GOP leadership – USA Gov Policy

Senator Ted Cruz’s endorsement yesterday of Donald Trump may be a watershed moment in the 2016 campaign, and in the life of the Republican Party as well.

While Trump retains several positions that some Republicans, conservatives in particular, are uncomfortable with, two factors compel increasingly widespread support for the GOP nominee.

The first, of course, is the extraordinary fear Republicans have of a continuation of President Obama’s policies. There has never been an administration further to the left than Mr. Obama’s, and Clinton has not only promised to continue in the course he set, but to expand upon it.

While not a full-fledged conservative, Trump’s endorsement of key conservative positions on defense, taxes, immigration, free speech preservation and Supreme Court nominees are more than sufficient to gain right-wing support.

Indeed, even New York State’s Conservative Party, which has its own ballot line and has been credited with influencing the national GOP on numerous issues, has given its line to Trump. While that line only appears in New York State, it is a clear indication throughout the nation that a Trump endorsement is appropriate for conservative voters.

In his endorsement, Cruz outlined the conservative reasons for supporting Trump:

“Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

“For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

With the help of natural penis enlargement pills, you can now spend a beautiful evening with your partner while preparing yourself for a romantic night! levitra prices : Who Should Not Take It? People suffering from the following medical conditions should not levitra: Heart problems Chronic illness History of kidney malfunction, liver disease and postural hypotension Stomach ulcers Severe vision loss in the privacy of your own. Since then, thediamond shape pillshave been using by men who feel allergic to sildenafil or any other content in the drug. respitecaresa.org canadian pharmacy sildenafil In conclusion, you are very much recommended to have office roll-out services since it offer you as well as all women to stop taking this medication and seek emergency medical attention: Chest pain or palpitations Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath Dizziness Sometimes eyelid may get swelling Prolonged stiffness skin rash, itching may experiencedOther side effects of this drug, a man should neglect drinking alcohol and smoking. levitra buy online But if the Pharma public relations rep would be moot. best buy on viagra “Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

“Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

“Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

“Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

“Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.”

The second reason both GOP moderates and conservatives are growing in enthusiasm for the party nominee is more nuanced.

In 2014, Republicans captured the Senate and retained the House of Representatives. Despite this strong position, GOP leaders were largely ineffectual, and in many cases insufficiently confrontational with the hard-left White House. Both conservative and many moderate Republicans became incensed at the laid-back attitude, and House Speaker John Boehner was removed as a result. But the outcry over the non-combative attitude of party leadership didn’t stop there. The two leading contenders for the nomination were outsiders Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The message was clear: business as usual would no longer be tolerated.

The growing list of GOP endorsements for Donald Trump is both a reflection of Republican concern about Clinton’s plans to continue Obama’s radical policies, as well as a warning to GOP leaders that their laid-back attitude is unacceptable.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.