Spicer harbored doubts about taking press secretary's job

"Sean, we're getting killed in the media."
With those words, President Trump told his press secretary that while it wasn't his fault, "we need to change some things."
And the change agent was to be Anthony Scaramucci. Sean Spicer's immediate reaction was that bringing him in to run the communications office, with so little experience, "was like asking a student pilot with one lesson to take the stick of an F-22 in mid-flight."
That moment in a small dining room of the Oval Office would end Spicer's tumultuous six-month tenure, which he recounts in a new book, "The Briefing: Politics, The Press and The President."
Hours later, after consulting his wife and mother, Spicer handed Trump his resignation letter, saying the office needed a "fresh start." The president said he needed Sean as part of the team. But Spicer told him that "I have become the story." Fairly or unfairly, he writes, "I had been defined. There was no potential for a do-over."
Spicer makes clear he is no Mooch fan. When they overlapped, there was the "faux 'man hug.'" There was Scaramucci’s threat to start firing people to root out leakers. Spicer, while showing no emotion publicly when Scaramucci himself was fired, now exults that "the president thought he had hired an ace when, in fact, he had hired a kamikaze pilot." (Spicer, a Navy veteran, loves these combat metaphors.)
It is now clear, from the enormous flak aimed at Sarah Huckabee Sanders, that being Trump's spokesman is a nearly impossible job. But the book is not primarily a score-settling venture, although there are numerous shots at the press. There is also some soul-searching about his strengths and weaknesses, which played out on a very public stage.
During the transition, Spicer admits, "I knew in my heart that I was better suited to take on the role of communications director," but the offer of being at the podium was "too tempting to turn down." He also had to cope with the fact that his father, who had been ailing during the campaign, died during the transition, prompting a warm condolence call from Trump.
Spicer offers his fullest account of that disastrous first day on the job, when Trump told him to push back on television reports that his inaugural crowd had been smaller than Barack Obama’s. Spicer stretched the truth in part by throwing in digital audiences, and Trump told him he was not happy—with his performance, with his failure to consult in advance, with his ill-fitting light suit.
"I should have lowered the temperature and not so broadly questioned the media's motives ... I had made a bad first impression," Spicer now concedes, and looking back, that was "the beginning of the end."
During his tenure last year he was frequently asked about Trump’s nonstop tweeting. In the book, Spicer points to Trump's fury at criticism from the "Morning Joe" duo and his attacks on "Psycho Joe," "low I.Q. Crazy Mika" and her purported plastic surgery.
After such outbursts, he says, "the media often expected me to be an ombudsman if not an outright apologist for Donald Trump's tweets." But Spicer insists his job was to communicate the president's views, not to "interpret" them or "massage" them or "tweak" them.
In this case, Spicer acknowledged, Trump blunted the momentum from a successful speech to Congress: "Sometimes he's cutting up the opposition and sometimes he's cutting up his own best messages."
The Briefing deals with other missteps, from his mangled response about Syrian chemical attacks and Hitler's "Holocaust centers" to his surprise demand that all his staffers turn in their cell phones in an effort to root out leakers. Trump's response: "Sean, what were you thinking?" Of all his experiences with the president, he says, "that one was the worst."
Spicer devotes considerable space to media mistakes, media bias and what he sees as media unfairness to his former boss. He singles out some journalists by name--CNN's Jim Acosta and two CNN contributors, radio reporter April Ryan and Playboy columnist Brian Karem--for trying "to become a cable star by generating fake controversy and outrage."
But Spicer also calls Maggie Haberman of The New York Times, with whom he often clashed, "a smart and tenacious reporter with good sources ... Over time—a therapist could have made a fortune from the amount—Maggie and I have learned how to hear and listen to each other."
By Spicer's last few weeks in the spring of 2017, he had become disenchanted with the daily briefings and moved more of them off camera. He says he and Sanders were frustrated that "the briefings had turned into rituals in which reporters asked the same questions about Russia-related issues—over and over—knowing that they would get no different answers but upping the volume and emotion with each pass." The media, Spicer says, "wanted the briefings to be news and sought out any possible misstep as a 'gotcha' moment."
Well, that has been true for every president since the advent of regular on-camera briefings in 1995 (though in no other administration have they been televised as regularly as in the Trump era). The frustration may well have reflected the increasingly combative nature of his own dealings with the press. As Spicer says in describing that time period, "I knew my relationship with the press was radioactive, and I told the president and Reince that I would happily support the appointment of a new press secretary so that I could focus on being the director of communications." The problem was that they couldn't find anyone, and when Sanders took over, the audio-only briefings were largely banished.
What emerges in the book is a combative and yet more thoughtful press secretary than the Melissa McCarthy caricature on "SNL." And yet there were moments when he just seemed snakebit.
The day after Spicer played defense when Trump fired James Comey, he was scheduled to fulfill his Naval Reserve duty at the Pentagon. The next day his wife told him about the CNN breaking-news banner: "SPICER TO MISS PRESS BRIEFING DAY AFTER COMEY WAS FIRED."
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Nancy Pelosi Cartoons

Ted Cruz, Beto O'Rourke in nation's most expensive Senate race; reports

Although Texas is a predominately red state, it appears incumbent U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz may have his hands full come November when he squares off against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke.
The congressman from El Paso has out-fundraised Cruz by more than $10 million since joining the race, according to reports.
But according to the Cruz campaign, O'Rourke may have erred this week in calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump following the president's Helsinki summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"At this point there is certainly enough there for the case to proceed," O'Rourke said, according to the Dallas Morning News.
But Cruz's camp noted that O'Rourke was "the only major party candidate in America" to take an impeachment stand.
"Elizabeth Warren hasn’t done it. Bernie Sanders hasn’t done it. Nancy Pelosi hasn’t done it. This is a fringe candidate in the Democratic Party,” Jeff Roe, Cruz's campaign manager, told the newspaper.
Since April 1, 2017, O’Rourke has raised $23.1 million, compared to Cruz’s $12.9 million, the Dallas Morning News reported.
Overall, however, Cruz still has a slight advantage – having raised a total of $25.9 million since late 2012, according to the paper.
The combined total for the two candidates has reached nearly $50 million, with nearly half of that total already spent, making their race by far the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in the country, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Cruz has surpassed the fundraising totals for any other Republican seeking a Senate seat, while U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has raised the most of any Democrat, with nearly $27 million available for her re-election bid, the Chronicle reported.
Warren is just one of several Democrats believed to be interested in making a presidential run in 2020.
With November's midterm elections nearing, O’Rourke currently holds a cash advantage over Cruz, with reserves of just under $14 million compared to about $10.2 million for Cruz, the Morning News reported.
However, O’Rourke still struggles with name recognition in parts of Texas, the paper notes, while Cruz, who is seeking his second term, is well-known across the state -- and in Washington.
With Democrats making a heavy push to regain control of the House of Representatives, Cruz is not taking re-election for granted, as evidenced by a recent comment.
“The news is BAD. VERY BAD.... We need to step up," Cruz said, urging donors to contribute to his campaign as O'Rourke's fundraising numbers continue to rise, the Morning News reported.
"No doubt we have been outraised this year because the far left is very engaged in this election," Emily Miller, a spokeswoman for the Cruz campaign said last week, according to the paper. "Some will see the polls and fundraising numbers as reason for alarm, while others see them as a wake-up call to voters who are being too complacent going into midterms. Either way, we are making sure that Texans who value freedom will know the current stakes."
Cruz currently holds about an 8 percentage point lead over O’Rourke, which is relatively low compared to his 16 percentage point margin of victory in 2012 and for a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat since 1994, according to the Morning News.
Despite O’Rourke’s push to be a legitimate contender in November, Cruz is still considered the favorite – but that could change in the coming months.
Democrats need to win 28 seats to control the Senate, compared to only 9 for Republicans, the New York Times reported. As for the House, Democrats need to flip 24 Republican-held seats. 

Interior Department watchdog investigating real estate deal involving Ryan Zinke

Ryan Zinke, pictured in September 2017, has previously been the focus of several investigations by the Interior Department's watchdog.  (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

The Interior Department's internal watchdog has opened an investigation into a real estate deal involving Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and the head of the Hallburton energy company.
The investigation was first reported by Politico and confirmed to Fox News by Nancy DiPaolo, a spokeswoman for the inspector general's office.
The investigation centers on a foundation Zinke established to build a park in his home state of Montana. In September of last year, Zinke's wife, Lola, signed an agreement allowing a group of developers -- including Halliburton Chairman David Lesar -- to use its land to build a parking lot for a development in Zinke's hometown.
Zinke spokeswoman Heather Swift has said he did nothing wrong and that Zinke resigned from the foundation's board of directors prior to the land deal.
Last month, Zinke affirmed he had met with Lesar and his son at the Interior Department in August of last year. However, he insisted that he provided them only with background on the nonprofit and the land it owned.
Democrats had called for Zinke to be investigated in order to determine whether the deal violated conflict-of-interest rules.
"Secretary Zinke doesn’t seem to take his responsibility to the public seriously," Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., told Politico on Wednesday. "He's turned it into the Ryan Zinke show, which is more about waving his own flag above the building and doing personal business deals with his friends instead of protecting public lands and improving our environmental quality. This formal investigation is one of many he’s managed to pile up in his short and undistinguished tenure, and I join my Democratic colleagues in seeking the transparency and accountability that Republicans have so far not provided."
Zinke, a former Montana congressman, has not commented to Fox News on the opening of the investigation.

John Stossel: The absurd hysteria around plastic straws

Want to sip a refreshing beverage this summer?

If environmental zealots and sycophants get their way, you won’t be allowed to sip it through a plastic straw.

Actress Nina Nelson and other celebrities made a video claiming that plastic straws kill sea life: “In the USA alone, over 500 million straws are being used every single day, most of which are going into our oceans.”
“I will stop sucking,” vowed the celebrities.
In obedient response, Seattle banned plastic straws, and other places plan to follow. Starbucks, Hyatt and Hilton are all abandoning straws.
Katy Tang, of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, says, “We are no longer going to allow for plastic straws here.”
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio agrees: “Their time has come and gone.”
But before politicians ban things in the name of saving the world, I wish they’d take the trouble to actually study what good the ban would do.
Plastic garbage in oceans is a genuine problem. But most of the pollution comes from Asia. A small amount does come from America, but only a tiny fraction of that is plastic straws.
Banning straws “might make some politicians feel good,” says the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Angela Logomasini in this week’s Stossel TV video, “but it won’t actually accomplish anything good.”
But what about that scary “500 million” figure that celebrities, politicians and news anchors constantly cite? It turns out that number came from a 10-year-old who, for a school project, telephoned some straw makers.
Because the boy is cute, the media put him on TV. Now the media, environmental activists and politicians (Is there a difference?) repeat “500 million straws used daily … many end up in oceans,” as if it were just fact. The real number is much lower.
Still, activists like talk show host Ethan Bearman tell us, “If we can reduce something that easy -- something that gets stuck in turtles’ noses and damages the environment -- let’s do that. Sometimes, we do need a little gentle guiding hand from government.”
But government’s guiding hand is neither “little” nor “gentle.” Government action is force. In this case, the politicians will either ban straws or order us to replace plastic straws with more expensive ones made of paper or bamboo.
Bearman calls that an advantage, telling us, “Plastic doesn’t actually biodegrade, unlike paper, which breaks down into other components.”
But that’s exactly the problem. Paper straws don’t only break down in dumps, they also break down while you’re using them. They get soggy. They leak.
“That’s the beauty of plastic. It’s enduring,” says Logomasini.
She also points out that paper and bamboo straws aren’t environmentally pristine. “Paper products take more energy and effort to produce. And paper doesn’t degrade in a landfill, either. Everything (in landfills) is essentially mummified.”
Also, paper straws cost eight times more to make than plastic straws.
The activists and politicians don’t worry that their ban will raise costs for businesses and their customers. New York City Councilman Barry Grodenchik told us, “Maybe people won’t use straws.”
Ethan Bearman added, “If it’s $1.79 to get the fountain drink at Joe’s Corner Deli (and) now it’s $1.83, I don’t see that being a huge difference.”
“This is what environmentalists say about every policy they put out -- a few cents here, a few cents there,” says Logomasini. “But eventually, it begins to be a burden. Banning straws isn't going to do anything for the environment. So what they're trying to do is take away my freedom for nothing in return.”
Taking away freedom for nothing in return is now a specialty of the environmental movement.
After our environment got cleaner -- thanks to technological innovation and some useful government-imposed requirements (like scrubbers in smokestacks and pollution limits on cars) -- the zealots moved on to demand bans on pipeline construction, mining and oil drilling. They require lots of pointless recycling (though often garbage you separate is never recycled) and all sorts of feel-good policies that make no real difference.
EPA should stand for “Enough Protection Already!”

John Stossel is the author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed." Click here for more information on John Stossel.

Warren backing tribe's luxury casino plan -- over cash-strapped town's rival bid

Pocahontas

Brockton, Mass., is known as the birthplace of boxing legend Rocky Marciano. But with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren pushing for a $1 billion Native American casino less than 20 miles away, struggling blue-collar Brockton's competing casino bid might not stand a fighting chance.
Brockton Mayor William Carpenter slammed Warren’s bill on behalf of the Masphee Wampanoag tribe, which would override a federal judge's decision last year to block the tribe’s plan for a luxury gaming resort in East Taunton.
He says Warren seems to be acting on behalf of special interests instead of people like Brockton's struggling residents.

Mayor William Carpenter, of Brockton, Mass., stands near a statue of the city's favorite son, boxing legend Rocky Marciano.  (Facebook)

“Year after year we’re running multimillion-dollar deficits in our budget. We’ve laid off schoolteachers for three years in a row,” Carpenter told the Washington Times. “We desperately need the revenue."

“Year after year we’re running multimillion-dollar deficits in our budget. We’ve laid off schoolteachers for three years in a row. We desperately need the revenue."
- Mayor William Carpenter, Brockton, Mass.

Warren's bill is reportedly being lobbied by the Genting Group, which has already poured $400 million into the tribe’s First Light Resort and Casino project – but could lose it all if the federal government fails to grant the land to the tribe, the Times reported.
Brockton’s bid for a casino was rejected two years ago by the state gaming commission over concerns that the market could become oversaturated if the tribal casino wins federal approval. The town has since made the bid again.
The Interior Department could also block Brockton’s bid as it started looking into other legal ways the land could be taken in trust on the tribe’s behalf.
Meanwhile, some residents in East Taunton say they don't even want the luxury casino built in their town.
Michelle Littlefield, of East Taunton, is waging a legal challenge together with other 25 residents to block the tribal casino project, claiming the Interior Department’s actions are “designed to give a special-interest group special preference.”
“We are up against a foreign company that’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars,” Littlefield told the Times. “It’s a bottomless well on the other side. From day one, we’ve been the underdog, and the only thing we’ve ever had on our side was the law,” she added, blasting the attempts to override the ruling blocking the project.

“We are up against a foreign company that’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s a bottomless well on the other side. From day one, we’ve been the underdog, and the only thing we’ve ever had on our side was the law.”
- Michelle Littlefield, East Taunton, Mass., resident who opposes luxury casino plan

David Tennant, attorney for the East Taunton residents, said “there’s been this kind of perpetual, ‘Hey, maybe the tribe can get qualified in some other way, maybe on remand with Interior, maybe Congress can step in and do something for them.’
“And all of this is to the detriment of Brockton, which lined up its ducks years ago and had somebody ready to go. This kind of perpetual preference for a tribal casino is now running well past the clock that the federal court said would be an equal protection violation,” he added.
Mayor Carpenter says that while the East Taunton residents are skeptical of the project, his struggling town would happily welcome it.
“It’s a blue-collar immigrant city where two years ago, 80 percent of the students in our school system qualified for free or reduced lunch,” he said. “Our unemployment rate runs about 50 percent above the statewide average historically, and we’re a majority-minority city.”
He campaigned on behalf of his town this week on Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to oppose the Warren-backed Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act.
It might not be enough, however, as the legislation has gathered support from 18 lawmakers in the House, though only Warren and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., have endorsed it in the Senate, according to the Enterprise News.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is reportedly set to grant only three casino licenses in total, all in different regions of the state. Brockton and East Taunton are less than 20 miles apart, meaning if one town wins the license, the other won’t be able to pursue plans for a casino.
Carpenter said he’s annoyed that his town could lose out to a casino license because of unfair “special treatment” of the tribe.
“The whole thing just seems unfair to me,” he told the Times. “I don’t know if Brockton will ultimately be granted the license or not from the state gaming commission, but I know our opportunities should not be taken away by a piece of special-interest legislation.”

“The whole thing just seems unfair to me. I don’t know if Brockton will ultimately be granted the license or not from the state gaming commission, but I know our opportunities should not be taken away by a piece of special-interest legislation.”
- Mayor William Carpenter, Brockton, Mass.

Warren, who previously opposed legalized gambling in her state, began championing the bill amid concerns about her unproven Native American ancestry, which were amplified by President Donald Trump.

Senator Elizabeth Warren Cartoons

Anti-Trump Democrats seek to block appointment of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director

Kathy Kraninger, President Trump’s nominee to become director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), deserves swift Senate confirmation, despite Democratic attempts to block her appointment. Her confirmation hearing will be held Thursday before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
The CFBP is was created in 2011. From its inception, the agency was more of a pet project of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., than it was an agency to actually protect consumers. It quickly became a powerful regulatory hammer in the service of Democratic Party interests.
Now that there is a Republican president in the White House, the political shoe is on the other foot. It is clear that the battle for control of the agency that ensued last November will likely continue for the remainder of this year. It is a fight that has very little to do with the day-to-day tedium of CFPB policy.
Instead, the fight to control the agency is between its Democratic creators – who want more political power and government regulation – and Republican reformers who demand accountability and transparency for what was formerly a rogue, partisan operation.
Only after the departure of the CFPB’s first director, Richard Cordray – now running as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio – were we able to identify just how widespread the abuse and mismanagement was at the agency under his leadership.
First, there were revelations made by former CFPB Enforcement Attorney Ronald Rubin that a Democratic advertising firm that worked for both President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s election campaign was “the sole recipient of the CFPB’s $43 million advertising expenditure since 2013.”
Then there were the news stories about exorbitant cost overruns related to the renovation of CFPB’s Washington headquarters for about $215 million.
Even the Federal Reserve Board’s inspector general said of that project that "the approval of funding for the renovation was not in accordance with the CFPB’s current policies for major investments” and that “a sound business case is not available to support the funding of the renovation.”
Finally, there were the millions of dollars the CFPB doled out of its Civil Penalty Fund – collected from fines levied on corporations for alleged financial abuse – that went to third-party “consumer advocacy” groups tied to Democrats.
When Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney became acting director of the CFPB in November – following Cordray’s resignation to begin his race for governor in Ohio – Mulvaney started instituting immediate reforms. These included requesting zero dollars for the agency for the second quarter of the 2018 fiscal year and putting a 30-day freeze on new regulations.
It was no surprise that Sen. Warren and other Democrats were outraged. Now they are taking out their anger on Kraninger, opposing her nomination to head the CFPB.
Kraninger is a talented and trusted associate of Mulvaney at the Office of Management and Budget and clearly qualified to lead the CFPB. After President Trump nominated her for the job, Sen. Warren immediately went on the attack and has threatened to hold up her nomination  over, of all things, Kraninger’s suspected role in promoting President Trump’s immigration policies.

FILE -- Kathy Kraninger, President Trump’s nominee to become director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.  (AP)

What does this have to do with the mission of the CFPB? Warren is just seizing on any excuse to oppose a Trump nominee in her effort to politicize the CFPB.
At her confirmation hearing Thursday, Kraninger will no doubt face tough questions from Warren and others about her experience and ability to lead one of the most powerful agencies in the federal government. The CFPB is led by a single, autonomous director who is difficult to remove, has no oversight from Congress, and isn’t held accountable to the companies it fines or the public it is entrusted to protect.
No doubt, Warren will try to viciously smear Kraninger. The recent attacks Democrats have leveled against Kraninger are only a prelude to their fight to keep an iron grip on an agency that serves as a political slush fund for their allies.
However, Warren’s Senate colleagues and the public would be wrong to take the bait. For Warren, the fight over the CFPB isn’t about policy at all. It is a tantrum being thrown over the prospect that she may lose her stranglehold over an agency that, in her eyes, belongs to her.
In a response to Warren’s attacks, Mulvaney noted to the senator: “You originally conceived of this agency as one that should be ‘free of legislative micromanaging’ and recently reiterated that ‘the whole idea’ of the Bureau was to ‘insulate it from political influence to the extent possible,’ but I think most folks would interpret that exactly as I am suggesting: less accountable and less transparent.”
The CFPB is a highly political agency. I personally believe it should be abolished; but while it still exists it needs strong, market-oriented, and fiscally sane leaders who can cut it down to size and restore some form of transparency and constitutional accountability.
Kathy Kraninger is a believer in a limited and constitutionally accountable government, as are Mick Mulvaney and President Trump. What we need now isn’t political posturing. We need a strong and steady administrative hand to continue cleaning up the mess created by Elizabeth Warren and Richard Cordray. 
Colin Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative nonprofit based in Pennsylvania. Their website is LetFreedomRingUSA.com.