Don's Tuesday Column

            THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson    Red Bluff Daily News   5/10/2016

         Field cleared for Trump, Clinton

To my disappointment, the news arrived: businessman, entertainment media figure and newly-minted conservative Republican Donald Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz seemed the most consistent, principled conservative leader to emerge from the 17 Republican candidates, with a vast resume in federal and state appointments and elective offices.

Governors Rick Perry and Scott Walker, private citizens Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and others, gave hope for a candidate that combined a record of public or private sector accomplishment with sincere conservative bonafides. We’ll never know how Cruz would have fared in the general election against the Clinton juggernaut; Cruz’s sharp intellect and debating skills might have prevailed.

Others, such as New York Gov. George Pataki and South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham, seemed to be on vanity quests for media coverage. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal fell in between, having both a serious record of governing and strong ideological beliefs but little widespread appeal. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul never came out from under the quasi-isolationist shadow of his father, Ron Paul, but brought a thoughtful, calm approach to his libertarianism.

I truly wish that Donald Trump had never entered the race. Republican Party voters would have weighed the merits of commendable and above-average candidates that had proven their right to offer their respective views and records.

Prior to Mr. Trump sweeping the northeast primaries, he had only received about one-third of the votes of Republicans, which became around 37 percent with the addition of Democrats and independents in “open” primaries; Trump gained about 46 percent of the delegates. That Trump incessantly whined about the “unfairness” of a system that delivered such an outsized delegate total reeked of nearly congenital hypocrisy.

That vote total approached 42 percent after the Indiana primary; it still stood out as a “huge” fact that the vast majority of Republicans cast their preference for someone not named Trump. Many of that super-majority pinned hopes on Ted Cruz’s ability to swing delegates to support him at the convention should Trump fail to get to the 1,237 delegate threshold.

The proverbial political die is cast; I consider it a “hostile takeover” of the Republican Party by an extremely astute, wildly undisciplined, ideologically unhinged and marginal representative of our party. The problem with predictions, as I think Yogi Berra might have said, is that they take place in the future. Trump will either win or lose in November; if he wins, will he have Republican majorities in Congress? If Hillary wins, likewise. Or will she bring back the odious Democrats: Nancy Pelosi to the House Speakership and Chuck Schumer to Senate Leadership?

I just read that, with some exceptions, the candidate with the highest percentage of voters having a “high dislike” has won the presidential contest going back at least as far as Richard Nixon. Does that leave Trump and Clinton vying for the title of “most disliked” as a winning strategy? They both seem on their way. Come what may, I believe it is premature to pronounce either one as the likely Electoral College winner—events, and campaigns, will occur.

For the record, I found (and still find) Donald Trump to be repugnant, ill-tempered, ideologically unreliable and of such a foul demeanor that I won’t support him in any way save checking the box by his name as the “lesser of evils” versus Hillary. She must be considered as Barack Hussein Obama’s third term. The Supreme Court, as well as lesser federal courts, cannot be trusted to the radical progressive inclinations that, without overstating it, Clinton will bring to the office. She is yet another Saul Alinsky acolyte, masking her leftist, even socialist, beliefs with a veneer of “not as loony as Bernie” legitimacy.

However, if Trump can be depended on for better court appointments; if he can implement border security with a physical wall, deport criminals and visa overstayers, and eliminate “sanctuary” cities, counties and states by withholding federal funds; and if he has a Republican Congress, writing legislation, with the fortitude to rein in the out-of-control regulatory bureaucracy and return to a rule-of-law status quo—I’d be satisfied with President Trump. If only.

However, I think the odds are even that he loses big and ushers in total Democrat rule. If he wins, I only have hope, absent actual actions by Trump, that he will do what he promises. I have talked with Trump-sters, if you will, for whom I have deep respect. Their elation and exuberance (“the Republicans finally got their heads out of their…”) might be irrational. When told that Trump has no record of advocating or advancing any constitutional or conservative causes, they respond: “That doesn’t really matter.”

They also seem oblivious to polling that shows twice as many Republicans support Hillary as Democrats support Trump. Told that Democrats start with 242 Electoral College votes, needing only one large state like Florida to win, while Republicans can only count on a little over 100 E.C. votes and must “run the table” to win in November—well, “denial” isn’t just a river.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh alienated me with his steadfast defense of Trump, against all criticism, early when many were forming opinions; Sean Hannity was a shameless water-carrier for Trump; Fox News was observed by many to be a thinly-veiled Trump booster; Mark Levin held true to his conservative base of listeners with steady, often shrill, attention to Trump’s failings; Hugh Hewitt was a fair, honest arbiter; Glen Beck—ugh. If Trump loses, many will have to answer.