Malcolm was of the opinion that, given his own personal estimate that he was more likely to win the coming election, he therefore had a right and a duty to depose a sitting Prime Minister. The only question in his mind, as he articulated his rationale, was to ensure a Coalition victory at the coming election. Values? Political morality? Vision and direction? None were part of his stated objectives, although for the rest of us, his transparently far-to-the-left-of-centre views were his genuine motivation. He would become PM and bring about all of those great centralising ideas that have worked so well everywhere they have been tried. How successful his electoral strategy has been is there for anyone to see.

Which brings me to this posting by LQC three days before the Presidential election in 2012. We don’t vote in Australia for the American president, by that stage the die was certainly almost cast, but as you can see, the biggest flaw in Romney was that he was not going to win:

I have grave misgivings about a Romney presidency. While I am in full agreement with Steve Kates and most Catallaxy readers about the appalling Obama presidency, I fear that Romney is the most protectionist Republican candidate in history. Perhaps even the most protectionist presidential candidate in history. His pronouncements have been exclusively about an insular US, fear of China, and “protecting jobs”. Where is the vision for an open economy? In truth Romney is a died in the wool mercantalist.

A Romney administration promises cuts in Government spending – which I applaud – but probably a less efficient tax system. Most fundamentally, a Romney administration would put up the shutters and move to a ‘self sufficient’ United States. That would be a disaster for the US and a disaster for the world.

Anyone who has read my musings will recognise a pretty conservative and right-wing leaning. But I have a lexicographical preference for free trade and a free market.

I fear that Romney will make the US market less free than he would inherit from Obama. Perhaps the BBC poll that Steve cites [that only 6% of Australians would vote for Romney] is right for the wrong reasons: supporting Obama because he is less bad than the alternative?

From Steve’s perspective it is probably fortunate I don’t get to vote. But can anyone – please – give me one reason to vote for Romney rather than against Obama? In my recent post I wrote

Obama does not deserve a second term

That is true, but does Romney deserve a first term? I suspect not.

If I were voting, it would be for a write-in candidate. But it doesn’t really matter, as I still think Obama will win with around 332 electoral votes against Romney’s 206. When the GOP chose Romney, they voted for an Obama victory.

His standard is whether someone can be elected. And in that same vein he asks me to apologise for traducing his fine reputation based on his certainty that Hillary will win, which at least with Trump is by no means a certainty. As he now writes:

By the way Steve, I would appreciate an apology if Clinton is elected. I’ve said on both occasions that the GOP candidate would never be elected and you keep calling me a fool.

As for the rest of you: I have never said I liked Obama or Clinton. Quite the contrary.

Both Romney and Trump are unelectable. Romney would have made a good president. Trump would be a disgrace and disaster.

It is certainly new to hear from LQC what a good president Romney would have been. And just who might that candidate have been in 2012 who would have won instead? And it is ludicrous to think that Rubio – his choice this time – would not have been crushed by the Clinton machine. Last time, at least, he didn’t say vote for Obama. This time he does say vote for Hillary.

No one has to tell me what a dangerous choice Trump is or that he is less than evens to win given the media’s role in the US. But to prefer Hillary shows you are no conservative and puts you on the left.

I have seen LQC and Sinclair in the same room. In fact, although no one else will here remember, LQC’s nonsensical political views were also on display on Catallaxy during the election in 2012 when he was into a full frontal anti-Romney assault. Given Obama being Obama, of which by then we had already seen four years, and the choices we have now, anti-Romney sounds so utterly beyond idiocy that you would think that anyone who get it that wrong would just shut up.

The problems with Trump has never been in doubt. He is a property developer without a well-developed expertise in many of the political issues of our time. He has a bombastic personality and little relevant historical knowledge (although he is miles ahead of Obama). But having watched him over the past year, there is no doubt that unlike anyone else in the American political establishment, he understands what the issues are and what needs to be fixed. If it turns out he won’t be able to achieve what he says, I will be disappointed, but not sorry that he was my choice since there was no one else on the Republican side who offered to do what he has said he will try to do. And now that we are down to him and Hillary, the choice of Hillary is to choose evil and the almost immediate decay and destruction of the American Republic. Four supreme court picks and an open border naturialisation policy will mean no Republican ever becomes president again. Out past 2020, the nature of the US becomes almost unimaginable.

But Trump has genuine strengths, of which a will to have his own way is going to be extremely useful. He has also run a large organisation, so is in a similar situation to army commanders who have become president. He is not going to be as bad as Woodrow Wilson who was merely an academic and who had run nothing in his life other than a university (OK – he was governor of NJ for about a year before running for president).

You look at that story above. These are the forces that have been let loose because of Obama and Hillary. According to The Daily Mail, Grinning Obama JOKES during statement on Munich carnage as he shifts gears to say he’ll miss daughter Malia when she leaves the nest for college. There are fools everywhere, and there may be just enough of them in the US to make Hillary president. But they are the same kind of fools who made Obama president for the last eight years so there are plenty of them about.

I haven’t had the time to listen but will get to it tonight. His opponents will be the Democrats, of course, but also this: ROUND UP: MEDIA MOCKING OF REPUBLICANS INTENSIFIES…. But whatever happens between now and then, it will be the head-to-head debates between Trump and Clinton that will settle the issue. But let me just link to this, an article by Peter Wales at Quadrant Online, which captures what ought to be known. Here is a quote, but it far from the most important.

Finally, “He’s not a conservative!” Yes, he is. There is not a single Trump policy position that does not fit under the very wide umbrella of freedom-loving, free-market conservatism. It is certainly possible to disagree about some aspect of social policy, or trade, for example. But any position taken in these discussions is a long way from large government socialism. At best, #nevertrump can claim that Trump’s opinions now are not what they were twenty years ago. No intelligent person’s opinions are what they were twenty years ago. Values clarify as one gets older. Practical experience and knowledge of the world is gained. The world changes, problems and issues change, and ways of dealing with them change. There would be much more reason for concern if Trump’s opinions had not changed with changing times.

That there is virtually no public support for Trump across Australia is a sad fact because if not Trump, then Hillary.

You won’t find it anywhere else. American cornpone at its finest. Mike Pence accepts the nomination for Vice President. As he says, “conservative principles work every time you put them into practice”. And he does mention border protection. Not with full conviction but it is there.

It is annoying that even the brave Bill Leak is filled with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Apparently Melania told her speech writer that she admired Michelle Obama, the speech writer took a couple of passages from Michelle’s speech and put it in Melania’s and Donald Trump has refused to sack the speech writer. That this absolute nothing has become anything of the frenzied talking point it has is a reminder of how corrupt the media has become. It is also something of a sign of how little there really is to criticise Trump about that won’t resonate with most American voters.

Trump embraced the swirling attention.

“Good news is Melania’s speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics especially if you believe that all press is good press!” Trump said on Twitter.

What a maelstrom of contending views surround a presidential candidate. How anyone can keep a calm weather eye in the midst of it I’ll never know but Donald is more likely to do it than anyone.

I am now listening to the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson. Former Governor of New Mexico whose Vice President would be the former Governor of Massachusetts. Warmish applause, and if he can’t do better here, he will not do well anywhere else. What can you do with someone who has just said the biggest international threat in the world is North Korea.

More to the point was “Trump Pro and Con: The YUGE Debate”. Wayne Allan Root and Dan Mangru versus Jeffery Tucker and Matt Welch. A year ago Trump was himself here whose favourite son was Rand Paul. Today, a full room who had no patience for any of the anti-Trump people. The issues that came up as questions:

Hillary
Supreme Court
Islam
immigration
pseudo-free trade

The vote by applause at the end was 90% Trump. The booing and catcalls from the audience for Tucker and Welch was amazing. Tucker literally tried to win the argument by declaring Trump is a fascist, about as empty an argument as I could imagine, but he had no other. His colleague began by stating that Hillary was unfit to be president, but then discussed Trump’s threats to Bezos and The Washington Post.

What has been astonishing in the six days I have been here is that I have not seen or heard a single pro-Trump story in the media.

Brent Bozell

This is now Brent Brozell discussing the media and the election. Trump, he says, understands what no Republican has understood re the media – you attack me, I attack you. The new approach by the national press has been not just to lie by statement but now there has been bias by omission. You all know about Benghazi, the IRS, the emails here, but in the media, it is deliberate misrepresentation.

Not one “investigative” reporter in seven and a half years has looked at Barack Obama. We are in the middle of the greatest communication technological innovation, with the social media now connecting 80% of the world. In 2012, Obama spent most of his money on social media. It is this that the right will have to do to overcome the left-media.

Rand Paul

And now Rand Paul. Starts with Brexit – he not only thinks they should have left, he thinks they should never have joined. Talks about the EU Regulated Man from Brexit the Movie. Regs is like being surrounded by invisible barbed wire. US predicament is not much different.

The presidency is a thousand-fold more powerful than Congress. No one wishes to pull it back. But the lesson from history is that power corrupts. Need to surround the power of government with invisible barbed wire.

Brings up the surveillance state. FBI wants judgeless-warrants. Needed 60 votes to pass and got to 58 on the Senate floor. And then there was twenty minutes to find another two. Ultimately failed but close.

The question remains, how can we have a constitutional republic. The question he now has is, “are we doomed”? The majority can now plunder the minority. We can continue but will only work if most Americans still have hope in the American dream. Will only survive if the majority continue to believe in the capacity in self-advancement. People must believe they can be personally successful.

I look at immigrants are assets. Must offer migrants and children of migrants the promise of success. Individuals must believe they can succeed. We should leave their tax money with individuals. If we don’t voters will be seeking wealth by voting.

Conclude: it is harder to sell our message. But that is what has to happen.

In answer to a question on Trump v Clinton, very weak support, based on no more than his promise at the debates to support the eventual nominee.