Pages

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

How to Beat Trump if You're His GOP Opponent

     Think of this as in the genre of OJ Simpson's If I Did it. Here's How I Would Have Done it. 

      http://www.amazon.com/If-I-Did-Confessions-Killer/dp/0825305934/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438810923&sr=1-1&keywords=oj+simpson+if+i+did+it

      If you know anything about me it's that I'm not a Republican and I'm very happy to be able to say that. However, if I were a Republican and I was unlucky enough to run against Trump here's how I would do it. I laid out the general gist in this post.

     http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/if-gop-stops-trump-this-is-how-theyll.html

     To explain how I would stop Trump you have to understand what makes him so dangerous for the GOPers in the first place.

    Basically there is nothing he's said about immigration that the establishment substantively has a problem with. His sin is  just being too blunt about this. He should just say he's all for immigration reform but first we have to support the border like Jeb says and there'd be nothing to see here.

   http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/is-todays-gop-less-racist-than-in-1968.html

   As Krugman says there really isn't any important difference between him and Jeb and Scott Walker-but that Trump is too blunt. But the base is licking its wounds and wants blunt this time around.

  "Just about the entire political commentariat has been caught completely flatfooted by Donald Trump’s durable front-runner status; he was supposed to collapse after being nasty to St. John McCain, but nothing of the sort happened."

  "So now the conventional wisdom is that we’re witnessing a temporary triumph of style over substance; Republican voters like Trump’s bluster, and haven’t (yet) realized that he isn’t making sense."

  "But if you ask me, the people who are really mistaking style for substance are the pundits. It’s true that Trump isn’t making sense — but neither are the mainstream contenders for the GOP nomination."

  http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/style-substance-and-the-donald/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

  And the real problem with Trump for the GOP base and the Very Serious People in the press is not substance but style. That's the problem for his Republican opponents. How do they attack him? I'll be very interested to see if anyone attacks him tomorrow night. Based on the record of people who have attacked him before my bet is they will all be too chicken to go after him. 

  http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-takes-credit-for-rick-perry-and.html

  No Republican that has locked horns with him has come out on the better side of it yet-it's not even close.

  http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/donald-trump-on-scott-walker-wisconsins.html

  So I imagine they'll all be too timid. But this is how I would go at it assuming I was one of these border line candidates who needs to make a name for himself somehow. 

  It's dangerous to go here in a Republican primary but you'd have to go for context. Show what Trump is-a carpet bagger and opportunist who's about nothing but self-promotion. You'd buttress that point by arguing that he's really a liberal with lots of comments over the years that suggest liberal policy preferences. 

  Is he really a liberal?-not really. I think he's just an opportunist who's correctly reading the political tea leaves. But this is a GOP primary so when are you held accountable for exaggerating? So you'd have to argue the liberal opportunist line. It's dangerous because if anything seems to characterize the GOP base it's that there is little patience or time for context. 

  You'd have to show all the times he's talked about single payer, praised, Hillary, praised President Obama. You might also rerun the story about Ivana saying she felt raped by Trump back in 1989. Again in a GOP primary this is dangerous too as many Republican voters seem to think that the very idea that a man can rape his wife is just liberal political correctness anyway. 

  Still, this is where you'd have to go. The Ivana rape story is just so bizzare and perverse how could you ignore it if you're trying to crack Trump?

   http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/shades-of-bill-cosby-could-trump-be.html

  You'd need deep pockets to fund lots of ads with him praising single payer, praising Hillary, even praising Obama back in 2009. He does have a pretty good answer to that even. 

  Trump is very shrewd-when people ask him about this he does the right thing-wraps himself up in a Ronald Reagan flag and points out that the Gipper too was once a Democrat. 

  But if you kept pounding him in ad after ad that might begin to stick. That's the only way I see to do it. My guess is that the RNC will do this at some point. My hope is it doesn't work.

   

10 comments:

  1. Maybe you could also try to run to his right. Describe how you'd introduce an English Only amendment to the constitution, and deport (striping US citizenship if necessary) any violators. Say that the name "Trump" sounds suspicious and foreign (repeatedly bring up his ex wife "Ivana" ... making sure you pronounce it with disgust). After Trump says anything, point to him and shout "There's that gay talk again!" Loudly proclaim that you go strictly by the King James Bible, and that the founding fathers never intended anything else (other faiths are guests here, and need to be on their best behavior at all times if they want the "tolerance" we've graciously and temporarily gifted to them to continue... tolerance you'll be reviewing your 1st week in office (look for more amendments!)). Threaten to start carpet bombing Mexico, China, Iran, Russia and North Korea your first month if they don't all unconditionally surrender immediately. Repeatedly say you're sick of mentally ill liberals (like Trump) ruining the country with their Marxist-Leninist namby-pamby iron fisted Nazi Socialist secular humanist lisping demagoguery (the more incongruous the set of adjectives the better), and you're not going to take it anymore!!! You're going to make sure that True Americans get their country back!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, that could be helpful. I agree about the issue of faith. You know the secular liberals have stolen religious freedom which was never intended for freedom from religion, just the right of people from the right faith to be able to practice their faith in piece. By right faith of course I mean Christian.

    So I like the idea of reviewing religious tolerance the first week. I agree that other faiths-I mean the faith of pagan heathens-should be on their best behaviour compared to those of us who really believe in God.

    If you're not a Christian you have no rights as the secular liberals claim. By the way, it goes without saying that Catholics aren't real Christians although at least they didn't crucify our Lord. But even worse than the Jews are the Islamfascists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also you could do some conservative economic stimulus where only Christians would get a big fat tax credit. Beyond that regressive tax rates where the further you are away from real Christians the higher your tax rate.

    So Muslims and Buddhists would pay the highest taxes, Jews a little lower, then Catholics then Christians would get tax credits. That's one thing the government should be in the business of doing-promoting faith, discouraging heathens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot "nones," agnostics and atheists: use them for organ donors?

      I think this cartoon has some good ideas too (if Trump hasn't already stolen them!)

      Delete
    2. I try not to think about such vermin at all but you are right. All laws against scientific experiments can be rescinded for unbelievers.

      Trump is probably already on it though.

      Legally atheists have to give up their seats at Denny's if a Christian walks in and its busy. They also have to pay double whatever the price is.

      They could still be productive for society however-they should be liberally used-if you'll forgive the word-as crash test dummies.

      90% of their wages should be redistributed to Christian believers.

      Delete
  4. Noah Smith seems angry at me. After my negative comment before I tried to leave another one later-actually complimenting him on his Bloomberg piece about Austrians-and my comment was delayed-it has to be reviewed first.

    See in some ways your style works because you're disarming. Still I got to be me-Tom Brown is already taken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, I tried to leave a follow up comment too and it also went into the review bin (as do comments on Cochrane's site). I took it personally at first, but now I wonder: isn't the review thing a switch you throw that applies to ALL comments (not individuals)?

      Jason Smith wrote one time that Noah has erased his comments. So "review" doesn't sound so bad in comparison.

      Delete
    2. I just left a reply on his latest post ("Iran is weak") and it showed up right away. No review necessary. Did you try to leave your comment about the Bloomberg piece at Bloomberg or on Noahpinion (specifically the "Translating Paul Romer") piece. My follow up that went into review was on the Paul Romer one.

      Delete
    3. Yes it was on the Romer piece. So maybe it wasn't personal then. I just wrote a new post about Smith 'banning me'-LOL

      Delete