Archive for the ‘ Politics & Government ’ Category

What Follows Obama?

One hardly knows how to express anymore the depth of the disaster of the past seven years of Obama. I’ve tried, but am almost at the end of words to describe how he has damaged our country, perhaps irreparably.

The main responsibility of our government—with a president leading the way—is to understand the threats we face and protect our liberties. Yet President Obama has gone out of his way to discard basic liberties, especially for Christians whose consciences are being threatened by that very government. We’re now supposed to bow to the new morality of LGBT correctness in all areas of life, even to the point of accepting transgenderism as natural.

Victim & Bigot

On the economic front, we now have someone who promotes the very ideology that has laid waste to many other nations:

No Difference

And his visit to Cuba only solidified his fascination with that ideology:

Feel So Young

When Islamic radicals terrorize Europe, he practically invites them to come here also:

More Refugees

His anti-colonialism dominates his worldview, blinding him to the real threat:

Message for Pres

When asked what he’s going to do about this threat, he mouths some of the right words for public consumption and says he’s already dealing with it—trust him, his plan will work:

My Plan

What could be worse for the country than what we have experienced in two terms of Obama? Well, a couple of things:

Trump Game

We Prefer

This is why I want Ted Cruz to prevail.

Colorado & Representation: A Primer

Ted CruzHow about a reasonable discussion of what occurred in Colorado over the weekend, devoid of hyperbole and false accusations? First, here are the facts.

Last year, the Colorado Republican party decided to forego a caucus and simply have members of the party meet in their districts and at a general convention and choose delegates to the national convention. Each of Colorado’s congressional districts held their own caucuses to select some of those delegates; the convention then chose the rest.

I’ve always been in favor of the political parties choosing their own people. Open primaries, which allow independents, and even those who are historically members of the opposite party, to vote in the other party’s primary, is nonsensical to me.

So what the Colorado Republican party decided to do with its delegate selection is not unfair, but a true representation of what party activists would like to see happen.

The rules for this selection process were put in place last summer. Every candidate knew about these rules ahead of time. Ted Cruz, wisely, set up a very solid organization that worked hard to get the kinds of delegates who agreed with his candidacy. Donald Trump ignored the rules, did not set up any ground game at all, and didn’t even show up at the convention to speak to the assembled Republicans (8,000 in all).

Result: Cruz won all 34 delegates who are going to the national convention.

And now Trump is calling “foul,” labeling the process as corrupt, saying the people didn’t get a chance to vote. As one of my former students commented on Facebook, she was at that convention and she voted—is Trump saying she wasn’t one of the people?

ConstitutionLet’s dig a little deeper here. We don’t live in a democracy. Rather, we are a constitutional federal republic. The Founders who established the Constitution set up a system whereby the people had a direct vote for the House of Representatives, the state legislatures were represented in the Senate, and official electors from each state, chosen by the state legislatures, would cast the official ballots for president.

In this way, all players in the political “game,” if that’s what you would deem to call it, were represented. A constitutional federal republic believes in representation, but that is not the same as the people in general making all the decisions collectively. We were not supposed to be a “mobocracy.”

In our collective foolishness, an amendment was add to the Constitution back in 1913 that robbed state legislatures of their representation in the federal government by switching the election of senators to the people directly. No longer do senators have to answer to state legislatures and the laws they pass.

I would argue that one very detrimental consequence was Roe v. Wade, which overturned 44 state laws restricting abortions. If senators had had to take into consideration their state laws, they might not have confirmed some of those Supreme Court justices who opened the door to the murder of 58 million innocent babies.

As for the presidency, if you read the Constitution (which I strongly recommend), you will discover that there is no provision at all for a popular vote on who should be president. We allow that popular vote now—a practice that didn’t begin in earnest until about 1828—as a concession to getting some concept of where the people stand. However, it’s not the popular vote that absolutely determines the winner. Just ask President Al Gore about that.

In the same way, the political parties can set up whatever rules they deem proper in determining who should be their candidates. To complain about the process after the fact and begin calling it corrupt (when it didn’t appear to bother anyone ahead of time) is phony.

Donald Trump 3Let’s be clear. Donald Trump has famously announced that he doesn’t play by the rules. He clearly didn’t in this case. He proclaims that he has the best people. Are those the same ones who handed out ballots in Colorado with inaccurate information?

Trump says he can handle the presidency better than anyone in history, yet he cannot put together an organization in each state to deliver his message and get the results he wants.

D0047142_Frame58.tifI agree with Charles Krauthammer, who commented,

I think the assumption that Trump is making, his supporters are making is, that the only really fair way to do this would be something like a national primary, to have a direct correlation between the number of votes you get, and number of delegates, but you know, in Florida, Trump wins 47% of the vote, he gets 100% of the delegates. I didn’t hear anybody complaining about the unfairness. …

And the fact is, everybody’s had the rules for about a year and everybody had a chance to go after the delegates. Trump says in negotiations with the nefarious Chinese, and Mexicans, and Japanese, he’s going to win, they’ve been killing us, they’re so smart. But how’s he going to win? He’s going to have the best people. Well, if you can’t handle the Colorado delegate selection process, how’s he going to handle the nefarious Chinese?

What happened to the 53% of the votes in Florida of those of those who do not support Trump. I don’t think they have any complaint that Trump has all of the delegates, because those were the rules going in, everybody understood them.

As a citizen of Florida, I don’t like the result, but I’m not complaining about how my vote didn’t count. And here’s another point: Trump has amassed about 46% of the delegates at this time while only winning 37% of the vote of the citizens of those very states where he received those delegates.

It appears to me that Donald Trump has been the one who has benefited thus far from the process. Only when he loses a state does he begin to bellow about unfairness.

Just before posting this blog today, I was alerted to a report about the chairman of the Colorado Republican party receiving death threats from Trump supporters. Here’s what Steve House, the party chairman, posted:

Death threats over running a caucus instead of a primary because it is the law here and over the fact that one candidate[Cruz] had a better strategy and a much bigger team on the field.

3000 phone calls with many being the trashiest stuff you can imagine over a tweet we didn’t send and because a candidate [Trump] says he didn’t get to speak at our convention when we tried very hard to get him there.

Shame on the people who think somehow that it is right to threaten me and my family over not liking the outcome of an election.

We need a grownup in the White House, not a petulant child who whines about not getting his way all the time.

The Trump Titanic?

Here’s the ideal political world: each candidate, out of sincere love of country and its people, rises above pettiness, lays aside ego, bases a campaign on issues, treats opponents with respect, and does his/her best to be a statesman for the good of all and not merely a politician out for personal glory.

That’s the ideal political world. This is what we see instead:

Make America 8 Again

Also in an ideal political world, the media would be careful to present each candidate fairly, showing favoritism to none. Yet what do we find now?

Got a Temper

Rather than treating someone who is all bluster and insults and no substance as an embarrassment, that which is painfully obvious is ignored by many:

Black Hole

When asked what the role of government is, this candidate, with nary a nod toward constitutional authority, offers opinions unburdened by such constitutional qualms:

Top 3

And untold numbers of supposed conservatives, who should know better, aid the cause, not realizing it will ultimately lead to their own destruction:

Gangplank

There are signs, though, of an awakening. What started as a ball-of-fire campaign that surprised virtually everyone, may end in a ball of fire itself if this candidate goes to the convention not having locked up the majority of delegates:

Greatest Landing

If he fails to win the nomination, the nation will have dodged a YUUUGE bullet, and perhaps the Republican party will come out of it wiser . . . perhaps . . .

In the Long Run

May the Trump Titanic sink quickly. May we all regain our common sense just as quickly.

Republican Primaries Going Forward

Ted Cruz WisconsinTed Cruz’s victory in Wisconsin last night was by 13% over Donald Trump, a gap no poll predicted would be so wide. Cruz has a tendency to outperform the polls, and it showed again in this primary. John Kasich was an also-ran—again.

Cruz won 36 of the state’s 42 delegates. This was a state that many had called “perfect” for Trump. That was a premature call.

Over the past couple of weeks, Cruz has won Utah with 69% of the vote, North Dakota by getting 18 of the 25 delegates there (Trump has only one outspoken supporter among those delegates), and as Colorado began its drawn-out process of choosing delegates, Cruz picked up the first 6; more will be chosen later this week, and he is expected to dominate the rest of the selections.

Normally, when someone wins, the loser comes out with a statement of congratulations, while pledging to win the next time. Not so Trump and his campaign. What issued from the Trump camp had to be the most graceless, whiniest response yet. I won’t bother you with the entire statement; you can find it online easily. But here are some highlights:

  • Trump continued his theme by referring to Cruz as “Lyin’ Ted”
  • He said the result was based on false advertising
  • Cruz, the statement asserted, was “attempting to steal the nomination”
  • Cruz was being “used” by the party bosses
  • And, to top everything, the statement said Cruz “was coordinating with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal)”

What was the proof offered for that last accusation? Nothing. Nothing at all. Just believe us. It had to be the reason why we lost.

Donald TrumpYou see, in Trump World, there is no such thing as an honest win for the other guy. Trump, you understand, is a winner, never a loser. So if it appears that he lost, it had to be due to some kind of chicanery and fraud.

That’s the Trump theme, and he will be sticking to it, regardless.

What should we expect in the coming primaries?

Already, everyone is saying New York, which is next, will be Trump’s crowning achievement, as if winning one’s home state is not to be expected. Here’s what to watch for in New York. Will the huge lead Trump currently enjoys in the polls there start to come down as Republicans ponder what has taken place in Wisconsin and in those other states I mentioned where Cruz is ascending?

New York also is not a solid winner-take-all state if Trump can be pulled down below 50% of the vote. Watch the polls carefully over the next two weeks; Trump’s numbers may begin to slide; Cruz’s may start rising. And if Cruz once again outperforms those polls, Trump may win, but not with nearly as many delegates as he thinks.

Pennsylvania, we’re told, is not good for Cruz. Pay attention. Pennsylvania’s primary is different than most. None of the delegates going to the convention from that state are bound by the election results. What, you say? Is this another “dirty trick” to deny Trump the nomination? Hardly. This is the way Pennsylvania always has done it, long before anyone ever heard of Donald Trump. The Cruz people are very organized, unlike the Trump campaign’s fly-by-night approach. You can be sure they are currently helping line up a slate of delegates more amenable to a Cruz nomination.

It’s too hard to predict beyond that, simply because what transpires from now until those elections will make a difference. Will Trump continue his headlong plunge into baseless accusations and bizarre behavior? What outrageous statement will he make next that will turn off voters?

States like Indiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana are all Cruz territory. This is not over.

What do I predict? No one will get the 1237 delegates necessary for nomination prior to the convention. The decision will be made there, and the Cruz team is at the top of its game right now—not playing tricks, but doing what all good campaigns do, preparing for that convention vote. If Trump doesn’t get the magic number after the first ballot, he’s never going to get it.

At this point, I think the possibility of a Cruz nomination is greater than a Trump nomination. And no, Mr. Trump, it won’t be because the nomination was stolen from you; it will have been won by the rules, fair and square.

Please note that I’m not saying Cruz will win, but I’m far more optimistic than I was before. We’ll just have to see how this rolls out over the next two months.

Let Fox Be Fox Once Again

Today’s post will be tinged with sadness—sadness over some loss of trust in what was, and still can be, the best news organization in the nation.

Two decades ago, I received my news primarily through CNN and MSNBC. Fox was not yet on my cable system. Both CNN and MSNBC leaned left, but there were enough sensible people, at least a hint of balance, that I could reasonably watch them.

Fox News LogoI was delighted when Fox News finally became a staple on every cable system; my first experience with Fox on a regular basis came in 2001 when I moved to the northern Virginia region.

It was truly a breath of fresh news air. For the first time, my beliefs—Christian and conservative—were treated with respect. I never expected a channel that mirrored me precisely, but Fox was a source I could trust better than those other two options, and both CNN and MSNBC shifted even more to the left during this time.

I still make Fox my “go to” network, my default, so to speak. Yet this election cycle has punctured its vaunted image of being fair and balanced. No, it hasn’t become a left-wing clone of those other two channels; it has, though, via a number of its on-air hosts, veered dangerously close to becoming a cheerleader for Donald Trump.

Now, I realize that commentators comment, and they are perfectly free to say what they think, but the obvious bias for Trump appearing on far too many of its programs has made watching Fox much less appealing than before.

I’ve always loved Fox and Friends in the mornings. The hosts are witty, yet serious about the kinds of issues I am serious about. Lately, though, some of the coverage has become cringeworthy, particularly when Trump is allowed to phone in his views nearly every day and is not challenged on anything he says.

Eric BollingThe Five always has been an interesting exchange from hosts with varying angles of thinking, but Eric Bolling, who sits right in the middle, has become such a Trump sycophant that he is now difficult to watch. His Saturday program on the economy used to have a place for Michelle Fields, the reporter manhandled by Trump’s chief of staff, but once that incident occurred, Bolling banned her from returning. The excuse is that now she can’t be objective. If so, why does that standard not apply to Bolling as well?

As an aside, one of The Five‘s co-hosts, Greg Gutfeld, noted on the program how the Trump issue is dividing the network. Someone needs to listen to him.

Sean HannityThe Fox evening lineup has constantly demolished its competition. Now I see Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity practically panting at the opportunity to highlight Trump. Greta gave him a full hour last night; Hannity is doing the same tonight. Two nights in a row? Really?

To be fair, Hannity has also hosted Cruz a couple of times, and he complains that Cruz has not been open to more interviews. Yet his affection is so clearly for Trump that it oozes out of every pore. The Cruz people say they have no real desire to appear on Hannity’s program again because he has resorted to using Trump talking points. I noticed that in the last interview he did with Cruz.

Bill O’Reilly has been more balanced overall than Greta and Hannity, but even he seems to enjoy those Trump visits in a chummy kind of way. Yes, he has been better at challenging Trump on occasion, but he never gets to the bottom of the Trump falseness the way he seeks to do with others.

Megyn KellyThe only bright spot of complete integrity with respect to coverage of Trump is Megyn Kelly, and you know she is being a genuine journalist just by Trump’s obsession with her and his ongoing Twitter war demeaning her publicly.

Kelly is to be commended for not allowing Trump to dictate her coverage. She is now, for me, the only fresh air on the network’s evening lineup, and the only one I trust to bring a fair and balanced perspective. She has shown class by not responding to Trump in kind even while suffering his Twitter barrage of insults. She has shown herself to be the most professional of all the hosts.

Cruz has an hour with Kelly this evening. I can understand why his team chose her for this. She has never refrained from asking him the tough questions, but she has allowed him to answer without being interrupted by another Trump talking point.

Let me add here that when Fox hosted Republican primary debates, I think the network shined. All the candidates were treated equally and all were asked the hard questions they had to know how to answer if they went to the general election. So kudos on that front.

So, where am I on my view of Fox? It’s a mixed bag at the moment. As I said at the top, this commentary is tinged with sadness. I want Fox to be a trusted source. I sincerely hope it can restore its former image. I will continue to watch as much as I can, but the remote control can easily change to something else if Trump adulation becomes more than I can stomach.

Let Fox be Fox once again.

Cruz & Trump: The Obvious Contrast

I sincerely hope tomorrow’s blog can be on a different topic, but since there was a townhall last night on CNN, I feel I must make a few comments on that. It was a three-hour event with the first hour a Q&A with Ted Cruz, the second with Donald Trump, and the third with John Kasich. I watched the first two hours, frankly because I considered the Kasich hour to be unnecessary. I don’t mean that as anything mean-spirited, but simply as a matter of fact. He has no viable road to the nomination.

Regular readers are already more than aware of my views on those other two candidates. Last night only strengthened those views. Cruz was sharp, clear on the issues with real specificity, and presidential in tone and manner.

Trump was his usual self—brash, accusing, blustery, non-responsive to most questions because he has little depth of understanding of the issues, and generally boorish and unpresidential.

I thought the contrast between the two was so obvious that I cannot fathom how any thinking person could possibly opt for the latter.

CNN TownhallI also watched the people in the background, sitting behind the candidates. Their reactions to Cruz seemed to indicate appreciation and agreement with his comments; reactions to Trump were the shaking of heads (back and forth, not up and down), rolling of eyes, sour looks, and lack of enthusiasm for most of what he had to offer.

When one questioner asked Trump if he had ever had to apologize for something, he couldn’t think of anything. Amazing.

Scott WalkerThe Wisconsin primary is next Tuesday. Cruz now has the endorsement of Gov. Scott Walker, who will be campaigning with him until then. He has the support of the popular radio hosts. If you have followed the campaign closely, you know that when Trump was interviewed by two of them, it didn’t go well with him. He actually hung up on one of them.

This looks like a Cruz victory in the making. What with Trump’s ongoing antics and now the arrest of his chief campaign operative for battery toward a woman reporter, I’m hoping that we are now seeing the beginning of the end for this woebegone candidacy, a candidacy that never should have been attempted in the first place.

But wait, you say, what about all the delegates he has won? How can Cruz overcome that? If Cruz takes Wisconsin, it could be a harbinger of bad times for Trump, bad enough to eventually deny him the needed delegates for the nomination.

I’m all for a contested convention; in that atmosphere, after the first ballot, if Trump doesn’t get the nod, everything shifts in favor of Cruz after that. Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride. But perhaps a successful one.

Trump in the Gutter

This past week, the Trump campaign, and the candidate himself, hit new lows morally. It all began with an anti-Trump Super Pac running an ad (I understand it was primarily on Facebook) with a revealing photo of his current wife, asking voters if this is really what they want in a First Lady.

Let’s be clear about one thing: Trump has never minded showing off his various wives in any manner of dress or undress. This photo was already out there in public as part of one of her modeling poses. Yet he feigns outrage over it and immediately accuses Cruz of being responsible for the ad. In a tweet, he also then promised to come after Cruz’s wife with some revelation from her past.

Cruz repudiated the ad that very day (despite what some would have you believe) and informed the press—some of whom still don’t get it—that the Super Pac behind it has no connections with his campaign.

Trump then upped the ante by tweeting again. The Tweeter-in-Chief juxtaposed two pictures, one of his wife in a glamor shot, and the other of Heidi Cruz in a not-so-flattering pose (one wonders if that one was photoshopped), declaring that the pictures themselves should resolve any outstanding issues, as if outward beauty is the standard for everything.

Tweet

Then the coup de grace: a National Enquirer story about Ted Cruz’s five mistresses. Really? Two of the women named have already pronounced the story false, one of whom is Trump’s chief spokeswoman. Cruz has called the story “garbage,” and those who know Cruz well say this would be entirely out of character for him.

Trump, for his part, denies any advance knowledge of that story. He may be telling the truth this time because he wants plausible deniability. You see, the editor of the Enquirer is a personal friend and that rag has officially endorsed Trump for president.

Let me ask this in all seriousness: would you want the National Enquirer endorsing you for anything?

The timing is highly suspicious anyway. Other news organizations have been investigating this rumor for months and have found nothing to substantiate it. That’s why they never reported it. Leave that to the National Enquirer, the source of all the news that’s fit to print (sarcasm alert!).

Yesterday I came across an article written by a woman who used to work on the communications end of the Trump campaign. It was quite an eye-opening inside look at how the campaign developed. She says Trump never really expected to win, and is as surprised as anyone else at his quick rise to the top. Now, she says, ego has taken over.

She also now says that she no longer can support Trump because she saw that he has no real answers for anything. I could have told her that. For those interested in her whole story, go here for the full treatment. It’s a good read.

I cannot support Donald Trump on any count, whether we’re talking about his personal character or his supposed political convictions that change according to what he thinks will help him win:

Former Self

More than ever, I am NeverTrump.