Posted on 09/25/2015 5:45:19 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
My initial reaction to the billionaire entering the race was decidedly negative. Words like "caustic" and "bombastic" – often used to describe Trump – don’t exactly bring to mind the sort of “reach across the aisle” leadership we need to get Washington functioning again. After four terms of two of the most divisive presidents in American history, the last thing America needs is another divider-in-chief.
*snip*
But as I listened to his words on the day he announced his candidacy from Trump Tower, I realized two things. First, there was no mistaking that he was all in this time. You could tell by the sincerity, urgency, and emotion in his voice. Second, everything he said resonated with my long-standing frustration with the federal government’s fiscal mismanagement and leadership dysfunction
*snip*
While many find the messenger and his choice of words off-putting, most republicans would have a hard time disagreeing with his positions. And the way they’re resonating with folks may actually galvanize the party behind a common platform: a common set of “calls to action“ that whoever wins the nomination must get done if elected.
Secondly, any candidate capable of beating Trump will have to be very strong indeed. That candidate will have to have the party and the people behind him or her 100 percent. For the past two elections, the party has chosen weak candidates seemingly by default. That will not happen this time.
(Excerpt) Read more at entrepreneur.com ...
If Trump gets in perhaps going bombastic on the feckless polls on both sides of the aisle in DC will be a good thing. Target rich enviroment-— make them uncomfortable and break up their lockstep Uniparty alliance. Ted Cruz also deserves a ton of credit in this regard.
I don’t want reach across the isle leadership. Time to push back the marxists.
This is a good article, and I have considered the parallels between this upcoming election and the election of 1968.
In 1968, America was concluding eight years of Democrat control, we had crime and craziness in the streets, the economy was not at all doing as well as it should, we had a continuing war in Vietnam that we were not winning because that clown LBJ wouldn’t let our military do the job they were trained to do.
Enter Richard Nixon. The ‘NEW’ Nixon. Lost in 1960, lost the California governship in ‘62, everyone had pretty much written him off, but by tapping into the discontent of the American electorate, he repackaged himself as the traditional Cold Warrior he was known as in prior years, he pushed the law & order angle (emphasized later by his VP selection of Governor Spiro Agnew), and the voters responded, why?
Because Nixon represented the possibility of changing course from the consistent foul ups of the LBJ years, and I maintain that many Republicans remembered how LBJ screwed over Barry Goldwater in ‘64 with that campaign of smears and lies, and that is why they got behind Nixon.
Now it is Trump who is appealing to those who are tired of the screw ups, corruption and incompetence of the Obama years (and the GWB years too, truth be told), and because Trump is NOT an established politician, his message is resonating with Americans who say “enough is enough!”.
Anyway, I see similarities. Whether or not they will be validated or not remains to be seen, however at this early point, the race to the GOP nomination AND the White House is Trump’s to lose. If he stays on message, I don’t think he can be stopped.
BFL
??????????????????
Yeah, no kidding - who REALLY wants Washington functioning again? When it “functions” it screws all of us. Some of the best times we’ve had since Reagan were in the mid-’90s when there was gridlock...i.e. Washington couldn’t do much, so the country did pretty decently.
The only functioning that I want DC to do is what’s in the Constitution - protect this country, foster economic growth, run the Post Office, and not much else. Stop picking winners and losers, stop spending money we don’t have, and for Heaven’s sake - fire all of those non-essential people that go home every time snow flurries fall in DC.
I agree that it is his to lose...and the best way to lose it is for him to continue to be ultra-sensitive to criticism. I'd like to see him become a LITTLE more like a politician (of the good variety) - IOW, put forth policies (yeah, I know, they are coming), get informed on foreign and defense policy, and stop the petty attacks on fellow Republicans (even Bush). Criticize them for bad policies, a bad record, etc., but stop with the personal attacks. Let the others do that, because otherwise you give the media more ammo. Trump, unfortunately, created Fiorina's perceived win in the last debate - without those remarks about her face, and her response to it in the debate, there would be nothing very memorable in her performance.
...not only Obama but the Dem House/Senate from 2006-2010.
Same here.
I've always wondered how it might have turned out had we framed our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as punitive and retributive, instead of defensive and altruistic.
Our enemy would have understood that, and more respect would have been the result. We should have gone in angry, and unabashed about being so.
Trump said "we should have taken their oil". Hmmm....I think he gets it.
-——After four terms of two of the most divisive presidents in American history, the last thing America needs is another divider-in-chief.-——
If staying mute against the lies and slander of the democrats, Bush endured is being divisive....
I might need a new dictionary....
You are exactly correct. Bush bent over backwards to accomodate the Democrats, because he needed their votes to prosecute the war.
Then they stabbed him in the back.
Criticize them for bad policies, a bad record, etc., but stop with the personal attacks. Let the others do that, because otherwise you give the media more ammo. Trump, unfortunately, created Fiorina’s perceived win in the last debate - without those remarks about her face, and her response to it in the debate, there would be nothing very memorable in her performance.
That's because America is not conservative--it is definitely not "progressive" in the Democrat-Marxist sense, but it is also not conservative in the Judeo/Christian-Locke sense. Getting America back to our Founders' thinking is a long-term task, and it will take a combination of a generation of overthrowing the educational system, combined with a generation of filling SCOTUS with Thomas/Scalia clones, to accomplish. In the meantime, populist is better than progressive, and for right now I think Trump/Cruz is out best bet, though I would be happier with Cruz/Trump myself.
I understand the sentiment, but I think we need another ~~13 months of campaign.
The Conservative brand has, at least for the time being, been tainted by Beltway types always standing in rock-ribbed support for whatever the Chamber of Commerce wanted. Even things that, in the long run, were not good for America. The voters’ patience has run out.
That's because his past is already an open book. What the libs don't seem to understand is that they are being hoisted on their own petard: they've set up a societal acceptance of practically everything which used to be (and still is, but isn't called) immoral, and now they're having to deal with an adversary who doesn't care what his past is, and will call out hypocrisy on the left in a roundabout way, that if they're going to accept the immorality of the Kennedys and the Clintons and the JesseJacksons etc., they can't then complain about the immorality of a Trump.
Fawning blind allegiance, you say?
Caustic and bombastic, you say?
Except for his attempted SS reform W really phoned it in during his last term.
Trump is going to take all 50 states. He crosses over with minorities, democrats, independents etc. He’s nobody’s fool.
Best line in the article is the guy or gal who beats Trumps is going to have to be exceptional.
So, unless someone kills him, he should be our next president, and I think a good one.
The rest of our people, Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Fiorina etc. all have a place in his administration, and down stream they will be the leaders of the future. They will be his apprentices.
He had me at ‘wall’.
....his (W’s) (and Rove’s) unwillingness to fight against the lies, more than anything else, gave us not only Obama but the Dem House/Senate from 2006-2010.
Amen. All it would’ve taken was some backbone, against the lies/smears....Bush offered none, in that regard.
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.