Bragger in Chief?........You Judge
Frankly, he's as often braggadocious as bombastic, and nearly always hyperbolically so.
The sad thing is that he doesn't need to be. Prior presidents generally don't have but one or two "huge" accomplishments. All Trump really needs to do is quietly rack up small ones, call them what they are -- neither over nor under stating their merit -- and be done. He'll earn a hell of a lot more respect that way and he won't come off looking self-centered. Additionally, if he doesn't misrepresent his achievements' actual value, or even understates them a tiny bit, there really are only a few lines of legitimate response to them:
- Line Group One:
- Agreement that he did as he's described in all material respects and they were good things to do.
- Agreement that he did as he's described in all material respects and they were not good things to do and "here" is why. -- That's reasonable, and since he didn't misrepresent the nature of what he'd accomplished, the only avenue for refutation is on merit, and that only works if the merits are debatable. And if they are, they just are, and that is what politics is supposed to be about -- honest and mature debate on points of qualitative and quantitative merit.
- Line Group Two:
- Agreement that he accomplished more than he's described in all material respects and they were good things to do.
- Agreement that he accomplished more than he's described in all material respects and they were not good things to do and "here" is why. -- That's reasonable, and since he didn't misrepresent the nature of what he'd accomplished, the only avenue for refutation is on merit, and that only works if the merits are debatable. And if they are, they just are, and that is what politics is supposed to be about -- honest and mature debate on points of qualitative and quantitative merit.
Any chess player can tell you that the best of the simple strategies is to play well and avoid giving one's opponent something to attack. That doesn't mean one won't lose pieces. It means that one's opponent will be forced to lose more by have no good place to attack you. It means don't leave yourself open to attack by being careless. So far, Trump's been very careless, more careless than adroit, quite frankly.
Trump understands the "art of the deal," but what he seems yet to learn is that, unlike in business, the profit motive does not exist in government. The gov't isn't a profit making organization and it's not meant to be. For the entirety of his career, he's always had the profit "lever" as a direct part of "the deal." Now he doesn't. (I'm not trying to introduce the "conflict of interest" topic here, so if you respond to this post, don't. There are threads for that. Do it there.)