Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: If politicians were angels, no elections would be necessary

Despite mounting evidence that not only will Donald Trump emerge without serious opposition from the Republican convention, he’ll do so with most Republicans firmly behind him, the leaders of the #NeverTrump movement continue to grasp at straws in hopes something – or someone – will rise up to save us from ourselves.

Erick Erickson writes in The Resurgent, “240 years ago those 56 men pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to this great American experiment. And now? Not one damn Republican leader is willing to James Madisondo what they know is right. These are unserious times and those who purport to be our leaders are unserious. Our allies look on with horror and our enemies with glee.

“Our founders warned of demagogues and the Republicans, the party that long prided itself in being the adult party, will surrender to one in two weeks because not one of those who should will stand and lead.”

In his post, Erickson specifically takes Senator Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney to task for their failure to follow the Founding Fathers’ example and come forward to serve as the figurehead to the #NeverTrump forces (by my estimation, an ever dwindling army). As everyone knows by now, both Sasse and Romney have been very vocal in their opposition to Trump, as has Erickson.

But I personally don’t think the Founding Fathers would have been as opposed to a man like Trump as Erickson seems to think they would. While it’s true, as Erickson points out, that Trump is not exactly the most virtuous man to ever run for president, he also has many qualities the Founding Fathers would have accepted if not admired.

First and foremost is Trump’s insistence on enforcing the immigration laws. Without going into the details of the infamous and discredited Alien and Sedition acts (note: The revised Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today), Trump proposes to ensure enemies of the United States do not come here to undermine the security of the American People.

Trump’s opposition to illegal and potentially dangerous immigration and promise to enforce existing laws stands in stark contrast to Crooked Hillary and our current president who take a much more politically self-interested and naïve view that all people come here with good intentions regardless of how they arrived.

How can Republicans take to task a man who simply promises to do what nearly all elected representatives have pledged to do for decades? The Founding Fathers were men of integrity who believed leaders had a responsibility to do what was right in all cases. The fact Trump is and has been so willing to go beyond party interests (such as alienating the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP) to enforce the law indicates he likely would have enjoyed great favor with the Founders.

Isn’t going against the interests of party to serve the common good a positive thing?

As he’s been doing for months, Erickson cites Trump’s personal failings as a disqualifier to serve as president. True, Mitt Romney didn’t carry the same type of baggage as Trump does, but Trump’s led an entirely different life than the former Massachusetts governor. And we all know a good many of the Founding Fathers weren’t exactly squeaky clean in the virtue department.

We remember the Founding Fathers for their ideas and their willingness to risk everything for liberty, not for the fact they got up every day and put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else.

As Americans we can’t afford to elect a “man” (and especially not a “woman” this year) as much as we need someone who offers policies that can solve issues that government is intended to address, such as protecting America’s borders and securing our interests in negotiations with other nations.

As a man, Trump may not be qualified to be president if judged on virtue alone as Erickson and the #NeverTrumpers seem so intent to suggest. But as someone who will advocate for America and do the things required of a president, Trump passes the test. And most Republicans seem to be realizing it, thankfully.

Trump’s policies are in line with fitness for office and the voters have chosen him. As adherents to the Constitution and ever watchful of those who serve the People, conservatives must keep an eye on Trump and all people in government. Our responsibility doesn’t end with voting in a primary or in November.

James Madison is famous for writing in The Federalist Papers (in this case, #51) “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Far be it from me to add to Madison’s wisdom, but I would add, “If politicians were angels, no elections would be necessary” either.

Make no mistake, Donald Trump is no angel. Conservatives must be vigilant in watching his every move and letting him know when he’s crossed the line of ideology or virtue. But Erickson is wrong in predicting how the Founding Fathers would have viewed Trump, especially in a year when the only other choice is the utterly devoid of principle Hillary Clinton.

Clinton is the embodiment of the privileged elite establishment that feels entitled to rule over the people because they think they know better than everyone else. Time and circumstance aside, she would fit in very well in the “Taxation without Representation” British Parliament in the 1770’s.

Forget being an angel -- in her case, we definitely should be giving the devil her due.

Media touts Ivanka Trump as The Donald’s running mate

As further evidence the media will pick up every little ridiculous utterance concerning Trump and run with it, now they’re even asking Trump’s family about the possibility of Ivanka Trump being named as The Donald’s running mate because of something Senator Bob Corker said while backing out of consideration himself.

Nick Gass of Politico reports Corker said Wednesday on MSNBC, “’His best running mate, by the way, would be Ivanka. I know that wouldn't pass muster, probably. But I don't know that I've met a more composed, brilliant, beautiful-in-every-way person.’”

Ask Bob Corker a question and expect a stupid answer. That’s exactly what you’ll get from the Republican establishment every time. Ivanka as vice president, really? She would be constitutionally prevented from running with Trump in any case because they’re both from the same state…aren’t they?

But of course the media couldn’t resist asking Trump’s son Eric about what Corker blathered concerning Ivanka. Eric politely answered the question and then shifted to defending his father’s relationship with the Jewish community (of which Ivanka is a member) in reference to the media-generated six-sided star controversy.

Does any serious journalist truly believe Trump would choose his own daughter for his running mate? Maybe it’s wishful thinking on their part, since it would make for a great story. It would also serve to end Trump’s candidacy, which would certainly make them happy.

On the more thoughtful side of Trump’s potential VP choices, Politico is also reporting that some of the names on his short list aren’t exactly well known to voters, so selecting them might not help him in the election.

Steven Shepard of Politico reports, “Despite the reality-TV star’s reported desire for a running mate with star power, most of his VP prospects are state-level politicians who lack significant national profiles. And those who have established name-identification among voters — like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — would carry substantial baggage.”

In the balance of his article (which addresses Clinton’s VP prospects as well), Shepard discusses the impact of a few of Trump’s potential VP’s and not surprisingly Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie would end up being a drag on the ticket if they impacted it at all.

The others prominently mentioned (Joni Ernst, Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence) aren’t well-known enough to voters to have them influence the chances of winning at this stage.

Christie in particular would be an unpopular choice because he isn’t well-liked by even his own constituents. Aside from the fact Christie isn’t a principled conservative having two rather brash tough-talking candidates from roughly the same geographical region isn’t exactly an attractive combination.

(Note: It now looks like Christie is being passed over for Trump’s VP after conservatives forced out Corker, which means Trump is listening to us.)

I still believe if it were up to him alone, Trump would choose someone like Ernst. But Ernst has indicated she doesn’t really want to run.

Trump could seek to make a splash with his choice, or more likely will select someone like Mike Pence who has a good relationship with conservatives and spent years in Congress as well as at the state level.

I for one look forward to Trump making the announcement so we won’t have to hear any more nonsense about his daughter being on the ticket.

They wouldn’t be scolding their own nominee if the establishment candidate had won

With time counting down to the Republican convention beginning on July 18 (with preliminary meetings to be held in Cleveland next week), you would think GOP senators and congressman would be going out of their way to rally around their nominee and prepare for the all-important election battle in November to defeat Crooked Hillary.

While FBI Director James Comey was on the House side testifying about the investigation into Crooked Hillary’s emails, Trump was getting a tongue-lashing of his own from a particularly bitter member of the Senate GOP establishment.

Jordain Carney of The Hill reports, “A meeting between the Senate GOP caucus and Donald Trump boiled over Thursday during a tense exchange between Sen. Jeff Flake and the presumptive presidential nominee…

“’Yes, I’m the other senator from Arizona — the one who didn’t get captured — and I want to talk to you about statements like that,’ Flake said to Trump, according to the [Washington] Post.”

Can you imagine a Democrat senator censuring Clinton in such a manner? If Hillary was paying Democrat senators a visit, they’d be meek as lambs in bowing to her and praising her every word and action. When Trump heads to the Hill, on the other hand, he gets dumped on by bitter establishmentarians who are still angry about something he said almost a year ago.

Of course Jeff Flake, like fellow Arizona Senator John McCain, was a member of the infamous Gang of Eight, so there’s no surprise he’d come to the defense of McCain or chastise Trump for his immigration views.

News flash to Flake: Trump won the presidential nomination BECAUSE of his immigration positions, not in spite of them. Arizona voters appear to like them as well since Trump got nearly 50 percent of the vote there in a four-way race (Marco Rubio’s name was still on the ballot and received a good share in early voting).

Enough on Flake, who still maintains he can’t support Trump – yet. Blah, blah, blah. Maybe he should be #NeverTrump’s candidate…I would love to see how far that went.

At any rate, it just goes to show, if any of the establishment candidates had won this year as they have for the past three decades, Republicans would be all enthused, ready to support someone who the voters don’t care all that much about.

I remember 1996. Bob Dole just wasn’t inspiring.

Trump has people excited, but can’t get his own party members to back him. And it’s not just about policy, it’s about personality.

In the end, it won’t matter what Jeff Flake does in the general election. But it sure would be nice to see a little team spirit among the Republican players. If that were the case, we’d have a much better chance of winning the game.

Ted Cruz meets privately with The Donald, will speak at the convention

Finally this week, there wasn’t much suspense involved in the announcement Ted Cruz would speak at the Republican convention in Cleveland, but the media is sure making a big deal out of it.

Alex Isenstadt of Politico reports, “Ted Cruz has accepted an offer from Donald Trump to speak at the Republican National Convention.

“The announcement came several hours after Cruz and Trump held a private meeting on Capitol Hill, their first since the end of the primaries. During the meeting, a Cruz spokeswoman said, ‘Mr. Trump asked Sen. Cruz to speak at the Republican convention, and Sen. Cruz said he would be happy to do so.’”

Cruz is yet to endorse Trump, but I highly doubt there will be any visible animosity once Cruz takes the stage. If anything, Trump is probably worried Cruz will upstage him in the speaking department, since we all know Cruz has a remarkable gift for public oratory.

It remains to be seen what role Cruz will play in the fall campaign, and perhaps his speech at the convention will reveal it. I can’t imagine Ted sitting this one out. Conservatives want to see him and Republicans need him to come forward as an example that the party still has some principled politicians left.

It should be an exciting next couple weeks, for sure.

Share this