Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Defends Trump’s Racist, Fascist Behavior - Because Liberals
2016-03-10 15:16:00 -0500
· Flag
I’m frankly growing tired of the right wing talking point that Trump’s current flash in the pan is somehow the result of liberal policies or of President Obama. It’s nonsensical in the extreme.
Donald Trump is happily feeding from the anger and hatred of right wing white male voters who have been repeatedly stoked by right wing radio and Fox News over the past 20 years. There is a direct line from the angry listener/fan of Rush Limbaugh and the angry pro-Trump hater who calls people names online and in person. Trump’s loudest voters have regularly been told (sometimes by Trump himself) that President Obama isn’t a true American, that their country is losing, that the rest of the world is laughing at us, that we’re unsafe in our own homes, that the bad people are in the process of invading us.
And to be fair, there are plenty of Trump voters who are fans of his celebrity and his various reality show TV appearances. These are the people who remember him from Celebrity Apprentice or Miss Universe or who believed his hype about his various businesses.
But his primary base of voting support is coming from people who have repeatedly been fired up to vote for Republicans because they were going to stop President Obama or put Hillary Clinton in jail or whatever other right wing fantasy was in play at the moment. These are the people who still think that Fast & Furious was some sinister cover-up, that the IRS bookkeeping situation was a sinister attack, that Benghazi was some cover-up, etc. And I bet if you peel it back far enough, you’ll find the same people will tell you that Ramos & Compean were wrongly jailed heroes too. These are the people who think that the Limbaugh adline “Well SOMEBODY had to have the guts to say it!” is something to live by. The same people who agree with the right winger polled by Frank Luntz some time ago who said that people “can’t even speak the truth anymore or else you’ll be called a racist.” Meaning that they wish they could go back to the days when you just threw around the racist epithets with impunity.
It’s understandable why these guys are so angry. Over the past 15 years, they’ve watched their economic situation slide badly and they don’t earn today what they did back in 2000, or at least what they heard people were making in 2000. The fact that people were maxing out their credit cards and flipping houses they couldn’t afford doesn’t seem to enter into that equation, but no matter. The fact that people were living way beyond their means and not saving anything also doesn’t enter into the equation. Instead, the blame goes to whoever their heroes tell them is at fault. So if Rush Limbaugh regularly tells them that the economy was wonderful under W. Bush and terrible under President Obama, then that must be true. If Fox News regularly tells them how great everything was under GOP presidents and how awful everything is under President Obama, then that must be true. And if both of their choice media outlets tell them that the GOP have been cowards for not doing even more to obstruct President Obama and the Dems, then that’s not only true but an outrage.
It’s interesting that these guys never figure out that that GOP obstruction in Congress actually extended the economic troubles for many people. It isn’t just the credit downgrade and the constant brinksmanship that the GOP uses for campaign purposes. It isn’t just the refusal to extend unemployment benefits. It isn’t even that the Trump voters never figure out that the radio shouters are cherry picking their data to talk the economy down further. (It’s funny how the right wing suddenly discovered the under-employed area of the unemployment stats the moment that President Obama took office, where they’d denied its existence during W. Bush’s term.) The key here is that the Trump voters have not been able to figure out just how much they’re being manipulated – they’ve never understood that the GOP down-talk of the economy was intentional. Of course, it was supposed to get a Republican into the White House in 2012 and spectacularly failed. And now the GOP establishment is surprised that this has helped result in the rise of someone like Trump.
As for Bill O’Reilly’s bogus list, it’s laughable. He ridicules the established facts that various police officers have acted in a racist fashion – sometimes resulting in actual deaths. He misunderstands the border issues and simplifies them down to just wanting the big wall with the moat. He once again plays up the GOP standard talking point about how bad the economy is. He lies about how the Dems deal with terrorism. He repeats a nonsensical talking point about President Obama and golf, without any of the context of what was happening at the time. He repeats a nonsensical talking point about how our culture’s small moves toward tolerance are somehow impinging on people’s religious beliefs. (That’s the REALLY offensive one – the notion that it’s okay to be racist, homophobic or whatever so long as you hide behind your church. The reality is that most spiritually-minded people believe in notions of togetherness, love and mutual respect – the guys O’Reilly is defending are the ones who use the church as a way to divide and anger people.) He repeats the canard about how the legal system is hurting businesses without noting that those businesses are practicing hateful behavior and are breaking various laws. He once again repeats the talking point about how the “liberal media” is somehow keeping the angry conservatives like himself down. (This at the same time that he regularly crows about his household ratings and the right wing radio media always crows about their numbers) He takes a swipe at teachers and presents an almost comical image of them damaging “defenseless children”. And once again, he takes a swipe at the notion of justice for people who have been discriminated against.
We could even see O’Reilly’s list as an actual recounting of many of the lies that have led right wing males to turn to someone like Trump. And it’s yet another repetition of those lies, to help reinforce them. Are we really surprised that right wing male voters are turning to a strong man who says he can solve their problems by standing up to the people they’ve been encouraged to hate? Have we learned nothing from history?
Donald Trump is happily feeding from the anger and hatred of right wing white male voters who have been repeatedly stoked by right wing radio and Fox News over the past 20 years. There is a direct line from the angry listener/fan of Rush Limbaugh and the angry pro-Trump hater who calls people names online and in person. Trump’s loudest voters have regularly been told (sometimes by Trump himself) that President Obama isn’t a true American, that their country is losing, that the rest of the world is laughing at us, that we’re unsafe in our own homes, that the bad people are in the process of invading us.
And to be fair, there are plenty of Trump voters who are fans of his celebrity and his various reality show TV appearances. These are the people who remember him from Celebrity Apprentice or Miss Universe or who believed his hype about his various businesses.
But his primary base of voting support is coming from people who have repeatedly been fired up to vote for Republicans because they were going to stop President Obama or put Hillary Clinton in jail or whatever other right wing fantasy was in play at the moment. These are the people who still think that Fast & Furious was some sinister cover-up, that the IRS bookkeeping situation was a sinister attack, that Benghazi was some cover-up, etc. And I bet if you peel it back far enough, you’ll find the same people will tell you that Ramos & Compean were wrongly jailed heroes too. These are the people who think that the Limbaugh adline “Well SOMEBODY had to have the guts to say it!” is something to live by. The same people who agree with the right winger polled by Frank Luntz some time ago who said that people “can’t even speak the truth anymore or else you’ll be called a racist.” Meaning that they wish they could go back to the days when you just threw around the racist epithets with impunity.
It’s understandable why these guys are so angry. Over the past 15 years, they’ve watched their economic situation slide badly and they don’t earn today what they did back in 2000, or at least what they heard people were making in 2000. The fact that people were maxing out their credit cards and flipping houses they couldn’t afford doesn’t seem to enter into that equation, but no matter. The fact that people were living way beyond their means and not saving anything also doesn’t enter into the equation. Instead, the blame goes to whoever their heroes tell them is at fault. So if Rush Limbaugh regularly tells them that the economy was wonderful under W. Bush and terrible under President Obama, then that must be true. If Fox News regularly tells them how great everything was under GOP presidents and how awful everything is under President Obama, then that must be true. And if both of their choice media outlets tell them that the GOP have been cowards for not doing even more to obstruct President Obama and the Dems, then that’s not only true but an outrage.
It’s interesting that these guys never figure out that that GOP obstruction in Congress actually extended the economic troubles for many people. It isn’t just the credit downgrade and the constant brinksmanship that the GOP uses for campaign purposes. It isn’t just the refusal to extend unemployment benefits. It isn’t even that the Trump voters never figure out that the radio shouters are cherry picking their data to talk the economy down further. (It’s funny how the right wing suddenly discovered the under-employed area of the unemployment stats the moment that President Obama took office, where they’d denied its existence during W. Bush’s term.) The key here is that the Trump voters have not been able to figure out just how much they’re being manipulated – they’ve never understood that the GOP down-talk of the economy was intentional. Of course, it was supposed to get a Republican into the White House in 2012 and spectacularly failed. And now the GOP establishment is surprised that this has helped result in the rise of someone like Trump.
As for Bill O’Reilly’s bogus list, it’s laughable. He ridicules the established facts that various police officers have acted in a racist fashion – sometimes resulting in actual deaths. He misunderstands the border issues and simplifies them down to just wanting the big wall with the moat. He once again plays up the GOP standard talking point about how bad the economy is. He lies about how the Dems deal with terrorism. He repeats a nonsensical talking point about President Obama and golf, without any of the context of what was happening at the time. He repeats a nonsensical talking point about how our culture’s small moves toward tolerance are somehow impinging on people’s religious beliefs. (That’s the REALLY offensive one – the notion that it’s okay to be racist, homophobic or whatever so long as you hide behind your church. The reality is that most spiritually-minded people believe in notions of togetherness, love and mutual respect – the guys O’Reilly is defending are the ones who use the church as a way to divide and anger people.) He repeats the canard about how the legal system is hurting businesses without noting that those businesses are practicing hateful behavior and are breaking various laws. He once again repeats the talking point about how the “liberal media” is somehow keeping the angry conservatives like himself down. (This at the same time that he regularly crows about his household ratings and the right wing radio media always crows about their numbers) He takes a swipe at teachers and presents an almost comical image of them damaging “defenseless children”. And once again, he takes a swipe at the notion of justice for people who have been discriminated against.
We could even see O’Reilly’s list as an actual recounting of many of the lies that have led right wing males to turn to someone like Trump. And it’s yet another repetition of those lies, to help reinforce them. Are we really surprised that right wing male voters are turning to a strong man who says he can solve their problems by standing up to the people they’ve been encouraged to hate? Have we learned nothing from history?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Democratic Town Hall - Open Thread
2016-03-08 14:49:16 -0500
· Flag
I agree with EOF for the most part. Fox didn’t do the completely brazen red meat toss I expected, but their treatment of these candidates was intended to subtly demean them.
I’m not surprised that the real news networks are ignoring Fox News’ conduct wherever they can. Because Fox News is not a real news network and the other networks are appropriately dismissing them other than to chuckle at the most outrageous moments of right wing bile.
As we noted, Sanders only did this interview as a desperate measure – that it might raise his profile and also embarrass Clinton. Doesn’t appear to have had either effect, and now we’re headed into primaries where his delegate insufficiency will begin to grow to colossal levels.
And I agree that this was a small test for Hillary Clinton as a prep for her upcoming debates with Trump this fall. I tend to doubt any of them will happen on Fox News.
And I wouldn’t worry about Ted Cruz. He’s over 80 delegates behind, and will be up to 200 delegates behind within the next week. His interviews now are betraying a growing panic. He’s now frantically trying to beg the other candidates to get out of the race, partly for his own ego, and partly because he knows he’s out of room now and on the verge of a significant humiliation.
I’m not surprised that the real news networks are ignoring Fox News’ conduct wherever they can. Because Fox News is not a real news network and the other networks are appropriately dismissing them other than to chuckle at the most outrageous moments of right wing bile.
As we noted, Sanders only did this interview as a desperate measure – that it might raise his profile and also embarrass Clinton. Doesn’t appear to have had either effect, and now we’re headed into primaries where his delegate insufficiency will begin to grow to colossal levels.
And I agree that this was a small test for Hillary Clinton as a prep for her upcoming debates with Trump this fall. I tend to doubt any of them will happen on Fox News.
And I wouldn’t worry about Ted Cruz. He’s over 80 delegates behind, and will be up to 200 delegates behind within the next week. His interviews now are betraying a growing panic. He’s now frantically trying to beg the other candidates to get out of the race, partly for his own ego, and partly because he knows he’s out of room now and on the verge of a significant humiliation.
Kevin Koster commented on Hillary Clinton Will Join Bernie Sanders In Fox News' Town Hall
2016-03-05 15:14:01 -0500
· Flag
What I’m seeing here is a desperation play by Sanders. He’s about to fall even farther behind, as he loses Louisiana by a large margin and struggles to compete in the other states. And he’ll fall another 100-150 delegates behind on Tuesday. By March 15th, even his supporters will have to admit what we knew this past week. But for now, he’s hoping to do something to make a splash.
So, yes, Sanders has agreed to show up on Fox News. From his perspective, maybe he could get some of the anti-Trump GOP guys to pay attention to him as an alternative – in that they hate both Trump and Hillary Clinton, and maybe they’ll give him a look-over. Further, by doing this, he lures Hillary Clinton into the situation. If she had refused to show up, he could campaign that she’s afraid to debate him there. If she does show up, it’s a guarantee that the Fox News group will mount as vicious an attack as they can upon her. Win-win for Sanders, Lose-lose for Clinton. Or so Sanders is thinking.
The problem for Sanders is that this audience is hostile to him as well. He will be asked questions like “Do you REALLY think the American people are going to elect a Socialist to be their President?” and “How much of my money do you think you can tax?” and “Isn’t it true that you weren’t even a Democrat before this race?” and “Shouldn’t you just pack it in since you can’t win?” They may try to soften him up with a couple of introductory balms but after that, expect the right wingers to throw as much mud at him as they can. It’s true that they want to have him as the nominee, since they know they can beat him handily. But that doesn’t mean they’ll hold back when they have him in their paws for an hour.
For Hillary Clinton, this is even worse of an idea. I think she’s trying to justify this mistake by saying that she’ll be able to show how she can stand up to the Fox News people. But she’s not counting on how nasty and personal the attacks are going to be. She’ll be asked for the millionth time about Benghazi. (I wouldn’t be surprised if they plant someone in the audience who can say that they’re a relative of one of the guys who died there, just for that great clip of the person tearfully asking her why she LIED, etc…) She’ll be asked about the email “scandal” and whether she’s concerned about her imminent indictment – particularly from the vantage point of Ted Cruz comparing her to a Mafia Don yesterday. She’ll be asked about the “arriving under fire” story, likely again by someone who will say they were there. She’ll be confronted for the umpteenth time about her husband’s infidelities and about how she’s a hypocrite for not advocating for women like Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones. She’ll be repeatedly challenged to show that she accomplished anything at all as a Senator or as Secretary of State. She’ll likely be accused of racism, as they’ll happily bring up anything she or Bill Clinton said during her 2008 campaign against Obama. In short, this will be a bloody mess. I see no way for Clinton to be able to get through this without a bunch of mud landing on her. Her only hope here is to finish the night and be able to say, “I took everything they had, and if that’s all they can come up with, I’m more than ready to deal with them.”
I agree that the appearance by both of them is a huge mistake. I would have preferred for both candidates to offer the Scott Wiener answer: “Fox News is not real news and you’re not a reporter.”
So, yes, Sanders has agreed to show up on Fox News. From his perspective, maybe he could get some of the anti-Trump GOP guys to pay attention to him as an alternative – in that they hate both Trump and Hillary Clinton, and maybe they’ll give him a look-over. Further, by doing this, he lures Hillary Clinton into the situation. If she had refused to show up, he could campaign that she’s afraid to debate him there. If she does show up, it’s a guarantee that the Fox News group will mount as vicious an attack as they can upon her. Win-win for Sanders, Lose-lose for Clinton. Or so Sanders is thinking.
The problem for Sanders is that this audience is hostile to him as well. He will be asked questions like “Do you REALLY think the American people are going to elect a Socialist to be their President?” and “How much of my money do you think you can tax?” and “Isn’t it true that you weren’t even a Democrat before this race?” and “Shouldn’t you just pack it in since you can’t win?” They may try to soften him up with a couple of introductory balms but after that, expect the right wingers to throw as much mud at him as they can. It’s true that they want to have him as the nominee, since they know they can beat him handily. But that doesn’t mean they’ll hold back when they have him in their paws for an hour.
For Hillary Clinton, this is even worse of an idea. I think she’s trying to justify this mistake by saying that she’ll be able to show how she can stand up to the Fox News people. But she’s not counting on how nasty and personal the attacks are going to be. She’ll be asked for the millionth time about Benghazi. (I wouldn’t be surprised if they plant someone in the audience who can say that they’re a relative of one of the guys who died there, just for that great clip of the person tearfully asking her why she LIED, etc…) She’ll be asked about the email “scandal” and whether she’s concerned about her imminent indictment – particularly from the vantage point of Ted Cruz comparing her to a Mafia Don yesterday. She’ll be asked about the “arriving under fire” story, likely again by someone who will say they were there. She’ll be confronted for the umpteenth time about her husband’s infidelities and about how she’s a hypocrite for not advocating for women like Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones. She’ll be repeatedly challenged to show that she accomplished anything at all as a Senator or as Secretary of State. She’ll likely be accused of racism, as they’ll happily bring up anything she or Bill Clinton said during her 2008 campaign against Obama. In short, this will be a bloody mess. I see no way for Clinton to be able to get through this without a bunch of mud landing on her. Her only hope here is to finish the night and be able to say, “I took everything they had, and if that’s all they can come up with, I’m more than ready to deal with them.”
I agree that the appearance by both of them is a huge mistake. I would have preferred for both candidates to offer the Scott Wiener answer: “Fox News is not real news and you’re not a reporter.”
Kevin Koster commented on Super Tuesday Open Thread
2016-03-03 03:07:13 -0500
· Flag
Rove is in denial. Trump has a solid lead and is on track to get the nomination. The only way he doesn’t is if the other candidates can somehow block him from getting the delegates he’s already poised to receive from states like Florida.
A brokered convention is unlikely. The GOP rules were restructured after that last one 64 years ago to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. The GOP brass is now in a situation where it must decide how it will deal with a nominee like Trump. Not a pretty scenario by any means.
A brokered convention is unlikely. The GOP rules were restructured after that last one 64 years ago to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. The GOP brass is now in a situation where it must decide how it will deal with a nominee like Trump. Not a pretty scenario by any means.
Kevin Koster commented on Now Ted Cruz Is Feuding With Fox News
2016-03-01 05:19:30 -0500
· Flag
I agree again. Cruz was never a national candidate or a serious one even on a more local level. His candidacy was always intended to give him a high-paying media job where he could opine about the issues of the day without ever having to actually do anything. He learned all too well from Limbaugh and the other media shouters.
I no longer think Trump will self-destruct. He’ll get to the general election and hit the wall when he tries to repeatedly make personal attacks against Hillary Clinton. In order to actually win a general election, he’ll need to actually be presidential, which is something he’s never been capable of before. And if Trump actually prevails somehow, this will tell us two important things. The first is a pessimistic outlook for how the populace can handle anything remotely important. The second is that we could well find ourselves on a serious war footing for the first time in decades, given that Trump would be incapable of handling simple foreign policy without insulting and alienating even our allies.
I no longer think Trump will self-destruct. He’ll get to the general election and hit the wall when he tries to repeatedly make personal attacks against Hillary Clinton. In order to actually win a general election, he’ll need to actually be presidential, which is something he’s never been capable of before. And if Trump actually prevails somehow, this will tell us two important things. The first is a pessimistic outlook for how the populace can handle anything remotely important. The second is that we could well find ourselves on a serious war footing for the first time in decades, given that Trump would be incapable of handling simple foreign policy without insulting and alienating even our allies.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Chris Wallace Demolishes Ted Cruz Over Supreme Court And Campaign Dirty Tricks
2016-02-29 17:07:45 -0500
· Flag
Not sure how I wrote Trubio, but that’s an interesting typo for sure.
Kevin Koster commented on Hillary Clinton Wins Big In South Carolina – Fox Can’t Stop Talking About All The Ways She’s A Loser
2016-02-29 14:11:11 -0500
· Flag
To be clear, I did not say that 99 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters will swing to Hillary after he loses tomorrow. I said that more of his supporters will agree to vote for Hillary Clinton than far right wing supporters will agree to switch from Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.
I also keep hearing mainstream Republicans warning against Trump and making comments that they’re concerned he can’t win a general election.
The GOP primary numbers for Donald Trump reflect that GOP base voters are turning out for him on a 35-45 percent level, while the other voters are split between other options. I don’t know that this shows that this means that more casual independent voters are suddenly turning to Trump. I agree that the GOP is more stirred up right now, and that many of them frankly hate Hillary Clinton. But many of them also hate Donald Trump.
It’s certainly possible that Trump could somehow get past all of his negatives (and they’re huge) and get himself a term in the White House. In the event that this somehow occurs, and in the event that the Senate remains in GOP control by an equal fluke, we could be looking at a significant crisis here. Trump would immediately try to completely undo every single thing that happened during the Obama administration and nominate the most right wing judge possible to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. His bellicose attitude toward the world would result in a trade battle with Mexico and potentially a brand new cold war with Russia. That’s not to mention all the other international fun he’d cause. Which would in turn pull the legs out of the economy – I’d expect a severe downturn to start within 6-9 months of his arriving in DC, which he’d then blame on everyone else.
But all of that is easily avoidable. Dems do need to show up at the polls, just as they did in 2012. If they choose to stay home in the swing states, they’ll effectively hand the election to the most inappropriate and potentially dangerous person we’ve seen go for the Presidency in many years. I can’t believe that the people of this country would be that foolish. I think people’s instincts are better than that. But if I’m wrong, we’ll get the President and the government we deserve.
I also keep hearing mainstream Republicans warning against Trump and making comments that they’re concerned he can’t win a general election.
The GOP primary numbers for Donald Trump reflect that GOP base voters are turning out for him on a 35-45 percent level, while the other voters are split between other options. I don’t know that this shows that this means that more casual independent voters are suddenly turning to Trump. I agree that the GOP is more stirred up right now, and that many of them frankly hate Hillary Clinton. But many of them also hate Donald Trump.
It’s certainly possible that Trump could somehow get past all of his negatives (and they’re huge) and get himself a term in the White House. In the event that this somehow occurs, and in the event that the Senate remains in GOP control by an equal fluke, we could be looking at a significant crisis here. Trump would immediately try to completely undo every single thing that happened during the Obama administration and nominate the most right wing judge possible to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. His bellicose attitude toward the world would result in a trade battle with Mexico and potentially a brand new cold war with Russia. That’s not to mention all the other international fun he’d cause. Which would in turn pull the legs out of the economy – I’d expect a severe downturn to start within 6-9 months of his arriving in DC, which he’d then blame on everyone else.
But all of that is easily avoidable. Dems do need to show up at the polls, just as they did in 2012. If they choose to stay home in the swing states, they’ll effectively hand the election to the most inappropriate and potentially dangerous person we’ve seen go for the Presidency in many years. I can’t believe that the people of this country would be that foolish. I think people’s instincts are better than that. But if I’m wrong, we’ll get the President and the government we deserve.
Kevin Koster commented on South Carolina Democratic Primary - Open Thread
2016-02-27 23:26:35 -0500
· Flag
I’m following 538 this year, as I did in 2012. Silver has tended to be the most accurate in terms of his prognostications. For whatever reason, his models seem to work the best. At this point, he has serious doubts about Trump’s ability to appeal beyond the white male Republicans he already has in his corner.
It is indeed possible that Trump could somehow prevail in November, but that would mean that most of the US electorate was either woefully uninformed or chose to stay home – or both.
For now, the Democratic primary situation has essentially reverted to what we knew it would be over six months ago, and next Tuesday will clinch it. I still think that Bernie Sanders will make a good speech at the Democrat Convention this summer, and that it’s possible that Clinton will find a place for him in her cabinet. I’ve noted that their disagreements at the various debates have never strayed into the bizarre territory we’ve seen the GOP inhabit this year.
It is indeed possible that Trump could somehow prevail in November, but that would mean that most of the US electorate was either woefully uninformed or chose to stay home – or both.
For now, the Democratic primary situation has essentially reverted to what we knew it would be over six months ago, and next Tuesday will clinch it. I still think that Bernie Sanders will make a good speech at the Democrat Convention this summer, and that it’s possible that Clinton will find a place for him in her cabinet. I’ve noted that their disagreements at the various debates have never strayed into the bizarre territory we’ve seen the GOP inhabit this year.
Kevin Koster commented on CNN Presidential Debate - Open Thread
2016-02-27 19:45:56 -0500
· Flag
Ellen, I don’t know that Trump’s bullying tactics will help him that much in the general. They’ve done well for him in getting the attention of angry white GOP voters who don’t know where to place the blame for their current situations. But I don’t know how they get him the numbers he would need in non-white votes. Or in female votes. He’s also alienated an entire slew of left and right wing voters alike.
Granted, Hillary Clinton also has her own negatives, but I don’t believe they’re nearly as dire as Trump’s. It’s true that some Bernie Sanders supporters (namely the older ones) will refuse to vote for her in the general. But the younger ones are not as likely to sit on their hands, now that they’ve gotten involved. And again, Clinton will have a decisive majority of non-white votes at her back as well. She’ll also carry the female vote.
It’s certainly possible that Trump will somehow be able to convince enough GOP voters to stay with him, and somehow get enough independents to go his way as well, but I don’t know that constant bullying and insults will get him that result. He might try to pivot back to the center, but then he’ll lose a large portion of the GOP base, which cannot accept anything less than total obedience to their platform.
I could be proven wrong on this, but my instincts say that a Trump nomination not only loses the Presidency for the GOP yet again but also costs them the Senate, a chunk of the House and many state seats down the ticket. I think we could be looking at a historic electoral blowout. We’ll just have to see how the general population deals with Trump’s behavior when the situation is clearer this summer and fall. And I don’t believe all the desperate GOP smear attempts will succeed here. They’ve certainly worked to fool uninformed observers, but like all smear campaigns, they’ve fallen apart when examined.
Granted, Hillary Clinton also has her own negatives, but I don’t believe they’re nearly as dire as Trump’s. It’s true that some Bernie Sanders supporters (namely the older ones) will refuse to vote for her in the general. But the younger ones are not as likely to sit on their hands, now that they’ve gotten involved. And again, Clinton will have a decisive majority of non-white votes at her back as well. She’ll also carry the female vote.
It’s certainly possible that Trump will somehow be able to convince enough GOP voters to stay with him, and somehow get enough independents to go his way as well, but I don’t know that constant bullying and insults will get him that result. He might try to pivot back to the center, but then he’ll lose a large portion of the GOP base, which cannot accept anything less than total obedience to their platform.
I could be proven wrong on this, but my instincts say that a Trump nomination not only loses the Presidency for the GOP yet again but also costs them the Senate, a chunk of the House and many state seats down the ticket. I think we could be looking at a historic electoral blowout. We’ll just have to see how the general population deals with Trump’s behavior when the situation is clearer this summer and fall. And I don’t believe all the desperate GOP smear attempts will succeed here. They’ve certainly worked to fool uninformed observers, but like all smear campaigns, they’ve fallen apart when examined.
Kevin Koster commented on Romney: There’s ‘Good Reason To Believe’ There’s ‘A Bombshell’ In Trump’s Taxes
2016-02-24 19:10:26 -0500
· Flag
I don’t think Romney is doing this on his own. This has the fingerprints of the GOP establishment all over it. If they can embarrass Trump on the eve of Super Tuesday, and potentially give Rubio a bunch of anti-Trump talking points, they’re thinking they can change the ball game.
Frankly, I don’t think this will work. The GOP spent much of 2012 dismissing discussion of Romney’s tax returns, so it’s quite odd to see them suddenly championing the discussion now. And from what I can see, the GOP voters really don’t care about their candidates’ taxes.
If anything, this shows the GOP really starting to get frantic now. They know better than we do how much damage Trump can do to them this fall. I just don’t know that this approach will be all that fruitful for them. The saner approach in the long run would be to avoid creating figureheads like Trump in the future. And that might be accomplished by not having Fox News fanning the flames of these guys as hard as they can.
Frankly, I don’t think this will work. The GOP spent much of 2012 dismissing discussion of Romney’s tax returns, so it’s quite odd to see them suddenly championing the discussion now. And from what I can see, the GOP voters really don’t care about their candidates’ taxes.
If anything, this shows the GOP really starting to get frantic now. They know better than we do how much damage Trump can do to them this fall. I just don’t know that this approach will be all that fruitful for them. The saner approach in the long run would be to avoid creating figureheads like Trump in the future. And that might be accomplished by not having Fox News fanning the flames of these guys as hard as they can.
Kevin Koster commented on Hillary Clinton Has Good Reasons To Refuse A Fox News Sunday Interview
2016-02-24 19:02:24 -0500
· Flag
There is no reason for any Democrat candidate to appear on a network that is biased so strongly against them. Fox News, as now repeatedly shown by this website, to the tune of now THOUSANDS of examples, is clearly intended to promote a right wing Republican view of the world and to attack pretty much anyone with a (D) after their name. The Clintons have been a target for Fox News, going all the way back to the network’s founding as an anti-Clinton network in 1996.
Hillary is already forced to tolerate nonsense from biased correspondents like Ed Henry on a daily and even hourly basis on the campaign trail. Any event she conducts is likely to have Henry trying desperately to throw in GOP talking points or a cheap shot in the form of a question.
Were she to consent to an interview by Chris Wallace, we can be sure that it would be chock full of attacks, some as direct punches and the others as “some people say” questions. We can be sure that Wallace wouldn’t ask about her positions or her intentions or even her potential platform. But he’d certainly ask her to comment on Benghazi for the umpteenth time, on her emails again, on GOP talking points about the Iran deal, on her health, on GOP rumors about her husband, and even on her thoughts re Kissinger and Nixon. The entire point would be to diminish her candidacy and try to rattle her – if Wallace could get her to explode, as he did with Bill Clinton, the right wing could run that video forever.
Thankfully, Clinton is smart enough to stay out of that muck until after the election. I believe she’ll agree to appear on Fox News at some point in 2017, as a way of being open to the GOP point of view and as a way to reach out. But she would have no reason to bother with them until after November.
Hillary is already forced to tolerate nonsense from biased correspondents like Ed Henry on a daily and even hourly basis on the campaign trail. Any event she conducts is likely to have Henry trying desperately to throw in GOP talking points or a cheap shot in the form of a question.
Were she to consent to an interview by Chris Wallace, we can be sure that it would be chock full of attacks, some as direct punches and the others as “some people say” questions. We can be sure that Wallace wouldn’t ask about her positions or her intentions or even her potential platform. But he’d certainly ask her to comment on Benghazi for the umpteenth time, on her emails again, on GOP talking points about the Iran deal, on her health, on GOP rumors about her husband, and even on her thoughts re Kissinger and Nixon. The entire point would be to diminish her candidacy and try to rattle her – if Wallace could get her to explode, as he did with Bill Clinton, the right wing could run that video forever.
Thankfully, Clinton is smart enough to stay out of that muck until after the election. I believe she’ll agree to appear on Fox News at some point in 2017, as a way of being open to the GOP point of view and as a way to reach out. But she would have no reason to bother with them until after November.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Pirro Acts As Though Hillary Clinton Did Not Really Win The Nevada Caucus
2016-02-21 16:04:17 -0500
· Flag
MJ – that’s a great piece on O’Reilly. The right wing still hasn’t gotten over that one.
I’d say that that Fox News would actually be okay with either Democrat as the nominee. With Hillary, as they’ve known it’s pretty much going to be, they can trot out all the talking points you mention, and they have a viewer base that’s hated her for over 20 years. (More on that below) And they could continue as the opposition network for the next 8 years, always on the hunt for some new scandal to talk up to smear the President. (Note that they continue to play the card of “She’s going to be INDICTED SOON!!!!” even though no credible person has said word one about that.)
If somehow they wind up with Sanders as the nominee, then they can spin the situation to “We can WIN!” and go into full-on rah-rah mode for the next 8 years. It’s not as lucrative as the Clinton scenario but it provides them comfort food in the form of the kind of angry gloating that happened while W. was in the White House.
I discussed the situation with a right wing friend late last night. His feeling is that the GOP is down to a 3 man race and Trump is going to be the nominee without any trouble. (My instincts are that Carson will stay in through Super Tuesday, just to deny Cruz his voters. Rubio will benefit from Trump’s departure, and Kasich will hold out for another couple of weeks to see if he can get any more support. Carson then has to drop out but has damaged Cruz so much that Cruz has no way to win. Kasich drops out, allowing Rubio to get his supporters, and at that point Rubio starts to win primaries – but it’s too late for him to be able to get the majority – thus, brokered convention and we see how it goes…) My friend’s notion is that Trump easily gets the nomination, picks Kasich as his VP, picks up Ohio and somehow sails into the White House. I’m quite skeptical of that idea.
My friend also made fairly unfortunate comments about what he thought of the left wing and of Hillary Clinton. The lightest part of this that I would care to repeat is that I noted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely be marked by the same total gridlock of obstruction we’ve seen since 2009, going for a new round of 8 years. His response was “God willing!”
When we get to the end of this contest in November, the most predictable part of it is the total gridlock. Meaning that nothing will change in politics for the next 9 years. The unspoken problem at Fox News now is whether the upcoming generational issue will fully hit within that time. Point being that most of Fox News’ viewership is older, male and white. As more of those viewers pass, they aren’t being replaced by younger viewers. Meaning that Fox News’ viewership is likely to face a significant decline by 2025 – it will be interesting to see what they do to try to counter it. Or maybe they don’t, and simply embrace their position as a niche market.
I’d say that that Fox News would actually be okay with either Democrat as the nominee. With Hillary, as they’ve known it’s pretty much going to be, they can trot out all the talking points you mention, and they have a viewer base that’s hated her for over 20 years. (More on that below) And they could continue as the opposition network for the next 8 years, always on the hunt for some new scandal to talk up to smear the President. (Note that they continue to play the card of “She’s going to be INDICTED SOON!!!!” even though no credible person has said word one about that.)
If somehow they wind up with Sanders as the nominee, then they can spin the situation to “We can WIN!” and go into full-on rah-rah mode for the next 8 years. It’s not as lucrative as the Clinton scenario but it provides them comfort food in the form of the kind of angry gloating that happened while W. was in the White House.
I discussed the situation with a right wing friend late last night. His feeling is that the GOP is down to a 3 man race and Trump is going to be the nominee without any trouble. (My instincts are that Carson will stay in through Super Tuesday, just to deny Cruz his voters. Rubio will benefit from Trump’s departure, and Kasich will hold out for another couple of weeks to see if he can get any more support. Carson then has to drop out but has damaged Cruz so much that Cruz has no way to win. Kasich drops out, allowing Rubio to get his supporters, and at that point Rubio starts to win primaries – but it’s too late for him to be able to get the majority – thus, brokered convention and we see how it goes…) My friend’s notion is that Trump easily gets the nomination, picks Kasich as his VP, picks up Ohio and somehow sails into the White House. I’m quite skeptical of that idea.
My friend also made fairly unfortunate comments about what he thought of the left wing and of Hillary Clinton. The lightest part of this that I would care to repeat is that I noted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely be marked by the same total gridlock of obstruction we’ve seen since 2009, going for a new round of 8 years. His response was “God willing!”
When we get to the end of this contest in November, the most predictable part of it is the total gridlock. Meaning that nothing will change in politics for the next 9 years. The unspoken problem at Fox News now is whether the upcoming generational issue will fully hit within that time. Point being that most of Fox News’ viewership is older, male and white. As more of those viewers pass, they aren’t being replaced by younger viewers. Meaning that Fox News’ viewership is likely to face a significant decline by 2025 – it will be interesting to see what they do to try to counter it. Or maybe they don’t, and simply embrace their position as a niche market.
Kevin Koster commented on Nevada Caucus and South Carolina Primary - Open Thread
2016-02-21 16:26:32 -0500
· Flag
Looks pretty solid that Rubio indeed got 2nd place, edging out Cruz. Cruz appears to be completely coming apart now, based on his embarrassing discussion with Chuck Todd today. I strongly expect him to really put out the nastiest attack ads he can over the next week. For Cruz, it’s now or never with the mudslinging…
David Lindsay, I partly agree about 2000. The only full recount of Florida showed that Al Gore had actually won the state, but by the time that recount was conducted, nobody wanted to pay it any mind. By 2004, the well was badly poisoned so I’m not as convinced of the stories that came out of Ohio. But you’re correct that W. was an illegitimate president. Both his presidency and the shameful Supreme Court decision that ushered him in will be remembered as unfortunate moments for our democracy. Thankfully, we are past them.
For Jeb, I think he really wound up in the wrong race at the wrong time. This entire situation of Trump being able to suck all the air out of the room is the inevitable result of 20 years of Fox News hate speech and 30 years of unbridled AM radio hate speech (from the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan). If you spend 20-30 years feeding the angriest impulses of the right wing, convincing them that there is no such thing as a good moderate, constantly harping on the most extreme ideas, then you can’t complain when your audience refuses to listen to anything but the most outrageous candidates.
This is a serious case of “be careful what you wish for”. Fox News on-air personalities have been talking up how they didn’t want another Romney or McCain. Now they’re going to have to live with the consequences of having something like a Trump candidacy nearly take their party down. If we really do get a Clinton vs Trump election, I really wonder how Fox News will react to the inevitable wipeout at the ballot box.
David Lindsay, I partly agree about 2000. The only full recount of Florida showed that Al Gore had actually won the state, but by the time that recount was conducted, nobody wanted to pay it any mind. By 2004, the well was badly poisoned so I’m not as convinced of the stories that came out of Ohio. But you’re correct that W. was an illegitimate president. Both his presidency and the shameful Supreme Court decision that ushered him in will be remembered as unfortunate moments for our democracy. Thankfully, we are past them.
For Jeb, I think he really wound up in the wrong race at the wrong time. This entire situation of Trump being able to suck all the air out of the room is the inevitable result of 20 years of Fox News hate speech and 30 years of unbridled AM radio hate speech (from the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan). If you spend 20-30 years feeding the angriest impulses of the right wing, convincing them that there is no such thing as a good moderate, constantly harping on the most extreme ideas, then you can’t complain when your audience refuses to listen to anything but the most outrageous candidates.
This is a serious case of “be careful what you wish for”. Fox News on-air personalities have been talking up how they didn’t want another Romney or McCain. Now they’re going to have to live with the consequences of having something like a Trump candidacy nearly take their party down. If we really do get a Clinton vs Trump election, I really wonder how Fox News will react to the inevitable wipeout at the ballot box.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Helps GOP Sen. Sessions Attack Democrats Over Scalia Replacement
2016-02-19 02:24:44 -0500
· Flag
Thank you guys.
Kevin Koster commented on CBS Republican Debate - Open Thread
2016-02-14 14:57:30 -0500
· Flag
The best part was Ted Cruz being corrected on his misstatements. He didn’t look pleased to get the correction.
Kevin Koster commented on BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead
2016-02-14 23:20:39 -0500
· Flag
Steve, you just reminded me – Scalia was instrumental in the unbelievable Bush v Gore ruling, which he later took some pleasure in discussing by telling Democrats who asked him about it “Get over it!”
Eyes is correct that Fox News is attempting to lionize Scalia. The reason they are doing this is that Scalia is considered one of Reagan’s greatest accomplishments as President by the right wing. An unabashedly, openly confrontational right wing judge appointed to the SC for life at a relatively young age, and staying there for 30 years. The right wing couldn’t have asked for more from Scalia. He delivered what they wanted in generous amounts.
That’s in comparison to Sandra Day O’Connor, who wasn’t far enough to the right for their tastes. And in comparison to Anthony Kennedy, who the right wing always resented having to settle for, when the guy they’d wanted was Robert Bork. It was the success of getting Scalia onto the court that emboldened them into thinking they could a completely inappropriate person like Bork onto the highest bench. When they failed in such a spectacular fashion, the right wing began nursing a fury that hasn’t subsided, even 30 years later.
Doesn’t mean he wasn’t an intelligent person, or that he wasn’t approachable by his colleagues. I find it especially interesting that he was so friendly with both Ginsburg and Kagan. But we can’t forget the actual material he contributed while at the SC.
As for Clarence Thomas, I’m sure he’ll continue to do just what he’s been doing for the past 25 years or so – not a whole lot.
Eyes is correct that Fox News is attempting to lionize Scalia. The reason they are doing this is that Scalia is considered one of Reagan’s greatest accomplishments as President by the right wing. An unabashedly, openly confrontational right wing judge appointed to the SC for life at a relatively young age, and staying there for 30 years. The right wing couldn’t have asked for more from Scalia. He delivered what they wanted in generous amounts.
That’s in comparison to Sandra Day O’Connor, who wasn’t far enough to the right for their tastes. And in comparison to Anthony Kennedy, who the right wing always resented having to settle for, when the guy they’d wanted was Robert Bork. It was the success of getting Scalia onto the court that emboldened them into thinking they could a completely inappropriate person like Bork onto the highest bench. When they failed in such a spectacular fashion, the right wing began nursing a fury that hasn’t subsided, even 30 years later.
Doesn’t mean he wasn’t an intelligent person, or that he wasn’t approachable by his colleagues. I find it especially interesting that he was so friendly with both Ginsburg and Kagan. But we can’t forget the actual material he contributed while at the SC.
As for Clarence Thomas, I’m sure he’ll continue to do just what he’s been doing for the past 25 years or so – not a whole lot.