From a Powerline post about Trump’s comments regarding the so-called “Mexican judge”, comes this:
Plus, Trump has whacked the hornets’ nest by his criticism of Mexican immigration, which he feels this judge is bound to take personally. And why shouldn’t he conclude that? The left (and the domesticated right) tell us incessantly that any criticism—however fair or factual—that touches on a specific group will inevitably arouse the ire of that group. Don’t say anything negative about immigration or the Hispanics will never vote for you! Don’t say anything critical of Islamic terror or more Muslims will hate us! But when Trump uses that same logic — I’ve criticized Mexican immigration so it’s likely this judge won’t like me—he’s a villain.
Want a nicer, less antagonistic version of “cuckservative”? There you have it, the “domesticated right”.
Coincidentally. Normally, I wouldn’t give a rat’s “petootie” about the local “big” newspaper, the Star-Tribune, but they’ve decided for the past few weeks to give me a free Sunday-paper. So, I page through it.
Today (20160605), it included an op-ed by none other than Tom Horner, long-time political consultant for the Republicans – at least until they became just too darn radical and he went to Jesse Ventura’s Independence Party, even running for governor in 2010 – apparently with the intent of siphoning votes away from Tom Emmer, the Republican, and being successful in this task, thus ensured a victory for the left-wing numbskull, Mark Dayton. So, anyway, Mr Horner wrote in his op-ed (no links):
A better future for Republicans — and for America — starts only if GOP voters are willing to tank the 2016 presidential election.
Man. If a guy was looking for an example of the “domesticated right” or, really, a “cuckservative”, you couldn’t go wrong using this opinion piece as an example. With the added bonus of real expertise in screwing up a Republican executive candidate’s chances.