Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats, including the one leveled by Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski toward Megyn Kelly.What basis is there for calling Lewandowski statements "threats" and "terrorizations"? I must assume that the 2 quotes are the worst things Lewandowski said. The "rough couple of days after that last debate" were nothing but criticism of her supposed unfairness and bias, so all she'd "have [to] go through... again" is more analysis of whether and how much she is biased and unfair. That's not a threat but a normal observation that the same kind of critique would happen again. Why shouldn't moderators be critiqued? I guess they could find that threatening and feel terrified, but that's their problem.
In a call on Saturday with a FOX News executive, Lewandowski stated that Megyn had a ‘rough couple of days after that last debate’ and he ‘would hate to have her go through that again.’ Lewandowski was warned not to level any more threats, but he continued to do so. We can’t give in to terrorizations toward any of our employees.
Fox should have just said it can't capitulate to politicians' demands about moderators, not make a scurrilous accusation that has connotations of physical violence.
Posts
169 comments:
More New York values. This is all looking very Mob-like.
"Tell Roger it was only business."
Nice kids you got there. Shame if something bad happened to them.
Parallel construction.
It's the classic veiled threat from the mob: "Nice little network you have here. Would be shame to see anything happen to it."
What basis is there for calling Lewandowski statements "threats" and "terrorizations"?
Fox Lives Matter. They're aping professional victims.
"Fox should have just said it can't capitulate to politicians' demands about moderators, not make a scurrilous accusation that has connotations of physical violence."
Correct indeed. Going over the top isn't helpful to Fox, round goes to Trump.
We are well into the "baboon poop fight" stage of this contretemps. Trump acts like a thin-skinned child, and now Fox overshoots with this nonsense about threats and terrorism. If things are this ridiculous now, how is it going to get by November?
I'm going to invest in popcorn, and enjoy the spectacle.
Journalistic standards are soap opera and ratings they get from it.
Stepping all over that act is what Trump is doing.
Fox should just admit they're not really news. They're whatever women will tune in to watch.
Leave the voters out of it.
Dear Professor Althouse;
As of LAST AUGUST, there have been published reports of physical security threats against Megyn Kelly as a result of her debate questioning of Donald Trump.
http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a15499/megyn-kelly-donald-trump-backlash/
So there's that. Your editorializing on this subject seems to fall very flat in that light.
The serious journalist attribution is not going to stand up, if Trump does it the way he's accustomed to.
You can only be a serious journalist retroactively and without planning for it.
Everything else is an act, like scientists wearing lab coats.
"Tom, can you get me off the hook? For old times' sake?"
"Can't do it, Sally."
More evidence of Trump's war on megyn-o americans!
Fabi, when I heard the news about Abe Vigoda, I thought of that scene. It seemed like he had already died.
Play the hand you have.
When you're discussing a deal with a potential partner, try to understand the hand you have, and estimate the hand the partner has, before discussion.
Trump figures his hand is better. Fox figures it cannot give in, because to do so would hurt future success.
So they part ways.
You must never enter into a negotiation with the assumption that a deal is necessary for both sides.
This used to be pretty basic teaching from the likes of Machiavelli.
"Play the hand you have."
Trump plays trump even when he's holding the suit that was played.
It was a sad day, BarrySanders20. I, too, thought he had passed years ago. He was perfect in that role.
Fox is playing right into Trumps hand and exposing themselves as frauds in the process.
They are doing anything they can to bury that tweet about Trump they sent out yesterday. They picked an argument and now wish they hadn't.
Megyn has National Review and Michael Moore to watch her back...and she can always threaten Trump with a JEB mauling for not being a Conservative like Bush.
Ailes knows better. The trouble is Murdoch who is anew comer to our culture. He cannot understand that a good common man like Donald has made good friends here for 40 years while Murdoch was still wielding secret media powerin England and Australia. Ailes should resign and watch FOX wither away.
'What basis is there for calling Lewandowski statements "threats" and "terrorizations"?'
Oh, come on, Ann. If those statements were made about me, I'd consider them a threat. And I'd respond accordingly.
Look, I generally like Kelly and Fox News and greatly dislike Trump, but from just those statements it certainly doesn't seem like "terrorization" or whatever. If there's something going on beyond a few harshly worded statements then it'd be nice to know about it. And I'm not talking about the actions of small group of deranged Trump supporters, I'm talking about stuff coming from the Trump campaign itself. Otherwise it looks like Fox News is overreacting, and of course that only helps Trump.
While it doesn't rise to the level of "terrorizing", saying blood was coming out of Megyn Kelly's "whatever" was crude and misogynistic. Trump and his campaign have gone beyond critiquing Kelly.
This is pretty silly. It's faux concern, not a threat.
But of course they are going to ramp up the rhetoric. They are losing. It'll get worse before it gets better. The media power brokers can feel it all slipping away.
Posts seems to combine today so I thought this belonged here. Scott Adams also points out the Trump just demonstrated to Democrat cross-over voters that he is willing to punch Fox News in the face. He is the enemy of their enemy.
Last night Megyn Kelly had Michael Moore on her show to rip Trump. That has to make people at Fox news sick to see their star glamor girl kissing Michael Moore's ass. And CNN is defending Fox News.
Trump has turned the political universe upside down. Totally entertaining.
Chuck said...
Dear Professor Althouse;
As of LAST AUGUST, there have been published reports of physical security threats against Megyn Kelly as a result of her debate questioning of Donald Trump.
http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a15499/megyn-kelly-donald-trump-backlash/
The worst thing they came up with was Photoshopped pictures on Twitter. Oh, the horror.
"Marie Claire" should stick to "Fashion Beauty Celebrity", and of course, "Horoscopes".
@Althouse, what Lewandowski sure sounds like "nice knees you have there, it'd be terrible if someone broke them with a baseball bat."
I'm backing away from Trump. I no longer believe he's going to be a capable President, much less a good one. I think Megan McArdle has it right.
Trump jokingly described his supporters as mindless lemmings untroubled by physical violence against outsiders ("I could shoot somebody. . ."). Trump has also downplayed Putin's killing of journalists.
The nature of Trump's "critique" of journalism is not an objective, nuanced examination, but an identity-based set of personal attacks exploiting a person's perceived weaknesses - an attempt to turn the person into the "other."
Trump's threat against Megyn is less than a physical threat, sure. But it is something rather more than a simple letter to the editor.
Based on what other women report (e.g., Megan McArdle, Michelle Malkin), I am highly confident that Megyn Kelly received all kinds of emails with threats of rape and murder. Is there someone who doubts that, because "Trump supporters aren't like that" or something?
My suspicion is that Fox is coordinating with the RNC to destroy Trump once and for all. I think they are asking themselves why they ever let Trump get so far to begin with. If my suspicion is true and Trump thinks the RNC isn't being "good" to him, you know...third party!
Their statement may have been "over the top", but that's par for the course with Trump so in some respects, he deserves it. Over the top is Trump's millieu.
BTW, Chuck did you bother to read your own link?
But it isn't Trump who is causing the biggest problems for Kelly. It's his supporters. Just search for her name on Twitter and you'll find outpourings of misogyny, with people tweeting photos of her in sexy outfits (many of which are Photoshopped) to somehow prove she's not serious about her job. And some people are taking it even further. A source familiar with the matter says there have been physical security concerns around Kelly ever since the debates.
Oh no! They are tweeting sexy pictures of her! That's exactly like threatening.
Ugh, people have lost their minds.
eric said...
But of course they are going to ramp up the rhetoric. They are losing. It'll get worse before it gets better. The media power brokers can feel it all slipping away.
It's pretty much this here. I'm old enough to remember when moderators were supposed to be moderate. They would have let Trumps words speak for themselves. These moderators are defending turf.
Blogger sean said...
Based on what other women report (e.g., Megan McArdle, Michelle Malkin), I am highly confident that Megyn Kelly received all kinds of emails with threats of rape and murder. Is there someone who doubts that, because "Trump supporters aren't like that" or something?
Do you know how I know Megan McArdle, Michelle Malkin and Dana Loesch get horrible, nasty, threats and slurs against them? Because they show them to the world, for everyone to see.
Compare and contrast with Kelly. First, they never said she got any death threats and second, they never bothered to share any.
Actually it was New York magazine and not Marie Claire that originated the report on death threats made against Megyn Kelly last August:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/#
I linked to Marie Claire because it was the first link that came up on my Google search. (I had recalled the story and very quickly googled some likely terms.)
I am going to tweet you and tweet you and tweet you, said Twump in a twerrorizing and tweatening manner.
====================================
In the first Fox debate the very first thing they did was try to "get" Trump. No doubt they've been brainstorming with all their buddies from NRO to Michael Moore! and developing a plan to "get him" this time. Now hardly anyone will even be watching. They should start by asking every candidate there whether they will support and campaign for Trump if he wins the nomination.
Megyn Kelly getting the vapors over threats on the "social media?"
Not a very likely story.
It's interesting to me how quickly Fox News became the cry bully here. Fox News, probably one of the more powerful media corporations in the world, is a victim. A victim of horrific threats by a campaign manager, one who says he would hate for one of their stars to be an emotional wreck again like she was the last time.
We had should have overwhelming sympathy for poor, poor, fox news. How can they stand up to the big bad bully Trump and his campaign manager? Or spokesman, is whoever it was.
Don't you just feel sorry for them?
I think I'd have more sympathy for them if they weren't pushing so hard against my candidate, Cruz, and trying so hard to get one of the establishment guys elected, like Bush or Kasich.
So if you get a rape or death threat and publicize it, you get into some kind of club?
If you're hung in effigy but don't make a big deal about it, you're not in the club?
My suspicion is that Fox is coordinating with the RNC to destroy Trump once and for all. I think they are asking themselves why they ever let Trump get so far to begin with. If my suspicion is true and Trump thinks the RNC isn't being "good" to him, you know...third party!
You may be right, but if Fox News is indeed trying to take him out this certainly seems like a poor way to do it. His supporters mostly despise Kelly and don't trust Fox News, so I don't think these few statements will matter much to them. And I don't know if some theoretical group of on-the-fence primary voters in critical states will be swayed much by this either, but who knows.
Let me suggest that our blog hostess here has undoubtedly seen similar threats. And this is just a blog. Just a pajama thing.
Blogger Chuck said...
Actually it was New York magazine and not Marie Claire that originated the report on death threats made against Megyn Kelly last August:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/#
I'm getting page not found.
Rick,
I don't feel a bit sorry for Fox or for Trump. They deserve each other. Almost 8 years of non stop Obama Derangment Syndrome is what gave birth to the monster. Now y'all have to abort your own creation.
This is so exquisitely played, it's perfect. Trump can not lose, because Trump can not lose. Cruz wins because he is now center stage, and the center of attention. The big losers are GOPe and FOX. Subsequent winning accrues to the American people.
"I'm backing away from Trump. I no longer believe he's going to be a capable President, much less a good one. I think Megan McArdle has it right."
I think McArdle has it right--the idea that Trump won't turn on those who trusted him as he has so many times before is ludicrous--but I don't think it'll make a difference to his hard core supporters. They want to believe, you see--and so they shall. As he rightly pointed out, he could shoot someone in the street and they'd still support him. If he "strategically pivots" on some issue, they will believe that this is just a clever feint to win votes or "cut a deal", and if the end result is some policy that violates his promises (e.g., amnesty, maintaining Obama's deal with Iran, a tax increase) they will simply believe that it is something that it is not (e.g., not really amnesty because the illegals pay a fine, the deal with Iran was strengthened due to some signing statement, the tax increase was actually a decrease if you look at it differently).
You don't need facts when you have Trump.
eric: My world won't rise and fall with the details of any death threats made against Megyn Kelly.
It was really an Althouse thing. She focused on the precise language of this one story alone, and presumed that threats against Megyn Kelly were never seriously considered. I think that's mistaken.
And I am not one of those Obama/Title IX scolds who freaks out about supposed threats of violence against women. I'm on the opposite side of that fight.
But again, the fact of the matter is that a source who was trusted by New York magazine reported death threats made against Megyn Kelly. That fact -- the fact of the reporting -- is all that I subscribed to. I can't prove or disprove it, and neither can you.
Has Trump ever said that he would tolerate no such language and condemns anything like that if it did occur? I don't know. You have never before heard me get flummoxed about anything like this, mostly because it is unsurprising and what I would expect from that cohort. Giants/Jets/Eagles fans; people who watch wrestling on tv and listen to sportstalk radio; Howard Stern fans; white males ages 35 to 65 and also making 35k to 65k. Whether it is Erin Andrews, Kate Upton, Holly Sonders or Megyn Kelly it is all mostly the same.
Megan Kelly MUST be on stage. This is not negotiable, apparently.
Is she the one running for president or something? Having that biased woman on stage is more important than the frontrunner for the nomination?
What. A. Joke.
Blogger Bob Ellison said...
Let me suggest that our blog hostess here has undoubtedly seen similar threats. And this is just a blog. Just a pajama thing.
Hell, even I've received such threats and I don't even have a blog.
But, something I've never done and nonone should ever do, is accuse someone of being responsible for threats and not demonstrate there is a link between that person and those threats.
I'm sure every Fox News personality gets threats in some form or other. But if they come out and blame me for those threats? They damn well better prove it.
Maybe I'm just a skeptic. But, I don't believe you get to implicate someone of wrong doing unless you have evidence.
It's easy to say Trumps followers are sending me threats. Much harder to prove it.
I copied the link, eric. And it is not paywalled.
Here, again:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/#
eric, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to who made any threats against Megyn Kelly, or what their motivation is in her case. I'd feel foolish doing that.
The same way you ought to feel foolish if you were to claim that you know that no such threats ever occurred.
Blogger Limited blogger said...
This is so exquisitely played, it's perfect. Trump can not lose, because Trump can not lose. Cruz wins because he is now center stage, and the center of attention. The big losers are GOPe and FOX. Subsequent winning accrues to the American people.
Yep, the silver lining in all of this is, Cruz looks great. We just had a week or two of whining about Cruz. You can't work with him. He is a jerk. He doesn't get along with his fellow politicians, etc.
Now you get Trump bullying his way through everyone and suddenly Cruz don't look so bad.
I'm really hoping Trump is the best thing that ever happened to Cruz.
"Last night Megyn Kelly had Michael Moore on her show to rip Trump. That has to make people at Fox news sick to see their star glamor girl kissing Michael Moore's ass. And CNN is defending Fox News."
Like I said Trump hate drives so called conservatives straight into the arms of PC left wing emotionalism and thus exposes these so called conservatives for the phonies they are. I admit I hate Obama because he hates me and my kind and wants to fundamentally change America to a Cultural Marxist, racist anti-white, anti-Western Civilization society, but even in spite of this I can't begin to work myself up to the level of streaming demonic hatred exhibited by these Trumpophobes. It's really pathological.
Is there going to be a duel? Who will be Trump's second?
I believe Marla Maples is his second.
"Megan Kelly MUST be on stage. This is not negotiable, apparently."
No news organization worth its salt will abandon one of its top rated hosts simply because a candidate doesn't like her. If they don't stand by her when she has done nothing wrong (no ethical complaints, etc.) then all their staff and talent will be afraid to cross a politician. Maybe Trump's bullying BS excites and energizes his supporters, but it loses potency over time and some parties simply won't play along.
Again--why so much outrage when Obama boycotted Fox, but Trump is now completely justified? Are we once again going down the rabbithole of Trumpkin logic?
I admit I still find all of this entertaining, in a "watching clowns run into walls" sort of way, but this is starting to get repetitive.
In the first debate, Fox was determined to knock Trump out of the race. Kelly was supposed to hit Trump's glass jaw with her first question.
That's what it looked like to me.
Fox could have set a good example for all the following debates:
1) Ask a policy question that each debater would answer in random turn.
2) Each candidate gets the same amount of total time.
3) Moderators do not hector the candidates.
Instead, Fox set an extremely poor example for the following debates. And Kelly was the leader in setting that bad example.
Trump is correct to retaliate by knocking Kelly herself out of the debates. Trump is making an example of her for all other journalists to consider when they interview him in the future.
Did Chuck just disparage white males between 35 and 65 making between $35k and $65k per year? I hope that I've misinterpreted that clause.
Blogger Brando said...
"Megan Kelly MUST be on stage. This is not negotiable, apparently."
No news organization worth its salt will abandon one of its top rated hosts simply because a candidate doesn't like her. If they don't stand by her when she has done nothing wrong (no ethical complaints, etc.) then all their staff and talent will be afraid to cross a politician. Maybe Trump's bullying BS excites and energizes his supporters, but it loses potency over time and some parties simply won't play along.
Maybe. But I think the Republicans would be fools to let Candy Crowley host a debate between them and Democrats.
For all of the raving that trump is childish, it is the fox news network that has been the child in this mess. Trump certainly is entitled (ala Crowley and Romney) to refuse to participate in a debate he feels is stacked against him. In fact it shows some serious political chops.
Trump has Fox News playing the Hillary! victim card.
Watching Megyn Kelly cozy up to Michael Moore was like watching some stripper pull more money out of some poor saps wallet in the corner for another lap dance. I have been a Fox News watcher and defender for years, and they probably lost the faith of more loyal viewers than just me.
Hey Megyn and the Media. You're not running for President. You are not the king makers. Voters are. Viewers are. Trump has exposed your false concern in regards to what is good for the American People.
In this situation, Trump is demonstrating to the electorate that he will drive very hard bargains if he becomes President.
For example, Trump says he will drive hard bargains when negotiating international-trade agreements.
This situation with Fox is an illustration. Trump told Fox that he would participate in this debate only if Kelly was removed as a moderator. Then, Trump stuck to his guns, and Fox will pay a price.
In the first debate, Fox was determined to knock Trump out of the race. Kelly was supposed to hit Trump's glass jaw with her first question.
I agree with this. Trump was supposed to be exposed as beyond the pale. Only problem is that it turns out that Trump supporters don't care about that. In fact, they relish the fact that Trump is considered "not our sort."
Butthurt, butthurt everywhere.
Everyone is a cry-bully nowadays.
Lisa: Shut up, all of you, or I'll sue.
Marge: Oh, save it for your next book, you little snitch.
Gloria Allred: That's assault! That is assault!
"Maybe. But I think the Republicans would be fools to let Candy Crowley host a debate between them and Democrats."
I agree, but I think Crowley, as moderator, committed a major violation of journalistic ethics. If CNN wanted to stick by her on that, refuse to debate on CNN. In Kelly's case, the worst she was accused of was asking Trump a question about an issue he did not want raised--there's no journalistic lapse in doing that. I'm a lot more aghast when "journalists" ask Obama questions like "how do you handle being so great?" (or its equivalent) than when journalists put politicians to the test.
The sad thing is I can think of several good ways Trump could have handled Kelly's question which would have made even viewers unfamiliar with the context of those quotes see him in a positive light and defuse the issue right there. Instead, this became frankly a grade school level feud, of "who is nice to me" and "now you're talking about her lady parts" and other nonsense which to me made Trump look thin skinned and Fox look histrionic (I don't think he was really talking about her period, and I don't think he's encouraging nasty threats against her).
Brando said...
"Megan Kelly MUST be on stage. This is not negotiable, apparently."
No news organization worth its salt will abandon one of its top rated hosts simply because a candidate doesn't like her. If they don't stand by her when she has done nothing wrong...
And when she has done something wrong?
Should Candy Crowley be allowed to moderate a Dem v Rep debate? Why should CNN back down?
I'd like to get back to basics. Tromp's behavior matters; Fox's doesn't. Tromp is complaining about the "unfairness" of the way a news organization treats him, and he is trying to use his power as the leading GOP candidate and as an audience draw to punish the news organization and get it to change its treatment of him. This is a person who is seeking the presidency of the United States, which, after 8 years of Obama, will be able to exercise immense and uncheckable power. Is this someone you really want to give that kind of power to?
On the other hand, if you don't like the way Fox is handling things, you can just stop watching them.
Blogger Brando said...
"Maybe. But I think the Republicans would be fools to let Candy Crowley host a debate between them and Democrats."
I agree, but I think Crowley, as moderator, committed a major violation of journalistic ethics.
So its purely subjective then. As long as you think they've violated some principle of yours, then its OK to demand they are not involved, regardless of what the news agency thinks.
@The Godfather
A lot of Republicans feel that the MSM is biased against them and want a candidate that is willing to stand up to them. They see it as a feature, not a bug.
This is a brilliant move by trump, whose momentum has been built by having lots and lots of media attention. What was his upside of being in a 7th debate? Was he going to get more media attention as a result? No, and there's always a risk that somehow the debate goes sideways.
Now in the lead-up to the debate he dominates multiple new cycles, shows he'll stand up to MSM (which Fox is; it's establishment conservative), makes his fans riled up right before a caucus, etc.
The whole Megyn Kelly debacle is just that - a debacle. She attacked Trump, deliberately and in a coordinated fashion. During a subsequent phone interview he says she's got blood coming out of her eyes and went on to say somewhere else (i.e. ears), realized it made no sense, and went with "blood coming out of whatever" before continuing on in his sentence. There was no innuendo in his voice, no dramatic pause for timing....it was just a stream of consciousness thing that people chose to accuse of misogyny because a man can't mention a woman and blood in the same sentence without it meaning menstruation.
Who moderated the Lincoln-Douglas debates?
"So its purely subjective then. As long as you think they've violated some principle of yours, then its OK to demand they are not involved, regardless of what the news agency thinks."
Ultimately it is subjective--Trump supporters clearly think Kelly crossed the line by even raising that issue. To me though--and I try to be fair when criticizing Trump because there is certainly a lot of unfair crap thrown at him too--it's not out of bounds to raise problematic quotes and give him a chance to respond. Crowley on the other hand literally ruled in favor of a participant on a substantive question in a debate. I don't see how any news organization can defend a moderator doing that.
"This is a brilliant move by trump, whose momentum has been built by having lots and lots of media attention."
Trump just belched, what a brilliant move!!!
"Who moderated the Lincoln-Douglas debates?"
Candy Crowley's ancestor, Jebediah Crowley, who famously said that Stephen Douglas was right about Lincoln not being supportive of his country during the Mexican War.
"Should Candy Crowley be allowed to moderate a Dem v Rep debate? Why should CNN back down?"
I've said the Crowley and Kelly affairs were very different--Crowley should be barred from moderating any debates after that. And CNN should have made that call, and the RNC should refuse to have them host any debate where she moderates.
In the first debate, Fox was determined to knock Trump out of the race. Kelly was supposed to hit Trump's glass jaw with her first question.
But Fox underestimated Trump. The only "Rosie O'Donnell" response was hilarious, and if you watch the exchange, he immediately with that retort, and the audience response, disarmed Kelly. You can see it in her face.
And if Fox was supposed to knock Trump out of the race, and if he knows this, why would he play by their rules? That's something the GOP has done for the last few Presidential Elections and have let their candidates get their asses kicked by the likes for George Snuffleupagus.
Between Kelly's tweets about Trump, Fox's press release yesterday mocking Trump, and this bombastic "terrorizes" press release, I'd say Trump is winning against Fox News so far. The problem for Fox is that Brett Baier and Chris Wallace are more straight news people. They have pundits on their show but don't really express their opinions or personality. Kelly's show is halfway between Baier and Wallace's shows and O'Reily's show. Given this, Kelly should never have been a debate moderator. Fox is trying to build up her brand, which is smart. Now Trump is trying to tarnish her brand and Fox is tarnishing its brand by these engagements with Trump.
Althouse is right. They should have said we are not removing any moderator at the request or demand of any candidate. We hope Donald Trump reconsiders his position and attends the debate.
Instead, they are acting more cartoonish than Trump.
That was a clear threat.
Amanda said... [hush][hide comment]
While it doesn't rise to the level of "terrorizing", saying blood was coming out of Megyn Kelly's "whatever" was crude and misogynistic. Trump and his campaign have gone beyond critiquing Kelly.
Someone commented yesterday that Kelly broadcast a false accusation that Trump raped his first wife. Guess he has a reason not to like her.
BTW, Garage repeated that accusation here, and was spanked for it, by the adults.
Limbaugh for moderator.
It will be all about substance, and exciting too.
In general, Fox and the other networks should be conducting debates about policy.
Instead, what happens in these events is that the "moderators" hector each candidate individually, mostly about personal characteristics. Fox conducted the first such "debate" and set an appalling, abysmal example. Fox was motivated by a peculiar determination to knock Donald Trump out of the race.
This debate was not a proper forum to ask Trump about his insulting demeanor. Trump participates in plenty of individual interviews where such questions could be asked.
Another problem is that Kelly's question was tendentious. Trump does not generally call women "pigs", etc. During his many years as a celebrity, he has become involved in public feuds with a few individuals, such as Rosie O'Donnell, where such insults have been thrown in both directions.
Kelly's question implied that Trump generally insults women, and therefore the question insulted Trump. Kelly's question also insulted the public, which has watched Trump interact with women respectfully for many years.
An interviewer (not a "debate moderator") could ask Trump fairly about his demeanor in such public feuds with various individuals. The questions should place Trump's behavior in its actual framework.
"I agree, but I think Crowley, as moderator, committed a major violation of journalistic ethics."
The problem was with Crowley, but the real issue in that debate was Romney's response. He caved. Had he had a good response and reaction, then it would have shifted the whole issue in his favor. He didn't and it made him look weak. It was not a fair move by Crowley, but the world isn't fair. The world leaders are often sociopathic and egotistic, and even if they aren't they're in this to win it for their side. They don't play fair and it takes more than bluster or complaint to do well in global politics. If he can't face Megyn Kelly what will he do with Putin, who is quite literally better at everything that Trump prides himself in? Putin is richer, stronger, more powerful, more bombastic, more ruthless, more populist. He will insult and he will chide he will strike at ego and performance. Trump will reply with snarky tweets?
Trump is playing the car sales game of threatening to walk off the lot if he doesn't get the deal he wants. And he's very good at that game, because he's a master at the other side of it.
He's a car salesman par excellence, and he's convincing a lot of people to walk off the lot with a used corvette.
Fox and kelley were too clever by half. Let this be a lesson not only to Fox but the others as well: ask probative and relevant questions in a respectful manner. That is your function and nothing more. Trump wins this round. If he is smart, and so far he has shown he is, he will be present for the next debate and all of the moderators will be suitably chastened.
Trump has so far sucked most of the oxygen out of the room which has made it difficult for the other Republicans running but he has also made Hillary Clinton a non-entity. No one is really paying attention to her other than waiting for the criminal referral. As for Sanders, he is basically Ralph Nader but running as a Democrat. If Nader had run as a Democrat he would have pretty much been at this comparable time where Sanders is now but in the end not ever becoming the nominee which is the position where Sanders is now. Sanders only hope is the criminal referral comes in time as to not have another more electable candidate jump. What a weird election year.
Trump refusing to go on the debate has nothing to do with Megyn Kelly other than as a thin pretext for not participating. The object is simply to keep "the news cycle" on the Donald and take the wind out of the sails for the competition.
And, Mission Accomplished!
Rush is pushing a "Trump is not playing by the rules" meme to make the Cruzbots happy. Then he sort of says that is to be expected since Kelley is out to get Trump.
What Rush does not say is that there is no such thing as Rules of War here. In a wrestling match there is no Time outs when you are being pinned.
FOX is being exposed as being a usual King Maker in a Foreign Billionaires only club.
Trump wants to beat them real bad.
"but the real issue in that debate was Romney's response"
Correct. Neither Cruz nor Trump will fail that way. They may fail some other way.
Rubio, I'm not sure about.
Trump doesn't have to beat Putin, and mano-a-mano nobody in the current field stands a chance against Putin in a PR contest for the hearts and minds of the world. And nobody in the developed world is going to lay a hand on Putin either - Hollande ? Cameron ? Merkel ? Its a good thing these things don't come to a debate between individuals. Trump just needs to beat the US field.
"He's a car salesman par excellence, and he's convincing a lot of people to walk off the lot with a used corvette. "
This is the essence of politics.
Of professional and citizen journalists. Citizens, united!
Where else have JournoLists betrayed the public trust?
Trump not going to the debate is his way of dealing with Kelly and Fox News. I don't see the argument that what he's doing is not action. People may disagree whether Trump should go or not but that's not the same as saying he isn't dealing with them.
It's like saying if Trump refused to attend a summit because Putin was going to be there if he said I'm not going to the summit if Putin is going to be there because Putin is a thug who is not a legitimate leader. Would that be fear of Putin? Most people wouldn't think so.
"The problem was with Crowley, but the real issue in that debate was Romney's response. He caved. Had he had a good response and reaction, then it would have shifted the whole issue in his favor. He didn't and it made him look weak. It was not a fair move by Crowley, but the world isn't fair."
Romney should have--and any GOP nominee should, going forward--prepared for the possibility of a biased question from a moderator (though I don't think anyone would have expected Crowley to actually say "he's right" about Obama's response in that exchange--it went well beyond an "unfair" question). It should be a response along the lines of shaming the "journalists" who are in the bag for one side, and may not even be aware of how biased they are.
But I'm guessing Romney was caught flatfooted, and decided to let the issue die and move on with the debate. Ultimately, I don't think it made much difference in the election but it might have been a chance to drive the news cycle for a bit.
I liked Jimmy Carter refusing to compete in the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow if the Russians came too. And Jimmuh could not put on his own Games in their place.
Was Carter being brave or a coward to pull out USA's participation?
A bigger failure, probably, in the 2012 election was the notoriously poorly implemented (and expensive) GOP GOTV system (ORCA), which failed completely.
This was Romney's fault entirely, which ultimately came out of selecting the wrong subordinates and trusting them.
Chuck said... "Dear Professor Althouse; As of LAST AUGUST, there have been published reports of physical security threats against Megyn Kelly as a result of her debate questioning of Donald Trump. http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a15499/megyn-kelly-donald-trump-backlash/ So there's that. Your editorializing on this subject seems to fall very flat in that light."
Well, I went to that link and read it, and I saw nothing about "physical security threats," only "A source familiar with the matter says there have been physical security concerns around Kelly ever since the debates." I'm sure there are "concerns around," but concerns aren't threats. I stand by my post. There is an unsupported smear on Lewandowski. He didn't make a threat or a "terrorization," and even if others did, there would still be a smear. But I can't see that there even were threats or who they came from.
... but an identity-based set of personal attacks exploiting a person's perceived weaknesses - an attempt to turn the person into the "other."
Good golly, that's an apt description of the New York Times, PBS, ABC, NBC, and CBS. Excellent job!
Carter wasn't competing. He made a decision for athletes. The athletes should decide for themselves. The Olympics aren't a government event.
The 1972 Olympic US men's basketball team refused to attend the ceremony awarding them the silver medal and the the Soviets the gold. Each year the Olympic Committee sends each of the players a letter saying they have their silver medal and will send it and each year each player replies they are not accepting a silver medal but will accept the gold medal they won.
The great thing about the US is its citizens, not its government.
They want to believe, you see--and so they shall.
Well this is the age of the blank slate candidate, the age of Obama.
Kelly and Fox News need only step back and review their deviation from gracious host and impartial moderator. An apology may also help, but it's probably not necessary. Americans are known to forgive people who repent and reform.
buwaya:
Putin receives credit for limiting the scope of the humanitarian disaster created and nurtured by Obama et al. Hopefully, the Russian coalition will control the worst consequences of mass uprooting and displacement of people in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, America, respectively.
Putin follows Roosevelt's advice to "speak softly, and carry a big stick". His hand was forced, and people have welcomed his leadership. Trump seems to be following in the same classical progressive footsteps, which bear a remarkable resemblance to the spirit, if not always practice, of American conservatism from this nation's founding.
n.n.,
Putin does what Putin thinks he needs to do. If these coincide with other peoples interests, and if those benefit Putin, then that's a good reason for doing them from his point of view.
He has done a great deal that is not as internationally valuable as suppressing the Syrian revolutionaries, such as invading Georgia and the Ukraine, threatening Poland (and most likely murdering half the Polish government), murdering various opponents at home and abroad, etc.
And the outcome of the Syrian business is still uncertain.
Putin is a pretty evil man everything considered; whether he is better than the alternatives (if any) is uncertain. The Russians like him and I get that, they are used to being ruled by evil men and he is by far the best of a very bad lot, going back a very long way.
If Carter had decided only not to attend the Olympics himself then the analogy would by apt. Otherwise not at all.
Chuck said...
Actually it was New York magazine and not Marie Claire that originated the report on death threats made against Megyn Kelly last August:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/#
"Page not found" (same thing w/o the '#').
Maybe you should make some threats so there would be some threats to report.
So, Megyn cannot handle Trump? How can she be a journalist?
Note, I like both. But if idiots want to use that line against Trump, it ALSO fits here.
As of LAST AUGUST, there have been published reports of physical security threats against Megyn Kelly as a result of her debate questioning of Donald Trump.
It's Trump fault what somebody who isn't Trump does?
saying blood was coming out of Megyn Kelly's "whatever" was crude and misogynistic.
Guess what happens when women routinely use PMS as an excuse for shitty behavior or a shitty attitude? Men will be kind and assume the unpleasantness is for a reason and is not just a character flaw.
Based on what other women report (e.g., Megan McArdle, Michelle Malkin), I am highly confident that Megyn Kelly received all kinds of emails with threats of rape and murder. Is there someone who doubts that, because "Trump supporters aren't like that" or something?
Based on the examples provided, it is lacking. Note: Malkin does occasionally show her hate mail. Not frequently. And she gets vile stuff.
First Rule of Trump Debate Club(TDC):
Never willingly allow the MSM to dictate the rules of the debate.
This has been brewing for some time. Short version: Roger Ailes wanted use one of the other debates to promote Kelly, Fox’s new star. She needed credibility as a serious analyst so Ailes gave her a question that was both attention-getting and easy to defend, since she used Trump’s own words. Trump objected, based on the First Rule of TDC.
Maybe he was offended at her willingness and Ailes’s willingness to use Trump as her springboard to higher stardom. You don’t do that to top billing. It’s disrespectful. John Wayne’s name always got top billing over, say, a Tab Hunter.
Trump then threatened to pull out of the next debate. Ailes and Trump talked and seemed to come to some sort of accord but Ailes continued to use this up-coming debate as a platform to promote Kelly.
Trump is not Fox’s “star” that Ailes can cast against another Fox star for dramatic effect. Trump refuses to willingly be used in that manner. In this Trumpian universe we now live in … the tail no longer wags the dog, thank God. Fox didn’t “make” Donald Trump, like I heard on CNN an hour or two ago. Trump doesn’t need Fox. The Fox statement, which I guess was intended to be satire, was a PR blunder of the first order. I wonder if Murdoch is happy about that.
If Murdoch calls, Trump wins. If Murdoch doesn’t call, Trump wins.
Trump is the Steph Curry of campaigners. Opponents are baffled. Caught unprepared. Those that attempt to guard him seem to be on Curry’s string. He excels in every phase of the game. Watching the Warriors is like watching a ballet and Curry is their Nureyev.
Or - Trump is the Roadrunner and his opponents all a version of Wiley Coyote. Surprised, clueless and wide-eyed as the inevitable anvil drops on their heads. O those Wiley Coyote assumptions, so hollow, so easily destroyed. With a few words. And he isn’t even President yet.
deranged Trump supporter
Cruz wins because he is now center stage, and the center of attention.
Well ... yes, sort of. He now wants to debate Trump in a private, one-on-one debate. I doubt Trump will agree to this. Better to let Cruz be the star attraction in a barely watched debate rather than giving him an exclusive seat on Trump’s coattails. But who knows what Trump will actually do?
http://tinyurl.com/jycg4yw
Maybe this url will work, for the New York magazine story in which the Megyn Kelly death threats were mentioned:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/
I cannot understand why some of you are continuing to have trouble with the link. If you wish to find it yourself, the story title is (and it is ironic now) "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News’ Audience, Over Megyn Kelly." Plug that inot your favorite search engine (and the author was Gabriel Sherman) and try to get there that way.
And for Professor Althouse; this is the quote that caught my eye:
"According to one high-level source, Kelly has told Fox producers that she’s been getting death threats from Trump supporters."
Again, Professor, I won't dare speculate on the veracity. But this was back in August, and I expect that everyone at Fox remembers well that last fall there was definitely something up with "death threats" and Megyn.
No Mike. Pay attention. I never once suggested that Trump bore responsibility for any threats. I didn't pretend that I knew if the story was true or not. Unlike Trump, I am not reckless in my speech. Unlike Trump, I choose my words carefully. Unlike Trump, I am not a complete jackass.
Some anonymous person told Sherman that some other anonymous producer told them that Kelly was getting death threats?
Uh huh.
I wonder how many threats Trump's been getting?
Based on the near universal feedback from celebrities, probably thousands I would imagine.
I checked out your -- http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/. It was from Aug 21 of last year.
I didn't see any reports of "death threats" in the article. Are you being a jackass?
So maybe this is the way to access the page:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/fox-news-picked-trump-over-megyn-kelly.html
(I did that by going to New York magazine and using the site's own search engine to find it.)
Again, the quote from that story: "According to one high-level source, Kelly has told Fox producers that she’s been getting death threats from Trump supporters." Last sentence in the first paragraph.
BarrySanders20 wrote: Trump plays trump even when he's holding the suit that was played.
Somehow that comment looks better written in crayon with s in "suit" reversed.
For heaven's sake, everyone who speaks aloud in public gets death threats. I've gotten death threats for pointing out on a message board that Yoda is a screw-up who made every decision about Anakin wrong.
I promise to admit I'm wrong and be very sorry and change my mind about the seriousness of vague death threats to public figures if Megyn Kelly is murdered. If she lives to see 2017, will the pearl-clutchers do the same?
"Unlike Trump, I am not a complete jackass."
Sez you.
I'd wager the only one in this drama who is in actual danger of an attempt on his life is Trump judging by how unhinged his detractors are.
"According to one high-level source, Kelly has told Fox producers that she’s been getting death threats from Trump supporters."
If "one high-level source" is your standard of truth, then you'd better get used to a permanent state of cognitive dissonance.
How about those 35 to 65 year old white males making $35k to $65k, Chuck? Care to elaborate?
Quaestor: 'If "one high-level source" is your standard of truth, then you'd better get used to a permanent state of cognitive dissonance.'
Under some circumstances that would be true, but in this case, the oft displayed incivility of Trump idolaters can be viewed as corroboration.
He who claims to be the enemy of my enemies - regardless of how his past conduct belies the claim - is my choice for President. -- Trumpadopes, 2016
Grackle: ...He now wants to debate Trump in a private, one-on-one debate. I doubt Trump will agree to this. Better to let Cruz be the star attraction in a barely watched debate rather than giving him an exclusive seat on Trump’s coattails. But who knows what Trump will actually do?
Trump just tweeted:
"Even though I beat him in the first six debates, especially the last one, Ted Cruz wants to debate me again. Can we do it in Canada?"
Fabi said...
How about those 35 to 65 year old white males making $35k to $65k, Chuck? Care to elaborate?
No.
But I will observe that Trump, who once declared that he did not propose to make any sort of issue out of Cruz's Canadian birthplace, and who said that he simple wanted to present an issue that Democrats could someday use, is now taunting Cruz with it.
When Trump was blowing off his own weird personal steam on the Obama birther issue, he was being a rather harmless dumbbell. Now, he's being a clever prick.
Blogger hombre said...
Quaestor: 'If "one high-level source" is your standard of truth, then you'd better get used to a permanent state of cognitive dissonance.'
Under some circumstances that would be true, but in this case, the oft displayed incivility of Trump idolaters can be viewed as corroboration.
Have you met Chuck?
The problem I have is, I'm a Cruz fan. But the irrational hatred of all things Trump causes Trump haters to act unhinged. Yesterday I was called all sorts of vile things on twitter for defending Trump.
I wouldn't single out Trump fans as the bad seeds here. There are just as many crazy anti-Trump people out there at this point. If not more.
" BTW, Garage repeated that accusation here, and was spanked for it, by the adults."
Republicans are incapable of rape. Did it go something like that?
You must be a trial attorney, Chuck. I'm obviously not. Well played.
"Republicans are incapable of rape. Did it go something like that?"
Comparative statistics would be interesting.
Rates of rape, Republican vs Democrat.
Difficult, but with the right access, probably doable.
There's a ground-breaking study opportunity here, but I suspect the likely result may not be helpful in acquiring tenure.
So, we know Trump is not a masochist. We know that he was a liberal, but with improved knowledge and experience discovered Christianity, a religious/moral philosophy with principles that are internally, externally, and mutually consistent. He does not construct congruences to selectively exclude or divide people along a rainbow spectrum (i.e. normalization), or does he? He does not approve of creating and nurturing a refugee crisis, and, in fact, a global humanitarian disaster for political gain or to force a consensus and secure political office. He respects people's right to self-defense. He chooses a life-affirming, scientifically valid characterization of human life. He is not a sadist. He believes in promoting the general Welfare based on [Constitutional] principle, not ulterior motives, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our [unplanned] Posterity. He recognizes the legal jurisdiction and sovereignty of our nation, and the contractual obligations of our established government to respect and secure the rights of We the People and our Posterity.
Trump is not liberal. He is not libertarian. He may be progressive in the classical or American conservative sense. He has reconciled the two moral axioms and natural imperatives. He is a leader, not a follower, not a dependent. He has exposed crossover and divergent interests in both parties to public scrutiny.
Trump is going to hang Cruz Canadian citizenship around his neck until Cruz bows out of the race. It's a solid jab. Cruz was an appellate lawyer, not a trial lawyer and it shows. His New York Values backfired in the last debate. This isn't the Princeton Debate Club. He's getting his ass handed to him.
"Even though I beat him in the first six debates, especially the last one, Ted Cruz wants to debate me again. Can we do it in Canada?"
Underdogs always want more debates, which represent the best opportunity to reverse their fortunes. By the same token dominant candidates resist debates. Furthermore Megyn Kelly's share numbers have leveled off in the last several months, consequently a nice little tempest may be just what the doctor ordered. Anyone who reads more into this ginned up controversy is not paying adequate attention -- except garage mahal, whose difficulties are only compounded by paying attention.
garage: "Republicans are incapable of rape. Did it go something like that?"
No.
Do you have any other basic questions?
Quaestor said...Underdogs always want more debates
Hillary now thinks the extra unsanctioned debate proposed by the New Hampshire Union Leader is a great idea after hiding under a rock for months. I'll bet her internal staff are now telling here she's the underdog.
chuck: "But I will observe that Trump, who once declared that he did not propose to make any sort of issue out of Cruz's Canadian birthplace, and who said that he simple wanted to present an issue that Democrats could someday use, is now taunting Cruz with it."
Hmmmm. Isn't Chuck the guy that incorrectly characterized threats against Megyn Kelly by parties unknown and compounded that with laying the blame for those "threats" at the feet of Trump?
Well, I think we've had quite enough of those standard issue lefty troll tactics from self-proclaimed conservatives.
Drago:
Principles create a predisposition, but are not determinative. Commonly held principles (e.g. allegiance) can be used to legitimately classify a group of individuals. However, ultimately, character is discerned through individual conscience, choice, and interests.
As for Trump, Cruz, Chuck, etc., that is for God to know, and for us to find out.
A number of Trump's imbecilic followers are certainly attacking her today. Good grief. All over ONE question she asked month's ago. The college frat boy mentality dominates the social media.
No, Drago. I didn't do any of that. I observed what had been reported in New York magazine about the reported threats against Megyn Kelly. I quoted the article. And I said I had no way of knowing if it was true or not. And I said specifically that I did not lay any blame with Trump personally.
And you call me a "troll"?
It seems that ordinary words used in standard ways don't mean anything to Trump or Trump supporters.
But I have an ordinary word for you. The word is asshole.
"I think Megan McArdle has it right."
You know she would vote again, for the third time, Obama for POTUS if she is able, and you agree?
Interesting.
Do you feel J. M. Keynes would have been more influential had he worn makeup?
"Trump jokingly described his supporters" in the MSM* as saying what you said.
Otherwise you would be afraid to confront his supporters in any manner, including commentating on a blog.
You are too dumb to understand a joke and its target and now demand everyone else be as dumb as you or you will over-the-internet label them substandard somehow in intelligence and/or morally.
*MSM is accurate and I was wrong to criticize those who accurately labeled the mainstream mediat as such when I thought the media elitist 1%ers were other than mainstream; more T. Coddington van Voor-hees IV than Bylines of Brutality in Iowahawkese as it were, but now I know better.
"The nature of Trump's..."
Okay I can't even deal with your racism, punk.
SECURITY!?!
SECURITY!>!
WE NEED MUSCLE OVER HERE, STET STAT STIT.
@Guildofcannonballs, yes and so what? Does she realize that if she really wanted Obamacare to work, she should have voted for, and used her column to advocate for, Romney? Perhaps belatedly, but probably not.
But when McArdle sticks to hard numbers and goes where the numbers tell her, she can make good sense. And in this case I think she's right, even though she's going with her gut and not her calculator.
"Is there someone who doubts that, because "Trump supporters aren't like that" or something?"
Wow you made an incredible effort to "understand" enough of your political opponents' arguments to ridicule them with strawmen, like Obama has done, does, and will do.
Thanks, Obama.
You taught America how to "argue" like this.
And duely coursely the weak, insufferable souls will never forget not Auschwitz, but "leading from behind" and how now DL is code for "down low," aka gay men afraid to speak out about their sexuality because (*) American homophobic bigotry.
*I would like to have used an "of" there but was afraid; in a more cowardly style of fear than is your imagination's want.
Sean somebody just cursed Mother Teresa; that persons votes like you.
Please see a priest soon Sir.
I am literally a poor, self-described slob who is fanatical about the horror of Big Abortion's billion dollar lies costing 50 million souls America is responsible for. Yes, there is room for displacement in ascribing my beliefs to other than altruistic (in the Randian unsense, and that's *^*%^*%& Ayn) traumas beset or divinely-inspired outputs.
Which is to say, I have been more than offended by Trump, yet still champion an end to "heads we win, tails you lose" politics the GOP lies about every election.
Does Pelosi lie to her constituents?
Sure, but, I mean, in context, compared to "the party of small government" GOPers?
No. She demands, fights, and makes back-handed deals that, while yes, are totally hypocritical, and foremostly make her rich while also not pissing on her base.
Frankly, Trump saying he wants to make deals with the Leftists is a true breath of fresh air, and I live in Denver with some pretty damn fresh air as the anchorbase.
I expect the debt to rise and deficits to stay around Bush era levels, which would be an amazing accomplishment compared to what Obama's lil Bitch GOP congress has given our country, to the extent the little pricks do anything at all besides fund raise.
Where in the Hell are the balls Ernst (^*(^*% castrated in Congress to reign in spending?
The artistic, non-pedestrian viewpoint suggests the title of "The Apprentice" was applicable to Trump himself.
Brilliantly subversive.
As Young Hegelian said, but the opposite, regarding the lack of presence being the/a presence, but, again, you know, opposite in this ultra-mega successful instance.
For you idiots, being in control in a city where everyone's all about Alpha in-controlness is something you aren't suited for, Iowa values can't cut it there, but the office of the presidency of the United States of America is most indeed suited only for those individuals.
"For you idiots..."
Real men and women moved West, where the real difficulties were and where a person could make a new life in a new community building it from scratch, physical and mental and social and spiritual.
It's why our best Presidents have been from rural areas. The job of the President isn't to secure the most power for themselves and make the most money and screw the most people. Though, the worst presidents have seen it this way.
The President is the President of the United States, so has the ability to lead among the people, inspiring and fighting on their behalf.
Guildofcannonballs wrote: You know she would vote again, for the third time, Obama for POTUS if she is able, and you agree?
I've searched Megan McArdle's writing over the last six months and I've not found anything remotely suggesting this. Can you cite?
Real men and women moved West, where the real difficulties were and where a person could make a new life in a new community building it from scratch, physical and mental and social and spiritual.
Aw, come off it... I would have never expected such a reductionist post hoc/propter hoc reasoning from someone as well-educated as you, Paddy O.
"Trump has turned the political universe upside down. Totally entertaining."
Yes, and I see no mention of the planned hit job with the three Muslim activists that Fox and Google had ready to serve up. I think Trump has spies in both organizations and heard about it.
It will be interesting to see what happens. I don't know who is the winner here.
Now that I've mentioned Iowahawk let it be known I have read that man's website merely for the compliments, that used to be on the right side of the webpage, from all sorts of people.
It was awesome.
And if I ever were to be called a national treasure or this or that great thing by people of prominence of course I would give more credence to those viewpoints of cat-bird-seaters.
And they know that about me, possibly leading me astray in ? Well, something incorporating defense mechanisms.
Thanks Freud, yet one more time.
What Paddy O said @ 4:33. Leadership was a risky job on the frontier pioneers. And it bred real men like Captain Truman of the Battery D of the 129th Field Artillery. He was from Independence, Missouri where the Wagon Trains west formed up and bought their final supplies and mules from Truman's father.
He was the greatest President we have ever had. And his 1948 election is a good model of what we see this year.
Paddy O you might believe it and if you suspect of me other than lying I hate you, but the "Michael comment about your 2 v Second Corinthians makes me love you".*
Sorry friend, you're in the "good" chamber soul wise, until you agree Heaven is a Kingdom with other than just Jesus as King, but a whole bunch of other levels in heaven to reach, real hard, on Earth for (them).
*This is a huge huge deal. I usually, per Jobs (Steve) kept the period within the confines of the quote marks, with very little regard, if at all, to the actual marks themselves, namely: Where does the mark go:
This was meant to reference "Uncle John's Band" by the Grateful Dead, yet the reference I had hoped would bring forth memories of decency tangented.
"I've searched Megan McArdle's writing over the last six months and I've not found anything remotely suggesting this. Can you cite?"
It is absurd, mostly, to assume anyone could vote for an Obama third term, so why would you think that is a topic searchable comparable to topics not absurd?
And her previous two votes for POTUS is the reason, you can't defend, she would. Her actions define her, not your projections of what she may be know. I know time changes people, do you?
He was from Independence, Missouri where the Wagon Trains west formed up and bought their final supplies and mules from Truman's father.
And this demonstrates what? Surely not the supposed "pioneer" genes Paddy O. seems to be hypothesizing. If anything if shows that Truman's father knew a good commercial opportunity when he saw it. Not unlike Trump and Trump's father... And what did Harry Truman do before inheriting FDR's fourth term? Fight off pesky redskins and banditos from his fortified haberdashery? Jebus Krist on a stick, Paddy and traditionalguy have latched onto the most fatuous notion of 21st century Presidential politics I think I've ever read.
Really, this rugged he-man law-west-of-the-Pecos brain fart is far beneath what I've come to expect of this blog.
Chuck: "It seems that ordinary words used in standard ways don't mean anything to Trump or Trump supporters.
But I have an ordinary word for you. The word is asshole"
This would be about the 5th time I'll have written that I am a Cruz supporter and have been since the campaign began.
For some reason you need me to be a Trump supporter, as if you are pulled inexorably to drawing the wrong conclusions.
There is an ordinary word for that predisposition....
It is absurd, mostly, to assume anyone could vote for an Obama third term, so why would you think that is a topic searchable comparable to topics not absurd?
So what you're saying is you posited a patently false claim of your own invention as some kind of pointless click-bait, is that it?
Serves me right for even reading your unavailing rants. I'll know better from now on.
As of Chuck's previous lefty-troll shenanigans were not enough, he has also decided now would be a good time to roll out that lefty classic: make every Republican/conservative answer for anything said or done by anyone else anywhere:
Chuck: "But again, the fact of the matter is that a source who was trusted by New York magazine reported death threats made against Megyn Kelly. That fact -- the fact of the reporting -- is all that I subscribed to. I can't prove or disprove it, and neither can you.
Has Trump ever said that he would tolerate no such language and condemns anything like that if it did occur? I don't know."
Let me guess, my pointing out your undeniable leftist tactics makes me the problem.
Please Professor - The Donald expects everyone to kowtow to his every demand (he doesn't request!). Without the dirtiest player onstage, the debates will be extremely interesting - especially since the obligatory granting of more time to Trump than others will be gone.
Chuck vented: But I have an ordinary word for you. The word is asshole.
Chuck is fast becoming the new Crack EmCee of this year's election cycle: maniacally devoted to destroying one candidate as he did in 2012.
I create markets* not bitch and moan.
*Well I haven't done so yet, true.
"So what you're saying"
I, so, really like you. I've referenced you when you took a break as coincided I the website we are lucky (Hitler Dilbert) enough to speak forthwithly of.
What I am saying is not what I've said; congrats.
This is more profound than we know.
What you assholes are saying is:
Disregard all the reality of expansive government federally and hate anything, ANYTHING, even G. D. F'ing Trump, that might, in any potential way diverging the Boehnor/Bush rapes, stop the raping and screams from the victims from haunting our very-most-to-the-fiber inner being.
You won; everything, EVERY PERSON, behind you lost, cuntfuckwhorebitchasshole.
@ chickelit
I've made that "B-Movie" audio file you were interested in a few days ago. I got it ready about two hours after your last comment on that post, but evidently you didn't check back to find it. Available for download here.
It's not perfect, but its as good as I can do with the source file.
Drago: I am not a leftist, you freak. You are the monomaniac, and I am going to tell you why. You seem to think that anyone who criticizes Trump is a "leftist." As if John Boehner or Paul Ryan are "leftists." Poor Paul Ryan. He ran for Vice President in 2012, and Democrats accused him of being a radical conservative ideologue.
I am not a leftist. I am a lifelong Republican. A conservative who subscribes to the Wall Street Journal for the editorial page and who reads the National Review and the Weekly Standard and who volunteers for the Republican National Lawyers Association.
I am not a Trump supporter because he's never been a conservative; at least not until the last 180 days or so.
I only asked if Trump had ever disparaged and distanced himself from any death threats. Whether they occurred or not, it's easy to say, "I condemn anything like that, and I disown any supposed 'supporter' of mine who would think of doing such a thing..." Note well again, Drago, I never claimed to know that any Trump supporter ever made any sort of a threat. It just seems that Trump has a high tolerance for uncivil thuggery in all other realms.
I am Orson TOdaay.
I can order you all around and make more genius perfecction:
A) That you deserve
B) That you considered capable
C) That RKO 281 specified but not to cunts, like your bitch ass whore wannbe "existenst" you fucking obsentcualy missing numerics number-wise by God.
You fucks pay me or you suffer, you pay me lor lost probity.
I DONE DID DA<MN TOLD Y'ALL
(twice now)
Buckley lives on, like many of us know, solid as solid wishes in this regard; WE NEVER WANT TO SLANDER BUCKLEY.
Like that awesome post-Buckley contextualist Kathy Shaidle.
Her obituary of Buckley is not something folks remember.
Me, but most assuredly not, present company, excluded.
Chuck: "Drago: I am not a leftist, you freak."
I know, which is why I complained about your use of standard leftist tactics. You should avoid doing that.
Chuck: "You are the monomaniac, and I am going to tell you why. You seem to think that anyone who criticizes Trump is a "leftist.""
This is an astonishing claim given that the entire meme of the last several months has been the republican establishments attempt to destroy Trump, and though the establishment is far to squishy towards obambi, they are in no way leftists.
I can see that you are going with the "critical mass of incorrect assumptions" technique in dialogue. I'm almost afraid to continue...but one must soldier on.
Chuck: "As if John Boehner or Paul Ryan are "leftists." Poor Paul Ryan. He ran for Vice President in 2012, and Democrats accused him of being a radical conservative ideologue."
See above comment.
Chuck: "I am not a leftist. I am a lifelong Republican. A conservative who subscribes to the Wall Street Journal for the editorial page and who reads the National Review and the Weekly Standard and who volunteers for the Republican National Lawyers Association."
See above comment.
Chuck: "I am not a Trump supporter because he's never been a conservative; at least not until the last 180 days or so."
As a Cruz supporter, I can accept this argument. But it's no excuse to make stuff up, utilize leftist rhetorical tactics, etc.
Chuck: "I only asked if Trump had ever disparaged and distanced himself from any death threats. Whether they occurred or not, it's easy to say, "I condemn anything like that, and I disown any supposed 'supporter' of mine who would think of doing such a thing..." Note well again, Drago, I never claimed to know that any Trump supporter ever made any sort of a threat. It just seems that Trump has a high tolerance for uncivil thuggery in all other realms"
This is a long established democrat/liberal/leftist tactic to attempt to make every Republican answer for every actual and/or perceived ill in this world.
And you are employing that tactic right now. Again.
As expected.
Buckley won because, as opposed to merely having the right opinion and voicing it and creating venues for others to voice similar sentiments, he recognized evil.
Took it upon himself as inevitable, as Trump is doing.
Won, up until 82 years of age, did Buckley.
Sadly, only Jonah Goldberg could be considered decent among the current Post-Steyn NRO.
And I demanded Steyn be fired, by the way. So I deserve everything that came to the bad guys all throughout history, from Stalin to Mao to Pot to Hitler. Fuck me. Damn.
"As if John Boehner or Paul Ryan are "leftists."
Not the best argument although I am kidding.
Hey Queastor, thanks!
I will bookmark that. Unfortunately, I'm a bit hampered because my iPhone and MacBook laptop no longer communicate. I used to record chirbits on my iPhone and then upload them onto my laptop for processing which isn't possible for me. I do miss chirbiting. I'd be doing Guild in my drunken Buckley voice....
buwaya:
You have listed a few assertions of likelihood and interpretation of facts, out of context. I do not presume to know a person's motivations or understand their conscience. I can infer an orientation from principles and observe behavior in actions, in context.
Threats. I think she carries. Like pTb. And travels with a armed escort,like pTb, which is no different than carrying though they can draw quicker than she can open her Gucci Tote Bag. Ok, so it's only the little people that we can't to allow to protect themselves, and we'd much rather force them to commit suicide by car taking many more innocents with them, rather than let them run away from this life in private. A pity that insurance death benefits are also a perverse incentive to take others with us rather than end it quietly (ok, with a bang).
@ chickelit
That's Quaestor (ae ligature) after the Roman magistrate in charge of probity and accountability.
I use a Blue Yeti USB mic on my PowerMac and Adobe Audition CC for DAW functionality, perhaps not as good as ProLogic, but our own Bob Ellison invented the precursor software known as Cool Edit Pro.
"It was really an Althouse thing. She focused on the precise language of this one story alone, and presumed that threats against Megyn Kelly were never seriously considered. I think that's mistaken."
I focused on the text of the statement put out by Fox News! They sure as hell better get the text right. They accused Lewandowski of personally making threats and terrorizations. That's a smear on Lewandowski, the individual man, and I don't see the support for it. They chose the quotes to substantiate their smearing. If they had something more violent-sounding, they should have showed it. I am utterly unapologetic about relying on this specific text. If Lewandowki were litigious, he'd sue.
"The problem was with Crowley, but the real issue in that debate was Romney's response. He caved. Had he had a good response and reaction, then it would have shifted the whole issue in his favor. He didn't and it made him look weak. It was not a fair move by Crowley, but the world isn't fair."
I agree that Romney should have stood his ground. And I believe in a situation like that Trump would not just do better, he'd flip the whole thing and do crushingly well.
But Trump is also making new decisions based on what he knows about how biased moderators like Crowley operate, and he does well not to submit to their controlling the forum. They are not true moderators. I'm sure the phrase has already been coined, but: They are immoderators.
"The world leaders are often sociopathic and egotistic, and even if they aren't they're in this to win it for their side. They don't play fair and it takes more than bluster or complaint to do well in global politics. If he can't face Megyn Kelly what will he do with Putin, who is quite literally better at everything that Trump prides himself in? Putin is richer, stronger, more powerful, more bombastic, more ruthless, more populist. He will insult and he will chide he will strike at ego and performance. Trump will reply with snarky tweets?"
This is the talking point, and I think it's badly flawed. In dealing with Putin, nothing says you must go to every meeting and stay in every meeting in a man-to-man face-to-face. Dealing also includes walking away and demanding more. Reagan did exactly that with Gorbachev. Trump isn't running away or cowering. He's controlling the situation and refusing to be controlled.
"Trump is playing the car sales game of threatening to walk off the lot if he doesn't get the deal he wants. And he's very good at that game, because he's a master at the other side of it. He's a car salesman par excellence, and he's convincing a lot of people to walk off the lot with a used corvette."
If you want to apply that analogy, then apply it to Reagan. Apply it to Obama dealing with the Iranians.
But in fact, it's not a good analogy, because there is no car that Trump actually wants. He doesn't need another debate. He has other, better ways to get his message out. And he knows that this "car" is a crappy car. He has good reason to think Kelly would use this debate to take him down. He wants a different car. If this dealer (Fox) doesn't want to sell him a car he wants, why would he buy the car he knows is rigged to cause an accident?
Chuck said... "Actually it was New York magazine and not Marie Claire that originated the report on death threats made against Megyn Kelly last August: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/# I linked to Marie Claire because it was the first link that came up on my Google search. (I had recalled the story and very quickly googled some likely terms.)"
I copied and pasted your link and it went to "Page not found."
If you have something better, take the trouble to make a hot link, because that was annoying. I'm assuming you don't have anything for now.
"Trump is playing the car sales game of threatening to walk off the lot if he doesn't get the deal he wants. And he's very good at that game, because he's a master at the other side of it. He's a car salesman par excellence, and he's convincing a lot of people to walk off the lot with a used corvette."
Rereading your comment, I can see that you're mixing the salesman and the car buyer. It's the buyer who walks away from a deal he doesn't want. He doesn't want this debate, doesn't need it, and thinks it's booby trapped. I think that's your basic analogy. But you throw in that he's selling himself to us, and he's a bad product, but what's the point of that? All the candidates are trying to sell themselves to us. All are equally salesmen/women, doing more or less well at the selling... at politics. To say he's a used Corvette is just to make every candidate into a car metaphor. What kind of car is Jeb? What's Cruz? What's Rubio? Which one is the new Audi SUV?
If a female moderator can't be criticized, because we're so concerned that some loser out there might send over-the-top email or tweet something vile, then we can't afford to let women serve as moderators. Fox can't send out their woman on the theory that she can't be criticized, because violence against women. I am absolutely not buying that move. Those who take on great power must be subject to criticism.
Post a Comment