This is really not that complicated: Pundits establish what should be, while citizens try to make the best of what is.
Share this story
A man votes in the primary election at a polling station in Venice, Los Angeles, Calif., June 5, 2018.
Lucy Nicholson/Reuters
In recent months, I have noticed a peculiar reaction to my criticisms of Republican candidates who are not named Donald Trump. I’ll make a strong case against this or that policy, or this or that speech, or this or that political maneuver made by a non-Trump candidate, and I’ll be told in response, as if it represented a clever and consequential rejoinder, “Whatever, you’d still vote for him.”
Er, yeah? Of course I would.
About the Author
Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In recent months, I have noticed a peculiar reaction to my criticisms of Republican candidates who are not named Donald Trump. I’ll make a strong case against this or that policy, or this or that speech, or this or that political maneuver made by a non-Trump candidate, and I’ll be told in response, as if it represented a clever and consequential rejoinder, “Whatever, you’d still vote for him.”
Er, yeah? Of course I would.
By continuing, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
About the Author
Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments