Trump and "Tricky Dick"
Published July 22, 2016
by Gary Pearce, Talking About Politics, July 21, 2016.
You might not expect a presidential candidate to compare himself to America’s most crooked and disgraced President, but Donald Trump and his campaign chairman did just that this week.
Trump and Chairman Paul Manafort said that, just as with Richard Nixon in 1968, Americans want a strong “law and order” leader at a time when it feels like the country is coming apart.
They didn’t mention the racial appeals that lie at the heart of Trump’s campaign today, much as Nixon’s Southern Strategy embraced racists like Strom Thurmond.
Nor did they mention a very different slogan that Nixon used in 1968 to overcome his reputation as a divisive, partisan gut-fighter: “Bring Us Together.”
From Rudy Giuliani’s screaming, arm-waving tirade to Ben Carson’s linking Hillary Clinton to Lucifer, there hasn’t been much “Bring Us Together” at Trump’s Republican convention. It’s more like “Drive Us Apart.”
In the end, Nixon’s darker instincts overcome his better angels. He became one of the most divisive, vengeful and hate-filled Presidents ever. He was driven out of office, eventually, by his own party.
Nixon had a gifted mind, but a tortured soul. The lesson is that character counts.
So this week Americans are getting a peek at the character of Donald Trump, the character of the Trump Republican Party (one that many Republicans reject) and the likely character of a Trump Presidency.
At their convention next week, Democrats have a chance to offer Americans a very different tone. They can offer to “Bring Us Together.”
Then Americans can decide in November which they want: Come together? Or fall apart?
July 22, 2016 at 9:56 am
Norm Kelly says:
More lib drivel. Found myself reading it anyway. Sometimes it's nice to know what the other side is thinking. Most times it's not worth it. Most times it can't be counted 'thinking' either.
'He was driven out of office, eventually, by his own party.' So, what the lib is telling us about Republicans is that we take care of our own. When one of ours breaks the law, drags the party to the sewer, our party actually does something about it, takes steps necessary even if it's bad for the party. How do libs respond to their own breaking the law? They rally the troops, circle the wagons, and make excuses. Billary is incompetent, according to FBI director. Libs respond that since no charges, it only makes her more eligible for higher elected office. Billary broke laws, and lied to Congress under oath. Makes her more eligible because she's willing to stand up to the 'opposition' regardless of what it takes! Republicans MIGHT be slow to take action, but libs do exactly the opposite of the right thing. But that's not new or newsworthy. It's standard operating procedure.
'Nixon had a gifted mind, but a tortured soul. The lesson is that character counts.' Unless you are a lib. Character only counts when you call yourself either 'Republican' or 'conservative'. When you label yourself 'lib', 'socialist', 'Democrat', then character is actually a flaw and disqualifies you from elected office. Break the law, get promoted. Be responsible for destroying the lives of women who accuse you of rape, be more popular and help your wife get elected. Be responsible for helping your husband destroy the lives of women who were raped and/or abused, be the most qualified candidate for higher office.
We are told that Billary has a gifted mind. We have no proof. Nor are libs willing to provide any. All the bad stuff about Billary is to be ignored and excused. But libs have yet to provide any 'good' stuff about 'her'.
So, the only conclusion to be brought is that for libs character does NOT count. Character is bad for lib pols. Character could actually destroy a lib candidates career. Illegal activity, and support of those who break the law, is a feather in the cap of any lib. And the rest of lib-dom comes out to help cover up for you. Clinton Family Crime Foundation and all!
So, author, does character actually matter? Or are you like too many libs, most libs, who choose to ignore character in your own candidates? Can the author provide ANY qualifications of the demon candidate for President? I mean, obviously, other than the claim of being female. Some of us remember what Madeline Halfwhit Allbright said. And it wasn't just offensive, it was stoopid and undefendable. Yet, libs still came to Halfwhit's defense.
