The Art of Deflection
Our Republican nominee for President, Donald Trump, has climbed the political ladder by poo-pooing those below him. Republican leaders, sitting congressmen and senators, and even the Speaker of the House have been targeted at being awful people for calling out some of Donald Trump’s ridiculous statements. Most recently, Speaker Paul Ryan announced that he won’t be going out of his way to campaign for Trump (he didn’t rescind his support altogether), but rather he’s focusing on maintaining the Republican majority in the House. The Speaker is doing what he can to salvage the election. I say salvage because the latest RealClearPolitics average has Hillary Clinton at a 5.7 point advantage over Trump…and it’s trending upward.
Before I left for vacation at the beginning of October, RCP had Trump within striking distance in the Electoral College with Clinton getting 272 EVs to Trump’s 266. Today, it’s back to being lopsided with Clinton estimated to get 340 EVs to Trump’s 198. Back around September, the controversy surrounding Clinton’s health was swirling, and Donald Trump was acting more like a “normal” Republican candidate that tried to hold to talking points. Today, the old Donald is back. Talk of rigged elections and how currently elected Republicans (who actually have the responsibility of governing) are awful at their job have returned. The rhetoric replaces a more even-tempered Trump, and that is sad. It’s very sad that “grassroots” conservative Republicans are more willing to blame Speaker Ryan for the current state of the election rather than candidate himself. I don’t blame the Speaker at all. He’s doing what he can to maintain the Republican majority as well as articulating the House Republican policy agenda.
I know a lot of my fellow Republicans aren’t exactly trusting of polling and the news media, and I believe Donald Trump is doubling-down on that sentiment. His comments of a “rigged election” seemingly disappeared when a few national polls showed that he was close to and, in some, leading Hillary Clinton in key battleground states. His lead has evaporated, and now the excuses come flooding back: a rigged election, Republican leadership doesn’t like me, #TheEstablishment isn’t supporting me, solar flares, the news media, etc. It’s deflection with just about everyone else is to blame other than the candidate himself. “It’s not my fault.” is what I hear, and I believe it’s unfair to our elected representatives, leadership, and Party that our nominee is either unable or unwilling to see that his actions and words correlate to his poll numbers. But…we’re expected to hush up and do as our nominee tells us to do. The Supreme Court is at stake.
I know a lot of Republicans are arguing that a conservative Supreme Court is in the balance. I totally understand that, and I also know that elections have consequences. I believe we’re experiencing the long-term effects of failed Republican presidential bids in 2008 and 2012. Frankly, and I’ve said this to folks before, we lost a good opportunity to appoint conservative justices to the high court when we lost the previous two presidential elections. This year’s election is a last-ditch effort to maintain the Court, but with Trump’s campaign, it looks like the sun is setting on a conservative Supreme Court, but everyone else will be at fault except for Trump. Volunteers didn’t volunteer enough. Republican leaders didn’t support Trump enough. Speaker Ryan sabotaged Trump. The weather suppressed turnout in key battleground states. Machines were rigged. Voters were intimidated. Everything under the sun will be blamed except for the campaign.
This year has been chaotic in politics, and polls could certainly swing in Trump’s favor if he can move past the most recent controversies. I don’t mean deflecting the issue by pointing to Bill Clinton’s past, saying it’s locker room talk, or whatever. Own up to it, apologize (which he did), and move on to talk about the future of America. If Trump can actually go back to sticking to talking points rather than going off the rails, then he may be able to recover. We’re only a few weeks away from the election, and stranger things have happened, but if he wants to be the next President of the United States, then he needs to go back to being the more even-keeled September Trump. Of course, if he doesn’t and end up with “President-elect Hillary Clinton” (eww) on November 9th, it will be “our” fault.
About Author
nsmith
Father. IT Geek. Former 14th District GOP Chairman (2015-2017). Former Walker GOP Chairman (2009-2013). Resident of Chamblee. American. Georgian. Conservative.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“and polls could certainly swing in Trump’s favor if he can move past the most recent controversies.”
Are u kidding? This transitory Republican candidate/ entertainer has been in a state of “controversy” most of his public life so why should he change now?
I am gonna repeat myself from an earlier thread but I blame the primary voters that voted for him.
That doesn’t really count as an apology. You don’t say you’re sorry and then try to justify your actions by saying it wasn’t as bad as what others have done. Just say your sorry. Done. End.
The Reactionary wing of the GOP gambled (for some unknown, bizarre reason) to not approve Merrick Garland. If HRC wins and Dems wanted to play hardball they could withdraw that nomination and (assuming they’ve won the Senate) push through someone who is actually liberal.
“Wing?” It was unanimous or very nearly so.
I find the “But the Supreme Court!” explaining on the right to be so silly. Really, what’s more likely: Trump appoints to New Scalia, or he tries to put a flunky mob lawyer on the Bench who’s guaranteed to say whatever Trump does is A-OK?
On the Court front: 29 Originalist Scholars Come out Against Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/17/conservative-originalists-letter-calls-trump-indifferent-or-hostile-to-the-constitution/
“Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution. We understand that belief, but we do not share it,” the group wrote. “Trump’s long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution’s basic features — including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law.”
Included in the group were a Northwestern law professor who was one of the founders of the Federalist Society, Steven G. Calabresi; syndicated columnist George F. Will, and well-regarded conservative law professor at NYU and the University of Chicago, Richard Epstein. The effort was organized by Duke law professor Stephen E. Sachs, and University of Chicago law professor William Baude, a pair of former clerks to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
The group noted that Trump has released a list of 21 conservatives from which he said he would make Supreme Court nominations. “We do not trust him to do so,” the writers said. “More importantly, we do not trust him to respect constitutional limits in the rest of his conduct in office, of which judicial nominations are only one part.”
Lots of conservative leaning issues have been decided not in conservatives favorer by a Republican majority appointed court. Roe v. Wade had 5 republicans out of the 7 votes in favor. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in 1989, upheld Roe with 7 republican appointees. In 1993, the court had only 1 democrat appointed judge, and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey had a 5-4 vote up holding Roe. Affordable care act was upheld in 2012 and 2015, Republican majority lead appointees. Resent judges have been more business leaning then people leaning. They have allowed more government take over, like domain issues. The government now has a easier track in taking my house way then it did before the Bush appointments. Are conservatives okay with that? And least we forget, Republic picks are not always what we think they are… just ask Justice Souter.
There’s a massive problem with assuming Trump is somehow the key to preserving conservative voices in the Supreme Court. It assumes, contrary to all available evidence, that the Justices will make the same decisions regarding retirement regardless of who’s in office.
If Hillary’s elected, Ginsburg or Breyer might retire, comfortable in the knowledge that she’d appoint their successor. Neither of those would affect the makeup of the court, though. *Maybe* Kennedy might retire, depending on anything from his health to his opinion of the modern GOP.
Whereas if Donald were elected, I’d be willing to put down money that NOBODY would retire in the next four years. Not even Kennedy. Due to the Senate refusing to vote on Merrick Garland for a year, our hypothetical President Trump might get to appoint Scalia’s successor, but the only way he’d appoint a second justice would be if they dropped dead. Otherwise, they’d all tough it out until the next President’s in office.
And since Trump is, frankly, a political idiot, the notion of him managing to get elected to a second term is almost farcical. The Democrats would certainly nominate someone more popular than Hillary, and they’d control the White House again. And after four years of Trump, who knows how long it would take to convince the country to elect another Republican? Until that trust could be rebuilt, the Democrats could end up even appointing Thomas’ successor.