Election after election we supported the Republican Party in hopes that it would yield a more conservative Federal Government. Yet, election after election despite increasing numbers of Republicans elected to both the House and Senate, it did no good. Republicans still passed legislation that was increasingly like the Democrat agenda effectively increasing the size and scope of Government.
Ronald Reagan famously stated, "Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem." The more pervasive the government, the less freedom enjoyed by the people it governs. Yet, both Democrats and Republicans rush headlong for more of it both motivated by the same thing: careerism. To that end, Benjamin Disraeli is quoted as saying, "Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to ensure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery." Truly, the only difference is perspective.
Those Republicans who were elected on the premise of bringing "big government" under control were squelched by the "party elite" whose central objective has been to gain and retain power. The Party system, whether Democrat or Republican, is so corrupt that the only way out for both is revolt. The final straw on the Republican side was fed up voters giving the reins of the legislative body of the Federal Government to the Republican Party following the election of Barrack Obama. But, did it make any difference?
If so, it was imperceptible, so much so that Republican Speaker Boehner was forced to resign by the grassroots outcry. When it came time to replace him, Republicans were so divided that Nancy Pelosi insisted that Democrats would help elect another so called, "moderate" Republican as Speaker. So, Boehner was replaced with Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney's former running mate as Vice Presidential candidate who has done nothing but follow in the steps set forth by his predecessor. He blames House passage of virtually everything that the Administration wanted on his predecessor.
How long do conservative voters continue to support a Party that does nothing more than go along with a radical Administration and the opposite Party? There was a spark of hope when Democrats unilaterally crammed the "Affordable Care Act" down the throats of the American people. But that hope quickly faded as Republicans said they would repeal it but did nothing in the Senate.
Excuses no longer suffice, while there is an Administration and members of both Parties that seek to change the demography for a permanent hold on political power. Democrats want illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship for their votes, and republicans are so delusional that they want them for the cheap labor. Whereas the latter would help retain business within the borders of the United States, the political problem it creates is self-defeating, unless participants in the Republican political class morph into Democrats for careerism purposes.
The only way voters have to break the stranglehold is to elect someone from outside the system. To that possibility there is panic on both sides of the political aisle. For numerous election cycles the prospect of a third, conservative party has loomed large but has been repeatedly and successfully beaten down as a sure way of giving Democrats a certain victory. But the electorate on the conservative side has become so motivated that the choice is to either to form a third party or take over the Republican Party. A number of candidates have emerged to do it from within.
On the left is Bernie Sanders taking on the Democrats, and on the Republican side are/were Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. Trump has dominated the Republican insurgency and is gradually squeezing the others out of the race.
Sanders has significant appeal to leftist voters who want even more socialism than that offered by the American Socialist Party, otherwise known as the Democrat Party. And Trump appeals to the raw feelings of many on the right who have been repeatedly betrayed by the Republican Party. Many voters do not really know why they support him, but as much as anything, Trump is the "Anti-Establishment" candidate, and the "Anti-Obama" candidate. He is more effective in that role than the others.
Having early on successfully carved that niche, efforts by the other outsiders such as Cruz, Carson or Fiorina have fallen far short. So much so that the Republican Establishment is contemplating what amounts to forming a Third Party...the great anathema they have used to control the Party base for decades. Trump nailed it when he said, "we are building a much bigger, much stronger Republican Party."
As I see it, Hillary Clinton is "dead on arrival" in a general election despite all the predestinated attempts to see her as the first woman President. She is clearly a power grabbing, self-serving, lying, cheating, backstabbing, Obama-supporting, anti-American and arguably a criminal of national, even international proportions.
Anyone on the Republican side should be able to take her out without much trouble. The argument that Trump has very high negatives is a Red Herring since he would be running against Hillary Clinton who likely has higher negatives than he has.
My choice is Dr. Carson, and whereas he is the most even handed and tempered, the most thoughtful, the most insightful, arguably the smartest and has the greatest integrity, I recognize his inability to effectively deliver his ideas in the debate format and his weak political inexperience as crippling. He should otherwise be the hands down choice of all conservatives, even his competitors.
Governor Kasich's establishment connections and "moderate" stance on social issues is a non-starter for most conservative voters notwithstanding his economic record as governor. When he sold out his personal convictions to pander to "same sex" advocates, he lost.
Senator Rubio's ambivalence, his backstabbing betrayal of those who elected him to the Senate on the subject of illegal immigration is a fatal disqualifier despite his speaking ability and a compelling personal story.
Senator Cruz has a record of defending conservative values and a record of doing what he promised to do in Washington; and, is superbly qualified to appoint Supreme Court Justices. His political flip-flops, his vote against defense spending, allowing his Campaign to commit dirty tricks against Ben Carson, without which he likely would not have won Iowa; despite a too late firing of his top advisor; and, his persona undermine what might have otherwise been an unbeatable candidacy.
Donald Trump is a bombastic, self-aggrandizing, comical image and social buffoon. His style is a put-off to many voters including me. One friend said,
"Trump is a Flim Flam Man... Been a Con-Artist all his life... Personal and business. As with any Con... he studies his mark carefully and then plays to their weaknesses. Doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that the "base" (the voters) of the Republican Party has been outraged about the stranglehold the "Establishment" has had over our elected representative's leadership (Boehner, McConnell and now Ryan). Seems no matter how many conservatives we elect, they get to Washington and are run over... while leadership caves and gives the Dems everything they want. It seems the only options left were either a third party or an outright revolt within the Republican Party. You and I have discussed that very scenario many times... Today, it's happening right before our very eyes. But alas, as with any revolution... it's messy."
On the plus side of the Trump ledger is his success as a businessman, his ability to get things done and his promise to "Make America Great" again. Some argue that it never declined, but that's Democrat denial of the obvious. Does Trump look and act "presidential?" After seven years of watching Barack Hussein Obama chew gum, insult and alienate America's friends, besmirch his own country, apologize to America's enemies, undermine and weaken the nation's military, wreak havoc on its moral fiber, destroy its economic well-being, foster an atmosphere of adversity between the races, lie about anything and everything necessary to advance his ideological agenda, to name only a small number of detractors, I am ready for someone who cares more about America than advancing his career or "looks and acts" Presidential.
If it comes down to Cruz vs. Trump, for me it would be a coin toss. One thing is certain, we do not need Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist; nor Hillary Clinton a closet socialist and potential felon, in the White House. Note, potential felon since she has not been convicted...yet. But there is a plethora of public evidence that she has committed treason, has colluded with America's enemies against this country, has accepted what amount to bribes from foreign governments and individuals, and has amassed a fortune through arguably illegal activity. She should at the least be indicted and tried under the RICO statute, and let the chips fall where they may.
The salient, and vitally important thing is to elect a conservative in this race. Even if it's to elect latter day conservative, Donald Trump; or, imperfect, but long time, consistent conservative Ted Cruz.
We will see how the movie ends.