I get it. I really understand why Ted Cruz doesn’t want to endorse Trump. Donald Trump didn’t simply defeat him; he insulted and demeaned him and his family with crudeness, gutter language and lies.
I understand why other politicians don’t want to endorse Trump. The nominee has given no reason for people to trust him not to make foolish and disgusting remarks. Whether it is an act or reality, his emotional maturity comes across as that of a ten year old. Trump may be able to walk past his words, but those associated with him will find it harder to remove the excrement.
Nonetheless, I don’t respect the Bushes, John Kasich and Ted Cruz as much as I used to. On a personal level, Trump is reaping what he sowed. If I had a teenager prone to angry outbursts and to giving withering insults, I would use this as an educational moment. Bullying may make you feel powerful in the instance, but it is actually a show of weakness. While you may forget your words, your victims won’t. As my grandfather used to teach me when he addressed everyone from the janitor to his boss with respect and warmth, “You never know the twists and turns life will take and when someone who needs you now will be someone you need in the future.”
However, the Bushes, Kasich and Cruz should not be thinking on a personal level. Not only should they not be nursing hurts from the past two years, they should show that they care more for the country than for their own egos or political futures. If they don’t recognize the threat of a Clinton presidency, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
What of the second worry? Will they find themselves tarred with the brush of an embarrassing and even despicable Trump statement? Guess what? The New York Times, CNN and the rest of the leftist media is going to tar them with that brush anyway. The only way they will avoid that fate is by converting to the Democrat Party and bowing obeisance to secular liberalism.
I wish these men instead would have taken a page from the Trump playbook. Trump speaks politically incorrect truths about terrorism, the economy and illegal immigrants even as President Obama and his devotees condemn Americans who want an honest conversation. This is a great part of Trump’s popularity. Established Republicans did not understand how many Republican voters and conservative-leaning people yearned for a strong response to the past seven years and despised the tepid, lukewarm words of the Romney-McConell wing of the party that was supposed to represent them. The failed Republican candidates should have followed Trump’s lead and spoken honestly. They should have endorsed Donald Trump wholeheartedly as the only alternative to Hillary Clinton, while sadly acknowledging that his language and manner are often cringeworthy. By staying away they are looking like sore losers as well as missing the chance to acknowledge the pain of the electorate, for which they do hold more than a little responsibility.
Ted Cruz could have spoken at the convention of his conflicted emotions and internal struggle about Donald Trump — giving voice to many of his supporters’ feelings. The he could have explained why he is putting the need to defeat Hillary above everything else. Do everything you can to get Trump elected and then hold Trump’s feet to the fire to ensure that he makes the right Supreme Court picks and surrounds himself with wise, conservative advisors rather than sycophants. Encourage his supporters not to put blinders on, as so many Democrat politicians do when it comes to their extremely flawed nominee, but to realistically face their own flawed candidate. Instead, as my husband put it, Cruz, “ate another man’s food and then vomited on his table.” It would have been classier not to show up.
In 1939, a document known as the White Paper was issued under Neville Chamberlain’s government that severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine and reversed previous British promises to the Jewish people. That immigration restriction doomed Jews to death in Europe. At the same time, the British quickly became the leaders in the battle against the Nazis. David Ben-Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, encouraged people to fight the White Paper as if there were no Nazis while fighting the Nazis (by enlisting in and helping the British army) as if there was no White Paper.
Trump is the nominee. It is time to fight Hillary as if there were no flaws in Donald Trump while opposing the vulgarity that Trump exudes and his confused understanding of some issues as if there was no Hillary.
Supporting a family and thriving financially is getting harder.
Take advantage of our book, Business Secrets from the Bible
to invigorate yourself and those you love to meet the challenge in a Godly, positive way.
39 thoughts on “Losing Respect for Some Trump Foes”
I know this is waaaaaaay late–I wasn’t one to post comments back then–but the issue with Cruz’s speech was that he reneged on the pledge that he and all of the other candidates made when they thought one of them would be the candidate. They used the opportunity to put Trump on the spot, and it backfired when he became the nominee. All Cruz had to do to redeem his droning speech was to say at the end that, true to his pledge, he would be supporting the nominee for president. It only served to solidify the moniker “Lyin’ Ted” in the minds of many voters.
Even though now, two and a half years into President Trump’s first term, Cruz has been an active supporter, I think he did irreparable damage to his credibility within the party. He would have been served better by recording a brief message of support like Rubio did.
Suzanne, I love that you went back and looked at old Musings. And I agree with you that Ted Cruz harmed himself.
Those are good points. Thank you.
Glad you could post now.
Lora, Republicans have a much greater history of opposing their own candidates. Remember conservatives making Harriet Miers remove her name from Supreme Court nomination? Republicans urged Nixon to resign. Democrats fall in line much more. In addition to that, the media will gang up on Trump. I don’t think they will allow dictatorship-type actions as they have from Obama and might from Clinton.
I haven’t been able to post recently, but I finally succeeded! This subject has been fruitful, and the discussions are wonderfully polite to read. I’m adding a bit late, but I hope that you’ll appreciate it.
Firstly, here are a few of Trump’s twitter posts about after the RNC, they show the mind of DJT:
Jul 20 Good news is Melania’s speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics especially if you believe that all press is good press!
Jul 20 The media is spending more time doing a forensic analysis of Melania’s speech than the FBI spent on Hillary’s emails.
Jul 20 Wow, Ted Cruz got booed off the stage, didn’t honor the pledge! I saw his speech two hours early but let him speak anyway. No big deal!
Jul 21 Ted Cruz talks about the Constitution but doesn’t say that if the Dems win the Presidency, the new JUSTICES appointed will destroy us all!
Secondly, Hillary is going back to the WH with Bill at her side. Both Clintons will take office for four years beginning in January 2017, that is, unless they’re stopped.
Thirdly, my (‘Civilian’ Marine-VFW) husband and I, and our daughter-19 and son-18 watched Cruz’s RNC speech. We heard him congratulate Trump at the start and the speech then sounded nice for a bit; but in typical Cruz fashion, it went too long and too slowly for our tastes and then finally it was awkward to watch until its end. However, that was also partly due to the loud thumping Trumpsters in the audience.
Cruz’s flat speech doesn’t appear to have hurt Trump, and the twitter feed above shows that he wanted the drama to an extent because that is what he does well, after all.
Well now, Cruz attacked Trump’s wife first then Trump warned him to back off or he’d mention some embarrassing facts about Cruz’s wife. They had all agreed in the first place to leave family out of it, but Cruz disregarded that! I researched Heidi Cruz, and indeed there were some embarrassing actions that she had performed. Everybody’s human and capable of all these ridiculous things in this earthly existence. Candidates are no exception.
I think you’ve stated your thoughts- and those of many other people- very well. I am almost convinced; however I have a question. You mention voting Trump in and then holding him accountable and getting him to actually do the will of the people. My impression of Trump is that he doesn’t listen well to anybody. How can we be even halfway hopeful that he WILL listen to us?
I do understand that the other option is Hillary Clinton, and there will be neither help nor hope there. Perhaps that is the only answer to my question that we have at this time. But that aside, how can we hold Trump accountable as our president? There are so many bad precedents for him to take advantage of, and his personality, well, I guess it is whatever the heck it is. It doesn’t look like a good combination, is my concern.
And my point, which I guess I didn’t make well, is not compromising principles is sometimes the wrong thing to do. Let’s face it, this is a very tough decision coming up and very few Americans are happy with the choice they have to make.
Susan, my point, which I guess I didn’t make very well, is that Daniel did not compromise his beliefs. That’s what I see when I’ve been reading. You understand Jewish law and I don’t. I wasn’t speaking of Cruz but of myself.
Carolyn, What you are saying about our facing a terrible choice in November because both candidates are potentially extremely dangerous to this country is why so many, including me, are anguished. I write to help get my thoughts in order. Right now, my conclusion is that voting for neither is as unprincipled as voting for either of them. In other words, all the choices are wrong so I must pick what I believe to be the least wrong. Not a great situation but, IMO, the reality right now.
Lynn, Re your earlier comment, I have been doing a lot of thinking about the abortion issue and the choice we have this November. I do hope that I can get my thoughts down clearly on paper for a Musing. About Daniel, he was operating on the basis of Jewish law which demands that one be killed rather than transgress on three major sins. In all other cases, staying alive takes precedence. Obviously, this isn’t an easy, straightforward thing to understand when faced with difficult situations. I don’t think it has any relevance to Cruz and the convention on either side. No one’s life was being threatened, for one thing and being gracious to Trump is certainly not a major sin.
Susan I’ve been reading the book of Daniel. He never changed his personal convictions even when told he must by the Kings law. He stood firm even when he knew it would mean death. God rewarded him for staying true. Daniel is a wonderful example of how to face difficult decisions but remain true to God. I wonder what he would decide to do today in America with the decisions we are facing.
Carolyn, if Cruz were that much gracious and the man of principle above Trump, I would think that he would of, at the least, thanked Trump for providing that platform from which he was able to voice his stance. There’s no press flock to him, after all. But then that would be admitting that Trump were being ‘uncharacteristically’ generous. I don’t know, maybe he did, I missed that segment. I already knew how it was going to go, and news of it going just as I expect didn’t surprise me a bit.
Lynn, if the rapture theory were a valid doctrine, then what of the impending destruction so we have to concern ourselves with? Saving everybody else? Pouting changes nothing, if what we really want to do is change hearts.
Susan et. al., people can, and some actually do, come to view things differently from how they’d view them previously. You know what endears me to Mr. Trump most of all, and perhaps this may be chalked up to my overactive imagination, but I fancy his character as that of one that, if I were to suggest that an more appropriate campaign theme might be the Darth Vader’s “Imperial March”, he would get kick out of it, and actually laugh with me.
Well said Jennifer. I agree with all you wrote.
Susan, you do know, I hope, that when Trump invited Cruz to speak at the convention, Cruz told him then that he would not endorse and that was fine with Trump and he agreed to that. They both agreed that Cruz would give a speech on conservative principles that all could support. Cruz did that. He encourage all to vote their conscience which is what seems to be what all are upset about but Ivanka Trump said essentially the same thing the next night and it was applauded. She said she was neither democrat or republican but voted for who she believed would be best for her family and her country. So why was she praised and Cruz booed?
Thank you Carolyn for what you wrote. It says exactly my feelings also.
Susan,my bottom line, in support for a candidate, is they’re support for the unborn. That has been my position since 1974 when I saw a baby girl born prematurely at 24 weeks. She was beautiful. She lived three days. I knew then, at 18, that unborn babies were not “fetuses” or a clump of tissue. From that time on I could never support anyone who gave no thought to those lives. Donald Trump was pro-abortion his whole life until recently. I pray his change to pro-life is sincere but he still supports and praises Planned Parenhood, the biggest abortion provider in the country if not the world, which makes me doubt him. A persons attitude toward those who are unable to defend themselves, shows who they are down deep.
So, due to my personal convictions on abortion I will not be voting for Trump, Hillary or Gary Johnson. I do believe we will stand before God one day and I believe that, knowingly supporting the murder of the innocent, is not something I want to have to explain to The Creator of life. I feel I need to be consistent on that one issue.
Susan did you ever read the book, The Harbinger? I read it years ago and thought it interesting. I started re-reading it a few days ago. It is more interesting now than before. Perhaps because, as a country, we have slipped even further down the slope away from God and to our own destruction.
Hi Peter… I thought the Democratic Party was founded years later by Andrew Jackson, conceived in Ulster and born in Waxhaw, NC. If so, certainly Jackson would shudder to see what his agrarian Democratic Party has become: a rubber stamp for International Socialism and its brutal excesses. There are no more moderate Democrats in the works.
I completely understand where you are coming from, though I come to a different conclusion. My objection was to his agreeing to his speech. I actually am hoping to write about Trump and abortion in a future issue. It’s another things I wrestle with, and I am ending up in a different place than I would have thought a few years ago.
To chalk up Cruz’s refusal to support Trump as a reaction to Trump’s nastiness to Cruz’s family is missing the point of Ted Cruz. Yes, Cruz is right in not forgiving Trump. But his bigger issue with Trump and the issue I have with Trump is that Trump has never shown or spoken in a way to make one believe he has a grasp of the Constitution or that he is for smaller government. In fact he has supported huge government and most Democrats in the past and still supports planned parenthood. All leaving a true Conservative who holds Conservative principles deeply unable to say yes to Trump or Hillary. Two sides of the same coin. I believe Trump may be as dangerous as Hillary in most respects. His behavior leads me to believe he is a narcissist, is extremely vindictive and very immature. His marital behavior tells me he has no concept of commitment or honor. I will sit out the vote rather than say yes, I support either Trump or Hillary. I believe Cruz is entitled to stand by his beliefs and not go along to get along. The greater danger for the country to me is that so many voters do not understand the concept of standing up for what you believe in, no matter the personal cost. So many believe true values are fluid and can be ignored for the sake of winning. Ted Cruz may well be wrong about Trump, as I may be too but I have to stand for what I believe or I have nothing.
Thanks for explaining. Now it makes sense.
Sorry, Susan. Especially that Benghazi illustrates how we have neither nurturing nor protection from that candidate, I jumped too quickly ahead in imagining how appropriate it would be to answer a Clinton campaign failure with an explanation of the difference that it actually did make (her very curt statement r.e. Benghazi) especially to her campaign outcome (again, hopefully).
I am pleased I wrote this if only for all these differing comments coming in, and I believe, the opportunity for sharing ideas without fearing attack for them. (A bit more of attack going on over at FB but I don’t respond there with the priority I give to here.)
You are right, Nancy, that it must be a rude shock to be so focused on something so aspirational and fail. I don’t think I understand your last sentence. Sorry.
I can imagine how difficult it would be to come down from such heights that each of these candidates have reached in their own right, while entertaining the viability of reaching that vision each so passionately believed in. And so, I give each a pass here, as I have also extended to Trump, at one time or another. I really don’t think they will hurt the cause any more or less after all and everyone will eventually ‘decompress’ from those aspirations which each so closely approached. Susan could mention love of country and Trump in the same sentence, and it does not seem to be any form of a stretch to believe that. But as to the disconnect between Clinton and the concept of love, I do find it strange, and disturbing, that there is no seemly inherent connection there, especially in light of that she is supposedly of the more nurturing population. I heard an interesting and relevant observation yesterday, stated something like, “Children run to mother when they need nurturing, and run to father when they need protection”. Come November, I hope to be able to ask, with much curtness, “What difference does it make now?”
During her senior year at Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton chose Saul Alinsky as the subject of her term paper. From Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals are twelve rules, that last of which is:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Mike Tyson once said that “Everybody has a plan ‘till they get punched in the mouth.” Democrats don’t just try to defeat their opponents, they endeavor to destroy them. This has been the left’s MO for many years, ever since one of the founders of the Democrat Party (Aaron Burr) arguably murdered one of America’s Founding Fathers (Alexander Hamilton).
In 2008, Sarah Palin’s character was successfully assassinated, and her national appeal neutralized.
In 2012, Mitt Romney was similarly dispatched in text book fashion.
In Donald Trump, however, the left finds a particularly challenging opponent. How to redefine someone whom the average American already holds an impression of? Especially when that opponent is artful at the same Machiavellian game.
Donald Trump is a rhetorical street fighting man from the toughest streets in America, if not the world. He has demonstrated that not only he can throw the Tyson uppercut, but he can sustain one as well. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, not only didn’t have the strength to defeat Donald Trump, but has now demonstrated that he’s incapable of recovering well from a good solid combination of punches.
Congressional and FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton during 2016 have exposed the fact that the Democrats are a criminal organization masquerading as a political party. And in the banana republic that is Washington D.C., the fix is in.
But now the Democrats are faced with three major challenges: First, they must continue to dupe a majority of the American people into voting to replace their Teflon Don with a successor who doesn’t share the benefit of a Teflon coating, and support for whom can only be relied upon within certain segments of the American population.
Secondly, they must do so while battling an extremely capable opponent, a non-politically correct “Champ”ion of the people with the savvy not to fall for the rope-a-dope strategy that works reliably on Republican politicians.
And lastly, they are fighting a mighty and powerful invisible opponent. The Zeitgeist. The left senses his presence, and though few of them will admit it, those with any degree of sobriety fear him greatly. He is the Wind of Change. And that wind is blowing in Donald Trump’s direction.
Martha, With all due respect I don’t begin to think that I know God’s mind. I try to do my best to act the way I think He wants me too and I believe so does Glenn Beck. I haven’t lost respect for people who come to a different conclusion from me. Ted Cruz’ behavior (and I contributed to his campaign and voted for him) however was in a different category. He was a guest and I think he made it all about him. That was wrong. As for the Bushes and Kasich, I think – and I could be wrong -that they are thinking of 2020 and their own political futures instead of the good of the country, though I’m sure they don’t see those two as independent as I do. Thanks for commenting.
Thank You. Please explain that to Mr Beck. “I set before you life and death, therefore choose Life” The sheep on the right, Goats on the left. Light vs Darkness. Romans 13. God chooses our Leaders. If Trump is Gods chosen one for this election. Don’t pout and refuse to vote.
Luke – with all due respect, I believe Trump may be the epitome of the guy who is “mad as Hell and not gonna take it any more.” Perhaps as a businessperson, he’s tired of always being shaken down – first by the mob-owned concrete pouring firms and their union cronies, then by politicians like Hillary Clinton – and just wants to be left alone to build buildings and start and grow businesses. In that respect, he is just like the rest of us. The primary difference is he has enough clout, both financially and via his business network, to implement changes and see those changes followed through.
Hillary depends on the sleaziness and cronyism that is so intertwined with the way government works. Her net worth depends on corruption and the corruptibility of mankind. Her elevation to the most powerful position in the US guarantees not just a continuation of the status quo, but a deepening of the corruption, lawlessness and totalitarian creep that we’ve witnessed during the past 7 years.
I’ll take my chances with the guy who knows everyone’s price in NY state and in Washington over the gal whose price goes higher the more she plays the game.
I do appreciate hearing how differently you saw it, Jenna. I didn’t feel that the boos came from Trump vs. Cruz supporters necessarily and I heard the pro-Constitution statement as Cruz saying he didn’t think either candidate supported the Constitution. I think ‘we the people’ would be better off if Cruz did not attend the convention than with what he said. But I hope you are correct and that it did serve to bring some people to a unified feeling.
Dear Susan Lapin, I agree that in this election cycle, with an exceptionally corrupt and dangerous candidate for President of the United States in Hillary Clinton, it is the duty of every good citizen to do everything in his power to defeat her. I disagree, however, with your belief that Ted Cruz, especially, failed to fulfill this obligation in any way. He was asked to speak and, for the good pf the country, overcame his personal animus and agreed, with the clear understanding that he would do his best to rally the party without directly endorsing the candidate whose honor, motive and ability he had excellent reason to doubt. Toward the goal of defeating Hillary Clinton it would have been counter productive to dwell on the many, well-founded reasons he had to overcome to endorse Trump – every one of which would have provided the Clinton campaign with useful sound-bites in support of her. Rather, he followed the traditional format of beaten primary opponents from both parties, including his hero, Ronald Regan, by focusing on the issues on which he and the successfull nominee could agree. Cruz, however, went a step beyond endorsing Trump’s platform by calling for unification in the party and urging people to vote for all candidates dedicated to upholding and defending our Constitution and our freedoms. Obviously this principle cannot include Hillary Clinton so it endorses Trump by default. The fact that the Trump supporters immediately concluded that it didn’t include Trump either is deeply distressing, however it is not Cruz’s fault. I cannot think of any former opponent who has been more gracious or displayed more class than Cruz did under the circumstances. Trump’s attempts to professionally and personally destroy not just Cruz but his wife and father, using nothing but insinuation and lies, was beneath dispicable and Cruz had every right to absent himself from this Trump love-fest if he chose. His endorsement of Trump was in no way necessary to Trump’s success. Yet, when asked, he came and did his best to heal the party and rally them against a common foe. The hatred and contempt on display toward Cruz and the Conservative values he expressed was from Trump’s supporters, and if this undermines Cruz’s valient and noble attempt to heal the breach Trump and his followers seem determined to expand, it is in no way Cruz’ fault.
Thank you, Mark.
One of life’s important lessons, James.
One of the realities I think we faced this election is that, IMO, we (sadly) need a low-down, gutter fighter to go against Hillary and the machine and media. Gentleman Romney proved that you fail when you don’t understand how dirty your opponent is willing to be. At the same time, it is very sad to me to have a candidate who I need to protect my grandchildren from in terms of his language and innuendo.
Luke, I do hear what you’re saying and I wish we had an option of George Washington or Ronald Reagan. We don’t. The reason I think that Trump is better (well, one of the reasons) is that he doesn’t have people in place in the IRS, Justice Dep’t etc. to use these agencies in a corrupt the way. Hillary does. He will be under a magnifying glass; she won’t. And I actually do believe that he loves America in a way that she doesn’t.
Yours is the best, most insightful, and wisest analysis on this topic that I have seen, heard or read. Thank you.
Politics is a dirty, nasty game, and history reveals it has always been so. In the heat of the moment, the lower impulse to strike an opponent below the belt is alluring and nearly irresistible, and ignoring and denying this impulse feels like cutting off one’s own arm. Yet I learned a lesson from my own sainted father.
Once in the throes of higher education a professor whom I respected as my father’s favorite mentor proved an obstacle to my education. I learned from a reliable inside source that he denied me assistantship support in his department, sentencing my budding family to years of financial hardship and insecurity. When the man passed away a few years later I was approached to contribute to a scholarship fund in his memory. The blood of my wounds was in my eyes and I was blinded by personal ‘justice.’ I quipped sarcastically to my father, given what the man had done to us, that I would sooner donate to a brothel in the Far East and was considering a truly withering retort. My father gently advised me that such a retort was unworthy and it would hurt my cause in this world and in the next. So like you wished Mr. Cruz had done, I remained silent and “didn’t show up.” In long retrospect now I wonder what good seeds would have been sown, had I ignored ‘labels’ and donated to a worthy cause. Situation ethics is a great teacher. So I donated generously to future causes of similar import.
The moral: serve the cause of greater Good. Mr. Cruz was my candidate as well. But his action may have hurt the greater cause. In vindictively if truthfully retorting to Mr. Trump and denying his cause, Mr. Cruz has earned some fleeting gratification in administering personal eye-for-an-eye ‘justice.’ But now he (and we all) shall also reap the laughter of the Clinton Machine.
Donald Trump is who he is whether or not he is vulgar isn’t the problem. Cruz wasn’t man enough to deal with Trump curdness then why was he on the stage as President? Personally, I’m tired of politicians acting like they live in some white tower when they are speaking to us yet doing everything they can behind our backs to undermind everything we believe in. Oh, Obama looks the parts, talk the part but look what he has done to us! He has destroyed the military, the meaning of marriage, our privacy in public, jobs, crime spree on black men and law enforcement. A man nor a woman has to walk lock in stock with me to rescue me from trouble.
I like Cruz however, I had trouble with his wife. She was unstable and if she couldn’t handle the stress in working in Washington how was she going to handle being First Lady? And, regardless of what Mark Levin or others says, I don’t think his citizenship is valid for the presidency. But what really got me is he wasn’t going to do anything against the Hispanic community so, illegal immigration wouldn’t be any better under him than it was under Bush.
Cruz has proved himself a liar like Trump said. Trump is in business and in business you have to be a fighter and a go getter. That is who he is so stop trying to change him!
I believe Cruz is putting the country first. In a manner, he’s assuring voters like myself that it’s okay to vote down ballot and ignore the top of the ticket. It’s a false choice. How on Earth is Trump any better than Clinton? I don’t understand how people can’t see that both are crony capitalists who believe government is simply an instrument to personally enrich themselves. Voting for either is a detriment and neither is better or worse than the other. I can’t fathom why people can’t see that the politician that can be bought (Clinton) is just as bad as the businessman (Trump) who buys them.
Comments are closed.