Replies

Conservatism espoused on the floor of the Senate for show votes is meaningless. Conservatism defined by a laundry list of 20 issues on which a candidate asserts a position (most of which are meaningless as, for example, a position on gay marriage only relates indirectly into who you will select to be a Supreme Court Justice) and then adding up the points is the wrong way to look at it.

On December 8, 1941, issue number one for any conservative was who would prosecute the war and protect America's people and its interests. Roosevelt did some things well, and some things (like giving the Soviets half of Europe) badly. But he united the country in the goal of winning a war up to the unconditional surrender of America's enemies. If the best person on tax policy and Supreme Court justices been worse for the country on prosecuting the war, a conservative, i.e. a person seeking the preservation of America, its culture, people and interests, would nt have supported that person. To do so would be to endanger America because of a dispute over regulation of corn prices.

America faces a couple of similar existential threats today. One from the inside, and one from the outside. Democrats and Republican establishment types seek to replace the American people (and already have to a great extent) with a new demographic entity filled with third world peasants, illiterates and pliant lefties. Coupled with a new generation of ill-educated American children, and there will be no America.

At the same time, America and all civilization are threatened from outside by an invasion from the Muslim world. Europe is already being overrun, and seems unable to fight back. Islam could be destroyed 1000 times over at this point in history if we wanted to. In 20-30 years, it might be destroying us. It needs to be stopped in its place RIGHT NOW and then rolled back as a belief system, in the same way that communism was destroyed as a monolithic belief system. (It continues in America under other names, but that is a different story).

Give me the best candidate on those two issues, and 8 years of battle, and I will happily support that man.

Cruz, I think, agrees with me on those two issues. But so does Trump. And Trump is a fighter, a populist, but not necessarily in the bad sense of the word. In the same way that Reagan was, someone who ignites a movement among people and can lead and inspire. He can expand the map to include states like NY and PA, and that is game over for Democrats.

I'm not sure that Cruz can be that guy, and I fear that his only role at this point is to help the establishment take down Trump. He will then be destroyed, and they will give us Rubio, who will open the floodgates.

Under your definition, and Rush's apparently, Rubio might be conservative. He's not; he will lead to our destruction as a people, and thereby, the end of conservatism.

Your scorecard definition of conservatism is not my definition. My definition is, who is most likely to preserve the ability of conservatives to take this country back and restore a Constitutional Republic? Trump is that guy. I will be happy to be wrong if Cruz is elected, but right now, I don't want to take the chance.