Republicans Shouldn’t Gloat Over Mueller Testimony

In 1960, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off in the first nationally televised presidential debate. Nixon, who was leading by eight points in the polls going into the debate, had been recently hospitalized and refused to wear makeup. Kennedy, tanned from the campaign trail, decided at the last minute to wear makeup. Visually, the two candidates contrasted sharply with Nixon appearing pale and unshaven and Kennedy looking tan and fit. People who listened to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won, but Kennedy’s edge with television viewers was enough to erode Nixon’s lead. Yesterday’s Mueller testimony was a lot like that.

For those of us who were unable to watch the hearings but were able to hear parts of it on the radio, Mueller sound calm, collected and careful. However, those who watched the hearings on television thought that Mueller underperformed. Much of the difference seems to be a question of style versus substance.

In the hours that followed, Republicans attacked Mueller’s style as well as his refusal to answer questions about the Steele dossier, even though his opening statement made clear that he would not comment on ongoing matters or privileged information from within the Justice Department. This is consistent with Mueller’s public statement in May in which he said that any testimony would not go beyond his office’s written report.

Mueller’s grueling testimony before two committees seemed to largely consist of Democrats baiting him to attack President Trump and Republicans attacking the Russia investigation vicariously through him and chortling when he failed to show that he had every passage of his two-volume report memorized. Mr. Mueller didn’t give either side what it wanted, parsing his words carefully as lawyers tend to do.

The main thrust of Mueller’s testimony consisted of four points which were emphasized in his opening statement. First, Mueller pointed out once again that the “Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” This fact continues to be downplayed by President Trump and Republicans. Second, there was not enough evidence to charge any member of the Trump campaign in a criminal conspiracy related to that interference. Third, the special counsel investigated attempts to obstruct justice and lie to investigators, but, fourth, “based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Even though President Trump and Republicans are celebrating in the aftermath of Mueller’s testimony, the grilling did more damage to President Trump’s image. In an exchange with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) Mueller conceded that Trump’s actions seemed to meet the three-pronged test for criminal obstruction that consists of an obstructive act, connection to an official proceeding, and corrupt intent.

In another exchange, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Hawaii), said, “We have heard today that the President ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The President ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we’ve heard the President ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he, you, stop investigating the President. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. And I like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President. Correct?”

“That is correct,” Mueller answered.

Lieu pressed, “The fact that their orders by the President were not carried out. That is not a defense because the statute itself is quite broad. It says that as long as you endeavor or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also constitute a crime.”

“I’m not getting into that at this juncture,” Mueller answered.

Later in the day, Mueller clarified his answer to Lieu, stating in his opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee, “Now before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m ready to answer questions.”

In another short exchange, Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) asked, “Isn't it fair to say that the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful?”

Mueller answered, “I would say generally.”

If the president’s written statement to investigators was untrue, then Donald Trump could be indicted for lying to investigators. In a separate exchange, Mueller did acknowledge that Trump could be indicted after he leaves office for crimes that he might have committed while he was president.

In another moment that directly contradicted Trump’s claims, Rep. Nadler asked, “The president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and it completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct, not what the report said,” Mueller answered, effectively calling the president a liar.

If Democrats failed to score a knockout blow at the hearings, so did Republicans. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out on Twitter, Mueller hardly seemed like the zealous head of witch hunt. Instead, the special counsel was very restrained and repeatedly failed to seize opportunities to attack Trump.

https://twitter.com/JonahNRO/status/1154039243863285762?s=20

One of his most direct criticisms of the president was Mueller’s statement condemning Trump’s 2016 embrace of WikiLeaks. When asked if Trump’s statements were a problem, Mueller replied, “Problematic is an understatement, in terms of what it displays, in terms of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

The hearings were not must-see TV, but they were not a bust either. For Republicans to celebrate that Mueller did not indict the president represents a low moment for the Grand Old Party. The facts consistently presented by Mueller paint the picture of a chief executive with no respect for the rule of law.

In the end, the allegations that President Trump acted to block the Russia investigation on multiple occasions stood. Democrats made their point that Trump’s actions meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice even if Mueller’s adherence to the OLC memo prevents him from saying so publicly. Republicans are left to defend a president whose actions can only be defended by saying that he was unsuccessful in attempts to obstruct justice because his subordinates failed to follow his orders.

Mueller’s testimony and written report show that on multiple occasions, Donald Trump tried to interfere with and block the Russia investigation. Either the president knew he was acting illegally, in which case he is corrupt, or he was ignorant of the requirements of his job and unwilling to listen to advisors who tried to help him. In either case, Trump is unfit for office.

Pelosi Reins In Nadler On Impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to discuss the Democratic strategy against President Trump yesterday after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s grueling day of testimony. Rep. Nadler (D-N.Y.) reportedly favored pushing forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump, but Pelosi continued to resist the move, arguing that the time was not yet right in later comments to reporters.

Sources speaking to Politico said that Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee asked whether an impeachment inquiry required a full house vote or could be started by the committee itself. Nadler answered that the Judiciary Committee has the power to launch the proceedings.

Pelosi continued to argue for a “slow, methodical approach” even though more than 90 House Democrats have already signed on to the idea of impeachment hearings. She noted that there are still several Democrat lawsuits pending against the Trump Administration on matters such as the president’s personal finances and tax returns. Pelosi also stressed that some support from Republicans or a shift in public sentiment was necessary. Nadler responded that public support for impeachment against Richard Nixon was low when the House began impeachment proceedings against him in 1973 but increased as news of Nixon’s illegal activities spread.

The Democrats agreed that their next step would be to file a lawsuit to enforce a congressional subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was a prime witness to the president’s attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. Per the special counsel report, the president ordered McGahn to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia probe, to pressure the DOJ about Mueller’s alleged conflicts of interest, to fire Mueller, and then told him to lie about his instructions from the president. House Democrats subpoenaed McGahn back in May, but he refused to comply after the White House instructed him not to cooperate, claiming executive privilege.

Although Pelosi is slow-walking the calls for impeachment, she appears to be considering the idea at the right time. At a press conference following the Democratic caucus meeting reported by Politico, Pelosi argued that more evidence was needed before an impeachment inquiry was launched.

“If we have a case for impeachment, that’s the place we will have to go,” Pelosi told reporters. “Why I’d like it to be a strong case is because it’s based on the facts — the facts and the law, that’s what matters.” She said that investigations are “not endless in terms of time.”

“The stronger our case is, the worse the Senate will look for just letting the president off the hook,” Pelosi added, hinting that she might allow impeachment to proceed even without the support of Republicans in the Senate.

“If it comes to a point where the cone of silence and the obstruction of justice and the coverup in the White House prevents us from getting that information, that will not prevent us from going forward and in fact, it’s even more grounds to go forward,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi’s calculations on impeachment are political as well as legal. The 2020 presidential campaign is heating up and Republicans are showing no sign of abandoning Donald Trump. Any impeachment inquiry would extend into the election season and distract from other issues. There is also the possibility that surviving impeachment would give the president enough of a boost to win re-election. So far, most Democratic presidential candidates have steered clear of the impeachment issue.

The likely reason why is that voters show little enthusiasm for impeaching Donald Trump. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 21 percent of registered voters wanted to begin impeachment hearings. Tellingly, 51 percent of independents oppose impeachment and think that Trump should finish his term.

Speaker Pelosi’s cautious approach seems to be the best plan for Democrats, who must both on reining in the current Trump Administration and preventing the president from winning re-election. Democratic overreach on impeachment could alienate the independents and moderates whose votes are needed to usher in a Democratic victory next year.

Under Pelosi’s strategy, President Trump will be the subject of more investigations and a continual dribble of unflattering information throughout the campaign. If support for impeachment builds, Pelosi will be positioned to capitalize on it. If not, she will have been building the case to voters that Donald Trump should be fired.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Overcoming Economy Is Big Hurdle For 2020 Democrats

Despite President Trump’s unpopularity, he does have one big thing going for his re-election campaign. If history is any indicator, the Democrats may have a difficult time overcoming the president due to the continued strength of the economy.

Axios pointed out earlier this year that every incumbent president since FDR who has avoided a recession in the runup to an election has been re-elected. On the surface, that would appear to be good news for Donald Trump, who has presided over an economy that grew 2.2 percent in 2017 and 2.9 percent in 2018 and a consistently low unemployment rate. Voters have typically rated Trump’s handling of the economy much better than his overall performance as president.

A recent focus group of swing voters, also reported by Axios, showed that many voters who switched from Obama to Trump, liked Trump’s economic policies, including his tariffs, even though they were put off by his behavior.

“His antics, mannerisms, and personality I could do without,” a member of the focus group said, “but I feel like there are a lot of good things happening in the country that people don’t like to admit.”

“Our economy would have to really crash for me to vote against him,” he added.

At only 12 participants the focus group’s size was too small to represent a statistical sample of voters, but their responses do elicit a number of questions. The most obvious is why, when the economy is seen as his strong point, Donald Trump chooses to focus on immigration and picking fights with low-level Democrats, strategies that seem to be hurting his standing with most of the electorate.

Headlines recently reported that the president reached an all-time average approval rating. The buried lede was that Trump’s all-time high was an embarrassing 42.7 percent. A comparison with the approval rating of other presidents (going back to Truman) at this point in their term by FiveThirtyEight finds Trump’s approval below every other president except Jimmy Carter, who went on to lose his re-election campaign.

Interestingly, George Herbert Walker Bush, the other incumbent who failed to win re-election, had a 70 percent approval rating at this point in his presidency. In 1991, the first Bush was riding high after winning Desert Storm, the first Iraq war, but a recession from July 1990 to March 1991 sparked by high gas prices after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve led to his defeat the following year. Two other factors, Bush’s decision to raise taxes despite a promise of “Read my lips: no new taxes” and a third-party challenge Ross Perot, also contributed to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

The second important point from the focus group is that if the economy falters swing voters could quickly abandon President Trump. The most serious threat to the Trump economy is something that his supporters view favorably: his trade wars.

Already, there signs that the Trump economy is not as strong as advertised. A growing number of economists see the potential for a recession before the election. Fortune notes that “the greatest downside risk is trade policy and increased protectionism.” This is especially true since trade talks between the United States and China, one of our largest trading partners, have been unproductive.

The concern about a recession is echoed by corporate financial officers surveyed by Duke University. CNN reported that almost 70 percent of CFOs cite the trade war and a shortage of skilled workers, which is exacerbated by President Trump’s restrictive immigration policies, as reasons that there will be a recession before the end of 2020.

The recession jitters are not unfounded. New data from the Federal Reserve released this week shows that US manufacturing is already in a recession after six consecutive months of declining production. The manufacturing slump is a direct consequence of the trade war. The decline in manufacturing spells trouble for Trump’s hopes of reclaiming the Rust Belt states that pushed him to victory in 2016.

There are other indications that Trump is in trouble on the economy as well. Despite the backing of participants in the focus group, a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that Trump’s standing on the economy may already be slipping. The poll showed that majorities now disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy in general as well his positions on taxes and trade negotiations. While two-thirds said that the economy was good, only 17 percent believed that they got a tax cut and only 15 percent saw the tariffs as beneficial.

As recession fears mount, Donald Trump faces a situation similar to the one that dashed the electoral hopes of the first President Bush. Trump’s tariffs, which are literally tax increases on trade, have offset the economic stimulus of the 2017 tax reform and are acting as a drag on the economy. Likewise, Trump may well have a strong third-party challenger who can siphon the votes of disaffected Republicans. If the economy slows to a recession, the situation will be very similar to the one that took down a much more popular president.

The flip side is that the Fed has indicated that it will cut interest rates in the near term. The expected cuts may goose the economy enough to drag Trump across the finish line.

Finally, there is the possibility that, as his supporters often say, that Donald Trump has created a new dynamic in Washington but not necessarily the way that they mean. Several polls over recent months have indicated that more than half of voters refuse to support President Trump for re-election for any reason. The aversion to Trump’s behavior, which one focus group member said is not “where it should be for a president,” may be strong enough that even a good economy will not assure his re-election.

With 16 months to go until the election and with no Democratic candidate holding a lock on the nomination, there are too many variables to predict how the election will turn out. Democrats should be cautious in their expectations about taking on an incumbent in a good economy. Trump’s economy might well sink into recession before the election, however, and, even if it remains strong Trump may have alienated so many voters that he loses anyway.

President Bush’s experience should be a lesson for President Trump. Clinton’s mantra during the campaign was “it’s the economy, stupid” while Bush allowed himself to be distracted. Just as importantly, Bush laid the seed of his own defeat with his tax increase, without which, the 1990 recession and the sluggish growth that followed might never have happened. Trump’s tariff taxes, which are slowing the economy, his focus on his unpopular immigration policies, and his unpresidential behavior may be the seeds of his own defeat.

Originally posted on The Resurgent

Nunes 'Expects Worst' From Mueller Testimony

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, says that he “expect[s] the worst” when former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before Congress next week. Speaking to Fox News, the California congressman said that he expects Mueller to show up for the testimony and hinted that what he tells Congress could be damaging to President Trump.

“I really expect the worst, because Bob Mueller does not have to show up,” Nunes said. “So, he's doing this on his own free will. That tells me the last time he operated on his own free will, everybody forgets, (Attorney General William) Barr came out with a memo, was very clear about the decisions that he had made, and then a few days later, Mueller decided on his own to go out and hold a nine-minute press conference.”

“So I am very concerned,” Nunes continued. “I think we should expect the worst because he only has to say a couple [of] things and the rest of the media -- not saying you here at Fox, but 90 percent of the media will take one little phrase and run with it and try to run towards impeachment.”

“And look, I know there was no collusion and I know there was no obstruction, so in that sense it was fine,” Nunes added. “However, there shouldn't -- this whole investigation was an obstruction of justice trap.”

Nunes fails to point out that avoiding the “obstruction of justice trap” was a simple matter. All the president had to do was not attempt to obstruct the ongoing investigation. Per the testimony of Trump Administration officials contained in the Mueller report, however, the president did not meet this low bar.

Since the Mueller report was released last April following a summary version by Barr in March, Republicans have claimed that Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction. However, Nunes’ uneasiness with Mueller’s testimony indicates that the claim is on shaky ground. Mueller’s previous public statement in May seemed explicitly tailored to counter Republican claims that the report had exonerated the president.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller pointed out in both the written report and his public statement. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

Not making a determination is not the same thing as an exoneration.

In his statement, Mueller went on to explain why his team did not make a determination as to whether President Trump broke the law, saying, “Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office…. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

“A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy,” Mueller continued. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

Mr. Mueller will testify in open session on July 24 before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. His testimony was originally scheduled for July 17 but was moved in order to give members of both parties more time for questioning. It is also possible that the change could have been due to the fact that President Trump had scheduled a rally in North Carolina for the same day, which could have distracted from Mueller’s testimony.

At this point, no one knows what Mueller will say in his testimony, but Republicans are obviously nervous that he will undercut their claims that President Trump did not obstruct justice in his attempts to block the Russia investigation. A question that is certain to be asked is whether Mueller would have indicted Mr. Trump for his actions if he had not been president. If Mr. Mueller answers directly, it could do more serious damage to President Trump’s already shaky reputation.

Another likely line of questioning involves Mueller’s letter to Barr contradicting his public characterization of the report. In the private letter sent after the release of Barr’s summary but before his decision to release a redacted version of the report, Mueller said that the public summary “did not fully capture the context nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions” and that it had led to “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

The bottom line is that if, as President Trump and Republicans have claimed for the past several months, that the president did nothing wrong then there would be nothing to fear from Robert Mueller’s testimony. The fact that Republicans “expect the worst” from the author of a report that the GOP has claimed exonerates the president should make us wonder how honest Republicans have been in their defenses of the Donald Trump.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Should Welcome Sanford Campaign

The Republican Party has long been a free-market party. The basic idea of free markets is that when there is competition between vendors, both buyers and sellers benefit. Competition forces sellers to be innovative and efficient and, in return, they have the opportunity to earn profits and market share with a well-run business. Buyers benefit from lower prices and a wider variety of products to choose from. So it is with Mark Sanford’s consideration of a primary challenge against President Trump.

Right now, the Republican Party is a monopoly. For years, I countered liberal claims that there was no diversity on the right by saying that Republicans had diversity of thought while the left largely engaged in groupthink. Today, however, that intellectual diversity is largely a thing of the past. Republican opinion ranges from those who enthusiastically agree with everything that Donald Trump says to those who reluctantly agree with almost everything that Donald Trump says. 

Enter Mark Sanford.

Sanford is a former governor of South Carolina who served from 2003 through 2011. In June 2009, he admitted to an extramarital affair after an unexplained absence in which he had traveled to Argentina to meet his mistress. After his divorce, Sanford staged a comeback and was elected to the House of Representatives where he served from 2013 until this year after being defeated in the Republican primary.

As a congressman, Sanford backed Trump in 2016 but became “one of the president’s most eloquent critics” per the Washington Post. Despite his criticism, FiveThirtyEight noted that Sanford had one of the strongest pro-Trump voting records in the House. He lost the 2018 Republican primary election after Trump attacked him on Twitter and endorsed his opponent, who ultimately lost the seat to a Democrat in the general election.

 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1006630395067039744

Sanford is likely to be a stronger contender against Donald Trump than William Weld, the former Massachusetts governor and Libertarian candidate who has already launched a primary challenge against President Trump. Weld, who has so far run a stealth campaign, is a fiscal conservative but holds views on social issues that are outside the Republican mainstream. Sanford, on the other hand, has a 93 percent rating from Freedom Works. Conservative Review lamented his primary loss, noting that he was defeated because he had opposed President Trump’s trade war, allowing his opponent to label him a “Never Trumper” despite his strong pro-Trump voting record.

Sanford’s primary loss in 2018 is emblematic of the current state of the GOP. No matter how strong a candidate’s conservative record, any criticism of President Trump will get them labeled as a “Never Trumper,” which is the trendy new way attack a candidate’s character that has apparently replaced “RINO” since Trump, a long-time Democrat has assumed control of the Republican Party. As I said earlier, intellectual diversity is a rarity in today’s Republican Party.

Even though Sanford will have an uphill battle against the incumbent president, his primary campaign should be welcomed by Republicans. After Trump’s offensive tweets over the weekend, it should be obvious that the president has a problem with moderates and minorities. A USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 68 percent of Americans found Trump’s tweets offensive and 2018 exit polls showed that the GOP had lost ground among virtually every demographic. Further, the president’s trade war has eroded support in farm states that are typically solidly Republican as well as the Rust Belt states that propelled Trump to victory in 2016.

Mark Sanford gives Republicans a choice. If Sanford decides to run, Republican voters can opt between a candidate that preserves the best of Trump’s policy but who does not have the baggage of off-the-wall comments and the tariff war, which has almost completely offset the benefits of tax reform.

The problem for Sanford is that Republicans don’t necessarily want a conservative who is not controversial. A new Reuters poll found that Republican support for Trump increased by five points after his weekend tweetstorm. A March poll from Morning Consult found that only 20 percent of Republican primary voters said that they wanted a candidate other than Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, a Sanford candidacy would offer conservatives in the Republican Party an alternative to Trump. In contrast to 2016, when Republicans reluctantly accepted Trump in the general election out of necessity to defeat Hillary Clinton, if the party voluntarily embraces the president in the 2020 primary it will mean that Trump has fundamentally changed the nature of the Republican Party, perhaps irrevocably, from a conservative party to something else. Republican voters should at least have a choice in the direction of their party.

The Republican resistance to any challenger to Trump is indicative of the president’s weakness. The Republican establishment realizes that President Trump’s support is likely to be both shallow and fragile. They fear that a primary battle that shines the light on Trump’s personal flaws and poor record of achievement outside of tax reform and judicial appointments could expose the fundamental differences between the base that follows Trump’s personality and the traditional Republican conservatives who are more concerned with a principled platform. The illusion of party unity depends on no one questioning the president.

On the other hand, with Republican fortunes are tied to an increasingly unstable incumbent and Republican luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh embracing trillion-dollar deficits and proclaiming that fiscal conservatism is a thing of the past, the debate over the future of the Republican Party is not only necessary, it is long overdue. Reintroducing diversity of thought and holding an honest and serious debate about President Trump’s character and record can only strengthen a party that has been hemorrhaging voters since 2016. For that reason, conservatives should welcome a campaign by Mark Sanford even if it ultimately fails.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Should Welcome Sanford Campaign

The Republican Party has long been a free-market party. The basic idea of free markets is that when there is competition between vendors, both buyers and sellers benefit. Competition forces sellers to be innovative and efficient and, in return, they have the opportunity to earn profits and market share with a well-run business. Buyers benefit from lower prices and a wider variety of products to choose from. So it is with Mark Sanford’s consideration of a primary challenge against President Trump.

Right now, the Republican Party is a monopoly. For years, I countered liberal claims that there was no diversity on the right by saying that Republicans had diversity of thought while the left largely engaged in groupthink. Today, however, that intellectual diversity is largely a thing of the past. Republican opinion ranges from those who enthusiastically agree with everything that Donald Trump says to those who reluctantly agree with almost everything that Donald Trump says. 

Enter Mark Sanford.

Sanford is a former governor of South Carolina who served from 2003 through 2011. In June 2009, he admitted to an extramarital affair after an unexplained absence in which he had traveled to Argentina to meet his mistress. After his divorce, Sanford staged a comeback and was elected to the House of Representatives where he served from 2013 until this year after being defeated in the Republican primary.

As a congressman, Sanford backed Trump in 2016 but became “one of the president’s most eloquent critics” per the Washington Post. Despite his criticism, FiveThirtyEight noted that Sanford had one of the strongest pro-Trump voting records in the House. He lost the 2018 Republican primary election after Trump attacked him on Twitter and endorsed his opponent, who ultimately lost the seat to a Democrat in the general election.

 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1006630395067039744

Sanford is likely to be a stronger contender against Donald Trump than William Weld, the former Massachusetts governor and Libertarian candidate who has already launched a primary challenge against President Trump. Weld, who has so far run a stealth campaign, is a fiscal conservative but holds views on social issues that are outside the Republican mainstream. Sanford, on the other hand, has a 93 percent rating from Freedom Works. Conservative Review lamented his primary loss, noting that he was defeated because he had opposed President Trump’s trade war, allowing his opponent to label him a “Never Trumper” despite his strong pro-Trump voting record.

Sanford’s primary loss in 2018 is emblematic of the current state of the GOP. No matter how strong a candidate’s conservative record, any criticism of President Trump will get them labeled as a “Never Trumper,” which is the trendy new way attack a candidate’s character that has apparently replaced “RINO” since Trump, a long-time Democrat has assumed control of the Republican Party. As I said earlier, intellectual diversity is a rarity in today’s Republican Party.

Even though Sanford will have an uphill battle against the incumbent president, his primary campaign should be welcomed by Republicans. After Trump’s offensive tweets over the weekend, it should be obvious that the president has a problem with moderates and minorities. A USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 68 percent of Americans found Trump’s tweets offensive and 2018 exit polls showed that the GOP had lost ground among virtually every demographic. Further, the president’s trade war has eroded support in farm states that are typically solidly Republican as well as the Rust Belt states that propelled Trump to victory in 2016.

Mark Sanford gives Republicans a choice. If Sanford decides to run, Republican voters can opt between a candidate that preserves the best of Trump’s policy but who does not have the baggage of off-the-wall comments and the tariff war, which has almost completely offset the benefits of tax reform.

The problem for Sanford is that Republicans don’t necessarily want a conservative who is not controversial. A new Reuters poll found that Republican support for Trump increased by five points after his weekend tweetstorm. A March poll from Morning Consult found that only 20 percent of Republican primary voters said that they wanted a candidate other than Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, a Sanford candidacy would offer conservatives in the Republican Party an alternative to Trump. In contrast to 2016, when Republicans reluctantly accepted Trump in the general election out of necessity to defeat Hillary Clinton, if the party voluntarily embraces the president in the 2020 primary it will mean that Trump has fundamentally changed the nature of the Republican Party, perhaps irrevocably, from a conservative party to something else. Republican voters should at least have a choice in the direction of their party.

The Republican resistance to any challenger to Trump is indicative of the president’s weakness. The Republican establishment realizes that President Trump’s support is likely to be both shallow and fragile. They fear that a primary battle that shines the light on Trump’s personal flaws and poor record of achievement outside of tax reform and judicial appointments could expose the fundamental differences between the base that follows Trump’s personality and the traditional Republican conservatives who are more concerned with a principled platform. The illusion of party unity depends on no one questioning the president.

On the other hand, with Republican fortunes are tied to an increasingly unstable incumbent and Republican luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh embracing trillion-dollar deficits and proclaiming that fiscal conservatism is a thing of the past, the debate over the future of the Republican Party is not only necessary, it is long overdue. Reintroducing diversity of thought and holding an honest and serious debate about President Trump’s character and record can only strengthen a party that has been hemorrhaging voters since 2016. For that reason, conservatives should welcome a campaign by Mark Sanford even if it ultimately fails.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Just Say 'No' To The 'Book Of Trump'

Sometimes Trump supporters are compared to cultists. In many cases, the comparison is unfair, but sometimes, as an outside observer looking in on the MAGA movement, you have to shake your head in amazement. That was the case last week when Miriam Adelson, wife of billionaire Republican political donor, Sheldon Adelson, called for the addition of the “Book of Trump” to the Bible.

In an op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal, Mrs. Adelson celebrated President Trump’s pro-Israel policies. In her piece, which stops short of extolling his godly virtues, she compares Trump to Esther, the Biblical queen who saved the Jews from a genocide at the hands of Haman, an evil advisor to the king of Persia.

Noting that Trump is still not widely supported by American Jews, Adelson writes, “Scholars of the Bible will no doubt note the heroes, sages, and prophets of antiquity who were similarly spurned by the very people they came to raise up.”

“Would it be too much to pray for a day when the Bible gets a ‘Book of Trump,’ much like it has a ‘Book of Esther’ celebrating the deliverance of the Jews from ancient Persia?” she asks. “Until that is decided, let us, at least, sit back and marvel at this time of miracles for Israel, for the United States, and for the whole world.”

The answer to that question is, of course, yes. It would be much too much to amend the Bible so that it sings the praises of Donald Trump. The very fact that the question is asked seems to indicate that something is deeply amiss within the Republican Party. There are many reasons why there will never be a Book of Trump, not least of which is that the Old Testament canon was established hundreds of years before the time of Christ. More than that, making Donald Trump the object of holy devotion seems antithetical to the teachings of the Bible.

The consecration of Donald Trump is not limited to Adelson, who is Jewish, but also occurs in evangelical circles as well. I described several months ago how Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress led his church in a “Make America Great Again” hymn and attacked Christians who were not on the Trump train. Likewise, Franklin Graham has called upon Christians to pray for Trump to triumph over his enemies and said that “God was behind the last election.”

In some cases, Trump supporters go beyond equating Trump with Esther or King David and make him equal to Jesus himself. Just ahead of the 2018 election, a billboard in St. Louis pictured Trump with the caption, “The Word became flesh - John 1:14,” a messianic reference to Jesus Christ. The first chapter of John begins with the statement, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” An ebook on Amazon is titled “Donald 'MESSIAH' Trump: The Man, the Myth, the Messiah?” and asks if the president is the “Last Trump of God.”

The message is also carried forth by many rank and file Trump supporters. If you have ever frequented pro-Trump social media groups, you have probably seen memes like this one depicting Christ guiding President Trump’s hand as he signs documents in the Oval Office or this photo of a Trump supporter wearing a shirt that reads, “Jesus died for you, Trump lives for you.” Some of the social media content is satirical, some is not, and it is often difficult to tell the difference. The tendency of the Trump movement to deify the object of its obsession is so widespread and so transparent that it has inspired articles in GQ and Psychology Today as well as on Christian sites such as Red Letter Christians.

Just last week, a Michigan couple held a MAGA-themed, July 4 wedding in which the groom wore his Marine dress uniform and the bride wore a wedding gown crafted from a “Make America Great Again” flag. Bridesmaids wore red MAGA hats with the exception of the maid of honor, a Democrat who wore a plain red cap instead. While the article does not identify the religious beliefs of the couple, marriages have traditionally been a covenant between man, woman, and God rather than man, woman, and president.

While some on the right have argued that Democrats have become secular and replaced God with quasi-worship of the state or an environmental religion centered on climate change. Now it seems that some Republicans, either because they are either secular themselves and lack a focus for the innate human need to worship God or because they are simply misguided and perhaps Biblically illiterate, have replaced God with Donald Trump.

I am not going to spend time itemizing Donald Trump’s continuing unchristian behavior or rehash the fact that, as recently as the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump was at best a nominal Christian who said he had never prayed for forgiveness and who was simultaneously lying about hush money payments to a porn star with whom he had cheated on his pregnant wife. I am also not going to suggest that every Trump supporter literally worships the president, although some certainly seem to do so.

What I am going to do is point back to the first of the Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Putting President Trump on par with God and Jesus is literally placing a false god before the real one. Even putting partisan politics ahead of worshipping God is worshipping an idol. Further, Jesus himself warned against false prophets. In his Mount Olivet discourse, Christ said that at the end of the age “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). That day may have come.

As Bobby Azarian wrote in Psychology Today, “No one is infallible, no one is free from bias, and no one is honest all of the time, no matter how hard they may strive,” a statement that echoes the Christian doctrine of the depravity of man, the idea that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

“When you believe that someone is truly a godsend, you can excuse anything,” Azarian warns. “It all becomes ‘for the greater good.’ And when that happens, it is a slippery slope to gross abuses of power that continuously increase in magnitude.”

If such adoration was aimed at Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, conservatives and Republicans would rightly ridicule it and those who practice it. The response should be no different because the object of affection of these Trump supporters is a Republican president. No American should bend a knee before a leader of either party and Christians should only kneel to worship Christ. Whether Trump-worship is an actual cult or merely a cult of personality, worship of a president does not bode well for either the Republican Party or the American Republic.