Sleazy Cartoons

Why Trump banned the Washington Post: Going nuclear over a bad headline?

Donald Trump launched his campaign one year ago, and has been running against the “dishonest” and “sleazy” media ever since.
Now he’s opened a new front by yanking the credentials of the Washington Post.
The tactic isn’t new: Trump has already barred Politico, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Buzzfeed, along with outlets that oppose him for ideological reasons, National Review and the Huffington Post. Sometimes it’s an offending story, sometimes an editorial.
In the Post’s case, it was a headline.
The fact that it was a bad headline doesn’t justify the ban. It was written by one person for the paper’s website. Trump has criticized other Post stories, but overall seems to have had cordial relations with the paper, and sat for a grilling with its editorial board, which has been harshly critical of him. Few reporters have talked to Trump as much as the Post’s Robert Costa.
Trump’s anger at the Post was on display after the paper questioned why some of his touted donations to veterans’ groups hadn’t been completed, and he called that news conference and teed off on the press.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

But the billionaire has been much harsher in denouncing the New York Times, especially after the story about his past conduct with women. He spent months fighting with Fox News, even skipping one of its debates, and now says CNN is distorting his remarks. He spent months appearing on “Morning Joe” but now says the Scarborough show has gone off “the deep end.”
The Post dustup began the morning after the Orlando massacre, when Trump phoned into “Fox & Friends.” He said that President Obama “is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can't believe it.”
That led to this Post headline: “Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.” About 90 minutes later, the paper softened it to: “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to Orlando Shooting.”
Except that he didn’t. Under the worst interpretation of Trump’s comments, he was insinuating that the president sympathized with terrorists. Indeed, the Post story was well within bounds, saying that Trump “seemed to repeatedly accuse President Obama on Monday of identifying with radicalized Muslims who have carried out terrorist attacks.”  But the headline was not.
In announcing the ban, Trump said:  “We no longer feel compelled to work with a publication which has put its need for ‘clicks’ above journalistic integrity. They have no journalistic integrity and write falsely about Mr. Trump.” He went on to take his usual shot, without offering evidence, that the paper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is using the Post as a political tool.
Marty Barton, the Post’s executive editor (and portrayed in the movie “Spotlight” as the crusading editor whose Boston Globe broke the church sexual abuse scandal), responded forcefully, calling the move “nothing less than a repudiation of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished.” Baron said the Post, whose reporters are writing a book about The Donald, would continue to cover him “honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically and unflinchingly.”
It’s a common tactic for angry candidates to cut off interviews to offending news outlets, or feed scoops to their rivals. But revoking credentials gets the First Amendment movement up in arms.
Some folks have noted online that even at the height of Watergate, Richard Nixon didn’t attempt to revoke the paper’s credentials (which are awarded by the White House Correspondents Association). He did something worse, trying to get federal regulators to yank the company’s lucrative television license.
So what does Trump accomplish here? It’s not like the Post is going to stop covering him aggressively. The practical effect is that he makes it hard for the paper’s reporters to follow him around the country, and they have to try to walk into public events with the general crowd rather than being escorted into the press section. The Trump campaign has ejected a Politico scribe from reporting from the audience on at least one occasion.
What Trump does is send a message and score points with his base, which doesn’t like or trust the press. It is also something of a brushback pitch against other news outlets. The flip side is that he looks a bit thin-skinned.
The escalation comes as the media coverage of Trump turns more aggressive, more skeptical, and in some cases more tendentious.
A Washington Post news story offered a prime example on Monday:
“In a speech laden with falsehoods and exaggeration, Trump was antagonistic and pugnacious, in stark contrast with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, who also spoke Monday about combating terrorism.”
The examples? Trump called the Orlando killer an “Afghan,” when he was born in Queens. He also said the U.S. is “not screening” refugees, who the paper says undergo a rigorous vetting process that can take up to two years.
And the Post said Trump “wrongly claimed that Clinton wanted to abolish the Second Amendment.” She does not, but does that fall into the category of embellished political rhetoric? Are the same standards applied to Clinton when she casts Trump’s positions in the worst possible light? Is his talk of temporarily banning Muslims capitalizing on a tragedy, while her talk of tougher gun control is reported as just plain common sense?
There are times when the media are unfair to Trump. There are also plenty of times when the media challenge Trump on the facts and he just doesn’t like it.
The Republican nominee, who has also called for looser libel laws, has every right to push back against what he views as unfair coverage. But this is a case where he overreacted to a terrible headline and gave the impression that he’s willing to block the press from doing its job.

Clinton defeats Sanders in DC primary; candidates discuss several topics in meeting

Presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton defeated Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday in the Washington, D.C., Democratic primary -- marking the end of the presidential primary season and bringing the two candidates together for a face-to-face meeting to discuss what’s next for the party in the general election.
The Associated Press said with 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Clinton has 74,566 votes, compared to 19,990 for Sanders.
Neither candidate spoke to reporters Tuesday night after their roughly 90-minute meeting in a Washington hotel.
However, the campaigns released separate, but nearly identical statements saying that Clinton and Sanders had a “positive discussion” about their primary race, unifying the party and their mutual desire to stop presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump from winning in November.
The campaigns also said the candidates discussed issues in which they share common goals, including increasing wages for working families, eliminating undisclosed money in politics and reducing the cost of college.
The meeting, which included the candidates' campaign managers, concluded with the sides agreeing to continue to work on a shared agenda that includes developing a platform for the upcoming Democratic National Convention, each campaign said.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

Sanders said he’ll tell supporters his next steps Thursday via a live, online video.
“After today, the voting is done, but our political revolution continues,” Sanders said in an email Tuesday to supporters.
Clinton clinched the nomination last week by getting the requisite 2,383 delegates -- a combination of superdelegates and pledged delegates awarded to her in 56 primary and caucus wins, including those in Puerto Rico and six U.S. territories.
Sanders has so far refused to end his campaign despite pressure to do so, suggesting he will keep trying to persuade Clinton superdelegates to instead vote for him at the Democratic convention in July, in a long-shot bid to take the nomination.
However, the Sanders campaign has occasionally suggested that the candidate could end his bid if Clinton, and the entire Democratic Party, embrace key parts of his agenda including better universal health care, a $15-an-hour minimum wage and free tuition at state colleges and universities.
Clinton said earlier Tuesday in an interview with Telemundo that she was very much "looking forward to having (Sanders') support in this campaign, because Donald Trump poses a serious threat to our nation."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said after the D.C. primary, "Democrats are ready to unify and take on both Trump and the Republican Party that he represents. At our convention in July, we’re going to nominate a qualified, capable candidate who will build on the hard-won progress of the last seven years."
“I think the time is now. In fact, the time is overdue, for a fundamental transformation of the Democratic party,” Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, said Tuesday on Capitol Hill. “We need a party which is prepared to stand up for the disappearing middle class.”
Before Tuesday, Clinton had 2,784 delegates, compared to 1,877 for Sanders.
On Sunday, Sanders told ABC News that the meeting with Clinton will be about “what kind of platform we have and … what kind of administration she will have.”
Sanders also told ABC that he wants Clinton to also specifically commit to a progressive tax system that makes big banks and corporations pay “their fair share of taxes.”
That Sanders, 74, even challenged the better-known and better-funded Clinton this far is a remarkable political feat.
The former first lady and secretary of state was expected to breeze through the primary. But Sanders, appearing to tap into voters’ frustrations with established candidates and money-driven politics, took the race until the second-to-last week of the Democratic primary season.
Along the way, Sanders won 21 primaries or caucuses, backed by legions of young voters and others excited by his promises of higher wages, free college and limiting the influence of “big money” in elections.
Sanders’ long-shot bid began with a key win in New Hampshire, an early primary that Clinton had won in her failed 2008 White House bid.
He showed his campaign was for real in March by managing seven straight victories, putting the Clinton campaign on its heels until late April, when Clinton won her home-state of New York.
Clinton nearly put the race out of reach with a series of early wins, including first-in-the-nation Iowa, and in delegate-rich states such as South Carolina, Georgia, Massachusetts, Texas and Virginia.
But Sanders scored a big comeback victory March 8 in Michigan that stopped Clinton’s decisive run across the South. However, he failed to sustain momentum, with Clinton winning the next seven state contests.

Obama unleashes on GOP critics over 'radical Islam' term

After years of brushing off criticism for avoiding the term “radical Islam,” President Obama fired a point-blank broadside Tuesday at his critics, calling the debate a “political distraction” that will do nothing to combat terrorism.
Speaking from the White House during what was expected to be an update for the public on the fight against the Islamic State, Obama lit into his critics and specifically presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Their criticism has mounted in the wake of the Orlando terror attack, which Obama declined to publicly link to radical Islam.
“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” Obama countered Tuesday. “It’s a political talking point.”
Trump and Capitol Hill Republicans swiftly pushed back on the president's remarks.

Trump said Obama "claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people."
He also said: "When I am president, it will always be America first."

Republicans and Democrats disagree on how the next president should talk about Islamic extremists | InsideGov

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said earlier: “With all due respect Mr. President, you’re wrong. ... Telling the truth about violent Islam is a prerequisite to a strategy -- a strategy you admitted you don’t have. It is the commander-in-chief’s duty to actually identify our enemies and to help the American people understand the challenge of violent Islam.”
Obama, though, went on to warn of a slippery slope in this debate, citing Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration – a proposal many in Trump’s party do not support, including House Speaker Paul Ryan.
“We don’t have religious tests here,” Obama said, without attacking Trump by name. But answering one of Trump’s most frequent accusations, the president said his reluctance to use the phrase “radical Islam” has “nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.”
He said groups like ISIS “want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims … who reject their crazy notions,” and a move to single out Muslims in America “betrays the very values America stands for.”
A day earlier, during a speech in New Hampshire, Trump had doubled down on his call for a Muslim immigration ban.
“It we don’t get tough, and we don’t get smart -- and fast -- we’re not going to have a country anymore. There will be nothing left,” Trump said.
Ryan, however, said Tuesday he does not support that proposal. "I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country's interest," Ryan said. "I do not think it is reflective of our principles, not just as a party but as a country."
Before tackling the “radical Islam” debate, Obama was speaking at the White House Tuesday to deliver a status report to the public on the fight against the Islamic State, after meeting with his National Security Council.
He claimed that campaign is making gains and ISIS is “on defense.”
A day earlier, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton also claimed ISIS is losing ground in Iraq and Syria -- but addressed other concerns about the group’s reach.
“As ISIS loses actual ground in Iraq and Syria, it will seek to stage more attacks and gain stronger footholds wherever it can, from Afghanistan, to Libya, to Europe,” Clinton said. “The threat is metastasizing.”
Further, Clinton referred openly in a TV interview to the threat from “radical Islamism.”
Obama, though, joined Clinton Tuesday in pushing for gun control measures to thwart terror attacks including renewing the assault-weapons ban.
“Make it harder for terrorists to use these weapons to kill us,” Obama said.
On that point, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, “We should not make it harder for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves when radical Islamic terrorists are successfully launching attacks on U.S. soil.”
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration, said Tuesday that Obama's remarks were like a “lecture” and urged Clinton to break with the president on the terminology issue.
“It shows the president to be a small man,” Bolton told Fox News.

Dems renew push for gun control measures, aim for terror watch list

That's the only answer the Dems always come up with, take away the guns.

Congressional Democrats are renewing their push for gun control measures in the wake of the Orlando terror massacre, arguing the best way to prevent suspected terrorists from carrying out acts of violence is to legally limit their access to firearms.
Republicans have their own proposals for confronting the terror threat, and warn that certain gun control measures could make Americans less safe. House Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday touted proposals to improve refugee screening and other measures to deal with homegrown terrorism.
But while some Democrat-backed gun proposals have little chance of passing -- like a reinstated assault-weapons ban, a move President Obama endorsed Tuesday -- others could gain traction in Congress.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., specifically are pushing a proposal to the top of the Democratic agenda that would bar suspected terrorists from purchasing guns and explosives.
The bill would allow federal authorities to block gun sales to anyone on a government watch list or whom federal officials believe might use the gun in a terror attack.
“If the FBI believes there is a reasonable chance someone is going to use a gun in a terrorist attack, it should be able to make that determination and block the sale,” Schumer said. “If it had that belief about the shooter in Orlando, it should have had the authority to act. But it couldn’t, so we will never know what could have been.”
It’s unclear whether such measures would have prevented the Orlando massacre. The shooter, according to the FBI, was on a watch-list between May 2013 and March 2014 – but apparently just bought two guns, legally, in the week before the attack.