Panicking Mitch McConnell Says GOP Will Help Hillary Beat Trump If He Wins The Nomination

a reply to: Blueracer

McConnell's statements seem fairly clear and straight-forward, and they echo what other Republican party leaders are saying (as noted in the Times article) ... do you have any reason to believe he didn't actually say what two articles are reporting?

To answer your question ... compared with most things Mitch says in public like stating that the Republican's main objective would be to make Obama a one-term President ... as well as jumping the gun on the Scalia replacement fight (before the Justice was probably even cold) ... all point to a man who is quite simply out of his league.

Sorry if you're a McConnell fan ...

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Shamrock6

That makes more sense. The establishment wants to distance themselves from the rantings of Trump. Letting them know they can do so without problems from the GOP isn't the same as the GOP saying vote for Hillary. In the past, I heard the others in the debates say anyone on this stage is better than Hilliary as president. That included Trump.

Right ... but if 1) Trump is the REPUBLICAN nominee and 2) the RNC and Party leadership are running attack ads AGAINST their own nominee ... isn't that pretty much the same outcome as supporting Hillary (or the Democratic nominee) ...

At the very least, nothing has happened like that in recent history ... at worst ... it will split the Republican party in two (or three).

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Blueracer

McConnell's statements seem fairly clear and straight-forward,...

What statements? McConnell is not quoted as saying anything in the article that you posted. Unless I am overlooking something?

Mitch McConnell and the establishment GOP are NOT conservative for the first point. If they were, they wouldn't be staring at Trump and Cruz as their top two candidates right now.

The very fact that they would rather destroy the desires of their revolting (I mean that in both senses of the word when I refer to the establishment GOP) base should tell you what they really want which is to be Democrats in all but actual name. The only real difference between those GOP and DNC is a few policy differences in how the government machine gets run, not in its size or the scope of its power. Both of them want to grow it and expand it because they want power for themselves.

It has been pretty clear for quite some time that the electorate fears the government. That's who you find voting for someone like Trump. They know he's not a traditional conservative. All they really care about is that they're willing to chance that he's outside enough that he'll stop government from intruding.

What Mitch and rest are fearing is an end to their power. This is why they want more immigrants, legal and otherwise. They want to supplant their base with a new, more docile base that looks to government to hold their hands. They are effectively throwing the middle finger to the independent American who built this country and they know it and we know it. And we have had enough of it.

I am not a Trump supporter, but I know what the Trump supporters are voting for.

a reply to: Blueracer

Read between the lines a bit and dig into the NYT article:

Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.

That says it all.

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Blueracer

McConnell's statements seem fairly clear and straight-forward,...

What statements? McConnell is not quoted as saying anything in the article that you posted. Unless I am overlooking something?

Perhaps read the article again. Look for the words "McConnell said" ...

Aside from that, I have no answer as to why the author of the article didn't "quote" McConnell. Again, if you have any evidence that counters the article, i.e. some other source that quotes something different ... please share.

If not ... I've answered your question.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can only quote someone if you are using their direct words.

So if they didn't quote him, they are either paraphrasing or reading into what he said or reporting what someone else said he said which opens up some wiggle room into what he might actually have said and intended and what the Times is interpreting it to mean.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Blueracer

McConnell's statements seem fairly clear and straight-forward,...

What statements? McConnell is not quoted as saying anything in the article that you posted. Unless I am overlooking something?

Perhaps read the article again. Look for the words "McConnell said" ...

I did. Even a Control F search and there is nothing that shows up as "McConnell said", as you put it. There is a "McConnell says" in the title of the article but McConnell is not quoted as saying that. Anybody can say McConnell said anything and give vague sources. There is no evidence of him saying anything directly as you tried to make it seem. I'm sorry I require more proof before buying this story lock, stock, and barrel.

a reply to: ketsuko

Right, right ... but, here's the scenario the articles are focusing on: the RNC, and Congressional Republican leaders run ATTACK ADS on the Republican Presidential Candidate Trump in order to "distance" the Republicans up for election in the Senate from THEIR OWN CANDIDATE.

How does that not qualify as "THE END" of the party? Would Trump supporters not then rally against the national Republican Party?

That seems to be the focal point ... we're not talking about "most Americans" we're talking about a total "Middle Finger" from the Republican leadership to the Republican voter base ...

a reply to: EternalSolace

Welcome to Obama's world.

Anybody but Obama, anybody but Trump.

a reply to: Blueracer

Thanks for your comment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course Mitch wants the Establishment Candidate regardless of party.

He is part of the old Republicans that no one wants anymore. We call them RINOs or whatever, but basically they are Democrats pretending to be Republicans. This should surprise no one.

BTW, SCREW YOU McConnell!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

You can only quote someone if you are using their direct words.

So if they didn't quote him, they are either paraphrasing or reading into what he said or reporting what someone else said he said which opens up some wiggle room into what he might actually have said and intended and what the Times is interpreting it to mean.

Thanks, but you may be forgetting that reputable journalists only use "quotes" if they themselves heard the speaker in question either in person or in recording.

Both articles make it clear that the reports come from Senators who were attendees at the meetings where these comments were made.

I'll pose the same question to you ... do you have other sources that dispute the articles? I stated clearly that I am still looking for corroborating sources ... thanks.

McConnell's big problem is yet to come.

IF Trump gets the Whitehouse, McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio will have Hell to pay !!!

(so say sources close to the situation)

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course Mitch wants the Establishment Candidate regardless of party.

He is part of the old Republicans that no one wants anymore. We call them RINOs or whatever, but basically they are Democrats pretending to be Republicans. This should surprise no one.

BTW, SCREW YOU McConnell!

I cannot of course, disagree with your summation ...

Here's the problem I have with his logic ... if he is telling the Republicans coming up for election in November (some of whom are already in trouble) to run attacks on Trump ... when Republican voters are going to be at the polls VOTING for Mr. Trump (if he is he nominee) ... the problem here seems obvious.

McConnell just doesn't seem to be demonstrating any ability to "look ahead."

a reply to: Gryphon66

I did mention that.

They started it by saying, "We can't oppose Obama because we don't have the House."

We gave them the House, and nothing was done.

They then said, "We can't do anything about it without the Senate."

They got the Senate, and now they hold all of Congress. When Newt had that, the Congress forced several showdowns and reforms on Clinton, including the balanced budget that Democrats now claim and welfare reform. But apparently, Mitch and Co. didn't get the memo. The Republican conservatives in the House even forced Boehner out and got saddled with Ryan who turned around and gave Obama his budget.

In between, the GOPe saddled us with another electable candidate in Romney, and told us to shut up, hold our nose, and vote. We lost.

They can go pound sand as far as their electorate is concerned and everything they try to do is only making it worse for them at this point. If the Republicans as we know them destroy the party, it's on them. They made their bed and now they can lie on it. I will not shed a tear.

They deserve what they get.

That doesn't mean I like the idea of no opposition party, but then, it's not like we've had one, exactly, have we?

originally posted by: xuenchen
McConnell's big problem is yet to come.

IF Trump gets the Whitehouse, McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio will have Hell to pay !!!

(so say sources close to the situation)

What do you make of it Xuench? ... what would happen if the RNC started running attack ads on Candidate Trump?

Do your "sources" indicate otherwise?

a reply to: ketsuko

Good lord ... you and I agree completely ... at least on what you just said.

And trust me ... the way you're feeling about the Republicans is the way I feel about the Democrats.

Total incompetent boobs.

We the People deserve better.

originally posted by: Willtell
THEY HAVE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS!

One after the election, and maybe zero. It is virtually impossible for the Republicans to hold onto the Senate because so many of the Senators up for relection are Republicans. Even if they win 2/3 of elections they still won't have a majority. It's fallout from 2010 when they won big, 6 years later that means they're going to lose big. That's the price of making a big push in the Senate.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's a classic case of Catch-22.

McConnell, and by default, the GOP are screwed if Trump wins the nomination, much less the presidency. He's trying to make the best of a nightmare scenario where Trump plays the madman with the chainsaw and hockey mask as the GOP run amok in circles screaming like a bunch of teenagers. Everyone knows there will be much bloodshed.

The question is who will remain standing before the ending credits roll. (Hint, the guy with the chainsaw always survives to make a sequel.)