MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Calls Trump NBC’s ‘Greatest Individual Embarrassment’

In case there was any doubt about MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell’s thoughts on potential (or not, if you ask O’Donnell) GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump: He’s not quite fond of the man and thinks a person would have to just short of brain dead to cast a vote his way – not that they’ll have the chance to do so.

On The Last Word tonight, O’Donnell referred to the business man / television personality as “NBC’s Charlie Sheen” as well as the network’s “greatest individual embarrassment”

O’Donnell predicted that Trump’s “fake campaign” will be over by May 16th, when the network’s new program schedule is announced and NBC “orders” Trump “to shut up.”

Watch the segment, from MSNBC:

MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Spends Half Of His Show On Donald Trump

MSNBC Live host Cenk Uygur (can we get his show a name, please?) expended nearly half of Tuesday’s show on the subject of wildcard GOP hopeful Donald Trump, which is somewhat in line with the attention the rest of the media has been giving Trump. But just when you’re ready to throw up your hands and exclaim “Enough,” Trump justifies the coverage by doing something impossible to ignore.

In this case, Uygur spends the first segment of his show talking about the Birther issue with Bill Press and Pat Buchanan (whom Uygur notes used to co-host their own 6pm show on MSNBC), and while they all do a decent job of dismissing the craziness, they neglect to mention that the President can’t release his original birth record, whether he wants to or not.

When the second segment came on, I thought, “Really? Do we really need another 12 minutes on Trump?”

The total saturation of the media by Donald Trump is reaching ludicrous proportions, somewhere along the lines of Sarah Palin+Charlie Sheen to the Ballon Boy power. While this is apparently Trump’s mission, the mainstream media has abetted him heroically, this site included.

On the other hand, how do you not play a clip like this, of the leading Republican candidate for president shifting positions like an illustrated Kama Sutra, and displaying a complete ignorance of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision? (From MSNBC)

On the bright side, he didn’t say “Roe versus Wade? That’s obvious, I’d row. Wading takes much longer! I’m a tremendous rower.”

The conventional wisdom is that this Birther issue is a primary winner/general election loser for the Republicans, but that doesn’t mean that throwing Trump up onscreen every five seconds is harmless. At a certain point, a tipping point is achieved, and the Birther sideshow morphs into the Birther debate. The same average Americans who made Celebrity Apprentice a hit begin to wonder to themselves, “If this stuff is so crazy, why do they keep putting this guy on the TV?”

Rush Limbaugh: Donald Trump Says He’s Conservative, But Is He?

Last week, Donald Trump called into Rush Limbaugh’s show and gave him a lengthy interview. At the time, Limbaugh seemed fairly supportive (which shouldn’t be entirely surprising considering the interview began with Trump giving $100,000 to the radio host’s charity fundraiser). Limbaugh still seemed pretty cordial today as he responded to a caller’s questions about the potential candidate. But, as the caller pressed further, some definite doubts began to slip through on Limbaugh’s part.

While the big question with Trump still remains whether or not he’s actually running, his success in the polls has brought led to follow-up questions. The biggie for Limbaugh and his caller is whether or not Trump is actually a real conservative. “Somebody told [Trump] that the conservative base is a bunch of whackos,” Limbaugh complained. “They’re not.”

Limbaugh continued:

“He’s been all over the political spectrum politically. He’s come out for abortion, he’s against abortion. He thought Obama was a great guy, Bush was an idiot. Where is it written that people can’t change their minds and can’t grow? Well, where it’s written is in core beliefs. If somebody really has a core belief, their core beliefs don’t fluctuate. This is what people are trying to figure out with Trump. When you get down to brass tacks, the best thing you can say is, I think – forget the independent run or whatever – the real question is, is he conservative?”

Both Limbaugh and the caller agreed though that, if Trump got the Republican nomination, they’d vote for him and just hope that he was what he says he is. However, Limbaugh framed this by saying that he’d vote for Elmer Fudd if it meant getting rid of President Obama.

Check out video of the conversation below:

Rove Responds To Trump: Not A Serious Candidate (But ‘Let Him Get His Attention’)

It must be tough for Donald Trump to keep track of the many comments he is receiving from all over the political spectrum about his potential candidacy for President. Karl Rove is one persistent critic who Trump already responded to once, but now Rove is striking back again and sharing some advice he provided to Trump’s people that apparently wasn’t followed.

Rove took exception to Trump claiming that President Bush (and by association, Rove) were responsible for President Obama being elected. Rove said “I think Obama gave us Obama” and then commented on Trump’s strange campaign strategy:

“If he wants to run down George Bush and ask for the Republican nomination, I don’t think that’s a winning strategy. And if he wants to base his entire campaign upon whether or not Barack Obama was really born in the United States, that’s his privilege. I just think it’s a losing strategy and I think it’s beneath him.”

Rove also disputed that Trump’s approach is working, instead suggesting the poll results showing that Trump is leading the Republican field should not be trusted. Rove declared, “let him get his attention on the Apprentice, but I just don’t think he’s doing the things necessary to be taken seriously by the American people.” Instead Rove advised someone close to Trump that when journalists ask about the birth certificate issue, Trump should quickly move on and discuss other topics. However, it seems Trump still can’t resist, as just this morning he suggested he would make public his tax returns when Obama does the same with his birth certificate.

Watch the clip below from Fox News:

Some Might Take Trump’s Candidacy Seriously, But Now That The Media Does, He Could Be In Trouble

“We don’t know anything about Obama!

That has been the rallying cry of some of the President’s detractors ever since he became a serious candidate. His supposedly “mysterious” past has haunted him his entire first term. However, it’s interesting to note that the candidate who’s been gaining the most from the fabled blank pages in Obama’s biography, Donald Trump, is a man with no mystery. People know everything about Trump. And a lot of it, on first glance at least, doesn’t look good. So how could he become President?

This is the question proposed in an intriguing editorial by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. Do we know too much about Trump for him to be a serious candidate?

“American political life is doing away with the back story. Increasingly, politicians are becoming religious types, Eagle Scouts who mastered all the knots, a monasticism leavened only by the occasional martini. They do not stray. They avoid midlife crises. They came out of the womb with certainty, avoided acne, married the first girl they dated and went on to make a fortune in something or other.

Then there’s Trump. He is all back story. We know his flops. We know he curses. We know his women. We know he lies. We know he has bad taste — in buildings, in ties, in associates (the late Roy Cohn, for instance, and now Roger Stone). He did not treat his wives well (according to them) and Ivana, in particular, retaliated by enlisting the New York gossip columnists. And now we must add this nonsense about Barack Obama possibly having been born outside the United States. Trump’s a birther. Why not? He’s everything else — and, anyway, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”

Cohen clearly isn’t a fan of Trump’s, but this is a big problem for his possible candidacy. Don’t believe it? Just look over at Reddit where a popular news story is the description of this 1998 law case:

“Vera Coking, an elderly widow from Atlantic City, knows firsthand the power of unaccountable government agencies. The Institute for Justice successfully defended Vera against the condemnation of her home by a State agency that sought to take her property and transfer it—at a bargain-basement price—to another private individual: Donald Trump. Trump convinced the State agency to use its “eminent domain” power to take Vera’s home so he could construct a limousine parking lot for his customers—hardly a public purpose. And unfortunately, cases in which government agencies act not as protectors of constitutionally guaranteed rights, but instead as agents for powerful, private interests, have become all too common.

Thanks to IJ’s advocacy, Vera Coking won in court and continues to enjoy her home of more than three decades.”

Yes, in the early 90s, Trump (or rather his company, not that it matters in a presidential election) tried to take away an old lady’s house so he could build a parking garage for limousines. Remember when the McCain campaign thought they could derail Obama because of a simple comment he made to Joe the Plumber that alleged to demonstrate he was a socialist? Yeah, imagine how much traction this story can and will get.

I’m not making a judgement call on Trump the man, just Trump as a candidate. The fact of the matter is, you can become super rich by one of two ways. Either you can have the money given to you or you can work hard and make it all yourself. Unfortunately, the second option almost always requires you to screw over a whole lot of people on your way to the top. It’s just a fact of life. Since Trump lost most of the money he got from his family and then made it back, he’s gotten rich both ways. While that’s impressive, it also means that there are a metric ton of stories out there that make Donald Trump seem like a royal ass. Same thing goes for any super rich person (seen The Social Network lately?).

But Trump isn’t just a rich businessman. He’s also a celebrity businessman. So not only are there bad stories about him out there in the boardroom, there’s also bad stories from the gossip pages. Cohen’s piece opens with a quote from a 1990 Vanity Fair profile which repeated Ivana Trump’s claim that Trump likes to read a book of Adolf Hitler’s speeches that he keeps by his bed. There’s a huge chance this tid bit is entirely false. However, this is what Trump gets for being the only candidate that had huge magazine profiles quoting from his divorce proceedings.

At least I think he is. I haven’t read every profile ever written of Newt Gingrich.

The point is, In America, we expect our politicians to basically be spotless. It’s pretty dumb considering no human being is spotless but that’s the way it is. And, while George W. Bush may have partied a lot and Bill Clinton had some sex scandals bubbling up, no candidate in modern times has ever been a serious presidential candidate with as much skeletons free of the closet and in the public record as Trump has. This means one of two things. That he has balls the size of his bank account and just doesn’t care or, like people have been guessing this whole time, this is not a real candidacy.

Either way, it does make it ironic that Trump is spending so much time investigating the past of President Obama. Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe Trump is only sending investigators down to Hawaii so that, when the Obama campaign finds his dirt by merely using a simple Google search, he can proudly exclaim that at least his team put some damn effort in.

Ann Coulter: Donald Trump Would Be A Better President Than Barack Obama

While much of the political chatter across cable news centers around the current potential Republican candidates for President, Ann Coulter remains too busy taking on the incumbent President to delve too deeply into that pool. Telling host Sean Hannity that “it is way too early to be making predictions” on what the campaign landscape will look like last year, she reserved herself to one prediction: any current potential candidate– Donald Trump included– would be better than President Obama.

Coulter was on Hannity tonight to promote the latest edition to her oeuvre, Demonic (yes, the book is really called that). Hannity took the opportunity to ask her about her 2012 predictions, to which she responded with much grim news for President Obama. He won in 2008, she notes, because Obama was “a 14-year-old without a record”– every other Democrat who had one was unpopular according to her, whether it was “Clinton with the bimbo explosions” or Kerry’s Vietnam War controversies. “Americans tend not to like Democrats who have records,” she quipped. Given this, Coulter concluded, “Any of these [Republican candidates]– including Donald Trump– would be better than the current occupant.”

Coulter also took a moment to attack President Obama’s foreign policy using anti-Bush rhetoric: “Did Gaddafi hit us on 9/11?” she asked, calling the spread of troops in Libya and Afghanistan “typical Democrat foreign policy, just spreading the military across the globe.”

The segment via Fox News below:

Sarah Palin’s Website Redesign Reignites Presidential Rumors

With the 2012 Presidential race a veritable media circus since the Donald Trump birther parade rolled in, many have been wondering when his temporary eclipsing of presumed frontrunner last year Sarah Palin would end. Searching for a sign, Politico reported today that Palin had redesigned her PAC website, which is “the first move in sometime that will give oxygen to speculation that Palin is planning a presidential run.”

“The new site,,” writes Andy Barr, “is a necessary step if Palin intends to run for president and for the first time gives her organization the ability to interact with her supporters by providing a centralized location to collect data and solicit donations.” He highlights the email list in particular– something Palin did not have before– as well as its blog and social networking features. Coupled with her speech in Wisconsin on Saturday, Barr is highlighting it as a return to presidential campaign form for the former Alaska government.

It is true that, should Palin run, she would need the virtual infrastructure in this site and all of its grassroots amenities to do so. 2008 was a campaign defined by internet mobilization; 2012 will demand full understanding and dominance of the web. It is also true that her speech, vintage Palin with its folksy rhetoric, struck a nerve among a certain population on the right that identifies with her in a way that they had not connected to her in some time. But what is also true, and what Greta Van Susteren wryly points out on her blog today, is that her new website could also just herald in a new age for Sarah Palin in which she has a nice website. Just as presidential candidates would need to have interactive websites, so would activists like Palin who are recruiting volunteers and funds for other candidates. Claiming Palin is running for president because of her new website is like saying Michael Steele’s short-lived career as the editor of “What Up?” was a sign he would run for president, too. That said, it is a fairly smooth way of reentering a rather convoluted national dialogue to which Palin’s position could provide structure.