Archive for Kristine Marsh
As the left mobilizes mobs to tear down confederate statues (and peace monuments) from city-to-city, it was only a matter of time before they would be going after our Founding Fathers. On CNN Thursday morning, liberal analyst Angela Rye argued that our nation’s first president was as detestable as Robert E. Lee because he was a slave owner. “To me, I don't care if it's a George Washington statue or Thomas Jefferson, they all need to come down,” she said before ranting about America’s “very violent past.”
In a panel discussion with the Daily Beast’s John Avlon, journalist Farai Chideya and analysts Amanda Carpenter and Angela Rye, host Kate Bolduan asked her guests about Trump’s tweets, which questioned who was “next” on the left’s list of objectionable historical figures. Carpenter lamented that Trump was dividing the country into “choosing sides” over this confederate monument issue, and leaving a political dynamic that left “no room for moderation.”
Bolduan then asked Avlon if the comparison of George Washington to Robert E.Lee was valid.
“It's an idiotic comparison. I think it scratches an itch we have seen throughout a lot of American history,” Avlon began. “It falls apart on the fundamental level that George Washington devoted his life to trying to unite our nation. Confederate generals made a fateful decision to try to tear apart our nation and 6 million people died,” he said, before dismissing that Lee and Washington were on the same plane of moral equivalency.
Bolduan then went slightly off-topic with guest Farai Chideya, asking her about white nationalist’s beliefs that America needed to be taken back to the days of white supremacy, which Chideya dismissed as an inaccurate belief. “When they talk about the original America, it was already multicultural. There were already Latinos. There were already black people. If we are going to relitigate history, let’s start with that,” she said.
Coming back to the monuments debate, Bolduan asked Rye,“Is it about statues and monuments?”
Rye, the former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, brought the issue back to racism and America’s “very violent past that that resulted in the death and the raping and the killing of my ancestors,” which she said, was “protected” by George Washington:
RYE: We have to get to the heart of the problem here. The heart of the problem is the way many of us were taught American history. American history is not all glorious. I love John to death, I couldn't disagree more about George Washington. George Washington was a slave owner. We need to call slave owners out for what they are. Whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not. He wasn't protecting my freedom. I wasn’t someone--my ancestors weren’t deemed human beings to him. To me, I don't care if it's a George Washington statue or a Thomas Jefferson statue or a Robert E. Lee statue, they all need to come down. There is a way to recognize--I'm not -- I'm not -- no, no, no, but I'm not -- I'm going to finish my point. I'm going to finish my point. I'm not feeding into white supremacy. I'm calling out white supremacy for what it is. And sometimes, what it is John, are blind spots. Sometimes what it is, is not acknowledging this country was built upon a very violent past that resulted in the death and the raping and the killing of my ancestors. I'm not going to allow us to say it's okay for Robert E. Lee but not a George Washington. We need to call it what it is.
Rye then warned that we had to keep “teaching” about Washington because we were “very close” to being a nation of slavery again:
RYE: I don't say they don't deserve to be taught about, learn about it so we don't repeat it because we are very close to repeating it right now. I'm not giving deference to George Washington or Robert E. Lee.
AVLON: Look. We have to be real careful here. What we are doing here is polarizing the conversation exactly in the direction that Donald Trump wants. We can obviously, the founding fathers were slave owners. The larger point is the perspective is key in American politics. While George Washington released his slaves upon his death bed, which was definitely too late,cold comfort for everybody and slavery is the original sin in our country that we’ve been dealing with fitfully-- we need to confront more correctly. If you all of a sudden buy into the slippery slope argument that Donald Trump is presenting---
RYE: I don't.
AVLON: That the Founding Fathers were the moral equivalent of confederate generals
RYE: I didn't.
AVLON: I believe you just did.
RYE: I didn't. I don't think you liked what I said but that's not what I said.
Chideya then tried to make the point that our heroes are “nuanced” and complex, and no one has to have led a perfect life to be considered a figure worthy of respect:
CHIDEYA: Can I throw one more thing in there. In my house, I have a portrait of George Washington and family. In that portrait is a man named William Lee. He is a black man who was -- who worked with George Washington. He is depicted in the painting Washington crossing the Delaware. Yet, George Washington, this same man who I believe was a hero, also pursued his runaway slave, Ona. There's a new book out called "Never Caught." George Washington was a complex man who was a hero, who validated William Lee, who served beside him and yet who pursued a runaway slave across America. I'm someone who can believe in the nuance of heroes. There are no people who are heroic who don’t have lead feet. So, I perhaps triangulating between both of you. I am obsessed with history. Let’s just dig into it. Let’s at least know now our history. I don't think George Washington is a Robert E. Lee and I don't think President Trump knows anything about history, he is using it as a blunt instrument for talking points to please white supremacists. That's what I believe.
Rye is unfortunately not alone. What was once a fringe view is being embraced by the mainstream left, with more renewed calls for the takedown of anything erected to Washington or Jefferson. Celebrities are even equating any figure who owned slaves in our nation’s history to Osama Bin Laden.
While CNN is gung-ho in its relentless coverage and criticism of Tuesday’s press conference, the network’s apparently not as interested in correcting its liberal guests less than accurate characterizations of violent left-wing groups.
After questioning if Trump wanted America to return to white supremacy, CNN New Day host Poppy Harlow brought on Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson to get his take, during Wednesday’s 7am show.
Dyson, who in 2016 first made CNN’s argument that “make America great again” was “code” for “white nationalism,” complained that Trump was “complicit” with the “worst kinds of bigotry” while praising violent leftist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter as patriotic movements “preserving the fabric of America.”
This tirade came after analyst April Ryan called on Republicans to back the anti-confederate statue movement across the country, or be complicit with white supremacy. Later in the show, host Poppy Harlow continued that line of argument with Dyson. She claimed that critics of removing statues were wrong because they were “ignoring” “the fact” that these monuments “represent a sanitized, fictionalized history.”
Harlow then asked Dyson what he thought about what Trump said. Dyson unleashed a tirade about “kindergartener” Trump “complicit with the worst kinds of bigotry in the country.” Dyson even defended the “alt-left” Black Lives Matter and Antifa groups, as “preserving the fabric of America.”
POPPY HARLOW: Michael, the president said that we are -- about the monuments, about the confederate monuments yesterday, that we are trying to erase, we being American people, it is trying to erase history, change culture, by taking them down. That sort of completely ignores the fact that they are representing a sanitized, fictionalized history. If you look back at these beautiful remarks from Mitch Landrieu earlier this year who quoted the vice president of the confederacy, Alexander Stephens. He talked about that cornerstone speech when he said, that the great truth is that the N word is not equal to the white man, that slavery and subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. What did you make of how the president addressed these monuments yesterday?
MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: This man is lethally ignorant, incapable of even having a kindergartner's comprehension of race. For those who say look, the confederacy is about history and heritage, it is. The history and heritage of racism! The history and heritage of bigotry. Building their sense of biological and in many cases theological and national identity upon a lie, a mythology of white supremacy. The belief that some people are inherently superior and some people are inherently inferior. For the president then to defend the actions against taking down Robert E. Lee, or stonewall Jackson -- remember, these people hated America enough to want the secede from it. The people that we claim, black lives matter, the antifa movement and so on, are interested in preserving the fabric of America. Mr. Miller says again, that there was violence there, but the problem is to equate that violence in reaction to the bigotry, with the bigotry itself is to misunderstand the fact that when you go to cancer treatment, the radiation is tough treatment, but it is meant to remove the cancer. So what he fails to understand and what the president especially fails to understand is that you are complicit with the worst currents of bigotry in this country when you try to draw a false equivalence between cessationists, racists and confederate defenders and bigots and neo Nazis and African-American and white people and others who have defended the rights of this nation to really seek a path of healing beyond the consternation we see now. That's the problem with this president, he ain't got the right moral vision, he doesn't have the right words to express that moral vision and he lacks an understanding of American history. This is the most illiterate, incompetent president in the history of this nation and it shows and it tells on him in the midst of this racial crisis where he is incapable of showing basic decent compassion for those who are vulnerable and who are victims of white supremacy in this country.
Harlow let Dyson get the last word in before continuing to the next segment.
On Monday, the late night comedy show hosts from all three networks came out strongly against President Trump, for what they deemed was an inadequate and “shameful” reaction the violence in Charlottesville. While NBC’s Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon didn’t veer into crass and extreme rhetoric like NBC’s other, more colorful late-night host Seth Meyers did, Fallon still called out Trump for his “shameful” response to Charlottesville. ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel also made several jokes claiming Trump was a member of the KKK.
NBC is apparently still trying to make amends to the Trump-haters for The Apprentice and Jimmy Fallon’s infamous “hair rub” months ago, because both of the network’s late-night hosts came out with scripted scolds of the President.
Meyers pulled a Stephen Colbert and spent his entire long monologue droning on about how Trump wasn’t “a president” because of his inadequate response to Saturday’s violence. He spewed that Trump wasn’t “a decent person” before going through a laundry list explaining how he was a racist xenophobe.
“And now white supremacists and American Nazis are visible and energetic and demonstrative in a way we have not seen in our lifetime. Donald Trump did not immediately denounce the white supremacist movement when given the chance. And now, whether he knows it or not, many of those people see him as leading that movement,” Meyers gushed.
MEYERS: On Saturday there was yet another terror attack on American soil. This one was allegedly perpetrated by a white supremacist named James Field against a group of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. He drove his car into a crowd and killed a woman named Heather Heyer. It was a horrifying incident that left most of the country stunned and terrified. But on Saturday, you didn't hear her name or the terrorist's name or even the word terrorist from our president. What you heard instead was this.
TRUMP:We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides. On many sides.
MEYERS: On many sides? If that choice of words made you feel sick to your stomach, the good news is you're a normal and decent person. The jury is still out on the president, as he initially refused to condemn the white supremacist movement in this country.
Now, he did read a statement at the WhiteHouse today that finally struck the right tone, but I'm sorry, pencils down on this subject was Saturday evening. He only gets very partial credit. Some ignored it or played it down when Donald Trump claimed our first black president wasn't born in this country. It was racist and insane, but he was written off as a clown, a bitter little man who didn't know an American could have a name like Barack Obama. Then he called Mexicans rapists during the speech announcing his candidacy. He called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. Then he brought Steve Bannon into the WhiteHouse with him, worked to take away voting rights from black people and hammered away at the idea that Chicago was a wasteland because of the violent black people living there. And now white supremacists and American Nazis are visible and energetic and demonstrative in a way we have not seen in our lifetime. Donald Trump did not immediately denounce the white supremacist movement when given the chance. And now, whether he knows it or not, many of those people see him as leading that movement. The leader of our country is called the president because he's supposed to preside over our society. His job is to lead, to cajole, to scold, to correct our path, to lift up what is good about us and to absolutely and unequivocally and immediately condemn what is evil in us. And if he does not do that, if he does not preside over our society, then he's not a president. You can stand for a nation or you can stand for a hateful movement. You can't do both. And if you don't make the right choice, I am confident the American voter will. Thank you, guys.
After that rant, Meyers continued but had to add in some crass penis jokes while he was at it:
So, you got the former leader of the KKK saying explicitly that the Nazis and white supremacists who rallied in Charlottesville were doing so in Donald Trump's name. Now, normally, you might think any president or any decent human being in that position would want to swiftly and unequivocally disavow them. And in this case, we also happen to have a president who has no problem quickly condemning things when he feels like it. Just in the last week, he slammed the senate majority leader of his own party and got into a war of words with north Korea. He tweeted insults about everyone from Jeb Bush to Meryl Streep to people who drink diet coke. [ Laughter ] Trump has a permanent hard on for condemnation. And yet when it came time to condemn white supremacists and Nazis, it was limp [ bleep ] city. [ Laughter and applause ]
That statement was so limp, he should have concluded by saying, [looking down] "This has never happened to me before. I don't --" [laughter] And the whole thing is such a bummer, because Nazis were like the last thing we all agreed on. Indiana Jones fought the Nazis and we love Indiana Jones. Of course, Trump probably didn't think the ark of the covenant should have been in a museum. He probably thought it should be in his apartment. [ Laughter ] "See that? It's full of ghosts. It's where we got Eric.
Earlier on the network’s Tonight Show, more civil host Jimmy Fallon opened his show somberly, with a monologue condemning the “disgusting” white supremacists actions on Saturday. Fallon also took shots at Trump though, saying “The fact that it took the president two days to come out and clearly denounce racist and white supremacists is shameful.”
JIMMY FALLON: Even though The Tonight Show isn't a political show, it's my responsibility to stand up against intolerance and extremism as a human being. What happened over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia was just disgusting. I was watching the news like everyone else and you're seeing like Nazi flags and torches and white supremacists and I was sick to my stomach. My daughters are in the next room playing and I'm thinking, how can I explain to them there's so much hatred in this world? They're 2 years old and 4 years old. They don't know what hate is. They go to the playground and they have friends of all races and backgrounds -- they just play and they laugh and they have fun. But as kids grow up, they need people to look up to, to show them what's right and good. They need parents and teachers. And they need leaders who appeal to the best in us. The fact that it took the president two days to come out and clearly denounce racist and white supremacists is shameful. And I think he finally spoke out because people everywhere stood up and said something. It's important for everyone, especially white people in this country, to speak out against this. Ignoring it is just as bad as supporting it. And remember, there are people who have given their lives to make sure this kind of hate doesn't spread. They fought and died on the right side of history. One brave woman in charlottesville, Heather Heyer, died standing up for what's right at the age of 32. I can't look at my beautiful, growing, curious daughters and say nothing when this kind of thing is happening. We all need to stand against what is wrong, acknowledge that racism exists, and stand up for what is right and civil and kind. And to show the next generation that we haven't forgotten how hard people have fought for human rights. We cannot do this. We can't go backwards. We can't go backwards. Thank you all for watching and listening.
Over on ABC, things were a little more light-hearted in tone but still just as hateful. On Jimmy Kimmel Live, the host claimed Trump was starting to look like a member of the KKK, and didn’t want to condemn “his base:”
KIMMEL: [I]t's another disturbing Monday in America. You know, we went into the weekend worrying about Kim Jong un starting a war. We came out of it wondering if our president is cutting eye holes out of his bed sheets.”
KIMMEL: So then after much prayer and reflection the president this morning decided to take the difficult step of condemning Nazis and the Klan, which was big for them because this is the sort of thing that could alienate his base. [ Laughter ] But even he knew he had to say something.”
On CBS’ Late Show With Stephen Colbert, the host resorted to lame jokes about Trump’s response, instead of his usually vile tirades:
COLBERT: "Many sides?" [Audience boos] Mr. President, this is terrorism, not your order at K.F.C. [in Trump impression]"I'd like the ten piece bucket with potato wedges, fries, mashed potatoes, you know what? Many sides. Many sides." "Coleslaw..." How can you possibly say you condemn this in the strongest possible terms when you don't even name the groups responsible or say what they did? "I strongly condemn you-know-who, about you-know-what, and aren't we all Nazis if you think about it?" I've seen angrier Yelp reviews!
Despite the hosts acting as if they were taking a moral stand against Trump, attacking him is nothing new or brave for the late night network hosts. They’ve been doing it since he took office, seemingly devoting just about every show to bashing Trump.
If you've ever wondered how wildly out-of-touch the media is, look no further than The New York Times’ Twitter account. Friday morning, the leading newspaper in the country actually wondered if climate change would be a "greater threat" for the island of Guam than being hit with a nuclear bomb. The New York Times’ World section’s Twitter account proposed the ludicrous question earlier this morning, to much deserved backlash.
What’s a greater threat to Guam? North Korea, or climate change? https://t.co/bPuBrFULC5— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) August 11, 2017
Of course this did not go over well. Dozens of replies mocked the paper for making such an absurd comparison:
I'm gonna go with the mentally unstable North Korean dictator with a nuclear weapon, but you do you.— Faizel Bham (@Faiz_Bham) August 11, 2017
Ignorance is the greatest threat of all... hence... the NYT is a far greater threat than either of these. U people are special.— Red West (@RedWest1) August 11, 2017
Perhaps embarrassed by the amount of ridicule the tweet procured, the Times’ social media manager modified the tweet when retweeting it a few hours later to read, “North Korea’s missiles may be one threat to Guam, but scientists are warning of another: climate change.”
This comes on the heels of another media outlet’s idiotic tweet downplaying the North Korean threat. The Associated Press wondered Thursday evening in a tweet, “Should” the U.S. shoot down North Korean missiles if they were headed towards the U.S.?
On MSNBC Live Thursday, host Ali Velshi refused to listen to his guest, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) after he started to give the liberal host an answer he didn’t like. Hosts Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle first asked the member of the Armed Services Committee about Trump’s handling of North Korea’s threat against the U.S. territory of Guam. As soon as Franks tried to explain that the situation would be harder to handle now than in years past, because of past mistakes presidents like Clinton and Obama made handling North Korea, Velshi cut him off, saying “I really don’t want to talk about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.” He then self-righteously scolded the GOP rep, saying “This is not a political game, Sir!”
Before all that, the interview started off straightforward with Ruhle asking Franks what his assessment was on how the U.S. should be handling North Korea. Towards the end of his answer, Frank admitted, “We shouldn’t be where we are,” placing blame on the past failed negotiations Clinton and Obama made with North Korea and Iran that didn’t require any accountability of our enemies.
STEPHANIE RUHLE: What's your assessment of how we should be handling North Korea?
REP. TRENT FRANKS: Well I think that, first of all, this threat to launch intermediate missiles at Guam has to be considered carefully. Because we only have a short period of time to ascertain the trajectory and whether or not those missiles are actually on track to hit Guam. It's something that we cannot just ignore that reality because indeed if we think that trajectory is on track, we would have to engage our own missile defense capability. And my overall assessment is that we shouldn't be where we are, but Bill Clinton had had an opportunity to negotiate with the North Koreans. He made a deal. He paid the ransom but didn't secure the hostage. Barack Obama did the the same thing and turned around and did the same thing with Iran. We're now starting into an area where we could find some of the most dangerous enemies to America in the world that would be armed with nuclear weapons. That's not good news for our children or our future generations.
Bringing it back to Trump, Ruhle asked Franks if Trump was “correct” in “inciting” Kim Jong-un:
RUHLE: Alright well maybe we have been dealt a difficult hand, but thus far, is the president playing that hand correctly in firing off ‘fire and fury,’ inciting, for a lack of a better term that irrational foreign leader in Kim Jong-un?
FRANKS: Well, the reality is that we only have two ways to defend this nation against intercontinental ballistic missiles that bare nuclear warheads. That's either to interdict them in flight, kinetically or otherwise or to be able to prevent them from being launched. And the main predicate for decades now against very dangerous enemies with nuclear arms has been deterrent. They have to believe that there's no gain in attacking United States. I think the president is making it clear to North Korea that should they attack the United States with nuclear weapons that there will be absolutely no gain to them and great harm to them if that occurs.
Velshi got his first question in then and it was hostile from the start. He mocked the GOP rep. for saying that Obama’s Iran Deal was a failure. “They had no missiles by the way, so the comparison’s not very good,” he snarked. Velshi also claimed that the Obama Admin had “absolute solid intelligence as to where the nuclear capability is,” (despite the fact that the deal relied solely on self-reporting from Iran itself, because it wouldn’t allow outside agencies like the IAEA to robustly inspect the country’s military facilities.) But Velshi was so confident in his statement that Franks asked Velshi to clarify:
FRANKS: I’m sorry can you repeat that again? Are you saying Iran has no nuclear missiles?
VELSHI: Iran has no nuclear capable missiles. That's a fact.
FRANKS: Well, Let me just suggest to you--if North Korea has those---
VELSHI: Congressman Congressman [repeatedly] -- let's talk about the present please. This is an important topic. I'm asking you a question. Let's talk about the present. How do we establish deny of capability with North Korea? We don't have nearly the information that we had on Iran.
After that rude interruption, Frank pushed back again, saying that the U.S. had “a great deal of information for decades” on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, but that past presidents had severely limited our current options with their deal-making failures. But as soon as Franks name-dropped Obama and Clinton, Velshi angrily interrupted again:
FRANKS: The fact is we have a great deal of information on North Korea. We had a great deal of information for decades and we had an opportunity to deny them the capability and two components to any threat. That's the capability and intent. And President Obama and President Clinton---
VELSHI: Congressman I really want to move forward. I really want to have a discussion about how we stop a war with North Korea. I really don’t want to talk about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter or Nixon. Because this all started---
FRANKS [being talked over by Velshi]: I can understand you wouldn't, but the bottom line is if we continue to make the mistakes of the past.
“This is not a political game, Sir! This is about war! Can we get answers?” Velshi scolded.
VELSHI: Do we really know where the missiles are in North Korea? Because Intelligence sources tell me that we do not have the degree of information we did in a place like Iran where our spy capabilities are really good, our aerial capabilities were really good. I'm asking a military question. I’m not asking about---
[talking over each other]
FRANKS: If you give me a chance to answer, maybe that would help us both. It is true that North Korea has the ability to disperse their capability, such as it is, in ways that are harder for us to deal with because there's not as much information in North Korea. That part is true.
VELSHI: That's what I'm trying to get to.
FRANKS: So what?
VELSHI: So the fact is when we talk about denial of capability, which goes back to the question I asked 2.5 minutes ago, when Lindsey Graham says there's denial of capability --
FRANKS: That ship has sailed. What we have to do now is to try to deter their intent. That's what I'm trying to suggest to you. The ship of capability has sailed under Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton. And now what we have to do is we have a president now that has far limited options and some of those options are much more grave than the options that we had before so consequently he has to make it clear to North Korea that should they intend or should they proceed to attack the United States, that it means devastation to them. That's dealing with intent. I hope the president succeeds because the implications, as you say, are profoundly ominous.
What Trent Franks was trying to explain to the head-in-the-sand MSNBC host was that we’ve been here before, so we should learn from our past mistakes. But all the media seems to care about is Trump’s “scary rhetoric.” Instead, they should be taking a look at how they covered past presidents’ reactions to nuclear threats.
The media hailed both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama’s “historic” deals with North Korea and Iran, respectively, which turned out to be failures. The 1994 deal reached with Korea by Clinton required little from the country, and even those requirements they eventually violated. The deal was meant to prevent Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, which clearly didn’t work. But at the time, the media praised Clinton for “ending the Cold War,” not giving any scrutiny to the lax measures placed on Korea in the agreement.
Thursday on Good Morning America, ABC continued their skewed reporting on the leaked memo from a former Google engineer that criticized his company’s approach to diversity in the workplace. But today’s report from ABC was the most biased yet. Correspondent Rebecca Jarvis cherry-picked the most unflattering generalizations about women from James Damore’s ten page memo, completely ignoring these were only a tiny portion of the memo, which had much more positive things to say about women brought to the workplace. In addition, the former Google engineer’s numerous criticisms of the company’s lack of tolerance for political viewpoints that weren’t from the far-left, was completely ignored in ABC’s report.
Jarvis report started the same way most of the media’s hyperbolic reports have:
This morning the man behind the memo that sparked outrage doubling down on those controversial claims about gender diversity at Google speaking out in an interview on YouTube.
Jarvis then highlighted comments from the memo, which gave a completely skewed perspective of what the memo actually entailed. ABC chose to include only the most unflattering generalizations about women from the memo, while omitting the numerous positive statements about women, and disregarding the equally as unflattering generalizations about men in the document. Instead, Jarvis only highlighted the following comments:
....claiming women on average have more neuroticism and higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance than men, and those differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
ABC continued harping on how the memo was “harmful to women” by including a sob story from Youtube’s female CEO, who complained “how hard it was” to explain the memo to her daughter: “I thought about how tragic it was that this unfounded bias was now being exposed to a new generation,” Jarvis read.
Another part of the document ABC didn’t cover was Damore’s criticism of Google’s left-wing bias. His memo repeatedly criticized Google for silencing voices that went against their left-wing “ideological echo chamber,” but still ABC had the audacity to claim the memo was “anti-diversity.”
During their first report on the subject on August 8, it wasn’t much better. Correspondent Nick Watt cherry-picked the same lines from the memo that Jarvis did, again completely omitting the counterparts to these statements and what the purpose of the memo was to begin with.
But at least on Tuesday’s report, ABC included one line about Damore accusing Google of liberal bias.
NICK WATT: Good morning, Robin. Well, Google’s CEO reportedly rushing back from vacation to handle the fallout from this ten-page memo that was written by a male engineer. It includes lines like “women, on average, have more neuroticism” and “abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.” He also accuses Google of a left-wing bias.
ABC’s evening news broadcast Wednesday was slightly more balanced. While again falsely characterizing the report as “anti-diversity” and picking out the same three “negative” statements about women, at least ABC also included Damore talking about ways the workplace could improve to help women thrive.
ABC is just one of many media outlets completely misrepresenting what Damore wrote. Like ABC, the Washington Post and CNN falsely summed up the memo as saying women couldn’t succeed in tech because of “their biology.” Left-wing outlets like Slate even went as far to call Damore a “white supremacist” while the Atlantic characterized the engineer’s memo as an unhinged tirade from a crazy person.
Just like the networks’ morning news broadcasts today, late night host Stephen Colbert spent more energy freaking out about President Trump’s reaction to North Korea’s nuclear threat, than he did about the threat itself, on his Tuesday night show.
The comedian spent his opening monologue August 8 obsessing over how Trump supposedly provoked North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with his warning to the unhinged dictator. Colbert held nothing back, declaring that “we’re all going to die” because of what Trump said:
“I know a lot of people tune into this show on a nightly basis to get their news and information. They count on me to be a straight shooter, okay, with a calm voice. I don’t want to be an alarmist---but we’re all going to die,” he stated, to audience applause and laughter.
After detailing how Kim Jong Un singled out the United States in response to the U.N.’s unanimous vote to place sanctions on North Korea, Colbert sarcastically praised Trump for “de-escalating” the situation.
COLBERT: Thankfully, faced with the greatest challenge of his presidency, Donald Trump stepped up, and in a moment of pure statesmanship, de-escalated the rhetoric and brought calm to our worried nation. (Laughter) I'm just kidding. He said this:
TRUMP: North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening, beyond a normal statement. And as I said, they will be met with fire, fury and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.
After playing that video clip, Colbert hid behind the camera before slowly peering up with a terrified expression. He pleaded:
Shut up! Just shhhh! Okay? You're going to get us all killed, and I just started The Handmaid's Tale. ( Laughter ) You know Kim Jong-Un's crazy, right?
Left-wing website Slate’s take on the monologue was even worse than the segment itself. Slate’s Matthew Dessem gushingly described Colbert as a “Walter Cronkite” type, whose “calm, steady voice the nation turned to in times of crisis.” Which makes us wonder which show, exactly, is he watching:
As the North Korean crisis loomed on Wednesday night, Stephen Colbert took his place with Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and Jon Stewart in the pantheon of calm, steady voices the nation has turned to in times of crisis. And he had a simple message for all Americans: “I don’t want to be alarmist, but we’re all gonna die.” It was a powerful, inspiring reminder that our heroes are dead, our enemies are in power, and we’ve given Donald Trump the ability to destroy all of human civilization with the touch of a button. Colbert also addressed the president directly, offering wise counsel to a man facing the toughest test of his leadership so far….
Former Vice President-turned-climate change activist Al Gore was given another opportunity by CNN this weekend to shame skeptics of his climate change propaganda as backwards bigots. Just last week when the network hosted a town hall with Gore, he compared the fight against climate change to a matter of “right and wrong,” much like the Civil Rights Movement.
Sunday, Gore sat down with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria to blast critics again, as behind the times and on the wrong side of history.
The interview began with Zakaria talking to Gore about his documentary, An Inconvenient Sequel, and his experiences traveling the world documenting man-made climate change. The CNN host then asked if Gore had any “optimism” for the future, given what he’s “seeing now.” Gore praised the international support for his climate change agenda, saying the U.S. was at a “tipping point” for broadly accepting climate change dogma.
But then Gore made climate change a moral issue again, saying that those not on board with this belief were like those resistant to the civil rights movement in the ‘60s.
FAREED ZAKARIA: Do you think when you look at the future, you are able to maintain your optimism given the kind of pretty bleak picture of what you're describing seeing right now...
GORE: [A] decade ago, when my movie first came out, the solar deployment had a long flat line that was just beginning to slope upward. Now it has shot way up. The same thing has happened with cell phones, the same thing has happened with other technologies. That pattern also describes some political and social revolutions. I grew up in the South when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum, believe me, the resistance to civil rights was at least as ferocious as the resistance to the climate movement and solving the climate crisis. In the anti-apartheid movement, Nelson Mandela once said, it's always impossible until it's done. And we are right at that tipping point, where the climate movement is concerned. And the agreement 18 months ago in Paris was a truly historic breakthrough. Virtually every country in the world agreed to go to net zero global warming pollution by mid century, or as soon thereafter as possible. Since the Paris agreement, we have seen that powerful signal send to investor, to industry, to business. India again just announced two months ago. That in only 13 years, 100% of their new cars and trucks are going have to be electric vehicles. That's faster than what the United States is doing. And we're seeing dramatic changes like that, driven by economics and driven by the awareness dawning on millions more people every day. That this is for real. And we have an obligation to our kids and to ourselves because it's beginning to affect us. This city, here in New York City, in the first movie, the single most controversial scene perhaps was the prediction from the scientists that the World Trade 9/11 Memorial Center would be flooded by the ocean water, with the combination of sea level rise and storm surge. They said that was ridiculous, but when Superstorm Sandy came from the Atlantic, it crossed ocean waters that were 9 degrees fahrenheit warmer than normal. And it became very powerful, very broad, filled with moisture, and the World Trade Center site flooded many years ahead of predictions.
Just like last week, Gore was not challenged by CNN for making such an absurd comparison.
Later in the interview, Zakaria asked,“What do you make of the chaos in the White House? Have you ever seen anything like this?”
Apparently working in a White House rocked by numerous scandals and impeachment was nothing compared to Trump. Gore answered:
Never. Never. And from my point of view, the worst of it is that it's producing constant distractions from the big tasks that we have before us. And of course the biggest of all is solving the climate crisis. Look, this is for real. This is for real. Were we not to take a hold of it and solve it, the consequences would be too catastrophic to even imagine.
After bashing Trump adviser Stephen Miller as a racist for defending immigration reform, then bashing the state of Missouri for their recently passed “racist” law that protects businesses from unfounded lawsuits, the View crew had still more ill-informed hot takes to give on Thursday’s show. Equally as loony liberal activist Michael Moore was today’s guest, and he fit right in with most of the panel’s hatred for the right and for Trump.
The discussion with Moore began with Behar remarking that Moore had accurately predicted Trump would win the election, in Summer of 2016.
Moore surprisingly didn’t blame Russia or Comey for Clinton losing, but blamed her advisers for taking her away from campaigning in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.
“We tried to get the Clinton campaign to spend more time in Michigan and Wisconsin and I said on the show he was going to win Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Not that I wanted but I'm trying to warn people,” Moore stated.
“They didn't listen,” Joy Behar said.
But Moore quickly reverted back to the Democratic standby, that the electoral college was to blame, and it needed to be abolished.
After ranting about that for a while with Behar, host Sunny Hostin asked Moore what he thought the strategy should be for the next election. Moore had two ideas: Don’t cater to Republicans, and come up with a celebrity candidate.
“First of all, don't go to the right. You don't need to convince Trump voters. We already have the majority. Let's get the majority in these electoral college states,” he said. He then suggested Democrats need a movie star or television personality as their candidate in 2020.
But host Jedediah Bila pushed back on him for that, saying that Trump’s lack of political experience is something the left always harps on about.
On that note, you talked about celebrities and you have suggested that perhaps on the left they should run some big name celebrities. My question for you is though if they do that those celebrities once they get in office, they have to govern, they have to lead. Have we not seen that experience, whether it's serious business experience or serious governmental experience, experience matters. Do you still feel the same way now that you have seen Trump?
“Yes because the celebrities on our side, first of all, are smart!” Moore gushed without hesitation. “If we ran---”
“Al Franken, Al Franken!” Joy Behar frantically offered.
“If we ran Al Franken---”
“Al Franken has political experience though,” Bila interjected.
“Who wouldn't vote for Tom Hanks for president of the United States? C'mon. Or Oprah, Oprah!” Moore gushed as the audience loudly cheered.
“I'll tell you who. Many Americans feel that those celebrities are out of touch. I'll tell you a lot of people would say they don't understand my needs,” Bila shot back. As she was finishing her point, Moore scoffed, saying people “loved” celebrities, such as himself:
“Wrong. We're on TV right now. Americans love celebrities! They love --
Whoopi then started arguing with Bila:
“It's very true that America loves celebrities because that's why they voted for him. They thought they knew him. They believed that was his office. Listen, I talk to as many of these voters as you have. They believed he was actually in his office doing - my face fell off!” Whoopi scoffed.
“But as a businessman they looked at him, even his television show, he looked like that savvy businessman,“ Bila said. “Look, hey, I want you to run celebrities. I'm a conservative. I don't want them to win, I don’t want Democrats to win,” Bila joked.
“We're going to win with Oprah!” Moore again cheered, to audience approval.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) who has openly campaigned for impeaching Trump since he took office, was the guest on Friday’s The View. Like two peas in a pod, Joy Behar and Waters hit it off immediately, while co-hosts Paula Faris and Jedediah Bila actually tried to press Waters on her statements about impeaching Trump, the White House leaks, and the Democratic party’s shortcomings.
In the beginning of the interview however, the questions were uncritical because they came from the liberal hosts. Joy Behar asked if we were “getting closer” to impeaching Trump, while Sunny Hostin wondered if there was a “smoking gun” Waters saw, to impeach Trump:
BEHAR: What I want to ask you is you have been calling for Donald Trump's impeachment since the get-go because you saw how it was going and so did we, I have to say. I'm wondering now with the grand jury and all of this, do you think we're getting closer? What do you think?
SUNNY HOSTIN:I would love to ask you that Congresswoman, Auntie Maxine. Is there a smoking gun for you? What do you think is the connection between the Trump administration and Russia and Putin?
Going around the table, the next question was from Sara Haines, who asked Waters if she was “joking” when she said that Vice President Mike Pence was preparing for Trump’s impeachment.
Waters said she was joking, but admitted that Pence would be “next” on her target list after Trump got impeached.
“Do you think Pence will be better than Trump?” Behar asked Waters.
“No. When we finish with Trump we have to go and get Putin!” Waters replied, mistakenly calling Pence “Putin.”
“Putin or Pence?” Behar asked for clarification.
“Pence,” Waters replied.
Finally the discussion became more interesting after right-leaning hosts Jedediah Bila, and Good Morning America correspondent Paula Faris started asking more critical questions. Bila began by asking Waters if Democrats were focusing too much on the Russia investigation and ignoring what voters actually cared about, jobs and the economy. Bila mentioned the record-high Dow numbers this week and asked,“Are you willing to give him credit that he's making progress?”
“Absolutely not,” Waters emphatically answered to thunderous applause from the audience.
I think that too much credit is given to presidents about how the markets are working and I really don't think that he's done anything that he can take credit for. And so I don't believe that he has had any initiatives, he's had any legislation. He's not been involved in public policy. He doesn't know really what's going on on Wall Street. I don't give him any credit.
But Bila kept pushing:
BILA: What about deregulating the economy though? What about some of the job promotion he's done around the country, if you talk about coal jobs? You don't think that's related?”
WATERS: Absolutely not. He's not created any substantive number of jobs. He's made these people believe he is going to bring back the coal industry. It is not going to happen.
BEHAR: At what point do you think his supporters will figure that out?
Waters then went on to disparage Trump voters as people who weren’t willing to take any responsibility for their jobs going away:
WATERS: You have to determine why they stick with him. They stick with him not because they think he is going to change government as such. I think they stick with him because he has made them believe that somebody else is responsible for their problems, for these small towns and these areas where the stores have closed down, the jobs have left, it is those people over there, I'm going to build a wall, I'm going to keep those people out. They're the cause of your problem, they're getting something for nothing. It's not you, and they believe that.
“I think people are just really tired of government in general and the inefficiency of government, “ Paula Faris added. She then asked about the recent leaks and if Waters was “disturbed” by them, which of course, Waters wasn’t. In fact, she practically called for more leaks, saying the media was doing its job in reporting the leaks:
FARIS: There's a lot of Democrats disturbed by the this because it threatens our national security. Are you disturbed by it?
WATERS: No, not at all. I'm so glad they're telling us what's going on.
FARIS: We don't need to hear these conversations. They're confidential. This threatens national security.
WATERS: I need to hear these conversations. I need to hear -- [ applause ] Unfortunately this is his problem. He is in a White House where he's got people working for him that don’t believe in him, don't like what he's doing and they're trying to tell the American public something.
BEHAR: Whistle blowers. They’re not leakers. Whistle blowers.
Although Faris and Bila tried to keep pressing Waters on this point, she kept placing the blame on Trump. After Bila brought up the point that these leaks could happen to any president, so why celebrate it now, Waters kept denying that this would happen to another president. She stated:
No, no no. The leadership starts at the top and it is this president, it is this president that his own people have not confidence in. They're undermining him because they want to see him stop, they want us to do something, not every president would be treated this way. This man has no values. He lies. They know it. And he's the danger and they want us to do something about it.
After the commercial break, Faris asked Waters about polls showing Americans thought Democrats only goal was to go after Trump. Waters didn’t deny that, but said that Democrats were working at changing their image with voters and had rolled out a new publication detailing what they stood for.
Shortly after this, the panel asked if the internet rumors about Waters running for president in 2020 were true. She denied the rumors saying, “I am not running for anything except the impeachment of Trump!” Waters said to loud applause.
“Lock him up! Lock him up!” Behar started clapping and chanting.
On CNN Friday morning, the network repeatedly played an interview between Dana Bash and Senators Collins and Murkowski. The two female Republican senators were the sole Republicans besides John McCain, to vote against their party’s plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare last week. While the media spent endless time praising the “heroic” actions of McCain, CNN felt like it was the other two senators time to shine in the media spotlight.
After playing a sound bite of Donald Trump saying Congress must repeal and replace Obamacare, anchor Poppy Harlow sarcastically quipped, “Believe it or not, they didn’t pass it like he wanted them to. Now they have a lot to say,” she said before introducing Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Murkowski from Alaska. Harlow then played tape from CNN’s chief political correspondent Dana Bash’s interview.
“They were the only senators to vote against the plan all the way through the process. They were close before this, but this high profile and high intensity experience took their bond to a new level,” Bash gushed.
Bash started off talking about how she “sensed” that the two women were “relieved” to be sitting next to eachother during the health care vote. “Did I read that right?” Bash offered. After Collins and Murkowski confirmed they were happy knowing “a kindred soul was nearby,” Bash asked if the two saw themselves as “heroes” or “heretics.”
“You are both heroes to a lot of people and heretics to a lot of people. How do you see yourselves?” she asked while the two replied:
COLLINS: Well, I see myself as someone who has an obligation to represent the people of Maine. Sometimes that means casting uncomfortable votes, votes that will make my party uncomfortable and even angry at me.
MURKOWSKI: You want to vote to do the right thing. So, worrying about the consequences, are you fearful of repercussion from -- from your party? A tweet from the president? A backlash from your leadership? I don't believe that we should be motivated or discouraged from taking the positions that are important to the people that we represent and our respective states.
“Can you give me a sense of the kind of pressure you had and how did that bear itself out?” Bash asked curiously.
Murkowski explained that she told Trump directly that she wasn’t going to vote “for the Republican party” but “for the people of Alaska.” Collins added that she was “so proud” of her for standing up to the president. She added: “That’s the way I feel too. The people of Maine don’t expect me to be a rubber stamp.”
Then Bash pulled out the feminism card, actually asking the two women if it would’ve been a “priority” to save Planned Parenthood funding if they had been men:
You are both opposed to cuts to Planned Parenthood because of what it means in your states. If you were male senators, do you think it would be such a priority for you to make sure Planned Parenthood is not cut?
If that wasn’t bad enough, Bash then quoted Madeleine Albright at Murkowski and Collins:
“I want to borrow, a, a phrase from the first female secretary of state that talked about ‘cojones’ and a lot of people are saying that you two have more ‘cojones’ than a lot of the guys around here. Do you buy that?” she asked.
After Collins said she wouldn’t “judge” any of her colleagues, Bash continued the fawning:
“You guys have some pretty stiff spines,” she praised.
Bash went on to ask the senators repeatedly if they felt “intimidated” by President Trump.
I have seen congress and congress people when they have some political fear of their president. He tried to intimidate you on Twitter, you know, very directly, specifically, maybe having his interior secretary call you?
Did you feel he was trying to intimidate you?
While Collins and Murkowski did not give details at the end about their conversations with Trump, anchor Poppy Harlow smirked at the end of the interview.
“Fascinating. You can read so much in their faces, Dana, right? Diplomatic answers on some of those things. You can see a lot in their faces,” she said. After diverging to talk about the Russia investigation, Harlow asked Bash if this interview was a sign of things to come.
“Do you think part of the reason they sat down and did this very rare interview, are they trying to embolden some of their fellow Republicans to say like ‘come on guys, stand-up!’” Harlow asked.
Bash said that the senators wanted to do the “right thing” by making health care better but the “process didn’t allow for that.”
“That’s the message they want to send, in addition to good old-fashioned girl power,” Bash gushed.
“There you go. There you go. Cojones, as you said. Thank you, Dana, great interview, we appreciate it,” Harlow wrapped it up.
Wednesday on The View, the panel opened the conversation with shock and dismay at news that the Justice Department was investigating universities’ affirmative action policies and if they were unfair to white students. The table decried the already “unfair playing field” repeatedly, even bringing up slavery as a reason why we still need affirmative action to this day.
“Is affirmative action racist against white people?” Whoopi introduced the topic.
A visibly frustrated host Sara Haines answered immediately:
“No. There was a systemic racism that remains in this country and if we want to catch up from decades of people starting in a staggered way and not playing on a fair ground you have to do this to allow diversity,” she gushed. She added that she was “disturbed” that the Justice Department was using funds from the civil rights division to undergo the investigation.
“They're making a statement aren't they?” host Sunny Hostin shook her head. “They're making a statement about the values of this administration,” she stated.
“Well it’s like a double slap in the face!” Haines remarked.
After hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Hostin justified affirmative action based on how things used to be, host Jedediah Bila asked them if in “today’s world” it still was needed. Hostin asked Bila with a smirk: “Do you really think that the playing field is even?”
“Are we at this evil [sic] playing field? Are we where we want to be as a society and I think the resounding question is no,” Hostin continued.
Outspoken host Joy Behar finally added her two cents, of course bringing Trump into the equation:
I was going to say I think we're in a period in history that we have to be very vigilant because there are assaults on all sorts of civil rights going on this Trump administration. For example they attacked sexual assaults on campuses. They don't quite think that's an issue. Transgenders in the military. We heard that last week about how they suddenly want to discriminate against soldiers who are transgender. Access to voting. I mean the voter ID laws. Making old people who don't drive show a picture ID. They don't have a picture ID. Discrimination protections for gay employees. This is something that came out this week. What is happening is there seems to be a systemic eroding of civil rights that we have been working for since World War II.
Not to be out performed as the leading social justice warrior champion at the table, Haines interjected again:
What comes to mind is when we look at our representatives in the government and we say when we look at people that first addressed the health care, oh this was a roomful of white men, until our representation is reflective of our population. We haven't caught up yet. So when you look at women in an executive position, whether it’s any person of color or different things, until we play catch up for what we have done as a nation for centuries, we set them back. Its time to bring people forward.
Whoopi again went back to the historical reasons for affirmative action, with the panel lamenting about women's rights in the 1960s as if this was just yesterday. Hostin then quoted her favorite president:
“I think President Obama said it the best. ‘We're a country that can't guarantee outcomes but we can guarantee an equal shot’ and we need to guarantee that equal shot,” she stated to audience applause.
As if going back nearly 60 years wasn’t far enough, Behar decided to go back centuries to bring up her defense for affirmative action.
“I was going to say this country is based on systemic racism starting with slavery and then Jim Crow. That has to be addressed. It's in the process of being addressed. It's never going to be equal until that is addressed and that's what affirmative action tries to do,” she stated.
After bringing up a poll of about half of white Americans who supported affirmative action in schools, Hostin summed up the table’s sentiments: “The majority of Americans understand that the playing field is not level.”
Tuesday on ABC's The View, the sole self-admitted pro-life Democrat on the panel, Sunny Hostin, urged her party to reclaim the moral party status from Republicans. But instead of being encouraged by reports that said Democrats were now opening their doors to pro-life candidates, Hostin claimed abortion shouldn’t be the leading moral issue for Christians in her party. Instead, she claimed, Jesus was already on the Democrats side, since caring for the earth, the poor and refugees were his primary teachings.
The discussion came after multiple media outlets, including The Hill, reported yesterday that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Ben Ray Lujan said there would be no “litmus test” on abortion anymore for Democratic candidates. He went on to say that Democrats need to pick candidates that fit their districts, regardless if they are pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
After co-host Whoopi Goldberg introduced the topic, fellow co-host Sunny Hostin admitted she was a pro-life liberal. Host Jedediah Bila asked Hostin if she received “backlash” for holding that viewpoint. Hostin admitted she did before making a rallying cry for Democrats to become the party who sets the “moral objective for the country.” However, if you thought she was talking about Democrats becoming pro-life, you’d be wrong:
HOSTIN: I definitely face backlash but I’ve got to tell you it's time for Democrats to realize -- there's no moral party. The Republicans should not have the corner on setting the moral objective for the country. It's time for Democrats to embrace--- because if you really are looking at Jesus' words, the most important things to him were justice and mercy, so real biblical sort of perspectives are saving the earth--
WHOOPI: [talking over Hostin] What if you're not a Christian?
HOSTIN:--welcoming strangers, taking care of the poor.
Whoopi continued to interrupt Hostin, interjecting that Christianity should have no part in the Democrats’ abortion discussion.
WHOOPI: What if you’re not a Christian? Jesus' words don't have the same respect--
HOSTIN: If you just look at--
Whoopi went on to espouse the same nonsensical viewpoint she has many times before. Namely, that you can be “pro-life” and be supportive of abortion for anyone but yourself. So basically there is no difference between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in Whoopi’s terms. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly what Hostin, the “pro-life” host believes as well, as she went on to confirm before the commercial break:
WHOOPI: Here's the thing. If you believe that abortion is morally wrong, then you never have to have one. The law doesn't say you have to have an abortion. The law says if you feel you need to, we are not going to stand in your way. And that is how the law should read. [cheers and applause]
Hostin went on to reiterate that Democrats shouldn’t “get caught up” on the abortion issue, and that true Christianity was based off of “justice and mercy” (which apparently abortion has nothing to do with?) She argued again that caring for the poor, welcoming refugees and climate change activism were the true identifiers of the faithfulness in the Democrat party:
HOSTIN: And that is true. But my point is, everybody sort of gets caught up, especially Evangelicals and Catholics as well and people of -- Christians get caught up on the abortion issue, but if you really are a faithful person, if you really are a follower of the Bible and a follower of Jesus, again, the most important issues are justice and mercy. The most important issues are caring for the poor, welcoming strangers, caring for our Earth.
HOSTIN: But the Democrats must embrace the faithful community because right now --
BEHAR: You are an example of a Democrat that would be--
WHOOPI: They do, they do.
BEHAR: If you were in the position to vote pro or con Roe v. Wade, you would say leave it, right?
HOSTIN: Yes, because I think that while I don’t believe in abortion, other people have their choices--
BEHAR: She is the poster child for that.
HOSTIN: But many people feel this way, Tim Kaine, Joe Biden… [cut to commercial break]
The discussion never picked up after the commercial break.