February 14, 2016

Did Donald Trump inadvertently reveal that he does not think of himself as a Republican?

That's a question that occurred to me as I listened to Trump on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." I'll give you the full context, with the part that raised the question in boldface:
STEPHANOPOULOS: They really seem to be piling on you last night. You heard those boos from the crowd as well. You think this is all happening because the other Republicans have figured out that if you win South Carolina, you may not be stopped?

TRUMP: Well, the reason it happens is because I’m self-funding. I’m putting up my own money. I’ve built a tremendous business, I don’t need anybody’s money, and I’m going to do what’s right for the people of the country. In that room were many people that I know very well. They’re all lobbyists and they’re special interests and they gave a lot of money to Jeb Bush. This guy’s wasted $140 million running a failed campaign. I mean, the guy spent $43 million in New Hampshire and he came in fourth or fifth. I spent $3 million and I came in first by a lot. I mean, this is the kind of a guy you want a president? So between him and Cruz, I’ll tell you what, the Republicans are in trouble and they will never beat Hillary Clinton. I’m the only one that’s going to beat Hillary Clinton. Believe me, they will never beat Hillary Clinton.

79 comments:

retired said...

He's not GOP. Historically a Dem. And I don't have much confidence that he would govern as a conservative, except for building a wall. Absent an indictment or some other self inflicted wound Clinton would beat trump.

gbarto said...

There are a lot of Republicans who scornfully refer to the party because of the people running it.

CStanley said...

I don't think he is really GOP or even conservative, but I also don't find the quote that revealing because it seemed he was referring to the GOP establishment.

Matt said...

Trump is, ironically, the most centrist candidate either party is offering.

AReasonableMan said...

retired said...
Absent an indictment or some other self inflicted wound Clinton would beat trump.


Clinton is a terrible candidate. I can see her beating Cruz, who deals with her likability problem. I think she would also beat Bush, although she solves his Iraq problem. Of the other three vaguely serious candidates, Trump would seem best placed to beat her. The Clintons have alienated a large block of their own party, who are not wedded to voting D if it means voting C, and these people are the ones who would find Trump appealing. Rubio turns off most of these same people. The current polls are meaningless. Until the two are matched it is impossible to be certain.

Lem said...

What to a dad dressed up as santa claus, to Trump is to say he is a republican.

traditionalguy said...

New York City values are raising their head again. It is all about winning in a winner take all system. Like Georgia was once a one party place before the 1970s, NYC is effectively a One Party political system.

Under a one party system in NYC everybody runs as a Democrat, the big question is what subgroup of of Democrat. Bloomberg ran as a Republican subgroup Democrat to get the win.

Trump just wants to Make America Great Again by winning the Presidency. Call him whatever scare word you want to call him, just call him winner in the end.

A bonus is getting to watch the Glen Becks and the Doctrinal Pure Conservatives go insane as they realize Trump makes their carefully constructed categories totally irrelevant.

eric said...

Even some of us Registered Republicans don't consider ourselves Republicans. Not after how the party has treated us with throwing up comprehensive immigration reform and refusing to fight this administration on the budget, fully funding planned parenthood, for example.

Karen of Texas said...

"What difference at this point does it make?"

Chuck said...

For the most part, polling seems to show that Rubio, not Trump, is the best Republican for the general:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

If you believe the polling -- and Trump talks about his polling all the time -- Trump is a loser versus Hillary Clinton.

eric said...

A bonus is getting to watch the Glen Becks and the Doctrinal Pure Conservatives go insane as they realize Trump makes their carefully constructed categories totally irrelevant.

Most of the doctrinal pure conservatives I know, including myself, think Trump is a great candidate.

Beck is a libertarian. And he will turn against whoever is the next President, even if its Cruz. Because Beck doesn't understand the difference between rhetoric and governing.

Unknown said...

Trump is the political equivalent of a brood parasitic bird such as the cowbird or cuckoo. They lay their eggs in the nests of other species. Trump is raising his campaign in the nest of another party.

The Repubs have only themselves to blame for leaving their voters' vulnerable to the parasite.

Char Char Binks said...

Does ANYBODY think of Trump as a Republican?

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
For the most part, polling seems to show that Rubio, not Trump, is the best Republican for the general:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

If you believe the polling -- and Trump talks about his polling all the time -- Trump is a loser versus Hillary Clinton


It's true. Rubio has the best shot in the general. The guy who can't win a primary, can't even do better than third place, is going to win in a general election.

Also, Chuck, I've got some really great ocean front property to sell you. Really cheap.

Humperdink said...

Tradguy said: "the Doctrinal Pure Conservatives go insane as they realize Trump makes their carefully constructed categories totally irrelevant." OK, so your bff Trump is a not Conservative. Is he RINO? Is he a Crony Capitalist? Is he a Flaming Lib?

You see that's my problem Tradguy, I don't know what he is. And I am guessing you don't know either.

Laslo Spatula said...

"So between him and Cruz, I’ll tell you what, the Republicans are in trouble and they will never beat Hillary Clinton."

Althouse is on to something here.

Neither party speaks to/for the people, other than trinkets and Kabuki.

Trump is not running as a Democrat or a Republican: he is running as Fuck All Of Them.

The fact that Trump can be all over the board politically raises the hopes of those who don't want to pick a side, they just want things fixed.

Whether he is that person is the question than an election will answer.


I am Laslo.

chuck said...

> Fuck All Of Them

You misspelled "Me, Me, Me".

Oshbgosh said...

No one can predict with certainty what a Donald Trump presidency would stand for or accomplish. As he says himself, he wants to be unpredictable. As a voter it sounds like a pig in a poke deal to me.

Oso Negro said...

Trump is a carnival barker, a hack, a rollicking showman. He is not a conservative, or necessarily a Republican. He is not being critically examined by the media because he is good for ratings. And I suspect they correctly recognize that they can get him to implode later to secure the Democratic victory.

glenn said...

He's right. Like it or not.

Oso Negro said...

glenn - No, he is NOT right about "Bush lied, people died". Nor is he right to bully others.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The People did not leave the Party. The Party left the People.

Trump is Christian and American.

I'm surprised that Stephanopoulos is still a blind ass.

Karen of Texas said...

I find it interesting that Trump thinks Hillary! will be the nominee. I know more than a few Bernie! supporters, family included, *sigh*, who claim if Hillary! is the pick, they aren't voting or will write in Sanders. They are seriously pissed about the super delegate situation.

Is a Trump nomination better than a Cruz or Rubio for keeping those Sanders's supporters from holding their nose and voting Hillary! anyway?

AJ Lynch said...

Oso:

Viewed from a simple pass/ fail perspective, Bush was a failed president. As a conservative, I feel no compulsion to defend his presidency. I do remember the CIA Director, George Tenet, a Clinton holdover, guaranteed finding WMD would be a slam dunk. IMO, Tenet was found to be wrong or maybe he lied. So I won't defend that either.

Dude1394 said...

Trump is running in the republican party and is a republican. He's been a republican since 1988 at least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0iE5WiZI

Qwinn said...

As a conservative, I don't trust Trump worth a damn.

I see the "unlikable" attack on Cruz as every bit as fraudulent as the "no fire in the belly" attack on Fred Thompson in 1998. And remember what happened then. Conservatives bought that bullshit line, rejected Fred in the primary (despite his winning virtually every debate), and we got McCain who only had "fire in the belly" for anyone to his right. Don't fall for the bullshit memes that always get applied to the most conservative candidate yet again, please, for the love of God.

Qwinn said...

Er, sorry, meant in 2008.

Kelly said...

Except he isn't self funding. He is getting plenty of donations and so much free media coverage he doesn't need to use much of his own money. The guy is a populist of course, but in the old days he would have been a blue dog democrat at best.

traditionalguy said...

What Trump runs as is not the question. He is a nationalist long watching both parties sell us out to the new game of International World Investment Cash Flow Without National Borders. Capital seeks docile cheap labor. That is the New World Order in all its glory.

That is why he targets Preston Bush, George HW Bush, George W Bush, and JEB Bush ongoing Dynasty's abuses of American military strength to create that New World Order for their associates. But does opposing that make Trump into a fake Republican, or does it pull the mask off the actual fakes who plan to sell us out as if they own us?

Off shoring our industrial production to Mexico has been the wealthy Texans' game for 80 years. And Trump threatening to stop it is a match to the death with the Bush clan.

Phil 3:14 said...

Trump is against idiots and assholes. If you don't support Donald Trump, you're an idiot or an asshole regardless of whether you're a Democrat or Republican.

Humperdink said...

Phil said: "Trump is against idiots and assholes."

When you wake up in the morning and everyone you run into all day long is an a**hole, maybe you're the a**hole.

Oso Negro said...

Phil - Is a lot of the discussion on this here blog a bit too nuanced for your tastes?

Terry said...

Trad guy wrote:
"He is a nationalist"
I am not even sure that Trump is a patriot.
You can define nationalist however you like, but to poli-sci types it means a person who believes that loyalty to nation should trump (ha!) other loyalties like family, religion, and ethnic group.

Beldar said...

I don't care what Donald Trump thinks he is.

The whole concept presumes a level of coherent and consistent thought which Donald Trump has never demonstrated.

I care about how he'd behave as president. Since nothing he says can be believed, we have to look at his history. Fortunately, his history is clear:

His history is that of a spectacular business failure, someone who's taken a large fortune handed to him by his ethically challenged lawbreaker father (you think the $3.5M casino chip scam was his only one?), and invested it in a corporate empire that he's had to drag through the bankruptcy courts four times.

Every one of Donald Trump's bankruptcies was paid for by the American working public. He brags about using bankruptcy. He brags about making his word and then breaking it.

It's very hard to point out to someone who's being duped that they're being duped, because it necessarily implies: "You're a dupe."

Trump fans, that's you. The only question is whether you'll wise up before election day.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

All along I've been saying that, though I don't like Trump, if he gained the nomination I would vote for him over any Democrat. I've changed my mind. If Trump is nominated, I will stay home on election day in utter contravention of my principles as a citizen. After hearing him repeat the progressive slander that "Bush lied", my conscience couldn't stand it. No one who considers himself a Republican should cast a primary vote for that slimy, narcissitic loudmouth jerk.

Postscript-- I suspected early on that Trump was a stalking horse for Hillary. I'm as sure now as I can be that this is so.

The Godfather said...

@Tyrone Slothrop: Right on brother! I would not vote for a candidate who proclaimed that Bush lied about Iran having WMDs. I have no problem with someone who, with the benefit of hindsight, argues that the war against Sadaam was a mistake, but the claim that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs is sickening and stupid. We don't need a stupid and dishonest president: We've had one for 8 years, and it's time for a change.

Mark said...

Inadvertently?

No, Trump has been quite clear that he is not truly either Republican or conservative. He is saying openly, "I'm really a liberal Democrat at heart and you dumbass Republicans are still going to vote for me."

chickelit said...

Tyrone Slothrop said...I've changed my mind. If Trump is nominated, I will stay home on election day in utter contravention of my principles as a citizen.

Just as I would were Jeb nominated. Hillary! thanks us both for our sentiments!

chickelit said...

Once again, I agree with ARM at 6:50 PM.

chickelit said...

FWIW, I don't think of myself as Republican either. I'm a registered Independent.

traditionalguy said...

A Nationalist is what people want when their Nation used to be great and has gone through a sudden change in inner structure and has collapsed. They want it to become great again. And it usually does when a strong leader restores its self confidence with a few wins. And a few more wins. And a few more wins.



Reagan did that. Bonaparte did that. AndTrump wants to do it now. In his arrogance ,Trump says if he can do it, then he is not bragging.

chickelit said...

I hate to say it, but I kinda miss cedarford this season. He was a real die hard Bush man and probably would have loathed Trump. I don't see many Bush jocks around here at all.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Beldar,

Name the last president that demonstrated coherent and consistent thought. Republicans are still hopelessly naive, which is a problem in a world where Democrats are still hopelessly dishonest.

chickelit said...

Trump said: This guy’s wasted $140 million running a failed campaign. I mean, the guy spent $43 million in New Hampshire and he came in fourth or fifth. I spent $3 million and I came in first by a lot. I mean, this is the kind of a guy you want a president?

How do you defend Jeb Bush there? That is obscene. I wonder what his daily cash bern rate is? I'm curious as to who is putting that kind of money up and why when there are two decent alternatives to Trump.

Sebastian said...

"reveal"?

rcommal said...

Without the belief that the United States of America is a republic as opposed to a democracy, there's not much left to discuss.

aritai said...

Amazing. Maybe it's only obvious offshore. He thinks of himself as an American and a practicing Capitalist. What else is Art of the Deal but a celebration of both sides winning even in losing, leaving both sides vested in the success of the deal, using price signals to sum up all information that exists into a single neutral metric, not moral or immoral. Great fun. the ultimate in Freedom. You own yourself in the U.S. almost, you can vote with your wallet and the least of you can make the system jump. Jobs got rich because of the least of us, not government coercion. it's not perfect in America though Asia is rising and the competition can only help all. Name one great innovation anywhere in the E.C. that improved everyone's life at the cost of making someone rich. No Aids cure. No iPhone. No 15K dead pensioners for lack of cheap air conditioning No inexpensive cheap and tasty fresh food. All for the lack of a unified rail truck container shipping industry that was sacrificed because special interests decided they knew better than the peasants voting with their wallets. When Continental completed their hostile takeover of United, its name was United. Your pTb is about to do the same to both sides of the isle. Skin 'em, don't gut 'em, toss the rot and dead weight. Long overdue or both parties. The GOP could have surrendered to the Taxed Enough Already Crowd and had a chance. Oh my. Popcorn time.

rcommal said...

From what I can tell, that belief has been abandoned, all the way around and all the way down.

Bay Area Guy said...

Sorry, but if the election in Nov is between Trump and Hillary, not voting is not an option.

Staying home, in that circumstance, is exactly what Hillary wants you to do. Ergo, you would be an unwitting dupe of Hillary and the Left.

I likely will not vote for Trump in the primaries, for some of the same reasons expressed by the learned Commentators above.

However, if Trump wins the primary fair and square (and he currently is winning), then I will be proudly voting for The Donald in November.

chickelit said...

I think I figured out Jeb's donor class: Suppose that his biggest donors are members of the media; Jeb in turn takes that money and buys media messaging which pays the salaries of those who donated. It's like the scam where everybody gives and receives a $100 dollar bill for Christmas.

It's brilliant: "We feed the rats to the cats and cats to the rats and get the catskins for nothing!"

rcommal said...

chickelit:

you were stacked against at least 20 years ago, and I, we, get it, because that happened to us, too

that said, i think you are making the same mistake that you started making just 5-6 years ago

fwiw

regards,

lori

chickelit said...

that said, i think you are making the same mistake that you started making just 5-6 years ago

That timing would suggest 2010-2011 -- precisely the time I started my own blog and began "speaking out."

Original Mike said...

"However, if Trump wins the primary fair and square (and he currently is winning), then I will be proudly voting for The Donald in November."

The more crap he pulls ("Bush lied", foaming at the mouth debates) the harder that becomes for me.

rcommal said...

that's not what I was referring to, much less talking about, far less thinking about;--but, ok, chickelit, as it is, so it goes. I apologize for intruding.

warmest regards (and, make no mistake about it, with affection),

lori

Theranter said...

I think he meant the idiots running the RNC, as they are the ones pushing for Jeb! or Cruz.

gadfly said...

The big lie among his many lies is that he is "self-funding" his campaign. Facts seem to show that Trump has put in $12 million in loans and "in kind" contributions such as his private jet into his campaign while donations received have amounted to $6.9 million. Of course, Trump is also having his company charge rents and Lord-knows-what-all to the campaign.

Interestingly, vendors are doing a big chunk of financing for the Donald, not voluntarily, I might add. Unpaid campaign bills at year-end exceeded $12 million. And when Donald begins to get official campaign funds from the government, they will end up back into his pocket to reduce his campaign cash advances he calls loans.

Birkel said...

Theranter:
If you believe, honestly believe, that the RNC is hoping for Cruz then I ask you to check yourself into the nearest psyche ward. You are a deranged lunatic.

chickelit:
You mention Jeb's burn rate and I agree. Jeb's profligacy belies his lack of true conservatism.

Which candidates have the lowest burn rates? Trump is easily first because of the free media coverage he gets. Cruz is easily #2.

Given Cruz cannot self-finance while getting free airtime on every network, what do you think his incredibly low burn rate tells you about Cruz' conservative values?

Birkel said...

gadfly:

The Art of the Self-Dealing?

Robert said...

I'd like to know when this Althouse character and her husband Meade will ever reflect upon their support for the Iraq invasion. We now have the leading Republican candidate stating right to George W. Bush's brother's face that we were lied into war and the brother had no comeback. I got a little tired of this blog when Althouse and Meade roamed around Madison looking to stick cameras in peoples' faces whom they deemed not properly respectful of war memorials and whatnot. Meade and Altouse running around trying to humiliate anyone who breathed on a war memorial wrong. Neither of thse two clowns ever served, and Meade is actually someone set t flee America rather than serve his country. But he's gonna run around as Mister America. LOL How come Jed Bush has no defense fr the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost in Iraq? LEt us knw, Meade, since you're Mister America. LOL

rhhardin said...

Republicans means the establishment, not the voters for example.

JMS said...

It was not inadvertent.

sinz52 said...

Bay Area Guy: "Sorry, but if the election in Nov is between Trump and Hillary, not voting is not an option."

Oh, I will vote.

I will write in Rubio's name on the ballot.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Didn't Trump see Tropic Thunder? "Never go full Michael Moore!"

traditionalguy said...

Good Morning South Carolina Nam. I hate to tell you guys, but today the attacking Trump coordinated fire has shifted from the mild "He Is a Secret Liberal" to the kamikaze "He Must Be Insane with Out of Control Anger."

Up your games. You need to morph into mini Glen Becks.

elcee said...

Robert:
"We now have the leading Republican candidate stating right to George W. Bush's brother's face that we were lied into war and the brother had no comeback."

Answer to "Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?".

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Trump is simply expanding the Republican party vote: He's creating a Michael Moore/Keith Olbermann wing.

If he wins the nomination can you imagine running on that ticket? A Congressional candidate debating a Democrat? He or she is going to be asked whether they agree with the head of the party on the Iraq War. Again and again and again.

How about the party platform? It's going to be a bloodbath, a complete mess.

If the left wanted to destroy the right they couldn't do a better job then the one Trump is doing.

traditionalguy said...

The right wing Republicans, if any really exist in Congress, will only be destroyed the election after Cruz Amnesty or Rubio Amnesty goes into effect for our undocumented Hispanic Citizens.

Ergo:Vote for Trump, if you are serious.

Big Mike said...

"Did Donald Trump inadvertently reveal that he does not think of himself as a Republican?"

I'm not sure that I think of him as a Republican, either.

The people who say that George W. Bush "lied" to get us into the Iraq War give me pause. I'm pretty sure I would not want a president who decided to trust his gut instincts over the findings of the Central Intelligence Agency. Based on reports I've read, we seem to have that now, and the dismal results of America's current foreign policy tell us what the results of trusting one's instinct and ideology over information that the United States is paying billions of dollars (let alone human lives) to collect and analyze.

Ann Althouse said...

"I'd like to know when this Althouse character and her husband Meade will ever reflect upon their support for the Iraq invasion."

The debate about invading Iraq happened before this blog started. I never took the position that Iraq should be invaded. When I started talking about it, we were at war, and I believed in the importance of supporting a war already in progress. It wasn't possible to change the past, only to go forward.

"I got a little tired of this blog when Althouse and Meade roamed around Madison looking to stick cameras in peoples' faces whom they deemed not properly respectful of war memorials and whatnot."

Respect for those who fight in the military, those who've made great sacrifices, stands apart from the questions about whether political and military leaders have made the right decisions.

I find it very hard to have an opinion about those decisions. As I said back in 2003 when anyone tried to force me to say something on the subject: I'm not a military expert... and I'm not privy to all the information the President and his advisers have. I had absolutely zero way of knowing whether there were WMD.

"Neither of thse two clowns ever served, and Meade is actually someone set t flee America rather than serve his country."

That is a false statement. Outright libel.

traditionalguy said...

Meade is a loyal warrior type. If you cannot tell that yet, you have not been paying attention.

Ann Althouse said...

By the way, I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000.

After 9/11, I thought it was very important to support him.

Meade said...

"I got a little tired of this blog when Althouse and Meade roamed around Madison looking to stick cameras in peoples' faces whom they deemed not properly respectful of war memorials and whatnot."

Tells me all I need for judging this commenter's bad faith.

traditionalguy said...

The showdown at High Noon in South Carolina has morphed into a Referendum on the use of the USA by the Bush family as their private Military to select winners and losers in the OIL Kingdoms of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others.

Trump is doing a long delayed after action report that after Gulf War I, Bush II made a stupid move based on wishful thinking.

And while he got our loyal support as a War President and got reelected, Bush II was a 100% liberal on Federal Education Standards and entitlement of Drugs in Medicare, and to pay for it during a war he KNOWINGLY abetted the Real Estate Bubble that finally destroyed most of the USA's middle class in 2008. And that in turn is what gave away the store to Obama to finish us off.

damikesc said...

Clinton is a terrible candidate. I can see her beating Cruz, who deals with her likability problem.

I don't, for one reason.

Cruz is a winner. Has been one forever. Hillary is a loser who basically needs to field cleared to even have a chance.

She's like a dominating football team who is only dominant when they play the practice squad of a "worse" team".

I see the "unlikable" attack on Cruz as every bit as fraudulent as the "no fire in the belly" attack on Fred Thompson in 1998. And remember what happened then. Conservatives bought that bullshit line, rejected Fred in the primary (despite his winning virtually every debate), and we got McCain who only had "fire in the belly" for anyone to his right. Don't fall for the bullshit memes that always get applied to the most conservative candidate yet again, please, for the love of God.

Indeed. If Cruz was really that unlikeable, he wouldn't be in the Senate. The Texas GOP wanted Dewhurst, if memory serves.

The more crap he pulls ("Bush lied", foaming at the mouth debates) the harder that becomes for me.

Bush lied is really tough for me to handle. He's basically accusing all Republicans of being, basically, Nazis. That's fucking insane.

We KNOW Saddam had WMD. We don't know what he did with them. And he wouldn't say.

Given Cruz cannot self-finance while getting free airtime on every network, what do you think his incredibly low burn rate tells you about Cruz' conservative values?

He's also beaten Trump and been second in spite of spending equally low amounts of money but getting WAY less media coverage. He's doing a good job...and has the best commercials out there.

Birkel said...

damikesc:

Exactly my point. Cruz has spent less, has retained more for future battles, fought smarter, set commercials to contrast the image Leftist MSM types wish to cast, and generally performed above expectations.

But he might upset the Washington Insider (Dem and Rep) apple cart so he must be thwarted.

A vote for Cruz is a vote against the Leviathan State.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Trigger warning: "Bush lied". While it's not possible to *know* things like that, it's interesting to watch Trump's low-epistemic-standards rhetoric *finally* offend some people. I believe Bush thought he was making an honest judgment toward the right course, and I don't know how much propaganda (lies) he thought he was authorizing - it's easy to imagine Cheney and other underlings taking initiative. Still, if the buck stops, then "Bush lied" is an acceptable precis in my mind - for an idea that *might* be true. To be convinced one way or another one would have to believe an awful lot.