“Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse. The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry practiced by the Klan and others have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood.”
—President Ronald Reagan in 1984, after learning that the KKK had endorsed him.
The contrast between this and the disgraceful, dishonest, weak and waffling response by Donald Trump Sunday when asked about his endorsements from the KKK and David Dukes is stark and illuminating.
__________________
Pointer: Instapundit (Ed Driscoll)
Ethics Alarms 
Well said!
I’m curious – since you are so critical of pretty much every candidate just who do you think should be running? Likewise, if you could build a perfect candidate from pieces parts what parts would those be?
Sorry if you have answered this before.
Not the purview of the blog. I examine the ethics of the available candidates. It’s up to the parties to develop processes and identify (and nurture) competent leaders, and they have failed their duty.
Everyone should be critical of all candidates. The refusal to be critical is the only way to explain the persistence of Trump and Clinton in the race.
I’ve explained why Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Clinton and Sanders really aren’t fit or qualified to lead. Kasich would be a good, honest, productive President, but he’s unelectable as well as un-nominatable.
Based on demonstrated character, competence and trustworthiness only, from worst down, the remaining candidates stack up…
Trump
Clinton
Cruz
Sanders
Rubio
Of those, Rubio is the only one who has a chance of being a pleasant surprise and growing into the job. The rest are guaranteed disasters.
How can anyone vote for a guaranteed disaster?
Yes. I’m still working out the calculus of the arguments that one must vote for Hillary just to avoid Trump.
Voting for a lesser guaranteed disaster doesn’t strike me as “responsible”.
Do we want the Titanic torpedoed? Or do we want the Titanic to be hit by a rogue wave?
At least for some elections, the lesser of two rotten options doesn’t mean a slower fulfilling disaster… It just meant a less productive year. This go around? Hillary or Trump would all just be deciding what flavor of disaster you want.
Would you like me to cut off your arms or gouge out your eyes?
Arms, please.
“Voting for a lesser guaranteed disaster doesn’t strike me as “responsible”.”
My thought too, Tex. Plus, I cannot stop thinking that voting for a third party candidate also would not be responsible. Because, in the unlikely event that such a candidate would win, it would likely mean paralysis in the functions of government, which is just another kind of disaster.
So…it’s a fine bunch of poisons we get to decide on which to take.
1) You have to vote.
2) As I said, it’s the T-Rex or the Indominus.
3) There is no chance whatsoever that Trump wouldn’t wreck the nation and the culture, divide us further, and embarrass the US beyond easy repair. Because Hillary IS an insider and would not, I think, want the first woman President to ruin the brand the way the first black President has wrecked THAT brand, and because she is no ideologue but a pure expedient pragmatist, there is a teeny, weenie, infinitesimal, chance she will just do the damn job, she’s a better bet.
She’ll be a better President than Obama. He’ll be worse.
I’m trying to work out whether it’s OK to not vote when the candidates are so rotten. I think it is. Or at least not vote for the candidates we’re being offered. If I vote it will be a write in.
Cruz is concentrated evil and would be an unmitigated disaster. No one likes him — including his own party. Nothing would happen in DC. Did you hear Graham’s recent joke?
“A good Republican would defend Ted Cruz after tonight. That ain’t happening. If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you.”
As for Rubio, he is: 1) not smart; and 2) too inexperienced. Why isn’t Kasich still on your list? He’s still getting my vote, although I expect he might withdraw after Super Tuesday.
is that Graham as in Lindsey Graham?
Yes
Because he has revealed himself as a dork, and dorks don’t win, and can’t lead on a national level. We’ve never elected a dork; Ford was one, but that was an accident. And he hasn’t had the guts or integrity to attack Trump. Yesterday he used the word “cockamamie.”
Graham was out of line, though he was factually correct.
All things being equal, I’d vote for Kasich over the others too. But all things aren’t equal.
Trustworthiness being a factor, you favor Clinton over Trump? Perhaps not the order I’d put them in.
Really? I can trust Clinton not to call people names. I can trust her not to mock every minority. I’m pretty sure I can trust her to know how the government works, to know the Waste, Fraud and Abuse are baked into every government program, and that you can’t balance the budget by “eliminating them”, to know that the Supreme Court doesn’t “sign laws.” I can trust her not to embarrass the country with a lack of dignity, decorum or respect for the office/
Yes, they are both con artists and liars. Name anything of value that we can trust Trump to do or stand for. There’s isn’t.
I just cannot trust Clinton to hold the reigns of power. I liken her to the “devil we know,” as opposed to Trump, who is something like the “devil we don’t know” (despite how well we know him for a devil). I liken trusting Trump over Hillary to trusting that he could do less damage than she, with all her connections and cunning. My hope would be that the country could survive Trump in spite of him, while I doubt that the country will survive Hillary.
Gad, I meant REINS. Levers. Of power. I am amazed that Jack would trust Hillary enough to even consider voting for her.
Trump being equally or less trustworthy than Hillary, but nevertheless being less competent to do all the damage that Hillary can (and will) do.
That’s a tricky argument: an incompetent power mad narcissist is preferable to a more competent, Machiavellian crook?
Yes, in this case. With Hillary’s prior experience at using power in government positions, it is a fair presumption that she is, and would be, far more competent than Trump at abusing people while using it. That makes her the obvious menace. Trump won’t learn fast enough to keep himself from being isolated and marginalized by the more competent abusers.
So the question Jack, is do you want an abuser-in-chief who knows how to make her abuse really work for herself, or would it be more tolerable for The People (and more survivable for the Republic) to have an incompetent, wannabe abuser, who gets thwarted more often by other abusers who are extraordinarily competent and dependable at making the office of the President a lame duck’s playpool from almost the very start?
At least when Trump lies, he stutters. I know we’re comparing a pile of shit to a pile of shit, but I can’t forget three decades of Hillary’s lies. Massive lies. Massive Obvious Lies. Said with a straight face. Maybe Donald benefits from not being so public for so long, he hasn’t had the time to amass the baggage. I’m not saying he’s good…. I’m saying she set a REAL low bar.
It is impossible to get any lower than Trump. That’s the reality. You can’t make me defend Hillary, I won’t. But there is always a worse choice.
I’m Depressed. Idiocracy only took 10 years to be relevant.
Have you heard or read some of the ignorant left wing political hacks that are comparing Trump to Reagan? I’m hearing more and more of this trash. Here’s one…
Trump is this generation’s Reagan
I don’t think they’re ignorant. They just hate Reagan– and in their circles, comparison to Reagan is insult enough.
texagg04 said, “I don’t think they’re ignorant.”
I think you’re wrong. The left wing political hacks are repeating this ridiculous meme like ignorant sheeple.
texagg04 said, “They just hate Reagan– and in their circles, comparison to Reagan is insult enough.”
I think you’re wrong again. I firmly believe that the Democratic leadership is intentionally trying to besmirch Reagan and rewrite history in the minds of today’s voters by comparing the ridiculousness of Trump to a Conservative “icon” like Reagan. The Democratic leadership think voters are ignorant to the point of stupidity, they want voters to believe that Trump is the epitome of what Conservationism has always been; anyone with reasonable intelligence knows this meme to be utterly false and yet Liberals are spreading this trash like it’s gospel.
There’s one valid basis of comparison: both had show business backgrounds, and an assured TV presence. That’s it. Anyone who thinks there is a more substantive similarity doesn’t comprehend either.
Well, to be fair, Reagan probably had someone on his payroll write that statement — which is perfect. Trump — who claims to hire so many people — really needs to hire some people to manage him.
Why is that relevant? JFK had a speechwriter write “Ask not…” The point is that Reagan instinctively knew what the only right answer was.
It’s relevant because we can’t attribute all these marvelous quotes to our leaders because other people wrote them. But, we CAN attribute all of Trump’s idiotic quotes to him because he speaks for himself.
Beth said, “It’s relevant because we can’t attribute all these marvelous quotes to our leaders because other people wrote them.”
Prove it.
This statement was based on assumptions. Prove that what you stated applies to the quote that came from the mouth of Reagan; I’m serious, prove it!
Beth said, “But, we CAN attribute all of Trump’s idiotic quotes to him because he speaks for himself.”
Prove it.
This statement was based on assumptions. Who’s to say that Trump isn’t just spitting out words from a predefined script that was written by a magical thinking wing-nut Liberal?
Wow, I’m disarmed by your amazing logic. Reagan, like EVERY modern President, employed a small army of speechwriters. It’s well-documented. So, either they sat around twiddling their thumbs and cashing checks for doing no work, or they actually wrote stuff. It’s more than a fair assumption. Again, because I think you missed it, Presidents are responsible for the content but not the prose.
And if you don’t think Trump speaks for himself, please go check yourself back into high school — or a mental facility.
Beth,
You cannot prove that the words are not Reagan’s and Reagan’s alone can you? I’m not the one basing my argument regarding this on assumptions whether they are “fair assumptions” or not, you are.
Beth said “And if you don’t think Trump speaks for himself, please go check yourself back into high school — or a mental facility.”
Now your acting like a typical Progressive, get challenged using your own logic and I’m the one that’s nuts. That tactic is on the top of the list as a Liberal debating tactic.
Based on your replies I think I was correct asking you why is it that you don’t seem to want to attribute the actual words coming out of the mouth of Reagan as his own?
I’m done with this now.
I’m glad you’re done with this — because otherwise you’re taking the position that speechwriters don’t write speeches (liberal or conservative). It wasn’t your best argument.
Beth said, “…you’re taking the position that speechwriters don’t write speeches.”
Beth,
Intentional misrepresentations is also really high on the list of Liberal debating tactics. The portrait you’re painting of yourself is not very pleasant.
Beth said, “Reagan probably had someone on his payroll write that statement — which is perfect.”
Interesting.
Why is it that you don’t seem to want to attribute the actual words coming out of the mouth of Reagan as his own?
Zoltar — give me a break. I say the same thing about Kennedy and Obama. It’s all about the speechwriters. You can give a leader credit for the underlying message, but not the prose. Do you believe an actor should be given credit for the lines he delivers in a movie?
I DID give you a break when I asked the question.
Now go read my PROVE IT comment above and PROVE your implication.
Except Regan was known to have written almost all his speeches before he became President. He honed his speech writing and delivery craft over years working for GE.
I am desolate and furious. Unless the Republican Party does something courageous (and perhaps outrageous) by brokering the Convention and taking Trump out of the picture, we’re doomed: Trump vs. Hillary? For President of the United States? How far we’ve fallen.
It is my duty to vote and I will. A write-in: probably for Rubio, who is not perfect but at least has positive aspirations and the intelligence to learn on the job (unlike our current president, who refused to learn on the job… twice!).
Elizabeth, I am thinking of Rafael Eduardo Cruz in a way similar to how you seem to be thinking of Rubio. (just had to “do the Barack Hussein Obama” on Cruz) I see positive aspirations in both; I see a competent lawyer in Cruz, plus (compared to Rubio) a slightly more realistic expectation of how much the U.S. can have its way in foreign affairs (bloodied, but slightly more respected – but yes, I am aware of Cruz’s “glowing sand” comment).
That was then.
Back then, we did not have rabble rousers crying racism for every perceived slight, every perceived insult.
For example, Amy Ziering, producer of the Hunting Ground, claimed that the reason people were criticism her film was because it was a threat to the dominant white male power.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/31/makers-of-the-hunting-ground-are-in-deni
You yourself not long ago blogged about a university that investigated students for racism simply because of them wearing avocado masks or something.
It is not too hard to find examples of columnists and activists who use the term “white male” in the same context that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis used the term “Jew”; Amy Ziering is just one of them.
With racism being dumbed down, such that posting a picture of wearting facials is racist, or criticizing a documentary film about rape is racist, then this would beg the question of what is wrong with David Duke or the Ku Klux Klan. How are they worse than Amy Ziering? Or Beverly Kopper?
Free advice. Email Jack, apologize profusely and beg him to delete your comment before more people see it, then google Klu Klux Klan since you’re clearly unfamiliar with their work.
You’d do yourself a favor to review Ejercito’s methods around here. Your comment betrays your newness.
(Freer advice)
Oh, I know what is wrong with the Ku Klux Klan.
The point was making is that there is a campaign to dumb down the definition of racism. Dumbing down racism undermines the standards that lead us to conclude that the Klan is wrong.
Only if you’re content to ignore all the violence. Not the kind at an angry protest where rocks get thrown or a disturbed individual who goes on a mass shooting but the organised terror. Targeted bombings, assassinations, cross burning. That a big step from someone’s racist grandma who likes to say nigger.
Tossing around the word racism in no way diminishes what the Klan has done. Done, not said.
So the nascent violence of Black Lives Matter can continue to be ignored because, unlike the KKK, BLM has not become quite so violent, yet? Didn’t a few BLM-friendly zealots recently stalk and beat up a white Marine?
I have no idea, I’ve not heard of this happening and you’ve chosen not to offer a citation. If some people beat someone else up, I hope they go to jail for it and stay there for a long time.
Black Lives Matter are upset about the deaths of black people at the hands of police. Did they blow up any police stations? Do they show up at the homes of police and try to run them off? When the children of police go to school in the morning do Black Lives Matter blow up the school bus? Are they assassinating representative of police unions?
They are encouraging distrust and antipathy toward police, and surprise! 11 cops have been killed so far this year over one during the same period in 2015. I suspect its no coincidence.
Black Lives Matter are upset about the deaths of black people at the hands of police. They should be upset about blacks who die without resisting a lawful arrest or threatening police, when there is actual racist intent that is provable and clear. Otherwise, BLM shouldn’t be more concerned about black deaths than white ones.
I had no idea that resisting arrest was a crime that required summary execution. But then I have no idea why resisting arrest is considered a stand-alone crime that someone can be charged with without being charged with something else as well, rather than an enhancement to an actual charge.
The police are doing a good job of that all by themselves. They did it with me the very first time i was stopped and held for 40 minutes for the crime of walking down a well lit street while wearing jeans and a sky blue tee-shirt after dark. After the third time (and only a mere 20 minutes till a supervisor showed up and decided I could go) I decided they were irredeemable and the only solution would be to fire all the cops and start over with new ones not tainted by current police culture.
“I had no idea that resisting arrest was a crime that required summary execution”
Take note fellow readers, that is surest and quickest way to demonstrate ignorance on this topic.
That’s called, I believe, generalizing from the specific, and bigotry.
Resisting arrest is inherently dangerous and risky, and should be, otherwise law enforcement would be impossible. And of course defying law enforcement, including reasonable requests, is a crime in itself.
Somehow, I think you are leaving relevant facts out of the account of your own arrest.
I was walking, cop car pulls up demands I stop. I stop. Cop asks for ID I ask if I’m being detained. I do not show ID as there’s no legal requirement to show or carry ID. The stop and identify law only says they may demand my name and address, and if they do I answer.
Refusing requests or unlawful demands is not a crime, refusing lawful orders is, at least in this jurisdiction.
Generalizing from the specific? When it keeps happening? I’m not breaking laws when I’m stopped, there’s no reasonable way to think that I had, was in the process of, or about to break any laws. Walking on a sidewalk along a well lit street is never reasonable suspicion for anything. What could I be doing? Breaking into houses with no tools and nothing but a small shoulder bag? Selling drugs when I’m not even speaking to anyone? I get pretty bad insomnia, sometimes walking around for 20 minutes helps, I stick to well lit well trafficked areas for the obvious reasons. Often I’ll walk to a convenience store and back, other times I’ll just walk for 10 or 15 minutes till my head clears and turn around and go home. I get stopped and questioned a couple of times a year. Funny story though, once I was almost home and rather than being detained a cop came and asked me if something was wrong because I was standing at a red light, jaywalking is so common in the Chicago area that not doing it attracts attention, this demonstrates the problem, non-conformity rather than criminality attracts police attention. I’ve tried asking what the reasonable suspicion was, He told me I was pretty suspicious, I told him that with that attitude he was a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. Get it? different is suspicious. It’s unusual to walk alone after dark so I must be up to something, so I must be questioned and I’m not about to answer the questions of a cop, they don’t detain you if they’re not looking for a reason to to cuff you and take you away.