Former Alabama Chief Justice, Judge Roy Moore, defeated McConnell lackey and President Trump-supported incumbent, Luther Strange, last night. And it wasn’t some close primary election that will end up meaning nothing. Judge Moore defeated the Trump-backed Strange by winning 63 of the 67 counties in Alabama.
Candidates win elections, but it was Christian conservatism and the biblical principles of liberty and moral law that aided the anti-swamp environment against the McConnell-Trump alliance, and that’s a good thing for America. But some of the initial takes from the DC smart set don’t agree and some of their early takes on Moore’s win are somewhere between amusing and certifiably insane. The left-wing takes are beyond certifiably insane, so I’m gonna focus on the initial takes from the Right.
Early #take. Roy winning will reinforce theory that GOP voters care more abt triggering libs/media than Trump loyalty or Truecon principles.
— Tim Miller (@Timodc) September 27, 2017
First, there was Tim Miller on Twitter. He’s a self-described Jeb! Bush alum, which probably means he worked for the Bush campaign, and President of America Rising (another establishment machine advertised as conservative). He took to Twitter to declare his “smart” analysis, which was to claim that the Moore win is about “triggering the lib/media” more than “Trump loyalty or Truecon principles.”
And from another tweet, in his ignorance of God’s moral law, he also seemed to suggest Judge Moore was crazier than Todd Akin, while accusing the GOP of having nobody willing to stand up to Moore’s alleged brand of crazy. Mr. Miller has since clarified his early take as coming from the perspective of the 2016 election. But even this clarification falls short because it fails to consider Judge Moore’s principled stands against the establishment and judicial supremacists, even at the expense of his own career.
And then there was David French, a National Review senior writer, who I normally enjoy reading and usually agree with on most issues. His early take on why Judge Moore won was the more certifiably insane view, from a conservative point of view. Because frankly, it was plain nonsense and it showed that he’s never examined who Judge Moore is and what his actual positions are or his record.
Mr. French was on the Glenn Beck Program this morning, and Glenn started by asking his take on the Alabama primary and Moore’s win. Mr. French’s “hot take” sounded more like an Evan McMullin, DC smart set switched bodies with him and ignorantly assumed Judge Moore is a populist, which in most cases should be interpreted interchangeably with nationalism (most people make this common mistake). He claimed with a serious voice, as if he knows what he’s talking about, that Trump’s populist wave nominated him for the Senate seat once occupied by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
He also insanely accused the South for being essentially infatuated more with populism over God’s moral law. It wasn’t Trump’s populism that caused the South to go for Trump. The Southern environment is one that is fed up with the anti-South elitists in the North and on the coasts, and Hillary was seen as the embodiment of that Northern corruption. Trump took advantage of the environment of Southern anger in the Bible belt, and Trump had the name ID to do it.
The left-wing media will latch onto a few choice words from Judge Moore’s stump speeches over his career, and without understanding the biblical and theological context, they will portray him as certifiably crazy. I’m personally less concerned about their “hot takes” on Moore’s win because they’re even more certifiable than French’s absurd ignorance.
If grassroots conservatives, and even the DC smart set, want an honest take on why Judge Roy Moore defeated the Trump-backed Luther Strange, then they should read Steve Deace and Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review. They know Judge Moore and his record, and they understand why Alabamans trust and like his firebrand and principled stands against the Ruling Class and judicial supremacists.
The audacity of hope: Alabama voters trust godly values and Roy Moore | Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review
Republican voters want representatives for whom God and the Constitution are not talking points to win their votes but a way of life. This is what we all used to want in our elected Republicans. Then we got scared to run on these beliefs publicly, but extolled those virtues privately. Now the clickservative world has open disdain for those values. And voters rebelled against that by casting an affirmative vote for the values that people inside certain zip codes, the clickservative media, and the Republican legal profession have long ago scorned.
This confirms that “better than Hillary” is not a suicide pact. And though the cultic element within Trump’s core support is troublesome and impossible to ignore, it turns out Trump’s base is driving Trump — it’s not Trump driving his base. In fact, Strange actually under-performed his polling following Trump’s campaign visit — there was no Trump bounce at all.
If the president wants to avoid further embarrassment, he better start surrounding himself with conservatives in the West Wing — pronto — who actually have a read on what’s happening with his base. Because someone has wrongly told Trump his base is the stereotype often sold on cable news or willing to do whatever he asks of them.
The Alabama primary was similar to the 2016 election because the Bible belt and the Southern political environment is still fundamentally opposed to the DC swamp, and the McConnell-Trump alliance supporting Luther Strange was the face of the swamp. But it is not the 2016 election because Alabama voters and Bible belt voters are not the same as Rust belt and Midwest anti-swamp voters. And Judge Roy Moore is not Donald J. Trump.
In 2016, nationally, what the DC smart set calls a “populist wave,” was an anti-swamp election and Trump took advantage of that environment and made it a bigger priority than God’s moral law. That is how Alabama and the Bible belt went for Trump over more godly candidates like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.
However, the Alabama primary is about who Alabama voters believe embodies their political environment and feelings, not all Trump and Cruz supporters nationwide. Judge Moore had the bigger name ID statewide than the incumbent, Luther Strange. It was Judge Moore’s known stands against the swamp and judicial supremacists as a Chief Justice, at the expense of his own career – twice. It helped him take advantage of that Alabama environment. Judge Moore’s record standing up for and defending God in the public square and the original intent of the Constitution was seen as the anti-swamp solution for Alabama voters.
The Trump-backed Luther Strange was the Alabama face of the McConnell swamp in DC. Trump supporters united with Cruz supporters to reject Trump’s populist personality because Alabama voters equated it to the McConnell swamp. The magnitude of that image made Judge Moore’s record of Christian conservatism and moral law constitutionalism more appealing than Trump’s personality and populism.
Donald Trump’s 2016 win showed that grassroots conservatives and the Bible belt would settle for candidates if they were only anti-swamp. However, Judge Roy Moore’s win shows they will vote for anti-swamp candidates who have a record fighting for Godly principles and the Constitution more. Moral law and God are more important to the Bible belt than the young hippie pastors give credit, even if mocking the Bible belt in the pulpit causes laughter from their congregations.
It isn’t Never-Trump or Always-Trump destroying conservatism, it’s Sometimes-Trump
One of the craziest—or should I say laziest—accusations leveled against me by Trump’s die-hard loyalists whenever I dare to call him out for breaking a campaign promise, getting caught in a lie, or promoting unconstitutional non-conservative ideas, is that I’m a liberal. Sometimes, they go so far as to accuse me of working for George Soros.
As I’ve said many times in response, I don’t work for Mr. Soros, but since money’s been a little tight at the Strident Conservative lately, if anyone has his number, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it my way.
It’s a sad reality that these pathetic taunts are what passes for political discourse in the Age of Trump. Gone are the days when differences could be civilly discussed based on facts instead of emotion.
Another sad reality of this behavior is that it’s a sign that the end of conservatism is near, as Trump’s small army of loyal followers attempt to rebrand conservatism by spreading the lie that he is a conservative and, using binary logic, accusing anyone who opposes him of being a liberal.
This rebranding effort has had an impact. Last week, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel warned Republican hopefuls that anyone who opposed Trump’s agenda would be “making a mistake.”
Complacency is our enemy. Anyone that does not embrace the @realDonaldTrump agenda of making America great again will be making a mistake.
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) June 14, 2018
McDaniel’s threat was issued following the GOP primary defeat in South Carolina by conservative Mark Sanford after he was personally targeted by Trump himself. Sanford’s crime? Disloyalty to the NY Liberal.
Mark Sanford has been very unhelpful to me in my campaign to MAGA. He is MIA and nothing but trouble. He is better off in Argentina. I fully endorse Katie Arrington for Congress in SC, a state I love. She is tough on crime and will continue our fight to lower taxes. VOTE Katie!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2018
Another source of damage to conservatism has come from evangelicals and the so-called conservative media. In the name of self-preservation, they choose to surrender their principles by promoting the lie that Trump is a conservative. Some of these voices have taken to labelling conservatives who oppose Trump as Never-Trump conservatives, or worse, branding them as liberals and/or Democrats, as was recently written in a piece at TheFederalist.com:
“Trump may be an unattractive and deeply flawed messenger for contemporary conservatism. But loathe though they might be to admit it, what’s left of the Never-Trump movement needs to come to grips with the fact that the only words that currently describe them are liberals and Democrats.”
Then there are those who have adopted a Sometimes-Trump attitude about the president, where everything Trump does is measured using a good Trump/bad Trump barometer. While it has become fashionable for Sometimes-Trump conservatives to stand on their soap boxes condemning both Never-Trump conservatives and Always-Trump faux conservatives, I believe that this politically bipolar approach to Trump is the greatest threat of all to Constitutional conservatism in America.
Sometimes-Trump conservatives have accepted the lie that it’s okay to do a little evil in exchange for a greater good. Though they may fly a conservative banner, their lukewarm attitude about Trump is much like the attitude we see in the Laodicean church mentioned in the Book of Revelations (3:15-16).
“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
Trump is a double-minded man unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). When lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives choose to overlook this reality, they end up watering-down conservatism to the point that it has no value or power to change America’s course.
As lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives point to the Always-Trump and Never-Trump factions as the reason for today’s conservative divide, remember that it’s the unenthusiastic, noncommittal, indifferent, half-hearted, apathetic, uninterested, unconcerned, lackadaisical, passionless, laid back, couldn’t-care-less conservative imposters in the middle who are really responsible.
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
Conservative Picks for the Nevada Primary
Nevada is full of competition. There are no shortage of quality candidates in Nevada, only quality politicians. Nevada isn’t a strong blue state or red state. It usually sides with the winner in a presidential election. In fact, given Trump’s upset, it was surprising Nevada wasn’t one of the states where polling was wholly inaccurate. Nevada is home of Las Vegas, the country’s fastest growing metropolitan area. So the future political leanings of the state are up in the air. This primary features vacancies which offer a nice opportunity to grow conservative ideals among the population.
Best Picks: Danny Tarkanian, Joel Beck
Worst Picks: Mark Amodei, Cresent Hardy
Best Race: District 3
Worst Race: District 4
Dean Heller is an incumbent Republican and in all likelihood will keep his nomination. Heller is running on a rather unimpressive Senate record showing that he is part of the problem, not the solution. There are four challengers but only a few are worth talking about. The first is Sarah Gazala. She is somewhat running as a conservative, but her emphasis on education shows that she isn’t the right fit for the Senate. A local office would be a better calling. Then there’s Vic Harrell. The only discernible fact about Harrell is his devotion to Trump. This zeal isn’t wrong but it doesn’t make him a good candidate. The strongest challenger is Tom Heck. Heck ran and lost in 2016 in a tight race. It’s very possible Heck could maintain the seat, and probable that he would do a superior job.
Conservative Pick: Tom Heck
Two challengers seek to red pill this district. The first, Joyce Bentley, has a decent platform and is like to side with Trump on several key issues. The issue is whether she will deviate when necessary. The second is Freddy Horne. He is likely the more viable candidate here having a history of running a campaign, but its a moot point in this district.
Conservative Pick: Joyce Bentley
Mark Amodei has held the seat for a while and is a RINO. He faces three challengers. Sharron Angel is the first. She was a failed Senate candidate in 2016 losing to Heck. She seems as though a strong Conservative. But she may be a weak candidate. Joel Beck is a veteran running on a solid small government platform. He has a more thorough understanding of veterans issues and immigration than most. Beck would be an outstanding defender of the Constitution.
Conservative Pick: Joel Beck
This vacated seat has caused a feeding frenzy of an election. but this race is between Scott Hammond and Danny Tarkanian. Hammond is a State Senator with a decent record and the backing of the NRA. But from this article which he promoted, he doesn’t seem to be a strong defender of liberty, though its hard to get a clear picture with the bias writing. In a rare instance of strategic planning by the Trump administration with regards to the 2018 race, Team Trump convinced Tarkanian to seek the House as opposed to the Senate. Danny Tarkanian, being a team player, obliged. Nothing wrong with that. Playing along earned him a Trump endorsement. And while Heller gets by with one less challenger from the right, Tarkanian has a better chance at reducing government spending as he campaigns heavily on. Overall, Tarkanian may be a sycophant, but Hammond is more likely a RINO climbing the ladder.
Conservative Pick: Danny Tarkanian
Congressman Ruben Kihuen will not seek reelection as the result of a sexual harassment scandal. This presents a golden opportunity to flip this blue seat. Many Republicans have entered but there is no clear frontrunner. First up is Jeff Miller. He’s running to prevent Nevada from becoming East California. With all the candidates, the Las Vegas Review-Journal made this one easy. The former Congressman refused to answer. If Cresent Hardy believes he’s too big to answer yes or no questions, he probably thinks he’s too good to talk to his constituents. The only thing that is concerning is the question on DACA recipients.
Conservative Pick: Jeff Miller
Conservative Picks in the South Carolina Primary
South Carolina is one of the nation strongest overall states for Conservatism. Out of nine representatives, eight of which Republican, only two are complete RINOs (Joe Wilson and Lindsey Graham). Conservatism is strong in South Carolina just as it is in North Carolina. This primary presents a good opportunity to maintain and grow. Trey Gowdy is exiting, presenting a good chance for an upgrade at the position. Since the GOP took the Whitehouse, Gowdy stopped being fiscally Conservative, and is an unfortunate voice of support for the expensive Mueller investigation.
Best Pick: Mark Sanford
Worst Pick: Katie Arrington
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: District 7
After five years, Mark Sanford has been a solid Conservative. He is being challenged. His main opponent is Katie Arrington. Arrington is a full blown Trumpist. If she had a shred of Conservatism in her she would be satisfied with the performance of Sanford. But instead she is challenging him because he, like most decent Conservatives, has been reasonably critical of Trump. Arrington’s fanaticism is not worth the risk of losing Sanford.
Conservative Pick: Mark Sanford
Joe Wilson is an unchallenged product of the swamp. He is running to complete his second decade.
Jeff Duncan is a steadfast Conservative who didn’t compromise under Obama and has remained strong under Trump. He is unchallenged.
There are numerous candidates seeking to fill Trey Gowdy’s shoes. The first of which was written about back in February, Mark Burns. I had a lot to say about Trump’s top pastor:
I remain optimistic about Mark Burns joining the ranks of Congress. Previously, Burns announced he was praying about challenging Lindsey Graham, a notorious warmongering RINO. But it appears either prayer or opportunism has landed him in a different race. Due to his political amateurism, not many of his positions are clear. Oddly enough, he has suggested Federal takeover of public school security. Though his heart seems in the right place, his position shows a lack of localism which small government believes in. It’s safe to speculate that Mark Burns isn’t all that fiscal conservative which isn’t unfamiliar.
On social issues, however, Pastor Mark Burns could be a strong tool for conservatives, so long as he can graduate from being a Trump surrogate. Burns has a more unifying persona than a lot of Republicans adding the possibility of broadening the base. On the issues of race and abortion, Pastor Mark Burns is a powerful voice. Though a strong personality does not make one the best candidate, Burn has tremendous potential to make a difference in DC.
I have a poll under Zakrey Bissell poll for June 7th 2018 to June 12th 2018 for #SC01 Republican Mark Sanford 70% Republican Katie Arrington 30% and poll for #SC04 Republican Lee Bright 50% Republican Mark Burns 30% Republican William Timmons 15% Republican Dan Hamilton 5%
— Zakrey Bissell (@BissellZakrey) June 8, 2018
Another formidable candidate is Lee Bright. He has the backing of Steve King (IA) and Thomas Massie (KY). Massie is a strong Conservative so this endorsement means something. Bright’s political career was put on hold when he got primaried in 2016. To be frank, he got voted out probably for being a nutjob. This guy is all rhetoric and no substance. He will maybe vote the right way, but he is not a leader on Conservative legislation. Furthermore he is a weaker candidate due to his propensity to act a fool. Bright isn’t likable but he at the end of the day, he wouldn’t be a RINO.
Then there’s William Timmons. He has the endorsement of Marco Rubio which indicate that he is the RINO in this race. Timmons campaigns on fiscal responsibility but champions Trump for it who has not been fiscally responsible this year. Either he’s pandering or misinformed. Either way, it’s an indication he will e a big spender. His attack ads on Dan Hamilton are baseless, though he is likely correct that Hamilton is not that Conservative. But Timmons record isn’t Conservative either.
Conservative Pick: Mark Burns
Ralph Norman is unopposed. He’s actually been solid in his brief tenure.
Gerhard Gressmann is the only Republican running.
Tom Rice has been a halfway decent Congressman but not without fault. He is being challenged by Larry Guy Hammond. Hammond is running from the right but not with a level head. Tom Rice isn’t fantastic, but populism won’t do the job better. And Hammond is more populist than Conservative. His website offers no real solutions. It merely trashes the state and asks for money.