Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Gingrich: “Trump Is the Candidate ‘Fox & Friends’ Invented”
Newt Gingrich had a friendly but biting exchange on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning. Host Steve Doocy asked him, “You talk to the GOP establishment, I mean, you’re part of it, for the most part. This is their nightmare scenario, what are they trying to do?” Co-host Brian Kilmeade added, “The billionaire is spending the least amount of money and running away with this thing.” That’s when Gingrich had enough:
“That’s because of you guys,” Gingrich said. “Donald Trump gets up in the morning, tweets to the entire planet at no cost, picks up the phone, calls you, has a great conversation for about eight minutes — which would have cost him a ton in commercial money. And meanwhile, his opponents are all out there trying to raise the money to run an ad … Look, you can say that Trump is the candidate ‘Fox & Friends’ invented. He was on your show more than any other show.”
“Every Monday,” Doocy agreed. “It was always a happy, positive conversation,” Gingrich continued. “Yep,” Doocy said.
Is Newt right that Trump is a media creation?
Published in General
Absolutely! I don’t think he could have done it without the media’s help, at least not to this degree. He had coverage when no one else did. He had coverage when he made outrageous statements. He had coverage when he back-tracked. He had coverage by all the mainstream media, too. And here we are.
I’d say you’re correct since any other candidate would be unable to say what he says and act how he acts without receiving the full might of the media’s wrath. And, I imagine, many of his supporters would vanish into thin air if he did not already have celebrity status. After all, if Obama or Jeb! said half the things he did, they would have been discounted by talk radio and pummeled by the crowds (for good reason). Instead, he gets the benefit of the doubt simply because of who he is.
*
Why didn’t Jeb, Walker, Rubio, etc. call in to Fox and Friends once a week?
That was hardly some epic Newt smack down. One thing I thought was pretty interesting that Newt said was ‘ if you add the anti-establishment vote of Trump, Cruz and Carson – you get about 62% of the GOP leaning voters.
Note to those Rubio fans that simply assume that all other candidates supporters simply fall in line (this year, of all years, after all the voter rage has been exposed) after Rubio emerges as the non-Trump (well, because Marco!). If you add the non-Trump votes, you get something similar.
You sure Marco doesn’t need to address and acknowledge their concerns? You guys seem absolutely sure of your man.
Win or lose, when this campaign is over, Donald Trump is going to require hospitalization to have Sean Hannity surgically removed.
Precisely. Free media helped create Trump but any other candidate could have left the handlers and speech writers behind as well, seizing the same ground on national TV.
There was a wide open slot for someone who would just show up and speak off the top of their head, Trump ran with it and everyone else has been fumbling the ball.
“Precisely. Free media helped create Trump but any other candidate could have left the handlers and speech writers behind as well, seizing the same ground on national TV.”
Would the media have cared if it was someone without Trump’s celebrity status?
Perhaps Marco should promise to win trade, too? How exactly can anyone who isn’t an ignorant demagogue answer the concerns of people who are looking only for easy answers, and scapegoats? Marco, Jeb!, Kasich, even Ted all have offered these people answers, real answers, but in the choice between reality and Trump they chose Trump. Let them rot I say.
Maybe you’re right, but getting media exposure can be bought, like Bush did, and it didn’t help him. I think the common wisdom that money talks in campaigns is only true to the extent it can help a viable candidate. Trump is viable for many other reasons than free exposure.
Is it true that Hannity is having Trump on tonight for a full hour? Is the show sponsored by Bounty? The producers will need a lot of paper towels to wipe of the slobber.
What a characterization of Trump advocates! Typical and unsurprising in this discussion space. I’d put scare quotes around your use of the word “real.”
Can’t hardly express how tired I am of the negative cliches directed at them. Maybe, just maybe, Trump and others who agree with him have some substance to their stances? Maybe I’ll rot, but I won’t be on my knees.
Yes.
But I don’t want to limit myself to that theory of Trump. I think it’s correct, but it doesn’t explain the entirety of the Trump phenomenon. Maybe one to two thirds of his votes.
Well done, Gingrich!
Media is a factory, they need to generate stories 24/7. National media couldn’t care less about what a candidate says or does as long as it generates viewers, they have hours of coverage to fill.
Trump made himself a story, his name aided him but others could have done the same. They failed, past time they get on the ball.
Agreed. Too often campaigns are afraid of putting their candidate on Live TV or with reporters. They are afraid of “Todd Akin” moments, when they should be afraid that when voters see their name on the ballot they ask, “Who the heck is Bobby Jindal?”
Personally, I’d like to see something from Trump that gives any shred of confidence he actually believes what he says.
Let’s set aside his constant insults and vulgarity, and threatening to sue Cruz and everyone else who crosses his path. Let’s take just immigration, seemingly driving a big part of his support: as recently as 2012, he was criticizing Romney’s immigration plan as too harsh. Less than 4 years ago, he was to the left of Romney, who was by no means an immigration hawk. Why the change? Where has Trump ever articulated the substance of this change?
And what is their substantive stance exactly? We are angry? We want jobs, but don’t want to have to get skills that are actually valuable? We want America to win, but we don’t want to fight. Take ISIS’ oil but not put boots on the ground. We don’t care what the Russians are doing but hate that they are “winning”. What exactly is Trumps point, we are mad and we don’t know how to get what we want, but expect someone to give it to us any way.
Trumps position on any given policy issue is like his hair: much ado about nothing. There is no substance, just a carefully realized application of heat and aerosol lacquered fluff. Looking for a substantive policy stance in The Donald is like looking for the core in a mass of cotton candy: nothing in there but a hollow paper tube. Unfortunately, our beloved fourth estate has helped him fashion it into a megaphone.
Shattering all those establishment GOP myths regarding looking out for the working class. Good luck beating Hillary/Bernie with that.
I’ve been puzzled by this myself. I’m a bit angry at the establishment myself, but I’m angry because of principles they’ve often (though not always) waffled on. When someone who shares that anger and that reason for it turns to someone who doesn’t share those principles, I don’t quite understand what’s going on.
Trump equals ratings for the media…pure and simple. I wonder what would have happened if he did not get respectful hearings from Hannity, Rush, and Fox from the start.
Id be shocked if Fox and Friends has more Trump coverage than Morning Joe on MSNBC. Joe does hours of Trump daily. Anyone have real numbers?
I wish I understood, Tom. I really do.
I understand BDB—-he sees Trump as a wrecking ball, tailor-made for smashing the GOP to smithereens so some better, clearer GOP can rise from the rubble.
If the combination of GWB and O8 wasn’t sufficient smash, I can see why one would welcome the arrival of da bomb.
What I can’t understand is how anyone can positively want Trump qua Trump; this particular person to be President of the United States? My incomprehension is difficult to express without sounding…very negative.
Because I’ve met (both virtually and in the flesh) such lovely, smart people here at Ricochet, Trump’s popularity seems to violate everything I’ve been learning since I joined. Here, I’ve met Fi-Cons, So-Cons, Classic Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatarians, Rinos, Rino Squishes… Trump is none of these things. Ricopublicans are well-read, kind, principled and witty; Trump never mentions John Locke, limited government, judicial restraint or, indeed, a book of any kind. He has had three wives and sex with “top women.” When he opens his mouth dumb, mean things fall out, very loudly.
You guys have nice, interesting, expressive faces indicative of normal, human emotional lives. Trump’s expression is always unpleasant (does the man smile? Grin? Look pensive, or thoughtful, mournful, delighted?)
This was to be the first election year of my life (and I’m 53) in which I’d vote for a Republican. Am I really supposed to contemplate voting for someone who is less conservative than I am?
You need a hook, though. A large contingent of the current crop of journalists need to be led by the nose to a story. It needs to be something that excites the imagination or goes against type.
Cruz Rescues Kittens from Burning Building
Kasich Challenges Jackie Chan to Grudge Match
Rubio Makes Impromptu Speech
That kind of thing.
And yet Trump goes around saying Fox treats him “very badly.” What a phony. And yes, Steve Doocy et al have been slobbering over the Donald as their guest for a long time.
That’s possibly the only thing that could make Kasich look sillier than he really is. And by the way, did you know his father was a postal worker?
I come from the class that has embraced Trump (in most ways), and I understand their problems, and I sympathize with them. I’ve also been a political conservative since I was 15. From the ages of 15 to 33 I was heavily involved in politics and did my bit for the GOP at the grunt level; served on county committee, helped with campaigns, volunteered money and time, drove candidates door to door, college republican, the whole nine yards, but since 2004 I’ve been increasingly disgusted.
Went to Tea Party meetings and rallies, took time to yell at Arlen Specter. I quit giving to the GOP out of the disgusting back room stuff I saw as I started climbing up the state party ladder, corruption and venality.
Yet for all that, I pulled the lever for McCain and Romney, didn’t like either one of them – did it out of a sense of duty to the Republic in the face of worse options, and hoping that the signal sent in the mid-terms would sink in, it didn’t.
Yet, I can’t square the circle on Trump. I don’t know how supporting him solves anything, it only makes it all worse, without offering more freedom, more prosperity, or smaller government.
“Replace men who surrender to Planned Parenthood with a man who embraces Planned Parenthood? Replace men who supported a path to legalization with a man who supports amnesty? Replace men who failed to stop Obamacare with a man who embraces single-payer health care? Nominate a man who believes in Iraq War conspiracy theories to confront the party that spawned those theories?”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431720/donald-trump-voters-want-destroyer
With all the reasons to oppose Trump on the issues, I oppose him mostly because he gives me every impression that he is a bad man: vindictive, bullying, self-absorbed, boastful, dishonest, insincere, and ignorant.