Sunday, February 21, 2016

Why I might prefer Trump to Rubio

No, I didn't have a brain tumor for breakfast, it's just last night's loss in South Carolina had me thinking, if Ted Cruz doesn't do well on Super Tuesday, I might have to make a choice.  For if Cruz isn't able to get a heap of delegates and state wins in the SEC primary, what exactly will be his path to victory?  He has focused his campaign on social issues and immigration which I've said time and time again is a mistake.  People care about the economy, people care about jobs and he should have focused on those issues.  Instead, Trump did and many of the people Cruz was targeting went to Trump instead.  Cruz can still turn it around but, in the case that he doesn't, I'm going to have to make a choice between two candidates I really hate, Trump and Rubio.  And despite all the bad things I have said about Trump, I might actually prefer him to Rubio.

Now I know, Rubio's voting record is only a little less conservative than Ted Cruz's so how does it make sense that I choose someone like Trump over someone who is technically more conservative than Jesse Helms?  Because I don't trust Rubio's record.  I think many of his votes he just went along with the conservative crowd because he needed to have a conservative record for the election and he didn't particularly care about the issue.  When you look at the issues he does care about, foreign policy/national security, and immigration, there is a lot I really don't like.

On national security, he has thrown in with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, with no civil liberty that isn't worth stomping on and no dictator that is not worth overthrowing.  He was in favor of overthrowing Qaddafi, when we had zero national interest for doing so, and he is currently for putting boots on the ground in Syria, again, where we have zero national interest.  His foreign policy adventurism will be expensive and is something we can't afford.  Try balancing the budget when you are throwing money at the military AND are sending troops everywhere.

On immigration, he obviously threw in with the Democrats in trying to legalize millions of illegal aliens while only paying lip service to border security.  His list of wrongdoing here is pretty extensive so if you want a complete rundown, check out what the conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly has to say about it (seriously there just is so much, from broken promises to defeating amendments that would have not allowed legal status for gang members).  And obviously, we all know, if Rubio is President the wall will NEVER EVER be built and the invasion along our southern border will continue.

I have this feeling that in many ways a Rubio administration will be a lot like a third term for George W.  We will see a lot of military adventurism, spending controls will go out the window and none of the changes that need to be made, will be made. 

And this is why I think I might prefer Trump.  Now, I'm not kidding myself, in many ways he is a Democrat, but I think he will shake things up for the better in certain key areas.  First, he believes in a wall along our southern border, which is something we desperately need.  Second, he will try to get jobs back into this country by dialing back some of the free trade agreements that have completely gutted our manufacturing base.  We don't make anything anymore.  Instead of having lots of skilled labor, we have lots of burger flippers and customer service reps.  Our country and our economy are dying.  Third, he is a businessman who is used to seeing profits (I know he had four bankrupt companies but he has been more profitable than unprofitable) and so the fact that we keep running up yuge deficits will be a problem for him.  Fourth, as he said in last night's SC victory speech, he will be appointing businesspeople for government posts instead of just "political hacks".  That is something we desperately need as it is the only way we will get real change.  Finally, he is very clearly not a military adventurist.  Now I don't want to get into an argument of if he opposed the Iraq war or not, it's clear he didn't until after but I don't think it would have been his decision to go in if he were President back then.  It's one thing to support something that your President has decided on, it's another to come up with the idea in the first place.

And if you haven't noticed, Trump is the one reassembling the Reagan coalition.  He has conservatives, moderates, independents and democrats backing him.  Even the Teamsters are considering a general election endorsement of him (the last time they did endorse a Republican for President was Reagan).  Rubio doesn't have a chance of doing that as he just doesn't have a connection with the white working class.

2016 is a very important election and may be one of the last chances we have to elect someone who can actually make a difference.  Rubio, he won't be making a difference.  It will be just the same old disappointing Republican administration.  With Trump, he will shake things up and at least in a few areas, it will be for the better.


  1. No way. It's Trump's personal characteristics -- hugely unstable, narcissistic, sometimes he acts like a wannabe Mussolini -- that make him, now and forever impossible. Cruz is BY FAR the best choice. But if not Cruz, then Rubio is okay. At least he is not a borderline "crazy.". I do fear this guy's hand on the nukes, well, on anything. If it's Trump, I can see not voting, or going third party.

    1. I know. Cruz is our best hope in 30 years but with Trump winning SC, it just had me thinking. I might go with Rubio in the end, but it's just so status quo.

  2. Cruz has by no means given up. His speech last night was terrific. More and more, he seems to be a candidate who is finding his voice. I'd like him to turn the moment into a Conservative crusade. Trump threatens destroying the Conservative movement. So for those of us who care about Conservatism it's Cruz (maybe Rubio later on, if he's the only possibility, though he is nowhere near as good as Cruz) or bust. If it's Trump, we need to ask whether there's a good reason for Conservatives to be any longer in the Republican party. If Trump leads the Republican party, it is a nativist, big Government party. It not my party any more!

    1. He hasn't given up and neither have I. But realistically he has until March 1 to pull off a miracle. Pray hard.

  3. The debate in Texas, was illuminating last night. I was happy with Cruz and Rubio, and I thought they both triumphed over a spluttering, insult-laden Trump, debate-wise that is. There were many good moments.

    The Trump position on Israel has to be a concern if one cares about Israel. The Arab world and the Palestinians have become more and more intransigent towards the Jewish State, the more isolated they perceive Israel to be. And given the huge, ever-increasing Muslim population in Europe now influencing European policites and making them "worse" toward israel , the Jewish State (no doubt to the delight of its murderous enemies) is in danger of becoming a ghetto state, as anti-semitism in the world spreads.

    Trump said in the debate that he is neutral on the Middle East -- neutral between Israel (which three times has offered a huge percentage of the West Bank for peace (only to be rejected by the Palestinians) who intentionally try to kill with intifadas, knives, bombs, etc. Jewish civilians. The Palestinians teach blood libels about Jews, even to their children, and hand out candy in the street to celebrate the murder of Jewish civilians, including pregnant women and children.

    Trump's statement and position is very harmful to Israel and sends a message that he will oversee a continuation with Israel of the feckless US foreign policy that rewards our enemies and punishes our friends, because Israel is a longtime traditional friend, the only true Democracy in the Middle East with Western values. The best way for the US to help towards peace would be to show the Palestinains and the Arab world that we support our friends, and that they better not mess with them or us.

    He is the first Presidential aspirant as long as I can remember who doesn't say Israel is our ally and close friend in the Middle East, but rather that he is neutral between Usrael and the Palestinians. That goes further than Obama when he was campaigning for President. What is particularly disturbing is that Obama has already drawn a huge percentage of Democrats toward neutrality/hostility towards Israel.. A President Trump would seem to to preage a similar omi ous movement of Republicans away from Israel -- a not happy thought for those who see US support for Israel as bulwark, helping to prevent the massacre/destruction of the Jewish state.

    If impatient, narcissistic President Trump were to try to push a peace deal, I can see him thoroughly trying to bulldoze Israel into accepting an horrific peace settlement or face his wrath -- which could lead to anything including the cutting off of miliatry aid. Anyone who cares about Israel or the United States, and has seen how unstable he is and how off the wall he can become on the spur of a moment has to be concerned. From the perspective of those who care about Israel alone -- and America' relations with it -- Trump is by far, the most insensitive, and the worst Republican aspirant at this point running for the Presidency.

  4. Here's Trump in full support of the Libyan intervention.

    And here's Trump in 2002 supporting an Iraq intervention.

    He has denied he supported the Libyan intervention. He has denied he supported the Iraq intervetion. The problem with Trump is that he has been over the place, lies on everything. I don't see how one can believe anything he says.

  5. The more I look at Trump, the scarier he is.

    Trump promises as President: "I’m going to open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

    We know Mr. Trump loves to sue and threatens everyone. Now how about the intimidation factor with what he wants? Billionaires and others (because everyone will join in the hunt for big money (the way they do with medical malparactice) could run amuck bringing litigation -- whether it's ultimately proven right or not. The left will sue right wing sources, the right, left wing sources. Each side will try to stack the court to find their way (though the left does a much better job at it). (We won't have newspapers, or even websites that could afford to function). What Trump proposes is what third world and/or fascist countries do. We'll have no first amendment.

    It's up to the voters to sort out what source is right and which one is wrong/distorted. Alas many are, but that's our responsibility. Giving it to the courts would be a yugggggge screw up of a our Democracy.