Romney Plays His Trump Card
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump has said he would be “open” to accepting a Cabinet post if Mitt Romney becomes president. Trump would prefer “a position where I negotiate against some of these countries, because they are really taking our lunch.” So is he on the short list, perhaps, for secretary of state?
Don’t laugh. OK, go ahead and laugh. Point out that Trump is barely qualified to be secretary of salami.
But then ask Romney why he chooses to embrace and encourage a puffed-up buffoon whose antic self-promotion, once mildly amusing, has become rabid and toxic. Ask Romney if giving Trump a platform doesn’t cheapen what should be a serious debate about the future of the country. Ask Romney why he decided to join a huckster’s silly sideshow.
In a week when Romney clinched the Republican nomination, his appearance at a Las Vegas fundraiser with Trump — and Trump’s doubled-down insistence that the thoroughly discredited, insane “birther” theories about President Obama have merit — dominated the political news.
When pressed by reporters on Monday why he continues to associate with Trump, Romney gave an answer that was unintentionally revealing. “You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he said. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
This raises two issues, the lesser of which is the suggestion that Romney will accept endorsements and donations from anyone who chooses to give them. One hopes that when he was running Bain Capital, he took his obligation to perform due diligence more seriously.
The greater issue is this: Romney thinks Trump actually has the Romney campaign’s best interests in mind? Really? If so, one has to wonder if Romney is too gullible to be president.
The idea that Trump cares about anything bigger than Trump is absurd. In his mind, from all evidence, there is nothing bigger than Trump.
If he really wanted Romney to win, he wouldn’t have done an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that deserves a prominent place in the annals of lunacy. Trump begins by slamming a taped introduction as “totally inappropriate” and “actually very dishonest” because it focused on the birther nonsense. He goes on to tell Blitzer that Obama “uses reverse psychology” and pretends nonchalance about discussions of his origins when actually “it’s not an issue that he likes talking about.”
I should interject that back here on Planet Earth, the Obama campaign did all it could this week to focus attention on Trump and birtherism. The mood of top advisers seemed to approach unrestrained glee.
Poor Blitzer notes that Hawaii has formally certified Obama’s birth certificate. Trump contends that “many people” do not believe the document is authentic.
“Like who?” Blitzer asks.
“There are many people,” says Trump.
“Give me a name of somebody,” demands Blitzer.
“There are many people,” says Trump. “I don’t give names.”
Indeed, Trump refuses to violate the Super-Secret Birther Code of Silence by naming a single person who doubts the facts of Obama’s birth. He does pin himself down, however, when Blitzer asks whether “the conspiracy” is supposed to have begun in 1961, when announcements of Obama’s birth were published in two Honolulu newspapers.
“That’s right,” Trump says. “And many people put those announcements in because they wanted to get the benefit of being so-called born in this country. Many people did it. It was something that was done by many people, even if they weren’t born in the country. You know it, and so do I, and so do a lot of your viewers.”
This is transparently crazy — and also stupid. It is a bald-faced lie that “many people” — or any people, far as I can tell — ever published fake birth announcements in hopes of establishing citizenship. Moreover, Obama has to be a U.S. citizen, even if he were born on the moon, because of his mother’s citizenship. Trump needs to hire some writers to come up with better material.
As for Romney, he needs to decide whether Trump is the sort of person on whom he wants to rely for support and advice — if he’s one of the “good people” Romney would be proud to have at his side if he becomes president.
Oh, sorry. Looks as if that choice has already been made.
Eugene Robinson’s email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
Share This
Is there a Sec. Of B.S.? Oh wait, they all do it as the President’s chorus.
It’s beyond me why anyone thinks the GOP is an actual responsible party these days.
The last thing we need is Trump as Sec. of State and Mitt getting his foreign policy advise from the pro-war Bush neoconservative crowd. Though honestly I don’t think Romney will give the Sec. of State post to Trump, but still Romney believes that Trump’s support helps him a lot and Romney will reward his supporters. So I wouldn’t put it past Romney to give Trump the Sec. of State position. Most people think that power comes from yelling and being a blowhard, like Trump. And conservatives think that America needs to be super-aggressive…. and of course conservatives (remember Bush’s appointments?) don’t really believe that one needs to be qualified to have these sorts of positions. Given that, Trump does fit the bill to be the conservative’s pick as Sec. of State.
I can’t help but notice how the bar is set differently for Obama and Romney. If Obama or anyone this close to him said even half the crazy and out of touch with reality stuff that comes out of the Romney camp he’d be laughed out of office. It sounds like Trump is entering the final stages of losing his general credibility, but I thought that was happening last year in the early part of the primaries, yet he still seems to be able to get on the main stage with the big players whenever he wants to. Just how whacky do you have to get to be discredited as a total ignorant lunatic among conservatives?
The entire premise of your article is that Romney should somehow be faulted because he allowed Trump to do some fundraising, and Trump clings to the birther theory.
The simplest response is two words “Bill Maher”. President Obama accepted one million dollars from Bill Maher and allows him to speak as though a surrogate for the President, despite the vile and hateful rhetoric that Bill Maher spews. Unless you posted a column condemning the President for accepting support from Bill Maher, your position is hypocritical at best.
The fact is that politicians accept support from whomever is willing to give it.
Stock, it’s a joke (Trump, Sec.), get it, don’t get worked up.
Bill Maher is an ass, but doesn’t spend his time going out to purposefully misinform the general public. There is a pretty big difference. I understand people have obnoxious opinions. Ann Coulter has some of the worst analysis I’ve ever seen, and she says some outrageous stuff, but she doesn’t get crappy information and push it as the truth. I think her conclusions are all wrong, but I wouldn’t put her anywhere near the likes of Rush or Trump.
Mere partisan attempts to associate Romney with positions he hasn’t take. Do Democrats really think that Republicans can comb through everyone who Obama has taken money from, gone to fundraising with, received at the whitehouse, etc. etc. they can’t find some extreme people? For the record I do _not_ connect Obama with any statements Sharpton may have made about Jews and Judiasm. I will either support, or not, Obama on his own merits.
For the record I don’t count Trump as a major player for Romney in particular. He’s not going to get appointed to any cabinet posts and I’d be shocked if he did more for Romney than donate money and show up occasionally to support him. Trump is however constantly in the news and well connected within the GOP despite his bizarre antics. He really is his own sideshow to the election of ’12.
DPS says:
” Do Democrats really think that Republicans can comb through everyone who Obama has taken money from, gone to fundraising with, received at the whitehouse, etc. etc. they can’t find some extreme people?”
Of course Republicans can and have — actually Fox and Co. made a fine art of it.
“For the record I do _not_ connect Obama with any statements Sharpton may have made about Jews and Judiasm. I will either support, or not, Obama on his own merits.”
Good for you, DPS
Romney is racking up a pretty good record of cowardice when it comes to confronting wrongheaded people and statements. This is just more of the same. Of course those deep in the fold will ignore it all and imagine whatever they like when they enter the voting booth.
And, IMO, this column validates their doing that.
Well, I don’t buy that any of this says much about a candidate, whether it is Romney or Obamam.
Z,”Romney is racking up a pretty good record of [b]cowardice[/b] when it comes to confronting wrongheaded people and statements.” Realy?
You wouldn’t him to infringe on the free speech of a heckler, would you, nah it’s so First Amendment.