The Kelly/Trump Flap Is Pure Distraction Let's Look Very Closely At "The Donald"
So now there is a war on Megan Kelly because she confronted Trump with the truth of what he had stated in the past.
I find it astonishing that the focus has now shifted from the meat of the debate to the excoriation of Kelly.
No matter if you agree or disagree with either what she asked or his response, the truth is the truth.
Can we get our heads around that and ask Trump for some real substance and specifics as to what he will do and ignore his churlish tweets and Megan's mean questions? Really, let's get serious!
I am afraid there are now Trump bots who are enraged that he was asked some tough questions. If we can't face the truth or if something unpleasant is exposed about someone we support, do we have to go nuclear?
I am afraid there are now Trump bots who are enraged that he was asked some tough questions. If we can't face the truth or if something unpleasant is exposed about someone we support, do we have to go nuclear?
Personally, I did like Trump, but I am not a bot. His performance was mixed as far as I'm concerned. I decided to reserve judgement on him until I saw more.
I have seen more and I am not impressed. His tweets about Kelly were boorish to say the least. Is that how he will respond to anyone who disagrees with him should he capture the Oval Office? The bombast of a business tycoon will not necessarily serve any president well.
As far as a hatchet job, no. FOX asked all of them tough questions. We need to see how they perform under the gun. We cannot blindly support someone just because they seem great--so far. We need to see what's underneath.
For those who think this was a set up for Bush, forget it. The pundits said he fell flat, and I agree.. Overall the debate was lively and informative.
Forget Kelly. She's not running for anything, and this is not about her question, it is about how he responded. It is Trump and what he will do that we need to look at. He is an admitted crony capitalist and stated so in the debate. His statement, to paraphrase, 'I give them money and when I need them they are there' was the one thing that was said in the debate that really hit me.
Are we really just falling for another smooth, well maybe not so smooth, talker who promises big and gives little? I now have some very serious doubts about Trump, whom I originally liked. It will take much more than bombast and arrogance to lead this nation.
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the following article from the Wall Street Journal states the Trump phenomena well :
Trump: A Mismatch for the GOP
Conservatives are more focused than ever on substance and consistency.By
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Of the 10 Republicans in Thursday’s debate, none was harder to explain than Donald Trump. It’s not that he isn’t a serious candidate. It’s that he was on the wrong stage, with the wrong people, at the wrong time.
Republicans have been working for the past decade to reconstruct a movement that collapsed in the mid-2000s as a result of laziness and loss of principle. It has been a wrenching process, full of tea-party uprisings and bitter primaries, uninspired presidential candidacies and blown elections, policy setbacks and government shutdowns. Still, the number of triumphs has been growing. The Republicans’ hold over governorships and takeover of the Senate, their new faces and new ideas, and their brimming presidential field all are signs that the Republican electorate has grown more thoughtful about the political process—and more demanding of smart, principled conservatives.
And then along comes The Donald. In some ways, you can see the appeal. Mr. Trump is good at selling things, and even better at selling himself. He knows what inspires voters, thus his rallying theme, “Make America Great Again.” He knows what frustrates them, thus his focus on immigration, which has become a broad byword for everything voters hate about Washington.
What Mr. Trump lacks is pretty much everything else that conservatives have come to insist on in their candidates—everything that created today’s Scott Walkers and Marco Rubios and Ted Cruzes. Mr. Trump is the anti-new-GOP.
Republicans have been working for the past decade to reconstruct a movement that collapsed in the mid-2000s as a result of laziness and loss of principle. It has been a wrenching process, full of tea-party uprisings and bitter primaries, uninspired presidential candidacies and blown elections, policy setbacks and government shutdowns. Still, the number of triumphs has been growing. The Republicans’ hold over governorships and takeover of the Senate, their new faces and new ideas, and their brimming presidential field all are signs that the Republican electorate has grown more thoughtful about the political process—and more demanding of smart, principled conservatives.
And then along comes The Donald. In some ways, you can see the appeal. Mr. Trump is good at selling things, and even better at selling himself. He knows what inspires voters, thus his rallying theme, “Make America Great Again.” He knows what frustrates them, thus his focus on immigration, which has become a broad byword for everything voters hate about Washington.
What Mr. Trump lacks is pretty much everything else that conservatives have come to insist on in their candidates—everything that created today’s Scott Walkers and Marco Rubios and Ted Cruzes. Mr. Trump is the anti-new-GOP.
Wonder Land Columnist Dan Henninger on the GOP frontrunner and what’s at stake in the first Republican presidential debate:
He’s not conservative. Remember all those recent primaries in which Republican voters fired sitting legislators for being too wimpy on taxes or health care or spending? Mr. Trump makes the losers look good. He’s on record in favor of single-payer health care, and on Thursday night praised it again in other countries. He’s said he likes gun control; higher taxes and eminent domain. He has said he’s pro-choice, against a flat tax, and opposed to free trade. He has personally given money to help elect pretty much every politician Republicans view as a threat to the Western world: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer. Imagine the pitchforks in New Hampshire if Chris Christie had this track record.
He’s not principled. Mr. Trump has disavowed most of his liberal positions. But grass-roots conservatives have increasingly lost tolerance for Republicans who switch positions on a whim, or try to have it two ways. Already in this early phase of the presidential race, voters have rapped Mr. Walker for changing views on immigration; Jeb Bush for waffling on Iraq; and Mr. Rubio for altering his position on military spending.
Mr. Trump explained his own entirely new political persona this week and on Thursday by rolling out the classic “I’ve evolved” line, and referencing Ronald Reagan. True, many great conservatives started on the left. Then again, most took their time moving rightward. Mr. Trump has evolved at the speed of lightning. As recently as 2012 he backed the sort of comprehensive immigration reform he now derides and praised Hillary Clinton as “a terrific woman.” Only a few years before that, he talked up the 2008 auto bailouts and hoped an “impressive” Nancy Pelosi would “impeach” George W. Bush.
He’s also not policy knowledgeable. Evolution involves an end point; it’s an intellectual struggle that concludes with considered policy positions. What are Mr. Trump’s? The conservative electorate has put growing value on fresh, substantive ideas and plans for getting them enacted. They appreciated Mr. Walker’s collective-bargaining overhaul,John Kasich’s tax reform, and Mr. Christie’s pension fixes.
Mr. Trump remains a cipher. He has been queried endlessly on how, precisely, he’d make America great again—what exactly is his tax plan, or his education reform, or his health-care fix? Yet he has smoothly dodged specifics, as he did during the debate on everything from health care to the economy. Contrast that with Mr. Rubio’s detailed tax plan, Bobby Jindal’s energy proposals, or Mr. Christie’s entitlement reforms.
Then there is the oddity that so many are buying Mr. Trump’s I’m-a-self-made-man-who-will-change-Washington shtick, when conservatives have come to care so much about genuineness. Mr. Trump has done well in business, and that’s praiseworthy.
Yet he inherited a fortune from his tycoon father, and he built his empire by practicing the sort of corporate elbow-rubbing and lobbying and reliance on government favors that conservatives revile as crony capitalism. On Thursday night, Mr. Trump outright bragged his money put politicians at his beck and call. He’s no Ben Carson, who broke free from inner-city Detroit to become a neurosurgeon. Mr. Trump is an insider, a deal-maker; he was born into it.
None of this is to say that Mr. Trump didn’t have a right to be on stage debating. Just not this particular stage, at this time, in this party. He isn’t the culmination of the new conservative movement; he’s its wrecking ball.
Comments
Post a Comment