JANUARY 28, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

RACIALLY SPEAKING, NORTHERNERS DON’T HAVE CLEAN HANDS BY A LONG SHOT. UNTIL SOMEBODY SUES, NO REDRESS OCCURS. IN THIS CASE, THE ACLU HAS SUED, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS BEING WITHHELD. THIS RACISM ISN’T COMING FROM THE TOP DOWN, BUT BUBBLING UP FROM THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL. IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO BLAME HITLER FOR WHAT HE DID. IT ISN’T ONE BAD PERSON, BUT A CONDITION OF EVIL COMING FROM A LARGER NUMBER OF PEOPLE. THE CASE OF THIS STUDENT WHO USED A SWASTIKA IN A PROJECT, AND HIS TEACHER WHO CALLED IT “ARTISTIC,” IS FRIGHTENING TO ME. WHERE DOES THE CONSCIENCE WEIGH IN TO PREVENT THESE THINGS? IF THIS IS WHAT RELIGION DOES FOR US, I WILL GO TO SOME ETHICAL HUMANISM INSTEAD. TO BE ETHICAL AND HUMANISTIC ARE GOOD THINGS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paw-paw-michigan-school-district-accused-racially-hostile-environment-aclu/
"Artistic" swastika? School district accused of racially hostile environment
UPDATED ON: JANUARY 28, 2019 / 9:58 AM / AP

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has filed a federal discrimination complaint alleging that there's a racially hostile environment at a southwest school district that was previously criticized for its use of the Redskin name and image as a mascot. The ACLU filed the discrimination complaint last Monday with the U.S. Department of Education against Paw Paw Public Schools.

The ACLU's complaint said "there are ongoing acts of harassment, discrimination, bullying, intimidation, and use of imagery and language that causes humiliation," including multiple incidents involved racial slurs. One instance involved a teacher allegedly saying a student's use of a swastika in a project was "artistic."

A public records request found that there were numerous instances of discrimination against racial, religious and ethnic groups at the district from 2015 through 2017, said ACLU attorney Mark Fancher. "The level of fear that appears to exist in that community among groups that have been targeted by the bigotry is such that we really felt something extraordinary needed to happen in that community," Fancher said.

District Superintendent Sonia Lark issued a statement denying the allegations, saying that the ACLU hasn't conducted sufficient research on the issue. She said the district has promptly and effectively addressed discrimination complaints.

"District staff and administration work tirelessly to promote diversity and to encourage cultural sensitivity," Lark said. "The district does not tolerate unlawful discrimination or harassment."

The school district also received attention for voting in 2017 to keep the Redskin name and image as the high school's mascot. The ACLU is asking the Education Department to launch an investigation and that the district work to eliminate discrimination.

The complaint noted that federal funds could be withheld from the district if it doesn't cooperate. The district hasn't yet been notified if the complaint will be investigated, but school officials will fully cooperate, Lark said.

First published on January 28, 2019

© 2019 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


HERE IS ANOTHER SICKENING ARTICLE ABOUT WHITES ABUSING BLACKS. WHY? JUST BECAUSE!! ONE STATEMENT HERE SAYS THAT FOR “AT LEAST TWO YEARS” THESE RACIST EVENTS HAVE BEEN OCCURRING. IF THAT IS A CLEAR BEGINNING POINT, THE MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHO CAME INTO A SUPERVISORY POSITION AT THAT TIME AND IS ALLOWING THESE BEHAVIORS, WHO HAS A KKK OR NEO-NAZI LINK, IN WHAT SECTIONS OF THE OPERATION ARE THESE EVENTS CENTERED, WHO MAKES DISPARAGING RACIAL REFERENCES, WHO HAS SENT EMAILS AROUND THE OFFICE OF THAT KIND, ETC. GERALD JOHNSON, HIMSELF, IS BLACK, AND A WINNER OF A NUMBER OF AWARDS WITHIN THE COMPANY. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSvuapSWTMI

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/toledo-gm-plant-gm-acknowledges-shockingly-racist-incidents-at-toledo-plant-amid-lawsuits/
By DEAN REYNOLDS CBS NEWS January 22, 2019, 6:40 PM
GM acknowledges shockingly racist incidents at Toledo plant

VIDEO – RACISM ACCUSATIONS, DERRICK BROOKS

Chicago — General Motors said it is urgently working to identify which of its employees turned a Toledo plant into a cesspool of racism. African American workers allege they were routinely disparaged, not only with the n-word but with nooses, swastikas and "whites only" signs on bathroom doors.

GM's admission comes after months of sidestepping claims from 11 workers.

"I'm absolutely outraged by the fact that this kind of behavior is still able to show up in any one of our workplaces. We have zero tolerance for any kind of behavior like this," said Gerald Johnson, GM vice president for manufacturing.

reynolds-gm-plant-0117en-frame-1.jpg
"Whites only" was seen written on a bathroom wall at a GM plant in Toledo, Ohio. CBS NEWS

Two federal lawsuits have been filed accusing GM of ignoring racial harassment. The suits claim that for at least two years, African Americans at the plant were called "boys" and "monkeys." They were also told to "go back to Africa where they belong."

"What's the big deal about nooses?" a white supervisor was quoted as saying during a meeting about racial tolerance. "There was never a black person who was lynched who didn't deserve it."

"I'm a black man and I'm all too familiar with dealing with these kinds of issues," said Derrick Brooks, who worked at GM from 2016 until last year. "To have to worry about coming to work and being called a certain name or being treated a certain way, those individuals need to be made whole again and the right thing needs to be done by this company."

GM said when it identifies those responsible, they will be fired.

© 2019 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


THE LAWSUITS MENTIONED ARE DISCUSSED HERE. THE TOLEDO PLANT IS THE ONLY ONE MENTIONED, BUT IF ALL 23 COMPLAINTS COME FROM THAT ONE SITE, THERE IS NO MANAGEMENT ACTIVE THERE, JUST A KIND OF CHAOS, PERHAPS. SOMETIMES PEOPLE IN POWER FIND IT MORE CONVENIENT TO SIMPLY CLOSE THEIR EYES.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/lawsuit-claims-gm-plant-employees-were-subject-to-racist-remarks-acts
Lawsuit claims GM plant employees were subject to racist remarks & acts
Posted: 3:03 PM, Nov 29, 2018 Updated: 3:03 PM, Nov 29, 2018
By: Max White

Eight employees at a General Motors plant in Toledo, Ohio, have filed a federal lawsuit alleging they were subject to racist remarks and acts in the last couple of years.

According to the lawsuit, there were several incidents that involved nooses being found at the plant or being thrown at African American workers.

On March 22, 2017, the lawsuit alleges that three nooses were found in the Casing Machine Department on lanyards at about 11:30 p.m.

Then on April 25, 2017, the lawsuit says another noose was found hanging in the Assembly Room between the first and second shifts. Another was found against a machine on May 2, 2017.

Then, on June 2, 2017, the lawsuit alleges a White employee threw a rope that looked like a noose at an African-American employee but says GM determined it was “horseplay” and put the employee under the horseplay Rule* for 30 days.

According to the lawsuit, the African-American workers also dealt with vilification and racially hostile remarks and epithets within the last four years.”

The lawsuit lists 23 different incidents which include swastikas being painted on restroom stalls, stick figures drawn with nooses around their necks in stalls, calling African-American employees “monkeys,” African-American employees being warned because a White employee’s dad was “in the Ku Klux Klan,” a “Whites only” sign hanging from a bathroom stall and much more.

The lawsuit also mentions that a White female dating an African-American who ran for union office had her election posters vandalized with racial slurs and drawings.

According to the lawsuit, GM failed “to take prompt corrective action” about the situations that were reported and caused each of the employees to fear for their safety.

The lawsuit also states that in March, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission found on behalf of some of the plaintiffs that there was “probable cause that GM engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices.

In a statement, General Motors said:

"Every day, everyone at General Motors is expected to uphold a set of values that are integral to the fabric of our culture. Discrimination and harassment are not acceptable and in stark contrast to how we expect people to show up at work. We treat any reported incident with sensitivity and urgency, and are committed to providing an environment that is safe, open and inclusive. General Motors is taking this matter seriously and addressing it through the appropriate court process

The company also added that plant leadership looked into the allegations in 2017 and investigated, saying they “issued a strong communication to all employees making it clear that any type of harassing or threatening conduct is not tolerated.”

GM also said they continued to reinforce it through all-employee meetings, smaller team meetings, and also conducted anti-discrimination training for all employees in conjunction with the UAW.

“This training emphasizes the company’s strong anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, and instructs employees to report and react to incidents using multiple tools available to all,” the company said in a statement.

The letter dated April 12, 2017, is below.

Copyright 2018 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


“UNDER THE HORSEPLAY RULE”*

WHILE I FOUND NO REFERENCE TO “THE HORSEPLAY RULE” ELSEWHERE, EVEN UNDER UAW RULES, THERE ARE MANY REFERENCES TO HORSEPLAY ON THE JOB ON THE INTERNET. FACTORY WORK ISN’T LIKE OFFICE WORK, APPARENTLY. WHAT IS DONE CAN RANGE FROM ONE DAY OFF (PRESUMABLY WITHOUT PAY) TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. USUALLY IT’S TREATED SERIOUSLY, BUT THE DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT OCCURRED ARE FUNNY IF VULGAR, UNLESS THE JOKE IS BEING PLAYED ON YOU. THIS SPECIFICALLY RACIALLY ORIENTED ABUSE IS MENTIONED SEPARATELY UNDER THE UAW RULES. THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL SPEAKS ABOUT "HORSEPLAY." IT'S APPARENTLY A COMMON PROBLEM, BUT IF IT OCCURS TO MINORITIES, THERE IS NO SPECIAL COMMENT MADE THERE. THE UNION RULES SAY VERY LITTLE ALSO. I HAVE HEARD THAT LABOR UNIONS ARE SOMETIMES HOSTILE TO BLACKS AND OTHER MINORITIES.


https://www.nsc.org/home
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL (NGO)

https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/16786-horseplay-at-work-no-joke
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
Horseplay at work: No joke
March 25, 2018

Everyone remembers the school class clown – the person always getting into trouble, pulling pranks and being goofy. Harmless stuff, right? Maybe back then. If your workplace has a class clown who engages in horseplay, it’s no laughing matter.

“Horseplay is rough or rowdy play or pranks that occur at the workplace,” states the Division of Safety and Compliance at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It can involve “joking that includes physical contact, playing around, racing, grabbing, foolish vehicle operation, social pressure to participate in unsafe acts, harassment and unauthorized contests.”

What’s the harm?

On-the-job horseplay shouldn’t be viewed as harmless fun. “Workplace horseplay incidents may lead to serious injuries at work, divide the workplace and prevent employees from getting their jobs done,” U of I cautions, adding that, in some states, horseplay-related incidents that result in injuries can lead to criminal prosecutions – some courts have determined these incidents to be deliberate acts.

Even if a horseplay incident doesn’t result in an injury, practical jokes and misbehaving can lead to “humiliation, embarrassment, anger, hurt feelings, distrust and even a desire for revenge” among co-workers, U of I notes.

Prevention
How can employers prevent horseplay incidents?

For starters, make it known that workers are responsible for each other’s safety.

It should be clear to employees that they’re to refrain from engaging in unsafe behaviors on the job, follow all workplace rules and regulations, and ensure equipment is used properly, U of I states. Supervisors and managers have a responsibility to keep their employees’ work environment safe and free of harassment by monitoring for and preventing horseplay.


BERNIE MAY BE THE 2020 CANDIDATE, BUT IF HE IS HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT, I THINK. IF HE DOES RUN, THOUGH, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM. I'M NOT SO TERRIFIED OF DONALD TRUMP THAT I WON'T SUPPORT HIM FULLY. THIS YEAR THE DEMS NEED TO GET BEHIND A PROGRESSIVE AND PUSH HARD TO SUPPORT THEM. THEY CAN GO BACK TO INCREASING THEIR OWN WEALTH AFTER TRUMP AND HIS RIGHTISTS ARE DEFEATED.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/opinions/bernie-sanders-may-not-be-a-2020-presidential-favorite-obeidallah/index.html
Bernie Sanders in 2020? Progressives are split
By Dean Obeidallah
Updated 3:16 PM ET, Mon January 28, 2019

VIDEO -- Source: CNN
Mark your calendar: 400 days until Iowa Caucuses 05:44

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM radio's daily program "The Dean Obeidallah Show" and a columnist for The Daily Beast. Follow him @DeanObeidallah. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.

(CNN)On Saturday, Twitter was abuzz with the news that Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator, might be "imminently," as Yahoo News reported, jumping into the 2020 race for president.

But it was readily apparent from the trending hashtag #NeverBernie that Sanders' entrance into the 2020 race would be far different and likely even more challenging than 2016.

When Sanders announced in May 2015 his run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, he was only viewed unfavorably by 12% of those polled by Gallup.

His unfavorable rating, however, in that same poll in late 2018 is closer to 40%. And more than that -- and this truly surprised me -- was the level of opposition and even anger directed at Sanders by some of my fellow progressives on Twitter on Saturday.

No, Kamala Harris is not a 'female Barack Obama'

In 2016, I supported Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary. After Hillary Clinton became the nominee, however, I became a surrogate for the Clinton campaign, speaking on her behalf to the Arab and Muslim American community since I'm a member of both.

So when I speak of the reaction to Sanders' possible run in 2020, I do this as someone who supported him in the past for championing issues that leading Democrats were not discussing at the time -- from railing against the "billionaire class" -- which he declared "controls the political life of our country" -- to speaking of Palestinians as human beings who not only deserve their own state but should also be treated with "respect and dignity."

Sanders' greatest impact, though, is likely on the issue of a single-payer health-care system which he dubbed "Medicare for All." During the 2016 campaign, Clinton rejected the proposal, even running an ad slamming it where she declared: "The American people can't afford to wait for ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in the real world."

Flash forward and a 2018 Reuters poll found that not only do 85% of Democrats support "Medicare for All" but many of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have embraced it, including Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.

The biggest mistake Democrats could make right now

Despite that, as I learned first-hand Saturday, there are many Democrats -- even past supporters -- who either are looking for a new candidate in 2020 or passionately oppose him. There were several distinct themes that emerged among the countless people who were tweeting in connection with the #NeverBernie hashtag.

The first thing that I noticed was anger over the possibility that Sanders could consider running as a Democrat again. Countless people raised the point -- which is certainly valid -- that Sanders had long identified as an Independent and only became a Democrat to be able to run in the 2016 Democratic primary contests. Then in 2017, Sanders declared that he was running for re-election to the US Senate as an Independent, rebuffing efforts from Democratic Party leaders to formally join the Democratic Party.

Trump's nightmare: A Latino taking his job

That was the main source of contention among self-identified progressives, but close behind was the belief that Sanders had cost Clinton the election in 2016.

While others made it clear they held no personal animus towards Sanders, they expressed fears that if Sanders ran it would reopen the wounds of the Hillary-Bernie fight we saw in 2016. As these people noted, in order to defeat Trump in 2020, progressives must be united. And they were concerned that a Sanders' candidacy could undermine that.

What was also unexpected were the number of people on Twitter -- some I have interacted with or known for years -- who said that they had supported Sanders in 2016 but simply wanted someone younger in 2020. One friend, who was truly a big Sanders supporter in 2016, tweeted that if Sanders, who is now 77, is elected he will be the oldest president ever elected and for this reason he preferred a younger candidate.

RELATED ARTICLE -- Kamala Harris is making history in the 2020 race

There were several other themes raised by those who opposed Sanders such as the way he dragged his feet to release his tax returns in 2016 and the fact that he opposed sanctions against Russia in a 2017 Senate vote. In a statement, Sanders said that he supports sanctions on Russia for interfering in our 2016 election but voted against that sanctions bill because he had concerns it would undermine the Iran nuclear deal since the bill had proposed sanctions against both Iran and Russia.

Another issue that clearly upset many progressives were the actions of the so called "Bernie Bros," purported Sanders supporters, who had reportedly engaged in harassment of Clinton supporters and reporters during the 2016 campaign.

Some of these "Bros" spewed hateful and often sexist comments. While Sanders did denounce the Bernie Bros tactics as "disgusting" in 2016, for many those words weren't enough.

Obviously, there are countless people who still passionately support Sanders today. Indeed, a December CNN poll of Iowa Democrats found Sanders in second place behind Joe Biden. And if Sanders runs in 2020, he could very well win the nomination.

The stark reality is that in 2020 -- as opposed to 2016 - -the field is not just Sanders versus Clinton. Currently, there are eight confirmed candidates, but the number could go up to 14 candidates or higher, many of whom will be espousing positions just as progressive as Sanders.

And, clearly, if Sanders enters the 2020 race he will have some built-in opposition that he didn't have when he first ran in 2016. But win or lose, Sanders' legacy will be that he played a major role in moving the Democratic Party to the left, especially on health care, which may just help the ultimate Democratic presidential nominee win the White House in 2020.


THE VIRAL BERNIE CLIP – MORE FAMOUS THAN IMPORTANT. IN FACT, I MUST DESCRIBE IT AS CUTE, OR RATHER, HE IS CUTE! HIS HAIR WAS LONGER AND CURLY, IT COVERED HIS WHOLE HEAD, BUT IT WAS ALREADY WHITE. THE HALF-SHY SMILE IS THERE. THAT WAS 1988. BERNIE AND HIS NEW WIFE JANE TOOK A HONEYMOON IN RUSSIA, AND TOOK IN THE TOWN (NOT MOSCOW.) THIS NEXT HEADLINE FAILS TO SAY THAT ALL OF THOSE IN THE VIDEO ARE DRINKING AND ALL THE MEN ARE SHIRTLESS, WHICH IS THE CASE. THEY ARE IN A SAUNA. THE ARTICLE SAYS HE WAS SINGING, BUT I COULDN’T HEAR THAT. I HEARD HIS DEEP VOICE SPEAKING, THOUGH. I THINK IT IS PROBABLY TOO GRAVELLY FOR HIM TO SING MUCH, ALTHOUGH SOME OF YOU WILL REMEMBER THE GREAT SATCHMO’S SINGING. ALL IT REALLY TAKES TO SING IS THE COURAGE. HIS WIFE JANE WAS WITH HIM THE NEXT DAY ON THE STREET, AND SHE WAS QUITE A LOOKER. AFTER THIS GO TO BERNIE’S VOICE RECORDING ON THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND AND SEVERAL OTHERS.

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201901281071901499-Shirtless-Sanders-Sings-Soviet-Sauna/
Feel the Bern: Shirtless Sanders Sings in 1980s Russian Sauna (VIDEO) © AP Photo / Alex Brandon
VIRAL
23:13 28.01.2019(updated 23:19 28.01.2019) Get short URL

When 30-year-old footage of Vermont’s independent senator, Bernie Sanders, singing drunk and shirtless in a sauna complex in the Soviet Union emerged on Twitter Monday, folks had a field day with it. Some found it endearing and amusing, but others were enraged by him palin’ around with Russians.

The footage comes from an archive compilation assembled by Channel 17 in Bernie's hometown of Burlington, Vermont, where he was mayor from 1981 to 1989. In 1988, Bernie and his wife, Jane, ventured to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and met with communist officials, who shared with them the secrets of urban planning and social services, according to Politifact. Devious? Scandalous? Treasonous? Nah, just part of his duties as mayor: Bernie and his city staff had gone to Burlington's sister city of Yaroslavl, 160 miles north of Moscow, as part of a cultural exchange program.

Clearly, the Sanders got a generous helping of Russian culture, although the cultural exchange factor is also on display, as they sing "This Land is Your Land," a patriotic song by American folk singer Woody Guthrie.

m. mendoza ferrer
@mgranville1
BREAKING: @SenSanders like you’ve never seen him!!

Bernie and Jane on their honeymoon in Russia singing “This land is Your Land” with their Russian comrades!!

Trigger Warning: Bernie is sitting at a table shirtless in his briefs. So are most of the rest of the men...

4,035
8:36 AM - Jan 28, 2019

According to the program, which is still running today, visitors between the two cities have included "mayors, business people, firefighters, jazz musicians, youth orchestras, mural painters, high school students, medical students, nurses, librarians and the (Yaroslavl) ice-hockey team." It's unclear from the website how many of them undressed to their briefs and drunkenly sang folk songs, but we like to think it was most of them.

Twitter had about the reaction you would expect: some were disgusted (what, there aren't shirtless old men in your town?), others were amused or found the humanity on display endearing. More worrisome were the many who found it suspicious or incriminating to see Sanders, who vied for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2016, being friendly with Russian people, who in America in 2019 have become a mustache-twirling nation, Enemy Number One.


TOᑭ ᖇOᑭE TᖇAViS
@TopRopeTravis
NEW: Recently discovered footage from 1988 reveals a shirtless Bernie Sanders with his wife, Jane, on their honeymoon in the USSR, drunkenly signing “This Land Is Your Land” with a group of presumed Soviets.

H/T: @mgranville1

5,259
10:33 AM - Jan 28, 2019


While "Presumed Soviets" would make an excellent band name, the wording is sort of odd. First of all, there is no "soviet" nationality — "soviet" means "council" in Russian, and since Yaroslavl was in the Russian Federative Soviet Socialist Republic (RSFSR), there stands a decent chance that the fellows they're raising their wrists with are also Russians.


Amy for President!
@ThEnemyIsUs
Replying to @mgranville1 and 2 others
Jesus Christ. The Soviets?! Those were the bad guys Bernie.

5
10:20 AM - Jan 28, 2019


Yes that's right, the bad guys! One is reminded of Russian poet Alexander Blok's sardonic poem "Scythians," which perhaps a cultural exchange program like Bernie's might have familiarized these Twitter posters with:

"Yes, we are Scythians! Yes, we are Asians —
With slanted and greedy eyes!"

It seems to reflect the attitudes of perennial distrust shown to Russians by some people in the West who think the Cold War never ended.


Russell
@RussellSieg
Replying to @mgranville1 @SenSanders
The couple that Treasons together stays together...

3
10:39 AM - Jan 28, 2019

Oh my, treason in a granchak! Seems to water the word down a bit, don't you think? Not that that hasn't happened already.


Little Harsh Gab
@LittleHarshGab
Replying to @Salems_Bot and 2 others
Proves he has a soft spot for them though

62
10:31 AM - Jan 28, 2019


Is there something particularly illuminating about the fact that Sanders has a "soft spot" for the Russians? Is that an incriminating or delegitimizing act?

Fortunately at least one person saw through the Russophobia:


Proprietress
@proprietress
· 9h
Replying to @mgranville1 @SenSanders
Sort of an Anthony Bourdain moment. Cool.


kareema.
@CreoleHoneyy
I agree. Are we supposed to be shocked that he treated russians likw humans or that he took a trip to his citys russian sister city to encourage diplomacy?

34
1:45 PM - Jan 28, 2019

Maybe it's best if we just let Bernie's memories live and take this person's sage wisdom to heart:


Ryan Hall
@cornpuddy
Replying to @mgranville1 @SenSanders
the 80s were a wild time

1:43 PM - Jan 28, 2019



FOR THE OTHER BERNIE FANS, WATCH THESE YOUTUBES AS WELL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZMzhnprCO8
#BernieSanders #berniesandersforpresident2016 #FeelTheBern
The Bernie Sanders For President Fight Song, Reach Way On Down In Your Soul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzgBkpY-6mE
#FEELTHEBERN
BERNIE SANDERS SONG FEEL THE BERN!!!

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/10/09/bernie-sanders-debate-style-democrat-presidential-candidate-kaye-pkg-ac.cnn
What is Bernie Sanders' debate style?
Anderson Cooper 360

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has already posed a significant challenged to Hillary Clinton's campaign, but how will he do in the debate? CNN's Randi Kaye reports.


https://sputniknews.com/politics/201603031035704922-us-candidates-russia/
This is How the 2016 US Presidential Candidates Feel About Russia © Flickr/ Gage Skidmore
POLITICS
11:48 03.03.2016(updated 12:04 03.03.2016)

The 2016 presidential primaries and caucuses are taking place across the United States. Candidates are seeking to win delegates in each state to capture their party’s nomination for the presidency. Some of them have withdrawn. Currently, six candidates – two democrats and four republicans – are running for president.

One of the hottest topics of the ongoing campaign is US foreign policy, including posturing against Russia strengthening its positions in the global arena. The candidates have avidly discussed relations with Moscow during the campaign.

Here is what Russia means for each of the 2016 US presidential hopefuls.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders is the most distinctly leftist candidate for the US presidency since the 1970s. He has called for radical reforms, including free health care and education (following the example of Scandinavian countries) and income taxes of up to 70 percent on the rich.

As for foreign policy, Sanders is not that radical though, as he does not plan to dissolve NATO or abandon nuclear weapons. He has proposed a course very close to liberal interventionism, which means that the US should play an even more active role in the international arena, but first of all with diplomacy, not wars.

Bernie Sanders has a long relationship with Russia. Back in 1988, he visited Yaroslavl, as part of a delegation from Burlington, to promote friendship and cooperation. He used to ironically notice that he had to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. He also met with Yaroslavl activists who then visited Sanders’ hometown of Vermont. Sanders has already gained a large number of supporters in Russia.

PHOTOGRAPH -- US Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders smiles after winning at his 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary night rally in Concord, New Hampshire February 9, 2016.

However, this has not stopped Sanders from criticizing Russia after the Crimean referendum. He also urged President Barack Obama to strengthen sanctions against Moscow. At the same time, Sanders warned against a military solution to the "Russian problem," instead calling for serious discussions. In November, he proposed to form a new version of NATO that included Russia and other countries in order to fight terrorism.

For Sanders, foreign policy is a peripheral issue because his campaign is targeting the dominance of Wall Street and major banks. If Sanders is president he will probably focus on domestic issues and address only major global events.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bernie-sanders-trump-a-fraud-a-pathological-liar-and-a-racist
Bernie Sanders: Trump 'a fraud, a pathological liar and a racist'
by Naomi Lim
| January 28, 2019 06:43 PM

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday hurled insults at President Trump in a fundraising email, ginning up support as he continues to mull the possibility of a second tilt at the White House.

"We are living in a truly unprecedented moment in history and the actions we take now, together, will determine not only the future of our country but the entire world. If there has ever been a time in American history when our people must stand together in the fight for economic, social, racial and environmental justice - now is that time," Sanders wrote.

The independent senator from Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats, added, "The bad news is that we have a president who is a fraud, a pathological liar and a racist. The good news is that the American people are standing up, fighting back and are demanding fundamental changes in our economic and political system."

Wall-to-wall politics

Sanders, who unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton in 2016, is rumored to be close to a decision regarding whether to run again. The 77-year-old senator has repeatedly said he would launch a campaign if he is "the best candidate to beat" Trump. Yahoo News reported last week that his presidential aspirations had been buoyed by a slew of early polls that showed him and former Vice President Joe Biden as the favorites to earn the party's nod.

Sanders has used similar language to describe Trump before. On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, he told a crowd in South Carolina that the president was "intentionally, purposely" "trying to divide us up by the color of our skin, by our gender, by the country we came from, by our religion."

"Today we talk about justice and today we talk about racism, and I must tell you it gives me no pleasure to tell you that we now have a president of the United States who is a racist," Sanders said.

News Bernie Sanders Race and Diversity 2020 Elections


THIS IS A BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN ARTICLE TO ME. SIMPLE ENOUGH, CLEAR ENOUGH, AND BOLD.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26065308/wall-street-democratic-primary-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders/
The Masters of the Universe Are Terrified of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
Wall Street wants a "centrist." Does anyone else?
BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
JAN 28, 2019

Image: Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth WarrenGETTY IMAGESBILL CLARK

You have to hand it to Politico. Howard Schultz's vanity exercise is still theoretical, but Politico has tracked down every single member of his fundamental constituency who cannot be found in Howard Schultz's mirror every morning while he's shaving.

Early support from deep-pocketed financial executives could give Democrats seeking to break out of the pack an important fundraising boost. But any association with bankers also opens presidential hopefuls to sharp attacks from an ascendant left. And it’s left senior executives on Wall Street flailing over what to do.

“I’m a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist who would love to vote for a rational Democrat and get Trump out of the White House,” said the CEO of one of the nation’s largest banks, who, like a dozen other executives interviewed for this story, declined to be identified by name for fear of angering a volatile president. “Personally, I’d love to see Bloomberg run and get the nomination. I’ve just never thought he could get the nomination the way the primary process works.”

Oh, dear. What's a master of the universe to do when the universe turns against him?

Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz Discusses Role Of Public Global Companies
Howard Schultz
Getty ImagesAlex Wong

After mentioning Bloomberg, Wall Street executives who want Trump out list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California. Others meriting mention: former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, though few [re]ally know his positions.

Bankers’ biggest fear: The nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Sanders. “It can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders,” said the CEO of another giant bank. “It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win.”

Clearly, they're not afraid that Senator Professor Warren or Bernie Sanders "can't win," but, rather, they're struck into incoherence that one of them can. Somewhere in the gated community holding their souls, they know that there still is a considerable reckoning out there for what they did throughout the Aughts, and that scares them to death. And now, there are popular vehicles through which that reckoning can be wrought. The universe may be shopping for new masters.


POPULISM – A GOOD WORD, A BAD WORD, OR A SOCIAL CHAMELEON?

ON THE EMOTIONAL LEVEL, I AM A POPULIST. THE WEALTH DIVIDE IS NOT MERELY UNFAIR, BUT DAMAGING TO MOST OF THE POPULATION, AND THAT MAKES ME ANGRY. IT IS HARD TO BE FULLY HEALTHY OR WELL-EDUCATED OR BEAUTIFUL IF YOU’RE POOR. THAT HURTS, AND THE DISCOURAGEMENT OF IT MAKES SO MANY PEOPLE JUST GIVE UP. THOSE WITH VERY STRONG EGOS AND HOPEFULNESS WILL FIGHT TOWARD THE TOP, THOUGH. I WANT SUCH A PERSON TO BE OUR LEADER, ESPECIALLY NOW WHEN A POLLUTED AND EXTREMELY WEALTHY GROUP ARE IN CONTROL. THAT, TO ME, IS BERNIE SANDERS.

IT ISN’T THAT “THE PEOPLE” ARE “PURE,” BUT THAT THEY DESERVE A MUCH MORE EQUAL CHANCE TO SUCCEED. MOST OF THEM ARE WELL-MEANING IF LESS THAN SUCCESSFUL, AND DEEPLY UNWILLING TO DO SOMETHING INTENSELY UNETHICAL TO WIN. THE MORE I WATCH WORLD EVENTS, THE MORE I SEE HOW CORRUPT SO MUCH OF THE WORLD OF GREAT WEALTH IS. PEOPLE WHO ARE UNWILLING TO CHEAT ARE CONSIDERED WIMPS OR EVEN UNINTELLIGENT.

IN COLLEGE I CAME ACROSS THE TERM “THE SOCIAL CONTRACT,” IN MY COURSEWORK. IT IS AN UNWRITTEN CODE BETWEEN RULERS AND THE SOCIETY AT LARGE, AND IT IS BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT WORKING WELL AND HONESTLY WILL GIVE YOU ENOUGH MONEY TO LIVE ACCEPTABLY IF NOT BECOME ONE OF THE MASTERS. RELIGION THEN ASSURES US THAT BEING HONEST WILL BE REWARDED WITH ONE, TWO OR MORE STEPS UP THE INVISIBLE LADDER. WHAT IS NOT STATED IS THAT MANY OF THE “MASTERS” WILL TRY THEIR BEST TO KNOCK US OFF THE LADDER IF WE MOVE UP TOO FAST OR DEVELOP SOME USEFUL TOOLS FOR THAT, SUCH AS A LABOR UNION.

WHEN SOMEONE LIKE SANDERS COMES ALONG WHO WANTS TO ENERGIZE “THE PEOPLE” SUFFICIENTLY THAT THEY WILL BE MUCH STRONGER IN THEIR EFFORTS AND IN THE WAR WE HAVE TO WAGE AGAINST THE MOST POWERFUL. THAT’S NECESSARY TO A DEMOCRACY, SO WHEN THOSE “MODERATES” GET INTO LEADERSHIP POSITIONS AND START GIVING AID TO THE WEALTHY RATHER THAN THE POOR, I FOR ONE WILL NOT PASSIVELY SUBMIT TO THAT. THAT IS HILLARY CLINTON’S PROBLEM, AND NOT THE FACT THAT BERNIE SANDERS RAN AGAINST HER VIGOROUSLY AND INTELLIGENTLY. HE SHOULD HAVE DONE SO THEN, AND I DO HOPE HE WILL DO THE SAME THING AGAIN THIS NEXT YEAR. IF HIS HEALTH WILL ALLOW IT, AND HE STILL HAS “THE FIRE IN THE BELLY” TO HAVE ANOTHER GO AT IT, I CERTAINLY WILL VOTE FOR HIM. I WANT TO HAVE CANDIDATES THAT I REALLY DO FEEL AN ENTHUSIASM TOWARD TO VOTE FOR. THE RIGHT TO VOTE ISN’T NEARLY AS ENJOYABLE IF THE CHOICES ARE LITERALLY BORING OR REALLY OBJECTIONABLE.

WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE OFTEN CLOWNISH, OFTEN BOORISH, OFTEN AUTOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALSO A MAN WHO IS UNFAIR TO THE LEAST OF US AND DISHONEST WITH THE REST. IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO DEFEAT THEM, THAT WE NEED SOMEONE STRONG MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY AND IDEOLOGICALLY RIGHT NOW. BERNIE SANDERS IS SUCH AS MAN. PEOPLE WANT SOMEONE TO ADMIRE AND TRUST. FOR DEMOCRATS TO WIN, IT TAKES A POWERFUL PUSH FROM BELOW, WITH A STRONG AND INTELLIGENT LEADER WHO HAS A CLEAR WILL TO WIN, IF WE ARE TO EVEN OUT THAT DYNAMIC. OUR CURRENT DEMOCRATS ARE FOR THE MOST PART NOT STRONG OR CREATIVE, NOR ARE THEY “FOR THE PEOPLE.” THEY ARE FOR THEIR OWN BEST CHANCE. WORSE, THEY ARE TREADING WATER, CONSTANTLY AFRAID OF DROWNING. THEY CAN’T DO SOMETHING BOLD IF THEY WON’T STRIKE OUT AND ACTUALLY SWIM.

TO ME, POPULISM IS A PHILOSOPHY OF WHAT IS GOOD VERSUS EVIL, TRUE, BUT MORE THAN THAT, IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO OVERCOME THE WEALTH AND POWER OF THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS. WHEN WE DEMOCRATS DO WIN AGAIN, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE NEED TO DO IS CHANGE THE LAWS ALLOWING A RULING PARTY TO REVISE THE PLAYING FIELD TO THEIR GREAT AND UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. I AM REFERRING TO THINGS LIKE THE GERRYMANDERING AND VOTER SUPPRESSION THAT GOES ON ENDLESSLY, SO THAT THE VERY POOR CAN GET LITTLE IF ANY RELIEF FOR THEIR LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND EVERY TIME THEY GAIN A LITTLE GROUND, THE RIGHTIST POLITICIANS ERASE IT AGAIN IMMEDIATELY.

LABOR LAW IS ANOTHER CASE. BUSINESSES ARE NOW ALLOWED TO FIRE UNION MEMBERS. THAT’S BECAUSE OUR DEMOCRATS WERE NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH, STRONG ENOUGH, ALERT ENOUGH, INSISTENT ENOUGH AND HONEST ENOUGH. I SEE NO POSSIBLE RELIEF FROM THAT EXCEPT THROUGH A POPULIST WAVE FROM THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASSES, AND OUR BEST LEADER FOR THAT IS SANDERS.

WE ALSO NEED TO BUILD UP OUR PARTY MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY LEVEL IN BETWEEN ELECTIONS SO THAT WHEN AN AUTOCRAT TRIES TO DISMANTLE OUR STRUCTURE OF ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP, WE THE LOCAL LEVEL DEMS CAN TAKE ACTIONS. WE NEED MORE POP-UP GROUP OPPOSITION TO THE THREATS WHEN THEY EMERGE. PROTESTORS SHOULD BE SEEN MUCH MORE OFTEN THAN THEY HAVE BEEN IN RECENT YEARS. IT’S NOT A CAMPAIGN, IT’S A WAR. I DON’T TAKE PLEASURE IN THAT, IT’S JUST A FACT.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/03/what-is-populism-trump-farage-orban-bolsonaro
How to spot a populist
Trump flag at a Britain First rally
The p-word is much misunderstood. It’s as old as democracy, and has perhaps never been as popular as it is today. So who are the key protagonists?
Mon 3 Dec 2018 01.00 EST
by Mark Rice-Oxley and Ammar Kalia

What is populism?

That’s a vexed question. Populism is usually described as a strategic approach that frames politics as a battle between the virtuous, “ordinary” masses and a nefarious or corrupt elite.

It can be used by politicians who are either left- or rightwing, and occasionally neither.

It is not sustained by a single consistent ideology or issue position. In the words of the leading populism scholar Cas Mudde, it is “a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’”.

He also says that populists tend argue that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people, while others stress populists often have a “Manichean” world view, breaking politics into a binary view of good or evil.

For example, in the words of the archpopulist Donald Trump, from his January 2017 inauguration address: “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.”

Who are the populists?

Populism is as old as democracy itself. The sophists of Athens’ golden age were at it hundreds of years before Julius Caesar brought his populist touch to the Roman republic.

From the 19th century, populist instincts can be detected in pro-peasantry agitation by Russian intellectuals in the 1860s and an agrarian movement in the US that grew into the People’s party 20 years later.

In the mid-20th century, academics have used the p-word to describe everything from Peronism in Argentina and McCarthyism in the US, to Nasser’s Egypt and the Poujadiste movement led by Pierre Poujade in 1950s France.

Given so many politicians – of such different stripes – can be populist, some argue the term is useless. But with so-called populists on the left and right experiencing a resurgence in the 21st century, the term is once again in the spotlight.

On the right, Trump, Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte and Matteo Salvini are often characterised as populists – and so too is the Tea party movement that emerged out of the 2008 financial crisis.

Scholars have long-described some leftist politicians, particularly in Latin America, as populists, such as Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador or the late Venezuela president Hugo Chavez. In Spain, the anti-austerity party Podemos is characterised as populist, and so too is the Democratic senator Bernie Sanders in the US.

Not everyone agrees about all this. The influential political scientist Jan-Werner Müller has cast doubt on whether some of these leftists are true populists.

Are all populists the same?

Absolutely not. One of the reasons the word has proven so problematic is that politicians who adopt populist styles – or their supporters – balk at the idea they should be compared to their opposites on the ideological spectrum. The fact a politicians uses a populist strategy does not need to define them. Their dominant ideology – socialist, neoliberal, authoritarian – can be much more relevant to the kind of politician they are.

Some scholars argue rightwing populists tend to be “exclusionary” (omitting, say, migrants or ethnic minorities from their conception of a virtuous people), whereas leftwing populists have a broader, inclusive concept of who counts as “the people”.

Are they popular?

Increasingly so. Populists have broken through in India, Mexico, the Philippines, Brazil and the US to win power in recent years.

In Europe, Guardian research has established that populists have tripled their vote over the past 20 years, such that more than one in four Europeans voted for populist parties on average at their last election. While 12.5 million Europeans lived in a country with at least one populist cabinet member in 1998, in 2018 that had risen more than tenfold, to 170.2 million.

In Germany, the far-right populist party Alternative fur Deutschland increased its vote more than sixfold in 2017 to become the third-largest party in parliament. In Italy, populists performed even better in 2018, with three populist parties in the top five, gaining between them more than half of the vote.

In the UK, Ukip drove its vote tally from 100,000 in 1997 to almost 4 million in 2015, though it fell back two years later once the party’s core policy – leaving the EU – had been all but delivered in the 2016 referendum.

In the past 10 years, populists have also gained power in Greece, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic, and a have share of power in Austria and Norway.

Why have the new populists emerged now?

Globalisation. Recession. Mass migration. Soaring inequality. The perceived failure of the political establishment to deal with any of the above. A slew of factors have combined in recent years to create the impression – some would say, the reality – that the world is run by plutocrats, oligarchs and semi-detached politicians in the interests of the few not the many.

A quarter of a billion people are on the move around the world, providing more ammunition than ever before for rightwing populists who argue that political elites have failed to get a handle on the kind of immigration that they say threatens jobs, wages and social cohesion.

Meanwhile, the number of billionaires has jumped fivefold in the last 20 years, to more than 2,200, according to Forbes, as globalisation opened up new markets for entrepreneurs to tap while at the same time making it possible to shield capital, assets and income from the taxman. The world’s eight richest people own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion. The amount of money offshored by the financial elite is put at as much as £10 trillion – that’s a number with 13 zeroes.

But there are also many non-economic factors that may offer partial explanations for populism’s rise: a cultural backlash against elites, a technological revolution that has rewired our politics, a convergence of now indistinguishable left and right political parties on a technocratic centre.

Exactly what mix of factors has created such a fertile backdrop for populists is a subject of much debate. But as Benjamin Moffitt puts it in his book, The Global Rise of Populism: “The time is ripe for canny political actors who can speak effectively in the name of ‘the people’ to make great political gains.”

Are they democrats?

By definition, yes. Populists operate within democratic systems, even though, once in power, some have a habit of chipping away at the tenets of liberal democracy, as Orbán has done in Hungary.

In fact, it could be argued that as populism galvanises a large, disillusioned base of overlooked voters and offers them fresh representation, it is quintessentially democratic.

So is populism good or bad?

That depends on who you ask. It is probably fair to say populism has acquired negative associations, particularly in Europe, where divisive rightwing populists are on the rise. Research by a global network of academics – Team Populism – found that by privileging majority rule populists often erode tents of liberal democracy like minority rights and the separation of powers. But they say that populists in government can also have a modest, positive effect on voter turnout and dignify forgotten sectors of the population.

Some leftwing political theorists, such as the late Argentinian academic Ernesto Laclau and his widow, Chantal Mouffe, at the University of Westminster, have long argued that populism is an effective political strategy that can – and should – be used to revitalise politics on the left.

How can you spot a populist?

Populists tend to resort to a similar kind of rhetoric to win over their audiences. Kirk Hawkins, an associate professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, says it is not as simple as a single word or a catchphrase; a broad rhetorical lexicon tends to recur in populist oratory.

“You will see a leader talk about ordinary people in a way that reifies and romanticises them,” he says. Examples might be referring to “the will of the people” or dropping in adjectives such as “ordinary”, “hard-working” or “taxpaying” to describe the noble masses.

“The other element you will see is a reference to the evil elite,” Hawkins says. “One thing you’ll see is an emphasis on things that are clearly meant to question their fundamental dignity as political actors if not human beings.”

For example?

It is time to free the French people from an arrogant elite” – Marine Le Pen

People want to take back control of their countries and they want to take back control of their lives and the lives of their family” – Donald Trump

The European elite has failed, and this failure’s symbol is the European Commission” – Victor Orban

Brexit was about ordinary people rising up to defeat the establishment and we’ve now seen the same happen in the US” – Nigel Farage

What else do they tend to say?

Some resort to nicknames to vilify their opponents – “Crooked Hilary”, for example. “They’ll use verbs and adjectives to describe actions to show it’s not just incompetence but an intentional betrayal,” Hawkins says.

But it is not just what they say but how they say it. Some academics argue that populism necessarily comes with a performative element: it is about the style, the show. Charismatic populists need crowds, a stage, the limelight, usually coupled with a plain-speaking approach that everyone will understand.

“Populist politicians are revolutionising the ways in which politics is being performed, and they are performing it,” says Claudia Alvares, an associate professor at Lusófona University in Lisbon. “They are not just operating within rightwing or leftwing boundaries because it transcends those affiliations. It is more of a style.”

Who votes populist?

Support for populism strongly correlates with lower personal life satisfaction, frustration with democracy and how it is working, and conspiratorial thinking among voters. Blame is a standard populist tool.

On the other hand, minorities of all stripes tend to reject populists because of the narrative, on the right, that identifies the “people” in nativist terms as those who have historically inhabited a country.

A Guardian quiz, devised by political scientists, but answered by a self-selecting group of readers, found that almost half a million respondents subdivided as follows:

Women of the world, unite
What’s the opposite of a populist?

It depends on the populist. Technically speaking, some argue the opposite of populism would be pluralism* or elitism.

But different populists have varied adversaries: the Davos set, the Bilderberg group, Christian democrats, social democrats, liberals, technocrats, centrists, totalitarians, minorities. (And journalists.)

What next?

Latin America faces a big moment in 2019, as its two most populous countries, Brazil and Mexico, are to governed by populist leaders – Jair Bolsonaro and Andrés Manuel López Obrador – that come from opposites sides of the political spectrum.

A few months later, Asia’s two biggest democracies will hold general elections. In India, the rightwing populist Narendra Modi looks likely to secure re-election in spring polls. Indonesia faces its own high noon in April with a populist challenger to the incumbent, Joko Widodo.

The European parliament elections of next May will be key in assessing populist progress on the continent. Hitherto populists of the right and left have been fairly marginalised, with just a few dozen seats in the 751-seat parliament.

Besides that, there are elections next year in Finland, Ukraine, Belgium and Denmark, in which populist parties will be vigorously contesting seats.


How populist are you?

Further reading
Populism: A Very Short Introduction by Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser
The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation by Benjamin Moffitt
For a Left Populism, Chantal Mouffe
What is populism? by Team Populism


TRUMP’S WEAKNESS IS HIS NEED FOR POPULARITY, SAYS FOX TEAM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/28/trumps-favored-fox-news-hosts-fault-him-caring-way-too-much-about-people-media/
Arts and Entertainment
Trump’s favored Fox News hosts fault him for caring ‘way too much about people in the media’
By Alex Horton January 28 at 12:38 PM
“Fox and Friends” host Brian Kilmeade twiddled his thumbs, seeming to know the word was coming.

President Trump had given an interview with the Wall Street Journal in which he was asked about the fallout between him and conservative pundit Ann Coulter over ending the shutdown without funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Co-host Steve Doocy summarized the attacks from Coulter and the four-letter word she used: “wimp.”

Kilmeade reacted to the word with a not-subtle eye roll and a hand gesture but waited for Doocy to read the counterattack Trump offered the Journal, which included calling Coulter “very hostile” and speculating that maybe she was mad because he didn’t “return her phone call or something.”

But when Kilmeade, who hosts a show well-known for being closely watched by the president, finally offered his take, it contained more than a touch of irony.

“I just think the president cares way too much about people in the media,” he said. “He is president. He is not a candidate . . . he has got to make some tough decisions and he is not an absolute monarch.”

[‘Maybe I didn’t return her phone call’: Trump ridicules Ann Coulter, slams Fox News in fallout over wall]

As The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi and Sarah Ellison have noted, Trump and the hosts of “Fox and Friends” appear to have a deep mutual affinity.

Fox News Channel’s perky morning show is typically a safe space for Trump and his surrogates, a home for flattering live interviews and relentless cheerleading on everything from building his proposed border wall to highlighting the supposed threat of a Central American migrant caravan.

Trump, a regular F&F viewer, frequently returns the favor by live-tweeting things he’s seen and heard on the show, turning a program derided by liberal critics into one of the most influential news sources on the air.

True to form, “Fox and Friends” offered Trump back-up in his war of words with Coulter on Monday.

Guest David Brody. a political analyst for the Christian Broadcasting Network, criticized the right-wing provocateur, calling her an “outlier for sure” and “off her rocker.” Kilmeade responded that Trump has to “almost ignore people, whether it’s me or you one day, Ann Coulter today, and just do what he knows is best.”

Cracks have shown at times, however, in the support from “Fox and Friends” hosts. They blasted Trump for repeatedly suggesting that reporters are the enemy of the people and criticized him for mocking Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school.

In December, Kilmeade scrutinized Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, saying it would be a “big win” for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But if there was any acrimony on Trump’s side, it wasn’t evident soon after Kilmeade’s comments Monday.

In his trademark style, Trump tweeted praise of himself, quoting remarks by political commentator Deroy Murdock.

“In the Media’s effort to destroy the President, they are actually destroying themselves,” Murdock said. “Given all of the tremendous head winds this President has faced, it’s amazing he has accomplished so much.”

Trump was flattered by the remark. “I agree!” he wrote on Twitter, noting that it came from a trusted source: “Fox and Friends.”

“In the Media’s effort to destroy the President, they are actually destroying themselves. Given all of the tremendous headwinds this President has faced, it’s amazing he has accomplished so much.” DEROY MURDOCK @foxandfriends I agree!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 28, 2019
Read more:

‘He lied about it’: Ann Coulter rips Trump for failing to secure border wall funding

Trump will secure border ‘with or without Congress,’ Mulvaney says

Comments

Alex Horton
Alex Horton is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. He previously covered the military and national security for Stars and Stripes, and served in Iraq as an Army infantryman. Follow


MSNBC MADDOW
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Whitaker wilts addressing special counsel question to press 17:05
Democrats aim for insights on national security in new hearings 10:11
Blumenthal questions truthfulness of Trump Jr.'s Senate testimony 07:37
Undocumented Trump employees abruptly fired amid wall hype: WaPo 06:53
Pattern in Mueller indictments suggests testimony a focus 02:11