Posted on 01/13/2016 1:23:05 PM PST by Isara
“You’ve convinced me [of the need to pass the Dream Act].” [NBC Latino, 8/22/13]
"I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis with what’s happening, you have to [bring in Syrian refugees]." [Interview with Bill O’Reilly, 9/8/15]
Donald Trump Tells Bill OReilly The US Has to Take Syrian Migrants (Video)
Regarding Kim Davis: “Because we had a ruling from the Supreme Court and we are a country of laws and you have to do what the Supreme Court ultimately, whether you like the decision or not, and it was a 5-4 decision, whether you like the decision or not, you have to go along with the Supreme Court. That’s the way it is.” [Interview with Bill O’Reilly, 9/8/15]
Donald Trump says Kim Davis was in wrong job must follow Supreme Court (Video)
These comments were not made by Jeb Bush who sits at 3% in the polls; they were made by Donald Trump, the front-runner for the GOP nomination.
After spending an entire week discussing the Cruz citizenship issue, can’t we have a debate over whether we’ve properly vetted the frontrunner on some of the critical issues facing our nation?
"Everyone becomes an intrepid conservative convert on the road to Des Moines."
It is self-evident to anyone with a modicum of love for the Republic that this is an election our nation and party cannot get wrong. Following eight years of Obama’s fundamental transformation, the stakes are too high.
As someone who has vetted a number of congressional candidates who promised to be conservative but got sucked into the D.C. political vortex upon assuming office, I’ve seen that nobody runs in a primary as anything but a solid conservative. Everyone becomes an intrepid conservative convert on the road to Des Moines.
While no candidate has a perfect record, Republicans must have the ability to nominate a party leader with open eyes and a clear sense of where they are coming from and where they are headed. That is why it’s so vital to have a protracted discussion of the issues and put the personalities aside.
Each candidate has personal flaws and ideological inconsistencies. But a long-form discussion vetting each candidate on not just what they have said but what they have done regarding the most critical issues of our time will give the voters the clearest picture of what to expect from our eventual nominee. We will not get perfection from anyone but we must ensure we are not saddled with the David Souter equivalent of a presidential nominee.
This is why, at Conservative Review, we have posted the most comprehensive analysis of the candidates on an array of issues when it really mattered.
Among the top candidates, Cruz and Rubio have been pretty thoroughly vetted, although there is certainly always more to discuss. Much of the punditry and commentary over the past week has been consumed with the silly issue of whether Cruz—who was an automatic citizen at birth—is eligible to run for president as… an automatic citizen at birth. But with Trump leading in all the national polls just a few weeks from the start of the primaries, there is little discussion about where he stands on some of the critical issues or about his very recent and dramatic evolutions even on the issue of immigration.
You might be thinking, well, of course Trump has been vetted. After all, he has consumed the national discussion for the past seven months. But much of that national discussion was focused on the cult of personality—both from those who love him and those who hate him. But as it relates to the critical issues facing our country—sovereignty, security, society, our backwards system of governance, free markets—where is he coming from and where is he headed? Given his solid front-runner status these should be the most important questions at this point.
Where is Donald Trump on religious liberty and the role of the courts in social transformation? Does he really think they are the final law of the land when it comes to the most fundamental private property and religious liberty issues of our time? Evidently, he thinks the courts have the power to randomly rule on Cruz’s eligibility to run for president.
Will Donald Trump indeed repeal all of Obamacare? To this day, in his own words, he seems to back socialized healthcare and praises the systems in place in Canada and Scotland.
Where will Donald Trump head on the critical issues the minute he wins the primary?
These are not loaded questions only directed at Trump. They apply to everyone else as well. But with just a few weeks left until the primary and with Trump leading by double digits in every national poll, voters deserve as clear a picture of where Trump is headed as any other candidate.
There are those who don’t want to discuss any of the numerous liberal positions Trump has taken or still holds on so many critical issues—income taxes, the internet sales tax, the role of the courts, abortion, guns, etc.—because they suggest that immigration is all that matters.
There is nobody more sympathetic to that argument than I am. Immigration stands at the nexus of sovereignty, security, society, and numerous fiscal and economic issues. See my exhaustive article on how our backwards immigration policies will create a permanent Democrat majority, rendering every other policy issue moot. I’ve written several hundred articles on this issue and am in the process of writing a very detailed book on immigration, sovereignty, and the courts.
As such, I’m as tantalized as anyone by the fact that Trump has brought the issue of birthright citizenship for illegals and the right of a nation to exclude harmful immigrants to the forefront. I’ve been making a forceful case for the border fence for years, including my report on it this year.
But where does Trump really stand on the issue? Where was he on these issues when it mattered prior to running for president?
Because the media is assailing Trump from the Left for his newfound campaign position on immigration, many conservatives are reflexively attracted to him and are projecting all their hopes and aspirations surrounding the issue onto the personality of The Donald.
But as is the case with so many other issues where he was siding with the far-left until running for president, immigration is no different. His first intuition in September, when the refugee crisis flared up, was to say that we had a humanitarian obligation to bring in Syrian refugees. Then when he discovered that conservatives were so ardently opposed to it, he immediately did a 180 and categorically opposed it in his typical attention-grabbing fashion. At that point there was no turning around, and because the media was attacking his new position from the Left, everyone forgot (or never noticed) his first intuition.
While Sessions, Cruz, and others on the outside like myself were fighting the worst immigration bill of our generation in 2013, Trump was promoting the Dream Act. When it really mattered he wasn’t with us.
Moreover, what sort of judges would Trump nominate? Where does he stand on proposals to rein in the lawless courts? If he believes the courts are the law of the land, even when they violate the most fundamental rights or original intent of the Constitution, as he did with religious liberty, what will he do when the courts inevitably use the same phantom 14th Amendment legal theory to toss out his immigration proposals?
"When it really mattered he wasn’t with us."
Does this mean he can’t join the fight and permanently defend our sovereignty? No. As someone who genuinely cares about this issue, I would love nothing more than for Trump to crush the Democrats on this debate in the general election. We are not asking for a “natural-born” conservative immigration hawk; we will accept legitimate converts to the cause.
But isn’t it time for a serious discussion about whether we are really certain we know what “the day after” looks like with a Trump nomination given his track record, even as it relates to immigration?
If they want to knock Trump as a private citizen, then it is only fair to point at the guys actually in office and find out what was their excuse.
"I watched Pam prior, and it looks like she's just taunting everybody," said Trump. "What is she doing? Drawing Muhammad and it looks like she's taunting people"..
-May 2015 Trump on Pamela Geller.
Things trumpees already know that don’t seem to matter to them.
Trying to lump Cruz in with the rest of the Senate is cognitive dissonance at its worst. That’s just silly.
Daniel Horowitz is great. Very thorough and very smart!
Certainly, I agree, it’s not fair to go after Trump when he was a citizen, but it’s unfair to go after Cruz when it’s been shown that McCain, et al have been constant roadblocks to actual progress.
“Trying to lump Cruz in with the rest of the Senate is cognitive dissonance at its worst. That’s just silly.”
Oh I forget. It’s inconvenient.
Cant let that pesky part of reality in the way of the narrative that Cruz apparently is the greatest outsider to ever run for office....yet knows the code to the Senate bathroom.
Could we stop with all the emotional, immature name calling? This forum is turning into the DU.
Trump and Cruz each have strengths and weaknesses. We need to calmly discuss, analyze and evaluate. We need to bring these issues up and either rationally refute them or rationally consider them.
Trump is a con man — not real. He is not a conservative, but he does play one on TV — at least until after he is elected.
Then all things are possible.
I think the point they are trying to make here is that with his billions Trump has admitted he can sway political view points. So where are Trump’s SuperPACs promoting conservative, or even Republican, causes? Where are his Americans first policies within his companies? Where’s his assertion that all of his companies will henceforth use e-verify? Why did he feel it necessary to use foreign labor in his hotels and casinos? Where’s his “Trump Foundation for Veterans”?
When we don’t have a record of public service to comb through, we have to rely on statements made by a candidate. When those stated positions are unclear or in constant flux, how are we to properly decide if the candidate in question is fit to serve?
It’s not a matter of inconvenience. I cannot think of any Senator in the last 100 years who took on the entire body repeatedly as a freshmen.
Your line about “greatest outsider” is a weak strawman attack. I merely pointed out to you that accusing Cruz of being an insider is inaccurate at best.
If you think that Cruz should have been able to somehow ram through bills in opposition to almost all the other members - well that’s kind of unreasonable don’t you think?
Who has ever before called the majority leader a flat out liar? Who else actually spent all night filibustering.... ug.
Until some other Republican stakes out a position against taking Syrian refugees, amnesty, and bad trade deals, Trump will continue to lead.
Trump has a documented lifelong history of flip-flopping on issues, principles and values dear to conservatives and yet Cruz’s prior positions make him worthy of your distrust?
Decent article.
Cruz has been very inconsistent on key issues since he announced his candidacy, and especially since Trump announced three months after Cruz and changed the dynamics of the race.
I go by what they've said since announcing, and Trump has been far more consistent than Cruz.
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.