Since he announced his candidacy last June, Donald Trump has steadfastly been promising that, should he be elected President, he will build a wall along the Mexican border to keep illegal aliens from insinuating themselves into our country.  Trump was not taken seriously; at first.  He was wildly politically incorrect, you see. (If I haven’t mentioned it lately, I hate that term.  As far as I’m concerned, PC stands for “Political Cowardice.”)  It was only a matter of time until Trump self-destructed, the experts told us.  Only he didn’t.  Trump said a number of other un-PC  things, and he kept getting more popular.  Throughout Trump’s campaign harangues, however, Donald assured us that he would build a wall on the Mexican border, it would be a great wall, with really nice gates, and Mexico would pay for it.  For the Donald, and for most reasonable people, the idea was that a sovereign nation needs a defensible border.  People outside the border shouldn’t be permitted to enter our country as they please.  Even more importantly, if someone enters our country illegally, that person shouldn’t have the audacity to try to dictate to us what our laws must be.  Even legal immigrants who choose to come into our country should be expected to adhere to its laws.  Simply put, recent arrivals should not show up the day before yesterday and assume that they can dictate to life-long Americans how we must live in our own country.

It’s a funny thing.  As a long-time observer of the world of politics, I often have been struck by the extent to which that world is ruled by the twin pillars of hypocrisy and irony.  Hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand, although that marriage generally is more evident in Democrat politics, where, as I have often observed, “scratch a Democrat, and you’ll find a hypocrite.”  The recent ravings of the Trump campaign are eerily reminiscent of even the most rabid Democrat hypocrite.  When Trump wins delegates in a State caucus, like the one in Nevada, that’s fair.  When Ted Cruz wins delegates in a State caucus, like in Utah, that’s unfair.  When a state assigns delegates to Trump without a primary vote, the system works.  When a state, like Colorado, assigns delegates to Cruz without a vote, it’s unfair, crooked and corrupt.  Indeed, the entire Republican Party, it’s rules, and all State rules of the Party which do not sufficiently genuflect to Trump, are corrupt.  Hypocrisy may come easily to Trump because he is a recent arrival to the Republican Party, having been, alternatively over the years, a Democrat, a Reform Party member and an Independent.  Most recently, however, Trump entered the Republican Party (2012).  This is where the irony comes into play.  Donald Trump just showed up in the Party four years ago, and just last year, he announced he was running for President.  Nothing wrong with that, but shouldn’t such a recent arrival in our Party be expected to accept the Party rules as they are, and work within the framework of those rules?  After all, when you think about it, Donald Trump, the Republican, is really no different than the recent immigrants to America who draw the ire of Trump and his merry band of Trumpeters.  Most of us, the Donald included, recoil at the notion that such a recent arrival should be allowed to dictate policy to the place that so graciously took him in.  “America – love it or leave it,” as the saying used to go.  The Republican Party is no different.  If a recent arrival to the Party swells our ranks, welcome.  But don’t declare that you’re a Republican the day before yesterday, enter our primaries, win a plurality of our delegates (so far) , and then have the audacity to denounce the Party that graciously took you in as a crooked and corrupt organization.  Love it or leave it.  At the very least, as a recent immigrant, take the time to learn our rules, and work within them.  If you don’t care for the rules, then utilize the system that is in place to change the rules.  If you haven’t realized it yet, Donald, the President is supposed to be a leader.  A political party’s presidential nominee is the leader of his party.  I keep hearing media drones warning Republicans that Trump must win the nomination and that the losers must unite behind Trump.  Should he fail to win, the drones don’t suggest that Trump must unite behind the winner.  For Donald Trump, you see, loyalty flows in only one direction – toward him.  Trump can join the system, use the system, trash the system, and then walk away, claiming to be a victim of the system.  I’m sorry, but in my book, that doesn’t make you a leader, but merely a poor replica of Barack Obama, the high priest of hypocrisy.  Some long-time members of the Republican Party have dared to suggest that, should Trump arrive at the Convention without the requisite 1,237 delegates, they will use the Party rules to deny Trump the nomination.  Think of it as the members building a wall to keep an ungrateful immigrant from insinuating himself in the Party.  Ungrateful Republican immigrant Trump says that’s unfair, and that the Party rules shouldn’t apply to him.  For my part, if Trump gets to 1,237 and wins, all well and good, I’ll support him.  However, should he fail to get the majority of delegates, and the Party rules are used to defeat him, Trump should have the decency to respect the system that he chose to exploit.  In other words, don’t come to the Republican Party and dictate how Republicans must live.  I say, let’s build that wall, and make Trump pay for it.  Donald Trump must not be the nominee of our Party.

Whether or not it was his intention, Donald Trump is well on his way to bringing about the dissolution of the Republican Party.  Donald Trump, the ultimate arbiter of what may be considered to be fair or unfair, has received 37% of the votes cast to date.  Stated differently, 63% of Republican primary voters want someone other than Trump to be the Party’s nominee.  Understand, I don’t mean to say 63% of Republicans don’t favor Trump.  Because the geniuses on the Republican National Committee engineered the primary schedule with so many open primaries early on (to protect the Party from Rand Paul) they made it possible for someone like Trump to get a delegate lead from States where Independents and Democrats can vote in Republican primaries.  Many of Trump’s voters come from those groups, therefore it’s safe to say that far more than 2/3 of Republicans do not favor Trump.  Open primaries are permitted by the laws of the various States, and of course, Donald has determined that the open primary rules are fair.  However, many aspects of the rules that govern the awarding of the Republican nomination have been determined by Donald not to be fair.  He has pronounced many of them to be unfair, and indeed, he has denounced the entire system as both “crooked” and “corrupt.”  This is the very system, you understand, which has given Trump the lead he currently enjoys.  But, so many things have been so unfair to Donald.  Trump says it was unfair that too many candidates ran for President.  I guess everybody else should have stepped aside once Trump entered the race.  He must believe that, he keeps whining that he should win even if he doesn’t have a majority of the delegates.  On the subject of needing a majority, Trump says that it will be “mathematically unfair” if he loses.  Exactly how an accurate mathematical tally might be an indication of fairness or unfairness is unclear.  I suppose, if you’re Trump, 2 + 2 has to equal 5 in order to make it fair.  Now, although he has garnered only 37% of the votes, the crooked and corrupt system that is so unfair to Trump has awarded him 45% of the delegates.  The rules of the crooked and corrupt Republican Party specify that delegates be allocated in that manner.  This, of course, is fair.  However, what Ted Cruz is doing in accordance with those very same rules is decidedly unfair.  Indeed, we recently have been informed by Trump that Cruz is engaging in “Gestapo tactics.” Is Cruz torturing delegates to extract their votes, and imprisoning those delegates who refuse.  No.  It’s even worse.  Ted Cruz is actually speaking to uncommitted delegates and convincing them to support his candidacy rather than Trump’s.  Oh, the horror.  Colorado held a State convention to award its delegates.  Donald Trump decided not to participate. He didn’t go to Colorado.  He didn’t speak with the delegates, and as a result, Trump got none of the 34 delegates, all of whom are now pledged to Cruz.  Needless to say, working behind the scenes to gain the support of uncommitted delegates is unfair.  But is such conduct always unfair?  No, it turns out.  It’s only unfair if someone other than Trump does it.  Ironically, on the very same day that Trump denounced Cruz’s daring to speak to delegates as “Gestapo tactics,” another news report revealed that Trump staffer, Barry Bennett, late of the Carson campaign, will be doing the same thing on behalf of Trump.  Bennett stated, “We’re talking to uncommitted delegates.”  How can it be fair for Trump to do this but unfair when Cruz does it?  Only George Orwell knows for sure, “some animals are more equal than others” you understand.  At this writing the Republican Party remains at the mercy of the 37% Man.  Old Number 37 even has succeeded in gaining complete control over the Fox News Channel, which devotes 100% of its coverage to lauding Trump.  As I write this, Sean Hannity’s voice is ringing in my ears as he sings his usual refrain that the system is unfair to Trump.  Frankly, I’m sick of Hannity parroting the Trump whine that the person with the most delegates should win whether he has a majority or not.  Hannity says if Trump is short of 1,237 and loses, his voters will be disenfranchised.  Wrong, they simply will have voted for a loser.  The 37% Man, who coincidentally polls at, you guessed it, 37% head to head with Hillary (as though anyone could stand to look at both those heads at the same time).  Republicans spend far too much time, it’s true, arguing about whether a candidate is “a real Republican.”  This year, the front-runner’s pedigree is an unknown quantity.  Trump was a Democrat till 1987, when he became a Republican.  In 1999, Trump joined the Reform Party (so he could run for President).  From 2001 to 2009, Trump was once again a Democrat.  From 2009 to 2011 he was once again a Republican.  Then, from 2011 to 2012 Trump was an Independent.  In 2012, Trump again discovered he was a Republican.  And Old Number 37 calls Ted Cruz a Trojan Horse?  Even Trump’s family can’t keep up with the changes.  His daughter Ivanka and son Eric are still registered Democrats, so they can’t vote for dear old Dad on April 19.      Trump claims his changes of party loyalty were motivated by business.  Maybe they were, but for those of us who are habitual Republicans, choosing a consistent, conservative Republican as our nominee is OUR BUSINESS.  Donald Trump must not be the nominee of the Republican Party.

As avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders wins primary after primary, the crooked rules of the Democrat Party have him falling further and further behind Hillary Clinton, who, we continue to be assured, is the inevitable nominee and the inevitable next President.  Last weekend I came across an article written by Seth Abramson, an English Professor at the University of New Hampshire, entitled The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing A 10-Point Plan To Lose the 2016 Presidential Election.  A beautiful sentiment, if I have to say so.  The point of Professor Abramson’s thesis is that Bernie Sanders would be a vastly more electable candidate than Hillary.  After having studied the Professor’s arguments at length, I have concluded that the good Professor is half correct and half crazy.  That is to say, the Professor’s first five points make perfect sense, while points 6 through 10 are just nuts.  First, the five correct points.

1.  Democrats assume Trump will be the Republican nominee, though it’s now clear he won’t be.  The Professor argues that Trump will not go to the Convention in July with the required majority of delegates.  An accurate prediction, coming as it did before Trump’s trouncing by Ted Cruz in Wisconsin.
2.   The nomination of Hillary is the best way to unite the Republicans, who harbor a hatred of all things Clinton.  Well said.
3.   Hillary’s smears of Bernie are fracturing the Democrat Party.  Quite true, if largely unreported.  Hillary henchman Barney Frank (remember him?) has called Bernie a “McCarthyite” for daring to criticize the pristine Ms. Hillary.  As a result, 25% of Bernie supporters say they won’t vote for Hillary, and up to 1/3 of his supporters say they may vote for someone else.  Who that might be is unclear, as both Eugene Debs and Gus Hall are dead.
4.   Democrats fatally underestimate the electoral chances of Ted Cruz and John Kasich.  Polls show either Cruz or Kasich can beat Hillary.
5.   By nominating Hillary, the Dems will be passing over their most popular candidate – Bernie, who has much higher favorability ratings than Hillary.  That’s also true.  Says a lot about the Democrat Party in 2016.                                                                                             From this point on, Professor Abramson strays off into the wacky world of left-wing fantasy.
6.   Hillary will freeze Bernie out of the Dem Convention, not even permitting him to speak.  It’s too soon to tell on this one.
7.   The Dems reject Bernie’s call for a 50 State campaign.  The argument here is that a Kasich candidacy could put the entire mid-west in play for Republicans.  Alright so far.  According to the Professor, Bernie can win in States Hillary might lose, such as Missouri, Alaska, New Hampshire, Michigan and Utah.  Utah?  That’s what he says.  This is where the Professor goes seriously off the rails.  Hello?  Bernie is a Socialist.  And yes, I’ve seen the polling that has him beating the Republican candidates, but I simply do not, and cannot perceive a noticeable move in the electorate to the Left, in the direction of socialism.  In fact, the opposite is true.  If the nation truly was moving toward socialism, one might expect that change to manifest itself in the election of avowed Socialists, or at least the elections of increasing numbers of Democrats, which nowadays is essentially the same thing.  No such change is taking place.  In the early part of the 20th Century, there were more than 300 elected Socialists at the municipal level, including 56 mayors.  There was one Socialist member of Congress.  Today, I found one Socialist city councilman (in Seattle), and, of course, there’s still one avowed Socialist in Congress – Bernie Sanders.  Meanwhile, since the election of Il Duce Obama, Republicans have added 11 Governors, 13 U.S. Senators and 69 new House members.  At the State level, since 2009, the Democrats have lost 913 seats in State legislatures.  What about those States the Professor says Bernie can win?  Well, Michigan has lost 31% of its elected Democrat legislators, Missouri has lost 36%, New Hampshire 28%, Alaska 21%, and Utah?  Well, 47% of the elected Democrats in that State have been defeated.  It’s hard to see how Bernie Sanders, the patron saint of income redistribution, will change this trend.
8.   Hillary has done nothing to address concerns about her character and integrity.  It seems Hillary hasn’t distanced herself from her Foundation, and she blames everyone but herself.  Both are true enough, but Hillary’s fingerprints are all over the Foundation’s activities.  She’s currently the subject of a criminal investigation for her home server antics.  It’s hard to see how she could rehabilitate herself.  Wait, I’ve got it.  Hillary could confess, plead guilty, and serve as President while on Work Release.
9.   Hillary relies too much on the media, instead of expressing her vision, and she should have distanced herself from the Super-Delegates.  This one’s easy.  Hillary has no vision, and the Super-Delegates are the only thing holding her up.  If the fix wasn’t in, Hillary wouldn’t be in either.  The Professor complains that Hillary “allowed” the media to focus on Trump, and the lack of coverage of the Dems hurt Democrat turnout.  Two things, here.  First, I guess this is an admission that Hillary controls the media.  Secondly, Professor, it’s not a lack of coverage, but a lack of interest in Democrats that has suppressed Dem turnout.
10.   Hillary ignores the youth vote, and millenials have a more favorable opinion of socialism.  Hillary ignores the youth vote only because young voters want nothing to do with her.  Millenials may well have a more favorable opinion of socialism, but that’s only because it’s all they learned in school.  In addition, coming out of college with debt the size of a jumbo mortgage and no house, no job, and no prospects of getting a job, due to the Obama economy, they’ve never had the opportunity to experience capitalism.  In this regard, Bernie is perfect for the millenials, because his background mirrors theirs.  Bernie graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964, but didn’t have a real job till he was about 40 years old.  Bernie says “the whole quality of life in America is based on greed.”  Bottom line, Bernie is a bum who thinks you have too much money, and he wants a 90% tax rate so he can take it.  Not the best path to election if you ask me.

It’s no secret that I’m a Ted Cruz supporter.  As I write this, the latest poll from Wisconsin has Cruz up by 10 points.  Let’s hope it’s right.  During the primary battles, I have been trying hard to keep an open mind about Donald Trump.  My thinking has been, and continues to be, that, should Trump become the nominee, I couldn’t sit idly by and let Hillary Clinton be elected President; I’d have to support Trump.  That distasteful prospect may yet come to pass, but it is becoming progressively more difficult to convince myself that Trump might not be so bad, if it comes to that.  It is because of the likelihood that Trump might be the nominee that I have striven to avoid blatant criticism of him.  In this I have failed.  It has long been all too apparent that, where Trump is concerned, there’s really no “there” there.  I’m talking about depth of principles and substance on the issues.  What we’ve gotten plenty of is, “I’ll make a deal” and “It will be great!”  Coming either from Monte Hall or Tony the Tiger, these would be perfectly acceptable offerings.  Coming as they do from someone who wants to be President of the United States, they are not.  Donald Trump likes to compare himself to Ronald Reagan.  Please.  A comparison of the two is not flattering to Trump.  Ronald Reagan liked to say that he was a big picture guy, and not a detail guy.  He took a lot of flak for that, unfairly, I think.  You see, Jimmy Carter was a detail guy.  Like most experts, Carter knew more and more about less and less until eventually, he knew everything about nothing.  Despite knowing all the details, Carter got nothing done.  Reagan didn’t know all the details.  He didn’t pretend to know them.  Indeed, Reagan didn’t need to know the details, because he knew what he believed.  Reagan had guiding principles.  He saw the big picture, and his policies reflected the principles that motivated his decision to enter public service.  Donald Trump knows only one thing – he has a desire to be President.  If there is some underlying principle, moral, or political philosophy motivating Trump’s candidacy, then he either hasn’t mentioned it, or doesn’t know how to do so.  I think the truth is more disturbing.  Trump really doesn’t know what he believes about the issues, he only knows what he’s heard about them.  Simply put, Trump doesn’t think the issues are important, so why learn about them?  Indeed, why care about them?  After all, Trump keeps reminding us that he’s not a politician.  That’s part of his appeal, of course, but even if you’re not a politician (a neat trick for a President), since you will be the person who is responsible for making policy on these issues, shouldn’t you be able to articulate some coherent position?  Trump can’t.  Almost without exception, when he speaks to an issue, his answers are confusing, contradictory, or downright nonsensical.  Where does Trump stand on foreign tariffs?  The tariff will be 45%; maybe less than that; maybe no tariffs at all, I could just be bluffing (don’t tell the Chinese).  Trump says two of the the three most important functions of the federal government are healthcare and education.  Nothing in the U.S. Constitution about either of those two things?  No matter.  What about healthcare Mr. Trump?  “Obamacare … very bad.”  “Healthcare should be privately done.”  You just said, the government.  “Well, privately done, but the government will lead it.”  Huh?  On education, I thought you were against Common Core.  “I am.”  But you said education is a federal government function.   “I want it to go to state, yes.  Absolutely.  I want – right now…”  I repeat, huh?  Now, Mr. Trump, you said you want Japan and South Korea to have nuclear weapons, so you’re in favor of nuclear proliferation?   “No, no, not proliferation.” But that’s proliferation.  “Now, wouldn’t you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?”  So you’re saying you don’t want more nuclear weapons in the world but you’re OK with Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons?  “I don’t want more nuclear weapons.”  This exchange proved confusing, even for Anderson Cooper.  You see, Mr. Trump wants to use a corporate, not a diplomatic strategy for foreign affairs.  It’s often been suggested that the government should be run like a business, and Donald Trump is just the man to do it.  We don’t spend enough for defense, but we spend too much defending our allies, like Germany, South Korea and Japan.  We need to build up the military, but it’s time to cancel or change NATO, because it’s a bad financial deal for us.  I’ve got it.  We will run the government like a business.  The United States is not the world’s policeman, but we will sell our protection to our allies, who should pay to defend themselves.  The same allies we just crippled economically with the 45% tariffs, or was it 35%?  Nah, just bluffing (don’t tell the Chinese).  If none of this makes sense to you it’s only because nothing Trump says amounts to a recognizable, reasonable and defensible position on anything.  Abraham Lincoln said “you can fool some of the people all of the time.”  The trouble is that Trump can’t fool enough of the people to win election, and woe betide America if he could.  Donald Trump must not be the nominee of our Party.

There are so many news outlets these days, from print, news networks and internet sources, that you might expect that a subject such as how a political party’s nominating convention works might be clearly explained.  You would be wrong.  The 24-hour news cycle purveyors treat this subject exactly like any other news story, like a plane crash or a terrorist attack.  They sensationalize, they pontificate, they engage in fear-mongering, they obfuscate, they misrepresent or ignore the facts to fit their agendas; they do everything but explain what really is not a complicated subject.  All day and night, the media wrings its hands and alternately decries and promotes the prospect of a contested convention, or dare they hope, a brokered convention.  We are told such an outcome might tear apart the Republican party.  Oh woe is us.  Wouldn’t we be better off just to hand the nomination to whoever has a plurality of the delegates going into the convention?  Indeed, isn’t that the only fair thing to do?  “No” and “No.”  You see, in most election years there is one candidate who comes out of the primaries with a majority of the delegates necessary to be nominated for President.  In those cases, the result of the convention is a forgone conclusion.  The media is accustomed to that result.  This year may be the exception to the rule.  There is a very good chance that no Republican candidate will enter the July convention with a majority of the delegates.  What then will result is what the media likes to call a contested convention.  In reality, what will result is merely “a convention.”  There will be 2,472 delegates to the convention chosen in the various primaries and caucuses.  The Republican Party has rules in place which govern the conduct of the convention.  In order to be nominated,  a candidate needs a majority of these delegates, or 1,237.  Now, Donald Trump, the current front-runner in the delegate count, may be unaware of this rule.  It is entirely possible that Trump knows as much about the rules of the Republican Party as he knows about any other subject, which is to say, not much.  I say this because, at the last debate (the last one Ducking Donald agreed to attend), Trump said something about “this random 1,237 number.”  No Donald, it’s not a random number, it’s simple arithmetic.

But woe is us, what if no candidate has the 1,237?  That might lead to a brokered convention.  Mayhem would ensue.  The media would like that.  Fighting at the convention.  That would make a good story.  You see, that’s how we got Obama.  In 2008, Hillary had the nomination locked up, or so she believed.  The first female President was a good story.  The media was “ready for Hillary.”  But wait, Obama emerged (from under a rock in Chicago), and all of a sudden, the first black President was even a better story, and Hillary was swept aside.  The media continues to indulge in wild speculation.  Maybe Romney will be nominated, maybe it will be Paul Ryan.  John Kasich feeds this speculation, because he keeps telling anyone who will sit still long enough to hear it, that he will be the nominee.  Here’s how it works.  Republican party Rule 40 says that, in order to have your name placed in nomination at the convention, a candidate must have won the support of a majority of delegates in at least 8 states.  Only Trump and Ted Cruz meet that requirement.  But can’t that rascally Republican Establishment change the rules?  Yes, but the change must be voted on by the delegates, nearly all of whom are, or will be, committed to either Trump or Cruz.

The situation we face now is hardly unique.  Gerald Ford was the sitting President of the United States in 1976.  Ford came to the convention with a plurality of the delegates, but not enough to be nominated, just like Trump in 2016.  President Ford was not handed the nomination simply because he was ahead.  Ford managed to get the support of enough uncommitted delegates to be nominated, beating Ronald Reagan by 117 votes.  Ford made deals in 1976.  Today, we have master deal-maker Trump in the lead.  Surely he can make a “great deal” to garner the necessary support.  If he can’t make the “great deal” necessary to win the nomination, then what good is the Art of the Deal?   If no candidate gets to 1,237 on the first ballot, chaos does not reign.  A second ballot is taken, at which time the delegates are no longer committed to any candidate.  In other words, there will be another opportunity for the right candidate to make to make a “great deal.”  Trump fears the art of that deal because nearly two thirds of Republican voters don’t want him to be the nominee of our Party.  If Trump fails to win the nomination despite coming into the convention with a plurality of delegates, no matter what the media tells you, he will not be the first candidate to share that fate, he is, however, likely to be the loudest.