Trump Fires Rex Tillerson!

TrumpfiringTillersonTweet

From what I saw, RT was the first to report it, followed by others, including USA Today.  I just want to go on record as saying this is the biggest mistake Trump has made in his cabinet to date!  Tillerson was his most capable cabinet member, and our best hope for world peace.  I weep for the world today.

Kyrie Eleison!

Let’s hope that Pompeo is anywhere near as capable as Tillerson, and picks up where Tillerson left off in pursuit of peace and diplomacy with Russia, Syria, N. Korea, etc.  We can ill afford a nuclear war, or another 10+ year quagmire.

Advertisements

Is Trump a better Democrat than the Democrats?

TrumpAsDemocrat

I used to be one of those obnoxious “white liberal” types, asking my fellow blue collar whites – Why do you vote against your own best interests?  I was even tempted to call it “racism”.

When it came to Trump v. Clinton, though, that just didn’t make sense anymore.  Here was Trump proposing what some of the better Democrats have been pushing for decades, protection of American jobs; and here was the Democratic Party nominating a would be outsourcer-in-chief.  When my fellow “white liberals” picked up the old – Why do you vote against your own best interests? – rhetoric, I was like – ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

As my regular readers know, I am not part of Trump’s cult of personality.  I reluctantly supported him, because it was him or Clinton, and I have been willing to criticize him when I think it’s due.  But this week, Trump is earning my praise!

  1. Trade – Remember when this was the Democrats’ thing?  Little by little, Trump is coming through on his trade promises.  About a month ago, he implemented 30% tariffs on imported solar panels.  I remember in 2009-10ish when the AFL-CIO was denouncing China for their predatory trade practices in relation to solar panels and considering a lawsuit before the WTO.  I worried that this would be as far as Trump would go, but now, here he is about to slap a 25% tariff on imported steel, and 10% on aluminum!  Thank you Trump!  Thank you!  Thank you!  Thank you!  Trump is getting flak from his own party on this because, as I’ve always hoped, Trump is a bad Republican.  On trade, Trump is a much better Democrat than the Clintons, and much of the members of the Democratic Caucuses in Congress.
  2. Repealing the Individual Mandate – Lest we forget, it was the neoconservative Heritage Foundation that originally came up with the idea to force people to buy health insurance.  Obama himself, in 2008, warned that this could put people in a situation where insurance would be so expensive they’d sooner pay the tax penalty.  Then Obama implemented the mandate, and many are, as he warned, paying the penalty because insurance is too expensive.  Thanks Obama!  But if Obama won’t honor his own positions, Trump will do it for him.  Trump first tried to repeal the individual mandate as part of a larger health care reform.  Upon failing to do that, rather than giving up, he worked a repeal of the mandate into his tax reform.  Starting this year, there will no longer be a tax penalty for not buying health insurance.  So while Obama did the bidding of the corporatist Heritage Foundation, Trump turned out to be a better Democrat than Obama on healthcare.
  3. Cautious foreign policy* – Remember when the Republicans were the warmongers? Things were simpler then.  We hated Bush, the war in Iraq was a yuge mistake, and Obama would bring us change we could believe in.  Then Obama made the mistake of appointing Clinton as Sec. of State, and she talked him into Libya, the biggest foreign policy disaster of his entire presidency.  Thank goodness Obama didn’t go all in on Syria!  While Trump isn’t perfect on this, so far he’s proven to be more cautious in practice than Obama, Bush, or either of the Clintons.  While we are continuing to attack ISIS targets in Syria, we’ve mostly avoided conflict with the Syrian government, we’ve backed the Iraqi government just enough to push ISIS out, and there doesn’t seem to be any quagmires on the horizon.  Meanwhile the “Democrats” are red baiting on Russia and beating the war drums themselves towards the Assad regime.  It seems on foreign policy, Trump is a better Democrat than any Democratic President since Jimmy Carter, and better than most of the Democrats in Congress.
  4. Guns – This one is still uncertain, but following Trump’s listening session with the families and friends of victims of the recent shootings, Trump is open to some sensible gun safety regulations. He’s proposed expanding background checks, raising the age to 21 to purchase semi-automatics, and removing firearms from the hands of people with mental illnesses that could be at risk.  We don’t know how much of this Trump will follow through with yet, but it is certainly noteworthy that once again, populist Trump is clashing with the real Republicans (and I don’t mean that as a complement to them) in order to do what’s best for the American people.

I’m not joining the cult of Trump or anything.  I reluctantly supported him in 2016, and I just may again in 2020, depending on whom the Democrats nominate.  I still have plenty of grievances with Trump.  He is deregulating the financial sector like a Clinton and he’s completely blind to the realities of institutional racism in our criminal justice system.  But as a blue collar Democrat, disgusted at the party that ignores our concerns to maintain its unholy alliance of Political Correctness and Neoliberal Corporatism; I’m looking at Trump and thinking –

I voted for some of my own best interests, and I just might do it again. 

 

Read Also:

Defiant Trump Battles Globalists Like No President Before Him (by DC Whispers)

Is Joe the Plumber a Hypocrite for taking a union job?

Why I’m Not A Republican

 

We Should Be Relieved That Trump Used Note Cards

TrumpsNotecards

Ask yourself this.  In a room full of students and parents of shooting victims, including a man who just lost his 18-year-old daughter – Do you want THE Donald Trump speaking to them off the top of his head?

The Trump presidency warrants many criticisms.  Probably more than anything, Trump is criticized for what he says.  He speaks carelessly off the cuff, he offends people, and rather than apologizing, he doubles down.

When I saw the snippets on the morning news of Trump’s conversation with these parents and victims, I sighed in relief!  Trump actually spent more time listening than talking.  He was sensitive (yes, Trump!)  He chose his words carefully.  Even when it came time for the most controversial part, when he proposed arming school teachers*, he proposed this about as tactfully as anyone could.

So how does a man like Trump manage to conduct himself professionally in such a sensitive situation?  He does exactly what Obama did for every one of his great, optimistic speeches – he plans his words.  Obama used the teleprompter, while Trump used good old fashioned note cards.  A teleprompter wouldn’t have been practical in that setting anyway.

Yet for some reason, Washington Post’s Aaron Blake has a problem with this.  In Wapo’s Analysis section (though this would have been more suited to Opeds), Blake claims that Trump’s note cards show a lack of empathy.**  Now, if I had a history of saying horribly insensitive things on the spot, and I wanted to show empathy; I’d be sure not to say anything on the spot, and furthermore, to show that I put some serious thought into what I would say.  If I had a history of over-talking people rather than listening, I’d show empathy by forcing myself to not fall into that bad habit, and instead, I’d listen for a change!

I know it’s a disappointment to those who enjoy sensationalizing every careless word that comes from Trump’s mouth, every awkward hand gesture, every golf game, and every socially awkward appearance he makes with Melania; but Donald Trump actually handled himself well this time.  Like it or not, Trump will almost certainly be our President until 2021, and possibly until 2025.  Wouldn’t we rather him do whatever he needs to do to conduct himself professionally and presidentially, than continue to speak off the cuff just because it makes for entertaining news?

But don’t worry Mr. Blake.  This is Trump we’re talking about.  Maybe next week he’ll insult a girl scout, or bump into an old lady with a walker or something.  You can go to town on that.

 

Note(s):

*For the record, I think arming school teachers is a recipe for disaster, and definitely oppose making this a national policy.  I’m mainly worried that in a chaotic classroom, a teacher might forget to lock it, and the wrong student will get a hold of it.

**Though Wapo published this article, they placed a video at the front of it showing clips from Trump’s meeting with these students, and you’ll see a very different Donald Trump in those clips than the one portrayed by the article that follows.  It seems Blake is alone (or in the minority) on this issue at Wapo

***Note that I don’t fault Wapo simply for publishing this article, though as I not so subtly hinted above, I think it belongs in Opeds.

Women’s March 2018

CDcomicsWomensMarch2018

 

I hope you enjoy the comic above.  I just thought I’d also share my thoughts on the “women’s march”, and 21st century feminism in general.  I have a great deal of respect for the recent movement to bring to justice powerful men who have abused women.  This includes the #metoo and #timeisup hashtags.  I wish they’d organize into a march, one that reflects their principled, non-partisan approach to women’s rights.

However, I have little respect for this so-called women’s march.  They call themselves “women’s march”, yet only march for women they agree with.  They don’t allow pro-life feminists a place at the table.  They don’t tolerate women for Trump.  They might say, “but Trump has abused women.”  But then I see those “I’m with her” signs, and in addition to all of her husbands sex crimes that she helped cover up, it’s recently been discovered that a woman on her campaign was sexually harassed, and she didn’t remove the man from her campaign.  By the same logic that they won’t tolerate women for Trump, they shouldn’t tolerate “I’m with her”.

Which sums up the reason for my disdain for this whole thing.  They claim to represent “women”, yet they really only serve a partisan agenda.  They seek to manipulate women into becoming DNC foot soldiers.  It’s the same trick that many third wave feminists use when as follows:

“Are you a feminist?”

“No”

“You mean you don’t believe in equality for women?”

“Well, yeah, I believe in equality for women.”

“So you’re a feminist.”

“OK”

“So you’re pro-choice, pro-gun control, support punishing employers who won’t pay for all forms of birth control, and voted for Hillary Clinton?”

“No”

“So you’re not a feminist?”

“I guess not.”

“Why don’t you support equality for women?!!”

The women’s march is full of partisan hypocrites devoid of intellectual integrity.  They demand respect and wear vagina hats.  They demand the most stringent sexual harassment laws, then chant and sloganeer about their lady parts.  And worst of all, they try to trap women into voting a certain way, and taking a slate of positions of various issues, based on their gender.  I respect women too much to tell them that they have to take a certain set of positions because of their gender.  As with men, I respect women who earn respect.  I don’t respect those whose behavior doesn’t earn respect.  With equality comes responsibility, and while I think those who share the #metoo get that, the so-called women’s march does not.

So, am I a feminist?  In the Mary Wollstonecraft sense, yes.  In the Susan B. Anthony sense, yes.  In the Christine Sommers sense, yes.  In the Hillary Clinton sense, AW HELL NAW!

The Media’s Fantastic Coverage of Trump’s “S***hole” Remark

TrumpsShiphole

Over the last several days, I’ve been highly impressed with how the media has covered the claim that Trump referred to certain countries as “s***hole countries”.  They didn’t assume he’d said it.  Instead, they reported that it was claimed that he said it.  First it was Democratic Senator Dick Durban who made this claim.  Lindsey Graham has said something very close to it also.  The media has been on top of every detail as soon as they become available!  I heard George Stephanopoulos this morning saying essentially that Trump “probably said it” on the basis that Trump didn’t deny it at first, and seemed to be feeling around to see how the public was reacting to it.  Trump then started denying it when it became clear that the public wasn’t receiving it well.  Spot on, George!

With the media’s fair and thorough coverage of this issue, it shouldn’t be long before we know for sure whether or not President Trump really did call Haiti, and Africa, and much of Latin America, “s***hole countries”.  They will interview every single Senator who was in that room, and they will get to the bottom of this.  I’m sure that as soon as they are sure, they’ll make sure to report it all over every major network so that we all can be sure of what Trump surely said.

Most importantly of all, I really appreciate the media for not getting distracted.  It seems every time Trump says something horrible, his base supporters use deflection.  Talk about anything but that!  And there’s so many things with which the media could have been deflected from this oh so important story of Trump saying “s***hole countries”.  Here’s a list of all the things the media has not allowed to distract them:

  1. ISIS is defeated in Iraq, and nearly defeated in Syria, but they may be regrouping in still chaotic Syria.
  2. Following the 2010 “no fly zone”, largely pushed into US policy by then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Libya has devolved into a semi-anarchic slave trading state . Al Jazeera has been all over this for years, but our mainstream media has only picked it up recently. But I’m glad they’re shelving this minor story to focus on whether or not Trump called Libya a “s***hole”!  #priorities
  3. Trump recently pardoned 5 banksters for fraud charges . Only independent sources like Free Thought Project have wasted their time with this little distraction.
  4. GDP is soaring, unemployment is low, but some experts worry that a recession is just around the corner
  5. Iran has been secretly sending weapons to the Shi’a side of the deadly Yemeni civil war that has been raging since 2015, and the UN has recently confirmed this fact.
  6. Former Haitian dictator Duvalier may have laundered money through Trump Tower. Sure, this kind of thing is part of the reason Haiti would be considered a “s***hole” country, but let’s not deflect!
  7. DACA will soon expire for many, and over the next year, more undocumented immigrants brought here as children, most of whom are peaceful, will find themselves vulnerable to deportation to a native land they barely remember, without serious immigration reform. But let’s not get distracted with the details, like those silly libertarians at the CATO Institute (Oh libertarians with the obsession with policies and how they actually effect regular people!)

Thank goodness our televised media knows how to stay focused!  They won’t rest until they get to the bottom of whether or not Trump said “s***hole countries”, and if so, exactly which countries he was referring to.  Let Huffington Post, and CATO, and independent rabble rousers like the Free Thought Project worry about all these diversions.

Thank goodness though that we have wonderful corporations like Google to protect us from this unimportant news by setting their search engine to show preference to the important stuff.  Mr. Trump!  You are on notice!  We will find out what you said, and the America people will know the truth!

 

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance – Thomas Jefferson

 

*On a serious note, I really appreciate Huffington Post’s Dwayne Wong (cited in number 2 above) for putting this in perspective.  I’m glad to see that semi-mainstream media sources in print and online can get past the sensationalism pushed by televised media and actual engage in the often thankless job of journalism.

 

Related to this Africa issue, you may also enjoy my recent column for The Pavlovic Today “MLK On The Evils Of War

How To Raise A Daughter Who Will Appreciate Your Sweet Son

StrongGirl

For too long, as in, most of human history, women have been subjected to various forms of sexual abuse at the hands of men.  Most of this is in the form of harassment, some of it is groping and the like, and some…is rape.  As the father of a beautiful baby girl, I’m glad to see the amount of attention that is being brought to this now, and the effort being put into combating this.  After reading Faith Salie’s Time article, “How to raise a sweet son in an era of angry men”, it’s clear that many women only see half the problem.  There isn’t much in this article with which I disagree, but what isn’t said is very troubling.  It is troubling because I know from personal experience that she could be setting up the “sweet boys” of today to become the “angry men” of tomorrow.

How Boys Become Angry Men

Salie addresses many of the problems with how boys are raised.  They are taught to be “tough”, and not allowed to be “sweet.”  They are taught that showing vulnerability is a sign of weakness.  The contrary holds true, however.  As Salie explains rather hopefully, “Sweet boys grow up to be men who recognize the strength in being vulnerable and empathetic.”  This is, indeed, a strength.  But here’s what Salie completely neglects to consider.

From about the 90s onwards, boys grow up in conflict.  Their dads tell them to toughen up.  TV tells them that such macho men make fools of themselves, and that the sweet guys are wiser.  So, some boys listen to Dad.  Others, with a rebellious streak, spite Dad and listen to TV.  I’m sure Salie is hoping for the latter.  But the latter, little does she suspect, can become the very angry men she fears.

Here’s how it works.

The boy grows up being “sweet”.  As a teen, instead of hitting on the girl he likes as a typical teenage boy, watching her bend over and wolf whistling, and the like, making his innuendos, moving in, copping a feel, etc. – instead, he is “sweet”.  He respects the girl he likes, holds her books for her, buys her things, complements her makeup, pretends to like the same girlie shows or chick flicks she’s into.  The sweet boy soon finds himself in the “friendzone.”  Regardless of ideology, biology is what it is.  And girls are attracted to what they’re attracted to, especially when they’re raised permissibly.  As Gloria Estefan once sang, “Bad bad bad bad boys, they make me feel so good!”  A timeless truth.

While mutual friendship between boys and girls, men and women, is healthy; the “friendzone” paradigm is toxic.  This toxicity is part of the problem.

As the sweet boy grows up, he watches the girls he likes going with the wrong kind of guy, over, and over, and over again.  As he starts thinking and debating, and complains to the average feminist, what does she tell him?  “You’re not entitled to a woman’s body!  Her body, her choice!”  Gee, thanks, that’s very helpful.  Consequently, the “sweet boy” is filled with righteous indignation at the injustice!  I did what I was supposed to do!  I respected women!  And this is what I get?!  The most extreme of these might be the next “Elliot Rodgers”, and go on a killing spree.  Some of them become rapists.  A larger portion simply start pushing the boundaries.  They stop respecting women, they start hitting on women as their colleagues did as teenagers.  And guess what?  Sometimes – it works!  But any woman attracted to that, will never make him happy, nor will she be happy herself.

So should we raise “bad boys”?

I can’t blame fathers who care about their sons for raising them in such a way that they will thrive in this world, including in their dealings with the opposite sex.  But as a society, we can do better than this.  Many aspects of our biology are simply outdated, such as a man’s instinct to be overly macho, as well as a woman’s instinct to be attracted to such machismo.  Fortunately, there are some wise women out there who know better.  My wife is one of them, and I’m a very lucky man.  Sadly, our happy marriage is very much the exception, rather than the norm.

It’s a two way street, ladies

We are emphasizing raising boys to respect women, yet girls are raised to do whatever feels good in the moment because “girls can be anything boys can”.  In so doing, we are raising the angry men of the future.

If we want a future with the kinds of relationships built on mutual respect, vulnerability and empathy, and where a relationship and marriage is a partnership where each complements the other; then we must raise our boys and girls accordingly.

We need to teach our girls that the guy their instincts tell them to put in the “friendzone” because he’s “such a sweet guy”, he’s the guy who will treat her right.  We need to teach our girls the danger of going with the guys who excite them.  Get them out of the “Dirty Dancing” mentality.

We need to raise the kind of girls who will seek the kind of boys that Salie is raising.  We need to teach our girls that they teach others how to treat them, and that actions have consequences.  “Pussyhats” and promiscuity are not empowering!  But too often, this is exactly what I see from this generation of females.  I’ve seen a group of girls in a public place exchanging gifts that included some very explicit sex toys.  I’ve seen them take pictures of each other pretending to perform sexual acts on each other.  Then I’ve watched them suddenly become shocked and appalled that some random guy shouted a comment at one of them that was maybe half as crude as the behavior that preceded.

We have to raise our girls better than that.  How can we expect boys to respect them, if they don’t respect themselves?

The Example

I had a wonderful grandmother who was crucial to my upbringing.  And she taught me, not by words, but by how she lived her life, what a strong woman truly is.  She told me about her and my grandfather when they started dating.  He was shy.  She approached him.  She initiated their first hand holding, their first kiss, etc.  He was in many ways a strong man.  Abuse one of his daughters, get your lights knocked out.  But apparently, he was rather shy approaching the opposite sex when he was single.  My grandmother even at a young age was wise enough to appreciate a sweet boy, who became a sweet man.

My grandmother also understood modesty.  She had no problem calling a “slut” a “slut”.  She had no problem saying that women who were scantily clad, out late at night, drunk, etc. were likely to get raped.  My grandmother was of the generation that overcame the Great Depression, won the greatest war the world has ever seen, and put America on top!  She was the New Deal Democrat who also liked Ike.  Her generation had no more time for petty partisanship than they had for vitriolic gender wars.  They were left an America in decline, and they were not going to accept that.  They decided to do better.

Raising Girls To Become Truly Empowered Women

I plan to raise my daughter to be as much like my grandmother as possible.  If we raise our daughters to be strong yet modest, tough yet compassionate, and wiser than their primitive biological instincts, then Salie’s efforts to raise “sweet boys” will not be in vain.  If, however, a generation of women raise their daughters on their own insecurities, projecting their pain caused by the wrong kind of men onto their sons and daughters, then we’re just raising another generation of broken, angry men, and vulnerable, abused women.  There is no empowerment in going with “bad boys” because it “feels good.”  Girls are not “fighting the patriarchy” by subjecting themselves to their baser instincts, and then blaming the “sweet guys” for the consequences.  If my grandmother’s generation can overcome America’s greatest challenges and put us on top, then we can do better than our parents have over the last few decades.  Like America’s greatest generation – we can do better!

“If we really want to make America great, we do it together!” – Hawk Newsome (BLM organizer)

Is The Media Really Trying To Take Down Trump?

TrumpAndLesterHolt

There is no doubt that the vast majority of media coverage of Trump has been negative.  That’s not merely my opinion, nor the opinion of most Americans, but has been confirmed in a study released in May.  

According to this Shorenstein Center study, headed by Professor Thomas Patterson, 80% of the tone of coverage of President Trump in his first 100 days was negative, compared to 41% for Obama, and 57% for Bush.  Furthermore, it should be noted that most major media outlets gave higher than 80% negative coverage, with CNN and NBC topping the chart at 93%.  The overall average is only as low as 80% because of FOX News, which gave Trump only 52%, thus lowering the overall average significantly.  And it should also be considered that FOX’s ratings have been declining in the last year

Is the media just doing their jobs?

It’s certainly possible that Trump is simply so bad, that the media is giving him such negative coverage simply because the news is really that negative.  Trump has been President for seven months now, and I doubt that a further study on the tone of media coverage would reveal that the media is any less negative than they were during Trump’s first 100 days.  So if the coverage is this negative, than in seven months, surely Trump should have done something, or a series of somethings, terrible enough to warrant such negative coverage.

The Media and Candidate Trump

First, let’s think back to media coverage of Trump during the Presidential race in 2016.  During the Republican Primary, the media didn’t seem all that negative towards Trump.  Mainstream media, such as NPR, sometimes highlighted how Trump was actually reaching out to LGBT persons, which was a daring and probably principled move for a Republican candidate.  

Once it was down to Trump v. Clinton in the General Election, however, the tone became particularly negative towards Trump.  With Trump struggling to gain support among women, the media just happened across an 11 year old audio recording of Trump making his infamous comments about his ability to grab certain women in their intimate areas because he’s “rich and famous”.  These comments were disgusting, and the American people certainly had a right to know this about a candidate on the ballot for the highest office in the land.  

But consider the timing!  The first presidential debate was over.  Trump was being criticized for having interrupted Hillary Clinton repeatedly during that debate, and accused of “manterrupting” and “mansplaining”.  This may have been hurting him with women voters.  So right before the second debate, this story about Trump making those comments, 11 years before, just happened to come out?  Did Access Hollywood just happen across that story at that particular point in time?  Right before the second debate?  In a very narrow election?  When Trump really needed to not lose women voters in droves?

Despite poll after poll showing that Trump was sure to lose, Trump actually won.  The media was more than happy to report these polls, but in fairness to the media, most of these polls were not conducted by them, and they were pretty consistent.  

The Media, President Trump, and Russiagate

Since the election, CNN in particular has focused heavily on the accusation that Russia hacked some aspect of the election in order to favor Trump.  If it could be proven that Trump engaged in illegal – key word “illegal” – collusion with Russia during the election, that would certainly be grounds for impeachment.  If Russia was indeed hacking the DNC (and RNC by the way), releasing both real and fake news, and trying to influence our election, wasn’t it just as much news, maybe more so, during the presidential race as it is now?  

The Media Research Center has conducted a recent study of three major news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) from May 17th – June 20th.  The study shows that these three networks spent nearly half or more of their air time covering the Russiagate/Comey story.  ABC was at the top of the list, with the program ABC World News Tonight having devoted 63% of its air time to Russiagate/Comey.  

Is the story really that big?  Maybe.  However, we’ve heard something about possible Russia interference since the middle of last year.  We’ve heard about possible collusion with Trump at least since the election.  During all of this time, despite ongoing investigations by the FBI and CIA, we have yet to see any solid evidence of illegal activity.  

There is some evidence that CNN is pushing this story just for ratings.  Project Veritas managed to get CNN Sr. Producer John Bonifield on camera admitting that “it’s ratings”.  He also admitted “it’s mostly bullshit right now”.  It is true that this was a hidden camera, and Bonifield was asked leading questions.  However, it does show that there has been pressure from the highest ranks at CNN to keep pushing the Russia story.  If you are questioning the validity of this story, that’s fair.  Project Veritas should be taken with a grain of salt.  But USA Today did report shortly following this video that CNN did confirm that this is legitimate, but stood by Bonifield despite his comments.

Consider the timing

If the media really wants to take down Trump, how would they go about it?  During the Presidential race, the best way would be to appeal to voters.  Would the Russiagate story really have had any effect on the election had the mainstream media focused on that in October and November of 2016?  Clinton’s base, it’s safe to say, is most concerned about this.  But the fickle Berniebros, whom Clinton needed, were likely far less concerned about Russia.  But women’s rights?  Sexual assault?  Of course!  Either it’s an amazing coincidence that the media just happened across that Access Hollywood recording from 11 years before at that point in time, right before the second presidential debate; or, it was the perfect time to both cripple Trump’s reputation among women voters and demoralize Trump right before his second debate, knowing full well that Trump was already worried about how he was perceived by women following the first debate.

And Russia!  For months and months we’ve been subjected to ad nauseum interviews with the media asking everybody who’s somebody what they think about the Russia probe, even though until a few weeks ago, there was zero evidence of collusion.  Only now is there a shred of evidence, that being the revelation that Don Trump Jr. admitted to meeting with a Russian lawyer in the hopes of obtaining negative information on Hillary Clinton.  With Trump 3 ½ years from his re-election bid (assuming he runs again), there’s not much point in influencing voters if you hope to take down Trump any time soon.  The best bet at this point is to obstruct him from getting anything done, and take a long shot at impeachment.

It is possible that Russiagate just happens to be the news right now.  Even though there’s a major healthcare bill working its way through Congress, even though ISIS is being driven out of Iraq, even though unemployment is historically low in the US right now, even though police shootings are still a major problem in the country, even though…I could go on…but maybe Russiagate really is more important that all of this.  Or maybe, despite minimal to no evidence after all this time, maybe it’s just the perfect time to bog Trump down with scandal, hurting his ability to get anything passed through a Congress nearly as divisive and partisan as the Reconstruction era following the American Civil War, and constantly raising the possibility of impeachment.  

Either the timing and relevance of these stories are an amazing coincidence, or many in the media really are trying to take down Trump.  

Coincidence?  Or is the media fiercely anti-Trump?

In a short email conversation, Professor Patterson (from the aforementioned study on negative coverage of Trump’s first 100 days) stated:

The day journalists wake up thinking their job is to take down the president is the day that they lose their claim to the public trust. Journalists need to act as watchdogs on those in power but the same standards need to be applied to officials of both parties.”

Considering that media coverage of Bush was only a little more negative than Obama, I don’t suggest that the mainstream media is particularly partisan.  I actually thought CNN’s coverage of the 2012 race between Obama and Romney was very fair, and I remember Anderson Cooper taking then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz to task for misquoting the LA Times and exaggerating Romney’s position on abortion.

It’s certainly possible, even very likely, that for whatever reason, that much of the mainstream media, particularly CNN, really doesn’t like Donald Trump.  Whatever you might think of Trump, you should be far more concerned that the mainstream media would abuse their power and the public trust this way.