“Why should the networks continue to get rich on the debates?” Trump told reporters at a news conference in Marshalltown. “Why do I have to make Fox rich?”
January 26, 2016
"Trump says he won’t participate in GOP debate on Fox News."
"Trump’s assertion, which his campaign manager insisted was irreversible, came less than one week before the kick-off Iowa caucuses, once again defying the conventional rules of politics and using his power and prominence to shape the campaign agenda and conversation," the Washington Post reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229As Holman Jenkins wrote in today's Wall Street Journal, "Obviously part of the electorate thinks it has nothing to lose, but most of us have something to lose."
So, the ones that think they have nothing to lose should just go to hell? Wander off into a field and die? Once again, a large percentage of the populous feel that they have been written off. Their concerns about globalization and the culture have been declared invalid and both parties are attempting to suppress discussion of those concerns because it is unhelpful to those in power.
Yeah, that will work.
… The FNC response to Trump was surely intended to be funny, insulting, and unusually (envelope-pushingly) provocative.
With that silly response from Trump, which I do not doubt was intended to show how clever Ailes is, Fox has exceeded beyond Trump’s dreams. It was “provocative” alright. It also gave trump the moral high ground.
In other words, they were mirroring Trump himself. Has there ever been anyone in American public life who has been more boldly and personally insulting to anyone who dares criticize him, than Donald Trump? Would Aaron Burr count? grackle you need to understand that I have no concerns about calling Trump stupid and reckless and a loser, because those are the sorts of terms Trump regularly employs.
Call Trump and Trump supporters anything you like, the more invective the better. We love it. But when you call Trump a “loser” you lose your credibility. Trump has won every debate. Trump has been ahead in the polls by wider and wider margins since he entered the race. Trump has moved all the goalposts, turned the immigration issue on its head and generally modified the conventional wisdom on several fronts at will. Watch the Iowa primary results a few days from now. Then call Trump a “loser” again and watch the rest of your credibility float away like a hot air balloon. Try Aaron Burr again, maybe throw in George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton while you’re at it, for all the good it’ll do you.
Grackle, what is it that you think I'm in denial over? I see clearly the effect that Trump has over his followers. I don't like it, and I'm concerned where all of this is taking us, but I'm not at all denying that Trump will lose no support over this brash move.
The commentor cannot form a reply without the obligatory swipe at Trump supporters. He’s “concerned” about Trump supporters. About “where all of this is taking us.” Just looking out for “our” welfare, don’t you know.
I’ll tell you where all of this is taking us Trump supporters: To a happy place. And it’s taking Trump to the Whitehouse. In the five stages of grief, denial is the first stage. The commentor is grieving, as well he should.
On that "silly response from Trump." It should be that "silly response from Fox," damn it. Oh, well. Most will get my meaning.
She, not he, grackle. And I wasn't expressing concern for you and other Trump supporters as a group- it's concern for myself as part of the larger group of our nation. I assume you believe Trump in the White House will be a good thing, and I believe the opposite. Thought maybe we could discuss that, but I guess not.
"I see a tremendous opening for Hillary. She can show solidarity with Megyn and, by extension, with abused women everywhere by appearing on Megyn's show."
Solidarity between Hillary, MeGYN (the unique spelling says it all) and abused women everywhere...
Sounds like the perfect PC Cultural Marxist forum. Trump hate apparently drives "conservatives" right into the arms of the subversive agenda bent on destroying America and Western Civilization.
I was listening to NPR on the way to work and, of course, they talked about Trump skipping the Fox debate, but not a word about Cruz's challenge to debate Trump.
Back in the day when I was a cub reporter, I would have jumped on that story. Lot of drama, lot of potential inflammatory quotes.
Cruz is Trump's chief rival. But the MSM has no interest in that angle-- which isn't surprising, but does tell me they view Trump's negatives as insurmountable in the general election and aren't interested in doing any stories that might favor his rivals.
CStanley, yes, I'm a Trump supporter. What part of the larger group of our nation do you represent? Do you have a name for your group.
Just a citizen, AllenS. Part of a family, a few professional groups, PTA, etc....no political affiliations although I'm a registered Republican and have always voted GOP. I'm as disenchanted with the party as most folks but don't see Trump as a solution, at all.
If you care to explain why you do, I'm interested.
I like Trump because he isn't a politician. Just think if he was very successful as POTUS. He might single-handily destroy both the Democratic and Republican parties. Our nation would be better off for it. Let's give it a try.
"I like Trump because he isn't a politician. Just think if he was very successful as POTUS. He might single-handily destroy both the Democratic and Republican parties. Our nation would be better off for it. Let's give it a try."
I get the outsider appeal--it is nice to see someone who doesn't do what most politicians do (such as hedge and qualify, insincerely say nice things they don't mean, lie, pander) but my issue is that Trump actually does do all these things. He doesn't seem to have any real convictions, and right now is pandering to a frustrated segment of the public who on the one hand are happy to be finally addressed directly but on the other hand should see this guy for who he is. He has a long record of all the "establishment" positions (soft line on immigration, willing to outsource on trade, crony capitalist deals that the "establishment" types are vilified for) and just in time to run for president took up all these new positions. His business dealings, while not illegal, have been--as he admits!--more about show and sparkle than substance, and he has a long history of creditors and investors left in the dust.
My question is, why is this man, of anyone else in the world, the one you trust so much? So much that no matter what he says or does, you're willing to change your view of the world to keep supporting him? I just don't know what he has done to earn such loyalty, and frankly (from Trump's comments last week) I don't think Trump himself knows where this loyalty comes from.
I've got news for you, Brando, you don't know what you'll get from any of them. It's always been like that. "Read my lips, no new taxes."
Thanks Allen. Like Brando, I'm wondering why you choose this outsider instead of one of the other two.
My guesses would be that you like his style (strength), you like that he is winning and think he has good odds in the general, and/or you like his policy prescriptions. Maybe also there's the entertainment factor as he pokes people in the eye who deserve it.
I guess if I'm reading between the lines correctly and you see destruction of the status quo system as a feature rather than a bug, it makes sense. To me that seems way too risky, I'm not sure if the system can be reformed rather than burned down, but I'd rather try- and even if a burning is needed I'd rather not empower someone with Trump's characteristics to be the one man left standing.
I also see a big difference between someone like George H Bush caving in after starting from a position you agreed with, and putting faith in someone who doesn't seem to hold any convictions at all. Sure, Trump holds strong to his positions when it suits him personally- but I suspect when it's not working out for him to fulfill most of his promises he'll cave on just about all of it and find a way to portray the pivots to his personal advantage. I could be wrong of course but I don't see anything in his history to suggest otherwise.
"I've got news for you, Brando, you don't know what you'll get from any of them. It's always been like that. "Read my lips, no new taxes.""
No argument there--and don't assume that my Trump skepticism ("Trumpticism"?) is an endorsement of the usual GOP candidates, or any particular competitor. If Trump were never in this, we'd be focusing more on the ridiculous statements the others have made (some of the foreign policy pronouncements can only be defended on the grounds that they're hot air and these guys wouldn't really do something so reckless if they were in charge). But this guy seems at least as bad, and he's announcing it.
I like Trump because he isn't a politician. Just think if he was very successful as POTUS. He might single-handily destroy both the Democratic and Republican parties. Our nation would be better off for it. Let's give it a try.-- AllenS
I share the sentiment in theory, but in reality, that is a dangerous sentiment, and not all politicians are untrustworthy-- but all are under pressure to conform, to make deals. Given the imbalance of reporting on issues in this country, it leaves conservatives at a disadvantage, since unlike physicians who are committed to at least "do no harm", politicians are charged with "do something" and it is human nature that high on the list is "getting re-elected'.
I'm amused when American satisfaction polls are occasionally trotted out-- you know, the kind that says 90% or Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is taking. That doesn't mean there is any agreement on which direction the country should take.
The main argument against Cruz, as far as I can tell, is that he isn't liked (though I read an interesting article from a colleague at the FTC that debunks that myth) and that he has ambition.
On the plus side, he is easily the smartest guy in the room, committed to constitutional government, and the best opportunity conservatives have had in a long time to see a President committed to smaller government.
Trump is shrewd, but can you say he cares about the constitution and separations of powers or wants to see the federal government reduced in size and influence?
Who would you rather see nominating the next Supreme Court justice- Cruz or Trump?
I know there are a lot of good counterexamples (e.g., Bush Sr. getting played on taxes), but often Washington experience can be a plus, if only to understand how it all works so you can reform it. An outsider like Obama--who frankly had no Washington experience to speak of when he ran--made a lot of noise about how Washington had no problems that couldn't be fixed by reaching across the aisle, convincing opponents of your arguments, and installing technocrat types who are more focused on fixing problems than scoring points. And voters in '08 bought it--of course they wanted an outsider! They were tired of where insiders got them!
But we saw how it worked out. Turned out, Obama's lack of experience meant relying more on insiders like Pelosi and Reid and Rahm, and "reaching across the aisle" doesn't really work when instead of finding carrots and sticks and getting what your opponents are truly after, you preach a lot and roll over them when they don't become easily convinced. And even technocrats can't solve a problem if the problem is pre-defined by partisan goals. So instead of fixing things, they passed a mess of a stimulus and a health care law that barely made it through Congress, contained numerous flaws, and displeased people right and left to the point that it is still a very unpopular law (despite basically tossing money at people and businesses).
One issue we face is this is largely a 50/50 country, so even if you have a congressional majority, you have it by virtue of several "swing" members who have to be wary of what their less core constituents think (Blue Dog Dems when the Dems are in charge, "RINOs" when the GOP is in charge). If you want to pass something, you have to sway those people, by cutting some compromise or changing public opinion, or both. Otherwise, even the most idealistic outsider with all the right "fix it" solutions to our problems is going to hit a wall of reality.
"Let see (Reagan) pretty much drove the final nail in the Soviet Union's coffin, that certainly was worth the defense buildup."
Well, most of the credit for the dissolution of the Soviet Union should really go to Gorbachev, but even assuming the heroic myth of Reagan the commie-killer were true, the answer to this question is "no,it was not."
BrianE Who would you rather see nominating the next Supreme Court justice- Cruz or Trump?
The beauty of Trump is his leadership, he will gather the right people (most likely including Cruz, maybe a private conversation with a sitting Justice or two, among many others) and make decisions based on their input--not on his own whim (or as may be the case if Cruz were POTUS, a favor owed.) Regardless, either man would nominate someone much less detrimental to the Republic than a Hillary or Bernie.
Trump is in campaign mode, and while some see his methods as off-putting, he knows it is working. Yes, he wants to win. But he also wants to win for America every step of the way thereafter, so it is not as though he is going to do anything major without gathering the best and brightest for input and rigorous discussion, debating all sides, etc., prior to action. I suspect if anything, someone with an ego like Cruz (or Hillary) would do the opposite, feeling that their thoughts on everything are superior.
And there is the little issue of the general--as much of a Cruz fan that I was last year, I truly believe he does not stand a chance in the general. So our next POTUS will either be a red-headed populist quasi-conservative, or a red-brained closet totalitarian cloaked in socialism. And for those that prefer the former, it is time to at least consider supporting Trump.
She, not he, grackle.
A forgivable mistake given that you hide your sex behind a neutered name. Were you waiting for this to happen so you could primly correct someone? But “she” it is, Ms. “CStanley.”
Sheesh why so prickly, Grackle? I don't fault you for not knowing my gender. I was letting you know so that the pronouns would match up if you wanted to continue the discussion. My username happens to be my real first initial and last name, so I'm hardly being secretive here.
"The beauty of Trump is his leadership, he will gather the right people (most likely including Cruz, maybe a private conversation with a sitting Justice or two, among many others) and make decisions based on their input--not on his own whim (or as may be the case if Cruz were POTUS, a favor owed.)"
Why do you think this? He seems to be making every other decision based on a whim. Besides, wasn't that Obama's selling point--put in the right people, and figure things out? It sounds great on the campaign but never works out that way.
"Regardless, either man would nominate someone much less detrimental to the Republic than a Hillary or Bernie."
I'm not even sure of that. Some of the worst justices (from a conservative or libertarian point of view) were nominated by Republicans who simply didn't know what they were appointing. Trump might listen to Cruz, but then he might also go with his gut. Though the Dems are much better than the GOP at picking justices who back them up. They haven't miscalculated since Byron White.
"And there is the little issue of the general--as much of a Cruz fan that I was last year, I truly believe he does not stand a chance in the general. So our next POTUS will either be a red-headed populist quasi-conservative, or a red-brained closet totalitarian cloaked in socialism. And for those that prefer the former, it is time to at least consider supporting Trump."
In the RCP polling averages, Trump and Cruz both are trailing Hillary, and trailing Sanders by even more. Rubio leads both Hillary and Sanders. If electability is the sole issue here--not that it necessarily is of course--then Rubio should be your guy.
"In the RCP polling averages, Trump and Cruz both are trailing Hillary, and trailing Sanders by even more. Rubio leads both Hillary and Sanders. If electability is the sole issue here--not that it necessarily is of course--then Rubio should be your guy."
Because the RCP average 10 months out is a rock solid indicator of the status come next November since nothing will happen between now and then to influence events and change minds.
Dumb.
I know these polls buttresses the fervent desires of the Trumpophobes but many of us see Trump heading for a landslide victory that will render the current polls as misguided and obsolete as the polls that had Jeb Bush as the likely nominee a while back.
Time will tell.
Robert Cook said...
"Let see (Reagan) pretty much drove the final nail in the Soviet Union's coffin, that certainly was worth the defense buildup."
Well, most of the credit for the dissolution of the Soviet Union should really go to Gorbachev, but even assuming the heroic myth of Reagan the commie-killer were true, the answer to this question is "no,it was not."
1/27/16, 12:33 PM
Notwithstanding that no question was asked that you were required to answer, I'm happy that it brought you out and made you make yourself clear. "No, it was not worthwhile destroying the Soviet Union."- I trust you will not object to my paraphrase? - I wish you would just put that text in your profile picture, Robert, which would save everybody deciding how to take you a lot of time.
its quite funny that, as others have mentioend, on at least two occasions he told people who skipped out on debates that it made them look Weak.
“Romney doesn’t look courageous” Trump when Mitt Romney decided not to do the debate, according to the Washington Post.
“Some of them don’t have the courage to do,” Trump told Imus in the Morning. “I don’t want to say who.”
Trump said some called to say they were too nervous to do his debate, “We have guys who are afraid to go into a debate.” How would they stand up to China if afraid to debate? he asked"
Hmmmm, Good question.
Then he did it with Michelle Bachmann when he tweeted: "Michele Bachmann just dropped out of prez race--- when she didn't do the Newsmax debate it showed great disloyalty and people rejected her."
SO not doing debates shows great disloyalty and a sign that they can't stand up to china if afraid to debate.
Oh brother.
My username happens to be my real first initial and last name, so I'm hardly being secretive here.
Oh, please Ms. CStanley. Using only your first-name initial keeps your gender hidden. That’s just a fact. Personally, I think your gender is actually irrelevant – or should be. But I’ll take care from now on to refer to it since gender identification obviously means a lot to you. Everyone deserves to be addressed according to their wishes. You can refer to me as “Mr. grackle.” All other commentors should just use “grackle” without the “Mr.”
SO not doing debates shows great disloyalty and a sign that they can't stand up to china if afraid to debate.
I’m trying to get this straight. Trump has won every debate hands down yet Trump now all of a sudden is afraid to debate. Is that it? Oh boy.
In the RCP polling averages, Trump and Cruz both are trailing Hillary, and trailing Sanders by even more.
It is sometimes difficult to know what a commentor is talking about. There are a lot of different polls on the RCP website. Lacking a URL we have to guess at it. But here’s a poll that I think is relevant. It shows Trump ahead in Iowa:
http://tinyurl.com/kvzkyg4
I suspect that after the Iowa caucus that the margin will be found to have been wider.
No worries. grackle. I don't think there will be a need for us to address each other in the future.
No worries. grackle. I don't think there will be a need for us to address each other in the future.
That’s “Mr. grackle” to you, Ms. C Stanley.
It turns out the debate is not being broadcast on WOR radio 710 AM, like I heard they would do two weeks ago.
Oh - 9 P.M. Central Time ??
So it is 8 pm Central, 9 pm Eastern, after all?
Post a Comment