politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The Trump Goes On
Source:
Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs ... campaign-will-end_1007525.html
Published: Aug 8, 2015
Author: Steven F. Hayes
Post Date: 2015-08-10 07:34:18 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 5831
Comments: 146
It’s not over. And it’s likely to end badly. In an interview on CNN last night, Donald Trump suggested that Megyn Kelly’s tough questioning was inspired by her menstrual cycle. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. “Blood coming out of her—wherever.” He refused to apologize, of course, but after widespread condemnation, Trump, who is running on candor and straight talk, sought to explain his comments in a Tweet. “Re Megyn Kelly quote: ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’ (NOSE). Just got on w/thought.’” It’s a comment that might end any other presidential campaign. Trump is different, in part because this isn’t a campaign. It’s an extended media-driven ego ride. From the beginning, he’s played by different rules because the media have let him. Trump works just blocks from the headquarters of the major broadcast and cable outlets. But as he’s rolled out his Trump for President brand, he has gotten journalists to come to him. He sits for interviews in the gilded atrium of Trump Towers, a nice home field advantage and one that sets him apart from the other politicians sitting in boring studios. Trump has conducted frequent telephone interviews on cable networks, sometimes several times a day, and last weekend did “phoners” on two Sunday morning political shows. (Has any other candidate this cycle, in either party, been given an opportunity to do a television interview by phone?) If he were asked policy questions, the arrangement would give him an unfair advantage, with the opportunity to answer questions with a cheat sheet in front of him and Google at his fingertips. But substantive questions about the country and its problems are the exceptions in Trump’s conversations with journalists, who prefer to ask him about his latest controversial comment or seek to provoke the next one by asking him about his opponents. (Trump’s comments about Kelly didn’t provoke any follow-up questions from CNN host Don Lemon, whose interview with Trump continued for several more minutes). So the cycle continues: Trump says something outrageous that may or may not have any relevance to serving as president, he’s asked about it in a largely substance-free interview, and ratings climb—along with Trump’s name ID and poll ratings. Trump is right, sadly, when he boasts that he is partly responsible for the 24 million viewers who tuned into the debate Thursday night. He has convinced himself that people watch because they love him and in a limited sense, he’s probably right about that, too. While I suspect that the Trump hype is driven by curiosity more than admiration, there is no doubt some segment of the population that is properly understood now as “Trump supporters.” That segment is small and will be shrinking in the coming weeks, but it won’t disappear. The true Trump apologists are way too far in now. They've invested too much to bail on him. So his defenders will become increasingly desperate to convince people that this is all part of the establishment's failure to understand their anger and the media's failure to appreciate Trump’s appeal. That’s backwards. It's not that the media have failed to give Trump enough credit; we’ve given his supporters too much. We assumed that at some point they'd embarrassed to be associated with him: If not his slander of Mexican immigrants, then perhaps his mockery of POWs; if not his kindergarten Twitter insults, then perhaps his sad and compulsive boasting; if not his incomprehensible answers to substantive questions at the debate, then maybe, finally, his juvenile and misogynistic put-down of the female moderator Those who still remain Trump supporters seem to be beyond shame. It doesn’t matter that they’re angry about the incompetence in Washington. Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator. It’s embarrassing, but rather than embarrassment, the Trump followers will feel more anger and their pose will shift from self-righteousness to victimhood. And many of them will dig in further. More worrisome, for conservatives and for the country, so will Trump. As he’s abandoned by more rational beings, Trump, a man of deep and evident insecurity, will need these remaining supporters as validation that it’s the world that’s gone crazy, not him. They will encourage him to march on, guided by the misapprehension that there are many more behind them, perhaps hard to see, but following in the distance nonetheless. Trump will tout this support and insist, unconstrained by reality, that he can win. (This is the man who continues to say Hispanics love him and will support him, despite polls showing his favorability among Hispanics in the mid-teens). As Republicans scramble to distance themselves—with many candidates denouncing his remarks about Kelly, as they had his mockery of John McCain—Trump will feel the swelling pride of a man whose bluff is being called. Treat me nicely or I’ll leave, he warned repeatedly. This is why Bret Baier’s first question Thursday was the single most important question of the debate. Although Trump had left open the possibility of running third party, in the days leading up to the debate he had backed away from those threats. “I’m pretty confident in the answers I’ve gotten from him,” Sean Hannity said Wednesday night. “I’ve asked him a few times. I’m pretty confident he’ll never run third party.” Less than twenty-four hours later, Trump reversed himself again, raising his hand to show he wouldn't pledge support for the eventual Republican nominee. When Baier asked if Trump meant to be conveying what he seemed to be saying, Trump responded, twice: “I fully understand.” Trump threatened to leave if Republicans treated him badly. Now, because he’s a churl and a buffoon, Republicans have no choice but to treat him badly. It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
But then, neither will the Emperor Zero regime. Wouldn't it be nice if the media focused on THAT (since that disaster affects the entire country rather than just one ego-centric billionaire). But I suppose if the media did that, it wouldn't attract 24 million viewers
No it will not. I believe in the end, it will be badly for the GOPe and their followers like the Weekly Standard. Si vis pacem, para bellum
This is the harshest piece I recall them running on Trump. Kristol, the honcho there, has defended Trump some, saying he doesn't plan to vote for Trump but he dislikes the establishment media and pols for the way they're treating him. He says he isn't anti-Trump, he's more anti-anti-Trump. Weekly Standard over the last few years has become far less GOP-establishment even if they still easily qualify as a GOP opinion source. They won't go populist but they are not aligned with the GOP elite in the Beltway on a number of issues, like the idiotic Corker Iran legislation and GOP strategy against the Obama agenda.
Fuck you, Steven Hayes. Trump was right about Mexico. He did not "slander" Mexican immigrants. And he was right about McCain. He did not "mock" POWs. That's the thing, Steve-o: you are a liar. You are so wedded to a political idea, to your club, that when you feel threatened - and you ARE threatened by Trump - you lie about what he says, you and your crowd, who seek to try to stampede people through lies. And so, therefore, your next President will be Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden). Why? Because the closest people like us will ever get to you is Trump. You will either grit your teeth and accept a Trump, or a Sarah Palin, or you can go fuck yourself and live with Democrat rule, because that works for us a whole lot better than letting the sort of Republicans YOU like ever have power. You're not going to have it your way, Stevie. No chance. You're not going to have your Jebby or your Marco, the folks you're comfortable with. You're going to accept somebody who rubs you the wrong way, or you're going to submit to Democrat rule. Rage away in your impotence, Steve. You DO have the ability to have a Republican President. To have one, you're going to have to swallow your pride and accept Trump. Otherwise, you may as well prepare for "Mrs. President."
Ah! So Trump really meant to say, "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her vagina". Really? Is THAT what Trump was going to say before he caught himself? You expect us to believe that? There are better ways of saying she was on the rag than that convoluted, mixed-up statement. Bunch of little, immature kids in the MSM looking for their "Gotcha" moment.
Good point. They may be able to shape and influence the primary, but they'll never get us to vote for their flunky. 8 million registered Republicans stayed home last election. We might set a new record in 2016.
Seems to me the ape couldn't do a worse job than the "professionals" we have now. Just the fact that there ARE problems that haven't been fixed should tell you something right there.
Read that? Steven Hayes thinks Trump supporters are shameless. You're shameless! You're idiots! You're crude and politically incorrect! You're gun- toting, God-fearing, hard-working, tax-paying boobs! Now get with the program and support JEB.
Agree!!! He and his cohorts are getting their panties in a wad because they are beginning to realize that the people are starting to refuse to buy the shit sandwiches they are selling! Si vis pacem, para bellum
Now get with the program and support JEB. " Yep, that is what the shit sandwich vendors think. Have you heard what George Will has said? You will like it / sarc! http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/09/george-will-trump-supporters-need-to-come-into-the-republican-party-on-our-terms-not-theirs Si vis pacem, para bellum
State those terms, George. What is Trump saying that goes against Republican "terms"? So far, everything I've heard from Trump fits a conservative agenda. I think what bothers George is that Trump might actually carry out the conservative agenda instead of just paying lip service to it.
This actually drew my interest the most. You recall that National Review went to print with their coverage on Trump's campaign announcement as "Witless Ape Rides Escalator". It is kinda unusual for the Right outlets to go after anyone this brazenly. Did they even call Ron Paul an "ape" like this? Of course they disdained him for many reasons and called him other names but they didn't go quite this far. Of course, Trump is threatening a lot of applecarts in GOP media and politics.
I'm pretty sure Hayes is a Walker supporter. The WI GOP has Hayes, Greta, and Reince Priebus handy to produce Walker puff pieces. Trump's rise makes serious problems for Walker to challenge Bush because Trump's presence is likely to unify all the tycoons and party establishment behind Bush to stop Trump early. A field of 17 means that Trump can carry his celeb-based candidacy a long time after Florida, maybe all the way to the convention. Trump can gets lots of attention for free and doesn't need to build his brand-name with voters like other candidates because everyone knows who he is. Only Bush (and Clinton) has comparable name-brand recognition.
Given how often you've stated your preferences for a Dem victory with Hitlery or Biden, I'm not too surprised. You like Trump in the hopes of their election, not Trump's.
Meaning we can hardly expect his article about Trump to be objective and fair. "Only Bush (and Clinton) has comparable name-brand recognition." And not in a good way. Which explain why Jeb Bush's campaign has signs saying JEB! (leaving out the Bush part). Vote for Jeb You-Know-Who and be proud you did!
There's another interview at National Review that Trump won't be doing. Geez Louise. Here I thought National Review and Fox were conservative outlets, yet both are resurrecting petty bullshit from years ago rather than Trump's position on the current issues.
National Review always sucked. Fox was never that good really. Only marginally better.
Fox is forgetting who made them #1. Now that they're at the top, they think they have to show the liberals they can be tough with conservatives, too. You will NEVER see the MSM try to show the public how "fair" they are by jumping on liberal candidates. They'll SAY they're fair, but that's it.
I read Murdochs kids took over July 1, 2015. I also heard they are liberals.
If they are, that would explain it.
Not really a hidden agenda that much with Hayes. He did a big podcast on Walker, his fellow-Cheesehead, when he announced on 7/13. It was a total puff piece, real man-crush material. Hayes followed a few days later with Walker's Agenda: 'Reform, Growth, Safety'. So not much of a hidden agenda, the bias is obvious. I had the feeling he volunteered for or got picked as WS's main reporter on all things Walker, who is still expected to be a player for the GOP nomination. It does underline why some media figures were banking on covering certain GOP candidates through next year and how they end up calling Trump an "ape" because he's threatening their little tea party.
The Weekly Standard was one of the biggest shills for invading Iraq, see how that turned out? They have a track record of being very wrong. This neocon "invade the world, invite the world" crap is killing America.
Rupert is only kinda retired. He could unretire any time he wants. Ailes got a big new contract and continued unfettered control of FNC. The Murdoch kids have indicated they'd go in a more liberal direction if it was up to them but Rupert won't let them do it while he's alive. But Rupert himself isn't so conservative, going by that donation of a million to Hillary 2008.
While I mistrust Trump, Trump may be the voice that initiates a reconstructive violent revolution in this country. It's a housecleaning this country has desperately needed for more than 50 years.
Yep, 2016 as "Jeb! vs. Hitlery!". With maybe The Donald lurking around. Wish for a Trump and you'll get a Bush is the most likely outcome. I keep trying to find a quip for this, along the lines of "A Trump in the hand is worth two more for Bush". I can't make it work and sound funny.
It's the Weekly Standard. They have all the patriotism of Jonathan Pollard.
If the GOP throws out Trump, Hillary is the most likely outcome. If the GOP doesn't support Trump but wants a Republican to win the White House in November, the only choice is to back off. If the people grow tired of him, the poll numbers will drop. If they drop, Trump will simply fade away. But if they increase, then Trump is tapping into something the GOP isn't offering. Perhaps the GOP should come into Trump's "camp".
There's another one that used to be conservative.
They're cuckservative.
I'm in northern Illinois, so I hear and read about what Walker is doing in Wisconsin on almost a weekly basis. (Mark Belling -- a Rush substitute host -- broadcasts from Milwaukee.) I think Walker would make a great President, and he's my choice. That said, right now he's a voice in the wilderness, along with all the other candidates. Trump is sucking all the oxygen and blood out of the room. (A little "common phrase" humor there.) Quite frankly, I like what Trump is saying and doing. Perhaps he's the man we need today. Now when I look at all the other candidates -- even Walker -- all I see are establishment types, willing to go along to get along, same-o, same-o. I gotta admit. It's depressing.
The Weekly Standard was founded by Bill Kristol, the biggest neo-conservative in the nation. Look up neo-conservative in the dictionary and there's a picture of him.
You mean, like Roger Stone, Trump's long-time political adviser. For all the cuckservative talk lately, the only actual cuckservative anyone can actually name is Trump's close buddy for the last 25 years, Roger Stone. Anyway, since you are so bi-curious about cuckservatives, I thought you might want to discuss the only known cuckservative Republican, Trump's good buddy and (former) adviser, Roger Stone.
I didn't like that word when I first saw it, and repetition isn't helping. It's rude, crude, and ignorant. My opinion.
Maybe that's his actual purpose. A ringer for Xlinton? A ringer for Bush? A ringer for both Xlinton and Bush (who would both prefer to fight it out with each other in the general election rather than risk losing the nomination for themselves). Trump virtually guarantees a Bush v. Clinton 2016 matchup. With or without Trump as a third-party candidate. It's maddening how many different ways Trump can play this to his advantage. This could be purely a play by Donald for some sweet business deal he's after. He really is fully leveraged against the entire GOP primary field with options to be a player in the 2016 election. And he can cut all kinds of side deals along the way, like with Adelson. Or Soros. Whoever. Maybe Donald just wants to be worth $20 billion and he's going to screw with the 2016 election until someone gives it to him (or lets him buy into one or more of their upcoming sweetheart deals with them paying all the financing costs).
They're all part of the Klueless Kucks Klan.
Mainly, it makes the person saying it sound cruder and more repugnant than the GOP elite.
RINO's are self emasculating; it fits them perfectly.
Key word. Former. Could we please move on?
And the movement came from the followers of Leon Trotsky.
You spew a lot of bullshit. I want Trump to be President. I do not want Clinton, who is a murderess, or Biden, who is a conflicted Catholic babykiller, to be President. I will not accept any crony capitalist Republican. Republican economics are unholy, and unacceptable. I listen to Donald Trump, a rich man who has profited from the crony capitalist laws, and HE is talking about things like protecting American jobs by controlling the border, and HE is talking about a national common market in health insurance. And HE is talking about the way that the system is rigged to allow rich guys like him to buy the politicians. That's why HE is acceptable - because he is the only one who is actually challenging Republican ECONOMIC and POLITICAL orthodoxy. The Republicans are every bit as unacceptable as the Democrats. Murder is evil. And making an idol of money is evil. And for all the claims of people like you that the Republicans are "pro-life", I look back at history and see a Republican-appointed Supreme Court deciding Roe 7-2, the Republicans controlling the Supreme Court every day since, and Republican Presidents from Reagan to Bush, inclusive, appointing more pro- choice justices than pro-lifers. Republicans are liars. They have duped the pro-life Christians into thinking they are the pro-life party, but judged by their fruit, by what they do, and don't do, with the power they already have, they're just lying skunks. Unacceptable. Trump is acceptable BECAUSE he is not a party man. By winning, he will be effecting a takeover of the GOP from without, by a whole bunch of disaffected people who otherwise would not vote Republican. So, you can bray on about how I want to see Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat elected. It's false. I think both parties suck. With the Republicans, I get evil economics and purposeful inactivity and deception on abortion. With Democrats, I get race- baiting and babykilling. They both suck, but since neither one is going to do the right thing on abortion, the Democrats are BETTER on economics, consistently over time, than Republicans. I will not VOTE for them, but I certainly prefer to see Democrat economics over Republican nonsense. Of course, with Trump, I won't get nonsense at all. So I FAVOR him. I want him to run, get the nomination, win the election and be President, because he will be good for the country. If it's a choice between some Republican greebo and a Democrat, I say a pox on both houses and will vote for neither. But I will be less unhappy with a Democrat victory than you will be, because I think Democrat economics make more sense. So with them I get half a loaf. Trump will really shake things up in all senses. So I SUPPORT him. Every time you take the line that I support the Democrats and want to see them elected, think of how YOU get called a Republican shill and operative, because you won't take some other idiot's line regarding you. They are idiots when they do that, regarding you. And you are the same sort of idiot when it comes to me. I say directly what I think, and why. You should take it as direct face value. I know you're a Republican, and honesty simply does not come easily to Republicans. But I am always honest and very direct.
Comments (41 - 146) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt won’t end well.
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
" It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well. "
#3. To: Stoner (#2)
I believe in the end, it will be badly for the GOPe and their followers like the Weekly Standard.
#4. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
That’s backwards. It's not that the media have failed to give Trump enough credit; we’ve given his supporters too much. We assumed that at some point they'd embarrassed to be associated with him: If not his slander of Mexican immigrants, then perhaps his mockery of POWs;
#5. To: TooConservative (#0)
"In an interview on CNN last night, Donald Trump suggested that Megyn Kelly’s tough questioning was inspired by her menstrual cycle. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. “Blood coming out of her—wherever.”
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
"You're not going to have your Jebby or your Marco, the folks you're comfortable with."
#7. To: TooConservative (#0)
"Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator."
#8. To: TooConservative (#0)
"Those who still remain Trump supporters seem to be beyond shame."
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
" Fuck you, Steven Hayes. "
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
" You're shameless! You're idiots! You're crude and politically incorrect! You're gun- toting, God-fearing, hard-working, tax-paying boobs!
#11. To: Stoner (#10)
(Edited)
"george-will-trump-supporters-need-to-come-into-the-republican- party-on-our-terms-not-theirs"
#12. To: misterwhite (#7)
"Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator."
#13. To: misterwhite (#8)
Now get with the program and support JEB.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Why? Because the closest people like us will ever get to you is Trump. You will either grit your teeth and accept a Trump, or a Sarah Palin, or you can go fuck yourself and live with Democrat rule, because that works for us a whole lot better than letting the sort of Republicans YOU like ever have power.
#15. To: TooConservative (#13)
"I'm pretty sure Hayes is a Walker supporter."
#16. To: TooConservative (#12)
"Witless Ape Rides Escalator"
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#17)
"Fox was never that good really."
#19. To: misterwhite (#18)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
"I read Murdochs kids took over July 1, 2015. I also heard they are liberals."
#21. To: misterwhite (#15)
Meaning we can hardly expect his article about Trump to be objective and fair.
#22. To: Stoner (#2)
No it will not. I believe in the end, it will be badly for the GOPe and their followers like the Weekly Standard.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)
I read Murdochs kids took over July 1, 2015. I also heard they are liberals.
#24. To: TooConservative (#0)
It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.
#25. To: misterwhite (#15)
And not in a good way. Which explain why Jeb Bush's campaign has signs saying JEB! (leaving out the Bush part).
#26. To: misterwhite (#5)
Bunch of little, immature kids in the MSM looking for their "Gotcha" moment.
#27. To: TooConservative (#25)
"Wish for a Trump and you'll get a Bush is the most likely outcome."
#28. To: nativist nationalist (#26)
"It's the Weekly Standard. They have all the patriotism of Jonathan Pollard."
#29. To: misterwhite (#16)
Here I thought National Review and Fox were conservative outlets...
#30. To: TooConservative (#21)
(Edited)
"Walker, who is still expected to be a player for the GOP nomination."
#31. To: nativist nationalist (#22)
"The Weekly Standard was one of the biggest shills for invading Iraq ..."
#32. To: nativist nationalist (#29)
They're cuckservative.
In the original ads, where this quotes "seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men", the actual phrasing is "seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men". Stone is one of those who denied that Roy Cohen was ever gay, he just liked having sex with other men. Nothing unusual about that. So maybe Roger Stone is also not gay but likes to have sex with other men too. Trump and Stone seem to share a Playboy lifestyle outlook out of the Seventies. Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined “Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,” reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card. “Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men,” the ad on the Web site stated. The ads sought athletes and military men, while discouraging overweight candidates, and included photographs of the Stones. At the time, Stone claimed that he had been set up by a “very sick individual,” but he was forced to resign from Dole’s campaign. Stone acknowledged to me that the ads were authentic. “When that whole thing hit the fan in 1996, the reason I gave a blanket denial was that my grandparents were still alive,” he said. “I’m not guilty of hypocrisy. I’m a libertarian and a libertine.”
#33. To: nativist nationalist (#29)
"They're cuckservative."
#34. To: misterwhite (#30)
That said, right now he's a voice in the wilderness, along with all the other candidates. Trump is sucking all the oxygen and blood out of the room.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#17)
National Review always sucked.
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
It's rude, crude, and ignorant. My opinion.
#37. To: misterwhite (#33)
I didn't like that word when I first saw it, and repetition isn't helping.
#38. To: TooConservative (#32)
"Trump's good buddy and (former) adviser, Roger Stone."
#39. To: misterwhite (#31)
Look up neo-conservative in the dictionary and there's a picture of him.
#40. To: TooConservative (#14)
Given how often you've stated your preferences for a Dem victory with Hitlery or Biden, I'm not too surprised. You like Trump in the hopes of their election, not Trump's.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]