I think that it is a lame attempt to say -'see, I tried'. Really ridiculously late even for that. I don't want any more taxpayer money put into a Bears stadium or any other use that doesn't fully cover the cost. She has to look like she is planning for the future there, but even at that she is amazingly vague.
Kass is, and always was, the biggest douche canoe who ever wrote opinion pieces at the Trib. Nobody whined more than he did. Good riddance to him, from "the paper", from his suburban home and from Illinois.
Bravo. Personal attacks and name-calling are always so much more convenient and gratifying than dealing with real issues and policies. (That's sarcasm in case anyone missed it.)
Thanks. I guess I was channeling my inner-Kass. That's all the douche canoe ever did, was call names and personal attacks against people he considered his "enemies."
The grievance peddling was always there with the little man.
Ha ha ha, good metaphor (and thanks for not accusing me of "clutching my pearls", although in the immortal words of Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" 😄)
Kass is a populist conservative who uses acerbic wit in his writing, much the same as you do. For example when he created the nickname of Maximilius Commodious as a pun on Pritzker removing the toilet from the next door mansion he purchased to then file for a drastic tax reduction alleging the mansion was uninhabitable , or some play of words in which he refers to Mayor Lightfoot as Phallic Maximinias as a pun on her statement that she has the biggest "male part" in town. Personally, I do not see these as mean-spirited name-calling, but rather a funny way of pointing out their reported bad actions. And when he uses the adjective Sorros-funded when referring to prosecutor Kim Foxx, that is simply a statement of fact. But, I would not attempt, nor do I need to explain or defend everything that cash writes because that is him and not me.
My objection was to an egregious personal insult to me alleging that I do not love America. We can debate which policies better serve our country, but when people on the left or the right hurl the insult that you do not love America simply because you hold views I disagree with, any chance of meaningful discourse and political dialogue is extinguished. I would hope that you and the great majority of your liberal readers would find common ground with me in that.
I was wrong when I thought that I made mistakes due to youth and inexperience. I take comfort in the thought that with age comes self-knowledge, and that I will be making mistakes well into the future.
What I find most interesting about the Kass home-buying item is the timing. He wrote a column in May 2020 about his move "back to the City", but then - also in 2020 - he buys a house in NW Indiana? It appears (to me at least) as if he's making a big deal by very demonstratively "moving back to Chicago" (and, ostensibly, his roots), to burnish his Chicago bona fides. He then subsequently surreptitiously decamps to St. John, IN. He writes a friggin' column about his move to the City, but then we hear nary a peep from him about his move out. Why the move? Was he or his family the victim of a crime? Was there a family reason for the move? Was it pandemic related? We get bupkis. The fact that it took almost 2 years to acknowledge his departure is interesting.
In my view, this is all part of his schtick for his MAGA audience - the white-ethnic, big city native - son of a butcher - taking shots at the "others" who have "taken over" the Democratic (and increasingly less white) big cities to the detriment of their remaining populaces. Kass knows his MAGA audience; and by maintaining the facade (as long as he did) of his being a "Chicago person" added credibility to his "insider's" criticism of Chicago. I'd love to hear from him about the timing/reasons for the multiple moves over such a short period of time.
As I emailed you a couple of weeks ago, I was wrong about Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. I had predicted it would end in a messy compromise that would leave Roe intact, if under stress. WRONG. I did not anticipate that Roberts' position would be completely ignored by the conservative wing. (You also claim I was wrong about "A Gentleman in Moscow" but I won't concede on that.) BTW, I salute you and the NYT for offering up these mea culpas. I'm actually more willing to consider someone's position if they admit they're not infallible.
just your mention and I hear the bass thrumming up and down until Tom starts in... played it for my 20 something rap listening co-workers, but they did not have the patience or the sense of humor....
No credit for your “I was wrong” confession, which reads like a humble-brag. “The one time I was really wrong was when I understated how horrible Trump and his fans are. Never again.” I know you can find something truly cringy.
I thought that I was wrong once, but that was a mistake. :) Actually, my big duh was not thinking that Covid would be a big deal back at the beginning of 2020. I thought it was a SARS sort of thing. I was taking it seriously by April 2020, but I still expected it to be over by the end of 2020. I gave up that pipe dream in July (?).
Another semi-confession. In early 2011, my son (a couple of years out of college) said that he wanted to borrow $1,000 to buy Bitcoin, which could be had for about a dollar. Of course, I said no. I could not believe that anyone would pay real money for vapor money. It also seemed certain to drop back to zero as soon as everyone worked out that it was a scam (or only useful for money laundering). Duh, today that thousand would be worth $20 million-ish (and peaked around $65 million). But I still think it is a scam, it will ultimately collapse to zero value or be used primarily for money laundering. So, I admit that I could be wrong, up to now I have been wrong, but I will be vindicated (yet poorer) in the long run. My only rationale now is that if I got in, I wouldn't be right about when to get out, so I would lose most of the profit.
As for a position I took and vigorously defended, like in bull sessions with friends, I guess I was wrong about Crimea and Putin. My attitude at the time was, Big deal. Russia didn't seem like much of a threat, the Russian claim on Crimea seemed historically plausible (its having been gifted by the USSR mid-century), it didn't seem like one people was subjugating another, I didn't have great sympathy for Ukraine which seemed like a thoroughly corrupt backwater, and I saw Putin as a thug but a relatively unimportant one who wanted power and wealth, had it, and wouldn't be so stupid as to take on the West in a big way. There were commentators (and friends of mine at the time) who saw it much differently -- as an outrageous encroachment on another independent, (sorta) democratic nation's sovereignty in Europe, as Hitler-ish, as akin to basically how we feel about Ukraine today, and that Obama's (and, to be fair, just about *everyone else's*) functional acquiescence (amid near-universal lack of interest in doing anything serious about it) would be taken as a green light for worse to come. But I pshawed those arguments as overwrought. It seems they were right, and I was wrong.
First, I highly recommend reading the entire Bret Stephens column on "I was wrong about Trump supporters" to all liberals who generally have a very difficult time understanding how in the world so many people supported Trump in 2016. Stevens does a surgical dissection of the perspective and feelings of many of us who supported the Trump presidency.
Second, I can share with you that there will indeed be an epic battle in the GOP 2024 primaries if Trump runs for re-election. Many of us who voted for him in 2016 believe that our interests are best represented by another conservative candidate so that the election will be more about competing ideas and issues instead of Trump personally, but there is a sizable percentage of his original supporters who remain loyal to him. Ron DeSantis appears to be the leading alternative GOP candidate to Trump, but it is perhaps likely that multiple candidates including Pence, Pompeo, Haley, etc will split the anti-Trump vote, thereby allowing him to win primaries and become the front runner for what could be a very interesting contested convention.
Finally, I regret that your personal animus toward John Kaas is on full display in your remarks about him. The insinuation is that his ability to write about Chicago people and events is somehow no longer credible since he has moved just across the border into Indiana, and also that he is hypocritical in wanting to maintain the privacy of his residence. The first insinuation is fully without support, and the second represents a very real concern for any conservative public figure, given the left's newfound tactics of targeting people whom they are unhappy with at their family residence.
Further, I am also among the ranks of the tens of thousands of people who have fled Chicagoland for greener pastures. I now live in a slightly larger home with a larger yard where I am paying less than 20% of my Chicagoland property taxes, and where I live in a dramatically lower crime area with better streets and infrastructure, and much more efficient delivery of government services without the infamous Chicagoland and Illinois political corruption. There is ample reason why Illinois has led the entire nation in net population loss the past few years, most recently losing net population of over 100,000 people - essentially a medium-sized city disappearing Into the night. I give thanks every morning upon awakening to have escaped from the dysfunction that is perpetrated by the stupidity of voters who continue to return the same people to office who have brought such misery to their lives.
I have never said that his move to the exurbs removes his right to opine on Chicago and Illinois politics. And he was quite open about it when he moved to Chicago from the burbs a few years ago, so the secrecy in which he tried to cloak this move it suggested that HE felt the move weakened his standing. That secrecy and his recent self-pitying tantrum over the story have drawn WAY more attention to this story than it ever would have gotten if he'd been matter-of-fact about it.
" I can share with you that there will indeed be an epic battle in the GOP 2024 primaries if Trump runs for re-election."
No there won't. Ha. Nice try. Next time you're out with some of your "conservative" pals, take a look around the table. Statistically speaking, three out of four of those pals want Trump to be the 2024 nominee. That doesn't make for an "epic battle" but rather for another slaughter.
While my reflection is purely anecdotal, I do have a pretty widespread and diverse network of conservative friends and family all across the country, and in my experience there are a significant number of 2016 Trump voters who are fervently hoping for another candidate to win the nomination in 2024. Trump running is probably the best path for voters to overlook the abysmally failed Democrat policies simply to vote against the Trump persona, and that is what we want to avoid. I believe on all the major issues - economy, inflation, border, crime, with a decent candidate the GOP wins hands down.
LOL there are no decent republican candidates so " a decent candidate the GOP wins" is goofy line to offer up.
Look at the candidates they've nominated around the country already.
If republicans wanted "a decent candidate" then why would they nominate Greitens in MO, Oz from NJ in PA, a Walker and a Marjorie Traitor Qreene in GA, a Bailey in IL, and dozens upon dozens of others?
Republican voters are choosing these candidates, nominating them, not because they're decent, but because they're Trump endorsed.
That's your tribe. Those are your peeps, that's your posse.
In all honesty I have to agree with you in my dismay over most all of the candidates you cite who likely won their primaries because of a Trump endorsement (and you can add JD Vance in Ohio to your list). As a conservative, that is a prime example to me of Trump's divisive effect on the GOP wherein his primary criteria for endorsement is not the most qualified or best candidate, but rather simply their personal fealty to him.
Another prime example is Congresswoman Nancy Mace in South Carolina First district, an articulate and intelligent conservative. She defeated the Democrat incumbent there in 2020, but because she dared to say that the January 6th rally was a very bad idea, Trump recruited and endorsed a primary opponent who had actually lost to the prior Dem incumbent Congressman in 2018. Fortunately, Mace prevailed in the primary.
Most all conservatives will forever be grateful to Trump for saving our country from the scourge of Hillary Clinton as well as his very conservative and effective policies. But his actions on January 6th and his penchant for intemperate comments and needlessly bombastic tweets unnecessarily alienates a lot of people, especially women voters. I believe that many conservatives share this view and we would love to get behind Ron DeSantas, Nikki Haley or another good Conservative candidate in 2024.
"I believe that many conservatives share this view and we would love to get behind Ron DeSantas, Nikki Haley or another good Conservative candidate in 2024."
Except, no, they won't, as polling consistently shows. If Trump runs - and he will, so, technically, *when* Trump runs - all those many "conservatives" will line up behind him like ducks in a row. As will David here, no doubt.
See, to "conservative" voters, the hate-filled "intemperate comments and needlessly bombastic tweets" are the point. So is the violent insurrection by radicalized right-wing domestic terrorists. They are a feature, not a bug.
John - just for the record, the great majority in my network of conservatives share the belief that the January 6th rally was a terrible idea to begin with and fully support prosecution of all those who broke the law. While some continue to try to defend it, so do some on the left continue to try to defend the riots in the cities.
I appreciated Stephens's column as good political advice -- you catch more bees with honey -- but I found his reappraisal of Trump supporters, at least the enthusiastic ones, to be too nice. I can see holding my nose and supporting him over the other party because he'll do the important things you want (e.g., appoint the right Supreme Court justices) -- in other words, I can understand the Lindsay Graham reasons for supporting him -- but I can't see really liking him and I don't have much sympathy for that sentiment.
In that infamous "guns and religion" audio, Obama put forward a plausible theory to explain Trumpism (before Trump) to a liberal audience:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I think that's too nice too. I call it the "legitimate grievance" school. I think it's a "mirror-imaging" error -- assuming that the opposition basically thinks as you do. Economic uncertainty and disruption is a problem liberals can understand; it's their main concern when it comes to domestic policy. But I think the cultural stuff, the stuff people "cling to," isn't an expression of what is ultimately an economic grievance but is in fact the main story. People don't cling to those things because they're upset about something else, but cling to them in their own right and feel that they're under assault. A key data point that blows up the Obama theory is that Trump voters, even enthusiastic cult members, even people storming the Capitol, aren't as a group working class.
So something else is going on. I think Sam Harris has a more plausible explanation. It's the "ya think yer better than me?" theory. He thinks Trump supporters like him not in spite of his flaws but because of them:
"One thing that Trump never communicates — and cannot possibly communicate — is a sense of his moral superiority. The man is totally without sanctimony. Even when his every utterance is purposed towards self-aggrandizement. Even when he appears to be denigrating his supporters. Even when he’s calling himself a genius — he is never actually communicating that he is better than you. More enlightened. More decent. Because he’s not. And everyone knows it.
"The man is just a bundle of sin and gore, and he never pretends to be anything more. Perhaps more importantly, he never even aspires to be anything more. And because of this, because he is never really judging you — he can’t possibly judge you — he offers a truly safe space for human frailty…and hypocrisy…and self-doubt. He offers what no priest can credibly offer: a total expiation of shame.
"His personal shamelessness is a kind of spiritual balm.
Trump gives stupid assholes validation, and they revel in his status as a giant middle finger, as a hilarious troll, as someone who owns the libs and is immune to their constant rending of garments, which is funny too.
What else could explain how people who profess allegiance to faith, family, and flag could fall in love with the human manifestation of pretty much the exact opposite of all of those things?
So I see enthusiastic support of him as, yeah, pretty appalling -- mean-spirited, emotionally adolescent, and morally obtuse.
Jake - Thanks for your detailed perspective and thoughts about Trump. I actually agree with much of what you say, and can easily understand your feelings on your thoughts that I am not in agreement with.
I did not at all support Trump in the 2016 primaries and personally favored Marco Rubio as a thoughtful conservative. But once he won the nomination, there was absolutely no choice for me given the polar opposite policies represented in the respective candidacies. (And along with a high percentage of the electorate, also found Hillary Clinton highly unlikable at best.)
Trump's presidency presented a real Paradox for me in that I was very impressed with most all of his policies and governance, that became increasingly dismayed by his personal manner and how he conducted himself. My belief is that he probably sabotaged his own reelection by needlessly alienating a lot of voters personally, especially women voters.
I have family members who I have always regarded as quite intelligent who continue to fun over Trump because he is their champion against what they perceive as the radical excesses of the left, politically and culturally. But I can assure you that a large percentage of US conservatives are hoping to move on from Trump going forward, and we will definitely be supporting other candidates in the primaries if Trump does run again. I believe our chances of winning are much greater without him.
But if Trump succeeds in gaining the nomination in 2024? Yep, I am going to have to hold my nose and vote for him because I will endure another term of mean tweets and intemperate statements for the policies that I believe are correct against the Democrat dysfunction.
I would hope that this explanation does not leave me in your category of "mean-spirited, emotionally adolescent and morally obtuse", but simply a conservative with no other options if Trump is the candidate.
Yeah, no, I get the hold your nose vote. I've even argued, to the point of badgering, that we liberals probably would have done the same for Trump-D -- and probably would have done a lot of squirming and squinting and apologizing (hey, tweets are just fireside chats 2.0!). And I get the glee in targeting woke excesses. I think those concerns are very real and politically and substantively disastrous (albeit still exaggerated on the right), and I'm cautiously optimistic that the mainstream is pulling back. One small data point -- the New York Times hired John McWhorter, author of the anti-woke book Woke Racism, to disseminate heresies to its almost entirely liberal readership.
Okay, I sort of breezed past your statement that you would still vote for him in 2024. I can still sorta understand that, but in my alternative universe where Trump is a Democrat, I think that's a much harder question post-Jan. 16, the Trump White House's attempt to steal the election, and Trumpist machinations to lay the groundwork for a future democracy-detonating theft. It's too much. it's basically, if not legally, treason. I think I would have reached the limit of nose-holding at the point of reelecting a traitor. At least I'd like to think so. Happily, I won't be in that position.
I don't understand how some conservatives continue to claim they're the base of the Republican party, and many have left because Trump is not a true conservative. The core of the party has become ethno-nationalist. Their faith, family and flag are exclusive to their beliefs, currently defined as MAGA. If you vote for Trump, that's what you're supporting, not some expired Republican ideology.
I was definitely wrong in my support of Ralph Nader for President in 2000. Not just for the fact that he swung the election to Bush. Yes, the electoral college takes a lot of the blame for this but there is no doubt that if Nader is not on the ballot in FL Gore wins. The idea of a third party is very attractive but our system is set up in a way that makes it very hard for third parties to get a foothold, and they way to get one going is not to start at the top and run for President. Get local town council seats, state house reps, get some traction in congressional races, etc. Start from the bottom up.
By some miracle Nader wins, then what? A President without a single other federal office holder (except VP) from his party, how does anything get done? Having the entire Congress as the opposition party would not bode well for passing legislation.
Not only did Nader help give us Bush but what he started eventually led to Jill Stein helping to give us Trump. So those are some pretty devastating reasons I was wrong.
And if I'm being honest with myself, as much as I respect and admire what Nader has accomplished in his life, in retrospect I really doubt he would have even been a very good President anyway.
"...there aren’t enough cops to handle 9/11 emergency calls." Shouldn't that read 9-1-1 calls.
Lightfoot's Soldier Field 'notion." Whose votes is she trying to get from these suggestions?
I think that it is a lame attempt to say -'see, I tried'. Really ridiculously late even for that. I don't want any more taxpayer money put into a Bears stadium or any other use that doesn't fully cover the cost. She has to look like she is planning for the future there, but even at that she is amazingly vague.
😂
Kass is, and always was, the biggest douche canoe who ever wrote opinion pieces at the Trib. Nobody whined more than he did. Good riddance to him, from "the paper", from his suburban home and from Illinois.
Indiana can have him.
Bravo. Personal attacks and name-calling are always so much more convenient and gratifying than dealing with real issues and policies. (That's sarcasm in case anyone missed it.)
Thanks. I guess I was channeling my inner-Kass. That's all the douche canoe ever did, was call names and personal attacks against people he considered his "enemies."
The grievance peddling was always there with the little man.
Well, that and his "cooking" 🙄
So funny that you woud wring your kercheif about "name calling" when this was and is Kass' stock in trade.
Ha ha ha, good metaphor (and thanks for not accusing me of "clutching my pearls", although in the immortal words of Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" 😄)
Kass is a populist conservative who uses acerbic wit in his writing, much the same as you do. For example when he created the nickname of Maximilius Commodious as a pun on Pritzker removing the toilet from the next door mansion he purchased to then file for a drastic tax reduction alleging the mansion was uninhabitable , or some play of words in which he refers to Mayor Lightfoot as Phallic Maximinias as a pun on her statement that she has the biggest "male part" in town. Personally, I do not see these as mean-spirited name-calling, but rather a funny way of pointing out their reported bad actions. And when he uses the adjective Sorros-funded when referring to prosecutor Kim Foxx, that is simply a statement of fact. But, I would not attempt, nor do I need to explain or defend everything that cash writes because that is him and not me.
My objection was to an egregious personal insult to me alleging that I do not love America. We can debate which policies better serve our country, but when people on the left or the right hurl the insult that you do not love America simply because you hold views I disagree with, any chance of meaningful discourse and political dialogue is extinguished. I would hope that you and the great majority of your liberal readers would find common ground with me in that.
I love Garfunkel and Oats!
I was wrong when I thought that I made mistakes due to youth and inexperience. I take comfort in the thought that with age comes self-knowledge, and that I will be making mistakes well into the future.
Not a good week for funniest tweets.
What I find most interesting about the Kass home-buying item is the timing. He wrote a column in May 2020 about his move "back to the City", but then - also in 2020 - he buys a house in NW Indiana? It appears (to me at least) as if he's making a big deal by very demonstratively "moving back to Chicago" (and, ostensibly, his roots), to burnish his Chicago bona fides. He then subsequently surreptitiously decamps to St. John, IN. He writes a friggin' column about his move to the City, but then we hear nary a peep from him about his move out. Why the move? Was he or his family the victim of a crime? Was there a family reason for the move? Was it pandemic related? We get bupkis. The fact that it took almost 2 years to acknowledge his departure is interesting.
In my view, this is all part of his schtick for his MAGA audience - the white-ethnic, big city native - son of a butcher - taking shots at the "others" who have "taken over" the Democratic (and increasingly less white) big cities to the detriment of their remaining populaces. Kass knows his MAGA audience; and by maintaining the facade (as long as he did) of his being a "Chicago person" added credibility to his "insider's" criticism of Chicago. I'd love to hear from him about the timing/reasons for the multiple moves over such a short period of time.
As I emailed you a couple of weeks ago, I was wrong about Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. I had predicted it would end in a messy compromise that would leave Roe intact, if under stress. WRONG. I did not anticipate that Roberts' position would be completely ignored by the conservative wing. (You also claim I was wrong about "A Gentleman in Moscow" but I won't concede on that.) BTW, I salute you and the NYT for offering up these mea culpas. I'm actually more willing to consider someone's position if they admit they're not infallible.
Loved Gentleman in Moscow. ;)
Step Right Up by Tom Waits is very funny, especially on first listen.
just your mention and I hear the bass thrumming up and down until Tom starts in... played it for my 20 something rap listening co-workers, but they did not have the patience or the sense of humor....
Here's the link https://youtu.be/A2_snSkpULQ
No credit for your “I was wrong” confession, which reads like a humble-brag. “The one time I was really wrong was when I understated how horrible Trump and his fans are. Never again.” I know you can find something truly cringy.
Well, I listed several others, and it really wasn't a humblebrag.. I do not think you know what that term means.
I agree humble-brag isn’t the mot juste. Maybe mea so culpa. Like telling an interviewer “I care too much.”
Thanks for the reference to Spike Jones. We had a number of 78s of his songs and our family would sing along.
Kip Addotta's "Wet Dream" and "Life in the Slaw Lane" were favorites of mine (and Dr Demento).
I thought that I was wrong once, but that was a mistake. :) Actually, my big duh was not thinking that Covid would be a big deal back at the beginning of 2020. I thought it was a SARS sort of thing. I was taking it seriously by April 2020, but I still expected it to be over by the end of 2020. I gave up that pipe dream in July (?).
Another semi-confession. In early 2011, my son (a couple of years out of college) said that he wanted to borrow $1,000 to buy Bitcoin, which could be had for about a dollar. Of course, I said no. I could not believe that anyone would pay real money for vapor money. It also seemed certain to drop back to zero as soon as everyone worked out that it was a scam (or only useful for money laundering). Duh, today that thousand would be worth $20 million-ish (and peaked around $65 million). But I still think it is a scam, it will ultimately collapse to zero value or be used primarily for money laundering. So, I admit that I could be wrong, up to now I have been wrong, but I will be vindicated (yet poorer) in the long run. My only rationale now is that if I got in, I wouldn't be right about when to get out, so I would lose most of the profit.
As for a position I took and vigorously defended, like in bull sessions with friends, I guess I was wrong about Crimea and Putin. My attitude at the time was, Big deal. Russia didn't seem like much of a threat, the Russian claim on Crimea seemed historically plausible (its having been gifted by the USSR mid-century), it didn't seem like one people was subjugating another, I didn't have great sympathy for Ukraine which seemed like a thoroughly corrupt backwater, and I saw Putin as a thug but a relatively unimportant one who wanted power and wealth, had it, and wouldn't be so stupid as to take on the West in a big way. There were commentators (and friends of mine at the time) who saw it much differently -- as an outrageous encroachment on another independent, (sorta) democratic nation's sovereignty in Europe, as Hitler-ish, as akin to basically how we feel about Ukraine today, and that Obama's (and, to be fair, just about *everyone else's*) functional acquiescence (amid near-universal lack of interest in doing anything serious about it) would be taken as a green light for worse to come. But I pshawed those arguments as overwrought. It seems they were right, and I was wrong.
First, I highly recommend reading the entire Bret Stephens column on "I was wrong about Trump supporters" to all liberals who generally have a very difficult time understanding how in the world so many people supported Trump in 2016. Stevens does a surgical dissection of the perspective and feelings of many of us who supported the Trump presidency.
Second, I can share with you that there will indeed be an epic battle in the GOP 2024 primaries if Trump runs for re-election. Many of us who voted for him in 2016 believe that our interests are best represented by another conservative candidate so that the election will be more about competing ideas and issues instead of Trump personally, but there is a sizable percentage of his original supporters who remain loyal to him. Ron DeSantis appears to be the leading alternative GOP candidate to Trump, but it is perhaps likely that multiple candidates including Pence, Pompeo, Haley, etc will split the anti-Trump vote, thereby allowing him to win primaries and become the front runner for what could be a very interesting contested convention.
Finally, I regret that your personal animus toward John Kaas is on full display in your remarks about him. The insinuation is that his ability to write about Chicago people and events is somehow no longer credible since he has moved just across the border into Indiana, and also that he is hypocritical in wanting to maintain the privacy of his residence. The first insinuation is fully without support, and the second represents a very real concern for any conservative public figure, given the left's newfound tactics of targeting people whom they are unhappy with at their family residence.
Further, I am also among the ranks of the tens of thousands of people who have fled Chicagoland for greener pastures. I now live in a slightly larger home with a larger yard where I am paying less than 20% of my Chicagoland property taxes, and where I live in a dramatically lower crime area with better streets and infrastructure, and much more efficient delivery of government services without the infamous Chicagoland and Illinois political corruption. There is ample reason why Illinois has led the entire nation in net population loss the past few years, most recently losing net population of over 100,000 people - essentially a medium-sized city disappearing Into the night. I give thanks every morning upon awakening to have escaped from the dysfunction that is perpetrated by the stupidity of voters who continue to return the same people to office who have brought such misery to their lives.
I have never said that his move to the exurbs removes his right to opine on Chicago and Illinois politics. And he was quite open about it when he moved to Chicago from the burbs a few years ago, so the secrecy in which he tried to cloak this move it suggested that HE felt the move weakened his standing. That secrecy and his recent self-pitying tantrum over the story have drawn WAY more attention to this story than it ever would have gotten if he'd been matter-of-fact about it.
As for my "personal animus," well, I don't know if it's personal but I lost respect for Kass after the churlish dishonesty that I chronicled here https://ericzorn.substack.com/i/51137226/setting-the-record-straight-on-john-kass-george-soros-and-the-chicago-tribune-guild . I like a lot of conservative people -- Stantis, McQueary and many of my right-leaning readers -- because they are people of integrity. Got it?
Okey dokey!
" I can share with you that there will indeed be an epic battle in the GOP 2024 primaries if Trump runs for re-election."
No there won't. Ha. Nice try. Next time you're out with some of your "conservative" pals, take a look around the table. Statistically speaking, three out of four of those pals want Trump to be the 2024 nominee. That doesn't make for an "epic battle" but rather for another slaughter.
While my reflection is purely anecdotal, I do have a pretty widespread and diverse network of conservative friends and family all across the country, and in my experience there are a significant number of 2016 Trump voters who are fervently hoping for another candidate to win the nomination in 2024. Trump running is probably the best path for voters to overlook the abysmally failed Democrat policies simply to vote against the Trump persona, and that is what we want to avoid. I believe on all the major issues - economy, inflation, border, crime, with a decent candidate the GOP wins hands down.
LOL there are no decent republican candidates so " a decent candidate the GOP wins" is goofy line to offer up.
Look at the candidates they've nominated around the country already.
If republicans wanted "a decent candidate" then why would they nominate Greitens in MO, Oz from NJ in PA, a Walker and a Marjorie Traitor Qreene in GA, a Bailey in IL, and dozens upon dozens of others?
Republican voters are choosing these candidates, nominating them, not because they're decent, but because they're Trump endorsed.
That's your tribe. Those are your peeps, that's your posse.
Own it.
In all honesty I have to agree with you in my dismay over most all of the candidates you cite who likely won their primaries because of a Trump endorsement (and you can add JD Vance in Ohio to your list). As a conservative, that is a prime example to me of Trump's divisive effect on the GOP wherein his primary criteria for endorsement is not the most qualified or best candidate, but rather simply their personal fealty to him.
Another prime example is Congresswoman Nancy Mace in South Carolina First district, an articulate and intelligent conservative. She defeated the Democrat incumbent there in 2020, but because she dared to say that the January 6th rally was a very bad idea, Trump recruited and endorsed a primary opponent who had actually lost to the prior Dem incumbent Congressman in 2018. Fortunately, Mace prevailed in the primary.
Most all conservatives will forever be grateful to Trump for saving our country from the scourge of Hillary Clinton as well as his very conservative and effective policies. But his actions on January 6th and his penchant for intemperate comments and needlessly bombastic tweets unnecessarily alienates a lot of people, especially women voters. I believe that many conservatives share this view and we would love to get behind Ron DeSantas, Nikki Haley or another good Conservative candidate in 2024.
"I believe that many conservatives share this view and we would love to get behind Ron DeSantas, Nikki Haley or another good Conservative candidate in 2024."
Except, no, they won't, as polling consistently shows. If Trump runs - and he will, so, technically, *when* Trump runs - all those many "conservatives" will line up behind him like ducks in a row. As will David here, no doubt.
See, to "conservative" voters, the hate-filled "intemperate comments and needlessly bombastic tweets" are the point. So is the violent insurrection by radicalized right-wing domestic terrorists. They are a feature, not a bug.
John - just for the record, the great majority in my network of conservatives share the belief that the January 6th rally was a terrible idea to begin with and fully support prosecution of all those who broke the law. While some continue to try to defend it, so do some on the left continue to try to defend the riots in the cities.
I appreciated Stephens's column as good political advice -- you catch more bees with honey -- but I found his reappraisal of Trump supporters, at least the enthusiastic ones, to be too nice. I can see holding my nose and supporting him over the other party because he'll do the important things you want (e.g., appoint the right Supreme Court justices) -- in other words, I can understand the Lindsay Graham reasons for supporting him -- but I can't see really liking him and I don't have much sympathy for that sentiment.
In that infamous "guns and religion" audio, Obama put forward a plausible theory to explain Trumpism (before Trump) to a liberal audience:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I think that's too nice too. I call it the "legitimate grievance" school. I think it's a "mirror-imaging" error -- assuming that the opposition basically thinks as you do. Economic uncertainty and disruption is a problem liberals can understand; it's their main concern when it comes to domestic policy. But I think the cultural stuff, the stuff people "cling to," isn't an expression of what is ultimately an economic grievance but is in fact the main story. People don't cling to those things because they're upset about something else, but cling to them in their own right and feel that they're under assault. A key data point that blows up the Obama theory is that Trump voters, even enthusiastic cult members, even people storming the Capitol, aren't as a group working class.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/thoroughly-respectable-rioters/617644/
So something else is going on. I think Sam Harris has a more plausible explanation. It's the "ya think yer better than me?" theory. He thinks Trump supporters like him not in spite of his flaws but because of them:
"One thing that Trump never communicates — and cannot possibly communicate — is a sense of his moral superiority. The man is totally without sanctimony. Even when his every utterance is purposed towards self-aggrandizement. Even when he appears to be denigrating his supporters. Even when he’s calling himself a genius — he is never actually communicating that he is better than you. More enlightened. More decent. Because he’s not. And everyone knows it.
"The man is just a bundle of sin and gore, and he never pretends to be anything more. Perhaps more importantly, he never even aspires to be anything more. And because of this, because he is never really judging you — he can’t possibly judge you — he offers a truly safe space for human frailty…and hypocrisy…and self-doubt. He offers what no priest can credibly offer: a total expiation of shame.
"His personal shamelessness is a kind of spiritual balm.
"Trump is fat Jesus. He’s grab-them-by-the-pussy Jesus. He’s I’ll-eat-nothing-but-cheeseburgers-if-I-want-to Jesus. He’s I-wanna-punch-them-in-the-face Jesus. He’s go-back-to-your-shithole-countries Jesus. He’s no-apologies Jesus.
"And now consider the other half of this image — what are we getting from the left?
"We’re getting exactly the opposite message. Pure sanctimony. Pure judgement."
https://robertwilliammac.medium.com/the-key-to-trumps-appeal-sam-harris-transcript-episode-224-614996ce08d0
Trump gives stupid assholes validation, and they revel in his status as a giant middle finger, as a hilarious troll, as someone who owns the libs and is immune to their constant rending of garments, which is funny too.
What else could explain how people who profess allegiance to faith, family, and flag could fall in love with the human manifestation of pretty much the exact opposite of all of those things?
So I see enthusiastic support of him as, yeah, pretty appalling -- mean-spirited, emotionally adolescent, and morally obtuse.
Jake - Thanks for your detailed perspective and thoughts about Trump. I actually agree with much of what you say, and can easily understand your feelings on your thoughts that I am not in agreement with.
I did not at all support Trump in the 2016 primaries and personally favored Marco Rubio as a thoughtful conservative. But once he won the nomination, there was absolutely no choice for me given the polar opposite policies represented in the respective candidacies. (And along with a high percentage of the electorate, also found Hillary Clinton highly unlikable at best.)
Trump's presidency presented a real Paradox for me in that I was very impressed with most all of his policies and governance, that became increasingly dismayed by his personal manner and how he conducted himself. My belief is that he probably sabotaged his own reelection by needlessly alienating a lot of voters personally, especially women voters.
I have family members who I have always regarded as quite intelligent who continue to fun over Trump because he is their champion against what they perceive as the radical excesses of the left, politically and culturally. But I can assure you that a large percentage of US conservatives are hoping to move on from Trump going forward, and we will definitely be supporting other candidates in the primaries if Trump does run again. I believe our chances of winning are much greater without him.
But if Trump succeeds in gaining the nomination in 2024? Yep, I am going to have to hold my nose and vote for him because I will endure another term of mean tweets and intemperate statements for the policies that I believe are correct against the Democrat dysfunction.
I would hope that this explanation does not leave me in your category of "mean-spirited, emotionally adolescent and morally obtuse", but simply a conservative with no other options if Trump is the candidate.
Yeah, no, I get the hold your nose vote. I've even argued, to the point of badgering, that we liberals probably would have done the same for Trump-D -- and probably would have done a lot of squirming and squinting and apologizing (hey, tweets are just fireside chats 2.0!). And I get the glee in targeting woke excesses. I think those concerns are very real and politically and substantively disastrous (albeit still exaggerated on the right), and I'm cautiously optimistic that the mainstream is pulling back. One small data point -- the New York Times hired John McWhorter, author of the anti-woke book Woke Racism, to disseminate heresies to its almost entirely liberal readership.
Okay, I sort of breezed past your statement that you would still vote for him in 2024. I can still sorta understand that, but in my alternative universe where Trump is a Democrat, I think that's a much harder question post-Jan. 16, the Trump White House's attempt to steal the election, and Trumpist machinations to lay the groundwork for a future democracy-detonating theft. It's too much. it's basically, if not legally, treason. I think I would have reached the limit of nose-holding at the point of reelecting a traitor. At least I'd like to think so. Happily, I won't be in that position.
I don't understand how some conservatives continue to claim they're the base of the Republican party, and many have left because Trump is not a true conservative. The core of the party has become ethno-nationalist. Their faith, family and flag are exclusive to their beliefs, currently defined as MAGA. If you vote for Trump, that's what you're supporting, not some expired Republican ideology.
I was definitely wrong in my support of Ralph Nader for President in 2000. Not just for the fact that he swung the election to Bush. Yes, the electoral college takes a lot of the blame for this but there is no doubt that if Nader is not on the ballot in FL Gore wins. The idea of a third party is very attractive but our system is set up in a way that makes it very hard for third parties to get a foothold, and they way to get one going is not to start at the top and run for President. Get local town council seats, state house reps, get some traction in congressional races, etc. Start from the bottom up.
By some miracle Nader wins, then what? A President without a single other federal office holder (except VP) from his party, how does anything get done? Having the entire Congress as the opposition party would not bode well for passing legislation.
Not only did Nader help give us Bush but what he started eventually led to Jill Stein helping to give us Trump. So those are some pretty devastating reasons I was wrong.
And if I'm being honest with myself, as much as I respect and admire what Nader has accomplished in his life, in retrospect I really doubt he would have even been a very good President anyway.