Diary

Trump Tries to Go Legit in WSJ Editorial. No Dice.

UPDATE: streiff has a similar post here. This post has no connection to his.

Well, he tried. Donald Trump tried to show some relevency with a prime Thursday guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Was this about explaining about some of his economic platforms, perhaps providing some context to tariffs, clarity on his tax policy, or even what he planned on doing to reduce the tax burden on businesses to keep from inverting overseas? You know, actual policy positions in the premiere financial and economic daily in the United States?

Surely you jest. Basically, I can translate Trump’s 852-word whinefest to just two words. COLORADO! UNFAIR!

Here is his start:

On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.

A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.

In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended the system. “These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.

First of all, Colorado Republicans DID have their say in a lawfully administered voting process. From all accounts in Colorado, every Republican was given ample notice about the procedure in voting for the delegates at the county, district, and state levels. There was no ambiguity, as all the delegates were upfront on their presidential choice. Every campaign was privy to the rules, and only one campaign, the Cruz campaign, chose to participate.

But let’s extrapolate a bit. Trump on one hand complains about the “rules” that he refused to even understand until AFTER the Colorado convention. But look how he inexplicably compares it to the lack of “better trade deals or stronger borders.” He thinks this link is logical, but what it shows is an utter ignorance of the intelligence of Wall Street Journal readers. They are not dummies, unlike the massive amount of LIV’s that make up his average voter base. They know there is no nexus between state party delegate election rules and cronyist trade deals and border control. But let’s move on.

I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people. Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the American people grow poorer and more isolated.

No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders made a choice to cancel it. And it was the wrong choice.

Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.

Still with the fallacy that Colorado cancelled an election. They only had a straw poll in the past, which in fact was unbinding anyway. THAT was the election they “cancelled.” But as I previously stated, all Republicans were notified of the delegate voting process, and thousands of voters followed through. I would argue that such a process actually engages more voters in positive, grassroots-oriented civic participation that ensures a quality, well-thought out candidate from the selection of the delegates, all geared toward the best interest of the state. But who am I to futz with the system? I’m obviously not as nuanced as The Donald, apparently.

The rest of the article is mindless chatter about how voters need to rise up to the injustice of being shut out of the process. But to be blunt, this is done for one reason only: To gin up the hatred of the LIV’s. And THAT, sadly, is Trump’s only method of winning. If he felt his policies were better, he would debate Cruz. Of course, he would lose because he has no policies.

And an 852-word editorial with zero policy positions other than “Cruz/GOP is corrupt” won’t cut it. He knows it, and his campaign shows the desparation of that incredibly inept strategy. Unless he cleans up in New York, this race is over for him once it gets past the first ballot in Cleveland.

And even the Wall Street Journal won’t help him anymore.