Friday Links and Open Thread

  • Thursday’s numbers: Bill O’Reilly-Megyn Kelly-Sean Hannity 1-2-3.
  • Concha: Pouty NR Trump-busters showed their desperation;
  • Outnumbered video: plague European refugees.
  • FTV: Is this what CNN is planning for its snowmageddon coverage?
  • TCG: Sometimes journalistic outrage isn’t exactly fair and balanced.
  • Wemple: Cruz camp praises O’Reilly as they duck Factor appearances.
  • De Moraes: Fox News announces criteria for next week’s GOP debate.
  • Factor video: Bill and questions for the Dems’ forum.

83 thoughts on “Friday Links and Open Thread”

  1. Re: Fox News announces criteria

    It looks like the same criteria that FBN used for the debate on the 14th,,,and barring something unforeseen very likely the same candidates.
    Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Christie (top 6 nationally) and Kasich (top 5 in NH)

    Will the Iowa audience be mostly pro Cruz like the audience in South Carolina on the 14th? Who knows.

    Will the viewing audience exceed 20 million?. Seems likely to me…especially given the Trump-Cruz ongoing war of words.

    • How sad is it that a good number of viewers will tune in to see the Trump-Megyn rematch rather than what each of these candidate’s position is on actual policy? Not that anyone seems to care what Trump’s policy is on anything.

    • i stopped watching the debates. honest. there is virtually no serious policy discussion. i would really be impressed if some of these candidates would write some proposed legislation and ask current house members to bring it to the floor. i know, crazy huh?

      • FBN’s came close to having some , but most of the debates GOP and Dem are more about the candidates telling us why they think another sucks

        • de vera. i stopped watching them. they are juvenile.
          still waiting for any candidate to write legislation they would send to congress as a proposal. any idea other than a platitude or something not impossible will do.

  2. Have you seen Trump’s new campaign slogan? “Don’t vote for free, vote for me!” He’s going to give each voter $100 to vote for him.

    At least that’s what my neighbor’s cat told me.

  3. The Pouty National Review Trump Busters bashing author sure described HIMSELF with this attack:

    “narcissism, unlimited ego and an overwhelming feeling of self-importance” He just summed up himself PERFECTLY!

    Heck, he’ll probably still act like the next debate will be Trump VS Megyn Kelly instead of Cruz/Trump II.. Too bad he didn’t even mention that FBN debate before =))

    • Concha calls NR editors who criticized Trump’s so-called conservatism desperate. Andrea Tantaros calls them bed-wetters. Imagine that! Opinion writers having opinions. I think it’s more that we don’t want no stinkin’ opinions that we don’t agree with.

        • I’m not for Trump either, but I don’t like the attempt to enforce conformity by attacking anyone who is. Like it’s a disqualifying Mark of the Beast to favor Trump over Rick Santorum. When a candidate is doing as well as Trump there are going to be people who back him, and people who don’t. The idea that Trump backers need to be purged from the airwaves is bizarre and, at its core, anti-American.

          • my Yia Yia told me all the time while she was alive. “remember George, no matter how bad things are, they will likely get worse. “

          • school man. they never not have chores. my only grandchild is in Oregon. the other 9 are wife’s and her bro and sis. for semana santa nicas eat sardines, and they are comfortable living that way too:)

          • is there really significantly important people asking to reduce Trump coverage? people can be found saying just about anything, but are there serious political people calling for this? honest question, i am not tuned in to make that judgement.
            i am a make your bed you sleep in it sort.

          • “i see the NR position as just normal political refutation…”
            That’s all I saw it as too. Are they saying cover him less or don’t vote for him? It’s their opinion and not a popular one in many circles. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t express it.

          • I think they would have done better to endorse someone rather than disavowing Trump.

            I’m not arguing against expression, I’m saying that I think NR made a move that will ultimately marginalize them.

          • likely they will. for now, what is wrong with making the argument he is not conservative and whose character is not presidential. that is not old lady like.

          • Nothing. The way it’s done matters.

            They should have done it positively by endorsing Cruz or someone…and in the context of that they mention Trump’s negatives.

            Instead they went full-on assault against the frontrunner and alienated themselves from a large portion of their audience and gave fuel to media liberals and others to elevate what status they have in conservative ranks in order to declare an unbridgeable chasm in the Republican Party.

          • he is a poll front runner. not a single vote has been cast. seems like correct timing to make their opinions known. i wish i knew them. send me a copy. unbridgeable? who knows. there are chasms in all segments of US politics. there is no consensus. there is not going to be a consensus. the bern folks fight with each other. libertarians fight with each other. fighting seems like normal politics to me.

            no one should make an endorsement until there is someone to support a person that can;1. win, 2. has detailed legislative proposals on all major issues.

            since no one in no party qualifies on those 2 points i cannot see why anyone is endorsed by anyone yet.

            i think the endorse thing is a red herring. if you want to get angry, get angry at the lack of detail these candidates of all stripes propose. now that is depressing.

          • Are you lecturing me on the importance of Trump’s candidacy and popularity thus far, or the people who devoted an entire magazine to countering it?

            BTW– I’m not angry.

          • neither. i am saying trumps candidacy is vapid and the NR content is not even discussed. polite went out the door in 1800, great election year ya know. i cannot fathom how the controversy could possibly effect voting.

          • Who could have ever guessed that NR would come out with a cover story denouncing Trump and the dynamics of that would overshadow their reasons for denouncing him.

          • scroll to my Yia Yia’s quote. it is happening all over the world too. worse and worse people are put in place to run countries. i am at the point were i fear daniel ortega dying.

          • For anyone sharing an opinion on the 22 NR articles, please specify what content of which article contains the basis for your opinion. I’ve read 14 of the articles, and so far I’ve seen no attacks on Trump supporters or calls to keep Trump supporters off the airwaves.

          • Well I, for one, wasn’t referring to the NR articles. I’m just keeping an eye on social media talk, blue blogs, and various nests of Fox haters, some of whom seem to think everybody on every news channel should criticize or denounce Donald Trump. (I am not exaggerating.)

          • It appears, old friend, that I misunderstood to what you were referring. My bad, and I beg your forgiveness. 8>)

          • Just remembered this example: a newshounds writer who complained that Fox has news anchors who don’t criticize Trump. Call me crazy, but I would hope every news channel would have news anchors who don’t criticize Trump. Or any other candidate.

          • NR’s subscriptions are rising, everyday grassroots conservatives are heaping praise and thanks on NR and Trump’s assessment is the opposite of reality.

          • I haven’t read Trump’s assessment.

            If what you’re saying is correct to the extent of making wrong my statement that NR has offended a majority of Republican voters, then the polls indicate that Trump’s appeal has reached across party lines to Democrats and disaffected Americans in general.

            In a country so evenly divided that Democrats are working night and day to import a constituency…NR should have been more than a little reticent to outright kick these these voters in the butt.

          • I must be losing my cognitive comprehension:
            In response to Marty’s,”Well, it’s a failing “newspaper” and no one reads them so no problem,” Cecelia writes, “They’ve kinda made a move that may make that typically muddled Trump assessment prophetic.”
            My response to the above was about Trump’s assessment being “prophetic” and nothing else.

          • I was giving you Trump’s early assessment. He has since called it a magazine, but still considers it a failing operation. Would you expect anything else? It’s not my view.

          • Totally agree.
            Trump tweet last year:

            Donald J. Trump – ‏@realDonaldTrump
            .@NRO Really important to save National Review from going out of business. We need a true conservative voice!
            8:13 AM – 25 Apr 2015

        • At its most elementary level it does seem to me that the NR thinly veiled plea by most — not all — was, “Vote for Ted Cruz because he is a more authentic conservative than Donald Trump.”

          It seems to me that one problem with that position being persuasive was perhaps best summarized by Pat Caddell.

          He said, ““There is no evidence that this is an election about ideology. It is an election about insurgency,”

          Therefore seeming to imply that NR’s message will be largely ignored by most primary voters.

    • I’m not getting the criticism (i.e., logic) by some Trump fans on Fox News that the NR opinions of Trump are somehow subjugating the people’s voice to the opinions expressed by 22 conservatives in the National Review.

      I’m usually pretty good at logic (BS Mathematics) — but I must admit (or confess) that this logic escapes me. smh

        • DT’s latest foray into insanity is to tell his followers that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his peeps wouldn’t care.

          • is that true or sarc? you know i live in the jungle and only hear occasional drums. do not play with me like that. he said he could shoot someone in public?

          • Me, snarky? No tis true. Loose translation. Saw it on the fabulous Julie Banderas news report a little while ago. I have many personal character flaws and one of them is that I don’t know how to insert a link. Google it.

          • it was an honest question, i believe you now, and if you look it is sarc, for sarcasm, not snark. i save that word for people who think they are special.

      • My guess is that they’re saying that NR is the ideological mouthpiece of conservatism.

        I don’t believe that, but I think NR, as a media and business enterprise ought to imagine itself as being that and act thusly.

        I’m sure NR thinks that it has in denouncing the Relublican frontrunner, but only to the extent that they give credence to idea that “the” philosophical soul of conservatism has failed to reflect conservatives…

        That cry against NR is part artifice, but made valid enough by NR’s maneuver that the magazine has turned all gravitas it possessed against itself.

        • There does seem to be a suggestion that the ‘establishment’ leadership should walk away from the opinions expressed in the National Review and give more credence to what the voters are saying (to the pollsters) about the GOP front runner.

          Just because I don’t agree doesn’t make me right.

          I need to ponder this a little longer I suppose.

          • a bad marriage is best understood decades later. lol. i remember some bad Texans tried to corner the silver market. figured if they owned it they could run it as they wanted. learned they could not own a market. what were those guys names? there is no establishment that owns any party. let it play out in the market. tranquillo carmelo.

          • I am beginning to better understand their motive — maybe.

            What at least one Trump fan on Fox News appears to be suggesting is that by their sheer numbers (22 essays on NR) they are perceived as trying to commandeer the electoral process by trashing the front runner and defying the will of the voters.

            I’m still not sure I agree.

          • motive smotive. they can’t do it even if they wanted to, and who cares if that is what they were trying to do? the only prob i see is no one is discussing the content. all people want to do is accuse, assign motive, on and on. what is in the content? is it persuasive? why is the content of the articles not the main topic? hell, what was in the articles, they don’t here…lol. that is where i get confused, no content. it is all personality while the debt clock spins.

          • Sample of ongoing ‘debate’ — this one on Twitter:

            Jeanine Pirro
            The National Review needs to get in line with the rest of the Republicans. How dare they trash the front-runner.

            Cheri Jacobus ‏(GOP Consultant)
            We don’t have a front-runner until votes are cast. Shame on you for misleading voters on this point. “Judge”

          • Sometimes Judge Jeanine makes my hair hurt, but I’m not getting the outrageous outrage over this particular bon mot of hers. An opinion host has an opinion–shocker, huh? She’s picked her candidate and wants others to agree. Again, why is this so scandalous? It’s been going on for years. I recall Keith Olbermann literally screaming at Hillary Clinton to get out of the Presidential race and back Obama. Irony: one newshounds writer who is particularly shocked–shocked!–at Pirro’s tweet has also been calling for the return of Keith Olbermann to MSNBC. Three guesses why that would be, and the first two don’t count.

  4. Today’s most popular links:
    5 Pouty NR Trump-busters
    4 what CNN is planning
    3 praises O’Reilly
    2 announces criteria
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Sometimes journalistic outrage isn’t exactly fair and balanced.

  5. I wonder how long it will take for Jug Ears to blame the shooting in the small native (Dine) community in northern Saskatchewan on the NRA?

  6. “Tens of thousands in a deep freeze without electricity or heat.”
    ~NBC Nightly News

    Dang! That’s some scary stuff.

Comments are closed.