Jason Chaffetz: "I won't defend Trump, i won't endorse Trump but i vote for him"

[Vosem]

It's worth revisiting original Chaffetz's statement unendorsing Trump:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a spineless little worm.

My initial response to the Trump video was to support Johnson.  After thinking about it, the video was over 10 years old, and while it didn't reflect well on Trump, the election is, truly, a binary choice, and Hillary is someone who worked to discredit her husband's sexual assault accusers, so it's not like there's this clear moral choice here. 

Of course, if I were a public official, it might have behooved me to not run off at the mouth right away.  Chaffetz has never wanted to back Trump, period, and he thought he had his "out", but I suspect that since then, he's felt the pushback and has had to backtrack.

Chaffetz's district is almost certainly going to give a plurality to McMullin, and if not, McMullin+Clinton are going to easily be well over 60% of the vote. This is Chaffetz being so desperate to support the Republican nominee that he still votes for Trump, in spite of the push from his district to vote against.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A public statement that he will vote for Trump is an endorsement.  Just because he didn't use the specific word "endorsement" doesn't make it any less so.

That's debatable.  But it's more of an "endorsement" than Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) 1968 "endorsement" of HHH.  "I'm voting for the Democratic ticket, but I'm not asking anyone else to."  That embodies "support, but not endorse" better than any statement I've ever heard from a candidate.

What is the definition of endorse/endorsement?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Also, you have to realize that when an elected official says, "I'm voting for X but not asking others to vote for X", it still has the effect of encouraging those who support the official to vote for X.

[Tartarus Sauce]

This kind of hollow man is the reason the GOP has fallen to the pits of Hell, not Trump.

[Doimper]

This kind of hollow man is the reason the GOP has fallen to the pits of Hell, not Trump.

[Hammy]

If you publicly say you're voting for somebody, it's an endorsement. No matter what excuse you want to tell yourself to clear your conscious.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

It's worth revisiting original Chaffetz's statement unendorsing Trump:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a spineless little worm.

Spineless Vichy Worm

[Trapsy]

Nobody in this party wants to reform it for the better. 2020 they will still be split and damaged as a party.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

It's worth revisiting original Chaffetz's statement unendorsing Trump:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a spineless little worm.

My initial response to the Trump video was to support Johnson.  After thinking about it, the video was over 10 years old, and while it didn't reflect well on Trump, the election is, truly, a binary choice, and Hillary is someone who worked to discredit her husband's sexual assault accusers, so it's not like there's this clear moral choice here. 

Of course, if I were a public official, it might have behooved me to not run off at the mouth right away.  Chaffetz has never wanted to back Trump, period, and he thought he had his "out", but I suspect that since then, he's felt the pushback and has had to backtrack.

Chaffetz's district is almost certainly going to give a plurality to McMullin, and if not, McMullin+Clinton are going to easily be well over 60% of the vote. This is Chaffetz being so desperate to support the Republican nominee that he still votes for Trump, in spite of the push from his district to vote against.

On the other hand, McMullin + Trump will be well over 60% in Chaffetz's district, and Trump is, after all, a Republican, and more conservative than Clinton by a decent enough stretch to where the relatively literate and aware voters of Chaffetz's district would not hold a vote for Trump against him. 

Chaffetz is doing what he has to do to keep his power prospects in the GOP-led House as viable as possible.  I can't overemphasize how bad it is for the Congressional career of any Representative or Senator of either party who is caught not supporting his/her Presidential ticket.  Everything else is suspect.  If Joe Lieberman had supported Obama in 2008, all would have been forgiven, and he'd still be in the Senate as a Democrat today.

[ApatheticAustrian]

trump is more "liberal" than clinton in many ways....even if you take his daily changing positions by face value, he still breaks the alliance between social conservatives (leaders love him), fiscal conservatives (who are split between those who mumble inside his ear and believe they control him and those who don't trust him) and national security/neocons (who hate him with the power of 1000 suns and are mostly voting clinton).

judging him as a conservative depends mostly on which part of reagan's 3-legged-stool you belong to.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

trump is more "liberal" than clinton in many ways....even if you take his daily changing positions by face value, he still breaks the alliance between social conservatives (leaders love him), fiscal conservatives (who are split between those who mumble inside his ear and believe they control him and those who don't trust him) and national security/neocons (who hate him with the power of 1000 suns and are mostly voting clinton).

if you see him as a conservative depends mostly on which part of reagan's 3-legged-stool you belong to.

Trump has made something of a Faustian Bargain with conservatives in the GE, but you are correct in that Trump is not a conservative in the sense of what we have come to expect in a GOP Presidential candidate.

He's still more conservative than Hillary, in that if elected President, both he and Hillary will tend to govern to please the folks who elected them.  The last President to fail to do this was Jimmy Carter, and that didn't end well (for Carter) at all.

[Deblano]

Haha, what a cuck.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Kind of like Douglas Wilder's 2012 "I don't endorse Obama but I'll vote for him".

[ursulahx]

Nikki Haley just did a Chaffetz, only without the fanfare.

[ApatheticAustrian]

bunch of whiny cowards.

and i have held haley in high regards.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Can someone explain to me how voting for someone doesn't count as supporting them?

[Indy Texas]

It's worth revisiting original Chaffetz's statement unendorsing Trump:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a spineless little worm.

My initial response to the Trump video was to support Johnson.  After thinking about it, the video was over 10 years old, and while it didn't reflect well on Trump, the election is, truly, a binary choice, and Hillary is someone who worked to discredit her husband's sexual assault accusers, so it's not like there's this clear moral choice here. 

Of course, if I were a public official, it might have behooved me to not run off at the mouth right away.  Chaffetz has never wanted to back Trump, period, and he thought he had his "out", but I suspect that since then, he's felt the pushback and has had to backtrack.

Chaffetz's district is almost certainly going to give a plurality to McMullin, and if not, McMullin+Clinton are going to easily be well over 60% of the vote. This is Chaffetz being so desperate to support the Republican nominee that he still votes for Trump, in spite of the push from his district to vote against.

This is about money. Chaffetz doesn't want to piss off the Mercer family and other rich Republicans by breaking from the party.

Maybe if your party would get behind campaign finance reform, your elected officials would have more leeway to actually behave with some semblance of principle and integrity.

[ApatheticAustrian]

adelson will be gone in a cycle or two and the kochs made clear that they are anti-nationalist, so the mercers are going to become even more important.

[Vosem]

adelson will be gone in a cycle or two and the kochs made clear that they are anti-nationalist, so the mercers are going to become even more important.

Not sure this quite follows -- the Koches are still closer to the median GOP primary voter than the Mercers. Not to mention that Bob Mercer's pro-Trump superPAC raised $25 (no, not missing any zeros) over the last quarter; looks like that project never got off the ground.

[Indy Texas]

adelson will be gone in a cycle or two and the kochs made clear that they are anti-nationalist, so the mercers are going to become even more important.

Not sure this quite follows -- the Koches are still closer to the median GOP primary voter than the Mercers. Not to mention that Bob Mercer's pro-Trump superPAC raised $25 (no, not missing any zeros) over the last quarter; looks like that project never got off the ground.

I don't think it's particularly meaningful to say that one idiosyncratic billionaire is closer to the median GOP primary voter than another.

The Kochs, particularly Charles Koch, do seem to have an interest in "liberty-related" issues that goes beyond simply getting those pesky taxes and regulations out of the way for their business. But there is pretty clearly a sizable contingent of the GOP that is not interested in "liberty" so much as it is interested in using government power to benefit their tribe at the expense of others.

It seems like their intention, moving forward, is to spend less time and money trying to influence elections and more time and money influencing the electorate. That is, trying to encourage voters to believe in a classical liberal Enlightenment conception of America and its government.

The Kochs want Americans to care most about "liberty." Currently, the Republican Party is more concerned about "security" and the Democratic Party is more concerned about "justice." So it makes sense for them to try to increase demand for liberty-focused politicians rather than trying to increase their supply.