Advice to a GOP Delegate

by Pat Tarzwell7/12/16

I have a request of the fine writer here at ST. I know that there are those on both sides of the issue — to Trump or not to Trump.

As one who will actually be pulling the lever (or at least may be pulling one) for the nominee of the Republican Party in Cleveland, I would like to see some brief examples of your best arguments for or against us making Trump the Republican nominee.

I see no upside for this nation…with Trump or without, we all lose. I am not attempting to start another debate. This is your chance to communicate to one of the floor whips for the state of Washington. So if you do not mind, why should I vote for Trump as the nominee? (And that he is not Hillary does not cut it as an argument). Alternatively, why should I vote to make someone else our party’s nominee?

I most likely will not be able to respond, but I will read your inputs from Cleveland. If you decide to reply, I thank you in advance for your help. I take this responsibility very seriously and I am not fully sure what is best for our country in this choice ahead of me. I know where I stand personally, but this is far bigger than what I want or how I feel about Trump. This upcoming nomination may have a long-lasting and a devastating impact on this nation.


Pat Tarzwell was born conservative, runs a successful hi-tech business, and lives a red-state life in a deep blue one.

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1334 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Advice to a GOP Delegate

  1. Bell Phillips says:

    Because he won the primary fair and square. It’s just that simple.

    To vote otherwise, no matter how you or any other delegate feels about him, is an affront to Man’s God given, inalienable right to choose his own government.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    You can’t beat someone (however poor a someone Trump is) with no one. So who is the someone who would be the alternative to Trump? More interesting might be a possible revolt on the VP choice. (A similar revolt in 1920 led to the nomination of Calvin Coolidge, certainly an excellent choice.)

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    You’re somewhat in the position, Pat, of a soldier who has been ordered to shoot civilians but senses he has a higher authority to answer to, if only the Constitution. It ought to be a reasonable proposition to vote for a sane and conservative man, such as Cruz, rather than Trump whose main positive attribute is that he’s not Hillary.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I believe we are screwed whatever we do. But I have considered what might happen if the delegates jumped ship and voted for someone other than Trump on the first ballot.

    As we all know, this would cause a large portion of Trump supporters to walk out of the convention and avoid the November election. It might be argued that this would be acceptable if there was even a small chance that the rest of the party could unite around another candidate.

    But this is something which I do not believe likely. In fact, I believe it is most unlikely. Thus in addition to having lost a good number of potential Trump votes in November, the party will be furthered fractured by picking one of the other candidates who lost in the primaries. A double-whammy and sure formula to lose in November.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Good points, Mr. Kung. And as Timothy said, you can’t be anyone with no one. And all this talk about dumping Trump would be fine if there was a candidate lined up looking for the job. But there isn’t, at least in front of the scenes. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes.

      And Jeb Bush is sounding more like me.That’s a scary thought, one way or another.

      “The tragedy of this though is that there isn’t going to be a wall built. And Mexico’s not going to pay for it. And there’s not going to be a ban on Muslims. None of that is, this was all, like, a alternative universe that he created,” Bush said.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Trump has chosen Pence for his running mate. I think this was a smart move. Pence has a history of being conservative.

    I had originally hoped he would run for the presidency.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Boring boring boring. But then few expected Trump to chance picking someone such as Newt who could upstage him. Pence is boringly plaid and plain and unthreatening…and ultimately the second half of a losing ticket. Who is going to get excited about Mike Pence? That’s not a guy to counterbalance Trump’s lunacy. Even Lowry at NRO said that Newt was the best pick because Newt could get in front of the cameras and make Trump’s latest idiocy sound sensible.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Frankly, I would like a little more boring when it comes to Trump and politics in general. Newt would have been a good mouthpiece for Trump, but I think he can still be that without running as no. 2 on the ticket.

        I am curious as to what position Newt will have over the long term should Trump win.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          According to Corelli Barnett in The Desert Generals, the British staff officers would take the plans of General Dorman-Smith (who came up with lots of them), figure out which were really workable, and make them work (until they came up against Rommel, of course). I see Gingrich as having a similar role to Dorman-Smith in any GOP administration. As a historian, he might even recognize (and appreciate) the reference.

          As to Pence (and it still isn’t certain yet), he’s a reliable conservative (or has been through his career, anyway), but showed last year a deficiency of backbone. Better than Christie and probably Gingrich, though.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            While it is true Pence showed a lack of calcium in his backbone last year, I think he is a good choice.

            If I ever expected the perfect candidate, I am long past that phase now. We are not going to get any George Washingtons. Hell, we’re not even going to get any William Jennings Bryans.

            If would appear many of Trump’s supporters believe he is going to act the part of a Kamikaze and blow up the whole system. This might be preferable to the continuation of the corruption in D.C. But I think we are likely to get a combination of P.T. Barnum and Mussolini.

            The only hope is that Trump surrounds himself with some serious people who can keep a governor on his actions.

            Of course if Hillary wins we will get Rosa Luxembourg and Vladimir Lenin combined.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I think this is really a weak decision by Trump. I’m not ready to drink the Trump kool-aid yet. But if I was, I wouldn’t want to follow it with lemonade. They don’t mix.

          Trump’s shtick is that he’s an unconventional candidate. But in his first major decision he picks someone even more boring than Jeb Bush likely would have.

          And if the point is to placate conservatives, he should have chose Cruz. Now we’ve got the truly white-bread ticket. No one knows or cares about Mike Pence. And if Hillary adds Bernie to the ticket, she will have unified the party and be set to roll this doofus.

          Trump should have done something bold and exciting with his pick. Again, I would have counseled that he choose a Democrat. This would have been a great marketing move to attract those who (stupidly) bemoan the “polarized” atmosphere of today’s politics. And because Trump is basically running the kind of campaign that Jeb Bush would have (trying to win without the base), his job is not to shore up conservative support but to go the full monty and go for the liberal support…which is his natural inclination.

          I wonder if his dumb-ass sons talked him into this. And no, I don’t secretly wish Newt was the pick. Put him on the Supreme Court if you want. Or Secretary of State (which would be a great position for him). Newt would be wasted as a VP. If Trump wins, Mike Pence will likely be invisible, even for a vice president.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Have to disagree.

            While I would have loved for Trump to choose Cruz, it was never going to happen after Trump’s vicious attacks on Cruz’s wife and father.

            I think with the Pence pick, Trump is reaching out to the Cruz supporters. It should not be forgotten that the Trump and Cruz supporters made up over 70% of the vote in the primaries. If the Pence choice works it will have gone a very long way to unite the party.

            Trump was never going to get the “Never-Trumpers” who supported Jeb.

            As for choosing a Democrat, I have ask, “What are you smoking?” Do you think a Lefty is going to vote for Trump simply because he chose a Chuckie Schumer or Jerry Brown?

            Now if he chose Bernie, he might be on to something, but that would blow him up with the even moderately conservative people.

            Finally, it should never be forgotten that the VP is next in line should the president become incapacitated. In such a case, I certainly prefer Pence to the Fat Boy and the others who have been mentioned.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              And remember, Pence endorsed Cruz during the Indiana primary, albeit rather tepidly.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                And remember Trump gave oodles of money to Hillary and the Dems in the past. If this second-hand smoke doesn’t harm him then I can’t see how the second-hand smoke of Pence being a Cruz supporter is going to do much good. I just think, “Geez…we could have just gone with Jeb!/Rubio in the first place.”

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              What am I smoking? In regards to Trump? I would have thought a thick cloud of smoke was the norm.

              As a Cruz supporter, it does absolutely nothing for me that he chose Mike Pence simply because I don’t know Mike Pence to be the kind of battler that we need. And since Trump is running an unconventional campaign, I don’t see Pence burnishing his brand.

              I could have respected a bold choice. But we got a bland choice.

  6. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Pat – I would refer you to my May article, What do we do Now that Trump has Won the Nomination? for a reasonably full argument in favor of voting for Trump. Here, I will be brief.

    William F. Buckley Jr., in announcing that National Review would support Goldwater over Rockefeller in 1964, first enunciated the celebrated “Buckley Rule”: vote for the most Conservative viable candidate [note that he did not say “electable” as is often misstated]. His point was that NR’s purpose was to advance Conservatism, and therefore I would express the “Nik Rule” as follows: vote for whichever candidate will help advance American Conservatism in the long term.

    Giving the opposite side of the argument here and applying my own rule, Conservatives should only refuse to vote for Trump if they believe that not doing so (which means helping to elect Hillary) helps Conservatism in the long run. (An alternate argument would be that Trump is so unworthy of the office of President that one is tainted by voting for him). This is a defensible position: some people might conclude that electing Trump hurts Conservatism (and not just their widdle feelings, which seems to be the sticking point for many current NR writers) and that after 4 – 8 horrible years of Hillary (or is that 4 – 8 years of Horrible Hillary?) the people will be ready for a good-quality Conservative, Conservatism’s good name having not been tarnished by a Trump Presidency.

    I reject this argument for two reasons:

    1. Trump is not a Conservative, is not seen as a Conservative, and therefore cannot tarnish Conservatism’s reputation. As to the GOP’s reputation (I hear plenty of laughter from the audience) I don’t see how Trump could possibly make it any worse. If Trump does no more for 4 years than enforce immigration law and bring Hillary up on charges, it will be worth putting up with his reality-TV-style antics.

    2. We’re long past the point of “lesser of two evils”; the most basic and essential of our liberties are in danger if Hillary gets elected. With a Left-wing Supreme Court backing them up, Hillary and Congressional Democrats will go after the first and second amendments with a vengeance: criticizing Democrats could become illegal (under the guise of campaign finance regulation, of course) and we might see some anti-gun legislation such as has been passed in CA and CT, where gun rights are now routinely violated and gun confiscation is plainly visible on the horizon.

    That, in brief, is the Case for Trump. It was written with the November general election in mind, but it applies also to any unbound delegates to the Republican Convention. Voting there for anyone but Trump will only further divide an already-divided Party and hand the election to Hillary.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The First and Second Amendments are in danger (already), but the campaign to make use of the various “no-fly” lists without due process shows that virtually the entire Bill of Rights could be jettisoned as soon as liberals have the power to do so.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        Exactly. And Paul Ryan seems to be o.k. with some of that – he’s allowed the Democrats to move their bill forward instead of killing it in committee, and although he’s delayed a vote for now, it appears he and the “capitulation caucus” are prepared to jettison due process if there is some procedure allowing the “accused” (and disarmed) citizen to challenge his status.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          The main GOP proposal in the Senate does seem to maintain due process. That’s what Ryan originally put up for a vote in the House. What’s on the table now, I’m not sure. I think we can safely say that no bill that satisfies the Fascists should be acceptable to genuine Americans.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The only thing the choice of Pence does is show that Trump *might* not nominate some Harriet Miers (or worse) for the Supreme Court. It shows that Trump *might* actually put good (or at least solidly mediocre) people in place in key positions. The Pence choice as VP makes him a little less lesser of the two evils. We’ll stay tuned.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    It seems that all of Trump’s children, as well as his present wife, will be speaking at the Republican convention. I suppose this is in line with the man’s egomania, but I still find it odd.

    Perhaps this whole campaign has been about preparing the political road for his children.

    I sense this is the case, especially when I hear how few top Republicans are speaking and their time slots.

  8. Timothy Lane says:

    Town Hall has a short piece on the 20-year old blind singer (Mariana Van Hoose) who sang “The Star-Spangled Banner” last night — and who wasn’t expected by her doctors to live to be more than a single year. It also linked to a song she sings called “Lemonade”. Very impressive. The link is:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/07/19/young-lady-who-sang-national-anthem-at-rnc-was-not-expected-to-live-more-than-a-year-n2194448

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Pat,

    As to the convention, Cruz had three options.

    1. Stay away from the convention or at least from the podium.
    2. Give a speech and say that in order to defeat Hillary the party must unite and vote for Trump.
    3. Give a speech and do not endorse Trump.

    In opting for no. 3, Cruz made the worst choice.

    If Trump looses now, Cruz can be blamed as a catalyst for the loss.
    If Trump wins, Cruz is effectively without influence in the party and that hurts conservatives in the party.

    I think Cruz’s ridiculous speech actually may help some fence-sitters to move over to the Trump side. He certainly made Trump look better since Trump knew what Cruz was going to say and didn’t stop Cruz from speaking.

    Unless Cruz is thinking of founding a new party, I do not see how he accomplished anything positive. He actions tonight show that he lets emotions override his thinking.

    Cruz’s performance makes me think of the old saying, “Sometimes it is better to shut up and have people think you are stupid than to open your mouth and prove it.” (You can insert “an egotist” for stupid in this case.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A fair and astute analysis, Mr. Kung. Here’s what I have to add:

      Cruz didn’t say anything much that was controversial, other than not giving a full-out endorsement of Trump. Assuming he knew what he was in for (scripted boos from the New York delegation mob), he presumably decided it was important to get on record as a non-endorsement in the actual lion’s den.

      Obviously the Kung & Nelson political consultant agency needs to be formed. We both would have advised him to either go ahead and give Trump an endorsement, even a lukewarm one, or just stay away and let your non-presence act as your vote of disapproval. Either way, you can potentially be the beneficiary if Trump’s candidacy or presidency blows up in his face.

      Instead, he allowed the Trump mob to create the narrative, however scripted and disingenuous that was. A heartfelt and intelligent “open letter” to Donald Trump would have served the purpose better if he wanted to communicate something.

      So either Cruz isn’t very competent on some of the fine points of marketing (as we both have commented on before) or he is getting very bad advice and listening to it.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        So either Cruz isn’t very competent on some of the fine points of marketing (as we both have commented on before) or he is getting very bad advice and listening to it.

        Another more disturbing possibility is that Cruz got good advice to do the things you mention and ignored it. If this was the case, he let his personal animus to Trump take precedence over not only what would be best for the party, but what would be best for Cruz personally.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Cruz did a nice job of stating conservative principles, and his point about voting for candidates up and down the ballot who would support the Constitution could be considered an implicit endorsement of Trump. Sort of. But something a bit more explicit probably would’ve been better.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But something a bit more explicit probably would’ve been better.

        I think something less explicit would have been better, to wit, don’t say “vote your conscience”. That one line was gratuitous and stupid. Had he not uttered it, he would have avoided the controversy and done less damage to conservatives.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I don’t want to delve into intellectual irrelevancies. I think most of us here understand that the Trump delegation mob isn’t interested in the fine points of American tradition, morals, or law.

          But just what the heck does “Vote your conscience” really mean? Is it a fancy way to say “Vote your preference”? Or is it really a code word for “Don’t be stupid and vote for Trump…Vote for a principled conservative such as me”?

          If the latter (which I suspect it is), then the time for those words after Trump was officially nominated is kind of pointless. He could have said something like “It was a good, hard battle. I still believe I’m the best candidate, but the voters have spoken. And because Hillary would be such a train-wreck as president, I am throwing my support behind Trump. And to remind him of the principles of this great nation which you will not find on reality TV, I am enclosing this pocket Constitution for him to keep for reference.”

          Fine. He would have still got booed but he would have made a valid point and taken command of his own message. But it ’s a weak message to get up there in front of the gathered delegates and say “vote your conscience.” Most of them will, and their conscience will be Trump. “Conscience” as used by Cruz was a back-handed way to say “illiterate heathens.” And being illiterate heathens didn’t prevent the New York delegation (and others) from understanding that message.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I’ve been seeing a lot of interesting comments on this, and apparently what angered the Trumpies (and also the Establishment) was the conscience reference. This may have angered them precisely because they’ve chosen to ignore their conscience.

            And note that Trump had the speech in advance, and let Cruz deliver it.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              And note that Trump had the speech in advance, and let Cruz deliver it.

              Had I been Trump, I would have been more than happy to let Cruz deliver the speech.

              Napoleon supposedly said something like,

              “Never interfere with an enemy while he is in the process of destroying himself.”

              Trump took this advice to heart.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                But is Trump’s goal to win the election or to put down intra-party critics such as Cruz and Kasich? And have his efforts on the second goal helped the first?

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I think Trump’s actions regarding Kasich have not been particularly helpful unifying the party.

                I suspect his inaction toward Cruz has helped bring some fence sitters over to Trump. Of course, they were probably looking for an excuse to get off the fence and Cruz’s actions gave it to them.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            He could have said something like “It was a good, hard battle. I still believe I’m the best candidate, but the voters have spoken. And because Hillary would be such a train-wreck as president, I am throwing my support behind Trump. And to remind him of the principles of this great nation which you will not find on reality TV, I am enclosing this pocket Constitution for him to keep for reference.”

            Over the last few days, I was thinking something very like what you wrote. I know it was unlikely, but I still hoped Cruz would say something like that. He would have solidified his place in the conservative movement and probably helped his standing in the Republican Party, at least outside NY.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s Cruz’s response to a question of why he didn’t stand by his pledge to support the GOP nominee.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I saw this and thought old Ted gave a good answer.

      This nonsense about not honoring his pledge was spread by the Trump people immediately Cruz finished his speech.

      Such political pledges are always conditional and left to one’s conscience. Were this not the case, one would be bound to support a candidate in all circumstances. Something like the oath Hitler demanded and got from the German Army prior to WWII. Who were the good guys later, the officers who kept their oath or those who broke their oath and tried to get rid of Hitler?

      I know it is an extreme example, but it seems people today need to be given extreme examples to understand a point.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Isn’t it always the case that what you say later is better than what you said at the spur of the moment? Of course, Cruz’s speech was hardly spur of the moment. Those programmed monkeys who booed his “vote your conscience” rhetoric were likely still at least smart enough to know that they had been insulted, that something like this answer that Cruz gave later was contained within those words.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Those programmed monkeys who booed his “vote your conscience” rhetoric

          Those were New York monkeys. The whole thing was planned with that ass-hole Peter King acting as Trump’s major domo making sure the idiots in his delegation booed in chorus.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Note, too, that after losing a few state convention battles, Trump went back to his threat not to support the party candidate if the nomination was “stolen” from him. A good case can be made that this invalidated any pledges to him.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Deana said it a few articles ago (or in one of her comments): “This is not a good man.” That Hillary may be worse (an open point) is neither here nor there.

          In fact, the queer equation is that only by voting for Trump will we save the Second Amendment and get conservative Supreme Court Justices. How is there any evidence of this from a man who does not base his campaign in any way, shape, or form on the Constitution?

          I think Trump voters are rubes. And when Trump loses (which I think is likely), you’ll hear this mob blaming Ted Cruz. Logic and facts won’t matter. It won’t matter to remind them that Trump said he didn’t need conservatives, that unity didn’t matter.

          Trump is the coronation of the dumbing-down of our society. No man or woman of good conscience could support this man other than as a buttress against the election of Hillary, although I’m still not sure that P.J. O’Rourke (perhaps tongue planted firmly in cheek) was wrong when he said that Hillary is “wrong within normal parameters.” No one is talking about Hillary inadvertently starting WWIII. But they are with Trump who is so mercurial, ungrounded in sound principle, and reckless, so as to make that a plausible scenario. With a Trump presidency, we may have wished that the continued assaults by the Left on the Second Amendment were all we had to worry about.

          And with his speech and speakers (such as the openly homosexual PayPal “guy”), we see that Trump ultimately has no intention in engaging the culture wars of the Left who are even now fundamentally transforming this country.

          The only question I have is what will be left of the Republican Party after Trump is done with it, win or lose. One poster wrote to a misc. article that I read:

          As we have long noted, this is a realigning election similar to the emergence of Andrew Jackson. Win or lose the GOP (and likely the Conservative movement) will be unrecognizable in the future. The civil war between the GOP and Conservative Movement is what brought us to this place. Now a third force emerges to what ends we do not yet know.

          One can quibble with that formulation. But I think it’s apparent that conservatism as a cause has been marginalized, which I why I think it doesn’t matter a hell of a lot if Ted Cruz gave the perfect speech at the convention or not. The mob of delegates and Trump supporters are not interested in limited government, the Constitution, and conservative principles. They want pay-back. And they are being promised this by a man who is expert at fooling people.

          Some have written that the party rules adopted have strengthened the establishment. If Trump is victor, it’s not hard to believe he’ll be largely a ceremonial president, making speeches, meeting leaders, saying dumb things all over the time zones, flying around and having cocktails in Air Force One, etc., while Paul Ryan and the Establishment Republicans do their thing. It must have become quickly apparent to Establishment Republicans that Trump hadn’t the disposition to actually engage in politics beyond anything but the superficial. The eGOP will likely gain in power with a Trump presidency whereby in a Cruz presidency they most definitely would have been constrained. And wasn’t that the supposed point of the Trumpkins, to rein in the eGOP?

          No. It never was. These voters are just angry. And it’s an unprincipled sort of anger. And that makes sense. I do believe (I forgot who wrote it) that “conservatism” has morphed into little more than an identity. And that makes sense because those who are living socialist lives (drawing, or will draw, Social Security, etc.) are in a deep pit of cognitive dissonance. They are in no actual mood to constrain government. But they are in a mood to engage in mindless and pointless political theatre, lashing out indiscriminately (even at a reasonable good man such as Ted Cruz) when it is themselves they should be scolding.

          And note that all the while the Left has a more-or-less consistent plan and attitude. We on the right do not. We have jumped the shark with Donald Trump, likely forever giving the “power of the people” further to the entrenched establishment of both parties.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            We have jumped the shark with Donald Trump, likely forever giving the “power of the people” further to the entrenched establishment of both parties.

            What we now have has been the wet dream of the East Coast establishment for years.

            New York values will rule the day. Think about that.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            The Republican Party has taken a page out of the Left’s book, and in so doing, is moving left.

            Running a campaign on fear and hate cannot lead to a good outcome.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              As I’ve said (and I hate to blow my own horn…I’m not here to do that), I think Trump is FDR with bad manners. The totality of what Trump has said is consistent with the “strong leader” whose strength is gained not from character or principle but from government action. The core idea is that government (especially the Federal government) can solve anything with the right man at the helm.

              This is not a refutation of Progressivism. It is a continuance of it. One of the critiques (not without merit in the “even a blind chicken may find a grain” sort of way) by libertarians of conservatives is that we simply want to take government power and use it for *our* ends as opposed to the ends of the Left.

              Surely this is 100% true in the case of Trump. If Trump was credible in regards to halting Muslim immigration and fixing the problem with illegal immigration, I would say that that kind of Executive action was fully in keeping with the Constitution and with existing laws. It’s not “activist” to enforce legitimate and Constitutional laws. It’s called doing your job.

              I just think that Trump is pulling a big con on the voters. And the voters — perhaps long drenched in the vulgarity of vapid and shallow pop culture where the only thing real or important is the momentary stimulation you get from it — are either unable to see through the con or are okay with the con. Unreality is the new reality.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Of course, if Trump does let all or most of the policy decisions be taken by Congress, he won’t be the Strong Man liberals and many others fear. This would make Trump the modern Zachary Taylor.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Trump supporters are not interested in limited government, the Constitution, and conservative principles. They want pay-back. And they are being promised this by a man who is expert at fooling people.

            In his speech last night, Trump did not say one thing about reducing the size of government. The only thing he said was he would make it more efficient. This is standard progressive (dishonest) pabulum.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Another good call. Again, I don’t blame GOP votes for being cynical and distrustful. This “make government more efficient” stuff has been one of the four standard lies (the other three being “I love you,” “The check’s in the mail,” and the third is too graphic to mention).

              Hey, I don’t like the Establishment GOP either. But compared to what Trump has to offer, I’m having slight pangs of nostalgia for Jeb! Bush. He is, after all, “RINO within normal parameters.”

              Still, I’ll take a true reformer, one willing to keep government within the bounds of the Constitution. That it is difficult to discern the real reformers from the liars is a given. But Trump is so obviously a louse, there is no excuse in his case. And maybe voters ought to have given the guy who filibustered against Obamacare a chance.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Let the “I told you so’s” start now:

    Melania Trump’s speechwriter is a registered Democrat

    I read an interesting article the other day, I forget where, but I think it was at NRO. The prevailing rumor is that Kasich was offered the VP slot but turned it down…even after Trump offered him special influence as a VP…including setting domestic and international policy. What would Trump’s job be then? Trump’s job would be to “Make America Great Again” which means not doing any heavy lifting regarding policy ideas but flying around and schmoozing, making speeches, basking in presidential perks, etc. It’s a rumor but a believable one, and one that is claimed to come from many sources.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    For some, such as Obama, politics is a chance to “fundamentally transform” a nation he hates. For others, such as Trump, it’s a chance to ride his ego around at several thousand feet in Air Force One.

    For still others it’s a chance at second-hand power and a chance to make money and stay relevant. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. has a shameless article that concludes:

    In my judgment there has never been a more conservative Republican convention. There have been equally conservative conventions, but none more conservative. There are no Rockefeller Republicans here or even many moderates, but there is Donald Trump and he grows more conservative by the hour. He has one more opponent to beat in the race for the White House, and — as I wrote in June 2015 — I write with greater confidence today. He will win.

    He also writes: “Word is seeping out. Frank Buckley and I have been offering our advice and a few speeches for Donald Trump’s campaign.”

    Say what you will about Cruz’s methods, but there’s something to be said about a man who will not bend his knee to the crazy emperor, let alone not write speeches for him.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Tyrell is a liar or a fool.

      If one listened to Trump’s speech, one would note that the words “liberty and freedom” were noticeably absent. I think he used the word liberty in some context once, but it was not in a context about the necessity of “Liberty” in our country or as a foundation of our constitution.

      Trump gave a good speech. His list of promises was impressive. Many promises on this list will be impossible to keep. His law and order meme was particularly interesting. How is he going to “make America safe again”, federalize the police force? Oh, isn’t that something Obama and the Left have been pushing for?

      Trump’s push for the queer agenda was a definite push to the Left.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Tyrell is a liar or a fool.

        You stop at two, Mr. Kung. I’m disappointed. Or perhaps I should admire you for your brevity. 😀

        Most conservative convention? Oh, good god, there must be a lot of libertarian weed floating around out there in the convention hall. How could anyone write that with a straight face? And yet power, or the hope for access to power, can be an intoxicating brew. It was as if Tyrell was trying to wash away the stain of obsequiousness by being “frank” about it in writing.

        Trump is a complete narcissist and fraud. He is truly a RINO (Republican in name only). If that rumor about offering Kasich VP powers over domestic and foreign policy is true (and it rings true to me), you can expect Paul Ryan and the other Establishment Republicans to be running the country, a la Nancy Pelosi and “Obamacare.” Obama apparently wasn’t involved in the details. He let Pelosi and others write it and he just put his rubber stamp on it.

        You can expect the same from Trump. Even if he wanted to be in charge of policy, he has no political philosophy of his own other than a vague “New York Values” type of liberalism. Expect Orwellianism at its best (such as “Affordable Care Act”) as Paul Ryan & Company slap deceitful names on bills that will do the opposite. We’re sure to see a “Make Mexico Build a Wall” act that doesn’t do any such thing.

        GOP primary voters, by going with Trump, have shown the same mindset: Don’t bother me with the details, I just want to bash someone. Trump (if he wins) will have his greatest pleasure, which is prestige and power. And his voters will be like those on the Left and trade the sating of their grievance for anything constructive.

  13. Gibblet says:

    So…….you’re saying I should vote for Clinton??? You guys sound like kids who whine about being served a pork chop and peas, when you had your heart set on Mac and Cheese. Well, there is no Mac and Cheese. Eat what you’re served or go to bed hungry! (after the spanking, of course).

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Gibblet, Gibblet, Gibblet! Don’t pull a Trump on us. To my knowledge, nobody on this site has ever recommended voting for Hillary.

      What some have done is try to point out the inconsistencies (read lies) in Trump’s promises, his vindictiveness, pettiness and general lack of character.

      We think these are valid and important criticisms of a man running for the presidency. And let’s face it, as regards valid criticisms, Trump is a target rich environment.

      The fact that Trump and Hillary are the two candidates which have been nominated to run for the presidency is a terrible indictment of this country.

      The people are responsible for this travesty and need to have this fact hammered home very often. Yet when one hears some of the stupid dishonest remarks made by Trump’s supporters on the radio and TV today, one despairs.

      Trump is not going to save this country. Hillary is not going to destroy this country. In the end, the people are going to either save or destroy this country. Those who wish to save it better wake up and do something constructive, not just vote against Hillary.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Trump is not going to save this country. Hillary is not going to destroy this country. In the end, the people are going to either save or destroy this country. Those who wish to save it better wake up and do something constructive, not just vote against Hillary.

        Very well said, Mr. Kung. As I think Shakespeare said, the fault is not in our media stars but in ourselves.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are not kings.” Of course, some of us don’t want to be kings. Others (such as Trump, Slick Hilly, and indeed most politicians) are eager for the role.

  14. Gibblet says:

    ” Gibblet, Gibblet! Don’t pull a Trump on us. To my knowledge, nobody on this site has ever recommended voting for Hillary.”

    Thanks KFZ, for your kind and informative response. I just needed to see it in print.

    Frankly, I believe the Trump persona is a well crafted one. Coming from a construction background myself (very, very tiny compared to Trump), and having dealt with municipalities, governments workers, neighbors, regulations, etc., I can see how one in that business (especially in the places he does business) would benefit from the Pitbull approach right out of the gate.
    I could tell you stories of dealing within my small municipality where my being a Border Collie (smile) only led to the run-around. It was not until I adopted more of the Pitbull approach that I was able to actually get things done in an efficient manner (which is, of course, the difference between a loss and profit). I think Trump is employing this Pitbull method as a businessman and leader.
    I also believe that a successful business person is one who knows how to employ the right person for a particular job. Trump’s ego does not require him to be everything to everyone. When he says, “I will do this”, he is speaking as a CEO, the leader of a multi-level organization where the responsibility for success comes from said leadership, not the nuts and bolts mechanics of the daily grind. As a businessman, Trump’s hero would be the likes of Andrew Carnegie who said, “You can’t pay the right person enough” to do a particular job that needs done well. In other words, don’t depend on your own abilities, depend on your ability to find the people who can produce the desired outcome, and make sure they are on your team!

    It is the men with Trump’s brand of grit who built this nation’s infrastructure and who, like Trump, benefitted from what they created. We all benefitted from their huge egos and their ability to “network” within the system to get the job done. How do you pry civilization out of the mire of a savage land with timidity?mCan you grow a nation by destroying the very foundation you are attempting to build upon?

    I believe Trump’s motivation is to leave a legacy to his children and their children. That is where his ego comes in: his hope that his grandchildren can say, “My grandpa saved the United States of America”. Yes, that’s a grandious statement and that’s a lot of ego. But if he gets what he wants, then so do we. I’m sure Carnegie had more than a little ego wrapped up in his railroad. And that was to our benefit as well.

    Like you, I’m not thrilled with our apparent choices. Wouldn’t a personality like Reagan be a comfort right about now? Reagan was a German Sheppard; loyal, strong, proud and eloquent. Yet he had fangs, and was not afraid to show them. We need someone who will be respected for their fangs, while remaining loyal to their owner, the citizens of the United States Of America!

    Trump may be a less than attractive breed, but a Pitbull is respected for it’s ability to face down the opposition, not roll over for a belly rub.

  15. Timothy Lane says:

    Hot Air just presented an even more atrocious theoretical possibility for Republicans who vote their conscience. Imagine it’s November 9, and the Demagogues have won 4 Senate seats but Trump won, so the GOP can still hold a nominal majority by way of Vice President Pence. Provided, that is, they win the run-off in Louisiana, between a Demagogue and . . . David Duke. Ready to gag yet at the prospect? The link is:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/22/david-duke-announces-run-for-u-s-senate-in-louisiana-because-why-not/

  16. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    No intelligent person, and that includes Trump’s supporters (defined as those who voted for him during the primaries) ever thought that Trump was a true Conservative or dedicated to Conservative philosophy. It’s simply that Trump was thought better (and more Conservatives on the key issue of immigration) than the alternatives, and with the possible exceptions of Cruz, Walker, and Jindal, this was correct.

    I feel I must gently remind those who dread the specter of Trump how much worse it would have been if Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, or Fiorina had been nominated – all of them supported some form of Amnesty, and assuming they got their wishes enacted into law, the result would have been that we could never have won another election once 70% of 11 to 30 million illegal immigrants had started voting Democratic. All of them were E-men or worse (Christie is an actual Democrat – a modern Leftist one, not an old-fashioned moderate one, which Trump is if he’s any kind of Democrat at all). Try to imagine any of those E-men tackling political correctness or promising to shut down Muslim immigration!

    So, Trump is not a Conservative. Neither were any of the other candidates really, except Cruz. That’s the real problem here for Conservatives, and the real disgrace of the GOP, not the nomination of Trump. And as I have said before, Cruz screwed up big time on immigration and let Trump own the issue. Meanwhile, the good news is that Trump and Cruz – the non-Establishment candidates – crushed the E-men. This means that a true Conservative can win the Republican nomination in the future if he learns from Trump’s success.

    No, Trump is not the ideal Republican candidate. But he’s better than most of his rivals for the nomination, better than Hillary Clinton, and better than his detractors are willing to admit.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Fairly early on, I decided that I couldn’t vote for Kasich and Bush, I never decided that about Trump, but his blustering bully approach made me less and less willing to vote for him.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        He definitely turns people off the more he opens his mouth. He could certainly use a more disciplined approach and think a little more before speaking.

  17. pst4usa says:

    Thank you all for your input. We never were given any option on any thing at all. I certainly learned what this game is all about, power! The solution is very simple and almost impossible, all at once.
    I have managed to make this happen on a small scale here in my county, but to do it nationally, will take Herculean efforts from a lot of folks about 5,000 at a minimum, and they need to be fairly evenly spaced geographically.
    All it takes is for this phantom group of 5,000 to work every precinct in this nation, to get conservatives elected to the position of PCO. I do not yet know the number of precincts but at this point it does not matter, my number comes from 435 congressional district, (close to equal population size in all states), 65 generals across the 50 states and 10 support personnel for each. In or around 22 months from now, all Republican County organizations will elect new PCO’s. Those in turn will elect their county chairs and the 2 committeemen, who in turn will elect the State Chairs and national committee men, who then will select the national GOP Chair and the executive board. It is easy to state and understand, now you know what to do to save this nation and this party. Do you want to give it a try?
    I am an inarticulate no-body, but I will start this plan off in this state and do everything in my power to take it back. Because, I think somethings are worth fighting for, and I owe it to all those that fought before me, to give me the freedom to bitch about what has been done to us, and by us to ourselves.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Thanks Pat, for your info. I would love to speak to you about this sometime.

      Anyone who believes that what goes on at a convention is not complete theater should be given a lesson in life. I guess the same people believe reality tv is spontaneous.

      It is important that you were actually there and can testify to the phoniness of the whole show.

      I believe your idea regarding getting conservatives in grass-root offices is the only way to go. We having been trying that here in Colin County and have had a fair amount of success, with the normal setbacks. But the eGOP and Dems are trying to undo the local success.

      It is a fight which must never be halted if one wants to have even the slightest chance to win.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This also works on selecting delegates, which matters if we ever get to a second ballot at a convention. The Goldwater campaign made use of this approach; Theodore H. White gives a good example of how it worked in Washington.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      It is certainly imperative that Conservatives become better-organized and either take over the Republican Party by the means you outlined, Pat (and as I did myself a while back in Mission: Take the GOP), or else found a new party, for without a party under our control we cannot influence the direction of this country. Our experience in the post-Reagan era, in which the GOP Establishment played us for saps, took our votes, and then conspired with the Democratic Left to defeat Conservative initiatives, proves that. And we see in Europe now how tragic are the consequences when voters have a choice of only Left and further Left (what the Paul Ryans of the GOP dream about here).

      But there are a few rays of hope there, with anti-immigration parties being founded, and even here. There are people who want a Conservative alternative, and we must be organized enough to see that they have one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *