Posted on 08/27/2015 9:08:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The rise of Donald Trump is, in part, a function of a vacuum.
He is thriving in a Republican field that is large, talented and, so far, underwhelming. There’s 17 candidates and nothing on. Except Donald Trump.
Now, this has much to do with the media, and with Trump’s unique qualities as a showman. He has the advantage of not caring, about anything apparently — the facts, his reputation, or, ultimately, winning the presidency. In consequence, he is a free man.
The Jorge Ramos incident was Trump in microcosm. He did what no other Republican politician could get away with (having a security guy manhandle a Latino reporter) and displayed a cavalier disregard for reality by denying he was having Ramos removed, even as he had him removed. But the episode was mesmerizing, and Trump — in his madcap way — was commanding in how he handled it.
If any other candidate had done that or something similar, it would have been a signature event of his campaign, but for Trump it was just another day on the trail, to be eclipsed by some other memorable event tomorrow.
Trump has at least half a dozen such indelible moments — his bizarre announcement, the John McCain diss, the Lindsey Graham cellphone, the Megyn Kelly fight (x2), the Mobile rally — when the rest of the field has almost none. No speech, no policy proposal, no argument, nothing from the other candidates has come close to capturing the imagination of voters, giving Trump the space to loom all the larger.
The weakness starts at the top, or what was supposed to be the top. In the normal course of things, the establishment front-runner provides coherence to the field. Hence, the expectation that the field would have Jeb Bush and a not-Bush, or maybe two. For the moment, this assumption has collapsed, as the current shape of the field is Trump and everyone else.
This is quite the comedown for Bush. His “shock and awe” has turned into getting sand kicked on him at the beach by a loudmouth and bully. It’s not just that Bush is trailing Trump badly in the polls; he has acceded to the terms of the debate being set by the mogul. It wasn’t long ago that Bush swore off talking about Trump, as basically beneath him. Now, he is sniping with him daily.
Before he got in the race, Bush spoke of only wanting to do it if he could run joyfully. Little did he know that he would be joyously grappling with an ill-informed blowhard who takes it as his daily obligation to insult Bush and trample on the pieties he holds dear.
In the argument with Trump over mass deportation, clearly Bush is right. But the split screen with Trump doesn’t necessarily do him any favors. Trump is such a forceful communicator that he comes off as some sort of throwback alpha male, whereas Bush is such an earnest wonk he looks and sounds like a sensitive dad from a contemporary sitcom. It’s like watching a WWE wrestler get a stern talking to from Ned Flanders.
Bush is not a natural performer to begin with (he struggles with set speeches), and he believes his contribution to the race is to be the nonthreatening Republican, which is often indistinguishable from the uninteresting Republican. So while Bush has methodically built the superstructure of an impressive campaign — with fundraising, organization and policy proposals — he has so far barely warmed up an ember among voters.
Scott Walker, in contrast, had a surge early in the campaign. It dissipated over time when his limited preparation on national issues didn’t match his outsized early press exposure. A so-so debate performance and the rise of Trump have continued his long fade to middle of the pack in the latest early state polling (tied for fourth in New Hampshire and tied for seventh in South Carolina).
Walker’s ability to appeal to both the establishment and activist wings of the party had looked like a strength, but now it seems a precarious balancing act, made all the more difficult by a panicky reaction to Trump.
No sooner had Walker pronounced himself “aggressively normal” in the debate than he seemed to opt for just “aggressive” in an attempt to play to the passions tapped by Trump. Who could have predicted that the Midwestern candidate who tells stories about buying shirts for $1 at Kohl’s would have to play populist catch-up with the New York billionaire who travels by eponymous helicopter?
Walker had already changed his mind about immigration, shifting from support for a “comprehensive” approach to strong opposition to amnesty. Trump has pushed him further, and Walker has gotten tangled up on the issue of birthright citizenship.
Walker had already changed his mind about immigration, shifting from support for a “comprehensive” approach to strong opposition to amnesty. Trump has pushed him further, and Walker has gotten tangled up on the issue of birthright citizenship.
At the Iowa State Fair, he seemed at one point to say that he was opposed to it. Then, he told John Harwood of CNBC he wouldn’t take a position on it. Finally, on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” he danced around a question on the 14th Amendment before saying that anything that goes beyond simply enforcing our immigration laws is a red herring.
Earlier this week, Walker blasted President Barack Obama for hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping for a state visit, even though as governor he had been friendly to China and obligingly wore a Chinese-American flag pin in an appearance on Chinese state TV.
It’s one thing to play to the mood of voters; it’s another to give the appearance of not quite knowing who you are, which is much more deadly than an August dip in the polls.
As for Marco Rubio, for whom expectations have been so high, he has been the least reactive to Trump. His campaign is still betting on the long game. It believes his natural talent will tell over time, but he doesn’t have a natural geographic or ideological base, and his 21st-century economic agenda — although thoughtful — is not likely to stoke enthusiasm among primary voters.
Ted Cruz may be benefiting most from the Trump surge in his strategic positioning. He has a cogent theory of the case, which is that if he is nice to Trump — and the other outsider candidates — he eventually can inherent his supporters. This makes intuitive sense, although Cruz — exceedingly careful in crafting his words and in calculating his interest — is hardly a natural anti-politician.
It is still August, of course. The rules of gravity say Trump will come back down to earth. The media interest that is so intense now could burn out. His lack of seriousness should be a drag over time, and he will still have to weather more debates and presumably — should he stay strong — a barrage of negative ads.
Even if he fades, though, someone else will have to fill the screen. To this point, No one else has been big or vivid enough to do it.
So the editor of National Review is now writing for Politico, a left wing rag run by Washington Post rejects.
Is there any doubt that the ruling elites are all part of the Uniparty?
Bush is throwing sand in his own eyes, no bully required.
“If this were a football game, we’d be at Wednesday practice now”
Spot on. We have months and months of this crap to wade through. It’s a long, seemingly endless forced march to next November. Thank God we have Trump to entertain us for awhile. It’s great fun watching the drive-by dolts and so-called elites on both “sides” blowing brain fuses over this.
They had it all so carefully plotted out to manage Hillary’s coronation and it’s all been blown to h*ll. Ha ha ha
None of them get it. It doesn’t have a thing to do with Bush or Christie or Kasich except they’re in the them camp of the ‘us or them’ feud.
That’s it, no fancy analysis needed.
The media only wants to “talk about” Jeb and Hillary because Jeb and Hillary both have loads of advertising dollars and the media wants them. The more they prop up those two, the more money the media makes.
Now, ask yourself why the media, as a profit-making enterprise, is even allowed to do things like host debates.
You can get a flavor of it reading AS’s Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., but he’s not Bill Buckley.
Yeah. Maybe we’re just old codgers, or I am.
"Now, this has much to do with the media, and with Trump’s unique qualities as a showman"
Because this has everything to do with lame personalities (with the exception of Newt) that we really tried to like and support ... but damnit .... they just didn't TALK to us ... just AT us.
Trumps success in the polls comes from telling people what they want to hear. He may or may not believe it, too. He’s the used car salesman in the race. His promises will, like every presidents, depend on whether he will have a Congressional majority sufficient enough to make things happen. Since a big part of the Trump mission is to destroy the Republican Party, it’s hard to see who he will collaborate with in Congress. Granted, many of Trump’s supporters think that Trump should be as vain and as unconstrained by the constitution as Obama has been. The indifference to the constraints on a president by the constitution is a recipe for failure. Trump will have over promised and under delivered. It’s also why he’s fundamentally not a serious candidate and why the US Presidency is not an entry level position.
But anyone not supporting Trump is suddenly not a real conservative and possibly not a real man.
Well said!
Lowry? Sounds like he’s broadcasting from the RNC headquarters.
Now THERE’S a fantasy I can entertain !
"I resemble that remark" --Moe Howard
Even though once again he's mistaken a lack of substance for a lack of form, the meat of this whole article is in the last line:
"Even if he fades, though, someone else will have to fill the screen. To this point, No one else has been big or vivid enough to do it."
I believe someone who is willing to address the areas Trump has and who is not seen as a politician owned by the wealthy GOPees could do very well if Trump somehow disappears from the scene. Cruz or Carson seem to be naturals for the position but the GOPee will come after every and any one who takes over for Trump and is not already owned by them. Just think 2012 all over again.
That is why they keep wishing and hoping for Trump to drop in the polls. The longer Trump stays on top, the harder it will be to put one of their own in place without ripping the whole party election process apart. But, rip it apart they will do because they would rather the democrats win than for someone they don't control to win.
These elites/establishment refuse to believe that it is their ideas that are the problem. No one wants their amnesty. No matter how many times they attempt to label it conservative, giving jobs and tax payer supplied money and gimmees to foreigner invaders is not considered acceptable by US citizens. Until they understand that, no analysis from them will be very good.
I expect the Pees to go full scorched earth if Trump is still leading up to the primaries. It will be as it was in FL 2012, Romney vs. Gingrich. The problem for the Pees, Trump is a known quantity. No calling him out as racist as they did to McDaniel in Mississippi. It will just make them look racist. They won't have the money advantage that Romney had over Gingrich. They certainly won't have media savvy and control over Trump the way they bombarded Gingrich. But that does not mean they won't try.
“Extinguished gentlemen” — Slip Mahoney
That’s the way I see it.
In the argument with Trump over mass deportation, clearly Bush is right.
It's kinda tough to get past that.
Andrew Jackson – shot at by Richard Lawrence (Suspected Democrat plot, no proof.)
Abraham Lincoln – 3 attempts – Democrats, Baltimore, 1861; Democrat confederates, Aug, 1864, Shot at from ambush; shot dead by J.W. Booth, Democrat, April, 1865
James A. Garfield – shot by Charles J. Guiteau, utopian communalist. (Modern progressive.)
William McKinley – shot by Leon Czolgosz, Far left Socialist
Theodore Roosevelt - shot, wounded, by John F. Schrank, Anti third term motive.
Franklin D. Roosevelt – Shot at by Giuseppi Zangara, Marxist, (He missed and killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.)
Harry S. Truman – attacked by Oscar Collazo, Griselio Torreslo, Leftist revolutionaries who wanted a Socialist Puerto Rico.
John F. Kennedy – shot by Lee H. Oswald, Communist.
Richard Nixon - Samuel Byck thought Nixon was oppressing the poor, attempted airplane hijack to crash into White House.
Gerald Ford – Waved gun, failed to properly load it, by Lynette Fromme, Anarchist; shot at by Sara Brady, progressive Socialist, lousy shot.
There is a pattern.
Why am I not calm about Trump's chances? Any Hillary supporter is insane, going out the gate. And no Leftist will feel too bad if Trump catches a bullet. For them it's a two-fer. They get rid of a threat, and demagogue some gun control.
It is interesting that both of these pundits identify immigration as the key issue. Lowry argues, "In the argument with Trump over mass deportation, clearly Bush is right." By extension, one assumes that Marco Rubio whom conservatives see as a rank betrayer on this issue, is also right. Marco Rubio has disqualified himself in the eyes of informed conservatives when he betrayed his Tea Party base to sleep with the Gang of Eight on immigration. Ever cynical, the Republican Establishment believes that informed conservatives amount to only such a small minority within a minority that Marco Rubio's evident onstage skills will ultimately prevail with less well-informed conservatives and independents.
Revealingly, the establishment argument over immigration inevitably reverts to alleged electability. Republicans cannot win, the argument goes, without a respectable showing on election day in the Latino demographic with the breakpoint usually put at about 40%. Antagonize Latino voters on the issue of immigration, they warn us, and lose the national election. Who better to soothe the misgivings of Spanish-speaking people of color than a Latino with matinee idol looks who has associated his name with amnesty?
The establishment's reverting to arguing electability is revealing because it betokens their cynicism on every issue beyond immigration. We dare not shut the government down, the people will blame Republicans and nothing, not Obama care, not bankrupting the country with runaway debt, is worth an election.
No principle is worth losing an election, fidelity to no promise is worth losing an election, adherence to oath and Constitution is not worth losing an election. It is not worth losing an election to repeal Obamacare. It is not worth losing an election to save the country from bankruptcy, it is not worth losing an election for any cause by shutting the government down or even appearing to be associated with a shutdown done by Obama. It is not worth it to defend the people against the bureaucrats, to defend the people against executive tyranny done by executive order. It is not worth it to oppose leftist judges, leftist attorneys general, leftist IRS agents, leftist schemers in every dark bureaucratic corner of the Obama administration. Nothing dear to conservatives is worth it.
It is however worth risking an election by offending the conservative base; it is worth risking an election to keep faith with crony capitalists; it is worth risking an election to keep the border open whether in the Oval Office or out; it is worth losing an election by serving K St. at the expense of Main Street; it is worth risking an election to presume on the faithfulness of the conservative base while betraying it to billionaire campaign contributors. Is worth risking an election by cutting secret deals with Obama to betray conservative constituents.
It is even worth risking the security of the nation to abandon the constitutional mandate to advise and consent to Obama's secret dealings enabling Iran getting the bomb.
When Marco Rubio slipped in between the sheets with a Gang of Eight on immigration he did nothing more than reveal shortly after his arrival in Washington that he was a quick study. Now the pundits Krauthammer and Lowry nudge unwary conservatives in the direction of Marco Rubio. Soon every establishment Republicans will argue that winning the election is everything. Implied: principle is expendable.
Principled informed conservatives reply, winning with cynics and opportunists is worth nothing. Winning with establishment Republicans is the equivalent of losing.
If demographics is destiny in politics, conservatism has perhaps only this election cycle before it is swept away by a cynically contrived flood of Democrat voting immigrants. Now the very people who caused this, especially the Bush family, and those who at least condoned the Democrats practicing immigration politics, raise their own misfeasance as reason to continue them in power. Properly translated into honest English the GOPe is saying, we have created an immigrant population that must be appeased, we have created a monster which must be fed.
Informed conservatives know this is our last chance.
I did not know this!.
Thanks for posting this great reply!
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.