When Donald Trump began jaw-flapping about becoming president a few months ago, the media quite properly regarded his delusions as a joke, and a bad one at that. Most were reluctant to take him seriously due to his utter ignorance of governing and the issues that impact the nation. Add to that his clumsy, racist, boorish rhetoric and childish insults, and why would anyone with a functioning brain stem consider him viable?
News Corpse was among those ridiculing Trump and his lunatic, unachievable aspirations. I explained then that the only reason Trump was leading in the polls was that the field of candidates was so large that it diluted all of the opposing support between more than a dozen non-Trump candidates. I wrote that…
“…there is a demographic in the Republican electorate that can best be described as batshit insane. And Trump has managed to secure a near monopoly on that addle-brained GOP faction. […] Trump’s confederacy of dunces is sufficient in numbers to rise above his rivals, so long as there’s a lot of them. That’s because when you divide the remaining Republicans who are not wacko-birds (h/t John McCain) among the fifteen other candidates, there aren’t enough of them left to surpass the Trump/crazy constituency. That does not mean that Trump has a commanding lead. It means that there are way too many players on the field diluting the results for each of them. As they whittle down to a more manageable number, the 82% of non-Trump supporters will disperse to other candidates who will then tower over his paltry flock.”
Nothing has substantively changed since then. Now, however, the political pundits that were dismissing Trump as the clown that he is, are beginning to warm up to the notion that he is electable. They generally propose that, despite their prior skepticism, the duration of his poll-leading candidacy requires them to reconsider and concede that he is a plausible contestant in the reality show of GOP politics. For example:
- Joe Scarborough, MSNBC: The Republican establishment for the first time saying, off the record, this guy could win.
- Alex Castellanos, GOP strategist: The odds of Trump’s success have increased and been validated in the past few weeks.
- Brit Hume, Fox News: His nomination now becomes something everybody has to say is possible.
- Ed Rollins, GOP strategist: Trump is a serious player for the nomination at this time.
- Chris Wallace, Fox News: I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States.
On Fox News’ MediaBuzz, host Howard Kurtz devoted a segment to the media’s new found faith in Trump’s viability with a graphic reading “Media admit Trump could win after months of being in denial.” First of all, the media aren’t “admitting” anything. They are altering their previously held position. And secondly, they were not in “denial” at the outset. They were uncharacteristically correct in assessing Trump as unserious.
The only problem with this rush to anointing The Donald’s campaign as realistic is that it comes just as his poll numbers are sinking like a stone. There have been several polls in the past week that show him trailing Ben Carson in early primary states, and one showing him behind Carson nationally (not that Carson should be taken seriously either). On top of that, a new poll shows that the Tea Party, whose dying remnants have morphed into Trumpers, has dropped to its lowest level of support ever recorded.
Leave it to the media to crumble and adopt a lazy analysis about an alleged Trump rise to legitimacy just he is being rejected in ever-growing numbers. All of the reasons for treating Trump’s candidacy like a farce headed by a fool are still in place. He still caps out at about a quarter of the GOP vote in a field that is still crowded with rivals. Since when is a candidate considered serious when 75% of those polled choose someone else?
How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.
The myopic view that suddenly Trump is worthy of being called plausible runs contrary to all the evidence available. He is still what he has always been – a joke who most Americans hate and who can’t corral anything near majority. There are only two places where the Plausible Trump Theory resonates: 1) in his own party where “seven in 10 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters say Trump could win in November 2016 if he is nominated.” And 2) in the media that has been seduced by a hostile, immature, intellectually lightweight, bigoted, celebrity candidate. You think that their assessment of Trump has anything to do with their ratings?
The Donald is an intellectually inadequate braggart, fool, consummate idiot. Buh bye Donny boy you are no longer amusing.
Trump and Carson are snake oil salesmen. Carson is selling a book. Trump, as always, is selling his brand. Neither would have a clue what to do were they elected to anything at all. Being President is a 24/7 job, 365 days a year. You have to have thick skin, an intelligence on a par with Einstein, thoughtfulness, a love for people, an ability to surround yourself with advisors on every topic who will tell you the truth, and the ability to communicate lofty goals to all of America. Can either one of these men meet any of these criteria? Can Jindal, Florina, Christie, Kasich, or Santorum? No. There is one person running who is qualified and ready to be President. And she is not a Republican whack job.
“an intelligence on a par with Einstein”
You’ve got to be kidding . Someone is living in fantasy land.
It would be nice if it was true.
I had to come back and read that again – wow.
Can you give some examples of presidents with intelligence on par with Einstein? Even one? I’m looking to be entertained – please say Barack Obama or even your desired choice Hillary Clinton…pleeeeese.
I think this is why I read here – one can’t find entertainment like this anywhere these days.
Comparing Einstein’s intelligence to even a very smart politician just does not compute on any level. Like comparing apples to, um, bulldozers? Well, suffice to say that they are different kinds of intelligence.
That said, I’ve always thought that FDR was a very brilliant man, but that’s the kind of smarts that requires bravery and a willingness to seek out other smart people to help do brave things. FDR knew that he’d have to “sell out” his own people (very rich, old-money aristocrats & industrialists) to turn around the economic death-spiral. We don’t see that kind of courageous intelligence in national politics anymore… but maybe Bernie could pull off a miracle or two, given a fair chance and lots of help.
She probably picked Einstein because even a neurosurgeon would have a hard time meeting that criteria. Stupid comments require ignorant responses.
Jefferson was apparently a brilliant man. Those who spoke of him all attest to his genius.
I suspect that the right-wing media are only revealing their desperation that a Republican must be elected in 2016 or they’re stuffed for another 8 years. Fingers in the wind, hoping against hope that one of the clown car, now emptying, is electable. But even if Carson and Trump ultimately collapse, who is really safe enough and popular enough to replace them in the polls? Gnarly Carly? Nope, she’s going to collapse as well. Jebya? Nope, the Houston strategy session with family and Dubya/Cheney pols is looking for face-saving withdrawal strategy as Bushie has no way of recovering from his pathetic rhetoric and multiple gaffes. Santorum, Jindal and Huckabee are definitely losers, and Kasich can’t decide who he wants to be. Rubio? Dark horse? His absenteeism in the Senate is an embarrassment to his campaign—or it should be. Cruz? A true rabble-rouser when one’s base is nothing but the rabble, the religious theocrats. The GOP is doomed and many of them know it.
I strongly suspect that the GOP Establishment are just going thru the motions at this point. They can’t really believe that any of their candidates really can appeal to voters outside their loyal RWNJ base. Jeb! is likely to pull out and, aside from Rubio (maybe), the others are so damaged by their own insanity and unlikability that even their billionaire backers would probably cut their losses after the first debate with the Dem nominee. (Either Bernie or Hillary could destroy any of these clowns while standing on their heads.) And the public is already figuring out that the MSM is not even trying to stay on track with what’s really happening… hell, they can’t even read poll results off a teleprompter without screwing it up!
Of course, losing the presidency is great for FoxNewz, hate radio, wingnut bloggers, etc… having a new Democrat in the White House gives them 4 to 8 more years to blame “conservative” failures on the Evil Socialist Atheist Baby-killers. Misinformed outrage is big business – ka-ching!
There are no “conservative” failures because there are no conservatives in the GOP power structure anymore. Fox News doesn’t define conservatism – only republicanism today. The GOP are big government republicans using a non-existent free markets to play their games and expand corporate welfare in the name of free markets – all a lie to sucker the every day republican voter into this idea they are still the party from 1994. Lay blame where it belongs and get the ideology correct if maligning people is the game.
I put the word in quotes because I don’t think these jerkwads are truly conservative either, but there are soooo many different definitions these days. Your definition seems to be more libertarian-leaning, but in the political professions it seems to be all about plowing ahead with Reaganomics, never-ending war, anti-environmentalism, Police State violence and erosion of personal rights (because Jesus?)… and yeah, those are Failures of epic proportions. Ideological terminology has been so thoroughly buggered-up in Uh’merica that nothing means anything anymore.
And you just defined the problem with the republican party today and is why they are so hated by their own members (I’m not registered republican anymore). I’m not really a Reagan republican – I’m more traditional conservative – less government, more freedom. I’m a radical civil libertarian with a heavy dose of fiscal conservatism. Big defense, big government and extreme control is closer to what republicanism is today and it’s hated. Ronald Reagan cut taxes – great, but spent way too much and grew deficits and debt. Now we see a result of that – a big mess and the worst of all ideologies much closer to fascism.
I had to add to this after watching the comments by John Kasich this morning – he pretty much told everyone why the republican establishment is so hated in his bitching. He is supposedly conservative, but all he did was complain about how “his” party doesn’t like taxes and funding government as it exists – no suggestion that it should be reduced. He deserves to lose.
They are all big government assholes. Absolutely NO IDEA as to what conservatism is at all. He was totally extreme in his criticism, showing he doesn’t get it. The party as it exists now deserves to lose presidential elections.
“Of course, losing the presidency is great for FoxNewz, hate radio, wingnut bloggers, etc… having a new Democrat in the White House gives them 4 to 8 more years to blame “conservative” failures on the Evil Socialist Atheist Baby-killers. Misinformed outrage is big business – ka-ching!”
You are exactly right. If a republican was in the White House, they would have no place to direct their outrage. Limbaugh and his ilk would lose followers and money. Similarly, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if gun manufacturers actually contributed to Obamas’ reelection campaign to ensure the ammosexuals remained afraid. Ka-ching indeed.
If it was a republican in the white house – there would be no conservative because there are none running that will even survive the primary. There is a big difference I wouldn’t expect you to understand. If I was someone who worked for the federal government, I would be more afraid of a conservative. Today’s establishment republican loves big government and you would be safe. I suggest you figure out which is which since your livelyhood depends on it.
OK, well who do you suggest? The problem is that, when people talk about “less government”, they invariably mean abolishing programs and departments that protect people.