From: theresurgent.com, by Dave Scharoun, on Apr 22, 2016, see the article HERE.
Never Elect a Middle Man
Over the course of his campaign, Donald Trump has attempted to assuage concerns over his lack of qualifications for the presidency with a simple promise: that even if he may seem unqualified, there’s no reason to worry, because he will hire the best of the best to advise him. The line has become something of an inborn defense mechanism for Trump; every shortcoming and ill-informed opinion, from his lack of knowledge on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the nuclear triad, to his seemingly endless pivoting on every issue from abortion to foreign policy, has been explained away by the idea that Trump, consummate and successful businessman that he is, will certainly hire someone who will be there to tell him when he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Who exactly are these people? Well, much like ObamaCare, we can’t know for sure who’s in Trump’s cabinet until we have elected him. But the notion that a president can make up for a lack of solid principles and sound ideas by promising to surround himself with those that have them is truly baffling.
For over a month now, Trump has continually dodged the chance to participate in a televised debate with Ted Cruz. He claims to do so out of some misguided notion that he is “sparing” Republican voters from having to watch another debate. But the reality, of course, is that Trump is terrified of having to engage in one-on-one debates with those who have ideas and solutions where he has none. Telling voters that you will hire the best people to inform you on the issues is not an attractive selling point when the man across the stage from you is already quite informed on the issues himself.
Furthermore, Cruz even beats Donald at finding the best people! The “best and brightest” that Trump has hired to run his campaign have spent the past month getting their proverbial clocks cleaned by Cruz’s people in procuring loyal delegates for the convention. When they aren’t busy wringing their hands over imaginary election rigging or threatening violent upheaval of the nomination process, Trump’s people have proven themselves to be woefully incompetent at running a presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the political gravitas of Cruz’s team may very well end up delivering him the nomination in July.
So to Trump’s supporters, I propose this simple question: instead of electing a man who promises to hire people that know what they’re doing, what if we just elected a man that knows what he is doing? I know it seems crazy, but it just might work.
~~~~~~~~~~
Isn’t it obvious?
If Donald Trump was this genius-level super intellect that he says he is, wouldn’t he WANT to destroy Ted Cruz in a one-on-one debate? Just really (rhetorically) slice and dice that lyin’ Ted into bacon bits? Show him up to be the lyin’ guy that he is and demonstrate his lack of gravitas and knowledge of the issues for all the world to see? Wouldn’t The Donald want to do that?
We ALL know the reason that there won’t be any debate, because without bragging and bluster, Donald Trump is an empty suit. He’s often been caught displaying his lack of understanding on any number of issues. It’s unlikely that there was ANY candidate, regardless of party, who knew LESS about the workings of government, the military, of foreign policy and more during this election season than Donald Trump. And professing that he is not a politician is not an excuse for being so ignorant about the issues facing our country.
He is a reality TV star, he is a real estate mogul, and for those jobs, he’s qualified, but for president he is not.
Garnet92.
Categories: Political
Pesky Truth 
Thanks for the discussion. If Cruz hadn’t declared his allegiance to a foreign govt. (Israel) and if I didn’t think he was likely to start WWIII (which a frightening # of ‘conservatives’ seem to want) I’d be supporting him.
I just wish one of you ‘conservative’ bloggers would write a piece explaining how you propose to continue paying for the big-govt foreign-policy you like while also paying for the big-govt domestic welfarism/obligations you seem to like…do you want to raise taxes significantly or simply continue borrowing $100’s of billions or a trillion$ every year on into eternity?
How would you people pay for the wars (let along WIN them) you seem to want against Iran, China, and Russia?
LikeLike
Bear in mind that Trump never intended to win anyway; he just wanted to prove that he ‘could have’ been president. Now that he’s ahead and seeing as how winning is of prime importance to him, he has to stay the course even though he doesn’t have a clue how to do the job.
Like the rest of us, he sees issues that need to be addressed and things that need fixing, but he doesn’t know how to go about it. Running a company and a reality show are NOTHING like running the country government doesn’t work that way. If he needs to hire the best of the best, then why don’t we just elect them instead?
I’ll tell you why – because they didn’t run for the office. Because of the way our election process works, we have limited choices and it’s a shame it’s come down to who the RNC wants to push and who has enough money to last the longest. It’s been that way for a very long time, and that’s the reason we’ve had candidates like Romney and McCain. That’s because most of the influence comes from men who want to keep the good ol’ boys status quo as is.
Until this year the job qualifications have always been on the back burner. If you look at Ted Cruz’s record, you cannot fairly compare him to Bush or any of those other guys – he’s made it a point to stick to conservative values and to not be one of them. He can talk the talk because he’s already walked the walk.
LikeLike
Lots of people hate Cruz, doesn’t prevent me from suspecting he would be awful on foreign policy (which would, in turn, affect domestic policy). And the ‘isolationist’ canard…hard to take someone who still uses this slur seriously. We don’t know WHAT would’ve happened had RP been nominated…as I said, the judgement of those who thought McCain & Romney were ‘electable’ isn’t really worth much. Shoot, for all I know maybe OBAMA was the LO2E’s!
Cruz is better than the stinkers that were put up in 2008 & 2012 (HOW McCain & Romney got the support of ‘conservatives’ is beyond me). If Trump weren’t around Cruz would be a shoe-in. However, I don’t think he (nor most cons) learned much from the past 10+ years of neocon f-p failures. I SERIOUSLY question the small-govt credentials of anyone who didn’t support Ron Paul.
Trump is an anti-Est. vote, like I said. He’s not beholden to donors. He’s by no means a small-govt. Constitutionalist, but the typical modern ‘conservative’ isn’t particularly concerned w/the Constitution or BOR either, just as they aren’t w/rolling-back govt. ‘Conservatives’ constantly whine that no one represents the ‘base’, but whenever someone comes around (like RP or Trump) who does represent alleged ‘conservative values’, a large # of them come out of the woodworks to bash their heads in. Puzzling.
From our brief encounter, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’d prefer Establishment-hack Kasich (who would be blown out-of-the-water just like Romney and McCain were) over the political-unknown Trump (who may, indeed, end up being awful once in office).
At some point, after being wrong decade-after-decade, one would think ‘conservatives’ would learn from their failures, eh?
LikeLike
Once again, I only mention Kasich as a “better than the alternative” option, frankly I agree that he is an establishment hack, but I said that to indicate the extent of my anti-Trump position. You strike me an an informed, intelligent individual, how can you ignore all that we know about Donald Trump and think that he could be good for the country? Screw the “party,” I’m talking about the country.
I honestly can’t understand how you can believe that Trump has the traits and attributes that would serve the country well. Trump is in it for Trump and if you really believe that he gives a damn what YOU think, then you’re beyond help.
You’re ascribing failures to conservatives because we haven’t won at the ballot box – you should realize that we never had a conservative candidate to choose from – before. Now we have one in Cruz. The problem is with those who have called themselves “conservatives,” but when presented with a real conservative candidate allow themselves to be swayed away by a carnival sideshow barker (Trump). Question away about my credentials, just because you question them doesn’t have any bearing. I am now and always have been a small government proponent and on that score I agree with some of Trumps railing against the “establishment.” The problem is, once in office, I fully expect him to happily negotiate with the establishment – after all, they consider him to be malleable.
LikeLike
IMO, it doesn’t really matter what these clowns say on the campaign trail–most of them pander to whoever they think will give them the best chance of winning. That speaks more to the degradation of the general public’s intelligence/judgement than anything else. Trump could end up being awful, but then again so might Cruz. Reagan ran as a libertarian but governed like a New Dealer.
I DON’T think Trump has the necessary traits–but don’t think anyone else (besides Ron Paul) does either. My reasoning is that he’s not ideologically-bound (and therefore less likely to cling to failed policies–like neocons do) nor, as a billionaire, is he as beholden to special interests as others. IMO, unlike most politicians, his #1 priority probably isn’t going to be re-election–which gives him enormous leverage and appeal. Cruz once said “If you don’t stand w/Israel I don’t stand w/you.” Well, I DON’T stand w/Israel, I stand w/AMERICA, and I will NOT support a candidate who panders to a FOREIGN GOVT. Call me crazy, but when politicians do this its a deal-breaker for me!
In my lifetime, the Conservative Movement (defined here as starting w/Barry Goldwater’s 1964 run) has undergone an awful transformation: From a movement concerned w/rolling back the New Deal and Great Society legislation along w/an opposition to foreign wars/entanglements, and which had an overall view that the Federal Govt. was out-of-control and had to be cut back…to today, when a ‘conservative’ is someone who is dedicated to SAVING/KEEPING the New Deal and Great Society intact, dedicated MORE to foreign wars/entanglements (esp. to Israel) than AmericaFirst, and dedicated to “getting their fair share” (esp. in the form of massive military/foreign-policy spending) of the out-of-control FedGovt’s big-govt looting; a Conservative USED to be concerned w/fiscal responsibility, but now “Reagan taught us that deficits don’t matter”; Conservatives USED to be for abolishing the income-tax, but now many want to add a European-style VAT-tax ON TOP of the I-T.
There is also this weird attitude among today’s ‘conservatives’ that they’ll someday, possibly, maybe–but probably not–get around to supporting a small-govt. candidate (which they REALLY don’t want, as Ron Paul proved)–but the time is neeeever quite right and the candidate is neeeever quite perfect-enough (NO ONE can reconcile the contradictory Big Govt./Small Govt. orientation of modern ‘conservatism’ anyways), eh? So, ‘conservatives’ keep voting for the Slow Boat to communism, somehow w/o realizing that it still leads to communism; they keep nominating ‘electable’ liberal-wing GOPers (who DON’T get elected) who’ve no intention of rolling-back govt. and rationalize it by saying small-govt. candidates “have no chance at winning”. Well, in that case, WHY BOTHER AT ALL since you’ve obviously already surrendered to the Left?
What’s the friggin’ point of ‘conservatism’? Most of you would’ve been considered left-wing DEMOCRATS back in Goldwater’s era!
LikeLike
BTW, I can’t emphasize enough how much I believe Ron Paul’s candidacies exposed modern ‘conservatism’ as an empty-shell of its former self–50 years ago he would’ve been right at home in the Conservative Movement.
Now he’s a “fringe kook”, and ‘conservatives’ who oppose him dishonestly apply the ‘isolationist’ canard to him just like liberals applied the ‘racist’ canard against him in the past. Its shameful that modern ‘conservatives’ stoop to this level in order to ‘win’ (i.e., prevent a REAL Conservative from winning).
At this stage, I think ‘conservatives’ are as out-of-touch w/reality as liberals are…most of you certainly have no actual solutions to the actual problems facing us today.
LikeLike
To be fair to Trump, he has a point. The POTUS cannot be expected to know everything. Finding the right person and putting him in the right place may be far more effective, in the long run, than trying to do everything himself.
LikeLike
You’re absolutely right Chris, no one, even brilliant Ted can be expected to know everything. I never expected that of Trump, but he has been obviously ignorant of so many things that he should have known that it tells me that he’s not taking preparing for what has to be the most difficult job on the planet seriously. The article also makes a good point in that he has surrounded himself with less-than-brilliant staff until now, when he finally hired some qualified people. He has specifically said (these are quotes), “Always surround yourself with ‘unsuccessful people,’ an approach to life that guarantees you’ll be the most accomplished and interesting person in any setting, which feels pretty damn good” and “Never Hire People Who Are Smarter Than You.”
LikeLike
Lots of people hate Cruz, doesn’t prevent me from suspecting he would be awful on foreign policy (which would, in turn, affect domestic policy). And the ‘isolationist’ canard…hard to take someone who still uses this slur seriously. We don’t know WHAT would’ve happened had RP been nominated…as I said, the judgement of those who thought McCain & Romney were ‘electable’ isn’t really worth much. Shoot, for all I know maybe OBAMA was the LO2E’s!
Cruz is better than the stinkers that were put up in 2008 & 2012 (HOW McCain & Romney got the support of ‘conservatives’ is beyond me). If Trump weren’t around Cruz would be a shoe-in. However, I don’t think he (nor most cons) learned much from the past 10+ years of neocon f-p failures. I SERIOUSLY question the small-govt credentials of anyone who didn’t support Ron Paul.
Trump is an anti-Est. vote, like I said. He’s not beholden to donors. He’s by no means a small-govt. Constitutionalist, but the typical modern ‘conservative’ isn’t particularly concerned w/the Constitution or BOR either, just as they aren’t w/rolling-back govt. ‘Conservatives’ constantly whine that no one represents the ‘base’, but whenever someone comes around (like RP or Trump) who does represent alleged ‘conservative values’, a large # of them come out of the woodworks to bash their heads in. Puzzling.
From our brief encounter, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’d prefer Establishment-hack Kasich (who would be blown out-of-the-water just like Romney and McCain were) over the political-unknown Trump (who may, indeed, end up being awful once in office).
At some point, after being wrong decade-after-decade, one would think ‘conservatives’ would learn from their failures, eh?
2
LikeLike
What you say is that you suspect that Cruz would be awful on FP – how is that different from my suspicion that Ron Paul would have been awful as well? And Trump has loaned $25 million to his campaign – it wasn’t given, it was loaned and he’s received $9.5 million already from donors. He is not expected to “self-fund” a general campaign, if he’s the nominee, he’ll go for donors – and those donors can pay that $25 M back to Trump as well. He’s also benefited from almost $2 billion in media exposure – free. More than being worried about the influence of big donors, I worry about Trump’s own internal allegiance – to himself. There is hardly a more visible example of egotistical narcissism on the planet than Donald Trump. Can we expect a large gold “Trump” to be plastered somewhere on the White House?
I remember the total immersion of the Paul supporters from 2008, “Paulites” wasn’t it? Apparently, only the name has changed.
LikeLike
As I keep saying…those who supported the Iraq-Af disasters, the Orwellian ‘Patriot Act’, and doubling of the nat’l debt are not people who exercised great judgement. If you voted for GWB and his GOP congress, sorry, but YOU share in the responsibility for these DISASTERS…JUST like BHO voters are for his and the DP’s DISASTERS.
Ron Paul, like him or not, had a path forward and it involved doing the ONLY thing that can do a damn bit of good at this point–massive cuts to govt. What big ideas do you people have–cut the top marginal tax rate by 2% and continue on the same big-govt. warfare/welfare path?
Trump, at this late stage of American Decline, is admittedly nothing more than a crap-shoot. However, I’ll take a crap-shoot over someone who almost guarantees more f-p DISASTERS.
Guy, I’m all ears…tell me how America can continue spending nearly a trillion$/year (military budget+foreign-aid+UN dues+interest on past borrowing on these items) being the world’s policeman while ALSO shelling out trillion$ for social security and medicare while ALSO continuing to fund all its other domestic obligations, interest on the debt, etc…??? Shall we continue borrowing 100’s & 100’s of billion$ or over a trillion$/year?
TELL ME THE GREAT ‘CONSERVATIVE’ SOLUTION!!!
LikeLike
Well Shane, you’ve convinced me of one thing, that absolutely nothing that I say will change your opinion, nor will you change mine. Thus, this exchange is futile. I honestly appreciate your visit and comments, but I can’t spend the rest of my Sunday trying to change your mind.
Instead, I’ll leave you with a parting thought – from your hero, Ron Paul on Mar. 18, 2016:
“No, I couldn’t do that,” Mr. Paul said on Fox Business Network when asked if he would support Mr. Trump, should the billionaire businessman win the GOP nomination. “He’s [the] opposite of a libertarian.”
Mr. Paul, a three-time presidential candidate, said on foreign policy, Mr. Trump probably wouldn’t be that much different than former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.
“Trump is going to be the most efficient [at] using the executive orders,” he said. “He’ll say this is the way it is, you know. Obama was pretty arrogant. If you don’t do it, [the] Congress, I’ll write an order. Well, I think Trump [will] be 10 times worse on writing orders because he’s used to doing this, and he brags about it.”
“He wants to be the boss. I’m not looking for a boss. We want somebody that will allow us to be our own boss, is what I think we should be looking for,” Mr. Paul said.
LikeLike
…says the Bush/McCain/Romney supporter!
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Shane. You’re right, I did support all of those Republicans, but NONE of them were conservatives, they were just the lesser of two evils. This election we have the opportunity to support a REAL conservative in Ted Cruz. If you call yourself a conservative, you should be supporting HIM. My guess is that you’re a Trump supporter. I just don’t understand how anyone who has been paying attention to the uninformed BS that Trump has been spouting can believe him to have the temperament to be POTUS???? Isn’t it more important to support our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
LikeLike
Haven’t decided yet…I very much suspect Cruz would be a neocon Bushclone, which cancels out him being good on other issues (remember, GW talked a good game too!). Trump is an unknown, but at least is standing-up to the Left and its PCness and seems committed to trying to undo the damage which Reagan and his buddy Ted Kennedy did w/amnesty. And Trump, unlike so many ‘conservatives’, seems like maybe he’s learned from the neocon foreign-policy disasters of the last decade+.
LikeLike
And to be clear: I stopped calling myself ‘conservative’ long ago, ever since it stopped meaning someone who believes in small-govt. Reagan killed the term, and GW was the final nail in the movement’s coffin.
LikeLike
Trump (like Sanders) is a vote against the Establishment, nothing more or less. The LO2E’s strategy has been a disaster. The same people who chose ‘electables’ (who got TROUNCED by Obama!) like Romney (Massachusetts liberal and father of ACA) and Juan McAmnesty (another liberal) over Ron Paul (who is what a Conservative USED to look like) are not people who have paid attention or have good judgement.
LikeLike
I appreciate your comments, Shane. Obviously, we disagree on a number of issues. Cruz is anything but a Bush clone – in case you were unaware, Dubya hates Cruz because he knows that Cruz is NOT like Bush. Many of us who voted for Bush, McCain, and Romney did so, not by preference, but to try to prevent a Gore or Obama from being elected – so it didn’t work, but voting for Ron Paul wouldn’t have worked either – and, he was too isolationist for me. We don’t have to accept a binary option there: either nation building or isolationist, there can be a middle ground.
As a conservative, I still believe in small government, personal responsibility, low taxes, and a strong military. And, I believe that Ted Cruz believes in those same things as well. And he has proven that he is not part of the “establishment,” even calling McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. The GOPe hates Cruz about as much as they hate Donald Trump.
I wasn’t always against Trump. I started off with him on an equal footing with others like Rick Perry and Scott Walker, but his demeanor and antics, his incessant tweeted insults, and his lies – proven lies, turned me off on him. I don’t believe anything he says any more. Like you, I want a wall, I want stringent controls on who comes into the U.S. He SAYS good things, but I don’t believe that he has an internal compass that points to the Constitution and BOR, i think that Trump will say whatever it takes to get elected and not think twice.
It took a while to get here, but now, I’d vote for Kasich before I’d vote for Trump.
LikeLike