Hannity: Conservatives Who Oppose Trump Will Share Blame If Clinton Wins And Undocumented Immigrants Kill Americans
Video ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s new campaign chief Stephen Bannon is the executive chairman of conservative website Breitbart News, which has been embroiled in a civil war over the publication’s Trump support. Numerous conservative media figures have slammed Bannon -- who is taking a leave of absence to work for Trump -- and Breitbart News for destroying the legacy of the site’s founder Andrew Breitbart, who said in 2011 that Donald Trump is “not a conservative.”
In the latest development in the conservative media civil war over Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity, a staunch Trump supporter, is battling other conservative media figures over his unapologetic and unconditional defense of the candidate, with those media figures now calling his shilling for Trump “slavish” and “disgraceful.”
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media pushed the idea that the supposed Russian hack and release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails also means that Russians hacked Hillary Clinton’s server and stole information. Eventually, Paul Manafort, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign chair, repeated the claim to deflect attention from Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.
Media figures lambasted Fox News host Greta Van Susteren's hour-long special, Meet The Trumps, describing the broadcast as "something you'd see on a state-run television somewhere."
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media figures are using the high April 5 voter turnout during the presidential primary in Wisconsin, which has a voter ID law, to dismiss concerns about the discriminatory impact of such laws. But experts say conclusions about the impact of voter ID laws cannot be drawn based only on high voter turnout, and several media outlets reported that the law did harm potential voters in the state's primary.
Right-Wing Economic Policy Darlings Larry Kudlow And Stephen Moore Are Regular Contributors To National Review
National Review senior editor Jonah Goldberg berated two right-wing economic policy figureheads -- Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow -- for what Goldberg saw as their abandonment of conservative principles by supporting Donald Trump's presidential candidacy. Both men have written extensively for National Review Online (NRO) promoting the conservative movement's economic agenda, with Kudlow acting as a contributing editor for the publication.
The right-wing media civil war was on full display on March 9 when Goldberg attacked Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore and CNBC senior contributor Larry Kudlow for endorsing Trump, despite the Republican front-runner's lack of apparent conservative policy bona fides. Goldberg argued that Moore and Kudlow had abandoned conservative purity by endorsing "winning at any cost," and that Trump's policies are a "populist deformation of conservatism." Goldberg's decision to target Moore and Kudlow for their embrace of Trump is particularly interesting given how much the two men have contributed to National Review and National Review Online over the years.
Moore's regular publication history with the outlet dates back to 2003, when he was an ardent champion of the Bush administration's tax cuts, and picked up steam in 2014 when he used NRO to promote Republican talking points on tax and regulatory policy, the federal budget and deficit, and the minimum wage. Kudlow's ties to the outlet where he serves as both a contributing editor (in print) and a columnist and economics editor (online) are even more extensive, dating to 1999.
Goldberg may be targeting Moore and Kudlow for apostasy now, but they have been boosting Trump for some time now -- weeks in the case of Moore, and months for Kudlow. Moore praised Trump in a February 11 column for The American Spectator, suggesting he could "expand the Republican base to include independents and union Democratic voters" and claimed that "Trump is the anti-Obama in every way ... . Trump emanates love for America and pledged to 'make America great again.'" CNBC contributer James Pethokoukis also listed Moore as part of Trump's "council of wise men" on February 22. Goldberg wrote that Kudlow "has moved markedly in Trump's direction" on policy, and Kudlow also expressed his support for Trump's tax plan in September when it was released.
In January, the National Review launched a conservative war on Trump with a dedicated "Against Trump" issue, referring to him as a "philosophically unmoored political opportunist." Goldberg's March 9 article berating Moore and Kudlow is just another barrage in the right-wing media civil war over Trump (emphasis added):
In 2009, then-senator Jim DeMint declared he'd rather have 30 reliable conservatives in the Senate than 60 unreliable ones. Ted Cruz launched his presidential campaign on the premise that deviation from pure conservatism cost Republicans the 2012 election. The only way to win was to refuse to compromise and instead give voters a clear choice. Many of the right's most vocal ideological enforcers cheered him on.
Until Trump started winning. Suddenly, the emphasis wasn't on winning through purer conservatism but on winning at any cost.
Consider Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore. In August, the two legendarily libertarian-minded economists attacked Trump, focusing on what they called Trump's "Fortress America platform." His trade policies threaten the global economic order, they warned. "We can't help wondering whether the recent panic in world financial markets is in part a result of the Trump assault on free trade," they mused. As for Trump's immigration policies, they could "hardly be further from the Reagan vision of America as a 'shining city on a hill.'"
Months later, as Trump rose in the polls, Kudlow and Moore joined the ranks of Trump's biggest boosters -- and not because Trump changed his views. On the contrary, Kudlow has moved markedly in Trump's direction. He now argues that the borders must be sealed and all visas canceled. He also thinks we have to crack down on China.
Instead of converting voters to conservatism, Trump is succeeding at converting conservatives to statism on everything from health care and entitlements to trade.
Right-Wing Media: If Trump Gets Nomination, "The GOP In Its Current Form Ends"
Right-wing media figures lamented Donald Trump's primary success, after he won the majority of Republican primary contests on Super Tuesday. Their attacks against the front-runner follows a New York Times report on the formation of the "Our Principles" political action committee, a right wing PAC devoted to a "full-fledged campaign against Donald J. Trump."
Loading the player reg...
Rubio On Policies To Alleviate Child Poverty: "Ultimately, There's No Law I Can Pass To Make People Better Parents"
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) blamed poverty on bad parents and a lack of strong family values during a CNN Republican presidential townhall, parroting Fox News' talking points and long history of poor-shaming.
Faced with the radical Republican proposal that President Obama abstain from filling Justice Antonin Scalia's vacancy on the Supreme Court, conservative commentators have been put in a difficult position of arguing the proposal isn't that unusual, even though what Republicans are demanding has never been done before in American history.
So how do you pretend that something unprecedented is really rather common? Apparently you grab a bunch of apples and oranges and start treating them as the same.
Specifically, more and more conservatives have decided that the current, Republican-made court controversy is like the time Judge Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, only to have the U.S. Senate vote down the confirmation.
"Democrats have been blowing up the appointment process piecemeal since they turned Judge Robert Bork's last name into a verb back in 1987," wrote Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times, in a column about the fight over replacing Scalia.
"Look at what the Democrats have done in poisoning the well, particularly on judicial nominations, stretching back to 1987 and the character assassination against Robert Bork," complained Townhall political editor Guy Benson on Fox News.
Bork's confirmation battle was indeed unusually partisan, contentious, and left political scars that some Republicans are still nursing. (Being "Borked" became a verb in conservative circles.) But there's nothing remotely similar to the Bork nomination battle and the current obstructionist crisis over Scalia's death. The Bork battle revolved around a specific jurist. The Scalia battle revolves around the idea that the entire nominating process be shelved for at least a year.
Distressingly, it's not just the right-wing media playing this game by conflating objection to a specific court nominee with the GOP's current objection to putting forward any nominee. On CBS This Morning, reporter Jan Crawford falsely accused Hillary Clinton of hypocrisy because she has criticized Republican obstructionism on filling the Scalia vacancy despite having voted against Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination when she was a senator.
Of course those are two entirely separate circumstances. It's self-evident: Voting no on a Supreme Court nominee after full, public hearings is not the same thing as preemptively deciding to block any potential nominee.
Yet the comparisons roll on. "In 2016, it's the Republican Senate that's threatening to Bork whoever President Obama wants. And they have every right to do so," wrote Tim Stanley in The Telegraph.
"All of a sudden they think immediately approving Supreme Court nominations is some kind of solemn duty of the Senate? Where were these 'dishonoring the Constitution' lectures back when Democrats were dragging Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas into the town square and assassinating their character in front of the jeering hordes?" demanded Matt Walsh at The Blaze.
Note how Walsh snuck in the idea that Democrats today are upset about Republicans not "immediately approving" Obama's next court nominee. Wrong. Democrats are upset Republicans won't acknowledge Obama's right to nominate anybody for the Supreme Court, a truly radical notion.
Also trying to play the game of gotcha, Breitbart News looked back at the Bork controversy and announced, "It's useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration -- Vice President Joe Biden -- once had a very different opinion on the Senate's ability to block a president's nominee at all costs."
More apples and oranges. Democrats never told Reagan don't send Congress a Supreme Court nominee because he or she won't be considered. Obviously, Democrats did consider the Bork nomination; he received an up-or-down vote.
Yet the stubborn claim lives on that what Democrats did to Bork is just like the Republicans' planned approach to any Scalia replacement.
And just how extreme was Bork's record? As NPR reported [emphasis added]:
He wrote an article opposing the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races.
He opposed a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said.
And he opposed Supreme Court decisions on gender equality, too.
Meanwhile, as angry conservatives point to the Bork defeat as an example of partisanship run amok during the nominating process, it's important to note that six Republican senators crossed the aisle and voted against Bork's nomination. Among the six was Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who the New York Times described at the time as being "almost unfailingly loyal" to the Reagan White House
In the end though, Warner announced: ''I searched the record. I looked at this distinguished jurist, and I cannot find in him the record of compassion, of sensitivity and understanding of the pleas of the people to enable him to sit on the highest Court of the land.''
That's how far out of the mainstream Bork was as a jurist.
If conservatives can put forward a common sense argument why Obama should ignore his constitutional obligation to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court, they ought to detail that argument. Because pretending today's crisis is just like the Bork battle only highlights the holes in the GOP proposal.
Right-wing media personalities lashed out at Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) for "sabotag[ing]" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in the GOP's ABC News debate, claiming that Christie's attacks led to Rubio's poor performance in New Hampshire's GOP primary.
Fleeing from terror and indiscriminate violence in parts of the Middle East, millions of people have packed up and left their homes to start safer lives for themselves and their families elsewhere. But if you tuned into Fox News anytime in the last year, you'd think the refugees themselves -- many of them Muslim -- were responsible for the violence. In fact, painting Muslims as terrorists, radicals, and tacit supporters of ISIS, baseless demonization of Islam was the channel's modus operandi in 2015. And it wasn't just right-wing media. CNN also joined the smears, asking a Muslim human rights lawyer if he supports ISIS, questioning a Michigan mayor if she's afraid of her majority Muslim-American city council, and forcing responsibility for the recent attacks in Paris onto an innocent French Muslim.
From berating a teenager for his interest in technology to inventing so-called "no-go zones," watch how the media fearmongered about Muslims in 2015:
As Columbia Journalism Review explains in their annual list of the worst journalism in 2015, the media has a special responsibility to get these stories right and not perpetuate Islamophobia, as inaccurate and "reactionary coverage" can "influence policy makers to take drastic measures under the guise of popular fears."