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.

I have a hard time seeing Cruz, Carson, and Walker as capitulators
Cruz has capitulated 3 time this year. One on the Iran deal before it was even a deal. One on the trade deal and One on the highway deal with the import-export scam attached. Not to mention him adding amendments to the gang of 8 scam. (if he adds amendments, hell sign onto it.) These are not insignificant things, especially the Iran deal.

He claimed he was lied to before he signed...Imagine that, a senator being lied to. Whether he was lied to or not doesn't matter. He's supposed to be this brilliant lawyer and then he signs documents without reading them first.

Which one is the lie?

The smartest people in the room with all the knowledge are the ones that got us into this mess. I’d rather see evidence of capacity to overcome obstacles, the ability to be resolute in solving problems, and integrity as qualifications.

I would dispute that the smartest people in the room go into government. I don't think our best and brightest run for office or serve in government. I really think that, with rare exceptions, we get those who would have a hard time succeeding elsewhere.

Having said that, I think that ability to overcome obstacles and being a nice guy is not preparation for running the country. Carson is a great surgeon, but instead of running for president on his retirement from practice he should have taken up golf.

Posting common sense to Trump supporters is considered a slapping offense by some at FR.

First they came for the Trump supporters, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trump supporter.

You are having a day dream if you don’t believe the cartel will do this to Cruz or any other conservative who threatens their power.

Did Trump complain about the questions being “tough?” I thought it was more - stupid, vindictive, nasty.

Reeking urgency, he had to repeatedly remind everyone about the scope of the problems we are facing and he is singularly accused of a mythical democrat created war on women.

You know what? Maybe people should start treating him with some damn respect and then maybe he wont rip at them?

From what I can tell, Trump doesn’t swipe unless swiped at. And lots of the swipes at the guy were unprovoked.

Ted Cruz didn’t take swipes at him, neither has Kasich. Trump hasn’t said anything about Jindal or a good deal of other candidates that don’t make it a thing to see if they can score some simp points by pandering to media Trump bashers.

All of your points, while true, do not negate the fact that Trump is no friend to conservatives and lacks integrity. And yes, integrity is when there is a consistency of thought and action between internal and external, between history and present. It is being moral.

The only consistency in Trump’s life has been to serve himself, nothing else. He has a track record of screwing over friends and foes. What he knows how to do masterfully is exploit weakness in others for his own purposes. He is doing that to both conservatives and liberals right now. The only problem for conservatives is that the fox that seems to be guarding the conservative hen house will be eating the same hens for lunch.

The “questions” were provably out of context and demeaning.

The GOPelite are attacking Trump because he threatens their power. They’d much rather lose to a Dem and be in the minority than support the break up of the beltway cartel.

All of your points, while true, do not negate the fact that Trump is no friend to conservatives and lacks integrity.

False. Trump is disrupting the cartel status quo game plan and for that fact alone is a great friend of conservatives.

Another vanilla election in 2016 = loss for conservatives. We will get either a progressive GOPer or a Dem.

All of your points, while true

Thank you for confirming this piece to be completely jam-packed with misinformation, half-truths and misdirection, even though you used my analysis to restate your opinion. I'm OK with that part, as long as you acknowledge The Blaze is 'no friend to conservatives'.

“And learn to show some respect to people who’ve been around a lot longer than you have.”

That was a childish statement. “Been around” as though FR is the person’s age?? What do you think FR is, a little girls club? Did I not wear the right color nail polish?

I bet I am far older than you, far more experienced, and have been around the political circles much more in-depth and longer than you, kid. You may judge people by their Internet persona but little children tend to do that.

You might want to show some respect to your superiors.

“It’s a hit-piece that’s needed. I hope it helps destroy Trump’s candidacy.”

Why, because he is embarrassing your RINO candidate?? Maybe Hillary is more to your liberal liking.

I don’t dispute the fact that his candidacy has done some good, and helped change the conversation.

I’m saying his continued candidacy is destructive to the conservative movement. He would be a bad nominee and even worse President.

Will a true conservative win the nomination with him in the race? Or is he simply dividing the conservative vote so that Jebbie can slide in. (If that happens, I would actually support Trump going third party.)

On the other hand, we conservatives aren’t coalescing around one candidate. We’re repeating the mistakes from years past, and Trump got sent by his pal Hillary to do the job. She can handle a few jabs from him if it gets her in the White House. Besides, it helps her to get those jabs out there early and make it yesterday’s news by the time she gets the nomination.

The problem is, you all are playing checkers while the Clintons and Trump are playing chess. Think about it: if this is collusion between them, it completely fits within the MO of what the Clintons and Trump have done in the past. Trump being a true blue conservative does not fit with his MO.

Hey Republicans, Maybe We Should Consider Electing Someone With Integrity

The Demoncrats sold the meme in 1976 that Carter was a man of integrity, after “evil Dick Nixon”.
Unfortunately, Jimmuh turned out to be more schmuck than saint—lusting in his heart, turning to his grade school daughter for advice, running from rabbits—form over substance, & we’re still plagued with the jackazz over thirty years later.
Give me `Gordon Gekko’!

Sorry, immediately accusing me of being for the opposite side, with no evidence for that accusation, is not an example of maturity. I don’t care if it’s your online or offline persona. And if you distinguish between an online and offline persona, then that is also a lack of integrity.

Excellent article, hopefully it will make some very nice and very intelligent folks hereabouts realize that they are being deceived by a "man with no character. None".

Really? This is rational argument?

1. Trump doesn’t have integrity
2. Carter was sold as someone with integrity

Therefore, I assume your conclusion is

3. We should elect someone without integrity.

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.