|The best lessons come at the highest cost—or so they say.
If that’s true, I hope America is paying attention. We are about to learn a very expensive lesson.
As the parent of an autistic child, I am quite familiar with misdirected anger. Though I know that my son’s occasional outbursts and brain-numbing stems are a manifestation of a disability over which he has little or no control, I still allow them to get under my last nerve from time to time. Despite my best efforts I lose my temper from time to and raise my voice (actually usually just talk in an unpleasant tone). The very short moment of satisfaction I derive from venting my frustration comes at a price and is soon replaced by a lasting regret—lasting because my anger inevitably worsens the situation and delays its resolution. I’m learning but logic, patience, and common sense still elude me from time to time.
Speaking of misdirected anger…. Yesterday, a good friend and enthusiastic Trump supporter confided in me that he now believes the Republican nominee will likely be defeated. Hillary Clinton, the second-worst presidential candidate ever, is set to become president. Who is the worst candidate ever, you ask? Three guesses; you’ll only need one.
Though my friend honestly assessed the damage done by the latest revelation of Trump’s character—or lack thereof, it didn’t take him long to veer into the land of rationalization. Trump only said words he parroted; Bill Clinton did actions. Well. I’m not so sure Trump only said words, but even if that were true, remember, as a famous person once said: “Words matter.” Sorry Trump supporters, but most, if not all, of the greatest atrocities in history started out as words. Words have a nasty habit of leading to actions. They are often a way to test the acceptability of actions. If the words are okay, the actions must be also.
It’s just locker room talk, my friend repeated lamely. Really?
I’ve been in many locker rooms and the language in them is indeed often lewd, crude, and otherwise colorful. In all those times, while I’ve heard many disgusting things about women, and, I’m ashamed to admit, laughed at them from time to time, I’ve never heard a father sanction or condone such talk about his own daughter. Of course, every woman is someone’s daughter and this is why men should cease such talk about any woman. Not just because such talk is disrespectful, but because talk leads to action. Not for everyone, maybe, but for some, maybe even many. It is precisely why many conservatives have criticized hip hop music for its portrayal of women. Should such talk be prohibited? Of course not. But understand, free speech has never been truly free; people who engage in the type of speech Donald Trump routinely uses, therefore, should not expect a pass from people judging them in life nor in the voting booth.
Such behavior also calls into question Trump’s judgement. Sure, he may not have planned to run for president, but for a businessman to disparage women in such a way doesn’t seem very wise. Wouldn’t he expect to need to do business with women from time to time? Rationalizing his bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of Bill Clinton is a weak effort to deflect from his own shameful behavior and not exactly the foundation upon which virtue is built.
The idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency literally scares the hell out of me. It should scare the hell out of anyone who loves America. Unfortunately, like my misdirected anger at my autistic son, the GOP electorate misdirected its anger at the Republican party and in doing so, has virtually guaranteed a Hillary Clinton presidency and a generation or more of liberal supremacy on the bench. The idea that the GOP didn’t fight hard enough to stop Obama is ludicrous. GOP leadership did everything possible given their numbers to deter the president. That is why Obama resorted to his illegal executive actions. Now, those who complained about a lack of real opposition to liberal ideas are about to see what a real lack of opposition to liberal ideas looks like. With another four to eight years control over the executive branch, possible control over both houses of congress and a solid majority on the court, gun rights, religious rights, and even free speech will face the most serious threats in our nation’s existence.
It didn’t have to be that way. We knew who Trump was. But sadly, he wasn’t nominated despite his character flaws; to a large extent, he was nominated because of them. What were so-called conservatives thinking? Now, the same people who decried the establishment sticking by candidates such as McCain and Romney are invoking the same arguments to insist that Republicans stay true to Trump. Rance Priebus, public enemy number one not so long ago and the very epitome of the mythical “establishment,” is now unwavering in his support for the party’s deeply flawed nominee. Well.
Meanwhile, true conservatives, who stand by their principles and distance themselves from Trump are the new “establishment.” Give me a break. By any honest standard, Trump is no conservative, no matter how hard Sean Hannity tries to make him seem so. Sorry Sean, you’re just not that talented. For Trumpeteers, it always comes down to one argument: He’s not Hillary Clinton. True. But really, how far must we follow this sleaze nominee down that road? Could Trump, as he claimed, actually murder someone and still retain his core support? I can hear it now: “What’s one innocent life? We’re talking about the future of our country here.”
Hillary Clinton is such a horrible candidate and was so easily beatable. Any of the GOP candidates—Cruz, Rubio, Walker—hell, even Rand Paul or Jeb Bush—could have easily trounced her, given all the dirt that has come out. Instead, out of anger, thirty to forty percent of the GOP electorate, propelled by Hannity, Coulter, and other loons, foisted this idiot upon us because for a brief moment it felt good to jab their fingers in the eyes of the “establishment”. Now, that moment has passed, and we are left with only regret. It is likely to be a lasting regret—lasting because it will inevitably weaken if not destroy the republic. If the republic does somehow manage to endure, maybe in the future logic, patience, and common sense will trump (pun intended) the anger that got us into this mess. After all, the best lessons come at the highest cost.
Or so they say.
Well, October is upon us, and with it, the homestretch of the 2016 presidential election, otherwise known as the End of Days for the GOP and potentially for our republic as we have known it. After a crushing defeat in the first general election presidential debate, Donald Trump, who appeared unprepared and ill-informed (in other words, genuine) is in yet another self-induced tailspin, and Hillary Clinton, who should be losing this election, and losing it badly, has not only recovered from her recent swoon (both physically and in the polls), but has in fact jumped ahead entering the final month of the campaign.
To be clear: despite an electoral map that greatly favors Democrat candidates, this did not have to be an uphill battle for Republicans. Hillary Clinton is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad candidate. First of all, she has no true accomplishments, either in the private sector (unless you count cattle futures), as first lady, or in her sham of a senatorial career. Her tenure as Secretary of State is more memorable for scandal and ineptitude, lost emails and murdered diplomats, failed interventions, and lack of foresight, than for true accomplishments, notwithstanding her flimsy claims of negotiating hostage releases and human rights agreements. She lacks charisma and is possibly the worst public speaker ever to get paid to do so more than once. In short, she is nothing and has nothing save the tattered coattails of a disgraced and impeached husband.
Yet, she is leading and likely to win. How? Because, against all odds, the Republican electorate, with some help from disaffected industrial workers, is on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because it nominated someone equally flawed to oppose Clinton.
Donald Trump claims to be some kind of business miracle worker. He is rich and savvy, at least he would have you believe he is, though he refuses to release tax returns that might shed light on just how rich he really is, while his history of bankruptcies, reneging on contracts, and shady partnerships (not to mention, the probably fraudulent Trump University) do seem to cast some doubt on the savvy part. We are supposed to believe he is really, really great because, well, he tells us he is—a lot. We are supposed to believe everything he would do as president would be “so good” because, well, he tells us it will be—constantly, with little or no specifics. Remember, though, during the GOP campaign he said he would beat Hillary and it wouldn’t even be that hard. Well, okay.
In the past several weeks, as the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency has loomed ever larger, hesitant GOP leaders, including Ted Cruz, have climbed reluctantly aboard the trump train. This late change of heart is apparently a last-ditch effort to save the Supreme Court, which will surely be lost for a generation if Hillary is elected, because, technically, Trump is ever so slightly less certain to do permanent damage to the constitution, grasping at straws being, after all, a warped version of optimism.
Trumpeteers, predictably are already preparing for defeat by peddling yet again their ridiculous claims that the so called “establishment” of the party has undermined the people’s choice. This is of course ludicrous, being that whatever “establishment” mechanism actually exists within the party has allowed and even aided the bombastic populist in his efforts. It is interesting that anyone who opposes Trump is quickly labeled “establishment” even the face of contravening logic. If there truly was an establishment, why didn’t they choose a candidate (Jeb Bush was the supposed favorite of this group) and then twist the arms of the other “establishment” candidates (pretty much all the rest of them to hear Trump supporters talk) and get them out of the race so to clear the path for their candidate. At that early juncture of the primaries, it wouldn’t have taken more than 35 or 40 percent to oust Trump. The truth is, it was all of the so-called anti establishment candidates clogging the field that divided the sensible conservative vote.
Walker, a fiscal conservative who cut taxes, lowered unemployment, erased a budget deficit, and took on labor unions, all while successfully warding off multiple efforts by democrats to unseat him in a state that has been consistently democratic blue for some time, never gained any traction. Perry, another former tea party favorite, who was among the first to drop out, never really had a chance. Ditto for Rand Paul, whose foreign policy agenda could be summed up with the question “Can’t we all just get along?”
Rubio of course, lost his bona fides due to his flirtation with immigration reform (the failure of which resulted in the open borders policy better known as Obama’s Executive Amnesty). That bill may look pretty good in retrospect and surely will once Hillary Clinton opens the borders. Interestingly enough, Trump’s immigration policy, depending on the day and to the extent anyone can actually figure it out, may end up softer than that of Rubio and the Gang of Eight. Go figure. Cruz apparently was unacceptable because he was not a very nice guy. Really.
If there truly is a Republican establishment , it is certainly one of the most inept bodies ever to try to control an election. If this “establishment” had any real power, they would have cleared the field for a chosen candidate. Wrong. Instead they engaged in a circular firing squad where everyone was a target except Trump. When the smoke cleared, they had damaged each other just enough to allow Trump to win in South Carolina. These actions hardly support the conspiracy theories of a coordinated effort to push an establishment candidate. What they suggest instead is a collection of egos that all expected Trump would eventually flame out (what rational person didn’t?) and their self serving hopes to be waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces. Now what?
Well, now, as it becomes more and more evident that Hillary will prevail, regret is beginning to sink in. Too bad. Seldom have the stars aligned so perfectly for a Republican victory, with a deep bench of young and successful senators and state governors pitted against the poster child for the left’s tired old progressive agenda with emphasis on the old and the tired. Hillary Clinton, literally wobbling under the weight of her scandal-ridden past and present, was a GOP landslide waiting to happen. The architect of many of the worst liberal policies over the past eight years – from the Arab spring to the Russian reset, she barely fought off an 80-year-old avowed socialist. The momentum of a strong GOP candidate might have propelled the senate to a filibuster-proof majority instead of crossing our fingers and hoping that the democrats do not regain control. Oh what might have been.
So why won’t that landslide and GOP wave happen? Because conservatives in their zeal to clean house in their own party, destroyed their best candidates and left standing the only one who could actually lose to Hillary. And he will.
The GOP electorate has spent the summer collectively standing on the ledge, flirting with political suicide. Half seem so enamored by the euphoric feeling of poking the establishment in the eye that they have become what they loathe, embracing a bombastic, non-conservative with no general election appeal. The other half, dragged onto the ledge kicking and screaming in sheer disbelief, are ready to jump to end their own misery. Meanwhile, democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, rejoice that the WWF show created by the Trumpster is drawing the media’s attention away from politically damaging coverage of Clinton’s email scandal and the party’s contortionist-like support for Planned Parenthood and their Auschwitz-like abortion clinic tactics.
However, at long last, there are at least signs that Republican voters have caught sight of the ground below and realized that political suicide is not a very efficient way to make a political point. Let’s hope anyway. Though far from a certainty, the latest polls at least provide hope that real estate mogul and circus master Donald Trump has peaked and, with the withdrawal of Rick Perry and Scott Walker, more realistic GOP candidates are beginning to emerge and peck away at Trump’s lead.
The sad truth, however, is that the summer of Trump has done the most damage to candidates that were the most conservative. Sure Jeb Bush has faltered badly, but he is still in it, and because of his fund raising apparatus, likely will remain in it at least for the next several months. Setting aside Rick Perry, who never really had any traction, it is Scott Walker who Trump’s candidacy most damaged. Long a tea-party darling, the conservative governor of Wisconsin, who cut taxes, balanced his state’s budget, and stood up to unions, all while fighting back multiple attempts to unseat him, faded badly out of the gate and never really had a chance.
Likewise, Ted Cruz, though still in it, has yet to crack the top five in the GOP field and despite strong favorability ratings among conservative voters, has failed to generate much excitement. As I wrote in an earlier post, he must feel like the jilted boyfriend who did everything right only to watch his love run off with the tattooed, motorcycle-riding, bad boy from the wrong side of town.
Why? Because Tea Party conservatives, including evangelicals, have chosen to embrace Donald Trump, a man who advocates for tax increases, who until recently called himself “very pro choice,” who has confessed to rarely attending church and has a lifestyle history that suggests he wasn’t listening much on the occasions he did. I’m baffled, honestly. Yes, I get it that Trump stands up to the media and rankles the feathers of the so-called Republican establishment, but really? Supporting Trump is absolutely the best example I have ever encountered of the old adage about cutting off one’s nose to spite the face. Ted Cruz has also stood up against the media and called out the “establishment” wing of the Republican party, but he does so in the context of legitimate political ideas and substantive debate and discussion. Trump’s idea of substantive: “I will be so good at (fill in the blank) that it will be amazing.” Really? I mean, come on, conservatives, really???
Let’s face it, Trump rose to popularity solely based on his stark immigration talk. GOP voters, especially the far-right conservative segment of the party, have long been frustrated by the lack of any action to curb illegal immigration. They know that the social welfare system instituted by liberal politicians over the last several decades is heading for collapse and that the addition of these immigrants will only hasten such collapse and the economic chaos that will surely follow.
They are angry about the drug trafficking which wrecks the lives of so many American young people while sending money (often stolen from family and friends) back to criminals in Mexico and leads to millions more spent at treatment centers here to try to repair the damage. They worry about losing their culture and are rightly terrified about the national security risks associated with such an easily penetrated border. All these concerns are justified and understandable. Trump was right to point out these problems associated with the immigration issue. Unfortunately he chose to do so in a way that fueled the worst lies that liberals perpetuate about people who want to crack down on illegal immigration—namely that it is driven by racism and xenophobia. Sadly, though Trump’s brash talk may resonate with the frustrated base, it will do little to sway voters that could actually help make such policies happen.
Conservatives often scoff at the idea that moderates need to be swayed, but it seems only logical to conclude that if conservatives alone had sufficient political strength to enact such policies they would already be in place. Therefore, we need to win voters over. We certainly have a better chance of doing so with moderate voters than with far-left leaning liberals who basically advocate for open borders and who quite literally, I believe, hope that doing so will forever alter the general electorate and put America even more firmly on the path to a European-like socialist system. Ignoring moderates and attacking our own party members who hazard to suggest compromise, will almost certainly lead us to yet another defeat. Many conservatives feel that Republicans have lost the last two presidential elections because the party did not offer a true, conservative alternative to the democratic candidate.
Such reasoning is absurd. Mitt Romney was very clearly more conservative on any issue one can think of than Barak Obama, probably the most liberal president in history. Staying home and thereby helping ensure Obama’s election is akin to a starving man turning down a burger because it isn’t a steak. Again, really?
This post has focused on the presidential campaign, but GOP bickering is not just a presidential matter. Infighting in the GOP congressional delegation is not helping the party. Tea party backers and far right leaning republican voters are no doubt celebrating the resignation of speaker John Boehner. To be clear, I have not been a fan of Boehner. The whole crying thing got him off to a bad start and established the narrative which he has been unable to shake of a weak leader. Likewise, McConnell has too often seemed too eager to “reach across the aisle,” despite how many times it has resulted in having his hand bitten and the utter unwillingness of democrats to capitulate.
However, the idea that Boehner and McConnell are the reasons that the GOP/conservative agenda has been thwarted in just stupid, to use a Trump-like invective. Barak Obama and his veto power are the reasons the conservative agenda has little chance of succeeding at this point. While it is true that the GOP controls both houses of congress, it is also true that their thin majority is not sufficient to override certain presidential vetoes on key planks of the Obama agenda e.g., Obamacare and now the Iran nuclear deal).
Absent control of the executive branch, a party needs a veto-proof majority (67 in the senate) to effectively influence public policy. At present, in the senate the GOP lacks sufficient strength to even achieve cloture on key bills. I realize that democrats have in the past blown up senate rules and traditions to achieve their legislative goals, but they did so knowing that their party controlled the executive and that such measures would be supported by the president. On the contrary, should the GOP change rules to bypass cloture, they would do so with the knowledge that a certain veto awaited. I’m not sure how forcing a presidential veto advances the GOP argument since the president has clearly made his stance known.
The real sin that GOP leadership is guilty of is making promises to the electorate over the past several campaign seasons without sufficiently explaining that absent a veto –proof majority (or at least the ability to reach cloture) the party was certain to be hard pressed to keep.
Tea Party conservatives complain about the lack of true conservatism among the so-called GOP establishment (if you can’t tell, I hate this narrative), yet not a single Republican supported either the Iran nuclear deal or Obamacare. The “establishment” is also accused of failing to support some Tea Party candidates in general elections, thus leading to the election of democrats. This too is rubbish. The problem, too often, has been that Tea Party zealots have run hard line conservatives without vetting their overall electability (see Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, and Sharron Angle). Recall that in the wave election of 2010 voters were deeply dissatisfied with the democrats and all three of these races, especially the Akin and Angle races, held the real potential for a GOP flip had the party ran its strongest candidates rather than simply the ones that managed to move the farthest right.
Akin actually enjoyed a substantial lead before his “legitimate” rape comments doomed his candidacy. His refusal to withdraw and allow a more electable candidate a shot is a microcosm of how GOP in-fighting has damaged the party. To be clear, democrats may very well have held on to these seats anyway, but imagine what the party might have accomplished by flipping those three seats and dislodging Harry Reid as senate leader.
Likewise, attacks by moderates on strong conservatives such as Ted Cruz only serve to reinforce the narrative that the “establishment” does not embrace conservative values. These divisions within the party do not bode well for the unified effort that will be needed to regain the White House, whoever the democratic nominee might be. Democrats do not have such divisions, at least not amongst the punditry and the politicians themselves, though the electorate is clearly anxious about Hillary Clinton.
While no one can seriously doubt that Clinton is becoming more annoyed by the day with Bernie Sanders and all the talk of a possible Joe Biden run, she has been careful to avoid criticism of either, no doubt recognizing that she will need full support of their backers in the general election. Instead she has confined her attacks to GOP candidates, along familiar lines such as the war on women, republican bigotry, social injustice, etc.
GOP voters, especially those in its conservative wing, hate how democrats frame these “issues,” arguing (correctly) that there is no war on women and that GOP supporters are no more bigoted than democrat supporters, possibly less. Yet, these fallacious attacks are made easier by the invective of the current front runner and play into the narrative that democrats feed to moderate voters otherwise inclined toward GOP policies. Which is why the apparent peak in support for Trump is good, and hopefully, lasting news.
The polls all show an electorate deeply dissatisfied with both the direction of the country and our current president. Clinton’s email scandal and democrats’ continued support of Planned Parenthood and their grotesque practices, leave both extremely vulnerable to a solid (but one) GOP field. This is no time for conservatives to be flirting with disaster, stamping around on the ledge, just to show we can.
One could fall, after all.
As the parent of a special needs child, I’ve learned to recognize the difference between my autistic son’s typical tantrums and his occasional meltdowns. Most parents over time learn the value of picking your battles, and we are certainly no different. Once our son enters meltdown territory, it is nearly impossible to reverse, even by appeasement. By this time, the struggle has become a power play, with our child determined to do the opposite of anything we offer or suggest. It can be an unnerving experience because children having a meltdown can hurt themselves or others or cause other real damage.
Such, in my humble opinion, is the case for the supporters of Donald Trump, erstwhile reality television show host turned frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination. So disillusioned are conservatives by the failure of the party to contain the President (or even in their judgment to try) that they (it would seem) have moved beyond mere tantrum and are undergoing a full-blown meltdown, having decided to take an “anybody but” approach to choosing their next nominee. Even Rush Limbaugh has explained the chief appeal of Donald Trump as not who he is but who he isn’t – namely any of the (scary word alert) “establishment” candidates, which apparently includes anyone whoever even hinted at “working” with the other party. I’m not sure we can fairly accuse Ted Cruz of this transgression, but he must have done something nice for a Democrat at some point because his support has slipped into the weeds with other one-time conservative standard bearers at around 6 percent. In full meltdown mode, they have abandoned even those who have steadfastly done their bidding. Who knows? Maybe Ted Cruz held the door open for Nancy Pelosi at some point. RHINO!
After my last post, I had promised myself not to post again on Trump unless and until it was time to celebrate his demise. I vowed to wait for the day when the stupid pills (to borrow a Trump debate point) that many members of the former party of ideas were apparently slipped, wore off. However, I must admit, listening to a Limbaugh caller liken Trump to John Wayne and praise his fight against political correctness has nearly pushed me over the edge once again.
First, setting aside the fact that the personas embodied by John Wayne in most of his roles were fictional, Donald Trump is nothing like the symbol that John Wayne represented. John Wayne was a fighter, but he did so with class. He didn’t stand on a podium calling people names. Second, John Wayne was proud but humble. That is why people saw him as more than an entertainer. Ironically, some people accuse Trump of being an entertainer. They are wrong. He is truly as full of himself as he lets on. Further, he is not fighting the battle of political correctness. Even I fell for this somewhat (as evidenced by my last post) but I’ve thought more about it now and realize that this is simply not true.
Political correctness is the process of trying to ban perfectly good language from the lexicon ostensibly because it is offensive but in reality because it is accurate or effective in making a point. For example, we discourage people from saying “illegal alien” (how can a person be illegal?) and are told not refer to United States citizens as Americans because this term should apply to anyone from anywhere in North or South America (I kid not!). Never mind that the peoples in these other countries refer to us as Americans and are perfectly content to refer to themselves as Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, etc. Those are examples of battles we should be fighting against political correctness. Calling someone an idiot, disparaging their appearance, or calling them third-rate broadcasters is just rude. Doing so doesn’t demonstrate Trump’s courageous defense of speech but rather his outrageous disdain for common decency.
As George Will has noted, each day that Trump is identified with the Republican party and worse conservatism is a day the party and conservative ideas are diminished. The longer he remains competitive in the GOP field, the less likely we are to elect a Republican president and turn back the disastrous policies of the last eight years. If the GOP meltdown continues and Trump somehow gets the nomination we will lose. And in the words of the Daniel Kaffee character from one of my favorite movies (A Few Good Men), “we’re going to lose huge.”
Ted Cruz must feel like the most unappreciated man in the country. Conservatives, it seems, have abandoned him for Donald Trump, much as the pretty prom queen sells out the good guy next door to run off with the rich brat in his flashy convertible. It wasn’t so long ago that Cruz was the darling of the Tea Party and the standard bearer for true conservatism. What happened? To put it in the words of John Kasich, he with the great misfortune of having been praised by the mainstream media after the first debate, Donald Trump tapped into something – what exactly is a subject for debate.
Republican anger and frustration seems to be the most popular and palpable explanation though Trump supporters deny this. Even conservative media prognosticators seem entranced by the brash talking billionaire much as a child with a shiny new penny. It may not be worth much but it sure is pretty. Meanwhile, anyone pointing out the obvious flaws in Trump’s candidacy is branded with the dreaded label of “establishment!”
Which brings us to the central theme of the Republican race thus far—a party more focused on purging dissidents within its own ranks than unseating Democrats from office. It’s obvious that many within what would normally constitute the Republican base are frustrated with their own party’s inability to thwart the Obama agenda despite now holding control of both chambers of Congress. They see this failure as evidence that “establishment” (that word again!) Republicans are no different from Democrats. This of course is lunacy. Certainly many on the Right (myself included) wish that Boehner and McConnell were closer to Ted Cruz, but equating them to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is not only hyperbolic nonsense, it is also damaging to the party (all factions) and its goal of reversing the abhorrent policies of Obama.
Why not force vetoes on Obamacare, funding of Planned Parenthood, and immigration measures? Make Obama come out on record on these issues. Seriously? Is there really any question where the President stands on these issues? Force senators and congressmen to go on record supporting or opposing the President? Ditto. As George Will recently noted, those who blame Republican leadership for failing to stop Obama might as well blame the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution. Right on cue, Will was accused of “attacking” our Founding Fathers. Give me a break.
It is little wonder that reasonable conservatives, trying to explain the Trump phenomena point to anger and frustration. What else explains how a man who is clearly the most progressive candidate in the field, who advocates tax increases, defends Planned Parenthood, resists entitlement reform, and who has in the past supported nationalized health care, is leading the Republican field, including among evangelicals and Tea Party loyalists.
Certainly, we are all weary of the PC police who constantly pick apart every word of every utterance of any conservative or Republican, imagining a bogeyman of racism, discrimination, or bigotry. A man like Trump, who is unafraid to speak his mind and who not only refuses to conform to political correctness but seemingly goes out of his way to challenge it, is truly a breath of fresh air. However, this is hardly sufficient qualification to be President. And as much as it has warmed the hearts of both the conservative rank and file and its punditry, it is highly unlikely to win over moderate voters who will in all likelihood decide the election yet again.
Yes, it is fashionable for conservative punditry to point out that “establishment” (OMG!) candidates have lost the last two elections to Obama. However, it makes little sense to suppose that a more conservative candidate would have done better. The theory being, I guess, that conservatives, unhappy with McCain and Romney as candidates, decided to stay home, thus punishing the GOP (and the rest of America by the way!) with Obama. Let’s see, that Romney guy, he waffled on life and supported a health care plan similar to Obamacare. That’s unacceptable. I’ll show him, I’m going to help a man get elected who supports abortion as long a toe nail remains in womb and has an ultimate goal of single payer health care. How do you like them apples, establishment?
Of course, there is absolutely no chance that a “true” conservative candidate might have lost any of the moderates who supported Romney. What true conservative would they have preferred anyway? Rick Santorum? Newt Gingrich? Ron Paul?? Though ridiculous on its face, if it were true that large numbers of conservatives sat out the last two elections to punish the GOP, then shame on them! Their shortsightedness has brought our country to brink of the point of no return. Their answer now? Not Ted Cruz, a strong conservative who might actually have a chance to win over voters with ideas, but rather Donald Trump, a bombastic, substance-lacking weather vane whose one attribute, if you can call it that, is his ability to go toe to toe with liberal flamethrowers.
This is the most important election in our lifetimes and quite possible in the history of our republic. As consequential as the last two presidential elections have been, they pale in comparison. For this may very well be the last best chance to reverse not only the policies of a big government liberal but to reject the hijacking of authority by the executive branch that he has presided over. If Hillary Clinton (or whoever the liberals end up nominating) wins, it will be that much easier to govern by executive fiat and against the will of the people, precedence having been firmly established and voter-endorsed. To head off this disaster we must do better than Donald Trump.