The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Swan Song for the Donald? GOP Party Bosses Plan to “Take Out” Trump
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The people who own this country don’t like euthanizing one of their own. But they’ll do it in heartbeat if they think their world of privilege, patronage and power is at risk. Last Thursday, Donald Trump overstepped his bounds and crossed a line. In off-the-cuff remarks to a Fox moderator during the GOP presidential debates, Trump provided a window into a corrupt political system that is thoroughly marinated in the money of private donors. He explained in detail how the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful, and he admitted that wealthy donors contribute to political candidates so they “do whatever the hell you want them to do.” In one short 20-second exchange, the brash Trump revealed the quid pro quo that assures that the coffers at both the Democrat and Republican headquarters remain full-to-the-brim. He said:

“I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.”

Dear reader, there are things you can say in America and there are things you cannot say. You can criticize the government, support torture, applaud the racist arrest and incarceration immigrants looking for work, and cheerlead the bombing of civilians in the many countries around the world where the US has launched its vicious wars of aggression. But you cannot stand in front of an audience of 24 million Americans on national Television and explain in excruciating detail how the political system really works, how the tycoons and moguls pay for favors from the sock-puppet politicians, how the politicians do whatever they are told to do, and why the system is a complete and utter fraud.

The people who own the system will not allow that, after all, it is their system, a system which they created, which they control, and that provides the very foundation upon which their wealth and power depend. They have no intention of allowing a loudmouth, upstart casino operator to seriously threaten the credibility of their precious system by blurting out all kinds of insider information that exposes the rot at the heart of the machine. That’s not something they want to hear, and that’s not something they’re going to hear. Donald Trump is about to be crushed and destroyed in ways he never could have imagined. He’s about to discover a painful truth, that the vindictive and merciless people who run this country are not to be trifled with.

As of Saturday morning, there were 2105 articles in the mainstream news covering the details of a comment Trump allegedly made about Fox’s Megan Kelly. This is how the landslide begins. The media settles on a particular narrative, and then reiterates that narrative from every paper, every televised newscast, and every privately-owned bullhorn at their disposal. Of the 2,000 or so articles written on the topic, nearly all of them are cookie-cutter hit-pieces that repeat the same unsubstantiated claims as the others. This is how elites shape public perceptions, by sheer volume and repetition, by deluging the masses with the same storyline over and over again however inconsistent, inane or mendacious it may be. In this case, the narrative has been fine-tuned at the nation’s premier propaganda headquarters, the New York Times, who led off with this tidbit in Saturday’s paper:

Donald J. Trump’s suggestion that a Fox News journalist had forcefully questioned him at the Republican presidential debate because she was menstruating cost him a speaking slot Saturday night at an influential gathering of conservatives in Atlanta. It also raised new questions about how much longer Republican Party leaders would have to contend with Mr. Trump’s disruptive presence in the primary field…..

With Mr. Trump at center stage, the event Thursday shattered television viewership records for primary debates: Nearly 24 million people watched. But any hopes that he would try to reinvent himself inside the Cleveland arena as a sober-minded statesman, or that he would collapse under scrutiny and tough questions, vaporized in the opening minutes.” (“Hand-Wringing in G.O.P. After Donald Trump’s Remarks on Megyn Kelly“, New York Times)

“She was menstruating”, you say?

Older readers may remember that– after President Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich– he faced the wrath of the plutocrats followed by years of vicious harassment. Whitewater, Troopergate, Vince Foster etc, etc, etc. One spurious brickbat after the other. It culminated in claims of “oral sex” in the Oval Office, a term that was invoked purely for shock-value, just as “menstruating” appears to be the verbal weapon of choice this time around. What it shows is that Donald Trump has replaced Putin as the new Hitler and has risen to the top of the media’s hit list where he will remain until they destroy him, his reputation, and his future.

But beyond the reference to menstruation, what can we deduce from this short clip from the Times?

Well, it’s clear that the Times thinks Trump is a sexist pig and a “disruptive presence” that needs to be removed from the campaign. Keep in mind, that this is the same narrative that appears in the vast majority of US print-media, which means that–among the elites who own the media–the consensus view is that Trump has got to go, even though he is the GOP frontrunner, even though he is the only person on the slate who generates any public interest, and even though he has not had any opportunity to acquit himself on allegations that he claims are false.

Why? Why have they decided to give “The Donald” the old heave-ho when it clearly hurts their chances of reclaiming the White House in the next election? Is it really because he made a crude sexist remark about Fox moderator Megyn Kelly? Is that it?

Since when has the GOP become the great defender of women’s rights? Is this a recent development or did I miss something?

The idea is absurd, just as it is absurd to think that the Times reporting is impartial coverage of the facts. It’s not. The Times is obviously inserting itself into the process, just as Megyn Kelly inserted herself into the process when she pummeled Trump with one incriminating question after another and then proceeded to lob softballs to the dreary and utterly lifeless Jeb Bush.

This is why people are angry, right, because they think Trump was treated unfairly. And this is why they’re not buying the media’s BS storyline, because they’re sick of the media telling them how to feel, what to think and who to pick. They resent it, in fact, it pisses them off.

Now you’d think that if you had a brand-spanking media-machine that can crank out 2000 cookie cutter articles overnight blasting “sexist” Trump as a first-class scoundrel and praising the dainty Ms Kelly as the unwitting victim of abusive male bullying, then dastardly Trump would plunge in the polls, right?

Wrong. Trump is still comfortably in the lead and more popular that ever.

Why?

Because people don’t trust the lying media. Because people don’t trust the lying liars who run the Republican party.(or the Democratic party) And because people resent the fact that they’re being manipulated. Is that so hard to understand? The feeling now, is that, “if the assho**s who run this country are against Trump, then I’m for him. It’s that simple. It’s not about populism or channeling anger and frustration to a rebel candidate. Trump is no rebel, and he’s no reformer either. And he’d probably be a shitty president too. But Trump has one thing going for him that is sadly lacking in all the other candidates, all the party honchos, and all the flannel-mouth, stuffed-shirt fake politicians who are presently in office. What is that, you ask?

He tells the truth, at least it sounds like the truth to a lot people. And that makes all the difference.

Think about that. Think about what that says about the pathetic state of our national politics, that the bar has dropped so low, that a brassy, outspoken business tycoon can move to the head of the pack simply because people believe “He speaks his mind and doesn’t pull his punches.”

That’s why Trump’s popularity has not been impacted by the media’s irritating smear campaign. Just look at the blogs, the comments sections of the daily papers, and the twitter storm that has focused overwhelmingly on Fox’s blonde Rottweiler, the amiable Ms Kelly. She’s getting totally raked-over-the-coals, skewered at every turn, and (surprisingly) nearly all the criticism is from right wingers who feel thoroughly betrayed by Fox News, a station they trusted and that they thought shared their values, but now they realize they were wrong. Fox doesn’t share their values. It’s a freaking franchise for rich fu**ers who want to manipulate conservative principles to fit their own self-aggrandizing agenda. That’s Fox News in a nutshell.

This whole Trump-flap has sparked a rebellion in the conservative ranks, a rebellion that anyone who is even slightly interested in politics should be paying close attention to. The workerbees appear to be increasingly suspicious of the party leadership and their wavering commitment to conservative values. Case in point: Here’s an excerpt from an article that appeared at the far right WND website titled “Rush (Limbaugh): ‘Orders from GOP donors to take out Trump’. Here’s an excerpt:

“Who won the great debate?

According to the mainstream media, the winner was … Fox News.

According to Rush Limbaugh, the loser was … Fox News.

At least, in the sense that the network may have blown its credibility with conservatives.

And Limbaugh said he saw it coming.

“Everybody should have known this was gonna happen,” he said. “This is presidential politics, and Republican candidates are where media people score their points. It’s where they build their careers. It’s where they establish their credentials.”

The conservative talk-radio giant saw another motivation for the moderators’ attack-dog tactics. He said GOP bigwigs ordered Fox to take out Trump.

On Friday, Limbaugh began by telling listeners how, on the day of Thursday’s debate, he had learned “that big-time Republican donors had ordered to take out Donald Trump in the debate last night.”…

Rush said it was clear that Fox News had it out for Trump when his colleagues refused to pile on, even when given multiple opportunities to bash the front-runner.

“Not one of the remaining nine candidates joined Megyn Kelly in taking the shot at Trump. Not one. Yet we have been told that there were orders from Republican donors to take Trump out.”….

As for which candidate actually won the debate, reactions were all over the map. Opinion appeared evenly divided on whether Trump helped or hurt himself. But, according to the Drudge Report poll…he was the landslide winner.”

(“Rush: ‘Orders from GOP donors to take out Trump‘, Garth Kant, WND)

Is Limbaugh right; did the “big-time Republican donors” order that Trump be taken out? And, if so, doesn’t that suggest that the “menstruation” allegations are just a phony pretext for demonizing Trump in the media?

Of course they are. It’s all fake. None of this has anything to do with Megyn Kelly. None of it. According to Limbaugh, Trump was a “marked man” from the get-go, before the first question was ever asked. Kelly was just one of three stooges chosen to play the role of political assassin. She’s just a bit-player in a much bigger drama.

So now we move on to Phase 2, where the bullyboy puppetmasters come down on Trump like a ton of bricks. He’ll never know what hit him. One day he’ll be playfully sparring with the press corps on the front steps of his Manhattan penthouse, and the next thing you know he’ll be frog-marching across Times Square in handcuffs and leg-irons. You can bet on it.

Trump’s got to know what’s coming next. He’s a smart guy and he’s seen this play out many times before. The bottom line, is that if you fu** with these guys, you’re going to wind up “sleeping with the fishes.” It’s that simple. He ought to know that by now.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump, Republican Party 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Biff says:

    Haven’t seen entertainment like this in thirty years! (thirty years ago I was 22 completely entertained watching pornography)

    • Replies: @Kiza
  2. Tom_R says:

    IN CORPORATIONS, THE PUBLIC SPEAKER IS JUST A SPOKESMAN.
    PRIVATE CORPORATIONS SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING DEBATES.
    HOW TRUMP FELL INTO THE TRAP.

    Thanks for the great article, Sir. It is very obvious that the whole thing was rigged to trap Trump. And, unfortunately, he fell into the trap. Rush Limbaugh seems to be more intelligent to realize some facts, as below.

    First of all, the gullible public thinks that if they see somebody talking on TV (or writing in a newspaper), it is his/her words. I have heard so many times people say Dan Rather or other said this or that, and I have to remind them it was NOT him.

    Do you think a million dollar corporation broadcasting to millions will turn over the microphone to an individual and let him/her say whatever he wants and run the corporation aground, get it prosecuted, get it shut down, get its reputation destroyed because somebody said something stupid? No, no, no. The lawyers will never allow this.

    When you see somebody saying things on TV or radio, 90% of the time, it is not really him/her. These words were written and approved by higher ups. The owners approve it and the lawyers check it. A face like Megyn Kelly asking questions is just a pretty face to transmit the words out of. All these debate questions were not spontaneous but planned and approved from the top, probably by Rupert Murdoch himself.

    It is amazing that many people do not realize this obvious fact and go around claiming they heard “so and so said so and so on TV.”

    Unfortunately, Trump fell for this trap, as he took out his anger on Megyn Kelly who merely recited the question planned and prepared by Rupert Murdoch or somebody very high at Fox.

    Trump could have done better by: deny and deflecting the question—such as “I admire women” or refuse to answer the question or deflect it by saying “it is sad that people are resorting to personal attacks to cover up problems when we have serious problems facing this country.” His humor approach by saying “only Rosie O’Donnel” was good.

    Secondly, what is a private corporation like Fox News doing organizing debates and deciding what questions to ask? This is completely wrong.

    The debate questions should be: a) State your agenda as President, i.e. why you will be a great president and what you will do for this country (2 mins each) b) State the biggest problems you see facing this country and how you would solve them (2 mins each) c) How you would solve the 5 biggest issues that people, based on polls, are concerned about (which issues are immigration, jobs, deficit, middle east wars, etc.) d) Why you are better than the other candidates e) Criticize one of your competitors (1 min each) you disagree with the most. f) Respond to the criticism of you by the other (1 min each). g) Closing remarks (1 min each).

    Maybe unz.com organize a Presidential Debate with the above questions. If networks won’t broadcast it, unz.com can do it on its website and on youtube.

  3. Kiza says:
    @Biff

    Biff, my friend, you are spot on. This is pure political pornography – the political system becomes overly graphic and overly exposed. Another similarity – is there anybody who does not know how pornography ends? Thus, we all know how this one will end. Although, I do not think that Mike is right about “swimming with the fishes”, except in the figurative sense. Trump is a political spoiler, the system must hit him hard not because of Trump, then to discourage future spoilers. But he will have some residual popularity with the people after this campaign. Therefore, he knows what he is doing and why – ego.

    All this is just because he is speaking the truth, which is a highest imaginable political crime. For example, a friend of mine from a foreign country (with no interest in US politics at all), who is a para-politician, cannot stand Trump for this exact reason – politicians by definition do not speak the truth. My friend says that Trump as POTUS would be like a plumber playing a brain surgeon, an anti-politician. The system is not rotten because somebody made in rotten, the system is rotten because this is the nature of the political-media system (poor prols who believe that they and their votes mean something).

    Therefore, we can only sit back and enjoy this pornographic show. There may not be another such for a long time after.

  4. “You can criticize the government, support torture, applaud the racist arrest and incarceration immigrants looking for work, and cheerlead the bombing of civilians in the many countries around the world where the US has launched its vicious wars of aggression.”

    Correct down the line except for number 3. What presidential candidate in any election cycle in memory has ever dared to criticize mass immigration? Seriously. Name one please. The reason Trump created such excitement was that it appeared that he was breaking the taboo, and addressing peoples’ very justified (but unspoken) concerns about uncontrolled immigration. Of course when pressed it turned out that Trump’s apparent opposition was so limited as to be in practical terms meaningless.

  5. Truth says:

    What a complete prick “the Donald” sounded like on Cuomo yesterday. He won’t last 6 more months, and if he got elected, he wouldn’t make it 2 years as president. In any event, if he were nominated, I would vote for him rather than whoever the Bilderberg shill is from the other party.

  6. He could be the first shot in the Revolutionary War II.
    He wins, and ALL those who stonewall him are replaced with “no-names” next election.
    A message needs to be sent. As with Hitlerys rapidly sinking ship.

  7. The ruling class is going to have to make some concessions to the concerns of normal, patriotic Americans, or there’s going to be a problem. This game where they just lie about everything all the time, and then threaten anyone who notices, isn’t going to work anymore. I mean, I’ll be 45 next month, but if I were twenty years younger, and I saw Donald Trump being arrested on some phony felony charge, in order to thwart his challenge to the political system, I’m not sure a 20something version of yours truly wouldn’t then start looking into guerrilla warfare manuals…

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS