March 9, 2016

Elite media slowly absorbs the meaning of Donald Trump.

In the NYT this morning.

1. A photograph that exemplifies Donald Trump voters as they ominously approach a polling place. The sky is dark, the couple is old and funereal, the man is grim, the woman a clown.

2. A photograph that's mostly black space, with Donald Trump's face all the way over to the right, emerging from the gloom, and the shadows giving his neck the appearance of a scrotum.

3. The Editorial Board is "Trying to Read Donald Trump, in Translation." This is not — as I'd originally imagined — the NYT people translating Trump's simple statements into the language of the elite so they can understand it. It's attempting to imagine how Trump's statements are heard by people in other countries.

4. "Does Donald Trump represent a legitimate expression of the people’s will? Is his rise a manifestation of justifiable resentment among less privileged whites at their neglect by higher caste Republican leaders?" A columnist (Thomas B. Edsall) wonders.

142 comments:

Michael K said...

OMG! Trump insulted Mexicans and Muslims. That can't be allowed !

tim in vermont said...

They resent their higher caste leaders alright, but at least the Republicans haven't built their brand on insulting lower income whites and don't take freakish delight in mocking the "poorly educated."

pst314 said...

"Punch back twice as hard"
Does that sound familiar, New York Times hacks?

tim maguire said...

So the usual--opinion (mostly) masquerading as news.

Tank said...

Tank can sum up the meaning of Trump in two letters.

F U

damikesc said...

They resent their higher caste leaders alright, but at least the Republicans haven't built their brand on insulting lower income whites and don't take freakish delight in mocking the "poorly educated."

You'd think they'd realize how terribly outnumbered they are and would be less likely to insult people they seem to fear.

But they DON'T fear them. Because you wouldn't see this type of commentary in regards to, say, Muslims.

Perhaps it is time for them to experience some fear.

EDH said...

2. A photograph that's mostly black space, with Donald Trump's face all the way over to the right, emerging from the gloom, and the shadows giving his neck the appearance of a scrotum.

A shorn scrotum. Breathtaking, really.

Ignorance is Bliss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignorance is Bliss said...

So it's sort of like Gorillas in the Mist, if Gorillas in the Mist were written by someone who hates gorillas.

Sebastian said...

@Tank: "F U" Right. I understand. The targets deserve it. No more PC BS. Trump as orange middle finger. What I still don't understand: why the orange middle finger, the obvious charlatan, the con man who will F U his marks right back?

traditionalguy said...

The Masters of Divide and Conquer just met a Great Unifier. He has reminded us that recovering real jobs makes their division game irrelevent by making Americans into a Too Busy to Hate people again.

The Hispanics love him for it.
The blacks love him for it.
The Milleniums love him for it.
The old Boomers love him for it for their grandchildren.
The midwesterners love him or it.
The Southern Evangelicals love him for it.
The New Englanders love him for it.
The New Yorkers living in New york and in Florida love him for it.
The border population of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona love him for it.

But the Bilderburgers, The Pope, and The World Atmosphere Hoaxers are in a total panic.

Henry said...

tim in vermont nails it. Edsall sweeps together a broad range of opinions about Trumpism, but the contempt for the white working class voters that support him is tangible. That contempt comes undisguisedly from the left. We have a professor of history casually characterizing poor voters of being racist and sexist by default. We have a professor of economics who bifurcates populism as either white and racist or "forward thinking".

There is plenty of reason to criticize Trump for his bigoted and sexist pronouncements, but this denigration of the working class is a constant among the big thinkers. They love to promote populist policies for a population they hate and work hard to avoid.

David Begley said...

I'm beginning to think Trump can win if Hillary is nominated.

MI is a open primary. Hillary lost. Trump won. Lots of regular Dems voted for Trump. That's how he wins the general.

Also the above tells you why Hillary gets indicted. Obama can't risk losing his third term. Hillary indicted. Biden nominated. Hillary pardoned. Blue collar Joe beats Trump.

Chuck said...

Another 37% win for Trump.

Speaking of the media, who has done the best fact-checking takedown of Trump's stream-of-consciousness rant last night?

Trump Vodka really is dead. Trump University, we now know, got its last "A" rating from the BBB due to the fact that it received no complaints in the last reporting period. It received no complaints because there were no students by that time. There were no more classes being offered.

"Trump Wine" doesn't exist; it was another vineyard Trump purchased to wheedle another parcel. (That was actually a great, if somewhat thuggish, deal by Trump.)

There are no Trump Steaks for sale anywhere; the steaks on display last night were not Trump Steaks.

Trump Airline did get "sold," just as Trump said, but it was sold by the 20+ controlling banks, led by Citibank, after Trump defaulted on his $360 million debt.

It was all a lie; right down to his claimed club championships in golf. Lies. All of them. It pains me to agree with Lawrence O'Donnell, but he was right when he suggested last night that it would take more than the 40 minutes than the actual speech took, to adequately run down all the lies.

Bob Ellison said...

EDH, LOL.

Pettifogger said...

The photo of the elderly couple is labeled as being in Maine. But then why does the woman's jacket have a Texas-flag motif?

rehajm said...

It's attempting to imagine how Trump's statements are heard by people in other countries.

Are these interpretations of the indigenous citizens of other countries or just the interpretations of the Americans imagining themselves living in other countries because President Trump?

Tank said...

Sebastian said...

@Tank: "F U" Right. I understand. The targets deserve it. No more PC BS. Trump as orange middle finger. What I still don't understand: why the orange middle finger, the obvious charlatan, the con man who will F U his marks right back?


This is the lifeboat that God sent us?

Are you saying he is not the perfect vessel for this message?

Well ... yeah, but it is what it is.

The other vessel is Sanders, another big F U on their side.

AReasonableMan said...

Edsall quotes Dean Baker : "will (it) be a forward thinking approach that formulates an economic policy designed to reverse the enormous upward redistribution that has been engineered by the leadership of both political parties over the last three and half decades."

This is the key issue. The vast increase in income inequality is not some magical effect of markets. It represents the rewriting of the rules to favor one group over others. And those rules were rewritten by both parties.

traditionalguy said...

If he runs against Hillary, then Trump will probably get the Muslim vote just because he is a man. I say that because a Jewish man just got 84% of the Dearborn, Michigan vote ove the a female candidate.

Luke Lea said...

I'm loving every minute of it. Throughout history elites have looked down upon ordinary working-class people as little more than a species of domestic animal. Those attitudes are gradually returning even here in America as a perusal of the comments sections in the NYT and Washington Post shockingly reveal. It's a beautiful spectacle therefore to see the common people finally rising up in revolt -- and not only in the United States but in Britain and on the European continent. We may be entering upon a new Democratic Age.

Tank said...

Voting for Sanders is like voting for Stalin or Lenin disguised as a cranky, Jewish old man. Good disguise.

Michael K said...

"It pains me to agree with Lawrence O'Donnell, "

No it doesn't.

John Henry said...

Blogger David Begley said...

Biden nominated. Hillary pardoned. Blue collar Joe beats Trump.

Yeah, that's a great idea David. Because VP is such a great position to run from. Let's see. We have Bush. Then we have uhh...uhh... uhh Millary Fillmore 180 years ago.

And the VPs that have gotten into office by death or resignation have been such stellar presidents:

Bush, Ford, LBJ, Truman, TR. None of them could get elected to a second term. I left out Coolidge as he is the exception proving the rule. He might have been electable but chose not to run.

Nixon is a special case. He did get elected, 8 years after leaving the VP. He even got re-elected. We all know how that worked out for us.

Biden has already been rejected twice by the voters. Why do you think he would be any more palatable the third time around?

John Henry

traditionalguy said...

Conrad Black tried to say what Trump means to Europeans this morning but the Fox News guys would not let him talk and made Trump into a big ridicule joke like their boss wants from them to do.

Black said the Europeans hate a strong American leader except when they need a strong American leader to save them and give them a favorable balance of payments trade deal. They liked FDR a little because they thought he had polish since he spoke French and German. But they will never like Trump's commoner style of blunt talk.

John Henry said...

Samuel Johnson, I think, said that 2nd marriages are "the triumph of hope over experience."

I first remember hearing how Nixon should be elected in 1960 because he was VP. I have heard it most election cycles ever since how VP really, really, really, quailifies someone for the presidency.

Nobody ever explains why. Neither in theory or practice.

VP should be a positive disqualification for Prez. That would save an awful lot of paper, pixels and ink.

John Henry

mccullough said...

After last night's Sanders and Truml wins in Michigan, the leaders in Mexico and China are starting to get worried that Americans aren't going to decimate their middle class to build up the middle class in other countries

rehajm said...

The vast increase in income inequality is not some magical effect of markets. It represents the rewriting of the rules to favor one group over others.

We now move over 17% of personal income through transfer payments. Inequality moved more under Obama then Bush. Inequality moved more under Clinton than Reagan. We're at the top of the charts in spending for education and infrastructure and at the bottom in output.

They're doing a bad job and they're treating us like children.

John Henry said...

Blogger traditionalguy said...

I say that because a Jewish man just got 84% of the Dearborn, Michigan vote ove the a female candidate.

I had not thought to look at that last night but that is pretty amazing. Muslims voting for a Jew?

I see a new slogan for Bernie "A uniter, not a divider." Maybe he can build on this to resolve the middle east conflict.

John Henry

Bay Area Guy said...

In the past, Thomas Edsell has actually made good points about Democrats, particularly when he notes the schism between the white working class and the cultural Leftists.

He doesn't quite capture what is going on with Trump and the GOP, but comes close.

Here it is: there are Consevative intellectual ideologues (Krauthammer, Rush, George Will, NRO) who believe in free trade, cheap labor, low taxes, and wars abroad, who generally control the narrative from their perch. (Group 1)

There are Conservative working people (tea-party, construction guys, trucking guys, small businessmen), who believe that the above 4 items have gutted the working class, and benefitted the money class. (Group 2)

Groups 1 & 2 were united for Nixon & Reagan.

Group 2 has lost faith in many of those policies, since Nixon & Reagan. They no longer want to vote for Jeb or Romney types.

Instead, Group 2 has found its voice with Donald Trump.



traditionalguy said...

Actually Truman in effect was re-elected to a second term in a true miracle. He had served 3 years and 10 months, hated by all the others from three different Establishments, and then he got elected because he was an honest man and a fighter.

MadisonMan said...

Bush, Ford, LBJ, Truman, TR. None of them could get elected to a second term.

Dewey beat Truman after all?

Truman served almost 8 years (3 months short) in total. True, he was running as allowed by the special exemption in the 22nd Amendment in 1952, but I don't think he belongs in that list.

mccullough said...

The vets supported Truman. Dewey was like Mitt Romney.

Bay Area Guy said...

Begley is coming around when he acknowledges that Trump can beat Hillary in the General. He should stop there.

Hillary will never get indicted by Obama's DOJ. Not ever.

Ergo, Biden will not get in.

Ergo, it will be Trump v a damaged, dishonest Hillary in the Fall.

I can live with that, even though I thought Rubio would beat her easily in the General. Twas not to be.

Simply stated, it is more important for the country that Hillary be defeated, than Trump be defeated.

John Henry said...

Blogger traditionalguy said...

Actually Truman in effect was re-elected to a second term in a true miracle.

I meant re-elected to a second term of his own, in 1952. He didn't run because there was no way he could win. In large part because of his war but also because of his shitty policies in general.

Same as LBJ in 68.

LBJ's VP "The Hump" ran in 68 and lost. Yaaaay! Bad as Nixon was, it is always possible to do worse.

John Henry

Michael K said...

I am slowly coming around to Trump because, among other things, he has the right enemies.

He is crude although he seemed a bit smoother last night. I suspect the crude, rude personna will fade a bit as he gets close to the end.

I had thought we were headed for a revolution soon. Trump might avert it unless the GOPe and its adherents decide to sink the boat rather than bail.

Thi summer will be violent and will elect him.

John Henry said...

MM,

Truman was elected, not re-elected in 1948

Truman did not run in 52. He kinda, sorta, started an attempt but was quickly dissuaded. He was never a serious candidate.

His VP tried to run but big labor told him not to and he dropped out very early on.

John Henry

Chuck said...

Michael:

Are you trying to tell me that I like Lawrence O'Donnell's politics? Because I don't. I just have to admit it, on those rare occasions when he's right.

And I am going to get awfully fucking tired, awfully fast, of having my conservative and/or Republican bona fides questioned, simply for calling out Donald Trump's lies.

And so now, back to those lies from last night? You want to question any of that fact-checking? Any Trump products you want to stand up for?

There's politics, then there's the pathological level of lies emanating from Trump.

Chris N said...

NY Times suggested copy:

'In East FarmVille,a family-pack of German-Americans emerged from a functioning GMO grain-silo, draped in garish displays of vulgar nationalism.'

In Capitalist City, a confused, mulatto transgender youth was yearning to become a 'Pit-Boss in the Trump administration.'

In Rustburgh, two working-class males in a white van stopped cruising for illegals long enough to talk about the need for a strong, nationalist leader. 'It's time to make the trains run on time.'

In Puritan Gulch, a military stay-at-home Mom on edge. Starla Smith did not want 'subsidized classroom condom-giveaways', and didn't seem concerned about contracting secondary PTSD, despite the latest science.'

'America in Crisis'.

Pulitzer!


tim in vermont said...

There can be no higher love for one's country than to step into the booth and make a choice between Trump and Hillary. A weaker soul would shrink from the duty, bury their heads in the sand, so to speak, hope it all goes away. But given that choice, the choice of the lesser evil will still be odious. I will choose Trump in that case, and only that case.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The assumption in the article is that Trump's supporters are racist because they want to stop illegal immigration.

The reason that has to be the assumption is because people who read the NYT would have to face the fact that the cheap labor they take for granted is causing real harm to others. And that their support for illegal immigration is cheap grace.

Two options:

1) Oppose illegal immigration = racist = bad person, so it is ok if they are harmed and I get to keep my cheap labor and can smugly congratulate myself on my lack of racism while I exploit Hispanics.

2) Middle and working class have legitimate reason for opposition to illegal immigration, it suppresses wages causing them to be unable to obtain work, even in skilled trades as illegals take those jobs as well = might have to actually address that issue, and thus risk losing both the cheap labor and the luxurious feeling of self-righteousness on the subject.

Which option do you think most NYT readers will choose?

Michael K said...

"There's politics, then there's the pathological level of lies emanating from Trump."

The Trump hatred is an interesting phenomenon. I'm starting to conclude that many of the haters would rather lose the election than see him elected.

How about you ?

Terry said...

Edsall: 'Trump’s direct appeal to racial and ethnic resentment'
See, this is why I find myself attacking rump's attackers (I won't say defending Trump). Trump has made no direct appeal racial and ethnic resentment. 'Muslim' is not an ethnicity, nor is illegal immigrant, and his appeal is not to resentment toward racial and ethnic minorities. If resentment is the 'bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly', it is expressed toward GOP elites.

Sebastian said...

@BAG: "there are Consevative intellectual ideologues (Krauthammer, Rush, George Will, NRO) who believe in free trade, cheap labor, low taxes, and wars abroad, who generally control the narrative from their perch. (Group 1) There are Conservative working people (tea-party, construction guys, trucking guys, small businessmen), who believe that the above 4 items have gutted the working class, and benefitted the money class. (Group 2) Groups 1 & 2 were united for Nixon & Reagan. . . . Instead, Group 2 has found its voice with Donald Trump"

Except Group 2 is wrong. Technological change more than fee trade "gutted" the working class. Cheap labor also raised the standard of living of Wal-Mart shoppers. Low taxes meant that the bottom quintiles became net takers. Wars abroad had no meaningful impact on the working class standard of living. Meanwhile, the supposedly unprotected class is more protected than any other in history and lower-quintile incomes have increased by at least a third since the 1970s.

Group 2 is also wrong about Trump. He may "voice" their discontent, at least when he is not talking about himself, but he will do nothing to stop the trends that really affect working class quality of life -- technology and family structure -- though perhaps he will expand the welfare state further to add layers of protection. Even on immigration, he is a squish who barely differs from Rubio. Except for Muzzie-bashing, his foreign policy is entirely undefined: who knows whether he would start more or fewer "wars abroad" than the"ideologues" would like? And people who think that we have been "losers" in trade deals and Trump will get us deals that will not make us "losers" should go back and finish their Trump U degree.

Some "lifeboat."

Chuck said...

Drudge -- now a full-blown Trump propaganda arm -- features a story by the AP's Jill Colvin about the product display at the Trump Free-Association Session last night.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_TRUMP_BUSINESSES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-09-08-50-53

It is the lest-critical puff piece (complete with photo suitable for front-paging) Drudge could find, I suspect.

"Trump water" is not a company or a product for sale. It is the branded water bottles from the Trump resorts rooms. We might as well say that your local realtor, or car dealer, or your favorite sports team is in the bottled water business, if they are among the many organizations that purchase private-labeled water.

Colvin did note that the steaks were not "Trump steaks." That lie was embarrassingly blown up by the Bush Bros. labels still on some of them, and of course they are the steaks that the clubhouse already buys and sells on its own.

But then she didn't much question the other Trump-brand lies. The Trump Airline "sale" myth; the truth of the Trump Vodka failure; the Trump University details, etc., etc.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And anyway, those people watch crap television instead of "Girls" and probably don't have a single painting of a sex doll or vagina in their house, so who cares what the dirty little peasants think?

http://nypost.com/2015/03/12/lena-dunhams-mom-has-a-new-art-exhibit-inspired-by-a-sex-doll/

very NSFW

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2014/11/03/lena-dunhams-father/

Paul Snively said...

AReasonableMan: This is the key issue. The vast increase in income inequality is not some magical effect of markets. It represents the rewriting of the rules to favor one group over others. And those rules were rewritten by both parties.

If there were widespread agreement on this, Rand Paul would have been the runaway favorite. No one else is getting anywhere near the systematic, necessary economic restructuring either of the Pauls promotes. Well, unless you count Sanders, who won't rest until we're Venezuela, Cuba, or at least Argentina.

Tank said...

Memo to Chuck:

1. Trump is not a conservative, whatever that is now.

2. Trump is not a strict truth teller, he's more like a used car salesman.

People know this already. You are not shocking them/us. If you can beat Trump, it won't be by meticulously debating his factual or non-factual statements.

He's not my kinda guy either. He is what he is. We did not get the perfect FU candidate, we got him and Cruz.

Gusty Winds said...

Voter turnout in Michigan yesterday was 2.4 million beating 1972's 1.9 million. The GOP pulled out about 100K more voters. Trump says this is the story of the campaign but everyone else seems to ignore it. He's right.

In Milwaukee, the radio talking heads Charlie Sykes and Jay Weber have become boring anti-Trump broken records. After every Trump win its the "60% of Republicans didn't vote for him" routine. You'd think these guys would be awed by the turnout.

I don't believe for a minute that Ted Cruz can beat Hillary, and Rubio is now toast. I think Kasich should stay in. If he can carry Ohio, he's the best choice at a brokered convention to take down Trump, or he's the best VP to temper Trump and beat Hillary.

tim in vermont said...

The difference between Trump and a used car salesman is that a used car salesman knows when he is lying.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Technological change more than fee trade "gutted" the working class.

Tell that to the people who have lost jobs because the factory they worked at has moved overseas.

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/TAA0731131.html

Or the people in skilled trades like brick laying and carpentry who can't get jobs in construction.

Sure, automation is a factor, but its not the only one. And regardless of the reason, automation or free trade, people without jobs and prospects are going to be upset.

Telling them that they are a bunch of stupid losers and they need to accept that while the rest of us winners get on with our fabulous lives is not a winning long-term political strategy.

Fernandinande said...

Most read stories in World

1 Thousands of troops head to Hungarian border as migration emergency declared

2 Women warned 'don't go out at night' after migrant sex attackers target 10-YEAR-OLD GIRLS

3 GERMANY BANS SAUSAGES: Pork banned in cafes and schools to 'not offend refugees'

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
...
The Trump hatred is an interesting phenomenon. I'm starting to conclude that many of the haters would rather lose the election than see him elected.


Michael, I am not going to be gulled into anything dumb.

I know that I will never regret siding against Trump. And I want that public, so that I never have to answer for any of Trump's future stupidities.

I expect Trump to lose very badly in a general election, after a unified press corps goes after him; after Dems spend a billion on electioneering and communications; after Trump goes through a civil fraud trial in the summer over Trump University; and after the oppo-researchers go through every detail of his life.

I expect all of that; but I won't predict a Trump loss. The Trump phenomenon is built on such a high level of emotional stupidity among his primary supporters, I have no idea how to gauge any of it. So, no predictions.

I would vote for Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, so that in (what I expect will be) the event of his November trouncing, I can sneer at those who supported him, and try to take my party back from them, and say that they had no excuses for the loss other than that they chose an exquisitely rotten candidate. I voted for the party's candidate, and I can't be blamed for the loss. It should have been obvious to them in the nominating phase, when I was opposing Trump.

buwaya puti said...

Technological change has reduced the manpower requirements for production, but has created new niches for labor. More of the latter than the former. The real problem for US employment however isn't technological obsolescence of humanity but economic paralysis. Technological change has been very slow where it counts, in making truly significant changes akin to what transpired from the 1910s to the 1960s. Where are the flying cars? Where is universal private aviation? Where is the electricity too cheap to meter?
All of these are technically feasible.
Schumpeter is the prophet here.

buwaya puti said...

Looking forward to being able to sneer at someone seems to be a rather low sort of ambition.

Paul said...

Chuck you are an ugly man.

William said...

I think a large part of Sarah Palin's appeal is the rabidly unfair way that she is treated by the media, She is a manifestly honorable and decent person but she is relentlessly mocked by the literate hordes. When you compare the way that she's been treated versus the respect that is given to Hillary, you can't help but despise the smirking class.......I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I like and admire the way he takes on the press. If Charles Gibson tried to look down his glasses at Trump, Trump would hand him his ass. Trump both inspires and transcends an unfair media.

Titus said...

face looks like a scrotum-lol, very funny Althouse and accurate.

thanks!

Chuck said...

Dear Tank:

1. Hillary Clinton is, like Trump, not a conservative.

2. Hillary Clinton is, like Trump, not a strict truth-teller. I will say, in Mrs. Clinton's favor, her lies seem to be calculated, much more selective, and much more carefully parsed. She's protecting political positions and political operations. She may be a liar (I think she is) but she's not insane. Trump's lies seem to be a near-constant, and casual, at a level where even Trump has no idea what is true. The minor, but revealing, examples are the ones I've posted before. The anti-vaccine nonsense, where Trump said that he had done his own research on the subject. The General Pershing "pig's blood" execution story, which is not merely a myth; Trump told his audience to look it up in history books. The "thousands of people cheering" in New Jersey on 9/11. These are lies that Donald Trump rolled out with real determination, just EXACTLY like Bill Clinton squinting into the camera and telling the world that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I can sneer at those who supported him, and try to take my party back from them

Because they are a bunch of stupid losers who will fall back in line once that is demonstrated to them.

Its not like they could ally with Sanders supporters.

Oh wait, Sanders voted no on comprehensive immigration reform and isn't all that enthusiastic about free trade either.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm

The American people get it, and they do have common sense and wisdom on this issue. They know repeating the fundamental mistakes of the 1986 bill, joining a big amnesty with inadequate enforcement, will cause the problem to grow and not diminish. They know promising enforcement after 30 years of broken promises isn't good enough. They know the so-called trigger is a joke because if the trigger is never pulled, the Z visas, the amnesty happens forever.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm

CStanley said...

Blogger Luke Lea said...
I'm loving every minute of it. Throughout history elites have looked down upon ordinary working-class people as little more than a species of domestic animal. Those attitudes are gradually returning even here in America as a perusal of the comments sections in the NYT and Washington Post shockingly reveal. It's a beautiful spectacle therefore to see the common people finally rising up in revolt -- and not only in the United States but in Britain and on the European continent. We may be entering upon a new Democratic Age.

3/9/16, 9:00 AM

I've been bitterly disappointed in the elites but so far the ordinary working class folks are not impressing me with their choices.

AReasonableMan said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
"Technological change more than fee trade "gutted" the working class."

Tell that to the people who have lost jobs because the factory they worked at has moved overseas.


This is just more magic of the markets BS. The pace of technological change appears to be slower now than in previous eras, undermining the basic argument. This does not mean that technological change cannot be disruptive but nowhere close to the effect of closing factories and moving production to east Asia.

Big Mike said...

The sky is dark, the couple is old and funereal, the man is grim, the woman a clown.

I wouldn't characterize a woman dressed in patriotic garb as a "clown," Professor Althouse. This is an election where feelings are very strong, and she is expressing hers very strongly. You and Meade may la-de-dah around in Madison, but out in the real world people have real issues.

and the shadows giving his neck the appearance of a scrotum.

My scrotum doesn't look like that. Does Meade's -- never mind, I don't really want to know. Anyway, are you sure the picture isn't photoshopped? Certainly it's been cropped for effect and I suspect photoshopped as well.

"Does Donald Trump represent a legitimate expression of the people’s will? Is his rise a manifestation of justifiable resentment among less privileged whites at their neglect by higher caste Republican leaders?"

And not just by Republican leaders. When the Democrat elites were whooping it up over Barack Obama's comments about "bitter clingers," did they not realize that they were reading the white working class out of their party? I suspect that UMW workers in Appalachia feel somewhat differently about the Democrat "war on coal" than wealthy environmentalists who have bought into the CO2 calumny but don't much care about the California methane leak. Even Mark Warner here in Virginia doesn't get it, when he permitted one of his spokespersons to charge that southwestern Virginia has turned incandescent red not because of the war on coal but because of "racism."

The day of reckoning is coming, whether delivered by Donald Trump or by Ted Cruz, it is nevertheless coming.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

It doesn't matter what you think of Trump, he has tapped a vein of discontent among a huge swath of the electorate.

There is still a large number of people who haven't been successfully indoctrinated and aren't going to meekly submit to their betters' will.

Somebody is going to exploit that. Since neither party wants to address their concerns, Trump may be the best case scenario.

amielalune said...


The NYT guy speculates that Donald Trump is a result of the "neglect" of the working class by their betters. Oh, if only they would merely "neglect" us! I'll take that over their active persecution any day.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Simply stated, it is more important for the country that Hillary be defeated, than Trump be defeated"

Exactly. Ideologically, Cruz and I are solid soul brothers, but he can't win the general election in Free Stuff Nation, even against a piece of shit like Hillary. Trump might be able to. He's pulled off one miracle. No one really knows what he has planned for the general. At this point nothing can be assumed.

machine said...

hey, ya nominated Palin for VP...why not show how completely un-serious ya are and nominate the Donald?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

ya nominated Palin for VP

Yes how very un-serious of the Republicans to nominate a woman who successfully ran for mayor and Governor, exposed corruption in her own party, was popular with both Republicans and Democrats (until the Democrat party went to war against her for daring to be opposed to Obama and not being the right sort) and was able to do this without riding her husbands coattails.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"2. Hillary Clinton is, like Trump, not a strict truth-teller. I will say, in Mrs. Clinton's favor, her lies seem to be calculated, much more selective, and much more carefully parsed. She's protecting political positions and political operations. She may be a liar (I think she is) but she's not insane. Trump's lies seem to be a near-constant, and casual, at a level where even Trump has no idea what is true. The minor, but revealing, examples are the ones I've posted before. The anti-vaccine nonsense, where Trump said that he had done his own research on the subject. The General Pershing "pig's blood" execution story, which is not merely a myth; Trump told his audience to look it up in history books. The "thousands of people cheering" in New Jersey on 9/11. These are lies that Donald Trump rolled out with real determination, just EXACTLY like Bill Clinton squinting into the camera and telling the world that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

So, you're saying Hillary lies about important fate-of-nations stuff and Trump lies about trivial shit that no one cares about. Can you detect the tiny flaw in your argument?

buwaya puti said...

What is "serious"?
Really, I want a definition. This is a rather important point.
Historically, "serious" was quite a contingent quality.

amielalune said...

Bay Area Snob:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but as one of them, I personally know and am related to many "Conservative Working guys (and girls)" who are not "construction guys" or "trucking guys" or "small businessmen." They are physicians, attorneys, CPA's, and corporate executives. All either support Trump now or will vote for him if he is the GOP candidate. How do you explain this group?

He who constantly feels the need to display his superior intellect almost never actually has one.

sydney said...

It isn't just Republican elites that are worried about him. The Democrats are worried, too. If they're sending union goons out to dissuade blue collar voters in Ohio from voting for Trump in the primary, you know they don't think Hillary or Bernie can beat him.

buwaya puti said...

In re "pigs blood" execution, this was in fact done, but by the Philippine Constabulary (on occasion under American officers) at various times IIRC.
I don't have reference on me, but IIRC in "Swish of the Kris", Hurley and Harris.

eric said...

Blogger Tank said...
Memo to Chuck:


Tank, Chuck tried three times to try and get someone here interested in the bombshell news story that Trump steaks aren't Trump steaks!!!!

I was getting some serious amusement from the fact that he was being IG ored and you had to go and ruin it.

Now you owe me a Trump steak.

eric said...

Bah, that should have been "ignored".

machine said...

not "serious": quitting your job because it got too hard...

eric said...

By the way, there may be one really great benefit to Trump losing an election to Hillary.

Trump would probably sue. And while that wouldn't change anything in the near term, it would most likely expose a lot of voter fraud.

I've always been rather disappointed that when Democrats lose, they count and count and count again until they win. When Republicans lose, they concede.

Fight, damnit.

Chuck said...

The Cracker Emcee said...

...

So, you're saying Hillary lies about important fate-of-nations stuff and Trump lies about trivial shit that no one cares about. Can you detect the tiny flaw in your argument?


Well, that is of course due to the fact that Hillary Clinton -- no matter what you think of her -- has been involved in important fate-of-nations stuff, while Donald Trump has been pimping Trump Vodka (which he never tasted) and starring as the cartoon version of a business tycoon on a reality television show.

CWJ said...

Sorry John Henry,

I'm with the Truman dissenters on this one. If you've been in office all but 2 or 3 months short of the full 4 years when you run on your own, that's a bid for RE-election in every conceivable practical way, if not so technically. Your original post emphasized practicalities. Trying to defend one small misstep with a technicality, rather than acknowledge it, only distracts from your larger point.

mccullough said...

Trump and Sanders are both against shit trade policies and illegal immigration because they hurt working class and lower income Americans.

These are two major issues ignored by the majority in both parties. Trump and Sanders disagree on the solutions (and disagree on what the other problems are) but they agree on this.

This was a big part of Ross Perot's 1992 campaign (not illegal immigration because amnesty had been issued a few yeas earlier).

The sound of good jobs getting sucked to other countries. Low tax rates on the rich creating jobs in other countries has been GOP policy for over 25 years. The Dems wanted the jobs sent overseas as well but they are for slightly higher taxes on the rich. You can see why such a large swath of our fellow Americans are angry.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Democrats are banking on Trump’s divisive, extreme rhetoric — banning travelers based on religion, killing the families of terrorists and deporting illegal immigrants — to turn some of his fans to the party that has historically appealed to blue-collar voters.

Divisive and extreme to who? That's what the "elites" running the parties and manning the media outlets don't understand, to a large number of people, those positions are not considered either divisive or extreme, they sound like good sense. Even killing relatives, since they know we are already doing that. They know that drone strikes are not surgical.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

not "serious": quitting your job because it got too hard...

So you concede my point. :>)

Ron Winkleheimer said...

This was a big part of Ross Perot's 1992 campaign

I think Perot's ultimate failure is why the party elites are doubling down. They think they can ride this revolt out too.

Chuck said...

eric said...
Blogger Tank said...
Memo to Chuck:

Tank, Chuck tried three times to try and get someone here interested in the bombshell news story that Trump steaks aren't Trump steaks!!!!

I was getting some serious amusement from the fact that he was being IG ored and you had to go and ruin it.

Now you owe me a Trump steak.


eric, nobody can buy you a Trump Steak, because there are no Trump Steaks for sale. Mitt Romney was right; that line of business is defunct. And it strikes me as so deeply weird; that Trump would go to the length of an elaborate nationally-televised stunt, offering "steaks" to reporters, when they merely serve to prove Romney's original point.

One thing I notice, eric, is that none of the Trumpettes are telling me what details I might have gotten wrong.

Dude1394 said...

The NYTimes?? I thought that was the National Review Online...

wildswan said...

Hillary was for a wall before she was against it.
Clinton, who served as U.S. senator for New York, said she voted to use funds to "build a barrier" to halt immigrants from entering the U.S.
"I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," said Clinton. "And I do think you have to control your borders.
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/94767/20151114/hillary-clinton-immigration-democrat-candidate-talks-voting-barrier-prevent-illegal.htm
But she doesn't get depicted as a racist and when she says she opposes a wall she doesn't get called a liar. Because, Democrat.

But when Democrats get a pass like this from scrutiny then they become hopelessly corrupt. If you like her goons, it doesn't matter what you like so shut up. If you want reform, even reform socialism, vote for a Republican. Only they (whether man, women, white, black, Indian, Chinese) are held to their words; only they are not allowed to be totally. corrupt.

eric said...

Chuck wrote

eric, nobody can buy you a Trump Steak, because there are no Trump Steaks for sale.

Now that there is funny.

Tank said...

Chuck

You missed my point completely.

As to your post about Clinton, I missed yours. You must use small words when explaining to Tank.

Chuck said...

Thanks, eric. Like I said, none of the Trumpettes are sticking up for any of the details in any of Trump's pathological lies. It's become a post-truth environment.

I'd really like to help everybody in the Party lash out at Hillary Clinton as a liar, but nobody can do that with a straight face, with Trump as a nominee.

mccullough said...

Trump is telling people that the bipartisan idiocy has fucked them the last 25/
-30 years. Bernie is saying the same thing. That's all people care about.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Trumpettes

Yes! Yes! Calling people names and implying they are stupid is a sure way of converting them to your side. Works every time.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

By the way Chuck. I have a lot of issues with Trump too. And a lot of his appeal may be emotionally based, but the fact is most people use their intellect to justify choices that are based on emotion.

Successful politicians understand and use this to their advantage. Railing against human nature is rarely a profitable enterprise.

Michael K said...

"Trump is not a strict truth teller, he's more like a used car salesman."

Actually, he is a piker in lying. Rubio got elected as a Tea Party conservative and then ran right up to Chuck Schumer and joined the amnesty gang. Then he co-sponsored another male student bashing bill with Claire McCaskill.

Trump can't compare with that.

Blogger machine said...
"not "serious": quitting your job because it got too hard..."

Machine prefers lies to truth. Maybe that's a Democrat genetic thing.

"I know that I will never regret siding against Trump. And I want that public, so that I never have to answer for any of Trump's future stupidities.

I expect Trump to lose very badly in a general election,"

Duly noted and recorded.

I have been watching this thing from the sidelines so far. I am starting to believe that Trump is pulling in voters from both parties and will probably win the general election unless the GOPe and its minions who ape the language of the elites, manage to lose another election.

I was hoping Carly would join the movement as another outsider but she is not what I thought when I contributed to her campaign.

It is certainly an interesting year

Ron Winkleheimer said...

So anyway I have decided to stop worrying and love the bomb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y

Michael K said...

"Yes! Yes! Calling people names and implying they are stupid is a sure way of converting them to your side. Works every time."

Yes and the best part is having your GOTV program collapse on election day. Competence on the Dukakis level.

mccullough said...

Politicians and supporters of those politicians calling other politicians liars and frauds and con artists is laughable. Trump's supporters know Trump is flexible with the truth and his positions that he changes his mind in the middle of a debate to change it back the next day.

The statesmen change their mind over a longer period of time usually unless their consultants tell them the poll data says to switch earlier.

They are all full of shit or deluded. But Trump and Sanders are talking about issues a large group of people care about. Romney and Obama never mentioned our shit trade deals because they aren't shit to them.

Cruz is now trying to tap into this a bit but too late for him. He should have made this a major part of his campaign from the beginning.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Thanks, eric. Like I said, none of the Trumpettes are sticking up for any of the details in any of Trump's pathological lies. It's become a post-truth environment.

I'd really like to help everybody in the Party lash out at Hillary Clinton as a liar, but nobody can do that with a straight face, with Trump as a nominee.

3/9/16, 11:17 AM


You may want to re read an important distinction made in this very thread by the cracker emcee.

I'm pretty sure he is wearing a straight face, thereby already falsifying your scientific prediction before it even happened.

Terry said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
. . . but the fact is most people use their intellect to justify choices that are based on emotion.

Is that statement based on emotion or intellect, Ron Winkleheimer?

Chuck said...

Ron; I'm not trying to win friends or influence people. I just want to be right.

And about emotionalism; my only emotional confession is that, as a person, I deeply hate Donald Trump. I've known people like Trump; I hate all of them.

There's a trial lawyer in Michigan (Geoffrey Fieger) who is the Democrat-clone of Donald Trump. Same sort of hair, same $1500 suits, same inflated attitude toward himself. Same casual relation with issues. Same arm's length relationship with his party. Same reckless commentary on issues, and vicious personal attacks on his opponents. Same sort of AngryWhiteFactoryGuy backing. Same sort of bravado about his wealth, and contempt for campaign finance, but too cheap to spend any of his own money on electioneering communications. Fieger won the Democrats' nomination to run for governor in 1998.

In the general election, Fieger lost in a landslide.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Is that statement based on emotion or intellect, Ron Winkleheimer?

Emotion of course.

Just because you believe something because of emotion doesn't mean it isn't correct.

Szoszolo said...

I kind of like the second one. Removes attention from The Hair, for one thing. For another ... well, I just don't think about scrota all that much.

Terry said...

"machine said...
hey, ya nominated Palin for VP...why not show how completely un-serious ya are and nominate the Donald?"
Please describe what Hillary has done to deserve the Democrat nomination, Machine.
I'll answer for you: she married Bill Clinton and stayed married to Bill Clinton. Hillary was met Bill at Yale. Hillary's father paid for her to attend Wellesley and Yale.

Hillary Clinton: You know, I'm not sitting here – some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he's been through and what we've been through together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/flowers012792.htm

Tammy Wynette was born to a poor family. She was raised in a house without running water. She did not finish high school. Wynette was married five times.
And everything she had, she got by herself through hard work and talent.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I'm not trying to win friends or influence people. I just want to be right.

What is this "right" you speak of? Politics is just people sorting out competing needs. Hopefully in a non-violent manner. Either Trump will win or lose, if he wins then he will either disappoint his followers or not, if he disappoints his followers then they will find someone else to represent them.

The process will continue, regardless.

Chuck said...

Ron; Trump might indeed lose. And lose so badly, that he takes the Senate with him. And thereafter, we get a Supreme Court that reverses Citizens United and Heller, puts immigration policy under the control of a federal court (like Ferguson, Missouri) and establishes a 20-year legacy of left wing decisions reminiscent of the Ninth Circuit, with five (or even six!) determined left wing justices all in their forties and fifties. That court could rule for thirty years!

A Trump presidency could set up a catastrophic cycle in 2020, in which Dems turn out for a decennial redistricting election that coincides with a presidential year, and Republicans could lose half their seats in the House, and half of their majorities in statehouses across the country.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Chuck

Yes, that all could happen. And is an argument for not voting for Trump. However, people have been told they have to vote for the least objectionable candidate because they can win and this is the "most important election evah" so many times, and seen that candidate lose, and nothing change regardless, that they have become inured to it.

And whose fault is that?

Chuck said...

@Ron

Reagan won; GHW Bush won, and only when some voters (whom I liken to Trump voters) supported Ross Perot, did Republicans lose a couple of elections to the minority-president Bill Clinton.

McCain and Romney lost, when black voter turnout -- I hate to say it -- trumped everything else. The first time(s) in American history that black voter turnout nearly matched, and then exceeded, white voter turnout.

If indeed there are all these nascent, aggrieved, silent-majority Trump voters laying about in 2008 and 2012, where were they on election day? I was doing election work for the party on election day '08 and '12.

mccullough said...

The usual GOP Jedi mind tricks aren't working on Trump's supporters. You can't fuck over such a huge group and expect them to listen to you anymore.

mccullough said...

In the 24 years since Ross Perot wanted about the shit trade deals, how many more people have been fucked by them. Perot, as a third party candidate, got 18% of the vote a generation agohttp://time.com/4170591/bernie-sanders-immigration-conservatives.

Trump got 75,000 more votes in Michigan yesterday than Romney got in the Michigan primary more than 4 years ago.

John Henry said...

Blogger CWJ said...

I'm with the Truman dissenters on this one. If you've been in office all but 2 or 3 months short of the full 4 years when you run on your own, that's a bid for RE-election

We could argue the semantics of that. We could even argue whether from 45-49 he was "president" or merely filling his Constitutional role to "act as president"

Makes no difference to my point. With the exception of Coolidge, maybe Bush, every VP who has become president has been preceived as doing a really shitty job of presidenting and has not been able to be re-elected when they were eligible to be. Ford tried, most didn't even make a serious attempt. Nixon is the exception and he had plenty of other issues.

We've had a number of sitting VPs who ran for president. None of them, save Bush, have been elected since the 1830s.

I think one of the things that many people miss is that the VP is no more a member of the executive branch than the Speaker of the House. The primary and only Constitutional function of the VP is to be president of the Senate. Too few historically, and none in the past 100 years or so, have taken that role seriously. One of the interesting things about Palin was that, had she won, she planned to actually preside. It would have been interesting to see if she could have made a difference there.

The VP is not, contrary to popular thinking, an assistant president. The president also has no power, other than political, over the VP. The VP can go rogue and there is nothing the Prez can do about it.

John Henry

Ron Winkleheimer said...

If indeed there are all these nascent, aggrieved, silent-majority Trump voters laying about in 2008 and 2012, where were they on election day? I was doing election work for the party on election day '08 and '12.

I'm not sure I understand your question. It would seem self-evident that Trump has identified and responded to the concerns of a large segment of the electorate. How else could he be doing so well? It is hardly surprising that those people were not enthusiastic about a candidates who did not appear to be addressing those problems. Also, it probably didn't help in 2008 when the GOPe made it pretty clear that they were embarrassed by Palin (not the sort you would want to invite to a cocktail party you see) and were all for bailing out the big banks who were perceived as both predatory and responsible (at least partially) for the economic meltdown.

It would appear that the GOP has decided that it no longer wishes to address the concerns of a large segment of the population. That's OK. The GOP has no requirement to address the concerns of any particular segment of the population. However, it would also seem to be self-evident that if the GOP will not address those issues then it should not expect the votes of those individuals. However, for some strange reason the GOPe seems to think they are entitled to those votes and are getting quite upset because those people are not voting the way they have been told to.

John Henry said...

in 1960, when LBJ saw that he was not going to get the nomination, he saw JFK as prez through 68 then succeeded by 8 years of prince Bobby. LBJ figured to be dead before another chance came up.

He accepted the VP slot as his only chance. He looked at the numbers and saw that 20% of all presidents died in office. He looked at JFK, saw a very sick man, and figured that the odds were probably better than 20%. That's the only reason he gave up the speakership. He'd spent all his life trying to be president and now the only way he saw was via JFKs early death.

John Henry

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The VP is not, contrary to popular thinking, an assistant president. The president also has no power, other than political, over the VP. The VP can go rogue and there is nothing the Prez can do about it.

If I remember correctly, the original intent was for the POTUS and VP to be from different parties.

cubanbob said...

David Begley said...
I'm beginning to think Trump can win if Hillary is nominated.

MI is a open primary. Hillary lost. Trump won. Lots of regular Dems voted for Trump. That's how he wins the general.

Also the above tells you why Hillary gets indicted. Obama can't risk losing his third term. Hillary indicted. Biden nominated. Hillary pardoned. Blue collar Joe beats Trump.

3/9/16, 8:48 AM"

You are starting to see the light. It will be epic entertainment between the gaffe masters in the debates.

@John Henry: a party whose candidates in the primaries are a communist and a criminal doesn't have much of a fall back plan; Biden is it. That's all they have.

@Chuck; dude, seriously? I'm not fanboy of Trump but the Democrat presumed front runner is a criminal, under a major FBI investigation, her go to guy in setting up her email server was given immunity, she isn't going to win and if by some miracle she does when all of the inevitables leaks come out she will either resign or be impeached and removed. It's the Democrats that are in deep, deep denial. And then it isn't like the Democrats have covered themselves in glory at the state level so that you nightmarish redistricting plans will come to fruition. Chill.

Trump is Perot but Trump learned that the only way to victory is within a party and not as a third party. Had Perot sat it out in 1992 and instead run as a Republican in 1996 he may have well won. Clinton was never that popular. And Hillary even less popular than Bill plus she has the criminal matter over her head and she is tied to the miserable failure of Obama.
As for Trump's lies, how is he any different than Hillary's? She doesn't lie for reasons of state, she lies for personal aggrandizement. No doubt she qualifies for heroic action medal for dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Chuck

A Trump presidency could set up a catastrophic cycle in 2020, in which Dems turn out for a decennial redistricting election that coincides with a presidential year, and Republicans could lose half their seats in the House, and half of their majorities in statehouses across the country.

Also, you are assuming that Trump voters care about the above and the other possibilities you raised.

If voters see no difference between the parties in regards to the issues they care about, then why should they lend you support regarding yours?

You gotta give a little to get a little. As far as Trump supporters can see, all this talk about "conservative principles" is justification for a status quo that enriches others at their expense.

Chuck said...

About Sarah Palin:

Republicans nominated her for Vice President of the United States. We defended here against all of the unfair attacks in the 2008 campaign. To this day, Senator John McCain has been nothing but gracious toward Mrs. Palin, his one-time running mate. She responded by endorsing the 2016 candidate who disgustingly and inexplicably attacked McCain's record of heroism as a POW.

In the last years, Mrs. Palin walked away from the governorship to which the people of Alaska elected her. If she had said it was because her family urgently needed her, I'd have understood. But that clearly was not her motivation.

Personally, I would have liked it if Mrs. Palin had run for the Senate seat held for a term by Mark Begich. She might be preferable to Lisa Murkowski, a Republican. I begrudge Mrs. Palin none of her successes.

But her maverickin' schtick gets real old with me, real fast. If she wants to be a Republican, she'd be welcome. But she ought to talk like a loyal Republican.

Chuck said...

All this talk about how weak Hillary is in this election; if it is such an easily winnable election, Trump should have no problem. And no excuses for getting whipped. For my part, I may be wishing that Republicans had taken more care to nominate a better conservative in such a winnable election year.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

But she ought to talk like a loyal Republican.

Loyal to who? Is there an oath?

John Henry said...

CubanBob,

I agree that the Dems do not have a deep bench. If Hilary implodes (Indictment, stroke, other) I really don't see Sanders being a viable candidate.

They don't have anyone other than Biden to step in and so be it. But he is the logical choice in spite of being VP, not because of being VP.

It is scraping the underside of the bottom of the barrel.

John Henry

Chuck said...

Ron I don't think that Trump is "responding to a large segment of the electorate" at all.

He's getting 25% to 35% of voters in Republican primaries. He's apparently not even winning a majority of Republicans!

Trump is exciting some voters, and is profoundly offending a large number of other voters. Some people think that Hillary Clinton's "Strongly negative" polling numbers (39%) will doom her candidacy in the end. But Trump's numbers are worse! (54%, and up 5 points in the last month.) One poll puts Mrs. Clinton up 51% to 38% in a head-to-head match with Trump.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

He's getting 25% to 35% of voters in Republican primaries. He's apparently not even winning a majority of Republicans!

Chuck, by definition "25% to 35% of of the voters in Republican primaries" is a large segment of the electorate.

If the GOP thinks it can survive without "25% to 35% of the voters in the Republican primaries" then more power to it. Especially if those people make common cause with Sanders supporters.

Fabi said...

I'll post this here for Chuck: In March of 1980 Jimmy Carter was leading Ronald Reagan 58 - 33. Anyone remember how that turned out? Relying on polls in March to suggest that will be the outcome in November is simply ridiculous.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Chuck

All the Trump supporters want is a little taste, to wet there beak.

You know, not be told that they are the losing losers in globalization and they need to stop harshing the buzz of the winners. Also, nationalism and natavism are bad, you racist racists.

Michael K said...

"Ron; I'm not trying to win friends or influence people. "

You're doing a great job, Chuck !

I'm sure you have convinced a lot of people who read your comments.

Maybe not convinced them of what you think you convinced them, but who's counting?

Michael K said...

"She responded by endorsing the 2016 candidate who disgustingly and inexplicably attacked McCain's record of heroism as a POW."

Yes, she should not be allowed to make up her own mind.

"In the last years, Mrs. Palin walked away from the governorship to which the people of Alaska elected her. If she had said it was because her family urgently needed her, I'd have understood. But that clearly was not her motivation."

You seem to have bought the left wing version of the story, I wonder why ?

The Alaska law that did not provide defense for nuisance suits against the governor has been changed. She and her family were looking at bankruptcy as a result of the Democrat campaign to punish her for being a conservative woman.

She could not run for the Senate because she had alienated the corrupt GOP machine in Alaska by going after Murkowski.

Did you happen to notice that his daughter won that Senate election without being nominated ?

I wonder why this is unknown to you ? Or if it was ?

Maybe you prefer DNC talking points against Republicans you don't like.

jr565 said...

Here's the meaning of Trump. The democrats, have spent the past 8 years demagoging white people. Sanders actually said that WHite people don't understand what it means to be poor. A lot of whites are lower middle class and they feel like their jobs are being squeezed out ANd that the dems are suggesting they have no grievance.Because they are white. And if you are white the world has to be great for you. ANd you can't have a grievance or its racist.

Right or wrong, a lot of people are going to Trump because he at least is acknowleding their perceived grievance.

Johnny Sokko said...

Wow, it's as if the NY Times doesn't like Mr. Trump or Republicans in general.

I am shocked to even write this because it is just so antithetical to what journalism is all about in the 21 century.

John Henry said...

Chuck,

When did Trump attack McCain's record as a POW? I must have missed that.

He criticized McCain for becoming a POW. I do remember that.

I think he may have attacked McCain's record as a Naval Aviator and officer before becoming a POW. Certainly a lot to attack there.

But his record as a POW? Can you point me to that?

John Henry

John Henry said...

Did you happen to notice that his daughter won that Senate election without being nominated ?

Michael, not only that, she won by doing just what everyone is excoriating Trump for, even though he has not done it or given any real sign that he would.

She lost the primary and then, rather than supporting the republican who did win the primary, she ran as an independent.

What a sleaze. That is illegal in many states, immoral in all. Apparently not in Alaska, though.

Or Connecticut where Lieberman did the same thing.

Both of those folks should be rejected by decent society.

John Henry

Michael K said...

Some good advice that Chuck and a lot of others won't take.

That was until I joined the GOP. I had read about the Spanish Inquisition and the Black Death, but now I know what real bloodletting is about. The attacks on Donald Trump by his fellow Republicans have been, to put it bluntly, waaaay out of proportion. If -- as Trump himself said in his press conference Tuesday after winning handily in Mississippi and Michigan -- Mitt Romney had attacked Obama with half the vitriol he has attacked Donald Trump with, Romney would be president today.

And then there's the conservative punditocracy, so many of whom seem to be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome -- or perhaps it's Trump Envy (for which I wouldn't blame them).

Chuck said...

John Henry said...
Chuck,

When did Trump attack McCain's record as a POW? I must have missed that.

He criticized McCain for becoming a POW. I do remember that.

I think he may have attacked McCain's record as a Naval Aviator and officer before becoming a POW. Certainly a lot to attack there.

But his record as a POW? Can you point me to that?

John Henry


Oh, please. This is what I hate so much about the Trump crowd. Arguing over the silliest things. What Trump -- that draft-dodger Trump -- said, was this:
"He's a war hero because he was captured."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k1ajHAeXMU

You knew that. You knew, that what Trump said was that McCain was not a hero because of his extraordinary courage and character in the face of torture from the enemy. Nor that McCain refused an early release by the North Vietnamese based on McCain's father being an admiral with whom the North Vietnamese might like to make a p.r. statement. Nor that McCain suffered grievously while captive.

So now I turn it over to Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard, who makes this story -- already indescribably bad for Trump -- even worse.


Last summer, I was in Ames, Iowa, to cover an event hosted at Iowa State University by evangelical leaders. Although Trump had begun to climb in the polls, I was there to cover pretty much everyone else. But as he was being interviewed on stage, he made some comments about John McCain that left me—and many of those in attendance—slack-jawed. McCain is "not a war hero," Trump bellowed. "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

I ran to the basement of the building for Trump's post-interview press conference. I've had policy differences with McCain, but I knew well the story of his time in Vietnam. He was shot down flying combat missions on October 26, 1967. He was taken captive with a broken right leg and fractures in both arms. He was beaten and tortured repeatedly, in part because his father commanded the U.S. forces in the Pacific.

I asked Trump why he would blame McCain for his capture. He changed the subject. "I am saying John McCain has not done a good job."

When I repeated the question, Trump said, "I am not blaming John McCain for his capture. If he gets captured, he gets captured."

"Why would you say you like people who don't get captured?"

Trump responded: "The people that don't get captured I'm not supposed to like? I like the people who don't get captured and I respect the people who do get captured."

We had several testy exchanges and then I asked Trump whether he'd read any accounts of McCain's time in captivity or was otherwise familiar with his experiences as a prisoner of war. Trump's answer left me speechless.

"It's irrelevant."

It wasn't just that Trump was willing to mock the heroism of a prisoner of war, it's that he was willing to do so without any understanding of what had happened.


John Henry, I have the strong feeling that if I had been Steve Hayes in that instance, while I might have been speechless, I think I'd have had a response for Trump. I would have punched him in the mouth.

Chuck said...

Michael; I have heard that story about the Palins being chased from the Alaska governorship due to 27 (is that right?) nuisance lawsuits.

If so -- and I'm a trial lawyer -- it would be the only time, to my knowledge, one or more "nuisance" lawsuits ever forced a major American political figure out of office.

You may know more than me; I'd just ask, "Why? Why would 'nuisance' cases force you out of office? And why would resigning your office bring an end to the litigation?" Basically, if one was an anti-Palin ideologue, and you had bothered to investigate a claim (however specious), prepare a complaint, pay a filing fee with the court and file the claim... why would you give up, just because she resigned her office? Why not keep it going, if your desire is to harass her and hound her out of public life altogether?

I have to say, Michael, I thought that I would be the guy bringing up the mention of "frivolous lawsuits." You know, like the defamation action for $5 Billion-with-a-B that you-know-who filed against the author of "TrumpNation" for publishing an estimate of you-know-who's net worth.

Chuck said...

Hey, just cuz I luv you all so much, here's a nice neat and tidy NPR story on the volume of fabrication that Donald Trump packed into that show of his last night in Jupiter:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/09/469775355/trump-doesnt-own-most-of-the-products-he-pitched-last-night

I think I've been over most of it previously. But you know messaging. Mr. Donald J. Trump knows messaging. You keep it simple. You keep it plain. You repeat the message, so it sticks.

So there you are. Again. Trump, in that 45-minute spiel, packed in more lies than the worst tv infomercial in history. Every single thing he mentioned, was fabricated in some way. It is hard to find an actual truth, in amidst all the lies.

Nichevo said...

Chuck, go home, you're drunk.

CWJ said...

John Henry @1:17,

"We could argue the semantics of that. We could even argue whether from 45-49 he was 'president' or merely filling his Constitutional role to 'act as president'."

Oh Lord. You're the one invoking semantics. Not traditinalguy, not MadisonMan, nor me. I think none of us were challenging your basic point. All we were doing were, I thought, gently correcting the notion that as a practical matter Truman failed to win "re-election." Look I even put it in quotes for you.

But if your ego requires dying on this hill, have at it. Just know that none of the three of us are charging up it. Certainly not me.

Michael K said...

"This is what I hate so much about the Trump crowd. Arguing over the silliest things. "

Yes, we know. Chuck, you seem to have added Sarah Palin to your hatred list.

I am sure you prefer the WaPo reasons listed but are some comments from some of her few friends in politics.

To understand why Governor Palin resigned from office is to understand the environment she found herself in after returning to Alaska following the 2008 Presidential campaign. For a more complete understanding of this environment, I suggest reading all of chapter five in Going Rogue, called “The Thumpin.” For now, here is an overview of that chapter that I hope will give readers a better understanding of the conditions that lead to her decision.
Governor Palin writes that when she flew home from the campaign in 2008, the "political landscape" in Alaska "had permanently changed." She states:
The fallout was immediate: the governor’s office was inundated with frivolous ethics complaints. Literally scores of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Public Records Act requests rolled in, generating thousands of pages that required hours of work to process. Reporters abandoned actual reporting in favor of tabloidizing my family, my record, and me.
Governor Palin writes about the fact that her administration had received a normal amount of FOIA requests prior to her selection on the 2008 GOP ticket. But after the campaign, her office was hit with a "tidal wave" of FOIA requests and "hundreds of demands" for various communication transactions, such as emails. She wrote:


The law was changed after she left office. The hostility from Democrats was almost matched by the Republican oil and gas lobby. She was dead in Alaska politics once McCain picked her to be VP.

Drago said...

Chuck: "I'd really like to help everybody in the Party lash out at Hillary Clinton as a liar, but nobody can do that with a straight face, with Trump as a nominee"

LOL

Yeah. That's why you can't criticize Hillary.

That's why.

Hilarious.

It's like you don't even want to try to criticize Hillary.......hmmmmmmm.

Drago said...

That Chuck. He's a real, true-blue rock-ribbed republican/conservative and he would just love, LOVE, to criticize Hillary. He really would. Honest.

It's just that he can't.

'cuz Trump.

But he really really wants to! Really!

LOL

Axelrod could not have drawn that one up any better.

Chuck said...

Michael K:

First, when I referred to having to "argue the silliest things with the Trump crowd," I meant things like having to argue about whether there was an off duty policeman in New Jersey who investigated a report of some Muslims having a tailgate-type party on the roof of their building. As if that answers Trump's wholly bullshit account of his having watched as "thousands" of people celebrated and cheered the fall of the WTC towers. Stuff like that. And stuff like whether the Better Business Bureau gave Trump University a good rating.

Second, the more you talk about Governor Palin's resignation (a subject I gather you have spent more time on, than me) the less convincing you get.

The state -- and not a governor -- bears the cost of FOIA compliance. And if it is a particularly onerous requests, often times the requester must pay. Ethics questions under a state board or compliance office are also paid for by state governments, and I'd be astonished if the governor was not provided counsel paid for by the state in real office-related ethics complaints.

Civil suits might not be indemnified (although I'd be surprised if they weren't) but you mentioned several times that they were all "nuisance" suits. That is, meritless and easily- (if somewhat costly-) defended. I don't really get it. I have a hard time understanding why a defense fund wouldn't be easily established if she's a true political power in the state. She's the governor, in her first term, not term-limited yet, and fresh off a run for Vice President. You're telling me that she could be hounded from office by 27 nuisance lawsuits?

Chuck said...

Drago if you are backing Trump, I am certain that I'll be on more consistent ground criticizing Hillary Clinton's lack of veracity than you will.

Michael K said...

"the less convincing you get."

If you think I am trying to convince you of anything, you are dumber than I thought. NOBODY will convince you of anything because you are a zealot.

"I'd be astonished if the governor was not provided counsel paid for by the state in real office-related ethics complaints."

You obviously know nothing about Alaska law and probably almost nothing about Alaska.

Goodnight. Nobody will convince you of anything.

JeanE said...

The caption of the first photo says the couple are going to vote in the Maine primary, and the implication is that they support Trump. Why does a Trump supporter in Maine wear a TEXAS
FLAG sweater? Maybe the picture is of a couple in Texas, or maybe a Cruz supporter in Maine wears a Lone Star sweater. Does the NYT get anything right?

tim in vermont said...

I'd be astonished if the governor was not provided counsel paid for by the state in real office-related ethics complaints."


Ha ha ha! Then be astonished! They changed the law after Palin was hounded from office by having to pay personal money (she was not personally rich) to defend herself from such heinous ethics violations as wearing a jacket emblazoned with "Arctic Cat" to a public gathering.

I have to hand it to you though, you are very very proud of your ignorance. They set up a defense fund for her, but it was declared "unethical" and she had to return the money.

http://www.adn.com/article/20100624/palin-refund-most-defense-fund-money

Palin defense Fund may be unethical
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/sarah.palin/

Palin was the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008. In announcing her resignation earlier this month, she cited the cost of battling ethics complaints filed by critics as one of the reasons she is quitting about two-thirds of the way through her four-year term.

Imagine if Hillary were forced to pay her own money to defend herself. Well, that wouldn't be a problem because Hillary, who has spent the majority of her life in "public service" is a zillionaire, while Palin never managed to get rich off her stint as governor. Just goes to show you what an idiot Palin was.