About Trump’s “blood out of her whatever” remark
I’m getting rather tired of talking about Trump. But he certainly knows how to get publicity. For example, there’s a predictable furor right now about Trump’s remark that during the debate Megyn Kelley had “blood coming out of her whatever.”
But IMHO the discussion focuses on the wrong thing, as these furors so often do.
To clarify: I don’t care whether Trump was insinuating that Kelly was having her period, or if he instead meant that there was blood spurting from her nose or her ears or her—whatever. I don’t much care if he was being sexist, although he might have been and that’s a drawback in the world in which the Democratic charge of “war on women” is able to stick and garner votes. Actually, however, I’m more inclined to consider him pretty much an equal-opportunity insulter who is perfectly capable of saying something roughly similar about a man.
What do I think this particular discussion should be focusing on? Just this: in this instance and in others, Trump has shown himself to be remarkably thin-skinned, and the quality of his attacks is simple schoolyard stuff, mostly name-calling and bluster failing to coverup the fact that he doesn’t have a substantive retort. He seems almost incapable of demonstrating qualities I would want in any president: logic, clarity of thought, pointed and convincing attack and argument. When under pressure, nearly all the man has is savage, mocking bluster, the more outrageous the better, although that does appeal to those who hunger for it.
But that’s not a demonstration of strength, it’s a demonstration of weakness. And Trump continues to remind me of none other than Obama in his propensity to strike out at criticism with low blows, and of course with the extent of his narcissism.
Let’s take a look at what Trump actually said about Kelly:
“Well, I just don’t respect [Megyn Kelly] as a journalist,” Trump told CNN via phone interview. “She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions.”
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump continued, “blood coming out of her whatever.”
“In my opinion, she was off-base,” he concluded. “She’s a lightweight. I couldn’t care less about her.”
I have no idea what Trump meant by her “whatever,” although it certainly makes sense that some people think he was insinuating something about her menstrual cycle. But just for the sake of argument let’s take him at his word and stipulate that’s not what he meant at all. It (and his entire quoted reaction) remains a mindless response, devoid of substance, and that would be true whether it had been directed at a man. Kelly may be many things, but although her questions were not what I would have asked, they were not ridiculous, nor were they off-base, and she has proven time and again she’s no lightweight.
Nor is Trump the least bit convincing when he asserts he “couldn’t care less” about her. He very clearly does care.
More importantly, this was not an isolated incident of Trump’s inability to think of a criticism that isn’t basically a schoolyard taunt when he perceives he’s been shown to disadvantage by someone. Many of his supporters see this as an alpha male quality; I don’t see it that way at all. It’s the mark of a weak thinker and a weak person. Compare and contrast to someone like Reagan, an “alpha male” who skewered his opponents with class, dignity, and substance. Compare it even to someone like Newt Gingrich (who long-time readers here know is not one of my favorite politicians, to say the least), who actually is a fighter with the ability to not only strike out verbally but to use his brains while doing so.
There’s an old lawyer’s maxim.
When you have the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have neither, pound the table.
Trump is a table pounder.
My big question is when Russia invades Estonian, will he call Putin a loser?
What will he say when ISIS captures the U.S. embassy in Baghdad? Call them idiot, loser ragheads? That’s it?
Neo, I also see Trump as a thin-skin-Obama narcissist. And, I agree that is exactly the quality that folks should be focusing on.
I think the same thing when ever someone mentions their support for Hillary. I try to remind them of her reaction to that African student who asked what Mr. Clinton thought (it was actually a mistranslation, the question was what did Mr. Obama think) and she blew up at the “audacity” of asking her what her husband thought and she felt that she had to remind the student that she was not Sec. of State and it was, in fact, her opinion that mattered. Quite a jerk reaction for America’s top diplomat.
These are very telling signs of someone who should not be in charge. It might be okay if you act like a jerk in your own private company – let employees quit, let your company go out of business because customers can’t stand you; but, as an elected leader representing your country, state, municipality, etc. being a jerk is not good. You are not acting on your own behalf; you represent others.
Show those you represent respect by acting like a mature, intelligent person. If you cannot do that; then I do not want you in office.
If you cannot control your own emotional responses to something you don’t like; Why should I vote for you?
EQ is as important (I would say more important) than IQ.
Prediction. Carly will call him out about his name calling and his thin skinned responses to moderately tough questions.
She might even call him an overbearing name calling blowhard with a bad hairdo.
Watch closely. She will do it in a very smart – and lethal – way. Biggest smack down in years. Better than,”You are no Jack Kennedy.”
Neo, I also see Trump as a thin-skin-Obama narcissist. And, I agree that is exactly the quality that folks should be focusing on.
——————-
The problem is getting attention focused on it without making it look like you’re a bully.
As I’ve said before, if Trump could have delivered a better retort to Kelly, then he could have come out ahead. Specifically trying to bait Trump, as opposed to waiting for him to take offense at something pretty mild, risks playing to the beliefs of his supporters.
Watch closely. She will do it in a very smart — and lethal — way. Biggest smack down in years. Better than,”You are no Jack Kennedy.”
—————–
There was actually an opportunity for this during the second debate. Someone – I think it was Trump, though I’m not certain – compared themselves to Reagan. I was waiting for the “I knew Reagan…” retort, but sadly no one thought to use it.
Better yet. Work in the phrase “thin-skinned narcissist like Obama.”‘
Then watch Donald explode.
Fully predictable.
I like Trump being in the race because he has made a huge impact on the topics being discussed in the news, he has shown that you can be popular without needing to be ‘perfect’ or say the right things all the time after you discuss it with your team. I am sick of that kind of candidate.
Who doesn’t put their foot in their mouth from time to time? We all do it. And even politicians should be able to do it. I am tired of the press and the left demanding apologies for stuff like this.
Look, I’m not going to vote for Trump, but I am very glad he is taking away the numbers from people I do not like and hope get out of the race. Trump has steamrolled into the pile of candidates and helped the other honest, anti-establishment, anti-PC candidates like Cruz and Fiorina gain ground. It is going to be a great election year.
I am satisfied with several of the Republican candidates and think we will end up with one of them as our pick, rather than Jeb or Graham. Thank goodness.
Thin-skinned == refuses to let the usual suspects get away with their usual b*llshit.
NeoNeo, you’re just posing now, and it’s not flattering.
And Trump is also a whiner and a cry baby.
Unfair questions? Please!
A party appearing as a witness in a civil case can’t turn to the judge and ask that “unfair” questions be stopped. Doesn’t happen.
If Trump wants to be the leader of the Free World he needs to grow up. His wealth can’t protect him at the debates.
K-E : except nobody is worried about Graham having a snowball’s chance to win the Republican primary. He might place or show in his home state.
K-E,
I think Trump is a disaster for the Republicans. He holds the third party run over the heads of the GOP, and if he chooses that option, there would be no way to stop him. I read on Hot Air that he’s considering taking the pledge not to, but who believes he can be trusted to keep his promise?
Trump is a symptom of the deep unseriousness of the electorate. It horrifies me that he’s gotten as far as he has.
Neo,
I totally agree with your analysis.
What drew my attention was the “blood coming our of her eyes” comment. It struck me as coming from a six year old with no credibility. As you succinctly put it, a school yard taunt.
Having said that, I think Trump’s presence, which is a “stirring of the pot presence”, is actually important in the early scheme of the 2016 election. He’s is, in great part, correct when he says that he is willing to address topics that the other candidates eschew (or want to); he just doesn’t address them well. Perhaps this is all the better since it permits the serious candidates to establish and refine their personae and positions while Trump draws all the fire for the moment.
By contrast, he gives credence to their seriousness while simultaneously revealing the lesser seriousness of those candidates who would mimic his Trumpian demeanor and approach (e.g., IMO Rand Paul’s performance on Thursday).
I disagree, Paul.
I have a feeling I/we may be going to this well an awful lot (at least, I hope so), but look at Fiorina’s response to Chrissy Tingles’ questioning of her judgment in calling Hillary a liar. His BS setup and question was precisely “the usual suspects [trying to] get away with their usual b*llshit”. Instead of thin-skinnedly calling him names, Fiorina calmly explained exactly how she plans to challenge Clinton, with examples. That’s how you call ’em on their BS.
Thin-skinnedly is a word, right? ‘Cause it should be.
Cornhead: I get your point, but the leader of the free world we have now isn’t a grown up; so it actually isn’t a job requirement. 8 years later, Obama will be leaving office just as petty and immature as the day he took office.
Normal people have to be concerned with losing their job, going out of business, or being sued and wiped out. Therefore, they watch what they say. Trump has so much money he doesn’t watch what he says. He’s also not used to people confronting him.
In a similar vein, Obama, as the first black president, has a get out of jail free card which never expires.
Paul A’Barge:
On the contrary, I’m not posing—nor do you offer a particle of evidence for that accusation.
What’s more, Trump not only allows people to “get away” with whatever you label as “their usual b*llshit,” but the weakness and immature nature of his response only gives their “usual b*llshit” more credibility.
You can support Trump all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that the man has no ability to take a punch or to reason his way out of it with any demonstration of intelligence.
Oh, and watch Fiorina with Chris Matthews again if you want to see a demonstration of someone actually succeeding in not letting a member of the press get away with his “usual b*llshit.”
Trump would have trouble watching it, though; apparently Fiorina gives Trump a “massive headache.” My guess is that Chris Matthews would heartily concur. But what a fragile specimen Trump is!
Well said, Neo.
K-E, I am having trouble understanding your position. In the first post you like him being in the race; in the second you agree that he really brings nothing but childish posturing (I think).
Trump could be considered amusing; to a point. He could be the gadfly to highlight certain issues; to a point. Actually, I think the point was reached before he took the stage and declared himself bigger than party, and more important than all of those accomplished men with him; and the very impressive woman who asked the relevant question during the previous session; i.e. “what are your governing principles?”.
The really big question is whether Trump will go quietly into the wings as it becomes obvious that his “sell by date” has passed. I don’t trust Trump, in the same sense that I do not trust the narcissistic Obama or Hillary. And like Obama in 08, and Hillary, we can only imagine how he would govern. But my imagination is painting an ugly picture.
There’s another old lawyer maxim to the effect when your opponent is blowing his case or ticking off the judge, get out of the way. People who want Trump to lose need to get a whole lot smarter about dealing with him. If Trump is apt to self-destruct, let him do it on his own. Meanwhile, every time people attack Trump for just being in the race his support numbers go higher.
Hmmm … the cognoscenti here’s decided Trump is a moron, narcissistic, childish, rich with mommy issues, etc …
Demonizing.
Telling was the exchanges with the Chris W. creature during the debate:
Bankrupt? Yeah! Four of my projects …
[in the real world not all projects succeed.]
Lenders? Buddy, they’re sharks … [they are! Lender committees are horrid, banks will liquidate you on a whim.]
The guy is a MAKER!
The tug of war here is takers vs players ….
Trump’s been doing some thinking for a while:
let’s go to the videotape…
Makers: hate their guts, love their products ….
The sheeple brays ….
I don’t think Trump is very well informed on most issues. If he were, he would want to get to the point and ignore the distractions. I’d love to have someone ask him about which books he found helpful in reaching his decisions.
I also don’t like the way he dumps on W. That probably played well in NY, but a serious candidate should have some appreciation for the hard choices Bush had to make.
Oldflyer,
I don’t trust him either. I also don’t like people who brag about how rich they are.
Ditto on every single word you wrote, neo, could not be said better.
I am very dismayed listening to Rush, who is being very careful in what he exactly says, but pretty clearly is defending Trump.
Forget about reading comments and posts on other conservative sites. The pro-Trump irrationality is mind-boggling, and the seething, hateful tone is very, very disturbing.
We all get it. We really do. The media, the GOP establishment, the unfairness, the corruption, and on and on.
WE ALL GET IT.
AND YES I AM SHOUTING.
Just because we have concerns about Trump does not mean we do not get it.
And the most painful irony is Trump v Cruz and Fiorina.
We finally have two brilliant candidates who not only represent our views very well (including our views on the cultural hegemony of the left), but who also masterfully and effectively obliterate the childish games.
And 20 or 25 per cent of us want a man whose words are so absurdly puerile.
neo:
Ditto and amen.
G6loq:
I have decided Trump has the characteristics I described in this post because he demonstrates them.
As for Trump himself—his business empire and the like—I have no preconceived notions and certainly no dog in that race. I don’t watch his shows, and am pretty sure I have never paid any attention to him before he became a candidate for 2016, except when I wrote about him as Obama’s gadfly and jester back in 2011. I stand by what I said in that post, as well.
“Demonization” is an interesting word to use. The idea is to characterize debate and criticism as “demonizing,” a word which means “to present as evil or diabolic.” Nothing that I have said could be fairly characterized that way, even remotely. He is weak, immature, thin-skinned, illogical, murky in his thinking, and he strikes out at others with name-calling when he considers that he’s been criticized and has no substantive answer (which is often). None of that is “demonic,” (that is, evil or diabolic). Nor is being a narcissist (another accusation I’ve leveled at Trump) either “evil” or “diabolic.”
While I entirely agree with all the anti-Trump remarks posted here, I also wish to say what a disgusting, preposterous exercise much of the “debate” was.
It was not a debate. It was an interrogation. The moderators did not moderate. It was the immoderate Megyn Kelly who asked the preposterous question, and didn’t like Trump’s initial answer.
It was disgusting. These trials by fire really should stop.
They treated Carson like a nobody, tooted horns for Kasich since the show was in OH. Puerile.
Each candidate got six minutes. The pompous moderators each had ten.
G6loq – – TY for the video.
I especially liked the part where Trump praises Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis.
Frog:
I have long found most presidential debates to be somewhat preposterous exercises, especially ones with a lot of participants.
Tonawanda:
The Trump supporters are demonstrating characteristics I’ve seen around the blogosphere on the right for years: irrationality, and striking out in their anger in ways that are actually destructive to their own cause. So it doesn’t surprise me at all to see it now; it’s been going on for years, and building. I’ve been fighting and arguing against it for many years.
Trump merely channels it.
Nor would it surprise me if Rush Limbaugh offers a defense of Trump, even if a fairly tepid one. Among his listeners are many people of that ilk, and Rush depends at least in part on them for his audience. However, the talk-show host who is most popular with that group, and who fans the flames most, is Mark Levin.
The only upside of the Trump candidacy I can think of is that commentators have revived some wonderful old words — “buffoon” and “churl” are two, but there are more.
I’ll stick by my original statement a few days after Trump entering the race.
His supporters don’t like the man but love what the man is saying and may I add now … HOW he is saying it.
His supporters (and more) want a blood fest in the general election and Trump’s the only one willing to give them that.
What G Joubert said. Outraged attacks on Trump’s outrageous comments only reinforce the outrage that is feeding his campaign.
charles Says:
August 10th, 2015 at 2:26 pm…
Excellent comment.
jack @ 4:02 PM: His supporters don’t like the man but love what the man is saying and may I add now … HOW he is saying it.
Loser? Fat pig? Lightweight? Dog? Ugly?
How about, “That’s gay!” Or, “you retard”?
How can anyone not love “what the man is saying”?
You Trump haters just don’t get it. Now you’re hating his “supporters” too, and it even extends the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. You are marginalizing yourselves instead of marginalizing Trump.
I submit there are very few Trump supporters, per se. People are registering their dissatisfaction with what the process has become, the political correctness and fear of saying the wrong thing that all the other candidates manifest, but which Trump is impervious to. Such as open and honest talk about illegal immigration. People want more of that, so they are rewarding the only one doing it: Trump. Get a clue.
G Joubet:
What an odd definition of “hate” you have.
I don’t hate Trump, nor do I hate Rush Limbaugh nor Mark Levin. I make some observations (particularly about the fact that Levin fans the flames of anti-GOP establishment anger) and have always said that some of the anger is understandable and justified, but I think the way it’s being channeled is counterproductive. I’ve been saying that for years.
That is very far from “hatred” of either Trump, Limbaugh, or Levin. I call it like I see it.
Tonawanda:
“Forget about reading comments and posts on other conservative sites.”
Neo:
“The Trump supporters are demonstrating characteristics I’ve seen around the blogosphere on the right for years: irrationality, and striking out in their anger in ways that are actually destructive to their own cause.”
From what I gather, Trump supporters don’t identify with mainstream conservatives of the conventional Right. They’re more like what used to be called alt-right, though I haven’t seen that label used in a while and may not be wholly appropriate.
Their cause is anti-establishment against the edifice of American culture and politics, which they consider to be corrupted and splintered from their interests throughout.
In some ways, their views are indistinguishable from what a modern-day Russian propagandist might promulgate.
This famous GK Chesterton quote (Illustrated London News, 4/19/24) sums up their view of mainstream conservatives:
They’re not on your side, Neo, and they don’t consider your camp to be their side.
What can be done?
As always: The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.
Tonawanda Says:
August 10th, 2015 at 4:44 pm
jack @ 4:02 PM: His supporters don’t like the man but love what the man is saying and may I add now … HOW he is saying it.
Loser? Fat pig? Lightweight? Dog? Ugly?
How about, “That’s gay!” Or, “you retard”?
How can anyone not love “what the man is saying”?
Tonawanda,
I’m not Trump supporter. I’m just saying that his supporters not only want to beat the opposition but wants Trump to beat them bloody and then kick them. This is a new phenom for me but I’m sure there is precedence in politics for this in the past.
It is a shame that some of our electorate have taken this path but I think this is where some are today and there may be no turning back for awhile.
Neo, I sense a lot of emotion, and it ain’t love I see going on. More like vitriol. I don’t want Trump either. But I see his presence having the potential of being quite beneficial, if it forces the other candidates to man up and address real issues. Trump’s real deficits will be his undoing in the fullness of time. Trying to short-circuit that process by hounding him out isn’t cutting it.
G Joubert:
My emotion is not towards Trump, and it certainly isn’t vitriol. The emotion and strong words seem to be on your end—“vitriol”? My statements on Trump (or Levin or Limbaugh) contain neither vitriol nor hate, and I find it odd that you think you perceive that.
My emotion is frustration at the lack of logic and judgment shown by many people. Trump is just being Trump; I’ve never had any emotion towards him in all the years he’s been a public figure and I don’t have much now.
I think he is bad for the conservative cause. He takes away from the support for the others and has led to the rising in the polls of Jeb Bush more than anyone else. He also gives fuel to those who mock the GOP in general as haters who war on women.
I’m with FOAF and G. Joubert. Let Trump run his race his way. Which most of us here don’t think is very skillful. He has revealed no policy details except his assertion that he would build a wall on the border and get the Mexicans to pay for it. (Which I think would be wonderful – if he could do it.) Let himdo his thing. Disagree with him on substance, but don’t get into arguments on his “tone” or insults. That’s his game and others should steer clear. (Never get down and wrestle in the mud like a pig. You just get muddy, accomplish little, and the pig enjoys it.)
He revealed that he has paid for political favors over the years. In a future debate my question to him would be: “Do you think paying for political favors is a good thing? And if not, how would you try to change the system?” Then ask the other candidates the same question.
. . . and yet another perspective with which I agree posted at Instapundit by Elizabeth Price Foley (8/10/15 @8:01pm). Emphasis mine:
Unfortunately one could argue that Megyn Kelly, a newswoman I have admired, has succumbed to the classic siren’s song of seeking headlines without regard for unintended consequences. We already have plenty of reporters just. like. that!
At near 70, I can throw the donald down to the ground hard enough to fracture his spine. Bring it on without boby guards you bloated pig.
Neo, do you listen to, and/or have you read Mark Levin?
I fully understand his ire from the constitutional standpoint. He is a bright, experienced and thoughtful man. Fanning flames is something necessary from time to time. See Thomas Paine.
My pastor said this Sunday, “We become what we accept.”
There is a scene out of the HBO miniseries “John Adams” that I absolutely love and is quite appropriate for this discussion. Please forgive me for any errors here. The only place I could find scripts for the series (Springfield! Springfield!) was, basically, unformatted.
The scene takes place in episode 2, “Independence”. Adams had just lost the vote support the fighters at Lexington & Concord (and start the revolution) to Mr. Dickinson’s extending an olive branch to the King of England. Ben Franklin’s vote was the deciding vote. Franklin & Adams are talking privately.
Trump’s insults aren’t just petty and juvenile, they’re also very public making the insult personal.
KRB
My apologies. Mr. Franklin’s vote was not the deciding vote, but he did vote with the majority & Mr. Dickinson.
Frog:
Actually, I’ve listened to Mark Levin much more than I care to.
I’ll explain. You may recall that I don’t like talk shows and almost never listen to them for pleasure. The only one I like at all is Howie Carr, for his self-deprecating, sarcastic humor. He’s also a pretty smart guy (from Maine originally, now in Massachusetts).
Other than that, I don’t listen, don’t like to process information that way, find most callers stupid or strident and the whole thing a waste of time mostly.
However, I’m in my car quite a bit, and sometimes the drives are fairly long, and so there’s the radio to pass the time. It just so happens that I seem to often be in the car when Mark Levin’s show is on, because nine times out of ten it seems as if, when I turn on the radio, there he is, yakking away. So I’ve listened to him a lot, much more than any other talk show host except Carr and probably arguably more than I’ve heard Carr.
This has been going on for years, but particularly in the two years or so. So I would say I’m extremely familiar with his thought and his audience.
I find him a paradox. He is a smart and knowledgeable lawyer and often quite good on the Constitution and issues connected with its history. Sometimes he’s good on the news of the day, especially regarding terrorism and that sort of thing. Every time he talks about the Republicans, however (which he does very very very often), he goes into a rage, but more importantly I find that he is wrong about a lot of what he says. For example, when he spoke about Corker-Menendez he said quite a few things that were factually wrong. And always wrong in the direction of making the Republicans out to be even worse and more craven than they actually were being (which was bad enough).
I have found this happening time and again over the years. I have mulled it over, and quite a while ago I came to the following conclusions:
(1) he is sincere and is motivated by patriotism and love of liberty
(2) however, he is a talk-show host and has found his niche, and that niche is rage at the Republicans and stirring up further anger at them, which I believe clouds his judgment on various issues connected with that
(3) his callers and he feed on it together, and whip each other up to greater heights of anger
I believe that the net result—although I do not think it is his intended result—has been greater victory for the left.
He’s an embarrassment – period. I agree that he’s a narcissist and thin-skinned and someone I would NEVER want as President. I would vote Libertarian if it came to that, to his being nominated. I can’t see that happening though, he’s a novelty act for now.
I have always liked Megyn Kelly and I don’t think he made a wise choice in who to attack. Like you, the sexist (or not) aspect is not the important part, more that he is acting like a foolish person who does not have a clear answer and cannot think on his feet though he can insult on his feet. But yes, that is not thinking.
Neo:
Get Sirius satellite radio in your car. Commercial-free music.
“[Mark Levin] is sincere and is motivated by patriotism and love of liberty” (Neo)
Neo,
People cite sincerity as a positive attribute usually to rationalize a behavior. I, long-ago, discounted sincerity as a rationale or justification for anything. After all, Hitler was sincere (Godwin’s law, I know), Stalin was sincere, etc. Hell! Even Obama is sincere about his fundamental transformation of our country.
The road to Hell is paved with sincerity; I don’t think it counts for a hill of beans whether it’s applied to Mark Levin, Bernie Sanders, Megyn Kelly or Chris Matthews. We should develop more pointed assessment standards (which your points 2 & 3 qualify for).
T:
I didn’t offer “sincere” as a justification or excuse, merely a description to let “Frog” know my assessment of Levin ‘s character and motivation.
Cornhead:
When I bought my car in 2011, used (it was a 2010), it had been a corporate car and had Sirius radio on it from that. Apparently they had recently renewed it and paid for the year, because I had it for free for about 10 more months. So I got to know Sirius. I kept trying, but I never found a station I much cared for, music-wise. Some were okay, but I found that I listened to it less and less till by the time it came to be renewed I didn’t bother.
“I didn’t offer “sincere” as a justification or excuse,”
I understand; never meant to insinuate such.
Just a little tangential venting on my part that, as a society, we seem to want to look to sincerity as a justification. My larger point; if it can defend the bad things as well as the good it is a useless arbiter. Just like “A” for effort; effort is useless if it leads to failed or useless results.
I have not forgotten the actual glow on Megyn’s face or the gleam in her eye as she reported the first time that Roberts saved SCOTUS Care. It made me think then and there that she would vote Democrat in a heartbeat.
Lurker:
I disagree.
Kelly always has a glow on her face and a gleam in her eye. The gleam gets even stronger either when she’s happy, or angry, or especially when she is winning an argument (which is often). I’ve watched her quite a bit, although less lately, and in my opinion she is basically a moderately conservative Republican.