Quote of the Day: George Will on Mitt Romney’s Apparent Political Best Bud Donald Trump
Our political Quote of the Day comes from conservative columnist George Will who has this to say about presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney continuing to link himself up with the country’s most famous birther, PT Barnum spiritual descendent, Donald Trump:
“I do not understand the cost benefit here,” Will said on the “This Week” roundtable. “The costs are clear. The benefit — what voter is gonna vote for him (Romney) because he is seen with Donald Trump? The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious it seems to me.”
“Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics,” Will added. “Again, I don’t understand the benefit. What is Romney seeking?”
The problem for Romney is that as Trump continues to seek the public spotlight with more outrageous comments (or even forms a Super PAC), Romney will be asked to disavow him. And evasive half-disavowels will keep the spotlight on TRUMP and off Romney’s economic message.
Plus there’s this: many independent voters and those who are revolted by the whole birther narrative and would never vote for a candidate who embraces it or clearly enables it will conclude:
Birds of a feather.
(P.S. Trump isn’t an eagle. He’s a bald eagle — with a comb-over.)
Share This
George Will is a fine Conservative. I have always liked him. Now I admire him even more.
Yes, George W. can thank the Citizens United decision for allowing bloviating ignoramouses a seat at the table, though I doubt he will see it that way.
Any dufus with dough can now start a Super Pac and because the floodgates are open, some candidates will have to put up with whatever wacko thing they say – if they want the power that money can purchase.
It will be interesting to see if Romney has anything more to say about Trump than the tepid disavowal of Ted “dead or jail” Nugent that (not Romney, but the Romney spokesperson) stated – that all parties should decry “divisive language”. I assume, from what has been produced so far, that doesn’t apply to ads.
Joe, check the title?
The Republican party is now officially controlled by right wing talkers and FOX “news”. As long as Trump is one of Hannity’s great Americans Romney and other Republicans will have to kiss his ring on a regular basis. The lunatic fringe has become too much of the Republican base to be ignored.
What does this have to do with Citizens United, T.O.? Trump is a billionaire, not a corporation, and has always been able to spend as much as he wants on electioneering. And he was getting media attention long before CU.
Dr. J
Not exactly.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
Sorry, TO, let me clarify. By “electioneering” I don’t mean direct campaign contributions but advocacy spending, which was the issue in Citizen’s United.
But whichever way you prefer to define the term, again what’s the connection to CU?
Dr. J
The connection is the money that is going to flood the election process, now, and the necessity for each candidate to have more and more money to win. This will allow the wealthy to use their wealth through Super Pacs just like the corporations do.
Stephen Colbert explained it all a while back. As I said, I doubt George or you will see it that way.
TO, perhaps we can agree on some facts:
1. You as an individual can spend and have always been able to spend all the money you like on political advocacy.
2. The rich have enough money to spend at a scale large enough to matter. The less-well-off don’t, unless they can pool their resources through corporate groups.
3. CU’s enablement of super PACs therefore boosted the voices of thousandaires more than it did billionaires.
4. Trump’s media circus didn’t need super PACs, as it was operating well before CU.
So Romney may be cozying up to Trump in the hopes that Trump will get out and agitate against Obama. He could have done this just as well without the CU decision, as Trump has enough money to agitate on his own dime.
If your point is that Romney has been forced into this alliance by CU, knowing his opponent will be surfing a tidal wave of super PAC spending and needing to get more money in the campaign on his behalf, that perhaps makes more sense. But then why complain? From a liberal POV, forcing the Republicans into foolish alliances would sound like a reason to cheer CU.
Dr. J
On your points:
1. True, individuals could spend, beyond the limits in the FEC declaration noted above, as much as they wanted through 527 groups and other organizations (see below).
2. True
3. Don’t agree. Individuals now simply create Super Pacs, like corporations do, which make it a lot easier (and less apt to be iffy illegaly than 527s). Corporations and unions and wealthy individuals still have greater influence through money than any group of individuals yet have.
4. Trump’s media circus was not aimed at an election outcome. Now it is. Why would any liberal or conservative candidate welcome his birther foolishess or any fool’s type of foolishness? Unless they needed the money, of course.
You may believe that non-wealthy individuals are able to create groups which will be able to spend enough money to influence their welfare, but we both know that in reality it simply doesn’t happen. So the non-wealthy simply have to live with the laws the wealthy create – or rebel lawlessly.
Citizens United simply unleashed any control over corporations and unions that had held them somewhat in check. For a primer on what we can expect, here is a compilation of what just two different individuals can do to influence election outcomes. How many individuals would be needed to join together to counteract this?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle—koch-brothers.html
Easier than 527s, perhaps, but not easier than simply writing a couple personal checks to have a political ad produced and run. Trump doesn’t need 527s or super PACs; he could just staff this out to some hapless game show contestant. That’s not an option for me.
Trump’s media circus certainly appeared to be aimed at an election outcome. He said was running for president.
On the contrary, I think it happens constantly. Plenty of the corporations that operate in politics, from advocacy groups to companies, were started by non-wealthy individuals and represent interests of many non-wealthy individuals. Every day I get badgered on the street by volunteers for the ACLU or Planned Parenthood or a similar group looking for donations. They wouldn’t bother if small contributors weren’t a vital part of their economics.
Well, none. The Koches and Soros appear to be counteracting each other.
Dr J
Here is the website that indicates who spends what on whom.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php
Perhaps you can let me know who represents the average American who is not a union member or retired yet. Which Super Pacs are interested in keeping our environment healthy. Of the two you mentioned, ACLU is not listed as donating to anyone, and Planned Parenthood’s expenditures are miniscule compared to others.
Try to find a group whose concern is the environment and see how much they spend compared to the Energy industry. Convince me that I am safer and healthier by the influence of a Super Pac.
Excellent questions, TO. The list you linked shows donations to candidates, which are one part of political spending, and one CU did nothing to change. The ACLU tends to fight its battles in the judicial branch rather than the legislative, so they won’t appear in opensecrets data, but it’s hard to argue they’re not influencing government.
I found this info on environmental spending:
I don’t know who the “average American” is, but if you nominate one, you’ll see his (or her) interests represented all over the place. If you pick an auto worker or a dentist or a realtor, he may support causes General Motors or or the National Association of Realtors or the American Dental Association lobbied for. If you pick someone with a disease, he may benefit from the $19M pharmaceutical researchers spent. If you pick a gay American, he may appreciate the $4M the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund spent last year on his behalf. If you pick a liberal woman, she may appreciate the $86M Emily’s List has raised for progressive female candidates.
Dr J
“The list you linked shows donations to candidates, which are one part of political spending, and one CU did nothing to change.”
Now I’m confused. If CU did nothing to change the amount of money involved in getting candidates elected, there’s no problem, is there? Silly me.
I’m bemused by your effort to show all Americans belong to some group that spends money on influencing government. If you can’t think of anyone who is without influence, I guess we should probably give this thread a rest; we’ve reached a plateau that precludes rational discourse.
One final note, you found that environmental groups gave $4.5 million to candidates and political parties in 2008. How much did their adversaries, the Energy Industry give? $37.5 million. I suspect the larger contributor will have the most influence. Just a guess.
I’m having trouble following you, TO. I didn’t claim CU didn’t change the money involved in getting candidates elected, I said it didn’t change the numbers in the table you linked, which were about direct campaign contributions. In fact I believe there is no spending problem, but I will not call you silly if you believe there is.
Huh? That was your question, wasn’t it? Who represents the interests of the average (non-union, non-retired) American? I have no idea why you’d be bemused that I’d attempt to answer it.
Okay, that’s a different question. I guess I’d say that children have no influence per se, but their interests are extremely well represented nonetheless. You may think of some other interesting examples, and I will not suggest you’re irrational if you do.
An interesting hypothesis. One thing I noticed in those figures is the differing strategies: commercial organizations tend to dominate the lists of top campaign contributors, while advocacy groups dominate the 527 lists who are out lobbying the public directly. Meanwhile groups like the ACLU take a completely different tack.
Who ends up with more influence? It’s hard to say. You’re right that the environmental lobby is outspent by the energy industry. They’re often up against the transportation industry and the construction industry as well. They nevertheless seem to get their way a lot, perhaps because people feel more of their causes are in the right?