Posted on 04/24/2011 10:25:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Donald Trump, like Ross Perot 30 years ago, is a rich, successful, supremely confident salesman and patriot intensely dissatisfied with the competence of the present ruling political elite of both parties.
Trump is speaking out and speaking truth to Obama power like no one else. Like Perot before him, he's used to speaking his mind in blunt terms. He's not beholden to anyone. He scares the ruling elite. To the establishment, Trump has gone rogue.
I've seen this movie before.
In 1992, rich outsider Ross Perot loudly voices dissatisfaction that mirrors widespread public concerns not addressed by existing politicians. Insiders panic, fearing the power of a rogue voice unbeholden to the usual agendas and rich enough to be heard.
Critics tear at "gaffes" ("Larry, they doctored the photo"), paranoia ("they tried to kill me"), past business practices (Didn't his business make millions computerizing Medicare?), charge "racism" ("you people") – anything to stop the public from believing and following the outsider.
But Perot seemed right about a lot of things in 1992 and seems more right today than ever.
His prediction about the ultimate insolvency of Medicare was spot on. His opposition to wars not declared by Congress found support then and certainly rings true four ruinous wars and 30 years later. His criticism of NAFTA and "free trade" sounded like evil protectionism in 1992, but sounds like prophesy to many American ears today. Perot's 1992 advocacy of a balanced federal budget brings moans of "if only we had followed that advice" today....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I'm not ignoring it. I'm learning it. Think is, I don't read gossip nor watch TV, so all I know about Trump stems from a political context - and I'm learning now, as from that salon article you kindly shared. This guy's an egomaniac, an adulterer, a person who buys people off.
What he's said about faith and being pro-life - laughably shallow and unconvincing. It's sobering to think that we have sunk this low since the august figure of Ronaldus Magnus dominated the Oval Office. You're right: it's sickening.
Point is, I want to hear some hard-hitting from another candidate because I don't want "The Donald" any more than you do. It's the only way we're going to beat back and eventually overcome the current crop of thugs.
Anyways, catch you on the flip side.
>>Can’t be only if he goes third party.<<
If GOP nominates a RINO, THEY will be the third party.
What I’m sick and tired of is a lack of substantial candidates that speak the truth and are willing to say things that are unpopular to address real issues. I agree, Trump is no Conservative; but he puts America first. Is that so bad? Given a choice between Trump and a lightweight politico who will maintain the status quo, I go for Trump. Come on - we need a solid and no BS candidate who is willing to call it like it is. Sarah Palin does this, but I am not convinced she has the gravitas to make a difference; I’m concerned that D.C would run her, not the other way around. The Donald isn’t afraid; and I’m certain he wouldn’t back down.
Trump’s success in the poles is an attempt by the media to choose the Republican nominee. Sadly Fox News is adding fuel to the fire.
Anyone who has to tell you how smart he is as often as Trump isn’t too smart.
I actively supported Perot, wrote letters on his behalf and donated money when he ran. I supported him for three major reasons:
First, his involvement with the POW movement in Vietnam, a subject near and dear to my heart.
Second, his selection of Admiral John Stockdale as his running mate. Admiral Stockdale was, for me, a “broken glass” candidate if there ever was one. A brilliant, principled and honorable man, he was one of my heroes. it was a life goal of mine to meet him and shake his hand, sadly unrealized.
Third, Perot’s apparent acumen as a capitalist and businessman, able to grow a company to highly successful levels and provide jobs for hundreds or thousands of people.
In retrospect, it was the worst political decision I ever made. I discounted the political dynamic, and I do believe regardless of what many said, that his candidacy opened the door to eight hideous years of the grifter Clintons. I regret it to this day.
In my opinion, Trump is Perot without the dogged values of Perot, the support of the military and a man of quality and honor as his running mate. The result will be exactly the same, though the mechanism may be different. Here is how it will happen:
Whether Trump is the primary candidate or a third party candidate, the media, newspapers, television, magazines etc. will be filled with non-hostile puff pieces on Trump. He will get plenty of face time, a lot of it good. It will be very even-handed coverage, if not positive.
If he does not run as a third party candidate outright, the preliminary campaign will be a long, bloody, drawn out internecine battle. The media will make Trump the favorite, especially if Palin or another conservative is the candidate, in order to draw out the battle and drain resources as much as is possible, and cripple one or both candidates to the degree they will be unable to mount a viable campaign against a candidate with a billion or more dollars in his war chest.
Like Obama will have.
Once the general election begins, one of two things will happen: If Trump is the GOP nominee, he will be hammered un-mercilessly from the beginning, and he will fail, because his past in so many ways will be highlighted, explored, delved into, and all of the many foibles, flaws and contradictions (of which there are many, such as the money donated to Rahm Emanuel and his support of government run healthcare in the past) will be brought to light, discussed endlessly by talking heads to the exclusion of anything from the Obama campaign. He is a flawed and ruined candidate from day one, no matter his conservative-sounding statements in the last couple of months.
Obama wins.
But, if Trump is a third party candidate, the kid gloves treatment will continue unabated until election day 2012. Trump will be presented as a very viable candidate for conservatives, but the attraction towards the precious “undecided”, “independent” or “swing” voters will be gently downplayed. This manipulation of the electorate will be carried out while the GOP candidate is pounded for association with the Tea Party values, cutting Medicare and Social Security for the elderly, and so on.
The vote will be split as EVENLY as is possible, and Obama wins.
The point is...he is SAYING the “right” things, but it is at odds with his actions and previous statements, some of which are only months old.
His donations to Rahm Emanuel and support of government healthcare (regardless of what he has said in the last 30 days) should be significant warning signs.
Bingo. See my post at #25.
Here two interesting discussions of the 1992 election:
http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/index.html
In 1992, Clinton was the “hope’n’change” candidate, Bush was the “establishment” candidate. Once Perot got in, there were TWO “hope’n’change” candidates in the race.
In 2012, the “hope’n’change” candidate of 2008 has become the “establishment” candidate with a miserable record to defend. Bush was in the same position in 1992, but Obama’s record is far worse.
Clinton had the unquestionable advantage of his skill at the game of politics while Bush was just coasting on the good will that he absorbed from Reagan, and the popularity of the Gulf War. The “read my lips” fiasco doomed him.
If the GOP nominates someone like Romney (it’s his turn, after all), that means there will TWO establishment candidates. Were Trump to enter as a third party candidate, HE would be the “hope’n’change” candidate. Trump would pull votes from both sides, as Perot did in 1992.
But Perot ran a miserable campaign, and even dropped out and got back in. Does that remind anyone of McCain 2008?
Trump would play to win.
A few years ago, I looked at the vote totals from 1992 in detail, and concluded that the tipping point was at about 65%. That is, Perot would have to have taken that percentage of his votes (or more) from Bush to throw the election to Clinton. The exit polling does not support that notion.
This was based on the assumption that all of Perot’s voters would have voted either for Bush or Clinton, rather than staying home, or voting for some other 3rd party candidate.
And that is a bad assumption to make, since the Perot excitement factor drew millions of new voters into the process (or reawakened otherwise apathetic voters). The popular vote was 91.5 million in 1988, 104.4 in 1992, and 96.2 in 1996. So, the 1992 election saw 12.9 million more voters than in the previous election, and 8.2 million of them didn’t bother to vote in 1996. Certainly, some of the 1992 increase would be due to the ongoing population growth of the country, but the majority of those 12.9 million new votes were cast directly as a result of the Perot show.
All of this should serve as a warning to the GOP establishment for 2012-they’d better not even think about running another establishment candidate. And any true conservative candidates who might run had better be ready for the fight of his or her life.
The economy was the big issue in 1992, and it will be a bigger one in 2012. The people were in a sour mood in 1992, and all indications are that they will be ready to grab the torches and pitchforks in 2012. This will be an election unlike any other.
I couldn’t agree more with you. Trump and to a lesser degree Palin are the only ones speaking boldly and I don’t think Sarah is running might not be electable if she does run. Why can’t a more electable candidate like Pawlenty talk like this?
As for Trump, he's saying things almost NO major candidate (including Palin) will say, namely "show us the BC" and "China is a threat." Everyone else is tiptoeing around these issues. He will continue to be popular so long as the RINOS and even some conservatives back off these.
But he is ultimately a loose cannon, bad on guns, bad on social issues, and not a deep thinker economically. He is not consistent as a conservative in the least, and therefore untrustworthy.
All that said, if it's Trump or Barry, guess who gets my vote?
Great minds think alike...and so do ours.
I agree that if it were Trump and Obama, I wouldn’t have any choice which lever to pull, but all that does, in my opinion is buy a little bit of time (and not a lot of time, historically speaking)
Regardless of any polls, I have never, ever doubted that Perot shifted the election to Clinton. I never, ever met a liberal who voted for him (and living in Massachusetts, there is no shortage of THEM to talk to) but I know PLENTY of conservatives who did, and who would have otherwise voted for Bush. And those conservatives who did vote for him felt largely as I did, that Perot had at least met a payroll and grown a business, and was concerned about deficit spending which gave him credibility in our eyes.
So, I feel strongly that he siphoned off votes from the conservative side. I strongly suspect that the results were skewed because people are less likely to define themselves as liberals when asked, especially if the definition is spelled out a certain way.
As you know, the way questions are phrased and presented has a HUGE effect on the results of polls.
Just my opinion, though...
Well, I’ve looked for any data that would support the notion that Perot benefited Clinton, and just can’t find it. Believe me, there have been some studies of this. Probably the best thing Perot did for Clinton was to allow the media to focus completely on Bush for several months while Perot’s candidacy was in hiatus. If he’d been in all campaign long, I think he would have diluted the criticisms of Bush.
Well, I’ve looked for any data that would support the notion that Perot benefited Clinton, and just can’t find it. Believe me, there have been some studies of this. Probably the best thing Perot did for Clinton was to allow the media to focus completely on Bush for several months while Perot’s candidacy was in hiatus. If he’d been in all campaign long, I think he would have diluted the criticisms of Bush.
Yep. And new Perot? How about the new Romney. Same flip flops, different feet.
What I remember, was that Bush had two candidates criticizing him. Perot mainly criticized Bush, while occasionally mentioning Clinton. Clinton slammed Bush and never Perot, so the media meme was to magnify what each candidate did to slam Bush.
It had a big effect, plus Bush seemed like he did not have the will or energy to campaign against the criticism.
Clinton was the ultimate beneficiary, maybe not in the way the polls read at the time, but in how the actual campaign happened to bring down Bush's popularity.
*needs fixing*
Same flip flops, different feet hair.
*Fixed*
:-)
Perot only got into the race because Bush reneged on “Read My Lips.”
Agree. Bush was fully capable of losing that election on his lonesome, with or without Perot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.