Tom Cotton: Media only questions Republican presidents' mental fitness

[mystery-ak]

Tom Cotton: Media only questions Republican presidents' mental fitness
by Kyle Feldscher | Jan 7, 2018, 1:24 PM

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton believes the media only targets Republican presidents with questions about their mental fitness for office.

Cotton said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday that the new book from author Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, is another hit in a long line of journalists questioning Republicans’ fitness for office.

“The media made similar claims about Ronald Reagan and George Bush what they all have in common they are Republican presidents,” Cotton said. “When I’ve worked with the president, the people around him, and Republican senators, he's been an active, engaged and an effective leader.”

more
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tom-cotton-media-only-questions-republican-presidents-mental-fitness/article/2645229

[edpc]

“When I’ve worked with the president, the people around him, and Republican senators, he's been an active, engaged and an effective leader.”

Who cares?  Tell us about his crease.

[Cripplecreek]

Only because Trump is nutcase.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Only because Trump is nutcase.

Why?  Exactly why?

[jmyrlefuller]

Why?  Exactly why?

If you haven't figured it out by now, after all this time, you never will.

[anubias]

Why?  Exactly why?

Because reading the entire article is hard for some.

[jmyrlefuller]

Reagan actually had Alzheimer's, Senator. And of all the things I've heard about George Bush (the elder or the younger), this level of derangement was never even discussed. You can bet that pretty much any Republican President might have been attacked, but not like this, because he INVITES this with his own behavior.

Why no Democrats? Because the sociopathy that people like Barack Obama and Andrew Cuomo have actually deceive and manipulate people so that they are hesitant to say anything about it.

[Right_in_Virginia]

If you haven't figured it out by now, after all this time, you never will.

No, have some faith @jmyrlefuller ... I've read over and over again here that the President is nuts.  But, I've not been given supporting documentation for the statement.

Give it a shot, please.  Thanks.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Because reading the entire article is hard for some.

I'm expecting the more success the President has in pulling together the GOP Congress to work as a team, @anubias , the louder this drumbeat will become.

We just can't tolerate effective leadership from a Republican president.   ^-^

[anubias]

I'm expecting the more success the President has in pulling together the GOP Congress to work as a team, @anubias , the louder this drumbeat will become.

We just can't tolerate effective leadership from a Republican president.   ^-^

The word that must not be named is here in abundance.  Sometimes I think it would be better to just vacate and let it die.

[Concerned]

Of course, the media is questioning Trump’s mental stability.  Why?  There’s little “normal” about this Presidency and his reactions to things:  from the childish name-calling to the petty squabbles to the public fights within his own party.  An entire book was written by mental heath professionals questioning his mental stability.  Now, more recently, another book written by someone granted access to the White House brought up the same questions.    As he was being elected, 64% thought he lacked the temperament to be President with a quarter of those actually voting for him also questioning his temperament (according to an NBC exit poll).  He’s done little to assuage those who feel that way IMO.
 
Even members of his own party have questioned his stability.  During the campaign, Senator Lindsey Graham said:  “I think he’s a kook.  I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office.”  In August, Senator Bob Corker said:  "The President has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful."  In October, Senator Jeff Flake said the President takes “reckless, outrageous and undignified” stances that endanger democracy.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Of course, the media is questioning Trump’s mental stability.  Why?  There’s little “normal” about this Presidency and his reactions to things:  from the childish name-calling to the petty squabbles to the public fights within his own party.  An entire book was written by mental heath professionals questioning his mental stability.  Now, more recently, another book written by someone granted access to the White House brought up the same questions.    As he was being elected, 64% thought he lacked the temperament to be President with a quarter of those actually voting for him also questioning his temperament (according to an NBC exit poll).  He’s done little to assuage those who feel that way IMO.
 
Even members of his own party have questioned his stability.  During the campaign, Senator Lindsey Graham said:  “I think he’s a kook.  I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office.”  In August, Senator Bob Corker said:  "The President has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful."  In October, Senator Jeff Flake said the President takes “reckless, outrageous and undignified” stances that endanger democracy.

Says it all. Right there.

Suicides Rise Dramatically With Increasing Psychiatric Care.
http://psychroaches.blogspot.com/2014/09/suicides-rise-dramatically-with.html

[Mesaclone]

Of course, the media is questioning Trump’s mental stability.  Why?  There’s little “normal” about this Presidency and his reactions to things:  from the childish name-calling to the petty squabbles to the public fights within his own party.  An entire book was written by mental heath professionals questioning his mental stability.  Now, more recently, another book written by someone granted access to the White House brought up the same questions.    As he was being elected, 64% thought he lacked the temperament to be President with a quarter of those actually voting for him also questioning his temperament (according to an NBC exit poll).  He’s done little to assuage those who feel that way IMO.
 
Even members of his own party have questioned his stability.  During the campaign, Senator Lindsey Graham said:  “I think he’s a kook.  I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office.”  In August, Senator Bob Corker said:  "The President has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful."  In October, Senator Jeff Flake said the President takes “reckless, outrageous and undignified” stances that endanger democracy.

A mental health professional who comments on the mental fitness of a person...while never having spoken with that person, nor having any clinical data from in-person psychiatric evaluations of that person...is nothing more than a complete and utter quack.

Further, citing his political enemies and people from his party who he has politically crushed...really not a rational source either. Its like taking the word of an ex-wife as to how good a man was as a husband. Its ludicrous, and yet you cite these as credible sources. What does that say about your analytical abilities? About your critical thinking?

You're one correct point is that this is not a normal presidency. Trump turned over the apple cart just as the Far Left thought it was establishing permanent tenure in the highest seats of our government...and they are wildly pi$$ed about it. And yes some establishment Repubs who thought they'd latch on to that ascendant liberal tenancy in the "swamp"...are equally bitter.

The man is a Sam Adams, not a John Quincy...a street brawler with a big ego who just keeps tossing punches and getting down in the mud to fight the pigs...and thank god for him, or we'd be in year 2 of what would truly be the most corrupt, dishonest...even tyrannical...presidency in the history of the Republic. He doesn't take tea with the Rockefellers, he winks at his own picture on the wall, and he takes joy in trolling the Fahrenheit 451 crowd (the Liberals).

So if he ain't your cup of tea, so be it...but then again, its not his job to "assuage your feelings".

You'd darn well be wise to acknowledge that its his ugly, orange mug...wielding a tweeting cell phone in his sword hand...that is standing in the breached wall of our teetering Republic, holding back the rising swamp water of leftist bureaucracy and stemming the ugly red tide of the media/academia stained tide of extreme liberalism.

Its not time for pretty...its time for a crude son of a b!tch holding the rampart.

[Concerned]

A mental health professional who comments on the mental fitness of a person...while never having spoken with that person, nor having any clinical data from in-person psychiatric evaluations of that person...is nothing more than a complete and utter quack.

Further, citing his political enemies and people from his party who he has politically crushed...really not a rational source either. Its like taking the word of an ex-wife as to how good a man was as a husband. Its ludicrous, and yet you cite these as credible sources. What does that say about your analytical abilities? About your critical thinking?

You're one correct point is that this is not a normal presidency. Trump turned over the apple cart just as the Far Left thought it was establishing permanent tenure in the highest seats of our government...and they are wildly pi$$ed about it. And yes some establishment Repubs who thought they'd latch on to that ascendant liberal tenancy in the "swamp"...are equally bitter.

The man is a Sam Adams, not a John Quincy...a street brawler with a big ego who just keeps tossing punches and getting down in the mud to fight the pigs...and thank god for him, or we'd be in year 2 of what would truly be the most corrupt, dishonest...even tyrannical...presidency in the history of the Republic. He doesn't take tea with the Rockefellers, he winks at his own picture on the wall, and he takes joy in trolling the Fahrenheit 451 crowd (the Liberals).

So if he ain't your cup of tea, so be it...but then again, its not his job to "assuage your feelings".

You'd darn well be wise to acknowledge that its his ugly, orange mug...wielding a tweeting cell phone in his sword hand...that is standing in the breached wall of our teetering Republic, holding back the rising swamp water of leftist bureaucracy and stemming the ugly red tide of the media/academia stained tide of extreme liberalism.

Its not time for pretty...its time for a crude son of a b!tch holding the rampart.

I don't believe I posted anything that indicated I consider those books as being "credible sources".   They ARE sources (and have even briefed members of Congress), and the media has covered them.  That was my point.  After all, this thread is about the media critiquing the President's mental heath.  Most of the media coverage I've seen has been covering other's comments about the President's mental health:  folks like those I identified in my previous reply including some Republicans.

You say I've only had one correct point. I believe everything I posted was factually correct.  If something wasn't, I'd appreciate you identifying what it was with your source of correction.  Thanks in advance for that.

For those who want crude, I can understand why Donald Trump is their man.

[Mesaclone]

I don't believe I posted anything that indicated I consider those books as being "credible sources".   They ARE sources (and have even briefed members of Congress), and the media has covered them.  That was my point.  After all, this thread is about the media critiquing the President's mental heath.  Most of the media coverage I've seen has been covering other's comments about the President's mental health:  folks like those I identified in my previous reply including some Republicans.

You say I've only had one correct point. I believe everything I posted was factually correct.  If something wasn't, I'd appreciate you identifying what it was with your source of correction.  Thanks in advance for that.

For those who want crude, I can understand why Donald Trump is their man.

Play coy if you want. You cited those books in support of your larger point about the President's mental health...as citing what you knew to be ridiculous sources would make zero sense.

What is false are the implications and connections you establish by stating "Of course their is little “normal” about this Presidency and his reactions to things..." then IMMEDIATELY cite two books, clearly intending them to support your assertion. You neglect to note that both sources are ludicrous. You follow this up by also noting that "members of his own party have questioned his stability" Again, obviously, in an attempt to support your original assertions about the President...and again, neglecting to note that the "members of his own party" that you cite were members of the establishment AND people he crushed politically. So you clearly have, through implication, while citing comically biased sourcing...strived to make a case that the President's mental health is in question. THAT is what is not correct in your post...and as that was the theme of your post...feel free to do the math.

[Concerned]

Play coy if you want. You cited those books in support of your larger point about the President's mental health...as citing what you knew to be ridiculous sources would make zero sense.

What is false are the implications and connections you establish by stating "Of course their is little “normal” about this Presidency and his reactions to things..." then IMMEDIATELY cite two books, clearly intending them to support your assertion. You neglect to note that both sources are ludicrous. You follow this up by also noting that "members of his own party have questioned his stability" Again, obviously, in an attempt to support your original assertions about the President...and again, neglecting to note that the "members of his own party" that you cite were members of the establishment AND people he crushed politically. So you clearly have, through implication, while citing comically biased sourcing...strived to make a case that the President's mental health is in question. THAT is what is not correct in your post...and as that was the theme of your post...feel free to do the math.

This thread is about media coverage.  I think just the fact that 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts assessed a President based on his public persona was news in and of itself.  The fact that the book’s editor briefed members of Congress was also newsworthy IMO.  Wolff’s book has gotten a lot of media attention also, driven somewhat by the President’s comments, tweets, cease and desist letters, and threats of “imminent lawsuits” (which apparently weren’t all that imminent).  Similarly, when members of his own party question his mental stability and call him reckless, that, too, seems newsworthy to me.  The media is covering these things because they are indeed news……..at least IMO. 

[Mesaclone]

This thread is about media coverage.  I think just the fact that 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts assessed a President based on his public persona was news in and of itself.  The fact that the book’s editor briefed members of Congress was also newsworthy IMO.  Wolff’s book has gotten a lot of media attention also, driven somewhat by the President’s comments, tweets, cease and desist letters, and threats of “imminent lawsuits” (which apparently weren’t all that imminent).  Similarly, when members of his own party question his mental stability and call him reckless, that, too, seems newsworthy to me.  The media is covering these things because they are indeed news……..at least IMO.

This thread was about Tom Cottons assertion that the media’s coverage of the “sanity” of THIS president and of GOP Presidents generally, was reflexive and grotesquely biased. Disturbingly, you then cited the very sources of absurd partiality that Cotton referred to...the 2 books in question...only you used them as if you were citing credible critiques rather than laughable tabloid garbage and political hack jobs. The media, contrary to your assertion and in harmony with Cottons, is covering this garbage not because it is credible or “newsworthy” but rather...because they themselves are not.

[Concerned]

This thread was about Tom Cottons assertion that the media’s coverage of the “sanity” of THIS president and of GOP Presidents generally, was reflexive and grotesquely biased. Disturbingly, you then cited the very sources of absurd partiality that Cotton referred to...the 2 books in question...only you used them as if you were citing credible critiques rather than laughable tabloid garbage and political hack jobs. The media, contrary to your assertion and in harmony with Cottons, is covering this garbage not because it is credible...but rather...because they themselves are not.

Yes, I cited the two books (one of whom's author was granted access to the White House by this very Administration) as well as quotes from 3 Republicans who have questioned Trump's mental stability/intellect/recklessness.  If you don't consider all that newsworthy, you're obviously entitled to that opinion.  I think the news media thought otherwise.  That's the beauty of opinions, we're all (still) allowed to have them (even if they disagree with Trump or his supporters).   Have a good night.   

[Victoria33]

There’s little “normal” about this Presidency and his reactions to things:  from the childish name-calling to the petty squabbles to the public fights within his own party.  An entire book was written by mental heath professionals questioning his mental stability.   

@Concerned

"The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President"
   Amazon $13.99

[jmyrlefuller]

A mental health professional who comments on the mental fitness of a person...while never having spoken with that person, nor having any clinical data from in-person psychiatric evaluations of that person...is nothing more than a complete and utter quack.

A mental health professional who did conduct such a study would be prohibited under HIPAA from saying anything about it in public.

Besides, if the insane one refuses to submit for testing, it does not make him (or her) any more sane. Caligula never had any psychiatric testing done on him, for example. Yet everyone knew he was nuts. They still do, nearly 2000 years later.

[truth_seeker]

Presidents Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney were the GOP's version of "normal," if normal is your preference.

And I do seriously believe many NTs here would have preferred to lose with normalcy instead win, with an unusual guy willing and able to do whatever it takes to first win then undo the mistakes of Obama.

And he did and he is. 

[Mesaclone]

Yes, I cited the two books (one of whom's author was granted access to the White House by this very Administration) as well as quotes from 3 Republicans who have questioned Trump's mental stability/intellect/recklessness.  If you don't consider all that newsworthy, you're obviously entitled to that opinion.  I think the news media thought otherwise.  That's the beauty of opinions, we're all (still) allowed to have them (even if they disagree with Trump or his supporters).   Have a good night.   

What’s newsworthy, is a consistent campaign by the media to “get” this President, after they spent 8 years striving to protect and elevate the very liberal Obama presidency. An absurd “study” by 27 random...and patently unprofessional...psychiatrists would be demeaned, mostly ignored, and consistently portrayed as a right wing plot were it aimed at a liberal President. Likewise for the laughable “insider” book from a known prevaricator with minimal real access. Asserting otherwise is either grossly naive OR simply an effort to smear.

A good night to you as well Concerned!

As for opinions...darn right we’re all entitled to them. And darn right, we’re NOT entitled to have our opinions free of criticism.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I just opened the 'Book' edited by Psychiatrist Bandy X Lee, RE: Diagnosis sans personal face to face interview, 3 days ago.

This is what I found in the Amazon Look Inside free sample.

I'm quoting my comment #23 from this thread:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=post;topic=298481.0;last_msg=1566549

"Had a real quick peek at The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump, edited by the Doc in question Dr Bandy X Lee, at Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-Donald-Trump-Psychiatrists-ebook/dp/B07262SJDC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1515385628&sr=1-1&keywords=dangerous+case+of+donald+trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dangerous_Case_of_Donald_Trump

The Forward by Robert J. Lifton is Titled:

"Our Witness To Malignant Normality"

And he's Off the Rails by paragraph 3, which opens with:

"I came to the idea of Malignant Normality in my study of Nazi Doctors."

3 paragraphs in and Trump is suffering from a mutated strain of Nazism.

Paragraph 4 jumps to the CIA using Psychiatrists and Psychologists to torture people.

Paragraph 5, comes the weasel-speak, But I'm not calling Trump a Nazi.

Paragraph 6, he's bloviating about political and ethical normal, IE:, This Is NOT what we're used to.

Paragraph 7 opens with, "But that does not mean we are helpless." Another flip flop.

Paragraph 10 concludes with:

"There have also been parallel examples in recent history who have promoted equally dangerous forms of normality in rejecting climate change."


And wait till you get to the Introduction by Dr Bandy X Lee herself, solid, zircon encrusted 24 karat, self aggrandizing tinsel.

"Possibly the oddest experience in my career as a Psychiatrist has been that the only people not allowed to speak the truth about an issue are those who know the most about it."

How? HOW do you as a Professional "Know The Most About It?"

Is it because of the deep and rich, rigorously scientistic heritage your entire field's knowledge base has been manured in?

https://psychroaches.blogspot.com/search/label/Theosophy


When you've got 'experts' like these to base your evidence of mental disorder on, the entire question is rendered moot.

Or for that matter ANY of the mental health professionals.

Psychiatrists And Psychologists Not Reliable Expert Witnesses
https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/11/psychiatrists-psychologists-reliable-expert-witnesses/

[Frank Cannon]

@Concerned

"The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President"
   Amazon $13.99

Do you keep that on the same bookshelf as your Communist Manifesto, Maos Redbook and Algores global warming tome?

BTW, you are aware that shitstain Philip Zimbardo also posits in that book that Reagan was a mental vegetable for the second half, if not all of his term. If your tying your broken down wagon of Trump hate to that book, you have to take the whole load, not just the bits and pieces your dime store psychology dictates.

[endicom]

"I came to the idea of Malignant Normality in my study of Nazi Doctors."

3 paragraphs in and Trump is suffering from a mutated strain of Nazism.

Can't wait until she gets to Maoists.