Who Speaks for the Party?

[don-o]

Who Speaks for the Party?

The novel problem of a presidential nominee who can't make a cogent argument.

Jul 04, 2016 | By Jay Cost
http://www.weeklystandard.com/who-speaks-for-the-party/article/2002992/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=20160628_TWS-mag-who-speaks-for-the-party-2_twitter&utm_content=TWS

Our Constitution distributes power broadly across three branches of government, and the federal, state, and local levels. Yet during presidential campaigns, candidates for offices across the country unite behind their party’s presidential nominee. This person becomes the representative of the entire coalition, and it is his or her responsibility to explain to voters what the party stands for.

Hillary Clinton may have many limitations as a candidate, but there's no doubt she's an able messenger for the Democrats. The GOP, by contrast, has selected Donald Trump, who lacks the capacity to make an argument on behalf of the conservative movement. Trump has effectively shifted this rhetorical burden to Republican officeholders, who lack the prominence to make a forceful, unified case for the party. As such, the two sides are grossly mismatched, with the Democrats holding a substantial advantage.

The difference was stark in the wake of the Orlando massacre. Clinton and congressional Democrats were quick to get on the same page—connecting the shooting to the need for more gun control. Clinton gave a high-profile speech that coincided with a legislative push by Senator Chris Murphy in the upper chamber, followed by a sit-in by liberals in the House of Representatives.

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, offered an expert rejoinder on the Senate floor, calling out Democrats for their carefully staged "political show" to transform a "terrorism issue" into a "gun control issue." He also wrote an op-ed arguing, "The events in Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino and now Orlando demonstrate that this administration has failed to produce a clear-eyed strategy to defeat Islamic-inspired terrorism." This is a strong and serious argument for Republicans to make, one focused on the failures of the president to keep the country safe.

But Cruz is not the nominee, so his cogent response received little attention. Instead, the spotlight was on Trump, whose oafish posturing left the GOP without a prominent spokesman to match Democratic rhetoric. Trump's first response was a self-congratulatory I-told-you-so tweet. Then he argued that club-goers should be allowed to carry weapons—a position the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre was forced to rebuke. Trump further speculated about the need for racial profiling. Instead of focusing on the failures of Obama, as Cruz did, Trump veered from undisciplined to doltish. The Democrats won the argument by default.

exc

[don-o]

On July 4, I would have posted this as yet another evidence of Trump's unfitness. However, what happened on July 5 is causing me to reconsider.

I did not see it coming – the way it played out with Comey laying out a very strong criminal case against Hillary Clinton, and then tucking his tail.

I am not all the way there yet, but I am a lot closer to casting a vote for Trump on July 6 than I was before 11:00 on July 5.

RE: The “lesser of two evils” arguments. In my opinion, the greater of the two evils now stands fully exposed as an existential threat to any semblance of the survival of the rule of law. The damage she could and would do with power is orders of magnitude greater than what the boorish and ignorant Trump could do.

And I do not even hold much hope that he can truly articulate the danger. But, I see it.

Whether intended it or not, the F.B.I. Has raised the stakes considerably.

@LonestarDream @roamer_1 @Mrs Don-o @CatherineofAragon

[HoustonSam]

I am not all the way there yet, but I am a lot closer to casting a vote for Trump on July 6 than I was before 11:00 on July 5.

RE: The “lesser of two evils” arguments. In my opinion, the greater of the two evils now stands fully exposed as an existential threat to any semblance of the survival of the rule of law. The damage she could and would do with power is orders of magnitude greater than what the boorish and ignorant Trump could do.

And I do not even hold much hope that he can truly articulate the danger. But, I see it.

Whether intended it or not, the F.B.I. Has raised the stakes considerably.

The FBI's decision to defer a recommendation of criminal charges is the best thing that could have happened to the Trump candidacy, for the reasons you describe.  The only real argument for Trump, an argument we see repeated routinely here and elsewhere, is that he is not Hillary.  Comey's announcement throws into sharp relief what Hillary is, and again how the rule of law has been destroyed by the Clintons and their enablers.  Had Hillary been forced to step aside by an announcement of prosecution, Trump would have found himself running against someone else; "he's not Hillary" would no longer have worked and he frankly doesn't have much else to recommend him to enough people to create a majority.  Only by comparison with a criminal can many people be convinced to support a lunatic.

Although Trump's candidacy is strengthened by yesterday's events, personally I am not moved any closer to Trump.  Comey's announcement doesn't change what Hillary is or what Trump is, and both were already clear.  Trump further clarified his own inability, or unwillingness, to make a coherent case in his North Carolina rally last night, by listing all the prior Republican presidents who received fewer primary votes than he has received, and again basking in the Pavlovian response of his supporters when asked "Who's gonna pay for the wall???".  Trump had Bob Corker come out, who mentioned what a significant day it had been, *not* because of the import of Comey's announcement, but because he, Corker, had been given an audience with the Trump family.  When the moment desperately called for a rallying cry to restore what actually *did* make America great, Trump chose again to preen in his own self-perceived greatness rather than appealing to that of the country he asks to lead.  Narcissism will not make America great again; "better deals" will not restore equality before the law.

[RetBobbyMI]

The GOP is dead no matter how you slice it.  With Trump as their annointed one, they have no chance.  Trump is making no effort what-so-ever to expand his following, if that were even possible considering how he and his followers has trashed his primary opposition.  The ONLY way for conservatives to win in the future is to rebrand as something other than Republicans.  Other than as an opposition party the the left, the GOP has no definition or identity any more.  They are not a political party that stands for anything. They are all over the place on the major issues. They cave on every major issue to the pleasure of the DemRats. So tell me again WHY the GOP should be a legitimate answer to DemRats?  If the GOP can't handle the competition, get the hell outta-the-way and let a real conservative party handle the chores.

[Sanguine]

"...But Cruz is not the nominee..."

And, for the next two weeks neither is DT.

[don-o]

The GOP is dead no matter how you slice it.  With Trump as their annointed one, they have no chance.  Trump is making no effort what-so-ever to expand his following, if that were even possible considering how he and his followers has trashed his primary opposition.  The ONLY way for conservatives to win in the future is to rebrand as something other than Republicans.  Other than as an opposition party the the left, the GOP has no definition or identity any more.  They are not a political party that stands for anything. They are all over the place on the major issues. They cave on every major issue to the pleasure of the DemRats. So tell me again WHY the GOP should be a legitimate answer to DemRats?  If the GOP can't handle the competition, get the hell outta-the-way and let a real conservative party handle the chores.

i hear that and it's pretty much where I was on July 4.

[EasyAce]

The only real argument for Trump, an argument we see repeated routinely here and elsewhere, is that he is not Hillary . . .

And it is not argument enough to cause me to change my mind from my looming "none of the above" vote
on the presidential line in my state come November.

When the moment desperately called for a rallying cry to restore what actually *did* make America great, Trump chose again to preen in his own self-perceived greatness rather than appealing to that of the country he asks to lead.  Narcissism will not make America great again; "better deals" will not restore equality before the law.

You were expecting maybe the second coming of Burke's "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies?" Patrick
Henry's "Give Me Liberty?" Washington's farewell? Randolph's "King Numbers?" Lincoln's Gettysburg? FDR's
first inaugural? MLK's "I Have a Dream?" Ronaldus Maximus's Berlin Wall? Out of Donaldus Minimus? A man
who thinks putting two sentences together coherently is probably a criminal court judge's job?

[HoustonSam]

You were expecting maybe the second coming of Burke's "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies?" Patrick
Henry's "Give Me Liberty?" Washington's farewell? Randolph's "King Numbers?" Lincoln's Gettysburg? FDR's
first inaugural? MLK's "I Have a Dream?" Ronaldus Maximus's Berlin Wall? Out of Donaldus Minimus? A man
who thinks putting two sentences together coherently is probably a criminal court judge's job?

Nothing so exalted as that.  Just a coherent recognition of what is actually at stake.  "The system is rigged" just means Trump didn't get what he wanted.

[EasyAce]

Nothing so exalted as that.  Just a coherent recognition of what is actually at stake.

You still expected too much!

[truth_seeker]

And it is not argument enough to cause me to change my mind from my looming "none of the above" vote
on the presidential line in my state come November.


You were expecting maybe the second coming of Burke's "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies?" Patrick
Henry's "Give Me Liberty?" Washington's farewell? Randolph's "King Numbers?" Lincoln's Gettysburg? FDR's
first inaugural? MLK's "I Have a Dream?" Ronaldus Maximus's Berlin Wall? Out of Donaldus Minimus? A man
who thinks putting two sentences together coherently is probably a criminal court judge's job?

Maybe read Dr.  Seuss ??

[Sanguine]

Maybe read Dr.  Seuss ??

It would have been a step up.

[don-o]

Nothing so exalted as that.  Just a coherent recognition of what is actually at stake.  "The system is rigged" just means Trump didn't get what he wanted.

Verse 2 : "It's not fair; it's unfair; in fact, it's very unfair. Very unfair and rigged; very rigged. I can tell you that."

("And that all I need." - The Jerk)

[EasyAce]

Maybe read Dr.  Seuss ??

You sure he knows the meaning of words that big?

[INVAR]

In my opinion, the greater of the two evils now stands fully exposed as an existential threat to any semblance of the survival of the rule of law.

The rule of law is already dead.

It's dead Jim.

Corruption is now institutionalized, the Rule of Law no longer applies to the Rulers and they make up laws now by decree with the full blessing of the courts and the legislatures.

Trump is not bringing it back anymore than Hillary will.

This election is not going to save us or stave off what is already in motion. 

We need to get that through our heads if we want to survive what is coming.

[geronl]

Who does the party speak for?

definitely not me.

[geronl]

The damage she could and would do with power is orders of magnitude greater than what the boorish and ignorant Trump could do.

doubtful

[Silver Pines]

On July 4, I would have posted this as yet another evidence of Trump's unfitness. However, what happened on July 5 is causing me to reconsider.

I did not see it coming – the way it played out with Comey laying out a very strong criminal case against Hillary Clinton, and then tucking his tail.

I am not all the way there yet, but I am a lot closer to casting a vote for Trump on July 6 than I was before 11:00 on July 5.

RE: The “lesser of two evils” arguments. In my opinion, the greater of the two evils now stands fully exposed as an existential threat to any semblance of the survival of the rule of law. The damage she could and would do with power is orders of magnitude greater than what the boorish and ignorant Trump could do.

And I do not even hold much hope that he can truly articulate the danger. But, I see it.

Whether intended it or not, the F.B.I. Has raised the stakes considerably.

@LonestarDream @roamer_1 @Mrs Don-o @CatherineofAragon

I imagine what happened with Hillary will cause a number of neverTrumpers to cave in, but, really, did we ever expect she would be charged?  We knew it wouldn't happen.  Clinton is disgustingly unfit for office, but so is Trump, and he's just as corrupt.  He'd be a mob boss of a president.  He's no more acceptable to me today than he was a week ago.

Personally, I meant it when I said NeverTrump.   In 2012, I was NeverRomney, but I weakened after Benghazi and voted for him, anyway.  I won't go into details, but God taught me a hard lesson which began the day after the election.  I won't forget it.

Good article, though.  "Oafish posturing" is a phrase I'm going to steal to describe Trump. 

What's behind the posturing, though?  Many people on social media, including some conservative pundits, are noticing that Trump pulls something stupid every time Hillary has a bad day...he tweets or makes a remark that immediately focuses the media attention on him, and away from her.  it happens like clockwork. 

[Silver Pines]

You sure he knows the meaning of words that big?

("Bigly")

[roamer_1]

I did not see it coming – the way it played out with Comey laying out a very strong criminal case against Hillary Clinton, and then tucking his tail.

Really? I need be no prophet to predict that the FBI, whose authority comes down through Obama's administration, would give his own SoS a skate. Especially with her being on the inside of his administration, with bucket-loads of dirt to sling right back at him. That she would skate was a foregone conclusion - As predictable as the sun setting in the West.

I am truly surprised that you didn't see it coming. If any chance of prosecution was real, it would have come out of Congress, not the administration.

I am not all the way there yet, but I am a lot closer to casting a vote for Trump on July 6 than I was before 11:00 on July 5.

Meh. It is incidental at best. To expect otherwise from Trump is laughable. I will predict right now that his buddies will also skate, and as vindictive as he is, it would not surprise me in the least that he would use the power of government against his enemies. That is precisely how crony capitalism translates into a governmental enterprise.

RE: The “lesser of two evils” arguments. In my opinion, the greater of the two evils now stands fully exposed as an existential threat to any semblance of the survival of the rule of law. The damage she could and would do with power is orders of magnitude greater than what the boorish and ignorant Trump could do.

That, I think, is wishful thinking. To excuse his low character in consideration of hers will not bear good fruit.
He is of the very same kind - so at best, the only thing you might be arguing is a matter of degree. But then, that is the argument against the 'lesser evil' in the first place.


@don-o
@Mrs Don-o
@LonestarDream 
@CatherineofAragon

[don-o]

What I did not see coming was the litany of crimes recited and then the no go from Comey. It still makes no sense.

I'm not satisfied with the "he's just another corrupt hack" explanation.

[EC]

I'm not satisfied with the "he's just another corrupt hack" explanation.

Because he isn't. Which is why he did what he did.

Laid out the case clearly, concisely and with zero possibility of what he said being spun or misinterpreted. Then flat out told everyone - in public - that there would be no prosecution.

He's throwing the case to the only court still available to him - the court of public opinion. It's not Comey's fault that the prosecutor in the court of public opinion right now, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a useless arsehole.

[HoustonSam]

What I did not see coming was the litany of crimes recited and then the no go from Comey. It still makes no sense.

I'm not satisfied with the "he's just another corrupt hack" explanation.

I agree, I don't think it's as simple as Comey being corrupt.  But if it's really true that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges on the facts he summarized, then the entire endeavor of federal criminal prosecution has become unreasonable.

[Sanguine]

Because he isn't. Which is why he did what he did.

Laid out the case clearly, concisely and with zero possibility of what he said being spun or misinterpreted. Then flat out told everyone - in public - that there would be no prosecution.

He's throwing the case to the only court still available to him - the court of public opinion. It's not Comey's fault that the prosecutor in the court of public opinion right now, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a useless arsehole.

Could be, EC.

[Bigun]

Because he isn't. Which is why he did what he did.

Laid out the case clearly, concisely and with zero possibility of what he said being spun or misinterpreted. Then flat out told everyone - in public - that there would be no prosecution.

He's throwing the case to the only court still available to him - the court of public opinion. It's not Comey's fault that the prosecutor in the court of public opinion right now, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a useless arsehole.

That is the ONLY explanation I've seen that makes a lick of sense! 

[HoustonSam]

Because he isn't. Which is why he did what he did.

Laid out the case clearly, concisely and with zero possibility of what he said being spun or misinterpreted. Then flat out told everyone - in public - that there would be no prosecution.

He's throwing the case to the only court still available to him - the court of public opinion. It's not Comey's fault that the prosecutor in the court of public opinion right now, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a useless arsehole.

It seems to me that the court of public opinion would have been much more harsh in its treatment of Hillary, and of the Obama admin, if he *had* recommended prosecution and that recommendation was rejected, or even had the recommendation been followed but only half-heartedly.