LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Trump simply using voters to gain nomination

M. Bryan Rice had an interesting, but perhaps confusing, response [“Trump addresses the issues,” Letters to the Editor, March 21] to my argument about Mr. Trump’s bid to become our president [“Presidential race signals rough times are ahead,” Letters to the Editor, March 13], and I would like to use my right of reply.

Perhaps some people can make the case for the Donald, but that is not the point of Mr. Rice’s letter. It is, rather, to express his righteous anger at President Obama and the politicians who led to our national decline, rather than a ringing endorsement for Donald Trump.

In Mr. Rice’s bombastic narrative, no attempt is made to answer criticism of the Donald, and [he] is unwilling to even concede that others are also upset at Washington. His argument is a closed circle, which is unable and unwilling to stand scrutiny or respond to rational argument, and is intent on the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate, followed perhaps by the subsequent election of Hillary Clinton as president.

Overall, Mr. Rice lets stand my statements with examples that Donald Trump is “a man of low character — crude and petty.” Mr. Rice did not answer my arguments — his mind is apparently made up — and he dismisses facts that he ignores as “donkey talk.” Mr. Rice “does not know what kind of president Mr. Trump would make,” and admits the Donald’s rhetoric is “irritating.” Again, Mr. Rice is more concerned with venting his own anger than identifying his choice as the best candidate to lead our country.

If Mr. Rice did not actually answer my letter about some of Mr. Trump’s many failings, what is it about my letter is he responding to? Mr. Brice identified thre particular arguments: 1) the motivation of Trump voters, 2) President Obama’s behavior and 3) my supposed disrespect for Trump voters. In each case he ignores what I actually said, and answers an argument that I did not make, and would never make.

1) Mr. Rice argues that he is, and probably others are, upset with politics and politicians as usual. He cites many problems such as “laws shoved down our throats,” as well as “issues of fairness and representation.” He wants people to acknowledge his angry feelings about these issues.

But wait. I did that in my first (and last) sentences. For example, I wrote “OK, I get it. You are upset by the mess in Washington, and you don’t like politicians, or the politics-as-usual crowd.” If Mr. Rice had actually read my letter, he would know that this was not an area I ignored.

2) Mr. Rice makes explicit links between our current problems and the president. He writes, “… the general dissatisfaction of the majority of legitimate voters over the tripe that comes from the hallowed halls of Washington, especially the misguided neophyte that inhabits our White house.”

But wait. I also felt that much of our malaise and legitimate anger was due to our leadership. In my letter, I say that President Obama leaves a “destructive legacy,” and that the present occupant of the White House is “contemptuous of the restraint of the U.S. Constitution.” If Mr. Rice had read my letter, he would know that I also particularly singled out President Obama for irresponsibly contributing to our present problems.

3) Now for the issue of disrespect. In your response, you say “I am crazy sir, but I am not stupid.”

But wait. Please reread my letter. I never called Trump supporters “stupid” or “crazy.” If anyone is calling you stupid, it is the Donald, or at least, he feels you are “suckers.” Let me explain.

Mr. Trump gave a supposedly off-the-record interview with The New York Times, attended by that paper’s reporter Gail Collins. When questioned about his position changes, Mr. Trump said, “I am capable of changing into anyone I want to.” Ms. Collins wrote afterwards, “The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn’t believe in positions … .”

Perhaps an off-the-record-interview should be just that, but it is now out there, and Mr. Trump does not deny what Ms. Collins has reported he said, or her conclusions. We could, of course, double-check the accuracy of whether Trump actually, and almost proudly, declared that he is being purposely disingenuous, but we cannot find that out because the Donald refuses to allow the paper permission to release the transcript of his interview.

The New York Times is a leading voice of the in-crowd political elite. My conclusion is that a man who tells that paper that he says things to get votes, but that is not what he would actually do, is cynically using voters like yourself to win the nomination. If you accept being so used without objection, you are, at best, a “sucker.”

Larry Koch

Facebook Comment