Anybody who cares about the Mitt Romney campaign against Trump (and vice versa) should listen to this podcast by Dave Rubin. Rubin interviewed Richard Grenell, who is the current ambassador to Germany. (Grenell was just named Trump’s new director of national intelligence on Wednesday). Grenell was, for a short time, one of the leading foreign policy advisers to Mitt Romney during his 2012 campaign.
Grenell, who is openly gay, was forced out of the Romney campaign specifically because he was openly gay and had written an op-ed explaining why conservatives should support gay marriage. Grenell, using very diplomatic language, accuses Mitt of not defending him from social conservatives who wanted Grenell off of Romney’s presidential campaign, specifically because of his sexuality. In effect, Grenell says Mitt was too wishy-washy to defend Grenell, and Grenell was forced out of the campaign.
Four years later, Grenell says he found a candidate who didn’t care about the fact that he was gay, ie, Donald Trump. Grenell also admired Trump’s America First foreign policy. He joined Trump’s campaign and is now has one of the highest profile foreign policy posts in the U.S. diplomatic service. Grenell points out quite clearly that Trump’s foreign policy has been hugely successful, and says that Trump in three years has achieved considerably more than Obama or Bush ever achieved in Europe.
So, for those of you suffering from cognitive dissonance, let me reiterate a few points:
–Romney’s campaign was anti-gay and Trump’s was not, and Romney did nothing to defend the gay guy, whereas Trump had no problem with the gay guy and even promoted him to a high profile position.
–Trump’s foreign policy has been hugely successful in a relatively short amount of time.
To be fair, Grenell is just one voice out there, and of course he has an incentive to claim success. He is, after all, part of Trump’s foreign policy team. But if you listen to the podcast (and please do before you comment on this post), Grenell lists many examples of Trump’s successes in Europe. I found his arguments convincing.
I mention this because, frankly, many of the recent posts I have seen regarding the whole Trump and Romney brouhaha have been childish. What I mean by this is that these articles turn Trump and/or Romney into cartoon characters. Trump is either heroic or really, really bad, like Nazi bad. And Romney is either a sinister schemer or Captain Moroni waving that title of liberty.
Friends, life is never that simple. People are much more complex than this. If you listen to CNN and MSNBC, Trump cannot even tie his shoes correctly and walks around insulting every person around him and of course is secretly planning a Hitler-like takeover of the government. And if you listen to many of Trump’s defenders, the president is playing 3D chess and is outsmarting the entire world.
Here is the reality: the truth is somewhere in between. Trump, like all presidents before him and certainly like all presidents after him, has done some good things and some bad things. The economy is doing well (in the short term — in the long term we are in for some pain). Trump has cut taxes and decreased regulations. His education and energy policies are, in my opinion, excellent. He has put forward many good federal judges. Some of his foreign policy has been very good. But of course he is out-doing Obama on the national debt, and, personally, I find much of his rhetoric to be very ugly. So, as I say, some good, some bad.
Meanwhile, anybody who thinks Mitt Romney has acted heroically is way off base. Mitt sought Trump’s endorsement in 2012, then came out against Trump in 2016, and then went begging for a Cabinet position in 2017, then sought Trump’s endorsement when he ran for the Senate in 2018, and then repudiated Trump in 2019 and ultimately voted for impeachment in 2020. No reasonable person can look at this record and see a consistent policy of integrity. Mitt has acted like a politician which is, after all, what he is. But I don’t think Romney is evil — I think he is misguided and perhaps miffed that a vulgar loud mouth like Trump has become president while Romney could not win in two presidential campaigns. Nobody can read Romney’s mind, but it is worth pointing out that a very large number of people believe he is motivated by jealousy. Mitt Romney’s favorability ratings nationwide have fallen from 43 percent in October 2012 to 18 percent in a recent poll. A lot of people don’t see him acting honorably.
The recent posts by Romney defenders trying to argue that he is acting like Captain Moroni are simply not convincing to anybody except the small, insular group of people who already love Mitt Romney. And the fact that most of these people seem to be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome makes their arguments even less rational.
I really miss the pre-Trump days in one sense: it was easier to have reasonable conversations in those days. No president is perfect, and no president is perfectly evil. President Obama (one of my least favorite presidents) nevertheless did some good things. So did President Bush and President Clinton, and on and on. And of course all of these presidents also did bad things.
Here is my suggestion to the anti-Trump/Romney hero worship crowd: please listen to the podcast I linked at the beginning of this post. If you listen with real intent to understand, it really will give you another perspective that may blow your mind a bit. And then watch this short video by John Stossel. Stossel is very tough on Trump and very critical. But he criticizes in a fair way, and even pro-Trump viewers I know are forced to admit that Stossel’s criticisms are on target. This, my friends, is how you convince people.
Great post Geoff, and thank you for linking the Dave Rubin interview. He’s an important moderate voice in these culture wars.
Well, Trump hired several although right people and Mitt didn’t. According to your logic, that makes Trump a neo Nazi. I don’t buy either argument. Slippery slope fallacy.
Huh? What post are you reading?
Alt right people. Spell check hell
I still don’t think your comment makes any sense. Are you sure you read the entire post? And did you listen to the podcast?
Oh yes. The “Trump Derangement Syndrome” argument. We should neither notice nor care what he does. Noticing and caring leads to derangement. Romney votes his conscience on an issue where he felt like his soul was on the line. In the Atlantic article, he describes how others in his party encouraged him to “stay with the team.” That is not weigh the evidence, or even the toxic argument that if Trump thinks its good, it must be okay, but be partisan, submit to the group. And notice and emphasize Romney’s inconsistencies, and forgive Trump for golf on his properties vastly exceeding Obama time (“I will be too busy to play golf”) and expense that profits him personally, because, hey he cut taxes, for the rich (including, it happens, himself), which increased the deficit, which means he can boast about the economy (that was already thriving) and at the same time propose halving raises for Federal workers on the grounds of the current financial crisis. Don’t notice the hypocrisy or the corruption. If you do, that is just “Trump derangement syndrome”. Wonderful foreign policy achievements. Setting Iran to leave the nuclear deal to where they are working on weapons, and now have a huge new grudge. And deregulation. Yeah! Look at who benefits:
From a 2018 Report from the Office of Management and Budget:
“OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:
“Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
“By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.
“According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.
…
“The MATS rule, aimed at reducing toxic emissions from power plants, had between $33 billion and $90 billion in benefits (in 2007 dollars, for some reason), but it cost industry $9.6 billion.
In short, air quality rules secure enormous health benefits for the American public, but they also ask a great deal of industry.
“To frame the same point another way: Air quality regulations serve as a downward redistribution of wealth, out of the pockets of industrialists and into the pockets of ordinary Americans, particularly the poor and vulnerable Americans (African Americans and Hispanics in particular) who tend to live closest to pollution sources. They shift costs, from the much higher health and social costs of pollution remediation to the comparatively smaller costs of pollution abatement.
And therein lies the source of industry and GOP rage toward EPA. It’s why EPA delayed and delayed air rules under Bush. It’s why the GOP Congress worked so furiously to block air rules under Obama. And it’s why EPA is weakening or repealing air rules as fast as possible under Trump.”
“The GOP is opposed to downward redistribution of wealth. If one policy goal has unified the right above all else, it is upward redistribution. Even as its base drifts further into a fog of xenophobic, reactionary resentment, its moneyed interests and policy leaders remain laser-focused on reducing taxes and regulatory burdens on the wealthy. Upward redistribution is what unites GOP health care policy, tax policy, financial sector policy, and environmental policy. ”
“That is why Republicans hate EPA and its rules: They are a burden to industry, but worse, they are a burden to industry that is very obviously worth it. Industry makes a small sacrifice, public health improves, and economic growth continues apace. EPA rules are a living demonstration of the good that government can do.”
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/6/17077330/trump-regulatory-agenda-omb
But Trump deregulates because rules are for suckers, laws are to get around, and pardons are for sale, and personal integrity and conscience are evil because such values may prod people like Colonel Vindman and Marie Yovanovitch and even Mitt Romney to now and then place integrity over loyalty to Trump and his personal agenda. And as Trump told Comey, “I need loyalty.” Every day demonstrates why he needs it, and people like Barr and Guiliani and Roger Stone, rather than integrity or honesty or patriotism or competence, just as he shows that for him loyalty is a one way street. Read Nibley’s The Unsolved Loyalty Problem and Victoriosa Loquasitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else.
Kevin Christensen, your comment is a classic. You prove all of the points I made in my post without even realizing it. Hilarious!
Geoff, yes I read your post. You claimed Mitt to be antigay, because he fired a guy. And I’m showing the fallacy in your logic. Trump hired several alt right guys. Does that make him a neo nazi? Same logic you are using. The logic fails on many levels.
Kevin pointed out flaws, whether you agree or not.
I don’t hate Trump. I just don’t see him draining any swamp, when he pardons Blog and other conmen. He’s just an autocratic seeking a legacy for himself.
So, sounds like Romney is more opposed to same-sex marriage than Trump is. That’s a point for Romney in my book.
Gerald, I’m sorry, you are being deliberately obtuse. This is why I could not understand your comment, because I could not believe you somehow thought this was a good argument. Go read the first few paragraphs again. Notice the use of the words “cognitive dissonance.” Notice that I say that “Grenell is just one voice out there.” You know very well that I don’t think Romney is anti-gay. My point is that in *this one case* Trump, the supposed bigot, was the “tolerant” one, and in *this one case* Romney was not as tolerant as the Romney worshippers think he is. My point, which I made several times in the post, is that the world is more complicated than Trump Bad and Romney Good.
And I suppose you still haven’t listened to the podcast. Here is the problem with that: you are not interested in any information that challenges your worldview and might change your mind. You want to stay in the comfortable world with your friends who sit around tut-tutting Trump. I am not a big fan of that approach. I like seeing new information that might change my mind. Apparently you don’t.
In response to Michael, comment at 11:16 am: I should not have to point this out, but here goes: do you think people should lose their jobs because they are gay and support gay marriage? If you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are a hopeless bigot. But I don’t think you have thought things through, and I don’t think that is your position. It is one thing to support the Church’s policy on same-sex marriage (which I do), and it is another to say that people who are gay and write an article on same-sex marriage should be fired from a campaign. We should want a world where we judge people based on their abilities and credentials — not a world where we judge people based on race, sexual preference or gender. In this particular case, Trump actually did that, ie, he judged Grenell on his abilities rather than his sexuality, and Romney did not. That was my point.
Yeah, let’s judge Grenell on his abilities.
First, Senator Romney has worked with gays his entire political career. As you noted, Romney does not have a gay problem. He does not fire people because they are gay. But Grenell’s boss and heroic figure, President Trump, does have a Senator Romney problem and a long record of seeking revenge. I am sure some of you have heard about it. It would all too convenient to label Senator Romney “anti-gay.” A real political win for President Trump. And the fact that Romney is LDS and the Church has strained relations with the gay community makes it easier to stick.
Second, Grenell was named ACTING director. The Senate then does not have to confirm him, and it is very, very questionable if they would. He is not capable of fulfilling this enormous role. He does not have the background or resume to suggest he is capable of serving as DNI. Please look at his resume, his record and what the job is.
Third, the German press and political leaders (especially Angela Merkel) think he is a complete clown. He has openly backed far-right political parties on his assignments (this is in violation of international agreements). A Der Spiegel article being quoted in the press with this appointment describes him as a “vain, narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively, but can barely handle criticism.” It went to claim that “knows little about Germany and Europe, that he ignores most of the dossiers his colleagues at the embassy write for him, and that his knowledge of the subject matter is superficial.” His misinformation about German vocabulary and culture in the above-mentioned podcast exemplify the man’s incompetence.
Last month, German politicians were openly calling for his expulsion.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/german-politicians-call-for-expulsion-of-trumps-envoy
Now why are we taking this individual seriously?
Old Man, if you take German politicians seriously on issues like this, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. OF COURSE German politicians aren’t going to like him — he is pursuing U.S. interests aggressively, unlike past ambassadors. OF COURSE the Deep State is not going to like him — he is committed to Trump’s foreign policy, unlike the career neocons who have dominated the foreign policy and intelligence structure for the last 20 years or so. He is a threat to their interests.
To see another view of Grenell, I would recommend this article:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/why-richard-grenell-as-director-of-national-intelligence-is-a-loss-for-the-deep-state/
I take him very seriously, but I want to re-emphasize that Grenell was extremely polite and diplomatic when talking about Romney. He was talking to a gay host (Dave Rubin) and then were talking about what it is like to be an openly gay guy on the Romney campaign. He was not a bomb-thrower at all.
As I said in the OP, it would really help you to get context if you would actually listen to the podcast. But of course nobody wants to have their views challenged by new information. Sigh.
I disagree with Old Man when it comes to Trump because I think he is the President we need, even if not the one we want since he has the necessary “chews gum and kicks . . . and am all out of gum” approach. However, I agree that a person who is openly gay and argued for gay marriage should not be holding a political post. Call me names all you want, but that lifestyle (especially in a conservative administration) is a disgrace and dangerous.
Jettboy, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would like to point out that your position directly contradicts what the Church has said. The Church is obviously against gay marriage but has directly supported anti-discrimination legislation based on sexual preference.
One thread causes me to question your bias. Did Mitt beg for a cabinet position? How do you know?
Your answer will validate or invalidate your points with regard to your claim to balanced, wise judgement on the issue of Romney v Trump.
Sute, the way you have phrased your comment makes me think I am not going to really care whether you think I have a “balanced, wise judgement on the issue of Romney v. Trump,” but in any case, here is an article from that time. I especially like the picture. I think the word “beg” may be a little strong, but nevertheless it appears accurate given how Romney, just a few months earlier had insulted Trump. Imagine saying Trump is a con man and then going, just a few months later, to ask for a Cabinet position. The more I think about it, and the more I look at this picture, the more the word “beg” seems appropriate.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/mitt-romney-donald-trump-dinner-secretary-of-state
Geoff, thanks for sharing the Rubin podcast. I plan to listen to it on my drive home today and will likely have some additional comments once I do.
As the writer of a recent pro-Romney post here on M*, I do want to clarify one thing that I think is likely shared by many of those who see Romney’s actions as an example of courage or bravery.
Romney has over the years not exactly been a paragon of principle. He has flip flopped on a variety of issues. He has sought to compromise his values in order to make common cause with some of the worst elements of the right (including seeking Trump’s endorsement in 2008). If what you describe from this podcast is true, that sounds like another example of that in action. Even when he aggressively took on Trump in 2016, he did not do anything to turn his devastating critique into a sustained argument against Trump.
All of what you said about Romney is true. Which is exactly why I found his vote so striking.
Romney could have easily taken the same stance as all of the other Republicans. He could have said that Trump acted inappropriately. But he could have voted with his party saying that the voters should be allowed to decide in November. It would have been so easy to take that vote. It would have frankly been the thing that Romney would have done were he still seeking the nomination. Not rocking the boat and upsetting his party is completely and totally consistent with everything Romney has done over his whole political carreer. Romney even said that he voted for more witnesses hoping for exonerating evidence so that he would not have to vote to convict. Even to the last minute, Romney was hoping for a way to compromise and not to vote to convict. But faced with the evidence he made a courageous choice which was a change from how Romney had acted in public life in the past.
I think one anecdote best illustrates this. Several years ago Mitt Romney was interviewed by David Axelrod (Obama’s former campaign director) on his podcast. Romney was asked about his dad and what lesson he took from his father’s story. Romney effectively said that he learned to be cautious and not to step out of line too far in order to avoid his father’s fate of being ostracized as a heretic from the party. In other words, Romney in my opinion took exactly the wrong lesson from his father. He learned to compromise rather than stand for what he believes. I was therefore struck by how differently Romney invoked his father a few weeks ago when he voted to impeach. Romney seems to have come to understand that his father’s brave example was what he needed to emulate.
For me, it is that arc which makes Romney’s actions particularly powerful.
Daniel O, you are making a lot of suppositions about Romney’s motivations. As I have said many times, nobody can read his mind, so we don’t really know. Where you see bravery, many others see obvious jealousy and covetousness. My first reaction was the latter, but upon reflection I have come back to the position that I don’t really know what his motivations were. And his motivations are probably a complex mixture of feelings based on experiences we don’t know about — this is how most human beings are.
Where you and I are likely to disagree most strongly is the fact that there is no bravery in siding with the establishment. This is always the easiest thing to do, and the establishment has always hated Trump. If you don’t know who the establishment is, then that is exactly why we are likely to disagree because we see the world so differently that there is really no common ground there. The establishment is the Clinton-Obama Dems allied with the Bush-Dole-McCain Republicans, and the thousands of sycophants, Deep State intelligences officers and media allies who push a narrow policy consensus. These are the people who want to keep Washington policies just where they are: massive government spending in DC, a huge military, and no real change in entitlements and the bureaucratic state. I honestly believe that Obama wanted to make some significant positive changes in foreign policy when he was elected, but then he ran into the establishment, and he realized he could not get U.S. troops out of the Middle East and he could not close Guantanamo, as he had promised. Trump is having the same problem — the establishment does not want any real change. Romney’s policies would have fit right in with the establishment, so he was never a threat to them, but the media decided to go with the narrative that he had binders of women and a dog on his car roof, and they unfairly and wickedly (in my opinion) torpedoed his chances of becoming president. And, yet, Mitt still wants to be loved by the establishment, and his vote to convict the president made the establishment deliriously happy. Why he would want approval from the evil people who destroyed his campaign is beyond me, but as I say people are complex.
Remember Nixon hated the establishment but he also desperately desired their approval. That is one of the most pathetic takeaways you get from listening to his Oval Office ramblings. If you read the autobiographies of DC politicians, almost all of them go to Washington with a lot of hope for change, and all of them inevitably run into a system where making real change is impossible. Paul Ryan, another good man, has discussed this extensively.
One of my political rules is that if you are loved by the establishment you are on the wrong side. It is almost exactly like being on the side of the Gadianton Robbers. I am not saying that Mitt knowingly is on the side of the Gadianton Robbers — I do think he is a good man with a good heart — but he is being fooled into taking their side. It should be obvious to him by now that these people are evil, but he seems very naive about them. I find that very worrisome. So I don’t see Romney as heroic — I see him as naive and aligned with exactly the wrong group of people. And — probably as his former campaign spokesman has said — there might be a bit of jealousy there on Mitt’s part.
As I say, I don’t think we are going to agree on this issue at all. But that is how I feel. But the main purpose of this post is to promote a realistic, more nuanced view of both Trump and Romney. I do not like narratives that turn either of them into cartoon characters. I hope you understood that was my main point.
Thanks Geoff for the thought provoking response.
I listened to the podcast you recommended and really enjoyed it. I agree that Trump has shaken up foreign policy in at times very valuable ways. I think a President like Trump without all of the baggage such as the tweeting and the self-dealing/personal corruption could do a great amount of good. And I will be quick to acknowledge that Trump has done a lot of good things through his judicial.and agency appointments that have rolled back onerous regulations. I am far less hostile to the Trump administration and it’s policies than you think, even though I think that Trump as a leader is corrupt and dangerous.
As for Romney, I don’t think the podcast was quite as harsh about him as you suggest. He does say that he wanted the campaign to defend him and say that being gay was irrelevant to being a foreign policy analyst. I wish Romney would have done that. But Romney didn’t push him out, and there’s also no indication of what degree the candidate himself was actually involved at all. It sounds like this all blew up quickly and he resigned shortly afterwards.
It’s good that the Trump administration has actually been more tolerant and accepting.
Daniel O, three gold stars for actually listening to the podcast. Thank you.
Re: Trump. I will probably vote for him in 2020, although I did not in 2016. But I am not blind to many of his bad qualities. Just to name one recent example, his behavior regarding Roger Stone and Bill Barr has been outrageous. Trump seems incapable of just shutting up and taking a win without creating a new unnecessary fight. All he had to do was stay quiet about Roger Stone and let the justice system work, and then if he wanted to pardon him he could do so later, when Stone was out of the news. I mean, really.
But having said that, the rants that I regularly hear about how evil Trump is are simply way over the top, and I just tune out. As I said in the OP, if you want to convince people, those rants are not going to work.
Geoff,
You really can judge a man’s heart in 1/30 of a second?
I would not be the least bit surprised, indeed I think it’s likely that Trump invited Romney out under the guise of reconciliation because be knew he could use it to discredit him. And Romney went because he was doing his duty to help serve the country as best as he can. You don’t serve the country by refusing to help after all.
Which of those two theories seems to comport with what we know about the individuals? In fact look at that image from that view. Trump looks scheming and vindictive, if you want to read into 1/30th of a second.
That Romney called Trump and begged for a job or that Trump summoned Romney knowing it’s a win-win and would undermine the boyscout?
You can see I’m willing to admit my theory is based on my bias. But I neither voted for Trump or Romney. I work have considered voting for Trump’s reelection in some conditions, as he’s allowed some good to happen but he’s not worthy of the office.
And that’s what it comes down to. He’s not worthy of the office. I don’t think any of the Democrats are either and I’m now and forever with my voting that if I consider the person unworthy of the office of George Washington, they won’t get my vote.
The country would be better if that philosophy was followed.
Sute, if you read the OP and my comments, I think the claim that I am trying to judge Romney’s heart in 1/30th of a second will seem silly. I have stated many times that people are complicated and make decisions for a variety of reasons. We have Romney’s 2012 press spokesman coming out and saying that Romney is motivated entirely by jealousy with regard to Trump. And we have Romney’s strange, erratic behavior of going back and forth regarding Trump. I would have much more respect for the man if he had said in 2012: “I don’t agree with Donald Trump’s behavior, and I will not accept his endorsement.” But of course politicians don’t do this. So, I am willing to admit there are probably two tendencies at war within Romney: one tendency to follow his own sense of propriety and the other the need to make compromises so he can get elected (or named Sect. of State) so he can serve the country and do good things. But, any reasonable person must admit it seems very strange to call a man a “con man” and then a few months later go to New York and interview for a high profile job with the man. So, I don’t judge his heart, but I find his behavior erratic and unprincipled, yes I do.
I am not in the business of convincing people how to vote. People always try to do that to me, and I don’t like it, so I am not going to try to convince you that Trump is worthy of your vote if you feel strongly about it. But I will address the argument that Trump is “unworthy.” As an American history major in university and somebody who continues to study history, I find this claim very strange. On the one hand, Trump is clearly unworthy based on his personal behavior and many policies I disagree with. But if we are going to use those standards, then most of the men who have been president, and nearly all of the potential high profile candidates out there in 2020 are unworthy. I can only think of a handful of people who may be worthy by that standard. Was LBJ, the man who flashed his penis at the secretaries in the Oval Office and was by any standard an evil, scheming man, more worthy than Trump? Not even close. Was John Adams, the man who helped implement the Constitution and then went on to violate its intent in the most horrendous ways by throwing hundreds of people who criticized him in jail using the Sedition Acts, was that man more worthy than Trump? I say no. I could probably name another dozen or so, including George Bush and Barack Obama who were at least as unworthy as Trump based on their horrendous policies alone. So, to sum up, no, I don’t find the “Trump is unworthy of the office” argument convincing at all.
My comment above was getting long, so I want to make another comment to explain the following claim: ‘But if we are going to use those standards, then most of the men who have been president, and nearly all of the potential high profile candidates out there in 2020, are unworthy. I can only think of a handful of people who may be worthy by that standard.”
When a president is sworn in, they make the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I would make the argument that almost no president in the last 120 years has done this. Presidents ignore this oath in their first day in office. The Constitution was clearly written to limit the power of the federal government, but presidents since at least TR and perhaps before have striven to increase their personal power. There are two presidents in the last 120 years who clearly did try to limit the power of the federal government — Harding and Coolidge — and one who talked a lot about it but didn’t actually do it — Reagan. But that’s about it. So, I call a man who immediately violates his oath of office completely unworthy of holding the position. Trump has clearly violated his oath of office (the power and spending of the federal government has increased under Trump), so if you want to call him unworthy by that standard, I agree. But he is certainly no more unworthy than Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter, etc, etc., and considerably more worthy than the horrific presidents such as LBJ, FDR and Wilson.
Is there any doubt that all of the Democratic candidates in 2020 and 2024 (and by the way nearly all of the likely Republican candidates in 2024) will immediately violate their oath of office? There is no doubt in my mind. There are two people who might not do it — Rand Paul and Mike Lee. There might be another governor or member of Congress who might not immediately violate their oath of office. (Somebody like Thomas Massie, for example, or Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida). But beyond that I cannot imagine we will get any worthy candidates in 2024 either. So, Trump is basically what you get these days in terms of politicians. He is better than some and worse than others.
My entire family has been Democrat since 1855.
We are also Pro Constitution, pro Bill of Rights, pro freedom.
Congress has not passed a budget in over 20 years…that is their job…..that is a violation of the Constitution.
So Continuing Resolution over and over….so of course spending will increase and be unaccountable.
The manner in which the Democrats conducted the impeachment violated the Constitution.
Mitch McConnell should have thrown the articles of impeachment out immediately due to the Un-Constitutionality of the entire affair. The entire impeachment process by the Dems violated the Constitution in every way, and they were engineering a Constitutional Crisis. All done deliberately. The Dems threatened to point guns at the heads of Republicans so that the Dems could get what they wanted.
The Dems used the Lawfare group, which believes the Constitution must be abolished, the law and courts must be weaponized and used to take out political targets and implement causes of the Left/Alt Left, and many other Communist beliefs. It is all on their website.
Now a dangerous precedent has been set.
Romney obviously does not care about the Constitution, nor does he know what the Constitution says. Neither do the majority of the politicians. Neither do too many citizens.
Romney claims moral conscious….when he worked for Bain Capital!? Hypocrisy.
Ukraine and USA have a corruption agreement signed by Bill Clinton. What President Trump did was legal according to the agreement, AND…. the Constitution gives him power to do what he did.
Vindman went out of his chain of command. Yovanovitch bad mouthed the President to Ukraine officials, and disobeyed orders. Yovanovitch is worth millions of dollars. How does a lowly diplomat amass that amount of money?
Obama inserted himself into judicial matters he should not have, too many times, especially state trials where the feds had no jurisdiction.
Obama appointed Acting Czars (his words) repeatedly, to get around Senate confirmations.
Ben Rhodes, college dropout, failed novel writer, no experience in anything related in any level of government, is appointed foreign policy advisor by Obama…..Rhodes older brother is CBS President; he could not get intelligence clearance but was kept in his position anyway.
Van Jones, appointed Acting Czar (can not remember to what)…no experience.
Read the list of the people Obama pardoned and commutted sentences for and their crimes…. almost 2,000 people.
Obama fired over 200 top military brass because they were not “Yes” men.
Obama lackey’s admitting, on video, lying to the USA citizens regarding Affordable Care Act and the Iran nuclear deal. And they called American people stupid….and laughed about it.
The entire mainstream media carried Obama’s water and blatantly lie about Trump and Conservatives.
Read the statements by judge Amy Berman Jackson regarding Roger Stone. Would you want a judge to preside over your trial who shows such political bias?? And violates laws?
AntiFa thugs get a slap on the wrist for assault with a deadly weapon. A man who burned a Gay Rainbow flag sentenced to 16 years.
Constant demonizing of Christians, Caucasians, Heterosexuals, the attack on unborn children.
The Alt Left demonizes science when science proves them wrong….. transgender… but embraces science to push a dangerous agenda….. climate change. And the number of lying scientists and data manipulation is staggering.
The constant attacks by the Alt Left-Left- Socialists-Communist Democrats on anyone who will not march in lockstep with them is but one of many things that opened my eyes…..the list is too long for this comment. The coordinated hit jobs by media, Hollyweird, Alt Left Dems etc , on Trump and anyone who thinks different, started my search for facts, truth. We are no longer Democrats, nor Republicans. Both political parties are corrupt as Hades and the damage to the country and Constitution is very disturbing.
The posts that attack President Trump show that people are deliberately obtuse, employ the Mamet Principle, and use Alt Left websites to prove their stance, and do not care to search for facts and truth. Very disturbing that people refuse to search for truth/facts and believe everything the mainstream media spews. Narrow, closed minded.
No different than how Anti Mormons operate and think.