You may have noticed that there has been a lot of news coverage about the question whether President Biden should drop out of the race. I’ve been watching very little of it. Not because I don’t think it’s an important question – it’s an incredibly important question. Not because I think it’s certain he’ll be staying in…or guaranteed he’s dropping out – I have no idea. Not because he’s sure to lose or likely to win – I don’t know this early before people are paying serious attention. Not because I don’t know the answer to any of these questions – I don’t know the answer to many questions, which is often why I do watch, to find out the answers. I’ve been watching very little of it because no one talking knows the answer to any of the questions. And they still answering with great certainty. There’s only so much time I can spend watching pure uncertainty and total guesswork answering questions they don’t have the answers to. Especially when so many of them are rock solid sure they’re right. Of course, this is critically important. And I’m riveted into what the outcome will be. And occasionally nuggets of news are dropped in, like who has called for the President to drop out. Or stay in. But no matter how certain they are of their position, even they don’t know if they’re right. “They” being on either side. And some of them will be right. But it’s still just a guess. And it’s okay to guess. But 24/7 guessing has its limits for me. Especially since after about 15 minutes, we’ve heard the thoughtful reasons why President Biden should leave the race – or stay in. Here’s how much this is a Moebius Strip. The ribbon that’s a continuous loop with only one side that twists back on itself. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as wise a politicians as there is in the Democratic Party today, was asked her position of President Biden. And she said, ““It’s up to the president to decide if he is going to run. We’re all encouraging him to make that decision, because time is running short. He is beloved, he is respected, and people want him to make that decision.” To which MSNBC’s Jonthan Lemire replied, “He has said he has made the decision, he has said firmly this week he is going to run. Do you want him to run?” To which Ms. Pelosi responded, “I want him to do whatever he decides to do. And that’s, that’s the way it is. Whatever he decides, we go with.” To which the response would be – but he says he’s decided. And the comeback is – “I’ll go with whatever he decides to do.” And at the moment, all this guesswork is done without knowing if the cure will be worse than the disease. At the moment, President Biden is polling better against Trump than Kamala Harris is, or any of the other named contender. Except that they’re not polling as well at the moment most likely because they aren’t as well-known, yet, as the President is. Will that change if any of them become the nominee? And if so, will it change enough? I don’t know. But then neither does anyone talking about it. Though they aren’t talking about it nearly as much as even they think it deserves, given the whole bottom line point is them concerned that President Biden can’t win – or can win. So, it’s odd because it’s such a critical issue to discuss and at least try to find out. And odd, too, since they all have so much airtime to fill discussing if President Biden should stay in the race or not. You’d think they might consider a change of direction a welcome relief. To be clear, I do have the TV on during the day, though not as often as before. Because sometimes what's being discussed on The Topic is newsworthy. Although when it’s on, I generally have the sound off, and just check in to read the chyron at the bottom of the screen to see if The Topic they’ve been discussing has changed. Usually, the answer is “No.” And to repeat, I think it’s a critical issue to discuss – oddly enough, more so in private where people are less likely to spend 24 hours a day on it, but more like the old radio news ad line, “Give us 15 minutes, and we’ll give you the world.” And in private where Democratic Party officials can try to use their influence one way or the other to those for whom it matters. Talking to TV viewers all day is not, to me, one of those audiences for whom it matters. At leat not that much. At some point, there will be an answer. And then I’ll turn up the volume.
0 Comments
About a week before President Biden sat down for questioning by Special Counsel Robert Hur last year, he did a 20-minute interview with long-time journalist John Harwood, formerly of CNN who worked with ProPublica to film it. Because of heightened interest following last Thursday's debate -- and because of House MAGOPs trying to get the Hur questioning released -- ProPublica decided to release Harwood's interview with President Biden done as virtually the same time. (They did earlier release a somewhat edited and "produced" version that used five cameras and had cutaways between the President and Harwood, as well as a few minor edits of crosstalk with camera operators. This new video is completely unedited and uses only the camera focused on President Biden.) As Pro Publica notes, this is not current, but from late September, almost nine months ago. So, it is not offered as "evidence" of anything. Just the best footage available of the most recent lengthy sit-down interview that the President has done. They mentioned, as well, that John Harwood did not submit his questions ahead of time, nor did he get approval for the topics. Here's what they wrote about it -- "In the wake of President Joe Biden’s poor debate performance, his opponents and most major media organizations have pointed out that he has done few interviews that give the public an opportunity to hear him speak without a script or teleprompters. 'So much has been made of this limited access that the impressions from Special Counsel Robert K. Hur about his five hours of interviews with the president on Oct. 8 and 9 drove months of coverage. The prosecutor said Biden had 'diminished faculties in advancing age' and called him a 'well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.' Biden angrily dismissed these assertions, which Vice President Kamala Harris called 'politically motivated.'" The interview was done on Sept. 29, nine days before the Hur interviews began. ProPublica writes that they know this video won't settle any arguments about President Biden today, but they say believe it important to let the public see one of Biden’s rare, extended conversations with a reporter. They add that -- "Recording began as soon as Biden was miked and sitting in the chair that Friday at 2:50 p.m. Earlier that day, Biden’s press staff had said the president would have only 10 minutes for the interview, instead of the previously agreed upon 20 minutes. We requested that the interview go the full 20 minutes. You can hear during the unedited interview a couple of moments when White House staff interrupted to signal that the interview should come to a close. Biden seemed eager to continue talking." To repeat, this is from almost nine months ago, and not a document of President Biden today. But it is a document of President Biden just a week before talking with Republican Robert Hur who unnecessarily went out of his way to make comments about the President's memory and demeanor. What we see here is an 81-year old man who is thoughtful, knowledgeable and insightful on everything asked of him for the full twenty minutes. Without a single lie in sight. It should be added that, while this is from nine months ago, the last interview I can recall Trump doing with a serious journalist, Jonathan Swan of Axios, was almost four years ago. Al offers a memorial of sorts this week. He writes, “My friend Howard Fineman died this week. He had a long career as one of Washington’s most respected political reporters and began his career at the Louisville Courier Journal. There, he was able to witness the rise of Mitch McConnell and learn what kind of politician he was. In this episode from 2019, we discuss what makes McConnell tick and Howard’s career. May his memory be a blessing.”
If you didn't see Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night, his news segment was very funny -- and angry, notably when getting into how the media asks questions of public officials. And he was spot on. Just a brief bit of history that's very current and most people know. But it bears repeating for reasons that will be clear. We know for instance that Trump was found guilty of business fraud for grossly overstating the value of his properties for a decade and fined $455 million. And as recent as that, we also know even more recently that Trump posted a bond for $175 million to appeal the finding, but that bond appears to be fraudulent and has been rejected by a New York court. We know all this. It's really recent. Trump not only has a history of vastly overstating the money he has, but he had been convicted in court (pending appeal...) for it. So recent that it's near-impossible to not know about it, if you follow the news even tangentially. And all the more so if you actually report the news. That's why it's -- sorry, I don't know if the proper word is "shocking" or "irresponsible", so instead let's go with -- shockingly irresponsible that most of the news media has been reporting Trump saying that he raised $50 million at his recent Mar-a-Lago fundraiser over the weekend. And almost no mention that this number has not be verified, and almost no mention that only Trump has announced the figure, and almost no mention that Trump has been convicted for hugely overstating his finances often in the past. I say "almost no mention" to be fair. I haven't seen it mentioned on TV news, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been mentioned somewhere I didn't see. I did see a couple of mentions of it by journalists on Twitter. But for the vast most part, I've seen no mention of any of that, just pure acceptance of what Trump said about his money. For instance, MSNBC even did a segment yesterday morning on Ana Cabrera's show where the full panel blithely accepted what Trump said on how much was supposedly raised. Not a single word even questioned whether Trump's figure might be inflated. Or that he had just been convicted of overinflating the value of his properties. Speaking only personally, when I heard Trump (and Trump alone from the event) say that $50 million had been raised, I was immediately skeptical. Though that's putting it politely. My first thought was Trump is lying. My second thought was Trump is lying. And my third thought was also that Trump is lying. My whole list of thoughts was Trump is lying. If some other list exists in the world and has facts that even conceivably say that's the number, Trump doesn't know it. Because he's just making up numbers without asking anyone and is lying. Because that's what he does. And has been convicted for it. In fact, let's even add a bit of more distant history to drive home the point about Trump and lying about his finances, but this time with a case that is specifically about him fundraising. Back in January 2016, you may recall that Trump skipped a Republican debate and said that instead he would hold a competing event (to draw away attention) and make it a fundraiser for veterans. And afterwards, he claimed that he had raised $6 million!! The problem is after relentless questioning, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski finally admitted in late-May to the Washington Post that, no, Trump had not raised $6 million. And added that he did not “know the exact number." (Keep in mind, that this was four month after the fundraiser, and Lewandowski supposedly still said he didn't know how much money had been raised. Further, after this same four months of questioning by reporters about if any of the money had been actually donated to veterans groups (all of which said, when questioned, that they hadn't received anything), only then -- four months later, under pressure -- did Trump at last donate $1.9 million. Out of of the $6 million he claimed to have raised. To be fair, some reporters have pointed out that the money Trump raised will likely go to pay his legal defense fund, rather than to support his election campaign which is where the $25 million President Biden just raised at his fundraiser will go. And some reporters have mentioned that any billionaire who donated the upper limits at the Trump event would have given the most they could during the election and would be maxed out, meaning Trump will not be getting any more directly from them. That's unlike the Biden fundraiser where the upper limit was far less, and there were also many tickets sold for $200 and $300 -- meaning more money can come from that all. But though it's good that they reported that, it's a totally separate matter from journalists and expert analysts blithely accepting Trump's word on anything out of his mouth about his finances. But most especially this. I would say that I hope journalists do better when it comes to reporting anything says about his finances -- but that's too low a bar, because this was a layup, and they missed it...and can't do any worse. There's not much new to add here, since I'm said most of it twice, the last two days. But it bears finishing the tale in full as a trilogy. And so, to wrap things up -- yesterday, the chairman of NBC News Cesar Conde announced that Ronna Romney McDaniel would not be coming to NBC or MSNBC as a paid contributor. This is the note that Conde sent to the staff: Hey all, It's a very good, important action to take -- and gracious for taking full responsibility, even two others were the ones who pushed the matter for reasons unknown to Man, however I find the letter a touch disingenuous. It's when he writes -- "Our initial decision was made because of our deep commitment to presenting our audiences with a widely diverse set of viewpoints and experiences, particularly during these consequential times." The issue with former RNC chair Ronna Romney McDaniel was never about a "widely diverse set of viewpoints." After all, MSNBC already has a former RNC chair on staff, Michael Steele, who even has his own show. And has a former Republican White House Press Secretary, Nicolle Wallace, who not only has her own show, but has the only single-host show that runs two hours. And they have paid contributors who include former Republican governor John Kasich, active conservative journalist Charlie Sykes, active GOP operative Tim Miller and several others, including Republican strategist Susan Del Percio. That's a pretty widely diverse set of viewpoints for what is seen as a left-leaning news organization. (Granted, this is MSNBC, rather than NBC, but they overlap and all reporters are available between the two.) At issue is that Ronna Romney McDaniel, who is so heavily a Trump enabler that she liberally changed her name to be acceptable to him, is so involved with supporting the Insurrection to overthrow the U.S. government that she is at risk of being an indicted co-conspirator, having (among other things) been caught on tape with Trump trying to pressure Michigan Republican officials to not certify the state's legal election results, and referenced in two criminals indictments. That is the issue. And it is not someone you want on a news team. At least if the standard you're going for is honesty and, y'know, supporting democracy. Many on the far-right yesterday, and even some misguided others bending over backwards so ridiculously far that their noses nearly touch the ground, tried to position NBC's decision as cowardice, afraid of having "different voices" on the air. But as noted, "different voices" is not a problem on MSNBC and its parent NBC. (Especially, and laughably, when compared to the dittohead voices of the Stations of Choice for the far right -- Fox, Newsmax, and OAN, where even if you're a Republican, but dare be a moderate, you are at risk of being painted a RINO, not a Republican at all but a Republican in Name Only.) So, no, despite the efforts to make it seem other than reality -- which is a core trait of the Republican base these days -- the issue was one thing, and one thing only: Ronna Romney McDaniel was in the center of efforts to undermine democracy and overthrow the government, helping Trump pressure state officials to refuse to certify a legal election and push the Insurrection forward. All the while lying repeatedly and demeaning journalists, at the behest of her leader putting them in physical danger by calling them "the Enemy of the People" for doing their jobs pursing stories honestly. And now, Ms. McDaniel has every right to continue doing that. She just won't be doing it on NBC or MSNBC as a paid contributor. Whether or not she gets indicted, that's up to the Department of Justice. And just for fun, we'll add an addendum -- because after all this comes the report that Ronna Romney McDaniel says she may sue those she insists "defamed" her and have caused her mental distress. I am sure there are already lawyers lining up who would dearly love to do a deposition and cross-examine her on the stand under oath. Most especially about the statements she insists "defamed" her about how she pressured state officials with Trump to not certify legal election results (exchanges that are recorded and referenced in two criminal indictments), and ask her further about other conversations and meetings she had with Trump and his team, to support the claims that those she would be suing accurately made about her. Pro Tip: If you don't want to have mental distress, don't help enable an Insurrection and try to overthrow the government. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
June 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|