Plan B for the GOP: Tilting at Windmills?

2016Primariesby Jon N. Hall7/1/16
As the Republican National Convention draws nigh, there is a movement afoot among some GOP delegates to “open” the convention and replace the party’s presumptive nominee with someone else, someone more “appropriate,” someone more, uh … Republican. Whether one thinks that such a “Plan B” should succeed, or even be allowed, depends on what one thinks a political party is, or should be. One’s position on that issue alone will likely determine what one thinks of the insurgent delegates’ drive to open the convention and contest the results of the primaries.

On June 17, RedState ran “Breaking: “Anybody but Trump”: RNC Delegates seek to stop Trump at the Convention” by Neil Stevens:

Trump is whistling past the graveyard on this, if he thinks the party has no means to protect itself from a complete collapse in November. He claims there is “no mechanism” to dump him off the ticket, but there is.

The rules of the 2016 convention have not yet been written. It’s merely an assumption that they’ll be the same as last time, but there’s no requirement that the delegates do that. The delegates in the end may feel compelled to act, as a consensus grows that Trump is a disaster.

Also on June 17, Hot Air ran “Here we go: Dozens of GOP delegates huddle over possibly dumping Trump” by Allahpundit:

To give you a sense of how difficult it’ll be to replace him, the dump-Trumpers will need a majority in their favor not just among the total delegates but probably on the Rules Committee too. There are ways in theory to oust Trump without changing any of the convention’s rules, but that would force anti-Trumpers to argue that all delegates are unbound and free to vote their consciences even under the current rules.

To that point, on June 25 ran “Lawsuit seeks to unbind RNC delegates from backing Trump”:

Carroll B. Correll, who served as a campaign co-chairman for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Virginia’s 10th congressional district, is seeking class-action status for his suit on behalf of the commonwealth’s 49 Republican delegates and 110 Democratic delegates. […] At issue in the Virginia delegate’s case is a state law that says delegates are bound to vote on the first ballot for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary […] Correll claims the law violates his First Amendment rights. He’s seeking an injunction to exempt him from criminal penalties under Virginia law or possible retaliatory litigation by Trump for backing another candidate on the first ballot. […] Correll’s attorneys, who filed the lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, have asked for the case to be expedited in the hope of getting a ruling for the start of the convention in Cleveland July 18.

On June 24, The Blaze ran “Republican Delegate in Virginia Files Lawsuit to Get Out of Having to Vote for Trump at the Convention” by Tré Goins-Phillips that goes further into Correll’s lawsuit and features a copy of his 14-page complaint. The complaint states on page 5, item 21: “He [Correll] will cast a vote on the first ballot, and on any additional ballots, for a candidate whom he believes is fit to serve as President, thereby violating Section 545(D).” If Virginia were to bring suit against Mr. Correll for the way he votes, it would set up a case to test the constitutionality of state laws that bind delegates. (Bring it on, Virginia!)

Anti-Trump forces hope to open GOP convention but struggle for footing” by Dave Helling appeared on page 7A of the Kansas City Star on June 23, it ran online the day before. Helling reports that dumping Trump is a longshot, and that GOP leadership is opposed to the “movement” and doesn’t seem to take it seriously. One reason to read Helling’s article is his quoting of Republican delegates from both the pro- and anti-Trump sides (link added):

Organizer Kendal Unruh, a Colorado delegate, said the outcome would justify the effort to open the convention. “Short-term, yes, there’s going to be chaos,” she told The Washington Post. “Long term, this saves the party and we win the election.”

Like Carroll, Unruh is a Cruz backer, (incidentally, I too voted for Cruz in the Missouri primary). But in pursuing a Plan B to nominate someone other than Trump, if delegates were to replace Trump with Cruz, it might be a huge mistake. Such an action would enrage Trump voters, whom the GOP needs. Moreover, delegates should reject all of the original 16 candidates whom Trump vanquished. If the insurgent delegates think they can replace Trump with Cruz or (especially) Bush, they’re not thinking well. The delegates would need to draft someone new, and in the Year of the Outsider that draftee needs to be an “outsider.” Only then will Republicans have a chance of hanging on to primary voters who voted for Trump. They should also resist any temptation to draft Romney, who’s been trashing Trump. Delegates would probably need to go outside Congress, perhaps even outside of elective office altogether, to find the right “outsider.”

On June 17, Sean Hannity posted a video and short article which quoted RNC Rules Committee member Curly Haugland: “The media has created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination, [but the] political parties choose their nominees, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.”

Hannity then asked: “what’s the point of anybody voting then?” To which I ask if delegates are merely supposed to rubberstamp the votes of the primary voters, what’s the point of delegates voting? What’s the point of having a convention? Indeed, what’s the point of having political parties? The answer to Hannity’s question is: there isn’t any point in the public voting in primaries; primaries are a bad idea. Either a party has self-determination or it doesn’t.

Hannity warns that if the nomination is taken from Trump, that there would be a huge walkout of Trump delegates. Who are these delegates? Delegates who would walk out of their own convention shouldn’t have been delegates in the first place. The only people who should be delegates are longtime, true blue Republicans, and none of them should hold a federal elective office.

If delegates to the Republican National Convention collectively decide to dump their presumptive nominee and find someone more appropriate, a decent respect for the primary voters makes it incumbent upon them to explain themselves, justify their actions, and tell us, to quote Mr. Trump, “what the hell is going on.”

What’s going on is Trump’s electability. On June 29, the New York Daily News ran an article by Joel Silverstein that Trump supporters really need to read:

Nate Silver has spoken: Hillary Clinton will be the next President.

The famed political pollster — whose past presidential predictions have been freakishly accurate — said Wednesday he gives the presumptive Democratic candidate a 79% chance of winning the White House come November.

Also on June 29, FiveThirtyEight ran “Donald Trump Has A 20 Percent Chance Of Becoming President” by Mr. Silver, the famed statistician with the “freakishly accurate” predictive abilities. Against a woman who is the subject of an FBI probe and whom most Americans see as an utterly corrupt, 20 percent isn’t so hot. But things could change, right? It’s early, right?

Donald Trump was never a safe choice. Republicans now have more elective offices than at just about any time since the 1920s. A weak nominee at the top of the ticket threatens all that. We’re told that everything is at stake in this election, including the composition of the Supreme Court for generations, not to mention the very nature and character of America. Aren’t delegates then required to nominate the best and truest Republican out there who can win?

Some believe that dumping Trump, even with his high negatives, would be more disastrous for the GOP than running with Trump. But wouldn’t that depend on who the new nominee is? What if delegates were to draft someone who is in sync with Trump’s positions on immigration and his other resonating issues, but whose “style” has broader appeal than Mr. Trump’s?

It’s not too late for Plan B.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. • (1786 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Plan B for the GOP: Tilting at Windmills?

  1. GHG says:

    Heaven help us. Really.

    Even if all the smartest people in the GOPe are correct that Hillary will beat Trump, on what basis do they think a different GOP candidate will beat Hillary? Do they really believe the millions of people who go to Trump rallies and voted for him in the primaries are going to show up at the polls in sufficient numbers to push the GOPe candidate past Hillary? So either they would rather lose with NeverTrump than win with him, or they really shouldn’t be considered the smartest people in the GOPe anymore. Most arrogant and self serving? Yes, but not very smart.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, in theory, if they replaced Trump with a Trump supporter with fewer problems as a candidate, it might be doable. Of course, when theories run into facts, they often fare poorly. If Jeff Sessions (who could have run if he’d wanted to) or Newt Gingrich (who has almost as much baggage as Trump) ran instead, would Trump back him? Would his voters?

  2. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    It is far too late for such intricate tricks, and the electorate will not tolerate it. It would be analogous to GB nullifying the Brexit vote. The GOP would no longer exist by 2020. I’ve been watching all of Trump’s speeches and he’s no dolt. I didn’t start with Trump, actually Cruz, but Trump is where we are, and at least he’s a fighter and loves the USA.

    Who else in our polite, reach-across-the-aisle timid GOP brood would sock Hillary in the nose as Trump has? He’s exposing her inner rot quite competently by at least shining some light into that heart of darkness.

    The time for arcane machinations, sophistry, fancy rhetoric and chin scratching is over. The battle is at hand, and it’s time to unite and destroy the manifestation of Satan known as Hillary Clinton. That’s right, destroy. Unless we fight as hard as the left, our progeny are screwed.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I agree, Tom.

      But the main missing element isn’t procedure. Goodness, if the GOP nominee (whoever he was) was discovered to be an illegal alien, to have murdered a wife, or was crooked in a way unusual for a politician, the party would find a way to replace him.

      I think Trump rises very near to that level. But the missing element here is the groundswell of support for some other candidate, and one who is also willing to run. All we do indeed have is “in theory” and not a candidate.

      Conservatives and habitual Republican voters are used to moving Left and justifying it. Trump would be no different. He will likely lose not because of his lack of good character. He’ll lose because he hasn’t sufficiently articulated a competing vision for America (his is but another brand of statism). I agree with Dennis Prager. You have to run against the Left. You have to call it by name. And you have to offer a coherent and understandable alternative worldview.

      Trump can bluff and bluster, insult and bloviate, but people know what the Democrats and Hillary are for. They understand that vision. That so many are going with it is a shame. But this is why her personal character doesn’t matter. It’s the causes she supports that matter.

      Same thing with Trump on our side. Trump supporters don’t care about this man’s severe shortcomings, both in ideology and character. It’s the cause (beat Hillary) that they care about. And few of them give a flying fart what happens if he is elected. In fact, many of them live in hope that he’ll simply tear the place apart. They have said as much.

      • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

        Actually, I must protest. My motivation isn’t merely anti-Clinton. I have a different assessment of Trump than you do, but that’s ok. To add another “but”, even if I viewed Trump as all but fatally flawed, he is still not Satan.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          There is a lot of room short of Satan for a bad candidate. I don’t think Trump is Satan either. But it often seems the best we can say about Trump is he’s not really really really terrible. But I think it’s obvious he’s terrible in some significant ways.

  3. GHG says:

    The 800 lb gorilla isn’t going to go away. The next president determines the shape of the Supreme Court and even though the Executive has already set precedent on making and breaking law, the SC is the last hope to reign in the left from eviscerating the constitution and our rights entirely. This election is precisely “beat Hillary”. Nothing else is as important to our national survival, regardless of the qualifications of Trump (or lack thereof).

    • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:


    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      This is all assuming the Trump appoints good judges. Even openly conservative presidents have had trouble with this.

      And there is no “last chance” to rein in the Left. This has been a gradual process over fifty years. No one president is a cure for this, especially one as ideologically dubious as Trump. I’m just not buying the “last chance” argument. By all means, vote to keep Hillary out of office. But let’s keep some perspective on this. Trump is likely the savior of nothing and no one but himself.

      • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

        Hillary is a strident and possibly lethal continuation of the process you mention. Perspective is irrelevant. Binary choice, sir.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          We do have a reaming choice, that’s for sure. As I’ve said, I think it’s a rational decision to vote against Hillary. But to me it’s distasteful to then see Trump as something more than he is.

          And a true binary choice would be Reagan vs. Obama. What we have is more of a “soft” choice between bad and worse.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        This is all assuming the Trump appoints good judges.

        Hell, I am waiting to see who he chooses for his VP.

        Even though the position has little to no power, Trump’s choice will give some insight into a number of things about his ideas on running the country, should he be elected. For example, should he choose a Northeastern liberal Republican like Christie, I don’t think I could vote for the ticket.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          The latest reports, for whatever they’re worth, seem to have Christie, Gingrich, and Pence on the short list. Pence may be the best of the lot, though I wasn’t encouraged by his yielding to the professionally outraged over homosexual marriage being forced on small businesses last year.

      • GHG says:

        This is all assuming the Trump appoints good judges. Even openly conservative presidents have had trouble with this.

        True. There is some doubt Trump will choose someone who will be a rock solid constitutionalist – even if he intends to do so. But there is no doubt about the type of justice Hillary would choose.

        Trump is no guarantee of goodness. Hillary is a guarantee of badness.


    All right, we’ll have another go-round with Jon as to how a democracy is supposed to function. There are precisely two ways in which candidates can be selected to appear on a general election ballot: (1) They can be chosen by the people through popular vote, with appropriate contingency provisions for the death, illness, etc. of a candidate; or (2) A specially-anointed elite, apparently superior to the will of the people, can choose them. Jon prefers the elitist approach; I prefer to have some say in whom I can vote for in November.

    Next, let’s assume arguendo that I am correct and that the people should get to choose their own leaders. What then should be the proper function of political parties? Jon continues with the Libertarian approach which holds that the parties are private organizations and can do whatever they please:

    “Hannity then asked: “what’s the point of anybody voting then?” To which I ask if delegates are merely supposed to rubberstamp the votes of the primary voters, what’s the point of delegates voting? What’s the point of having a convention? Indeed, what’s the point of having political parties? The answer to Hannity’s question is: there isn’t any point in the public voting in primaries; primaries are a bad idea. Either a party has self-determination or it doesn’t.”

    Sorry, Jon, but a party does not have “self-determination” in a democracy! The obvious responses to his questions are:

    (1) The point of having a convention with delegates is that the millions of party members could not practically form a conclave, so they delegate the responsibilities to delegates who are supposed to work their will. This also solves the problem of contingencies such as a candidate’s death, or no candidate having an absolute majority of the popular vote. (Yes, I’m aware Trump doesn’t have a majority of the popular vote; reforms are certainly needed in the state primary process, but abandoning the process altogether is not the answer).

    (2) The point of having political parties is so the people (and not some smug, self-satisfied elite giving themselves airs) can place in office men of their choosing who will enact the policies the voters want. No, this process isn’t perfect – we have today a Republican Party that works to enrich itself and its wealthy donors and a Democratic Party that works to establish actual tyranny – but the answer is not to make both parties independent of the voters (the Democrats already are, pretty much, and the GOPe aspires to do likewise) but to make the parties more responsive to the will of the voters.

    Finally, as to Trump: Brad observes that Trump is pretty close to the point that replacing him on fitness grounds can be justified, and I agree. But “close” doesn’t cut it here; the Trump we see today is the Trump the voters chose and their will must be respected. It’s not as though Trump makes less sense now than he did four months ago. And having answered Jon’s questions I would like to pose one of my own: who the hell are you or anyone else to say to the people that they are to have no say in whom they can vote for in a general election, and that instead some self-appointed elite (the “private” parties) will make that decision for them? Ironically, this is exactly the sort of arrogance that made Trump’s success possible.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I agree, in principle (perhaps with Jon…perhaps not), that the party has the right, even the responsibility, to re-write the rules to jettison a Trump when they arise. Given the choice of Trump by the grievance-activated mob on the right, smoke-filled rooms where a small and calm elite chooses the nominee doesn’t look so bad right now.

      But the problem with the smoke-filled rooms of the Republican Establishment is that it’s not good ol’ cigar smoke that fills the room (or would fill the room) but clouds of magic mushroom spores. This elite doesn’t have a major disagreement with the Left. They are for “diversity” and all that rot. They are basically Democrats Lite. They would likely choose another Romney. And it’s not that I think Romney is such a bad guy. The problem was that he didn’t oppose the Left in any meaningful way. He did not present an alternative and better vision for the country (at least in any kind of convincing way).

      Neither does Trump. Actually, to be fair, who the hell can know what Trump is for? But generally I think it’s fair to see him as a “New York Values” East Coast progressive/liberal with strong statist tendencies. Don’t expect the man who doesn’t commonly say the word “liberty” or “Constitution” on the campaign trial to be paring back the Federal government.

      Jonah Goldberg has a good article on this situation. I agree with him that the point of conservative writers is to tell the truth not just “get on board” for the sake of getting on board. And a lot of supposed conservatives had done just that, advocating not just to vote against Hillary but squinting very hard and seeing various shades of Ronald Reagan inside Donald Trump.

      This gets perversely funny at times. As I’ve said, I think given the choice it is a rational decision to vote against Hillary. But look at human nature and how easily, as I noted elsewhere this morning, we are often defined simply by who we oppose and then group dynamics kick in and we drizzle soft rose petals on the one who leads “our side” and suddenly find all kinds of great things in the leader who would have repulsed us just five minutes earlier.

      Thankfully Jonah isn’t a believer in such stupid internet notions as “Godwin’s Law” whereby any mention of Hitler is supposedly completely crippling to any further discourse. Jonah writes:

      George Orwell was one of the very few intellectuals generally, and almost entirely alone on the left, who recognized that both Stalin and Hitler were abominations. No, I’m not saying that we face a similar moral or existential choice. What I am saying is that just because we are facing a horrible choice, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t say it is horrible. That’s our job. As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Yes, the important thing is always to seek the truth, and report it. As long as you do that, you will never be totally committed for or against a politician (after all, Barry Zero ultimately made the right decision regarding Osama bin Laden). Some you will criticize (or praise) more than others, but (hopefully) never unfairly.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          If one always seeks the truth, it will generally keep one from falling for fads and transient fashion.


        All I would add to what you said, Brad, is that if the Republican Establishment were not what you accuse them of being – Democrats lite – Trump would never have won the primaries and we wouldn’t be in the position now of either accepting Trump or else letting them nominate one of their own. It cannot be repeated often enough that the GOPe created the opening which Trump the opportunist was quick to exploit (we should remember that he had contemplated running for President since at least 2000).

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Thanks for writing this Nik. The Party, which John seems to hold in special esteem, has been hoisted by its own petard.

      To change the rules now would be FATAL to the Republican Party and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. While I do not particularly care about the Republican Party, I do care about the type of chaos which would erupt should the convention follow Hall’s suggestions.

      On a theoretical basis, the best thing we could hope for is that Trump gets hit by a truck and is not able to run for the office. But short of that, we are stuck and as I have said before, we are in this situation, largely due to the wonderful elites who run the Republican Party. Why Jon Hall thinks these greedy, short-sighted f*@k-ups will be able to miraculously pull a rabbit out of the hat at the convention, is beyond me.


        You’re welcome, KFZ. And I agree: the Republican Party matters not a whit except to the extent that it becomes a Conservative party.

    • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

      I’ve found this discussion entirely interesting. This discourse makes Ricochet look like a convocation of bomb throwers, by comparison.

      That said, I maintain that as interesting and erudite as this discussion may be, now that war is joined, we should discuss how to help Trump be the best he can be. Not that he doesn’t have an ego, certainly, but I observe him delivering his message with more adroitness and polish. He seems to take honest criticism a bit, too. He is now talking to the nation and not just the GOP electorate who are minimally interested in fighting for governance.

      People have piled on over his trade recommendations, but they may have missed his point: yes his policies might reduce overall global trade, but would lopsidedly benefit us. It’s not our job to increase the middle class wages in China.

      He pounds on the Clintons with facts and ferocity. Who else would? From her serial mendacity to their pay-to-play schemes, Trump is on it, revealing them to be prime movers within the “rigged” system.

      Principles and conservative scoring are excellent as freshman college class topics, but sorrowfully, we have no luxury at this existential juncture in our nation’s arc of freedom to concentrate on these niceties.

      Reform or improve the primary process Next Year. Defend conservative principles and help the GOP return to them, or simply create a new party Next Year. Ignore the ego-stroking allure of third party dalliances until Next Year.

      This Year, let’s concentrate on ensuring that our country as least has a chance to begin the long and morally painful path back to our founding model of Judeo-Christian principled governance. Pick the correct one in our binary choice.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Pick the correct one in our binary choice.

        I think we are faced with a bad choice, Tom, not a binary one. Much as with Romney, there will be legions whose choice will be to not vote at all.

        Again, I think it is a rational choice to vote against Hillary. But I find most defenses of Trump to be thin. Yes, like a blind chicken, he might find a grain or two. But that’s not much of an endorsement.

        What worries me beyond the bad choices we face are two things:

        1) The voters who have said that the Establishment Republicans have failed them by presenting us with such squishy candidates as McCain and Romney have shown perhaps even worse judgement in presenting us with Trump, particularly with a completely good conservative candidate on the menu, Ted Cruz. It would be nice to rub the Establishment noses in a victory such as that presented by Ronald Reagan. But with the nomination of Trump, win or lose, if I’m an Establishment Republican, I have even more contempt for the fly-over-country voter, the “bitter clingers,” etc. Trump is a poison pill in this regard, neither changing the party for the better nor consolidating forces toward a common goal.

        2) I think anything more than “I’m voting against Hillary” is a recipe for the Republican Party ratcheting left yet again. If we can make excuses for Trump, who can’t we make excuses for? In Jonah Goldberg’s rather good article, he states:

        Politically, conservatism at its core is about the importance of ideas and the importance of character.

        The dismissal of this moves the party leftward by default. Do you not see how this has happened already? Those who would never have given a derelict man such as Donald Trump the time of day are now singing his praises. Again, Trump is the poison pill in regards to holding onto any conservative governing principle. By all means, vote against Hillary. But it’s truly cringe-worthy to hear all the positive support of Trump out there. And you can be pretty sure very few people are thinking “Ill just vote this one time for Trump, and then it’s back to backing more serious conservative candidates.” More likely, more Trumps will follow. The tie to conservative ideas will be made even more threadbare.

        I’ll grant you that the Trump nomination may be inconsequential in the long run given that I believe any kind of real conservatism was long ago nearly impossible. With Trump one could say the GOP voters now have declared officially that they have abandoned principle and, much like the left, are organized under the banner of grievance. And I think that is the emotion that most ties people to Trump.


          And this is where I take a slightly more optimistic view than you, Brad (and normally I don’t have to play second fiddle to anyone in the pessimism department!). To me, it matters less what Trump is than what he was perceived to be, namely, an outsider who was going to put the interests of the voter class ahead of those of the donor class. Yes, Cruz was the better man, and in that regard voters made the wrong choice – but not by much, for as I have argued elsewhere, Trump was actually the second-best man in the field and Cruz made some very serious errors in the campaign, particularly leaving the impression that he favored an increase in immigration and in blaming the Chicago anti-Trump riots, organized by the Left, on Trump himself.

          To me, then, the significant fact is that an overwhelming majority of Republican voters chose either Trump or Cruz, seeing right through the ultra-slick Rubio, and the obvious E-men like ¡Jeb!, Christie, and Kasich were crushed. And I believe that today’s Trump supporter will support a good, solid Conservative candidate the next time around – provided that candidate learns some important lessons from 2016.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I wonder if anyone has a solid idea of what Trump’s platform is or will be. He’s seems like a make-it-up-as-he-goes-along type of fellow. I honestly don’t think anyone can know what he will do with much confidence.

            • Steve Lancaster says:

              When was the last time you or anyone actually read a party platform. Lots of fine sounding words signifying nothing. The platform is just busy work for the people who get to the convention early and is ignored by the candidates and the party the day the convention is over. They could print Mein Kempf in Sanskrit and no one would notice.

  5. Steve Lancaster says:

    I recall my father telling me how to train a mule; you smack him between the eyes with a 2×4, thats to get his attention. For the last 30 years republican voters have been smacking the GOPe leadership with a feather pillow, and the result has been, Bush 41, Bob (I’m next Dole), Bush 42, McCain, and Romney (the wimp).

    These luminaries were largely chosen by the party based on readings of either tea leaves, or the solid research of a Ouija board. We have gone along with these losers in the hope and prayer that even the weakest republican is better than any democrat and we have been had. There is no real difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton and the above, with the possible exception that the Clintons are more honestly dishonest than the GOPe leadership. I am not sure they have the collective IQ to steal without burning the house down.

    There is a lot to not like about DJT but the simple fact that he pisses off so many elites, (George Will are you listening?) off is a positive and not a negative.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There is a lot to not like about DJT but the simple fact that he pisses off so many elites, (George Will are you listening?) off is a positive and not a negative.

      Maybe I’ve just progressed past emotionalism for my politics. And that said, I hope I never get eruditis intellectualis which infects people such as George Will, wringing from them the warm-blooded heart that beats for freedom and the American way of life and instead substitutes the cold, lizard-like logic of a fat and satisfied crocodile who cleans his teeth with fifty dollar bills.

      I find it absurd the idea that putting a bull in a China closet is going to improve the closet. Oh, that bull will rearrange it, but (all caps warning) WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOD DAMN OCCUPY WALL STREET ANARCHISTS WHO SHOUT LOUDLY AND SMELL OF URINE.

      We are supposed to be responsible republicans, holders and potential restorers of an idea called “America” that is being lost to socialism and all the creepy-creep stuff of the Left. And that vision is based upon specific ideas, not wrecking balls.

      By all means, tear down the Dept. of Education. Rip the heart out of entitlements. Take a chainsaw to the budget. Put an extended hiring freeze on all federal departments and agencies. Reduce or eliminate the tangled web of Federal regulatory agencies. That kind of tearing down I can live we because I know we have lived quite well without all those things before.

      But this anarchist attitude that infects so many Trump voters is destructive, not constructive. Trump hasn’t gained chops by promising this kind of reform. Instead, they’ve gotten a semi from hearing him bash a few reporters. How pathetic is that? This is the mindset of children.

      I don’t want to piss of George effin Will. I’d rather put a smile on the face of George Washington. We have a duty to this country higher than a hissy fit.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        Sorry to say that you are beginning to sound like George III.

        “I’d rather put a smile on the face of George Washington. We have a duty to this country higher than a hissy fit.”

        Ask yourself if even the most statist of the founders would put up with the politics of today. Taxes are confiscatory, war rages in every part of the globe, regulation consumes more and more of GDP. The hissy fit is the failure of political leaders to recognize that this country is not intended to benefit them.

        I believe there is a revolution coming in this country, just like the revolution in 1776. This revolution will be to determine if we are to be Americans or slaves to an elite that is out of touch. Right now I think there is about 40% chance of violence, but that could change.

        Trump is no Washington, more of a Hamilton or Sam Adams but he is all we have to counter the statist progressives of both parties. If he doesn’t work out we can try again with someone else. I am not sure we will get a do over after four years of Clinton.

        The election of Trump could be the last chance for a mostly peaceful transition to reform. The election of Hillary WILL LEAD TO VIOLENCE, I have no doubt of that and I don’t want that for my children, grandchildren or great grandchildren.Tonight I hear fireworks I pray that in the future it is still symbolic.


        “I hope I never get eruditis intellectualis which infects people such as George Will, wringing from them the warm-blooded heart that beats for freedom and the American way of life and instead substitutes the cold, lizard-like logic of a fat and satisfied crocodile who cleans his teeth with fifty dollar bills.”

        Good one, Brad! That’s the typical E-man to a “T” – er, I mean an “E”.

    • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

      George Will is emblematic of the rhetorical sclerosis, small thinking and timidity of the GOP over the last 20 years. I’m with Mr. Lancaster and GHG on this one, inasmuch as there is a side. As I noted before, all this conversation is good, but the game is afoot now.

      • Rosalys says:

        And I am with Mr. Lancaster, GHG, and Tom. All this angst and hand wringing is pointless. As GHG points out below, “Trump isn’t as bad as Hillary. Period.”

        I don’t believe that Trump will be as awful as many commenters here say. Neither do I think he will be able to restore us to our Golden Age. He may be a start in the right direction. In a country of over three hundred million, he probably isn’t the best guy out there; but maybe he is the best that can be elected. We are no longer the country that elected Reagan.

        I just don’t believe all those polls that show that he’s get creamed by Hillary in the general election. I believe they are polls designed influence, not to enlighten.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, that certainly is the purpose of many polls, including many (perhaps most) issue polls, and probably at least some of the candidate polls this year. Basically, we don’t know what we get with Trump — might be good, might be bad, might be somewhere in between (most likely). We know what we get with Slick Hilly, and it’s very, very bad. But Trump’s personally unpleasant campaigning style makes ii hard at time to accept him as the lesser evil (which he is).

  6. GHG says:

    Getting caught in the weeds is a waste of time. Here’s all one needs to know – Trump isn’t as bad as Hillary. Period. Pull the lever and pray.

    • Rosalys says:

      “Pull the lever and pray.”

      Especially pray. Pray that God will grant us a reprieve like He did to Nineveh. And pray Trump will seek God’s wisdom – and that God will give it.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        Imagine if King David were running for office today:
        Murder –yep

        Yet G_d saw him fit for service

        And superior in all ways to Hillary

        • pst4usa says:

          At least David cared what God thought of him, Trump, not so much. Since he is just the second person to walk the Earth that does not need God’s forgiveness, according to him anyway.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            My older brother, by coincidence, was talking about King David this Independence Day. They were playing (live) a bunch of old hippie songs, including Leonard Cohen’s (probably best known these days as the Shrek song) Hallelujah song which is a tribute to David.

            Apparently David, deep in the midst of being a bad-boy, just dropped everything and supplicated himself to God and gave praise. He didn’t get mad. He didn’t double-down on evil. He didn’t blame George Bush. He did the opposite.

            And he said that’s something Cohen definitely captured in his song. Brother Ron suggests you ignore all the other versions and jump strait to this one.

            The point is (if you’ll forgive my bluntness for paraphrasing a funny line from the juvenile series, “Silicon Valley”) David, because of his bad behavior, was fucked, so he “unfucked it while it was still unfuckable.” And he didn’t do it by marching in a parade or wearing the right colored ribbon or getting on MSNBC and slamming George Bush or getting naked and protesting or any other absurd thing. He praised God and sought forgiveness.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              His repentance didn’t prevent the punishment, but it probably did mitigate it. For example, Absalom’s revolt might have succeeded — though the price of defeating it was the death of a beloved son. Suitable price for arranging the death of Uriah so he could take his wife (whose son Solomon would inherit the kingdom).

Leave a Reply

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