Huffington Post and Fox News disputes with Donald Trump - Arianna Huffington is no Roger Ailes

.

A long festering feud of sorts has offered an interesting sidelight to the media coverage of the presidential campaign.  It all started when Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post news media manufacturing shop decided Donald Trump was not worthy of being covered as news.

Here was what her minions said about it.

A Note About Our Coverage Of Donald Trump's 'Campaign'

Ryan Grim Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post

Danny Shea Editorial Director, The Huffington Post

After watching and listening to Donald Trump since he announced his candidacy for president we decided we won't report on Trump's campaign as part of The Huffington Post's political coverage. Instead, we will cover his campaign as part of our Entertainment section. Our reason is simple: Trump's campaign is a sideshow. We won't take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you'll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.

Huffington Post Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim also dismissed Trump as a "clownshow" in an interview about the decision with Business Insider.

In his interview with Business Insider, Grim said Trump is only performing well in the polls "because of the big field" in the Republican primary.

Of course, the Donald responded in typical Trump fashion, take no prisoners.

Donald Trump's campaign dismissed the Huffington Post as a "glorified blog" in a statement on Friday evening.

"The only clown show in this scenario is the Huffington Post pretending to be a legitimate news source," the Trump campaign statement said. 

Though the statement was titled "Donald J. Trump Response To Huffington Post," a Trump spokeswoman said it was attributable to his campaign. The statement pointed to the fact Trump has previously criticized the Huffington Post on Twitter.

"If you read previously written Tweets, Mr. Trump has never been a fan of Arianna Huffington or the money-losing Huffington Post," the statement said.

Indeed, in one 2012 tweet, Trump launched a series of personal attacks on the site's cofounder and editor in chief, Arianna Huffington, that referenced her 1997 divorce from a former congressman who later announced he was gay.

Trump tweeted, "@ariannahuff is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man - he made a good decision."

For the record, Arianna and Michael Huffington split in 1997 ... and a year later, the former congressman revealed that he's bisexual. Michael is now a gay rights activist.

Trump has been ripping the Huffington Post ever since the website ran a story on August 16, which attempted to uncover why Donald has been so "crabby" recently.

After the article ran, Trump called the Post a "loser" that will "die like AOL is dying."

The Trump campaign's statement also touted his positioning in a series of polls and vowed he would win the first two presidential primaries. 

"Mr. Trump is number one in the unimportant Huffington Post poll, along with all other recently released polls including Reuters, FOX, USA Today/Suffolk University, and The Economist. Mr. Trump is in first place in Nevada, where he is also number one, by a wide margin, with Hispanics. He is number one in North Carolina and expects to win Iowa and New Hampshire," the statement said.

Arianna long has been a fixture in the NYC and California elite social circles.

She began The Huffington Post on May 10, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report.

AOL acquired the mass market Huffington Post for $315 million on February 7, 2011, making Arianna Huffington editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group.

Though inspired by Drudge, Fox News is the real enemy to all progressive, leftist, liberal bastions like the Huffer.  Perhaps Arianna is trying to become the equal to Fox News President Roger Ailes.

Ironically, both Roger Ailes (Fox) and Arianna Huffington (Huffington Post) have had recent public disputes with Donald Trump but the different way they responded explains why Arianna is no Roger Ailes.

When Trump complained that Fox News was too tough on him in the first debate, Ailes talked to him directly and worked out an arrangement to make sure he received full and fair news coverage from Fox.

When Arianna got upset with Trump, she ordered her supposedly professional reporters to treat him as entertainment, not news, and like a clown, not viable candidate for office.  I suppose such is the reaction one might expect considering the diametrically opposed political philosophies of the two although prejudging the news is rather rare in journalism.

As Trump climbed to the top of the polls and the Huffer continued to ignore him they lost out on a massive opportunity to make money off the Donald.  No other liberal media outlet took such bizarre action and then sent out mouthpieces to dish the Trump campaign as clownish, not even The New York Times or Washington Post.

Perhaps such different reactions by Ailes and Huffington, explains why Fox News continues to dominate the cable airways.

Arianna Huffington created her news service in 2005.  After 10 years in business, Arianna had sold the Huffington Post in 2011 for $315 million when she was a minority stockholder, and received $18 million for the company she started.  She reportedly receives a salary of $4 million per year.

Roger Ailes was named the founding CEO of Fox News when it was started by Rupert Murdock in 1996.  During his twenty year reign Fox News totally dominated cable news, and he built the value of the network to the #48 most valuable brand in America, at $13.3 billion in revenue with a value of $11.3 billion according to Forbes Magazine.  Roger receives over $20 million a year as Chairman and CEO.

There is a reason Roger Ailes is rated one of the most powerful people in the news media.  He learned the business from the inside out and along the way was a crucial media advisor to Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and made many media personalities famous like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Megyn Kelly.

Perhaps Arianna should learn from the Master Roger Ailes and treat Trump as a viable presidential candidate instead of playing juvenile games that demean the news business in America.

Of course the always unpredictable Trump will test the patience of anyone over and over. Just tonight, August 25, he again took a shot at Megyn Kelly for no particular reason and this time Roger Ailes has demanded Trump apologize to the Golden Girl of the Fox News network.  Stay tuned for the latest update. 

.

Eisenhower - Reagan - Romney - are we ready for a peacemaker?

.

Just after the war to end all wars, World War II, America needed a break, a time to rest, a moment in time when we focused on rebuilding our nation and not saving the world.  To accomplish that the public turned to someone who was not a typical politician, was not partisan and believed in America before political party.

They elected 63 year old Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and for 8 years we got peace and prosperity.

Later when the American public was fed up with Viet Nam, student riots, civil rights riots, and the capture of 58 Americans in the Iranian revolution once again we longed for a time of peace and prosperity.

They elected 70 year old Ronald Reagan in 1980 and for 8 years we got peace and prosperity.

As we near the 2016 presidential election once again Americans are tired of the decades long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world dependence on America, and a tragic economic collapse and painfully long recovery.

If history repeats itself and the latest polls indicate there is a high probability, then the American public will elect the 70 year old Mitt Romney and will get 8 years of peace and prosperity.

Americans long for peace and prosperity.  They long for an end to vicious partisan bickering in our capitol.  They are fed up with the Democrats blaming the Republicans and Republicans blaming the Democrats for everything that doesn't happen in Washington.

They long for a fair minded, proven, successful individual who has achieved success not as a politician but as a businessman, as a champion for non-profit causes, as a genuine family man and someone who can actually talk to the other political party members.

We long for someone not beholden to the special interests and lobbyists who control Washington, our politicians and our government.  Of all the potential candidates for 2016 only Mitt Romney meets the criteria.

He was battle tested in the most vicious and unethical presidential campaign in history.  Over a billion dollars was spent to destroy him and his career and looking back, the American public pretty well recognizes they made a serious mistake in electing Obama.

Mitt Romney handled the quagmire with dignity, class and a commitment to family and religious values not apparent in his opposition.  He handled defeat with grace recognizing that in spite of the tremendous political mudslinging and the avalanche of money on the part of Obama, not to mention he was the sitting president with the resources of the entire federal government at his disposal, Romney only lost by 3.9%.

Only about 58% of the registered voters turned out they were so fed up by politics.  If 1.96% more had turned out and voted for Romney he would have been president.  But Divine Providence surely had other things in mind like giving Obama a chance to govern and he has pretty much squandered that opportunity.

Since Obama is persona non grata to even Democrats who are running from association with him, he is most likely a non-factor for the rest of his term and could be more liability than asset to any Democrat running.

Now Hillary Clinton, the only Democrat aspirant to the presidency, having declared the Clinton legacy right to the Oval Office, has blocked any Democrat from even exploring the waters.  In fact her recent book tour meant to pave the way for her coronation back fired and Hillary has already lost 15% of her favorability rating this year.

But the delusional left continue to make hay of her power.  So let's look at the real numbers and not the rarefied raging of the left.

In the New Hampshire poll this week, that state being one of the first major tests for presidential hopefuls, Hillary led good old Joe, Biden that is, 59% - 14%.  That doesn't say much for Obama's sidekick and the Clinton groupies declared her the winner of the primary, the nomination and the vote for president although we are still 2 1/2 years away.

Of course after the run of bad luck the liberals experienced with the CHOSEN ONE Barack Obama, whose popularity is in a freefall since he is caught in a time warp and still running against George Bush in a presidential campaign back in 2008 rather than governing the nation he was elected to represent, so the fickle left bank has put their money behind Hillary.

They forget she is no more left than her husband wild Bill whose political platform was what ever was necessary to look like he was doing something and avoiding impeachment.  His major accomplishments came out of the Republican playbook and he, like Obama and his wife, long ago sold out to Goldman Sachs and that dastardly gang from Wall Street.

English betting odds for president

The really revealing data in the poll came when Democrats were asked who they would vote for if the primary election were held today.

In January, Clinton brought in 73% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll.

But, in Thursday's survey, only 13% of Democratic respondents says they've definitely made up their minds about 2016, and 77% said they're still trying to decide.

So Hillary has been on the national scene in Democrats face since 1992, was First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator, presidential candidate and then Secretary of State and only 13% of Democrats have made up their minds about who they will support?

Polls can be interpreted many ways but when 77% of the Democrats don't know who they want as candidate at this late stage in her career, the mythical Clinton stranglehold on the Democrat party seems to be fading in the mists of reality.

On the Republican side there are a number of good candidate bunched together.  But maybe the public does not think they are ready to be president yet.  Republican voters in New Hampshire have anything but a clear-cut GOP nominee in mind.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie leads other potential GOP White House contenders at 19%. He's followed by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 14% and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 11%. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee tie in the poll at 8%.

And then there is the Romney factor.  More and more voters are starting to realize the country might have been better served by Mitt Romney than Barack Obama.  Certainly there was no question of the vastly superior Romney experience and credentials.  And the latest poll in New Hampshire shows just how powerful the only non-candidate for president is at this time.

The poll shows that if Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, decides to take another stab at the Republican nomination, he would start with a big lead over the rest of the field.

New Hampshire is the second stop on the presidential nomination calendar and hosts the first-in-the-nation primary.

But if Mr. Romney changes his mind and decides to run again, 39 percent of likely primary voters said they would vote for him, with Mr. Christie and Mr. Paul tying in a distance second with 7 percent.

Not only does Romney offer all the strengths Obama lacked like leadership, the ability to work with Democrats when he was governor of Democrat controlled Massachusetts, a real religious foundation, a strong family life, but he is a genuinely nice person, something rare in politics today.

I sense a mighty movement to draft Romney and elect him as the next Eisenhower/Reagan peacemaker who will restore prestige to the office of president, will return class to politics and regain faith in our foreign affairs from the rest of the disheartened world.

. 

The Games People Play Part 3 - Can Hillary Clinton run on Bill Clinton's Legacy?

.

Oh the Games People Play Now

Every night and every day now

Never meaning what they say now

Never saying what they mean now

Seems the trial balloons are flying through the air as Hillary Clinton continues to toy with the idea of a presidential run yet the news media continues to push her possible candidacy while making no effort to qualify or quantify the results of her record.

No doubt Hillary would make a formidable candidate as the Clinton machine long ago mastered the art of fund raising and aren't presidential politics in America all about MONEY regardless of qualification?

But her campaign strategy seems to be dependent on the news media not doing their job when it comes to due diligence regarding candidates.  Now clearly the media love affair with the Clinton's predates the media love affair with Obama but now that Obama has demonstrated the media was wrong they have had to shift their love to Hillary as the last hope for liberal reform.

Yet the media is living a lie based on the record, as it seems history, and even recent history, runs contrary to the media depiction of Hillary.  For one she is not liberal.

For another, the media is prepared to blame Obama for all the foreign relations disasters of this Administration when as Secretary of State Hillary was the Administration person most responsible for policy development and implementation.

Here is just a partial record:

• Iraq and Afghanistan are drifting farther and farther from US influence in spite of the billions and billions of dollars this Administration spent.

• The Arab spring has resulted in new governments from Egypt to Libya and the Arab states distrust the US more than ever.

• The Israeli and Palestine peace talks have once again broken down leaving tension higher than ever.

• The Administration attempts to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran have failed and nothing is being done.

• The Administration threats to dump the President of Syria and liberate the people because Assad "crossed the line in the sand" is an international joke and policy disaster.

• The Administration response to the Benghazi fiasco has demonstrated a serious neglect of State Department security, and failure to make any effort to save our four diplomats who were murdered.

• The Administration failed to recognize any threat to the Ukraine from Russia until the Russians had already annexed Crimea and the eastern Ukraine was totally destabilized.

 

• We have done nothing to help Mexico in their drug wars on the American border as more than 120,000 Mexicans were killed and another 27,000 are missing since 2006.

• The Administration failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline to ship Canadian crude oil to American refineries has alienated our best ally and neighbor to the north.

All of this has happened while Hillary was Secretary of State.  Yet the news media acts as if she had nothing to do with it, it was just Obama's fault.

Still the Clinton people are carefully working to transfer media focus from the litany of policy disasters she was responsible for under Obama to what they consider to be President Bill Clinton's economic achievements while she was First Lady, even though she was not responsible for them.

So let's play the game.  If she had no official standing in economics as First Lady then her influence came from her intimacy with her husband and the media would try to convince us she influenced him through such intimacy.

When one thinks of the proliferation of the president as a ladies man and looks at the record of conquests admitted and reported we come up with the following list of ladies in Bill Clinton's life from the time he was governor of Arkansas through his presidency.

Paula Jones - Gennifer Flowers - Kathleen Willey - Monica Lewinsky - Juanita Broaddrick - Elizabeth Ward Gracen

One wonders how Bill Clinton had any time to be intimate with his wife Hillary and who knows if this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the presidential prowess.  It seems pretty doubtful such intimacy could have occurred and clearly defining economic policy was not the president's goal in intimacy.

Still we are expected to believe she was a major force in his economic policy.  If you really look at the record the major economic policies that led to accelerated growth generated by Clinton came from co-opting the Republican platform, not through bedside manners.

Clinton's Budget Reduction Act cut spending and cut taxes for over 12 million Americans.  He passed a Balanced Budget bill and reduced the deficit, again cutting taxes for millions of Americans.  He championed the NAFTA free trade treaty with Canada and Mexico.  All of these policies were approved on bi-partisan votes and all came from the Republican platform including his new Federalism initiatives to reduce central government control and transfer powers to the states.

The whole concept that they were a result of Hillary's efforts is laughable at best, sheer lunacy at worst.  More important, to expect the American public to credit Hillary with Bill Clinton's economic achievements indicates a rather dark and foreboding cloud has descended over our news media as truth, facts and history have been distorted, twisted and mutilated in an effort to get her elected.

If they continue to promote Hillary through such tactics then America needs to find a new source of news and truth.  One day American voters, progressives and moderates, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and yes, even the one third of the vote totally ignored by the media and our two party system, the Independents, will wake up and realize they have been victims of an unethical political system that simply takes their vote for granted because the so called "experts" think Americans are too dumb to think for themselves.

.