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.

Actually Trump is very well liked by people who personally work with him. Penn Jillette - no conservative - said he really likes Trump and everyone who worked with Trump on the TV show felt the same. Trump’s ex wife defends him loudly against the false rape allegations and other nonsense.

Now Rosie O Donnell has never liked him so you have that going for ya

I should have clarified that statement.

I did not mean that there are no intelligent, outspoken voices on this subject.

I'm a huge admirer of Jeff Sessions, and in an ideal world, he would have been one of the candidates on that stage.

The problem is that, like Senator Sessions, anyone who does have the clout and intent to address this subject are consciously excluded from decision-making power by sheer weight of the corporate-media-political complex that demands unfettered mass immigration from the third world.

I’m sure he’s personally likable, but in service of himself he’s screwed over a lot of people in his life. His talent for ingratiating himself back into good favor with some of them doesn’t take away his track record.

Many of his business ventures were stupidly done out of ego, there’s clear evidence for that. And this presidential run is being done for the same reasons, out of collusion with Hillary, or both. No matter which way it turns out, it’s not a platform that allows you to reliably predict how he’ll govern.

In two years he could just as easily turn around and say that everyone who wants to build a wall is a putz. And he has a track record of doing that kind of thing. And are the Trumpbots going to feel better because he’s good at getting you to say thank you while he sticks his knife in your back?

I cannot get over the absurdity of some FReepers, and they don’t even realize it when they do the absurd thing.

We have watched the Left trash us unmercifully for literally decades. Clear back into Reagan’s day they bashed, trashed, and lashed out at us.

How many thousands of times have we said, “Dammit, why doesn’t our side defend our values and our honor?”

Along comes a guy who dishes as good as he gets, and all of a sudden he’s described as a rude obnoxious bastard who would destroy our nation.

They actually said that about Ronald Reagan too. Do you realize that?

Donald Trump is not the perfect man.

Frankly I haven’t seen one on our side. We can talk about the flaws in every candidate. And yep, every one of them has them.

All these supposedly Conservative sites that are outing themselves right now, are losing standing with me.

I’m not the only one either.

Yeah, and after all, who cares if he replaces our high tech industry workers with a lot more H1-B visa holders?

And of course one more massive trade deal costing more U. S. Citizens their jobs, is nothing to worry about.

He told us he was against it, and then voted for support legislation.

If you folks want to continue on with trashing people, you’re going to find plenty of others will want to join in.

You are a clown.

A false charge of lack of integrity...Trump and his proposed policies are the polar opposite of these GOPe phoneys...Why even try to compare them??? Trump doesn’t fit in with the GOPe yet he is allowed to run for President within their group...They are going nuts trying to figure out how to get him out of their club...

The people are seeing it as a rose springing up among a bunch of dandelions...And what a sight it is...

I was totally on board with the first part of your comment. Then you lost me with the last part.

You said:
“How many thousands of times have we said, ‘Dammit, why doesn’t our side defend our values and our honor?’”

A dishonorable man is not able to defend our values and honor, no matter what he says. He’s not defending our values and honor, he’s just dishing back. That’s not a reliable leader.

I don’t reject him because he’s a rude, obnoxious bastard, I reject him because he has shown no mooring in his life except serving himself and talking about how great he is. That’s not just a flaw, that’s a man who came late to the conservative party and shows evidence he’s not staying long.

OK, we are mostly on the same page. But I think the reason Trump is getting attention on this issue is not that he helps but because he makes people who oppose the illegal’s invasion look bad.

I am concerned about Trump’s probable third party run. The only way to stop that is if his poll numbers drop to near zero. There are probably not enough people here on Free Republic to make a difference but we have to start somewhere. We need to try to bring some sanity to the IMO unjustified support he is getting even here.

Frankly, the way you’re presenting yourself here on these threads against Trump, I don’t really care if you like anything I have said.

The man is presenting our views. You may not like it but he is presenting YOUR views. He’s doing it loudly and clearly.

Quit trying to frag him. He is on your side.

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. Pardon me for thinking that the Clintons have found a way to make this look easy. Theirs is an almost "can't lose" strategy at this point.

If I were to describe what you probably think of Donald Trump, it would go something like this.

He's brash, insulting, self-centered, egotistical, narcisistic, rude...

Another words, he's in it for himself.

He has donated to the Clintons. He's had pictures taken with them. They even came to one of his weddings.

Knowing what we know about the man, what does that tell you?

Does it tell you he was ideologically connected to them at the hip? This is a man too busy to be with his own family, but all of a sudden he's there to support the Clintons because he's ideologically one with them.

Trump had many guests at his wedding. I'll bet some Republicans were there too. Being in the New York area, there may not have been many highly visible ones, but I'll bet some were there.

We know that he donated very large sums of money to Republicans too. It was on the record.

So what do we make of this?

Where the Clintons at his wedding because he supported them, or is it more likely they were there as window dressing to make him look more important?

One day folks are telling me Trump is always in it for himself. The next day they tell me he was selfless and in it just to support the political policies of the Clinton's.

I suggest folks use these tactics to their best advantage, until they listen to Trump for the first time, hear what he has to say on issues very important to you and I.

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. And maybe they'll like what they hear.

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.