I watch Republican candidate ads on TV; they tout Donald’s endorsement as if it were an answer to everything. My question is simple: why? Are they capable of standing on their own merits, or are they compelled to function as Donald’s sock puppets? Do they require him to babysit them or handhold them because they can’t govern with independence? And if they’re courting voters chiefly through his approval, what does that reveal about their judgment–or about their willingness to break with him when the moment truly calls for distance?

What unsettles me is not merely branding; it’s the choreography. These candidates do not speak as though they share a platform because they’ve internalized it. They speak as if they are submitting testimony in anticipation of a verdict already delivered. Every “as Donald said” and every insistence that “Donald’s endorsement matters” converts politics into a loyalty program rather than a genuine exchange of ideas. It becomes less about voters weighing policies and more about voters selecting factions: who has earned admission to the inner circle, and who must seek permission even to register as viable.

There is also the subtext they rarely acknowledge. If Donald’s name is their most persuasive credential, what does that imply about the rest of their record? Elections ought to reward competence, coherent proposals, and demonstrated character–not proximity to a single political figure. If a platform cannot withstand scrutiny without the constant invocation of one man, then perhaps the plan itself is the issue.

Dan Means

Lisbon