Early Hours Open Thread: The GOP Realizes Its Trump Problem May Be Worse Than Expected

trump intervention ohman

(Jack Ohman via GoComics.com)

Not only are the rubes voters no longer buying TRUMP PIVOTS, even the folks inside the Repub compound are getting restive…


Could not happen to a more deserving crew.

42 replies
  1. 1
    Mary G says:

    It is opposite world. Fortunately these bozos can’t agree on anything, and are all still out for No. 1. No way any of this happens because all of the incumbents are too scared of the base to stick their nose out. Everyone who signed the the letter is out of government already.

  2. 2
    one_particular_harbour, fka Botsplainer says:

    You’d think the accountability boys would proofread their graphics prior to going live.

  3. 3
    Anne Laurie says:

    @one_particular_harbour, fka Botsplainer: Hah! Wondered if anyone else would catch that typo…

  4. 4

    Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and the rest are just like Burke from the Weyland-Yutani Corporation – after everything, they *still* think they can contain this monster.

  5. 5
  6. 6
    hellslittlestangel says:

    Can the Accountability Projet account for their rather slap-dash logo?

  7. 7
    one_particular_harbour, fka Botsplainer says:

    @Knight of Nothing:

    He’s like a combination of Greg Stillson, Lonesome Rhodes and the Aliens, all wrapped up in one neat package.

  8. 8
    Amir Khalid says:


  9. 9
    one_particular_harbour, fka Botsplainer says:


    They corrected it overnight:

  10. 10

    @one_particular_harbour, fka Botsplainer: Good one! Had to ask the Google machine about Lonesome Rhodes. Is there a place beyond parody? I think we’ve arrived.

  11. 11
    Schlemazel says:

    @Knight of Nothing:
    What are their choices? If you find yourself on the back of a tiger it is safer to just hold on for dear life because coming off the tiger means you will very likely be eaten.

    It is what they deserve, they are the ones that have been teasing and taunting the tiger in the first place.

  12. 12
    Poopyman says:

    @Anne Laurie: I thought it was French, perhaps. Nahhhhh!

  13. 13
    MattF says:

    What are they gonna do? ‘Suggest’ to Trump that he withdraw? Tell the white nationalists and other assorted racists that they’re just white trash? It’s their party– they can cry if they want to, but they’re stuck with it.

  14. 14
    amk says:

    @Schlemazel: More like rethug pols are getting squeezed to death by a vicious anaconda. No great escape for them.

  15. 15
    Jeff Spender says:

    The GOP “GOP Accountabilty Projet” Accountability Project

  16. 16
  17. 17
    Schlemazel says:

    @Knight of Nothing:
    That means they are turning their backs on the GOP base and very likely will pay a heavy price if they have to get elected. They are in damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I will assume those who are publicly joining or saying they will vote Hillary actually put country ahead of party. Weasels will deny Drumpf but stop short of voting against the GOP. The chicken shit, the insane and the elephant uber alles crowd will ride him all the way down.

  18. 18
    Ceci n'est pas mon nym says:

    @Schlemazel: actually put country ahead of party.

    Never a safe assumption with Republicans. I’m guessing it has more to do with pressure from the voters and worries about re-election. Which is really nice if large chunks of the Republican base are that much anti-Trump and vocal.

  19. 19

    @Schlemazel: I don’t think we are in disagreement. As many others have pointed out, ‘establishment’ Republicans are in a bed of their own making. They can do an honorable thing and un-endorse Trump, support one of his opponents, and pay a political price. Or they can go all-in for Trump and pay a different kind of price. These guys are choosing the most cowardly option – to try and split the difference. If you’re saying it’ll pay off for them, maybe you’re right. But that doesn’t mean I can’t call it for what it is – cynical and craven pandering.

  20. 20
    Waldo says:

    The anti-Trump GOPers remind me of the guy who had second thoughts about committing suicide while in mid-plunge off the Golden Gate Bridge. Better late than never, I guess.

  21. 21
    greennotGreen says:

    In the linked Daily Caller article was yet another suggestion that because it looks like Clinton will trounce Trump, she should offer Republicans a SCOTUS pick for their endorsement. Huh? NO! Why should Dems do that? If one of the strongest reasons for choosing a Democrat over any Republican is the Supreme Court, why would we give that away because it is increasingly likely we’ll win? What kind of logic is that?

    BTW, at this point these rosy scenarios are no more reliable than pipe dreams. GOTV!

  22. 22
    Thoughtful David says:

    So the anti-Trumpers are French? I thought they hated the French. So shouldn’t they change the name of their group to the “GOP Accountability Freedom”?

  23. 23
    Thoughtful David says:

    @Knight of Nothing:

    These guys are choosing the most cowardly option – to try and split the difference.

    This. They are totally cowards and should be called out on it.

  24. 24

    @greennotGreen: Presumably one reason people vote for Clinton is that they want her to choose the Supreme Court judges, not the opposing party.

  25. 25
    aimai says:

    @Amir Khalid: Accountability Projet, Lack Of

    Dictionary entry.

  26. 26
    Lurking Canadian says:

    @greennotGreen: Right? What’s the logic supposed to be? “Oh no, Hillary’s beating us like a rented mule! Let’s ask her to give us something in exchange for our support!”

    To which Hillary replies, “Huh? I’m beating you ANYWAY. Why should I give you so much as a pat on the cheek?”

  27. 27
    aimai says:

    @Waldo: Only if, as he’s going down, he is screaming at the would be rescuers “this is all your fault!!!!!”

  28. 28
    Waldo says:

    @aimai: Or “I’m ready to cut a deal!!”

  29. 29
    Exurban Mom says:

    Unbelievable. Negotiated surrender? After all their obstructionist behavior? Excuse my francais, but fuck them with a rusty pitchfork.

  30. 30
    Mandarama says:

    From risible Daily Caller article–

    A deal would make it more likely Hillary wins the White House, something she cares more about than any policy initiative.

    I don’t think they have been paying attention to the real Secretary Clinton.

  31. 31
    Saskexpat says:

    The Daily Caller piece is more fantasy-world tripe wherein the left gives the right huge concessions for essentially nothing. If such a deal were to occur, it would hurt Clinton more than it helps. The author obviously know nothing about negotiations or the concept of surrender. It’s like arguing that as part of WW II surrender, US should have ceded control of Guam and Hawaii to Japan.

  32. 32
    randy khan says:


    “Fantasy” was the exact word that came to mind. I can’t think of one item on that list that realistically would be of interest to Clinton. The closest would be the immigration item, but since there’s essentially no chance that they could deliver the votes in the House, I can’t see why she’d bite.

  33. 33
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Saskexpat: Yes, why would Hilary negotiate over anything at this point? They Republicans are losing, they can accept it and move on or fight to futile bitter end.

  34. 34
    BC in Illinois says:

    It’s not as if Clinton and the Democrats would get nothing from the proposed bargain.

    From the Daily Caller fantasy piece:

    In addition to a public endorsement, the Republican legislators might agree to do everything they can to push through a Gang of Eight-style immigration bill if Hillary is elected. They might also promise to do their best to get her an up-or-down vote on any Supreme Court nominations she makes during her first term. If she demands it, they even agree to help her achieve a federal minimum wage increase.

    See? They would “do everything they can.” They would “do their best.” They would “agree to help.” Who could resist such a commitment?

    Still, it deserves looking into. Send a research intern to look into all the occasions when a Republican candidate, seeing victory at hand, offered to adopt planks of the Democratic candidate’s platform. I await their report.

  35. 35

    See? They would “do everything they can.” They would “do their best.” They would “agree to help.” Who could resist such a commitment?

    @BC in Illinois: The wording reminds me of an ex-girlfriend, several former bosses, and a guy I bought a car from once.

  36. 36
  37. 37
    eyelessgame says:

    I had a different reaction to the Daily Caller article. I understand why he wouldn’t get how unacceptable the Democrats would find his “negotiated surrender.”

    What I don’t understand is why he doesn’t get how unacceptable Republicans would find it. He doesn’t see that any Republican official making any kind of deal with Hillary Clinton at all would lose their next primary. He doesn’t understand his own party. Still. Even now.

  38. 38
    The Other Chuck says:

    Here’s the thing about surrenders in a war: even negotiated ones involve the losing party being dismantled to remove their capacity to make war in the future. I could accept a negotiated surrender that involved the utter, absolute, and permanent dissolution of the Republican Party. I propose that we give them naming rights for a few post offices in exchange.

  39. 39
    Thoughtful David says:

    @The Other Chuck:

    I propose that we give them naming rights for a few post offices in exchange.

    Few=3. And not a fucking thing more.

  40. 40
    bluefish says:

    @CONGRATULATIONS!: Ha ha ha ha. Good one. Precisely!

  41. 41
    Saskexpat says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques: The only possible benefit to Clinton would be to negotiate in private, require huge upfront concessions to even talk, crater the negotiations quickly while offering nothing meaningful, and leak details to hurt the R’s base turnout by showing the party is totally scared of the likely election outcome.

  42. 42
    Big Picture Pathologist says:

    @The Other Chuck:

    Only if they are Bob LaFollette, Dwight Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln.

Comments are closed.