Ah, what is a political commentator to do? The presidential campaign has not even gotten to the stage of the first voting in Iowa yet, and the whole thing is already a parade of fifteen or more clown cars. What am I supposed to do? I look into my tool chest, and I am already running low on colorful adjectives.
And anything I might want to say about Trump will now just Palin comparison.
So let us start at the beginning of this sad business, when John McCain first selected her to be his vice-presidential candidate. What has happened since then? How did we get here?
There are five basic possibilities, as I see it. The first is that Palin is now revealing her true colors. She was a populist all along, not a principled conservative, and now is apparently the time to declare herself. The second possibility is that she is a conservative, but one who has out of misguided desperation become a one-issue conservative. That one issue would be immigration. She has become convinced, as Ann Coulter apparently has, that immigration is absolutely the only thing that matters anymore, and that it matters almost absolutely. Because Trump is talking like an absolutist on that subject, it is time to go all in for him. The third possibility is that she was a conservative, but is now an apostate. Chased from the governor’s office by her enemies, she was hounded into the surreal realm of reality television, where a world of flatterers awaited her. That kind of thing is not good for anybody’s soul. Fourth, she is right where she used to be, fairly conservative, and understands that Trump is a rootless and godless individual, one who is willing to pander. That means he is willing to pander to the right if it gets him what he wants. This fourth option is simply political opportunism, which may be mixed in with personal opportunism (e.g. the vp slot). And last, there is the “black box” option. This would be some form of deal-making, log-rolling, horse-trading, and/or blackmailing, the terms of which are sealed to us. Out of all these options, I do not know which is the most likely.
Now look at it from Trump’s side. This is all about stopping the one serious threat to him, which is Ted Cruz. If Ted Cruz wins Iowa, then there is still a race after New Hampshire. But if Trump wins Iowa, and then New Hampshire, and continues to dominate in the national polls, he might well be able to finish out the primary campaign with his hands in his pockets, whistling as he goes.
In the meantime, Hillary Clinton appears to be on the verge of disintegrating — legal troubles, email troubles, Sanders troubles, unlikable personality troubles, horny Bill troubles, and foreign policy debacle troubles. She still might not collapse, but if she does, what a glorious time we shall all have! If Sanders wins Iowa, and then New Hampshire, and then Hillary is indicted, the Democrats will realize with dismay that a Sanders nomination will make the McGovern campaign look like a stirring victory, and so a “draft Biden” campaign will begin. And we, the voters, deserving every stroke that the rod of God’s justice might deliver to us, will be faced with a choice between Biden and Trump. Think of it! The man that Iowahawk affectionately calls “Uncle Choo Choo” would be going up against the Trumpoline. And I have a massive load of colorful adjectives on order. I just hope the semi can make it up our driveway.
This whole thing brings to mind a comment attributed to Marx. History repeats itself — the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Three guesses as to where we are.
Now readers of this blog know that I have long been friendly to Sarah Palin. I have read a couple of her books, and have defended her against the Ivory Soap purists. If you need proof of that, here are a couple of posts from the past (first one and then another). For example, I voted for John McCain — something I would not ever ordinarily do — and I did it simply because of her presence on the ticket.
What does this all mean, in practical terms? First, Trump is a fool, but he is not stupid. This was a shrewd tactical move. For someone whose entire public persona is built on dismissing others as “losers,” he can ill afford to lose in Iowa. And all the indications are that he would take it personally and with an unbecoming grace. Sarah Palin need not be a hot commodity across the country anymore — she just needs to be a hot commodity with undecided Tea Party Iowans. This was simply and solely a “stop Cruz” move, and should be evaluated as such.
Second, Palin doing this elevates Trump slightly (but in a constituency that counts for him), but it diminishes her far more than it helps him. She will be “helped” eventually if Trump wins the whole shebang, and some form of patronage comes back her direction (see #4 below). But failing that, her credibility with principled conservatives is now shot. It is certainly shot with me, and I am done defending her. But am I shocked? No, not really. Remember that I am a pastor, and helplessly watching people make poor choices is part of how I make my living. People are people, and people screw up. There have been indications for a few years that something like this was in the offing from Palin, but this really is a royal screw-up.
Third, as someone who has been regularly chided by the “realists” for not voting for the Republican ticket (not to vote for Romney is to vote for Obama, varlet!), I am wondering if this group has begun running the thought experiments yet. If it is Trump v. Clinton, or Trump v. Biden, or Trump v. Sanders, I am quite prepared to throw a grand party in order to welcome all the newcomers who are now (finally!) prepared to “throw their vote away.” Because I may as well announce it now — I would rather be dead in a ditch than vote for Trump, and I will enthusiastically throw my vote away. I will vote third party, or write in somebody. If I vote for “the Donald,” it will be because I wrote in Donald Duck. Whatever it is, I will make sure it is a vain gesture. But I wonder if there will be more people with me than usual.
Of course, while not voting for Trump, I will certainly hope that he wins against whoever he is up against. This would simply be for the sake of the entertainment value. I will have many adjectives in storage still unused, and if the Republic insists upon pitching itself into a morass of blue ruination, then I will insist that we make a gaudy time of it. To change the metaphor, if we demand a clown car review, then at least the clowns should all have bright red noses.
The fourth consideration is that there will be others (many others) who will adapt to the prospect of a Trump administration with remarkable flexibility. Where there is money, where there is power, powerful rationalizations will necessarily follow. The throne rooms of history have more than once been occupied by miscreants and demagogues, and whenever that happens, the number of flattering courtiers does not go down.
And last, what to do? If this kind of talk scares you, as it ought to, then there is one practical thing that remains to be done. Trump really needs to lose in Iowa. And that means that principled conservatives in Iowa need to rally behind Cruz. This is a pressing need — and other issues are secondary to it. There would be no inconsistency for a thoughtful Rubio supporter in Iowa to go for Cruz. That is because if Cruz wins there will still be a Cruz/Rubio contest later. If Trump does, then that is hard to imagine.
Other things will be easier to imagine.
Please list your Biblical reasons for opposing Trump, thus allowing a democrat in the White House with the future changes in the Supreme Court, which will finally put the last nails in the coffin of what liberties we have yet remaining.
Easier to imagine, and harder to realize.
Doug, are you at all worried about the reality of the Cruz campaign’s financial foundation (aka Heidi Cruz/ Goldman Sachs extraordinaire) having implications for him if he were to actually win the presidency?
This piece could be used as an example to writing students on how political commentary should be structured. It is a beautifully multi-faceted gem, shining and sparkling with wit and metaphor–and a semi-truckload of wondrous adjectives trundling up the driveway. And, you are absolutely right about Trump’s reaction should he lose in Iowa or anywhere else. I think it’s a reasonably safe bet that no where, at no time, in any universe, will anyone ever write the headline, “Trump Graciously Concedes…” anything.
While I agree in general with DW’s perspective, I won’t feed his considerable ego with ingratiating ooze about his prose.
I live in Iowa and understand the caucus process, which is entirely different than a primary. Trump has supporters, but not the kind of supporters willing to invest the time and energy it takes to caucus. Not enough anyway. Cruz will win. Trump and Rubio will take #2 and #3 but I won’t call which one is in which place. Chris Christie does have the support of the GOP establishment in Iowa, so he will perform better than his polling numbers. Jeb! staying in the race is the biggest hindrance to Rubio, and it’s quite entertaining to watch.
“I am a pastor, and helplessly watching people make poor choices is part of how I make my living.” Word.
I’m not in Iowa so it doesn’t matter much, but I can support neither Trump, nor Cruz. Every candidate with the exception of Rand Paul is such a war monger that I just can’t vote for any of them. Rand has issues too, but he’s the one candidate I could vote for in this entire mess.
Do you consider Trump to be a “war monger”?
ash continues to campaign for his reality TV star hero.
The Presidential election is the best reality TV show running this season.
The Miz 2016!
He has a shot at 3rd or 4th in Iowa if the college kids turn out.
Besides Paul, Cruz does seem to be more restrained than the other candidates on going to war. If you watch the debates he tries to take the middle road between Paul and a guy like Christie or Rubio. I’m hoping Paul supporters would back Cruz if Paul has to end up dropping out.
Rand is done. Republican voters, i.e., white people, are starting to develop a racial identity, and to view politics as a racial battlefield, and to believe that they need to start voting based on what’s good for whites, just as Jews, blacks, Mexicans, and Asians all tend to vote for their racial interests. And just as that process got underway, what does Rand do? He decided to go all in with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the rest of the “set the cop killers free!” crowd, and declare war on “racism” and “institutional racism in our criminal justice system.” Just… Read more »
Five options is a lot but there could be more. Palin could know something about Trump that we don’t. Maybe he just charmed the pants off her. I hear he’s a master persuader but I doubt she’s that easy. Maybe she knows something about Cruz that we don’t. Maybe Scott Adams has hypnotized me but I’ve stopped hating Trump.
Scott Adams is a libertarian of the “ain’t nobody gonna tell me what to do, including Almighty God” stripe, and that’s a very dangerous kind of person. His comic strip has some entertainment value, but his political commentary has no value at all. If you’re taking his commentary seriously then you have indeed been hypnotized and desperately need to snap out of it.
Adams not a man I would trust with policy decisions but he does seem to be an expert on persuasion techniques. He’s convinced me that Trump is not the simple blowhard he appears to be. What he actually is underneath the persona is hard to guess but I’m pretty sure he’s better than any socialist or socialist wannabe. I still sympathise with his haters but have stopped hating him myself.
He knows a lot about persuasion, which is why he was able to convince you…because that is what his blog is trying to do. His aim is NOT to accurately report on Trump’s supposed use of persuasion techniques. His aim is to HIMSELF USE persuasion techniques to convince people to vote for Trump, ha ha. He is very good at it, but just know that he is playing you. He is not the objective observer with passive interest in Trump’s “techniques” that he claims to be. He is a sly and effective Trump advocate.
I wouldn’t put it past him but what makes you think so?
Let me ask you this (I know, it’s really annoying when people answer your question with their own similar question, but please bear with me). What is it that makes Adams perspective seem correct to you? Why does his blog strike you accurate? A lot of people are just plain making up political narratives on their blogs. What is it that persuades you that he is not?
I don’t say his perspective is correct. He seems not to care much about politics beyond its potential for humor but he does seem to know about persuasion. I’ve seen some of his claims about Trump’s skills confirmed in other places. So, what makes you think Adams is a shill?
You didn’t answer my question. I never said that you believe all of Adam’s perspectives on everything, but you do keep saying that he knows a lot about persuasion, and you seem to buy in the Trump’s persona is exactly the persuasive facade that Adam’s paints it to be, which means that ON THAT ISSUE you are assuming that Adam’s is basically correct. So why do you think he is actually knowledgeable about persuasion at all, and that he has pegged Trump correctly? P.S. Adams has involved himself in the political process pushing for things like assisted suicide, so he… Read more »
I did answer it and you’re starting to bore me.
You said he didn’t care about politics (which he demonstrably does) and that you asserted that his claims about Trump were verified elsewhere (without actually saying what it was that verified them, which might have actually been an answer), but you are now getting defensive for some reason, which renders these conversations fruitless, and I certainly wouldn’t want to bore you. So carry on then. Fare thee well, my friend
Mr. Wilson – I admit I am surprised to see you in the Won’t Vote Camp – you varlet. As I stand, I haven’t ever been able to see the logic in that, but hearing you say it brings me up short. Have you written on your reasoning behind not voting, and can you (or anyone reading this) point me to it?
Sometimes we are forced to realize that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Sometimes?
People trot that rot out each and every “Most Important Election of our Lives” time!
It would make a good Onion article — “Republican and Democrat party officials agree – This election is the 27th most important in our nation’s history. Just behind Martin Van Buren’s and above Grover Cleveland’s second”.
I totally agree, except for the “sometimes” part.
Cthulu/Sweet Meteor of Death 2016!
To be clear, he didn’t say he would not be voting. He said he would not be voting for Trump.
Understood, forgive my lack of clarity.
What if Donald Duck wins the primary?
Could we possibly be worse off?
Ha! A major improvement, I would think.
http://www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/4-cwhomefront/7-comics/ddatombomb/Donald_Ducks_Atom_Bomb_1947_cover.jpg
I’d like to offer two more possibilities. One, Revenge. The Republican establishment made no secret of their disdain for her – much like they have for Trump. What better way to get even with them than to help shove the Donald down their throats?
The second possibility I would offer is based on her religious upbringing in a charismatic church (at least by some accounts). Perhaps the extreme lack of discernment displayed by so many of that persuasion took root in Sarah also.
Revenge is a primary motivator for certain criminal behavior.
Pretty much that.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Trump is neither perfect, nor good.
I don’t know about that… he seems to be strong on immigration and gun rights, and is for reducing corporate taxes, all things we will never get under Bernie or Hillary. Most importantly, he has blown political correctness out of the water, which is the first thing that needs to happen if we are to retake the culture.
He is not strong on guns. He was for an “assault” rifle ban. He may say different things now, but opportunists do that. It’s the “Art of the Deal”. While I am for lower taxes, I despise corporate welfare and crony capitalism. Trump is for continuing the ethanol subsidy and has no plans to end crony capitalism. He is no different than a progressive in this regard. Here is the thing about immigration. I agree with most of what he “says” on immigration. The problem I have is that he said different things a few years ago (i.e. he was… Read more »
You think Cruz could win the general election? I think that is a fantasy. You are not in step with where the electorate is. Let’s say you are correct about Trump, that he is purely an opportunist. So what? He is likely to throw a bone or two to those who supported him. If it’s Bernie or Hillary, the only bones we are going to get are boney fingers wagged in our face for being homophobic and bigoted. Plus, if Trump wants to to be reelected, he will need the same voters who supported him the first time. If he… Read more »
And you think Trump is in step with the electorate?
Look, I am not voting for a Progressive, whether they have an R or D next to their name. It’s not happening. I have principles and I am not dropping them simply because he might throw me a bone. You can vote for a pro-single payer, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, gun regulating, crony capitalist hoping that he will give you some of the crumbs off of his plate, but count me out.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
“pro-single payer, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, gun regulating, crony capitalist”
Your response to this is, “perfect is the enemy of good”????
What exactly counts as “bad” to you? Does the guy have to eat babies or something?
Bad to me is Hillary Rhodam Clinton who proudly advocates those things. To equivocate her and Trump is intellectually dishonest, and frankly shows how blind some of the people on this board can be. Trump is a Populist. While that is not a good thing, it is a heck of a lot better than a radical leftist Alinskynite. You all can sit on your high horses and be proud of the purity of your vote. Just know that your non vote is a vote for Hillary.
You seem to think the Republican party owns certain votes such that not voting Republican is giving a vote to the Democrats; it is not that way. I may vote for somebody who is running as a Republican, but no, I’m not going to vote for: The Republican Candidate. I’m no longer going to be held hostage to “anybody but the Democrat”. The party means very little anymore, if it did we wouldn’t be talking about Trump in the first place. I hate to say it but the GOP is circling the drain, and deserves to be. I won’t say… Read more »
More than one person can be bad. I am not a vote purist. I have held my nose in the past. I simply don’t see any practical difference between electing someone with Trump’s positions and temperament, and Hillary’s positions and temperament. Is Hillary arguably worse on some absolute ideological and/or moral scale? Probably yes. But considering each of the aspects of what being President entails, I cannot see any way in which Trump would do better in the ways that matter. So I don’t see any point in electing Trump over Hillary, even if we can establish that Trump is… Read more »
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Cruz or Trump is electable. But it’s really weird to hear someone trumpeting Trump because Cruz is unelectable. Trump is extremely disliked by independents and Democrats, and I don’t see that changing. Anything he does to move to the middle in the general is going to immediately lose him support on the right, because Republicans already don’t really trust him anyway.
Trump is definitely electable. In part, because he will attract far more black voters than any GOP candidate in 50 years. A lot of black people like Trump’s style, and would love to see a “badass” as president.
Cruz can definitely win the general election.
How?
1. He’d be running against a weak democratic nominee in Bernie or Hillary.
2. Cruz isn’t prone to making mistakes and articulates specifics when defending the conservative message.
3. Don’t miss the fact that this election cycle is about anit-establishment (Bernie, Trump, Cruz). The electorate is anti-establishment and so is Ted Cruz.
4. Head to head polls have him beating Hillary.
5. God sets up kings and rulers. It’s not the electorate that ultimately decides the election but the Lord. Pray for a godly ruler, and God may answer that prayer.
Maybe I’m ignorant, and have a lower view of the populace than you, but I think Presidents are largely elected on personality, charisma, looks, etc. Ted Cruz is my ideal candidate ideologically, but he fails on all those superficial fronts unfortunately.
I tend to agree with you on that, which is why I think Rubio is the most electable. But understand that if Cruz wins the nomination he will be going against either Clinton or Sanders and in a contest of looks, charisma, and personality he comes out on top in most of those categories.
Unless he goes back to being a democrat like he was most of last decade.
Does the “few years ago” thing apply to Cruz too?
In 2012, he acted directly to try to raise the number of H1B visa several times.
Oh, and in 2015 Cruz said “There is no stronger advocate of legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”.
You can still argue that Cruz is better than Trump, of course; just wondering why the flip flop thing only applies to Trump.
For your edification http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/20/new-anti-trump-buyer-beware-ad-make-america-awesome-will-put-grocery-stores-forever/
That slogan is the enemy of wisdom.
Being from Alaska, i can tell you that Palin is no conservative. Not only from her half-term in office, where she did numerous non-conservative things, for example, appointing a former Planned Parenthood director to the Alaska Supreme court. But then also when she endorsed the Independent/Democrat candidate who ended up winning an now is destroying our gas line and trying desperately to create an income tax. This is just one more example of her not having conservative principles.
I read the entire Palin endorsement speech which Tina Fey is probably at this moment committing to memory. Can Palin possibly be as dumb and hokey as she sounds, or is this a shtick that has been working for her since junior high? I don’t mean her actual positions and principles; I mean the whole aw-shucks-folks manner of delivery. I read this morning that Dershowitz called Cruz “off the charts brilliant” even as Trump has said that nobody in Congress can stand him. This is profoundly depressing. Does an uncharismatic politician have to add likeable nitwits to the team in… Read more »
“likeable nitwits” could describe a large cross-section of the electorate, because the nitwits like them.
That entire “aw-shucks-folks manner” makes my teeth hurt. It reminds me of the “bless his heart” euphemism used as the knife goes in.
Ahem, we folks in the North here just talk funny. We are not “dumb and hokey.” However 80% of the electorate certainly is.
Hi, ME. I don’t mind dumb and hokey at all as long as it is genuine. But when people put it on to get votes, I think it is insulting and dishonest. Do you mind my asking if you are North as in Pacific Northwest or North as in Alaska?
PNW today, Jilly, but we spent many years in Alaska. The Palin speech thing makes me laugh, because people often think I’m putting it on too, pandering so to speak. It’s like, what, y’all don’t think you talk funny? Hidden behind all that however is something kind of sad however, the dumb hicks from the sticks, North or South, who speak plainly are always perceived as quaint, stupid, deceptive, putting it on. Think Duck Dynasty. And yet lie to the people with a NY accent and we just suck that stuff up as authentic.
You have lived in some gorgeous places. I spent a week in Seward about ten years ago. It was absolutely wonderful.
I still can’t work out why anyone was ever impressed by Palin as a political candidate at any point since her very early (and teleprompter aided) speeches with the McCain campaign.
Watching her endorsement speech for Trump, it really seems she is incapable of crafting a coherent sentence.
“Principled conservatives” produced the world we live in today. Why should we support them or want to be them? I seem to recall Rev. Dabney having a particular opinion of those folks.
I’m sorry but that’s a peeve of mine – isn’t the issue, rather, unprincipled pseudo-conservatives? Why am I supposed to disdain my own ideology because David Brooks lies about his, or power hungry politicians have discovered they can deceive people by dissembling under a false banner (painted to look like my banner)? Conservative means something, and I should think our issue is a dearth of principled ones.
What does “conservative” mean other than “out-of-date liberal”, then? To put it another way: Why should I, or any Christian, support a “principled conservatism” that accepts the presuppositions of liberalism?
Well now you have me a bit confused, forgive me if I’m missing something you are trying to communicate here. As I understand you I’ll just refer you back to my initial response to you. According to the definitions of the two words, I would think principled conservatives are what we need. Perhaps the devilish detail is that you are using quotes marks and I’m not. Again, forgive me if I’m missing something.
Conservatism is a variety of liberalism. We can do better.
Can’t go with you there man. Words mean things. If your issue is with the bunch of liberals who parade around saying they are conservatives and wearing elephant – or even Tea Party – pins, then I’m as frustrated as you are, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the words. And I can’t stand ceding linguistic ground; causes major problems.
I mean that the USA is a liberal government, founded on liberal values, and any political thought that supports it must therefore be a variety of liberalism. What else could it be?
We’re just using different vocabularies man.
For once you and I agree about something. I don’t understand why people think the Constitution was based on biblical values and principles when it is so clearly a product of Enlightenment political philosophy.
There are elements of both. The idea of separate (thus necessarily limited) governmental spheres (Church, State, family) is not a secular Enlightenment principle. The idea of a need for internal checks and balances is an acknowledgment of the depravity of man, and not a secular Enlightenment principle. The culture of the time was overwhelmingly Christian, but it was still possible for those men to desire rest from the religious turmoil they left in Europe such that they would try to establish a government on a secular idea with the pursuit of man’s freedom, happiness, and livelihood in the center, rather… Read more »
As well as that religious turmoil in Europe some of them had the more immediate observation, if not experience, of persecution in the Colonies in mind when they set out to establish a non-sectarian government. It wasn’t merely academic, and as you note, not all enlightenment philosophy.
I can see how it drew from both, but doesn’t the concept of checks and balances come from Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws?
The concept of checks and balances is described and powerfully advocated by Montesquieu, but it doesn’t come from him. He describes three distinct branches, or operations of governments, but his point is that these have been and are always present, although not always separated into different offices and bodies. In fact, Montesquieu spends a lot of time contrasting those nations with explicit checks and balances to those without them. Also, it shouldn’t be overlooked that Montesquieu was a Christian, and not a secularist. He wrote in Spirit of the Laws that, “The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic… Read more »
To get more concrete: “principled conservativism” 150 years ago was opposing women’s suffrage. Principled conservatism today doesn’t even recognise that as a legitimate issue. What changed?
It doesn’t help, once again, that “conservatism” has come to effectively mean ANYTHING that supports Big Business, the chamber of commerce, “the troops” along with the hobby wars of the elites, etc. As Rev. Dabney I believe asked elsewhere, what exactly are they (i.e. so-called conservatives) conserving? I HATE having to parse words to this extent, but both the left and “right” have been hard at it redefining words for a long time now, and a lot of us have barely noticed! The closest I can come to defining my own position is the awkward “paleo-conservative.” Oh well . .… Read more »
Go a little further and you can be “reactionary”, which is what your enemies will call you anyway. ;-)
Do tell. About Dabney’s opinion. Or at rt least where I can read it for myself.
https://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/category/robert-lewis-dabney/
Dabney was an optimist: ” it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”
Thanks for the link. What Dabney says he always says well.
Perhaps we need more “preservatives” instead of “conservatives” in our politics.
Or perhaps we should focus on restoring the good stuff we’ve lost than conserving the mess we have.
Indeed. We need to return to the old paths, and then walk them where they lead, rather than camp on them.
I really don’t understand why people think Cruz is a conservative. nor is he Eligible to run in the first place.
You’re gonna need a bigger truck.
And a second one for the adverbs.
There are as many immigrants entering the country each year as there are Republican voters in South Carolina. They vote 8/2 for the Democrats. How is that not the most important issue?
They didn’t vote even close to 80/20 for Democrats until the recent immigrant hate wave came. Even Bush got 30% of the Latino vote, and the newest immigrants were the most conservative issue-wise. Immigrants aren’t naturally Democratic party members, it’s just that the Democratic party has tried to woo them in recent years and the Republican Party has specifically attacked them to try to fire up its predominently White base.
That’s hilarious:
“Folks, don’t let these alarmists scare you with their false claims that immigrants tend to vote 80/20 for Democrats. It’s only 70/30!”
You seem to be reading that incorrectly. It was 70/30 for Latinos in general, and newer immigrants are more conservative than that. And that’s obviously not the ceiling, but a result of current Republican actions that specifically are distancing Latinos in order to capture anti-immigrant voters.
It was 70/30 for Latinos in general, and newer immigrants are more conservative than that.
Oh, man, that’s rich!
Whatever you say, pal.
People can lament the destruction that’s coming, but no one can say we didn’t bring it on ourselves through our love of lies and preference for fairy tales over the cold, hard facts.
Two of the three leading parties in the country that sends the most immigrants to the USA are members of the Socialist International. Import Mexicans, get Mexican-style politics.
Beeblebrox/Trillian 2016
Second time as farce, indeed.
God have mercy.
Political Freakout and the chattering classes…that be you, Pastor Wilson
As the guy who wrote the piece at a competing blog of inestimable value (the blog, not the piece) on elections and math, let me tell you something: I find myself contemplating the cost of moving to New Zealand or Australia, given the likely choices in the coming Presidential election. If the final race is between Trump and anyone in the DNC race for the nomination, I can’t say there’s even a lesser of two evils. It’s like having to choose between voting for Madame Defarge or Bill Sikes – is it the secret list destined to the guillotine, or… Read more »
I find myself contemplating the cost of moving to New Zealand or Australia, given the likely choices in the coming Presidential election.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
I find myself contemplating the cost of moving to New Zealand or Australia, given the likely choices in the coming Presidential election. So Donald Trump represents the “worst of us in every way”? Obviously, this includes racism, right, Frank? And yet you don’t claim to be thinking of moving to countries like Belize, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Uganda, or Zimbabwe. Nor are you thinking of moving to Barbados, Jamaica, or the Bahamas, three countries which are not far from America at all. Instead, you hate racism so much that you would avoid all these black countries, even ones… Read more »
So confuzzed on so many levels!
If by “confuzzed” you mean “confused”, I think you’re wrong. Frank’s not confused.
But if by “confuzzed”you meant “outrageously hypocritical”, then I would agree. It’s certainly hypocritical to claim that you hate racism so much that if America elects a racist like Donald Trump you’re moving to the other side of the planet to one of two majority white countries, and not to one of the many black countries much closer to home.
The confusion is all yours, Mate!
I wouldn’t make Samson an elder either. He’s awfully handy when Philistines are around, though.
There’s no need for all this hand wringing. Just vote your conscience. Vote Nader.
Sarah Palin once lived and studied in your town. Did you know her then?
I will also enthusiastically throw my vote away. I will write in Doug Wilson.
Hillary may very well disintegrate. Sanders would make the Dem-E apoplectic. Do the Dems have any plan B should Hillary collapse?
I’m going to print up some “I’m Ridin’ With Biden” stickers just in case.
If Trump wins the GOP nomination, look for him to immediately warm to his prior Democratic constituency. We may witness the first time in U.S. history that the same candidate wins the nomination from both major parties in the very same election cycle. Trump could have run on either party platform, which is a testament to his political fluidity, or else a testament to the lack of functional immune system in the nomination process of the two parties.
Trump is as pro-life now as Obama was pro-traditional marriage in 2008. Actually, he’s probably even less. I expect Trump to end the charade on the evening of Nov 8 or maybe even as soon as he secures the GOP nomination.
The two old parties need ideas and votes to get from 49% to 51%. Voting for a 3rd party, such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian, serves both to make their ideas more noticeable, and to tell the old parties that votes are there if the ideas get embraced. So voting for a 3rd party need not be a waste.
Great post, Doug! What I love about this go around is that the old labels are so moth eaten now that the good ol’ boys can’t even cover their backsides with them. True colors are flapping hard around the old windbags and now we know who’s on first and what’s on second – for the first time in decades. Go, Ted, Go – Go Get Em’, Cowboy!
Reminder that Cruz values fellowship with unbelieving Jews more than with Christians: http://time.com/3328063/ted-cruz-booed-israel-christian-middle-east/
Not just “fellowship with unbelieving Jews”. It’s the fact that he believes supporting the political state of Israel (which has nothing whatsover to do with the Israel of God) is more important than supporting persecuted Christians.
He literally told persecuted Christians that he will only support their case if they support the Israeli government.
Jonathan wrote: He literally told persecuted Christians that he will only support their case if they support the Israeli government. Literally? In this particular talk? I wonder if Jonathan could provide the quote for us. Where was this condition ever raised? Where does Cruz ever threaten to withhold support for persecuted Christians? Seriously? In the context of the actual talk itself, Cruz stuck to the one issue of the murderous rampage against Christians, as well as Jews, and the need for solidarity with them on that front. I saw no mention of Israeli national policy or Zionism at any point.… Read more »
Anti-semitism is ugly and rampant in the Middle East. Cruz appears to be pointing out that Christians from the Middle East have also been infected by it.
And anti-Christian sentiment isn’t? (By “anti-semitism” I assume you mean “disagreement with Jews”, since most people in the Middle East are of Semitic descent.)
Noun “hostility to or prejudice against Jews.” Oxford Dictionary
As I said to another poster below, I don’t think you should judge another Christian by his opinion of Jews. One of the godliest men I’ve ever known blamed Jews for killing Jesus, and said they were hostile to the entire world.
Are you telling me he wasn’t a real believer?
Not a very charitable way of stating that event. If you read the article, it describes how the audience was largely Eastern and Arab. They began to boo when Cruz said:
“Sometimes we are told not to lump these groups together, but we have to understand their so-called nuances and differences. . . . In 1948 Jews throughout the Middle East faced murder and extermination and fled to the nation of Israel. And today Christians have no better ally than the Jewish state.”
Obviously his audience disagreed. And he made it clear whose side he was on.
I can’t say that I’m especially familiar with Cruz’s record on Israel, but I had watched the entire brief talk before, and I had not seen in it that Cruz expressed a value of fellowship with Jews more than with Christians. In the context, Cruz simply seemed to be observing that Jews are as much targets of Islamic jihadists as Christians, and are being systematically murdered for the same reasons. On that basis he appealed that we should be able to stand together against it. In this setting, Cruz seemed to be speaking, not simply as a Christian, for narrow… Read more »
Palin’s “shark jump” seems most like a desperate ratings grab as was the Fonz’s ski jump from which the phrase originates. Or, perhaps more like a washed up starlet who strips for a “gentleman’s magazine” since her second act after 2008 election never materialized. Either way, it ain’t pretty.
I’m really curious about the surprise over Palin’s endorsement?
She’s a survivalist and practicalist, making the only logical choice she can make. What else is she to do? I myself would likely be endorsing Trump too….and probably throwing up and begging God to stop the clown car so I can get off the ride, but what else is one supposed to do?
I think the most practical thing she could do, in the long run, is to retire from public life and focus on her family. There comes a time when a person has to accept that he or she has no future in politics. She could still do valuable work in other spheres.
Okay Jilly, but here she is, making a tremendous impact on politics. People may not like it, people may try to declare she has no future, and yet here she is doing it.
Was Palin governor when you lived in Alaska? What did the people in her state think of her?
It’s schadenfreude and it’s wrong but I have to admit that the idea of liberal heads exploding pleases me.
http://i.imgur.com/j0UFyr9.jpg
Is it really wrong when it’s the best we can hope for at the moment? :-)
God can do more than we ask or imagine. What would be best? Mass repentance and new life, for a start, obviously. But then what? A country full of brand new Christians would be even wackier than our current mix. I don’t think being born again changes your politics immediately and it certainly doesn’t make you immune to seductive lies and demagoguery.
Certainly, though as the old saying says, “Pray to God but keep rowing to shore.” What would be best? A peaceful breakup of USA into multiple regional governments, probably.
If Palin would change your mind about voting for McCain, then why not Trump? Is McCain really better than Trump in any way?
I liked McCain, and I think he is a better man than Trump. McCain served his country. He did leave his disabled first wife, but he has publicly repented for that, calling what he did immoral and dishonorable. I don’t think Trump feels the same way about his prior marriages; in fact, when asked if he has ever repented of anything, he could not come up with a single example. McCain stood by his second wife when she got addicted to pills, and he has steadfastly refused to criticize Palin. I think he is loyal and that he is not… Read more »
McCain is a vicious, warmongering neocon in the pockets of the military/security/prison-rape industry. He has never contributed anything economically to society, unlike Trump. He is also very dumb compared to Trump, as Trump’s IQ is reportedly above 150. He did not serve his country. U.S. soldiers don’t serve their country; they serve the politicians (like McCain himself) who use them as cannon fodder to benefit themselves and their corporate cronies. He is a bad man who likes to steal from children (the national debt). In 200 years he will be known by post-American polite society as nothing more than a… Read more »
Yes, but what do you really think?
Seriously, is there a politician holding office right now whom you respect?
There aren’t any politicians with any level of fame that I respect. Once you gain a certain level of influence, everybody wants to buy you off, and almost none of the politicians can resist. That’s the main reason why I feel this way.
It’s possible for me to respect McCain for his former military service. Unfortunately, McCain has betrayed (I don’t use that word lightly) actual conservatives too many times for me to have any respect for his political service, let alone to think that he represents my interests.
Pastor Doug, When you say “I would rather be dead in a ditch than vote for Trump, and I will enthusiastically throw my vote away,” and then say “I will certainly hope that he wins against whoever he is up against,” isn’t this kinda like saying ” I’ll let all of you get your hands dirty while I keep mine clean”? For a parallel example, when you said in an Ask Doug video that you didn’t vote for Romney because you knew Idaho was going red (I’m open to correction here) isn’t that, again, like saying ” I’ll let all… Read more »
If Wilson was advocating that others should vote for Trump (the “dirty work”), then he could be vulnerable to that charge, but he hasn’t invited others to do what he is unwilling to do himself. Rather, he is offering principles to support why he can’t vote for Trump, and he is recommending these same principles to others. We can refrain from participation and still hold a preference for one particular outcome over another. Participation and preference are two separate concepts. For example, we may refuse to participate in a vigilante mob, on principle, even if we know the accused is… Read more »
I’m not a trump “fan”, but my fear is that if the dem’s get the Whitehouse again, the baby slaughter will have no chance of disruption. Abortion is the weightiest political issue in my eyes. #My2Cents
Trump has said that his pro-abortion sister would make a phenomenal Supreme Court Justice. Trump’s charade of a pro-life stance will end on or before his first day in office, and he’ll be back to the pro-abortion side.
If abortion is important to you, then Trump is absolutely NOT your guy.
And if Trump gets the White House, the baby slaughter will have no chance of disruption, either. So there’s that.
What I find interesting is that the Trump supporters always go back to “but Trump is good on immigration.”
I wonder why they think that. Surely it’s not simply because he claims to be? What are his claims worth?
From what I’ve seen, a lot of people support Trump as a way of just giving a big middle finger to the Establishment Republicans, RINO’s, whatever you call them. They don’t necessarily think he’ll be any better than a typical R or D, but he’d cause a big change in how other so-called conservative politicians act after they’re elected.
I understand that, but I’m talking about the people who actually do say, “But he’s the only one who’s good on immigration” and intend to convey that this is a positive reason to support him.
I just think that assumes that what he’s been saying about immigration for the last half-year is what he’d actually do, and I don’t see any reason to make that assumption, based on his track record. Given that all his other positions should be abhorrent to conservatives, this is a pretty thin reed for justifying actively supporting him.
Given that all his other positions should be abhorrent to conservatives
Trump has spelled out five major positions. Besides immigration, they are: improving the way the VA treats vets, reforming US-China trade relations so more factories stay over here, simplifying the tax code/lowering taxes on the middle class, and defending the right to keep and bear arms.
And you think these four positions should be abhorrent to conservatives?
Fascinating.
Trump supports amnesty. Trump supported assault weapon bans. Trump supports a 45% tariff on China goods. Rather than reform US-China relations, it will make it worse, raise the cost of goods for you and me and create a trade war. Trump supported Obamacare. Trump supported partial-birth abortion. Trump supported gay marriage. Trump supports eminent domain so that he can build failed casinos. Trump supports single payer health care.
But continue to think he is a conservative.
I never claimed Trump was a conservative.
All I did was say I’m fascinated at the other poster’s notion that conservatives should find the ideas of US-China trade reform, better treatment of our veterans, defending gun rights, simplifying the tax code/lowering taxes on the middle class “abhorrent.”
You addressed one of those. Please explain why conservatives should find the ideas of better treatment of our vets, lowering/simplifying taxes, and defending gun rights “abhorttent.”
Those three items are fine on their face, but there is a person behind those statements. So the question is not whether he says he is for gun rights, the question is what has he done to show this? He supported an assault weapons ban and did not fight it. During Rubio’s gang of 8 bill, he supported amnesty. He talks of simplifying the tax code, something I agree with, but then talks of adding a tariff (i.e. tax) on imported goods. His main argument is that he is “A Strong Man” that will fix all the problems. Sorry, but… Read more »
I don’t find those “ideas” abhorrent, but those ideas are no more “positions” than “It would be nice if everyone was rich and healthy and I’m going to make it happen” is a “position.” A position is about precisely what he intends to do to accomplish those sunny outcomes, and everything I know about Trump indicates he would do it through a combination of statism and crony capitalism — except the one about gun rights where his position is entirely non-credible to begin with.
Those and only those 1are “major positions” according to whom?
Please outline the conservative manner in which he’s going to “improve the way the VA treats vets” and “reform US-China trade relations,”, etc. To speak in platitudes about things that everybody including conservatives would consider an improvement, is not to hold conservative positions.
See David R’s account for his abhorrent positions.
You said “all his other positions should be abhorrent to conservatives.” You didn’t say some of his postions. You said ALL.
What part of “all” don’t you understand?
I will take his position more seriously when he explains exactly how he is going to make the Mexicans pay for the wall.
I will take his position more seriously when he sticks to it for ten years, unlike any other of his current “conservative” positions.
He did. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
Besides those hoping for some kind of change without having an idea what shape it might take, there are those who just want to give a big middle finger to the Establishment and don’t really care what happens after that.
One distinct possibility with a Trump presidency is that he would be very pragmatic, authoritarian, and left-leaning. This would result in a Republican-controlled Capitol being at odds with the Republican-controlled White House, giving hysterical Democrats and the media even more opportunity to mock our elected Congressman for “obstructionism” and “not representing the people,” which would in turn completely demolish what little trust the people have in their elected representatives and make us yet more open to tyranny and demagoguery. A vicious circle if ever there was one.
Or worse, it could make non-communist Americans feel like the system still works and represents their interests.
I would pity any middle-class American who could look at that man and think he represents anyone’s interests, let alone theirs.
It’s clear whose interests the other Republican candidates represent. Trump at least leaves the question open.
Perhaps what I’m saying is that is not a good thing. It certainly isn’t a reason to vote for him. :)
To be clear: the other candidates represent the interests of their donors. Trump does not, thus the outrage directed at him by the Republican establishment.
I see what you mean, but in reality all the R candidates represent the interests of their donors/supporters – including Donald Trump. But The Donald’s biggest donor is himself, so that’s who he represents.
Trump really needs to lose in Iowa. And that means that principled conservatives in Iowa need to rally behind Cruz. This is a pressing need — and other issues are secondary to it. There would be no inconsistency for a thoughtful Rubio supporter in Iowa to go for Cruz. That is because if Cruz wins there will still be a Cruz/Rubio contest later. If Trump does, then that is hard to imagine. Doug, you need to start organizing non-stop, round the clock prayer rallies at the Kirk. Because I just saw a clip on Youtube, I think it was from… Read more »