tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post6481672963289044176..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Donald Trump Feuds with Megyn KellyStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-85178585756510721272015-08-14T17:02:49.758-07:002015-08-14T17:02:49.758-07:00IAC,
No I am not a judge. I wrote that sentence p...IAC,<br /><br />No I am not a judge. I wrote that sentence poorly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-9985007856097516052015-08-13T04:25:37.984-07:002015-08-13T04:25:37.984-07:00Anonymous @August 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM:
You're...Anonymous @August 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM:<br /><br />You're a judge?Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-24266263409050770582015-08-12T14:16:38.659-07:002015-08-12T14:16:38.659-07:00IAC,
I don't expect Fox News to be "fair...IAC,<br /><br />I don't expect Fox News to be "fair and balanced" however I note the hypocrisy of adopting that phrase when their coverage is obviously slanted. I am not imposing an impossible standard on Fox they are expressing a hypocritical slogan because their actions are not consistent with the slogan.<br /><br />I accept that human nature wants to form governments and that governments tend toward corruption. The fact that people want to form governments I do not want to change because markets cannot provide the socially desired public goods in my judgment. The fact that governments tend toward corruption is something I would like to change, however, as an obscure line in the Bible says, "Do not become a judge if you don't have the strength to root out corruption." I fear my own authority as a judge backed by police power and lack confidence in the judgment of judges and police, but I realize the reasonable judges and reasonable police are adding value to society by performing the legitimate role of government authority.<br /><br />A poet wrote, "The child is father of the man." If I am not a conscious former child then what kind of creature am I? The answer is an unconscious former child who cannot close the generation gap in myself. I think people who close the generation gap can improve the world locally, as you desire, and run a government with much less corruption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-87875884212621331712015-08-12T06:59:21.111-07:002015-08-12T06:59:21.111-07:00Anonymous @August 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM:
I certainl...Anonymous @August 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM:<br /><br />I certainly agree that Jesus' teachings and example show us the way to justice and eternal life. And I slip and fall along the way. But I don't think Jesus would say that we could create Heaven on Earth, and warned against it explicitly. The Kingdom of God is at hand, if only people would listen to God. But people are deluded to think they can create the "New Jerusalem" in this life. Lots of people have tried, and the 20th century was the greatest example of trying to do this on an industrial scale within the nation-state. It's a story that didn't end well. Jesus didn't just "criticize the corrupt authorities," He did many other great things. And you are correct, nothing in "The Lord's Prayer" calls for an external parent. Christians are called to be responsible for their own lives and build the Kingdom of God through faith, corporal acts of mercy, etc. This doesn't mean that an almighty, all-powerful government becomes our surrogate parent, or serves as a clearing house for indirect acts of mercy and forgiveness. We don't pay taxes to cleanse our soul. On that I hope on that we can agree. Otherwise, I fear we are at another impasse.<br /><br />That said, I don't t think looking at those who disagree with you as "children" will likely attract others to your opinion. Quite frankly, I find it repellant.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-37406936918549652222015-08-12T06:58:24.924-07:002015-08-12T06:58:24.924-07:00Anonymous @August 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM:
The idea t...Anonymous @August 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM:<br /><br />The idea that any reportage can be perfectly "fair and balanced" is bullshit. In other words, your expectation that it is or should be is a subjective judgment built on an impossible standard. Fox News has been wildly successful because it fills a void in the perspective of many (if not all) mainstream news outlets. The idea that Fox News is successful in filling that void shows that the "fair and balanced" outlook many credentialed mainstream journalists thought they were offering back in the halcyon days of network news is bullshit. "If only Fox News hadn't come on the scene, the country would've been unified" is a familiar context on the Left today, and it is also bullshit. Monopolies misjudge demand. Colleges and universities are next.<br /><br />"I see the psycho-biology of childhood, which includes sibling rivalry as a major component, as the origin of the desire to improve the world, that is, of the desire to change the world into an improved type of external parent."<br /><br />Okay, fine. But I don't want or need an external parent in the form of a government with a monopoly on police power to be my parent, with puppeteers resolving their personal childhood terrors by trying to control the rest of us. My experience is that most people who want to "change the world" and make it "fair" are human beings, too, and their attempts to make it "fair" impose a new form of one-size-fits-all tyranny on the rest of us. Using government to impose one's worldview is as close to collective megalomania as it gets. <br /><br />"I am hopeful that the character of people making market deals and forming/serving in governments can provide a better system of economic justice."<br /><br />Okay, and I hope -- int he case of those "forming/serving in governments" fail. Because I don't think it's the government's purpose to be redistributing resources. So that's my subjective viewpoint against your subjective viewpoint. I guess we cancel each other out. Perhaps you can content yourself with that. What I do know is that I have a choice about whether I want to interact with "people making market deals." I do not have that choice with the Federal government.<br /><br />"It cannot occur without a critical mass of reasonable (just) men and women who emerge with character from childhood."<br /><br />People are informed by a lot more than just their childhood. And what you consider reasonable (just) may not be so for another person. So one could say that you haven't emerged from your childhood, and that you still imagine Superman coming in to stand for "truth, justice and the American way," or some Lone Ranger coming in at the moment of truth. <br /><br />Your worldview seems paternalistic, which is odd when considered with your final sentence. Perhaps that works for you. It doesn't work for me. I'm sure you can judge this as my "child-like" worldview emanating from some kind of injustice I experienced at the hands of my parents. And you might be right. But the problem you are trying to solve is impossible, and thus using government to do it will lead to terrible things. I sense that you think yourself a reasonable man. I, too, think myself reasonable. But you're not, nor am I. We're just two human beings trying to get through life as best we can, with all our gifts and foibles. Trying to impose a correction for the human condition through a leviathan-like government -- which is led and run by human beings -- is folly.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-27854343106457170632015-08-11T21:49:24.125-07:002015-08-11T21:49:24.125-07:00IAC,
Notice I said the Fox News phrase "fair...IAC,<br /><br />Notice I said the Fox News phrase "fair and balanced" is bullshit. I refer to much of the Fox News programming as "fairly unbalanced" or "unfairly balanced" but I don't see it all as bullshit.<br /><br />I agree with much of your sentiment. However I see the psycho-biology of childhood, which includes sibling rivalry as a major component, as the origin of the desire to improve the world, that is, of the desire to change the world into an improved type of external parent. Also I am hopeful that the character of people making market deals and forming/serving in governments can provide a better system of economic justice. It cannot occur without a critical mass of reasonable (just) men and women who emerge with character from childhood.<br /><br />Children are born with the desire and ability to love but not the ability to sustain love in the absence of interaction with external parents. This conditions the desire to love to look for an external parent in the family and later the world of human affairs. Jesus had a public career criticizing the corrupt authorities and preaching, however, he did not advocate changing the world in efforts to secure an external parent when he crafted The Lord's Prayer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-45617373323450147232015-08-11T15:39:07.685-07:002015-08-11T15:39:07.685-07:00Anonymous @August 10, 2015 at 6:29 PM:
"I se...Anonymous @August 10, 2015 at 6:29 PM:<br /><br />"I see valid perceptions on all sides and a child-like desire to change the world to meet one's own emotional needs which drives politics in this country. I recognize this as the pattern of sibling rivalry."<br /><br />Agreed. That said, at some point we have to choose. I don't like illegal aliens committing crimes, and I don't like corrupt cops who operate above the law. The issue I have is that these are usually positioned by activists and a lustful media as victim narratives, which appeals to an emotional (or perhaps even reptilian) part of our brain. It tells us we don't have choices. And then our society is cleaved into this liberal and conservative duality, and people seek to fit the label rather than thinking for themselves. If that's what you feel creates this "sibling rivalry," then our opinions of this are congruent. My objection is that most of the "child-like" people who throw around "Fox News is bullshit" believe that the MSNBC interpretations of things is the Truth, with a capital T. Such people scare me. Just like Trump acolytes scare me. Just like Keith Olbermann fans scare me. Just like people who think Sean Hannity is anything more than a party-line entertainer scare me. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift. <br /><br />This is all clearly a part of the human condition, and that's what I hear you referring to in your Psalm 73 reference: "For I was envious of the arrogant; I saw the prosperity of the wicked." Yes, there are a lot of arrogant, prosperous, wicked people out there. <br /><br />But there are also good people who are making the world a better place. These are people who make daily choices based on what is presented before them in plain sight, and they make their contribution. Thee are the people who "don't know what to do" anymore than you or I do, yet they choose to take that next action. I applaud them for that. <br /><br />If there are people in this world who I hold as most wicked, it's the arrogant, prosperous people who think they can come up with one-size-fits-all solutions through government and impose them on all. Government cannot love, and it's not equipped to give everyone a living. It recognizes standards, and delivers those uniformly. That's its job. Yet people are not uniform. That's why I think government should do as little as possible, as it doesn't do much of anything well, and it cannot provide that which the human person most desires: love. It simply cannot deliver that, and yet we've created this leviathan that is encroaching on our lives more and more in the form of centralized control and planning around specific one-size-fits-all worldview. <br /><br />Therefore, I would prefer that people didn't try to "change the world," and instead did what they could to make their own corner of the world more livable for all in it. That is, when we trust in God and recognize the dignity of the human person. The truth is that in 2015 America, we don't honor the dignity of the human person. And that's unfortunate. So far as I can tell, it's always been that way, except for the little rays of light that shine from the soul of those who fear God, and do His will.<br /><br />And so we are left with the last lines of Psalm 73 for posterity:<br /><br />"Indeed, those who are far from you will perish;<br /> you put an end to those who are false to you. <br />But for me it is good to be near God;<br /> I have made the Lord God my refuge,<br /> to tell of all your works."Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-57498156432367644762015-08-10T18:29:58.341-07:002015-08-10T18:29:58.341-07:00IAC,
I have read the book of Psalms dozens of tim...IAC,<br /><br />I have read the book of Psalms dozens of times. I don't recall any Psalms that invalidate the insight communicated in Psalm 73.<br /><br />I watch MSNBC and Fox News for politically slanted programming. I watch CNBC and Fox Business for politically slanted business coverage.<br /><br />You can tell it is slanted or biased by the editorial differences: Fox/O'Reilly the other night is talking about an illegal alien who killed a female citizen; switch channel CNBC is talking about the people killed by incompetent or negligent police activity without reasonable justification. The events over which their respective viewers get angry, and want to change the law, government, or society, simply differ based on how one thinks authority should be used in society. I see valid perceptions on all sides and a child-like desire to change the world to meet one's own emotional needs which drives politics in this country. I recognize this as the pattern of sibling rivalry.<br /><br />Link to lyrics: I'd Love to Change the World But I Don't Know What to Do<br /><br />http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tenyearsafter/idlovetochangetheworld.html<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-88128596792815528862015-08-10T15:56:54.462-07:002015-08-10T15:56:54.462-07:00flynful @August 10, 2015 at 12:48 PM:
"This ...flynful @August 10, 2015 at 12:48 PM:<br /><br />"This failure to intellectually debate the point (I know, he said he is not a debater) is characteristic of how progressives respond to factual criticisms of their brilliant and wonderful schemes."<br /><br />Agreed. Brilliant point. The scandal is that Progressives aren't required by mainstream news outlets to debate their points. <br /><br />Wanna know why? The "journalists" agree with them. What is there to discuss?Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-16480856287386723212015-08-10T15:52:17.942-07:002015-08-10T15:52:17.942-07:00Anonymous @August 10, 2015 at 12:51 PM:
"The...Anonymous @August 10, 2015 at 12:51 PM:<br /><br />"The Fox slogan "fair and balanced" is also bullshit."<br /><br />Fair enough. What television networks or programs do you watch? What publications do you find reliable? What sorts of presenters do you believe fair?<br /><br />Lots of people think Fox News is "bullshit." I'm then curious where they get their amazingly accurate, wholly unbiased, and magnificently true content from. <br /><br />Pray tell, lest we begin trading Psalms...Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-73372011457845534362015-08-10T13:04:35.283-07:002015-08-10T13:04:35.283-07:00I don't support Trump, who is Mr. Sleaze. But ...I don't support Trump, who is Mr. Sleaze. But I do support Trump against the GOP elites who are a bunch of wussy sleazebags. <br /><br />Trump hasn't much sense but he got balls. The other guys don't even have that. <br />priss rulesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-73737361687333288102015-08-10T12:51:03.856-07:002015-08-10T12:51:03.856-07:00Trump is a good bullshitter because 99.9% of the t...Trump is a good bullshitter because 99.9% of the time he believes his own bullshit.<br /><br />The Fox slogan "fair and balanced" is also bullshit. Fox occupies a niche where people who feel marginalized in society can bitch about the bad government and bad mainstream media. I watch for a mix of entertainment and education as to how this branch of the slings a particular brand of bullshit.<br /><br />Trump has been selling non-political bullshit and now he wants us to buy his political bullshit too.<br /><br />Regarding the prosperity of the wicked see Psalm 73.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-89322524499424987662015-08-10T12:48:24.320-07:002015-08-10T12:48:24.320-07:00My first opinion of the manner in which he partici...My first opinion of the manner in which he participated in the debate was that DT can certainly dish it out but he can't take it (something that was said to me when I was a kid and that I took to heart). Imagine DT as a participant on his own television show and how he would react to being fired. What a boor.<br /><br />Moreover, DT's rejoinder to any criticism was to internalize the point being made as if it were a pistol shot aimed at his heart and then personally attack the person rather than the subject of the criticism. This failure to intellectually debate the point (I know, he said he is not a debater) is characteristic of how progressives respond to factual criticisms of their brilliant and wonderful schemes. The fact is progressives can't intellectually support the positions they take and hatefully attack any person daring to make a counterpoint argument in response (as if that person were evil). DT's current resort to progressive defensive tactics leads me to believe that he hasn't strayed far from his progressive politics of the past. And, the fact that he couldn't bring himself to say that he would support whoever won the nomination leads me to think that he must view some or all of the other debaters as "evil" Republicans. This may become more apparent the longer he poses as a candidate.<br /><br />The funny thing is that DT seemingly does not have a realistic view of his own persona. I read that he surrounds himself with "yes" men. The more he pretends to run for president the more his personality flaws will become evident and the greater the likelihood that he will make himself into an object derision and ridicule. I think he risks much more than he supposes he will gain.<br /><br />Maybe it was me, but I thought in watching DT at the evening debate I was watching an 8 year old thrust into an adult conversation where he knew he might have to answer a question or two and was being defensive in advance. Just look at the faces he was making. Watch the debate for a few minutes with the sound off. He may be a brilliant and ruthless deal maker but I think DT has not matured into a rational adult. He was not a very appealing presence on that platform.flynfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429383113656645469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-46276755491628844722015-08-10T07:18:47.105-07:002015-08-10T07:18:47.105-07:00It doesn’t bother me that Trump made a joke about ...It doesn’t bother me that Trump made a joke about Megyn Kelly being so nasty because she might have been on her period. The truth is that many women’s temperaments take a turn for the worse during that time. A lot of men think that and say that. Then, all of a sudden, it is horribly degrading to joke about it. Kelly and the others were no doubt put up to this inquisition of Trump by the new managers of Fox News as of last month, Robert Murdoch’s sons. My prediction is they will kill off the network, or at least render it irrelevant. They sure as heck can no longer claim their reporting is "fair and balanced," which was their claim to fame.Bizzy Brainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-37111862075160205642015-08-09T18:01:24.642-07:002015-08-09T18:01:24.642-07:00Or, Trump spoke infuriatingly. He closed out all ...Or, Trump spoke infuriatingly. He closed out all the other candidates from the news cycle and dominated multiple talk shows who weren't interested in anything beyond Megan Kelly's cycle. He failed to apologize for laying the groundwork for others to decide "tthe most plausible interpretation" because it would remove him from the front page even as his detractors continued to chew on him backstage. <br /><br />I expect Trump will blow up, but until then he is showing up those who want to destroy him. Afterwards, he'll get a new TV show, etc.Jk Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-49486421316015278472015-08-09T12:56:00.761-07:002015-08-09T12:56:00.761-07:00Okay, so you think the Clooney analogy is "in...Okay, so you think the Clooney analogy is "interesting," or at least a hint that such a scenario might be plausible because of name recognition. That brings us to...<br /><br />Thought Expieriment #2: Given your claim of Mr. Clooney's temperament as a "gentleman" (in contrast to someone with the boorishness Mr. Trump aptly displays), would you think it a plausible scenario that Mr. Clooney would (a) win the Democrat nomination, and then go on to (b) crush the Republican nominee and become our new POTUS? Or would you think he would (a) win the Democrat nomination and (c) lose the general election to the Republican nominee? Or do you think (d) none of the above results would occur, meaning that he would lose the Democrat nomination; or (e) that he would never run in the first place?<br /><br />Question: Would a George Clooney's prospects as "presidential material" result in a, b, c, d, or e?<br /><br />'Tis not a trick, merely a musing. By the way, my sense of Clooney's chances just took a hit, as my spell checker seems to correct me every time I enter his name. Not a good sign for Mr. Handsome...<br /><br />I would like your answer, Stuart, but it's your blog, and you can choose to participate or not. I welcome others' selection and thoughts... just keep (e) responses to a minimum, as they are, ahem, boring. I'll channel a little Ed McLaughlin here... My own sense is that America is obsessed with celebrity. In Trump's case, the answer is (d) -- in the Republican context, of course -- and if he ran as an independent the result would, of course, be (b). In Clooney's case, the answer is (b) because he is a celebrity, a media magnet, an established Democrat, a Leftist, someone who favors the economic priorities of metropolitan D.C., and the GOP Establishment could be proud of him as POTUS, because it would result in an avalanche of American dignity and respectability. Just as the GOP Establishment has shown itself to be okey-dokey with Obama, as evidenced by its serial timidity. All because Clooney is a handsome man. A slam dunk. He's just not boorish. Therefore, the correct answer is (b), though the more likely scenario is (e). The most impossible option is (d). <br /><br />Isn't this a great country??? Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-72600581831895435722015-08-09T12:25:52.997-07:002015-08-09T12:25:52.997-07:00As did Bizzy, I first thought of Monica. Here...As did Bizzy, I first thought of Monica. Here's a slightly different take: Was he trying to get us to think of Monica, and Bill, and then Hillary? I'm guessing not.Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-15277484013301210702015-08-09T11:54:57.533-07:002015-08-09T11:54:57.533-07:00the Clooney analogy is interesting. The problem wi...the Clooney analogy is interesting. The problem with it is that Clooney is a gentleman. Trump is a boor. One suspects that Clooney would never base his candidate on a constant stream of insults and innuendos about members of his political party and his fellow candidates, to say nothing of the press. <br /><br />Of course, Bill Clinton got impeached over the Lewinsky matter... so, it's not as though no one tried to hold him to account. For now I think it entirely appropriate that people ask Hillary about.<br /><br />Trump is not manipulating his detractors. He made a blithering fool of himself and had to go on multiple talk shows to do damage control this morning. His remarks were highly suggestive of Ms. Kelly's menstruation... to the point where it was the most plausible interpretation. Thus, he made an idiotic error and failed to apologize for it... disadvantage Trump.Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-28541420252558808802015-08-09T11:24:44.644-07:002015-08-09T11:24:44.644-07:00I was disappointed you didn't address Trumps s...I was disappointed you didn't address Trumps seemingly innate ability to manipulate his detractors. He didn't speak of Megan Kelly's menstruation, but his did leave it open for the minds of others to rush to thoughts of Kelly's vagina. Advantage Trump.<br /><br />Trump has this ability to say half a thought in the most provocative way that others seem unable to refrain from completing in the worst way. At this his is a master, apparently. Or the pundits are just easy marks?<br /><br />Trump is a great entertainer, great for ratings and clicks. He would not be a good president. But we are what 15 months from the election and 4 or 5 from the first primary. And quite frankly, there isn't much else going on that makes good TV.<br /><br />JK Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-24190076840253294622015-08-09T11:11:07.309-07:002015-08-09T11:11:07.309-07:00Glenn Beck was my first thought when Trump talked ...Glenn Beck was my first thought when Trump talked about blood coming out of Kelly’s eyes. Beck often speaks of his intense anger, figuratively, as “blood shooting out of my eyes.” Anyone who has ever listened to Beck for any length of time has heard him use that phrase. My hunch is that is what Trump was getting at, though he did not speak it as artfully as Glenn Beck.Bizzy Brainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-19790798802973742282015-08-09T10:56:07.127-07:002015-08-09T10:56:07.127-07:00I wonder if Monica Lewinski looked like a "pr...I wonder if Monica Lewinski looked like a "pretty picture" to Bill Clinton when she was "on her knees" before him in the Oval Office. Sounds VERY presidential to me as Bill WAS President and Monica was on her knees and it was in the Oval Office. So why a different standard for Trump?Bizzy Brainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-23794083035451659582015-08-09T10:33:56.118-07:002015-08-09T10:33:56.118-07:00"I am sure you all regret, as do I, that this..."I am sure you all regret, as do I, that this blog does not lead or define the public debate."<br /><br />Yes, indeed. It would be a much more sober, thoughtful, purposeful debate, and it would be a great contribution to the country. It's your blog, and we're reading it and commenting on it from your lead. And thank you for doing that. I come here daily because it is a breath of fresh air amidst all the nonsense, and your subject matter touches on much of what really matters in the end. So if I haven't said it enough: thank you!<br /><br />Contrast this fine blog with the Thursday's Fox News "ESPN Game Day" debate in Cleveland-- complete with influences from CNN's obnoxious old "Crossfire" program -- where the chattering moderators took up just shy of ONE THIRD of the time. What a disgrace. I expect more (much more) from Bret Baier, and very little from the other two. But in commenting on this blog, I've cleared some of my thoughts and realized that Baier may have done the Republican Party a great service with his opening question: he gave them a definitive "out" when the inevitable comes to a close. <br /><br />One last thought experiment in all this...<br /><br />What do you think would happen if George Clooney entered the Democrat Party's nominating process? Furthermore, consider if Mr. Clooney entered the race against 16 other people: some Democratic governors, former governors, Senators, former Senators, a former Fortune 50 CEO, a neurosurgeon, etc? I suspect Mr. Clooney would poll at least 26%. I don't know if he'd run third party if he didn't get the Democrat nomination, but I wouldn't think him a true Democrat if he chose to go that path... I'd think him traitorous in that regard, someone who wasted all the Democrats' time, and be glad he was there to run interference for the Republican nominee, who would certainly win the presidency. <br /><br />I hope this adds some perspective to this. Can you imagine how a poll of likely Democrat primary voters would turn out if the names considered were George Clooney and all those other people? Regardless of credentials, ideas, philosophies, perspectives, etc., I would think he'd be well-ahead at this stage. And if his candidacy was based on some "red meat" comments to the Democrat base, I think he'd be well along his way. But I don't know if he'd win in the long haul. If y'all think he would, maybe that explains more of your own fear right now. But Mr. Clooney comports himself as a handsome, smooth, thoughtful, mild-mannered gentleman of sorts, who was recently called "the last movie star." Ronald Reagan wasn't a huge star, but did become clear about his ideas, and this combo helped him through the nomination process and the presidency. And he was good for America. <br /><br />I guess I have more faith in the GOP base to pick a good candidate than I do the Establishment. But I also think we'd be foolish to not consider that name recognition and popularity are (immediately) explosive and (ultimately) transient things... name recognition is helpful at first, but without true staying power. Hillary Clinton certainly pointed this out in 2008, and I expect she will do so again in this cycle. Perhaps Mr. Clooney or Hiward Schultz will pick up the mantle, provided they have any substance. If Bernie Sanders had any of Trump's star power, he would be a menace to the Democrat Party, a tidal wave of energy emanating from its base. Anyone think Bernie a Sanders will get the Democrat nomination? Me, neither....Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-62044653765990089862015-08-09T10:00:42.513-07:002015-08-09T10:00:42.513-07:00I am sure you all regret, as do I, that this blog ...I am sure you all regret, as do I, that this blog does not lead or define the public debate. As it happens, the media is filled with stories about DT-- I trust that everyone knows what they means-- so it is not inappropriate to have a say. I was inspired by Mark Levin's analysis of the Trump brouhaha, which was linked in the comments section of this blog. I would have felt derelict if I had not been able to discuss the art of critical exegesis and contrast my views with Levin's. Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-79922441211866154782015-08-09T09:57:11.194-07:002015-08-09T09:57:11.194-07:00We have a great Republican field, and all we'r...<br />We have a great Republican field, and all we're doing is lamenting the presence of Mr. Trump, who is -- so shockingly -- showing himself to be who he is. And everyone knows this. <br /><br />We're talking about Donald Trump in terror, saying he is attaching himself to a Republican "brand" that he disavowed by raising his hand in response to Bret Baier's first question. he's not a Republican. <br /><br />"Some commenters on this blog find that I have completely lost my own mind… for being critical of Donald Trump’s temperament and for questioning the reputational cost Republicans are paying for having him be the standard bearer of the party."<br /><br />I don't think you've lost your mind. Yet you are parroting the Republican Establishment's hysteria about what Trump is "doing" to the party, and such reactions are perpetuating the problem. Watching Donald Trump's behavior during and since the debate has been like watching Charlie Sheen's epic meltdown. No one ever said Charlie Sheen was the standard bearer for Hollywood. Roger Ailes is loving all this! So is Megyn Kelly! Do we think Kelly has entered a counseling program because she has been so shamed and savaged by the cruelty of Trump's locutions? C'mon... <br /><br />It's your blog, and I love it. But you've taken remarks about his temperament and layered on stuff like "reputation" and "standard bearer." Stop! The election is in November of next year! How do you think things are going for Hillary? Why she hasn't been indicted is the scandal in America. <br /><br />You're complaining about Trump, which perpetuates the drama. If he's THAT bad for the Republican "brand" (as though someone like John McCain is actually "good" for the brand), then conspire to do something truly useful: stop taking about him. It's the chatter that's allowed him to gain whatever he has to date. He's a lousy candidate for all the reasons you cite, Stuart. Every one of them. So let's just STOP. <br /><br />What's really happening is Trump is showing the truth about the GOP Establishment: it hates its base. The GOP leaders want to go to Washington cocktail parties and not have to talk about the "kooks" who put them in office. They want to be dignified, reasonable and respectable. In so doing, they've made it clear they want to lose in 2016. Really. With the way things are going now, the Republicans are showing they want to make Ares Olympus' day and LOSE in 2016. They want to look respectable, rational, reasonable, and Trump is ruining all that. They are LOSERS. Do you want to be a loser? I don't. <br /><br />Make no mistake: we're buying into the media narrative about who Republicans are and what their base is really like. The Lefties are laughing their asses off watching Republicans freak out about Trump, because Trump confirms the Left's narrative of who the Republicans are. The media agrees with the Left. The GOP Establishment agrees with the Left. Washington, D.C. is for more government to build wealth around... Washington,D.C.! Those who don't want more government are... kooks! Kooks want to be independent: to be responsible and live for themselves. Wow, what horrible people! How un-American! Such people just be stopped!<br /><br />Republicans need to start going on offense with clarity about who they are and what they believe, in plain language. That's what Trump has shown is possible, and he is now in the way. But Republicans drew a HUGE audience on Thursday. The field did well, save one man -- the curiosity most people came to see. Is it any surprise that's who the chattering class is chattering about? Trump chatters. They chatter. It's a game. Fiorina and Rubio did it very well on Thursday, and their answers are not getting traction because we are taking about Trump. Turn the game around. Leverage the gift Trump's given here, then ignore him. We have to learn, and stop reacting. Now. Please.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-75733521549992583532015-08-09T09:49:01.923-07:002015-08-09T09:49:01.923-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.com