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.
Cruz Bows the Knee
“Hail Hydra.”
The principled junior senator from Texas has officially endorsed the guy who claimed Rafael Cruz assassinated JFK. His full, lawyerly, too-clever-by-three-quarters statement from Facebook:
This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”
For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.
Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.
Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.
If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.
Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.
The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.
Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
Unbelievably, pasta-spined John Kasich and low-energy Jeb Bush are the only GOP candidates who haven’t caved to the Republican nominee. Trump protégé Omarosa said this week that “every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump.” In that case, put me on Team Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Published in General
Ahh my history is different. Goldwater was in 1964 he was a spent force in 1968. Nixon won in 1968 and he installed moderates in every niche of his government. Trump will have the potency and standing in the Republican Party as Goldwater in 1968 after losing in November.
United States presidential election, 1968 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968
Oh, my word. If Trump loses, Trump will have no where near the standing of Goldwater because Goldwater had been a senator and would become a senator again.
Trump might go back to television.
He might inspire his core base to rally around him, but who are they? White nationalists? Disaffected Democrats?
In the political realm, if he loses, maybe he’ll have the power of Mitt Romney whom I actually respect a great deal, but Romney wasn’t able to do much to influence this race.
I don’t know much, but I know this. Donald Trump is no Barry Goldwater.
I find this an interesting summary. Can you support this assertion?
His core supporters are overwhelming white and nationalistic – do you deny this?
His stated policies are more in line with the Bluedog Democrats of yesteryear hence why one would assume his core of support are old school Democrats turned off by the modern parties hardcore progressivism.
Meh. One can be both white and nationalistic without being a “white nationalist.”
There’s another word tainted by the Left: nationalism.
Now you make me agree with you by saying this. This feels awkward.
I am pretty sure loving America = Racist to the left. Opening Putting America first appears to be a bad thing to some people on the right.
I am clearly a nationalist. I want America to have its own set of rules around the world, and everyone else can have a different set of rules.
The nationalism that Trump is selling is very different from patriotism and has nothing to do with conservatism. It is related to protectionism and isolationism, and I reject it on its face for multiple reasons but especially for being anti-free trade.
Onto the race thing… I did all my major research in graduate school looking at how the Left uses the racist trope unfairly and often hysterically to discredit Republicans. But Trump engages in white identity politics in a way that is not subtle and comes across to me as blatantly racist. Keep in mind I am a person who rolls her eyes every time I hear the phrase “dog whistle.” But it is what it is.
That does not mean all Trump supporters are racists, but part of his core is. There’s a very good reason he forgot he knew who David Duke was and did not immediately repudiate a Duke endorsement. Ignore that if you’d like, but that’s part of the Trump brand now for millions of Americans.
Regardless, if you think that’s me being unfair to Trump, *conservatives* don’t engage in identity politics, and Trump does.
Finally, dismiss all of that completely. I am explaining who I think makes up Trump’s core. I could be wrong, but that’s how I perceive Trump’s tiny 30% base of primary voters.
Tom does have his moments :-)
Thank you for a very fair statement Tom.
That is your opinion, and I have a different one as a Republican for 50 years. Furthermore, millions of voters out there agree with whatever he’s selling. You don’t like him. We get it as you’ve stated it over and over again.
Actually my opinion of Cruz was pretty good, until he decided to shiv the GOP nominee in the back to further his future presidential ambitions.
Then my opinion went tango uniform pretty quick, just like the attendees at the convention who immediately understood the implications of what Cruz had said- and began booing.
That indicated that Ted had shockingly poor judgement. Worse, I’d argue, than Trump at his worst, because at least Trump generally doesn’t make his most horrific gaffes in prepared speeches.
Hence, I doubt I’ll be supporting Cruz in the future, assuming I’ll get the chance, which I now doubt.
I believe you are wrong. He had, FYI, 44% of the final votes in the primaries. Furthermore, according to the last poll on Rasmussen, he now has 89% of Republican support. It’s interesting that you bring up David Duke and all the racist arguments that are strictly Democrat talking points. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Actually Trump got 44%, if I recall.
Anyway, I figure that the left has spent decades grinding away at the E Pluribus Unum that made a diverse country one nation, without meaningful response from the gop. Identity politics is all about all that remains.
So lament, if you’d like, that Trump supporters aren’t chased away by the usual accusations of racism. But know this: It happened because of *conservatives* like you. While you have been proudly refusing to engage in identity politics the left has been rolling up *conservatives* like a carpet, almost as if the GOP didn’t exist- and it has been using identity politics as a favorite tool.
I wish it were not so, but your approach has plainly failed. You cannot base your appeal to a common culture that does not exist, or think that you can wins votes by piteously repeating that you’re not racist, or by chasing away people who are fed up with being slandered by the endless lies from the left.
What you can do- and what the mainstream GOP has done, I think- is drive the deplorables right out of your *conservative* movement and on board the Trump train.
Rejoice in that, because it’s all you have left.
I was responding to a question directed at me. That’s okay, right?
Trump gained momentum by the time it got down to three, and then the anti-Trump vote was still split. If you look at the polls more closely, you’ll see his core–that which pushed him into the debates in the beginning–was around 30%.
I don’t even know what you mean when you say I “doth protest too much.” I’ve said what my opinion is of Trump. He panders to racists. He seems to be a racist. You can dismiss that statement all day long. It’s only my opinion. Take from me what you think makes sense. Discard what you don’t like. I’ll shrug either way and wish you well.
But if this site was a site for progressives, and I said, “I can’t vote for Clinton because she lied about Benghazi,” people would scream, “Republican talking points!!!!” and not listen.
Really?
Just because people on one side say something one doesn’t like doesn’t mean that it’s not true.
I find the implication that perhaps I’m a Democrat whilst “protesting” (???) hilarious though.
Wow. Okay.
I want nothing to do with riding on that train then.
As for the 44% comment, check #288.
And that is exactly my point.
Okay. Then I don’t get your point.
Do you mean to say Trump voters don’t listen to things that are true just because Democrats say them? (I.e. Clinton voters don’t listen to things that are true just because Republicans say them?) Or do I misunderstand you here?
If I have it right and that’s what you’re actually saying, then I shrug again.
Enjoy the debates.
Your call.
I did. I find it a textbook example of special pleading. Trump won 44% of the primary vote, but because you don’t like him it is really only 30%, because…
Well, we’ll just have to disagree.
@xennady. I don’t in any way argue against the idea that his support expanded, but his *core* support consisted of those people who chose Trump as *first pick.* That is smaller than your number.
I know this because he didn’t get above 40 until other candidates dropped out, and he started to pick up *their* voters, too.
I also don’t dispute the fact that Trump is around 90% Republican support.
I was answering a different question. I was dealing with his hard base.
Enjoy the debates.
Clearly true but the point was Goldwater was a complete pariah in 1968 because of his loss in 1964. Nixon/Romney/Rockefeller/Ford and the old guard Republicans removed him and dominated the party after 1968 not Goldwater. Nixon’s scandal and near impeachment changed that dynamic.
Trump being a Leftist democrat by culture, identity and inclination will return to that position after November. He has no future politically.
I would definitely take that position. But I do think it depends on the margins.
Per your memory of history, Goldwater was a pariah with some factions in the GOP because of the extent of his loss. But then he was able to get back into good graces as he became fairly powerful again in the Senate.
In truth, even without this office, I disagree with your assessment about Goldwater specifically.
I mean, dudes who supported Barry–men like Reagan–launched their careers off his foundation. I think if Trump loses–which is not a foregone conclusion–there will be a “failure to launch” for any of his most committed surrogates. (I think a lot of credibility will be gone for many of them.)
What I am saying is that Goldwater started a movement. Trump is just a person.
I would assume you’re right about him, and he would be done in politics… unless the election is close, and then his grand scheme will be to exploit what is perceived as influence to move what remains of the party he led further to the Left.
Between 1969 ( He left the Senate in 1963 to run for President) and 1987 when he retired Goldwater gradually became more influential as Reagan ascended in power but under Nixon and Ford he was on the outside. All of the Republican primary winner running for the Presidency after Reagan were firmly in the anti-Goldwater coalition except for George W. Bush because of his age while Romney’s family history was probably more anti-Reagan than any in the group and McCain (Goldwater heir) the least.
An excellent study of this period was William Rusher’s Rise of the Right.
Cheers.
Thanks.