Linda Chavez, Townhall.com
January 1, 2016
Will Republicans come to their senses in 2016 or continue with another year of living dangerously? We will soon know, when Iowans caucus in classrooms and rec halls to pick their presidential favorites and New Hampshire voters head for the polling booths. A big victory for Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in either state could well make it difficult, though not impossible, for another candidate to emerge down the road. Only if those candidates still in the single digits give up the ghost will a consensus develop around an alternative to Trump or Cruz.
But more importantly, the continued dominance of either Trump or Cruz guarantees that the party will be pushed into more destructive rhetoric on immigration, trade and the war against the Islamic State group. Those two are already drowning out or silencing other candidates on immigration and trade.
Both men favor mass deportation of the 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, which would wreak havoc not just on the individuals and their families but on the U.S. economy, and both favor limiting legal immigration, as well. Both candidates have adopted protectionist trade positions — though Cruz’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a trade promotion authority bill seems more indicative of his slippery opportunism than it does his ideology.
And neither man seems to believe that the Islamic State poses any serious threat to the United States, at least not one worth our investing more military assets than currently committed. On that issue, both Trump’s and Cruz’s policies are virtually indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s.
The likely outcome of a Trump or Cruz presidential nomination would be a GOP rout in November, one that could cost the party control of the Senate, as well as the White House. Hillary Clinton is an immensely flawed candidate, but her base is a lot larger than the anti-immigrant, protectionist, isolationist wing of the Republican Party, which is the Trump/Cruz base.
RINOTRACKER RESPONSE FROM CHRIS ADAMO:
For starters, it must be fully understood that, in Linda Chavez’s view, every issue and candidate must be weighed solely from the perspective of whether or not they advance her open borders/amnesty agenda. Despite regular claims of being a “conservative” (asserted again even in this article) she consistently re-routes virtually any issue to a place where it supports the concept of open borders and amnesty. So it fits that her assessment of Cruz and Trump would be a dire warning that they will shift the party “into more destructive rhetoric on immigration,” which is her reflexive response to any effort that would secure the nation’s borders.
It is noteworthy that, like all “Establishment” Republicans (along with their Democrat counterparts) she dutifully quotes the standard “11 million” as the supposed number of illegal aliens currently in the country. Some RINOs are more condescending, offering an even more “precise” sounding number, such as “11.4 million,” as if a comprehensive door to door census has been conducted and specific tally achieved of those “living in the shadows.” In any case, even a brief visit to the local Wal-Mart reveals that the actual number is several time higher.
Both Trump and Cruz assert that, in the wake of Islamic terrorists successfully infiltrating Europe and America, the influx of so-called “refugees” must also be re-examined and necessarily halted. In standard “Politically Correct” parlance, Chavez mischaracterizes this as opposition to “legal immigration.” The same can be gleaned from her derision of Ted Cruz for his opposition to the “Trans Pacific Partnership,” which was more a global power-grab than the “trade promotion authority” by which it was fraudulently promoted. Ignoring the many breaches of national sovereignty it portends, she denigrated Cruz’s well-founded suspicion as “slippery opportunism.”
Predictably, Chavez recites the GOP “Establishment” platitude that candidates like Cruz and Trump would guarantee “a GOP rout in November.” This is an interesting rejoinder from the people who corralled America into supporting such candidates as John McCain and Mitt Romney, on the basis that they were deemed “most electable” by Republican “experts.” Meanwhile, the massive support enjoyed by Cruz, and even more so by Trump is something Chavez can dismiss as merely their “base,” which we apparently should regard as nothing more than a “fringe.”
Among other aspects of this piece that reveal much more about Linda Chavez then her intended targets, she mentions that she was a Democrat in 1972, when she could not support either McGovern nor Nixon in that year’s presidential election. Yet she completely glosses over the outcome of that race, which Nixon won in a landslide. Similarly, the massive 1980 Ronald Reagan victory ensued as many GOP insiders warned that such an “extreme” conservative would face overwhelming defeat. Apparently the evidence is as inconvenient and remains as ultimately foreign to members of the GOP “Establishment” in this year’s race as it always has.
The crux of everything Linda Chavez seeks to convey is that Republican career politicians inside the Beltway, with their broken promises, capitulation to every liberal agenda item, and disdain for real conservatism, needs to be preserved at all costs. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are deemed unfit for office on the basis that they are “two of the least likable candidates in presidential history.” Such a despicable assertion stems from the fact that neither plays along with the insiders. Rather than lauding Cruz for his willingness to stand alone on behalf of the American people his courage is denigrated as “Senate antics.”
Eventually, her real purpose and intentions leak out, with a transparent plug for open borders conspirator Marco Rubio and, to a lesser degree, Chris Christie. Regarding this prospect, and the likelihood that the GOP will be able to revert to its treacherous “business as usual,” Chavez remains an optimist.
E-mail Christopher G. Adamo at: firstname.lastname@example.org