If you were to ask me how to describe Donald Trump, I would call him a petulant, preening, thin-skinned dilettante who thinks he is beyond criticism.
With every passing day, President Obama displays a temperament incompatible with the office bestowed upon him nearly two-and-a-half years ago. Whether it's berating a reporter for having the temerity to correct him, complaining about the quality of the White House phones or gracelessly telling House Republicans to their face they intend to take away health insurance from 50 million Americans, Obama is demonstrating he is not up to the task assigned to him by the American electorate.1,2,3
Yet those of us who desire that Chief Justice John Roberts administer the oath of office to someone other than Barack Obama on January 20, 2013 should temper this great wish with the realization that his successor could be even less suited to be Commander-in-Chief. I realize that for many such a notion is inconceivable. But it is all the more reason for Republicans to choose wisely about who will face off against Obama next year.
I don't want to leave the impression that I am an admirer of President Obama. In fact, if you were to ask me how to describe President Obama, I would call him a petulant, preening, thin-skinned dilettante who thinks he is beyond criticism. But if you were to ask me how to describe Donald Trump, well, I would call him a petulant, preening, thin-skinned dilettante who thinks he is beyond criticism. The only appreciable difference between the two is that Trump would probably equip the White House with "really cool phones."
Of course, one could make the case that entering 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would probably be a step down for Trump. Let's face it. Anyone who owns half of New York is used to getting his way and anyone who is used to getting his way doesn't think he can be unreasonable much less subject to constraints. If Trump gets to exchange his view of Central Park from Trump Tower for a view of the Rose Garden from the Oval Office then we can expect him to give the Constitution, Congress and the Courts the same regard he's given his ex-wives. Do we really want to go from Barack to buffoon?
Don't get me wrong. President Obama richly deserves the criticism for his performance in office. Yet Trump made the conscious decision to center his criticism of Obama on what he was doing out of his mother's womb in 1961 rather than what he is doing in the Situation Room in 2011. Even if Trump were to never again raise the question of Obama's birthplace he cannot put the cat back into the bag. Once it's out, it stays out free to roam around. The fact that Trump would have even entertained opening the bag makes me question his judgment. It is also an indication that Trump surrounds himself with yes men. And where there are yes men there is no one to tell him no. Then again if someone dared to tell Trump no, The Donald would be sure to reply, "You're fired."
Perhaps we can take comfort that it is not everyone's ambition in life to be Donald Trump's apprentice. Nor is it everyone's ambition to take the safe path. Some people go against the grain. I would place House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan into that category. Possibly better than anyone, Ryan understands that it is insufficient to merely oppose President Obama's policies. You have to be prepared to offer your own and the Wisconsin Republican has done that and then some. First, in 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to Obamacare – The Patients' Choice Act.4 Let's not forget how Ryan went toe to toe with Obama at the Health Care Summit in February 2010 and put to shreds the President's claims that Obamacare would reduce the deficit.5 And then there are his proposals for the federal budget.6
When asked to comment about Ryan's budget proposals, Trump said Ryan's proposed cuts to Medicare have made senior citizens afraid and "made the Democrats so happy."7 So what does Trump propose? Well, nothing. Perhaps I would be more inclined to take Trump seriously if he were to use his vast resources to publish a policy paper on health care and the overall state of the federal budget rather than send investigators to Honolulu to find a fifty-year-old birth certificate.8
Now it is entirely possible that neither Donald Trump nor Paul Ryan will present themselves as a candidate for President of the United States. Yet both men represent a diametrically opposed approach as to how to unseat a Democratic President. While Trump is content merely to disparage President Obama (and for that matter any other Republican not named Trump) and provide easy answers to complicated questions, Ryan has a proven record of putting forward viable conservative public policy alternatives, and he isn't afraid to tell people that the answers to even the simplest of questions aren't always easy. Next year, Republicans will have to decide if we are the Party of Ryan or the Party of Trump.
Endnotes
1. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305809
2. http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/4855781-418/obama-white-house-needs-cool-phones-and-stuff.html
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/remarks-president-fiscal-policy
4. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2520
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs
6. http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
7. http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Trump-Obama-wasn-t-qualified-for-Ivy-League-1351741.php
8. http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2011/04/07/10184-trump-sends-birther-investigators-to-hawaii/
“…Obama is demonstrating he is not up to the task assigned to him by the American electorate.” I think it’s the American electorate who are not up to the task of assigning a President.
To the question of the Republican Party being the party of Trump or Ryan, I choose none of the above. I respect Rep. Ryan for at least offering solid proposals but the “me too” Republican response to Democrat policies has been destructive to our liberties and disastrous to the principles of our republic. Ryan’s health care bill accepts the premise that the federal government has a role in the personal health care decisions of its citizens and what’s more should finance them to some degree; the argument is simply in what degree. Rep. Ryan’s budget takes the same tack, accepting that government needs to grow and expand but just at a slower rate than the Democrats think it should. These proposals are a gift to the left, relieving them of the burden of arguing principle and left only to defend the degree. It’s as if two people are offering to feed you; one offers you a plate of beans while the other offers you a full buffet, both agree it’s their responsibility to feed you they just disagree on how much. Being offered a choice between beans and a buffet most people will, and in the case of entitlements, have, opted for the buffet.
This is a false dilemma inasmuch as Donald Trump will never be the Republican nominee for president, but in the typical fashion of an elitist party-line policy wonk, the author entirely misses the point and benefit of a Trump candidacy.
In the course of merely a couple of weeks, Donald Trump has single handedly disarmed president Obama of an issue that he has milked for every ounce of value to bludgeon the entire Republican party and anyone with whom he disagrees as a vile racist conspiracy theorist since his campaign for the presidency first began – and right before the election cycle. At the same time Trump’s ties to the Republican party are tenuous at best, making it easy for the party itself and the other Republicans in the race to distance themselves from him publicly. If Trump was able to use his extremely high public profile and command of the media to strip Obama of the “birther” issue that has been the darling of the administration and the media for 3 years, imagine what else he can do during the course of the election cycle. No serious Republican candidate could have gotten away with raising that issue without losing their credibility and being crucified by the press and it would have lingered to haunt Republicans in every interview, every press conference, every debate, every public appearance for the next 4 years as it has for the previous 3. Trump can serve in a similar capacity as an unofficial Republican attack dog and lightning rod on a huge range of issues to insulate whoever emerges as the serious candidate. Simply put, this is brilliant political strategy, and I really think it may be the entire reason that Trump is pursuing a campaign. If that’s the case then the party will owe him a debt of gratitude for it.
Furthermore, as the election of Barack Obama amply demonstrates, most voters are ignorant, apathetic, and downright stupid. They are not interested in a policy wonk who will tell them the excruciating details of every bill they intend to pursue during their future administration. Obama rode a wave simplistic slogans and nondescript anti-incumbent rhetoric into the White House in a landslide. Trump is tapping into that same type of populist sentiment and quickly climbing in the polls because of it. After serving his purpose he can lend the populist political capital he has raised to the “real” candidate, and it may just make the difference between a Republican actually getting elected to office and a quasi-Democrat beltway insider like John McCain blowing off yet another opportunity for the party to undo the considerable damage Obama has already inflicted on the country in just the last 2 years.
Donald Trump may not be the personification of the ideal Republican candidate, but he needn’t be. Just the way he is, he may be the best thing to happen, politically and strategically speaking, to the 2012 election cycle.
What Trump has done for conservatives is to make the birther issue an acceptable and major theme for 2012. Trump’s work has legitimized the issue and no Republican presidential candidate can succeed at getting the full support of the party’s conservative base if he or she ignores the issue. Now the birther issue can no longer be dismissed as unimportant or simply crazy. If the Right is to defeat Obama, it will not be enough to criticize his economic policy or his Libyan adventure. Obama will have to be discredited in a much more primordial way, by being shown to be ineligible for the presidency. Many conservatives have regarded him as such from the beginning, even before birtherism appeared, and now they have a rationale for their opposition. It would help, of course, if the Right could find some seriously immoral behavior to attach to Obama, and I’m surprised that nothing has been offered in this area by Beck or Limbaugh or Malkin. Policy differences aren’t enough to win this election–dirt is sorely needed.
Gestell,
Since the release of the long form birth certificate has officially collapsed the “birther” issue, which is a blow to the Obama administration that has worked diligently to keep it alive rather than to the Republican party who never touched it from the get-go, maybe that nasty old conservative smear machine could just forge some documents saying he was kicked out of Harvard or accuse him of having an affair with a high-flying lobbyist. Do you know anyone who could help us with that?
Mr. Mulligan,
Whatever do you mean that the release of the long form birth certificate has “officially collapsed” the birther issue? Polls already show clearly that many birthers simply do not (and will not) believe the issue to have been settled. If anything, the issue is now fully legitimate. Obama’s move fuels the fire; it does not put it out. Obama was a fool to let Trump force his hand, and your side is already the winner on this one. I’m just suggesting that you’ll benefit if you keep the heat on. You need to reach those Americans who find economic policy discussions incomprehensible and policy wonkery boring. A little sleaze never hurts. Get inventive.
Gestell,
As much as the Democratic party, the administration, and liberals generally would like to cling to the “birther” issue and pretend that it is mainstream Republican politics, it is not, never has been, and has officially died as a talking point. Trump deserves credit for disarming the White House of this issue, and it is understandably frustrating for your side that it is no longer of any utility to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with the administration as a crazy conspiracy theorist, but that’s the extent of the advantage that Trump has given Republicans vis-a-vis the “birther” issue.
However, from a purely political standpoint, you are right in saying that Trump can serve a useful purpose as an attack/sleaze monger for the GOP. His ties to the party are not strong, so he can easily be disavowed by the other candidates and the party itself while he launches attacks that the mainstream candidates would never get away with, but that nevertheless have populist appeal. So Trump’s presence in the race could certainly make for an interesting campaign, but the strength (or lack thereof) of the “birther” issue isn’t the reason why.
Mr. Mulligan,
The birther issue is such a good one for your side because ‘regular’ Republicans (if such still exist) can be high-minded and righteously deny that they take it seriously and low-minded, knowing that even by mentioning it, they’ll help stir the juices of their more rightward colleagues. The whole thing reminds me of an old joke here in Massachusetts apropos Ted Kennedy. A Republican challenger gives a speech where he says: “There’s no need to bring up Chappaquiddick. I’m not about to bring up Chappaquiddick. We can win without mentioning Chappaquiddick. Etc.” The birther issue will work just that way for Republicans.
My goodness, I thought this was an intelllectual place to share and then I see three articles on Trump. After skimming through the three and the comments for each I finally get to something that makes sence and that is the last comment by Gestell about the Kennedy/Chappaquiddick line.
Let’s move on to how BHO killed OBL without so much as a trial in New York.
Been gone all last week. My neighborhood looks like Beirut. The author says; “Obama is demonstrating he is not up to the task assigned to him by the American electorate.” But that’s putting it mildly.
As far as 2012 id concerned; we could probably throw darts at a phone book and get a more skilled president than the one we have. In the past we’ve had presidents that were Governors, Congressmen. Senators, and Generals. When was the last time a businessman was president? Could Trump be any worse?
Will the death of bin Laden help Obama? Yes, but not for very long, and it will not quiet the birthers. I’m a little surprised that IC writers haven’t gotten around to contributing about the removal of bin Laden. Probably they’re still working on getting just the right dismissive tone to use so that Obama doesn’t get too much credit. Keep working, boys, you’ll figure it out. And besides, since bin Laden’s body is unavailable, it’s always possible that the whole mission was bogus, just like the moon landing.
I doubt if the death of any terrorist will boost Obama’s chances at re-election. Besides the job remains unfinished. There are still a plethora of domestic terrorists that are all both imminent threats to our republic and loose to practice their particular brand of terrorism among the citizens of this country.
When will we begin pursuit of the likes of the top dogs of domestic terrorism in this country? Truly dangerous people like Arne Duncan, Kathleen Sebelius, Steven Chu, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Hilda Solis, and Timothy Geithner? There can be no doubt these domestic terrorists are even more dangerous to America given their proximity to our children.
When will we imprison the likes of Jeffery Crowley, Ed Montgomery, Alan Bersin, Ron Bloom, David Hayes, Dennis Ross, Tod Stern, Lyn Rosenthal, Gil Kerlikowske, Carol Browner, Cameron Davis, Nancy-Ann DeParle, Cass Sunstein, Aneesh Chopra, Adolfo Carrion Jr., and all the other thugs whose organizations are so focused in attempting to ruin The United States of America?
All of these aforementioned persons are, IMHO, much more dangerous than Osama. He masterminded the slaughter of over 3,000 people. These above mentioned thugs are plotting the permanent imprisonment of over 300,000,000 people.
Bill,
You’re one of those Rightwingers who has gone off the deep end. What, precisely, have any of these folks done to merit the label ‘domestic terrorist?’ Evidently it suffices that they are so-called ‘czars’ in the Obama administration. Given your lurid prose, I expected you to offer proof that these individuals are registered sex offenders living near elementary schools. No, nothing of the sort; they are simply bureaucrats you dislike. By the way, Bush 43 had 33 persons with so-called ‘czar’ titles; Obama thus far has 37. Please note that the term is generally applied to a presidential appointee by the media and conveys nothing of substantive meaning apart from that. The President does have the power to create a variety of positions and appoint persons to them. Every president from FDR through Obama (including Republicans) has done so. The structure and operation of the Executive Office of the Presidency is really up to the President; the Constitution doesn’t determine this. In point of fact, ‘czars’ generally have plain old official bureaucratic titles–’czar’ is journalistic and political shorthand. The Brits have had this term for many years as well, usually applied to an expert appointed to advise on policy in his or her area of expertise.
One of the first ‘czars’ was the commissioner of baseball who was appointed to clean up professional ball after the Black Sox scandal of 1919.
In short–although I’d love to add more–you’re making a conservative mountain out of a very small mole hill. Have you had your blood pressure checked lately?
Professor,
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have it checked as part of a twice monthly procedure when I go to donate blood platelets for cancer patients and it is fine thank you. Not that this bovine scatology doesn’t raise it quite rapidly. So let’s list the crimes against the state these domestic terrorists stand accused of.
First of all are the one’s who shouldn’t even be drawing salary. Isnt’ misuse of government funds a crime?
Alan Bersin – Border Czar. This guy should be unemployed for the bang up job he’s been doing along the border. He’s earning his salary
Guantanamo Closure Czar – Daniel Fried. Since this is never going to happen in our lifetimes why is this idiot being paid either? Another criminal drawing government money for absolutely no return.
Earl Devaney – Stimulus Czar. This guy was ‘inventing’ fictitious congressional districts where stimulus money was being spent in a duplicitous effort to actually to put lipstick on that pig. The Stimulus was such an impressive failure he should be so deep in jail they should have to shoot him his beans with a 12 gauge.
Jeffery Zients – Government Performance Czar. Ditto for this moron. How do you think the government is ‘performing’ professor? Barack Obama has done exactly two things correctly since taking office. First he had the SEAls shoot those Somalian pirates that held that American ship captain hostage. Second, he ordered Osama’s dirt nap as well. I’ll give credit where credit is due. I guess Obama DID learn something in Chicago after all; he knows how to shoot people. Somehow, I believe, you were hoping he was more.
Ed Montgomery – Auto recovery Czar. This idiot is an economist and an economic development specialist. He’s never even owned a car! The guy’s never had to schedule an oil change and tire rotation at Midas yet he’s going to tell the auto industry how fix itself? If that’s not a criminal waste of capital, I don’t know what is.
We won’t even get into Todd Stern, a dedicated Agenda 21’er, or Carol Browner who should be wearing a paper hat and asking; “Would you like fries with that?” at some McDonald’s somewhere. None of these people have any connection with the industries or issues they are supposed to be ’helping’ the president with other that the fact they operate as echo chambers because they are aligned so closely with his ideological positions on these issues. I don’t see a snowball’s chance of getting a fresh point-of-view here; do you?
Now for the real criminals here;
Kathleen Sebelius – She’s currently throwing her weight around by denying a medical company from bidding any contracts with Medicare or Medicaid. Why? Because she doesn’t like the company’s CEO because he’s not a fan of Obamacare, that’s why. So a department head of the federal government is dictating to a private firm to fire it’s CEO or she’ll pull all their business, because of politics. This is nothing less than Tammany Hall politics at its absolute worst. And this is the second time she’s done this because she forced out a CEO of a St. Louis medical company she disagreed with last year.
Eric Holder – Nuff said. This guy deserves the Osama treatment for his non-performance. Announcing that the Arizona Immigration Law is unconstitutional before even reading the ten page document. Not prosecuting the New Black Panthers for voting intimidation because “…people of color cannot commit discrimination.” Refusing to defend the law of the land, DOMA, because of purely political reasons. The Justice Department isn’t supposed to be political, or did I miss something in basic civics?
The NLRB just told Boeing they can’t move their manufacturing operations to South Carolina. Why? Because South Carolina is a ‘right-to-work’ state and those union jobs in Washington State would disappear. This is blatantly telling a company how to conduct its business. That’s not criminal? It’s no different than if a Crip or a Blood walked into a local business and said; “Nice place. Be a shame if something happened to it.” Oh sorry, bad reference. I forgot that people of color cannot intimidate because of their race.
$4 gas and the president smugly tells us to check our tire pressure. Basic food prices go through the roof yet we’re still paying farmers to grow a crop that ends up costing more in energy to convert than it yields, destroys mpg, and ruins the car engine to boot.
Mandating that every American, under penalty of law, must purchase a product. Purposefully bankrupting the country in order to continue transfer payments to constituents while simultaneously berating anyone who actually figures out how to earn a living in this nightmare of a nation he’s creating. It’s treason, plain and simple. And the most shameful thing in all this is that you KNOW it.
“Auto recovery Czar”?
I nominate Mike Rowe for that job. His Ford ads have done more to help the unemployment rate in Dearborn than anything they could do in DC.
Bill,
You remind me of those lunatics on my side who insisted on calling Bush ‘Hitler,’ and screeching about how the Patriot Act was going to turn the US into something like Big Brother’s regime in Orwell’s “1984.” Once more, you simply dislike Obama’s ‘czars’ and their policies, in the same way that I dislike conservative policy-makers and their policies. Extravagant language about ‘treason’ seems to be the default setting for ideologues of the Right, just as ideologues of the Left have their characteristic rants.
Don’t you expect to see ideologically-driven policy from ideologically-driven politicians? Of course you do, and you love it when the guys doing the driving are your guys. Of course when it’s your guys you don’t see their partisanship since, from your standpoint, things are the way they ought to be.
Professor,
“You remind me of those lunatics on my side who insisted on calling Bush ‘Hitler,’ and screeching about how the Patriot Act was going to turn the US into something like Big Brother’s regime in Orwell’s “1984.” is a mischaracterization. First; unlike most of your ilk; I actually work for a living, bathe regularly, and pay taxes.
Next; I know for a fact that you yourself are extremely disappointed in your choice of Commander-in-Chief as well. Now it may be because he and his minions haven’t moved fast enough to gain control over the means of production as you would have liked but you’ve still scraped his campaign sticker off your Volvo.
The man, his policies, and his flying monkeys are bent on ruining this republic. And a little news flash for you. When this place goes ‘dead bug’ everyone will pay the price; you and your academic brethren, the intergenerational welfare dependents your policies have created, and society’s producers as well. Although those of us used to really working for a living will find a way to continue as we always do.
Ryan would be a great choice for VP. Trump, however is up to the type of campaign that the Obamination will wage.
Trump keeps his word…my eldest daughter had a summer job when Trump Plaza casino opened as a greeter wearing an outfit that looked somewhat like the old Philip Morris commercials. Trum and Ivana came by and noted the work being done by the greeters to make visitors and told my daughter “you have a job as long as you want it”. Two weeks later the greeters were let go! It wasn’t an issue for her since another job immediately came up but she was disappointed as only a college student can be (number one in her graduating class from Villanova). Three weeks later a call came to the house and called her back to work at the casino with all the missed time paid as well. Apparently Trump had visited again and noticed the absense of the greeters and remembered his commitment to a then 19 year old.
We have other Trump stories from the casino industry since my next career move was into the Atlantic City casino as the CIO of one of the casinos. If he actually looks like a candidate these stories will be moving around the internet. There is more to Donald Trump than what you see and there is much less to Obama than what you see.
Bill,
I’m glad to see that you haven’t overlooked any conservative cliches–golly, we liberals don’t pay taxes, work for a living, or bathe, and we even own Volvos. Well, right back at you–gun-loving, intolerant, racist homophobic hillbilly whack job. There. Has this exchange advanced political discussion enough for you? We started off arguing about Obama’s “czars” (I note you didn’t say anything about Bush’s “czars,” though), and you indulged in a fit of conservative apocalypticism of the sort that now passes for political commentary on the Right. The big problem with declinist/apocalpytics is when the much-feared collapse doesn’t occur. Then the true believer has to figure out a more complex scenario to keep the whole game up and running. He can either keep postponing the End, or can say that it’s already happened and They are keeping it a big secret from us, etc. Needless to say, They are virtually all-powerful, and the faithful few who try to warn the rest of us are ignored, sort of like the guy at the end of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Right wing declinism blends paranoia and theatricality into one sordid mess. Enjoy.