web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Dana Milbank"

Does calling Trump a racist make him more likely to win?

Westlake Legal Group trump-nh Does calling Trump a racist make him more likely to win? Washington Post The Blog racist racism donald trump Dana Milbank 2020 Elections

Here we find an unusual instance of someone calling for everyone to stop calling President Trump a racist. Well, that’s not unusual in and of itself. Trump’s supporters do that on a daily basis. But what makes this particular incident fall well off the top of the bell curve is that the person saying it is the very liberal WaPo columnist Dana Milbank. Has he suddenly become a Trump supporter? Is he simply trying to be charitable and defend the honor of the Oval Office? Has anyone checked to see if he’s recently fallen and struck his head on something?

No, it’s nothing like that. Milbank is making the argument that the more Democrats call Trump a racist, the more likely a bunch of marginal voters will show up and vote for him next November. And we can’t have that, can we?

President Trump is a horrendous racist. And it’s time for Democrats to stop calling him one.

Counterintuitive? Yes. But substantial evidence shows that labeling Trump “racist” backfires against Democrats. It energizes his supporters without providing any additional motivation to Democrats, and it drives soft partisans — voters who could be up for grabs in 2020 — into Trump’s arms.

This doesn’t mean letting Trump off the hook for being the racist he obviously is; I’ve been using the term for four years because it objectively describes him. But this means talking about his racism in a different way:

Milbank doesn’t simply disagree with Donald Trump’s policies. He hates the man with the burning heat of a blazing star. It shows in virtually everything he writes, so don’t mistake this column for the author trying to cut the President a break. He repeatedly calls Trump a racist himself, while offering no proof beyond the idea that some of the President’s policies designed to enforce existing laws may disproportionately impact minorities.

But what about this idea of his that Trump gathers more support when his political opponents call him a racist? It may not be as crazy as it sounds. He cites one study showing that identifying Trump as racist affected soft voters and those with “high levels of racial resentment” (including moderate and independent whites), driving support for Trump upward. Milbank offers up another recent poll showing very similar results.

It’s actually not all that crazy and falls in line with something I’ve been saying for years. Democrats and liberals constantly overplay the race card to ridiculous levels. When everything is racist, nothing is racist. And when you call everyone you disagree with a racist, nobody is going to listen when the actual racists, Klan members, and neo-nazis show up.

But hey, don’t let that stop you. People were calling him an antisemite all last year, despite a complete lack of examples to support that idea. And if you drive a few more wavering voter’s to hold their noses and vote for Trump, I’m sure he’ll send you a thank you card after his next inauguration.

The post Does calling Trump a racist make him more likely to win? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-nh-300x162 Does calling Trump a racist make him more likely to win? Washington Post The Blog racist racism donald trump Dana Milbank 2020 Elections  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

McConnell blasts WaPo’s “McCarthyism” after “Russian asset” headline

Westlake Legal Group mcconnell-moscow-mitch McConnell blasts WaPo’s “McCarthyism” after “Russian asset” headline WaPo The Blog Mitch McConnell McCarthyism election security Dana Milbank

Call him “Cocaine Mitch,” and Mitch McConnell launches a merchandising empire. Call him “Moscow Mitch,” and, well … look out. The Senate Majority Leader took the Washington Post to the woodshed yesterday after columnist Dana Milbank accused him of disloyalty. McConnell had blocked a House bill for election-security spending that had passed with one Republican vote, and a new, dishonest media and Democratic talking point was born, McConnell shot back:

The Washington Post huffed back that “McCarthyism” was a ridiculous characterization for legitimate criticism:

“I was called unpatriotic, ‘un-American’ and essentially treasonous by a couple of left-wing pundits on the basis of boldfaced lies,” McConnell complained Monday. “I was accused of ‘aiding and abetting’ the very man I’ve singled out as our adversary and opposed for nearly 20 years: Vladimir Putin.”

The senator added: “This modern-day McCarthyism was pushed by big-time outlets. The smear that I am, quote, a ‘Russian asset’ ran in the opinion pages of The Washington Post.”

Fred Hiatt, The Post’s editorial page editor, defended Milbank’s column and criticized the GOP leader for invoking McCarthyism.

“Dana Milbank’s column was a legitimate exercise in commentary, making the argument that Sen. McConnell’s blocking of elections-security legislation will harm the United States and work to Russia’s advantage. Of course it’s equally legitimate for Mr. McConnell to express a contrary view, but the Milbank argument has nothing to do with McCarthyism,” Hiatt said in a statement.

Uh, perhaps Hiatt needs to review exactly what McCarthyism is. Its original form was the smearing of public officials as Russian assets for their political views, part of a “Red scare” that had some basis in fact but quickly ran out of control and was exploited for sheer political gain. That’s a much better description of what Milbank and the WaPo did with that column than Milbank’s description of McConnell as a “Russian asset” for opposing a partisan bill on election security. Milbank doesn’t even consider that there were legitimate for McConnell’s opposition to the bills — he just jumps to the conclusion that McConnell’s failure to adopt another political position is driven by treason or disloyalty without providing any proof of either. That is, in fact, classic McCarthyism, right down to the Russian roots of it.

It helps to get the context of the bill McConnell blocked to grasp the cheap shot Milbank leveled. Rich Lowry provides that missing context at the New York Post, which involves traditional Republican opposition to federal control of elections. Even beyond the significant federalist issues involved, McConnell and other Republicans believe that a distributed system of 50 separate elections makes it tougher for outsiders to hack:

One of the Democratic bills would mandate the use of paper ballots as a fail-safe against hacking. This may well be the best practice going forward, but running elections is the responsibility of states and localities, not the federal government. As supporters of traditional state prerogatives, Republicans could be expected to oppose the bill, and sure enough, it only got one Republican vote when it passed the House.

Insisting the GOP-held Senate unanimously pass Dem legislation is manifestly absurd.

Another bill would require campaigns to report offers of foreign assistance, a superficially appealing idea. Yet writing it into legislation is easier said than done. The more comprehensive such a bill is, the more likely it is to sweep up minor and innocent interactions that fall far short of the infamous Trump Tower meeting (that itself, it’s worth remembering, came to nothing.)

There is no need to reach for extravagant explanations for why McConnell would oppose these bills (he’s a tool of the Kremlin! he hopes his Moscow minders will put Trump over the top in 2020!).

McConnell has an extensive record as an opponent of federal activism and poorly drafted campaign-reform bills with unintended consequences.

As Lowry explains, unanimous consent requests are usually reserved for truly non-controversial bills that already have or can expect unanimous support. Democrats were playing games with both bills, and the timing was exquisite: Robert Mueller was appearing before two House committees to talk in part about election security. Democrats wanted to embarrass Republicans, which is also part of the game-playing on Capitol Hill. However, only a partisan media hack like Milbank would actually buy that, and only Hiatt would green-light a clearly McCarthyist headline and attack.

With that being said, though, McConnell did get outplayed. He should have seen this coming and had a GOP alternative ready to put up for a unanimous-consent vote. After all, the House has been working on this for several weeks now, so it’s not exactly a surprise. McConnell, who usually can play this game with the best of them, dropped the ball in this scrimmage.

The post McConnell blasts WaPo’s “McCarthyism” after “Russian asset” headline appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mcconnell-moscow-mitch-300x162 McConnell blasts WaPo’s “McCarthyism” after “Russian asset” headline WaPo The Blog Mitch McConnell McCarthyism election security Dana Milbank  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com