George Will once called Thomas Jefferson the patron saint of limited government, which explains how my son came to be named Jefferson. Limited government, free markets and lower taxes also explain why I became a Republican. Today, however, those ideas also reflect why I now have such problems with the party, specifically that almost everything listed - just about everything the party stands for - is a commitment to the "means" rather than the "ends."
Free markets and limited government sound good and are good - up to a point. But unlimited freedom leads to anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the strong (interestingly, I spoke with a friend yesterday who's friendly with a Russian emigre, who said that is precisely what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union - unfettered capitalism led to corrupt oligarchy). But I digress.
When free markets are treated as an end, rather than a means, they tend to be left to their own devices because we are blind to their shortcomings in the belief that the nature of free markets makes them self policing. Not so, as we saw just eight years ago, when Alan Greenspan was shocked that bankers didn't police themselves to avoid the pitfalls of their actions. Problem was that he ignored human nature, which invariably chooses the short-term over long-term view. It's why we choose fries instead of steamed vegetables for our side - short term gratification over long-term good.
Economics are no different. Unfettered capitalism will have far greater highs than a moderated version, but also far greater lows. And without regulation, the true cost of free markets get passed on in ways that can be deadly (toxic waste, dangerous products, etc.), uneven (unemployment, dislocations) or in ways that lead to divides that are dangerous to democracy (hungry people gripe, starving people revolt).
So free markets need to be treated as a means to driving greater productivity, but as part of the goal (the ends) of creating the greatest common good for society as a whole (for the best example of ends and means, look at the U.S. Constitution - the preamble states the ends, the document outlines the means).
Supply-side economics is another issue where means have been confused for ends. Top tax rates exceeded 90% after WWII as we tried to pay down our debt from the war (that debt for war production is what pulled us out of the Great Depression, much like today's debt kept us out of another depression in 2008, but we do not seem to have the will to pay it down like our forebearers did). Again, I digress. Still, those rates were reduced to 70% by JFK, then 50% by Ronald Reagan, based upon Arthur Laffer's theory that there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes tax revenue by increasing economic activity - but that reducing the tax rate beyond that point begins to reduce tax revenues once more.
It is almost certain that tax rates already are at or below that point where revenues will fall with further tax cuts. U.S. corporations are sitting on nearly $1.8 trillion in cash, largely because keeping it in the bank or financial markets generates better returns than could be had reinvesting in their own businesses. Further tax cuts will only increase that stagnant cash horde, and thus, are more likely to fuel asset bubbles and inflation than they are economic activity, while also fueling further government deficits. This is why I argue that the GOP has ceded their right to claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Finally, health care - this requires a book, but suffice it to say that there is nothing where we have neglected to agree on our goal (the ends) more than with health care. But I will say without equivocation that a free market approach will lead to millions being left without insurance and that the overall cost of providing healthcare in the U.S. will continue to rise. That is because it is nearly impossible to create a transparent market where consumers can knowledgeably price and shop their healthcare needs in order to control prices. Add to that our willingness to spend ourselves into bankruptcy over health concerns and it becomes clear that the typical market forces that hold prices in check do not apply to health care (if corn goes up too much, I’ll buy wheat instead, whereas if a hip replacement is my last, best hope for pain relief, they pretty much have me over a barrel).
Bottom line, the GOP has become so intellectually constrained by mantras of free markets and lower taxes that they are operating with blinders on. That they are being led by perhaps the least intellectual president in our history does not give any cause for relief.
12/06/2016
11/27/2016
Predictions for a Trump Presidency
Less than three weeks into the post-election Trump transition and here’s what we have so far:
• We may keep parts of Obamacare
• We may not actually build a wall
• We’re not going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants
• We probably won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton
• Climate change may have a human component
• We will not revert to waterboarding
Trying to predict where a Trump presidency will go is like trying to predict where a sputtering balloon will land – it’s impossible because there’s no rudder, no tether, no clear direction. It’s to be expected from a man with no moral or philosophical center, made worse by a lack of curiosity that leaves him susceptible to the last thing he’s heard (more on that in a bit).
All that said, for future reference, here are a few predictions as of November 27, 2016:
Immigration
(See post of October 2 https://www.facebook.com/pszydlowski/posts/10209610520314105),
Deficit
Quite simply, spending will increase, taxes will be cut, revenue will decline and the deficit will increase. Expect debt to increase by $2 trillion or more from the $19 trillion Trump will inherit.
Sidenote: The Republicans have officially abandoned any claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility. Their supply-side fervor has caused them to lose sight of the fact that even Arthur Laffer, whose Laffer Curve is the basis for supply-side tax cuts, argued that there is a point at which tax cuts do not deliver increased revenue through growth stimulus. It's like turning the furnace down from 90 degrees. for a while you experience increased productivity, but eventually you go too far and the foot-stomping and hand-rubbing to keep warm becomes as big an impediment to productivity as the 90 degree heat. So it is with taxes.
Economy/Jobs
We will learn those rural manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Neither are those high-paying auto jobs. Truth is, we make as many cars today as we did before NAFTA, but automation has cut the number of workers needed by more than a third. The economy will continue to be driven by technology, efficiency and services, and society will continue to be roiled by the upheaval those bring. How that will play out when it becomes clear to the blue-collar Trump supporter that their factory is not reopening and low-wage jobs at chain stores, call centers and the like remain the mainstay of local employment opportunities remains to be seen.
Healthcare
One of Steven Covey's 7 Habits is to begin with the end in mind. We, as a nation, have not done that regarding health care, which is why it remains a mess. Do we want to ensure universal coverage? That requires a government-heavy approach. Do we want to minimize the cost for the greatest number of people? That requires a transparent free-market approach. But we will not achieve universal coverage with a free market system. Therefore, if Trump pursues a free-market answer, as his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill will likely call for, we may see premiums for certain groups and healthy individuals moderate or even decline - but it will be at the cost of coverage for many and affordable coverage for even more as unhealthy groups and individuals find they are no longer sharing the cost of their illnesses with the broader insurance pool.
If Trump chooses to pursue a middle way, as suggested by his call to retain the pre-existing condition and adult child coverage provisions of Obamacare without retaining the individual mandate, we will see the worst of all worlds, as premiums adjust upwards because people wait until they need insurance to buy it (I see no way this will be the approach, but it points out that the idea of a free-lunch is no more workable with health insurance than it is in any other walk of life).
Social Issues
I predict gay marriage will remain legal (Trump has said it's been decided, though that is currently the Supreme Court's call, not his). Abortion will most likely remain so, despite the talk of appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Watch for a President Trump to backtrack on unfettered gun access after the first mass shooting on his watch. Black Lives matter and identity politics will require visionary leadership, something I believe is woefully lacking in our President-elect. I pray I'm wrong, I fear I'm not.
Governing Style
Every administration deals with the battle for the president's ear. That battle will be magnified exponentially in the Trump White House, as aides battle for supremacy with a president who lacks both the moral or philosophical center that guides most leaders and the curiosity to seek the wisdom that provides such a center. Therefore, the last voice will be the most powerful voice. If his campaign is any indication, where there were three managers in eight months, we can expect infighting and incoherence to rule. We have seen this at work already, as indicated by the policy changes outlined at the top of this piece.
Combine the lack of leadership at the top, the ongoing potential for conflicts of interest, the well-known disdain for detail management style of Donald Trump and the opportunity for mischief in a government spending $3.8 trillion each year and, well, infighting may be the least of our concerns.
The Big Picture
Despite regional turmoil, the world has been more stable since the end of WWII than it has in its entire history prior. That is due almost exclusively to the role the United States has played in maintaining order. If we join the global run for the exits regarding trade, military and social compacts, we risk a slow, inevitable devolution into disorder, with players like Russia and China seeking to fill the vacuum left by the loss of U.S. leadership. I make no predictions how that will play out in terms of trade, military conflict or societal upheavals, but I will predict that 1) we'll wish for the old order, and 2) continue to believe further withdrawal is the proper course - until we realize it isn't, at which point it will be too late.
The Warning
We've been watching a slow progression of disdain for government over the past 30 years. I'll argue it began, innocently enough, with Ronald Reagan's claim that government wasn't the solution to our problems, but was the problem itself. Accurate as he may have been at the time, and though he refrained from calling government malevolent, others were not so forgiving.
Since then, we've seen self-styled patriots bomb a federal office building, take on the federal government over grazing rights and publicly solicit funds to protect gun rights from "jack-booted government thugs." Along the way, the ideas of Tim McVeigh have become more mainstream, as those who fancy themselves patriots (sincerely, I might add) become more outspoken in their disdain for government, more brazen in their actions against it and more militant in defense of gun rights. It is a volatile combination. The rural outcast warning of black helicopters and secret surveillance 25 years ago is now the neighbor up the street with both an arsenal designed to take on an evil government and a strident lack of faith in our democratic institutions of a free press, an unbiased judiciary and fair elections. How that neighbor - and all those like him - will react when reality hits that bringing good jobs back isn't that easy, that withdrawing from the world makes us neither safer nor wealthier or that the demographic changes thought reversible turn out to be permanent and ongoing, will go a long way in determining the future of our republic. Whether misguided calls for a convention of states or militant calls for armed resistance result, such will mark a sad beginning to a sadder end.
• We may keep parts of Obamacare
• We may not actually build a wall
• We’re not going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants
• We probably won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton
• Climate change may have a human component
• We will not revert to waterboarding
Trying to predict where a Trump presidency will go is like trying to predict where a sputtering balloon will land – it’s impossible because there’s no rudder, no tether, no clear direction. It’s to be expected from a man with no moral or philosophical center, made worse by a lack of curiosity that leaves him susceptible to the last thing he’s heard (more on that in a bit).
All that said, for future reference, here are a few predictions as of November 27, 2016:
Immigration
- The wall will not be built. Sections may be completed to pacify "Build the Wall" supporters, but it will almost certainly be a thousand or more miles shy of closing off the entire border.
- There will be fewer annual deportations than there were during the peak of the Obama administration (404,000 in 2012), which deported more than 2.5 million illegal immigrants.
- Touchback amnesty will become vetting in place once technology and agriculture leaders explain the cost and logistics of requiring undocumented workers to return to their homelands to reapply for legal entry.
- The end result will be a policy and amnesty very close to what was proposed by the Gang of Eight.
(See post of October 2 https://www.facebook.com/pszydlowski/posts/10209610520314105),
Deficit
Quite simply, spending will increase, taxes will be cut, revenue will decline and the deficit will increase. Expect debt to increase by $2 trillion or more from the $19 trillion Trump will inherit.
Sidenote: The Republicans have officially abandoned any claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility. Their supply-side fervor has caused them to lose sight of the fact that even Arthur Laffer, whose Laffer Curve is the basis for supply-side tax cuts, argued that there is a point at which tax cuts do not deliver increased revenue through growth stimulus. It's like turning the furnace down from 90 degrees. for a while you experience increased productivity, but eventually you go too far and the foot-stomping and hand-rubbing to keep warm becomes as big an impediment to productivity as the 90 degree heat. So it is with taxes.
Economy/Jobs
We will learn those rural manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Neither are those high-paying auto jobs. Truth is, we make as many cars today as we did before NAFTA, but automation has cut the number of workers needed by more than a third. The economy will continue to be driven by technology, efficiency and services, and society will continue to be roiled by the upheaval those bring. How that will play out when it becomes clear to the blue-collar Trump supporter that their factory is not reopening and low-wage jobs at chain stores, call centers and the like remain the mainstay of local employment opportunities remains to be seen.
Healthcare
One of Steven Covey's 7 Habits is to begin with the end in mind. We, as a nation, have not done that regarding health care, which is why it remains a mess. Do we want to ensure universal coverage? That requires a government-heavy approach. Do we want to minimize the cost for the greatest number of people? That requires a transparent free-market approach. But we will not achieve universal coverage with a free market system. Therefore, if Trump pursues a free-market answer, as his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill will likely call for, we may see premiums for certain groups and healthy individuals moderate or even decline - but it will be at the cost of coverage for many and affordable coverage for even more as unhealthy groups and individuals find they are no longer sharing the cost of their illnesses with the broader insurance pool.
If Trump chooses to pursue a middle way, as suggested by his call to retain the pre-existing condition and adult child coverage provisions of Obamacare without retaining the individual mandate, we will see the worst of all worlds, as premiums adjust upwards because people wait until they need insurance to buy it (I see no way this will be the approach, but it points out that the idea of a free-lunch is no more workable with health insurance than it is in any other walk of life).
Social Issues
I predict gay marriage will remain legal (Trump has said it's been decided, though that is currently the Supreme Court's call, not his). Abortion will most likely remain so, despite the talk of appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Watch for a President Trump to backtrack on unfettered gun access after the first mass shooting on his watch. Black Lives matter and identity politics will require visionary leadership, something I believe is woefully lacking in our President-elect. I pray I'm wrong, I fear I'm not.
Governing Style
Every administration deals with the battle for the president's ear. That battle will be magnified exponentially in the Trump White House, as aides battle for supremacy with a president who lacks both the moral or philosophical center that guides most leaders and the curiosity to seek the wisdom that provides such a center. Therefore, the last voice will be the most powerful voice. If his campaign is any indication, where there were three managers in eight months, we can expect infighting and incoherence to rule. We have seen this at work already, as indicated by the policy changes outlined at the top of this piece.
Combine the lack of leadership at the top, the ongoing potential for conflicts of interest, the well-known disdain for detail management style of Donald Trump and the opportunity for mischief in a government spending $3.8 trillion each year and, well, infighting may be the least of our concerns.
The Big Picture
Despite regional turmoil, the world has been more stable since the end of WWII than it has in its entire history prior. That is due almost exclusively to the role the United States has played in maintaining order. If we join the global run for the exits regarding trade, military and social compacts, we risk a slow, inevitable devolution into disorder, with players like Russia and China seeking to fill the vacuum left by the loss of U.S. leadership. I make no predictions how that will play out in terms of trade, military conflict or societal upheavals, but I will predict that 1) we'll wish for the old order, and 2) continue to believe further withdrawal is the proper course - until we realize it isn't, at which point it will be too late.
The Warning
We've been watching a slow progression of disdain for government over the past 30 years. I'll argue it began, innocently enough, with Ronald Reagan's claim that government wasn't the solution to our problems, but was the problem itself. Accurate as he may have been at the time, and though he refrained from calling government malevolent, others were not so forgiving.
Since then, we've seen self-styled patriots bomb a federal office building, take on the federal government over grazing rights and publicly solicit funds to protect gun rights from "jack-booted government thugs." Along the way, the ideas of Tim McVeigh have become more mainstream, as those who fancy themselves patriots (sincerely, I might add) become more outspoken in their disdain for government, more brazen in their actions against it and more militant in defense of gun rights. It is a volatile combination. The rural outcast warning of black helicopters and secret surveillance 25 years ago is now the neighbor up the street with both an arsenal designed to take on an evil government and a strident lack of faith in our democratic institutions of a free press, an unbiased judiciary and fair elections. How that neighbor - and all those like him - will react when reality hits that bringing good jobs back isn't that easy, that withdrawing from the world makes us neither safer nor wealthier or that the demographic changes thought reversible turn out to be permanent and ongoing, will go a long way in determining the future of our republic. Whether misguided calls for a convention of states or militant calls for armed resistance result, such will mark a sad beginning to a sadder end.
And whether Trump's supporters decide to turn against their man or double down in support if things go south remains to be seen. Much will depend upon whether a President Trump seeks to turn their anger against the very institutions his oath swore to uphold. Let us remember that this great nation has survived 228 years with the setup we've got. We should not sacrifice it because of one bad choice.
[Addendum: December 3, 2022, need I say more?]
11/06/2016
I'm Voting for Hillary. Here's Why
I doubt it surprises anyone that I am not voting for Donald Trump, but it may surprise some that I will actually cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. This has been a troubling, but not all that difficult decision because, quite franky, I firmly believe she is the better, safer choice. She is far less likely to damage our economy, our security, our culture and the very foundations of our democracy than is Donald Trump.
Clearly, I had three choices. Vote for Hillary Clinton, vote for a third party candidate or sit this one out.
To sit this one out abdicates responsibility to others and means I have not done all I could to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. Voting third party would give me the chance to cast a principled vote, but given that no third party candidate has even the remotest chance of winning Ohio, that vote would be largely symbolic. If I were to vote third party or independent, I would cast a write-in vote for Evan McMullen, a conservative former CIA operative out of Utah. He is knowledgable, with useful experience in global affairs and has respected conservative bona fides. He'd have made a very desirable major party candidate. But he can't win Ohio, so a vote for him does nothing to stop Donald Trump.
Therefore, I choose Hillary. It will be the first time in my life that I have not voted for the Republican candidate (I do plan to vote for down ballot Republicans). And while my support is almost exclusively to keep Trump out of office, there are a handful of issues where I can say I am affirmatively casting my vote in her favor. These include gun regulation, where I believe a nuanced approach is the responsible one - and one that need not violate the Constitution of the United States. Consider all the rules, regulations and training involving automobiles, yet none of them limit our ability to get in our car and drive where we want. We can surely find some reasonable middle ground that helps control the spread and misuse of guns.
I also prefer her on the environment. I do not think that whether one believes climate change is occuring or not, or whether man is at fault or not, is a partisan question. It is a scientific one. How we respond is ceratinly political, but the question of its existence is not. I worry when any politician dismisses it out of hand, especially one as ill-informed or lacking the curiosity to learn the facts like Donald Trump. The fact is that evidence points to man-made climate change that could be devatating. Again, we need an informed, nuanced approach. Hillary is far more likely to deliver that than Trump.
Finally, while Hillary is most certainly the poster child for all that is wrong with money in politics, she is the only one of the two candidates who has spoken against Citizens United, a Supreme Court ruling that even an ardent supporter of the First Amendment like me finds appalling - and one only the most active political partisans could love. It essentially took the lid off corporate donations, creating a dangerous feedback loop where money buys influence, which brings more money. It has the opportunity to destroy any semblance of government of, by and for the people. I support Hillary in her call to overturn this.
There is much I disagree with her on - free college tuition, a $15 minimum wage and more. I don't trust either side on health care because it is an incredibly complex, emotionally fraught, expensive subject that, quite frankly, we don't have the political guts or the informed electorate that would make workable reform possible.
As for her faults - and there are many - I have done my best to inform myself. I have read a long summary of the FBI investigations into her emails and much of the Gowdy report on Benghazi. I have looked at the tax filings and independent watchdog reports on the Clinton Foundation and reviewed her tax returns. I have concluded that there is far more smoke than fire. I certainly do not believe she has had anyone killed.
That said, the foundation has many questionable relationships, especially where donations bought access, but there appears to be little to no quid pro quo. As to claims they give only 5 or 6% to charity, that is misleading because their foundation is a "boots on the ground" organization that does much of the work itself, so salaries, travel and supplies are largely for care workers, experts and relief. Her email story reads like one almost any IT person dealing with a sixty-plus year-old senior executive would experience - a technophobe who just wants the darn thing to work and has no idea how it does. In this case, it was a server in the basement. And Benghazi is an unfortunate situation that could have happened anywhere. We are a strapped nation with resources spread too thin. Everyone is asking for more resources, more security, more personnel, but not everyone can get them. Unfortunately, Benghazi was the location where that lack of resources had a price. As for her "What difference does it make" comment, that has been taken way out of context. After being asked repeatedly why it took so long to report what actually happened, she finally says, "What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." She then goes on to describe a fluid situation in the aftermath of the attacks. I know this all sounds like a defense, but it is what I've found when I go to the source for information. As for Bill, bimbos, Travelgate and all that, we've fought that fight and it really went nowhere.
In conclusion, I will not be happy come November 9, but I will surely breathe a sigh of relief if Hillary is slated to become our next president. And I will reserve the right to fight her on what I disagree with, defend her when the facts support doing so and pray that our country can find a way to return to informed, civilized debate.
That's my take.
Clearly, I had three choices. Vote for Hillary Clinton, vote for a third party candidate or sit this one out.
To sit this one out abdicates responsibility to others and means I have not done all I could to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. Voting third party would give me the chance to cast a principled vote, but given that no third party candidate has even the remotest chance of winning Ohio, that vote would be largely symbolic. If I were to vote third party or independent, I would cast a write-in vote for Evan McMullen, a conservative former CIA operative out of Utah. He is knowledgable, with useful experience in global affairs and has respected conservative bona fides. He'd have made a very desirable major party candidate. But he can't win Ohio, so a vote for him does nothing to stop Donald Trump.
Therefore, I choose Hillary. It will be the first time in my life that I have not voted for the Republican candidate (I do plan to vote for down ballot Republicans). And while my support is almost exclusively to keep Trump out of office, there are a handful of issues where I can say I am affirmatively casting my vote in her favor. These include gun regulation, where I believe a nuanced approach is the responsible one - and one that need not violate the Constitution of the United States. Consider all the rules, regulations and training involving automobiles, yet none of them limit our ability to get in our car and drive where we want. We can surely find some reasonable middle ground that helps control the spread and misuse of guns.
I also prefer her on the environment. I do not think that whether one believes climate change is occuring or not, or whether man is at fault or not, is a partisan question. It is a scientific one. How we respond is ceratinly political, but the question of its existence is not. I worry when any politician dismisses it out of hand, especially one as ill-informed or lacking the curiosity to learn the facts like Donald Trump. The fact is that evidence points to man-made climate change that could be devatating. Again, we need an informed, nuanced approach. Hillary is far more likely to deliver that than Trump.
Finally, while Hillary is most certainly the poster child for all that is wrong with money in politics, she is the only one of the two candidates who has spoken against Citizens United, a Supreme Court ruling that even an ardent supporter of the First Amendment like me finds appalling - and one only the most active political partisans could love. It essentially took the lid off corporate donations, creating a dangerous feedback loop where money buys influence, which brings more money. It has the opportunity to destroy any semblance of government of, by and for the people. I support Hillary in her call to overturn this.
There is much I disagree with her on - free college tuition, a $15 minimum wage and more. I don't trust either side on health care because it is an incredibly complex, emotionally fraught, expensive subject that, quite frankly, we don't have the political guts or the informed electorate that would make workable reform possible.
As for her faults - and there are many - I have done my best to inform myself. I have read a long summary of the FBI investigations into her emails and much of the Gowdy report on Benghazi. I have looked at the tax filings and independent watchdog reports on the Clinton Foundation and reviewed her tax returns. I have concluded that there is far more smoke than fire. I certainly do not believe she has had anyone killed.
That said, the foundation has many questionable relationships, especially where donations bought access, but there appears to be little to no quid pro quo. As to claims they give only 5 or 6% to charity, that is misleading because their foundation is a "boots on the ground" organization that does much of the work itself, so salaries, travel and supplies are largely for care workers, experts and relief. Her email story reads like one almost any IT person dealing with a sixty-plus year-old senior executive would experience - a technophobe who just wants the darn thing to work and has no idea how it does. In this case, it was a server in the basement. And Benghazi is an unfortunate situation that could have happened anywhere. We are a strapped nation with resources spread too thin. Everyone is asking for more resources, more security, more personnel, but not everyone can get them. Unfortunately, Benghazi was the location where that lack of resources had a price. As for her "What difference does it make" comment, that has been taken way out of context. After being asked repeatedly why it took so long to report what actually happened, she finally says, "What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." She then goes on to describe a fluid situation in the aftermath of the attacks. I know this all sounds like a defense, but it is what I've found when I go to the source for information. As for Bill, bimbos, Travelgate and all that, we've fought that fight and it really went nowhere.
In conclusion, I will not be happy come November 9, but I will surely breathe a sigh of relief if Hillary is slated to become our next president. And I will reserve the right to fight her on what I disagree with, defend her when the facts support doing so and pray that our country can find a way to return to informed, civilized debate.
That's my take.
9/28/2016
My Road to Conservative Media Disillusion
I've been trying to trace my disillusionment with conservative media, because I know it's been going on a while. Tellingly, it probably began when I started writing a weekly column for our local paper back in 2003, much of which is the basis for what can be found here. Early on, it's easy to note the typical conservative talking points. But after being called out for factual errors a few times, I began researching for myself, rather than relying upon received wisdom from the media gods. I soon learned what was delivered as "fact" wasn't always so. Eye-opener #1.
Jump ahead to 2008, when a local talk show host named Bill "Willie" Cunningham gained national notoriety for being among the first and most visible to use Barack Obama's middle name while introducing John McCain at a rally. This took place the day after William F. Buckley died and Cunningham's feigned shock at the uproar showed he was all about attention rather than principle. Eye-opener #2.
In 2011, after we had taken out Osama bin Laden, I had some surprising disagreements with fellow conservatives who felt we shouldn't trust our president on the matter (I was told to be wary of something sinister in the President's act). Ok, partisan whack jobs, maybe. But then I heard similar questions being raised on talk radio. That was probably the Eureka! moment when I realized these guys were driven by ratings and therefore dependent upon maintaining a riled up audience. Eye-opener #3 (and channel changer).
Finally, the echo chamber that is conservative media became crystal clear just last month, following the Khizr Khan speech at the DNC. I saw the interviews with the Khans and with Trump where he questioned why the mother remained silent and how he'd sacrificed similarly by running a business. The next day I had a six hour drive and heard Rush, Hannity and especially, Michael Savage accuse the father of being an immigration lawyer, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and of using the U.S. Constitution as a cheap prop, while the mother was accused of having appeared in western garb at a Clinton gala years before - indicating the hijab she wore during the speech was an effect and that they were in the Clinton's pocket from the start.
Except that none of it was true. The woman in the photo was someone else with the same last name, the father had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood, worked as a commercial attorney specializing in electronic discovery, and was known to keep copies of the Constitution at his home, which he handed out to military cadets who visited.
But that's not what was all over social media the next day. Instead, Facebook and Twitter were full of the misinformation spewed by conservative media. I found trying to correct it like trying to stop a flood with a fishing net. Frustrating and futile. But we must find a way to stop it, for we are seeing the damage that can be done to our democracy when a few selfish folks put personal profit ahead of principle and sway a nation with lies. An ignorant, ill-informed electorate is fertile ground for despots and demagogues.
Jump ahead to 2008, when a local talk show host named Bill "Willie" Cunningham gained national notoriety for being among the first and most visible to use Barack Obama's middle name while introducing John McCain at a rally. This took place the day after William F. Buckley died and Cunningham's feigned shock at the uproar showed he was all about attention rather than principle. Eye-opener #2.
In 2011, after we had taken out Osama bin Laden, I had some surprising disagreements with fellow conservatives who felt we shouldn't trust our president on the matter (I was told to be wary of something sinister in the President's act). Ok, partisan whack jobs, maybe. But then I heard similar questions being raised on talk radio. That was probably the Eureka! moment when I realized these guys were driven by ratings and therefore dependent upon maintaining a riled up audience. Eye-opener #3 (and channel changer).
Finally, the echo chamber that is conservative media became crystal clear just last month, following the Khizr Khan speech at the DNC. I saw the interviews with the Khans and with Trump where he questioned why the mother remained silent and how he'd sacrificed similarly by running a business. The next day I had a six hour drive and heard Rush, Hannity and especially, Michael Savage accuse the father of being an immigration lawyer, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and of using the U.S. Constitution as a cheap prop, while the mother was accused of having appeared in western garb at a Clinton gala years before - indicating the hijab she wore during the speech was an effect and that they were in the Clinton's pocket from the start.
Except that none of it was true. The woman in the photo was someone else with the same last name, the father had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood, worked as a commercial attorney specializing in electronic discovery, and was known to keep copies of the Constitution at his home, which he handed out to military cadets who visited.
But that's not what was all over social media the next day. Instead, Facebook and Twitter were full of the misinformation spewed by conservative media. I found trying to correct it like trying to stop a flood with a fishing net. Frustrating and futile. But we must find a way to stop it, for we are seeing the damage that can be done to our democracy when a few selfish folks put personal profit ahead of principle and sway a nation with lies. An ignorant, ill-informed electorate is fertile ground for despots and demagogues.
9/16/2016
Hillary, Trump & the Deplorables
Much has been made of Hillary's basket of deplorables comment regarding Trump supporters. I immediately thought of Mitt Romney's 47% comment in 2012 - one of those things that probably shouldn't have been said, regardless that there is more than a hint of truth behind both statements.
Regarding Hillary's, there is little doubt that Trump has been appealing to an ugly underbelly, but the size of that underbelly is surely not half of his support. However, if one makes one small change to Hillary's statement, exchanging the term "one group" where the word "half" appears, it becomes far harder to take issue with. Here is her entire statement with the proposed change in place. Read it and decide for yourself if it might have been more representative of what's going on than has been reported:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could puthalf one group of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
Note that she points out they are a small, but thanks to Trump, growing part of the American electorate. Note that she qualifies that she is being "grossly generalistic," indicating the statement is not meant to be considered precise. She also points out these deplorables are not reflective of America. She then goes on to empathize with the core of Trump's support in a way that I doubt even Trump could, explaining their concerns, fears and anxieties. This is hardly the damning statement it's been made out to be - just as Mitt Romney's shouldn't have been four years ago.
Regarding Hillary's, there is little doubt that Trump has been appealing to an ugly underbelly, but the size of that underbelly is surely not half of his support. However, if one makes one small change to Hillary's statement, exchanging the term "one group" where the word "half" appears, it becomes far harder to take issue with. Here is her entire statement with the proposed change in place. Read it and decide for yourself if it might have been more representative of what's going on than has been reported:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put
“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
Note that she points out they are a small, but thanks to Trump, growing part of the American electorate. Note that she qualifies that she is being "grossly generalistic," indicating the statement is not meant to be considered precise. She also points out these deplorables are not reflective of America. She then goes on to empathize with the core of Trump's support in a way that I doubt even Trump could, explaining their concerns, fears and anxieties. This is hardly the damning statement it's been made out to be - just as Mitt Romney's shouldn't have been four years ago.
9/14/2016
The Ugly Underbelly and the Right Side of History
Every society and every segment within a society has its ugly underbelly, Fortunately, most remain rightfully alienated and ostracized. But occasionally some, like the Nazis in 1930's Germany or radical Islamists in recent years, gain ascendancy. They don't arise fully formed, they gain legitimacy slowly. There is nothing genetic that makes any one group or society more immune or more susceptible to their allure. We, as Americans, have no special protection. They are there, we know they are there and we are rightfully repulsed - not just at the thought of their gaining ascendancy, but by the insult that we could somehow be associated with them.
But occasionally, circumstances raise our current anger to a point where it blends with such groups’ constant anger. Lines blur, ideas cross. Along comes someone who stirs the pot in order to exploit that anger. The vast majority still reject the ideals of the ugly underside, but their ugly fight is now somewhat aligned with our righteous fight. The reason for my opposition to immigration may be different from the reason for their opposition to immigration, the reason for my opposition to racial preferences may be different from the reason for their opposition to racial preferences, but…is it more important that I reject their alliance or is it more important that my side win? Sound a little bit familiar?
For me, it is an easy question to answer. Someone must stand up and say, "No! Enough!" It is why I say this is a “right side of history” election. Donald Trump has given tacit approval to the underbelly. Rather than clearly rejecting them, as Bob Dole did when he said the arena exits were clearly marked for anyone who did not ascribe to the ideals of the party of Lincoln during his 1996 GOP acceptance speech, Donald Trump has been unable or unwilling to be so clear. Whether that’s because he agrees with those ugly elements, doesn’t understand the threat they present, doesn’t care that they exist or doesn’t realize it’s happening doesn’t matter. It is happening on his watch and he is both responsible for and representative of the problem. And with the hiring of Steve Bannon as his campaign CEO, he is providing them a possible conduit to the most powerful office on earth.
I, for one, reject it. Proudly. Loudly.
But occasionally, circumstances raise our current anger to a point where it blends with such groups’ constant anger. Lines blur, ideas cross. Along comes someone who stirs the pot in order to exploit that anger. The vast majority still reject the ideals of the ugly underside, but their ugly fight is now somewhat aligned with our righteous fight. The reason for my opposition to immigration may be different from the reason for their opposition to immigration, the reason for my opposition to racial preferences may be different from the reason for their opposition to racial preferences, but…is it more important that I reject their alliance or is it more important that my side win? Sound a little bit familiar?
For me, it is an easy question to answer. Someone must stand up and say, "No! Enough!" It is why I say this is a “right side of history” election. Donald Trump has given tacit approval to the underbelly. Rather than clearly rejecting them, as Bob Dole did when he said the arena exits were clearly marked for anyone who did not ascribe to the ideals of the party of Lincoln during his 1996 GOP acceptance speech, Donald Trump has been unable or unwilling to be so clear. Whether that’s because he agrees with those ugly elements, doesn’t understand the threat they present, doesn’t care that they exist or doesn’t realize it’s happening doesn’t matter. It is happening on his watch and he is both responsible for and representative of the problem. And with the hiring of Steve Bannon as his campaign CEO, he is providing them a possible conduit to the most powerful office on earth.
I, for one, reject it. Proudly. Loudly.
6/14/2016
Republicans and Conservatives on Trump
This is a repository of what people of Trump's own party are saying about him. Every comment is by a Republican party member, Republican officeholder or conservative commentator. The resounding question is, why do they feel this way?
Brian Walsh (veteran Republican strategist): “When you look at how he’s conducting every aspect of the campaign it seems entirely fair to ask if he’s purposefully trying to lose because the only alternative answer is complete arrogance and incompetence. And I’m not ruling out complete arrogance and incompetence.”
Robert Gates (Defense Secretary under George. W. Bush and Former CIA Director): Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own...on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief. (Wall Street Journal 9/16/16)
Brett Stephens (Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor): "Hillary Clinton’s record in office is dreadful. Her ideas are dreadful. They will make us less safe, but there is no way I’m going to vote for a guy who is just totally uninformed, un-presidential as Donald Trump is. I think that for the United States, Hillary Clinton, as awful as I find her, is a survivable event. I’m not so sure about Donald Trump." See whole interview
George Schultz (Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, on the prospect of a Trump Presidency): “God help us.”
Rick Wilson: (GOP media strategist): "You could be living on a diet of lead paint, cheap vodka and Real Housewives and still know more than Trump does about, well, everything."
George Will: “[T]his is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency. Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states...Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.”
David Brooks: “Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.”
Charles Krauthammer: “I sympathize with the dilemma of Republican leaders reluctant to affirm. Many are as appalled as I am by Trump, but they don’t have the freedom I do to say, as I have publicly, that I cannot imagine ever voting for him.”
Jeb Bush: "Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy."
Lindsey O. Graham: “[I] cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as commander in chief.”
Kathleen Parker: I find Trump so uninformed, thin-skinned, volatile and divisive that opposing him has become for me a moral imperative. I sincerely believe he’s a threat to our security and our nation’s equilibrium, which has been dangling by a thread since 9/11. (entire column)
Kevin Madden (veteran GOP operative: “For many Republicans, Trump is more than just a political choice. It’s a litmus test for character. I’m prepared to write somebody in so that I have a clear conscience.”
Mike Murphy (GOP Strategist): He fails my commander-in-chief test. I think he is a stunning ignoramus on foreign policy issues and national security, which are the issues I care most about. And he’s said one stupid, reckless thing after another, and he’s shown absolutely no temperament to try to learn the things that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t know just about everything. …The guy has a chimpanzee-level understanding of national security policy.
Scott Rigell (representative of Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District): “Trump is a bully, unworthy of our nomination. My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgment, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander-in-chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee.”
Ben Sasse (senator from Nebraska): “A presidential candidate who boasts about what he’ll do during his ‘reign’ and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America. If Trump becomes the Republican nominee my expectation is that I’ll look for some 3rd candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.”
Reid J. Ribble (representative from Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District): “I am not obligated to support a bad candidate from any party. I will not support Donald Trump for president of the United States, no matter what the circumstances.”
Christine Todd Whitman (former governor of New Jersey) when asked on Bloomberg Politics if she would support Trump: “No, I won’t. I can’t.”
Eliot Cohen (served in the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations), tweeted a list of reasons to not vote for Trump: “Short list: demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
J.C. Watts (former Oklahoma congressman): “It’s going to be a tremendous setback for the party if he wins.”
Mel Martinez (former senator from Florida): “I would not vote for Trump, clearly, If there is any, any, any other choice, a living, breathing person with a pulse, I would be there.”
Carlos Curbelo (congressional representative from Florida’s 26th district): "This man does things and says things that I teach my 6- and 3-year-olds not to say. I could never look them in the eye and tell them that I support someone so crass and insulting and offensive to lead the greatest nation in the world.”
Robert Kagan (conservative think tank member and speechwriter for Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz): "His ultimately self-destructive tendencies would play out on the biggest stage in the world, with consequences at home and abroad that one can barely begin to imagine. It would make him the closest thing the United States has ever had to a dictator, but a dictator with a dangerously unstable temperament that neither he nor anyone else can control."
Charles Krauthammer: "I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied."
Thomas Sowell: “At this late date, there is no point itemizing the many things that demonstrate Trump’s gross inadequacies for being president of the United States. Trump himself has demonstrated those gross inadequacies repeatedly, at least weekly and sometimes daily.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434521/donald-trump-conservatives-shouldnt-be-obama-supporters?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: “The political damage of Donald Trump to the Republican party is completely overshadowed by the damage he can do to the country and to the world with his unending reckless and irresponsible statements. What was once feared most by the Republican establishment — a third party candidate for president — may represent the only slim chance for saving this country from a catastrophic administration in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435051/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-american-disaster?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: "A man in his 60s, who is still acting like a spoiled adolescent, is not going to grow up in the next four years. And, as President, he would have the lives of us all, and our loved ones, in his hands, as well as the fate of this great nation at a fateful time."
P.J O'Rourke: O'Rourke said his endorsement of Clinton includes "her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place. I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954#ixzz4BYFfw2oT
Mitch McConnell: “He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.”
Michael Gerson: “Is Trump himself a racist? Who the bloody hell cares? There is no difference in public influence between a politician who is a racist and one who appeals to racist sentiments with racist arguments. The harm to the country — measured in division and fear — is the same, whatever the inner workings of Trump’s heart.”
Kathleen Parker: "Democracy, freedom, civilization — it all hangs by a thread. America was always just an idea, a dream founded in the faith that men were capable of great good. It was a belief made real by an implausible convention of brilliant minds and the enduring courage of generations who fought and died. For what? Surely, not this."
Rick Wilson (Republican strategist): “Man up. Show courage. Say what’s in your hearts; he’s insane. He’s poison. He’s doomed. He’s killing the party.”
Henry Paulson, Jr. (Former U.S. Treasury Secretary): "The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It’s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump."
Mark Salter (former top staffer and biographer for Sen. John McCain, on Clinton vs. Trump): “Basically, I think she’s the more conservative choice and the least reckless one.”
Tim Miller (Republican strategist): “I do think that there’s something dark about Trump’s view of the world. When a person running for president continually compliments brutal, undemocratic dictators and their methods, I think it’s fair to have some concerns that those are methods that they might be interested in deploying if necessary.”
Stephen Hess (Government scholar who served in the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations, advised President Ford): “It’s incredibly depressing. He’s the most profoundly ignorant man I’ve ever seen at this level in terms of understanding the American presidency, and, even more troubling, he makes no effort to learn anything.”
Open letter from 121 junior GOP National Security leaders: "Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office." (Full letter here)
Open letter from 50 senior GOP National Security leaders: "None of us will vote for Donald Trump. From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being. Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President." (Full letter here)
Against Trump:
Peter Wehner (advisor and speechwriter in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations): “Mr. Trump’s virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness would do more than result in a failed presidency; it could very well lead to national catastrophe. The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief should send a chill down the spine of every American.”Brian Walsh (veteran Republican strategist): “When you look at how he’s conducting every aspect of the campaign it seems entirely fair to ask if he’s purposefully trying to lose because the only alternative answer is complete arrogance and incompetence. And I’m not ruling out complete arrogance and incompetence.”
Robert Gates (Defense Secretary under George. W. Bush and Former CIA Director): Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own...on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief. (Wall Street Journal 9/16/16)
Brett Stephens (Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor): "Hillary Clinton’s record in office is dreadful. Her ideas are dreadful. They will make us less safe, but there is no way I’m going to vote for a guy who is just totally uninformed, un-presidential as Donald Trump is. I think that for the United States, Hillary Clinton, as awful as I find her, is a survivable event. I’m not so sure about Donald Trump." See whole interview
George Schultz (Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, on the prospect of a Trump Presidency): “God help us.”
Rick Wilson: (GOP media strategist): "You could be living on a diet of lead paint, cheap vodka and Real Housewives and still know more than Trump does about, well, everything."
George Will: “[T]his is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency. Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states...Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.”
David Brooks: “Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.”
Charles Krauthammer: “I sympathize with the dilemma of Republican leaders reluctant to affirm. Many are as appalled as I am by Trump, but they don’t have the freedom I do to say, as I have publicly, that I cannot imagine ever voting for him.”
Jeb Bush: "Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy."
Lindsey O. Graham: “[I] cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as commander in chief.”
Kathleen Parker: I find Trump so uninformed, thin-skinned, volatile and divisive that opposing him has become for me a moral imperative. I sincerely believe he’s a threat to our security and our nation’s equilibrium, which has been dangling by a thread since 9/11. (entire column)
Kevin Madden (veteran GOP operative: “For many Republicans, Trump is more than just a political choice. It’s a litmus test for character. I’m prepared to write somebody in so that I have a clear conscience.”
Mike Murphy (GOP Strategist): He fails my commander-in-chief test. I think he is a stunning ignoramus on foreign policy issues and national security, which are the issues I care most about. And he’s said one stupid, reckless thing after another, and he’s shown absolutely no temperament to try to learn the things that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t know just about everything. …The guy has a chimpanzee-level understanding of national security policy.
Scott Rigell (representative of Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District): “Trump is a bully, unworthy of our nomination. My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgment, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander-in-chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee.”
Ben Sasse (senator from Nebraska): “A presidential candidate who boasts about what he’ll do during his ‘reign’ and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America. If Trump becomes the Republican nominee my expectation is that I’ll look for some 3rd candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.”
Reid J. Ribble (representative from Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District): “I am not obligated to support a bad candidate from any party. I will not support Donald Trump for president of the United States, no matter what the circumstances.”
Christine Todd Whitman (former governor of New Jersey) when asked on Bloomberg Politics if she would support Trump: “No, I won’t. I can’t.”
Eliot Cohen (served in the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations), tweeted a list of reasons to not vote for Trump: “Short list: demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
J.C. Watts (former Oklahoma congressman): “It’s going to be a tremendous setback for the party if he wins.”
Mel Martinez (former senator from Florida): “I would not vote for Trump, clearly, If there is any, any, any other choice, a living, breathing person with a pulse, I would be there.”
Carlos Curbelo (congressional representative from Florida’s 26th district): "This man does things and says things that I teach my 6- and 3-year-olds not to say. I could never look them in the eye and tell them that I support someone so crass and insulting and offensive to lead the greatest nation in the world.”
Robert Kagan (conservative think tank member and speechwriter for Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz): "His ultimately self-destructive tendencies would play out on the biggest stage in the world, with consequences at home and abroad that one can barely begin to imagine. It would make him the closest thing the United States has ever had to a dictator, but a dictator with a dangerously unstable temperament that neither he nor anyone else can control."
Charles Krauthammer: "I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied."
Thomas Sowell: “At this late date, there is no point itemizing the many things that demonstrate Trump’s gross inadequacies for being president of the United States. Trump himself has demonstrated those gross inadequacies repeatedly, at least weekly and sometimes daily.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434521/donald-trump-conservatives-shouldnt-be-obama-supporters?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: “The political damage of Donald Trump to the Republican party is completely overshadowed by the damage he can do to the country and to the world with his unending reckless and irresponsible statements. What was once feared most by the Republican establishment — a third party candidate for president — may represent the only slim chance for saving this country from a catastrophic administration in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435051/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-american-disaster?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: "A man in his 60s, who is still acting like a spoiled adolescent, is not going to grow up in the next four years. And, as President, he would have the lives of us all, and our loved ones, in his hands, as well as the fate of this great nation at a fateful time."
P.J O'Rourke: O'Rourke said his endorsement of Clinton includes "her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place. I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954#ixzz4BYFfw2oT
Mitch McConnell: “He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.”
Michael Gerson: “Is Trump himself a racist? Who the bloody hell cares? There is no difference in public influence between a politician who is a racist and one who appeals to racist sentiments with racist arguments. The harm to the country — measured in division and fear — is the same, whatever the inner workings of Trump’s heart.”
Kathleen Parker: "Democracy, freedom, civilization — it all hangs by a thread. America was always just an idea, a dream founded in the faith that men were capable of great good. It was a belief made real by an implausible convention of brilliant minds and the enduring courage of generations who fought and died. For what? Surely, not this."
Rick Wilson (Republican strategist): “Man up. Show courage. Say what’s in your hearts; he’s insane. He’s poison. He’s doomed. He’s killing the party.”
Henry Paulson, Jr. (Former U.S. Treasury Secretary): "The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It’s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump."
Mark Salter (former top staffer and biographer for Sen. John McCain, on Clinton vs. Trump): “Basically, I think she’s the more conservative choice and the least reckless one.”
Tim Miller (Republican strategist): “I do think that there’s something dark about Trump’s view of the world. When a person running for president continually compliments brutal, undemocratic dictators and their methods, I think it’s fair to have some concerns that those are methods that they might be interested in deploying if necessary.”
Stephen Hess (Government scholar who served in the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations, advised President Ford): “It’s incredibly depressing. He’s the most profoundly ignorant man I’ve ever seen at this level in terms of understanding the American presidency, and, even more troubling, he makes no effort to learn anything.”
Open letter from 121 junior GOP National Security leaders: "Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office." (Full letter here)
Open letter from 50 senior GOP National Security leaders: "None of us will vote for Donald Trump. From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being. Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President." (Full letter here)
Michael Gerson: "It has been said that when you choose your community, you choose your character. Strangely, evangelicals have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue." September 1, 2022 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/01/michael-gerson-evangelical-christian-maga-democracy/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)