Althouse: Donald Trump "is a great publicity-seeker and at a time when the Republican party hasn't really figured out what it's for, as opposed to what it's against."

१२ ऑक्टोबर, २०१५

Donald Trump "is a great publicity-seeker and at a time when the Republican party hasn't really figured out what it's for, as opposed to what it's against."

"I think that he is tapped into something that exists in the Republican party that's real. I think there is genuine anti-immigrant sentiment in the large portion of at least Republican primary voters. I don't think it's uniform. He knows how to get attention. He is, you know, the classic reality TV character and, at this early stage, it's not surprising that he's gotten a lot of attention.... I don't think he'll end up being president of the United States."

Said President Obama, talking to Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" last night.

What's notable about that statement — compared to the various pundits who've tried to explain Trump's political success — is that he doesn't go straight for the one big amorphous emotion — anger — that Trump supposedly expresses for the people who are drawn to him. Obama makes it about one issue, immigration, but he frames that issue as an emotion, a "sentiment," focused on a particular type of person, the "immigrant."

But most of what Obama has to say is that Trump is an attention-getter, and he thinks, I think, that the man not only shouldn't be President of the United States, he shouldn't be getting the attention of the President of the United States.

१८ टिप्पण्या:

Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: "I...I...I...I..."; १२/१०/१५, ६:१४ AM
Paco Wové म्हणाले...: First Concern Troll of the Nation.; १२/१०/१५, ६:५१ AM
Nichevo म्हणाले...: Well, Bob, it's easier to spell...; १२/१०/१५, ७:२० AM
Henry म्हणाले...: The quote that leads the post could well describe Mr. Obama himself, in 2007.

I was thinking about Trump in relation to Althouse's comment that Obama, if he could run again, would win. All politicians are reality show characters. We are in a particular stage of electioneering where what matters most is the cartoon.; १२/१०/१५, ७:२७ AM
David Begley म्हणाले...: GOP is FOR getting government out of every detail of our lives.; १२/१०/१५, ७:४६ AM
rehajm म्हणाले...: It's healthy and constructive for Republicans to have figured out what they're against.; १२/१०/१५, ७:५६ AM
MountainMan म्हणाले...: As always, Obama lies. There is no Republican sentiment against immigration. I live in one of the most Replublican areas of the US and I know of no one here who is anti-immigrant, as long as the immigrant is LEGAL. Goodness, I work with legal immigrants in my job every day - chemists, engineers, IT professionals, business managers - and all came here LEGALLY. I must know people at my company from at least 40 different countries (last time I counted) who are here legally, many having become citizens in the past few years. But everyone - and that includes many of the LEGAL immigrants I know - is very much concerned with ILLEGAL immigration and the changes that is having on our communities and our budgets for schools, welffare, health care, etc. and the impact on lower income wage earners. Failure to enforce our exisisting laws and the constant harping of "comprehensive immigration reform" - i.e., amnesty for illegals - is a real flashpoint for many people and not just Republicans. And rightly so.; १२/१०/१५, ८:२७ AM
Unknown म्हणाले...: Pot calls kettle black; १२/१०/१५, ९:०४ AM
jr565 म्हणाले...: "But most of what Obama has to say is that Trump is an attention-getter, and he thinks, I think, that the man not only shouldn't be President of the United States, he shouldn't be getting the attention of the President of the United States."
Should Obama be president of the United States?; १२/१०/१५, ९:३३ AM
Michael K म्हणाले...: Obama should know about attention getters. He had the thinnest resume of any president in history.; १२/१०/१५, ९:५३ AM
damikesc म्हणाले...: As always, Obama lies. There is no Republican sentiment against immigration. I live in one of the most Replublican areas of the US and I know of no one here who is anti-immigrant, as long as the immigrant is LEGAL. Goodness, I work with legal immigrants in my job every day - chemists, engineers, IT professionals, business managers - and all came here LEGALLY. I must know people at my company from at least 40 different countries (last time I counted) who are here legally, many having become citizens in the past few years. But everyone - and that includes many of the LEGAL immigrants I know - is very much concerned with ILLEGAL immigration and the changes that is having on our communities and our budgets for schools, welffare, health care, etc. and the impact on lower income wage earners. Failure to enforce our exisisting laws and the constant harping of "comprehensive immigration reform" - i.e., amnesty for illegals - is a real flashpoint for many people and not just Republicans. And rightly so.

I'm ALL for comprehensive immigration reform.

1) Repeal the 1965 immigration act. We've imported enough third world poverty.

2) Give Christians preferences in immigration. Middle Eastern Christians have been a victim of a near genocide since the Arab spring. Why Syrian Muslims get preference over Iraqi or Syrian Christians is baffling.

3) Massively increase immigration from Eastern Europe. We need more people of Polish nationality. Hard-working people who don't expect people to give them a hand out. Western Europe is awfully fucked up now, so maybe the UK can have an increase. And Germans. Hell, anybody bitching about immigration --- come on over.

4) A fence that is guarded. Progressives think we cannot kick out 30 million illegals but we CAN round up over 300 million guns. Baffling. Since we cannot overturn birthplace immigration, simply say that the family is to be driven back to Mexico within 48 hours of giving birth. The child can stay here and be adopted or sent back home with them. If he stays here, his history is erased cold.; १२/१०/१५, ९:५५ AM
404 Page Not Found म्हणाले...: Ann, you just can't see your own bias. I guess that's why you voted for Obama.

For example, what do you mean, "anti-immigrant"? Do you mean that because we are in favor of enforcing existing laws governing immigration, that we are therefore "anti-immigrant"? What kind of nonsense is that?; १२/१०/१५, १०:४६ AM
n.n म्हणाले...: ही टिप्पणी लेखकाना हलविली आहे.; १२/१०/१५, ११:२७ AM
n.n म्हणाले...: Said Mr. Pro-choice in Chief. Obama still has not condemned clinical cannibalism practiced by the Planned Parenthood corporation under the State-established pro-choice [religious] doctrine.

That said, why is Obama anti-native?

Also, what of the motives for mass emigration and the people left behind?

Finally, the issue is not immigration, but excessive and especially illegal/unmeasured immigration that exceeds the rate of assimilation and integration. Obama needs to address depositing people in urban ghettos, causing dislocation of native and legal immigrants, and policies that compensate for pro-choice/abortion and evolutionary dysfunctional orientations and behaviors generally.; १२/१०/१५, ११:३२ AM
Hyphenated American म्हणाले...: Speaking of Obama - in 2008 he ran on the proposal to win the war in Afghanistan and end the war in Iraq. How did that work out? Did we win the war in Afghanistan? Is Iraq peaceful?; १२/१०/१५, १२:०० PM
HoodlumDoodlum म्हणाले...: The "sentiment" Pres Obama so helpfully diagnoses is, to him, just racism. He's dressing it up a bit but really he's calling Republican primary voters racists, and saying that's a big reason Trump's popular.

Now, strangely, no one mentions poll data about how lower-income blacks feel about illegal immigration...but their numbers line right up with those racists Trump supporters'. Democrat-voting blacks can't be racists, though, so let's just ignore that inconvenient fact and go back to calling Republicans racist.; १२/१०/१५, १२:१० PM
Kirk Parker म्हणाले...: Damikesc,

So close, yet so far away.

No we don't need to massively increase immigration from anywhere. We need to give a concerted effort to reduce illegal immigration, sure, but we also need to just end the dishonest and (apparently) easily-gamed H1-B program. Part of me is OK with poaching the smartest minds in the world (though that's not what H1-B does, it's poaching the low-to-middle-ability tech folks, who we hardly need.) But the other part of me thinks we should insist these folks stay where they are and help bring their countries up to our level.; १२/१०/१५, १२:११ PM
damikesc म्हणाले...: No we don't need to massively increase immigration from anywhere. We need to give a concerted effort to reduce illegal immigration, sure, but we also need to just end the dishonest and (apparently) easily-gamed H1-B program. Part of me is OK with poaching the smartest minds in the world (though that's not what H1-B does, it's poaching the low-to-middle-ability tech folks, who we hardly need.) But the other part of me thinks we should insist these folks stay where they are and help bring their countries up to our level.

I don't mean increase overall immigration numbers (those need to go down a lot). We need to change who is coming in and giving favoritism towards those who will likely support themselves and support the country.

And, yes, H1-B visas need to be looked as the virtual slavery market that they are and killed. That the COMPANY THEY WORK FOR controls it is a huge problem...and, ironically, it is abused by hyper-progressive tech firms. Funny.

If it's REALLY vital, then they shouldn't tie the visa to an employer but to the employee.; १२/१०/१५, १२:१४ PM