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 "firing line"

Ted Cruz: Let’s face it, Fox News went all-in for Trump in the 2016 primaries

Westlake Legal Group c-4 Ted Cruz: Let’s face it, Fox News went all-in for Trump in the 2016 primaries Trump The Blog Margaret Hoover fox news firing line cruz 2016

A fun little trip down memory lane occasioned by reporter Tim Alberta’s new book about Trump’s takeover of the GOP. First, the clip:

I remember that period well because the deep freeze between Cruz and Fox News wasn’t just happening behind the scenes. My first memory of it was this tweet published by Cruz’s spokesman in March 2016, the same date Cruz identifies in the clip as the moment when Fox went face-first into the tank for Trump:

That was posted a week before the Wisconsin primary, which ended up being Cruz’s biggest win of the campaign. All of the other major contenders (unless you consider John Kasich a “major contender”) had dropped out by that point, giving Cruz a long-awaited de facto one-on-one fight with Trump for the conservative base. Cruz thought he could win that fight. Although Trump had piled up more states and delegates to that point, there was always a theory that he owed that success more to the fact that conservative votes were splintered among a variety of candidates than to his own electoral strength. Once the conservative side of the field cleared for a single champion, i.e. Cruz, righties would unite around him and start propelling him to victory after victory in the later states.

Wisconsin seemed to be proof of concept. Cruz beat Trump there with Scott Walker’s endorsement and was angling to pile up some more wins in the midwest in anticipation of a brokered convention. He already had stalwart conservative talk radio hosts like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck behind him. If he could win over Fox News, the biggest megaphone in conservative America, he just might turn the tide of the race.

Alberta sets the scene on April 5, hours after Cruz won Wisconsin.

He continues:

Westlake Legal Group tc-2 Ted Cruz: Let’s face it, Fox News went all-in for Trump in the 2016 primaries Trump The Blog Margaret Hoover fox news firing line cruz 2016

You can understand his frustration. Fox News and its primetime hosts had promoted the tea-party message of small government and “constitutional conservatism” relentlessly since 2010. Cruz had very consciously positioned himself as the purest populist expression of that philosophy in the Senate, even shutting down the government in 2013 in a futile bid to block ObamaCare’s implementation, because he figured it would help make him Fox’s preferred candidate in 2016. And you know what? It probably would have had Trump not run. But he did run, and Ted Cruz ended up watching the ground shift right under his feet. Suddenly all of the Fox guys decided that, when it came to populist conservatism, they could do without the conservative part so long as they got a double dose of populism. Righty media had spent six years, day by day, hour by hour, insisting that only doctrinaire conservatism could save the country.

And then, in the course of a year — really, the first third of 2016 — they decided it wasn’t that important after all. Cruz went out on a limb ideologically at Fox’s invitation and then Fox sawed it off.

Cruz’s anger at the network had already become evident before Wisconsin, not just per the Phillips tweet above but based on the fact that he did a one-hour town hall event with Megyn Kelly the night before the primary after allegedly turning down invites from Hannity for 10 days, a notable snub. A few days after Wisconsin, he was irritable in reminding Bill O’Reilly that he had spent a lot of his time on the air lately defending Trump. By April 19, after being blown out in New York, Cruz got testy in an interview when Hannity pressed him on whether he’d try to win the nomination on the convention floor despite finishing second in delegates. By the next day, he was telling other interviewers, “There are hosts who make the decision to go in the tank for Trump,” naming a few like Beck and Levin who *hadn’t* done that and pointedly omitting Hannity and O’Reilly.

On May 4 he got walloped in the Indiana primary and the race was over.

He’s asked in the clip up top why he thinks Roger Ailes and Fox went in the tank. I think that’s simple: Fox follows its viewers as much as it leads them and Ailes recognized that they were responding much more enthusiastically to a charismatic reactionary than to a charmless “constitutionalist.” For all the hype in the mainstream media about right-wing broadcasters supposedly leading their audiences by the nose, there’s a reason why people like Rush Limbaugh profess to no longer care about debt and deficits and it’s not because they’ve had an ideological conversion. They know that if they get on the wrong side of their audience’s opinion, there are 10, 20, 30 competitors who will stay on the right side to lure that audience away. Ailes, for all his power, knew that righties wanted Trump, so Fox wanted him too.

Although the fact that Trump was personally chummy with him, O’Reilly, Hannity, Giuliani and the rest of the authoritarian media-savvy bridge-and-tunnel strain of “conservatism” surely didn’t hurt either.

Exit question for Cruz: Would he have won the primaries if Fox had in fact gotten behind him in 2016? I say no, just because, again, righty media tends to follow, not lead. Fox would have cut Trump’s margins of victory but in the end Trump’s brand is more powerful than Fox’s is.

The post Ted Cruz: Let’s face it, Fox News went all-in for Trump in the 2016 primaries appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-4-300x153 Ted Cruz: Let’s face it, Fox News went all-in for Trump in the 2016 primaries Trump The Blog Margaret Hoover fox news firing line cruz 2016  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Coulter: Let’s face it, this border crisis wouldn’t be as bad under a Democratic president

Westlake Legal Group coulter-lets-face-it-this-border-crisis-wouldnt-be-as-bad-under-a-democratic-president Coulter: Let’s face it, this border crisis wouldn’t be as bad under a Democratic president wall Trump The Blog immigration hoover firing line crisis border asylum Ann Coulter

Westlake Legal Group c-5 Coulter: Let’s face it, this border crisis wouldn’t be as bad under a Democratic president wall Trump The Blog immigration hoover firing line crisis border asylum Ann Coulter

Man, she really wants to vote for a Democrat next year, doesn’t she?

To think, after all that garbage about a Flight 93 election in 2016, it turns out that electing Hillary would have been the “storm the cockpit” option at the border.

She’s overstating her case in the clip below to get under Trump’s and his fans’ skin but a few realities are undeniable:

1. Trump will lie and lie about progress at the border (and everything else) and his more cultish fans will believe anything he says. A Democrat “couldn’t just tweet something out and have everybody say ‘yay,’” an annoyed Coulter notes at one point in the video. For months she’s tweeted sarcastically to counter Trump’s border reassurances. “NUMBER OF MILES OF WALL BUILT ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER SINCE TRUMP HAS BEEN PRESIDENT: ZERO,” she wrote in a column last month titled “Trump By The Numbers.” There’s not a shred of doubt that a Democratic president presiding over the crush of phony asylum seekers Trump is coping with right now would be rhetorically shredded by border hawks every day, just as there’s no doubt that obstruction allegations about a Democrat like the ones Mueller laid out in his report yesterday would have Republicans demanding impeachment. A Democrat would need to show progress on the border, not merely claim it.

2. The partisan flip side of the argument in point one is that rank-and-file Democrats would have been muted in their criticism of tougher border enforcement measures implemented by a Democratic president. That’s not to say President Hillary would have tried to separate families, for instance; Trump has clearly gone further in some ways that even a centrist liberal would. But Obama famously put unaccompanied minors in “cages” during the last border crisis in 2014. New tent cities and chicken-wire detention facilities built by a Democrat to cope with the current crush would have passed practically without comment from his/her party. It would have been fascinating to see how outspoken in favor of open borders Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or other radical freshmen Dems would have been if President Hillary were managing a border crackdown. Although, given the likelihood of a GOP midterm victory, maybe there’d be no AOC or Ilhan Omar in Congress under President Clinton. Or, if there was, they’d be part of a rump minority caucus whom no one needed to pay attention to.

3. It’s possible that Trump’s tough talk about the border without commensurately tough action is actually making the border stampede worse. Various news reports about migrants traveling north from Central America have noted how coyotes and other traffickers have tried to take advantage of Trump’s policies, warning would-be immigrants back home that the border is closing soon so they’d better act now. Trump’s recent “threat” to dump illegals on sanctuary cities might also be backfiring:

In fact, Suro said, the Trump threat to send Central American immigrants to sanctuary cities isn’t a threat at all and could very well be a dream come true for many fleeing the violence in their home countries. This is especially true if they are sent to big cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, where most of the immigration courts and judges are located, facilitating efficient adjudication, he said.

These cities also have substantial legal resources and immigrant rights organizations to help new arrivals navigate the legal process and resettle. And most importantly, Suro said, they have large well-established communities of Latino immigrants, including many from the Northern Triangle nations of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, as well as relatives of asylum seekers who can help them find housing, jobs and services.

“If you were to design the plan for resettlement of these immigrants that was meant to be orderly and cost effective to the immigrants, you would do this,” Suro said. “This is really good policy design. … It’s what a great many of these migrants would want.”

Obviously Trump’s not as insulated from political pressure as Coulter suggests. He demanded a shutdown in December in a sort of blind hope that it would force Democrats to cough up money for the wall, fearing that his base expected some sort of action on that before 2020. Although you know what she’d say to that: If he cared about actually building the wall, he would have leaned on Republicans to do it when they had total control of Congress. A shutdown on the eve of Pelosi taking power is more like kabuki, aimed at creating the illusion of action. He fought with the Dems on a big stage, knowing that even if he lost his base would (a) respect him for trying and (b) blame Pelosi for any ensuing crisis on the border.

Margaret Hoover asks a fair question in the clip. What *exactly* would a Democratic president do differently than what Trump’s doing now? What would be the Democratic solution to asylum laws that entitle illegals subject to expedited removal to remain in the U.S., often under catch-and-release, while awaiting their appeal? What would Obama or Clinton do to streamline the asylum consideration process so that rejected applicants can be removed quickly? In theory a Dem president could have brokered a compromise with Congress, as either a Democratic or Republican House would have been willing to work on border enforcement at the behest of a president from the left. But probably the open-borders nuts in Pelosi’s caucus would have demanded some sort of amnesty concession before agreeing to that, which Republicans wouldn’t agree to, thus forcing the president to take executive action of some sort which both sides would have grudgingly tolerated — the GOP because it would mean more enforcement and Dems out of pure partisan loyalty.

The post Coulter: Let’s face it, this border crisis wouldn’t be as bad under a Democratic president appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-5-300x153 Coulter: Let’s face it, this border crisis wouldn’t be as bad under a Democratic president wall Trump The Blog immigration hoover firing line crisis border asylum Ann Coulter  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border

Westlake Legal Group c-3 Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border The Blog Margaret Hoover hawk firing line enforcement border blue-collar Bernie Sanders Ann Coulter

However much of a full-spectrum conservative she may have been in the past, it’s been clear for awhile that she’s now a single-issue voter:

Here she is with Margaret Hoover affirming that fact in the starkest way:

She’s not joking, but one way to dismiss the seriousness of her point is to shrug and say that Bernie’s not going back to his “strong borders” views of 10 years ago under any circumstances and Coulter knows it. She’s specifically offering a what-if which she and everyone else understands won’t come to pass, on the order of “I’ll vote for Obama once he becomes a Republican.” Even Bernie doesn’t have enough progressive goodwill stockpiled to survive a Democratic primary in 2019 if he shifted towards border hawkishness. This is a party, after all, that treats racial and ethnic identity as no less important than class identity. Sanders arguing that we need to keep poor Latinos out to protect the wages of poor Americans just won’t hack it. If nothing else, it reeks of nationalism — and since when do ambitious socialists draw the limits of the cause at national borders?

Here’s the thing about Bernie, though, which may keep Coulter interested in him for the next year or so: He’s clearly uncomfortable with the extent of the left’s craving for open borders. He’s willing to bow to them by adopting a more permissive attitude towards illegal immigration but he makes noise regularly to signal his misgivings. Ten days ago he warned lefties that fully open borders would attract poor people to the U.S. from all over the world, which is sort of the point to advocates of the idea. Bernie won’t go there, though. We can only take so many, he insisted, a terrifying reminder that the country’s most prominent supporter of Medicare for All is more serious about the limits of national resources than his own base is. He signaled his skepticism of open borders again at that Fox News town hall a few nights ago:

“We have a problem at the border, a serious problem … We need the proper legal processes at the border so that these issues can be adjudicated to determine whether or not people or should be entitled to asylum,” Sanders said April 15.

When asked where the migrants could be kept prior to their asylum hearings, Sanders responded by saying, “What about building proper facilities for them right now? That can be done right on the border.”

The government needs more immigration judges to quickly process asylum claims by migrants, Sanders said. “You’re coming into the country? Are you really fleeing violence or is it another reason?’ You need to have many, many more judges to expedite the process,” Sanders stated.

The Ocasio-Cortez left doesn’t want people turned away just because their claims of persecution back home are bogus. They want them admitted essentially as a matter of right, because they’re seeking a better life. Bernie’s sterner answer at the town hall was noticed by border hawk Mickey Kaus, who tweeted about it approvingly and was then retweeted by Coulter, further evidence that she’s intrigued by his maneuvers on immigration. It would be some ideological journey for her to go from stalwart Mitt Romney fan to Chris Christie enthusiast to “In Trump We Trust” author to ridealong on Bernie Sanders’s socialist revolution in the span of less than a decade.

Tell me this. Among the various arguments made by righties against illegal immigration — cultural, economic, political — one that turns up in almost every critique of comprehensive immigration reform is electoral, namely, the fear that millions of illegals will vote Democratic once they’re granted citizenship. “They come from statist systems. Give them a ballot in the U.S. and they’ll opt for statism here too, especially with Democrats promising them the sun, moon, and stars in benefits to win their votes. We’ll end up with socialism.” Now here’s Coulter claiming that the alleged nightmare scenario, socialism, is actually … just fine as a trade-off so long as it means keeping low-skilled Mexicans out. What’s left of the electoral argument against amnesty?

The post Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-3-300x153 Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border The Blog Margaret Hoover hawk firing line enforcement border blue-collar Bernie Sanders Ann Coulter  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com