Robert Campbell

Adam, That would be Lyin' Ted, according to Donald Trump himself, in the Appleton rally posted upthread. Which perhaps should be glossed as "the inferior being who couldn't have won the Iowa caucuses; he had to steal them from me." As for the over-the-hill hard-rockin' Ted, since Ted Nugent called Barack Obama a "subhuman mongrel," his endorsement has been, well, toxic. Definitely not something for The Donald to boast about. Robert

Michael, Where is your evidence that Ted Cruz told his staffers to say this? We know that some of them did, on the strength of a misleading story that ran on CNN. By the way, if Donald Trump had won the Iowa caucuses, would we have heard about any of this stuff even 48 hours after the caucuses finished? Could it be that The Donald felt entitled to win those caucuses? Robert

Michael, Are you in favor of ethanol mandates, or opposed to them? Maybe, since Ted Cruz has said he's against them, and he is a cunningly disguised fount of evil scarcely outdone by Sauron before the fall of Numenor, you've decided they must be a great thing after all. However that may be, your guy, Donald Trump, has said that he is in favor of them. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266339-trump-calls-for-higher-ethanol-mandate Now, following the Bizarro logic that you've told us everyone must apply to anything that Donald Trump says, are we supposed to conclude that Trump will, upon acceding to power, move immediately to end all ethanol mandates? Or what, exactly? In opposing ethanol mandates while campaigning in Iowa, Cruz did something Mitt Romney didn't do. Something Newt Gingrich didn't do. Something hardly any Republican running for President had done. He drew explicit condemnation from the multi-term Republican governor, Terry Branstad, who didn't endorse anyone in the caucuses—but did specifically advise everyone to vote against Cruz. Before he ran out of money, a pissed-off Iowa ethanol lobbyist then funded ads that ran in other states. These attacked Cruz on completely unrelated issues, like saying nice things about "the TRAITOR Edward Snowden!" Living in South Carolina, I got a snootful of these before the Republican primary. Robert

Jonathan, We've gotten to the core of it, finally. Apparently this bloodlust, especially against Republicans, extra-especially against Trump, might prevail even at Breitbart. One risk posed by your line of reasoning is that people can stretch it into a justification for digging in, stonewalling, lying, destroying evidence—and doing those when something really serious has happened. Something far, far worse than what Lewandowski did, if all of Fields' charges are true. Another is that if the entire media are already especially out to get Trump, why should Trump's supporters not take advantage of their bloodlust, as long as it is turned against Republicans not named Trump? Robert

Michael, It's not about stupidity, or dishonesty, or being brainwashed. It's about listening to stuff like Trump's comments on Scott Walker, without noticing how amazingly bad his arguments his can be, without noticing the constant insertion of irrelevant self-glorification—and without walking away scratching your head. Robert

Michael, In any political contest, the question arises soon enough: Are lies permissible, so long as they are being told for political gain? And if lies told for political gain are permissible, even commendable, is every contender entitled to resort to them—or does that privilege extend just to the contender that you favor? Does it matter whether the claims Trump made last year in the debates, when he ripped Walker's performance as governor, were factually true? I'm not talking about Walker's stands on immigration or foreign trade, which I will just say were not well considered. On those, a challenge from Trump or any of the other contenders was certainly warranted. I'm talking about stuff that is in a governor's purview. Taking on the public employee unions, so state, county, and municipal employees weren't forced to join them, and governments weren't acting as collectors for the people who ran the unions, and the unions weren't putting their money right back into Democrats, who were then elected so they could give the union everything they wanted. Getting taxes lowered. Facing a recall election (there were three recall elections, but just one for the governor) in a state closely divided between conservative Republicans and hard Left Democrats Those Democrats had ruled without challenge for years and weren't going to give up total control without a fight. Have you ever heard of the "John Doe" investigation (pursuant to grand jury indictments that people weren't allowed to say they were under) that was waged against Walker's people and against any other group that appeared to be helping him? Relying on his now-fabled article from Time magazine, Trump claimed Wisconsin had been doing terribly, and it was all Walker's fault. Last thing he should ever have been doing was lowering taxes. Everybody hated each other, and that was all Walker's fault. Trump ran against Scott Walker the way a not very truthful Democrat would. The way a bunch of not very truthful Democrats had run against Walker, in his own state. So Trump is proud, as we hear on the plane, of driving Walker's numbers from 24% down to 0%, by effectively taking the side of the public employee unions against Scott Walker. Walker was not a very good Presidential candidate. He has only himself to blame for that. But for running against him like a hack Wisconsin Democrat, Walker is surely entitled to be pissed at Trump. As is anyone else who knows Walker and his record. When challenged by Charlie Sykes, Trump gave his excuse about believing what he read in Time. On the plane, he doubled down, as though his exchange with Sykes had never taken place. (Well, he said he'd won it, so there must have been a lot of motivated forgetting.) He'll keep right at it. The method that Trump employed to stomp Scott Walker should be of concern. Do you think the public employee unions should have prevailed against Walker and the Legislature? Do you think Walker should have been recalled for getting Act 10 passed (that's the one that curbed their powers)? If so, you should congratulate Trump for stomping Walker. Otherwise, you ought to be getting queasy. Trump appears to believe, not only that Walker must never have opposed him, but that Walker owed it to him, after being duly stomped, to tender an act of fealty. Not that Trump would ever reach out to Walker. Infra dig, and all that. It was Walker's duty to kiss up to Trump. And if Walker didn't kiss up to him (instead, the worm displayed unforgivable disloyalty, by endorsing Ted Cruz), then re-stomping was vitally necessary. You know, by recycling the same stuff Trump said he too credulously accepted from Time magazine. But now, presto changeo, Trump's got "perfect statistics." Trump is not obliged to turn the other cheek when a rival criticizes him. Neither, by the way, is Walker... What you have been defending, however, is not a refusal to turn the other cheek. What you have been defending is gaining political advantage by lying about an opponent's character and record—even when the particular lies that your favored candidate has selected for this purpose undermine his own political party and certain portions of its program that he purports to endorse. Then, if the former opponent fails to beg your favored candidate for the opportunity to become your favored candidate's servant, your favored candidate must repeat the lies. Even if you have become inured to the actual words Donald Trump is using, how can you not hear the endless egomania of his press conference on the plane? Or the boundless vindictiveness? What most hurts Trump is the vindictiveness. If he loses the Wisconsin primary, it will be because he's been too busy stomping Scott Walker to pay attention to the two people whose names are on the ballot. If he fails to gain the nomination, it will be because he got too busy stomping and then re-stomping any other Republican who competed with him or tried to oppose him. If Trump gets the nomination, I think he is going to be so preoccupied with still another round of stomping that he won't be able to keep his eye on Hillary Clinton. If he nonetheless gets elected, he will actually need the support of people like Scott Walker. Well, unless he throws in with the National Educational Association and AFSCME instead. What Trump is doing to Scott Walker is not about program. It is not about principle. It is not about opposing an Establishment. It is not about taking apart some war machine. It is not about putting up buildings. It is not about producing one solitary thing. It is about destruction, and it is being done for the sake of power. it begins and ends with Donald J. Trump: all must bow before him, anyone who fails to get with that agenda must be destroyed, and nothing else counts. Robert

Michael, Hmm. Is Corey Lewandowski really employed by the Secret Service? Maybe he recognized Michelle Fields as an enemy agent? I guess reporters were only ever really from Breitbart if they were also really pro-Trump. Of course, if they were genuinely pro-Trump, they could then expect the same gracious treatment that Trump's people mete out to the rest of the press. The fact remains, Trump could have ordered Lewandowski to apologize to Fields on March 10 or 11, and the whole matter would now be less than a footnote to history. Robert

Michael, Jumping a moving Secret Service scrum? Is that what the Washington Post reporter did, too? Robert

Michael, When Donald Trump gives one of manifold vocal performances that you praise, do you actually listen to the words he is saying? I did. That's what made it so fatiguing. I was planning to provide a little commentary on what he said about Scott Walker, for those who haven't followed what's been happening in Wisconsin. But I guess if Donald Trump says he has no use for Scott Walker, the case is now closed. You, too, will have no use for Scott Walker. And no one else should, either. Such is the Gospel. The good news being brought to us by Donald Trump and his messengers. Is their kingdom of this world? Robert

Michael, It really didn't stick in Donald Trump's mind that Michelle Fields was approaching him in a threatening manner? Donald Trump makes factually untrue statements on a regular basis. Why not in this case? Robert

Jonathan, I can see you haven't been following the story. First of all, the videos are evidence that stand on their own. What we see is what we see, whether Fields was a reporter or not, whether she was Breitbart or some other organization, etc. etc. Where you got the notion that somehow I was claiming the Breitbart connection invalidates the video evidence, I have no idea. Now, what does Breitbart have to do with this? Breitbart has been largely pro-Trump since he started this campaign. It is highly unlikely that Trump did not know this. Yet Trump and his crew treated a reporter from Breitbart the same way they would treat a reporter from ... Talking Points Memo ... Salon ... the Daily Kos ... National Review. When the CEO of Breitbart asked Lewandowski to apologize, he refused. What, then, is Trump's actual view of media outlets? Media outlets of any kind, even those that rarely fail to promote him? Robert

Jonathan, Two days after the incident, Trump claimed he has no memory of Fields approaching him or being anywhere in the vicinity. Three weeks after the incident, he claims to remember that she approached him in a manner that might be deemed threatening. Unless his memory was miraculously restored in the interim, the possibilities are: (1) He remembered then, and preferred to pretend he didn't. (2) He truly didn't remember then, and is now pretending to remember something. Robert

Jonathan, Check the video that appeared on Breitbart when some elements there were trying to exonerate Lewandowski (by claiming that Terris had mixed Lewandowski up with a Secret Service agent who actually grabbed Fields). The view of the main actors (Trump, Lewandowski, and Fields) keeps getting blocked, so it's hard to see what's going on. But it has audio. You can hear Fields trying to ask Trump a question. Robert

Jonathan, I've watched several videos, actually. And part of the media narrative with which I am familiar is from Breitbart. Both before and after a certain recent exodus/purge/whatever the combination was. As far as I can see, both Lewandowski and Trump lied, within 3 days of the incident. Trump remembered Fields approaching him, and Lewandowski remembered grabbing her and pulling her out of the way. Both pretended they didn't. Trump could have ordered Lewandowski to apologize to Fields, and the whole thing would have been over. Not Trump's style, as we know. You still don't seem to realize the significance of the reporter being from Breitbart, nor what that says about Trump and his campaign. If you're for Cruz, or even just settling for him, Trump and his operatives are no friends to you. Nor is their relationship with the truth anything to brag about. Just look at Trump's remarks on Scott Walker—the ones he made on his plane, after Charlie Sykes challenged Trump's numbers and Trump excused himself by saying he believed an article he'd read in Time magazine. Robert

Well, Michael, I must say that that listening to Donald Trump is quite fatiguing. Transcribing even more so (a faithful transcription wouldn't include most of the commas or the periods, but good luck reading it without them). I fully transcribed two of his long criticisms of Scott Walker, which are more than sufficient. I am now morbidly curious as to how all of this will play in Wisconsin. We'll know soon enough. Robert

Adam, Nope. I've seen it used in a number of places. It's more accurate than "mass media," because in 2016 Fox News is mass media, and you could argue that Drudge is mass media. It isn't an insult passing for a description, like "lamestream media." Legacy refers to those who controlled the mass media before the rise of Fox News et al., and are trying to keep what's left of their grip. Robert

Jonathan, If Donald Trump makes false statements constantly, in public, about nearly everything, and his supporters keep excusing it, they might as well be advocating it. If one of Trump's opponents is Lyin' Ted, why not out-lie the liar? It's for a good cause! As for bad actors, Trump has employed Roger Stone twice that we know of. Once for his campaign. And in March 2016 Stone is only denying being paid by the campaign. Corey Lewandowski worked for Americans for Prosperity for a while. But who gave him his first opportunity as a campaign manager? You can look it up. What Trump supporters particularly want to ignore about this incident is that Michelle Fields was working for Breitbart at the time. Unless their superior political intelligence network had provided them with images of checks to Fields from Karl Rove and Liz Mair, they had no reason to doubt the identity of her employer. The CEO of Breitbart asked for an apology. Yet Trump and Lewandowski still responded as they did. What does this tell us about Trump's actual attitude toward Breitbart? Trump could have issued a quick apology on March 10, ordered Lewandowski to do likewise, and kept Lewandowski in his employ. Or he could have fired Lewandowski on March 10. Instead, he kept digging himself in deeper. I'm surprised you're OK with Trump reversing himself on his statement that women who get abortions should be punished. Shouldn't he dig himself in deeper every time? Robert

Michael, How long did it take before the legacy media took up the story about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter? A lot longer than 1 week. Also, it took two big stories from the Enquirer. Instead of one with a weird short addendum (the 3 other women Ted Cruz allegedly had affairs with—what's happened to that?). Robert

Jonathan, Donald Trump's actual fervor for banning abortion is not a matter of great concern to me. I figure he's never been against it, and isn't now either. But he's running for the Republican nomination, and all of his opponents are anti-abortion, so... We don't even know how fervent or sincere some of his opponents (I'm thinking Chris Christie or Marco Rubio, but I could have missed somebody) were in their opposition to abortion. The problem is that he has so little investment in the issue that he hasn't thought it through. I don't mean, not thought it through for 2 years—or a month—or 12 hours. I mean, not thought it through, for, like, 30 seconds. The position he took, with minimal baiting from Chris Matthews, is one that would, if he stayed with it, ensure the permanent political destruction of the anti-abortion cause. As everyone else running for the nomination has acutely sensed since, I don't know, 1973. I'm not offended by a person, even a person running for office, who admits not having an answer to something. But this is Donald J. Trump, who wants us to believe he alone has the answer when it comes to stopping Islamic imperialists from massacring Christians in Lahore. The fact is that Donald Trump just took a position, in public, on national TV, that a politician as stupid as Todd Akin had the sense never to take. Robert

Michael, This has not been a debate over whether Donald J. Trump is eligible for a free market achievement award. The thread is not about what anyone has produced in the market. It is a politics thread. Obviously so, because Trump is running for President of the United States. Nor do his accomplishments as entrepreneur, CEO, business mentor, show-biz figure tell us whether he would make a great President, a mediocre President, or a rotten President. Otherwise... well, Mitt Romney hasn't stolen his money or waged war to get it. Neither, as I recall, did H. Ross Perot. Nearly all of what happens on the campaign trail is, in a strict sense, what somebody says. What, precisely, is the disparity between what Trump is saying now and what he will do, if elected President? Who the hell knows? How do any disparities between what he is now saying and what he actually did in the past (the clear implication being that that what he did is much better than what is now saying) predict what he will do if elected? With buying (or attempting to buy) politicians, I care less that Trump did it in the past than how he intends to make such buying a less attractive option in the future. I'm still listening on that one. With eminent domain, it does bother me not merely that Trump tried to have Vera Coking's property seized for the benefit of one of his companies, but that, when challenged, he has lied about the case (which he and his Development Authority allies lost in court). He has even lied about there being a case. And he keeps defending eminent domain to take private property for private use. The Institute for Justice took Vera Coking's case against Donald Trump. So what follows now? Donald Trump stomps IJ? His followers then slew out reasons why the folks at IJ were terrible people all along and deserved to be stomped? Robert

Michael, My point was that the legacy media didn't want to touch the John Edwards story even after the Enquirer broke it. Hardly the case with the Ted Cruz story. Robert

Jon, If Trump alienates every female Republican, what are his chances of enjoying presidentiality? Robert

Michael, Some other folks here have no idea what Trump and Lewandowski initially said about the Fields incident. See my post above. Robert

Jonathan, Trump initially denied noticing Michelle Fields at all, having any contact with her, or noticing Lewandowski or anyone else in his entourage having any contact with her. (See previous post.) So much for the harm she inflicted upon him. Lewandowski denied ever encountering Fields at all, and claimed she'd made it all up. If you feel your opponents are lying about you, and keeping bad actors in their employ just to make life rougher for you, what's fighting back? Lying about them with greater insistence than you think they've been using against you? Keeping worse actors in your employ to outdo the bad actors they have in their employ? Robert

Michael, Marquette polls have fairly small samples. If you'd been following the Scott Walker story (for instance, the recall election that he faced, winning by a bigger margin than when he'd been elected the first time), you'd have known this. Robert