Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
#NeverIndifferent
From a conservative perspective Donald Trump delivered an outstanding acceptance speech. He focused on the major issues facing our country, issues that Democrats refuse to acknowledge, much less propose to solve. And while his message was duly harsh on Obama’s policies and Hillary’s actions and character, it was also incredibly nonpartisan and optimistic. His commonsense approach was certainly accessible to a very broad section of Americans. He demonstrated more humility than bombast.
It is time to put the ugly and divisive GOP primaries behind us and look at the objective choice before us. The choice is clear: Either the executive branch will be led by this man (with GOP backing and serious conservative leadership in Congress) or it will be led by Clinton, Inc. Consider that conservatives have an opportunity under a Trump administration to promote conservative policies in a Republican administration that will likely be no less conservative than any post-Reagan administration. Debating with a somewhat receptive administration would be an outstanding outcome for conservatives, particularly when considering where we find ourselves today.
Trump is still Trump. That may be too big an obstacle for some of us. But for many non-committed American voters, the choice before us became clearer and more promising after last night.
Published in General
I think what was so striking about Trump’s speech is that he has no wit. No ability to humorously (with a twinkle in his eye) attack Clinton or make the absurd claims of the Left look ridiculous. A lack of wit shows a weak or lazy intellect. I’m not saying Trump is dumb, per se…he’s got street smarts to be sure but he still taunts like a bully or a barfly and not like someone who has read much of anything of substance.
At times in the speech he was clearly confused and upset when the audience replied to what he had just said and began to chant. He wasn’t quite sure whether the outburst was positive or negative and he looked impatient and annoyed. That could be just nervousness on his part, of course.
But all in all, I didn’t see a substantial difference from this speech to the rally oratory he’s been giving throughout the campaign. I didn’t see a statesmen or someone notably presidential emerge.
I thought Gary Kasparov nailed it in his tweet after the speech:
The other day I saw this homeless dude at the highway on ramp with a Cruz sign. I stopped and asked him what he was doing besides begging for spare change. He told me, “I’m on Tom Meyer’s team”. You have supporters in places you never knew, Tom. How ’bout that?!
Props to @tomdmeyer. He’s managed to get Mike LaRoche to bad mouth Cruz and Jamie and I to agree on pretty much everything the past 2 days. If he would get off his #NeverTrump high horse he could be Secretary of State or something in a Trump admin, probably sort out the whole Israel/Palestinian thing. Dude has mad skills.
Still working my way through the speech. It’ll be very interesting to see how Trump’s explicit appeals to gays pan out.
I thought it was truly terrible, and there was very little Conservativism in it.
I fully understand that. My point stands.
The right answer to “vote your conscience” — with the deliberate implication of “not that candidate” — isn’t how dare you tell people to vote their conscience! It’s I’m seeking to be someone you can conscientiously vote for.
If that is too hard, there is something deeply wrong.
What I recall most is one phrase: “I will be your champion.”
That is the theme that ties together the video that preceded Trump’s address, his daughter’s introduction and Trump’s talk.
I lived in New York City from 1967 to 1991. I saw what progressives did that once great metropolis. I know what Trump did as a private citizen to help bring it back. He was New York City’s champion.
I listened to Ivanka. I saw a young woman raised in privilege who expresses the most democratic attitude of all – gratitude – for her father and mentor. He clearly was and is her champion and the results are damned impressive.
I heard Trump speak movingly about the parents who lost loved ones to illegal alien criminals. He went and stood with them, when principled conservatives and mainstream Republicans were nowhere to be found. He was their champion and he has made a difference in their lives.
For several election cycles conservatives, tired of the never-ending and futile defensive posture, longed for someone to take the battle to the progressives, in politics, culture and media. We cheered wildly for anybody who stood up to the cultural bullying we call political correctness. We wanted someone not to tell us whom we could resent out of a sense of grievance, but who’d fight for us – our values, our traditions, our history and our future.
We wanted a champion and last night by God we got one.
Vote Trump!
I don’t see why word games that pretend they don’t know what Cruz means are necessary. I agree that Cruz’s choice of words is excellent for making the delegates (including a large number of people who volunteered and donated to his campaign and who were there as his delegates) look bad. I don’t know how the delegates could have conveyed “I’m trying to be someone….” as a delegate, though. And their response wasn’t a considered one. They were shocked at someone that many of them had trusted, who they idolized, going out of his way to upset and shame them. There’s a lot of people who don’t think of Cruz as having a normal sense of human relationships, and that makes his behavior more surprising and upsetting to them. There’s a reason that the Texas delegation was so noisy; they felt particularly betrayed. Perhaps you can think of a way that they could have avoided the trap that he set for them, but they were responding in the heat of the moment and the correct answer isn’t obvious.
But it was @jamesofengland hobnobbing with those two very interesting unhoused gentlemen at last year’s Kansas City meetup – Tom couldn’t make that one.
Indeed!
I have supporters!? !!!!!! :D
Are conservative Americans even allowed to want a champion, though?
Doesn’t the mythos of rugged individualism – or even the humdrum fact of personal responsibility – amount to the obligation to be one’s own champion, for oneself and one’s loved ones? Aren’t good conservatives supposed to consider farming that responsibility out to a politician to be a sin?
I was addressing more the response of the campaign over the last few days then the booing delegates, though that troubles me too.
It’s not pretending they don’t know what Cruz meant. It’s rejecting his implied premise. Cruz framed it as conscience vs. voting for Trump. With a certain set of voters — voters Trump probably needs — that resonates. By responding as they did, Trump and his allies accepted Cruz’s premise that conscience — for many — conflicts with voting for Trump. Obviously, this does nothing to win those people over.
They even do cheerleading stunts for you. Cartwheels, flips. They’re athletic supporters ;-P
Time to fess up. I use the code name “Tom Meyer” whenever I’m using my hobo pawns for nefarious plans.
What, specifically, did Trump do to “help bring [New York] back”? Are you denying that he was a supporter of many of the progressives that governed New York City during the time that you lived there?
He had that ad campaign. He built buildings. Dunno what else. Not a NYer.
Oh, and supporters of eminent-domain abuse genuinely do believe it can and should be used to reverse urban blight.
Right, with you. I agree with this, although I think that Newt’s efforts in that regard, claiming that Cruz was endorsing Trump, were worse than accepting the premise. I suspect that it might not have been possible to get the media to report a message that nuanced, particularly with a Newt crosswind. I’m not sure that it’s terrible for Trump’s team to know their limits. Obviously, in an ideal world Trump would have an excellent team that could do this stuff, but it is my understanding that he intends to start hiring the best people in January and not before.
Much has been made of the “performance art” aspects of Trump’s speech. There is plenty of fair criticism in this regard. My biggest complaint is that the speech went on too long. It was also a bit anticlimactic. Trump’s tone of voice can be tiring, but given the circumstances a certain amount of forcefulness is imperative. And, I found that the instances in which he modulated his tone (e.g.45:45~47:05) to be quite effective.
That said, performance art isn’t really the point. Trump is reaching out to everyone who is disgusted with the failures of progressive government, especially those at the lower end of the income scale, and those who are alarmed by the Democrat-approved breakdown of civil society.
I think the 2012 GOP “autopsy report” said something about the urgent need for outreach to these Americans. Trump’s speech makes it clear that he is attempting just that.
Remind me never to get on your bad side, James. Especially, to not get in between you and whatever you see as the immediate best case scenario path for Conservatism. :)
I am not claiming that Trump is conservative. My point is that he proposes to focus on issues that are of concern to conservatives. His approach appears to be a major departure from the status quo that Clinton would adopt and expand.
Examples include: enforcement of the rule of law, both on the streets and in government; actively defending American interests (in particular, defeating enemies who have declared war against us); restoring the integrity of our national borders; improving the living standards of Americans through economic opportunity (as opposed to the pervasive entitlement mentality).
How will he do any of those things? It’s one thing to “propose[] to focus on issues,” but at this stage of the game, it’s stunning that he has no actual policy proposals that will enforce the rule of law, defend American interests, restore the integrity of our national borders, or improve American living standards.
Trump was, but you could say the same about me. I voted for Ed Koch, the liberal Democrat, for mayor at least two times during that period. Yes, Freesmith – “supporter of progressives!”
Just like this year, @paulkingsbery, in the late 70’s and 80s, when Mario Cuomo was Koch’s main competition running for mayor in both the Democratic primaries and in the general election (on the Liberal Party line), and the Republican was a wasted vote garnering only 4% of the total, a quintessential New Yorker running on law-and-order was the best choice to stop the decline.
There’s a lesson to be learned from my experience, if you’re willing to hear it.
Here are the facts about the 1977 NYC election, where I voted for Ed Koch.
If you remember, New York had gone bankrupt under the previous Democratic administration of Abe Beame, and there had been a city-wide electrical blackout and subsequent civil unrest earlier that year.
There are still over three months to the election. Cruz should run as a write-in in Texas and a couple of other states.
I think Cruz kinda wants to be the President someday. This idea would make sure that would never happen.
In 1981 Ed Koch won re-election with 75% of the total vote.
He ran on both the Democratic AND the Republican lines.
Freesmith, “supporter of progressives,” voted for him again.
Trump is no Ed Koch. Declaring yourself the “law and order” candidate does not make it so. Especially because Trump’s word is worthless.
But I’m willing to listen. What did Trump do to help bring New York back?
Is this facetious, or do you really believe this?