Posted on 08/04/2015 5:52:36 AM PDT by Hojczyk
The lesson of 2011-12 - and common sense - is clear. The only way to gain support is to attack Obama and the Dems and other liberals better than the others on the stage are doing. That’s the ONLY thing that worked to increase support.
All the intramural fighting does is drive down the support of others. So with Mitt’s budget, he was able to grind down everybody else (Newt could have beaten him, but has no one but Newt to blame) - and in the end, the GOP field went from record turn outs in SC to low low low turnouts down the stretch, and Mitt didn’t win the nomination, he just made sure the others lost it.
Perry is making a huge mistake if he thinks attacking Trump will help him, It may hurt Trump, or may help Trump, but it will NOT NOT NOT help Perry. Or anyone else who attacks Trump .
He's always questioning apprentice guests....why did you decide on?....or why did you designate so and so?....what would you change??
This is Trump....He's like Merlin from Camelot....looking back and ahead at the same time....and like Merlin says...."It ain't easy". Well, not his exact words...but that's the idea.
Megyn Kelly and Chris Stirewalt have been bragging for the past couple of weeks how they are “working hard” to come up with “probing questions” for the candidates. Translation: Trip up Trump.
This is very clearly a true statement. I've scratched my head about why Perry threw his hat in this ring again. He can't believe that he'll win, so he is in it for some other reason.
For him to be the loudest attacker of Trump, which will HURT Perry, means that someone else in the race has asked Perry to be their surrogate attack dog. Any guesses who?
Interesting theory...I’ll have to cogitate on that.....one unlikely name popped into my head immediately, but it will depend on what tack Perry takes in his attack - as to whether my theory is feasible or totally wet.
The parallels between Newt and Trump are very interesting. Both of them are natural "leaders" in style and confidence and can articulate a strong vision. And in the gOp, we are starved for leadership. So starved in fact, that a significant segment of the core votership jumps immediately upon the bandwagon of an authentic leader. Trump exudes leadership. He is the antithesis of Mitch,Mitt,McQueeg,Boehner,et al ... and that is hugely appealing as a change to blow up the ineffective status quo. Trump has caught fire because McConnell/Boehner are so repulsive.
Newt had similar characteristics but he carried a lot of baggage that was known by many in his core target votership that Trump doesn't yet have (at least to the average poll voter). I presume that at some point the Trump baggage, that does exist, will matter more than it does now.
I think Trump will ultimately find that primary voters will give him the Newt treatment. Strong but not an eventual win. That's okay with Cruz in the wings.
That would be fine with me, if someone like Limbaugh could moderate a Democrat debate. Not that that would ever happen, but it's fun to think about.
I wrote in early 2012 that a Republican debate should be moderated from the conservative point of view...say Rush, Levin and Ann Coulter...or Andrew Breitbart (who was alive at the time) - etc.
Not John King. Not Chris Wallace. Not any libs.
That's why it would be great to have someone with business sense get in there and figure out how to have less government and have it closer to the people being governed.
The HOR is the only DC entity that has any inclination of providing government that people want. That's because they have to get out there in their districts to get re-elected every two years.
So, in summary, I'm not that worried about Trump solutions. He's a smart guy. He'll determine that there are many government functions that are not cost-effective and help dismantle those. Or at the very least he'll make what's there more cost-effective.
I like that theory, with a few tiny quibbles around the edges. Both Newt and Trump have baggage, and they're both volatile. At some point, someone is going to figure out to challenge Trump from the right....some debate questioner, some other candidate in a debate, or some Super PAC running ads -are going to expose Trump's liberal demons. That's going to put him on defense, and how he responds will determine the trajectory of his campaign.
So far, the estabs and Jurassics are attacking Trump either personally or from a leftist beltway perspective. All that does is make Trump even bigger in the minds of his supporters.
I think you’re giving him more credit (and assuming more personal power to any President) than he deserves...but I respect your reasoning and appreciate taking the time to flesh out where you’re coming from on this.
Like I said, I just don’t think Trump’s “solutions” are naturally geared towards limiting government - even though that’s the solution almost all the time.
I would feel a LOT better if Cruz was in the double digits.
So, if Trump is a let down Cruz would have a serious shot at it. Otherwise, we get Bush or some other GOPe, AGAIN!
The Department of Education is at the top of my hit list. Well maybe I’d start with the IRS. Energy is mostly a waste of time. And what good does Commerce do? Homeland Security is a joke, bye. BATF can be merged into the FBI. Let keep State, Treasury, and of course the War Department (screw Defense it’s War). I’d also keep NASA and maybe NOAA but I’d get them out of the climate change business.
Megyn Kelly is out to get Trump, for sure. But she better be careful after spending two back to back broadcasts on the totally bogus “rape” story. She lost tons of credibility pushing a phony Trump raped his wife story. She reveal her bias big time and I am certain Trump will not forget that anytime soon.
IMO, Megyn Kelly is far more qualified to be president than Trump. But she didn’t”push” the story..she discredited it...as did Greta..
I don’t want softballs served from either side. EVERY candidate should have to deal with tough questions.
If that elicits a foot-in-mouth moment or a meltdown, so much the better.
If we still had real journalists, this would be the norm, not the exception.
Really? Megyn Kelly is the chief executive of a large and hugely successful business empire? Wow, I guess Fox is a part time gig for her. The broadcast I saw Megyn was not discredited the story. Greta however, to her credit, did discredited it.
With Trump, I think the ‘debates’ are going to start after the ‘debates’....that’s when your going to see Trump at his ‘finest’....
I’m not really into debates...I watched them the last time and thought: ‘what a waste of time’, I think the ‘debates’ are for the people asking the questions, to put them in the spotlights...feed their ‘important’ egos....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.