Why Donald Trump Matters and Helps the Process

Editorial by Political Arena editor Chuck Norton

The Sean Hannity Interview with Donald Trump and it is worth viewing as they have a good policy discussion, especially in the second half of the interview:

One of my worthy academic friends sent me the following note:

Chuck, Trump is a complete buffoon.And his comments in this interview are garbage even compared to his usual bleats…why promote this? Cheers!

I can understand why someone might think this way. Trump is a showman, he knows all about television timing and hype and to some people the hype can certainly be viewed as buffoonery.

But as someone who is trained in communications, which includes journalism, classic rhetoric, manipulation, politics and propaganda, I have learned to separate hype and emotionalism from the substance of any message and I encourage all readers of Political Arena to learn to do the same.

So I respond:

Professor, the thing is, even though he is a showman who is over the top (I mean look at the HAIR), he is an over the top showman who has a policy point of view that connects with voters.

I, as a student of propaganda, tend to strip away the hype and examine the message, and right now Trump is the only one saying what he is saying, and that is why it is news.

Don’t prejudge, just listen. Laura Ingraham with Donald Trump on the derisive comments of pundits like  Charles Krauthammer.

Learned Professor:

OK. I listened. Where’s the beef? I hear15 minutes of him dumping on Rove and Krauthammer. Rove is someone I would pay some attention to on strategies and tactics for winning elections, not political philosophy. Krauthammer usually has interesting things to say on politics and culture, but sometimes gets things wrong. I hear repeated boasting that he is a business success, saying that he understands economics…what is the audio supposed to convince me of?

Editor (me):

One of the points being that the pundit class thinks they can pick our nominee.

Think of it this way, yo do real research in physics as well as teach. If you put out crappy research being whoppingly wrong, it would affect you. You have a stake in what you do.

But what if you just taught high school physics and nothing else? You could be glaringly wrong and wrong often and there would be no consequences (just as we see with public school teachers and the textbooks they use).

These pundits who talk and talk (Krauthammer opposed Reagan) are wrong about plenty of things (George Will even once called the Second Amendment an embarrassment) and yet where are the consequences? Yet they act as though they are entitled to dictate to us who our nominee is and anyone else who “butts in” can “butt out” as far as they are concerned.

For someone like Donald Trump, when he is wrong it affects him very directly, the credibility he has for his TV show, not to mention his credibility as a deal maker and a business man.

When Donald Trump makes a mistake it tarnishes his entire brand, his children who are a part of that brand, each move he makes has the potential to cost many millions of dollars of his personal wealth and those who invest in him, and the many thousands of jobs that he provides.

All of this is on the line with every move Trump makes. When Karl Rove or Charles Krauthammer say something stupid does it endanger the entire Fox brand? Of course not, in fact people will likely forget it two weeks later.

So who is more qualified to offer on opinion? Who has more at stake in America and in Americans? The answer is obvious, and that is why if anyone has MORE of a place to speak out as a pundit as the chattering class, it is Donald Trump, and ever other business owner who risked everything to have a chance at success. And that is the point which Laura understands and demonstrates to some degree on her show.

Where is the plan to fix America from Charles Krauthammer? Trump just wrote a book on how to do it. In fact, Charles Krauthammer’s entire life’s work is not as influential or as substantive as Donald Trump’s iconic book “The Art of the Deal”.

This brings me back to my previous point about separating the hype and emotion from the raw substance. We are so used to hype without substance from the elite media, that we start to believe that when we see hype that it automatically means there is no substance.


Did you see Mika Brzezinski tell Boon Pickens that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes? Boon is 83, he goes to work every day and he has paid $665 million in taxes since he turned age 70, and Mika went after him for not paying enough. Yet look at who holds up Mika as someone who actually matters.

Learned Professor:

Regardless of what you think about Rove or Krauthammer, the question is: “Is Trump a useful person for the Republican candidates to elevate by attending his debate?” I say ‘no’ (Not R. or K., *I* say this.). I say that Trump is not a serious man. He is a successful real-estate mogul. He is also a vain braggart with too many stupid and non-conservative ideas for me to want him to be a ‘blessed’ voice for American conservatism. I don’t think the roof will fall in if this happens, but I think that the candidates will muddy themselves by association.



There is much truth to what you just said, but in fairness, Trump never claimed to be a a “‘blessed’ voice for American conservatism” like Rush Limbaugh or as implied by Krauthammer. Trump speaks as a businessman who sees a government that is stupid with money, corrupt in it’s regulations, killing jobs, and is foolish in managing our resources. Almost every business owner in the country can identify with Donald Trump at some level. Besides, how many reporters moderating a primary debate are anything but a mouthpiece for the extremist wing of the Democratic Party?

Trump will ask questions no one in the media would think to ask, he will address issues they will not bring up, and it will give us an opportunity to see how the candidates react in a very different environment.

[Editor’s Note – It is not that I do not respect Krauthammer, Will, or Rove, it is the entire idea of “butt out” that I really take exception to.]

Newt Gingrich Engaging Uncommitted Conservatives in Tough Interviews

Byron York at  the Washington Examiner

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich faced more than two hours of sometimes contentious questioning before a group of conservatives at a northern Virginia hotel Wednesday morning.

Gingrich requested the meeting, organized by longtime conservative leader Richard Viguerie, after learning that Viguerie had put together similar meetings for rival candidates Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann.  About 60 people were in the Gingrich meeting, which was held at the Key Bridge Marriott hotel just outside Washington.

“It was a little tense in there a couple of times,” says one participant, noting that some of those gathered challenged Gingrich repeatedly on his environmental policy and support for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement.  Gingrich did not back down from past positions and ended some exchanges by saying that he and the conservatives would just have to agree to disagree.

Among those attending were Gary Bauer, Brent Bozell III, Angelo Codevilla, Ken Cucinelli, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Helen Krieble, Leonard Leo, Curt Levey, Ginni Thomas, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., and several others.

Many candidates would not have the conviction to face a serious and substantive crowd like this for over two hours. No matter what one may think of Newt, this act commands respect. Newt also subjected himself to a lengthy interview with Glenn Beck and several in the elite media voiced their “surprise” at what a substantive and meaningful interview it was. Of course those of us who are familiar with Glenn’s work know that his research team is as good if not better than any elite media news organization.

Mini UPDATE – Here is Newt’s lengthy and very stimulating interview with Larry Kudlow – LINK.

Mini UPDATE II – Newt gets a standing ovation at conservative HQ event – LINK.

More from the Washington Examiner:

One attendee, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed that the participants were undecided but suggested that few would end up with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.  All of those present knew Gingrich and had ups and downs with him over the years, but none was as familiar with Romney.  “We’ve been working with Newt for 30 years,” the participant said.  “For whatever reason, Romney hasn’t ever been there.

While Mitt Romney has been avoiding conservatives while claiming to be the conservatives standard bearer, Gingrich has decided not to make that mistake and has let conservatives have at him at length to make his case. Romney refuses to debate Newt one on one as Herman Cain did. Romney seems to be employing a strategy of running out the clock and taking no risks. This also has made him an absentee in many circles.

Newt has been displaying a moral clarity since 2009 most have not witnessed in him before. He has been plugging away against Obama’s bad policies since and has been defending conservatives in the elite media since Obama took office. Newt defended Sarah Palin as the press trashed her; when we now know that on issue after issue after issue from death Panels, to ObamaCare costs, to the cronyism, to energy policy, to Egypt & Libya, to inflation and the increasing food problem, Palin has been almost prophetic in her correctness. Where was Mitt Romney in 2009 and 2010 when you and I were out protesting in the cold, raising awareness, networking to educate people, and raising funds for local candidates?

Glenn Beck ‘s Indepth and Tough Interview with Newt Gingrich

Anyone who says that Glenn Beck is not a serious political force is made into a liar by this interview. This is the toughest and most substantive interview I have ever seen Newt faced with and it is worth examining.

There is no one in the elite media capable of offering an interview this substantive and informative.