And on the Democrat Side . . .

More attention has been given to the Republican race for the nomination than what’s happening on the Democrat side. Yet I want to give the Democrats their due. If the Republicans can put forward such a woeful frontrunner, why not the Democrats as well? And they have a doozy of a frontrunner with quite a record:

Hillary's Lies

For a while, Bernie Sanders gave Hillary a minor scare, but everyone knew the fix was in regardless. With all the so-called “super-delegates” in her corner, he never had a chance. Not that I want an old socialist to have a chance at the brass ring, but when it comes right down to it, there’s little difference between Sanders and Hillary. She just takes more money from Wall Street (while saying she doesn’t).

It looks now as if Sanders is an also-ran, but there’s a new race Hillary’s in, whether she’s willing to admit it or not:

Left Bernie

Yes, that pesky FBI investigation continues, along with the threat of an indictment. Other political cartoonists have picked up on the same theme as illustrated above:

Frontrunner

Running Mates

Her campaign slogan, “Ready for Hillary,” has a new twist:

Ready for Hillary

One can hope.

Yet, if an indictment is held off long enough, she may have an ace in the hole:

Pardon Myself

I know that the mainstream media likes to promote the idea that Richard Nixon was the epitome of political corruption, while ignoring what other presidents of the Democrat variety have done (anyone remember another Clinton?), but the allegations against Hillary, if proven legally, will dwarf anything Nixon did to protect members of his administration:

Big Shoes

The last thing I want is for both parties to put forth the most corrupt, most immoral candidates possible. I’ll conclude with the same cartoon I used yesterday to explain where I stand:

Wall We'd Pay For

Another “Just Say No” Program

Missouri is still too close to call between Cruz and Trump. Other than that, Kasich took his home state of Ohio and Trump took Illinois, Florida, and North Carolina. There’s no denying Trump got the majority of the delegates and is closer than ever to the nomination. That’s truly sad. It’s the Republican party’s version of something that I think is going on in sports this week:

March Madness

Madness is not too strong a term for what is transpiring. Republicans are on the cusp of nominating the most corrupt, most immoral, most arrogant candidate in the history of this fabled party. He’s closer in temperament and character to a juvenile delinquent (are we still allowed to use an esteem-damaging term like that?) than to a serious candidate with answers to the governmental problems we face.

Ask him what he would do—and this applies to any issue—and he will respond that he is so amazing he can cut a great deal and he gets along with everyone and America is going to be great again and anyone who thinks otherwise is nasty and the wall with Mexico just got ten feet higher and he will surround himself with the best people and did he mention how amazing he is and everything will now be tremendous and everyone will love what he will do and did he forget to mention that he gets along with everyone and his supporters are the most loyal in the country and they will vote for him even if he shoots someone dead on Fifth Avenue. And he’s amazing.

I'm Amazing

No one can be allowed to criticize The Donald without being warned of dire consequences and if the Republican convention should nominate someone else if he hasn’t reached the 1237 delegates needed to gain the nomination outright, there might be riots. Not that he’s hinting to his most rabid followers that he would approve such a measure. Of course not.

And all that talk about business failures and lawsuits for fraud is just “little stuff,” nothing to be bothered about:

Belly Up

What has come over Republican primary voters? What is missing here?

Common Sense

Marco Rubio, after losing his home state of Florida by about 20 points, finally faced up to the truth that he had no path to the nomination. His concession speech was superb and I appreciate the strong Christian message it contained.

Yet it came a few weeks too late. His decision to remain in the race probably cost Cruz North Carolina and possibly Missouri, thereby giving Trump more delegates than he would have earned in a direct one-on-one with Cruz.

Studies show that 47% of Rubio supporters will probably now go for Cruz, while only 13% will migrate over to Trump. Another 27% would go to . . .

Oh, yes, there is still another person in the race. John Kasich performed a valuable service in denying Trump Ohio’s delegates, but he has done his job for the good of the country and needs to step aside. However, he is saying he will go all the way to the convention and eventually get the nomination when they all turn to him as the savior of the party.

Kasich is living in a dream world now. He is already mathematically out of the running for enough delegates. His stubborn resistance to the reality of his situation will only drain more votes from Cruz, the only candidate left with any chance at all to derail Trump.

The party of Lincoln is about to commit suicide. One wonders what Lincoln would have thought of these developments.

No

Another “Just Say No” program would be very welcome at this point.

Are we doomed to endure a Trump-Clinton choice?

Wall We'd Pay For

I’m not content to settle for that. I will continue to hope and pray for the Cruz alternative.

On Being Christian, Principled, Constitutional, & Conservative

On this day after Super Tuesday II, I would like to simply review what I wrote a couple of days ago about how I believe we should make our voting decisions. In that earlier post, I wrote about a Christian principled constitutional conservatism. In summary, I stated the following:

  • If you claim to be a Christian, you ought to seek out a candidate who shares your Christian faith and has the life to back it up. At the very least, you should find someone who respects Christian faith and will promote religious liberty.
  • If you say you are principled, you should examine carefully the principles of those wanting your vote. If they are opposite to what you say is essential, or if the person seems to have no principles except “winning,” you should avoid supporting such a person.
  • If you express devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law, your candidate should do so as well. If that candidate rarely mentions either one, and seems to admire other leaders who are powerful, that should be a distinct warning sign that you should look elsewhere for a standard-bearer.
  • If you say you are a conservative, you should want someone who is steeped in conservative thought, understanding the foundations of that approach, and clearly enunciating conservative policies. If, instead, that candidate has never shown any connection to real conservatism, you probably shouldn’t believe any recent professions of conservative values.

Donald Trump fails on all four of these criteria. He doesn’t just fail marginally; he is a total wipeout in all of these areas. Yet he is now on the cusp of becoming the Republican nominee for president.

There are certain dangers we ought to avoid:

Trump Ballot

I’ll offer a more comprehensive analysis in tomorrow’s post, but I just wanted to sound the alarm today. Is anyone listening?

Another critical election looms. With each new round of presidential elections, I tend to be astounded by the way people vote—usually without any solid foundational thinking. So I decided to publish how I approach this very serious responsibility.

Here, therefore, is my attempt at a personal manifesto.

I believe in Christian principled constitutional conservatism. Let me now explain what that means to me.

Christian

Jesus Christ is Lord of all aspects of life. My own life would have no meaning without His love, His forgiveness, and His direction for me. Politics and government fall under His Lordship. Consequently, whenever I think on those issues, I do so with a desire to ensure that His truth is the cornerstone for all governmental policies.

Biblical WorldviewI want to see all of the vital questions before us through the lens of Biblical faith and solid doctrine. I want a Biblical approach to the way government is organized and I want, as much as possible, people serving in that government who are dedicated Christians. Where that is not the case, I at least want to support those who are not hostile to Christian faith, but have respect for liberty of conscience.

I seek to help put into practice a Christian worldview on all manner of legislation, whether that be right to life/abortion, religious liberty, marriage, taxes, education, welfare, immigration—well, that’s the short list. I believe that no matter what the issue, there is a Biblical way to understand that issue.

Principled

PrinciplesI shouldn’t have to make this a separate section. Christians ought to be, simply by the nature of their relationship to God and truth, naturally principled. However, I am dismayed by how often those who profess the name of Christ make disastrously unprincipled decisions. They allow emotions or self-interest to set aside what they claim to believe.

What principles mean the most to me?

  • The inherent value of human life—we are all created in the image of God.
  • The concept of self-government—God has so designed us to grow into maturity and make most decisions ourselves without the oversight of civil government. Not only individuals, but families, churches, voluntary organizations, etc., should be free of undue government influence.
  • The sanctity of private property—government has no mandate from God to be our overlord on economic matters; He instead, as part of our maturity, seeks to teach us how to be His stewards of all types of property: money, material goods, our minds, and the free will He has given us.
  • Voluntary association without the force of government coming down on us—people only unite when they are united, and that unity is internal, not provided by government coercion.
  • Christian character—God intended us to carry out our lives as reflections of Him; the world only works correctly when we do things His way.
  • Sowing and reaping—man is accountable for his actions, and he will receive back what he has sown: if obedience to God, blessings; if disobedience, dire consequences; we can’t blame society and claim victimhood status in God’s eyes because He will always hold us personally responsible for our choices, whether right or wrong.

Constitutional

I believe in the concept of the rule of law, meaning no man, regardless of high rank in society, is above the law. We all are to be judged by the same standard.

Constitutional ConventionI believe in the system set up in this nation through the Constitution that gave us a solid basis for the rule of law.

I believe we need to hold firm to the original meaning of those words in our Constitution and not allow judges, legislators, or presidents to stray from the limited authority granted in that document.

Changes to the authority given to our federal government must go through the proper constitutional channel: the amendment process as outlined in the Constitution. A judge’s gavel is not a magic wand.

Anyone running for the presidency or for Congress, and anyone nominated for a federal judgeship, at whatever level, all the way to the Supreme Court, must pass muster as constitutionalists. No one who denigrates the rule of law should ever be supported for public office.

Conservative

Nash BookThis is a relative term. In a totalitarian system, a conservative would be one who wants to conserve totalitarianism. But in our system, a true conservative is someone who seeks to conserve what the Founders established. Often that can happen only by acting to overturn or reverse what has been done to destroy the Founders’ ideals. If a revolution has occurred, a real conservative might have to take on the nature of a counterrevolutionary in order to reestablish the foundations.

Conservatism does not merely conserve the status quo—if that status quo is a deviation from the constitutional system bequeathed to us.

Conservatism is not “reactionary”; it is a positive movement to secure the blessings of liberty to us and to future generations.

Application

As I survey the political field in this upcoming election cycle, and as I think through everything I wrote above, this is where I come out.

First, I can never support the Democrat party. Its very tenets are antithetical to my basic Christian beliefs; its principles are the opposite of mine; its radical anti-constitutionalism is in the process of destroying the rule of law; and rather than seeking to conserve the Founders’ ideals, it instead foments a secular, Marxist revolution against those ideals.

On the Republican side, I find that the current frontrunner, Donald Trump, has no real grasp of Christian faith and only pays lip service to its tenets, as far as he may understand them—which is not very far. I also don’t trust him to protect religious liberty.

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has a Christian testimony that I believe stands the test. I don’t see lip service only, but a commitment to the truths of the faith.

Trump-Cruz

Trump, with respect to principles, falls far short. In fact, it seems to me the only principle he follows is whatever promotes himself. Does he really believe in the sanctity of life when he defends Planned Parenthood? Can we trust him on religious liberty? Will he use the government to strongarm people who disagree with him, or perhaps prosecute them for their disagreements? I have no confidence in him on any of those issues.

Cruz, though, is about as principled a politician as I can find at the presidential level. When I look at those principles that I listed above, I see him as solid on them all. Why? He has proven to be faithful to them in public office thus far.

Does Donald Trump even know we have a Constitution that set up a limited government? He never talks about it. It’s obviously not a priority for him as he seeks the highest office in the land. He has even hinted—well, more than hinted—that maybe there should be some curtailment of political expression, that maybe there should be more lawsuits against the press.

Now, as much as I may criticize the American press—in print, on television, and on the Internet—any curtailment of political opinions sends a chill up my spine. Under a Trump administration, would this blog be considered a target if I should deign to criticize our fearless leader?

Ted Cruz is a staunch defender of the Constitution as intended by the Founders. How do I know? Again, look at his record. Restoring constitutional thinking and practice has been his life’s work.

Donald Trump is no conservative, at least as defined in the American context. He has not been schooled in conservative thought and has a record of supporting key Democrats throughout his career. When you give a lot of money to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc., you are not only not conservative, but you are helping the enemies of constitutional conservatism propagate their radical revolution.

Ted Cruz, meanwhile, is the most consistent conservative left in the Republican presidential field. I am entirely comfortable with his understanding of how conservatism should play out in our constitutional system.

This, then, is how I approach thinking about politics and government. This determines how I vote.

I only hope these few thoughts will prove helpful to those who are trying to make sense of the decision before us.

Last Night’s Miami Showdown

The Republican debate in Miami last night was a substantive event, especially for Cruz and Rubio. They ran rings around Trump when it came to knowledge of policy while he repeated his tired old lines about how everything in a Trump presidency will be “great” and how he will ensure that all the deals he will make will be “good.” Thesaurus anyone?

Trying very hard to look presidential, Trump refrained for the first time from interrupting the others (except for one swipe at Cruz). That actually allowed a genuine debate to take place.

March Miami Debate

For Rubio, this may have been the last gasp, and he took advantage of it, having his best debate ever. He was relaxed and confident, at ease in his home territory and schooling Trump on the problems with Cuba, in particular.

Cruz turned in a fine performance—solid, steady, and knowledgeable, as always. He may have stumbled a couple of times when appealing to people to join his campaign as the only one that can beat Trump. Not that he wasn’t correct, but it was a departure from the issue orientation of the evening.

In the same way as Rubio gave a lesson on the Cuban dictatorship to Trump, Cruz showed the frontrunner that a senator with a sharp legal background knows more about trade and tariffs than the supposed successful businessman. The Frank Luntz focus group gave Cruz a 100 on their dials when he explained how he would deal with the corrupt Washington establishment.

Cruz also scored with his impassioned support of Israel and the foolishness of being neutral between Israel and Palestinian terrorists. Trump then declared that he was the greatest supporter of Israel on the stage—without any corroborating evidence other than having Jewish friends and relatives. It was kind of humorous, in a sad way.

I’ll even admit that Kasich was better than usual, less annoying overall. But even if he wins his home state of Ohio, that will be the high point of his campaign.

Although Trump did put on a more presidential veneer, his constant air of superiority never diminished. It’s just so hard to watch that demeanor without wanting to shake the man and remind him he’s only a human being, not a mini-god.

And he apparently couldn’t help himself when he decided to step on Ben Carson’s news, to be broken today in a press conference, that he will support Trump. He couldn’t wait to allow Carson to make that statement first; he announced it in the debate.

So Ben Carson, whom Trump basically accused of being a child abuser, has no problem forgiving him for such comments, yet somehow can’t forgive Cruz for what overeager supporters did in Iowa?

Carson, the one who constantly called for civility in the campaign, is now endorsing the chief proponent of incivility?

I’ve always respected Carson, but this endorsement, following on his unwillingness to accept Cruz’s apologies, has diminished the man considerably. I hope he will eventually see the error of his ways.

Will this debate have any effect on Tuesday’s primaries? Will it give Rubio the surge he wants in Florida? Will Kasich hold off Trump in Ohio? Will Cruz be able to grab the huge delegate pool in North Carolina (larger even than Ohio’s)?

We await the results. The future of the republic may depend on what transpires next week.

Tuesday’s Elections: Not a Conventional Analysis

Primary ElectionsFour states on Tuesday held either a caucus or a primary. As with last Saturday’s results, one can again go with the conventional analysis and give the night to Donald Trump or one can look a little deeper. I choose the latter.

Now, there’s no denying that Trump won three of those four states and that it moved him closer to the nomination. But it didn’t get him as far as one might want to think. Neither are the trends going in his direction.

Let’s look at each state individually.

Mississippi

This was a two-man race only. Kasich and Rubio were so far behind as to be nearly nonexistent. As with Louisiana, according to reports, more than 40% of the voters had already turned in ballots early, meaning they had made up their minds prior to witnessing the last two debates, both of which were problematic for Trump. In Louisiana, those who voted on primary day went for Cruz over Trump. I have to wonder if the same scenario played out in Mississippi. How many early Trump voters regretted their haste afterward?

Michigan

This one was quite interesting in that Cruz didn’t put any effort into the state. According to one report, his campaign spent about $1100 overall. In election terms, that’s like spending nothing. Yet he came in second, overtaking Kasich, who had labored to make Michigan his lead-in to Ohio next week. It’s amazing to hear some talking heads remark about Kasich’s “strong” showing in Michigan while seeming to miss the fact that he came in third out of four candidates. Comments about Cruz’s surprise finish, when he had pretty much written off the state, were few and far between.

I know it has become fashionable to blame the media for how much time they give Trump over Cruz, and I don’t want to jump on a bandwagon just for the sake of jumping on, but . . . the accusation is all too true.

Rubio, by the way, took last place by a convincing margin.

Ted Cruz 3Idaho

This was a runaway victory for Cruz, pulling in more than 45% of the vote; Trump was under 30%. Yet somehow it gets lost in the shuffle. Cruz spent more time here, giving an indication that when he concentrates on a state, he can make significant gains. Again, neither Kasich nor Rubio were major factors.

Hawaii

No one knew what to expect here. Trump won over Cruz by about 42% to 32% in a state known to be one of the most liberal in the nation. Cruz won liberal Maine, so that 32% in Hawaii may indicate more strength than some are willing to admit.

Delegates

As I noted in an earlier post, the number of states won, at this point, means less than the delegate total. While Trump won more delegates on Tuesday, it wasn’t a massive take. In fact, Trump, despite winning three states to Cruz’s one, earned only 12 delegates more than Cruz on the night.  Overall, he now has either a 458-359 or 459-364 lead over Cruz (depending on which network is doing the calculation), still within striking distance.

The Media

Okay, I have another comment to make about the media’s role. After Trump won Mississippi and Michigan, he staged (I use that word advisedly) a so-called press conference that turned into an infomercial for his business “successes.” Yes, I put that word in quotes. He had steaks on the stage, but his steak business went bust; he had water and wines, but he doesn’t really manage those anymore. The water bottles on stage were just the typical kind you get at the nearest grocery store.

Donald TrumpHe then boasted that his defunct and fraudulent Trump University would rise from the ashes of the current lawsuits and be “great.” Have you noticed how often he uses certain words—great, tremendous, wonderful, etc.? Have you noticed that instead of substance, he simply keeps repeating the same words and sentences over and over?

Yet the media never broke away from his ramblings. They gave full coverage to this lovefest for himself. He truly is a media creation. And a juvenile one at that.

What Next?

The big states next week are Florida and Ohio. I really don’t mind Kasich staying in the race right now if there is any possibility he could take Ohio away from Trump. It won’t be the start of Kasichmentum no matter how often he says it will be.

In Florida, I sincerely doubt that Rubio can win. I live here. I have access to a lot of disgruntled people who believe he betrayed them on immigration, and they are not very forgiving, even a few years later. Rubio won’t step down before Tuesday, I’m pretty sure, so he risks his entire political future if he ever decides to run for governor. Losing a presidential primary in one’s own state is a badge of dishonor that will stay with a candidate for a long time.

Cruz’s decision to make a stronger play for Florida might be too little too late, but he is on an upswing while Rubio is heading in the other direction. Trends do matter. Even if Cruz cannot win Florida, if he puts in a surprisingly strong showing, that could help propel him into victories elsewhere.

If Rubio should lose Florida, his run is over, and he will need to acknowledge it, sooner rather than later. That will be the only hope for Cruz to overtake Trump. Despite some of the bad blood between the two campaigns, I find it hard to believe that the majority of Rubio supporters would migrate to Trump.

As far as I’m concerned, nothing has been decided for sure yet, no matter what you may hear in the media.

Cruz, Trump, & the Turning Tide

How should we analyze the voting in Saturday’s Republican caucuses and primaries? We could do it the conventional way and simply say it was a draw between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz since both won two states. That would also be the superficial way.

While I was in the Atlanta airport Saturday evening, I was taken captive by the monitor broadcasting CNN (since Atlanta is the home base for that network). I don’t normally watch CNN because I prefer actual news, but sometimes it’s good to hear what’s being said on faux news stations, if only to know what silliness is being spread around.

One commentator rather breathlessly stated that Trump’s apparent victory in the Kentucky caucuses was somehow a foothold in the South that marked some kind of important milestone for the candidate. Since I was in a public place, I refrained from laughing too loudly.

Going beyond the superficial, here’s what I see. If you look at the margins of victory for both Cruz and Trump, you see quite a difference. Cruz took 48% in Kansas, more than doubling Trump’s 23%. In Maine, Cruz had 45%, Trump 32%. Those victories were astounding, especially considering polls had shown Trump to be ahead in both states.

Ted Cruz at KS Caucus

Trump’s victories were somewhat less convincing. He took Kentucky 35-31% and Louisiana 41.4-37.8%, which is only a 3.6% spread. Again, polls had shown him well ahead, not indicating how close the races actually turned out. In fact, those who voted in Louisiana the day of the primary gave the edge to Cruz over Trump; the only reason he won was due to absentee ballots turned in weeks ago.

One wonders if Cruz would have won Louisiana if no one had been allowed to vote early. The last two debates were awful for Trump. The one last week, in particular, revealed him at his worst: making a sexual reference; changing his position on immigration (and having to “clarify” it later); and declaring that the military would obey him if he ordered it to kill women and children of terrorists (another one he had to walk back afterwards).

Those kinds of displays of waffling, budding dictatorship (interesting how they co-mingled), and vulgarity are making the more sensible erstwhile Trump supporters have second thoughts.

By the way, it’s the delegate count that matters, not how many states one wins. Trump’s delegate lead is 382-300 over Cruz. That’s hardly a done deal for the nomination when 1237 are required to become the nominee.

There’s another factor I hate to mention, but feel I must. Without Marco Rubio in the race, it is more than conceivable that Cruz would have won both Kentucky and Louisiana. Many are calling for Rubio to withdraw now, not only for the good of the Republican party but for the political salvation of the nation itself.

Rubio is determined to stay in, thinking a win in his home state of Florida will turn everything around. I’m not convinced. I don’t believe there is a viable path to the nomination for him even with a Florida win. All his continued participation is doing (and the same can be said for John Kasich—perhaps even more) is making a Trump nomination more likely.

I would be more than pleased for a Cruz-Rubio ticket to emerge from this, but in order for that to happen, there must be a meeting of the minds and a willingness on Rubio’s part to take the second spot. Or Cruz could promise him a cabinet position such as secretary of defense or secretary of state, especially since Rubio is so articulate on foreign policy.

Meanwhile, I believe Trump is becoming increasingly exposed as an easily ruffled bully who is, in his core, basically insecure. Most braggarts are. One evidence of his insecurity unveiled itself in an Orlando rally a couple of days ago when he asked his followers to raise their right hands in a pledge to stay loyal to him and vote.

Donald Trump Swear to Vote

When’s the last time a candidate felt he had to make his supposed supporters swear publicly that they will come out and vote? That’s not the action of a secure man.

I’m beginning to see the tide turn against Trump and toward Cruz. I’m rather perturbed by comments that imply the last debate was a total disaster for Republicans. Those who take that view are promoting a false moral equivalence: that all the candidates were a disaster. Not true. Only one was. Cruz, in fact, in much of the commentary I saw, even from those who are not public Cruz fans, was seen as above the fray and more strikingly presidential, seeking to explain policy rather than merely turning the tables on Trump.

I’m looking for Christian character and constitutional consistency. No one has a perfect record in that regard, but I’m convinced that Ted Cruz is the closest we have to that in this race.