December 26, 2015

Trying to peg Donald Trump as a misogynist, David Brock uses a blatant misandrist word against him: "wuss."

Did you notice this little encounter between Brock and Trump's spokeswoman Katrina Pierson. Pierson was there — on CNN — to explain a couple of Trump tweets that tell Hillary to "be careful" about accusing him of degrading women. Pierson speaks first and praises Donald Trump for his willingness to take on Bill Clinton. Brock changes the subject to Trump's psyche:



He says: "What kind of a man insults, threatens, and degrades women — not just Hillary, Megyn Kelly, Fiorina? I'll tell what kind of a man that is. That is somebody who is frightened, who is insecure, and is a wuss, who has to act like a bully to make him feel like he's a big man."

What kind of a man calls another man's masculinity into question and uses the word "wuss"?! Listen to that audio. Brock takes a bullying tone as he calls Trump a bully. Why would he do that? Does it make him feel like a man?

Here's the article at The Hill — "Trump campaign: Hillary bullied women to hide Bill's 'sexist secrets'" — which doesn't mention the "wuss" epithet. The emphasis there is on Pierson's remarks:  “But Hillary Clinton has some nerve to talk about the war on women and the bigotry toward women when she has a serious problem in her husband.” And:  “What’s interesting about this, this notion of being bullied is, I mean, I can think of quite a few women that have been bullied by Hillary Clinton to hide her husband’s misogynist, sexist secrets,” Pierson said.

40 comments:

Bay Area Guy said...

David Brock calling someone a "wuss"? Irony abounds.

cubanbob said...

He says: "What kind of a man insults, threatens, and degrades women — not just Hillary, Megyn Kelly, Fiorina? I'll tell what kind of a man that is. That is somebody who is frightened, who is insecure, and is a wuss, who has to act like a bully to make him feel like he's a big man."

What kind of a man calls another man's masculinity into question and uses the word "wuss"?! Listen to that audio. Brock takes a bullying tone as he calls Trump a bully. Why would he do that? Does it make him feel like a man?"

Brooks is a man? Please people, its CNN.

Jason said...

Trump is a lot of things.

But a "wuss" he ain't.

For that little spineless popinjay to throw that word around is just precious.

Gahrie said...

David Brock calling someone a "wuss"? Irony abounds

The Left does nothing if it does not project......

Big Mike said...

Does it make him feel like a man?

Hardly any genetically male Democrats would know what that feels like.

pm317 said...

Wow, Trump got a good spokeswoman there. I think what is distinguishing Trump from the rest of them, Rs and Ds is that he is eager to cross the line beyond 'decency' and call it not being PC. So shaming Hillary for her husband's indiscretions is A OK because she may talk about the war on women. But look at that weasel Axelrod who won two elections waging that fake war against the Rs. Trump is brilliant but somehow I am walking away from him because I don't like him as a human being. Because I am looking at Hillary as an abstract woman figure aspiring to become something big where she is thwarted and bombarded from left to right and for no fault of hers. It is the same old goddamn story of females losing in history decade after decade.

walter said...

The American people won't stand for insulting language from this "wuss".

Note his use of the phrase "radicalized Republican base" and his claim that Trump has put America at risk. How so?

pm317 said...

And Brock was very ineffective against that other woman. It is amazing how nobody has effective response to counter Trump even when he crosses the bounds of human decency.

cubanbob said...

Blogger pm317 said...
Wow, Trump got a good spokeswoman there. I think what is distinguishing Trump from the rest of them, Rs and Ds is that he is eager to cross the line beyond 'decency' and call it not being PC. So shaming Hillary for her husband's indiscretions is A OK because she may talk about the war on women. But look at that weasel Axelrod who won two elections waging that fake war against the Rs. Trump is brilliant but somehow I am walking away from him because I don't like him as a human being. Because I am looking at Hillary as an abstract woman figure aspiring to become something big where she is thwarted and bombarded from left to right and for no fault of hers. It is the same old goddamn story of females losing in history decade after decade.

12/26/15, 3:37 PM"

Hillary isn't an abstraction, she is a person and on balance a rather unseemly one at that. Hillary is trying to become something big alright but being what she really is a reason to vote against her, the person. Symbols don't govern and that is what the election is about.

Ann Althouse said...

"Wow, Trump got a good spokeswoman there."

Yeah, I am just noticing her.

I was wondering today who Trump's advisers are. I was feeling that he projects the image of being a one-man show, figuring everything out on his own. Who is he talking with, bouncing ideas off of?

I found Ballotpedia — which is a really useful resource. Here's the page for Trump. I noticed her name and began clicking around, including her page at that cite. You can see that she tried to get the nomination for a House seat in Texas away from a GOP incumbent, but lost.

pm317 said...

Who is he talking with, bouncing ideas off of?

I have been asking this same question on another blog. As I said there last week, the progression of Trump's good fortune has been too good to be true and with 0 unforced errors so far as both the Rs and Ds go after him. I don't think it is all his brainchild. In fact, I don't think his running for this office is all his own decision. So who are the people behind the curtain?

pm317 said...

I think Trump (or his people) is/are brilliant in figuring out the Achilles' heel of the opponent to a precision and using it to a degree unseen before. What makes him 'fearless?' I think it is because he is operating on the principle of nothing to lose. The other regular politicians are cowards for not operating in that fashion. Imagine if we had somebody like Trump to run against Obama in 2012. Even Trump was a coward then and he is picking on the girl/girls now.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

cubanbob,

David Brock. Not David Brooks.

Michael K said...

Brock ? Is he still cis-male ?

n.n said...

Entrepreneur, celebrity, leader, husband, and father... Trump is many things, and more than dreamed in Brock's imagination.

YoungHegelian said...

Oh my God! Is the HRC campaign actually sending out loonie-tunes David Brock to be a front man for them? Who's next -- the Blumenthals, pere et fils, united by the bonds of family & derangement?

I mean, I can understand why a campaign needs bulldogs & hitmen to do the dirty deeds that must be done in the background. But, what sort of imbeciles puts these people in front of a camera & a microphone for the world to see?

The Hillary campaign is in worse shape than I thought.

Mac McConnell said...

The gay David Brock who takes it in the ass calls Trump a wuss, no shit?

Birkel said...

pm317,
Hillary attacked the character of the victims of Bill Clinton. Your Clintonian parsing of that fact ("..shaming Hillary for her husband's indiscretions is A OK ..") does not hide the truth. Hillary blamed the victims of sexual assault to further her own and her husband's political ambition.

You will vote for Hillary either way. But don't pretend you don't know exactly what sort of person Hillary is.

Quaestor said...

Brock is turncoat looking for a job with the Hillary organization. Like all renegades he's discovered that treachery pays only once. Neither side will employ him in a position of trust, so he's relegated to the periphery where he can only make risible comments on low-rated networks.

robinintn said...

I noticed "radicalized Republican base" too. Didn't Brock get the Obama memo? People who have been radicalized are victims. Oh, wait. That victim thing only applies to terrorists, not Republicans. Never mind.

The Godfather said...

You know the old saying, You don't mention rope in the home of a man who was hanged? For pure personal self-protection Hillary! and her spokesidiots should NEVER mention "a video" and most certainly should not talk about someone else as having "put our country in danger".

Paul Zrimsek said...

Did Trump by any chance call any of those women "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty"?

Quaestor said...

Brooks is a man? Please people, its CNN.

Avoid confusing David Brock with David Brooks.

Brock made his first appearance as an acid-tongued but little noticed critic of the Clintons back in the 1990s. He was usually heard hawking shop-worn anti-Clinton canards to second-string talk radio jocks. Then he suddenly turned his coat and became a staunch, but ineffectual Clinton defender. The reason for his about-face is unclear, but was probably sexual blackmail. Now an outsider and an object of contempt in both camps, Brock has vainly sought pundit status ever since.

David Brooks is the New York Times' tame conservative, notable for never endorsing a conservative candidate or a conservative policy. He's also notorious for being moronically impressed by the crease in Obama's trousers.

Titus said...

David Brock is hideous and his hair is a disaster.

Nasty fag.

tits.

The Trump spokeswomen has nice tits.

Bruce Hayden said...

Trump is making this election a lot of fun. Instead of the usual MSM going after Republican candidates as they have in the past, the MSM is ducking for cover to protect themselves against Trump. It is pretty funny. I have little doubt that a number of the other Republican candidates would use the same ammo against Hillary, but somehow Trump is better at it. She says something against him, and he hits back twice as hard, and we all know what he is talking about, with Libya, the video, Benghazi, cattle futures, bimbo eruptions, Whitewater, billing records, private email server, etc.

And, this has always been her weakness - that she has been so corrupt and dishonest for so long that if an opponent could actually get the public interested in her scandals, they would turn away from her. Well, Trump does it. He mentions a couple of her scandals, and everyone has to look into them to catch up. And, while Bill may help a bit, I suspect that his infidelities are going to be center if he really does get involved, and esp. his flights to the private island owned by his buddy, the pedophile billionaire. Pictures of decent looking women on his arm should go a long way to neutering his appeal. Dems thought that the MSM could protect them again, as they did Obama, Kerry, AlGore, etc. Not working, with Trump just talking around them to the wider audience.

Howard said...

As Jason says, Trump isn't a wuss, he is a C_NT.

Big Mike said...

What the Democrats are doing is circular reasoning at its most basic. They view (make that "loudly view") Republicans as racist, sexist, misogynist bigots, so anything Republicans do must be racist and/or sexist and/or misogynistic and should therefore be interpreted in that light.

Michael McClain said...

Mighty macho talk from David Brock.

Ann Althouse said...

Aunt Blabby.

cubanbob said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
cubanbob,

David Brock. Not David Brooks.

12/26/15, 4:16 PM

Quaestor said...
Brooks is a man? Please people, its CNN.

Avoid confusing David Brock with David Brooks.

Brock made his first appearance as an acid-tongued but little noticed critic of the Clintons back in the 1990s. He was usually heard hawking shop-worn anti-Clinton canards to second-string talk radio jocks. Then he suddenly turned his coat and became a staunch, but ineffectual Clinton defender. The reason for his about-face is unclear, but was probably sexual blackmail. Now an outsider and an object of contempt in both camps, Brock has vainly sought pundit status ever since.

David Brooks is the New York Times' tame conservative, notable for never endorsing a conservative candidate or a conservative policy. He's also notorious for being moronically impressed by the crease in Obama's trousers.

12/26/15, 5:23 PM

I stand corrected on the particular fact but in the overall scheme of things is there actually a difference between the two? I think not.


Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
Trump is making this election a lot of fun. Instead of the usual MSM going after Republican candidates as they have in the past, the MSM is ducking for cover to protect themselves against Trump. It is pretty funny. I have little doubt that a number of the other Republican candidates would use the same ammo against Hillary, but somehow Trump is better at it. She says something against him, and he hits back twice as hard, and we all know what he is talking about, with Libya, the video, Benghazi, cattle futures, bimbo eruptions, Whitewater, billing records, private email server, etc.

And, this has always been her weakness - that she has been so corrupt and dishonest for so long that if an opponent could actually get the public interested in her scandals, they would turn away from her. Well, Trump does it. He mentions a couple of her scandals, and everyone has to look into them to catch up. And, while Bill may help a bit, I suspect that his infidelities are going to be center if he really does get involved, and esp. his flights to the private island owned by his buddy, the pedophile billionaire. Pictures of decent looking women on his arm should go a long way to neutering his appeal. Dems thought that the MSM could protect them again, as they did Obama, Kerry, AlGore, etc. Not working, with Trump just talking around them to the wider audience.

12/26/15, 5:44 PM'

Leave it to Trump to go after Hillary using Bill as the trap: 'yes ladies and gentleman, elect Hillary and she will be spending her four years covering up bimbo eruptions, too bad she won't have time to do anything else as president.'

rhhardin said...

They're all violations of political correctness. The tu quoque argument is itself politically correct.

The guys' position is that PC doesn't matter in the first place.

It just doesn't make it in the media.

William said...

Mitt Romney by all appearances is an exemplary human being. Nonetheless, he got the same treatment that Trump is getting. Racist bully who takes particular delight in watching women die of breast cancer. You can credibly charge Trump with a number of character defects that Romney doesn't have, but that may be Trump's salvation. He doesn't mind being a bully to get his point across, and if he can sell it with bluster, he will sell it with bluster. His character is base but comprehensible. Hillary's character is base but occult.........I wonder if there's some scandal in Trump's closet that they're waiting to spring like Bush's DWI. Some ex model whom he paid to have an abortion?......Hillary is the opposite of Teflon. She's so laden with grease and grime that nothing more can stick to her. Trump has a couple of pristine areas where some mud can be applied.

Chuck said...

You get one word to describe David Brock. What would it be? "Wussy" is already taken. You have to think of another.

Odious?
Unctuous?
Reptilian?
Execrable?
Vile?
Loathsome?
Repugnant?

Your turn, Althousers.

SGT Ted said...

What's up with the double standard in regards to criticizing women seeking the Presidency?

narciso said...

actually he runs mediamatters, which is soros personal sliming outfit, Sid Vicious and Matt Bai work for it, (yes that Matt Bai)

rcommal said...

pm317, I am going to hazard a guess here:

You really either weren't around or, if you were, weren't paying attention from the mid-'80s on, including the entire '90s, and thence onward, if your stance is that you have no clue as to even basic facts, not to mention basic contexts, with regard to David Brock and, especially in the specific context, by extension, the Clintons (both of them).

rcommal said...

Chuck:

Given that so many years ago, David Brock was an attacker of the Clintons, and then, for whatever reason[s], he did a sharp flip, I would choose not just one but rather two words, neither of which are on your list of words from which to choose, yet I still choose them:

1. obvious

2. forgiven

grackle said...

I thought by this time that Hillary would have been replaced, especially when Biden was offered up. Maybe Biden looked over the horizon and saw that the general election was going to belong to the Republicans.

They have no one else that is even remotely viable as a POTUS nominee. It’s a bit late for a replacement, anyway. So they are stuck with her.

It is quite possible that Trump will destroy the Clintons’ political credibility even before the election.

Hillary should have heeded Trump’s warning and kept the sexist card in her deck but I guess she really has no choice. She’s in trouble in the Democrat primaries so she has to salvage that by trying to excite the base. Desperate times require desperate moves. So – an attack on Trump, who is guaranteed to explode a good progressive’s head but in doing so she shines a spotlight on Slick Willie’s indiscretions past and present. What will really damage her is not that her husband has screwed anything in panties but rather her part in leading the charge against the “bimbo eruptions” back when Bill was POTUS.

http://tinyurl.com/ofbupza

Dilemma: noun

1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.
2. any difficult or perplexing situation or problem.

Drago said...

Howard: "As Jason says, Trump isn't a wuss, he is a C_NT"

It's only fair that David Brock have at least one like-minded defender, of similar moral and ethical makeup, in any thread in which Brock is mentioned.

Brad Nelson said...

Obama is hiding a dark secret that just came out and this effects you!
http://tinyurl.com/hakdxre