The Face and Finger of a Trump Supporter
Should Trump Be Judged By The Company He Keeps?
Is it fair to judge people by the company they keep? I think it depends upon the reason for the judgement. Under ordinary circumstances,
I think not. In the case of presidential candidates, I am leaning towards yes.
I recognize that appearances can be—and often are—deceiving. A jump to conclusions can be downright dangerous—especially when
A surrogate for the company one keeps might be the materials they read. Let’s see where that could lead you in making a judgement
As part of my day-to-day activities and definitely as part of my blogging regimen, I wander around the internet. I sometimes wonder--
while wandering-- what conclusions a person would draw looking at my browsing history.
I’ve clicked on some sites that would certainly give pause—at the least good for a head scratch. For example, researching the series
on 3rd parties took me to the likes of The New Black Panther Party, the America’s Party, the U.S. Marijuana Party, the Republican Party,
the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and the Prohibitionist Party.
Add to these the web addresses I visited writing a recent installment of my Justice Delayed/CPP series. Those included Koch
connected groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the State Policy Network. Also on my route were mainstream
news sources like Reuters and Bloomberg.
On the basis of my site visits you would certainly consider me conflicted. Beyond that, however, you might conclude I was
a radical, teetotalling stoner, unsure of whether he agreed with the right or the left, who reads news about the middle.
You would be partially right. Confessions of this blogger not forthcoming, my point is that you wouldn’t have a very accurate picture
of who I was or what I might be doing in the future.
Does the same apply to presidential candidates? Ordinarily I would apply the same standard to the candidates as I would to myself
or to you. Running for president is far from an ordinary circumstance. As a voter, I feel it fair to factor the company kept by a
presidential candidate into my decision of who to support come November.
Is it the only way to take a candidate’s measure or to predict what they will do once in office? Although not the only one, it can be
a point of light in an otherwise dark sky. Political candidates—particular this year’s class—are not exactly open and honest about
themselves. Voters can be forgiven, therefore, for seeking anecdotal evidence.
If the company a candidate keeps says something about them, what does Trump’s circle of friends, family and advisors say about him?
What does it say about his presidency and the country’s future? I would guess it says we’re in deep shit.
That’s what I think. What you think is entirely up to you. All I am doing is suggesting some information you might want to consider.
Trump’s troop is reasonably large—too large to cover completely in the space allowed. Because of practical considerations, I am going
to pick and choose who to highlight from among his circle of counselors. Whether I can be forgiven for my choices is up to you.
In the first two parts of this series I will be focusing on Katrina Pierson and Sam Clovis. Pierson is a national spokesperson for the campaign (the mouth); the next installment will highlight one of Donald's policy advisors, Sam Clovis (the mind). I'll be introducing you to other of his
intimates as the series continues.
What I won't be doing is profiling any of Donald’s darlings. Whether you like them or not, they should be recognized as supporting
their father. They are the product and not the cause of him—and not fair game.
I urge you not to be passive in this endeavor. Take some time to investigate Trump’s consigliere—figure for yourselves who they are
and what they stand for.
I promise neither to peek nor to draw any conclusion from the sites you search. If so moved, you should as well check out the company
kept by Secretary Clinton and other of the candidates in the contest. Feel free to pass along your findings and I will be happy to post
them here at Civil Notion.
The Mouth: Kristina Pierson
Kristina Pierson is a national spokesperson for Trump. She overcame a very difficult child and
early adulthood, graduating in 2006from the University of Texas (Dallas) with a BA degree in biology.
After graduation she held a variety of jobs. Pierson worked for InVentiv Health in 2008; the
Baylor Health Care System from July 2009 to August 2011, as a practice administrator; and
ASG Software Solutions as director of corporate affairs, from May 2011 to December 2012.
A Tea Party activist she started a local Tea Party group in Garland, Texas in 2009. Pierson
supported Ted Cruz in his successful 2012 bid for the Senate. She has had her own ambitions
Pierson challenged Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) in the 2014 primary. Although failing to capture the nomination, she was
endorsed by Sarah Palin and the evangelical minister Rafael Cruz. Senator Cruz has called her an “utterly feisty fighter for freedom.”
She met the Donald in January 2015, while attending a Tea Party meeting with his new BFF Cruz. Pierson became a national spokesperson
for Trump in November 2015. Since then, she has frequently appeared on national TV and other media outlets as a surrogate
for the candidate.
Katrina was not voted Little Miss Popularity while a volunteer on the Cruz campaign team. Basically she was thought of as
an evil kiss-ass. She particularly earned the disfavor of Cruz’s wife—Heidi. It has been suggested that she was the force behind the
dump Pierson campaign.
It would not be unreasonable to think that as a Trump opponent that Cruz did what he could to convince him to offer the spokesperson
spot. Now that he is Donald’s bud he might be feeling a tad guilty—nah—need a conscience for that.
She has a reputation as a quick-lipped, acidic and adamant apologist for the Donald. According to Michael Arceneaux:
Pierson has always had a contentious relationship with the truth, long treat[ed] history like a frenemy and …repeatedly...sounding
as if she’s one side short of a proper fish dinner.
She is known more for some pretty outrageous comments—both as Donald’s mouthpiece and in her earlier political career.
This summer—after the Kahn’s convention speech she went on to CNN and claimed: "It was under Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton that changed the rules of engagement that probably cost his life." The his here is the Kahn’s son Humayun, who lost
his life in Afghanistan.
For the record, President Obama was a sitting Illinois state senator in 2004. That same year Senator Obama gave the Democratic
convention speech that had everyone speculating he would run for the presidency after Hillary finished her second term.
Pierson tried to walk back her claim of blame when she tweeted the microphone did it. Evidently there is a lot of that going around.
Pierson has not been particularly kind to Obama. In fairness, she is pretty much an equal opportunity bigot. She and Donald seem
to share the same view on race, immigration and the Twittersphere. According to the Huffington Post:
She has referred to Obama as the “head negro” and criticized him for not
truly being African-American — even though both were born to a white
mother and black father. “Perfect Obama’s dad born in Africa, Mitt Romney’s
dad born in Mexico. Any pure breeds left?”
Miss P has also questioned Senator Rubio’s status as an American. The well lettered Katrina pointed out to one interviewer that Little
Marco might not be eligible to run for the presidency because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth in America. Evidently
she and Donald shared the same constitutional tutor. Either s/he did not know that anyone born here is a citizen no matter what the
parents may be or the microphone was at it again.
Quite frankly I am not sure why the Donald permits her to speak on his behalf. It can’t be for her fashion sense. Responding to
criticism about appearing on national television wearing a necklace made of bullets, she allowed as how she might wear a fetus next
time to protest abortion. Call me sexist but wouldn’t she be better off wearing a little black dress?
Our Kate seems to have taken a page out of the Trump book of management. After failing in her Congressional campaign she was
the voice of the Tea Party Leadership Fund in Texas. The Fund is a political action committee. It was accused of being a scam
PAC for spending almost 90 percent of its donated revenues to paying expenses and salaries of conservative candidates.
Lest you think I’m being unfair in my characterization of the Mouth of the Trump campaign, you should note that others on the
campaign team have suggested a certain unease with Pierson. One of Trump’s senior advisors spoke openly in an interview about
her wild estimates of the casualties suffered by American forces in Iraq. Clovis, who will be the subject of the next article in this series,
said: When you do go out, you have a responsibility. ... I think it's important to come on (TV) and have accurate information….I think
facts always help you, the truth always helps you and I think that's always where we ought to be.
In the same CNN New Day interview, Clovis told Alyson Camerota "I think we're fixing it, I guarantee you that won't happen again
with her, that's for sure. And it won't likely happen with anybody else."
Katrina Pierson continues to be a spokeswoman for the campaign and one of the most invited surrogates to explain the
Candidate’s positions. I am sure she gooses the ratings of news and commentary programs. I am not sure what she does to the
campaign’s ratings. Should Donald be judged by the company he keeps? You be the judge. Check for the next company profile when
I will introduce you to Sam Clovis.
To further follow the adventures of Miss Kate click on #KatrinaPiersonHistorys.