Basically, Trump was supposed to speak at the RedState gathering in Atlanta tonight but was disinvitied by RedState editor Erick Erickson for a comment Trump made about Fox host and one of the debate panelists, Megyn Kelly (RedState).
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.
The other day, we sent out the agenda for the RedState Gathering. The file had been saved with the “final” tag and the Washington sent it out. But it still had Governor Deal on the agenda and it did not have Donald Trump on it. Obviously, it wasn’t the final.
I called Mr. Trump’s campaign manager and apologized and told him I felt bad for Mr. Trump because he has gotten so much sh*t from so many people and the party itself wasn’t treating the guy at the front of the pack as legitimate.
I think that is true. And I’ve been very sympathetic to Donald Trump because so many of the people who have led the party astray refuse to even treat him as a legitimate candidate.
But I also think that while Mr. Trump resonates with a lot of people with his bluntness, including me to a degree, there are just real lines of decency a person running for President should not cross.
Instead of Trump, Megyn Kelly is speaking tonight.
Let me say I've never meet Erick Erickson. I think I heard him speak one time at one of the first CPACs I attended. I've been critical of him a couple of times over an incident with Jamie Radtke and comments he made about Sarah Palin once, but aside from these two disagreements I think Erick is a pretty shark guy and right on the money. I admire how he's also attending divinity school and find that part of him interesting (especially due to rededicating my own life to the Lord a couple of years ago, and my belief that the solutions we need aren't all political ones, most of them are rooted in spirituality or the lack thereof). Erick has been blunt in his own manner as well. Do you remember the term "Abortion Barbie" when it came to Wendy Davis? That was Erick's creation and the Lefties went bonkers.
But the difference is, Erick's blunt mocking of Wendy Davis had the element of truth to it, which is why it stuck. Trumps mockery of Megyn Kelly, was just mean-spirited and abusive. Thus, I agree with Erick's decision to disinvite him.
What Trump did was make a martyr out of Megyn Kelly, just like he did John McLame a couple of weeks ago. And that's too bad, because Megyn Kelly deserves some legitimate criticism for some of her questioning, as Mark Levin pointed out last night.
Now I have to agree, why was that the first question asked? Why does Megyn want to appoint herself as the sexism police when she can be accused of hypocrisy after going on Howard Stern's show and discussing subjects like her breasts or her husband's penis. I think there are more important questions to ask rather than something he said about some angry, mean-faced 9/11 troofer.
So why? Could it be that Fox News tried to do the bidding of the GOP establishment in taking out Trump? I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, look at the first question Trump got, which sent him off to explode himself like a suicide bomber last night in his CNN interview. Look also at how Ted Cruz and Rand Paul got very little time in the debate. I start to become suspicious, especially when that network as Karl Rove as one of their consistent commentators, as to their motives in the treatment of Trump, as well as sandbagging Sens. Cruz and Paul.
But that's not to excuse Trump, who is coming off more and more like failed 1990 Texas governor candidate Clayton Williams, who compared rain to rape ("just relax and enjoy it") and bragged about going to the infamous Chicken Ranch as a student at Texas A&M to "get serviced."
For all the problems Trump has created, this mess of his candidacy wouldn't have happened if the GOP leadership and their donors weren't so beholden to the crony-capitalists and open-borders merchants like the US Chamber of Commerce. There is a vacuum of leadership not only in this country but in the Republican Party. Trump, because of his name recognition and money, came out to exploit it by playing on the frustrations of the electorate, who have been burned by a do-nothing GOP Congressional majority who broke their 2014 campaign promises. They side with back benchers like Lindsey Grahamnesty and the putrid ¡Yeb! Bush, who attack Trump and conservatives with more vigor than they do Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats.
What the GOP establishment is trying to do is, instead of undermining Trump's candidacy by pointing to his inconsistent record (for socialized medicine one minute, against it another) and coziness with Democrats, it has gone on a "scorched earth" campaign, which will only embolden him to go third party and tick off potential supporters who will only help a Democrat get elected and thus flush the United States down the toilet. They pulled this at the 2012 GOP Convention with the rules change and I think they pissed off enough people of conservative/libertarian persuasion to either stay home or vote for another candidate, instead of uniting the party and the various factions to win. As we've seen in Virginia in 2013 and Mississippi in 2014, the Bush establishment wing will do all they can to stay in and keep power. That's part of the reason why I consider myself an independent conservative, no longer considering myself a Republican.
So while Trump plays the game of sticking his foot in his mouth again, the question is, will a strong conservative with a proven record and better temperment be allowed to lead the pack, or is the GOP establishment hellbent on keeping power, regardless if it means they lose in 2016?