This is why we cannot have nice primaries, part 1

Trump embraced name calling and distortions of the policy positions of political rivals for the Republican nomination early upon his official entry on the political scene. He dominated the 2016 primary with taunts, distortion and innuendo in 2016. He saw the strength of the TEA Party movement in the party. He read the rooms sentiment of distrust and impatience and preceded to aggravate aspects, heedless of any distortions heaped on the records of solid conservatives.

The dominant liberal media helped Trump in the 2016 primary, giving him extraordinary attention because they wanted chaos in the Republican Party and the candidate they thought the most vulnerable to win or at least serve as an enthusiastic participant in damaging the others. Of course they used Trump only to find or invent all manner of scandal after the nomination.

It did not quite work as far as the electoral college as the American people were faced with Hillary Clinton as the alternative, a candidate hard to like by women or men, and sufficient right-thinking people found the America First theme Trump adopted (but did not invent)  was compelling. Trump pretty much stayed with that program. The dominant liberal media’s trying to portray it as Nazi 2.0 mostly spoke to the liberal choir. Enough people in the right states were concerned about the culture, the effect upon that of open borders and knowing all candidates are sinners to some degree were nonplussed.

Trump apparently thinks nothing succeeds like success, even though the cheating might have been overcome had Trump stifled himself with the tweets that were more sophomoric than presidential. His aura lost or failed to inspire votes in spite of a pretty good record. Trump “Inc”  has decided for the primary to lead again with taunts, distortion and innuendo with no rational selectivity against fellow Republicans or fellow RINOs (is there any rival he has not called or inferred is a RINO).

We say fellow RINOs to include Trump because Trump must be one given he refuses to abide by the rules of the RNC regarding the requirement of a pledge to support the eventual nominee. The term as he bandies it cannot be about issues as few have positions that are not arguably consistent with GOP platforms or at least schools of conservative thought and which have no more exceptions and apostasies than Trump.

Trump should not be immune from the whirlwind his blowhardiness aggravates. Goose meet gander. So here we are.

Trump is also self-serving and hypocritical  on the matter of not pledging to support the nominee (perhaps Trumpistas would prefer the term exceptional) since he pretty much established the current party apparat and the rule was designed to protect Trump. We now guess the unwritten codicil is “except for Trump”.   We find Trump’s refusal irresponsible and disqualifying.

Chris Christie will never be the nominee but if Trump thinks he is a threat then why is he running in the Republican primary so supposedly filled with virulent anti-Trump people that he will pledge to support the nominee? How could he be so worried? Does he think the Republican Party apparat he endorsed is anti-Trump, corrupt and will cheat like Democrats do? Even if a Trump pledge had all the snide sincerity of Chris Christie’s pledge as regards Trump, at least he would fulfill the simple basic party unifying requirement. If Trump is so dominant wouldn’t that be a throwaway statement like so many he has made. . . . lock her up . . . I’ll build the wall and make Mexico pay for it . . . I’ll end Obamacare . . .

Trump has brandished his bellicose and braggadocious manner  as his political persona (if that is what Queens produces then give me the refinement of an old-west mining town) and his supporters defend it.  For 2024 it is our observation that DeSantis and some of the others did not throw the first punches against Trump and kept the cheek turned for quite awhile, I think in retrospect to their detriment.

Trump could not be coaxed to be selective in the quality or timing of his rebukes.  We do not think his persona really works all that well with most people, (it didn’t produce a popular victory in 2016) nor is it necessary beyond appeal to professional wrestling fans. We were robbed in various ways in 2020 but then the Dems focused on key electoral battleground states.

Trump’s presentation hurts him with a majority of women (and many men) in the general who, as superficial as they are in their reasoning, do vote.  In 2016 Trump had the good fortune of being up against a woman who other women disliked even more or enough to at least enable Trump’s electoral vote win (while losing the popular vote).

Because of  Trump being Trump (Reagan had no such problem for reelection) in 2020 they became even more-so open to the Dems gropey neck-sniffer alternative portrayed as just good-old uncle Joe.  Of course Hunter’s laptop and all the revelations it contained were hidden from them. More would have come around but other than for Trump being Trump the laptop should not have been necessary based on his record. It must be his aura.

He did for the most part what the public health nazis wanted during the great panic which his operation warp speed was key to, promoting an experimental drug on mass scale. What could possibly go wrong.

So for a great many, too many for other than an egotist not to see and adjust one’s demeanor, a lot of the 2020 vote was not about policy as much as persona, one which they would not dismiss as a schtick. With a decent record, how do you lose to a goof ball guy hiding in a basement even with a bunch of cheating.

Women may shift (they will still likely be majority Dem) for 2024 because of revelations about Biden but we do not think Trump helps the shift, rather he minimizes it. Trump’s smash-mouth approach is too much and poorly directed, and his whining when it is returned, after leading with it, causes him to lose any high ground with too many people who hold their vote dear, even against interests.  The law fare abuse heaped on him is his saving grace in some ways but as it exposes the Dems including for their hypocrisy making them perhaps untenable given revelations about Biden corruption not to mention Biden performance.  It gives them their best chance to distract Republicans and tie up Trump when better executives can win. Trump was not a a very good executive.

For a campaign that in virtually every communication tells us how great Trump is doing, how poll after poll says he is blowing away the competition, Trump and his aligned entities  are spending a lot of time and money in Iowa. They probably think they have to in order keep up expectations, rather than spending it on his legal situation.  Of course he is successfully raising millions and millions to cover that (a high percentage of donations going to that) so we needn’t fret that he is being impoverished with legal bills, unlike Giuliani, his great defender.*

In our next post we will set forth examples of the climate Trump aggressively engendered the whirlwind he is part of.

*The civil claim and awards against Giuliani for defamation were of course preposterous,  in our judgement so out of line with any semblance of equity or any relation to actual harm done had we served on the jury. For crying out loud a city sanitation worker could be killed while on duty by a negligent person and his heirs likely would not receive such an award in equity or punitive damages.

We think Giuliani and the jury ought to have maintained his free speech rights as an absolute in the context of the politics, expression of opinion and his role as an activist lawyer, political activist and the impossible onus to never make mistakes in that realm. We fervently hope the actual decision can be overturned on appeal or the award reduced to something more reasonable for any actual harm like a few hundred bucks for a lifetime VPN for the claiments pearl clutching and they pay their own attorney fees due to the politicized law-fare process. Giuliani was damaged more than enough with his legal expenses.

As an aside, and many might cogently disagree,  we also think civil servants should have no more  immunities or special protections than elected politicians such that the concept of civil servant is flawed as they inextricably operate in a political environment where politicized statements are inherent. In other words it comes with the territory.

We can only wish for a jury with a similar mindset when it comes to harm caused BY a civil servant like Fauchi should he be successfully sued for any harm done in his former capacity.

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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