Fox News Watch Panelist: Trump Is Good TV, Taking On Media’s ‘Arrogant Little Snots’

The Fox News Watch panel attempted to determine whether Donald Trump was an attraction or a distraction for the media and basically concluded the symbiotic relationship is both good for ratings and good for Trump. Yet although the conservative panelists enjoyed Trump arguing with many in the “elite media,” the liberal commentators worried journalists were wasting their time treating Trump seriously.

Kirsten Powers argued “the minute he started with this Birther stuff he should just be ignored” and given many of his other “crazy claims,” thought he should no longer be treated as a serious person. Jim Pinkerton disagreed and suggested Trump is raising other significant issues that “nobody in the elite wants to address” like what are we still doing fighting in Afghanistan? Furthermore, after showing a clip of Trump’s agitated interview on Good Morning America, Pinkerton declared:

“Trump is obviously good television. He’s saying to George Stephanopoulos and all the rest of them exactly what 2/3 of the American people would like to say which is ‘why are you these little arrogant snots making millions of dollars telling us what to think?’”

Rich Lowry agreed that Trump’s best characteristic so far might be his eagerness to take on anyone in the media. Lowry thought “the more disdain [Trump's interviewers] show for him and the more combative with him they are on the air, the better it is for him . . . people hate the media, they hate the establishment and even if this guy is a braggart and a joker and obnoxious, they love to see him sticking his finger in everyone’s eyes.”

Plus there’s something purely entertaining about watching someone so unpredictable and willing to say anything at anytime. Yet it remains to be seen whether Trump’s unique personality that makes him such a huge television draw would be able to be translated into any type of political success.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Fox News Watch Panelist: Trump Is Good TV, Taking On Media’s ‘Arrogant Little Snots’

The Fox News Watch panel attempted to determine whether Donald Trump was an attraction or a distraction for the media and basically concluded the symbiotic relationship is both good for ratings and good for Trump. Yet although the conservative panelists enjoyed Trump arguing with many in the “elite media,” the liberal commentators worried journalists were wasting their time treating Trump seriously.

Kirsten Powers argued “the minute he started with this Birther stuff he should just be ignored” and given many of his other “crazy claims,” thought he should no longer be treated as a serious person. Jim Pinkerton disagreed and suggested Trump is raising other significant issues that “nobody in the elite wants to address” like what are we still doing fighting in Afghanistan? Furthermore, after showing a clip of Trump’s agitated interview on Good Morning America, Pinkerton declared:

“Trump is obviously good television. He’s saying to George Stephanopoulos and all the rest of them exactly what 2/3 of the American people would like to say which is ‘why are you these little arrogant snots making millions of dollars telling us what to think?’”

Rich Lowry agreed that Trump’s best characteristic so far might be his eagerness to take on anyone in the media. Lowry thought “the more disdain [Trump's interviewers] show for him and the more combative with him they are on the air, the better it is for him . . . people hate the media, they hate the establishment and even if this guy is a braggart and a joker and obnoxious, they love to see him sticking his finger in everyone’s eyes.”

Plus there’s something purely entertaining about watching someone so unpredictable and willing to say anything at anytime. Yet it remains to be seen whether Trump’s unique personality that makes him such a huge television draw would be able to be translated into any type of political success.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Donald Trump Phones In To Challenge Eliot Spitzer On Net Worth Speculation

While other potential presidential candidates are doing their best to ingratiate themselves with the general American public, Donald Trump has adopted the bizarre and profoundly entertaining strategy of calling up his detractors in the media individually and making them explain themselves. Yesterday’s victim was Eliot Spitzer, who had mocked Trump’s financial hyperbole, and was now presented with the task of doing so to Trump on national television.

Unlike, say, his private conversation with Charles Krauthammer, Trump called up In the Arena ready for battle– given Spitzer’s history in New York real estate, this is not the first time the pair engage. Trump did not take Spitzer’s orders to “fire away” lightly: “One or two people called me up and said it was a very unfair piece,” Trump noted of Spitzer’s initial investigative segment, immediately articulating his disappointment with Spitzer. “I was a fan of yours,” he lamented, “and I was a little bit surprised to see you do a negative piece.” Noting the disappointment, Spitzer replied that he was still “a fan” and that “I love the bravado,” and ceded that, since Trump’s is a private company, much of his work was speculative.

Trump chipped away from there. “You don’t know where I come from or what I own,” he noted, and corrected his initial claims that his net worth had been valued by several banks to be billions of dollars lower that what Trump had boasted. Rather than Deutsche and North Folk Banks claiming Trump had “only” $750 million in net worth, as Spitzer claimed, Trump argued that this was a threshhold worth he had to meet in order to arrive at loans, such that the valuations were made with no real intent to chronicle his full worth. “This is many years ago… you had to have a net worth of over a certain amount in order to do a loan,” he explained. “Once the loan amount was hit, it didn’t make any difference what it was.”

Spitzer was unconvinced, but by the second and third times he tried to get Trump to admit the banks had valued him at significantly less than he boasted, the answers out of Trump were new boasts, like “I have built a great company” and “you’re wasting a lot of time on your show” with something that “you’ll find out, very likely soon.” Exasperated, Spitzer got straight to the point: “what is your net worth?” Trump wouldn’t say, but claimed it was “substantially in excess” of Forbes‘ estimate: $2.7 billion.

Spitzer’s confrontation with Trump via CNN below:

Factor Panel Debates Obama’s ‘Class Warfare’ Vs. Trump’s ‘Cult Of Celebrity’

With 2012 looming ever nearer, the economy is taking center stage in national politics, causing some concern over the possibility of “class warfare” erupting in protests and election booths across the country. On last night’s O’Reilly Factor, host Juan Williams played referee to radio host Leslie Marshall, who was convinced “we already have class warfare,” and Andrew Breitbart, who blamed the left for said animus.

“I’m worried about class warfare being played up into the summer,” a wary Breitbart noted with regard to the Democrats’ opposition to the Bush tax cuts and liberal rhetoric on sacrifices the rich must make, “making it appear as if every rich person is greedy.” He didn’t quite manage to convince Marshall of the danger, as she believed class warfare already existed as “the working middle class are being annihilated in America” while the rich pay little taxes: “the haves are not taking care of the have nots.” What Marshall saw as the President sticking to his word– “he has always said he did not want an extension of the Bush tax cuts”– Breitbart retorted was language that “demonized… the people who make the jobs,” which did nothing positive to the economy.

Looking to the future, it appeared, at least, that neither Breitbart nor Marshall was particularly happy with the rise of Donald Trump, at least as a real contender. Marshall, however, diverted from both Breitbart and Williams in seeing the possibility of Trump winning. “He’s got no experience, but a lot of celebrity,” she noted, highlighting that, there in California, they had already seen at least one “governator” take power based almost entirely on celebrity– “don’t underestimate the Donald!” Williams accused Marshall of being “Machiavellian” for encouraging his run, noting that it would almost certainly guarantee President Obama’s reelection. On Breitbart’s end, he didn’t even believe Trump was a conservative: “he was for Nancy Pelosi before he was against Nancy Pelosi,” he argued, though conceding that “celebrity is everything in this country.”

The segment via Fox News below:

After Another Lawrence O’Donnell Trump Rant, Guest Says, “We Need Something New To Talk About”

Lawrence O’Donnell does not like Donald Trump. And as he’s done so many times before (here, here, here here, and here), O’Donnell devoted some time on tonight’s Last Word to blast what he doesn’t consider a serious presidential bid. He detailed some of the reasons why on tonight’s program, but in a shocking twist, it seems hearing about Donald Trump is actually getting old for some…and guest Melissa Harris-Perry wasn’t afraid to say so.

O’Donnell’s argument against the viability of Trump’s candidacy was three pronged tonight: he contended that 1) Trump doesn’t have enough money to run an actual campaign; 2) Trump doesn’t have enough money that he can afford to miss out on his Apprentice paycheck (“Ask yourself why no other ‘billionaire’ is in the cast of an NBC TV show, or in the cast of any TV show, anywhere”); 3) Trump’s “fragile ego” couldn’t handle a loss.

One Biggest Loser pun later, O’Donnell welcomed guest Melissa Harris-Perry, who right away made her feelings on the Trump issue known:

“We need something new to talk about, Lawrence.”

They shared a laugh over that one, but the sentiment seemed genuine…and she’s not alone. Whether this actually leads to people not talking about Trump anymore, however, remains to be seen. Video, via MSNBC, below.

Keith Olbermann Tells Donald Trump to ‘FOK Off,’ and Denounces Wonkette

Those looking forward to Keith Olbermann’s installation of a new rear entrance for Wonkette in his Worst Persons segment might be a little disappointed in the web impresario’s denunciation of Jack Stuef’s Trig Palin story, but the segment is somewhat redeemed by Olbermann’s clever (so clever he hyped it in two separate tweets!) “special greeting” for Trump: “FOK off!”

Olbermann deserves credit for denouncing Wonkette early on Twitter, and to some degree, for devoting a third of his “Worsts” segment to denouncing the site, but this only gets a silver? And gets beat out by Trump v Seinfeld? How is Trump’s nasty letter to Jerry Seinfeld worse than attacking a three year-old child?

Olbermann starts off strong. He calls Stuef’s post “despicable,” calls his apology “half-assed,” and delivers perhaps his most scorching missive to Wonkette, comparing them to…print publications! (blood-curdling horror scream!)

But then, he shifts his criticism to the “legitimate question” of whether Palin uses Trig as a prop, and essentially slams Stuef for giving Palin one more thing to bitch about. Even if you buy this premise (I don’t), couldn’t Olbermann’s attack have launched without this extra payload? The guy crapped all over her baby, can you give it a rest for five seconds?

Olbermann finishes the segment amusingly enough, however, with a characteristically articulate takedown of Donald Trump’s feudlet with Jerry Seinfeld, and concludes by hanging a supernova-bright lantern on his sign-off joke.

“Keeping in mind that this is the FOK News Channel website,” he begins, “F-O-K, Friends Of Keith,…Don,” oh boy, here it comes! “FOK off!”

Keith, it’s the internet on line two. They want me to tell you you’re allowed to say “fuck” here.


Trump On Lying About Net Worth: ‘I’m No Different Than A Politician’

The Donald Trump 2012 pseudo-campaign is deeply rooted in two main points: “Barack Obama wasn’t born in America,” and “I’m really, really rich.” The first point has been loud and preposterous enough to take up most of the media’s time since Trump parachuted onto the political scene; tonight, Eliot Spitzer took a shot at his other campaign issue, finding millions of dollars in discrepancies between the size of Trump’s wallet and what’s actually in it.

Spitzer, no stranger to taking on New York’s more affluent residents, sat down with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on his show In the Arena today to make some sense of Trump’s financial situation as described by Trump. Toobin did not find any particular legal issues, but many political ones in “puffing up his net worth”: “the issue is, ‘is he telling the truth about how much money he actually has?’ and this certainly seems like a problematic valuation.”

The numbers Spitzer managed to dig up were damning: he valued his golf course complex at $360 million– about $330 more than it was worth three years prior– based on real estate that did not exist on the property, nor was in the process of being created. In fact, the number came from a 75-mansion complex that, currently, only existed in the form of six of those proposed mansions, three of which were sold. His million dollar speaking fees? Actually something more like $400,000, though Trump counted $600,000 in advertising as part of the package. As Spitzer put it, “still not a bad paycheck, but not a million bucks.”

And then there is Trump’s net worth which, according to Trump, appears to be somewhere around $3.5 billion dollars. In attempting to acquire loans, two banks did their own valuations and found wildly disparate numbers– North Folk Bank valuing him at $1.2 billion, and Deutsche Bank putting that number somewhere around $788 million. The accounting in the rest of Trump world showed a similar pattern.

But more damning than his numbers are Trump’s own words about how he arrived at them. Citing a legal deposition where he was asked whether he had exaggerated his net worth, Trump says, “I’m no different than a politician running for office… you don’t want to say negative things,” later adding, “I think everyone does.”

One of Trump’s biggest selling points to the cynical voting populace that will define the 2012 elections is that he’s “not a politician,” but businessman. Listening to himself say he is no different than politicians, in any capacity, is a self-inducing would that could bleed all the way to the closing of 2011.

The segment via CNN below: