On January 12, 2017, I posted a piece about the January 11th press conference in which Donald Trump called CNN “fake news.” I reread my piece this morning, and I was amazed at how current it felt as I read it. It sounds like it might have appeared in yesterday’s newspaper.Read More
This headline probably already generated a half-dozen ideas in your mind, with one or two standing out from the rest. If you started a list, you could probably come up with a full dozen or more things about the Las Vegas mass shooting that are troubling.Read More
CNN—this time in a report by Mallika Kallingal—just can’t seem to refrain from shading the truth. They desperately want real evidence that Trump is a Putin pawn, but none has yet come to light. So they get three real former spies to comment on the situation and all of the spies’ comments support a much more relaxed take on the situation, at least implying if not outright saying that it is unlikely Trump or any member of his team actively “colluded” with Putin. CNN must not have been satisfied with that, because their introduction to the spies’ comments throws shade at Trump, but CNN is so good at it, that their shade is strong yet so subtle:
President Donald Trump's campaign and its alleged ties to Russia has been a big part of the political conversation this week.
There are new reports that Trump's associates may have coordinated with Russians before releasing information to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign last year. FBI director James Comey told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the FBI is investigating alleged links between Russia and the Trump campaign and the extent of Russian involvement in the American election.
Russia’s interest in the United States is not new. During the Cold War, Russian agents were planted on US soil to spy on the country, and many of them were caught by the FBI. CNN spoke to KGB and FBI agents about the Russia hacking allegations and how espionage has changed over the years.
These comments are innocuous enough, except for two things. First: any kind of positive summary of the three spies’ comments. In other words, the sort of color commentary CNN always gives if the evidence or interviews lean they way they like. Second: the articles linked. Oh, boy, you must read them, if you want to understand the angle of this (somewhat) objective report. Here are the links to the two articles (the links are also included in the quote above, exactly as the CNN article linked them):
- US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians
- Trump’s wiretapping accusation comes to a head at Comey hearing
It’s imperative that you read them also if you merely desire to understand why CNN—and others—desire so badly for Trump to be caught colluding with the Russians. Ask the questions. Please! Ask the questions. What is CNN trying to accomplish? It is most definitely not mere accounting of the truth—whatever Jake Tapper says.
Donna Brazile, folks:
“By stealing all the DNC’s emails and then selectively releasing those few,” she explained, “the Russians made it look like I was in the tank for Secretary Clinton. Despite the strong, public support I received from top Sanders campaign aides in the wake of those leaks, the media narrative played out just as the Russians had hoped, leaving Sanders supporters understandably angry and sowing division in our ranks.”
I did something wrong because I wanted to but now I’m going to blame someone else who actually had nothing to do with my wrongdoing but is an easy scapegoat because, well, Russia. I mean, c’mon, we all know they don’t like gays in Russia, right? You know that, don’t you? And if they don’t like gays, just imagine what else they’re capable of. If they only liked gays we wouldn’t have to be so hard on them. It’s their own fault, really. And it’s their fault anyone found out about me sending debate questions to Hillary. See how terrible they are? See how not liking gays leads to bad things? If Russia only liked gays, no one ever would have found out I sent debate questions to Hillary.
This is the kind of logical goop that actually hands the win to Donald Trump. Camila Mendoza says good manners don’t apply anymore. Isn’t that exactly what the Trump followers were saying throughout the campaign? Didn’t they say that the other politicians and media personalities no longer deserved to be treated with so-called good manners because they had lost that high ground long ago? Isn’t that exactly what many in the mainstream media—and many other Trump opponents—argued against? And now you’re handing that over to him?Read More
I think that this article makes an important point, that the substance of Donald Trump’s message is the same, despite the change of tone, but the article is so full of “exaggerations, lies, and policy [critiques] that contain no specifics,” that it fails the immediate test of consistency vs. hypocrisy and it will be meaningful only to those who already agree with it. Speaking to your constituency, pumping them up, can be useful, so there’s nothing wrong with taking a tone and making arguments that will convince only those who already agree with you. But consistency, logic, and substance are universal requirements.Read More
Directly hit up for big-dollar donations by Mayor de Blasio and his associates, the owner of a movie and TV production services company complied for fear that her business would be crippled if she failed to raise money for the mayor’s causes, her husband told the Daily News.
This is the subtitle (which is also a portion of the article):
At the current rate of progress, every media outlet other than Fox, Breitbart, a couple of other white supremacist outlets and a few doolally Christian networks will find itself banned from the building by Wednesday afternoonRead More
Dan Rather reacts to White House media ban, calling the move a “real and present threat to our democracy”
For all who excused Mr. Trump’s rhetoric in the campaign as just talk, the reckoning has come. I hope it isn’t true, but I fear Mr. Trump is nearing or perhaps already beyond any hope of redemption.
Sadly, Dan Rather has shown that, journalistically speaking, he himself may be beyond any hope of redemption. I pray to God—for Rather’s sake—I’m wrong.
Kurt Schlichter reminds us that there is a battle, and it is intense.
We know where the leftists want it to end, with us silenced and subservient forever, toiling to pay taxes for them to redistribute to their clients as they pick at, poke at and torment us. You look at the things Trump stands for and all of them are about lifting the yoke off of us—cutting taxes, slashing regulations, guaranteeing the Second Amendment, protecting our religious liberty, and safeguarding us from terrorists and illegals. But everything liberals want, everything Hillary ran on, is about clamping the yoke ever tighter around our necks—raising taxes, issuing more regulations, disarming us, limiting our religious freedom, and putting us at risk from terrorists and alien criminals. The whole leftist platform is about putting us down and keeping us down.
The obvious question is merely one of consistent application of principles, which unfortunately, most in the politically correct camp do not seem to have beyond their underlying religious principle: if it is politically correct, we hold these things to be self-evident.Read More
I originally found the article in the NY Post, so I’m leaving that link as the headline link, but here is the link to the original spot in the Washington Post’s Opinions section: The left’s hypocrisy on Trump’s ‘enemy of the American People’ comment. I disagree in some particulars with Thiessen, and some of those are significant, but they are less significant than the main thrust of the article. I recommend reading it when you have plenty of time to read thoughtfully and a few minutes to think reflectively when you’re done reading. We could all use some improved perspective regarding the political climate in America. Here are a few highlights from Thiessen’s article. It is worth reading entirely:
When President Trump tweeted that the news media “is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” the outrage on the left was palpable. That’s how dictators speak, they cried, comparing Trump to everyone from Lenin and Stalin to Mao and Mussolini. Former Obama adviser David Axelrod declared, “No other president would have described the media as ‘the enemy of the people.’ ”
No, not the media, just his Republican political opponents.
He immediately jumps into exactly who Obama called enemies and who Hillary Clinton called enemies.
I don’t recall widespread revulsion on the left when a Democratic president and Democratic nominee made these repulsive remarks. Perhaps they didn’t care, because the remarks were not targeted at the media, just Republicans.
But his point is not to cast aspersions at Democrats. His point is to reconcile Democrats and Republicans.
To be clear, it was an outrage when Obama did it. It was an outrage when Clinton did it. And it is an outrage when Trump does it. The Islamic State is an enemy. Iran is an enemy. North Korea is an enemy. Russia (yes, Russia, Mr. President) is an enemy. NBC News is not an enemy.
Members of the news media may be biased. They may even be an adversary, in the political sense of the word—“the opposition party,” as Stephen K. Bannon calls them. But our political opponents are not our enemies. They are our fellow Americans who disagree with us.
Please read the whole article. It’s worth your time.
I can’t say enough good about this piece. It is probably one of the best articles I’ve read about Trump this year—maybe even the best article I’ve read from the New York Times this year (that may not be as high praise as I first thought it was when I started to type it).
On most days, Mr. Trump is 90 percent of the news on my Twitter and Facebook feeds, and probably yours, too. But he’s not 90 percent of what’s important in the world. During my break from Trump news, I found rich coverage veins that aren’t getting social play.
The message of the article is something that all of us need to remember—and that some of us will need to be reminded of repeatedly.