My CJ Column: Trump's Supporters Are Not All Crackers

Reprinted with permission of the Courier-Journal:

Donald Trump was not my first choice, or even my fifth choice. I nonetheless take issue with thenarrative that his supporters are all ignorant bigots.I understand why many oppose Trump and are even repelled by him, but I caution his detractors when they rant “how can these people vote for him?” to consider that some, maybe many of “these people” are our friends, neighbors and coworkers.

I observed Trump voters recently while spending the day volunteering for Kentucky’s Republican caucus. Given Trump’s win, more of the hundreds of Republicans whom I encountered voted for Trump than anyone else.

I did not see any white supremacists. These were normal Louisvillians of all different ages and walks of life. Most were pleasant, patient with the delays, and thanked me for volunteering. They seemed optimistic, not angry. None of these people looked the type to riot or throw a punch.

My wish for Trump is that he become worthy of these supporters. He could start by doing the following:

1. Disavow violence.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gave Trump this advice. But then Trump warned of “riots” if he comes close but falls short of the requisite number of delegates. Trump fans note that Trump did not call for riots - he just predicted them. That’s too cute by half. Lest there be any confusion that his comments were made with a wink and a nod, Trump needs to be very clear to his more aggressive supporters: insist that they refrain from violence, no matter how the left baits them.

2. Say “You’re fired.” Trump should get rid of his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Video shows Lewandowski literally manhandling Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. Fields tweeted a picture of the bruise that resulted. Then video at an Arizona rally this past weekend appeared to show Lewendoski grab the collar of a protester. The Trump campaign has denied the allegations.

Lewandowski is not the sort of talent Trump should retain; at best he’s a distraction. Cut him loose.

3. Say “You’re hired.” The presidency is too big a job for one man. Great presidents surround themselves with smart, serious people of impeccable integrity. Trump can reassure the wary by telling us, now, whom he would select for his cabinet. Yes, he’s running as the outsider. But if he wins, someone will have to actually run the government. It won’t be enough to just bloviate: someone must make sure that the laws are faithfully executed.

If Trump could persuade credible people to serve with him and identify them now, he would improve not only his odds of winning, but his prospects for successfully governing as well.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | GOP has right 'advice' on court

4. Hit the (briefing) books.  Trump’s a smart, well-educated man. It’s said he has a tremendous work ethic and memory. If he chose to do so, he could quickly grasp the nuances of the many issues that will confront the next president.

As the campaign has dragged on, however, his mastery of policy has not appeared to increase. Sure, he takes pride in not being a professional politician. His lack of wonkishness is part of his charm. However, voters are entitled to some specifics as to how he would “make American great again.” One would think he would tire of repeating the same platitudes and would add some detail just to change it up.

Trump talks about the elites looking down on us. It’s a powerful point because it’s true. But by failing to give specifics, Trump is condescending in his own way. Talk to us like adults. We can handle the truth.

5. Renounce Bigotry.  Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong, but at this point I remain unconvinced that Trump is a racist, notwithstanding his interview with Jake Tapper, in which he failed to disavow David Duke.

Ben Carson, for whom I have great respect, spent a lot of time with Trump this past year. Surely Carson would have discerned if Trump is a bigot. Carson would not haveendorsed Trump if he thought Trump is truly a racist.

Likewise, Bill Clinton would not have attended Trump’s wedding if he thought Trump was a racist. Trump has been in the public eye far too long to have kept racist beliefs secret. The guy is not known for his filter, after all.

Beyond just condemning the Klan, Trump should emulate Sen. Rand Paul’s efforts to grow the Republican Party by reaching out to minorities and demonstrating how conservative policies can help people escape poverty in a way that liberalism has failed to accomplish.

6. Pray.  Many evangelicals are horrified at Trump’s statement that he has neverasked God for forgiveness. Imagine if he did. A sanctified Trump could be a powerful force for good. Hard to fathom? Sound improbable? So was an empty tomb on Easter Sunday.

Republicans Should Accept Possibility of Trump Nomination

“I didn’t realize this was in question. Behaves like a racist, speaks like a racist…of course [Donald Trump] is a racist,”  tweeted New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio last night.

If de Blasio’s Tweet is accurate, it should come as a major surprise that last Friday, Dr. Ben Carson endorsed Donald Trump for President. If Trump is really a racist bigot as portrayed by de Blasio, why would Dr. Carson, an African American, support him?

It’s true that a small fraction of Trump’s supporters are associated with racial hate groups, but is that any worse than when, say, the terrorist group Hamas endorsed Obama in 2008? Perhaps Trump hasn't done enough to distance himself from his most rogue supporters, but at least he doesn't refer to their endorsements as “flattering,” as David Axelrod did Hamas’s.

The reality is that the majority of Trump supporters are our own friends and neighbors. As a high school senior, I know many young people who support Trump in addition to the countless adults I know that do as well. In full disclosure, I caucused for Senator Rubio, but I understand that realistically Trump will more than likely be the Republican nominee.

I attended Trump’s Louisville rally, mostly out of curiosity, and I left with a different perspective on Trump’s supporters. The majority of attendees at the rally appeared to be blue collar workers, exactly the demographic on which Hillary relied in 2008 and would need in a general election. I also saw business professionals, women, and minorities. Most of the attendees were polite and well behaved.

Of my friends who lean moderate, in the event of a Hillary vs. Trump election, I know several who say they will abstain, a few who will vote for Trump, but none who will vote for Hillary. To say that Trump couldn't win a general election is inaccurate.

Carson’s endorsement received surprisingly little media attention, especially compared to Chris Christie’s endorsement. I’ve never been particularly drawn to Christie; however, I deeply respect Dr. Carson as an intelligent, thoughtful, and faithful man. Carson is someone whom almost everyone respects, even if he wasn’t one’s first choice candidate, whereas in my experience most people dislike Christie outside of his loyal network of supporters. I believe Carson’s endorsement is a game changer in this election.

This election cycle has played out differently than anyone could have expected, except maybe the Donald himself. It’s difficult to know where exactly Trump stands, but I think Bill Bennet said it best when he compared this election to a game of Russian roulette: with Hillary, all six chambers are loaded, but with Trump, only three are.

It’s time for Republicans to accept that Trump will likely be our nominee. A brokered convention may be the establishment’s only hope for installing a more predictable nominee, but doing so would prove disastrous for our party. It would disenfranchise nearly half of the Republican primary electorate and make party unity all but impossible. 

In 2015, Kentucky Republicans faced a four way primary that became inflamed with personal accusations and mud slinging, but still managed to unite behind Matt Bevin who went on to successfully take the Governor’s Mansion and has proven an excellent governor thus far. Trump, like Bevin, may not be the first choice for the many Republicans, but if he is the nominee, we must unite behind him. 

McConnell Right on SCOTUS Nominee

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell heads to the White House today to get lectured by President Barack Obama on why Republicans should let him nominate a liberal to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

My Courier-Journal column explains why McConnell is right to resist. Reprinted with permission of the Courier-Journal and available in hard-copy tomorrow:

It was one of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s finest moments. Just an hour after the unexpected passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed, McConnell issued a statement that “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The swiftness and decisiveness of McConnell’s announcement eased the sting many felt after the loss of the justice who was the intellectual and rhetorical leader of the originalist movement, that is, interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and not what one wants it to mean.

Scalia was so reliable. He didn’t “grow” into his job and he didn’t “evolve.” Rather, he relentlessly adhered to textualist principles.

And McConnell’s resolute response to Scalia’s death honored the justice’s legacy by preventing — at least for now — his accomplishments from being undone.

In addition to refusing to confirm an Obama nominee before the election, Republicans should not hold any confirmation hearings. Nor should they meet with any nominee, regardless of whom Obama proposes. Even if the nominee is a member of a coveted voting block.

This is a question of timing, not qualifications. It would be impolite to the nominee and disingenuous to the country to pretend otherwise by holding hearings or “meet and greets” with senators. It’s not nice to lead people on.

And again, it’s not about the nominee. It’s about giving Americans the opportunity to pick the president they want to fill this swing vote seat on the court.

That’s what then-Sen. Joe Biden maintained in 1992: the president should not put forward a Supreme Court nominee in an election year, and if he does, the Senate should “seriously consider” not holding hearings on the nominee.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | Time to end tourism tax breaks

Democrats complain that McConnell’s refusal to hold a vote on anyone Obama nominates to replace Scalia is nothing but the raw exercise of power. There is some truth to that. However, that’s the nature of checks and balances. It’s one check the framers put in place to limit the president’s powers and prevent him from becoming a despot.

Obama whines that our Constitution gives him the power to nominate a justice and the Senate the duty to give “advice and consent.”  McConnell, on behalf of the Senate majority, has indeed advised the president not to nominate anyone before the upcoming election. And he has advised the president that the Senate will not consent to that nominee now, irrespective of whom he nominates.

The Senate has not abdicated its duty. Obama just doesn’t like how it has done its duty. The Constitution does not require that the Senate act only in response to a president’s nomination. Indeed, the word “advice,” appearing before the word “consent” in the Constitutional text, indicates the Senate’s power to give advice to the president before any nomination occurs, including advice as to the timing of the nomination.

What’s the harm in leaving the number of justices at eight for now? An even number creates the possibility that the court might divide evenly, but that is not unprecedented or inconsistent with the framers’ intent. To the contrary, Congress in 1789 set the number of justices at six.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | Good for Rand for putting himself out there

Worst case scenario: Hillary Clinton gets elected and nominates a liberal to become justice, and Democrats regain the Senate and confirm her nominee. Yet if Republicans cave and consent to some supposed “moderate” nominee by Obama, the ideological balance of the court still tips. Either way, the swing vote is lost.

The only hope for keeping a Supreme Court that respects the actual text of the Constitution is for Republicans to wait, elect a Republican president and keep a majority in the Senate.

That makes this the most important election in at least a generation. It is worth the fight.

To win it, Republicans need to stand united behind McConnell. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who is in a tough reelection fight, was smart to quickly back McConnell. Likewise for Republican presidential candidates.

McConnell is scheduled to meet Obama at the White House on Tuesday (after this column is filed). Doubtless, Obama will try to persuade McConnell to stop being an “obstructionist.” Obama will complain that Republicans are the party of “no.” He may toss out names of well-qualified nominees, maybe some “moderates” (translate: RINOs) as a “compromise” in sheep’s clothing.

We’ve watched helplessly as Obama has run roughshod over the Constitution. This president who has used executive orders to evade and erode the separation of powers now wants to pick a justice to interpret the Constitution he has repeatedly flouted.

McConnell’s refusal to hold a pre-election vote on an Obama nominee buys a little time for Americans to save this country from the slow rot of lawlessness. Let’s not waste this reprieve.

Bridget Bush is a Louisville attorney and founder of Elephants in the Bluegrass blog. Her column appears every third Wednesday in the Courier-Journal.