Donald Trump And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Jimmy Buffett once wrote that there are good days and bad days and going half-mad days. For President Trump, August 21 will go down in history as one of the latter two options. Bad news supposedly comes in threes and Tuesday was no exception. The string of bad legal news for the president may make the day a defining moment in the midterm elections, if not the entire Trump Administration.

The worst news for the president was the revelation that his “fixer,” attorney Michael Cohen, had agreed to a plea deal. Cohen’s plea goes beyond damaging Mr. Trump through guilt-by-association since the counselor fingered his client, the “candidate,” as the person who directed him to make hush payments to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Mr. Trump. In other words, President Trump is directly implicated in illegal activity.

Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, admitted in May that Mr. Trump had reimbursed Cohen for the payments, but claimed that the president was unaware that the money had gone to buy the women’s silence. Cohen’s statement under oath is at odds with Giuliani’s version.

The second piece of bad luck was expected but will still sting. Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was found guilty on eight counts of tax fraud, bank fraud and hiding foreign bank accounts. Mr. Manafort faces up to 80 years in prison and still faces other charges as well, including a possible retrial on ten counts where the jury failed to reach a verdict.

Manafort’s conviction does not directly involve Donald Trump or the 2016 election, but it does involve Russia. Manafort worked for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Putin dictator of Ukraine, before he worked for Trump. Manafort was accused of hiding payments related to his Ukrainian work and faces additional charges of money laundering and failing to register as a foreign lobbyist.

The third piece of bad news was also somewhat of a surprise. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and his wife were indicted on charges of using $250,000 in campaign contributions to finance a lavish personal lifestyle. Rep. Hunter had been under investigation since 2017, but the timing of his indictment was unexpected. Hunter’s legal problems only involve President Trump in that they are both Republicans, but it will make the president’s life much more difficult over the next few months and beyond.

Hunter’s indictment comes only a few weeks after another Republican congressman, Chris Collins of New York, was indicted for insider trading and subsequently suspended his campaign. With the midterms rapidly approaching, the two indictments, along with Manafort’s conviction, paint a picture of Republican corruption that could have effects that reach much farther than the two congressional districts that are suddenly more vulnerable to Democratic challengers.

The day’s events leave President Trump to face two different but overlapping problems. First, is the direct legal threat to the Trump presidency from Michael Cohen’s testimony. Because the payments violated campaign finance laws, it is almost certain that Donald Trump will now be subpoenaed to testify under oath. Three presidents have been subpoenaed, but the power to subpoena a sitting president has never been tested in court. President Trump may break new legal ground if and when his subpoena comes, if he chooses to resist.

It is less clear whether a sitting president can be indicted. Justice Department guidelines say that the president can only be impeached, but there may be exceptions. Courts have never ruled on the question so any attempt to indict the president would likely face years of appeals. Either a subpoena or an indictment could spark a constitutional crisis.

The indirect threat to the president is that the seemingly endless parade of corruption may sway the midterm elections. Democrats are already enjoying advantages in fundraising and voter enthusiasm while Republicans must contend with a wave of retiring incumbents. As the headlines trumpet the legal problems of a growing list of Republicans, the party’s image will be tarnished for other candidates. Corruption is always bad, but especially for a party elected on promises to “drain the swamp.” Democrat control of one or both houses of Congress would create a crisis of a different sort.

If nothing else is certain, the events of August 21 did make one thing clear. Despite Mr. Trump’s fervent wishes and tweets, the investigations of his administration will not be going away anytime soon.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Valerie Jarrett pronounces Obama scandal-free

Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama, triggered a collective national “WTF” moment on Sunday when she said on CNN that the Obama Administration had been scandal free. Jarrett, who might have been playing Rip Van Winkle for the past eight years, said, “The president prides himself on the fact that his administration hasn’t had a scandal and he hasn’t done something to embarrass himself.”

Pardon us while we scoff.

The Obama Administration started off with a scandal as a plethora of Obama appointees, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, were revealed to be tax cheats. The problem didn’t go away after the original round of confirmations in 2009. In 2012, Investor’s Business Daily found that 36 Obama aides owed almost a million dollars in back taxes.

The president’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was tainted by backroom deals to get Democrats on board. The phrase “Louisiana Purchase” took on new meaning as the revelations of $200 million for Louisiana’s Medicare in exchange for Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote angered Americans. In the end, even with the secret deals, Obamacare required quasi-constitutional maneuvering to get through the Senate with no Republican votes.

Does Valerie Jarrett not consider it embarrassing that the president was awarded the dubious distinction of having told the Lie of the Year by Politifact for his statement that, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” As it turned out, many Americans could not keep their plans because insurers canceled them since they didn’t comply with the new law. Even plans that weren’t canceled weren’t the same after Obamacare. Premiums skyrocketed as new federal mandates went into effect.

How about the Solyndra scandal? Obama’s administration put hundreds of millions of dollars into green companies, many of which promptly went bankrupt. Does that count as a scandal?

How about Fast and Furious? Obama’s ATF released illegal guns into Mexico where they were used to arm drug cartels. One of those guns eventually killed a US Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry.

Is the politicization of the IRS worthy of being called a scandal? The targeting of political opponents by the Internal Revenue Service is positively Nixonian. The main difference is that Nixon’s IRS commissioner refused to comply with similar unethical orders from the Nixon White House.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why do Christians (still) rally around Trump?

As Donald Trump plummets in the polls like a brick dropped from the Trump Tower, I have to wonder why Christians are rallying to his defense while Mormons are willing to stand up to him. After the release of Trump’s sex tape last Friday, Utah’s Republican delegation to Congress was quick to denounce the party nominee and withdraw their endorsements. As a Southern Baptist, I expected many evangelical Christians to follow suit. I was wrong.

According to Christianity Today, only one Christian leader repudiated Trump. Instead, many evangelicals have rallied to defend Trump. Dr. James Dobson denounced Trump’s comments and then quickly pivoted to attack Hillary Clinton on abortion and religious liberty, as did Ralph Reed. Franklin Graham said that Trump’s comments “cannot be defended” and does not endorse any candidate, but said that “the most important issue of this election is the Supreme Court.” Sam Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference said that God uses “broken people to accomplish great things.”

Many Christians choose to emphasize God’s forgiveness. What they forget in their rush to forgive Trump is that forgiveness requires repentance (Luke 17:3). Has Donald Trump repented? There is no sign that he has. Last year, Trump was unclear on whether he had ever asked for forgiveness and said that he tried “not to make mistakes where I have to ask for forgiveness” according to the Christian Post. The Bible says that all, including Trump, have sinned (Romans 3:23). When asked about repentance, he said, “I think repenting is terrific.”

I shouldn’t be surprised that Christians are excusing Trump’s behavior. They’ve been doing it for the past year. Most of the discussions about Trump’s sex tape discuss it in a vacuum, as if it is the one blemish on an otherwise spotless record. In reality, I realized long before the revelations of the “Access Hollywood” tape that Trump’s career had been a long history of corruption and lies. He had bragged about cheating on his wife. He had allegedly committed fraud with Trump University. He had boasted in the Republican primary about paying elected officials for favors. Trump was vulgar, insulting and a fountain of false statements. Christians loved him.

Franklin Graham reportedly compared Trump to Moses and David and said that he was better than the alternative. Jerry Falwell, Jr. endorsed Trump over all other Republican candidates last January. Christians compared Trump to the Biblical king, Nebuchadnezzar and pointed out that God used ungodly men to accomplish his will. Eric Metaxas, the author of a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Christian martyr who died resisting Hitler, said in Christian Post that “sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for the person who is going to do the least damage or who is going to pull you back from the brink.”

My neighbor, Carter, had a large “Veterans for Trump” sign in his living room and gushed, “I think we need a successful businessman.” Jay, one of my coworkers and a devout Christian, would watch Trump press conferences and chortle, “I love this guy.”

To be fair, not all Christians loved Trump. There were a few who stood on principle and told the truth about the “truth-teller.” Two Southern Baptists, Russell Moore and Albert Mohler, were among the few who spoke out against Trump early on. The Religion News Service lists more, such as Max Lucado and Erick Erickson. Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wisc.) penned “the Evangelical Case Against Donald Trump” last February.

In a supremely ironic incident, Mark DeMoss, a board member at Liberty University, was forced to resign after criticizing Donald Trump’s speech there. I had thought that religious liberty and the freedom to speak your mind were major reasons that Christians supported Trump. Those liberties apparently do not extend to opponents of Trump, at least at Liberty University.

Most of my Christian friends who support Trump seem to do so for three reasons. First, is the Supreme Court. Never mind that Trump backed away from the list of conservative jurists that he promised to use to fill court vacancies. Second, is his purported pro-life platform. Never mind that Trump was the only Republican candidate who supported Planned Parenthood throughout most of the primary, only changing his mind last month. Third, is religious liberty. Never mind that Trump refused to support the First Amendment Defense Act and that he seems disagree with Christians on gay rights. Trump’s commitment to religious liberty seems to not extend past allowing churches to be politically active. Fourth, when all other defenses fail, Trump is “not Hillary.”

In fact, Trump is so “not Hillary” that his supporters seem willing to excuse any sin on that basis. I have watched friends and colleagues that I knew and respected reluctantly board “the Trump Train.” Often, when they do, it’s like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Once they commit to Trump, all moral concerns fail. No matter what Trump does, it’s all about defeating Hillary because no one is worse than Hillary.

They quickly fall into the moral equivalence trap. They criticize Hillary’s lies, but never mention Trump’s. The condemn Bill Clinton’s behavior, but make excuses for Trump’s. They argue against Hillary’s liberalism, but dismiss Trump’s. One friend, Martin, dismisses Trump’s outlandish and insulting comments as saying “silly things.” Any criticism of Trump leads to the accusation that I must be a closet Hillary supporter and a liberal. They are no longer the people that I had known and respected, using logical fallacies in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

But I still wonder why Mormons, who share many moral beliefs with Christians, are much more outspoken against Donald Trump. It may be because Trump poisoned the well against Mormons during the primary. The socially conservative sect is at odds with Trump’s crude, profane, materialistic lifestyle. As Religion News Service points out, most Mormons are also not anti-immigrant, their forebears having been forced to flee other parts of the country for their religious beliefs. When Trump proposed his Muslim ban, the politically neutral LDS Church responded with a statement on religious freedom. Trump also has made statements that Mormons consider insulting.

While Trump was alienating Mormons, he was pandering to Christians. Early on, he made the promise that people could say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” if he was elected. But haven’t we always? Buzzfeed revealed in August that Trump needed prepping from his handlers to know how to answer questions about Christianity and social conservatism. An early tipoff of his insincerity was his “Two Corinthians” flub. Trump blamed Family Research Council Tony Perkins for his gaffe according to CNN.

If Donald Trump is biblically illiterate so are most Americans. That is another reason Christians have been slow to offer opposition. A recent survey by Lifeway found that most Americans believe the Bible, they just don’t know what it says. The survey found that, as a whole, evangelical Christians actually knew less about Christian beliefs than Americans at large.

If Christians were reading their Bibles, they might know that Paul commanded them “not to associate with sexually immoral people” (1 Corinthians 5:9) and that “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Corinthians 15:33). As Donald Trump bellowed, “I alone can fix it” at the Republican National Convention, they might have thought about Jesus’ warning that “false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24).

One bright spot is that evangelical women seem to be waking up. The Christian Post reports that author Beth Moore and Chelsen Vicari, Evangelical Action Director at the Institute of Religion, have both condemned Trump’s lewd remarks.

In another Christian Post piece, Julie Roys, a host for the Moody Radio Network, says, “I honestly don't know what makes me more sick. Listening to Trump brag about groping women or listening to my fellow evangelicals defend him.” She also calls the prospect of Hillary Clinton “a disaster of historic proportions.”

“Donald Trump may do less damage to the country than Hillary,” Roys wrote, “but he's done far worse damage to the evangelical church than anyone in recent history. And let's remember, the church — not politics — is the only real hope of reforming the character of this nation and saving it from destruction. That's why the witness of the church is simply not worth trading for a political victory.”

Roys is right. Trump has revealed many Christians to be moral hypocrites. This has hurt their standing in their communities. On a business trip to Atlantic City last spring, my friend Rob, who is an atheist, gleefully snapped pictures of the Trump Taj Mahal. He said that he wanted to use the photos to show Christians who they were campaigning for. The character of many Christians will remain tarnished long after the election is over.

Roys acknowledges the difference between a reluctant vote for Trump and actively making excuses for him. “If you feel you must vote for him to prevent a Clinton presidency, then go ahead, plug your nose and vote,” she writes. “But please, don't argue like Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition that ‘a 10-year-old tape of a private conversation’ should ‘rank low’ on our "hierarchy of concerns.”

After the election, when the smoke clears and the Trump supporters wake up to the hangover of four years of Hillary Clinton, elected because of their unfaltering support for an extremely flawed, dishonest candidate, maybe Christian Trumpers will realize what they have wrought. Their defense of Trump’s immoral behavior has degraded the whole culture and done serious damage to American Christianity. The church has become hot for politics and “lukewarm” on Jesus and morality. It may be time for a rebuke.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is Trump really better than Hillary?

imgflip.com

As we wind down to the final weeks before the election, a large percentage of voters remain undecided on whether to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or someone else. Unlike previous elections, many undecided voters are educated, savvy conservatives who have not committed to Donald Trump, a Wall Street Journal analysis reported. Like me, many of these voters are repelled by both candidates.

Donald Trump may not be perfect, the argument goes, he may say silly and offensive things, but he’s still better than Hillary Clinton. It’s true that the one thing that Donald Trump has going for him is that he isn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t mean that he is necessarily better than Hillary. As we learned from Barack Obama in 2008, “change” doesn’t always mean “better.” Let’s look closer at Mr. Trump to find out whether he truly is the lesser evil.

My problems with Trump can be boiled down to three areas: character, policy and judgment. It isn’t just that Trump says silly and insulting things. He seems to be a genuinely bad and untrustworthy person.  On many levels, his character flaws are astonishingly similar to those of Hillary Clinton. His ideas are as flawed and half-formed as his character, often seemingly thrown out on a whim, only to be retracted or disavowed later. Likewise, Trump’s judgment is quick, brash and often wrong.

Uncharacteristically bad

The most obvious character flaw of both candidates is their propensity for lying. Their relationships with the truth are so nebulous that they both lie about small, stupid, easily disprovable things. They lie even when they don’t have to. The Daily Wire compiled a list of 101 of Trump’s lies, hardly all inclusive, and, after analyzing his speeches, found that, on average, he lied every five minutes. In 2015, after half a year in politics, Politifact gave Trump the “Lie of the Year” award, not for one specific fib as it did for President Obama, but for lifetime achievement. The sheer volume of Trump falsehoods floods the zone of anyone trying to keep him honest.

Trump’s fundamental untrustworthiness is underscored by corruption that also rivals that of the Clintons. The most famous instance of Trump’s corruption is the Trump University case where Trump stands accused of being a literal con man who bilked novice real estate investors out of tens of thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money. That is not the full extent of his corruption, however.

Trump has a long history of using eminent domain, the government seizure of private property, to take homes from the poor to build or expand his luxury properties. In one famous case, Trump tried to use eminent domain to bulldoze the home of Vera Coking, an elderly widow, in order to build a parking lot for his Trump Plaza hotel and casino in Atlantic City. Trump lost that case in court.

The Trump Plaza was one of several Trump casinos that went bankrupt in the early 1990s, leaving investors and creditors on the hook for most of the losses. Trump’s casinos were funded with debt that left them unprofitable when most casinos were thriving. Trump also left a trail of unpaid bills from contractors and employees in his wake, according to an investigation by USA Today. Among the people he allegedly stiffed were bartenders, waiters and other hourly employees who sued Trump – and won –  for unpaid wages.

In 1973, Trump and his father were named as defendants in a suit by the federal government for violations of the Fair Housing Act. The charge was segregating the company’s rental buildings by refusing to rent to minorities like Maxine Brown, a 33-year-old black nurse. A New York Times investigation found a long list of racial complaints against Trump Management on file at the New York Commission on Human Rights. The Trumps settled and agreed to desegregate their buildings in 1973.

In spite of having illegal immigration as a signature issue, Trump also has a long record of violating immigration law at his companies. In the 1980s, Trump used illegal Polish immigrants on construction projects. Several former models have also accused Trump of exploiting them and hiring them to work without U.S. work visas. The women say that Trump Model Management taught them how to circumvent U.S. immigration and labor laws. As recently as last year, many Hispanic workers on at least one Trump construction project were reported to be illegal aliens.

Trump also has a corrupt foundation to compete with the corrupt Clinton Foundation. In a serious scandal that is just emerging, the Donald J. Trump Foundation made an illegal payment of $25,000 to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi a few days before she decided not to pursue a case against Trump University. Shortly after the decision, Trump held another fundraiser for Bondi at his Mar-a-Lago mansion. The Trump Foundation also gave $100,000 to a group that sued the New York attorney general who sued Trump over Trump University.

Numerous reports indicate that Trump has invested little in his charity foundation yet has profited handsomely from it. The Washington Post found that Trump used the Trump Foundation’s charitable funds as his own piggybank. Trump used charity funds to settle a legal dispute with the city of Palm Beach, Florida. The agreement had stipulated that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club would pay for the settlement. Trump also used charity funds, which were almost entirely donated by others, to buy portraits of himself and advertise his hotels.

If that were not enough, Trump is accused of having ties to the mafia resulting from his use of mob-owned firms in construction projects and his days as an Atlantic City casino operator. Trump also took $150,000 from a September 11 fund earmarked to help small businesses recover from the attack. Trump said that the payment was for helping victims of the attack, but the New York Daily News found that the funds were issued for “rent loss,” “cleanup” and “repair.”

Trump and Hillary both share a lack of character that is disturbing to see in a possible president. Further, the scale of corruption is not an indication of who is more corrupt. As Jesus said, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much” (Luke 16:10). One bit of corruption makes a person completely corrupt.

Left of center

Even if Trump’s character is just as bad as Hillary’s, who has no shortage of corruption and incompetence charges herself, it might still be tempting to vote for Trump if he could be trusted, under close supervision, to enact a broad agenda of conservative reform. What does Trump stand for?

Several issues stand out where most reluctant Trump supporters say he is preferable to Hillary Clinton. Unlike Hillary, they say, Trump won’t threaten the Second Amendment or raise taxes. He’s better on religious liberty and abortion, they argue. Is he?

On many issues Trump is incoherent and the Second Amendment is no exception. CNN chronicles his “evolution” on gun control. Prior to running for president, Trump supported assault weapons bans and waiting periods. Even today, Trump takes the Democrat position that people on TSA watch lists should be banned from buying guns. In contrast, Hillary supports expanding background checks and reinstating the same assault weapons ban that Trump supported before he ran for president.

On taxes, the Trump campaign has advanced a plan that would cut income taxes, but at the same time he has left open the possibility of another tax increase, saying last May,” “I am willing to pay more, and you know what, the wealthy are willing to pay more.” Trump has refused to reveal exactly how much he does pay in taxes. In August, he revised his tax plan with higher rates than he had proposed in the primary. Clinton has proposed a bevy of tax hikes that would fall primarily on wealthy Americans and businesses.

Often not discussed as taxes are Trump’s tariffs, huge tax increases on trade. Trump bragged that his views on trade were “very similar” to those of Bernie Sanders. Trump’s massive tariffs on trade with Mexico, China and Japan and the possible destruction of NAFTA, one of the most successful trade agreements in history, would be devastating. Trump’s trade policy would make items more expensive for American consumers and businesses. One study found that Trump’s tariffs would cost Americans more than $11,000 per year. This is much more than they would save from income tax rate cuts. The Wall Street Journal, the most conservative paper in the country, found that Trump’s trade policy would likely start a trade war and fuel a recession that could cost 5 million jobs.

On religious liberty, Trump was the sole Republican of the final four not to pledge to sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to protect gay marriage dissidents from federal action. Trump was critical of Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, for her faith-based refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When asked about protections for Christian businesses in a meeting with evangelical leaders, Donald Wildman said, “Either he doesn’t understand it or he doesn’t agree with us and he doesn’t want to tell us that.” Trump’s main focus in the battle for religious liberty seems to be allowing churches to endorse candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

On the subject of abortion, Trump is particularly incoherent. As late as March, Trump was praising abortion provider Planned Parenthood and was the sole Republican to resist cutting funding for the group. Trump may have set a personal best for flip-flops when he took five different positions on abortion in three days. Most recently, two months before Election Day Trump reinvented himself as a staunch abortion opponent.

The flip-flops and liberal positions don’t stop there. Trump said that he wants to repeal Obamacare. The hitch is that he has said he wants to replace it with government-funded, universal healthcare.

On spending and the debt, Trump said just last month that “this is a time to borrow.” Trump would use those borrowed funds on an infrastructure stimulus spending package that is twice as big as the one that Hillary proposes. Entitlements are the largest driver of deficit spending, yet Trump refuses to consider entitlement reform.

For those who would like to see pro-business regulatory reform, Trump does not look promising. He has advocated more banking regulation by reviving the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited banks from diversifying into insurance. He also unveiled a plan to require businesses to offer paid maternity leave, a tax-and-spend plan to be paid for through state unemployment taxes.

On the economy, Trump did a full flip-flop with a half twist when he suddenly decided to back another progressive position and call for an increase to the minimum wage. Trump advocates an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour. In the past, he has advocated a minimum wage as high as $15 per hour while also arguing that “wages are too high.”

Trump dislikes other treaties in addition to NAFTA. He has threatened to reconsider American defense alliances with both NATO countries and South Korea. In spite of Trump’s criticism of Obama’s not-a-treaty with Iran, he has no plans to scrap the nuclear deal. When it comes to fighting ISIS, Trump’s call for attacks with aircraft and drones and the establishment of a coalition are essentially the same strategy that President Obama has employed.

What makes Trump especially dangerous…

Trump is a liar and a man of poor character. He also does not exhibit core principles and tends to default to leftist positions. So does Hillary. But wait, as they might say in a Trump University infomercial, there’s more! Donald Trump displays several difficulties that are so uniquely bad that they should disqualify him from the presidency, even if the only other alternative is Hillary Clinton. Many of these problems stem from Trump’s poor judgment.

When most people think of Trump’s lack of judgment, they think of things like how he mocked a disabled reporter or set about with the character assassination of the parents of a fallen American soldier. In reality, his errors in judgment go far beyond such trivialities to attacks on civil liberties and statements that would be matters of war and peace if he were president.

In statements reminiscent of Barack Obama, Trump threatened Washington Post and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos with an antitrust investigation after the Post assigned 20 reporters to investigate The Donald. Trump also has said that he wants to “open up” libel laws to make it easier to sue the press.

Those who dislike President Obama’s abuse of his executive authority to bypass Congress, should expect more of the same from Donald Trump. Trump has said that Obama “led the way” on Executive Orders and that he is “going to do a lot of things” with executive actions.

Trump’s embrace of conspiracy theories also sets him apart from other politicians. Trump has advocated theories ranging from birtherism to 9/11 trutherism to the bizarre claim that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Trump is either very gullible or cynically exploits believers in conspiracy theories for publicity. Perhaps both.

It may be Trump’s poor judgment that garnered his endorsement from ISIS. Yes, the terrorist group ISIS has expressed support for Trump according to multiple sources cited in “Time.” One ISIS supporter said, “The ‘facilitation’ of Trump’s arrival in the White House must be a priority for jihadists at any cost!!!” [emphasis his]. “I ask Allah to deliver America to Trump,” wrote another.

From the Middle East to Mexico, where Trump refused to rule out the possibility of going to war over payment for his wall, Trump’s errors of judgment are the product of willful ignorance and a bully mentality. Interestingly, the bully backed down when he actually met Mexican President Nieto face-to-face, only to launch a salvo of bombast when he was safely back across the border in Arizona.

The final two problems between Trump ‘s judgment are egregious. Either one should disqualify a candidate even without the consideration of any other issue.

First, Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin is naïve and dangerous. Trump’s admiration for Putin is seen in his campaign staffing and may have impacted his proposed foreign policy on Ukraine. Trump has surrounded himself with pro-Putin advisors such as Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Flynn. There is strong evidence that the Russians are trying to influence the election on behalf of Trump. Donald Trump has an obvious blind spot when dealing with Vladimir Putin and Russia that could be dangerous. In fact, Trump’s affinity for Putin is already making the precarious situation in the Ukraine worse.

In the first presidential debate, Trump became the first person to ever seriously suggest that Iran could be used to rein in North Korea. Trump was apparently not aware that the two rogue nations have long cooperated on their missile and nuclear programs.

Finally, there is the fact that Trump has openly advocated political violence on numerous occasions. In my near-half century, I cannot remember a single candidate who has encouraged his supporters to “rough up” political opponents as Trump did. Trump also made a veiled threat that there would be “riots” if Republicans contested his nomination at the convention. Violence has been mostly absent from American politics since the 1968 riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago. Until Trump. For that reason alone, he cannot be trusted with power.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both poor choices. They are both progressive. They are both liars. They are both corrupt. The both have poor judgment. They would both be destructive for America.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Many Democrats side with Rick Perry on indictment

In the days since Rick Perry’s indictment on charges of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official, many prominent Democrats have condemned the move by a Texas special prosecutor. As Perry’s attorneys announced on Friday, August 22, that he would seek to have the charges dismissed on constitutional grounds according to the El Paso Times, a large number of Democrats around the country agree with Perry that the governor’s actions were not criminal and were protected under the Constitutions of Texas and the United States.

Although Perry’s indictment was initially applauded by many on the left, the flimsy nature of the charges quickly led many liberals and Democrats to condemn what USA Today called a “bid to criminalize politics.” Even the New York Times called the indictment “the product of overzealous prosecution” and opined that “bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony.”

The indictment stems from a dispute between the governor and the Travis County District Attorney. The DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, was arrested for drunk driving in April 2013 with a blood alcohol content almost three times the legal limit. While in custody, Lehmberg had to be restrained. Video of her arrest was posted online by KOKE, an Austin radio station. When Lehmberg was convicted, Perry argued that she had lost public confidence and should resign. When she refused, Perry ultimately vetoed $7.5 million in state funding for Lehmberg’s office in June 2013. Lehmberg is still serving as the Travis County DA, but is not planning to seek reelection in 2016.

The fact that Lehmberg’s office had investigated the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, one of Rick Perry’s pet projects, for corruption muddies the waters. The criminal investigation into the cancer institute concluded in December 2013 without targeting Perry or his staff according to the Wall St. Journal. Although cited by Democrats as a motive for Perry’s veto, the indictment does not mention the cancer institute investigation.

First to break ranks was David Axelrod on August 16. In a tweet, Axelrod, a former Clinton advisor, called Perry’s indictment “pretty sketchy.” Three days later, Axelrod defended himself in a series of tweets after receiving “unhappy emails” from anti-Perry Twitter followers,

Lanny Davis, formerly the special counsel to Bill Clinton, joined Axelrod’s dissent a few days later with a column in The Hill. Davis called the indictment “shameful” and wrote that “whether Perry was right or wrong in vetoing that funding… is not relevant. The voters get to decide that issue.” Davis called the indictment “a perversion of the criminal justice system, a classic case of prosecutorial abuse, to indict Perry as a way of deciding the wisdom of his veto.”

Davis goes on to scold Democrats for the presumption of Perry’s guilt. “It is even more outrageous to anyone who cares about due process and civil liberties,” he writes, “to read the comments from local and state Democrats in the state Texas Democratic Party about the Perry indictment.”

“In fact, an indictment is evidence of nothing,” Davis continues. “It is literally just an accusation, not even close to proven facts.”

Self-proclaimed liberal Democrat and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees, saying that Perry’s veto threat is “not anything for a criminal indictment” in an interview on NewsMax TV. Dershowitz called the two statutes that Perry was accused of violating “reminiscent of the old Soviet Union” and says this is “what happens in totalitarian societies.”
Mark Halperin, political analyst for Time Magazine and MSNBC and author of “Game Change,” a book about the 2008 election, called the indictment “the stupidest thing I think I’ve seen in my career” on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He continued, “I hope some judge throws it out right away. It’s not just kind of funny and ridiculous; it’s an infringement on individual liberties.” Halperin noted that Perry doesn’t lose his First Amendment rights “just because he’s governor of Texas.”

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, author of the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog for the Washington Post points out several legal problems with the indictment for abuse of office. First, the Texas law requires that the public servant must have “custody or possession” of the property that was misused. Perry never had possession of the Public Integrity Unit funds since his veto prevented them from ever being appropriated. Second, Volokh notes that vetoing funds is not a misuse of funds or a violation of Perry’s oath of office. Finally, Volokh notes that vetoes are legal under the Texas Constitution, even to influence other officials, which Volokh calls “behavior that is commonplace in the political process.”

The Volokh Conspiracy also finds fault with the charge of coercion. Volokh cites the 1990 decision by a Texas court in State v. Hanson in which the Court noted that “Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression.” The decision also pointed out, “Freedom of speech must encompass the liberty of elected officials to discuss matters of public concern without prior restraint or fear of punishment. A vague statute that potentially could punish protected political debate violates due process because of its chilling effect on the exercise of that essential right.”

Perhaps USA Today summarized the problem with the case best: “The case rests on a highly dubious legal argument: Perry can exercise his rights of free speech to seek Lehmberg's resignation, and he can exercise his power of the line-item veto over use of state funds. But, supposedly, he can't do them in tandem.”

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

Obamacare ruling is election wild card

The Affordable Care Act finally gets its day at the Supreme Court this week. Although it may be several weeks before the Court publishes its ruling on the case, it is a sure thing that, whatever the ruling is it has the potential to have an explosive impact on the elections in November.

There are four likely outcomes for the Supreme Court ruling. First, the Court could rule that challengers to the law have no standing to sue since they have not had to pay the fine for not purchasing health insurance. This would delay a decision on the law for two to three years until after it takes full effect. Most observers consider this unlikely. Next, the Court could uphold the law in its entirety. Conversely, the Court could strike down the entire law. Finally, the Court could throw out part of the law, the individual mandate for example, and allow the remainder to stand.

The ruling will have an uncertain effect on the election. Hints at how the voters will view the ruling can be gleaned from two recent polls. According to Rasmussen, likely voters have never favored the health law. Immediately after passage in 2010, repeal was favored by a margin of 55-42 percent. In the most recent poll, taken on March 17-18, repeal was favored by 56-39 percent. Within those numbers are 46 percent who strongly favor repeal versus only 29 percent who strongly oppose it.

In a USA Today/Gallup poll of adults, Americans were split 45-44 percent on the question of whether passage of the ACA was good or bad, but the same poll shows that 38 percent believe that the law will make things worse for their family. Only 24 percent believe it will make things better. A strong majority of 72 percent believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Only 20 percent believe that the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a fine is legal under the Constitution.

Since Americans overwhelmingly oppose the ACA, Republicans have the most to gain from the Supreme Court’s decision. A victory for the administration or a muddled outcome, such as a decline to rule on the law or striking it down only in part, seems likely to aid Republicans because of the large number of Americans who strongly oppose the law. If the Court leaves the law largely intact, Republican candidates who promise to repeal the law if elected will tap into that voter anger. Anger at Democratic spending and the expansion of government fueled a landslide Republican victory in 2010 and if the Supreme Court upholds the ACA it could fuel a similar result this November.

Democrats have little to gain electorally from a Supreme Court victory. If the law is upheld, it may keep President Obama’s legacy from being tarnished as it would have been if it was found unconstitutional, but Obamacare is still a fundamentally unpopular law that was enacted without the support of the people. A reform that was supposed to have kept health insurance costs down has instead contributed to their increase at twice the normal rate of growth according to Kaiser and the cost of the law, which was touted as a plan that would reduce the deficit, is now projected cost almost double the initial estimates. If the law goes into effect, people may well find that there is even less to like about it than was previously thought.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who is also an orthopedic surgeon, told Newsmax.com, “Both fiscally and for the sake of our health care system, Americans cannot afford the president’s healthcare law. The longer the president’s healthcare law remains on the books, the greater the threat it poses to our nation’s healthcare and our fiscal well-being.” He continued, “The CBO’s revised cost estimate indicates that this massive government intrusion into America’s health care system will be far more costly than was originally claimed. The law’s true cost to American taxpayers is part of a series of promises President Obama and Democrats in Congress made that will be broken.”

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court strikes down the law, it won’t necessarily help Republicans or hurt Democrats. A major source of contention will have been removed from the political landscape and voters who would have voted for Republicans because they opposed the ACA may move to other issues where they are more moderate. Similarly, the voters who favor the law, almost all of whom are probably Democratic voters anyway, are unlikely to be influenced by an unfavorable Supreme Court decision.

The biggest casualty of a decision sustaining Obamacare and the individual mandate would likely be the American people’s faith in government. Public opinion has been against the bill from the very beginning. Revelations of backroom deals like the “Cornhusker Compromise” and the “Louisiana Purchase” further hurt the law’s image even before it was passed. The abuse of parliamentary procedure to avoid a Republican filibuster further inflamed public opinion.

The United States has reached a point where trust in government is near 20-year lows. According to Gallup, only 19 percent trust the government most of the time. In a separate poll from Gallup last year, the federal government rated dead last in approval among a list of industries. The -46 percent net approval rating put the federal government at a historic low. Notably, respondents told Gallup that they rated state and local governments far higher than Congress or the president.

The Supreme Court is viewed more positively. Gallup’s approval rating for the Court is 46 percent versus 40 percent who disapprove. This can be compared to the approval rating for Congress at 12 percent. Sixty-three percent of Americans still trust the Supreme Court. However if the Supreme Court votes to uphold an unpopular law that was never wanted by a majority of the American people, a law that the majority of voters believes overwhelmingly to be unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court may face the same loss of trust and approval that the other branches of the federal government have experienced.

This is the great tragedy of the Obama era: that a president who once had the support and admiration of nearly all of the country, a president who pledged to eschew the “politics of cynicism” for the “politics of hope,” would become even more divisive than his predecessor; that a president who once preached the practicality of compromise and the need for national unity would use his position to short-circuit the democratic process, circumventing the will of the people and their elected representatives in Congress. The unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act and federal government itself is symbolic of the failure of President Obama to unite the people of the United States.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/obamacare-ruling-is-election-wild-card

Dueling Curmudgeons for Georgia Governor Candidates

Just over a month prior to the general election, most of the buzz in Georgia surrounds two dueling ads from gubernatorial candidates Nathan Deal and Roy Barnes. Both ads feature gray-haired grandfatherly men who fifty years ago would likely be seen sitting on a bench outside the local filling station. The modern versions have the men sitting it a café with red-checked tablecloths.

The first ad was released by the Republican Governors Association on behalf of Nathan Deal. The ad attacks Barnes record as governor on the issues of education and jobs. The ad makes the claims that Georgia was “dead last” on education and “led the nation in job losses.” Politifact.com analyzed the claims in the ad and found that while Georgia was near the bottom when comparing graduation rates and SAT scores for 2002, the end of Barnes’ term as governor, it probably wasn’t dead last. With respect to job losses, there is evidence that Georgia lost almost 80,000 jobs after 9/11, which was more than any other state.

To read the rest of this article, please click the link below:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5848318/dueling_curmudgeons_for_georgia_governor.html?singlepage=true&cat=8

Candidate Profile: Nathan Deal for Governor *Updated*

John Nathan Deal is a native of Millen, Georgia. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Mercer University in Macon, before joining the US Army. He served as a Democratic Georgia state senator from 1981 to 1993, before being elected to the US House of Representatives as a Democrat in 1992.

After the landslide Republican victory in 1994, Deal says that he became uncomfortable being the most conservative Democrat in the Georgia congressional delegation. In April 1995, four months after beginning his second congressional term, Deal changed parties and became a Republican. He served continually as a congressional Republican until he resigned to run for governor. Deal announced his resignation on March 1, 2010, but delayed leaving office in order to vote against President Obama’s health care reform bill.

At the time of his resignation, Deal was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for using his influence as a congressman to preserve a no-bid contract for his salvage business. Deal was accused of using his congressional email account to discuss personal business with officials of the Georgia senate and Department of Revenue. Deal was concerned with changes that Revenue Commissioner Bart Graham had proposed to a program that earned Deal’s company an estimated $300,000 per year. Deal’s company had worked with the state for twenty years (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scandal-surrounding-Rep-Nathan-Deal-R-Ga-79319837.html ). After his resignation, the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report that said Deal may have exceeded congressional limits on outside income and used his US House office and staff to preserve a private stream of money coming from a no bid state contract (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35154.html).

Deal has placed his complete side of the story on his campaign website. You can read his version of events here: http://www.dealforgovernor.com/the_real_story.php.

Deal has said that the deal was not improper and that he had reported it each year to the House Ethics Committee. Deal also says that the report is incomplete because neither Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle nor Revenue Commissioner Graham cooperated with investigators. Cagle refused to cooperate and Graham said that he could not provide the information requested by the investigators without a subpoena. Since Deal resigned, the matter never went to the next level, which would have been the House’s Committee on Standards. Deal is also facing a state ethics investigation over the use of campaign funds to pay some of his legal fees from his federal ethics investigation (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ethics-commission-investigating-deal-complaint-95978069.html).

More recently, Deal also came under fire for failing to report $2.85 million in business loans on state election disclosure forms (http://www.ajc.com/news/deal-failed-to-disclose-615412.html). He also took out loans to invest in his daughter’s sporting goods business, which went out of business in 2009. Deal and his wife owe $2.3 million, which is greater than the current market value of their home. There is a possibility that Deal will have to file bankruptcy, but he has vowed to avoid that step.

Here are some of Deal’s positions on prominent issues:

Life: Deal is endorsed by Georgia Right to Life. He is rated 100% by National Right to Life and 0% by NARAL. He also earned a 93% rating from the Christian Coalition.

Gun Rights: Deal has an A rating from the National Rifle Association.

Jobs and Economy: Deal is rated 93% by the US Chamber of Commerce. This indicates a pro-business voting record. His rating by the AFL-CIO was 20%. He would like to fuel growth in biotech and medical services through private lending and state capital investment company. He would also like the UGA’s Small Business Development Centers to offer technical and advisory assistance to complement venture capital investment. Deal wants to eliminate wasteful items from the budget and focus on education, transportation, public safety, and healthcare.

Education: Deal is rated 17% by the NEA. This indicates a voting record against the education establishment. He would develop charter schools to focus on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and fund universal pre-k and the Hope Scholarship. Deal would like to give local school districts more flexibility, while holding them accountable for results. He wants to eliminate forced teacher furloughs, while giving teachers the opportunity to help solve the education crisis. He would like students to be able to move on when ready, rather than having allotted times that must be fulfilled.

Taxes: Deal was rated 69% by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), which they consider a satisfactory rating. He would like to cut Georgia’s corporate tax rate, the corporate “net worth” tax, and allow exemptions for business inventory. He would also exempt businesses from taxes in their first ten years. For individuals, Deal would enact a 6% flat tax, exempting those who earn $7,000 or less. He would also eliminate the marriage penalty. Deal supports the federal Fair Tax and is endorsed by John Linder. Finally, Deal has signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge to not raise taxes.

Immigration: Deal has said that he would work to pass legislation in Georgia similar to Arizona’s immigration law. On the federal level, Deal would like to close the “anchor baby” loophole, in which children born in the US are automatically granted citizenship, even if they are here illegally.

Transportation: Deal supports a regional approach that allows communities to prioritize and fund their own transportation needs. He wants to find alternative east-west routes to relieve congestion in Atlanta.

Healthcare: Deal supports medical malpractice reform and will continue to oppose Obamacare.

My Two Cents: Deal may be a crook… then again he might not be. It’s hard to tell what the truth is with both sides so willing to lie and misrepresent the issues. At the very least, he is guilty of bad judgment and not paying close enough attention to his filings. That is not a good thing in a candidate for governor.

Regardless, Deal’s platform most closely resembles my own beliefs. He proclaims a belief in small government, individual liberty, free markets, and low taxes. What’s more, his congressional voting record backs up his claims.

His website contains the most comprehensive plans for his administration of any of the three gubernatorial candidates. Most of his ideas are good ones that reflect conservative principles. Beyond the attack ads, this election is going to be about whether Georgians will have free markets or centralized planning and government stimulus on the state level.

Corruption in elected officials is never good. Deal was not my first (or second choice) in the primary. Nevertheless, corrupt officials can still be effective administrators. I don’t like voting for someone whose record is as questionable as Deal, but given the alternative, I think that he is the best choice for the state.

Sources:
http://www.dealforgovernor.com/index.aspx
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nathan_Deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Deal
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scandal-surrounding-Rep-Nathan-Deal-R-Ga-79319837.html
http://blogs.ajc.com/gold-dome-live/2010/03/29/ajc-investigation-report-finds-deal-violated-ethics-rules/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35154.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Nathan_Deal.htm
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/04/27/nathan-deal-says-hed-implement-arizona-style-immigration-laws/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/nathan-deal-georgia-lawma_n_207485.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ethics-commission-investigating-deal-complaint-95978069.html
http://www.ajc.com/news/deal-failed-to-disclose-615412.html

Ethics vs. incompetence in the Georgia governor race

Georgia’s gubernatorial race is quickly devolving into a mudslinging contest between former House member Nathan Deal and former Governor Roy Barnes. It seems unlikely that neither party’s primary voters could have found a better standard bearer for their party.

Deal had a strong conservative voting record in his years in Congress, but faced ethics charges for state contracts that his company received. Deal resigned to run for governor before the investigation could be completed, but now the state Ethics Commission is investigating allegations that Deal improperly used campaign funds to pay legal fees associated with the federal probe. Deal maintains that he did nothing wrong and fully disclosed his business dealings each year.

Deal’s problems have been compounded by recent revelations about his personal finances. It was recently revealed that Deal has $2.3 million in business loans coming due in February (http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/deal-says-bankruptcy-not-614486.html). The loans, which stem from business loans to Deal’s daughter for a failed sporting goods business in Macon, may force Deal into bankruptcy or lead to the foreclosure of his home.

For his part, Roy Barnes has no ethical challenges against him, but is offering little that is new. For instance, on his website, Barnes said that one of his first actions would be to retrofit government buildings and schools with energy and water efficient technology. In his Peach State version of the stimulus, Barnes believes that government spending is the way to restart the faltering Georgia economy. A question left unanswered is where the money would come from to pay for these construction and renovation projects. Two likely answers are more debt or increased taxes and fees on Georgians.

Barnes, who has already served one term as governor but failed to win re-election. His education programs which angered teachers and his removal of the Confederate emblem from the Georgia state flag contributed to his defeat. In fact, Barnes has spent much time on the campaign trail apologizing for his past performance as governor (http://politifact.com/georgia/statements/2010/sep/15/republican-governors-association/barnes-and-obama-sorry-gop-says/).

One thing that both candidates agree on is the need for tax reform. Barnes would like to enact reform to stem the rising tide of property taxes in the wake of the large numbers of foreclosures over the past few years. Deal’s economic plan focuses on tax relief to businesses to foster economic growth. Deal also supports the Fair Tax.

National politics will also play a role in Georgia’s elections this year. In what promises to be a big year for Republicans, it will take hard work from Deal to buck the tide the Democratic losses. Around the country, conservative and moderate voters are energized to come to polls to oppose the Obama agenda. Republican state candidates will likely benefit from the opposition to Washington. Nevertheless, Deal seems to be struggling mightily to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Further, a victory for Roy Barnes would likely mean that Georgia will pull out of the state lawsuit against Obamacare. This might not affect the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit since many other states will keep it moving forward, but it might mean that Georgia would abide by federal law rather than seeking a way to escape federal mandates.

So Georgians face a Hobson’s choice this year for governor. On one hand, Nathan Deal has solid conservative principles that would normally be popular in a year in which voters seem prepared to soundly reject the Democrats’ Big Government philosophies. On the other hand, Roy Barnes, known as “King Roy” during his first term has a history of ignoring the voter’s wishes and is pushing programs similar to President Obama’s unpopular and failed stimulus. It boils down to a choice between questionable ethics and judgment on one side and incompetence and bad ideas on the other.

You can find more information on both candidates by visiting their websites and viewing the candidate profile pages below.

Nathan Deal
http://nathandeal.org
http://www.examiner.com/carroll-county-elections-2010-in-atlanta/candidate-profile-nathan-deal-for-governor
Roy Barnes
http://www.roy2010.com
http://www.examiner.com/carroll-county-elections-2010-in-atlanta/candidate-profile-roy-barnes-for-governor


Sources:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35154.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ethics-commission-investigating-deal-complaint-95978069.html
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/deal-says-bankruptcy-not-614486.html
http://politifact.com/georgia/statements/2010/sep/15/republican-governors-association/barnes-and-obama-sorry-gop-says/

Sex, Lies, and Gov. Sanford

The news media is abuzz with the revelation of South Carolina Governor Mark Stanford’s infidelity. In case you hadn’t heard, the governor spent Father’s Day weekend in Buenos Aires, Argentina with his girlfriend. The cat was let out of the bag when his staff was unable to contact him for several days and something akin to a panic ensued. Upon his return, he admitted the affair. The episode presumably ends any presidential aspirations that Gov. Sanford may have had.

When a Republican finds himself in a sex scandal, there is always a much bigger to-do than when a Democrat is in similar trouble. Compare the media treatment of Senators Larry Craig (the airport bathroom), David Vitter (DC prostitutes), and Rep. Mark Foley (texting to underage male pages) with Democrats like John Edwards (whose affair the press did not report on until after the presidential campaign when the National Enquirer broke the story) and Bill Clinton (Monica-gate). It seems that the press always gives the Republicans much more scrutiny.

This rule doesn’t apply just to sex scandals. It also applies to financial misconduct. Compare the coverage of Rep. Tom Delay and Senator Ted Stevens (accused of misconduct with lobbyists) to that of William Jefferson (caught red-handed with thousands of dollars of cold, hard cash in his freezer). The Jefferson story was all but ignored. The press also looks the other way on corruption stories regarding Democrats Chris Dodd, Diane Feinstein, Tom Murtha, and Charles Schumer (among others). After the one-sided coverage in favor of Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign, there can be no doubt that most media outlets are strongly biased toward the Democrats.

Whether sexual or otherwise, the media minimizes and ignores Democratic scandals while playing up Republican ones. In many cases, this is appropriate. The difference is that, rightly or wrongly, Republicans are perceived as being the party of family and religious values, personal responsibility, and integrity. Republican politicians are only too happy to accept the votes and support that this perception brings, while failing to live up to their own standards in both national financial responsibility as well as their personal morality.

On the other hand, Democrats seldom make such claims. To the contrary, much of the Democratic platform is geared toward preventing people from being accountable for their actions. If someone is sexually irresponsible, the Democrats believe that they have a right to abort their “mistake.” If someone is financially irresponsible, the Democrats believe that they are entitled to a government bailout. This is equally true for corporations and individuals. Instead of holding criminals responsible for their actions, the Democrats blame the gun they used or the environment in which they live.

After a scandal breaks, morally responsible Republicans should own up to their mistakes. Contrary to media beliefs, no one ever said that Republicans, conservatives, Christians or anyone else was incapable of making mistakes. We are all human and all humans sin (Romans 3:23). We should not attempt to hold anyone to an impossibly high standard.

Whether a Republican deserves support after a scandal depends on the circumstances. We should not categorically support all Republicans regardless of their actions just because they are not Democrats. Neither should we abandon all Republicans at the first hint of scandal. In Ted Stevens' case, the charges against him were thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct, but only after he lost his senate seat to a Democratic challenger.

There are several factors to consider. First, is whether the actions were intentional or not. Even if the actions were unintentional, they may have been the result of gross negligence or carelessness. We should also consider whether the scandalous actions were illegal and, if so, to what level. If the person is found guilty of a felony, then he should be removed from office in most cases. A misdemeanor or something less might not require this. Finally, but not least, we must consider whether the person’s actions affect their ability to fulfill their duties. If so, then they should not be supported. (It is worthy to note that Bill Clinton committed perjury and was found guilty and impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate did not remove him from office. Throughout the process, he continued to receive high levels of support from Democrats and the votes were largely along party lines.)

Conservatives and Republicans are right to be held to a higher standard. Public officials who are charged with writing, interpreting, and enforcing laws should be held to a higher standard than the general public. Republicans and conservatives who are Christian should meet an even higher standard: The standard of WWJD – What Would Jesus Do? As Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, this means avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, sexual or otherwise.

If more Republicans took Paul’s advice, there would undoubtedly be fewer Republicans in trouble and the Republican Party would be considered much more trustworthy by the electorate. Recently polling indicates that conservatives make the largest ideological group in the US. 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative (versus 35% moderate and 21% liberal) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx). The problem is that 39% of Americans consider themselves Democrats and only 32% consider themselves Republicans (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends). A significant number of conservatives actually consider themselves Democrats! By continually violating their own core beliefs, Republicans have alienated voters.

So when the media attacks a Republican or conservative for making a moral mistake, don’t get angry. This is as it should be. Don’t rush to abandon them at the first sign of trouble either. Wait for the facts and don’t believe every negative thing you hear. Shockingly, the media has been known to rush stories critical of Republicans even when they are short on facts (Dan Rather’s story about George W. Bush’s National Guard service that was based on fraudulent documents).

Republicans and conservatives should be beacons of integrity that not only highlight the difference between Republicans and Democrats, but also Christians and nonbelievers. When Republicans stop being hypocrites, then maybe they will win back the public trust.

Save the criticisms of media bias for issues that don’t deal with morality. We should continue to work for a level playing field when the media deals with policy matters and facts.

Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends


Villa Rica GA
June 25, 2009