Skip to main content

Here's the question, reluctant Trump voters

I know a great many people- you probably do, too- who aren't racists or misogynists or Islamophobes or, well.... jerks but who nevertheless plan to vote for Donald Trump in November.

The people I'm talking about either opposed or at least frowned upon him when he was running in the primaries. They do not like the man. But they plan to vote for him anyway because at this point Trump beating her is the only way of keeping (shudder!) Hillary Clinton out of the White House.

Now, I shudder too. I also fear Hillary's appointments to the Supreme Court, which may determine the Court's complexion for a generation and may sound the death knell of the Constitution in any form in which the Founders would recognize it. It's just that I'm not willing to pay the price of leaving the world to the predations of every bully nation around, sending the economy back into recession, and generally putting the existence of the human race at risk by electing an unstable narcissist and probable sociopath like Donald Trump. Nor am I willing to accept the death of the conservative movement or the permanent transformation of the Republican Party from the party of Lincoln and Reagan to a reincarnation of the Know Nothings, or even to give the tinfoil hat paranoids of the Alt-Right the validation that the election of their hero would bring them.

But there's no question that the future of the Court gives me pause. It ought to give pause to any reasonable person. If the Founders had wanted the whims of nine unelected judges to function as the actual constitution of the United States, they would not have written one on parchment.

But I wonder whether all those reluctant Trump voters have considered the question of whether Trump- who, after a lifetime as an outspoken supporter of Roe v. Wade, converted to the pro-life cause very late in the game, and less than a year ago was for same-sex marriage and a single-payer national health program- would retain his newfound philosophy of judicial restraint long enough to appoint justices with any more respect for the written Constitution than Hillary would. Hasn't he displayed his instability well enough and often enough to call into question just about anything he promises?

If you have your doubts, consider this: the man who was going to build the Great Wall of Trump and who so mercilessly mocked any of his competitors for the Republican nomination who showed the slightest compassion for the saddest cases among illegal immigrants has changed his position.

He now wants the government to "work with" illegal immigrants- especially, it seems, long-term illegal residents of the United States- to work out something which sounds very much like what the most extreme of conservatives inaccurately but persistently call "amnesty."

If Trump so easily flip-flops on the centerpiece issue of his entire candidacy, how can you trust him to do what he says he'll do about the Court, or about anything else?


Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

Reflections on the present and future of my Blackhawks

As this season from hell creeps to its close at an excruciating pace and makes all of us devote more of our attention to spring training for the Cubs than we otherwise might, there are calls for the heads of Blackhawks GM Stan Bowman and even the greatest coach in Blackhawks history, Joel Quenneville.

No general manager or coach could have made Marian Hossa and Corey Crawford healthy or prevented Toews and Keith and Saad from having the worst seasons of their careers or foreseen that a series of trades most of which made perfect sense at the time wouldn't pan out. The Hawks are one season removed from the second-best regular season in their history. This will be the first time in a decade that they haven't made the playoffs.

With the exception of the Pens, maybe the Kings and (for different reasons) the Golden Knights, every other team in the NHL would kill to have won three Stanley Cups in the past decade. In fact, only the Hawks, the Pens, the Kings, the Wings, and the Brui…