Bernie Sanders supporters aren’t the only ones frustrated with the DNC. So is the press. After a single day on the ground, the Left’s cheerleaders are already fed up with the horrible conditions at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. And they aren’t just talking about the gender-free bathroom (although that’s gotten its own share of complaints). The event is so disorganized that people like Yahoo News’s editor-in-chief took to Twitter to complain. “To be totally objective and nonpartisan: the logistics at DNC are appalling. Squalid hotels, sweltering workspace, no directions. Chaos.”
From the New York Times to CNN, reporters everywhere are exasperated, railing against the distance between venues, lack of air conditioning, late busses, and security lines. It makes you wonder: if the Democrats can’t run a convention, how could they possibly run a country? Inside Wells Fargo Arena, the party has been rocked by the email scandal, which pulled back the curtain on the DNC’s vicious attack politics.
Making matters worse, another terrorist attack in France came just hours after the DNC wrapped up Day 1. Yet even after the string of violence across Europe these last two weeks, not one of the Democrats’ 61 speakers even mentioned the word terrorism from the stage. Politifact confirmed the glaring omission this morning, noting that, “Based on our searches of C-SPAN closed-captioning text, Congressional Quarterly transcripts and other video archiving services, we couldn’t find any speaker who mentioned ‘ISIS,’ ‘Islamic’ ‘terror,’ ‘terrorist,’ or ‘terrorism’ during the first day of the convention.”
Could there be any clearer contrast between the two parties? The evidence isn’t just obvious in their event planning, but their platforms, their procedures (the DNC debating its platform in secret, while the RNC broadcast theirs on TV) their presenters, and even their protesters — which, for the DNC, are its own people! The Democrats are in trouble, and frankly, that’s a good sign. It means that there’s hope for stopping what would essentially be Act III of Barack Obama’s big government, anti-faith, and anti-family agenda, which continues to bankrupt our country financially and morally.
Trending: Will Oregon Voters Defund Abortions?
I know there are a number of conservative Christians who are wrestling with what to do in this election. I understand completely, because I’ve had to wrestle with the same. I did my very best to try and secure an outcome in the primary that, based on my knowledge and understanding, would have provided the best possible future for our nation. I did not succeed in that effort. Instead, set before every American are two candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The idea of a third-party candidate riding onto the scene on a white horse isn’t going to happen (short of the rapture).
So we have two choices. There isn’t any question in my mind as to what Hillary Clinton would do as president. First, she would appoint liberal activist justices to the Supreme Court, as well as to the lower courts. Need we be reminded that it was the Court that paved the way for the deaths of over 50 million unborn babies with their activist decision in 1973? Under Clinton’s nominees, there will be more Obergefell-like decisions that defy science, history, and truth well into the next generation. As if that weren’t enough, her track record as Secretary of State made it clear she had absolutely zero concern for religious liberty when she strong-armed country after country to adopt pro-LBGT laws.
Will Donald Trump be a champion of conservatism? I doubt it. There are no guarantees as to what kind of president he will be. But in my opinion, it is worth the risk for the following reasons. First, the only other option is Clinton, which — for all of the reasons stated above — is not an option. Trump has shown that he’s listening and cares about gaining conservative support. Many people may not realize it, but Donald Trump is the first candidate to ever release a list of potential court picks, all of whom are solidly conservative.
As I’ve previously mentioned, as a part of the Republican Platform Committee, I also witnessed the Trump campaign break the pattern of campaigns bullying delegates to ensure that the platform isn’t “too conservative.” Thanks to their hands-off approach in 2016, the GOP now has the most conservative platform in its history. Trump also chose a known conservative as his running mate. If you’ve read this Update or listened to me on “Washington Watch” over the last year, you know I’ve been profoundly disappointed in Indiana Governor Mike Pence for lacking the courage to stand up for religious freedom against the big corporate bullies who have allowed themselves to become puppets for LGBT activists. However, by selecting Mike, Donald Trump was making clear that he is trying to connect with conservatives. I give him credit for his efforts.
As someone who’s been in politics for two decades, I’ve actually seen a more legitimate effort to work with evangelicals on behalf of the Trump campaign than I’ve personally witnessed from the last three Republican presidential campaigns. I cannot guarantee that we will be elated with a Trump presidency. In my view, conservatives who are supporting Trump are taking a calculated, but informed risk — but they do so knowing what the alternative is.
For more from Philadelphia, don’t miss Ken Blackwell’s powerful new piece in the American Thinker, “Democratic Platform: Killing the Unborn Is Fine with Us.”
DISCLAIMER: Tony Perkins is speaking in his personal capacity and not on behalf of any of the nonprofit organizations he leads.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.