Previous post
Republican political junkies have been wondering if Donald Trump will show up at the GOP debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday. Well, they don’t have to wonder any longer. Trump will skip the debate, and instead sit down with Tucker Carlson.
However, no one knows just when or how the Carlson sit-down will take place, but I’d put money on this going down simultaneously as the debate. And that’s Trump’s MO: to undermine and upstage the RNC debates.
Basically this is DJT’s big middle finger to the RNC and in particular to Ronna McDaniel, who required all debate participants to sign a pledge saying they would support the eventual GOP candidate. It’s also an F-you to Fox News, which is not only hosting the debate, but which fired Tucker Carlson. And you know that Carlson will be kissing Trump’s tuchus rather than firing hardball questions at him, all the while pretending to be overwhelmed by Trump’s percipience.
So it’s a win-win for both Trump and Carlson.
RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel thought she would have Donald Trump over a barrel with a non-enforceable “pledge” as the ticket to the debate stage. She even went out on a limb and personally invited FL Rep. Byron Donalds, one of Trump’s fanboys, to participate.
The Congressman was invited by RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel
— Brendon Leslie (@BrendonLeslie) August 17, 2023
If McDaniel thought that Donalds’ presence would be enough to tempt Trump, she miscalculated. Instead, Trump threw her under his campaign bus, even after supporting her for RNC chair in January.
What McDaniel should’ve done is what this GOP chair suggested:
Instead of a meaningless loyalty pledge the RNC should require a candidate to participate in all party-sanctioned debates to be eligible for nomination at the convention in Milwaukee.
— Gordon Ackley (@GordonAckleyVI) August 18, 2023
The pledge was indeed stupid, as was McDaniel trying to meddle in the primary process. But Trump should also be appearing on that debate stage to defend his record as president.
I like what Bonchie at Red State wrote:
Frankly, if a candidate for the presidency is not an incumbent, I think they owe it to voters and their party to show up and debate. There is no perfect Republican politician. Anyone running has things they should be made to answer for and explain, including how they might do things differently in the future.
That’s what Trump fears, however. He’s no longer an unknown quantity; he has a record as president. He’d have to answer to other candidates who would point out that he didn’t build that wall, or that he raised the national debt rather than cutting it, as he promised. They’ll also ask him why he didn’t fire Anthony Fauci and reopen businesses during Covid.
Plus, as Karen Townsend at Hot Air put it:
The truth is Trump feels entitled to the nomination and doesn’t expect to have to work for it.
Instead, Trump is running to a friendly haven where he can drone on about the lawsuits he’s facing. And he can yet again beat the dead horse about a stolen election.
Come Wednesday night, Republicans should be watching the RNC debates with open minds. However, Donald Trump’s loyal fans will probably be watching him pontificate in the friendly confines of a Tucker Carlson interview.
It won’t matter which of these events gets the higher ratings — Trump will still claim that he had “yuuuge ratings, bigger numbers than ever seen before!” even if it’s a lie.
Well, of course. DJT earlier posted at Truth Social that ALL AMERICANS have been clamoring for a President of extremely High Intelligence — even though in terms of IQ, candidate Vivek Ramaswamy would far outstrip Trump. But critical assessment of other candidates is a non-starter for much of Trump’s loyal base.
Yet the average American isn’t “clamoring” for Trump. In fact, the broader public does not want Trump. The recent charges against him are hurting him among average Americans.
Charles C. Cooke in National Review posits:
A majority of the public thinks that the charges against Trump are serious, and has added that judgment to a view that was unfavorable to begin with. Per an averaging of the polls, Trump’s approval rating is 17 points underwater. That Joe Biden is also unpopular does not change these facts.
He concludes:
If he is nominated in 2024, he will prove a drag again. How do I know this? I know this because, helpfully, the voting public is letting us all know it before Republicans make yet another terrible mistake. If the party’s plan is simply to ignore this information for the time being, and then, when it all becomes horribly clear and the Democrats have won power once again, to pretend stupidly that Trump has been cheated once again, then it will deserve everything that comes to it.
Yes, I agree that the indictments against Donald Trump are politically-based. Yes, I know that the Democrat party has been out to take Trump down ever since he won the 2016 election. But none of that matters, because independents and the general public are tired of the drama.
And if you think that Donald Trump will be facing off against a weak and feeble Joe Biden, think again. The Democrats will ditch Biden at some point, and usher in Gov. Gavin Newsom. Yeah, he’s wrecked California. But who will present a better PR image — the young, slick, and handsome Newsom or a narcissistic blowhard who’s dealing with criminal charges and brings chaos wherever he goes?
My question for Republicans is this: Do you want to win in 2024? The candidate who can win will be on the debate stage, not blathering on about his grievances with a sycophantic Tucker Carlson.
Featured image: “Tucker Carlson,_Donald Trump” by Thiện Ân is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0. Cropped, enhanced.
It is better for Republicans (except the GOPe) that Trump not be there. The other candidates will actually have to talk about their ideas and plans in the absence of a non-stop attack on Trump and MAGA by every candidate (except Vivek) AND the “unbiased moderator.” If, God forbid, Trump has a health issue, or “hangs himself” in the Fulton County satellite Gulag, we’ll have to pick ONE of them as the Party candidate.
I haven’t seen Tucker do a softball interview of anyone yet; I don’t think he is likely to start now. Of course, he won’t ask the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” questions that the TDS sufferers want to see. (The political equivalent being “Why did you try to overthrow the government?” – when he did not.)
Kevin says: You have a typo in the article … “Ronna McDaniel Got Pwned”
It’s probably better the 280 pound Malignant Tumor is not there because the entire debate would be focused on him. We’ve all learned since he slithered down that escalator that he sucks the oxygen out of the room; it’s always about him and his grievances which have always been self-inflicted.
No, the indictments are not political. Jack Smith would not have charged him if he had returned the top secret documents. Why was only charged for the documents he didn’t return and the documents he returned he was not magically charged?
Did you read the NYTimes this morning and the mounting financial problems of Rudi Giuliani? He put his NY apartment up for sale because he’s drowning from all the legal fees. Do you think the 280 pound Malignant Tumor would cough up the millions he’s raking in from the schmucks that believe his lies? Nope. I can’t wait for Giuliani to turn against the 280 pound Malignant Tumor; it’s only a matter of time.
It’s good to be back!
Kim Hirsch says: Nope, not a typo. From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Pwn/Slang: to dominate and defeat (someone or something).
I agree with you about the documents. What Trump supporters miss is the charge is obstruction, not the actual possession of the documents. Trump — then a private citizen — was told to return the documents, some of which included sensitive military information. He refused to return them for 18 months or so. Had he really wanted them, he could’ve allowed their return and then sued to get them back — and we know that Trump is very familiar with filing all sorts of lawsuits.
Yes, I read about Rudy Giuliani in the NYT a couple of days ago. Sad to see how “America’s Mayor” after 9/11 has fallen.
One more thing: we know you despise Trump. Fine. But could you avoid using your overworked “Malignant Tumor” to refer to him? My brother died not quite three years ago of a brain tumor (glioblastoma) and your pejorative brings to mind his death, which I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Thanks.
You must be a fan of civil forfeiture, too. Government takes what does NOT belong to them, and then you get to spend many thousands of dollars (that you will never recover) to get it back. Nice racket.
The dispute is over whether Trump had legal possession of the documents. Which MIGHT include “sensitive military information” – something that is NOT proven in any way, shape, or form.
I am sorry for your loss of the brother. I had a friend who died from the same thing – and it is one of the WORST ways to go. I shall therefore refrain from using the description for Kevin, although it is far, far more accurate for him.
Kim Hirsch says: The dispute is over whether Trump had legal possession of the documents. Which MIGHT include “sensitive military information” – something that is NOT proven in any way, shape, or form.
It’s proven enough for me. Why? Family member of mine is a senior Navy officer who was stationed at the Pentagon at time of the indictment. Highest level security clearance, worked in national security at the Pentagon. He told me he knew what documents Trump was holding. And no, he should not have had them. Then he understandably changed the subject. I won’t go into any more detail.
I highly doubt you have any better information than that. Thank you for your condolences on the loss of my brother.
Hearsay is NOT proof. That doesn’t even rise to the level of expert witness testimony under oath, with an unsuccessful cross-examination.
I believe in the rule of law, even if I don’t like the person in the dock. There must be production of the evidence, with properly established chain of custody, and proof that they contain sensitive military information (or did, while in the possession of Trump). Or, at a MINIMUM, expert witness testimony under oath that they are such – with BOTH sides able to have their properly qualified expert witnesses examine them.
I would demand the same in ANY other trial.
Kim Hirsch says: Oh, FFS.
1) This is a comments page, not a court of law.
2) You reject the observation of a Navy officer, a USNA graduate, who has served his nation honorably for nearly 20 years over … Donald Trump?
You know that if this were Obama we were discussing here, and not Trump, you’d be screaming for his incarceration.
I’m done here.
Your relative can be an expert witness, if he presents himself. He will have to testify that he has seen THOSE documents, and that they contain militarily sensitive information. Has he seen them? (It is not up to him to testify anything about provenance, of course – that is up to the prosecutor and the FBI.)
IF Obama had done the same thing (nothing has been reliably said about it) – there would be the SAME issues.
That you believe in the “justice” of the Red Queen is just a sad commentary on your character.
Cameron says: And you know that Carlson will be kissing Trump’s tuchus rather than firing hardball questions at him
So far, Tucker has not shown any hesitation about asking tough questions of the GOP candidates. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
Kim Hirsch says: We’ll see. After Carlson’s kiss-up to sex trafficker Andrew Tate, I’m not holding my breath on Trump getting the same sort of tough questions that Bret Baier lobbed at him a couple of months ago.
Cameron says: Fair enough and I’ll man up and admit I was wrong if need be.
Granted, I laughed maniacally when Tucker took a torch to Mike Pence’s aspirations but I’m a bad person.
Taylor says: Also last Autumn, Tucker Carlson deliberately censored Kanye West’s anti Semitic statements in their interview.
kelly_3406 says: It is good political strategy for Trump to skip the debates. Trump would be the target of all other candidates hoping to score points at his expense. Of course Kim and supporters want to see that.
No other candidate polls within 20% of Trump, so in a sense they have not yet earned the opportunity to be on the same stage with him.
Taylor says: Great piece Kim! For the Forever Trumpers it is rule or ruin. The man’s ego is as enormous as his girth and he is obsessed with 2020 and when he gets slaughtered by the doddering fool Joe Biden come November, 2024 he will blame the usual suspects and prepare for 2028. He will keep being a candidate until they close the lid on his coffin.
Can you imagine whom he would pick to be his running mate, as well as who would agree to serve in his administration as Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Defense Secretary?
Kim Hirsch says: Thank you, Taylor. I appreciate your support.
Taylor says: “Yes, I read about Rudy Giuliani in the NYT a couple of days ago. Sad to see how “America’s Mayor” after 9/11 has fallen.” My take on Giuliani (whom I voted for three times) is that he is suffering from a combination of dementia, alcoholism, and the effects of two incredibly bitter and vicious divorces. It is very sad because he was a fabulous mayor but his becoming a lick spittle to Donald J. Trump has tarnished his legacy to the point where I doubt they would even name an abandoned building in the worst NYC neighborhood after him.
BJ says: Kim:
BJ says: Grr!
What I meant to say was
Kim:
Thumbs up emoji!
Kim Hirsch says: Thanks!!
19 Comments