politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Trump out at #RSG15; Update: Fiorina to Trump: “There. Is. No. Excuse.”
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/07/breaking-trump-out-at-rsg15/
Published: Aug 7, 2015
Author: Ed Morrissey
Post Date: 2015-08-08 10:22:08 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 103765
Comments: 479
Earlier this evening, CNN’s Don Lemon interviewed Donald Trump about the debate on Fox News Channel last night, and set off another Trump-related tempest. After noting that Kelly pushed Trump during the debate, and that she “pushed a lot of people” besides Trump, Lemon asked, “What is it with you and Megyn Kelly?” Trump’s reply was, er … colorful, to say the least [emphasis mine]: TRUMP: Well, I just don’t respect her as a journalist, I have no respect for her. I don’t think she’s very good, I think she’s highly overrated. But when I came out there, you know — what am I doing? I’m not getting paid for this. I go out there, and they start saying this stuff [garbled]. But you know, I didn’t know there’d be 24 million people. I knew it was going to be a big crowd because I get crowds, I get ratings. They call me the ratings machine. So I have, you know, she gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions, and you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever. But in my opinion, she was off base. Kelly did ask Trump tough questions in last night’s debate, but she asked tough questions of Marco Rubio on abortion too, and of other candidates on stage as well. As the front-runner, Trump should have expected tough questions, especially given his track record of supporting nearly every progressive idea at one time or another, including Hillary Clinton being President. Kelly also asked Trump about his remarks about women, which appears to have particularly rankled him — and pushed him into validating Kelly’s premise in asking those questions in the first place. After all, it’s not often when a major party candidate takes a shot at a woman by reminding everyone of her menstrual cycle. I’m certain that will really impress women about their place in the Republican Party. Trump was scheduled to speak at the Red State Gathering tomorrow, in the final slot at the event. Not long after these remarks, event organizer Erick Erickson announced that he had withdrawn the invitation: I have rescinded my invitation to Mr.Trump. While I have tried to give him great latitude, his remark about Megyn Kelly was a bridge too far — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 8, 2015 That will undoubtedly anger some Trump supporters, but after last night’s debate performance and his thin-skinned whining afterward, I wonder if that group wasn’t already in decline. This might fire up the die-hard Trump troops, but suggesting that a journalist went after his target-rich record only because she was menstruating should be a disqualifier for most voters. It’s vastly worse than anything Todd Akin said, and will almost certainly have media outlets demanding responses from the other Republican candidates. It’s practically tailor-made for Democrats to hoist up the Republican War On Women banner, especially Hillary Clinton. Get ready for plenty of Team Trump dog-in-the-manger, sour-grapes quotes in the morning, if not overnight. There may be some legitimate anger among a small group of RSG15 attendees tomorrow who wanted to see Trump at this event, but Erick has a solid case for not wanting to have this overshadow the event tomorrow, with more presidential candidates on hand to make their pitches. Erick will almost certainly address this in the morning, and we’ll see what the fallout is over the rest of the day. Update: Carly Fiorina appears to be the first Republican candidate to respond to Trump’s remarks, perhaps fittingly so (via Twitchy): Mr. Trump: There. Is. No. Excuse. — Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) August 8, 2015 I stand with @megynkelly. — Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) August 8, 2015 That’s interesting, because Fiorina actually deflected a Trump question at her presser today at RSG15 by asking why the media wasn’t calling out Obama for his offensive comments about opponents of the Iran deal. Not this time, apparently. Update: Erick has an explanation up at RedState: But I also think that while Mr. Trump resonates with a lot of people with his bluntness, including me to a degree, there are just real lines of decency a person running for President should not trust. His comment was inappropriate. It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong. I have invited Megyn Kelly to attend in Donald Trump’s place tomorrow night. Well, that would be interesting. We’ll see if she can swing that.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 202.
#3. To: TooConservative (#0)
Carly Fiorina: "I'm the new rising star Lion-ess of GOP Presidential candidates!" This broad Fiorina is a hologram. A fake. Wolf in sheeps' clothing. A hedge for Jeb. A totally manufactured candidate who is OBVIOUSLY following a script. She's just as manufactured a product as is the fake outrage against Trump. The Megyn Kelly-led "War on Women!" meme, and the un-holy matrimony of FOX News to the effete GOPe is now exposed to the world. How will Republican voters react to this manipulation? Q: Is there ANYTHING that either FOX News or the GOPe do that isn't contrived, staged bullsh*t?? Their relationship isn't much different than the symbiosis of MSNBC and the Dem Party.
In her rather miserable 2010 CA Senate campaign, she was adamantly pro-choice and on the global hotting side. She was, in fairness, just recovering from surgery and breast cancer and had just lost an adopted daughter. I think she has prepared for and wants to be the new Palin, an attack dog that can defy the usual War On Women themes. She is a much better prepared candidate now than she was in her 2010 race or in her role in 2012 as a highly placed Romney surrogate. Given that she is appealing to the GOP party establishment, it's no surprise she's demoing her willingness to go on the attack yet again.
She was, in fairness, just recovering from surgery and breast cancer and had just lost an adopted daughter. In fairness, why should her personal her problems have played into her life philosophy? In order to be "fair"?? What proof have we that she's sincerely suddenly changed her mind on those two hot-button issues that are traditionally DEM red meat requisites? I think she has prepared for and wants to be the new Palin, an attack dog that can defy the usual War On Women themes. That portrayal appears to be the narrative/script for the time being. But now she's just defied her defiance of the "War on Women" theme by going after Trump. That didn't take long. She is a much better prepared candidate now than she was in her 2010 race or in her role in 2012 as a highly placed Romney surrogate. Yup, I agree wholeheartedly. Fiorina polished inside and outside, and seems to have attended finishing school for GOPe Candidates. Given that she is appealing to the GOP party establishment, it's no surprise she's demoing her willingness to go on the attack yet again. But THIS time, her handlers have jumped on the "Destroy-Trump!" bandwagon, which undoubtedly endears her to the RNC. My impression: Fiorina seems...almost TOO polished, too smooth, too confident. And NOW she can play off and exploit the "War on Women" card and not be treated "meanly" during the campaign. How utterly reptilian AND brilliant!
It is a clever strategy, certainly obvious enough. Donald made an unforced error, Fiorina swoops in to capitalize on it. I saw a number of political consultants who think that Fiorina won both debates on Thursday. No one at the main debate had as good a night as she had in the 5pm debate. Then she raced to PMSNBC and kicked Chrissy Matthews in the balls. So she's on a roll and will definitely make the cut for the main debate upcoming on CNN. Where she can slice and dice Teh Donald to his face for a big audience. Let's imagine how that might go. She attacks him for chummy phone calls with Bill Xlinton and for saying he might run third-party. He makes some angry retort about her tenure as HP CEO. She then says something acidic in return and finishes with, "I hope you don't think I'm bleeding from...somewhere like you said about Megan Kelly, you crude buffoon."
The DNC is probably trying to figure out how they got upstaged with the "Trump plan." They probably see Trump in the race as a master stroke of RNC strategery:) I heard they are now delaying their first debate. Wonder is Vasserman Sholtz is looking for a lightening rod:) As it stands all the Dim candidates are boring. Not good "television."
You know they're trying to script up ways to tar the entire GOP with Trump. Media to any GOP nominee: "Why did you not confront Donald Trump's hate speech toward Mexicans or even Megan Kelly? Aren't you part of the GOP's War On Womyn?" Etc.
Is Trump the tar on the GOP or is the GOP the tar on Trump?
Trump is just Trump, same as ever. He has always been only about himself. Being a New Yorker, he considers the GOP just a line among a few dozen others on the NY state ballot, probably has no idea it isn't like that elsewhere in the country. I think Trump is actually pretty naive about America generally, probably the worst in either field. Donald Trump's life is all about excluding the 99% entirely.
Talking like a Democrat there, Hoss! The GOP is a failed ideological party. I say this as a former Republican. Most party supporters kind of know this. Why? 8 years of Clinton prosperity in contrast to what went on in the Bush 8 years showed - at least subliminally - many Republicans probably had their political "faith" shaken by what happened. Of course these very same GOP members they have been saying all these talking points for years and are stuck in the faith but deep down inside they view their ideology like a failed religion. Sort of how pagans must have felt in the late Roman empire. They still sacrificed at the altar out of habit and tradition but deep down inside they know it is an empty faith.
When Clinton was President the economy was still running on Reagans fumes left in the gas tank. By the time Bush became President the Clinton Stench was already taking hold.
No, that is bullshit and a wilful forgetting of history. The fact that Bush was president in between Clinton and Reagan is forgotten by you? What engine do you know that runs on fumes for 4 years? In any case, Clinton era economy showed that raising taxes has zero effect on an economy. Gingrich and most Republicans screamed that the raising of taxes would tank the economy and that did not happen. Bush came in and cut taxes and the economy sank regardless.
Your talking points deep political commentary is paper thin. I will again mention Bubba was restrained by a GOP dominated House and Senate. Which means he taxed high in the first two years, lost the Dem House majority and was not able to raise taxes the final 6 years. Add to that a GOP balanced budget. If not for the Gingrich Congress, Bubba would have spent us into the same oblivion that Bush 2 and Obola did. The success of Bubba was not raising taxes, which later he said he did too much, but realizing the new GOP congress was not going away and looking for things he could do to increase his legacy. For example the reform of welfare he signed into law. Of course Obola blotted out that accomplishment of Bubba-Gingrich. Stop reading those DC area textbooks. National economics are a lot more complex than we all think. And takes years to figure out all the dynamics. A good explanation here: As for Gingrich, he was quite accurate when he said the economy did better in the '90s after the Republicans took control of Congress, in particular after the '97 tax cuts. In fact, the Gross Domestic Product shrank in the first year after the Clinton tax hikes to an annual rate of 2.9 percent down from 1992's 3.4 percent. That's right: the economy as measured by GDP was better the year before Clinton took office and raised taxes than it was the year after. By far the best years under Clinton came after the Republican tax cuts when the GDP grew annually by 4.5 percent, 4.4 percent, 4.8 percent, and 4.1 percent from 1997 to 2000. The best job creation also occurred after the Republicans took over Congress with less than seven million new jobs created in 1993 and 1994 compared to over sixteen million in the next six years. As for the fiscal impact of the Clinton tax hikes, the left always ignores that we ran budget deficits in his first term. It was only after the Republican tax cuts that surpluses occurred. As for the stock market, Gingrich was of course correct that it did far better after the Republicans took over Congress than the two years when the Democrats controlled everything: I explained this all on Willie's horrible thread where you made the same claims. You did not respond to the data. Here's the entire piece: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/09/newt- gingrich-schools-lawrence-odonnell-clinton-tax-hikes
This prediction did not happen. Clearly the economic theory failed to meet the prediction. This contradiction between the official ideology and the facts is what I propose has destroyed confidence in GOP's current ideology on a subliminal level. This I think is the real reason Clinton was deeply hated by the GOP. Clinton was a conservative Democrat more than any in recent history yet he was hated. Why? He exposed the other side's operating thesis as a lie.
You have comprehension issues or just don't read my posts? You have twice responded to me with clips of refuted positions. Also check the time line. Was Newt House speaker in 93? What happened in 94 after the tax increases? How many balanced budgets happened after 95? Look at those balanced budgets and the tax reductions in them that Clinton signed into law. Basically just read everything I posted and you will see O'Donnel never got an apology and was taken to school by Gingrich.
Inflation and unemployment went down despite a tax increase. Sounds like the GOP doom and gloom over a tax increase is a false theory. Unemployment keeps falling. in 1998 it was below 5% all with high taxes especially on the rich. How is this possible per GOP ideology? 1999 Unemployment is at 4.5% - that is like saying pretty much everyone is working. Bush, jr gets elected and cuts taxes and instead of growth or steadiness the economy collapses. Again proving the GOP thesis on taxes and job growth is bullshit. http://www.1990sflashback.com/1993/economy.asp Inflation: 2.9% Consumer Price Index: 144.5 Unemployment: 7.5% http://www.1990sflashback.com/1994/economy.asp Inflation: 2.7% Consumer Price Index: 148.2 Unemployment: 6.9%
So the tax cuts proposed and signed into law after the contract with America did not contribute to growth? The balanced budgets? There was no spike in growth one mere year into a tax hike. As I said and showed there is more to national economics. It is not monolithic.
The balanced budgets? There was no spike in growth one mere year into a tax hike. As I said and showed there is more to national economics. It is not monolithic. One again, why did the tax cuts of Bush fail to keep the economy booming and why did Clinton's tax increase not destroy prosperity? Answer? There is no correlation between the two. It is just a campaign talking point - a gimmick where a majorly complex thing like macroeconomics can be distilled into a one sentence line to throw out to the ignorant. I mean it sounds scientific and I mean lower taxes and the economy booms right? I mean if taxes are up people can't spend on stuff to buy and the economy slows, right? Sounds like it's based on economic science. But then how can an increase in taxes bring about a hot booming economy? The GOP can't explain how their theory failed to produce the predicted result.
Because Bush did not decrease spending. He expanded social programs along with a huge bill for two wars. Big difference. When you expand the size of the economy with tax cuts, but expand spending how much government spends, you get disaster. Same principle when you raise taxes and yet spend what you collect and beyond you get disaster. When you have Bush 2 economics followed by Obolo economics you have what we see today disaster. Clinton raised taxes in 93. The GOP Congress curbed spending by balancing the budget 4 times. Clinton was a tax and spend Democrat. He taxed but could not spend. He needs to thank Newt for this legacy.
The point is the tax increase under Clinton did not send the economy into recession as prophesied.
You should try using Carly Fiorina to make your point. Jorge Arbusto gave here a big tax cut; and she wiped out 30,000 American jobs. She tanked HP; and walked away with a 21 million dollar severance package!
Carly Fiorina was a crappy CEO. If she failed at running a company, she's certainly not going to do better running a country. We've had a warning already about incompetent businessmen running things. W Bush was an incompetent businessman.
When he was an exec with the Texas Rangers he traded Sammy Sosa in his prime. Warning sign right there:) Actually, I think we are due for a retired Flag/General Officer for president. Most know how futile these indecisive wars truly are and know how to run larger organizations and tell people what to do. I would support Raymond Odierno if he ran. Would have to check his position on abortion but probably know where he stands on that as he is Catholic.
So's Pelosi. Being Catholic doesn't mean anything.
#205. To: Vicomte13 (#202)
Odierno don't see him being in the radical Pelosi camp. But you are right would have to know for sure. I never asked him when I worked for him.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#25. To: Liberator (#3)
(Edited)
This broad Fiorina is a hologram. A fake. Wolf in sheeps' clothing. A hedge for Jeb.
#38. To: TooConservative (#25)
In her rather miserable 2010 CA Senate campaign, she was adamantly pro-choice and on the global hotting side.
#41. To: Liberator (#38)
(Edited)
But THIS time, her handlers have jumped on the "Destroy-Trump!" bandwagon, which undoubtedly endears her to the RNC. My impression: Fiorina seems...almost TOO polished, too smooth, too confident. And NOW she can play off and exploit the "War on Women" card and not be treated "meanly" during the campaign. How utterly reptilian AND brilliant!
#89. To: TooConservative (#41)
#92. To: redleghunter (#89)
The DNC is probably trying to figure out how they got upstaged with the "Trump plan." They probably see Trump in the race as a master stroke of RNC strategery:)
#94. To: TooConservative (#92)
You know they're trying to script up ways to tar the entire GOP with Trump.
#97. To: Pericles (#94)
Is Trump the tar on the GOP or is the GOP the tar on Trump?
#100. To: TooConservative (#97)
I think Trump is actually pretty naive about America generally, probably the worst in either field. Donald Trump's life is all about excluding the 99% entirely.
#103. To: Pericles (#100)
Most party supporters kind of know this. Why? 8 years of Clinton prosperity in contrast to what went on in the Bush 8 years showed - at least subliminally - many Republicans probably had their political "faith" shaken by what happened.
#107. To: Excalibur (#103)
When Clinton was President the economy was still running on Reagans fumes left in the gas tank. By the time Bush became President the Clinton Stench was already taking hold.
#142. To: Pericles, Excalibur, liberator, GarySpFc, CZ82, tomder55, TooConservative (#107)
In any case, Clinton era economy showed that raising taxes has zero effect on an economy. Gingrich and most Republicans screamed that the raising of taxes would tank the economy and that did not happen. Bush came in and cut taxes and the economy sank regardless.
#145. To: redleghunter, Excalibur, liberator, GarySpFc, CZ82, tomder55, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#142)
"'The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit.' That’s Newt Gingrich in 1993 on the Clinton tax increase."
#154. To: Pericles (#145)
This prediction did not happen. Clearly the economic theory failed to meet the prediction.
#156. To: redleghunter (#154)
(Edited)
Also check the time line. Was Newt House speaker in 93? What happened in 94 after the tax increases?
#159. To: Pericles (#156)
#162. To: redleghunter (#159)
So the tax cuts proposed and signed into law after the contract with America did not contribute to growth?
#165. To: Pericles (#162)
One again, why did the tax cuts of Bush fail to keep the economy booming and why did Clinton's tax increase not destroy prosperity?
#182. To: redleghunter (#165)
Because Bush did not decrease spending.
#185. To: Pericles (#182)
The point is the tax increase under Clinton did not send the economy into recession as prophesied.
#189. To: nativist nationalist (#185)
#201. To: Vicomte13 (#189)
W Bush was an incompetent businessman.
#202. To: redleghunter (#201)
Would have to check his position on abortion but probably know where he stands on that as he is Catholic.
Replies to Comment # 202.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 202.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]