Just read Congressman Will Hurd's (R) op-ed in the
New York Times. The initial reaction to Hurd from a Trump supporter might well be negative. But "upon further review", it is an apple and oranges type argument, which sheds no real light on the problem.
There is a lot of partisan politics these days, and not all of it is in one party against the other. There is a significant faction of "never-Trumpers" in the GOP. These individuals do not support the President and they tend to do so in the a most noisy way possible.
Hurd's voting record seems solid. But he is against the wall. The wall is Trump's biggest initiative, indeed his most important initiative. But Hurd represents a predominantly Latino district, which is along the US Mexican border. His electoral majorities have been razor thin. He could be vulnerable to a Democrat challenge.
So, it is unfortunate, but a reality, that Hurd is probably playing up to the never Trumpers. His opposition is political, but not in practice, it is not much of a difference.
What are we arguing about here but a difference of opinion? Hurd doesn't oppose enforcing the border and the immigration laws ( he says ), but doing it a different way. It is not a substantive difference unless the results are
not pretty much the same as what has always been.
If you oppose a wall, then why? A wall will work. Physical barriers work. His position is in favor of non physical barriers. These type of "barriers" are proposed because their proponents do not wish real enforcement of immigration law. However, non physical barriers might work, provided that they are enforced. These non physical barriers have existed all along, and are not being enforced. Why should any new ones be enforced? What we are really talking about is
enforcement, not the wall.
Consequently, it is an apples or oranges argument. Maybe your preference is apples, and mine is oranges. The principle at stake is the same. Will immigration law be enforced or not?
Do never Trumpers want immigration law to be enforced, or not?
Now for his criticisms of Trump in the
New York Times. It is likewise an apples and oranges argument. Hurd argues that Russia is an adversary, not an ally. But who argues with him on
that? Russia may well be an adversary, but we are at peace with them at present. Would it be better to go to war with them? Is it better to talk with them, or start lobbing missiles at them?
The argument then is not whether Russia is an adversary, but what is the best way to advance American interests if these interests conflict with Russia's.
Certainly American interests lie in better cyber security. Who would argue with
that?
He accuses Trump of letting himself be manipulated by Putin. Let's get real here. Does Trump really owe Putin anything? The 2016 election was not decided by Russia, for heaven's sake. The Democrat's claims of Russia hacking are
unproven. Even if they did, it didn't make any material difference in the outcome. Hillary lost because of Hillary, not Russia.
But this doesn't mean the hacking didn't happen, nor does it mean that Russia is innocent. The problem here is that the Democrats have politicized a national security issue, and wish to use it in order to remove Trump from office. Hurd is allowing the Democrats to further their objectives.
Hurd should look in the mirror and ask if he is allowing himself to manipulated by the Democrats. His comments play right into their hands.
Does he really believe that this helps him win reelection? Would it not be better to talk on what is known to be true, as opposed to what someone else
claims to be true ( which may not be )?
The apples here is national security. Everyone should be on the same page with that one. The oranges are the politics. Hurd is helping the Democrats make political points, but is he really helping American national security with such op-eds?
