Hey Republicans, Maybe We Should Consider Electing Someone With Integrity

Well, the first of approximately 9,774 Republican primary debates happened last night. I don’t plan on writing an analysis of each, but I think this one deserves acknowledgment because it was the first, and because it achieved the admirable feat of distracting from Jon Stewart’s last episode of The Daily Show. What delicious irony that his finale was undermined and outshone by a bunch of Republican politicians on Fox News. I’ve got nothing against the guy — he’s a liberal partisan hack who was perfectly adequate at reading jokes off of a teleprompter — but I just appreciated the dynamic.

I should note that I didn’t watch the earlier debate — it’s just not healthy or natural for any human being to consume five straight hours of political rhetoric in one sitting — so I won’t have much to say about the candidates who participated in it. I hear Carly Fiorina performed well, which I don’t doubt. She seems to be sharp and articulate, but she’s also a sharp and articulate former Sen. John McCain aid and Jesse Jackson fan, who has sharply and articulately endorsed embryonic stem cell research, the DREAM act granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, President Barack Obama’s stimulus, and the Wall Street bailout. She was likewise quite sharp and articulate when she called abortion a “decided issue,” and explained that she would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, a radical pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice, because she doesn’t believe in imposing a pro-life litmus test on Supreme Court nominees.

So, yes, she is very good at arguing, but the problem is what she’s arguing for, and whether you can trust her to argue for the same thing from one day to the next. Also, there’s the matter of her business record, which includes being the CEO of Hewlett Packard, overseeing it for five years as the company fell apart and lost half of its value and thousands of its employees. She might have a plausible explanation for this unfortunate stain on her resume, but the fact remains that it was very successfully used against her when she was handily beaten during her failed bid for Senate in California.

He didn’t get a chance to say much in this debate, but when he did, particularly later on in the evening, he was fresh, coherent, sharp, witty, and insightful. When asked about race relations, he gave a downright profound answer — rare in politics, or anywhere else — saying that when he operates on a brain, he gets to see what really makes a person who they are. And this coming from a black man who grew up in the ghetto, rose out of poverty, and became one of the greatest surgeons to have ever lived. He struggled through racism and adversity that few can imagine, yet his message is not petty and vindictive like that of the biracial fellow currently occupying the White House. Carson has, instead, something powerful and unifying to say. After eight years of a Al Sharpton-esque charlatan deliberately stoking tensions and encouraging race riots, Carson’s message is all the more urgent.

And that speaks to why I really like the guy. Beyond the issues, beyond even his incredible and inspiring personal story, beyond his smart responses in a televised debate, I believe that Dr. Carson is a good man. I can’t really know for sure, but based on everything I’ve seen, including the fact that he’s been married to the same woman for 40 years, and the fact that he hasn’t flip flopped on every imaginable issue, and the fact that he’s the only guy in the field who’s literally saved the lives of countless people, especially children, I have arrived at the rather safe theory that Ben Carson is a man of character and integrity.

For some reason, we don’t talk about character and integrity when discussing our presidential picks. Maybe it’s because we just assume they’re all scumbags, but I think it’s more that we, as a culture, have grown quite shallow and childish in recent years. I’m sure this isn’t a new phenomenon, but it’s evident that most Americans vote entirely based on which man or woman repeats their own views back to them the loudest. We call this “voting on the issues,” but we forget that we’re not voting for some abstract, disembodied collection of opinions. We are voting for a human being. And all of those opinions are meaningless if the human being articulating them is, despite his ability to soothe you with the sound of your own ideas, actually a lying, cheating, conniving, degenerate phony.

I think we ought to start considering a person’s character as we contemplate making them the most powerful mortal creature in the known universe. If they have no character, then all of their words are guaranteed to lead to nothing but more tyranny and despair. It would take, at this point, an exceptionally virtuous person to inherit the vast powers of the modern presidency and not be morally destroyed by them. But if the person is already corrupt and comprised going in, we’re screwed. There’s no chance of anything good coming of it.

So, character. I like Dr. Carson because he has character. At the moment and subject to change, I think Ted Cruz is the best choice — he has integrity, the conservative bona fides, a command of the issues, and a great chance at winning — but I like having Carson on that stage.

2. I respect the fact that Fox challenged the candidates. You’ll never see MSNBC or CNN or any other outlet go after Democrats the way Fox interrogated these Republicans. But, in the end, I was disappointed in the broadcast. From my count, they brought up abortion once and the Planned Parenthood scandal once. On both occasions, the line of questioning went right to rape and incest. Once again, another election cycle where, apparently, the entire matter of protecting unborn life will revolve around the rarest of circumstances.

I want a candidate to be pro-life without exception, but if the media were honest (pause for laughter), we would spend much more time discussing the preponderance of cases, rather than harping exclusively on the hardest ones. And why did rape come up in the Planned Parenthood question at all? Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts, and rather than asking each presidential hopeful what they plan to do about it, Fox instead asks them about rape? Ridiculous.

3. OK, Trump. The man was a disaster and an embarrassment, but then that’s his charm. He’s really cornered the market on the whole “incoherent train wreck” shtick, so I suppose he played his part splendidly. And now the brave and bold and courageous Trump is running around crying that the debate moderators “behaved very badly” by asking him tough questions.

For the record, the questions weren’t that tough. They asked him whether he’d run third party if he doesn’t win the nomination, and he said he might. This was an unpopular answer not because it was elicited by some gotcha trick, but because a Trump third party run would absolutely guarantee a Hillary Clinton presidency. Given that Trump is a lifelong liberal who’s been bankrolling the Clintons for years, it has crossed my mind more than once that this whole thing is a Trojan Horse ploy to get Trump’s good friend, Hillary, elected. If Trump runs third party, that will absolutely confirm my suspicions.

I’m not against the idea of an independent party in principle. In fact, in principle I like it and I’ve strongly advocated for it in the past. But this time around there are some good potential choices on the Republican menu, and more importantly, I really don’t know if this country can survive four or eight years of Hillary Clinton. The fate of the nation hangs in the balance, and we can’t afford to make a game out of it. Trump has all but announced his intention to hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton if Republican voters don’t comply with his demands, essentially blackmailing us by threatening to put a tyrant in office if we don’t give him what he wants. If that isn’t enough to disqualify him in your book, then I have to assume you just don’t understand the gravity of the situation.

One must also wonder whether they want a president who pouts like a bullied little schoolboy whenever someone asks him a question he doesn’t like. Trump, a 70-year-old man, spent much of last in the midst of a Twitter temper tantrum, upset that Megyn Kelly asked him about his habit of calling women names like “fat pig, dog, and disgusting animal,” and telling them they “look pretty on their knees.” He got off a funny line about Rosie O’Donnell in response to this question, but when pressed, he practically broke into tears, before erupting into another rant about how he’s “politically incorrect.” Later, on Twitter, he called Kelly a bimbo.

Now, I couldn’t care less about political correctness, but actually, it is a problem that Trump says these things about women. Put aside the fact that Hillary Clinton could hang this around his neck and beat him silly with it. On a more fundamental level, a real man doesn’t talk to women, or to anyone, this way. We have reached a very sad moment in the history of the conservative movement when a desperate, vulgar, juvenile brat can be hailed by the “values voter” constituency as brave and courageous because he calls women fat pigs and tells them to get on their knees. And to label such things merely “politically incorrect” is infuriatingly absurd.

Rick Santorum was politically incorrect in the earlier debate when he compared the Supreme Court gay marriage decision to Dred Scott. Ted Cruz was politically incorrect when he defended his charge that the establishment leaders in his party are liars. Scott Walker was politically incorrect when he bravely stood by his pro-life convictions, making no exceptions for rape or incest. Mike Huckabee was politically incorrect when he came out against allowing “transgenders” to serve openly in the military, explaining that our military “isn’t a social experiment.” Rand Paul was politically incorrect when he aggressively defended the Bill of Rights. These were politically incorrect statements. They were also true, necessary, honest, and gutsy. They had substance and meaning. When we talk about wanting someone to be “politically incorrect,” this is what we should be referring to, not a puerile old man degrading women and calling an accomplished journalist a “bimbo” because she dared to make him feel uncomfortable.

That’s not the behavior of a politically incorrect man. That’s the behavior of a man with no character. And Trump has no character. None.

He’s also a man of no specifics, who continues to gain support despite having failed to ever actually answer any question he’s been asked. He declined to offer particulars on his immigration stance, while Marco Rubio put him to shame by giving an informed, competent, and meaty answer on the subject. Trump also ducked inquiries into his business record, defending the fact that he screwed over his lenders by pointing out that lenders are “not nice.” And because the world is insane and nothing makes sense anymore, this was an applause line.

Trump lied when asked why he’s given so much money to the Clintons, claiming he only donated hundreds of thousands of dollars over many years so that Hillary would go to his wedding. He doesn’t even bother telling believable lies, I guess because he counts on his supporters swooning over his revolutionary strategy of being openly dishonest about everything.

Trump boasted about being a man of no principles who bribes politicians, and puffed up his foreign policy credentials by declaring that he had the incredible “vision” to oppose the Iraq War a year after it started. He had no answer when asked about his previous liberal positions, and he couldn’t explain his own admission that he “identifies more with Democrats.” In a stunning moment, Trump — an alleged conservative at an allegedly Republican debate — defended his past support for government-run healthcare, extolling the virtues of Canada’s socialized medicine scheme. Trump is a big government liberal who thinks single payer healthcare “works well” — but, hey, at least he’s politically incorrect! And he’s rich! Sure, he inherited his wealth, but man is he funny when he insults fat women! Let’s make him president!

Because that’s what we want in a president, right? Hilarity and entertainment. We don’t want character, consistency, principles, or integrity. Totally boring, man. We just want to be amused, that’s all. Our civilization is on fire, and we want someone to play the fiddle and dance for us while it all burns to ash.

Trump is not an honest man, or a good one. He doesn’t have the courage to stand up against even the slightest challenge, and he has no discernible platform or plan. He lacks the ability to explain his conservative ideals, because they don’t exist, and he can’t give any specifics at all, because they don’t exist. Whatever his meager and inauthentic positive attributes — “politically incorrect,” not an establishment guy, expresses the “frustrations” of the American people, etc. — there are other candidates in the race who possess these same characteristics much more convincingly.

You want someone who isn’t a politician? Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina (her downsides notwithstanding).

You want a fresh face who can beat Hillary Clinton? Well, there’s everyone I just listed, plus Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.

You want a guy who isn’t afraid to get angry and take it to the opposition? Nobody’s done that better than Rand Paul.

I’m not endorsing all of these people or telling you to vote for them, I’m just letting you know that the anti-establishment, politically incorrect, non-politician, angry, frustrated, bold and combative bases are all thoroughly covered this time around. Trump’s services are not needed.

But, then, if you just want someone who will make a good show of it while our country collapses and our children’s futures are cannibalized in the chaos, I admit that nobody is better suited for the task than Donald Trump.

He’s not necessarily connected with the Clinton at the hip because of their ideology, it’s because it serves his purposes for self-promotion. He doesn’t have a deal with them because they’re buddies, but because he makes deals and plan B’s wherever he goes. Looking on the outside, a deal here makes perfect sense. Hillary is the biggest winner with his continued candidacy.

I don’t know who told you he was selflessly supporting Clinton, but that would be the first person that I’ve heard using selfless to describe him. If he supports Clinton, it’s because it benefits himself in some way.

He’s on my side? Right, because he’s put out a detailed platform on his positions? Because he’s made a lot of bluster and pronouncements that point in the right direction in the last few months? Most of them make no sense when you begin to engage with them practically. They just sound like great zingers.

You describe them as pointing in the right direction. Then you say they make no sense. Which is it?

Do they sound like zingers when you support those policies? Evidently so, because you say they're pointed in the right direction.

Your bias is dripping off your post here.

Let's look at the points that make no sense to you.

1. Immigration. He’s building a wall with a really nice door. What’s his plan for that door?

He intends to build a wall and make sure people enter through an approved portal. Isn't that what the law states should be done? You don't support our current immigration laws?

2. Gay marriage. Officially against it when pressed for an answer as a candidate. Attended a gay wedding and found it to be fabulous.

Then officially he is against it.

3. Abortion. “I’m very pro-choice.” “I’m pro-life with caveats for incest or rape of the mother.”

Well calling for a shut-down of the government until funding for Planned Parenthood is stopped, probably doesn't appeal to you.

4. “Hillary Clinton is a really good woman and she does a really good job. And I like her.” “Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of state in the history of the United States.”

He also said she would make a terrible presdient. You probably disagree with that too.

Have you ever said something superficial at a social setting in New York?

5. Health Care. “I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care.” He says he’s against Obamacare, but what’s he going to replace it with?

You would know if you had listened to any of his videos. He has addressed this serveal times recently. You don't want to know, so you haven't listened. It's obvous on a number of topics.

So which side of his mouth am I supposed to trust? He needs to BE fragged.

Okay let's play that game.

Senator Cruz has said, I want to cut down on illegal immigration to protect U. S. Citizen's jobs. / I do want to significantly increase H1-B visas (to destroy U. S. Citizen's jobs).

Senator Cruz said he did not agree with the new fast track path for the president for trade negotiaiton. / Cruz voted for support legislation to do just that.

Isn't this fun.

Edit and addition.

It is way early in the cycle. Trump is ruffling feathers and that is a good thing.
What is Trump’s opinion on taxes?

Is he for a tax code that has seven times as many words as the Bible?

What does he think about “I”bama efforts at bringing us all together “as one America”?

Trump could open up a lot of important debate.
He could make “average folks” consider things they may not have ever thought of. And, he could force the RINO dynasty to take a stand on positions they somehow never seem to have to take a position on.

I want to hear more, not less, from Trump.:)

I think his value is in ruffling feathers, and he’s done well at that to this point.

At the same time, it doesn’t matter how much detail he gives about policy. He’s shown a clear ability to change it on a whim.

At what point will his staying in derail another conservative candidate and give it to Jeb? You can be sure the GOPe will coalesce around him to be the anti-Trump. If a conservative candidate gets the GOP nomination, will Trump go third party? If you say no, what assures you he wouldn’t?

The longer he stays, the more his ego gets fed and the less likely he is to pull out. He’s better than Jeb and better than Hillary, but that’s not saying much. He’ll be willing to destroy a lot of conservative allies if it serves his purpose.

You make a very good point.

I've seen this done in more subtle ways as well.

The media, which makes it a point to exclude any legitimate criticism of open borders policies in any forum, will occasionally air a grievance from the most ignorant, louche or uniformed quarter.

A great example is an anti-cheap labor 1 minute segment PRI Marketplace aired about a year ago in response to a typical COC-style pro-immigration segment.

Naturally, they chose a woman who, albeit well-intentioned, had no command of the facts and came across as a bumptious hayseed.

Except that, in the case of Trump, all available evidence indicates that he's not even a Republican, much less a conservative. He has, however, been in bed with the Clintons for decades. Suddenly, he decides to step out of the shadows and into the GOP nomination race with illegal immigration as his signature issue, after years of abject silence on the matter. When he does that, thousands of GOP primary voters line up behind this guy, dividing the vote of the party, all to the complete benefit of Hitlery Clinton, his political client was of long standing.

I quit the GOPe ages ago...I don't care what Party Trump belongs to...He is more conservative AND pro America than any of the GOPe contenders up there (except Cruz)

So, you’re saying Trump hasn’t shown a propensity for being all over the map with his political views? And that we should just take him at his word because he really, really means it this time? I’ve already stated I like a lot of what he says, depending on which side of his mouth he’s speaking. My calling him out on his duplicity doesn’t mean I disagree with his conservative statements.

I’m absolutely biased against Trump. Because he has shown nothing in his life that demonstrates trustworthiness.

Yes, as far as I can tell, Cruz screwed up on the trade thing. But I will give a man the benefit of the doubt if he shows me a lifetime of consistent and tireless work on the same side of the aisle. I won’t do that for someone who just demonstrates an ability to flip-flop hard.

He can acted like a lightening rod while bringing up the issues that should be adressed.

I believe Trump appeals to the voter’s who truly feel they are outside of the process. As well as the voter’s who tried to get the opposite of Obama but were snookered by the, so called,uni-party.

Trump, at least in most people’s lifetime, is like no other Presidential candidate. He plays my his on set of rules. He has a little bit of a crooked moral. You call me a name i call you a name kind of thing. Forget that he is a moderate democrat, at best, he is exposing the phonies.

Look at Cruz. Unshaken and classy. He is only rattling the overly sensitive establishment type’s cage like Megs or Erik or nearly all of Fox News.
We think the rule are the USC but these egomaniacal media folk’s think they know better . They think they call the shots. They tell us what to think and who we should vote for.
Certainly not a Ted Cruz. We know who we are suppose to pick.
COme on Mongrel tell us who they want us to pick?...you know...we all know.

Then maybe they'll see Trump as a guy who has had to sit down and address issues he didn't have time to address before.

The reason he didn't have time, it would appear, is that his political ally of long-standing, Hitlery Clintoon, didn't really need his help until now. Now that she does need help in dividing the GOP base in order to be elected president, The Donald suddenly has the time to formulate some positions on issues that he couldn't have cared less about before, but which have always been important to conservative American taxpayers.

And maybe they'll like what they hear.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure that Hitlery is counting on that. This gambit by Clinton and Trump just wouldn't work otherwise.

You quote Cruz as saying he supports ending illegal immigration because they take jobs. He didn’t give that as his reason. He is clearly against illegal immigration because it is illegal, and for increasing opportunities for skilled immigrants. I agree with him. There’s no integrity issue here although you may disagree with his stance.

So again, he has a clear, consistent track record, and Trump is the drunk uncle with a shotgun that happened to hit a few of your favorite targets. Good luck with that.

Well, this is helpful. /s

You say Cruz is not consistent by referencing two things he said, so apparently he is the same as Trump. Then you make up a quote about him to prove your point. You won’t find that quote because he didn’t say it.

Cruz has consistently been on point in supporting H1-B visas because he believes it will increase American jobs. He has consistently been on point in opposing illegal immigration because it’s illegal. There’s no lack of integrity there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.