News · Press Release

ICYMI: House Republicans at a Crossroads as Trump-Mania Continues [NATIONAL JOURNAL]

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

 ICYMI: House Republicans at a Crossroads as Trump-Mania Continues

National Journal

By Jack Fitzpatrick

December 22, 2015

Some of the most vul­ner­able Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress ducked when asked about the most con­tro­ver­sial ma­jor fig­ure in the party today: Don­ald Trump.

Na­tion­al Journ­al sur­vey of eight mem­bers from ra­cially di­verse and Demo­crat­ic-lean­ing dis­tricts—in­clud­ing one Sen­ate can­did­ate—res­ul­ted in just a trio of House fresh­men who took clear stances on the pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate, whose po­lar­iz­ing rhet­or­ic has sim­ul­tan­eously bolstered his own stand­ing in the polls and en­dangered cer­tain down-bal­lot Re­pub­lic­ans.

Already fa­cing chal­len­ging races, these mem­bers are now in a tough spot: Do they push back against the Re­pub­lic­an poll-lead­er, craft­ing a mod­er­ate pro­file but ali­en­at­ing po­ten­tial sup­port­ers? Do they em­brace him and his sup­port­ers? Or do they keep quiet and hope the na­tion­al fo­cus on Trump ends be­fore they have to an­swer for their party’s loudest voice?

The three who took a clear side were split: Rep. Cresent Hardy of Nevada said he would sup­port Trump if he were the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee, while Reps. Robert Dold of Illinois and Car­los Cur­belo of Flor­ida said they would not.

“I’m a Re­pub­lic­an first,” Hardy said, cla­ri­fy­ing that he hasn’t de­cided which can­did­ate he’ll sup­port in the primar­ies. “I am go­ing to sup­port the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee, be­cause I be­lieve that that nom­in­ee is go­ing to be by far—not just a little bit, by far—bet­ter than the al­tern­at­ive.”

Cur­belo and Dold went the oth­er way.

Un­like most Re­pub­lic­ans, Cur­belo hasn’t held back his cri­ti­cism of Trump. In Ju­ly, he spec­u­lated the real es­tate mogul was ac­tu­ally a Demo­crat­ic plant, cit­ing Trump’s friend­ship with the Clin­tons. He re­peated that claim in an in­ter­view with Na­tion­al Journ­al in which he called Trump a “fraud,” an “op­por­tun­ist,” a “farce,” a “clown,” a “li­ar,” and “an em­bar­rass­ment to our coun­try,” all in less than 10 minutes.

“No, no way,” Cur­belo said when asked if he would sup­port Trump as the nom­in­ee. “He’s not go­ing to win the nom­in­a­tion, and if he did I wouldn’t sup­port him. I wouldn’t sup­port the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ee, either. But I would cer­tainly not sup­port Don­ald Trump.”

Dold’s of­fice de­clined a re­quest for an in­ter­view, but his cam­paign spokes­man offered a state­ment mak­ing the con­gress­man’s po­s­i­tion clear.

“Con­gress­man Dold be­lieves Don­ald Trump’s dis­gust­ing and of­fens­ive com­ments to­ward His­pan­ics, vet­er­ans, wo­men, Muslims—the list goes on—dis­qual­i­fy him from hold­ing the of­fice of Pres­id­ent of the United States,” Dold cam­paign spokes­man Brad Stew­art said in an email. “Con­gress­man Dold does not and will not sup­port Don­ald Trump’s can­did­acy for Pres­id­ent.”

Most of their Re­pub­lic­an col­leagues haven’t been so ex­pli­cit: After Trump’s anti-Muslim pro­pos­al, Rep. Mike Coff­man of Col­or­ado re­leased a state­ment say­ing he aims to “rep­res­ent all of the cit­izens of my dis­trict,” but didn’t spe­cific­ally ad­dress Trump. His of­fice de­clined an in­ter­view re­quest, and when reached at the Cap­it­ol, Coff­man said, “Call my of­fice,” be­fore duck­ing in­to the House cham­ber.

Coff­man en­dorsed Sen. Marco Ru­bio in the primary, but he told Roll Call he was “not go­ing to go there” when asked if he would sup­port Trump as the nom­in­ee.

Rep. Steve Knight’s of­fice also de­clined an in­ter­view re­quest, and said the Cali­for­nia Re­pub­lic­an will not com­ment on the pres­id­en­tial race at all un­til next year. Rep. Bar­bara Com­stock of Vir­gin­ia said in a ra­dio in­ter­view that Trump’s pro­pos­al was “un­con­sti­tu­tion­al” and “un-Amer­ic­an.” But her of­fice de­clined an in­ter­view re­quest and did not an­swer wheth­er she would sup­port Trump as the nom­in­ee.

Rep. Will Hurd’s of­fice also did not re­spond when asked if he would sup­port Trump as the nom­in­ee. The Texas Re­pub­lic­an, a former CIA agent who serves on the Home­land Se­cur­ity Com­mit­tee, has called Trump’s em­phas­is on build­ing a wall on the Mex­ico bor­der “the most ex­pens­ive way to do bor­der se­cur­ity, and it’s the least ef­fect­ive.” Still, des­pite rep­res­ent­ing a 71-per­cent His­pan­ic dis­trict, Hurd hasn’t offered a Cur­belo-like re­but­tal to Trump.

These can­did­ates rep­res­ent the front­lines of Demo­crats’ at­tempts to chip away at a his­tor­ic House Re­pub­lic­an ma­jor­ity. Cur­belo is run­ning for reelec­tion in a newly drawn dis­trict that Pres­id­ent Obama would have car­ried with 55 per­cent of the vote in 2012. Obama won Coff­man’s dis­trict with 52 per­cent, and Mitt Rom­ney car­ried Knight’s, Com­stock’s, and Hurd’s dis­tricts with less than 52 per­cent.

In gen­er­al, swing-dis­trict Re­pub­lic­ans have laid low on Trump, and Flor­ida-based GOP con­sult­ant Rick Wilson, who re­cently launched an anti-Trump su­per PAC called Make Amer­ica Awe­some, said that’s prob­ably a good idea.

“Can you blame them? It’s a dis­taste­ful sub­ject. It’s Don­ald Trump, for Christ’s sake,” he said, adding that if he worked or any of these can­did­ates he would “walk them around” the ques­tion of wheth­er they would sup­port Trump as the nom­in­ee, shift­ing the fo­cus to­ward whomever they sup­port in the primar­ies.

While Hardy stands with Trump more than oth­er swing-dis­trict Re­pub­lic­ans, and cer­tainly more than Cur­belo and Dold, his own lan­guage about sens­it­ive policy is­sues sounds more like that of former Flor­ida Gov. Jeb Bush. Hardy rep­res­ents a dis­trict in which non-His­pan­ic whites con­sti­tute just 48 per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion, and where Obama won with 54 per­cent of the vote in 2012.

In an in­ter­view with Na­tion­al Journ­al, Hardy walked the fine line down-bal­lot Re­pub­lic­ans face when dis­cuss­ing Trump. He called for im­mig­ra­tion laws that ad­dress un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants “in a com­pas­sion­ate man­ner, that pro­tects the fam­ily unit, the in­di­vidu­als that [have] tried to be a good in­di­vidu­al in the coun­try that maybe didn’t come here in the right way.”

He also touted a His­pan­ic Her­it­age Sum­mit he hos­ted in Oc­to­ber in con­junc­tion with the Lat­in Cham­ber of Com­merce and oth­er or­gan­iz­a­tions. And after Trump called to block Muslims from en­ter­ing the U.S., Hardy re­leased a state­ment say­ing the pro­pos­al “would dis­grace some of our deep­est held val­ues, in­clud­ing free­dom of re­li­gion.”

Still, Hardy and many oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans have been care­ful to dis­tance them­selves from Trump while em­bra­cing the con­cerns of Trump’s sup­port­ers.

“His tone doesn’t both­er me,” Hardy said, “be­cause I be­lieve that these are con­cerns people have. He’s speak­ing the truth. He’s touch­ing base with so many people on their con­cerns.”

Hardy isn’t the only one thread­ing that needle. Rep. Dav­id Jolly, who is run­ning for Sen. Marco Ru­bio’s seat in Flor­ida, quickly called on Trump to drop out of the pres­id­en­tial race after he sug­ges­ted bar­ring all Muslims from en­ter­ing the U.S. Since push­ing back, Jolly has painted him­self as a Trump-like straight-talk­er.

“The safe course polit­ic­ally, as you see from every­body else, is to say noth­ing,” Jolly told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “I joke that Trump and I ac­tu­ally have something in com­mon: We both call it like we see it and we’re not afraid to speak our minds.” The con­gress­man sent a fun­drais­ing email us­ing sim­il­ar lan­guage.

Jolly ad­ded that Trump’s pop­ular­ity “rep­res­ents the deep frus­tra­tion of the Amer­ic­an people, and I think all can­did­ates should re­cog­nize that.”

Des­pite claim­ing to call it as he sees it, Jolly would not say wheth­er he would sup­port Trump as the nom­in­ee. “I’m not ex­pect­ing Trump to be the nom­in­ee. So ask me after the con­ven­tion,” he said, adding that he sup­ports Jeb Bush in the primar­ies.

The elect­or­al con­sequences of a Trump nom­in­a­tion, Jolly ac­know­ledged, would be bad: Demo­crats would win the White House and Sen­ate, and Re­pub­lic­ans’ House ma­jor­ity would be threatened. But Jolly is hold­ing out hope Trump could be re­formed.

“If he is our nom­in­ee,” Jolly said, “maybe he will re­cog­nize that he needs to be a lead­er that unites the coun­try, and not [who] seeks to get elec­ted by di­vid­ing a party and di­vid­ing a coun­try.”





Please make sure that the form field below is filled out correctly before submitting.