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.

Cruz, Ryan, and the Stampede to Trump

With the way things had been developing in the Republican presidential contest in recent weeks, lndiana’s primary on May 3 seemed like it might be the last real chance for those hoping to prevent a Trump nomination to turn things around.  Before the vote, most polls suggested that Trump was in the lead, possibly by a rather wide margin, over Senator Cruz, who really needed to do well to revive his campaign’s hopes, so the situation did not look promising.  By that Tuesday afternoon, I realized that Indiana felt very much like a repeat of Florida to me.  Back then, Marco Rubio, my candidate at the time, desperately needed to win in Florida to maintain any chance in the race, but polling, overall, indicated that Trump would almost certainly prevail.  As a supporter, while I definitely hoped that the polls had been wrong or that something would change voters’ minds at the last minute, I still expected the worst.  Of course, Trump did win easily in Florida, and Senator Rubio left the race that night.  And in Indiana, alas, there was no big, last-minute upset victory for Ted Cruz.  In fact, there were even more similarities to the Florida situation than I would have thought, because Ted Cruz unexpectedly suspended his campaign when the Indiana results came in.  With John Kasich doing the same the next day, Donald Trump was the only candidate left standing and the “presumptive nominee.”  Even though it most likely wouldn’t have affected the eventual outcome, in my view, it would have been preferable if someone had stayed in the race at least until Trump actually earned 1237 delegates.  You never know if something drastic might happen to alter the situation (such as Trump testing out his hypothesis that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing supporters,) but, in any case, people in the remaining states who do not support Trump would have at least had an active candidate for whom they could vote.  I can understand, though, that it would be tough to keep campaigning, dealing with negative media stories, and facing attacks from Trump and his supporters if you don’t really see any chance of success to make it seem worthwhile.  Ted Cruz was a very worthy candidate and went through some tough times during this race, and I wish him well as he continues to serve in the Senate.

It’s unfortunate, but the voters of America keep finding ways to disappoint me this year.  A few weeks ago, after Ted Cruz decisively won the Wisconsin primary, I mentioned that I was concerned about polls showing people really didn’t want to have a contested convention and that a majority of respondents thought the nominee should be the candidate with the most delegates, even if it was not a majority.  Well, it would seem that the views reflected in these polls were held by quite a few people and did indeed harm the anti-Trump movement.  While one would have hoped that Trump’s continued obnoxious behavior and outrageous statements would have motivated more people to seek to stop him and to choose another candidate, it seems that the opposite happened instead.  Voters apparently heard Trump’s whining and complaining about the rules and delegate selection processes and sided with him -- deciding that somehow Ted Cruz’ knowledge of the rules and success at getting friendly delegates elected was somehow a bad thing or even cheating.  As for Trump’s insistence that he was essentially entitled to the nomination, even if he didn’t get the required delegate majority, because he would have the highest number, and his related assertions that Cruz was not a viable candidate once he no longer had a shot at reaching 1237 delegates?  Well, despite the long-standing rules, voters seem to have agreed with Trump’s claims and/or not wanted to deal with the potential trouble he and his spokespeople “suggested” might happen at the convention and elsewhere if Trump were denied the nomination.  They voted for Trump in increasing numbers in the last several states, not only in the Northeastern contests which he was always expected to win, but also in the heartland state of Indiana, which finally snuffed out any hope of a better GOP nominee.  (The “momentum” generated by Trump’s big win in New York -- his liberal home state -- and the media’s heavy promotion of that notion probably contributed quite a bit to this trend.)  Sigh...

Then, of course, as soon as Donald Trump became the presumed nominee, more and more Republicans, including former critics, started announcing their support for Trump, with varying levels of enthusiasm or reluctance.  I will have more to say about this unfortunate development at another time, but for now, I’d like to focus on one prominent party leader who did not  immediately join the stampede to back Trump -- Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.

(On a side note, I found it interesting that Paul Ryan expressed some surprise that we had arrived at the “presumptive nominee” point of the race so quickly.  He had thought that the competition would have lasted at least through the June primaries, if not all the way to the convention.  Until quite recently, many thought that would be the case, but, alas, some voters were extremely eager to nominate Trump.)

Especially considering Paul Ryan’s previous attempts to avoid weighing in much on the primary race and his prominent roles as House Speaker and chairman of the upcoming convention, I was a little surprised when I first learned that Ryan had taken the stance that he was not currently on board with announcing support for Donald Trump.  I was glad to hear it, though, because it was important for someone to make the point that Trump has not been representing conservative or Republican ideas and principles and that the party’s nominee should be expected to do so.  Ryan did say, though, that he wants to support the nominee but isn’t there yet, indicating that he most likely will eventually back Trump.  Still, the predictable response from Trump and some of his fans was to overreact and attack Ryan, with Sarah Palin even suggesting that this would end Ryan’s career as she vowed to help his challenger win this year’s primary race for his House seat.  Many people seem to believe that Paul Ryan (and presumably every Republican) owes blind, unquestioning, immediate allegiance to the new supposed “leader” or standard-bearer -- isn’t that really the sort of principle-ignoring action the so-called “anti-establishment” folks were supposed to be angry about??  I would think that the criticism directed at Ryan, along with some comments from Trump and his camp asserting that he doesn’t need (or even want) all Republicans to unify behind him in order to win, might actually make it more difficult for Ryan to shift his position on Trump while giving a rational explanation.  Trump so far doesn’t seem interested in running, as Ryan hoped, a “campaign Republicans can be proud of” -- unless shifting more positions to the left, belittling anyone who doesn’t bow down to him, and suggesting that the entire nation should follow his financial example by failing to honor our debts makes GOP hearts swell with pride these days.  Paul Ryan is in a tough situation, but I applaud him for at least temporarily stepping back from the wave of misguided “party loyalty” sweeping so many Republicans into the Trump camp.  Not that he asked, of course, but it would be fine with this constituent if Ryan did not “come around” to expressing support for Trump.  I’m sure that Ryan has plenty of Congressional business and elections to work on and discuss should he choose to avoid further comment about the presidential contest.

Of course, there’s not much chance of that happening, and efforts to try to bridge the gap between Trump and Ryan have already begun.  From what I’ve read and heard about the meeting the two men had this past week, I’m a little concerned about the way this discussion process may play out and the effects that it might have.  One account said that Ryan had explained basic principles of conservatism and their importance and that Trump was receptive to listening.  Once again, I was struck by the absurdity of the predicament we are now in.  Donald Trump is set to be the presidential nominee of the Republican party and has been running for the office for almost a year.  Yet, he still  needs elementary lessons in conservative beliefs like limited government, separation of powers, the right to life, etc.?  Heaven help us all...

That notion is bad enough, but other matters related to the conversation seem to come from an alternate reality.  The joint statement issued by Trump and Ryan afterward is one example.  It sounded more Trumpy than Ryan-like, containing generalities that minimized divisions within the party rather than presenting any evidence of resolutions regarding matters of substance.  When the statement and RNC chairman Reince Priebus referred to the “few differences” between Trump and Ryan, I’d expect that many of us simply didn’t believe the phrase was accurate.  But, if people did believe it were true, I think it would more likely make them think less of Ryan than reassure them about Trump!  To hear the Speaker himself talking about how positive it is that Trump has brought in so many new voters to the party, claiming that Trump had a “good personality” in their meeting, and saying that he believes he and Trump share some core conservative principles (concerning the Constitution, executive overreach, etc.) around which the party can unify this fall was rather painful.  The “new voters” issue is a common Trump talking point and may not necessarily be a good thing if it means people who’ve tended to vote for Democrats are opting this time for someone who’s running as a Republican because his views are really more those of a liberal Democrat.  And, while Trump may have managed to be nice to Ryan for a short time (when he wanted something from him), we’ve seen plenty of evidence over the years to show us the truly unpleasant nature of Trump’s insulting, bullying, and self-centered personality.  As for the matters of principle listed, the statements that Trump has made during the campaign about things he would intend to do have made it clear that he is not particularly concerned about the Constitution and the limits it places on executive powers.  He might complain about some things Obama has done, but he seems to envision an extremely powerful role for himself should he become President.  Ryan has stated that the party needs to have real, not fake, unity, so I’m concerned that he seems to be saying things about Trump that are not true, no matter how much Ryan would like them to be.  I certainly don’t think we need the ultimate result of Ryan’s substance-related reservations about Trump to be a final stamp of approval “verifying” to the public that Trump adheres to conservative ideals that he in truth does not.  If Paul Ryan wants to give his support to Trump, he can and should find reasons for doing so that do not mislead the voters and further increase the likelihood of Trump’s nomination distorting or destroying the conservative movement and its reputation, results I am confident the Speaker wishes to avoid.

Now, Paul Ryan did say that this meeting was only the first step in a process to work towards true party unity, and he doesn’t seem at this point to be in any rush to say that all of his concerns have been alleviated so that he can fully support Trump.  I appreciate that, as it helps to -- for now -- maintain at least a little distance between Trump and the Republican party as a whole, so that members, particularly conservatives, can still reasonably point out that they do not agree with all of Trump’s comments and positions.  Again, I don’t think it would be a bad thing if Speaker Ryan’s unification process remained ongoing all the way through the election.  However, I suppose that, all too soon, most remaining resistance among Republican officials to the not-so-charming reality show host will fade away, and the Trumpian takeover of the party will be complete.  At least until then, I’d like to offer my support and encouragement to Speaker Ryan for his efforts to keep reminding everyone about the things for which the Republican party and conservatism have traditionally stood -- ideas and beliefs that are far more important than big rallies, good poll numbers, or high TV ratings.

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.

Voters Have Been Wrong to Support Trump: Reasons Others Should Make a Better Choice

The ongoing spectacle of the presidential primaries has proven to be a never-ending source of consternation and disbelief.  The candidates for the Democratic nomination are fighting over which of them can most emphatically promise to ignore immigration laws and give away the most “free stuff,” and it would of course be absolutely awful if either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were to follow Barack Obama as president and lead this country even further down the path to left-wing oblivion.  And yet, I really haven’t been able to spare much time or attention to even worry about the dangers posed by the Democrats because of the more immediate crisis on the Republican side, where an absolutely unfit and unconservative candidate is on the verge of becoming the nominee and supposed leader of the party.  It may be a  hopeless cause, but, until this officially happens, I believe that working to stop Trump and to secure the nomination for a far-better candidate is absolutely imperative.

We hear a lot about the anger and frustration with the government and the direction of the country that is supposed to be driving many people to support Donald Trump’s candidacy. Well, I also believe that we need to change course in many ways, including by moving away from the liberal policies that have increasingly been adopted by our government.  One of the most important steps necessary to allow this shift to happen is to stop electing liberal Democrats to the presidency and instead choose someone with conservative principles and ideas.  The opportunity to select a new president obviously only comes along every four years, and, unfortunately, Republicans seem to be at a disadvantage in these national elections, as a majority of voters prefer to elevate people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to the highest office in the land.  This year’s presidential contest, though, seemed to offer a much better chance for Republicans, as they could expect to face a Democratic nominee who does not enjoy the (undeserved) adulation and personal popularity of these men.  In addition, the large field of Republican candidates entering the race was incredibly impressive, filled with many admirable current and former officeholders.  And yet, at this crucial time, a sizable contingent of voters has decided to do its best to throw away this real opportunity to send a conservative to the White House by giving its devoted support to a completely unqualified and unconservative demagogue who has himself agreed with liberals for most (if not all) of his life.  As a result, it would be difficult for me to overstate how dismayed and frustrated I am with them.  If they are so convinced that Republican politicians are unwilling or unable to work toward solving any problems and have “betrayed” them, they were free to form their own Trumpophile party to try to win the election.  They have chosen instead to try to take over the Republican party while abandoning many of it’s core beliefs, and it is up to those of us who do not approve of this transformation, including whatever really exists of the party structure itself, to resist and fight back however we can.

Much of the conversation lately has focussed on what might happen at the national convention this summer if no candidate has secured a majority of delegates.  Donald Trump and his team have been complaining about the rules and processes when they don’t work to his advantage, as well as asserting that the nomination should be his if he simply has the most delegates, even if he doesn’t reach the total required for a majority.  This self-serving bluster, along with the threats and intimidation that Trump and his supporters are also attempting to use to pressure delegates and the party to hand him the nomination, should be dismissed and should certainly not influence anyone to decide in Trump’s favor.  If anything, these tactics are more evidence that Trump would not be a deserving nominee -- I can’t see how making a whining bully the standard-bearer for one’s party could possibly be the best option.  It should constantly be reinforced to the public and the delegates that a decision to select someone other than the frontrunner as the nominee would be perfectly legitimate at a contested convention, and I would urge them to make another choice should that situation arise.

Before any of these discussions can be relevant, though, the results of the entire slate of primaries and caucuses need to conclude with Donald Trump still short of the 1237 pledged delegates that he would need to secure the nomination.  With his big win in New York last week and more friendly-state primaries this Tuesday, I worry that media coverage and public perception, along with Trump’s inexplicably devoted base of support, may give him the momentum to keep racking up victories the rest of the way and to, as a result, gain the delegate majority required to become the nominee.  Whether or not this happens is up to the voters in the upcoming states, who will have to make better choices than their counterparts in many of the prior contests in order to give Republicans any chance of escaping the gloomy fate of a Trump nomination.  There are so very many seemingly obvious reasons that Republican voters should reject Donald Trump that it is baffling for approximately 40% of them to have embraced him instead.  One can only address a fraction of the problems with Trump at any one time, and it often seems that the public may not care to consider these factors, but we have to at least try again to convince voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, California, and all of the other places that have yet to vote to turn away from Trump and select a true Republican instead.

So, let’s review just a sampling of Donald Trump’s fault’s in a few categories, shall we?

Character Flaws/Ethical Issues

Perhaps we’re not supposed to care about many of these things, but I do, so we’ll get them out of the way first.  Trump is a rude, obnoxious man with an extremely overinflated ego who resorts to insulting everyone from his opponents to party leaders to even the voters if they do anything he doesn’t like.  As a presidential candidate, he has mocked war heroes, disabled people, his rival’s wife, journalists, and many others.  Voters should not fool themselves into thinking that he truly cares about them and their interests -- Trump does what is best for himself, even if it results in negative consequences for others.  (I guess I shouldn’t mention the way he treated his wives and bragged about having many affairs with married women, but I think these are relevant examples.)  Trump thinks the bankruptcies in several of his companies are not a problem -- after all, he used the laws to make sure that he didn’t come out of tough business situations too badly, and it’s just tough luck for the creditors, contractors, and other “little guys” that were hurt in bailing him out.  If Trump can use his famous name to get people to pay lots of money for very little information from Trump University or to get involved in a supplement-selling pyramid-type scheme like the Trump Network, why wouldn’t he?  And, what could be wrong with trying to use eminent domain powers to take an elderly woman’s property for a casino parking lot?  While Trump now tells us that he blames illegal immigration, foreign workers, and companies that move jobs overseas for many of the economic struggles and concerns of Americans, he himself has been fined for using illegal labor and even now brings in workers on visas for his resorts and has his clothing products manufactured in other countries rather than employing Americans.  In addition, as mentioned above, Trump and his campaign have been trying to use intimidation to ensure that he gets the Republican nomination, suggesting that riots might break out if he is denied and that the hotel rooms of delegates who might not vote for him should be revealed so that Trump supporters could “discuss” the issue with them.  None of these personality traits or behaviors seem to be things one would particularly want in a president, and many polls show that much of the public views Trump very unfavorably.  All things considered, this disfavor is richly deserved, and it is just unfortunate that a sizable segment of the Republican-leaning electorate seems willfully blind to all of Trump’s character flaws.

Unqualified/Inconsistent/Phony

Donald Trump lacks any real qualifications to be president of the United States.  (Reality TV hosting doesn’t really provide the requisite skills.)  Many of his supporters want an “outsider,” but I think it would be very unwise to treat probably the most important job in the world as a position requiring no prior related experience.  Trump has shown throughout the campaign that he lacks even basic knowledge about the workings of our government, suggesting, for example, that judges “sign bills” or conduct investigations and that he would order cop-killers executed by executive order.  He is also unfamiliar with many important aspects of national security and foreign policy, among other issues, and has said that he’d be able to learn everything he’d need to know if he were elected.  (I guess he doesn’t want to waste his time on this stuff if he’s not going to get the job.)  No one should feel confident about what actions or policies to expect from a Trump presidency, because the candidate changes his positions with great frequency, sometimes within the same day.  He will make statements indicating that what he believes or intends is different from what is contained in the proposals issued by his campaign or posted on his website, even on the issue of immigration that supposedly propelled him to the front of the pack in the race, and he has declared that he would be “flexible” about issues and make great deals to get things done.  Trump has said before that he could become a completely different (“politically correct” or “presidential”) person if he had to, and his new campaign advisor said a few days ago that Trump has so far been projecting a persona, is someone very different in private, and will now evolve into a candidate that will be more acceptable to a wider portion of the public.  Do people really want someone who does not stick to any core principles and has been presenting a false image to gain primary votes but will now try to transform into something different for the general election?  Isn’t this the type of thing the “angry grassroots” supporting Trump are supposed to despise in politicians?  And, what does it say about Trump’s view of the primary voters if he thinks the way to win them over is to pretend to be a vile, ignorant, loudmouth?  Really, though, I think it’s quite clear from what we’ve seen of Donald Trump in the public eye for decades that he has only partly been putting forth a false image during this campaign.  He really is an offensive jerk, but he’s only recently been pretending (badly) to be some sort of Republican or conservative.

Liberal Democrat

So, perhaps Trump will soon be even more open about the fact that, to the extent he does have views on issues, most of them are more suited to a liberal Democrat than a Republican presidential nominee.  He has a history of liberalism throughout his life, but even while running for president he has taken many liberal positions.  For example, he has spoken in favor of affirmative action, government-provided or even “single-payer” healthcare, and raising taxes on “the rich.”  (Actually, in Wisconsin, he even criticized Governor Walker for not raising taxes to deal with budgetary issues.)  Like the Democrats, Trump is opposed to any efforts to reform entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and he said he would be neutral in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.  On social  issues, Trump has praised Planned Parenthood, and just last week he both took issue with North Carolina’s law regarding single-sex bathroom use and suggested altering (weakening) the Republican party’s platform language regarding abortion.  While Donald Trump has displayed a remarkable lack of constancy during his campaign, his basic instincts about a great many issues are pretty consistently liberal.  I’m not sure why he even chose to run as a Republican, but I find it even harder to understand how he’s been able to find support among Republican voters and the (previously) “conservative” media.

Miscellaneous

In addition to all of the problems already mentioned above, there are other things about Donald Trump that are deeply worrisome.  Trump has shown himself to be very rash, impulsive, and reckless.  He lashes out when he is upset or angry, and this could be extremely dangerous in the leader of a nation, especially when combined with some of Trump’s rather unorthodox views on international affairs.  He seems to think that the status of our relationships with other countries should be based on the types of deals that we can make with them, and he appears to focus too much on whether the U.S. benefits monetarily from an alliance or action.  I think there is a risk that Trump might hastily take actions that would alienate allies like Japan, South Korea, and the NATO countries or create serious conflicts with nations like China with which we might have disagreements.  I am also concerned about what Donald Trump’s view of the presidency may be.  He has said quite a few things that indicate he envisions a very powerful role for himself in the office, which is especially problematic when you also consider the positive comments he has made about authoritarian leaders, such as Vladimir Putin.  Republicans have, rightly, accused Barack Obama of exceeding his authority as executive and abusing government power.  But, if Donald Trump says openly during his campaign that he wants to change libel laws so that he can more easily sue newspapers that say things he doesn’t like, that the Speaker of the House will pay a big price if he doesn’t get along well with Trump, that the military will go along with orders to do things (like torture or the execution of terrorists’ families) that would violate international law if he tells them to, and so on, and the people then elect him, how empowered will Trump feel to go even further toward a dictatorial administration than the current president?  Now, maybe the mythical “new, improved, presidential” Trump wouldn’t be scary in any of these ways, but why on earth would we take such a chance??

Conclusion

The list of reasons Donald Trump should not be the Republican nominee is practically endless and growing all the time, yet Trump seems increasingly likely to win the nomination.  This can feel rather like a traumatic nightmare, but it is all too real.  To people in states that still have upcoming primary contests, I would make the following appeal:  If you really want to vote for a liberal candidate with some questionable past dealings, please make sure that you are eligible to vote on the Democrat side and cast your ballot there.  Let the rest of us have at least some chance of having our views represented on the ballot in November.  If, on the other hand, you do want to support a candidate on the Right side of the spectrum, please vote for Ted Cruz.  The senator actually holds Republican views, will not constantly say things that cause embarrassment or need explanation and correction, and actually is knowledgeable about government, law, and politics.  He would be a far better choice for the nomination and the presidency than the celebrity billionaire who claims to “tell it like it is” and to represent the people while actually lying to them and taking their support for granted in his quest to attain power and more attention for himself.  Please, voters, make the right choice:  reject Donald Trump and rekindle a spark of hope that we can yet start moving the country back in the right direction with a conservative election victory this fall.

No Time for Anti-Trump Forces to Relax After Wisconsin

For a Wisconsinite who has been rather obsessed with the Republican presidential primary process, the two weeks leading up to our contest on April 5th were pretty amazing, as the candidates and the media concentrated so much attention on our state.  For me, this year’s race has, unfortunately, been dominated by Donald Trump’s attempt to appropriate the GOP and it’s presidential nomination for his own self-serving ends.  Somehow, millions of people have chosen to support him in this endeavor, which, should it succeed, would be an absolute disaster for the Republican party and the country.  So, I am very glad that the voters of Wisconsin made a much wiser choice and gave Senator Ted Cruz a big victory, which was not expected just a short while ago.  It’s nice to be able to be proud of the voters of my state for something related to a presidential election for a change, since it has been opting for liberal Democrats in general elections for many years.  Some commentators speculated that the results in Wisconsin might indicate that we had come to a turning point in the race, with the momentum swinging away from Trump.  That would have been absolutely wonderful, but I can’t breathe easy yet.  Alas, we are still a very long way from escaping the looming threat of a Trump nomination, and it actually seems as if the atmosphere may have already become much more pro-Trump again.

Even though there has been some positive, encouraging news during the last few weeks, including the outcome in Wisconsin and the success Senator Cruz has had securing delegates at state and local conventions, there are still plenty of troubling circumstances and developments surrounding the race to cause great concern.  For one thing, despite his recent successes, Cruz won’t really have a chance to build momentum, because the next primary is in New York, where Trump has a big lead in the polls and is expected to pick up many delegates with a win in his populous home state.  A week later, elections will be held in more states favorable to Trump, and I worry that each Trump victory might be the one to precipitate the stampede of support to the frontrunner that we usually see much earlier in a race.  As spring proceeds, how much longer will less-intense skeptics of Donald Trump continue to treat the contest as undecided and competitive rather than “accepting” Trump as the presumptive nominee and preparing to back him in November’s general election?

It has been clear for many months now that, no matter what Donald Trump says or does, and no matter how terrible a time observers believe he is having during a particular stretch of the campaign, Trump still maintains a very significant level of support, generally about 35-40% of those voting or being polled as Republicans.  It’s bad enough that these members of the public obviously don’t care that Trump lacks the knowledge, experience, and character to be anything other than an abysmal president, but a great many of them are also willing to join on to whatever ridiculous argument or position he might take next.  For example, Trump has been complaining extensively about the various rules and procedures involved in the process of choosing a Republican presidential nominee.  He was already unhappy about the requirement to have the support of an actual majority of delegates in order to win the nomination, but lately he has also been critical of the processes taking place in various states to select the people who will serve as delegates, railing especially against the recent caucuses in Colorado.  Of course, Trump doesn’t like what has been happening because Ted Cruz and his campaign have been much more successful than Trump has in winning delegates chosen directly through means other than popular primaries as well as in getting actual supporters chosen to serve at the national convention in states that have voted.  All of the rules that different state parties have adopted have been in place for some time and were not secret.  They apply equally to all candidates and were certainly not adopted to hinder any particular “businessman”/reality TV star that almost no one would have expected to be in contention.  The Cruz team learned the rules and put in a lot of effort to do as well as they could under them, while Trump and his people did not.  None of this has stopped the staggeringly self-centered Trump from brazenly and dishonestly calling the process “rigged” and “undemocratic” and accusing Cruz of cheating and of stealing “his” delegates.  Regardless of the fact that what Trump is saying is (as usual) not true, many of his supporters are willing to believe and echo his claims.  Since Trump still gets such excessive media coverage without remotely balanced counter-arguments, I worry how much of the rest of the public may also come to believe the laughable story that Trump is somehow being treated unfairly in the Republican primary process.

In the last couple of weeks, there have been several discouraging stories about the responses Republican primary voters have given to various poll questions.  Because of his many flaws, it is perfectly reasonable for a large number of Republican voters to say they would not support Donald Trump if he were to become the nominee, but, sadly, there were also many people who said they would not back Ted Cruz if he were to win the nomination.  This wouldn’t particularly surprise me if the sentiment is coming from Trump fans who think that only he is deserving of their votes, but I find it quite disheartening to think that some others who may see Cruz as too conservative or polarizing may also take this position.  Polls of Republicans also reportedly show that people aren’t really interested in having a fight for the presidential nomination at the national convention and that most think the candidate who has won the most delegates should get the nomination, even if he does not have a majority.  This past week, an RNC member offered up the opinion that Trump would probably win if he had at least 1100 delegates, and we’ve also been hearing that some party “insiders” and officials are again saying things that suggest they may be moving toward some sort of acceptance of the idea of a Trump nomination -- that now, despite all the polls showing Trump would be easily beaten by the Democrats, they think that perhaps, with help from the Republican party and associated organizations, he could actually win.  Sigh...

What all of these things tell me is that a lot of people, including voters and even party officials and officeholders, still are not taking this election and the jaw-dropping awfulness of a potential Donald Trump nomination seriously enough.  First off, Republicans who are not under Trump’s spell need to accept that the person who has a chance to stop him from accumulating enough delegates to win the nomination is Senator Ted Cruz, and they should not undermine his efforts to do so.  (Memo to John Kasich:  Since the chance you believe you have to be nominated at the convention requires limiting Trump’s successes in the remaining primaries, maybe it would be in your interest to criticize him  rather than Cruz.)  Since the race began with so many candidates, many voters will have previously preferred other candidates to Cruz, but there is no reason for any traditional Republican to oppose or refuse to vote for him should he be the nominee.  He is a solid, conservative Republican who could represent the party well in the general election campaign and as president, if given the opportunity.  Any concerns people might have about Cruz’ style or about past conflicts with Senate colleagues should certainly not be strong enough to make sensible voters refuse to support him and to let Trump or a Democrat win instead.  The election is far too important for that.

The future direction of the party and the nation are at stake here, and everyone really needs to realize that as soon as possible and act accordingly.  Of course this is something worth battling about at the convention.  Far from being treated unfairly in the nominating process, Trump has benefitted from a system that was set up to favor front-runners, and this needs to be broadcast far and wide.  The need for a candidate to win a majority of delegates at the convention should be explained, reinforced, and defended at every opportunity.  The nomination should not be given to someone who cannot gain this much support just because he insists he is entitled to it or because some people think, “Gosh, he’s kind of close, we should just be generous and let him win.”  We’re not talking about awarding the prize for best pie at the county fair here -- this is about choosing the person who will be Republicans’ and conservatives’ standard-bearer in a fight to lead the country in a better direction.

If there is no majority winner on the first ballot, we can only hope that many delegates initially bound to Trump will abandon him at the first opportunity and vote instead for a far better option, such as Ted Cruz.  I don’t think the party should at all hesitate in welcoming such an occurrence.  It certainly should not give in to the idea that it might look better to TV viewers and be “less trouble” to go along with the Trump “highest total should win” attitude, avoid the disruptions his outraged supporters might cause if he isn’t nominated, and just try to minimize the coming electoral damage at all levels.  For one thing, there are also large numbers of Trump opponents who would be extremely upset if he is nominated, especially if there was a chance to avoid doing so.  Also, it would just be wrong to reward a campaign that has tried to use not-so-subtle threats of personal exposure and large-scale unrest to intimidate delegates and the party into giving Trump what he wants.  Furthermore, if concessions are made to Trump regarding the rules and the convention nominating process due to his “popularity” with a certain segment of the public and a fear of what might happen if he doesn’t get his way, I can only imagine the wide array of traditional Republican values and policy positions that will be cast aside from the party platform to accommodate Trump’s liberal, unorthodox, or even bizarre views.

Should that happen, what would be the point of still having a Republican party, and how could other GOP candidates, office-holders, and voters deal with the conflicts between what they have always believed and the things being said by the new supposed “leader” of the party?  To those whose main goal is not the destruction of the Republican party, this would be a terrible thing, so every effort should be made to prevent Trump -- someone who is not really a Republican, let alone a conservative -- from assuming the position at the top of the ticket.  After all, if Trump does become the nominee, Republicans and conservatives will have already been defeated, no matter what the outcome of November’s general election may be.

Wisconsin's Chance to Help Right the Ship

Wisconsin has been the focus of attention in the presidential primary process for the last couple of weeks.  This is something new for us, since the nominations are usually essentially already decided by the time our state votes.  On the Republican side, in particular, we have the chance to make a significant statement about the direction of the race and the party, and I hope that we will take that opportunity to move things in a more sensible direction.  

There is no rational explanation for the success that Donald Trump has had to this point in the Republican presidential contest, as he is completely unqualified and is not really a Republican, let alone a conservative.  Still, inexplicably, this man has managed to garner more votes and delegates than anyone else, and it will take a lot of things falling into place for his opposition to prevent him from becoming the nominee.  A victory for Ted Cruz in Wisconsin would show once again that Republicans as a whole are not ready to fall in line behind the front-running Trump and hand him the nomination, and it would be one important step toward making a different outcome possible.

The choice before voters should not be a difficult one.  Early on, perhaps the presence of so many Republican candidates in the race led some of the public astray -- unable to focus on all of the options, they may have paid attention only to the person constantly in the limelight.  Now, however, there are three candidates remaining, and voters should certainly care enough to look into each of them sufficiently to see the differences among them and learn which might be worthy of a presidential nomination.  For many months now, Trump has repeated vague intentions of winning, negotiating good deals, and "making America great again," while demonstrating that he has no clue how to actually go about improving things should he (heaven forbid) become president.  In contrast, many of his opponents, including Senator Ted Cruz, have put forth actual plans regarding taxes, health care, and many other issues and shown that they in fact do have relevant knowledge with which to approach America’s concerns.

Since the beginning of the race, Trump has run a campaign of insults and attempts at intimidation aimed at his opponents, protesters, the media, the Republican party, and anyone else that gets in his way.  He also is serially dishonest and changes his stories and positions constantly, sometimes even within a few hours.  These tendencies have certainly been on display during the last two weeks in unpleasant episodes such as Trump’s Twitter targeting of Cruz’s wife, which he tried to justify with the false claim that Cruz had been involved in an outside anti-Trump group’s ad that used a photo of Mrs. Trump.  In another example, Trump’s campaign manager was recently charged with misdemeanor battery for his rough treatment of a female reporter in Florida in an incident that both Trump and the staffer had at times downplayed and at times denied, while accusing the journalist of making things up.  After the charges were filed, Trump not only defended his campaign manager, but also suggested that his actions were justified because the journalist and her pen (which could have been a small bomb, after all!) might have been a threat to Trump.  In the last few days, Trump has also stated at least four different opinions about abortion laws, and he has once again said that, despite pledging to do so, he might not support a different nominee if he doesn’t think he’s treated “fairly” at the Republican convention.

Recent days have also brought even more evidence against Donald Trump’s candidacy for the GOP nomination.  When asked about important functions of the federal government, in addition to security, he listed everything from health care and education to housing and the creation of strong neighborhoods.  While campaigning here in Wisconsin, Trump persisted in using discredited liberal criticisms to attack our own Governor Scott Walker, putting Trump on the same page as Sanders and Clinton.  Trump has also casually suggested radical changes in our foreign policies toward allies if they don’t contribute more financially to the arrangements, and he has been rather nonchalant in his discussions of the possible spread or use of nuclear weapons.  This is clearly not a man who is in any way a limited government conservative Republican, and his uninformed recklessness would be extremely dangerous on the world stage.  Trump has shown little regard for the way our system of government is intended to work, and the main premise of his campaign seems to be that putting him in charge will solve everything.  Donald Trump's statements have been so inconsistent that we can’t really have any idea what goals or policies he would actually pursue if in office, but his extreme self-centeredness coupled with the positive things he’s said about authoritarian governments and leaders suggests that a President Trump might well exceed the boundaries of executive authority to a far greater degree than even the current occupant of the White House already has.

In contrast, Ted Cruz has a long-standing appreciation of the U.S. Constitution and its principles of limited government.  He intends to undo Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, reform taxes and regulations, and rein in the federal bureaucracy.  Unlike Donald Trump, Cruz is knowledgeable about foreign and domestic policy issues and has spent time thinking through his positions and proposals for goals such as economic improvement and the rebuilding of the military, among many others.  Cruz understands the importance of maintaining our relationships with Israel, NATO, and other allies and also recognizes the need to deal with threats from our enemies by, for example, more aggressively targeting ISIS and rejecting Obama’s “agreement” with Iran.  The current Supreme Court vacancy is a reminder of the importance of presidents in shaping the direction of the courts.  Ted Cruz will seek to appoint judges who follow the law and the Constitution, and his legal background as a clerk at the Supreme Court and as Solicitor General of Texas makes him particularly well-suited to choose strong people for the bench.  While in Washington, Senator Cruz has demonstrated his willingness to stand up for what he thinks should be done, even in the face of harsh criticism, sometimes from his own party.  Throughout the campaign, Cruz has shown a level-headed demeanor and a focus on issues.  He is not easily distracted from making his points by unfriendly reporters or hostile opponents, and he does not fly off the handle and hurl insults every time things do not go his way.  It took an unfair attack on his family to prompt  him to, understandably, call Trump a “coward” for dragging Cruz’ wife into his Twitter war.  In short, Cruz has the experience, preparation, convictions, and temperament to qualify him for the presidency, while his chief opponent clearly does not.

Of course, there is also a third candidate seeking votes in the Republican primary.  Governor John Kasich is an experienced politician with considerable success during his career, and he would certainly be a far better nominee or president than Donald Trump.  However, some aspects of his record and positions, including Medicaid expansion in Ohio and a proposal to once again pursue comprehensive immigration reform early in a presidential term, are not ideal.  In addition, his track record so far during this primary season has not been strong, as he has won only in his home state and has often received very low levels of voter support.  With Ted Cruz’ stronger conservative message and better results in this year’s elections, he is the best available choice for Republicans.

After the seemingly unprecedented amount of candidate visits and media attention Wisconsin has received lately, our voters now have the chance to make a crucial choice about the future of this year’s presidential election and our country.  I am hopeful that we will reject the disastrous candidacy of Donald Trump and help to steer the Republican nomination process back in the right direction by providing a much-needed victory to the genuinely conservative and infinitely more presidential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz.

An Immodest Proposal for the GOP

Spring has arrived (on the calendar, at least), and lots of attention and television time is being given to college basketball.  But I’d have to say that, this year, no spectacle deserves the term, “March Madness” as much as the presidential election season.  Sadly, no matter what developments take place in the race, the Republicans seem unable to restore sanity to their side of the contest.  The course the GOP has been on would have seemed impossible to imagine less than a year ago, but it now seems bound to lead to a very bad outcome for the party, conservatism, and the country.

Despite constantly demonstrating that he lacks the knowledge, preparation, temperament, character, or other qualifications we should expect from someone seeking to become president of the United States, Donald Trump has somehow managed to convince around 40 percent of those participating in Republican primaries and caucuses to loyally vote for him.  Even as the field of other candidates has narrowed, no one else has consistently been able to gain that much support, although Ted Cruz has provided Trump’s closest competition.

I believe that nominating Donald Trump would be a disaster for the Republican party in many ways.  What, if anything, would the party stand for going forward, and what would it mean to throw the party’s support to a man like him as leader?  Plus, with the high percentage of people reporting negative views of Trump, there’s a good chance that not only Trump, but also other Republican candidates, could lose in a convincing fashion with him at the top of the ticket this fall.  And, with one of our two major political parties suffering an enormous crisis, the Democratic Party might essentially then have free reign to pursue its most liberal ideas, which would hardly be good for America.  Therefore, preventing Trump from obtaining the Republican nomination is imperative, but it seems that even many people opposed to Trump, including elected officials, have not approached the matter with the necessary urgency.

With Marco Rubio suspending his campaign, Senator Cruz is closer to the one on one matchup with Trump that he has been wanting for a very long time.  However, with John Kasich remaining in the race, the non-Trump vote is still being divided, making Cruz’ quest to overtake the frontrunner even more difficult.  This circumstance seems unlikely to change at this point, as Governor Kasich is hoping he could receive the nomination at the convention if no candidate accumulates enough delegates to win outright before that.  While it would be nice if Kasich would get on board with the notion that stopping Trump is the most important thing in the race right now and act accordingly, I suppose we can’t blame a politician too much for holding on when he thinks he has a shot at the presidency.  Of course, if voters not supporting Trump agreed that rallying around Cruz is the best course of action, they wouldn’t have to keep voting for Kasich even if he is still officially running.

Obviously, the most desirable way to select a preferable nominee would be for a candidate other than Donald Trump to win at least 1237 delegates during the primary process and thus secure a victory.  While Senator Cruz could still achieve this goal if voters in the remaining states all suddenly came to their senses, that is probably too much to expect, and the chances of an outright pre-convention win get slimmer with every contest in which Trump gains delegates.  The somewhat more likely secondary option is for Trump’s opposition to keep him under 1237 delegates, as well, so that the nomination can be decided at the convention.  Then, we have to hope that the convention delegates will save the day by rejecting Trump and nominating a far better candidate.

While there are already plenty of rules in place to govern the primary, caucus, and convention processes at the state and local levels, I’d like to offer just a few possible tweaks that might be helpful in making sure that the best Republican nominee is eventually selected.  Trump has suggested that there will be problems (maybe even riots) if he does not get the nomination, and I think it’s likely that many of his supporters would not vote for someone else no matter how that other person was nominated.  But, there are also many voters who are extremely opposed to Trump and won’t vote for him if he is the nominee.  So, since Republicans are probably going to lose a sizable chunk of potential voters in any case, and since the party will be accused of “stealing” the nomination from Trump even if another candidate is selected by just following the rules, I propose that the RNC do something very bold as soon as possible to block Trump’s takeover of the party.

• The current rules require a candidate to earn 1237 delegates (a majority) to win the nomination, even if that takes multiple ballots from delegates voting at the convention.  Yet, calling this just an arbitrary number, Trump has said that he should be named the winner if he simply has the largest total number of delegates after the primaries conclude.  Well, since he obviously has no problem with the idea of altering the rules and sees no particular significance in the target of 1237, maybe a change is in order.  After all, especially in a contentious year like this one, we want to make sure that the nominee is acceptable to most Republicans, so perhaps candidates should be required to reach 1650 delegates (two thirds) to win the nomination outright.  This should greatly increase the chances of a contested convention, where the delegates -- hopefully mostly people with good judgment and an interest in the well-being of the Republican party and its ideals -- would vote to chose the eventual nominee.

• Actually, if those with power over the rules should be feeling especially fearless, they could take things a step further.  Trump has often shown that he believes in having one set of rules for himself and another for everyone else.  For example, he can hire foreign, or even illegal, workers and have clothing lines manufactured overseas while blasting others for such actions.  While Trump thinks he can say whatever he wants, no matter how outrageous, about other people, he believes anyone saying things he doesn’t like should be fined, sued, or fired.  So, Trump really should have no objection to the idea of a two-tiered delegate requirement for securing the nomination, where a candidate who meets certain qualifications of experience and party commitment by virtue of, say, having served in elected office as a Republican, would only need to meet the current 1237-delegate standard, while someone with no political experience and a history of party-switching would need to clear the higher bar of 1650 delegates.

• Alternatively, in the spirit of bipartisanship, or perhaps to honor Donald Trump’s long track record of supporting and praising Democrats, the RNC could borrow an idea from the Democrats and add a prominent role for party superdelegates to the convention’s nominee-selection process.

• Or, the rather appealing notion of a sort of political “morals clause” could be implemented.  There would be a set of basic standards of conduct that candidates would need to meet in order to be considered for the Republican nomination.  Anyone who violated these standards by, for example, encouraging violence at his events, threatening the party with the possibility of riots if it does not do what he wants, advocating the commission of war crimes as part of his foreign policy proposals, etc., would be disqualified.

These are just a few suggestions for the RNC personnel responsible for establishing the convention and nomination rules to consider.  I’m sure they could be quite creative and come up with more of their own.  Fair-minded people may object to the idea of changing the rules late in the game or stacking the deck against a certain candidate, but I wonder if Mr. Trump would have those same scruples if he officially had the power to make the rules more favorable to himself.

Still, while my proposals may be just wishful thinking or political fantasy, that only underscores the need for Republicans who are not enthralled by Donald Trump to seriously commit -- now!! -- to the existing possibilities for stopping him from getting the nomination. Senator Cruz still has a mathematical chance to win a majority of delegates, and every effort should be made to persuade voters in the remaining states to support his candidacy in the hope of making this happen or at least securing him enough delegates to keep Trump from reaching the required total.  In the latter case, Republicans need to be strong in defending the legitimacy of the rules for deciding a nomination at the convention when no candidate has acquired a majority.  We must be willing to counter the loud voices of Trump’s backers in the media and the public and explain the many, many reasons that Trump should not be the person designated as the standard-bearer for all Republicans, and the convention delegates should make the wise choice to select a better-qualified candidate whose views are much more in keeping with the party’s traditions.  Yes, almost anyone might fit that description, but the choice should be someone actually running for president this time, and, based on the state of the campaign to this point, the candidate most deserving of the nomination this year is Senator Ted Cruz.

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.