Posted on 08/11/2015 2:38:44 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Not since 1998 and Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress have the media been so compelled to write about a bodily fluid they would rather not write about.
Back then it was … well, can we say it? Hey, c’mon it’s 2015, we can say it straight out: The stain on the dress, which provided the physical evidence that Bill Clinton had lied about his affair, was Clinton’s Baby Gravy. His Man Seed. His Love Potion.
Today, the media must talk about Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and her … again we hesitate, but we must be candid and adult. It is her Aunt Flo. Her Cousin Red. Her Shark Week.
These terms are common parlance but, to me, they are far more icky (another scientific term) than just saying that it was Clinton’s sperm on Monica’s dress and Kelly’s menstrual blood that Donald Trump may or may not have been speaking about after the Republican debate in Cleveland on Thursday.
Trump said of Kelly on CNN on Friday, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”
Her “wherever,” many in the media deduced, was her vagina. And the blood, therefore, was menstrual blood, which also contains mucosal tissue, and is a normal bodily function for approximately half of the planet’s population from puberty to menopause.
But is that what Trump meant? Erick Erickson, a right-wing blogger, was so disgusted by Trump’s statement that he rescinded his invitation for Trump to speak at Erickson’s conference over the weekend.
“It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But 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,” Erickson wrote.
Erickson, as some have noted, has quite a record of being a sleazeball himself when it comes to women. According to my crack research staff (Wikipedia): “Erickson has tweeted controversial remarks regarding feminists, including (in response to a 2010 Super Bowl ad) the following: “That’s what the feminazis were enraged over? Seriously?!? Wow. That’s what being too ugly to get a date does to your brain,” and “Turned on twitter today and there was a barrage of angry feminists upset with me telling them to get in the kitchen and learn to cook”; “Good thing I didn’t suggest the feminists … you know … shave.”
One would think the other Republican presidential candidates would refuse to appear at a conference organized by a slug like Erickson. But Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry and Carly Fiorina had no trouble attending and kissing Erickson’s ring.
Trump claimed he was misunderstood. “Only a deviant would think I was saying anything about blood somewhere other than her eyes or her nose,” he said. He later added “ears” when he talked to George Stephanopoulos: “I was referring to nose, ears, a very common statement. …’
That’s a very common statement? Where? Transylvania?
The New York Times was not buying it. It stated flatly in the lead paragraph of its front-page news story: “Donald J. Trump’s suggestion that a Fox News journalist had questioned him forcefully at the Republican presidential debate because she was menstruating cost him a speaking slot Saturday night. … ”
Even Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, was growing a little weary of Trump and tweeted a few hours after the debate: “Friend Donald has to learn this is public life.”
But after Trump heard that the debate had earned astronomical ratings, he felt justified in doing what he had done. People must love what he says, or else, why would they watch him?
“Twenty-four million people weren’t there to watch Carly Fiorina or Jeb Bush!” Trump crowed. “I get big crowds, I get ratings. They call me the ratings machine.”
It is easy to dismiss Trump as a gasbag, whose gas will either rush out quickly this week or leak out slowly in the weeks and months ahead.
But there is a difference between criticizing Trump and being condescending to those who wish to hear him.
Alex Castellanos, a Republican political consultant who has worked in the past for Bush, recently wrote in the conservative Independent Journal Review: “Mr. Trump’s core supporters are an angry mob of peasants with glazed, unblinking eyes.”
Peasants? Really? I have seen the poor and the disheartened and the enraged in this country and those who think the American dream has been stolen from them and are tempted to turn to false prophets to get it back.
But I have never seen an American peasant.
Castellanos continues: “Mr. Trump may keep a good hunk of his ‘mad-as-hell’ base, but the field will eventually shrink and other candidates will grow. The Donald won’t. … The end of the story has now been written: The populist Trump fire burning through the GOP is now contained.”
Maybe. Nobody I know thinks Trump can win the nomination. But it could be a long, mean and nasty fight — especially when the Republican elites sneer at Trump’s supporters.
Figuratively speaking, punches will be thrown. And there will be blood.
The GOPe wants this early debating and campaign so any challengers who are anti GOPe can be destroyed early.
They failed to destroy Trump.
This isn’t good for them.
What's wrong with saying that?
Frankly I was tending to discount Trump's explanation.
Took awhile but I did find this from 2003.. Someone had asked how come his ears bleed when he's really angry. One response was:
"A surge in blood pressure caused by your rage would be my most likely guess as well. The capillaries in the nose are quite fragile and can burst easily, but I've never heard of an ear-bleed in this context."
Actually I experienced something similar at my age.. I recently got very angry and the next day I noticed the worse purpura (hemorrhages in the skin . . . that result in the appearance of purplish spots or patches) that I've seen so far. I kind of thought there was a connection. So right now it's slowly being removed and carried off for disposal and restoration of skin.
I do not live in Transylvania.
To whoever reads this.. I did not copy the source.. you can grab a string of characters like "A surge in blood pressure caused by your rage" and google if you have to have a source. If you dispute the claim I'd be very interested in knowing why for my purpura sake.
Nothing is wrong with saying it, as long as you don’t live in a glass house and have a penchant for throwing stones.
Don’t you people get it that they are trying to kill the messenger, and thus, ever think for a nano-second that it is actually the message they are endeavoring to kill?
First and foremost, Trump is a very successful businessman. He is not knowingly going to do anything to lessen the value of what he has built. Being short-sighted is not going to help you figure out what is at play.
To me, it is obvious that someone(s) in government, from either or both sides, screwed him royally on a major deal. He will exact his board room revenge but to do so, he needs a populist platform to accomplish it because it is the voters who decide on their fate, not his. He can only set the template for their downfall.
It is also not lost at all that the only two people he has sought private counsel with at his offices are none other than Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin. He knows which way the wind is blowing on the ground, he is just turning up the speed on a Big Ass Fan.
The enemy has shown their hand, we now own them, and the bastards detest it, If they can call us names, I am entirely capable of doing likewise.
So no one has ever heard the expression “Blood in the eye”? No one?
And right there is the Uniparty's core belief: we are sheep.
I remember that company!
You stay classy POLITICO.
It's not a common turn of phrase, at least not in the modern lexicon - more literary than spoken. But yes, I have heard it, and even used it. I knew what Trump was trying to say, but he did stumble over it a bit.
IMO, this is not so obscure a phrase that many in the media didn't recognize it - but they also saw that the low-information crowd could be stirred up by distorting it.
That’s exactly right. They wanted to stir up the peasants as one commentator has taken to calling us.
Trump is driving the MSM nuts and I’m lovin’ it. The MSM is oh so very use to beating anyone in the GOP with a newspaper and having the errant pup roll over on his back and whimper an a apology. It’s how the MSM obtains its power.
But what happens when instead the GOP canine doesn’t rollover, but instead stands his ground, raises his hackles, and growls. Much to the surprise of the MSM, further threats of a beating only result in the canine latching onto their arm.
Excellent Big Ass Fan reference.
Doubt most on here will have any idea where you got that.
97 degrees here yesterday. Would love to have had one in the shop.
The GOP deserves nothing but the worst, they took us all for fools, vote for us give us the majority and we will kill obamacare, repeal dodd frank, investigate the IRS and the EPA put a strangle hold on zippy the a##clown until he’s out. They have done nothing but become thier friends and partners in crime
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.