BloggeRhythms

Love him, hate him, or simply frustrated and confused by what’s happened to their party, Republicans are now seemingly stuck with Trump as their presidential candidate. Unless something truly unusual occurs between now and election day.

On Trump’s part, however, he appears to be sincerely trying to prove that he truly is a Conservative who will be a party leader they can rely on and eventually, trust.  In that regard, on Wednesday he released a list of 11 individuals he’s considering to find a replacement for Supreme Court Justice, Anton Scalia.

According to Jeremy Diamond @cnn.com, Conservative groups The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, assisted Trump in selecting nominees if the opportunity arose for him to fill the vacancy, “according to a source familiar with the meeting.”

Trump’s unusual action, disclosing candidates at such an early date, has already shown to be a reassuring step on his part whereas: “Some prominent Republicans who vigorously opposed Trump's campaign during the primary have begun rallying around the real estate magnate, arguing that Trump would at least nominate more conservative justices than Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.”

The candidate list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas and was warmly received by Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.

John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage foundation, called Trump's selections "excellent, adding that the list should be reassuring to those conservatives who have had doubts about Trump's judicial appointments.

"This is a pretty fine list that I would think would satisfy for most conservatives," Malcolm said. "If these are the kinds of people whom he is going to consider, that should satisfy any conservative." 

“Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, reacted positively to the list, saying it was a "smart move" for the Republican presidential candidate to put out the names. 

"It's reassuring for conservatives to know what he'll be looking for were he elected president. Obviously, he's never been in a position to make appointments like a governor and others who have been in an executive position. He's been a businessman, and so I think this does provide some reassurance and conservatives will find it encouraging," Cornyn added. 

“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, meanwhile, called Trump's list "impressive" in a statement.

“Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and law professor at American University Washington College of Law, described the list as "red meat to conservatives. These are 11 well-regarded conservative judges with consistent credentials; folks who I think could reasonably be expected to try and follow in Justice Scalia's footsteps." 

“They are also relatively young, he said. "So this list is meant to tantalize and mobilize conservatives." 

Which means that, item by item and issue by issue, if Trump continues making decisions that will assuage Conservative's worries about his true political leanings, he’ll very likely be able to bring the Republican party back together. And that will be particularly beneficial in November, whereas the Democrats are in the process of dissembling their own party altogether.   

Along the same lines, Chris Stirewalt posted a quote from Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier”  yesterday, as follows: “[Trump’s released list of Supreme Court justice picks] allows some conservatives held back to come out and support him and say ‘now I’m not worried so much about the Supreme Court.’ And I think that’s going to be a very important step. It starts this sort of cascade of who’s going to come out and support Trump. And once it starts, it’s not going to stop.”

On a wider platform, William Cummings @usatoday.com, reports: “So much for the all the pundits and experts who said Donald Trump wouldn't stand a chance in the general election.

“Trump would narrowly defeat Hillary Clinton 45-42%, according to a new national poll released by Fox News Wednesday. The three-point lead is within the survey's margin of error.” 

As far as specific voter segments are concerned: “The poll shows Trump with the edge despite a 14-point deficit among women. Clinton would win among women 50-36%, but Trump would win by a wider, 55-33% margin among men.” 

While Clinton holds a whopping 90-7% lead among blacks and a 62-23% lead among Hispanics, Trump makes up the difference thanks to a 55-31% lead among whites, including a 9-point lead among white women.” 

And where he will undoubtedly make further significant inroads, he currently leads by 16 points among Independents, according to the poll. With the most important point being, that up until he won the likely nomination only a week and a half ago, he was considered the easiest candidate for Bill’s wife to beat. 

Which brings us to today’s update on her. 

Amie Parnes @the hill.com, tilted today’s column: “Clinton fury with Sanders grows” 

One Clinton ally and former Clinton aide said: “Unfortunately, [Sanders is] choosing the path of burning down the house. He continues with character attacks against Hillary. He continues with calling the Democratic Party corrupt, and he not only risks damaging Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party but he's currently doing it."  

Clinton allies say Sanders is piling on by insisting that she debate him ahead of California's June 7 primary on Fox News, “a network Clinton supporters see as fanning the flames between Sanders supporters and the former secretary of State.”  

As far as the numbers are concerned: “Clinton currently leads Sanders by 274 pledged delegates, according to The Associated Press’s totals. Including superdelegates, Clinton is 760 delegates ahead of Sanders and just 90 total delegates away from the 2,383 needed to clinch the party's presidential nomination.  

However, since Bill’s wife huge leads includes superdelegates, Sanders has argued that “he can convince them to switch their loyalty and that he could cut into Clinton’s lead with pledged delegates by winning California.” 

Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement: “In the past three weeks voters in Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon respectfully disagreed with Secretary Clinton. We expect voters in the remaining eight contests also will disagree." 

“Supporters of the Vermont senator have claimed the primary has been stolen from their candidate because of the use of superdelegates and closed state contests at which only Democrats may vote.  

“He needs to stop doing this or Donald Trump will win,” one of Clinton allies said. “While his intentions started off in the best of ways, he’s shown he has no loyalty to the Democratic Party. One hopes he understands that his actions could result in giving Donald Trump the nuclear launch codes.” 

The polls, however, could give more ammunition to Sanders, who says he would be a stronger candidate in the fall against Trump. 

Briggs said in a statement on Thursday: "With almost every national and state poll showing Sen. Sanders doing much, much better than Secretary Clinton against Donald Trump, it is clear that millions of Americans have growing doubts about the Clinton campaign." 

And then, at the article’s end came the clincher, although that wasn't likely the author’s intent. Ms Parnes wrote: “Democrats continue to point out that the party survived a bitter 2008 primary between Clinton and then-Sen. Barack Obama.” But what she left out was the fact that Obama won.  

Bringing up the ongoing question once more: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?    

That’s it for today folks.   

 

Adios