Women's March and what it means

So the day after Donald Trump was sworn in, multiple protests appeared around the United States and even in other countries in a Women's March, and the numbers were impressive, no matter how frustrating that might be to the Administration.

I always have and always will celebrate any expression of the Freedom to Peaceably Assemble, and this was a massive event. It was a broad-ranging protest with a wide spectrum of people and perspectives being represented. There were many things to celebrate, and other things that were encouraging to see. There are also some issues. I'd like to take a moment to talk about a few points.

To begin with, again, I was very happy to see so many people take to the streets and raise their voice and make themselves heard. And there are a number issues that were raised that I agree with. There were others that I may not be totally on board with, and even some things I am diametrically opposed to. But this is how an educated citizenry works. It is how a Representative Democracy works. It was fantastic.

I was disappointed, on the other hand, to see the response from the Administration. You are going to quibble with the media about the size of the protests when it is clear to anyone paying attention that the protests dwarfed the inauguration event yesterday? Even Ari Fleischer found this preposterous. Especially after all of Trump's talk of the people in his speech yesterday. This is a very clear example of his interpretation of "the people" is clearly not all Americans, but rather people like him and people who like him.

As to the massive numbers from today, it raises a question - what does this mean? What do all these people in the streets mean for the Administration and for the United States? 

Bottom line - it could mean everything, or it could mean nothing. The difference lies in what is done next. Because, to quote our favorite General Leia, "It isn't over yet." Far from it. In fact, now the real work begins. And I have some thoughts about what that work entails, so at the risk of mansplaining, here goes.

First, watch everything. I think this goes without saying and the vast majority of people who took the time to protest today will do this. But not all, and there were obviously a lot of others who didn't actively protest who also need to watch. Vigilance is so desperately needed at this time.

Second, don't sit idly by if you see something wrong. This is a clear case of Benjamin Franklin's famous line of hanging together. Yes, its that serious. What encourages me is seeing numerous examples of people doing this already, and I very much believe in the goodness of Americans in general that I feel like this will also happen organically in a lot of ways and in most places. But it is always good to verbalize the need and to remind ourselves of its importance.

Third, contact your representatives. Find whatever works best for you, whether that is email, by phone or physical letters. It is probably worth investigating what is most effective for your individual representatives, although as I understand it, generally phone calls are taken more seriously than letters, and letters more seriously than emails. But every representative is different. Ask and hopefully their staff will tell you. I must say I was incredibly encouraged by the House ethics kerfuffle a few weeks back where the House of Representatives were planning on limiting certain ethics watchdog efforts and it was shot down almost immediately because of calls from constituents. It works. Do it.

Fourth, find other ways to be active. This includes signing petitions, helping political parties (whichever you are a part of - just please, do not do so blindly.) Today I signed the first two White House petitions regarding the President's tax returns and his business efforts.

Fifth, and this is probably the most important even though it doesn't seem as directly connected, but get involved at a local level. One of the major worries about the Trump campaign is the subtext of individual rights and safety, so get to know your local representatives and let them know you care enough to make sure you know who they are and that they are doing their job. Follow your local police chief on Twitter, write your mayor, call your state representatives. In the process, educate yourself about what is going on and what can be done to address the issues your community faces. Sure, we will have differences of opinion about what the issues are and what solutions would work best, but that is where compromise happens to figure out the right solution. THAT is how a Representative Democracy works. Engagement, dialogue. Do it.

However you do it, do something. Do something more than what you did before November of 2016. Do not leave it up to chance. Remember Martin Luther King Jr.'s line about evil only succeeding when good people do nothing? Don't do nothing. Do something.

Matthew Dowd made a comment on Twitter the other day about how the Watergate scandal pushed him to be more engaged, and now we have one of the most professional, reasoned voices in media today because of it. Certainly, we need more analysis who really look at details rather than people kicking up dust for ratings... The opportunity we have now is similar - use this energy to be more involved. Be inspired by true American Patriots like Barbara Jordan. Do not take any president, any government official for granted. Hold them all accountable.

Again, I applaud those who marched today. For those who weren't already, I hope their experience inspires them to stay engaged - yes, even those who have political opinions I disagree with. Why? Because that is how a Representative Government works - a political Marketplace of Ideas, pushing and pulling and responding to what works and what doesn't. I think the Republicans have done a terrible job holding up their end of that bargain for years - decades? - and truly hope that the Democrats do not follow suit. And how does that happen? Only if an Educated Citizenry stays engaged and let's their voices be heard.

As for my list of issues, of which I think some those who marched today would agree with:

• Ensure that all government officials know that we expect the Constitution to be upheld and enforced, especially the rights enumerated in the Constitution itself and key Amendments such as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth.
• The President must disclose his potential conflicts of interests and resolve them.
• Investigate the Russia-Trump Campaign issue - America deserves to know one way or the other.
• Handle the Health Care issue in a prudent, professional manner - come up with a solution that actually addresses the real issues that industry faces rather than just cutting and running.
• Engage in dialogue with all citizens, whether there is agreement or disagreement on the issue in question. This, frankly, has been too absent from political discourse (over 20 years?)
• Take the issues relating to protecting police departments and all unarmed citizens seriously - get above the rhetoric of either side in the issue and realize that systemic issues can be addressed through dialogue(*).
• The United States must regain her strength and confidence in foreign policy, and not through kowtowing to Russia or China.
• The United States must address the economic issues facing the country, but absolutely not through a policy of protectionist drivel such as we have seen from Trump to date.
• The United States must find a way to address the legitimate concerns of its citizens about border security, but (a) without giving in to the illegitimate fearmongering crap about how "all Muslims are evil", and (b) without compromising our tradition of being a place where the weak can find shelter. Frankly, I can't think of a better way for the terrorists to win than to fundamentally change that America is an open, welcoming society...
• On all issues, find a way to re-learn how to compromise and work out solutions that we best for most Americans. And here is the catch, folks - its on us. We are the ones who have to demand that what is best for America is as important as our own individual needs.
• Long term, I believe very strongly that the issue of gerrymandering needs to be addressed. This is such a huge discussion that now is probably not the time for it, but the extreme gerrymandering in different areas of the country has fed into the extremes of both parties and completely undermined moderate positions.

(*) How can I say this with such certainty? Take a closer look at the efforts of former Dallas Police Chief David Brown to bring what was a troubled police department and make it more responsive to its citizens, but in ways that empowered the police force at the same time. The fact that they suffered one of the worst attacked on a police force last year was terribly ironic, and frankly, I was surprised to see how little came of that.

So That Happened... My Next Letter

So the Inauguration of President Donald Trump happened today. As such, I felt it was a good time to write my representatives again, and I share it below. Once again, I sent this to both Senators, my Representative and my State Representative, as well as Rubio, Kasich and

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE:  The Trump Presidency, the direction of the Republican Party

Dear Representatives:

            On November 2, 2016, I wrote to you and a few others about my concerns about the candidacy of Donald Trump and a number of things as that campaign influenced the direction of the Republican Party. In it, I explained my decision to continue to vote for Republicans with certain exceptions – namely, Donald Trump and any who were forcefully supporting him.

            I stand by that decision, despite the surprising result and the benefit it gives the Republican Party, not because I did not vote for the current President, but because I believe, as I believe most of you believe, that there remain real concerns about his Presidency, even while it should allow for opportunities for Republicans to pass legislation and accomplish goals that a divided government does not.

            I write to you today to give you my current concerns, in light of what has happened since the election and what actions President Trump took in the interim, not only about his Administration, but how the Republicans governs over the following two years.

President Trump

I must admit, I was disappointed to only receive a response from Senator X in relation to my November communication. Especially as it relates to Senator Y, Representative Z and State Representative U, is it unreasonable to expect a response from our representatives, especially on such an important issue?

In Senator X’s response, he made it clear that understands the importance of Congress’ responsibilities to “alleviate the dangers inherent in centralizer power. … Congress has the duty to provide critical oversight of the executive branch.” It is exactly this that I expect of my Federal Representatives. I was especially encouraged to see the efforts of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida in recent hearings to this effect.

            On the other hand, listening to President Trump’s speech today has me very concerned. That did not sound like a President who intends to continue the successful foreign policy of Ronald Reagan. In fact, it sounds very much like a President who intends on taking isolationist positions, something that I strongly oppose. While I understand a different direction is needed from the clear failures of the Obama Administration, this is not the response I expected from a Republican.

            He also spoke about economic policies that are more fitting in the 1930s than today, and certainly not befitting America’s place in the world economy.

            I reiterate my concerns relating to the release of his taxes. All of the apparent and implied conflicts of interests remain troubling – especially considering his lack of action to address. Would we have been comfortable with President Clinton doing these things while he was in office? What would your reaction have been if Senator Clinton would have won and she wanted to approach her conflicts of interests this way? The concern you would have had in those situations absolutely applies here.

            Since the election, he has made numerous statements about the press. While I think we can all acknowledge that the media is a unique animal with its own issues, this, along with other statements attacking First Amendment rights continues to shock and concern me.

            The issue, though, that concerns me the most is the potential compromise of his Administration by Russia, and the potential interaction between his campaign and Russian agents. Even the idea of a US politician interacting with a foreign power, but especially to win an election, is something that should turn every Patriot’s stomach. At this point, we do not know exactly what happened, so I am not in a position to make any demands other than this issue is so serious that it needs to be fully investigated. If for no other reason than to know for a fact that nothing happened, this needs to be completely vetted. I will say, though, that the concerns raised to date are incredibly distressing.

            The other concerns I raised in my November 2, 2016 letter remain, but these are the concerns that we now have a record of, and these are the most clear issues.

The Republican Party In Power

            Beyond the Presidency, there is another Big Picture issue that needs to be discussed. Please, I beg of you, think beyond simple victories relating to a platform. Take the time to look at what will work best for most Americans. I am sure it is tempting to take a unified government out for a spin and see how fast the car can go, but we have often seen how that plays out – not well. But you well know that there are some things in the Republican platform that are not supported by most Americans, and an attempt to ram that through will either end in direct failure if there are those who do not vote the party line, or it will end in Republicans losing office.

You stand for Republican ideals, and to the extent that you can advocate for them and push them, do so. But when it comes to issues that may not have the majority support of American voters, remember that you represent ALL of your constituents, not just those who are registered Republicans. A good example of this is the recent decisions regarding anti-abortion efforts in Ohio and Governor Kasich. An extreme option was available, but he chose a more moderate way on an incredibly difficult and important issue. This is the kind of leadership we need going forward.

            The biggest issue, clearly, is health care. It is absolutely true that “Obamacare” has been disastrous. While not as bad as Hillary Clinton’s plan in the 1990s would have been, it has clearly not solved many of the issues it attempted to address, and has made other aspects considerably worse, all the while adding loads of uncertainty into the electorate. Absolutely and totally, something must be done. The massive question that is in front of you is what.

            I implore you, resist the temptation to simply trash the current law. I recognize that it certainly would appease many upset voters, and would probably feel very rewarding to finally have “done something” about it. But this is one of those key moments where real leadership – no, real REPRESENTATION – is needed. Take the time to understand the various issues, and do what you have to do to come up with a solution that works best for most Americans.

            This is a massive opportunity to show that Republicans can do what is in the best interest of the country, not just what satisfies the wants of the rabid extremes of the party. Historically, Democrats have come up with Big Picture socialist-leaning solutions. Please be more than just the party that says, “No.” Be the leaders that look beyond their next primary. Be the leaders that find what is actually in the best interest of their constituency, and work through whatever means necessary to make it happen.

            I leave you with one other example of the kind of things I am looking for from you. The decision to invade Iraq was one where the emotion of the country and the Administration overwhelmed those who needed to be better in the moment. Was invasion the right decision? Ultimately, probably. But the WAY it happened was rushed, and so we went in at the wrong time, with the wrong preparation, and we ended up starting a war that still costs lives over a decade later, and more importantly, we did not make sure to win the peace. I believe very strongly that if we would have made sure to do in Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan after World War II, we would have that strong, capable ally in the Middle East that President Bush envisioned.

            But at that time, to Senator X’s point in his December 1, 2016 letter to me, Congress did not fulfill its responsibility to provide that critical oversight, especially as it related to issues of coalition building and, most especially, making sure that we would not just win the war, but that we would leave a stable country once the war was over. Clearly, President Obama made matters worse in the way he pulled troops out of Iraq prematurely, but I certainly hope no one is going to try to argue that ISIS and the current issues involving Iraq are solely his responsibility.

Specifically, I ask you to provide that critical oversight. It is especially important for a President who has no experience in government or military service, and who has questioned openly the value of NATO and our other allies in the world. We did not endeavor for fifty years, and through the leadership of President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush win the Cold War, only to throw it away now.

            I wish you the best in your endeavors this term. I pray for you and hope you can continue to keep America great.

More Processing

Another day and the sun came up again.

And Obama and Trump met today, so there is that. Oh, and people are protesting. More on that separately.

Lots of things coming out about the election - details and such.

One thread emerges to me - across the board, Clinton failed to close.

With women.

With the white working class, especially in the Rust Belt. (More on this later).

With Bernie supporters.

With her own people (turnout in general).

With Black voters.

With Hispanic voters.

Johnston got more than enough votes in key states - especially Florida and North Carolina - that even if Clinton would have gotten a third of those numbers, she probably wins those states and wins the election.

The Rust Belt states abandoned her - probably because they felt abandoned by her. Remember, most of those states went for Obama TWICE. Stories of how her husband, former President Bill Clinton, tried to raise warning bells about this abound.

She clearly did not convince enough Americans that she could be competent on foreign policy, which is disappointing because from what I could tell, she probably would have been educated enough and aggressive enough that she would have been quite competent on the most important issue for the presidency - being the Commander in Chief. Two things hurt her here, I think. One, clearly Benghazi. Whether she was as incompetent as the Republicans painted her or not, it hurt her ability to really assert a strong presence. Two, though, were people in her own party. Especially as Obama had taken a very dove-ish position, in over-reaction to the missteps of George W. Bush's administration, I don't think she would have been able to take a strong position in a public way. Either way, there were clearly people who did not vote for her because they did not believe she could keep them safe. Which, again, is the primary job of the President.

She looks like she will win the popular vote. Yay?

People are bashing the pollsters. Why? I think all of them expected the turnout to be better than it was, and as Nate Silver has shown, most had it with her up 3-4 points - which is tight. She loses enough margin through a lack of turnout, and bingo. While I think Five Thirty Eight could have been more circumspect, Nate was clearly saying that the numbers were soft.

Comey. I hate to think this is possible, especially considering there wasn't any substance to it, but what if that hit she took - and clearly didn't fully rebound from - due to his unprofessional and unnecessary announcement was enough to depress voter turnout/votes for her by a few hundred thousand in just the right states? Again, if she wins Florida and North Carolina, she is the President-Elect.

Lots of stuff to chew on. Overall, though, I am encouraged by a lot of the energy that is coming from this election. While the form may be . . . somewhat problematic in places, clearly, more people are going to be politically involved now. On the other hand, I am incredibly sympathetic to those who are afraid of a Trump Presidency. Here is where his irresponsible actions and statements to rile up crowds and get Twitter hits is coming back to haunt us. A lot of women, a lot of children of various races, religions and creeds are afraid because Trump's actions normalized things that have no business being normalized in a representative democracy.

But bottom line - politics is such a complicated beast. It does appear that Trump is well into the overwhelming nature of the job he has won, so hopefully he will now have more respect for those things. And overall, this election gave us LOTS of things to learn about ourselves. Not the least of which is that portions of America need to engage each other. A lot.

One of these things, and the key thing I take away from this election, is the Rust Belt and the white working class. Those states went for Obama twice. So while there are threads of racism in places, you can't say that they are racist enough that this was THE reason Clinton lost there. So what really changed there? I think Bill Clinton nailed it with his concern about the WWC. Whether it was wanting to push climate change, or whether it was just taking them for granted - either way, they did not feel like they had a place in the Clinton tent, and it is for that reason, not racism or sexism, that major states that went for Obama in 2012 went for Trump in 2016.

And I was saying it in March - there IS a component to Trump that needs to be spoken to. And that was it. And while Sanders spoke to it some from the left, once he was out of the race, that was never addressed in enough detail. Whether that was Clinton not engaging the Sanders supporters enough, or whether she didn't have a message that resonated with them enough, the bottom line is that she lost those states because of the wants and needs of a large population of Americans, and you don't win the Presidency that way.

Two other topics I am kicking around - the protests and the fear. I think both are worth discussing. Also, an overall, revised "We are not enemies, but friends" post. Feel free to let me know here or on Twitter if you have other topics you'd like me to kick around.

Stunned and not sure what to do

Initial thoughts from the election - very glad to see the Republicans maintain Congress, but like so many, stunned to see that every single margin call that Trump needed to come through for him did. And I sit here with a new fear - my discomfort of Clinton constrained by Congress combined with the damage done by Trump to the party, replaced with a fear that he now will have access to nuclear codes, and will want to do all of the things he said he wanted to do, especially as it relates to foreign policy, economic policy, immigration, but also that his election normalizes his attitudes towards women, minorities and the media.

Shocking, to say the least. And I am holding on hope that the Republicans in Congress can really control him, and that maybe the reluctant Trump supporters were right - that it was all for show, all bluster, and that he would be mostly consistent with the Republican platform and be a competent president. Maybe he will feel like he really finally accomplished something and will set his ego aside and be humbled by his responsibilities? (Yeah, feels too hopeful to me too...)

But I need to process, so let's look at some details that I think are key. Frankly, its the only way I can hold back the fear that by being Never Trump, I and other principled Constitutional Conservatives, economic conservatives, etc., have basically lost our voice in the party because they won without us... *shudder*

Okay, first, I believe I saw that Trump won with fewer votes than Romney lost with. That is massive. It means that the polls probably had Trump correct, but rather they did not see people bailing on Clinton in just enough places, in just enough numbers.

We are probably talking about less than 500,000 total votes deciding the following states: Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. Massive electoral votes over such small numbers. And if it is true that it was because less came out for Clinton, or the margins went against her (Hispanics in Florida, 30% for Trump? Did I hear that right?)? Shocking.

So this was as much, if not more about a LACK of enthusiasm for Clinton than it was a LOT of enthusiasm for Trump, although clearly, the Republicans really stood up for their nominee.

So is this the fault of the Bernie Sanders supporters? Black voters who were either not as enthusiastic for Clinton as they were for Obama (which, frankly, shouldn't be surprising) or remember Bill Clinton's crime policies and held that against her? As I mentioned above, Hispanic voters not voting as a block for Clinton? Johnston's margins? Probably all of the above contributed.

I will say, based on my personal experience, I do believe a number of Republican voters did not vote for Trump because of who he is, especially the racism, the bigotry, the sexism. Rather, they were united against Clinton for a variety of reasons. Abortion, the Affordable Care Act, the emails, Benghazi, among others. Some, truly, felt that the social change was too much to allow it to continue for a third term, and while some may say the social change was a good thing, we have to acknowledge there was a LOT of change on a LOT of issues in a rather short amount of time.

That isn't to say that discrimination against Clinton because she is a woman didn't play a part. Sadly, it did. Enough voters wanted the angry, aggressive man to protect us and didn't think Clinton would be strong enough - especially as it related to foreign policy. Here, I think, Clinton had a real problem in that she was actually pretty hawkish, but couldn't make that a big part of her campaign because of people within her own party...

And that isn't to say that there might have been some "Whitelash," as some have called it, with some voters tired of Obama.

It all contributed. And sadly, it helped normalize behaviors from Trump that I fear will not go away. He is not going to all of a sudden become Presidential. He probably can improve some - smooth some rough edges a bit - but voting for him said that "Grab her by the *****" is okay to say. This is going to be a real challenge for this Presidency.

Now I am going to take a deep breath, and start looking for information sources who are still Never Trump, but also committed to Republican and conservative principles, because that is what this country needs. If you have any you think I should follow, send them to me via Twitter @DorMouseSez.

And I will pray for this country. For those afraid of more than just losing their voice in a political party. For those leading this country. For all Americans and those who love her.

So You Are Afraid of Hillary Clinton - Why Trump Probably Is Not The Answer

To begin with, thank you for taking the time to read this. The title alone is probably something that makes the true audience for this article very uncomfortable. But I hope, by the end of it, your conscience will thank you, no matter what you decide.

And note that I am not going to focus on the negatives about Donald Trump. That is for other articles, and frankly, I am pretty sure you know what they are. If you are like a lot of people I know, you have no interest in voting FOR Trump, but rather you are voting AGAINST not only the party you have probably opposed for decades, but against a specific person that for a variety of reasons makes you very uncomfortable.

And to be up front, I do not sit here telling you that you should. There are a lot of things that would be difficult about a Clinton Presidency. But as someone who has voted for the GOP in pretty much every election but this one, rather than someone who is pro Clinton, lend me your ear to the idea that while she is problematic, she probably isn't as problematic as you think, but more importantly, when you look at her negatives objectively, they are contained. We are not talking about "losing our country." We are talking about simply another Big Money, Liberal Democrat that a strong GOP Congress can handle. We have done it before, and we can do it again.

So if you truly believe in the principles of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, please read, and hopefully understand that a Clinton Presidency is survivable, and you do not need to vote for someone as wrong for America and the GOP as Donald Trump to contain her negatives.

Also, note that in a lot of places, I do not recommend that you actually vote for her. Granted, in certain swing states like Florida, you don't have as much choice. And the idea of voting against the GOP is probably a bridge too far, which is understandable. See the letters that I published on Friday for options. And frankly, if you haven't already, please do read one of them - probably the Write In version. But that isn't what this article is about. This article is about not fearing Clinton, but understanding her.

Before I go into the details, though, I want to also share that there are a number of prominent Republicans and conservatives who share this view, not the least of which are the past two Republican Presidents and a number of people who support them. And also the Governor of Ohio, John Kasich. You would be far from alone. Rather, you would be showing the kind of courage and patriotism that the Founding Fathers envisioned when they talked about an educated citizenry.

First, as mentioned above, she is a Big Money democrat. We have seen them before, and to the extent that she will continue the general "establishment," its true. But again, a President only has the power that they can negotiate with Congress.

Second, she is Liberal. No doubt. But again, that is what Congress is for. Its the same here as it is for the Supreme Court - the President can get little done without approval of Congress. So if you make sure to vote GOP down ballot, her negatives will be contained. Frankly, when the numbers come out, and if they come out with her winning the White House but many voters choosing Republicans down ballot, it will be clear she has no "mandate" no matter how big the win might be.

But - and here we go - she is not a continuation of Obama's foreign policy. Far from it. If you look closer at her actual views on foreign policy, you will find that she is very much a hawk and would be much more aggressive about securing the foreign relationships we need to protect the United States. And while there are some concerns about her potential immigration policy, take a moment to think about the actual details - despite the lax immigration policies of the past decades, the FBI and CIA have been able to keep us mostly safe and keep attacks on US soil to a minimum. Contrast that hypothetical fear you have about terrorism with the actual impact pulling back from NATO would have. Russia is very eager to regain the influence it lost in the 1990s due to the efforts of Ronald Reagan. Clinton understands this dynamic. Donald Trump either does not, or he agrees with it. Neither are good in a US president. Again, the Bush family is voting for Clinton in large part because of this very reason.

Frankly, the policy Donald Trump is advocating on foreign issues is the same one that failed in the 1930s, and the United States has needed to be a strong presence in foreign affairs ever since. Not for the world's benefit, but for ours. Study the decisions of every president since Roosevelt - to Eisenhower to Reagan to Bush - and see that every time we took a step back on the international stage, it hurt American interests in the long run. This simply is not an option, and while there is much about a Clinton Presidency that would be difficult, foreign policy is one place where, while she probably isn't our flavor of strong, she would be strong enough.

Abortion. Its a massive issue. But again, that is an issue being handled by agencies outside the White House. And if the reason you are worried about Clinton is abortion, have the courage to really look at Trump's views on it. He has been given multiple opportunities to state that he would support overturning Roe v. Wade, but has declined to say so. He is not the savior you want on this issue, and that is because not only is he not a proponent of Life, but the Presidency isn't the branch that VOTES on the Supreme Court. That is the Senate. And if you have doubts there, is Garland - Obama's nominee to replace Scalia - on the Court? Nope. Why? Because the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE HAS REFUSED TO CONSIDER HIM.

Christianity. It is a big issue. I know a LOT of Evangelical Christians who are so afraid of a Clinton Presidency that they are willfully ignoring the fact that the candidate they are choosing to vote for is in fact worse about faith, and specifically Christianity, than she is. And this is the one that I really do not understand. Is it ignorance? Is it fanatical support of anyone willing to stand up to face what they perceive as Satan (in some cases, literally)? How can they justify voting for someone who is clearly reveling in being the epitome of the Seven Deadly Sins? Especially when there is Evan McMullin and other options to vote "against" Clinton, but not for someone who is anything but repentant. Frankly, their cried of "imperfect" leaders like Paul and Jacob ring hollow when none of them were fighting for God while being abjectly unrepentant. This is like cheering for Paul when he was still Saul and persecuting Christians.

Again, if faith is the reason you want to vote against Clinton, I totally understand. But I do not understand Trump being your champion when he is clearly worse, by any objective viewing of him and his behavior throughout his life. "Grab her in the *****." Really? When did Jesus ever say anything like that?

Let's return to the Big Money aspect. More specifically, here we need to look at Trump some. His economic policies are, frankly, dangerous. The conscious, open discussion of tariffs is so 1920s, its not even funny. They are a proven failure. Granted, for those without jobs, especially ones lost to globalization, this is a difficult subject, and frankly is the one place where Trump is probably very right on the underlying issue. The problem is his solutions not only will not actually solve those concerns, they will make them worse. Go double-check on what the US was doing in the years preceding the Great Depression. (If you don't want to look it up, protectionist economic policy and isolationist foreign policy). Simply put, that did not work. We have already gone through a Great Recession. Another massive economic failure - and that is exactly what it would be - would be worse. Bad enough that it would affect our ability to protect ourselves, militarily.

Now, Clinton again would not be our flavor of good economic policy, and certainly her continuation of Big Business support would continue to make things worse for the middle and working class. But while bad, it wouldn't be an actual disaster.

There certainly are other issues, and this is not an exhaustive discussion of even the limited issues raised here, but this should give you an idea of how to evaluate a potential Clinton Presidency, and most importantly, to show that while not in any way ideal, it is not worth voting for Donald Trump just to stop her. There are other options - ones that, frankly, do more to show the direction the GOP needs to take, which is away from the "alt-right", ethno-isolationist path that Trump has taken us on for the last six months.

Please, take the time to really look at Donald Trump. And really look at Hillary Clinton. Look at them objectively, and in detail. And think about the things you have stood for in your life - America, the Constitution, rugged individualism, Christianity. Then ask yourself, is voting against Hillary Clinton really worth voting FOR the things that is Donald Trump? Or is there another way? Can you write in or otherwise vote for Evan McMullin, John Kasich, or Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio, or Carly Fiorina?

By all means, make your objection to Clinton known. Vote for Republicans down ballot to make sure that we retain Congress and state governments. Write a letter explaining your vote - feel free to take language from the letters I wrote Friday or come up with your own - but delineate why you voted the way you did.

But no matter what, do not vote for Trump. Not if you love this country, or the Constitution and the ideals that formed and shaped it. And especially if you are Christian. By all things that Jesus taught and wanted of us, do not vote for someone as hateful, mean, cruel, abusive or as discriminatory as Donald Trump. Remember, Jesus spent his time healing. He spent his time with the lepers and the tax collectors and sinners, not with the powerful and the pretty. Donald Trump is not your solution, Christians.

But bottom line, educate yourself on truly why you are voting the way you vote, and then do so. Even if, after all this, you feel voting for Trump is what you have to do. Just know that every vote for Trump supports all of the negative - and unConservative and unAmerican - things that come with him. Hillary Clinton is far from perfect, and pretty far down the list of people who should represent Republicans, but she is containable, and she is not as disastrous as Donald Trump.

Please Vote, No Matter What

So this website has always been about an educated discussion. PLEASE, educate yourself and then vote on Tuesday if you haven't already.

If, in fact, after studying everything, you truly believe that Donald Trump is who you need to vote for, then do so. But for a variety of reasons, I am fairly certain that it isn't. If you happen to be someone who is inclined already to vote for a Democrat, then feel free to ignore the rest of this article as it is really more directed at conservatives and Republicans who are considering voting for the GOP nominee.

For them, you can start with the letters I published yesterday. In them I outline my issues with Trump's campaign, but it is not exhaustive. In this I hope to raise issues that I ask you to go look into the specifics at your own pace.

First of all, the man simply is a bully. No matter where you look, that is his modus operandi. And while in some ways this might seem simplistic, think it through - while it might feel good to get some anger of your chest, is that really how the President of the United States should act as it leads us in international politics? There is a lot more to this topic, and we will come back to this.

For me, foreign policy is first and foremost of issues, with economic policy second. I believe pretty strongly that if the President and Congress make sure those are secure, the states, courts and individuals can take care of the rest.

And yet, can you see Ronald Reagan ever talking publicly about foreign heads of state the way Trump does? And as frustrated as we might be about President Obama's passivity, this kind of reaction is simply a bridge too far.

Economic policy - this, frankly, is the one that baffles me the most. If he really is the billionaire businessman he claims to be, surely he can rustle up enough economic experts to come up with a coherent plan. And yet his only main point? Renegotiate everything and tariff the rest. Tariffs? Really?

Immigration. I understand the frustration and fear surrounding illegal immigration and refugees from war torn countries, especially ones that have a pattern of terrorism. And yet most Americans recognize that Trump's religion test is patently unAmerican. There are other ways to protect the US without going to such draconian measures.

A lot of people think a Clinton Presidency would threaten the US Supreme Court. It is not entirely unfounded, but it ignores some key points. First, it is the Senate that actually votes on candidates. The President can only nominate, and if Trump hadn't been making it hard for the GOP to keep the Senate, this would be a completely irrelevant argument. Sadly, because of Trump's inability to be professional, he has attacked a number of key Republicans in ways that undermine the confidence in the party, both from within and from the outside. Second, a cursory review of Trump's positions before 2016 will show that he is anything but a conservative or a Republican on a whole variety of issues.

And that brings up other social issues and policy positions. The only thing Trump is truly "conservative" about is conserving power with people who currently have it within parts of the GOP. He has championed abortion, the assault weapons ban, as well as variety of other social issues.

On the other hand, for you Constitutional Conservatives, look at his statements about suing newspapers and other media outlets over libel and slander. Or his positions about using religion as a litmus test for immigration, etc. There is a reason why many groups who usually vote Republican - like Mormons and Jews - are speaking out against Trump in large part because they have seen this before. It is called persecution, and it is something that is as unAmerican as the Soviet Union.

That brings up another topic - foreign dictators. He has constantly praised people the likes of Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussien, Kim Jon Un - people who rule their countries with an iron fist. Again, bully. And very unAmerican.

And then, the one thing that a number of people picked up on in the first half of this year, and it fits with all of the other things we have discussed here about him being all and only about power - how he treats women. Sure, there are concerns about Clinton and her enabling of her husband in a variety of situations. But even if true, and clearly there is some truth to it, how does that justify voting for Trump? More to the point, look at him and see that is his true self. That is how he acts with anyone not strong enough to protect themselves - predatory.

And call me crazy, but I thought America was a country designed to protect the powerless from the powerful.

So do your research, and please, educate yourself about what you are voting FOR. Please do not just vote against the Democrat, because while for much of the time I would be right there with you, this is one time where the Republican nominee really is off the spectrum of what should even be considered for the position of President of the United States.

A Letter To My Representative - Hillary Clinton

I am voting today. Based on decisions made by you and others, I am writing to make sure you understand my vote in detail. Specifically, as a lifelong Republican, I am incredibly disappointed in the fact that the Republican Party has allowed Donald Trump to not only become the nominee, but to behave in such a way to be an affront to everything I thought the GOP stood for.

By way of background, I became politically aware early in the first Reagan administration and have consistently supported Republicans ever since. But what I see from the GOP nominee makes me question everything that I thought the party represented. This letter only touches on some of the top level issues, but know that all of the criticisms of Donald Trump, of which I am sure you are well aware, apply.

Individual rights, especially as they are detailed in the First Amendment? Your nominee has time and again taken public positions that are antithetical to its basic tenants.

Small government? Your nominee has often discussed programs that would expand an already gluttonous federal government.

Strong foreign policy? Your nominee has made statements that across the board are considered isolationist at best, and kowtowing to Moscow at worst. Ronald Reagan would be spinning in his grave.

Forward thinking on economic policy? Your nominee is in favor of policies that are more at home in the 1920s.

His taxes. As someone who has as checkered past as Donald Trump, but also as someone who has never served in public office, this is a basic necessity, and yet you allowed him to proceed without sharing what the American public deserve to know. When this election is reviewed, I am certain that a percentage of the American people will have not voted for Trump in part because of a lack of confidence that he is who he said he was, and not releasing his taxes is a big part of that.

Christianity has often been at least an important inspiration to the Republican platform, and yet your nominee might as well be the poster child for the Seven Deadly Sins. And those who try to dismiss this as all men are imperfect, and give examples like Paul, ignore the fact that Paul and others were incredibly repentant, while your nominee seems to revel in his lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, greed, envy and wrath.

But let’s go back to the Constitution for a moment. The United States of America was founded in large part by people fleeing religious persecution, hence why the First Amendment contains specific language about Freedom of Religion. Yet your nominee – who is as unChristian as they come – seems to want to protect a white, evangelical perspective at all costs. That seems hypocritical at best.

So while I have never voted for anyone other than the Republican candidate for President in my 24 years of voting, I am forced to not vote for your nominee, Donald Trump, for President.

That leaves me with a choice that is distasteful at best, and awful at worst. So know that what I have finally decided is not something I embrace with any joy.

In addition to Trump, I also consider Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to be totally unacceptable choices.

My options are Evan McMullin, who is clearly the candidate that truly reflects actual Republican positions, or write in someone else who will also not garner enough votes to win, and Hillary Clinton, who I disagree with on so many issues, and who also has her own ethical issues.

My concern about voting for McMullin is that not enough people in my state know him well enough to make an impact, although I am very glad to see that he is having success in Utah. It is my fervent hope that he wins that state.

My concern about voting for Clinton should be obvious. I do not consider this option lightly, or flippantly. I am well aware of the fact that on many policy issues, she is diametrically opposed to the party platform. I am also well aware of the fact that she has a questionable past when it comes to her actions and transparency.

So I have to decide between sending a clear, but incredibly distasteful message, or voting for someone who represents my positions, but who will not garner enough critical mass to make an impact in my state.

After months of reflection on this issue, I have decided that I have to send the clearest message that the steps that allowed Donald Trump to become the GOP nominee are totally and completely unacceptable, so I will be voting for Hillary Clinton for President. Again, I take no joy in doing this, but the issues with your nominee, and the absolute need to stop him, leave me no choice.

It should give you pause to know that knowing all of the issues about Clinton I mention above, and after careful consideration for at least six months, I consider Donald Trump to be significantly worse, with the difference being enough to justify voting for the other party. In this, I do not think I am different than a number of moderate Republicans like the two former Republican presidents.

I will, though, for the most part be voting for Republicans on the rest of the ballot. I say “for the most part” because I will look at each Republican individually and judge them based on their position on your nominee. I note that some have taken Paul Ryan’s position of, “He is the nominee,” while not actively supporting him, which is something I can understand and respect.

I also should add that I was incredibly disappointed that John Kasich – someone who has actual executive branch experience, who is someone who knows how to govern, yet is at the same time clearly committed to Republican ideals – was given so little support. He was clearly the best chance to have a center-right national leader that knew that there is a time for compromise, a time to lead. I understand some of that is the candidates responsibility, and that some of that is the responsibility of the voters, but at the same time, I think it is safe to say we are seeing that we have allowed extreme positions to dominate the dialogue within the party.

I voted for Governor Kasich in the primary in the hope that his voice would continue to carry some weight as the party worked towards its ultimate nominee. I also believed, as I state above, that he was the best choice. Frankly, I found some of the rhetoric coming from other major  candidates to be too confrontational and not reflective of what the position of the President requires. Specifically, the leadership that was shown by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And I found criticism of Senator Rubio, especially as it related to his efforts to find a solution to certain issues, including immigration, to be not in the country’s best interest.

But I was absolutely sure, for a myriad of reasons, that Donald Trump would not be allowed to actually become the nominee based on a ragged plurality. Certainly, at some point, the adults in the room would sit down with the other three major candidates and figure out how to put a consensus candidate forward that would defeat Donald Trump while giving some voice to the legitimate anger and frustration that comes from parts of his voting block. All of the signs of trouble that came to be true were apparent to me back in 2015, let alone in March. Again, this letter is long enough already that we do not need to list what you already know here, but it is quite a list.

So surely, this embarrassment of an American, let alone a “conservative” “Republican,” would not be allowed to stand as the GOP nominee for President. Right?

Much to my surprise, this never happened. I do not know if it was ego on the part of the other candidates, or a lack of vision from leadership, or some other issue I may not be aware of. But for a party that has been a champion of Constitutional Conservatism, individual rights and the power of the rugged individual, let alone the party of Ronald Reagan, to embrace Donald J. Trump as its nominee? And especially the WAY it happened at the convention, stomping out dissent rather than allowing the voices of opposition to have their say. It was incredibly disappointing and disheartening to see.

I look forward to a vigorous debate in the party after the election, and it is my deepest hope that the party of Lincoln and Reagan can return to the ideals those men fought so hard to establish and maintain, and away from the, frankly, un-American positions of your nominee.

In that debate, I hope that citizens like me will be heard and our positions considered. For the sake of the Republican Party, I think you do not have a choice. Ignoring the lessons learned from 2012 has been disastrous enough. If the GOP ignores the lessons of 2016 and continues on this path, I am pretty certain that it will not exist as a national party in 2020.