The Irony of Trump’s Assaults on Fox News

The big media story last week was Donald Trump’s announcement that he was withdrawing from the Fox GOP debate.  The formal reason given was that Megyn Kelly would be a moderator.  (She had “earned” Trump’s ire by asking him to explain his verbal attacks on women.)

Fox rebuffed his efforts to have her removed from the panel and sent out a press release ridiculing the demand.  That response further inflamed him. 

Some have suggested that Trump’s “no-show” was a political calculation allowing him to avoid expected attacks from other GOP contenders that Thursday night.  Maybe so.  But there was plainly a vindictive edge to “the Donald’s” action.  He gloated that his absence from the debate stage would reduce the TV audience and, hence, cost Fox money.  [It did not.]

The irony is that Fox News must assume substantial credit (whether that’s a positive depends on one’s perspective) for Donald Trump’s prominence as a Republican candidate for President. 

In the past several years – including well before Trump’s formal entry into the contest – he has appeared seemingly countless times (certainly over one hundred and many more than other candidates), receiving often fawning attention, particularly from the morning Fox and Friends hosts and Sean Hannity.

That extensive and friendly exposure undoubtedly helped legitimize for many faithful conservative Fox viewers the candidacy of a New York real estate developer and “former” liberal and Hillary Clinton supporter.

Perhaps, Fox was surprised by Trump’s lack of gratitude.  But so, too, was Dr. Frankenstein surprised by the monster he had created.

Calling Donald Trump to Account

It is surprising that Donald Trump’s past contributions and support for Democrats in New York has not generated more criticism from his GOP rivals. 

In the 1990s, in particular, Trump made substantial contributions to Hillary Clinton and was effusive in his praise of her liberal policies. 

To be sure, these activities have been attacked by some of Trump’s opponents. But they have not responded effectively to his defense that, as a developer in New York City, he needed the cooperation and good will of Democratic office holders in order to be a successful businessman.   So he was generous in his political and financial support.

 

But there’s an obvious weakness in that argument.  Let’s assume that he did indeed need to “buy” the cooperation of Democrats in order to have business success in New York.  If political philosophy or principle mattered to him - and he was a conservative in his heart of hearts – he could have chosen to do business in a more hospitable setting.

That he did not strongly suggests that he was either truly liberal or a businessman to whom political principles did not matter.  His priority was making money, not adherence to conservative philosophy.

A person in the commercial world is not required – despite what far leftists might believe – to abandon moral scruples.  He can choose where and with whom he does business.  Donald Trump made his choices.  His money and stature served the causes of the left.  Is he proud of that?  Or is it an irrelevant concern for him?  He made money, right? (He’s certainly proud to tell us all that he’s worth more than ten billion dollars.)

How ironic that he pledges to “make America great again” since Trump’s support for New York liberals helped diminish it.

How Can a Mom Abandon Her Child to Become a Terrorist?

It’s awfully hard for a normal person to understand how a mother of a six month old baby could hand off the child to a relative and then embark on a killing spree from which she had to know she would not survive.

The San Bernardino female killer, however, did so.  Serving her radical Islamist objectives overcame her maternal instincts. [Of course, maybe nature’s instinct wasn’t that strong for her.  Some women certainly feel it more than others.  But, still, she embarked on a suicidal mission which would leave her baby an orphan.  How could she do that?]

It’s not that she was willing to suffer death to serve her cause.  Anyone serving in the military as a combat soldier can say that.  Rather, it’s that she sought death, displaying simply the mindset of a suicide bomber.  But, thinking that way, when one has a young child, places the action in a different category.

It’s a reminder that fanaticism can overcome all sense of human decency, instinct and survival.  In the form of radical Islamist terrorism, we face an enemy that is unrestrained.  Anything – and everything – will be used against us.

Are we prepared to reciprocate?  Do we need to?  Effective defense requires that we do all that is necessary - and to err on the side of aggressiveness, not restraint.

Socialist Sanders Has Same Chance as Hillary in General Election?

Yes, according to recent polling.  Interestingly, Hillary Clinton’s numbers were hardly impressive.  All prominent GOP candidates, except Donald Trump, bested her, albeit narrowly.

But surprisingly, Bernie Sanders did just as well.  I say surprising, at least to me, because the Vermont Senator is a proclaimed socialist.  He wants a fully socialized medical system (Obamacare is not enough for him) and thinks America should pattern its economy and welfare system in accord with the example of European countries like Sweden.

Does that mean that half of the electorate is now socialist?  To be sure, President Obama has been successful in pulling already leftist democrats further in that direction, but does that mean that many Americans have really gone that far?

I doubt it. 

It’s reasonable to say disgruntlement in the U.S. toward mainstream politicians cuts across ideological lines.  People listen to Trump and back him for what they like and ignore the rest.  Sanders berates billionaires and most who are not applaud him.  Given the well documented ignorance of the broad electorate of politics and policy, it’s rather unlikely that the bulk of Sanders’ support is based on the fact that he is a socialist.  The label “socialist’ for many of his backers, if they are aware of the term, is more likely associated with Bernie Sanders being a frequent user of social media.    

The Irrelevant President

How better to describe the White House occupant who puts combating global warming, resettling Syrian refugees and closing Guantanamo Bay as his top policies?

The American public’s focus is quite different.  Over sixty percent believe primary attention should be directed to fighting ISIS, terrorism and strengthening the economy. 

To be sure, the president’s base of thirty-five to forty percent is unshakable.  What he wants, they want.  Speaking only to one’s base – and basking in its blind loyalty – can be comforting and reassuring.  But it is not leadership.  A leader has a duty to lead, even if that means giving direction from behind. 

Failing to do so relegates the president to the role of a spokesman for a minority rather than chief representative for the broader nation. 

For most Americans, this means that when Barack Obama says and does is irrelevant.  He doesn’t speak for them.

What a sad commentary for a black politician who launched his presidential campaign by winning the Democratic Party’s caucus in nearly all-white Iowa.  He had a right to claim, as he did, that his candidacy held the promise of a post-partisan and post-racial America.

In reality, his presidency has been neither but has fueled the divisive elements of both.

Barack Obama is a president who now looks much smaller than the image of 2008 which was said to personify positive hope and change. 

History will not look kindly on the man who squandered so many opportunities to make lasting differences of which America could be proud.