From The Archives -- Trump Mania
[Program Note: Today, I had to deal with some offline life, and together with the upcoming Republican debate it meant I didn't have time to write an original article today, (sorry about that). But while looking for a previous article in my own archives, I recently stumbled across the following, which was written five years ago -- when Donald Trump was just hinting that he might run for president in the 2012 election. Who knows what he might have done back then -- 2016 is not 2012, and back then there was a (mostly) different lineup of challengers he would have had to have taken on. But I found this piece has aged well, even if I did make a few wrong predictions on how it would all have turned out, which Trump has already surpassed (I predicted the best he could have done would have been third in the GOP field, for instance). But the real reason I'm revisiting this article is because the final paragraph now seems eerily prescient. You get some things right, you get some things wrong -- that's the way it goes with prognosticating politics. So, from five years ago, here's what I had to say about a possible Donald Trump candidacy.]
Originally Published April 25, 2011
Most intelligent political analysts' reaction (right, left, and center) to the news that Donald Trump may be considering a run for the presidency could be summed up as some version of: "You have got to be kidding me." Followed quickly by: "This is going to be so much fun!" But the real punchline to this joke of a candidacy was actually on the punditocracy, when Trump's poll numbers took off and soon put him either in the lead or very close to it for the Republican nomination. Republican voters, it seems, aren't following the punditocracy's lead on "The Donald."
What it all means, from my perspective, is not very much. There are two basic trends at play here. The first is the fact that the political chattering class reads far too much into polls taken way too early. The second, which stems from the first, is that at this point "name recognition" is one of the biggest factors in whose name winds up on top of the list. Donald Trump's celebrity value is showing up loud and clear on the straw polls taken in the past few weeks. But this doesn't mean he is even going to run -- and if he does, it's likely not going to get him very far.
If you're reading this column, it's a good bet that you already know names such as Haley Barbour and Tim Pawlenty. But not many average American voters have. The politically-aware crowd is already vetting the Republican candidates (and possible candidates) and weighing their chances of success (hence the reference to "this column") -- but most Americans are simply not that interested at this point in time. Meaning Trump may be one of the only names in the list of possible candidates they've even heard of -- which can drive poll results like the ones we've seen in recent weeks.
But this doesn't mean that Trump can be written off entirely. Celebrities often do much better in American elections than anyone would have given them credit for beforehand. Name recognition can often push the unlikeliest candidates across the finish line. There are many examples of this in our history, and Republican celebrities are more often actually elected than Democratic celebrities. [Since I wrote about this imbalance back in 2006, Al Franken has evened the score a bit, I have to admit.]
The most spectacular of these in recent memory was the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger to the governor's office in California. This was an interesting "laboratory experiment" sort of an election, because due to it being a special election in conjunction with a recall of the sitting governor, the entire campaign was only two months long. Add to this the fact that there were dozens of people running, and the upshot was that Schwarzenegger waltzed into office -- beating other celebrity candidates such as Larry Flynt, a porn star, Arianna Huffington, the actor who played "Father Guido Sarducci" on Saturday Night Live, and Gary Coleman.
With only two months to campaign, and with an insanely-large slate of candidates, Schwarzenegger's name recognition was the overpowering factor behind his victory. If the Republican primaries were all held one month from today, Trump might actually have a shot at it, in other words. Name recognition is something that normal political candidates pay millions and millions of dollars to achieve in the general public, meaning that anyone who is already well known starts with an enormous advantage.
Sometimes this advantage diminishes with time, and sometimes it does not. Schwarzenegger not only won his special election, but he also won re-election in a normal campaign later on -- even though he hadn't fulfilled any of his initial campaign promises (he actually left the budget in worse shape than when he entered office, which was not only his signature issue but the reason the former governor was recalled in the first place). Voting for the Terminator was such fun for so many voters that his opponents didn't really have a chance.
Much to the embarrassment of the intelligent political analysts, I might add. Sometimes candidates who are widely considered to be "a joke" actually win.
Having said all of that, I don't think Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. Trump has something going for him -- his public persona. His schtick, if you will. How many other real estate magnates are as widely known to the public as Trump? None that I can think of, in the last 50 years or so. Trump has parlayed this schtick into not only a real estate empire, but also a "reality television" show that's been on the air for quite a few years now. Trump has a signature hairstyle, theme song, and even a catchphrase known to just about everyone in America ("You're fired!"). That may all sound silly, but Trump not only has built name recognition for himself his whole life, but he's actually built the Trump name into what can only be called "a brand." How many Republican politicians have that going for them, at this point in the race? None that I'm aware of (unless you count Ron Paul, which is pretty small potatoes next to the strength of Trump's brand).
As an actual Republican candidate, though, Donald Trump would be deeply flawed. This multitude of his flaws will only become more and more apparent to Republican voters as time goes by (assuming he does actually run). His propensity for trading in his wives for a younger model of arm candy is simply not going to sit very well with the deeply religious Republican voters. His past support of Democratic candidates is also going to be a big bone of contention. If Trump does run, he's going to have to open his books on his media empire -- which could dredge up all sorts of problems for him. His personality is fun to watch on television, but likely wouldn't be when he's on stage at a candidate debate (although I could very well be wrong about that one). And then there's always the gold mine of things Trump has said which will indeed be mined to the fullest extent by other Republicans running -- and this goldmine of quotes is far deeper and more extensive than just the things he's been saying in the past month or so. Looking at what he has said recently is just the tip of the iceberg, really, even if that tip does contain such gems as Trump's birtherism and his answer to the problems in the Middle East (which can be summed up as: "Just take their oil").
Trump may be fun for Republican voters to flirt with, a year and a half from the election (especially when a pollster phones up), but over time most voters will likely reconsider what it would be like to actually have Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Trump, if he does run, will have lots of money and will likely enjoy the heck out of the campaign trail. The last celebrity to run for the Republican nomination, Fred Thompson, entered the race with very high poll numbers, and then immediately plummeted -- but Fred Thompson was a horrible campaigner. Trump's campaign is not going to replay the Thompson model -- although his trajectory through the polls may turn out to be similar.
Of course, the whole Trump "candidacy" may very well be nothing more than self-promotion on Trump's part, to boost ratings for his now-running reality show (it's notable that NBC News seems to be pushing the concept of "Trump for President" in an enormous way). If this turns out to be true, than all of the speculation (including the digital ink spilled for this very article) will turn out to have been a gigantic waste of time on all our parts.
If I was to bet money, right now my bet would be that Trump doesn't even run. If he does run, he isn't going to place higher than third overall (in the Republican nomination contest). If by some miracle he secures the nomination, Obama will beat him in a landslide.
But there are lessons to be drawn from the current Trump mania in the mainstream media (and the polls). Politics is, at this point, indistinguishable from show business. The entire concept of "reality" television itself is that you can take something mundane, write a clever script with lots of twists and turns, and thereby hook yourself an audience. Which is pretty close to the goals of any political campaign, when you think about it. In fact, it would probably be a better idea to spend campaign dollars that normally would go to yet another professional political analyst on hiring a reality television show writer, to provide some scripted twists and turns to distract the media during the campaign.
This may sound like a radical concept, but really, how far are we from what I've just described? America loves watching television -- a lot more than we love watching politics. And we all -- mainstream media most definitely included -- love glitz and glamour. We love a spectacle; the bigger, the better.
If you doubt any of that, please consider the week we are about to go through -- where a large chunk of the American public (and the entirety of the mainstream media) is going to have an absolute orgasm over covering a wedding, across an ocean, in the house of royalty that we fought our first war to overthrow. It's only Monday, and already I'm sick of hearing about the royal wedding (although that may just be me, being crotchety).
Consider also the reaction to Donald Trump already in the media. Trump has gotten so much coverage in the past few weeks for a reason -- that he is so much more fun to cover than any of the other folks in the race, who are collectively about as exciting as watching paint dry. Trump's shininess in the media eye right now rivals that of Sarah Palin -- and that's saying something indeed. No matter what happens with Trump, the media is going to hang on his every word, every step of the way. And, like I said, other candidates would have to pay millions and millions of dollars to get half as much impact with the public than Trump is going to get for free. Which is certainly food for thought. Trump, if he runs, is "Going to be huge!" (as he might put it), one way or another.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I bet ya had ta cringe a little at some of those predictions, eh CW?? :D
But yer right. That last paragraph makes up for all the rest... :D
Michale
Last night’s cage match featured WWE Hall-of-Famer Donald “The Crippler” Trump taking on the Mexican tag team of Robio and The Canadian. Trump was so busy lying that he barely had time to project that lying liar label at Pants On Fire Cruz. At one point, there was a bizarre interruption when a minor league wrester, The Sleeper, showed up unexpectedly and threw a bowl of fruit salad into the ring. Robio devastated Trump with the shocking allegation that Donald had hired some illegal construction workers from Poland instead of his mother. In the end, Trump drove a Road Warrior-inspired, faux gold-plated wheel chair as he chased the crippled Mexicans out of the arena and the audience of thousands and thousands of poorly-educated Trumpbots roared its approval. The Party of White Christian Identity Diversity won bigly.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-massachusetts-219804
As Massachusetts goes, so goes the country.... :D
Michale
Who's been muttering "Martha Coakley" under his breath all along?
(hint: four letters, begins with d)
@Michale [3]:
Looks like we agree - the "poorly educated" (Trump's term) who have suffered most from globalization like Trump, but did they miss the part where Trump said “Our taxes are too high. Our wages are too high. We have to compete with other countries.”
From the article you reference:
"My belief is for every one of those blue-collar white working-class workers that he gets to vote for him, we will get two suburban Republican moderates," he said.
"Williams predicted that Democrats are waiting for Trump to capture the nomination to unleash an assault on Trump's business record designed to undermine his standing with blue-collar white voters and union employees. "I guarantee you that is coming the minute Trump becomes the nominee," he said. "They’re going to go through every lawsuit that they have, all the creditors who he screwed and ruined their lives."
Fun with Trump's wealth:
S&P500 Growth since Jan 1972: 6639%
$100M in 1970 invested in S&P500 and left alone -> $6.6B today
Trump's real net worth (according to Forbes): $4.4B
So basically Trump, even if he took over only 50% of his father's holdings, lost $2.2B
If he took charge of all $200M he could be worth $8.8B, double what he is worth today.
What did he blow all the money on - 'good deals' - har har.
If he took charge of all $200M he could be worth $8.8B, double what he is worth today.
Should read:
If he took charge of all $200M he could be worth $13.2B, more than double what he is worth today.
Even more than his wild claims about his wealth ($10B)
Oh man, Michale ... I'm gonna get killed. Ok, you won fair and square though.
How 'bout this one?
http://skreened.com/republicantshirts/i-heart-american-flag-donald-trump
OK ya stumped me... :D
Michale
For a t-shirt?
David,
Oh man ... I'm gonna get killed. Ok, you won fair and square though.
hehehehehehehe
How 'bout this one?
http://skreened.com/republicantshirts/i-heart-american-flag-donald-trump
Love it!!!!
You sir, are an honorable man and I salute you... :D
If at all possible, get pics of your friends' reaction to it! :D heh
Michale
Neil,
You can point out what the definition of "is" is till the cows come home..
Do you think that Trump supporters CARE!???
They are EMPOWERED by Trump..
The more people like you attack Trump, the stronger Trump gets and the MORE voters Trump gets...
You are pouring gallons and gallons and gallons of gasoline on a fire and you are confused as hell as to why the fire keeps getting bigger... :D
Michale
If at all possible, get pics of your friends' reaction to it! :D heh
I will see if I can get a cameraman. And I remember the rules ... I can't say I lost a bet!
Michale:
Trump has 40% of 29% = 12% support at the moment. I'm not giving up on the basic decency of Americans yet.
Trump got his first taste of a coordinated attack last night, and it was from people who are trying to win over his support.
Let's wait until after Super Tuesday and see what happens:
1. Trump sweeps, and the Democratic attacks start
2. The continued attacks from Rubio et al start to make a mark.
I don't think Trump is as teflon as you think, and, to remind you of your own analogy, teflon does not fare well in gasoline fires ;)
I will see if I can get a cameraman. And I remember the rules ... I can't say I lost a bet!
Not until the next day anyways.. :D
Michale
Let's wait until after Super Tuesday and see what happens:
I am fine with that..
But when Trump sweeps SEC Tuesday, then what will be your "wait til" moment??
:D
Michale
Michale:
Then I'll wait until the convention so see if they'll steal the nomination from Trump.
Plus I'll wait to see if Trump can get survive the attacks on him and his family - You killed Dumbo! You b@stards! ;)
Then I'll wait to see what happens when Trump's history of lawsuits, etc. are aired in full public.
Then I'll wait for November.
Then I'll wait for 2020.
Then I'll wait for 2024 ;)
The more people like you attack Trump, the stronger Trump gets and the MORE voters Trump gets... You are pouring gallons and gallons and gallons of gasoline on a fire and you are confused as hell as to why the fire keeps getting bigger.
I get this to some extent, Michale.
It's just weird to me though. It's like it's just pure misdirected anger.
I guess I feel this way because I didn't do anything to you (or other Trump supporters for that matter). I don't think any of the "liberals" I know did either.
I think this is where most of us are confused.
-David
Chris Christie just endorsed Trump..
That's 6 more voters for Trump! heh
Michale
Michale:
Do you mean Chris Christie is the equivalent of 6 voters (i.e. cheap fat joke) or that his base is 6 voters (cheap impact joke)?
Either way, both gave me a chuckle ;)
I guess I feel this way because I didn't do anything to you (or other Trump supporters for that matter). I don't think any of the "liberals" I know did either.
It's not what the liberals do so much as what they DON'T do...
Where is the condemnation for all the college PC crap?? Professors calling for "muscle" to remove students who are simply there exercising THEIR freedom of speech??
Where is the condemnation for the fake "hate crime" reports from BLM members??
Where is the condemnation when DEMOCRATs running for Congress are viciously assaulted by BLM thugs..
Where is the condemnation of muslim terrorists who gun down innocent people.. The Left Wingery was ALL over the guy who shot people at a planned parenthood.. But they were cautioning a "rush to judgement" when 2 muslims gunned down innocent people in San Bernardino...
People are mad as hell and they ain't going to take it anymore..
Their government has been ignoring the middle class for 7 years, catering to the 1% and every foreigner and Left Wing interest group in the country....
And you really wonder why Trump's message is resonating?? :D
The reason is as clear as every headline you read...
Michale
Do you mean Chris Christie is the equivalent of 6 voters (i.e. cheap fat joke) or that his base is 6 voters (cheap impact joke)?
Either way, both gave me a chuckle ;)
heh
Actually I meant the latter, but the former IS a cheap shot.. Although funny as hell.. :D
Michale
David,
It's just weird to me though. It's like it's just pure misdirected anger.
Why is it "misdirected"...
Who SHOULD people be angry at if not Democrats *AND* Republicans???
Michale
Michale:
I'm bored with the touchy feelies getting angry about everything.
They are whining about this, that and the next thing. Thinking they are so important that their 'anger' is valid, when most of it is just pathetic self pity.
Here is how a disabled British soldier addressed the whole 'touch-feely-whiny' Trump supporters:
"Get a grip of your lives, hug your family and get back to work."
Read his short story then tell me Trump supporters have valid 'anger':
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35054442
Let's face reality, Neal..
Your only bored with touchy feelie RIGHT Wingers...
You support the touchy feelie LEFT Wingers to the hilt..
:D
Michale
Read his short story then tell me Trump supporters have valid 'anger':
Put another way... I feel about the Trump supporters and their valid anger exactly how you feel about the BLM racists and their "valid" anger and the snowflakes in college who need "safe spaces"... :D
That clear it up for ya? :D
Michale
"Blaming all Muslims for the actions of groups like Daesh [so-called Islamic State] and the Taliban, is like blaming all Christians for the actions of the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church."
AND like blaming ALL cops for the actions of a few, VERY few, bad apples..
Yet the Left Wingery wallows in that on a daily basis...
So yea.. That British soldier has a valid point.. The Left Wingery should do some serious soul searching on that valid point..
But no one is suggesting that anyone HATE all muslims..
But lets screen ALL muslims to weed out the terrorists..
WHY is that such a problem???
Michale
I mean, the Left Wingery doesn't seem to mind when it's rich and successful Americans who are demonized. And the Left Wingery SURE jumps in with both feet to demonize christians on a daily basis...
Yet, the Left Wingery gets all indignant and hysterical when Americans are angry about muslims who enter this country with impunity and gun down innocent Americans.
The illogic of this is glaring and inexplicable..
Michale
Michale [26]:
Exactly - You got a problem, do something about it. I'm fine with BLM in their goal to raise transparency when cops cross the line from policing into murder, but when they get up in arms over a Bill Maher speech, or want an insult free world, they are just as bad as the Trumpeters.
Somebody wants a cake for their wedding from your bakery - f'ing bake it.
Somebody want to be an @sshole about baking you a cake - laugh at them and take your money elsewhere, and let Yelp know exactly who and what they are.
Somebody has a job issuing marriage licenses, but only to people they decide they approve of - get a new f'ing job and quit whining.
Somebody wants to take illegally squat in a wildlife refuge because they don't get to use other people's property for free - laugh at them, then lock them up.
There are way too many people willing to whine but do nothing in this country. But the loudest at the moment are pathetic Trump supporters wanting their make-believe leave-it-to-beaver 'country' back.
They all make me vomit.
Now - are you willing to call the Trumpters what they really are? A pathetic bunch of over privileged whiners who need to "Get a grip of their lives, hug their family and get back to work."
Or is Trumpian anger right, but everybody else's isn't?
Stop the 'screen all Muslims' BS Michale.
Why can't we screen all Christians and weed out the ones who want to murder doctors who conduct constitutionally legal procedures?
Why can't we screen all Mormon marriage license requests to make sure they only have one 'wife'?
Why can't we screen all Americans to weed out the 'bad ones'?
See where this is going?
Yet, the Left Wingery gets all indignant and hysterical when Americans are angry about muslims who enter this country with impunity and gun down innocent Americans.
Michale: you have a caricature of 'Left Wingery' that you make up and then assign obvious partisan nonsense to (where do you get it? Fox News?). You truly believe that this caricature is real, and that you can lump 100's of millions of people into it and rail against them. This is not a valid grasp of reality, no matter how much it feeds your needs.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0VZ2BA
Why won't Hillary release the transcript of her Wall Street speeches??
What is she hiding???
Michale
Michale: you have a caricature of 'Left Wingery' that you make up and then assign obvious partisan nonsense to (where do you get it? Fox News?). You truly believe that this caricature is real, and that you can lump 100's of millions of people into it and rail against them. This is not a valid grasp of reality, no matter how much it feeds your needs.>
I KNOW that it's real because I see it happening..
When that scumbag shot up the Planned Parenthood, the Left Wingery came out of the woodwork condemning the "terrorism" and demonizing the "terrorist"...
When 2 muslims shot up San Bernardino and killed all those people and when a group of muslims shot up Paris and killed dozens MORE people, it was all about not "rushing to judgement" from the Left Wingery...
If you want to call it a caricature, fine...
But you simply CANNOT deny the ACCURACY of the caricature...
Michale
Why can't we screen all Christians and weed out the ones who want to murder doctors who conduct constitutionally legal procedures?
Why can't we screen all Mormon marriage license requests to make sure they only have one 'wife'?
Why can't we screen all Americans to weed out the 'bad ones'?
There you go again.... Changing the argument.. :D
We can't "screen out" Americans BECAUSE they are Americans...
I am talking controlling our borders and PREVENTING those who want to murder innocent people from entering and doing just that..
And you want to ARGUE with me against doing that??
WHY???
Michale
Regarding Ms. Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sach's:
I don't know at all that this might be the case, but it occurred to me that if they paid her to speak to them at a private gathering, that she might be obligated to keep the content private. For instance, when I hire a consultant to provide me advice or a programmer to write code, it's a "work-for-hire" situation that normally means that the buyer retains the right to the intellectual property and it cannot be distributed publicly.
Now I don't much (anything) about paid public speaking so I have no idea if any such IP policies exist in general or occurred in this case specifically, just that it occurred to me that there may be legal constraints not readily visible to us. Still it seems odd that they would enforce it or that she would have signed such a thing given her ambitions, but maybe it's a legal issue that is complicating any release (not that she especially wants to anyway).
RD,
Hillary's contracts with the companies that she speaks at have been widely released..
One of the provisions of her contract is that the company will hire a transcriptionist to transcribe the speeches. And those transcripts are the sole property of Hillary Clinton and she is free to do with them what she wishes..
Hillary CAN release the transcripts if she wants to..
If they would help her candidacy, then you KNOW she would release them in a stone cold minute..
The mere fact that she DOESN'T release them is sufficient evidence that they contain damaging information..
A logical conclusion, logically arrived at...
Michale
Michale:
You LOOK for things to get angry about for your 'Left Wingery' granfalloon. You engineer positions that justify your division. You ignore the same nonsense from your 'tribe', thinking that there are any real differences.
Time to look into your own brain and try to understand its weaknesses (those are the same as the rest of us, unless you have some sort of brain damage, but I'm not going there).
Examples include the confirmation bias, anchoring, availability heuristic, the Barnum effect, etc.
Here is a good list. Master avoiding these and you will be a better person than me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
My political agnosticism is well documented.. :D
Granted, I tend to pick on the Left Wingery more...
The reason for that is two-fold..
1. Ample opportunity..
B. Picking on the Right Wingery would be incredibly redundant around here.. :D
Just think of me as the Sheldon of Weigantia... :D
Michale
Re: Hillary's speeches.
Somebody who was at one of these events basically said that Hillary played to her audience - probably telling them that they were the financial engineers of the future, and that a few bad apples in 2008 shouldn't define a great industry, etc. etc.
In other words she told them what they wanted to hear so they would pay her stupid money to give the same speech next year.
I've worked on Wall St. and the City of London and seen many of these types of speeches (I shared a green room at the NYSE with Alan Greenspan for 45 memorable minutes once - name drop alert).
They follow the same self-congratulatory format that you see at the Oscars when they do that bit about how Hollywood brings everybody's dreams to life - you've seen it 100 times before.
The problem for Hillary is that she can't praise Wall St AND cast herself as some sort of Warren-Sanders crusader at the same time, so she will wait until Sanders has bit the dust then release the transcripts while everybody is still focused on Trump and Rubio. She is a smart politician.
Just think of me as the Sheldon of Weigantia... :D
Mostly correct and accurate, but completely insufferable.. :D
Michale
And, in the ongoing SCOTUS nominee issue..
Sandoval just told Obama to stuff it! :D
Michale
Granted, I tend to pick on the Left Wingery more...
The reason for that is two-fold..
1. Ample opportunity..
B. Picking on the Right Wingery would be incredibly redundant around here.. :D
I live in an very left wing area - the sort of area where people check that their Birkenstocks are made by vegan artisans and everybody is shocked by how sensitive and civilized they are in comparison to the great unwashed, so I can confirm that there is ample opportunity to get nauseated by the smug horrorshow that abounds.
However there are some simple facts that it seems the Republican Party can't accept that make them even less desirable than voting with the Birkenstock brigade.
Here is how one Republican blogger describes four of them in the Houston Chronicle:
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/11/four-inescapable-realities/
The problem for Hillary is that she can't praise Wall St AND cast herself as some sort of Warren-Sanders crusader at the same time, so she will wait until Sanders has bit the dust then release the transcripts while everybody is still focused on Trump and Rubio.
So, in other words, she will say one thing now and then completely flip flop and say the exact opposite later...
And ya'all are OK with that???
She is a smart politician.
You realize that, for Joe and Jane Sixpack and other average Americans, that's an insult, right?? :D
Michale
@Michale [#36]
Ok, thanks. Then you're probably right that they're not especially helpful to her candidacy. I'm not going to leap to a conclusion that they're dramatically damaging, but they're probably at least not politically convenient for her.
Of course, she could just wait until it's her versus Mr. Trump and say, "I'll release the transcripts when you release your tax returns."
Sandoval just told Obama to stuff it!
He probably knew he had little or no chance of getting the nod, and was just being used as a political pawn to embarrass Republican Senators.
The nominee will need to get a verbal from both Hillary and Bernie that they will not be withdrawn before they agree to stand - can you see Sandoval doing that?
Also, I don't see any chance that a President Trump or Rubio would get any nominations thru on their watch without a Republican majority in the Senate - "let the people decide in 2020!" ;)
"And ya'all are OK with that???
She is a smart politician.
You realize that, for Joe and Jane Sixpack and other average Americans, that's an insult, right?? :D"
Do you think there are ANY politicians who don't flip flop (Rubio & immigration reform, Cruz and "I didn't shut down the government", Trump and just about anything that he blurts out)?
So, do you want a smart politician or a stupid one?
If you think you can get an honest one I've got to remember CW's 'Evian' mnemonic again ;)
So, do you want a smart politician or a stupid one?
I don't want ANY politician..
And, to date... Trump fits the bill... :D
Michale
If you don't think Trump is a politician, it's time for some backwards French mineral water, my friend ;)
Heh.
rdnewman [35] -
Actually, from the way the story was originally reported, I think Clinton herself owns the rights. She specifies in the contract that nobody can record the speech, and also that the venue provide a stenographer to transcribe the speech -- and that the transcript be given to her for her own purposes.
If this is true, there is nothing legal stopping her -- she owns all the rights.
-CW
If you don't think Trump is a politician, it's time for some backwards French mineral water, my friend ;)
If you think that Trump is a politician, I could say the same thing.. :D
Trump is a businessman.. NOT a politician...
Michale
Voting for the Terminator was such fun for so many voters that his opponents didn't really have a chance. Much to the embarrassment of the intelligent political analysts, I might add. Sometimes candidates who are widely considered to be "a joke" actually win.
Not all intelligent political analysts were embarrassed by the Schwarzenegger governorship, nor should they have been.
I'm not sure why you would continue to think of his reign as a joke??