It’s no secret that CNN and pretty much the entire American media, save Fox News, is sold out for Hillary Clinton.
“It’s a problem because she’s doing what they call in politics “freezing pockets,” because the donors are giving her money thinking she’s going to run, that means they’re not going to have available money for other candidates if she doesn’t.” Cuomo said. “And I don’t think she’s going to give it to them. We couldn’t help her any more than we have, she’s got just a free ride so far from the media, we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign, so it had better happen.
Hey, at least he’s being honest, for once. Regardless if it hurts them in the ratings, because it clearly has, the liberal media is determined to ride that broken down mule all the way to the halls of power because, for them, ideology is what matters, and theirs is the clearly the ideology of the Left.
It’s the conceit of every generation that horses have never been faster, whisky has never been older, beautiful women have never been younger — and politics have never been rowdier. But maybe our generation has a legitimate claim.
The clown vs. the crook, the vulgarian vs. the witch, both stained worthies that neither party wants. One is a big talker who can’t keep his mouth shut and his tongue at ease, the other driven by greed, lies and avarice, ever on the scout for loose valuables. Has the republic ever had such a choice?
Well, politics were particularly rowdy in the decades after the War of Northern Aggression, and rarely rowdier than in the year 1884, with Gov. Grover Cleveland of New York, the Democrat, suiting up against James G. Blaine of Maine, the Republican. The Democrats rehashed old allegations of bribes, graft and grease suborned by Blaine, the man in the pocket of railroad barons, the Wall Street villains of his day. Like a presidential candidate we could name, Blaine didn’t brook allegations of sordid behavior but haughtily dismissed them as “stale slander.” This gave Democrats the famous rallying cry, “Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the state of Maine.” Not quite as to the point as “lock her up!” But it stirred the masses.
For his part, Cleveland, a Presbyterian preacher’s son of starchy upright reputation, was accused of fathering an illegitimate child when practicing law in Buffalo. (A preacher’s son misbehaving? A naughty lawyer? Surely not.) The woman was a lady of wide acquaintance, and Cleveland, the only bachelor in the circle of usual suspects, manned up, and unlike another president we could name, took responsibility for his sporting life, and paid child support. But in turn the Democrats accused Blaine and the missus of not having been married when their eldest child was born. Bastardy was not fashionable in that backward day, and the rumor was disproved only after the sell-by date.
Passion is as passion does, and we’ve seen passion aplenty already in this campaign, and the campaign doesn’t even officially begin until Labor Day. Rage has replaced mere rowdiness as the fuel of presidential politics. “Anger is all the way around in this cycle,” Bart Rossi, a “political psychologist” tells CBS News. “People sometimes feel a rage, an anger against someone or something, and they act impulsively. In this case, Trump really kind of ‘gets’ you, really agitates some people to act out impulsively and that retained anger shows up.”
Hillary really “gets” a lot of other people. A Pennsylvania woman painted the broad side of her barn as an enormous American flag, and nearby spelled “Trump” in letters the size of a boxcar. “Sometimes we’ll get a lot of honks and waves, and sometimes I’ll get a thumb’s down, but we’ll just wave back, anyway.”
By Tim Graham | August 11, 2016
Our number-crunchers found the networks gave Trump’s “Second Amendment” crack about stopping Hillary-nominated judges drew five times as much air time as Hillary’s embarrassment when the father of mass-murdering Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen showed up behind her on TV at a Florida rally.
Guess what? The nation’s top newspapers were even worse in demonstrating a double standard on these two bad-news moments from the campaign trail in their Wednesday editions.
The New York Times printed a 1,287-word article at the top right of the front page headlined (all caps) “TRUMP SUGGESTS GUN OWNERS ACT AGAINST CLINTON: ALARM AT HIS REMARK.” Just to the left of that on top of the front page was an article headlined “G.O.P. Women Are Retreating From Nominee.” The Times also wrote a scathing staff editorial leading that page with the headline “Further Into the Muck With Mr. Trump.”
But the Times offered absolutely nothing in the print edition on Mr. Mateen, dismissing the story in a 440-word feature online by Matt Flegenheimer with the headline “Clinton Campaign Plays Down Appearance at Rally by Orlando Gunman’s Father.”
The Washington Post wasn’t much better. Like the Times, it plopped the Trump story on top right of Page One, a 1,409-word story headlined “Trump decried for gun remark: Critics see his comments on 2nd Amendment as a threat against Clinton.” Also like the Times, its lead staff editorial piled on, with the headline “An ugly call to ‘Second Amendment people’: Mr. Trump seems to offer a veiled threat in comments about Mrs. Clinton and gun rights.”
So where was the story on Papa Mateen in the Post? There wasn’t a story. On the back page came an article byAnne Gearan headlined “Clinton prods GOP congressional leaders to take emergency action on Zika.” In the sixth paragraph of the Zika article, the Post offered a measly two sentences adding up to 54 words:
Separately, the Clinton campaign said it was unaware that Seddique Mateen, the father of the suspect in the June mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub, secured a prime seat at a Clinton rally on Monday in Kissimmee, near Orlando. Mateen told Florida television station WPTV that he had been “invited by the Democratic Party.”
The Trump story carried over to the back page, where the Post reprinted the 41-word Trump ‘Second Amendment people’ quote in headline-size type, taking up about 24 column inches of space.
The Post’s free tabloid Express also showed the double standard. It published a 16-paragraph version of the regular front-page article on Trump, and only ran a 20-word “Verbatim” quote from Papa Mateen at the bottom of the same page (13). The quote was “Clinton is good for the United States, versus Donald Trump…I was invited by the Democratic Party. I’m a member.” Aligned next to the Trump story on page 13 was a five-paragraph story on how Hillary is spending more than $13 million in political ads on the Olympics broadcasts while Trump airs nothing.
USA Today isn’t exactly in the same territory. They offered a front-page story on Trump’s Second Amendment remarks, as well as a front-page story headlined “Never Trump Ranks Grow.”
There was also an article of some depth on the Mateen embarrassment…but not by a news reporter. It was a column on the editorial page by conservative “Instapundit” blogger/professor Glenn Reynolds.
PS: My longtime colleague Rich Noyes thought this example should be added:
The Wall Street Journal posted a front-page article Wednesday headlined “New Flap for Trump Over Gun Comments” that went on for 29 paragraphs on how “Trump touched off another firestorm Tuesday.” The Wednesday paper had no article on Seddique Mateen. Late on Wednesday night, the Journal posted an article on Trump pointing out the Mateen problem, then added the liberal retort on former Congressman Mark Foley in Trump’s TV picture on Wednesday.
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.
Tech Companies Apple, Twitter, Google, and Instagram Collude to Defeat Trump
There is no such thing as Pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign
How Global Elites Forsake Their Countrymen
Those in power see people at the bottom as aliens whose bizarre emotions they must try to manage.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel addresses the refugee crisis, Sept 7, 2015. E
By PEGGY NOONAN Aug. 11, 2016
This is about distance, and detachment, and a kind of historic decoupling between the top and the bottom in the West that did not, in more moderate recent times, exist.
Recently I spoke with an acquaintance of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and the conversation quickly turned, as conversations about Ms. Merkel now always do, to her decisions on immigration. Last summer when Europe was engulfed with increasing waves of migrants and refugees from Muslim countries, Ms. Merkel, moving unilaterally, announced that Germany would take in an astounding 800,000. Naturally this was taken as an invitation, and more than a million came. The result has been widespread public furor over crime, cultural dissimilation and fears of terrorism. From such a sturdy, grounded character as Ms. Merkel the decision was puzzling—uncharacteristically romantic about people, how they live their lives, and history itself, which is more charnel house than settlement house.
Ms. Merkel’s acquaintance sighed and agreed. It’s one thing to be overwhelmed by an unexpected force, quite another to invite your invaders in! But, the acquaintance said, he believed the chancellor was operating in pursuit of ideals. As the daughter of a Lutheran minister, someone who grew up in East Germany, Ms. Merkel would have natural sympathy for those who feel marginalized and displaced. Moreover she is attempting to provide a kind of counter-statement, in the 21st century, to Germany’s great sin of the 20th. The historical stain of Nazism, the murder and abuse of the minority, will be followed by the moral triumph of open arms toward the dispossessed. That’s what’s driving it, said the acquaintance.
It was as good an explanation as I’d heard. But there was a fundamental problem with the decision that you can see rippling now throughout the West. Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.
Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street—that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending—because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.
The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”
And so the great separating incident at Cologne last New Year’s, and the hundreds of sexual assaults by mostly young migrant men who were brought up in societies where women are veiled—who think they should be veiled—and who chose to see women in short skirts and high heels as asking for it.
Cologne of course was followed by other crimes.
The journalist Chris Caldwell reports in the Weekly Standard on Ms. Merkel’s statement a few weeks ago, in which she told Germans that history was asking them to “master the flip side, the shadow side, of all the positive effects of globalization.”
Caldwell: “This was the chancellor’s . . . way of acknowledging that various newcomers to the national household had begun to attack and kill her voters at an alarming rate.” Soon after her remarks, more horrific crimes followed, including in Munich (nine killed in a McDonald’s) Reutlingen (a knife attack) and Ansbach (a suicide bomber).
The larger point is that this is something we are seeing all over, the top detaching itself from the bottom, feeling little loyalty to it or affiliation with it. It is a theme I see working its way throughout the West’s power centers. At its heart it is not only a detachment from, but a lack of interest in, the lives of your countrymen, of those who are not at the table, and who understand that they’ve been abandoned by their leaders’ selfishness and mad virtue-signalling.
On Wall Street, where they used to make statesmen, they now barely make citizens. CEOs are consumed with short-term thinking, stock prices, quarterly profits. They don’t really believe that they have to be involved with “America” now; they see their job as thinking globally and meeting shareholder expectations.
In Silicon Valley the idea of “the national interest” is not much discussed. They adhere to higher, more abstract, more global values. They’re not about America, they’re about . . . well, I suppose they’d say the future.
In Hollywood the wealthy protect their own children from cultural decay, from the sick images they create for all the screens, but they don’t mind if poor, unparented children from broken-up families get those messages and, in the way of things, act on them down the road.
From what I’ve seen of those in power throughout business and politics now, the people of your country are not your countrymen, they’re aliens whose bizarre emotions you must attempt occasionally to anticipate and manage.
In Manhattan, my little island off the continent, I see the children of the global business elite marry each other and settle in London or New York or Mumbai. They send their children to the same schools and are alert to all class markers. And those elites, of Mumbai and Manhattan, do not often identify with, or see a connection to or an obligation toward, the rough, struggling people who live at the bottom in their countries. In fact, they fear them, and often devise ways, when home, of not having their wealth and worldly success fully noticed.
Affluence detaches, power adds distance to experience. I don’t have it fully right in my mind but something big is happening here with this division between the leaders and the led. It is very much a feature of our age. But it is odd that our elites have abandoned or are abandoning the idea that they belong to a country, that they have ties that bring responsibilities, that they should feel loyalty to their people or, at the very least, a grounded respect.
I close with a story that I haven’t seen in the mainstream press. This week the Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson reported that recent Syrian refugees being resettled in Virginia, were sent to the state’s poorest communities. Data from the State Department showed that almost all Virginia’s refugees since October “have been placed in towns with lower incomes and higher poverty rates, hours away from the wealthy suburbs outside of Washington, D.C.” Of 121 refugees, 112 were placed in communities at least 100 miles from the nation’s capital. The suburban counties of Fairfax, Loudoun and Arlington—among the wealthiest in the nation, and home to high concentrations of those who create, and populate, government and the media—have received only nine refugees.
Some of the detachment isn’t unconscious. Some of it is sheer and clever self-protection. At least on some level they can take care of their own.