Whose Party is it Now? Belated Reflections on the Republican Convention

Last week, as Donald Trump’s poll numbers declined and he continued his unusual campaign strategy of dwelling on self-destructive controversies and attacking other Republicans, there was talk that some GOP party leaders were getting increasingly concerned about having him as their nominee and speculating about the possibility of replacing him if he should choose to quit the race.  I would be ecstatic should such an unlikely event come to pass, but it’s quite strange to hear about this resurgence of Republican dissatisfaction with Trump.  After all, one of the main things that the Republican National Convention just a few weeks ago made clear was the appalling degree to which the GOP has thrown itself behind Donald Trump.  Far from a political organization trying to make the best of an unfortunate outcome to the primary season by giving qualified support to the outsider who crashed their party, they turned over the keys to him and became his dutiful, often fawning, minions.

Not only has the Republican Party become the GOT (Glorifiers of Trump), it seems that no dissent, or even skepticism, whatsoever is to be tolerated.  This was made all too evident throughout the convention by the dubious methods used to steamroll those making a last attempt to force a roll call vote on the rules, the exhortations from speaker after speaker that everyone must vote for Trump or be guilty of committing the horrific act of giving support to Hillary Clinton (who should instead be “locked up”), and the overwrought angry reaction to Ted Cruz’ non-endorsement ot Trump (to which I’ll return shortly.)

I’m sure that The Donald and his supporters enjoyed the four-day pep rally for his campaign, but, for me, the convention in Cleveland just brought ever more reasons to feel disappointed and dispirited.

I will confess that I couldn’t force myself to suffer through large doses of the convention proceedings themselves.  I did read and listen to quite a bit of coverage about them and watch a few speeches, including those by some of our prominent Wisconsin officeholders (Sen. Ron Johnson, Gov. Scott Walker, and House Speaker Paul Ryan) and former leading presidential contenders (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.)  From  the outside, it seemed  that the dominant common themes of the week centered on a) Hillary Clinton being utterly terrible so that b) it is therefore imperative for Republicans and conservatives to unite in support of the election of Donald Trump.  Governor Walker added in some mentions of the success of his conservative reforms here in Wisconsin, but, overall, his speech was a pretty typical example of this basic formula.

Now, I can certainly understand that it is a lot easier to provide right-leaning voters with reasons to be against Hillary Clinton than arguments to make them excited about being for Trump.  Still, one would normally expect a party’s convention speakers to devote considerable time to communicating the beliefs, goals, and policy ideas of the organization to the audience in the hall and at home.  Not only was this missing to a large degree, but, when conservative substance did make an appearance in a few addresses, the context or response gave it a bittersweet (to say the least) effect.  For me, this only added to the sense of frustration and exasperation caused by the GOP’s nomination of someone who does not represent traditional Republicans or conservatives at all.

For example, Paul Ryan’s speech did attempt to put forward a vision for moving the country in a better direction, and it’s good that someone was actually discussing things like freedom, tax and health care reform, and a government that protects liberty and respects Constitutional limits.  Normally, Ryan’s statement that politics should not seek to divide people into groups and play one against the other and his expression of the ideal that “everyone is equal... no one is written off” would be fine arguments to use when attempting to persuade voters to choose Republicans.   However, the GOP nominee this year has hardly avoided rhetorically lumping people (Mexicans, Muslims, the media, politicians, etc.) together, has been leading a campaign often described as some sort of populist uprising of the working class versus the “elites,” and is rather fond of deeming certain people “losers,” “weak,” “chokers,” or assorted other lovely nicknames that don’t exactly emphasize the inherent equality and worth of every individual.  Trump also is much more likely to share his thoughts about poll numbers, his admiration for various authoritarian dictators, and his plans to punish people who say things that he doesn’t like than to spend time talking about the Constitution or any of those other mundane conservative topics brought up by the House Speaker.   Considering all of these unpleasant factors, Ryan’s assertion that “only with Donald Trump and Mike Pence do we have a chance at a better way” doesn’t exactly seem like the most logical of conclusions. 

On a similar note, even though Marco Rubio only appeared to the RNC in what was basically a 90-second campaign commercial and spent most of that limited time criticizing Clinton, I found the remarks he did make in support of Trump less than convincing.  Rubio asserted that Trump would make conservative appointments to the courts, which is at least something that Trump has said, even though I’m skeptical about the worth of any commitments made by someone so completely unreliable.  Rubio’s claims that dealing with terrorism and bringing debt under control are good arguments in Trump’s favor were even more questionable.  Trump may recognize that there are problems in these areas, but his comments about foreign policy and terrorism (including his bizarre praise for Saddam Hussein as a fighter against terrorists) have not inspired confidence in his ability to lead on that issue.  During his presidential run, he’s suggested plans that would require even more government spending (for infrastructure, healthcare, etc.) while opposing any reform of entitlements and proposing various versions of tax cuts, so it’s difficult to see how he could avoid making our national debt worse -- not that he’d necessarily mind that, as someone who’s said that he “loves debt.” 

Ted Cruz’ address to the Republican convention was notably different.  For one thing, rather than just delivering some “rah-rah, vote for the GOP team” remarks, Senator Cruz actually aimed to give a well-crafted speech that went somewhere and made a case for his brand of conservatism.  I can’t say that I personally loved everything in the speech, like the criticisms directed toward the political establishment and trade policies, but those notes should have appealed to the Trump supporters in the crowd.  Overall, though, Cruz did a good job in describing some of the big ideals that are part of his vision for our country’s future.  He advocated more freedom in many forms and aspects of life, more limited government, and leaders who follow the Constitution and defend the rights and liberty of the people.  In the portion of Cruz’ presentation that received the most attention, he  encouraged listeners to vote in November’s election and offered up the advice to people to “vote your conscience; vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and be faithful to the Constitution.”  Ordinarily, Republicans would be expected to cheer someone stressing these themes, but in this backwards year, Ted Cruz received boos in the convention hall and plenty of criticism afterwards even from people who had been his supporters.  Why?  Because, while Cruz said nothing bad about Donald Trump, he did not give an endorsement to the man who spent months attacking him and his family.

I don’t actually see why Trump’s fans had such a problem with Cruz’ comments, unless even they know that their favored candidate would not meet the qualifications to be the choice of conscientious voters.  Cruz deserves credit, not blame, for declining to proclaim that Trump is an example of the type of leader he believes should be elected.  To me, attempts like those from Ryan, Rubio, and others to positively present traditional conservative policies or values and then imply to members of the public that they’ll be getting someone who believes in those things if they elect Donald Trump are highly inaccurate.  They seem like “bait and switch” efforts, aiming to convince voters of something that plainly is not true, even if those doing the talking sincerely want to believe in it themselves.  Considering the nominee’s history of deceptive business endeavors like Trump University and the Trump Network, this might be a fitting approach to take, but those trying to justify and promote Trump’s candidacy, however reluctantly, shouldn’t be surprised and upset if polls show that, at least for now, large segments of the voting public aren’t falling for the con (or slick sales pitch, to be more generous.)  It’s too bad that, thanks to the poor judgment of primary voters, Republicans don’t have the chance to offer the general electorate a much more appealing and higher-quality candidate.  Going forward, we’ll have to see if the party even attempts to showcase thoughtful, genuinely conservative politicians in the future or settles into its new role as the latest acquisition of the gaudy, celebrity-focussed Trump brand and likely heads for intellectual bankruptcy.  I’ll keep my fingers crossed, but the signs so far do not  look very promising.

It's Apparently Easy to Upset People When You're a U.S. Senator

Exhibit A:  Marco Rubio

Since leaving the presidential race, Marco Rubio has basically been out of the national limelight.  He’s been busy working on a number of issues in the Senate and hasn’t said too much about the ongoing primary process.  Recently, though, Rubio has done a few interviews in which he was asked some questions about the presidential contest, and some of his answers have now attracted some less than positive attention from conservatives who (wisely, in my opinion) are opposed to Donald Trump.  Last weekend, when I listened to two interviews Senator Rubio did with radio hosts in Florida, I will admit that a couple of things set off minor alarms in my mind.  Overall, though, I think that Rubio’s comments may be being taken somewhat out of context, so, for what it’s worth, I’d like to offer my interpretation of the matter.

In the last couple of days, I have seen people taking particular exception to a quote from the conversation Rubio had on April 20 with Jimmy Cefalo of WIOD.  In discussing the possibility of a contested convention, Rubio said that people suggesting that the nomination should not be kept from a candidate who had won lots of votes because this would be ignoring the will of the voters and might make many people upset would be making a valid argument, and that delegates might decide for those reasons to vote for the frontrunner.  Concerned conservatives have pointed out that the type of mindset Rubio described is the sort of thing those still hoping Trump can be stopped are trying to fight against and keep from becoming widely accepted, especially with Trump and many in the media already basically declaring victory.

I can understand the concern, especially when that remark is distributed on its own.  I would note, though, that Rubio did not say that he thought the aforementioned argument should prevail, and he did say that it would not be at all illegitimate for delegates to choose someone other than the candidate with the pre-convention lead.  My take on the whole exchange is that the senator was actually arguing against all of the claims that Trump and others have been making of a rigged and unfair nomination process.  Rubio pointed out that the rules have been around for a long time and were known to everyone, and that they include delegates becoming able to vote more and more freely for an eventual nominee if no candidate has a majority on the first ballots.  To me, he was calling the argument that the person with the most support should get the nomination “valid” (containing actual circumstances that can reasonably be considered) in contrast to the invalid  and false argument that the whole system is rigged and that cheating has been taking place to steal the nomination from Trump.

These impressions were reinforced by another conversation that Rubio had the next day with Drew Steele (beginning at the 10:18 mark), in which he made similar points but also specifically mentioned that other arguments for delegates to consider would involve selecting a nominee who can win and who represents foundational Republican values.  He again stated that political parties are private organizations that can use any method they wish to choose their nominees and said that it would be up to the delegates to make the final decision if no one has won a delegate majority going into the convention.  Now, as a longtime dedicated anti-Trumper, I would always prefer anyone discussing a contested convention to say that any such event should absolutely jump at the first opportunity to reject the unqualified billionaire, but serious public officials aren’t particularly likely to stray beyond just listing the possible outcomes that might take place this summer.  In any case, I don’t think that it would be accurate or fair to assume Rubio is in the “Trump should be the nominee even without a majority” camp based just on these recent interviews.  While he didn’t tell us which arguments he personally would find most persuasive or what choice he’d hope for the delegates to make, I would mention that the senator has a tendency to refer to counter-arguments even when he is advocating for a strongly held position.  When discussing abortion-related issues, for example, he usually begins by mentioning that he sees competing “rights” (of women to control their bodies and those of the unborn to live) involved in the matter, before moving on to say that he comes down on the side of life and making whatever specific point addresses the matter at hand.  I don’t know that this is always the best approach to making one’s case, especially as it could open the door to misinterpretation through selective quotation or other instances where others hear or read only part of what is said.  However, I do think this willingness to acknowledge multiple views of a situation may be one of the reasons so many people have seen Rubio as a conservative who has the potential to have broader appeal than others to the general public, so it probably doesn’t make sense to hold it against him now.

I have definitely been discouraged by the increasing signs that we’ve seen lately that more and more Republican officials are getting used to and accepting the idea that Donald Trump is likely to be the party’s presidential nominee.  In light of that, I did take note of a couple of other things Marco Rubio said in his interviews, wondering if they were further evidence of this trend.  At one point, he mentioned wrapping up his campaign when he thought continuing would be “divisive” for the party.  This is probably a minor thing, but (claimed) concern about dividing the party is often used these days by those urging dissenters to rally around the frontrunner, so the word did get my attention.  Most notable was Rubio’s response to the media’s favorite question regarding whether he would support Trump should he get the nomination.  He quickly and calmly stated that he’s always said he’d support the Republican nominee and added a list of reasons he believes Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as president.  At a press conference in Florida on Friday (video is available on the Senator’s official Facebook page), he said that he wouldn’t be endorsing anyone in the primaries and again easily affirmed that he would support the Republican nominee, including in a contest between Trump and Clinton.  These recent responses offer quite a contrast with the tone of the answers Senator Rubio gave to the nominee-supporting question in the last couple of weeks before he suspended his campaign.  Back then, while he never actually said he wouldn’t support Trump as nominee, he seemed quite distressed by the prospect and said it was getting more and more difficult.  At that time, he was also making the case that Trump was a “con man” attempting to gain Republican votes under false pretenses who posed a huge threat to the Party and the conservative movement -- themes Trump opponents like me were happy to (finally) hear from a candidate, but which seem to have largely faded into the background as the race has proceeded.

So... what has changed for Senator Rubio in the last few weeks?  Has a little distance from the center of the contest given him the ability to look at things with less emotional intensity, and was that necessary to keep him from being driven crazy like some of us?  Did some powerful Trump-neutral or Trump-friendly atmosphere permeate his thinking once he started spending more time on Capitol Hill?  Were the arguments he made against Trump in March things he truly believed were important or just a campaign tactic, and, either way, did Trump’s continuing popularity make him (and others) conclude that they shouldn’t be pursued because they weren’t effective in influencing voters?  Rubio has been trying to keep as many of his earned delegates as possible bound to him for the convention’s first ballot (which could help to keep the frontrunner under the majority level and make future ballots possible), and it has been reported that endorsing another candidate might cause him to lose control of those delegates.  We can’t know how much this is affecting Rubio’s current actions and statements.  Would he endorse someone otherwise?  Does he think that, to be on the safe side, he can’t be against anyone either and should try to be as neutral as possible in his public comments?  I certainly don’t know the answers to any of these questions, but I don’t think viewing every remark (or lack thereof) in a negative light is warranted at this point.  After all, just a couple of weeks ago, Rubio told Mark Levin that he hoped a conservative would become the nominee and that, of those still actively running, only Ted Cruz fit that description, and he also said that he was pleased Donald Trump had not won in Wisconsin.  By the way, I’ve also seen headlines suggesting that Rubio is “more impressed” with Trump now based on a comment the senator made at Friday’s press conference that Trump’s performance had improved lately.  I thought that Rubio was merely referring to the larger percentages of the vote Trump received in the last few primaries rather than to an increase in Trump’s presidential skills, but I suppose there is room for interpretation.  As someone who came to support Rubio’s campaign, I may be biased, but I’d still like to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he’s resisting the pull of the Trump bandwagon as much as possible.

That being said, when one of the reporters asked Rubio on Friday if there was a chance he’d appear on a ticket, he said, “I don’t think so.”  When he’s been asked this question before, to my knowledge he’s always definitively said that he wasn’t interested in being/ would not be Vice President, so I was a little surprised by this new response, especially since Ted Cruz has now already announced a potential running mate.  Was Rubio just giving a more low-key denial where “don’t think so” really translates to “definitely not,” or was he leaving an allowance for some remote possibility of deadlocked convention delegates at some point asking him to serve at the top of the ticket?  If he is giving even the slightest consideration to throwing in his lot with the uninformed New York loudmouth, I hope he dismisses the idea as soon as possible, because I can’t see any way that could possibly work out well for him.  As for Republican politicians, etc. in general “supporting” Trump should he, horrifyingly, become the nominee, I can understand it if this will just mean that they decide Trump is preferable to Hillary Clinton and possibly share that belief (of which I’m not personally convinced) with the public.  If, however, party support involves actually praising Trump and his “policies,” such as they are, especially if House and Senate candidates also will be expected to support them, how can the Trumpian takeover of the Republican party and the destruction of the things it has stood for lead to any kind of positive future for traditional Republicans?

Exhibit B:  Ted Cruz

Meanwhile, turning back to the primary race itself, Senator Ted Cruz is in an extremely tough battle to try to attain the Republican nomination.  Throughout his campaign, we’ve kept  hearing various people say, either jokingly or in all seriousness, that “no one” likes Cruz or especially that he can’t get along with his colleagues in the Senate.  Not surprisingly, then, there are also plenty of stories speculating that he is having or will have trouble winning over more voters because he isn’t likable, which I would imagine only serves to give this impression to more of the public before they even give Cruz much of a chance.  Really, when we are talking about choosing someone to be the leader of our country and play an extremely important role in the world, should we be giving a whole lot of weight in our decision to who would win a popularity contest at the office or who has the most TV-friendly personality?  Besides that, I think that the “unlikable” label is overdone and rather unfair in Ted Cruz’ case, and I’d like to say just a few things to voters and to Republican officials, past and present.

The latest egregious example of unhelpful comments from the GOP ranks came a few days ago when former Speaker of the House John Boehner referred to Ted Cruz (not for the first time) as “Lucifer in the flesh” and basically said that he was the worst person with whom Boehner had ever worked.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, was a “texting buddy,” and Boehner would vote for him, but not Cruz, in a general election.  I’ve thought in the past that Boehner has sometimes been treated unfairly by conservative commentators and activists, but his comments about Cruz are terrible and, to me, they should serve to make Boehner, not Cruz, look bad.  And, in case anyone is actually entertaining the notion that Boehner’s description of Cruz could be correct, I’m sure that Lucifer would have had plenty of power to arrange many more primary wins for himself to easily secure the nomination.

More generally speaking, there may well have been reasons for some conflicts or hard feelings between Senator Cruz and other lawmakers, mainly based on disagreements about tactics and rhetoric to employ in legislative fights and battles with the White House, and perhaps Cruz would have been wise to have avoided upsetting his colleagues to the degree he apparently did.  Any less-than perfect personal relationships, however, pale in importance in comparison with having a nominee or even a president who shares basic goals with most Republicans and is qualified for the office.  It would be one thing for politicians to side with Cruz’ opponent on congeniality grounds if the frontrunner he was desperately trying to stop were another solid, prepared Republican.  But it is highly irresponsible and petty for them to withhold support for Cruz or even give support to Donald Trump, who has demonstrated over and over again that he is not at all fit for the presidency.  I find it especially bizarre that officeholders will maintain their grudges against Cruz while seemingly ignoring the fact that Trump has spent plenty of time in his campaign branding everyone in charge of the government (that includes you, Congress) as incompetent, stupid, and/or corrupt.  To do the right thing, any serious Republican official should put aside any lack of warm and fuzzy feelings they may have toward Cruz and support him in the remaining primaries, because success for him there is the only hope left of avoiding a situation where the nominees of both major parties are essentially liberal Democrats.

As for the public, I would encourage each voter not to take all of the comments about Cruz’ lack of friends and likability at face value and to instead at least watch and listen to him a few times to form an independent opinion.  First off, rest assured that the Senator does indeed have friends -- you won’t have to search too much to find testimonials from his colleague, Senator Mike Lee, or from Jay Nordlinger, who writes at National Review and other places.  Cruz’ style of presenting speeches or debate answers might not be the most appealing to everyone, and he will not have been everyone’s first choice out of this year’s large field of candidates.  I certainly don’t think, though, that there is anything about him that should prompt reasonable voters to disregard his superior qualifications as a presidential candidate and reject him on personality grounds, especially when his chief opponent is a rude, obnoxious, offensive bully.  I think that voters who do take the time to watch Ted Cruz in some different settings, such as the extended televised “town halls” in which he has participated (in, for example, Wisconsin or New York) or even appearances on late-night talk shows, will have a more favorable view of Cruz than they would get from brief news clips and stories.  Besides being an intelligent and accomplished lawyer and politician, Cruz is also a movie buff who has a sense of humor and is obviously wrapped around the little fingers of his two young daughters, and I think that Americans can feel just fine about voting to send a man like him to the White House.

A Fond Farewell to Senator Marco Rubio

As I feared, Tuesday was an especially disheartening night in the presidential primary saga.  While it’s good that John Kasich won in Ohio and Ted Cruz remained competitive in several states, Donald Trump still keeps winning primaries, and the chances of preventing him from becoming the Republican nominee seem to keep dwindling.  While there is plenty to say about the race as a whole, for now I want to focus on Marco Rubio, who suspended his campaign after Trump won the Florida primary.

Even though most recent polling had shown Trump to have a big lead in Florida, I was hoping that people would turn in a different direction when actually voting and that, somehow, the results would be different.  Alas, that did not happen.  In terms of the election, it’s not helpful that Trump was able to add Florida’s 99 delegates to his total.  On a more human level, though, I really wished for a better exit for Senator Rubio.  I can’t imagine how painful it must be to have the voters in your home state, which you have served in office for years, prefer someone with the “qualifications” and temperament of Donald Trump by a large margin.  My heart goes out to Senator Rubio, and I’m glad that his family was close by for support during what must have been a very tough time.

Despite the difficult circumstances, Rubio left the race with one last emotional speech.  In it, he gave thanks to his family, his supporters, and God.  He once again shared part of his immigrant family’s story of American success and eloquently reminded listeners ot the message of hope and optimism for our future around which he’d based his campaign.  Rubio encouraged Americans to embrace a positive approach to solving our problems rather than giving in to fear and anger, and he concluded by asking God to strengthen the nation and its people, the conservative movement, the Republican party, and the eventual nominee and to bless the United States.  The address was an example of the type of inspirational conservatism and patriotism that many consider to be particular strengths of Senator Rubio.  Supporters envisioned that these qualities could potentially be very effective at winning people over in a general election, but, obviously, much of the public would rather hear far less lofty talk right now.

Senator Ted Cruz said some very nice things about Senator Rubio in his post-election remarks on Tuesday, and I appreciated his comments.  While I find it sad for Marco Rubio’s campaign to end this way, the senator also has plenty of detractors who will be happy to see him go.  I’m sure there will be no shortage of articles and commentary discussing the real or perceived flaws of the candidate and his campaign, some more objective than others.  In fact, the not-so-subtly hostile columns already started weeks ago.  For my part, I’ll just say that, considering the extent to which liberal leanings and institutions pervade our society, having any significant number of conservatives in positions of influence should not be taken for granted.  So, while no political figure is perfect and we can certainly prefer different presidential candidates, I find it very disappointing that some conservatives would take pleasure in the misfortunes of one of their own. 

Since the events of this presidential race have been increasingly stressful, perhaps stepping aside could prove to be a bit of a relief, at least for the moment, for Senator Rubio, who seemed quite distressed this past weekend while discussing the growing tensions in the political discourse of our country and the outbreaks of violence that have taken place at recent Trump rallies.  He also seemed to be struggling to determine the right course of action going forward on matters such as the ubiquitous question from the media as to whether he would still support Donald Trump as the Republican nominee.  (What should take precedence -- party loyalty and an ill-conceived pledge of support or one’s own judgment of a troubling candidate?)  Most of the time, we see the public personas that candidates want to present, but sometimes there are other glimpses that may tell us more about a person running for office.  The interviews that Rubio did last weekend, for example, certainly seemed to show that he is genuinely concerned about some of the things happening in our political and broader culture, and that’s good to know.  I also think that the regret Senator Rubio has expressed over his decision to briefly answer Donald Trump’s insulting rhetoric with some insults of his own speaks well of him.  (For the record, I think much of the media discussion of the episode makes it seem worse than it was, but it always did seem rather out of place in Rubio’s campaign.)

One could always choose to be cynical and question how much of what politicians say is truly what they believe rather than an attempt to sway voters, but, whatever the motivation behind Marco Rubio’s statements the last few weeks, I’ve been glad to hear a lot of the things he’s said coming from one (or more, in some cases) of the presidential candidates.  Since I’ve been agitatedly writing about the situation for months, it’s no surprise that I agreed with his comments about the importance of preventing Donald Trump from hijacking the conservative movement and the Republican party.  More recently, I found his descriptions of the way Trump is trying to manipulate people’s frustration and anger to gain power for himself to sound quite accurate.  Also, while we’ve heard often that people respond to some of the controversial things Donald Trump says because he is supposedly standing up against the dreaded phenomenon of “political correctness,” it seems that those who say this have expanded the meaning of the phrase far too much.  I thought that Rubio put it very well the other day when he said that: “Politically correct is one thing.  It shouldn’t keep you from saying truth.  But another thing is to be rude, and obnoxious, and offensive.”

Throughout Marco Rubio’s campaign, he offered the voters policy proposals, a constructive vision for the country, experience in the work of government, and a positive outlook.  The fact that the public hasn’t seemed to value those things, from him or from many other serious candidates, during this presidential cycle is highly unfortunate, but I think that Rubio should still feel good about running for president as a candidate of substance in a race that somehow became a reality show.  I don’t know to what extent we may continue to hear from Senator Rubio in some capacity as the campaign goes on, or what career path he will choose starting next year.  I do believe that he has the ability to be an important voice for conservatism, and I hope that we haven’t heard the last of that voice in the public square.

So Much Evidence for Voters: Will They Keep Ignoring It?

As the primary season goes on, things seem to grow ever more discouraging, as thousands of voters in state after state cast their “Republican” presidential ballots for a party-switching, flip-flopping, self-centered billionaire with no serious qualifications for the office he seeks.  It seems that those supporting Donald Trump do not care what he says or does, what positions or policies he expresses or lacks, or what type of character he has.  For whatever reason, they have decided that he is their guy, and they will not be dissuaded.  We can desperately hope that this tendency will change and that there are enough other persuadable voters out there to turn the tide and allow another candidate to win the nomination, but I’m not at all confident.

For any members of the public who are actually paying attention and open to logic and reason in selecting a presidential candidate, the events and news of just the past week should have presented enough evidence to disqualify Donald Trump from consideration for the presidency.  After he won (sigh...) still more primaries on Tuesday he held a long press conference during which he once again boasted about himself and tried to give a falsely positive impression of the fate of several of his prior failed endeavors (steaks, a magazine, etc.)  A reporter has filed a criminal complaint alleging that, at the end of this event, she was handled roughly by Trump’s campaign manager, leaving her with bruises on her arm.  The response of the Trump campaign was to criticize the reporter and accuse her of making things up, but corroborating  evidence seems to support her story.

Thursday night’s debate was a much more subdued and serious affair than the last couple in the series, with the questions and answers focussing mainly on the policy ideas of the various candidates.  If Donald Trump were any other candidate, his performance should have been devastating to his electoral hopes, but I’m afraid that the bar is set so low for him that, because he even attempted to speak about issues, mainly refrained from insulting his opponents, and talked in a calmer tone than he often does, the debate may instead be seen as a demonstration that he can be “presidential” and therefore may actually help him with some viewers.  I can only hope that more people will have seen that his answers showed a lack of knowledge, principles, and honesty, and that they will reject him as a presidential candidate, because the debate made these deficiencies abundantly clear.

When Trump’s suggestions that he would impose or threaten to impose large tariffs on foreign goods was discussed, Ted Cruz explained that the result of such tariffs would be increases in prices for Americans, and Trump’s rather puzzling response was that then “we” would build factories in America to make the products instead.  (Who would be building them?  The government?)  Trump also said that he does not want to make changes to entitlement programs such as Social Security and that he would deal with the cost by cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse” and foreign aid.  When it was pointed out that those measures could only add up to a fraction of the amount needed to address the entitlement and debt crises, he made some vague comments about the country needing to make better deals.  This, of course, is Trump’s “solution” to a wide variety of issues, including foreign policy matters.  Regarding the Obama administration’s changes in our relationship with Cuba, Trump said that it was time for something different after so many years but that we should have gotten a good deal.  With Iran, too, he’d have negotiated a better deal.  Why does he say he’d be neutral between our allies in Israel and the Palestinians?  To try to facilitate a deal, if possible.  (And, no one should question his pro-Israel qualifications, because he has family members and friends who are Jewish.)  On issue after issue, Donald Trump showed no knowledge of or interest in the details, and rather than any lofty principle such as promotion of human rights, his policy suggestions, such as they are, are motivated by “the art of the deal.”

Donald Trump constantly changes his positions and either ignores or denies the things he’s said or done in the past.  In addition, he is the epitome of the “crony capitalism” and corruption that many of his own supporters say is such an egregious problem.  Just last week, for example, he said at the debate that different types of visa programs for foreign workers were needed, both because America needs to bring in highly skilled workers and because people in businesses like his can’t find American workers to fill their available positions.  This week, Trump’s newest take on the subject is that the visa programs are terrible and harmful to American workers and shouldn’t be available for people like him to use, but that, since they are available, of course he has to use them.  I really can’t understand why anyone takes this man seriously or why, when he reverses himself so many times, some people are willing to accept whichever version of his comments on an issue are closest to their own beliefs as the definitive one.  This example, though, is also another illustration of Donald Trump’s focus on himself.  Hiring illegal immigrants or foreign workers and having his clothing lines made overseas is fine for him, but if anyone else does these things, they’re ruining our country.  (So much so that Trump even made the supreme sacrifice of giving up Oreos because Nabisco moved some production to Mexico.)  Similarly, Trump says that politicians are bought and paid for by donors and claims that he knows this because of his own experiences donating to people in both parties to help himself and his business career.  On these issues of undue political influence and of importing foreign workers, Trump claimed on Thursday night that he was the one who could fix these systems because he knows them so well.  I suppose some might see this as making some sense, but I strongly disagree and think it really takes a lot of nerve for a candidate to try to turn participation in what he himself is deeming destructive behavior into a job qualification for the presidency.

Since Donald Trump has said that it is important to be flexible in order to get things done, he was asked in the debate about the issues to which he might apply such flexibility, and his answer was that it “depends what comes up.”  I don’t think this is particularly surprising, and, since he has changed his tune multiple times on most issues, not just over the years, but also during this campaign, I never would expect Trump to stick to any consistent policy position.  One wonders, though, why voters who do support him aren’t bothered by this.  Do they just ignore all of the evidence, including his own vows to be flexible, compromise, and make deals with people in Washington, to convince themselves that he’ll do the things they want him to do?  Are they as “flexible” on everything as he is?  Are they just inexplicably trusting that the great and powerful Trump’s eventual decisions will be the right ones, whatever they may be??

Trump clearly has a habit of saying whatever he thinks is necessary for advantage at a given moment, without regard for the truth or his prior statements.  At the debate, he was asked about past remarks he has made regarding the “strong” leadership of people like Vladimir Putin and those in the Chinese government who crushed the protest in Tiananmen Square, and he claimed that his use of the term “strong” didn’t mean that he was saying something good about these figures.  While I won’t suggest that Trump’s earlier comments actually expressed approval of all of the actions of Putin or the Chinese government, I think that everything we’ve seen and heard from him makes it clear that calling someone “strong” is indeed a positive appraisal from him.  And since, even in this context, Trump contrasted the strength of these foreign leaders with the lack of it he sees in our country, I don’t see how his answers on Thursday would do anything to diminish the concerns people have about his views of authoritarian figures in government.

Donald Trump was also asked about some violent incidents that have taken place at his campaign events recently and whether he thought he’d done anything to foster a climate that would make such things more likely.  Trump said that he hoped he hadn’t, but the moderator then read just a selection of quotes in which Trump had said he’d like to punch a protester in the face, suggested that the crowd should rough someone up and that he’d pay their legal fees if they did, and so on.  At that point, Trump briefly said something about some really “bad dudes” causing trouble at his rallies and then changed the subject to praising the police for providing security at his events and elsewhere -- an obvious attempt at distraction which still got some approval from the audience.   The comments that Trump has been making at his rallies may have been intended as just “tough guy” schtick, but he didn’t stop after physical altercations actually started taking place.  In any case, violence isn’t something to joke about, and voters shouldn’t reward a candidate who talks this way.

I must comment on the theme of Trump’s opening and closing statements.  He urged Republicans to embrace his candidacy and the dedicated support he has, claiming that he is bringing in many new voters to Republican primaries and caucuses.  Personally, I’m not  convinced of the wonderfulness of this alleged phenomenon, but that’s a topic for another time.  I did think it was amazingly bizarre, though, to hear Trump say that all of these newcomers love the Republican Party.  Huh?  One of the predominant characteristics of the movement to support Trump is distrust of and even hostility toward the Republican party, with many people even thinking that it would be a good thing if this campaign causes the destruction of the party as we’ve known it!  Anyone who really does love the party or the conservative movement should absolutely not  fall in line and meekly accept Trump as the Republican standard-bearer.

It seems that there is always more to say about the reasons Donald Trump should not be president, but I’ll move on for now to the other candidates for just a bit.  In Thursday’s debate, I’d say that all three of Trump’s opponents demonstrated that they are far more qualified than he is.  Senator Cruz had a good night, although I do think that he should not have just ignored Trump’s blunt assertions that Cruz had changed his position on ethanol and supported amnesty.  Cruz kept making the point that Trump does not offer real solutions for the problems the country faces, and in contrast, listed many of the things he would intend to do as president.   Cruz also took issue with Trump asking voters to pledge their support to him, saying that the candidates should instead be making commitments to support the people, which I thought was an effective point.  As for Marco Rubio, I thought that he did a great job in his hometown debate.  (Actually, I think that he did quite well in all of the debates, with just a few unfortunate minutes in New Hampshire and perhaps a bit too much cross-talk in Detroit when he was ill.)  Rubio pointed out problems with Trump’s approach to various matters, including Social Security and generalized statements about Islam, and offered his own plans and vision for America’s future.  Rubio also shared some personal stories and showed that he, unlike Trump, has detailed knowledge of issues, such as the history and status of the U.S. relationship with Cuba.  In response to a comment from Donald Trump, he also memorably stated that he is not interested in being “politically correct,” but he does want to be “correct.”  Senator Rubio has been in a very tough stretch lately (prompting me to share a defense of him last week,) so I was glad to see him shine under pressure on Thursday.

Commentary about these debates tends to be very contradictory and must be quite confusing for the candidates.  Many people said that the debate in Detroit was an embarrassment and lamented the negative tone of the campaign and the conflicts taking place among the candidates on stage, so, in Miami, there was an obvious effort to have more order and civility in the debate.  As a result, not only did many seem to find that things were rather boring, but some conservative commentators were frustrated that those pursuing Trump did not challenge him more often and directly.  So, one week the message is, “Oh, it’s so terrible that candidates are attacking each other during the debates!” and the next week it is, “Why didn’t those candidates attack the frontrunner?  They’re just letting him coast to victory!”  I’m all for the challengers taking on Trump, and I didn’t think the previous debates were as problematic as many others did, but what did anyone expect the candidates to do after receiving so much criticism last week?  Trump’s  opponents did challenge him about policy issues and statements that came up in the debate, which is probably all they really could do under the circumstances.  That really should be enough to show voters interested in substance that Trump should not be their choice, but I fear more forceful criticism of Trump and his record may have been necessary to even have a chance of overcoming the advantages he has in delegates, polling, and media coverage in this race.

Events that took place over the weekend, particularly the Chicago Trump rally canceled due to large numbers of protesters and the discussions this precipitated, may have a serious impact on the rest of the primary campaign.  I’d like to discuss some of these another time, but I hope that they don’t overcome thoughtful consideration of issues and qualifications (to whatever extent that is actually taking place) and tip things even more toward Donald Trump as we head into an extremely important election day on Tuesday.  What happens in Florida, Ohio, and the other states voting this week will play a huge part in determining the direction of the race going forward.  Starting Wednesday, I expect there may be plenty of reasons to reassess the situation, and I’ll share some more thoughts about different candidates and possible outcomes after that time.  For now, I can only hope and pray that the people in the upcoming primary states will suddenly realize that they should not vote for an unqualified, inconsistent, deceitful candidate whose primary concern is himself, and that they will instead help bring about the nomination of one of the superior remaining conservative candidates.  In all honesty, though, I’m afraid that it feels like we are just biding our time until the next round of depressing election results.  Please prove me wrong, America -- you still have the chance!

In Defense of Marco Rubio

While the past week was a pretty good one for Ted Cruz and (unfortunately) Donald Trump, this was quite a rough stretch for Marco Rubio.  Among other difficulties, during this time, he was seen to have a less than successful Super Tuesday, was blamed for contributing to the deterioration in the level of discourse in the race, was thought not to have performed strongly enough in the latest debate, and was encouraged by his opponents to leave the race after receiving very disappointing vote totals in all four of the contests on Saturday.  Ouch!  While things obviously could have gone better for Rubio, I think that some of the media coverage and some of the negative conclusions being drawn about him and the way his campaign is going might not be fully straightforward or accurate. 

Although Senator Rubio is my preferred candidate, I may have been a little tough on him here over the last couple of weeks, as I shared some constructive criticism.  So, I think I owe it to him to offer a little defense and encouragement now, and I’d like to start by taking a look at some of the events and topics that were important over the last week.

Super Tuesday

The week before Super Tuesday, polls did not look good for Senator Rubio.  In the last few days ahead of those contests, Rubio launched his aggressive new campaign to “unmask” Trump as a “con man.”  On Tuesday, Rubio’s results in the elections were considerably better than would have been predicted from the polls.  He was able to win Minnesota, come very close in Virginia, and be more competitive in other places as well.  Even though, going into Tuesday, Rubio had not been saying that he would win a bunch of states, but only that he expected to do well and pick up a sizable number of delegates, which he did, the focus of media coverage was on his lack of victories, especially because the contest he did win was decided later in the evening.  It’s understandable for the media to focus on the winners of the elections, but it seems that doing so didn’t necessarily reflect the progress that Rubio had made in gaining momentum and securing delegates, especially in a collection of states thought to be generally more favorable to other candidates.

Decorum (or lack thereof) in the Campaign

For a few days following the Texas debate, in addition to directing serious criticisms at Donald Trump, Senator Rubio also tossed a few comic insults into his remarks in answer to the way Trump tends to treat those with whom he interacts, and these drew significant media coverage.  Since then, it seems that most interviewers have wanted to ask Rubio why he chose to engage with Trump in insults and immature comments and whether he regrets doing so.  Some in the general and the conservative media have attributed responsibility to him along with Trump for the level of unseemliness to which this presidential campaign has sunk.  Now, I said last week that I thought Rubio needed to be careful about the personal insults to Trump and that he really shouldn’t have said a few of the things he did, but I think it is incredibly unfair to lump him in with Trump, as some seem to be doing, in terms of crude discourse and insults, etc.  The handful of jokes Rubio made over a few days hardly compare to Trump’s frequent attacks against opponents and many others throughout his entire campaign.  Also, some people seem to categorize every criticism of Trump as a personal attack, and I don’t think that is correct either.  For example, Rubio’s contention that Trump is attempting to con people into voting for him by presenting himself as something he is not is actually a real attempt to explain to voters why they should not trust Donald Trump or reward him with their votes.  In the past, conservatives have had an unfortunate tendency to quickly abandon like-minded politicians over the slightest perceived misstep, and I’m afraid there may be a bit of that happening in this situation, as well.

Detroit Debate 

At Thursday’s debate, Rubio had the misfortune of a hoarse voice (and an illness), which limited his ability to participate and be heard in exchanges with Donald Trump.  To me, while he was more serious and low key than on some other occasions, he still did a good job overall in the debate, challenging Trump once again about Trump University, a lack of interest in substantive policy, and so on, while also giving his own views about the dangers facing the world, the importance of the second amendment, etc.  Plus, his yoga jokes in response to a Trump/Cruz “conversation” were genuinely funny.  Some commenters thought that his performance wasn’t strong enough, though, and that perception can’t be helpful to him.

Related to the previous topic, it rather seems that Senator Rubio can’t win with his observers and critics.  In the past, when he has largely refrained from confronting other candidates on stage, this was noted as a weakness and deficiency in trying to win the primary, as he didn’t have a “killer instinct.”  When he recently took on Trump more forcefully and with a few humorous jabs, he was accused of helping bring the campaign’s tone down to an unacceptable level.  Now, when I would say he returned to a more restrained manner during the Detroit debate, he was described as flat or lackluster by some.  What is a candidate to do?  I guess this once again goes to show it would be best just to be yourself because you really can’t please all of the others offering their often fickle or contradictory commentary on your choices.  Of course, I may have been watching a completely different debate than others saw, because I was thoroughly confused when I read a piece that said Rubio had “climbed down into the mud pit to fight with Trump.”  I didn’t see that in this debate at all.  In fact, I thought Rubio seemed to be making a specific effort to keep things substantive most of the night.  If a few instances of trying to talk over Trump (a not uncommon occurrence in any of the debates), discussing things unfavorable to Trump (such as Trump University, making clothes outside the US, hiring foreign workers, etc.), and calling him “Big Don” in response to yet another “Little Marco” wisecrack constitute a dirty fight, I think we either need a new rule book or we may as well just tell the other candidates they need to just keep quiet and salute Donald Trump’s unimpeded march to the nomination.

Super Saturday (When did they start calling it that, by the way?)

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump each won two of the elections held on Saturday, and Donald Trump, for some reason, felt the need to call for Marco Rubio to exit the race.  I don’t know why Trump cares who else is still running, since, as he constantly reminds us, he is winning.  While Saturday’s states weren’t really expected to be strong ones for Rubio, it was rather surprising and disappointing to see that he didn’t even come close in any of them, receiving vote totals well below twenty percent and even finishing in fourth place in Maine.  Some commentary, including at National Review Online, included speculation about what it might be that had happened to hurt him so much at the voting booth:  the tone he’d taken toward Trump, his last debate performance, Trump belittling him, or something else.  There is no way to know what might influence voters, especially with the choices many have been making these days, but it seems to me that some of the suggested factors shouldn’t have led lots of voters to abandon Marco Rubio.  As I said earlier, I don’t think Rubio actually had a bad debate, although Ted Cruz probably had a better one, but some poor reviews can shape the public’s perceptions.  As for the “tone” issue, would the problem be a delayed negative reaction to the heckling from the previous week or a feeling that the rough treatment of Trump should have continued?  After a little more thought, I suppose that it is possible the (exaggerated, in my view) criticism and questions being directed in the media at Rubio for his brief foray into insulting rhetoric could have negatively impacted some people’s opinions of him, even if they didn’t have a problem with his actions before, but I hope this is not true for many and is not a long-lasting effect.  (On a side-note, I will admit that I sometimes wonder if the mainstream media may be more anxious to promote negative storylines about Rubio than objectivity and perspective might warrant.  He may not be a favorite to win the Republican nomination right now, but Democrats and their allies may well see him as a tough opponent to face in a general election.  As a result, I think they’d be all too happy if a few extra stories about his trouble with Chris Christie in the New Hampshire debate or people’s concerns about the tenor of campaign rhetoric could help to make sure that never happens.)

I’m still not sure how much weight to give the theories above, though.  After all, the same day these contests took place, Senator Rubio received a very warm and enthusiastic reception during his appearance at the CPAC convention.  Would that crowd still have embraced him that way if something had made many people in different parts of the country suddenly decide he was unworthy of their votes?  I’m certainly no expert political analyst, but I’ve wondered if some other forces might be at work.  Last week saw much discussion about the urgent need to stop Donald Trump from getting the nomination.  As many have said, by this point in most primary seasons, voters would be flocking to the frontrunner, but this isn’t happening this year because so many are opposed to Donald Trump.  Isn’t it possible that some voters have decided it’s time to rally around the acceptable, conservative, sane candidate with the most delegates at this point, and therefore voted for Ted Cruz?  This obviously would be terrible news for Rubio’s campaign prospects, but it would not reflect any glaring shortcoming on his part or indicate that voters are rejecting him personally or on merit.  Similarly, couldn’t a good number of voters also have decided to follow the suggestion offered by Mitt Romney and others to vote for whichever non-Trump candidate had the best chance to win a particular state, in these cases leading some who might otherwise have chosen Rubio to back Cruz instead?  I did read an article that touched on this latter possibility, but some of what it said concerned me quite a bit, as it mentioned some voters in the hugely important winner-take all state of Florida who, after seeing Rubio’s low vote totals this weekend, were thinking his chances of winning were not good and were considering shifting their votes to Cruz.  Since Cruz has been well behind Rubio in polling in Florida, decisions such as this from a group of voters would likely just make it far easier for Donald Trump to beat both Senators and scoop up Florida’s 99 delegates, which would certainly not be good for the anti-Trump effort.  I would say that, if any significant number of people are going to engage in strategic state-by-state voting to secure wins by non-Trump candidates, which might best be used in the winner-take-all states, those who can disseminate information definitely need to make sure that voters have relevant news about candidates most likely to succeed in each state.  Voters also need to be aware that such a strategy means that candidates who do not win a particular state will wind up losing by larger margins than they otherwise would.  So, observers of a day’s primary results won’t be able to make the types of judgments that might usually be formed about candidates gaining or losing momentum or their prospects in future contests with much accuracy.  With all of these things considered, I hope that voters inclined to support Marco Rubio will not give up on him yet, especially in his home state of Florida, where I’m sure a win would be particularly meaningful to him while also keeping a large number of delegates away from Donald Trump. 

Some Bright Spots

Even during a tough week, there were still some bright spots for Senator Rubio.  On Sunday, he won the Puerto Rico primary, securing all of the available delegates.  Also, as mentioned earlier, Rubio’s presentation at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) on Saturday was very well received, and deservedly so.  Watching the video of his speech reminded me once again of the reasons I liked him in the first place, and I would encourage those of you who haven’t already seen it to watch it here.

The current political climate and the unusual way the primary race has developed this year make it a steep uphill climb for Marco Rubio as he continues his quest for the nomination.  This may turn out to be someone else’s year, and, in that case, if he should be asked to serve the country in another capacity, such as Vice President or a Cabinet position, I hope that he will give it serious consideration, as I think he could be a very valuable member of an administration (not headed by Donald Trump, of course!)  Whatever happens, I would encourage the American public to look past the day to day sensational details of the campaign to see Marco Rubio’s good qualities, serious proposals, and optimistic outlook.  At his best, Senator Rubio has the ability to share inspiring messages about conservatism and America in a very personable and positive way, and that’s one of the reasons his supporters believe he would be such a good choice to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Note:  This is the second of two posts about the campaign this week.  The first may be found here.

Approaching the Precipice

Well, it’s been another all too interesting week in the bizarre world of Republican presidential primary politics.  Much has happened, with the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, yet another debate, and still more elections on Saturday, and I’ve had mixed reactions to many of these things.  Overall, I think that we have moved ever closer to crowning Donald J. Trump as king (oh, sorry, I meant nominee) of the Republican party, something which should fill reasonable people with dread.  I do see a couple of glimmers of hope that might indicate there is a chance, however slim, of a different result, but that may be wishful thinking.  Beyond that, though, I’ve found some of the week’s events and the reactions to them terribly discouraging in thinking about our society as a whole.

I may return to this point, but I think it’s important to look at some of these things in the proper perspective.  For example, looked at on their own, the Super Tuesday results were pretty bad for those of us opposed to Trump, since he won 7 of 11 states.  However, not that long ago, there was speculation that he might actually sweep all of the contests in dominating fashion.  Instead, Ted Cruz won his home state of Texas by a comfortable margin and also gained victories in Oklahoma and Alaska.  Marco Rubio was able to win in Minnesota, and the results in some other states were quite close.  (Sigh... If only Trump could have been defeated in those, as well...)  As a result, while Trump obviously got good press for so many wins, his challengers picked up a lot of delegates, too, and he is not in as commanding a position in the race as he might have been.  So, there is some reason to think the recently increased efforts to combat Trump may have made a difference and to hope it is still possible for someone else to wind up winning the nomination, but it is still a long shot.

During the week, there was increasing talk about possible scenarios that could defeat Donald Trump and about the growing number of Republicans saying they could never support him, even if he is the party’s nominee.  It’s terrible that we are even facing this prospect, and it would be nice if more people had fought to prevent Trump’s success long ago, but I’m still glad that many people are not just accepting and rallying around the frontrunner.  On Thursday, Mitt Romney gave a speech listing many of the reasons Donald Trump should not be president and expressing hope that Republicans will yet choose another nominee.  I need no convincing on these matters, of course, but I think Romney made many good points.  Unfortunately, I don’t know how many people would be persuaded by his remarks, since the people disposed to support Trump are also likely to dismiss Romney as just part of the “establishment” and, as Trump does, as a “loser.”  As a side note, I’d just like to say that I think Romney has been treated rather unfairly by many on the right, and it’s my opinion that one of the reasons he lost to Obama was the failure of Republicans and conservatives to have his back at different points during the campaign.  It’s interesting, as well, that many of those who found Romney to be an unsuitable Republican nominee because of an insufficiently conservative past record, changes of position, etc. or who didn’t like him because he was an unrelatable rich businessman are now perfectly happy to support Donald Trump, even though all of these factors apply to Trump to a much greater degree.  Of course, Romney, who was seen as too boring and polite, is also a good person, while Trump, the supposedly entertaining “fighter,” is not, and I think it’s a shame that so many people seem to prefer the current candidate to the former.

I gather that many people found Thursday night’s debate to be a particular lowlight for the entire Republican party, but I just saw it as yet another occasion on which Donald Trump showed once again why he is so obviously unfit to be president.  In addition to bringing his vulgarity to a new low, he also put on a dizzying display of inconsistency, egotism, shallowness, and dishonesty.  Regarding temporary visas for high-skilled foreign workers, he declared that he was changing his position from the opposition stated on his campaign website because “we need highly skilled people in this country,” a view he’d also expressed in one of the early debates last year.  Later that night, his campaign put out another statement retracting the earlier position reversal and taking a tough line about visas and their abuse.  (It must be difficult for his staff and advisors to keep track of Mr. Trump’s ever-shifting positions on various issues and to try to clean up after he makes so many problematic statements, but I can’t say that I have any sympathy for those choosing to work for his campaign.)  When asked about an off the record interview he did with the New York Times editorial board, rumored to contain material that might call his tough campaign immigration pronouncements into question, he said that he wouldn’t ask the paper to release the tape of the session, but he did express, more than once, the need for flexibility on different positions, including his supposedly signature issue of immigration, in order to get things done.  Trump’s answers continued to be nearly free of policy and knowledge.  When he was asked to discuss important things like foreign policy or the Supreme Court, his main response was to call his opponents names like “Little Marco” or “Lying Ted.”  The only things he seemed to want to discuss in detail were his numbers in various polls -- but, naturally, not the ones showing him losing to Hillary Clinton in the general election.  In addition to trying to explain away contradictory statements made during the campaign and shown in video clips by the moderators, Trump continued to lie outright about multiple topics from the poor Better Business Bureau rating received by Trump University to denying he’d said positive things about Vladimir Putin.  His arrogance knows no bounds, as he claimed that he deserved sole credit for increasing participation in Republican primaries and declared that the military would not refuse to follow orders he would give, even those related to his stated (illegal) intention to kill family members of suspected terrorists.  (Once again, the day after the debate, we heard a different tune in a release from Trump’s campaign, saying that he wouldn’t issue orders that would violate international law, etc., but, since he’s been sticking to the opposite position for months, I see no reason to accept a reversal now as resolving the issue and making everything OK.)  In summary, Trump presented anyone paying the least bit of attention overwhelming evidence that should disqualify him from consideration for their vote, but the really sad thing is the (probably true) assumption many of us have that, for a very large group of people who support him, none of this will make any difference whatsoever, and he will remain the overwhelming frontrunner in the race.  What does that say about American society today?  Nothing good.

I wouldn’t criticize the overall debate performances of the other candidates, and I appreciated that Senators Cruz and Rubio once again challenged Trump and avoided attacking each other.  It was definitely not pleasing to hear all of Trump’s opponents say that, in the end, they would support him if he does become the nominee, but it wasn’t unexpected.  After all, as Cruz said, they all pledged months ago to support the eventual nominee.  I thought this was unwise at the time, and I think there has to be some point at which such a promise is not the highest consideration, but I won’t hold it against Trump’s challengers now.

Four more states held their caucuses or primaries on Saturday, and the results held both good and bad news.  I consider it a positive any time Donald Trump does not win a state, so I was glad to see that Ted Cruz won in Kansas and Maine.  On the negative side, though, Trump still did win in Louisiana and Kentucky, giving him more things to brag about.  Also, while it’s encouraging that Trump won his states by a margin of only a few points, it is also troubling that he did receive over 40 percent of the vote.  (I guess anti-Trumpers may need to adjust the claim that 65% or more of Republican voters don’t want him as the nominee...)  His level of support seems to actually be increasing, at least in some places, and he is still winning states even as he continues to say and do outrageous things that would not have been accepted from any other candidates in the past, and despite accelerated attempts to make the case against him to the voters.  Again, I’m afraid this does not speak well of the public right now.

Each upcoming primary will play an important part in either bringing us ever closer to the dangerous brink of a Donald Trump nomination or keeping the possibility of a far better outcome alive.  There are a few more contests this week, before the stakes get even higher on March 15 with large states each awarding all of their delegates to the winners.  As long as there is still a chance that Trump can be stopped, I’ll hold out hope that his opponents will work as hard as they can to defeat him and that voters will realize he is not the person who should be president.  The situation does look bad now, but if things had gone more as predicted this past week, it could have been even worse.  I don’t think anyone knows what will happen next, but it does seem clear that those of us distressed by the Trump phenomenon won’t be able to rest easy any time soon.

Note:  I’m splitting my comments this week into two separate, but somewhat related, posts.  The second post is now  available here.

Desperate Times, Desperate Measures

Well, in the last week or so, there have definitely been quite a few noteworthy developments in the Republican presidential primary race.  These recent events have led me to a couple of conclusions, one definite and the other hopefully premature.  First, I can at least say that the apprehension I’ve felt about the contest for many months was not unwarranted.  That’s small consolation, though, because, if I were a stock character in a comic strip or cartoon right  now, I’d be the person walking around with a sign proclaiming that “The End is Near!”  Things do not look at all good for those of us horrified by the prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, and I’m almost to the point of resigned despair.  Even though only four states have voted so far, it seems that a result other than a Trump victory will require a near-miraculous turnaround -- picture, for example, your favorite baseball team being down 15-0 after the first few innings while facing an opponent with a pitching staff on a winning streak and an approaching rainstorm that threatens to cut the game short.  While it’s possible your team could pull out an improbable win as long as the game continues, it’s certainly not something you can expect is likely to happen.

Why has my pessimism increased so much as February has gone on?  Donald Trump, who, to my mind, no sensible person would consider a suitable president for one second, has now won three primary/caucus elections in a row, all by very large margins.  According to polls, he did very well in those states among many different subsets of the electorate, including people describing themselves as evangelical or even as “very conservative”.  Now, in some of those cases, if the voters are not playing games with the data collectors to make their guy look even more widely appealing than he (bizarrely) is, I think they are rather confused in their self-perceptions -- there is nothing “very conservative” about Mr. Trump.  In Nevada, Trump’s percentage of the vote was up to 46%, which was not only more than his two closest competitors (Senators Rubio and Cruz) received together, but was also getting perilously close to the 50% mark.  I understand that Nevada has a rather chaotic and unusual caucus process and does seem like a state particularly suited to support a TV-star/casino businessman with a rather glitzy persona, but these numbers are still very troubling.

How long will we be able to even cling for minimal comfort to the notion that a majority of the primary voters want someone other than Trump, so that, in theory at least, another candidate could win if this majority were to consolidate its support behind one non-Trump choice?  Donald Trump has been leading in the polls in many of the upcoming states already, and it seems that candidates who win early primaries usually gain even more support in later contests, as voters may be influenced to prefer the frontrunner by the positive coverage of him winning and giving victory speeches, may want to get on the bandwagon of the likely winner, or may think it’s in the best interest of their party for the general election if the eventual nominee has early and convincing support in the primaries.  It is also not necessarily the case that everyone who prefers another candidate now is also actually against Trump.  Some may have him as a second choice or be just fine with him being the nominee, so he would most likely gain some of the votes if the field should narrow at some point.  Add to these factors the apparently immovable support many of Trump’s fans have for him, as they are not deterred from championing him no matter what he says or does, and the unfortunate tendency the other candidates have had to largely avoid confronting or criticizing Trump while beating up on each other regularly, and it has seemed difficult to feel very confident that things in the race will change dramatically enough for a candidate other than Trump to have much of a realistic chance to win the nomination.

None of this means that I think anyone should give up the effort to secure a real conservative, or at least authentically Republican, nominee.  To the contrary, I hope that everyone who thinks this is important will do whatever they can to make it happen until the nomination is officially decided.

So, when I watched Thursday night’s debate in Texas, I was pleasantly  surprised to see Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz make a concerted effort to challenge Donald Trump.  Cruz stepped up the criticisms he’s been making the last few weeks, pointing out that Trump is hardly the best candidate for Republicans to send up against Hillary Clinton in the fall, since he has shared many of the same liberal positions and even donated to the Clinton Foundation.  Rubio, who hadn’t really taken Trump on very much before, went after him on a multitude of topics, pointing out that, while a major theme of Trump’s campaign has been toughness on immigration and bringing back American jobs, Trump had hired illegal workers to build his Trump Tower in the past and now brings in foreign workers on visas for his resort in Florida instead of hiring Americans.  He also brought up the complaints and lawsuits against Trump University and the bankruptcies Trump’s companies have been through.  On health care, Rubio kept pressing Trump to explain his plan, which not only demonstrated that Trump really doesn’t have one other than removing “lines around the states” to promote competition, but also allowed Rubio to zing Trump for repeating himself over and over again, something that hurt Rubio in New Hampshire and that Trump was still using against him.  On issue after issue, from Trump’s statement that he’d be “neutral” in the Israel/Palestinian conflict to his praise for the work of Planned Parenthood, Trump faced criticism from both sides, and at one point he even complained that the moderators were asking him too many questions, quite the opposite of most candidates who practically beg for more time to speak.  As an added bonus for me, the amount of attention Senators Rubio and Cruz gave to taking on Donald Trump also meant that they took somewhat of a break from their recent battles with each other, with only a couple of remarks pointing out conflicts between them.

The attempt to catch up to Trump did not end with the conclusion of the debate, either.  Since then, Cruz has kept making his points about the need for a conservative nominee to contrast with the Democrats and about Trump’s weak position in general election polling so far, and Rubio has cranked up his assault on Trump, not only attacking his record on illegal immigrants, bankruptcy, etc. and calling him a “con man” who isn’t really the person he’s presented to voters, but also sort of taking a page from Trump’s book to make fun of him for his Twitter misspellings, rattled behavior backstage at the debate, and pretty much anything else available.

As someone who has been passionately anti-Trump from the beginning, I am glad that his opponents aren’t going to just quietly give up and concede the nomination to him at this point and have instead stepped up their efforts against him and even tried some dramatically new tactics.  I do, of course, have to wonder with exasperation why everyone didn’t make some of these obvious points (Trump is a liberal with a spotty record even on things like business and immigration that are supposed to be his strengths) months and months ago, and why they didn't feel it was imperative until recently to make the case that he should not be the conservative Republican standard-bearer.  But it’s better now than never, so I can only hope that it’s not too late to stop Trump’s momentum and prevent him from winning the nomination.  I’m not getting my hopes up, though, and I do have a couple of new thoughts and concerns related to the events of the last few days.

Even though it seemed pretty clear to me that Donald Trump had a tough night in the last debate, who knows how it will be perceived by his supporters and the general public.  Trump did get in a couple of good lines and later claimed that polls showed him winning the debate.  (I don’t know if he made that up completely or if these polls were conducted at Trump campaign headquarters...)  As we’ve seen before, Trump’s fans are usually not swayed by anything said against or by him.  Some people may be hoping that making him appear as less of the dominant strong “alpha male” on the stage might start to weaken the devotion of his voters, but they may just dig in even more firmly when they see their guy under attack.  As for other viewers who may still be undecided or even newly tuning in to the campaign, will all of the criticism aimed at Trump have registered and made them unlikely to support him, or could it be possible that they might either have tuned out the unruly portions of the debate or have actually felt some sympathy for the candidate facing so much fire?  If I had to speculate, I would say that I wouldn’t count on the new flood of criticism aimed at Trump pulling more than a few casual supporters away from him, but I’d think we could hope a number of late-deciding voters in upcoming states who might otherwise have chosen to go with Trump will have reason to make a different selection instead.

Based on what happened at the debate, I’d offer a couple of suggestions to Donald Trump’s opponents for future events.  While it’s good that that they didn’t let his responses or interruptions distract them from making their intended points against him, I think they shouldn’t have allowed some of the things he said to go unanswered.  They could have briefly addressed these things and then continued with the case they intended to make.  For instance, Trump said multiple times that the other men on the stage had never hired anyone.  Surely this isn’t true, since they have obviously at least hired staff for their various campaigns.  Also, Trump claimed that Ted Cruz should apologize for criticizing Trump’s sister’s judicial rulings and suggested that Samuel Alito had agreed with her about one of the cases in question (by “signing the same bill!”)  I really wish Cruz would have begun his answer by, first, pointing out that judges don’t sign bills, but also briefly explaining why Trump’s sister’s opinion was objectionable and why Alito’s was not the same.  Also, while I’ve read some commentary from people who felt Wolf Blitzer cut the confrontational debate exchanges too short and thereby helped bail Trump out, I disagree.  Once there have been a couple of back and forth statements and rebuttals, it’s really best to move on to the next question.  Continued, often repetitive, arguing about the same point is not pretty or likely to influence viewers in a good way, I think, and the other participants on the stage do deserve some time to speak, as well.  Plus, it’s nice to have some substance in these debates, and it would be nice to have as much time to actually discuss policy and viewpoints as possible, which leads into my last related comment.  Both at the debates and in general, I’d advise those challenging Trump not to let him become their sole focus, but to also make sure they are prepared to highlight and defend their own messages every chance they get.  At one point, Senator Rubio was asked about the ongoing conflict between Apple and the FBI.  I’ve seen him discuss the issue in multiple interviews, and I thought the question that was posed to him mischaracterized what he’s said.  While the answer he gave was OK and reflected some newer developments in the case, I thought he could have done a clearer job of explaining what his position has been and is on the matter, and I wondered if perhaps he might have been so much in “anti-Trump” mode that he had a tough time switching his attention to something else.  For the campaigns as a whole going forward, it’s always important to make the case for one’s own candidacy.  Telling people why they shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump is important, but giving them reasons to vote for you is necessary, too.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am generally against inter-party negativity and attacks.  In the case of Donald Trump, however, it seems to me that someone whose views really make him more suited to being a Democrat or an Independent has chosen instead to seek the Republican nomination and has also been particularly destructive in doing so, attacking not only his opponents in this race, but also previous Republican candidates, former President George W. Bush, and positions widely held by Republicans.  For these reasons, I think that treating Trump more as one would a general-election opponent in order to prevent the defeat or destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement as we know them is justified.  However, that does not mean that we should completely take an “anything goes” approach in going after the frontrunner.  Attacking his record of unsound liberal positions, outrageous statements, and not always stellar business results is great, as are hammering home the points that he really doesn’t have detailed policies to offer the public or a very good understanding of many of the things he would need to deal with as president.  Anything at all relating to issues, policies, and record is fair game.  I realize that more measured criticism hasn’t worked to this point, and the use of more personal jabs and insults seems to draw greater media coverage that could help get the message out to a larger number of people, but I think considerable caution should be exercised in this regard.  After all, the unpleasant vulgar and insulting tendencies Trump has displayed throughout his campaign are part of the reason many of us consider Trump undeserving of the nomination or the presidency.  If others stoop to his level, and I’m not saying that they have gotten to that point so far, it would make it difficult to make that argument against him or to feel great about the alternative candidates.  Since Trump is the one who started taking the tone of the race in a petty and negative direction, I don’t think giving him a little of his own medicine is unfair, but I hope his opponents will be careful not to cross the line into becoming mini-Trumps themselves.

On that note, I’ll make a couple of comments specifically about Senator Rubio.  From what I’ve seen over the last few days, he’s been pretty effective at bashing Donald Trump while still seeming fairly good humored, but I’m a little worried about his new tactics anyway, for a couple of reasons.  Much of his material about Trump is amusing, and most of it is fairly harmless.  Especially since Trump likes to call people “dumb,” I don’t think it’s wrong to point out spelling mistakes in things he sends out on Twitter, and, while making fun of his tan is rather irrelevant, that itself is not a terrible thing to say.  Still, a few of the things Rubio has said at his recent rallies have made me rather uncomfortable, including an age-related remark and some comments inspired by Trump having recently said he’d like to have punched a protester in the face.  I can see criticizing Trump for having said something threatening like that, but Rubio’s comments instead seemed to mock Trump because he wouldn’t actually follow through on hitting someone.  I understand that the overall point of Rubio’s Trump monologue was to show that Trump is not really the guy he purports to be, so this was presumably intended as a way to say that Trump only talks tough, but I think it kind of implied that we should prefer it if our candidates actually did go around assaulting protesters, and I don’t think that’s good.  So, I just would advise Senator Rubio to really think about some of these things before including them in his public comments, and I do hope he’ll turn the personal insults down at least a few notches.  He may be aiming for the humor of a late-night talk show host rather than the mean-spirited bullying we’ve often seen from Donald Trump, but I think he may have started down a dangerous path.  (Please don’t give in to the Dark Side, Senator!)  Just last Thursday, one of his campaign e-mails reiterated that he wants to run a positive campaign with integrity, and I very much want to believe him, so I’d hate to see him do things he might regret in the long run or have a tough time explaining to his four lovely children.  Besides all of that, I wonder how voters will react to the “new” Marco Rubio.  The old, mainly positive and optimistic version pretty much won me over and seemed to be having some success gaining the support of late-deciding voters recently.  Will Rubio be able to add the votes of some people who appreciate the new aggressiveness he’s showing or who might otherwise have chosen Trump without sacrificing any of the support he’d have had before?  We’ll have to see, but he definitely should make sure to keep promoting his own policy ideas and good qualities in addition to pointing out the flaws and problematic positions of the candidate everyone is chasing.

Of course, I must note that Mr. Trump has not been sitting idly by the last few days.  In addition to hitting back at his opponents, he has also been collecting endorsements from prominent Republican elected officials, including the somewhat moderate New Jersey Governor and former presidential candidate Chris Christie and, depressingly, conservative Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  Before Christie left the race a few weeks ago, he had less than positive things to say about a Trump nomination, so it is interesting that he made such a quick decision to jump on board with Trump.  As for Sessions, I still cannot see how anyone who really believes in conservatism can prefer to support Trump, and his decision to publicly do so must have been like a dagger to the heart of Ted Cruz, who has heaped Sessions with praise during his campaign.  (I feel for you Senator Cruz.  You deserve better.)  Why are these politicians choosing to endorse Trump now?  It’s bad enough that there’s been talk that, rather than trying to help someone else win, some Republican officials have been resigning themselves to the notion of Trump becoming the party’s nominee, but now these endorsers are actually trying to speed up the process of making that terrible outcome a reality.  Why on earth do they want to do that??  Sigh...  People really do seem to have gone crazy.

Super Tuesday is almost here, and those primaries and caucuses will tell us a lot about the future of this race.  If Donald Trump dominates in most (or even -- shudder -- all) of the states, especially if he gets fairly large percentages of the votes, it may show us that he’s probably going to continue to do so and will be extremely difficult to stop from claiming the nomination.  If his percentages seem to be a little lower than in recent polls or in the last couple of states, maybe, just maybe, the ramped up movement to stop him will have had some effect, and we can hope that a continuation of the effort can eventually wear down his support to the point where another preferable candidate can defeat him.  I’m keeping my fingers crossed for some hint of good news on Tuesday night, but I still fear the worst.