Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Of Megyn "Good Journalism" Kelly and the screw-job on conservatism

Can anyone explain to me why Megyn Kelly hates Donald Trump? Don't give me this argument that Kelly and FOX were doing him a favor by getting the subject of his past comments regarding women out of the way, so that he'll have a good answer by the time CNN and MSNBC get around to it.
Trump has spoken of the blood in Kelly's eyes—and blood "coming out of her wherever"—and it's a legitimate observation on his part. Go back, watch the debate, and tell me that Kelly wasn't failing to disguise her contempt for the Republican front-runner with her piercing eyes and facial grimaces.
FOX chief executive Roger Ailes has since apologized to Trump and guaranteed that neither Kelly nor anyone else from FOX will attack him unnecessarily from now on. Kelly herself said, on her first FOX appearance since the debate:
"You may have heard that there was a dust-up involving yours truly and Presidential contender Donald Trump. Mr. Trump was upset with a question I asked him at the debate last week about his electability, and, specifically, comments he has made in the past about women. A few words on that: Apparently Mr. Trump thought that the question I asked was unfair and felt I was attacking him. I felt he was asked a tough, but fair question. We agreed to disagree. Mr. Trump did interviews over the weekend that attacked me personally. I've decided not to respond. Mr. Trump is an interesting man [she trips over herself at this point] who has captured the attention of the electorate; that's why he's leading in the polls. Trump, who is the front-runner, will not apologize. And I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism. So I'll continue doing my job without fear or favor ... This is a tough business, and it's time now to move forward."
Now then, the questions about women and about when exactly he became a Republican could be seen as mere clarifications intended to truly help voters understand the less savory elements to his past. If Megyn Kelly had asked them with a smile and a neutral tone, they could have been somewhat beneficial in the context of the debate if moving on to serious policy positions was next in line. Kelly's demeanor, however, when querying Trump was akin to one man smirking sardonically at another man and asking, "So, when did you start beating your wife?" That's when you know a fistfight is not only inevitable but merited. Maybe the insinuation about menstruating was unwarranted, but are you telling me Trump is to blame for fighting back?
Trump did not make his billions by backing off. If you intend to get catty with Trump, you'd better expect a push-back and probably not a very nice one.
Megyn Kelly intended to take Trump down. Ailes ordered the hit job and knew Kelly was just the obedient little soldier to carry out the ambush—because she genuinely dislikes him. Do I have to add a "duh" here or would that be gratuitous?
Kelly, like most FOX hosts, from Sean Hannity to Bill O'Reilly to Neil Cavuto, are notorious not for their supposed conservatism on an allegedly conservative-friendly news network. No, no. They're known for their contrarianism. They're known for sedating right-of-center viewers with tough talk, only to bash them in the face somewhere down the line by suddenly sounding like Noam Chomsky. Is being mercurial a requirement to anchor on FOX?
FOX viewers, why do you appreciate a network that clearly wants Jeb Bush in office? WRKO talk-show host Jeff Kuhner calls Bush "Jebito" or "Jeb Press-Two-for-English Bush". Howie Carr calls him "Juan Ellis Bush". Both are appropriate. I know CNN and MSNBC are balls-to-the-wall for Madame Hilary. But why torture yourselves by watching a network that pushes an NSA-admiring, Common Core-supporting, illegal alien-embracing sack of used toilet parts like Jeb Bush? This is what I just cannot understand. Sure, Jeb may be a lot better spoken than Dubya. In Spanish.
Trump, meanwhile, has been prevented from attending Erick Erickson's RedState event, with Erickson himself opining, "[I] just don't want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal." Mike Huckabee, who spent his college years Jiffy-Popping squirrels, called Kelly a "remarkable woman" at the conference.
Here is Exhibit A is to why conservatives are constantly on the defensive and cannot win. They stand around talking about standards and common decency with their noses in the air and their fingers in the wind while liberals assault all that is good and decent and win, because, to give them credit, they know where they stand and they don't drag down their comrades, but find a way to slot them effectively into the equation.
If conservatives are going to be prickly cowards, then they deserve repeated ass-kickings by the electorate. We will keep getting people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders leading us into the abyss while conspirators like John Boehner, John Kasich and Mitch McConnell make up the "opposition".
Megyn, if good journalism as practiced by a female means showing off as much leg as possible and tee-heeing like a bimbo to bring in the male 18-50 age group who may or may not be conservative and spend much more time imagining you in a wet T-shirt contest than actually listening to what you say, then you're excelling.
This is a "journalist" who appeared with Howard Stern in 2010, discussing her breasts, her husband's penis size and their general sex life, and who posed for GQ during an interview about her being "unswerving in her beliefs". Do those beliefs include showing skin for the discerning gentleman? Because she sure showed a lot of it in an accompanying spread.
In April, Kelly resurrected herself by being one of only two at FOX—Sean Hannity being the other—who observed, correctly, that questioning Pamela Geller and her Mohammed cartoon drawing contest was giving in to the jihadists that want to kill us. Trump, if you'll remember, was in the O'Reilly-Greta Susteren camp asking, "why did she have to do that?" A remarkable turn of events. Maybe that's why Kelly hates Trump. She was more popular than him just five months ago. I too praised Kelly and questioned whether Trump could be trusted with protecting free speech.
But five months in politics is a lifetime, and with her previous hostile inquisition of Rudy Guiliani for doubting Obama's patriotism and her recent expressed desire to go for The Donald's jugular in the first Republican debate, it's clear that we cannot trust Megyn Kelly's insight.
Megyn, until you start covering up a bit and perhaps acting your age—you're 44, not 24—then I cannot take you seriously when it comes to questioning a man's attitude toward women. Whatever androcentric cheap shots Trump has been accused of, apparently harmless jokes on The Apprentice that the women involved knew weren't serious and themselves laughed at, you seem to be encouraging with your mini-skirts, low-slung blouses and provocative swishes of long blonde locks. Don't talk to me about "disparaging comments about women's looks".
Why don't you stop being a stereotype, Megyn Kelly, and then we'll talk about Trump's oversights? That would be a good starting point on the path to good, not to mention responsible, journalism. 

Postscript: Sorry, dear reader, if the end of my entry on Cecil the Lion made it appear as though I admired Robert Mugabe. In fact, my loathing for him knows no bounds, as with Fidel Castro or the late Hugo Chavez. He's a racist dictator who himself has been responsible for decimating wildlife and ruining habitats all across Zimbabwe. He ate a baby elephant while decrying "white safaris" at his 91st birthday bash. The man says that the US "can't have it both ways … They can't say 'allow our people to visit, allow our people to have safaris,' to kill our lions and take safari trophies to America." He is a hypocrite, and that's his best attribute. I wish the best for Zimbabwe once this less-than-golden oldie finally stops coming down for breakfast. But if Walter Palmer has to answer to him, I'll turn a blind eye. I'm just saying.


goddessdivine said...

Well, I love Megyn Kelly. She does however make no bones about which "ideology" she supports. She claims neither left nor right, but only truth and fact-finding.

I didn't actually watch the debate, only listened on satellite radio as I was driving across the country. ;-/ So I saw no facial expressions until much later during replays and whatnot. I was actually more annoyed that this was more of a "Trump show" or even a "Jeb show", as many of the candidates got left by the wayside. At one point I was like, "Um, I'd like to hear more from Ted Cruise!!" I do feel like most of the candidates got tough but fair questions, all bringing up some sort of controversial point in their past (whether it's personal beliefs, statements, or stances on policies). All of which are legitimate and fair game. Overall, however, it seemed a lot of the focus was on small and perhaps inconsequential things when our world is seriously on fire. (ISIS? Illegal Immigration? Religious liberty? Hillary and her multitude of scandals? 19 trillion in debt?) Some of the questions were downright the one posed to Cruise about listening to God. Luckily Cruise is an expert debater and knows how to turn things into his favor. I'm a religious person, and I know Cruise is too, but I think the world needs to hear more about how some of these candidates would deal with above mentioned issues.

All in all, though, these types of questions do show how people deal under pressure and how they can articulate responses. It did shed some light on that.

While I'm fine with Trump disagreeing with his questions and maybe feeling "picked on" I did NOT like his response to the situation. Possibly referencing her menstruation and then labeling her incompetent and basically stupid is completely beneath anyone seeking this high office. He was out of line. I personally don't think Kelly has/had a vendetta against Trump (she's often commented on her friendly relationship w/ him); she just asked some tough questions that whether you want to believe it or not, WILL come up eventually. And perhaps she could have phrased some of it differently.

Ah, politics.

goddessdivine said...

Dude. I totally misspelled Ted CRUZ. I know it's C-R-U-Z. Duh. I'm just messed up right now and can't even think straight! (Travel, Stress, Lots going on.....)

Nightdragon said...

LOL. I was not going to point that out, but I did notice it. But I'm glad you caught yourself. Well, hey, it is appropriate to refer to him as Ted Cruise because that's exactly what we hope he'll do on the way to the White House.

I like Donald Trump, I've liked him in a way lately that I never thought was possible -- considering all I used to do is criticize him (over policy or social matters). But Cruz is still my man. Cruz is the only Republican candidate not having a severe go at him. Cruz is taking what Trump is offering on board and if Trump fizzles out, Cruz will pick up his mantle and run with it. I trust him to do that.

About Megyn Kelly, maybe there's some salvation for her. But, seriously, she has got to stop flaunting herself. I want a good journalist to dress appropriately, at the very least. Enough with the skin, Megyn, we get it, you're fit and gorgeous. Would it kill you to wear a maxi skirt at least ONCE a week? And maybe then, once you've stopped feeding in to natural male desires, we'll take what you have to say seriously.

Honestly, if I vlogged in nothing but my undies, would anybody take me seriously, regardless of the popularity of the subject or the erudite manner in which I presented it? Of course not. I would be known as "conservative undies guy". And I would deserve it too. If at any point I wanted to become serious, I would have to put a shirt and some pants on. Y'know?

goddessdivine said...

I will concede that sometimes Megyn needs to "cover up" a bit more. Yes she is a beautiful woman (I'm always insanely jealous when I watch her) but yes, it is not becoming to show so much flesh. It's almost a little distracting. I'm sure guys are even more distracted!