Campaign 2016 – President – Page 3

Part of the exodus

On Labor Day I normally post on something union-related, but today I have a different sort of union to ponder: the union between conservative activists and the Republican Party.

Among the items on my Facebook feed this morning was one from Dwight Patel, who is one of the financial movers and shakers in the Maryland Republican Party (note: I have transcribed these as written, grammatical/spelling errors and all):

If you are an elected Republican Central Committee member and you can’t bring yourself to Vote for our Parties (sic) nominee… Go resign

After the shouts of “Preach!” and “Word!” in response was this from Eugene Craig, who is the 3rd Vice-Chair of the MDGOP:

Elected members of the central committee were elected to build the GOP not tear it down with blind gang like loyalty to open racism. That is not the party of Reagan and Lincoln and I will protect every RCC member rights to do what’s best to build their local party and vote their conscience.

So Patel responded:

Eugene out (sic) bylaws speak of this… Hence many people have resigned over trump… It was the right thing to do… And you need not further the lefts talking points by calling Donald trump a racist.

Dwight went on to explain that Trump was among his bottom choices and he gave maximum or sizeable donations to others. I can vouch for the fact that Dwight is a significant donor – the resident of Montgomery County bought two tables for our Lincoln Day Dinner last year and brought several people across the bridge. It’s likely he will do so again this year.

As you likely know, I am one of the “many people (who) have resigned over trump.” I didn’t have to in accordance with the bylaws, but I chose to anyway. Simply put, as one who is conservative before Republican I could not back a man who I saw as detrimental to the conservative cause, in part because I found him lacking in trustworthiness and principle. Having no way of knowing just how many people have resigned over Trump as compared to regular turnover, though, I don’t know what sort of trend we have here. But it’s highly likely that most of those who have left over Trump are those who were on the conservative side of the Republican party – people I call the “principle over party” wing as opposed to the “party over everything” wing. (And then you have those caught in the middle based on the fear of a Hillary Clinton administration, which seems to be descriptive of Patel. I suspect they would be sorely disappointed with the lack of positive change that would come from a Trump administration – just more of the status quo of ever-expanding government but with the “Republican” imprimatur on it.)

But in speaking to Craig’s point about “build(ing) their local party,” the sad fact is that 64.6% of those voters in Wicomico County who showed up voted for Trump over a more Constitutional conservative choice in Ted Cruz and a more moderate choice in John Kasich. Perhaps if Maryland had voted earlier in the process many within the 64.6% would have backed other conservatives in the race but we will never know – I just have to deal with the data at hand, and to me it proved that our county voters may be the “party over everything” group. If that’s true, then many of my efforts in educating local voters have been for naught.

I will admit that Trump seems to be getting his campaign going in a better direction, and even with the possible pitfalls of the Trump University trial and allegations of financial ties to Russian and Chinese backers those pale in comparison to the headaches Hillary Clinton is dealing with as the e-mail and Clinton Foundation scandals – along with the rumors of serious health issues with which Hillary is afflicted – smolder in the background despite being ignored by the partisan media. And the other day I concocted a scenario in playing with an Electoral College map where Trump had a path to victory if he can make up just five points on Clinton in certain states. (Part of that involves getting Gary Johnson into the debates, which I support. Let Jill Stein come along and participate, too.)

But, to use an overused phrase, in terms of the conservative movement a Trump presidency would still be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Moreover, his base has been variously described as “nationalist populist” or “alt-right” while those who oppose those ideas are dismissed as “cuckservative.” I reject that description: I think I stand on the real conservative ground here based on my body of work – it’s you guys who need to get off the idea of using government to get even with your opponents. That makes you no better than liberals.

In this case I am not an unbiased observer, but the number in Maryland and around the country that have resigned from party-level positions based on Trump securing the nomination on a plurality of the vote – with some unknown number of Democrats switching over to goose the process for nefarious reasons – is less important than the conservative balance they brought to the Republican Party. Because of certain tasks I was generally given, I could not bear the idea of publicly having to show support for Donald Trump so I opted out.

I have read on many occasions that the Republican Party will soon go the way of the Whig Party, but the circumstances have changed significantly since the mid-19th century as Republicans and Democrats cooperated to make ballot access difficult, if not impossible, for other parties to secure. (The same goes for the Presidential debates, which are controlled a commission made up primarily by members of the two parties. It’s why people like me, who have some degree of agreement with the Libertarian and Constitution parties, stayed as Republicans – the others can’t win on a state and national level.) If the Republican Party ceased to be, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see the power-hungry Democrats take the opportunity to lock the process entirely. So it’s gut-wrenching to see the GOP self-destruct, but there’s the possibility this may occur.

The conservative fight has to go on, though. Like many of the others who left over Trump, I may just need some time to figure out my role.

The price to pay

It really wasn’t my intention to write about this election very much, as I would rather try to shape post-Trump conservatism, but there is an occasion here for a lesson to be taught.

Late last week we began hearing the rumbles about a letter to the RNC, signed by a number of concerned party members, urging them to stop financially supporting the flailing Trump campaign and concentrate their declining finances on saving the House and Senate from a Democratic takeover. The latter was already a strong possibility thanks to the sheer number of Republican seats in play – the TEA Party wave election of 2010 comes home to roost this year in the Senate. Among those signing are onetime Maryland YR chair Brian Griffiths and my “partner in crime” Heather Olsen, who resigned earlier this summer as county chair in Prince George’s County because she, too, could not support Donald Trump as the GOP nominee.

While I have had my differences with Griffiths over the years, it’s more rare that I disagree with my friend Heather. Yet I believe there are two good arguments for keeping Trump in the GOP financial loop, despite their (likely correct) contention that it’s “throwing good money after bad.”

First of all, those who climbed aboard the Trump Train early on were completely and utterly convinced that he would absolutely steamroller Hillary Clinton just as he has built up his business empire. But now that the polls being reported on a near-daily basis continue to find Trump not only losing nationally but putting several “safe” GOP states in play, these backers not only claim the polls are “fake” but also point to other (non-scientific) polls showing Trump has a “YUGE” lead and analysis saying he’ll win in a “landslide.” So apparently this money is going to a good cause, right? These militant Trumpkins are going to be covered regardless – either he wins and then the purge of the #NeverTrump group from the GOP begins, or he loses because he said early on “I’m afraid the election going to be rigged.”

So if you withhold the GOP money from Donald Trump, it’s just going to be another thing to blame his loss on. “We had these huge rallies and we knew we had this election in the bag,” they will wail, “but Reince Priebus and the GOP establishment wouldn’t give us any support – they must have been in cahoots with Hillary.” Don’t you dare give them that excuse.

As for the second reason, the Republican Party simply needs to be taught a lesson on its own and sometimes the only way to get the point across is letting them utterly fail. They had the chance, several times, to do something to avoid this situation – closed primaries, penalties for skipping debates and insistence on participation to the end, or allowing convention delegates to vote their conscience, as examples – but they did none of these things, allowing a candidate with far less than 50% of the Republican vote to skate off with the nomination. (This doesn’t count the policy failures of Republicans in Congress.) As I have said before: you break it, you bought it. Give Trump the money he’s due, and when the election is lost all of those involved will hopefully resign in disgrace for what they have done to a great party and a great country.

So when I get my appeals for donations to the national Republican party (and even the state version) I’m not giving them a dime. This is actually nothing new for me, since I would rather give to the individual candidate I believe in than a party organization that will be as likely to support a candidate edging left of center as it would a conservative (and perhaps more.) And too often they place their thumb on the scale in a primary even though it’s against their policy to do so. (Heather surely recalls Rule 11 being used for Maryland in 2010.)

It looks more and more likely that a bitterly divided Republican Party will endure electoral disaster unseen in a decade this November. (Maybe it’s years ending in 6, since the last several of those have been horrible for national Republicans – they lost all of Congress in 2006, Bob Dole lost in 1996, they lost the Senate in 1986, and Gerald Ford was defeated in 1976. 1966 was the last successful one.) But just as the Democrats are now split between the radical progressives that backed Bernie Sanders and the establishment which went for Clinton, the GOP is rent asunder by the schism between conservatism and the alt-right populism best expressed by Donald Trump (and, to a certain extent prior to that, Sarah Palin.)

Once we get to 2017, the question will be that of who blinks first. After the new Congress and administration is sworn in, it will be time for the GOP to get together and select new leadership. If things go as expected in November, the January RNC meeting will be must-see TV for political junkies as the fate of the resistance is determined.

But if the right people are placed in charge, the few million dollars wasted on Trump at the expense of Congress will be a memory because many may be willing to open their wallets again. In that respect, perhaps the Trump candidacy will be the catharsis the GOP needed to begin on a path to a post-Trump conservatism. We can only hope.

The pipeline’s approved. Environmentalists are angry.

Commentary by Marita Noon

Final federal approval for what is being called the “new Keystone” came from the Army Corps of Engineers on July 26 – allowing the pipeline to move forward. The 1,168-mile long Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), also called the Bakken Pipeline, is comparable in length to the Keystone XL. It will cross four states and carry 450,000 barrels of oil a day from North Dakota to a transfer terminal in Illinois where it will connect with other pipelines and be taken to refineries.

The $3.8 billion dollar project has pitted environmentalists against economic interests.

During the Keystone fight, outspoken opponent Jane Kleeb, founder of Bold Nebraska, said: “In America we should be focused on making sure that the oil in North Dakota, Oklahoma, and others, in Montana, that that oil is getting to market.” Now, thanks to DAPL, America’s oil will have a safer way to get “to market” – freeing up as many as 750 train cars a day to transport corn, soybeans, and grain. However, as soon as DAPL came on the scene, they moved the marker, and environmental opposition was mounted. Bold Iowa, a group that shares a website with Kleeb’s Bold Nebraska, says it has members willing to risk arrest in “nonviolent protests.” They are also training monitors to report any environmental violations or hazards.

On August 1, nine pieces of heavy equipment – excavators and bulldozers – were set on fire at three different DAPL construction sites, causing $3 million in damage. At the time of this writing, no arrests have been made. Additionally, protestors have gathered on the grounds of the North Dakota Capitol, calling for Governor Jack Dalrymple and legislators to put a halt to construction of the pipeline until their lawsuits are addressed.

On its “Stop the Bakken Pipeline” page, the Iowa Sierra Club posted: “A new pipeline will delay the US transition to clean and renewable energy and more fuel-efficient vehicles. The United States needs to move away from fossil fuel extractions and to energy sources that have less impact on climate change.”

The Club’s position sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton’s. When she finally came out against Keystone, she said: “We need to be transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy.” She called the pipeline “a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change.”

Opposition, however, is not as broad-based as the environmental groups had hoped for. At an April meeting of the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition in Iowa, organizers were disappointed. Chairs were set up for 200, but only about 40 “trickled in.” In the four states the pipeline will cross, more than 90 percent, on average, of the landowners signed the voluntary easement agreements.

At its peak, the DAPL’s construction is expected to involve as many as 4,000 workers in each state and will require the purchase of $200 million in American-made heavy construction and related equipment from Caterpillar, Deere, and Vermeer.

Cory Bryson, Business Agent for Laborers Local 563 reports: “We’ve been inundated with calls from all over the country from people wanting to work on this pipeline project. Mainline pipeline projects like Dakota Access provide excellent working opportunities for our members and tremendous wages. The Laborers excel at this work.” No wonder men and women want to travel to the pipeline’s locale, some workers, most without college degrees, brag about banking $2,000-5,000 a week.

In Illinois, the Jacksonville Area Chamber of Commerce has assembled hundreds of packets with information including restaurants, health-care facilities, RV sites, and laundromats. Executive Director Lisa Musch reports that her office has been receiving calls for months from people looking for rental properties. Teriann Gutierrez, owner of Buena Vista Farms, a resort-campground, and a retired plastics engineer, says: “I’ve been full since the beginning of April.” She told me the boost in population is bringing a lot of money into the community that has been hit hard with the loss of manufacturing jobs. DAPL is putting a lot of local people to work. Gutierrez is very thankful as the boom means she’ll be able to pay down debt.

“Like any major construction project, the DAPL will create, and more importantly maintain, high paying American jobs throughout the supply chain and throughout the nation,” North Dakota’s at-large Congressman Kevin Cramer said. “I’ve seen the crews that work on building the line and they take great pride in their craft. They spend money in local, usually rural, communities throughout the route. The steel suppliers and equipment manufacturers and distributors are just a few of the links in the chain. Everybody from fry cooks to hotel owners to financers are affected. Perhaps, most importantly, in a low price crude market, the economics of moving oil by the most efficient and safe manner possible preserves jobs on the production side of the equation as well.”

While DAPL is already creating lots of jobs, it is just one of many pipeline projects in the works that could be bringing much needed economic development to other communities and high-paying jobs for American workers. Gutierrez explained that, according to the workers staying at Buena Vista Farms: “The hardest thing is getting the permits. The long process holds up jobs.” Apparently, many of them made reservations but, then, had to delay them – and delay starting to work on the pipeline – because the permits hadn’t been approved as expected. It doesn’t have to be that way. Under President Obama, permitting for oil-and-gas activity has been slow-walked. Jobs have been held up.

Donald Trump has made clear that he’ll support pipelines and said he’ll invite TransCanada to reapply for the Keystone permit. On the other side, Clinton opposed Keystone and supports moving away from fossil fuels. Secretary of State John Kerry, Clinton’s successor, has implied that with “some 300 pipelines” we really don’t need any more. He said: “it’s not as if we’re pipeline-less.” A Clinton administration would likely extend the Obama delay tactic.

Whichever candidate wins in November will appoint agency heads who support his or her views – thus driving the policy direction.

Like Gutierrez, union members are grateful for the jobs. Last week, Dave Barnett, Pipeline Representative for the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, told me: “We are pleased that the thousands of job opportunities associated with these projects are being decided on their need and merits, not on political pressures by extremists as the Keystone XL was.”

Whether the thousands of additional job opportunities materialize depends on American voters. Will we vote for pipelines that fuel the American economy and transport our natural resources safely and cheaply? Or, will we block job creation and economic development by voting with the environmentalists who want to “keep it in the ground?” In less than 100 days, we’ll have the answer to these important questions.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy – which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Art of the Deal: how Donald Trump negotiated his nomination (part 4 of 4)

Commentary by John Manfreda, edited by Marita Noon

Last of four parts.

When it comes to what to expect from him, some things are obvious, while others no one knows – not even Trump himself. Consider what he said on page 1: “I play it very loose. I don’t carry a briefcase. I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can’t be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you have too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.”

He might not have everything planned until the last minute, but there are some things that we do know.

We can know he is going to restructure trade deals – or do away with them altogether. With Trump in the Oval Office, NAFTA, Japan, Korea, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreements will be, at least, revised. International trade has been a main topic of his conversation since the 1980s.

Likewise, we can expect relationships with OPEC countries to be restructured.

On page 321, Trump asserts: “Objective qualifying standards ought to be adopted for any bidder on a city job. Provable past performance, for example, should be required across the board. In addition, any contractor who does good work for the city – coming in on time and on budget – ought to be given priority on future city jobs.” For the rest of that chapter, Trump attacks the ills of government contracting. Therefore, expect a revamped government contracting process from a President Trump.

Referencing his dealings with a project on the West Side, page 346, Trump says: “Providing jobs, in my view, is a far more constructive solution to unemployment then creating welfare programs.” From this quote, and other recent comments about the country’s terrible infrastructure, it is safe to assume that he will try to re-build the nation’s infrastructure. It will be a means of creating jobs and attracting future businesses to invest in the U.S.

In the Art of the Deal, he also talks about providing incentives to invest, such as tax-free zones. Such proposals, and other types of tax cut plans – maybe even a new tax code, should be expected when Trump becomes president.

Conclusion

What many people originally failed to see is that Trump has either always wanted to be, or thought at one point in his lifetime that he would have to try and become, president. What this history makes clear, is that he has been negotiating this presidential run since the 1980s.

Just days before the convention, the latest Rasmussen poll gives Trump his biggest lead yet over Hillary Clinton: 44-37. Yet, the general consensus among the political, multinational, and intellectual elite is that she is going to be our next president. As a resident of Washington DC, I am confident this poll hasn’t changed their minds. They’ll claim that Trump is a racist, he doesn’t have a plan, or he isn’t specific about his plans, and that he won’t release his tax returns because he must be hiding something. Even some Republicans don’t like him and fear he is a loose cannon. The list goes on and on.

Instead of focusing on what he is or isn’t during his presidential run, the elites need to examine who he is. The media elite understand that Trump isn’t a politician, that he isn’t politically correct. But he is a businessman, an entrepreneur, who built a global organization that does business all over the world. Trump isn’t just his name; it is his brand. Beginning in 1974, when he became president of the Trump Organization, he has built his brand through years of work, dedication, and excellence. Since then he has achieved unimaginable success. In 1976, he partnered with the Hyatt Corporation to build the Grand Hyatt hotel. In 1986, he took over a failed public project and rebuilt New York City’s Wollman Rink. He built Trump Tower, created the celebrity Apprentice show, and Trump International Chicago. These, and other successes, are the definition of the Trump brand – not a rally speech or a cable TV debate. It is something Trump has that differs from all other politicians.

Trump cemented his brand in the mind of the American people long before this election. Through his business practices, they understand what they will receive when they buy a Trump product: integrity, excellence, and satisfaction. When voters support Trump, it is not about his speeches, or his rhetoric; not his politically incorrect mantra, or his outsider status. What they are truly voting for is the Trump brand, and for that brand to equally reflect American prosperity, foreign affairs, and the future of this country. The American voter is hoping that, in 2017, the Trump brand becomes America’s brand.

In football, all coaches have a playbook that dictates strategy, game plan, and execution. Bill Walsh’s signature playbook was called the West Coast Offense, the 1985 Chicago Bears signature playbook was called the 46 Defense, in the late 90s-early 2000s the Tampa Bay Buccaneers called theirs Tampa 2. Trump’s run for the presidency isn’t any different. For Trump, his playbook is called the Art of the Deal. This book outlines how he is strategizing, planning, and executing his run for the presidency.

Understanding Trump’s playbook explains why he doesn’t need to release his tax returns, he doesn’t need all Republicans to like him, and why his voters don’t care that he is a loose cannon. It’s why he doesn’t need to be detailed and why attacks from the press claiming that he is racist haven’t derailed or hurt him like they would other candidates.

Donald Trump’s run to the White House could be described as, first they ignore Trump, then they laugh at Trump, then they fear Trump, then they get Trumped.

John Manfreda majored in Pre-Law at Frostburg State University and received his MBA at Trinity University. He has co-authored The Petro Profit report and dividend stock report, and is a former Bullion Broker. He has been featured in Forbes, the Edmund Burke Institute, The Money Show, the Examiner, and the Smart Money investor. This piece was originally written during the early primary season and predicted Trump’s win. It has been updated and revised to reflect the current political environment.

Art of the Deal: how Donald Trump negotiated his nomination (part 3 of 4)

Commentary by John Manfreda, edited by Marita Noon

Third of four parts.

When it comes to presidential conspiracies, no one’s presidential campaign has generated more conspiratorial talk then Trump’s. One of the more popular ones was that he is a Democratic plant.

People forgot that before Donald Trump was ever a Democrat, he was a symbol of 1980’s wheeling-and-dealing Reaganomics wealth boom. He wrote a best-selling novel and had his own board game. He was a Republican for a long time, before he ever tried out the Democrats.

People pointed to his campaign contributions as proof that he really was a Democrat. From 1989 to 2011, Trump did donate $581,350 to the Democrat Party and only $497,690 to the Republican Party – with a good amount donated to Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi.

In his defense, when operating in the real estate industry, where permitting, approvals, licensing, and government bureaucracy were part of his everyday life, he had to maintain good relations with public officials of all parties, not just Republicans.

Trump is also in the gaming business. Naturally he is going to befriend a powerful Senator from Nevada who is very influential on public policy in the gaming industry. Remember, he had to protect his business.

Regarding the Clinton donations, she was a senator in his home state. She carried a lot of weight in the Senate. He also lives in a Blue state – which requires him to have good relations with his public officials that are Democrats (especially the very influential ones.)

When it comes to Nancy Pelosi, she was the Speaker of the House. Trump had, in 2006, a newly opened Los Angeles golf course. While not directly in her district, Pelosi is still in the state of California. As Speaker, she has enormous sway over federal law. It made sense, to protect his golf course, for him to befriend the most powerful lawmaker in the state. In addition to California, he also holds major properties in New Jersey and New York – all states that generally elect lawmakers who are Democrats. As a businessman, Trump did what was best for his business and protected his assets.

Looking at his donations from 1989 to the present, Trump’s donations to Republican candidates outnumbered his donations to Democrats. So overall, his campaign contributions to Republicans are still greater than those made to Democrats – Republicans: $961,140; Democrats $584,850. Trump has donated significantly more to Republicans than Democrats.

If he had been a plant for the Democrats, they were probably unaware of, or overlooked, the disparity.

In 2004, his show, The Apprentice, finally aired on NBC – which is a left-leaning news organization. Before claiming the Democrat plant conspiracy, at least consider the possibility that he joined the Democrat Party to get NBC to air his show. I have no proof that this is true, but the idea is worthy of consideration – especially in light of the “plant” conspiracy that floated around.

Proof Trump was Serious

When Trump announced his candidacy, many claimed he wasn’t serious; that he was just putting on a show. As previously stated, however, political office is something he has been considering for years – during which time his ideas were percolating. Go back to his 1988 interview on the Oprah Winfrey show. In it, he talked about making our allies pay their fair share. He criticized Japan for not allowing U.S. companies to sell products into their markets, while we allow them to sell into our market. He ranted about our trade deficits. He claimed the Kuwaitis were living like kings. Most importantly, he said if things continued the downward trajectory, he wouldn’t rule out a run.

The Trump heard on Oprah’s nearly 20-year-old interview, sounds a lot like the one we heard in the primary election: bad trade policy, our debt, and the horrible shape of our country. You can easily replace his Japan rhetoric of the 1980s, with that of Mexico, or China today. In fact on page 189, Trump says this about Japan: “What’s unfortunate is that for decades now they have become wealthier in large measure by screwing the United States with a self-serving trade policy that our political leaders have never been able to fully understand or counteract.”

When you look at his past political actions and campaign strategies, they reflect his Art of the Deal views.

But if you want more proof that he was serious from the beginning, and will do what he says once in the Oval Office, look at page 60 in chapter 2. This chapter is called Trump Cards: The Elements of the Deal. In it, one of the listed elements is: “Deliver the Goods.” Part of the Trump Brand isn’t just promotion, marketing, and bravado, it’s being able to back up its publicity with results.

If being able to talk a big game were all that was required to build a real estate empire, there would be tons of Donald Trumps out there. But he is unique. Building the Trump brand requires more than talk; it requires action and results. This is why he isn’t all talk when he is on the campaign trail, and what seems to be more important to him than money is his brand. That is a brand that communicates quality, excellence, and results.

If Trump were to go back on his word, break his promise to the people, and not deliver the “goods,” he wouldn’t be considered just another politician, like so many candidates. Other politicians don’t have a brand, Trump does. If he were to act like many politicians – all talk and no action – he would destroy his brand. Any successful entrepreneur/business owner will tell you, your brand means everything. The old saying is: “my word is my bond,” but to Trump, his brand is his bond.

This is what makes Trump unique, this is why he isn’t a politician, and this is why if elected, he would deliver the results, because that is the Trump Brand.

If you want more proof that Trump is serious, Mexico and China have both responded to Trump’s accusations that the countries are ripping America off. If they thought Trump was just putting on a show, the respective leaders wouldn’t have tried to make their case directly to the American people. Remember, they have their own country and people to please.

In part 4 tomorrow: what kind of President will Trump be?

Art of the Deal: how Donald Trump negotiated his nomination (part 2 of 4)

Commentary by John Manfreda, edited by Marita Noon

Second of four parts.

The 2015-16 GOP primary offered a political environment where there was no clear-cut favorite. None of the candidates had a clear and established base of supporters. The frontrunner, Jeb Bush, had a toxic last name – something Trump could attack and brand in his unique style. Governor Scott Walker’s state of Wisconsin was ranked 40th in private sector job creation, and the state budget faced fiscal woes as well. Other high profile candidates included Rick Perry, who didn’t remember which departments he wanted to shut down; Mike Huckabee who has failed to generate any momentum in past elections, Chris Christie who is unpopular with the conservative base; and Carly Fiorina who lost to Barbara Boxer in her Senate bid. This field of Republican candidates was the perfect batch for a Trump move.

When it comes to the presidential opponents in the general election, his potential opponents were even weaker than his Republican primary opponents. Hillary Clinton, who even then, was the front runner for the Democrat Party, had the Benghazi scandal hanging over her head – not to mention a litany of past scandals such as Whitewater. With her track record, Trump could make the name Hillary Clinton synonymous with the words greed, corruption, and criminal – which become the moniker: “Crooked Hillary.” Additionally, she lacks charisma and grace. Most Americans view Bernie Sanders’ affiliations with the socialist party and his touted 90% income tax rate as extreme. By now, many may have forgotten Martin O’Malley – whose image was tarnished by the Baltimore riots. Then there was Jim Webb – who didn’t seem likely to fire up the Democrat base with his views on Climate Change and willingness to defend the Confederate flag.

Here, Trump finally had the opportunity to go from longshot to favorite. This is the environment he’d been waiting for. But it wasn’t just the candidates that gave Trump the edge in this election. It was probably the change in public sentiment and the toxic political environment for establishment candidates that may have enticed him into the political arena.

Most voters have been dissatisfied with the GOP, the Democrat Party, and career politicians. In fact, many Americans have expressed that a third party is needed.

This environment was perfect for a promoter like Trump – who was anything but a politician. He is brash, confrontational, savvy, straightforward, and rebellious. Unlike past elections, this is what the voters crave: someone who isn’t a politician. Trump can deliver just that. Due to their unhappiness with President Obama, he even has a chance to sway African-Americans into voting Republican.

This is the political environment Trump has been waiting for.

How Trump Took the Spotlight from the Other Candidates

Realize Trump has spent years burnishing his brand. He is always marketing himself as a rich and successful businessman. Therefore, he could pay for his own campaign. He didn’t need lobbyists’ money.

Remember this: Trump didn’t become rich by throwing money away or blowing it on a good time. On page 358, he tells about the Wollman Rink that he completed after the New York government failed. In the end, it was $750,000 under budget – which is reflected in his campaign strategy of cost effectiveness.

On page 56 he reveals: “One thing I have learned about the press is that they are always hungry for a good story and the more sensational the better.”

Looking back, it is easy to see this principle at work. It exposes his belief that he didn’t need to spend as much money as traditional candidates. Yes, his primary campaign had its costs, but, due to his ability to feed the hungry press, it was more cost effective than the other Republican candidates. Trump knows how to generate a story – which garnered him air time, promotional time, and/or marketing time with the media. This led to more TV press and allowed him to receive more interview offers than other presidential candidates. He made his case to people on a more consistent basis than the other candidates.

The media loved that Trump wasn’t afraid to broadcast what other people wouldn’t even whisper – such as Americans won’t elect another black president due to Obama’s performance, or more controversial remarks saying McCain wasn’t a war hero. Sound bites such as these were made for Twitter and give Trump more coverage, future interviews, and a new medium to communicate his unique message. He followed up the above quotes, stating that there won’t be another black president because Obama has not helped out the black community. After his McCain remarks, he added that McCain hasn’t helped veterans get the care they need while acting as a sitting senator and that our country needs to do more to help our veterans.

Additionally, Trump has a huge Facebook and Twitter following. In the age of digital and social media, this made it easier for Trump to generate a sensational story. Whether it’s a Twitter fight, or Facebook quote, Trump generates news anywhere, at any time. Remember, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, all those social media accounts are free. Talk about cost effective communication – you don’t get more cost effective than free.

Access to social media, combined with Trump’s relationship with the press, allowed him to make his case directly to the people on a more regular basis than candidates in past elections were able to do.

The next quote from Art of the Deal that I’ll cite is from page 58: “The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole” – which surely reflects the tone of his campaign.

He has said: “I will be the greatest jobs president God has ever created.” He’ll beat China. He will build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. All of which definitely sounds like the guy who wrote Art of the Deal. This “bravado” had the public wanting to communicate with him, instead of a candidate trying to communicate with the public and allowed him to make his case to the people more frequently than his opponents.

It is clear, having spent years building up his following, Trump knows how to use social media. At his fingertips, he has a big audience. He frequently, and effectively, communicates with them.

His political opponents didn’t have the time to create a large following or the practice communicating their messages. Instead, their time was spent trying to raise money. This gave Trump a PR edge that his opponents couldn’t overcome. He spent less money campaigning and more time communicating. As a result, he owned the spotlight.

In part 3 tomorrow: debunking the Trump conspiracies.

Art of the Deal: how Donald Trump negotiated his nomination (part 1 of 4)

Commentary by John Manfreda, edited by Marita Noon

First of four parts.

After previously flirting with the idea, on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump finally announced his entrance into politics with a run for the White House. At the time, people wondered if he was serious. Many doubted that he could secure the nomination, as many now doubt that he can win the presidency.

Understanding how serious he actually was, requires knowledge of two things:

his political history, and
his most referenced book: The Art of the Deal.

Trump’s Political History

The idea of running for president wasn’t new – it began in 1988, when political activist Mike Dunbar came up with the idea. Trump was dissatisfied with both the Republican candidates: George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. Trump claimed they were “duds.” Despite creating full page ads in the New York Times, which explained his own foreign policy, Trump ultimately decided not to make a presidential bid.

Though this was the first time a Trump bid for the White House was discussed publically, it certainly wasn’t the last.

For the rest of the 1980s, and for much of the 1990s, he remained with the Republican Party. But in 1999 that changed. Trump left the Republicans and joined the Reform Party. He said the reason for his departure was because it became too conservative, while Democrats were too liberal. Trump claims that through the Reform Party, he was hoping to help form a more centrist organization.

In the year 2000, Trump teased with the idea of running for president as a Reform Party candidate. He even wrote a book called The America We Deserved. In it, Trump claims he dropped out of the race due to the party’s internal conflicts.

In 2001, Trump joined the Democrat Party. During his time with the Democrats, there were rumors that he would run for president in 2004. However, in 2004, his TV show The Apprentice was launched. He also toyed with the idea of running for president in 2008. While with the Democrats, Trump also considered running for governor of New York – but ultimately decided not to.

Disillusioned with the Democrats, in 2009, Trump switched back to his original party: the Republican Party. But his big splash didn’t come until 2012 when he questioned Obama’s legitimacy as president, and, once again, claimed that America was missing quality leadership. He, then, seriously looked at a 2012 presidential run.

Trump ultimately concluded he wasn’t ready to leave the private sector for politics. He also thought Mitt Romney could defeat Barack Obama.

In 2014, there was again speculation that he would run for governor.

Trump’s Politics Now

After years of contemplation, Trump decided to finally run for president in the 2016 Republican primary. But Trump’s announcement still had people wondering: “Is he serious and can he win?” Then and now, some still have their doubts.

To answer the questions, one must understand the philosophy outlined in his book Art of the Deal. This book is one of the best ways to understand Trump’s political past and current actions. In political interviews, discussions, and speeches, he cleverly brings in Art of the Deal. In fact, one of his famous presidential candidate announcement quotes is: “We need a leader who wrote The Art of the Deal.” Not having met Donald Trump personally, I found this book to be a great source for understanding his political actions and motivations.

Why Trump Walked Away From Past Political Races

After reading Art of the Deal, Trump’s political actions became clearer. I concluded that he was always serious about running for office, but would only do so if the environment was favorable. Understanding Trump’s negotiating methods are central to my conclusion.

The Art of the Deal, Chapter 2, page 53 states: “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.” He also repeatedly says: “No deal is better than a bad deal.”

On page 54-55 he addresses the key to negotiating successful real estate deals. When it comes to real estate, most people say you need a great location. However, Trump claims that you don’t need the best location in order to negotiate a successful real estate deal. Instead, you need the best deal. Location can be enhanced through promotion and psychology. Trump also states: “What you should never do is pay too much, even if it means walking away from a very good site.” (page 56)

This helps explain his resistance to commit to past political races. In 1988, Trump would have had to face Vice President George H.W. Bush. Bush benefitted from Ronald Reagan’s popularity as most Americans were well off financially and Reagan’s success was seen as Bush’s – which won Bush the nomination on the first ballot. Trying to dethrone the Reagan Revolution likely wasn’t the deal Trump wanted to walk into. He did what he does when presented with a bad deal: he walked away from it.

Had he run in 2000, he would have had to run as a third party candidate in a party rife with internal conflict, while running against the man who was vice president under a popular president: Al Gore; as well as Bush legacy heir: George W. Bush. Once again, not a good deal for Trump – he walked away from it.

In 2004, he would have had to unseat G.W. Bush in the middle of a war – a wartime president has never lost a re-election in the history of U.S. presidential elections.

In 2008, there was Hillary, the rise of Obama, and anti-Republican feelings with which to contend. Even though Trump was a registered Democrat at the time, he had Republican ties throughout the 1980s and 90s, so this obviously wasn’t a good environment for him, either. He did what he always does when confronted with bad deals, he walked away.

In 2012, he would have had to face Mitt Romney – a favorite of the baby boom generation – in the primary. Then in the Presidential election he would have to face Obama, who was basically backed by the press. So Trump decided to do what he is accustomed to doing when presented with a bad deal: again, he walked away.

Remember, these unfavorable environments for a Trump campaign would have required him to step away from his business and let someone else make the decisions – a role he apparently wasn’t willing to relinquish just yet.

But it isn’t just Trump’s theory of walking away from a bad deal that would explain all of his actions. On page 51, he talks about knowing your own market. He states: “I do my own surveys and draw my own conclusions.” Then on page 52 he adds: “The other people I don’t take too seriously are the critics – except when they stand in the way of my projects.”

Based on these statements, it becomes clear that during those elections, he did his own due diligence, and decided those elections weren’t the best environment for him.

In 2015, all of that changed.

In part 2 tomorrow: why 2016 was different.

Trump: making America’s energy policy cheaper, faster, and better

Commentary by Marita Noon

Editor’s note: by Marita’s request – and so as not to come in the midst of other upcoming content from her – I’m posting this a day earlier than Marita’s normal Tuesday morning slot.

The name Donald Trump will occupy the news cycle during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. Other than comments from oil entrepreneur Harold Hamm, energy won’t be a huge topic on the stage – though it does hold a spot on the newly approved Republican Platform and has a starring role in Trump’s plan to “make America great again.”

Trump calls it “An America First Energy Plan.” In it, he calls for “American energy dominance,” which he sees as a strategic, economic, and foreign policy goal. Like every recent president before him, he seeks “American energy independence” – which he defines as being “independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.” According to his energy adviser, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), this acknowledges that we will still use oil from our friends like Canada and Mexico and that, for example, due to refinery configurations, there will likely continue to be oil imports and exports. The thing to note is that we will not need to, not have to, do business with those who are hostile toward America.

He understands that our amazing American energy resources offer the United States tremendous wealth and economic advantage. In his May 26 speech in North Dakota, addressing untapped oil and gas reserves on federal lands, Trump exclaimed: “We have no idea how rich we are. We want to cherish that wealth.” In comparison, he pointed out that Hillary Clinton wants to lock up “trillions in American wealth” while her “poverty-expansion agenda” enriches her friends and makes everyone else poor. (Be sure to read more about Hillary enriching her friends in my column next week.) In the speech, Trump pointed out to the audience, largely made up of people from the oil and agriculture industries: “If Crooked Hillary can shut down the mines, she can shut down your business, too.”

His America First Energy Plan calls for a redirection of our energy agenda. Overall, Trump will move away from government-central planning efforts and return authority back to the states – an idea that has made it into the Republican Platform. His plan has three main components. Under a Trump administration there will be big changes in climate policy, regulations, and the management of federal lands.

Climate policy

While Trump is known to have called climate change “a hoax,” and has declared that he will not allow “political activists with extreme agendas” to write the rules, he is a true environmentalist. Coming from New York City where the only “nature” is Central Park, he has a heart for the environment. Cramer told me Trump holds a typical “Manhattan view of the West:” clean air, green space, and nature are precious. In his energy speech, Trump announced his environmental policy: “my priorities are very simple: clean air and clean water.” A Trump administration “will work with conservationists whose only agenda is protecting nature.”

In his “100-day action plan,” Trump says he’ll rescind the Climate Action Plan – which “gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use.”

[Note: this foreign control over energy use was a key component in the Brexit vote – as I wrote a few weeks ago. Since then, Theresa May, the UK’s new Prime Minister, who last week announced: “I want to see an energy policy that emphasises the reliability of supply and lower costs for users,” has scrapped the Department of Energy and Climate Change and replaced it with a new Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. With a President Trump, we can expect similar action.]

Trump has pledged to “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payment of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.” He says such policies are evidence of America bending to benefit other nations at a cost to the U.S. Once the “draconian climate rules” are eliminated there is no rationale for imposing a “job-killing cap-and-trade” scheme or to keep extending the subsidies for wind and solar. He is not opposed to wind and solar energy, and in fact, wants to “get bureaucracy out of the way of innovation so we can pursue all forms of energy,” but he doesn’t support the idea of “the government picking winners and losers.” Like other energy sources, once the subsidies expire, the wind and solar industry would benefit from typical business tax deductions and deferments.

Regulations

Trump’s agenda calls for “Regulation reform that eliminates stupid rules that send our jobs overseas.” He knows that “costly regulation makes it harder and harder to turn a profit.”

In his speech, he accused the Environmental Protection Agency of “totalitarian tactics” and pointed out the current enforcement disparity: “The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against seven North Dakota oil companies for the deaths of 28 birds while the Administration fast-tracked wind projects that kill more than 1 million birds a year.”

Cramer told me we can expect Trump to roll back a lot of Obama’s regulatory overreach and take a different approach toward rules, like the Waters of the U.S. and the Clean Power Plan, that are currently under a court-ordered stay.

Coal miners have come out en masse for Trump because of his promise to “save the coal industry.” I asked Cramer how Trump planned to do that. He told me that while coal-fueled power plants that have already been shut down or converted to natural gas will not likely be reopened, a Trump administration can save what’s left and stop the bleeding by not artificially punishing the industry through regulation.

On July 14, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 2017 Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. It provides an example of actions we can expect from a President Trump. Cramer says if this bill were to make it to Trump’s desk, he would sign it. Some of the bill’s provisions include:

Prohibiting the EPA from implementing new greenhouse gas regulations for new and existing power plants,
Prohibiting harmful changes to the “stream buffer rule” or making changes to the definition of “fill material” negatively impacting coal-mining operations, and
Requiring a report on the backlog of mining permits awaiting approval.

Additionally, the bill cuts funding for regulatory agencies – “a decrease of $64 million from last year’s budget and $1 billion below the President’s request.”

While the Obama Administration has issued near fatal regulations on the coal industry (which Hillary would take even further), other countries are using more coal. On July 11, the Financial Times announced that prices for coal surged on increasing demand in China.

In short, Trump explained: “Any future regulation will go through a simple test: is this regulation good for the American worker? If it doesn’t pass this test, the rule will not be approved.”

Federal Lands

In his speech, Trump reminded people that President Obama has halted leasing for new coal mines on federal lands and aggressively blocked the production of oil and natural gas by closing down leases and putting reserves off limits. He pointed out that these resources are an American treasure and that the American people are entitled to share in the riches.

One of the ways Americans will benefit from the riches of our natural resources is through a designated fund that, much like many natural resource states already do, will put a portion of the revenues directly into rebuilding roads, schools, and public infrastructure.

As a part of his 100-day action plan, Trump has promised to “lift moratoriums on energy production on federal areas.” Instead of slow-walking permits or being passive-aggressive with the permitting process, he’ll order agencies to expedite exploration, drilling, and mining permits.

Trump has said he intends to “trust local officials and local residents.” This idea will be played out in his approach to the management of federal lands – which Cramer explained will be more of a state and federal partnership where states will have a much greater say regarding their land use. This includes the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. In a blow to the Obama administration’s overreach, a federal court recently affirmed that the regulation of the technology is the jurisdiction of the states – not the Federal Bureau of Land Management.

We’ll see this same philosophy played out in the designation of national monuments – something the Obama administration has abused by turning the ability to designate national monuments into a land grab. His monument designations often prevent productive use of the federal lands – such as agriculture or mineral extraction. The GOP platform committee adopted language that empowers states to retain control over lands within their borders. New monuments will “require the approval of the state where the national monument is designated or the national park is proposed.” As a result, Cramer told me: “We will not see a lot of new federal lands.”

There are two additional important energy items to note. First, Trump would “ask TransCanada to renew its permit application for the Keystone pipeline” – which would be built by American workers. Second, Trump has long been a supporter of nuclear power.

Trump’s energy plan is a turn toward realism. It is based on the fact that our American energy abundance can allow for shared prosperity, better schools, more funding for infrastructure, higher wages, and lower unemployment. Isn’t that what making America great again is all about?

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy – which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

The case against Trump (part 2)

Since I finished part 1 last week, we’ve had a lot of developments in the race: Trump picked outgoing Indiana Governor Mike Pence to be his running mate (or did he actually make the selection?) and came up with an awful logo (that lasted one day) to celebrate. Meanwhile, the RNC apparently succeeded in binding their delegates to this dog of a ticket. (My question: how did our Maryland Rules Committee members vote? I believe Nicolee Ambrose, who has fought in that committee before, voted the proper way and against the RNC/Trump minions. Yes, they are shamefully now one and the same.)

Update: Indeed, both Maryland members voted properly, and Nicolee Ambrose is urging members to reject the Majority Rules Report.

So the question may be moot, but I’m going to press on for the record so I can point back at this and say “I told you so.” Not that it will do a whole lot of good, of course, but maybe people will listen to reason in the future. It’s worth a try.

Just as a refresher, the five issues I have left over are taxation, immigration, foreign policy, entitlements, and role of government.

Trump came up with a decent taxation plan during the campaign – maybe not all that I would want, but an improvement. But he later admitted that all of it was up for negotiation, so let me clarify: the rates will not go down for many taxpayers, but the increases that made the package “revenue neutral” in his words will remain. Those on the low end of the scale may get the “I win!” form but the rest of us in the middle will lose, again.

I’m tempted to save immigration for last because that was the first important issue for Trump and the one that propelled him from celebrity sideshow to true contender. Americans, indeed, want something done about the influx of foreigners and a large part of that is building a wall at the border. But it’s not my most important issue and I still run this blog, so it goes in order.

The first crack in the Trump immigration façade for me was the idea of building a “big, beautiful door” in the wall to promote legal immigration. Then I found out Donald was an advocate of what’s called “touchback” immigration, which is a fancy way of saying he’ll give amnesty. And I can see it already: in a “grand deal” to get the wall built, Trump will eliminate the “touchback” part – because it’s oh so hard for these immigrants to be uprooted and return to their homeland – for the promise that a wall will get built. News flash: we were promised this in 2006, but the Democrats (along with a few squishy Republicans) reneged on the deal. We see how Congress acts, and regardless of what Trump may say this is not a promise he would keep. Bank on it.

I know Trump did a sort of catch-all address on foreign policy some months back, but his criticism of the Iraq war (and accusations about soldiers therein) gives me pause. That’s not to say we are always right, but there is a little bit of hindsight he’s taking advantage of here. If Iraq were a thriving nation and American bulwark in the Middle East such as Israel is, I seriously doubt Trump would say word one about it being a bad idea. That’s the sort of person I take him to be.

It’s very possible to lump both entitlements and the role of government into one statement, reportedly made by Trump in New Hampshire back in 2015 and relayed by Andrew Kirell at Mediaite:

The Affordable Care Act, “which is a disaster,” he said, “has to be repealed and replaced.” That line drew applause.

“Whether it is we are going to cut Social Security, because that’s what they are saying,” he continued. “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that. And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut.”

So will it be fair when the train goes off the tracks and millions of younger Americans are left with nothing? Trump is 70 years old, so (as if he really needed it) if Social Security runs out in 2030 he’ll likely be dead anyway. But I will be 66 years old and hoping to retire at some point, although thanks to the Ponzi scheme of Social Security all that money my employers and I grudgingly gave to the government over forty-plus years will long since be pissed away. And the more I deal with the “Affordable” Care Act, the less affordable I find it. The repeal is fine, but the replace should be with the old system we liked, not some new government intrusion.

In sum, it became apparent to me early on that despite his appeal as an outsider, Donald Trump is far from an advocate of limiting government. If he should win in November, conservative Republicans will likely be in the same precarious position they were often placed in by George W. Bush: it’s difficult to go against a president in your own party even if he goes against party principles.

The Republican Party I signed onto back in 1982 when I first registered to vote in Fulton Township, Ohio was ably represented by Ronald Reagan at the time: strong defense, lower taxes for all Americans, and a moral clarity of purpose that included the concept of American exceptionalism. Yet Reagan also intended to limit government; unfortunately he wasn’t as successful in that aspect because he always worked with a Democrat-controlled House (and usually Senate.) I often wish that Reagan could have worked with the early Gingrich-led House and a conservative Senate – we may have beat back a half-century of New Deal and Great Society policies to provide a great deal for all Americans who wished to pursue the opportunities provided to them.

I don’t know how we got Donald Trump as our nominee, although I suspect the early open primaries (and $2 billion in free media) may have helped. Democrats may have put together their own successful “Operation Chaos” to give Republicans the weakest possible contender. (And if you think that’s a recent concept, I have a confession to make: in my first Presidential primary in 1984 I requested a Democrat ballot so I could vote for Jesse Jackson, who I perceived as the Democrat least likely to beat Ronald Reagan in the general election. Not that I needed to worry.) It’s worth noting that the defeat of “Free the Delegates” also resulted in the defeat of some measures designed to reduce the impact of open primaries.

Alas, the GOP may be stuck with Trump as the nominee. So my message for the national Republican Party from here on out is simple: you broke it, you bought it. The mess is on you and I’m washing my hands of it.

Programming note: Over the next four days – in addition to her regular Tuesday column – I will run a special four-part series sent to me by Marita Noon, but originally written by John Manfreda, who normally writes on the energy sector like Marita does. She “spent most of the day (last Thursday) updating it, reworking it, and cleaning it up,” so I decided to run it as the four parts intended during the Republican convention.

I intend it as a cautionary tale, so conservatives aren’t fooled by a smooth-talking charlatan ever again. Don’t worry, I have a couple things I’m working on too so I may pop in this week from time to time if I feel so inclined. But I trust Marita and this seems quite relevant and enjoyable, so look for it over the next four afternoons…probably set them to run at noontime (how appropriate, right?)

The disillusionment

Truth be told, this may be the most depressing political season that I’ve encountered in my lifetime.

In most cases, government runs on a political cycle where one party is in for a few terms, then voters desire a change and go the other way. Red turns to blue and back again, but little of substance really changes except the actors.

But the one constant through my life has been that of government getting larger, more intrusive, more politically correct, and more deeply entrenched in the concept of a nanny state because only they know what is good for you. Then you take the people who you elect to try and change this and find that most of them either are okay with the status quo or don’t have the manhood to fight the system with every tool at their disposal.

So we come to yesterday, which was literally the day after we celebrated the 240th anniversary of the day we chose to be self-governing as a nation, no longer dependent of an arbitrary and capricious King George and the British army. On that day we found out that you can avoid your day in court if you are running for President as the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. (To use an example it would be like the judge in the Trump University case saying “never mind” and tossing the lawsuit out by determining the plaintiffs have no case. I don’t see that happening.)

Yet while that’s a complete travesty of justice, the fact that many on the Left are saying Hillary is in the clear now is perhaps more disappointing yet. When President Nixon was impeached, Republicans agreed that the charges were serious enough to merit a trial in the Senate. Millions on all portions of the political spectrum ought to be outraged but it will be off the news cycle by next week, replaced with a new Trump scandal or perhaps another sensational celebrity story. It’s bread and circuses now.

I know better than to equate a politician with a Savior – since there’s only one of those, and Christians await his return at some unspecified future date – but it’s more and more likely that we may have two of the most unpopular, unprofessional, and dishonest candidates representing our major parties that we have ever had. Simple common decency seems to be unattainable with this pair, let alone any Christ-like tendencies.

To say that the entire situation sickens me is to understate the issue. How can you vote for either major-party Presidential candidate? Instead, people seem to be resigned to voting against the other candidate, which is an important distinction. There were roughly 128 million votes cast in the 2012 Presidential election, but I wouldn’t be shocked if we have fewer than 120 million this time around. There is a perception that it doesn’t matter; perhaps they feel as one candidate is famous for saying, “what difference at this point does it make?” Unless there is an electoral miracle, there will be no letup in the increase in size and scope of the federal government regardless of who wins. Truly, things have gone much farther in the wrong direction than they were when I wrote my book four years ago.

Sometimes I wonder if I would be better off spending my time writing another book than to come here and dispense free advice and the occasional first-person news account. At least with the book I can make a few pennies.

I’m not in that conspiracy crowd that believes 2016 is the last American election if Hillary wins, but it may be the last election where the Republican Party has a chance at winning with a philosophy of limited government and personal responsibility – apparently these are quaint, obsolete ideals now. If their platform changes to stop reflecting this idea, that may be the exit ramp I’m going to take.

Not standing alone

When all the ballots were counted, Donald Trump amassed about 44% of the total Republican vote in the 2016 primaries. Granted, that total surely includes some Democratic crossover votes in open primary states – so we can’t discount a successful Operation Chaos in reverse by the Democrats – but considering there were 6 to 10 contenders in play at the time many states voted that’s a fair amount of support.

But the guy who wrote about the art of the deal seems to be having a tough time closing the sale with the GOP. In a CNN/ORC International poll released today, there are 48% of Republicans who would like a do-over in this election cycle. (Page 18 of the poll.) Granted, Democrats are not completely thrilled with Hillary Clinton because only 55% back her with 43% still wishing for Bernie Sanders. (There is no alternative to Trump given for the GOP.) If it’s not obvious by now, I’m one of those 48% who think we can do a lot better.

Obviously the path to that is one of allowing convention delegates to vote their conscience at the RNC convention next month. There are a number of renegades who will do just that, but the question is whether they would be enough to make a difference and whether they could even open up the balloting. The only alternative candidate who could be nominated as the rules stand now is Ted Cruz, who would need to restart his campaign that was mothballed in May after the Indiana primary. (But Cruz would have more cash on hand than Trump has now, and his mainly inactive campaign pulled in almost as much in May as Trump’s did.)

Yet the 48% of Republicans who don’t care much for Trump must be the ones not donating money to him, putting the GOP in a financial position it didn’t think was possible given the political climate and eight years of a stalled economy and spotty foreign policy. The trend over the last sixty years has been eight years of one party controlling of the White House before yielding to the other side, with the only deviation being the first term of Ronald Reagan giving the GOP an “extra” four years from 1981-85. (The second term of Reagan plus George H.W. Bush were the “natural” years in this cyclical pattern, which resumed with Bill Clinton.) So the Republicans would be in the position of thinking it was their turn on the merry-go-round.

A candidate that has been the “presumptive” nominee for several weeks running but only has the support of a small percentage that didn’t vote for him is perhaps a fatally flawed candidate. I’m sure many will blame the #NeverTrump movement for poisoning the well for The Donald as he tries to consolidate support, but it’s not up to us to earn the votes – that’s on the guy running. The other candidates on my ballot at least have some conservative credentials I can rely on as I give my support, but Trump is wrong on so many issues (or is right for about a day before backing off) that I think he will extinguish all the progress we’ve made since Ronald Reagan took office. Things eroded a lot during the Bush and Bush years but we would go the other way toward a more “yuge” and oppressive government regardless of who wins if we stay as Trump vs. Clinton. Whether it’s “our” authoritarian or not, the Executive Branch will gain power because we already know Congress isn’t doing much to stop the Obama agenda and it would be hamstrung by Trump’s excesses by his being a Republican. I didn’t sign up to be part of a dictatorship.

So I’m not standing alone in demanding a better alternative, and the movement grows daily.

Willful ignorance?

According to multiple news reports on both the state and national level – apparently this was, to paraphrase Joe Biden, a “big f’ing deal” – Larry Hogan is now an official member of #NeverTrump. Welcome aboard.

Hogan said he doesn’t plan to vote for Trump, but was coy on his choice otherwise. “I guess when I get behind the curtain I’ll have to figure it out,” Hogan said. “Maybe write someone in, I’m not sure.” That sounds vaguely familiar, although even as moderate as Hogan can be I would imagine he’s not a Hillary supporter.

Certainly the governor would prefer to keep his questioning confined to affairs of state, but after being bugged about his choice for months once his endorsed candidate Chris Christie exited the race he obviously threw up his hands and gave the most honest answer he could. Of course, it wasn’t good enough for the Democrats who want Hogan to condemn Trump for his statements so they can beat up the downticket candidates this year, but the goal shouldn’t be to satisfy a party that’s nominating a candidate who, if she were not Bill Clinton’s wife, would likely be in prison for her actions as Secretary of State.

What’s interesting to me about this whole thing is that Hogan’s appeal cuts across many of the same lines as Donald Trump’s does. Both had crossover attraction in their election, as thousands of Democrats voted Hogan in 2014. Many of them switched parties two years later to cast a ballot for Donald Trump. At the end of last year the Maryland GOP had 971,806 voters but gained over 29,000 by the end of April to eclipse 1 million for the first time at 1,000,915. (As of the end of May they had 1,004,083.) Unfortunately, the Democrats are growing even faster as they gained 68,000 in the same December-May period. So there may be a little bit of a political calculation going there.

(Contrary to popular opinion, however, the Libertarian Party has not gained in Maryland despite Republican threats to leave if Trump was nominated. In the month after the primary they actually lost 87 voters.)

It’s worth noting that Donald Trump got 54.1% of the GOP primary vote, which translated to 248,343 votes. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton received 62.5% of the Democrat vote, which turned out to be 573,242 votes. Even Bernie Sanders outpolled Trump with 309,990 votes. GOP turnout was right about 45%, so Trump would have to get a whole lot of unaffiliated voters to have a shot. Having Hogan come out publicly against The Donald probably doesn’t assist that cause.

But the more important number to Hogan is 70 percent, which is roughly his approval rating right now. I don’t think Trump can touch that number in Maryland, and while there may be the most radical 10 percent of Trump supporters who won’t vote for Hogan in 2018 because Hogan is withholding his support, that’s only about 25,000 voters at risk – not even 1/4 of his victory margin in 2014. If 70 percent of the population likes you, it’s a pretty good bet you’ll be re-elected. (This is why the Democrats have tried to pin Trump to Hogan every chance they get.)

While I suspect that his reasoning may be a lot different than mine, I’m pleased to have Governor Hogan on my side on this one. The GOP still has an opportunity to correct course at the Cleveland convention, and I think they better take it.