Posted on 03/31/2011 5:29:25 AM PDT by scottfactor
As I recently wrote, the 2012 Republican presidential field is looking pretty bleak. After the amazing birth and rise of the Tea Party movement and America’s overall repudiation of big-government Washington, it is very disheartening to see that the same old candidates are looking like they will be offered up: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. I can’t stand the thought of any of those men getting the Republican presidential nomination. Do any of them suppose we’re all stupid enough to buy those faux conservatives? Perhaps they do.
In a better world, we would be able to nominate a true conservative like Alan Keyes, Herman Cain or Allen West. How I dream of such a nominee! But, I would bet the big-government establishment would never willingly allow a true patriot like Mr. Keyes, Mr. Cain or Col. West on the Republican ticket.
There is another possible contender for the Republican nomination: Donald Trump. Now, before I get into this, I want to say that I like Donald Trump, even though, of course, I have never met him, have never looked him in his eyes. I like his presence, his force. I like the way he speaks with firmness. He is certainly a strong, male leader, which is what I want in the White House. But…
In looking at Mr. Trump’s positions on major issues, according to his January 1st, 2000 book, The America We Deserve, and according to his stated positions in his speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a question comes to mind: What do you get when you cross a liberal with a conservative? The answer, though not a joke, is a strange, contradictory creature, and it appears Donald Trump is a fine example of one.
In the headline, I called him Teflon Donald. Why? Because, it appears that he does not stick to his political positions. In his CPAC speech, he sounded like a conservative. He claimed to be pro-life, and he said if he were elected, he would work to repeal and replace Obamacare. Personally, I don’t want Obamacare replaced; I just want it repealed, period. Regardless, those two stated positions are in direct contradiction to his book from just over ten years ago.
At CPAC, Mr. Trump said, “I’m pro-life,” but in his book, he said,
“I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban.”
You can’t be pro-life and support a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” Mr. Trump will be 65 this June. It’s not like he’s a young, impressionable college student whose ideas and beliefs are fluid. This is a significant positional discrepancy. So, which is it, Mr. Trump, pro-life or pro-abortion? I will give him points for at least understanding the barbaric nature of partial-birth abortion. If only he would extend that understanding to the fact that all abortions are barbaric; all abortions brutally rip apart a tiny, human baby’s body.
On socialized medicine, Mr. Trump stated at CPAC that he would fight to end Obamacare and replace it. Compare that position to what he wrote in his book,
“I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice.”
What happened to Mr. Trump’s thinking in ten short years? Which of his positions is his true position? Did he really have a change of heart, or are his words based on the desires of whatever audience he happens to be addressing?
Here’s another position that should make conservatives cringe. Again, from his book, Mr. Trump says,
“One of our next president’s most important goals must be to induce a greater tolerance for diversity. The senseless murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming-where an innocent boy was killed because of his sexual orientation- turned my stomach. We must work towards an America where these kinds of hate crimes are unthinkable.”
First of all, Mr. Trump has the facts wrong in the case of Matthew Shepard. As I have pointed out before, Shepard was not killed because he was a homosexual; he was murdered by a couple of junkies looking to rob him of his money to buy more drugs for themselves. Putting that aside, perhaps Mr. Trump has not thought through the implications of “hate crimes” legislation.
“Hate crimes” laws create a specially protected class of people, which nullifies America’s promised equal protection under the law. All crimes are hateful. Assaulting one person is no worse than assaulting another person, based on what that person is or how he behaves. “Hate crimes” penalties make punishments harsher for people who assault or murder a person who is labeled with the specially protected status, as homosexual deviants are. This is patently un-American and violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
One thing Mr. Trump is doing that is seriously firing up the conservative base is that he is going after Obama’s lack of proof of eligibility to hold the office of president. This is something that millions of Americans are desperate to see someone in a leadership position address, and Mr. Trump appears to be willing to rise to the occasion of doing so. As WorldNetDaily’s Joe Kovacs reports,
“Billionaire developer and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is now suggesting Barack Obama's presidency could be ‘illegal’ if legitimate proof is not provided demonstrating the commander in chief is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’ of the U.S.”
Illegal, indeed! Many of us have been saying this since before the election. Without proof of his eligibility, the legality of Obama’s presidency is certainly in question. Mr. Kovac’s report continues,
“Trump defended so-called ‘birthers,’ explaining, ‘They just want to see the president was born in this country.’
…Trump also wondered why no doctors or nurses have come forward to announce their presence at Obama's birth.
‘Here's the president of the United States, and no doctor, no nurse, nobody's come forward saying, 'I delivered that beautiful baby.'
‘…He spent millions of dollars trying to get away from this issue. Millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue. I brought it up just routinely. All of a sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I'm starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country,’ Trump said on ‘Fox & Friends.’"
It’s not even necessarily that we want to know if Obama was born in the United States, because even if he was born here, if his father is who he claims, then his father was a foreign national, which would nullify Obama’s being a natural born American citizen, since both of his parents were not Americans.
Mr. Trump is seeing that he’s getting major support from the American people as he pursues the Obama eligibility issue. Here is finally someone besides the WorldNetDaily staff who is not afraid of those on the screeching Left who viciously attack anyone who questions Obama’s eligibility to be president. If Mr. Trump can stand firm and not give in to peer pressure on this issue, he will continue to have the support of many conservatives.
Mr. Trump does hold a number of conservative positions, but some of them are tempered with liberalism. For instance, although he is against a missile defense shield, he supports spending more money on our military. He is against gun control, for the most part. He supports controlling our borders and making even legal immigration difficult. He supports Israel. He supports a complete repeal of the inheritance tax, but he does not support a flat tax. He supports making the very wealthy pay an extra tax not imposed on lower-income people. He is against the “dumbing-down” of students in our public education system. He supports school choice to create competition for the government-run public school system.
Overall, it looks at if Mr. Trump is a lukewarm conservative with a fairly iffy stance on some of the issues that are important to conservatives. One curious thing about him is that he has given a large amount of money to political campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans, although Democrats have received more of his money than Republicans. He has given money to some of the most rotten liberals in the history of our government, including Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, just to name a few.
Donald Trump would certainly be an interesting nominee, but I would not trust him to ultimately be a conservative. It seems to me he does love America, though, and that is a far cry better deal than the America-hater we currently have squatting in our White House.
It is long past being tiresome. I’m talking about people like you who run around like the iconic Chicken Little yelling the “sky is falling, the sky is falling”.
We are less than 4 months beyond the last mid-terms when US House Tea Party conservatives were elected in sufficient numbers to put a serious dent in the Usurping Marxist Onada’s Marxist Agenda. It may very well be that it is not happening IAW your priorities or as fast as you would like it. But it is happening.
In addition, Tea Party conservative governors are also stepping up to the plate. Wisconsin’s Walker has put the lie to the tenet that attacking the civil service and teacher unions art third rails that must not be touched. Breaking this taboo will spread to other states as well as the finally confront the fact that Obamanomics is worsening America’s 15-20% unemployment record. Translation: Both the business and citizen tax payer base is shrinking. It will continue to shrink.
Upshot: It would require devastatingly catastrophic tax increases of the shrinking tax base, right now as we speak—not some time in the distant future, to be able to afford the public union plutocratic life style. This is called reality.
Keep in mind that it took Marxists—via lies, deceit, subversion and cooption—over 60 years to insert a Marxist in the WH. I think Tea Party conservatives are off to a credible start.
Like you, I wish it would go faster. But the reality, again, is that the Onada regime continues to control the Senate and WH. It also controls much of the federal and state judiciary, Wall Street, too many private sector company Board’s of Directors (GE and GM, for example)the MSM, non-public unions, religious leadership and education.
You naysayers will become relevant to me when you evolve from whining to constructive approaches for dealing with the total Marxist threat.
So, the Bible is “fruit loops”?
Tell your story walking, pal.
So, the Bible is “fruit loops”?
Tell your story walking, pal.
****************************
You’re FRuit Loops, pal. Go back and live in the 12th century like your mooslim buddies.
I guess Free Republic is not free of idiots.
I believe the Bible refers to women being restricted in authority only in spiritual matters, not in secular matters. The office of President of the United States is a secular position not a spiritual one.
I understand, and I know that there are always exceptions.
But, now I have a jerk calling me a “fruit loop” for preferring male leadership. I happen to prefer strong, male leaders—there’s nothing fruit loopy about that.
He also understands the free market and how business works. This is a guy who would drive our economic engine by simply standing aside.
I also like his attitude toward the Chicoms and the Arabs.
Leadership has many different meanings. When we elect a public servant their "leadership" and "strength" are not as important to me as their adherence to their stated principles and their adherence to the constitution. Now if you consider that to be leadership and strength great, if not please consider what you intend to elect as a public servant. Stalin for example was male, strong, and a good leader. I wouldn't want the likes for America.
Of course, when I say “strong, male leadership,” I don’t mean evil leadership. That I hope for virtue in that leader is a given.
He has also declared bankruptcy twice, and holds liberal positions on virtually every important issue we face. Perhaps you should just vote for a democrat that actually admits to being a democrat. That way you know they are honest in one regard.
Ping
“I guess Free Republic is not free of idiots”.
****************************
Fruit loops, I TOTALLY agree with your statement considering YOUR posts and YOUR opinion that woman are not CAPABLE of being leaders. That’s a truly idiotic stance, but people like you can’t see how idiotic they are and hiding behind the bible is really cowardly, so be it.
Someone posted Trumps political donations 100% democrat. Another Bloomberg republican, a democrat that can’t get elected as a democrat so they change their party but govern. as a democrat...all ego, no brain...
I don’t know why you’re being deliberately and aggressively obtuse or why my personal preference for male leadership unhinges you so.
Nowhere did I say, “women are not capable of being leaders.” NOWHERE.
I said I PREFER strong, male leadership. That is my preference, and YES it IS Biblical, whether you like it, or not.
Trump’s donations are not all Democrat. He has given to both parties, although more to Democrats than Republicans. http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Donald_Trump.php
Why is it that you only want a male leader?
This is your quote:
“Because men are meant to be, designed to be, the leaders”.
There it is.
So by men, do you mean OBAMA? He’s a “man”. Or how about Mitt Romney, or Huckabee? Those are real “strong” men aren’t they? Seems to me the only leaders today are the women, Palin, Bachmann,even Clinton, so there goes your theory. How about Boehner, the crier, yeah he’s strong too.
Fruit loops, it seems to me that you’re the one who’s unhinged, just because I happen to disagree with you and didn’t kiss your butt for your long winded original post you are being the obtuse and aggressive one, and good for you for referencing the bible.
By the way, does that mean if Palin is the nominee, you’ll sit this one out? LOL! :)
I cant fault Trump for this. The rat media demagogued the case beyond recognition. Almost no one has an appreciation of the facts as a result.
Well I’ve always had a love hate relationship with The Donald. He can be a pompous azzhat and he has an ego the size of Manhattan but then he will sit down in an interview and come up with some really truthful and intelligent thinking. He’s right about OPEC. We should be selling them $100 per bushel wheat.
I’m sure Trump does give a lot of money to Dem campaigns. He is in NY and he has to do business. He probably does pay off the unions to get deals done. What else is new? I do think the guy loves America and what it stands for.
So whatever his reason Trump is definitely doing the country a favor by pushing this eligibility issue which nobody else has the panache to do. Maybe Trump has no real intention of actually running. Maybe he is just trying to eff up Barry Soetoro so the GOP will win. Or maybe he is just ticked off that the Obamao Administration never even had the class to acknowledge Trump’s generous offer to build a $20mil-$30 mil grand ballroom addition onto the Whitehouse as a gift to the country.
What the hell is your problem?!
You apparently missed some of my last comments, and you apparently did not even read my column, since you mentioned Huckabee and Romney.
Yes, men are the natural leaders, but not all men are good leaders. This does NOT MEAN WOMEN CAN’T BE LEADERS.
My preference for strong, male leadership does NOT INCLUDE EVIL MALE LEADERSHIP.
I also never said I would not vote for a woman if that’s the only choice there was.
Now, why don’t you move along and find something constructive to do with your time?
Just one comment on Trump and Obamacare. He is for repeal:
Donald Trump: ObamaCare Is Unconstitutional, Should Be RepealedThis is from the CNS news service.
BTW, have you read the extensive interview Trump did recently with Human Events magazine? I know that Trump is all over the place with his views, but he has moved to the right on many issues. Now, I'm not going to just jump on the bandwagon because Trump is making conservative noises; but I'm not going to reject him on the basis of ten-year old opinions either.
Here is a link to Human Events interview: Can Donald Trump Save America?
As I said, I won't jump on any bandwagons until I hear more. I totally agree with you that we have a field of weak horses. I need hear more about Trump's views on judicial appointments, for one thing. Nevertheless, doesn't he provide pretty strong "male leadership"? That quality doesn't seal the deal, but it's a positive, yes?
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.