This is rich: covering the Trump coverage
Paul Waldman, a journalist on the left, has noticed something. He has a piece in today’s WaPo describing the fact that Trump coverage in the MSM has mysteriously changed:
The news media have come in for a lot of criticism in the way they’ve reported this election, which makes it exactly like every other election. But something may have changed just in the last few days. I have no idea how meaningful it will turn out to be or how long it will last.
But it’s possible that when we look back over the sweep of this most unusual campaign, we’ll mark this week as a significant turning point: the time when journalists finally figured out how to cover Donald Trump.
They didn’t do it by coming up with some new model of coverage, or putting aside what they were taught in journalism school. They’re doing it by rediscovering the fundamental values and norms that are supposed to guide their profession…
If this evolution in coverage takes hold, we can trace it to the combined effect of a few events and developments happening in a short amount of time. The first was Trump’s press conference on Tuesday, the ostensible purpose of which was to answer questions about a fundraiser he held in January to raise money for veterans’ groups. In the course of the press conference, Trump was at his petulant, abusive worst, attacking reporters in general and those in the room…
That’s enough to give you Waldman’s tone—serious, probing—and his message. Waldman goes on to add the following “reasons” the press is now planning to cover Trump fairly and in accord with time-honored journalistic standards: the revelations about Trump University, plus Trump’s verbal attack on the judge in the case.
Waldman adds:
Put together this series of developments coming one after together, and I suspect that many journalists are deciding that the way to cover Trump is just to do it as honestly and assiduously as possible, which would itself be something almost revolutionary. If the tone of his coverage up until now has been “Wow, is this election crazy or what!” it could become much more serious ”” as it completely appropriate given that we’re choosing someone to hold the most powerful position on earth…
If they can keep doing that, they’ll bring honor to their profession ”” and I doubt Trump’s candidacy could survive it.
I would find the Waldman article humorous if it weren’t so cleverly disingenuous. Not disingenuous about Trump himself, but about the media coverage of him.
I say that because anyone—anyone—who’s given the topic of Trump’s MSM coverage a moment’s thought ought to know what’s going on here. I would imagine that Waldman does, too, although I suppose it’s possible (highly unlikely, though) that he’s just a “fool” in the old “fool vs. knave” question.
What’s going on is what I predicted, you predicted, just about every sentient being on the right predicted, from the start: the MSM would facilitate Trump’s nomination by going relatively easy on him in the primary season and then go hard on him in the general. He’s not quite nominated yet, so they’re just now beginning the latter approach (don’t want to inspire the sleepy Republican Party to figure out how to nominate someone else at this late date), but the GOP primaries are most definitely over and the pivot to the general has begun.
It’s no mystery at all.
[NOTE: Waldman makes another unintentionally humorous statement here: “Plenty of presidential candidates have had shady doings in their pasts, but can you think of anything that compares to Trump University?” Well, let me think, I dunno—there’s Hillary Clinton and a certain email problem, and a certain Foundation problem, and a certain…]
And of course, none of those honorable TV journalists were looking for ratings boosts from covering Trump. Could a Columbia J school grad be so mercenary?
Yep. And Donald will help them every step of the way. I’m looking forward to not having to cringe every time he attacks a “Mexican” judge or points out his African American in the audience.
Another story in today’s WaPo how ABC’s Jake Tapper followed up 23 times with Trump regarding his comment about the Hispanic federal judge presiding over his Trump University case.
My thought was when will anyone question Hillary in such a fashion about her private email server much less the bribery scheme she ran with the Clinton Foundation? Answer: Never.
Trump U won’t hurt him, stuff like that, schemes, are all over
The place. We all know what. PT said….
What’s going on is what I predicted, you predicted, just about every sentient being on the right predicted, from the start: the MSM would facilitate Trump’s nomination by going relatively easy on him in the primary season and then go hard on him in the general.
Huh? The MSM “facilitated” Trump’s nomination and went “relatively easy” on him??
Uh …. The MSM (and the Vichy GOP) have called Trump and Trump supporters every name in the book. They have lied about pretty much everything concerning Trump and his campaign and have made total fools of themselves.
But now they’re bringing out the big guns, huh? LOL.
Right below that article when I first clicked on it was
The Washington Post recommends:
“It’s Official: The GOP Is Now The Party of Trump”.
Well, if it’s official, then I guess we can start smearing the GOP with this.
The cited article should be a parody; but, it is not.
I am sure that there is a named syndrome for people who cannot recognize the irony inherent in their own actions.
Neo:
“unintentionally humorous … Well, let me think, I dunno…”
The method you’re pointing to is serious, though.
An SOP Left rhetorical device in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game that looks brazen, yet nonetheless, regularly trips up the Right, even informed people who should know better, and regularly works to shape the prevailing narrative of the public discourse: the seemingly sociopathic (explicit) assertion and (implicit) assumption of false premises.
In the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist, narrative is elective truth, while the actual truth is just a narrative that must be competed for like any other in the arena. It looks like HS debate club but it’s actually mass and maneuver.
Once their false premises are set in place by assertion and assumption as the prevailing narrative frame, they hold the rhetorical reins to dominate the public discourse with social cultural/political effect.
Given how common it is for ostensibly Right commenters to seamlessly accept Left asserted/assumed false premises and respond with supposedly opposing views that actually harmonize with the Left narrative, I often suspect that at least some ostensibly Right commenters are actually leftist plants who are landscaping the public discourse.
So, while your side-note is humorous, it’s also a serious reminder to critically guard for premises and control the narrative frame.
They don’t have to lie about nearly everything regarding Trump, just quoting him is sufficient. For the MSM, Trump is “the gift that just keeps giving.” If Hillary or Bernie are not the nominees, the Dem press will have shown Trump to be so repugnant and repulsive that it won’t matter who runs against him.
There is neither news nor insight in Waldman’s article. The observations are so trite they could be a bumper sticker:
Vote Republican
Force the media to do its job.
Right
On
Schedule
It’s as if someone TOLD them all what to write!
Firstly, neo is entirely correct about the change in the MSM’s coverage of Trump now that he’s the de facto nominee. Every night ABC slams Trump, there is an undercurrent of subtle viciousness to the coverage. Hillary on the other hand can do no wrong.
Secondly, Trump is entirely accurate in his labeling of ABC reporter/propagandist Tom Llamas as a “sleaze ball”. His question of Trump was of the ‘so when did you stop beating your wife’? type. Llamas also has to know of Bill Clinton facing an exact same lawsuit in an strikingly similar case but not one word about it from Llamas or ABC.
Thirdly, Judge Cureil, an Obama appointee, is a member of the San Diego [Chapter] La Raza Lawyers Association. That chapter has a history of illegal alien support and “has repeatedly backed extreme anti-enforcement, pro-illegal immigrant speakers and causes, according to its website”. (http://sdlrla.com/) It funds scholarships for illegal aliens and also endorses candidates of mexican ancestry. “The organization invited activists who opposed efforts to defund welfare payments to illegal immigrants, backed in-state tuition for illegal immigrant children, and called for ending California’s English-only program for public school children.”
I’d say that enough smoke to give Trump’s accusation of a deeply biased judge enough credibility to not simply dismiss the accusation.
It would be nice if they would bring the same level of journalistic zeal and probing to Ms. Clinton. But I’m not holding my breath. The press has spent the past eight years proclaiming their uselessness, and are now surprised to discover that Mr. Trump, among others, find them to be useless. Shocking, I know.
Sigh. As the saying goes: if you want a vigorous and adversarial press, elect Republicans.
neocon Said: “It’s no mystery at all”
Off course its not, that’s all about.
Let take former Yugoslavia war and those pictures of small girl holding cat surrounded by the demolished building, homes, road….
Or all of you saw the early days before and after Afghanistan invasion when were drug plantations under Taliban regime was at minimal according to UN agencies, MSN showing those drug edicts guys or warlord dealers with drugs with group of adults and young with edition and ugly faces that taken as this the society therein Afghanistan US going to take Burqa off women and fights those warlord drug dealers and put the society in right direction of freedom and democracy by appointed MacDonald Shop duty manager to lead the country!!
Now days under US No.1 exporter and source of drugs in the world…
Same in Iraq same stories we ended with ISIL with country in the end of the lists of most dangerous place, more corrupted place, more human disastrous making millions flee their land homes either internally of went refuges to EU countries seeking for new life.
Fox News propaganda before the Iraq War:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE75EAE594A73155E
If you interested about media,US let read this:
http://pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
In the end, the Media most the time used as propaganda voices, the world is different culturally also humanly and that whey we are different on this planet. wisdom needed to make humanity life better and happier but sadly history tells the opposite happening.
The WaPo and NYTimes can keep on writing opinion pieces disguised as news to try to slime Trump, but they’re only preaching to their own choir. All Trump needs to do is to keep scheduling campaign appearances in California, and throwing out a few remarks about illegal aliens or building the wall. The thugs that support Hillary will keep on taking to the streets, and making the nightly news. If it bleeds, it leads.
Mr. Waldman writes for an audience of a leftist mindset. If he is serious and not engaging in irony he must believe his readers are uninformed dimwits.
It’s not just what the media is reporting on Trump, but it is also what the media is NOT reporting about. For example, in the last week, I have come across reports of:
1. Large numbers of foreigners coming across the southern border of the U.S.
2. Muslims in Paris rioting, and fighting with the police.
3. An ongoing Judicial Watch case, with Hillary Clinton aides refusing to testify about her e-mail server.
4. The May jobs report with a mere 38,000 jobs added, so low it may indicate a coming recession.
Those four news-stories are not being given the attention they deserve. Why not? If I can find those reports and recognize their significance, why can’t the mainstream media? Or has the media chosen sides, and simply will not report on anything that does not favor their side?
Yankee,
I bet you know the answer to your last question. 😉
One of the more serious bread and butter questions that is never on the tongues of the msm is why has the “summer of recovery” never truly materialized? Pumping money into the DJIA, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 does not a recovery make for small businesses, families, and wage earners. This is what has fueled both the feel the bern and make America great again populism.
Caesar-Lite discovers the other media is against him. Shocking news.
“I’d say that enough smoke to give Trump’s accusation of a deeply biased judge enough credibility to not simply dismiss the accusation.”
Trump said the judge should recuse himself because he’s a Mexican.
I know the term gets thrown around a lot, but how is that of racism? In what universe is that not racist.
I hate that the party of Lincoln now has thus guy as the standard bearer. Sadder still that so many Republicans spend so much energy defending him.
I thought we were better than this. I was wrong.
how is that *not* racism
Dang auto-correct…
GB,
I do not dismiss djt’s accusations about Cureil being biased when it comes to enforcing immigration laws. Any association with La Raza raises red flags. However, djt is a Tyrannosaurus in a daycare playroom when it comes to responding to the msm.
Bluster and vulgarity only goes so far in the general election. During the run up to the nomination he was able to suck up all the oxygen, now as the general election approaches the msm cruise missiles will not fail to hit the target. 100 electoral votes, maximum.
I am looking forward to that case of beer.
Trump said the judge should recuse himself because he’s a Mexican.
I know the term gets thrown around a lot, but how is that of racism? In what universe is that not racist.
The same universe where such a person could be thrown off of a jury for that reason or where a person could be offered a judgeship for the same.
And pleading “raaacist!!” for a guy who belongs to a group called “The Race” is laughable.
It could have been worse, though. It could have been the wise, empathetic latina presiding over the case (the one who thought that Spanish didn’t have adjectives – while she was at Princeton! – yeah .. that was a merit acceptance, there …). She’s made some juicy rulings and decisions, based on her great empathetic powers. And we can thank Lady Lindsay for helping her get a vote in committee so that she could be confirmed. Yep. That was just awesome. In direct opposition to over three millenia of history of Western jurisprudence we officially declared that empathy is a legitimate main criterion for a judge or judicial decision. Meh. The Rule of Law is so passe, anyway.
But, this poor little La Raza judge is being subjected to accusations of racial (ethinc, really, but who’s quibbling and he’s the one who belongs to the ethnic group that calls itself “the Race”) bias … the horror!
Caesar-Lite was not too bright
The judge is an “American”
That is, a “citizen”
They may not teach that subject at Trump University.
I won’t defend him from a biased press, it was a “self goal.”
The judge, being a member of La Raza Lawyers Association (The Race Lawyers Association) which is definitionally a racist organization and I say that as one who has no idea what the hell race is, should recuse himself for just the appearance of impropriety. The judge, more importantly, has ties to the Clinton syndicate which seems to me has more than an appearance of impropriety.
I’ve no idea how all this will play out. However, I am looking forward to the time when “pivot” is removed from civilized discourse, relegated once again to the sports pages.
waldman is a former clinton speechwriter, and a member of the journolist, yes curiel’s support of amnesty, the lead law firms ties to red queen, and other democrats suggest this lawsuit is lawfare, I know that upsets the narrative,
“hey’re doing it by rediscovering the fundamental values and norms that are supposed to guide their profession…”
You mean like those they’ve forgotten for at least the past eight years?
“If they can keep doing that, they’ll bring honor to their profession –”
Oh puhlease… there’s been no “honor” in this “profession” for several decades.
honestly it would be more entertaining if wallace shawn, were reciting it, then we’d be in on the joke,
Bill Says:
June 4th, 2016 at 8:11 pm
how is that *not* racism
***
Like this.
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/06/04/leftists-annoyed-pedant-points-theyre-idiots/
“‘Mexican is not a race’: Leftist race-card-wavers annoyed when pedant points out they’re idiots”
By J.E. Dyer June 4, 2016
I spotted this point being made somewhere, maybe even here but I don’t think so . . .
Trump’s concern that this Trump University case judge is Mexican [his parents, actually, but never mind] is analogous to Black Lives Matter types being concerned that a judge is white in virtually any case involving a black defendant.
Sauce, goose, gander and all that.
Sorry, gang. I very seldom do this but I’m going to cut-and-paste a comment I made at Belmont Club:
This is all very amusing if you’re not in their shoes. We are hearing the wails of anguish, the laments, of The Masters of the Universe who wake up one morning and find out that they’re maybe just part owners of a vacant lot over on Third Street. They are Rousseau proclaiming that the pen is mightier than the sword as the cart neared the guillotine.
Schadenfreude. It makes me feel a bit guilty, but then I sometimes grant myself a minor indulgence.
certain stock trades
The press did not facilitate Trump’s winning of the nomination by treating him with kid gloves. It is simply that the press’s attacks on Trump don’t work, no matter how hard they try. One of the reasons they don’t work is that Trump almost never surrenders to them.
Waldman’s piece is one you often seen coming out of writers left and right- a piece that is solely designed to buck up the spirits of one’s readers who are beginning to question whether or not, in this case, Clinton can actually beat Trump. So Waldman pumps out a piece about how things are changing and are going to change so that Trump ain’t so scary anymore.
I think the press on the left (which is most of it), are simply befuddled at how to deal with him. The press conference last week was a master class for dealing with the press’s hostility- pure, full on disdain and contempt, and I think it was the thing that actually inspired Waldman to write his essay. He can see that expecting the press to take Trump down isn’t likely to work- it isn’t working and hasn’t worked, and his readers and friends were getting nervous. He was trying to sooth them.
Yancey Ward:
I completely disagree with you.
Only at the beginning did the press attack him. When that didn’t work, they embraced him. And even from the very beginning, when they were attacking him, they gave him an enormous amount of coverage.
Enormous, compared to all the other candidate combined. And most of it was unfiltered and uncriticized, live wall-to-wall coverage of his rallies.
I noticed this quite early on. I’d be flipping around the dial, and would often encounter one of these live broadcasts. His rallies were covered as though each one was the State of the Union address.
A great many interviews, as well. Far more than the other candidates. And the questions were almost never hard-hitting. They were about his attacks du jour at times, but not about things like Trump U., or Scotland, or any number of types of dirt they had on him. I don’t have the time to dredge up all the times I said, and commenters here said, that the MSM was saving their big anti-Trump guns for after he was nominated, and that they obviously wanted him to be the nominee because he’d be easiest to beat and best for their ratings.
Here’s an example of a piece I wrote on the subject back in December of 2015.
Another form that media hyping of Trump took was the presentation of polls as though they were saying he would do well in the general with certain voter blocs when in fact polls were not saying that at all. Here’s a post I wrote about that phenomenon, for example. It was obvious to me (back in January, when that was written) that the media wanted GOP voters to think Trump had a very good chance in the general when in fact the evidence at the time was that he didn’t.
These were hardly the only posts I wrote on the subject. It was very obvious that it was happening.
Yancey Ward:
In the above comment, when I said I disagree with you, I only meant about your first paragraph.
On the rest of what you said, I quite agree with you.
Neo,
We are watching two different campaigns, it appears. Yes, they give him a lot of coverage, but practically none of it can be called positive based on intent or content. However, Trump is a different kind of candidate, the usual rules really don’t apply to him, and this where the leftist press trips up- they just don’t get that. Trump’s coverage was significantly worse than what Cruz got from both sides, but it hurt Cruz much worse. In addition, the excess coverage of Trump, good and bad, just continues to run the same way- Trump benefits from the free exposure, good and bad, more than the bad exposure hurts. Trump is much like Reagan was in this regard.
One of the things that sank Romney in 2012 was his deference to the media and political press. I have always wondered how things might have been different had Romney had the courage to figuratively slap Candy Crowley down at that second debate- it was just the most publicly visible example of his excessive passivity in regards to poor media coverage. Trump is fearless in this regard, and it serves him well.
Yancey Ward:
Actually, quite a bit of it was positive. I watched it. It wasn’t positive in the usual sense, perhaps, of glowing endorsements. But it was admiring—of his chutzpah, his success, his ability to not care what was said, his process. More importantly (and I tried to make this clear in my comment to you) it was incessant coverage, and much of it was neutral coverage of his speeches, which showed the huge crowds adoring him, and allowed him to get his message out for about an hour at a time, day after day.
The cable news stations were like Trump reality shows. Other candidates could not get a word in edgewise. It was golden for Trump. And it was the networks’ choice to give him so much unfiltered coverage. They wanted him to get nominated. I was convinced of it then and said so, and I am convinced of it now.
What’s more, as I said, they also distorted poll results to make it seem as though he had a better chance in the general than he did. And they did that many many times. I wrote about it several times.
The excess coverage is driven by Trump himself. Probably one of the reasons for the all the outrageous rhetoric he uses. The media cover it for two reasons- one it draws viewers because of the sheer audacity he has- you never know beforehand what is going to come out of his mouth; but they also covered it thinking it would sink his candidacy. In intent, there were ratings and the belief that the negative exposure would undo him. However, the exposure only seemed to be a net benefit to Trump.
Clinton is the exact opposite- the press covers her less (than Trump) for two reasons- she is ratings plague- you already know what is going to come out of her mouth, and she says it all in a way that makes one wish to be deaf and blind- and, secondly, covering her in more depth can only highlight all the problems she has ethically. The press can’t easily put lipstick on the pig of her character, so they don’t try very hard. That is why Sanders is actually much closer than even I thought he had a chance to be- he gets some of the coverage and exposure the press takes from her, though not as much as Trump does and will.
He was using hyperbole, as is his frequent wont, but Trump put it pretty well when he said that he could shoot someone dead on the street and still not suffer a polling decline.
Yancey Ward:
I’m not going to go on and on about this, but I repeat that they only thought that at the beginning. After the first few weeks it became clear that their approach would not sink him, and that the best approach would be to promote him (and their own ratings) and hope the GOP self-destructed.
That’s what happened.
If it was clear to me, and to many other people, that the coverage was helping him, rest assured it was clear to the networks, too.
They had a choice. They could have just covered him negatively, just reported on his outrageous remarks. They did NOT have to cover his rallies live, day after day. Free advertising. Do you really think they didn’t know that covering him that way, allowing him to deliver his unfiltered message to many many millions of people (and covering the message of the other candidates hardly at all), would be promoting him? I think they are far more savvy than that. It certainly appeared that way to me at the time, and still does.
They also did not have to write pieces that made it seem he was doing well with Democrats, blacks, etc., when the evidence did not support what they were writing. They were promoting him that way, too.
After the first few weeks it became clear that their approach would not sink him,
Sorry, but that’s just totally incorrect. The Trump haters (which included both the media AND the Vichy Right) thought that they would kill the Trump candidacy for a very, very, very long time. Do you really forget all the stories that would pop up every other day about how the Trump campaign was just about to go under? Seriously?
If you look back at the coverage you will find that most considered the Trump candidacy a joke (or worse, as many of the silly people on the right were incessantly claiming that Trump was a stalking horse for Shrillary) or just about to implode. They kept saying that Trump would say something “very soon” that would end his play-candidacy. And then they reported on those words that they were sure would end it all … but they didn’t. Most still thought that Trump’s campaign would implode as he started racking up primary wins. That’s how long that laughable analysis by “the experts” (again, both in the MSM and the Vichy Right) went on.
I have no idea how you can think that the MSM were positive, in any way, about Trump or gave him favorable coverage. They thought they were covering a gory accident (which they love, of course) but the joke was on them.
. . . and yet, another point of view at Powerline(H/T Instapundit):
This is the gist, but read the whole thing. There’s quite a bit more:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/trumps-jujitsu-overthrow-of-liberalism.php
progressoverpeace:
After the first few weeks (about 6-8 weeks, I’d say) it did indeed become clear that what they were doing would not sink him. It only made him stronger in the sense that his support numbers grew, and his supporters became more fiercely loyal.
I had noticed a change in coverage by early fall. Even before then, for some of the media. It wasn’t everyone, of course; I’m speaking generally, and there were some holdouts among the media. But that was the way it went, and I covered it in real time.
For example (and this is just one example that I found rather quickly), in mid-September (which was very early in the game) I wrote this post about what CNN was doing at the time:
Remember, I wrote all of that in mid-September of 2015.
As I said, it was obvious.
I am not suggesting that the MSM itself approved of him. They did not. But as I said, they shaped things in many ways to benefit him during the primary season, and they did it purposely (see my previous comments in this thread to Yancey Ward, too, where I describe some of it).
Is”Vichy Right”, the new improved “cucksevative.” Why not expand your vocabulary, Horthy-right, the Quisling-right, the Mosely-Brown …., or just say the #@***! children of unwed mothers?
>cite>Is”Vichy Right”, the new improved “cucksevative.”
The “Vichy Right” (or Vichy Republican) term has been around a lot longer than the silly “cuckservative” moniker. It describes (quite succinctly and accurately) those Republicans who attack the conservative base, the Tea Partiers, basically, and abetted and collaborated with Barky since taking over the House in 2011. Your basic John Boehner types. The ones who have done nothing to ever repeal BarkyCare (even though they were given a landslide in 2010 to do just that) and who have never pushed to get a budget through, not to mention funding everything Barky ever wanted – not to mention taking part in that near-illegal and totally immoral Senate lame duck session right after the 2010 win to spit in the faces of the Tea Party. The same people, ostensibly on the Right (LOL), who hated Trump for his sane and perfectly correct attitude about illegals, the notion of American sovereignty, and the fact that the American government serves Americans. The Founders were pretty explicit about this and put the cute little clause into the pre-amble of the Constitution (“preserve the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity“).
You don’t like the term? Well … we don’t like the actions and, as has always been the case, actions speak louder than words.
Let he who is without sin…siddown, Waldman!
The MSM did hit quite hard on Trump’s failure to denounce KKK support as recently as this past February.
Did the Leftist MSewerMedia do their job for Bush II? He was a Republican, was he not.
Cuckservative, as it was developed by the leaders of the Alternative Right mostly online, means someone who has been cuckholded (deceived into raising some other man’s children in marriage) and refers to the cuckhold bird’s strategy of success (putting the chicks in another bird’s nest). Probably in order to clarify what they mean, now that a whole load of common humans jump on a band wagon of a term they never understood to begin with, people may be using Vichy Right to provide that clarification.
Ymarsaker,
As you point out, the term “cuckold” indicates deception; a man raising another man’s child unbeknownst to him.
Such Republicans are not cuckolds. They are, in reality, “wittols,” for what they do, they do knowingly.
They compete with the Democrats on who is to control the Progressive society, not whether or not there is to be one. It is to weep.
Progresoverpeace:
Thanks for the background on the “Vichy Right.” I hadn’t seen that insult yet, and I found your list of horribles compelling until you lumped those who aren’t all in with Trump (Caesar-Lite) as being fellow travellers or clueless or complicit with Obama:
“The same people, ostensibly on the Right (LOL), who hated Trump for his sane and perfectly correct attitude about illegals, the notion of American sovereignty, and the fact that the American government serves Americans …
You don’t like the term? Well … we don’t like the actions and, as has always been the case, actions speak louder than words.”
Who is this “we” you speak for. I only speak for myself.
You seem to have inside knowledge about Trump’s mind, which appears to be malleable and changeable regarding American sovereignty, the role of government, and that “quaint’ thing called the Constitution (many Trumpsters seem have no use for it). As Trump has said “…suggestions, negotiable, everything is negotiable…” “It will be great.”
Progressoverpeace:
Now that McConnell and Boehner are have voiced support for Trump does that remove the stain of being Vichy Right or make Trump a little Vichy himself? Probably not for Caesar-Lite was never a Republican or conservative before this election cycle so your category does not apply?
Vichy Right , Fishy Right, Caesar-Lite.
Got it.
Vichy right, and the other labels for those you trumpians demean because we will not bow down at the alter of the golden calf of the donald, including me, I have one comment FYATHYRIO. You want destruction, come to my neighborhood in flyover country and I will show you destruction. Many neighbors will join me.
You are dangerous fools, and dangerous knaves. Why not go whole hog for Bernie? Fool, why not have it tattooed on your forehead? Why so shy? Let your donald all hang out.
The “cuckservative” expression is being misinterpreted in this (and most) threads. The previous writers are correct in that the historic meaning of a cuckold is a man who is *tricked* into raising another man’s child. But this is not the contemporary meaning of the word.
There is a genre of porn videos called “cuckold porn.” These videos all share a common plot line. A man is confronted by his wife, who tells him that she will no longer have sex with him and that she intends to have sex with someone else from now on. She then introduces her husband to her new lover, and the two humiliate the husband by having sex right in front of him. The husband does not fight back or leave, but stays during the sex, watching passively or even assisting or participating in his wife’s brazen and open unfaithfulness.
The analogy is simple. The wife is the unfaithful politician, the husband represents the rank and file Republican voters, and the lover is the Democratic leadership/agenda. To call someone a “cuckservative” is to accuse a person of passively accepting open, brazen betrayal by elected Republicans. As such, it is a term applied to shame conservative writers and commentators who passively accept betrayal of their values by the politicians they supported and elected.
The focus is not on the betrayal, but on the passivel, helpless acceptance of betrayal.
. . . and Steven Hayward at Powereline blog yet again:
Blockquote cite=””> The head of CBS News remarked quite candidly a few months ago that Donald Trump was great for ratings, and therefore good for the bottom line at money-losing news divisions.
[snip]
Hint: Who would make for the best copy and on-air time for the next four years–boring Hillary, or The Donald?
This is why I counterintuitively think the media actually want Trump to win . . . .
[snip]
Over at RealClearPolitics, Heather Wilhelm is thinking along a similar path.
Ssorry! The link:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/the-election-and-media-cognitive-dissonance.php
Back to the Trump coverage — I suspect that Trump will be running soon against Clinton AND against the press coverage of Clinton.
When asked hostile press questions, he’ll soon be answering by attacking them back, on how Clinton lied recently, is still lying, and how the press doesn’t ask the Dems about Dem lies.
Well, at least I hope he does that.
Another issue on lies / promises, versus actual results — when Clinton promises something good, her past performance indicates the promise won’t be kept in terms of results.
Who, then, is the bigger liar? The one who promises care, and how good it will be, consistently; then gets the care, but the reality is not good. Or the one who promises to do X to get the care, then later promises Y, then Z, then something else. Ya, the promises are inconsistent — but the results are not yet known, and even what policy will be chosen is not yet known.
The unknown evil of Trump, plus Reps (RINOs and Tea Partiers both) vs the known failed dishonest press supported evil of Clinton, and fascist Dems?
Kind of easy for me. And the attacks on Trump “for what he could do / might do” might well highlight how little the press is talking about what Obama-Clinton has actually already done.
“The unknown evil of Trump, plus Reps (RINOs and Tea Partiers both) vs the known failed dishonest press supported evil of Clinton, and fascist Dems?
Kind of easy for me”
Only if you assume there’s small chance of his evil eclipsing what HRC could do. I don’t understand this assumption
I don’t think there are very many corporations who would hire as CEO someone completely unpredictable. They are risking the entire company.
We’re risking our entire country on Trump. What if he is WORSE than Obama (and HRC) on use of executive orders and presidential memoranda to dictate his will upon our country? What if he is WORSE on the economy? What if he infuriates our allies? What if Putin turns Trump into his hand-puppet? What if he gets us into some stupid war (or multiple stupid wars?). What if inflation hits 20%? What if he goes insane and starts a nuclear war? What if he uses the power of the executive branch to persecute his “enemies”, on an even wider scale than Obama has done? What if he turns our government into even more of a kleptocracy than it already is? Do you really think he won’t do things strictly for the benefit the Trump empire and Trump’s glory in the long term? What if his words incite violence among his followers and his detractors and we have street-to-street fighting in our cities?
Everything I’ve written above is plausible. He’s done or suggested or played to or shown he is capable of all of them in the campaign without the full power of the executive branch at his disposal.
I don’t understand this “I’ll take the gamble” attitude. HRC is bad, she’s awful. Unfortunately, the Stupid Party nominated someone who is worse. We need to be thinking how to counter her and try to get this back in 2020, if Trump is really the nominee. On the plus side, HRC is a terrible politician and will be worse than Obama in swaying the masses to her will. And Supreme Court justices don’t live forever.
Second the Powerline piece on Trump and the judge. It is even more interesting given the judge’s associations. Were the judge a cisgenderhetmaleconservative, suspect associations would be considered proof positive that he is a vile person.
Here we have a judge whose memberships are considered a snooze, while conservatives are condemned for not denouncing dodgy groups’ support fast enough. For conservatives, membership is not necessary.
The fact is that Trump is fascinating because of the things he says. One could not expect the press to pass him up.
The question, then, is the tone. I have this feeling that the press’ treatment of Trump will be of interest to the folks who watch the press’ treatment of political figures and issues, but will not make a difference. Trump is bigger than they are. He’s not going to be tied down by Lilliputs. Whether this is good or bad for the Republic is a separate issue,, save that putting the press in its place is, at least a fun process to watch.
Agree with Neo – the MSM seem to have been keeping their powder dry, so to speak, re: Trump.
That could be a function of where they get their research from.?
Yes, they’ve been negative. The negative has to be in comparison / relative to something – vs the other 16 candidates – not much; – vs Clinton – more noticeable.
There is also a volume of time dimension – they’ve essentially given Trump a LOT of airtime himself – almost shutting out the other 16 candidates, and, importantly, much of the bad news for Clinton/Obama.
No doubt, when the Dems finally declare Clinton their candidate (essentially after tomorrow), look to the Dem machine turning its sights on Trump. They will have oppo information and related narratives that they will be feeding to the MSM in various ways.
I don’t buy the idea that the MSM are so beholding to ratings that they’d rather Trump win. Bias will probably win the day as they still have to live here.
But, then again, I expected the conservative media to turn up the heat on Trump. It didn’t, for the most part.
@Bill, great comment!
So, are you third-party guys going to vote for Joe Biden when he gets the nomination?
Richard Saunders:
Uncalled-for remark, and I think you know that.
Nothing anyone here has said would imply a vote for Biden. I think people have explained (I certainly have) that they would consider a viable third-party candidate on the right, but they don’t have one. There’s nothing unclear about that.
Plus, as I’ve said before, I think there’s almost no chance the nominee will be Biden rather than Clinton.
Not supporting Trump is seen by many as a sign of closeted leftism, of secretly being a Democrat or Obamite. It’s seen as treachery to the conservative cause.
I wish they’d see it for what it is – revulsion at an amoral man with a narcissistic disorder who will be a likely extinction level event for the Republican party, possibly for conservatism, and maybe even for the country.
Bill, you put forward a number of “what-if” scenarios, and asserted that they were all plausible. Respectfully, most of them just don’t hold up under analysis. Let’s look at a few:
1. Trump starting a war? But with whom? Which country, and what cause would he have to go war? One has to be specific. Remember, Obama & Hillary bungled the ending of one war in Iraq, and started another in Libya that has had major consequences for our allies in Europe right now. In contrast, Trump seems to display an aversion to getting involved in the Middle East, and wishes to avoid confrontations with Russia and China.
2. Trump making the economy worse? But the last seven years have been significant for unusually low annual growth in the GDP. That problem is likely due to excessive regulation, a tax system that is not optimized for higher growth, and Obamacare. Trump and any Republicans in Congress will have better policies for higher GDP growth than anything Hillary or Sanders will come up with.
3. Inflation hitting 20%? This isn’t the 1970s, and we don’t have upward pressures on prices. Ceteris paribus, if Hillary or Sanders get their way and let in more immigrants, and have an effective tax on energy, then prices may tend to go higher. Trump wants to restrict immigration and have cheap energy.
4. Trump turning the government into a kleptocracy? But it’s very likely that one major reason Hillary had that secret e-mail server was to conceal the connection between her political activities and donations to the Clinton Foundation.
I’m aware of Trump’s faults, and I don’t expect him to be perfect. But I sincerely believe he is a better alternative than any of the potential Democratic candidates in November. Hillary is the modern face of blatant corruption and dishonesty. I hope that those of you who are not yet convinced of this will be able to come together in a cordial way in November in order to defeat Hillary, if nothing else.
Yankee:
1. Trump may not be interested in war, but others may be interested in exploiting his inexperience, China, Russia, Iran.
2. Tariffs and trade wars to “bring back American jobs.” Not so good for economies of nations. Oh and the Fed can’t keep quantitative easing and monetizing the debt forever.
3. Regulations to enforce tariffs and trade wars, and Trump-care, that Donald vaguely proposed as better than the ACA. He can want cheap energy until the cows come home, he will have to dismantle the EPA first, and the DOI, and the DOE. I suspect he is too lazy for that challenge. Oh, and somehow keep the Saudis from killing what’s left of the US oil and gas sector.
4. Just a Trump kleptocracy. Trump doesn’t have a record for honesty and integrity.
“It will be great.”
Not supporting Trump is seen by many as a sign of closeted leftism, of secretly being a Democrat or Obamite. It’s seen as treachery to the conservative cause.
People can think what they wish, it isn’t going to change the realities of a person’s conscience.
Besides, as people can see, my predictions are accurate. The Left will stomp their boots on your heads and make sure you figure out where the real enemy is. And if Republicans are stupid enough to turn their firepower on their own ranks, they will figure out eventually how much the Left will take while they are distracted.
It’s a little bit too late to use the conformist, circle dance thing in politics to bring US Patriots into line with the Party Line.
As for war, Trump and the next US President won’t have to worry about a foreign war. Cause they’ll be in the US Civil War II. You might get WWIII on top of it, but it won’t concern them overly much.
but I sincerely believe he is a better alternative than any of the potential Democratic candidates in November.
The System is too powerful for any single human to turn Evil into Good. That’s some magic alchemical trick that would be nice to see.
I hope that those of you who are not yet convinced of this will be able to come together in a cordial way in November in order to defeat Hillary, if nothing else.
Assuming Hussein steps down off his Throne without force. Assuming Trump voters and US Patriots aren’t hunted down and killed due to “political violence”.
This is what it means when a democracy becomes an oligarchy.
People should have been thinking about how to kill evil and destroy the Left’s power. Instead, they think Trump will do it for them because Elections. Elections don’t mean as much as you think they do now a days. Perhaps always.
Trump will be secured by the SS, of course, if he takes the Throne. But who is going to protect your families at the grassroots level from BLM, La Raza, San Jose death squads? Trump isn’t going to protect you, he won’t even know you exist.
Why are people getting upset with Progresoverpeace?
Just let the Left smash their face in, that’s what the Left does. If they want our help and arms, they’re going to have to ask politely, and maybe even beg for it given their relative status.
See, in a war, you don’t win by doing the Conformist Circle Dance thing. That’s not how it works. A lot of political boys over in lalaland still think this nation is about democracy and elections, so they think they finally woke up and found a King to save them, Trump.
King’s not gonna save them, of course, for they woke up Too Late. It’s too late.
It doesn’t matter. I knew it didn’t matter since 2007 at the earliest. The Left has enough power to terminate entire demographics in this continent. What people have seen is a merely few percent of the Left’s true power. Even the so called rioters and BLM protesters are their SJW light trash, their light thugs, not the heavy hitters or the pros.