Republican leaders ought to back Trump
It has occurred to me that there is an unfair practice occurring within the Republican Party. In the early period of weeding out presidential candidates for this 2016 election, the party stressed the need for fair play. The party insisted on getting a commitment from all candidates to support, after the convention, whichever candidate emerged victorious.
Recall that Donald Trump at first hesitated to agree to that protocol. Well, he finally did give his word and then he ended up emerging victorious from the 12 candidates. I would really like to have been able to vote for Ben Carson, or several of the others, but will now be voting for Trump following the spirit of fair play. However, some party leaders are now refusing to support Trump as their candidate. Is this fair play? Are they not also expected to support the victorious candidate? Or are they allowed to be exceptions from the spirit of that agreement?
These party leaders, who no doubt were the instigators of the need for the promise, are the very ones not supporting Trump. How about that! As a former member of the Democratic Party, I switched to the Republican Party for a number of reasons. I am now considering going Independent, but I will wait until this election is over to do so, if I still see the need.
All other Republican candidates, for whatever office, who do not support Trump will not receive my vote. I’ll be especially vigilant about the leadership of the party. I’m getting so tired of voting to keep certain candidates out of office. Can’t we have candidates we can happily vote for? Why do we always have to be in the position of selecting the least of two evils?
Thomas J. Caulfield