The DNC took place this week, and there were several powerful speeches and several that were just OK. I'd say the DNC as a whole went out of their way to make Bernie Sanders feel special and important, and then to turn the attention to "We still have work to do." Most notably, there weren't any major dramatics — the DNC party went off fairly well. That's not to say it went perfectly smoothly: the Bernie Sanders die-hards did some booing early in the week and some even did a sit-in at the media tent (clever positioning, that) after Clinton was officially tabbed. But the scale of embarrassment on that is far lower than a primetime speaker thumbing his nose at the nominee. Further, there was a stark contrast to the RNC in tone.
Monday
If you haven't seen Michelle Obama's speech, please go out of your way to find it. It's simply masterful. The speechwriter gets paid extra for that one. She never mentions Trump, but alludes to him. Donald Trump even liked it! She took the frustration and disappointment of Sanders fans and said tactfully, "Look, Hillary was in the same position eight years ago. She didn't sulk about it, but worked just as hard for my husband (who you like). You can have that sort of impact, too." Of the four major primetime speakers Monday, she was by far the best -- but like Melania Trump, the expectations on a non-politician are lower. Yet even with lower expectations, this was the best speech of the week. Please watch it.
That's not to say the others were slackers, but they should have been cut by a few minutes (hat-tip to The Ringer for reaching this thought first). I found Elizabeth Warren tends to be more professorial (no surprise, given her background). Cory Booker, on the other hand, seemed like a preacher. Strangely, I found Bernie Sanders' speech the worst. It seemed like a stump speech that he'd given many, many times before, but with Hillary's name cut and pasted in. Compare Bernie Sanders/Michelle Obama/Elizabeth Warren/Cory Booker to Night One of the RNC: Rudy Giuliani, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Melania Trump, Scott Baio (!?!).
Tuesday
If Monday was the A Team, Tuesday was the B Team. I wasn't able to watch anything before Bill Clinton's speech, but from what I hear, there wasn't a whole lot I missed. Like all Bill Clinton speeches, I think it went long. However, a friend said that if you think of it as a First Lady speech — which it was — it was great. He spent a seemingly interminable amount of time talking about why he fell in love with Hillary, and, by implication, why you should, too. It was an example of showing, not telling. He had specific stories (compared to the Melania Trump transcript, which has none: read it yourself) about how Hillary had helped people. He looped in all the states Hillary had lived/worked in to get those states cheering. He tried to muscle back the idea of the "change candidate" being Trump. Critics will say he glossed over his infidelities to her, which was probably wise on his part. My grandma, who is no fan of Bill Clinton's, said long ago that Bill Clinton could give a speech to a group of millionaires one minute, walk out of that room and into a black church, and give the same speech, and both groups would think he's one of them. I never forgot that. It wasn't as good as Michelle Obama's speech, but it served a purpose: saying that Hillary's been doing the grunt work for a long time.
Wednesday
The heavy hitters came to the stage Wednesday. Barack Obama, Tim Kaine, Michael Bloomberg and Joe Biden spoke. I didn't hear Bloomberg or Biden thanks to the kids' bedtime schedule.
Tim Kaine came off like a corny dad in his speech. He said he went to high school at Rockhurst -- my public high school's chief private school rival. GRR! There weren't many policy specifics in the speech, though. That was limited to three paragraphs and an invitation to find out the "hows" by going to the campaign website. It was mostly about highlighting the public service history of Kaine and Clinton while also attacking Trump. Mike Pence's similar speech served the same "attack dog" purpose, but didn't even have three paragraphs of policy specifics beyond "security" and "border wall" (If you doubt me, read the transcripts.).
Finally, Barack Obama. He used numbers early, then touted his administration's successes. He practically said at one point that the GOP was deeply pessimistic about the country, while he remained optimistic. He acknowledged frustration, then spoke about the inspiring aspects of the country. He challenged people to get involved and ended with an appeal to the traits his Kansas grandparents shared (without saying Trump, it was a smart move). All told, it was a full-throated endorsement and passing of the torch metaphor to Hillary.
Thursday
There was a belief by some pundits that they saved their worst speakers for Thursday, sandbagging to make Hillary look great as a speaker. I don't know if that's true. I will say that the star power was not there, for sure. Chelsea Clinton was the first person most people would recognize. If you compare her speech to Ivanka Trump's speech, Ivanka's was much better. Chelsea's not a great speaker, but came off as pretty down-to-earth; Ivanka is Trump's best advocate -- she's smart, sharp, poised and probably the most "real" of his supporters. I'm not sure Chelsea's in the top 5 for Hillary. Chelsea did have more specific stories, whereas Ivanka spoke in generalities more often. But either way, you don't elect people based on how great their kids speak.
Here's a tip from someone who's covered a lot of speeches: Ignore the intros. They never say anything important in the first 3 minutes or so, beyond thanks and effusive praise for people. Ignore everything up until she mentions Philadelphia. After that, she talks about how people are trying to pull the country apart, but then used the word "together" three times in quick succession to describe her world view. She mentioned the national motto and essentially worked to use words echoing togetherness. Later, she mentioned her 1996 book, "It Takes A Village," referencing that she's not new to the idea of working together for progress/change. One of the best lines from this was, "Caring is not enough; to make real progress, you need to change both hearts and laws."
One of the more poetic lines was how Donald Trump had made "morning in America" seem like "midnight in America." The former was a line by Ronald Reagan. It was a subtle way of saying "Trump ain't Reagan." She made a few references to her faith and what she's learned from it. She spoke about Dallas cops as a way of saying "Trump's not the only one who cares about cops." For much of the speech, it was driven by anecdotes and references and big ideas, but few facts. And even at the end, there were practically no hard numbers used. That's my biggest criticism of this speech: Not a lot of numbers. She had one "grandma joke" -- Trump spoke for 70-odd minutes, and I do mean odd. That's a grandma joke if I've ever heard one.
But then the speech turned when she seemed to say that she's a detail person, and details matter. Let me save you 100+ words: Her speech had the things that I complained were missing in Trump's speech: She had policy specifics and talked about how to pay for them. It's what I look for from any speaker, and she had it and he didn't. If you think that's opinion, look at the transcripts. Do your research.
At one point, Alyson said "They're taking Republican rhetoric." That's what I'll take from this convention. Michelle and Barack Obama made the argument against Trump/for Hillary as a moral/ethical issue. Several speakers, including Hillary herself, used Reagan's words to seemingly (and literally at one point) say "You're no Reagan." She mentioned God three times in her speech (Trump: none) and she talked about how great the U.S. Armed Forces are (only one real mention by Trump). It reminded me of a line from my one year of debate: If you don't mention something, consider it a conceded point. Trump didn't mention many typical Republican things, and Democrats took up those banners.
Trump, Russia and More
Perhaps in an attempt to wrest back news coverage, Donald Trump on Wednesday morning literally called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. To sum: A presidential nominee called on a foreign power to hack emails on another presidential nominee. When a reporter asked a follow-up on if that was appropriate (a completely fair question), Trump told the reporter to "Be quiet" because he knew she wanted to save Hillary.
When asked for clarification, Trump reiterated the statement. He also tweeted later that if Russia had the emails, they should turn them over to the FBI. Much later in the day, Trump did another interview and said it was a joke and he was being sarcastic. His spokesperson said it wasn't really a joke, he was just being tongue-in-cheek. I'm having a real hard time with this one. I generally try to take people at their word. I look for context and try to find the good. I'm struggling to agree with him that it was a joke and that wasn't just covering his hide. He was given several opportunities immediately after he said it to correct himself, and he didn't. He doubled down by saying a similar line on Twitter. Listen to the press conference yourself and tell me if that comes across as a joke. But putting my frustrations aside for a second, either he was humorously suggesting his political rival should be hacked by Russia, or he was serious. Which of those is better?
I was pretty upset about the Trump "joke" yesterday. It's the latest in his ever-changing stances on everything. Him calling it a joke didn't come out until late in the night, and I was looking for reactions from Republicans and more before then. Foxnews.com's mobile site had practically no mention of it through about 6 p.m. It was there, but buried in a story discussing his other statements at the press conference. Even Thursday morning, there was no story on the Trump joke at all on their main website. But there is a story about Trump hosting a Reddit AMA and another on two acrobats getting married. It's one thing to bury the story; it's another to not even mention it.
Summary Judgments
Here's Jeremy Toobin making many of the same points I made last week on the DNC emails. If I'm missing a smoking gun, please point it out to me. I just haven't seen anything that proves any bias, beyond reactions to Bernie accusations or suggestions that never made the final cut. • • • I want to thank those of you that read this blog. At some point in the last couple months, I've broken the 1,000 page views mark. We're currently at nearly 1,500 page views, all-time. I'm proud of that. I do have one question: In the last month, we have 15 views from Russia, 4 from France and 3 from Canada. I think I know the Canadians, but who are you folks from Russia and France? Just curious. Please comment or message me if that's you. • • • Hidden in Trump's wild press conference Wednesday was his vow not to release his tax returns. That's a break from 40 years of tradition. This is not insignificant. • • • There's been a lot of negative attention in the media, so let's take a moment to celebrate the good in the world. Thanks to the silliness of the Ice Bucket Challenge, there's been a gene breakthrough on ALS research. • • • The Chappelle's Show skit on Prince is confirmed!
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Monday, July 25, 2016
Emails, the Conventions, and Analyzing Trump's Speech
The WikiLeaks dump this weekend of DNC emails was major news. It brought down the DNC Chairman, Debbie Wassermann Schultz, and has people calling out "RIGGED!" I think the leaks were damaging, but not as damaging (or for the same reason) as most people believe. So let's pull out the Analysis-O-Tron.
Why isn't this as bad as we think?
Many of the emails journalists have pointed to as the "worst" ones were after the nomination was largely wrapped up. I went to both liberal and conservative sites to find their lists of the worst emails. Pay attention to timing: I wrote on May 5 on this site that the Democratic nomination was effectively wrapped up. Most data-driven commentators had essentially called the race by then. Even though about nine states had yet to vote, it would have taken a miracle for Sanders to overcome the lead already generated.
On May 5, the "most damning" email from most sites was written: several DNC members talking about if someone could ask Sanders about his religion. It's one thing to talk about doing it, but I don't know if anyone ever did. If they did, I never heard about it, and I pay attention to politics more than most. Just because you talk about doing something stupid doesn't mean the angels of your better virtue didn't stop yourself.
Several other "most damning" emails came after the troubling Nevada convention, which... didn't go well. Wasserman Schultz called Sanders' campaign manager a "damn liar." But why? It was in response to him publicly accusing her/the party of rigging the system. She also had another semi-negative statement about Sanders — but the context is important: It was in an email chain about an interview SANDERS had given to Politico in which he accused the party of being unfair. If Person A says Person B rigged the system, and Person B privately calls them a liar, I don't think that Person B is being outrageous. You'd have to have evidence from before Person A's accusations, and I haven't seen any from this email dump (though more are rumored to be coming).
I'd also say that many of the things that supposedly show conspiracy probably is just the way the proverbial sausage is made. In one, the DNC communications director starts throwing out ideas about how to summarize how Sanders lost, that his campaign never had its act together. But another staffer shoots that down. Not every idea makes it to the final product, and this is one example. Further, it was May 21, and although California/New Jersey had yet to vote, the race was over, sans a miracle. There's no smoking gun here.
Largely, most of the "damning" emails were either a) reactions to accusations by the Sanders camp b) how the sausage of politics is made — throwing out plans and ideas, many of which never come to fruition or c) the type of behind-the-scenes talk no one ever wants to be made public.
Is that surprising?
Sanders had never called himself a Democrat until the presidential race, then spent most of the race being accusatory toward the party itself. It's no surprise that there would be some emails showing frustration/negative attitudes toward Sanders. I'm waiting to see a leaked email from before late April, when the race was not "over," but had already been decided.
Timing/context does matter. At that point, the GOP race had wrapped up despite being closer than the Democratic race. The emails most are calling damning are from that period in which Sanders was holding out hope and being accusatory toward the party.
What about the attempts to influence journalists?
This may surprise you, but I have no problem with this. It's the DNC's job to promote the party. If they (and the RNC, to be honest), weren't trying these sort of things, they'd be doing a bad job. It's the journalists' job to remain objective. From all but one email, it appears to be the type of damage control/attempt to influence that you'd expect. There's no collusion, simply the "Cover us better" type of requests on this issue or another that are common. I received those from politicians on both sides when I was a reporter. It's their job to seek better coverage and the reporter's job to tactfully say "Take a hike."
One email requires a deeper look, in which Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sends a copy of his story to a DNC contact before it goes to his editor. At first glance, this breaks journalism rules. There's a very black-and-white ethical issue of sending your stories to sources before publishing. However, when it comes to major scoops or sensitive information, I've seen journalists this done before. It is a quid pro quo: You give me access; I give you first glance. Personally, I'd rather have been scooped than be too cozy with my sources. But others would rather break a few eggs to make a better batter. It's a trade-off they're willing to make, but I'm not. In short, it's an ethical quandary, and I think he's wrong, but I'm willing to admit that others are willing to go farther than me. But: It's a question of journalistic ethics, not DNC ethics.
Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz need to go/What are the lasting effects?
I would say yes, and the writing should have been on the wall even before the emails came out. The Sanders campaign had created an us-versus-them strategy that galvanized people against the party. I've not seen enough evidence to convince me that they were 100 percent right yet. However, there was too much defensiveness coming from the DNC, and I would say that their decisions re: debate schedule weren't beneficial to Sanders or the public. Wasserman Schultz had become the identifiable face of the party-as-the-problem. Her term was to end in January anyway, but I think she'd have been booed at the DNC if these emails came out or not. She had become a problem, and it needed to be excised.
As for lasting effects, I'm not sure there are many. The superdelegate rules have been rewritten per Sanders' camp's request so that 2/3 of them are bound to state primaries/caucuses. The DNC platform includes several Sanders issues. Sanders is speaking tonight. The best thing the DNC can do is to have no more drama. The last thing they want to appear is divided.
Did the DNC's actions (as revealed by this email) affect the race?
I see no evidence. Sanders lost by millions of votes and never was able to congeal the minority vote behind him. Ultimately, that's what cost him: He couldn't win black and Hispanic votes. In order to connect A (Sanders losing) to C (DNC collusion), I need evidence of B (the DNC influencing the minority vote).
Compare and Contrast
I'm interested to see not just who speaks, but what they say. Bernie Sanders (top rival) is up on Monday, and if he gives an enthusiastic endorsement of Hillary, that's a clear sign Democrats are united. Most major Democrats are "With Her" with enthusiasm: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Barack Obama. Compare to the tepid endorsements by McConnell, Paul Ryan and the non-endorsement/major rebuke by Ted Cruz. In short: Democrats are united, the GOP is begrudgingly accepting.
Trump's Big Speech
I wrote on Facebook that I was struck by the Nixonian ("Law and Order candidate") and Lindberghian language (Historical aside: Aviator Charles Lindbergh was a major touter of the "America First" line, anti-WWII intervention and also anti-Semite — in the 1930s/40s. History doesn't like to talk about his politics career for that reason). I told Alyson early on that if he says "law and order," it's a political reference to Nixon. He said it in his fourth sentence. And the Washington Post indicated that this was intentional: "The Trump team indicated in advance that the speech would be based in part on Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech."
But let's look more analytically at his speech.
Crime and violence in the abstract isn't actually actually up — it's down. FBI crime rates show that after a peak of crime/violence in the early 1990s, there's been a steady decline since then. Yes, there's been more officer shootings (this rules out traffic deaths, etc.) in the first six months of this year compared to last year, but the broader trend is down from 2005. Illegal immigration from Mexico is actually pretty stagnant this year and has been since roughly 2009. The trade deficit is pretty stable and has been better under the Obama administration than the Bush administration. While the national debt is up, the amount being added to it each year has dropped every year of the Obama presidency. He said that Iran caught our soldiers before the Iran nuclear deal, but it occurred afterward. He accused James Comey, FBI director and Bush appointee, of downplaying Clinton's email scandal. While claiming Hillary's tax plan is "massive," he ignores that his own would "explode the nation's debt," per a nonpartisan group. America is not one of the most highly taxed nations — it ranks 27th out of 30 when compared to economic peers. Yes, the size of the military has shrunk, but that's because of Congress's terrible sequestration issue, not Obama's decision. He was right and wrong about black unemployment and black youth unemployment, respectively. He usually accurately quoted or summarized Clinton's positions.
Five times, Trump says to "Believe Me." Three times he says he's going to "do X fast." Multiple times he talks about how bad current things are without noting that it costs money to fix it. He talks about a plan for law and order, and reforms for the economy, but never mentions specifics about how. He says we'll replace Obamacare, but doesn't say how. He says he'll fix the TSA, but makes no mention of how. The two most specific plans I've found reading the transcript are a) build a wall and b) eliminate regulations on energy companies to generate $2 trillion (roughly 9 percent of the GDP!). Alyson noted that he keeps saying to believe him, but she doesn't believe him. The speech was largely about tearing down Obama/Clinton and establishing fear. I encourage you to read the transcript and see if you agree. It's one thing to tear down an opponent; it's another to give a reason to vote for you.
Summary Judgments
A former colleague of mine from my OU days, Tres Savage, wrote a good editorial on why WikiLeaks should not be confused for journalism. I was angered, too, by people conflating the two. WikiLeaks should not be praised for results obtained by unethical behavior. • • • Evie learned Mommy's name is Alyson this weekend. Alyson! Alyson! It's hilarious to me, largely because she hasn't started calling me Andrew yet. • • • Look for more coverage on Thursday or Friday from News Judgments about the DNC convention. I'll probably do an analysis of Clinton's speech, too.
Why isn't this as bad as we think?
Many of the emails journalists have pointed to as the "worst" ones were after the nomination was largely wrapped up. I went to both liberal and conservative sites to find their lists of the worst emails. Pay attention to timing: I wrote on May 5 on this site that the Democratic nomination was effectively wrapped up. Most data-driven commentators had essentially called the race by then. Even though about nine states had yet to vote, it would have taken a miracle for Sanders to overcome the lead already generated.
On May 5, the "most damning" email from most sites was written: several DNC members talking about if someone could ask Sanders about his religion. It's one thing to talk about doing it, but I don't know if anyone ever did. If they did, I never heard about it, and I pay attention to politics more than most. Just because you talk about doing something stupid doesn't mean the angels of your better virtue didn't stop yourself.
Several other "most damning" emails came after the troubling Nevada convention, which... didn't go well. Wasserman Schultz called Sanders' campaign manager a "damn liar." But why? It was in response to him publicly accusing her/the party of rigging the system. She also had another semi-negative statement about Sanders — but the context is important: It was in an email chain about an interview SANDERS had given to Politico in which he accused the party of being unfair. If Person A says Person B rigged the system, and Person B privately calls them a liar, I don't think that Person B is being outrageous. You'd have to have evidence from before Person A's accusations, and I haven't seen any from this email dump (though more are rumored to be coming).
I'd also say that many of the things that supposedly show conspiracy probably is just the way the proverbial sausage is made. In one, the DNC communications director starts throwing out ideas about how to summarize how Sanders lost, that his campaign never had its act together. But another staffer shoots that down. Not every idea makes it to the final product, and this is one example. Further, it was May 21, and although California/New Jersey had yet to vote, the race was over, sans a miracle. There's no smoking gun here.
Largely, most of the "damning" emails were either a) reactions to accusations by the Sanders camp b) how the sausage of politics is made — throwing out plans and ideas, many of which never come to fruition or c) the type of behind-the-scenes talk no one ever wants to be made public.
Is that surprising?
Sanders had never called himself a Democrat until the presidential race, then spent most of the race being accusatory toward the party itself. It's no surprise that there would be some emails showing frustration/negative attitudes toward Sanders. I'm waiting to see a leaked email from before late April, when the race was not "over," but had already been decided.
Timing/context does matter. At that point, the GOP race had wrapped up despite being closer than the Democratic race. The emails most are calling damning are from that period in which Sanders was holding out hope and being accusatory toward the party.
What about the attempts to influence journalists?
This may surprise you, but I have no problem with this. It's the DNC's job to promote the party. If they (and the RNC, to be honest), weren't trying these sort of things, they'd be doing a bad job. It's the journalists' job to remain objective. From all but one email, it appears to be the type of damage control/attempt to influence that you'd expect. There's no collusion, simply the "Cover us better" type of requests on this issue or another that are common. I received those from politicians on both sides when I was a reporter. It's their job to seek better coverage and the reporter's job to tactfully say "Take a hike."
One email requires a deeper look, in which Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sends a copy of his story to a DNC contact before it goes to his editor. At first glance, this breaks journalism rules. There's a very black-and-white ethical issue of sending your stories to sources before publishing. However, when it comes to major scoops or sensitive information, I've seen journalists this done before. It is a quid pro quo: You give me access; I give you first glance. Personally, I'd rather have been scooped than be too cozy with my sources. But others would rather break a few eggs to make a better batter. It's a trade-off they're willing to make, but I'm not. In short, it's an ethical quandary, and I think he's wrong, but I'm willing to admit that others are willing to go farther than me. But: It's a question of journalistic ethics, not DNC ethics.
Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz need to go/What are the lasting effects?
I would say yes, and the writing should have been on the wall even before the emails came out. The Sanders campaign had created an us-versus-them strategy that galvanized people against the party. I've not seen enough evidence to convince me that they were 100 percent right yet. However, there was too much defensiveness coming from the DNC, and I would say that their decisions re: debate schedule weren't beneficial to Sanders or the public. Wasserman Schultz had become the identifiable face of the party-as-the-problem. Her term was to end in January anyway, but I think she'd have been booed at the DNC if these emails came out or not. She had become a problem, and it needed to be excised.
As for lasting effects, I'm not sure there are many. The superdelegate rules have been rewritten per Sanders' camp's request so that 2/3 of them are bound to state primaries/caucuses. The DNC platform includes several Sanders issues. Sanders is speaking tonight. The best thing the DNC can do is to have no more drama. The last thing they want to appear is divided.
Did the DNC's actions (as revealed by this email) affect the race?
I see no evidence. Sanders lost by millions of votes and never was able to congeal the minority vote behind him. Ultimately, that's what cost him: He couldn't win black and Hispanic votes. In order to connect A (Sanders losing) to C (DNC collusion), I need evidence of B (the DNC influencing the minority vote).
Compare and Contrast
I'm interested to see not just who speaks, but what they say. Bernie Sanders (top rival) is up on Monday, and if he gives an enthusiastic endorsement of Hillary, that's a clear sign Democrats are united. Most major Democrats are "With Her" with enthusiasm: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Barack Obama. Compare to the tepid endorsements by McConnell, Paul Ryan and the non-endorsement/major rebuke by Ted Cruz. In short: Democrats are united, the GOP is begrudgingly accepting.
Trump's Big Speech
I wrote on Facebook that I was struck by the Nixonian ("Law and Order candidate") and Lindberghian language (Historical aside: Aviator Charles Lindbergh was a major touter of the "America First" line, anti-WWII intervention and also anti-Semite — in the 1930s/40s. History doesn't like to talk about his politics career for that reason). I told Alyson early on that if he says "law and order," it's a political reference to Nixon. He said it in his fourth sentence. And the Washington Post indicated that this was intentional: "The Trump team indicated in advance that the speech would be based in part on Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech."
But let's look more analytically at his speech.
Crime and violence in the abstract isn't actually actually up — it's down. FBI crime rates show that after a peak of crime/violence in the early 1990s, there's been a steady decline since then. Yes, there's been more officer shootings (this rules out traffic deaths, etc.) in the first six months of this year compared to last year, but the broader trend is down from 2005. Illegal immigration from Mexico is actually pretty stagnant this year and has been since roughly 2009. The trade deficit is pretty stable and has been better under the Obama administration than the Bush administration. While the national debt is up, the amount being added to it each year has dropped every year of the Obama presidency. He said that Iran caught our soldiers before the Iran nuclear deal, but it occurred afterward. He accused James Comey, FBI director and Bush appointee, of downplaying Clinton's email scandal. While claiming Hillary's tax plan is "massive," he ignores that his own would "explode the nation's debt," per a nonpartisan group. America is not one of the most highly taxed nations — it ranks 27th out of 30 when compared to economic peers. Yes, the size of the military has shrunk, but that's because of Congress's terrible sequestration issue, not Obama's decision. He was right and wrong about black unemployment and black youth unemployment, respectively. He usually accurately quoted or summarized Clinton's positions.
Five times, Trump says to "Believe Me." Three times he says he's going to "do X fast." Multiple times he talks about how bad current things are without noting that it costs money to fix it. He talks about a plan for law and order, and reforms for the economy, but never mentions specifics about how. He says we'll replace Obamacare, but doesn't say how. He says he'll fix the TSA, but makes no mention of how. The two most specific plans I've found reading the transcript are a) build a wall and b) eliminate regulations on energy companies to generate $2 trillion (roughly 9 percent of the GDP!). Alyson noted that he keeps saying to believe him, but she doesn't believe him. The speech was largely about tearing down Obama/Clinton and establishing fear. I encourage you to read the transcript and see if you agree. It's one thing to tear down an opponent; it's another to give a reason to vote for you.
Summary Judgments
A former colleague of mine from my OU days, Tres Savage, wrote a good editorial on why WikiLeaks should not be confused for journalism. I was angered, too, by people conflating the two. WikiLeaks should not be praised for results obtained by unethical behavior. • • • Evie learned Mommy's name is Alyson this weekend. Alyson! Alyson! It's hilarious to me, largely because she hasn't started calling me Andrew yet. • • • Look for more coverage on Thursday or Friday from News Judgments about the DNC convention. I'll probably do an analysis of Clinton's speech, too.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Other People's Words
There's no doubt to me that Melania Trump plagiarized. I'd even be willing to go so far to say Donald Trump Jr. plagiarized in his speech, too (not giving credit for someone else's words is a form of plagiarism). But, as that fount of wisdom Newt Gingrich has already bloviated: "Who cares" if she plagiarized? In one sense he's right, but in the other he's missing the real issue.
As I wrote last week (see? attribution isn't hard), No one should be voting for or against a candidate because of a speech their spouse makes. Plagiarism is trying to pass someone else's words off as your own — it's a form of laziness. It's lazy to say "I came up with this on my own" when you didn't. In that case, it's also lying. Now, I'll freely admit that there are times in which plagiarism is accidental, or an attribution is ignored. We'll get to an example of that later. Let's be clear: These are all wrong. On the scale of things, though, plagiarism can be overcome. It's not a death blow, politically.
And this is where Gingrich is wrong: It's not the crime, it's the reaction and the reference. Here are three case studies:
Take the issue of Donald Trump Jr.'s lifting of a key paragraph from Frank Buckley (who later admitting to lifting the lines himself without attribution, but let's ignore that for now) in his speech on Tuesday. In this case, Buckley acknowledged giving Trump Jr. the lines, and saying there was nothing to apologize for. This is still plagiarism. It's taking someone else's ideas, words or thoughts and claiming them as your own. But in this case, he was referencing an ally/friend. It's no surprise that Trump Jr. took the line, but he also didn't apologize, either. This is plagiarism with no acknowledgement.
Many have compared the Melania incident to one from President Obama's early career, when he took lines from a Deval Patrick (Mass. Gov.) speech and made them his own in one major speech. While he had used those lines before, he had always given attribution until it was dropped. Patrick, a friend and supporter of Obama's, said he had given Obama permission to use the lines. However, after the plagiarism was discovered, Obama made a public apology and vowed to use better attribution in the future. It was plagiarism with acknowledgement.
Finally, we have the Melania Trump kerfuffle. She stole lines from someone who she ostensibly did not have permission (unlike the Trump Jr. and Deval Patrick incidents). That's bad. What's worse is the mad scramble to deny/reject/outright muck up the waters in the wake of it. And there was the issue that Melania and the campaign claimed both before and after that she wrote the speech herself with little help. First, the Trump staff called it "absurd," then "crazy." Later, it was the claim that her speechwriters "should have cleaned it up better." Then the campaign brought up John Legend, Akon, and even My Little Pony's Twilight Sparkle as examples of people who'd used similar language while ignoring the full extent and order of the speech. It was two days later before we learned a) Melania didn't write it and b) who did. Further, the incident was waved off by the Trump campaign as "innocent." It was plagiarism with denial, bargaining, and a lack of a cohesive response.
I'd rank them from most serious to least serious this way: 1) Melania Trump 2) Donald Trump Jr. 3) Barack Obama. Ultimately, we learned more about the Trump campaign than we did about Melania Trump. The Trump campaign is disorganized, denied obvious facts for two days, and still cannot admit fault. If that is how he and his potential administration will deal with a minor issue like a plagiarism scandal, what happens when the issue is of much grander importance?
Convention Cues
I believe a convention is a presidential dry-run. It's a microcosm of what that party/candidate will do when they have control. And both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the full control of how their party's... party (heh!) will go. At some point, if elected, they'll have to govern. If they can't keep a four-day convention on the rails, how will they handle the military or the economy or foreign affairs? All of those things are far more difficult to manage than a four-day event.
We'll see what happens with the Democratic convention later this month, but the best thing for them would be to have an event without a lot of drama. Because boy howdy, the GOP convention has been a disaster so far. Now, tonight's the night when Trump plays his best cards: Ivanka is probably his strongest, most willing supporter and someone with a clean political pedigree. I expect a great speech from her. Then Trump will speak, and I feel like by now, there's only one type of Trump speech.
But the week has been disastrous. There was the aforementioned Melania Trump struggles. There was the fact that the best celebrities he could get were Antonio Sabato Jr., Scott Baio and a Duck Dynasty guy. There's the troubling report from the New York Times that when a Trump surrogate (one of his sons) offered the VP slot to John Kasich, he also offered control over "domestic and foreign policy." There's the fact that most GOP leaders tried to split the baby by either endorsing by remote video (Marco Rubio), giving a boilerplate GOP speech without much talk of Trump specifically (McConnell/Ryan) or well, I think it's time we talked about Ted Cruz.
Quick aside: GOP voters have shown they love people who "speak their minds." Trump does it and gets nominated, Cruz does it and gets booed? Anyway, you have four primetime slots during the convention. Three, if you don't count the nominee on Thursday. Cruz and Pence split the primetime addresses on Wednesday. Pence couldn't have been more overshadowed if he literally stood in the shadows. Cruz gave a very public snub on a very public stage. Was there anything way out of line? I'm not so sure, but he milked some pregnant pauses. In doing so, he drew attention to his lack of an endorsement, practically taunting the audience. OK, but what does that mean? It means a) the GOP isn't as unified as they want you to believe b) Ted Cruz just shoved the wedge between factions a little deeper and c) Trump is terrible at management. I say that because there are only two possibilities for Trump putting Cruz on the stage. Either he knew or he didn't know what Cruz would say. If he did know, then he's courting disaster, inviting a rift in his party, or setting Cruz up to be a pariah. If he didn't know, then he stupidly put a loose cannon on stage in primetime without enough vetting.
Summary Judgments
CNN, why do you think Eric Trump saying the Trump campaign will be studied for years is "breaking news"? That's pretty weak breaking news. Let's leave the important, red-text line for what's actually breaking news. • • • I'm waiting to hear an explanation as to why this man was shot. It's been nearly 24 hours. I've said this countless times: In the absence of an explanation, people will make their own assumptions. It's bad PR not to have an answer. • • • This headline makes me cringe, for grammatical reasons. Join I? • • • I've been using redstate.com as my go-to for conservative views. To say they are conflicted about this last week's events is an understatement. • • • I'm sorry that all I've got this week is discussion of the GOP. I'm sure my attention will turn to the Democrats at the end of the month. • • • Evie's in a big-girl toddler bed. So far, so good! Though last night, she made noise after bedtime and started to come out of the room. She saw us. We said, "Go to bed." She turned around and went to sleep. I'm sure it'll be that easy going forward, right?
As I wrote last week (see? attribution isn't hard), No one should be voting for or against a candidate because of a speech their spouse makes. Plagiarism is trying to pass someone else's words off as your own — it's a form of laziness. It's lazy to say "I came up with this on my own" when you didn't. In that case, it's also lying. Now, I'll freely admit that there are times in which plagiarism is accidental, or an attribution is ignored. We'll get to an example of that later. Let's be clear: These are all wrong. On the scale of things, though, plagiarism can be overcome. It's not a death blow, politically.
And this is where Gingrich is wrong: It's not the crime, it's the reaction and the reference. Here are three case studies:
Take the issue of Donald Trump Jr.'s lifting of a key paragraph from Frank Buckley (who later admitting to lifting the lines himself without attribution, but let's ignore that for now) in his speech on Tuesday. In this case, Buckley acknowledged giving Trump Jr. the lines, and saying there was nothing to apologize for. This is still plagiarism. It's taking someone else's ideas, words or thoughts and claiming them as your own. But in this case, he was referencing an ally/friend. It's no surprise that Trump Jr. took the line, but he also didn't apologize, either. This is plagiarism with no acknowledgement.
Many have compared the Melania incident to one from President Obama's early career, when he took lines from a Deval Patrick (Mass. Gov.) speech and made them his own in one major speech. While he had used those lines before, he had always given attribution until it was dropped. Patrick, a friend and supporter of Obama's, said he had given Obama permission to use the lines. However, after the plagiarism was discovered, Obama made a public apology and vowed to use better attribution in the future. It was plagiarism with acknowledgement.
Finally, we have the Melania Trump kerfuffle. She stole lines from someone who she ostensibly did not have permission (unlike the Trump Jr. and Deval Patrick incidents). That's bad. What's worse is the mad scramble to deny/reject/outright muck up the waters in the wake of it. And there was the issue that Melania and the campaign claimed both before and after that she wrote the speech herself with little help. First, the Trump staff called it "absurd," then "crazy." Later, it was the claim that her speechwriters "should have cleaned it up better." Then the campaign brought up John Legend, Akon, and even My Little Pony's Twilight Sparkle as examples of people who'd used similar language while ignoring the full extent and order of the speech. It was two days later before we learned a) Melania didn't write it and b) who did. Further, the incident was waved off by the Trump campaign as "innocent." It was plagiarism with denial, bargaining, and a lack of a cohesive response.
I'd rank them from most serious to least serious this way: 1) Melania Trump 2) Donald Trump Jr. 3) Barack Obama. Ultimately, we learned more about the Trump campaign than we did about Melania Trump. The Trump campaign is disorganized, denied obvious facts for two days, and still cannot admit fault. If that is how he and his potential administration will deal with a minor issue like a plagiarism scandal, what happens when the issue is of much grander importance?
Convention Cues
I believe a convention is a presidential dry-run. It's a microcosm of what that party/candidate will do when they have control. And both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the full control of how their party's... party (heh!) will go. At some point, if elected, they'll have to govern. If they can't keep a four-day convention on the rails, how will they handle the military or the economy or foreign affairs? All of those things are far more difficult to manage than a four-day event.
We'll see what happens with the Democratic convention later this month, but the best thing for them would be to have an event without a lot of drama. Because boy howdy, the GOP convention has been a disaster so far. Now, tonight's the night when Trump plays his best cards: Ivanka is probably his strongest, most willing supporter and someone with a clean political pedigree. I expect a great speech from her. Then Trump will speak, and I feel like by now, there's only one type of Trump speech.
But the week has been disastrous. There was the aforementioned Melania Trump struggles. There was the fact that the best celebrities he could get were Antonio Sabato Jr., Scott Baio and a Duck Dynasty guy. There's the troubling report from the New York Times that when a Trump surrogate (one of his sons) offered the VP slot to John Kasich, he also offered control over "domestic and foreign policy." There's the fact that most GOP leaders tried to split the baby by either endorsing by remote video (Marco Rubio), giving a boilerplate GOP speech without much talk of Trump specifically (McConnell/Ryan) or well, I think it's time we talked about Ted Cruz.
Quick aside: GOP voters have shown they love people who "speak their minds." Trump does it and gets nominated, Cruz does it and gets booed? Anyway, you have four primetime slots during the convention. Three, if you don't count the nominee on Thursday. Cruz and Pence split the primetime addresses on Wednesday. Pence couldn't have been more overshadowed if he literally stood in the shadows. Cruz gave a very public snub on a very public stage. Was there anything way out of line? I'm not so sure, but he milked some pregnant pauses. In doing so, he drew attention to his lack of an endorsement, practically taunting the audience. OK, but what does that mean? It means a) the GOP isn't as unified as they want you to believe b) Ted Cruz just shoved the wedge between factions a little deeper and c) Trump is terrible at management. I say that because there are only two possibilities for Trump putting Cruz on the stage. Either he knew or he didn't know what Cruz would say. If he did know, then he's courting disaster, inviting a rift in his party, or setting Cruz up to be a pariah. If he didn't know, then he stupidly put a loose cannon on stage in primetime without enough vetting.
Summary Judgments
CNN, why do you think Eric Trump saying the Trump campaign will be studied for years is "breaking news"? That's pretty weak breaking news. Let's leave the important, red-text line for what's actually breaking news. • • • I'm waiting to hear an explanation as to why this man was shot. It's been nearly 24 hours. I've said this countless times: In the absence of an explanation, people will make their own assumptions. It's bad PR not to have an answer. • • • This headline makes me cringe, for grammatical reasons. Join I? • • • I've been using redstate.com as my go-to for conservative views. To say they are conflicted about this last week's events is an understatement. • • • I'm sorry that all I've got this week is discussion of the GOP. I'm sure my attention will turn to the Democrats at the end of the month. • • • Evie's in a big-girl toddler bed. So far, so good! Though last night, she made noise after bedtime and started to come out of the room. She saw us. We said, "Go to bed." She turned around and went to sleep. I'm sure it'll be that easy going forward, right?
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter
Editor's Note: I'm back from vacation, and I have a renewed focus. This blog started out as a way to analyze not just the news that was being published, but how it was being reported. I'm going to try to steer away from more partisan issues in the future, or at least try to be more news-focused here in the main story part.
A lot happened while Alyson and I were in Chicago last week. The biggest events have become hashtags: Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Dallas Police. What do you say about this? I won't get into the nitty gritty of each incident or get into who's wrong and who's most wrong. Each is a tragedy. Each deserves reflection. But today, let's look at Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter was born from frustration in the disparity between the white and black experience with law enforcement. They call for reforms for justice and fairness, so that a person of color is treated the same way by the police that a white person would be. Note that the implicit understanding there is that police and law enforcement is necessary, but BLM wants it to be fair for all. I'm simplifying this a lot, but when you look at their policy goals, that's what they seek.
All Lives Matter and calls for "unity" are really just a way of saying "be quiet, people of color." Saying that the BLM folks should meet halfway and we should all have unity doesn't solve their problem — it pretends it doesn't exist. And there is a problem. There are two black senators in the U.S., and one of them, GOP Sen. Tim Scott, said he's been pulled over seven times in the last year, and denied entry to the Senate. He gave a beautiful speech on the Senate floor about how "the scales of justice are slanted." He ended by asking people to "recognize that just because you do not feel the pain, the anguish of another, does not mean it does not exist."
When people cry out about Blue Lives Matter, it bothers me because that is a false equivalent. 1) Police choose to be in the law enforcement profession. People of color cannot choose to have a different skin. 2) The shooter in Dallas was killed by police using a robot with a bomb attached to it. As far as I know, the officers in the Castile/Sterling cases are not under arrest. 3) Why do we have to compare who matters most? No one said Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter until Black Lives Matter, which means those first two are trying to say "this is more imporant than that". 4) When the attacks in Dallas happened, there was a disparity in reaction compared to Philando Castile/Alton Sterling. BLM came out immediately and condemned the attack as unjustified and reiterated their position that they do not condone violence and condemn those who wish to commit violent acts. We don't hear that sort of immediate universal condemnation when people of color are shot by law enforcement. Instead, I see a lot of grasping for excuses from the public — "Oh, he should have been more respectful," "Oh, he shouldn't have been committing a crime," etc. When law enforcement officers are shot, it's often a universal reaction — this is terrible. When people of color are shot, we look for excuses.
This is not to denigrate police or how hard their job is. They willingly signed up for a job in which every decision is difficult, every day could be your last and in which there's very rarely a lot of "happy encounters." I have many friends who are police and their work is insanely difficult. I would never argue otherwise and have always treated them with the utmost respect. But it's possible to both regard law enforcement to the highest degree while also wishing to hold them to higher standards, to paraphrase an old Jon Stewart line.
Now, I want to make one last point about this issue: I recognize that I'm conflating an official statement by Black Lives Matter after Dallas with the worst reactions by people on social media. Blue Lives Matter is not an organization, just a hashtag. And there are terrible reactions by BLM-associated people after Dallas, too. The long and short of it is an incredible quote by George W. Bush in Dallas: "Too often we judge other groups by their worst example, while judging ourselves by our best intentions." Perfect. Let us all be light in our judgment of others while holding ourselves to greater standards.
Don't Trust the Polls
With that said, I want to speak quickly about poll data this month: DON'T TRUST IT. The first week has been disrupted with the Clinton e-mail non-indictment, the series of shootings and a holiday. Now we're getting into the GOP convention/Trump's VP pick (expect a bump for him in polling then) followed by the Democratic convention/Clinton's VP pick (expect a bump for her in polling after that). We likely won't know the true state of the race until mid-August.
And that's good. We can get up in arms about this poll (Quinnipiac! ACK!) or that poll (Monmouth shows it's going South!) or weird polls. Taking a broad view, like Real Clear Politics or FiveThirtyEight, tends to even out the noise. Here's the latest: Clinton was leading about 5-7 points nationally, and after the last week is down to about 3-4 points. Check back again in mid-August.
RBG's Comments
This week in "Overblown News Theater," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a series of comments about Donald Trump. She called him a faker and wondered what his rise meant about the future of our country. Of course, judges are supposed to be objective, so there were calls for her to resign/apologize. Trump said that "her mind was shot," which seems to me to be more of an insult than what she said. Calling someone senile is a more serious insult than a faker.
She's apologized, of course, but won't resign. And for good reason. When Scalia or Thomas or Alito appeared at GOP fundraisers over the last few decades, no one blinked an eyelash. We, the public, want to believe that our judges are objective, even though we know they are people too. She was wrong to bring partisanship into a place that tries to stay above the fray, but the reaction from some camps was over-the-top.
Fox News Partisanship
If you for some reason need proof that Fox News is partisan, take a look at the way they write headlines. The headline today about Ginsburg's apology on FoxNews.com states that she "admits her comments about Trump 'ill-advised' but stops short of issuing an apology". Yet the video attached is titled "Ginsburg apologizes for comments." You can't have it both ways, Fox News.
As further proof, look at what is featured on their opinion page: All anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. An objective news organization would at least try to be equal parts. Looking further at the "featured contributors" on the Opinion page, there are eight. Four are white men — two served in Bush-era administrations (Karl Rove and Richard Grenell), one wrote about how Christians are under attack, and the final is noted Fox personality Andrew Napolitano. Three of the eight "featured contributors" are white women — two served in the Bush administration (Dana Perino and K.T. McFarland) and the final works for a conservative think tank. Only one in eight — Juan Williams, the poor soul — is a minority with a Democratic viewpoint. The sole minority member is also the sole non-conservative.
Summary Judgments
Alyson brought up an issue that I hadn't considered in the Dallas Police shooting: Using a robot to deliver a bomb that killed the shooter is a potential "slippery slope." If authorities can use unmanned vehicles (robots now, drones in the future?) to kill American citizens on American soil, what does that mean for the future? • • • I continue to love what Jeffrey Toobin writes about the Clinton email scandal for the New Yorker. He puts it into a context that is missing from many stories while not absolving Clinton either. I've consistently found Toobin to be a fair, strong journalist. If I were still a journalist, Toobin is who I'd want to be like. • • • I don't understand why TV networks hire former campaign managers to be paid talking heads. What are we going to learn from Trump's former campaign manager (CNN) or Bush's former campaign manager (Fox)? • • • I think it's a little telling when one looks at the expected speakers at the respective national party conventions. The GOP convention will include almost none of the major names, very few "rising stars," and a lot of Trump family members and sports figures. The Democratic convention will have almost their entire squad on stage. Meaning? Democrats are united, the GOP is embarrassed of their pick. • • • I expect Trump to pick Ind. Gov. Mike Pence as his VP pick. Of the people left who want it, he's the least problematic/most boring pick compared to Gingrich or Christie. And as I said last time, boring is good. The timing of the announcement is right, too: Pence has to decide by noon Friday if he files for re-election or runs for VP. Indiana law says he can't do both. Trump's VP announcement is at 11 a.m. Interesting timing. • • • I'm amazed at how big the kids are getting. We'll probably start potty training Evie and moving her into a toddler bed next month. Roland's a little behind, but that's to be expected. He's also a lot steadier on his feet lately, running much better. • • • I've typed this whole thing without the use of my backspace key. It's surprising how important that is.
A lot happened while Alyson and I were in Chicago last week. The biggest events have become hashtags: Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Dallas Police. What do you say about this? I won't get into the nitty gritty of each incident or get into who's wrong and who's most wrong. Each is a tragedy. Each deserves reflection. But today, let's look at Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter was born from frustration in the disparity between the white and black experience with law enforcement. They call for reforms for justice and fairness, so that a person of color is treated the same way by the police that a white person would be. Note that the implicit understanding there is that police and law enforcement is necessary, but BLM wants it to be fair for all. I'm simplifying this a lot, but when you look at their policy goals, that's what they seek.
All Lives Matter and calls for "unity" are really just a way of saying "be quiet, people of color." Saying that the BLM folks should meet halfway and we should all have unity doesn't solve their problem — it pretends it doesn't exist. And there is a problem. There are two black senators in the U.S., and one of them, GOP Sen. Tim Scott, said he's been pulled over seven times in the last year, and denied entry to the Senate. He gave a beautiful speech on the Senate floor about how "the scales of justice are slanted." He ended by asking people to "recognize that just because you do not feel the pain, the anguish of another, does not mean it does not exist."
When people cry out about Blue Lives Matter, it bothers me because that is a false equivalent. 1) Police choose to be in the law enforcement profession. People of color cannot choose to have a different skin. 2) The shooter in Dallas was killed by police using a robot with a bomb attached to it. As far as I know, the officers in the Castile/Sterling cases are not under arrest. 3) Why do we have to compare who matters most? No one said Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter until Black Lives Matter, which means those first two are trying to say "this is more imporant than that". 4) When the attacks in Dallas happened, there was a disparity in reaction compared to Philando Castile/Alton Sterling. BLM came out immediately and condemned the attack as unjustified and reiterated their position that they do not condone violence and condemn those who wish to commit violent acts. We don't hear that sort of immediate universal condemnation when people of color are shot by law enforcement. Instead, I see a lot of grasping for excuses from the public — "Oh, he should have been more respectful," "Oh, he shouldn't have been committing a crime," etc. When law enforcement officers are shot, it's often a universal reaction — this is terrible. When people of color are shot, we look for excuses.
This is not to denigrate police or how hard their job is. They willingly signed up for a job in which every decision is difficult, every day could be your last and in which there's very rarely a lot of "happy encounters." I have many friends who are police and their work is insanely difficult. I would never argue otherwise and have always treated them with the utmost respect. But it's possible to both regard law enforcement to the highest degree while also wishing to hold them to higher standards, to paraphrase an old Jon Stewart line.
Now, I want to make one last point about this issue: I recognize that I'm conflating an official statement by Black Lives Matter after Dallas with the worst reactions by people on social media. Blue Lives Matter is not an organization, just a hashtag. And there are terrible reactions by BLM-associated people after Dallas, too. The long and short of it is an incredible quote by George W. Bush in Dallas: "Too often we judge other groups by their worst example, while judging ourselves by our best intentions." Perfect. Let us all be light in our judgment of others while holding ourselves to greater standards.
Don't Trust the Polls
With that said, I want to speak quickly about poll data this month: DON'T TRUST IT. The first week has been disrupted with the Clinton e-mail non-indictment, the series of shootings and a holiday. Now we're getting into the GOP convention/Trump's VP pick (expect a bump for him in polling then) followed by the Democratic convention/Clinton's VP pick (expect a bump for her in polling after that). We likely won't know the true state of the race until mid-August.
And that's good. We can get up in arms about this poll (Quinnipiac! ACK!) or that poll (Monmouth shows it's going South!) or weird polls. Taking a broad view, like Real Clear Politics or FiveThirtyEight, tends to even out the noise. Here's the latest: Clinton was leading about 5-7 points nationally, and after the last week is down to about 3-4 points. Check back again in mid-August.
RBG's Comments
This week in "Overblown News Theater," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a series of comments about Donald Trump. She called him a faker and wondered what his rise meant about the future of our country. Of course, judges are supposed to be objective, so there were calls for her to resign/apologize. Trump said that "her mind was shot," which seems to me to be more of an insult than what she said. Calling someone senile is a more serious insult than a faker.
She's apologized, of course, but won't resign. And for good reason. When Scalia or Thomas or Alito appeared at GOP fundraisers over the last few decades, no one blinked an eyelash. We, the public, want to believe that our judges are objective, even though we know they are people too. She was wrong to bring partisanship into a place that tries to stay above the fray, but the reaction from some camps was over-the-top.
Fox News Partisanship
If you for some reason need proof that Fox News is partisan, take a look at the way they write headlines. The headline today about Ginsburg's apology on FoxNews.com states that she "admits her comments about Trump 'ill-advised' but stops short of issuing an apology". Yet the video attached is titled "Ginsburg apologizes for comments." You can't have it both ways, Fox News.
As further proof, look at what is featured on their opinion page: All anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. An objective news organization would at least try to be equal parts. Looking further at the "featured contributors" on the Opinion page, there are eight. Four are white men — two served in Bush-era administrations (Karl Rove and Richard Grenell), one wrote about how Christians are under attack, and the final is noted Fox personality Andrew Napolitano. Three of the eight "featured contributors" are white women — two served in the Bush administration (Dana Perino and K.T. McFarland) and the final works for a conservative think tank. Only one in eight — Juan Williams, the poor soul — is a minority with a Democratic viewpoint. The sole minority member is also the sole non-conservative.
Summary Judgments
Alyson brought up an issue that I hadn't considered in the Dallas Police shooting: Using a robot to deliver a bomb that killed the shooter is a potential "slippery slope." If authorities can use unmanned vehicles (robots now, drones in the future?) to kill American citizens on American soil, what does that mean for the future? • • • I continue to love what Jeffrey Toobin writes about the Clinton email scandal for the New Yorker. He puts it into a context that is missing from many stories while not absolving Clinton either. I've consistently found Toobin to be a fair, strong journalist. If I were still a journalist, Toobin is who I'd want to be like. • • • I don't understand why TV networks hire former campaign managers to be paid talking heads. What are we going to learn from Trump's former campaign manager (CNN) or Bush's former campaign manager (Fox)? • • • I think it's a little telling when one looks at the expected speakers at the respective national party conventions. The GOP convention will include almost none of the major names, very few "rising stars," and a lot of Trump family members and sports figures. The Democratic convention will have almost their entire squad on stage. Meaning? Democrats are united, the GOP is embarrassed of their pick. • • • I expect Trump to pick Ind. Gov. Mike Pence as his VP pick. Of the people left who want it, he's the least problematic/most boring pick compared to Gingrich or Christie. And as I said last time, boring is good. The timing of the announcement is right, too: Pence has to decide by noon Friday if he files for re-election or runs for VP. Indiana law says he can't do both. Trump's VP announcement is at 11 a.m. Interesting timing. • • • I'm amazed at how big the kids are getting. We'll probably start potty training Evie and moving her into a toddler bed next month. Roland's a little behind, but that's to be expected. He's also a lot steadier on his feet lately, running much better. • • • I've typed this whole thing without the use of my backspace key. It's surprising how important that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)