Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

TRUMP AND THE PRESS: THERE HE GOES AGAIN


Donald Trump began fighting with the news media as a 2016 candidate. At rallies, he leveled the charge “fake news” at
mainstream media organizations and reporters who challenged his actions or statements. That has continued since he took office. Now, in addition to attacking the press generally, Trump seems to have saved his most vitriolic and disturbing attacks for women reporters and minority women reporters.

Trump’s behavior threatens American democracy, demeans his office, and brings
closer the fears of encroaching fascism former State Secretary Madeleine Albright cautioned us about in her 2018 book Fascism: A Warning. The president’s treatment of the press underscores the need for removing him from office five months from now. 




Special Disdain for Women
Though Trump does berate male reporters from time to time, recently he’s saved special invective for female journalists.
During news conferences and coronavirus task force briefings, Trump has said very unpleasant things to women attending and working at those meetings.  They include:


·    Calling one female CBS correspondent “fake” and “disgraceful.”


·    Telling CNN’s Abby Phillips, “You ask a lot of stupid questions.”


·    Saying to another female CNN reporter that, “You’ve had enough” when the woman tried asking a question.


·    Once telling ABC’s Cecilia Vega, “I know you’re not thinking. You never do.”


Such insults produced former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson’s description of
Trump as a “misogynistic jerk.” She added that he treats women reporters differently than men and in a way that’s “horrible.”

Saving Real Vitriol for Minority Women
Soon after becoming president, Trump began insulting female reporters of color. He had
an early run-in with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks, asking her if she could arrange a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus. She wrote a book, Under Fire: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Trump White House, in which she accused him of discriminating against minority journalists.

Trump later started a feud with Yamiche Alcindor, a black woman who once worked as
a reporter for The New York Times but now appears on the PBS News Hour and serves as an MSNBC contributor. Trump has asked her to be “nice” and not “threatening.” On several occasions he wouldn’t answer questions from her that seemed no more hostile than questions white male reporters ask.


Trump berating reporter Yamiche Alcindor 

Most recently, Trump seemingly profiled a CBS reporter of Asian heritage, Weijia Jiang, telling her she should “ask China” a question about his early downplaying of the corona-
virus. She called him on that, asking why he directed such a statement at her. He later said she should “keep her voice down.”


The Ryan, Alcindor, and Jiang incidents suggest Trump believes he can bully minority
women reporters at will. Trump’s attacks on women journalists, including minority women, no doubt helped encourage a recent report by the Committee to Protect Journalists that described Trump’s war on the press as “dangerously under[mining] truth and consensus in a deeply divided country.”


Trump goes after reporters of all stripes who don’t work for Fox News. He calls them names, insults their intelligence, and denigrates the  organizations for which they
work. Recently, for example, he took on The Washington Post White House Bureau Chief Phillip Rucker, co-author of A Very Stable Genius, a book highly critical of Trump’s actions as president.


Secretary Albright wrote “The advantage of a free press is diminished when anyone can claim to be an objective journalist, then disseminate narratives conjured out of thin air to make others believe rubbish.” (p. 114).  We would add that destroying the credibility of the free press represents the first step in that process. Clearly, Trump wishes to bestow credibility on the part of the press that supports his conduct and attack the part that dares criticize him. 


Time for Another Warning
Earlier this year, in a post titled From Russia With Love 2.0: American Democracy, Autocracy, Plutocracy, or Fascism? we cited Secretary Albright’s warnings about the fascist threat in light of new reports concerning Russian plans for interfering in this year’s presidential election. Trump’s
attacks on the press, particularly by targeting women and minority journalists, require that we turn to Secretary Albright once more. On the press issue, she asked, “If the president of the United States says the press always lies, how can Vladimir Putin be faulted for making the same claim?” (p.5).  Later, she noted how “contagious” anti-press behavior becomes. Not long after Trump excluded prominent reporters from his news conferences, other governments began taking actions against reporters who wrote stories those governments didn’t like and called them “fake news.” (pp. 212-13)


We can’t stress enough how strongly we believe Trump’s attacks on the press threaten American democracy as much or more than other actions he’s taken. The fact he picks on and insults women, especially women of color, just makes it worse. We can’t let our outrage wane though his persistent, destructive behavior continues unabated. A “new “normal” is too dangerous.


We’re reminded of the wisdom in Thomas Jefferson’s 1787 observation that, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

We’ve often pointed out the many reasons the American people must remove Trump and preserve the democracy we’ve painstakingly built over almost 250 years. Trump’s press interaction, especially with women reporters, ranks right at the top.       

Thursday, March 19, 2020

THE DEMOCRATIC RACE: THE SANDERS EXIT STRATEGY


HOW SHOULD JOE BIDEN TREAT BERNIE SANDERS?

With four more primaries in the books, the odds appear even greater former Vice President Joe Biden will win the Democratic presidential nomination. The delegate math, and the calendar, make a comeback by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders almost impossible.
Biden on March 17 won primaries in Florida,
Illinois, and Arizona (Ohio postponed its scheduled primary until June due to coronavirus concerns). By the middle of the next day, it appeared Biden had a pledged delegate lead of almost 300 over Sanders. That may not seem an insurmountable margin since nomination requires 1991 delegates. The upcoming primary schedule, however, and the current dynamics of the race, make it unlikely Sanders can overtake Biden.
We offer Sanders some thoughts on his course going forward. Each of us has different advice for him.  

The Daunting Math
Twenty-eight contests remain between now and the end of the primary season in June. If the candidates split the remaining unallocated delegates, an unlikely scenario, given Biden’s advantages in certain places, he would still have a delegate lead of nearly 200 going into the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee. Sanders has said whoever enters the convention with the most delegates should get nominated, even without a 1991 majority.

An even split going forward would require a big change in the race. Biden has major
advantages in some upcoming primaries. Nate Silver of 538.com says Sanders needs a 20-point surge in the polls within the next week for any chance at getting nominated. That almost certainly won’t happen. What should Sanders – and Biden – do?

Henry: Work Behind the Scenes
I’m all for Biden reaching out to Sanders and his forces in a bid for party unity. But I think
this work should proceed quietly, outside the limelight. I certainly think Sanders should endorse Biden as a first step in an all-out unity campaign aimed at putting in place as fast as possible an effective plan for beating President Donald Trump. Both Biden and Sanders should treat that as Job I. Everything else is secondary.
 
Biden owes Sanders courtesy, respect, and
space for shutting down his campaign at a pace he finds comfortable, so long as that pace does not needlessly draw out the primary process. Beating Trump requires building an exceptional campaign infrastructure and the clock is ticking. The sooner Democrats start construction, the better.

Rob: Civility and Respect and That’s All
An old saw about wars holds that the winners write the history. Bernie Sanders should remember that as he contemplates what concessions he seeks from Joe Biden as the price of unifying the Democratic Party in 2020. Biden won; Sanders didn’t. Woodson’s list of demands he thinks Sanders should make, while laudable, sounds like an attempt at rewriting the history of this primary season. Biden won, in part, because Democrats – especially blacks and white
suburban women – rejected Bernie’s “revolution” and opted for someone who could put out the fire Trump started that now threatens the foundation of the American nation.

I’m all for welcoming Bernie’s supporters into the larger Democratic campaign. I hope Biden will hire some of his talented campaign staff, especially the people who masterminded his on-line fundraising effort. I hope Biden will, at all times, treat the Sanders forces with the dignity and respect they’ve earned by running such an effective campaign.  But, they –and Sanders himself—are not entitled to more than that. I hope the former vice president will resist promising anyone the moon. If elected, he has serious work ahead of him and he needs a minimum of encumbrances as he sets about that work. 
     
Woodson: Force Public Commitments
Elizabeth Warren has not endorsed Biden, though he has been the prohibitive favorite
for the nomination since the March 3 Super Tuesday primaries. Nevertheless, during the March 15 debate, Biden said he would choose a woman running mate and promote liberalizing the bankruptcy laws – all
Warren campaign positions. If Rob thinks Biden’s pronouncements were not the result of negotiations with Warren, I have a bridge in
Brooklyn to sell him. Biden needs Warren’s
 enthusiastic support to win the White House and knows it. She did what smart politicians do. She got Biden’s public embrace of her issues. She will offer her support soon enough.

Like Warren, Sanders has spent countless hours and millions of dollars in this
campaign. He also ran in 2016. Sanders will not drop out or throw his support to Biden without getting commitments from Biden on issues important to him, i.e. increasing the minimum wage, medical insurance for all, and free or subsidized college education.  Sanders has a right and a duty to his supporters to extract these concessions.
                           
Unlike Rob, I do not see the Democratic Party’s primary season as analogous to war. It’s more analogous to a debate among
business partners. Business partners seek common ground, not each other’s destruction. They have already agreed on the goal of the business (the Democratic Party). That goal is unseating Donald Trump for the good of America. To suggest that Sanders supporters are “welcome in the larger Democratic campaign” reminds me of how racist whites once spoke to black Americans. “You’re welcome in America as long as you do as we say!” That
attitude got the Democrats beat in 2016 and will beat them again in 2020. With all due regard to Henry and Rob, Sanders’s supporters deserve more than “courtesy and respect’ or “dignity and respect. Biden should treat them as partners.