Conservative Publication Tells Trump To Ignore Advisers And Go Scorched Earth With Personal Attacks

While nearly every Republican in the country is telling Donald Trump to back off the personal attacks against Kamala Harris because they aren’t working, the editor of a conservative publication I telling him to double down on the attacks and ignore his own advisers. Rich Lowry, publisher of the conservative National Review, gave Trump this unsolicited advice as part of a column he wrote for The New York Times. This might be the worst advice ever for Trump, and that means he’ll likely take it, as Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains.

Subscribe to stay connected to our stories

Support us by becoming a member on YouTube

Or Support us on Patreon

Buy Ring of Fire merch

Find us on social media!

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Every Republican out there that has at least four functioning brain cells, I'll, I'll, I'll make it four. Um, but every Republican out there, whether you're a strategist, a lawmaker, somebody working for Donald Trump, or just your average Republican voter, any of them with multiple functioning brain cells, have all been screaming the same thing at Donald Trump for several weeks now. And it's this stop with the personal attacks against Kamala Harris because you're very bad at it and it's clearly not working. But apparently there's always that one person that has to go against the grain, right? When the conventional wisdom and the wisdom of the collective people says one thing, there's always that one a-hole out there that's gonna be like, no, no. I think we keep doing what keeps not working. And in this particular instance, that person happens to be the, uh, editor in chief of the Conservative National Review, man by the name of Rich Lowry.

Conservative. Rich Lowry thinks that Donald Trump should actually ignore everybody else in the country telling him to stop the personal attacks. And instead, he should go even harder on the personal attacks because they've totally been working so well for him. And for some reason, even though this guy is the editor in chief of an online newspaper, uh, he published an op-ed in the New York Times because, you know, they'll just give op-Eds to anybody with a pulse. And here is what Mr. Lowry said in his op-ed this week. It's basically a toss up race, but a successful Harris rollout and convention coupled with a stumbling Trump performance. Since Mr. Biden's exit have created a sense of irresistible Harris momentum for as long and as Mr. Trump has been in the ascendancy in the GOP, he will go off on some pointless tangent, and Republicans will urge him, perhaps as they hustle down a quarter of the US capitol to talk about the economy instead of his controversy du jour, presidential races are won and lost on character as much as the issues.

And often the issues are proxies for character, not character in the sense of a candidate's personal life. Of course, you gotta throw that caveat in there 'cause we're talking Trump a convicted felon. But the attributes that play into the question of whether someone is suited to the presidency, is he or she qualified, trustworthy, and strong? And does he or she care about average Americans? Presidential races in this sense, are deeply personal. They usually involve disqualifying the opposing candidate rather than convincing voters that his or her platform is wrongheaded. The Obama team hammered MIT Romney on the issues in 2012, but pretty much every policy argument went back to the core contention that he was a heartless out of touch capitalist who valued the bottom line more than people that ended up being the winning argument of the campaign. By the same token, Mr. Trump isn't going to beat Ms. Harris by scoring points in the debate over price controls of the border. Everything has to be connected to the deeper case that Ms. Harris is weak, a phony, and doesn't truly care about the country