Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

[vt]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ich-won-813657

5 6:00am PDT

The social critic pulls no punches in evaluating the 10 top Republican candidates at the Fox debate.

The crowded GOP debate ended on Thursday and the analysis is coming thick and fast. The Hollywood Reporter asked noted social critic and author Camille Paglia for her thoughts on the debate and she didn't disappoint.
Dear Hollywood Reporter,
Ten GOP candidates turned up for the presidential audition tonight at Cleveland's Quicken Loans Arena. They need some work. Where's Max Factor and Sydney Guilaroff when you need them? Here's my report.
Best,
Camille
Donald Trump
What's with the carpet-bombing Don Rickles routine? Does Trump have any facial expression beyond knotted, squinting scowl? It's a strain even to look at him. The entire debate begins with Trump getting booed for refusing to rule out a third-party bid. He has a slashing, entertaining wit, but his braggart narcissism is on painful display. He speaks in simplistic polarities of "winners" versus "losers," as if geopolitics were a jangling Atlantic City casino. He sets high goals but lacks real answers to any government issue. Trump is a Trojan Horse sent by the crafty Clinton machine. He has a bellyful of swords aimed at GOP hearts.
Jeb Bush
Is there a blander, more boring personality in American politics? The guy looks like the runny yolk of a fried egg. He's trying to be assertive tonight because he's been told he needs to project "passion." But when his lips move, there's still a big blank. Why the heck the major media hails him as the GOP frontrunner is beyond comprehension — except that big money has been showering down on him like powdered sugar on a donut. Why do Jeb's smiles remind me of a dimply grandmother? He could and should have been a high school principal. I don't see him on the world stage, holding the line against ISIS.



Ben Carson
What is this brilliant brain surgeon doing in the political arena? He seems like a cordial, genial, thoughtful fellow, but he's shy and diffident and seriously out of place in this pugilistic forum. Not only is he uncomfortable in the harsh spotlight, but he has arrived strikingly ill-prepared with positioning on major policy issues. At the end, he lands some sharp blows on Hillary Clinton, but overall he did not distinguish himself enough from the other candidates, nor did he even demonstrate much interest in the mechanics of governance.
Chris Christie
A refreshing flow of specifics from a hands-on governor, but Christie will never fly as presidential material. He has a braying, jabbering manner like an old-style big-city mayor of the Fiorello La Guardia era. There's something too baby-like about him. I was thinking Fatty Arbuckle? John Belushi? Under the bravado there's a hint of chaos. Maybe it's the mismatch between his ski-jump nose (not what he had in high school) and those bouncy plump lips. Anyhow, aside from his disqualifying history of thuggish behavior, Christie is too Northeastern provincial for nationwide appeal.
Marco Rubio
What a nice, bright, earnest young man! When he graduates from the college debating team, he will have a rosy future! Oh, er, he's 44 years old? Computer crash! Rubio is very smooth but also oddly slick. He seems caught in a time warp of self-stunted maturation, a son shying away from the Olympus of father-gods. Sorry, but this won't work in the White House. Try again in a decade or two?

Mike Huckabee
Very forceful when he calls for the abolition of bloated government agencies or asserts the "personhood" of the fetus, but everything else is rote, memorized, formulaic, even his gestures. Huckabee seems like a survivor from the Bob Hope or Art Linkletter era of TV pitchman. He's like a retro character actor you've seen in a hundred movies but whose name you can't remember. Despite his physical robustness, there's something unreal or porous about him. Voters must have a sixth sense for Huckabee's artificiality, because his presidential bids have always floundered.
Rand Paul
What a disaster! This was probably the worst debate performance in recent memory. I agree with most of Rand Paul's libertarian principles, but he certainly did them no favor tonight. He seemed surly, seething and discourteous from start to finish — like a petulant schoolboy kept after class. There was not an iota of presidential promise or gravitas. Who would want this squirming urchin as the nation's representative at an international summit? And what bizarre self-presentation — the overlarge Peter Pan collar and tie, the disorderly forehead locks, the unshaven cheeks and what sure looked like white highlighting under plucked brows. Caligula, anyone?
Ted Cruz
Way, way too much subtext. Big, strange-looking guy with an almost womanly face. Whip smart but on a monomaniacal mission for world salvation. Announces, to great applause, that his No. 1 attribute is he "will always tell the truth." Red alert: a bruiser of a politician who thinks he has a corner on truth. Cruz's expression is habitually close to a sneer, which he offsets with pleading, faux puppy-dog eyebrows. He knows history and military affairs, but he's no negotiator — he's aGeneral Patton prima donna.

Scott Walker
Underwhelming tonight. Comes off as cheerful and upbeat, like a pleasant sitcom dad. A strong closing statement but seemed recessive and noncompetitive for most of the debate. Was classy and gracious (unlike the fidgety, self-absorbed Rand Paul) in turning respectfully toward Ben Carson as he spoke, but seemed to opt out from the general strife. Perhaps overconcerned with his reputation as a union-busting flame-thrower, Walker tried to be reassuring and just seemed limited and repetitious. A junior spectator, not a national leader.
John Kasich
Buoyed by the crowd's enthusiastic support of his tenure as governor of Ohio, Kasich came on strong in the debate. His brusque, animated gestures are awkward but manlike in a solid, old-fashioned way. Kasich is a genuine populist with working-class family ties. He made the Princeton-educated Cruz look effete tonight. Kasich was full of specifics about his congressional experience on the armed services and budget committees. I think he won the debate. Kasich is a mensch in a party of parakeets.
Carly Fiorina
Midway through the event, Fox News inserted a clip of Fiorina at the earlier debate of candidates who hadn't made the cut. For a surreal moment, I thought it was Dustin Hoffman in drag inTootsie — it was exactly the same lilting Heartland accent. There is universal agreement that Fiorina won her debate hands down. Let's hope she is automatically promoted to the big league at the next GOP debate. Throw the male duds overboard!

[dcarrigg]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ich-won-813657

5 6:00am PDT

The social critic pulls no punches in evaluating the 10 top Republican candidates at the Fox debate.

The crowded GOP debate ended on Thursday and the analysis is coming thick and fast. The Hollywood Reporter asked noted social critic and author Camille Paglia for her thoughts on the debate and she didn't disappoint.
Dear Hollywood Reporter,
Ten GOP candidates turned up for the presidential audition tonight at Cleveland's Quicken Loans Arena. They need some work. Where's Max Factor and Sydney Guilaroff when you need them? Here's my report.
Best,
Camille
Donald Trump
What's with the carpet-bombing Don Rickles routine? Does Trump have any facial expression beyond knotted, squinting scowl? It's a strain even to look at him. The entire debate begins with Trump getting booed for refusing to rule out a third-party bid. He has a slashing, entertaining wit, but his braggart narcissism is on painful display. He speaks in simplistic polarities of "winners" versus "losers," as if geopolitics were a jangling Atlantic City casino. He sets high goals but lacks real answers to any government issue. Trump is a Trojan Horse sent by the crafty Clinton machine. He has a bellyful of swords aimed at GOP hearts.
Jeb Bush
Is there a blander, more boring personality in American politics? The guy looks like the runny yolk of a fried egg. He's trying to be assertive tonight because he's been told he needs to project "passion." But when his lips move, there's still a big blank. Why the heck the major media hails him as the GOP frontrunner is beyond comprehension — except that big money has been showering down on him like powdered sugar on a donut. Why do Jeb's smiles remind me of a dimply grandmother? He could and should have been a high school principal. I don't see him on the world stage, holding the line against ISIS.



Ben Carson
What is this brilliant brain surgeon doing in the political arena? He seems like a cordial, genial, thoughtful fellow, but he's shy and diffident and seriously out of place in this pugilistic forum. Not only is he uncomfortable in the harsh spotlight, but he has arrived strikingly ill-prepared with positioning on major policy issues. At the end, he lands some sharp blows on Hillary Clinton, but overall he did not distinguish himself enough from the other candidates, nor did he even demonstrate much interest in the mechanics of governance.
Chris Christie
A refreshing flow of specifics from a hands-on governor, but Christie will never fly as presidential material. He has a braying, jabbering manner like an old-style big-city mayor of the Fiorello La Guardia era. There's something too baby-like about him. I was thinking Fatty Arbuckle? John Belushi? Under the bravado there's a hint of chaos. Maybe it's the mismatch between his ski-jump nose (not what he had in high school) and those bouncy plump lips. Anyhow, aside from his disqualifying history of thuggish behavior, Christie is too Northeastern provincial for nationwide appeal.
Marco Rubio
What a nice, bright, earnest young man! When he graduates from the college debating team, he will have a rosy future! Oh, er, he's 44 years old? Computer crash! Rubio is very smooth but also oddly slick. He seems caught in a time warp of self-stunted maturation, a son shying away from the Olympus of father-gods. Sorry, but this won't work in the White House. Try again in a decade or two?

Mike Huckabee
Very forceful when he calls for the abolition of bloated government agencies or asserts the "personhood" of the fetus, but everything else is rote, memorized, formulaic, even his gestures. Huckabee seems like a survivor from the Bob Hope or Art Linkletter era of TV pitchman. He's like a retro character actor you've seen in a hundred movies but whose name you can't remember. Despite his physical robustness, there's something unreal or porous about him. Voters must have a sixth sense for Huckabee's artificiality, because his presidential bids have always floundered.
Rand Paul
What a disaster! This was probably the worst debate performance in recent memory. I agree with most of Rand Paul's libertarian principles, but he certainly did them no favor tonight. He seemed surly, seething and discourteous from start to finish — like a petulant schoolboy kept after class. There was not an iota of presidential promise or gravitas. Who would want this squirming urchin as the nation's representative at an international summit? And what bizarre self-presentation — the overlarge Peter Pan collar and tie, the disorderly forehead locks, the unshaven cheeks and what sure looked like white highlighting under plucked brows. Caligula, anyone?
Ted Cruz
Way, way too much subtext. Big, strange-looking guy with an almost womanly face. Whip smart but on a monomaniacal mission for world salvation. Announces, to great applause, that his No. 1 attribute is he "will always tell the truth." Red alert: a bruiser of a politician who thinks he has a corner on truth. Cruz's expression is habitually close to a sneer, which he offsets with pleading, faux puppy-dog eyebrows. He knows history and military affairs, but he's no negotiator — he's aGeneral Patton prima donna.

Scott Walker
Underwhelming tonight. Comes off as cheerful and upbeat, like a pleasant sitcom dad. A strong closing statement but seemed recessive and noncompetitive for most of the debate. Was classy and gracious (unlike the fidgety, self-absorbed Rand Paul) in turning respectfully toward Ben Carson as he spoke, but seemed to opt out from the general strife. Perhaps overconcerned with his reputation as a union-busting flame-thrower, Walker tried to be reassuring and just seemed limited and repetitious. A junior spectator, not a national leader.
John Kasich
Buoyed by the crowd's enthusiastic support of his tenure as governor of Ohio, Kasich came on strong in the debate. His brusque, animated gestures are awkward but manlike in a solid, old-fashioned way. Kasich is a genuine populist with working-class family ties. He made the Princeton-educated Cruz look effete tonight. Kasich was full of specifics about his congressional experience on the armed services and budget committees. I think he won the debate. Kasich is a mensch in a party of parakeets.
Carly Fiorina
Midway through the event, Fox News inserted a clip of Fiorina at the earlier debate of candidates who hadn't made the cut. For a surreal moment, I thought it was Dustin Hoffman in drag inTootsie — it was exactly the same lilting Heartland accent. There is universal agreement that Fiorina won her debate hands down. Let's hope she is automatically promoted to the big league at the next GOP debate. Throw the male duds overboard!

I broadly agree with this. Fiorina definitely took the early debate. No question. I thought Kasich took the later one too. Although part of me believes it was a bit of the northern liberal in me that made me believe this, and that this and his softer Anglican take will be the nail in the coffin for him in a primary dominated by Southern Baptists and Evangelicals. Bush looked like mush. Paul was the hands-down loser. Walker looked weak. Carson looked out of place. Christie is a northeastern Italian Catholic, which would be like the Democrats electing a deep-southern Evangelical, e.g. a non-starter the way politics are poised this day-in-age. Rubio capitulated on every question and gave non-answers. I actually thought Cruz and Huckabee looked better than their poll numbers suggest. I just thought Trump came out fine. I doubt he'll gain much poll placement off of that debate. But I doubt if he'll lose any either. And the other runners-up looked weak. The strength was in the third-tier. A lot is going to change before the winter. But I think the ones with the most upside potential after last night are Fiorina, Cruz and Huckabee. I don't really have a horse in this race, so take that for what you will.

[jk]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

i hope kasich's star will rise. he seemed like he might be someone i could actually respect, a rarity in politics.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

i hope kasich's star will rise. he seemed like he might be someone i could actually respect, a rarity in politics.

He certainly seemed like the reasonable adult in the room, didn't he? But I don't know much about him, to be honest. But being a Managing Director at Lehman during its downfall and collecting a half-million dollar bonus after leaving rubble in its wake might not rub off so well on the guy...

[vt]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

DC, there's a revolving door for both parties on Wall Street jobs:

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...administration

Rahm Emanuel worked at Wasserstein Perella for 2.5 years making $16 million.



But none of these were career bankers, and certainly Kasich wasn't. Kasich was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Both parties get millions from Wall Street:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...e24580714.html

[dcarrigg]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

VT, this isn't a contest for which party is most Wall Street friendly. I know plenty of Democrats are. Hillary included. Don't have to remind me.

I'm just saying that Kasich was MD at Lehman during the run-up and collapse, and he took a hefty bonus after leaving the company in rubble. That's political liability. It just is. If he starts getting traction, Bush or Walker or Trump or someone is going to throw it in his face. You can count on it.

Not that Bush should be throwing stones...he worked at Lehman during the collapse too...although not as an employee, but as a paid outside talking head.

Imagine if you were on the Walker or Trump campaigns. Just dub the two of them "The Lehman Bros." Then hit them with a pile of negative ads about it. It seems too easy to pass up.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

My father was a child of the great depression, a WWII vet, and a died-in-the-wool FDR Democrat.
Yet he hosted young John Kasich and some neighbors in our home in 1978 during Kasich's very first campaign for the state senate.
As far as I know that's the only political event my father ever attended, and Kasich is the only Republican he ever voted for.

Kasich has a tendency to go off script and say dumb things. He can be thin skinned and petulant.
He has become pretty doctrinaire about modern Fox News conservative ideas. His years working for Fox News are probably a factor.

Kasich and the Republican legislature tried to break Ohio's public employee unions in 2011 but where defeated overwhelmingly by public referendum.
Kasich has refused to touch the issue ever since, saying that the people have spoken.

He defied the Republican legislature and adopted Obamacare in Ohio by administrative action and does not apologize for taking the money for Ohio.

Kasich does not live in the Ohio governor's mansion because he has a far nicer waterfront home courtesy of his Lehman Brother's money.

In Ohio a public referendum cannot modify or revoke a budget bill in whole or in part.
The legislature and Kasich have become pretty aggressive at loading up the budget bills with non-budget items like abortion restrictions so they are out of reach of any public vote.

In Ohio we have a state monopoly on liquor sales, and state liquor store money has been a huge source of public funds for decades.
In 2011 Kasich and the legislature created JobsOhio, a private corp, and gave JobsOhio all the liquor money.
The liquor money, perhaps $228MM per year, was "leased" to JobsOhio for 25 years in exchange for a $1.4 billion bond payout.
JobsOhio is beyond public audit or oversight and is supposed to create business activity through loans and grants using the liquor money.
Of course this whole thing was done inside the budget bill so voters cannot repeal it by referendum.
Kasich has appointed his largest contributors to the board of JobsOhio and they are pretty generous to themselves and their friends when doling out loans and grants to "create jobs".

[jk]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

there you go, thrifty, bursting my bubble of hope. you'd think i'd know better by now.

[Woodsman]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

Easy rule of thumb here. Forget electoral politics. There is no Democrat or Republican for whom you can vote that will make the slightest bit of difference. We are not voting our way out of this problem.

[don]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

Easy rule of thumb here. Forget electoral politics. There is no Democrat or Republican for whom you can vote that will make the slightest bit of difference. We are not voting our way out of this problem.

Woody and George - term limits!

newbies being almost always cheaper, and easier to control, than incumbents.

[lektrode]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

Woody and George - term limits!

newbies being almost always cheaper, and easier to control, than incumbents.

which is - quite simply - The best argument FOR 'mandatory' status quo:

NO term limits = NO 'change we can hope for'

[shiny!]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

Easy rule of thumb here. Forget electoral politics. There is no Democrat or Republican for whom you can vote that will make the slightest bit of difference. We are not voting our way out of this problem.

Right you are, Woody. For those who still think the foxes you elect to guard the henhouse care about your wishes or care about doing the right thing, this should be viewed at least once a year. Maybe every day.

I strongly remember some people here saying that the last round of voting would clean house. It didn't. And neither did the rounds of voting before that and neither will this next round of voting. Hell will freeze over before the people elected to power willingly give up their power.

Using term limits as an example, someone please show me exactly how we can force congress and the president to make term limits the law. Give me specifics. You can't. Write letters to our congressmen? Sign petitions? Tweet about it? Elect a new batch of politicians who promise to end corruption in Washington? Puh-leeze! The definition of insanity is expecting different results from the same behavior.

Face it: The republic is dead. Forget all the false fronts and window dressing. The USA is an oligarchic surveillance state with a fascist economy. Politically we're way past the point of no return. I understand why people still cling to the comforting fantasy that we can change the system through the electoral process, but I can't swallow the blue pill.

[don]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

Face it: The republic is dead. Forget all the false fronts and window dressing. The USA is an oligarchic surveillance state with a fascist economy. Politically we're way past the point of no return. I understand why people still cling to the comforting fantasy that we can change the system through the electoral process

How right you are Shiny! and the illusion of term limits only weakens further any meaningful understanding of "the problem".

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paglia Critiques The Republican Debate

Carly Fiorina makes some of the right noises.

But as I recall her business credentials are less than impeccable from her HP/Compaq days.

Unless of course the plan would be for Carly to oversee the deconstruction of the US from it's apex position, much like HP/Compaq and it's share price.

-----

Dr Ben Carson I really like.

I just don't see him as a viable broad based candidate…he's lost in the noise and out of his element much as you'd expect a successful doctor to be when entering the world of professional fake wrestling.

[don]

Has the Donald Crossed the Line?

The people who own this country don’t like euthanizing one of their own. But they’ll do it in heartbeat if they think their world of privilege, patronage and power is at risk. Last Thursday, Donald Trump overstepped his bounds and crossed a line. In off-the-cuff remarks to a Fox moderator during the GOP presidential debates, Trump provided a window into a corrupt political system that is thoroughly marinated in the money of private donors. He explained in detail how the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful, and he admitted that wealthy donors contribute to political candidates so they “do whatever the hell you want them to do.” In one short 20-second exchange, the brash Trump revealed the quid pro quo that assures that the coffers at both the Democrat and Republican headquarters remain full-to-the-brim. He said:

“I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.”

You cannot stand in front of an audience of 24 million Americans on national Television and explain in excruciating detail how the political system really works, how the tycoons and moguls pay for favors from the sock-puppet politicians, how the politicians do whatever they are told to do, and why the system is a complete and utter fraud.

The people who own the system will not allow that. After all, it is their system, a system which they created, which they control, and that provides the very foundation upon which their wealth and power depend. They have no intention of allowing a loudmouth, upstart casino operator to seriously threaten the credibility of their precious system by blurting out all kinds of insider information that exposes the rot at the heart of the machine. That's not something they want to hear, and that's not something they're going to hear. Donald Trump is about to be crushed and destroyed in ways he never could have imagined. He's about to discover a painful truth, that the vindictive and merciless people who run this country are not to be trifled with.

As of Saturday morning, there were 2105 articles in the mainstream news covering the details of a comment Trump allegedly made about Fox’s Megan Kelly. This is how the landslide begins. The media settles on a particular narrative, and then reiterates that narrative from every paper, every televised newscast, and every privately-owned bullhorn at their disposal. Of the 2,000 or so articles written on the topic, nearly all of them are cookie-cutter hit-pieces that repeat the same unsubstantiated claims as the others. This is how elites shape public perceptions, by sheer volume and repetition, by deluging the masses with the same storyline over and over again however inconsistent, inane or mendacious it may be. In this case, the narrative has been fine-tuned at the nation’s premier propaganda headquarters, the New York Times, who led off with this tidbit in Saturday’s paper:

Donald J. Trump’s suggestion that a Fox News journalist had forcefully questioned him at the Republican presidential debate because she was menstruating cost him a speaking slot Saturday night at an influential gathering of conservatives in Atlanta. It also raised new questions about how much longer Republican Party leaders would have to contend with Mr. Trump’s disruptive presence in the primary field…..
With Mr. Trump at center stage, the event Thursday shattered television viewership records for primary debates: Nearly 24 million people watched. But any hopes that he would try to reinvent himself inside the Cleveland arena as a sober-minded statesman, or that he would collapse under scrutiny and tough questions, vaporized in the opening minutes.” (“Hand-Wringing in G.O.P. After Donald Trump’s Remarks on Megyn Kelly“, New York Times)

“She was menstruating”, you say?

Beyond the reference to menstruation, what can we deduce from this short clip from the Times?

Well, it’s clear that the Times thinks Trump is a sexist pig and a “disruptive presence” that needs to be removed from the campaign. Keep in mind, that this is the same narrative that appears in the vast majority of US print-media, which means that–among the elites who own the media–the consensus view is that Trump has got to go, even though he is the GOP frontrunner, even though he is the only person on the slate who generates any public interest, and even though he has not had any opportunity to acquit himself on allegations that he claims are false.

Why? Why have they decided to give “The Donald” the old heave-ho when it clearly hurts their chances of reclaiming the White House in the next election? Is it really because he made a crude sexist remark about Fox moderator Megyn Kelly? Is that it?

Since when has the GOP become the great defender of women’s rights? Is this a recent development or did I miss something?

The idea is absurd, just as it is absurd to think that the Times reporting is impartial coverage of the facts. It’s not. The Times is obviously inserting itself into the process, just as Megyn Kelly inserted herself into the process when she pummeled Trump with one incriminating question after another and then proceeded to lob softballs to the dreary and utterly lifeless Jeb Bush.

This is why people are angry, right, because they think Trump was treated unfairly. And this is why they’re not buying the media’s BS storyline, because they’re sick of the media telling them how to feel, what to think and who to pick. They resent it, in fact, it pisses them off.

Now you’d think that if you had a brand-spanking media-machine that can crank out 2000 cookie cutter articles overnight blasting “sexist” Trump as a first-class scoundrel and praising the dainty Ms Kelly as the unwitting victim of abusive male bullying, then dastardly Trump would plunge in the polls, right?

Wrong. Trump is still comfortably in the lead and more popular that ever.

Why?

Because people don’t trust the lying media. Because people don’t trust the lying liars who run the Republican party.(or the Democratic party) And because people resent the fact that they’re being manipulated. Is that so hard to understand? The feeling now, is that, “if the assho**s who run this country are against Trump, then I’m for him. It’s that simple. It’s not about populism or channeling anger and frustration to a rebel candidate. Trump is no rebel, and he’s no reformer either. And he’d probably be a shitty president too. But Trump has one thing going for him that is sadly lacking in all the other candidates, all the party honchos, and all the flannel-mouth, stuffed-shirt fake politicians who are presently in office. What is that, you ask?

He tells the truth, at least it sounds like the truth to a lot people. And that makes all the difference.

This whole Trump-flap has sparked a rebellion in the conservative ranks, a rebellion that anyone who is even slightly interested in politics should be paying close attention to. The workerbees appear to be increasingly suspicious of the party leadership and their wavering commitment to conservative values. Case in point: Here’s an excerpt from an article that appeared at the far right WND website titled “Rush (Limbaugh): ‘Orders from GOP donors to take out Trump’. Here’s an excerpt:

“Who won the great debate?
According to the mainstream media, the winner was … Fox News.
According to Rush Limbaugh, the loser was … Fox News.
At least, in the sense that the network may have blown its credibility with conservatives.
And Limbaugh said he saw it coming.
“Everybody should have known this was gonna happen,” he said. “This is presidential politics, and Republican candidates are where media people score their points. It’s where they build their careers. It’s where they establish their credentials.”
The conservative talk-radio giant saw another motivation for the moderators’ attack-dog tactics. He said GOP bigwigs ordered Fox to take out Trump.
On Friday, Limbaugh began by telling listeners how, on the day of Thursday’s debate, he had learned “that big-time Republican donors had ordered to take out Donald Trump in the debate last night.”…
Rush said it was clear that Fox News had it out for Trump when his colleagues refused to pile on, even when given multiple opportunities to bash the front-runner.
“Not one of the remaining nine candidates joined Megyn Kelly in taking the shot at Trump. Not one. Yet we have been told that there were orders from Republican donors to take Trump out.”….
As for which candidate actually won the debate, reactions were all over the map. Opinion appeared evenly divided on whether Trump helped or hurt himself. But, according to the Drudge Report poll…he was the landslide winner.”
(“Rush: ‘Orders from GOP donors to take out Trump‘, Garth Kant, WND)

Is Limbaugh right; did the “big-time Republican donors” order that Trump be taken out? And, if so, doesn’t that suggest that the “menstruation” allegations are just a phony pretext for demonizing Trump in the media?

Of course they are. It’s all fake. None of this has anything to do with Megyn Kelly. None of it. According to Limbaugh, Trump was a “marked man” from the get-go, before the first question was ever asked. Kelly was just one of three stooges chosen to play the role of political assassin. She’s just a bit-player in a much bigger drama.

So now we move on to Phase 2, where the bullyboy puppetmasters come down on Trump like a ton of bricks. He’ll never know what hit him. One day he’ll be playfully sparring with the press corps on the front steps of his Manhattan penthouse, and the next thing you know he’ll be frog-marching across Times Square in handcuffs and leg-irons. You can bet on it.

Trump’s got to know what’s coming next. He’s a smart guy and he’s seen this play out many times before. The bottom line, is that if you fu** with these guys, you’re going to wind up “sleeping with the fishes.” It’s that simple. He ought to know that by now.

MIKE WHITNEY