2016 will likely be remembered as the year when the Republican base failed to make up it's mind!
Candidates were either "too moderate, too polarizing, too focused on social issues, too religious, too inexperienced, too Libertarian, too reminiscent of a Tele-Evangelist, too dogmatic or simply too "dumb" to be worthy of the nomination.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump told it like it was and ultimately drew the wrath of the brass.
Perhaps the party leadership had it coming! But, John McCain's experience as a P..O.W. is something few would covet. Call McCain what you will! But his record of service to his country should not be scoffed!
Trump probably will fade from front runner status; if you can call it that. Polls this early in the process are a bit ridiculous anyway!
Sadly, "the Donald" may have already done the damage. If he is the nominee, he will face long odds. The hypocritical Hillary will position him as "an Oligarch," out of touch with the common man. If he runs as a third party candidate, which is highly possible, he will essentially hand the Clintons keys to the White House.
I recall the movie "Gettysburg," when General John Buford proclaimed that he "could see" the upcoming Union defeat," as plain as day." His decisive action and dogged determination may have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Such insightful thinking must prevail for conservative America, if the nation is to be spared a Hillary presidency.
Maybe it's too late. GOP national won't acknowledge such. But Democrats are gloating visibly over the perceived "blue wall." They are now counting Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico as "safely blue." To look at their projected tally, they already have 257 electoral votes in the bag! Virginia and her 13 votes are said to be essentially won. It only takes 270 electoral votes to win.
I would like to believe that conservative America will cease to think emotionally and commence thinking strategically. It won't happen! We simply have too many options. Don't think it might not get nasty! There is a deep divide in the party. Donald Trump has further accentuated it!
There are those who retain hope that Hillary Clinton will somehow implode. Won't happen. With most of the media in the tank for her, she can simply run out the clock. Don't think a national debate will change much. 95% of voters will have made their decision by the time that the debates roll around.
So what options remain?
Even though there are a lot of Americans who would shudder at this option, let's seriously ponder it.
Hillary is elected. Texas says, "we're done!" Oklahoma follows suit. Nobody would argue that both states legally can exit the union. In fact, based on a previous article in Salon magazine, their exodus might be welcomed by some. Would it end there?
It has been written that the left, including Barack Obama himself might actually relish the departure of some of the red states. It would certainly make it easier to finish imposing a totalitarian, Marxist style government on what remained of America. The million dollar questions are,
"Could it really happen?"
"Where would the lines be drawn?
"How would the resources and debt be divided,"
"How would the military hardware be distributed?"
"How would the rest of the world react to it?"
"Would career politicians listen to their constituents?"
There are literally dozens of scenarios. The safest scenario is "do nothing; thing's might work out." I am afraid that this is wishful thinking!
The United States has not been this divided since 1861. This time the divide is not sectional. It is ideological. We have major disagreements on health care, same sex marriage, abortion, gun control, foreign policy, wealth distribution, the environment, immigration, voter I.D. laws, education and federalism. In short, we have a "clash of perceptions."
I hold very little optimism for a satisfactory conclusion engineered by the Republican party. More constructive would be for the states to have an adult conversation, shake hands and go separate ways. There is no reason why that it could not be peaceful and constructive. We could be friends, trading partners and allies; as we are with Canada! Americans would be given the choice of Americas, with migration as an option for everyone.
Naysayers would contend that it would weaken the overall fabric of the West and freedom. But they don't know this. When we return to the original premise of our constitution, we realize that our founders saw "strong states" as the key to a strong nation.
Today we have one group who sees the country as "the United American States." The other stubbornly insists that it truly is "the United States of America."
Here we clash! Can it be said that either side is right or wrong? In reality, this argument has been brewing for centuries. It only needed a Donald Trump to force the country to accept it.
Post a Comment