Before Trump entered the race, the GOP field was boring. What has Jeb Bush or George Pataki or Scott Walker said that stirred the smallest bit of interest? They seem to be decent, hardworking people, but they are hesitant to speak boldly. If attempts are boldness are made, their comments have to be “clarified” later to assure the public that no boldness is happening here—that there would be no new ideas except those that support and amplify the (Democrat-approved) status quo.
The only excitement around the race centered on the movements of the declared non-candidate. Did someone talk to Romney or a member of the inner circle who indicated that he could be tempted to enter the fray? There is also a strain of the too-little-too-late journalism speculating “maybe we had Romney wrong after all, and he wasn’t such a fool on foreign policy.” For someone who is not running, Romney draws a fair amount of reluctantly favorable press attention.
Donald Trump entered a flabby field, and the immediate assessment was that he could be counted on for some comedic relief before flaming out and moving on to make his next billion-dollar business deal.
Within 24 hours of his announcement, I received a giddy email from someone who is distinctly non-political. She was completely won over and wowed by Trump. She watched every minute of his speech, hanging on every word. She wasn’t the only one. Social media was set ablaze with the thought of Trump candidacy. He clearly tapped into something that was swimming beneath the American psyche.
The second indication is the speed with which the vitriol was whipped up by anti-Trump brigade, with the New York Daily News leading the way, proclaiming that Trump was a “clown.” The “clown” characterization has stuck, and supplemented by “bigot.”
Any defamatory comments about Trump sticks to the he-is-a-clown-and-a-bigot narrative—this includes not only those posted by liberal readers to news stories on the internet, but also those written by very well paid pundits who were once darlings of the Republican party (the same ones who assured the public that Obama wasn’t so bad, and wouldn’t change the US that much; after all, how much real executive power does a president have?).
(An observation on “bigot”: This word at one time was very useful, but it has lost its punch. We are at the point that one can be an ice-cream “bigot” for not wanting nuts or preferring one flavor over another.)
The race to the presidency is tainted with unspoken and unacknowledged post-presidential ambitions. Because of the experience with Clinton (the first) mounting the gravy train on exiting the White House, the electorate has a right to be a little suspicious of ulterior motivations for making the presidential run. In the past, presidents were expected to fade into the woodwork of their home states—building libraries, doing occasional good works, and generally keeping their mouths shut.
It is troubling to the voters if the candidates wish to use the presidency as a stepping-stone to greater riches, and will grant political favors with the expectation of future tributes. This is one factor that may work in Mrs. Clinton’s favor. She and her husband have already been amply enriched by his-and-her activities, that what else could she want? As a couple, they have more than enough money to keep them on life support in style for a period that extends well beyond their natural lives.
Because of Donald Trump’s wealth, it is less likely that he will engage in petty favor making with foreign powers. His post-presidential plan is identical to his plan were he not to be president at all. In that way, he is more like Harry Truman, who left the White House without even taking a pencil because, “It didn’t belong to me.”
If Donald Trump is not the GOP candidate, will he run on a third-party? For a country that has had a bitter experience with the electoral consequences of third-party candidates the real question is which GOP loser will be the spoiler?
It’s not an invariable rule, but any candidate who sends the left into a moral-panic frenzy is tobe supported to some extent.
Perhaps Mark Steyn put it best:
And then there’s this: Trump Reduces CNN To Outright Lying: Sanctuary Cities Don’t Exist (They Say).
Trump’s personality is entertaining because it’s both easy to mock and pretty much unfettered by what people think about him. The problem I see is that his moral center is his own ego. We don’t need to go there again; it’s dangerous. But let him stay in the race and say things that need to be said (even if said maladroitly) by someone who will take on the media weasels with glee. That gives the less flamboyant candidates permission to discuss otherwise forbidden topics “with more thoughtfulness.”
” … Trump, like other philosophically erratic politicians…”
Steyn betrays himself here.
Damning with faint praise. The slightly sneering neo-conservative put-down.
Who, pray tell, pundit-from-the-North, is a “philosophically steady politician?”
The party-formerly-regarded-as-conservative, the Republican, is split into a couple of powerful anti-traditional-America factions: the Chamber of Commercers, and the neo-conservatives.
The Chamber of Commerce faction is completely in bed (for completely different reasons) with Politically-Correct Progressives on illegal immigration–open the borders, the more the merrier, pack ’em in for picking our cotton, and cleaning our pools, laws be damned. They cloak their anti-traditional-American views in fake conservative plaudits to “free enterprise.”
The neo-conservative faction is a bought-and-paid-for operation of Sheldon Adelson, with his multiple loud-mouthed pundits–Steyn, Kristol, Krauthammer, et al.
The neo-cons have one main focus, which branches out to a couple of related points of focus. Their main focus is to nurture, protect and help Israel. This is done, besides the massive monetary tithes demanded of American taxpayers to their sponsor, by ginning up and prolonging wars in the Middle East. “Look ISIS! They’re coming to get you! War! Now! More!”
The neo-cons are in bed with the PC-Progs, too. Their wars, with PC-Prog assistance (now that they control the executive branch), empower Obama’s handlers, allowing them to crack down on dissenters in the government and society at large (“Look–a Confederate flag! Terrorism! War!”), and justify constant foreign entanglements. Being in a constant state of war empowers the executive like nothing else can.
These two factions of the formerly-conservative Republican Party account for 90% of the current national office-holders and party apparatchiks.
Trump belongs to neither of these factions, and is beholden to neither of those factions. Normal-Americans sense this. Normal-Americans are disgusted by both factions which control the Republican Party. Our support of Trump is a direct reflection of our disgust with Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer. Trump took on both of them, explicitly and by name.
Conservative revolt!
Trump is so refreshing. It is great to have someone unplug our seething frustration with the so called political process where we always end up worse off than at the beginning with “hope, promise and change” leading nowhere but down.
I hope Trump’s presence gives some of the other candidates the courage to at least make an attempt to talk reality and not the mist of political correctness that surrounds it.
Trump is a likable person who is willing to laugh at himself (Ever seen the Visa debit card ad he did some time ago that made it look like he was dumpster diving?).
We need someone like him as president but I’m not sure he would be the right choice. I get the impression he can be a ruthless boss. Government leadership requires more persuasion over passing out orders. I may be wrong but persuasion doesn’t seem his strong suit.
It is not true that the Clintons will not keep lapping up income after the White House should Hillary win. When was the last time any rich person ever stopped sucking in more and more and more cash. Soros, Gates, Anschuetz, Buffet, etc, etc? There is no stopping of the income train for these people, no matter how much they make. Chelsea could use a better apartment–her current one was only a few million. Imagine how much better a 20 or 30 million dollar one would be. It does not stop until these people assume room temperature.
Trump has been rich, bankrupt, rich again. He uses money to attain goals. Unlike many in the political arena, he does not seem to see money as the end, but rather as the means. He was bankrupt once, he can be again (he may be after this run….). He seems to delight in annoying people, which may be why he’s popular right now. He says what he wants and few dare do that.
As for other GOP candidates, this is a party that kisses the back side of causes the base is against, arguing that they can’t win with just the base. They cannot win WITHOUT the base, which is why we have Obama again. Yet they are so utterly clueless and perhaps so greedy and uncaring that they continue to run against the very people they expect to vote for them. This is insanity taken to a whole new level. Thank you Karl Rove.
Gary: I agree to some extent. However, every candidate for president runs on his own ego. Some do a better job of covering what that ego is, but you really are unlikely to run for president without a huge ego that requires stroking. At least we see that clearly in Trump. Bush pretends to not have an ego, but he certainly does have one. I worry more about the pretense than the open admissions.
Kent: My mother picked cotton–not just blacks and immigrants picked cotton. Besides, it’s mostly automated today. Vegetable still require picking, mostly by immigrants, both legal and illegal.
While I disagree with your characterizations of the “party”, in the end, you are correct that Trump is outside of much of the party and not beholden to huge corporate donors to run. That makes him able to say what he thinks, not what he is told to think.
Sheri,
Congratulations on your mother picking cotton–so did all my family–decades ago. And that’s the point–Americans are a small minority of farm workers today.
75% of American farm labor is foreign-born.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/background.aspx#countryoforigin
USDA, which provides the statistics, delicately avoids identifying their immigration status.
Which part of the description of the formerly-conservative party do you disagree with?
The description is demonstrably true.
Here’s some details on the fake-conservatives tugging their forelocks to Adelson:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sheldon-adelson-gop-marco-rubio-2016/2015/04/27/id/640932/
Sheri: you misunderstood, probably because I was too terse. Yes, all have egos inflated to above normal degrees, of course. My admittedly limited impression is that his MORAL center comes from his self-perception. If his tv show is revelatory (and why not since it was billed as reality tv after all), then his motivation is to manipulate other people’s ambitions into ethically questionable situations (e.g., back-biting and -stabbing) so he can weed out the weakest ones and turn the strongest into henchmen serving his purposes. Ivana and former employees could tell you if this is at his core. I’ll wait for more evidence he’s grounded in something more than ego.
Kent: Yes, Americans are a small minority of farm workers today, but I have been told that is because Americans consider this “beneath” them and will not do the work no matter what the wage. An increase in green cards could solve this, but as in other political issues, a rational solution is not considered.
I disagree with what appears to be the belief that cash is the only reason people hold political views. Also, the assertion that neo-cons want a constant state of war. It’s certainly a commonly stated belief, but I find little evidence that a constant state of war is the goal of any particular political party.
Gary: Got it. It is rather though to discern Trump’s actual motive, but that seems to be true of many politicians. As someone once told me, at least when Clinton was in office, he could compromise for the good of the country, unlike Obama who cares only about himself. Yet Obama appeared to be into reconciliation and getting along, if you did not watch him closely. Politicians are masters of deception in so many cases. Trump may not turn out to be a good choice, but at this point, I’m not sure about our choices either. It’s a bit depressing, especially with so many choices available at this point. You would have thought 16 candidates (or whatever number we’re at) would have helped. Doesn’t seem to have, though.
The media really hate Trump. Some of their name calling is over the top. They appear unable to control their rage and hatred. The media hasn’t demonstrated this much vitriol since Nixon.
“I disagree with what appears to be the belief that cash is the only reason people hold political views. Also, the assertion that neo-cons want a constant state of war. It’s certainly a commonly stated belief, but I find little evidence that a constant state of war is the goal of any particular political party. ”
No one said “cash is the only reason,” however, reality is that elections are massively expensive operations–which require massive amounts of cash. Either you have it yourself (Trump), or you grovel for it (all the others at the feet of Shel Adelson).
No one said that a constant state of war is the goal of any party–as mentioned above, it is a FACTION of the formerly-conservative-Republican-Party. The faction for whom constant war is the goal is the neo-conservatives.
Don’t believe it? Observe reality–where do the Congressional fronts (McCain and Graham) for neo-cons show up and what do they babble about? Every single war, every single conflict, McCain and Graham pop up like Energizer bunnies–“war, war, war, now!”
And, lashing up with the Hillary/Brennan/Power/Nuland vile Politically Correct Progressive war machine, the neo-cons have gotten war after war since 2008. Constant, never-ending war–usually prodded, supported, or instigated by the neo-con/PC-Prog lash-up.
Why do you think the establishment Republicans do NOT want an investigation of Benghazi? The neo-cons were in that operation up to their necks. It was a dream come true for them.
A pretty good explanation of neo-cons:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-101-what-do-neoconservatives-believe/6483
“Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not “appeased” or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary. “
Kent: I can’t go that far off the scale. You seem confortable there and I am content to leave you to your beliefs.
I am overly sensitive, or is “neo-con” a trigger to arouse anti-semitism?
Bob,
“I am overly sensitive, or is “neo-con” a trigger to arouse anti-semitism?”
Neo-conservatism’s founders were proudly, and loudly Jewish. As is Adelson (“Israel is my number one concern.”) If that arouses some sort of anti- in your, so be it.
I’m not anti-anything. I’m pro-America. If you put any foreign country above American interests, then we have a problem. In case you haven’t noticed, that’s a huge part of Trump’s appeal. Normal-Americans are sick of foreign interests, whether neo-cons’ or illegal immigrants’, taking front seat to American interests.
Neo-con founders Kristol and Podorhetz were editors of Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee. Many, or most of its “thinkers” also come from the same magazine.
“Commentary
“Describing itself as “America’s premier monthly journal of opinion,” Commentary magazine is widely regarded as the leading outlet for neoconservative writing. Founded in 1945, this American Jewish Committee publication steadily gained ideological influence under the editorships of Iriving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, two of neoconservatism’s founding fathers. Today, Commentary advocates passionate support for Israel, and regime change in at least half a dozen countries deemed hostile to US and Israeli security and interests.”
Pat Buchanan, another actual American conservative doesn’t mince words in describing the neo-con putsch in the formely-conservative Party:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/
If Chump was elected and served 2 terms at least we’d get the joy of seeing 2 or 3 different First Ladies serve over such an 8 yr. span.
Shecky: Like France?
@Kent
“Who, pray tell, pundit-from-the-North, is a “philosophically steady politician?””
– Like him or hate him – Ron Paul.
Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Where is the Technical University of Riyadh? Where is the symphony orchestra of Istanbul? Even if I did not have Jewish roots I would be strongly pro-Israel. So I guess I’m not being overly sensitive.
And, by the way, I fail to see that Israel’s interests are not the interests of the U.S. Certainly more so than the interests of Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Mike,
Paul would do, for sure. But it’s not likely that is who Steyn had in mind….
Paul used to be rock solid–including on foreign policy for America. Till he made the pilgrimage to Adelson-land just before announcing his candidacy.
He’s still light-years ahead of the rest of those circling around the Las Vegas chum bucket.
How about Paul–Buchanan–Trump?
Bob,
Maybe you’re a neo-con, but just didn’t know it yet!
Sounds like it.
You may have ethnic/religious ties to a foreign country, and more power to you. But your ties to a specific country are not an American interest.
American interests must be evaluated with clear eyes, without bias, regardless of your, or other donors’ personal ties.
How much oil does Tel Aviv supply the US? How many American troops are stationed in Israel? Turn that around–how much oil do the Gulf States supply us and the EU? How many troops do they allow us to station on their soil?
It’s a pretty simple calculus, once you take out the emotion from the calculations.
Yes, their interests are tied to ours–but exactly backwards. We’ve got the tail wagging the dog now.
The author suggests a proper candidate for president ought to bring excitement and bold language to the race. There is an assertion about wealth as a motivator and perhaps behavior moderator. Exactly what kind of stuff should our president be made of? My take – humility so as to be almost undone by holding such an important office; intellectual acuity to ask hard questions of advisors; and high moral character to do the right things for the right reasons. Thus far, no one in the race has my kind of stuff. It has been a long time since Harry Truman.
“The biggest thing Donald Trump is doing is realigning public perceptions on immigration among the low-information voters, for whom being seen as moderate and reasonable is more important than issue analysis. Up until now, nobody has been able to force the ideas Trump has espoused into the mainstream media. As a result, the perception of what is moderate has drifted to the left, and we have been, up until now, unable to stop it.”
An excellent article covering the positives of Trump throwing his hat in, even if he isn’t serious about winning. It goes on to state we should be giving Trump support, of some kind, instead of tearing him down; so as to both get the message out, and to promote others to speak truth to status quo in the future.
Read more here: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/donald-trump-cognitive-realignment-and-the-panic-of-the-speech-nazis/
Trump, whatever his shortcomings, is the only figure of national standing to have the guts to tell the truth about liberals: they are a pack of bloody murderers. This is objectively true; abortion murder, open borders murder, immigration murder (the 9/11 Muslim killers were brought here by liberals), race warfare murder, spiritual murder — liberalism IS murder. Trump has thrown it in their face and they’re squealing like stuck pigs (including the Republicans). He hit his mark and they know it. God bless that man. He expresses our righteous fury. (And he has a great war face.)