Borchers on Hillary & Trump

PatBorchers01Pat Borchers is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St. You can read more from him at his blog, The Way I See It.

The Creighton Law Professor, former Dean at Creighton Law and former candidate for Legislature, was set to give this speech to the Nebraska Taypayers for Freedom picnic last weekend. Alas, God thought it would be better to have this speech read on Leavenworth St., and thusly made it rain.

But Borchers also was interviewed on KFAB regarding the Hillary email scandal, so today you get Double Borchers! First the short radio interview with a legal-eagle view on the proceedings, and then Borchers’ speech on Donald Trump

Those of you who know me know that I don’t usually read from a prepared text, but because I want to choose my words carefully I am.

I’m either the worst or the best person imaginable to give this speech. We started with 17 Republican presidential candidates. Donald Trump wasn’t in my top 10. He might not have been in my top 16. But he needs people like me to vote for him if he’s going to win.

By sheer force of personality he took over the GOP debates and with very little traditional campaign structure dispatched his opponents one by one. Along the way he said a lot of things I wish he hadn’t said, though I’m a little more sensitive than most on this because Megyn Kelly was a student of mine longer ago than she (I suspect) or I would like to admit.

Trump’s policy instincts are good. He tapped into a deep resentment that many Americans feel about a distant, unresponsive and increasingly Big-Brotherish federal government. The brutal truth is that if you are self-employed in Nebraska, and making $38,000 a year in taxable income, 51 cents of your last dollar goes to the government and 40 of those cents are to the federal government.

Trump understands that we can’t have security with porous borders. He isn’t going to populate the Supreme Court with ideological clones of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He understands that you can’t rebuild America’s manufacturing sector and our infrastructure when we give tax breaks to corporations to move offshore and punish them for staying in the U.S. He realizes that putting down ISIS and other terror groups isn’t going to happen by wishing them away or pretending that their motives aren’t based on a twisted theology.

The disastrous Obama-Clinton Middle East policies left us with a breeding ground for ISIS and created a refugee crisis that includes many genuine refugees, but also a path into the U.S. and our western allies for people intent on doing grotesque evil. There could be 100 more Benghazis, San Bernardinos, Parises, Orlandos and Istanbuls.

As to those who perished in those and other attacks, Lincoln’s words from 160 years ago ring true: “we highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth in freedom – and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth.”

Trump knows less about how government works than any major candidate in recent history, but maybe that’s a good thing. If all goes well, perhaps he will be a chairman-of-the board sort of President and put conservatives around him.
As imperfect as he is, Trump is the only person not named Hillary Rodham Clinton who has any chance at being President come noon on January 20, 2017, and that alone is enough reason to support him.

Obama’s and Clinton’s signature achievement has been to move the Democratic Party, and with it the United States, closer to a Euro-style socialist regime.

I’m going to read a few planks from a party platform: Increase taxes on couples making more than $200,000. Create 210,000 new government jobs. Break up retail and investment banking. Increase public spending on health care. Increase taxes on bank profits. Maintain high corporate taxes on large companies.

If you think that sounds like the Obama-Clinton Democratic Party platform, you’re almost right, but not quite. It’s from the French Socialist Party platform of 2012.

Trump is the only thing standing between us and a government even less recognizable to our founders. Hillary Clinton isn’t more moderate than Bernie Sanders. It’s that she’s a liar (as shown dramatically regarding her e-mail servers) and Sanders is basically honest, as odd as his views are.

Anyone who thinks that she won’t turn Obamacare into Hillarycare is fooling himself. Anyone who believes she’ll move forcefully to reinstate sanctions against Iran when it ignores its treaty obligations and starts building nuclear weapons is fooling himself. Anyone who thinks she won’t increase taxes and drive us into a recession is fooling himself. In her soul, she makes her husband look conservative.

Perhaps you hear the siren call of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson – though claiming to be a fiscal conservative – more than doubled New Mexico’s debt when he served as governor from 1995 to 2003. New Mexico increased state spending over 7% a year. And he didn’t have to deal with the Great Recession. He favors abortion on demand. In a recent interview he boasted that he hadn’t smoked marijuana in seven weeks. He opposes most immigration restrictions and strongly supports DAPA, deferred action for parents of immigrants.

If you want a conservative, it’s a better bet writing in Elizabeth Warren’s or Brad Ashford’s name than voting Gary Johnson.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If Mrs. Clinton wins, her coat tails will surely be long enough to flip the Senate and perhaps the House. That happened in 2008 and that’s how we got Obamacare. Two years with control of the White House and both houses of Congress is plenty of time to do damage. Bill Clinton got it in 1992. Obama got it in 2008. And Mrs. Clinton could well in 2016.

I close with a line from Atticus Finch’s closing argument in “To Kill a Mockingbird”: “In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God.”


  1. Anonymous says:

    Who cares? If Borchers had any insights into Nebraska politics he should have used them during his disastrous legislative race last year.

    • Anonymous says:

      It was this year’s primary where he lost though his NADC report shows he paid huge money to the same Lincoln firm who have a pattern of going nasty and losing for their client. Borchers was led astray by those who do not know how to win by their consistent failure to understand the voting public. Ask Governor Bruning.

      • Somebody loan me 90,000 dollars says:

        What a waste of 90 Grand! Think of all the good that money could have done elsewhere.

      • Pat Borchers says:

        I didn’t go negative until one of my opponents sent out a postcard with me superimposed over a hog. I did not contract with any firm in Lincoln. Although I did raise and spend a lot of money by primary standards (about $95K) I got outspent heavily in radio ads aimed at me in the last week. I narrowly missed advancing to the general. I did my best and I’m still glad I ran. With the benefit of hindsight I’d probably do some things differently but I’m proud of the race I ran in what turned out to be the most interesting of the primaries. If you have advice for me, email it to Sweeper and ask him to send it to me.

    • Somebody loan me 90,000 dollars says:

      Great point. If you are a member of that nutty group that meets at Walnut Hill Park you might care.
      Nobody else does I bet.

  2. Sparkles says:

    Too bad someone like Ernest T. Bass, or maybe Bubba, from the movie Forest Gump, wasn’t nominated to lead the Republican party.
    It would have been even more entertaining to read the convoluted justification of how either of them would have been far better Presidential timber than HRC.

    Also, while you’re alone in that booth this November, please remember that Atticus Finch also declared:
    “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

  3. HTH says:

    Pat – good post, but it’s lacking in one major area: in order for HRC and GJ to be worse, Trump has to be better. What makes you so sure that the man that has espoused Muslim banning/surveillance, criminal repercussions for women getting abortions, forced deportations, murder of innocent civilians abroad, and leaving NATO would be less destructive than HRC?

    I think where I disagree with your analysis is this: what may be worse for the next four years (which I would contest given the above, but even assuming that) may be what’s best for the next 20. What does electing Trump today spell for the electability of the GOP in 2020? In 2024? 2036? Parties, even major parties, have been dispelled by personality politics before.

    At any rate, thanks for sharing.


    • Pat Borchers says:

      I’m not sure that Trump would be a good President for many of the reasons you list. It’s just that I am highly confident that Mrs. Clinton would be awful. I’m also perfectly confident that (barring a major health event or something) that they are only two with more than a .1% chance of being President. It’s sort of like having someone with a gun to your head and he says “the bottle on the left will kill you and the bottle on the right might kill you and you must drink from one of the two.” We’ll, I’d opt for the bottle on the right. Of course, the answer you’d like to give is that I want a third bottle that I know won’t kill me. I’ve cast third party votes before but only if I were truly indifferent as between the two major party candidates. Here I prefer Trump even though, as I think I made clear, he was far from my favorite. I started off giving money to Rubio and Fiorina, as they faded I gave money to Cruz. As far as the downstream consequences go, the one that worries me the most is the 3 or so seats that will likely be vacant on the Supreme Court in the next four years.

      • HTH says:

        It’s funny. I see your viewpoint, Pat, but we see the same choices with different faces. Even as a lifelong conservative (and until recently, Republican), Trump’s rhetoric has convinced me he is the bottle that will definitely kill you. Clinton, on the other hand, is corrupt, has an atrocious foreign (and domestic) policy history, and unforgivably deceitful. But, do I think that four years of Clinton will put us on an irreversible path to destruction? No. We survived 8 years of Obama, we can survive four or HRC. I do not feel that same optimism for Trump.

        On the other hand, Pat, your point about the Supreme Court is well taken, right up until the point we get Justice Christie or some BS like that. But even so, consider this – I am one of a growing number of millennials that has grown disenfranchised with the GOP as a direct result of (inter alia) Trump. And I say that as a white, straight man. Many politically active Republicans my age feel similarly. Even if, by some electoral nightmare, Trump is elected in November, have you considered what a GOP defined by Trump would spell for its long term survival? Sure, best case scenario you keep SCOTUS red for another decade or so. But then what? What’s that worth if you can’t keep a majority in the House or Senate, let alone the White House (which the GOP demographically has almost no chance of getting even with a reasonable candidate)? SCOTUS is significant, but it’s not worth much if you don’t have the other two branches.

        A Trump presidency is the death knell to the GOP. Maybe not right away, but without a doubt into the future. The same trend is noticeable in other countries – majoritarian politics only last as long as the majority.

        Food for thought. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, Pat.

      • Been Sassy says:


        You’re a “millennial”, huh? Guess what…nobody gives a shat what you think, so go comb your beard or something.

  4. Oracle says:

    “Trump support” is a great Rorschach test for me. It clearly categorizes people I never wish to associate with or trust with any decisions that might affect me. This post is a definite reputation hit on the author.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Oracle, I grew up in an age where politics did not divide friends. I am not going to change. I think Borchers is letting partisanship overrule common sense, and he, I am sure, thinks the same of me. In all personal dealings he has been an honorable actor and a good friend, and as V-P and Dean he made decisions that impacted my life and I never same anything other than a guy doing his best. Trump frightens me but Borchers does not.

  5. Really? says:

    “The disastrous Obama-Clinton Middle East policies left us with a breeding ground..”

    Any comments on how two wars in the Middle East by President Bush and President Bush may have had a role in Middle East policies?

    • Pat Borchers says:

      I can’t find much fault with Bush 41. He booted Hussein out of Kuwait. Bush 43 deserves some blame but Obama’s decision to get entirely out of Iraq in 2011 was the beginning of a lot of the problem. As awful as many of the leaders of Muslim countries were at least they were relatively stable. I’d rather have them back than ISIS blowing up people in bars and airport terminals.

  6. Sparkles says:

    This desperate lurch at justification seems to have become is a common refrain –
    “Trump knows less about how government works than any major candidate in recent history, but maybe that’s a good thing.”

    Substitute in that phrase any profession, other than government, and take it out for a spin.

    For example –
    ‘My electrician knows less about how to wire a house than any electrician in modern history – but maybe that’s a good thing


    ‘My accountant knows less..


    ‘My proctologist…

    • Pat Borchers says:

      Well fair enough. Clinton knows a whole lot about government and I’m confident that she’ll put it to bad use. But Trump isn’t the equivalent of your electrician (or whatever vocation). He’s the President of the company that hires the electricians. So the question is not whether he can fix the broken light switch the question is whether he can hire someone who can fix your light switch. Mrs. Clinton would rip it out and leave live bare wires there, at least that’s how I perceive it.

      • Sparkles says:

        I respect your opinion Pat. You’re clearly a thoughtful man.

        Thank you for the tip o’ the cap.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        And the way I see it, you’re nothing more than an apologist for Trump, Pat Borchers. You admit his failings but support him because…Hillary has failings. But…as President, Trump might decide to forego the hiring of the electrician altogether, preferring to outsource broken switches offshore for repair! And I guess that as President, Trump might simply declare “bankruptcy” should revenue fall short! And perhaps as President, Trump would appoint authoritarians in our courts to strip away those vestiges of the Bill of Rights we still retain.

        I’m not conservative nor liberal. So please explain: How does a professed “conservative” support, with any measure of credibility, such a crony capitalist as Donald Trump? Is your acceptance of Trump indicative of ‘conserving’ crony capitalism? I’ll take the marijuana edibles-eating, self-determining, liberty-loving Gary Johnson, thank-you.

        I can’t say I “respect” your opinion about Trump given the illogic of supporting any candidate who just might do any damn thing he pleases!
        P.S. Do they really teach students at Creighton that “you can’t prove a negative” in logic class? I heard that stated for the record once during a legislative debate at the unicam.

  7. Somebody loan me 90,000 dollars says:

    The number of people that care what this guys says or thinks you can count on one hand.

  8. Black Like Bud says:

    With everything that’s happening in the news I think Bud Pettigrew should tell us all what it’s like being a minority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.