Start at the 5:02 mark about “celebrity” candidates. Andrew Breitbart at 7:00 mark “Trump is no conservative.”
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Andrew McCarthy. So how do we recognize a sober man when we see one? He isn’t in a hurry, isn’t out of breath, effortlessly walks a straight line, sees incoming parrys (whether from his left or from his right) before they arrive and calmly deals with them, doesn’t succumb to tomfoolery, reflects on his own actions as he takes them and sticks to what he understands as the truth of things. Maybe that sober man is a danger, but I doubt it in this case.
McCarthy’s piece is spot on:
I agree with you Darleen, the whole piece is good, very good. I think, however, that were I chosing quotes, I’d have gone for:
“Asked directly about Trump, Cruz is reported to have said, “I think every candidate should treat everyone else with civility and respect.” The unmistakable implication is that Trump was uncivil and disrespectful. Cruz did not say that explicitly, but it was patently clear that this is what he meant. He argued, correctly, that the episode was a distraction from the catastrophic problems facing the country and then moved on to one in particular – Iran.”
That’s because McCarthy shows people how to read carefully, considering the implications of speech as well as what is merely stated. Too many people seem to have come away with the misimpression that Sen. Cruz didn’t criticize Trump, and if those people thought only just a little more carefully, they wouldn’t have beclowned themselves. Further, McC shows there what a sober man does: he turns to the true problems immediately, and leave trivialities by the wayside.
I’m sorry, “everyone should be respectful” is a far cry from “Trump was disrespectful”.
Sounded more to me like Cruz was saying what HE was going to be, respectful of everyone Trump included, not give a veiled condemnation in direct contrast to the point he was making.
Could be I’m just beclowning myself again though…
So the point he was making? Wasn’t veiled. It was merely respectfully unstated. That’s civility enough. No one need ignore incivility when it’s thrust in their face, when demonstrating other means to make it plain; when what the incivility is can be shown by implication as well as by deed.
It’s as simple as the question not put to Sen. Cruz: what is good to do? Is it good to do as Donald Trump does? Or is it good to otherwise? Which is it, Sen. Cruz?
Looks to me that Sen. Cruz would answer it is good to do otherwise than Donald Trump. Then, the implication? It is not good to do as Trump does.
“Looks to me that Sen. Cruz would answer it is good to do otherwise than Donald Trump. Then, the implication? It is not good to do as Trump does.”
I think Criz would think it good for Trump to do what Trump does, and Cruz to do what Cruz does, and let the voters pick.
I do not imagine Cruz feels it his place to tell the voters who Trump is.
What I see is a rough and tumble businessman that loves America and an accomplished, polished statesman that loves America. I honestly don’t know which would be best in these dire circumstances, though in normal times the polished statesman would be a no brainier.
Anyway, if ya’ll want to see implied criticism and hidden jokes, that’s fine. I console myself with crediting my unbiased viewpoint for not seeing them myself, but it’s possibly due to my clownishness I’ll admit.
So Sen. Cruz is to be taken for an utter moral relativist then? I suspect he wouldn’t accept that characterization. But maybe I’ve misjudged him.
I don’t know what Cruz thinks of Trunp and there’s really no reason I should know how he feels about Trumps moral character. He said they should all respect each other If you want the read into that that Cruz hates Trump too, you can, but that didn’t come from Cruz himself.
I myself don’t think Trump has acted dishonorably, does that make me immoral?
“. . . if you want to read into that that Cruz hates Trump too . . .”
I’ve said nothing about hate. I wasn’t thinking about hate. So, where does this idea arise? It doesn’t, so far as I can see. And “too”? Please.
What does Sen. Cruz profess? Besides that he says “every candidate should treat everyone else with civility and respect”, that is? Why, a Christian spirit. And I take him at that. So? So, treat others as you would wish to be treated [respect]. And? And when treated with incivility? — struck on the cheek, say — turn the other cheek. Demonstrate the incivility by being civil. Don’t lash out, but make a showing nevertheless.
Dishonor, again, wasn’t mentioned. In the Greeks’ scheme of things, honor, martial, manly honor was a big deal. So also for the Japanese way back when. For Christians like Sen. Cruz, I think all that manly martial business has been set aside, at least regarding civil manners and such. Public manners, questions of state, questions of war between nations — as for instance when one nation is attacked by another, that’s another kettle of fish. But even that is confined to the liberal society, which once was ours, where public conduct and private conduct are kept each to their own proper sphere. Overthrow the liberal society and we have the government telling individuals what they must believe. About everything.
A showing for what? Cruz wasn’t struck in the face and whether Trump did wrong is highly debatable.
I think the others condemning Trump make themselves look petty. Cruz looks the statesman for stepping above the shreeking horde. I’d actually be disappointed if you’re right and Cruz was descreetly tut-tutting for cheap grace.
“A showing for what?”
Ah, I apologize for the lack. I was assuming we’re to take Megyn Kelly’s questions to Trump as an affront, a metaphorical sort of slap in the face; an incivility on her part. Trump said something like, I could treat you as you’ve [badly] treated me, but I won’t. And then seems to have reconsidered later. Which is how I take his remarks that Kelly was not good, unprofessional, retweets someone else’s bimbo remark, claims hostility from her, blood from the eyes, etc. Trump made more and not less of it. That’s of course his choice to do. And seems to be what is understood as winning.
Ahh, that helps, thanks.
I’m pretty much in line with Levins thoughts when it comes to Kelly.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/09/mark-levin-fox-news-megyn-kelly-hosted-a-national-enquirer-debate-not-a-republican-debate-owe-american-people-an-apology/
Except for the apology crap. I’m sick of that, everyone demanding apologies.
A tiger need not apologize for being a tiger, and Kelly nor Trump need apologies for being who they are.
As for Trumps response to Kelly, his bold aggressiveness response to his attackers is what separates him from the pack with their media approved veneers and focus group refined politaspeak. The people are starving for a plain talking leader, we’re sick to death of spineless cowards selling us out for acceptance of the media elite.
Again, Cruz is my guy, but the more this kinda stuff happens, the more I think maybe Trump is what America needs right now, a loose cannon shaking things up.
his bold aggressiveness response
Name calling is not a response. Anger is not a response.
Boldness and assertiveness =/= bombastic schtick.
See: Carly Fiorina’s decisive handling of Chris Matthews. That is how serious adults behave.
the more this kinda stuff happens,
like the weird “cuckservative” thing, I’m suspicious that the Stormtrumpers are filled with Mobys, sock puppets and agent provocateurs.
[…] Click/Protein Wisdom: Breitbart and The Stupid […]
[…] Levity/Trooper York: I’ve grown accustomed to your face Darlene Click/Protein Wisdom: Breitbart and The Stupid […]
“Name calling is not a response. Anger is not a response”
Of course it is! May not be your cup of tea, but it’s a response. Beats the shit outta cowering and apologizing.
Fact is, people keep saying he sucks the oxygen, I find him to be a breath of fresh, free fucking air. About time someone put these smarmy king maker wannabe media hacks in their place. And despite what Kelly says, Trump did handle her and I hope if elected he’ll handle Putin the same.
Please America, do a nut check!
No not like the weird cuckservative thing, like the weird menstural thing. The weird question, like that was the question any American watching wanted asked and answered. Like that Kelly got more time editorializing the question than the candidate got to answer.
THAT kinda stuff.
**** You know, I haven’t announced who I’m supporting and I’m not going to announce for a while. I haven’t done infomercials for Donald Trump. And I’m getting tired of these infomercials for Donald Trump, but I’m also getting tired of these lies and these attacks on Trump.
I don’t like bullies.
And that second question out of the box, last night, was premeditated. That second question out of the box — Megyn Kelly on her own didn’t ask that question. That had to be approved by executives over there at Fox. They carefully managed, stage-managed this event. So that question was carefully stage-managed. It wasn’t a counter question. It wasn’t an hour into the debate. It was planned. It was written. Every syllable was known in advance.
And the minute she asked that question, I said to myself, “What the hell is goin’ on here?” “What the hell is this?” “What the hell is going on here?” They wanted a spectacle. The question itself was a spectacle.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t wan’t to be misinterpreted–a lot of these liberal blogs, they’ll put headlines on, ‘Levin trashes Fox, Levin trashes Kelly, Levin does this, Levin’ — I am telling you what I think. I am not trashing anybody.
I am explaining what I saw and giving you my take on it as somebody who is very serious about what’s going on in this country and we have precious few opportunities to present a philosophy, arguments, to make distinctions, to put things in context, and to find the right candidate to run for President of the United States.
Is that asking too much? Apparently so.
This is why every time the media is rated by you, you detest them. They’re lower than Congress. They’re lower than the Courts. They’re lower than the President. And now, I have to discuss with you: Rosie O’Donnell. Rosie O’Donnell! Why? Because the second question during the debate, with 24 million viewers, a record, a record in all of history, was a Reality TV question.
Well, Mark, ‘Trump’s gotta answer these que’ — I’m not even defending Trump. I’m defending the truth.
Well, Mark, ‘He’s gotta be prepared to answer this question because of the Democrats’ — fine. Then let the Democrats ask it. We’re trying to sort through the Republicans to determine who we want to nominate to take on the Democrats. We don’t need everybody mimicking the Democrats.
Ask some questions that are pertinent to ‘We the People.’ Constitutional Conservatives, Independents, Republicans — it’s the Republican Primary, after all — ask some questions relevant to us. And what is this abortion stuff? Every one of them getting hammered, hammered, hammered. Because they’re pro-life.
Let me suggest that when a moderator, quote unquote, has an agenda, he or she should try and at least conceal it somewhat.
But don’t worry, 24 million viewers. Whoo. Wow, that’s — that’s just cool.
Now, to be fair and balanced on this program… ****
Link leads to the 6:16 mark of Levin’s broadcast, Friday last.
Beats the shit outta cowering and apologizing.
Who did that? Fiorina v Matthews? Cruz?
Gingrich is far better with the snappy response than Trump is.
Trump is Schwarzenegger and look how that turned out for California.
Smack dab. Kelly did this need Levin presents no favors. Nor the rest of the FoxNews extravaganza, as I wrote here a couple of days ago.
One thing I’ve noticed though: Trump doesn’t do what Mark Levin wants done either. I’m not clear whether even if Trump chose to attempt this he would have the chops for it. Maybe he does. But supposing he does have the chops, then I’m left asking how come he doesn’t do it? Does he think it’s inconsequential? Does he think it is a mistake to do it? Or does he simply disagree that Constitutionalism is a true thing, or a possible thing? Maybe he likes the corrupted state of our politics, but conceals that with window dressing, supposing popularity and celebrity quite enough to gain power, and then to wield it? Perhaps Levin himself could ask Trump one day.
Mr. Levin mentioned that Trump may be on his show this coming week, so we’ll see.
My dream ticket
#1 Cruz/Fiorina
#2 Walker/Fiorina
I wish Walker was a better speaker. I love Cruz to pieces, but I’d actually rather have him as Chief Justice of SCOTUS if wishes could come true.
Darleen, did you vote for Fiorina when she ran for Governor?
I passed her over pretty quick and voted for McClintock. She is definitely more polished these days.
I never voted for Arnold. He was more worried about being popular than doing what was necessary.
Lee
She ran for CA Senate, not gov and yes, I voted for her AND contributed to her campaign.
Just as I will now.
A Mythical, Deceptive Tale by Carly Fiorina
>Carly Fiorina on Immigration: Pass the DREAM Act. For other undocumented immigrants, a direct path to citizenship is unfair. While running for the U.S. Senate in California in 2010, Fiorina said she supports the DREAM Act, which would give legal status to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
Carly Fiorina on Climate change: It is real and manmade. But government has limited ability to address it. Speaking in New Hampshire in February, Fiorina said there is scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.
Carly Fiorina on Education: Supports Common Core – Set national standards but give local districts maximum control. No Child Left Behind was positive. In a position paper while running for the U.S. Senate in California, Fiorina strongly advocated for metric-based accountability in schools. She praised No Child Left Behind as setting high standards and Race to the Top for using internationally-benchmarked measures.<
link
Ace has a pretty good post on the Trump.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/358390.php
Must say I was amused at how Insty’s recent column pre-refuted Fred Barnes’ ridiculous WeeklyStandard piece today, showing just how clueless the estb. sorts have become.
Losing the dead GOP isn’t such a bad thing in itself. ‘twould be a positive boon so far as I can see. Trouble is, the Americans have got themselves a terrible reputation in their recent choice of high executive. Who, having lived through the last seven years, would trust such a people to actually make a serious judgment? On the strength of what understanding, either of that people or of that people’s own understanding of the political system they have merrily thrown away? It really has become folly as art.
I found that Barns piece glaring in its omission of illegal immigration, the issue that shot Trump to prominence, in his list of issues concerning we talk radio addled malcontents.
Makes me think, THAT is the issue the political elite least want to talk about, and the biggest reason for their terror of the Donald.
Seriously, wasn’t that the obvious lead question for Trump? I think it no accident that’s the reason they go after his personality, the don’t want anyone speaking plainly about that issue. Was there ANY question about illegals at the debate?
If Trump were smart he’d keep immigration front and center.
I guess my point was simply that Barnes, despite recognizing trouble with the gop, cannot get it through his head that it isn’t Trump who drives the gop into the grave, but the gop drives itself into the grave. It’s pathetic, or maybe an example of what the ancients called tragedy. Think Oedipus.
I got that, I was expanding on your point trying to show how it worked in real terms.
If the GOP wants to thwart the vast majority of their base by not representing them on their top issue, it’s childish to blame someone who says he will represent them And takes their base.
Just had to tell someone:
The establishment water-carriers at the Patriot Post just banned me from commenting and removed all my posts for being critical of their Newspeak a.k.a. GOPe sycophancy.
So I got that going for me.
Swiped from Ace’s sidebar, this guy – who doesn’t like Trump and thinks he’d make a terrible president – actually gets the appeal, and why no amount of “he’s not a conservative, or even a republican for that matter” data will reason his supporters out of supporting him.
Because his very presence annoys a wide swath of people who need annoying.
http://crankytrex.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-fuck-you-candidate.html
This is funny. I gotta remember to bring it up whenever people talk about Trump being crude. ‘Cuz the rest of us are so prim and proper…