Supporting Donald Trump: If You Can’t Beat Liberals, Join Them?

Trump4by Peter Heck2/18/16
If conservative pundits like Ann Coulter and Breitbart’s John Nolte want to make fools of themselves, so be it.  But as a Christian and by consequence a political conservative, I want no part of the Donald Trump campaign.

I admit to being initially amused by The Donald’s antics, and delighted by the fits he was giving the mainstream press and Republican establishment so desperate to eliminate him.  But the longer this reality TV show has dragged on, the more frustrated I have become with this mindless game far too many Christians and conservatives seem to be playing.

Because they rightly despise the Republican establishment,whose repeated capitulations to the godless left allow our country to be sucked helplessly into economic and moral oblivion, these conservatives pretend that simply attacking that Republican establishment makes Donald Trump something other than a liberal charlatan.

But he isn’t.  Trump copied the immigration position that had been espoused for four years by Senator Ted Cruz, spoke it in racially inflammatory terms during his presidential campaign announcement, and the media’s subsequent inability to browbeat Trump into an apology inspired and enthused a Republican electorate beyond exhausted with wimp candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain.[pullquote]It’s interesting how Trump scored laughs at the first presidential debate by mocking and disparaging notorious left-wing conspiracy theorist Rosie O’Donnell, given that he is now reciting her talking points.[/pullquote]

They gravitated toward Trump’s politically incorrect manner.  So be it.  But as refreshing as Trump’s boorishness towards these irritating engines of media manipulation and political sophistication may be, it doesn’t erase this one critical morsel of truth: Trump is not a conservative.

I fully understand that it gains the conservative movement precisely nothing in our effort to reverse the damage being inflicted upon our civilization by the left to either nominate someone who will lose to a liberal in the general election or compromise with a leftist agenda once in office.  That’s why I’m not campaigning for John Kasich or Jeb Bush.  It’s why I wasn’t a supporter of Chris Christie or Lindsey Graham.

But I remain shocked that so many supposed conservatives think it would be somehow preferable to nominate a liberal like Trump.  If Kasich or Bush is unacceptable because both would compromise with liberals, wouldn’t it stand to reason that Trump is more unacceptable since he is one?

Donald J. Trump said in the most recent Republican debate that Planned Parenthood “does do wonderful things, but not as it relates to abortion.”  I implore fellow Christians and conservatives: how would we react if a candidate said, “The Nazis did some wonderful things, but not as it relates to killing Jews”?

Surely such a comment would be a deal-breaker, right?  It doesn’t matter if the Nazis had a strong education plan or wanted to simplify the tax code.  They were slaughtering innocent human beings.  That is why this comparison is entirely appropriate.

If murdering human fetuses for profit, selling their dismembered parts, and protecting sex traffickers from prosecution isn’t enough to convince you that an organization needs to be shuttered and demolished, you are not conservative.

The same must be said regarding Trump’s absurd suggestion that George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction as a pretext to invade Iraq or that 9/11 (a plot contrived during the Clinton administration) was Bush’s fault.  I suppose we should be thankful that the foul-mouthed entertainer stopped short of shouting over the crowd’s boos that “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams.”

It’s interesting how Trump scored laughs at the first presidential debate by mocking and disparaging notorious left-wing conspiracy theorist Rosie O’Donnell, given that he is now reciting her talking points.

Simply put, no conservative makes that statement.  Conservatives don’t recite the disgracefully discredited “Bush lied, people died” smear.  They don’t say nice things about Planned Parenthood – an organization that according to its president, Cecile Richards, makes 86% of its profit off killing children.  Conservatives don’t say nice things about using the power of government to confiscate people’s private property  – not for a public use, but to give to a wealthier private developer that will generate more tax revenue for the government.  Donald Trump does all those things.

Loathing the Republican establishment and all it’s done to help liberalism germinate, incubate, and infiltrate our culture is logical.  But supporting a liberal to take over the Republican Party in some bizarrely twisted hope that he will dismantle that establishment and help conservatism is not.


Logo-PeterHeckPeter Heck is a speaker, author and teacher.  Follow him at @peterheck, email peter@peterheck.com, or visit www.peterheck.com. • (1041 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Supporting Donald Trump: If You Can’t Beat Liberals, Join Them?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I love the Rosie O’Donnell reference.

    For those tired of frauds being elected to do the job of this country, voting Trump in would now be as bad as voting Jeb Bush in…and probably worse.

    With Jeb Bush we’d know what we’d get: Multiculturalism, and socialism lite through a “compassionate,” girl-man lens. Jeb, like his brother, would feed us conservative rhetoric while governing like a big-government Progressive. It’s doubtful that Jeb would ever find a conservative hill worth dying on. These guys are steeped in the culture and are clever panderers (inevitably giving out more “free stuff”) and not the kind of leaders we need. The kind of leaders we need will start drawing boundaries, and not just at our border with Mexico.

    I will grant you that perhaps the only appreciable difference between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump is that Jeb would put more lubricant on the wheel of the mechanism that keeps ratcheting us ever Leftward. Donald would grind those gears. But we’d likely end up in the same place: more debt and more societal chaos as we take on the often unstated assumptions of Cultural Marxism.

    And it matters not that Trump is a good deal-maker. Money is an amoral thing. Gaining it isn’t necessarily good or bad. It depends upon the circumstances. And if one is President of the United States, simply making deals to make deals is not the point. Without a philosophical and moral compass steeped in an authentic American ethos, then Trump’s deal-making would be on about as solid ground as Bush’s “war on terror” given his basic assumption that Islam is a “religion of peace.”

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      For those tired of frauds being elected to do the job of this country, voting Trump in would now be as bad as voting Jeb Bush in…and probably worse.

      Perhaps, but much of the electorate is so far beyond even considering a Jeb or a Kasich that both men are irrelevant. The GOPe has completely lost the trust or even interest of large swaths of the people. Everyone knows that anything coming out of GOPe mouths is a lie and cannot be trusted.

      And while it is likely Trump will turn out to be a disappointment, there is a small chance that he might (just may if we keep our fingers crossed) actually follow through on one or two of his promises. That would be miles ahead of what can be expected from the GOPe.

      Whether one agrees with this or not, I am convinced this is pretty much the state of things. We have our political betters to thank for this. But more importantly, we have ourselves to thank in so far that we have not been paying attention and taking active part in the political life of our country.

      simply making deals to make deals is not the point. Without a philosophical and moral compass steeped in an authentic American ethos, then Trump’s deal-making would be on about as solid ground as Bush’s “war on terror” given his basic assumption that Islam is a “religion of peace.”

      Making deals for the sake of making deals is a sure way to bankruptcy, both financially and morally.

      I had an old boss who liked to point out that “it is very easy to do a lot of business with a small loss” i.e. it is easy to make deals where you always lose.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The GOPe has completely lost the trust or even interest of large swaths of the people. Everyone knows that anything coming out of GOPe mouths is a lie and cannot be trusted.

        I think this is true for your or me, Mr. Kung, and perhaps a fair share of primary voters. But is it possible that GOP voters, in general, have been acclimated to the gathering socialist state and now expect it?

        Chris Matthews a few weeks ago asked Hillary about the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist and Hillary couldn’t give much of an answer.

        But we might ask ourselves, “What is the difference between an Establishment Republican and your average GOP voter?” Granted, people such as Jeb Bush have said they wanted to win without the base. This suggests there is some core difference between the eGOP and your typical GOP voter. If so, what is that difference?

        It very well could be that the difference is the veneer of “values voter” whereby issues such as homosexual marriage, abortion, guns, and religious freedom are addressed with the understanding that nothing fundamental about the gathering socialist state be changed. That why I call it a veneer. And, for the most part, the eGOP has pandered to this bit of self-deception (whereby the “values voters” can do penance for helping to run this country into financial ruin by being against abortion or whatever).

        The eGOP candidates have, up to this point, professed fealty to these values….and then somewhat crossed-up the duplicitous voters with their own duplicity. The voters arguably actually wanted the eGOP to address these values issues. But the eGOP increasingly saw this as a losing proposition and/or they just were not fluent in thinking of government in any other way but in the context of a nanny state. They have become increasingly uncomfortable, if not outright embarrassed, at parsing the idea of right and wrong.

        So Trump comes along. He gains votes because of pent-up outrage over the duplicity of the eGOP. They did not keep their promise and at least deal with the values even as the greatest force for undermining these values — the socialist nanny state — was fully supported. Trump, of course, isn’t promising to dismantle the welfare state. Far from it. He is somewhat the tonic for the “values voter” because the debt (as Jon noted) is almost entirely off the agenda. The voters thus, through Trump, are free to pursue their narcissistic and destructive socialist values while pretending the entire game is about x, y, or z (immigration, political correctness, or whatever).

        Of course, immigration is a very important topic. But the irony is that it is likely that many of the “Reagan Democrats” and others who oppose illegal immigration do so because these illegal immigrants are competitors for “free stuff” in the whole welfare state scheme.

        “Clusterfuck” is not a word I use gratuitously. But that is the situation that I describe. And we know we’re being played badly when the leading candidate fixates on calling Ted Cruz a liar. It’s a convenient lie for a culture that has come to regularly lie to itself. Can it find its way out? I’m not betting on it anytime soon. It’s much easier for the corrupted to just ban truth-telling (inherently a feature of political correctness). Thus it’s especially egregious that Trump goes around telling everyone that he isn’t politically correct. Oh, Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. Anyone who can’t take a deserved shot at Planned Parenthood and basically calls it “good” is steeped in political correctness…and thus lies.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, in looking at GOP voters and socialism, I would say that there’s a difference between those benefits that are, to some degree, earned (Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation) and dependent to some extent on past earnings (or present earnings, as in the Earned Income Tax Credit), and those that are “earned” just by being poor enough. But your notion is that part of the concern over immigration isn’t competition for jobs but competition for welfare dollars is an interesting one, reminding me of the description of how “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” worked out at Twentieth-Century Motor Company in Atlas Shrugged.

          I think GOP voters do care about the values issues, but GOP Beltway Bandits don’t — if only so that they can “stand tall in Georgetown”. This wasn’t quite so bad as long as the real issue was just toleration of social deviance, but when the issue becomes forced approval and “you will be made to care”, lip service is no longer enough.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I think GOP voters do care about the values issues, but GOP Beltway Bandits don’t

            I think the good people who frequent here at StubbornThings could be counted upon to follow George Washington at Valley Forge even though the air was a little nippy.

            My emerging premise (guided by reason and experience) is that a great many Americans are “values” voters to the extent that this is psychological cover for their caving to the welfare state. Even then, claiming “values” is quite another thing from acting on them. As my brother’s religious advisor told him once, there is a difference between pro-lifers, for example, and pro-abolitionists.

            It is one thing to get on the stage and wring one’s hands over the evil of abortion, particularly what Planned Parenthood was doing. But as we see with the Republican Party, it’s quite another to actually do something about it.

            Talk is cheap. Talk has become very cheap. And what Trump threatens to do, as sort of a black catalyst, is permanently scar the American psyche which is already so thoroughly battered and bruised. It’s like a woman who has been in a physically abusive relationship finally finding what she thinks is a nice man, only to be slapped around again because the coffee got cold.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Trump copied the immigration position that had been espoused for four years by Senator Ted Cruz, spoke it in racially inflammatory terms during his presidential campaign announcement, and the media’s subsequent inability to browbeat Trump into an apology inspired and enthused a Republican electorate beyond exhausted with wimp candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain.

    While Cruz has been strong on immigration reform for some years, he was not able to break through the media wall which protected the amnesty pushing GOPe and Democrat party. That Trump was able to do this, is probably his greatest contribution to the national debate. He claims that before him, the topic was not part of the discussion, and he is correct.

    Immigration, both legal and illegal, is the no. 1 concern for millions in this country. These millions are less concerned with discussions of tax policy and the like while the country is being changed at its very core.

    Loathing the Republican establishment and all it’s done to help liberalism germinate, incubate, and infiltrate our culture is logical. But supporting a liberal to take over the Republican Party in some bizarrely twisted hope that he will dismantle that establishment and help conservatism is not.

    Trump appears to be attracting an odd combination of voters. It is not only conservatives flocking to him. Many are more interested in destroying the GOPe than in taking it over. Taken one step further, they desire to see the whole system dismantled.

    I am not saying this is logical or even possible, it just is the way things are. Such emotions are not uncommon. They are what revolutions are made of.

    As I have said before, I believe the Trump phenomenon is a sign of a serious illness in our body politic.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Trump appears to be attracting an odd combination of voters. It is not only conservatives flocking to him. Many are more interested in destroying the GOPe than in taking it over. Taken one step further, they desire to see the whole system dismantled.

      I agree, Mr. Kung. And as much as we might rightly view Trump as a consequence of the dishonest and cowardly Republican Establishment and their mouthpieces in the pseudo-conservative press, I can’t help thinking that his open-air, come-one-come-all candidacy (of clearly a liberal, if not Leftist bent) is also a consequence of the extremely weak Democrat presidential field. If you were a liberal or Democrat who was not a complete loon, I can see preferring Trump to these tired retreads. No one likes Hillary. And, of course, our infantile yutes love Bernie because he’s promising to extend their childhood. That’s the pathetic state of things. But that constituency doesn’t tend to actually vote in large numbers in the general election.

      And we might call some of these cross-overs who support Trump “Reagan Democrats” but I think it would be more accurate to just call them Progressives looking for a more attractive candidate. Surely there is some element of nationalism and populism that makes Trump attractive to a broad spectrum, especially giving the backdrop of the illegal immigration invasion. But as they say, I don’t think those are your father’s “Reagan Democrats.” I think they are far more liberal.

      In that last debate, Trump dropped all pretense of running as a conservative. Well, we’ll see how that works out for him.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I can’t help thinking that his open-air, come-one-come-all candidacy (of clearly a liberal, if not Leftist bent) is also a consequence of the extremely weak Democrat presidential field.

        I agree. I will take it even further. I think Trump is also attracting a fair number of the Paulbot types.
        Taking it even further, he is attracting a large number of conspiracy theory flakes such as those who are convinced the government actually gathered and trained the 9/11 terrorists and mined the World Trade Center buildings in order to bring them down.

        I have been exchanging comments with some of these types lately and no amount of physics, material science or other proof will convince them they are wrong. And the first thing which came out about them is they were all for Trump.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I think Trump is also attracting a fair number of the Paulbot types.

          My guess, Mr. Kung, is that you are correct and that it is these Paulbot types who are the minded-numbed, Trump-can-do-no-wrong robots you see posting under the articles. One idiot just savaged C. Edmund Wright (his latest article) with the most vile, childish, and insulting comments unworthy of a guy with the name of “von Mises” in his pseudonym.

          Trump is exactly the sort of paradigm (the nut who attracts the flakes and kooks) that the better-than-thou Republican Establishment see as inevitable if one doesn’t drink down their starting premises. How interesting it is, therefore, for Cruz to be considered the “nut” (or wacko bird) by both sides, by both Trump and the Establishment Republicans.

          Perhaps it has always been thus. But I see it as a sign of the Kindergartenization of thought. Americans seem no longer able to have a complex and thoughtful opinion about major topics of concern. Instead — surely as a consequence of the confluence of the self-esteem shtick combined with a dumbed-down public education — they are afraid to engage in thought because they have been taught how smart they supposedly already are.

          But I’ll be the first to admit that wrapping one’s mind thoughtfully around any particular topic (the Middle East, the national debt, the Constitution, etc.) is no easy thing. But it is doable if we honor evidence and truth over feel-good soundbytes. The road to knowledge is hard but it is well worth it.

          But a society of narcissists that already thinks it knows everything is not ready to admit that it doesn’t, thus many deal almost exclusively in evasion, using sound-bytes whose only provenance is their popularity as a replacement for reason.

          As to the other half, the “intellectuals,” they use reasonable-sounding words to hide not their ignorance, per se, but their blinded and narrow political prejudices.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Apparently, the idiot Pope has just helped Trump gain votes by claiming Trump is not a Christian, as well as criticizing U.S. immigration policy.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Isn’t there a pot calling the kettle black aspect to this? For all intents and purposes, Francis is a head of the church that has elevated “the poor” as the main focus of the church, which is a decidedly Cultural Marxist bent.

      And this really is the dividing line between Christians and pseudo-Christians like the pope, where their actual religion is Leftism with the outer accouterments of Christianity (the cross, candles, and stained glass) layered over the top to try to give these leftwing political views legitimacy.

      In the Christian view, alleviating spiritual poverty could be said to be the point. Remember, it said “blessed are the poor in spirit.” It was not addressing those who don’t have iPhones, big screen TVs, “free” health care, “free” housing, “free” education, etc.

      Saint Francis got to the heart of the matter. For him, poverty wasn’t glorified as it is now by this pseudo-pope and the pseudo-Christians who follow this “social justice” shtick. Saint Francis’ adoption of poverty was not to affirm that poverty was good. It was to affirm that the point was Christ, not material comforts. And thus material comforts were seen as an impediment to following Christ with one’s utmost devotion. But never was poverty itself glorified accept in this context of self-denial.

      The eradication of poverty, and not of spiritual poverty, is now the main goal of Pope Francis and much of Christianity. The obsession is so complete that the poor are relieved from their need to advance and instead the rest of us are blamed for their state. The poor themselves become glamorized as mere passive victims, their humanity inherently undermined as they become pawns in a political game, not a spiritual quest.

      Forgotten is that what really ails people is their spiritual poverty which translates in such things as being a drug addict, a bum, doing crime, academic ignorance, having indiscriminate sex, leaving a trail of bastards behind you, opening your legs for anyone, getting involved in gangs, elevating tribalism until it becomes de facto racism, grievance as a way of life, abortion, alcoholism, using the government to confiscate “free stuff” from your neighbors, etc.

      All of this “social justice” malarky (based precisely on the atheistic and materialist metaphysics of Cultural Marxism) is just that. And as the emphasis on values, morals or spiritual poverty have waned, the emphasis by pseudo-Christians has been on eradicating poverty, forgetting completely both the teachings of Christ and the life of Saint Francis.

      So, yeah, the pope could well be right about Trump. Or he could be wrong. It’s difficult to tell because the pot isn’t in a very good position from which to make that judgment.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    The Nazis in fact were very green for their time on environmental issues, and had strong anti-cancer policies, including a very familiar approach to cigarettes (high taxes, bans on smoking in certain locations, anti-smoking ads). I highly recommend Robert Proctor’s The Nazi War on Cancer for anyone interested in the topic.

    Kung Fu Zu makes several excellent points about Trump. It’s true that his likelihood of actually governing as a conservative is probably no worse than it is for Jeb Bush, John Kasich, or Chris Christie. For all his boorishness, politically he’s no worse than the Beltway Bandits, and might conceivably be better. And he has done well making politically incorrect points that no one else had the courage to say.

    As for the Peron pope’s idiocy, Rush Limbaugh has made several good responses. He pointed out that the Vatican has a wall (and a blogger on Town Hall noted that the wall has no bridges). He noted that the Pope has never questioned the religious faith of Communists like the Castro brothers. And he also suggested that the Pope should campaign with Bernie Sanders — unless he considers the latter too conservative. In addition, he also has decided that same-sex marriage is acceptable for Catholics to support. It’s clear that the Peron pope is easily the worst pope in my lifetime.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      For all his boorishness, politically he’s no worse than the Beltway Bandits, and might conceivably be better. And he has done well making politically incorrect points that no one else had the courage to say.

      I am convinced that Trump knows exactly what he is doing. In today’s climate the only way to attack the PC culture is to go so far over the top as to shock people into not being shocked. If he tiptoed around this, the media would slaughter him. As it is, he is so far out there that they can’t touch him.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      For all his boorishness, politically he’s no worse than the Beltway Bandits, and might conceivably be better. And he has done well making politically incorrect points that no one else had the courage to say.

      Well, I would say that was a reasonable theoretical notion, Timothy, until the last debate when he started sounding like Rosie O’Donnell. He is a New-York-values liberal who just happens to supposedly be alarmed by the invasion of illegal immigrants. That’s about all he has in his favor. It’s big, I’ll grant you. But his liberalism, along with his lack of a political philosophy and his unpredictable nature, point to Trump being no great president. Given the prism he sees through, there’s no way you’d get a Supreme Court justice who actually was a constitutionalist.

      And I’ll grant you that the Bush “neo-con” approach to world affairs has been naive and destructive. But I can see no better (if any) political philosophy grounding Trump. He can say “I will make a better deal” but there’s no way to know what that means in regards to world affairs. Would a “better deal” mean selling out Israel for the sake of a deal? How many deals have we made with the monstrous Muslims only to have them break the deal?

      Trump’s inherent scatter-brained, shotgun approach to ideas leaves me with absolutely no confidence that he would even reach the standard of a blind chicken, occasionally finding a grain.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, at no point have I considered supporting Trump. I merely understand why many are supporting him. Of course, you also have his personality cultists (who might be called Trumpbots, in line with your reference to Paulbots). Nothing matters to them, hence his joke that he could murder someone in broad daylight and they’d still vote for him. (He might be in jail, but what the heck — Hillary could be in jail and a lot of Democrats would still vote for her.)

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          who might be called Trumpbots, in line with your reference to Paulbots). Nothing matters to them

          I know what you mean. But what I think Trump matters most to them is that he is the validation of their nihilism. Trump isn’t a philosopher. And he’s certainly no politician (part of his appeal, for sure). But he is something that our society has come to love: the package deal.

          He is another consumer brand choice for a society of consumers. They don’t have to think. They just look at the packaging. Anyone ever see that hilarious Penn & Teller segment on their show, “Bullshit,” where they were serving (behind the scenes) water right out of a hose as specialty bottled water? The waiter, who was in on it, would ask the patrons what they thought of this water as opposed to that one. And the patrons would come up will all sort of fancy words. “This one had more bouquet” or whatever. It was hilarious because all of the water in the fancy packaging was coming out of a garden-variety garden-hose.

          Playing to consumer conceits is what Establishment Republicans do. Cruz is hated because Cruz doesn’t play this game. And he exposes this game. This game, we must admit, is threatening to destroy our civilization, and not just by invaders from the south, but by debt.

          Trump is merely a brand. His brand shares a lot in common with Obama’s brand. They are both nonspecific enough that you can read into them anything you want. And this is perfect given the narcissistic consumer of today who is truly offended if he says that he must make a decision to limit his choices.

          Trump promises to “make a better deal.” And when he is specific he is stupid, from everything to praising Planned Parenthood to his idea of keeping jobs in America by forcing companies (by the heavy hand of the law) to do so — instead of, for instance, addressing the high-tax, high-regulation reasons that so many companies have moved jobs offshore.

          It’s difficult to know if one can accurately call Trump a demagogue, for I would assume even a demagogue knows what he really wants. A demagogue’s art is in pandering to public passions and prejudices in order to serve a somewhat hidden agenda. But what does Trump want? What does he intend to do? When he is specific, it’s awful. When he’s not, he provides just the kind of non-specific “hope and change” shtick that served Obama. And if mere power is his end game, why bother?

          I think Trump appeals to a whole lot of people because Trump flatters their own shallow ignorance or just their anger at the various Trumps (not under that name) who have come before. He is a brand of jeans. He is a cologne. It’s not the reality that matters. It’s the image. And images that we project can never be wrong.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was just listening to Michael Medved right now. He’s the poster boy of Establishment Republicans. He said something like “If the Democrats get X percentage of Hispanics and Y percentage of African-Americans, the Republicans can’t win the White House.”

    This shows you the core weakness of their way of thinking. They have accepted the various grievance or identity groups that the Cultural Marxist have worked overtime (for decades) to divide us into.

    If you accept that people are not more than their identity or grievance-group, all that remains then is to pander to to their grievances or identity, thus the recipe for the eGOP is to be “inclusive,” to placate and pander to every grievance or identity group instead of parsing America along different lines. And that is a game the eGOP can’t win, for the party of satisfying grievance and pandering to the conceit of identity is the Democrat Party and everyone knows it.

    We here tend to read all the best conservative authors and web sites. Thus it is astonishing to consider that the brain-trust — almost across the board — of the conservative or GOP movement does not acknowledge the poison of accepting the premises of one’s adversaries.

    • pst4usa says:

      Michael Medved’s opening line is something like “I am not a victim”. Funny he would embrace the victim hood class as a requirement to win.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        His bread is buttered by the establishment culture. The idea of appealing to people as Americans rather than various groups is no longer mainstream Republicanism.

  6. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    I’m only going to take one line here, and it’s this: no reasonable person thinks that Trump is a true Conservative; the problem is that out of the remaining Republican candidates, there are only two Conservative alternatives, Cruz and Carson. It is not entirely unreasonable to choose Trump from the three, although I think Brad, KFZ, Tim, and I are in agreement about preferring Cruz.

    Carson’s lack of experience and inconsistent public performances prevented him from being able to build on his early support, while Cruz, if he held the right position on immigration, certainly kept it to himself. When a year ago I researched all the likely Republican candidates (2016 Republican Candidate Survey – this was of course before Trump declared his candidacy), Cruz’s position seemed little better than Rubio’s. It was only later that Cruz claimed (I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) that his amendments to the Rubio’s infamous Los Bandidos Ochos Amnesty bill, which included a proposal to quintuple the number of H1-B visas, were offered as a “poison pill”.

    By that time, Trump had sensed his opportunity and jumped into the race, garnering massive early support and enthusiasm. Even then, if Cruz had chosen to highlight the immigration issue, he might have cut into Trump’s support. But he didn’t talk much about immigration and its destructive effects on our country, and of course the E-men in the race weren’t about to change their tunes. Meanwhile, Trump was taking on political correctness itself, which no other Republican candidate (including Cruz and Carson) had been willing to do. Their reluctance to take some bold risks as Trump had allowed his momentum to build until at this point he may well be unstoppable.

    If Trump is nominated, it will be entirely the fault of the GOPe, with lesser blame to be allocated to the Cruz and Carson campaigns. Immigration was was a hanging curve ball right over the middle of the plate for any Republican to hit out of the park, yet only Trump really did so. (Walker figured it out, but too late, and had to flip-flop on the issue, while Cruz, as noted, was left looking as though he were attempting to rewrite history, while Rubio actually did try to rewrite history and flip-flopped for the fourth or fifth time on the issue). It will be too bad if that happens, for this election is a golden opportunity to see whether a good Conservative candidate like Cruz can defeat a corrupt, decrepit Marxist like Hillary/Bernie – in other words, to find out if we’re past the “tipping point” or not. We may have to console ourselves with the fact that whether Trump wins or loses the general election, he will have greatly weakened the GOPe for the future.

    We should mention Peter Heck’s article here even as our comments begin to dwarf it in length. He makes his argument against Trump with a refreshing lack of the Trump Derangement Syndrome so evident elsewhere, but as my comment indicates, I think it may too late to stop Trump.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      while Cruz, if he held the right position on immigration, certainly kept it to himself

      There is no doubt that Cruz fought strongly against the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill. I clearly recall him doing so for an extended period of time. The problem is that he did it mostly within the halls of the Senate at committee meetings and such. He took Napolitano apart at one hearing.

      Unusually, he also crossed over to the House and lobbied strongly to prevent the bill from coming to a vote and if it did, to vote against it. He even made some TV appearances pointing out the perfidy of the bill.

      Unfortunately, most of this did not get through the media haze and that which did has been forgotten by the majority of those who even heard about it.

      I agree Cruz made a big mistake by not chiming in when Trump started banging the Gong about immigration. Although he is turning up the volume on his anti-amnesty positions, it is somewhat too late as the issue now belongs to Trump.

      That being said, I believe Scalia’s death has concentrated the minds of many people regarding the importance of the Supreme Court. And that appears to be working to Cruz’s advantage.

      The present state of the primary is very interesting as the two most important issues, to my mind, i.e. immigration and Supreme Court nominees are being highlighted by two most popular candidates. Trump owns immigration, but Cruz owns the Supreme Court.

      Since latest N. Hampshire, I have thought the nomination is Trump’s to lose. But if Cruz does better than expected in S. Carolina I may have some hope that the loonies have not taken over the whole asylum.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Trump may be more reliable on immigration, except his own past record is far worse than Cruz’s and no better than Rubio’s. He does deserve credit for taking it up now, and for challenging the political correctness that is poisoning us in so many ways. The Court is an issue on which Trump is totally unreliable. Cruz, and most likely Rubio and Bush, are much better. (Rubio, after all, could nominate Cruz, as I’ve suggested.)

        Incidentally, when Cruz went on Megyn Kelly’s show after the debate in which he and Rubio first got into it over the Gang of 8 monstrosity, she admitted that his record of opposition to it was clear. This still raises the question of how much trust you can put in someone who certainly said otherwise at the time. But as you like to say, they’re all politicians.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Rubio, after all, could nominate Cruz, as I’ve suggested.

          My goodness, Timothy. Your lack of cynicism is sort of refreshing. 😀 But I would be extremely surprised if a President Rubio nominated Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court. If he does, there’s a steak dinner in it for you.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I didn’t say it was likely, merely that he could. I would much rather have Cruz nominating Estrada or Janice Rogers Brown (and perhaps pushing the vote along by naming Phyllis Schlafly as a recess appointment if the opportunity comes up) than Rubio naming Cruz, you may be sure.

            Incidentally, Rod Dreher has a piece at the American Conservative suggesting that there actually is a social conservative case for Trump (not that he much likes Trump or is endorsing any candidate). His point is that the only thing that really matters practically (no one is going to overturn Roe v. Wade or Obegefell)is religious liberty, and Trump is the only candidate who has talked about it? Does he mean it? No one knows, maybe not even Trump himself. But it’s likelier that he will stand up for religious liberty than the others will.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Trump would be an on-going sideshow if he was elected president. I’m not sure even he knows what he would do. His ideology, such as he has one, is East Coast Liberal (aka “New York Values”). I think we’d see the kind of general wreckage that we would get from Hillary. But who knows? We’re being told now — not by the eGOP but by the unwashed masses — to just shut up and vote for him. I’m not comfortable with that approach either. Trump has not made a coherent argument that he should be president. He’d make a great unelected Czar. But that’s about it in my opinion.

  7. David Ray says:

    I am so gonna have to fake interest in the comming primary in TX. (The matter’s always decided before it gets here anyways.)

    I will be voting Ted Cruz for the record . . . even if i have to write him in. Only question that remains will be on my blood-point alcohol level.

  8. David Ray says:

    Right now i have such an urge to slap Ann Coulter so as to jolt her back to terra firma.
    Please Ann; read Trump’s OTHER positions and childish rants, then read your grasping reflections.

    (I think she’ll recover with time. She did with Christie & some former Gov from Ark. – didn’t she? She’ll be back. Nice to know that you gent’s here at ST never left.)

    BTW; damned good article.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Reading Ann’s mind, I would say the attraction of Trump is his rare ability to stand up for himself and not apologize every time the New York Times or some libtard criticizes him. This is a trait missing from 99.9% of Republicans. “Just give me a fighter,” is what a lot of people want. That Trump would be fighting against the kinds of things Coulter is supposedly for is sort of a casualty of war.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    On the lighter side, the Trump campaign receives a boost from the idiot pope, Francis, who will hug Castro but has harsh words for a businessman. Catholics, can you excommunicate a pope?

    Rabbi Arhey Spero (amazingly, I didn’t think such Jews existed anymore outside of Dennis Prager and Rabbi Lapin) has a thoughtful article on the subject: Trump, the pope, and the Bible. In short, no, national suicide is not a Christian virtue.

    When you have a crazy Marxist pope, who represents everything that is going wrong in the West, attacking an American presidential candidate, well, I don’t think you can buy that sort of PR. And it should work to Trump’s advantage. Still, it’s a case of the blind leading the stupid — or the pot calling the kettle black.

  10. pst4usa says:

    Excellent post and comments folks. I had a dream / nightmare that I would like to tell you. No clear winner comes shinning through, so the Republican convention becomes brokered. At this convention the power brokers pull of a fast one an Jeb is handed the nomination. The GOP dies a quick death, (the only good part of this dream). He loses of coarse and Elizabeth Warren becomes the nominee, thus destroying this once great nation we called home.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Money is arguably what the GOP Establishment is about. That money and influence could certainly be brought to bear behind Jeb.

      It’s one thing to talk about a ruling class. It’s another thing to see it in action. It is completely within plausibility that the “powers that be” could indeed rig it for Jeb, although I think at this point, Pat, they’d rig it for Rubio. Jeb is in the category of Hillary: Nobody wants him. Rubio is now the Establishment go-to guy.

      It’s equally interesting watching the panic on the other side. Bernie is a kook but Hillary is once again running into the fact that the rank-and-file want anybody but her. This is one reason I’ve been fairly confident that that corrupt witch will never be president. Even her own party doesn’t really want her.

      Sanders could make a play through various means at the super delegates. And they may not be all that hard to pry from Hillary.

      The Republican Party is already a wreck and Trump is simply a symptom of that. But he is certainly not a fix. He would simply be like one of those old Roman Emperors you never hear about who rules for a few years after his short-lived predecessor and is nondescript, functionally feeble, and short-lived himself, for the barbarians have already been let inside the gates and it’s just a matter of time until Rome is sacked. Trump can add some bluster but he represents no systemic fix and, because of his “New York Values,” is like a man lost in a blizzard. He has not compass to find his way back.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m not a big fan of Donald Trump. And I could give you my reasons. But what we don’t do here at StubbornThings is dress up our biases with lies. We don’t twist reality into a fun-house mirror to meet and bolster our wishes.

    I therefore unhesitatingly admit that I think Trump has gained a decisive boost from the idiot pope, Francis’, comments about Trump. And it’s truly bizarre to see people (especially Catholics) say once again that the idiot pope, Francis, didn’t say what he said.

    Tom Trinko, of all people because I consider him a good thinker, over at American Thinker bizarrely quotes the exchange the reporter has with the pope and then tells everyone, in essence, “See…the pope was misquoted again.” One commenter writes:

    Wow – we were all just provided the transcript of what was said and there is zero real difference from what was reported in the press

    Denial is not just a river in Egypt, as they say. In Is the Pope Catholic?, Arnold Steinberg writes:

    The Pope effectively allowed Trump to occupy the high ground. “For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” Trump, now seemingly a victim of the Pope’s excess, read from a statement he then released. “I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked….”

    The pope is not only a moral idiot, he’s disingenuous. He stages a quite political event on the Mexican border, takes a shot at an American presidential candidate, and then claims he’s only speaking in hypotheticals. Here’s another good bit from Steinberg:

    No wonder Trump scored points, turning the table against the Pope. “When the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy,” the extemporaneous Trump said, reading directly from a rare written statement, “I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now…”

    One commenter on the bottom of this article sums-up the weak, vapid, girly-man (perhaps now mainstream) Catholic view of this:

    What we must not do, if we are Christian, is to build such walls to alienate, or as an expression of disdain or contempt for the people of Mexico, who are our brothers and sisters.

    So actually protecting a border of your country is “expressing disdain.” Another Catholic moral idiot. And if you get from this that I don’t like Catholics, you are wrong. But large sections of Catholicism is barely Catholic in any reals sense, thus it is no longer a joke to ask, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The Peron pope has apparently proclaimed that contraception is morally acceptable for the purpose of escaping the consequence of a pregnancy while infected with Zika. The Church has twice previously made similar statements in response to epidemics of rape (in one case, the prospective rape victims were nuns, who would never engage in legitimate sexual intercourse anyway). This is the first time contraception has been permitted for married couples engaging in normal sexual relations. He does still condemn abortion — so far.

      (Note that I have no problem with using contraception, and in fact disagree with the Catholic Church on the matter. But the Peron pope is getting closer and closer to junking the traditional moral standards of the church.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I think the Catholic teaching on sex and contraception is correct. It’s just a hard correct. Behind this teaching is the idea that sex is to be between a man and a wife because god specifically made each for the other with the addition of the special union of sanctified marriage.

        I don’t agree with the idea that every act has to be about procreation. In that aspect, I differ. As obscene of a notion as this would be to purists, sex is also a recreation sport.

        Why this is a hard correct in terms of the idea of man/woman, marriage, and sex is because the alternative is a sexual free-for-all that we see in progress now and that is not only causing untold harm to children and society, but to the people involved as they are reduced to mere rutting animals.

        The Catholics had it right. They might be a little fussy about every act of intercourse necessarily being required to lead to the possibility of fertilization, but that’s a quibble. All standards require some pain.

        That most Catholics probably don’t believe in most Catholic teachings is a sign of the times. As I was telling a fellow yesterday, religion these days isn’t about saving souls or moral instruction (apart from the Marxist-based “social justice” morality). It’s about entertainment, particularly in regards to sanctifying our vices. That’s quite the turnabout from what it started out to be. “I’m okay, you’re okay” ought to replace John 14:6 which reads, “I am the way and the truth and the life.”

        Pope Francis isn’t Catholic in any meaningful way. A pope who was so dad-blamed concerned about “the poor” would shine the light of truth on the morals, values, and political system that makes Mexico a place people want to run from and America a place they want to run to. But his decidedly Marxist-based morality cannot acknowledge this truth.

  12. Timothy Lane says:

    Dana Loesch has a blog post on why she can’t support Trump, even though she likes him personally and he’s appeared frequently on her radio show. The point she starts with is that Trump has evidently had a lot of trouble picking good business partners — which isn’t a very good indication that he’ll really pick “the best and the brightest” (not his phrase, but still appropriate) for his administration. The link is:

    http://danaloeschradio.com/how-i-came-to-my-opinion-on-donald-trump

Leave a Reply

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