I tend to get irritated when the state Democratic Party cannot seem to muster any substantive criticisms of Baker’s record (as I’ve explained before, there’s plenty to criticize) and instead resort to trying him to the national GOP in the rare instances that they do criticize him.
Although I criticize that–because it’s often all they do–I’m going to engage in it here with a simple question: But would Charlie still vote for Donald Trump?
Yesterday, Charlie Baker was quite clear in his rejection of Trump’s latest incendiary, idiotic, and Islamophobic idea:
An angry Governor Charlie Baker slammed Donald Trump’s call to temporarily stop Muslim people from coming into the United States.
“I think that’s ridiculous and I would never support a policy like that,” Baker said speaking to reporters at the State House Monday evening. “I have no idea what the motivation is on that. First of all, it’s unrealistic. Secondly, it’s inappropriate. And third, it doesn’t make any sense.”
Baker asked a reporter to see a printout of Trump’s press release. The governor grew visibly perturbed after he read it, whacking the paper with his hand.
His criticism didn’t end there; you can read it in the piece. Good for him–although this is a very low bar to clear.
But as soon as I saw this, I immediately wondered what Charlie would do if Trump became the nominee. Would he still endorse him? Vote for him? Fundraise for the RNC that would be providing him money? It’s easy–and right–to condemn Trump, but how much does it really mean if you’re going to vote for him anyway?
All of the Republican candidates have pledged to support the eventual nominee, so all of them have already said that they’d endorse Trump. Paul Ryan said the same this morning. Will any reporters ask him?
Jasiu says
The Republicans have stoked the hatred behind this for years, but in more coded, “dog whistle” ways. They’ve allowed the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his types to feed the anger and took advantage of it at the polls. All was fine and well even recently, as so many of them took the President to task for not using the phrase “Islamic Extremists”.
Now that someone is saying in clear, unfettered language what they’ve been inferring for years, they are “shocked, shocked” to find a racist candidate in their midst. Well, you reap what you sow.
Denouncing this specific language from Trump is necessary, but not sufficient. They need to own up to their role in creating the environment where a Trump can do so well among their core. But I’m not holding my breath.
doubleman says
Ditto.
howlandlewnatick says
I doubt if Mr. Trump is serious about being president. There is an old saying that “All publicity is good publicity” and Mr. Trump is playing that to the hilt. If his candidacy runs hot to the nomination we’ll see him trade his delegates to another candidate for some sort of non-cash value. He’s an entrepreneur, after all. He plays to advantage.
If any good of his candidacy is there for the other candidates, it is that he takes the spotlight off their own odious statements.
“As the age of television progresses the Reagans will be the rule, not the exception. To be perfect for television is all a President has to be these days.” –Gore Vidal
thegreenmiles says
To repeat my comment from another post on this topic: I don’t get the difference here. Baker thinks banning refugees because they’re Syrian is OK, but banning them because they’re Muslim is horrifying? Trump is just using a broader definition of Scary Brown People. Aren’t we just taking about different shades of the same xenophobia?
My guess is that Baker said he wanted a hold on Syrian refugees in a moment of post-Paris panic, but now in calmer hour, is back to being not xenophobic. Is it too much to ask for our governor to keep a level head at all times?
SomervilleTom says
I have more to fear from the average GOP supporter than from the average Muslim.
Donald Trump acts out the inner core of nearly all modern Republicans. Some of those Republicans (like Charlie Baker) protect that inner core with a carapace of “moderateness”. One essential function of the carapace is to assist in the effective denial of external reality, fact, and rationality.
I think Mr. Baker is simply acting like a modern Republican.
Christopher says
…in a way you sometimes do regarding religious adherents. I can easily imagine many GOPers saying, “Wait a second – we aren’t all like that!”, kind of like what I feel I have to do when painted with the brush of the Christian Right. Do you really think you would have to fear BMGer “porcupine” for example, if you encountered her in real life?
SomervilleTom says
Porcupine is not average.
Donald Trump is the leading candidate for the GOP nomination. A majority of poll respondents think he is the best person to be President today. The rest of the GOP pack is only slightly less rabid than Mr. Trump.
Indeed, I do fear those GOP supporters more than I fear the average (US) Muslim.
SomervilleTom says
When I say that I “fear” them, I mean that I think they are far more likely to cause bad things to happen to me and my loved ones. They are far more likely to cause myself or my children to be “disappeared”. They are far more likely to cause my children to be victimized by out-of-control and panic-stricken campus police carrying semi-automatic weapons.
This country is hysterical and out of control about “terror”, and GOP supporters are leading the way.
Christopher says
When average is used in a non-mathematical context it often is taken to mean common, which is how I took it.
SomervilleTom says
I think I was pretty clear, and I think I used “average” in a perfectly understandable way. If a majority of cats like to eat fish, is there something confusing or inaccurate about saying “the average cat likes to eat fish”?
It sounds to me as though you haven’t appreciated the implications for all of us that Donald Trump has a commanding lead among self-identified GOP supporters. As I said earlier, the rest of the GOP contenders are only slightly less rabid than Mr. Trump.
SomervilleTom says
Ok, here is a New York Times poll of likely Republican voters in New Hampshire:
Donald Trump: 32%
Marco Rubio: 14%
Chris Christie: 9%
Jeb Bush: 8%
Taken together, these represent 63% of likely Republican voters in New Hampshire. Their views about terror, Muslims, and Planned Parenthood differ only slightly by degree.
All three, and their supporters, are more threatening to me (please see my clarification) than any of the many Muslims I know.
Christopher says
…that he wanted to make sure the vetting was in place for a potential of several all at once from that particular circumstance, but a total ban on routine immigration (or especially re-entry of Americans) on the basis of a religious test is unacceptable.
jconway says
Prior to Bridgegate, I could see him returning the favor of Chris Christie’s early support and fundraising by endorsing him, as he is probably the closest to a Massachusetts Republican. Or if Jeb was doing significantly better, getting on the bandwagon early to have an in with the most likely Republican administration. Since neither is was now, I say he doesn’t need to have a dog in this fight.
Even the Syrian refugee move, while morally despicable in my opinion, will be long forgotten by the time 2018 rolls around, thanks in no small part to local Democrats being either totally silent on this issue or meekly echoing them like Marty Walsh and Stan Rosenberg. He got him the shout out he needed from the Herald scribes and it’s readership, and they won’t be as quick to forget as the Democratic leadership.
jcohn88 says
I’d be surprised if he endorsed anyone before the primary. But if he did, Christie (reactionary Republican governor who liked to fashion himself as bipartisan and had a boss-driven Democratic legislature willing to go along) or Kasich (another conservative governor that gets occasional liberal praise for–like Christie–not rejecting free money from the federal government, but who–like Christie–helped redistribute wealth upward and weaken environmental regulations–and who cruised to re-election amidst weak Democratic opposition) would be likely fits. But I would think he’d make the political calculus that he has nothing to gain by endorsing pre-primary.
centralmassdad says
The state Democratic party cannot seem to mount a substantive criticism of Baker’s record because it does not differ in any meaningful way from the agenda that produced that record. Therefore, the only criticism available is “Hey, some other Republican said something awful!”
Christopher says
I’m sure DSC members could come up with plenty to criticize, but it seems the public messaging is left to staff of the party. I have been known to roll my eyes at emails I’ve gotten from the state party too.
centralmassdad says
I suppose our previous discussions on the state party, DSC, and legislative caucus can be simply referenced here and incorporated by such reference.
jconway says
Baker’s record of refugees is a 180 degrees worse than Patrick’s laudable record on the same subject, and right in line with the national GOP. He a lot of ways he was the first to lead the charge. Compare him to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, who has valiantly and courageously maintained his support of refugees and went out of way to compare anti-Muslim sentiment to anti-Mormon sentiment and it’s a study in contrasts. I was actually surprised by his harsh condemnation of Trump, since he seemed to be backpedaling away from his social liberalism to appease the Howie Carrs of the world.
Granted, our state party leaders are who again? If it’s Walsh and Rosenberg they aren’t exactly profiles in courage on this issue either.