Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Liberals are playing just as dirty as conservatives did in the ’90s and it sounds great – Mic

An electoral upset with no visionary leadership for resistance. An opposition party armed with new politics and control of multiple branches of government. The sudden demand for a new ideological paradigm to guide the party. And a once moribund media format put into service of spreading an ideological direction.

Though that describes the crisis facing Democrats in 2017, it also chronicles the very conditions in the early 1990s that gave rise to the conservative talk radio phenomenon. But in 2017, it's podcasters who are at the forefront of a leftist talk renaissance, with shows recently created or reinvigorated by the opportunity Trump's election poses for the left shows like Chapo Trap House, Delete Your Account, Street Fight Radio, District Sentinel Radio, By Any Means Necessary, What a Hell of A Way To Die, The Katie Halper Show and more.

For nearly three decades, right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and more recently, Alex Jones have dominated Republican party politics, setting the tone and ideology for a generation of conservatives. Driven, at first, by the rise of Clintonism and alienated by what they considered left-of-center media like the New York Times and Washington Post, a then-new class of acerbic radio hosts vulgarians who told it like it was, and weren't afraid to be "politically incorrect" used shock and awe to build an ideologically uncompromising format. Vicious skits were designed to offend (Rush Limbaugh famously performed caller abortions, where he'd cut off cantankerous callers with sounds effects of a vacuum cleaner and tortured screaming) while a hardline anti-establishment narrative gave listeners a simpler framework through which to make sense of the complex power relations between politicians, big business and public interests.

Rush Limbaugh on May 3, 2007 in Novi, Michigan.

And, most importantly, these shows could often swing elections.

Now, the left wants in, and a new cohort of podcasts is taking advantage of the same style, vulgarity, irreverence and pure cathartic entertainment championed by the right to create a new, extreme progressive culture all while attempting to avoid the business failures epitomized by the long-bankrupt Air America, the left's initial attempt to respond to right-wing radio.

Amid a deep soul search about what Democrats can and should stand for in the age of Donald Trump identity politics, ideological purity, economic justice, etc. lefty podcasters are emerging to set the the terms of liberal debate. And they do so as the mainstream media and nominally liberally aligned media outlets twiddle their thumbs over their role in creating this mess.

"There needs to be a conversation among liberals about what their core ideology is, what they stand for and what's worth fighting for," Angelo Carusone, president of liberal media watchdog Media Matters For America, told Mic.

And if there were ever a time for leftists to define that conversation, it's now.

When Bryan Quinby was a cable installer in 2011, he had one listening option as he drove around Columbus, Ohio, hanging ladders and setting up new service: conservative talk radio. Quinby was a blue-collar miscreant, shoplifting organic groceries and doing comedy on the side. He was discovering leftist politics late in life, but his diet at the time was pure right wing, packed with Glenn Beck, Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony, shock jocks with a little anti-union, anti-"political correctness" sentiment blended in.

"I listened to those guys and I thought they were the news," he said. "They sounded just as intelligent to me as anybody else. It's only once you get away from them that some of their stuff starts to sound like bullshit."

But Quinby had no one else to turn to. It seemed like working-class people were only useful as a punching bag for liberals, whereas conservatives spoke in terms that made sense to him. Quinby was a comedian in a world where the blue-collar kings of comedy Jeff Foxworthy and Quinby's proletariat peer, Larry the Cable Guy were Republicans.

"The people in my ear at the time weren't leftists, and leftists weren't talking to me in a way that I felt like I could respond to," he said.

So when he got the chance to create something himself, he took it. Through the local comedy scene, he was set up with Brett Paine, another budding anarchist comedian. Paine thought Quinby was an "old, square guy," and Quinby thought Paine was a "young, hip asshole." But they had on-air chemistry and similar politics and so, with Quinby's cable installation money, they bought a cheap mixer and a few $60 microphones. They started recording a show called Street Fight Radio on an "old shitty computer" in Paine's basement and broadcasting it on the local community radio station, WCRS in Columbus, Ohio.

Paine and Quinby discussed single-payer healthcare, distrust of the police, the tyrants of small business and the racism of everyday retail interactions. On Street Fight, you can hear rants about why making fun of flat Earthers is classist, or a critique of the fundamental conservatism of the puritanical 12-step programs with which Quinby had some experience. They honed their routine over six years, and eventually started writing stand-up together. From the initial mutual distrust grew a familial relationship. On the weekend that Trump was inaugurated, they sold out a live stand-up show at Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C.

"Our goal was to give the only thing we can give: to articulate the feelings of working class people in the middle of the country, and the practical things we can get to improve people's lives," Quinby said, describing the "street-level" politics of the show.

But their influence goes beyond just their audience: In February 2016, Quinby brought a crew of three Twitter friends on as guests to review 13 Hours, Michael Bay's movie about Benghazi. After the episode, the three self-proclaimed leftists who came on as guests Will Menaker, Felix Biederman and Matthew Christman figured they had enough on-air chemistry to try to record a few episodes on their own.

They started Chapo Trap House, one of the most rapidly growing, divisive and talked-about political podcasts of today and the de facto lead of the so-called "dirtbag left," a term later coined by co-host and leftist writer Amber A'Lee Frost, and codified by a New Yorker profile of the crew.

Quimby and Paine, however, are bona fide blue collar dirtbags in the traditional sense. They talk about working-class politics from the perspective of guys who've worked as dishwashers and telemarketers themselves. The Chapo crew instead uses crude language alongside their academic qualifications as firepower to rail about subjects like conservative punditry and the liberal obsession with Hamilton and The West Wing. They even have their own "dittoheads" (a term that originally described callers who wanted to air their agreement with Rush Limbaugh's show), the devout fans who've since been emboldened to pursue activism and openly air their grievances at the show's pantheon of common enemies. With Chapo, the "dirtbag" identity isn't so much about capitalism's grimy cast-offs, but rather describes an acerbic disposition against an establishment that would allegedly rather police intra-liberal discourse than fight for any tangible political goal.

The Chapo crew and their followers also engage in internal fights of their own, however mostly spiteful shit-flinging at centrist writers (often women defending Democrats like Hillary Clinton) and listeners will hear plentiful use of the slur "retard."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in New York Thursday, June 1, 2017.

In fact, first against the wall for the Chapo gang aren't necessarily conservatives, but rather establishment Democrats or, in the Chapo hosts minds, the technocrats who traded New Deal progressivism for corporate money, making aesthetic overtures to the needs of the poor and people of color while delivering them nothing. In Chapo's estimation, Trumpism owes its greatest victory to the complacency of a political elite raised on soaring Aaron Sorkin monologues, who believed they could run the country on fundamentally conservative ideas of free markets and meritocracy while defining their ideology by who they're not (namely: Republicans).

As a result of their language and some of the people they've railed about, they've been accused both of misogyny and orchestrating Twitter pile-ons, but producer and co-host Brendan James said that impression of Chapo Trap House isn't grounded in reality.

"Just listen to the show," James told Mic. "You may not like it, but you'd probably realize that it's not what a couple of people who hate us say it is. There's such wild stuff out there about what we're supposedly all about, and it's relegated to a pretty excitable corner of a corner of Twitter."

But despite or perhaps because of the controversies and insularity, Chapo Trap House became the immediate frontrunner in leftist podcasting. In their first year in business, they've become the most lucrative crowdfunded podcast online, making over $62,000 a month from paying subscribers via Patreon. Nearly 14,000 people pay for premium access to extra episodes, but a conservative estimate of their audience overall would be 30,000 to 50,000 listeners per episode, or as high as 80,000 for more popular episodes. They've also landed the aforementioned profile in the New Yorker, performed in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and garnered a book deal with Touchstone Books for The Dirtbag Left Guide to the Revolution, billed as a manifesto for "a new vision of the left."

Unlike Quinby and Paine, Chapo isn't trying to provide an alternative to conservative talk radio for discussion-hungry blue collar liberals. Chapo targets a younger, far-left audience, and does so by taking on the liberal pundit class, Republican blowhards and psychologically tortured conservative op-ed writers.

"I want the left to win in this country, and part of that involves creating an alternate culture that's not mainstream," host Will Menaker said. "A very large cohort of people of my generation understand that political values we may have grown up with [are] inadequate to the times we live in."

Mainstream Democrats and liberals see the potential for podcasting, too. Both Bernie Sanders and Rep. Keith Ellison have launched their own shows; Hillary Clinton had one during her 2016 campaign.

One of the other ascendant podcast houses is Crooked Media (a reference to now-President Trumps oft-used insult about the press), which was started by former Obama White House staffers Jon Favreau, Tommy Vietor and Jon Lovett. (For all that Chapo's political bent is opposed to the Crooked Media ideology, Menaker said of the three former Obama guys' foray into podcasting: "Better that than the fucking Brookings Institute.").

Over the past few months, the three moved to Los Angeles to launch a series of shows, including their own Pod Save America (formerly the hit show Keeping It 1600), a podcast now tracking the Trump administration by D.C. insiders in exile, funded by the usual cast of plucky startups buying podcast ads (Blue Apron and Headspace among them). Favreau, Vietor and Lovett are decidedly establishment liberals compared to their hard-left counterparts, but they're similarly exasperated with the mainstream media's vacuousness.

For the sake of illustrating the inanity of cable news' response to Trump, Vietor described the classic debate format, unchanged during the new administration: the Trump surrogate contorting themselves to defend the latest tweet or foreign policy faux pas, and the often horrified liberal counterbalance.

"That's a useless way to consume news," Vietor said. "You emerge depressed and horrified about whats happening in our country. The process leaves you frustrated, and without knowing how to fix things."

Tommy Vietor at the White House in Washington on February 3, 2011.

That's part of their mission: fixing things. Pod Save America came out strong in defense of the Affordable Care Act, telling listeners to hit their congressional town halls to raise hell with Republicans who backed the American Health Care Act. To Vietor, it's a no-brainer that Americans are flocking to partisan media on both sides. They want to know how to take action. Cable news won't light the path, and for Democrats, it's obvious that party leadership is in disarray.

"No one is controlling the party right now," Vietor said. "The Clintons had been around a long time, but what we need is a whole new generation of leaders."

But even as liberals tear themselves apart re-litigating the 2016 primary, leftist entertainers are taking advantage of the energy of an upcoming generation of voters who espouse far-left political ideals and have little to no representation in mainstream media. Americans under the age of 30 view socialism more favorably than capitalism, and cast more primary and caucus votes for Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined.

"If someone is conveying that they don't know what to do with their pent-up rage, or how to help out their community, we need to be able to jump in and say: 'We're here, here's what we're about and here's what we're going to do,'" Roqayah Chamseddine, who founded the podcast Delete Your Account, told Mic.

Chamseddine grew up in the Dallas-Fort Worth area with a liberal family that shouted back at conservative talk hosts as a pastime. As a Marxist Shia Muslim, Chamseddine never had her views represented in the media available to her.

Started as an idea she kicked around among union organizers, Delete Your Account began during the 2016 election season by calling out individual liberals who should "delete their accounts" (an oft-used response to someones bad tweets) by Chamseddine's thinking, the mawkish and the terrible, the bootlickers and the sellouts. But since Election Day, Delete Your Account has largely become a podcast about building worker solidarity and giving listeners the tools to organize in their communities.

Chamseddine isn't optimistic that liberals will pull to the left in time for the midterms: She believes that the far left has often been sidelined, ignored or outright stifled by mainstream Democrats. Still, she does have faith that the crisis of liberalism as represented by Trump's election victory mixed with a new generation shifting their politics to the left of the party, has created an opportunity for a wholesale changing of the guard.

As she puts it, "We've all wanted something like this, and what better time than when the Democratic party is crumbling?"

However, the new cohort of liberal podcasts is currently missing what might be the essential ingredients used by conservative talkers to influencing voters: terrestrial radio. Podcasts can build communities from the far-flung and dispossessed, but a local radio station capturing enough of its market can turn a primary or an election around.

"In a primary, you get low turnouts and ideological voters," Brian Rosenwald, a media historian writing a book on conservative talk radio, said. "The local hosts can talk about a race every day, and go after a congressman for years. The power comes from that, and the power legislatively comes with the power to shut the phones down."

Sam Seder, co-host of the podcast Ring of Fire, has an example from his stint at Air America, the liberal radio network that launched in the mid-aughts as a response to conservative talk radio and leftist outrage at the mainstream media over the Iraq War. Seder, whose podcast takes it name from his Air America show, says that, during a labor dispute with the Rockettes' musicians in 2005, the union took out ads on the local Air America station to try and force management into a negotiation. Within a few days, Seder recalled, the Rockettes were offered a compromise provided they took the ads off the air.

"The people working at Air America didn't understand what had just happened, because they weren't liberals or activists," Seder said. "Because the next thing you'd do [if you knew what you were doing] is go to every union in the country and say, 'Look at the power we have.' That's the power of terrestrial radio."

Despite being a petri dish for talent hosts in the early years included Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, Marc Maron, Chuck D and Janeane Garofalo and having money from liberal donors, Air America rapidly failed. Rosenwald said that Air America was set up for disaster from the beginning not because liberal talk radio doesn't work, but because the business was a disastrously mismanaged "three-ring circus." Ultimately, the network couldn't sell ads after ending up on the no-buy lists of prestige "blue chip" advertisers.

Al Franken during a 2004 Air America news conference in New York.

"We couldn't get corporate America to spend the ad dollars," former Air America executive Carl Ginsberg told Mic. "And there's only so much money you can get from the Ben & Jerry's of the world."

Of course, those revenue problems came before the broad acceptance of podcasting, before technology made recording shows cheaper and easier than ever before, before hyperpartisan Facebook pages were able to monetize outrage and before a slew of new potential streams of digital revenue developed beyond simple ad sales. Like every creative industry over the past decade, the internet created a space for bootstrapping, and for many podcasts in the new class of talk shows, the primary platform for revenue-generation is Patreon, a Kickstarter-like site where subscribers can pledge small, regular donations to creators.

The rankings of the top 30 Patreon accounts are currently dominated by podcasts of all stripes alongside ad-hoc news networks at one point, Chapo Trap House was ranked No. 1. By comparison, Rosenwald said a terrestrial radio show needs to reach about 3% to 5% of its potential listenership to justify its existence to executives. But a podcast with a couple hundred paying subscribers on Patreon can keep the lights on as long as their microphones and internet connections work.

Seder, like Rosenwald, doesn't buy the theory that Air America was a failure because talk radio doesn't work for liberals; he thinks it just didn't work in that moment, in part because of the financing issues. Seder said it could be high time that the project of liberal talk radio get another shot.

Chapo's Menaker said that he has "no fucking idea" how a fledgling ad hoc coalition of media leftists, self-proclaimed dirtbags, political organizers and comedians could eventually wield direct political influence. For now, his priority is crafting an entertaining show and building out business opportunities. Chapo Trap House currently has Brillstein Entertainment Partners as a management agency helping develop new projects and amass awareness in Los Angeles. The team is also launching a website as a home for the podcast, latest news and future endeavors, and is looking into expanding its brand to new formats "outside the medium of podcasts."

The Crooked Media team is adding more shows, like Pod Save the People (with activist DeRay McKesson at the helm) and With Friends Like These (hosted by MTV News correspondent and Wonkette founder Ana Marie Cox). Chamseddine is about to return from a haitus, and Delete Your Account is experimenting with subscriber-only content as the checks from Patreon continues to grow.

As for Brett Paine and Bryan Quinby of Street Fight, the increased visibility they got for being the godfathers of a young leftist movement has brought new interest to their own Patreon, and they're beginning to pay themselves a stipend for doing the show. They're booking their first New York City show, with stops in Milwaukee, Louisville and Atlanta on the way. Quinby believes that it won't be long before Patreon subscribers will support the hosts full-time.

In the meantime, the duo is planning a joint campaign to become the mayors of Columbus, Ohio. Quinby's doubtful that they have a chance to win, but they'll be holding show after show in the area functional campaign stops to raise enough hell about working-class issues like fair wages, over-policing and the full legalization of marijuana.

"We're proposing a $16 minimum wage, just so the Democrat has to explain why you're not worth $16 an hour," he said.

No matter the outcome, Quinby figures they'll be able to either expose the true politics of the local incumbents or possibly push them to the left like Limbaugh and his cohort cattle-prodded a generation or more of Republicans to the right.

It's a small push, for now. But it's a start.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals are playing just as dirty as conservatives did in the '90s and it sounds great - Mic

Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists …

What's drawn less attention is how Trump's presidency has convinced liberals that every bad thing whispered about any Republican is, by default, true. Consider that in the last week alone, liberal outrage has been sparked on (at least) four occasions by alleged incidents that simply aren't accurate.

Didn't matter! By then, the idea of Republicans cracking beers while voting to take away health care from millions of people was already surging across the Internet. (Look at how many retweets Jaffe's original tweet received versus how many the second tweet got.)

Immediately following the passage of the AHCA last Thursday, a talking point emerged: If this bill became a law, being raped or sexually assaulted would qualify as pre-existing conditions and, therefore, would make it much harder for the victim to get health insurance.

"The notion that AHCA classifies rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition, or that survivors would be denied coverage, is false...this claim relies on so many factors including unknown decisions by a handful of states and insurance companies that this talking point becomes almost meaningless."

The Federal Communications Commission announced that it was investigating complaints following late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert's controversial comments about President Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin.

In each of these four instances -- and all of these have been in the last week! -- liberals, fueled by Twitter outrage, jumped to conclusions that portrayed Trump and other Republicans in the poorest possible light. And, on each occasion, the fuller story either totally or mostly rebutted the version of the story the left had seized on.

Trump's presidency presents Democrats with lots and lots of legitimate issues on which to push back -- from the travel ban to the ongoing questions about Trump officials' ties to Russia to the president's refusal to release his tax returns.

By embracing every single tweet or whisper as yet another piece of full-proof evidence of just how terrible Republicans are, Democrats run the risk of appearing like the boy who cried wolf to the public -- and in the process taking some steam out of the very legitimate questions they are asking about the Trump administration.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists ...

Liberals For Segregation – BernardGoldberg.com

Its no secret that a lot of liberals nowadays dont want to be called liberals. Can you blame them? In recent years the word has taken a beating; conservatives would say, for good reason. So instead of liberal, the word many of them choose is progressive. Whos against progress? But euphemisms cant hide inconvenient truths: that too many liberals have forgotten how to be liberal and too many progressives act more like regressives.

Take race. Remember when liberals were the ones leading the fight to dismantle segregation? When they were the ones who wanted to take skin color out of the equation? Today, its progressives who sound like George Wallace.

On college campuses around the country, liberals still care about racial segregation but not the way liberals used to care about it.

At some schools they want a safe space reserved for students of color no whites allowed. At Evergreen State in Olympia, Washington, students demanded a day with no whites on campus. At several other colleges, theyre offering segregated housing for black students. And a few weeks ago, Harvard held a special graduation ceremony for black graduate students only. Its the first time in the schools long history theyve done anything like that.

Free speech, once the hallmark of American liberalism has also taken a hit. We all know about those sanctimonious college kids who shout down speakers whose views they dont like. No need to go down that road for the thousandth time.

What else, besides segregation, do progressives and not just the kids on campus celebrate? Well, how about terrorists.

This weekend, theyre going to hold the annual Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City and one of the participants will be Oscar Lopez Rivera the prime recruiter for the terrorist group FALN. In the 1970s and 80s FALN carried out more than 130 bombings that left six people dead. This apparently didnt bother the progressives who organized the parade; they had originally named Lopez Rivera its first-ever National Freedom Hero. A backlash stopped that, but hell still march. Rivera had been serving a long prison term until a well-known man of the Left President Barrack Obama granted him clemency just before he left office.

And why is it that a lot of progressives get more worked up over President Trumps decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord than they do about ISIS?

Mark Hertsgaard, the environment writer at the far-left Nation magazine, wrote a piece that echoes what a lot of progressives are thinking: that the presidents decision on Paris amounts to murder and a crime against humanity.

To refuse to act against global warming is to condemn thousands of people to death and suffering today and millions more tomorrow, he wrote. This is murder, even if Trumps willful ignorance of climate science prevents him from seeing it.

It would be nice if progressives could muster that kind of passion and anger over what ISIS does. But its liberals who tell us to calm down, that we have a better chance of getting hit by lightening than being killed by a terrorist. Climate change, the progressives tell us, is the biggest threat to our national security not ISIS.

And then too many on the Left make excuses for terrorists; theyre poor, uneducated, alienated young men, they tell us even when theyre not. But anyone who doesnt stay up nights worrying about the climate gets no such sympathy; instead theyre called deniers not by accident, the same word used to describe lunatics who believe the Holocaust never happened.

Full disclosure: I used to be a liberal when I was younger. But as things progressed, being pro-choice wasnt good enough. Liberals had to be for a womans right to choose no matter what. That presumably included late term abortion on grounds that women are the only ones who can decide what they want to do with their bodies even when the fetus is really a baby days away from birth.

And we liberals were supposed to embrace the nutty feminist idea that women had some kind of constitutional right to be firefighters just because thats what they wanted even women who werent strong enough to carry a big man out of a burning building.

And I could never figure out how a black kid from a good upper middle class family was more worthy of affirmative action points than a white Anglo Saxon Protestant kid from West Virginia whose father worked in a coal mine. How was that white boy privileged?

It just got to be too much. Liberalism became something I no longer recognized. I didnt want to be on that team anymore. But Im pretty sure I didnt leave the Left; its more like the Left left me. And Im not alone.

We get a daily barrage of news about how bad off we are with Donald J. Trump in the White House. About how unfit he is to be President of the United States. About how he has obstructed justice and, who knows, may even be a traitor. About how any day now hell be impeached.

I wonder if the liberals who detest this president ever think about how theyre a very big reason he got elected.

The rest is here:
Liberals For Segregation - BernardGoldberg.com

Conservatives and liberals saw two different Comey hearings – USA TODAY

Former FBI Director James Comey says he takes President Trump at his word that his firing was over the Russia investigation. USA TODAY

It's hardto find a clearer example of the widening media divide in America than the reactions to James Comey's testimony before the Senate IntelligenceCommittee on Thursday.

While stories and op-eds on the left called the hearing "historic," sayingthe former FBI director made a strong case, the coverage on the right tended to agree with President Trump that the testimony"vindicated" him.Conservative media also gave much more attention to Comey'srevelations about the Clinton email investigation.

Here are some examples of pieces from both sides of the ideological fence the performed well with readers.

This piece in Mother Jones from David Corn summedup themost common takeaways from progressive commentators in the wake of Comey's testimony:

Hereis the bombshell: a former FBI director has said publicly and under oath that the current president of the United States cannot be trusted.

This is unprecedented and highly troubling. Though James Comey, whom President Donald Trump fired in May, had the day before disclosed hisprepared testimony chronicling his disturbing interactions with Trump, his dramatic and much-anticipated appearance Thursday morning before the Senate intelligence committee reinforced and expanded the damning indictment Comey presented in his statement. He noted that he believed that Trump had privately directed him to drop the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn that was part of the FBIs ongoing Russia probe. He also testifiedthat he sawTrumps statements to him about the Russia investigation asan order to quash the probe. And he accused the president and the White House of lying.

Corn calledfor "probing Trump's efforts to rig the FBI investigation" and saidComey's testimony casts Trump as "a Nixonesque scoundrel who attempted to abuse his power." But like Comey, he leftthe question of whether the president's conduct was illegal to the special counsel's investigation.

The theme that Comey revealed Trump to be a liar appeared in many pieces for example, The Nation story headlined, "Comey on Trump: Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar" although few said Comey's testimony revealed proof of anything criminal.

"James Comeys public testimony exonerates President Trump of obstruction of justice," wrote Fox News reporter Gregg Jarrett in an opinion piece that echoes the feeling of many conservatives.

To put it simply, hoping that something happens is not a crime. The law demands much more than that. Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act corruptly. The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey

The National Review editorial board said"the former FBI director painted a deeply unflattering portrait of the president," but adds that "the legal case that Democrats are trying to mount against the president remains far-fetched.

In a piece for Fox News Opinion headlined, "Comey confirms that I'm right and all the Democratic commentators are wrong,"lawyer Alan Dershowitz not himself a conservative, but actually a Democrat agreed.

Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute ...

So lets move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority.

Many from the left were incredulous at Republican politicians and pundits' efforts to defend Trump's actions as described by Comey.

"Just one of our two parties is interested in checking this president's abuse," wroteJamelle Bouie, Slate's chief political correspondent. "What defined Thursdays hearing, in fact, was the degree to which Republicans downplayed obvious examples of bad potentially illegal behavior and sought to exonerate Trump rather than grapple with Comeys damning allegations about the president."

After House Speaker Paul Ryan defended Trump by saying, "The president is new at this," Daily Kossenior political writer Joan McCarter slammed Ryan as "not being fit for his own job." Ryan's dismissal of Trump "is as damning of Ryan as of Trump."

Conservative commentators jumped all over a revelation out of Comey's testimony that was largelyignored by liberals: Comey said former Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to call the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server a "matter" instead of an "investigation." The Blaze and other sites saw this as proof Lynch intervened to "downplay" the investigation.

"If there was any obstruction of justice taking place, it would appearthat the Democrats and the Clintons were likely as guilty of it as they claim the Trump administration is," wroteJim Jamitis for RedState.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2s5e3Kc

Follow this link:
Conservatives and liberals saw two different Comey hearings - USA TODAY

National Post View: The Liberals finally reveal that the Liberal approach to world affairs was wrong all along – National Post

Commentators have been hailing this weeks major policy speeches by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan as significant. They arent wrong to do so. The speeches were indeed important, just not for the reasons commonly cited.

In the case of Freelands speech, analysts have largely focused on her polite but clear message to the United States: that Canada must now step forward if Donald Trumps America moves to step back. And on Sajjans address, pundits have emphasized the size of the governments proposed increase in military spending: $14 billion over a decade, marking a 70-per-cent increase over todays spending levels (which is a substantial boost, even accounting for inflation).

These aspects of their speeches are important, but not the real story. The real story here is that the government is finally abandoning Liberal delusions that Canadas role in the world was given power merely by symbolic internationalist rhetoric, unsupported by meaningful strength. The ministers could have simply stood up and announced, The Liberals have been wrong about the ways of world these last 40-some-odd years, and we plan to do better.

The government acts as if renouncing the Liberals soft power philosophies and replacing them with a hard power approach is something required only by present circumstances

They didnt say that, of course. Rather, they acted as if renouncing the Liberals long-held soft power philosophies and replacing them with a hard power approach is something required by circumstances that are just now unfolding. But it isnt. Freeland and Sajjan are absolutely right that it is important for Canada to have a strong military, to stand up for democratic values around the world, to assert its own national interests. But this has been the case for decades. And there have been people saying so in these pages and elsewhere for just as long. It shouldnt have taken Canadas reckoning with Trump or Vladimir Putin or Brexit or climate change to recognize this role, as Freelands speech suggested. We should have embraced a strong military because it is Canadas duty as a country and member of the Western alliance to do so. Our governments (and not only the Liberal ones) have simply ignored this role for too long.

Consider, for instance, one of Freelands more widely cited lines: To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state Although we have an incredibly good relationship with our American friends and neighbours, such a dependence would not be in Canadas interest. That is why doing our fair share is clearly necessary. While pundits have pointed to these lines as a sign of Canadas newfound recognition that it can no longer depend on the U.S., this statement is in fact remarkable because it is effectively an admission: that the chronic underfunding of the Canadian Armed Forces (dating back to Pierre Trudeau and with only brief exceptions since) has left Canada as exactly what Freeland says an American client state.

The Liberals have effectively admitted that the chronic underfunding of the Canadian Armed Forces has left Canada as exactly what Freeland says an American client state

And this is largely true. Canadas military has been shrinking for decades, both in manpower and capabilities. Its been hurt by chronic understaffing and underfunding and procurement failures. We have become ever-less present on the global stage in times of war and peace while becoming ever more dependent on the U.S. for continental protection. We have deployed too few troops to allied defence engagements and peacekeeping missions, too few planes to patrol our skies, and too few ships to monitor our shorelines. We are virtually defenceless in the Arctic and always have been. That has been a well-known fact for anyone who has bothered to pay attention.

Do not mistake our meaning here. We like much of what Freeland and Sajjan have said. Assuming they follow through on their commitments (which is a considerable assumption), Canada will be the better for it. But not because we have staked out a new, bold place for ourselves in the world, but rather because we will finally be catching up to where we ought always to have been. Not because we are joining new institutions, but because we will finally be pulling our weight at the ones weve long been in.

In effect, the Liberals have slyly admitted that, for decades, Canadas foreign policy has been a disappointing sham. We have talked a good talk on human rights, multilateralism, foreign aid and collective defence. But we have failed to live up to our commitments or maintain the capabilities required to do so. If the Liberals do follow through on their plans, they wont be bringing Canada back. Theyll be fulfilling the obligations our governments have for decades neglected.

Read the original post:
National Post View: The Liberals finally reveal that the Liberal approach to world affairs was wrong all along - National Post