The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: insults
Trump Never Stops Insulting His Cult Followers

Trump Never Stops Insulting His Cult Followers

Supporters of Donald Trump often complain about the "liberal elites" who have disrespected them. It is a feeling of cultural grievance that their idol constantly exploits, both to enrich himself with their donations and to defend himself against his critics.

Whenever Trump finds himself under pressure — in a courtroom, an impeachment or an election — he tells those credulous followers that it is not he but they who are the true targets of the Democrats, the "deep state," the media, the Republicans in Name Only, the Biden White House or whomever. That was how he responded to the first impeachment brought against him in 2019 and that is how he answered the huge $83 million jury verdict delivered against him this week in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.

Trump makes this demagogic argument in full confidence that the MAGA cult will believe him — and with certainty that they will never realize how deeply he is insulting them.

"In reality they're not after me, they're after you. I'm just in the way," he tweeted when Congress first voted to impeach him. But did that make any sense? It wasn't the MAGA voters who attempted to extort the president of Ukraine, attempting to trade American weaponry for his own political gain (and to frame a political opponent with a phony prosecution).

Surely most of Trump's fans would never consider such a brazen blackmail scheme. Unlike him, they don't have to worry about being impeached or prosecuted; they have neither the motive nor the opportunity to perpetrate the offenses that Trump repeatedly commits.

In the wake of the Carroll jury award, the former president's most devoted associates have adopted the same argument, adding their own frantic spin. Steve Bannon, the convicted fraudster pardoned by Trump in order to keep his mouth shut, and Matt Schlapp, the right-wing activist repeatedly accused of homosexual assault, declared that the verdict foreshadows "the end of America."

On the "War Room" online broadcast hosed by Bannon, Schlapp echoed Trump's baseless insistence that the Carroll lawsuit is a "very coordinated thing" and the product of a "weaponized government" — when in fact it is simply a civil lawsuit brought by an aggrieved citizen. But Schlapp went still further, warning the MAGA audience that the judgment against Trump in favor of the woman he assaulted would portend their own ruin.

What the verdict proves, according to Schlapp and Bannon, is that the government "doesn't just intend to destroy your career and cancel you on social media, they mean to impoverish you and destroy any opportunity you have in the future. ... If these things continue to stand, all of this unconstitutional illegal activity, we've got nothing left, Steve. I mean it's run to the mountains, run to the catacombs time. ... This $83 million — this is just the beginning. All of us will be paraded down this gangplank. We won't have our resources, we won't have our homes, we won't have our livelihood."

Schlapp's panic is perhaps understandable, as he faces pressure to resign the chairmanship of the Conservative Political Action Committee -- a juicy grift -- because of sexual assault accusations that resemble Trump's offenses. And Bannon no doubt feels a twinge of sympathy as he faces continued prosecution by New York state authorities for the "border wall" scam that led to his federal pardon. (Three others involved in that racket went to prison, including a disabled veteran.)

But why would a normal person put any credence in such hysterical rants? There was nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" in Carroll's courageous effort to hold Trump accountable for assault, which resulted in a flood of personal abuse against her that included hundreds of death threats. More to the point, only an infinitesimal fraction of Americans has any reason to worry about being held responsible for an aggravated sexual assault - because unlike Trump, few have ever been accused of rape or assault, let alone by dozens of women.

It is remarkable indeed how many of our fellow citizens are willing to be implicated in the sociopathic conduct of the former president, who tells them every day that they are just like him.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Call Me What You Want, As Long As It’s ‘Madam President’

Call Me What You Want, As Long As It’s ‘Madam President’

Elizabeth Warren has blown it. In just one speech this week, she may have ended any chance she had to become Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

When the two took the stage at Cincinnati’s Union Terminal on Monday, they looked like a dynamic duo. Warren is 67, and Clinton is 68, and though that used to be on the verge of old age for presidential politics, it has become the new “seasoned.” (Barack Obama was 47 when he was elected. George W. Bush was 54. And Bill Clinton was 46.)

Both Warren and Hillary wore shades of blue — certainly no accident. They are such a pair they even dress alike! Both have short blond hair. Both looked energetic, vigorous and enthusiastic.

Then they started speaking. And it was all over.

Warren was just too darn good. She went after Donald Trump like a hobo on a ham sandwich. She delivered a barnburner, a blockbuster, a foot-stomper of a speech.

If one purpose of a political speech is to define your opponent, she had that down pat.

Trump, she said, is “a small, insecure money-grubber” who “cares about no one but himself.”

Trump “will crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants.”

“Trump says he’ll make America great again. … It’s stamped on the front of his goofy hat. You wanna see goofy? Look at him in that hat.”

The audience roared and clapped and held its sides. Oh, that hat! That baseball cap that seems as if it is stapled to Trump’s scalp. (He wears it to keep his hair from getting mussed. You do not want to be around Trump when his hair gets mussed.)

And that “Make America Great Again” motto? When did America stop being great? When it started making such guys as Trump presumptive nominees for president?

Who is Donald Trump anyway? How much do you really know about him except that he actually managed to lose money on a casino? Which takes a special kind of skill.

The Clinton campaign strategy regarding Trump is to continue to get under his skin, continue to poke him with a stick because when he gets angry, which is pretty much all the time, he loses control of his mouth.

He talks about thousands of imaginary Muslim Americans dancing in the streets after 9/11. He talks about how Mexican immigrants are rapists. And he says of John McCain: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

Trump also likes people who got out of the draft because of bone spurs — people like him.

Warren, the senior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, has been designated an official stick-poker.

Warren summed it all up in a video released last week. “I have to be honest,” she said. “It is hard to talk about Donald Trump. Between his ignorance, his racism, his sexism, his lies — it is actually hard to know where to start.”

Boom! Drop the mic.

But that is the problem. If you want to become the vice presidential nominee, you do not want to outshine the presidential nominee.

True, Clinton seemed to be wowed by Warren’s speech Monday, too.

“You just saw why she is considered so terrific, so formidable. Because she tells it like it is,” Clinton said. “I must say, I do just love to see how she gets under Donald Trump’s thin skin.”

And it would be nice for Clinton to be able to sit back and talk about foreign policy and fiscal policy and all the other policies that Trump knows nothing about and let her running mate do the nasty stuff.

The trouble is, however, voters rarely cast ballots because of who is running for vice president. Clinton has to thread the needle and pick a running mate who can shine, but not outshine.

And nastiness runs both ways. “Crooked Hillary is wheeling out one of the least productive senators in the U.S. Senate, goofy Elizabeth Warren,” Trump tweeted Monday.

On Tuesday, Warren said: “What this is really about is, can they bully me into shutting up? Can they just be nasty enough and ugly enough and throw enough stuff in my direction that I’ll say ‘oh’ and just go back into the shadows? And the answer is, nope, not happening.”

The same is true for Clinton. Last Wednesday, Trump called her perhaps “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”

“Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and even theft,” Trump said. “She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund, doing favors for oppressive regimes and many others … in exchange for cash, pure and simple.”

And that wasn’t all. “Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched,” Trump said.

But isn’t this all just name-calling — just another part of the national entertainment, the national pastime that we call a presidential campaign?

Hillary Clinton doesn’t care. This time next year, they can call her whatever they want — just as long as it’s “Madam President.”

 

Roger Simon is Politico’s chief political columnist. His new e-book, “Reckoning: Campaign 2012 and the Fight for the Soul of America,” can be found on Amazon.com, BN.com and iTunes. To find out more about Roger Simon and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo: Hillary Clinton stands along side Senator Elizabeth Warren at a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio. REUTERS/Aaron JosefczykHillary Clinton stands along side Senator Elizabeth Warren at a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio. REUTERS/Aaron Josefczyk

The 6 Greatest Political Insults Of All Time

The 6 Greatest Political Insults Of All Time

The intra-party squabble between New Jersey governor Chris Christie and his fellow Republican, Kentucky senator Rand Paul, got personal this week. After Governor Christie called Paul’s libertarian foreign policy “dangerous,” Paul shot back with his own political analysis of Christie’s brand of conservatism. “They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending, and their ‘Gimme, gimme, gimme – give me all my Sandy money now,’” Paul told the Associated Press, “those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.”

Then it got ugly.

Paul’s statements aroused Christie’s notorious temper and he fired back at the “Washington politician.”

“So if Senator Paul wants to start looking at where he’s going to cut spending to afford defense, maybe he should start looking at cutting the pork barrel spending that he brings home to Kentucky, at $1.51 for every $1.00 and not look at New Jersey, where we get $0.61 for every $1.00. So maybe Senator Paul could — could, you know, deal with that when he’s trying to deal with the reduction of spending on the federal side…But I doubt he would, because most Washington politicians only care about bringing home the bacon so that they can get reelected.”

Then, in an interview with CNN on Tuesday evening, Paul called Governor Christie… the “king of bacon.”

This exchange could very well be a prelude to the 2016 Republican presidential primary, if Christie and Paul decide to run. A look back at previous political mudslinging may give us an idea of what to expect in 2016.

“He Was Born With A Silver Foot In His Mouth”

Former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards gained notoriety at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, where she delivered a keynote speech that made her a national political figure, on her way to winning the 1990 Texas gubernatorial election.

What made her speech so memorable was a direct insult of the Republican presidential nominee, George H.W. Bush.

“Poor George, he can’t help it,” Richards said at the DNC in Atlanta. “He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

“Senator, You’re No Jack Kennedy”

In the 1988 vice-presidential debate, Democratic nominee Lloyd Bentsen made one of the more memorable political quips in recent history. Bentsen was well into his sixties by the time he made the 1988 Democratic ticket with Michael Dukakis. During the debate, Bentsen’s counterpart, the young Dan Quayle, was explaining why he thought he had enough experience to serve as vice president, despite his tender age.

“I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president this country,” Quayle said. “I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency.”

In a calm and composed manner, Bentsen responded: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

 

“I Am Not Going To Exploit…My Opponent’s Youth And Inexperience”

President Ronald Reagan was over 70 years old by the time he was up for re-election in 1984. Rumors regarding Reagan’s advanced age and poor health began to swirl in the campaign.

But Reagan put the issue to rest in the second presidential debate, with a clever quip that drove his point home.

Henry Trewhitt of the Baltimore Sun asked, “You already are the oldest president in history, and some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall, yes, that President Kennedy, had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?”

Reagan responded:

“Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt… and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

“A Noun, A Verb, And 9/11”

Vice President Joe Biden earned laughs from the audience at a 2007 Democratic presidential primary debate with an insult lodged at former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. When asked to respond to Giuliani’s statements regarding Democrats’ lack of “executive experience,” Biden responded that Giuliani is “probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency,” before unleashing a zinger:

“Rudy Giuliani — there’s only three things he [needs] to make … a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11.”

“This Guy Just Isn’t Bright”

Rudy Giuliani is no stranger to making personal attacks on his Democratic counterparts. In response to Vice President Joe Biden’s statements about Wall Street “trying to put [people] back in chains,” Rudy Giuliani said the vice president “isn’t bright.” In an August 2012 interview on CNBC, Giuliani said about Biden: “I mean, there’s a real fear if — God forbid — he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it. …This guy just isn’t bright, he’s never been bright, he isn’t bright.”

“Who Cares?”

In a single off-the-cuff remark, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi revealed her attitude toward outgoing Minnesota representative, and former presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann.

After the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Rep. Bachmann issued an impassioned statement attacking the Court’s decision.

“This decision is one that is profound because the Supreme Court not only attacked our Constitution today, they not only attacked the equal protection rights of every citizen under our Constitution, they attacked something that they have no jurisdiction over whatsoever, the foundational unit of our society, which is marriage,” Bachmann said at a press conference.

When asked about Bachmann’s response to the decision, Pelosi’s own response was much more to the point: “Who cares?” she asked with a dismissive shrug.

Photo: mbell1975 via Flickr