Monday, January 25, 2016

Trump versus Cruz: What We Need is Clarity!

By Rich Kozlovich

On January 24, 2016 Clarice Feldman wrote an interesting article entitled, A Soft Civil War, and I think a more in-depth article explaining Trump than we typically see. This is a particularly spectacular article in some ways because it helps to explain Trump to those who fail to understand history and reality! However I find some of the views here are also demonstrate that same lack.

She points out to the best of her knowledge - and mine - only Cruz is openly opposed to subsidizing ethanol. A position we're being told is the third rail of Iowa politics! Not Carson, which I would have expected more from him, not Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Huckabee, Paul, Rubio, Santorum, and not Kasich who wants to tax frackers in Ohio to their detriment while apparently supporting ethanol subsidies in Iowa. And most importantly - not Trump!

There are two leading contenders, Trump and Cruz - the others don't matter, including Kasich even though he seems to be high in the New Hampshire polls, which seems to mean he's now fallen far enough to the left to be acceptable to them!

All the contenders have fierce defenders but with Trump and Cruz the passion is far greater. In Trump's case I would classify them more as myrmidons rather than supporters because he's all about emotion rather than logic and principle.  But the author notes there is one overwhelming emotion virtually everyone in the Republican Party is in agreement - "either [Trump or Cruz] would be preferable to the criminal serial liar or the aged Commie on the Democratic ticket." That's the fly in the ointment isn't it? It isn't that Trump is so attractive as a candidate:  It's the left is so bad even Trump looks acceptable.

She quotes a City Journal article which had - to my way of thinking - a well reasoned observation saying in part:

"What rankles most among workaday white Americans is that, even as their incomes and life expectancies decline, and even as the protections promised in the Fourteenth Amendment are eviscerated in favor of new minority carve-outs, they’re accused of befitting from “white privilege.” The rise of Ferguson’s Michael Brown and Baltimore’s Freddy Gray -- the first a thug, the second a small-time drug dealer -- as black icons of white oppression, exemplify the perversions of Obama’s America. Fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, a dramatically diminished racism is asked to account for the ongoing infirmities of the inner-city underclass. Trump is both a reaction to and expression of liberal delusions.......... [ in response to an elite who] would come to be despised by a broad swath of Americans for its incompetence and ineffectuality....... with no sign of abating: we are in the midst of a soft civil war."

In short - Trump verbalizes what the working classes are thinking, and although those are the thoughts of a white majority - many within the minority populations have also come to the conclusion the left is destroying us with our own values, and we can thank Obama for revealing that. If he and his leftist minions in government hadn't taken over, the nation would not have been able to see what monsters these people really are.

As for the Republican establishment the article goes on to say: "As if to underscore the Republicans' broad distaste and feeling of betrayal, Senate Republicans, giving up their last shot to reining in our far left president, keep confirming his wretched nominees for office." So why wouldn't Trump resonate with the people who think their "conservative" representatives are corrupt, self serving and craven beyond redemption?

The article goes on saying: "Trump has not always been pro-life and pro-guns, but he is now and that is what counts." And of course my question is: Is that really what counts now and why? Especially if it's a temporary position, which it probably is!

Truth is the convergence of history and reality.  In the old Adventures of Superman TV series with George Reeves the show used to open telling everyone Superman was dedicated to "fighting a never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way".  What part of Trump's history is heroic and dedicated to "fighting a never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way".  Sure that sounds a bit hokey to society these days - and it was just TV show - but isn't that a question worth asking of Trump...and for that matter all of them? 

In my opinion Trump's history is distasteful, and the reality he claims to be projecting is nothing more than pandering and play acting to get attention and to mislead everyone.  He only believes in Trump, and like all leftists he will change himself into an angel of light and say or do anything to get what he wants. So why isn't this obvious to the most casual observer? Why doesn't everyone see this clearly? Why is he getting away with this hypnotically mesmerizing charade?   The answer is simple!

He gets away with it because he's also "unapologetically politically incorrect, to the point of being rude", and conservatives, and even those moderately to the right, are loving it! Unlike the elite and political classes, conservatives in the general public have watched the media embarrass these politicians who claim to be "conservatives" again and again.  And what do they do?  They keep smiling politely trying to appease the very people who hate them by back peddling, apologizing and looking like craven fools!  That left a conservative public with feelings of irritation and disgust! 

What they should have been doing is attack them, attack their questions, challenge them on their views, and in short - slap the snot out of them, kick them to the curb and tell anyone in the world who doesn't like it to shove it! That is exactly what Trump has done, and as a result the emotionally triumphant feeling this gives his supporters outweighs everything he practices, has practiced, what he really believes, and who he really is. And because people don't read!

Then the unthinkable happened.

"National Review lobbed a grenade into the tug of war between Cruz and Trump supporters with a special issue with an editorial opposing him and a symposium of respected conservative pundits following that theme. Because it tipped its hand in against a candidate it will no longer be a participant in the next debate and it has apparently lost some subscribers and received lots of angry emails."

This was in response to Trump's recent media successes such as the  “troubling issue” regarding Cruz’s eligibility, Cruz's ethical stand on ethanol, Sarah Palin forcing her unendingly irritating voice on the nation with her illogical, factually flawed endorsement followed by Bob Dole (Of all people! Dole being guy who told the Republican world: "I'll be anything you want me to be; I'll be Ronald Reagan if that's what you want.") telling the world Cruz is a disaster for the nation because no one wants to work with him in Washington.

And that's bad why?

But he wants Republicans, and the nation, to support the deal maker who, as a conservative ally, could only be described as - at best - a leaky vessel over Cruz who has legitimately worked to reduce government and government spending. I would like for anyone to show me anytime Bob Dole did anything to stop the growth of government - and slowing it down doesn't count.

Then John Wayne's daughter, Aissa Wayne, tells the world if her dad was alive he would have supported Trump. First of all - she has no idea who her dad would have supported, secondly, it's clear she's not the brightest pebble in the brook, and finally, who cares what she thinks or her father would have thought. But this effort by Wayne's daughter to impose the great American icon image of John Wayne as the bold, courageous, unbending self-sacrificing hero against all odds on to Donald Trump is Hollywood horsepucky! 

Of course there are the other Congressional "critters" saying Cruz is a "nasty piece of business [because] no one wanted to work with in Washington and wouldn’t be able to get anything done". Well, what exactly have they gotten done that's been good for America or the world for that matter? As far as I can tell working with them was merely finding ways to allow Obama to spend like a drunken sailor, borrow like an economic reprobate, allow insane leftists to be appointed to life time positions in the federal judiciary, and ignore the Constitution and laws of the land via executive orders.

So refusing to go along to get along with them was bad why?
 
Did it occur to anyone the only time the nation has been safe over the last 25 years was when Congress was gridlocked or shut down and when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was fast asleep on the bench.

The article claims all this support for Trump against Cruz is good news because Trump is such a fantastic competitor he will use "fair means or foul to win"! And this is good because "Democrats haven’t seen anything like this in 30 years. And they aren’t going to be up to it."
 
So let me see if I understand this correctly. The man who has a total lack of moral foundation is the good man versus Cruz who has strong foundational values! Right? Did I get that right? Did I miss anything there? So we're to believe the only people fit for consideration to the highest office in the land has to be corrupt and self serving? Do I understand that correctly?

Then there are those who want Cruz to take the second spot as Vice President claiming this would absolutely assure a win. For whom? Certainly not the nation! Trump is an insider of the Washington elite. Cruz is not. Trump, no matter what he's saying now will grow government and impose fascist economics on the nation. Cruz by all indications would not. Trump has the moral fiber of a goat, and so where could those two ever find a happy medium in which they could work. If Cruz would do such a thing he would disappear from American politics, and things would go on just as they have until we all crash and burn philosophically and economically. And that's not that far away!

The nation has become as festering cesspool of national and international policies of uncompromising incompetence and corruption caused by a "glib egomaniac" in the White House. Why are so many turning to another "glib egomaniac" as a successor?

There is one thing I keep asking everyone.  Who has a plan to eliminate the national debt, repay the Social Security Administration the trillions of dollars the federal has stolen and wasted?  I would love to have seen that question asked and answered by everyone on both sides of this contest - and the people in Congress.   Does anyone think that's what the nation needs to be focusing on and not all this clever and emotional outpouring from a "glib egomaniac" who knows how to make deals?

Deals have  brought us to an almost 19 trillion national debt, an almost bankrupt Social Security program along with Medicare/Medicaid programs that are completely unsustainable and we're now destabalizing the currency via quantitative easing, which is a sneaky way of printing money for which there is no legitimate value in order to supposedly stimulate the economy.  Economic smoke and mirrors!

And that's a deal why?

So now the Washington elite want's the nation to turn to another deal maker, in spite of the fact they don't seem to do all that well!  

Why?

No comments: