The Trump Running Mate Question

I continue to watch in dismay as many of the people I consider to be great conservative minds flounder each week as they write articles about Donald Trump. Half of their articles are about trying to convince the GOP base to vote against Trump and the other half of their articles seem to reflect their confusion as to why none of the base is listening to them. It is clear that many of these astute minds have been going to DC dinner parties for too long and would do well to go live in “fly over” America for a while to regain perspective. The latest of these articles are being written as commentators across America are accepting that Republican voters have decided that Trump will be the nominee and are starting to discuss who his Vice Presidential running mate might be.

George Will is one of my favorite writers and I had high hopes when I saw he’d written a new article titled “In case of Trump nomination, break glass“. I had hoped that perhaps he was referencing the so-called “glass ceiling” and was going to reference that wisdom of perhaps choosing a female running mate to shore up his supposed problem with women voters. Instead, I read an article about how the GOP should help him lose in November so Republicans can preserve their 162-year old party identity. It’s a shame really. I respect George Will but have to conclude that he’s been “inside the beltway” for too long and can’t see that conservative voters and like-minded independents are drawn to Trump specifically because they no longer fit into that old party identity.

Next, I read a National Review article titled “Weighing Trump’s Running-Mate Options” with hopes of a more balanced outlook on potential Trump running mates. Instead, it’s just a rather simplistic analysis of running mates suggested by Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza’s recent article. Both articles accurately suggest why several possible candidates would not be helpful and both articles fail to mention several much more likely candidates. Both articles correctly mention Iowa Senator Joni Ernst as one smart possibility and both correctly mention that Ohio Governor John Kasich is basically throwing paper plane-folded resumes in Trumps direction but those are about the only smart comments in either article.

It is reflective of their deep dislike of Donald Trump that so many good writers are ignoring the many more likely candidates for the Vice Presidential running mate position. My first pick would be South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, a popular female conservative governor of Indian descent. Showing South Carolina much love, I would also suggest that their Senator Tim Scott, a well-liked black conservative who is also an awesome public speaker, would be on the short list of potential nominees. Governor Susana Martinez, the female governor of New Mexico, would also be a very good pick. Also look at Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada. And closing out my wish list would be the ideal candidate, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Any of these would bring solid conservative credentials to the ticket and eliminate many of the supposed negatives that Trumps blunt speaking style have generated.

The GOP establishment has spent the past week starting to come to terms with the fact that Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. And some are starting to see that he even has a better than even chance of beating Hillary Clinton in the general election. They are starting to notice that Trump is consistently bring in crowds of over 10,000 wherever he goes while Hillary Clinton’s events usually generate a few hundred. They see that Bernie Sanders has damaged her with the youth vote and that she is no where near as popular among black voters as the liberal media portrays her to be. This has every possibility of being a wave election that Trump rides to victory because of the dissatisfaction among all Americans with both major parties. I wonder when many of the more established conservative columnists will notice.

Ed Ruth

Trump on Abortion and Misspeaking

There is a reason that “polish” and “politician” sound so much alike. Politicians spend an entire career perfecting the art of controlling their words to hide their actual feelings and positions on any and all issues. Believe it or not, your favorite politician pays big money to polling firms and focus group companies so they can steer their message in a way that will gain the most votes. Then, like a movie star practicing for a roll, they practice their lines so they don’t slip up when making a public appearance.

Donald Trump is not a professional politician. If you ask him a business related question, he can talk at length and in depth about the issue. But when you ask a question about a social issue, especially a social issue like abortion which very few people have an absolute feeling on one way or another, then you’re opening Trump up for trouble. Which was exactly the intent of Chris Matthews, the MSNBC TV personality that asked him the question.

I call Chris Matthews a TV personality because I would never think of calling him a journalist. He gave up many years ago the mantle of an unbiased journalist. He’s about as far left as you get and why any Republican presidential candidate would agree let him do an interview, I do not know. If I were a GOP presidential candidate, I would agree to do a Chris Matthews interview when Hillary Clinton agreed to an interview with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

Donald Trump is running as a pro-life Republican candidate but he has decades of comments in print and on TV showing his pro-choice views. He says his views have changed over the years and that he is now pro-life with conditions related to the safety of pregnant women. It’s a pretty mainstream way of thinking and should serve him well with women voters in the general election. Liberal reporters know this and have been targeting him as a women-hater because capturing a large portion of the woman’s vote is the only chance Hillary Clinton has of being elected president.

Not being a professional politician is one of Donald Trump’s strengths. But there are weaknesses that come with that benefit. One of them is that he is not trained to look into a camera and lie to us like so many politicians do on a daily basis. If we truly want to get away from having professional politicians Who can lie to us without batting an eye, then we have to give nonprofessional candidates the benefit of the doubt and let them clarify a position when they misspeak.