CNN Panels Melts Down Over Trump's Rally And Bemoan The Speech Not Being "Unifying"
To celebrate his 100th day in office, which also corresponded with the White House Correspondents Dinner, President Trump skipped the dinner. Certain media outlets like CNN were considering skipping the dinner after Trump relentlessly called them "fake news" and upped the ante by calling them "the enemy of the American people." Trump, knowing that the media would either virtue signal and pull out of the dinner (leaving him there alone to be mocked by the media and left) or mock and attack him all night in a way they would never with Obama, decided not to attend - announcing it on Twitter on February 25th. He decided to hold a rally with the people who are the reason that he is in office as opposed to spending the evening with the people who tried to keep him out of it.
Trump held a rally in Pennsylvania, and knowing that the media was going to have an evening trashing him, he trashed the media. He went after the New York Times, The Boston Globe, and called MSNBC and CNN "fake news." The crowd chanted "CNN Sucks!" which was played live on CNN as they covered the event. He then touched on his accomplishments of the past 100 days that he felt the media didn't cover or give adequate attention to. He reiterated what he plans to do in the future and his campaign promises. He did all this with his usual Trump flair as though it was the middle of campaign season. The crowd clearly ate it up. CNN did not.
After the rally, I tuned in to CNN's coverage for the inevitable outrage. They were clearly not pleased. Trump supporters on the panel (there were 2 on a panel of 8) defended him, but the others on the panel were not so generous. The speech was called "divisive" and not something that would unify or bring the country together. They didn't believe it was something another President would give (that may be but that's part of why his supporters liked it).
DAVID GERGEN:
"I think he did move his base. He has solidified his hold with his base. He played to their fears and their chief concerns, and they have very legitimate concerns. I think he's been consistent about that. At the same time, you know, to bring your campaign speech into the Presidency is something Presidents rarely do. This was the most divisive speech I have ever heard from a sitting American President. Others may disagree about that. He played to his base, and he treated his other listeners, the rest of the people who've been disturbed about him or oppose him, he treated them basically as, I don't care, I don't give a damn what you think because you're frankly like the enemy, you're like the enemy with the press. I thought it was a deeply disturbing speech."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUTPpZMhaIs
PAUL BEGALA (lost it):
"He needs this affirmation from his base because he's a moral midget, and he's a deeply insecure person. He's haunted by the fact that the vast majority of Americans - 54% - voted against him. He lost to Hillary Clinton in the popular vote by 2.8, so he needs, he's a needy little baby. What needs as a President is to unify the country. He needs as a politician to expand his base. Okay, if you want to be small minded, he needs to expand his base as a politician, but as a President, he needs to expand..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHcgi62Hylk
This was an impressive meltdown by Begala. Be sure to pause the video at the 15 second mark. Hilarious screen grab and meme potential there.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM (seemed as though she might need a therapist, lamenting)
I am so, so sad for America tonight listening to this speech. I...if I think of like Republican Presidents...Ronald Reagan would never have given such an utterly divisive speech. He spent half the speech talking about the wall, that, reading that poem was HORRIBLE if you want to be a leader of an entire country. I mean, there are people probably who watched this who were hoping he would call us to something higher, and he took us right into that swamp. It may not be the swamp that he was talking about on the campaign trail, but I feel like I want to take a shower. I'm so sad for this country. I think of Barack Obama calling people to a higher place, calling them to something better. He called everybody to their worst, divisive instincts. I'm just...I'm sad."
Anyway, I KNEW that CNN would lose it after the speech. He (after all) derided them, and he didn't give the typical politician speech they have been accustomed to.
So they expected a unitive speech, not a divisive one? They wanted him to reach out to the people who don't support him and assuage their fears (many of which are unfounded and generated by media hysteria)? Really?
Dear Paul, David, and Jennifer and the CNN staff who are not objective but claim to be:
First, to Jennifer who spoke of Obama saying, "I think of Barack Obama calling people to a higher place, calling them to something better. He called everybody to their worst, divisive instincts."
Rick Santorum was right on in his response:
"That's just wrong. Barack Obama did not call us to our higher instincts." (Snip) "Barack Obama's Presidency was about condescending, he was condescending toward the very people that..." (Snip) "I understand how his language, his demeanor, and the way he talks offends everybody here, and it does offend me - I will be honest with you. But Barack Obama didn't offend you, and he deeply offended me. He deeply offended the people in that crowd because he spoke down to them. He didn't try to elevate us; he was morally condescending - calling people bigots and racists and people of faith - calling them out for their religious beliefs. You don't understand how agitated that base got with Barack Obama - just as agitated as you are with Donald Trump."
That's correct. Obama might have used the lofty political speak words in a speech, but the words fell hollow. While Obama could use the right words in a speech, his actions didn't translate. He spoke of unity in his speeches, but he told Eric Cantor, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” His actions were actions done 100% for his base, not the Republicans. His actions weren't unifying. If they were, then the Republican Party wouldn't have gained back all three branches of government and over 1,000 legislative seats. He failed to unite the country. It was already divided when Trump stepped onto the scene. Trump's candidacy may have helped show the division, but the division was already there. If Obama had united the country and his words had effect, they would not have lost those seats, Trump would not have won, and Obama would not have recentaly said that he regretted not being able to unite the country.
Let's divert from Obama, though, and to the issue at hand - Donald Trump:
Donald Trump realized something. You can't unite with these people. Most Presidents enjoy a honeymoon. Trump tried to be unitive in his acceptance speech. Guess what happened the next night? Protesters thronged the streets to protest the results of a free and fair election. CNN gleefully covered these protests. Then they contested the election results and donated millions for recounts. The recounts failed, so they instead tried to pick off electors. That failed as well, so they protested the Inauguration to the point of violence.
The day after the Inauguration they protested him across the country before he even had a chance to do a thing. They wore vagina hats on their head, and some had utterly vulgar signs. They have refused to accept the election results and have tried to delegitimize his Presidency in every way possible. They have done so by saying he's not really President because he didn't win the popular vote, they blame the Comey letter, they blame fake news, and most of all, they blame Russia. The media (CNN notoriously) have helped to fuel this by looking for any ties that any person who worked for Trump's campaign have to Russia. CNN claims that smoke could mean fire while ignoring the fact the opposing campaign had much smoke and many ties to Russia. These people now are working and fighting to get him impeached. It's not just the base trying to get him impeached, by the way. It's also prominent Democrats like Maxine Watters. Adam Schiff, who read from an unproven dossier to open the Russia hearings is ultimately yearning to get him impeached as well. They have a protest march seemingly every weekend and go and mock, berate, and act disruptive at townhalls of his fellow Republicans. They even interrupted this rally.
When Obama's birth certificate was brought up and people questioned whether he was born in this country, it was called a racist attempt to delegitimize his Presidency. The truth is that if it was a white liberal President who conservatives thought might have been born in another country, they would have done the same thing. Trump brought it up but also brought it up with regards to Ted Cruz - showing it wasn't race related. I do think that sentiments between the Obama birth certificate conspiracy is the same as those that are behind the Trump/Russia conspiracy. That is - it's easier to get this person we don't like removed through crime or scandal than actually having to deal with this person and fight this person politically. However, questioning Obama's birth certificate was considered racist (the media said it was an attempt to delegitimize his Presidency), but it's okay and celebrated by the media to question the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency. The difference between these two things - the media and many conservative media personalities did not cover the Obama birth certificate question and rather condemned it, but the media is covering and aiding in questioning the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency.
Every time the man Tweets something, the same trolls with blue checkmarks next to their names show up. No one knows who these people are or why they are even verified - a process typically used to denote people who are known such as celebrities, politicians, or journalists. Trump supporters are unable to get their posts near the top of a Trump Tweet. I tried posting a massive Tweet stream of over 10 posts, and it didn't matter. I logged out to see where in the order my posts ended up, and my posts weren't even there. Read the responses. They are juvenile, but insulting and dripping with vitriol. It doesn't matter what he does or what he says, it is always wrong.
They will attack him for doing something good like signing an executive order to Buy and Hire American just for the sake of attacking him. They'd applaud a Democrat for doing the same. Read the comments to articles about Trump. The comments too are often juvenile but always insulting and dripping with vitriol. Again, it doesn't matter what he does, it's always wrong. If he bombs Syria, he's either a warmonger (he did what Hillary said she would do and these folks voted for her) or he's doing it with Putin's blessing to cover up a connection to Russia. If he doesn't do it, he hates children and is not doing it because he's an agent of Russia. In other words, there is nothing he can do to please them because they are fueled by pure hatred of him.
Because of unfair, biased reporting by the media designed to drive hysteria against Trump, things that Trump does are written up with headlines to produce hysteria while ignoring these things were done under previous Administrations. For example, there were hard cases deported under Obama and more deported in Obama's first months (he later changed his policy), but there were no objections then and no sad stories then. He wasn't accused of racism. There were no stories of fear like those written under Trump which there should have been if he was deporting as many people. Trump dropped the MOAB and bombs a Syrian airfield and was labeled a dangerous warmonger, but meanwhile, Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs last year, and he wasn't a warmonger at all. Trump invited Duterte to the White House and it's a big deal, but Obama invited African dictators, and the same people attacking Trump didn't care.
The media, while not always outright lying, do choose to perpetuate double stands and choose what to cover and how to cover things as well as the tone of coverage in order to push an anti-Trump narrative.
The media are now saying that he broke his promises (lying in some cases because he didn't break promises on NATO, NAFTA, Chinese currency) - all promises they claim to be opposed to so they should be happy. They are instead using this to try to divide Trump from his base. There is no sign of this ceasing, and CNN with their anti-Trump rhetoric and liberal bias help fuel this every night.
Every time Donald Trump turns on the TV, every time Donald Trump opens the mainstream papers like the Washington Post and New York Times, every time Donald Trump goes to the Twitter pages of the journalists designed to cover him, he sees people who don't like him, don't give him a fair shake, and are dishonest. These people pump news out to the American people, and for those who hate Trump, they don't question the media's coverage. A cursory look at Twitter shows reporters snarking and making anti-Trump comments - revealing their bias. They will Tweet something that is false, get thousands of retweets, get called out on it, and then proceed to issue a correction Tweet while leaving up the original. The correction Tweets get perhaps 100 Retweets while the original, fake news Tweet is still left up with thousands. Zero percent of the reporters in the WH press pool are Republican and only 7% of political journalists are. In terms of political donations, 96% of those from the meda went to Hillary Clinton. Studies have shown that the coverage of his campaign and Presidency was/is overwhelmingly negative.
This man is attacked in every way from personal insults to insults of his family whether it be his wife, his 11 year old son, or his older children. Ivanka is attacked for being "complicit" with her father - something the media would never say if a liberal POTUS had a conservative daughter.
His supporters are attacked for supporting him - if not physically after coming out of rally, when they try to speak at a college campus, and by groups like Antifa, they are verbally attacked and called racists, white supremacists, Nazis, skinheads, fascists, misogynists, and idiots. They are looked down upon as stupid, out of touch, white hillbillies who don't even understand their own self interests. The minority supporters are attacked for going against the majority of their race or ethnicity. People should not be afraid to wear a MAGA cap or have a Trump bumper sticker on their car. Paul, David, and Jennifer, you and CNN do nothing to stop this narrative - if anything you help perpetuate it. CNN downplayed when Trump supporters were attacked leaving a rally - with senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying some guy just got his hat knocked off and it shouldn't be overblown. CNN downplayed when conservative women were attacked at the Milo event. CNN didn't downplay the handful of violent Trump supporters (who may have been provoked by Hillary's birddogging) that responded in frustration to the continual stream of disruptive protesters at the Trump rallies. CNN and the left did this to perpetuate that Trump supporters are violent and Trump is a dictator/fascist when the people who disrupt events are usually liberals.
So Paul, David, and Jennifer, how is he supposed to unite with these and with you people? Do you think a flowery, flowing speech will do it? Do you think appealing to unity will do it? Will you, the media, and these people warm up to him? Well, let's see. I seem to remember George Bush attacked, mocked for his intellect, called "shrub", called a racist, and (sound familiar?) called Hitler as the left protested him in the streets and ordered for him to be sent to the Hague. The negative media coverage was relentless. Wolf Blitzer salivated in a montage put together by Rush Limbaugh when bad Bush poll numbers came out.
A remark was made by Poppy Harlow about John McCain not handling things like Trump. Indeed. John McCain followed the typical politician script, but despite defending Obama to the point of repudiating people at his rallies, he was attacked as a racist warmonger while the media followed Obama like the Pied Piper. He lost. Mitt Romney also gave the unifying speeches and did what a typical politician should do (sans his 47% comment). He was also called a racist, stuck up rich guy, who was a misogynist with binders full of women. He lost. The left has gone on to embrace McCain and Romney again - but only after the "threat" of them was neutralized. They also like that these two go after Trump (Romney did stop), but McCain continues and is their go to Senator.
Paul Begala whined that Obama would not have reacted the way Trump did to the protester - ordering security to "get him out!" He remarked there was an instance of a Trump protester at a rally Obama did for Hillary, and he reacted by trying to calm down the crowd saying he looked like an elder a veteran and deserved respect and free speech. That was a nice moment, but here are some questions:
How many times has Obama had to deal with protesters at his events?
How often did our people interrupt Obama rallies in 2008, 2012, and this election season?
When did Obama have a rally cancelled because of protesters?
When were people that went to see Obama assaulted coming out of rallies?
When did Obama have to cross a highway barrier because protesters wouldn't allow him inside of his event?
A talking point is that conservatives were opposed to Obama because of racism. If so, where were all those racist conservatives interrupting Obama's rallies? Where were they out protesting the day after Obama's elections? Where were the racist conservatives protesting Obama's inaugurations?
Where were the Republican House and Senate members boycotting Obama's Inauguration? (Note - I know some didn't attend the second Inauguration but were at the first.)
Where were the Republican House and Senate members calling for Obama's impeachment because they didn't like his policies?
Where were the anti-Obama marches after he was sworn in each time?
Where were the anti-Obama marches every weekend? The Tea Party had 6 total events per Wiki, but there was nothing to the extent that is going on with Trump.
When are leftists speakers prevented from speaking at colleges and universities?
When are leftists speakers threatened with violence or have violence and fires outside and have to be snuck out of the speaking venue like Milo?
Donald Trump has been plagued with protesters since very early on in the primaries. In many speeches they would interrupt and yell and be rowdy. In one speech in Kansas City he was continually interrupted for a sustained period of time. He had to have a rally cancelled, he had to cross a highway barrier, and his supporters were assaulted and attacked coming out of rallies. When did Obama ever deal with that? We later found out Hillary's campaign was behind the protesters trying to get a rise out of people at Trump's rallies by "birddogging" or trying to pick a fight. When did conservatives ever do that at an Obama rally?
So Obama dealt with one lone protester beautifully, eh, Paul Begala? For the record, that wasn't even the only protester at Trump's rally that night. A bunch of people who undoubtedly watch CNN brought Russia flags with Trump's name on them and interrupted. Get back to me when Obama or any Democrat deals with the sustained problems that Trump had and see how he reacts. Let's see how you react. I bet you would be cheering him on. The media, including CNN, which downplayed the protesters or crowed about their freedom of speech, would have had a whole different take if the protesters were doing that to Democrats and to Obama.
Explain again, Paul, David, and Jennifer exactly how that Trump is supposed to unite with you and these people, huh? You're certainly making no effort. The negative coverage has hurt his poll numbers (which the press remind people of on consistent basis), and the media is trying to divide him from his base. Therefore, he has no choice but to stay in campaign mode and maintain the base that he has developed. That's what Saturday was all about. If you want unity, perhaps you should start on your side.
I'll leave this with Paris Dennard who took a valiant defense of Trump on the panel:
PARIS:
"We have to put some things in context. When you look at President Trump, and the way pundits and the way people in the media talk about him and his candidacy, the people around him, and the West Wing, his family - it's deplorable! And when you have that type of rhetoric and tone constantly beating at the drum every single day 24/7 - that is not helping America. And when Paul, when you... Listen, I did not like probably 98-99% of the things that President Obama did, but I would never call him Obama and I would never call him a moral midget or a needy little baby even if I thought the two things were true about him. So as you sit here with your platform and attack the President with these horrible sayings about him personally and then say, "Well, Mr. President or Trump, you are doing the same thing," you have to have some type of honesty about how you're talking about the President and about how you want him to talk about other people. We owe this President some - a little more respect in how we talk about him because there's a lot of Americans out there who are suffering and who want to believe in him, and when we belittle him and belittle everything about him and his family, his children, his staff..."
(Begala interjects - "I'm not talking about his family.")
PARIS:
I'm not talking about you, but it's the tone you set, and other people that come on this network and do this. That's the problem, and that's why he attacked the media.
In response to that, Paris Dennard was gone from the panel and replaced with Andre Bauer. So much for unity.
(Paris later came on Twitter and said he wasn't supposed to be on that next segment anyway and was back for a later segment, but CNN has a history of cutting the mic at odd times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYRN8Clddw)
Trump held a rally in Pennsylvania, and knowing that the media was going to have an evening trashing him, he trashed the media. He went after the New York Times, The Boston Globe, and called MSNBC and CNN "fake news." The crowd chanted "CNN Sucks!" which was played live on CNN as they covered the event. He then touched on his accomplishments of the past 100 days that he felt the media didn't cover or give adequate attention to. He reiterated what he plans to do in the future and his campaign promises. He did all this with his usual Trump flair as though it was the middle of campaign season. The crowd clearly ate it up. CNN did not.
After the rally, I tuned in to CNN's coverage for the inevitable outrage. They were clearly not pleased. Trump supporters on the panel (there were 2 on a panel of 8) defended him, but the others on the panel were not so generous. The speech was called "divisive" and not something that would unify or bring the country together. They didn't believe it was something another President would give (that may be but that's part of why his supporters liked it).
DAVID GERGEN:
"I think he did move his base. He has solidified his hold with his base. He played to their fears and their chief concerns, and they have very legitimate concerns. I think he's been consistent about that. At the same time, you know, to bring your campaign speech into the Presidency is something Presidents rarely do. This was the most divisive speech I have ever heard from a sitting American President. Others may disagree about that. He played to his base, and he treated his other listeners, the rest of the people who've been disturbed about him or oppose him, he treated them basically as, I don't care, I don't give a damn what you think because you're frankly like the enemy, you're like the enemy with the press. I thought it was a deeply disturbing speech."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUTPpZMhaIs
PAUL BEGALA (lost it):
"He needs this affirmation from his base because he's a moral midget, and he's a deeply insecure person. He's haunted by the fact that the vast majority of Americans - 54% - voted against him. He lost to Hillary Clinton in the popular vote by 2.8, so he needs, he's a needy little baby. What needs as a President is to unify the country. He needs as a politician to expand his base. Okay, if you want to be small minded, he needs to expand his base as a politician, but as a President, he needs to expand..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHcgi62Hylk
This was an impressive meltdown by Begala. Be sure to pause the video at the 15 second mark. Hilarious screen grab and meme potential there.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM (seemed as though she might need a therapist, lamenting)
I am so, so sad for America tonight listening to this speech. I...if I think of like Republican Presidents...Ronald Reagan would never have given such an utterly divisive speech. He spent half the speech talking about the wall, that, reading that poem was HORRIBLE if you want to be a leader of an entire country. I mean, there are people probably who watched this who were hoping he would call us to something higher, and he took us right into that swamp. It may not be the swamp that he was talking about on the campaign trail, but I feel like I want to take a shower. I'm so sad for this country. I think of Barack Obama calling people to a higher place, calling them to something better. He called everybody to their worst, divisive instincts. I'm just...I'm sad."
Anyway, I KNEW that CNN would lose it after the speech. He (after all) derided them, and he didn't give the typical politician speech they have been accustomed to.
So they expected a unitive speech, not a divisive one? They wanted him to reach out to the people who don't support him and assuage their fears (many of which are unfounded and generated by media hysteria)? Really?
Dear Paul, David, and Jennifer and the CNN staff who are not objective but claim to be:
First, to Jennifer who spoke of Obama saying, "I think of Barack Obama calling people to a higher place, calling them to something better. He called everybody to their worst, divisive instincts."
Rick Santorum was right on in his response:
"That's just wrong. Barack Obama did not call us to our higher instincts." (Snip) "Barack Obama's Presidency was about condescending, he was condescending toward the very people that..." (Snip) "I understand how his language, his demeanor, and the way he talks offends everybody here, and it does offend me - I will be honest with you. But Barack Obama didn't offend you, and he deeply offended me. He deeply offended the people in that crowd because he spoke down to them. He didn't try to elevate us; he was morally condescending - calling people bigots and racists and people of faith - calling them out for their religious beliefs. You don't understand how agitated that base got with Barack Obama - just as agitated as you are with Donald Trump."
That's correct. Obama might have used the lofty political speak words in a speech, but the words fell hollow. While Obama could use the right words in a speech, his actions didn't translate. He spoke of unity in his speeches, but he told Eric Cantor, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” His actions were actions done 100% for his base, not the Republicans. His actions weren't unifying. If they were, then the Republican Party wouldn't have gained back all three branches of government and over 1,000 legislative seats. He failed to unite the country. It was already divided when Trump stepped onto the scene. Trump's candidacy may have helped show the division, but the division was already there. If Obama had united the country and his words had effect, they would not have lost those seats, Trump would not have won, and Obama would not have recentaly said that he regretted not being able to unite the country.
Let's divert from Obama, though, and to the issue at hand - Donald Trump:
Donald Trump realized something. You can't unite with these people. Most Presidents enjoy a honeymoon. Trump tried to be unitive in his acceptance speech. Guess what happened the next night? Protesters thronged the streets to protest the results of a free and fair election. CNN gleefully covered these protests. Then they contested the election results and donated millions for recounts. The recounts failed, so they instead tried to pick off electors. That failed as well, so they protested the Inauguration to the point of violence.
The day after the Inauguration they protested him across the country before he even had a chance to do a thing. They wore vagina hats on their head, and some had utterly vulgar signs. They have refused to accept the election results and have tried to delegitimize his Presidency in every way possible. They have done so by saying he's not really President because he didn't win the popular vote, they blame the Comey letter, they blame fake news, and most of all, they blame Russia. The media (CNN notoriously) have helped to fuel this by looking for any ties that any person who worked for Trump's campaign have to Russia. CNN claims that smoke could mean fire while ignoring the fact the opposing campaign had much smoke and many ties to Russia. These people now are working and fighting to get him impeached. It's not just the base trying to get him impeached, by the way. It's also prominent Democrats like Maxine Watters. Adam Schiff, who read from an unproven dossier to open the Russia hearings is ultimately yearning to get him impeached as well. They have a protest march seemingly every weekend and go and mock, berate, and act disruptive at townhalls of his fellow Republicans. They even interrupted this rally.
When Obama's birth certificate was brought up and people questioned whether he was born in this country, it was called a racist attempt to delegitimize his Presidency. The truth is that if it was a white liberal President who conservatives thought might have been born in another country, they would have done the same thing. Trump brought it up but also brought it up with regards to Ted Cruz - showing it wasn't race related. I do think that sentiments between the Obama birth certificate conspiracy is the same as those that are behind the Trump/Russia conspiracy. That is - it's easier to get this person we don't like removed through crime or scandal than actually having to deal with this person and fight this person politically. However, questioning Obama's birth certificate was considered racist (the media said it was an attempt to delegitimize his Presidency), but it's okay and celebrated by the media to question the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency. The difference between these two things - the media and many conservative media personalities did not cover the Obama birth certificate question and rather condemned it, but the media is covering and aiding in questioning the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency.
Every time the man Tweets something, the same trolls with blue checkmarks next to their names show up. No one knows who these people are or why they are even verified - a process typically used to denote people who are known such as celebrities, politicians, or journalists. Trump supporters are unable to get their posts near the top of a Trump Tweet. I tried posting a massive Tweet stream of over 10 posts, and it didn't matter. I logged out to see where in the order my posts ended up, and my posts weren't even there. Read the responses. They are juvenile, but insulting and dripping with vitriol. It doesn't matter what he does or what he says, it is always wrong.
They will attack him for doing something good like signing an executive order to Buy and Hire American just for the sake of attacking him. They'd applaud a Democrat for doing the same. Read the comments to articles about Trump. The comments too are often juvenile but always insulting and dripping with vitriol. Again, it doesn't matter what he does, it's always wrong. If he bombs Syria, he's either a warmonger (he did what Hillary said she would do and these folks voted for her) or he's doing it with Putin's blessing to cover up a connection to Russia. If he doesn't do it, he hates children and is not doing it because he's an agent of Russia. In other words, there is nothing he can do to please them because they are fueled by pure hatred of him.
Because of unfair, biased reporting by the media designed to drive hysteria against Trump, things that Trump does are written up with headlines to produce hysteria while ignoring these things were done under previous Administrations. For example, there were hard cases deported under Obama and more deported in Obama's first months (he later changed his policy), but there were no objections then and no sad stories then. He wasn't accused of racism. There were no stories of fear like those written under Trump which there should have been if he was deporting as many people. Trump dropped the MOAB and bombs a Syrian airfield and was labeled a dangerous warmonger, but meanwhile, Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs last year, and he wasn't a warmonger at all. Trump invited Duterte to the White House and it's a big deal, but Obama invited African dictators, and the same people attacking Trump didn't care.
The media, while not always outright lying, do choose to perpetuate double stands and choose what to cover and how to cover things as well as the tone of coverage in order to push an anti-Trump narrative.
The media are now saying that he broke his promises (lying in some cases because he didn't break promises on NATO, NAFTA, Chinese currency) - all promises they claim to be opposed to so they should be happy. They are instead using this to try to divide Trump from his base. There is no sign of this ceasing, and CNN with their anti-Trump rhetoric and liberal bias help fuel this every night.
Every time Donald Trump turns on the TV, every time Donald Trump opens the mainstream papers like the Washington Post and New York Times, every time Donald Trump goes to the Twitter pages of the journalists designed to cover him, he sees people who don't like him, don't give him a fair shake, and are dishonest. These people pump news out to the American people, and for those who hate Trump, they don't question the media's coverage. A cursory look at Twitter shows reporters snarking and making anti-Trump comments - revealing their bias. They will Tweet something that is false, get thousands of retweets, get called out on it, and then proceed to issue a correction Tweet while leaving up the original. The correction Tweets get perhaps 100 Retweets while the original, fake news Tweet is still left up with thousands. Zero percent of the reporters in the WH press pool are Republican and only 7% of political journalists are. In terms of political donations, 96% of those from the meda went to Hillary Clinton. Studies have shown that the coverage of his campaign and Presidency was/is overwhelmingly negative.
This man is attacked in every way from personal insults to insults of his family whether it be his wife, his 11 year old son, or his older children. Ivanka is attacked for being "complicit" with her father - something the media would never say if a liberal POTUS had a conservative daughter.
His supporters are attacked for supporting him - if not physically after coming out of rally, when they try to speak at a college campus, and by groups like Antifa, they are verbally attacked and called racists, white supremacists, Nazis, skinheads, fascists, misogynists, and idiots. They are looked down upon as stupid, out of touch, white hillbillies who don't even understand their own self interests. The minority supporters are attacked for going against the majority of their race or ethnicity. People should not be afraid to wear a MAGA cap or have a Trump bumper sticker on their car. Paul, David, and Jennifer, you and CNN do nothing to stop this narrative - if anything you help perpetuate it. CNN downplayed when Trump supporters were attacked leaving a rally - with senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying some guy just got his hat knocked off and it shouldn't be overblown. CNN downplayed when conservative women were attacked at the Milo event. CNN didn't downplay the handful of violent Trump supporters (who may have been provoked by Hillary's birddogging) that responded in frustration to the continual stream of disruptive protesters at the Trump rallies. CNN and the left did this to perpetuate that Trump supporters are violent and Trump is a dictator/fascist when the people who disrupt events are usually liberals.
So Paul, David, and Jennifer, how is he supposed to unite with these and with you people? Do you think a flowery, flowing speech will do it? Do you think appealing to unity will do it? Will you, the media, and these people warm up to him? Well, let's see. I seem to remember George Bush attacked, mocked for his intellect, called "shrub", called a racist, and (sound familiar?) called Hitler as the left protested him in the streets and ordered for him to be sent to the Hague. The negative media coverage was relentless. Wolf Blitzer salivated in a montage put together by Rush Limbaugh when bad Bush poll numbers came out.
A remark was made by Poppy Harlow about John McCain not handling things like Trump. Indeed. John McCain followed the typical politician script, but despite defending Obama to the point of repudiating people at his rallies, he was attacked as a racist warmonger while the media followed Obama like the Pied Piper. He lost. Mitt Romney also gave the unifying speeches and did what a typical politician should do (sans his 47% comment). He was also called a racist, stuck up rich guy, who was a misogynist with binders full of women. He lost. The left has gone on to embrace McCain and Romney again - but only after the "threat" of them was neutralized. They also like that these two go after Trump (Romney did stop), but McCain continues and is their go to Senator.
Paul Begala whined that Obama would not have reacted the way Trump did to the protester - ordering security to "get him out!" He remarked there was an instance of a Trump protester at a rally Obama did for Hillary, and he reacted by trying to calm down the crowd saying he looked like an elder a veteran and deserved respect and free speech. That was a nice moment, but here are some questions:
How many times has Obama had to deal with protesters at his events?
How often did our people interrupt Obama rallies in 2008, 2012, and this election season?
When did Obama have a rally cancelled because of protesters?
When were people that went to see Obama assaulted coming out of rallies?
When did Obama have to cross a highway barrier because protesters wouldn't allow him inside of his event?
A talking point is that conservatives were opposed to Obama because of racism. If so, where were all those racist conservatives interrupting Obama's rallies? Where were they out protesting the day after Obama's elections? Where were the racist conservatives protesting Obama's inaugurations?
Where were the Republican House and Senate members boycotting Obama's Inauguration? (Note - I know some didn't attend the second Inauguration but were at the first.)
Where were the Republican House and Senate members calling for Obama's impeachment because they didn't like his policies?
Where were the anti-Obama marches after he was sworn in each time?
Where were the anti-Obama marches every weekend? The Tea Party had 6 total events per Wiki, but there was nothing to the extent that is going on with Trump.
When are leftists speakers prevented from speaking at colleges and universities?
When are leftists speakers threatened with violence or have violence and fires outside and have to be snuck out of the speaking venue like Milo?
Donald Trump has been plagued with protesters since very early on in the primaries. In many speeches they would interrupt and yell and be rowdy. In one speech in Kansas City he was continually interrupted for a sustained period of time. He had to have a rally cancelled, he had to cross a highway barrier, and his supporters were assaulted and attacked coming out of rallies. When did Obama ever deal with that? We later found out Hillary's campaign was behind the protesters trying to get a rise out of people at Trump's rallies by "birddogging" or trying to pick a fight. When did conservatives ever do that at an Obama rally?
So Obama dealt with one lone protester beautifully, eh, Paul Begala? For the record, that wasn't even the only protester at Trump's rally that night. A bunch of people who undoubtedly watch CNN brought Russia flags with Trump's name on them and interrupted. Get back to me when Obama or any Democrat deals with the sustained problems that Trump had and see how he reacts. Let's see how you react. I bet you would be cheering him on. The media, including CNN, which downplayed the protesters or crowed about their freedom of speech, would have had a whole different take if the protesters were doing that to Democrats and to Obama.
Explain again, Paul, David, and Jennifer exactly how that Trump is supposed to unite with you and these people, huh? You're certainly making no effort. The negative coverage has hurt his poll numbers (which the press remind people of on consistent basis), and the media is trying to divide him from his base. Therefore, he has no choice but to stay in campaign mode and maintain the base that he has developed. That's what Saturday was all about. If you want unity, perhaps you should start on your side.
I'll leave this with Paris Dennard who took a valiant defense of Trump on the panel:
PARIS:
"We have to put some things in context. When you look at President Trump, and the way pundits and the way people in the media talk about him and his candidacy, the people around him, and the West Wing, his family - it's deplorable! And when you have that type of rhetoric and tone constantly beating at the drum every single day 24/7 - that is not helping America. And when Paul, when you... Listen, I did not like probably 98-99% of the things that President Obama did, but I would never call him Obama and I would never call him a moral midget or a needy little baby even if I thought the two things were true about him. So as you sit here with your platform and attack the President with these horrible sayings about him personally and then say, "Well, Mr. President or Trump, you are doing the same thing," you have to have some type of honesty about how you're talking about the President and about how you want him to talk about other people. We owe this President some - a little more respect in how we talk about him because there's a lot of Americans out there who are suffering and who want to believe in him, and when we belittle him and belittle everything about him and his family, his children, his staff..."
(Begala interjects - "I'm not talking about his family.")
PARIS:
I'm not talking about you, but it's the tone you set, and other people that come on this network and do this. That's the problem, and that's why he attacked the media.
In response to that, Paris Dennard was gone from the panel and replaced with Andre Bauer. So much for unity.
(Paris later came on Twitter and said he wasn't supposed to be on that next segment anyway and was back for a later segment, but CNN has a history of cutting the mic at odd times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYRN8Clddw)
Comments
Post a Comment