Rick Santorum was right about the rank hypocrisy of GOP candidates who seek Donald Trump’s endorsement but will not appear at the NewsMax debate because Trump is the moderator:
“Many of my opponents jockeyed to be the first to fly up to New York and use Donald Trump for a photo op and no doubt try and secure an endorsement. But when Donald wants to moderate a debate – they refuse to attend. That’s what’s so wrong with politics today – hypocrisy,”
Andrew Breitbart makes an even more important point. The boycotting candidates do not hesitate to go on MSNBC, and I’ll add to that, Letterman and The View, which day in and day out mock conservatives.
While the decision to boycott the NewsMax debate was couched as a brave stand against a “reality show” atmosphere, what it really reflected was fear of being criticized for appearing with Trump by the folks at MSNBC and The View.
The entire mainstream media is a reality show intended to make Republican candidates look bad, and any candidate who has not figured that out yet hasn’t figured anything out.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The entire mainstream media is a reality show intended to make Republican candidates look bad, and any candidate who has not figured that out yet hasn’t figured anything out.
Not just Republicans – any non-establishment candidate gets the same treatment. Just ask Hillary.
I disagree. The “I’ll endorse someone after the debate” circus was the problem. Trump is also still threatening to run as an independent for the Presidency itself, so making at case that this is a legitimate case is weak. You’re sounding a bit like the anti-Rubin lately.
Maybe I’m dense because I just don’t get it. Why should the idea of Trump possibly running as an independent cause a candidate to decline this debate?
Also, why is “I’ll endorse someone after the debate” a problem?
Be gentle with me because I honestly don’t get it.
Could it possibly be a matter of “lefty talking points”?
Kitty: “Why should the idea of Trump possibly running as an independent cause a candidate to decline this debate?”
The thinking is that the candidate would be supporting Trump, whose possible – some might say threatened – 3rd party run would do nothing but hurt the GOP nominee’s chances.
Kitty: “Also, why is ‘I’ll endorse someone after the debate’ a problem?”
Imagine Wolf Blitzer, Scott Pelley, Chris Wallace or some other moderator of earlier debates saying that. A moderator is supposed to be neutral, his or her own positions irrelevant and not part of the debate process. In that it is Trump saying he’ll endorse someone after his debate, it is too reminiscent of Trump’s The Apprentice reality TV show, wherein contestants vie for Trump’s approval. For the declining GOP presidential candidates, this felt demeaning to themselves and to the office, and contributed to a ‘circus’ atmosphere.
When Trump was asked about this, he said that he couldn’t endorse BEFORE … how would that be fair? So he said he’d endorse sometime after. Of course “they” act like that means immediately after, like a “you’re fired” thing.
But it does seem rather obvious he couldn’t be a moderator with an endorsement already on the table.
And what is really wrong with him having a transparent question session as a prelude to an endorsement? Trump can ask some hard questions, and even the goofier ones, like the birth certificate.
The real circus has been over the Cain allegations, and the smug liberals with the gotcha goofy questions. Let’s see what Trump can ask about China or NAFTA or other pointed questions that might embarrass some candidates. Romney can hide behind surrogates calling Newt crazy, but he won’t face Trump?
Trump has the courage to speak the truth about how this administration is damaging business and the economy of the US – and he makes it crystal clear that he loves this country. I like him for that.
Those who are running him down dislike him for that.
Andrew Breitbart, as usual, cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Trump is a good guy in my book.
Anyone refusing to do a Trump debate is pandering to the Left and showing a willingness to use up and dismiss their supporters when they feel it best suits them.
And when I go to choose my President, I am surly going to be looking for someone who is willing to blatantly use their supporters for personal gain and dismiss them when it isn’t beneficial…
Blatantly Backstabbing – its the quality we all want in a leader!
The boycotting candidates do not hesitate to go on MSNBC, and I’ll add to that, Letterman and The View, which day in and day out mock conservatives.
Yes, and? you don’t gain converts by preaching to the choir. And something the current occupant of the White House would do well to remember: you’re President of all 57 states, everyone who voted for you, against you, or not at all.
Trump, on the other hand, is a potential rival. That would be like having Mittens hosting a debate prior to either endorsing someone, or declaring his candidacy.
It is neither strategically or tactically sound.
I’ll make this counter: ditch Trump and let Rush Limbaugh ask the questions.
I’m not against them going on MSNBC, but how do you sit there and take questions from Chris Matthews but not Donald Trump?
Here, let me complete your sentence:
Trump, on the other hand, is a potential rival
…who each have run to for an endorsement!
So they want his endorsement, but when he later asks them to do a debate, they scatter like roaches.
Like I said – backstabbing is quality number one I am looking for in a candidate! It just oozes “I’m really with you, American people I need to vote for me”, doesn’t it?
Can’t get the video to run. Watched the show last night, but agreed so completely I want to watch it again!
funny everyone at hot air is fine with them appearing on mainstream media debates but have some sort of huge issue with them appearing here.
I don’t get it, what would trump do thats so bad here? ask a hard question?
I am NOT a fan of trumps, but this bellyaching is ridiculous.
and the rnc hates the idea too…so its growing on me.
While this could be a “reality show atmosphere”, and it could be a show that is “all about Trump”, who might be a potential candidate, I suspect that all realize that Trump intends conduct a serious discussion. I suspect therefore, that those declining to participate are just afraid of his questioning.
I suspect this goes back to the birth certificate fiasco. That might play well to the right, but its deadly toxic in a general to most indies. Guilt by association yada yada yada.
@janitor – you took the words right out of my mouth!
The only reason to not do this debate is because you are afraid. Trump knows the economy and business – free-market capitalism – inside out, as well as how money nationally and internationally is manipulated. They, for the most part, don’t.
Those not willing to take up the challenge are not willing to go up against someone tough, either out of fear from the MSM (ridicule is the favorite tool of MSM Alinsky-ites), or just plain fear of their ignorance compared to Trump’s knowledge.
Trump is not going to run third party, IMHO, because he KNOWS that would lock Obama into another term. Unless that is what he really wants, then he won’t run third party.
He is not going to make this into “The Apprentice” either. That would kill the show’s ratings and credibility.
Trump is many things, but he is NOT stupid.
Those who turned down this opportunity fear looking ignorant, IMHO.
Which is too bad, especially for Bachmann. I believe that with Santorum and Newt as the only other Conservative (or “mostly Conservative,” as Newt has many saying he is not a “true” Conservative) panelists/debaters, she could show her strengths in arena. She, more than the others, is making a bad choice, IMHO, because she has the most to gain from the forum.
“The boycotting candidates do not hesitate to go on MSNBC, and I’ll add to that, Letterman and The View, which day in and day out mock conservatives.”
Despite spending time searching the intertubes, I cannot find a video or news piece that indicates that Dr. Paul has ever gone on the MSM to mock conservatives; to share his positions and values, yes. Yet, he was pretty quick to decline Mr. Trump’s trap.
So yes, you can make this type of statement about Gingrich and Romney and Huntsman, each of which have made disparaging statements about conservative policy in the MSM. But Dr. Paul is a long-time, bold conservative (more so than neo-cons and warfare statists) with principles that don’t melt like east coast liberal Republicans……
Here’s your “Dr. Paul Principles”
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/06/is-ron-paul-behind-dirty-campaign-against-herman-cain-ron-paul-chief-of-negative-ads/
Included in it, you will see this link to this Newspaper article written by Paul:
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/paulletter.jpg
in which he “resigns” his membership to the Republican Party after the entire “dear Frank” letter does little more then attack Reagan.
(Ironically, he makes his announcement off a question of “If Reagan wouldn’t balance the budget, what conservative leader will” – yet yesterday he sent his son on an attack campaign against just the Conservative who did; Newt Gingrich…)
On one can deny that Trump can effectively ask the “hard” questions and shouldn’t that be what the public wants?
To dodge a debate hosted by him is just stupid, cowardly and did I mention stupid???
If one cannot address any of his questions, his candidacy should be questioned!
I agree with you Prof.
Here’s what I tweeted on it yesterday:
https://twitter.com/#!/votermom/status/144945477413126144
Also, another thought I posted on it at C4P yesterday:
Just the other day a yahoo reporter was accidentally invited to an RNC telephone conference and found out that the strategy is not to attack Obama because it is “too risky.”
Now the GOP candidates have obviously been told not to go to Trump’s debate (with Newt & Santorum too late to back out) – probably for the same reason – Trump is known to attack Obama no holds barred and is probably planning on goading the candidates to do the same.
Imagine that – they go meekly onto debates hosted by Obama-loving CNBC, NBC, Politi-flipping-co, but they won’t go to a Trump debate?
Are they planning to lose this election or what?
I don’t get it why everyone doesn’t get it. I don’t care about individuals’ “principed” stands about attending the “debate” or not attending it. 1. Trump has great access to the media that not one of the candidates has, e.g., rediculous birth certificate issue — just SHOW YOURS! — and finally Obama did, sort of. 2. Trump has not said: “I am not running”. Who would let a competitor be the moderator and evaluator/adjudicator of the debate? Stupid, in my book, to put oneself at the mercy of anyone like that, except for Gingrich, who can out-talk anyone and needs the (free) exposure. Santorum does not really matter at this time.
It seems to me that everyone is acting reasonably in their own interests, including Trump. Wow, what a “subtle” king-maker he was going to be. And Trump is always for Trump. Sometimes the U.S. benefits.