Why Donald Trump Is A Joke Candidate

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Donald Trump, a businessman perhaps most famous for being rich, has recently rocked the Republican field. His attacks on President Barack Obama have made news in a quiet news cycle. Polls, surprisingly, show Mr. Trump shooting up to second or first place amongst Republican voters.

I have just had the opportunity to watch several of these interviews with Mr. Trump. In general, I have come away decidedly unimpressed. Mr. Trump looks much older and a lot worse outside of his reality show. Indeed, it was actually a shock to see the difference between the image the man exudes (e.g. the pictures one sees of him on google images) and the reality.

Moreover, the interviews also show Mr. Trump is not a very good politician. He gets angry too often (something politicians should never do), for instance. His presentation clearly needs work.

All in all, it is hard to take Mr. Trump as a serious candidate. He is too much like former television star Fred Thompson: a candidate who was hyped as the new Ronald Reagan in 2008, but who in actuality performed far below expectations. It would be quite surprising if Mr. Trump did not flame out.

Let’s be clear on this point: Mr. Trump would be a terrible, terrible Republican candidate – and a terrible president besides. He is probably the only candidate in the Republican field who would do worse than former Governor Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin would probably win states like Kentucky and West Virginia, for instance. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is probably the only candidate in the Republican field who can get Kentuckians to vote for a big-city socialist.

Think about it. What is Donald Trump famous for?

He’s rich, and his favorite phrase is “You’re fired!” That’s not a resume most politicians want.

One reason states like West Virginia used to be Democratic was that populist Democrats could tap the white working-class vein of dislike for rich corporate executives. As the Democratic Party has moved away from that type of populism (see John Kerry, Barack Obama) places like West Virginia have shifted Republican.

But Trump is the very epitome of rich corporate executive, and being famous for firing people is probably not going to endear him to the working class. It’s hard to imagine a West Virginia coal miner ever voting for a guy like Donald Trump.

Whatever the faults of Republican candidates such as Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, they would make far better presidents than Mr. Trump. Republican voters would do well to consider a more serious candidate than the joke that is Donald Trump.

 

 

Why Donald Trump Is A Joke Candidate

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Donald Trump, a businessman perhaps most famous for being rich, has recently rocked the Republican field. His attacks on President Barack Obama have made news in a quiet news cycle. Polls, surprisingly, show Mr. Trump shooting up to second or first place amongst Republican voters.

I have just had the opportunity to watch several of these interviews with Mr. Trump. In general, I have come away decidedly unimpressed. Mr. Trump looks much older and a lot worse outside of his reality show. Indeed, it was actually a shock to see the difference between the image the man exudes (e.g. the pictures one sees of him on google images) and the reality.

Moreover, the interviews also show Mr. Trump is not a very good politician. He gets angry too often (something politicians should never do), for instance. His presentation clearly needs work.

All in all, it is hard to take Mr. Trump as a serious candidate. He is too much like former television star Fred Thompson: a candidate who was hyped as the new Ronald Reagan in 2008, but who in actuality performed far below expectations. It would be quite surprising if Mr. Trump did not flame out.

Let’s be clear on this point: Mr. Trump would be a terrible, terrible Republican candidate – and a terrible president besides. He is probably the only candidate in the Republican field who would do worse than former Governor Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin would probably win states like Kentucky and West Virginia, for instance. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is probably the only candidate in the Republican field who can get Kentuckians to vote for a big-city socialist.

Think about it. What is Donald Trump famous for?

He’s rich, and his favorite phrase is “You’re fired!” That’s not a resume most politicians want.

One reason states like West Virginia used to be Democratic was that populist Democrats could tap the white working-class vein of dislike for rich corporate executives. As the Democratic Party has moved away from that type of populism (see John Kerry, Barack Obama) places like West Virginia have shifted Republican.

But Trump is the very epitome of rich corporate executive, and being famous for firing people is probably not going to endear him to the working class. It’s hard to imagine a West Virginia coal miner ever voting for a guy like Donald Trump.

Whatever the faults of Republican candidates such as Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, they would make far better presidents than Mr. Trump. Republican voters would do well to consider a more serious candidate than the joke that is Donald Trump.

 

 

Fairness and the Bristol Stomp

 

by Walter Brasch

 

            Almost all children hear a set of conflicting statements from their parents, relatives, and friends. They're told if they study hard, if they work hard, they can achieve whatever they want. It's the "American Dream." But they're also told that life isn't always fair.

            Looking for internships or jobs, America's children learn that no matter how much they studied or worked, it was the boss's niece or a boss's friend's son who was hired. Sometimes, the reason for rejection could be as simple as the boss thought the best candidate was intellectually superior or that the applicant had curly black hair and he liked only blondes.

            Later, on another job, while the boss bought yet another vacation home, the worker was one of dozens laid off, their jobs going to Mexico, China, or Pakistan.

            It's not fair that reality TV "stars" and pro athletes make 10 to more than 100 times the salaries of social workers and firefighters. But Americans seldom protest.

            The owner of a mid-sized carpentry shop loses a contract to a large corporation, not because of a lack of quality work but because the corporation cut deals with suppliers. It's not fair; it's just reality.

            One person driving 65 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone is stopped by police; another, doing 80, speeds along. It's not fair. But it happens.

            It probably wasn't fair that Bristol Palin, 20-year-old unwed mother with no discernible job skills, was selected over thousands of other celebrities for ABC-TV's "Dancing With the Stars." It had nothing to do with fairness or her ability; it had everything to do with a reality that Palin's presence on DWTS would bring in ratings, and ratings bring in advertising income. The first show brought in 21 million viewers who watched 30-second commercials from companies that paid almost $190,000 each, among the highest on all television—broadcast or cable.

            To assure that Palin had  a chance to stay on the show for at least a couple of weeks, the producers gave her a special advantage—her professional dance partner was Mark Ballas, DWTS champion twice in the previous 10 seasons.

            Even with one of the best professional ballroom dancers as her partner and coach, Palin was still at the bottom of the judges' ranking four times, and near the bottom most of the other times. According to the scoring system, each of three judges give each contestant pair—a celebrity and a professional—a score of 1 to 10. A perfect score is 30. But, viewers can vote by phone, website, or by texting. Their vote is worth half the total score. Neither Sarah nor Bristol Palin made any special requests of the viewers that we know about. They didn't have to. Hundreds of conservative blogs and talk show hosts did it for them, urging their flocks to vote. Many may have even scammed the system. At least one viewer told the Washington Post he not only had used fake emails to vote hundreds of times, he also told others how to do it.

            Willing accomplices and accessories, of course, were the producers who made sure that Mama Palin was seen on several shows—sometimes with speaking roles, sometimes with as many as nine cutaway shots. The audience did as they were told. For nine weeks, Bristol Palin, one of the weakest dancers in the show's 11-season history, defeated celebrity teams who had near-perfect and perfect scores.

            The week before the finals, it finally seemed destined that Bristol Palin would be off the show, having again placed at the bottom of the judges' scores. But, it was Brandy and professional dancer Maksim Chmerkovskiy, who had done near-perfect routines, who were voted off. Shocked, the audience began booing. It didn't matter. Palin was now one of three celebrity finalists.

            The first of a two-part final the following week drew an audience of 23.7 million, highest for any entertainment program this season. However, this time, it was Jennifer Grey and Derek Hough, who had finished at the top of the judges' lists several times, who finally won. Second were actor Kyle Massey and Lacey Schwimmer; Palin and Ballas finished third.

            It makes little difference if numerous celebrities weren't selected for Dancing With the Stars because the producers gave the slot to the less talented Bristol Palin. It doesn't even matter that more talented celebrities were eliminated from the show because a cult of the home audience voted for Bristol Palin. In the American election system, the best candidate, for any of a thousand reasons, including blatant lies and distortion by the opposition, often doesn't win an election.

            It doesn't seem fair. It's just the way it is.

 

 

 

Dehumanizing the Enemy

Over the last few weeks, the GW Bush camp has been attempting to humanize our Decider-in-Chief in order to up his approval ratings.  We saw the NYT article in which Bush Sr. talks about how hard it is to be the father of a sitting president.  And Bush Jr. has recently been crying on the friendly shoulder of Fox's Neil Cavuto about the fact that names CAN hurt him.  While not surprising, this attempt at controverting Bush's carefully constructed image as the brush-clearing, O'Doul's can-crushing cowboy is at least a little audacious.  And it makes me scratch my head as to how much of the public ire the Bush Co. actually brought on itself and how much is simply overhead from our (all-too-human) tendency to dehumanize the enemy.

When first contemplating the option that GW is actually incurring his just desserts, my initial impulse was to run through my standard litany of Bush evils: all the way from 2000 vote-stealing and caging lists through Gonzales and contempt of Congress.  But where does that get me?  We all avoid rehashing our regrettable moments (in fact, I make it a point NOT to document my Facts of Life rerun marathons for fear they may be used against me), and it's just part of the deal that when the president of a country has them, we all end up suffering.  But is it that simple?  Can any of the mistakes that I've made be placed on the same level as those of the Bush Co?  How much does intent matter, and how much of Bush's nonsense has been intentional?  "In other words," is Bush a fool or a knave?  And how much of a role should levels of responsibility and visibility play?  All of these questions may be relevant, but answering them doesn't seem likely to make it any easier to for me to watch a Bush speech.  As a result, I must explore other rationale for why I am so very deeply put off by the man.

So, this brings me to the parts played by image and dehumanization.  The thought that I am so easily swayed by style, is of course, somewhat disconcerting, but in all honesty, I may have been turned off by Bush before he ever became the Decider.  Even before I knew much about his lame Texas governorship (or really, anything significant about him), I was suspicious about the way he walked, the way he talked, and the entirety of his "bringing honor back to the White House" rhetoric.  Just looking at him reminded me of the smarmy, superficial frat boys I had known who had used their connections and underhanded tactics to get out of things like the Vietnam War and into things like the Air National Guard.  Which makes me wonder: In spite of all of my soap-box rhetoric and high ideals about America's place in the world, civil liberties, and social justice, do I loathe Bush for the same reasons that Republicans loathe Clinton?  Am I just as easily swayed by style as by substance?  And do I just use Bush's wrongdoings as an excuse to dehumanize him and call him names like "Geopolitical Warmonger", "Grossly Withoutcompetence", and "Grinning Weasel"?

The answer: I'm afraid I'll never know.

There's more...

Al Gore's Image

In the wake of Al Gore's victory (okay, technically it was Davis Guggenheim's victory, but you get the idea) at the Oscars, I anticipated a wave of positive press about Gore's efforts to raise awareness of global warming.  What I didn't anticipate were the numerous comments from the press . . . about Gore's appearance, specifically, his weight.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Gore cannot run for national office until he drops some pounds, as he did in 2000.  In addition to being shocked that this topic would even come up in the wake of the seriousness of An Inconvenient Truth, I was also struck by how those critics (and Democratic consultants, including, not surprisingly, Donna Brazile,) don't have a clue as to how people respond to image in politics.
Let's assume Gore jumps into the race (as I certainly hope he will.) If I were advising him (not that he needs to get into the habit of listening to advisers, as that's a big part of what did him in in '00,) I would tell him not to lose too much weight. Right now, Gore looks avuncular. And, for a Democratic presidential candidate, avuncular is a GOOD THING!!!! Remember how the Rove smear machine was able to portray Kerry and Edwards as effeminate sissies (all those stupid jokes about them being gay because they hugged so much) partially because of their physical presentations? Kerry was slim, overly well-groomed, and was caught on film windsurfing. (The fact that he was from the state that had just legalized gay marriage, and that the Democratic National Convention was held there, to boot, certainly didn't help matters as far as this image was concerned.) The meme of Edwards-the-prettyboy is still alive and well today-- major political web sites and news programs have made reference to the very popular YouTube video that shows Edwards scrutinizing over his hair before going on TV (and whoever posted it on YouTube accompanied it with the theme music "I Feel Pretty.") An overly-attractive, too-well-groomed candidate reinforces the right wing smear machine's portrayal of Democrats as weak, effeminate sissies.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads