Meanwhile, at Town Hall Guy Benson writes about Trump's supporters,
...The point is that emotion-based hero worship can heavily erode afflicted parties' previous adherence to values, ideology, and critical thinking.Read more here.
...I sincerely believe Trump lacks the character, temperament, mastery of issues, and ideological underpinnings to be a viable general election nominee against a dishonest Statist who must be beaten. If I'm proven wrong on that count, I'm convinced he would not preside over an effective or conservative presidency, for the same reasons. Bluntly, I view the man who currently leads the contest to carry my worldview's flag into political battle as a net threat, not a net asset, to that worldview. I also believe Trump's oft-praised ability to "manipulate" the media is, in fact, giddily aided by the media, which delights in a three-pronged payoff: Trump drives ratings and clicks through the roof, while drowning out stronger Republican presidential alternatives, and making the party look like an unserious clown car in the eyes of key voting blocs that will decide next year's election.
For all the talk of Trump's antics "not hurting him," evidenced by his poll position holding steady or ticking up, that analysis only narrowly applies to the fractured Republican electorate. Among the broader general electorate, Trump's favorability rating is (35/57) overall, (31/60) with independents, (29/63) with women -- in a cycle in which the presumptive Democratic nominee has precisely one big card to play -- (23/69) among young voters, the largest emerging voting cohort in American politics, and (9/84) with Hispanic voters, a group Trump delusionally predicts he'll win outright. Bear in mind that Trump also enjoys virtually universal name recognition, meaning that he is already solidly defined in most voters' minds. Yes, he's done most of that defining on his own terms, thanks to his unquestionably effective flood-the-zone media strategy. But re-read the favorability data just quoted, and contemplate how effective he's been at positioning himself to actually win a national election.
My opposition to Trump, therefore, is rooted in a commitment to principles, an abiding belief that character matters, and a burning desire to win. People are welcome to disagree with my analysis. Rush Limbaugh, who's been at this longer than I've been alive, may recognize some utility in Trump that I'm missing. But I wish he and others would quit suggesting that passionate conservative resistance to Trump must be a capitulation to political correctness, or a "tell" that one has been seduced by the siren song of impressing the so-called 'smart set.' Indeed, motive-impugning can cut both ways. For instance, some have suggested that Rush et al are indulging Trump against their better judgment because they're fearful of alienating their own audience, having stoked the embers of anti-establishment resentment for so long. But rather than ascribing unseemly and ulterior motives to one another, perhaps those of us who still care about issues and who prioritize the defeat of Hillary Clinton should focus our energies on a serious, substantive debate about who best fulfills William F. Buckley's sage electoral standard: Who is the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning? The answer to that question is necessarily subjective on both fronts, and opinions will inevitably vary. I'd submit that Donald Trump satisfies neither criterion; just the opposite, in fact. Despite his attention-grabbing bravado and unapologetic demeanor that appeals to many right-leaning voters at the moment, a robust empirical case can be made that he's both the least conservative and least electable figure in the GOP race.
Allahpundit writes this at Hot Air,
Cruz is holding off because he understands the point about losing populist cred by questioning Trump’s conservatism and thinks he can win Iowa without attacking. Trump, who’s now behind there and who sees Cruz creeping up in other polls, either feels he can’t wait any longer to attack or he thinks that he’ll pay no price for doing so. Today’s jab is Rush’s polite way, I assume, of urging him to rethink that. Populist opinion-makers will stay out of Trump’s way so long as he’s not attacking conservatism or its leading avatars. Once he forces them to choose, they’ll choose and he won’t like the choice. After years of Bushes and McCain and Romneys, they’re not going to knife a brilliant ideological conservative with a real chance at the nomination like Ted Cruz just because some listeners are jazzed about Trump’s temporary ban on Muslims.Read more here
In fact, the audio only gives you a taste of what Rush said about Trump today. He objected to the “maniac” attack on Cruz because it was an establishment argument, but he objected to what Trump said about ethanol and affirmative action on more traditional grounds:
And then he dumped on Cruz for being opposed to ethanol? In other words, we as Republicans must support government subsidies to corn farmers in Iowa if we’re to have any chance of winning Iowa? We’ve gotta stand for subsidies? And that, again, is not a conservative position. To go after Cruz on that basis, is again the way the Democrats and the media would go after him, and then there was this Sunday morning on CNN’s State of the Union, Jake Tapper.
“What do you think of Justice Scalia’s remarks, and where are you today on affirmative action?”
TRUMP: I thought it was very tough to the African-American community, actually. I don’t like what he said. I actually saw it in print, and I’m going… I read a lot of stuff. I’m going, “Whoa.” I have great African-American friendships. I have just amazing relationships. But, yeah, I was very surprised at Scalia’s statements, actually.
RUSH: Well, they weren’t “Scalia’s statements.” They were arguments that had been submitted to the court that he was engaging in oral argument over. But these are two things that… If you’re a conservative voter in the Republican primary, these two things have gotta raise some red flags for you people, I would think.
That’s not a formal endorsement of Cruz over Trump but it’s clear which of the two a good conservative should prefer. (Should a good conservative also prefer Rubio to Trump?) Presumably more of this is in store for Trump if he continues to attack, including/especially at the debate tomorrow night. That raises the price for him. Is attacking still worth doing now with Iowa nearly two months away?
No comments:
Post a Comment