loose cannon who has the potential to bring about real change.They may not love Hillary, but they do not view her as negatively as they do Trump.

    Lewis Medlock

    March 1, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    • That’s the biggest surprise of this is how wedded to open borders and “free” trade the GOPe is, So much so that they seem to be wiling to throw an election to prevent a Republican win by someone who isn’t on board with that.

      I find that amazing.

      Mike Street Station

      March 1, 2016 at 2:57 pm

      • I’m amazed too. We both have a lot of catching up to do, this has been going on for a while. Read all about Robert Bartley, and how the WSJ literally pushed open borders on the Republican Party. I am not exaggerating or mischaracterizing. It’s in Bartley’s Wikipedia entry. These guys do NOT care about Americans. They only care about their globalist elite friends. I used to hear people talk like that & think they were exaggerating. They weren’t.

        gothamette

        March 1, 2016 at 3:32 pm

      • They’re educated, which means more ideological. They’re constrained by everything they’ve imbibed on economics and political philosophy, all those years of reading Hayek and Michael Oakeshott. They look at rubes, who are much more pragmatic, from across a vast sociological gulf.

        Dain

        March 1, 2016 at 7:10 pm

  9. A third party isn’t going to happen because it can’t happen. A 2 party system is essentially enshrined by American laws. Any break off party would quickly reassimilate into one of the 2 major parties.

    Could the GOPe and TruCons theoretically establish a Crony capitalist, open borders, anti abortion, cuckservative party? Sure, but it would have the shelf life of a single election cycle before remerging with the Trump led GOP.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 1, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    • If we had a parliamentary system under the Westminster model, then yes, there could have been numerous parties in contention. But the Presidential office we have makes a two party system almost inevitable, with the two parties reflecting the ideological and psychological differences between the left and the right.

      I think that the GOPe will unenthusiastically get behind Trump and be satisfied if he loses, but I think that a lot of their donors will defect to Hillary. If Trump loses, the American right will have a new “stab in the back” election, which could very well undermine the Republican Party. Maybe it will break apart for the following 4-8 years until a new Trumpist Party takes up the slot of the right wing American political party?

      Sid

      March 1, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    • A third party can work at the presidential level. At a state level, all parties are creatures of their own distinctive political climates. A Democrat in Kentucky is probably more right-wing than a Republican in Oregon.

      But at the national level all you need is a strong candidate, a lot of money, and a message with some resonance. We’ve had a lot of viable third party presidential candidates over the years, from Teddy Roosevelt to Eugene Debbs to George Wallace to John Anderson to Ross Perot to Ralph Nader. They’ve all been successful to various degrees. The problem is they all tend to be one-off guys. It’s hard for them to turn their personal popularity into a lasting, partisan movement — in part because the sort of people who run for president on a third party ticket tend to be egomaniacs who lack interest in helping other politicians.

      I remember reading Jesse Ventura’s memoir. He got elected governor of Minnesota on the Perot Reform Party ticket, but got incredibly frustrated with how disinterested Perot was in his state and its issues, so he eventually ditched Reform and just became an independent. And of course Reform is now long dead.

      Janos

      March 1, 2016 at 2:50 pm

      • This is what people don’t get. It take energy to organize and run a political party year after year. RNC and DNC are considerable self-perpetuating bureaucracies in themselves. Those who advocate a third party wouldn’t dream of getting their hands dirty running one themselves. It’s always Someone Else who’s supposed to look to it.

        Mrs Stitch

        March 1, 2016 at 10:44 pm

  10. The GOPe may not try to openly sabotage him, but I’ll bet they’ve already started talking among themselves about the possibility of a primary challenger to run against President Trump in 2020.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    March 1, 2016 at 2:16 pm

  11. After inflicting McCain and Romney on the country, it’s amazing how outraged – OUTRAGED I TELL YOU! – these people are when they’re told to suck it up and vote for the good of Teh Party.

    Jesse

    March 1, 2016 at 2:21 pm

  12. Similar to the overnight realignment in France, I too expect the GOPe to endorse Shrillary if the people put their faith in Trump.

    Mark Caplan

    March 1, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    • I lived in Nevada in 2010 during the last Harry Reid re-election. The GOPe was furious right winger Sharron Angle was the Republican nominee. You better believe they passionately supported Reid, forming a group called “Republicans for Reid”. Goes to show if they sense a candidate stands for real change they will support the Democrat. The GOPe is ideologically closer to being Democrats than they would ever admit.

      Here is a link to Republicans for Reid. I can’t help but notice the Latin Chamber of Commerce is on the list.
      http://republicansforharryreid.com/members.html

      Jay Fink

      March 1, 2016 at 3:19 pm

  13. If the GOPe run a third party establishment candidate, this will bring Trump-hating republican voters to the polls who would otherwise stay home, thus helping downstream GOP candidates. It’s win-win for the GOPe.

    Juan DeShawn Arafat

    March 1, 2016 at 2:41 pm

  14. One look at National Review Online these days tells you that mainstream conservatives HATE Trump, yes, even to the point of preferring Hillary. The reason they are pushing the ‘Racist!’ angle is because they are trying anything and everything in their desperation, hoping something will stick.

    In addition, they still cling to the delusion that Rubio and Cruz are viable candidates. The fact that these guys are getting hammered even in their own party’s primary doesn’t seem to register with them. Apparently they believe that if they can just manage somehow to get one nominated, there will be a groundswell of popular support, even outside the party, which will carry him to victory over Hillary. Basically, it’s a sad, bizarre fantasy land over there.

    steve@steve.com

    March 1, 2016 at 2:45 pm

  15. What’s going on seems so obvious. Romney, Ryan, and Hewitt are not “groveling” to appear anti-racist and get in the good graces of the “liberal MSM.” They’re trying to torpedo Trump’s candidacy.

    Vince

    March 1, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    • The silliest example is Ken Cuccinelli vowing never to vote for Trump because he tweeted an inoffensive quote that Gawker later attributed to Mussolini. It’s obvious he’d been waiting for something to use as an excuse, but was so stupid he called reporters before the oomphier KKK thing came out. The “Mussolini tweet” is so laughably innocuous that the Wall Street Journal wouldn’t even repeat the quote.

      “Ken Cuccinelli, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund who is a key Ted Cruz surrogate, said Mr. Trump’s embrace of the Mussolini rhetoric led to him decide he won’t vote for Mr. Trump in November. “When you’ve got a guy favorably quoting Mussolini, I don’t care what party you’re in, I’m not voting for that guy,” he said. “Donald Trump, it’s like he’s trying to make it difficult for anyone…to support him.””

      Back in August, Cuccinelli was leading the charge to force Trump to pledge support for the eventual Republican nominee. This article has some quotes from Cuccinelli that are very funny now:

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/state-gop-leaders-plot-to-tie-donald-trumps-hands-121696

      Richard

      March 1, 2016 at 3:59 pm

  16. Newt Gingrich seems to be doing everything but endorse Trump.

    “Republicans can take this campaign down the Barry Goldwater path and “get beaten badly,” Gingrich posited, or be like Ronald Reagan and “win a stunning victory.”

    “There’s no middle ground here, and I think Trump is about half of that decision,” Gingrich said. “The other half of that decision is gonna be the Republican leadership.”

    Gingrich stopped short of endorsing Trump — despite calling him “very, very impressive” — but described the businessman as an “anti-left, anti-politically correct, anti-stupidity American nationalist” who uses those principles to guide his decisions. “Sometimes that makes him complicated for conservatives because they have these cookie-cutter you-are-for-this-you’re-for-that, and I think I have pretty good credentials as a conservative,” he said.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/newt-gingrich-donald-trump-220031

    Julian

    March 1, 2016 at 3:07 pm

  17. Sensitivity training and hysteria will begin immediately after the polls close.

    cesqy

    March 1, 2016 at 5:18 pm

  18. I doubt that the G.O.P. establishment as a whole will be able to coordinate on sabotaging their own presidential candidate, especially if there appears to be any chance that he will win. It goes against the grain of what the organisation is there to do and there are too many opportunities for defectors to side with Trump. However, there will be individual politicians and donorcrats who try to frag him, either loudly, or, more likely, on the sly. Think tank types will probably be the most enthusiastic about this and they will have the most freedom to try to organise (however, organising is not their strong suit). The question is how many politicians and big donors the think tank types will be able to motivate.

    A Christian moral majority candidate, if well-funded, might be in a position to pull enough votes away from Trump to affect the election. e.g. Ben Carson + donors might be able to do it. Any other type of breakaway Republican runs the risk of taking more votes from Hillary and thereby helping Trump. In particular, Bloomberg – and probably any “moderate” Republican – is 100% doomed to this outcome. A neocon-themed candidate will have a hard time attracting any votes even if well-funded. It might work if they find somebody with the right personality that overlaps with Trump’s appeal, like a feisty old general. I have no idea what Peter Pace’s foreign policy views are like, but if he wanted to run and neocon donors wanted to back him, he might be able to do some damage to Trump – he has the military thing going and the religious conservative thing, too.

    It’s getting pretty late in the game for an independent presidential campaign as far as ballot access, I think (haven’t checked the details in a while). Teaming up with an existing 3rd party that already has a ballot access effort might work, but I’m not sure what party that would be. Does the Constitution Party really want to cooperate with GOPe to sabotage Trump? Probably not. Maybe what’s left of the Reform Party? The bad guys could try a hostile takeover of the Constitution Party or Libertarians, etc., like Buchanan did with the Reform Party in 2000, but then that turns into its own three-ring circus (as in 2000).

    Greg Pandatshang

    March 1, 2016 at 5:35 pm

  19. Given the media’s McCarthyist attack equating Trump with David Duke, it’s worth mentioning that many elite African American intellectuals are 100 percent aligned with Duke’s anti-Jewish inanity. Duke says Jews ran and of course immensely profited from the entire slave trade, even to the extent that the slave ships were manned and piloted by Jewish sailors. Jews were the architects of 9/11. The Holocaust never happened. A Jewish conspiracy keeps the Holocaust fiction alive.

    This African American intellectual at Oberlin College could be David Duke’s clone:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3471224/Oberlin-professor-keeps-job-despite-spewing-anti-Semitic-hate-including-blaming-Jews-9-11-social-media.html

    Meanwhile, the first V.I.P. to endorse Trump was a Jew, Carl Icahn. Trump’s beloved daughter, now with the Hebrew name “Yael,” is an Orthodox Jew. He has many Jewish advisers. He lives in New York City. His whole life, not just his words, disavows the David Duke smear.

    Mark Caplan

    March 1, 2016 at 6:05 pm

  20. So it’s out in the open now thanks to Trump. We have an Inner Party and and Outer Party (or really, Less Inner). Let me think, where have I heard of that before…..

    gda

    March 1, 2016 at 6:14 pm

  21. Absolutely the GOPe will sabotage Trump in favor of Hillary.

    fakeemail

    March 1, 2016 at 8:12 pm

  22. “Will GOPe sabotage Trump..”

    That’s all I’ve been hearing about today, the day after Super Tuesday. Brokered convention, collusion, defection, third party time, etc.

    Also read, btw, George Will recently saying that the GOP establishment doesn’t exist. It was destroyed in 1964 with Goldwater or something. As if it’s not possible the prior insurgents didn’t become the standard bearers, as if to say – “Come on, no one wears grey suits and reads the Herald anymore.” Ooof. What a keen observer of the times.

    This is going to be fun. Do your thing Trump!

    ModernReader

    March 2, 2016 at 10:07 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: