Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Word of Explanation
“Donald Trump’s big acceptance speech Thursday,” according to reports appearing in a number of places—here I’m quoting Politico—“will be written in part by…Peter M. Robinson.”
No it won’t.
A word of explanation:
Not quite two weeks ago, my old friend Larry Kudlow called, asking if I’d advise the Trump campaign on speechwriting. I told Larry just what I’ve said here on Ricochet: Despite Donald Trump’s shortcomings—and he was hardly my first choice for the Republican nomination—I believe a Trump administration would be a lot better than a Clinton administration. (I know many of my fellow conservatives disagree, but all I myself had to do to decide the matter was imagine Clinton’s appointments to the Supreme Court.) That being so, I said, I would see helping the Trump campaign as something of a patriotic duty.
Over the next several days I telephoned and emailed Larry several times. I offered my thoughts on the best ways of setting up a speechwriting shop and suggested several writers who would be willing to help. Then on Saturday, July 9, I participated in a conference call with Larry, Stephen Miller of the Trump campaign, and Ben Elliot, another old friend of mine who, like me, had served as a speechwriter for President Reagan. The four of us discussed themes the candidate might use in his acceptance speech, in the major address on economics that would follow the convention, and in the series of addresses in which Trump plans to lay out his policy positions in detail.
A couple of days later, the campaign asked me to sign a non-disclosure agreement. After having a lawyer advise me—note, by the way, that the lawyer is a Trump supporter, one of the few I know here in Northern California—I declined to do so. To speak to the media, to name one provision, the NDA would have required me to seek approval from Trump’s representatives—in perpetuity. Half my friends are in the media. I might as well have sawn off an arm.
Yesterday I typed up a few final notes—they came to just three pages—and sent them to Larry.
That ended my involvement.
Since I’ll be unable to reply to the emails from reporters that have been piling up in my inbox—I’ve got to get back to work—let me answer a couple of questions right here.
Q: Do you have any idea how all this made its way into the press?
A: None. I only learned that it had become a story when I got a call yesterday afternoon from Bob Costa of the Washington Post. (Bob’s an old friend. Case in point.) An honest man, by the way, Bob reported only that the Trump campaign “has consulted with two former Reagan speechwriters…but that pair is not formally part of the campaign.” That much is true.
Q: Should the Trump campaign reconsider NDAs?
A: Not necessarily. Since leaks pose a problem in every campaign, the argument for NDAs makes sense. All I’m saying is that I couldn’t sign the NDA myself.
Q: Do you still wish the Trump campaign well?
A: I certainly do. As briefly as I was involved, I learned that very good people are working very hard to draft addresses that will enable the candidate to argue his case, explaining his principles and setting out his policies. Donald Trump can inspire the nation yet.
Like this post? Join Ricochet.com’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Click here to get your first month free.
Published in General
The first I’ve heard of it. Sounds like you did exactly as you’ve said all along. Well done.
Nope, nope I have been reading the stories. This is a death blow, this is Clinton’s handling of Classified information x 100 and Trump is now on the death spiral. That’s word for word out of NPR, or pretty close anyway, doomed.
I’ll take it as a sign that there is some reason and foresight being applied to the campaign. Interesting to see how much of an issue the NDA becomes… Perhaps the first line of excuse given to explain away a loss… “We wanted to run the campaign like a business and who does business without an NDA?” My company takes them seriously, especially with consultants and suppliers we are interested in working with. No NDA, no business. It’s a very interesting development that’s not done matriculating.
What’s really scary is that what is word for word out of NPR is echoed here regularly … on a purportedly conservative site.
There surely is something exploding, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Melania. (BTW, that was my paternal Prussian grandmother’s first name.)
I can understand NDAs being used in private companies. But they don’t make sense for use by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
How can we be part of a government that conducts itself in secret?
I understand the need for national security secrecy, but anything other than military secrecy seems to go against the openness required for civic engagement in a democratic republic.
Please tell me this is tongue in cheek.
Melania is a nice name.
Hah, have you listened to NPR lately?
They may not be quite as bad as that but listening to their daily coverage of anything in the past few years is moving from, “these are shills for Lefties” to the “this is a state funded propaganda organ for the Democrats”.
Although I am 100% #NeverTrump, I appreciate those conservatives who, facing the inevitable, are attempting to influence and direct in campaign, from Paul Ryan on down, including Peter Robinson. My question to all those involved in the effort is: exactly how much of Trump will be enough? How much of that man’s mindless banter will you be able to take before inevitably throwing in the towel? Trump is not a man who thinks beyond making the sale. Much of what he says is contradictory or nonsense,or both. There is certainly not a lot of facts or thought behind his words. Don’t be disheartened when your thoughts and ideas are casually thrown to the wayside.
I think we won’t know what Mr. Trump has in mind until he actually does something. I think he will be to Republicans what Bill Clinton was to Democrats. Clinton was in office something like three days when, after campaign against NAFTA, he hopped on a plane and went off to sign it. :)
Bingo. That’s what’s so disturbing about this. It’s a personal obligation that runs to Donald Trump, rather than the nation or the constitution or even the government. At the risk of triggering Godwin’s law, it’s unmistakably at least a pale echo of the Reichswehreid the German military was forced to swear pledging unconditional obedience to you know who. Maybe I’ve just missed it, but I’ve never seen any indication that the Donald puts any stock in the distinction between fealty to the Constitution and fealty to the Donald. Do we think he’s suddenly going to discovery this when he’s sitting in the Oval?
First, I suspect he’d admire Khruschev for being the sort of strong man who would take such decisive action.
Heck, the NDAs I signed for access to classified only go for 75 years…
I thought Trump’s opponents are the people saying that it’s none of our business what China and Mexico do to their citizens or ours. Wouldn’t they be likely to have defended the USSR?
It’s got to be Trump for a safer world – everywhere
The distinct sense I get from Trump is that he’s neither read the Constitution nor that he would like it if he did.
I favor the campaign formulation suggested by cartoonist Scott Adams. Trump should be about building “Team America”.
The power of that formulation is shown by yesterday’s viral video where the BLM and the Police in Wichita Kansas called off a protest to have a joint barbecue. The people want unity, not division (which Hillary is trying to sell).
Peter,
Thank you very much for the full disclosure. Also, I think your attitude to Trump is the right one and your behavior on this issue is correct.
We will all find our way through this political season. Gd didn’t say it was going to be easy.
Regards,
Jim
I never saw the Team America: World Police movie. I suppose that would foul up any attempt to use “Team America” as a campaign theme.
Get thee to Netflix!
We’ve always known that Peter Robinson is tremendous. Just, really tremendous.
@peterrobinson Do you know this Meredith McIver?
Were her services an illegal in-kind contribution by The Trump Organization?
Yes, this omission to your education needs to be remedied immediately. And you will laugh like crazy. It’s a perfect movie — and there aren’t many of them.
Be warned: There is a gratuitously disgusting sex scene which I strongly suggest skipping.
Worth noting: A gratuitous disgusting sex scene done with marionettes.
I read somewhere that was the whole reason for using puppets rather than cartoon. The first puppet porn movie.
Point made and well taken.
One of the funniest scenes in the movie. May have dragged on a bit after the novelty started to wear off, but so what.
In a typical comedy, we’re lucky to get one belly laugh scene and a few chuckles. This movie had about 5 stitch ripping scenes, plus numerous heavy duty chuckling.
So, if the Trump campaign has used “Team America” as a slogan, it is not hard to imagine the Hillary-ites using the marionette sex scene in campaign ads. Something like, Trump wants to [expletive omitted] America!