Donald Trump has a rule at his rallies: for the fifty minutes before he takes the stage, the only music that can be played is from a set list that he put together. The list shows a sensitive side, mixing in Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” and music from “Cats” and “The Phantom of the Opera.” But it’s heavy on the Rolling Stones—“Sympathy for the Devil,” “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” and the famously impolitic “Brown Sugar.” The young volunteer in charge of music for one rally sent me the full Trump-curated playlist and asked for requests. “Remember,” he said, “the more inappropriate for a political event, the better.”And don't miss the great Barry Blitt cover ("My biggest challenge was to alter the Presidents’ expressions to make them reflect attitudes of consternation... Teddy Roosevelt generally looks angry and somewhat appalled, so he was the easiest."):
ADDED: What does the song "Sympathy for the Devil" mean? Mick Jagger has said that it's not about the mythological figure Satan but about the evil within human beings. The lyrics support that interpretation as they call attention to war and assassination. But the "I" singing the words is Satan. Still, no ordinary politician would want to allow any room for speculation that he's the Devil. The line I find most interestingly connected to Trump is: "But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game."
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
That cover is cropped- just to Kennedy's right is Reagan flashing that iconic smile.
The way to defuse Trump is to defuse Hillary. But that's not seriously happening.
Just what we need. A micro-manager on all the important stuff. Just like Carter scheduling the WH tennis courts.
Watch Megyn Kelly destroy Trump this week.
"Sledgehammer"
I bet Reagan thought of stuff like this too. He was hyper focused on "how" the communication was being presented. Now, I'm not comparing Trump to Reagan, except in the sense of hyper focus on communication.
"Something funny always happens when we start that number."
January 31, 2016. The presidents look with consternation at Obama.
January 2, 2016. The presidents look with consternation at Clinton.
January 3, 2016. The presidents look with consternation at Sanders.
The silly hour with one left to go.
Having Kennedy among the watching presidents pretty much spoils the message.
Washington owned slaves.
JFK cheated on his wife.
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and jailed journalists.
FDR put Japanese Americans into internment camps.
TR supported the colonization of the Philippines.
In Washington's time they played a song about Doodle, and to "let the girls be handy".
I always think the best campaign song is "move it in, move it out, disco lady"...
Did FDR ever see any television? Surely Washington, Lincoln and TR never did. Kennedy is the guy who made Television Presence a key attribute for national politicians. He's probably upset because Trump is even better at it than he was. The rest are just appalled by the idea of television.
It's only Rock-n-Roll
But I like it. I like it. I like it. Yes I do.
I did the thing of clicking on the link -- and came upon Mr. Lizza's already outdated article. Lizza makes the assumption the establishment, forced between Cruz and Trump, would pick Cruz. It's already clear that he is very mistaken. Strip away the camera ready pc abuse, and you have the outline of Karl Rove's/David Frum's politics -- generally don't rock the boat fiscal policy, maintaining the government dominated status quo, and talking real real tough in some area, and hypnotizing enough people to actually believe that tough talk will lead to tough action, and tough action will not end up being a disaster.
This sort of politics got us the Iraq War and no budget relief, and some temporarily happy Republicans. I fear much the same is coming, with a little additional willful stupidity added by the Can Dish It Out But Can't Really take It Mr. Bush.
G. Washington and the worst presidents evar are consternated. By the style of drawing, I'd guess.
past presidents don't vote(
All political parties should be required to play Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention at all events. Preferably while everyone takes acid.
The events would be much more interesting, entertaining, and honest.
er.. I wrote Bush, meant Trump...Since Trump is what the press thought George W. was, it was a Freudian slip...
What is Kennedy doing in the company of substantive figures like Washington and Lincoln? He was at best a mediocrity.
I always love a good appeal to authority, especially when the authorities are not available to contradict the words being put into their mouths.
What, no Reagan? Why include JFK, a failed president? I am no Trump supporter but I think he would probably be a more capable leader than JFK.
The New Yorker cover is interesting. You could substitute Trump with Obama celebrating the new Constitutional "right" for men to marry men, and you'd have the exact same Presidential reactions.
Tiamat has the best version of "Sympathy for the Devil".
As to why Trump would play that at his rallies? Probably because:
a) He likes the song.
b) He knows people dissect everything he does, so he decided to have some fun.
FDR was tougher on "foreigners" than Trump, as a campaigner was an equally bombastic populist, and of course also came from NY royalty. Sly as he was, he'd "get" the Donald better than the others.
I can think of few places I could go to, to read (a) better blog posts -- kudos, Althouse -- or (b) better comments from the readers. Kudos, Althouse commenters.
I'm curious how many New Yorker subscribers there are here. I am. I've been a subscriber since the late tenure of William Shawn. And it wasn't anywhere near so partisan in those days. As it grew intensely partisan, I still liked reading it (like I listen to NPR) even though the politics were offensive. I think there are a sizable number of Republicans who are as unapologetically conservative as anyone in the nation, who do listen to NPR and read the New Yorker. We're smarter, as a result, than the liberals who confine themselves to ONLY NPR and the New Yorker (and the Times and MSNBC).
The SJW term "tone policing" is very appropriate here. It was originally created by black feminists to criticize white feminists who said they were too loud and angry. The MSM is tone policing Trump. Strikes me as an echo of the criticism of Elvis for his hip swaggering ways. They're basically saying "if you don't know which fork to use for the salad, you can't have a seat at the table." Trump just isn't proper enough. Progressives are the modern day puritans.
He is riffing off familiarity with the laid back types that seem better on a cool medium called Television. Back in the day, two of those President guys gave as powerful a speeches with as much impact as DJT does now, those being JFK and FDR. But all three of them were mild mannered when compared to TR who yelled for an hour. And where is HST dropping A-Bombs, integrating the Military and Federal Government and creating Israel. and then giving em hell?
A claim anyone is shocked by Trump's lacking solemnity and gravitas in our age of Female and Ascendancy and metrosexual males, is just slyly accusing Trump of being an Alpha Male outsider.
Make America Alpha Male Again is Trump's war cry. Now listen to the music an Alpha Male likes.
The MSM covered it up, but FDR was a philatelist. He didn't just engage in this "hobby" by himself. He liked to have women present when he did it, and one of them was a blood relative. Trump has his flaws, but I'm certain that this is something that in a million years he would never even think of doing.
Waiting for Guns and Roses "Used To Love Her" to show up. Or is that too recent? It's the ultimate stereotypedl white male tune:
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her, oh yeah but I had to kill her
I had to put her six feet under
And I can still hear her complain
Nonapod said...
Tiamat has the best version of "Sympathy for the Devil".
It's one of the 59 versions I've got, but...no. The best is the Altamont recording.
Some interesting takes worth checking out, perhaps, are by "Orchestre Barbes" (Jamaican/African), "Big Mess" (big band), Laibach (entire album, #4) and Ozzy Osbourne. Oh, and the London Symphony (operatic, weird but dull).
@Chuck
I respect the New Yorker, but I don't subscribe and never will. I concede that they have smart guys and gals there with substantial influence in certain circles, no doubt.
But, they have become doctrinaire political Leftists, camouflaged by an erudite writing style, and flawless grammar. (Nice use of "erudite," no? I looked it up.)
You can tell when someone cannot engage in a honest assessment of ideas -- when they cannot fairly and honestly even state their opponent's position. The New Yorker cannot fairly and honestly even describe a Republican's view on abortion, gay marriage, high taxes, illegal immigration, without caricaturing it into a strawman and then flailing it.
Anyone can win an argument doing that.
So, I say nyet to the New Yorker.
Maybe these guys ought to have their campaign people find new or current music. The old farts won't notice and the young people might actually notice that the candidate doesn't seem old enough for the glue factory.
William,
"The MSM covered it up, but FDR was a philatelist. He didn't just engage in this "hobby" by himself. He liked to have women present when he did it, and one of them was a blood relative. Trump has his flaws, but I'm certain that this is something that in a million years he would never even think of doing."
Yes, stamp collecting is truly scandalous in this day and age.
No Cult of Personality?
Using Scott Adams' (of Dilbert fame) hypothesis, that Trump is using his skills as a Master Persuader, not acting as a typical politician, I can explain the playlist.
The impolitic music is meant to reinforce the image of Trump as a non-politician, which is a major basis of his campaign.
Simple, explains all the songs, and any other song that is used in future (except maybe if he starts using Marilyn Monroe's version of Happy Birthday).
@ Bay area guy: the famous New Yorker cartoon depicting the Manhattanite view of the country isn't just a sharp cartoon, it's really how the New Yorker writers and editors view the world. Like you said, they are an erudite circle-jerk.
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
. . .
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
. . .
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all
It was you and me
Trump's hand-selected campaign music.
I could stand in the middle of Fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters.
--Donald Trump
It makes one wonder who holds Trump's supporters in lower regard: the media or Trump himself.
I was a philatelist when I was younger. But I gave it up. Too much sticking.
Why is "Sympathy for the Devil" played at Donald Trump rallies?!
Because he is the anti-Christ. Haven't you been paying any attention?
Besides the fact Trump is Satan, and his followers are devil worshippers, he is playing the song because it's kick ass rock 'n' roll!
It makes one wonder who holds Trump's supporters in lower regard: the media or Trump himself.
Or maybe he likes the song. I personally think it is a pretty good meditation on how people tend to enable evil by cooperating with it.
Doesn't Donald Trump have to use a set list? He might get a ceae and desist order from a musician who didn't like him.
I've always been pretty wary of Trump, but now that I know that he is a Stones fan I feel much better about his candidacy.
Foghat gets no respect.
althouse: "Why is "Sympathy for the Devil" played at Donald Trump rallies?!"
"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste"
When Cruz lost Sarah Palin, he lost it all. The Donald probably still plays Sympathy for the Devil to irritate Cruz and his Iowa Pastors Politicians who are pushing Cruz to run the USA as Church with Church rules, as determined by them of course. A Christian Sharia.
I think Trump is operating on two levels. On one level he doesn't care if he wins or loses, he just wants to have a good time. Afterall, would his life be any better as President? On this level, he can say or do any crazy shit he wants and not care about the consequences.
On another level, he wants to win because he's competitive. He sees the other candidates around him as losers, inferior to himself. He wants to beat them and enjoys taking them down.
He's striking a chord with many voters on both levels. They like that he's having a good time and defies convention. They also like that he's coming across as a winner and taking down candidates they don't like.
I'm curious how many New Yorker subscribers there are here.
I subscribe. There really is nothing else that contains so many long varied articles on so many things. And I don't like the political observations very much, although you can still pick up a fact or two.
I mean if you know any two lines from the song, it's those.
We know Bernie likes Simon and Garfunkel. Probably likes Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream too. (Pretends to be counter-culture, but sold out to corporate interests as soon as possible.)
We know that Hillary is not a fan of Tammy Wynette, but is their any indication of who she is a fan of. I bet she pretends to like the Beetles, but her greatest secret is that she had Davy Jones posters on her bedroom wall. Till this day.
Boiling heat, Summer stench
'Neath the black the sky looks dead
Call my name through the cream
And I'll hear you scream again
From the lost libretto of Il Trovatore.
Not going to be played at a Hillary Clinton event.
https://vimeo.com/58978718
I don't think much of Donald Trump's support comes from anything he says in his speecges.
And just about his whole campaign, indeed, is to appear more politically incorrect than anyone else, and to say things that nobody else will say. He says the most reasonable thing that no other candidate will agree with.
He's positioning himself against everyone (and Cruz is positioning himself against elected Republicans in Congress)
Bay Area Guy: I wish it were as simple as the New Yorker being 'left wing.' I think it is worse than that; I think the New Yorker is calculatingly partisan. They aren't really principled about left-wing politics; they have a soft spot it seems for some of the Clinton's and for Al Gore's extremist corporate cronyism.
No, the New Yorker has a grudge against Republicans, and it is focused and it is more or less intensely and peculiarly partisan.
Ken Auletta is an example. Ken's a brilliant writer, and a fantastic storyteller. (He does financial and technology writing.) And he's no leftist. He's a welcome staple of the New Yorker staff. The New Yorker has a pretty grand appetite for lots of things that aren't truly lefty. It is remarkably trained on favoring certain Democrats, and despising all Republicans.
Amexpat said...
On another level, he wants to win because he's competitive.
Even beat them, in the category of spending less money on his campaign.
Sammy Finkelman said...
Doesn't Donald Trump have to use a set list? He might get a ceae and desist order from a musician who didn't like him.
I bet Trump would love to get a cease and desist order from a band for playing their music. I assume he has secured the rights to play the songs through the proper legal channels. He would simply tell the bands that if they didn't want him playing their music at his rallies, they shouldn't have sold out.
Ron Winkleheimer said...1/25/16, 11:19 AM
We know that Hillary is not a fan of Tammy Wynette,
What do you mean, you "know" she's not a fan of tammy Wynetter?
In 1992, she said she was not being like tammy Wynette 'standing by your man" when she doing precisely that. Well, actually more calculated than that.
Lincoln looks a lot like that preacher who slowly went crazy on "Deadwood".
Wasn't the Yankee Doodle "And WITH the girls be handy" ?
Implication obviously being a success at flirting.
Being a "dandy" furthermore indicates a desire to impress the girls.
Sammy what are the three most famous/recognizable/noteworthy "reasonable" things that Trump has said?
I know that he's said things that, while fun/funny/provocative, they were not at all "reasonable." Like banning all Muslims. Trump himself had to walk that back a bit. Or saying that John McCain was not a war hero because McCain was captured. Or saying that he'd put a 35% import tax on auto parts unless US automakers agreed to relocate auto production to the US.
None of those things are "reasonable." It may be interesting, and discussion-provoking, to suggest that we will deport 11 million people. Maybe it moves the debate in a direction that you think is useful. But on its own, it is not close to being "reasonable."
Sammy, your comment got me thinking about what if anything Trump has said that is "reasonable," and I could not think of anything. So maybe you and/or others can come up with something. I'm all ears.
In 1992, she said she was not being like tammy Wynette 'standing by your man" when she doing precisely that. Well, actually more calculated than that.
I think that's why she looked so pissed off when she denied being like Tammy Wynette, She wasn't just standing by Bill, she was enabling him.
Fought to tend the cave for that god Zane Grey
"buwaya said...
Wasn't the Yankee Doodle "And WITH the girls be handy" ?
Implication obviously being a success at flirting.
Being a "dandy" furthermore indicates a desire to impress the girls."
No, Dandy means obsessed with clothing and personal appearance...and is often associated with gays.
Maybe the Clintons beat the shit out of "Don't Stop" [thinking about tomorrow], because if you think to much about what they did yesterday you'd be forced to indict them both.
Not going for the youth vote...
This actually could be a pretty good song for Hillary's events, if she wasn't so uptight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRNFus7Pbp4
Chuck said...
Bay Area Guy: I wish it were as simple as the New Yorker being 'left wing.' I think it is worse than that; I think the New Yorker is calculatingly partisan They aren't really principled about left-wing politics; they have a soft spot it seems for some of the Clinton's and for Al Gore's extremist corporate cronyism.
That seems to descrobe the New York Daily News even more, going back to 1994. They cn be against Cuomo and New York City politicians, but not national Democrats, or at least certain ones they pick.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/newt-gingrich-crybaby-famous-daily-news-cover-explained-blog-entry-1.1637386
This CryBaby cartoon - what amiounts to a political cartoon on the front page - was blown up and cited on the House floor by Charles Schumer, as if it was something impartial.
This was designed to stop Republicans from telling the truth: That Bill Clinton was responsible for the government shutdown. He vetoed teh continung resolution. That had hurt George Bush 41 in 1990.
Clinton contrived to narrow the differences nd make the Republicans look unreasonable.
Now what was going on was that Newt Gingrich went along on the trip to Yitchak Rabin;sa funeral, with the ida in part that he and Clinton could reach a compromise, but Bill Clinton refused to talk with him, spending much of that time playing hearts with Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman.
This cartoon was designed to shut Newt Gingrich up, and it succeeded, and Clinton won the 1996 election the next year. Gingrich should never have let up on this at all.
. I'm all ears
Cmon Chuck. Who you trying to kid?
If anyone on this site is more closed minded toward Trump, I'd be shocked.
The New York Daily News had also been on the other side of the New York Post on the Vincent Foster case every day or two from Januay through March 1994 on the Vincent Fister case, running rebuttals to New York Post artucles by Christopher Ruddy, culminating on the MArch 1994 article that the Daly News somehow got Mike McAlary (who at that time was working for them) to write, giving a leaked (and someone false version) of what Robert B. Fiske would report on Vincent Foster's death, which nobody has ever alluded to in the years since. But it had to be a leak from an inside source.
It appeared on March 14, 1994 (the actual date)
The New Republic article that appeared on page 10 and 11 of the magazine dated March 14, 1994, that I think is the closest thing to a smoking gun on that case that we have, that leaked an "explanation" of a secret unscheduled meeting between Saudi Arabian Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan and President Clinton and deputy national security adviser Samuel (Sandy) Berger, that occured "in July" was also dated March 14, 1994, but like most magazine articles, came out a week or so in advance of the date on the cover.
Chuck, he didn't say to ban all Muslims. He said TEMPORARILY stop them from coming in until we get the vetting process figured out. Don't be obtuse.
Confess I haven't read all the comments, but Mark Steyn has hypothesized that the campaign music is music from artists who happen to be his tenants. That way none of them complain.
The New York Daily News didn't really show such great signs of front cover partisan politics again, until after the San Bernardino massacre. Maybe there were a few cases.
TEMPORARILY stop them from coming in until we get the vetting process figured out.
Which could be never, or simultaneously with an executive order issued within hours of his inauguration.
"I'm curious how many New Yorker subscribers there are here".
I do and many residents in my building do-New Yorker is most popular magazine in my building followed by The Economist.
Probably more of a regional thing-probably not many New Yorker subscriptions in say Alabama.
tits.
"Why is "Sympathy for the Devil" played at Donald Trump rallies?!
Because he is the anti-Christ. Haven't you been paying any attention?
Just so. He's riffing on his critics. It's pretty basic Dude stuff though I doubt many chicks get it. Trump isn't a culture warrior and that's going to be an adjustment for both the Right and the Left.
I don’t see what is so unique and terrible about Donald Trump. The “establishment” was equally horrified by Andrew Jackson defeating John Quincy Adams. It was a sea-change triumph of populists over moneyed eastern establishment. The inauguration party nearly destroyed the White House. There is nothing new, all this has happened before.
Bobby (and William), obviously FDR was no physicist.
"You shouted out, who killed the Kennedy's? When after all it was ... me."
On Fifth Avenue.
The Economist is a grave disappointment.
They were great, once, but are now an echo chamber.
And because of the internet no longer a particularly good source of international news.
If you want a consulting job in an international organization, its still got good want ads.
The “establishment” was equally horrified by Andrew Jackson defeating John Quincy Adams.
The support for both Trump and Sanders is very Jacksonian in nature.
I just wonder if Donald Trump is not listening to some secret, or undisclosed, consultant - or maybe just somebody in his campaign to whom attention is not being drawn to.
There's too much for him to come up with all of that himself. Even if he's been following politics, and talking politics (with people seeking campaign contributions at least) for over 30 years.
The Wall Street Journal reports today on Donald Trump's cynicism (which we know anyway)
(You have to find your own link anyway, but it starts on today's front page)
NASHUA, N.H. - Donald Trump made his decision to start skewering Sen. Ted Cruz as his private jet was approaching here earlier this month.
"Ted is hanging around the top too long," the Republiucan presidential front-runner announced on the plane, according to his campaign manager. "Time to take him down."
Donald Trump actually telegraphed this months ago, saying he might have to attack Trump and somehow people didn't echo and remark on this cynicism.
He attacks anyone high in the polls, trying to stay the clear front runner and split the opposition.
By the way,it should be mentioned, Trump would pay for the plane anyway. It's not even costing him anything out-of-pocket.
Campaign finance laws consider contributions in kind contributions, so he has to have his campaign pay for it, while he loans his campaign the money. His campaign just writes a check for its share of the plane's maintanance costs. And that's agood portion of his campaign expenditures. He hasn't done any polls that we know of - why should he, with all the free polls he gets? And he has run very few ads, even running ads only so that nobody should say he's not running ads, and maybe he's not such a serious candidate.
He has relatively little staff. He's running a presidential campaign like 100 years ago.
There's at least one outside consultant mentioned. He got the 2 Corinthians quote from an e-mail by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who suggested he use it at the Liberty University speech, and he copied it down exactly.
Bay Area Guy
"...The New Yorker cannot fairly and honestly even describe a Republican's view on abortion, gay marriage, high taxes, illegal immigration, without caricaturing it into a strawman and then flailing it...."
As a New Yorker subscriber I can say you are wrong. The New Yorker uses caricatures for its cartoons and covers but not for its writing or analysis or criticisms. They very clearly know Republican views and they can articulate them. However, the magazine is not Republican or conservative; they are liberal / centrist. They don't hide that fact but they have some pretty good articles on conservative politics - granted they are not fair and balanced. But the articles are not caricature in nature.
@ Matt
As a New Yorker subscriber I can say you are wrong.
That's ok, my wife says it all the time. Although you might be suffering from the "fish not understanding wet" syndrome, if you are a loyal subscriber and left of center.
The New Yorker uses caricatures for its cartoons and covers but not for its writing or analysis or criticisms.
Really? David Reminick? John Cassidy? Jane Mayer? Jeffrey Toobin? These guys/gals are all leftists, in the same vein as Pauline Kael ("nobody I know is voting for Nixon")
They very clearly know Republican views and they can articulate them.
This is called "argument by assertion." Show me a good article in the New Yorker that fairly presents a Conservative viewpoint, or Heaven forbid, is written by a Conservative (Thomas Sowell, Mark Helprin, or the like) and I will gladly concede defeat.
However, the magazine is not Republican or conservative; they are liberal / centrist.
They are liberal, left of center. But mostly agreed.
They don't hide that fact but they have some pretty good articles on conservative politics - granted they are not fair and balanced.
Well, I'm kinda saying that they are not fair and balanced.
But the articles are not caricature in nature.
Well, we're arguing in the abstract. I do often read the New Yorker, and if you wanna show me what you think is a fair article, I will check it out, and point out its flaws -- however, in so doing, we may bore all the commentators at Althouse.
Good point Professor. Sympathy for the Devil that is in men is actually part of Presbyterian Calvinist Theology. Jesus sacrificed Himself as the substitute sacrifice to die for men that have the devil in them. Those man are described as being in a Totally Depraved state until Jesus gives them the free gift of salvation. That is why confessing their sins all day long appears silly to a Presbyterian. If God picked them to do that for them when you were totally depraved and had no faith, what can they add to that now.
So I go and google the song, and what comes up first after typing in the first word in Google's suggested targets but "Sympathy for the Devil"!
Althouse has clout; don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Bay Area Guy
In my world there is a large gap between a legitimate article and caricature. I clearly stated the New Yorker is liberal / centrist. [Some would say left]. That means they report from a particular point of view that is certainly leaning one way - but it's not caricature. Read the coverage by Ryan Lizza. This is a recent article. It's rather boring and straight forward, actually.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-g-o-p-establishment-doesnt-need-to-surrender-yet
I'm a man of wealth (yes) and taste (uh-oh).
Certainly lots of people are puzzled by the nature of Trump's game.
Ooh, once he gets into his budget plans, he ought to play
motorrad;
Oh, cripes. I was speaking in shorthand. Yeah, yeah, Trump did throw in the part about "until our leaders can figure out what is going on," for which he ad-libbed, "what the hell is going on."
Yeah, yeah, I get all of that part.
And Trump's statement is absolutely every bit as stupid as what I initially indicated. It doesn't matter if Trump implied that it should be for a finite period of time (although "until out leaders figure out what the hell is going on" might be a hard standard to defend in federal court). And it doesn't matter if a handful of legal scholars across the country concluded, "With such broad presidential powers in the area of immigration enforcement, he just might get away with such a ban!"
It is still a stupid statement.
@ Matt
The Lizza article in the New Yorker you cited, was indeed fairly reasonable. It was very short and more of a simple horse-race article (Trump or Cruz) not too in depth. But, Yes, pretty vanilla. So, I will concede defeat on that one. Harumph. Get me something by John Cassidy or Jane Mayer next time!
Not sure why I cut myself off, but once he gets to the details of his budget plans Trump ought to play Paint It Black.
“the more inappropriate for a political event, the better.”
Ryan Lizza is the closest thing to fair-minded that the New Yorker has.
There's Jane Mayer. Hendrick Hertzberg. The aforementioned Cassidy. There's editor-in-chief David Remnick, who is just about the most pro-Obama partisan there is in print media. There used to be Sy Hersh for that matter! And too many others to name.
"Now, I'm not comparing Trump to Reagan,"
Actually, there is a reasonable comparison.
One, Reagan was hated by the establishment, which I think led to his poor choice of Bush as VP when Kemp would have been far better.
Two, Reagan was an actor with actor skills and he famously said he didn't know how a presidential candidate could NOT be an actor with the talent that implied.
Three, Reagan said outrageous things like "The bombing begins in three minutes" in what was alleged to be a slip of the tongue testing a microphone but which we now know was directed at the Soviets.
He was better at humor but there were similarities.
If Trump wants to play a Stones song he should play Under My Thumb.
Under my thumb
The squirmin' dog who's just had her day
Under my thumb
A girl who has just changed her ways
It's down to me, yes it is
The way she does just what she's told
Down to me, the change has come
She's under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it's alright
Under my thumb
A Siamese cat of a girl
Under my thumb
She's the sweetest, hmmm, pet in the world
It's down to me
The way she talks when she's spoken to
Down to me, the change has come,
She's under my thumb
Ah, take it easy babe
Yeah
It's down to me, oh yeah
The way she talks when she's spoken to
Down to me, the change has come,
She's under my thumb
Yeah, it feels alright
The girl in the song are his voters, naturally
It's a great piece of music but there is something very weird and uneasy about it.
I read that after Altamont, Mick Jagger said the Stones would never perform "Sympathy for the Devil" in pubic again.
Donald Trump is the Antichrist come walk the earth.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा