A thank-you for The Donald: Time for a winning campaign

Last night in Green Bay, Wis., the Donald Trump campaign began a new phase.  The tone of his speech reminds one of the days during Ronald Reagan.  The Donald has finally demonstrated the big tent principle as practiced by Reagan.

He endorsed Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Kelly Ayotte.  He mentioned that we must unite to defeat Hillary; he noted that the 80% agreement is not the 20% enemy, and therefore they are friends.

Trump can manage the transition to national campaigning.  Hopefully he can continue until he crosses the finish line triumphantly.

Trump does not always follow the classical conservative positions, but can anyone deny that he is closer on more issues than Hillary?  I find it perplexing that Mark Levin among other pundits has more negatives for Trump on a daily basis than he throws Hillary's way.

The conservative position is that the Constitution allows the people to determine their leaders via the ballot.  Although the Electoral College decides the presidency, it is generally based upon the people's state vote.  The Republican Party selected Trump, though the conservatives preferred Ted Cruz.  Cruz clearly did not help unify the Party during his speech and demonstrated a lack of grace.  

The battle within the Republican Party pits a strong, independent outsider personality who is a populist on the right against the media that wants to destroy him and the entrenched Beltway Republicans bent on stopping him, lest he damage their access to the trough and its financial rewards.

Trump's style and tone are crude and embarrassing at times.  He has made mistakes during the past week.  But how does that compare with awful decisions and actions that characterize the years during which Hillary was in the White House (such as Hillarycare), the Senate (a poor record for passing legislation and a loss of the jobs promised in upstate N.Y.), and failure as secretary of state (the Russian reset, Iranian negotiations, Libyan war, Syrian war and policies that helped create ISIS, and neglecting the Libyan ambassador's requests for additional security)?  There is much to differentiate the two candidates.

The Trump position on issues is preferable to most voters if they are paying attention.  On foreign policy, he favors a strong military power in limited winnable wars against enemies such as ISIS.  He supports fixing the Veterans Administration hospitals and caring for our veterans.  He wants trade deals that are not guaranteed to give other nations advantages over our businesses.  He favors tax reductions that benefit all Americans.  He wants reduced taxes on American businesses to make them competitive with business in other nations.  He wants to allow legal immigration and halt illegal intrusions into our country; this will help protect jobs for our lower middle class and provide security from criminals of all ethnicities.  He supports appointing conservative judges who believe in the Constitution.  He supports the Second Amendment and actually owns firearms.  He opposes the destructive Obamacare and would replace it.

He must advertise and overpower the media that favors Hillary.

In the past, conservatives advocated voting for the most conservative person who could be elected.  Is there any doubt who that is?

Why do the Republicans insist on purity?  There are fewer registered Republicans than Democrats.  Can we continue to eat our own?

Trump is a capitalist, which is becoming rarer in Washington, D.C.  He is not an ideologue, which will allow him to negotiate a reversal of many of Obama's policies.  He was not my first choice for nominee, but he garnered more votes than any Republican candidate to date.

The media favors Hillary over Trump.  Those in the media run more negative articles on Trump.  They black out the most negative information concerning Hillary.  They push polling meant to dispirit Trump supporters.  This has had an effect upon Republican voters (the percentage is down) who still feel uncertain about his personality and stability.  In this regard, the media is not just supportive of Hillary, but functioning as a subsidiary of her campaign.  But why do conservative pundits and Republican insiders work to help Hillary?  They will have to answer for this should they help defeat Trump.  They do not realize that his defeat would mean the end of the present Republican coalition.  A new party might not include them.

The anger that led to Trump's nomination originated with the disappointments as the Republican majority Congress failed to halt Obama's policies.  Despite the Senate filibuster problem, the Republicans didn't deliver adequately.  Hence, the citizenry has revolted.

The electorate have the chance to correct the path the country is on.  Will they do so?

Last night in Green Bay, Wis., the Donald Trump campaign began a new phase.  The tone of his speech reminds one of the days during Ronald Reagan.  The Donald has finally demonstrated the big tent principle as practiced by Reagan.

He endorsed Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Kelly Ayotte.  He mentioned that we must unite to defeat Hillary; he noted that the 80% agreement is not the 20% enemy, and therefore they are friends.

Trump can manage the transition to national campaigning.  Hopefully he can continue until he crosses the finish line triumphantly.

Trump does not always follow the classical conservative positions, but can anyone deny that he is closer on more issues than Hillary?  I find it perplexing that Mark Levin among other pundits has more negatives for Trump on a daily basis than he throws Hillary's way.

The conservative position is that the Constitution allows the people to determine their leaders via the ballot.  Although the Electoral College decides the presidency, it is generally based upon the people's state vote.  The Republican Party selected Trump, though the conservatives preferred Ted Cruz.  Cruz clearly did not help unify the Party during his speech and demonstrated a lack of grace.  

The battle within the Republican Party pits a strong, independent outsider personality who is a populist on the right against the media that wants to destroy him and the entrenched Beltway Republicans bent on stopping him, lest he damage their access to the trough and its financial rewards.

Trump's style and tone are crude and embarrassing at times.  He has made mistakes during the past week.  But how does that compare with awful decisions and actions that characterize the years during which Hillary was in the White House (such as Hillarycare), the Senate (a poor record for passing legislation and a loss of the jobs promised in upstate N.Y.), and failure as secretary of state (the Russian reset, Iranian negotiations, Libyan war, Syrian war and policies that helped create ISIS, and neglecting the Libyan ambassador's requests for additional security)?  There is much to differentiate the two candidates.

The Trump position on issues is preferable to most voters if they are paying attention.  On foreign policy, he favors a strong military power in limited winnable wars against enemies such as ISIS.  He supports fixing the Veterans Administration hospitals and caring for our veterans.  He wants trade deals that are not guaranteed to give other nations advantages over our businesses.  He favors tax reductions that benefit all Americans.  He wants reduced taxes on American businesses to make them competitive with business in other nations.  He wants to allow legal immigration and halt illegal intrusions into our country; this will help protect jobs for our lower middle class and provide security from criminals of all ethnicities.  He supports appointing conservative judges who believe in the Constitution.  He supports the Second Amendment and actually owns firearms.  He opposes the destructive Obamacare and would replace it.

He must advertise and overpower the media that favors Hillary.

In the past, conservatives advocated voting for the most conservative person who could be elected.  Is there any doubt who that is?

Why do the Republicans insist on purity?  There are fewer registered Republicans than Democrats.  Can we continue to eat our own?

Trump is a capitalist, which is becoming rarer in Washington, D.C.  He is not an ideologue, which will allow him to negotiate a reversal of many of Obama's policies.  He was not my first choice for nominee, but he garnered more votes than any Republican candidate to date.

The media favors Hillary over Trump.  Those in the media run more negative articles on Trump.  They black out the most negative information concerning Hillary.  They push polling meant to dispirit Trump supporters.  This has had an effect upon Republican voters (the percentage is down) who still feel uncertain about his personality and stability.  In this regard, the media is not just supportive of Hillary, but functioning as a subsidiary of her campaign.  But why do conservative pundits and Republican insiders work to help Hillary?  They will have to answer for this should they help defeat Trump.  They do not realize that his defeat would mean the end of the present Republican coalition.  A new party might not include them.

The anger that led to Trump's nomination originated with the disappointments as the Republican majority Congress failed to halt Obama's policies.  Despite the Senate filibuster problem, the Republicans didn't deliver adequately.  Hence, the citizenry has revolted.

The electorate have the chance to correct the path the country is on.  Will they do so?