Trump is really starting to "go there" on all the topics Roger Stone promised he would -- Hillary intimidating Bill's sexual assault and rape victims so the news wouldn't thwart the Clintons' political ambitions, and the Clinton Foundation being a slush fund for grifters whereby American government access was for sale at high levels.
He's brought these topics up in rallies, interviews, internet ads, and perhaps soon his Twitter feed. This is getting them to trickle into the news cycle, although there hasn't been a full-on attack just yet.
That got me thinking how much more of a spectacle he could make out of them. We know that Stone has started a PAC that will begin hitting Hillary on her intimidation of Bill's sexual assault victims, probably including commercials at some point. Nothing at the moment suggests commercials about the Clinton Foundation.
Still, commercials only reach so many eyeballs and only have so many seconds to make an impression.
Trump could devote an entire rally to either or both of the topics, but again how to make sure that the media covered the entire thing? If they broadcast the beginning of it, they'd soon realize where he was going, and then mute his audio, and rush to the talking head panel.
I was thinking something more like the hour-long interview that he had with Hannity last week, where he launched the first warning shot about Bill being a rapist, not only a consensual adulterer.
Imagine it -- an interviewer or moderator introduces all of Bill's sexual assault victims for a general discussion of the nature and scope of what Hillary did to them to shut them up so that their political path would be clear, and then five or six specific individuals giving in-depth accounts of what happened to them first by Bill and then by Hillary, wrapping up with the take-home message that Hillary is a sociopathic bitch driven by overweening ambition, who would rather ruin the life of a rape victim than accept a rockier road to political office.
Then another special on the Clinton Foundation, and how Crooked Hillary did the bidding of various domestic and foreign interests as a Senator and then Secretary of State, in return for their contributions to the Foundation, very little of which is spent on actual charity work, and mostly serves to line the pockets of the Clintons and their various hangers-on. Some of these toadies would be profiled specifically, and specific incidents of misuse of funds would be highlighted (luxury air travel, doing nothing to help Haiti). Wrap up with the take-home message that if she was that corrupt as a Senator and member of the Cabinet, just imagine how much she'd sell out the country if she became President.
Trump made a large donation to the Clinton Foundation, and therefore has legal standing to sue their asses for charity fraud. Stone mentioned that awhile ago, and Trump himself floated that fact during his West Virginia rally. If the lawsuit has been launched at the time of the TV special, this could be worked in as well.
But how would he get such a TV special produced and broadcast, since it wouldn't be his usual monopoly over the media where he earns it by making speeches and doing interviews? That would be one expensive buy.
I'm thinking he asked for something along these lines in the negotiations with Fox where he agreed to give Megyn Kelly an exclusive 30-minute interview, ending their feud and hopefully lifting her career upward. Unfortunately it didn't work out for her, since the thing flopped with audiences, but not for want of her trying -- it even aired on Fox, not Fox News, so you didn't need cable to see it.
What does Trump get out of that deal? Not "mending his numbers with women," which he knew were already getting much better by that point, and would get better with or without some throwaway interview with Rachel Maddow's bottle-blonde sister. He didn't get access to an audience he otherwise could not have reached -- who doesn't know by now who he is and what he's about?
Part of what he asked for was clearly fairer treatment from everybody at Fox News. They aren't as nakedly hostile toward the Trump phenomenon as they used to be.
But really, what is that worth to Trump winning? The audience itself had already written off Fox News, whose ratings and profits have plummeted in the wake of their Trump-hating programming. Aside from Kelly's ambitions being served, Fox desperately hoped to restore its failing reputation among its target audience.
Something that meant that much to Fox and Megyn Kelly is worth far more than just fair treatment. It had to be something they could make happen that he couldn't do on his own, or could only do at tremendous cost -- produce and broadcast one or more TV specials aimed at Hillary's weakest vulnerabilities, to be aired when the pressure really turns up in the fall, and perhaps re-run a number of times for good measure.
Whatever it turns out to be, one thing is obvious -- a desperate Fox did not get their Megyn Kelly special from one of the greatest negotiators alive without offering something YUGE in return. I can't wait to see what it is.
I don't buy the narrative that Megyn Kelly one day just wanted to bury the hatchet and went to Trump Tower all on her own. Seems like something Trump and Rupert Murdoch brokered, probably been in discussions starting in March, maybe after the 15th when it became obvious that Trump was going to win once Rubio dropped out. I do agree that there are likely many other things they agreed on and we will eventually find out what they were.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that Murdoch is so fervently open-borders here, I've heard from Aussies that his outlets support restrictive immigration policies there.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThink you may be right, Ag.
ReplyDeleteTrump has his honey badger mode, which we saw in the Republican contest. But with Clinton he's teasing things, many different things. In my memory, the only time I remember Trump in the primary taking a lighter touch was with Marco and the menacing gay guys strategically placed behind him for the cameras. (You pointed out others, but don't recall them offhand, but they were similar).
Trump reminds me of fellow billionaire Oprah in that his manner and interests belie a superior intellect. Man, what a weapon that is: surprise. And they keep underestimating him. Some of that is denial about political realities they don't like, but mostly, I think, he thwarts them because they believe he is dumb.
By the way, another thing Trump has going for him is he is honest with himself about his flaws. He says upfront he won't discuss them with us or detail at all what they are, but he's clearly humbled about them.
And this is even more important: his supporters understand him, flaws and all.
I read a piece, otherwise very good, by Thomas Edsall today that suffered the same fatal flaw shared by virtually every piece of writing about how Hillary's Trump problem: they aren't honest with themselves about Trump (and often their own candidate).
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/opinion/campaign-stops/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-b-edsall&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
I'm only picking on his because it's the freshest.
"The unrelenting assault from the right and the left on her integrity and competence, conducted both by Republicans and by her opponent for the Democratic nomination, appears to have taken a toll. Clinton has been under attack from the right throughout her 25 years in the national arena. The Sanders critique from the left has served to deepen her negative ratings."
He goes on to list substantive criticisms and that is good, and I do believe Hillary's corruption and globalism are the key to her unpopularity, but look what is left out in the above, diminishing Trump's accomplishments: Trump's dispatching of 16 Republican opponents, including seasoned pols and the dynastic presumed leader.
"How could a candidate with as much baggage as Trump be neck-and-neck with one of the most admired, best credentialed and most broadly experienced nominees in the history of the Democratic Party?"
What can you say to this? So much of my Twitter TL has melted down over recent poll numbers that have Trump catching up. I honestly at first underestimated the psychological trauma and expected it to be a one day story at best. "Of course his numbers are going up (didn't everyone expect that)? Plus, they'll jump around a bit in the months to come, no biggie."
No, they did not expect The Rise! Again!!
OT, and what prompted me to swing by in the hopes you were covering it: looking forward to your take on the FBI investigating Terry McAuliffe. Even more in the 90s, but the guy is a Clinton insider's insider. The whole lot is so corrupt and worthy of investigation, but this timing...
ReplyDeletePerhaps relatedly, John Dickerson backed up your previous thoughts about Hillary's vindictiveness, says Hillary especially vindictive, but Trump forgets and moves on.
The elites on both the left and right have become so insulated over the past 40 years, from fighting mostly among each other in the struggle to climb higher up the elite levels. They no longer paid attention to the middle or lower levels.
ReplyDeleteNow that the normal Americans have finally found a candidate to rally behind, the elites suddenly have to pay attention to them. But after 40 years of increasing insulation, the elites are utterly bewildered by what's happening.
It's not just that they are opposed to the interests of the 95% -- they don't even know what their class enemies stand for. All they can decipher is that it's not what the elites in either party wants.
Knowing your enemy and using that to advance your own interests against theirs is one thing. But to not know who they are, what they're about, and where they intend to take the country -- that uncertainty is downright terrifying to the sheltered elites.
It's no wonder that the talking heads oscillate between impotent rage (Charles Blow on CNN) or magical thinking (repeating the incantation: "Donald Trump will not become President"). They are finally no longer in the driver's seat, and total loss of control is making them lose their minds.
And we haven't even left the primary stage of the electoral season... they're going to find out just how many levels of Hell there are for the traitorous and sheltered elites.
It just occurred to me that Trump's "Crooked Hillary" and "Stinkin' Ted" and so on resemble nothing so much as a negative version of Homeric stock epithets. And Trump himself has a bit in common with Ajax and Achilles personality-wise as well.
ReplyDeleteTrump is descended from Vikings, through his mother who came directly from Scotland (Clan MacLeod, Isle of Lewis).
ReplyDeleteThat part of the world has not undergone the modernization of personality, genetically or socially, as we find elsewhere in the West. So if he seems like a person from another time, it's because he is.
The moron media can't accept that he's smart (went to UPenn, uncle was prof at MIT) because his personality is so pre-Modern. As if there were no geniuses anywhere in the world before the Renaissance.
Other world leaders will recognize him as closer to the rest of the pre-Modern world, behavior-wise, and will actually treat him with respect, rather than walking all over him like any other sissified Modern Western personality.
Conservatives are the least Modernized, so they dig Trump's personality right away. Liberals will never get it, and will always be hurling charges of him being backward, throwback, troglodyte, etc.
Probably not a good strategy to pursue against a literal Viking.
OT: but did you notice this? Fag Denton is trapped and reacting like a hysterical kid http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/gawker-founder-challenges-billionaire-rival-peter-thiel-to-a-public-debate-after-lawsuit-revelation/ar-BBtymDq?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=DELLDHP
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/27/jim_vandehei_4-5_staffers_who_actually_speak_to_hillary_clinton_stuck_in_bunker_mentality_think_shes_always_rght.html
ReplyDeleteI'm not counting on the MSM to say the magic word (homo), or even allude to how decadent her inner circle is, but the word is spreading. Hillary is a psycho who alienates normals.
In case we accuse the MSM of covering for Hilary, let's not forget that the MSM first and foremost loves to gossip. Since around 1992 (when the good vibes of the 80's were nearly dead) the MSM have been a bunch of vultures picking at the corpse of Western Civ. Elites are no more willing or able to get along over anything than commoners.
The coming events will further expose the inability to "conspire" to aid Hilary. On the TV talk shows we see clueless Dem hacks desperately clinging to the post late 70's culture war as conservatives and Bernie insurgents batter the "centrist" Dem ideology that's degenerated into a toxic pander fest that leaves most people cold. We shouldn't forsake the possibility that even the talk show hosts themselves have a populist "come to Jesus" moment by which they will develop appreciation for normal Americans. Times are changing though the progress may take time to sink in.
Boomers in particular are merciless towards Silents, Gen-Xers and especially other Boomers (every Boomer thinks or at least thought that they had the goods to create paradise so they feel let down by Boomer mistakes). GIs got more of a pass though ("we killed Hitler" is a great comeback and GIs stayed out of the creative and spiritual realm that Silents and Boomers treasure). Trump might finally be the sort of guy they've been looking for. And look they have in contrast to younger generations who are too cynical, prissy, and pretentious to get on board the Trump train the way Boomers have.
We might even see populist, or neutral, or careerist, or simply loquacious media figures began to turn more and more on Hillary and her faggy cabal. Why? Hillary ain't no fun. She's miserable and she will make everyone miserable. She strains to project sincerity or wholesome authority. Of course, so much of this is predicated on the MSM getting past Trump's non-PC attitude.
The media has been given a lot of shit for being easy to cajole and manipulate (loquacious candidates are often given a warmer reception) mostly for good reason. Nixon got more shit than Kennedy, Dukakis got more shit than Bush, Gore was jabbed quite a bit too (Bush the victor eventually became a ridiculed figure, but during the 2000 election who was being mocked for wearing earth tones?).
We ought to feel fortunate that we recognize these cycles. It's easier to get caught up things if you think history is well, history, and has no bearing on the current trajectory. But the trajectory of history is more of a boomerang than an arrow.
The MSM is only turning on Hillary because she's becoming more and more toxic to the Establishment. The investigations into her secret email server, the lies about it, the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play with foreign officials (Terry McAuliffe), etc.
ReplyDeleteIf her criminality and treason become even more exposed by the FBI and State Dept Inspector General, not to mention people hearing about the Clinton Cash book which documents their treasonous scams, then the media will really go after her.
It doesn't matter if she's no fun, etc. -- she's been that way her whole life, but the media have been all-in for her because she's the best dream for the Establishment and Wall Street.
The moron media can't accept that he's smart (went to UPenn, uncle was prof at MIT) because his personality is so pre-Modern. As if there were no geniuses anywhere in the world before the Renaissance.
ReplyDeleteIs there anything to the idea that voters often like to "correct" the personality of the previous president, especially if that president went out on a sour note? Like how genial Carter was chosen after cocky LBJ and neurotic Nixon, or how smooth Clinton beat nerdy Bush.
This time it's a blunt tribal strongman succeeding a retiring and docile (but very much passive aggressive) cosmopolitan. The art of dealing and "winning" vs. decades of lame cerebral and social ennui and morose entitlement. Obama didn't even have the guts (or perhaps the energy) to push back against Hillary's bigger fubars. "Energy" and "loser" sure are pressure points for Trump.
How much did Obama's blackness serve as a shield for his utter mediocrity? I think also that polite society was relieved that we didn't get a Marion Barry style brotha in the White House.
":If her criminality and treason become even more exposed by the FBI and State Dept Inspector General, not to mention people hearing about the Clinton Cash book which documents their treasonous scams, then the media will really go after her."
ReplyDeleteIsn't law enforcement as "establishment" as anything else? I've got a hunch that some people can feel the way the wind is blowing (even some elites) and, if only for pragmatic reasons, are reckoning with the idea that the dynasty is over. Getting on the side of the rebels before the castle is stormed might pay off. If the culture war/Clinton era is at it's end, the Clinton's are now fair game. If they're gone, then will anyone else try to fill their shoes? The cucks so far haven't found any heavy hitter (who plays the "right way") whose got the temerity to run against Trump.
I think the elites (MSM included) are growing accustomed to the rage for change. As this rage continues to unfold they realize that they've got to ride out the storm somehow. These people and ideas can't just be wished or PC'd away. How long before some proud Trumpite, tired of the insufferable mugging of a Jon Stewart type, kicks some liberal traitor ass?
Indeed, the MSM knows that they'll get a serious rash from touching Poison Hilary at this point. Trump's un-PCness gives them trouble but there's a difference between being rude or mean and being a thoroughly corrupt and treacherous dynasty figure. But I wouldn't reject the possibility that certain figures are legitimately disgusted by Clinton.
Far from the voters being genuinely powerful, what we're really seeing is a referendum on the elite's grasp of populism. Which for this election hasn't been anything to write home about. The Dem's so far have gamed things for Hilary with inane debate arrangements, super delegate bribery and cowardice, as well as refusing to unhitch their wagon from middle aged blacks who punch way above their demographic weight. The GOP was too riddled by uncertainty (and too many doofuses vying for the nom.) to really favor a particular candidate. And the GOP's delegate prizes weren't too caught up in non-Trump territory (the Nordic upper midwest, the rootless rockies, and the neurotic plains). So perhaps the GOP simply stumbled into a favorable situation, while the confident Dems screwed themselves by devotion to practices that pushed an entitled zombie to the lead.
The BS of much of the Republican nom. process can be brushed aside by the GOP and forgotten by GOP voters who got their man. But Bernie's crowd and many independents have got to be muttering, "how the hell did they expect THIS woman to make a run?"
There is a price to pay for being a serious dickhead, as Nixon and Clinton found out. Perhaps covering for somebody like that is too much to bear, so they get whacked eventually. Lets be honest, the elites could've whacked a lot of presidents (or near presidents) via public humiliation. But that seems to get reserved for the presidents who really cross lines and piss a lot of people off. And who are too stubborn or autistic to bother paying attention to just about anyone.
The more liked presidents are more apt to just be crudely shot, like Kennedy and Reagan.
I think the main benefit for Trump would be giving a good example to the media that being less hostile to him can have benefits. If nothing else, CNN has been the main beneficiary of Trump supporters boycotting Fox News and it would be nice for Trump to show that he can take their windfall away. CNN seems even more hostile to Trump than MSNBC.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but I've been noticing a lot more young kids out and about without parents, which is nice to see. The other side of this is that crime is apparently rising again in big cities for the last 1-2 years. Signs of a generational turning?
ReplyDeleteWe'll see. The 2015 data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey will be out sometime in June. That's the one that shows what high school kids are up to -- smoking, drugs, sex, fights, etc.
ReplyDeleteGoing off serial killer stats, blacks have been successively more violent and chaotic relative to whites with each passing generation.
ReplyDeleteGen X whites (especially going by the "does not remember the 60's definition) have been much less violent than Boomer whites. Later Gen X whites in particular do not want to emulate the hotheaded behavior of their Boomer parents. On the other hand, Gen X blacks were actually worse than Boomer blacks (who were more uppity than Silent blacks).
Given the much different experiences of whites and blacks it just doesn't make sense to ascribe the same traits to everyone of a certain race who happens to belong to the same generation.
Boomer whites had very privileged upbringings that gave them a sense of entitlement. It seems like having it easy and being indulged in the post WW2 era didn't do much for moral development for the Boomers some of whom have never learned to give a damn about anyone else. Meanwhile, as Sailer has often pointed out, America post mid 60's has done a terrible job at giving blacks the "strict moral guidance" that such a low impulse control group requires. Gen X and Millennial whites mostly would rather just hunker down (often alas with pills and twinkies) in the face of the balkanization and rising striving of the last 40 years. But Gen X and Millennial blacks have been the victim of a too loose leash. And we still hear whining about whitey keeping 'em down. No, we need to push them back down further.
Also, if Strauss and Howe are to be believed, heroic generations are the least crime prone. Virtually no G.I.s turned out to be serial killers (keep in mind that the youngest G.I.s were in their early 40's when crime rose in the 60's). If you were born in 1930 (that is, a Silent) you were far more likely to bash someone's face in with a crowbar than a 1924 born person. So it's not matter of being in the trouble making youth demographic. Middle aged Silents (like Charlie Manson) wreaked a lot of havoc in the 60's and 70's.
We shall see if Millennials treat the 2020's as a big freak out, like how the Silents treated the 60's. That would prove that Millennials in fact skipped the heroic type and went right to the artist type that is prone to middle aged freak-outs. The mid-late 1800's were decadent enough to suppress a potential heroic generation. Maybe that happened again.