Conservatives Against Trump Looks To Stop Trump

Red State’s Erick Erickson and a smattering of other Conservatives have banded together, calling themselves Conservatives Against Trump to stop Trump, and has released the following statement as a whole

We are a group of grassroots conservative activists from all over the country and from various backgrounds, including supporters of many of the other campaigns. We are committed to ensuring a real conservative candidate is elected. We believe that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump, a Hillary Clinton donor, is that person.

We believe that the issue of Donald Trump is greater than an issue of party. It is an issue of morals and character that all Americans, not just those of us in the conservative movement, must confront.

That is true, but, as I’ve mentioned prior, you can have your principles, but, this is politics, so you also have to be pragmatic. The idea is to win the election. Trump is already behind the eight ball when it comes to defeating Hillary or Bernie in the national polls. Of course, national polls are meaningless, it is the state polls that are important. Can Trump take all the states Bush did in 2000 or 2004, which would give him the White House? Will all this Stop Trump, this #NeverTrump, cause the GOP most assuredly lose the 2016 general election, which should have been a slam dunk against these terrible candidates? Do you really want Hillary or Bernie over a guy who at least says he’s a Republican?

We call for a unity ticket that unites the Republican Party. If that unity ticket is unable to get 1,237 delegates prior to the convention, we recognize that it took Abraham Lincoln three ballots at the Republican convention in 1860 to become the party’s nominee and if it is good enough for Lincoln, that process should be good enough for all the candidates without threats of riots.

We encourage all former Republican candidates not currently supporting Trump to unite against him and encourage all candidates to hold their delegates on the first ballot.

Lastly, we intend to keep our options open as to other avenues to oppose Donald Trump. Our multiple decades of work in the conservative movement for free markets, limited government, national defense, religious liberty, life, and marriage are about ideas, not necessarily parties.

Cruz is the Conservative candidate. Of course, he’s not liked by the Establishment, what is being referred to as the GOPe, because he is Conservative, and has been willing to stand on Principle. Trump is an even squishier Republican than the GOPe usually pushes. And Cruz polls better against Hillary and Bernie, willing said national vote.

This has made the Trump supporters very angry, as you can guess. Many bloggers, including many I have on my blogroll and feedreader, are angry. It goes without saying that the leadership at Breitbart, which is as in the tank for Trump as liberal sites were for Obama, is furious. Politico notes that not all Republicans are against Trump, particularly if he gets the required delegates, or gets close.

Ultra-squishy Newt Gingrich had this to say

I’m not sympathetic at all to the Erick Erickson of the world. If they want to form the let’s elect Hillary Clinton club, fine. But they ought to be honest about it. Any effort to help anybody but the Republican nominee helps Hillary Clinton. And if you think giving Hillary Clinton the Supreme Court, having Hillary Clinton run our foreign policy, having Hillary Clinton support the unions to continue ruining our children in schools. If you think that’s acceptable, do it. Erick Erickson’s not playing a risk-free game. It’s not like there is some pure middle way. If he does not support the Republican nominee, he is functionally supporting Hillary Clinton in the general election.”

Pragmatism? Even if you loathe Trump, when it gets closer to nomination time, people really need to think about making sure Hillary (or Bernie) does not win. I think Trump is a horrible candidate, he’s not conservative in the least, and he won’t beat Hillary or Bernie. Let’s see what the polls say as we get closer to the convention. And what happens now that Rubio is out. Big battles at conventions are nothing new. We have months to go before any sort of floor fight should be considered.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Conservatives Against Trump Looks To Stop Trump”

  1. Dana says:

    Best description I’ve heard is that voting for Donald Trump is like playing Russian roulette, while voting for Hillary Clinton is like playing Russian roulette with no empty chambers.

  2. john says:

    Predict wise aggregates bookies, electronic markets,polls, and more. They predict only a 28% chance of the GOP winning the White House. The GOP has been hijacked by the extremes.
    After Hillary is elected if there is still a SCOTUS vacancy she may nominate Elizabeth Warren

  3. john says:

    what candidate do you think possibly could beat Clinton?

  4. formwiz says:

    Erick Erickson is no Conservative.

    He’s a Libertarian blowhard who’d rather see all Republicans lose than any Democrat.

  5. david7134 says:

    It is appropriate that Lincoln was chosen as an example. That started a civil war. So, if you deny Trump the election that he has obviously won, then be prepared. I have seen Erickson talk and the only criteria for “conservative” that he acknowledges is their opposition to abortion, that is it. In other words, he is a progressive, just like Clinton, just a different way of controlling our lives.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    That started a civil war.

    Historically that is not quite accurate david.

    Buchannon had left the issues of slavery, succession, and all the things the South wanted to do for his successor, who was Lincoln. It can be argued that it was the inaction of Buchannon and the fear that Lincoln might act that caused the South the lose their collective minds.

    If you want to compare the actions of the South to that of Trump and his supporters, that is fine with me. The South in many ways just got fed up with not being able to bully their way along and in essence, demand that people support them no matter what. Funny how that sounds like Trump and his supporters as well

    if you deny Trump the election that he has obviously won, then be prepared.

    Trump has not “won” the election. He will not even have “won” the nomination unless, like any other candidate, he gets 1237 votes from delegates.

    That’s the point that Trump supporters don’t want to hear. They believe that if Trump has 1236 delegates on the first ballot, Trump should get the nomination. That’s not the rules – the rules by which Trump and the other candidates agreed to play by.

    If Trump and his supporters throw a hissey fit because they suddenly don’t like the rules, then go away. Stop acting like childish bullies, but then again, “Trump and supporters” with “”childish and bullies” is redundant.

  7. david7134 says:

    Yes, the South was bullying everyone. Or you might say that they were being subjected to the terrorist actions of the northern interest, threats to kill their families, horrendous taxation that was only geared to the Southern economy (much like what we now have), continued threats to destroy their economy, and then when the political process came apart with the Democrat party split and the election of the buffoon, Lincoln, that that was the last straw.

    Now, we have similar issues and people are stating that they do not want the continued rule of the elite in both parties that do not have our interest, at all. Many people are taking out there anger and frustration by voting for Trump and Cruz. The power elite are not happy with that and they will likely attempt to stop the revolution. If they do, it will be bad. You have a love fest with the US, take off the blinders and get a good look at what is a very corrupt country.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Why would anyone say that they were being “subjected to the terrorist actions of northern interest?”

    The fact of the matter is that the South negotiated the trade, tarriffs and taxes on goods. It was the South who wrote the Tariff Acts of 1857 under which the country was operating. The “taxation” reason has always been a myth, but the South then and to this day liked to think of itself as an oppressed state.

    And yes, there were terrible acts of violence on the so called “border wars,” but the South gave as good as it got. Once again, this is a case where the South likes to portray itself as a victim contrary to historical facts.

    The South wanted to leave the Union because of slavery and their supposed “right” to own another person. As soon as you can deal with that, you might have a chance of redemption. Until you can reconcile that fact, everything else is a distraction and diversion.

    As for the split of the Democrat party, how is that the fault of anyone but the people in the Democrat Party? The split was along pro-slavery / anti-slavery lines with people supporting the ridiculous Dred Scott decision or being against it.

    I realize that you think Lincoln was a buffoon, but if you can name a single person in the country that could have handled the Constitutional crisis that the South caused, I’d be willing to listen to that. But you and I both know you can’t name such a person so your only course is to try and demonize Lincoln for the South’s actions.

    And yes, I do love this country. That is not to say that I don’t see that there is corruption, but Trump is part of that corruption. He is everything that people of moral conscience and conviction should hate, and yet some don’t

    But if you hate the country so much, get out. Take the money that you claim you have made and get your butt out of here because you aren’t working to make things better. You are supporting a corrupt candidate who is just as corrupt, narcissistic and a liar as Hillary.

  9. David says:

    You are wrong on just about everything.

    There was no constitutional crisis the south did not want the union and still doesn’t. Was it a constitutional crisis when we killed off the Indians.

  10. gitarcarver says:


    You are wrong on just about everything.

    I would respond but there is nothing of substance to respond to.

    There was no constitutional crisis the south did not want the union and still doesn’t.

    I am in the south david and I have yet to see large numbers of people who don’t want to be part of the union. Your perception of “not wanting to be in the union” is based more on your associations of a few people rather than a majority of people. But as I said, if you don’t want to be a citizen in this country, get your butt out of here. It’s that simple.

    As for the Constitutional crisis, please go back and actually read the Constitution which starts out “we the people, in order to form a more perfect union…..”

    The South wanted to back out of that union and the agreement to which it had signed its name over the issue of slavery. That was the driving issue no matter how you look at it.

    There was and is no mechanism in the Constitution for the withdrawal from the union of the states. The fact that the South acted against an agreement was most certainly a Constitutional crisis.

    I suggest that you read history books that are not written by people who hate other races and think they have the right to own a person.

Pirate's Cove