Give me that ‘Old Atavistic Nationalism’

Standard

GOPSlit

 

That’s what the New York Times calls Donald Trump’s brand of politics: “atavistic nationalism”, with roots as old as the party itself.” GOP leaders, they go on to say, “fear their party is on the cusp of an epochal split.”

(That’s what I truly love about the New York Times, and I’m not being sarcastic, they don’t allow you to get too far from your dictionary.)

The Times story was basically the same one dominating the news cycle this weekend, about that epic (excuse me, I mean “epochal”) split in the GOP that is threatening and terrifying those who choose to call themselves Conservatives.

A term that I love, used either by or about Donald Trump’s approach to politics is Commonsense Conservatism”, I saw that and said “Voila” (figuratively of course); that’s what was missing in Conservatism, common sense. I always use to hesitate to identify myself as a Conservative because most Conservatives are still piddling around with the “religious” Conservatism that was born in the 1960s and was ingrained by the 1980s. Religious Conservatism is in itself an oxymoron that was created to convince legislators that they have the right to interfere with social issues that have no reasonable link to the Constitution or to the major functions of the federal government.

Even outside of the ‘Religious Conservative’ context, the GOP has been making a fool of itself for the past 4 years by being unwilling or unable to keep the promises made to voters in 2012. These are the same voters who believed the promises and put Republicans in majority roles in the House and Senate with the understanding that, among other things, they will replace ObamaCare with something that gives the power over healthcare back to the people. That didn’t happen, in spite of the supposed “power of the purse” held by the majority of Republicans in the House. Not much else has been accomplished either to undo the damage that Obama, and his cadre of Liberal followers has done to the country and the Constitution.

Considering all this, a “split” in the GOP is almost inevitable unless the powers that be start getting in touch with and in tune with the commonsense Republican ideas that caused a majority of primary voters to flock to Donald Trump.

Advertisements

Is Trump Right? Is Delegate System Rigged?

Standard
In this photo taken Dec. 2, 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during an interview with the Associated Press at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va. In television news, a telephone interview is usually frowned upon. Yet Donald Trump's fondness for them is changing habits and causing consternation in newsrooms, while altering traditions of political access. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

After the recent  exit from the Republican race for the presidency by Ted Cruz, the questions asked in the title are, for right now moot – at least for the Republican party.

Whether the delegate selection system is rigged or not is something you and I, as citizens on the outside of the political process, may not know until someone writes the “tell-all” book some years from now. For now I’ll just call it an unnecessarily complex and really inappropriate system in a 21st Century democracy. I feel that it is inappropriate for the votes of the citizens to be tampered with in any way; once the voters have ‘spoken’, that should be the end of it.

To my mind, Donald Trump is right! The candidate with the most popular votes should be the party’s nominee. That, however, is far from the way it is right now.

In the 21st Century, what is the point of having delegates attend a convention if not just to give the “losing” candidates a chance to override the choice of the majority. That doesn’t sound fair to me! On top of that, we had Cruz, Kasich and Sanders pushing for a “contested convention”, in the hope it gives them an opportunity to ‘change the minds of delagates’; delegates that really are not necessary in a modern day democratic process. That opportunity should not exist.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump turned out to be the clear choice of the majority of citizens who voted in the Republican primaries and he will be the party’s nominee. As it sits right now, Hillary Clinton appears to be the clear winner of the Democratic nomination. You or I may personally detest either one or both of them, but in America, in a presidential election, when the majority speaks it should be ‘game over’.

We hear from the Republican and Democratic officials that the current system has been in place for 200 years – and that’s supposed to squash all objections. That’s a reason to change it! Two hundred years ago there was no coast to coast news coverage, no reliable coast to coast communication at all. The Federal election system was developed for the conditions that existed at the time and it was never updated.

This is a new time with new circumstances and that should warrant the creation of a new 21st Century presidential election system.


			

On This Particular Super Tuesday . . . The Word is Change!

Standard

The “Go Along/Get Along” GOP Elite are wetting their pants at the thought of Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination for president.

They are spreading rumors that Trump will lose to Clinton in November but they know that will not happen. What they are really worried about is that 1) a President Trump will change the face of the Republican Party when he wins the presidency and 2) that a President Trump will change the meaning of “Conservative” when he wins the presidency.

Donald Trump represents change and that’s the one thing the “Conservative” Republicans don’t want and it’s the one thing the “Social Conservative” Republicans are loosing sleep over.

More than change, Donald Trump represents rebellion against that “Go Along/Get Along” mindset of the GOP elders.

We the voters need to fight back against that GOP Elite and their dirty tricks and lies.

We the voters need to give Donald Trump a big win in the Super Tuesday states . . . including here in Texas.

Trumps main competition on Super Tuesday, Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio are digging deep, trying to find something. . . anything that will kill off the Trump candidacy and they are resorting to dirty tricks, exaggerations, rumors, and misdirection.

Ask yourself: Are desperate, dirty tricksters Cruz and Rubio the kind of people you want leading this country?

The GOP Debate/Brawl from Houston

Standard

I watched the GOP Debate from Houston last night; actually it was more of a hands-off bar brawl than a debate.

What is accomplished when three people are talking loudly all at once? Well, it makes them all seem more like three kids arguing over an umpire’s call in their little league game than three educated, talented adults who are contending for the nomination as president of the most powerful country in the world.

The Washington Post was quick to coronate Marco Rubio as the winner in their online article this morning ; of course! They are now, and have been, the biggest supporters of establishment politicians and, while Rubio is not exactly who they wanted as their establishment candidate, he’s all they have since Jeb dropped out of the race.

The Post’s headline reads: “Rubio won the Republican debate by putting Trump on the defensive.” Were they even watching the same debate? Yes! They were referring to the same debate as I was watching, but their spin on Rubio’s performance was simply wishful thinking. Trump stood tall next to Rubio and refuted every attack (and there was a seemingly never ending barrage of attacks). In fact, the biggest laugh line of the evening was at Rubio’s expense; when Marco was badgering Trump about some Polish workers he had hired (and he apparently got into some legal trouble for hiring them) and then accused Trump of hiring illegal aliens, Trumps rejoinder was priceless: “I’m the only one on this stage that’s hired people. I’ve hired tens of thousands of people. You haven’t hired one person in your life!”

The Post article also implied that Cruz’s performance was too weak, which is a short-sighted analysis,. Cruz was smiling and enjoying the Rubio/Trump battle, no doubt hoping that they completely destroy each other, giving him a broader highway to the nomination. I do have to say that Cruz had nothing new to offer last night, and that probably hurt him.

Other great Trump rejoinders of the evening:

To Ted Cruz: “I get along with everybody, you get along with nobody. You don’t have the endorsement of one Republican senator and you work with these people!” (good point!)

To the audience: “These are desperate politicians who are being told to say these things.” (True!)

To Rubio and Cruz: “Keep fighting. Keep swinging for the fences”.

Governor Kasich was impressive last night; he would be a good, strong president (at least as good as the other main players) but it appears that he has a very weak following; almost as weak as Dr. Ben Carson.

Speaking of Ben Carson, I’ve joked to a few friends that electing Ben Carson as president would be like putting an intern in as lead physician during a brain surgery. The intern MIGHT be able to complete the surgery successfully, but it would put the patient in jeopardy. In the worlds of Domestic and International politics, Carson MIGHT be able to save the patient (that’s us) but it’s a hell of a chance to take.

The results of Super Tuesday will be fascinating! For my part, I voted on the first day of early voting . . . and almost immediately started having second thoughts.

NEWS FLASH:

As I was about to publish this post, Chris Christie endorsed Trump for president. He says he has no intention of running for any other elective office until he is finished as governor of New Jersey in 2017. Realistically, I think a nod as a vice presidential candidate under the presumed Republican GOP Candidate (Trump) would make him give that a second thought.

 

The Wisdom of the Deal

Standard

Back in December, on this blog , I came out strongly for Ted Cruz as my choice for the next resident at 1600 Pensylvania Ave. I’m not backing away from that position, but there are now new revelations that about his management style and his professional relationships that may be making many voters question the effectiveness of his presidency, should he be nominated and then elected.

No, I’m not buying anything negative that the mainstream media has to say about Ted Cruz nor do I believe most things that Donald Trump now has to say about Ted Cruz, especially his judgement that Cruz is “a nasty person.” Trump may, in fact, think he’s making a valid point when he implies that a politician, especially a president, has to make deals and you have to get along with those you work with. In fact, Trump is illustrating the difference between operating as a business man responsible for the bottom line of a company and operating as the nation’s chief-executive who has a direct responsibility for the physical, mental and financial well-being of the many millions of Americans who are his constituents and, at the same time, a responsibility to uphold his oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If that is your sworn oath, there is not a lot of room for making deals and there is a great need to be very vigilant about who you are dealing with and what results a deal may bring about; there is also an absolute requirement that any deal made will preserve the United States Constitution.

Back in Kindergarten you get graded on your ability to “play well with others” (at least I was, way back then). Whoever created that learning milestone had an amazing amount of foresight into what makes a successfully “socialized” child who may grow up to be a successfully socialized adult. In that wonderful lesson, however, lies a fallacy. As an adult you also have a responsibility to make judgements about your actions and not assume that everyone in your “school yard” has a benevolent objective to their actions.

In the case of Ted Cruz,it appears that he is one of the “adults” in Congress and, as a discriminating adult, he is right not to “play well” with politicians who hold positions that go against his firmly-held beliefs or well-considered judgements. The question is: will the majority of American’s see Ted Cruz’  unwillingness to embrace the political establishment as the asset it is or will they just believe what they read in the newspapers.

My Considered Choice: Ted Cruz

Standard

What the Republican Party needs, if it hopes to defeat the ‘Illogical Left’ in 2016 is a candidate who values (and espouses) a rational plan to return the United States to its positions of economic and military leadership in a world that appears to be lost and uncertain in the wake of a weak and floundering central government.

A Democratic victory in the U.S. Presidential Election in November of 2016 would be disastrous to the United States, to the few countries we can still count on as allies and to the world’s economy.

I firmly believe that what the Republican Party, The United States and ultimately the world needs is a safe and strong United States that stands un-intimidated in the face of dictators and in the face of the rabble who are attempting to destroy all the underpinnings of a civilized world in the name of the most brutal aspects of their religion. Anything less than a return to sanity in Washington, on ‘Main Street’ and on Wall Street and the rebuilding of a strong American military that reflects the traditional values of the United States will not be enough to save us from the uncertain future we face today.

Soft-spoken, intelligent Ben Carson is certainly capable of learning what he needs to know to run the country, but, relatively speaking, if elected, he would be like a first-year medical student doing brain surgery.

Donald Trump is undoubtedly a very successful entrepreneur who, as president, would most likely be able to understand and control our currently out of control economy, but it appears that, as our ‘really great president’, the United States Constitution would rapidly be replaced by a still unwritten tome titled ‘The World According To Donald Trump’; the problem is, that isn’t the way the world or the United States works.

So who is this leader that can restore America to greatness? My hopes are on Ted Cruz.

Originally, in this blog, I boosted Donald Trump and then Ben Carson. They are both good men who share my vision of a safe, strong, powerful United States. Why then this shift to Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz also shares my visions for America and, as a sitting United States Senator (TX) he has proven to oppose the business-as-usual, just-for-profit, anything to get reelected mentality of many (most?) members of Congress. Also, as a sitting member of Congress, he has valuable insights into how our government works now and, more importantly, what can be done to make it work better for the American citizen/taxpayer. This “insider” advantage, combined with his commonsense, anti-establishment, ‘politically incorrect’ positions on the important topics of National Defense, the economy and public welfare makes him preferable to Ben Carson or Donald Trump.

NOTE: Ted Cruz is currently also being touted as the ‘flavor-of-the-month’ for Evangelical voters. As long as his religious beliefs have a negligible effect on his important positions and he continues to quote from the Constitution and not from some religious text, I’m alright with that.

Recommended Reading:

All about Ted Cruz : Follow the links for his Bio, his philosophy, his positions and more.

W.P. Wonk Blog: The Washington Post publishes the “Wonk Blog” on a regular basis, a current post on that blog is “A guide to what Ted Cruz really believes” . While the Washington Post is not a big fan of Ted Cruz (or any Republican) their ‘Guide to Ted Cruz’ is an interesting and apparently fair look at Ted Cruz’ positions relative to Donald Trump and other Republicans.

Trump’s Poorly-Thought-Out Muslim Proposal

Standard

Let’s just imagine that America’s immigration policy is changed to temporarily prevent Muslims from entering the country; just temporarily, until our government can figure out how to tell the radicalized Muslims from the peaceful ones.

That doesn’t seem like a bad idea when you consider the death and destruction that is almost routinely, caused by radicalized Muslims.

You’d never know it from listening to the broadcast or cable news, or even by listening to Trump himself, but that is exactly what Donald Trump is suggesting. Now Trump, being Trump, doesn’t make proposals that sound reasonable – when he talks, he is talking to the people who are just totally pissed-off about the way our government does things so he uses harsh words and makes wild faces that will energize his followers.

Donald Trump, politically speaking, is not a very smart man! He talks off the top of his head and I seriously doubt that he listens to any rational advice he is given by his political advisors — either that or he has hired a bunch of “yes men” as advisors who do nothing but stroke his very large ego.

There is no doubt in my mind that what Trump is suggesting:

“A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

is the germ of a good idea, but I get the impression that Trump believes, like he believed about his ‘deport every Illegal Alien’ proposal, that it is something that could actually happen. Even if  Trump were to become the next president, it is unlikely that he could shut down Muslim immigration completely — there is just too much opposition to that idea in both the Republican and Democratic parties as well as in the Supreme Court and in the general public.

In a perfectly rational world, Trump’s proposal would be hailed as a ‘great idea’ but here in America, we are far from being in a perfectly rational world. Americans long ago lost their spirit and their ability to think clearly! What we have now is a “go along to get along” mentality that shrivels at the thought of being thought of as anything other than ‘generous, accepting and forgiving’. We have an entire generation of  liberal “Stepford Wives” controlling the country’s direction.

No, I don’t believe we need (or will ever get) Trump in the White House, who we need is someone who is on the same “wavelength” as Trump but will apply common sense and logic to his propositions. Someone who understands what is doable and what will never get done. Someone who understands the damage that Liberal politicians and a dysfunctional Supreme Court are doing in the United States

Guess what! We have that very person running for the presidential nomination in 2016. He’s as rebellious as Trump and shares many of the same BASIC positions as Trump, but he is not as impractical, as infuriating or as ego driven:

Ted Cruz has been openly, vocally opposed to the kind of destructive legislation and proposals that have been coming out of the White House since Obama was first elected. A Ted Cruz presidency would bring the United States back, in a sensible manner, to a strong, prosperous, safe place in the world where our enemies fear us and our allies would be willing to work with us and would benefit by being our partners in this dangerous world.