“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?”
२६ जानेवारी, २०१६
"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.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२९ टिप्पण्या:
229 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I think it's hilarious. Trump enjoys running for president. The whole debate is now about Trump not debating.
People are really freaking out over this. Calling Trump all sorts of names, cry baby, whiner, coward, etc. Especially Fox News talking heads like Tammy Bruce, Brit Hume, and many others on my twitter feed.
You'd think he just destroyed their lives or something. The guy isn't going to show up for a freaking primary debate. Isn't this number 7? What's he going to say now that he hasn't already said?
I find this a brilliant move for Trump though. Because of it he will dominate yet another news cycle. Not only that, but he'll get more pull over at Fox News as they realize, "Oh crap!" and the next time they won't be so quick to send out their spokesman to mock him. I wonder if that guy will get fired?
It's also a loss for the Republicans who will be on stage. They'll get their shots in at Trump during the debate, but, not as many people will be watching, and they'll have to be more circumspect about it because you don't want to be seen attacking someone who isn't there to respond.
Just brilliant.
You'd think he just destroyed their lives or something. The guy isn't going to show up for a freaking primary debate. Isn't this number 7? What's he going to say now that he hasn't already said?
I stopped going to Twitter because it's so ridiculous. Don't these people work for a living? I think they're so upset because they keep failing or something.
Wow!
He is scared of that vicious blonde Megan Kelly, but he can handle those vicious blondes Putin and Hillary! This from the man who can work with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Give it up Trumpsters. He is a huckster and you are his suckers.
Francisco D: "Give it up Trumpsters. He is a huckster and you are his suckers."
I couldn't hear you over all the laughing coming from obambi/Pelosi/reid over the total capitulation of the republicans in congress.
What were you saying about "suckers" again?
The way I see it, both Trump and Kelly end up smelling sweeter to their fans. And the public has an opportunity to hear more from the other candidates. Win win.
He's going to shoot someone on Fifth Ave during the debate, just wait.
Blogger Francisco D said...
Wow!
He is scared of that vicious blonde Megan Kelly, but he can handle those vicious blondes Putin and Hillary! This from the man who can work with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Give it up Trumpsters. He is a huckster and you are his suckers.
This was pretty much what the Fox News spokesman was saying. Because we all know Trump is really afraid of reporters, like Megan.
They should come up with another word. Afraid is just too cheesy and obviously wrong. Maybe they should say intimidated by her good looks or something. I dunno. I don't see a good line of attack here, but saying he is afraid is a sure loser.
Isn't the way to deal with Putin to demand some reasonable concession and if he doesn't agree to freeze him out? If you follow Megyn Kelly's Twitter feed, she was very snarky about Trump in the fall after the August debate and Trump's statements. She's more like O'Reilly than the news people like Baer and Wallace. Trump has a point about her being a moderator.
I might watch it if it's still going after the Iowa - Maryland game.
Trump has sensed that people are getting tired of these debates. This is Number 7 - and we still have to deal with "moderators" who think they're the stars and losers like Kasich, Paul, and Christie blah blahing and wasting everyone's time.
I'm glad Trump got out. Let's see how interesting it is without "The King" on stage. And let's see if Fox actually asks some decent questions instead of playing gotcha.
Once again Trump shows he's a media genius. Now, we're all talking about him - again. And everyone will be thinking about Trump while the debate is on.
If he believes he's leading, it makes sense for him to take the conservative approach and avoid debates. That was Hillary's strategy too, until recent polls caused her to reconsider.
Why do people waste their time watching TV, when they could be reading timeless works of literature?
Might hurt him, might not.He hasn't been hurt by any of the things he has said in the past. It certainly makes him the center of media attention, again. Said in one clip that he would hold a benefit for Wounded Warriors.
If he does it at same time as the debate, will be interesting to see what the ratings are for each event. And whether or not the ad dollars for Fox go down.
In other news, its almost time for the administration to hand out the golden knee pads for the coming year. Most of the press will be there, along with other acolytes of the one true religion. Ah, good times.
Maybe Kelly will ask Jeb some tough questions. Kelly should be very tough on all the candidates on Thursday. It's her time to shine.
Drago,
Trump is a Democrat and a crony capitalist. He is the living incarnation of James Taggart.
If you want to hitch your wagon to him because he talks back to the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, you are a complete sucker. Hook, line and sinker ... He made his money suckering well-intentioned people like you.
He is a non-PC Hillary! I used to think he had balls, but now he needs a set of Big Boy underwear.
I've read the timeless pieces of literature. There aren't that many and I'm a quick reader.
"she was very snarky about Trump in the fall after the August debate"
I think she was unprofessional in the first debate. I'm not surprised. He was saying he MIGHT not until Fox sent out nasty twitter comments.
Trump 1 Fox 1/2.
What he should do is schedule a 1 on 1 debate with Bernie.
Hey, if Abe can't handle his wife, how can he save the Union?
Hey, if FDR can't keep Eleanor from nagging him, how can he handle Hitler?
Hey, if JFK can't keep it his pants, how can he handle Khrushchev?
mccullough said...Maybe Kelly will ask Jeb some tough questions. Kelly should be very tough on all the candidates on Thursday. It's her time to shine.
Maybe Kelly should run for POTUS. That's what it seems like to me.
Trump has a reasonable case here. I was shocked by the tone of the questions to Trump in that first debate. It was clear that Rupert had sent out his minions with the hope that they could kill Trump's candidacy before it got started. If MSNBC had done the same thing to Hillary I am sure she would skip any further debates on that channel. Rupert was too blatant. Trump should make the issue about Rupert, FOX and the WSJ and their collective shilling for increased immigration.
It is not boring issues that matter at this point, if any ever did. It is the Leadership Strength that gets the attention of voters.
Trump just showed the confidence to take risks when he knows that he is right. That IS leadership strength. It was a replay of President Reagan leaving the Reykjavik meetings with Gorbachev. That won the Cold War.
And Trump just won the election.
Mr. Trump
You have had four bankruptcies,three wives
pro-choice, pro life. How will you build a wall. Who will pay for it.
Can you deport 12 million mexicans bla bla bla
You have 30 second to answer.
I imagine dealing with Putin, he would have a bit more time, and leverage, and stuff.
I'm also with Trump on general principle. We shouldn't even know or care who the moderators are. ITS NOT ABOUT THEM.
The debates are supposed to be about providing useful information to us voters - Compare and contrast.
Instead its turned into the Kelly vs. Donald Show.
Isn't this the debate National Review/Weekly Standard "true conservatives" wanted? They can showcase the Republican brand without the Trump distractions.
The nation will be riveted, absolutely riveted to hear Jeb and Marco tangle over Senate missed votes and to hear Kasich et al arguing over all the same prepackaged poll-tested formulae we've heard these last 25 years.
Maybe Reump can hack into the proceedings midway and simply ask "Miss me yet?"
"Why do I have to make Fox rich?”
It's not about Fox. It's about providing the voters of the country you want to lead an opportunity judge you, asshole.
"I imagine dealing with Putin, he would have a bit more time, and leverage, and stuff."
And if trump says something bad about him, Putin can't cry like a little girl and have everyone take his side against the mean, bad, bully.
Francisco D: "Drago,
Trump is a Democrat and a crony capitalist. He is the living incarnation of James Taggart.
If you want to hitch your wagon to him because he talks back to the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, you are a complete sucker. Hook, line and sinker ... He made his money suckering well-intentioned people like you"
So let me see if I have this straight: you criticized Trump for potentially being amenable to working with the dems and I happened to notice this was right after another round of the republicans in congress rolling over for obambi and I thought to mention it.
Therefore, in Francisco D logic-land, that automatically makes me a supporter of Trump?
Yes, your intellect is truly dizzying.
James Taranto's column is interesting.
Click on "I Don't Know Anybody Who Supports Him"
How about? Yes. I'll watch the debate and I'm glad that Trump is playing by his own rules.
"Maybe they should say intimidated by her good looks or something. I dunno."
Really? He's had a hundred women better looking than Megan Kelley, though I suspect you weren't really serious.
But hey maybe THIS time he's really gone too far and will hurt himself. Well the wishcasting Trumophobes can dream can't they?
Refusing to debate on Fox--isn't that what the Democrats do?
"I find this a brilliant move for Trump though."
I just heard that Trump farted very loudly during a news conference.... Ooooo brilliant move!!
Blogger Original Mike said...
"Why do I have to make Fox rich?”
It's not about Fox. It's about providing the voters of the country you want to lead an opportunity judge you, asshole.
Really? Because if he doesn't do this 7th debate people won't know enough about Donald to make a judgement?
"James Taranto's column is interesting.
Click on "I Don't Know Anybody Who Supports Him""
A result of living in a bubble.
Important question: Will Fox use an empty lectern to make a Clint Eastonian statement?
If not, Trump's spot has always been at the middle. Who will they move to the middle?
Optics, Benjamin, Optics!
"Really? Because if he doesn't do this 7th debate people won't know enough about Donald to make a judgement?"
Plus, he seems to be on TV - every other day. I bet Trump gets more hostile questions in one day, then Hillary gets in a month.
Drago,
Did you major in non-sequiturs in college?
"Will Fox use an empty lectern to make a Clint Eastonian statement?"
Have Kelly ask the chair gotcha question. I bet they try some wise ass move to get a laugh at trump's expense.
Drago said;
"Francisco D: "Give it up Trumpsters. He is a huckster and you are his suckers."
I couldn't hear you over all the laughing coming from obambi/Pelosi/reid over the total capitulation of the republicans in congress.
What were you saying about "suckers" again?"
Does claiming the right is just as foolish as the left really work as an argument?
Blogger rcocean said...
"Really? Because if he doesn't do this 7th debate people won't know enough about Donald to make a judgement?"
Plus, he seems to be on TV - every other day. I bet Trump gets more hostile questions in one day, then Hillary gets in a month.
Exactly. And a lot of Republican Primary voters are being incredibly disingenuous here.
Imagine if Romney would have stood up and said, "I won't do any more debates with Candy Crowley as moderator."
I would have cheered. Many Republicans would have cheered. But these same Republicans are now trashing Trump as being scared?
I hate primary season. It drives people crazy.
Original Mike fumed...It's not about Fox. It's about providing the voters of the country you want to lead an opportunity judge you, asshole.
Well, there is that but there are other factors at play here. Pay attention.
A result of living in a bubble.
No, those are quotes from on the ground in New Hampshire. Trying to find a Trump supporter.
It's strange!
Conservatives always complain about debates being moderated by unfriendly partisan hacks and rightly so. But now many of these same people are parroting the exact same rhetoric the libs use when they respond that Republicans are babies or cowards, etc., when Trump stands up to the unfriendly partisan hacks at Fox. Megan Kelly is a feminist. Feminism is one of the most entrenched and effective branches of Cultural Marxism and the cuckservatives who submit to it are the real cowards and weaklings in this scenario.
eric wrote: Imagine if Romney would have stood up and said, "I won't do any more debates with Candy Crowley as moderator."
I would have cheered. Many Republicans would have cheered.
Me too, eric. me too.
These candidates are all over Iowa and are covered thoroughly by Iowa media. Anyone interested in voting in a caucus knows where the candidates stand on the issues. The debates would be more interesting with fewer candidates but not more informative.
Blogger Paul said...
Conservatives always complain about debates being moderated by unfriendly partisan hacks and rightly so. But now many of these same people are parroting the exact same rhetoric the libs use when they respond that Republicans are babies or cowards, etc., when Trump stands up to the unfriendly partisan hacks at Fox. Megan Kelly is a feminist. Feminism is one of the most entrenched and effective branches of Cultural Marxism and the cuckservatives who submit to it are the real cowards and weaklings in this scenario.
I like Megan Kelly. I think she does a pretty decent job, on her television show anyway, of not showing her bias.
But anyone who thinks that she is a conservative doesn't know what they are talking about.
Trust me, during the next Republican administration, a bunch of conservative Republicans are going to start asking themselves, "What happened to Megan Kelly?" The answer will be, nothing.
Story now up at Breitbart, quoting New York Magazine," Update: New York Magazine reported at 9.30 pm. that Trump was rejecting telephone calls from Fox News’ chief Roger Ailes. Instead, Trump is requiring that any negotiations must take place between him and Ailes’ boss, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp, which owns Fox."
Jim,
Lol. Trump knows how to negotiate
"People are really freaking out over this. Calling Trump all sorts of names, cry baby, whiner, coward, etc. Especially Fox News talking heads like Tammy Bruce, Brit Hume, and many others on my twitter feed"
And these are the elite who are peddling this transparently false accusation as if Trump hasn't already proven he isn't afraid to stand up to the corrupt media and the political correctness police.
Trump can sod off. If he is so afraid of Megyn.. well the little boy can go home with his marbles.
Boo Hoo hooo.
Well dreams.. he sure won't stand up to Megyn. Runs away with wet panties on.
all CNN has to do to get him out of any debates on their network is to reference the same question and ask it again. Pretty soon Trump won't go to any debates.
It is fascinating to watch. People calling him names are missing the point of what is going on. He clearly isn't afraid of tough questions, for that type, I refer you to Hillary or Bernie.
But he knows that you don't talk to flunkies, even as big a one as Ailes. You go to the main person, and deal with it there.
why deal with Kelly, who is irrelevant here. You got a beef, go to top guy.
He already stood up to Megyn Kelly. She tried to take him down and it didn't work. It would be weak of Trump not to demand Fox remove her as a moderator. Trump doesn't need another debate. Fox needs Trump more than Trump needs Fox. People are tuning in for Trump. That's why the ratings have been so high. Trump noes how to deal with the media.
"No, those are quotes from on the ground in New Hampshire. Trying to find a Trump supporter."
Because of all the massholes (liberals) who have moved to New Hampshire from Massachusetts. That is what they're called by the natives.
"Well dreams.. he sure won't stand up to Megyn. Runs away with wet panties on."
Really?
Scott Adams' idea for a Trump-Sanders-Bloomberg triumvirate was dumb. But his analysis today of the Trump-Fox feud really nails it. There's no way for The Donald to lose on this move.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138125409321/trump-fox-news-and-megyn-kelly-explained-master
This just in: Trump just twitted he could shoot Megan Kelly and his poll numbers would go up.
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
(No!)
Yes, brave Sir Donald turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Donald!
All true conservatives must watch. Trump is bad. Fox is good. Do what Fox says, or you're a lib.
Trump likes killing babies = vote R = watch Fox.
P.S. Althouse's thing that proves I'm not a robot is FUBAR. It asked me to select all the kayaks. But, it insisted that I should select a canoe, or else I'm a robot. WTF? Does Fox control this anti-robot thing, like they do many of the idiots who pull the R lever?
@ Eric ...It's also a loss for the Republicans who will be on stage. They'll get their shots in at Trump during the debate, but, not as many people will be watching, and they'll have to be more circumspect about it because you don't want to be seen attacking someone who isn't there to respond.
Just brilliant.
And a Trump-less debate puts Cruz front and center for people to take a hard look at. I bet this was another factor Trump and crew calculated in making their decision, and they must have determined that odds are the spotlight on Cruz may hurt him.
eric wrote"
Imagine if Romney would have stood up and said, "I won't do any more debates with Candy Crowley as moderator."
I would have cheered. Many Republicans would have cheered. But these same Republicans are now trashing Trump as being scared?
The difference between the two is that Crowley inserted herself into the conversation and basically answered for Obama thus negating Romney's talking point
Versus asking Trump a tough question he didn't like.
Btw, are there any cons who earnestly don't understand that Cruz is the dude the Ds want?
And, are there Curz fans who earnestly don't notice he's pretty high on the smarmy scale? Presumably y'all (correctly) recognize this in HRC, but do you really not see any hints w/ Cruz?
Blogger Jim Gust said...
Scott Adams' idea for a Trump-Sanders-Bloomberg triumvirate was dumb. But his analysis today of the Trump-Fox feud really nails it. There's no way for The Donald to lose on this move.
Spot on. the ending quote is really good. "Trump’s setup here is pure genius. He doesn’t know how it will end, but he is making sure he goes where the odds are deeply in his favor.
People keep asking me to demonstrate my lack of bias by pointing out some of Trump’s mistakes. The problem is that Trump has a skill set that absorbs mistakes and turns them into whatever he wants them to be. That’s his system."
and Meghan Kellys question was totally legit. Trump has a tendency to all a lot of people Names. He's called a lot of women dogs or pigs. Do we let mel gibson away with calling a woman cop Sugar Tits? (that was actually a better insult anyway).
Trump even had an out. He could simply have said all the times he called the women names it was because he was having beef with them and also calls men the same names. so its not sexism, he's just abrasive. That would have ended the question.
Why does he have to draw attention to his own petulance by refusing to debate? Just move past it.
Paul said... [hush][hide comment]
Trump can sod off. If he is so afraid of Megyn.. well the little boy can go home with his marbles.
Boo Hoo hooo.
Sod off? Blimey! That is a euphemism for fuck off, by crikey!
Here's the statement from the Trump campaign:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/692171744845664258
Trump simply won't relinquish the whip-hand. It's shocking because it's unprecedented in modern politics.
I think he's going to beat Hillary (and her enablers) like a rented mule. Which, for me, is enough reason to cheer him on. Anything else is gravy.
Reagan skipped Iowa.
Put that in your pipe, cons.
P.S. sorry if someone already noted this up thread. I'll go back and look.
Leave it to the Trump campaign to come up with the strangest, most non-sequitir statement on a controversy that he created.
The official Trump statement (more on that in a moment) is that he objects to making millions for Fox as pat of a highly-rate debate. Say what? WTF!?! What does he want? A "cut" of the house? 20% of the concessions? 5% of the European gross?
Silly me; thinking the Trump statement might detail his side of an apparent dispute over one of the moderators. You know, make the case why he objected to some portion of the production in the first place.
I can't even wrap my head around this. It's like watching a Trump reality show. Donald Trump doesn't want to do debates for a major party presidential nomination because one of the networks is making "millions" off his appearance?
The statement from Trump Central is just as good; I honestly think that with a lot of these things, they are dictated by Trump himself and minimally cleaned up by staff. The voicing is all Trump. I don't think anybody else could professionally write that way.
From the first sentence of today's press release, "Mr. Trump" is referred to as someone "who has built an incredible company..."
I'll say.
Paul had the best point on this thread. The RNC et. al. refuses to have debates with the mean journalists. And, now anti-Trumperters suffer massive cog. dis..
Anywho, Althouse's post should have included the two snark filled official Fox press releases that mocked Trump. If they'd come from the mean journalists the RNC et. al. would have flipped out, if the establishment had been the target.
The thing about Cruz is he really is the smartest person in the room, given any given room. Hillary isn't. Just like Romney before, the Dems think that Trump is the RINO and a real Democrat always beats a RINO. (It almost worked with GWB, too.)
Neither Hillary or Sanders beats either Cruz or Rubio. So of course they like Trump.
PBJ can say the Dems want Cruz, but really, the Dems want a coronation. Funny thing is, they may get Trump (who is functionally a Democrat) and god help us all if that happens.
Very true about reading timeless works of literature. Highly recommended. Better than TV.
If you can find it, as its a bit scarce, rereading as research, Yay Panlilio "The Crucible" - the true story, written by herself, of the only American (Irish-Filipina, US "natural born citizen") woman guerilla chieftain, who ended up a Colonel commanding a Philippine Army regiment in combat.
Also great journalist, US Army intelligence agent, single mother of three.
Now that's a feminist icon for the ages, one would expect in these feminist times a heroine of tremendous celebrity. Yet, somehow, unknown, unrecognized, a non-person.
Fashion is fickle, and of course the work of the devil.
Trump made it Trump v. Murdoch. Personally, I think it's time for popcorn.
He's going to be hosting an Iowa fund raising event for "the Veterans and Wounded Warriors" instead. I hope it's live streamed online. (I probably wouldn't watch that either, I just want to see the comparison of numbers of people watching it or the debate.)
It's going to be hard for people to argue that another tedious debate is more worthy than raising money for Vets.
Are you really voting for him?
"A cut of the house?"
Why not? Is there a rule? This is a unique approach to self financing a campaign. Make the campaign pay for itself. It IS a show.
I like his style. This is creative thinking, breaking the box and going where no man had gone before. As Carlos I said, "Plus Ultra".
Mary Beth, it's called "Marketing." Do you think MetLife flies blimps over football games because the Board of Directors really love football?
Phil: "Does claiming the right is just as foolish as the left really work as an argument?"
No, so it's a darn good thing I didn't do that.
Blogger jr565 said...
eric wrote"
Imagine if Romney would have stood up and said, "I won't do any more debates with Candy Crowley as moderator."
I would have cheered. Many Republicans would have cheered. But these same Republicans are now trashing Trump as being scared?
The difference between the two is that Crowley inserted herself into the conversation and basically answered for Obama thus negating Romney's talking point
Versus asking Trump a tough question he didn't like.
A tough question?
1) "Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs' and 'disgusting animals.' ...
Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.
Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?"
C'mon. That's not even a question, it's an argument.
Trump is having at Fox. Fox doesn't even understand the fight they're in. Kelly ain't worth the cost they're going to pay. Trump wins no matter what Fox does. Fox is very partial, and Trump is showing that to the world.
"Why does he have to draw attention to his own petulance by refusing to debate? Just move past it."
Obtuse.
Francisco D: "Drago, Did you major in non-sequiturs in college?"
One need not have majored in non-sequiturs in college to notice that your non-sequitur cup is running over.
Megyn Kelly started a fight that Roger Ailes wishes he didn't have to fight.
Mark,
I don't usually have a lot of time to follow the TV jabber. But, tonight I did, and MSNBC was only focused on destroying Trump. Obviously, my anecdotal insights aren't definitive.
But, do Cruz fans really not see that he (like HRC) is smarmy? Likewise, y'all really don't see that Rubio is a prick poser? Are you sure more than 50% of the voting public (or, 50% of the electorates) doesn't (or don't) see these things?
Sure, Trump has nuttiness. And, yet, for some reason, he overcomes it, which is the point.
Anywho, let Fox nominate Cruz or Rubio. Let's run the experiment.
dreams: "Megyn Kelly started a fight that Roger Ailes wishes he didn't have to fight."
In what way has Ailes or the Fox operation been harmed by this?
I am surprised at myself but my first thought was "Great!". I am sincerely glad not to have him sucking the oxygen out of the room for a change. Of course, there will still be some focus on Trump but I think it will be fun to see what is said out of his presence. While I do think Trump was a net positive to the whole process up to just a few weeks ago, I have had enough of his act now. I'm ready to listen to the others for awhile without looking at his bogus mean face etc.
"In what way has Ailes or the Fox operation been harmed by this?"
That question is what makes this so much fun. Can an R say FU to his supposed Fox Master?
Time will tell.
Odd, Google is heavily involved in this debate:
"Google is teaming up with the Fox News Channel for the final Republican debate in Iowa on Thursday, January 28, 2016, and integrating three new components into the debate to help people get informed before they head to the polls, including a way to hear directly from candidates on Google; real-time Google Trends data; and questions from three of YouTubes most prominent voices Nabela Noor, Mark Watson, and Dulce Candy who will join the moderators in the debate to ask the candidates a question on an issue that matters to them and their communities."
dreams said...
Megyn Kelly started a fight that Roger Ailes wishes he didn't have to fight.
Hardly. This is what they live for. Not only are they getting huge publicity and increased audience, they are influencing events as well as reporting. It's also the kind of thing Ailes was hoping (expecting really) for when he began to headline Kelly.
"In what way has Ailes or the Fox operation been harmed by this?"
That wasn't my point, I don't think Roger Ailes wanted a fight with Trump.
Trump debates like he fights wars. He doesn't.
I think it's quite possible that some time before the election Presidential Candidate Trump will do a 1 on 1 interview with Ms. Kelly. But it will be at a time of his choosing not that of the media or the RNC. The only way it is unlikely to happen will be if Fox refuses Trump's demand to air the entire interview, not an edited version.
And then Hilary will have to submit to a similar interview (which might even be a Trump condition) by Kelly. Trump will come out way ahead in the exchange.
Mary Beth, it's called "Marketing.
Yes, and he's very good at it.
Well we've got another weenie who got all wee wee'd up. If Trump can't handle Megyn Kelly, how is he going to deal with Vladimir Putin (although he is still miles ahead of Obama and Kerry in that department).
jr565 makes a strong case, that if CNN doesn't want Trump in their debate, they have the gameplan now.
Before they, never in a million years, could have figured out how to keep the biggest draw away from the stage, but FOX just gave CNN the blueprints according to jr.
Crack was right about "something else."
JR I AM TALKING TO YOU NOW: YOU NEED TO REPEAT YOURSELF CALLING TRUMP DUMB AND HIS SUPPORTERS EVEN DUMBER/MORE FOOLISH. YOU'RE GONNA SHOW 'EM THIS TIME! THE ONLY WAY THEY LEARN IS THROUGH REPETITION. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS.
"if Trump can't handle Megyn Kelly" and if he wins the nomination, you'd admit he handled her quite well I presume?
What if he wins the nomination in an unprecedented manner in terms of margin of victory, will you just conclude the voters even dumber than you thought?
Cool. Sounds like a point of view I can learn from. Thank you.
"I think it's quite possible that some time before the election Presidential Candidate Trump will do a 1 on 1 interview with Ms. Kelly."
I doubt it. Like the idea Trump would have Scott Walker in his admin. after Walker bashed Trump in his speech announcing his quitting the race, it seems to me Trump doesn't reward his enemies even if they both have something to gain, as Trump feels (I assume of course) he has more to gain, along with someone he doesn't dislike that he decides to work with instead of the sexist haters like Kelly and Ailes.
This is why I doubt Cruz for V.P. too.
"If Trump can't handle Megyn Kelly, how is he going to deal with Vladimir Putin"
Jesus you people are like mindless parrots repeating the same tired transparently bogus talking points in lockstep. It makes you the same type of witless automatons that populate the ranks of the adolescent left. And somehow you imagine you're presenting a cogent, persuasive argument. This is what blind, bigoted hatred does to people regardless of political persuasion.
Trump is either brilliant in this instance or delusional. A good case can be made for either proposition. Only time will tell. One thing is for sure, Murdoch can't be made to be seen as Trump's bitch so Fox really can't concede to Trump unless they want lose credibility. Long term that would be disastrous. On the other hand Trump set a redline he can't cross, so it's a standoff. As for the debate itself unless the other candidates can do a superb job that totally ignores anything Trump it's hard to see how he won't be the 800 lb gorilla in the room. If successful with Fox and goes on to win the nomination then he made himself MSM proof in a debate with the Democrat nominee. Or he has finally gone too far and pissed off too many Conservatives and he can't win without them. Either way he made an unforced error since he basically kneecapped Kelly the first time when she tried her cute trick and could have easily done so again in the next debate. So I don't see the overall advantage in this move but then again I didn't graduate Wharton nor am I a billionaire.
Trump is starting to appear to me as another outsider turned politician; Arnold Schwarzenegger who in the end found himself cutting deal with the Democrats mostly on their terms.
Is Cruz a bit slimy? Some say he is ( I don't think so) and since he genuinely is often the smartest man in the room (unlike Obama) that can lead a man to be at times a bit arrogant but rather too smart a guy in the WH than a guy he wants to make deals with the likes of a Pelosi or a Schummer just to make a deal and not look ineffective. Speaking of slimy, which Democrat running isn't slimy? Still any day and in a heartbeat Trump or Cruz or any Republican over Hillary the criminal-grifter and traitor or God forbid the Communist.
Trump says he is going to do Melania's toe nails while sitting in their underwear on the hotel sofa, doing a youtube streaming video feed.
They invited Carly up from her hotel room in the basement, and she is going to brush Melania's hair, and play with their dogs.
Rand was invited to eat the left-overs in the fridge, as he can't get anyone to buy him a meal in Iowa. But he has to stay in the kitchen, because Melania thinks his eyes are undressing her.
Cruz had to make a quick trip to Canada today, just to cry a little. Then they flew back.
"Still any day and in a heartbeat Trump or Cruz or any Republican over Hillary the criminal-grifter and traitor or God forbid the Communist.'
Yes. I would vote for any Republican before those two but then again I'm not mired in demented foam flecked demonic hatred for any of them like the TDS sufferers hereabouts.
It's hard to believe that anyone really thinks that Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly??? That's so clearly wrong. Wishful thinking I suppose.
That said, I have not watched any of the debates but I would definitely watch Trump vs.Cruz.
We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.
Fox has access to the private thoughts of Putin and the Ayatollah? Wow. This is an actual Fox statement? The CIA must be envious, eh? Are we sure this isn’t from the Onion? And what’s up with that strange Twitter followers/meetings thing? Are they really asking us to believe this ridiculous crap? No wonder Trump is pissed.
What he should do is schedule a 1 on 1 debate with Bernie.
Brilliant idea but would Sanders cooperate?
Isn't this the debate National Review/Weekly Standard "true conservatives" wanted? They can showcase the Republican brand without the Trump distractions.
Bingo! Thanks for pointing out that particular hypocrisy.
Refusing to debate on Fox--isn't that what the Democrats do?
Yeah, but that’s OK, because … TRUMP!
I bet Trump gets more hostile questions in one day, then Hillary gets in a month.
Yeah, it’s not like pundits and talking heads throw Trump softball questions outside of the debates.
Imagine if Romney would have stood up and said, "I won't do any more debates with Candy Crowley as moderator." I would have cheered. Many Republicans would have cheered. But these same Republicans are now trashing Trump as being scared?
Another Bingo! So soon, too.
New York Magazine reported at 9.30 pm. that Trump was rejecting telephone calls from Fox News’ chief Roger Ailes. Instead, Trump is requiring that any negotiations must take place between him and Ailes’ boss, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp, which owns Fox.
I doubt that Murdoch will back down. Gotta think of his reputation, you know. They’ll eat the loss in revenue Trump has handed to them and say it doesn’t matter but ratings ALWAYS matter.
In what way has Ailes or the Fox operation been harmed by this?
There’s this thing called television ratings. Been around for awhile. Highly rated events sell commercial time for a lot more than low-rated events. We’re talking millions. That’s if Trump sticks it to his decision, which I believe he will.
I think Trump should refuse to be interviewed by Fox. Have nothing to do with Fox. The other channels, who hate and envy Fox, will feature interviews with Trump prominently, maybe even more prominently than they ordinarily would have done, in their news and opinion shows.
Mary Beth, I concede Trump is excellent at marketing. I even concede he's a master salesman.
Apologies to all the sales professionals reading this, but frankly I don't like salespeople who think winning the sale is everything.
If Trump were actually selling something, if there were a product, I would give him his due. But the product he's selling is Trump, and frankly it's not a good fit for what I think the country needs.
Reagan sold a brand of Conservatism. He continued selling it through his Administration, and whether you like it or not, he wasn't selling swampland; there was actually a there there.
Bush Senior was a caretaker who didn't take very good care, couldn't sell socks at a JC Penny, and lost. Probably a good man, decent caretaker, lousy salesman.
Clinton sold a "Third Way." Hillary nearly scuttled it with HillaryCare, and he got his ass handed to him in his first midterm, but he got back to what won him the election, and whether you like it or not, triangulation was real; again, there was a there there.
W had compassionate conservatism, and it got muddled in actual world-changing global conflict, but when anti-Republicans moan about working with allies, or doing right by the global community, they forget W forged a huge coalition to carry out his plan (the theme is salesmanship, right?), he got both the House and the Senate to back him, and he delivered the product (like it now or not.) And he did more to stem the AIDS crisis in Africa than anyone before or since.
Obama sold Obama as the product; once he won he signed whatever the Democrat-controlled Congress put on his desk, let the alphabet soup that is our Government do what it liked, only stirred from his lair to snipe perceived enemies, and is generally enjoying his time as figurehead. For people who wanted to feel good about symbolic social justice, he continues to be the Product, and I guess he continues to deliver it.
Trump though is problematic. Like Obama, Trump is the product. Unlike Obama, Trump doesn't really embody anything worth caring about, unless all you care about is what Trump does, which is frankly con people out of their money, getting them to pay too much for some social signifiers that from a distance of time or space are at best tawdry. Have you ever been in one of his casinos? That's the Trump experience. It's telling that (a) so many people actually go there to lose their money and (b) that he still manages to manage so many of those properties into bankruptcy.
This is not what I want for my country. This is not what I want my country to want. Heaven help me, I'd prefer Bernie Sanders, because the product he's selling is 50 years stale, but it's still something that's supposed to be for the people. Even if it's stupid and wrong, it can be treated as an ideal.
Trump as an ideal is simple gross. If you disagree, I suggest you put it all down on double zero and spin the wheel.
Megan Kelly is starting to annoy me. There's a smugness in her demeanor -- that suffocating I'm hot and I'm brilliant and I'm rich air she has adopted since knocking O'Reilly out of his 9pm Eastern catbird's seat. Kelly is gunning for a kill -- every primetime talker wants a trophy head on the wall -- and she's decided her head will be Trump's. Trump knows it and won't cooperate in his own decapitation.
Oops, misspelled Megyn. (Actually she the one who's misspelled it, but that's showbiz...)
Reminds me of the time I had a blind date with a girl who spelled her name "Genniphur". Every sentence she spoke was another drop in the Bucket of Total Insanity. Ever dated someone who should have been on a thorazine drip? Not fun.
Another thing, since when has FoxNews been a vehicle for Michael Moore? Are they angling for MSNBC's picayune demography?
Mark,
W was a bad president. There is no real dispute about this. W was Obama lite on expansion of federal government and Obama is W lite on foreign interventions. They are both open borders fans. Reagan's conservatism was attitudinal as his administration also expanded the federal government and raised Social Security taxes to strengthen that great liberal program. Reagan also signed the law to raise the drinking age to 21 by cutting off a percentage of highway funding to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. Reagan also signed the amnesty bill legalizing 3 million who came here illegally, which was a not a conservative respect for the rule of law.
And Reagan ran deficits that as a percent of GDP were the same as the deficits FDR ran in his first two terms.
But Reagan talked like a conservative, which is all the matters to most conservatives. That he did not govern like a conservative doesn't matter. No surprise Reagan voted for FDR four times and was head of a labor union before becoming governor of California and signing abortion legislation and legislation restricting rights of law abiding gun owners. He was a democrat who hated communists, just like JFK
W was a bad president. There is no real dispute about this.
I'm glad you cleared that up.
Everybody! Be serious for a second.
Do you want a guy who makes this decision in charge of our NUKES?
The cost-benefit analysis is all out of whack here. He's winning. He just blew the election over nothing. A tiff with a reporter!
He has shown himself to America. Worst. Judgment. Ever.
@mccullough with all due respects have you ever paid at the margin taxes at 70%? If you have, and my family has, then your point of view changes and Reagan was and still is held in the greatest of esteem. As for the rest, when did RR ever have control of both houses of Congress like Obama did? Let see he pretty much drove the final nail in the Soviet Union's coffin, that certainly was worth the defense buildup. Too bad Clinton had to start the wind down that has lead us to a far less capable military power than what we were. Without having both houses of Congress he couldn't rollback the government as was his aspiration. Perhaps you were too young but I remember Reagan with the limitations he had in Congress nevertheless was able to put in policies that lead to one of the best economic cycles this country had in the last hundred years. Compare and contrast Reagan's economic growth rates and Obama's. Game over. Elect another Democrat this November and might as well hold a funeral service for the economy.
And of course I did Bush Sr. a disservice by not noting that his administration managed the dissolution of the Soviet Block without major incident. Something to be said for competence.
People talking about Trump's "managing companies into bankruptcy" ... delusion of the highest order. This line doesn't even register. Is he successful? Yes. He's the Sean Connery (The Rock) winner who goes home and fornicates w/ the prom queen while losers whine about their best. (google "The rock - Prom queen")
People talking about Trump seeming weak or petulant w/ this move ... time will tell how it registers. I don't think it seems weak at all, but we'll see how it resonates. IMO brilliant general election move, risky primary move. Perhaps Trump is willing to risk the latter to win the former; perhaps some (higher order over-analyzing types?) will see it as a sign of his confidence that he'll take such a risk, etc.
Admit it's uncertain. Most of you would never take such a high-stakes no-backing-out stance. There's at least some strategy+principle behind such a weighty decision and yet you "Trump is a moron" crowd are so sure it's a colossal blunder ... classic wishful thinking, even cognitive dissonance. You don't like that he's in a position to get away with something like that, something nobody else would dare ...
Mark is right that Bush Sr. had solid foreign policy moves (Reagan seemed reckless but came off looking good too).
Cubanbob,
Didn't say Reagan was a bad president. I said he didn't govern as a conservative and gave multiple examples. And when the highest tax bracket was 70% there were so many tax deductions and shelters that actual federal income tax receipts were the same as after tax reform. The American people are ingenious. You're never going to get more than 20% of GDP from federal revenue. So we shouldn't spend more than that. Unfortunately we do. Both parties love deficit spending, just like Reagan did. He wasn't a fiscal conservative, he was an FDR democrat and JFK democrat. Compared to George McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis he was conservative because they were soft on crime and soft on communism liberals. They were BLM type democrats.
Coolidge was the last conservative president. After Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, conservatism was dead. Goldwater was the last conservative presidential candidate. No Republican nominee is going to run on repealing Medicare or Social Security, even though those programs aren't fiscally sustainable, to say nothing of the fact that they are social welfare programs inconsistent with conservatism.
Jonathan, really. How many companies do you think most people get to run into the ground? He's a connected sleaze with a thin skin. He's not James Bond, he's not even a guy who can take getting pushed around by a news show pretty face. The man has issues. They aren't issues that lend themselves to a stable Presidency. But let's talk about what Trump does well.
Trump plays a game you don't understand, and that I don't understand, but I can see what it takes to play it. You screw your investors over time and again, go through Chapter 11 time and again, and see how you fare. You'll fail and probably be buried next to Hoffa. Trump is smart, and he does take risks. He's a con man, a sleaze, a crook, and damn good at all those things. Personally, not what I want in a President.
Since the U.S. is bankrupt, maybe Trump is the guy to run it and screw over the bond holders. I don't think Jeb's family connections are going to erase the debt and the Clinton Foundation can't raise $20 trillion. Trumps experience is well suited to the task
"He's winning. He just blew the election over nothing."
You make an assertion like this as if it was an unassailable truth in spite of the fact that every single time Trump has broken the rules it has redounded to his advantage. You're coming off as a deluded irrational man and not in the least persuasive. You're just venting. You might as well join the left where your emotional profile will better fit their norm.
Mark, getting people to invest in risky ventures that you don't personally guarantee is a valuable skill. Sorry you can't see that. Like I said, prom queen.
mccullough's "Trump is the one to take US through bankruptcy" idea sure is amusing. Iceland got away with it, but US even thinking about it would somehow result in global financial meltdown, so I'll ask Trump to blink once if that's his intention.
Trump really makes peoples heads explode. All the right people. On both sides of the aisle. I don't know if he will be the nominee at the end of this, but he is running circles around the competition right now. If he is the nominee, how will his style work against the media and the democrat machine? Or against the GOP establishment?
Voting starts soon, thankfully. Then we will know the answers. But God it is so much fun to watch. Best election cycle ever.
.
@ mccullough let me repeat, notwithstanding your position on the relative total percentage GDP percentage we DID pay 70% tax on the margin and that is after paying for expensive accountants and lawyers. Just sucks being business owners and earning ordinary income and paying the top rate.Not like so others who can take the gamble and get paid with stock options and get taxed at a much lower capital gains tax. Reagan was as conservative as the country and specifically the Congress enabled him to be. Coolidge wasn't on the ballot in 1980 and 1984 and he isn't running today. Better is the enemy of the good, even George W Bush no one's definition of a hard core Conservative tried proposing a partial privatization of Social Security and skewered mercilessly for it.
Social Security will be means tested, it is inevitable. I'm going to get screwed yet again since I already have been paying in for 44 years and almost all of those years at the self-employed tax rate to the maximum taxable amount and will be kicking in at least another eight years and by then I'm for sure going to get stiffed by means testing. Oh joy! For those who were sentient and not naive Congress gave the game away when IRAs were created. The message was clear: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and is dependent on enough new entrants to fully pay the old entrants and you guys just aren't having enough employable middle income and above kids so smarten up and start saving for your retirement because don't count on the scheme to fully fund your retirement in the future.
Is there anything more self-flattering than assuming the person who doesn't like you is simply afraid of you? It ties in with the NYT Magazine piece today about how every reactionary position is a "phobia."
Trump's position is pretty obviously not based in fear, it is based in dislike. Or in other words, Trump's position is "sorry Megyn, I don't have time for your bullshit."
Reagan was a deficit spender just like Congress. And amnesty was Reagan's idea. And he signed the bill to force the states to raise the drinking age. Reagan was anti-communist and law and order (except for Iran Contra which was an imperial Obamaesque move that Reagan had no problem doing because it was expedient).
I'm sorry to hear that you had such bad accountants and lawyers. The good ones would have helped you avoid those high rates through effective planning. Although there was no way to avoid the huge Social Security tax increases Reagan signed (which a conservative would have vetoed).
Once again Trump shows he's a media genius. Now, we're all talking about him - again. And everyone will be thinking about Trump while the debate is on.
Yeah, he's like Obama in that way. I'm sick of Trump, the same way I was sick of Obama. They are full on egomaniacs, and they want to be on television all the time.
The thing is, Obama just wanted to lecture us, to speak and speak and speak. He didn't even bother to look at his damn website that had his name on it! It was pathetic, how little work Obama wanted to do. He wants the fame of the Presidency, the grandeur of it. Doesn't actually want to do the work.
Trump is similar. He still hasn't done the work. Ask him about foreign policy and it's a "gotcha" question. He's like the cool kid who skips class and makes fun of school and shows you how to make money by swindling people.
If Trump can't handle Obgyn Kelly, how can he handle ....... is so sophomoric. Just silly. (See Reagan-Reykjavik)
Roger Ailes knew having the aforementioned Kelly as one of the moderators would provoke Trump. All for ratings, of course. Ailes had a battalion of potential moderators and still chose the smug pinhead.
Who knows what the result will be. One thing for sure, Trump is playing by his own rules, not the medias. And they hate it.
And I'm a Cruz guy all the way.
It's a news bimbo protest.
Here's what we're dealing with.
Fox news is soap opera just like every other network. They're all airheads.
Condillac: seriousness is not the opposite of frivolousness. Seriousness is a subgenre.
Authenticity is always accidental.
At first blush, I would score it Foxnews 1, Trump 0. All these candidates want more, not less, tv time from these debates. Missing the debate in a huff, seems like Trump's mistake.
However, this could be wrong. If the debate viewership declines by10-20%, Trump will crow about how he's clearly the star.
On the other hand, if Cruz wins Iowa, then Cruz will crow.
Trump's deeds have confounded (vexed) many learned politicos. So, I don't think we know how it plays out
Obama has strong-armed the media for 7 years to keep them in line. If the media thought it would go unnoticed and we'd be back to "fair game" if there is a Republican President then they have another think coming.
What is happening is needed. It is time for candidates or the parties to wrest control of debates from the biased media and run it themselves on pay-per-view. What happened with CNBC was so egregious it got them fired, but this isn't going to go away as long as Clinton-Foundation donor and partisan George Stephanapolous still has a role and even a shred of credibility as a moderator. Give me an ever-loving' break!!!. Let's drop the pretense that most of the media can be an honest broker to a Republican debate and at this point people like John Harwood or Megyn Kelly want to make themselves the story rather than the candidates.
I thought it was ridiculous that FOX demanded a loyalty oath in their first August debate. And in the interim, with Jeb Bush implying he will not honor his pledge, FOX had better grill Bush on that.
If Republicans are going to be attacked unfairly by all non-FOX networks due to bias and attacked even harder by FOX to prove it has no bias, what is the upside for Republicans to deal with any network any longer? There is none. Let those profits go to the candidates or to charity. Why should the networks get to skewer our candidates and play an unfair game of "gotcha" while making millions from the ratings?
I would rather there be no moderators and just let the candidates go at it themselves. Look at the ridiculous asymmetry between the content and tone of questions asked of Republicans versus Democrats.
With NBC fired and FOX on notice, there is now the credibility and precedent showing candidates have problems with media of all persuasions. That will accelerate the needed process to move to where the debates are run by the candidates. I am not a Trump backer but he has done a big favor to the process here by bringing this issue to a head.
If boxers can arrange their own fights and stream them or go pay-per-view then political candidates can do the same. In an internet age the Networks are no longer the gatekeepers. And the dishonest Networks get fired is a good step of progress.
Whatever happened to Jorge Ramos?
Seems to me Trump is saying that he has Iowa locked up and is increasing his street cred with moderate to liberal voters by dissing "Faux" News.
"I thought it was ridiculous that FOX demanded a loyalty oath in their first August debate. And in the interim, with Jeb Bush implying he will not honor his pledge, FOX had better grill Bush on that.
That's untrue. "FOX" didn't demand anything, and it was not an oath. It was a question, whether candidates would make the pledge to the Republican Party faithful who were (if they were like me) intensely interested in the answer(s). The only reason that Trump felt put on the spot by the question was that he was the only one whose connection to the Republican Party was so loose that it was hard for him to make such a pledge to anyone; not "FOX."
Jeb Bush has answered the question about a third party run: "No. I'm not going to run as a third-party candidate, no matter who wins the nomination," Bush has said.
I think Cruz made a smart move by challenging Trump to a one on one debate. Especially the mocking tone. Interesting to see if that gets MSM airplay. THAT would be worth watching. We might get to real policy issues.
"at this point people like John Harwood or Megyn Kelly want to make themselves the story rather than the candidates."
I agree. I sort of like Megyn Kelly (Except her ridiculous name) but she acted like a school girl trying out for cheerleader at the first debate. I don't know if this will hurt Trump. He is not my favored candidate but I don't have one.
JEB Bush did say that he might not vote for Trump if he was the candidate.
Cruz v. Trump? Never happen. Trump doesn't need it. He debates himself with his interviews. He's done just fine in that format.
"and law and order (except for Iran Contra which was an imperial Obamaesque move that Reagan had no problem doing because it was expedient). "
I sense a concern troll. Iran-Contra was a result of the Democrats favoring the communist government in Nicaragua. Reagan wanted to help the Contras, which eventually did oust the Sandinistas, and the Israelis got him to support the Iranian pseudo moderates, the ones Obama just gave permission for nuclear weapons. The connection was Ollie North's idea and blew up in everybody's face.
I wouldn't find the debates nearly as entertaining without him in them, which works out because I was planning to prepare home brew tomorrow night instead. But I have a feeling he's going to find some reason at the last minute to jump in and rejoin the debate. This whole thing is just to "work the refs".
"Do you want a guy who makes this decision in charge of our NUKES?"
Obama has already put the Iranians in charge of the NUKES.
Don't know if this is a good move by Trump or not. As someone else said, time will tell.
But I do know that most people have a low opinion of the media. I see a lot of people on Fox right now talking about Trump and courage and "what does this say about Trump." However, getting into a fight with an opponent who most people despise is not necessarily a bad thing. Ask anybody who watches pro wrestling or NASCAR,
What is the crossover appeal between the Trump campaign and professional wrestling?
You people who are defending Trump over this idiocy sound as nutty as him. "He's got a secret plan you don't understand!"
Putin calls Trump a name.
Trump orders nukes launched.
What will the military do?
Just like a bad TV show.
Unhinged.
Just to make sure I have this right--when Obama boycotted Fox News, he was a narrowminded, petulant, thin skinned crybaby who couldn't handle criticism and is therefore unfit to lead. Trump boycotts Fox News and he's a brilliant fighter, standing up to network bias. Is that about it?
Mark, getting people to invest in risky ventures that you don't personally guarantee is a valuable skill.
And I'm sorry you can't see who the suckers are here.
Fox is reliably conservative. They have some excellent journalists who set bias aside, like Catherine Herridge (sp?) and Chris Wallace, but all day and all evening long, when they betray bias, it's on the right. And they're not shy about it. And Megyn Kelly is in that camp. And she's really smart and quick.
So it seems odd to me that Trumpsters think this is another anti-establishment issue, where rightists are finally realizing that Fox is just another part of the problem. Fox is hated by all of the leftist media and political folks, except the ones that get paid by Fox. And Fox has been arguing against big-government, establishment forces for years.
I guess the Trumpsters are in full-on blow-it-up mode, wanting to destroy everything. This kind of tantrum is unconvincing and unsustainable.
Mark said...
Trump made it Trump v. Murdoch.
No. Murdoch made it Murdoch v. Trump in the first debate and on the editorial pages of the WSJ. Murdoch has been quite transparent about this. It is difficult to imagine the left leaning media taking sides in a Democratic presidential primary race as transparently as Murdoch and his minions have done in the Republican primary.
Reagan's choice to violate the law was the Democrats' fault?
"It is not boring issues that matter at this point, if any ever did. It is the Leadership Strength that gets the attention of voters."
The issues facing us are hardly "boring," but are life-and-death for this republic. I would agree with you if you had pointed out that voters are tuning out of the political process because they know it's fixed, a corrupt game where you gotta pay to play, and we aren't the players.
As for "Leadership Strength," fuck that! It sounds like you want a fuhrer. We need a Congress that is responsive to and that serves the American people, and we need a President who works with Congress to achieve what the people want done. We don't need "strong" presidents who assume near-dictatorial power for themselves never granted by the Constitution.
(And fuck all this "commander-in-chief" shit, too; the president is not the commander-in-chief of me or you or of any U.S. citizen, or of Congress. He is merely an administrator, perhaps a general manager, always answerable for his decisions. In times of war--only then--he becomes the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, because our military must be commanded by a non-military representative of the people, and not by the Generals whose business is war. This is intended as a check on the actual and potential power of the generals and the military.)
...and Jennifer Griffin, and Trace Gallagher, and Bret Baier, and Peter Doocy, and Lea Gabrielle, and Howard Kurtz...the list goes on and on. It's a serious place, and the best news channel by far.
But conservative/rightist. That much is obvious.
What is the crossover appeal between the Trump campaign and professional wrestling?
Looking at some of the polling data on Trump supporters, I would say it is pretty high.
I'm glad he won't be there. I'm already bored with his circus schtick and the accompanying media fascination. It was amusing at first but not so much now that the primaries are actually here. My prediction is that in one year, win or lose, most Trumpkins will have a vastly different opinion of him than they do now.
As for Trump,I've said it before: I don't believe he has any serious intention (or desire) to become President. He just loves the ego-stroking of the public and media attention to the always risible actions and statements he makes. I think he's pushing to see how far he can go before there is a generalized reaction against him. I'd bet he's surprised this hasn't happened yet.
That our political system is broken is indisputable when we appraise the gaggle of losers who are considered to be (and are treated as) "serious" candidates for office, whose vacuous utterances are received with solemnity rather than cackling derision.
That our political system is broken is indisputable when we appraise the gaggle of losers who are considered to be (and are treated as) "serious" candidates for office, whose vacuous utterances are received with solemnity rather than cackling derision.
Well when the big money elites decided that we were to chose between Clinton "We came, we saw, he died", and Bush III, that's when the whole thing went obviously pear shaped.
As for Trump,I've said it before: I don't believe he has any serious intention (or desire) to become President. He just loves the ego-stroking of the public and media attention to the always risible actions and statements he makes. I think he's pushing to see how far he can go before there is a generalized reaction against him.
I used to think that as well. But no longer. Even if he did have that intention originally, at this point he has a real shot at becoming POTUS. That's got to be a very heady experience. In addition, I don't think that you can just luck into getting this far into the process. He has tapped into some very real anger in the electorate. An anger that the two parties wants to suppress and had no intention of addressing.
Megyn Kelly is no "journalist", there aren't any anymore. There are only mouthpieces and minders of the political and banker class who propagandize a reality only beneficial to those that have bought them.
Trump knows that the American people hate "journalists" almost as much as politicians, and don't trust them. "Jounalists" are the useful idiots of the criminals in our government who are destroying the United States by Cloward Piven strategy, overloading and attacking every aspect of American life, from religion, to jobs, to marriage, to borders, to guns, to the military; all are under attack in some form, and the attck is gaining speed since the Usurper gained power. The political class is committing treason, and is attempting to crush the US so as to "fix" it in their own vision, where they have the power and the people are subservient to them and to some world governance.
That's the Marxist method, cause a problem in order to solve it, never let a crisis go to waste. They said it right to your face. The media is helping them achieve their goals, and Megyn Kelly is just another useful idiot, hated by the American people for the smugness and arrogance with which she delivers the propaganda of her political masters.
Why should Trump face questions from someone who has not a whiff of objectivity or journalistic integrity, when he can channel the thoughts of the American people and take the bully club from the useful idiot propagandists, and in the process tank their ratings. She committed a whole show to attacking Trump with the idiots from the National Review. She expected different?
Trump's national ratings will go to 44% after this.
"Putin calls Trump a name.
Trump orders nukes launched."
This is beneath you, Dave.
"Blogger machine said...
Reagan's choice to violate the law was the Democrats' fault?"
It is no surprise that the leftist does not want to discuss that particular "law" which was called The Boland Amendment and was passed, then reenforced, by the Democrat Congress to stop Reagan from aiding the Contras.
Reagan evaded it until the Congress changed its mind by enlisting outsiders like the Saudis to support the Contras.
The rest of the story involves the CIA station chief, Bill Buckley, who was kidnapped and tortured by Hezbollah. Reagan was convinced to try to ransom him. It was a mistake. None of what Reagan did was against the law.
All of these people still steamed about Iran Contra after all of these years are remarkably incurious about the weapons we gave to the Syrian "rebels," some of which ended up in the hands of Afghan rebels, and what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi.
At Trump's rallies, one of the songs they play consistently is the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil." No joke.
Trump's supporters are too brainwashed by his statements on immigration to consider some of the lyrics:
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith...
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game...
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
Cause I'm in need of some restraint
It's LORD of the FLIES time at the Republican debate.
"are remarkably incurious about the weapons we gave to the Syrian "rebels,"
Yes, it matters not that the party has changed. Ha
It's LORD of the FLIES time at the Republican debate
That's the kind of laugh out loud funny comments I come here to read.
@sinz52
Yeah, we know. Its cause he's the anti-Christ.
I like how Fox News, without pretense, openly acknolwedges its efforts to influence the news it covers (unlike other news outlets).
"Trump’s assertion, which his campaign manager insisted was irreversible ...
The word "irreversible" almost made me snort my morning coffee through my nose. He'll find an excuse to change his mind if the polls show him losing support.
I think Megyn Kelly needs to take his spot in the debate. Trump's not scared of any of the other six candidates but she terrifies him. Hmmm.
My fellow Republicans, we have found our candidate and she is Mrs. Doug Brunt!
Mick - You say that Megyn Kelly "devoted a whole show" to featuring the Trump critics from the National Review.
And that is a lie.
She had one segment with three of the Trump critics, including Brent Bozell. She then had another segment, with a defense of Trump featuring former Trump advisor Roger Stone. The Trump side, essentially, got the last word.
For somebody like you with such extremist/moonbat theories of media conspiracies, you ought to be a lot clearer with your facts.
The only thing reassuring to me about your post is that I don't think that there are enough of people like you, and that your ilk are not electorally active enough, to get Trump elected to anything. As 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."
I, for one, am tired of all the Trump drama.
Four years of drama? No thank you.
Trump is following a successful precedent. Our current president hasn't shown his face on Fox news for about 5-6 years.
Mick - Here's the transcript that puts the lie to your claim about the Megyn Kelly program on the Fox News Channel:
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/21/leading-conservative-voices-unite-to-stop-donald-trump/
I find Trump refreshing. I guess that's what you get when a non-politician gets in on the act.
I can't watch it, but I will listen to it on WOR 710 AM in New York, where it will be broadcast. Trump's being absent doesn't change my decision. It only slightly educes the interest of the debate. No answer in your poll was right, because I intend to hear it on the radio.
Absolutely Tim In Vermont.
Fox just handed Iowa to Trump. After Iowa Trump has a clear path to the nomination. After this is over Trump should publicly thank Fox for giving him the Iowa primary.
“I will not be toyed with,” says Trump. This is the tactic Obama should have taken at the beginning with Iran. We might have a different nuclear agreement rather than the capitulation Obama has assisted the Ayatollahs with. Yeah, I know. Obama would have screwed it up anyway.
Last night I suspected that the Fox statement, which is a 100% troll, was taken from the Onion. I could not wrap my head around the fact that Fox actually issued that idiotic statement. When as usual I brewed my coffee and fired up my DVR this morning I saw MSNBC and the rest of the cable networks licking their chops over this huge PR mistake Fox has made. If you pick a fight never give the opponent the ammunition to kill you. Any PR person could have told them what a mistake that statement would be.
After every debate anti-Trump commentors and the pundits have hotly declared that Trump lost the debate. But every denial proved to be false because Trump, according to the polling, always emerges from every debate with a fresh new high in the polls. But the anti-Trump folks just gnash their teeth and make the same stupid assertion after every debate. Trump does not lose debates. Trump does not need Fox. Embrace the cascade.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I strongly disliked the type of question that Megyn Kelly asked Trump in that first debate. The general type is that which is supposed to be justified because it addresses the candidate's character. My opinion is that it isn't the debate moderator's job to ask about character-this is something voters should discern for themselves, in the course of the candidates answering substantive questions, and through the campaign organizations disseminating ads that are pro and con.
Furthermore, it was eye-roll inducing that the female moderator asked a candidate to defend his treatment of women. It would have been perfectly appropriate, even laudable, if Trump had given a dismissive answer - say by pointing out that he is abrasive toward both men and women and doesn't expect modern women to expect to be treated differently than men.
The feud that followed all of this, instead, has been childish (and I lean toward the explanation that it has actually been staged to be mutually beneficial to Fox and Trump.)
None of this is flattering to Trump supporters, and the commenter here who compared Trump walking out to a hypothetical Romeny walking out after the Candy Crowley affair- give me a break. The two situations were not analogous at all. One was a type of question that has become commonplace in media coverage of campaigns- a problem which should be addressed by candidates rebuffing the questioner. The other was a situation where a candidate misstated facts and the moderator backed up the false account, on an issue of enough importance to voters that it potentially turned the election. Romney should have fought back, up to and including a refusal to participate in future events with the network, because it was that egregious. It wasn't just bias or mean questioning- it was outright fraud.
Beaumont said...
I like how Fox News, without pretense, openly acknolwedges its efforts to influence the news it covers
This is justifiable in the sense that it is Rupert's network and he can do what he wants with it. But, it is far from ideal from the perspective of the Republican party, which is desperately trying to hold together an increasingly shaky coalition of working people and Chamber of Commerce quislings ('all immigrants are God's children').
Perhaps Trump as president will stop the policy of our government making people rich.
I think we need a petition to get Megyn Kelly on the moderator team for all the remaining debates.
"Let me preface my remarks by saying that I strongly disliked the type of question that Megyn Kelly asked Trump in that first debate. The general type is that which is supposed to be justified because it addresses the candidate's character. My opinion is that it isn't the debate moderator's job to ask about character-this is something voters should discern for themselves, in the course of the candidates answering substantive questions, and through the campaign organizations disseminating ads that are pro and con."
See, I don't think Kelly's question was all that out of bounds--she wasn't asserting anything about his character, but was pointing out that he does have a record of a number of statements that the Dems would use against him to scare women. He's given a chance to address them--anything from "they were out of context" to "people looking closely at my record will see that I respect women" to "my nasty remarks to some particular women are no nastier than my remarks towards particular men--I treat people equally" would have sufficed. Instead, he reacted like a thin skinned child who wasn't ready for the question and didn't like that they went there at all. Would he be better off if Fox sidestepped the issue until Hillary used it on him in the general election?
"The feud that followed all of this, instead, has been childish (and I lean toward the explanation that it has actually been staged to be mutually beneficial to Fox and Trump.)"
That it has--no real substance out of it all, no real addressing the issue (which should have been put to bed in the debate itself, and done with), and of course plenty of ink and pixels for Trump and Fox which benefitted them both, so kudos I suppose?
"None of this is flattering to Trump supporters, and the commenter here who compared Trump walking out to a hypothetical Romeny walking out after the Candy Crowley affair- give me a break. The two situations were not analogous at all. "
Absolutely. Crowley actually INTERCEDED to say one of the debators was correct! That is something, but it is not moderating. Romney should have either ended the debate or called her on it, and shamed the media for covering for Obama there--maybe shown some spine and put those jerks on the defensive. Crowley should have had to apologize right there for that. Trump/Kelly, on the other hand, was a case of a moderator asking a question the candidate wasn't comfortable with. ALL candidates should be asked questions they're not comfortable with! Even if the premise of the question is wrong--and in this case, it really wasn't wrong--the candidate can simply take it apart in his answer. Newt was famous for this in the 2012 debate. Think Kelly phrased it wrong? Then re-phrase your answer! That's the first rule of answering questions in depositions, and the same for debates.
I saw MSNBC and the rest of the cable networks licking their chops over this huge PR mistake Fox has made.
Yeah, I just saw a segment the Today show this morning that presented the situation in an even-handed informative manner. They even had Mark Helperin on stating that Trump was showing strength, and the anchors did not dispute this. Meanwhile, on Fox, nobody is saying the word "coward" but they are implying it pretty damned hard. Not quite sure what Fox's strategy is here. Alienate all the Trump supporters? Wouldn't want independents and disaffected Democrats watching Fox news after all.
The feud that followed all of this, instead, has been childish (and I lean toward the explanation that it has actually been staged to be mutually beneficial to Fox and Trump.)
Wishful thinking. It infects many anti-Trump commentors.
None of this is flattering to Trump supporters, and the commenter here who compared Trump walking out to a hypothetical Romeny walking out after the Candy Crowley affair- give me a break. The two situations were not analogous at all.
The above denial is laughable. Trump for all intents and purposes has won Iowa. It’s more or less over for Cruz. Fox has not only been screwed by Trump but with that childish troll “statement” Fox has bent over so Trump has a better angle of entry. Amazing. But here is an anti-Trump commentor who is trying to make a distinction without difference. It’s this kind of arguing about irrelevant details(and getting it wrong) that make us Trump supporters glad. And we love to be insulted for being supporters. Embrace the cascade.
This is a political mistake for Trump. First, it will leave the stage to Ted Cruz and he will not pass up this opportunity. Second, in the eyes of many potential supporters, it makes Trump looking like a coward, afraid of a woman. And third, it feeds the stereotype that all bullies are cowards.
The wiser course would have been for Trump to prepare himself to attack the merits of any of Kelly's questions that he does not like. Refuse to answer, engage her on the fairness of the question, and claim it was motivated by bias.
As I've went through life, I've noticed that it's one thing to call another man a coward, but quite another thing to call a man a coward to his face.
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.
grackle: The FNC response to Trump was surely intended to be funny, insulting, and unusually (envelope-pushingly) provocative. 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.
CStanley, isn't that the goal? To have an effect over your followers? Aren't all of the candidates striving for the same results?
This is an investment
It may cost Trump a little, but he doesn't need it.
He's hoping to cow reporters in the future. China uses exactly the same tactics.
And so did Saddam Hussein.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/the-news-we-kept-to-ourselves.html
Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders.
He gives as a reason for not reporting, though, possible harm to their own people, and others, rather than losing access.
There are all kinds of governments that do this. Iran does this thing also, although they arrest reporters, too.
Trump calculates that news organizations need him more than he needs reporters.
He may also calculate that this is something that the Clintons have achieved, and he wants it too.
@Brando- note that I didn't say Kelly's question was out of bounds, I said that I strongly dislike that type of questioning. It's personal opinion-I guess I find it a bit condescending that the media feels the need to feed the narratives, and I feel that they waste far too much time on it.
Chuck said...
"Mick - Here's the transcript that puts the lie to your claim about the Megyn Kelly program on the Fox News Channel:"
So everything else I said is OK then? The transcript is one thing, but the scowling demeanor and agreement with the NR propagandists., and the sensationalization of the NR mag. issue, and the characterization of them as staunch "conservatives" (there are no "conservatives", that is merely a label--- all of the political actors are the same-- it is all about power OVER the people.)
It went on for 40 minutes, so it was just about the whole show. SHE SERVED AS THE STRAIGHT MAN FOR THEIR JIBES--OBVIOUSLY.
What? do you work for FOX "NEWS" propaganda network? Or are you one of those fake "conservatives" who have done nothing with a majority in both houses, and let the Usurper do whatever he wants? How has that majority worked out for you? Do you still think there is a difference between the D team and the R team? If so you are really dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEP-WRGYpSI
AllenS - the kind of effect that puts emotion over rationality is unhealthy in my view. It's undeniable that politicians have to do this to an extent but I'm always wary of it.
Patterico notes:
http://patterico.com/2016/01/26/donald-trump-2012-these-republican-candidates-are-cowards-for-skipping-this-debate/#comment-1819190
...That in 2012, Donald Trump tried to sponsor his own debate, which he would moderate, but the Republican candidates were not interested, and he went on TV with Megyn Kelly and critized the Republicans for being cowards, and even told Megyn Kelly that she was a great debate moderator! , saying in that interview:
MEGYN KELLY: [with a mock air of taking offense]: Do you really think you’re a better moderator than I am?
TRUMP: No, I could never beat you. That wouldn’t even be close. That would be no contest. You have done a great job, by the way. And I mean it.
MEGYN KELLY: Thank you. I’m glad we cleared that up.
I'm not sure what gave Obama two terms as POTUS, emotion or rationality, but I guess that I should be wary of both then.
"The only thing reassuring to me about your post is that I don't think that there are enough of people like you, and that your ilk are not electorally active enough, to get Trump elected to anything. As 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."
If it weren't for Trump many people would not vote at all. That he is giving the middle finger to these political criminals is the reason for his power. Otherwise compliance is legality. "Fair and balanced" are words, and that is all, with respect to FOX.
AllenS- it sure seemed like a lot of emotion was involved, don't you think?
Just curious, are you a Trump supporter?
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. Megyn can ask Hillary pointed and difficult questions and Hillary, with her grace, poise and charm, can show the world how a true professional responds to hostile questions. I'm sure it will top even that congressional appearance as a study in courage and mastery of the facts......The audience will make the obvious comparison between Hillary's wisdom and Trump's bluster. Hillary will go on to win the election, almost by acclamation. America will go on to another four years of peace and prosperity......I'm sure even as I write this Hillary's representatives are arranging the interview with Megyn.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा