Friday, February 26, 2016

A Word from God in the Ted Cruz Campaign

On the right in Arkansas, the grassroots are split between Trump and Cruz. The establishment is solidly behind Rubio. People have been uglier to each other over this one than any election I can remember. It's sad, especially since we will have so little to do with the final outcome. Arkansas is a small state and our delegates will very likely be awarded proportionally and thus diluted. Still, many supporters of the campaigns have an almost religious fervor.

That is not surprising as the GOP in particular has made an deliberate effort to fold religion into politics, which I consider a very different thing from folding politics into religion! In the case of the Ted Cruz campaign there is a claim from the candidate's father (Rafael Cruz who is a pastor and has often been a surrogate for his son on the campaign trail) that they had a word from God that Senator Cruz was to run for President. I will just let Rafael Cruz tell the story:
"After the church service, we all gathered at the pastor's office," said Cruz, who is a pastor himself. "We were on our knees for two hours seeking God's will. At the end of that time, a word came through his wife, Heidi. And the word came, just saying, 'Seek God's face, not God's hand.'"
Cruz said he then felt as if a "cloud of the Holy Spirit" had filled the room.
"Some of us were weeping, and Ted just looked up and said, 'Lord, here am I, use me. I surrender to you, whatever you want,'" he said. "And it was as he felt that was a green light to move forward."
Look, I know that some folks think that the idea of God speaking a word to someone is spooky or even nutty. I am not one of those because if God exists there is nothing unreasonable about the idea of His impressing a message on the mind of someone who has been seeking His will for a specific question for months. I don't think there is any magic formula where God is obligated to inspire someone to speak a given message, just that He can. His options are always open. I am not saying that should be the norm. Most of us have Bibles gathering dust on our shelves and it is perfectly understandable if the Creator of the Universe declines our invitation for Him to tell us something when we don't pay much attention to what He has told us already!

I don't claim to be a guru or anything, but I do know something about who God is. Based on what I know about our Heavenly Father, that message sounds like something He might inspire someone to say: "Seek God's face, not God's hand." What father wouldn't tell a child who is always asking them to do stuff for them that they would rather the child desire to know them than the child desire their help to do something? It's a message even earthly fathers can relate to.

But did you notice something about that message? Even though Cruz took it as God telling him to run for President, the word did not say anything about running for President. If anything, I would take it as a message to NOT run for President, since God is saying that he preferred that Cruz spend his energy learning more about who God is rather than spend it seeking His help for any specific task. That's how I took it anyway. Ted Cruz took it as permission to run for President.

This kind of reminds me of the advice of the Oracle at Delphi to King Croesus. He asked if he should go to war with the Persians. He was told if he did, he would destroy a mighty empire. He took that as a green light to start the war. It turned out that the mighty empire that got destroyed was his own. The king was hearing what he wanted to hear, not what was actually said, to his ruin. Don't we all though?

So either Heidi Cruz really got a message from the Almighty or she did not. If she did, either Ted Cruz heard what God was saying, or like King Croesus, heard what he wanted to hear instead. If the latter, it leads to the next question, "is Cruz going against God's will for him by running for President?"

I can hear the supporters howling at me now for even asking the question. Look, I am not saying that God does not love Ted Cruz. I am sure that He does. I am just saying maybe He did not want Ted Cruz to run for President. That's not bad, it does not mean that God thinks any less of him. God did not tell me to run for President either! So I'm not OK, you are not OK, and Ted Cruz is not OK, but because of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, we're OK. Salvation is by grace, not by works and just because someone does not become President does not make them any less of a Christian. It doesn't mean he is wrong on any issue. It just means that is not what God wants right now. God does not always let the best win an election, often He let's the candidate that a population deserves win the election.

If supporters refuse to consider the question of whether Cruz heard only what he wanted to hear right now, on the eve of battle, I can understand. There is no time for self-doubt. But if he fails to win on Super Tuesday (his most favorable ground), if he is behind in the polls when we move on to winner-take-all states, if he drops out of the race, shouldn't you come back to it?

Can people look back at that time and ask what was accomplished by the Cruz campaign besides earning a reputation for shady campaign tactics and a base that has gone into hyper-drive heaping personal insults on those who support some other candidate? If God did send a message to Heidi Cruz perhaps it is not for her husband alone, but for all of his supporters as well? We want God to do something big, to kick somebody's tail for us, to elevate us on High, when what He wants from us is to desire to fellowship with Him, to get to know Him. Even if Cruz did take a real but vague message the wrong way, good can come of it- if the Christian right can be introspective enough to see themselves in any of this.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Governor Hutchinson Picks on the Disabled- a sitting legislator in his own party!

Amazing. Governor Asa Hutchinson is going all-in trying to unseat Republican Representative Josh Miller (district 66). Miller was injured in an auto accident years ago and is wheel-chair bound. Hutchinson is going after Miller not because he has been caught in some terrible scandal, or is a racist, or a thief. Its because Miller is against Obamacare! That's right. Hutchinson wants to continue the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare because (for the next couple of years anyway) there is "free" federal money for the state. Hutchinson is pushing Chris Steplock. Steplock claimed in a mailer that Miller was for Obamacare. It was the most brazen lie I had ever seen in writing from a political campaign.

So now we have a terminally corrupt vessel called the Republican Party. They tell conservatives "come through us to get political representation for your values." But when you try it, the apparatus jumps on you. It is increasingly obvious that conservatives are fools to put 100% of their political eggs in the Republican basket. It is not a vessel for conservatives to get their views represented in government, it is a trap to contain them.

Monday, February 22, 2016

The Lieutenant Governor Used to Do Something

The Arkansas Times had a very slanted report about the history of the use of the 3/4ths majority requirement for most appropriation bills in Arkansas. This is under the auspices of Amendment 19. Well the thing that caught my eye in the article is who made the call on whether spending bills passed without a 3/4ths majority would make it to the Governor's desk or not. I feel sure it was the most critical state issue of the day. It turns out it was the Lieutenant Governor, acting I imagine in his now-abandoned Constitutional role as President of the Senate. A quote from the article...
After Futrell got his amendment ratified in 1934, his philosophy changed overnight when President Roosevelt threatened to cut off all aid to Arkansas. From rabid foe of taxing and spending he became a pleader for more of them. The legislature obliged.
But a number of his spending bills couldn't get the three-fourths majority in one house or the other. On one day the Senate passed seven appropriations that were not for schools, highways or Confederate pensions but fell short of the three-fourths vote. Lt. Gov. Lee Cazort declared them passed anyway as just debts or necessary spending. His view was that Gov. Futrell wrote Amendment 19 and if he did not think the bills got enough votes he could not sign them. Futrell signed them.
 Spending bills must originate in the house. That means they must end up in the Senate. That means the final call of whether they passed is determined in the senate. Currently the Senate elects their own President Pro Tem from among their own members. It is Jonathan Dismang right now. If such circumstances were repeated on some other issue there would be a rash of lawsuits I am sure. There would be pressure from all directions. Back in the 1930's that final decision was made by someone who answered to all of the voters of the state. Now, its not.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Pimps Against Prostitution!

Huggy-Bear Daddy Cool looked dazzling in his lime-green silk suit. A felt hat sporting a tall peacock feather sat atop his head at a rakish angle as he manned the podium. Behind him, a loose group of seedy looking men in similar attire stood more or less attentively. The banner in front of them read "Pimps Against Prostitution".

"There have been slanderous accusations" began Huggy-Bear Daddy Cool (HBDC) "that we favor prostitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. I, we, all of these with me here, are strongly opposed to prostitution. Some of us are facing jury trials soon, and we want to make sure anyone voting out there understands the truth- we are against prostitution!"

"Then why are all of you organizing prostitution rings?" shouted a blogger from the audience. The members of the establishment press in attendance looked with disdain at the questioner.

"See" said HBDC "that is the sort of unfair conclusion that some partisan folks are jumping too. We are very much opposed to prostitution and we resent the false claims of these irresponsible trouble makers who say that we are for it. There is no truth to the accusation that what we do means that we support prostitution. The truth is, because of our great opposition to prostitution, we would never organize prostitution rings if it were not for the fact that if we failed to do so, we would be turning down a lot of money. That's the only reason we reluctantly went along with organizing prostitution rings. I assure you that if there were no money involved then we would not be doing it, therefore we are opposed to it."

"We have to live in the real world. If we turned down the money, some other pimps would still take it. Also, we have stables of young people who are now counting on our programs to pay their bills. Without this program, what would they do? Besides, we can't make our budgets balance without this money."

A member of the establishment media piped up enthusiastically "Can we do a puff piece on some of the young women you have helped pay their bills, and also, where do you shop for clothes?"

"Sure" replied HBDC,"We can hook you up. It's what we do." He started to grin but caught himself, "Not that we want to. We are really against the whole thing!"

The blogger spoke up again: "Being 'opposed' to something used to mean that you would not do it. Where did you get the idea of changing the definition of 'opposed' to mean 'we won't do it unless you pay us to'? Also, under your new definition, aren't most people 'opposed' to working for a living, since most of us would not do it if they were not getting paid?" The establishment media members began a series of groans and eye rolls in response to the inquiry.

HBDC glowered at the blogger. "We got the idea from our clients which is why I can't say anymore about it. We keep the identity of our clients confidential, especially when they are politicians...."

Saturday, February 13, 2016

The War for the Arkansas Legislature

Most voters don't know it, but there has been a battle going on over the Arkansas legislature since 2012. I will outline the two sides in a bit. The catalyst for this battle was the decision by Arkansas Republican legislators to cooperate with Obamacare rather than fight it. This even though many of them were elected on a platform of fighting it. The key (but not only) element of this decision was the move to expand Medicaid so that able-bodied adults received health care coverage. Coverage paid for by a combination of new taxes and costs for the rest of us and an increase in public debt to be paid for by the next generation.

 Why would Republican legislators vote to cooperate with Obamacare when most got elected promising to end it? Money. FEDGOV offered to pay 100% of the bills for the first few years of the program. Hundreds of millions of federal dollars would roll into the state during those years. Hospitals and insurance companies found a way to stand in the middle and get a cut of all of that money, so their lobbies pressed hard to expand Medicaid. Soon, Arkansas is going to have to pick up an increasing share of that load and ever after it won't be a good deal for the state. It was never a good deal for the public (except for the 8.3% who are getting a free ride from the rest of us and the next generation) who have to pay the federal share of the money that "their" state gets to hand to special interests.

 The legislature is now overwhelmingly Republican, and the battle is taking place in the Republican primary. It is not an even battle. The side favoring cooperating with Obamacare has a lop-sided super-majority, but this is in large part due to the fact that they misrepresented their position over the years. First there were the efforts to paint the "Private" option as something other than cooperating with Obamacare. Davy Carter and John Burris among others stuck with that story so insistently that it took a long time for the public to accept the idea that, yes, they really are lying that brazenly.

Both men have since left the legislature, but while the leaders of the deception may be gone, those who went along with it have survived. Those who did not survive were sometimes replaced with those who continued with the deception- like John Cooper of Jonesboro. Others who held strong at first were later induced to flip their vote- like Senator Jane English who infamously changed her vote after then-governor Mike Beebe offered to spend $27 million of taxpayer money in a way approved by English and English alone (what need then a legislative branch?).

 The side that wanted to take the money got a boost when Asa Hutchinson was elected Governor. When the Governor was in the opposite party, some Republican legislators thought taking the money was a bad idea and voted against it. When a Governor of their own party wanted them to take the money, technically he said let's keep taking it while we study the matter but the study was a farce, suddenly these folks wanted to keep taking the money. Their opposition to Medicaid expansion withered when their guy was for it. I should make it clear that Hutchinson himself never lied, as did many of the legislators, regarding what he would do about Medicaid. He made a few terse and vague statements about studying the matter and let people believe what they wanted to believe about what he had said. Then he had his side float SB 96.  Proponents claimed that SB 96 would "end the private option".

The "private" option was done under a temporary waiver from the Obama administration and was going to go away regardless,. So all SB 96 actually did was buy them some time while they came up with a new plan to disguise what they were actually doing- finding a way to take the money while allowing giving them some fig-leaf of cover to claim it was something different than Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. The idea that the SB 96 task force was really going to explore the question of staying in Medicaid was pretty much a farce. The committee did do some serious work on what to do on the part of Medicaid that was not under Obamacare, but what they came up with on the Obamacare part looked exactly like what Dismang tried to float at the end of 2014. So that part was all a show to change the name of the discredited "Private Option" to "Arkansas Works" and change the waivers from set "A" to set "B". That is just fiddling with the details, it did not change the program in principle, or more importantly to Little Rock, the cash flow.

So one side of this war is the Republican Establishment, which includes the Governor, and the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and most members of the legislature. The hospital and insurance lobbies are backing them. Then you have a small group that has bucked the Governor and stuck with what they campaigned on. You can tell who they are by going to this link of the ten worst bills to pass in the 2014 session and checking the vote on the second worst bill, SB 96. The small group that refused to vote for it are the hold outs- I.E. the ones doing what the vast majority of Republican voters actually wanted them to do.

So when you have a political establishment this tone-deaf, one that is going to take the money and hand it out to its "friends" no matter what the grass roots say, its going to build up resistance. Conduit for Action is the most concrete form of this resistance. They have gone around recruiting candidates to run in Republican Primaries against those who foisted Medicaid expansion on us. Many Tea Parties around the state have members who have allied with them.

They were responsible for defeating John Burris when he tried to run for Senate (they recruited Scott Flippo). They were responsible for recruiting Sharon Lloyd to run against Jon Woods after Woods made himself odious to the electorate on a number of issues. Woods decided to retire from the senate rather than face the wrath of primary voters, but the establishment has put up Lance Eads to run in the primary against Lloyd. So the name has changed but don't kid yourself- Eads will vote like Woods, Lloyd will not. Conduit for Action is backing Josh Miller- a legislator who is in the group bucking the Governor in favor of representing his constituents, against a primary challenger. They are backing Representative Donnie Copeland (one of the ten best in the legislature) against the aforementioned Senator Jane English who sold her vote and supported Medicaid expansion. They are also backing former legislator Randy Alexander, who along with Jayna Davis is opposing pro-PO Representative Jana Della Rosa.

 So the Conduit for Action is truly taking action, and ruffling feathers in the process. To me, it is an example of true self-government in action. Instead of every two years just picking among the choices that the party brass arranges for them, these folks are going out and making their own choices. I don't think people are really self-governing if all they do is pick from among choices arranged for them by others- that is not self-government, its kidding yourself that you are "free". The only part I am not sure about is their choice of battlefield.

They choose to fight the Republican establishment within the Republican primary. I think that is the very worst place to fight them, and prefer the Neighbors of Arkansas approach of backing people as independents. If the same money and effort had been put into that as has been put into fighting them in the GOP primary we might see a more lasting result. Fighting them in their own system is tough. Eventually the people we send in will be either co-opted or driven off. Still, I could be wrong. They may be able to pull off these wins and have their folks stay true to their constituents over their party leadership. What I suspect though is that at some point We the People are going to have to build our own political house. We won't have long to wait before the big test of their strategy takes place- the Republican primary is March 1st, and early voting starts next week!

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Arkansas et al get Delay on Energy Regulations

The background on this story is that the EPA is getting very aggressive in mandating that all coal-fired electrical plants switch to cleaner alternatives such as natural gas. Arkansas is heavily dependent on coal fired plants and would be one of if not the hardest state hit by the new regulations. In other words, complying with this edict would cost many Arkansas interests a great deal of money - including regular utility users like you and me.

Arkansas responded by joining other states in suing the Feds. The New York Times reports that federal judges have agreed to block implementation of the regulation until the June 2nd hearing. This is unprecedented. In the past courts have deferred to the regulators in the Executive branch until the actual hearing. This is a sign of how hard the states are fighting these regulations, as well as the extent of possible regulatory over-reach.

Compare this fight to the "fight" Arkansas state government has put up over Obamacare. In the case of Obamacare, state government and certain interests lose money if Medicaid is not expanded. The feds take money from Arkansans, borrow a bunch more, and then offer that extra money to the state if the state will expand Medicaid. Many citizens know in their gut that Obamacare is unsustainable, that they are paying more so that some able-bodied adult can get a free ride, and that their children will inherit the bill for the rest in debt. They don't want it, so the politicians (Republicans in particular) put up a show like they were against it. They changed the name and added a couple of wrinkles to confuse the issue and pretend that it changed in some fundamental way what their constituents were objected to. It didn't.

The ruling class in Arkansas wanted the money. That's the bottom line. It is no wonder the state made little to no effort to verify the eligibility of "Private" Option participants. The state and certain special interests got more money for everyone who signed up, eligible or not. No need to worry about fraud until it was the state's time to pay a share of the bills. That is why I asked the question "Is Arkansas'Ruling Class Involved in Welfare Fraud on a Massive Scale?"

The bottom line is that in the first example FEDGOV is doing something that punished both the citizens of Arkansas and cost the State Government (as an entity with interests separate from the people it serves) money. It also cost connected special interests in Arkansas money. Because of that, the state political class is REALLY fighting that battle. With Medicaid expansion, not only is 5% of the population (able bodied adults who are not working or working the lowest wages) getting their health care paid for by the next generation, but state government gets money from Uncle Sugar to hand out to the ruling class and special interests. To placate outraged voters who don't want their children and grand children to be robbed, the Republicans have this fake "fight" against Obamacare where they ask for a few waivers and act like it is really pressing the system and they are negotiating hard. This is pro-wrestling type showmanship. Its stagecraft, not statecraft. If you want to know what things look like when they are REALLY fighting against FEDGOV, look at the fight over the EPA regulating coal fired power plants out of existence.

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Ignoring Red Flags on Cruz and the Collapse of Honesty on the Right

"Without truth, there is no freedom." - Paul C. Roberts

When mixed up leftist pagans ignore discordant feedback from reality and re-interpret every piece of evidence to conform to their feelings it does not surprise me. I expect people who are not grounded in any truth larger than their own feelings to fall into such error. There is a class of people who treats truth not as an end, but as a tool. A tool to be picked up and used when it aids the cause of whatever it is that they really love more and then set aside when it no longer serves that purpose. Such people have always been with us. I expect the wicked to do just that because they don't love the truth. What scares me, yes the fear is real, is that I now see people who I consider level-headed orthodox conservative Christians doing the same thing.

When people like that choose to toss aside lasting principle for temporary political expediency, I worry. When people like that refuse to honestly face the facts set before them in favor of making an emotional decision first and then using their reason not to find truth, but rather to justify support for some politician, I become alarmed. If these people won't accept discordant feedback from reality, who will? Who will be the conscience of a society when even the most honest among us has subordinated honesty to faith. Not faith in Christ, but blind faith in a political system and political figures which have not earned it? I know many of us are fearful because of the speed at which our culture has become coarsened. We may not be in charge anymore. That is a hard thing to face, but we can still be the conscience of a culture even if we are not running it. We can, if that is, we hold fast to our integrity even while we lose everything else.

The red flags on Cruz are abundant, even if we ignore the eligibility issue. We shouldn't, because it is a disgrace for all of these self-professed "Constitutional Conservatives" to dismiss the issue out of hand. Here is an article from a Harvard law professor which refutes point by point all of the arguments Mark Levin and others use to try to make the case that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen. And if he can get around that there is another argument to be made against his eligibility on 14th amendment grounds. I have actually had people, people I respect, make the argument to me that since "Obama got away with it then it is a moot issue". Even if it were true that "Obama got away with it" there is no surer way to destroy all rule of law in America than to divide us into two groups and say "whenever a member of the other team gets away with breaking a rule then my team should not be bound by it thereafter."  It's the collapse of principle, the end of accountability, and the sunset of honesty.
During the race for the U.S. Senate Cruz failed to report on his Campaign Finance Report a million dollars worth of loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank. He put it in a report that comes out later and is less scrutinized, but he illegally left it off of the report that mattered to the election. It did not fit the narrative of his being an outsider running against the establishment and it was quite convenient for his campaign that he "forgot" to include it in his Campaign Finance Report. Maybe it was an honest mistake, after all, who among us hasn't gotten a million dollar loan from Goldman Sachs that we forgot about?
When it is discovered that his wife was a member of the CFR and contributed to a globalist report called "building a North American Community" the Canadian born candidate said it was just so she could work from the inside to make it better. Better globalism is still globalism. Much like I don't want Republicans who will do socialism "more efficiently" than the Democrats, I don't want Republicans who will do an EU type merger in North America more efficiently. Our constitution will not survive the transition. Cruz called the CFR a "pernicious snake" to a conservative audience, yet his counselors on foreign affairs include James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, former CIA director and Goldman Sachs banker Chad Sweet, and a host of other CFR type Neocons
Cruz has made a science of telling various groups of people what they want to hear. I mean that literally. One of the ways he did so well in Iowa was that he spent large amounts of money on obtaining the personal information of eligible voters. Then he sent people door to door and instructed his partisans to adjust what they said not only to what the hot button issues of the potential voter was but also to change the manner of delivery to fit the emotional style of that voter. They had a list of people who cared about legalizing fireworks, so to them the message, delivered in whatever emotional tone the database file said most appealed to the individual voter, was that Cruz was sympathetic to legalizing fireworks.
Not only do I think taking it that far is kind of creepy. it also means we have little idea who Ted Cruz really is. Does he wrap himself in the flag and wave the Cross around because that is who Ted Cruz really is, or because that is something that has "worked for him" for most of his life? How will he respond in a situation where it doesn't work for him?
Then there was the "Voter Violation" forms the Cruz campaign sent out on official looking stationary to people who fit the profile of likely Cruz voters. It showed the voter's name and what purported to be their "score" for voting. It also showed what it purported to be the scores of some of their neighbors. None of these "scores" were high, most failing, and it said they could "raise their score" by attending the caucus. Many suspect the "scores" were made up and the Iowa Secretary of State condemned the use of the tactic. If so it would be like sending a letter to your neighbors which listed you as getting an "F" in civic responsibility, even if you voted in every election.
Then there is the matter of the Cruz team twisting a CNN report that said rival Ben Carson was going home to Florida for a break after Iowa into a false rumor that Carson was leaving the race.When team Carson heard the rumor was out there they immediately put out a statement denying it. Even after that, high-level people in the Cruz campaign continued to tell people that it looked like Carson was getting out and to tell Carson people to switch to Cruz. The night passed and they never issued a correction.
The idea behind spreading the falsehood was to get Carson supporters at Iowa to switch to Cruz based on false information promulgated by the Cruz team that Carson was on his way out. Cruz performed better than entrance polls suggested and Carson worse. Carson was furious.
  "A culture exists within the Cruz camp that would allow people to take advantage of a situation like this in a very dishonest way,” the usually reserved Carson fumed."

When you get the low-key nice guy Carson fired up, you have done something. Do I think Cruz personally ordered anyone to spread false information about Carson? No. But I think team Cruz has a destructive religious approach to politics instead of a constructive approach, and that goes right down to his grassroots. A destructive approach starts with the assumption that God is on our team so whatever we can use to help us win must be OK and our transgressions are just honest mistakes not an indication we need to be introspective. A constructive religious approach says that we should be on God's team and as such we need to constantly examine our actions and motivations to make sure our conduct reflects well on Him whom we serve.
What I find when I report facts like this is that my friends who support Cruz reach for any excuse to dismiss evidence which is contrary to their desires. A common reason is to say the information comes from a "liberal" source. But does it matter WHO reports a tweet or email from the Cruz campaign so long as the contents of the communication are relayed accurately? Of course not, its just an excuse to reject factual information which disproves some delusion that a person might love more than the truth. Amazingly, I have had some of them blame CNN for the bad information put out by team Cruz. This is even though they themselves will not accept any info from CNN.  I shudder when I hear them argue that no intelligent person should trust any information that comes from CNN and at the same time say that Team Cruz should not be held responsible for putting out bad information because they got it from CNN. This even though what they "got" from CNN is not what CNN actually reported, they did not bother to correct it after Carson put out the denials, and Cruz apologized for the wrongdoing. It is cognitive dissonance and it is frightening.
I can remember back in the 1990s after Bill Clinton finally admitted to inappropriate behavior with Monica Lewinsky. A reporter from up north went to southwest Arkansas, a Clinton stronghold, and asked for their reaction to Clinton's behavior. He was shocked to find that Clinton's supporters still refused to acknowledge that he was guilty. They refused to accept that he had behaved poorly even after he himself admitted it. I dared in my youthful arrogance to have scorn for them of their dysfunctional hero-worship. I should not have looked down on them. How can I continue to look up at my friends who not only seem unwilling to accept that Cruz can do wrong, but even that his campaign can do wrong? I mean, the man himself has already apologized for the actions of his campaign, but his acolytes want to blame CNN and Ben Carson.
PS- I will not be casting a vote for President in the primary election, I accept that the system is broken and we the People need to make new arrangements for political representation, so no you can't dismiss this as the rantings of a Trump supporter. I just want people to be honest. I just want people to admit what is, rather than pretend things are as we might wish them to be.