The cost of Trump´s war on the media

[corbe]

The cost of Trump´s war on the media

Peter J. Wallison

February 27, 2017 | Real Clear Politics

The war between President Trump and the media has obscured an unprecedented effort in the Senate to scuttle the president’s agenda. Without the numbers to defeat Trump’s nominees to top Cabinet positions, Democrats have adopted a strategy of tying up the Senate’s advice and consent process. In doing so, they have exposed themselves to a deadly political charge, but the absence of a sensible strategy from the Trump White House has thus far saved them from any political cost.

It’s possible that the current effort will be focused only on Trump’s Cabinet nominees, but since it is a response to the hysterical left, there will be immense pressure on Democrats to continue it in the future. Hundreds of lower-level nominees for positions throughout the administration can be challenged and delayed in the same way, stalling Senate action on the president’s program.

Needless to say, there has never been an opposition tantrum like this in U.S. history. Yes, the South seceded from the Union with the election of President Lincoln (who also won with less than a majority of the popular vote), but in a sense secession was a more honest policy than keeping a legitimately elected government from functioning. If the Democrats indeed continue this strategy, it will be nothing less than an attack on the legitimacy of the presidential election process, and a threat to the future of our democracy.

Still, the stakes are high for the Democrats. Wholesale obstruction is a risky strategy. Harry Reid’s obstructive efforts between 2010 and 2014, while it protected Senate Democrats from having to vote on popular conservative legislation, also deprived voters of any reasons to re-elect them. As a result, the Democrats lost Senate seats in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014.

In 2016, the public’s frustration with Washington elected Donald Trump. Even most Democrats agree with this analysis, so it is remarkable that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has adopted a strategy for 2018 that assumes the electorate will reward them for preventing Trump from getting anything done.

Like Reid’s strategy, it plays to the Democrats’ leftist base, but leaves the senators from states with center-right populations seriously exposed. Indeed, Schumer’s strategy could be catastrophic for his party. Just to hold its current minority position in the upper chamber, the Democrats must re-elect 10 incumbents from states Trump carried in 2016. A net loss of eight Democratic seats in 2018 will allow Republicans to overcome filibusters on legislation and leave the opposition unable to affect the direction of national policy for at least two years.

Unfortunately, the appalling irresponsibility of the current Schumer policy is not getting the attention it deserves—or potentially forcing Democrats to pay any electoral price—because President Trump and his White House staff cannot stop picking fights with the media long enough to focus on the unprecedented opposition they are facing.

Where are the White House strategists—the folks who are supposed to be thinking long-term about how the president can achieve his goals?

Last week’s press conference, as usual, was completely unplanned and unfocused—another opportunity lost. It devolved again into a pointless attack on the media, which is just as childish as Trump himself. If there are any strategists in the White House, they should have had the president open the press conference with a statement about the efforts of Senate Democrats to deprive him of a Cabinet of his choice—comparing it to the treatment of past presidents.

This is something the media couldn’t have ignored. The fact is that whatever the president says has to be reported, and while the media will eventually return to their fascination with Trump’s puffed-up self-regard, the American people will have learned something that they don’t know now—that Senate Democrats are engaged in an unprecedented attack on fundamental democratic processes that have been in place for over 200 years.

<..snip..>

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-cost-of-trumps-war-on-the-media/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com

[DiogenesLamp]

The article's premise is not demonstrated in the text,  so far as I can see.   


When discussing the cost of going to war with the media,  one must also contemplate the cost of not going to war with the media.   One of those costs was Barack Obama,  who was nothing but a creation of the media. 


He was an Idiot stupid  welfare recipient who never really worked a day in his life,   his "experience"  and "qualifications"  were entirely ignored or lauded by the media.   Never before had such an unqualified man arose to such high office in this nation,  and his rise was entirely the consequence of how the New York and Los Angeles media reported on him.   


What is the downside cost of having a Barack Obama for 8 years?   Nigh uncalculable. 


We should have went to war with the media when the media stole the election back in 1992.  They are the single strongest force for evil in the nation.  Yes,  we should absolutely be at war with them. 

[Frank Cannon]

Well, this guy didn't fight the war.....



.....how'd that turn out?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, this guy didn't fight the war.....



.....how'd that turn out?

Exactly right.   2006 was the result of his not beating back the media lies. 

[txradioguy]

The article's premise is not demonstrated in the text,  so far as I can see.   

Of course it's in there.  The premise of the story is that while Trump is out waging war on the media with his Saul Alinsky tactics and acting like a juvenile delinquent on Twitter...it's distracting everyone from what the Senate is doing to ensure that Trump's agenda goes absolutely nowhere.

It's something we the people should be concerned with...but they aren't because the cult of personalty that is Donald Trump has everyone looking the wrong way.

[r9etb]

The article's premise is not demonstrated in the text,  so far as I can see.   

It is, right here:

Unfortunately, the appalling irresponsibility of the current Schumer policy is not getting the attention it deserves—or potentially forcing Democrats to pay any electoral price—because President Trump and his White House staff cannot stop picking fights with the media long enough to focus on the unprecedented opposition they are facing.

Trump's oddly-small twittering thumbs are not sufficient to generate a meaningful backlash against the Schumer and his Democrats.  Whatever their failings, Trump still needs the media to report on stuff; and instead he's making sure they won't.

Trump's fans won't see or admit to this, but it's true.

[txradioguy]

Exactly right.   2006 was the result of his not beating back the media lies.

Well that and the GOP's lurch to the left on immigration and some other issues.

[corbe]

   Your right of course, @Frank Cannon I don't see Trump having gray hair in 8 years.

[Frank Cannon]

   Your right of course, @Frank Cannon I don't see Trump having gray hair in 8 years.

He better not. I do not know what the hell recent Presidents are thinking not getting dye jobs in a media savvy world. Reagan didn't go grey. Either did Nixon. Who wants a President that looks like they rolled out from under a dumpster?

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course it's in there.  The premise of the story is that while Trump is out waging war on the media with his Saul Alinsky tactics and acting like a juvenile delinquent on Twitter...it's distracting everyone from what the Senate is doing to ensure that Trump's agenda goes absolutely nowhere.

Well see,   I simply didn't accept the man's assertion as a given,  especially after he described failure to pass legislation as the reasons why the Democrats lost in 2010.   No,  it wasn't failure to pass legislation that caused them to lose,   it was sheer terror of what that Idiot Barack Obama was going to do that made people elect Republicans.   It was self defense,  and nobody paid any attention to what the Democrats were doing.   


2010 was the political expression of the Tea Party rally of April 15, 2009.    We knew an evil idiot was in power,  and we had to check him somehow. 

[txradioguy]

Well see,   I simply didn't accept the man's assertion as a given,  especially after he described failure to pass legislation as the reasons why the Democrats lost in 2010.   No,  it wasn't failure to pass legislation that caused them to lose,   it was sheer terror of what that Idiot Barack Obama was going to do that made people elect Republicans.   It was self defense,  and nobody paid any attention to what the Democrats were doing.   


2010 was the political expression of the Tea Party rally of April 15, 2009.    We knew an evil idiot was in power,  and we had to check him somehow.

But giving the Republicans veto proof majorities backfired.  The GOP ended up doing more to help Obama get his agenda heaped upon us than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi ever did.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is, right here:

Unfortunately, the appalling irresponsibility of the current Schumer policy is not getting the attention it deserves—or potentially forcing Democrats to pay any electoral price—because President Trump and his White House staff cannot stop picking fights with the media long enough to focus on the unprecedented opposition they are facing.

I don't think the public gives a rat's @$$ about Democrat obstructionism.   You couldn't make them pay attention  to the doings of Congress if you wanted to.    The minds of most voters simply do not work that way.   They might pay a little attention to their own congress member,   but most voters simply don't care about other state's congress members. 


We pay attention to this stuff because we are political junkies.   Most of the public is not. 

Trump's oddly-small twittering thumbs are not sufficient to generate a meaningful backlash against the Schumer and his Democrats.  Whatever their failings, Trump still needs the media to report on stuff; and instead he's making sure they won't.

Trump's fans won't see or admit to this, but it's true.

Oh sure.  If Trump would just stop mocking them,   they would immediately tell the public about all the foolish things the Democrats are doing.   


Tell me,  have you ever played the "Name that Party!"  game?    The media *NEVER*  reports on bad things done by Democrats.   If they have to mention it,  they just call them an office holder without mentioning their party name. 


If you are looking to the media for salvation,  you don't understand which side of the war they are on. 

Not ours. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Well that and the GOP's lurch to the left on immigration and some other issues.

Yes,  I won't deny that.   Whenever voters are offered a choice between a fake Democrat and a real one,  they usually pick the real one. 

[DiogenesLamp]

But giving the Republicans veto proof majorities backfired.  The GOP ended up doing more to help Obama get his agenda heaped upon us than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi ever did.

Funny how that happened,  isn't it?    This is when a lot of us realized that there really is an "establishment"  uni-party that plays us for fools.   


Why can't we have a "Tip O'Neill" guy on our side? 

[txradioguy]

Funny how that happened,  isn't it?    This is when a lot of us realized that there really is an "establishment"  uni-party that plays us for fools.

What worries me is that too many of them are worming their way into Trump's inner circle.

Why can't we have a "Tip O'Neill" guy on our side?

Because we have principles.

[XenaLee]

I don't think the public gives a rat's @$$ about Democrat obstructionism.   You couldn't make them pay attention  to the doings of Congress if you wanted to.    The minds of most voters simply do not work that way.   They might pay a little attention to their own congress member,   but most voters simply don't care about other state's congress members. 


We pay attention to this stuff because we are political junkies.   Most of the public is not. 






Oh sure.  If Trump would just stop mocking them,   they would immediately tell the public about all the foolish things the Democrats are doing.   


Tell me,  have you ever played the "Name that Party!"  game?    The media *NEVER*  reports on bad things done by Democrats.   If they have to mention it,  they just call them an office holder without mentioning their party name. 


If you are looking to the media for salvation,  you don't understand which side of the war they are on. 

Not ours.

And some people don't even recognize that it IS a war.

[DiogenesLamp]

What worries me is that too many of them are worming their way into Trump's inner circle.

I'm more worried about the Obama worms already burrowed into the bureaucracy. 

Because we have principles.

We can have principles and be stubborn like Tip  O'neill.    My point was he would put up a fight,  and win much of the time.    Mitch McConnell simply rolls over. 

[DiogenesLamp]

And some people don't even recognize that it IS a war.

One of the things which infuriated me regarding George HW Bush.   He was completely oblivious to the fact that he was in a war,  and that his Democrat "buddies"  were going to stab him in the back the first chance they got. 


At the time,  there was *NOTHING* more important than him winning re-election so he could nominate more Federal court Judges.   I knew when he agreed to do a tax raising deal with the Democrats that this was going to destroy his chance at re-election.   


I thought anyone and everyone could see this,  but apparently not George HW Bush. (or his political advisers.)     


As one commenter said at the time,   "George Bush not only doesn't know where the battle lines are,   he's not even aware he is in a war." 

[txradioguy]

I'm more worried about the Obama worms already burrowed into the bureaucracy.

Same here.  I remember doing ceremonies for some of these people at the Pentagon...people put into positions that are greatly important...but no one knows about unless they work directly for the SecDef that are unaffected by an election...I'm talking people that were policy wonks in the Clinton Administration that flew under the radar right into the DoD.

They are dug in like ticks and I don't see anyone volunteering to dig them out.

We can have principles and be stubborn like Tip  O'neill.    My point was he would put up a fight,  and win much of the time.    Mitch McConnell simply rolls over.

And unless the Republicans stage a coup like the House did...he's gonna stay there because he's appointed ring kissers to key positions to keep him in power and he controls a slush fund that can either help you or fund your primary challenger if you don't go along with him.

[DiogenesLamp]

Same here.  I remember doing ceremonies for some of these people at the Pentagon...people put into positions that are greatly important...but no one knows about unless they work directly for the SecDef that are unaffected by an election...I'm talking people that were policy wonks in the Clinton Administration that flew under the radar right into the DoD.

They are dug in like ticks and I don't see anyone volunteering to dig them out.

I understand 80% of the Federal government is Democrat.   We've got a lot of digging to do.

And unless the Republicans stage a coup like the House did...he's gonna stay there because he's appointed ring kissers to key positions to keep him in power and he controls a slush fund that can either help you or fund your primary challenger if you don't go along with him.

Exactly the swamp that needs to be drained.   Term Limits is an idea who's time has come. 

[corbe]

Same here.  I remember doing ceremonies for some of these people at the Pentagon...people put into positions that are greatly important...but no one knows about unless they work directly for the SecDef that are unaffected by an election...I'm talking people that were policy wonks in the Clinton Administration that flew under the radar right into the DoD.

They are dug in like ticks and I don't see anyone volunteering to dig them out.


And unless the Republicans stage a coup like the House did...he's gonna stay there because he's appointed ring kissers to key positions to keep him in power and he controls a slush fund that can either help you or fund your primary challenger if you don't go along with him.

   I approve this message @txradioguy

Chris McDaniel

[txradioguy]

I understand 80% of the Federal government is Democrat.   We've got a lot of digging to do.

There's no telling what kind of behind the scenes community organizing our tax dollars have funded...kinda like when the Carter Administration was passing out Rules for Radicals in poor areas of the country.

Exactly the swamp that needs to be drained.   Term Limits is an idea who's time has come.

I'm fully behind an Article V Convention to remedy some of the problems Congress won't take care of.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm fully behind an Article V Convention to remedy some of the problems Congress won't take care of.

We might be getting one.   Didn't another state legislature pass it last week?

[txradioguy]

We might be getting one.   Didn't another state legislature pass it last week?

Senate panel in Boise passed a measure 5-4 in favor.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/feb/24/senate-panel-votes-5-4-favor-art-v-constitutional-convention-after-listening-25-people-testify-against-it/

NC Legislature has submitted four bills pertaining to an Article V Convention just today.

http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/bills-call-for-north-carolina-to-join-movement-to-change/article_646f2dda-40f4-597e-b51f-e739f553fb69.html

[r9etb]

Tell me,  have you ever played the "Name that Party!"  game?    The media *NEVER*  reports on bad things done by Democrats.   If they have to mention it,  they just call them an office holder without mentioning their party name. 


If you are looking to the media for salvation,  you don't understand which side of the war they are on. 

Not ours.

Tell me: have you ever said anything in your life that didn't involve spitting? 

You have no subtlety of thought, and nothing interesting to say.