Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, we wrote up Donald Trump's address to the nation, and we were not impressed. There has now been time for "takeaways" pieces from other outlets, and they are not impressed either. Here's a selection:
CNN:Reuters:
- It's all Biden, all the time, from here on out
- It was closer to what his advisers seem to want, but it was hardly compelling
- It was a characteristic factual mess
- Trump's speech about nothing betrayed White House concerns
The Hill:
- Biden, Biden, Biden
- Festive Setting, Little Cheer
- No Major New Policies
- Guns and Butter
The New York Times:
- A standard campaign speech, delivered loudly and quickly
- The one surprise—a bonus for troops
- No big news on Venezuela
- A barrage of misleading claims
- Blaming Democrats for affordability and health care costs
USA Today:
- The president's tone was combative
- He made highly selective—and often misleading—use of statistics.
- He risked repeating a Biden mistake of arguing with voters about how they feel
- His solution to making Americans feel better is to write a check
- The tariffs he is relying on may be blocked by the Supreme Court
- Trump declared he is a peacemaker, but made no mention of his pressure on Venezuela
The Advocate:
- Blaming Biden for the border, economy
- "Warrior dividends" from tariff revenue
- "Not done yet," Trump says of lowering prices
- No mention of Venezuela, shootings
- Trump plows through his speech
- "Transgender for everybody"—bingo!
- Everything bad is the fault of Joe Biden and the Democrats
- Trump continues to demonize immigrants
- Tariffs haven't led to factory construction
- He uses mathematically challenged figures
- One good thing about the speech: It was short
The recurring themes are that it was short on substance, and long on dishonesty, scapegoating, and finger-pointing at Democrats (particularly Joe Biden). It is true that none of these are "friendly" outlets for Trump. And if we could find a set (or two) of takeaways from outlets more likely to see things his way, we'd run them for comparison purposes. But we could find no such takeaways. As a general rule, Fox, Breitbart, RedState, WND, etc. only run takeaways pieces when they can write a bunch of positive things. We would therefore suggest that their lack of takeaways pieces is instructive.
Certainly, Republican operatives were underwhelmed. Trump's aides definitely all told him how great his speech was, thus helping to add a few more millimeters to the thick bubble in which he lives. Outside the bubble, it is not good to be critical of Trump if you wish to continue your career in GOP politics (exception: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY), but plenty of red teamers were willing to share reviews off the record. For example, "It's the right idea to talk about the economy more, but the execution was abysmal." Or, "It's hard to imagine any members [of Congress] waking up today and saying, 'Oh, now I feel better.'" Or, "I don't think it will go down in the pantheon of greatest presidential addresses. I don't know if it will persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded." (Actually, that last quote was from someone willing to put their name to it: Republican pollster Whit Ayres).
Another way to illustrate that Trump's address was predictable and kind of stale is this, brought to our attention by reader J.L. in Los Angeles, CA:
Quite a few of those squares hit. We will also note that our preview of the speech hit the mark several times, even though we weren't exactly trying to guess what he would say (merely to lay out the possibilities).
All of this said, we debated whether or not the speech was worthy of being written about twice. However, what pushed it over the top was news sent to us by at least a dozen readers (thanks, all!) about the "warrior dividends." When we wrote about the speech yesterday, we had a lot of questions, all of them tinged with skepticism. And, as it turns out, we were right to smell a rat. The only thing we regret is that we wrote this: "How is this being paid for? Trump somewhat implied that the checks, which he said are already in the mail, will be covered by tariff revenue." We feel like damn fools now. We should have realized that if it actually was tariff money, Trump wouldn't have implied it, he would have shouted it to the heavens.
As it turns out, the money will be paid based on a provision in the BBB. Congress allocated $2.9 billion in order to give active-duty soldiers a little extra assistance paying for housing, in view of high inflation. That money was going to be paid out on a monthly basis, over the course of 2 years. Now, Trump has accelerated it into one check, and slapped a cutesy name and a cutesy amount ($1,776) on it.
Is this something that is going to win some votes for Trump and/or the Republicans? Maybe, but it's hard to see it being all that many, since the money was going to end up in the soldiers' hands anyhow. Is it something that could rebound on Trump, either because it reeks of desperation, or because it used soldiers as pawns, or because there were soldiers who went to bed Wednesday night thinking they were about to get nearly $2000 in "found money" only to find that's not the case? It certainly could. It's the kind of stunt that, if we were advising a president, we would say, "Yeah, the risk-reward calculation just doesn't add up here." Though there is no doubt that the advisors that THIS president talks to told him it was the greatest idea since sliced bread. (Z)