metacommentary

Dr. Mehmet Oz, known on TV simply as Dr. Oz, is running for a seat on the US Senate to represent the state of Pennsylvania. Oz has been involved in his share of controversy during his time as a TV figure, and a bit like Deepak Chopra, he's been accused of plenty of quackery—shilling for this or that dubious dietary product or fad diet. He has also spent much of his career as a pro-choice, anti-gun activist, which definitely sets him apart from most conservatives. So why on earth would Donald Trump endorse this man?

I've talked before about what I see as one of Trump's major flaws, and now, if I can use the Instapundit commentariat as a bellwether, it's becoming obvious that I'm not alone in my assessment of Trump. Some of the commenters even used a term close to one used by my buddy Michael years ago: Trump is a "carnival barker." This commenter sentiment, though, is mixed in with a lot of respect for what many see as Trump's sincere love of his country, which in turn has meant Trump's adoption of certain policies that conservatives can get behind: strong borders, a strong economy, energy independence, etc.

Below, I'm providing you with a cross-section of comments from a post about Dr. Oz. While many of the comments appended to that post are about how Oz is by no means a conservative, quite a few comments—which I'm reposting here—are about how Trump isn't a real conservative, either (I've said as much many times on this blog: he's a 90s-era Democrat), and how Trump tends to like those who kiss his ass. Let me first reprint something I wrote recently before I move on to the Instapundit comments:

This brings me back to an issue that, in my opinion, has dogged Trump from the beginning: he's great at taking a general read of human nature, and he can apply that skill to his deal-making, especially in the international arena. But when it comes to how he selects the people he wants surrounding him, Trump has shown himself to be an extremely poor judge of character, which is one reason why so many of his staff picks left him and went on to write petty, tell-all books about their experience. Until Trump learns to read potential staffers more deeply, this problem will continue, assuming he wins a second term in 2024.

Here's what some of the commenters at Instapundit are saying:

Personnel has always been Trump's weakness.

This is the problem with the "Trump is a god playing three-dimensional chess with the universe" crowd. Trump is a businessman/celebrity/carny. He knew how to make America great again because he saw it functioning back when it was still great, not because he is some kind of political genius.

A non-conservative is endorsed by DJT. No surprise: while Trump has done many conservative things, he is not a conservative. I did vote for him twice; the alternatives were and are unacceptable; there are some who would be preferable. We will see.

I am a fan of [Trump's] presidency overall, but he made some real mistakes when it came to assessing people's character. This endorsement falls into that category.

I don't think Trump is really too interested in policy when he makes his endorsement decisions. The first thing he seems to take into consideration is whether the individual has attacked him personally. If so, then Trump is likely to endorse an opponent. Although he didn't follow this with Romney and Sasse, presumably because they assured Trump, disingenuously, that they were now pro-Trump. The second seems to be based solely on who he thinks has the better chance of winning. He likes to tout his amazing success rate on endorsements, but I think he likes to keep his stats up by endorsing well-funded establishment types who almost always turn around and stab him in the back when they get to DC. So he probably did do his homework on Oz, though with [Oz's] name recognition and fundraising possibilities, he was the one to back, regardless of the fact he doesn't seem to have any commitment to what Trump says his agenda is.

In the Texas gubernatorial race, Trump endorsed Greg Abbott over Allen West, which I think was a huge mistake. West has a much more stand-up character than the squishy Abbott does; West is, to me, clearly the better choice for Texas, and he'd be a much more ferocious defender of Texas's southern border. As I said, though, Trump is a poor judge of character at the personal level. It's going to be his undoing should he run a second time, as I think he will.

That said, I find myself in agreement with most of Trump's policies and priorities: he's right to want a strong border, right to want an aboveboard electoral process, right to want a strong economy that prioritizes America first, and right not to focus as obsessively as many conservatives do on issues of sexual ethics and reproductive rights—issues that ought to be resolved at the local/personal level unless it's a matter of school policy (e.g., teaching about sexuality to third-graders and younger). Trump is also right to search for diplomatic solutions to international problems—it can't be said enough, but the man started no new wars during his four years in office.

I still dislike Trump as a person, but I'd vote for him again were he to run. Unless you can show me someone better.

ADDENDUM: Matt Walsh (who, I noticed, has tiny, Trump-like hands) reacts as well: