Hugh Hewlitt said that he admires Ted Cruz for endorsing Donald Trump, after Senator Cruz is on the record calling Mr. Trump a bully, a sniveling coward and a narcissist among other things. Surprise, surprise; it turns out that Ted Cruz gave up his principles and is just another politician. That's almost forgivable compared to Hewlitt saying he admired him for it.
It's just another example of why we have no respect for anything he in particular says. He's a complete cynical, political opportunist who referenced the very fact that he worked for Richard Nixon, which goes to show that when it comes to political courage he'll duck, run, and save his own skin. Is this the kind of commentary he gives his listeners, really?
Conversely, Republican strategist Mike Murphy is sitting across the table exemplifying what it is to be a principled Republican, who accurately rebutted Hewlitt's entire Supreme Court argument because the very premise relies on trusting Donald Trump.
Our trust deficit with Donald Trump doesn't necessarily have to do as much with Supreme Court choices as it has to do with everything else - foreign policy, immigration, security, the economy on down the line - all of which are a probable conflicts of interest for Trump unless it can be verified to the contrary with the release of his tax returns.
Let's be clear, neither candidate can take the high road when it comes to transparency, but Mr. Trump not releasing his tax returns is particularly problematic, especially since he's based his entire campaign on being a successful businessman. If voters are judging him on the simple fact that he has a lot of money therefore he must be successful, but having no interest in knowing how he makes that money and the amount of taxes he probably doesn't pay seems at the very least negligent in your responsibility as a voter.
Publicly undisclosed personal financial motivations, in this context, could dictate Trump's decisions on policy, policy that may not be in the best interest of The United States.
And that's what tomorrow night's debate is going to come down to - little talked about policy. Today's "Meet The Press" basically served as the kick-off of pre-game political festivities for the debate, and with all the talk about gamesmanship and attacks and temperament, detailed policy prescriptions and how the candidates command them will be the most telling for us.
We would presume in this column to give advice to candidates on what they should or shouldn't say/do during the debate, nor will we speculate what will happen. However, what we will say is that in a 90-minute debate, knowledge of policy is going to dictate which candidate gets the upper hand, which one attacks more effectively, and which one passes the commander in chief test.
Given that, we also agree with Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter when she explained that the candidates need to put forth something positive, especially in an election such as this with a celebrity candidate who incidentally is quite negative. It's a crucial point that gets overlooked in political discussions because it's not as entertaining, frankly, but during the debate it's what viewers really respond to the most, and remember.
In the run-up to the World Series of politics that are these debates, with game one tomorrow night, there was one point that Republican strategist Steve Schmidt made with regard to gamesmanship that we thought was quite telling. On the news that the Clinton campaign was going to invite Mark Cuban to the debate, the Trump campaign, Mr. Trump himself, responded that Gennifer Flowers would be invited. Mr. Schmidt explained that the Clinton campaign tried to bait Mr. Trump and he went for it, it worked. Easily, we might add.Will Sec. Clinton be able to do the same to Mr. Trump, in the moment? Can Mr. Trump in response to an attack from Sec. Clinton not come off sounding sexist? We're excited to find out!
We'll be commenting.
Panel: Doris Kearns Godwin, presidential historian; Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network
One More Thing...
In reference to the panel, we want to firmly state that Gwen Ifill should be moderating one of the debates. With all due respect to the other moderators, Ms. Ifill is head and shoulders above the rest. Not to mention the fact that the 'P' in PBS stands for public. PBS should be hosting one of the debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment