The conservative National Review Online (NRO) released a comprehensive feature of conservatives attacking current GOP front runner Donald Trump, highlighting the divisive 2016 Republican primary season. National Review editors and right-wing personalities such as Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, and Erick Erickson criticized Trump as a "philosophically unmoored political opportunist" and "the very epitome of vulgarity."
From the January 21 edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show:
Loading the player reg...
Fox host Megyn Kelly hosted a group of conservative media personalities that have banded together against GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. Dana Loesch, Katie Pavlich, and Brent Bozell have contributed to a special edition of the National Review, dedicated to questioning Trump's commitment to conservatism. From the January 21 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File:
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media figures are lashing out over Sarah Palin's endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. They say the endorsement amounts to "nothing but opportunism and ego," and that it abandons Palin's conservative Tea Party ideology because Trump is "neither a committed conservative nor an anti-establishment rogue."
The New York Times highlighted an effort by National Review's editor to persuade other "conservative thinkers" to speak out against Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump.
A January 21 New York Times article revealed that National Review editor Rich Lowry was persuading "conservative thinkers" such as "Erick Erickson, William Kristol and Yuval Levin" to "lend their names to the manifesto against Mr. Trump." The Times article continued, explaining how Lowry has urged conservatives to "write essays buttressing the argument that Mr. Trump has no commitment to restraining the role of government and possesses authoritarian impulses antithetical to conservative principles." Further, the article highlighted that Republicans "can live with Mr. Cruz" despite "believing that his nomination would leave the party divided, but manageably so" unlike Trump who "poses the most serious peril to the conservative movement since the 1950s-era John Birch Society":
The Republicans who dominate the right-leaning magazines, journals and political groups can live with Mr. Cruz, believing that his nomination would leave the party divided, but manageably so, extending a longstanding intramural debate over pragmatism versus purity that has been waged since the days of Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller. They say Mr. Trump, on the other hand, poses the most serious peril to the conservative movement since the 1950s-era John Birch Society.
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review -- embracing the role of his predecessor, William F. Buckley, who in the 1950s confronted the Birch Society members -- has reached out to conservative thinkers to lend their names to the manifesto against Mr. Trump. He has drawn some of the country's leading conservatives, including Erick Erickson, William Kristol and Yuval Levin, to write essays buttressing the argument that Mr. Trump has no commitment to restraining the role of government and possesses authoritarian impulses antithetical to conservative principles.
Lowry's effort to stop Trump comes as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been gaining heavy support from right-wing talk radio, which acts as his best line of defense during Trump-hailed attacks. In turn, Cruz parrots smears and talking points originating from far-right media figures, while showering them with praise.
Right-wing media personalities have incessantly attacked President Obama's six previous State of the Union addresses -- from calling the speeches "boring" to questioning his decision to invite a wounded veteran to the event -- and have even frequently waged the attacks before the addresses even occurred. Ahead of Obama's January 12 State of the Union address, Media Matters looks back at conservative media's long history of attacking annual addresses.
Before President Obama made his first official State of the Union address on January 27, 2010, right-wing media pundits called the speech "stupid" "propaganda." Fox host Sean Hannity repeatedly referred to the upcoming speech as "propaganda," and former Fox host Glenn Beck told his viewers "you don't even have to watch this stupid speech tonight. I'll watch it for you so you don't have to." Beck added, "I want to hang myself over watching this." Fox Business' John Stossel asked Obama to use the address to apologize for being "arrogant." After his speech, media personalities criticized Obama, and claimed he didn't show enough humility. Stossel said Obama "certainly didn't sound humbled," and only a few minutes into the address, National Review's John Hood criticized Obama's "cadence and rhythm" for coming "across as flippant and arrogant." The talking point wasn't anything new -- frequent Fox guest Ben Stein had predicted that "we'll see Obama with his fake modesty and his fake humility" before the speech took place. Once again, Glenn Beck joined the chorus: "the arrogance from the moment this guy walked in, the arrogance -- there's no humility there."
President Obama made his second State of the Union address on January 25, 2011, and the media predicted it would focus on theatrics instead of substance. Rush Limbaugh directed his listeners to watch a Golf Channel show he appeared in instead of the address, predicting that Obama would "lie for an hour and fifteen minutes." On Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade questioned whether Obama would be sincere, suggesting that the president was merely trying "to make sure he gets re-elected." After the speech, Limbaugh continued to attack Obama's sincerity, saying Obama "just doesn't believe" the "pro-America rah-rah" featured in the speech and suggesting that the speech was plagiarized. Fox & Friends' recap of the debate called the speech "boring."
Continuing their tradition of attacking Obama prior to the address, Fox News hosts criticized the focus on economic security and income equality. On Fox & Friends Kilmeade said that Obama would "bring up the class warfare stuff," while co-host Steve Doocy forcasted that it would "ignite the whole class warfare thing." Co-host of Fox's The Five , Andrea Tantaros predicted the address would be a "very divisive, very evil speech" that is "designed to get people in the audience who are sitting home on their duffs ... angry at their neighbors who are actually going out, who are working hard."
After the address, right-wing media largely continued their "class warfare" narrative. Fox's Doocy doubled down against Obama's focus on income inequality, saying that his comments regarding billionaires paying the same percentage of taxes as their secretaries were intended "to kick off his class warfare campaign." Fox Business' Dave Ramsey even claimed Obama "declared war on success in the name of this class warfare politics."
After President Obama's February 12, 2013 State of the Union Speech, right-wing radio host Mark Levin accused Obama of "lying to the American people" in a "Castro-like speech." Levin criticized the economy under Obama claiming he keeps "proposing more programs, more trusts, more partnerships, more agencies, more spending." A Fox Nation headline echoed Levin's comments: "Obama Pleads For Billions In New Deficit Spending." That same post, however, linked to a FoxNews.com article that reported the full transcript of Obama's comments, explaining that his proposals would be "fully paid for" and that "nothing [he's] proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime."
Before the January 28, 2014 State of the Union, Fox News once again downplayed the address, asking, "Does it matter what the president says?" After the address, Rush Limbaugh was critical of Obama's guest, wounded Army Ranger Cory Remsburg's presence. Limbaugh claimed that Obama invited a wounded veteran to the address to say "look what George Bush is responsible for." Right-wing media also pounced on Obama's comments that climate change demands urgent action and that the debate over it is "settled." Their evidence against the claim? Cold weather and snow across the country.
In the most memorable vitriol from President Obama's January 20, 2015 State of the Union, Rush Limbaugh told his audience he had already written his response before the address: "I hope he fails." Limbaugh then bragged that "that has been my State of the Union response every year. I hope he fails. It is what it is. You can't get more clear cut than that." On his January 21 show, Limbaugh rehashed his reasoning behind boycotting the speech saying that he would have been "insulted as a conservative" and "lied to" and that the address would have been the "next Santa Claus list."
Note: this analysis did not include Obama's 2009 Address to Joint Session of Congress.
From Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change, to the establishment of the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants, to a landmark international climate agreement, 2015 has been full of major landmarks in national and global efforts to address global warming. Yet you wouldn't know it if you inhabited the parallel universe of the conservative media, where media figures went to ridiculous and outrageous lengths to dismiss or deny climate science, attack the pope, scientists, and anyone else concerned with climate change, and defend polluting fossil fuel companies. Here are the 15 most ridiculous things conservative media said about climate change in 2015.
New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait criticized right-wing media outlets for claiming the Paris climate agreement is toothless after previously denying the reality of man-made climate change.
Conservative media personalities criticized the Paris conference leading to a landmark December 12 climate change agreement to limit global emissions. Right-wing media outlets and figures, such as Fox News' Stuart Varney and The Daily Caller, claimed any agreement would have "little... impact" and argued that lowering global temperatures by a "minuscule amount" would cost America "an enormous amount of money." Fox News in particular demonstrated its hypocrisy over the issue by falsely implying that those at the Paris agreement were hypocrites for having a supposed large carbon footprint the Paris summit and dismissing the "hoopla" over the event due to any agreement being non-binding, while at the same time pointing to record level Alaska snowfall to dispute climate change. A Fox host also falsely claimed global temperatures have "stabilized or gone down a little bit," and Fox's Laura Ingraham claimed that the summit is about "bringing America's economy down."
In a December 20 article, Chait pointed out how conservative media were moving the goalposts on the issue, writing they had "shifted their emphasis from denying the science to denying the possibility that policy can change it." Noting that conservative media previously "objected to previous climate deals precisely because their 'mandatory' character presented an unacceptably onerous burden," conservative media were claiming "the absence of that unacceptable feature makes the new agreement worthless." Chait also called out outlets like National Review, Fox News, and The Daily Caller for misrepresenting a MIT climate study to downplay the agreement's impact:
Most conservative energy on climate change over the last quarter-century has gone into questioning the validity of climate science. Conservative intellectuals have invested enough of their reputations into this form of scientific kookery that it cannot be easily abandoned. Instead, as the evidence for anthropogenic global warming grows ever more certain, and the political costs for Republican presidential candidates of openly questioning science rise, conservatives have shifted their emphasis from denying the science to denying the possibility that policy can change it. A National Review editorial last year dismissed the notion of an international agreement to limit climate change as a metaphysical impossibility, on the grounds that reducing coal usage in one place would axiomatically increase it elsewhere. As The Wall Street Journal editorial page asserts, "If climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it." Having begun with their conclusion, conservative are now reasoning backward through their premises.
Accordingly, a new data point has taken hold on the right and quickly blossomed. One study by MIT finds that the Paris agreement would reduce the global temperature increase by a mere 0.2 degrees by 2100. The entire right-wing media has eagerly circulated the finding. "Current analysis by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- not exactly a nest of fossil-fuel conservatism -- suggests that the emissions cuts being agreed to in Paris would reduce that estimated warming by as little as 0.0°C or by as much as 0.2°C," announces a National Review editorial, thrilled to have an empirical basis for the conclusion it previously asserted as an a priori truth. The same study has been recirculated by places like the Daily Caller, Fox News, and elsewhere. Rich Lowry, writing in the New York Post, reports, "The best estimates are that, accepting the premises of the consensus, the deal will reduce warming 0.0 to 0.2 degrees Celsius."
In fact, this study is just one estimate, not estimates plural. There are many other studies, and while Lowry's column does not reveal what process he used to deem the MIT study "the best," we can probably guess that it has something to do with MIT being the one that supports his preferred conclusion. In fact, the MIT study does not produce the conclusion its gloating conservative publicists claim on its behalf.
So MIT's conclusion of emissions levels over the next 15 years is right in line with other estimates that assume Paris will do a great deal to limit climate change.
It is also certainly possible that global willpower to reduce emissions will weaken, or collapse entirely. Future events cannot be proven. Only rigid dogma like American conservatism (or, for that matter, Marxism) gives its adherents a mortal certainty about the fate of government policy that a liberal cannot match, and should not want to.
Right-wing media have defended Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering into the United States, despite multiple legal experts arguing the ban is likely unconstitutional, illegal, or lawless. Right-wing media have also cited prior country-specific restrictions on immigration to defend Trump's plan, despite the fact that these policies did not ban people based on their religious affiliation, and would be unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny today.
Media figures across the ideological spectrum are condemning Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States, calling it "dangerous," a violation of the First Amendment, and "fascistic." Trump's proposal builds on previous calls from Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush to exclude Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.
Right-wing media figures criticized President Obama and Hillary Clinton for not saying "radical Islam" during remarks they made on December 6, claiming terrorism cannot be fought without using the term. However, others have noted the term alienates Muslims and aids terrorists.
Risking severe whiplash injuries, Fox News and the rest of the conservative media have tried to execute a sudden about-face following the Planned Parenthood terror attack in Colorado Springs last week. Scrambling for political cover in the wake of the gun rampage and news that alleged shooter Robert Dear likely targeted Planned Parenthood for political purposes, conservative commentators quickly rewrote their long-held talking points about inciting violence.
Here's the spin that the conservative press, along with the Republican Party, is now desperately trying to push: When you call people "baby killers" and "murderers" and claim organizations sell "baby parts" for profit, you're in no way promoting violence. And you're in no way responsible if a like-minded person takes matters into his own hands, opens fire on a Planned Parenthood facility, shoots eleven people, murders three, and then reportedly makes reference to "no more baby parts" when the carnage is over.
Why the whiplash injuries? Because for the last year Fox and its allies have been warning that rhetoric kills. And specifically, rhetoric from Black Lives Matter activists gets police officers killed. (There's no evidence to support that claim.) And for that, Democrats, including President Obama, are to blame for the so-called "war on cops."
So in a matter of just a few days (i.e. pre-Colorado Springs vs. post-Colorado Springs), Fox News has thrown away its established playbook and quickly written a new one where everyone should just chill about incendiary political taunts that are seen as being violent and potentially deadly. (Going one step further: "So what" if far-right rhetoric inspires killings?)
Amidst the Fox News flip-flop, which brand of activist rhetoric is actually producing bouts of targeted violence today? As 2015 unfolds against the backdrop of Black Lives Matter protests, note that the number of officers shot and killed in the line of the duty has gone down this year.
By contrast, Planned Parenthood has experienced a spike in attacks on its facilities and employees this year, most likely the result of a coordinated smear campaign against the organization in the form of duplicitous videos, which kicked off last summer and have been heavily promoted by Fox News and other conservative media.
In fact, rather than producing violence as Fox suggests, Black Lives Matter protesters last week in Minneapolis were the target of gun violence. Four men have been charged in the shooting of five black protesters. Three of the arrested were reportedly fascinated "with guns, video games, the Confederacy and right-wing militia groups."
In May, after NYPD officer Brian Moore was killed, Fox host Eric Bolling responded by suggesting liberals and their "war on cops" was at fault. According to Bolling, "The 'anti-cop left' in America seems to be ... fueling some of this hatred and, you know, murderous streak that's going on against cops."
As mentioned, there is no "murderous streak" against cops in this country. And as Vox recently noted, "The goals and message of Black Lives Matter have nothing to do with harming police officers in any way. The movement is explicitly concerned with reducing the racial disparities found in the criminal justice system."
In December 2014, following the killings of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, Fox News could not wait to blame the killings on rhetoric. The coverage of the New York killings leaned heavily on assigning a larger cultural, collective blame for activists who protested police misconduct, and Democrats who expressed support for the Black Lives Matter cause.
Today's media contrast is startling. Following the Planned Parenthood attack, Fox News contributor and National Review editor Rich Lowry insisted that a "broad-based movement shouldn't be tarred by the crimes of one individual."
You mean a broad-based movement like Black Lives Matter?
National Review's Andrew McCarthy previously disagreed. Twelve months ago he wrote, "Cop killing is thus a foreseeable, if not inexorable, consequence of tolerating the movement as a well-intentioned display of our commitment to free speech."
Cop killing was a foreseeable consequence of "violent rhetoric," McCarthy stressed, insisting the New York City cop killer last year was "patently inspired by" police protesters.
Tragically, a policeman was among the victims last week in Colorado Springs. (A total of five officers were shot.) So what has McCarthy written about the anti-abortion "enablers" and the Planned Parenthood shooter being "patently inspired" by protesters? What's McCarthy's take on the dangerous, "foreseeable" connection between violent rhetoric and cop killing in the wake of the Planned Parenthood terror attack?
The answer is, nothing. McCarthy hasn't bothered to address the issue at National Review. And that's where the conservative media denial comes in.
Keep in mind that Robert Dear's former wife described him as "extremely evangelistic." He was previously seen handing out anti-Obama pamphlets. He reportedly mentioned "no more body parts" after he was arrested. He made "anti-abortion" and "anti-government" comments to investigators. And he arrived at Planned Parenthood with a duffel bag full of guns and ammunition.
Also, this from the New York Times' reporting [emphasis added]:
One person who spoke with him extensively about his religious views said Mr. Dear, who is 57, had praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing "God's work." In 2009, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for the privacy of the family, Mr. Dear described as "heroes" members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings.
Partisans on the right can pretend the motivation for the killing spree will remain an eternal mystery. But a plausible link obviously exists. As does a plausible link between blood-soaked verbal attacks against Planned Parenthood and the possibility they inspire people to commit violent, and even deadly, acts.
Right-wing media have responded to the Paris terror attacks by calling for increased scrutiny and surveillance of Muslims in the United States. However, surveillance programs that profile Muslims based on their religion are ineffective and threaten constitutional freedoms held by all Americans.
During the November 14 CBS Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton explained that she doesn't "think we are at war with all Muslims," but rather that "we're at war with jihadists." She noted that President George W. Bush expressed a similar sentiment following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Right-wing media figures immediately condemned Clinton for not using the phrase "radical Islam," accusing Clinton of "giving Islam a pass" and likening her comments to the claim that "Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite."
Conservative media outlets are wrongly claiming that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is hiding data related to a recent study that challenged the so-called "pause" in global warming, and echoing Republican House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith's baseless accusation that NOAA manipulated temperature records to show a warming trend. In reality, the NOAA study's data is publicly available online, and NOAA routinely makes adjustments to historical temperature records that are peer-reviewed and necessary to account for changes to measuring instruments and other factors.