Posted on 08/11/2015 8:20:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This past weekend at the Red State Gathering, every Republican presidential hopeful demanded the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the wake of the undercover videos exposing their organ harvesting. That was at a minimum; more than one demanded a criminal investigation of the nation’s largest abortion-mill chain as well. However, Donald Trump got pushed into endorsing the status quo during an interview on CNN’s New Day, Breitbart’s John Nolte reports. Video picks up at 5:53:
“The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”
Actually, that’s not a bad answer, although Trump seems unaware that Planned Parenthood already argues that federal subsidies don’t fund abortions. However, Chris Cuomo then changed tactics by talking about the importance of the other services provided by Planned Parenthood, and Trump didn’t avoid the trap:
When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly provides, Trump said, “What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.”
Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”
Nolte raises the first obvious problem with that position, which is that the $500 million or so in government funding allows abortions to take place, whether it’s aimed at those services or not:
In other words Trump is open to a status quo many conservatives find unacceptable and immoral; also a typical federal government shell game to skirt around the law. If you give Planned Parenthood money for these so-called “other things,” the abortion provider can shift money from those “other things” to abortion.
Chris Cuomo tried the same argument on Trump that Mark Halperin used with Rick Perry a few weeks ago. Perry didn’t buy into the premise, and instead turned the question around on Halperin, to the delight of the Morning Joe panel at the time. Trump didn’t learn from that schooling, instead getting locked into Cuomo’s context.
Trump misses another point in this exchange too, which is that Planned Parenthood is hardly the only option for those other services that Trump wants to keep funded. In fact, no one is arguing that these services shouldn’t remain funded, but only that federal subsidies for them flow to other clinics that don’t perform abortions as their core business. The federal subsidies going to Planned Parenthood distort the market, boosting the largest player at the expense of smaller clinics more suited to deliver care in their communities. One would think that Trump would be particularly well positioned to explain that.
What makes this even more interesting is that Trump said he wanted a government shutdown to defund Planned Parenthood just eight days ago, during an appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s show:
HH: The word is that the Democrats will filibuster and the president will veto — that’s the only way to get rid of Planned Parenthood money for selling off baby parts is to shut the government down in September. Would you support that?
DT: Well I can tell you this. I would and I was also in support if the Republicans stuck together you could have done it with Obamacare also, but the Republicans decided not to stick together and they left a few people out there like Ted Cruz. You know, they left a lot of the people who really went in and wanted to do the job and you know what? If they had stuck together they wold have won that battle. I think you have to in this case also, yes.
That’s a mighty big shift from one week to the next. However, this doesn’t look like a flip-flop as much as it does a case of a candidate being unprepared. Trump’s initial response would have been solid, had he stuck to it, but he seems unaware that Planned Parenthood apologists rely on the argument that federal subsidies do not fund “the abortion aspect” of Planned Parenthood now, which is how they’ve fended off attempts to defund the company in the past. It’s not a fatal error, especially for Trump, who can certainly clarify and amend these remarks to the satisfaction of the base — as long as he remains consistent on it in the future. Even at that, though, it demonstrates the rather facile grasp on public policy issues that Trump has long demonstrated.
Besides, people who look for “fatal errors” from Trump miss the point. As I explain in my column at The Week, Trump’s popularity really isn’t about him — it’s about the voters who want to shake up a system that ignores them. That goes well beyond the fringes, and it’s happening in both parties:
Many Beltway pundits assumed that Trump’s “blood” remark would be a crash-and-burn moment. They clearly have a lot to learn about the conservative voters who will ultimately make that decision. While many of them understood and agreed with the unvitation in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s attack on Kelly, no one that I spoke to at the RedState Event had sworn him off as a candidate. These were not rabid Trump backers unwilling to tolerate criticism of a personal hero, but conservatives frustrated by a party that they feel has stopped listening to them, and largely talks over them. Many of these conservative activists see Trump as a man who breaks that pattern. They want to send a message to the GOP and force the party to pay attention to its base voters.
They aren’t alone, either. A similar dynamic has played out on the other side of the aisle. Hillary Clinton came into the race not just as a favorite, but as the only realistic option for Democrats. The Clinton team had made sure of that, packaging her as inevitable and locking up the majority of the party’s establishment donors. Yet the former secretary of state, the first woman in either party to seriously contend for the nomination, could barely fill her “reboot” event in June on New York City’s Roosevelt Island. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders — who isn’t even registered as a Democrat — has 28,000 people cramming into venues to hear him speak. One of these two contenders has become a rock star, and it’s not establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. …
Candidates like Trump might be unserious or even clownish to the media and political analysts, but the large number of people who latch onto them as a vehicle for their frustration are not. This populist impulse on both sides of the aisle threatens to derail the two-party system. Unless the leadership in both organizations starts paying more attention to voters than the status quo which those voters are rejecting — and finding leaders in anyone who can give vent to their frustration — they may be the authors of their own demise.
Some of this may sort itself out as the GOP field narrows, but that won’t solve the problem. It just may lessen the symptoms, but even that’s a long shot. The first party to understand and integrate the Internet era of populism wins in 2016.
Update: Kurt Schlichter is less patient with Trump’s supporters.
Trump’s gotta be careful on this “war on women” stuff, so I think his answer is fine.
If you want to keep this (⅓ support from government):
Let go of this (supposedly 3% of your services):
They can't and they won't because the truth is much bigger than these charts convey.
I agree. The fact that we fund a food program and it buys more beer, liquor and cigarettes points to the effectiveness of conditional government funding.
How is eliminating PP stopping abortions? If you the government (taxpayers) is funding abortion the name of the Organization doesn’t matter. Plan Parenthood is just a name. Taxpayer support abortion is what needs to stop.
Yo, Donald, you’re losing me here. What purpose, aside from abortions, does PP serve? It’s redundant. There are other government funds for the exact same services. There’s obamacare for any and all medical needs. The government has made private businesses pay for the pill and extend maternity leave. No one today is in the dark about sex and pregnancy. Need advice? Tweet to the world and the world will advise you in 140 characters or less. Bottom line, there is no need for PP, period.
RE: Trump’s gotta be careful on this “war on women” stuff, so I think his answer is fine.
His response should be the one that Ben Carson uses — Why do we need Planned Parenthood when we already have all those services under Obamacare?
There’s no War on Women here ...
Hey Don—You’re walking into a trap if you think you can reason or compromise with the Left.
Yes, Trump is just as bad as those two. So why should you support the loser?
Just shows how uninformed Trump is on the issue ,period.
Mr. Trump would you agree that the Nazi death camps should not have been shut down because they were good for the employment of the folks in those nearby towns. Thus the camps were good for the economy of Germany.
Donald knows how to make a buck. That’s probably it.
EDIT:
How is eliminating PP stopping abortions? Plan Parenthood is just a name. Taxpayer funded abortion is what needs to stop.
Now you are being just a GOPe Trump hater. ;-)
Guess he didn’t know who’s talking points to steal on this one.
I’m not buying a thing he says, diarrhea of the mouth to me.
Oh wait, they don't have any. Never mind.
That is practically impossible. PP could technically use the taxpayer funds for non-abortion services and reroute donations used for those services to abortions.
But I guess if The Donald, our conservative savior, thinks PP is OK, it must be OK. /sarc
No assurances can be given whatsoever, it's just the opposite. Money is fungible whether from government taxpayer largess or private donations.
Trump's brain seems to be fungible on this subject...and he'd better clear it up fast.
Leni
DT: Well I can tell you this. I would and I was also in support if the Republicans stuck together you could have done it with Obamacare also, but the Republicans decided not to stick together and they left a few people out there like Ted Cruz. You know, they left a lot of the people who really went in and wanted to do the job and you know what? If they had stuck together they wold have won that battle. I think you have to in this case also, yes.
My opinion is that of the outsider group (Trump, Carly, Carson, Cruz) that is polling 54%, the purest conservative hands down in Cruz. I like all four, but if I am honest the conservative is Cruz.
Ted Cruz REMAINS the only true Conservative in this race.
It’s basically subsidized/low-cost birth control and STD tests, as I understand it.
Yeah, if you have Obamacare coverage, I guess some of it could be covered under an annual physical, but otherwise, of course, it goes up against the huge deductible and so is fully out of pocket.
Since a candidate should know the problems of Obamacare, Carson’s answer is flippantly trying to make another point, but it doesn’t actually seriously address the issue.
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.