Trump replies – Man Up

They’re not used to fighting to win. From The New York Times: Donald Trump’s Advice to Panicked Republicans: Man Up.

Donald J. Trump has some advice for panicked Republicans in Washington who are melting down over his most incendiary statements: Man up.

“Politicians are so politically correct anymore, they can’t breathe,”Mr. Trump said in an interview Tuesday afternoon as fellow Republicans forcefully protested his ethnically charged criticism of a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against the defunct Trump University.

“The people are tired of this political correctness when things are said that are totally fine,” he said during an interlude in a day of exceptional stress in the Trump campaign. “It is out of control. It is gridlock with their mouths.”

Even as he chastised Washington’s political class for a lack of backbone, Mr. Trump exhibited modest signs later on Tuesday that he was getting the message that some remarks — such as questioning the fairness of Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel because of his Mexican heritage — crossed a line.

While he did not apologize, he issued a statement that his comments on Judge Curiel had been “misconstrued.” In a final Republican primary night victory speech, he struck a more conventional tone — at least for him — giving a more disciplined address using the teleprompter he has mocked while promising to make the Republican Party proud in the general election campaign.

But anyone thinking that Mr. Trump is going to suddenly adopt a more cautious, strategic approach yearned for by election-conscious congressional Republicans is likely to be disappointed. He wrinkled his nose in disgust at the mere mention of the word “pivot,” though he conceded he wants to get on to broader discussion of the economy.

In his view, it is clear that his way has worked and the establishment’s has failed. After all, he vanquished every senator, governor or former governor who challenged him for the party’s nomination.

“I disagree with a lot of things I’ve watched in politics over the years, that’s why I’m running,” Mr. Trump said over a meatball lunch he barely touched in the restaurant of Trump Tower. “And that may make me less popular with politicians. But I have to be honest. I didn’t get there by doing it the way a lot of these people do it.”

Interactive Feature | The Electoral Map Looks Challenging for Trump Current polls show an uphill battle for Donald Trump should he and Hillary Clinton face off in the general election.
Back in Washington, congressional Republicans were in a fever, with Speaker Paul D. Ryan, a reluctant Trump convert to begin with, calling Mr. Trump’s comments about the judge “the textbook definition” of racism. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader, denounced Mr. Trump’s crusade against Judge Curiel as stupid and urged him to apologize. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois withdrew his endorsement, and others were pondering it.

Mr. Trump, arms crossed tightly across his chest during lunch, was aggrieved and considered some of the Republican pushback inappropriate and unhelpful — though he did not want to address specific critics. He insisted that he is anything but a racist and, with his usual rebuttal by the numbers, stressed that voters have rewarded his outspokenness with a record haul of primary votes while Washington is held in dismal regard.

“People want people to represent them who are going to stick up for what they believe in,” Mr. Trump said. “Politicians have been very weak and very ineffective over the last quite long period of time.”

Mr. Trump is also unhappy with the media, and noted that he is nearing the ability to reach 20 million people by himself through his personal Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts, providing an alternative way to reach the public, even if it’s largely a one-way conversation.

His is a campaign like no other, conducted out of a luxury office tower in Manhattan named for its most prominent occupant, the presumptive nominee himself. A few floors below his personal office with a Trumpian view of Central Park is unfinished space being leased to his campaign team, a relatively skeleton crew of 80 or so running a national campaign.

He is flabbergasted by critiques that he is woefully undermanned compared to the hundreds working for Mrs. Clinton, many just over in Brooklyn.

“To me, that is smart,” Mr. Trump said about his lean team, though he says he will soon increase his work force.

As the primary season came to an odd close with him under Republican fire in the nation’s capital — an unheard-of spectacle in the last half century of presidential politics — Mr. Trump took some time to huddle with his campaign team. His daughter Ivanka, a trusted adviser, was close at hand, as was his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, his press secretary, Hope Hicks, and his special counsel, Michael Cohen.

As he headed to the Trump Grill for lunch, tourists and workers hailed him, congratulated him and urged him on as they lined up to take photos with their phones.

He posed with some women and looked back at a reporter to point at the women and boasted “Hispanics!” Afterward, he bragged: “They say ‘We love you, Mr. Trump. We’re from Mexico.’ ”

After he was seated, the Secret Service erected a temporary partition to shield him from other guests.

UPDATE: You cannot, of course, trust the American media on a single thing. According to this, NYT Frames Donald Trump’s Advice To Pearl Clutching DC Politicians As “Man Up”…, he didn’t say “Man Up”. Not that I would be upset if he had, but here’s the story:

Priceless. The only problem for the New York Times is, Trump never said: “Man Up”.

A recent Times article, which was transparently structured to present candidate Trump with gender references, outlines Donald Trump’s opinion of the weak-kneed professional political class. His position is essentially the same as Senator Jeff Sessions, get over it.

Will the Republicans nominate Trump?

Donald Trump is the Stephen Curry of Republican politics.


CONFIRMED=> Hillary Clinton Received 1.5 Million FEWER Votes in 2016 than in 2008 — Democrats Down 7 Million Votes

Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million…
Historic 13M Vote Blowout…
Beats Own Campaign Prediction, Reaching 1,536 Delegates…

Too bad they’re not playing basketball but politics. This is close to the vibe I see everywhere across Republican websites. From Ace of Spades: “So, Who Is the GOP Going to Install as Its Nominee Instead of Trump?” First he says this:

Let me explain my entire political raison d’etre:
BEAT HILLARY CLINTON.
That’s it. That’s the ballgame.

But then he say this about the leadership of the Republican Party:

I happen to think the White Upper Middle Professional Class is silly and overproud — the status conscious bourgeoisie who are a bit too fashionable and frivolous in their political passions.

They’re just not good in a fight. They back down too quickly from the left’s threat of reducing their social status.

Yet the fact is, you can’t win an election without them. This group, which isn’t only white, but is Super White, is a core group of any GOP coalition. Including the losing ones, even.

He thinks they won’t allow Trump to be the nominee. Trump’s task was not just to win the votes but to make himself acceptable to the while upper middle class leaders of the party.

I do think the GOP is actually gearing up to do something drastic in three weeks.

I think all the shrieking you’re seeing right now is part of the battlespace preparation to prepare for that moment.

To justify it, to defend it. To show: “We had no other choice.”

To say, “We tried working with him. You saw how hard we tried working for him! But he’s just impossible. He’s an animal, and we can’t do anything to educate him.”

The question I’m asking myself isn’t whether they’ll do this (if Trump keeps sinking in the polls, and stinking up the reputation of the Upper Middle Class Professionals that make up the high ranks of the party, they will), but who they’ll replace him with.

The word is Paul Ryan. He denies that. He denies a lot of things.

I think he’s a sneaky little rat who would be flattered by it, and flattered by it, he’d leap at it.

I’d go berserk if they tried that, personally. I think a lot of people would. He’s already a proven electoral loser — he got beaten by the Imbecile Joe Biden in a debate, for god’s sake — but they may try it anyway.

And so we shall see. There are many who are walking away. A random sample from today:

Trump/La Raza Judge Row Blows Lid On GOP Establishment Plan: Sabotage His Campaign, Wait For 2020

Uh Oh: Scott Walker Now Backing Away from Pledge to Support Republican Nominee

GOP Tool Hugh Hewitt TURNS On BFF Trump, DEMANDS GOP Tell Him To QUIT Campaign!!

You get the idea. Meanwhile, Ann Coulter is not really surprised in spite of what the headline might make you think: Stunning New Development!!! Media Calls Trump Racist.

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That’s right, Wolf, I don’t have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

Attack is the best form of defence

Donald Trump is not of the opinion that absorbing punishment is a useful way to show one’s strength. He is, in fact, the first person in politics on my side of the fence who thinks attack is the best form of defence. The business with Trump University is almost a perfect example of how he goes about his business. The case has existed for quite some time, but the minute it was raised, he slammed the judge overseeing the case as hopelessly biased against him, the evidence being that he was a member of La Raza, a race-based group supporting illegal migration into the United States.

Hillary wants to argue that Trump represents a War on Women. Back he comes with an attack on Bill’s serially abusive relationships with women, for which Hillary has been the enabler.

And then there was the story of how Trump’s campaign manager had thrown reporter Michelle Fields to the ground that was reported as unvarnished truth across the media, even when the videos, they had not known existed, showed none of it was true. Trump just stared them down and would not give an inch. Admirable qualities I would say in a president who you want to be looking after your interests.

In every way, Trump has shown an amazing willingness to counter punch, to refuse to accept even minimally the premises of his opponents. He may yet lose the election because of the range of forces ranged against him – including many supposedly on his own side – but he is more likely than any of the other Republicans to win. And he is changing the debate. And here is how he is changing the debate and will be putting Hillary on the back foot: TRUMP Announces MAJOR SPEECH on Clinton Corruption and Scandal Next Week.

The Clintons have turned the politics of personal enrichment into an art form for themselves. . . .

Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into a private hedge fund.

All true, but no one else has said it. Attack, attack, and then attack some more. If he loses, it won’t be because the facts weren’t out there. As he asks, I wonder whether the press will be there to cover next week’s speech.

The media don’t even pretend any more

You don’t often find an honest reporter in the US, but here we have finally found one. She honestly explains how the media must distort the news every day in ensuring that Trump loses. Here is the full posting by John Hinderaker: Wapo Columnist: Let’s Gang Up on Trump.

The Washington Post’s media columnist, Margaret Sullivan, who is also a former Public Editor of the New York Times, has an idea that she claims is novel, but may sound familiar to Republicans: news outlets should coordinate their efforts to defeat Donald Trump! It really is an extraordinary column:

Media outlets have given the likely Republican presidential nominee something like $2 billion worth of free exposure and, in many cases, let him get away with blatant falsehoods — even about something as basic as whether he did or didn’t support the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall liberal columnists objecting to Trump’s free publicity during the primary season, when it helped him defeat Republicans who would have been stronger general election candidates.

Fairness is of utmost importance, no doubt, whether the reporting is on Trump, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. But what, exactly, does it mean in campaign coverage? It should mean keeping an open mind, not bringing preconceived ideas to one’s reporting, and listening seriously to candidates’ explanations.

It should never mean false equivalency, where equal time and emphasis are given to candidates or dissembling is allowed to go unchallenged. …

News outlets ought to rethink the purpose of their campaign coverage. It’s not to be equally nice to all candidates. It’s to provide Americans with the hard information they need to decide who is fit to lead the country.

In other words, the job of a reporter is to help win the election for Hillary Clinton. It isn’t long before this conclusion becomes explicit:

There have been encouraging moments: CNN’s Jake Tapper pushing Trump hard for clarity on an endorsement from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Fox’s Megyn Kelly (before she went all fan-girl) asking a searing question about Trump’s treatment of women in a Republican debate. The Times’s investigation into Trump’s hiring of foreign workers at his Florida club, Mar-a-Lago. The Post’s reporters pushing so hard for answers on Twitter about claimed charitable contributions to veterans that Trump found it necessary to hold a news conference.

We need much more of this in every medium. Every day, in every news cycle.

Every day, every news cycle, in every medium: beat up on Trump!

Rather than promoting the same treatment for each candidate, how about this: rigorous and sustained truth-telling in the public’s interest. Citizens deserve some fairness, too.

Don’t treat Trump the same way you would treat a Democrat!

It’s time for tough follow-up questions, time for TV news to pick up on some of the hard-hitting reporting being done elsewhere, and maybe — radical notion alert! — it’s even time for news organizations to get together and prepare to defend themselves.

So news organizations should form a cabal to smear Donald Trump. But, hey, it’s self-defense!

That won’t come naturally to these highly competitive outfits, but given the assault on press rights that surely would come with a Trump presidency, strength in numbers is a far better idea than providing even-handed, nonconfrontational coverage.

What is the “assault on press rights” that “surely” would accompany a Trump presidency? It’s hard to say. Maybe she is referring to Trump’s desire to liberalize defamation law, or maybe she imagines there is a press right not to be contradicted. In any event, it’s not every day you see a journalist come out openly against “even-handed coverage,” while advocating ganging up on a disfavored politician, i.e., “strength in numbers.” We always knew that this is how liberals think, but it is unusual to see one of them put it in writing.

The migrant invasion of Europe

WATCH: The Anti-Migrant Video Going Viral Across Europe. From the text:

‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, a slick, hard-hitting film about the European migrant crisis is going viral in Europe, already watched at least half a million times.

Although the 19-minute film may feel like a dispatch from the future, it is cut entirely from recent news reports, police camera footage, and interviews. Kicking off with scenes of a modern car ferry disgorging thousands of illegals into Greece, the film then cuts to dozens of aerial shots of columns of migrants marching north into Europe.

The film then changed to the harrowing testimony of one young Greek woman who was unable to hide her horror and despair at the scale of the migrant crisis sweeping over her home island of Lesbos. Just six miles from the Turkish coast, the island was subjected to migrant riots in September as newcomers turned on their hosts for not moving them to mainland Europe fast enough.

As Breitbart London reported at the time, the tearful woman tells a news crew: “We are in danger, every day, every minute. We need someone to protect us. They come into our houses. I want to go to work, but I can’t. Our children want to go to school, but they can’t. They have stolen our lives!”.

European leaders, and particularly Merkel, have been raised singing The Internationale, and for whom open borders is part of their Marxist ethos. You cannot imagine Europe ever returning to how it was.

Political economy at its finest

This is A Strategy For Fiscal Conservatives written in Canada but applicable just about anywhere. Let me start with the first two of six and you will get the idea.

#1. Never cut anything

Conservative parties take a lot of grief for being cold-hearted because they have the audacity to attempt a scaleback of government largesse. Too often the media jumps on every small spending cut with all the alarm of a nuclear war breaking out. Even when Harper tried to scale back the rate of increase to healthcare funding, it was played out like a massive cut to services.

This also instills fear among anyone working in a job associated with government funded departments. Riling up the union-class crowd isn’t worth the political capital. As Ryan Rados mentioned in his recent article, slowly cutting and threatening the CBC only leads to more aggressive bias. Why incite it?

By never cutting anything you aren’t putting yourself in the awful position of trying to explain to voters why you’re cutting what you’re cutting. The go-to-phrase with never cutting anything is, ”We haven’t cut anything!” All the leftist hyperbole is destroyed when you can honestly make a statement like that.

#2. Freeze things you actually want to cut

Inflation is your friend. If you want to make cuts, just make freezes instead. Then you can honestly say, “We haven’t cut anything!” and your critics will have to explain inflation to a population that will instantly get bored with trying to understand inflation.

A budget freeze amounts to a 1-2% cut every year that the freeze is in effect. Relatively painless and slowly, but surely, effective.

(Added bonus? Standing in front of a microphone saying, “We haven’t made cuts to anything!”)

You don’t have to do it in a single year. And my own addition is to hack into spending throughout the public service where no one votes conservative and no one else will mind.

From Small Dead Animals.

Justice American style

That the American justice system is corrupt to its very roots has been obvious to anyone who has followed Mark Steyn’s “trial of the century”. Steyn has just provided an update on where things are.

On the vast placid frozen lake stretching unbroken beyond the horizon that is the Mann vs Steyn case there has been a small development. As our more elderly readers may recall, four years ago, before Barack Obama’s re-election, climate mullah Michael E Mann sued me and various other parties for mocking his global warm-mongering in general and pooh-pooh-ing his “hockey stick” in particular.

That was in the year 2012. Notwithstanding that it’s the most consequential free-speech case in half-a-century (as the ACLU, NBC, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune et al recognized in their amicus brief), in the DC courts it just sits there, with no discovery and no trial date. . . .

This sclerotic court system can’t expedite nuttin’. The case has now been stalled for two years in an interlocutory appeal. If you don’t know what an “interlocutory appeal” is, consider yourself lucky. If you do know, you’ll be thrilled to learn that one of the questions at the heart of this interlocutory appeal is whether, under the relevant DC law, the interlocutory appeal is even interlocutorily appealable at all. Fascinating! Adding to the fun, as I noted in my recent testimony to the US Senate, one of the judges hearing the interlocutory appeal, Vanessa Ruiz, takes up to three years to issue an opinion. . . .

My legal chums at Popehat and the Volokh Conspiracy seem to think that, when I gripe about the dysfunctional DC courts, I’m somehow showing disrespect for the justice system. Au contraire, it’s because of my profound respect for justice that I would like this bizarre perversion thereof to return itself to the community of functioning Common Law jurisdictions. (While we’re at it, this judge in the Trump University case seems all too typical.)

Ah yes, the Trump case. Trump is determined to show every piece of dirty linen that makes the US fit only for the very wealthy and the dirt poor. Middle class and bourgeois is a definite mistake in modern America.
Alberto R. Gonzales: Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair
.

But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization.

Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election.

These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered. Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons.

And that’s from The Washington Post. Here’s someone more likely to see Trump’s point: Never “dumb” to shine the spotlight on activist judges.

“Lou Dobbs of Fox Business News, in a recent interview with Gingrich, read from a list of ethnic organizations in which Judge Curiel holds membership. All are activist Spanish-heritage groups. Dobbs also pointed out a possible conflict of interest in the case. One of the attorneys in the law firm appointed by Curiel to represent the plaintiffs has contributed money to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run for President. (American Spectator)

“When Lou Dobbs made the case that Trump could have reason for concern, given the judge’s associations and conflicts of interest, Gingrich brushed him off responding that Trump’s spotlighting of Curiel’s heritage “in a negative way” was “dumb.”

“First, pointing out a judge’s heritage when that heritage probably leads to bias, especially against Trump because of Trump’s commitment to build a wall on the Mexican border, would seem neither negative nor dumb. Second, Trump’s concern that this judge is an activist, as are so many ethnic legal professionals, is not racist. It’s not at all unreasonable to think that Curiel wants to officiate this particular lawsuit, as a strike at Donald Trump, the wall-builder.”

When you remember that the fall guy after Benghazi was a movie producer who was sent to jail for a year, you might think of the American justice system in a far less benign way.

The elites do not even notice what the working class sees at every turn

This is Victor Davis Hanson explaining why there are people who favour Trump for President (including him): Class, Trump, and the Election.

Donald Trump seems to have offended almost every possible identity group. But the New York billionaire still also seems to appeal to the working classes (in part no doubt precisely because he has offended so many special-interest factions; in part because he was seen in the primaries as an outsider using his own money; in part because he seems a crude man of action who dislikes most of those of whom Middle America is tired). At this point, his best hope in November, to the extent such a hope exists, rests on turning 2016 into a referendum on class and a collective national interest that transcends race and gender — and on emphasizing the sad fact that America works now mostly for an elite, best epitomized by Clinton, Inc.

That’s how it starts. Read the rest.

Malcolm and national security

This is Greg Sheridan discussing Malcolm’s views on foreign policy.

The other shocking national-security moment for many Liberals came after Attorney-General George Brandis called on Labor to dis­endorse Peta Murphy, its candid­ate for Dunkley, because she had opposed tough anti-terror laws and questioned whether ­al-Qa’ida’s Somali affiliate, al-­Shabab, should be listed as a terror group. Questioned on Brandis’s stance, Turnbull declined to support him.

Sheridan then goes on to discuss the effect on Liberal “insiders” because, I suppose, we outsiders had not come across this:

Even more astonishing to Liberal insiders, Brandis had co-­ordinated his remarks with Liberal campaign headquarters and was encouraged to make the call. Partly because of the PM declining to back his A-G, terrorism has gone unmentioned in the campaign, ­despite terrorism-related arrests.

No Liberal expects Turnbull to channel Tony Abbott on terrorism, much less to overpoliticise ­arrests. But protecting the nation from terrorism is a core function of government and the Coalition has a very good record on this.

Yet Turnbull refuses to make anything of this issue even though the government is marginally ­behind in the polls and confidence of victory depends on the hope of sandbagging enough seats to resist the general swing.

Sheridan continues further along the same line:

Turnbull and his campaign make almost no mention of defence and Australia’s strategic challenges. Yet ­almost all national-security analysts agree the nation’s strategic circumstances are becoming more challenging. There is an obvious, strong case that the coalition is better equipped to handle these ­issues than Labor, but the PM’s ­apparent discomfort with national security, or unwillingness to campaign on it, has left Liberal silent on one of its strongest issues.

I continually hear about how we need stability and given our recent past, how important it is to allow a Prime Minister to get through his full term. For me, a promise to throw Malcolm out within the first six months of the next Parliament would be the only certain way to get my vote.

Jake Tapper asked if he thought it was a conflict of interest

This is the bit from this story – Sanders hits Clinton Foundation over foreign donations – that has to make you ponder just how corrupt the American media is:

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders criticized the Clinton Foundation for accepting donations from foreign governments in an interview aired Sunday, calling it a conflict of interest.

“Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments — governments which are dictatorships?

“Yeah, I do have a problem with that. Yeah, I do,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

When host Jake Tapper asked if he thought it was a conflict of interest, Sanders said, “I do.”

Look Jake, you wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions, would you?