Trump's Triumph?

We've all heard the news over the last few days. If you've been living at the bottom of the ocean or under a rock you might have missed it, otherwise not.

Donald Trump is gasp! not participating in tonight's debate.

Since the moment of his announcement about this, the newsies have been running in circles, waving their hands, and crying about the fact that Trump won't be there because he objects to Megyn Kelly being a moderator. Having gone back to read their exchange there, and the exchanges between them since, I don't blame him. She's not professional in her interviews with him. She doesn't like him and it shows.

If you didn't see the first debate, here's the start of this whole thing between Kelly and Trump:

Her first question out of the gate at that debate was qualified by some as a tough question and by others as an unserious "gotcha": "Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like, ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ slobs,' and 'disgusting animals.'"

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10835994/trump-megyn-kelly-debate-boycott


C'mon, little girl. Pull up those grup panties and get over it. People say ugly things about other people all the time.

What is fascinating is that when I went back in time to find similar nasty remarks made by the Left's Golden Girl I came across a fascinating 2008 article in Scientific American - and this excerpt strikes directly at the heart of this discussion about Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump and will he / won't he / should he, etc.:

Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

Looks like this isn't a new 'controversy'.

Trump has made ugly remarks about women, many times. Yes, he does stoop down into the gutter, not stopping at generalizations but getting highly personal in his remarks. But! That proves he has a mile-wide character flaw and nothing more.

Kelly, by raising this at a political debate (not an etiquette debate), shows that she took this personally.

Now, because he's refusing to meet this dame across a debate stage and deal with her silliness, there's a big hoorah across the networks. Trump has been called 'childish', 'petulant', 'unprofessional' and just about everything else you can think of for days. Talking heads and pundits, commentators and pinheads all are weighing in.

After digesting this, watching and listening and thinking about it, I think I know what's behind the excitement.

It's so simple I had to take all the verbiage off and... It's because, by refusing to participate, Trump is marginalizing the organizations that have worked so hard for months to marginalize his candidacy.

Let's go back to the beginning: Kelly asked Trump a question about personality. It has zero to do with policy or what he would do as president. Why? Why, of all the questions she could ask, did she ask that?

This unrelated-to-the-presidency nonsense continued through the first half in a most unprofessional manner. I've gone back and looked down into the transcript.

http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/

The moderators tried hard to start a food fight between the candidates, attempting to pit one against the other in one-on-one challenges, like this one, almost immediately after the debate started:

WALLACE: Senator Rubio, when Jeb Bush announced his candidacy for presidency, he said this: “There’s no passing off responsibility when you’re a governor, no blending into the legislative crowd.”

Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive office, are better prepared to be president than he is, a man who you say did a great job running your state of Florida for eight years.

 Now, this, at least, does have relation to the presidency and qualification for the office, but really? Asking one candidate to address another (and no doubt hoping for sparks if not fireworks as the result). Unprofessional in my view because it does nothing to allow Rubio to advance himself. It just invites him to disparage Bush and damage himself in the process if he speaks badly.

And here is the entire exchange between Trump and Kelly that night:

KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.
You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.”
(LAUGHTER)
Your Twitter account…
TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: No, it wasn’t.
(APPLAUSE)
Your Twitter account…
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you.
KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.
TRUMP: Yes, I’m sure it was.
KELLY: 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?
TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.
(APPLAUSE)
I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.
And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.
(APPLAUSE)

Looking at that, and I grant that I don't have all of the background - what he's said - I really think she was out of line. What has that question got to do with anything?

So he's not going to tonight's debate in Iowa. So what. If Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Ben Carson or Chris Christie bowed out would there be this huge kerfuffle? No. There would be questions and perhaps some commentary if it was Rubio who walked away and the same with raised eyebrows if it was Cruz, but no one would be throwing the kinds of firebombs at those candidates that they're throwing at Trump.

And it's that which makes me believe that Fox is worried about their ratings and the after-effect of Trump's walk. After all, if Trump doesn't go, and I don't think he's going to since he's already made a commitment to attend a fund-raiser for military veterans, Fox's ratings for this 'do' tonight may spike at the outset due to curiosity, but will probably drop like a rock after the first commercial break.

We'll see, but I am glad that Trump has principles and is willing to stand on them. That is a good character component and one I can admire.

Think about it and have a lovely day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories