The first thing I need to say here is that I am merely a contributor on this blog. I do not speak for CJLF, which does not endorse or oppose candidates for office. The opinion voiced here is solely my own.
With tonight's primary results, it's clear that one of three people will be the next President -- Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz. (Kasich does not have a realistic shot, and Bernie will not get nominated unless Ms. Clinton is indicted soon (which is not out of the question but unlikely)).
Among the three realistic possibilities, the phrase "no brainer" jumps to mind. Ms. Clinton is a down-the-line liberal. Her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State sewed the weakness, retreat and violence that is now coming home to roost worldwide. She has embraced the toxic Back Lives Matter movement, which, if successful, would endanger black lives like nothing since the crack wars of the Eighties. Only a fraction of Democratic voters view her as honest and trustworthy. Her Supreme Court appointments would very likely spell the end of constitutional government in this country for as far as the eye can see.
As to Mr. Trump, words fail me. I think I have previously used the phrase "xenophobic blowhard," but in retrospect, that was too generous. I understand the anger, but you cannot govern just on anger; still less can you be the statesman this country needs. And if I had a teenager who acts and talks as The Donald does, I would send him to his room for ten years.
It follows that Cruz is the only choice, but I support him not just by a process of elimination. I have known him, slightly, for about thirty years. He is a brilliant lawyer, a backer of resolute law enforcement, and a patriot whose life story is an inspiration.
I will have more to say in later posts.
If Trump doesn't reach 1237 delegates, there will be a contested convention, right?
You really believe that Trump or Cruz will be the nominee at a contested convention? I don't.
1. Among the three left standing, whom do you prefer and why?
2. Who other than Cruz or Trump do you think will get nominated? The two of them will arrive at the convention with at least two-thirds of the delegates between them.
How does an (unnamed) person get from having one-third of the vote at most to a majority?
3. To answer your question directly: Yes, I believe one of them will be the nominee at a contested convention, and I think it will be Cruz. He is closer to the political center of the Republican Party than Trump (which will appeal to the Rubio and Kasich people), but he shares some of the Trump backers' anger with the Establishment (which Cruz constantly bucks in the Senate). The polls will also show Hillary walloping Trump, as they do now, and Republicans don't want another McCain or Romney-type loss.
1. I believe Kasich is still standing. I support him over Trump (for the same reasons stated in your critique of Trump) and Cruz (because Cruz, who I believe is clearly the most intelligent candidate, is too unyielding; too divisive -- not willing to find a reasonable common ground on many of the issues that are critical to this country).
2. Who will be standing after an "establishment"-controlled contested convention?
At this point, I have no idea (other than it won't be a so-called anti-establishment candidate such as Trump or Cruz), given the intricate (and sometimes emerging) rules and backroom deals that come into play.
Look at what happened at the 1952 Dem contested convention.
But we shall see if Trump can utilize his "Art of the Deal" skills in those smoke-filled rooms.
3. Good, logical, argument for Cruz. But I am not sold on the Hillary-trounces-Trump in the general election polling. Having followed Trump since his rise in NY in the '70s, I believe Trump might have a chance of beating Hillary in NY. (Yes, that liberal-leaning place that Cruz loves.) I also believe that Trump would have a shot at NJ, PA, and some other states that McCain and Romney lost.
In any event, this is a facinating election year with "HUGE" consequences for America.
One last point, Bill.
I wouldn't rule out Sanders running as an independent. Nor would I rule out Trump doing the samr thing if he believes the nomination was stolen from him.
Yes, a viable four-person race did happen ... I think it was 1824.
As Bill said, CJLF does not endorse candidates. This comment is strictly my personal opinion.
I think Sanders running as an independent (assuming Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination) is a wonderful idea.
He was, after all, an independent until recently.
Run! Bernie! Run!
"Run! Bernie! Run!"
Where do I send my contribution???
Not quite Forrest Gump, but ...
http://washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/29/the-untold-story-of-bernie-sanders-high-school-track-star/
paul --
Ronald Reagan was also a "divisive" candidate, but turned out to be the most successful (and popular) President in the last 50 years (or more).
I personally don't want "common ground." I have found to my regret that someone on "common ground" always turns out to mean a liberal in slight disguise. I want a down-the-line, constitutional conservative. I also want someone I can trust with Supreme Court picks, and I trust Cruz more than any other candidate by a fare-thee-well.
Plus, as I say, I know him slightly. His father escaped from Castro's dungeons (bribed a guard), and paid for Ted's education by working two jobs as a dishwasher. His education was at Princeton and Harvard Law School (magna cum laude, '95). He clerked for Mike Luttig on the Fourth Circuit (also a friend), then Chief Justice Rehnquist.
From his childhood, he learned what the promise of this country means. While I respect your opinion, I don't share it. I WANT someone who is unyielding on the principles that count.
Reagan was a pragmatist who compromised (i.e., found common ground) on many important issues.
He reached across the aisle to Tip O'Neil and other Dems.
He was principled, but I wouldn't call him divisive.
He realized that blind adherence to principle results in nothing of any significance getting accomplished.
He was unyielding on some issues (i.e., "tearing down that wall" and everything it stands for). But I believe his presidency was successful in many respects because of his practicality and flexibility on major issues, especially issues related to the economy.
Yes, Ted Cruz has an impressive background and is a high-grade legal intellectual. But, paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen, "Mr. Cruz, you're no Ronald Reagan."
paul --
A few observations.
-- The Dems never called Reagan a "pragmatist." They called him a cowboy and a wahoo who would start WWIII.
-- He "reached across the aisle" when the Dems controlled Congress, something that is no longer the case.
-- Speaking of paraphrasing, "Ms. Pelosi, you're no Tip O'Neil."
-- I'm not sure what the difference is between "blind adherence to principle" and "adherence to principle."
-- On the economy, Reagan was a tax-cutter and a supply-sider, something the Dems resent to this day.
-- Reaching across the aisle works both ways. When Obama compromises by nominating Kent Scheidegger for the Scalia seat, I'll compromise in turn by supporting Senate consideration.