In politics on August 1, 2016 at 4:18 pm

Let’s say you’re undecided about whom to vote for this November because you dislike both candidates.

Consequently, you may decide not to vote, which basically lets everyone else who votes decide the election for you.

Or you may decide to support one of the third-party candidates.  But what will that accomplish?  You know beforehand that your choice will lose, so all you are doing is telling yourself you just couldn’t make a decision about which major party candidate to vote for.

Why did you vote for Bush, McCain & Romney?

Now, zero in on what you have done in the past.  Let’s say you voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.  Therefore, you voted for George W. Bush, twice; for John McCain and Mitt Romney once.

But why?

In each case you had no idea what Bush, McCain, or Romney would actually do once elected president.  You just hoped they would do what they said they would, or, more likely, you hoped they would do the things you thought were right.

But, in all cases, your hope was—could only be—based only on what they said in their campaign speeches.

Of course we all hope for the best.  Therefore basing your vote on hope seems like the only rational option—even if, ultimately, you get conned by the candidate, and he or she does the opposite of what was promised.

You also evaluated the risk of your decision.  You believed that should Gore, Kerry, or Obama win, the chances were much greater you would dislike—even detest—the policies they were likely to carry out.

What is the Republican Party?

Now consider your current election options.

If Hillary Clinton wins, do you sincerely believe the country will be better served than if Donald Trump wins?

Some well-known Republicans do.  They dislike Trump so much it seems they would prefer Hillary.


Is it because they believe losing will serve Trump right for being such a loudmouth, braggart, and ungentlemanly candidate?

And if that’s their reasoning, does it make any sense?  In other words, how does striking back at Trump help America?  Isn’t striking back at Trump more about their egos than about what’s best for America?

Perhaps you disagree and think that Trump is simply an intolerable choice.  Well, then…

Let’s assume that if enough people think like you and decide: 1) not to vote, 2) vote for a third-party candidate, or, 3) even, vote for Clinton.  Then, in a larger sense, they are voting against the Republican Party.   Here’s why…

It doesn’t matter if Trump isn’t your idea of what the Republican Party should be.  It also doesn’t matter what George Will, The National Review, or anyone else thinks.  The Republican Party is what the voters say it is.  And this year they want Trump for president.  That’s how the system works.

Are you really a Democrat?

And there are rippling consequences, depending on your choice.  Even if you think voting against Trump appeases your conscience, your conscience—sorry, Senator Cruz—is not the issue, because the results of the election affect everyone in the country, not just you.

In short, if Hillary wins, all of the policies that have been put into place by Barack Obama will continue because Obama is determined to continue his “legacy” through Hillary and is, therefore, willing and eager to campaign robustly for her election.

Is a third term of Obama’s policies what’s best for America?

If you believe that, then you are a Democrat.  No matter what else you tell your conscience.

Hillary’s America

In other words, if you believe in open borders, higher taxes, more welfare and subsidies, increased debt, some sort of gun control that inhibits ownership, and no serious military buildup or significant military advance against ISIS, you should vote for Hillary.

Why pussyfoot around with not voting or voting for a guaranteed loser?

It all comes down to the same thing: If you vote against Trump, one way or the other, you are directly or indirectly helping elect a president who will nominate more liberal judges and dig this country ever deeper into socialist policies with less individual freedom for everyone.

It’s not a complicated choice.

What’s at stake in 2016?

The reason you vote for the Republican candidate this time is the same reason you voted for Bush, McCain, and Romney, whether you actually liked them or not.  You hope for the best, and you don’t want what Democrats are selling.

That’s what the previous elections were about.  And that’s what’s still at stake in 2016.

Anyhow, that’s what Socrates would do, if he were a Republican.

Jim’s Daily Rant is owned and operated by James I. Greene.  All rights protected by copyright from reproduction without permission.

Dear Senator Cruz, you blew it.

In politics on July 24, 2016 at 8:06 pm

You had a chance to help unite the Republican Party, and you blew it.  You gave a terrific speech celebrating the virtues of American freedom, and had the perfect opportunity to end it by saying out loud to convention attendees and millions of people watching on TV that you supported for president the man who whipped you and fifteen other contenders in the Republican primaries. 

But you didn’t.

Despite the fact that virtually everyone in the Cleveland arena yelled out “Endorse Trump,” you urged them to “vote your conscience.” 

No doubt you thought that was what your supporters wanted you to say, but, Senator, it wasn’t.  So you got booed off the stage.  Unpleasant ending to an unsatisfying speech.

Politics is a Team Sport

Here’s why.  Politics is a team sport.  And Donald Trump, whether you like him or not, won the nomination.  Fair and square.  It was high time for you to publicly get on board the winning team.  But you chose to tell your fellow Republicans that you were more interested in protecting your own reputation. 

So here’s some news.  The reason you didn’t win the nomination is that you forgot that you are a Republican, not an independent.   You decided, as you often do, to go it alone and hoped you would capture enough supporters that followed your lead.  But the bitter truth should have hit you in the face when, after all your campaigning for the SEC primaries, you lost to Trump in every Southern state, except Texas and Oklahoma.  That was the blow from which you never recovered.  Even the Evangelicals abandoned you for Trump.

And here’s a question for you: If you had won the nomination, wouldn’t you have expected your opponents to support you?  Didn’t you take a pledge to support the nominee? 

You Were Rude to the Nominee of the Party

Furthermore, Mr. Trump agreed to let you speak at the convention.  That was pretty gracious, don’t you think?

So what you did was show your arrogant lack of gratitude by not endorsing the nominee.  That was classless.

If you couldn’t offer your public support for Trump, you should have stayed home.  Your brand of conservatism is popular in Texas, but it obviously wasn’t popular enough to win the nomination.  To win that prize, you would have had to reach out to a lot of other people who are angry about the way the country is being run.

Why You Lost the Nomination

In short, stating your conservative principles is not enough.  People throughout this country are hurting and worrying about their financial future, the future of their families, and the security of their country.  They want a new leader who has plans to help solve those hurts and worries. 

The fact is, you did not offer those solutions. 

You did not promise to build a wall to protect Americans from illegals streaming into this country and then flocking into “sanctuary cities” that will protect their illegal “rights,” forcing American citizens to pay for subsidies illegals don’t deserve.

Nor did you state that “free” trade wasn’t all that “free” when deals were made with countries who found ways to re-balance “free” to their own advantage by deflating their currencies.

Yes, we understand you were offended by Trump’s primary slaps at your wife and your father.  Those attacks were cheap and offensive, no matter what Trump says now.  Maybe his offer to let you speak at the convention was his way of apologizing, who knows?

But, as they say, politics ain’t beanbag.

Advice from a Cruz Supporter

So, here’s a little unasked for advice, Senator, from someone who voted for you for senator and for you in the presidential primary:  Stop trying to be the conscience of America.  As a telephone caller said to a conservative talk show host, “I don’t need another pastor.  I already have one.”  You have the reputation of being a Lone Ranger, a senator who doesn’t need friends and doesn’t seem to care because you think you’re always right.  But we don’t need a Joan of Arc; we need someone who can beat Hillary Clinton.

Nice Guys Don’t Become President

No doubt many conservative Republicans would like another nice gentleman to be their nominee.  But the truth is another Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole will not get the job done.

Why?  Because Democrats don’t play nice.  They turn nice guys like Romney into tax cheats, murderers, and job stealers.  Democrats win by lying.  Just ask a Democratic voter what he/she thinks of Republicans and you’ll hear the word “Nazis” over and over.  Democrats have been brainwashed to believe whatever their propagandists tell them to believe.

 Middle-Class Losses

However, the country is changing.  And the middle class is beginning to realize that they have been taken for granted too often.  They now understand that they are falling behind.  They see the rich getting richer and the poor getting handouts from the government, and they see too many middle-class workers getting laid off and pushed out of the workforce.  Though President Obama brags about lowering unemployment to below five percent, he’s not telling us there are 14 million former workers no longer looking for new employment.

When US-based manufacturing companies like Carrier and Ford move their factories to other countries and leave behind thousands of laid-off American workers, the middle class loses employment, income, and pride.

When Obama tells American coal miners he’s going to bankrupt the coal-mining industry, which is exactly what’s happening, they lose again.

When Obama uses his pen and phone to issue new government regulations that make it difficult to start a new business or grow an older one, guess who loses a job or doesn’t get hired?

Donald Trump is talking to those people, and they’re listening. Many of them, former Democrats, have already voted for him–and many more likely will in November.

 How to Support the Constitution

Yes, Senator Cruz, the Constitution is the foundation of American law and order, but if we don’t get to appoint new conservative judges to the Supreme Court and all the federal courts every American who wants justice based on constitutional rights loses.

So even though you sincerely want to protect constitutional rights, you have to beat Hillary Clinton.  That’s reality.  And the fact is, you’re not going to get that chance because you didn’t beat Donald Trump.

If you want to stay in politics, Senator, I hope you learned a few tough lessons from this presidential dustup.  I hope you learned that making patriotic speeches about freedom aren’t enough.  Politics is about winning.  You didn’t.  So the best thing you can do now for our country is to vote for the man who did.

Sincerely yours,

James I. Greene

Editor & Publisher of Jim’s Daily Rant

Jim’s Daily Rant is owned and operated by James I. Greene.  All rights protected by copyright from reproduction without permission.












What Trump Must Do to Convince Voters He’s Presidential

In politics on June 30, 2016 at 11:30 pm

Two things: think before he speaks—although his seemingly off-the-cuff personal slurs may be carefully contrived to gain media attention–and realize that his bombastic style lends itself to immediate criticism, not only from Democrats, but also from some Republicans who, unfortunately, prefer political correctness to unpolished direct speech.  And he needs to understand politics is a team sport.

The Rookie Must Listen to the Pros.

As CEO of his own private corporation, Trump likely does not appreciate criticism from subordinates.  But Trump is a rookie politician–as he admits himself–with a lot to learn from professionals with years and years of experience.  Therefore he must listen to political advisors like Ed Rollins, who has spent a lifetime in the political trenches.  And to economic experts like Art Laffer, who created supply-side economics and advised Ronald Reagan; Larry Kudlow, who worked for the Federal Reserve and for the Reagan administration and is now the reigning conservative economist on CNBC; and Stephen Moore, formerly with The Wall Street Journal and now Chief Economist at the Heritage Foundation.  These four, chosen by Trump himself, indicate his willingness to learn from the best.  And that’s a good sign he’s on the right track.

Are Trump’s Personal Attacks Ad Hoc or Planned?

One reason people wonder about how Trump is positioning himself for the election are his seemingly racist remarks about the Federal judge in the upcoming case against Trump University.   But what appears to be an ad hominem attack against a judge of Mexican heritage born in Indiana, may, in fact, be a reason for the judge to recuse himself.  The judge’s affiliation with La Raza, a radical Hispanic organization that opposes US immigration laws, certainly raises questions about his impartiality in this case.

Nevertheless, some undecided voters wonder: If Trump were president would he be able to control his vindictive public remarks?  After all, as president everything he says will not only be parsed by American politicians and media, but also by the entire world.

  • For example, what did Trump gain by saying Senator John McCain was not a war hero?
  • What did he gain by calling President George W. Bush a “liar”?
  • And, finally, what did he gain by calling Senator Ted Cruz “lyin’ Ted” and Senator Marco Rubio “Little Marco”?

If his supporters thought he was being funny, it wasn’t so funny to the supporters of the other candidates or to the candidates themselves. 

Consequently the entire Bush family is not coming to the convention; neither Cruz nor Rubio has come out in support of Trump; Ohio Governor John Kasich has indicated he’s not ready to support Trump and may never do so. 

On the Other Hand…

If politics is a team sport, you can’t piss off your old teammates just because you don’t like the way they played the game…unless you think you have something more valuable to gain.

Trump’s bombastic slurs may have been well-planned, carefully constructed, and not examples of foot-in-mouth disease.  That is, he may have been willing to slam what he considered establishment politicians in his attempt to turn the ship of state around from where it has been heading for too many years under the rule of both parties.  In short, Trump may have realized that in order to shed the snake skin of the old-guard Republican Party he has to force people to recognize he’s not going to replicate the GOP candidates that lost to Barack Obama—twice!

The Victor Davis Hanson Perspective

Victor Davis Hanson, a brilliant classical scholar, author, and political commentator for National Review has been a frequent critic of Donald Trump and is still.  Nevertheless, in his recently published NR online piece titled “The Trump Nuclear Bomb” (June 21, 2016), he offers new insight into the effectiveness of the Trump blunderbuss approach to political campaigning. 

Hanson makes the point that Trump’s attack against Republican sacred cows is actually changing minds.  For example, instead of the Republican establishment maintaining that there must be “comprehensive immigration reform,” which has been tantamount to doing nothing except grandstanding, GOP representatives and senators are beginning to realize that US immigration laws must be obeyed.

Hanson’s point is that Trump’s position on limiting immigration simply makes common sense.  Why on earth would our government let in Muslims who cannot be properly vetted?  Yet that is exactly what is happening, and Hillary Clinton plans to do more of the same.

Trump’s Opportunity

There’s no question that Hillary Clinton’s sorry record as Secretary of State includes deviousness, multiple lies, and–whether she is prosecuted or not–illegal acts hard to ignore: Whether it’s

  • her private server carrying highly sensitive government information accessible to hackers all over the world;
  • her lies to the parents of those murdered in Benghazi;
  • her refusal to release, as required by Federal law, the full record of those she met while in office;
  • or the fact that a Federal judge seems to have caught her in perjury for stating on the record that she had released all of her emails to the government when she had not.

These actions–largely ignored by the liberal media and Democratic voters–should generate enough evidence to indict her.  But it’s not likely the president will want to interrupt her presidential campaign to do the right thing. 

However, unlike the primary when Trump called his opponents schoolboy names, demeaning Hillary as “crooked” or “lying” won’t be enough to dig her political grave in the general election.  He needs enough evidence to bury her in corruption, and he has plenty to work with from Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash, which documents, for example, how as Secretary of State, Clinton made deals with China and Russia—as well as many other countries–on a quid pro quo basis for their multi-million-dollar contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump’s Election Strategy is Changing.

In his recent speeches, which he read from a teleprompter, Trump is finally exhibiting seriousness of purpose, making him sound more presidential.  

His economic advisers and list of potential Supreme Court nominees confirm he believes in important conservative principles, which should help sway those who voted for Cruz and others.  

Trump seems to have learned that running for president requires more than midnight tweets, pep rallies, and explosive language.  But abusing so many in his own party may cause him uncomfortable moments at the Cleveland convention.  And naturally the liberal media will ballyhoo any mutinous attempts against him, even if they are as short-lived as a wet firecracker.

In fact the no-Trump movement represents the party’s elite.  Their determination to nominate someone to protect their fiefdom belittles those who voted for the Donald and plays right into his campaign theme about shaking off the Old Guard.

Jim’s Daily Rant is owned and operated by James I. Greene.  All rights protected by copyright from reproduction without permission.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers