The latest public poll showing Donald Trump running right behind Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination suggests some very serious problems on the Republican side.
No offense to Mr. Trump, a master showman, but hosting "Celebrity Apprentice" is a far cry from running the country. It's almost funny to think of all those people who claimed that Barack Obama's years in the Illinois legislature prior to being elected to the United States Senate did not qualify him to be president, whereas Mr. Trump's career as a high profile (and highly leveraged) developer turned TV star does.
Indeed, it is hard to think of anyone less qualified to preside over the nation's deficit than the man who, in his own business, was the biggest deficit spender ever. Talk about too big to fail? It is the motto that has kept Mr. Trump in business, in the face of what should have been (and actually was) one extravagant failure after another.
There's no law against a "showman" being president; Ronald Reagan was in many respects a bigger "star" than Mr. Trump will ever be. But he was also the two-term governor of California and, as far as I can tell, never amassed — personally or professionally — anything approaching the debt Mr. Trump did. Yes, a star can be president, but Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan.
As for the more serious contenders, Mitt Romney's solid hold on the top position may be almost as good news for the Democrats as Mr. Trump's No. 2 status. In Mr. Romney's case, the question isn't qualifications, but ideology and religion. The first does matter; the second shouldn't, but might matter even more.
One of my favorite lines when I was working for the last Massachusetts governor to run for president was the one some of my Southern friends used to say: that by November, folks remembered that only two things came from Massachusetts: liberals and lobsters. And my candidate — and Mr. Romney, for that matter — is definitely not a lobster.
Is Mr. Romney a liberal? By conservative lights, he almost certainly was, as governor of Massachusetts. Don't get me wrong: when my brother and his family were recently trying to get health insurance, I was very glad that he lives in the first state in the country to adopt what is derisively known in certain circles as Obama-care.
In Massachusetts, anybody can buy health insurance, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and everyone is expected to; families earning less than $55,000 per year get a subsidy that allows them to do so. Thanks, Mitt.
Not sure your Republican colleagues would second that. On a whole range of issues, from abortion to discrimination, Gov. Mitt Romney was in the Massachusetts mainstream, where the lobsters swim.
Of course, as Mr. Romney proved in his last campaign, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. You can change your mind on health care and abortion. Mr. McCain did a lot of shifting and won the nomination. But the one thing you can't change is your religion.
Don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against Mormons. I would never "not vote" for someone because of his religion, any more than I would exclude someone because of race or sex. It's popular to say that Barack Obama's election put an end to such obstacles. I'm not so sure.
During the last campaign, I found myself at dinner with the leaders of a conservative Christian university. They could not have been nicer to me; as I recall, they even paid me. But in answer to my question, they said they could never vote for Mr. Romney.
Why, I asked, thinking they might think that he wasn't a lobster either, might take issue with some of the positions he took when the electorate was limited to Massachusetts.
No, they said, without blinking, with a straight face; it was because of his religion.
I almost fell off my chair. You wouldn't vote for him because he's a Mormon, I asked, in utter disbelief. After Kennedy broke the Catholic barrier, religion wasn't supposed to count. But here were these intelligent, well-educated and worldly men invoking what I thought was an argument that had been put to rest half a century ago.
It hasn't. When I pushed a bit — would they feel the same way about a Jew (no) or an African-American (no) — so why a Mormon, they explained to me, with a level of detail that I can hardly duplicate, that Mormons are not really Christian, that they don't accept the trinity and that their beliefs are so fundamentally at odds with Christianity that it was insulting to suggest that they were members of the same faith.
I was shocked. Everyone else at the table was shocked that I was shocked.
There are many potential candidates I respect on the Republican side, who are not Mormons and not failed developers. But so long as Romney and Trump are leading the pack, they are unlikely to lead their party to the White House.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Susan, as an independent that has always voted for the person who appeared to be the most qualified based on prior experience I have to agree with you on this article.
I care less of color, religion, sex in the person as long as they have a commitment to make America a better place for everyone to live under equal justice, equal opportunity and equal rights. That is why I did not vote for Obama in the last election because his experience showed a man who was only worried about self promotion at the expense of others and I have been proven correct in my judgement.
It will be interesting to see who actually comes out on top as the candidate to run against Obama, but, I highly doubt it will be Donald Trump as he too is a self promoter. Maybe we should all work together and elect Forrest Grump.
Whenever a liberal has problems with a Republican candidate they generally fear that candidtate. I agree with Susan in that Trump is not Presidential material . I disagree with her that 'voting present' Obama was a viable candidate; he's now proving me right.
The conservatives have many great candidates that have not been convinced to come forward yet. One will evolve in 2012.
Watch for Susan's put down at that time. She's been blindsided by the marxist czar in office OR she's one of them.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Early
Fri Apr 8, 2011 6:10 AM
Early, did you totally miss the point of this article? Or are you just committed to challenging a liberal, even if she says the sky is blue?
Estrich herself says there are many Reps she admires that COULD get the nomination. She was commenting on the current state of affairs. Like it or not, Romney and Trump are your 1 and 2 top candidates. Like Gene, I also believe that her analysis is spot on.
Susan's comments are way beyond acceptable. She claims religion is not an issue and the proceeds to make it an issue. This article is boardering on biggotry and predjudicial.
1. She repeats the inflamatory comments from fundamentalists that Mormons are not Christian when every intellectual institution categorizes them as such. She does not present the counter claim, and therefore is supporting the fundamentalist claim.
2. She uses the passive comment that religion should not be used to judge a candidate, and then concludes that Mitt Romeny cannot be elected because of his religion. She supports that extremely predjudicial view!
3. This article seemed to be about Donald Trump, but then in mid stream, she switched to Mitt Romney and that his religion will keep him from getting elected. Remember such comments were said about Kennedy before he was elected.
4. She says "I would never "not vote" for someone because of his religion..." Since all the comments about Mitt's policies, and views are positive, do you think she would vote for Mitt over a Democrate? Of course not, as in her own words..."There are many potential candidates ... who are not Mormons! She has established her only complaint about Mitt is his religion.
Comment: #4
Posted by: francis thompson
Fri Apr 8, 2011 9:08 AM
Re: francis thompson
She does NOT agree with the fundamentalists on the moral significance of Romney's Mormonism. She was floored by it. She is pointing out that it is a practical problen for Romney, like it or not.
Romney's views may be acceptable to her, but they're not acceptable to Romney. He has "changed" them. I would expect him to govern in line with his new "beliefs."
Susan,
On a point I am afraid I disagree. I do not believe that due to this last election that another person of color will be elected president in my lifetime. Though I did not vote for him, His color was not an issue. His politics were the only thing I considered. His actions so far have made him one of the most divisional politicians since David Duke. Watching the the incidents of racial issue here near Atlanta, I have little doubt that the race relations that were getting better during my lifetime, have been put on a direct reverse course at a much higher speed. It truly is a shame.
And again the Democrat's front and only runner OBAMA has shown himself to an incompetent, race baiting, affirmative action and media created, psychotically narcissistic, infanticide enabling, Islam pandering, indolent, Marxist, blame America first, golfing while the world is in crisis, vacationing, sociopath bowboy liar and non “natural born” citizen masquerading as a legitimate POTUS. His Administration is simply Lies and Corruption Inc run by uber leftist liberal fascists who with other America hating “progressives”, Sorros and the openly seditious and treasonous former Democratic House and present Democratic Senate, aided by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and an incompetent FED, deliberately engineered and deliberately perpetuated the financial meltdown in order to hold power and to push a rabid socialist and redistributionist agenda. He is the “enemy within” determined to ruin America in true “Cloward and Piven” style by overloading entitlement spending in order to destroy its economy. Democrats idea of a front runner is one who will redistribute wealth to the parasites and will actively engage in reparations and in redistributing justice by nominating the worst kind of activist radical liberals to the Supreme Court. The State Department, under his watch, funds and panders to terrorist Muslim groups and actively aids our enemies. Estrich's idea of a President is one that will bow down to our enemies, degrade national security and concede the war on terror. The perfect Democrat President is one who is starving and will continue to starve the US of home grown energy and will use the global warming hoax to tax, tax and tax again. Unthinking cult disciples and moronic guilt ridden negrophiles, Gucci liberals (wearing him like a fashion accessory), nihilist progressives, clueless soccer moms mindlessly aping Oprah and Whoopi, liberal elites and hand out seeking moochers sucking on the taxpayer tit, emoted rather than reasoned and voted for a false messiah with an appropriately a**hole shaped logo and banal slogans like hope and change. They got what they voted for but are now getting what they asked for, to wit, unconscionable crippling debt, rampant corruption, radical socialism, record unemployment, rampant inflation, and the abject appeasement of those who would kill them and their families. Its about time that Democrats and liberals got their theiving hands out of other's wallets and pockets. The oval office is and never was any place for Obama.
And again the Democrat's front and only runner OBAMA has shown himself to an incompetent, race baiting, affirmative action and media created, psychotically narcissistic, infanticide enabling, Islam pandering, indolent, Marxist, blame America first, golfing while the world is in crisis, vacationing, sociopath bowboy liar and non “natural born” citizen masquerading as a legitimate POTUS. His Administration is simply Lies and Corruption Inc run by uber leftist liberal fascists who with other America hating “progressives”, Sorros and the openly seditious and treasonous former Democratic House and present Democratic Senate, aided by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and an incompetent FED, deliberately engineered and deliberately perpetuated the financial meltdown in order to hold power and to push a rabid socialist and redistributionist agenda. He is the “enemy within” determined to ruin America in true “Cloward and Piven” style by overloading entitlement spending in order to destroy its economy. Democrats idea of a front runner is one who will redistribute wealth to the parasites and will actively engage in reparations and in redistributing justice by nominating the worst kind of activist radical liberals to the Supreme Court. The State Department, under his watch, funds and panders to terrorist Muslim groups and actively aids our enemies. Estrich's idea of a President is one that will bow down to our enemies, degrade national security and concede the war on terror. The perfect Democrat President is one who is starving and will continue to starve the US of home grown energy and will use the global warming hoax to tax, tax and tax again. Unthinking cult disciples and moronic guilt ridden negrophiles, Gucci liberals (wearing him like a fashion accessory), nihilist progressives, clueless soccer moms mindlessly aping Oprah and Whoopi, liberal elites and hand out seeking moochers sucking on the taxpayer tit, emoted rather than reasoned and voted for a false messiah with an appropriately a**hole shaped logo and banal slogans like hope and change. They got what they voted for but are now getting what they asked for, to wit, unconscionable crippling debt, rampant corruption, radical socialism, record unemployment, rampant inflation, and the abject appeasement of those who would kill them and their families. Its about time that Democrats and liberals got their theiving hands out of other's wallets and pockets. The oval office is and never was any place for Obama.
Francis
When I read your post, my first thought was that you spoke English as a second language and simply did not understand what you read.
My second thought is that Engiish is your first language and you still did not understand what you read.
Show me a politician that isn't a self-promoting showman, narcissistic, BS artist on the national stage? You have got to be kidding me. Someone like you has been around as long as you have can't be that naive. You fear Donald Trump because he is electable. Does Obama really any credential to be President? I argue he still doesn't. Bush, was he the kind of guy capable of doing anything but bring us into conflict? Trump isn't in the pocket of labor unions, the military industrial complex, or the Pharma industry. He IS far more qualified than anyone in the mix without question. He is an America first guy and if you haven't noticed, we are embroiled in 3 conflicts and the walls of modern day Rome are tumbling down.
Kelly
Comment: #11
Posted by: Kelly
Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:21 AM
It's time for another Ronald "frontman" Reagan. They CAN finish the job in the next few years with the right breaks. America dead as any real form of democracy and a boot on the throat of 90% of us. Trump is just perfect for the role.
I have one strong impression of Trump.. Many years ago I tried a case in Atlantic City.. We finished Thursday night. Friday was a travel day. I got up early and went to the boardwalk, which was lined with young women offering anything for a ride back to New York, or a few bucks for coffee and breakfast. The detritus of Trump's casinos. The human refuse.. tossed aside after serving to amuse or draw men into the the hotel and casino the night before.. It was an impression that never left me. And colors my thoughts every time I think of The Donald and his millions.
Donald Trump has done nothing except play to the demands of humans, nothing more, nothing less. Humans make wealth beyond imagination for whom-ever makes the widgit, Bill Gates and Ryan Seacrest come to mind. Could either of them become US president? If they wanted. The chance the citizenry of the US will EVER see another US president of color is almost laughable because Bho has made this our reality. It was not done by the common human masses! The Donald will pull more votes from Dems than Repubs. This article is too funny!
Comment: #16
Posted by: bill s
Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:29 AM
Susan, back in 1979 a whole lot of us said "Acting in B movies and shilling for 20-Mule-Team Borax is not the same as running the country."
We got Reagan anyway, and it's been downhill ever since. By now, you must not underestimate the ignorance and wrongheadedness of an America that's had 30 years --a generation and a half--of free-market-is-God, government-is-Satan nonsense dinned into its ears 24-7.
Be pessimistic. It's the only safe attitude today.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Ann T. Berry
Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:18 PM