I have given this a little more thought in the last couple of days.
Here we have 2 candidates, they both have big egos. I say this as a Cruz supporter.
Both say they want what is best for or Country, and I believe both of them do.
The speech was seen and approved by the Trump campaign.
Donald himself tweeted that he had read it beforehand.
There is no evidence that the speech was changed.
It was unnecessary for the Trump operatives to whip up the crowd against Cruz, a charge they do not deny.
It did nothing to bring Cruz supporters the were on the fence, into the fold, but I don't think it hurt Cruz as much as everyone seems to think.
At the same time, Cruz's speech didn't help or hurt Trump all that much, either.
As both are self proclaimed Christians, an 2 things we are all taught as children would have gone along way here:
Humility and Forgiveness.
Neither demonstrated this,IMO.
Neither (as far as we know) asked the other what it would take from the other to reach an accord, an agreement, or an endorsement.
Cruz was in a tough spot. he couldn't endorse a candidate that went after his wife and father the way he did.
Trump was in a tough spot. He couldn't have someone who called him a pathological lair, when he dropped out, dictate terms and conditions.
All can argue, and with some merit, who said what first, etc.... it seems kind of small and petty now.
Again, Humility and Forgiveness.
Unfortunately, Pride and Ego got in the way of both, and the real losers here were us, the voters.
Both will live and fight on, and I believe that Cruz still has a future in politics.
Reagan, Ted Kennedy, Chris Christie, all spoke at previous conventions, without mentioning the candidates by name, or giving outright endorsements, and all continued their political careers, and one did go on to become president.
one more point:
We all claim we want politicians, who, right or wrong, stand up for what they believe in, damn the torpedoes.
Here, both do so, and we are all up in arms about it.
So, what do we really want our politicians to be like?
There has been a lot of talk about making America safer, about making America Great Again,
what I am looking for is "Making America Free Again".
That means less government. That means not surrendering our land, our laws, our people, to foreign governmental authority and asserting our sovereignty. That means reducing the scope and size of the federal Government. If you want to make the Constitutionally Authorized remnant more efficient, by all means, have at, but shrink it first. Get it out of my light sockets, my toilet tank, my kid's heads, public restrooms, back off my business and let me hire whom I choose, and don't make rules for my back yard 2000 miles and three climate zones away, when the only opportunity to even see that land has been from 27000 ft. on the way to the other coast.
And get the government's meathooks out of my pocket.
Why does the Federal Government own (roughly) 3 acres out of every ten in the US? Consider that most of that ownership is West of the Mississippi River, and, for those of us who live here, the Robber Baron is the Government, who also seizes water rights, effectively controlling the use of the rest of that land. Please don't tell me it is so people who will never see that land nor set foot on it can 'appreciate' it, while those of us who live here are fenced out or forced to travel that backcountry on foot or horseback.
That same meddling government, though, has abdicated its duty to guard our borders while projecting 'force' thousands of miles away, even as it shrinks the size of our Armed Forces and reduces the efficiency thereof through social experimentation. Even when it engages in the theater of 'looking out for our safety', it does so by paying attention to every group but that most likely to effect our destruction, to avoid 'profiling'.
The housing bubble, the bust, and the destruction of the savings of millions of Americans was orchestrated through the CRA and other Federal Programs, with requirements which forced financial institutions to either stop making real estate loans or discard the formerly safe and well based banking practices they had used for generations. The middle class suffered, then got to pick up the tab to bail out private corporations at taxpayer expense. If one was a holder of common stock or bonds from those corporations, one likely lost that investment as well as a condition of the Federal Bailout, using tax money.
Unlike a household which has to stop spending when the money runs out, the government continues to borrow more from the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve. At present, the total debt this country has exceeds GDP. Everything produced in this nation in a year does not meet the amount of the National Debt. Instead of practicing constraint, those tasked with the fiscal matters in our government continue to borrow and spend like a binging ex-wife to be running up the credit cards on the way out the door, while they, themselves, and their staffers are frequently immune to or exempt from the very laws imposed on us. Obamacare is a shining example.
There are many more concerns, but the answer is reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government and returning it to a focus on its Constitutionally assigned duties, for which it was empowered in the first place. Return power to the States and the People which has been usurped, and let each of those States act as it deems appropriate in all but those matters which are necessitated in guarding our borders. Let the people decide how much government they want in their areas, and let them pay for that level of services.
None should be immune to the laws we pass, a concept that goes back to the Magna Carta.
That's just a beginning, but to me the Constitution Party looks better and better.
I have no illusions that 'most' Americans would readily accept the sweeping changes which would accompany a return to the very small and unintrusive amount of Federal Governance outlined in the Constitution, but if this is a question of what America needs, I think that is it.
