Our weirdly unsatisfactory and nationally debilitating political situation has suddenly been coughing up something more than anticipated childish and obvious lies.
The suddenly sensible re-assessment of desperate Republican political self-destruction has taken form: Shreds of what many view as possible opposition to the evil clown called Trump.
Early this month two former aides of the John McCain said they were breaking away from Donald Trumpdom to join large clusters supporting Hillary Clinton — despite her current woes.
Most surprising — and more harsh — have been the desertion of Republican heavy-hitting donors.
New York-based investor, Stanley Drudkenmiller, has given approximately US$1.9 million to Republicans since the 2012 campaign. He is one of many who distrust Donald Trump. His logic: “Not sure why anyone would give money to Trump since he asserts he is worth $US10 billion.” Many people with this opinion find Trump’s self-contradicting mind-tangle so childish they laugh at it. This includes conservative men and women of impressive means, i.e. former contributors.
A hefty number of well-known contributors to Republican causes are now saying, as one extremely wealthy woman did: “We have other options in which to invest and which to spend our time helping. This is political nonsense ... It’s embarrassing to the Republican Party, to all of us.”
Others believe Trump is clearly unfit to serve in the Oval Office. Michael K. Vlock, a Connecticut investor who has given nearly $US5 million to Republicans at the federal level since 2014, said he considered Trump a dangerous person. “He’s an ignorant, amoral, dishonest and manipulative, misogynistic, philandering, hyper-litigious, isolationist, blowhard.” Vlock said he might give to Hillary Clinton instead, describing her as “the devil we know. I really believe our republic can survive Hillary,” he said.
At a gathering of the Manhattan Institute in New York earlier this month, Bruce Kovner, New York-based investor who has given $US3.1 million to Republicans in recent years argued to a group of influential conservatives that Trump and Clinton were both unacceptable choices.
“When I talk to my colleagues and friends in similar positions, they have the same degree of discomfort,” Kovner said in an interview.
Unless Trump can win over more benefactors, he is likely to become the first Republican nominee in decades to be heavily outspent by his Democratic opponent and may find it difficult to pay for both the voter-turnout operations and the paid advertising campaigns that are typically required in general election.
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney raised over one billion dollars in 2012, and Clinton is expected to exceed that figure.
Charles G. and David H. Koch, the country’s two most prolific conservative donors are not expected to back Trump, and their advisors have been scathing in private assessments of Trump’s candidacy and his policy agenda.
The Kochs, who overlook a vast network of conservative donors, have scheduled a Colorado conference of their allies July 16, deciding where much of their 2016 spending may be determined. A spokesman for the Kochs, James Davis, said they would focus on helping Republicans retain control of Congress, and many of their allies. Even among the handful of big donors Trump won over, doubts persist about both his abilities as a candidate and the political apparatus supporting him. Shelden E. Adleson, casino billionaire, the most important donor who’s endorsed Trump, has indicated that he will cut big checks to aid his campaign only if there is a credible advocacy group set up for that purpose.
But, as this is being written, Trump still has no sanctioned “super PAC” able to raise unlimited sums to support his campaign. A gathering next month at T. Boon Pickens’ Great American PAVC has been called off because Pickens wasn’t sure he was hosting Trump’s preferred super PAC.
Meanwhile: Trump on Tuesday night, May 24, purposefully attacked Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who in addition to being the most prominent Hispanic woman in American politics, also happens to be the chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association.
Appearing at a campaign rally in Albuquerque, the largest city in Governor Martinez’s state, Trump unleashed a blistering assault on the governor — who skipped the event — by saying she was “not doing the job.”
He faulted her by falsely asserting she was allowing Syrian refugees to settle in the state, and blamed her for Albuquerque’s unemployment numbers as well as the increase in the number of New Mexico residents on food stamps.
Also: Hillary Clinton’s campaign is rebuffing government criticism of her email use. A statement from Clinton’s campaign reprised many of the arguments she has made over the past 14 months about her use of a personal email and server while she was secretary of state.
The Clinton campaign Wednesday released a 203-word statement dismissing the criticisms by the inspector general’s report on the email practices of the former Secretary of State. Now the statement can be compared directly with the findings in the new 79-page report. From the statement: “The inspector general documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email.”
Only one other secretary of state — Colin L. Powell — exclusively used his personal email for official communications. Secretary of State John Kerry said he occasionally used personal email, mostly to reply to people who emailed him on his personal account. But the report said that after discussing the issue with aides and staff members, “he primarily used his department account to conduct official business.”
Drama will continue.