The Screaming Moderate

The most important election in the USA's history

8/9/2019

There is only one goal in the 2020 presidential campaign: Defeating Donald J. Trump.

Therefore, there is one issue in the 2020 presidential campaign: Donald J. Trump.

While I do not agree with the policy solutions offered by senators Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, if they become president I will find ways to oppose their solutions and offer better ones. That’s a better fight to me than fighting against what could be the ruination of this country as we know it under a second term of Trump.

Former Vice President Joe Biden so far seems to be fighting the battle on the issue of Trump. Sure he will have policy positions but, again, I’d rather fight over policy than over whether the President of the United States is a racist. Even though I think she is totally unqualified to even be a candidate for President, I’d rather get mad about Marianne Williamson’s focus on spiritualism as president than on arguing over Trump being in the pocket of the NRA.

Now that I think of it, I’d rather argue with a piece of gum over whether its flavor is spearmint, peppermint or bubble than argue about Donald Trump’s racist statements and splitting families apart on our southern border.

Don’t assume Trump can’t win election. He can.

If the battle is fought on issues, he could win because he has some good things to point to (the economy, regulations) and he will lie about anything if it helps him politically. If the battle is fought on how bad he is at appointing senior officials, he will blame others for their selection. If the economy peters out, it will be the Fed’s fault. If we can’t get a trade agreement with China, it will be because China won’t give us fair treatment. If it’s over crime, it’s because we let too many immigrants in or mental health. If it’s over gun control, it’s because guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

In short, he has an excuse for everything even if history or science or facts show otherwise. Example? Climate change. Every legitimate scientist in the world agrees climate change is happening and, despite what the President says, it will not change on its own like the weather.

He has enough that he can give shade to his record and maybe, again, fool enough of the people enough of the time.

But if the battle is fought on Donald Trump the Man, he loses. Most of the country has never approved of him personally, according to the polls. But if the question is job approval, according to pollster Nate Silver, Trump actually is climbing. His personal favorable ratings have always been low, well under 50 percent, but his job approval rating (a subtle but huge difference) has been sneaking upward lately. Silver says his job approval rating is up by about 10 percentage points since 2016. It’s still below 50 percent but don’t assume he’s hit his ceiling yet.

Why? Probably perceptions that the economy is doing well during his term (forgetting about when the improvement really started). The economy has remained strong though some say it’s showing signs of weakening, likely a result of Trump’s failed trade negotiations with China. But you’ll never hear that reason from Trump, who even believes, or at least says, China is paying his ridiculous tariffs. We are paying, through higher prices. Don’t believe it? Keep a close watch on the prices you pay for things. You’ll see.

We should have learned, and most of us did, about the destruction tariffs do to our economy with when the Hawley Smoot tariffs were enacted last century.

And don’t underestimate Trump’s ability to lie and have an impact. He’s very good at that. Not every American pays as close attention to the daily shocks that come out of the White House – they have lives to lead, jobs to focus on, and families to protect. Folks like me, and probably you, are very focused on his daily mistakes or his sidling up to dictators while turning his back to allies. Or his constant lying.

Nothing is more important right now than defeating Trump. You can debate over Biden or senators Kamala Harris or the others, but don’t get too attached. I know in your heart of hearts you want whoever runs against Trump to win.

And we’ll deal with whatever those consequences come along if the Democrat is elected. At least we won’t be fighting over the values that this country has shown to the world for more than 200 years. That is what gave America its strength and made it a magnet for people from all countries who want to better their lives, and their children’s lives.

That’s why if I were advising a campaign right now I’d be focused on one issue only – reminding voters what Donald Trump has done to this country. Reminding them he promised to release his income tax records but now says he’s not going to do it. If he released those records I have no doubt the American people would learn how he really makes or doesn’t make his money, how much money he really is worth and to whom he is beholden with loans.

Donald J. Trump is a very bad, nasty man – and I know I have Trump supporters who read this but please take an honest look at this man and his lack of empathy for anyone but himself. I know you like that he gives the finger to "the establishment." But just remember how many of his own appointees he has blamed for problems they did not create. And remember how he gave them the finger as they left. And, if he needs to, to build himself up, he'll give you the finger too. Loyalty is a one-way street in Trump's world.

Standing in front of the medical staff that just had gone through the worst few days of their lives, working long hours trying to save victims of a mass shooter in El Paso, Trump stood there quickly thanked them for all they did then pivoted to a riff on how big his … crowd was when he spoke in El Paso a few months ago.

And, by the way, he lied about the size of his … crowd too.

This is the most important election in the history of our country. And I do not say that lightly. In fact, if I were running any of the Democratic candidates campaigns, especially one of the leading ones, I would call a meeting of my counterparts and suggest we not criticize each other’s candidates except on policy. Not only should we all be putting country ahead of party, the candidates should put country in front of their campaigns.

The election is that important.

2 Comments

Are these debates just made for TV? What about the election?

8/1/2019

0 Comments

GPut aside, for the moment, the substance of the Democratic debates. CNN over-produced them, over-dressed them up and over-prettied up the Fox Theater.

From the veteran filled honor guard (with all due respect to their service) to the over-done stage makeover (of a really nice historic theater to begin with) – the production was, simply, over-done.

Understanding the challenges of developing a format that gives 10 candidates a fair shot at free air time to give the viewer an idea of what he or she stands for and the no-win situation of trying to stop them from going over those limits, it’s hard to figure out just who can beat Donald Trump from those debates. Which means, probably, Trump won the debates without even being there.

Dana Bash did the best job of trying to keep within the time limits by simply saying thank you while the very competent Jake Tapper failed at it, as did Don Lemon. I don’t know why that was. All three are very capable TV folks. But then again, maybe that shows the format doesn’t work.

The point of these debates, supposedly, is to give the voters a sense of who is their preferred candidate. Is it former Vice President Joe Biden, who looks tired on the stage and in his answers but still seems the best bet to beat President Trump, or Andrew Yang who chose not to wear a tie and noted that’s what we probably would remember about him. And he was correct about that.

On the substance, I’d have to say Sen. Elizabeth Warren (not my favorite candidate but you have to give that she clearly was the best prepared) “won.” But should these debates be about who “won” and who “lost.” Or should they be about determining who is the best candidate to run against Trump? They are not the same thing.

I must confess that I did not watch all of either debate. It almost hurt to watch as the candidates seemed to be playing verbal bumper cars rather than explaining why they are the best candidate.

I mean, how much can you stuff into a one-minute answer or a 15-second rebuttal? And why, anyway, does that qualify you to lead the free world? At one point I thought the goal was who would shout the loudest.

Also, how much time did their staffs spend trying to come up with the words that would give their candidate "a moment?" We are to decide who will be President based on a "'moment"?

I don’t know the answer other than to wait until the field is whittled down enough so we can get a good feel of each candidate. I read several of Marianne Williamson’s books years ago when I was trying to figure myself out. I found the books quite compelling. I do not see what makes her think she should be President of the United States. Or, for that matter, why ex-Cong. John Delaney thinks he should be commander-in-chief? Ego? An opportunity to build name ID so he can succeed again at something else? I don’t know…but he is not qualified to be the President, nor are many of the other 19 candidates.

If we believe the talking heads, and why not for sake of argument, Biden didn’t lose the debate, Sen. Kamala Harris held her own, etc. etc.

Personally, I want to learn who can best beat Donald Trump. The demographics are there for a Democrat victory, the public opinion polls indicate Trump will lose and has been deemed "unpopular" since the day he was elected, and those of us who want a President we can look up to are motivated to vote against him.

All we need is the candidate.

0 Comments

Defeating Trump is paramount

7/30/2019

2 Comments

In his two-plus years in office, President Trump has stomped on just about every institution in America, lied to the people and the world multiple times a day, tried to bully his enemies, bullied his “friends” in Congress into complete servitude and sullied the Office of the President. He has demanded loyalty from his appointees but not given loyalty in return.

This is not a good man.

He has been beholden to no man or woman but loyal to his base who accepts his behavior as taking on The Establishment, which they feel has ignored them for years and like his speaking “truth” to power.

He has not expanded his “base” at all and in fact may be losing some of those who voted for him but don’t like what they’ve gotten from his behavior and lies.

Imagine he wins a second term when: if he was beholden to no one in his first term – who would be a check on him in a second term?

So far, our American institutions have held. Courts are so far issuing justice and/but Trump and his cronies have been stacking the judiciary with their people, and without much media coverage. Voters flipped one House of Congress to be a check on the President in 2018 and now he ignores oversight requests, refuses to let his people testify in situations that likely would do him great harm, withholds records from Congress, which has a legal right to see them.

Still, the Senate is there to watch his back, and watch it they do – fearful that any opposition to him would cost them Trump’s base and, thus, their re-nomination to office. In a way the branches of government are split: the Judiciary and the House serving as a check on Trump; the Executive and the Senate controlled by a narcissistic man with no morals and who lies like the rest of us eat potato chips and who angers our allies and bows at the feet of the world’s dictators.

This morning, he claimed that he is getting “many” calls from the black community over his recent racist attacks on Congressmen of color and claims of Democrats “stealing billions of dollars” of federal money intended to help their constituents. Those calls, he claim, praise him for his telling the truth! Of course, he provided no proof of either the calls or the alleged theft of billions of dollars. One would think that if the theft were true, Trump would order his Justice Department to investigate. But, there is no such investigation.

Imagine, if you will, Trump winning a second term. Who would be a check on him then? He wouldn't need to worry about votes and he could consolidate power even more than he has, acting more like an authoritarian dictator than a democratically elected President of the United States.

And, he could win a second term. David Wasserman, an editor at the highly respected Cook Political Report, did an analysis that shows Trump could lose the popular vote by as many as 5 million – about twice the number he lost it by in 2016 – and still win reelection via the Electoral College if he drives his supporters to the polls in swing states.

Now, do you wonder why he plays to no one but his base? Without them, he has no chance to win re-election. His base is not racist but a sufficient amount (white nationalists for example) are that he plays the race card lately whenever he can. It’s only 2019. Are you ready for another 18 months of such behavior?

A second term would mean Trump would be accountable to no one.

He knows his base has to be brought out for him to win.

The rest of us (a majority of the population) need to adopt the same attitude. Not only do we need to coalesce behind a Democratic candidate to make sure he or she wins the nomination. The battle for the nomination shouldn’t be over progressive or moderate solutions to the nation’s problems but over who can defeat this monster of a president and provide leadership for the entire country to get behind. Likely that means a more moderate candidate, but the nomination process is just at the beginning. Time will tell.

The fact, though, is we should not assume that Trump will lose the election. We should do whatever we can – including, most importantly, going out to vote -- the foundation, today, of our democracy – to make sure his is a one-term presidency.

2 Comments

Just the facts, ma'am

7/24/2019

0 Comments

Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a strategy for his dual appearances on Capitol Hill today: He wanted to make it clear that his investigation did not exonerate President Trump and, as promised, he would stick to the four corners of his report.

He accomplished both, refusing to engage in any response that would lead him to read from his report or to give a clear sound bite (other than the exoneration matter) that would have a long shelf life.

At the morning session he appeared old and a bit out of it. But if you listened closely, he followed every question and responded to them well with precision. He may have said “not in my purview” or “not in my jurisdiction” or whatever but that wasn’t him dodging questions, it was him doing as he said he would – sticking within the four corners of his report and his mandate.

At times he couldn’t hear the question or identify from whom it was coming but if you’ve ever been in Congressional hearing room, you’d recognize that challenge, especially a hearing as crowded as these were.

He seemed more engaged in the second session, getting his sea legs, but he said nothing he didn’t want to say all day as a way of sticking to his role as an investigator, not a decision maker.

His entire day was summed up in the first 10 minutes of the first hearing when House Judiciary Chairman Nadler asked precise yes or no questions and Mueller was able to state why weeks ago he challenged Attorney General Bill Barr's announcement of the investigation's conclusions. Barr had said the investigation turned up no wrongdoing by Trump, which turned into Trump’s “no collusion, no obstruction” mantra.

Mueller clearly said his report did not exonerate the President. With that, it was truly "mission accomplished" for Mueller.

With that, you probably could have skipped the next several hours of questioning.
So, through that statement, through his avoiding, as requested a couple of times, reading from his report and by not offering up a sound bite, he won’t become the poster boy for the next election but he also did what Bob Mueller does – stating what his investigation demonstrated in clear terms: It did not clear the President of wrong doing. Nor did it convict him. He just reported the facts, ma'am, and followed Justice Department policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

He is the model G-man, and he continued that reputation today.

0 Comments

Trump isn't sending us back, he's setting us back

7/18/2019

0 Comments

Chants of “send her back” at President Trump’s political rally last night did not start spontaneously. Someone from his campaign, I’m sure, started yelling the ugly phrase and the crowd, stirred up by Their Leader’s rhetoric, picked it up. Much like that “lock her up" chant of 2016.

When I read about the chant this morning, I literally cried. I didn’t watch his rally because I figured I’ve seen it all before. His comment the other day of “go back to where you came from,” was racist. The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission specifically cites the phrase as the type of language that could violate anti-discrimination employment laws.

For his packed house of rally-goers to pick up the chant enthusiastically demonstrates that Trump is taking our country to the brink of destruction. He manipulates his supporters to reach his ends. Trump comes alive when surrounded by his supporters and he takes cynical advantage of them to perpetuate his politics of hate.

Many politicians have been labeled “Machiavellian” over the years but Trump could have authored the book. Nothing is more important to him than winning -- or his perception of winning. No American ideal or tradition or even law is beyond his violating and leveraging to his ends.

Consider a few quotes from Machiavelli:

“It is better to be feared than loved.” (Listen up, Republicans in Congress)

“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.” (His Cabinet members have the half-life of a gnat)

“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance will not be feared.” (Pick anyone he's selected to be the target of his anger)

See what I mean?

Someone Machiavellian is defined as "sneaky, cunning and lacking a moral code."

See what I mean?

In modern psychology, Machiavellianism is the name of a personality trait characterized by “a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality, a lack of empathy and a focus on self-interest and personal gain.”

See what I mean?

It truly is imperative this man be defeated next year. Given a second term, we can see where our country is headed. At the moment, Trump has no fear because he pays no consequences – neither Republicans in Congress nor his base weaken their support no matter what he says. That soothes him. He probably could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

With another full term we all can see the destination he’s leading us to -- destruction of the greatest country the world has ever known.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been right to avoid too much talk of impeachment or to allow articles of impeachment to be drawn. She knows that without bi-partisan support and the support of the American people, impeachment will fail.

Only the 2020 election can stop him.

The question is no longer “how low will Trump stoop,” the question is how long will this country allow him to trample on our values, traditions and laws?

0 Comments

' What have you got to lose?"

7/16/2019

0 Comments

Toward the end of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign he made a plea to African American voters. He asked them: “What have you got to lose?”

If any one of those voters couldn’t answer that question then, and weren’t certain of their answer a week ago, they now know the answer: Everything.

Some in the media and talking heads are asking why some in the media are calling Trump’s racist tweets targeting four brown-skinned women in the Congress were racist. That is the press’ job, to report honestly and objectively. It isn’t a judgement. It’s a fact. Telling Americans to “go back to their country” is a phrase that goes back decades. It is established as a racist comment. (Those of us of a certain age will recall during the 1960s being told "My Country Right or Wrong." Not a racist comment but a just as ridiculous one.)

The President has shown his prejudices many times during his life, let alone his campaign for and during his presidency. I won’t go through the litany. Others are doing a good job of reminding us of his Mexicans are rapists comments, his "that judge is prejudiced against me because he’s Mexican" comment, and on and on.

As bad as his making these comments, he is doing it not because of the fact that he is a racist but for political gain. Clearly, he thinks that by making the four brown-skinned congresswomen the face(s) of the Democratic Party that he gains an edge in his reelection campaign. News Flash, Mr. President: You’ve already locked up the White Supremacist/racist vote.

The four Congresswomen have some way out there positions on issues and I agree their policies are too far a step. But argue their policies. Trump wants to make Democrats the party of brown-skinned people and Socialists.

I can’t imagine anyone who has brown skin voting for Trump – though I’m sure some will for whatever their reasons. I can’t imagine anyone who is an immigrant or comes from immigrant families (all of us) voting for him. But some will, whatever their reason. Some of those reasons are the economy. Some are conservative judges being appointed. Some are that he gives the appearance that he speaks truth to power.

The weak-kneed Republicans in Congress who have yet to condemn his comments are another story. Why do they hold back their criticism (which most of them have)? For partisan political gain.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell is running for reelection in a state (Kentucky) that gives Trump higher positive ratings than they give McConnell. He’s afraid to alienate those voters. As are the other cowards in his caucus. For partisan political gain.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – like her or not, she is one smart leader – quickly came up with the idea of forcing Republicans in the House to vote on whether they should condemn the President or not for his comments by recommending a resolution condemning Trump’s tweets and comments.

My guess: Most will stay with the President on this.

For short-term, political gain and long-term destruction to this country.

0 Comments

He was presidential, for 20 minutes

7/4/2019

0 Comments

The first 20 minutes of President Trump’s July 4th speech were just fine (well, after he was introduced to the stage by a flyover of what is normally Air Force One). Well written and very well delivered.

Then, though, he began his introductions of each branch of the military’s flyovers. That’s when he took the celebration of our country’s birth and turned it into his own celebration of our country’s military might.

While our military is mighty and has served us more than well over the years, the 4th really is supposed to be more about our values than our might.

He finally gave himself that tribute he wanted ever since France paraded its might, properly, on Bastille Day in Paris when he was visiting.

So, while he didn’t do his typical off the cuff speech about how great he thinks he is and how much he thinks he’s done for the country, he did wrap himself in our heroes in the military for an hour tonight.

Had he wrapped his speech after those first 20 minutes, he likely would have won praise for not fully hijacking the Fourth and truly giving a speech that reach presidential standards.. But, he still couldn’t stop himself.

Let’s hope we get back to the traditional Fourth next year. Our birth is worth celebrating. Our power to kill is not.

0 Comments

Trump Diplomacy at work

6/30/2019

1 Comment

President Trump’s behavior at the G-20 meeting in Japan may have hit a new low mark, even for him.

He sat with America’s biggest enemy – Russia’s Vladimir Putin – and, when asked by a reporter if Trump would raise Russia’s meddling in our election in 2016 pointed a playful finger at the Russian side and mockingly reprimanded them. telling them not to meddle in our elections again! A fine laugh was shared by the leaders, a schoolgirl kind of giggle over their little inside joke. Clearly Russia will meddle again and clearly Trump knows (now if he didn't in 2016) that interference can only help him.

It was obvious that Trump at some point would say, see, I told Putin not to mess with us so quit asking me. And, indeed, in a press conference later he said about the exchange, “you have to look at the words.” Yes, sir, but you also have to watch the video – you said it with a laugh. I have a feeling that Putin took it, as did millions of others, as light-hearted banter and not a serious rebuke.

Next, as he said “thank you,” signaling the photo opp was over and the media should leave, he leaned again into his BFF Putin and said “fake news,” pointing at the exiting media and telling Putin “you don’t have that problem” or words to that effect. To which Putin, ever the joker himself, responded “yes we do.” A riotous remark because Russia does not have a free press and Putin literally has had killed some of his critics in journalism in Russia.

Trump had breakfast with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman who is alleged by a global investigation and our own intelligence agencies as the one who ordered the killing and slicing up of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In referring to this cold blooded killer Trump called him a “great man” and good friend of the United States.

Next, he tweeted out that he was going to visit the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea and playfully tweeted that if Kim Jong-Un, the North’s dictator and murderer-in-chief, wanted to meet him there for a handshake, that would be cool. Kim accepted the allegedly spontaneous offer.

Trump produced, then, what he thought would be a world-shattering photo opp of him stepping over the demarcation line, with Kim escorting him 20 steps into North Korea. The first time a sitting U.S. president has done that.

This, indeed, produced a historic photo opp for the leader – that leader being Kim who has been leveraging Trump for all he’s worth (not as much as he claims) to give him (Kim) legitimacy in the world. You’ll note that Kim says quite positive things about Trump – playing to the President’s ego and narcissism – but has done absolutely nothing about denuclearizing his country. He also speaks not so kindly about the secretary of state and others. Trump, of course, takes the fact that Kim has ordered no new nuclear tests as evidence of his diplomatic brilliance. Which he certainly can take some credit for until Kim does his next test and when that happens, you’ll see Kim no longer complimenting Trump.

Put those examples together and, even for Trump, it was the quickest one-two-three-four punch combination he’s ever mustered. But who was he punching? The murderers he met with or We the People and our allies?

Trump’s next big scheduled event is kidnapping the country’s formerly non-partisan celebration of the birth of our nation and turning it from a Tribute to America to a Tribute to Trump.

Ever since he witnessed a parade of military members and equipment in France, Trump has wanted his own such celebration. He’s going to get it on July 4.

He’s moved the fireworks to a new location and will deliver a speech during the party previously reserved as a joyous celebration of the birth of the greatest country the world has (had) ever seen. It’ll delay flights from Reagan Airport for security reasons and to make way for a Trump-ordered flyover of Air Force One, and it will close traffic on a main bridge to the District of Columbia, inconveniencing tens of thousands trying to make their way to celebrate our country and likely disappointing children who just want to see the fireworks and not hear a political speech.

Trump is making the Fourth a celebration of Trump. Not only unsurprising but making it appear that hundreds of thousands of people have made their way to Washington to celebrate Trump. He will no doubt take credit for the big turnout despite the fact that they were coming anyway and, in effect, he kidnapped them.

I know there are many Trump supporters out there. I know a few actually read this blog. I ask you: “You may support his presidency and approve of his policies. But do you really support his endorsing murderers (Putin, Bin Salmon, Kim) and his kidnapping what was a joyous, patriotic day of no politics and making it his own?” I mean, his campaign doesn’t even have to try to build a crowd – the fireworks crowd is baked in the cake, for heaven’s sake.

Fine with me if you agree with his policies. He won the election and has the right, of course, to put in policies he thinks are good for the country. Did his policies have anything to do with the economic recovery that started years before he was even nominated? Probably. Deregulation was greeted happily by the business community. It upset years of regulation aimed at keeping our environment clean and rules protecting workers, but it also likely contributed positively to t he economy.

But again, do you really support Trump putting his arm around three international murderers literally within hours of each other, joking with them as you would a neighbor at your holiday barbecue?

I know you think it’s fun when he hammers the free press, and sometimes they deserve it, but do you really want what Trump wants – a media that only lauds him and hides his bad side? Do you really accept a President who praises tyrants and murderers while talking down to our decades-long allies?

If you do, skip the celebration of the Fourth of July and enjoy the Tribute to Trump.

1 Comment

Sarah, we definitely knew ye

6/18/2019

0 Comments

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is winding down her final days as President Trump’s press secretary. Many would say “good riddance.” Some might ask, “Who comes next?”

The fact, believe it or not, is we probably will never do better than Sanders in this Administration. She has established the standard for a successful Trump press secretary: willing to lie about anything to please an audience of one.

Whoever follows her now knows what will make them successful – be willing to say anything that will make Trump a happy fellow. No one else matters. Nothing else matters: not the truth, not the fact that your salary is paid by the taxpayers not by the President, not being respectful toward those reporters trying to do their jobs. And knowing that beforehand means you will lie for him because you know that's a job requirement.

Sanders admitted lying when she told the special counsel that during a televised briefing she had heard from “countless” FBI employees positively when Trump fired the FBI director. She admitted to the special counsel this was a “slip of the tongue” – probably the biggest literal slip in history. It’s not like a word was off in an answer. She flat-out made the whole thing up. But she's lied hundreds of other times.

Having served as deputy press secretary to two presidents and head of press operations for a Cabinet member, the White House press secretary job, BS (before Sanders), served many important purposes. He or she was speaking for the United States Government and the President of the Free World. It was an important job. Markets paid attention to every word. Foreign governments, too.

As a Cabinet press person, you looked to the daily briefings for guidance on issues you often talked about. As staff to a press secretary you were meticulous in finding out the truth before handing the press secretary talking points to answer questions, not wanting to give false information.

Often, the daily briefing set the agenda for the day for the Administration. Often, in your research for the truth, you came upon facts that countered what a Cabinet official was saying and you served as an early warning to the President that something was amiss. You never wanted to offend the Cabinet member, but you wanted to be sure you spoke truth.

For Trump, tweets have replaced the daily messaging purpose the briefing served. He literally is his own press secretary and communications director, as we know.

Have other press secretaries lied? Probably, but not to the extent Sanders does. To her, a lie is a first option. To other press secretaries it was a response, that if you felt you had to lie, you’d probably resign first or convince the President and the chief of staff of a different, more honest answer. Call that “spin” – a word I always hated because it came to be perceived as lying. It isn’t. “Spin” is putting the best light on a dark situation. You can “spin” without lying.

Were there reporters the press office didn’t like in the past? I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say there are reporters who weren’t as respected for their fairness (OK, that may qualify as “spin”). But were there reporters the press staff went out of their way to insult? No, not until this press secretary.

She has set the office back decades. She has ended the daily briefing. Now, I always thought the briefing could be improved, but I never thought it should be abandoned.

For one, when I was in the press office, we didn’t allow live TV coverage of briefings unless it served our purpose – a statement we wanted on camera so the press secretary was delivering the message directly on TV – say a bombing, or a message to a foreign leader. Mike McCurry, one of the best press secretaries to serve, opened the briefings to live TV during President Clinton’s term. And it served McCurry’s purposes at that moment in time (defending his boss during the Lewinsky matter). Later, it did not, but once you do it live, it's hard to stop because the TV news folks think you're taking away something they need (you are). McCurry today would say he made a mistake opening to cameras as a habit. My old boss, another of the best -- Marlin Fitzwater -- only opened briefings when it served our purpose.

Of course when McCurry opened the briefings, the only cable news network was CNN and there weren't the now prolific 24/7 talking heads filling up the airtime which also changed the nature of the press briefing.

When you are live on TV, you sweat each answer much more. The media, too, changes personalities. Off camera briefings typically were more serious and the occasional joke taken in context. There was good-natured give and take. On camera, you joke only if you think it serves a purpose – say to change the environment in the briefing room. Live, some correspondents grandstand for their bosses or the public. Do it the wrong way, and that footage is repeated forever on TV.

Bottom line: the public loses when there is no briefing. They lose because they aren’t getting the information they deserve for their tax dollars. The Administration also loses because often, to get a concrete answer ready for the briefing, you might speed up a decision process; or drop a potentially embarrassing topic from the policy review. You also can't go "on background" or "off the record", which serves a useful purpose sometimes by giving more detail than you can say on the record. On TV, you can't be on background. So, the reporters often lose a useful tool to better give their stories context.

Instead of using the briefing room, Sanders and others have taken to "briefing" in the White House driveway -- a dump alternative for press purposes.

So, Sarah Sanders may have killed off forever one of the most important traditions the government has had since the Eisenhower presidency – a way to hear the truth about what’s going on with their government. Obviously, that isn't a priority for this Administration.

So, Sarah, let me say on the record: thanks for nothing.

0 Comments

What's not to believe?

6/12/2019

1 Comment

In these days of a President who lies often and a mainstream media that is giving its best available version of the truth, it is very difficult to know what’s going on.

President Trump has more than 10,000 documented instances of lying, according to the Washington Post’s Fact Checker. The media, on TV and in print, slowly are learning how to fairly out the President’s lies. In headlines running under him as he speaks live. Saying "that isn't true" both in print and on TV.

What are we to believe?

Take the recent negotiations with Mexico over how to deal with illegal immigration (and legal too it seems) at our southern border. The Mexican government gives their version of what happened. President Trump gives his, including an alleged secret agreement with Mexico. The media reports it all, sometimes relying too heavily on unidentified sources because the media trust little of what Trump says. (I’d say this isn’t too different than they’ve covered other presidents but it is definitely more intense now.)

Who’s to blame? As in most situations, there is blame to go around.

The President lies. That is documented. So it is difficult to rely on his version of events even when he may be telling the straight-up truth. The media are even more questioning of the president because the president is known to lie, as do many of his appointees, including the White House press secretary.

I tend to believe the mainstream media when I’m in doubt. That’s partly because I’m a former journalist and partly based on years of being a government/political spokesman where I had more facts than I do now to judge a news story’s accuracy. Still, sometimes, of course, the media are wrong. It is not a science, it’s a craft.

Donald Trump has lied so often that too many, including me, believe nothing of what he says. That does not bode well for when the country is in a crisis – which we could be at any minute with North Korea or Russia or China. In those circumstances in the past, we’ve always looked to our President as the one to tell us what’s going on. With Trump’s track record, who’d believe him? I do not say that lightly.

That’s the problem. In this negotiation with Mexico, yesterday Trump pulled from his jacket pocket a piece of paper that he claimed was the “secret agreement” he has with Mexico that will be triggered on only his say so. Of course, he didn’t release the document so for all we know it was his grocery list (I jest). An enterprising Washington Post photographer got close enough to take a picture and it seems the document is an agreement of some kind signed not by Trump but by lower level government representatives.

For those of you sitting back and saying “all presidents lie,” I’d say no president – whichever party – has lied so much that he has no credibility in the bank with most Americans (yes, I know, Richard Nixon. But do you want to be even near him on a list of truth-tellers?) – or even I imagine most of his fellow Republicans in the Congress.

So, it isn’t a straight up (“binary” as they say now) choice between Trump and the media for who’s telling the truth. The media definitely get it wrong sometimes. Trump definitely lies, a lot.

Yesterday he talked about receiving a “beautiful…warm” letter from Kim Jong-Un. But he, of course, couldn’t show it. He said he had a fabulous, secret agreement with Mexico, of course, he couldn’t show it. The Mexican government denies any secret agreement. (By the way, did I mention that in high school I dated a gorgeous world-known model who wrote to me every day, but of course I can’t give her name nor can I show you those very private letters?)

These are not good times for our democracy. Trump attacks the media as the “enemy of the people” which some of his followers believe. He does this so that he, to that base, is the source of all truth and facts.

It’s too bad this is such an issue – truth v lies – because it distracts us from the serious things going on – North Korea, Russia, China (not to mention health care, drug prices, living wages, to name just a few). But the President does tell us everything is a way better since he was elected.

What’s not to believe in that?

1 Comment

<<Previous

The most important election in the USA's history

Are these debates just made for TV? What about the election?

Defeating Trump is paramount

Just the facts, ma'am

Trump isn't sending us back, he's setting us back

' What have you got to lose?"

He was presidential, for 20 minutes

Trump Diplomacy at work

Sarah, we definitely knew ye

What's not to believe?

Archives

B. Jay Cooper

powered by bjaycooper.com