Beat the Press

Trump’s war with the media is a cornerstone of his strategy

“Fake News!” “Fake News!” “Fake News!” “Dishonest Media!” “Dishonest Media!” “Dishonest Media!”  These slogans are now boilerplate in President Trump’s tweets, (still) campaign rallies and press conferences. 

His attacks on the press began in earnest during the primary debates when he slammed Megyn Kelly for asking “tough” questions.  They escalated during the general election campaign when he dangerously incited his rabid supporters by pointing to the caged-in pens reserved for media at rallies and decrying that “they are the most dishonest people on earth.”

This loathsome behavior continued throughout the month after his inauguration and as recently as this past weekend tweeting that the media “is the enemy of the American people” and continuing the assault on the press at his comfort food campaign-style rally in Melbourne, Fl.

What gratitude!  #hocopolitics

In rather simplistic terms, the media, who he assails, made Trump. Because if his different style (many would say absurd) and his willingness to go beyond normal boundaries in discourse, the media took to Trump like seagulls to a pile of trash. 

They never let him out of their sight and followed him to each and every campaign event with the expectation or hope that something outlandish would be said that would make for interesting coverage especially on TV, which would boost ratings.  Rarely were they disappointed.

The upshot of this focus on Trump was that the other primary candidates were starving for similar attention, and for the self-proclaimed billionaire, Mr. Trump received oodles of free press while his opponents had to spend.

President Trump who gets his information from “the shows” eschews mainstream media except for FOX News, the unofficial media partner of the Republican Party, and also from such places as Breitbart News, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars.

For someone who calls the mainstream media dishonest, Trump and members of his Administration hypocritically traffics in conspiracy theories and blatant lies.  From his assertion that his crowd size at the Inauguration was much larger than observed estimates to the ranking of his Electoral College victory as the greatest since Ronald Reagan, Trump cares little about facts, truth and honesty.

The media took to Trump like seagulls to a pile of trash. 

Then there are the fabricated stories he purveys, such as some unspecified horror going on in Sweden (nothing occurred), or his counselor’s mentioning the Bowling Green Massacre (no such event), or his press secretary’s description of the terrorist attack in Atlanta (he meant Orlando since the two cities are so close—400 miles apart). 

Why has he unleashed these non-stop attacks on the integrity of the press while his own statements are so frequently false? Anytime Trump’s weaknesses or worse are described in the media, even if they are totally accurate, he angrily charges “fake news” simply because he doesn’t like it or it makes him look bad.  Discrediting Trump’s image is considered a sin that requires a strong rebuke; self-preservation is his number one priority.

There is more.  Let’s go back to the primaries.  The supreme marketer was aware that if you repeat something often enough, it will stick, especially with his base.  “Lyin’” Ted, “Little” Marco, “Low Energy” Jeb were monikers that helped destroy the candidacies of Cruz, Rubio and Bush, respectively—Trump’s chief rivals.

Come the general election, “Crooked” Hillary took over, and his campaign narrative was built around that label.  Again, it worked, though many other factors were part of the mind-boggling upset.

Bring on the press. The “failing” New York Times, “Fake News” CNN,  “Dishonest Media”—repeat, rinse, spin and repeat.  It will stick, and it is vital for Trump and his presidency to discredit the media for two reasons.

One, the media fact-checks his statements and tweets and they are often false, inaccurate or exaggerated, made-up, or out-and-out lies.  He hates to be called out though it’s the press’ duty as stated in the First Amendment to keep the three branches of government accountable to the people, and the press is that vehicle. 

Second, it is my belief that if there are any serious investigations into the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russian intelligence officers prior to the election and there are findings that Trump and/or his campaign staff were in collusion with the Russians, Trump’s presidency could be in jeopardy.  

By discrediting the media ad nauseum, if and when these revelations come to light, he will have built a safety net of sorts and deny any such findings by blaming the press for the disclosures. People will discount those reports, because he is banking that the oft-repeated charge of “fake news” will resonate and the public will see him as a victim.

That may be his best strategy because much of his base will support him and blame the “dishonest media” for having an anti-Trump agenda. Will it work?  Time will tell.

In the meanwhile, the press needs to be vigilant and hold firm against these charges.  The First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press must be protected for the sake of our country.

“If you want to preserve — I’m very serious now — if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press," Senator John McCain said on Meet the Press this past weekend. “And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.”

Yes, that’s how dictators get started.

October's Oddities

It wasn’t enough that this past Halloween brought out the strangest, most creative and unique costumes ever. However, the entire month of October saw its share of odd events and scary people that would make the entire month Halloween-esque for all its nuttiness.

We had such unlikely events like a rogue blimp wreaking havoc along the Pennsylvania countryside. 

There was a wild inflatable pumpkin terrorizing residents in Arizona.

The Baltimore Ravens hadn’t won a home game through October (they won Sunday, though, to kick off November).  

Someone actually wrote a published letter to the Baltimore Sun bemoaning the large number of advertisements apparently oblivious to the fact that the media depends on advertising for revenue. 

After a devastating drought, Texas was pelted with flooding rains of biblical proportions.

And the stock market (Dow Jones index), which usually tanks in October, climbed a hefty 8.5 percent, the most in four years.

If these happenings weren’t sufficiently Halloween-ish in their strangeness, perhaps the GOP presidential debate broadcast on CNBC met that bar.  Setting the stage is the fact Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump are the frontrunners—a rightfully scary prospect considering how ignorant they are of government policy and mechanics.  Yet, that’s who the Republican voters prefer right now; it’s pretty Halloween-creepy.

But the greatest October oddity came from that very debate.  The rough and tough Republican candidates who boast they can “deal with” Russia, China and other potential or imagined adversaries as well as force the Mexican government to erect a wall along the border showed the chink in their collective armor, um façade. With all their bravado, they couldn’t cope with the line and manner of questioning put forth by the CNBC moderators. 
Led by the dreaded Sen. Ted Cruz, the candidates whined about those many “gotcha” questions. 

Heaven forbid they should be asked to comment on their record or things they have said and have done in the past.  Shame on the moderators for asking them to reconcile past conflicting statements made by the candidates! 

Accordingly, the “liberal media” have joined President Obama and Hillary Clinton as the ghoulish villains of October, playing to the party’s base.  Now these candidates want to scuttle the scheduled debate originally hosted by NBC and Telemundo in favor of more sympathetic and less probing panelists. 

We’ll see what turns up as the candidates are seeking relief and going over the heads of Reince Priebus, the RNC and the Republican “establishment” in search of softballs to hit out of the park.

The first question that should be asked by whoever moderates the next debate is, “How are you going to stand up to Vladimir Putin, if you can’t handle CNBC’s John Harwood?”

Supreme Court's Punt Gives Us Good Field Position

When the U.S. Supreme Court unexpectedly decided on October 6 not to take up several appeals of lower court rulings that struck down the existing bans on same-sex marriages, many believed the justices “punted.”  That is, less than four of the nine justices chose not to review these cases and will likely not be part of this term’s docket. 

Both sides had hoped for a sweeping decision by the Court to settle once and for all whether the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected by the U.S. Constitution.  Rather, by choosing to sidestep these cases they allowed the lower court rulings to stand.

To use football parlance, because the Supreme Court punted the hot button issue for a likely date sometime in the future, marriage equality advocates did not score a touchdown they were hoping for but instead found themselves in good field position.

By refusing to review cases from the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, same–sex marriages are no longer prevented from occurring. The Court also did not take on cases arising from the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, and in the Tenth Circuit, which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. 

And in the Ninth Circuit, marriage bans were struck down in Idaho and Nevada by a panel of judges the next day.  This ruling also applies to Arizona, Montana and Alaska.  Nuptials may be delayed in some of these states because of specific legal procedures, but eventually they will be allowed.  In all, the number of states permitting same-sex marriage would jump from 19 to 30 plus D.C. representing states with 60 percent of the U.S. population.  

Though the Supreme Court offered no explanation for their action, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who once officiated a same-sex wedding, indicated last month that for the justices there is “no need for us to rush” unless a split emerges in the various federal appeals courts and one of them decides to uphold a state ban on same-sex marriage.   

Had there been a split, the justices may have taken a look at it. That can happen in that the 6^th Circuit in Cincinnati is thought as one of the few that could uphold the bans.  Therefore, the Court put itself in a place where they would likely have to tackle the issue once and for all.

Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of the advocacy organization Freedom to Marry, said while the October 6 action provided “a bright green light” to same-sex marriage in more states, marriage equality advocates do want the Supreme Court to intervene and provide a definitive ruling covering all 50 states. “The Supreme Court should bring the country to a nationwide resolution,” Wolfson said. 

Those opposing marriage equality do as well and will continue to defend the bans in court (though stalling would appear advantageous to them if a Court vacancy is filled with a conservative).  They strongly believe that the people should decide the definition of marriage, not judges.

Opponents should note, however, that the people are not as against marriage equality as they think.  Ever since 2004 when the first same-sex weddings took place in Massachusetts—an occurrence that became a winning strategy for Republicans during the presidential campaign—support for marriage equality swung dramatically.  In fact, poll after poll indicate that a majority of Americans now support marriage equality.

During the 10 years since gay marriage was used as a political wedge issue, clear evidence of a transformation in attitudes began in 2012 with the startling first-time victories at the ballot box in three states that included Maryland.  Since then, legal challenges to a swath of state constitutions were launched claiming that the denial of same-sex couples to marry was in violation of the U.S. Constitution under the Equal Protection Clause.

As these cases meandered through the lower courts whereby one ruling after another found for the plaintiffs, federal appeal courts have upheld those rulings in a stunning wave of victories, adding great momentum to the movement.  The rationale  for these decisions had been bolstered in 2013 by the Supreme Court’s striking down key provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act. 

What was once a political weapon for Republicans nationwide, the changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage has pushed most Republicans to a hands-off approach.  This is consistent with their alleged attempts to demonstrate more acceptance towards gays and other minorities to improve their general election chances.   Indeed, a vast majority of Republicans remained silent following the recent Supreme Court announcement.

Senator Ted Cruz from Texas who many regard as an extremist, was one of the exceptions to have lashed out against the Court. “The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” he said.   He pledged to again introduce a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.  Good luck.

Reince Priebus, the chair of the Republican National Committee, in an effort to keep his job, threw a bone to his base by condemning the Supreme Court’s decision.  He said that if gays were allowed to marry, “America will ultimately collapse.”

As we have witnessed in the states where marriage equality is in place including Maryland, the sky has not fallen; society has not been destroyed; and the institution of marriage has not deteriorated.  Instead, children of same-sex couples are now protected, couples receive the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts; and the local economies have received a much needed boon.

As same-sex marriages continue to take place across the land, it will become increasing difficult to invalidate all those nuptials should that day eventually arrive when the ball lands in the Supreme Court justices’ hands.  Too much chaos would result.  Accordingly, we’re in a good position now to ultimately take it to the end zone.