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?