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 Not long after these remarks, event organizer Erick Erickson announced that he had withdrawn the invitation:
I have rescinded my invitation to Mr.Trump.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
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):
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.
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.
I'd rather insult you and call you names. Because you shill for GOPe.
And he does not even have the honesty to admit. Most of his history is just posturing; because he knows the BS he's peddling isn't too popular on Main Street. Check out what his trade policies have done to your own state. His economic prescriptions are like drinking anti-freeze; he needs to be dishonest and package it as wine because it will not sell when sold truthfully for what it is.
After how most of the GOPe came after Trump, I would not be surprised if he flips them off now and start his 3rd party run. He knows how long that will take to do.
If he does, I'm with him.
If he doesn't, then the GOP will get the benefit of my vote for Trump.
Her NEW image, her NEW words of NEW wisdom are scripted and manufactured. Don't be fooled into buying the Fiorina Fenomenena. Yes, she sounds good...TOO good. Where's she been all this time??
Where's she been all this time?
Taking additional acting lessons. She's starting out her new acting talents with a new script in a role that offers her the opportunity to portray herself as president.
Hey, I get called a DEMOCRAT all the time! Which isn't true.
Also, a "socialist". Which also is not true. Socialists believe in state ownership of the primary means of production. I believe that the state should operate a robust social insurance program, and pay for that through taxation of the private economy, which produces its wealth through the private ownership of the means of the production (though I do think that the federal government should directly exploit the resources on federal land, and that actually would be socialism, as far as it went. But I don't think that the federal government should nationalize land in order to exploit the resources beneath it.
I saw her debate performance and her spanking of Chrissy Matthews. I liked what I saw.
So I said so.
But then I saw her overnight stupidity, piling on Donald Trump to defend Megan Kelley. Nope. Fiorina was an incompetent CEO, and now she's decided to pick the wrong side in a fight that I care about. Therefore she is garbage to me. She coulda been a contender, but she took the wrong side and I no longer give politicians the benefit of the doubt. Especially when they attack somebody I like.
She's a whiny bitch. We don't need a whiny bitch in the White House, especially one with her record of screwing Americans out of jobs.
She coulda been a contender, but she took the wrong side and I no longer give politicians the benefit of the doubt. Especially when they attack somebody I like.
Reasonable. You must have missed her reaction when Trump announced.
I'm like you in a way. If they attack Trump they are dead to me politically. At At least they way they are doing it now.
I thought it was funny when Erickson tweeted, "I paid for that microphone and this is my show."
I hope it's a sensitive microphone, then, so we can all hear the crickets.
Except that even if it is, we won't be hearing the crickets, because nobody is going to watch or pay attention. Trump was interesting. You've invited a bunch of boring, useless politicians, and a whiny cunt. Nobody cares about them or you, Erickson. You've jumped the shark.
Carly Fiorina was a crappy CEO. If she failed at running a company, she's certainly not going to do better running a country.
HP tossed her out. The stock took a big jump when she got the boot, just the news she was leaving did that. The US should take a pass on her "talents." Of course her proven track record as a loser is something the RNC establishment types can embrace.
I hope it's a sensitive microphone, then, so we can all hear the crickets.
Erick Erickson fits in with the proven RNC track record of losing; even when they win! The RNC is not about defeating the democrats; they are all about protecting the ruling class oligarchy.
For damned good reason! Since then she has attempted to found a new career in politics based on her touting her reputation as having been a CEO under the supposition nobody would look very closely. She started out as a secretary pounding a typewriter and answering phones then slicked her way upward. HP needs to return to having research engineers as Hewlett and Packard were to run the company who could "walk the halls" instead of empty headed goofs with spicy aggressive personality.
The point is the tax increase under Clinton did not send the economy into recession as prophesied.
The counter point is that is because the GOP Congress did not allow him to raise the taxes higher and expand government spending.
Taking more money from people does not fuel an economy; unless one thinks the Fed gov is a creator of economic growth. Increasing taxes puts more of the circulated wealth in the pocket of government. Unless that money is spent on military equipment and also infrastructure it is producing nothing towards GDP.
Even Obama's "shovel ready" projects did nothing to restart the economy.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
The point is the tax increase under Clinton did not send the economy into recession as prophesied. The counter point is that is because the GOP Congress did not allow him to raise the taxes higher and expand government spending.
Taking more money from people does not fuel an economy; unless one thinks the Fed gov is a creator of economic growth. Increasing taxes puts more of the circulated wealth in the pocket of government. Unless that money is spent on military equipment and also infrastructure it is producing nothing towards GDP.
Even Obama's "shovel ready" projects did nothing to restart the economy.
That is bullshit and all over the place. Not only did you get your facts wrong about GDP and when the tax cut happened vs the contract with America - contract which was bullshit per the CATO institute no less.
The GOP said those exact tax increases - they did not reduce a higher increase in negotiations - would tank the economy and that did not happen.
How long are you going to believe the fairy tale that taxes affect the economy?
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.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Among those who agree with Cohen about the tenor of questioning is … Trump nemesis Lindsey Graham? Huh?
“This was more of an inquisition than it was a debate,” Graham said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday morning. “It was a missed opportunity to talk about things that really mattered.”
Graham charged that debate moderators Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly were particularly unfair in their questioning of Trump, the outspoken billionaire who is leading many GOP polls.
“At the end of the day, ask the man a question that explains his position and his solutions rather than a ten-minute question that describes him as the biggest bastard on the planet,” Graham quipped.
That is bullshit and all over the place. Not only did you get your facts wrong about GDP and when the tax cut happened vs the contract with America - contract which was bullshit per the CATO institute no less.
The GOP said those exact tax increases - they did not reduce a higher increase in negotiations - would tank the economy and that did not happen.
How long are you going to believe the fairy tale that taxes affect the economy?
Then explain to me in economic terms how a tax increase fueled an increase in GDP and the associated monetary policy?
There are two reasons governments raise taxes. First is so they can spend more money; second to stave off inflation. Inflation was not a problem in 93.
Then look at how budgets are submitted in our government. Clinton was inaugurated in January 93. He submitted a budget in March for the next fiscal year 94. None of his policies went into effect until the later quarters of 94. Any GDP growth in 93 and the early quarters of 94 were from the previous administration.
POM years are two year programs; FYDP goes out to 5 years. The POM for 93 starts in the new fiscal year of 94 which starts in October of 93.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
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.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Compounded by Obolo disengaging in the region thus creating a huge vacuum. It could have been done more responsibly and still meet his campaign promises. All he had to do was listen to his generals.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Then explain to me in economic terms how a tax increase fueled an increase in GDP and the associated monetary policy?
I already told you there is NO correlation between the tax rates - especially on the rich - and the economy. So raising taxes on the rich, or lowering them, would not in any way affect economic growth up or down.
I campaigned for him in 2000. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him by 2008, so I voted for Palin.
Sure you did. Like you were hoping for an election to go to the House/Senate and Palin would end up VP to Obama. Or that Stain would quickly die after becoming prez.
“At the end of the day, ask the man a question that explains his position and his solutions rather than a ten-minute question that describes him as the biggest bastard on the planet,” Graham quipped.
It's nonsense. Trump doesn't even have a campaign now that Roger Stone has left him.
No one can seriously think that Trump was going to get the nomination without libmedia going after him tooth and nail on his three divorces, his history of outrageous remarks, his four bankruptcies (including some outright swindles of middle class home buyers).
We'll see how long Trump lasts. We've had exactly one debate. Like most diehard supporters of a frontrunner in a primary campaign, you mostly want to declare the race is over and that your candidate is the nominee long before unreliable Iowa has held its corrupt and largely phony caucuses.
And after Trump flames out, we'll all get the same line of "inevitability" from the Bush camp. In fact, Trump's presence in the race is helping Bush to secure the nomination and keeping alternatives to Bush from getting money and campaign attention.
The Trumpsters of 2015 are no more convincing than the Cainiacs or the Gin-grinches of 2011. And the result will be the same.
Enjoy it while it lasts. Which won't be much longer because you have a lousy and undisciplined candidate that likes to shoot his mouth off and who has no real staff that have ever run a successful state campaign, let alone have any experience in a national campaign (not even a losing national campaign).
People always say they're sick of politicians and want someone else. And yet, given the choice, they almost always pick the smoothest professional politician. There are rare exceptions, like Berlusconi of Italy (who may evenutally return to power after conviction for tax fraud and an underage sex scandal). Hard to find any other examples where some outsider tycoon has won an election in a major country. Berlusconi has an advantage in that Italy is so grossly corrupt and mismanaged, even more obviously to voters than America suffers from its own pols.
And after Trump flames out, we'll all get the same line of "inevitability" from the Bush camp. In fact, Trump's presence in the race is helping Bush to secure the nomination and keeping alternatives to Bush from getting money and campaign attention.
blah blah blah.
I don't care about the other candidates.
Here is a list of asshole candidates Bush, The Fiorian bitch, Christie, Rubio, Perry, Graham, Rand Paul
Here are ok candidates that don't have a chance Jindal, Carson,
Here is a candidate that I am unsure of. Scott Walker. But I'm kind of skeptica skeptical about him.
Here are the good candidates. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump.
As you can see it was going to be Bush. Now it is Bush or Trump.
You can have Trump or Hillary. Take your pick. Because most Republicans hate Bu Bush. That is why he is at like 12 percent.
Trump can win two ways. As the Republican nominee or third party. I'd prefer he win the R nomination as that would knock out anyone else from the R nomination.
I'm patient. Teh Donald already has (or soon will) pull the pin and then jump on his own grenade.
Here is why I say you are clueless. You don't understand how pissed people are at the government. Trump voters aren't going to abandon him. Do you not unders understand that? There may be a few that do a tiny sliver, very tiny.
Once you understand that you might make better predictions about the future.
It really is that simple. I like him. I like his F U attitude towards as assholes.
So again the lesson is. Trump supporters aren't going to abandon him. No ma matter what.
Megan Kelly and Eric Ericson are damaged goods now. Their expiration date is coming up real soon.
Here is why I say you are clueless. You don't understand how pissed people are at the government.
Voter tantrums rarely win national elections, though they may lead to changes in legislators, like the Tea party victories here in America or the rise of parties on the Right in the EU.
He did have a good father. Who taught him well. So well that he surpassed his father father.
Trump's father was one of the biggest slumlords in NYC. As a major real estate mogul, he wielded substantial political power as well.
After Donald graduated from Wharton, his father gave him a rundown slum property in the Midwest and the financing to remodel it and make it a success. That was how Donald started out. He did gravitate toward casinos and luxury properties, now with big country clubs as part of a package deal. In other words, his real customers and associates are the 1%ers.
I doubt Trump has ever spent any time with anyone who isn't at least a millionaire. People like him arrange their schedules and affairs so they never meet or have any contact with their landscapers and the people who clean their houses.
Trump is in the top 1% of the 1%, going by his own claims. That you try to portray him as some humble man of the people would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
Being in the rental business is a legitimate business. There is nothing wrong with with providing housing for low income families.
Since you know so much about his father.
Tell me about 5 of the houses he rented out. Tell me for how much and I want pictures of the houses and the insides. Otherwise you are just lying again.
Your assumptions lead to rhetorical rotmouth. You should learn not to make strawman, red-herrings because it makes you look like a loser in any discussion.
Effectively, everyone sees you stumbling over yourself on the dance floor while you see yourself in a mirror thinking you are doing swell.
Tell me about 5 of the houses he rented out. Tell me for how much and I want pictures of the houses and the insides. Otherwise you are just lying again.
Hooey.
Frederick Christ Trump owned 27,000 properties in NYC. Other than a handful of respectable flagship properties, these were overwhelmingly in low-income areas and were neglected properties. He was a slumlord in NYC back in the years when NYC teetered on bankruptcy, suffering high crime.
