Trump will address the American people tonight on the border situation—now that the MSM has said it will let him
[See UPDATE on speech below.]
He’ll be speaking from the Oval Office at 9 PM Eastern time.
The media was hesitant to even broadcast the speech at first, but apparently they have deigned to do so. Kind of them.
After hours of “will they, won’t they” coverage, the broadcast networks and cable news networks decided they will broadcast Trump on Tuesday night. Only CBS confirmed the broadcast by Monday evening.
But they can’t let him go unchallenged:
…[T]heir decision led to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to demand equal airtime…
Schumer and Pelosi wrote in a statement that since “television networks have decided to air the President’s address, which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation, Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime.”
As opposed to the sweetness, light, and strict adherence to facts for which Schumer and Pelosi are known.
CNN wrote yesterday:
Trump’s Monday request for networks to air his speech touched on a number of debates that have been raging in journalism since his ascension to the Oval Office. Among them: Should his fact-free speeches be aired live? What kind of fact-checking methods should networks employ?
There has been a recent debate in journalism circles about whether networks should air Trump’s words in real-time. Several media critics, for instance, told CNN last week that networks should not rush to air Trump’s remarks made during pool sprays and briefings, given how much misinformation he spreads.
“Some advice — demand to see the text in advance and if it is not truthful either don’t air it or fact check it live on lower third,” tweeted Joe Lockhart, the former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. “And cut away if he goes off text and starts lying.”
Either the press doesn’t recognize its own bias and/or realize how often it lies, or the press recognizes and realizes both (my preferred answer) and thinks it’s done all in the noble service of telling too-stupid Americans what they should think and feel.
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
There was also an interesting and acrimonious exchange today between Kellyanne Conway and Jim Acosta. You may recall that, right at the beginning of the Trump administration during an interview with Chuck Todd, Conway used the phrase “alternative facts.” Her phrase was widely mocked and criticized as though she were talking about facts as having no intrinsic truth or falsehood. But it was clear even at the outset what she actually meant—she meant that on certain things such as crowd size where estimates differ, people pick and choose which estimates to use depending on their political bent. In fact, she said as much during the original interview, which aired about 2 years ago (full transcript here; it makes very interesting reading at this point):
I actually don’t think that– maybe this is me as a pollster, Chuck. And you know data well. I don’t think you can prove those numbers one way or the other. There’s no way to really quantify crowds. We all know that…
…What’s not right, Chuck, is that the day before, you had people releasing a dossier full of junk and lies and fake news. And why did they release the dossier?…
Here’s what happened today between Conway and Acosta:
UPDATE 9:50 PM
“This is just common sense.” Well, it is, but common sense has become a lot less common these days.
A humanitarian crisis, the wall would pay for itself, heroin overdoses, we should rise above partisan politics, wealthy politicians build gates around their homes not because they hate the people on the outside but because they love the people on the inside—many good arguments here. I didn’t expect him to declare a national emergency (which was the rumor) and he didn’t.
Here’s his well-placed shot at Chuck Schumer:
Senator Chuck Schumer, who you will be hearing from later tonight, has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.
I wish he’d shown the video of their prior statements; it would have been very effective. Perhaps they expected that particular line of attack, because Schumer and Pelosi’s rebuttal was mostly about the shutdown rather than the wall itself.
I didn’t watch any of it. I prefer to read speeches, although sometimes I watch them.
Here’s an unexpected angle from a person we haven’t heard from for a while:
Anyone who just watched Trump’s address, the most presidential he has ever delivered in his life, and still thinks he will be easy to beat, is living in fantasyland. He is not to be underestimated and too many Dems continue to do it. We better nominate a battle tested fighter.
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) January 9, 2019
I very much doubt that’s a common reaction on the left, however.
ADDENDUM: And Twitter’s having fun with Chuck and Nancy photos.
Get’im Kellyanne! Was Acosta doing any journalism here? Obviously not.
Trump really needs an online audio/video pathway, and a small team to manage and generate its content, thereby bypassing the whole MSM mess.
If he gets eight minutes, they get EIGHT MINUTES!
Trump should simply say, Democrat leaders and I have a difference of opinion. You’ll hear theirs later, and they are welcome to the time. I believe, in the past there has been bipartisan support for a border barrier (wall, fence whatever you want to call it). Be that as it may, I’d like to present to all American Citizens my reasons why we need a border barrier in addition to other measures to make sure our country is finally secure from the thousands of illegal entrants we are facing and will continue to face in the future.: …..
The media are absolutely disgusting. The quotes are disgraceful and sickening.
What if anyone had dared to demand the same of that jerk whom we had to endure as the 44th president? What if any of the MSM had called him a liar?
Where were the media with their demands then?
There are a few things that require a time-out with the kidney basin, and this is surely one of them.
FOR SHAME!
Scott,
Very good advice.
That boy needs to get the Trump “time-out” again. Take his press pass away.
He’s lucky Mrs Conway doesn’t just walk over & beat him unconscious…’cos she’s fully capable.
Two things the progs (and I include the MSM in that) are doing that are reprehensible:
1. If you disagree with their opinions, you are lying.
2. If you engage in hard ball politics as they do, you are committing criminal acts.
Insty is right. The MSM are merely Democrat operatives with bylines.
The rebuttal by Schumer and Pelosi was about as devoid of facts as it’s possible to be. What deceitful dirt bags they are.
President Trump asked that citizens contact their representatives about this issue. I have. Have you?
I just watched the President’s address. I thought it was very good. He was quite controlled, not combative, there were no insults, and he spoke with intelligent, deeply concerned sincerity and seriousness.
This was no stemwinder of empty rhetoric and lies, yes lies, such as we came to expect from the previous, um, person.
Pelosi and Schumer were a trifle more dignified than sometimes, but by halfway through Schumer I had had all I could take. There was more bilge about “lies,” how dare the Pres. shut down the govt, humanitarianism thrown over the side, so forth. [All my phrasing of their message.] Mercifully they were short. Pelosi managed to sound less nutty than usual.
Then, Lindsey Graham (on Hannity’s show). He too was serious in mien, but not dramatic or theatrical. What I thought quite interesting was that he said that Pres. Trump was more Presidential than he had ever seen him. I thought so too.
But they’re still talking about “coming to an agreement.” And I’m still afraid they’re going to be stalled in talk until the next President’s horse has ridden in to run the Oval Office.
. . .
By the way, the address begins a bit past 28 min. in at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZEWtekSP8M
And the Lindsay Graham segment is just past Hannity’s introduction, at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2GD0YMzE2Q
The Media is broken.
It has been broken for some time now.
Whether it can be fixed is anybody’s guess. (I wouldn’t be too optimistic.)
One thing is certain: they don’t seem to be too eager or willing to fix themselves.
They don’t even seem to believe that there’s a problem.
In fact, any hint, any question, any doubt that something is rotten in, for example, the Times of NY must be “stamped on” with a jackboot ASAP
(see what happened to Liz Spayd).
And if further proof were even needed, here’s yesterday’s NYT guest op-ed columnist:
Recep Erdogan.
That’s right.
How many journalists are currently in Turkish prisons, Mr. Baquet? Is it newsworthy? Is it not “fit to print”? Does it matter?
Guess not. To be sure, the NYT has a different—and, Khashoggi aside, a far more important—set of priorities.
Very low-energy speech. It was almost like he didn’t want to be there.
In fact, I don’t think he expected to be there. What he expected was his base would go along with his various lies about the wall already being built.
After all, it has worked before. He has claimed to have already repealed Obamacare. His base didn’t care, probably because they like Obamacare. He has claimed that de-nuclearization with North Korea has already started. His base doesn’t care. Hell, they don’t care that he’s spouting communist propaganda about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
But they do care about the wall. They may not care about his lie that Mexico is paying for it, even though this lie violates a basic free market principle: comparative advantage. But the wall must be built.
Only he didn’t build it when he had the leverage: control of both branches. Now he’s screwed. And it shows.
“…probably because they like Obamacare…”
Um, and which Obamacare is that, again?
https://medcitynews.com/2018/04/aca-timeline-illustrates-health-law-changed-since-trump-took-office/
“…almost…”
Almost indeed.
In fact, John Hinderaker—amazingly—agrees with you! (That is, if you stop reading his post after the seventh word….)
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/trump-kills-it.php
File under: Almost almost.
This is the start of Trump’s 3rd year in office, the first two with a “Rep” controlled Congress. One that never offered him a budget that had funding for a Wall. Twice he agreed to “continuing resolutions” to fund the gov’t, without money for the Wall. The last time he said, this will be last budget I sign without money for a Wall.
Last time, if Trump had refused to sign the “Rep” proposed budget, without Wall money, it would be Trump’s shutdown. Many of those RINO-Reps are gone; and so is the Rep majority in the House, altho there is a stronger majority of Reps in the Senate.
Now, any shutdown is because the Dem House refuses, like the prior RINO House, to put in money for the Wall, but it’s now Trump for Wall vs Dems, not vs (RINO) Reps.
Trump’s key message: “Walls are not because those kept out are hated, but because those inside are loved.”
The Dems do NOT love American voters (especially those who vote Trump).
Dems will cave, and give money for the Wall, tho maybe Trump will cave some too (on DREAMers? or something Rubio wants?) I sort of hope Trump waits longer and just gets the money without giving up anything, but he does love to “Make a Deal”… to him it’s an art. He’s a deal artist. He wrote a book about it (even before helping Kevin find the lobby in Home Alone 2, which we recently saw again and had forgotten about).
Trump’s speech was “ehh” in terms of delivery and appeal. He said what was needed, but he is really at his best when he’s free form and not on a teleprompter trying for gravitas.
That being said, Schumer and Pelosi….OMG! My first thought was, “It’s a new episode of the Walking Dead!” Could any two people look more cadaverous and zombie like? The twitter responses have been hilarious. Remember, that ridicule is a powerful weapon.
The reason I’m focusing on the styles of each speech rather than substance, as Neo does, is because I think most people first react to the style before they get to the substance. Trump’s style was a bit better, but I doubt he scored too many points. The S&P act was downright painful to watch. Advantage Trump.
Only he didn’t build it when he had the leverage: control of both branches. Now he’s screwed. And it shows.
The left ignores reality once again. There was a time, not long ago, when Trump and the Democrats were negotiating a deal for $25 billion in return for DACA legalization. Then the 9th circuit ruled that DACA recipients could not be deported. That case went to the Supreme Court, which with only 8 members, tied 4 to 4 and that means the appeals court decision stands.
That case will go again to the USSC, now with a majority of conservative Justices. Unless Roberts goes Souter on us, the 9th will be reversed. THEN the Democrats will negotiate again. Meanwhile ?
“I didn’t watch any of it. I prefer to read speeches, although sometimes I watch them.” — Neo
PUt this comment in conjunction with the “Charisma” post — the best way to not be taken in by charmers (psychopaths or otherwise) is to simply not listen to them, although apparently Pres. Trump did NOT use many (any?) of the tactics described as the Charisma Leadership Techniques.
It was interesting to see the media pre-loading the public perceptions: even if he had NOT told any lies (did he?), they predisposed their listeners to hear them anyway, thus setting them up for the Democrats’ rebuttals and the inevitable “literally but not seriously” fact-checking.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to: “…establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
If the Democrats in Congress want to admit more legal immigrants from Central and South America, why don’t they pass the appropriate legislation?
It’s amazing how good DJT is exposing the Democrats’ actual agendas.
The tactic of Schumer & Pelosi, proposing to open the government and then negotiate the money for border security, is a duplicitous move. Once the government is open again, they have zero reason to negotiate. I think that President Trump is well aware of that.
The only pressure I can see that will move the needle toward getting money for the wall is for an outpouring of citizen calls and e-mails to the Congress urging them to listen to the expert recommendations of the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol wants the wall and knows the conditions on the border better than the perfumed princes and princesses in the Congress. Of course, there are other immigration laws that must be revised to completely turn off the magnetic appeal of coming here illegally, but a proper fence with more Border Patrol officers is a big piece of the solution.
Manju on January 9, 2019 at 6:07 am at 6:07 am said:
Very low-energy speech.
* * *
And when he is high-energy, the complaint becomes “he’s ranting.”
JFM on January 9, 2019 at 11:37 am at 11:37 am said:
If the Democrats in Congress want to admit more legal immigrants from Central and South America, why don’t they pass the appropriate legislation?
It’s amazing how good DJT is exposing the Democrats’ actual agendas.
* * *
Legal immigrants have to be paid on par with citizens, including all the minimums, taxes, insurance, Social Security, etc. That doesn’t help the cheap-labor faction at all.
Legal immigrants have a better opportunity to get an education, become citizens and vote legally, become entrepreneurs and become rich (thus the push by Obama to semi-legalize illegals), and have a higher probability of becoming Republican voters. That doesn’t help the Democrats at all.
I’m now going over to read Neo’s post on why the GOP didn’t fix the immigration laws when they had the votes (“give us the House and we can get things done..well, you have to give us the Senate, too…well, we really have to have the President on our side too…Hmmm, now what will we tell the voters?”)
This is too funny not to share (h/t commenter at AccordingToHoyt):
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/01/cbs-caught-trump-in-lie-hilarity-ensues.html
“CBS decided to help Democrats by fact-checking in real time President Trump’s address on the need for a wall.
CBS reported, “Fact check: Number of women sexually assaulted on trip to border.
“CLAIM: The president claimed one in three women have been sexually assaulted traveling to the border.
“FACT CHECK: Between 60 percent and 80 percent of female migrants traveling through Mexico are raped along the way, Amnesty International estimates.”
Hilarious. Who is in charge? Ralph Wiggum?
Thanks for making the president’s point.
The network later scrubbed that from its fact-check.”
Heh.
Well, the President did have alternative facts here, but that isn’t really the kind of lie Jim Acosta wanted to know about.
On the now-revised CBS post, they checked 5 statements, confirmed 3 as true (and possibly understated), 1 as true-but-needing-context (heh), and one as false.
“CLAIM: The president claimed the barrier will be steel rather than concrete “at the request of Democrats.”
FACT CHECK: Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said this claim is “false.” Democratic leadership has not expressed support for steel barriers.”
Democratic leadership has not expressed support for ANY barriers.
Not all democrats are leadership; anyway, I don’t see why a “he-said, she-said” should automatically fall to the Dems.
FWIW, the CBS post does include full transcripts of Trump and Schumer/Pelosi speeches.