Trump’s Hail Mary

Featured Image -- 376Trump’s visit to Mexico on Wednesday was like a quarterback throwing up a Hail Mary pass on 3rd and long.  It was a mix of desperation and supreme confidence.  He went to Mexico City at the invitation of President Peña Nieto.  Many people, including loyal supporters questioned the wisdom of the move.  It was thought that President Nieto would dress him down on national TV.  He had after all, claimed Trump was another Hitler or Mussolini.  Trump was not deterred and went down where he was received quite graciously and cordially.  Afterwords, they held a short joint press conference where both stressed that both countries had common ground and both promised to work with the other to achieve common goals.  The world watched as the GOP candidate stood as an equal to a world leader.  He came away having impressed even his detractors.  Touchdown, Donald Trump.

I’m not his biggest fan, but Trump showed me something Wednesday. He showed me that he’s willing to do the hard things, he’s willing to put his candidacy on the line.  Meanwhile, Hillary has been MIA for most of the past fortnight.  She hasn’t even gone to Louisiana after both Trump and President Obama went.  Baton Rouge should be mostly dry by now, will she ever go?  Trump went into politically as hostile territory for a high risk, high reward move that paid off.  Hillary showed me something too, she is not willing to do even the not so hard things, and no one will remember what she did on Wednesday, only what she didn’t do. Trump is going for the end zone, meanwhile Hillary is playing the prevent defense. Anybody who watches football knows how that usually turns out.

Advertisements

The Politics of Division

Politics of DivisionThe Democrat stock in trade has always been division.  Whether it was the quite literal division they sought between American Indians and whites during the 19th century, the societal division between blacks and whites during the 20th, or the division of every minority group against every majority group in the 21st. Pitting American against American has been part of the formula that has driven virtually every Democratic campaign in this country since Andrew Jackson.  Through most of American history, they have been on the wrong side of virtually every civil rights issue.  In the 1960’s they came up with what would become their new template for their politics of division:  Identify a group, offer them help, but then implement laws and regulations that insure they continue to need it.  Anyone opposed to their scheme is then be labeled a bigot.

Another way to describe their Democratic divisive formula would be:  Favor one group that constitutes a large enough voting bloc, and offer them just enough, not to solve their problems, but to get their vote.  Most of the time, the quickest and easiest way to buy a group’s vote is to create a program with a high-sounding name, like “the war on poverty”. The program may or may not actually help the community, but regardless, the administrators who lobbied and donated to the proper candidates get paid or otherwise rewarded. The obvious question then becomes: Who do you get the money from?  You can only take so much money from the middle-class before they stop voting for you, so you take from the rich.  How do you get the voters to go along?  Convince them that the money the wealthy have was ill-gotten and at the expense of one or more of the favored groups.  To do this, you first need to portray the economy as a zero sum game– stress the notion that the economy is a pie, and every slice that someone takes out of it leaves less for everyone else.  If someone is making more money, someone else, probably you, must be making less.  If you convince a large enough segment of society that the rich one’s gain the poor one’s loss, then it is easy to pit one segment against the other.

When it comes to civil rights, Democrats have consistently been on the wrong side of history.  The civil rights battle at the forefront of the American psyche is still the one for black equality.  They got that one wrong and have been trying to find new civil rights causes that they can get right ever since. Liberals have to feel good about themselves.  Problem is, the policy that feels good may not actually be the best policy. Conservatives have a nasty habit of pointing this out when it occurs.  Nothing can stand in the way of the liberal and their need for unconditional approval.  Anyone who stands in the way must be demonized and marginalized.

If you believe in dealing strongly with the issue of illegal immigration on the basis that it robs citizens and legal immigrants of jobs and wage earning power, you’re anti-immigrant.  Of course the logic involved in calling someone who supports legal immigration anti-immigrant when they don’t support illegal immigration is questionable, but it’s never been about logic with liberals, only emotions.  The same thing can be said about how the left tries to portray those who don’t want to let in refugees from predominantly Muslim countries who can’t be properly screened.  If you’re against letting in vast numbers of Syrian refugees in without proper vetting, you’re anti Muslim. To be vocally against Islamic-extremism, is somehow to be against all Islam.  The left needs to see themselves as not just right, but morally superior to those who disagree with them.  If there is no real point of disagreement then one must be invented.  The language that the other side uses must be condemned and discredited in order to maintain that sense of superiority, hence if conservatives use the term “Islamic extremist terrorism” and that goes to the identity of a group, then identity politics demands that the term be deemed wrong.  Those who seek to be the arbiters of right and wrong with regards to a group must then control its identity so it can be tied to a voting bloc.  No one really cares about hurting the feelings of terrorists, so that sub-group must be tied at all times to a group that voters do care about i.e.:  Muslims.  The use of the modifiers “Islamic” and “radical” to describe “extremists” by conservatives affords the liberal a chance to create an imaginary division between they who don’t use the term and the those who do; even when it is clearly understood both sides are speaking about the exact same group of murderous fanatics.  It’s a complete contrivance meant to create division where there is none for the sake of being on the ‘right’ side.

The politics of division is the main weapon in the Democratic arsenal.  Their strategy is simple:  divide and conquer.  They pick a voting bloc, along any lines it doesn’t matter, give them victim status then assign a villain.  Then come the promises…  Give the ‘victim’ a largess, and/or take punitive action against the alleged bad guy.  The oppressor is always the larger party, usually they call them ‘big’ as in ‘big oil’, or ‘big pharma’, just so you know who to blame.  As an aside, you’ll never hear reference to ‘big academia’ or ‘big government’ from the left as those are clients and are thus exempt. Anyone who would dare to criticize their divisive agenda is demonized as a bigot, sexist, or (fill in the blank)-phobe.  They claim to stand for tolerance while at the same time exercising extreme intolerance when it comes to opposing viewpoints. Theirs is the only morally defensible position, therefore tolerance is not required.  If public sentiment is not initially on their side, a massive propaganda campaign is launched to ensure you know who the opponents of their agenda are and who to despise.  There are no exceptions, countries, competing political philosophies, even major world religions are fair game to be condemned and marginalized as it suits the Liberal cause.  Finally, they ensure their propaganda cannot be assailed by argument, as they control the very language to be used around it.  Their allies in the media and academia see to that.   Their words need not be honest, their ideas need not even work, so long as the formula works to get them the power they seek before their charade is exposed.  By the time that happens, they have moved on to the next con, the next group in need of their “help”.  And so it goes….

 

 

 


Originally posted in Poliltical Storm as: The Politics of Division

Should other Republicans emulate Trump’s pivot to the black community?

Election 2016“…I love France so well I will not part with a village of it.” – Shakespeare, Henry V 5.2

Republicans should take note of this famous line from the Shakespeare play.  Republicans love America at least as much Shakespeare’s Henry V loved France, so why do they every four years, simply cede roughly 13% of the population to the Democrats?  That is exactly what they do when they fail to court in any meaningful way the black vote.  Why do they, as King Henry put it, “part with a single village of it”?  Donald Trump does not seem to want to part of a single village (read precinct).  He does not seem prepared to let the Democrats have the inner cities without a fight.  Given the Democrat’s dismal record of running cities, especially those with large African-American populations, this should be considered low hanging fruit by any Republican with the guts enough to try and grab it.  There are reasons, one’s that should be revisited, but there are reasons:  First, the electoral map puts a premium on winning entire states.  Democrats have done such a good job of demonizing Republicans in the eyes of the African American community that it takes courage for a Republican to go into the inner city.  Lastly, some conservative solutions are less obvious to the voter than Democratic ones. Republicans need to revisit their reasons for not actively courting the black or any other minority vote.  Trump had made the determination to do just this, other Republicans would do well to take note.

In the electoral college, the Democrats already have a big head start on the race to 270.  This is almost entirely because of demographics.  States with large urban areas populated with large numbers of minority voters have something else, huge electoral vote counts.  Cities like Philadelphia, Baltimore, and NYC can sway their entire state to go blue on election night. If Republicans ever want to get those states back they’ll have to start winning precincts in those cities, or at least doing competitively in them.  The experts will point out that even if you do well in a state, but lose it by a single vote, all your campaigning there was for naught. It’s better then to campaign in those states you have a reasonable chance to win.  The problem for Republicans is, demographics favor less and less states if you don’t do well with minorities.  Republicans have to either push to admit more states into the union with favorable demographics, or do better with the minority vote in the current fifty.  The good news is that many GOP candidates for Governor have figured it out.  New Jersey is a deep blue state with every one of its citizens living in an urban county. Currently it has a Republican Governor.  Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, even California have, or have recently had Republicans in the state house. You don’t win any of those states without at least some minority support.

Democrats with the aid of a sympathetic left-leaning mainstream media have successfully crafted a totally bogus, cartoonish image of Republicans and conservatives as being racist, sexist, homo-phobic, and now Islamo-phobic.  So thoroughly have liberals perpetuated this fraud, that cable news anchors and pundits regularly and with a straight face compare conservatives with fascists, Nazi’s and the KKK.  It’s a ridiculous notion, one that Trump until very recently, has unfortunately contributed to.  Now, if you’re an African American in the inner city, and never actually met or had a Republican hold a speech in your neighborhood, that fallacious image of the white-hooded, jackbooted, fascist is all you have to go by.  If you asked the average black person living in Baltimore just how many Republican candidates have actually come to address their church congregation or civic organization, they answer would probably be “none”.  Rand Paul during his presidential run did to his great credit, actually attempt to redress this situation. He challenged his fellow Republicans to do the same.  Sadly, hardly any did.  Several GOP candidates did reach out to the Hispanic community during the primary season, so at least that is a start.

It is not always them messenger that has to break through to the minority voter, sometimes it is the message. The Democrats have a simple to understand message that they offer to each and every minority constituency:  Give us your vote and we’ll send your community money.  Conservative policies tend to be a little less straight forward:  Keep your money, don’t give it to the government in the first place, that’s better than us giving it back to you with strings attached, or worse yet, to someone else with no stings.  It’s so much easier for the voter to understand how putting money directly into their pockets benefits them than it for a conservative to explain to them that the more money their employer gets to keep, the more money they have to pay you with, or use to grow their business so that they can hire you.  On this front, simpler is better. Republicans then must be able to cite examples that the voter can relate to where their policy has worked in the past, or cite examples of where liberalism has failed them.  Trump, say what you will, is a master at putting things into terms that anyone can understand, like recently in Michigan:

“Tonight, I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen in this country who wants a better future. The inner cities of our country have been run by the Democratic Party for 50 years. Their policies have produced only poverty, joblessness, failing schools, and broken homes.”

No getting into the policy weeds for Trump here, just a straight-out request for support from African-Americans.   Do Democrats have better policies for the inner-city?  No, in fact liberal policies keep many citizens in these urban areas from advancing economically.  They have created what Dinesh D’Souza in his new movie Hillary’s America refers to as the ‘new plantation’.  Whereas the old Democrat plantations exploited blacks for their labor to produce crops, this new plantation– the inner city, produces something else for their Democratic masters:  Votes. What if a Republican, or many Republicans came to the inner city, pointed this out and offered a solution?  What if blacks and other minorities could be convinced that decades of top-to-bottom Democrat rule has produced the conditions they now find themselves in? They might try another direction, or as Trump put it in his own special way: “What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump?”

Trump had determined not to cede the urban areas of this country to the Democrats this time without at least a fight. He may or may not succeed in this, but make no mistake, Republicans need to find a way aggressively go after the black and Hispanic vote.  The changing demographics of this country demand that Republicans start to change how they deliver the conservative message to the inner city, but before they do that, they have to move out of their comfort zones and expand their campaigns there.


Originally posted in Political Storm:  Should other Republicans emulate Trump’s pivot to the black community?

The faulty rational of persistent #nevertrump’ers

Election 2016While the primaries were in full-swing, it made sense for movement conservatives to speak out against Donald Trump.  He made many a comment that would have ended the campaign of any other Republican.  His statements about Senator McCain immediately turned off many a patriotic conservative.  He made statement after controversial statement and yet his popularity with the working man only increased.  His has policies were all over the political map, some being conservative, some to the left of even Hillary, mostly all of them populist.  He was outmatched in knowledge about foreign affairs by nearly all of his opponents.  His near absolute ban on Muslims was completely unworkable, but since then has been refined away from populism to pragmatism.  He’s also made it a point to surround himself with foreign policy and military experts.  Still, there were preferable alternatives who showed greater aptitude for conservatism, and who had nearly mistake-free campaigns.

Marco Rubio had great foreign policy credentials. Carly Fiorina also proved herself equal to any of her rivals in that department and focused like a laser beam on Hillary from the beginning.  Senator Cruz has the support of the Constitutionalists and had by far the best ground game of any of the candidates, rivaled only possibly by the Clinton machine.   This was to finally be the year of the movement conservative.  What none of them realized, was that the white, non-college educated working man had abandoned the Republican party two elections ago. With no popular support for so-called ‘establishment’ Republicans (read Jeb Bush) and young, intelligent candidates who could speak the language of conservatism fluently, this election was to be the era of Regan reborn.  The problem was, the average American spoke the language of not conservatism, but populism.   Trump, like his followers, feels free to cherry-pick from any political school of thought, conservatism, nationalism, populism, and even liberalism.  In short, Trump followed former Republican constituency to where it wanted to go.

Everyone knows the result, Trump won the nomination.  the #nevertrump crowd now had (and still has) a decision to make, reluctantly follow the new GOP standard-bearer, for all his flaws, or stick with Republican and  conservative orthodoxy. As Trump filled in the gaps of his foreign affairs and military knowledge, and softened on some of his more problematic stances on immigration, the opposition of many Republicans against him softened.  Little by little, Republican diehards resigned themselves to the reality that it was Trump or bust.  Others though, convinced of the certainty of a Trump loss, and fearful of down-ballot losses stubbornly dug in their heels on the subject of never Trump, even to the point of actively undermining his candidacy.

Reluctant, even stoic support for Trump is to be expected and understandable.  He is not the second coming of Reagan, but the first coming of Trump.  Those who insist on ideological purity won’t find it in this GOP candidate.  Those who had fought hard to rehabilitate the Republican Party’s image after losing virtually all of the black and most of the Latino vote four years ago find themselves besides themselves with frustration in their candidate.  He is their candidate though, and for all his shortcomings with regards to many conservative principles and a maddening lack of political sense, is still better for America in many ways then his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The key is to show that while Trump says controversial things, Hillary has done, time and again, many things that were deeply dishonest, maybe even illegal.  While Trump’s thoughts get him into hot water, Hillary’s actual deeds (or occasional lack of) have gotten Americans killed or put in jeopardy.  While critics can theorize about Trump being bad, we have proof positive that Hillary would be worse.  Evidence of her corruption is well documented.  We don’t have to wonder how she would govern, she would turn America into her own personal fife, and we her serfs, existing only to provide her and her sycophants  with wealth.  On the subject of Supreme Court appointees alone, there is no real choice for the constitutionalist that wants a Scalia type justice on the Court.

There is no chance of Trump being replaced as GOP nominee, any talk to the contrary is pure fantasy. There is no realistic chance of someone not from the Republican or Democratic parties becoming our next president.  Even if the #nevertrump crowd could come up with a candidate with the financial means to do so, it’s too late to get him or her on the ballot in many states.  So why does anyone claiming to be a Republican seek not to simply withhold support, but actively act to undermine his campaign?  They are ideologues, but ones who fail to understand that under a Hillary presidency, none of their conservative initiatives will come to be.  Clinton will enact her liberal, even socialist policies.  If she can’t get her agenda done under a Republican Congress, the Democrats will appeal to the American sometimes pathological need to just “get things done” regardless what that actually means.  Republican control of Congress his hardly guaranteed.  Democrats are already counting on the fact that the Republicans were put into power on Capitol Hill for the express reason of stopping the liberal Obama agenda.  Whatever political victories Hillary can garner, she will lock in by appointing active judges and an ever-growing, compliant regulatory machine.

The never Trump crowd has fooled themselves that in four years, they will get a do-over if Trump loses and finally undo the Obama/Clinton agenda.  It won’t happen, what they dont’ realize is this election may be the last one for America as a true constitutional democracy.  The next election, should Clinton win, will be more like those in the democratic-socialist countries of Western Europe– mere referendums on how quickly or slowly to descend into the socio-economic oblivion, and who will go out on top. The fact is, regardless of how much the conservative true believer would rather not, there is no real choice when it comes to any meaningful governmental reform.  There is only one candidate that will appoint justices that will respect the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  There is only one candidate with a pro-growth agenda, only one candidate that will turn America away from an otherwise certain, yes certain, move toward a single-payer healthcare system.  Like it or not, the only viable choice, for all his shortcomings, is Donald Trump.

There I said it.

Corruption vs. Self-interest

Simple Definition of corruption

  • : dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)
  • : the act of corrupting someone or something
  • : something that has been changed from its original form

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary


Most Americans with any degree of political awareness believe that Hillary Clinton is corrupt. It’s really hardly disputed even by her supporters.  Whether her association with shady land deals, Travelgate, or the apparent links to Clinton Foundation donations and favorable actions by Hillary toward donors as Secretary of State.  If elected President, Mrs. Clinton would likely continue behaviors that the public will consider corrupt.  The election is still a long ways off in political time, right now she is candidate Clinton.  What sort of corruption might she be engaging in with the voters and, dare anyone suggest, are some of her supporters complicit in this corruption?  Does voting one’s self interest ever cross over into corruption?  Is corruption a two-way street?

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” – Benjamin Franklin

If you’re a college student or recent graduate and Hillary tells you she’ll help you pay off your student loans you might be tempted to vote for her out of self-interest. Similarly, if you’re a parent and are looking at paying tens of thousands of dollars for your kid’s college education and you’re promised free community college, that’s a tempting offer.  There is another voting block that block these programs really benefit, one that is always overlooked: the faculty and administrators of colleges.  They can absolutely be counted on to support Hillary.  Why?  They stand to gain the most from these deals.  Who do you think ends up with all of the public money?  They do, the parents and students are merely a conduit between the taxpayers and themselves.  Never mind that the value of a college education has been inflated, and that a trade school might be better fit for many students.  Never mind that there are legions of service sector workers with four-year degrees. You’re not to meant to consider such things, your meant to put your money in the right pockets—theirs.  When you run out of your own money, there is always someone else’s, the evil rich’s. Normal free market restraints on tuition rates don’t apply when everyone has the buying power of a millionaire. Big education wants a system that takes money from one group and give it to another that gives it to them.  In the process free market forces that would normally limit how much they can charge gets circumvented. That’s dishonest, a corrupt deal between Hilary and the higher education elites.

Another deal with easier and easier to spot corruption angle is Hillary’s promise of ‘comprehensive immigration reform’.  Republicans often receive criticism for wanting cheaper, illegal labor.  That’s certainly fair and would qualify as corrupt voting. The mistake is to assume that Democrats have any less reason to be accused of corruption.  First of all, when have you seen a Democrat really take a stand against illegal immigration?  You haven’t, not just because they take advantage of illegal labor as well, but they see further benefits to illegal immigration.  People crossing the border illegally or over staying their visa are not much of a concern for Democrats.  New immigrants who become citizens are more likely to need public assistance, and more likely to vote Democratic.  They problem for Democrats is how to get immigrants over from the illegal side of the ledger to the legal side in such a way they can also become citizens and do their patriotic duty to vote Democrat.  Illegal aliens after all, can’t vote for their own self-interest, (not in a U.S. election anyway). If you read recent legislation proposals for comprehensive immigration reform from both Republicans and Democrats you’d be hard pressed to find many differences between the two.  Really the difference comes down to a single word:  citizen.  Many Republicans are fine with a pathway to legal status for undocumented aliens, just not citizenship.  Democrats desperately want any legislation on the matter to take that one extra step, to offer a path to citizenship and Democratic voter-hood.  Republicans say they want to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country generally by reducing the influx , increasing deportations, and reducing the incentives to come and stay illegally.   Democrats have a plan to do reduce the number of illegal aliens too—just make them citizens, and hence, legal.  Democrats count on the average voter not getting into such fine detail.  It’s not the average voter that’s corrupt, but their views on the issue have been corrupted by the dishonesty of the Democrats of their true intentions.

Most voters vote their own self-interest, it’s a natural part of the process.  Sometimes there is a special interest group that quietly hides their vested interest in the outcome of an election.  Sometimes politicians dishonestly represent what a vote will get the voter or what it means for them and their party.  Corruption is seldom a one-way deal– it takes two parties prepared to strike a corrupt bargain. For every vote bought, there is a vote sold.  For every vote unwittingly given, there is a vote taken through deceit. When you vote you should make sure your own interests in casting it are fairly and honestly balanced with those who want it.

What the Trump campaign could be doing better.

Election 2016The Trump team won the Republican primaries, so they’ve obviously done something right.  Their message is a simple one, not too many facets, and Trump uses a language that anyone can understand.  When Trump stays on message, he’s effective.  Problem is, he does not always stay on message, he breaks discipline to go after the shiny object. When the inevitable crisis arises it’s not obvious that the response has been clearly thought out, or that there is a clear understanding of why the problem is a problem in the first place. Professional politicians got where they did because they followed certain principles that are common to all successful campaigns, the Trump team needs to learn and adopt these principles.  Things can always be done a little better and the stakes are too high this time not to want to do better.

Here are some suggestions:

  • Treat words like a precious commodity, don’t waste them on things that don’t attach to the goal of becoming president.  Talking about a judge in a pending lawsuit may show you’re a fighter, but also shows a certain lack of clarity of purpose.  In business, capital usually comes in the form of money.  In politics, money is certainly needed but for a politician ideas are capital and words are currency.  A businessman does not use capital loosely or carelessly, nor should a politician.
  • React to a crisis like a doctor would an ailment, identify the symptoms, come up with a treatment, but first and always, do no harm. When the issue of plagiarism came up with regards to Melania Trump’s convention speech, the response by some on the Trump team hurt the cause more than it helped.  Trying to explain away nearly word for word similarities with Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech by saying the phrases used were extremely common came across more as excuses than explanation.  Sometimes when you’re caught, it’s better to admit there is a problem than deny it.  A better tact would to have been to withhold the excuses until after it was established what actually happened.   (In this case, one the speechwriters helping Melania inserted quotes into a draft of the speech but did account for the fact that they were ‘borrowed’.) It’s better to give the press no explanation than an inaccurate one.  This leads us to the next way the Trump team could do better…
  • Have an organization that is appropriate to the task.  If your business is banking you may need a huge legal department just to deal with all the regulations. A hospital needs doctors and nurses, but also needs people to organize all of their training and certifications.  A political campaign needs people whose sole profession is speech writing, and others who do nothing but fact checking. The idea of running a government like a business is good, but there are things that professional politicians do because they work. As much as it may hurt to admit, but virtually every member of Congress, every governor, even Mayor has done one thing that Donald Trump so far has not, win an election.  It stands to reason then, that even a candidate running as an outsider would want to adopt at least some components of a successful political machine.
  • Let favorable news cycles and events play out.  Sometimes less is more.  Create new news when your opponent runs out of things for you to talk about, or when important events demand it.  Don’t make yourself the story when your opponent’s problems and missteps make for a better one.  Recognise when your oppenent is using this same strategy on you.  .

Trump has successfully beat sixteen other opponents for the Republican nomination.  He must be doing something right. He also has higher negatives than even Mrs. Clinton, and does not enjoy unquestioned support from all members of his own party, so he can’t claim to be doing everything right.  There are several things that he and his team can do better.  Don’t waste effort defending statements and actions that have little or nothing to do with winning the White House.  When things go wrong, diagnose the problem quickly then take corrective measures, don’t do it the other way around.  Trump is now in the election winning business, that requires an appropriate organizations.  When the news is favorable to you, or unfavorable to the other side, don’t do anything to change it.  Like it or not, some of the things successful politicians do that are essential, and Trump will have to figure out what those things are and do them better than Hillary.

Drama Packed into the First Two Days of the RNC Convention

Election 2016The Republican convention was a lot of things, boring wasn’t one of them.  The first two days alone had more drama that an entire season of The Apprentice.  On day one there was a mini revolt among Cruz supporters who wanted a roll-call vote.  They didn’t get it.  Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and others gave fiery speech condemning the Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

Rudy Giuliani:

“He will keep us safe and help us achieve and embrace our greatness. In the last seven months, there have been five major Islamic extremist terrorists attacks on us and our allies. We must not be afraid to define our enemy.

It is Islamic extremist terrorism. I did not say all of Islam. I said Islamic extremist terrorism.”

Melania Trump also gave a speech where she extolled her husband’s virtues.  Unfortunately, her words though well delivered, were largely lost due to her speech writer lifting passages from Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008.  The blunder detracted from the other speeches of the night.  It was a gift from an inexperienced Trump team to the media.

Trump siblings Donald, Jr. and Tiffany Trump gave speeches on day two. Donald Trump, Jr., proved himself an impressive speaker, on par with any of the professional politicians who spoke that night. He furthered the argument against Hillary Clinton, but also spoke of how the state America finds itself in after nearly eight years of President Obama:

“For the first time, parents no longer think that their kids will be as well of as we were. We’ve lost the confidence in our leaders and the faith in our institutions. But remember one thing: we’re still Americans, we’re still one country, and we’re going to get it all back. We’re going to get it back better than ever before. I know we’ll get it back because I know my father.”

Among those professional politicians, the ranking members of Congress, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan also spoke, giving the case from Capitol Hill on why we need a Republican in the White House.  It was the New Jersey governor and favorite for Attorney General in a Trump administration Chris Christie that involved the convention crowd in a point by point prosecution of Hillary Clinton’s record:

“Well, tonight, as a former federal prosecutor, I welcome the opportunity to hold her accountable for her performance and her character.

We must present those facts to you, a jury of her peers, both in this hall and in living rooms around our nation.”

Christie then went on to list the indictments of Hillary in the court of public opinion.  He rattled of country after country that he claims:  Libya, Nigeria, China, Iran, Russia, and Cuba.  Of course, he brought up the charges for which she was very nearly indicted, the charges associated with her unauthorized use of a home server to store classified material…

“And here at home on risking America’s secrets to keep her own and lying to cover it all up… guilty. Her focus group tested persona, with no genuineness to be found, is a sham meant to obscure all the facts and leave you able to vote for her. We cannot promote someone to Commander-in-Chief who has made the world a more violent and dangerous place with every bad judgment she has made.”

The crowd did their part, shouting a verdict of “Guilty!” after each charge.  They also chanted at times:  “Lock her up!” a clear statement of disapproval of FBI director Comey’s refusal to push for an indictment of Clinton for her reckless handling of classified material.

It’s hard to believe that this much drama could be packed into just the first two days of the convention, but this has been no ordinary election year, the Republican nominee is no ordinary politician, so it follows that this would be no ordinary convention.  The second two days would see a slight return to well, convention, but only slight.