From the very beginning of the primary process I had an A
list (Cruz, Walker) of candidates I wanted to support, an A- list of candidates that intrigued me
and could have easily won me over (Carson, Jindal) a B list of candidates I could
support despite one or two important policy points (the biggest group, Fiorina
[spending] Perry [parental rights] Rubio [immigration] Paul [defense] Santorum
[Bush era voting record] ) a C list of candidates I could vote for if I absolutely
had too (Bush, Huckabee) and finally ones I couldn’t support regardless either because
they were not pro-life or because as governors they supported Medicaid expansion
under Obama Care or they had a long
record of selling out conservatives and empowering Obama/Reid/Pelosi (Kasich,
Graham, Christie, and worst of all Trump)
A few other names I didn’t take seriously enough to
research.
As has often been the case I didn’t get my way. Walker pulled out early rather than divide the
conservative field, Carson had a good run but fizzled out and Ted Cruz after
falling behind in a divided field ran an impressive string of victories after
all the other serious candidates had withdrawn, I don’t count Kasich as a serious
candidate, climaxed by a huge win in Wisconsin. He seemed poised to stop Trump
from winning the nomination outright and was in a strong position to win in a
contested convention, before Trump regained momentum with wins in several
democrat stronghold states before winning decisively in the Indiana primary.
Exit Ted Cruz. Here is an open letter to Donald Trump offering him a chance to
change my mind and win my support.
Mr. Trump, I have stated from the beginning that I will not
support you for a number of reasons, your previous stands as a far left
liberal, and your abrasive style topped the list. Thus far you have only
offered evidence to support my position, but as barring a miracle you will
represent my party in the general election I will give you the opportunity to
convince me to abandon my earlier opposition to your candidacy.
I disagree with those who suggest it is my responsibility to
get on board; it is up to you to extend your hand to me and offer to help me
see the light. After all ever since Abraham Lincoln stole the nomination from
John Seward in a fixed and rigged system (using your logic) it’s been the job
of the nominee to unite the party behind him and convince those who originally
supported someone else to do more than just begrudgingly cast a vote but to
actively support their candidacy. Ronald
Reagan did so when he chose his formal rival George H W Bush as his VP. If the
hard work of uniting the party following a tough nomination process was good
enough for Reagan and Lincoln, it’s good enough for you.
The argument I don’t want to hear is “better then Hilary”
because I fear our party has once again looked at a perspective field of
nominees and found the only one who could lose. For instance what is to stop Hillary Clinton
from making an add out of the interview where you proclaim your deep admiration
for her as secretary of State? “Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman.
I’m a little biased because I’ve known her for years. I live in New York. She
lives in New York. And I’ve known her and her husband for years and I really
like them both a lot. And I think she really works hard. And again, she’s given
an agenda that’s not all of her. But again, I think she really works hard. I
think she does a good job. And I like her.” This is what you said when you were
not running against her and this is hardly ancient history it was 2012. With the
Republican nominee’s endorsement how can she lose? Let’s say you take the
gloves off and hit her on all the legitimate scandals she has been involved in
during her long public life, something I am not certain will happen, since
RINOS tend to destroy conservatives viciously in the primaries then play
softball with liberals in the general, what is to stop her from pointing to
your ridiculous accusations that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination
and use that to completely undermine any credibility you have?
As a Christian life is the most deeply fundamental issue of
all to me. You ran as a pro-life candidate in the Bible belt primaries but when
pushed by Chris Mathews (a hostile interview but one that was expected to be
so) you were unable to state simple actual policy point mimicking instead what
you thought pro-lifers think (this is my guess) before changing your view
multiple times and coming to the conclusion, “[Abortion] ‘laws are set. And I
think we have to leave it that way”. Now
you want to nip at the edges of the long standing (since the Reagan Revolution
of 1980) Republican Party platform’s pro-life cause. How can I possibly support someone who’s
pro-life convictions lead to the conclusion leave it as it is, let millions die?
Other serious questions arise from related topics. You
refused to support Kim Davis in her refusal to violate her religious views by issuing
licenses for gay marriage by saying “You have to go with it. The decision's
been made, and that is the law of the land,” How do I believe you will support
religious freedom let alone traditional marriage? What of your support of all
the wonderful things planned parenthood does, other than the abortion stuff? Please
clarify: are you referring to its opposition to any laws that would make
abortion centers comply with the same standards as other outpatient surgery
centers, to its selling of baby parts for research, its promiscuity based sex
education curriculum, or its history of anti-minority eugenics? They don’t do much else, other than provide a
few references, so which of these is wonderful?
One case where you have allayed some of my fear is the
Supreme Court specifically partnering with Jim DeMint concerning the
replacement for the vacancy created by Justice Scalia’s sad death. A good start, but what of other federal judges
and future Supreme Court vacancies? Do you feel the court still functions
within its constitutional boundaries, and if not how would you rein it in?
This leads to another question, one that encompasses all of
the above and leads into all future questions I would ask. Is the current state
of affairs in governance in line with the constitution of the United States or
has the central government exceeded those powers enumerated to it by the
Constitution. I have never heard you address the constitution in any substantive
way but your views on eminent domain and support for and individual mandate for
health insurance raise huge red flags, as does your statement that you will do
smart executive orders rather than Obama’s stupid ones. I think all candidates
should have some sort of manifesto where they explain the proper role of
government and what its limits are. My fear sir is that your particular brand
of populism seeks to keep and empower much if not all of the bloated government
and do little if anything to promote individual liberty, private property
rights, or economic freedom. It is incumbent upon you to tell me where I am
wrong.
The nature of the campaign of personal destruction you have
run so far and the nearly complete lack of substance lends a great deal of skepticism.
I cannot think of a way off the top of my head that you could make me believe
what you say given the elastic nature of your principles to date, but this is a
challenge you have created for yourself. I shall watch between now and the conventions
when you become officially the nominee to see if any of my concerns are
addressed.
Sincerely,
John Tabler, conservative, constitutionalist, Republican
voter
