Tuesday, February 09, 2016

A tale of three candidates.

By Justin Esthay

As described previously, a voter should assume the posture of an employer considering potential employees, when selecting a candidate for office. And as an employer, what do you do when considering potential employees? You look at their resumes. Candidates with long and relevant resumes are naturally going to take precedence over candidates with none or impertinent resumes. Let's endeavor to examine these resumes, shall we? 

Donald Trump

Donald Trump's popularity amongst the right is frankly one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. I'm not talking about his penchant for crass oratory or "insensitive" candor. I frankly like that about him, at least to an extent. (I do think he goes too far at times.) It's his personal history that's the issue.

In the real world people, especially of Trump's age, simply don't change their beliefs or behaviors so significantly. Impossible? No. But beliefs and behaviors are usually inveterate by one's mid twenties, and changing so drastically this "late in the game," is profoundly uncommon. And unlike numerous Democrat converts of yesteryear, e.g., Reagan, Trump has literally no record illustrating that his conversion was genuine before running for president. He all but walked off the street a Democrat, professed to now be a Republican, and was accepted as the new paragon of the Republican constituency. And to any thinking person, there's something very wrong with that.

Donald Trump indeed has an impressive resume as a businessman, and he's a confident and charismatic individual. But these are not in and of themselves substantive qualifications for the presidency. They're largely superficial ones. Because a nation is not a business, and confidence is not a substitute for Constitutional erudition and conformity. Boldness, which is what Donald Trump has in greater portion than any other attribute, is for more often than not a characteristic of ambitious and amoral men than decorous and pious ones.

But enough anecdotal evidence. Let's get to the meat of the matter.

Donald Trump routinely displays an unsettling duality in character and disposition. One day Donald "likes" Hillary Clinton "a lot."

The next day Donald denigrates her before the world.

One can't help but wonder, when witnessing such spectacles, which is the real Donald Trump? You may watch this, and naturally wonder, did he ever really like her? But that's not the question you should be asking. The real question you should be asking yourself, is did he ever really dislike her? Because a man capable of the former subterfuge is just as capable of the latter. Someone just doesn't go out and trash someone they "really like a lot," in public, knowing they will undoubtedly be made aware of such comments, unless he either never liked them in first place, or is pretending to dislike them now. Either way, Donald Trump is plainly guilty of subterfuge.

One may contend that maybe he was genuine in both instances; maybe he did like her and now doesn't. Maybe so. What one should glean from that however, is that Donald Trump at the very least views people as exploitable and disposable commodities; i.e., he uses them to his benefit when he favors them, and likewise uses them to his benefit when he doesn't. And if that's how Donald Trump views people, as things to be utilized and discarded based upon his disposition at any given time, what happens to us, the mere constituent, in the hierarchy of Trump's esteem should he one day find that we are not beneficial to him? What happens if Donald Trump just as inexplicably converts back to Socialism, as he did from Socialism to "Republicanism?"

Donald Trump simply has no personal history of even supporting, much less actually successfully implementing the sort of policies on which he's campaigning, and either refuses or is unable to articulate how he will implement or make them work. When pressed for details, he just keeps saying he's going to "make our country great again" over and over, and states that we should simply "trust" him.

If I asked you to make me executor of your estate, and promised to make you prosperous if you complied, but when asked how I merely responded with "just trust me," what would you do? The fact that people seem so inclined to do with their collective fortunes, what they would never consent to do with their personal fortunes, again tells you that something very wrong is occurring.

There's also the fact Trump is proposing policies that will be beyond the scope of his authority to implement, and could only be implemented by operating beyond the limitations inherent to the position for which he is applying. A president has no authority, either to compel another sovereign nation (Mexico) to "build a wall" on our border, or to build one himself as chief executive. But that was addressed in a previous post.

Donald's candidacy also makes little sense from a Conservative perspective, given that it's largely predicated upon, and he openly brags about his ability and penchant to "make deals" with the opposition.

This sort of propensity and sentiment is precisely what has the GOP base livid with their current representatives. And their solution to this betrayal, is to catapult a man to prominence who openly boasts of his ability to do such better than anyone else in the running.

There's an adage about this sort of thing; something about the "definition of insanity."

But it doesn't stop there. Trump's inconsistencies and positions contrary to Conservative principle are abundant (and perhaps too voluminous to quantify). Watch this video (2:31) to see Trump openly professing his presidential dedication to "gay rights."

Homosexual interviewer: "When president Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"

Trump: "You can."

For those of you failing to discern the significance of that statement, allow me to explicate. What she's really asking, based upon the context she established prior to asking the question, is if a Donald Trump administration will be a continuation of the radical pro-sodomy administration of Obama, and if pro-sodomy legislation will continue to be imposed unconstitutionally through activist courts under a President Trump. And Trump's answer to that question is yes, it will.

This is unacceptable for a Conservative voter.

The claim that Trump "can't be bought," or is immune to special interests, is farcical. And even were that not mere sense, the myth of Trump's invulnerability to special interests, is conspicuously refuted by his flagrant fellating of the ethanol lobby in Iowa.

Trump does not have a history of being bought as a politician, like other candidates, purely because up until now he's the one that's done the buying. He was a special interest buying politicians all these years. And he bought them as a Democrat.

Donald Trump would be better utilized, if at all, as a cabinet member or in an advisory capacity. Not as a president. His statements should cause serious concern amongst Conservatives, about how effective he would be in the position for which he's applying, worse that he might be effective in all the wrong ways, and to also question for which team he's actually playing. And it is for all of these reasons, and many more not stated here, that Trump is unacceptable as a Conservative's candidate.

Marco Rubio

Marco has exceptional ratings from both the Heritage Foundation, the Freedom Index, and an excellent rating from National Right to Life. He also has a noticeably superior voting record compared to his peers, but here's the problem with Marco. When Marco is wrong, he's very wrong, and on things that really matter. If Marco was wrong on frivolous things, his record would more than compensate for his errors, but that's not the case. Marco is wrong on things like the Fourth Amendment and illegal immigration, both of which should be extremely unsettling to the Conservative Constitutionalist.

Marco has been quite emphatic and unequivocal, that if he is elected president, his administration will support massive spying initiatives against its own citizenry. Marco Rubio wants to permanently extend the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance.

Furthermore, Marco wants to amnesty millions of illegal aliens. He proposed such legislation as a senator, and would undoubtedly sign such legislation into law as president. Why should that matter to you? Because such illegals overwhelmingly vote Democrat. If Marco has his way, millions of Democrat votes will be added to the tallies, meaning a Rubio presidency may result in a Conservative Constitutionalist never being elected president again. At the very least, his misguided loyalty to foreigners over his constituency, will wreak profound damage upon the Conservative movement, and further erode our already compromised sovereignty as a nation.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to Marco yourself, by watching this video from Spanish speaking media.

"Let's be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing the legalizationThe legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalizationThen come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence. What we're talking about here is the system of permanent residence. As for the legalizationthe enormous majority of my colleagues have accepted that it has to happen and that it has to begin at the same time we begin the measures for [the border]. It is not conditionalThe legalization is not conditional."
Now watch Marco articulate the steps to his plan very differently when interviewed by Bill O'Reilly.

Marco makes no mention of this "unconditional legalization." Indeed, based upon his O'Reilly interview, Marco sounds like a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. But the reality is Marco says one thing to a Spanish speaking audience, and another to an English speaking "gringo" audience, where he omits certain terminology he knows will not be well received (and which serves to convey his true disposition).

Marco's amnesty legislation was a direct result of our public servants "working with" and "making deals" with the opposition; the very opposite of what the Conservative base who elects men like him wants. 
Marco also failed to vote against a massive, unconstitutional spending bill, that apparently funded every Socialist aspiration under the sun.

All of these things, despite Marco's overall exceptional voting record, make Marco unacceptable as a Conservative Constitutionalist's candidate. Because when Marco's wrong, he's damned wrong.

Ted Cruz

Cruz has a long personal history of pertinent work experience, and numerous references regarding his personal and vocational character. Cruz's own leftist law professors attest to both his acumen, and staunchly Conservative positions in college some 20 years ago. And Cruz's voting record as a senator and ratings from Conservative score keepers corroborate these claims; e.g., a 100% rating from The Heritage Foundation, 89% rating from The Freedom Index, a drastically better rating than every other candidate from The Conservative Review, and a superb rating from National Right to Life.

Indeed, Ted has the best voting record and scores of any candidate now in the race (profoundly superior to several of his rivals).

Cruz is a strong Second Amendment supporter. "Cruz... filed an amicus brief on behalf of attorneys general in 31 states in the Heller decision, which struck down the ban on handguns in the nation's capital in violation of the Second Amendment." He also voted against massive and unconstitutional spending programs which benefit the Socialist Democrat agenda (unlike Rubio).

Another Reagan? Ted Cruz is, at least based upon his record and stated principles, perhaps better than a Reagan. Reagan gave us amnesty. Ted Cruz as a senator voted against it (third vote down on Heritage scorecard), and as a candidate conspicuously opposes it.

Ted Cruz, unlike Rubio, says no to "unconditional legalization."

Sellout hacks like Sarah Palin love to make specious appeals to character when shilling for their moderate of choice, but Ted Cruz plainly embodies the type of virtue she falsely attributes to her own presidential hopeful. When Hillary Clinton ceased to be useful to Donald Trump, he promptly threw her under the bus and discarded her friendship for personal benefit. Conversely, when Sarah Palin, who endorsed Cruz for senator stabbed him the back by endorsing Trump, and then subsequently all but accused him of election fraud, Cruz said nary a bad thing about her. Quite to the contrary, he praised her, and expressed his gratitude for her support as a senatorial candidate, despite the fact Palin did to Cruz the same thing Trump did to Hillary.

So the differences in "character" between a Cruz and Trump, as well as those who endorse them, could not be more clear.

Furthermore, it is Ted Cruz who produced a comprehensive list of Obama's unconstitutional abuses of power. Not Donald Trump. Nor Marco Rubio. Not Jeb Bush. Not Rand Paul. Not Carly Fiorina. Not Ben Carson. Etc., etc., etc. It was Ted Cruz. Why does that matter? Because one cannot fix problems they can neither identify nor articulate. And Ted Cruz has shown us that, even before taking office, he's already identified and articulated at least 76 specific things he will potentially remedy.

Obviously, Ted Cruz is not perfect, but he's arguably the most Conservative candidate we've seen in decades. And as such, it's imperative that we elect a man with so many conspicuous virtues, and so few significant flaws. It's simply insane to place your chips on a "maybe," like Trump, when you've got a sure thing like Cruz. 

As for those candidates not here mentioned, it's because they're not worth mentioning, either because they've already exited the race or simply aren't worthy of Conservative consideration (e.g., Chris Christie). As a Conservative, Cruz is the guy, and frankly at this juncture no one else matters.


Blogger Widgets