Pitiful, Dangerous, Wrong: Trump Fights for Two Nominees as Personally Critical

Reliable reporting now indicates that Donald Trump himself actually feels some loyalty that extends outward – a rather stunning proposition given previous assumptions, and this loyalty encompasses a personal willingness to go to war to get two of his nominees through over and above all others -Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. To be sure, that loyalty also reflects the astonishingly stupid belief that the above two represent a new political alignment in Trump’s favor. Still, I am absolutely stunned that Trump is willing to go to war for any of his nominees over the others and these two in particular.

I have tried to remain ruthlessly objective in my analysis of the campaign and new term and that commitment has led to far more (Regrettably) accurate predictions but this came out of the blue. I had no idea that Trump A) Felt anything more about one nominee than any other, B) Not sure that he even should feel more about any one nominee C) That he would feel strongly about these two, and D) That he would do so for reasons that are just crazed and laughable long term. I am furious to have been so wrong about a central premise, and almost entertainingly-stunned by the ridiculous and self-serving misread by Trump’s team. That part has me laughing. And it could hurt their fortunes in the future.

According to the fantastic folks at The Bulwark, Donald Trump knows that Hegseth is likely done, that Kash Patel will be a very hard sell, but he is willing to battle hard for Gabbard and Kennedy:

“Frankly, Pete [Hegseth] might not make it,” said one Trump adviser. “We’ll see. I’m not sure if the boss is willing to fight for that because there are people in our own camp who aren’t sure it’s worth it. But Kash [Patel] should get confirmed. And if they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it’s war.”

Try to touch? Just yesterday I noted that 100 ex-intelligence officers asked for a classified closed-door hearing in Gabbard’s nomination process. I put forth the proposition that such a demand almost necessarily means that the U.S. has damning intelligence against Gabbard and a compromised personal position – is there really any other takeway? There better be a fight put up against her and if Trump wants her that badly, he better be prepared to set out why it is so important and provide their own proof that such fears about Gabbard are misplaced (Which I personally doubt can be done but am trying to remain objective).

As for Robert Kennedy Jr., he is obviously extremely dangerous as disruptive to medical research and life-saving work on new medications, new approaches to immuno-therapy, new vaccines, as well as the need to keep food costs within the reach of the poor – like me, even if the U.S. uses far too many dangerous fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, none of the more natural techniques are beneficial to people who cannot afford the end product. Additionally, RFK is a bit different in the consent process because he was so closely related to the campaign that the Senate must also go up against the fact that the voters knew that Trump would appoint Kennedy as health czar in some capacity and voted Trump. The dynamic is sort of a ratification of Kennedy. That doesn’t mean the Senate should accept that ratification – indeed, it should utterly reject it, yet all of it creates a different dynamic.The more applicable takeaway  is Trump’s assessment is just so wrong it is very hard to explain:

Added a second adviser: “If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that’s when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That’s what MAGA is about.”

Confirming Gabbard and Kennedy is seen as an opportunity for the president-elect to cement his legacy of broadening the Republican coalition to include disaffected Democrats and independents.

This is stupid, reckless, and to the extent it matters, wrong. Stunning. Objectively consider why Trump may have exceeded expectations in the election. I presumed he had virtually no chance of a popular vote victory. But did he do it by broadening his base”? Of course not. It happened for two obvious reasons, neither of which owe anything back to him.

First, people were acutely aware of the fact that prices rose under Biden – though less so than anywhere else in the world, as a built-in response to COVID. Those prices were attributed to the Biden administration and, fairly or unfairly, voters pulled the lever for Trump, believing his claims to a great economy while ignoring what will whack them in the ass, the pricing inflationary impact of tariffs, the threat to Social Security, the threat to healthcare – ignored them all and voted him in over fears of inflation. The impact of inflation wipes out any belief about broadening the base – but it’s not the only one.

Second, and this is easier and even more obvious, voters were either still too misogynistic to believe a woman was tough enough to be president, and-or voters saw Harris’s campaign itself as weak, perhaps also, in part, going back to misogyny. I suspect there is a massive amount of unaddressed anti-woman bro-attitude that went into the vote – a maddeningly massive amount – and I think nearly any campaign that skips the primaries is one that will be challenged to rise to the general fight because so many kinks were left to play out late rather than get fixed early. Still, misogyny played the biggest role of all. His base wasn’t broadened, laughable to believe so.

In my completely objective view, prices and misogyny put Trump over the top. Look at the two, they are a reaction to the left, not support for Trump. I would challenge any Trump-supporter to look someone in the eye and say that Trump won by broadening his base over and above the two non-political realities set out above. I seriously doubt that they could, very seriously, and to the extent they try, they remain wrong until someone proves otherwise.

Do you think anyone even considered Tulsi Gabbard being a Democrat as an element of their vote? Is she actually even a Democrat? Would Gabbard fight for women’s reproductive rights? Access to universal healthcare? Union and low-middle class economic concerns? Unions? These are entry-level requirements for being a Democrat and it is hard to see Gabbard as willing to fight for any of those principles over loyalty to Trump and Putin. I don’t see it at all. I see her as willing to toss aside every progressive policy that gets in the way of personal loyalty. Moreover, does anyone anywhere care about Gabbard such that she factored into a vote or represents a broader base? Come on.

Robert Kennedy is slightly different in that – again, he was elected right alongside Trump and it’s conceivable that some independent voters liked RFK Jr.’s stance against Big Ag and seemingly reasonable stance against Big Pharma (Which requires its own 1000 word column to explain why that is even misplaced). But again I ask, does anyone think that Robert Kennedy brought along people to actually widen Trump’s base? Or do you think that he picked off voters that were more anti-vax or purely single issue voters that held their nose? I can sort of see why Trump would believe that Kennedy is a closer tie due to the campaign, but I don’t see this as broadening a fundamental bas. Only affirming single issue voters. It is equally true that I doubt Kennedy would set aside any of his conspiracy-based agenda to fight for regular issues such as universal healthcare or reproductive healthcare. The fact that Kennedy believes that fats in food decrease public health over and above access to healthcare at all – enough to prioritize it is breathlessly self-serving. Rich people problems.

I don’t see a broader base, don’t see it coming from these two, doubt that Trump even feels much personal loyalty, and laugh that he’d exert more effort for these two. Underlying misogyny impacted the race far more than anything related to policy or people. It is laughably insane to believe it weighs enough to really fight for these two. (I also remain very skeptical of the assertion that Trump feels any sort of loyalty going outward, even if it is couched in the best interests of his base).

Remaining fully objective, it only actually hurts Trump’s interests to fight so hard for any two candidates. He doesn’t control the end result. He’s better served hanging back and letting his acolytes within the Senate (Not from Mar-a-Lago) fight confirmation battles so as to be separated from failures. Successes are expected and don’t fall back as favorable.

With respect to “MAGA being all about wrecking the establishment” – this is the single most-concerning element of the incoming administration. I can’t accept how any adult believes that destroying the status quo as its own end-goal and inherently beneficial but to be shockingly wrong and obviously dangerous. Their win gives them some right to actively set about to make huge changes to infrastructure..But some government actually works – Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, even an apolitical FBI – and what might arise from destruction is outrageously gratuitous, “do it because we can,” giggle, smug, bullshit. I try so hard to remain objective and yet the belief that indiscriminately destroying infrastructure and institutional knowledge a self-proving good to be reckless and so very dangerous. It should be disqualifying.

And yet here we are. Make of it what you will that Trump won’t fight as hard for either Kash Patel or Pamela Bondi, perhaps that’s a fractional “good” end result. I am more “resigned” (A much better word) to RFK Jr. being so closely associated with the campaign that it’s less likely that the Senate would reject him, even though it is essential to block him. Regarding Gabbard I find the nomination utterly indefensible as to the pick, why he wants her at all, the very real danger in it, and the lack of any real justification about broadening bases. And I am highly anxious as to why Trump would prioritize this pick because that fact on its own leads to some very dark corners that I have made a choice to avoid solely to remain objective.

The global takeaway is that if Trump believes he broadened his base in this election he’s almost provably wrong (It’s my assessment). It won due to counter votes, not addition. And even if in some alternative universe he did broaden his coalition, there is no conceivable way it has anything to do with these two picks representing moderation or independence essential to his base. Both are devastatingly dangerous.

God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and @JasonMiciak, and now on Bluesky.

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!