Trump Remains Defiant As Post-Debate Controversy Continues
Donald Trump isn't backing down from his post-debate meltdown, now the only question is what the polls will tell us when they come out.
Not surprisingly, Donald Trump did not back down in the latest controversy over something he said about a person who was critical of him during his Sunday morning appearances today, but the real test will be when the first round of polls come out:
A defiant Donald J. Trump suggested on Sunday that he had been singled out for attacks by the hosts of Thursday’s Republican presidential debate and again threatened a third-party White House bid if he was not treated “reasonably fairly” by party leaders.
In a rapid-fire series of phone interviews with four Sunday television news programs, Mr. Trump defended his record on women’s issues, arguing that his real estate company had been among the first to put women in charge of major construction projects and that he had “always had a great relationship to the women.” He criticized the Fox News anchors who were moderators in the debate, saying that no other candidate had been subjected to similarly tough questioning.
And he struck back at critics of his remarks about Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators, saying that his appraisal of Ms. Kelly’s motives for questioning him sharply during the debate — that she had “blood coming out of her wherever” — was being deliberately misconstrued by his rivals as a reference to menstruation in an effort to dampen his surge in popularity with Republican voters. He had made similar remarks, he told more than one interviewer, about Chris Wallace, one of the other moderators.
“I was going to say nose and or ears, because that’s a very common statement,” Mr. Trump said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” before launching into a recitation of his résumé. “I went to the Wharton School of Finance. I was an excellent student. I’m a smart person. I built a tremendous company,” he said, adding: “You think I’d make a stupid statement like that?”
Mr. Trump’s counterattack came amid escalating criticism from other Republicans, who demanded that Mr. Trump apologize to Ms. Kelly and openly fretted that his rhetoric could alienate women voters at a time when the party was under pressure to broaden its appeal.
He was barred on Saturday from a conference of conservative activists in Atlanta, where his rivals, including Jeb Bush, disparaged Mr. Trump as divisive and not presidential. Other candidates, such as Carly Fiorina and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, attacked Mr. Trump in statements or on Twitter. On Sunday, Mr. Trump dismissed them as irrelevant opportunists. “I would say it too if I was at 1 percent, or 2 percent, or zero percent,” Mr. Trump told Jake Tapper on CNN.
Trump’s statements on ABC’s This Week, Meet The Press, and Face The Nation were basically the same as those he made on CNN earlier the morning. Each time, he denied that he was making any disparaging remarks about Megyn Kelly, while continuing to make disparaging remarks about Megyn Kelly, and engaged in the same substance-free recitation of his alleged accomplishments in the business world and his promise to “Make America Great Again” that we’ve seen for the past month and a half. As has been his typical practice, Trump once again phoned in to four television programs rather than appearance live, via a satellite hookup, or via a pre-taped in-studio interview as is the case with nearly all of the other candidates for President and, indeed, pretty much any politician that appears on any of these others in anything other than “Breaking News” context where there isn’t enough time to get in front of a camera. The only times that Trump as actually appeared on camera for interviews have been taped interviews conducted at Trump Tower, mostly by CNN reporters such as Anderson Cooper and Dana Bash. It’s actually a fairly bizarre arrangement, and if it weren’t for the fact that Trump’s presence on these shows obviously brings in viewers no matter what format it’s in, I have to wonder if the news organizations would even agree to the setup to begin with.
The other point about today’s Trump appearances, of course, is that they were decidedly lacking in substance of any kind. Whereas candidates such as John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Carly Fiorina were asked substantive questions about policy, in addition to the inevitable Donald Trump questions, the interviews of Trump were completely substance-free and revolved entirely around the things Trump had said about Megyn Kelly as well as Trump’s own well-documented ability to hijack an interview with his stream-of-consciousness rants. To no small degree, of course, one has to put some of the blame for this on the reporters who chose to ask Trump these types of questions rather than trying to get int substance notwithstanding the fact that he’s never done that before. At the same time, though, it strikes me that the outrageousness and bombast are all part of a conscious strategy on Trump’s part where he ends up creating controversy by saying something, then he gets interviewed and the interview ends up focusing on the outrage rather than the complete vacuousness of Trump’s campaign Given the fact that these interviews are usually short, no more than ten minutes in most cases, it’s then becomes very easy for Trump to continue his spiel without facing hard questions. The fact that he’s doing over the phone rather than in person makes it even easier. In other words, Trump is manipulating the political media just as much as he used to manipulate the New York “celebrity” media back in the 1980s.
As I said yesterday, the real test of all of this will come when the post-debate polls start getting released. At that point, we’ll start to lean not only which other candidates may have helped our hurt themselves in the two debates held last week, but what the events that night and since then will do to Trump’s level of support in the polls. As things stand right now, Trump stands at the top of the RealClearPolitics poll average at 24.3%, with Jeb Bush far behind in second at 12.5%, and Scott Walker in third at 9.5%. In The Huffington Post’s Pollster average, which includes several polls that RCP does not, Trump’s average is up at 25.5%, with Jeb Bush at 12.7% and Scott Walker at 11.0%. Over the next several weeks, the thing to keep an eye on will be both Trump’s numbers and of those of other candidates. In particular, it will be worthwhile to keep an eye on John Kasich and Carly Fiorina, both of whom hope to get post-debate boost that puts them in a higher ranking in an already crowded field. Additionally, it will be worth watching candidates like Jeb Bush, Scott, Walker, and Rand Paul to see if there support starts to slip after what some have characterized as lackluster debate performances. In the end, though, it’s Trump’s numbers that will matter the most, especially since it is unlikely that other candidates will rise significantly if his numbers hold steady. If the media firestorm is any indication, then we could be at the beginning of the end of the Trump bubble, but we won’t know for sure until the numbers come out.
You misspelled “deviant” there, Doug.
Will the crazies stick with Trump or move to Cruz? Cruz is just as belligerent but can at least serve up the policy nonsense the right loves.
1) First round of polling will show Trump leveling off or dropping slightly. The second round, end of this coming week, will have him down 5 points from his high. From there he’ll drift down to about 15% and stall. Then the Donald has to decide how much fun he thinks it is to be a second-tier candidate.
2) Kasich and Fiorina will come up, so will Christie but not by much. Carson, Huckabee, Santorum have all missed the moment.
3) Bush and Walker will vie for the #1 slot.
4) And now for the absurdly specific predictions. By Tuesday the 18th, the RCP average will have it Jeb 18, Walker 17, Trump 15, Kasich 11, Fiorina 8, Cruz 8.
5) Also, in 2023 the Cubs will win the series.
Couple of observations:
None of the candidates said anything to Trump to his face during the debates.
The Trump story is burying other candidates statements, e.g. Huckabee’s statement that science has determined that life begins at conception or his statement about the purpose of the military is to break things and kill people. Cruz’ banality of insisting on three magic words: radical islamic terrorist. etc.
In fact, for all the praise that the Fox debates are getting, they covered very little actual policy ground.
Overall, my frustration is that the other candidates radical right wing views are getting buried. All to their benefit, presumably.
I have no desire to see Donald Trump as President; or if I’m totally honest, as the Republican nominee, where he might have a plausible, if unlikely chance to become President. That being said, the more I read people like Doug in the “political press” predict the demise of Trump’s campaign, the more I can’t help but hope they are wrong. Republicans just don’t deserve to have Donald Trump go away quickly, before he does too much more damage to their “brand”. They need an election where they really do get to reap what they have sown.
@michael reynolds: I dunno, Michael. I took the little sidebar poll when I came on to see the results and of the people answering “Who won the debate?” the score was Trump 50%, Christie 25%, I don’t know 25%. Jeb and Walker were not even on the radar.
Now, while this poll is not scientific at all, it may be revealing the degree of crazy the nation is dealing with. I don’t see Trump falling as much as you’d like to believe. Maybe after the second debate, he’ll begin to nosedive, but ‘Murka is not tired of this flavor yet.
I really think this is just a made up controversy, twisting Trump’s words. What he said was “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” — unless I am very mistaken, women do not menstrate from their eyes.
I’m really not sure what Trump was saying, whether it was a weird Ebola reference, or a suggestion that Megyn Kelly was a battered woman, or whether this was rage boiling through her because women are so emotional… I’m sure he meant something completely horrible and offensive about it, but it wasn’t menstration.
This is just another instance of the right wing noise machine taking something out of context and repeating it ad nauseum until it takes on a life and a meaning of its own. Like Howard Dean’s scream, the global warming emails, BENGHAZI!!!, Hillary Clinton killing her lesbian lover Vince Foster, or Obama’s comments that “you didn’t make that.” The right wing noise machine got its orders and the establishment is set on taking down Donald Trump, without waiting for him to say something offensive they can actually make sense of, and which they don’t agree with.
Trump frightens them.
(also, I don’t want this ride to end, it’s so much fun…)
I think that the RWNM has finally met its match in terms of bombast and sheer asshattery. He’s doing precisely what I expected that he would – using their predictable attack as marketing fodder to his minions. They’ve served up exactly the sort of challenge and opportunity that he thrives on. His (uncountable) character flaws notwithstanding, the one thing he does exceedingly well is market Donald Trump. They’re unwittingly helping him do that.
@Gustopher: I disagree. It sounds like one of those damn dog whistle remarks we women have heard far too often.
And whether Donald intended it or not, there have been similar remarks made far too often by far too many guys for that insinuation to not be understood by a heck of a lot of women. Trump can bluster all he wants that he didn’t intend it to be meant that way. The question is whether the 52% of the US populace that is female will believe him.
Let me tell you, we’ve heard far too many times insinuations like that from jerks like Trump (followed by protestations that we’re TOTALLY misinterpreting what you meant) that we’re going to give him the benefit of the doubt. When you have a history of calling women fat pigs, the stench of jerkitude wafts from everything you say.
@grumpy realist: I have no doubt that what he was trying to say was deeply offensive to women, I just doubt which offensive thing he was trying to say. The man is pondscum.
He’s being unfairly attacked for saying one offensive thing, when he should be being attacked for some other offensive thing. Or not being clear about his offensive remarks.
Also, I am loving this, and don’t want it to end. I want him in the race a long, long time. And perhaps this is for the best — if he feels unfairly attacked, he’ll become more vindictive and stubborn.
Had to remind myself by checking in on the record-setting ratings of the primary debate how many people presumably saw all this, possibly live. Almost as many people watched that debate as watched American Idol in 2004, the year William Hung got famous for bad singing.
@Gustopher: Reading this prompted me to go listen to the interview where he makes the remark, and wow, he does say blood was pouring out of Chris Wallace’s eyes only a minute or two later. And he made the remarks after referring to how biased the questions were, starting with the third-party question.
Sh!t. I think I agree with you, I think he screwed up his phrasing in the best possible way. “Blood in their eyes” (not pouring out) is a turn of phrase to describe people out to get you, right? Which means maybe he said blood was pouring out of Chris Wallace’s eyes as an Indy Ploy; he realized during his spiel he said something profoundly stupid so he said it again to deflect later criticism. Or the more satisfying explanation that he didn’t realize he’d screwed up the colloquialism at all.
Yes Don John Boy. We all know you would deliberately say that since you are appealing to the misogynist cretins that comprise the base of the Republican Party.
May your predictions be as accurate as these:
Over $100/bbl 1 year ago. Under $50/bbl today.
The Tea Partiers take criticism by the MSM as a sure sign of being on the right path. I don’t think Trump’s base of support was reduced by the debate or his comments afterwards.
What’s interesting is that Doug and all the mainstream pundits keep waiting for Trump to “implode” and come to Earth , and he just -won’t. Jeet Heer argues that Trump is soaring precisely BECAUSE he is doubling down on the racism and sexism
Another important point:
For good or(mostly ) ill , Trump is now seen by as a credible Republican Presidential nominee, irrespective of what the various mainstream gatekeepers say.He’s really like the monster machine that breaks free of the mad scientist’s control.
Then there’s this terrifying statement from Bill Kristol:
Generally, when Bill Kristol predicts something, the OPPOSITE of it happening is a near certainty. Folks, I’m beginning to worry.
Look at this:Sanders pushed around by a bunch of hooligans, thugs, and buffoons – again ! If Sanders can’t stand up to these kooks, how does he expect to handle. Putin, ISIS, Iran, and North Korea ?
His staff is not protecting him, and where are the police?
This makes the Democrats look weak.
This just in, latest from Trump on Carly Fiorina:
Man, he is TRIPLING down. He’s a locomotive gaining speed! I think he will be around a while.
@Tyrell: wrong page dude.
Possibly even wrong blog. Is there a post about the BLM dudes here?
@stonetools: And now I challenge you to listen to Carly Fiona for more than ten minutes straight and report back whether you do or do not develop a massive headache. He’s probably exaggerating, so maybe we should give him a bit of the benefit of the doubt. How about a 30 minute speech?
20 minutes of Palin will get me a pain behind my eye out of anger and stress for the poor English language being butchered.
The Republican Party has convinced the base that boorish behavior is a virtue and now is horrified that the base is willing to nominate one of the worst of boors for the Oval Office.
Damn Donald here I thought it was all about the nail in your head.
Nah, as usual, it makes the protesters look weak.
I’m not sure what they hope to accomplish by ambushing Bernie Sanders but whatever it is, it will have no effect on people’s lives, black, white, or other.
Everything worthwhile that’s ever been accomplished has been done by people who put in the hard work necessary to accomplish the task. Nothing has ever been accomplished by people holding signs and shouting loudly.
Protest for protest’s sake accomplishes nothing. TARGETED protest accomplishes a lot.
I for one think the problem with #BLM is that some of them just protest without a goal in mind. Thankfully, not all of them are so thoughtless. Read this article by purported leader of the group, Deray Mckesson. Excerpt:
I am heartened by the fact that the movement leader is seriously thinking about moving on from protest alone. We will likely see a more mature and focused movement going forward. But there most likely will be more and better protest.
I’m guessing 98% of GOP men have told or laughed at some unfunny joke about Hillary Clinton and her period. And if called on it these men would all sound like Donald Trump.
Bottom line is that Trump is the heart of the GOP. No difference between him and some guy who wants to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Worst luck in dealing with it, homies.
@Modulo Myself: which as said shows they know absolutely nothing about biology of women.
But we knew that already with their following Ted Akin and his “a woman’s body knows how to shut that all down”, don’t we?
@James Pearce: I don’t know why they are picking on Sanders either, but he should not be retreating, taking off, bugging out, or backing down. You won’t see them try this kind of crap with Trump, Hillary, Webb, Cruz, Carson, or Christie (he’ll steamroll them).
If these people have a beef with the Democratic Party, fine. Go join the Republicans and see what you will get from them.
No doubt about it, picking on Sanders is a disgrace. They should be ashamed.
Today’s GOP doesn’t have a heart. It has a spleen, and a liver, and adrenal and salivary glands. It has a calculating reptilian brain. And big flat feet for stepping in it. FOX News provides the mouth.
Our prayers have been answered. Trump still leads the GOP pack by a mile, even after the Kelly comments. Fiorina has also risen to 4th place. Cruz is second and Carson third.
Surveymonkey? Call me when a real polling firm comes out with their results. Trump’s supporters have been slamming online polls lately. It’s crazy.
@Hal_10000: It’s not that I distrust online polling, it’s that I don’t seem to trust any online polling other than YouGov. Especially one conducted over three days.
I don’t think the problem with protesters is that they protest without a goal in mind, but rather that launching the protest is the goal in mind.
Maybe it’s just my engineering mindset, but I see a problem and think that with enough forethought, creativity, and hard work, a solution can be implemented.
Protesters see a problem, can’t imagine a solution or the work required to implement it, so they resort to a kind of performance -holding a sign or disrupting some event. It’s their job to point out the problem, it seems, and it It’s someone else‘s job to fix this horrible problem they’re pointing out.
If they were prepare to take on the powerful, they’d have a better plan than storming Bernie’s stage and asking for four minutes of silence.
The amazing thing about Trump’s sexist remarks is how perfectly they follow the pattern of jerks everywhere. Claim it’s all in jest; claim that the target deserved it. Then you make a remark over the line, claim you meant it innocently and blame your critics for having “dirty minds”.
Trump is entirely unoriginal. He’s not challenging the status quo and political correctness. He’s just being a twerp.
@Argon: Judging by comments at Red State and elsewhere the TP regard FOX as part of the MSM, or worse. Michael Steele commented that the evangelicals, libertarians, and Tea Partiers feel (correctly) that they’ve been lied to by the Republican Establishment who they feel promised they’d get rid of abortion, Obamacare, the IRS, the Kenyan usurper, etc. So to them, FOX is worse than the MSM, FOX are traitors to conservatism. That sort of thing can happen when you feed the irrational expectation of your base for decades.
I keep reading this stuff too, that the “base” is furious at the GOP for “not listening.”
And sitting over here, I’m like…..what are you complaining about? You’re all they listen to.
@James Pearce: Yeah! But what are they doing about it? Have they forced Obama out of office and taken over the White House? Abolished Obamacare? Lowered MY taxes? Arrested and executed all of the abortion doctors and put the women getting abortions in stocks? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I was at a family gathering yesterday, and the consensus among my FoxNews watching brothers, sisters and father (that would be 7 of 9 members of my family) was that they really liked Trump for telling it like it is, the only other Republican who even got a mention was Ted Cruz (a couple of my sisters really like him, ‘he’s a real conservative.”)
I love Trump, he sucks the air out of every room he’s in. Republicans deserve Trump, they’ve earned him.
Did he really say “the” in front of “women”? To me, that makes it sound similar to when someone says, “you people”.
Ezra Klein’s report of an alleged split between Ailes and Murdoch on Trump which fits with the incoherence of FOX’s support for Trump right up to the “debate” where it suddenly became his chief attacker.
Trump’s flailing about in rage stems from his feeling of betrayal? Plausible.
@Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:
Of course, in that case the complaint isn’t that the GOP isn’t listening; it’s that they are unable to accomplish the impossible.
@Tyrell: Thought of your comment when I read this: (H/T to BalloonJc & John Cole)
@Franklin: “Did he really say “the” in front of “women”? To me, that makes it sound similar to when someone says, “you people”.”
or “the wife”
@Tyrell: Look at this: Republicans pushed around by a bunch of Tea Party hooligans, thugs, and buffoons – again and again and again and again! If they can’t stand up to these kooks, how do they expect to handle. Putin, ISIS, Iran, and North Korea ? Their staffs are not protecting them, and where are the police?
Oh yeah…. Now we remember.
This makes you look like an idiot Tyrell. Mission accomplished.
Wow, Trump is really doubling down–says now that Megyn should apologize to him for “asking such a stupid question.”
Sort of sounds like a wife-beater who whines that “if she hadn’t given me any lip, I wouldn’t have hit her!”
Well, that’s why he has the troglodyte vote all sewn up.
He did once say of women that “You have to treat ’em like sh!t.”
It’s been almost 24 hours. Has Trump done something new and offensive? I need my fix.
Trump has made disparaging comments about women in the past – but this was not one of them.
Quote from Megyn: “Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
What charge? There is no such charge by Hillary Clinton toward Donald Trump anywhere in the media. If she’s said it nobody has reported it (and you know they would). To sum: Megyn made an intentionally false allegation and by doing so she leveled the charge herself, attempting to wrap it in Hillary’s mantle.
Post-debate quote from Donald regarding Megyn Kelly: “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” That refers to berserker-style rage to attack… a justifiable comment given that the “question” wasn’t driven by facts or reason but rather by rabid ideology — or worse.
The problem with Megyn’s so-called “question” is that it was clearly an attack piece, taken from the playbook of “when did you stop beating your wife?” It was off-color and worse, intentionally dishonest. It’s dishonest not only because it came from Megyn and not Hillary but also because Trump has a history of slamming people white, black, Jewish, or Christian — including John Stewart who he has attacked for changing his name and allegedly not being proud of his heritage! If you have ever watched The Apprentice you know this; in fact, it’s part of why you probably watched it — for the real-time zingers Trump launched at well-deserving losers.
What Megyn did was uncivil. She intentionally misrepresented his previous statements and acts as focused on women and cited them as, literally, a “war on women” — under false pretense. That was a knowingly false accusation and the moment she made it she lost any right to complain about the tenor or type of response she got; in particular from that instant forward she had no right to expect any sort of civil discourse in response as she attempted nothing less than a knowingly-false and rabid smear job.
I admit I have a small amount of schadenfreude watching the Republican establishment Swift-Boating one of their own candidates, though.
Wait, your defense of Trump is that Hillary hasn’t made this charge yet? That only makes sense if you think it won’t ever be brought up.
As David M says, you’re misreading the question. Kelly didn’t say that Hillary had already said this; she asked how Trump will respond to it when Hillary does say it.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be will have to respond to the general accusation from Democrats that the Republicans are waging a war on women. If the R nominee is Trump and the D nominee is Hillary, it becomes a near-certainty. That part of that question was the closest thing to “grounded in fact” of anything during the entire ‘debate’.
@DrDaveT: Second the motion. I heard it, and later read it, as a hypothetical, but a near certain hypothetical. And any hypothetical male Dem nominee would be derelict if he didn’t find ways to raise the same question.
Speaking of War on Women, is Huckabee standing by his threat to call out the Army to stop abortions?
Another poll, this one from PPP, puts Trump way out in front in Iowa:
Also, Rubio has joined Huckabee and Walker in being against abortion even to save the life of the mother.
Honestly, these people are insane. Dangerously insane.
I wonder if the people who advocate no abortion even to save the life of the mother realize that if the pregnancy will kill the mother, it’s most likely going to kill the child as well.
– Albert Goldman. Or was it Coleman?
Huh? What Kelly was saying that if Trump gets to the general election, Hillary would inevitably make those charges, and asked Trump to respond to them beforehand- an absolutely legitimate question to ask during a partisan vetting procedure.
In the same way, if someone asked Romney “Governor, how will you reply you oppose to Obama’s charge that he copied Obamacare from you?,” that wouldn’t be a “false allegation,” but a question about a predictable line of questioning in a presidential election.
Yes- if there is one thing we are looking for in a president is his ability to insult and humiliate “losers,” like you know, people who make the median wage in this country- 30,000$ a year, the sum that Trump prob. spends on hairpiece maintenance alone.
Yup, it’s the gamergate crowd.
There is no way Donald Trump spends that much money on his hairbeast. $30k a year would get a much better thing on his head.
@Gustopher: The excuse for “raping” or not Ivana was that he was irritated by pain from scalp reduction surgery. To close a bald spot. I bet that cost a chunk of 30K.
Another illegal alien strikes again !! A 64 year old woman was killed by an illegal alien in Santa Maria, California. !! This creep had been arrested four times but never deported !!!
Donald speaks out about this, while the administration remains silent.
@Tyrell: Make sure you tell us every time an illegal immigrant kills someone.
Yes–it is the official position of the administration that no illegal alien anywhere ever committed a violent crime, and only Donald has had the courage to point out that “illegal aliens” are human beings like the rest of us and not faultless saints.
Dude, there are 11 million illegals. That’s three or four percent of the population. If they were no more criminally inclined than the rest of us, you’d expect them to commit 3 or 4 percent of the crimes. There are roughly 14,000 murders in the US per year, so you would expect to see at least 400 of them committed by illegals. Are you going to post about each one?
(And if the number is less than 400, are you going to admit that illegal aliens are less homicidal than legal residents and citizens?)
But protests never accomplish anything.
Some interesting things happened today. Trump says Roger Ailes has assured him of “fair treatment” and then floated a rumor he would renounce running as a third party. Megyn Kelly “decided” it is “…time to put this behind us.”
Pathetically, She also mentioned that she would get back to providing “quality journalism” and proceeded immediately to show an unattributed picture she attributed to “the people of Ferguson” of a roasted pig with a police hat to show how those people think. Quality exists in the eye of the beholder…
Anyhoo: A truce has been called. It might be real or it might be a mutual agreement they both needed a breathing space to think this stuff over. Big doin’s need big digestion.
@Tyrell: Meanwhile, all over America, every f’n day of the year, US citizens are killing other US citizens for absolutely no reason at all, with guns they had no business having. But hey, guano happens.
But you are going to get your panties in a bunch every time an ‘illegal alien’ jaywalks, aren’t you?
@Grewgills: Yeah, just mention the Edmund Pettis Bridge, and automatically people think of some concrete parkway across a vast expanse of water down south.
Ok, Trump has made it as obvious as possible that he’s doing this just for the lulz.
@OzarkHillbilly: @Grewgills: It’s too bad, really, that the protesters of today get compared to the protesters of the 60s. It’s a comparison that all protesters want, but few of them deserve.
Compare what John Lewis was willing to endure to accomplish his goals.
And see what the BLM movement is fighting for in my town:
It’s beyond petty.
@James Pearce: To be honest, I don’t find it petty to want the name changed. I find it….. curious I guess, to want to hang onto the name because…. Why would one want to hang on to the name of a known racist?
The protesters of neither time were a monolith. Time and hagiography/vitriol make the protesters of the 60s seem like they are in a different class from protesters today. Really the main things that separate them are time and technology. The same complaints were/are leveled at both and the results of both are mixed.
Alright, so we change the name to Greendale. Then what?
This is a short and blunt way of pointing out just how petty it is. No one in Denver knows Benjamin Stapleton from Joe Stapleton. They call the neighborhood Stapleton because it sits on the footprint of the old Stapleton International Airport. It’s named after the airport, not the man. There are no statues of Benjamin Stapleton in the neighborhood that shares his name, but the old control tower still stands.
There is not a single person in this state that can attribute their problems to the fact that this neighborhood bears the name of a former Klansman who died in 1950. Changing the name will not prevent a single white cop from shooting an unarmed black person, nor will it prevent any other horrible thing. It’s main effect will be the temporary satisfaction of achieving a small, meaningless victory, which really is no satisfaction at all.
It’s a waste of time and effort, which could be spent doing more productive things that are larger, more meaningful, more satisfying.
So, you’re saying that this is a bridge to die on because it is so petty? If it is so petty, why is it a big deal? Give it up so all of us can move on to bigger and more important things.
Really JP, who is being more petty? Them for wanting to change this “petty” thing, or you for wasting time pointing out how petty it is? If I have you right, these are people you largely agree with.
Jeebus, just shoot me now. No wonder we liberals can’t get anything done. We argue over our own pettiness.
I’m not opposed to changing the name. I’m opposed to thinking that doing shit like this solves actual problems.
You want to know why liberals can’t get anything done? This total disconnect between the actions they take and the results they want.
Like I said before, change the name. Won’t stop a single shooting, won’t fill a single belly, won’t put a single roof over a single head or a single dollar in a single pocket. The name of the neighborhood literally doesn’t matter.
But this is the hill they’re dying on. I don’t actually have to do anything to oppose it. They didn’t show up at City Hall with a bunch of signatures. They didn’t show up at City Council meetings with a “todo” list.
They put flyers on people’s cars. That’s it. They put forth the least amount of effort into the least important issue. The failure is baked in.
It’s hard to build a movement. It takes a lot of work and dedication. It takes intelligence and imagination. We’ve just all lived through the master class delivered by the gay marriage movement, and suddenly we’re yelling at Bernie Sanders in some throwback to1968?
Define a goal, define a path, do what it takes to get from A to Z. You want to actually do something about police brutality? Draft a law requiring the FBI to investigate every police involved shooting and start lobbying the hell out of it. The problem is that’s not fun, yelling at Bernie Sanders is fun.
I have no patience for people who think politics is some kind of feel-good weekend, or who confuse their ‘feels’ with their goal. The goal is power not inner peace and satisfaction. Power. The other side seldom forgets that.
@James Pearce: @michael reynolds:
You would be right if the sum total of what the BLM or other groups were doing was staging minor protests and having neighborhood names changed. That is simply not the case. Part of what they do is stage protests and other actions to raise awareness. Participating in those is easy and requires little to no training so anyone can be a part of it, feel a part of it, and become invested in it. There are other people in the BLM movement and various other causes that have specific policy prescriptions and are lobbying politicians and doing the other hard work that requires training and experience. Participating in protests is a possible first step in becoming involved enough to become an organizer and then learning how to do the rest. Focusing on this one aspect of what they are doing to dismiss all they are doing does less to help any issue than the most apathetic of the protest participants. It is sort of like me saying all you ever do to effect political change is post comments on a mid range popularity blog while ignoring or simply not knowing what else you may or may not do.
Exactly….Once a protester, always a protester.
A fact that should be mentioned: The mayor of Denver and Denver’s chief of police are black.
They do more for black people’s lives before lunch than BLM protesters could even contemplate in their cleverest scheme. They do this not by “fighting the power” but by being the power.
As Michael says:
Is that really what you took from my comment?
Becoming and organizer and doing the rest is learning how to come up with the policy prescriptions, lobby for them, and bring about societal change in the long term. The demonizing of this generation of protesters by the right is the same demonizing of protesters by the right in the 60s. Your and MR’s casual dismissal of this generations protesters is the same casual dismissal aimed at the protesters of the 60s by allies that found them pointless or misguided. It is the ever present phenomenon of each generation thinking the following generations are doing it wrong.
No. That was me being flip. It’s a personality flaw. Apologies.
What I took from your comment was the continuing elevation of protest as a force for social change. And in certain circumstances, sure….it’s a tactic that works.
The problem, though, is that when it becomes the only tactic. When it becomes a mode. When it becomes a “good idea” to protest too-big-to-fail banks by camping out in a park.
The casual dismissal is well-earned.
Some BLM protesters interrupted a Jeb Bush event today. Did they think that Jeb Bush would have an epiphany? As if he would go, “You know, I never thought of it that way. Thank you, raving chanters, thank you for your wisdom.”
Even in the 60s, protest had it’s limits. That’s why the Baader-Meinhoff group resorted to terrorism.
There’s more to social change than protest.
That is obviously true. It is also true that protest helps to drive social change. I don’t think any of the organizers and scant few participants in the BLM movement or any other movement (environmental, social justice, or what have you) thinks that protest by itself will make change happen. It is one tactic among several. It is a tactic to raise awareness and recruit people to work for change. A minority of the protest participants will do anything beyond go to protests, make social media posts and hopefully vote for people that will work for actual change, but protests help to recruit that minority and help to bring about that change. Most of the protesters in the 60s were the same types that are protesting now. That demo hasn’t changed near so much as you seem to think it has.
Do you really think he was the real target or that was the real intent behind the protest?