Trump won. Now what?

It’s no secret that I am and always was #NeverTrump. But nominee Trump is now President elect Trump and this change of position necessitates some introspection.

There are only a few ways to respond to this. Firstly, you can celebrate. Many people who voted for Trump are doing so, and they have the right to do so. The man they feel most represents their needs and values has been elected to the highest office of the country. Secondly, we can protest, but even here I believe there is a big difference between peaceful protests and protests meant to disrupt the changing of power. We should all heed President Obama’s words;

“The “peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy,” Obama added, insisting that come January, “we are going to show that to the world.” (Kosoff, Vanity Fair, Nov 9th)

Thirdly: We can accept it and hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.

There is a fourth option of course, we can bury our head in the sand and pretend it didn’t happen. Escapism can feel good at the time but is rarely beneficial in the long run. In fact, it is fascinating to me that just two weeks ago people were worried about Trump supporters delegitimizing the election and now it is potential democratic supporters who are attempting to do so. This is not to say that Trump should not have rightfully be called out for questioning the democratic process of free elections.

Here’s an example of his response to the 2012 election.

img_6851

Discounting the fact that Trump had his facts wrong and Romney actually lost the popular vote, it was wrong of Trump to tweet these things, and it is wrong for protestors to get violent in their opposition before he has even been sworn into office. As James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”  Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, we are not angels and government is necessary. Democracy is the best form of government we have so far been able to create. Until we come up with a better way, let’s stick with it even when we don’t like the outcome.

This is not to say there should not be a word of caution. In recent decades we have invested a lot of power in what has become known as “The Imperial Presidency.” For those unsure what this means, it simply implies that there are a lot more laws passed by executive fiat than by due process these days. Personally, that’s why I am against what Reid did to eliminate the filibuster for most Presidential nominees and appointees.

“Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.” (Kane, Nov 21st 2013 Washington Post.) 

You should never invest in government the power to do do what you don’t want your worst enemy to do once they are in power.

For that reason I support reinstating the filibuster for these processes. Having said that, would it not be a poetic justice to see Republican’s first use it to put in place those they wish. It will make certain that either side thinks twice before taking so drastic a measure once again.

It is essential that we allow checks and balances to be in place. The fact that these are somewhat neutered due to a Republican controlled congress and Presidency does not change the fact they should not be abused. All politicians are up for re-election and the voters can and should hold them accountable for positions they take, laws they pass and the character with which they do so.

Lastly, we owe Trump the benefit of the doubt. He is President and unless we wish to denigrate the 59 million people who voted for him we need to respect and and honor it. My liberal friends so often talk of tolerance, so show the American nation that you believe it. Stand up for your rights, protect those who need protect them, but show tolerance to those who hold different views while pointing out and attacking those laws you deem unconstitutional.

Finally – we are one America. If our fellow men and women are voting differently to how we would like it is because our leaders, our families and you personally have failed to persuade them there is a better way to live and believe. That should convict us all.

Media’s Shameful Covering Of Trump

Nothing is further from the truth than the media’s shrill cry of defense that of course they cover Trump, he is the front runner.

This tweet by CNN and Greta’s response sums it up.

FullSizeRender

The Tyndall Report shows that so far this year Trump has attracted more media attention than all the other candidates combined.

“To take just one example, look at coverage of the Trump Campaign on the old-school nightly newscasts of the three broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC combined), whose average audiences each evening total some 25 million viewers. So far this year, Trump has attracted more airtime (175 mins) then all other candidates combined (Hillary Rodham Clinton 60; Bernie Sanders 44; Ted Cruz 32; Marco Rubio 14 and so on — data through the end of last week, March 11th, weekdays only).”

Unless I’m sadly mistaken, Hillary is also a front runner, and what’s more, Hillary is currently the favourite to become the President. I don’t see any news stations cutting to show her rallies in full.

Looking further back we see that the media actually covered him more than all the other candidates before he was dominating the polls.
Trump Media before front runner

Honestly. Even if he was dominating the polls, should that account for this discrepancy?

Now, I’ve heard other journalists such as Hugh Hewitt say that he is willing to come on TV any time any place. That’s a fair statement, but the news stations demand that other candidates come on tv in person. With Trump they allow phone calls at any time. What’s with the double standard?

The Huffington Post covers one story, just one, where CBS refuses to let Trump phone in. This shouldn’t even be news worthy.

What makes this even more galling is the lack of questions to Trump about his campaign manager allegedly assaulting reporter Michelle Fields. Not until Trump put his campaign manager on stage during his ‘victory speech’ on March 15th did the media even seem to be annoyed by it. This is journalistic malpractice.

Add to this the fact that they allow themselves to be corralled by Trump into a closed off section of his rallies. He insults them constantly and refuses press passes to those who disagree and openly speak against him. Ask National Review about that.

The sad truth is, they’ve sold themselves out for ratings. At least CBS has the guts to admit that.

____________

Written by Michael Davies March 17th 2016

Will Florida Determine Rubio’s Future?

It has been apparent to everyone watching polls and results over the last two weeks that Rubio’s Presidential bid has come to a slow and somewhat untimely death. Untimely because the momentum is firmly against him as he stages an underdog fight in Florida. It’s a state that if won will allow him to leave the presidential race with dignity. If lost, or worse for the candidate, if Rubio comes in third place then some are arguing his political career will be over.

From one perspective this is certainly true. Without being on a presidential ticket Rubio will have limited political options in the near future. He can run for governor of Florida but having lost the state in a presidential primary that seems difficult and unlikely.

It might be that Rubio is young enough and politically adept enough to navigate a path away from a future of obscurity. The argument is that if he is disconnected from people and the political winds at this time, then perhaps he is not as politically aware as many first assumed. This seems like a reasonable argument, but there is another possibility.

Potentially Rubio has been very aware of the anger towards the establishment. Certainly he is aware of the need to help the working class. His tax, healthcare and higher education proposals are all geared towards help both the middle and working class. Yet throughout the campaign these have been drowned out by the anger of both Cruz and Trump. Perhaps Marco Rubio has become tone deaf, or perhaps he has decided that he would rather lose a campaign based on unity and hope than lead a campaign based on anger and division.

If that’s the case, then perhaps at some point in our future we will again find it reasonable to hope. Perhaps then Rubio might be more successful regardless of what happens in Florida on the 15th.

That’s certainly one way to read into this interview given on MSNBC. I’ll let you make your own decision.

Reported by Michael Davies