Bi-polarizing Trump

Without a doubt, Donald Trump has done the conservative base some tremendous favors recently. He instinctively understands the mood of the country on key issues and is tapping into the anger at all of Washington -- all Democrats, the Jurassic media, the Republican establishment politicians, consultants, lobbyists, and donors, and of course the conservative establishment media – as only Donald Trump can do. He is demonstrating that his instincts are superior to most politicians, and he certainly has all the right enemies at the moment.

As a direct result, his poll numbers are surging. There is correlation here.

This is very refreshing. Moreover, it’s extremely important. This blunt tone and accompanying fearlessness are exactly what these times call for. It should be a teachable moment to all who are seeking the nomination, although it seems only Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina – who are both predisposed to being blunt – are enjoying it. These strong attacks on Washington are from the right, and they are rightly harsh.

And in predictable and formulaic fashion, the Washington-Manhattan establishment calls Trump polarizing. So what’s your point?  The Republicans win elections when they are polarizing. They lose every time they run scared of being polarizing.

Trump is not scared of that, and I wish it were that simple with Trump. But it is not. As he proved (again) this weekend, Donald Trump is more accurately described as bi-polarizing. In a period of a few days, he occupied both the right and left flanks while on attack. Specifically in his cross-hairs were George W. Bush and Scott Walker. He did a pretty good Debbie Wasserman Schultz impression in laying out his case against them.

Now if you want to attack Bush and Walker, that’s fine -- but do so from the right! There is room there, especially with any Bush. Don’t channel Obama and Biden in campaign mode. This is very problematic in light of the fact that Trump was more of a liberal Democrat than a Republican for most of his adult life.

On Morning Joe he stated “when the economy crashed so horribly under George Bush, because of mistakes they (the Republicans) made with banking and a lot of other things, I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.” But it was precisely the Democrats who did do it, and Bush tried to stop if as far back as 2003. Has he ever heard of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? So much for equating personal wealth with being an economic genius.

To clarify further, he’s incredibly passionate and talented in expressing conservative ideas on a number of issues. However, do we need the recent convert as our senior pastor after 25 minutes?

No, because no recent convert can possibly be reliable… in church, or the White House, or anywhere else. He has not shown any long-term conservative intuition.

His Bush attack was based on the same misconception that has given Barack Obama two straight wins. We know this because the percentage of people who voted for Obama was nearly identical to the percentage of people who still blamed Bush for the economy -- even in 2012! This was aided by the fact that both the McCain and Romney Campaigns agreed with the liberals that Bush was to blame. Apparently, Donald agrees.  Do we really need to try this again?

Now this is not to defend Bush. But it’s important that we shift the focus from “who” and think “why” for just a moment. The economy crashed while Bush was in the White House, but not because he was there. When you trace many years of the policies related to housing and mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- in addition to stringent anti-energy EPA restrictions -- what you understand that if Bush were to blame, it was only because he did too little to roll back thirty years of applied liberalism. And he was not president during most of that time.

And even the banker’s actions -- which were quintessential cronyism with all of those esoteric Wall Street derivatives -- are the opposite of free enterprise and conservatism. That’s socialism.

Understand that blaming Bush meant by association blaming conservatism, free enterprise, and all Republicans. It was precisely the lack of freedom in enterprise and the abandonment of conservative principles that were the problem. As long as this is not understood, by at least another 2-3% of the population, Republicans cannot ever win the White House.

It’s axiomatic that when people blame a president, it means they want to try going in the other direction across the board. In 08 and 12, that meant someone like Obama. Among these confused people, as recently as this weekend, was Donald Trump. Trump clearly said in 2009 he identified more as a Democrat on the economic crash -- and he doubled down on the sentiment this weekend. 

There’s more. He took the liberal union thug talking points book and aimed many of those same arguments right at Scott Walker, saying that “Wisconsin is in turmoil.” He went on to clarify, telling a boisterous crowd in Iowa that the state’s “roads, schools and hospitals, which he said were all a disaster.” Let me translate: Scott Walker screwed up Wisconsin by going after the unions.

So is Trump working for Richard Trumka or the SEIU now? I mean, this is right out of the union hall. It’s going after Walker from the left. So Trump was angry for some comments made by a Walker fundraiser? That’s no excuse for firing from the liberal flank, and frankly, a bit childish too. But my main concern is the liberalism thing, which has been exposed again.

So how will this play out? Will Trump’s legion of fans take note? Will talkers like Rush and Laura Ingraham mention this? They seem singularly focused on just Trumps good points. That’s a valid, but incomplete focus. It is not contradictory to support and enjoy his stabs at Washington -- while also realizing in the sober moment that he is not the conservative answer. 

Donald Trump is gifted. He is passionate. He has a finger on the pulse at the moment. It’s doubtful that conservatives need to nominate someone who has been pro Obama and pro Universal Care as recently as a few years ago -- and to the left of George W. Bush this weekend. 

Without a doubt, Donald Trump has done the conservative base some tremendous favors recently. He instinctively understands the mood of the country on key issues and is tapping into the anger at all of Washington -- all Democrats, the Jurassic media, the Republican establishment politicians, consultants, lobbyists, and donors, and of course the conservative establishment media – as only Donald Trump can do. He is demonstrating that his instincts are superior to most politicians, and he certainly has all the right enemies at the moment.

As a direct result, his poll numbers are surging. There is correlation here.

This is very refreshing. Moreover, it’s extremely important. This blunt tone and accompanying fearlessness are exactly what these times call for. It should be a teachable moment to all who are seeking the nomination, although it seems only Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina – who are both predisposed to being blunt – are enjoying it. These strong attacks on Washington are from the right, and they are rightly harsh.

And in predictable and formulaic fashion, the Washington-Manhattan establishment calls Trump polarizing. So what’s your point?  The Republicans win elections when they are polarizing. They lose every time they run scared of being polarizing.

Trump is not scared of that, and I wish it were that simple with Trump. But it is not. As he proved (again) this weekend, Donald Trump is more accurately described as bi-polarizing. In a period of a few days, he occupied both the right and left flanks while on attack. Specifically in his cross-hairs were George W. Bush and Scott Walker. He did a pretty good Debbie Wasserman Schultz impression in laying out his case against them.

Now if you want to attack Bush and Walker, that’s fine -- but do so from the right! There is room there, especially with any Bush. Don’t channel Obama and Biden in campaign mode. This is very problematic in light of the fact that Trump was more of a liberal Democrat than a Republican for most of his adult life.

On Morning Joe he stated “when the economy crashed so horribly under George Bush, because of mistakes they (the Republicans) made with banking and a lot of other things, I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.” But it was precisely the Democrats who did do it, and Bush tried to stop if as far back as 2003. Has he ever heard of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? So much for equating personal wealth with being an economic genius.

To clarify further, he’s incredibly passionate and talented in expressing conservative ideas on a number of issues. However, do we need the recent convert as our senior pastor after 25 minutes?

No, because no recent convert can possibly be reliable… in church, or the White House, or anywhere else. He has not shown any long-term conservative intuition.

His Bush attack was based on the same misconception that has given Barack Obama two straight wins. We know this because the percentage of people who voted for Obama was nearly identical to the percentage of people who still blamed Bush for the economy -- even in 2012! This was aided by the fact that both the McCain and Romney Campaigns agreed with the liberals that Bush was to blame. Apparently, Donald agrees.  Do we really need to try this again?

Now this is not to defend Bush. But it’s important that we shift the focus from “who” and think “why” for just a moment. The economy crashed while Bush was in the White House, but not because he was there. When you trace many years of the policies related to housing and mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- in addition to stringent anti-energy EPA restrictions -- what you understand that if Bush were to blame, it was only because he did too little to roll back thirty years of applied liberalism. And he was not president during most of that time.

And even the banker’s actions -- which were quintessential cronyism with all of those esoteric Wall Street derivatives -- are the opposite of free enterprise and conservatism. That’s socialism.

Understand that blaming Bush meant by association blaming conservatism, free enterprise, and all Republicans. It was precisely the lack of freedom in enterprise and the abandonment of conservative principles that were the problem. As long as this is not understood, by at least another 2-3% of the population, Republicans cannot ever win the White House.

It’s axiomatic that when people blame a president, it means they want to try going in the other direction across the board. In 08 and 12, that meant someone like Obama. Among these confused people, as recently as this weekend, was Donald Trump. Trump clearly said in 2009 he identified more as a Democrat on the economic crash -- and he doubled down on the sentiment this weekend. 

There’s more. He took the liberal union thug talking points book and aimed many of those same arguments right at Scott Walker, saying that “Wisconsin is in turmoil.” He went on to clarify, telling a boisterous crowd in Iowa that the state’s “roads, schools and hospitals, which he said were all a disaster.” Let me translate: Scott Walker screwed up Wisconsin by going after the unions.

So is Trump working for Richard Trumka or the SEIU now? I mean, this is right out of the union hall. It’s going after Walker from the left. So Trump was angry for some comments made by a Walker fundraiser? That’s no excuse for firing from the liberal flank, and frankly, a bit childish too. But my main concern is the liberalism thing, which has been exposed again.

So how will this play out? Will Trump’s legion of fans take note? Will talkers like Rush and Laura Ingraham mention this? They seem singularly focused on just Trumps good points. That’s a valid, but incomplete focus. It is not contradictory to support and enjoy his stabs at Washington -- while also realizing in the sober moment that he is not the conservative answer. 

Donald Trump is gifted. He is passionate. He has a finger on the pulse at the moment. It’s doubtful that conservatives need to nominate someone who has been pro Obama and pro Universal Care as recently as a few years ago -- and to the left of George W. Bush this weekend.