Election 2016

Erick Erickson "Will Not Vote for Donald Trump Ever" Over Planned Parenthood Funding

|

This is what it looks like when a broad-based social and political movement breaks up at its apogee.

The Republicans control both houses of Congress and an unprecedented number of state legislatures and governors' mansions. And it may well nominate for president Donald Trump, whose party loyalty is not fully clear but whose basic platform corresponds almost perfectly with that of the GOP establishment and the larger conservative movement.

So let the freakout begin, Republicans! You have nothing to lose but your minds! And maybe your party.

Here's the latest instance: Red State's Erick Erickson has flip-flopped on an earlier vow to vote for Donald Trump if the billionaire was the Republican Party's candidate for president. Erickson had disinvited Trump from a Red State conference last year after The Donald made awful comments about Fox News' Megyn Kelly. Still, Erickson allowed that he'd vote for the GOP candidate, even if it were Trump.

No more. What changed his mind? Trump's willingness to say something good about Planned Parenthood.

Donald Trump believes the federal government should fund Planned Parenthood. Donald Trump believes there are good things the child killers do. What is most damning is how so many are willing to be compromised by Donald Trump.

For eight years the conservative movement compromised itself as a wing of George W. Bush's Republican Party. The movement became ill defined and conservative became a synonym with Republican….

Donald Trump has had no "road to Damascus" conversion. He only wants to date the preacher's daughter. Once he's gotten in her ballot box, he'll be back to his pro-abortion New York values self. I'll play no part in this farce.

More in this vein here.

Here's what Trump has said about Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions and provides a range of other services related to contraception and women's health. It does get federal funding (about $500 million a year, though none of that money is allowed to be used toward abortions).

"They do some very good work. Cervical cancer, lots of women's issue, women's health issues are taken care of."

"Planned Parenthood does a really good job at a lot of different areas. But not on abortion. So I'm not going to fund it if it's doing the abortion. I am not going to fund it."

So brittle is the coalition that is the Republican Party and the conservative movement that such a statement is grounds for excommunication and excoriation.

So too is the Donald's willingness to let back in some of the millions of Mexicans he has sworn to deport. As National Review put it in its broadside against Trump:

Trump says he will put a big door in his beautiful wall, an implicit endorsement of the dismayingly conventional view that current levels of legal immigration are fine….

Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty.

So it is coming to pass that a candidate who has sworn to forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants (and their children, even if those children are U.S. citizens), is not anti-immigrant enough to lead the Republican Party.

Rather than Trump, conservative Republicans are trying to figure out how to force Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz down the throats of an America that seems even less keen on that pair than on Trump himself. The conservative Republican backlash against Trump may well prove successful but that will only mean that in the name of purity and outrage, the GOP at the national level will have alienated itself even more from the growing number of people who refuse to call themselves Republican.

According to Gallup's latest figures, just 26 percent of us identify as Republican and there is no reason to think that number will jack up any time soon. That's especially the case when you look into how the country feels about Planned Parenthood (59 percent have a very or mostly favorable view) and illegal immigrants (65 percent think they should be allowed to remain in the United States and eventually apply for citizenship after meeting certain requirements).

NEXT: Private Citizens Try to Help Homeless By Giving Them Tiny Houses; City of Los Angeles Steals Them

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I keep trying to work up a care over Trump destroying the Republican Party. I just can’t. Sorry. My bucket of fucks to give is just empty right now.

    1. It’s actually kind of nice for them to have someone to blame when iactually it is Republican parties own doing. Not Trumps.

  2. Nor will Ron Paul

    http://rare.us/story/ron-paul-…..artnership

  3. Huh. He has something in common with you and the many other fake libertarians at Reason!

    1. REEL LIBREHTARIANNS VOT TRMPU

      1. I’m actually kind of confused by that. Like, is he saying that RED STATE UBER ALLES Trumpkins are the real libertarians, or is he saying that myopic single-issue retards obsessed with what goes on in womens’ underpants are the real libertarians? Also, it is Tulpical?

        1. Also, it is Tulpical?

          No. Domestic Dissident is formerly Mike M.

          Of course, he’s sure to be a Tulpa sock. As you are. And as I am.

  4. So I’m not going to fund it if it’s doing the abortion.

    Is that a new dance?

    1. Is that a new dance?

      Yeah, I think it involves a coat hangar.

      1. Is a coat hangar where they put flight suits?

    2. Yes. But you can only jazz hands to it lest you trigger someone.

      1. Expect a call from Michael J. Fox’s lawyer, you monster!

    3. You put the coat hanger in, you take the coat hanger out . . . .

      Seriously, he’s perfectly happy to give them government money if they don’t do abortions?

        1. Great minds, RC, great minds.

      1. You grab a bloody fetus, and you wave it all about…

      2. What’s the objection if they do stop performing abortions? Do you really think the same amount of tax money won’t be going to some other Medicare women’s health provider?

        If you want to get rid of all low-income women’s health care, focusing only on Planned Parenthood isn’t going to do shit.

        1. I think they get grants and whatnot that are not Medicaid. So you could definitely save some money, even if they did provide reimbursable health services.

          1. So those grants are just going to go away? They will or would have been only given to Planned Parenthood?

            1. I was just trying to contrast his objection to funding PP to a more principled/libertarian objection, is all.

              My take: sure, PP can participate in Medicaid just like any other health care provider. But nobody should be getting the social engineering grants.

              1. But nobody should be getting the social engineering grants.

                Agreed.

  5. So Erick Erickson is voting for Hillary? Scandalous.

    1. Bloomberg is my bet. Erickson is exactly the kind of self important douche bag a Bloomberg 3rd party run is designed to appeal.

      1. Pretty sure Bloomberg supports PP, as well.

    2. Doubtful. Gillespie on the other hand is most definitely voting for Hillary.

      1. I see where they let Chapman get in on the Trump fest. He didn’t disappoint. Other politicians lie but they keep it within limits unlike Trump. I am not sure even Richman could write something that stupid.

        1. That was a mighty load of derp. Quite impressive in its stupidity.

        2. Eight more months of this, if you can believe it. We get to look forward to eight more long months of a bunch of fake libertarians worked up into a fake outrage over a fake republican.

          I’m not sure whether this endless kabuki theater will be more hilarious, hideous, or tedious.

          1. Well, at least we have a true libertarian like you to show us the light.

            1. Take the doll and show us where the Trump supporter touched you Sugar Free. Its okay, we won’t judge.

              1. Take the doll and show us where the Trump supporter touched you Sugar Free. Its okay, we won’t judge.

                Get a new joke, John. That one is about as boring as your buddy Winston.

                1. And you are even more humorless.

            2. The most hilarious part: Trump has about zero chance of getting elected. It’s a virtual lock that Hillary is going to win. The biggest question is whether she’s healthy enough to even survive a term in office.

      2. According to Jackand Ace, Gillespie is in the tank for the GOP. I wonder which of you has superior mindreading abilities.

        1. Well since he either didn’t vote or voted for Barr in 2008 and voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 we can probably guess where his vote will lie in 2016 but that would go against the DAE REMEMBER WHEN REASON VOTED FOR OBAMA meme.

  6. Reason should thank Trump for revealing Washington Conservatives to be the culture war obsessed morons they actually are. What kind of a moron says they will never vote for a candidate because he once said something nice about Planned Parenthood and was mean to some newsbabe?

    Whether it be this ass clown or the people at National Review none of these people are serious people. They are just not. They are collection of opportunistic partisan hacks who are qualified for few jobs beyond smelling each other’s farts and talking out of their ass.

    The entire clown show that is Washington and its various media courtesans on both sides just needs to be burned down. These people are pathetic.

    1. “because he once said something nice about Planned Parenthood and was mean to some newsbabe”

      Sorry, John, that’s not it.

      Trump said that if PP gets themselves a sufficiently-clever corporate lawyer and splits up its operations into an an entity which directly does abortions and an entity which does everything *except* directly do abortions, the feds should keep pumping the money into the entity which formally manages to avoid doing abortions.

      Of course, because in every respect except legally the abortion and non-abortion parts of Planned Parenthood will be connected, the federal funds to the non-abortion part will free up private funds for the abortion part. And the part which doesn’t do abortions will remain free to propagandize for abortions. And the officials of the “separate” organizations will be the same.

      And Trump will thump his chest and boast about how he cut off abortion funding just like the conservatives want, so will they get off his back already?

      Erikson is 98% likely to be right that Trump’s prolife conversion is one of convenience, and that he simply sees prolife rhetoric as a magic password he has to mumble to qualify for the Republican nomination, and which he can safely forget once he’s President.

      I know you see support for Trump as a thumb in the eye to the political establishment, but at best, on abortion is the kind of Republican the establishment generally loves.

      1. And there’s nothing to indicate Trump would audit PP for its use of federal dollars, conduct any criminal investigation (this time without a PP supporter on the prosecution team like in Texas), or recommend any legal or regulatory changes for the shocking behavior which PP insists is totally authorized.

        No, PP is just this group which sometimes does abortions but also gives out free puppies and mammograms – without Planned Parenthood women would all get breast cancer!

        1. (my comments about PP splitting up represent my interpretation of the implications of Trump’s position, and is not a quote)

      2. I am not saying he is right about PP. I am saying I just don’t care.

        The problem with abortion is not that it is legal. The problem is that a million or whatever women think it is okay to do it every year. No amount of cutting off PP or laws restricting it will solve that.

        1. The old “not a panacea” argument.

          “This one small reform won’t solve the entire problem, so let’s just forget the whole thing and not make any reforms at all.”

    2. The entire clown show that is Washington and its various media courtesans on both sides just needs to be burned down.

      So Scott Beamer made a big mistake?

  7. about $500 million a year, though none of that money is allowed to be used toward abortions

    Because money is not fungible?

    1. Lock box

    2. Oh, saved your talking points from 2005ish, I see!

  8. So, they’ve ramped up the dishonesty from “baby killers” (marginal) to “child killers” (completely unhinged).

    Yes, fetus fanciers, we all know how you feel about this, but others in society don’t see things that way.

    1. Yes Tonio, the magic trip down the birth canal where the child is given the gift of “personhood” by his mother’s vagina is real. The science is settled.

      1. Beat that straw man, John. Kill it good!

    2. As a propaganda move, I think its way too heavy-handed.

      Technically, of course, babies are a subclass of children, so its accurate.

      1. And there you have it, folks. When you’ve lost even RC on this…

        1. Fer crying out loud. I’m an “abortions before viability” guy.

  9. “He only wants to date the preacher’s daughter.”

    Why buy the cow when the milk is free

    1. I actually said that (about the cow, not the daughter) in a recent conversation about employed physicians v. narrow networks. There was a complete, dead silence afterwards.

  10. Anyone else get the idea that Trump is to the Republicans what The Joker was to the mob guys in The Dark Knight?

    1. If he picks his VP by breaking a pool cue in half, throwing it on the floor, and telling them the one who comes out of the room gets the job, I will vote for him so hard.

      1. I said yesterday what scares these people is not that Trump will fail. They love that possibility. It will make them feel important and get to say I told you so. What scares them is the thought that Trump will be a passable President and show what morons they all are.

      2. Depends on who he puts in the room first.

      3. He should just do that as he walks off the stage at the last debate.

    2. That is not a bad analogy. Trump seems to have this gift of inspiring people to drop their masks and reveal themselves to be the craven morons they are. The man seems to have some kind of stupid ray or something.

  11. Can this guy fit the fat pasty faced white guy conservative stereotype any better? He is like the CPAC Pajama Boy.

  12. Given the story ran here about Trump winning the Latino vote in the Nevada primary and the discussion about what that meant in the big picture, I thought I’d link this. Some highlights:

    -“Today, 8 in 10 Hispanic voters have an unfavorable view of Trump. That includes more than 7 in 10 who have a “very unfavorable” impression of him, which is more than double the percentage of any other major candidate.”

    -“Trump does the worst ? losing the Hispanic vote to Clinton by 73 to 16 percent. That 57-point gap is little changed from a 54-point deficit recorded last June, but is significantly wider than the 44-point margin by which former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost Hispanics four years ago and bigger than in any presidential exit poll since the 1970s.

    Meanwhile, Clinton leads Rubio by 30 points, Cruz by 38 and Kasich by 43. Matched against Sanders, Trump trails by 56 points. Sanders leads Rubio by 24 points, Cruz by 33 and Kasich by 37.”

    “Trump’s chief Republican competitors, Rubio and Cruz, both of Cuban descent, receive mixed reviews from Hispanics. Rubio has a net positive image, by 45 to 37 percent. Cruz’s is net negative, 44 to 39 percent. Kasich still is not known to about 4 in 10 Hispanics.”

    -“In a matchup with Clinton, 88 percent of Republican-leaning Hispanics said they would support Rubio and 80 percent would support Cruz, but only 59 percent would support Trump against Clinton.”

    http://tinyurl.com/gnqkxyv

    1. Trump is definitely deeply unpopular in the community overall, and he’s gonna get slaughtered in the Latino vote if he makes it to the general (even relative to normal Republican standards). So if he’s gonna win, it’s gonna have to come from making up ground in other demographics.

      And while I don’t think he has a great chance, I have said I think he can win, if things break right for him. An economic downturn or a terrorist attack could sway things in his favor, or if he wins a greater share of the black vote than most Republicans do (which some polls have indicated, although others have pointed in the opposite direction), etc.

      1. if things break right for him

        I cannot imagine Trump losing ground in any debate with either of the Dems.

        But, we’re still months away from the part of the campaign that will settle Dem v Rep. Lots can, and will happen, especially given the fragility of our economy and the volatility of much of the world after 7 years of Obama.

        1. I definitely can. Trump’s schtick works well with a segment of the voter base, but I think the average middle of the road person would find Clinton’s presentation as the knowledgeable, experienced, refined, moderate candidate (as fake as that may be, that’s how she’ll present herself) preferable to Trump’s blowhard persona. A wildcard factor could change that, but otherwise that’s how I think it breaks down.

          1. Have you watched any of the Dem debates? Did you take LSD when you did? No one likes Hillary or finds her anything but grating. They might vote for her but it won’t be because they think she is moderate or like her.

            1. Hillary isn’t very popular, but it’s just not accurate to say that no one likes her. Some people clearly do. And in an election, you don’t necessarily need everyone to love you, as long as they find you preferable to the alternatives. Hillary’s favorability ratings aren’t good, but they’re a lot better than Trump’s.

        2. I cannot imagine Trump losing ground in any debate with either of the Dems.

          The media will never allow Trump to win. Remember how they repeatedly declared Obama the winner of every debate in contradistinction to the public perception?

          Some bon mots on Romney’s “win” in debating Obama:

          Mitt Romney Won the Night, But Will It Change the Race?

          Romney’s Debate Performance Will Light Fire Under Obama Supporters

          Romney Won on Style, Not Substance

          Mitt Romney Did Not Put Forth a Vision for the Future

          Now, imagine what happened when he “lost”.

    2. Its a numbers game, but when the votes are counted the only thing that matters is who got more, not who cast the votes.

      Last I looked, Trump is in a statistical tie with Hillary and Bernie head-to-head. Don’t recall how the other Repub candidates looked.

      In the long run, I think a Trump candidacy that wrecks one or both parties is probably a net win.

      1. It’s within the margin of error but Trump is actually the only GOP candidate polling below Hillary at the moment.

        1. Yeah, my apathy about the lot of them prevents me from checking polls on any consistent basis.

          1. I only know because we have a Trumpkin in the family. My brother and I have tried (to no avail) to disabuse this person of the belief that “he’s the most electable to keep Hill out of office.”

    3. The only problem with that analysis is that it does not appear to poll even registered voters much less likely voters. Hispanics are notorious for having poor turn out. It is unclear how much those numbers actually translate into votes.

      1. It states “voters” in the article. I didn’t check the poll to see if it only had likely voters.

        1. Which likely means “voting age”. If it was registered or likely voters it would say so. Sorry but I think you got taken in by WAPO. None of those numbers mean much of anything. It is just WAPO reassuring the faithful.

          1. Isn’t there “Voting Age Adults” then “Registered Voters” then “Registered Voters Likely to Vote” in descending order of size?

            VAA are anyone they get to pick up the phone and admit to being 18.

            1. “…anyone they get to pick up the phone and admit to being 18.”

              Also known as “Targets of Crusty.”

          2. If you read the actual poll, it explicitly states they got the names from registered voters lists. So your hypothesis isn’t correct. Doesn’t look like I’m the one looking to be reassured here.

            1. Restistered is not likely. Again, Hispanics are notorious for not turning out. Maybe they all hate Trump. But these numbers cannot be read to mean that. They can’t be read either way since they don’t measure who is going to show up.

      2. The Trump / Hillary polling doesn’t mean much, since Trump has been running against a dozen Republicans and not concentrating fire on her like he would in a general election campaign. That would be when the fun starts.

        1. Overall, it doesn’t mean much, but I disagree that the polling of Hispanics is meaningless. And the same goes the other way around. Hillary at this point is focused on putting away Bernie while not alienating his supporters. She hasn’t focused on Trump like she will in the general if they meet.

    4. National polls are meaningless for a presidential election. What matters are the numbers in swing states, due to the elctoral college. So what if a vast majority of latinos in NY or CA don’t like Trump? That changes nothing. It’s the overall numbers in the swing states that matter.

    5. A Tump/Hillary race will not be won by drawing in independents or energizing the base, this election will be about which candidate fatigues their base the least and depresses voter turnout the most.

      I hereby predict the lowest voter turnout by percentage of eligible voters in American history.

      1. I will take that bet. I bet it is close to or above 2012.

        1. Wait, I didn’t realize that 1924 was 48.9%.

          Never mind. Just the bussing of olds and poors to the polls will break 48.9%.

      2. Interesting.

        A counter-theory: if most people vote against the candidate they hate the most, an election featuring two of the most hated candidates in a long time will be a high-turnout affair.

        1. I see the validity of that idea. I’m just wondering where the balancing point of hate for the other guy and lack of enthusiasm for who you have to vote for to vote against them result in not voting.

          1. I won’t vote for the guy I don’t not love the least.

            1. I’ll hold you to that.

          2. As someone whose political philosophy is a compound of apathy and loathing, I think that’s the question, SugarFree.

      3. It could be a case of both candidates driving turnout of the other base.

  13. I don’t like Trump and I’m sure as hell not voting for him, but he makes this whole farce much more entertaining.

  14. If the alt-text for Trump is “Trumpy” , the alt-text for Erickson should be “Lumpy”.

  15. If Trump manages to kill off the Moral Majority 2nd handers attached to the GOP that will be probably be a net win.

    1. Trumpy, you can do *stupid* things!

      /Joel Robinson

  16. Funny he had no such objection when Giuliani was his man, back in 2008. But he banned Ron Paul articles at RedState for not being a neocon.

  17. To be fair, Reason uses similar litmus tests for libertarians. Almost no one is worth supporting, with maybe the exception of Sanders. Right?

  18. Trump, whose party loyalty is not fully clear but whose basic platform corresponds almost perfectly with that of the GOP establishment and the larger conservative movement.

    Nick, linking back to your own opinion piece as proof of Trump’s conservative creds is kinda weak.

    Other than foaming at the mouth about immigration, there isn’t a lot about his actions or history that should make any ‘conservative’ like him. The GOP establishment doesn’t like him because they don’t trust him. He could just as easily run democrat, and his past history better aligns that way.

    He speaks for the disaffected, low information voter. Those ‘undecided’ people who often decide who they’re voting for on the way to the booth.

  19. RQ: Do you think Ted Cruz finds it refreshing to be hated for something other than his personality?

    Former KKK Grand Wizard: Voting for Anyone Other Than Donald Trump Is ‘Treason to Your Heritage’

    On Wednesday, David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, used his radio show to make an appeal to Trump’s main demographic, the racist.

    “Voting for these people,” he said on the David Duke Radio Program, referring to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, “voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage. I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”

    1. Trump’s main demographic, the racist.

      Yup, he went there.

  20. “when you look into how the country feels about Planned Parenthood (59 percent have a very or mostly favorable view)”

    So, people who rely on the mainstream media think of Planned Parenthood as a group which saves women from breast cancer, not as an outfit which sells baby parts or which keeps calling ambulances to its facilities to bring PP patients to the hospital?

    By a strange coincidence, that’s the very picture of Planned Parenthood which the retard-stream media strives so assiduously to cultivate.

  21. Maybe Trump isn’t so bad. Maybe he’ll also have a giant rift in his Smoot-Hawley 2.0 tarrif regime.

  22. Hey, I think the Government shouldn’t fund Planned Parenthood, either.

    Not because abortions, but because none of the State’s damned business.

    If people think it’s so damned important, they can cough up voluntarily.

    1. (nodding aggressively)

  23. Here’s what Trump has said about Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions and provides a range of other services related to contraception and women’s health. It does get federal funding (about $500 million a year, though none of that money is allowed to be used toward abortions.)

    That last part is always said with an accompanying wink and rhythmic extension of the elbow to convey the exact message.

  24. “They do some very good work. Cervical cancer, lots of women’s issue, women’s health issues are taken care of.”

    “Planned Parenthood does a really good job at a lot of different areas. But not on abortion. So I’m not going to fund it if it’s doing the abortion. I am not going to fund it.”

    Now I find myself in the awkward position of defending Trump. The first part of that statement shouldn’t even be controversial for anyone who’s not a moron and realizes that PP does a lot more than just abortions. And in the second part of statement, Trump explicitly says he’s “not going to fund it if it’s doing the abortion.” So what’s Erickson’s problem here? That Trump said something positive about PP’s other, non abortion related services? Really? What a fucktard.

    1. Re: Loki,

      The first part of that statement shouldn’t even be controversial for anyone who’s not a moron and realizes that PP does a lot more than just abortions.

      Well of course PP does much more than just abortions! They’re also masterful at cooking the books so it would seem like they do abortions by the skin of their teeth while the 500 million only go to Cervical cancer screenings and birth control (wink-wink and a nod).

      Do you think it is easy to do accounting gymnastics? It’s hard work!

  25. So he came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. At least he got there.

    1. Uh, who did? Erickson? Or El Trumpo?

  26. If the public money weren’t funding abortions, they would solve this problem by splitting into two entities with separate books. That would be cheaper than the lobbying.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.