If you didn’t hear, Senator Ted Cruz gave a speech this past Wednesday, in which he asserted that the policies of Hillary and Obama were objectionable, and that the principles by which the Republican Party ostensibly stand–Americans’ freedom and support for the Constitution–needed to be defended. Great speech.
Oh, he also said that voters should “vote their conscience”, up and down the ticket. This was greeted with outrage by the Trumpspawn, because it was a signal that Sen. Cruz wasn’t going to bend down and lick Donald Trump’s tiny orange toes, as had nearly every other major GOP political leader. Excellent work, Senator. Instead of “Lyin’ Ted” it is “Lion Ted” (as in, you know, being brave as a lion. Lions as they are known in popular culture, anyway, because I’ve read that actual lions–but I digress).
With Trump, it is important that he always be seen as the Top Man, and Sen. Cruz’ refusal to bow and scrape thwarts that image. If it becomes widely known that someone is willing to call Trump out for a phony, and not take his bullying like a cringing crony, then Trump loses that image of “tough guy that can get things done.”
All Cruz said on Wednesday night was that people needed to vote for the Emperor who was actually wearing clothes. It’s not his fault that Trump parades about bereft of any conservative principles with which to clothe himself.
The following day, Sen. Cruz explained why he did not speak the words “I endorse Donald Trump”: it was because he took his vow to love and honor his wife, and his duty to honor his father, more seriously than his pledge to endorse Trump. I think, also, the good Senator was reluctant to endorse someone whose proposed agenda had very little in common with the actual Republican Party platform–which is supposed to be about limited, Constitutional government. Incidentally, Trump himself had already broken the same pledge some weeks prior, and stated at that time that he neither needed nor wanted Senator Cruz’s endorsement.
So, why did Sen. Cruz agree to give a speech at the GOP convention if he wasn’t going to endorse Trump? Because it was the GOP convention, not the Trump convention. I suspect that Sen. Cruz saw that no one was going to talk about freedom and the Constitution if he didn’t do it. Trump certain wasn’t going to talk about such mundane things when he could talk about himself, and about how he is able to save us all from all bad things because he’s Trump.
The day after the GOP convention ended, Trump was in a press conference, and started again to complain about the one guy with the courage to remain standing in his presence. He repeated the tabloid-sourced story that Mr. Cruz was associated with Lee Harvey Oswald, implying that the senior Mr. Cruz was somehow a part of the JFK Assassination. “It’s terrible; it’s just terrible” (or words to that effect).
In other words, Trump just broadcast to the world that he is a loony. Rather than responding to Sen. Cruz’s “snub” like a normal human being, and ignoring it, or even like a half-way competent politician, and using it to his advantage, and then turning his attention to his real opponent–Hillary Clinton–Trump feels compelled to deal with this slight against himself. He even openly mused about starting a Political Action Committee to fund someone to run against Sen. Cruz in the 2018 Texas Senate primary.
I wonder if Sen. Cruz knew that his “non-endorsement” was going to send Trump back to Loony-Town, and was trying to subtly show that the GOP had nominated someone who is not stable.
Trump is not conservative, either. He’s pro-abortion (practically speaking; he still lauds Planned Parenthood), anti-free market (he likes for the government to take people’s lands to give to businessmen and hates the idea of people making the best use of the product of their labor), and believes that if the government puts you on a secret “no-fly” list that your 2nd amendment rights can be abrogated.
What the GOP leaders who are now criticizing Sen. Cruz for his principled stand are really saying is: “Don’t worry about freedom or the Constitution. Join us in celebrating the bold decision to nominate a Democrat to be our standard bearer. Here, have some orange Flavor-Aid!”
There is a meme spouted by some of the Trumpspawn these days, that if one doesn’t vote for Trump then one is “voting for Hillary”. On the other hand, the Zergswarm that makes up the Democratic Party voter base are saying that a failure to vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. Logically speaking, then, voting for neither of them is the same as voting for both of them! Win, and win!
I’m thinking that Trump will win this election. As of July 24, the Democrat (“Democratic”) Party is splintering, hard, over the leadership’s scandalous treatment of socialist Bernie Sanders, which was revealed in a WikiLeaks email dump. Hillary is not well-liked, even by (especially by?) her supporters. She’s personally a jerk of Trumpian proportions (heh), and will do anything to make a buck and keep her corruption-infused hide out of prison.
It is known.
I wonder if she will even survive until election day; she seems to have some medical issues (That xenomorph is about ready to burst from her chest, and, um, what is going on here?). If she wins, and manages to eke out a first term, I doubt things will be as bad some fearful folk assert.
I am not going to write in Sen. Cruz’s name this November. He urged people not to do that. Besides, there are other options for anyone who still (as Sen. Cruz does) cares about American liberty and Constitutionally restrained government (this, naturally, excludes the Democratic Party). One option is the Libertarian Party, whose ticket is Gary Johnson and William Weld. I am uninterested in voting for this ticket, since the Libertarian Party has a platform that favors antepartum infanticide, but Johnson/Weld is gaining in the polls, and it would be a good thing, I think, if a third party were able to break through the two-party barrier that has been imposed by the two major parties.
The other choice for liberty lovers is the Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley ticket of the Constitution Party. This is a much better team. I disagree vehemently with the Constitution Party’s stance on Free Trade (they assert, if I remember right, that free trade leads to socialism(!)), but since the GOP has nominated an anti-free trade, pro-abortion ticket this year, there is no reason for me to vote Republican.
Losing the world and saving my soul, and all that jazz.