This is not the first time Trump has been accused of mocking a person’s physical appearance. In a July interview with NBC news, Trump lashed out at columnists Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer after the latter called the candidate a "rodeo clown."I tried to find the original, but Google cache and Wayback Machine take me to a dead end. What's going on there?
“I get called by a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?” Trump said at the time.
Critics speculated that Trump had intentionally mocked Krauthammer, who is paralyzed from the waist down, while others said the comments were about Goldberg. Krauthammer contacted The Washington Post on Thursday to say that Trump's comments were about Goldberg, not himself.
Here's my post from last July "Whose pants is Donald Trump talking about?": "Here's the clip. He's obviously talking about Goldberg, not Krauthammer, when he gets to the pair-of-pants hyperbole." Media jumped on Trump back then and got it wrong. The slavering shows. I think it's a good bet that this new WaPo article successfully propagated the meme that Trump is a serial mocker of disabled people.
ADDED: Here's Washington Monthly's contribution to the meme:
Donald Trump mocked New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski’s disability on a stage in front of thousands of supporters. There’s no denying that he did it or what he meant by it. At another point, Trump said that conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who is partially paralyzed, “couldn’t buy a pair of pants.” That was also captured on camera. So, even if there isn’t as much difference between George W. Bush and Donald Trump as people might think, there’s a lot more ammo to use against Trump.That, written by one Martin Longman, remains uncorrected. There are lots of comments there too, and no one has flagged the error.
AND: At Mashable, the uncorrected meme is repeated by Liza Hearon:
It is not the first time Trump has been criticized for appearing to mock someone's handicap. In July, Trump said, “I get called by a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?” referring to the columnist Charles Krauthammer who is paralyzed from the waist down.
Posts
44 comments:
Journalism is a Shovel-Ready Job.
I am Laslo.
The left has no morals. No decency. No boundaries. No rules. They are despicable.
Here's clip of DJT on NBC back in July- it's 100% clear he's talking about Jonah G, not Krauthammer with the pants comment. Watch around time 11:00.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421021/please-help-keep-jonah-pants-jack-fowler
You're tellling me the MSM lie? You mean like, deliberately, on purpose, with blatant disregard for the truth, just to suit their preferred narrative?
The WaPo is working very hard to displace the NYT as the least accurate news provider. This last week has seen them pushing hard on "Climate Change", bringing down any - and all - Republicans, and ,of course, pushing Hillary in spite of her criminal behavior; all under the guise of front page "news".
"... there’s a lot more ammo to use against Trump."
Ammo?
I thought all Gun References needed a Trigger Alert.
I am Laslo.
His formula is simple, criticize him and you will be criticized. He believes that recent past presidents have not stood up for America when it has been insulted. He is going to change that.
In which ... AA is 100 times the journalist that the others are.
They would be ashamed, if they had any left.
I would interpret not being able to buy a pair of pants as not having money or job. How would you go from there to apply that to a disability like Krauthammer's? Media is stretching and lying. Everybody is out to get the Donald.
You guys should go over and read RedState some time if you want some inaccurate reporting on Trump, or maybe watch FOX, or read the WSJ. Plenty of right wing options out there to get outraged about.
If your ideology has failed, your only candidate would be indicted with an honest AG, spilling barrels if ink, pushing all meaningful debate out of the news, is the only recourse. Economy, foreign policy, race relations..... After eight years of Obama. No, spend all the energy retelling lies about Trump
Media's gotta do what the media's gotta do; trying to stir up blood in the water around the top Republican candidate any way they can.
The Corner's a good place too. Pretty much any right-wing media outlet other than Breitbart, Malkin and Coulter has published contentious BS about Trump.
I remember reading Jonah Goldberg reacting to the 'can't buy pants' comment as if Trump meant himself. Otherwise Trump is churlish knave, but he's right about illegal immigration.
AReasonableMan said...
You guys should go over and read RedState some time if you want some inaccurate reporting on Trump, or maybe watch FOX, or read the WSJ. Plenty of right wing options out there to get outraged about.
All true. Trump is counting on bipartisan appeal and he was right.
Wasn't the "pants" comment directed at bloggers in their pajamas?
"Plenty of right wing options out there to get outraged about."
Says the perpetually outraged lefty.
I don;t like Trump but I do like truth. After seven years of Obama and Hillary, truth seems to be so strange.
How does this hurt Trump? The only people who believe any of this crap are people who won't vote for him anyway. Everyone else sees it for the dishonest partisan propaganda that it is, furthering the widespread disgust with the media and strengthening Trump's support. They are helping him with every one of these attacks and are too stupid and drunk with their own sense of power to stop themselves.
His formula is simple, criticize him and you will be criticized.
Additionally, Trump's formula is to make a surface evaluation of the person who criticized him and attack what appears to be that person's most obvious shortcoming.
That's why it's clear that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability, but it's equally true that Trump doesn't have a special problem with disabilities. Any more than Trump has a particular problem with "low energy" (Bush) or less-than-beautiful female faces (Fiorina) or excessive perspiration (Rubio) or financial difficulty (NY Times).
Trump simply sees these human weaknesses as lines of attack and mockery. He sends a signal to all would be attackers that he will size you up and expose your weakness. YouTube the Jerry Springer show and you will see this sort of thing employed with great regularity.
I first read about the "can't buy pants" kerfuffle on NRO, and it was clearly understood there to refer to Goldberg. Now I've looked at the video, and that Goldberg was the target is as clear as anything Tromp has said (a low standard I grant). So I agree with all those who criticize the MSM for claiming that this was an earlier instance of Tromp mocking someone for being disabled. It's a shame, because the media overreach detracts from the clear video evidence that Tromp's more recent statement did indeed mock a disabled person (and I don't think that mocking's justified just because the guy is a reporter).
That said: Does anyone understand what Tromp meant by saying Goldberg couldn't buy pants? Does he mean that Goldberg doesn't have enough money to buy pants? He's written couple of books, is a regular columnist, an editor at National Review, etc., he must at least have enough money to buy pants. And anyway, isn't this a bizarre way for Tromp to say "Goldberg's not rich"? Or is there some implication that Goldberg goes around pantsless, that he's some kind of pervert?
If anyone can enlighten about this, I'd be grateful.
The "can't buy a pair of pants" quip isn't about physical ability anyway, no? It's about a lack of maturity. It's like saying he can't cut up his own meat. Obviously Krauthammer and Goldberg are both able to buy and wear pants.
The corrected version is very misleading.
In a July interview with NBC news, Trump lashed out at columnists Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer after the latter called the candidate a "rodeo clown."
“I get called [that] by a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?” Trump said at the time.
No, it's quite clear the "that" Donald is referring to is when Goldberg called him a "failed man." I suspect the Washington Post went with the lie first and is now forced to make correction (but in a way that doesn't embarrass the paper). They want to preserve the lie to protect their credibility with readers.
Isn't Krauthammer a columnist there?
The meme does meet the Trump standard of truth-telling. I've seen him demean hundreds of thousands of disabled persons.
For the first few years of National Review Online a number of Goldberg's daily columns mentioned sitting around the house talking to his dog and couch about what to write about. He was the pantsless blogger yammering about whatever personified. Good stuff, I'd add. One of the first main streamers to embrace the pajamas crowd.
Krauthammer is not just paralyzed from the waist down. He is a C5-6 quadriplegic. People with this condition have some muscle function in shoulders and pectorals but arm and hand usage is impaired. The impairment varies and the specific's of Krauthammer's have not been publicized. You do not see him use his hands or arms on television.
It is also apparent that he has difficulty with speech function. His sometimes hesitant speech is because he must swallow air and then bring it back up through his throat to make fully intelligible sounds. He probably can not hand operate a wheelchair for more than short distances. He needs assistance with dressing and mobility. Personal hygiene and body function including bowel movements are, to put it gently, complicated.
Everything the rest of us do easily is highly difficult for him. Except thinking of course, which he does far better than most. Including the opportunists who are now presuming to be outraged on his behalf by Trump.
I suspect this is the Goldberg article that elicited Trump's ire.
Trump is a Bad Deal for the GOP
Others have defended Trump by noting that what people like about this Lonesome Rhodes in a $10,000 suit is his fearlessness, bluntly tackling issues that other politicians fear to touch. That is a fine point in an indictment of the professional political class, but it is not a defense of Trump.
Every time I say that Donald Trump is problematic because he's so imprecise with his commentary and/or facts, the media goes and proves me wrong by being even MORE imprecise with their commentary and their facts.
They just HAVE to get in their talking point about Trump insulting handicapped people that they find insults where there were none. Since its been a well known fact that he was talking about Jonah Goldberg who, as far as I know, is not in fact disabled in any way.
Here is National Review mocking trump at the time (back in July):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421021/please-help-keep-jonah-pants-jack-fowler
"Please help keep JONAH in pants.
And Jonah himself wrote at least one column about it.
If the media can't do a basic google search to find out the context of the pants smear, then are we to trust them when they say he mocked the guy who can't move his arms? Maybe they are just as wrong about that smear as they are about the pants smear.
Is there no research department in the news room? Seriously? I found this info in 10 seconds.
Trump doesn't need to say one more thing to make himself look like any more buffoonish. His list of buffoonery already on record speaks for itself. No need to pile on. I'm sure he will add to his own list shortly.
AReasonableMan said...
"You guys should go over and read RedState some time if you want some inaccurate reporting on Trump, or maybe watch FOX, or read the WSJ. Plenty of right wing options out there to get outraged about."
Trump isn't about right and left. He is about people vs. the political class. The political class includes many who would call themselves Republicans. It is why Trump's support is broad based and has survived a dozen failed attacks like this.
There are just as many democrat voters that are disaffected with the crony corruption that plagues DC. If a person values honesty and decency and I think there are still some democrats that do do you really think they will support Hiallary?
Trump will do just fine.
I think Cruz criticizes the press in a more literate and precise way, but that's playing on their field and with their ball. Trump's criticisms are, perhaps, more effective because they are so crude and imprecise. " If I'm so dumb, how come I'm rich?" Scalpels vs a bulldozer.
The media isn't making this kind of mistake all by themselves. Somebody is pushng this. The average reporter probaby isn't all that familiar with things. whoever is doing the attacking (some kind of Democrat?) prefers to characterize a bad personal attack as one with more general applicability (which is also something more frowned upon than the reality, and avoids having to explain what's going on.)
Writ Small has it right:
Trump's formula is to make a surface evaluation of the person who criticized him and attack what appears to be that person's most obvious shortcoming.
That's why it's clear that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability, but it's equally true that Trump doesn't have a special problem with disabilities. Any more than Trump has a particular problem with "low energy" (Bush) or less-than-beautiful female faces (Fiorina) or excessive perspiration (Rubio) or financial difficulty (NY Times).
In the case of Jonah Goldberg, it was a reference to the (not well known outside of television studios) fact that Jonah Goldberg used to appear on TV panel shows, not wearing a pair of pants (since the camera never looked behond the desk.)
Donald Trump made that into Jonah Goldberg didn't know how to buy pants. This is all in an attempt to discredit what somebody says. Sometimes, the attacks are almost inside jokes.
Sometimes he relies on some kind of prejudice for the thing that should discredit what a person says. Other times, it is something that is ased ona political point of view that is the opposite of what he is saying now (He used Democrat/union talking points against Scott Walker.) He's looking for something that other people might think would make someone less creditable.
JournoLists reporting all the news that entertains and manipulates the masses. Sometimes it's a dose of opiates. Sometimes it's an overdose of LSD. Sometimes it's a little puff laced with one or the other.
Amazing to watch the confrontation going on as Trump says the Media is dishonest and what happens is that the media doubles down in dishonest dishonesty dishonestly.
Journolist arrogance must believes it can carpet bomb Trump. Somebody is going to lose big here. And Twitter is Trump's secret weapon.
Stay tuned.
Yes, definitely JournoList or whatever they call themselves now. Stories too alike to arise spontaneously. They're coordinating their attacks
Trump is enjoying this too much. He is a practiced word smith that inserts words like a wrestler inserts a takedown move, and a reversal move and, a turn and pin them hold.
The man enjoys the art one one one word matches like Napoleon enjoyed the art of horizontal Cannon fire.
Watching these accusations of Trump word cruelty coming from the Mythical Media Narrative boys is actually funny.
Are both Krauthammer and Goldberg JEB! men? Is that what this is all about?
Jonah Goldberg often appears on TV in a suit coat and blue jeans. Trump is always in a suit. The crack on Goldberg is that he doesn't dress properly on TV. Of course the billionaire buffoon has to work in how much poorer Goldberg is.
Thanks @gbarto and others for explaining the "pantless" meme.
It occurs to me that Tromp may not deserve his reputation as a straight talker. Sure, he says outrageous things, e.g. about Meaghan Kelly and now this handicapped reporter, but then when challenged he immediately says he didn't mean what you thought he meant. Isn't that just another way of being politically correct?
Tromp defenders may respond that all Tromp is doing with his denials is "playing" the press, and he really meant the insult.
This a little like the defense of Hillary! by sensible Democrats: Yes, she's adopting all of Sanders' extreme positions (such as against TPP, Keystone, etc.), but "we know" she doesn't really mean it, and we'll see the "real" Hillary! after she's nominated and/or elected. I don't like the idea of voting for a presidential candidate because I think he/she is lying.
A question for those who aren't die-hard Democrat voters: if you were inclined to vote Republican would you change your vote to Hillary if Trump is the nominee? Because if Trump doesn't lose Republican voters then he has a real chance of winning and winning big as he seems to attract blue-collar Democrats. How many of the other Republican candidates appear to be attracting blue-collar Democrats? And finally how much of a crossover appeal does Hillary have for otherwise Republican voters? To be sure Trumps acts like a boor and a buffoon but then again Joe Biden was elected numerous times and so was Barack Obama.
Apparently gbarto and I are the only ones here who remember the pertinent Goldberg columns, which Google is too present-oriented to find now. Here's what I wrote here when the issue first came up (July 9th):
"Has anyone here actually read Goldberg? It's been a few years, and Google doesn't seem to be helping, but as I recall he constantly portrays himself as working from home, lying on his couch, and talking to the couch and the dog, which I think (it's been a while) occasionally talk back. Does he also say he writes in his underwear? I don't recall, but I think he may. It would certainly be possible for someone working from his couch at home. Apparently Trump has actually read some Goldberg now and then, unlike anyone else commenting here besides me."
gbarto chimed in on that thread (link) to agree, and here he is again (10:48am).
And no, SF (12:16pm), I don't believe he has ever appeared pantsless on TV, in or out of the view of the camera. WTF? He may well have said he did that, but if so I'm pretty sure it was a joke that everyone else got, but went right over your head.
Goldberg himself has said that the can't buy pants crack is directed at him. He has stated on the GLOP Culture podcast that he shows up for panel shows in a polo and jeans or shorts and puts on a coat and tie if the set won't show his legs - which Trump has seen him do.
Jonah Goldberg wrote in his G-File one week:
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/421045/trump-fans-its-time-intervention-jonah-goldberg
As the intern said to Bill Clinton, this puts me in a weird position. I don’t like to brag, but I’m actually quite adept at buying pants. I don’t enjoy it. But I can do it. It never occurred to me to put it in my bio or anything — “Jonah Goldberg is a senior editor of National Review, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a successful pants-buyer” — but maybe I should.
Now, I will say that I sometimes choose not to wear pants, and not just because I’m so fond of my spaghetti-strainer codpiece (which affords me the satisfaction of telling really attractive women, “Hey, my eyes are up here. Thank you very much”). But these are my choices. If I want to identify as a pantless American, who are you to say otherwise?
See also:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonahnro/status/618845393279913984
@Milwakee Guy 11/29/15, 1:45 PM
Yes, jeans might not be considered the same thing as pants.
Post a Comment