Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  April 28, 2016
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Partisan Politics

Will Egotistic Conservatives Like Sasse Do to Trump and America What Egotistical Liberals Did to Goldwater and America?

Buried in Sasse's silly diatribe are these revealing words: "I was not born Republican. I chose this party, for as long as it is useful." Sasse won't help Trump Make America Great Again. He is all about what is useful for Sasee, not Making America Great Again. Sasse won't be a viable presidential hopeful in 2020 and Nebraskans should replace him in the Senate if he presumes to run for reelection.

Conservatives toying with the idea of not supporting Donald Trump in the general election or even voting for Hillary Clinton are not putting America first.

Columnist George Will said this about the lasting effects of the 1964 election: "It took 16 years to count the votes, and Goldwater won."

In 1964, liberal Republicans refused to unite behind conservative Barry Goldwater.

The result was that Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide and Goldwater did not win even 40% of the vote.

In that landslide many conservatives serving in Congress were defeated.

The result was that Johnson had a majority that overcame the conservative coalition, the unofficial Congressional coalition bringing together a conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative, mostly Southern, wing of the Democratic Party.that dominated Congress from 1937 to 1963.

Johnson proceeded to launch his Great Society program and to fight two tragically failed wars, the War on Poverty and the Vietnam War.

Imagine what Hillary Clinton and the "progressives" will do if they take control.

Those who think they will be better off opposing Trump and planning to pick up the pieces need to know that Ronald Reagan, the conservative Republican who won the Presidency in 1980, strongly supported Goldwater in 1964.

Bill Cristol's "rule or ruin" search for a third-party candidate to split the conservative vote is a fool's errand.

Ben Sasse is a pompous first-term Republican Senator from Nebraska who apparently thinks he will endear himself to Republicans and conservatives by trying to torpedo the Trump campaign, even though the result would be the election of Hillary Clinton and a Congress that would help her implement the "progressive" agenda.

George W. Norris of Nebraska served five terms in the House of Representatives and five terms in the United States Senator. He is one of eight United States Senators included in President Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. He made the cut for .opposing Speaker of the House of Representative Cannon's autocratic power, speaking out against arming United States merchant ships during the United States' neutral period in World War I, and supporting the presidential campaign of Democrat Al Smith.

Senator Sasse, you're earning points with Hillary Clinton, but you're no George W. Norris.

Set forth below is Sasse's Open Letter to Trump supporters.

"To my friends supporting Donald Trump:

"The Trump coalition is broad and complicated, but I believe many Trump fans are well-meaning. I have spoken at length with many of you, both inside and outside Nebraska. You are rightly worried about our national direction. You ache about a crony-capitalist leadership class that is not urgent about tackling our crises. You are right to be angry.

"Iím as frustrated and saddened as you are about whatís happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump.

"Please understand: Iím not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. Iím a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment. My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.

"Mr. Trumpís relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public 'servants.' The law is king, and the people are boss. But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word 'Reign' Ė like he thinks heís running for King? Itís creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king. We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic.

"At this point in Nebraska discussions, many of you have immediately gotten practical: 'Okay, fine, you think there are better choices than Trump. But you would certainly still vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election, right?'

"Before I explain why my answer is 'Neither of them,' let me correct some nonsense you might have heard on the internet of late.

"WHY I RAN FOR SENATE

"***No, Iím not a career politician. (I had never run for anything until being elected to the U.S. Senate fifteen months ago, and I ran precisely because I actually want to make America great again.)

"***No, Iím not a lawyer who has never created a job. (I was a business guy before becoming a college president in my hometown.)

"***No, Iím not part of the Establishment. (Sheesh, I had attack ads by the lobbyist class run against me while I was on a bus tour doing 16 months of townhalls across Nebraska. Why? Precisely because I was not the preferred candidate of Washington.)

"***No, Iím not concerned about political job security. (The very first thing I did upon being sworn in in January 2015 was to introduce a constitutional amendment for term limits Ė this didnít exactly endear me to my new colleagues.)

"***No, Iím not for open borders. (The very first official trip I took in the Senate was to observe and condemn how laughably porous the Texas/Mexican border is. See 70 tweets from @bensasse in February 2015.)

"***No, Iím not a 'squishy,' feel-good, grow-government moderate. (I have the 4th most-conservative voting record in the Senate:https://www.conservativereview.com/members/benjamin-sasse/http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/membeÖ/member/S001197 )

"In my very first speech to the Senate, I told my colleagues that 'The people despise us all.' This institution needs to get to work, not on the lobbyistsí priorities, but on the peopleís: https://youtu.be/zQMoB4aUn04?t=3m8s

"Now, to the question at hand: Will I pledge to vote for just any 'Republican' nominee over Hillary Clinton?

"Letís begin by rejecting naÔve purists: Politics has no angels. Politics is not about creating heaven on earth. Politics is simply about preserving a framework for ordered liberty Ė so that free people can find meaning and happiness not in politics but in their families, their neighborhoods, their work.

"POLITICAL PARTIES

"Now, letís talk about political parties: parties are just tools to enact the things that we believe. Political parties are not families; they are not religions; they are not nations Ė they are often not even on the level of sports loyalties. They are just tools. I was not born Republican. I chose this party, for as long as it is useful.

"If our Party is no longer working for the things we believe in Ė like defending the sanctity of life, stopping ObamaCare, protecting the Second Amendment, etc. Ė then people of good conscience should stop supporting that party until it is reformed.

"VOTING

"Now, letís talk about voting: Voting is usually just about choosing the lesser evil of the most viable candidates.

ď'UsuallyÖ' But not always. Certain moments are larger. They cause us to explicitly ask: Who are we as a people? What does the way we vote here say about our shared identity? What is actually the presidentís job?

"THE PRESIDENTíS CORE CALLING

"The presidentís job is not about just mindlessly shouting the word 'strong' Ė as if Vladimir Putin, who has been strongly bombing civilian populations in Syria the last month, is somehow a model for the American presidency. No, the presidentís core calling is to 'Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution.'

"Before we ever get into any technical policy fights Ė about pipelines, or marginal tax rates, or term limits, or Medicare reimbursement codes Ė America is first and fundamentally about a shared Constitutional creed. America is exceptional, because she is at her heart a big, bold truth claim about human dignity, natural rights, and self-control Ė and therefore necessarily about limited rather than limitless government.

"THE MEANING OF AMERICA

"America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world because our Constitution is the best political document thatís ever been written. It said something different than almost any other government had said before: Most governments before said that might makes right, that government decides what our rights are and that the people are just dependent subjects. Our Founders said that God gives us rights by nature, and that government is not the author or source of our rights. Government is just our shared project to secure those rights.

"Government exists only because the world is fallen, and some people want to take your property, your liberty, and your life. Government is tasked with securing a framework for ordered liberty where 'we the people' can in our communities voluntarily build something great together for our kids and grandkids. Thatís America. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of speech Ė the First Amendment is the heartbeat of the American Constitution, of the American idea itself.

"WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO MR. TRUMP?

"So let me ask you: Do you believe the beating heart of Mr. Trumpís candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe itís been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment Ė or an attack on it?

"Which of the following quotes give you great comfort that heís in love with the First Amendment, that he is committed to defending the Constitution, that he believes in executive restraint, that he understands servant leadership?

"Statements from Trump:

***'Weíre going to open up libel laws and weíre going to have people sue you like youíve never got sued before.' ***'When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weakÖĒ' ***Putin, who has killed journalists and is pillaging Ukraine, is a great leader. ***The editor of National Review 'should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.' ***On whether he will use executive orders to end-run Congress, as President Obama has illegally done: 'I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things.' 'I mean, heís led the way, to be honest with you.' ***'Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.' ***On the internet: 'I would certainly be open to closing areas' of it. ***His lawyers to people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: 'Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt...' ***Similar threatening legal letters to competing campaigns running ads about his record.

"And on it goesÖ

"IF MR. TRUMP BECOMES THE NOMINEE...

"Given what we know about him today, hereís where Iím at: If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate Ė a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.

"I do not claim to speak for a movement, but I suspect I am far from alone. After listening to Nebraskans in recent weeks, and talking to a great many people who take oaths seriously, I think many are in the same place. I believe a sizable share of Christians Ė who regard threats against religious liberty as arguably the greatest crisis of our time Ė are unwilling to support any candidate who does not make a full-throated defense of the First Amendment a first commitment of their candidacy.

"Conservatives understand that all men are created equal and made in the image of God, but also that government must be limited so that fallen men do not wield too much power. A presidential candidate who boasts about what he'll do during his 'reign' and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America.

"TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT

"Thank you for listening. While I recognize that we disagree about how to make America great again, we agree that this should be our goal. We need more people engaged in the civic life of our countryónot fewer. I genuinely appreciate how much many of you care about this country, and that you are demanding something different from Washington. Iím going to keep doing the same thing.

"But I canít support Donald Trump.

"Humbly,

"Ben Sasse

"Nebraska"

Buried in Sasse's simplistic diatribe are these revealing words: "I was not born Republican. I chose this party, for as long as it is useful." Sasse won't help Trump Make America Great Again. He is all about what is useful for Sasee, not Making America Great Again. Sasse won't be a viable presidential hopeful in 2020 and Nebraskans should replace him in the Senate if he presumes to run for reelection.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor


Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.


Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2016 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved