Why Critics Do Not Understand Trump

Trump2by Patricia L. Dickson9/18/15
When criticizing Donald Trump, critics cite his supposed inability or refusal to articulate his immigration plan while giving his campaign speeches or during the two presidential debates. They claim that it is proof that he is all rhetoric and no substance. Such claims are ludicrous. Does any sane individual actually believe that a billionaire entrepreneur does not have a plan on how he is going to bring about the changes that he has stated he will do if elected as President of The United States? Is it even possible for an individual to build wealth by running a corporation and employing hundreds of people if he or she did not have a plan? There is no way Mr. Trump would have amassed the fortune that he has if he did not have substance over rhetoric (action over words). Besides, it is not possible to lay out the specifics of a plan in a debate where each person is given three minutes to speak. What the critics fail to understand is that Trump is a businessman. Business people are all about results and the bottom line and will do whatever it takes to get those results.

Mr. Trump is not a politician. He is also not an employee. Because he has never had to answer to anyone (he cannot be fired), he has not had to worry about framing his words to not offend anyone. In fact, he is the one who does the firing. Career politicians have spent their careers polishing their rhetoric so that it sounds good in order to convince people (regardless if they actually plan on doing what they say). That is why the politicians use such phrases as “comprehensive immigration reform” yet our borders are still wide open. Those are nice intelligent sounding words but what exactly do they mean? Donald Trump simply says he is going to deport the illegals and build a wall. Those are action words that do not need explaining because everyone understands what he means. How he plans on doing it (the details) is really not that important this early in the campaign.

Some critics cite Trump’s lack of breadth on foreign policy and other issues. During a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Trump said that he would hire the best people in his cabinet to keep him abreast on foreign policy and other issues. Again, Trump was speaking as a businessman. Business people understand that for a company to be successful, one does not have to be an expert on everything, he or she just needs to hire people who are experts. The problem with career establishment politicians is that they have been in government most of their adult lives. They have not been personally affected by our huge deficit that is a result of wasteful government spending. Business people are focused on the bottom line because their businesses will feel the immediate effects of unchecked spending. That is why we hear Trump constantly using words like “negotiations” and “deals” because that is how we get results. If there is any one of the presidential candidates that will get results for America, it is going to be Donald Trump.


PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email • (1073 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Why Critics Do Not Understand Trump

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Does any sane individual actually believe that a billionaire entrepreneur does not have a plan on how he is going to bring about the changes that he has stated he will do if elected as President of The United States? Is it even possible for an individual to build wealth by running a corporation and employing hundreds of people if he or she did not have a plan?

    I agree, Patricia. The problem with Trump is that when asked about an issue he tends to reply in generalities. I, for one, am hoping he will bone up on various issues, including the fraud of global warming.

    Mr. Trump is not a politician. He is also not an employee. Because he has never had to answer to anyone (he cannot be fired), he has not had to worry about framing his words to not offend anyone. In fact, he is the one who does the firing. Career politicians have spent their careers polishing their rhetoric so that it sounds good in order to convince people (regardless if they actually plan on doing what they say). That is why the politicians use such phrases as “comprehensive immigration reform” yet our borders are still wide open. Those are nice intelligent sounding words but what exactly do they mean? Donald Trump simply says he is going to deport the illegals and build a wall. Those are action words that do not need explaining because everyone understands what he means.

    You sound a lot like Dr. Sowell (aside from Dr. Sowell’s mild case of Trump Derangement Syndrome). But I thought the above quote was particularly good and sober analysis.

    Business people understand that for a company to be successful, one does not have to be an expert on everything, he or she just needs to hire people who are experts.

    That’s true. Still, he needs to be the coordinating expert. I don’t give a rat’s behind if he knows how to spell, let along pronounce, the name of whatever nutjob leader is in charge of faction X, Y, or Z that day in the Middle East. But I need to know his approach. I need to know that he understands the situation.

    But on many things he remains either vague or is coming from the Left. I like Trump, but (and get ready for this…who’d have thunk it?) I have to point out that he’s attacked Jeb Bush from the Left on his “women’s health” comments. If Trump was not as politically correct as he says he is, he would ask why there is this emphasis on “women’s health” while men, I guess, are left to die. And he would point out that “women’s health” is all too often a euphemism for abortion on demand.

    So although I like Trump, he needs to polish has act a bit. He needs to bone up on the essentials. I like some of his broad scope in that I know he doesn’t hate America as Obama does. That’s a good thing and no small thing. From that, a lot of good policy will follow. I like that he is interested not in some foggy “New World Order” but in protecting America’s interests. That is good and from that a lot of good policy will follow.

    But he hasn’t shown that he’s anything but a typical Progressive on a number of other issues. Still, I agree with Mr. Kung that (Iranian nukes aside) the invasion from the south is our #1 issue. We cannot remain America if we are allowed to transform into a third-world country. And I do think Trump is serious about using whatever authority he has as President (if he were to become president) to actually do something.

    But the rest of his record is spotty. Still, I don’t think he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing as Carly is who is one of the most liberal candidates running, despite her words on abortion which were good. But we should all be careful of such words. They can mean nothing. It’s one thing to “tsk tsk” about what Planned Parenthood is doing. It’s another thing to actually do something about it. With Carly’s fixation on the feminist agenda, I wouldn’t expect her to do anything.

    And I was impressed that Chris Christie noted that in his state he has defunded Planned Parenthood. Hell, I nearly got up and cheered when he made what I thought was one of the most substantial remarks of the night: If he was president, he would use his authority to enforce Federal law regarding marijuana. I’m sorry to have to disagree with the weak “Federalists” out there who look at any sin or destruction in our land and justify it as, “Well…it all works out just spiffy if we let the states decide.” Well, the states at one time decided on slavery and that was fundamentally wrong. And it is fundamentally wrong to legalize gateway drugs such as marijuana. No society can function if stoned.

    Whether Fat Boy (as I call him) would actually do what he says is problematic. Christie is a Progressive RINO through and through. He believes in the global warming fraud, that Islam is a “religion of peace,” and most of that kind of garbage. Still…Fat Boy did impress me with some of his rhetoric during the last debate, even if I know it’s likely just rhetoric.

    And perhaps that’s one of Trump’s pluses. Even if I disagree with him, I don’t suppose he’s being as cold-bloodedly manipulative as the RINO Establishment is, and has been. You’ve heard the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Well, we’ve been fooled now about four times in a row by the Republican Establishment. And they deserve now to be understood as the cold-blooded liars and money-chasers that they are.

    Trump, for all his faults, is not a part of the clique.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      To be fair, Chris Christie is probably the most conservative statewide elected official from New Jersey in our lifetimes. At least since 1961 (and earlier in the case of the Senate), every elected governor or senator from the state has been eaither a Democrat or a clearly liberal Republican. Christie is, by New Jersey standards, a rather conservative Republican. Unfortunately, New Jersey standards are far to the left of American standards.

      I find Dickson’s interpretation of Trump very reasonable. He is definitely no conservative, but the question is: Which candidates will actually do the best job of accomplishing conservative goals? I have my doubts about Trump, but I have at least equally great doubts about many of the other candidates (Bush and Kasich especially).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Christie, like Trump, is a man who needs to read a few of the books that Reagan did and get a solid ideology under his belt.

        Okay, he was good enough to become the governor of New Jersey. But if he wants to be president (unless he believes RINOism is the way to go), he needs to focus his spiel.

        One of the problems with this last debate is that it was Trump-centric. CNN was obviously trying to beat Trump for some reason. But I would have aimed an Islam “religion of peace” question at Fat Boy and watch him lose whatever support he has now by giving his PC answer. At least force these guys to declares as normal American or Establishment PC RINO. I believe StubbornThings will be hosting a fourth GOP debate in early November. Still waiting for the approval from the RNC on that one though. But, boy, could we come up with legitimate, pertinent, concise, and good questions. It gets so tiring listening to these amateur professional “journalists.”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Maybe we should have a symposium on what questions we would like to ask them. Who knows, someone might even ask one of them in the actual debates — or someone might be able to ask them in the candidate websites.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            It’s an ancient question, Timothy (or at least I suppose it is): How does one live a life of vigor, integrity, creativity, meaning, and particularly authenticity (a squishy term, I know) when we are necessarily little fishies who must necessarily swim in the fishbowl of culture?

            Establishment Republicans have a value set that shares much with the Left. They are for “tolerance” and “openness” instead of holding to traditional tried-and-true standards (such as male/female). They are not the movers and the shakers as the Left is (which is setting most of the new standards). They simply follow them.

            Not everyone wants to live in America, as founded, in a freedom-based society with minimal government and maximum self responsibility as a guiding principle. Most of these politicians in the GOP are simply reacting to the culture as it is as a fait accompli. Many, because they live inside the beltway bubble (or some other bubble), honestly may not know there is any other way to live (while thinking of themselves and cosmopolitans or multiculturalists….yes, I know, the irony is thick).

            So when it comes to a choice of books, we first have to realize that most of the people either don’t know who Barry Goldwater is (“The Conscience of a Conservative”) or don’t care to know. That’s off their radar. Ancient history. And in this novelty-driven culture, rare is the conservative (including types such as Jonah Goldberg) who will attempt to swim against the tide. The memory of the Establishment Republican is as short as anyone else’s. Nothing matters but to take the next breast stroke in the fishbowl. If global warming or sodomy is declared a “settled” issue, they’re fine with that.

            Regarding which questions to ask the candidates, I remember during one of the Clinton debates (I think) where there was a town hall style of debate. I think this is the one famously known where General Gates checked his watch. (Ooops…I mean George H.W. Bush). I remember the questions coming from the audience (when they were not obvious plants) being excellent. The prior and subsequent debates I think were done by the usual “profession” journalists and they asked, of course, “professional journalist” questions which meant that they asked questions that were either meant to make themselves looks smart and serious or were “gotcha” questions meant to take down the Republican.

            We should never forget all these guys are politicians and that profession now is about as legitimate as a hooker or as they used to view entertainers in olden days. Where is the outcry from any of them to have real people ask real questions? I don’t hear god’s gift to conservatism, Ted Cruz, decrying these horrid debate formats. (Maybe he has and I missed it.)

            But these debates would be much better if you filled the audience with conservative, Tea Party, or informed Republican voters and let them ask the questions. I’m not even that interested in coming up with a list of questions. They’re not particularly hidden or difficult. A couple off the top of my head:

            + Senator, do you think Islam is a “religion of peace”?

            + Governor, I hear a lot about the flat tax and the fair tax. Tell me why this isn’t just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Will any of these taxes shrink government which is the real problem when it comes to excessive taxes?

            + Senator, do you understand that global warming is a fraud forwarded by a kind of Religion of Environmentalism?

            + Governor, we hear a lot about “women’s issues.” But who died and made women king? Why don’t we care about “men’s issues”? Don’t men’s lives count? And don’t you understand that “women’s issues” is typically a euphemism for abortion on demand?

            + Senator, if you believe in “tolerance” what do you say to the Pink Mafia that is for ruining people’s businesses because they won’t sell them a cake?

            Etc. Etc. Etc. And those are just my pointed questions. Typical Americans likely are going to have much better ones. But the questions asked by the so-called “professional” journalists are a joke because these journalists themselves are a joke. They are not actually journalists.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              A good question to ask candidates of either party on global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption (aside from why the term has to keep changing) would be to ask about the group of “scientists” (who may have scientific credentials but are behaving like cultists) who want to use RICO to prosecute the skeptics. In particular, it would be nice to see if any realize that this is totally incompatible with genuine science — and then ask why they think the alarmists are so intolerant of skeptics.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Yeah, I read about that RICO thing. These guys are scientists? Not likely. They’re likely doing “climate studies” which has about much value as “women’s studies” or “gender studies.”

                But it’s a little scary thinking that this attitude is likely the predominant attitude on college campuses. They may be populating our country with little Eichmanns.

                And although it’s certainly a good question to ask a candidate whether or not they believe in criminalizing thought, a better question would go to the source of the fantacism itself: Leftism.

                Conspicuous by its absence in any and all GOP debates is even naming the enemy. That’s disconcerting. And that’s also why you’lll not see me pin a gold ribbon on Ted Cruz’s chest just because he’s the designated conservative darling. I think this article by Ed Straker is spot on.

                And if normal Americans can’t ask questions of these politicians on national TV, let Laura Ingraham be one of the panelists along with Mark Levin and Dennis Prager.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Great presidents such as Washington and Reagan, like entrepreneurs who build great businesses, have at least one outstanding ability. That is, the talent to spot and hire others with great talent and delegate power and responsibility to these lieutenants to enable them to succeed.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Washington had Lafayette and Hamilton in that regard, right? And a couple generals as well. Gates? I forget. Sorry. I’m not electable as president because I can’t even remember this nation’s heroes. Not a photographic memory when it comes to names.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        You are finished! How could you not recall the name of the colonel who commanded the 3rd infantry brigade of the 82nd airborne division?

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Definitely not Horatio Gates, who in fact was the intended beneficiary of the Conway Cabal. Greene and Knox, on the other hand . . .

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Greene. Greene. Greene. That was the g-word I was going for. I knew enough not to say Arnold though.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I believe Greene was Washington’s favorite general. A very dependable fellow without a huge ego.

            What I find most interesting about Lafayette is it appears that Washington loved him like the son he never had. Very interesting that this stoic Englishman, who had spent much time in the wilds as a youth, would take to the young French aristocrat.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Greene. Greene. Greene. Greene.
              Greene. Greene. Greene. Greene.

              I’m writing that on the blackboard now a hundred times as punishment.

              Lafayette is an interesting case. Do you suppose he was sort of going native? I know that many of the French were enthralled by Franklin’s frontier “roughness.”

              I’m sure there’s a good book out there on Lafayette. And I’m not really interested in reading it. But he seems to be one of the few Frenchmen that we Americans can stomach.

              • Pst4usa says:

                Alexis De Tocqueville might also qualify Brad.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Lafayette was, or became, a supporter of reform within the monarchy, and thus survived the Revolution. In Robert Conroy’s alternate history Liberty 1784, he leads a reform faction in France trying to find a middle way between reaction and revolution.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Alexis De Tocqueville might also qualify Brad.

                Make that two Frenchmen I can stomach. Thanks, Pat. Or should I say, “Merci.”

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I’m could easily stomach Catherine Deneuve.

          • Rosalys says:

            Nathaniel Greene! A local Rhode Island hero!

            • Timothy Lane says:

              But not quite as important as Roger Williams, who can be considered the founder of Baptism in America (very relevant to Elizabeth, a Southern Baptist) and of religious liberty in America as well.

  3. Pst4usa says:

    I am a critic of The Donald, and I do not criticize him for any of those things. He talks a great game, and all of your reasons would sound good Patricia, if it were not for one simple fact. I can and will be accused of being a one issue voter, (not true, but OK). But as late as mid July, 2015 Donald Trump can be heard in an interview defending his position, supporting a single payer healthcare system. Yeah I know he throws a nod to capitalism to allow for the wealthy to cover themselves, but he still want single payer, (government) healthcare for everyone else. And yes I think that illegal immigration is a deadly virus that can take this country out. But for crying out loud, does no body else see that socialism, i.e. single payer healthcare, will also kill this nation? I have been accused of dredging up ideas that Trump held long ago, but I don’t consider July of 2015 as all that long ago.
    Trump may get results for this country, but is a single payer system the type of results we want? It is not my idea of getting the right thing done. I for one am not interested in going down the Yellow brick road of Marx, Stalin or Mao, just because he can get things done. (and no, I am not calling him a commie, but single payer is a big step in that direction).
    I don’t know, I guess I am just old fashion, maybe the idea of free markets is gone, that we can never return to the days when competition was the driving force in our economy, but I am just silly that way.
    I mean no disrespect for your well written post, but I just cannot take it anymore, if Trump cannot grasp this fundamental principle, that government’s job is to defend our God given rights, follow the Constitution, as it was intended to be followed, limiting the power and scope of the federal government, not what the SCOTUS has mangled into meaning, Well I just can’t get past that, I do not care how good he sounds on any other issue.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I don’t disagree with your observation, but which candidate do you see that would actually repeal Obamacare, which is one of the final steps to “single-payer” health insurance?

      No matter what happens, Trump is serving a very useful purpose, in de-constructing the vicious politically correct language lies which have greatly contributed to the decline of our country. He is not backing down or being trapped by the Marxists who have invented and maintain these lies. That is alone, enough for me to thank him.

      Hopefully, someone will finally question him about health care and force him to make a clear statement. But as for me, if I have to choose between 1)single payer health care which we may be able to avoid and 2) a flood of ill-educated, welfare consuming, Democratic voters-in-waiting who will demand single payer health care in any case, increase unemployment among the poor and middle class and who will destroy my culture and hasten the downfall of the USA; well I’ll take no. 2.

      And nobody I have heard in the debates has spoken out on this point like Trump. In fact, the other candidates and media wouldn’t even be talking about it if it weren’t for him.

      Let me be perfectly clear, you can repeal a law, but you cannot throw out 30-50 million people who would become American citizens after you find out letting them in was a mistake.

      The enormity of the latter blunder makes the first pale in comparison. There is NO recourse.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I don’t disagree with your observation, but which candidate do you see that would actually repeal Obamacare, which is one of the final steps to “single-payer” health insurance?

        In the 1796 election, the candidates included:

        + John Adams
        + John Jay
        + Thomas Jefferson
        + Samuel Adams
        + George Clinton.

        There were some other notables as well. What do we have?

        We have various big-government RINOs to choose from who tack with the culture, almost never against it. And we have a neophyte surgeon, a liberal big-business CEO, and a figure who is somewhat unique in presidential politics (Trump) but nonetheless another product of the Progressive culture.

        There is no John Adams in the lineup. There is no Thomas Jefferson. Ted Cruz is as close as you get to a noble statesman. But even if we had a John Adams, that would be like serving filet mignon to a bunch of third-graders. They’d put sugar sprinkles on it. Our culture is so corrupt, bloated, and un-serious that a Thomas Jefferson would be wasted on it.

        So we’re left picking through candidates who range from liars to not-so-bad liars. None of them I would call truly honorable men, although Cruz, Huckabee, and Santorum have the potential (being politicians, one will forever fall just short).

        You need waders to make your way through the heaps of bull excrement. These politicians fashion their message to the moment with little regard for truth. Most of these people are political sociopaths in that regard. This is understood to the extent now that people are willing to elect a somewhat renegade billionaire for president.

        We are no longer an honorable nation. We lost that. Not just when we elected and then re-elected Obama. But that was a big part of it. And there isn’t a candidate on the ballot who, by making them president, can change that. There is no political redemption on the ballet. There is no one with the skill, means, or power to reform what needs to be reformed.

        So we do what we think is best in the short-term. Absent a surging Cruz, all we have is Trump as the only one who has at least a remote possibility of tackling one of the biggest problems we face as a nation: hordes of third-worlders turning this nation into the dives they were escaping.

        I can’t beat the logic of Mr. Kung. Immigration, outside of a nuclear Iran, is one of our biggest existential threats. Even so, the issue of socialized medicine does enter into this. It enters into everything because it is socialism itself that is “fundamentally transforming” the country. The rest are just effects. Illegal immigration is just an effect. The cause is the socialist idea that borders “exclude” and therefore are unfair. We must equalize things. We must share. We must socialize…and not just within borders, but across them.

        In a freedom-based, market-based, rational-based country, you have rules. There is reality to deal with. There is no utopia only trade-offs that have to be managed. It would never occur to anyone who lives in a rational society that the idea of society itself is irrational, thus borders are a thing of the past.

        So, I’m with both Pat and Mr. Kung on this. These two issues branch from the same rotten tree. Which do we deal with now? Which is the most important? It’s the rotten tree we have to cut down or else we’re like that Dutch boy who plugs his finger into one hole in the dike only to have a leak pop up somewhere else.

      • Pst4usa says:

        There may be no recourse from either I am afraid, Mr Kung. And you will not get an argument out of me on illegal immigration or to the dangers of it. Full disclosure, I have met with and spent a bit of time with Ted Cruz and I believe him to be a very honorable man and he has my support as long as he is still in the race. (so that bias may be applied to my comments). I do believe he would repeal 0bamacare and he has repeatedly offered legislation to repeal it, defund it, and just plain get rid of it. But one senator out 100 just cannot do much when cowards are the Party Leaders.
        When asked about illegal immigration He said that since we live in a sound bite world, let me make this simple for you, (the reporter), when it comes to immigration, legal good, illegal bad. He also said secure the borders, stop all welfare programs and benefits for non-citizens, stop employers from hiring illegals, make it easier for employers to comply with the laws, and if I am not mistaken he also said we need to stop birthright citizenship.
        Now it is one thing to stand outside the battle, and throw stones, (especially if you have billions of dollars). Don’t get me wrong I also like some of those stones that Trump is throwing, But it is entirely another to jump into the breach and take on the leadership of the party you are trying to fix. The Republican Party hates Ted Cruz more than any other candidate. 2 year ago they spend a lot of money trying to defeat him in his bid for senate, the party cut off all funding from lobbyist and corporations, (they were told if you donate any money to his campaign, that they could expect nothing from the Republican Party.) He has come out and called McConnell a liar, done everything to stand in the way of their underhanded back room deals with the Democrats. I could go on and on, but I am sounding like a commercial for Cruz, sorry for that. The media just does not cover the things he says like the things that Trump says.
        Trump is a celebrity and that is all it takes in this country to get media attention. If some non-out-of-the-conservative-closet celebrity were to run, Tom Hanks for example, I guarantee he would win hands down. So Trump with his celebrity, is getting a conservative message out there, good for him and maybe good for us, I do not know. But can we have some substance? I don’t know that one either.
        Maybe Brad is right, give us Thomas Jefferson and we would just put sprinkles on him and paint him as a right wing nut job. But Thomas Jefferson was chosen to write the Declaration because he was not a great speaker, kind of quiet, and a meek personality, but a towering intellect and a great writer. I don’t think Ted Cruz is Jefferson, Adams or Washington, but he is by far the closest thing to them we have had in decades maybe close to 90 years. (Silent Cal did not have much of a personality either). But Cruz has been actually fighting for the Constitution, not just talking about it.
        He fought in the Supreme Court for the “One Nation under God” line in the Pledge of Allegiance” and won; he fought for the Ten Commandment monument in front of the courthouse in Texas, before the Supreme court and won; he wrote the argument that was considered, by many, the most compelling in the Heller case defending the second amendment; and the list goes on. Ted Cruz is a great attorney and although he does not have the most charismatic personality, he does have the solid core principles that the founders would recognize as what they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for.
        There I go again sounding like a commercial, so again my apologies. I have tried to follow Reagan’s 11th commandment for quite some time, don’t bash other Republicans, and I hope you will agree I have not attacked Trump or his character, but there has been this giant hole in his rhetoric, I just had to point out. If we only listen to what the media lets us hear, or we only hear how they filter it, we are truly finished.
        This battle is on so many fronts, and yes illegal immigration is huge, but in my mind it is just one of the cuts, that in the end, we will bleed to death from. That is, if we haven’t already run out of the blood of patriots; because I am sure we haven’t run out of the blood of tyrants; and that tree of Liberty sure could use some refreshing. (Metaphorically speaking, of course).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I like Cruz, Pat. And you’ve given an elegant defense of him. But he needs to sound more like Reagan and less like an accountant…at least in the debates.

          I understand from you that he is remarkably engaging in more private talks. But as a national candidate, he leaves much to be desired.

          And I agree with the one critic at American Thinker that his “scorpion” commercial (the scorpion being a stand-in for Radical Islam) is bizarre because the commercial is meant to highlight the fact that no one will mention Islam…and in the commercial (obviously a copy of Reagan’s “bear” Commie commercial), Islam isn’t mentioned either .

          Cruz is a wonderful guy, a good conservative, and is running a mediocre, at best, campaign. Maybe he’d be the best man once elected. But as things are going, he’s going to have to have a more outspoken and focused campaign if he’s going to get there.

          • Pst4usa says:

            I know he needs to work on those things Brad, but he is who he is, he may make improvements, but he may never have the charm of Reagan, Clinton or 0bama, but he does surpass Gore, McCain, Kerry, and Romney, all of whom came very close in their elections.
            You also might like to know that he is enemies with Karl Rove, and that is a big plus in my book.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              he is enemies with Karl Rove, and that is a big plus in my book.

              This is a huge plus in Cruz’s favor. Karl Rove, the malignant Mr. Pickwick. A glutton, if ever there was one.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I wouldn’t have expected Cruz to be a buddy of Rove. Rove is a disgusting man and should be ostracized. In the Republican Party that I was running, his poster would be distributed to all regional offices. And it would show him with a bullseye on his face or with a clown nose.

              These “consultants” are ripping the heart out of America. I’m now of the mind (I had resisted it before) that George W. Bush is indeed an idiot as the liberals said (which makes Joe Biden about three categories down in “imbecile”).

              Turn the clock back and ask where America would be if George Washington had waited first and had a focus group to find out whether or not people thought it was a good idea to take on the Hessians in Trenton.

              That sounds absurd and yet that is how our country is being run today on issues even larger. That’s likely another appeal of Trump. When Trump speaks I think most people think it is Trump talking. There is this belief that he will do what is right not what sounds good to a focus group, to the consultant class, or to the media.

              Cruz needs to plug into a little bit of the revolutionary mojo. He’s playing it way too safe.

            • Rosalys says:

              “You also might like to know that he is enemies with Karl Rove, and that is a big plus in my book.”

              A few weeks ago on The Mclaughlin Group much was made about how, on Capitol Hill, nobody likes, and everybody hates Ted Cruz. There’s another plus for your book – and mine!

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Pat, I have met Cruz briefly and agree that he is a true conservative. I supported him, almost, from the time I heard of him. His victory against than scoundrel Dewhurst was fantastic. (I live in Texas)

          From what I have seen, Cruz is a better retail politician i.e. he is good in person. But I must say, he is not turning out to be a great wholesale politician on TV. Sadly, this is necessary in our present political climate, and I don’t see this changing.

          For the rest, I think you make much of my case in your post.

          While I believe I would prefer Cruz, I do not see him coming near to winning the nomination. I do think he is playing a long game and may end up Trump’s VP selection. And from his actions and words, I think one could gather that Cruz might prefer Trump to some of the others on the dias.

          As I always say, there is no perfect in politics. There hasn’t been another George Washington since ….well, George Washington. And as proof that we cannot expect one, you should note that Jefferson was a two-faced s.o.b. who stabbed Washington in the back more than once. So don’t get too fixated on ideals. We have to work with the material we have.

          • Pst4usa says:

            At this point in time Mr. Kung, I do not know what else to fixate on besides ideals. Maybe Cruz is not going to win in the glitz, glamor and shallowness of today’s America. But I still can hope.
            I sat for dinner, this past Thursday night, with Michael Medved and got to talk with him for about an hour he makes the same argument against Cruz but in favor of Bush, and since this is the primary, I just cannot go there.
            You may be right on the VP slot, that is how a milquetoast, as Brad would say, like Calvin Coolidge became president. And from my perspective, he was a great president.
            Not to worry about my view of the founders, not one of them was perfect, not one, not even Washington. But we sure could use a batch with their qualities today.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              My hope is that, at the very least, Trump will get rid of Kasich, Christie, Rubio and Bush. The first two should be fairly easy, the later two will take more work. But if they don’t win any of the first three contests and then fail in Florida, they are gone. One can dream.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I sat for dinner, this past Thursday night, with Michael Medved and got to talk with him for about an hour he makes the same argument against Cruz but in favor of Bush, and since this is the primary, I just cannot go there.

              Oh my god! (Said in a sort of Valley Girl accent.) I would have found it very difficult not to get into an argument. This is just so sad.

              Cruz remains my #1 guy. But he’s going to have to start ramping his game up. I don’t think he can do it. I think he’s sort of settled into the “statesman” role. He’s got the Senate to fall back on and I don’t see him taking any big risks. Yes, one could say he’s taking risk by being as conservative as he is in the Senate. But he does represent Texas. That’s not a great risk.

              I’d like to see him really go for it. I’d like him to take the bull by the horns. I’d like to see him prick the bubble of PC culture and explain concisely and eloquently exactly why we need to do so in all areas.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Cruz has a big problem with his presentation. He looked very politician like at the beginning of the debate, but improved as it went on.

                His only chance to move up is to attack the establishment very aggressively and not just McConnell. But this is taking a big chance. I believe Cruz is a true conservative, but think the powers that be can get to him, unlike Trump.

                Cruz is not a rich man and is still young. His wife worked for Goldman Sachs, maybe still does, and both she and he must plan for the future. They have young children.

                Cruz wants to stay active in politics and the Republican party is the only game in town for him, at the moment.

                Trump is in his late sixities, has his money and his children have their money. So what’s to lose?

              • Pst4usa says:

                I did argue with him Brad, I just did it respectfully. The whole night was about blaaaah….party unity…ugggh. I think I just threw up in my mouth.

                If you have twenty minutes Brad, here is Ted speaking to a group at Heritage. I thought he was very good, but I am bias.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHhwk5eQwyM#t=1191

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Cruz spoke equally well in McKinney. The question is why doesn’t he speak this way in the debates?

                Of course the format is different, but he didn’t show anything like this passion even when discussing Iran.

                I was amazed he stood there like a school boy and let most of the debate just pass him by.

                The man is intelligent, knowledgeable and appears to be honest. What is holding him back?

                One suspects he is simply biding his time as he has raised plenty of money from the grass-roots. I hope his strategy works, but he seems to be stalled at 5th or 6th place for the moment.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Cruz spoke equally well in McKinney. The question is why doesn’t he speak this way in the debates?

                Pat said he spoke great when he had a dinner with him. Granted, the debate format and questions are not geared toward good speaking. But it can be done. And he’s done some. But he hasn’t sold the people on why his vision is what we need.

                And I don’t blame him for that, per se. As Rush said, it’s very difficult for conservatives to come around once every four years and try to sell people on conservatism when they’ve been spoon-fed Progressivism 24/7 in between time.

                The man is intelligent, knowledgeable and appears to be honest. What is holding him back?

                He’s obviously not John McCain. But he’s in much the same position. He already has a base. He has a seat. He is one of only 100. There is no equivalent to being a United States Senator. A governor of a state knows executive power and all the headaches that go with it. For him the prize is the ultimate executive authority.

                For a Senator, the presidency is a bit ambivalent. He’s already a top dog. I don’t see Cruz risking the solidness of his Senate seat in an attempt to move up to the presidency where he’d have nothing but headaches and certainly not a safe seat (you can only run for reelection once, and it’s a mere four-year term).

                Listen, like it or not, these guys are politicians and they lead an extremely well-paid and cushy life. Cruz can probably remain in his senate seat for at least another term, maybe longer. And I think he knows that and thus that creates a certain support wall that he just won’t risk crashing through in order to grab the brass ring.

                He’s a Senator. And he can probably do the most good there. Still, if Trump asked him to be his VP, he’d probably sign on. But if he didn’t, you can understand why. And if he was offered the post and declined, you’d likely never hear about it.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I agree with your analysis, Mr. Kung, of why Cruz is less than stellar and ambles more toward the amiable.

              • Pst4usa says:

                I agree with the assessment of his large scale debate performance, and he can do very well from time to time, but he is an attorney, he thinks long and hard about his responses, and it appeared to me that he started this one out a little stiff and over rehearsed, he would be much better off to be himself and just answer from the heart or off the cuff like Trump does. He needs to have faith in himself and his ability to answer off the cuff. I would prefer a Governor, from the experience stand point, but there is not one that has his conservative convictions and passion for the Constitution. As far as hiring his staff, he has had plenty of experience doing that. And one more big plus for Ted Cruz, is there anyone better qualified to pick the next 3 to 5 Supreme Court Justices?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              There was a bit of a Coolidge presidential campaign in 1920, but he didn’t encourage it. He wasn’t the intended VP either, but enough convention delegates had other ideas to give us the better choice.

              As for Cruz having more to risk than Trump does, note that this is basically the idea Eliot Ness had with his Untouchables (and never mind how well they worked in reality): people who couldn’t be coerced by threats to their families. And Versailles-on-the-Potomac has quite a bit of a gangster culture.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Pat, here is something which might interest you as well.

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/pro-christian-vow-trump-escalates-medias-muslim-obama-smear/

      I also find this issue more important that single payer insurance. Let’s hope he means it.

      • Pst4usa says:

        I agree that this is also huge Mr. Kung, and I would have to agree with your order of importance. But 2 out of 3 in this case just does not cut it for me.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I think we should understand that Trump’s campaign is unique. The establishment cannot silence him because he is not beholden to them for money or future jobs and he does not care if he is invited to their cocktail parties. He does not have to mute his message or trim his sales to their winds, because he does not owe them or ask them for anything.

    They and the media cannot ignore him and hope he will disappear because he is not only a billionaire, he is a media personality who arouses interest in the public. He can get his message out while many other candidates can be simply ignored. The CNN debate is a good example of this. There were 11 candidates on the stage and even then, Trump is the candidate who got the most attention. Several of the others were basically ignored.

    The media and establishment cannot create confusion about his message because he can grab any microphone he wants and refute their lies and clarify his points.

    This combination of media billionaire is something new and short of assassinating him, which I wouldn’t put past some of the establishment, there is little they can do to stop him.

    Another point, which I believe to be important, is the fact that if he did win the presidency he would be taking a big pay cut. The people know this and see this as a sign of his sincere desire to get the country back on track. From Trump Tower to the White House would be a step down for the man.

    As I believe the man is very smart, he will use this to his advantage. If he wins the Republican nomination, watch him come out and tell the country that he will forgo any salary as president. Any other pols doing such a thing?

    This man scares the hell out of the elites as they cannot control him.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The establishment cannot silence him because he is not beholden to them for money or future jobs and he does not care if he is invited to their cocktail parties. He does not have to mute his message or trim his sales to their winds, because he does not owe them or ask them for anything.

      They and the media cannot ignore him and hope he will disappear because he is not only a billionaire, he is a media personality who arouses interest in the public.

      I think you’re right, Mr. Kung. And do note (as I’m sure you have) that the RINOs hope that their greatest article of faith is eventually upheld, and that is that anyone who dares break out of the pack and tell the truth will eventually be consume and destroyed. They’re all waiting for Trump to crash and burn as to many have, brought down by political correctness. I believe the Japanese have an idea something like this: “The peg that sticks up will be pounded down.” Or something like that.

      Trump’s political ideas are not that much of a threat the Establishment Republicans. As other writers have noted, they share most of the same views…at least regarding rhetoric.

      But the one thing Trump doesn’t share is the obsession with superficial niceties and over-gentlemanly forms (which acts as a disguise for cowardice or mere monetary interests for the Establishment). “You can’t say that” could be the rallying cry of the RINOs (so they have an excuse never to do so). No one’s views (except that of conservatives) must be upset. All must be catered to. “Reaching out,” not persuasion, is the calling card of the RINO.

      And if these Establishment Republicans have no true ideology other than power (or managing America’s decline, as Rush calls it), then their obsession with gentlemanly “forms” is a mere mask for having truly awful and crass motives. The outer form these GOP bandits wear is the idea, as I think Jeffrey Lord or some other analyst said, that real gentleman don’t have harsh differences of opinion. (See: McCain.) And I believe this is a mask for the amoral, often atheistic, and certainly avarice-based motivations of the GOP.

      Establishment Republicans hide behind baloney motives and excuses and, to some extent, this is now common knowledge, thus the popularity of Donald Trump. The fact that Trump shares many of the same Progressive/liberal views as Establishment Republicans doesn’t bother his supporters as much because they know he is not imprisoned by the George Bush/Karl Rove concoction of “the new tone.” That “tone” is like taking a pair of scissors and cutting off the testicles of the Republican donkey.

      George Bush’s greatest legacy, perhaps even beyond the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan, is his selling out of conservatism. And, however slowly they are coming to this realization, those who consider themselves real conservatives (not “compassionate” conservatives) are beginning to understand this, thus most would stay home before voting for another Bush. Why aid and abet those (Rubio, Christie, Carly, and others) in destroying conservatism and America as founded by gumming up the only opposition party to the Left with those who won’t oppose them?

      Trump is, more or less his own man (although I think he’s beholden to Progressive thinking — that is, “PC” thinking — far more than has been widely acknowledged). For now, he seems to believe in the fraud of global warming, for instance, and doesn’t see it as the gateway drug to socialism. But people may suspect as I do that when his “expert teams” he puts together addresses these issues, he will have a change of mind.

      That’s a big “if.” But that is what he’s promising, in his vague sort of way. That sounds awfully technocratic, little different from how the RINO Establishment Republicans approach things: no ideology, few details, no political framework, or even book-smarts — they just think their “experts” can run existing structures better by virtue that they, of course, know they are experts.

      But we know with some assurance that the people the Establishment surrounds themselves with are not real experts. Maybe Trump’s experts will be different. He has, after all, been a success in business while most of the others have done nothing but live off the public dole on politics which is the same as accomplishing very little.

      And as much as we might like to see a Ted Cruz presidency, I’m of the mind (I saw this in the first debate) that Ted Cruz is too weak and milquetoast to ever do much of anything. He’s a politician. He could right now be saying not only many of the things that Trump is, but hitting hard on other un-PC issues as well. But he’s just too Senatorially neutered, obsessed with forms, just as Ben Carson is. Carson is obviously an intelligent and decent man. And neither Carson nor Cruz need to be indecent. But they do need to be bolder than Mr. Rogers. They have to start worrying more about what is best for America rather than what others think about them. That is one of Trump’s strengths.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The social scene is probably one of the main reasons that Republican SCOTUS appointees without DC experience turn liberal. Those who’ve already suffered that life and not been corrupted by it will hold their course; those who haven’t all too often surrender to the desire to “stand tall in Georgetown”.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      If he wins the Republican nomination, watch him come out and tell the country that he will forgo any salary as president. Any other pols doing such a thing?

      Trump has now come out and confirmed he will not take a dollar if elected. The man has a plan, regardless what the establishment Reps and others say about him.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I did argue with him Brad, I just did it respectfully.

    Pat, how do you argue respectfully with some RINO who prefers Jeb Bush or over Ted Cruz? You must teach me your tricks, Oh Jedi Master.

    Still, Medved did present a fantastic program on the Constitution the other day. But regarding current affairs, like a lot of people, he’s got a blind spot. I guess it’s a situation where if you’re happy with the status quo now (and are doing well), you might prefer someone who isn’t going to do anything but put a conservative gloss over business-as-usual. And that would be Jeb Bush.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      This insults the mentally retarded.

      Jeb Bush is another dishonest elitist who will say and do most anything to stay in the good books of the establishment because his family is a big part of the establishment. These people think most of us are mentally retarded.

      Among other reasons, he wants to be president so as to prepare the way for his son who was elected to a state wide office in Texas in 2014. This genius issued a statement before running that he was sure he was going to run for office, but he wasn’t sure the exact office he would run for.

      That should tell everyone all they need to know about the Bushes. Politics is their profession and they use each public office as a stepping stone to the next in order to gain power and money.

      Between the Clintons, the Kennedys and the Bushes the USA is becoming like India and the Gandhis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *