Trump continues his unfathomable advancement as the Presumptive Republican nominee, going to Capitol Hill to meet with Speaker Ryan which produced a “sham marriage,” according to Charles Krauthammer.
Why does he say that, you might ask? Because of this, reported in The Hill:
[…] “I’m not among the many who thought it smoothed over the divide,” Krauthammer said on a Fox News panel Thursday evening after the high-profile meeting earlier in the day.
“This is a sham marriage and the reason is simple: good will on both sides, but Paul Ryan is a conservative … Trump has made it clear he’s not a conservative, he’s a nationalist populist,” Krauthammer said. “Those are differences you never bridge.” […] (Click here to read the rest.)
That said, Krauthammer thinks Ryan will eventually endorse Trump. Ugh.
But Ryan wasn’t the only one, as Trump met with some Senators who think if they ask Trump to “soften his tone,” he will. AHAHAHAHA – what a joke that is, and what idiots they are for thinking he would do anything of the kind. Have they not paid attention to ANY of his campaign?? I’d say the chances of that are slim and none, though Trump did say from here on out, he is just going to have SUGGESTIONS. Heaven forbid he have to be held accountable for anything he says, dontcha know.
Which all leads me to his secret. And no, not his tax returns, about which he proclaimed today that his “tax rate is none of your business.” Nope, I am talking about how his numerous media interviews have been conducted. THAT is his big secret – he doesn’t answer difficult queries. The Washington Post has the story (h/t Facebook friend):
[…] Trump is a master of darting from slogan to slogan. That’s why interviewers must do their homework and be prepared to go at least 2-3 questions deep on any issue.
When Trump makes a blunt, sweeping statement like saying he’d “get along very well” with Russian President Vladimir Putin, journalists have to follow up by asking how, specifically, he thinks Putin would respond to increased economic sanctions. If he won’t answer, they should do what conservative Wisconsin talk radio host Charlie Sykes did back in March. Interviewers should say, flatly, “You’re not answering my question.”
Reporters at major news outlets need to inquire more deeply into Trump’s alleged business relationships with mafia-controlled construction companies, and about the way he cut corners to get lavish taxpayer subsidies and government approvals for his hotels and casinos — questions that still lack complete answers since they were raised in Wayne Barrett’s 1992 book, “Trump: The Deals and The Downfall,” and further developed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston.
Journalists need to remind Trump, and voters, of the many times he’s claimed as fact something demonstrated to be false — that on 9/11, for example, “thousands and thousands of people” in New Jersey Arab American communities cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers. If Trump says he can’t remember, remind him he claimed to have “the world’s greatest memory.”
All along, many of us have complained about Trump literally being able to phone it in, an option the author of this article, Todd Gitlin, notes allows him to consult notes or advisers with no one being the wiser. But it is truly the failure of the “journalists” for letting Trump get away with wholly inaccurate, fanciful, false statements and NOT following up on his statements. Gitlin has a HOST of examples and I urge you to read the entire piece. This part speaks volumes:
[…] It is possible to hold Trump’s feet to the fire. You have to be resolute and persistent.
Tom Wright of Brookings unpacked the history behind Trump’s retro foreign policy platform. The Post’s Robert O’Harrow reported in-depth on Trump’s failed casino ventures. For 2015, PolitiFact made Trump’s aggregated campaign misstatements their “Lie of the Year.” In a few instances, reporters have done it right.
But more often, it looks like interviewers are on a tight leash — maybe because their bosses are blinded by ratings. CBS President Leslie Moonves recently said of the Trump phenomenon: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” His admission was both refreshing and revolting in its candor — and goes a long way to explaining why, according to one survey, through February, Trump scored almost $2 billion worth of free media this cycle — about as much as all other candidates together. It poses most acutely a question that goes to the soul — battered as it may be — of journalism. Is the mission to elicit facts and evaluate claims, or to dash off, hell-bent, in the ratings chase? It should be obvious. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Yes, it SHOULD be obvious, but the media has been all too willing to let this clown show go on unabated by facts or real reporting.
I don’t know if it is too late now or not with Trump – the media continue to do his bidding and giving him massive amounts of free air time. There is an important aspect to Trump’s being on the ticket, though, and one the RNC seems to studiously be avoiding. That would be the impact OF Trump on the ticket. From Affluent Investor (h/t Facebook friend):
The media attention has, understandably, been focused almost entirely on the Presidential race. Relatively little attention has been paid to what impact Donald Trump’s nomination will have on Republican’s chances of retaining the Senate and House majorities. According to the Iowa Electronic Markets, a US-based political futures market, Trump’s candidacy has put both houses of Congress in danger of returning to the Democrats.
Republican control of the Senate has been precarious since it was achieved in 2014. At the start of this cycle, political futures markets put the chances of the Democrats taking back the majority in the Senate at just over 50%. Today, that same outcome is just over 70%.
This chart shows the odds of Donald Trump becoming the Republican nominee, overlaid with the odds of the Democrats winning a majority in the Senate, and the Democrats winning a majority in the House.
The light-blue line is the probability of a Democrat controlled house. It was about 5% in July of 2015, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy. That number went up as the probability of Trump being the nominee went up. Today, the Democrats stand a non-marginal 30% chance of taking back the House. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Uh, yeah. That’s how it’s looking. The greater the chances of Trump on the ticket, the greater the chances the Democrats take back control. Heckuva job there, RNC.
And on that note, I leave it up to you. I don’t think I can take any more!
This is an Open Thread.