Roger Ailes Is Advising Donald Trump Ahead of Presidential Debates
By MAGGIE HABERMAN and ASHLEY PARKERAUG. 16, 2016 link
Roger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman ousted last month over charges of sexual harassment, is advising Donald J. Trump as he begins to prepare for the all-important presidential debates this fall.
Mr. Ailes is aiding Mr. Trump’s team as it turns its attention to the first debate with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University on Long Island, according to four people briefed on the move, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
Two of them said that Mr. Ailes’s role could extend beyond the debates, which Mr. Trump’s advisers see as crucial to vaulting him back into strong contention for the presidency after a series of self-inflicted wounds that have eroded his standing in public opinion polls.
For Mr. Ailes, being connected with Mr. Trump’s campaign could be a form of redemption after he was pushed out of the powerful network that he helped build. And for Mr. Trump, having Mr. Ailes taking a hand in his preparations for the debates adds immeasurably to the messaging and media expertise in his corner — and could raise alarms within Mrs. Clinton’s camp about just how aggressive Mr. Trump plans to be in those encounters.
It was not clear when Mr. Ailes began helping the campaign. He resigned his post at Fox News on July 21 amid an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by former female employees that occurred after a lawsuit by the former anchor Gretchen Carlson.
It was also not immediately known whether Mr. Ailes, who received $40 million in an exit agreement with Fox News, will be paid for his work on the campaign, or how much time he will be devoting to it. Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is also not being paid.
Susan Estrich, a lawyer who is representing Mr. Ailes, did not immediately respond to an email inquiry and phone message on Tuesday.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, Hope Hicks, denied that Mr. Ailes was advising him in any capacity. Noting in an email that “Mr. Ailes and Mr. Trump have been friends for many years,” she said their relationship was being mischaracterized.
“They speak occasionally, which isn’t news,” she said.
Before he founded Fox News in 1996, Mr. Ailes spent years as a respected political strategist with a pit bull style. He was a top adviser to Richard M. Nixon’s presidential campaign in 1968, softening his hard-edge, unapproachable image.
He was also a sought-after debate coach, working with Ronald Reagan in 1984 and readying Vice President George Bush for debates with the Democratic candidate, Gov. Michael Dukakis, in 1988.
According to Gabriel Sherman’s 2014 book on Mr. Ailes, “The Loudest Voice in the Room,” Mr. Ailes played a crucial role before Mr. Reagan’s second debate with Vice President Walter F. Mondale in 1984. During a prep session, he asked Mr. Reagan, who had performed badly in the first debate, how he would handle being asked about his age.
The question came quickly, and Mr. Reagan’s answer, which went down in the annals of witty debate lines, effectively quashed the subject: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign,” he said. “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
In 1988, Mr. Ailes was enlisted for an image makeover of George H.W. Bush, urging the patrician Republican to model himself after the actor Gary Cooper. In debate prep, Mr. Ailes launched rapid questions at Mr. Bush to hone his reflexes, and directed the candidate to slow his sentences and deepen his voice, according to Mr. Sherman’s book.
Mr. Ailes also worked on lower-level political races including the unsuccessful New York City mayoral campaign of Rudolph W. Giuliani in 1989. Mr. Giuliani has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s most devoted surrogates in the presidential campaign.
Mr. Ailes and Mr. Trump themselves have a long relationship, although it became fraught at points during the GOP primaries.
Still, Mr. Ailes’s involvement is certain to stoke controversy, both for the ongoing sexual harassment cases and for the role that Fox News played in covering Mr. Trump’s candidacy — and elevating him as a potential presidential candidate beginning in 2011.
One of Mr. Trump’s longest-lived and highest-profile campaign controversies was a dispute with the Fox News host Megyn Kelly, with whom he clashed angrily beginning with the first Republican primary debate a year ago. Afterward, Mr. Trump implied that she had been agitated during the first Republican debate because she was menstruating.
Mr. Trump insisted that Ms. Kelly had treated him unfairly and berated the network for suggesting that she moderate at a later debate. The dispute led Mr. Trump to skip the final debate before the Iowa caucuses, which Ms. Kelly moderated on Fox News.
Notably, when Mr. Ailes left the network in July, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, denied suggestions that Mr. Ailes would be joining the Trump campaign — but the candidate left the door open.
Asked point-blank by Chuck Todd of NBC News on July 24 if Mr. Ailes was going to advise the campaign, Mr. Trump replied: “I don’t want to comment. But he’s been a friend of mine for a long time.” He called Mr. Ailes a “very, very good person” and said, “A lot of people are thinking he’s going to run my campaign.”
Mr. Ailes brings enormous experience in preparing for presidential debates, but his addition to Mr. Trump’s team also raises intriguing questions.
Mr. Trump’s support among femaile voters has eroded during the course of his campaign, after a number of incendiary statements.
Mr. Trump’s challenge during the crowded Republican primary debates was far less pronounced than it will be in what could be a head-to-head against Mrs. Clinton over 90 minutes. He was one of ten candidates onstage and could often filibuster his way through questions or avoid them entirely as his rivals consumed airtime — an approach that would be untenable in a one-on-one or even a three-way matchup including the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.
What is more, some of Mr. Trump’s worst moments in the primary debates involved Ms. Kelly and Carly Fiorina, the only woman vying in the Republican nomination contest. Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly swatted away accusations of sexism during the campaign, will likely require coaching on how to handle the potential first female president in a debate.
Whether Mr. Ailes can best address that concern is unclear. He is deeply familiar with Republican lines of attack against Mrs. Clinton, and with the controversies that have surrounded her and her husband going back to their days in the White House. But even before the sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Ailes, there were questions about whether he had adequately defended Ms. Kelly in her fight against Mr. Trump in 2015.
Interesting quote by Charlie Sykes on Donald Trump.
Quote:
We’ve basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There’s nobody. Let’s say that Donald Trump makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it’s a falsehood.
And I’ll say the New York Times did a fact check. And they’ll say, “Oh that’s the New York Times. That’s BS.” There’s nobody. You can’t go to anybody and say, look here are the facts.
When you spend decades telling people not to trust the media this happens. When those media outlets do provide actual concrete facts, people refuse to listen because it doesn't fit the narrative they have built up for decades. Chickens are coming home to roost.
The media has done its fair share to undermine its own credibility..
The other problem is the definition of "the media".. the media used to be about 4 TV networks and the major newspapers.. now it's 8 million bloggers.. they all get lumped in together as "the media".
I've seen plenty of folks say "the media is reporting".. then you check the source and it's Drudge or Salon or Breitbart or Newsmax or Infowars or ThinkProgress... are they "the media"? I mean just because you've heard of them and they have a snappy website, does that make them part of "the media"? I have no idea what standard of care these folks put into making sure they report accurately.. I can usually tell from the headlines that they exaggerate the headlines just to get the clicks..
The media has done its fair share to undermine its own credibility..
The other problem is the definition of "the media".. the media used to be about 4 TV networks and the major newspapers.. now it's 8 million bloggers.. they all get lumped in together as "the media".
I've seen plenty of folks say "the media is reporting".. then you check the source and it's Drudge or Salon or Breitbart or Newsmax or Infowars or ThinkProgress... are they "the media"? I mean just because you've heard of them and they have a snappy website, does that make them part of "the media"? I have no idea what standard of care these folks put into making sure they report accurately.. I can usually tell from the headlines that they exaggerate the headlines just to get the clicks..
There are no more Chet Huntley/David Brinkly's out there. No more Walter Cronkite either.
The news has always been commercial, but never to the extent it is today. MSNBC isn't real, neither is FOX or CNN.. Although CNN started out pretty good years ago.
They pick sides, FOX is more or less republican, MSNBC is more or less Democrat, and I have no idea what CNN is, but man they can really get out there.
I liked it when you could tell what was fact and what was opinion.
Remember when news anchors read the news, just the news. and they had commentators that would tell you their opinion, remember Andy Rooney? I didn't always like his comments, didn't always agree with them either, but at least he didn't try to pass them off as fact when what they were were his opinions (and more often than not, a humorous take on things)
I was on Facebook today, saw a mime where Mike Pence said something about the things that Donald trump says wouldn't hurt us nearly as much if the media didn't report it. Yikes right?
LOL Pretty sure that Pence never said that, but someone out there will believe it.
Last edited by Damanshot; 08/17/1604:19 PM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
My problem is that when you don't trust any source at all, how do you explain to someone what is factually correct that the person can't see for themselves? Turning everything into a mentality of "I need to see to believe it" is crazy to me.
For example, there are people very active in social media that believe the Earth is flat. Well if they reject science and what experts say because they don't fit what they believe, what do you do? Now this is a small group. However, in politics we're talking about millions of people. Then it becomes a major problem.
I applaud the idea of eliminating speaking fees, but all that means is they will have to get more creative in accepting under the table favors.
Also, just as an example of what I stated before. This is the type of person that is created when you reject all forms of science and think everything is a conspiracy.
The flat earth people are goofy, no argument there. I would add that neither side entirely embraces science. Religious conservatives have a history of rejecting science and that can be frustrating, but there is also science out there that is at direct odds with some liberal views and that science tends to get rejected out of hand, often with extreme prejudice.
As far as media and sources go, I believe there is one organization that has proven itself to be in a class of its own: Wikileaks. I say this due to the quality and importance of the information they release, and the fact that, to date, they have literally never released anything that has been shown to be wrong.
Certainly their reporting lately has hurt liberals more, but remember that they initially drew the ire of conservatives for some of their war videos along with releasing negative information about some conservatives. They are the ones archiving these emails in easy-to-reference storage, they are the lines leaking details of the TPP which Obama and other leaders inexplicably want to be passed in secrecy, they have exposed shady dealings all across the globe, etc. These are real, meaningful things that affect us all. Contrast that to what most mainstream media covers. It's a joke.
As far as verifying what the media does: I will say that I don't have the time or the energy to verify everything that I read or hear. I would say that I am tech savvy, I can gather information from a wide range of sources, and I can usually piece together what happened when mainstream media covers something. Put it this way, just take it as a rule from now on that mainstream media will be sloppy and biased and we'll leave it at that. I agree with those who say there is a liberal bias in the media (Fox News is an obvious exception). Also to add: a few of the 'fact-checking' websites out there are just as liberal as MSNBC.
Why do y'all keep complaining about "liberal" media?
I was gonna take it seriously, but then the site Briebart or however you spell it, did their own poll.
Briebart was complaining about the liberal bias in all these polls, because the favored Hillary.
So they did their own poll. The results on a conservative news source?
Hillary was beating trump.
The "fair and balanced" Fox News was complaining about liberal polls.
What did their own network pull for results? Hillary was beating trump.
At this point I take the "liberal media" rhetoric as nothing more than ad hominem. All it serves is as an excuse to ignore what was said simply because one doesn't like the source.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Fairly or unfairly, conservatives are labeled as science rejectors because the religious faction is a very loud voice. I feel this hurts conservative credibility at times in the eyes of undecided voters. When you have wackos that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, why would any sane person choose to identify with that?
I believe the Republican party would be actually smart in trying to distance itself from the extreme religious faction. That group will never vote for liberal ideologies. So Republicans don't have to fear losing that group and it adds credibility to them.
I was gonna take it seriously, but then the site Briebart or however you spell it, did their own poll.
Briebart was complaining about the liberal bias in all these polls, because the favored Hillary.
So they did their own poll. The results on a conservative news source?
Hillary was beating trump.
In some of those polls at the time, they had Hillary with an 8 or 9 point lead.. Breitbart showed her with a 5 point lead.. that is a fairly significant difference, even if it didn't put Trump in the lead.
I have shown how media bias works as many times as you have explained why drug laws are what they are.. if you don't think it's real.. whatever.
But at this point, it's become such a default response with a lot of people in this country that I wonder if it isn't necessarily the media bias, or just people being told its media bias.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
It is unfortunate that some of the people who would be most receptive to this message have already decided that Mr. Trump can't be president.
It's some nice lip service for sure. But maybe more people would be a lot more receptive to his message if he were to actually do it. Don't wait till your President to start something you could do today. Also, as a godless, American-hating, communist, gubber libby, no one cares about speaking fees. Congressmen use insider trading and are legally protected to do so. In fact, congress believes they are morally above insider trading. If you really want to change the landscape of American politics, then fix the STOCK ACT and prosecute our congressmen like they were poor urbanites. Here's a little anecdote for people. When Susan Rice was being nominated to be the Sec Of State she held a significant amount of stock in TransCanada, the builder of the Keystone pipeline. Now as Sec of State, Susan Rice would be the sole person to decide if the Keystone Pipeline should be built in the U.S. Thankfully for the US and every animal on earth, Rice got cooked on Benghazi and couldn't be confirmed as Sec of State. But again, she's not the only government official to hold stock in companies. Just because we missed her bullet doesn't mean we missed each one that's launched from the Capitol building. Even in clear cut cases like these, Donald Trump still falls waaaay short.
Talking about anti-media media, I'm surprised no one has posted about Steve Bannon becoming Trump's new campaign manager. Does Fox, CNN and the rest of the group not cover these sort of things? I honestly don't know. Haven't watched one of those conglomerates since the conventions ended.
I applaud the idea of eliminating speaking fees, but all that means is they will have to get more creative in accepting under the table favors.
Also, just as an example of what I stated before. This is the type of person that is created when you reject all forms of science and think everything is a conspiracy.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Well, for a bunch of people around the country who think Trump is a Clinton plant, we can certainly start making the case that maybe he's a Putin plant:
Is This Why Trump Is Changing Gears? Report Says Manafort Organized Anti-NATO Protests
A series of new revelations about Paul Manafort, the chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, may shed some light on why the Republican nominee decided he had to bring in some new blood. In stories published today by the Associated Press and the Times of London, Manafort’s work for the Moscow-friendly government of Ukraine in the years before it was overthrown is shown to have been more extensive than was originally known, and possibly counter to U.S. interests.
The stories build on a major New York Times revelation from earlier in the week that revealed Manafort’s name appears in a ledger the Ukrainian government believes documents illicit cash payments made by the Party of Regions, the political organization that backed deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort has denied accepting any illicit cash for his work in Ukraine.
Related: New Trump Campaign Team Suggests Even More Chaos to Come
In its report today, The Times of London describes a memo written by a Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated Manafort as determining that “he sabotaged US interests in Ukraine and encouraged Russian nationalism in Crimea.” The story adds:
The senior Ukrainian prosecutor alleges that in 2006 Mr Manafort orchestrated a series of anti-Nato, anti-Kiev protests in Crimea led by Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian Party of Regions — now designated a criminal organisation. The protests forced planned Nato exercises there to be cancelled. No charges were pursued because of a lack of evidence after Crimea was annexed. Mr Manafort did not respond to a request for comment.
The memo says: “It was his political effort to raise the prestige of Yanukovych and his party — the confrontation and division of society on ethnic and linguistic grounds is his trick from the time of the elections in Angola and the Philippines. While I was in the Crimea I constantly saw evidence suggesting that Paul Manafort considered autonomy [from Ukraine] as a tool to enhance the reputation of Yanukovych and win over the local electorate.”
The AP, meanwhile, reports that Manafort appears to have acted as an agent of the Party of Regions within the United States without filing the required disclosures with the Department of Justice -- a crime punishable by jail time and fines.
Related: Who Is Steve Bannon? 13 Things to Know About Trump’s New Political Guru
According to the AP report, Manafort helped the Party of Regions “secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party's efforts to influence U.S. policy.”
Among other things, the two firms were paid to lobby against legislation in the U.S. Congress calling for the release of one of Yanukovych’s political rivals from prison.
While there was no mention of Manafort’s activities in Ukraine in the announcement of a major staff shakeup by the Trump campaign late Tuesday night, the installation of a new campaign manager, pollster Kellyanne Conway, and a new CEO, Breitbart News executive chairman Steve Bannon, appears to be a significant demotion for the man who still retains the title of campaign chairman.
Trump has taken significant criticism for his admiring comments about Russian president Vladimir Putin and for his criticism of NATO. So it would be no surprise if the revelation of Manafort’s questionable dealings with a Kremlin-friendly foreign government and allegations that he helped organize anti-NATO protests in Ukraine spurred the decision to push his campaign chair into the background.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I applaud the idea of eliminating speaking fees, but all that means is they will have to get more creative in accepting under the table favors.
Also, just as an example of what I stated before. This is the type of person that is created when you reject all forms of science and think everything is a conspiracy.
We use to call those Acid trips bro
Sounds to me like satire.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Here's a sensible take about the polls that I pretty much agree with. Basically, it's possible/likely that there is some degree of bias in the polls or fixing the polls or whatever you want to say, but it's highly unlikely that they're all wrong. Trump is legitimately behind. Things can change. I do question the writer's continued insistence of a Trump landslide win. If he does win, it will probably be a close win.
He also mentions the Shy Trump factor and some other possibilities that I've mentioned on here before (a couple were ideas I got from him in the first place but most were not).
In my book – that you might enjoy because it is full of words – I talk about developing your own personal bullsh*t detector. I won’t rewrite that chapter here, but I’ll tell you how my own B.S. detector sees the accuracy of the presidential polls.
One of the things I look for when I’m trying to detect B.S. is to see if two or more sources of information are in agreement. The polls showing Clinton with a solid lead seem to be in agreement, so that is strong evidence that it is a true snapshot of current sentiment. Some polls could be biased, and probably are. But all of them? That seems unlikely.
Common sense tells me there are enough anti-Trumpers in the world that they might indeed form a solid majority at this point in history. That’s not impossible on the surface of things. Common sense does not conflict with the idea that Clinton is ahead.
Now consider the size of the gatherings for Trump rallies versus Clinton events. That suggests a huge under-polling of Trump supporters. But another explanation is equally credible: Trump is more entertaining. That alone could explain the difference in event attendance.
Trump also dominates on Internet engagement stats, and he does better with online polls than with phone polls. But that could be nothing but a sign that he has more energy on the Internet. It doesn’t directly translate to votes.
So what are the strongest arguments that the polls are wrong and Trump will win in the end?
Anecdotally, many Trump supporters know other Trump supporters who won’t admit their Trump support, even to loved ones, much less to pollsters calling their homes. It just isn’t safe to support Trump in many parts of America. I live in one of those places, and that’s why I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety. It’s just safer. (And yes, I am totally serious.)
The so-called Shy Trump Supporter is real, but we have no accurate way to measure them. Likewise, we have no way to measure people who haven’t yet been motivated to register but might later.
We also have to ask ourselves whether it is possible for all of the separate polls to be “rigged” in favor of Clinton. My B.S. filter says that whenever you have a situation in which there is a lot to gain, opportunity for cheating, and a low risk of getting caught, shenanigans always happen. So I expect, based on that universal law alone, that SOME of the polls are rigged and SOME of the actual election will be rigged as well.
But since all polls show Trump behind, and it is deeply unlikely that all polls are rigged, my best guess is that only the outlier polls are rigged, or at least inaccurate. Trump is probably down, but not as much as poll averages suggest.
My best guess is that Trump is genuinely behind in the polls, and unless something big changes, he will lose the election.
But something big always happens. Probably several big things will happen between now and November. And it might include one or more of these things:
1. New Clinton health issue or revelation
2. New Wikileak that is more damaging than what we have seen.
3. New Clinton Foundation revelations worse than what we have seen.
4. Trump makes an uncharacteristically empathetic speech that shows he can take advice, is not irrational, and that he loves all Americans.
5. The Shy Trump Supporter is really a monster size.
6. Godzilla changes sides.
7. I take sides.
8. A major terror event.
9. Trump outperforms expectations in the debates (especially the first one).
Anything can happen. But I think there are more potential shocks on the Clinton side because any bad news about Trump’s character or business dealings are already baked into the cake. He is virtually shock-proof. Clinton is not.
I still predict a Trump landslide, based on the 3rd act movie formula. Trump is in his deepest hole right now. This is when the surprise happens (next two months) if it is going to happen. He’s had other deep holes, but none as deep as this. This is the big one because time is running out.
—
For new readers, I don’t vote, and I don’t support the policies of either candidate. My political preferences are quite different from both. And I think it is insane to elect 70-year-olds to a job that requires so much energy and mental agility. You wouldn’t hire a 70-year-old for any other type of job that they had never held. Why does it make sense here? (Answer: cognitive dissonance)
Trump gave his best speech tonight. Gotta give him credit.
What was it about? I do try to listen to some of the speeches just to stay informed, but it's hard to listen to all of them when they normally run from 40 minutes to an hour or more.
But at this point, it's become such a default response with a lot of people in this country that I wonder if it isn't necessarily the media bias, or just people being told its media bias.
There is some but just like everything else, the more you look for it the more you will find it.. if you want to.
Some of it is really obvious and bad.. some of it is more subtle... and some of it is people crying wolf because they don't like the point the article is trying to make.
Trump gave his best speech tonight. Gotta give him credit.
What was it about? I do try to listen to some of the speeches just to stay informed, but it's hard to listen to all of them when they normally run from 40 minutes to an hour or more.
I saw a soundbyte where he admitted to making a mistake when speaking... so many topics/heat of the debate... something something. Going to dig that up tomorrow and watch it.
I also think it's smart he's visiting Baton Rouge and the flood victims. Not sure if he actually cares, but it looks good on his image.
So Trump is visiting Baton Rouge and the flood victims. Obama has been out golfing. Why does this seem so backwards? Maybe that's not fair-- every president vacations and it's really not even about him anymore. Where is Hillary?!
Yesterday she was meeting with police officials to “discuss the challenges and opportunities that exist on policing issues in cities across the country"
Yesterday she was meeting with police officials to “discuss the challenges and opportunities that exist on policing issues in cities across the country"
.... it's fixed. 