I mean how can any self-respecting liberal Democrat not get this? Yet, clearly Jones doesn't. Otherwise why was he on CNN after tonight's GOP barn-burner of a debate calling the end of the Trump phenomenon?
He admitted that it's dangerous to predict this but this is what he wants to be the case. Why would you want the Trump thing to end? I mean if and when it happens it does but why would you want it to be?
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for the GOP to want it over ASAP so to that end Fox's Megan Kelly came in for Trump's jugular immediately. I mean it's the opposite of slow pitch softball.
Right away there was the demand that anyone on the stage raise their hand if they aren't willing to support whoever the eventual nominee is and eschew any talk of a third party run. Trump chose the most ballsy repsonse of rasiing his hand. This was literally the first thing asked and Trump was clearly the target.
"Donald Trump's latest reality show roared into Ohio on Thursday night.
"Within a few minutes of his first debate as a Republican presidential candidate, Trump ridiculed comedian Rosie O'Donnell and griped about his treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. But it was his refusal to rule out a third-party presidential run -- a move that could deny Republicans the White House -- that drew gasps in the audience and sparked anger from his opponents."
"I mean, this is what's wrong. He buys and sells politicians of all stripes. He's already hedging his bet on the Clintons, OK?" said Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
"The ever-unapologetic Trump then chastised the country for being too "politically correct."
"I've been challenged by so many people and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness," Trump quipped.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/2016-republican-party-presidential-debate-fox/
The question of him not taking the pledge might work, though maybe the base will take it the other way as Fox was so transparent in knocking him off balance right away with the pledge demand and then talking about his insults of women.
One piece of conventional wisdom that I found dubious all along was that he'd come out trying to look 'Presidential.' In any case the way the moderators immediately baited him it would have been very difficult to do that:
"So much for the idea that Donald Trump would try to act like a typical presidential candidate. No, when The Donald met his rivals for the Republicans’ presidential nominee during their first debate, it was all bluster and bravado, although the bullying seemed to be kept in check."
"The fiery real estate mogul unleashed his signature enthusiasm during the debate’s first minutes. He refused to support the eventual GOP nominee, even as he was standing in the arena where he or she should be crowned next summer. He threaten to stop being “nice” to a female Fox News moderator who asked him about sexist remarks. He said “the stupid leaders of the United States” are to blame for immigrants in the country illegally. He said “dishonest” reporters were to blame for taking his comments about immigrants out of context, although he did not dispute any of the videos or transcripts noting he did, in fact, describe Mexicans in the country illegally as rapists and drug dealers."
“If it weren’t for me you wouldn’t be talking about illegal immigration,” Trump boasted.
"It was the Trump Show. Nine of his rivals were merely bit players. While Trump boasted about his business empire, his rivals were offering thoughtful answers and policy prescriptions. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush each delivered solid performances, yet were eclipsed by Trump.
“They say we’re outspoken?” Ohio Gov. John Kasich said, laughing that he and Christie are often branded as tough-talking bullies. “Donald Trump is hitting a nerve in this country.”
http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/donald-trump-takes-center-stage-but-gives-no-ground-in-republican-debate/
It seems to me that the consensus of the mainstream press is that the 'serious' candidates are Jeb!, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker. I was struck that none of those candidates was great tonight. I found Jeb's performance fairly forgettable.
Yet at the end of the day, this is what the GOP establishment's real message to the base is: shut up already and vote for Jeb.
Chris Wallace really pushed Trump on his loose talk about the Mexicans deliberately sending us their most problem citizens. Which just shows the hypocrisy of Fox. When have they ever cared about context before?
But Trump seemed to be successful as a troll pushing Kasich to also bluster about the need for building a fence.
Overall, I have to admit that Fox was pretty clever in the way they went after Trump. It's clear they set him up. What will be interesting is how the base reacts. There were boos after Trump refused to take the pledge. Still, maybe they will hold it against Fox that it so blatantly targeted him.
The other stuff like him insulting Rosie O'Donnell shouldn't hurt him. This is the GOP base-they think nothing is funnier than comparing Hillary Clinton to a hood ornament. They even laughed when Rush made fun of Chelsey Clinton's looks as a teenager.
Not everyone shares my desire for the Trump Train to just go on and on. Tom for instance:
"I know you'll probably disagree, but I will still be amazed if Trump gets the nomination. Why? Because as I've explained before I think he provides an outlet for real frustrations, just like you've noted. But at some point the GOP electorate will factor "electability" into the equation. They hate themselves for those practical thoughts maybe, but I'd argue that in the past that has eventually become a major consideration. How else to you explain McCain and Romney?"
"I wonder if we are on the cusp of a third party? It's rare, but it does happen. For example, perhaps the people concerned with electability will break off... leaving those with no such concerns behind."
"Of course this is all speculation on my part. We'll get to see what really happens... but unlike you, it does make me feel a little nauseous that we've come to this. I like my politics boring and phony! Lol."
He admitted that it's dangerous to predict this but this is what he wants to be the case. Why would you want the Trump thing to end? I mean if and when it happens it does but why would you want it to be?
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for the GOP to want it over ASAP so to that end Fox's Megan Kelly came in for Trump's jugular immediately. I mean it's the opposite of slow pitch softball.
Right away there was the demand that anyone on the stage raise their hand if they aren't willing to support whoever the eventual nominee is and eschew any talk of a third party run. Trump chose the most ballsy repsonse of rasiing his hand. This was literally the first thing asked and Trump was clearly the target.
"Donald Trump's latest reality show roared into Ohio on Thursday night.
"Within a few minutes of his first debate as a Republican presidential candidate, Trump ridiculed comedian Rosie O'Donnell and griped about his treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. But it was his refusal to rule out a third-party presidential run -- a move that could deny Republicans the White House -- that drew gasps in the audience and sparked anger from his opponents."
"I mean, this is what's wrong. He buys and sells politicians of all stripes. He's already hedging his bet on the Clintons, OK?" said Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
"The ever-unapologetic Trump then chastised the country for being too "politically correct."
"I've been challenged by so many people and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness," Trump quipped.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/2016-republican-party-presidential-debate-fox/
The question of him not taking the pledge might work, though maybe the base will take it the other way as Fox was so transparent in knocking him off balance right away with the pledge demand and then talking about his insults of women.
One piece of conventional wisdom that I found dubious all along was that he'd come out trying to look 'Presidential.' In any case the way the moderators immediately baited him it would have been very difficult to do that:
"So much for the idea that Donald Trump would try to act like a typical presidential candidate. No, when The Donald met his rivals for the Republicans’ presidential nominee during their first debate, it was all bluster and bravado, although the bullying seemed to be kept in check."
"The fiery real estate mogul unleashed his signature enthusiasm during the debate’s first minutes. He refused to support the eventual GOP nominee, even as he was standing in the arena where he or she should be crowned next summer. He threaten to stop being “nice” to a female Fox News moderator who asked him about sexist remarks. He said “the stupid leaders of the United States” are to blame for immigrants in the country illegally. He said “dishonest” reporters were to blame for taking his comments about immigrants out of context, although he did not dispute any of the videos or transcripts noting he did, in fact, describe Mexicans in the country illegally as rapists and drug dealers."
“If it weren’t for me you wouldn’t be talking about illegal immigration,” Trump boasted.
"It was the Trump Show. Nine of his rivals were merely bit players. While Trump boasted about his business empire, his rivals were offering thoughtful answers and policy prescriptions. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush each delivered solid performances, yet were eclipsed by Trump.
“They say we’re outspoken?” Ohio Gov. John Kasich said, laughing that he and Christie are often branded as tough-talking bullies. “Donald Trump is hitting a nerve in this country.”
http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/donald-trump-takes-center-stage-but-gives-no-ground-in-republican-debate/
It seems to me that the consensus of the mainstream press is that the 'serious' candidates are Jeb!, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker. I was struck that none of those candidates was great tonight. I found Jeb's performance fairly forgettable.
Yet at the end of the day, this is what the GOP establishment's real message to the base is: shut up already and vote for Jeb.
Chris Wallace really pushed Trump on his loose talk about the Mexicans deliberately sending us their most problem citizens. Which just shows the hypocrisy of Fox. When have they ever cared about context before?
But Trump seemed to be successful as a troll pushing Kasich to also bluster about the need for building a fence.
Overall, I have to admit that Fox was pretty clever in the way they went after Trump. It's clear they set him up. What will be interesting is how the base reacts. There were boos after Trump refused to take the pledge. Still, maybe they will hold it against Fox that it so blatantly targeted him.
The other stuff like him insulting Rosie O'Donnell shouldn't hurt him. This is the GOP base-they think nothing is funnier than comparing Hillary Clinton to a hood ornament. They even laughed when Rush made fun of Chelsey Clinton's looks as a teenager.
Not everyone shares my desire for the Trump Train to just go on and on. Tom for instance:
"I know you'll probably disagree, but I will still be amazed if Trump gets the nomination. Why? Because as I've explained before I think he provides an outlet for real frustrations, just like you've noted. But at some point the GOP electorate will factor "electability" into the equation. They hate themselves for those practical thoughts maybe, but I'd argue that in the past that has eventually become a major consideration. How else to you explain McCain and Romney?"
"I wonder if we are on the cusp of a third party? It's rare, but it does happen. For example, perhaps the people concerned with electability will break off... leaving those with no such concerns behind."
"Of course this is all speculation on my part. We'll get to see what really happens... but unlike you, it does make me feel a little nauseous that we've come to this. I like my politics boring and phony! Lol."
See more at: http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/i-have-to-disagree-with-greg-sargent-on.html?showComment=1438873351461#c425248987654571067
I don't disagree that the odds are long that he wins the primary. Where I do disagree is I do really enjoy it and would love if he did win the primary. I don't think it's so much that 'we' have come to this as the GOP has come to this and it deserves to come to this as Bruce Bartlett himself believes.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/bruce-bartlett-makes-moderate-gop-case.html
To me I dread the prospect of Trump going away anytime soon as then we'll have to listen to to Jeb Bush's sanctimonious baloney all day or the sanctimonious baloney of Rubio, or the petty sadism of Scott Walker. Why anyone would call that ''serious' I don't know.
P.S. I should mention that while I found Bush and Rubio pretty mediocre, Christie came out swinging going as far as claiming that Rand Paul should go to jail for making comments that emboldened Isis.
Yes, it was that kind of night. While I don't want the Trump Train to end, I hope the Christie Train never leaves the station. With everybody so high on Carly Fiorina's strong showing at the kid's table maybe she and Christie can switch places.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015_08_01_archive.html
Mike, I do want the trump train to do as much damage as possible to the GOP. I'm not sure that means I would like to see him get the nomination. Perhaps make it to the final two... dumping on his adversaries (especially the last one) the whole way, and then doing a 3rd party run when his adversary just ekes out a 0.3% victory after spending 200 million of Sheldon Adleson's money alone... (c:
ReplyDeleteNow THAT would be ideal, wouldn't it?? No, it could get better. Trump could then come in 2nd in a three way race, with the GOP a distant 3rd. Lol... how funny would that be?
Well, I honestly don't know if that's what I'd really want, but let's explore the fantasy a bit further shall we?
Ideally the GOP candidate that is selected would be just as obnoxious and vile as Trump... thus causing cognitive dissonance in the GOP: two candidates saying everything they love, but hating on each other day in and day out. What would Rush Limbaugh do? Would he continue to support Trump, or would he eventually drift back? Let's hope he'd flip flop a bit but eventually become an impassioned supporter of one, and Hannity of the other, and Coulter on one side, with O'Reilly on the other, and all the right wing punditocracy splitting right down the middle with things getting personal between them all... causing damage that lasts to the end of their lives. Now THAT would be awesome. Perhaps Coulter's next book is entitled: "Rush Limbaugh: POS Traitor, Fraud and Scumbug" Hahaha!
... that split going right though the fundamentalist right wing community too... will lots of accusations of one side or the other being Satan worshipers, and promises of God's wrath being visited upon them. Kind of like what fundy right wing crack-pot "Reverend" Bill Keller has been engaging in for years now.
Delete... and let's not forget (in this fantasy!) a delicious and epic cat fight between Coulter, Ingraham, Palin, Malkin and Bachmann... perhaps coming to fisticuffs (plus scratching and biting)... right there on live TV. But most of all, a cornucopia of deep, cutting, personal insults causing wounds that will never ever heal, and grudges that propagate to the 2nd and 3rd generation.
DeleteBut however satisfying all that would be... I'm still left with a worry of what kind of monster would arise from the smoldering embers.
Like I said, overall, I prefer my politics boring. I said "phony" too originally... but I'm undecided on that.
To do the most damage though he has to win the nomination. Like Bartlett says.
DeleteI am actually looking forward to Rush today-this is all because of Trump. I'll be listening at 12 pm.
You think winning the nomination would be more damaging than him going rogue with an independent bid and actually beating the GOP in votes? Well, I guess I'll have to see what Bartlett says (I'm sure you must have covered it somewhere).
DeleteIf Trump were to win the nomination and then lose the general in a landslide, I think that would just inspire the GOP establishment to be more vigilant about quashing uprisings in the future.
I have little confidence the base would learn something from it.
Mike, my even bigger fantasy (putting aside my somewhat vindictive fantasy above: of punishing the GOP base for being who they are and the media machine for cynically fueling the flames) is the following:
ReplyDeleteThat both parties have primary debates and debates for the general election that resemble the nerd fight between Smith and Sadowski, only less hard edged. Ones in which ALL the candidates constantly bring up good points (and evidence) that would force me to reconsider my own beliefs. Ones in which you might actually see the candidates themselves concede that they were persuaded to change their minds based on their opponents' arguments and evidence. "Debates" that more resembled a group of competent engineers expressing different opinions during a design review in an attempt to settle on the best path forward for getting something accomplished than a bunch of rhetoricians trying to win converts (regardless of the truth of what they were saying). Hahahahahaha!!! ... How's that for an unrealistic utopian fantasy?
... I almost forgot an important part of the fantasy: debates during which the participants would feel completely comfortable (and would not be in danger of "losing points") in responding "Well, I don't actually know about that." "I'd like to see more evidence." or "I can speculate, but I'm not confident of an answer at this time."
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm just a freak, but I LIKE to hear that kind of thing. I'm mildly to extremely repulsed by assertions that sound overly confident. I like confidence too, but only when there's literally a mountain of evidence to back it up.
Well I won't use the U word-unrealistic-I'll rather put it this way. Where have you heard stuff like that? Are you an engineer? Ken Duda is an engineer so do you enjoy reading him? I'm quite impressed by him.
ReplyDeleteProbably politics could never quite be like that. There is so much at stake and we disagree on so much.
I mean the opinions that the GOP expressd on abortion the other night I just find abhorent.
How do you have a firendly debate when you disagree this sharply with the other side? I mean Diary of a Republican Hater was kind of a joke-I liked it be cause it was polarizing-though I notice now that I'm getting more people reading me on the Fox website now as my title is seemingly apolitical and some Republicans have left comments lately-probably all my work on Trump!-but if I had to talk about positions I hate which tempt me to feel hatred for those who hold this view it's Scott Walker's views on abortion.
Whether you call it hate or not there's just no way me and Scott Walker could ever be friends.
Though I'm not an engineer-though I find the idea fascinating-I would guess that even there politics sometimes raises its bloody head.
I don't know if you've read any Richard Rorty but he's relevant here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Contingency-Irony-Solidarity-Richard-Rorty/dp/0521367816/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
His argument is that truth is 'Just what my peers let me get away with'-ie truth can't be separated from society.
For instance is gay marriage a good thing? For centuries societybelieved no but now this has changed so the truth has changed. Can I be honest and admit that even as a liberal I have mixed feelings about that. I did finally 'evolve' when Obama did-for years I had argued for civil unions.
But then just when I fully accepted gay marriage they talked about transgenders. I don't get how gender is what ever you say it is.
Though this does vouchsafe with Rorty. Gender which we feel is natural, is a social truth like everything else.
Anyway, the relevenat point here is that in debates we only can have a friendly rational debate with people we consider 'worthy conversation partners'-for instance most of us would agree that we wouldn't have a debate today with a neo Nazi Holocaust denier.
Or certainly I wouldn't. For me to even dignify such vileness with a response gives it social legitimacy. In the past such neo-Nazi types have complained that to rule them out as conversational partners is a curb on their freedom of speech.
But this is Rorty's point: it all comes down to social consensus. Life when Sumner has gotten ticked with me and said I'm not an economist and don't understand that's his way of saying that I'm not a worthy conversation partner for real economists.
To be sure I agree with Zizek and Lacan psychoanalysis that gender is not a social construct but found in nature.
DeleteBut then what is the difference between a social truth and a truth of nature?
The transgender folks don't claim that there is no gender just that somehow they are in the wrong body.
I would think that wholly civil debates can only happen when there is a lot we already agree on. Like I sort of disagree I loved how hard edged Sadowski and Smith got.
ReplyDeleteThough I will also say that I do think that Sadowski and Sumner lack something of the scientific attitude you mentioned with Feynman. Like you notice that Mark eventually got frustrated and just claimed baselessly that Smith is engaging in propaganda.
That suggests that it's he who is engaged in propaganda.
And when Sadowski accuses him of propaganda-and he's done the same thing to me when I've debated him-that's what Rorty would call a 'conversation stopper.'
ReplyDelete