The peculiar and hilarous Fox, GOP, and Trump dynamic

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9130075/Megyn-Kelly-response-Fox-Trump

I was impressed with the tough and direct questions the FNC moderators asked of the kiddie-table and prime time GOP candidates (addressing and not ignoring their glaring liabilities). That makes sense, as I suppose it's in the GOP's interests to thin the (huge) heard as early as possible so they don't waste resources/political capital for the coming war vs. Hillary.

Personally, I don't think Kelly's sexism question was journalistically or politically out of line. Trump has not held office and has not behaved like he deserved to hold office in the past (esp. vis-a-vis women who are >50% of voters), so why should America elect him now? He of course felt that question was unfair and "impolite" (teapot, kettle anyone?), but Kelly never forced Trump to say/tweet those disparaging things in the past. You make your bed, you lay in it man. Nothing is off limits when you're running for president.

Anyway, I thought that exchange would really hurt Trump and the GOP, who have already suffered from major rejection by many female demos. But strangely the opposite happened. Trump's numbers held steady or maybe even rose, and FNC got blasted with angry viewer feedback defending Trump and criticizing Kelly and her network. Trump did a "genius" thing and flipped the issue from one of his sexism/rudeness/unstatesmanship to one of media bias/political correctness (stuff that is hurting America) - the latter really resonates with his supporters and some conservatives.

He must have prepared for that, and you have to give him credit for delivering it so persuasively. His daughter Ivanka allegedly urged him to tone down the racist/sexist/offensive tone of his campaign, but he dismissed her because every time he did something outrageous (even the McCain comment that I thought was going to sink him - but it turns out a lot of conservatives don't really like establishment McCain anymore - esp. for losing to Obama), his numbers held steady or rose. I guess it's like saying, "Why should I reform and get a legal job when I'm making so much money selling dope, and not getting caught by the cops?"

The FNC base is a little weird. They hate and distrust the (elitist, liberal-leaning) mainstream media, yet still watch FNC (the top TV news property in the US by far). So Fox has to straddle that fine line of being the MSM (being part of the institute of journalism) and hating on the MSM (mocking and rebelling against the institution of journalism). This is problematic at times because from segment to segment, you never quite know what you're going to get. Certainly their opinion shows are more of the latter.

To wrap up, the business-first, politics-second Roger Ailes saw the reaction to the Trump-Kelly spat and was worried that defending Kelly (and her legitimate question) would piss off many viewers and hurt the company. This is probably why most of the other candidates (sans Paul, who is desperate to stay relevant) didn't take the opportunity to go after Trump on national TV. They talked crap at their lightly-covered campaign events, but not on the big stage because (1) more Trump feuding only seems to benefit Trump and (2) they risk a Kelly-esque backlash and don't want to be labeled as establishment cronies (the part of the GOP that Trump has called "stupid" and blamed for losing to the Dems - maybe that is accurate).

So Ailes personally talked to Trump to smooth things over, and probably invited him on the network soon (he has had many interviews in the past). Kelly had to deliver a highly sanitized closure statement and was even subtly congratulating Trump for his recent political success (gotta throw his Jupiter-sized ego a bone). That must have sucked for her. So once again, score one for money/sexism/cynicism at the expense of decency/women/journalism.

PS - it's pretty telling that on Trump's web page, there is ZERO CONTENT regarding his political platform and policy ideas (oh yeah, because they don't exist beyond his sound bites). He makes Rick Perry look like a wonk in comparison.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

Cheney tries to blame the Iraq chaos on Obama

When FNC calls you out like you were a Democrat involved in Benghazi, you know you're a major tool, Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq_n_5510635.html

Tricky Dick 2.0 wrote a WSJ op-ed recently insinuating that the situation in Iraq now is Obama's fault. While I tend to agree that Obama's cabinet was a bit too eager to put Iraq in the rear view mirror without sufficient monitoring of the screwed up Maliki regime (easy to say in hindsight though), blaming Obama for what has recently transpired is like blaming the plumber for not fixing the toilet you clogged fast enough.

Obama never supported the Iraq invasion, when Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, and Biden caved to the post-9/11 mania. When he took office in 2008, the majority of his voters wanted us out of Iraq, especially because the Surge and Sunni Awakening seemed to put us on better footing to do so. Clearly we could have done more to ensure a better functioning state of Iraq, but I don't think it was feasible to have maintained a Korea-like long-term military presence there as McCain types claim that they advocated all along (even if that would have prevented the ISIS-led Sunni offensive).

For Cheney and other Bushies to tsk tsk Obama, while totally dismissing their past mistakes and role in the current mess, is a level of gall that I cannot possible hope to comprehend. Let's remember that the premise for the neocon War on Terror was basically: states that harbor terrorists are equivalent enemies to the terrorists themselves, and forcibly removing threatening regimes and replacing them with western democracy/freedom will make us safer. Well, Al Qaeda and Shia militias were not able to exist in Saddam's Iraq. Our flawed occupation allowed jihadists to congregate in Iraq, and enabled a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to indirectly kill Americans and gain more influence in the region. The regime change in Baghdad that we orchestrated has replaced a brutal, corrupt Sunni Ba'athist dictator with a less brutal but more corrupt and sectarian Shia gang. Well, at least the Kurds got semi-autonomy. So the Bushies' hubris and incompetence pretty much negated their own vision for national security, to the tune of over $1T in costs, tens of thousands of US troops killed/wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

While Cheney types never really acknowledge or apologize for the fact that there were no WMDs, they keep trying to twist the record by claiming that they made "the right call" at the time, given the facts. The whole world wanted Saddam gone and there was virtual consensus that he had weapons. Sure, Saddam had few international friends, but I think most of us would have preferred him in power a little longer vs. breaking int'l laws and condemning Iraq to civil war. And maybe there was near consensus among the ignorant Congress (after sufficient bribery and intimidation), but the UN and international community was far from convinced about Saddam's arsenal and collaborations with Osama. But rather than face up to the truth, it's easier for the Bushies to retreat to their self-righteous dream world and dump their garbage on the black Muslim socialist instead. I suppose I am not surprised with this behavior, but I am surprised that the MSM would continue to give these discredited, disgraceful failures a podium from which to white-wash their transgressions and disseminate more BS.

With all the Iraq stuff still fresh in the headlines in 2004 (but apparently unable to penetrate the Bush bubble), remember how infallible, god-anointed Dubya couldn't even cite a single mistake during his presidency when asked by the media? These are the people who bullied us into Iraq, who are mostly responsible for the current chaos (at least from the western side of the equation), and who have the nerve to criticize others about it now.