Steve has linked some of Mark Levin's comments on the New York values controversy. I agree with the general thrust of Levin's comments, and I think they were worth linking. I want to add the following, though.
People like Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh have spent months preparing the way for Donald Trump to have the sort of large platform he now has. They've prepared the way for so many Republicans and others to be so irrationally committed to Trump.
I agree that the treatment of Cruz over the New York values dispute has been unjust, and I agree that there are a lot of bad motives on the part of the people who are criticizing Cruz on this issue. But Cruz shouldn't have made comments that can so easily be misrepresented and criticized. His critics are more to blame than he is. He's right about New York having different, and worse, values than the values of Cruz and his supporters. But given the immature nature of the electorate, the corruption of the media, and the bad character of some of Cruz's opponents, like Trump, Cruz shouldn't have made his comments.
And Trump never should have gotten to that debate stage to deliver his response. He never should have gotten in the race to begin with, because Republicans should have made it clear that they wouldn't support such a candidate. If Trump did get in anyway, low poll numbers should have driven him out months ago. Instead, he's had relatively high poll numbers. People like Cruz, Levin, and Limbaugh kept giving Trump far better treatment than he deserved (while highly successful conservative leaders who are much better than Trump, namely Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal, were forced to leave the race with support in the low single digits). The behavior of Cruz, Levin, and Limbaugh in this context has been disgraceful. The behavior of most Republicans (including many who don't support Trump, yet think too highly of him and haven't done much to oppose him so far) is disgraceful. What are Republicans thinking when they tell pollsters that they view Trump favorably, that they think Trump has the best chance of defeating Hillary Clinton, etc.? How do they explain their latest responses to pollsters on these issues in light of their previous, contradictory responses? The people who have given Trump this sort of inordinate influence should own their responsibility for this situation. Most won't. They'll act as if they're innocent. They're not. But they ought to at least vote the right way when it comes time to start voting next month.
Republicans have acted disgracefully so far, and the mistreatment of Cruz in this latest context is just one of many results. There are more to come. There are consequences to the sort of foolishness Republicans have been practicing over the last several months.
Who would have thought, a year ago, that a liberal so dubiously claiming to have become conservative, like Trump, would be leading the race for the Republican nomination, that conservative leaders like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal would be driven out with so little interest in their candidacy and with a low-single-digit standing in the polls, and that so many conservative commentators would be saying that Trump had won a debate largely by defending New York values against a conservative like Cruz? It's surreal.
I listened to Michael Medved's radio program yesterday. Among the political radio programs that are the most popular, I think Medved's is the best. But in some ways, yesterday's show was one of his worst ever, maybe the worst. He spent a large percentage of the program criticizing Cruz (who he frequently refers to as Shutdown Teddy, which is one of the ways in which he often treats Cruz worse than he treats Trump). Apparently, Medved sees this as an opportunity to do a lot of damage to Cruz. He placed a higher priority on damaging Cruz than on reviewing the debate as a whole, criticizing the worst candidate (Trump), and promoting the best one (Rubio, who Medved has acknowledged to be the best candidate on other occasions). Even though Cruz is a better candidate than Trump and made so many good points against Trump (including demonstrating how ignorant, liberal, and inconsistent Trump has been), even though so many other issues came up during the debate, Medved decided to spend most of his debate coverage going after Cruz. And most of that criticism was about his New York values comments. He also criticized Cruz on the issue of whether he's a natural born citizen, without interacting with what Cruz had said on the subject during the debate. Instead of continuing to criticize Trump the way he deserves to be criticized, Medved straddles the fence by sometimes criticizing him and sometimes joining the bandwagon of Republicans trying to prop Trump up as a much better candidate than he actually is. Even though Medved has generally been more responsible than most Republicans and most talk radio hosts in handling this presidential campaign, even he's shown remarkably poor judgment at times.
What's likely to happen from here is that Cruz and Rubio will continue to be the two most likely nominees. Rubio is the better of the two, and he's still more likely to win. (The earliest states favor Cruz in a way that can mislead you if you don't look beyond those states.) Trump won't be the nominee, but he'll have been far more successful than he should have been. And he'll continue to be a thorn in the side of Republicans, a frequent distraction, a weight around their necks, and an inspiration for future candidates of a similar nature to run for office (and not just at the presidential level). He'll cause problems for good candidates, turn some good candidates into worse ones, and inspire bad candidates to run. I don't expect people like Levin and Limbaugh to acknowledge their responsibility for these things. I expect to get a lot more revisionism from them. Trump's influence has been more bad than good overall, and this presidential campaign has been going much worse than it could and should have. That's largely because of the immaturity of most Republicans, often encouraged by the likes of Levin and Limbaugh.
"But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, 'No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.'"
ReplyDeletePeople are still really bad at selecting national leaders.
Trump has a following for two or three reasons:
ReplyDeletei) He's a natural TV personality. Natural in front of a camera. He's probably been on TV several times a month year after year for decades. He's in his element. Commanding in that context.
ii) When certain issues are taboo even for conservative politicians to raise, issues of concern to a significant percentage of the electorate (e.g. Muslim immigration), then a disreputable candidate will take up the slack. As a business man, Trump is moving into a neglected market niche. The establishment gave Trump an opening on some issues.
iii) As David French noted in a recent article ("Republican Have Overestimated the Conservativism of the Base"), many red state Republicans aren't conservative ideologues.
I think French makes some good points about former Democrats, but much the same can be said of other groups, including many lifelong Republicans and independents who have never been Democrats. A lot of voters, including voters in Republican primaries, don't know much about the issues and don't make much of an effort to be discerning.
DeleteLike most Americans, they have desperately false priorities and poor time management. They spend an inordinate amount of time on television, sports, housework, and the like while neglecting the most important issues in life. They could be more informed and more discerning about politics if they wanted to be. But they don't. When it comes to something like their career, sex, sports, or something else they're more concerned about, they'll put more effort into it. But they don't have a lot of concern about politics, much as they don't have a lot of concern about God, the church, etc.
Our culture puts a lot of emphasis on getting people to vote, and a lot of people vote as a result, but a big percentage of those people, even in primaries, haven't given much thought to what they're doing. Even some of the more informed voters don't want to hear about electability, are overly dependent on certain talk radio programs and web sites for their information, etc.
In other words, there's a bigger problem French's article doesn't address. Many Republicans, and not just former Democrats, have the same sort of false priorities and poor time management as the average American. These are, after all, averages. The problems are rampant even in Republican and conservative circles. Even many lifelong Republicans and professing conservatives don't have much concern about conservatism. The problem goes well beyond former Democrats.
I don't have a problem with what Cruz said. It's a primary debate. It's a presidential primary debates are more partisan than general election debates. That's certainly true on the Democrat side no less than the Republican side.
ReplyDeleteCandidates in presidential primary debates are speaking to the base of the party. That's the target audience.
It's true that what Cruz said riled up the liberal establishment, but many conservatives like it when a GOP candidate does that. They'd like to see GOP candidates take on the liberal establishment more often. That's a key to Trump's success.
Cruz is supersmart, and a danger for supersmart people is to be too clever by half. That's a weakness of Cruz. He isn't tripped up by other people, but sometimes he trips over his own craftiness.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I think another related problem with Cruz is one of public image or perception. Because he is super smart, because he is cunning, and because he doesn't have the natural or easy likeability of someone like Rubio, he's sometimes or perhaps often regarded as insincere. In certain cases he may very well be insincere.
DeleteYet, I think, the problem is twofold. First, most American voters generally prefer an honest and transparent candidate. A guileless candidate. An old fashioned Jimmy Stewart "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type. I suspect if push comes to shove many if not most Americans would even prefer such a candidate to an intelligent candidate who lacked this hallmark. For example, I think this may be a big reason why Bernie Sanders is doing so well against Hillary among Democrats and other liberally minded people.
Thus, second, even if Cruz is being truly sincere in a particular instance, the public perception is less likely to believe him. Cruz lacks credibility in this regard. That could cost him in votes. Perhaps significantly cost him.
Some GOP candidates have suffered because they are too afraid to make "controversial" statements. Painfully cautious. Jeb is a prime example. Their timidity antagonizes the base. It's out of sync with the mood of the base, which craves a more confrontational candidate.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean a GOP candidate should make controversial statements for the heck of it.
Also, I think Cruz's NY values quip may in part have been intended to mock Trump's statement about not many evangelicals coming from Cuba.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've been surprised by how much of the analysis of the situation misses that point. Not only was Cruz responding to Trump on his (Trump's) own terms on the point you're mentioning, but that's true of some of Cruz's larger points as well. It was Trump who initiated the discussion of New York values. That's how he framed it. He also contrasted New York values with Iowa values, with the implication that Trump considers Iowa values inferior. Yet, Cruz keeps getting condemned, even by conservatives, while the people condemning him seem unaware that the same reasoning should apply to Trump's initial comments. Was Trump wrong to speak of New York and Iowa values as distinct and to suggest that the former are superior? How many of the people criticizing Cruz are criticizing Trump?
DeleteA problem with the culture wars is that you have inhibited Republican candidates on one side and uninhibited Democrat candidates on the other side. Democrats feel free to brazenly say whatever they please. "I dare you to disagree with me!" That gives them a great advantage.
ReplyDeleteWe need more Republican candidates who are fearless. Who call their bluff. Who back them down.
That doesn't mean fearlessly dumb. That doesn't mean making impetuous, ill-considered statements. That doesn't mean making needlessly provocative statements.
But we shouldn't let the opposition dictate that certain topics of off-limits just because the liberal media will throw a hissy fit.
I've seen reports about how Cruz intends to keep going after Trump, and on a wider variety of issues. I hope he does. Cruz is significantly responsible for getting us to the point where Trump has such a ridiculously large and committed following, but at least Cruz is taking some substantial steps now to reverse the problem. Meanwhile, other Republicans are backpedaling and jumping on the Trump bandwagon, performing mental gymnastics to try to convince themselves and others that Trump is a better candidate than he actually is. We hear a lot of talk about how Trump has grown as a candidate, has improved his debate performances, etc. Yes, much as a two-year-old is more mature than a six-month-old. I'd still prefer an adult candidate.
ReplyDeleteI recommend that Iowa voters support Cruz if the late January polls are close between Trump and Cruz and everybody else is far behind them. Support Rubio if Cruz doesn't need your help to defeat Trump in that sort of situation.
I have to strongly disagree with this post.
ReplyDeleteThe blame for Trump's rise goes to the Republican establishment. The budget they passed last December is a case in point:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/representativetimhuelskamp/2015/12/18/washington-establishment-merry-christmas-trump-3/
Of course, the Republicans just passed a bill this year trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Do you seriously think the party's leadership didn't know Obama was going to veto it? Do you seriously think they didn't know their best opportunity to defund it was last December?
As for Levin, Limbaugh and Cruz, why are they to blame? Because they didn't criticize Trump directly (they have certainly criticized the liberal ideas Trump holds)? Since when is that an endorsement?
I used to like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio as politicians a lot. But both have shifted left (Jeb more than Rubio). Jeb only criticized Trump because he didn't have anything to loose (and much to gain had it worked). Since the time he started fading in the polls the establishment's mantle has fallen on your man Rubio, which gives me no warm fuzzies about him. It appears that Rubio is taking after the Maverick (McCain) in both his dealings with Democrats (immigration) and his support against civil liberties (NSA anyone?). Rubio appears to be more hawkish than George Bush (I voted twice for George Bush, but the Iraq war has hurt the Republican party as much as the establishment Rhinos). Not a rosy picture for Rubio, IMO. If all you have against Cruz is a "debatable" (I'm being charitable) accusation that he deserves blame for Trump's rise, I'll take it.
Nick,
DeleteIn previous threads, we've addressed the argument about a Republican establishment being to blame. There are a lot of problems with that approach. For example:
- What is the establishment? That's a vague phrase that's defined in a lot of different ways by different people.
- Who voted for the leaders you're criticizing? You can't avoid holding voters more responsible than the leaders you're complaining about. That's even more the case when the voters tend to be less conservative than the Republican leadership, as polling and other research has demonstrated.
- The state of the electorate limits our options. You adjust your approach according to what you can accomplish under the circumstances. Sometimes it makes sense to support a candidate who's 70% conservative and has a 90% chance of getting elected rather than supporting a candidate who's 100% conservative and has only a 20% chance of getting elected. Choosing the most conservative candidate isn't always the best way to advance conservatism.
- How is somebody like Bobby Jindal or Ben Carson responsible for what somebody like John Boehner or Mitch McConnell did in Congress? How does alleged Congressional misbehavior lead you to the conclusion that Trump should be supported in a presidential campaign? What's the connection? Even if Congressional misbehavior had some sort of major relevance for how we should vote in a presidential campaign (a view that needs to be argued for rather than just asserted), why go with Trump? Why not Jindal, Walker, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, etc.? After all, your post claims to address "Trump's rise", not just the rise of candidates in general who are distant from Congressional leadership. So, how are you getting to Trump in particular? What's the logical connection between disgust with John Boehner, for example, and supporting Trump?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Delete- It's not as though Congressional leaders have no argument for their approach. Do you know much about their reasoning, or are you going largely or entirely by what Red State, Rush Limbaugh, and other sources tell you about what the Congressional leaders' motives supposedly are?
- Given Trump's major electability problems, how would somebody justify supporting him anyway? Even if somebody like Rubio were less conservative than Trump (he's not), supporting Rubio would be a better way to advance conservatism because of Rubio's superior electability.
- How much has Rubio "shifted left"? He just recently had a 98% rating with the American Conservative Union and a 94% rating with the Heritage Foundation. Red State, a source you've cited favorably, has put up posts on how conservative Rubio is and how absurd it is to suggest otherwise.
- Since you're addressing "Trump's rise", it should be noted that people like Rubio and Bush have been far more consistent than Trump and are far more reliably conservative. I'd agree that Cruz is better than Rubio and Bush in that context, but he has significantly weaker electability than Rubio. Rubio's balance of conservatism and electability is a more optimal way of advancing conservatism. I've explained my opposition to Cruz elsewhere. It's primarily a matter of electability, largely involving what Cruz looks like and sounds like and what sort of reputation he has. The immaturity of the voters isn't Cruz's fault, but it's something we have to take into account. Cruz would have a significantly harder time getting elected than Rubio.
- People like Limbaugh and Levin don't have to endorse Trump in order to be supporting him and refraining from criticizing him in ways that are harmful. It's not enough for you to cite the fact that they haven't endorsed Trump. There are a lot of other things they have done, and those things have been harmful, for reasons I've explained here and elsewhere.
If the Republican establishment has the unity and influence people often attribute to it, and Rubio is now the establishment's candidate, as you claim, then why are so many other alleged establishment candidates still running against Rubio? Why are they getting so much money that Rubio isn't getting? Why are people like Bush and Christie running ads against Rubio and opposing him in other ways? Why are leaders who are often accused of being part of the establishment continuing to endorse Rubio's competitors, work on their campaigns, etc.?
DeleteDon't you see how insufficient and ridiculous it is to make vague comments about the establishment, how Rubio supposedly is their candidate, etc.? Even if there were such an entity as this establishment you refer to, and even if they were supporting Rubio, so what? It wouldn't follow that we shouldn't support him.
Jason,
DeleteFirst of all, I am not excusing those who want to vote for Trump, are you? I am pointing to a reason why some conservatives are voting for Trump (not necessarily an excusable reason), just as you are. Yes I am blaming someone else besides the voter, but so are you. Why then do you jump to the conclusion I am excusing them?
Second, I apologize if I gave the wrong impression, but I do not believe either Jeb Bush or Rubio is less conservative than Trump. I am well aware both are more conservative than Trump. I've said enough about the trajectory they seem to be taking have no interest in arguing more about them -- time will tell if I am right or not.
Third, OK, you have almost convinced me. Let's just say there is no Republican establishment. There is just a really bad, almost disgustingly useless, Republican party. Is that better for you?
(cont)
What have they done in the past 15+ years with respect to social issues?
Delete1. Many of us thought they would attempt to do something against abortion. While I am not a Ron Paul advocate, they couldn't event vote in favor of the bill Ron Paul put out defining when live begins (Sanctity of Life Act). Most of the party went against George Bush on the issue of public funding of embryonic stem cell research. And if it weren't for Santorum's corageous fight (despite his other weaknesses), Congress may not have moved against partial birth abortion.
2. Many of us thought they would attempt to do something against the avalanche of homosexual rights and expected results against religious freedom. Many elected Bush thinking they would fight for a Marriage Ammendment. Bush had amnesia about it, and decided to try to reform social security instead. McCain and many (most?) of the party came out in opposition to the Marriage Ammendment. To be fair they passed DOMA. Yet we all knew that federal law would not be enough.
3. After Bush most of the party's big money donors supported McCain and then Romney. McCain was so to the left on social issues that to have any credibility with social conservatives he had to choose Palin (Jim Dobson's and Pat Robertson's support wasn't enough). Romney's history of being moderate (at best) on social issues is well known. And for all practical purposes he came up with Obamacare while governor. Leaving aside Trump's antics, do you really think Trump is, on the whole, that much more liberal than those two? That's one of the ironies I find with Trump's supporters -- on the issues I think Trump is "more of the same". Trump's history is about as erratic, and untrustworthy, as Romney's.
4. The party has the House and Senate. Yet now they say they need the Presidency to have any impact (they had all 3 while Bush was President, what was their excuse then?). How come the Democrats don't need to have both Congress and the Presidency to have any impact? The Democrats got everything they wanted in a Republican budget -- they said it themselves!!! It seems to me the Democrats really, truly believe in their causes, while most Republican politicians do not.
For the record, even though I concentrated mostly on social issues, those who have libertarian tendencies can tell you the same disappointment about big/small government issues.
Hey, I am not excusing people for voting for Trump any more than you are excusing them by blaming Limbaugh or Cruz. I am simply saying there are people who are tired of a party that is significantly useless when compared to the opposition. Some people seem to have given up to the point they would rather have some entertainment while seeing the party go up in flames. You have to agree Trump is more entertaining than Romney.
If you can't understand what I am speaking about, you are not going to understand why some, who otherwise appear conservative, support Trump. To say the fault lies at Limbaugh's or Cruz's feet is just silly at best.
Perhaps you have just convinced me to switch to independent. Maybe you are right, maybe the Republican establishment IS the Republican party, and hence I really shouldn't say I am Republican to begin with.
i) Both the House and the Senate recently passed bills to defund Planned Parenthood. Sure, Obama will veto it, but what more can Congress do? They can't conjure up a veto-proof majority. They only have so many votes. If you want a veto-proof majority, you need to elect more conservative Republicans (or independents who will caucus with Republicans).
Deleteii) What makes you think the GOP "establishment" (whatever that means) has thrown its weight behind Rubio?
iii) Yes, Rubio is bad on immigration. He's consistently bad on immigration. So is Cruz. It's just that Cruz dissembles more than Rubio on immigration.
iv) Given how many Americans support Hillary, Bernie, and Trump, a large percentage of the electorate is corrupt or undiscerning. Compared to that, we're lucky to have candidates as good as Cruz and Rubio, despite their failings.
v) I think the Marriage Amendment is a sop to appease social conservatives. Proposed Constitutional amendments almost always fail, and the process is glacial. It's an empty symbol: a substitute for real action.
vi) I think Cruz has some advantages and disadvantages over Rubio, and I think Rubio has some advantages and disadvantages over Cruz. I don't think one is intrinsically better than another. And Rubio is more electable.
George Will did a recent article detailing Rubio's worst failings. But Cruz has significant problems as well. Take his VAT tax. He doesn't call it that, but that's what it is. In addition, he's been shifty and conniving on immigration.
Nick,
DeleteIf blaming the establishment isn't an excusable reason for supporting Trump, then what's the significance of citing it? Giving an example of the bad reasoning of Trump supporters? Why would you say that the establishment is to blame if what you meant was that some people wrongly blame the establishment? I don't deny that they have a variety of bad reasons that they cite for supporting Trump, and I haven't denied that faulting the establishment is one of them. As I said, I've responded to the establishment argument in previous threads. I've been familiar with it for a long time.
I don't consider the Republican party "almost disgustingly useless". We have many posts in our archives documenting the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, including comments on the subject from organizations that specialize in studying those differences (pro-life organizations, pro-choice organizations, tax organizations, etc.). See here, for example. Since you brought up the issue of abortion, you might want to read some of Michael New's posts on the subject at National Review. I've sometimes discussed his material on this blog, like here and here. Republicans appoint significantly better judges than Democrats. That's especially important this year, since four Supreme Court justices are potentially near retirement or death. Etc. If you want more examples, go to the web sites of organizations like the ones I cite in my first post linked above. They'll give you many examples of conservative objectives the Republicans have accomplished at the local, state, and federal levels. Do you really maintain that Rick Perry and other Republicans in Texas, Scott Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin, Bobby Jindal and the Republicans in Louisiana, etc. haven't done anything significant? That would be a radically irrational position to take.
You made some positive comments about Ron Paul, George Bush, and Rick Santorum, but referred to them as exceptions to the rule. But it was the party as a whole that gave those individuals the ability to do what they did. They accomplished what they did by means of using the Republican party as a tool (they were elected as Republicans, the Republican party gave them the visibility and other instruments needed to accomplish what they did, etc.).
You tell us that "now they [Republicans] say they need the Presidency to have any impact". No, that's not what they say. Rather, it looks like you're just repeating the words that Limbaugh, Levin, et al. insert into the mouths of the Republican leaders they're criticizing. But if you listen to Republican leaders themselves, instead of just going by what words their critics put in their mouths, you'll hear them citing example after example of what they've already accomplished without regaining the presidency (Walker's union reforms in Wisconsin, Texas' economic success under Perry, blocking what Obama and many Democrats would like to do on gun control in Congress, etc.). Again, go to the web sites of National Right to Life, the National Rifle Association, etc., and they'll give you example after example of what Republicans have done at the local, state, and federal levels.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteI suggest doing a couple of things.
First of all, expand the number and variety of sources you consult. Don't just listen to talk radio hosts, web sites, etc. that are highly focused (often too focused) on criticizing Republican leadership. In some cases, these people become popular, make money, or benefit in some other way by getting people upset about the establishment. Their motives may or may not be bad, but, either way, it's a good idea to consult other sources as well, so that you hear more than one side of the argument.
Second, place your focus on the American people in general, not political leaders. The American people are most to blame for what's wrong with this country. If you search our archives, you'll find a lot of polling data and other information on Americans' priorities, how they spend their time, how much they know about various issues, etc.
For example, a majority of Americans are so ignorant of the Bible that they can't name the four gospels. Most can't name the three branches of government. More than forty percent can't name the current vice president. A majority of married men view pornography at least once a month. The average American spends more than five hours a day on sports and leisure (which doesn't include some other trivial activities that are highly voluntary), whereas they spend less than ten minutes a day on religious activities. A large majority identify as either liberal or moderate, not conservative. And so on. Under those circumstances, we should be relieved and grateful that we have a party as conservative as the Republicans and that they're doing so much good. They're doing far less than they could, but they're much more conservative than the average American. What we have is a situation in which a conservative minority is carrying an inordinate burden. They're doing the work that the non-conservative majority is failing to do, and that conservative minority is often overcoming the odds and accomplishing significant things, frequently using the Republican party as a tool toward that end. But in order to be in a position to accomplish those things, the Republican party needs the assistance of some non-conservatives who are willing to work with us. Any Republican candidate who wants to win the presidency, for example, has to get millions of non-conservatives to support him. Conservatives alone won't get him into office.
In other words, change your focus. Instead of being so angry at Republican leaders, be angry primarily at the American people. You might be able to change the Republican party for the better to some extent without changing the American people first, but the latter should be your focus.
Jason,
DeleteI think we are talking past each other.
I agree with you the voter is to blame at the end of the day. It is neither the Republican party nor Limbaugh/Cruz/Levin who's ultimately to blame for the voter's choice. I was simply responding to your post that the reason many voter's give for voting for Trump is not what you said (from O'Reilly to a Jon Doe commenting on a blog -- that's what they are saying). You seem to imply the voter's don't know why they do what they do, and that somehow Limbaugh or Cruz put ideas in their mind or something like that. I think Trump's supporters know their own motives and reasons better than I do -- whether they are bad or good reasons. Did you think voting for Trump because of what Limbaugh didn't say is a good reason? What were you then attempting to do by blaming Limbaugh or Cruz?
However, does the party share the blame? In so far as they don't do what they were elected to do, yes. I am a bit surprised you and Steve are willing to defend the party's record. Who do you think is more efficient getting results for their causes, Republicans or Democrats?
I am not angry at the American people simply because I don't believe America is any longer Christian. I do believe we are under the judgment of God, as clearly seen in Romans 1, and unless there is repentance brought by the Spirit nothing will change. But I do get rather annoyed at politicians that say one thing, but don't do anything.
Yes, Republicans are good at keeping the status quo. If all you want is for the country to not go worse politically, that party is for you. But if you want to move the needle to the right, don't hold your breath.
Steve,
Delete>> i) Both the House and the Senate recently passed bills to defund Planned Parenthood. Sure, Obama will veto it, but what more can Congress do? They can't conjure up a veto-proof majority. They only have so many votes. If you want a veto-proof majority, you need to elect more conservative Republicans (or independents who will caucus with Republicans)
I already addressed this in one of my comments. The URL I copied also talks about this. But I'll reiterate the main points here.
Do you really think that bill wasn't just a symbolic show, as symbolic as you claim the Marriage Ammendment was? BTW, if the Marriage Ammendment was a symbolic gesture, then the Republican party was so lousy back then that it didn't even attempt to make the gesture to begin with! At least they have learned to make gestures 10 years later with this bill.
So what should they have done with Planned Parenthood funding you ask? How about not funding PP to begin with? Why not just not eliminate funding for PP in the budget most Republicans voted for back in December?
I have heard most of the standard party line answers to that question. They are the reason why I think the party is broken. Would you expect a Democratic congress to pass a budget that gives so much to the Republican side?
"So what should they have done with Planned Parenthood funding you ask? How about not funding PP to begin with? Why not just not eliminate funding for PP in the budget most Republicans voted for back in December?"
DeleteWhich Obama will veto, right?
For the record, let me make clear I am not voting for Trump. I am planning to vote for Cruz. But I understand the reason Trump's supporters give for their choice, even if I disagree with them. I don't need to look at another reason by blaming Cruz or Limbaugh or whatever. IMO, they are right to feel frustrated with the party (I am only talking about Trump's supporters who are conservative, I am sure more moderate supporters have different reasons). But they are not right to support a moderate to liberal, even if the party hates Trump (the cure is no good in this case... except perhaps to destroy the party).
DeleteSteve,
DeleteWhy not force Obama to shutdown the government? Why is it the Republican's fault of a government shutdown if they give Obama a perfectly good budget that Obama happens to disagree with?
Because stupid voters always blame Congressional Republicans. Politics isn't fair. The fact that Obama is objectively to blame doesn't mean voter blame Obama.
DeleteAha! The truth comes out! So the Republicans do nothing because they fear the non-conservative voters blaming them? Is *that* supposed to be a good excuse?
DeleteObama, for all his faults, often seems to care less what the opposition thinks of him. Yes, it is true, the media sides with him.
But the media doesn't like Trump. Can't you see now why people like Trump? Trump still doesn't care... unlike the Republican party. Trump acts as if he has nothing to lose and everything to gain, while most Republicans as if they have everything to loose and nothing to gain. And you are still telling me the Republican party has nothing to do with Trump's rise? That, while the voter is ultimately to blame, some blame also goes to Cruz and Limbaugh -- but NONE to the party?
Really!?
If voters punish Congressional Republicans for doing the right thing, what did that accomplish? They didn't get their initiatives enacted into law by making a futile gesture of defiance. And if Democrats retake the House, Senate, or both, what did that accomplish?
DeleteThe "party" isn't any one thing. The party has good people and bad people.
>> If voters punish Congressional Republicans for doing the right thing, what did that accomplish?
DeleteIt accomplished doing the right thing. And getting conservative votes (more on that below).
>> They didn't get their initiatives enacted into law by making a futile gesture of defiance.
Who said anything about futile? So if the Republicans stand up to Obama, in the only way they practically can -- through the budget, to do what conservative voters actually voted them into office to do, then they are doing something futile?
>> And if Democrats retake the House, Senate, or both, what did that accomplish?
This is some funny logic. So Republicans must work for Democratic causes, by giving the Democrats all they wanted in that budget, in order to remain in power?
Me thinks if they don't work for conservative voters, then they shouldn't expect to get the conservative vote. Which means many conservatives will either end up voting for a third party candidate, voting for someone who fools them like Trump, or not voting at all. And, given the conservative vote is a relatively significant vote of the Republican base, the Democrats will likely retake Congress anyways. In which case, pray tell what did they gain by not doing what was right?
Political posturing is not an accomplishment. It doesn't produce meaningful change. Grandstanding is not the same thing as "standing up to Obama." You can stand up to an Abrams tank–and get run over. Golly what an accomplishment! "Doing something" isn't the same thing as achieving something. Elementary difference.
DeleteConservative voters are naive if they think Congress alone can do what's needed. We have three branches of gov't. There's only so much one branch can do.
>> Conservative voters are naive if they think Congress alone can do what's needed. We have three branches of gov't. There's only so much one branch can do.
DeleteHaven't the Democrats been piling up evidence against that assertion for some time now?
I would have thought it would be an obvious case in point for my position what the Republicans did in that budget, but I guess it is not so obvious to you. And yes, the Republicans are not just one thing. I would define the good ones as those who voted against the budget -- which were few.
At any rate, talking about accomplishing, I don't think I am accomplishing anything by beating up this dead horse, so I am planning to stop. If am naive, so be it, but I can't agree with your position. Not even on pragmatic grounds -- I don't think it achieves much in the long term, except the slow hemorrhage of conservative voters from the Republican party.
Having said that, I am glad your pragmatism in politics doesn't spill much over into your theology. Which is why I still enjoy your blog.
Keep up the good work. God bless.
Nick wrote:
Delete"I was simply responding to your post that the reason many voter's give for voting for Trump is not what you said (from O'Reilly to a Jon Doe commenting on a blog -- that's what they are saying)."
Why are we supposed to think that the issue is "the reason many voters give"? If they give reasons that were provided to them by people like Limbaugh and Cruz, then Limbaugh and Cruz are responsible to that extent. Similarly, if you use apologetic arguments that I provide you with, and those arguments are bad ones, it would be ridiculous to deny my involvement on the basis that you didn't mention me when you used the bad arguments I provided you with.
Furthermore, people like Limbaugh and Cruz can be responsible for encouraging Trump supporters in contexts in which they shouldn't have been encouraged, distracting them, etc., even if they didn't provide those Trump supporters with the reasons they cite for supporting Trump. If a Trump supporter decides to support Trump for reason X, independent of Rush Limbaugh, then Limbaugh comes along and encourages him to continue thinking that reason X is a valid reason for supporting Trump, Limbaugh is involved and culpable for it, even though he didn't bring about the Trump supporter's initial acceptance of reason X for supporting Trump.
And since when do we limit ourselves to the reasons people give for holding the views they do? If we have evidence for other reasons that haven't been mentioned, then we take that evidence into account. We don't ignore it, just because the people who hold the views in question haven't yet acknowledged that other factors are involved. If you have evidence that a judge has arrived at a particular ruling in a court case because he's been bribed, you don't wait until the judge acknowledges the influence of the bribe before you take that motive into account.
What we have is a situation in which people like Limbaugh have spent months giving Trump inordinate attention, being overly positive about him, etc., while Cruz spent months refraining from criticizing Trump to such an inordinate degree, speaking highly of him, attending rallies with him, etc. I've repeatedly seen people in online forums mention individuals like Limbaugh by name and mention Limbaugh, et al.'s positive assessment of Trump as a justification for holding a positive view of Trump. Even if I hadn't seen such comments, it would be unreasonable to deny that the positive treatment people like Limbaugh and Cruz have given Trump has contributed to Trump's current status.
By contrast, the Republican establishment you've referred to has been far more negative about Trump. When Trump supporters cite the establishment as a reason for supporting Trump, they're citing their opposition to the establishment, not some sort of support for Trump from the establishment. It's perverse to suggest that the Republican leaders who have been opposing Trump are equally or more responsible for Trump's overly high status. The establishment didn't intend to promote Trump, and what they've done shouldn't have led in any significant way to Trump's gaining the sort of status he has now. If people react to the establishment in an irrational way that gives Trump the sort of status he now has, then those irrational people are to blame, not the establishment. Similarly, if some Muslims claim that Western society has provoked them to terrorism, we don't assume that Western society must be guilty just because those Muslims say so.
I was addressing actual reasons for Trump's status, not just professed reasons. And your initial response to me suggested that you were doing the same. In that response, you said, "The blame for Trump's rise goes to the Republican establishment." But now you're trying to focus the discussion on professed reasons for Trump's status rather than actual reasons.
Nick wrote:
Delete"I am a bit surprised you and Steve are willing to defend the party's record. Who do you think is more efficient getting results for their causes, Republicans or Democrats?"
You're changing the subject. The Republicans can be less efficient for a variety of reasons (most Americans aren't conservative, the media and other highly influential segments of the culture favor the Democrats, etc.), yet not be as bad as you suggested earlier. I gave you a lot of examples of Republican accomplishments and reasons to support the Republican party. You've ignored most of what I said, and you're trying to shift the discussion to issues like "defending the party's record" as a whole and which party is more efficient at getting what it wants.
As I said earlier, given the corrupt status of the American people, we should be glad that the Republicans have been able to do so much good. They could do more and they're wrong about a lot, but they're also much better than you've been suggesting. They're a somewhat conservative party that inconsistently supports conservatism in a culture that's highly corrupt and far from conservative. There isn't any comparable or better alternative to the Republican party available at the moment, and there isn't a good alternative on the horizon.
You write:
"I am not angry at the American people simply because I don't believe America is any longer Christian. I do believe we are under the judgment of God, as clearly seen in Romans 1, and unless there is repentance brought by the Spirit nothing will change. But I do get rather annoyed at politicians that say one thing, but don't do anything."
If you can get "rather annoyed" at those politicians, then why can't you get angry at the American people? I see no reason why people's non-Christian status would make it inappropriate for us to be angry at them. If you're not angry at non-Christians for their sins, even sins as damaging as rape and murder, then there's something wrong with you. Besides, there are a lot of immature and inconsistent Christians we should be angry with (like Christians who are supporting Trump). If you don't have a lot of anger at the American people, there's something wrong with you. We should have more than anger, but not less. That's one of the biggest problems with the modern conservative movement. There's so much anger at political leaders while so little anger is directed at the people most responsible for what's wrong with our culture.
You write:
"But if you want to move the needle to the right, don't hold your breath."
You say that while ignoring the documentation I've provided that shows the Republicans moving the needle to the right on issue after issue after issue.
Nick wrote:
Delete"So the Republicans do nothing because they fear the non-conservative voters blaming them? Is *that* supposed to be a good excuse?"
First of all, as I said before, the Republicans haven't been doing "nothing". Paul Ryan and other Congressional leaders have given multiple examples of concessions they've gained from the Democrats. You can cite Democrats claiming to have gotten everything they wanted and so forth, but you have to distinguish between their trying to make themselves look good, trying to discourage Republicans, etc. on the one hand and, on the other hand, what actually happened. Furthermore, what the Democrats wanted to accomplish in this context already assumed the limitations the Republicans would place on them. In other words, let's say that the Democrats would like to spend a trillion dollars on government program X. They anticipate that they can't get anything more than half that much, though, because of Republican opposition. So, they only aim for getting half a trillion. If they get that half a trillion, does it follow that they got everything they wanted? Only in a qualified sense that has a Republican victory built into it. You can't deny that Congress is spending substantially less than it would spend if Democrats controlled both houses. The Republicans did get some of what they wanted. You can fault them for settling for less than they should have, not leaving themselves enough time to negotiate like they should have, etc., but that's not equivalent to the Republicans "doing nothing".
Second, yes, the limitations that the voters place on the Republicans are a good excuse for the Republicans accomplishing less than they could have without those limitations. As I said before, conservatives are a minority in America. Republicans depend on the support of millions of non-conservatives. They have to. It doesn't always make sense to accommodate voters, but sometimes it does. And sometimes you have to, even if you don't want to.
You go on to refer to "doing the right thing" by shutting down the government. You're assuming, without argument, that your approach to implementing conservatism is "the right thing". You haven't explained why your approach is preferable to the alternatives. As I said earlier, sometimes it makes sense to support a candidate who's 70% conservative rather than one who's 100% conservative. Maybe the 70% individual is significantly more electable, getting him elected will shift the party from minority to majority status and thereby give the party additional powers it didn't previously have, etc. Sometimes, doing something that's less conservative in the short term will do more to advance conservatism over the long term. You have to be wise and take a long view of things. The book of Proverbs has a lot to say about simple-minded people, and it isn't positive. Sometimes, settling for less in the short term in order to get more in the long term is the right thing to do. You can't just assume that you should always vote for the most conservative candidate or support the legislation that's the most conservative. There are times when that sort of behavior does more to harm the conservative cause than help it.
Nick wrote:
Delete"Having said that, I am glad your pragmatism in politics doesn't spill much over into your theology."
People make judgments for themselves about what theological views to hold, and they make their own decisions about political views. But when it comes to something like voting, we do that in groups. So, you have to take the behavior of other people into account. You have to be pragmatic, as you put it. There's no reasonable alternative. Even the conservatives who claim to not be concerned about something like electability typically are concerned about it. They just don't realize it or don't want to admit it. If their uncle is the most conservative person they know, they won't vote for their uncle. They know that their uncle isn't running for office, doesn't have much of a chance of winning if he were to run, etc. So, you take those kinds of pragmatic concerns into account. That's why you and other conservatives who claim to be so principled, so concerned about doing the right thing, so unconcerned about being pragmatic, etc. frequently are concerning yourself with pragmatism and frequently are choosing less conservative options for pragmatic reasons. Is Ted Cruz perfect? Is he more correct on the issues than everybody else who's alive? If somebody who's more correct than Cruz were to enter the race, but that person was getting almost no media attention and was only known about by a fraction of one percent of the population, would you vote for that individual instead of Cruz? No, because of your pragmatic concerns. You'd pragmatically choose to support Cruz instead.
Hi Jason,
DeleteWell, I guess I finished my discussion with Steve and will continue with you. I can't let some of your comments go by.
First, on the issue of blame. What's the difference between me saying that the ultimate blame goes to the voters, but that the party shares some of the blame? Isn't that what you are saying, except that instead of the party it is Limbaugh and Cruz? Or are you suggesting that the voters are not to blame at all, but only Limbaugh and Cruz? The latter is neither a Christian nor a rational assertion. Having someone else completely blamed for your choices is the stuff of science fiction (e.g., mind control).
Second, the Republicans are to blame because of their bad, indefensible logic. Logic Steve (and presumably you) defend by saying the Republicans should have voted for a budget that funds Planned Parenthood. No wonder you think Rubio is great, even though he skipped that vote. As far as you are concerned he should have voted in favor anyway!
Third, I am not angry with Americans because I don't expect unbelievers to behave like believers. The unbelievers are not necessarily claiming to be social conservatives. The Republican politicians are. Big difference.
(cont)
DeleteAs for shutting down the government, yes, I do believe shutting down the government would have been preferable to voting for a bill that funds abortion.
First, they didn't even try, so of course they couldn't accomplish anything with that budget! A self-fulfilling prophecy if I have ever seen one.
Second, I can't defend someone voting in favor of funding abortion, just because they are afraid of the fallout. Where I come from that is called cowardice.
Third, many voters voted the Republicans into power precisely to do that. To shutdown the government if necessary. Talk about listening to voters!
(cont)
As for pragmatism in politics, yes, to a point. But there are lines to draw.
DeleteFirst, if those lines are crossed, no pragmatism for me. And that includes voting to fund abortion.
Second, pragmatism with bad logic is not pragmatism, it is silliness. I don't think your view leads to anything but voter turn off. Trump, IMO, is a perfect example of what I mean.
(cont)
Going back to Trump, now I understand why you so strongly disagree with what should be a fairly uncontroversial statement: that the Republican party is partly to blame. The reason is obvious: you agree with the Republican party! Some of the ideas that turn off those voters are your ideas! Case in point: the December budget, which many of us find morally repugnant (as it ought to be).
DeleteFor you it is easier to believe Ted Cruz brainwashed voters in favor of Trump (I thought Cruz was running against Trump... kind of strange for him to also campaign for Trump, don't you think?), than to believe the voters truly view your ideas as morally wrong and hence see the Republican party as a corrupt party (not everyone, but many at the federal level).
At any rate, I have no hope of convincing you. I just hope others will read both sides and judge for themselves.
And yes, I am glad this type of thinking does not define the rest of your blog.
Nick wrote:
Delete"What's the difference between me saying that the ultimate blame goes to the voters, but that the party shares some of the blame? Isn't that what you are saying, except that instead of the party it is Limbaugh and Cruz? Or are you suggesting that the voters are not to blame at all, but only Limbaugh and Cruz?"
I explained my reasoning in my 3:53 P.M. post today. Instead of interacting with that post, you're just asking a series of questions I've already answered.
You write:
"Second, the Republicans are to blame because of their bad, indefensible logic. Logic Steve (and presumably you) defend by saying the Republicans should have voted for a budget that funds Planned Parenthood. No wonder you think Rubio is great, even though he skipped that vote. As far as you are concerned he should have voted in favor anyway!"
As Steve and I have explained to you more than once, what you do with something like that budget vote depends on a large variety of factors, many of which you aren't addressing. For example, you have to take into account how shutting down the government would prevent you from winning pro-life efforts in the future (due to how the shutdown affects the party's reputation, how it affects upcoming elections, etc.). Depending on the circumstances, it might make more sense to temporarily continue funding something in order to be in a better position to defund it more extensively later. As I said before, short-term setbacks often help prepare the way for more substantial victories later.
Even if we assumed your position on the budget, for the sake of argument, what would that prove in the context of this thread? It wouldn't justify supporting Trump, it wouldn't justify preferring Cruz over Rubio (for reasons I've explained here and in other threads), and it wouldn't justify viewing the Republican party as a whole in as negative a way as you've suggested. You'd still have to interact with the large amount of evidence I've cited for good things the Republicans have done, why Trump supporters are wrong in their reasoning about the establishment, why Rubio is preferable to Cruz, etc.
And I didn't say that Rubio is "great". I said that he's the best presidential candidate in the current field.
On the subject of missing votes, see my response to Alan Kurschner below, including the portion about Cruz's missed votes.
Nick wrote:
Delete"Third, I am not angry with Americans because I don't expect unbelievers to behave like believers. The unbelievers are not necessarily claiming to be social conservatives. The Republican politicians are."
You don't have to "expect unbelievers to behave like believers" in order to have reasons to be angry with unbelievers. They sin. They're culpable. They don't have to be believers in order to be sinning and to be responsible for it.
Most Republicans claim to be social conservatives, but some don't. And I've documented many examples of Republicans accomplishing things that advance social conservatism. I've also explained why they're often justified when they don't do more of it and why we shouldn't expect much from them in a culture as corrupt as the United States. You keep ignoring these points, and you keep ignoring the examples and documentation you're provided with.
You write:
"Third, many voters voted the Republicans into power precisely to do that. To shutdown the government if necessary. Talk about listening to voters!"
You have to take more than "many voters" into account. You keep citing insufficient justifications for your positions on these matters. You cite one of the factors we should take into account when making a judgment, but you ignore other factors. Again, in a nation as non-conservative as the United States, one in which the media are so liberally biased and government shutdowns are perceived the way they are, etc., it's not enough for you to make a vague reference to how "many voters" want a shutdown.
You write:
"I don't think your view leads to anything but voter turn off."
Is that how the Republicans have won the House, the Senate, more than thirty governorships, and such a large majority in state legislatures? If my approach produces "voter turn off", then why has Rubio been doing so well in polling against Clinton, and why have his personal favorability numbers been so high (including higher than Cruz's)?
Nick wrote:
Delete"Going back to Trump, now I understand why you so strongly disagree with what should be a fairly uncontroversial statement: that the Republican party is partly to blame."
You keep moving the goal posts. Nothing in my original post denied that the Republican party is "partly to blame", and you didn't include the "partly" qualifier in your initial response. The Republican party could deserve something like .001% or 5% of the blame, and that would qualify as "partly". But it wouldn't be significant. What I've said is that Trump supporters bear the most blame for his current status in the race, that people like Limbaugh and Cruz deserve a significant amount of blame, and that they're more to blame than the establishment.
You write:
"The reason is obvious: you agree with the Republican party! Some of the ideas that turn off those voters are your ideas! Case in point: the December budget, which many of us find morally repugnant (as it ought to be)."
I've explained that I have a mixed view of the Republican party. I view it more positively than you do. I'm in agreement or undecided on some of the points where you're critical of the party. I didn't follow the budget dispute last December closely, but I did follow it to some extent. I know enough to realize that the issue is more complicated than you're making it out to be, and I know that some of what you've been saying about it has been false. But I don't have much of an opinion about it as a whole. I don't think it has much significance in the context of this thread, for reasons I've explained.
You write:
"For you it is easier to believe Ted Cruz brainwashed voters in favor of Trump (I thought Cruz was running against Trump... kind of strange for him to also campaign for Trump, don't you think?)"
I didn't say that Cruz "brainwashed voters in favor of Trump". That's your tendentious poisoning of the well.
It's a fact that Cruz held joint political events with Trump, sent out tweets speaking highly of Trump, refrained from criticizing Trump even during some of Trump's periods of worst behavior, etc.
You write:
"than to believe the voters truly view your ideas as morally wrong and hence see the Republican party as a corrupt party (not everyone, but many at the federal level)."
I don't deny that some Trump supporters have some conservative motives for supporting him. But those motives are often misdirected and mixed with other motives of a worse nature. I've documented the widely divergent nature of Trump's supporters, such as here.
I prefer "pragmatism" to feel-good gestures that do nothing to change/improve the status quo.
DeleteSo you shut down the gov't. Then what? That's not the end game. Shutting down the gov't won't defund PP. Merely voting to defund planned PP won't actually defund it. Merely passing a bill to defund it won't actually defund it.
So, yeah, I prefer strategy and tactics that make a difference, not symbolic actions that give a sense of emotional satisfaction.
I, for one, haven't defended the GOP. Knocking down bad objections to something isn't the same thing as defending it.
The GOP is just a means to an end. It has no intrinsic value.
For some reason my mind goes to the following Proverb whenever I listen to a broadcast of Donald Trump:::>
ReplyDeletePro 18:23 The poor use entreaties, but the rich answer roughly.
"A rich man is wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has understanding will find him out." - Prov. 28:11
DeleteI think one of the most effective ways of defeating Trump is to focus on his ties with the Clintons. Research has shown that Trump's supporters tend to be less conservative and less educated. You can appeal to some of them by arguing that Trump isn't conservative enough, objecting to Trump's inconsistencies on the issues, etc. But a more effective approach, given the nature of most of Trump's supporters, would be to connect him to the Clintons in a way that's disturbing to Republicans in general (and many non-Republicans). Show photographs of Trump standing with the Clintons. Talk about the phone call Trump had with Bill Clinton around the time when Trump entered the race. (Given how many Americans, and Trump supporters in particular, believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories, all you need to do is plant the thought of a Trump/Clinton phone call and let people's imaginations fill in the blanks.) Most significantly, I think, quote Trump's positive comments about Hillary Clinton (or, better yet, play the audio and/or video of those comments) and ask voters if they want a nominee who will have to explain such comments in a campaign against Clinton. Ask voters if they want to give that sort of advantage to the Clinton campaign. Paint the picture in people's minds of television and radio ads running the day before the election in November, ads featuring clips of Trump's endorsements of Clinton. The vast majority of primary voters, including the large majority of Trump supporters, are going to want to defeat Clinton. Trump's close ties with the Clintons, even to the point of speaking so highly of Hillary Clinton, put him in a uniquely weak position among the Republican candidates.
ReplyDeleteAnother approach, though probably less effective, is to go after Trump's general instability. Do the typical weathervane ad, but on a bigger scale. Trump's been all over the map on party affiliation and the issues, and he has temper and other character problems. Play clips of him losing his temper, making comments that everybody or almost everybody would find objectionable, quote other people's accounts of that sort of behavior on Trump's part, etc. Try to fit eight, ten, or more examples in a single ad, playing one clip after another. Create the impression of a longstanding pattern of instability, which Trump does, in fact, have. Convey the notion that he can't be trusted.
These are the kinds of approaches that can convince even the less conservative, less informed, and less discerning voters. These are approaches that have broad appeal.
I just want to point out a recent fact concerning RINO Rubio.
ReplyDeleteRubio was too busy meeting with his big business donors to vote to defund abortion and other monstrosities:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/263719-rubio-misses-spending-bill-vote
Alan,
DeleteThere are a lot of problems with the approach you're taking:
- I and other Rubio supporters have explained why we're supporting him. My support for Rubio doesn't depend on his always being right.
- Missing votes like the one you're citing is a relatively minor issue.
- Rubio's reasoning for missing such votes is cited within the article, and you've made no effort to interact with his reasoning. He addressed the subject more fully in one of the debates last year. And here's another place where he addresses it. He provided examples of previous presidential candidates who had missed a comparable or greater number of votes. Why don't you interact with what Rubio has said on the subject? I don't know whether Rubio has been justified in missing every vote he's missed or the one you cited in particular. I haven't looked into the subject much. But I think any misjudgment he's made on these matters is likely a relatively minor misjudgment, for reasons like the ones Rubio has provided.
- Given that you've said that you want to destroy the Republican party, why would you consider it problematic for somebody to be a RINO?
- Rubio has recently gotten a 98% rating from the American Conservative Union and a 94% rating from the Heritage Foundation. Why are we supposed to think that behavior like missing the vote you cited outweighs Rubio's conservatism in other contexts and qualifies him as a RINO?
- Unless you've recently changed your mind, you're a Trump supporter. By what reasoning would Rubio be as much of a RINO as Trump or more of a RINO than him? Just within the last few months, Trump has spoken positively of single-payer healthcare, affirmative action, how good of a Supreme Court justice his liberal sister would be, etc.
- You've made some significantly positive comments about Ted Cruz. Here's an article, from the same source you've cited, about Cruz missing votes as he runs for president. Is Cruz a RINO? I suspect that Cruz often votes in order to have a better image with certain people. He shows up to vote even when his vote doesn't have much significance, so that he can point to his vote to impress those individuals. Whatever merit there is to his voting more often than Rubio, Cruz has been missing a lot of votes. I doubt that you care much about it.
- You keep putting up drive-by posts, in which you briefly cite something in support of Trump or against his opponents, even though what you're citing doesn't have much significance, and you walk away from the discussion without interacting much, if at all, with the counterarguments. You've built up a large stack of unpaid IOUs. You're wasting everybody's time. Stop it.
When a sitting senator runs for president, he misses votes. Missing a vote is significant if it's a significant bill and passage depends on his vote. If the margin is such that the bill would pass or fail to pass regardless of his vote, it's just a technicality.
DeleteI'd add that a voting to defund PP doesn't ipso facto defund PP. Even passing a bill to defund PP doesn't ipso facto defund PP unless the president signs the bill or the bill passes by a veto-proof majority. That's why, in political parlance, these are called "free votes".
Speaking for myself, I'm more interested in actions that actually make a difference.
Hi Alan,
DeleteI just want to point out a recent fact concerning RINO Rubio.
Rubio was too busy meeting with his big business donors to vote to defund abortion and other monstrosities:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/263719-rubio-misses-spending-bill-vote
I presume the idea that Rubio is a RINO is indexed on the media's assumption that Rubio is part of the "establishment." However, if Rubio is part of the "establishment," then I'd think that's just more evidence the "establishment" doesn't really mean a whole lot. It's not as if Rubio is anything like John Boehner at all.
I think lots of politicians on both sides meet with "big business donors." There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. At the very least it's very hard to generalize anything even if it's true.
Once a RINO, always a RINO.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I don't have the time like you do Jason to write tome-length blog articles is because I work 14 hours a day, including weekends. So you misinterpreted my "drive by" blog posts. Speaking of which I need to get up 4:30 am.
Alan,
DeleteNobody has been forcing you to post. If you don't have time to adequately study the issues, post about them, interact with counterarguments, etc., you could refrain from posting. You've been told about the problematic nature of your posts before. This isn't the first time.
And nobody forced you to make bad judgments like supporting Trump, wanting to destroy the Republican party, thinking that Rubio is a RINO, and acting as if you're concerned about RINOs at the same time that you say you want to destroy the Republican party. Furthermore, nobody has been forcing you to rely on bad sources and bad arguments for your positions, as you've often done. What you've been doing can't be excused by a heavy work schedule.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDon't act all high and mighty. My last blog post on triablogue—before you removed me— was posting—and commenting on—Mark Levin's thoughtful critique of Rubio's Alinsky-type tactics against Cruz, namely documented lies from the Rubio camp about Cruz. And the link-only posts I did post on about Trump and Cruz were intended to give another perspective, as if posting links only on triablogue is something new here.
DeleteIn addition, you are confusing two issues. Studying an issue and writing on it. Just because I don't have time to write political commentary articles as you do, does not mean that I do not take the time to read up on issues.
Feel free to live in your delusion that Rubio is not a RINO. There is plenty of company there these days.
Alan,
DeleteThere's nothing wrong with posting links. But there's a lot wrong with approvingly linking bad articles, linking good articles to make bad arguments, using links to change the subject when a discussion isn't going your way, etc. The thread here provides some examples of that sort of behavior on your part. And here's another example. Or the ridiculous article you linked here. Or the terrible article you promoted here. And so on.
During the several months you've spent posting such links, while doing so little to interact with counterarguments, you've posted larger amounts of material on other topics. You found time for that. If you had time to read the sort of low-quality articles you linked from sources like World Net Daily, why couldn't you have taken the time to write, say, a paragraph or two in response to the best counterarguments? You knew that people were upset with your behavior, and they gave you good reasons to change it, but you didn't. You do so much good work in other contexts, and I wish you'd make more of an effort to improve in this one.
Did Rubio ever officially explain his "Gang of 8" (fixing the Immigration system) thing and did he "repent" of that?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, sure, Rubio may be weak on immigration, but we could say the same about another GOP candidate like Cruz.
DeletePlus, Rubio is better on immigration than Hillary and Sanders.
Anyway, we have to consider the entire package. Not one of the current GOP candidates is perfect. Some are better than others overall though, and I'd rate Rubio as among the best choices currently running. We do the best with who we have.
I think Rubio is probably the best candidate also, just mainly because 55-60 % of the country is liberal/ secular/ non-Christian and if Trump or Cruz gets it, they could loose. Cruz is my favorite on principle (Huckabee and Santorum also), but Cruz has already been painted by the liberal media and "low information voters" , and emotional left wing issues, unfortunately, are the middle and influence a lot.
DeleteGood points, Ken. I'd prefer Cruz, but yeah Rubio might be more electable.
DeleteOne parting shot that I couldn't resist (my last comment, you have my word). I've been seeing these rumors on several places today:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/gop-establishment-leaning-toward-trump-over-cruz.html
If what that piece says were to become true it would be, for me, bitter-sweet and yet deliciously ironic on so many levels. But time will tell.
Enjoy your Republican party!