I know that this isn’t news any longer:
I have tried to give a great deal of latitude to Donald Trump in his run for the Presidency.He is not a professional politician and is known for being a blunt talker. He connects with so much of the anger in the Republican base and is not afraid to be outspoken on a lot of issues. But there are even lines blunt talkers and unprofessional politicians should not cross.
Decency is one of those lines.
As much as I do personally like Donald Trump, his comment about Megyn Kelly on CNN is a bridge too far for me.
In a CNN interview, Mr. Trump said of Megyn Kelly, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”
It was not the “blood coming out of her eyes” part that was the problem.
...but I’ll rave about it all the same.
Were I in charge of the invitations list to a “debate,” Trump’s behavior, both during and after the occasion, would have moved me to disqualify him as well. But a number of persons have argued against Erick Erickson’s decision. Some have castigated him for being “PC.” Others have said that as Trump commands the lead in the polls, he should be included despite his boorishness. Still others merely comment about how excluding a “significant” figure is “unprofessional.”
But no one’s opinion of Trump, his rhetoric, or his “significance” is at the root of the issue. RedState has the same freedom of association as you and I. It’s up to RedState’s organizers, among whom Erickson is paramount, to set the criteria – the behavioral criteria – under which a declared candidate will be welcomed onto the stage. They are, after all, paying for the stage.
Consider for a moment this matter of behavioral standards. Let’s imagine that a candidate for the GOP nomination were in total command of the polls: 80% to 90% dominance. Should that guarantee him access to any “debate” or unreasonable facsimile thereof, no matter what he might say or how he might act? Is there nothing imaginable he might say or do –before the public’s eyes and ears, at least – that would serve to disqualify him from a “debate” you would host?
My criterion for whether to consider a candidate for any office is simple: If I wouldn’t be willing to have him at my dinner table, I won’t consider him. I might not vote for his opponent, but I certainly won’t vote for him – and if I would never vote for him, why should I bother to invite him to the Fortress of Crankitude’s Debate Among Presidential Contenders?
We already have a vicious-mouthed buffoon in the White House. Who among us wants another?
0 Yorumlar