My favorite part of this article is:
Asked for comment about his management style, and the current state of his campaign, Mr. Trump declined, criticizing the reporters writing this article. “You two wouldn’t know how to write a good story about me if you tried — dream on,” Mr. Trump said in an email relayed by his spokeswoman, Hope Hicks.The reporters in question are Ashley Parker and Maggie Haberman. Haberman has written 15 or so articles about Trump in the NYT in the last few days. Parker has written 5 or so. So I guess he has a basis for wanting to starve them of Trumpisms.
As long as I'm talking about Trump and dreams, here's Loudon Wainwright III with "I Had a Dream," which is about dreaming that Donald Trump is President:
I ran across that because I was looking for that quote from Donald Trump calling Bernie Sanders "a dream": "I'd love to debate Bernie, he's a dream."
पोस्ट्स
६२ टिप्पण्या:
Some people wish.
"A constant stream of changes and scuffles are roiling Donald J. Trump’s campaign team.... including the abrupt dismissal this week of his national political director."
It's a new organization with a hard deadline. It needs to be managed aggressively. The prove will be in whether or not it succeeds.
ahh, proof
And things are really going great for Hillary, also, here is Peter Navarro's opinion via CNBC Squawk Box.
I hope he is right, time will tell.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000520503&play=1
Phase 2.
Meanwhile, The New York Times plays the part of The Washington Post clinging to a successful Republican impeachment and resignation.
So let me get this straight.
A billionaire is running a campaign on a shoestring budget and minimal staff, and has managed to presumptively win the nomination of a national party, and is now running competitively with his presumptive opponent all from his instincts without a major campaign apparatus.
A non-article, poorly sourced, by the New York Pravda to try and ding up, Mr. Trump.
Doesn't quite capture the importance of the IG Report on Hillary's private server as SecState, sorry.
"My favorite part of this article is:"
My favorite part of this blog is how you imply Trump walks on water and can do no wrong.
You occasionally post a "negative" article about Trump just to sarcastically make fun of it.
Sort of like Obama and your lover boy mittens (4) years ago. It's déjà vu all over again ...
>
No wonder you thought mittens would win quite easily as you started to believe your own bull shit!
A wonderful bunch of protesters today in Fresno. Trump uses the protests. Never let a good protest go to waste …
Trump says he wants to target purple and blue states, wants to put all his “energy” into those politically ultra-secure bastions of the Left like California and Pennsylvania.
Three wins here:
It’s where most of the protesters live so Trump rallies in these venues are bound to draw larger and more outrageous protests than, say, a rally in Montana or Kentucky. Every protest hands more votes and more support to Trump.
Likewise, the media coverage will be that much larger. We can expect the MSM to overreach just as they have at every turn, just as they are doing right now, with the implication and spin that Trump is “responsible.” Future NYT headline: VIOLENCE FOLLOWS TRUMP CAMPAIGN!!! But it’s become too obvious, too predictable.
And I believe Trump may be able to move some of those states into the red column and remove at least some of the advantage the Dems enjoy in the electoral college.
As for the “Campaign Stumbles,” Trump seems to be ‘stumbling’ all the way to the oval office. Non-productive people are being given their walking papers. It’s what happens in the real world. Only the Left would be surprised or outraged by the simple act of an organization getting rid of deadwood.
Why was Scott Reed chosen to be a mouthpiece for the Times Article, I wonder. And, when interviewed, did he realize he'd be the chief source?
It needs a refrain. I nominate Dead Skunk In The Middle Of The Road.
His response is a part of the reason we like him so much.
Every free nation needs a strong media. But, we no longer have a 4th estate. Instead, we have mouth pieces for the progressive Democrats who hold to a thin veneer of unbiased reporting. Does anyone still fall for it? I suppose they do.
But those of us who don't want more push back from Trump.
We don't see it as shutting down the 4th estate.
They did that to themselves years go.
Instead, we see it as a needed measure. If they don't make changes, we are all screwed.
Annoying Orange, huh? Subtle.
Speaking of a roiled internal campaign, how has Trump avoided any more divisive criticism over this?
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11783864/jimmy-kimmel-donald-trump-transgender-bathrooms
Box does an uncharacteristically excellent write up. Including (to the delight of transcript-lovers like Althouse and me) an extended transcript of Trump and Jimmy Kimmel.
How Trump ever managed to get any support from evangelicals and social conservatives, and why those demographics are not now tearing their hair out over Trump, is beyond me.
How Trump ever managed to get any support from evangelicals and social conservatives, and why those demographics are not now tearing their hair out over Trump, is beyond me.
We know its beyond you. They got tired of being lied to by people who said they were their friends and "Vote for me and I'll protect you."
Richard Fernandez has the answer.
He’s the candidate for people who think the conventional wisdom of the American establishment is hopelessly out of touch with the real world. He’s the little boy saying that the emperor, or in this case, the aspiring empress, has no clothes. What energizes the Trump phenomenon is the very power of rejection: people who think the train is about to head off a cliff want to pull the emergency cord that stops the train even if they don’t know what happens next."
It's not that hard, chuck.
Well, Michael, since so many Trump supporters have no answer to questions about Trump's being a birther, and a vaxxer, and a truther, I am now planning on asking them about Trump's being undecided about transgender bathrooms.
I want the question to be posed to the Manhattanite Trump children, too. Get them in one side or the other of the issue. And not let them give one answer to New York society friends, and another answer to voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Iowa.
Chuck's transparent mobying has reached the point where I believe it's driving up support for Trump among the readers of this blog. Which is cool, because it illustrates in miniature the larger phenomenon. The more protests, the more media hysterics, the more Trump's numbers go up.
Trump backed out of the debate with Sanders, suddenly realizing that Sanders is the second place finisher.
http://deadline.com/2016/05/trump-backs-out-of-debate-bernie-sanders-blames-hillary-clinton-1201763466/#
This is a good Charles Murray article making his best case against Trump. It's not that it is completely unpersuasive, but you could argue that the more genuinely awful Trump is, the more effective the message will be. If you think Trump is bad wait until you see who we elect next if things don't change.
I read that Murray column at NRO when it was posted a couple of days ago. Things like that are what make me happy these days. I am glad that you read it and got some enjoyment out of it. And of course I am glad that you linked it here, since others might like it as well.
Yeah, I guess that The Donald really wouldn't so much "love" to debate Bernie after all.
LOL. Rush Limbaugh spent 75% of his 3-hour program today, bloviating about how brilliant it was, for Trump to do a Bernie debate. And how it was the Democrats' worst nightmare.
There is just no rhyme or reason with Trump. And to credit Rush, he did spend some time today talking about how Trump was simply "situational." Not an ideologue; not even ideological at all. Just whatever he saw on tv that day. And, as Rush rightly observed, driving each day's news cycle by getting on all of the early morning shows to do phone interviews to say something weird or wild, which the whole country spends the next 18 hours reacting to...
The Trump-promoting Drudge Report had been touting the Debate of the Century, complete with headline and above-the-banner photos of Trump and Sanders together.
And now... nothing but a whimper. A link to a Time article. But at least it contains Trump's press release, which is transparently bullshit. And I quote:
“Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher,” Trump said in the statement. “Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders – and it would be an easy payday – I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”
Bull-oney. There is nothing in that, that we didn't know before Trump committed to the debate.
Trump is just making up shit as he goes along. What a fuckhead.
Ideally, if I had the cash to spend, I would take out a large ad in the Times, "Yes we know he is awful, and yet we prefer him to you."
Trump wouldn't stand a chance against Sanders in a debate. He'd simply lose. And that would make him a loser. Very poor judgement on DT's part to accept Kimmel's invitation in the first place. Lucky for him his advisors held sway over his ego.
My latest favorite Trump label
"Monty Trump's Flying Circus"
"lifelong republican" chuck continues his schtick.
The check from "Ready For Hillary" must have arrived.
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" chuck continues his schtick.
The check from "Ready For Hillary" must have arrived.
Increasingly, that's it from you. You haven't got any substantive rebuttal on these Trumpist screw-ups. The best you've got, is to accuse me of supporting Hillary.
And as all of the longest-term readers of the Althouse blog know, I have never espoused anything but Movement Conservatism. Pro-Scalia. Pro-Walker. Pro-Romney. Regularly linking to the NRO, the Weekly Standard, the Federalist, the WSJ, etc.
So it is obviously just made up, from you. Nothing with which to defend Trump. You've just got your knickers in a bunch, because I haven't said anything bad about Hitlary, like a good little Trumpkin.
So here, Drago; this is for you. Just to shut your yap.
I won't ever vote for Mrs. Clinton. And I am unhappy with any Republican who suggests that she or he will do so. There is no good reason to vote for the Democrat. I think she's a liar; having learned so well from her husband no doubt. She may be indicted; I hope so. She may be a lesbian; I keep hearing that stuff but nobody ever has any proof. More than anything in this election, I fear Mrs. Clinton appointing two more Kagans and two more Sotomayors to the Supreme Court. I fear that more -- much more -- than "Donald Trump's finger on the nuclear button."
I am an election volunteer for the Republican National Lawyers Association.
There. Okay? I have said before, that there seems to be absolutely nothing that I can say, that will dissuade you from fantasizing that I am a closet Democrat and Clinton supporter. Which might make it pointless for me to keep proclaiming such things. But it also proves that you've truly go nothing with which to defend the Trumpster. Only an ad hominem attack on me.
"Trump's being undecided about transgender bathrooms."
I don't really give a shit about "transgender " bathrooms.
I do think showers and locker rooms are a terrible idea and I think the free market is going to kill the bathroom thing at public places, like Target which seems to be losing its shirt.
If the SJWs insist that public schools allow them, it will help get vouchers in places that don't have them now.
I consider public schools to be child abuse. There are a few decent ones, like the local school here where my grandchildren go. I can no longer afford to send my grandchildren to private school like I did with my kids. Part of that is demand which has ramped up price to ridiculous levels.
Chuck, I admire your patience. The Trumpkins are not going to take off their blinders or come up with rational responses to your questions, but still you engage with them here regularly I swore off for a while, long enough for the bruises from beating my head against the wall to heal.
Trump continues to make it up as he goes along, while his apologists twist themselves into knots to prove that his every move is brilliant and well-planned and part of some cosmic 3-dimensional chess game that we mere mortals who resist joining the Trump cult are too simple-minded to understand. It is bewildering and disheartening. Trump is no more a brilliant tactician than he is a brilliant businessperson.
A Sanders-Trump debate would have been quite a spectacle and possible quite illuminating. However, Bernie would have had the upper hand and Trump's advisors knew that full well. Trump did, too, I suspect. I don't think Trump realized how quickly the Sanders camp would take the idea and run with it, making it all too real a prospect. So he bailed very quickly.
Wonder how successful he's going to be at limited the number of times he has to actually stand up and debate the Democratic nominee once the general election campaign is in full swing, after the conventions? My prediction is that he'll try to limit it to two debates and that he will insist that as many other candidates, including some very fringe ones, be included. He doesn't want to go one-on-one and give his opponents a lot of time and a clear target. He'd rather have a lot of people competing for time and attention. And I suspect he'll get it, at least for the first debate.
See, Michael; I get that about you. I does not surprise me at all. I imagine that there are in fact a number of voters like you. (A small number, but not inconsiderable.) Some are off-the-charts libertarians who would be happy to see the destruction of all public schools, along with the destruction of the Republican Party.
There may be others, "fiscally conservative but socially liberal," (heard that one before?) who would be very happy to see Trump endorse same sex marriage. (And in fact I think that Trump is only slightly less of a liar, than the 2008-vintage Obama and Clinton, in saying that he believes in the traditional definition of marriage.)
But Michael; listen to right-wing talk radio. The birthplace of Trump, amid all of the ranting about "the GOP establishment." The right-wing yakkers are ALL OVER the transgender bathroom story. Basically telling their audiences that the country, under Obama's leadership, has lost its national mind. That no sane person could possibly endorse the trans-gender use of bathrooms and locker rooms in American public schools.
This is an issue that any leading Republican would either hit out of the park, or handily foul off. Trump struck out swinging. With no idea of the pitch that had been thrown past him.
ella -
That is what I thought, too. That it was all risk for Trump. And while none of us could say with certainty what would happen, I thought that Trump might get badly burned in a debate. Certainly not because Sanders is a credible candidate, but because I think Trump has a huge knowledge gap in any one-on-one debate, and he has been fundamentally overrated in all of the debates so far.
lol, the candidate who campaigns on breaking up the banks, yet doesn't know how, or we can review his 'invasion of guatemala' doc brown is an older whiter community organizer like obama, catering to the brawndo set,
In other rumors , Brett Bair reportedly said Fox news is negotiating to PAY for Trump/Sanders debate..Next up, networks bidding war for Trump/Clinton debates...
I guess Chuck missed the 43 Republican house members who voted for the transgender bathroom amendment the other day. It was later defeated, but several dozen crossed the initial line. Any opprobrium for them, Chuck?
I think Special Report with Brett Baier is the best hour of news on television on weekday evenings. I wish it repeated earlier than whatever ungodly hour it does now. I miss it far too often as it airs at 6:00 pm eastern. Not nearly enough people see it. It is the non-Trump hour on Fox. Before the three hours of Trump promotion with O'Reilly, Kelly and Hannity.
I have the feeling that Special Report is Roger Ailes' personal favorite too. Although he surely must like owning all of the prime time spots in the cable ratings quite a lot.
Lyin' Trump!
Color me SHOCKED regarding Trump's lame reversal. I guess Bernie being an outlier was news to him.
Now..just imagine his response if someone promised to debate him and backed out with a similarly lame excuse.
But..you know...he stayed atop the news cycle..so just more genius in action.
Very poor judgement on DT's part to accept Kimmel's invitation in the first place. Lucky for him his advisors held sway over his ego.
With the possible exception of the “New York values” debate Trump always seems to lose these debates. Yet Trump has easily defeated the GOP field. Puzzling. And Trump’s high “unfavorables” … while at the same time 80% of the GOP wants GOP leadership to support Trump - another apparent contradiction.
Yes, Trump was a bit too impulsive on the Jimmy Kimmel appearance. His ego got the best of him. Debates are dangerous. Best not to flirt with danger unnecessarily. Wait for Hillary. Hillary is an inherently unattractive presence while Bernie has an endearing television personality. Besides, debating Bernie head to head might alienate potential Sanders crossovers in the general.
I find it ironic that some who claim to deplore the circus atmosphere, the “reality show’” quality that Trump has supposedly brought to American politics were salivating at the prospect of a Trump/Sanders debate, which would have truly been a media circus. The American Political Reality Show started some time ago with the televised Kennedy/Nixon debates. As soon as TV entered the picture everything changed. Appearance and personality became as important as issues and policies.
About Trump’s attack on the New Mexico Governor: She’s a popular figure. She could have easily appeared at the rally and could have allowed some of that popularity to rub off on her party’s nominee. Keep in mind that it would not have cost her anything politically to be seen doing her duty to her party – it’s the sort of thing politicians do all the time. But, no.
The unanimous opinion is that Trump committed a political blunder.
But maybe Trump is sending a message, a message which is more important overall for progress toward what should be the GOP’s goal: A GOP in control of Congress, of the Whitehouse and with SCOTUS appointments to make.
And maybe the message is this: You’re either on the bus or you are off the bus. She’s an example, an object lesson.
" don't think Trump realized how quickly the Sanders camp would take the idea and run with it, making it all too real a prospect."
The more likely theory was that Trump was pumping up Bernie to defeat Hillary. His purpose was accomplished with the offer.
"Michael; listen to right-wing talk radio. The birthplace of Trump, amid all of the ranting about "the GOP establishment." The right-wing yakkers are ALL OVER the transgender bathroom story"
You really don't understand what is going on, do you. I tried to help you with a link to the Fernandez column. You would do better to read his columns than to listen to Limbaugh.
It's OK. I come here for amusement and do my thinking and learning at Chicagoboyz.
well chuck is distracted by 'small shiny objects, fernandez is too deep for him,
http://www.worldmag.com/2016/05/troubling_ties/page1
I have a dream .. I hope will come true .. that you're here for me ... and I'm here for you
(Disney -- Lava Song)
About Trump’s attack on the New Mexico Governor: She’s a popular figure. She could have easily appeared at the rally and could have allowed some of that popularity to rub off on her party’s nominee. Keep in mind that it would not have cost her anything politically to be seen doing her duty to her party – it’s the sort of thing politicians do all the time. But, no.
The unanimous opinion is that Trump committed a political blunder.
You could have stopped right there, grackle. You'd have done well to do so.
Can you imagine Trump, running this campaign and trying to stiff-arm all of the people situated similarly to Governor Martinez? It will probably include Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan. Governor Bruce Rauner of Illinois. Has Governor Kasich warmed up to Trump yet? Senator Rob Portman? Trump absolutely can't win without Ohio, and Michigan is one of the main states he hopes to flip and re-do the electoral math. There are lots of Republicans in the House, and lots more in the Senate, who are positioned much like Governor Martinez. Trump; blowing off the popular Republican governors of a half-dozen or more key electoral states. It really is electoral insanity. It might work okay, if you are Tony Soprano or Michael Corleone, and in need of absolute loyalty. But not in politics when you need absolutely every Republican, and more, in order to win 270 electoral votes.
well most of those contests are over, I think all of them, he won illinois did he not, we're talking 5 electoral votes,
Can you imagine Trump, running this campaign and trying to stiff-arm all of the people situated similarly to Governor Martinez?
“Stiff-arm?” Expecting them to do their duty and support their party’s nominee, or at least not snub him, is a “stiff-arm?” Not to me it isn’t. Ryan at least has met with Trump, has talked to Trump face to face and talked about Trump with a measure of respect. Ryan seems to recognize that snubbing Trump would be inappropriate. Ryan no doubt will appear with Trump at the convention. The primaries are over. The GOP has a nominee now. Aren’t they supposed to belong to the Republican Party?
And I have a sneaking suspicion that not all those mentioned(Snyder, Portman, etc,)by the commentor will see fit to snub Trump. Trump is pretty popular, too, especially among GOP voters. Aren’t these folks going to be running for re-election one of these days?
They have a choice to make. May it be the wise and prudent choice. But if not – so be it. They’ll be a small minority of diehards opposing the choice of their party and of most of their party’s leadership – which is getting behind Trump much quicker than any of the pundits thought possible. One pundit I saw called it “amazing.” It’s the Democrats whose party is splitting – not the GOP. Sanders’ millennials are getting so pissed at Hillary that they may vote for Trump out of spite.
How many of those potential cross-Berners felt berned by Trump's backtrack?
How many of those potential cross-Berners felt berned by Trump's backtrack?
Less than if Trump had angered them in a head to head with Bernie. But they do not have to actually vote for Trump. All they have to do is stay home on election day and it’s good for Trump. I hear that supporters whose hopes have been dashed by a rigged system are prone to that.
But I would never claim that Trump is blunder-less. This debate issue is definitely a blunder. I think Trump is a communications Einstein but even Einstein was wrong about some aspects of physics.
"Haberman has written 15 or so articles about Trump in the NYT in the last few days." In other words, she's a psychotic cyber-stalker with an NYT byline.
Grackle wrote,"The primaries are over. The GOP has a nominee now. Aren’t they supposed to belong to the Republican Party?"
Well, it helps is the nominee for president also belongs to the Republican Party. Trump does not, so far as I can see. Okay, he's currently a registered Republican, I assume. He's been a Democrat in the past. He chose to run as a Republican this time because he saw that as a softer field, a better take-over target. If there had been 17 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination and no clear front-runner, he might have made a different choice. So I don't see that politicians like Martinez or Portman need to ignore their principles and their established positions on the issues in order to gain favor with Trump at the expense of their own appeals to their own constituents. Remember, the majority of the Republicans who voted in the primaries and caucuses this year did NOT vote for Trump. There are plenty of Republicans (not to mention independents and Democrats) who will be more likely to support Martinez and other such candidates because they did not automatically endorse Trump simply because he is the presumptive nominee of their party, not less likely. Believe it or not, the presidency is not the only office up for grabs this fall and we have broader concerns than just that one office, important as it is.
I am deeply disappointed in Trump backing off the Bernie debate. Seriously. Nothing it says about him is good.
Unfortunately I have to give walter his props, as he called it and I doubted him.
Well, it helps is the nominee for president also belongs to the Republican Party. Trump does not, so far as I can see.
This is one of the arguments that does not make sense to me. Trump, as the presumptive GOP nominee, is the leader of the GOP. Trump now owns the GOP at least until after the general election. If Trump wins the general election Trump will be the head of the GOP for at least 4 years, maybe 8 years if Trump serves two terms, just as Obama has been these last 8 years. The commentor is assuming his personal negative feelings about Trump translate into fact. It’s a form of wishful thinking.
I don't see that politicians like Martinez or Portman need to ignore their principles and their established positions on the issues in order to gain favor with Trump at the expense of their own appeals to their own constituents.
Well, so far as I can see, if publicly snubbing the GOP presidential nominee is their idea of a principled stand maybe they ought to start their own party instead of trying to mess up Trump’s party.
Remember, the majority of the Republicans who voted in the primaries and caucuses this year did NOT vote for Trump.
I see this over and over again in comments. Here’s the facts: Trump has gotten more votes than any GOP political figure in history – more than Reagan and more than any of the Bush family. And this was accomplished against a field of opponents 17 strong.
There are plenty of Republicans (not to mention independents and Democrats) who will be more likely to support Martinez and other such candidates because they did not automatically endorse Trump simply because he is the presumptive nominee of their party, not less likely. Believe it or not, the presidency is not the only office up for grabs this fall and we have broader concerns than just that one office, important as it is.
I’ve heard that sometimes in politics hard choices must be made. They will have a choice. They can support their party’s nominee or they can oppose him. With Martinez’s example as a guide they must know what Trump’s attitude will be toward those who are disloyal to the Republican Party.
Grackle wrote: "With Martinez’s example as a guide they must know what Trump’s attitude will be toward those who are disloyal to the Republican Party." No, they know his attitude toward those who are disloyal (or perceived to be by Trump, the thin-skinned) to TRUMP, not to the party. Martinez inspired Trump's ire by 'allowing' riots to break out with protestors outside his rally. He said she was not doing her job as governor and perhaps he should run for her office, too. Yes, his pique was probably actually inspired in large part because she had not cozied up to him on his visit to her state. But what he said was she was not doing her job, which is being governor of her state. that's baloney.
Long-time die-hard hippie Loudon Wainwright III stays true to hippiedom and sings a 60's style trying-to-be-clever ode to the Donald and his awful regime. Kind of a bad effort though, all things considered, even if you're into that kind of thing.
I'd be OK with the U S President telling the Pope where to get off. Render unto Ceasar, all that. When it comes to politics & economics, butt out.
Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court? I'd go for that too. I suspect he has a better grasp of constitutional law & issues than a majority of the lawyers practicing in DC now.
Loudon says Trump wants to lock us up, but it's Loudon's liberal buddies who want to make it illegal to think wrongish on climate, or to criminalize religion beliefs that run contrary to groupthink on sexual mores.
It wasn't a conservative President whose IRS tried to influence US elections, or whose Secretary of State has sold influence.
And on and on and on...Loudon is wearing blinders. Maybe it's all the bong hits between takes.
Loudon III's Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road remains a classic, regardless of his smelly politics. His father Loudon jr was a very good writer. And this is so unsurprising and predictable, it's banal.
Yeah, grackle; I guess we do know how Trump will approach Republicans like Martinez who don't campaign with him.
If Martinez is the model, Trump will go after them in his typically unhinged way. What did he say about Governor Martinez (a popular Republican in a purple-blue state)? He said she wasn't "doin' the job." That she needed to get goin.' And what was the more specific nature of Trump's complaint? That there were "Syrian refugees" that were pouring into New Mexico. Huh?!? When the fuck did Syrian refugees become an issue for New Mexico?
grackle, you need to understand this: Trump is welcome, to fight rear-guard actions with Republican governors and senators he doesn't like, and whom he thinks have given The Donald insufficient support and obeisance. Because of the ones up for re-election in November, many of them may not want much of an association with Trump. Much easier for them to run as "independents" from the Trumpster, when the Trumpster himself is saying so.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-senate-gops-trump-survival-plan-1464387893
Martinez inspired Trump's ire by 'allowing' riots to break out with protestors outside his rally.
Readers, the protestors are a campaign gift to Trump. So much so that I believe that Trump has purposely picked the 15 states to hold future campaign appearances in on the basis of their likely high protestor turnout. The grand finale will be the probable riots outside the convention hall in Cleveland. Ohio is important in the electoral college and the spectacle of the gratuitous violence should bring many an Ohio voter over to Trump – not to mention voters throughout the USA. Trump couldn’t ask for better optics if he had organized them himself – which in a way, he has.
Martinez decided to snub her party’s nominee when she didn’t have to, that was her mistake. Just how big of a mistake will depend whether Trump wins the election. The protests have nothing to do with it.
If Martinez is the model, Trump will go after them in his typically unhinged way.
“Unhinged?” Decisive and clear in intent is not “unhinged,” it’s leadership. As for me personally I’ve always appreciated a boss who made it clear what was expected of me. Sometimes I didn’t like the expectations but I did my duty and got my paycheck. Now that Trump has most of the so-called GOP establishment supporting him, which is what 80% of the GOP polled wanted them to do, it was perhaps time to make an example of one of the few remaining recalcitrants. They need to know early on what their choice could mean. Here’s their choice as I see it:
They could make a brief appearance on the stage with Trump whenever their party’s nominee happens to campaign in their vicinity. It would cost them very little in political capital and all concerned would understand that they would be reluctantly doing their duty for the sake of party unity. No one would mind that they would be holding their noses as they made their brief appearances and gave their faint praises.
Or they can get on their high horses and publicly turn up their noses at their party’s nominee.
It’ll be interesting to see which way they’ll go. The commentor may be surprised.
Because of the ones up for re-election in November, many of them may not want much of an association with Trump.
That’ll depend on whether Trump has coattails. Trump is bringing in crossovers, independents, and some who have never voted before. I believe his appeal will prove to be broad. If I were them I would show up at a rally as a kind of insurance just in case Trump engineers a landslide in the general election.
"...talking about how Trump was simply "situational." Not an ideologue; not even ideological at all. Just whatever he saw on tv that day."
The book was great, the movie brilliant. "Being There," by Jerzy Kosiński, starring Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine, and Melvyn Douglas.
We could do worse for president. Hillary, for example. Bernie, for another example. Both, for the worst of both possibilities.
I think the anti-trumpers are missing the point entirely. This isn't about Trump as much as it's the middle class giving the finger to the establishment. Hell. You gave us Obama. Now it's our turn. See how you like it.
Suck it bitches.
"...talking about how Trump was simply "situational." Not an ideologue; not even ideological at all. Just whatever he saw on tv that day."
The book was great, the movie brilliant. "Being There," by Jerzy Kosiński, starring Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine, and Melvyn Douglas.
An interesting comparison, though perhaps not in the way intended by the commentors; the end of the movie has Chance nonchalantly walking on water. Freudian slip?
The end credits:
http://tinyurl.com/hqg9gvg
The idea of Trump being influenced mainly by his viewing habits is also interesting. I think it might be at least partially true. And maybe what Trump reads on Twitter, Facebook and blogs during his Twitter wars.
If Trump is a version of Chance, perhaps it helps to explain Trump’s puzzling(to some) success because these sources are also where much of the American public is informed and influenced. In other words: Trump is as ignorant(or wise) as the American public and that is why Trump is forgiven for what other politicians would be condemned.
Trump is prone in his rambling speeches to the mild vulgarities that have become acceptable on the late night talk shows – “hell,” “damn,” “crap,” etc. He once made reference to defense experts he had seen on cable news.
The Loop: The MSM, skewed as it is toward biased leftwing pabulum instead of fact, influences Trump(and the viewing public) whose subsequent words are distorted by the MSM; which again prompts and informs Trump and public opinion and on and on into a sort of feedback loop.
Or – it could be that Trump is a communications genius.
Rusty said...
I think the anti-trumpers are missing the point entirely. This isn't about Trump as much as it's the middle class giving the finger to the establishment. Hell. You gave us Obama. Now it's our turn. See how you like it.
Suck it bitches.
Mark it down. Literally, I will mark this down. Because Rusty is one guy (among many) who will later not be heard, to complain about how the Republican Party did not provide sufficient support to the Trump campaign, in the event Trump gets schlonged in November.
So you don't want the GOP Establishment. Fine. You'd basically like to destroy the Republican Party. Fine. It's your right to think that way if you wish. BUT YOU CANNOT LATER BITCH ABOUT HOW THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT LET TRUMP DOWN. YOU DON'T GET TO FLIP US OFF, AND THEN DEMAND OUR SUPPORT.
grackle said...
...
Martinez decided to snub her party’s nominee when she didn’t have to, that was her mistake. Just how big of a mistake will depend whether Trump wins the election. The protests have nothing to do with it.
I can't imagine how it would have been a "mistake" for Martinez. She has already won re-election to her second term as governor. With 57% of the vote. In a state that Barack Obama won twice, and where Bill Richardson had been her predecessor in office. And she is now term-limited. She has absolutely no reason to risk anything on Trump. And nothing to fear from Trump. And, in New Mexico, good reason to steer clear of Trump.
I can't imagine how it would have been a "mistake" for Martinez. She has already won re-election to her second term as governor. With 57% of the vote. In a state that Barack Obama won twice, and where Bill Richardson had been her predecessor in office. And she is now term-limited. She has absolutely no reason to risk anything on Trump. And nothing to fear from Trump. And, in New Mexico, good reason to steer clear of Trump.
Hey, Martinez is fine and dandy if she has no further ambition after her 2nd term is over. For example, with Trump as POTUS I do not think she would be able to get much campaign money from the RNC for any future bid for a congressional seat. In that case she can wave goodbye to any Senate or House ambitions she might have. On the other hand her primary challengers in such a situation just might get a truckload of dinero from POTUS Trump.
It would be a shame if one so young and talented, called a “rising star” in the GOP, were to have her comet-like career truncated but the consequences of our choices can sometimes be cruel. Keep in mind that she did not have to snub Trump. There was no political imperative that she do so. As the commentor has admitted, she is very secure in her present situation so she would have suffered absolutely no political fallout to have made an appearance at the Trump rally. It would have cost her nothing; there was no “risk” for her. But she doesn’t like Trump so she deliberately and publicly snubbed him.
And I also wonder if her administration has any projects that need to be funded by DC. I hear that most Governors do.
I think that even if you are a second term Governor of New Mexico, secure in your office, popular among your constituents and with your party, it may not be a good idea to arbitrarily make an enemy of the person that could become the most powerful man on earth.
Hey, Martinez is fine and dandy if she has no further ambition after her 2nd term is over. For example, with Trump as POTUS I do not think she would be able to get much campaign money from the RNC for any future bid for a congressional seat. In that case she can wave goodbye to any Senate or House ambitions she might have.
Oh, bullshit. If she were the best Republican candidate for a run against Martin Heinrich in 2018 -- and there is excellent reason to think she would be -- a personal feud with Trump ought not to be an obstruction, to take over a Democrat Class I Senate seat. We desperately need to field the best candidates possible, for the Senate.
I get the impression that you look upon a Trump presidency as a kind of Machiavellian crime family. Where those who offend the Don are in peril at best, and may end up sleeping with the fishes.
He's your guy; if that's what you think about Trump, who am I to doubt?
I get the impression that you look upon a Trump presidency as a kind of Machiavellian crime family. Where those who offend the Don are in peril at best, and may end up sleeping with the fishes.
Crime families are not the only entities that value loyalty, discipline and duty. In fact any organization must value and practice these virtues if it wants to survive. Perhaps part of the answer to Bernie and Trump’s puzzling successes is that for far too long neither major party has done so.
To imply that Trump would have Martinez murdered Mafia-style is typical of the anti-Trump hysteria. Otherwise level-headed folks, from the exalted pundits down to us lowly blog commentors, indulge in rampant hyperbole, distortions, falsehoods, name-calling, over-the-top metaphors and other assaults on reality.
He's your guy; if that's what you think about Trump, who am I to doubt?
I had thought that this commentor had said that he would vote for Trump. Remarks like this make me suspect that we are looking at a Hillary supporter. So perhaps I was mistaken.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा