This past Sunday, Regina Thomson was a guest on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Thomson is one of the leading voices in the Stop Trump and Free the Delegates movements. She is advocating that delegates to the 2016 Republican presidential convention vote their conscious, and since the Cruz campaign had an excellent ground game and secured many of these delegates, her hope is that most will vote in a manner which will deny Donald Trump from securing 1237 votes on the first ballot thus opening the door for another, more suitable, candidate to arise and challenge Hillary Clinton.
Personally, I have no hope that this will happen and seriously question should delegates try this option. We all said 1237 was the goal - once a candidate reaches this number, he or she wins the nomination. Donald Trump outlasted all other Republicans vying for the nomination and secured this magical number as the lone candidate remaining in the last primary contests. In my opinion, Cruz ended this discussion in early May when he withdrew from the race, doing the honorable thing knowing he could not secure the nomination and required delegate count without a nasty and raucous revolt at contested convention. In other words, if Cruz believed this was a viable strategy he would have stayed in the primary race and would have taken it all the way through the California primary.
However, Thomson represents many who cannot morally stomach voting for Trump and cannot discount his former relationship with the Clintons, previous funding of democrats, and flip-flopping on crucial issues which make all rational people question where Donald lies on the political spectrum. She explains her "Free the Delegate" position quite clearly then phone lines opened for commentary. (Note - caller comments abridged - full comments may be heard in linked video at the end of this blog post).
Let the "Trump" splaining begin (insert eyeroll here). As we peruse the comments, bear in mind that Thomson represents staunch constitutional conservative ideals and is a huge voice in the Tea Party movement:
Caller #1: Independent line from Maryland: "With all due respect, I do not recall this happening in the last two presidential conventions . . . you are circumventing the will of the people . . . just because the Establishment of the Republican party is unhappy with the way the primaries went . . . if this occurs and another individual comes forward to be president . . . you would lose a lot of Trump fans."Nice try but when did the Tea Party become the Establishment and when did having the plurality of support equal to having the majority - fact: 60% of Republicans did not vote for Trump. In addition, the notion of Trump "fans" adds an icky factor to the discussion.
Caller #2: Republican line from West Virginia: "What this lady is doing is going against the will of the base and being anti-democratic. We have spoken. Donald Trump got more votes than anybody in modern times in the primaries, and that's what the people want . . . you're going against it and putting Hillary in the White House."The claim that not embracing Donald is putting Hillary in the White House is getting old. Many constitutional conservatives will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. There - that's helping "The Donald" already. Them holding their nose this time and voting because a bully plurality says they must support the will of the people just isn't working. What Ms. Thomson explains is that at the center of the free the delegate argument is the fact that Trump has not successfully fundraised nor has he created a campaign infrastructure which can win the White House. This movement is more about securing a viable candidate from the pool of primary candidates who do know how to run a better campaign (cough, cough Cruz).
Caller #3: from New York: " . . . the primary went against the delegates . . . are you doing the same super delegates as they have in the Democrat party or are you really for Hillary? The people have spoken . . . you don't understand what's going on. You are too insulated in whatever little country club or political party you are associated with."Tea Party members are not the elite and Ms. Thomson giggles at being associated with a country club wishing she had that luxury. Again Trumpers attack from emotion and insults even if tame on a platform like C-SPAN.
Caller #4: Democrat from Florida: "What we need to do is vet people before they . . . run for President . . . I heard you mention that Donald Trump has been a democrat for most of his life . . . did the GOP . . . . not know this before Donald Trump seized the nominee . . . and you say Democrats crossed party lines to vote this man in . . . this is not a new thing . . . you guys let him get as far as he got then call him a Democrat . . . "Wut? Not sure what the argument is here . . . you decide. However, it is not a requirement to be vetted before being allowed to run for a party's nomination. The truth of the matter is that the last cookie in the Republican jar is seriously flawed. The same can be said for the Democrat party, meaning this may possibly be an election of "whom do you hate the least." However the 2016 election turns out, many feel this is no win for America.
And now for the piece de resistance . . .
Caller #5: Independent from Alabama: "I think this lady represents globalist RINOs in the party. She is totally making everybody so angry. We voted for Donald Trump - that's who we want. If she continues this at the convention, they'll be a lot of people who write-in Trump on election day and we're going to lose again to Hillary Clinton who has really got a temper . . . she threw a Bible at one of her aides . . . so I'd rather go for someone who has faults but is for America . . . "Tea Party = globalists? RINOs? . . . more ignorant insults but this one explains a lot. Trumpsters embrace Donald despite his faults and are clinging to his Make America Great Again message. I wonder how they would feel is Hillary adopted that mantra? To see and hear more on this debate, click HERE to watch video in its entirety.