That was a classic from the great Molly Ivins in 1992, but Donald Trump is doing his best Pat Buchanan-George Wallace mind meld in 2015, and we might have to dust it off and use it again.
Roger Simon:
Saturday, a black man began shouting during a Trump speech in Birmingham, Alabama. People shout during Trump speeches all the time. But there are things you are allowed to shout, like: “We love you, Donald!” And there are certain things you are not allowed to shout, like: “Trump is a racist!”
The Constitution says both are allowed as free speech. But the Constitution does not rule at Trump rallies. Security rules. Just as he promised.
And so the black man was kicked and punched. Trump looked down upon him with lofty disdain. “Get him the hell out of here!” Trump said. “Throw him out.” The man was led away.
Trump will protect us from such people. Just as he will protect America from all its enemies.
The price we pay will be tiny. We will give up a civil liberty here, a freedom there.
Certain people will be registered. Their houses of worship will be spied upon. Names will be taken down. But as long as these people are not Christians, do you really care? Trump is betting you do not.
Karen Tumulty:
Donald Trump’s offensive comments and flat-out falsehoods just keep coming.
Yet the celebrity billionaire continues his unlikely reign as the front-runner of the 2016 GOP presidential field. Which raises the question: Will Trump eventually cross the line — or is he proof that lines no longer exist?
The political world is beginning to conclude that no one will know the answer to that question until Republicans actually start voting in February.
It increasingly appears that the GOP electorate may be the party’s only remaining means of stopping him, as voters begin to imagine what it would be like to have Trump as their standard-bearer, or maybe even in the White House.
To date, however, his flamethrower rhetoric has seemed to make his supporters love him all the more.
Note the use of “flat-out falsehood”, preferred to “he’s a liar”. See Philip Bump for why:
Why the media won’t say Donald Trump is lying
Brian Beutler:
With the denial fading, [Michael] Gerson asks, “Is it possible, and morally permissible, for economic and foreign policy conservatives, and for Republicans motivated by their faith, to share a coalition with the advocates of an increasingly raw and repugnant nativism?”
The answer appears to be “yes.” As much as they want Trump vanquished, the problem for the other Republicans in the field is that they’ve all pledged to back the GOP nominee, no matter who wins. John McCain, a man of the party who nevertheless agreed to place Sarah Palin in line for the presidency, says he will support Trump if faced with a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton.
That’s not the Breitbart crew talking. It’s the RNC, the entire primary field, and one of the party’s most recent presidential nominees. Which is why when writers likeNational Review’s Kevin Williamson lay the blame for Trump’s ascent at the feet of conservative movement jesters Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, and shrug that nothing can be done—“as a matter of culture, Trump is—unhappily—right where a great many conservatives are: angry, sputtering, lashing out. Trump may not last; Trumpism will.”—it rings hollow.
As much as they’ve awakened to the threat that Trumpism poses to their party, Republicans and the conservative intelligentsia lack the self-awareness—or perhaps the temerity—to acknowledge that though they now resent it, they’ve been courting it all along.
Josh Marshall:
Trump hardly comes out of nowhere. There's really little about his ascent that is surprising at all if you've been paying attention to the direction of our politics in the last decade. I don't mean that I would have predicted he'd do this well. I didn't. What I mean is that the nature of his success, the effectiveness of his strategy and message, is entirely predictable. What Trump has done is taken the half-subterranean Republican script of the Obama years, turbocharge it and add a level of media savvy that Trump gained not only from The Apprentice but more from decades navigating and exploiting New York City's rich tabloid news culture. He's just taken the existing script, wrung out the wrinkles and internal contradictions and given it its full voice. There's very, very little that is new or unfamiliar in Trump's campaign beside taking the world of talk radio, conservative media and base Republican hijinx and pushing them to the center of the national political conversation. If you're surprised, it's because you haven't been paying attention.
This is fascinating, from YouGov polling:
In the last Economist/YouGov Poll, more than twice as many named the economy as cited terrorism as the most important issue for them. This week, the percentage citing terrorism has doubled and now matches the share naming the economy. Republicans are especially concerned about terrorism: nearly one in three cite terrorism as their most important issue, while 18% name the economy. 10% of Republicans cite immigration.
National security is an issue that Republicans have used to their advantage in elections. And more in the public believe that a Republican President would be stronger on national security than a Democratic President would. But even more think it depends on the President. That feeling is even more prevalent among independents, half of whom say it depends on the individual.
That may be because it is a Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, who fares best on several questions that touch on national security issues. She is the only one of seven of the leading Democratic and Republican candidates a majority believes is ready to be Commander in Chief. She is the only one about whom as many people express confidence in her ability to handle an international crisis as say they are uneasy. And she, along with Republican Donald Trump, is seen by a majority of the public as “tough enough” to be president.
More YouGov polling via Ezra Klein:
If the field narrowed to just Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, Trump would crush Rubio 57-43
Michael Tomasky:
Cue the scary-minor-key power chord: Ted Cruz is within the margin of error of Donald Trump in Iowa. It’s Trump 25, and Cruz 23, but as we will see further down, other numbers from the poll suggest that Cruz is well positioned to win what might now be a two-man race in the Hawkeye State.
This is just awesome news. One can now begin to see how this may all be shaping up. I tweeted it last Friday. Trump becomes the crazy, not-really-electable, neo-fascist candidate—the choice of a good chunk of the base, but one the establishment can’t live with. Marco Rubio, the guy the establishment is most comfortable with, becomes the establishment candidate—but by definition that will make him unacceptable to a sizable chunk of the base. And so emerges Cruz—the “compromise” candidate! (That the scenario of Cruz as compromise candidate is not at all implausible is one stark measure of what Trump’s presence has done to the GOP.)
Cruz is now running—and smartly, it must be said—what you might call the “Donnie Jr.” strategy. Be like Donald, but not as... Not as out there. Not as openly racist. Not as extreme. Differentiate where principle absolutely demands, as Cruz did on the question of religious ID cards for Muslim Americans, which Cruz ruled out as Trump did not. But basically, be the acceptable Trump.
Daniel Larison:
Tom Cotton’s views on Russia and Syria are predictably bizarre and dangerous:
Rather than being a constructive partner, President Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been engaged in a proxy war against the United States in Syria [bold mine-DL], despite Obama’s protestations to the contrary. Andwhen an enemy wages war against the United States [bold mine-DL], it does not get to choose whether it is at war; its only choice is to win or lose. Right now, the United States is losing the proxy war in Syria—and a wider competition for regional influence—against Russia.
Cotton is a hard-line fanatic, as this passage makes very clear. He presents Russian support for the Syrian government against anti-regime forces as a “war against the United States.” This is not only false, but it erases vitally important distinctions between the ineffectual proxies that the U.S. has foolishly chosen to back and the U.S. itself. Treating attacks on proxies as a war against your country throws away any advantage that might come from using proxies in a conflict. It also presents our meddling in that conflict as if it were essential to our national security when it is anything but that.