Trump’s dinner with Kanye
You may have noticed that so far I’ve ignored the Trump/Kanye/Fuentes/Yiannopoulos dinner story. My gut feeling was that it was probably designed to dupe Trump and set him up for the attacks that followed. Should he have seen through it and prevented it, even though the extra guests were sprung on him? Yes.
The entire thing is depressing and exhausting, like so much of politics these days, and emblematic of the way we’ve descended into what might be called parody if it was the least bit funny.
So I’ll just say that I pretty much agree that this piece sounds plausible, the premise of which is that “Trump’s Meeting With Kanye Was Planned to ‘Make Trump’s Life Miserable’ and the Plan Worked.”
NOTE: The title of this post is a riff on the 1981 movie “My Dinner With Andre,” which I didn’t much like.
I am done with Donald Trump. His whole shtick is he loves it when he gets praise (even if it were from Mussolini if Il Duce were alive). He is immature, vindictive, irrational, and has zero self control. If he is the nominee in 2024 (God forbid) it will be a Democratic Party blow out leaving the Republican Party in the position of Double AA baseball team trying to compete in the Major Leagues. Trump seems to think that he is entitled to be the candidate in 2024 even though that would be three straight elections. He has no idea how so many people actually hate his guts! It is sad because he actually did a lot of good things for this country, but his persona is so odious that people will just not vote for him. Even the New York Post has turned on him. I noticed that Trump never tries to expand his base and as Michael Goodwin of the fore mentioned N.Y. Post has written “He has become boring and predictable”. Kanye West, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Nick Fuentes are three of the biggest reprobates and any decent human being would not want to be anywhere near that troika.
It certainly seems plausible that Milo (now, like A Coulter, disappointed in Trump) engineered this event to embarrass Trump, but what seems most curious about this utterly trivial affair (a social engagement of no importance with Kanye, who brought along a person of whom Trump, who will chat with almost anyone, had never even heard) is how much attention this has been generating in the MSM (not only from the left) in comparison to the coverage of the most significant financial scandal of the decade, yesterday having been the occasion of a ludicrous event in NYC (the NYT’s DealBook Summit) featuring a rogues’ gallery of destructive globalist scoundrels, including SBF and Zelensky (by Zoom) as well as Zuckerberg and Yellen and many others in person.
Kanye seems to have had a total mental breakdown. If that’s who Trump wants to hang out with, go ahead. I’m also hoping that Trump is not the nominee even before all this nonsense. I also know far too many center aligned people who would never vote for him at all, even if it meant someone like Newsome as president.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11491815/Kanye-West-says-sees-good-things-Hitler-brought-value-world.html
The squad is crushing every part of thix country serving their foreign masters in somalia and elsewhere but lets focus on a dyspeptic dinner guest
Cervantes you would not give Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden the benefit of the doubt if they had low lifes such as Nick Fuentes and Milo (to say nothing of Kanye) as dinner guests. I have higher standards for my Republican candidates (and I am not into “what aboutism”) and I’m sorry you do not. I am reconciled to the fact that there is a double standard that favors the Donkeys which means our side has to be twice as smart and four times more careful. Face it – the country wants to move beyond Trump and Biden. Explain to me what would be the purpose of having that hideous troika as dinner guests?
Did Ye or Fuentes lose $8 billion dollars after giving $100 million to Trump’s campaign? Asking for thousands who recently lost some money.
Trump could well be the nominee. If he is and he loses (assuming a fair election), it will be the machine gun fire from some supposed conservatives that he is taking in the back right now that kills his chances.
People want to destroy him so they get DeSantis in 2024. I prefer DeSantis. But cheap shots, lies and slanders against Trump that conservatives applaud because of incredibly short-sighted thinking will not help the conservative cause long term.
For the last six years, Trump is the only person who has fought the good fight. Those who are so anxious to slit his throat will despair at the damage they do. Trump appeals to a lot of people who don’t tend to vote for GOP. That appeal is well-founded. He is the only real friend they have had in DC in decades. Kill him. Destroy him. I don’t think you will like what you will reap.
“They know not what they do.”
I would like prefer have desantis run, but looking at this merciless buzzsaw, why would he want this aggravation, I know duty is part of it, as a naval officer, but there are limits, then there are the ponces like christie don’t get me started on that fat shtarker, and happy hogan the 2020 model, then there is pence who doesn’t seem to be acquainted with the results of his treachery, pompeo is ok, the more the merrier,
when you propagate the libel that trump is an antisemite, or just pass it along, because it’s what the narrative is, because it’s the path of least resistance,
many years ago, my parents came to this country on this date, this is the last stand but it seems for many native born, it doesn’t really matter that this is the best hope of mankinf
stan:
You are refusing to face reality.
There are tons of middle-of-the-road voters and even moderates on the right who once voted for him but who hate Trump’s guts at this point. There is no way he can ever get many of their votes again. He is also making worse decisions than usual lately, which doesn’t enhance his appeal.
Cervantes
Nobody here is claiming that Donald Trump is an antisemite, he definitely is not a Jew hate. However he incredibly tone deaf. We all know that his son-in-law is Jewish, his daughter converted to Judaism, and his grandson is being raised Jewish. Trump has also been the best friend Israel ever had in the White House but the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump is not uncomfortable around antisemites. The proof was back in 2016 when all these alt-right fanatics supporting him. If you know anything about Nick Fuentes, you would know automatically that he is a piece of human garbage, and why Donald Trump would say “I like this guy, he gets me” is beyond me. Donald Trump will not be president again.
and there would be something else, even if they have to make up, like the break into maralago, that they are legitimizing now, we are talking about craven traitors who are in the control of foreign powers, notably our most feral foe,
why do we pretend otherwise, the press can lie, frankly it’s all they are good for, that and covering up mega ponzi schemes, at home and abroad, and abetting foreign despots like china and qatar, not to mention iran,
I enjoyed “My Dinner with Andre.” Saw it with a brilliant young woman who died far too young but achieved amazing things in her short life. The movie is forever linked in my memory to her and her greatness*.
*Oh, and she liked the movie too.
It’s a free country. Or is it? One cannot eat dinner with someone without being slimed for the political implications. Everything has been politicized. Everything. If I want to eat dinner with a hard-core leftist, does that mean I’m planning to change my principles? Not at all. Neo says she eats with leftists, and she sure doesn’t change her principles or beliefs. Let’s be adults here. This dinner amounts to nothing even if Kanye is trying to get publicity off it. It’s a few days of MSM gossip and then down the memory hole. Except, like Charlottsville the left will later on try to turn it in to something politically relevant. It’s what they do. Right out of rules for radicals. It’s disgusting and irks me that Republicans can be tricked into arguing over such nonsense.
“Donald Trump will never be president again.” You can triple your money by betting that way now. Easy money. 🙂
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-chances-winning-2024-election-he-launches-bid-1757439
well wallace shawn is a pompous jackass, so that’s why his character in princess bride is so on point,
Re: “My Dinner with Andre”
Was a semi-life-changing-event for me. I’ve watched it more than twenty times.
I loved the Don Quixote/Sancho Panza routine Andre and Wally were doing. I loved Andre’s far-out idealism vs Wally’s “But I love my electric blanket” pragmatism.
However, above all, I loved the concept and the execution. Andre and Wally kept exchanging manuscripts over several months until they got the material and sequence they wanted. Then somehow they convinced Louis Malle to film it.
At that time I was pursuing a beatnik/Tom Wolfe aesthetic that the True could also be the Beautiful in a rough-hewn way. “My Dinner with Andre” seemed a wonderful proof of that possibility.
I was dazzled.
And I never entirely recovered.
There’s always a bigger troll. Obama < Trump < Milo Yiannopoulos?
I agree with neo @ 6:34pm. And, unfortunately, BrooklyBoy. Trump is damaged goods (whether justified, or no) and can only harm the GOP by continuing to run. And BrooklynBoy is correct. Since the ’80s I’ve been stating, “Donald Trump’s main goal every day is to get his name in the papers and he doesn’t care what the article is about. Just spell his name right.”
I will forever be grateful to him for being the catalyst for seating judges that rolled back Roe v. Wade and for not taking Federal control during the pandemic (he largely left things to the States), but he can only hurt the GOP by staying active in the party.
Andrew breitbart would never have been a party to this betrayal of principles
And most every person in public life in the last 40 years whats new about that but harris biden richardson to be ecumenical have little to commend themselves
Is Trump going off the deep end, or is there a method to his madness?
He must be aware of how his words and actions are affecting a great many (most?) voters, and not in a good way.
Can he really be oblivious to this?
If Obama is seen with a bunch of anti-Semites, well, that’s OK.
If certain demokrat members of Congress utter anti-Semitic remarks, well, that’s OK too.
I do not disagree that Trump’s personality traits are a gigantic negative to his hope to become president again.
But would I vote for him again?
Yes.
What really matters are the policies a wannabe- president hopes to implement and I happen to agree with most of his policy goals.
I realize that for many (most?) voters, his policy goals are irrelevant and they will never vote for him, even if the policies he hopes to implement will benefit the average citizen.
An dumbpublican candidate with a great presidential persona but with “don’t rock the ship” policies ( or worse) will give us, yet again, a Bush II / McConnell do nothing type of govt. that will bend over backwards to “reach across the aisle.”
That is, do nothing for 4 or 8 years, wait for the demokrats to take power, at which time, as always, the dems will tell the dumbpublicans to F’off. No reaching across the aisle for the dems; no siree.
Yea, I hope DeSantis runs.
But if he does, just wait.
He will be labelled a Nazi, the Florida version of Hitler, a rapist, women will come out of nowhere to claim he assaulted them, that he once was an Imperial Wizard of the KKK, that he is in cahoots with Putin? , etc. etc.
By the way, ever notice that when a republican candidate gets called names by the dems, they never refer to the object of their hatred as Stalin or Mao; it’s always Hitler.
Then again, ever try to watch a holocaust – type movie about Stalin’s murderous policies.
Oh, that’s right, they have never made a movie about him.
Speaking of freak shows, Tucker profiles Sam Brinton (the gender fluid pup play guy), AND his/her/its replacement at DoE.
it is worth remembering that President Trump talks with “everybody”. He even talked with North Korea. That is how he finds his way through to a “deal”. He isn’t afraid of contamination. I’d guess that the dinner was “entertaining”. He probably had a good time.
Sharing a meal is NOT endorsement. It is a “recon” mission to see what these people are about. The Media and the Swamp all lie, so he has to meet them and see. He was certainly watching for strengths and weaknesses. That is how he deals. That is how he wins. His public comments are political theater.
He is used to playing in the Big Leagues. Grow up!
He probably would have thouroughly enjoyed time with Sam Brinton.
JohnTyler – DeSantis doesn’t associate with people like Kayne/Ye who have clearly gone off the deep end with anti-semetic sewer sludge. DeSantis would never allow a provocateur like Milo Yiannopoulis to cross the threshold of his home or office. DeSantis would have staff and controls in place that would warn him about the holocaust-denying fool that Yiannopoulis and Ye brought along to the audience. Its not just DeSantis either. No other viable viable candidate for the Republican nomination would have been as dumb as Trump was over the Kayne thing. It’s also not just this incident. Trump has been doing dumb stuff like this since he came onto the political scene in 2012.
You say that Democrats are going to do DeSantis (or whoever else) like they did Trump. Of course they’re going to try. Those attacks were uniquely successful against Trump because his erratic behavior gave a whiff of truth to the attacks. No other Republican presidential candidate does that. Why did so many people believe that Trump was a Russian agent? Because Trump said so much dumb stuff about Putin. Why do people believe all of the sexual assault charges against Trump? Because Trump talks like a cad and has more or less admitted to acting like a cad. Why do people believe that Trump is a racist? Because Trump says dumb stuff about race, gives audiences to whacko anti-semites, and allows himself to be duped into giving audiences to re-segregation enthusiasts.
No other Republican presidential candidates do this.
Warnock is a farrakhan hamas supporter
Bauxite: “No other Republican presidential candidates do this.” Precisely. That’s why I like Trump. I’m agnostic on DeSantis and the other, more mainstream candidates (Pompeo? Youngkin?) you so clearly prefer. They still need to show they have the necessary grit for what they will face at the national level.
Fact: no Republican president in the past fifty years achieved as much as Trump achieved in the face of relentless opposition and subversion from his own party and the federal bureaucracy, especially the “intelligence” community. Not even Reagan. In three years or less, Trump showed that it is possible to reverse the managed bipartisan decline and corruption of the past fifty years, secure our borders, keep us out of stupid wars, and restore America to energy independence and general prosperity. He was also beginning to make a real dent in CRT/DEI’s baleful influence over all areas of American life, including the military. That’s why the establishment you are so concerned about placating hates and fears him.
I don’t care who Trump has dinner with. I don’t care that he says and does stupid things. I care about his policies, which were demonstrably successful. And the fact that he doesn’t care what the establishment thinks.
“Cad”–are you effing kidding? JFK forced female staffers to give blow jobs to his aides in the White House pool. LBJ used to whip out his pecker–“Jumbo”–at staff meetings. Clinton used to talk pussy with his buddies on the golf links and got a kick out of making official phone calls while being serviced by Monica Lewinsky under the Oval Office desk. To go back even further, both FDR and Ike–one of our best presidents, in my view–had extramarital affairs. What world do you think we inhabit?
You say that we can’t win with Trump. You may be right. My question to you is, Win what, exactly? Another temporary and soon-to-be-reversed interlude of more-decorous managed bipartisan decline and mutual back-scratching that doesn’t scare off the low-information normies, the squishes, and single white women? Under the mature direction of that sanctimonious Mormon (sorry, AesopFan!) prig Romney, or Mike “Ostentatiously Pious” Pence (who caved, while governor of Indiana, to the chamber of commerce and the LGBTQ+ lobby), or a younger version of those two?
To hell with that. Give me an unrepentant rogue who cares first about this country, its territorial integrity, and its people. If he loses, let’s go to Plan B: nullification and state-level federalism. You know, the same thing the blue states did with impunity under Bush and Trump. We’re probably heading there anyway. Better sooner than later.
Hubert:
Here, here, and hip, hip, hurray! (not sarcastic).
Our concerned conservative™ will undoubtably question your sanity, but be thankfull that at least the Democrats aren’t orange.
@BrooklynBoy
As is your right.
No, it absolutely isn’t “his whole shtick.” It obviously is a huge part of who he is (and probably more general to politicians and showmen in general), but he has happily embraced negative publicity and gone into a lot of tough fights where he got very little praise. He is hardly the model for maturity, but he is far more mature and willing to forego praise than people give him credit for.
And secondly: How many politicians – or even people in general- DO NOT like getting praised, even if it was from Il Douchecanoe? Because some of us sure as hell remember Obama soaking in adulation (albeit often half-hearted and insincere) from everyone up to and including the Chinese Politburo. You might argue that Trump is guiltier or more conspicuous in that than most, and that MIGHT be true (I’d have to check) but I think a far more important aspect is the simple fact that Obama’s Schmoozing was less reported or dwelt upon, especially in a negative manner given things like the Iran Deal.
I’ll give you the first two, albeit in qualified fashion. Irrational though? Hardly, especially given the situations he has been in. And he has often demonstrated self-control, albeit less than is ideal. He would not have been as effective as he was under ludicrously dire circumstances if he was.
Uh-huh. We’ll see about that, but the better question I have is if that is the case, would nominating other people really change that? The political winds are shifting against us, especially with “election fortification.” The idea that Orange Man Bad can explain all or even most of that is wishful thinking and I can point to books that are older than I am to underline it.
Honestly he wouldn’t be the only one acting entitled. Just ask Hillary or even FDR.
Really? You think Trump and his security staff have absolutely no idea? That they haven’t noticed things like the decrease in fan mail and increase in hate mail since 2015 or thereabouts? That they have not taken precautions?
This strikes me as simply willful self-deceit. You are welcome to argue that Trump is out of touch (which seems to be the case to some degree, though given the nature of the Swamp that isn’t always a bad thing) or that he underestimates the nature of the problem, but the idea that he has Literally No Idea stands out to me as not having even tried to put oneself in his shoes.
To which I would respond: how do we know this?
Fair, and I am somewhat ambivalent about that.
Never tries to expand his base? You don’t burn gas mileage going to places like the rust belt or New England if you aren’t trying to expand your base and that of the party as a whole. You’d be better off arguing that his attempts to do so have been more than counterbalanced by his own follies but that is different from not trying.
Agreed with you on Fuentes and to a lesser degree on Kanye. And Milo is certainly no saint. But a few things.
Firstly: Being President or having another position of authority BY DEFINITION means dealing with even bigger reprobates than those three and people decent human beings would like even less to deal with. Just take a gander at the “World Leaders” Trump had to deal with, from Maliki to Xi to Putin to “Mama” Merkel.
You might be able to argue that that is a matter of necessity or duty while engaging with the likes of Kanye or Fuentes outside of duty is an indulgence and a counter-productive one best avoided, and you’d probably be right (I say probably because networking with influences – especially ones that are not radically opposed to your ideology or principles like Fuentes – is an important part of politics). But that doesn’t change the fact that even decent people would have to fight their instincts and desires to handle responsibility.
Secondly: How important is meeting with unsavory people compared to policies?
I can’t speak to to Cervantes, but I know some people like our host DID give the likes of Biden, Clinton, and especially Obama the benefit of the doubt in spite of massive warning signs that are far worse than that with Fuentes (for instance, as evil as Fuentes is he is not a violent terrorist and has had no parallel in Trump’s rise that a certain married couple who loaned a living room to Obama had).
The issue is that “benefit of the doubt” was squandered with comic speed as Obama revealed his true colors, and they were far worse than merely meeting with or swapping air with unsavory people.
My standards for Republican candidates have a hell of a lot more to do with who will actually deliver for conservative values and will not betray me or mine. In many ways that is the primary standard that matters, especially given the monumental disappoints of the Bush and Cheney clans as well as Romney and McCain.
I say there’s a difference between acknowledging a double standard exists and reconciling oneself to it. And the day we fully reconcile ourselves to being smeared by our opponents is the day we reconcile ourselves to going underground. Let’s also not forget that no political movement can survive in the long term having to be twice as smart and four times as careful as its rival over the decades, so the question is how we intend to fix that.
I haven’t seen that many actionable plans.
Fair, and I would not be opposed to that in theory. The issue is how much “the country”‘s wants matter at this point in time, especially given nightmares like Maricopa. Moreover, what is wanted is not always what is needed.
Politics, networking, chumming up. Nothing I view as being very worth doing with these in particular but which are kind of hard to avoid doing altogether. I was one of those who never entirely forgave Kanye for his race-baiting and other nonsense at the start of the century, so his latest relapse to Jew Hatred and other stupidity does not catch me entirely by surprise. But you seem to be hoping for a unicorn, not merely one who lacks Trump’s many personal flaws (and possesses how many of his personal virtues?) and who will always have better judgement than to network, even with unsavory trusted allies like Milo.
The only reason nobody here is claiming that is because many of our semi-regular leftist trolls are not in.
>blockquote> However he incredibly tone deaf.
Ok, even if that were true (and to which I’d respond: Compared to the likes of Brian Kemp or John McCain or Dubya Bush?), the issue is what is the “correct” amount of tone-awareness?
Indeed.
The man’s a native New Yorker. You’re surprised that he is “not uncomfortable around antisemites”?
Crown Heights is one of a handful of anti-Jewish pogroms in the Western Hemisphere’s history and it happened within living memory under the leadership of Sharpton, a man who is still in good standing with the DNC and who Trump had to co-exist and even cooperate with.
The fact is that anti-semitism has never entirely gotten away even in our own shores, it just to one degree or another went undercover.
Moreover, what the Flying Farq is “Not Uncomfortable” supposed to mean? Is it better that we elect a candidate that IS Uncomfortable to the point of dysfunction when dealing with Jew Haters, who are not only endemic in number in New York City and many Ivy League institutions within the US but abroad, as shown by nightmares like Durban and the OIC in the UN?
In a better world, people should not have to deal with the likes of Jew haters or race baiters like Sharpton or Fuentes, the horribly corrupt like the New York City political system and real estate business, or sworn enemies. But we do not live in a better world and we are not electing people to be President or political leader in a better world.
We are doing so for this.
This strikes me as kafkatrapping nonsense like what was used to smear Goldwater way back when, and seems to come from a position of blissful ignorance as to how these people operate and what politics are.
“Anti-right fanatics”, Neo-Nazis, Racists, and the like are unlikely to outright sit out any given election; the likes of James Mason (who is a violent fanatic even among their ranks) who favor zero interaction with the political landscape as it exists in favor of violent revolution are very few in number.
Which is why they will generally pick the outcome they view as most desirable and move to support it, whether openly (such as by supporting the candidate they want to win) or covertly (such as publicly supporting the candidate they DON’T want to win in order to tar them by association; a strategy the Klan pioneered during the 1960s onwards).
What matters to me is not Horrible Bad Juju from an endorsement by evil or ugly people (because let’s face it, there will be no shortage of them) so much as how much they are rewarded or how close the candidate is to them.
You want to give Trump grief for the endorsement by “Alt-Right Fanatics” in 2016 – in spite of the fact that said endorsement had little to do with his policies or conduct – but do not want to give him credit for his policies driving so many of those such as Tricky Rick Spencer away and into endorsing Biden in 2020. That’s unjust and I cannot sit by and stomach it.
And no, pointing to the double standards of the MSM and so on is not sufficient to justify or defend it because we’re not talking about how it is perceived in the media or by the public, we are talking about how things actually fall.
As such when dealing with Trump’s issue with the Jew Haters he fits what I would view as the ideal profile. A man who is palpably not one himself, but who does not go into self-destructive spasms from having to deal with them and who will not unduly appease or reward them for what “support” they give him. That indicates a level of maturity, tact, and even principle that you seem completely unwilling to give to Trump, even in light of his other follies.
Agreed.
It is also beyond me. But it is hardly the only time a political leader has schmoozed with someone truly awful, and far from similar for Trump. As bad as Fuentes is – and he is quite bad – he does not hold a candle to the likes of Xi, Kim, or Putin. And let’s remember about how many people on both sides of the political spectrum came out to schmooze with those.
We’ll see. But I suppose the better question is: what does that say about us?
@neo
I’m not sure I can agree with that; the main divergence I saw from reality in stan’s post was his claim that Trump was the only person fighting the good fight in the past six years. That is obviously not true. But the rest largely checks out.
To which I would argue: why is that?
I would argue it is clearly only in part due to Trump’s own actual behavior and follies, and that many of the same handicaps that have dogged him would dog others.
Perhaps. I suppose that depends on how toxic he is versus how toxic the others there.
Agreed, but I can say the same with Brandon and co here. Which leads me to believe that trying to collar a unicorn has less to do with success than battlespace preparation. 1944 was one of the first times when the Left in the form of Truman (a man who I have increasingly come to believe is monumentally overrated, even if not necessarily BAD) smeared conservatives with the Fascist/Nazi label.
What is our policy to breaking this trend, or at least rendering it so disreputable as to be laughable – literally laughable – to the public?
I am willing to move past Trump – as would have to be the case in any event – but not simply because he is being hammered for being “predictable”, “disreputable”, etc.
And particularly not if people hope the likes of DeSantis, Lake, and others will have things that much better than Trump has had it.
Om: thanks, but I was out of line in some of my comments. Heat of the moment. Apologies, especially to AesopFan. In my defence, politicians who wear their faith or their piety on their sleeves can’t complain if they are criticized on that same score. And I’m on record, on this very blog, in calling out members of my own tribe for their destructive activities. Some of my remarks on that topic have been almost Zaphodian. Or at least Mamet-esque.
To address Neo’s and Bauxite’s central point, which Neo phrased this way: “There are tons of middle-of-the-road voters and even moderates on the right who once voted for him but who hate Trump’s guts at this point.” Let’s stipulate that this is true. Indeed, we see it on this blog. I take it seriously, but I don’t see toning down our positions or our candidates as a satisfactory solution. The situation is dire. Whether we choose to recognize it or not, we’re in a knife fight. See, for example, this item on William Jacobson’s blog from this morning:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/appeals-court-feds-can-keep-all-records-seized-in-mar-a-lago-raid-and-theres-nothing-trump-can-do-about-it/
And this comment by quondam (tip of the hat to Deco for use of that word) Neo commenter “Telemachus”:
“Telemachus in reply to RNJD. | December 2, 2022 at 8:56 am
RNDJ, maybe I can top you. In the course of my federal government career (Career Diplomat) I worked and lived on four continents in eight countries. I also was relieved when I would come home, but after retiring in 2021 and coming back to the US I don’t recognize my country anymore. The hate and disregard for the rule of law (as opposed to power) has completely overtaken one of our two major parties, and is fully aided and abetted by Big Tech/Media/Academia. That hate extends to everyone who stands in their way.”
The usual class of (R) candidate–the kind of candidate Bauxite apparently wants–won’t cut it anymore. We’ll see if someone other than Trump can do what needs to be done.
@Bauxite
Firstly: Kanye etc. already lived off the deep end in sewer sludge. Some of us still remember how he behaved in the first decade of the century. He is far from the worst in that regard, and I do not like the man to begin with.
Secondly: DeSantis came from a very different milieu. He is very much still a figure of local politics in Florida, even if one of an increasingly national stature. So he hasn’t had to deal with the freakshow of much in the Northeast, let alone on the national or international statures.
That’s a disadvantage in my opinion. Milo is no saint or a respectable man, but he is a hard fighter who has generally served us well, and even if he personally is beyond the pale or not useful people like him will be.
I hope so. But I’m skeptical of “never” or absolutes. In any case, DeSantis will hopefully make much fewer mistakes than Trump did (including this) but he will make his own, and the left will be looking like vultures.
This sentence is so loaded it isn’t even funny.
Firstly: “Viable candidate”? What determines viability or not?
Secondly: Kanye’s been making the political rounds for a quarter of a century or so. A LOT of candidates have rubbed elbows with him or people worse than him, including on Team Elephant. Just look into John McCain’s closet for instance.
So he’s a human in politics. He just has the exception of being more of a loudmouth, more adherent to his principles, and with worse PR.
I’m sorry, but anybody who thinks they were “uniquely successful against Trump” is either being ignorant and naive to a staggering degree, or utterly dishonest. Goldwater called and is wondering where he can get his reputation back. Dewey was smeared as a friend of Fascists back in 1944. The idea that they were “uniquely successful” against Trump has less to do with whether they were actually uniquely successful and more due to the raw effort, resources, and time put in against him.
And moreover, they obviously WEREN’T Uniquely effective against him because Trump won in 2016 and I think probably won on merits in 2020, which is more than Goldwater or Dewey can say. This does not mean that Trump is the Ark of the Covenant or the Greatest of All Times; I truly doubt he is a better man than say Wendell Wilkie or Thomas Dewey or Barry Goldwater. But it does mean that people trying to make him into some uniquely vulnerable, uniquely guilty candidate to this kind of smear campaign have not observed the history of it.
To which I respond: Does what?
Have a sit down with Kanye? Probably. Deal with embarrassing people? No.
This is pure victim-blaming Bull Pucky.
Firstly because it is VANISHINGLY RARE to find ANY politician – including Presidents and Presidential Aspirants on both sides- who has NOT said so much dumb stuff about Putin. See: Obama, Biden, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, etc. As people like Mark Steyn have been pointing out for years.
The main reason why so many people believed that Trump was a Russian agent is because of the absolutely gigantic smear operation designed by the left and agents in government to paint him as such, with a side helping being the extremely prejudicial reporting that painted his traditional political schmoozing with Putin as being far more emblematic of his character while pointedly downplaying or ignoring when and where he clashed with Putin (especially in contrast to the likes of Obama).
And a third place comes from massive cognitive dissonance and lack of comprehension by We, the People. I still remember a host of idiots who were talking about how Trump warning the Russian Air Force and Syrian Baathist Air Force to evacuate air fields before we cratered them as a likely start of WW3. Many of the same people who insisted he was (or is) a Putin Puppet.
Actions speak louder than words, and Air Force Bombs and lethal aid provided to Putin’s greatest neighborhood enemy speak LOUDLY indeed. And if they do not, we should be asking ourselves: who is muffling the sound from those?
Which is why I view attempts to explain away why so many people believe Trump is a Putin Pawn to his own actions to be laughably wrongheaded.
That has far more truth to it than the previous accusations, I agree.
This would be more convincing if the Left has not been painting virtually every Conservative as this for decades, including “minority” ones.
And assuming this can be explained away by what Republican presidential candidates do or don’t do strikes me as wrongheaded to the extreme. That doesn’t mean Trump has handled these issues as best as one could or that he is the Best of All Candidates, but the idea that DeSantis will fare so much better because he isn’t like That Nasty Trump strikes me as not learning the lessons of the past several decades.
I have to thoroughly agree with om and especially Hubert on this, with perhaps some caveat regarding FDR (who was certainly one of the most powerful of US Presidents, but I would not say the best and who in many ways worsened several of the pathologies that have metastasized today).
Trump was hardly the first choice of anyone on here, but he was far from a uniquely bad candidate. Especially in light of what has been happening in recent years. So the question is: What do we do to fix this?
Turtler: I was referring to Ike as one of our best presidents, not FDR. Washington, Lincoln, Coolidge, and Ike are my personal tops. Ford was underrated, in my view. Among Democrats, FDR (for his war leadership) and Truman (but less so the more I read) deserve respect. Clinton was also effective and politically savvy, whatever one thinks of his personal character.
@Hubert
Derp. And fair. I would also argue the same applies to Ike, especially the more I read (since while he outwardly played nice he could be INCREDIBLY nasty and even dishonorable in private life, and I view his foreign policy to be something of a Dog’s Breakfast). Though he was better than Truman or FDR, I do think that he is viewed somewhat too fondly. But he, FDR, and Truman do deserve respect for their leadership.
“Trump is damaged goods (whether justified, or no) and can only harm the GOP by continuing to run.” – Rufus T. Firefly
Actually, it's imperative that he run. If the Republican party is going to expect the base of Trump supporters to automatically get behind what they consider will be a Uniparty candidate, it must be a primary that isn't stacked against Trump.
The national media/GOPe are doing the stacking. DeSantis, or whoever, must prove they can go toe to toe with Trump.
Trump's base is disaffected Republicans, blue collar democrats and others brought to the voting booth by Trump's larger than life personality.
Brian E:
The problem is the split itself.
Trump turns off a lot of Republicans and moderates as well as enormous numbers of Democrats. Trump not being the nominee turns off a lot of the people on the right who continue to support him and who hate the GOPe. The party is split, and has been for ages long before Trump. There have been very few figures that unite those two groups, although there have been a few (notably Reagan, and even he was considered too far to the right by some Repubicans).
Turtler:
– DeSantis has faced more national media/leftist attacks than any Republican other than Trump. Recall Rebekah Jones and the Publix vaccine stunts? If the Rebekah Jones thing wasn’t the national freak show, I’m not sure what is. He was also in Congress for a number of years before becoming FL gov, so he’s not as local as you make out.
– Re: Milo – There are reports that it was Milo’s idea to sneak the white nationalist into MAL as a publicity stunt. I can understand liking Milo as a Saul Alinsky type for the right, but any candidate who hope to win votes from centerish Republicans and independents should avoid him like the plague.
– Re: “Plausible candidates” – Presidential campaigns in recent years tend to draw a number of extreme no-hopers. I don’t think you can name another 2024 candidate with any realstic chance at the nomination who would have a sit-down with Kayne and Milo or do anything similar to what Trump did.
– Re: Candidates with embarassing contacts – Sure, there’s some degree of that in every election. McCain took heat for seeking John Hagee’s endorsement, for example. At least that one made sense as a political choice. Hagee had a sizable constituency and wasn’t in the middle of an epic meltdown.
– Re: “Victim Blaming” – Trump said things about Putin that were well beyond the ordinary level of politician stupidity. (And I remember when W looked into Putin’s soul.) Constantly complimenting Putin and asking him to release Hillary’s e-mails was probably the primary thing. In a single election cycle, we went from “the 1980’s called and they want their foreign policy back” to “Putin is Hitler 2.0 and Trump Republicans are his toadies.” I’m sorry, that sort of thing just doesn’t stick without significant political misfeasance on the part of the candidate. Nobody outside of the narrow Democratic party base believed that Romney was really going to “put y’all back in chains,” for example. But Trump created an environment where it was very plausible for a large number of people to believe that he was. And, I’m sorry, that’s on Trump.
– Re: race – I’m not persuaded by citing Democrats who got away with the same or worse. For better or worse, Democrats are not going to be held to account over Al Shaprton, Louis Farraken (sp?) and the like while every Republican is going to be called a racist. If you think you have a way to change that, great. Let’s hear it. If not, deal with reality. Those race attacks land against someone who behaves like Trump much more than they do against other candidates. Again, I doubt that any substantial number of moderates or independents really believed that Romney was “going to put y’all back in chains.” (I suspect that more than few did believe that he hadn’t paid taxes for ten years, but that’s a different illustration of the same point.)
Regarding Kanye himself, I subscibe to Joe Rogan’s opinion that his mercurial behavior may be explained by the tramatic brain injury he suffered in a car accident back in 2002. It’s interesting that he was sort of a mid tier rap producer before the accident, and completely blew up to be the biggest hip hop artist in the world after it, heralded as an iconclasitc “genius”. Perhaps the very things that made him so wildly successful also makes him unstable and erratic.
I suspect brain injury can sometimes bizarrely be somewhat of a boon in rare circumstances. Comedians Sam Kinison and Roseanne Barr both suffered brain injuries when they were young that radically changed their personalities according to their friends and family. Both successful, controversial comedians who are/were known to say and do crazy things.
Turtler:
I’m certainly not an oracle and could be wrong. But sometimes I go with my gut, and my gut is telling me those things about Trump’s – pardon the phrase – “electability” for 2024. I sense a sea-change in the attitudes towards him of many people who thought he was a good president but who think his time is past. And I think something within him is slightly broken and slightly tired at this point, for which I wouldn’t blame him. What he’s been through has been horrendous.
Imagine if Trump were a liberal progressive; you can predict the type of coverage he would get.
Hanging out with anti-Semites? the media would not report this at all; they would ignore it.
Always bragging about himself? the media response; “how refreshing to have a politician tell it like it is.”
Insulting other politicians (deserved or not); the media response; ” it’s about time so-and-so was called out, and deservedly so.”
Overheard talking nice with Putin; the media response; ” Trump’s breaking new ground in dealing with Putin and seeking cooperation with Russia.”
The media will, or not, make or break anybody they choose irrespective of a politician’s flaws. And the majority of people will just fall in line eventually regurgitating the media line.
Thus is the power of propaganda
Look how the media treats Kamala Harris ; probably the dumbest, most stupid VP in US history.
They pretty much ignore her, so most folks do not hate her guts.
Imagine she was a conservative republican; in short order, the most folks would hate her guts because the media would be unrelenting in focusing on her every negative attribute, mocking her at every opportunity, and totally ignoring anything of merit she accomplished.
Media types would even be sorting thru her trash looking for dirt on her.
(Nah ! they wouldn’t do that, would they?)
If Obama had worked out that deal with Israel and the UAE, he would have received a Nobel Peace Prize (and maybe even deserved it for this). Trump worked to implement the deal, and it pretty much was ignored by the media.
Why?
Because they cannot deviate from their goal of literally destroying their target of choice.
If the media loved Trump, you would never hear one bad thing said or presented about him. Every single one of his attributes – his bragging, his in your face verbiage, his insulting those he does not like – would be shown in a positive light.
And most voters would be regurgitating what the media presents.
Thus is the power of propaganda .
@Bauxite
He is certainly up there and easily in the top ten, and a lot of that is because they very much view him as an up and coming threat on the national scale. But I am not sure he has gotten quite the worst next to others like Marjorie Taylor-Green (note: I am not saying that MTG is great or good, I despise many of her follies and her pro-Putin leanings, though I have come to appreciate the “she fights” feature, but she is quite up there on the national scale). And this is among the current generation; I remember the demonization of Palin and Dubya.
But that’s a technicality.
In any case, taking flak from the enemy is only part of being an effective leader; indeed it is something Trump has done quite well and even his naysayers generally agree. But being an effective leader is another issue. DeSantis certainly seems promising in that regards and has helped work wonders cleaning up Florida, but we’ll see how it goes.
I do.
The Fauci Fiasco and other thins come to mind, but sure.
I don’t deny that, but he was primarily tied to Florida and so was one of those relatively few Congresscritters who stuck close to his state. Which is far from a BAD thing but also needs to be weighted.
On the whole I do not mean to pooh pooh or demonize DeSantis on these regards; far from it. But I mean it more as words of caution.
I can’t put it past him though I have to give very little weight to “reports” given the nature of dishonest and politicized “reports.” Whatever I can say about Milo, he certainly is not a racist or anti-Black.
He is probably best being kept at arm’s length and with liaisons working through intermediaries, but people like him are necessary, even if they need to be controlled and to some degree contained.
Agreed.
Fair. Ted Cruz does come to mind as someone who spent a fair amount of time triangulating with them, though that was before things like Kanye’s latest Jew stupidity.
Which brings us to the issue of where the threshold is and how it is managed. Which I think are more important than navel-gazing.
Firstly: the “release Hillary’s e-mails” thing was primarily a jab at Clinton and meant in biting sarcasm. It was also quite effective since it highlighted how Clinton’s criminality had given God-Knows-What into the hands of a self-avowedly hostile regime. It was spun as being “flattering to Putin” largely due to hostile press coverage, but it also highlighted Hillary’s server. It is frankly one of the rather few times I think Trump came close to the Reaganesque style “pointedly tap them with humor” style of attack.
Secondly: I’m not convinced Trump was more cloying and complimentary towards Putin than other Pols; he certainly was not universally or uniformly complimenting towards him, given numerous public spats and condemnations. It largely looked like that because of how laser-focused the press was on them in comparison to others. Which is one reason why I find specifying Putin for this to be somewhat bizarre (setting aside the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax) given how Trump was far more cloying with the likes of the Kim Dynasts than most other Presidents.
That doesn’t mean I think Trump handled the Putin issue perfectly or didn’t shove his foot in his mouth in rather unseemly fashion. But I do think it goes back to the main issue being partial and slanted coverage rather than his actual actions, and to the importance of battlespace prep. Deciding which candidates to work with is part of that, but only a moderate part.
Which has way more to do with the staggering corruption and dishonesty of the Dems than anything Trump did. Especially since immediately after 2020 the Dems shifted back again and made nice with Putin, peddling appeasement and trying to get him to triangulate for a new Iran Deal.
I don’t think that is an issue that can really be solved by Trump or any GOP doing less schmoozing with Putin (because let us face it, that WILL be part of the job) so much as to the systematic problems with narrative control and dishonesty in the Left.
And more importantly it steps WAY beyond Trump to talk about how they intend to demonize and possibly destroy us. Trump being removed from the picture will not change the need to address those root causes.
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree. I’ve studied things like the Goldwater campaigns and the Dewey Campaign (especially the 1948 one, which was famously an attempt to be non-controversial). “Significant political misfeasance” helps accusations stick, but not more than wall to wall biased reporting and insinuation on the issue.
You’d be way, Way surprised. I’m moderately active on social media and I still deal with people who insist the Republican Party is “Far-Right” or the like (in spite of having views on Abortion that are generally more “Leftist” than almost any French Party). Narrative control is devastating because it works, and it tends to build up the longer it is challenged.
Asserting that this is a problem with Trump is making too much of him, I think. Not because he is not a monumental person and quite the forceful personality, but because we need to deal with it.
Sorry, but I don’t believe so.
I have had to deal with people on this very web page who still will not believe things like Saddam Hussein willfully funded Al Qaeda vassal groups, in spite of how the captured and translated documents spell it out in extensive detail. I still have people who insist the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” was a “False Flag”, thus showing they have no clue about what any of those things mean (Hint: There were two Gulf of Tonkin Incidents; the first one actually happened and had Communist Vietnamese attack a USN, the second one was shooting at the water due to lingering terror from the first; none of which was a false flag).
Moreover, our host – who is hardly a slavish cultist of God-Emperor Trump – pointed to these issues. Especially regarding Vietnam, which happened long before Trump was politically active.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2008/01/16/a-mind-is-a-difficult-thing-to-change-part-7b-the-vietnam-photos-revisited/
https://www.thenewneo.com/2013/03/08/the-fight-over-the-history-of-vietnam/
https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/04/04/the-gulf-of-tonkin-hoax-or-was-it/
This tells me that attempts to claim that Trump of all people created an atmosphere where falsehoods could stick is failing to learn history. We can argue if Trump worsened a bad climate and situation with his actions, but I don’t think it is defensible to claim he created the atmosphere entirely or even primarily. He largely inherited it.
I was largely pointing out the fact that A: Trump was a Democrat for the longest time, and B: He was a New Yorker, and so had to deal with New York society and politics, with all that implies (including generous amounts of Jew Hatred).
Which I think points to a primary issue that obsessing over Trump does not address, and which in many ways is far more important than Trump personally.
I am dealing with reality by pointing out the extreme bias and power of this stuff, and how it needs to be neutralized. The question is: how should we go about it?
Because we cannot offer up every candidate we have that they throw up these kinds of attacks against, and navel-gazing or hair-splitting about being a certain level of toxic does not fit.
So with that in mind: How do we go about neutering these kinds of attacks, and making they pay for it?
Hard to gauge, especially since most other candidates did not get as far as Trump did and because so much of the Democrat base is fed with attacks like these and kept “on the plantation” election to election by them. Hence why if African-Americans did not break overwhelmingly for the Dems they would be finished as a political party.
I also am skeptical they do, because of the inroads Trump made into “non-white” demographics like African-Americans and Hispanics, to cite just two.
I doubt you understand the devastation these kinds of smears have on the wider party, especially if they could get Barry Freaking Goldwater, Civil Rights Champion, with them because of a mixture of smears by LBJ and MLK, among others. This is particularly devastating for the movers and shakers and abroad.
And I think points to a deeper issue. Give up Trump if we must, sure, but that won’t fix the bigger issues. Which is why I honestly have become in favor of more permissive libel laws.
And just like that they stopped being an issue when Romney was no longer a threat, which I think points to narrative control and the like being a risk.
@neo
Understandable.
I can understand that, and I also think it might be the case (albeit to a lesser degree than you). Which is also why I have been defending him less so per se (I do believe many of his actions like the spat with DeSantis were low and counter-productive) but I do think – much like you did – that he did not cost us the election here and too much focus on him is counterproductive (and I’d argue always has been, whether it was demonizing him or sanctifying him).
@JohnTyler I largely agree. And I think this control over the commanding heights of the narrative is devastating and much more entrenched than many realize. Trump may be no saint or paladin in his own right, but not many can survive the kind of abuse that was hurled at him. Arguably not even he did in 2020. Building up parallel structures not dependent on the left and getting the message out is vitally important.
I find that the points in this thread on both sides of the question offer useful correctives to my own preliminary thinking on the whole question of Trump’s political future.
An outsider may be better able to govern the country and manage its economy and foreign affairs than the professionals, but the professionals are better at managing campaigns and elections. At least that goes for Democrat professionals who have the media on their side.
When Republicans were good at winning elections, there was much chatter about how somehow it was unfair — there was always some evil genius involved, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove or somebody else. Now that the Democrats are — by hook or by crook — better at winning elections, it’s assumed to be the normal and expected state of things.
Trump won because he threw the Establishment or the System or the Machine off balance. That’s not going to happen again. The midterms showed that things would have to get much, much worse, before he could convince a majority of voters to vote for him (if even then), and this incident shows that his political skills aren’t going to improve.
I wonder if the truly cunning and manipulative people in politics are those who don’t have a dark reputation of being cunning and manipulative because they are too cunning and manipulative to show that side of themselves to the public.
Kanye West, or whatever one wishes to call him, is a DISTRACTION.
Just another “Biden” DISTRACTION.
Essentially, EVERYTHING that “Biden” and “his” media/infotech accomplices throw up is a DISTRACTION.
From what, one might ask.
Ahhh….
(Hint: Maybe Elon Musk can help out a bit here…)
@ Hubert > ” Under the mature direction of that sanctimonious Mormon (sorry, AesopFan!) prig Romney”
Actually, I think you phrased that fairly well. No apology needed.
However, I don’t think his political priorities stem from our shared religion.
He’s very much on his own, in my opinion (and that of a large contingent of Utah voters with buyer’s remorse).
(The party spread among our church members is, in fact, quite wide, which I attribute mostly to the cultural factors operating where they reside.)
Thanks, AesopFan. I hope the buyer’s remorse kicks in next election cycle. And I wish the party spread were as wide in my tribe as it is in yours.
I wonder if you’re familiar with B. Duncan Moench’s pieces in Tablet magazine. This one…
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-next-civil-war-begins
…got a lot of play on Instapundit. It led me to this piece…
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/duncan-moench-mormons
…about his family and his off-hand discovery that he is, technically speaking, Jewish. Reminded me of Christopher Hitchens’ 1988 essay “On Not Knowing the Half of It”, about a similar discovery.
Just to put a capstone on Hubert’s comment.
https://babylonbee.com/news/following-sinemas-exit-romney-announces-intention-to-remain-in-democrat-party
AesopFan,
To quote the immortal Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit):
Heh.
Seriously, I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney makes it official. “On deep reflection and after long and painful consultation with my family and my faith, I have concluded that I can no longer remain associated with a political party that promotes hate and bigotry, encourages division, tolerates seditious attacks on the Constitution and our sacred institutions, and reserves a place in its ranks for unworthy men of poor character. Therefore, in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation and for the good of the Republic, I am today announcing…” etc. We could use him to replenish the strategic petroleum reserve.
We could use him to replenish the strategic petroleum reserve.
The conduct of Romney, Bush the Younger, and the Cheneys has caused me to regret every ballot I ever cast for them.
Deco: yup. Voted for Bush in 2004, McCain (retch, gag, spit) in 2008, and Romney in 2012. Even defended Dick Cheney to my liberal friends (and still have to give him credit for telling Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor to go eff himself–more of that, please). In our defense, the alternatives were worse. In the case of Obama, much, much worse.