The Moral Mandate To Defeat Hillary

This past week a talk radio colleague created a stir when she asserted that those who were refusing to vote for Donald Trump on moral grounds were both misguided but also hypocritical.

She went so far as to describe those that did not choose to support the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton as in essence supporting the expansion of abortion.

Laura Ingraham was correct in her assertions.

Though I do not make any assumption of intent to do so, I very much agree that those who refuse to stop Hillary, are assisting her efforts. On the campaign trail this year she has pledged to quadruple the current tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood. We currently send more than one half billion tax dollars to the organization that kills 387,000 children per year (and increasingly in turn makes more money from the selling of their body parts.) Hillary has pledged to quadruple these efforts.

So if you’re comfortable with Hillary Clinton spending two billion of our tax dollars (money you work hard for to feed your kids with) to kill upwards of 1.2 million children, then do nothing.

But the moral mandate to oppose Clinton goes far beyond the killing of unborn children.

Her economic policies would continue the choking regulations on small businesses. Doing so means fewer jobs are created. Fewer people feeding their families. Fewer people doing good with their tithes and charitable giving. Fewer resources to ever help those who have fallen through the cracks. She has no plan to address the issues of the urban centers. She has not met and formulated action plans with community leaders in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC. She has no plan to help end addiction, dependency, and entitlement drains. She is fine with allowing those who are suffering to continue to suffer, so long as they vote for her. This approach is morally wrong, not merely fiscally.

Her national security positions are impossible to trust. She openly flaunted national security concerns by installing and using a nearly completely unsecured server. Her shrug-of-the-shoulder approach to classified information being left vulnerable on her server stood in sharp contrast to nearly every military or intelligence official who has had their statuses revoked for much smaller infractions. Considering also that the FBI agents who worked the case investigating her unanimously felt she should never be given a security clearance again should be telling. Considering that the six DOJ attorneys who worked her case believed she should’ve been prosecuted should seal the deal as to whether the moral trust the nation will have to put in it’s top intelligence officer. Indifference to the law is as immoral as breaking it. Her willingness to ignore the plight of the boys in Benghazi, lie to their families faces and ask Congress “what difference it made” also speaks to her willful and immoral lack of care for those in her charge. She is morally compromised, and demonstrated it while serving in government.

Her approach to the rule of law speaks loudly to the lack of moral code she would continue to encourage at higher office. Everything from encouraging Black Lives Matter to go further in disturbing law and order in their protests, to making smarmy and arrogant jokes while wholesale denying things we later found out to be true speaks to her own willingness to skirt any law that is inconvenient for her. She is without equal in public brazenness and overly prideful in defying lawful orders, subpoenas, and court instruction. Not ironically those are usually issued because of an earlier refusal to comply with written laws.

Lastly and perhaps the most important reason that she must be opposed on moral grounds is very simple: we’re not merely electing one person to one position. The president will bring with them nearly 3000 bureaucrats. Which leads those not committed to stopping Hillary to answer some tough questions.

For instance, what’s the rigorous intellectual difference between what Laura Ingraham said and what conservatives have argued about democrats who claim to be pro-life but refuse to raise a finger to stop

Every argument made to vote for Bush in 2000 once Keyes and Bauer were out of the running was “he’s better than Gore… even if imperfect. Every argument made for McCain was that while he may have not been a perfect conservative we would get more from him than Obama. The same for Romney.

You fight the battle for purity in the primary, but you should fight for the survival of civilization in the general.

It’s not just Trump v Clinton. It’s Pence v. Kaine. It’s it’s Cristie vs. Lynch. It’s Ken Blackwell vs. Cheryl Mills. It’s a cabinet of competence vs a cabinet of corruption.

To continue to pretend that “doing nothing” is in some way being pro-life at this time is rigorously intellectually, and mathematically false.

It makes me uncomfortable to have to level such confrontation in writing. I have so many cherished friends who likely disagree with me here. But what I’ve said is true.

If you are not committed to stopping Hillary—especially on moral grounds—then you are helping her win.

And if good people choose to do nothing, then evil prospers.

Sir Edmund Burke would be the first to say so.

When you vote…

When you vote in an American general election there are two outcomes possible.

There is a proactive consequence and a reactive consequence. In binary math the ultimate outcome is not the proactive outcome but the reactive one.

Primary elections are entirely pro-active. A huge field, multiple realistic options, and an extended season for candidates to raise money and make their case. Had the GOP hand-wringers really wanted to put forward someone that had a different resume than Trump’s they should have worked together proactively to do so. Cruz would have fit the perfect bill. He had the money, the organization, and a bit of the grassroots anger against the establishment. The GOP could have still sported an “outsider” for this disruptive election process, but with a bit more pedigree, and a heck of a lot fewer misfires.

But they didn’t… And now we are on to a binary election.

By the way… ALL General elections in which the binary formula is applied (one of two will be the result) the reactive becomes (by the laws of mathematics) the more important outcome.

Meaning: stopping the greatest negative takes precedence.

You should always attempt to elevate the greatest good in the primary. I know that I did that with clear conscience. But my guy did not win. And now defeating the worst option is what by necessity of saving the republic (or even delaying the decay) is what has to happen.

I’m not a Trump fan, I didn’t vote for him in the spring.

I’d LOVE for him to step aside and give it to Pence, or name Cruz…

I’d support any of those options and good deal many others.

But I would also take those names and people like them in cabinet positions, heads of committees, sitting on the Supreme Court, undoing the Iran deal, stripping the regulations throttling the small businesses of America, stopping Hillary’s quadrupling of Planned Parenthood of tax funds and abortions, and stocking our courts with constitutional purists as vetted by the Federalist Society.

It’s not 1 person we are electing, it is the 3000 appointments that go with it. It is a worldview. Ironically the guy implementing the movement isn’t the strongest on that worldview, but everyone he is putting around him is more conservative than any nominee of my lifetime. I’m not focused on Trump. I see the deficits. But every single person that focuses on him, removing the reality of what 3000 bureaucrats appointed by Clinton will render (Abedeen, Mills, Podesta) — are lying when they say the two sides are equally unacceptable.

They aren’t.

Fact.

And my entire focus is defeating the reactive outcome of the worst option. And as a believer I do this with a clear conscience.

Why A Murderer Says, “I’m With HER!”

One of the real scumbags on America’s death row is pulling for Hillary Clinton.

I don’t have official confirmation of this mind you. But if I was a convicted death row inmate, convicted for killing my baby and my baby mama, who I also had happened to be married to at the time I whacked them, I’d be pulling for Hillary big time.

You see convicted death row inmate Scott Peterson and Hillary Clinton agree on something very close to their hearts: a core belief that an unborn child has zero rights.

The fact that he killed his wife says a great deal. But did they ever really prove that he did it. Some would say the evidence didn’t go far enough. They would argue that jury got suckered into having the heart strings played for the “wife AND child” story that the prosecutor put forward, and man if that wasn’t enough to just do him in.

That people could honestly be allowed to believe that an unborn “person” should count in a murder charge, well, in Scott Peterson’s mind I’m confidant he believes that’s just wrong.

And guess who agrees with him?
13892280_1147182862004783_5784126331736532282_n

Yes, just a few days ago on NBC’s Meet The Press and on The View the nominee of the Democratic Party openly espouses the exact same position as the Scott Peterson defense did.

It takes either the most scientifically ignorant human walking the planet, or a person who simply can not tell the truth to make the argument that Peterson and Clinton subscribe to. Since 68% of the American public believes that Hillary rarely tells the truth about nearly anything so I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about her. As for the convicted death row inmate, I think he’s highly motivated by anything that will keep him alive a few days longer.

But given the science, the technology, the ultrasounds—now in three dimensions, the ability to hear the beating heart, trace the movement of the fingers and toes, and literally observe this person (using Hillary Clinton’s own words) as he or she grows and progresses, how can we as a nation allow a woman who believes the butchering of that life is moral be allowed to ever hold office?

What about the land of the free, and the home of the brave? What about “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?”

What about all the piles of propaganda we heard last week about how Hillary Clinton cares so much about children?

What about the basic idea that “Thou shall not murder?”

What makes it a murder in the case of Scott Peterson’s conviction, and a sentence that he will pay with his life for, is what Hillary Clinton openly mocks and drips with disdain over.

Democrats are stupid people if they believe that their new platform that literally says we should be allowed to kill that child—just like Scott Peterson did—even up until the very moment of natural birth is what most Americans think is just, good, or in any way right.

Yet Hillary Clinton now stands on that platform as the standard bearer for the stupid and evil Democratic idea that killing a child—as he or she is coming into this life—is actually good.

So what does that say about her?

Well… I wouldn’t leave her alone with any kids.

So why would we consider letting her pick Supreme Court justices that would take her insane and immoral belief code and rewrite the American founding document through judicial activism? Why would we let her expand government power so that more and more of our tax dollars get used to commit genocide against babies like Connor Peterson?

Why would we as a nation stake our reputation to a woman whose belief system lines up with a convicted murderer on death row?

There has been much said about the lack of incredible choices in the general election before us in 2016. I’ve contributed to that discussion.

But can’t we all agree that someone who embraces the beliefs of a death row inmate is no more qualified to pick judges than someone who would ask to be commander in chief if say she had left our boys behind, lied to their families, and asked Congress what difference it made.

Oh wait…

Franklin Graham at Trump Meeting

A good number of people who did not attend the event this week in New York where Donald Trump accepted an invitation to come answer questions from prominent evangelical leaders, have made many claims–some of them outright false about the tone of the event.

Some described it as a Trump campaign rally, some described it as brainwashing, some claiming the name of Jesus wasn’t even mentioned.

Some claimed everyone who attended were more or less party to heresy, and contributing to the moral decline of the nation.

Of course those who made such claims forgot about the reformed theological idea of reclamation and spherical sovereignty.

But I found the transcript of much of the day, and wanted you to be made aware of what one of these sellouts had to say while “pursuing his sycophantic support for the Donald.”

He also happens to have recently renounced ALL political ties to any political party.

But if you’re really super mad that your candidate didn’t win the primary–never let a few facts stand in the way of good polemic.

Franklin Graham: “It’s been my privilege these last few months to travel across the country, to hold prayer rallies at state capitals, on their steps. When we first pulled out permits, we pulled them for 500 people, but we had no clue how many would come. Thousands and thousands gathered, in the cold in some places, early in the year in snow, in rain. We had thousands come to pray. Not to hear me, but they’d come to pray because they know our country is in trouble. And ladies and gentlemen, I don’t need to convince you of that — you know that. And as we look at who is to be the next president of the United States, many people are looking at qualities. And I’d like to take just a moment to look at the Bible.

Some of the individuals are our patriarchs: Abraham — great man of faith. But he lied. Moses led his people out of bondage, but he disobeyed God. David committed adultery and then he committed murder. The Apostles turned their back on the Lord Jesus Christ in his greatest hour of need, they turned their backs and they ran. Peter denied him three times. All of this to say, there is none of us is perfect. We’re all guilty of sin. Franklin Graham stands here in front of you today as a sinner. But I’ve been forgiven by God’s grace. He forgave me. I invited Christ to come into my heart and my life. He forgave me. There’s no perfect person — there’s only one, and that’s the Lord Jesus Christ. And he’s not running for president of the United States. This year.

So I would just like to open up with a word of prayer. Our Heavenly Father, we thank you that you love us. Thank you for sending your son Jesus Christ from heaven to this earth to save us. To save us from our sins. Thank you that he took our sins to that cross, that you raised him to life, thank you, Father. And, Father — as we look at this nation, as we look at the trouble that we’re in — Father, we recognize as a people that we have failed. We have sinned. And we ask for your forgiveness, Father. And, Father, we pray this election that you will give a man to be the president of this country who will honor life, who will respect our Constitution, who will respect the authority of the office. And, Father, we pray that your will will be done. And, Father, we ask now that you would bless this meeting and this time together, as Mr. Trump is able to answer questions. And, Father, we pray that each one here today will leave this room with a new appreciation of this man and this family. So, Father, we thank you. And in Jesus’ name, we pray. Amen.”

Yep total-in the bag-sell out for political power from what I can gather…

No Reince Priebus did NOT say that!

I’d like to issue a bit of a call to my fellow conservatives who have been sold (largely by rabid Tumpkins) that the GOP is out to work over the voters of their party.

“Calm down… it’s not going to be what they keep telling you it is going to be.”

I’ll admit I have regular bouts of insane conversations with conspiracy nuts who absolutely believe the GOP is trying to steal the election. They are almost 100% of the time Trump supporters, and they are doing it for a variety of reasons.

  1. Some are utterly ignorant of the process. Some of the loudest voices online and sadly on-air are those who feel like they’ve only been “allowed in” to the process for the first time in their lives in 2016. When asked about reasons why they’ve never voted before they say things like, “Oh yeah, well I was in the army, what’d you ever do for your country?” Great to know, but I don’t think being in uniform ever made you not vote. These folks “feel like” Trump is finally saying the things they’ve always wanted their elected leaders to say. The problem is they don’t know the other half of all things he’s said (even on the campaign trail) that completely contradict what they think he said that they liked. They don’t know how delegates are selected. They believe there shouldn’t even be a convention. And they think we all live in a democracy.
  2. Some believe the smears. As was evident in his campaign statement last night following his catastrophic loss in Wisconsin, the REAL Donald Trump is never far off from a tongue lashing especially if he got his third grade feelings hurt. So he says things, approves of things, and admits things aren’t true but allows, says, and admits them anyway because he’s angry. His most pure-hearted followers have forgiven him his many missteps in this areas because they are honest to goodness tired of the status quo and they are willing to put up with the non-sense even though they know its morally depraved. They’ve drank the kool-aid and believe that Donald really is being targeted by the media (in ways other conservatives haven’t been) and that they have to support this guy no matter who he smears merely to attempt the reform they genuinely want to see come about.
  3. Some completely know better but go along with it anyway. This is the group I really have a hard time with. Some of them have worked in politics. Some haven’t. Some have a book to sell, or media appearances to gain from this position so to heck with the commitment to conservative ideas and pushing forward the solutions that will help America. Some honestly believed Trump would turn out different, but now that they (and the world) see that he isn’t they are just unable to bring themselves to reverse course–hoping all along against hope itself that Trump isn’t going to wind up being even half as bad as he has been thus far.

Last night after the results were coming in, people in all three of the categories above believe they found the “smoking gun” that proves the theories that the GOP is out to steal the nomination process out from under the millions of voters who have put their hearts into 2016.

Reince Priebus is asked a simple few questions from Sean Hannity. Reince answers in a little bit of a clumsy way but he more or less assures the viewer of a few things:

  1. The GOP nominee will be required to assemble the 1237 delegate votes from the floor of the convention.
  2. The nominee will have to be someone who is “running.” (This effectively eliminates the helicopter candidate theory.)
  3. The nominee will have to live up to the bare minimum of Rule40b and win a majority of delegates in at least 8 states.
  4. The nominee will be one of the three men running in the race at present.

It’s that 4th assertion that Hannity (and every nutty Trumpkin in Trumpkinland) immediately jumped on.

“Ah hah!!!” they say, “See Priebus is indicating he’s going to insert John Kasich as the nominee.”

But there is zero evidence that Priebus is doing this, and even less evidence that he has any intention of doing it.

What he said was, “the nominee will be someone who is running, satisfies Rule40b, and reaches 1237.”

“Butttttttt Kev,” they respond breathlessly. “Kasich hasn’t hit the qualifications for Rule40b. Only Trump has,” they say.

Like I said, “Just… calm… down…”

Kasich as of today has not yet hit a majority in 8 states. He has hit a majority of delegates in 1 state. Which means he would need to hit the majority in seven more states before he qualifies.

But there are 19 more contests to go.

Suppose Le Tour de l’énorme infantile Terrible (#TrumpTrain) continues to implode. Suppose Kasich hits a hot streak in the Northeast and takes several states from Trump. How foolish would Priebus have looked in promising to only allow Cruz or Trump to be on the ballot at the convention if Kasich–by some miracle of the divine–garnered seven more delegate majorities?

It would have been WRONG for Priebus to promise to not let Kasich be in consideration if he has met the requirements–and with 19 states to go–anything could still happen.

Also realize this, by answering as he did, he also eliminated the possibility or smokey-deal-back-room muck that Trumpkins keep peddling. Jeb, Kasich, Ryan, nor Rubio are not going to be eligible for the second ballot because right now only two candidates have picked up delegate majorities in 8 or more states.

And for the record likely BOTH will add to the numbers they currently have. Presently Trump has delegate majorities in 10 states, Cruz has 9 states.

Had Sean changed the question to “If the convention were held today, would there be three people eligible for nomination.” And Priebus had said, “yes.” That would have been an actual “gotcha.”

But according to the rules that govern the process, according to the rules they all agreed to follow, and according to the expectation that the rules will not be pulled out from under everyone at the last minute…

Priebus answered exactly as he should have.

And even Trumpkins can take comfort in that!

Why The TRUMP *Gotcha* Just Isn’t True

A lot of chest puffing has been going around in the talk radio world this election cycle. Lots of people on talk radio’s right claiming that they will hold no ill opinion of any of the GOP candidates so that they won’t have to “eat any crow” when the general election gets here. They give it cutesy names like “#Switzerland” or “#NeverDems” or “#GOPTrain.”

The theory is simple enough, “If we ‘mask’ the weaknesses of the (sad) GOP candidate we put forward, then we’ll trick enough people into not seeing their weaknesses and perhaps enough of them will be fooled so that they can vote for them in November.”

One of the dumbest things the right has ever thought up if you ask me.

It is especially ridiculous thinking this year, as the likely nominee has considerable garbage that he’s not even trying to clean up. He just keeps rolling around in it, sadly, without learning anything.

With that said here’s my most important reasons why I refuse to play the charade.

  1. My listeners deserve better. In every election cycle I come off of doing massive amounts of other news, just so that I can talk about the political process. Average talk radio audiences can not hold up under 24/7 politics, 365. So for 2.5 years I talk about the things that impact their lives. Stuff from the front page. I explain to them my opinions about those stories. I make assertions, and I debunk assumptions. Unintentionally I am also doing a great deal of trust building and teaching. Trust building in that I never lie to my audience. If I bring them an issue, a story, a product, or a service, they know that they can trust it, because it comes from ME. This is key to my long time survival for my family, and my short term goals of career. If suddenly I started getting neutral in an area of moral clarity, when the rest of the years they hear me pronounce definitive positions, then they immediately know.
  2. I don’t care about tricking people. The most conservative candidate in the race when the general election rolls around will have weaknesses. Pretending they do not exist is dishonest and silly. With opposition research going down there will be things extrapolated, made up, or possibly turn out to be true. But it’s far better to discuss them openly, and have as much transparency to the process than to hide them and hope people don’t notice.
  3. Being tough helps the candidate. They will never admit it but dealing with tensions and stress (and specifically as early as possible) will make statements about the character and dependability about the candidate. How do they deal with being treated fairly with accusations that have merit. And the one I find more revealing–how do they respond when dealing with the things that are untrue? Character is refined and exposed under the bright lights of intense pressure. The campaign should be one of the most grueling things that person will ever have to endure. It should be that way so that those of us making the decision to hire or not hire have a clear understanding of what we are getting.

There are many more reasons I could list but for the purpose of this communique I’m gonna leave it there for now.

As 2016 has progressed I have been beyond dismayed at how this cycle has failed the voters. For having bar none the greatest field of candidates when we started the race we are closing it out with some of the oddest realities I’ve seen.

Somehow in a field that included a bunch of the most talented governors in our nation’s history, the three most visible U.S. Senators that had led the grassroots charge to reform DC from a thing called the Tea Party, and three of the most talented public sector candidates the GOP had ever engaged.

A Billionaire, a gifted female CEO, an African American Neurosurgeon, an Indian American southerner, two Cuban dissident children, a Rust belt Governor, a Mid-Atlantic Governor, a Corn belt Governor, and four Bible belt governors. We even had just a plain old former Senator from Pennsylvania.

I was guilty early in the race of saying, “elect them all, let the billionaire assign their positions, and turn ’em loose.”

And somehow, in some way, in a way that defies explanation that I can not even fully connect the dots to in terms of how it could have — but it ALL fell apart.

Most of the talented executive Governors were tossed in the early rounds. The only one who stayed in is one that has no prayer of winning.

As the field winnowed it was clear that it was the outsiders (Tea Party Senators, and public sector candidates) that had ALL of the momentum. And the two that have now ended up capturing more than 90% of the GOP Primary support was a tea-party Senator that tried to shut down Washington DC in order to keep promises to the people of America, and a Billionaire who on day one basically promised to blow everything up.

From that original talented field of orators we are left with three very different types of communicators. A bully, a boy scout, and the uncle who always laughs at the wrong things at family gatherings.

The billionaire who jumped out to the early lead, suddenly revealed that he himself had been tricking some people. We discovered that he had literally no limits. Journalists confessing that he had attempted to “woo” them just before announcing for President. Watching mortified as he made fun of disabled people. Slipping from time to time into hateful stereotypes of hispanics. Revealing that the secret to his way with women is to treat them like sh*t. And most annoying his preemptive marketing labels that he put on all of his opponents. But even that wasn’t enough…

During and through out it all I continued to say repeatedly that while I’m a fan of dislodging the brokered power-base in Washington DC, I am convinced that it is not necessary to elect the most profane human being to ever run for the office to do it.

I was chastised by fellow personalities on talk radio, internet, television, and in person.

I was told not to engage in “circular fire” because it was going to play into the hands of the new boogieman “the establishment.” (As if suddenly the elected choices of we the people were suddenly voided once they were elected.) But as time went by the profanity, the crass ugly, the inhumane mindset of the billionaire front runner never lessened.

Simultaneously another oddity began to occur. Said billionaire’s actual record began to be exposed. But since he’s never been in political office somehow his supporters believe his behavior will be different IN OFFICE than it was prior to office.

But has that ever been anyone’s experience?

Power hungry megalomaniacs have never improved their behavior once given absolute control.

As the investigation into his actual record began to be revealed it became obvious that he was a fraud on every level.

  1. He claimed he was against the establishment, and then it was revealed that he had been in bed with the establishment more than in other person in American history. He had played all sides–and still is. He is a great “deal cutter” became his motto. When we are trying to elect someone who doesn’t cut deals.
  2. He claimed to be pro-life. But continuously evolved even in the campaign cycle to demonstrate a hardness towards cutting funding for Planned Parenthood and whose position today would be to leave 100% of the funding they currently get–in place.
  3. He claimed he’d be tough on radical terrorists. But can not bring himself to define the difference between radical islamists seeking to destroy Israel, and the diligent people of Israel who seek merely to protect themselves.
  4. He claimed to acknowledge the problems of immigration but then told the New York Times in one interview that when the atmosphere at the rallies would hit a lull that he would “just say, ‘build the wall’ and the place would go nuts.” And in a later interview that he refuses to release, people with first hand knowledge of the recordings say that he said “ALL of his policies on immigration were negotiable.”

I could list a dozen more instances but for brevity’s sake…

The problem in not responding to these obvious hypocrisies is that they will be exposed and exploited in the general election.

And then my fellow media colleagues chastise me–using a method that Trump supporters use online, dozens of times, daily–they thrust me into the ultimate “gotcha” question. Or so they believe.

“Well if Trump is the candidate, who are you gonna support between him and Hillary?”

I’ve languished about it a good deal, and until day before yesterday–TO MY SHAME–I was STILL–undecided on what to do in such an equation. (My immediate strategy has been to remind everyone that we are still in the midst of a primary battle and that with each passing day and Cruz win the billionaire’s chances of reaching the convention cleanly get dimmer.)

But let’s just say for the moment that all the billionaire supporting mouth breathers are right for a minute.

Let’s suppose he gets the nomination.

Until two days ago I was still ready to consider pulling the handle for him.

The thinking is that he would have the support and be surrounded more people that I trusted than those that are on the other team. But watching his ability to wildly disappoint my expectations–that is not a given. And given his ability to throw people away like trash I can not trust his decision making nor his character.

And that was brought home very clearly two days ago…

I say it all the time, “The truest measure of a man is how he treats those people who can do nothing for them.”

My listeners hear it, my boys hear it, everyone on earth hears me repeat it.

But I forgot to measure Trump by those same standards. The assertion speaks to the moral core of the person. And because of this moral issue, I can no longer distinguish a moral difference between Hillary and Donald. They both use people for their own edification. They manipulate, lie, pivot, and adjust. Maybe in the business world they “have to” do it. I could talk to you for hours how hard it is to work very hard and come up short.

But its how they treat people that has me equally vexed.

Trump got mad two nights ago because a third party SuperPAC made an online ad about his wife. They did so using an easily accessible nude image of her. (In fact its harder to google her name and NOT have a copy of the image pop up in your search results than the other way around. Interesting aside: Also was photographed on Donald’s own plane.) Trump didn’t like the fact that this third party (with documented zero connection to Cruz in any way) simply pointed out that Mrs. Trump would be the first porn subject to become first lady.

In response over two nights he first threatened and then attacked Ted Cruz’s wife.

Heidi Cruz had no connection to anything. So why did Trump focus on her?

Because she couldn’t do anything for him.

So to be clear, the billionaire bully was willing to injure the most innocent person in the entire, sad, episode.

I suddenly realized, this is no better than lying to the Whitewater investigators, its no better than lying about your husband’s felony lying and infidelity, its no better than lying to the families of Benghazi–sorta similar in terms of the pain actually, and no different than lying about one’s emails.

Trump lies, Hillary lies.

They both live for themselves and believe themselves to be the center of the universe.

They both use people to reach objectives.

They both are so hungry for this job–and for all the wrong reasons.

Donald Trump never mentions the Constitution. Neither does Hillary. Both will fund Planned Parenthood at the same levels it is now. Both will put lousy judges on the federal judiciary–Trump saying maybe his sister would be great. Fantastic let’s make your son secretary of defense, and Ivanka the head of the IRS.

Hillary and Donald both exercise the cruelest form of payback. They are about the same on national defense, and neither of them are going to do away with the tax code. They both desire some form of Government involvement in health care. And they are both beholding to Wall Street.

So my answer when asked, “So between Trump and Hillary–who is it?”

The only honest answer is–they’re the same. Cruel, mean, vision-less people, who lack grace, decorum, or class.

So to go from in essence the most talented field of potential presidents and to now find ourselves lying in this gutter, it just doesn’t really matter.

#NeverTrump
#DevilYouKnow
#CruzOrBust

And I guess that makes me #NotSwitzerland… But you already knew that.

Analysis: What Trump Needs

My analyst hat on for a moment: I predicted a Trump primary win months ago. (Original prediction: whoever takes South Carolina would win the nomination.) 

As the election has gone by he’s limped along. 

In my non-analyst time I’m supporting almost any option but him–in the primary–because I don’t like people that generally comport themselves the way he does. As the campaign has toiled longer the less tolerable his actions have become.

But as an analyst there are some genuine weaknesses that his team have not yet been able to overcome and when you combine that with how slowly it has taken him to barely pass the halfway point in the attempt at delegates–if I were advising Trump 2016–I’d insist we need to address.

1. Crossovers aren’t real. Trump is consistently touting that he’s bringing new people out to rallies and to a lesser degree to the polls. This is true. But in head to head polling against the two Democratic candidates in one to one match-ups there has been zero movement. And in some cases a loss of territory. On the day before Utah, The Desert News released a poll wherein they *nailed* the exact predictor for the primary last night. They got the order of finish and the percentages pretty close. Scary close. So this means they had great accuracy in the execution of the poll. Now mind you this poll was released on March 20, 2016. So in relationship to this writing it is one of the most up-to-date snapshots captured of the electorate. And nailing with exact specificity of how the vote then turned out the next day–it is done with sobriety and accuracy. In that poll, questions were asked about head to head match-ups. Trump (again) lost to both Hillary and Bernie. Meaning he may have some crossovers turning out for him. But when asked about him in a general election match-up they are pulling the lever for Hillary or Bernie. This demonstrates that the crossovers aren’t real. They are plants. Plants most likely intending to attempt to pick the most beatable GOP candidate in the race.

2. Unity in the base: Assuming that Trump has difficulty reaching 1237 delegates, the convention will go to multiple ballots. It is required to by the rules. On the second ballot 82% of the delegates become unattached. And on the third 100% of them are free to vote how they choose. At this point they have a difficult job to do. As the democratically elected delegates it becomes their job to get one of the three candidates to 1237. Arguments can be made currently that hurt Trump in terms of being “able to win” in the general election. Losing states like Utah will work against him. But so will his inability to secure (thus far any majorities in his election wins.) If I’m advising Trump I’d be attempting to SOON begin trying to get a majority in a state so that we can say we brought people together. Right now Ted Cruz has put together majorities in 3 states, some in states where Donald currently will lose in the general–and Republicans can not afford to lose a single state that they normally carry. They need to hang on to those and expand the map. Trump needs to moderate his tone, and attempt more unifying messaging in order to gain the broad based support to win–especially if he lacks the votes going into the convention. Cruz is showing he can bring people together. Trump isn’t and that bodes poorly.

Having said that–I’m not a Trump supporter–I don’t really want his team to take my advice.

But if I were on his team I’d be losing sleep over what needed to be done to fix these issues given my candidate has the personality that Trump does. 

I don’t even that sucker’s job!

Trump’s Grand Solution

I believe I have struck the solution that the GOP is looking for. The anxiety of the current 70% of the GOP electorate that does not support Mr. Trump has a way of being assuaged.

Of course that will require less megalomania and more leadership from the “‘Merica Eff-yeah” front runner.

But since I love to pose solutions to problems I believe many grassroots fears could be solved, then the Trump-identified-poorly-educated supporters could still say “‘Merica Eff-yeah” and the decent people in society could actually feel that their nation wasn’t being wholly co-opted for the worst piece if reality television in history.

I pose this solution because without some concessions on Anti-Trumper’s parts the bitterness that the electorate put forward a grown man with the temperament and vocabulary of a 3rd grader in the midst of the most accomplished, talented and dignified class of candidates the GOP has had in my lifetime will eat away at them like a cancer.

And since (even though he hasn’t figured it out yet) Trump needs the anti-trump GOP to support him vs Hillary, this solution might soothe tattered nerves, rattled sensibilities, and help the dignified people who don’t tell China to “eff themselves” some degree of justification for pulling the lever for the only man to ever run for office completely devoid of a worldview and conscience.

So here goes:

I absolutely believe that–given the energized turnout of the GOP primary–Donald can beat Hillary IF, IF, IF, he reaches out to those he’s offended.

For three reasons:
1. Hillary is the worst front runner the Dems have put forward in 50 years. (Think about the Charisma that Obama had…)
2. Even apart from her awful personality, she is vulnerable on fifty fronts… Exaggeration… But she has LOTS of weaknesses.
3. The energy and anger in the grassroots is setting records in every primary for the GOP. The Dems are recording record low enthusiasm for their process, the GOP is ready to burn down everything standing in DC and its reflected in 4 straight record turnouts, where second and third place finishes would’ve won any other year.

I have believed from the beginning whoever won South Carolina would win the nomination. That clearly is going to be Trump.

SO HERE’S the Grand Wager: I said months ago that because of the talent that was in the GOP field they should run the entire field as “the ticket/the cabinet.”

So Trump gets to play CEO. And his supporters keep telling us that he is the greatest delegater that has EVER come along.

Trump names Rubio as his running mate. Marco is the most likable candidate running. He’s too young to be the top dog. But he is a tea-party, establishment, and conservative appeal on the ticket that would be the ultimate “outsider” ticket in history. You also accomplish that very important goal of putting the most liked Hispanic on the ticket.

Trump names Cruz to the Supreme Court. The death of Scalia and the vapid emptiness of constitutional adherence that is in the courts presently scare conservatives literally to death. Cruz is the foremost constitutional scholar in the race. He’s actually argued and won 5 cases at the Supreme Court. He memorized it when he was 18. He lives and breathes to be its biggest defender. And he would be a JUST replacement for the former lion of the chamber. Cruz fans understand how this would in someways insure America’s constitutionality long past the Trump era.

With his two biggest rivals now turned into his two most important wing-men he would capture 95% of the GOP vote and have loyalty at every position.

He’ll probably also name a number of other candidates–Governors especially–to cabinet posts. Cristie is a shoo-in for Attorney General, Kasich is a natural for Labor Secretary, Fiorina for Secretary of State or Commerce Secretary, Carson for Surgeon General, Huckabee as Director of Faith Based Initiatives, Santorum as National Security Administration, Walker as Education Secretary, Jindal as Secretary of Agriculture…

Just suggestions but you see how deep the bench is.

If Trump is a serious patriot. This suggestion has rigorous merit. And it would silence a great deal of the worry that the anti-Trump universe has towards his recent conversion to “conservatism.”

And if he REALLY loves America, and REALLY loves the conservative ideals that have given her the greatness she has displayed, this is a win for all!

South Carolina’s Surprise!

On the night that Donald Trump won New Hampshire the most important poll that could be taken was one he flatly denies exists. 

Trump, “We don’t do internal polling.”

Whatever…

He does and has and will. 

But on election night in New Hampshire he was at a whopping 44% in the internal Trump polls.

As of Tuesday of this week sources tell me that number was 28% and had not yet bottomed out.

Now the public polls–which have curiously the same problem in South Carolina that they had in Iowa–were all lagging behind the internals at Team Trump. 

But they did show something fairly amazing.

They all began to drop–just like in Iowa.

39 became 37 became 34 became 31.

Until this morning when the Wall Street Journal/NBC for the second day in a row revealed a polling out come that documented the Trump free fall. And their number on their most up-to-date South Carolina poll?

28%!

The number that the Trump forces knew about three days before.

Students of political science learn early on in watching elections that the polls may or may not get it right. A lot depends on how they are set up, targeted, modeled and understood.

In Iowa the polls consistently predicted larger than conceivable turnouts. They projected 200-300,000 caucus goers. The previous all time record was somewhere in the 130,000 area, and while Iowa turned out massive turnout, the final number was near 160,000. They also under polled evangelicals. Considerably. So Iowa turned out to be a surprise.

In South Carolina the polls are predicting larger than conceivable turnout models 1.4-2.2 million in some of them. I believe 700,000 would set a new record. They are also again vastly under counting evangelical turnout. By maybe as much as 11%.

This is why students of politics shouldn’t be paying attention to final percentages in final polls but rather that should be measuring momentum.

Trump forces don’t want to hear this. But Donald has been in free fall since New Hampshire. His erratic self-damning temper tantrum at the South Carolina debate where he espoused Code Pink, re-embraced Planned Parenthood, and attacked President Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003, when he himself had voiced support for the invasion in September of 2002 all exposed an irrational inability to deal with cognitive dissonance (of being wrong). And this added to the free fall.

Trump’s self-inflicted wounds in South Carolina, much like his erratic behavior of skipping the Iowa debate and dissing the GOP voters, are about to unleash a repeat disappointment to the Trump supporters.

If you study the newest NBC & FOX polls–one conservative and one liberal news outlets (not really but that’s how the activists see them) there is a similar issue of momentum occurring for a candidate to the positive.

  
And it just so happens to be occurring in the most undercounted polling demographic: Evangelicals.

Note that since December Trump’s number has been flagging. But since he was the national polling front runner he should have been out front in December. Then Iowa and New Hampshire happened and he was riding a big victory into South Carolina.

But what has actually happened?

Ted Cruz took the big win in Iowa and outperformed again in New Hampshire.

Now note not the number but the direction of Cruz’s numbers in the evangelical chart above.

Trump is minus 3, Cruz is +8.

Meaning what?

Cruz’s momentum has more than twice the intensity in the most undercounted demographic as does the free fall of Trump.

And things fall easier than they climb.

Trump has seen his internals on this for a while. He of course will blame it on others.

But Saturday is going to be an unhappy night for him. Because even if he wins it will be closer than he ever imagined when he gave his victory speech in New Hampshire. 

And I don’t think he is going to win.

More Polls:

   
  

 

Time To Tell Trumpers The Truth

Many Trump-protectors (think pocket protectors with far more foul language) have been criticizing those who have attempted to be objective about the Presidential primary thus far as being those who favor “circular fire” within the GOP camp.

Perhaps it would be far more honest and somewhat fairly obvious to the watching world if we made mention that the biggest supplier of circular fire in the GOP primary to date has come from one Donald J. Trump.

The world’s most cravenly hungry abuser of eminent domain has set his gaze on every other Republican in the race with a desire to punish them and put them in their place.

He has lied, flip-flopped, and betrayed the sincere ugliness of his inner self in doing so.

His perverse desire to not just win the nomination but to seemingly injure every person who honestly cites his record has a sickness and pathology to it. A fellow republican brings up the fact that he himself has advocated for single-payer healthcare, and instead of refuting the observation, Trump makes public some oblique reference to the person’s childhood. (Remember that distasteful public display regarding Dr. Ben Carson and a belt buckle?)

It is ugly, and unwinsome.

Trump supporters justify staying “on his good side” for various reasons. Prominent former conservatives have sold their soul to sell their book on illegal immigration. Former tea-party champions do so to make a burst into the campaign trail. And other do so to perhaps secure an enormous donation for their university or mega-church.

Other supporters have read Trump’s newest book and come away with the impression that Trump is super man who will bend the known universe to his will. I understand this group of supporters because they want America to be strong and are tired of abject capitulation that the current White House exhibits without end.

One more strain of supporters I actually feel badly for. They have been completely co-opted by the most effective marketer to have ever run for President.

In Trump’s much-bragged-about Art Of The Deal he  not only details his often previously bragged about immoral bedding habits, but his strategy of how to close the hard to close deals.

A simple idea of which is – lob a starting point that you know you will never fulfill, but make it so big that the people you are competing against in the effort have no ability to counter. Once they’re back on their heels you can finally tell them what your real offer is.

This idea has played on people’s fears in the election of 2016. Trump has outright promised something he knows he will never deliver.

This tactic is the most sinister of the liberal Trump’s machinations. For it is exactly how liberal democrats campaign. They con the lowest low-information voters available. They get them all worked up. They make sweeping promises, with almost zero details, then when elected, they bait and switch for something else.

When you think about it, what do ANY of us actually know about Trump’s actual plans for once he’s in office? We’ve seen no specifics. “Winning again, and being great again,” is not a policy plan.

Last excuse that previously level-headed conservatives continue to say to me is, “Kevin we just have to win in 2016.”

They say this as though Trump is the only top tier GOP candidate who outpolls Hillary and Bernie.

The inverse is actually true. Cruz and Rubio both beat Hillary head to head and Trump is the one who loses to her.

So when GOP voters chide you for circular fire (for just honestly pointing out his desire to expand Obamacare to single-payer, or being Planned Parenthood’s “man” in 2015, or knowing he will not “build a wall” no matter how many times he claims to) remind them that he fires on more Republicans than the rest of the field combined. Because this isn’t about America this is about him.

When Trump supporters claim he’s anti-establishment, ask them how. Then remind them that he’s the most omni-establishment person to ever run. He’s paid off everybody, everywhere, just to get his way. Because this isn’t about America this is about him.

When Trump supporters promise you he’s going to forever and immediately stop illegal immigration by “building the wall and force Mexico to pay for it” simply ask them how he has demonstrated that he can do it. Ask them also if they’ve studied his negotiation tactics and why he regularly uses huge lies to dislocate the conversation. But he doesn’t have to tell the truth because this isn’t about America, this is about him.

When the low-information start making spittle fly in their inability to come up with one policy position they have any detail on, remember this isn’t about America, it’s about him.

And when you point out that he’s the second most disliked person in the race behind only Hillary herself don’t be surprised if they bring themselves to call you X-rated names for female genitalia (a theme on his campaign evidently.) Just keep in mind that it’s not about America, it’s about him.

And shouldn’t thoughtful people come to expect the same when he appoints Supreme Court judges, argues for economic policy, or asks the government for favor in some situation where he could benefit by getting a piece of property?

We are not at the stage of a general election where the options are limited. There are several principled candidates to choose from. And the entire purpose of a primary process is to vet the best choice possible.

Because the Presidency can not be about any single personality but must always be about what is best for America!