Trump Doesn’t Just Need an ‘Attack Dog’, He Needs a Spin Doctor

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Donald Trump was in search of an “attack dog” as his running mate. As far as job descriptions go, that’s akin to an accounting firm recruiting people who are “good with numbers”—it’s obvious, and it’s a prerequisite of the job. What’s newsy is the purpose for which Trump wants such a political pit bull: “to help him parry criticism on the campaign trail,” the Journal writes.

A running mate is typically an aggressor on the stump and the tube, blaring the virtues of the presidential nominee and censuring the opponent on cable news. But rarely in the TV age of politics—if at any time, at all—has it been so necessary for a vice-presidential choice to defend the top of the ticket as it will be with Trump.

Recall the interview that Chris Christie gave to ABC’s This Week as a newly minted Trump surrogate. Eight of his first ten responses to host George Stephanopoulos began like this: “Well, listen,” “No, it’s just not true,” “No,” “Well, listen, George,” “Listen,” Listen,” “Listen, I’m not saying,” and “Yes”—but oh no, not again—”and listen.”

It’s a difficult job, speaking on behalf of Trump. And on programs like This Week, his VP selection, whomever it is, is liable to start an answer to a question with “Hillary” as he is with “What Donald really meant to say was …” Trump doesn’t just need an attack dog. He needs a spin doctor.

Newt Gingrich, who has a facility with language on live television, would seem up to the task. He thinks well on his feet. He has a way of presenting himself as a populist and turning the tables against the media. Remember his spat with CNN’s John King during a 2012 presidential debate? He responded to a question about his past marital woes by saying, “I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, makes it harder to attract decent people to run for public office.”

Gov. Christie has been similarly pugnacious; it’s been his style in office.

But Indiana governor Mike Pence, who Trump is said to be weighing against Gingrich as his running mate, struggled with media controversy in his last go-around in the national spotlight. His missteps in defending his state’s religious freedom law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, hardened negative opinion among liberals and disappointed social conservatives. As Michael Warren wrote in April last year:

The controversy intensified on Sunday when Pence stumbled in an interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, with the Republican struggling to answer questions about whether or not the law allowed for discrimination. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a televised press conference two days later, Pence clarified the law did not give Hoosiers “license to discriminate” against anyone but that he would request the Indiana legislature pass a clarification of the law along these lines. In [an] interview with C-SPAN, [Tony] Perkins insisted the law as originally passed did not allow for discrimination. “This is an accommodation. This is to allow someone to make a defense. It’s not automatic,” Perkins said. “Government should not be a party to forcing speech and forcing people to engage in activities that violate their beliefs. And that’s simply what RFRA is.” Asked about what Pence could have done differently to make the case for the RFRA law, Perkins said, “I think he could have just said what I said.”

If Pence is to be Trump’s selection, he’ll have it at least as hard defending Trump as he did defending RFRA.

Related Content