Hours after the debate, it was clear Fox was boasting about having a record number of viewers tune in to the debate. I imagine on Thursday night there were lots of things people could have be doing. But we knew the numbers were going to be big even before it, judging by the political interest so far. Why? We knew that too.
Fox tries to pat itself on the back for the debate coverage, which is pretty self-serving. I mean the nation is a train wreck: Obama just nuked us with an Iran deal, sanctuary cities are failing the citizens in them, riots and racism abound, inner city crime is spiking, terrorism even at home is on the rise, stagnant economic growth, scandal palooza, distrust in government and leadership, with a record number of candidates … and Fox is worried about the number of viewers it gets watching the first debate? Give it a break. Who is doing reality TV here, Fox or Trump? I think its the former.
This was not supposed to be a long post. I wanted it short. I don’t get what I want. But how can you do that with these continuing circumstances in this primary?
Everyone knows that Trump has been a boon for the campaign. We cannot measure what interest would be without him? You can’t do it. In fact, Trump brought in lots of viewers because of statements they cannot stifle, against their desires, and what has been happening in the last couple months.Like him or not he exploded interest, not a bad thing considering we always hear how few people are actively engaged in the process. So it is revealing that the very guy who brought in record numbers of viewers would also be the subject of attacks, even from media who have been gunning for him as a non-serious candidate from the beginning. What you’d expect. Trump has been their Golden Calf.
But then it goes to a different level. The opening question was about pledging allegiance to the GOP Party — an evolution in progress, controlled by some powerful interests. It was talked about already and they knew the answer. This was about getting him in front of a record millions of people to decline a pledge not to run on another platform. About making that the opening question, to force him to make a stand everyone already knew. They could have even worked it in somewhere else. It was the lead.
It was reminiscent of Newt in South Carolina where the opening is the gotcha personal question. By design we had an over-engineered debate from the onset. Then hardly allow him to explain why not. Trump was on the stand testifying. Now I am not a great fan or Trump supporter, you don’t have to be. But one cannot deny what he already brought to the table and contributed, at his own expense. So the gotcha was front and center. Who knows what Fox expected to accomplish?
What’s in a pledge?
I see the reason he should not swear to it based on principle. Why take it off the table? And why do that without getting something in return? Sounds like the opening act of Obama’s negotiation with Iran. You don’t give away your chips. But the word leverage should not be used. It’s negotiation 101. Others have reneged on the pledge. Others do not want to take pledges on many things, as a rule. I thought the estabos, as I call them, were against pledges? Think Grover Norquist. Politicians and RNC certainly oppose pledges when we demand their loyalty. Secondly, at this stage with the RNC, and what they have done over the past 5 years, what good is their word? So pledge to stand behind an organization; and pledge unwavering loyalty to a Party apparatus we can’t trust. Logical?
Now Fox is trying to kick the Golden Calf that brought the attention to this process and debate, as hard as it can. At the same time they pat themselves for the interest in the process as if it were their doing. And they were quick after the debate to congratulate themselves. Twenty four hours later and they are still bragging about it. Frank Luntz wasted no time afterward, showing his focus group was pissed at the pledge decline. But if explained in Trump’s terms, can they understand why pledging unwavering loyalty is such a problem?
In fact, it is part of the reason we are here. We have a disconnected Party leadership problem. Even Ted Cruz said multiple times that we conservative Republicans keep winning elections, and then leadership of the GOP fails us. It’s true. We elected the majority in Congress, then we elected the majority in the Senate. Did you see John Boehner or Mitch McConnell have a problem with taking that leadership role? Nope. They could have refused we would pick another. Now they run the RNC like its their private liberal lite committee, even holding it and the process hostage against the will of the people. Do we get mad? Sure. Do they care when we do? Nah.
So in that backdrop, along comes Trump who criticizes all the pols for being self-serving, career pols. Accurate? Relevant? Sure is. Now the first question on the docket in the first debate was will you swear unwavering loyalty to the Party — not to oppose it? Trump declines. The real point here is how do we know we can trust the RNC? We’ve been screwed and sold down the river so many times.
It is not like Democrats, who have ultra-left wing progressives determine the agenda. Obamacare, Iran, appointments, IRS, EPA, Keyestone Pipeline, drilling, energy, spending, executive orders, sanctuary cities, illegals, amnesty. It’s not the first time we’ve heard scuttle about a 3rd Party. Its been an active part of the Tea Party conversation. Does the Tea Party want to work with the GOP? Sure. Does the RNC want to work with the Tea Party candidates? Not so much. See how this works? We don’t need a GPS to see there are problems with this paradigm of theirs. So there is a reason that topic exists.
Now to just wipe that all off the table as if it does not exist? Can you? It should be the fear in the GOP that they are going the way of the Whigs. It should be a growing concern in the RNC that they are losing touch with the base or people. These Tea Party and disgust symptoms are only reminders that it needs to pay attention and show some loyalty to conservatives who make them and can break them. Ones they need to turn out to support their candidate. But now after the people develop a consensus and get behind someone with momentum, who actually speaks up; then all of a sudden it’s, wham, “we really need a pledge here.” Yep, they need a pledge and we need a credible Party with chutzpah.
RightRing | Bullright