[The mainstream media] want to get rid of Trump. It's not that they like her. This is the mistake people are making. It's not that they like Fiorina. They never liked McCain. They just made him think they did and everybody else. They don't like any Republican....I edited that way down. Read the whole thing if you want to see what I mean by Rush's repetitiousness. Anyway, what do I think of this? Is the media trying to get rid of Trump and seizing on Fiorina only because she's useful for that and because their real aim is to cause the Republicans to lose the election in the end? To believe that, you have to believe that the media genuinely fears Trump as a formidable candidate in the general election. I don't believe that.
I don't mean this to be insulting to Carly Fiorina.... They are never gonna support this woman, I don't care what they do and say now.... [A]fter Fiorina they'll come up with somebody else that they like all of a sudden, or make it look like they like. And they'll start touting and they'll start highlighting, and they'll start making it look like they're really celebrating and promoting, and all of it is simply designed to end up with them once again picking our candidate. And right now what they're trying to do is get rid of Trump. But, by the way, not just the media. The entire Washington establishment, which the media is a member of.....
I do think that much of the media (but certainly not all), wants to help Democrats win in the end. But the general election is a long way away, and for now, the media want ratings, and Trump has been great for ratings. He's very exciting and entertaining, but a lively challenger to Trump is also good for ratings, and Fiorina is a feisty, forcible speaker, unlike all the others, some of whom are almost ludicrously low key. In the end, I think the party is better off with someone who seems normal and has normal credentials — probably Bush, Kasich, or Rubio. But these people aren't much fun for now.
Now, it's also true that those — like me — who want a normal candidate with normal credentials might like Trump to get off the stage so things can become more normal, and Fiorina is performing a convenient function, sparring with him. Plus, it's good for Republicans to have a woman on the stage, fending off some of the usual gender politics problems that the party tends to have and undercutting Hillary's ability to build up credit by being The Woman in the race. But if Fiorina performs this function so well that she becomes conceivable as someone who could get the nomination, she's going to get attacked and we've seen the material that will be used against her.
Rush seems to think these attacks will be held in reserve until the media have achieved their goal and gotten her the nomination. But the other candidates — especially Trump — are going to be attacking her. And I don't think it's like McCain. McCain was like Hillary is now: a candidate from a previous election cycle who'd been waiting his turn and was the party's default candidate against whom no one else ever got traction.
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
"Fiorina is a feisty, forcible speaker..."
I thought "feisty" was one of those words we no longer apply to women, like 'perky'.
If Trump called Fiorina "feisty" would it be an issue?
I am Laslo.
Just a reminder. Ann Althouse voted for Obama. Twice.
I think it is about the controversy. Rush is being too conspiratorial, although he might be doing that because it serves his own need for controversy.
I don't necessarily think the media is wrong for covering the controversial aspects of the race, but it shouldn't be ALL about that, if they wanted to practice journalism, they should cover the boring stuff too.
The best thing for the party would be for some of the other candidates to try to stand out in other ways, preferably not with drama and personality but with substance on issues. I think Rubio is the one most likely to do that at this point.
I think the party is better off with someone who seems normal and has normal credentials — probably Bush, Kasich, or Rubio.
Interesting that didn't mention Walker. I thought his problem was that he was too bland, too...midwestern. What is that has made him abnormal? Was it the Harley? The birthright citizenship comments? Please don't tell me it was Tonette.
"Feisty" has an interesting etymology.
There is a narrative that must be followed....that someone emerges from the pack, and then crusades their way to the nomination....at least for Republicans. This is how they sell papers and generate webclicks. You won't believe who the new frontrunner is today!! Click here!!.
Unless it's a Democrat running, in which case there is just the one True Only named Hillary!!!.
"Just a reminder. Ann Althouse voted for Obama. Twice."
"Reminding" people of things that are not true, eh? Nice work, Glenn.
I tend to agree with this post. Fiorina is an anti-Trump but she has improved her game immensely since her Senate race in California. Bush will never get the nomination. If he did we would see a serious third party movement. We will see who emerges as the season goes on.
I suspect that normal means PC.
What if the reason that no problem can be solved is that PC rules?
Trumps ideas are largely stupid, but if he can kill off PC as a version of seriousness, all sorts of problems are open to solution.
It's possible, with some advice, Trump will find the right policies. His ignorance, unlike Obama's, is not invincible. Just keep PC at bay.
More normal means not solving any problems. They just get worse, and new ones are introduced.
Trump is the media.
Fiorina is doing well because she stood out in the JV debate, then stood out in the most recent debate. Every candidate had a chance.
She wasn't very good in her Senate run in California, though likely better than anyone else could have been. She was sharpened by that much like Walker was sharpened. But she has a sharper personality than Walker, whose strength lies in his dogged persistence, something not well shown by debates.
Trump is also a great representation of America's enemies (I'm not saying he is an enemy of America) in his narcissism and arrogance and belittling assumption of self-grandeur. Having an ability to take such a person down a notch is really a useful trait.
"Interesting that didn't mention Walker. I thought his problem was that he was too bland, too...midwestern. What is that has made him abnormal? Was it the Harley? The birthright citizenship comments? Please don't tell me it was Tonette."
I was thinking about the "ludicrously low key" description and considered including him, but thought he has been posturing as a fighter and he started the interrupting in the last debate. But the sentence where I name the 3 is about normal people with normal credentials. I guess he could be put in there, but I want someone more moderate.
The MSM do not work for the Democrats; they think the Democrats work for them.
Carson and Fiorina seem to do their own thing and write their own material.
All the others have "expert" consultants and focus groups.
I have not seen Trump "attack" anybody of either party, not even Obama, and I don't think I will.
He is just being Trump, whci seems to be working fine so far, so there is no reason for him to start acting like a "normal" candidate and follow a script..
I don't think Fiorina is a Trump destroyer; she's a Republican enhancer. Fiorina is a Hillary threat.
Trump simply lacks appeal to many women and Fiorina lacks appeal to many men. They are stuck with each other.
The internet is a Stephanopoulis destroyer. The media are the ones deploying the destroyer/destroyee metaphor. And they need to beware of reflexive verbs.
What's Rush's evidence MSM is promoting Fiorina? There's plenty of 'she was a horrible CEO' fodder out there right now...
I am about thinking I would like to see Ben Carson get the nomination and pick Condoleezza for his V-P.
There would be heads exploding coast to coast.
I want to see the mainstream media get so defensive about Hillary that that they lose even more credibility. I want them to try to make American feel sorry for her. And they will try.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-18/carly-fiorina-s-hewlett-packard-record-in-one-chart
Seems reasonable. Consistent with Fiorina being a good CEO who helped her company through a difficult time, made more difficult by tremendous politics in the board of directors. (Which was basically Tom Perkins' claim, and that means a lot to me.)
Consistent with that, not evidence for it. Whether she was actually a good CEO depends on to what extent the board of directors crazy infighting was something she could have avoided, or fixed, or if she contributed to it. Doubt we can find that out; everyone involved has a side.
The problem here is the assumption that the major media news and public affairs outlets want ratings.
They no longer make much money from ratings (well, save Fox and the WSJ). They are all effectively kept alive as political assets for bigger players in the finance-regulatory game.
The second wrong assumption I think is that these are normal times. They aren't. The people are angry. It's not just media hype or the result of Trump hyping himself. If one of the others had gone off about the matters Trump did, as aggressively, they would be winning.
I disagree with the insinuation that Fiorina is not "normal". I think she is just as normal as those you mention, only she doesn't come from politics. She has a problem with her H-P tenure, but a lot of that is "matter of opinion" stuff as opposed to Hillary's concrete problem of her home server. It's about time that the Rs had someone who had the courage of their convictions and could elucidate them forcefully. Unlike Romney, I think Fiorina would have pulled Candy Crowley up by her short hairs and then quoted chapter and verse regarding the facts being debated. There is no question that the country is ready for a woman president, but we are going to demand one with talent and not just a questionable pedigree.
A Fiorina/Rubio ticket would put the Rs in a great tactical position and would be good for the country as well.
Unfortunately Walker has the charisma of a door. That is not helpful in a national campaign. Romney was similar in that regard.
@glenn: My recollection is that Althouse voted loudly for Obama the first time and then voted (very softly) for Romney in 2012. I could be wrong about 2012. I'm from a culture/time period when people didn't loudly proclaim for whom the voted.
Hey, buwaya puti is back!
That's good!
When the Dems moved left en masse in 2008, a void was created in the middle.
And like a fart moving from a zone of higher pressure to a zone of lower pressure, the career Republicans have moved into that void.
The fart thinks it's the shit, here to stay. Eagerly, often noisily, it bursts forth, rapidly expanding, reveling in its new freedom to occupy a larger space. However, it quickly dissipates, leaving nothing but embarrassment and revulsion.
""Reminding" people of things that are not true, eh? Nice work, Glenn."
Althouse: Feisty!
I am Laslo.
Limbaugh is really off his game. He really thinks they want to get rid of Trump? Trump is a MSM nocturnal emmission of a candidate. He reinforces all the Republican stereotypes, misogynistic, racist, nativist, bombastic. I think they desperately want Trump to win the nomination. Not to mention how great their ratings will be.
Feisty, flounce and bossy: the words used to put women down.
"In their guide to improving the media coverage of female politicians, the Women’s Media Centre lists “feisty” as one of the words that should be avoided (it categorises it with “spunky”, which is surely a word that nobody should use, ever), describing it as “normally reserved for individuals and animals that are not inherently potent or powerful”.
I am Laslo.
Who are you calling feisty?
.
"“Two phrases I hate in reference to female characters are 'strong' and 'feisty'. They really annoy me. It's the most condescending thing. You say that about a three-year-old. It infantilises women,” British actress Helen Mirren is quoted as saying.
I am Laslo.
Rush is lame. He needs to hang it up and let his superior guest hosts take over the show.
What's normal about Bush? (Or Clinton, if you want to be broader about it). Yes, they have normal credentials, but they're much better known for the very abnormal credential of being family to past presidents.
That's normal in monarchies and 3rd world dictatorships, but less so in theoretically republican nations.
1. Astute observation re Rush. Very long winded and repetitious these days. Not sharp and concise at all.
2. The attacks on Carly's record at HP have already begun. The insufferable Clintonite Neera Tanin (sp?) was whining today about it. This, from a woman, who has never worked for a public company or even in the for-profit sector as far as I know.
Carly did an excellent job defending her HP record with Chris Wallace; especially on the discovery - three years after she left - of a sub- wholesaler's dealings with Iran.
But all this is very complicated and 30k laid off is a big hammer.
HPQ is both a unique and complicated company. Tech changes very fast. Where was Apple and cloud computing 15 years ago? People also forget the tech and Internet bust. Some people probably won't vote for her because HP ink is so expensive.
But politics is about the future and not the past. She positioned HPQ to survive and subsequently thrive in an era of mega change.
Professor, I believe that Rush had it right. And that you are over-thinking it.
Of course the mainstream media hates Trump. And of course, if we were looking at a presidential race of Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio versus Joe Biden and Cory Booker, the mainstream media would do everything possible to swing the election to Biden.
But let's not be too conspiratorial. There's no secret boardroom of the Mainstream Media. They don't have a long term strategy. They are all liberals, trying to sell news to the public, and they can only react. Yes, they react in predictable and identifiably left-leaning ways. But they aren't trying to set up one candidate to get the best matchup with another candidate. The MSM isn't that energetic, or organized. They are just all similarly liberal, having all come from similar backgrounds, being hired and vetted and rated by like-minded liberals.
Feisty: Touchy; quarrelsome..
I don't think we are allowed to call women "touchy" either.
I am Laslo.
"Reminding" people of things that are not true, eh? Nice work, Glenn.
I thought you voted for him in the primary over Hillary and then again in the General over McCain. Isn't that right?
I hope Althouse doesn't get 'touchy' about my noting of her using the word "feisty" to describe a woman.
On the other hand, "Feisty" can certainly apply to a woman you are banging anally.
So I've learned.
I am Laslo.
The exchange in the last debate where Trump and Bush got into it over donor's came too close to the truth.
The establishment does want to take out Trump now. He was great while he was throwing bombs and making a mess of the GOP. But now that he is focusing on Jeb he has to be silenced. Bush is only in the race because he has a ton of money. The same people that gave Bush money gave Clinton money. Right now every major politician gets money from the same couple thousand people of whom Trump used to be one.
When he was calling Jeb low energy that was fine. When he starts calling out the donor class? And guess who owns the media companies? They are going to go to the mat to shut Trump up if he keeps talking about the donor class and how they have bought DC.
Laslo Spatula:
You are correct about Althouse's use of gendered language. I hope she.owns her own opinion. Althouse is a big advocate of that, after all.
when I can, I listen to Hannity radio. He has a different presidential candidate on his show every day... and he lets them speak.
CNN saw "yuge" ratings because of Mr. Trump. The idea that the media want to get rid of him is laughable in the extreme. In the end they will try to destroy the last Republican standing (duh), but their greatest hope is that Trump goes the distance.
I have so many Rush shows recorded on the HD (all since 2007) that it always seems like a bad idea to break up the collection by stopping. So he turns on automatically and the computer records him automatically, and I sort of background-listen. Occasionally I leave early and listen to morse code on a bike errand, if he's unusually bad.
Bad means taking a moral position. He can't do what made him entertaining, namely produce a bigger-than-life persona which is ultimately self-deprecating humor, when he goes moral.
The repetition is just airtime skill, hitting the marks. You notice it when he's bad, not when he's good.
A side-effect of having all of Rush since 2007 is that I have all the Mark Steyn hostings of Rush as well, accessible for weekend play. There are 87 of them.
$ randomsteyn.sh picks one at random not played in the current cycle and plays it. See?
$ randomsteyn.sh
1:file:G:/rush/rush.14.03.10.12.rm
$
March 10, 2014 starting at 12pm.
She followed the gop protocol....tells outrageous lies to the flock and rise to the top.
worked for rush fo sho.
My take from last night...
You know why the media might be "hyping" Fiorina?
It just occurred to me that they think they can turn her impassioned prolife speech against her if she gets the nod to go up against Hillary.
The left and the lapdog press is convinced abortion on demand can hand Hillary a victory.
That they can Palinize Fiorina with abortion.
They saw Fiorina's passion and it literally translated into 'nut-job' in their imagination.
Easy to put down, she's knockeable. (if there is such a word)
She is the female Huckabee... in their mind. Not that I'm a mind reader ;)
jacksonjay said...
Limbaugh is really off his game. He really thinks they want to get rid of Trump? Trump is a MSM nocturnal emmission of a candidate. He reinforces all the Republican stereotypes, misogynistic, racist, nativist, bombastic. I think they desperately want Trump to win the nomination. Not to mention how great their ratings will be.
9/20/15, 10:55 AM "
I believe you are right. But as the British say, the MSM is too clever-by-half if this is their game. Last week a friend of mine who is a die-hard Liberal Democrat came over while Trump was having his rally and as he watched he said this guy really can get elected and my friend was not joking. A lot of what you said about Trump appeals to working class Democrats, the ones the Democrats need to win, the ones Reagen one over in 1980 and 1984 for two wins the second by a landslide. Hillary isn't appealing to those Democrats, at least not for now and Sanders is a McGovern replay.
"I do think that much of the media (but certainly not all), wants to help Democrats win in the end."
"Most" is usually in the 90 percentile range, if studies in the past are anything to go by.
Carly is a super female style merged with the perfectionist schitik of deatails and plans that she demands be followed or else. Her track record is that her details and plans are WRONG, but as the female boss refer to rule #1.
I agree with Rush. The Bush/Rove team is paying big time for her contrast of style to trip up The Donald's strong maleness. And the Dems don't care since Biden will replace Clinton shortly.
chickelit said...
@glenn: My recollection is that Althouse voted loudly for Obama the first time and then voted (very softly) for Romney in 2012.
If she had been in Detroit or Chicago she could have easily voted for Obama several times in 2008.
Anyone who has been following this blog since before 2008 knows that Ann Althouse didn't vote for Obama twice. I remember Ann's post about Obama, the boyfriend, vs Romney, the husband. I get the impression that Ann wants a chief executive who represents stability, common sense and maturity. The problem is that this may not be what the American voter wants. When people tell me that Trump has no chance, I remind them of Schwarzenegger in California. Deep, Democratic California actually elected a Republican as Governor just because he was a colorful celebrity. If California, that is almost 2/3rds Democrat, could elect a Republican celebrity; then what makes you think that America, which is 50% Republican can't do the same?
The MSM does not want Trump to be the nominee. A Hillary! win against Trump could be compared to Cosmo Kramer dominating the karate class full of 8 year olds. They've invested too much time in making Hillary! look competent and accomplished to have that happen.
Now, as to a Trump victory; I don't think anyone wants that!
"it's good for Republicans to have a woman on the stage, fending off some of the usual gender politics problems that the party tends to have and undercutting Hillary's ability to build up credit by being The Woman in the race."
Eh..never works.."wrong" kind of women.."wrong" kind of minorities.
Besides..a two term black president has revealed the country to be a cesspool of racism...somehow.
Rush also made the comment during Friday's show that Carly's new-found supporters better look out, because Trump is going to go after her on her time as CEO of Lucent, before her stint at HP, then revised and extended his remarks to say the story was in the Wall Street Journal.
Judging by that, it sound very much as if Rush and someone within Trump's campaign -- perhaps even The Donald himself, are in communication on the lines of attack that Trump plans to take, not just against the Democrats or the Republican establishment, but also against other GOP candidates. The problem here is that Fiorina's weaknesses in the business world are Trump's weaknesses -- i.e., you can't go around warning people about Carly's time at Lucent or HP and then claim she or anyone else mentioning Trump's four bankruptcy filings are simply tools of the GOPe, the Democrats and the big media combined.
It's basically Rush -- after complaining for 27 years about the special treatment Democratic politicians get -- demanding that Donald Trump get special treatment when it comes to a head-to-head matchup against Carly Fiorina.
Forina vs Trump on business acumen/tough decisions etc is tough sledding compared to the party of free stuff and class warfare.
BTW, Rush has mentioned on numerous occasions golfing with Trump...hasn't mentioned if he's ever been in the same room as Fiorina.
Cubanbob,
You are correct sir. But, will an equal number of moderate, establishment Republicans stay home on election day, rather than vote for Trump? Even though the poll numbers suggest that a large number of evangelicals support The Donald, certainly many of them will stay home because of his casino interests. Did they avoid Mittens because he is Mormon?
The George Will, Dr. Krauthammer, Bill Kristol types are very offended by Trump and the horse he rode in on. I believe that Kristol has already announced that he will support a third party candidate over Trump. Bill Bennett might fit into that category as well. Not sure where he stands.
Limbaugh loves to disparage Krauthammer as a RINO softie.
I am also not sure that the Electoral College numbers works in favor of any Republican.
N of 101 sez,
The MSM does not want Trump to be the nominee.
A short list of less than stellar Republican candidates.
Rapesplainer Todd Akin
Rapesplainer Richard Mourdock
Rapesplainer Sharron Angle
"I'm Not a Witch" Christine O'Donnell
All losers!
Hell, Senator Claire prolly broke the law, making sure she got Todd as an opponent.
You really think the MSM wants a fair fight in any of these elections?
I'm still thinking it's going to be Jeb and Susana Martinez. Florida has to be a win and there has to be a woman on the ticket if Hillary's the Democrat opposition.
We'd get that with a Rubio-Fiorina ticket, too, but they don't seem a good match with each other, plus he's a new-ish senator and she's held no elected position at all.
I guess he could be put in there, but I want someone more moderate.
Oh I see, a conservation isn't "normal".
As usual, Buwaya at 10:48 is right. Welcome back.
Rush likes Trump, birds of a feather, both have made zillions on pure bloviation. And Rush knows better than to say anything to piss off his base, the Republican "base", who are very pissed and getting pister at the impotence of their "leaders" whom they voted into power to stop the O, and who have done nothing. Trump sticking his thumb in their eye is vicarious deliciousness.
We will elect Hillary or Trump because that's what we deserve. A corrupt, incompetent, nepotist beneficiary wife of a serial rapist, or an admitted, crony capitalist serial bankrupter. We are not a serious society.
Fiorina is the approved rump buster because the Dems can destroy her campaign with one commercial about the contraband electronics she sold to Iran during the embargo.
I think Rush is right, but it's different than what people think.
The media isn't just liberal Democrats and progressives, there are a smattering of Republicans and moderates. It's these RINO's that the television shows love to call conservatives and be the voice of conservatives everywhere, that want their primary candidate picked. They don't care about ratings and they don't care about Fiorina, or Carson, or anyone else that isn't an establishment Republican like Bush.
So, they talk up their candidates to the Chuck Todd's of the world and Chuck Todd, not caring one way or another and being a "journalist" during the primary season (Rather than an advocate, which doesn't serve his purpose right now) goes along to get along. Fiorina is the person you like? Great, I'll report that she's getting traction. That Republicans really like her. That all the people in the know are speaking her name.
And once she gets up there and the previous candidate is dethroned (In this case, Trump), then those same RINO's move on to the next schlub for us all to latch on to.
If Fiorina fans are blind, they won't notice this. But if Trump goes down and Fiorina goes up, they'll pick another candidate to destroy her, until Bush gets on top, or maybe Christie, or Walker, or someone else the establishment can agree with.
And once their candidate is on top, they'll keep him there.
I think Limbaugh is right about this, as the media is becoming desperate to destroy Trump. I'll never forget the way the media treated McCain, especially the Washington Post's Democrat enabler Richard Cohen. McCain sucked up to the media and the media jollied him up. Then, once McCain got the nomination, Cohen wrote an article where he it suddenly dawned on him; Good God, McCain is a Republican. He's no different than all the rest. But the difference here is that, I'm not aware that Fiorina is sucking up to the media. But, she can go to the bank that if she wins the nomination, they will turn on her as they did with McCain and Romney. I'm not sure that she will get that far. What I saw of the CNN debate, Trump seemed to be off his stride, but I'm not sure that makes any difference. Carly's poll numbers improved but so did Trump's. I think we have a very, very angry electorate tired of being told to shut up by a political class and a president they don't respect. If Trump makes bloopers now, it may not make any difference, they've already made up their minds.
"I believe that Kristol has already announced that he will support a third party candidate over Trump. Bill Bennett might fit into that category as well."
Wait a minute. Are you implying that somebody, somewhere cares what Kristol or Bennett thinks?
Really?
----Fiorina is the approved rump buster because the Dems can destroy her campaign with one commercial about the contraband electronics she sold to Iran during the embargo.
This comment would be cogent if someone can compare the dealings of a 2d tier wholesaling partner of a multi-national corporation with personally setting up a non-secure server where the Russians, the ISIS and the Chinese could all hack it. We all get ...””"I was too busy to think about email so I set up my own ””” is like checking into a hotel and saying “”I’m too busy to think about having my room clean, so I’ll hire my own cleaning service””””
Its moot regarding Hillary, by then she will be under indictment.
Actually Limbaugh is at his dullest when talks about economics or goes full neo-con on foreign policy. Then, its real Yawnsville.
And he's 100% correct. The Liberal MSM has "helped" the Republican party pick 3 of the last 4 POTUS candidates. Its currently trying to help Carly F. Its always the same Meme. Everyone to the Right of Republican Establishment candidate X (Dole, McCain Romney) is a crazy, Right-wing Wacko while Candidate X is "The only adult in the Room" a great person, a voice of sanity.
Then, when Candidate X is nominated the Liberal MSM suddenly discovers all their flaws, and informs us that Candidate X is right-wing, Nazi, sexist, homophobe, and a menace to America.
The game, which all the MSM from Fox News and MSNBC play, is to make sure any Republican who really represents a non-establishment view on the stuff that really matters - immigration, trade, foreign policy - doesn't get nominated. That way the General election is really between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
And its worked for almost 30 years.
This is an interesting Republican field. The only three candidates who, off the top, I cannot incision in the White House are Trump, Carson, and Huckleberry. Trump because he is bigger than life, bigger than POTUS. Carson because he is too nice and Obama is/was the first Black President. And Huckledoodle because he is just too hookie (as well as being a big government Republican). I don't see Bush winning - he is to passive, and is a creature of the establishment at a time when the Republican core has turned strongly away from it.
I can see Fiorina as POTUS. I think that she would do a good job, and, I think would do very well against Hillary. She is probably the only candidate who might, and if she did, would likely get away with using some of the Planned Parenthood videos in her campaign videos. I think that this could be devastating this election cycle, with the Dem candidate forced by their progressive base to fight this, potentially alienating both Blacks and Hispanics. As I said, I can see her doing better against Hillary than anyone except Trump. She can say things that no man could. She is a lot of what Hillary is not - and esp since she did it herself, with her husband taking over much of the typical female roles in the family as her career took off, as contrasted to Hillary who married her way up, until she could buy the power. Fiorina really is the more accomplished of the two women.
Rush is an entertainer, first and foremost, and will always put his own ratings and need for attention above any conservative "cause" (not unlike a lot of right-leaning pundits and politicians). So I'll take anything he says with a grain of salt.
Is the "left" trying to prop up Fiorina right now? The media certainly is, if only because she's the story right now--the one woman in the field, taking on Trump directly, and rising in the polls. Why in hell wouldn't they cover that? And of course it means she's going to face greater scrutiny now--that's what happens when you get more attention. And the Left will certainly take shots at her because that's what they do. Would the Right fail to do so if she were a rising Democrat?
So I'm not sure what's supposed to be so sinister here.
Trump was off his stride? He's just listening to the murmurers. They all do; it cannot be helped.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा