Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Trump Talk: The Media, Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and the Public

By Rich Kozlovich

On March 13, 2018 Jack Cashill posted an article entitled, Dems Once Thought It Cool to Call Out Journalists, Even Threaten Them, saying:
  • The media, the Democrats, and a few NeverTrumps are in a tizzy these past few days because President Trump dared to call NBC's Chuck Todd "a sleeping son of a b‑‑‑‑"
  • The New York Times' Maggie Haberman a "Hillary flunky." Said NeverTrump Erick Erickson, "The fact is @MaggieNYTand @chucktodd have better character, better morals, and are more honest than the President who is attacking them."
  • "@MaggieNYTand @chucktodd are not only great journalists, they are good people. This crass name-calling is beneath the office of the presidency," tweeted Jake Tapper.
  • Tweets like these ran in the thousands. A common theme was one that Tapper raised – namely, that name-calling is "beneath the office."
  •  A secondary theme raised by Politico's Susan Glasser in an interview with Todd is that Trump's "rhetorical assault" on the media was "unprecedented."
Cashill notes: "Whether Trump's comments are beneath the office is surely in the eyes of the beholder, but they are not at all unprecedented." 

I will state categorically that I really don't like it when adults in prominent positions uses the language he uses in a public forum.  That kind of language in days gone be was reserved for the locker room, not the Bully Pulpit.  Right?  Well, no, that's not entirely true. 

It appears Harry Truman was almost as blunt - and for his day - that was way over the top.  Give em Hell Harry didn't have any qualms about publicly or privately insulting the press.  He comments:
  • "He referred to columnist Westbrook Pegler as "a guttersnipe
  • "He called Walter Winchell and Drew Pearson "gutter columnists"
  • "The Alsop brothers, Stewart and Joseph, he called the "All Slops."
  • "In private, he called columnist Frank Kent a "prostitute of the mind."
  • "In public, he called him "intellectually dishonest."
  • "This so-called 'free press' is about as free as Stalin's press. The only difference is that the Stalin frankly controlled his and the owners and publishers of our press are always yapping about the Constitution and suppressing a free press."
  • He even physically threatened a journalist for insulting his daughters musical abilities.
What was the response from the media over "the ill chosen words and threats by the president."  He was accused of suppressing press freedom.  Really?  Doesn't that sound a bit familiar?  Of course that didn't come from the Democrats, or most of the press for that matter.  In fact while the media attacks Trump in ways they would never attack a Democrat President, in Harry's case, they actually protected Harry.

Washington Post journalist Marquis Childs asked if Harry would attend an award presentation at a gathering of black journalists.   According to Cashill Truman said, "I get along with the burr heads....until sooner or later I say nigger"!  He never reported that until years later. 

Can you imagine what would have happened if Trump had said that?  What I find interesting in that account is blacks were a major part of the coalition that elected Harry.  Truman created a coalition of blacks, working class whites and unions when he ran for his own term and won, yet that's what he really thought about a major component of that coalition, and no one accused him of racism.

Blacks in America are not part of the Trump coalition - although I do think he's actually gathering more blacks and Hispanics into his tent every day - and no one has come forward to show he's ever once uttered a word that can be legitimately construed as racist.  But that's an unending charge thrown out by the left without one iota of corroboration.  Building a wall to stop illegal immigration and blocking immigration from some countries isn't racist.  It's called national security.

Conservatives and the Christian groups who support Trump are always criticized by leftists, claiming they're hypocrites.  I always love it when those whose moral foundation is as flexible as Play-Doh criticize the morality of conservatives and Christians. The left's moral foundation will shift with the latest philosphical flavor of the day if it will attain the one thing they desire above all else.  The power to control everyone's life.  Those with no moral stable foundation have no standing to criticize anyone else's morality and should be ignored or attacked. 

While it's true Trump is rude, often crude, and has hardly been exemplary in his personal life, we have to understand - all this stuff is nothing more than red herring fallacies and misdirection. 

What about him as a leader?   Perhaps we need to do a bit of cross comparison between him, Obama, the Bush's and Clinton.

Obama and Clinton were smooth talkers, and anything they may have said or did that might make them look bad was covered over by the media.  Obama was, and is, a true Manchurian Candidate, and Clinton was an opportunist and rapist who would gladly sell out the country for profit.

Both of whom has done serious damage to the rule of law and national defense. 

The two Bush's were willing punching bags for the media and the left, and were more like undercover liberals versus real conservatives, and their actions demonstrated that.  They ran like conservatives and ruled like liberals.

All of whom have done serious damage to the nation in one way or the other.  All of whom history will find serious fault with as time goes by.

Trump can't be bought, believes in America first, and no matter what his morals are he's never raped anyone, he believes in national defense, he wants to cut government in size and regulatory power, and he's working to grow the economy.  And most importantly - the Trump supporting public loves the fact he's a street fighter and willingly takes on these pampered leftists in the media, in the Republican Party, and the unelected fourth branch of government - the bureaucratic (and quite possibly treasonous) deep state.

Trump has always irritated me.  I never liked him, and I particularly don't like him for the way he's treated his wives over the years.  But what about him as a national leader? If he continues down the path he's taken he may become one of America's great Presidents.  Albeit he's rude and crude but he's not stupid.  He could very well become one of the most successful Presidents of the United States ever, provided he addresses spending and entitlements, which left uncontrolled will bankrupt the nation.  Neither of which any of the others were willing to do, or had the courage to carry on that fight once it started. 

All the rest is unimportant jabberwocky!

No comments: