Nullifying the Republican Primaries

RNCconventionby Jon N. Hall    4/3/16
On Super Tuesday II, not to be confused with Taco Tuesday, I dutifully trekked over to a nearby church to vote in the Missouri presidential primary, despite it being the Ides of March. It wasn’t surprising to see that Missouri had yet again changed its ballot. Rather than punch cards, this time Missouri’s ballot was a single sheet of paper on which you inked in the rectangle next to your choice. Then you fed the sheet into a machine which (supposedly) counted your vote. I was a little surprised, however, to see that candidates who had dropped out of the race weeks ago were still on the ballot. There was Carly, and Christie, and other familiar names, and some dude name of Jim Lynch, no doubt a vanity candidacy.

Near an entrance to the church’s parking lot sat a single sign enjoining one to “Choose CRUZ,” and that I did. Inasmuch as we still have the secret ballot in these United States, I didn’t have to tell you that. My first choice had been Carly Fiorina. I thought a Fiorina-Rubio ticket might just be the ticket to victory; you’d have your “outsider,” your female, and a Latino, to boot. With Missouri’s out-of-date ballot I could have voted for my gal Carly just to “send a message,” but that would have been a wasted vote. So I voted for Cruz. And the reasoning for that is: a vote for Cruz is a vote to get Republicans into an “open” convention.

Every Republican who wants to win should be voting for an “open” convention. But there’s been some heated rhetoric regarding open (i.e. contested or brokered) conventions. Certain turbo-charged words have been used, such as “steal,” as in stealing the nomination from the frontrunner. But isn’t the nomination something that is awarded or conferred, not something that is seized? Should a nominee think that he “owns” the nomination? As far as I’m concerned, a party should be able to replace a nominee at any time if he/she proves unfit or unelectable.

Some have said that if convention delegates choose someone other than one of the candidates who ran in the primaries, that the voters would be “disenfranchised.” But the voters exercise their franchise in the general election.

Some have opined that bringing in some “savior” who hasn’t run in the primaries would subvert the “democratic” process. But there’s little that is “democratic” in the primaries. Is it “democratic” to have primaries and caucuses spread out over months? The voters in the states that vote late have more information; shouldn’t the voters in the early-voting states be able to change their votes just to make it, you know, democratic? What would we say if voting in the general election were staggered the way it is in the primaries? One doubts voters would find it very democratic.

A headline at MSN.com reads: “Poll: Clinton would crush Trump in general election.” Trump delegates must ask themselves if they want to win, or if they just want to “send a message” about their dissatisfaction with the “establishment.”

Polls also indicate that Cruz could beat Clinton. Therefore, vote for Cruz, even if you don’t like him, because a vote for Cruz is a vote for an open convention, and an open convention is the best way for Republicans to have the space necessary to settle on the best nominee.

Since the 2014 midterms, Republicans have held more elective offices, federal and state, than at any time since the 1920s. That could all be threatened by one man. Any presidential candidate who could jeopardize those “down-ballot” officials is entirely unacceptable. The best way for the GOP to hold on to their 2014 gains is by having a standard bearer at the top of the ballot who is electable.

That doesn’t seem to be the case with Mr. Trump, who has major problems with women and with minorities. The Buckley Rule of running the most conservative viable candidate wouldn’t seem to apply with Trump, as he is neither conservative nor, if one believes the polls, electable. If party elders believe a candidate would be ruinous to their party, then they must do whatever it takes to deny him/her the nomination. (Delegates who might think it monstrous to deny the nomination to a candidate with a majority of the primary votes need to read Avi Snyder’s excellent March 26 article “To Defeat Trump: Let History Repeat Itself.”)

If the convention does go to multiple ballots, and especially if the convention becomes deadlocked, the delegates should resist all calls for nominating an “establishment” candidate, especially Jeb Bush, the establishment’s handpicked boy. Nor should a member of Congress be considered, not even Speaker Ryan. This is the year that Republicans need to “go rogue”; this is the year the GOP needs to settle on an “outsider.”

It’s been said that if the Trumpians don’t get their way that they’ll sit out the election. Jonah Goldberg has suggested that the party is screwed either way; whether Trump is nominated or not. So, the way to win this election is to “steal” voters from the Democrats. And what that means is nominating a woman. After all, doesn’t “it takes a woman to beat a woman”? Even if Hillary is indicted and forced to drop out, Republicans should nominate a woman anyway, just to be safe. The GOP needs an “outsider” woman with impeccable conservative credentials who is eloquent and can debate like all get out. But that woman need not be Carly Fiorina, for in an open convention the GOP can nominate any woman. And since we’re talking about winning, perhaps her running mate needs to be a minority.

This Republican primary season reminds me of a scene in Larry McMurtry’s epic of the Old West, Lonesome Dove. In Chapter 88, Clara pleads with Augustus to discontinue his dangerous cattle drive north and settle in Nebraska:

Clara devoted five minutes to trying to persuade him to settle somewhere on the Platte. “There’s cheap land not three days’ ride from here,” she pointed out. “You could have the whole north part of this state if you wanted it. Why go to Montana?”

“Well, that’s where we started for,” he said. “Me and Call have always liked to get where we started for, even if it don’t make a damn bit of sense.

And in ignoring Clara just so he could get where he “started for,” just so he wouldn’t have to change, Gus came to his untimely end. Conservatives who want to reform their party and save America must understand that they can do neither if they don’t win in November. If they want to avoid disaster, Republicans need the flexibility to change. Other than voting for Cruz, I’m not sure how it can be done, but the primaries need to be “nullified” so that the convention can be open.

Imagine hearing this at the Republican convention in July: Ladies and gentlemen, we’re all exhausted but we need to make a decision. So, on this, our tenth ballot, I do hereby nominate for the office of President of the United States the right honorable Ms. Jane Doe from the great state of …

But fret not, darlin’, this cowboy will be voting Republican regardless of whom the delegates nominate — “even if it don’t make a damn bit of sense.”


Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. • (911 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Nullifying the Republican Primaries

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    As I have made clear, I think Trump is doing damage to the conservative cause. But this piece revolves around incredibly wishful thinking, which if it came true, would kill the Republican Party and, in all likelihood, give the White House to the Dems.

    If I have to play Russian Roulette, I prefer to play with one bullet in the cylinder as opposed to four or five, which is, essentially, what this piece suggests.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Indeed. I like your Russian Roulette analogy, with 4 or 5 bullets in the gun. Yeah, let the Party bigwigs completely ignore the “little people” whose votes they depend on once again, and nominate someone “outside” the process (who would certainly be a closet E-man) – that’ll bring the voters to the polls in November!

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    I certainly favor an open convention, since it’s extremely unlikely we can get Cruz as a nominee otherwise. I certainly agree that such a convention needs to chose someone who’s seen as an outsider given that the overwhelming majority of delegates (those for Cruz and Trump, basically) will be chosen on that basis. But drafting someone who didn’t run is highly risky. It worked (barely) for Garfield in 1880; it failed (badly) for Stevenson in 1952. It’s even riskier this year, with most Trump supporters eager to believe they were betrayed — though this might happen anyway if Trump loses. I’d find this scenario more convincing if Hall suggested someone who might work.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Although I support Cruz, at the back of my mind is the thought that just won’t go away. That is that Cruz has no chance of winning any of the northeastern states, the West Coast and perhaps even Florida.

      I heard my father say to his old friends who had moved to Texas from New York and environs;

      “The Republicans could run George Washington and the Democrats could run a chimp in a tuxedo and you would vote for the chimp.”

      All his friends nodded and agreed that was the case.

      And a lot of these people have moved to Florida so that state is not necessarily going red.

      To win, Cruz would need to win all the states Romney won, plus (I believe) Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. He might even need another state. I have not looked at the exact number of electoral votes for each state, but know he needs 270 and Romney won only about 210.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        That’s true, KFZ, but of course it had nothing to do with Trump. The GOPe, which ironically is responsible for the current Trump-crisis, is also responsible for letting Democrats move the country so far to the Left through increasing the size of government and by third-world immigration. We may already be past the Tipping Point; one of the most important reasons I want to see a Cruz/Hillary match-up is that if Cruz can’t beat some as corrupt and off-putting as her, I think it means we’re past the Tipping Point, as our illustrious editor Brad has predicted in the past.

        The bottom line is that Republicans have allowed Democrats to buy more and more votes each year; add to those the ones they’ll steal in the major cities and eventually you reach the point of one-party rule. A fixation on immediate concretes, Karl Rove style, and failing to consider the larger picture, is responsible for these woes.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The bottom line is that Republicans have allowed Democrats to buy more and more votes each year; add to those the ones they’ll steal in the major cities and eventually you reach the point of one-party rule.

          American is approaching “banana republic” status as regards open and honest voting in some of the larger cities. With the influx of third world citizens, which has taken place over the last thirty years, this is perhaps appropriate.

          A fixation on immediate concretes, Karl Rove style, and failing to consider the larger picture, is responsible for these woes.

          It is a sad fact of life, that conservatives, (particularly economic ones) do not wish to stir things up, thus do not go for long term political plans, or as George H.W. Bush called it, “that vision thing”.

          It is the Left, which has all sorts of ideas as to how to change things, that has vision, and a long-term vision at that.

  3. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    With all due respect, KFZ, conservatives damaged their own cause by being flaccid in the face of the progressive juggernaut. If Trump is our weapon, and our only choice, then let’s use him. Wishing for what may have been or could have been if the likes of Paul Ryan had cojones is immaterial. Anybody but another progressive, and surely that includes the latest manifestation of Satan, Hillary.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Tom,

      I agree 100% that a great number of conservatives are guilty of disengaging from public life. I suspect it has always been so. Let’s face it, conservative people generally have families, businesses, go to church and are not very interested in running other people’s lives. This being the case, they have not paid attention to what has been happening over the last decades. It is only now that the enormity of the threat which is facing us has become so apparent, that they are waking up.

      That being said, perhaps I did not make myself clear. The one bullet in the cylinder game of Russian Roulette is that which we will play with Trump or Cruz as nominee.

      And I use the analogy because I think Trump has damaged the overall chances of a Republican victory. The man had an amazing chance to almost run the table, but his immaturity, vanity or stupidity has consistently got in the way.
      He appears to be unable to think before he speaks. He is incapable of responding to any criticism in a reasoned way. He only knows to viciously attack and generally goes over the top when he does so. This does not show good character or judgement. Over time, it was inevitable that he would do himself and the conservative cause damage. His actions have put a pistol to the head of conservatives and loaded one bullet.

      That being said, I think the suggestion in this piece would do more damage and give us even less chance to beat Hillary. I meant to suggest Mr. Hall’s plan is analogous to having four or five bullets in the cylinder for a game of Russian Roulette.

      As regards the November election, I still believe the only way for the Republicans to win would be a Trump/Cruz ticket. And given Trump’s very high negatives with women, I am not sure even that team will win.

      If Trump wants to have any chance he must bridle his tongue, particularly as regards personal attacks. Perhaps he understands this, as he has in an oblique manner, apologized for the tweet on Heidi Cruz. To paraphrase some French worthy, “That tweet was worse than a crime, that tweet was incredibly stupid.”

      One can hope that Trump will take control of himself and start acting with some dignity. But as the German saying goes, “One cannot grow out of one’s shadow.”

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    Delegate selection in Colorado and North Dakota this weekend seems to have favored Cruz, though the delegates are unbound. In Colorado, 2 districts selected their delegates, and Cruz won all 6, In the upcoming week, the remaining districts will select theirs, and then the 13 at-large delegates will be chosen Saturday.

    North Dakota also chose 25 delegates, and 18 are considered pro-Cruz. The other 7 seem to be more uncertain. Several thousand attended the state convention there, which is better attendance than some of the caucuses.

  5. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    While I always appreciate your efforts, Jon, I feel you’ve got some real problems here. To begin with, in common with many of the writers at NRO, you’re focusing on Republican victories instead of Conservative ones. One of the reasons for the Trump Derangement Syndrome now afflicting intelligent people who should know better (again I have the NRO staff in mind here, and not anyone at ST) is the idea that “we” (Republicans) had a great chance at victory until Trump rolled into town. That is not so, for the Party was dangerously divided by 2015 if not earlier, as I (and others, I believe) pointed out in several articles here at ST. Even more importantly, a “victory” with Republicans like ¡Jeb!, Kasich, Rubio, Christie, etc. would have been in fact a massive defeat for Conservatism, as the Establishment would have maintained its death-grip on the Party and foisted an Amnesty on us for sure, killing any hope of a Conservative (free) future for America.

    At this point in the race, we can now see that out of 17 candidates, only one was a Conservative, and that was Ted Cruz. And that Cruz would be winning handily now absent Trump is an interesting theory, but unproven: even at this late hour, Establishment forces have refused to get behind Cruz; without Trump, Rubio would still be in the race, perhaps along with ¡Jeb! and that idiot Kasich. We might very well still be heading toward a brokered convention. The point is that we were never “close” to a Conservative victory, which is all that mattered then or matters now.

    O.K. – apologies for the length. Second, I have to take issue with your contention that the primaries basically mean nothing and the delegates should simply take it upon themselves to “dump Trump” on the first ballot. Forgive me for quoting myself, but I wrote this short explanation for someone else earlier today:

    “We have a democratic republic in which we the people elect those who govern us. The parties are part of that process, and each party is therefore morally bound to nominate the candidate(s) that the majority of the party members vote for. (Yes, there are complications such as open primaries and crazy caucuses, but they are beyond the scope of the present discussion). To do otherwise would mean that the people cannot select their own public servants. When delegates are elected, they are generally bound to a particular candidate, which is as it should be.

    Of course it can and will happen that if more than two candidates seek the nomination, none will get a majority of the delegates. In such a case, the delegates must at some point become unbound, else no one could be nominated. But the rules of procedure that govern this case must be written ahead of time and then scrupulously adhered to – no “making it up on the fly” to sneakily favor one candidate. (Remember the Democratic Party’s machinations to change the rules in Florida to get Al Gore elected?). Therefore, if Trump fails to get to 1237 on the first ballot, even by one vote, we are fully justified in dumping him.

    However, suppose Trump does have 1237 votes on the first ballot. That means that Republican voters, not some know-it-all-elite, not you, and not I, have decided that they want Trump as their nominee. It matters not one whit that the odds are against him winning – what matters is the principle of representative government itself. The delegates represent the voters, and must carry out their will on the first ballot. No one has the right to say to Republican voters, “You guys wanted Trump, but you’re stupid and we know better than you, so we’re nominating someone else.” It’s exactly that kind of elitist arrogance that made Trump’s rise possible in the first place.”

    If Trump has 1237 votes, then yes, he’s entitled to the nomination under the rules. You don’t like it? Tough! If we’re going to abandon all the rules we promised to live by, and if some of us feel we’re so superior in ability that we should rule our fellows and ignore not only their desires but also the promise each bound delegate made to those “little people” who voted for him in good faith, then we’re no better than the Left.

    And do you really think “we” could win the general election that way? Having just pushed the voters’ faces into the mud (and not just the Trump voters if you got your way and nominated some “outsider”) and given them a swift kick and told them to take it and like it, do you really think they’re going to turn out for you? I sure as hell won’t if the nominee is anyone besides Trump or Cruz, and neither will a lot of others. You’ll lose, Republican, and you’ll deserve to lose. (This is Mr. Kung’s “playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets” scenario, fleshed out a little bit by me).

    There are a lot of things we can and should do to keep another Trump from rising up in the future, beginning with the dethronement of the Republican Establishment, but that is a subject for another day.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    Actually, many Establishment types have endorsed Cruz to varying degrees, including Mitt Romney (at least in Utah) and Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio hasn’t, but by pulling his name off the California ballot (where otherwise it would still no doubt attract some votes) while simultaneously keeping his delegates committed, he does his best to keep Trump from winning on the first ballot. Scott Walker has come out strongly for Cruz in Wisconsin, where he’s very popular with party voters (though the state does have an open primary).

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Yes, it’s true that some E-men have endorsed Cruz, but in a bite-the-bullet, God-I-hate-having-to-do-this kind of way. Did you hear what Romney actually said?

      “Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these.

      The only path that remains to nominate a Republican rather than Mr. Trump is to have an open convention…”

      So Romney is basically saying, “I hate Ted Cruz, but he’s the only guy who might stop Trump if we can get to a brokered convention.” Hardly a ringing endorsement!

      The Rubio case is even more revealing. Rubio is in a strong position to cut a deal with Cruz by offering his support; he might even be in a strong-enough position to demand the V.P slot. And yet he has not done so – why?

      The answer is that the money-men he works for have told him not to. They simply hate Cruz with such a passion that they would apparently rather risk Trump while supporting Kasich. This story isn’t exactly public knowledge but it’s been out there, and it’s the only one that makes sense. Rubio still wants the Presidency in 4 or 8 years, and he’s calculated that the support of the moneyed interests in the future is more important than making a deal with Cruz (who appears likely to lose to Trump) today.

      • Rosalys says:

        While it may be true that neither Trump nor Cruz has ever received 50% of the vote, the two of them together have consistently received 70% +. If the RNC thinks they can sneak in one of their single digit losers, there will be hell to pay. The Republican party needs to be cleaned up – and if the only way to get it done is to let it die, and rebuild with a new name, then I say, “Go for it!”

        • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

          Rosalys!

          It took some time for the correct idea to surface in this thread. You are so right that the Republican Party earns no loyalty and deserves no seat at the table as we select our next President if it only dwells in machinations that subvert the will of the people.

          We’re not electing an emperor in 2016. If Trump prevails, he can only do so much damage, if that is his desire or an unintended consequence of his policies. Imagine that if Obama weren’t bound in the least by Congress and the courts, his job would now be finished. So, at least Trump loves the USA and whatever missteps he may attempt can be ameliorated somewhat. While that is playing out, we conservatives can work from the inside to either accomplish a total reformation of the GOP or create a successor worthy of Lincoln’s approval.

          • Steve Lancaster says:

            If Trump or Cruz are not on the ballot I will not hold my nose and vote for another RINO slug. Either the GOPe becomes something I can support or it is dead to me. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

            I won’t vote for HRC, but I will not vote GOPe

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              A confirmation of my 5 bullets in the gun theory of Russian Roulette should there be a contested convention in which neither Trump nor Cruz win.

              I am of much the same inclination. I suspect millions agree.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              The rats of the GOP Establishment are capable of anything. But let’s remember that we put them there and keep them in power. Oh, maybe not you or me specifically. But these guys and gals in office who are RINOs, statists, and various shades of “Progressive,” were put there by voters because we have become a bunch of silly, non-serious people. We are them. They are us.

              The rats of the GOP Establishment have gotten away for a long time with bait-and-switch tactics. They have lied to us. And we have willingly looked the other way, often content with the underlying soft and squishy message of “compassionate” conservatism which meant, in practice, we could have our high ideals (in our heads) but nothing controversial in reality would actually have to be done or supported. And we see that this continues with the foolish and blinkered support for Donald Trump. Julie Custer has a sensible article on the subject. There is no reason at all to believe he will follow through even on the things we agree he is (at least rhetorically) correct about.

              At least have some sympathy or understanding for the rats of the GOP Establishment. They have been getting away with lying and manipulating us for a long time. It’s given them vast power and riches. Through all this, they have deluded themselves that they are the nicest, most caring, and gentlemanly people on the planet. Without much doubt they believe that if they put forward a “sensible” candidate (that is, a statist, liberal, back-slapping one) that the electorate will go along with it again. Or at least they believe it is far better to lose with a “proper” candidate then to win with a Trump or Cruz.

              I think Trump voters are electorally suicidal just as I think the rats of the GOP Establishment are, and often have been. There is no quick fix to our troubles. And the first reason for this is that I doubt you could put a dozen good conservatives (providing that you could find them) in a room and get them to agree on an agenda.

              Clusterf*** is the watchword. We are an electorate, a party, a cause, and a nation who are morally, intellectually, and socially confused. It’s too much to ask Ted Cruz or anyone else to fix this. But certainly we know the rats of the GOP Establishment are more than capable of making things worse.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              It would be at least theoretically possible for the outsider forces (who will have an overwhelming majority of delegates) could compromise on a different outsider candidate. That may not be as likely as an Establishment betrayal, but we can’t ignore the possibility.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            The Republican party needs to be cleaned up – and if the only way to get it done is to let it die, and rebuild with a new name, then I say, “Go for it!”

            The idea may be correct, but the trick is not to kill the country in the attempt.

            • Rosalys says:

              I have a sick feeling in my gut that the country may already have expired. We just haven’t yet scheduled the funeral. If there still is a barely detectible heartbeat, it won’t be the fault of those of us furious with the Republican establishment if it stops altogether.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              The problem with the “let it die” scenario is that America wasn’t built by a process of negation. It was built upon an idea. That idea has to be inserted somewhere. If not the Republican Party, then somewhere else.

              What has been working as a political movement is Big Government. If you don’t like the nanny state then you must do what Nik has long told us needs doing: Make the moral argument for the restrained state, for the rule of law, for personal responsibility, for fiscal sanity, and for a social order that does not include fining people for not baking birthday cakes for faux weddings.

              Make the case. Go ahead. Make it. And that’s the problem because the electorate out there right now is awash in liberalism. The assumptions long indoctrinated in them have not left them able to parse reality in a conservative way, therefore conservatism is easy for them to dismiss. It just seems foreign to them, and it’s easy to dismiss as “unkind” because of previous propaganda. And many conservatives themselves have drifted with the current and adopted liberal ways, coloring the essentials with the superficial motif of the accidentals of pop liberal culture (see: Kumbaya Christianity).

              “Just let it die” (or “just blow it up”) is shorthand for the extreme difficulties conservative ideas face in a nation that is substantially “Progressive.” To make conservative ideas live, and their contrary ideas wither, is to pump those conservative ideas with energy. You thus have to not only understand and believe in those ideas, you must make the moral case for them.

              So how are we doing in that regard? There is one conservative candidate in the race, Ted Cruz, but the “angry” electorate right now is attached to a flimflam artist by the name of “Trump.” Trump could certainly “blow things up,” but rarely does dynamite actually build anything.

              And there is no reason to believe that Donald Trump has any constructive plan (after the dynamite goes off) other than a regulatory/statist plan. As I’ve long noted about his baloney view of economics, he has no clue as to the scope of the problem. Doug Bandow has a too-lengthy, but spot-on, article on one aspect of Trump’s ignorance.

              A vote for Trump, with Cruz as a viable option, is most decidedly killing the country in the attempt to cure it. But then, I’m not sure that people are looking for a cure. A cure requires thought, wisdom, and a reality-check with…reality.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Unfortunately, right now the key is the Supreme Court. All it takes is one more liberal “justice” to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. That may not be recoverable.

              • Rosalys says:

                What I meant by just let it die, is the Republican party – not the country. Form a new one to take its place the way the Republicans filled the void the Whigs left. Then this new party can make the moral arguments, because few people are going to take anything the Republicans have to say seriously.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The official policy of StubbornThings in regards to choosing a GOP candidate for president will be:

    1) A committee of seven will be selected based upon their knowledge of the Constitution, American history, and actually having worked for a living. This smoke-filled room will have good cigars and feature standards rather than feelings.

    2) Candidates will be chosen from the best of those who are officially announced and those who aren’t running but should be.

    3) All candidates will be gently water-boarded to find out what they really believe.

    4) A candidate who receives at least four of the seven votes shall be the GOP nominee. Reince Priebus will then be called in to kiss our ring and/or some other part of the anatomy.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      This smoke-filled room will have good cigars and feature standards rather than feelings.

      I vote for Macanudos.

      2) Candidates will be chosen from the best of those who are officially announced and those who aren’t running but should be.

      Running for the presidency should disqualify one from holding the office. We will have to find, and convince the correct candidate to run.

      3) All candidates will be gently water-boarded to find out what they really believe.

      A jacuzzi might be appropriate here.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I like that “who aren’t running but should be” — Jeff Sessions for sure!

  8. Lucia says:

    I like the smell of cigar smoke. Would women be allowed in?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Here’s the shocking StubbornThings official credo on sex, Lucia. That any of these notions are controversial shows how deeply polluted this culture has become by Progressivism:

      Men and women are different. But individuals in either group can be so different as to make the group differences relatively insignificant. It takes discernment (keeping both aspects in mind) to create wisdom regarding this issue. But, by and large, men are hunters, women are gatherers. Men are fighters and builders, women are nurturers and facilitators.

      Each sex has its strength and weaknesses. Men need to curb their propensity toward violence. Women need to curb their propensity toward irrational emotionalism.

      Now, regarding the cigar-filled room, another shocking thing is that this room would be filled with people who wouldn’t give a hoot if all seven committee members were women or all seven were men. We don’t do affirmative action. And we don’t reduce people to symbolic puppets via some gullible notion of “diversity.” The point would be that the committee members are wise, fairly knowledgable, and have a good bullshit detector.

      But if we had to have some kind of secret handshake before a woman could join, it would be to answer this one question: Why is “compassionate conservatism” destructive, false, and inane? A suitable question for men would be: How does covering your body with yet another tattoo enhance your image among people who should matter to you?

  9. Lucia says:

    I’ll answer the second question first. Head to toe tattoos are now symbols of manliness because those men no longer know what manliness really is these days. My husband has a Navy tat on his arm for ID purposes. Then he had a “chicken foot” tat as a political statement. But he wears his manliness in his actions towards me and his children by how seriously he takes his responsibility as protector, provider and partner. His courage is undisputable. He is a gentleman without apology.

    Oops, I didn’t realize I wasn’t supposed to answer that one. Oh well, my husband would’ve said the same thing.

    Second question assumes that conservatism is uncompassionate by nature. It’s liberalism that has the wrong angle on what is compassionate towards those in need. I would answer the question with another question. What is so compassionate about making needy people even more needy by treating them like children? What is so compassionate about robbing adults of their dignity and responsibility by providing for their every need from cradle to grave instead of helping them to provide for themselves?

    I could go on about how liberalism reinforces the base nature of people, rewarding them for being lazy, undisciplined, illiterate, shallow thinking, emotionally and physically abusive, without accountability or remorse, but that would take up too much space.

    Do I get in now?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, if it were up to me, you could lead the discussion. I couldn’t have said it better myself regarding “compassionate conservatism”.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Do I get in now?

      First I have to warn you, Lucia. I don’t grade on the “curve.” The “curve” is just another form of relativism. It’s absolutism for me. You’re going to be graded against Margaret Thatcher.

      Answer 1: “Head to toe tattoos are now symbols of manliness because those men no longer know what manliness really is these days.”

      I’ll accept that, even though it was kind of a throw-away comment that I made about tattoos. But you ran with it and found something to say about it. You made it relevant, interesting, and coherent. That’s what it’s all about. And kudos not only to your fine husband but to yourself for recognizing and appreciating those features in him. I have to believe that, given men’s nature (they want to please, but generally won’t be doormats) that you let him know he’s appreciated, therefore further strengthening the kind of good man that he is. Forgotten in the feminazi movement is this real power that women have always had.

      Answer #2: “What is so compassionate about making needy people even more needy by treating them like children? What is so compassionate about robbing adults of their dignity and responsibility by providing for their every need from cradle to grave instead of helping them to provide for themselves?”

      Bingo. Well said. You’re in. Reagan would approve. Tim wants us to draft Jeff Sessions. Maybe we can make that work for next time when we’re a little more prepared and influential (plus I’m still looking for a water-boarding kit on eBay).

      Conservatism: Compassion equals helping to make people self-reliant and to fulfill their god-given skills.

      Liberalism: Everyone is a victim and “caring” equates to making of men Pajama Boys and of women (and all classes) aggrieved subordinates.

  10. Timothy Lane says:

    Well, most of the Wisconsin primary vote seems to be in, and Cruz has just under half, compared to just over a third for Trump. I don’t yet know how the delegate selections will go, but Cruz would get all 18 at-large delegates and probably most of the 24 chosen by district (based on a map on FNC, I would guess 18 to Trump’s 6, but we shall see). It was a tremendous victory, with Trump doing worse (and Kasich better) than the exit polls indicated. His base vote remained with him; no one else did.

    There was also a race for a swing seat on the state Supreme Court. I have no idea how that went, but perhaps we will learn tomorrow.

    The Town Cryer responded to his defeat with a lengthy rant against Cruz. So much for his promise to become more presidential. One blogger at Town Hall referred to him as Humpty Trumpty, and he did indeed have a great fall.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Trump knows he feeds the gullible minds of his Trumplites by demonizing the opposition. A mob doesn’t tend to stop and think. It merely reacts, willingly believing anything that feeds their political addiction.

      It’s ironic that the satanic Left has long called any conservative “mean-spirited.” But we have one of these types in our midst now.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      According to Politico, Cruz will receive 36 delegates and Trump 6.

      Ari Fleischer has a piece at the Fox News website in which he gives Trump advice as to what he must do to move forward and win. If Trump had been reading ST, he would have already received this advice long ago.

      To my mind, that Trump does not heed such obvious advice is just a sign that he really is rather stupid or cannot control his ego. I don’t think he is stupid. I think it is just all about him. While all people running for the presidency must have a somewhat enlarged ego, the apparent size of Trump’s is worrying. The Leader of the Free World must be able to ponder many serious problems from a non-personal perspective.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        People keep saying that Trump is going to shift into a presidential mode instead of the blustering bully mode. I’d be willing to believe this if he ever showed any evidence. I suspect that he simply can’t accept anything bad happening, and thus reflexively reacts to bad news petulantly and spitefully. And since his acolytes believe every word of it, they can no longer compromise on any other candidate. But his behavior is that of a typical liberal Democrat, reflecting the milieu in which he has lived.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          But his behavior is that of a typical liberal Democrat, reflecting the milieu in which he has lived.

          Oh, abso-friggin-lutely, Timothy. He’s another person who needs to learn to sit quietly in a room instead of projecting his maladies on the rest of us. Typical Democrat indeed.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          People keep saying that Trump is going to shift into a presidential mode instead of the blustering bully mode. I’d be willing to believe this if he ever showed any evidence. I suspect that he simply can’t accept anything bad happening, and thus reflexively reacts to bad news petulantly and spitefully.

          Can a 69 year old man change; particularly, a 69 year old billionaire who has probably not had anyone seriously oppose him in decades?

          My opinion of the man would certainly improve if he started acting mature and presidential instead of acting the fool. That would, at least, show he is willing to listen to others and modify his behavior. Putting off immediate gratification for later gain, i.e. a little self-control.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Town Hall just reported the vote in the Supreme Court race. Republican (and conservative) Rebecca Bradley won by 5% (though she was reported behind by 8% in the exit poll last night). Bradley had been appointed by Walker last year to replace a swing-voting justice.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        This was an important victory. Her opponent (Kloppenburg) served as a clerk for that horrible witch Abrahamson, who had been the Chief Justice.

        This shows why getting involved in local and state politics is so important.

Leave a Reply

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