Take it from an atheist: Even an atheist could have faked a better answer than this. How is it that this guy, with all his billions, didn’t think to hire anyone to teach him to lie convincingly about faith when addressing an audience of Christian conservatives, the key to winning the Iowa caucuses? He should have called the White House. They could have hooked him up with whoever coached Obama on his fake opposition to gay marriage in 2008.
Byron York and the NYT are right that this answer will end up damaging Trump more than his shot at McCain’s war service will.
A senior Iowa Republican who was in the room, sitting with a group of grassroots activists as Trump spoke, was dumbfounded by the candidate’s views of religion. “While there were audible groans in the crowd when Trump questioned whether McCain was a war hero,” the senior Republican said via email, “it was Trump’s inability to articulate any coherent relationship with God or demonstrate the role faith plays in his life that really sucked the oxygen out of the room.”
The senior Republican continued: “Milling around talking to activists in the hallways/lobby after Trump’s speech, THAT is what those Iowa conservatives were discussing, not the McCain comment.”…
“Trump’s performance was really a one-two punch,” the Republican said. “His McCain comment gave free license to other candidates and the national political class to attack. His failure to demonstrate even the most rudimentary understanding of leading a faith-filled life will be his ultimate undoing with Iowa’s Christian conservative activists. Especially in a field with such credible alternatives.”
Watch the clip. The bit about him drinking his “little wine” and having his “little cracker” at church is … not Huckabean, shall we say, although I think it’s the second half of the vid that’s more revealing. (The very end includes his bit about McCain, which the video’s editor tacked on for whatever reason.) Luntz tosses him the softest of softballs — “what is your relationship with God?” — and Trump can’t help answering in terms of his personal success, presumably because that’s his yardstick for everything in life. God’s blessed him with an intellect capable of generating some of the great deals in business history; that’s evidence that their relationship’s pretty good, no? Luntz’s question very obviously cries out for the opposite answer, that riches and personal success mean nothing without grace and deep communion with the Almighty. He does note that he prays, but like I say, watch the clip. The mystery here is whether Trump simply misjudged his audience (in Iowa, at a forum devoted to family?) or he’s convinced himself that being his honest, unfiltered self is the key to ultimate victory. This will test that theory better than the McCain thing will.
A rival campaign strategist told York he doesn’t expect Trump to lose support for this so much as he thinks it’ll lower his ceiling in the state. If you’re an evangelical tea partier trying to decide between Trump and, say, Scott Walker or Ted Cruz, this’ll tip the scale towards the latter.
Poster Comment:
Elsewhere, Ace observes: "He eventually grabs at an answer -- that "drinking the little wine" and "eating the little cracker" constitute, maybe, an asking of forgiveness from God. He doesn't sound very sure of that (I don't know either way myself), but has already, by then repeatedly said he doesn't even think to ask God for forgiveness. So if the "drinking of the little" wine is such a request, it is only inadvertent, accidental, and symbolic."
Seems to me that Trump was completely honest. He was asked about religion, and he answered it directly with what he thinks.
What you see as an "error" (because retail politicians are supposed to tell the public what they want to hear) I see as more evidence that he's a straight shooter. He says what he really thinks, and acts on it.
That is what is important to me: actions, deeds. Spoken words are deeds: they're the deeds done in answer to a question. Trump was asked a question and he answered it straight.
I appreciate that in the man.
It makes me more likely to vote for him.
When men rhapsodize about doctrinally pure Christianity, but then do not behave in doctrinally pure ways, when they compromise on what they say is their highest morality and belief in God, then I really look at them with a jaundiced eye.
But Trump's form of Christianity is pretty easygoing and straightforward. It is not correct in fact - he's a Protestant, after all - but his behavior squares with what he believes.
That makes him PREDICTABLE. And predictability is very, very good (and rare) in a political leader. It means that when he says something, you can expect he'll do it.
If, for example, you're an investor looking to get into a Trump project, you know from his long record that he will use all of the laws, including the full suite of bankruptcy laws, to advance his mission. He's there to make money on a project, taking shots on goal. If it works, great - you win and he wins. But if bad luck intervenes and things are not working and lawsuits intervene, you know that he is going to be a dogged, tenacious, experienced bargainer in bankruptcy, and that he's probably going to walk away as well off as anybody ever does out of bankruptcy.
So you factor that in when you're dealing with him. You either pore over the bankruptcy, control and indemnification clauses and seek to add language that is more protective of you, or you take the risk "as is" and hope the project does well, or you don't invest with him.
What you see as an "error" (because retail politicians are supposed to tell the public what they want to hear) I see as more evidence that he's a straight shooter. He says what he really thinks, and acts on it.
I was thinking the same thing.
Remember TC prefers Bush to Trump. Probably prefers Hillary to Trump also.
Remember TC prefers Bush to Trump. Probably prefers Hillary to Trump also.
I don't know TC personally, but I'm pretty sure from communicating with him over the years that he doesn't prefer Hillary to Trump.
I see TC as being quite loyal to his vision of the Republican Party. His vision of the Republican Party doesn't square with the actual Republican Party's deeds, but he's still loyal.
I'd be a stay-home rather than vote for her. Probably about the same with Bush. I didn't like the last two Bushes and only voted for a Bush in 2000 when Gore seemed such a wacky disaster.
