Donald Trump: An Exercise in Exaggeration?

            Many political pundits and others who seem offended by recent questionable comments by Donald Trump, a candidate for the 2016 U. S. Republican presidential nomination, could be falling right into what might be Trump’s trap.

Those who are offended by some of Trump’s recent perceived negative comments about Muslims and about Hillary Clinton, the perceived front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, seem to believe he means what he says.

Yet, Trump might not really believe what he said or implied. He could be saying controversial things in an exaggerated way to ensure the media and others don’t take his candidacy for granted, and don’t forget about him.

All the Campaign’s a Stage

First, Trump claimed or suggested all Muslims should be barred from entering the United States, at least in the immediate future, in light of recent terrorist acts in the United States and elsewhere. In fairness, Trump did clarify he was not referring to Muslims who are residents of the United States; only non-U. S. resident Muslims seeking to enter the United States.

Then Trump made perceived distasteful remarks about an apparent lengthy bathroom break Clinton took during a recent debate. He also used a perceived derogatory sexual innuendo—saying she got “schlonged” in 2008--to remind people she lost the Democratic presidential nomination in that contest to Barack Obama.

Trump has since explained his comment about Clinton’s defeat in 2008 was not vulgar, and is merely a Yiddish term meaning she got badly beaten in that nomination contest.

Exaggeration for Attention?

Trump clearly knows how to use language effectively and could be exaggerating his actual thoughts and feelings, mainly to make a point, or to get attention. A key aspect of running for political office is acting and performing for audiences. Some candidates sometimes say things that should not necessarily be taken seriously. Some candidates say things that seem controversial to get attention for the candidate, or to draw attention to a specific cause or situation.

While Trump’s comments about Muslims and Clinton are disconcerting to many people, he could have carefully planned his questionable comments and exaggerated for various reasons: 1) to make a point about the quality of border security in the United States; 2) to get attention for himself so people don’t forget about him; or 3) to make a point that candidates in national political debates should be better-prepared—personally and professionally.

Possible Insecurity

Notwithstanding Trump’s brashness and confidence, he also might make seemingly outlandish comments about others because sometimes he might feel somewhat inadequate running for president in the company of experienced politicians. If so, he might sometimes feel the need to ‘stir the pot’ with outrageous comments to remind people about his campaign.

In this context, Trump might sometimes feel the need to pull the rug out from under his competitors, or to wildly exaggerate some claims—such as his perceived derogatory claims about Muslims and Hillary Clinton--to make a point; to remind everyone he is still in the picture.

With these kinds of possibilities in mind, the kerfuffle over Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims and Clinton might be much ado about nothing

No Shrinking Violet

Clearly, Donald Trump is not shy. He seems intelligent. He is a showman who seems to thrive on attention. He knows he needs to act and perform on the campaign trail. He knows he has to sometimes say controversial things to get attention for himself; or to draw attention to situations some others might avoid because they might fear ‘bad press’ or ‘negative voter feedback.’

As a businessman and would-be politician, Trump also knows he has to be more-interesting to the media and to the public than his fellow candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. He knows he has to intentionally set himself apart from other contenders in his party--and from Hillary Clinton, the perceived frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Intentional Exaggeration?

What better ways for Trump to achieve these goals than by presenting himself in a highly-exaggerated way as a racist and a misogynist—perhaps to make a point--when he might not be either one?

Yet, Trump seems so secure and comfortable with himself, no doubt because of confidence derived in part from his apparent vast personal wealth, that he seems unafraid to make himself a target of disrepute to get attention.

 

The Senator Speaks: Mike Duffy Had an Option

As Senator Mike Duffy started his own testimony this week, in his fraud trial, he unwittingly evoked the withering verbal attack by Progressive Conservative leader Brian Mulroney on Liberal leader John Turner in 1984. In a televised debate Turner, the newly-minted prime minister following Pierre Trudeau’s retirement, was assailed by Mulroney for finalizing some controversial Liberal patronage appointments made—but not finalized—by Trudeau before the former P.M. left office.    

     Mulroney famously told Turner he had a choice, or an option to say ‘no,’ and that he could have refused to finalize Trudeau’s patronage appointments. By many accounts, Turner never had a reasonable chance of winning that election after Mulroney reprimanded him as he did.

Duffy Could Have Said ‘No’

As most followers of the news know, Senator Mike Duffy is facing a slew of criminal charges relating to his allegedly fraudulent expense claims. In the many months leading up to his trial, Duffy, on his own and through his lawyers, has consistently seemed to blame others for his current misfortunes, instead of accepting responsibility for his own behaviors—and instead of acknowledging he largely contributed to his own present predicament. In this context, Duffy has always implied he had no choice in being named to the senate, and that he had to accept the senate appointment. In fact, he did have a choice: he could have said ‘no.’

If Duffy had exercised his prerogative and declined Harper’s senate appointment, he could have preserved his previous generally respectable reputation, he could have saved himself a lot of presumed heartache and aggravation, and he could have prevented the rest of us from being subjected to this sad excuse for a story for so long, so far.

Throughout this whole sorry mess, Duffy has intimated he was reluctantly forced into accepting a seat in the Senate, representing the Conservative Party, after being appointed in 2008 by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Yet, was Duffy really the reluctant senator? Various media reports over the past several months indicate he had, more than once, lobbied at least one previous prime minister to be named to the senate.

High Ambitions

In reports of Duffy’s first day of testimony he appeared to portray himself as some sort of unsophisticated, academically-uneducated rube from Prince Edward Island. In fact, for many years Duffy had been a successful broadcast journalist living and working in Ottawa, and, by many other less-fortunate people’s standards, he was living the high life and travelling far and wide in his work. But according to various news reports, in Duffy’s first day of his own long-awaited testimony this week, he seemed to be looking for pity and sympathy.

To Be (A Senator) or Not to Be

Many media reports say Duffy initially told Harper, before being appointed to the senate, that Conservatives would not be pleased with his appointment as a Tory senator since he, Duffy, was not a Conservative. Reports of Duffy’s court testimony indicate Harper told him to not worry about Conservatives’ complaints in that regard, and they would ‘get over it.’

Ultimately, Duffy was appointed as a senator representing the Conservative Party. Since Duffy accepted Harper’s senate appointment, supposedly against Duffy’s own better judgement, he can be perceived as opportunistic, ethically and morally-challenged, and driven by ambition, greed, ego, and insecurity. Perhaps he perceived the senate appointment as the culmination of his previous efforts to be successful and famous, and as a way for him to feel and seem important.

Choices

Through it all, from the beginning of this sordid situation, presumably, Duffy had a choice, or an option: 1) he could accept Harper’s senate appointment, representing the Conservative Party—even though Duffy says he told the former prime minister he was not even a Conservative; or 2) he could just say ‘no.’ In this regard, Duffy can be perceived as being the author of his own current misfortunes—including his criminal court trial over alleged fraudulent expense claims. Duffy easily could have avoided all of this by simply saying he would not sit in the senate as a Conservative because it was not right, since he wasn’t a Tory.

You Had an Option, Sir

Is Duffy guilty of any or all of the fraud charges he is facing? The court will decide that. Is Duffy guilty of bringing all of this on himself? Is he right to seem to be blaming everyone else except himself for the mess he’s in? If he hadn’t accepted the senate appointment, and made other choices, would his personal and professional reputations be suffering as they likely are now?

In this context, Brian Mulroney’s scathing rebuke of John Turner in 1984, for finalizing former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s cushy patronage appointments, echoes loud and clear: You had an option, sir. Duffy could have said ‘no’ to being a Conservative senator, and avoided his current legal troubles. Instead he said ‘yes’ to the senate appointment and got himself into his present predicament.

  

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's Vulgarity

Much has been made recently about federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s performance at the annual Press Gallery Dinner in Ottawa on May 9, 2015. The dinner lets politicians poke fun at themselves and at the media in a good-hearted way, to let them show they don’t necessarily dislike each other.

In the aftermath of the dinner, much has also been made by commentators, and by May herself, of her weak attempts at being funny at the dinner in her overall on-stage performance--most of which the general public never saw. Yet, in seeming to focus on these aspects of May’s performance, she appears to ignore, or at least downplay, her public crudity and vulgarity at the microphone.

The Leader's True Colors?
In a film clip widely-broadcast, the Green Party’s May showed what might be her true colors: she crudely proclaimed into the microphone, on-camera, that Omar Khadr, the former so-called child soldier who was released on bail from prison last week, has “more class than the whole f------ Cabinet.” 

Presumably May was alluding to the federal government’s ongoing efforts to keep Khadr locked up, and to prevent him from being released on bail. Mercifully, May was finally dragged from the stage and microphone—figuratively—by a member of that “f------ Cabinet,” Lisa Raitt, who purportedly is also one of May’s friends.

Bad Behavior
In the film clip showing May making her crude comment about the federal Cabinet, she looked and sounded mean and mean-spirited, and she also looked drunk; or at least as though she’d had too much to drink.

Since then, though, May has said she wasn’t drunk at the microphone but conceded she had been drinking to some extent beforehand. Of course she might be right, but from my experience most people who are, or were drunk when they did something wrong, usually deny they were drunk.

One More for the Road?
In addition, Rick Mercer, the noted comedian/commentator, was quoted on Twitter as saying May wasn’t drunk: “I sat w @ElizabethMay @ Gallery dinner as did @TonyclementCPC - she wasn't drunk. She was tired & falling asleep in her soup.#longnight”

No doubt Mercer’s intentions are good in defending May, but how can he know she wasn’t drunk? Can Mercer know for sure that May did not drink before the dinner?  
In fact, some people can be drunk but don’t look as though they are. And some people who have a low tolerance for alcohol could be drunk and could seem drunk after drinking very little alcohol.
If May did drink before arriving at the dinner, and then consumed more alcohol at the dinner, she could have been drunk or at least 'under the influence' at the microphone in using poor judgment, crudity, and vulgarity to compare Khadr to the "whole f------- Cabinet." 

Excuses, Excuses
A key problem with May’s attempt to explain her behavior, presumably including her crude and vulgar crack about the “whole f------ Cabinet,” is she keeps making excuses for her inexcusable behavior—all the while claiming she’s not making excuses. 
Thus, May seemed to downplay and ignore her specific vulgar comment comparing Khadr to the federal Cabinet--which was in the short film clip that was widely-broadcast.

May claims she was sleep-deprived and had a cold, which she suggests were the reasons her performance wasn't funny. In saying this she implied her crude crack comparing Khadr to the "whole f------- Cabinet" was also meant to be funny. 
This kind of thinking, in itself, seems evidence of at least May's poor judgment, and possibly her immaturity as well. Regardless, when she attributes her 'performance' to sleep deprivation and having a cold she seems to be making excuses for what she did and said, even though she claims she isn't making excuses.
An Honest Mistake?

Since May's public crudity and vulgarity about the “whole f-------- Cabinet,” she has tried to portray herself as the one person in the House of Commons who is on the fast-track to sainthood: “I never heckle. I never swear. So, I had gotten the idea that it would be funny skit material if I was different from how I really am," she said (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-s-press-gallery-dinner-speech-will-haunt-her-experts-say-1.3070377).

Sadly, this seems like yet another excuse May is using in trying, unsuccessfully, to convince the rest of us she isn’t making excuses for her behavior. She has also tried, to no avail, to be convincing in saying she accepts full responsibility for her behavior. 
Unfortunately, May doesn't seem to realize that in using excuse after excuse, she appears to accept little or no responsibility for what she did.

Alberta’s Opie Takes Toys and Goes Home

When Jim Prentice quit as party leader-Alberta Premier and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) after his Conservatives were ousted from power in Tuesday’s election by the New Democratic Party (NDP), he behaved a lot like little Opie, the son of Sheriff Andy Taylor, in the beloved 1960s television sitcom, The Andy Griffith Show.

Prentice was re-elected in his own riding, but the once-powerful Tories in Alberta were relegated to third-party status.

One national news report on election night said Prentice resigned his positions and went home even before all of the votes were counted. “My contribution to public life is now at an end,” Prentice nobly told supporters Tuesday night. “It’s been a great privilege to serve” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/jim-prentice-resigns-after-orange-wave-sweeps-alberta-1.3062789).

In resigning so quickly, Prentice's unspoken message was ‘If I can’t be Premier anymore, if I can’t be number one, then I’m taking my toys and going home.”

By resigning almost immediately, Prentice acted like Opie in the Griffith show, in the episode ‘A Medal for Opie.’ Here, Opie, played by future Oscar-winning movie director Ronny Howard, competes unsuccessfully in the 50-yard dash, in the annual Boys’ Day races.
The Opie Factor

Opie, like Prentice, believed victory was his. In fact, Opie comes in last, and plods dejectedly off the track—head bowed, heading home, without watching the winner of his race get the medal Opie wanted. His pa, Andy, watches silently. 

Later, at home, Andy asks Opie why he left the track so quickly after losing the race. “I didn’t win. I didn’t win,” Opie moaned. Andy reassures him, saying at least Opie was “in there trying.” Opie, sulking, sprawled on the couch, replies, disheartened: “They don’t give you no medal for trying.”

Andy admits winning is nice but tells Opie "it’s more important to know how not to win…you could’ve been a nice loser—they call it sportsmanship…You got to learn how to take disappointment…You come up smiling, you’re a good loser. The other way’s being a bad loser…It don’t take courage to be a winner. It does take courage to be a good loser…”

Seems like Sore Loser
Like Opie, Jim Prentice seemed like a sore loser by going home apparently before the final results were tallied. He also appeared to demonstrate poor sportsmanship by resigning even his re-election as MLA in his own riding, seemingly because he couldn't be premier anymore.
Like unhappy Opie when he lost his 50-yard dash, Prentice probably felt badly after losing his job as premier, even though he was still elected in his own district. After all, when Prentice left his job as a federal Conservative Member of Parliament (M.P.) in Ottawa about a year ago he might have imagined being ‘King of Alberta’ indefinitely, since Alberta’s Tories had been in power for nearly 50 years.

Defeated by Arrogance?

In governing Alberta before the election did Prentice let himself be governed by hubris, arrogantly taking his party's historical popularity for granted? Did he naively think his party would continue winning elections endlessly even after bringing in his so-called ‘bad news budget’ and raising taxes before calling the provincial election?

Bad Loser

After Tuesday’s election in Alberta at least Prentice congratulated his opponents on their victories, according to Robin Urback (The National Post, May 6, 2015)--unlike Opie who ignored his friends' race wins.
Yet, Prentice's overall unspoken message, especially in resigning his own newly re-elected seat in his own riding on election night, was: 'If I can't be the boss I don't want to play anymore.' 
Like Opie who demonstrated poor sportsmanship when he lost his race, Prentice showed he's a bad loser. 

In fairness, after Prentice’s Tories lost their status as the governing party in Alberta's election, he could have been in shock, especially after decades of Conservative rule. But how does he justify resigning his own newly-re-elected MLA's seat--possibly before the final election results were even in?
While lttle Opie went home as soon as he lost his race largely because he hadn’t yet learned about good sportsmanship, what was Prentice's excuse? As a supposedly mature politician he should be able to be gracious in defeat. Yet, by quitting so quickly, even his own re-elected MLA's seat, Prentice implied--as immature Opie did--that being 'number one' was the only acceptable outcome of the election.

Does Over Mean Over?

While Prentice declared on election night that his contribution to public life is now over, this might not actually be the case for someone who has portrayed himself as an opportunist. 
As a federal M.P. for Alberta he was a relatively small fish in the big pond of Ottawa. By quitting that post before his term was up to be a provincial premier, Prentice was suddenly the big fish in the smaller pond of Alberta. 
Now he has quit his newly re-elected post of MLA in his own Alberta district, before even starting his new term in that role. 
In these contexts is Prentice necessarily out of public life for good, as he dramatically proclaimed on election night? Or could he be enticed to be opportunistic yet again, depending on the situation? 
At least two scenarios seem possible:

1) Prentice could run again in the upcoming federal election—if he now thinks being a small fish in the big Ottawa pond is better than not being in the public eye at all; or

2) Prime Minister Stephen Harper might cushion fellow Tory Prentice’s Alberta election loss with a cushy patronage post somewhere, with all the associated perks; which would contradict Prentice's assertion that his “contribution to public life is now at an end” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/jim-prentice-resigns-after-orange-wave-sweeps-alberta-1.3062789).  

But before Prentice does anything, he should merely ask himself one question: What would Opie do?