Althouse: "There are, after all, a few problems with Trump’s argument that he was just, in the Wall Street Journal’s memorable phrase, using 'facial hemorrhages as a metaphor for anger.'"

August 12, 2015

"There are, after all, a few problems with Trump’s argument that he was just, in the Wall Street Journal’s memorable phrase, using 'facial hemorrhages as a metaphor for anger.'"

"One can begin with the obvious: more of Kelly’s body was implicated than was Wallace’s, and Trump has a long history of slurs aimed at women’s anatomy, which was what Kelly was asking him about. But stranger still is the idea that there was any anger to describe, literally or metaphorically. 'Look, she asked me a very nasty question. I have nothing against Megyn Kelly, but she asked me a very, very nasty question,' Trump said. She was 'very inappropriate,' and 'very angry.' And yet, in the video, she is calm, and never stops smiling. She did not, it is true, surrender or laugh appreciatively when he interrupted her to make a joke about how he thought another woman was ugly. Is that what an angry woman looks like from the Republican debate stage?"

From "How Trump Survived the Megyn Kelly Blowup," by Amy Davidson in The New Yorker.

43 comments:

walter said...: "she is calm, and never stops smiling"

1stt part true, 2nd part fabrication.

Hey..they need something to accompany those groovy cartoons. Maybe one with blood spurting out of Kelly?; 8/12/15, 1:20 PM
Quaestor said...: In Trump's defense (the law requires reasonable doubt) there's is an old turn of phrase which he may have half remembered and got confused. To have blood in one's eye means to be spoiling for a fight, to desire to hurt and injure another. I think many of us took his comment to mean blood from the vagina.

The phrase on the rag refers to the legendary menstrual psychosis women were said to be subject to, back when having those opinions were grounds for crucifixion. So "she's on the rag" means she is unreasonable, loony, but will recover in a day or two. It doesn't really fit, because the deal about menstrual psychosis is delirium and mania - crazy stuff - not calculated malice, which I think is what Trump took to be behind Kelly's questions.; 8/12/15, 1:24 PM
SteveR said...: This is typical working from the desired result-anybody but a Republican, preferably HRC-back through the current mechanism- Trump's faux Republicanism set up to dismantle GOP's public face- to "see how screwed up these dopey hayseeds are" War on Women stance.

Unoriginal, just a variation of a well established theme. What else do these people have to do these days?; 8/12/15, 1:29 PM
walter said...: "she's on the rag" means she is unreasonable, loony, but will recover in a day or two."

Heh..I'd love to see a Pol try to get that kind of discourse to fly.

But yes..if Trump himself had no sensitivity on this issue, he might have said something like "I don't know, good point..maybe she WAS suffering from PMS. But what I really meant was.."; 8/12/15, 1:32 PM
dreams said...: I think the time just prior to the Thursday night debate will eventually be perceived as the apex of the overrated and silly Megyn Kelly's career.; 8/12/15, 1:36 PM
Brando said...: To me that's the real issue--whether he really was referring to menstruation is irrelevant, and if he says that's not what he meant, fine. But the real problem is that Kelly had asked him a legitimate question--if you consider it a "gotcha" question just because it makes him uncomfortable, then grow up--he has a history of comments about women that would certainly make it much easier for the Dems to use the "war on women" theme against him (yes, I know they'd try to anyway, but please--why make it easier for them? The theme was worn out by 2014 so why revive it?).

If that line of questioning was too much for Trump, and he had to lash out at the moderator after the debate, then he clearly is too petty and fragile for the presidency.

But then, to Trumpites none of this matters--his pettiness and schoolyard bickering and whining is just a sign that he's a fighter, a true hero. Normal rules don't apply anymore.; 8/12/15, 1:57 PM
tim maguire said...: Is that what an angry woman looks like from the Republican debate stage?

Can the New York Times get anything right? Trump's not a Republican.; 8/12/15, 2:02 PM
walter said...: Dunno Brando, some of us think couching a question about doxed out of context comments while invoking the fraudulent "war on women" as if a fact IS gotcha ____. I can't call it "journalism"..so Kelly truly need not apologize in that respect.
When Hillary calls her performance "impressive", there's high level of reverse barometer to consider.; 8/12/15, 2:08 PM
Jaq said...: I kind of doubt he was talking about periods, to accuse him of that, you have to assume he is far more in touch with the language he uses, and that his riffs come from a more logical and considered part of his brain than they actually appear. One explanation, he is speaking off the cuff, the top of his head, didn't want to say nose and mouth or the words weren't immediately there for him, the other is that he has conceived this as a nasty joke and then applied a filter to tone it down in the space of a couple of seconds. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that he has no filter.; 8/12/15, 2:24 PM
dreams said...: It seems to me that Trump, his whining included is generating a lot of hysterical whining from some of the leading Republican analysts.; 8/12/15, 2:25 PM
Ken B said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/12/15, 2:34 PM
dreams said...: I think he realized in the middle of saying it that it didn't make any sense (blood coming out of her eyes) so he qualified it with the comment of wherever though unfortunately for him in that context he dug a deeper hole for himself.; 8/12/15, 2:36 PM
Nonapod said...: This is absurd. We're falling into an infinite recursion of whining. If criticizing Trump for being too thin skinned or "whining" because he was asked a critical question is, in fact, whining itself; then whining about the whining about the whining could also considered whining.; 8/12/15, 2:54 PM
dreams said...: Are you whining or just trying to make a point?; 8/12/15, 2:58 PM
John henry said...: "Facial hemorrhage"?

Maybe I've been visiting too many Russian websites. The blood coming out of her whatever remark didn't make the connection with menstruation to me.

The "facial hemorrhage" immediately made me think of bukkake.

John Henry; 8/12/15, 3:01 PM
Brando said...: "Dunno Brando, some of us think couching a question about doxed out of context comments while invoking the fraudulent "war on women" as if a fact IS gotcha ____."

I get what you're saying in that the comments were out of context--and that's exactly what Trump should have brought up at the time--but I don't think Kelly bringing it up and even suggesting that this could be used as the "war on women" theme is unfair or cheap. The nature of the question wasn't "hey you clearly are a sexist pig" so much as "you have a lot of quotes that the Democrats will try to have a field day with". Similarly, Rubio was asked about inconsistencies on abortion--these aren't "gotcha", they're raising real chinks in the armor that the candidates should be addressing at debates rather than through battling attack ads.

It is true that if Trump were the nominee, the quotes regarding women would be used by Hillary. Primary voters should know how Trump would address that. And in his response to Kelly, it seems he would address it very poorly.; 8/12/15, 3:04 PM
dreams said...: It occurs to me that the Donald's debating skill has become rusty because of his being the Donald. I agree he could have turned the pressure back on the overrated and silly Megyn Kelly.; 8/12/15, 3:11 PM
Nonapod said...: dreams said...

Are you whining or just trying to make a point?

lol; 8/12/15, 3:26 PM
Laura, one of Bobby's girls said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/12/15, 3:29 PM
Laura said...: Senor Trump is not known for men-o-pause.

And women are never, ever homicidal.; 8/12/15, 3:31 PM
Laura said...: Women never, ever compete in blood sports.

Amazon is just a good way to buy things online.; 8/12/15, 3:32 PM
Laura said...: Cleopatra chose poison for herself. Her sister, Arsinoë IV, not so lucky, and left her period behind on the temple steps.

Elizabeth I went head to head with Mary Queen of Scots, proud mother of a boy.

Amy Fisher gave Mrs. Buttafuoco free plastic surgery.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a fitting slogan, and regardless of a blue dress, statehouse carpets are cleaned quite frequently.

Out out damn spot.; 8/12/15, 3:42 PM
SGT Ted said...: Dudes should live tweet their erections in solidarity.; 8/12/15, 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: The easiest way to know when SJW's are just making stuff up as they go along?

They don't quote. I've seen on this website, on facebook, on Hotair, they say of Donald Trump, "She's on the rag!" in quotes, just like that.

Of course, the Donald never said anything like that. So, why don't they quote him directly if it's so obvious what he was saying?

That's your tell.; 8/12/15, 4:00 PM
walter said...: " I don't think Kelly bringing it up and even suggesting that this could be used as the "war on women" theme is unfair or cheap."

She brought it up in a manner that "suggested" it's a real cause..as opposed to a fabrication. There's a difference. But hey..no one cares. The debate is over.; 8/12/15, 5:05 PM
walter said...: And yeah..it's definitely cheap to throw a string of out of context quotes at someone to defend when you know it's a severely time restricted format. So she starts with out of context quotes and then she herself frames them within an at minimum contentious grievance politics meme. That's shit for "journalism".; 8/12/15, 5:14 PM
traditionalguy said...: Trump's mind is a supercomputer making connections faster than the average man or woman. To do that he has to weigh the words and the argument being made at him. And then his inner voice tells him if they can do that to him, then so can he do it to them...or a least he can confront the enemy dressed in sheeps clothing that is trying to eat him and his friends.

Trump is a guard dog of his friends. Sure he barks a lot, but that is why we need him on duty. He smells out an attack while we are looking at the surface costume of the sexy feminine wolf that comes to eat us dressed like just another sheep.; 8/12/15, 5:35 PM
Big Mike said...: As I've commented before on another blog post, it is very reasonable for Megyn Kelly to ask her question in exactly that tone. He can cope with the issue or he'll lose. And he can't cope.; 8/12/15, 6:11 PM
Nichevo said...: Track guy, do the voices in your head tell you what to post? This has no connection to any published events or version of reality.; 8/12/15, 6:20 PM
MAJMike said...: Brando nailed it very well. That's what I was thinking as Kelly asked the question. She placed in context and it was a fair question considering the DemCong will use any comment in an attempt to destroy any Republican.

If he can't man-up and answer like an adult, then he's not fit to be a leader.; 8/12/15, 8:47 PM
traditionalguy said...: Nichevo...Don',t you share what is in your mind too? A mind can work out puzzles using the partial information made available without accepting the surrounding filler transmitted with the narrative in code to slowdown the code breakers. Who cares if no one else wrote something down yet. With wisdom, get understanding

Trump is easy to understand. He does talk in ideas over the heads of many of his hearers, which is his problem to solve. But what a problem that is. He needs a teacher's art like that of the magnificent Professor Althouse. And Trump will never br that good, but he is willing to communicate what he knows from a lifetime competing with the best minds in NYC and the world. We do well to listen carefully to such a man until the light comes on for us.; 8/12/15, 9:12 PM
hombre said...: Davidson is mistaken when she say Republicans don't know why Trump was wrong in all this,

Only Trump and his Trumpadupes don't know and why would they? Trump has no discernible political or moral philosophy. He insults people, like Obama. That's pretty much it.; 8/12/15, 9:15 PM
JeanE said...: Megan Kelly gave Trump an opportunity to address an issue that will surely be used against him in general election and he responded poorly - he should have said something like this. "I made those remarks in my role as the boss on Celbrity Apprentice. As most of the viewers know, the show is about the rough and tumble behind the scenes action in highly competitive business and I'm hard on all the participants, both men and women, but I understand the difference between an episode of Celebrity Apprentice and a meeting with world leaders or a presidential debate, and I think the voters understand that as well, even if the Washington pundits and the PC police don't."
That answer adresses the question without giving in to being politically correct. A good candidate, like Fiorina, would have been prepared to respond to challenging questions, but Trump just whines.; 8/13/15, 2:08 AM
Brando said...: "And yeah..it's definitely cheap to throw a string of out of context quotes at someone to defend when you know it's a severely time restricted format."

So I suppose moderators should just avoid any topics that might be difficult for the candidates to answer, and let everyone just battle it out in their ads? Maybe limit the debates to "tell us why you're so great" and "what do you find the hardest about being so great".

The fact is, Trump did say the exact things Kelly quoted--and if the context really mattered that's all he had to say. I would want even for candidates I like, like Rubio, to have to address potential lines of attack--and he did so, and didn't go public attacking the moderators, either.

Trump is telegraphing his inability to handle any difficulty with grace, class or skill. This is a "plus" for his supporters, of course, but some of us aren't drinking that Kool-Aid. We'd actually like to see a decent leader emerge from all this.

Yeah, I know, he "pisses off the establishment". It would also piss off the establishment if the GOP voters nominated a piece of cinderblock. That doesn't make it a smart thing to do.; 8/13/15, 5:39 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Brando:

The fact is, Trump did say the exact things Kelly quoted

But he said other bad things, and continues to say other bad things, about men. He seeks out weaknesses, or what could be weaknesses. He does this with just about everyone who criticizes him. He even did it with John McCain the other day.

The question made it appear like this was some special animus to women. Which may not be true.; 8/13/15, 7:57 AM
Chuck said...: Right; Sammy Finkelman makes the best point. Trump is an all-purpose non-stop insult machine. For Megyn Kelly to single out "the women" part is misleading insofar as Trump insults everyone.

And so we have another media sideshow where some chosen Democrat interest group (Mexican immigrants, women -- blacks should be next up on the Trump insult list) gets their moment in the Trump sun.

Note well how it all gets used, too; the immediate link is to "how women look from a Republican debate stage."

So to review:

~Trump insults everyone

~When, in the process of insulting everyone, Trump insults women and minorities and other special-interest categories favored by the media, it becomes big news.

~In the process of any Trump favored-interest-insult, all Republicans will be called upon to answer for the Trump insult, and treated with the same suspicion as if they themselves had uttered such a pointed insult against the favored-interest themselves.

Rinse, and repeat.; 8/13/15, 8:30 AM
Brando said...: "But he said other bad things, and continues to say other bad things, about men. He seeks out weaknesses, or what could be weaknesses. He does this with just about everyone who criticizes him. He even did it with John McCain the other day."

And he could have pointed that out as well. There are several good ways to spin and defend what he'd said--and Kelly was raising a legitimate point, which was that those quotes could be used against him. It gives him a chance to respond, even in the limited forum of a debate, and instead he attacked the moderator as though it was totally illegitimate for her to bring them up.

A "gotcha" question, to my mind, is one that relies on false premises and sets up the target in a way that forces them into a bad answer--such as "when did you stop beating your wife". We object to those in depositions and hearings all the time, as misleading or relying on facts not in evidence. Even Bernard Shaw's question to Dukakis ("would you feel differently about the death penalty if it was your wife who was murdered") was fair. There was no trickery or spin involved--Trump had quotes out there that could easily be used against him (don't you think the "legitimate rape" people would do the same with the treasure trove of Trump quotes?). If I were a Trump supporter, I'd absolutely want those quotes brought up and to see him address them. Of course, most Trump supporters see his attacks on the moderators as a plus anyway, so the rules are different here.; 8/13/15, 8:33 AM
Brando said...: "Trump is an all-purpose non-stop insult machine. For Megyn Kelly to single out "the women" part is misleading insofar as Trump insults everyone."

Then here's a simple answer Trump could have given: "Megyn, those quotes are nothing. You should see what I've said about men."

One thing the GOP primaries ought to do is innoculate the candidates against expected attacks by the Democrats. Should we instead sit back and see how the eventual nominee reacts in September 2016, and hope he doesn't fall apart then?; 8/13/15, 8:36 AM
MD Greene said...: Why is disparaging women verboten? Trump's a douchebag, according to some, but would Megyn Kelly go after a female candidate who called him a douchebag? If Rosie O'Donnell ran for office (and I hope she will not), would she be dinged for saying mean things about men?; 8/13/15, 9:47 AM
Brando said...: "Why is disparaging women verboten?"

It shouldn't be, but these are the times we live in. We're in an era where if someone says "black lives matter" and you try and say "all lives matter" you're shouted out of the room, and no one points out that this is ugly racism.; 8/13/15, 9:55 AM
Brando said...: Not that this is the way it should be, of course--and I'd like to see someone push back on it. O'Malley would have earned points from me if he shot back "if you don't think all lives matter, then you're part of the problem, as we need to end racial classifications and start think of Americans as one!" But then, that's not what the Democrats are about anymore.

Likewise, Trump could have said "I've said good things about women who deserve it, and mean things about women who deserved that too. Much of what you quoted were from my feud with Rosie O'Donnell, who has been so nasty and bigoted that she deserves far worse than what I said. And women who have self respect will look past my public feuds and see that what my presidency would offer them would be far more significant, and not get stuck on PC nonsense and gendered politics. Thank you for your question, Megyn, I hope I addressed it."

Something like that would have gotten a lot of his critics to give him a second look.; 8/13/15, 10:00 AM
Chuck said...: Let's all remember Megyn Kelly's own, stated premise for her question. She asked it because, she said, Democrats would presumably use it against a nominee-Trump alleging more Republican "War on Women."

Of course, there's another potential Trump answer for that one as well. It would go something like this: 'Megyn, there is not a candidate standing here tonight who will not face a War on Women attack from the Democrats. I think Carly Fiorina might face a War on Women attack from Democrats. So don't think that my comments will make a real difference..."; 8/13/15, 10:52 AM
walter said...: Brando said...

"And yeah..it's definitely cheap to throw a string of out of context quotes at someone to defend when you know it's a severely time restricted format."

So I suppose moderators should just avoid any topics that might be difficult for the candidates to answer, and let everyone just battle it out in their ads? Maybe limit the debates to "tell us why you're so great" and "what do you find the hardest about being so great".
------

Oh yes...Brando..ya got me. That's exactly what I think. Read my post agian if you need to..and you do.; 8/13/15, 12:25 PM