Republican Leaders Prefer the “Bad Girl” to the “Bad Boy”
[courtesy Google Images]
“The GOP presidential field mounted a last-ditch effort to derail Donald Trump ahead of Super Tuesday’s slate of primaries.
“Stunned by polls showing Mr. Trump easily leading in most of the dozen states that vote Tuesday—and a new poll showing him approaching majority support among Republicans nationwide—Republican leaders, strategists and candidates pleaded with voters to back away from Mr. Trump.”
Rank and file Republicans—ordinary Americans—have pushed Trump to the top of the polls. Republican leaders, however, are trying to derail Trump’s candidacy.
This controversy within the Republican Party is more than a difference of political opinions. This schism is evidence that the Republican leaders are trying to thwart and disregard the will of the Republican rank-and-file. Worse, it’s evidence that Republican leaders may have more in common with Hillary Clinton than with rank-and-file Republicans.
• This isn’t the only report of Republican leaders opposing (some say, “betraying”) rank-and-file Republicans.
ZeroHedge.com published an article entitled, “The GOP Is On The Verge Of A Meltdown: Senior Republicans Threaten To Vote For Hillary.”
Thus, elements of the Republican leaders aren’t only discouraging Republican voters from supporting Trump, they’re even warning they will personally vote for Hillary Clinton—a Democrat!—before they vote for the Republican Trump.
This conflict is particularly interesting in light of the Republican leadership’s demand late last year that Mr. Trump pledge to support whoever is nominated by the Republican Party and not start a third-party candidacy if he’s not nominated by the Republican Party. Mr. Trump agreed to support whoever the Republican Party nominates.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership made no similar pledge. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, Republican leaders recognize no obligation to support Trump in the actual election.
You’d think that the Republican Party leaders would be obligated to support the Republican Party’s candidate if only in the name of party loyalty.
However, if you thought that, apparently, you’d be wrong.
All of which raises a very interesting question: If Republican leaders aren’t bound by party loyalty to support whoever the Republican Party nominates, to whom are those Republican leaders really loyal?
• The willingness of some Republican leaders to turn their backs on Trump is evidence that these Republican leaders’ loyalty is not to the Republican Party, but may be to a single “establishment” that includes both Republican and Democrat leaders—but does not really include the ordinary, rank-and-file people who identify with either political party.
Trump is the #1 contender for the Republican nomination because the ordinary people of the Republican Party want him to be their candidate. By rejecting Trump, Republican “leaders” are essentially saying “screw you” to rank and file Republicans who’ve pushed Trump to the top of the polls. These Republican “leaders” don’t lead, and they refuse to follow and they won’t serve the will of the rank-and-file majority. Apparently, these leaders’ only objective is to control rank-and-file Republican voters and lead them into neo-fascism and/or the New World Order.
• I have no idea how many Republican leaders are actually working against the Republican Party’s current determination to nominate Donald Trump. Perhaps there’s only a handful of such disloyal Republican “leaders”. But if there’s only a few “bad apples” in the Republican Party leadership, why don’t the purported majority of leaders who are “good apples” run the bad ones out of the Party?
Whatever the answer that question may be, the perception of widespread Republican leader disloyalty to the Republican Party is exactly why so many people are sick of the Republican Party. Republican leaders exhibit a persistent hypocrisy and pattern of betrayals of the GOP’s rank-and-file members.
The Republican leadership betrays rank-and-file Republicans by routinely cooperating with Obama. They betray the rank-and-file by working against Trump and perhaps even for the Democrat candidate, Hillary. These “leaders” are betting that the rank-and-file will accept these betrayals because there’s no other viable political option other than to vote for Democrats. Having no viable, third political option, the rank-and-file Republicans can either put up with the Republican leaders’ decisions or shut up.
But in that perceived treachery, these Republican “leaders”—no matter how few they may be—only kindle a smoldering determination in the hearts of ordinary Republicans to nominate Donald Trump, no matter what.
But, Trump’s nomination isn’t really the issue. The issue is Who’s really running the Republican Party? The rank-and-file majority? Or the minority of Republican leaders?
Trump isn’t being nominated by ordinary Republicans to defeat Hillary. He’s being nominated to defeat the treachery found in the Republican Party’s leadership.
• Republican leadership’s treachery isn’t new. In A.D. 2008, before the Democrat nomination for president was decided, an attorney associated with Hillary Clinton uncovered evidence that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and was therefore ineligible to be elected president. To this day, the question of Obama’s eligibility to be president has not been resolved. The one birth certificate Mr. Obama submitted as proof of his U.S. birth turned out to be photo-shopped and therefore fraudulent.
I’m not going to argue here whether Obama was, or was not, eligible to be President.
However, I will argue that the issue of Obama’s eligibility remains unresolved and has therefore been valid for the past eight years.
I’ll also argue that eligibility issue could’ve played a decisive role in determining who won the Democrat nomination in A.D. 2008 and who won both the A.D. 2008 and A.D. 2012 presidential elections.
I’ll argue that it’s odd to the point of being almost inconceivable that Hillary Clinton—who probably wanted (and wants) to be President more than any other living person—and also every PAC supporting her nomination refused to raise the issue of Obama’s eligibility during the 2008 Democrat primaries.
Hillary’s failure to raise that issue probably cost her the 2008 Democrat nomination. That failure told me that someone or some institution more powerful than Hillary decided that Obama should win the Democrat nomination—and Hillary accepted that decision without public complaint. Who th’ helk is big enough to shut that woman up?
Worse, in A.D. 2008, evidence of Obama’s ineligibility was readily available to all of the Republican Party’s candidates for President—and not one of them raised that issue in public. Not one of the PAC’s associated with the Republican Party or conservatism raised the eligibility issue. Even John McCain and Sarah Palin, the Republican nominees for President and Vice President, inexplicably failed to raise the eligibility issue.
I believe that issue could’ve caused a 5% swing in voters from Democrat/Obama to Republican/McCain. Maybe more. That issue could’ve defeated Obama and elected McCain. And yet, not one Republican or conservative PAC raised that issue prior to the ‘08 election.
I was shocked then. I remain shocked today.
By refusing to publicly raise the eligibility issue, the Republican Party’s leaders apparently chose to lose the election.
• I’ve never believed that Hillary’s and the Republican Party’s failure to raise the eligibility issue was accidental. The silence of both parties concerning Obama’s eligibility demonstrated to me that both major political parties are subservient to some single, higher “power”. Neither party is independent. Both appear to be controlled by a “higher power”.
The identity of the person or institution that seemingly pulled the strings of both political parties is unknown to me. I can only infer the existence of that “power” much like astronomers can infer the existence of small, unseen planets from seemingly inexplicable, gravitational effects on other planets.
Following that A.D. 2008 inference to this year’s election, it appears to me that whoever wielded the power to select Obama in A.D. 2008 is wielding that same power today to defeat the Trump nomination. Trump, it seems, will not “just follow orders” from the “power”.
In order to defeat Trump, Mitt Romney—a time-tested loser—has reportedly entered into the race for the Republican nomination for President. There’s little doubt that Romney’s candidacy is intended to derail the Trump nomination. There’s little hope that Romney could actually be elected next November. But if Romney could win a few primaries and siphon off enough support from Trump to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination on the first round of balloting at the Republican convention, there’d be a second round of balloting that would free some or all delegates to vote for anyone they liked and thereby defeat Trump’s nomination—and probably guarantee Hillary’s election.
Do Republican leaders mind if the Republican Party loses in November? Apparently not.
Do Republican leaders mind that, by working openly to defeat their own party’s frontrunner, they’ll probably throw the election to Hillary Clinton? Apparently not.
The apparent willingness of Republican Party leaders to throw the election to Hillary in order to defeat Trump will only increase many people’s determination to support Trump as well as view the Republican leadership with contempt. (Those leaders really are “Rino’s”—Republicans In Name Only.)
• I can’t yet prove my argument or inferences, but the evidence still seems sufficient to suppose that the Republican Party’s leadership has been captured by an external “power” that intends to control the Republican Party’s rank-and-file, rather than serve them.
As I’ve said since A.D. 2008, what this country needs is a viable third political party that’s not subservient to any other political force, movement or power. The Republican Party’s leaders “Jihad” against Trump supports my contention.
If Republican Party leaders won’t support the rank-and-file Republicans’ choice for President, then either those leaders must be ejected from the Republican Party, or the Republican rank-and-file must leave that party in search of a viable third party that will support their interests and objectives.
P.S. Since I first published the previous article in American Survival, someone else read it and sent the following link. Even if I still “can’t yet prove my argument and inferences” concerning the Republican Party’s leadership having been captured by an “external” power, I’m not alone in that suspicion.
Here’s a video of Newt Gingrich saying the same thing:
video 00:00:24
