Let me start by saying I am happy Trump is up in the polls because the media keeps telling people they should not like Trump since he’s racist (not really) and disrespectful (maybe blunt with a hint of disrespectful) and a blow hard. People are reacting inversely to the media dictates. I love that. And Donald Trump so far is really only putting the boots to issues that the GOP ‘nobility’ have been refusing to address. John McCain is a squish and has done more for liberal Democrats than he has for conservatives, for the sake of stroking his own ego apparently. Lindsey Graham is a RINO, in South Carolina no less, a state that surely could proffer a more conservative senator. So Trump fighting back against them is a good thing. And illegal immigration IS a problem. He’s creating discussions.
Furthermore, having Trump in the race, eventual nomination winner or not, is attracting attention to the race. That’s free marketing, people. If Trump truly has ended up on the side of the GOP, he’s offering everyone a golden opportunity to get attention with very little spending required. He’s offering the media a whipping boy so that other candidates can get a few extra months under the radar. If that’s what they really want. They shouldn’t though.
Thee’s a reason Trump is up in the polls – he’s fighting, not kowtowing to the liberal media. He’s brash. That’s good.
And while other candidates can tout their executive experience (certainly better than a president’s wife or a senator’s experience in actually running something), Trump has real-world business experience. He’s not going to run an administration as if it were a charity. He’ll look at the bottom line.
Here comes the BUT
Now, with all that said, I don’t think I’d be happy with Trump as the standard bearer. Here’s my problem with Trump as the GOP nominee in three words: A Trump Presidency.
I can break that down into two specific issues – getting there, and being there.
In terms of getting there, I’m sure Trump could argue Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton under the table in terms of sound bites. But winning the presidency against either Democratic nominee is an uphill proposition. While Clinton could probably cause Trump to stumble because she’ll be prepared to go at him with legislative specifics that answering with common sense may be sensible, it won’t be enough. She’ll ask him what his position is on a specific item, and after his answer come back with the exact same argument she used on Obama in 2008 – he’s not ready for the role because he doesn’t haveenough government experience. That will sway some moderates with concerns about that, and surely help fire up the Bernie Sanders leftist base – weneed someone with actual government experience.
But the real problem with Trump tripping up during the presidential race is Trump. He’s a loose cannon. While taking pot shots at McCain and Graham plays well now, once he gets into the issues he’s just as likely to say something that the media will tear to shreds. something along the lines of “We’re going to take China to the WTO and make China pay our legal bills”, but worse.
That sort of wild card, loose cannon candidate is a real gamble. You take that shot if you really don’t see any other way of winning, and then you hope for the best. That’s not a strategy to win, it’s a last minute gamble type of play. If any other candidate can beat Hillary, there’s a lot of reasons to select not-Trump.
One last thought on the getting there part of a Trump nomination: How much down-ticket lift would Trump provide to GOP congressional and senate candidates? My gut says very little, if not less than zero.
Continued in Part 2 – What if he wins?
I was more pro Trump in the beginning. Not any longer. I don't think he has the temperament to be POTUS. The kerfluffle with McCain is a good example. I understand that McCain called him a name. In politics! Go figure. The Donald had the choice to respond in kind, or rise above it and not give any credence to his detractors. He chose to go after McCain, but instead of attacking McCain on the target rich environment of his nearly forty years in politics and the multitude of issues upon which McCain is on the wrong side, instead, he chooses to attack his war record as a POW! Not cool.
ReplyDeleteIt was entirely unnecessary and a low blow. Same with Lindsay Graham. I don't like Graham or his politics, but rather than make a principled stand against what Graham stands for, he gives out the man's personal cell number. Tacky. Unnecessary. Has nothing to do with competing in the marketplace of ideas. It was petty. Poor judgment. We want to elect an elder statesman, not a juvenile jokester.
Add to that Trump's track record of being on both sides (or the wrong side) of issues dear to conservatives, and I can't wait for him to declare victory and go home.
We chatted about this in the comments over on your blog Mike/Proof (how's that for a plug?). Regarding his changing sides, Reagan was a Democrat before being a Republican. So changes of heart can happen successfully. Having argued for years that conservatives need to be tactful and considered in everything they do, I can recognize it when people are tired of Republicans rolling over for Democrats. They want a fighter – someone who will fight for the country and fight his/her political enemies. Trump clearly appeals to that sentiment.
DeleteIs Trump's approach always smart? Clearly not. Attacking McCain's war record was dumb. As you point out, McCain provides a target-rich record to attack. That said, his refusal to back down clearly overshadowed his actual comments. The media used their faux outrage to attack Trump,not defend McCain. Even they've moved on because it didn't stick.
My point on Trump, is that it is still too early too tell if he'll gel into a real candidate or just implode. So far, neither has happened despite the supposed outrageous nature of his comments (per your comment below). Give him time – the first primary hasn't happened and neither has the first debate. His abilities, or lack thereof will become evident as the process plays out.
FYI – I currently don't believe he'd be the best candidate for the GOP. But I also do not believe he'd be the worst.
The worst candidate we could field would still be an improvement over Barack H. Obama. Unfortunately, that is such a low bar, if you can fog a mirror, you can probably surpass it.
DeleteThat's a great comparison Proof. I'd say the same for Hillary.
DeleteYeah. Unfortunately, when I criticize some of the lesser Republican candidates, their supporters tell me how much better they would be than Obama. No contest, but not relevant.
DeleteFYI, on his initials immigration remarks, the Left immediately jump started the politics of personal destruction. Trump never said all Mexicans were rapists. Most of the reaction to what he "said" wasn't based on what he said. Having said that, what he said was not artfully said. Had he expressed himself better during his speech, he would have given no ammunition to the hate filled Left to attack.
ReplyDeleteIn this respect, my criticism of Trump is the same as Obama. Since people around the world parse every word the president speaks publicly, POTUS needs to guard against loose lips. Neither man does to the extent a president should.