Voter appeal
Commenter “Oldflyer” writes, comparing reactions to Obama and Rubio:
In 2008 we elected a first term Senator from a minority ethnicity because he was smooth, hip, and glib; and of course, a minority. Now, people seem to think we should elect another first term Senator from a minority ethnicity because he is smooth, hip and glib.
I respond briefly here, and commenter “parker” points out that one big difference is that Rubio loves this country.
Later Oldflyer adds
Neo, I realize that there are great differences between Rubio and Obama; but there are disturbing similarities in the way people react to attributes that have little to do with governing.
The question Oldflyer raises involves the tension between what we imagine would be a more ideal world (whether it really would be more ideal is another question, one I’ll not take up in this post—but see Leibniz for starters) and the world in which we find ourselves. In that latter world, voters don’t soberly analyze the candidates with their brains, they react strongly with their guts as well. In fact, we humans do this all the time, and I’m not at all sure it’s such a bad idea, because it’s when gut and brain work in tandem that I think we make our best decisions. It’s when the gut overrides the brain (as with the more naive of Obama’s supporters, the ones who should have known better) that we run into big trouble.
But I actually don’t see similarities in attitude towards Rubio and Obama, except extremely general ones that are just statements of fact (they’re both seen as young, telegenic, minority, and somewhat hip). The differences between them are huge; parker has pointed out one, but there are many, and another is that Rubio is no leftist, although he may not be quite as conservative as you’d like.
One of the main differences between Rubio and Obama in terms of people’s reactions (the thing Oldflyer is concerned with) is that many voters seemed mesmerized and almost seduced by Obama—under a spell, as it were. I don’t see anything even remotely like that with Rubio. Nor does he encourage that sort of thing in any way (unlike Obama)—which is an important distinction, too, that goes to the question of degree of narcissism. Lightworker? Hardly.
And all the praise for Rubio’s youth and relative hipness is not really praise for those things per se, as they were with Obama—as though these traits confer on the bearer some special abilities to govern, or particular wisdom (they do not!). In evaluating Rubio, the praise for those attributes comes from how they could enhance his appeal to the low information voter, the moderate/Independent voter, and/or even the disaffected Democrat voter.
In other words, the traits don’t necessarily appeal to conservatives in and of themselves, but they are considered pluses by the more practical among us because they can attract people to the GOP side who otherwise might not be attracted. This may not be what elections are all about, but it’s a huge part of what they’re about, especially because the GOP is not a majority party in this country.
That doesn’t mean other factors should be ignored; I don’t choose candidates merely in terms of electability (a word that’s become anathema to some, and a concept I tend to shy away from). But that’s what we’re talking about here, at least in part. I also happen to think that Rubio is a smart guy with basic conservative principles (yes, he made a mistake on immigration a couple of years ago, but I accept his explanation although you may not) and a rare ability to get concisely to the heart of the matter. There are abilities he’s been displaying more frequently recently.
I’m not in the least disturbed by his ability to appeal to the young and those who are looking for a regular guy who “understands” them. I’m heartened by it, because I acknowledge that—since voters seem to care about these things—it’s better to have a candidate who displays them.
[NOTE: Don’t take this post to mean that Rubio is now my #1 candidate. If I were voting in a primary today, I’d face a tough choice. I know my top three are Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio, but I’m not sure of the order. Maybe that’s the order, but I expect it to change over time. It already has. And I am virtually certain that whoever is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him or her in the general. Some of the candidates would make that almost excruciatingly difficult, though).]
[ADDENDUM: Rubio is now starting to exhibit donor appeal, which is also important unless you’re Donald Trump (and there’s only one Donald Trump, except for Michael Bloomberg). The Times reports that a prominent conservative donor has now thrown his support to Rubio:
Mr. Bush and several other candidates, including Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, had competed fiercely for Mr. Singer’s blessing.
In a letter that Mr. Singer sent to dozens of other donors on Friday, which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Singer described Mr. Rubio ”” who was elected to the Senate in the Tea Party wave but has been embraced by the party’s Washington elite ”” as the only candidate who can “navigate this complex primary process, and still be in a position to defeat” Hillary Rodham Clinton in a general election.
He praised Mr. Rubio’s message of optimism about America’s future, his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his ability to make a persuasive case to voters as key reasons to support him…
Mr. Singer…gave more money to Republican candidates and causes last year than any donor in the country…
In recent years, he has frequently deployed his network to cultivate up-and-coming Republicans who he believes can help expand the party’s demographic appeal. Among them are Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, and Mr. Rubio himself, whom Mr. Singer backed early in his 2010 race when many of Mr. Singer’s peers sided with Charlie Crist, then Florida’s Republican governor ”” a moment that was seen as a turning point in the race.
Expect more donors to follow. Here’s Singer’s bio.]
Marco needs a “read my lips” type of statement on immigration in order to stand a chance.
He cancelled an appearance in CB, Iowa but promised to return. I plan to ask him that question if he hasn’t already dealt with this problem.
I only have two groups of GOP candidates: those I would vote for if they won the primary, and those I would not vote for under any circumstances.
I think we have an embarrassment of riches, and I feel no need to choose one person over others.
Today I heard Rubio’s performance at the last debate described as that of the happy warrior. He managed to deflect Bush’s criticism without seeming mean or angry. His riff on Hillary’s Benghazi lies also weren’t angry or preachy – just an even statement of the facts as he saw them. On the other hand this same observer (Paul Gigot of the WSJ) said that he felt most of the other candidates come off as scolds or too preachy.
I hadn’t thought about that before. That was Reagan’s gift – the ability to communicate his ideas and philosophy without being preachy or a scold.
I too worry about Rubio’s lack of experience. However, we have to remember that both W and Obama chose older, more experienced men to be their V.P.s. And the electorate found it acceptable.
My concern is that none of the GOP candidates have the inner steel/courage to be C-in-C. Maybe Rubio has it, but it isn’t readily apparent. Maybe Cruz has it. He’s fearless on the debate stage, but facing down thugs like Putin, Khamanei, Assad, and others, as well as sending people to war is a level far above debates and political infighting.
Fiorina has shown the ability to fight corporate battles and lay people off. That requires toughness, but still not quite on a level with war policy and foreign affairs.
We need to see more debate on foreign policy and defense to get a better measure of these candidates.
Neo observes that “many voters seemed mesmerized and almost seduced by Obama–under a spell, as it were.”
That may say more about those voters than about Obama’s ability to mesmerize. Obama never mesmerized any of us. Those voters are robotic in their allegiance to Dems and to solving alleged injustices against blacks and, now, women, and next, Gaia. I see the same thing in the audiences at Hillary speeches, and in the written explanations and defenses of Hillary’s appalling history. Mindlessness galore. They do not think, have never thought except to generate lies and excuses. Zombies. To whom we have extended the vote.
As to Rubio and his “error” on immigration, that is a profoundly important signal of what he is and is not. His entire schtick is based on being a product of oppressed immigrants. If he made an error on immigration, and he did, a major major error, he will make similar major errors if elected to higher office.
Rubio and Trump are equally undesirable. Rubio because youth and race are his major credits, neither a personal accomplishment; and Trump because he is as much a narcissist as Obama.
There’s no doubting Rubio’s pizzazz quotient is high. There’s no doubt he is unlike Obama in all the important ways despite the one disturbing similarity that’s not all that disturbing. There are great differences between Rubio and Obama. There are not great differences between Rubio and Establishmentarians, i.e., GOP/Cons, i.e., the neocon globalist New World Order fraternity.
“I also happen to think that Rubio is a smart guy with basic conservative principles (yes, he made a mistake on immigration a couple of years ago”
The worker Visa push was not a couple of years ago.
His call for a “a new American century” was just a couple of months ago on FOX.
His conservative principles are so near non-existent that I fail to see how one can make so much of so little. The smart Bush is not Jeb, it’s Rubio. The Mexican Bush is not Jorge but Rubio. The next big letdown, should he be elected, is Rubio. I believe all that pizzazz may be a bit more blinding than expected.
Neoneocon says:
“In evaluating Rubio, the praise for those attributes [being ‘young, telegenic, minority, and somewhat hip’] comes from how they could enhance his appeal to the low information voter, the moderate/Independent voter, and/or even the disaffected Democrat voter.”
In mulling your choice for a GOP candidate, electability has to be a factor. We can’t just look to the most pure conservative and disregard the general election. We who have regarded the Obama election as a devastating blow to this country, in too many ways to enumerate here, may be sorely tempted to insist on the candidate who most closely mirrors our own ideals for a society as imagined by the founders. I’m in sympathy with that feeling, but I can’t get out of my mind what the country could look like after another 4 to 8 years of Democratic demagogic rule.
Think of Romney, who in my view would have made as good a president as we could hope for but was limited by what we have to call, like it or not, electability. We can’t cling any longer to what we see as the “perfect” candidate ideologically–what a futile motive that is! We actually have an amazing bench of candidates, none of whom are flawless but most of whom could make acceptable presidents. Even so we’re lucky to have a Rubio. It may be that in time he’ll start to look inevitable.
My mind is still open, but right now my ticket is Rubio-Fiorina.
Neo, I see that New York billionaire Paul Singer, who purportedly has donated more money to GOP candidates than any other individual, has endorsed Rubio.
I assume that he has done his due diligence, and is not just opting for the glamour. This may put Rubio over the top, as apparently big money tends to follow Singer’s lead.
BTW, the report said that Christie and Bush had made strong pitches for his endorsement.
JJ, I think you raise concerns that are legitimate, but that are unlikely to be resolved in the electoral process. The folks who have proven the qualities you cite, are just don’t seem electable on the national stage. Admiral Stockdale whose courage and proven leadership were just shrugged off on one hand, and Rudy Guillani who gained no traction on the other, come to mind. It is a tough nut to crack; one would have thought that Jimmy Carter, who survived Rickover’s emotionally brutal elimination process, would have more steel. So, all too often we just take a chance. However, as I have indicated, I see some qualities of toughness and steel in Christie, along with his governing ability, and that is why he is beginning to get my attention a bit.
Frog; et al:
I see Rubio’s error on immigration as a function of the fact that he thought that a comprehensive bill would be possible, and that securing the border (which was part of the bill) was the most important part. He has since made it clear that he has learned this is not possible and would never recommend it again.
Here is a very clear statement of his immigration stance today. Personally, I have no problem with it. I imagine you disagree with it, or if you agree with it you don’t trust that he means it. I think he means it, but I certainly could never say I’m 100% sure. In fact, however, I don’t trust Trump 100% either (I trust him maybe 50%), and see his position as actually very similar to Rubio’s, even regarding deportation, on which he’s contradicted himself. At the moment, I don’t see all that much differentiation among the leading candidates’ stands on immigration, actually (I don’t consider Bush a leading candidate, by the way).
I see Rubio as having made an error of trusting the opposition Democrats to be negotiating in good faith, and he’s learned from his error. That happens. You may find his error unforgivable, or you may not agree that he’s telling the truth now. I can understand that; it’s a judgment call, after all.
Oldflyer:
I had already added an addendum discussing Singer to the post. Take a look.
His entire schtick is based on being a product of oppressed immigrants.
I don’t think that’s the case at all. He’s been highly touted from day one mainly because of the breadth of his knowledge about foreign affairs.
Here’s a three-and-a-half minute video clip of him speaking against the Iran deal on the Senate floor. A very good example of his grasp of foreign policy and his ability to forcefully and clearly explain his position.
Neo: “I see Rubio as having made an error of trusting the opposition Democrats to be negotiating in good faith.”
That is a pretty profound error. To trust the enemy? Was he born yesterday? (Yes, he was!)
And his whole original immigration plan in globo was one large, unforced error.
It serves to underscore my concern about him.
Frog:
Yes, he was and still is young. I think that’s part of it. That’s always a drawback with electing someone young. I don’t think he’ll make that mistake again. I see all the candidates as having made errors, though. I believe that Rubio has learned from that one.
Rubio displayed a good-faith willingness to work with others, and the backbone to walk away from a bad deal. He displayed national leadership in the Senate in his first term. The whole thing didn’t result in any bad legislation being passed. Where’s the “error”?
In addition to appealing to LIVs, I see Rubio being “smooth” and “hip” as a bigger factor with Democrats and their fear of him. These are qualities that *they* value, as exemplified with their Obama worship. So they sense a similar threat in Rubio. In comparison to (charmless, grating) Hillary and (crazy old man) Bernie, these qualities are especially evident. It must terrify them.
The Democrats usually have the “cooler” candidates because this is what they value, this is who they vote for: style over substance. Meanwhile, the GOP seems to have a lot more stiff and/or awkward pols because we value other qualities in them, such as intelligence, experience, unabashed conservative value, etc.. This definitely factored into their hatred of Palin and their need to destroy her. They can usually count on the GOP to put up someone they can easily mock — may be a challenge this time around.
*Cruz is my favorite candidate; Rubio is not in my top three. He’d rank even lower if Perry and Walker were still in.
JJ:
The presidential candidates have already been administered a simple litmus test: the Kelly ‘knowing what we know now’ hypothetical about the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
If a presidential candidate fails to correctly explain the decision for OIF and advocate for the largest, most geopolitically determining American military deployment since Korea (yes, surpassing Vietnam), then he or she likely does not possess “the inner steel/courage to be C-in-C”.
As you know, the law and policy basis of the decision for OIF is long developed, amply documented, and straightforward. The determinative fact findings confirmed that Iraq was in breach across the board of the Gulf War ceasefire, which was casus belli.
On the facts, the decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.
As such, advocating for the Iraq intervention when challenged by the Kelly ‘knowing what we know now’ hypothetical merely calls for an “even statement of the facts”. Beyond that, a presidential candidate only needs sufficient “inner steel/courage” to counter the cultural/political weight of the false narrative made prevalent in the zeitgeist by enemy propaganda.
So. Which GOP (or for that matter, Democratic) candidates have responded correctly to the Kelly hypothetical?
Those are your leading presidential candidates for possessing “the inner steel/courage to be C-in-C”.
Whichever presidential candidates have responded to the Kelly hypothetical incorrectly can be set aside.
All this hate on Rubio because he’s for a sensible immigration policy. Funny thing is, though, if the big anti-immigration guy, Trump, were the nominee for president, there’s no guarantee at all that he wouldn’t change his stance in a general campaign — he’s not a trustworthy guy, after all. For instance:
Ann, I don’t hate Rubi, just don’t trust him not go all RINO squishy.
Eric,
I think the only two candidates who would even come close to meeting your criterion of correctly explaining the OIF decision are Bobby Jindal and Lindsay Graham. All the others have said if they knew no WMDs, they wouldn’t have gone to war. Unfortunately, neither Jindal nor Graham has even a remote chance of being nominated.
Good point, Ann. I liked what Lindsey had to say on foreign policy and defense in the “Happy Hour” debate. Bobby Jindal is also quite firm on foreign policy. However, neither of them seems to have a snowball in Hell’s chance of being nominated.
Eric, your point is well taken about whether or not a candidate will defend OIF. The problem is the case cannot be made in a debate. It has to be made in a comprehensive foreign policy speech or position paper. Such a speech or paper would probably be immediately attacked by both sides of the spectrum. (The narrative has been so well established by the MSM.) The candidate would need a very clever and simple way of responding to those attacks in a sound bite of a minute or less to be able to sustain his/her position. That’s an assignment I wouldn’t be capable of carrying out. Like most conservatives, I’m not clever and hip nor a happy warrior. Lindsey Graham might. He has shown himself to be fairly nimble in debate on matters of defense and foreign policy. I’m thinking he might make a good SecDef in a GOP administration.
I couldn’t vote for Reagan the first time but I do recall reading that a lot of people objected to him because he was from show business. And that was suspicious. Just realize that nobody is going to be the perfect candidate and remind yourself that eve the worst of our crew, however you wish to define that, is 100 times better than what’s on offer in opposition. And maybe consider the possibility of not doing the media’s work for them.
I don’t see Rubio as all that smooth, actually. I like him – he’s probably my #1 – but he never seems entirely comfortable. Cruz looooves taking people apart. Rubio look like he’d rather be doing something else. What, I don’t know, and that’s kind of important. You knew what Bill Clinton would rather be doing. You always knew that. Hillary Clinton would rather be crushing an underling with her heel than be talking to you. Trump would rather, well, he’d probably rather be partying with Bill Clinton, but he’s running for office because he feels like it for now. When is Rubio most comfortable?
If Rubio is the nominee, I will vote for him. As of now, I just can’t shake the impression that he comes across as a bit too slick.
Neo linked to an article that gave a broad outline of what Rubio’s immigration policy might look like if elected. What I find amazing is that given all of the discussion about immigration (thanks to the Donald) and Rubio’s history with the Gang of 8, he hasn’t been asked about this in any of the three get-togethers some people have called debates. Unbelievable that an issue so important in determining the popularity of certain candidates hasn’t been on the radar of the debate moderators.
JimBobElrod:
They’re afraid some of them might give a good answer.
I think I would feel more comfortable with Rubio if we had an idea of who he would pick for advisors, cabinet, and so forth. With Cruz I have little doubt that I would like his choices.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, I think we can probably count on him having neoconservative advisors — according to a May article at Politico, one who’s already on his team is Jamie Fly, “a former nonproliferation aide in George W. Bush’s White House and Pentagon with strong ties to the party’s neoconservative wing. Before joining Rubio’s staff, Fly had been executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a think tank whose founders include the prominent conservative hawks Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan.”
The article also says that Rubio’s aides “have said in the past that he has consulted with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Bush White House national security aide and Middle East expert Elliott Abrams.”
Full article is here.
Why does Michael Savage, who is a staunch supporter of Israel, think Marco Rubio is dirty? Given Rubio’s backers like Singer, one would think Savage would be on board. Why did Jeb Bush turn on Rubio like he has? What has he learned and from whom? This strikes me as much more than rivalry for the establishment vote and big donor backing.
You suggest that it’s sometimes OK to trust our guts. My gut instinct is that Rubio is connected. Don’t ask me how I know, but believe me when I say I have reasons besides just instinct.
The Other Chuck:
Michael Savage is a very extreme guy and is into immigration as the most important issue, and his animus for Rubio seems to be about that. As for Bush, I think Jeb is just really really angry that he’s not being crowned heir apparent, and he’s taking it out on upstart rival Rubio. He tried taking it out on Trump and got blasted. He probably also knows that Rubio is the most “electable” candidate as well as the most supposedly “establishment” candidate who has even a chance of being nominated. So Rubio is his most important rival by far.
I don’t see any reason to posit any more than that as the motivation. To my mind, those motivations more than account for what we see.
A borderline acceptable candidate for me, because he burned the tea party who championed his candidacy.
Now, this new billionaire backer turns out to be a big open border guy?
THIS will re-invigorate hostile objections, I believe.
Ann Says at 3:44 pm:
“if the big anti-immigration guy, Trump, were the nominee for president, there’s no guarantee at all that he wouldn’t change his stance in a general campaign –”
Yes, there is no guarantee Trump wouldn’t change his stance — or bomb Canada for that matter; nor any guarantee that Rubio would not swing open the borders to every Hispanic in the western hemisphere (because he thinks it a sensible immigration policy doesn’t make it so).
The difference between Trump and Rubio lies herein:
Trump, is on the right side of repentence — a 180 degree turn. Rubio seems more sorry for having been caught — red handed. He has no call to the benefit of a doubt for he remains not repentant, merely quiescent – he remains a leaf blowing with the wind. Big edge to Trump.
George Pal:
What on earth are you talking about?
Trump has never addressed his immigration switches and never “repented.” Here’s Trump’s immigration history.
Rubio has addressed the issue of what was different when he was part of the Gang of Eight, why he advocated something different then as opposed to now. You can study what Rubio is now saying about immigration, and what he says has changed since the Gang of Eight bill was proposed (article and video here, starting around minute 9:40).
Rubio’s position is about the same as Trump’s, actually, except that Trump’s is more absurd (deport 12 million people first, then let a lot of them back in—so that you end up with something similar to what Rubio is advocating. That’s if in fact the deportation could even be accomplished—and Trump fails to explain how it could happen).
Neo neocon,
Stop it – because Trump had not donned sackcloth, doused himself with ashes, and flagellated himself?
His repentance is implicit as it greatly differs from past vascillations.
“Rubio’s position is about the same as Trump’s, actually, except that Trump’s is more absurd (deport 12 million people first)”
The exception is vital and deporting (or having them self-deport) is far less absurd than letting them stay, letting them stay with benefits, letting them stay agitating for amnesty — they will prevail.
Here is Trump — unequivocal, resolute:
“We either have a country, or we don’t have a country”
“A nation without borders is not a nation”
“A nation without laws is not a nation”
“A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation”
What had Marco to say on the matters, besides wanting to import more H1-B Visa aliens?
You may think it hogwash. I do not.
Will Trump change things? Who knows? But let’s not get too far in front of the parade. He’s already changed things. He has set forth, in stark tones (listed above), what most everyone else would rather had not been let out of the box — the menace of immigration to nationhood and identity.
Before you can solve a problem you must first compellingly identify it… 15 — love, Trump. For having shaken the populace’s sense of the establishment’s sense of its own invincibility… Thirty — love, Trump. For having stuck a finger in the eye of the MSM, and another in the eye of social justice/PC mutaween… Forty — love, Trump.
Marco? The ball boy running after balls.
George Pal:
“Repentance” was your term, not mine. Repentance implies acknowledgment of a change and the reasons for it. You can’t infer there’s been repentance from a mere change, particularly when the person (in this case, Trump) is inconsistent and known for changing back and forth and back and forth, and it’s all talk anyway because that person has never had to follow up his political talk with political action. Hot air personified.
Trump has not repented but Rubio has at least done the basics in the sense of explaining why he used to support the Gang of Eight bill, and what has changed now (read the linked article, and/or watch the video there starting around 9:40). Nor has Trump turned 180 degrees (unless you believe that he initially supported citizenship for illegals; maybe he did, but even that’s not clear).
Nor is there any reason to believe Trump could accomplish what he says he’ll accomplish regarding immigration, nor is his position consistent day to day, much less over time. If you’re interested in some immigration positions of Trump’s from 2011 and 2012, see the ADDENDUM here. See what he was saying about “self-deportation” back then. Where has he explained why he’s changed his mind? Never has he done anything of the sort.
I am also sick and tired of the idea that Trump was the first to talk about the menace of illegal immigration. That’s an absurdity. I gave some example of Fiorina’s pre-Trump stances on illegal immigration (see this), for example. Just because you didn’t hear a candidate talk about it doesn’t mean he/she wasn’t talking about it prior to the Trump candidacy.
Cruz, for example, has been quite tough on illegal immigration long before Trump entered the race. See this, for example. Here’s a piece from 2012 on Cruz’s stands back then on the subject, when running in the Republican Senate primary. Here’s what Cruz was doing on the subject in 2014, back when Trump may have still been thinking Republicans were just too mean about illegal immigration.
Neo-neocon,
I most certainly can infer a repentance when the change is not mere but significant and unequivocal. We operate not in the court but the court of public opinion. We infer different things — I am not surprised. You may inundate the discussion with a document dump but I’m not interested. What Trump may or may not have been for or against, in the distant past, is inconsequential. It matters not at all which of the candidates had arrived first at the gate re immigration, whether Fiorina or any anyone else. The past does not clear the waters, it muddies them — as does the recent past (Rubio — H1-B Visa dump). What matters is now. Who is unequivocal, who most likely resolute, who is most unafraid”
Immigration — legal and illegal — is the critical, existential, predicament of the moment. To address it at that level is essential, vital. As a subset of it there is economic nationalism, a theme so vein rich as to make it a mother lode. Trump, of all candidates, has made both his own, his raison pour la course. Anyone else is left to jump on the bandwagon.
Should luck, providence, historical determinism, wisdom, the roll of loaded dice provide a Trump/Cruz ticket, I might seek out how to go about registering to vote — the first step of an expedition.
George Pal:
You can infer whatever you want, but it makes no sense to me to trust that Trump’s change is more honest and true than Rubio’s, because there is simply no evidence for it.
Rubio has provided some evidence for his sincerity in the form of an explanation both of his original point of view and of the reason for his change. Trump has provided neither. Rubio’s change therefore makes sense, or at least a certain amount of sense. Trump’s does not. Trump also has a history of other wild swings in point of view, well-documented wild swings that he’s never had to account for or explain. And not just once, and not just on one topic—but on many topics (including his political party, which he’s changed many times, back and forth) and many times.
Trump is probably the single most inconsistent major candidate running for president I’ve ever seen, not just this year but any year. He also has no political track record of follow through, so we can’t judge him on that. All we can judge him on in terms of political follow-through is his mouth, and even his mouth utters inconsistencies that are quite pronounced.
Meanwhile, you think Trump’s most trustworthy because his policy reversal has been the greatest? That seems to me probably the most absurd reason I’ve ever heard to trust someone or believe in someone. I’d at least give you some credit if Trump had explained this reversal in coherent terms (or really, in any terms), but he has not even done that.
Makes no sense whatsover to me. You write:
That sounds exactly and precisely like Obama supporters in 2008 and 2012. Listen to yourself; it’s scary.
What’s more, the history of Trump’s making illegal immigration “his own” is that it’s the thing people like about him so he has come to emphasize it. If you study the speech Trump made to announce his candidacy, you’ll discover that his stance on illegal immigration was a very small part of his platform when he started. Because of the “rapist” remark, however, the MSM attacked him, thinking it would sink him. He defended himself and all of a sudden his poll numbers soared. It seems to me that his emphasis on illegal immigration followed that incident, because he realized it would be the issue that would propel him to the top.
Someone like Cruz, on the other hand, has been working for years very diligently on it. But, as a senator, he’s had to work on a host of other things, too, so the illegal immigration part gets lost in the shuffle because unlike Trump he has a record rather than just rhetoric.
Do I take it from your last sentence that you have not been voting in recent elections? So we can thank you in some small part for the Obama years?
“the history of Trump’s making illegal immigration “his own”
let not forgot one bit of history of this man with Tyrant & Dictators those had list of breaching international laws stretches from sponsoring terrorism to abusing human rights. Where Muammar Gaddafi pitching a tent in a no-camping zone.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/23/gaddafi-tent-ban-bedford-newyork
“Meanwhile, you think Trump’s most trustworthy because his policy reversal has been the greatest? That seems to me probably the most absurd reason I’ve ever heard to trust someone or believe in someone. I’d at least give you some credit if Trump had explained this reversal in coherent terms (or really, in any terms), but he has not even done that.”
You put too great an absurd faith in consistency and coherency. How had that worked out for Republicans? George W had the ideal campaign, and was nothing if not consistent in his insistencies: reduced budgets, reduced powers, humble foreign policy, no nation building. And look at what happened, a presidency irreconcilable and utterly incoherent with his campaign talking points.
And what has Trump to explain? Detail ad nauseum what is evident for all to see? Explain why someone running for president will have a different perspective than someone who was not? Explain that the president of a country has duties, responsibilities much different than an ordinary citizen, albeit one worth several billions. Trump had explained nothing and caught a wave of enthusiasm. How had those sods come to understand that which had not been explained to them?
Yes, I find Trump more trustworthy than any other GOP/Con candidate. Not because he is so inherently more trustworthy but because the rest, with the possible exception of Cruz, are tainted by association — with the Establishmentarian GOP that had produced the likes of Dole, McCain, Bush (II), and Romney. NO fifth chances.
You don’t have to go back to “the distant past” — here’s a brand-new example of the Trump flip-on-a-dime routine:
Absurd doesn’t begin to describe either him or his supporters.
George Pal:
I see that logic is not appealing to you, so I’m not going to spend a lot more time in this discussion with you.
I will merely add that, because some people who seemed consistent end up changing when they are actually in the office of the presidency and faced with the reality of governing the entire nation in times of crisis, that does not imply that people who are already inconsistent in just their statements and positions will be more true to their word once in office.
What’s more, unlike Trump and Bush, Cruz has been consistent in both word AND deed.
Trump could flip-flop on Medicare, and a litany of other inconsiderable programs. He could do it daily to amuse anyone easily amused by the inconsequential. As long as he his consistent on the existential questions immigration and economic nationalism he remains the wave against the ripple. Besides how could anyone find fault in a man who was not a shameless rubbed, buffed and glossed politician who had daily for a decade practiced earnestness and consistency in front of a mirror.
Neo-neocon,
”I will merely add that, because some people who seemed consistent end up changing when they are actually in the office of the presidency and faced with the reality of governing the entire nation in times of crisis, that does not imply that people who are already inconsistent in just their statements and positions will be more true to their word once in office.”
Logically speaking, it does not imply they will be more true to their word once in office — nor does it preclude it.
Take a chance.
H-1B and Rubio. I have two sons both working in technical areas of 2 different major US corporations.In one, with the exception of my son, the whole floor of US workers has been replaced by workers from India. This happened because there was a shortage of US workers? Of course not. In the case of the other son he is a project manager with 20 plus members on his team. With the exception of my son all other team members are located in India and they work seamlessly because technology allows for it. But its still not right IMHO. Rubio, if it comes down to it and I have to vote for you I will but, this particular issue, as my dad would say “gets my goat.”
Trump could flip-flop on Medicare, and a litany of other inconsiderable programs. He could do it daily to amuse anyone easily amused by the inconsequential. As long as he his consistent on the existential questions immigration and economic nationalism he remains the wave against the ripple.
Does the fact that Trump has his clothing line, the Donald J. Trump Collection, produced in Mexico and China give you maybe at least a moment’s hesitation with regard his following through with what he’s promising on those “existential questions”?
Neo on obvious reasons for Jeb going after Rubio:
I don’t see any reason to posit any more than that as the motivation. To my mind, those motivations more than account for what we see.
Jeb is just really, really angry and Savage is a very extreme guy and is into immigration. Uh huh. Savage’s venomous hatred for Rubio transcends the immigration issue. He only gets this worked up over one issue, and it’s not immigration. Jeb’s problem is one of betrayal by a protege. You’re right about the very, very anagry, but wrong about the reason for it.
As I said about my hunch, Rubio is connected. Exactly to what is for you to figure out. He’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Ann, @3:41
July, 2015, After Macy’s had dumped the Trump Clothing Line, Trump responded:
“I have decided to terminate my relationship with Macy’s because of the pressure being put on them by outside sources. While selling Trump ties and shirts At Macy’s is a small business in terms of dollar volume, my principles are far more important and therefore much more valuable. I have never been happy about the fact that the ties and shirts are made in China, and should I start a new product line somewhere in the future, I would insist that they are made in America. Quite frankly, I was never satisfied with manufacturing my product in China, but because of what they had done in terms of devaluing their currency, it is very hard for other companies to compete and make such apparel in the United States.
These are the kinds of issues I am committed to addressing. Securing our border, negotiating trade deals that benefit the United States, and bringing back jobs to America is my top priority.”
Should Trump, at some point in the future crawfish on his resolution, I would indeed be moved to a moment’s hesitation — and more — with regard his following through on that resolution. Until such time, I understand Trump the businessman; and remain in full accord with Trump the candidate. No man is obligated to be saintly until he had aspired to be a saint. That time starts now.
Rubio moneypacker Paul Singer
for gay rights and is a contributor to George Soros’ National Immigration Forum”
It’s not so much Rubio is a whore; it’s whose whore. Villainous company begets villainous behavior. That’s got to be in the bible somewhere.
From his interview on October 18 with Mike Wallace:
Gee, if he’d looked a little harder, he’d have found that there is a South Carolina—based company named Element that sells TVs “assembled in America,” at least. Maybe he could have given them his order for those 4,000 sets.
Sorry, bad link — here’s the correct link to Element.
Well, dang, don’t how those bad links happened. Here’s the correct link to the Wallace interview.
George Pal:
This goes back to the old argument that somehow Trump is above it all because he’s a multi-billionaire. That discussion has gone on in this blog before several times (here’s an example of such a previous discussion).
Just as one example of how a person’s own money can corrupt him, however, look at Trump’s enthusiastic support for Kelo. That’s something no conservative would ordinarily ever consider condoning, and yet when Trump does it? Crickets from his supposedly conservative supporters.
As for Paul Singer, when has it been the case that every single donor to a campaign is scrutinized as though it’s he/she who’s running? If candidates were held to that standard, only multi-billionaires could run. Seriously. So if that’s your standard, Trump’s definitely your man. No wonder you don’t ordinarily vote; perhaps you’ve been waiting for the right multi-billionaire to come along. To you, every politician except Trump is a whore, because they all must take money from people like Singer if they want to win. So of course you will support Trump no matter what he does or says.
By the way, Singer doesn’t only give to people who endorse his entire agenda, nor does everyone he’s given money to start endorsing all of it, either. For example, he’s very into gay rights and especially gay marriage. And yet he’s a Republican who has given to many Republicans who did not favor that policy. Singer’s two biggest causes are Israel and less government interference in business.
My big worry WRT Trump is his legacy of videoed statements.
They are surely being spooled up by HRC’s opposition research platoon.
In the final sprint, his own words will ‘Vegomatic’ his campaign.
You must note that the MSM is quite happy to see Trump in the pole position… Now that they have the oppo research on him.
As for Cruz, they are doing their utmost to white him out of the race.
The problem with Marco Rubio is that his first instinct is to bring more foreign workers into the United States to compete with the people that are already here for jobs at both extremes of skill level. He has previously supported “Immigration Reform” aka Amnesty and he is currently pushing to increase the number of H1-B High Tech Visas, in spite of now documented cases where American Companies are laying off Americans and hiring those on the Visas for less, such as Disney recently did to thousands of its workers. If it comes down to Rubio vs Hillary I will not vote.
Neo-neocon,
“Just as one example of how a person’s own money can corrupt him, however, look at Trump’s enthusiastic support for Kelo.”
Absolutely, all the anti-Trump points you and others (Ann) have brought up are valid – to a degree. To the degree a businessman takes no oath, swears to uphold nothing but himself, will act always and primarily to his own interests. Trump, however, has foresworn that in his current persona — candidate for the highest public office. Should he lose, should he then take up the role again — businessman – he might well revert to being the self-regarding, freebooting tycoon. I have my doubts but then I have doubts about pretty much everything.
As for Mr Singer, right again — to a degree. There are lines one does not cross however. Personally, if I were pro-Life, I would not accept money from a contributor to NARAL. If I were conservative, I would not accept money from someone contributing to gay marriage advocacy. On existential questions one’s financial backer ought be as much above reproach as Caesar’s wife. Otherwise it just looks bad, not to say desperate.
Catching up with many comments, no one seems to worry that Rubio is almost only a foreign policy candidate? A candidate bound to neglect make or break domestic ones that define the American predicament? The Singer matter sniffs like that is the case, and that that may be why he’s backed by Singer.
The long set of exchanges between George and Neo on sizing up Trump appears to neglect a few things, and one fact totally: Trump’s conversion about immigration basically came after reading Ann Coulter’s book “Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hell Hole,” newly published this past summer.
In the book, Coulter researches the Hell out of the issue of immigration. And the biggest song she sang during her book tour was that the government is deliberately ignoring even compiling data about the matter. The state has silently decreed that the people shall not even be informed about the effect of the largest surge of immigration into America in history!
Coulter is a researching writer, par excellence. Time and again, she found that even well regarded scholarship is predicated on data that’s sketchy or merely assumed.
Prog activist groups favoring transnational progressivism and the deletion of all borders, basically took over the federal government and blocked the monitoring of immigration. Thus, presumption, ideology, and conclusory declamations could become our unvetted national “policy.”
But Coulter knew Trump personally, and sent him her book before he had decided to run for President. Trump’s wife said to him (correctly), that he’s “written” more books than he’s read. And that he needs to read more of them. He gets it.
And therefore, the spectacle of an action-oriented businessman, with a showman’s side-life in television, decided to get more informed.
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s stances on issues are uneven, shockingly unsystematic, and possibly offensive to the intellect. He is no ideologue in search of consistency (and few businessmen are, contrary to Ayn Rand). Not even George Soros is, if you read his many books, few touch on politics. (Personally, I suspect Soros’ flunkies push the octogenarian in directions he might otherwise think about more independently than career altruists do).
If one does not see Trump as a “work in progress” – or even more typically American, as a man re-making himself (however late in life) – trying to leave his mark through charismatic leadership, then you do not understand this odd man.
I still think Neo is close to the edge of making this mistake.
Another matter raised in Neo’s post, here, is the issue of H1-B Visas: is there a genuine need? An unmet labor shortage that only immigrants can fill?
Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds has chased stories trying to find genuine need because of undersupplies of domestic STEM workers, always finding either a lack of documentation or a lack of evidence supporting the claim. It’s shocking.
Last Spring, Heritage Foundation’s libertarian economist, Stephen Moore, spoke at the University of Colorado at Boulder. At the end of his talk, Moore also vouched for the US Chamber of Commerce HB-1 visa policy line, MORE PLEASE! He asked what business’s number one complaint was? Using the examples of the fracking industry in Pennsylvania and Ohio, he said the lack of qualified applicants to do the work: for 500 jobs, out of 3,000 applicants, 2,000 were unqualified to even apply.
Moore didn’t seem to grasp that these applicant pool numbers are hugely contaminated by the jobless growth problem of the Obama ‘recovery.’ Thus, frustrated workers apply inappropriately, our of need and desperation to improve their incomes and to have full-time jobs again.
Finally, while I don’t support Trumps economic nationalism, I concede the large place in people’s experience of so much neglect of our national weal. And so, while I’m intellectually predisposed to oppose him about this, the extraordinary circumstances of our unachieved recovery require exceptional discretion.
I think George’s embrace of Trump amounts to something Emersonian: I contradict myself? So I contradict myself. And so does Trump, a candidate who is learning as he goes on about the long and arduous, year-long presidential campaign.
Is that so wrong? It is extraordinary that a successful man at business, later in life, puts himself into the prolonged fray to compete in a presidential election. It once wasn’t uncommon, but that was before Big Government became the norm, and politics reigned as a year round profession.
I am energized by Trump’s lighting-rod like efflorescence against the hated, disturbingly biased, and destructive MSM. I am heartened that he has made our unchecked border an important issue – perhaps THE issue – of 2016.
And unlike Neo, I’m convinced that Trump is still the most consequential candidate this cycle – come what may. Polarizing? Certainly. Confounding? Not too much, to me.
And with the last debate, the fact that the establishment ruling class Left hasn’t a clue about flyover country and what the people in 50%(+) America thinks and values is somewhat exposed for them, or some of them.
Their ignorance and neglect of contrary opinion is stunning. Let the Right-takeover of the debates proceed, and maybe, just maybe, they will learn more.
@Orson:
He is no ideologue in search of consistency (and few businessmen are, contrary to Ayn Rand).
Rand acknowledged the non-ideological nature of most businessmen. In Atlas Shrugged the idea that businessmen were not defenders of capitalism was the whole reason why Galt went around picking off one after another by making them aware of their inconsistencies. Also, crony capitalists were well represented in the book. She said that one of her goals in writing it was to defend capitalism, intellectually, because up the that point businessmen were not.
Your reference to Ann Coulter and how her book influenced Trump may be true. But illegal immigration is not the reason why this country is going down. It is but one symptom. Neo has very adequately investigated those reasons on this blog, in great detail. One of the things that bothers me the most about Donald Trump is the fact that he is using immigration as a scapegoat. One of the worst things we can do is to make 20 million people living here a target and excuse for our problems. It’s the type of thing a Hugo Chavez would do.