Tag Archives: Republican Party

Has the GOP gone on to its great reward?

I fear the time may have arrived to say goodbye, farewell, adieu to a once-great American political party.

The Republican Party may be drawing its last breath in the Age of Donald John Trump Sr.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake has announced he is leaving public office at the end of next year. So is Sen. Bob Corker. They are two standup up guys. They represent the traditional Republican Party. They have sought during their Senate careers to work within a political system that includes Democrats. I don’t recall hearing them use the kind of language that’s become the apparent norm these days during the Trump Era.

Sen. John McCain is no friend or political ally of the president. And no matter how many smiley faces they make in Trump’s company in front of the camera, I do not believe Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Sen. Lindsey Graham, or Sen. John Cornyn are actual Trumpkins.

And the members of the Trump brigade need to stop denigrating their service by referring to them as RINOs, Republicans in Name Only. The RINO in chief, Trump, fits that description to a T.

We’re seeing more and more “establishment type” Republicans facing primary challenges, which is what drove Flake to the sideline.

As the Politico article attached to this post indicates, Trump is driving these people away and turning the GOP into a party in his image.

What an image it is, too.

Trump “tells it like it is,” his fans say. No, he tells it like he wants it to be. And for the life of me I cannot understand how a once-great party tolerates someone speaking of others in the manner that he does.

Donald Trump has defied every norm not just of political convention but of personal human decency since announcing his presidential campaign in June 2015.

A man with no public service experience ascended to the most exalted public office on Earth and nearly a year into his term has next to zero to show for it. His response has been to blame others time and again for his failure.

So here we are. The Republican Party — which once prided itself on being the Party of Abraham Lincoln — has become the Party of Donald John Trump.

Rest in ever-loving peace, GOP.

GOP taken over by ‘this hateful man’

We haven’t heard much from John Danforth since he left the U.S. Senate.

The highly respected former lawmaker — who also happens to be an Episcopal minister — has weighed in heavily against the president of the United States.

Sen. Danforth is urging the Republican Party — to which he is a member — to toss aside the principles espoused by Donald John Trump Sr., who he described as “this hateful man” who promotes division and disunity in the nation he governs.

One must accept that political figures from opposing parties are going to criticize those in high office. Danforth’s critique, which he offered in an essay published in the Washington Post, is another of a stunning array of criticism coming from politicians within the president’s own party.

It makes me ponder whether Trump actually is seen by Republicans as one of their own. Or is he a major-league anomaly, a political freak who elected president by a series of flukes that no one saw coming?

Danforth has laid down an important marker for his fellow Republicans. He writes of Trump: “He stands in opposition to the founding principle of our party — that of a united country.”

Read Danforth’s essay here.

Look back just a few days to the rhetoric he has spouted. He talked of “many sides” being responsible for the violence in Charlottesville. He doubled down a few days later by declaring that “both sides” were at fault and that “both sides” had “good people” clashing in the Virginia community, which brings to mind the question: What kind of “good person” marches with Klansmen, Nazis and white supremacists?

Such language from the president drives huge wedges between groups of Americans, which is what I believe Sen. Danforth seeks to underscore in his essay.

“For the sake of our party and our nation, we Republicans must disassociate ourselves from Trump by expressing our opposition to his divisive tactics and by clearly and strongly insisting that he does not represent what it means to be a Republican,” Danforth writes.
Nor does he “represent” anything about the presidency of the greatest nation on Earth.

Republicans become party of diverse thought

I want to offer a good word or three about today’s Republican Party.

Yes, I’ve been beating them up a good bit of late. The GOP has deserved the drubbing. However, I want to speak to something that became evident after Donald John Trump Sr. tweeted out his decision to ban transgender Americans from serving in the armed forces.

The Republican Party has exhibited a profound sense of diverse thought on that issue.

On one side, we have heard some of the more predictable reactions. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — who’s now energy secretary in the Trump administration — said he supports the president “totally” in his decision to ban transgender citizens from service in defense of the nation. Fellow Texan, state Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller — a fellow not known for thoughtful rhetoric — said the armed forces are “no place for social experimentation.”

Then came the push back from other notable Republican pols. Many members of Congress expressed disappointment and dismay that Trump would use Twitter to announce such a staggering policy shift.

Then came a highly personal statement from U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah lawmaker known as one of the Senate’s more conservative members. Transgender individuals do not “choose” to change their sexual identity, Hatch said. “They are born that way,” he added. Sen. Hatch said it is unfair to hold that against them.

The GOP has demonstrated considerable diversity as well in this debate over whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The moderate wing of the Republican caucus dislikes many of the provisions contained in the GOP-authored bill; it cuts too much from Medicaid, for example. The TEA Party/conservative wing of the caucus dislikes the overhaul because it doesn’t go far enough in repealing the ACA, the signature legislation authored by Democrats during the Obama administration.

Democrats, meanwhile, speak with a single voice on those and many other issues. It must be Democrats’ universal disdain for Trump and the fact that he managed to win the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Believe me, I understand their anger on that one!

However, the Republican Party has shown itself to be more willing to expose its differences in the months since Trump became president.

For that, I applaud Republicans.

Oh, and yes, the stalling of the Trump “agenda” — whatever it is — has played a key part in earning my praise.

No president can act ‘alone’


“I alone can fix it,” Donald J. Trump told us while he accepted the Republican Party’s presidential nomination this past summer.

Surely you remember that pearl of wisdom.

The comment revealed a tremendous ignorance of how the presidency works and how the individual who holds the office is supposed to conduct the nation’s business.

Did it matter to American voters who this week elected a new president? Not in the least.

The very same ignorant GOP nominee won the election and today is going to meet with the man he will succeed as president. Perhaps the incumbent, Barack H. Obama, can remind the new guy of a concept that appears foreign to him: teamwork.

The president-elect is going to get a serious crash course in civics as he prepares to assume the first political office he’s ever sought.

The founders devised a system of government that requires compromise among those who run it. Over time since the founding of the republic, we developed political parties. The system is now run by people representing two major political organizations: the Democratic and Republican parties. They differ on policy and principle.

The trick, then, becomes at times dicey. Politicians on both sides of the divide need to find some common ground to fix the problems that confront them. Sometimes they succeed; sometimes they fail. As President Obama learned early in his administration, cooperation wasn’t always a given as he reached out to Republicans to find solutions to the serious problems afflicting the nation when he took office.

The Senate GOP leader, Mitch McConnell, laid down the marker early in Obama’s administration by saying his No. 1 priority would be to make Barack Obama a “one-term president.” It didn’t work out for McConnell.

Still, the new president enters this strange new world (for him, at least) with some kind of notion that “I alone” can repair what he believes is wrong with the nation.

He’s got 535 individuals on Capitol Hill — many of whom have egos that match the new president’s — who will have different views of what needs to be done.  Moreover, they wield collectively just as much power as the individual who sits in the Oval Office.

Lesson No. 1 is as clear as it gets. Effective governance requires teamwork, Mr. President-elect.

Government: It’s a partnership, yes?


This graphic showed up on a social media feed that I get.

I find it most instructive. I won’t recite it to you, as you can see it for yourself.

It does, though, prompt a thought or two about government and its very nature as created by the founders of our great country.

They created a partnership. They limited the power of the president on purpose by dividing the power among three co-equal branches of government … and by allowing states to create their own governments to deal with issues germane to those who live within those states and other territories.

So, when I hear Republicans these days yap and yammer about how the country is going to hell — a notion to which I do not subscribe — I also have to wonder if they’re really ready to take ownership of the government in which they, too, are an integral part.

The party that opposes the individual in the White House has been as much a part of what supposedly ails the country as the president.

Sure, the president — and vice president — are elected in a nationwide vote. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected by those who live within their states and/or congressional districts. Collectively, though, they also represent a national constituency.

The same logic can be applied to governors and state legislators.

As the graphic points, most of those office at this point are occupied by the Republican Party.

Which begs the question: Why are they bitching so loudly?

GOP fears its presidential frontrunner


So help me, I cannot remember the last time a leading major-party presidential candidate has stoked so much fear among those within the very party he wants to lead into the next election.

Donald J. Trump’s emergence from the ranks of unthinkable presidential nominee to a possible nominee has been a sight to behold — not that I have enjoyed beholding it.

Fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has tossed out an idea that (a) won’t go anywhere but (b) has some within the party actually considering it.

Ticket formation could come early.

Graham suggests that Ohio Gov. John Kasich and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida ought to declare themselves a “ticket” to head off a Trump nomination. Graham — once a presidential candidate himself — doesn’t care which of them would head the ticket. He just wants two of the remaining five GOP presidential candidates to form an alliance to blunt the Trump charge.

There have been other “insurgencies,” to be sure.

Did the Democrats conspire against the candidacy of Sen. Eugene McCarthy and then Sen. Robert F. Kennedy when they challenged President Johnson in 1968? What about the 1976 GOP insurgency of former Gov. Ronald Reagan, who sought to wrest the nomination from President Ford?

This is different.

The very idea that the Republican Party could actually nominate someone with Trump’s background — as a reality TV celebrity, real estate mogul, and someone who’s boasted about his sexual exploits with women who were married to other men is sending the GOP “establishment” into apoplectic spasms.

As someone said only recently, the Party of Lincoln is becoming the Party of Trump.

Take a moment. Roll that around for a bit and consider what it really means to a once-great political institution.


Trump gets nailed … from the right!


I don’t know much at all about Matt Walsh, other than he writes a pretty good essay.

He’s a conservative writer and blogger. He has written a lengthy treatise for The Blaze, a conservative website.

Here it is.

I want to encourage folks to read it.

The subject of the blog is Donald J. Trump. It’s a sort of open letter to the Trumpsters who just love the reality TV personality/real estate mogul/newly minted politician/Republican presidential frontrunner.

Trumpsters say they admire Trump because he “tells it like it is.” Well, according to Walsh, Trump is as much of a liar as all the rest of Planet Earth he’s branded with that epithet.

The crux of Trump’s lies can be found in his supposed embrace of conservative principles. Walsh has called him out on it. He’s also called him out for all the hypocrisy that Trump has demonstrated throughout his adult life.

He blasts him for his grotesque language, his behavior, his callowness, his hideous assertions about anything and just about anybody.

Walsh is speaking as a conservative. Indeed, conservatives have been none too bashful about expressing their distaste for the idea of Donald J. Trump carrying the Republican Party banner into battle this fall against likely Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

To be blunt, the idea of a Trump nomination has me torn. It’s pulling me in many directions.

Am I inclined to support any of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination? Probably not. The only Republican still standing that I would consider voting for, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, isn’t likely to make it to the finish line.

But of all the leading candidates seeking the GOP nod, Trump is the most dangerous, the most ill-suited, the most repulsive candidate at any level. He’s also the least likely to win the election this fall.

Do I want the party to nominate him? No. Why? Because I believe in a strong two-party system and the Republican Party needs to come to its senses in a big hurry.

Am I a huge fan of Hillary Clinton? Not really. However, considering my own bias and my own presidential voting track record, she is likely to get my vote this fall — particularly if the Republican nominee is Donald Trump.

I do not want Trump anywhere near the White House, near The Button, near the levers of government. He doesn’t know the first thing about how any of it works.

Indeed, he seems to embody the very thing that one of his vanquished foes, Jeb Bush, talked about when he ended his own presidential campaign this past weekend. Bush talked of how presidents are one of us. They serve the people and are not our “masters,” he said.

Matt Walsh has laid it out there for all of those Trumpsters to ponder.

My hunch — and my fear — is that they won’t ponder a thing. It’ll just make them love their hero even more.

For my money, though, he offers a blistering — and much-deserved — critique of someone who’s making a mockery of a once-great political party.


Times change, and so do political party dynamics

will rogers

Someone once asked the late, legendary humorist Will Rogers about his political affiliation.

“I don’t belong to an organized political party,” Rogers reportedly answered. “I’m a Democrat.”


My hunch is that the same answer today could be given as it regards the Republican Party.

The GOP is in a state of chaos. It doesn’t know how to handle the emergence of a reality TV star/real estate mogul as a serious candidate for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

Donald J. Trump delivered a serious wedgie to the Republican Party “establishment” Tuesday night with his win in the New Hampshire primary. As the story linked to this blog illustrates, the GOP brass is looking for answers to coping with this guy.

He’s insulted his way to the top of the heap. He has demonstrated — by my way of thinking — zero philosophical grounding. If you’re looking for anything resembling a sophisticated answer to the myriad issues facing the candidates for president, do not expect it to come from Trump. Instead, you can expect a sound bite. A laugh line. A stream-of-consciousness rant about this and/or that.

But hey, whatever works.

It’s working for Trump and the Republican Party is grasping for ways to derail this guy.

Forty-plus years ago, the Democrats were the party in chaos. It’s liberal wing was fighting with the establishment — I suppose much like it is today — but the establishment didn’t have an answer for the insurgencies led by the likes of Sens. Eugene McCarthy, Robert F. Kennedy and George McGovern. The issue then was the Vietnam War.

The issue today is much more complex than the cost of young American lives on a foreign battlefield.

There appears to be a lot of anger among voters, which honestly baffles me. Then again, it takes a lot to make me mad.

These things do run in cycles. I don’t know if the Republican Party high command will find the answers it seeks while trying to cope with Trump. Nor do I know if whatever it is that’s driving Trump will win the day and change the party forever.

All I know for certain is that the once-chaotic Democratic Party — which, yes, has its own conflict underway — is looking peaceful in comparison to what’s roiling the Republicans.


When did National Review become a GOP pariah?


I’m puzzled.

I’ve always thought that the National Review was seen as the “bible” of conservative thought. The magazine founded by the late, great William F. Buckley was the go-to publication for conservatives to get their view distributed among the masses.

The National Review was the magazine to read.

What in the name of all that is holy is happening?

The Republican National Committee has cut the National Review out of its debate participation. GOP presidential frontrunner calls the magazine a “failing” publication.

Times are changing, yes?

William Buckley might not recognize what’s happening these days to the conservative movement.

Or that his once-revered publication has been shoved aside. There once was a time when thoughtful conservative leaders would occupy the platform that the National Review provided. They would offer their policy views on this or that issue.

Conservatives would embrace them; liberals might not join in the group hug, but they would at least consider the argument made, if only to shore up their own bias.

We have not entered a new age of wisdom when we toss aside thoughtfulness in favor of anger and shoot-from-the-hip talk-show rhetoric.

Mr. Buckley, wherever you are, I wish you were around to talk some sense into these guys who have redefined the conservative movement you once led.


Sen. Graham shows what’s wrong with GOP


Don’t get me wrong.

Sen. Lindsey Graham — himself — is not what is wrong with today’s Republican Party. The South Carolinian’s departure this week from the 2016 presidential race illustrates what’s so troubling about others within the GOP.

Graham represents what — for the time being — appears to be a dying breed of Republican. He’s one of those individuals who works with Democrats, not against ’em.

His reputation, thus, has become of one what hardcore Republicans call RINO, a Republican In Name Only.

Graham isn’t a RINO. The label is undeserved, except for the fact that he has many friends on the other side of the Senate chamber, which I guess has become something of a kiss of death these days among the Republican Party “base.”

He became quite critical during his presidential campaign of much of the rhetoric coming from his fellow candidates. Remember when he called Donald Trump a “jackass”? He became one of the first targets that Trump singled out, reciting Graham’s cell phone number aloud at a public event.

Graham, though, had the bad form — in the eyes of his GOP base — to work with Democrats on such issues as climate change, immigration reform and tax reform. It didn’t matter that the former Air Force lawyer has been a staunch advocate for a strong defense and that he has been at the forefront of calling for more — and pardon my use of the euphemism that I detest — “boots on the ground” in the fight against Islamic terrorists.

Perhaps it was Graham’s vote against articles of impeachment against President Clinton in 1998 — as a member of the House Judiciary Committee — that sealed the deal for the GOP base.

Whatever, this faithful Republican is now out of the presidential race because he isn’t hardcore enough to suit the red-meat Republicans who still see Democrats as “enemies” and not more “opponents.”

That’s too bad.

For Graham and for his Republican Party.