| |
|
By Curtis Houck
On Monday night, the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC each broke in with special reports for President Trump’s speech announcing his Afghanistan strategy and, in the course of the post-speech analyses, ABC and NBC lobbed cold water on the plans seeing as how low Trump’s approval ratings have been.
Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd followed up his recent streak of giving aid and comfort to Antifa by expressing skepticism about the President’s decision. Todd ruled that Trump’s “selling a country on extending a war that has already been lasted — already lasted 16 years” with a low approval rating.
“And signaling more troops are going and signaling that there is no end date or no end date that I want to share with you, that would be a difficult task if — if he were an extraordinarily popular President right now. It's even harder considering the sort of the wounds politically that he has. Something that he did try to address a bit at the top of his remarks,” Todd added.
Over on ABC, chief anchor and former Clinton administration official George Stephanopoulos started with faux Republican and senior strategic adviser Matthew Dowd, invoking the President’s opening few lines and noting they were in reference to the events of Charlottesville:
I want to begin — start with our chief political analyst, Matthew Dowd. Something that was made good there after those remarks about the Charlottesville violence were widely criticized here in the United States. We have a new poll showing 2-to-1 disapproval. The President said we cannot remain at peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.
Dowd was speaking at almost the exact same time as Todd, so it was only natural that their dubious conclusions were similar.
“[T]his is a very unpopular President engaging in a very unpopular war with a President who has a huge trust deficit in this and now this is his. He owns this is war now he didn't start,” Dowd began.
He also made the rest of his comments about how the President indirectly referenced the country’s strife following Charlottesville:
But, more importantly, the first five minutes of his speech was about — it was obviously post-Charlotte — post-Charlottesville. It was about race — racism. It was about bigotry, and I think he and his staff understood before he could even get to talking about the strategy and the war, he had to figure out a way to go back to his Monday talking points before his disastrous press conference where he went both sides, and he had to figure out a way to go back before he could go forward on this war.
CBS took a different approach, offering a far shorter post-speech discussion with interim CBS Evening News anchor Anthony Mason and chief White House correspondent Major Garrett. Mason noted Trump’s “marked shift and a marked shift in tone” based on his past opinions about the war.
Garrett offered criticism of the speech not due to Charlottesville or his poll numbers but the lack of specifics, harping on “[a] marked shift in tone but a great absence of specifics.”
He then added, in part, the following:
If anyone in America's living room was watching the speech was waiting to hear that precise number from President Trump about an increase in U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, well, they listened in vein.....But without those numbers it's hard to measure and it will be hard to measure in the future exactly how much progress is being achieved. One White House official told us tonight, we will know progress when we see it. Will the country? That’s the open question.
Here’s the relevant transcript from the NBC News Special Report on August 21:
NBC Presidential Speech
August 21, 2017
9:28 p.m. Eastern
LESTER HOLT: President Trump including his remarks describing the path forward in Afghanistan. The President readily acknowledging the about face he's done on the issue saying that things change, paraphrasing that things change when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. He did not answer a lot of questions and that apparently by design as to how many troops would now be committed saying that that sort of operational detail they will no longer provide or how long the U.S. military commitment will last as we are now in the 16th year of the war in Afghanistan. Let's bring in our political director, Chuck Todd, who’s been watching long with me. Chuck, what do you make of the President's path forward?
 CHUCK TODD: You know, Lester, under the best of circumstances, I think selling a country on extending a war that has already been lasted — already lasted 16 years and signaling more troops are going and signaling that there is no end date or no end date that I want to share with you, that would be a difficult task if — if he were an extraordinarily popular President right now. It's even harder considering the sort of the wounds politically that he has. Something that he did try to address a bit at the top of his remarks, but Lester, on the policy front, I think the most remarkable announcement he made was the rhetorical ratcheting up of pressure Pakistan, not just talking about Pakistan being a safe harbor for these terrorists, but even inviting Pakistan's sworn enemy, India, to play an even bigger role in Afghanistan, which is really more of a threat to Pakistan. If you don't get your act together, we could actually stop working with you as an ally and work more with India. So I think the policy announcement and the most significant thing that he said tonight had to do with ratcheting up things with Pakistan.
Here’s the relevant transcript from the ABC News Special Report on August 21:
ABC Presidential Speech
August 21, 2017
9:28 p.m. Eastern
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: President Trump laying it out there. The path forward in Afghanistan. No more deadlines, no more timetables. Tough conditions on Afghanistan and Pakistan. He didn't say so in the speech, but this will require more troops. His generals have already recommended that about 4,000 more troops. But this was also a plea for unity here at home. That was how the President began his speech. I want to begin — start with our chief political analyst, Matthew Dowd. Something that was made good there after those remarks about the Charlottesville violence were widely criticized here in the United States. We have a new poll showing 2-to-1 disapproval. The President said we cannot remain at peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.
 MATTHEW DOWD: George, you know, I was struck by a couple of things. First is this is a very unpopular President engaging in a very unpopular war with a President who has a huge trust deficit in this and now this is his. He owns this is war now he didn't start. But, more importantly, the first five minutes of his speech was about — it was obviously post-Charlotte — post-Charlottesville. It was about race — racism. It was about bigotry, and I think he and his staff understood before he could even get to talking about the strategy and the war, he had to figure out a way to go back to his Monday talking points before his disastrous press conference where he went both sides, and he had to figure out a way to go back before he could go forward on this war.
Here’s the relevant transcript from the CBS News Special Report on August 21:
CBS Presidential Speech
August 21, 2017
9:28 p.m. Eastern
ANTHONY MASON: President Trump, at Joint Baser Myer in Virginia, announcing a shift in policy towards Afghanistan and a shift in his attitude. He said my original instinct was to pull out but he said he came to decision last Friday at the Camp David meeting that an honorable and enduring outcome was necessary, that the consequence of rapid exit were unacceptable and security threats immense. Major Garrett is there. Major, a marked shift and a marked shift in tone from the President.
 MAJOR GARRETT: A marked shift in tone but a great absence of specifics, Anthony. If anyone in America's living room was watching the speech was waiting to hear that precise number from President Trump about an increase in U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, well, they listened in vein. The President did not disclose what many of his advisors have let us know that the number is anywhere between 3,800 and 4,000. What the White House now says the president simply not going to get involved in those specifics. He in June gave Defense Secretary Mattis authority to deploy upward of that number of U.S. military personnel but that authority is his. Of course, the Defense Secretary was simply not going to make a move like that without an endorsement — a strategic endorsement of what you just heard from the President tonight. A way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan that the President says will increase security. But without those numbers it's hard to measure and it will be hard to measure in the future exactly how much progress is being achieved. One White House official told us tonight, we will know progress when we see it. Will the country? That’s the open question.
MASON: It is an open question. Major, the President said tonight we are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Hours before President Trump’s Monday night speech announcing a U.S. troops surge in Afghanistan, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews admitted that he’s a “dove” “already worried about tonight” because it’s a “pure” escalation by the military “establishment.”
It’s worth noting that this represented an admirable consistency by Matthews, seeing as how he also criticized a troop surge by President Obama on December 1, 2009 (but more on that later).
In the middle of a segment about Steve Bannon’s White House departure, Matthews interjected [emphasis mine]:
I'm worried about tonight, by the way. I'm already worried about tonight. We will get it in the next segment. Then escalate in Afghanistan which is pure, the old style of establishment. Let's put more troops in like Johnson did, Kennedy did, Nixon did. We always go to war and then we put more and more troops in. We think we’re going to solve the problem and I'm wondering, that isn't McMaster talking. If that isn't Jared and Javanka talking.
“Well, we have a real problem that it seems, to me, people like me are doves, we just wonder what is going to happen without Bannon there. At least, the one thing that Bannon did was escape from wars,” Matthews added in comments directed to theBoston Globe’s Annie Linskey.
Right on cue, the next segment was about Afghanistan and Matthews set the tone by telling BBC’s Katty Katy that he’s “a skeptic” and “dove” since “I do not see where you go into these wars, you go in and you never can come home.”
He pointed to nameless generals who are supposedly “opposed going to work because they know we’re going to get stuck” as reason for him to “worry” that “we’re going in for a bigger war in Afghanistan tonight.”
The longtime liberal pundit later aired his opinions about war:
This is my view of war. Katy, when you go in, if you're from here, and you're going there, you know you're coming back here. Eventually. The enemy over there, whether it’s Vietnam, or it’s Taliban, knows we are coming back here. All they have to do is wait us out. Now, we can say, in four years, it will be different. No, it don't because we’re coming home four years and they know home we’re coming home in four years. It changes the timetable but not the reality. It is their country and they will rule it. Just like the Vietnamese did. All the fighting and 60,000 guys of my generation getting killed trying to stop history from taking place. It’s their country. We’re coming home. It’s going to be their country. That's arithmetic fact that military guys and everybody else should get into their heads.
Going back to 2009, Matthews also expressed concern about Obama’s Afghanistan decision-making.
Then-NewsBusters writer Jeff Poor wrote about it that night as Matthews deemed West Point audience members to be “the enemy camp” and “strange venue” choice:
It seems like in this case, there isn't a lot of excitement,” Matthews said. “I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble rouse the ‘we're going to democratize the world’ campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue.
So, Matthews has put down his marker ahead of the President’s speech, showing an unwavering opinion about Afghanistan. We’ll see if the rest of the media follows suit, seeing as how similar the policies appear to be.
Here’s the relevant portions of the transcripts from MSNBC’s Hardball on August 21:
MSNBC’s Hardball
August 21, 2017
7:07 p.m. Eastern
 CHRIS MATTHEWS: I'm worried about tonight, by the way. I'm already worried about tonight. We will get it in the next segment. Then escalate in Afghanistan which is pure, the old style of establishment. Let's put more troops in like Johnson did, Kennedy did, Nixon did. We always go to war and then we put more and more troops in. We think we’re going to solve the problem and I'm wondering, that isn't McMaster talking. If that isn't Jared and Javanka talking.
ANNIE LINSKEY: I think it would be more of the generals talking. You have powerful generals in this sort of militarized White House at this point. And you know, their influence is felt very clearly but it was General Kelly who sort of has quite a bit of credit for pushing out, you know, not only Scaramucci but also Bannon.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
LINSKEY: So, he’s clearly asserting his power in a number of places.
MATTHEWS: Well, we have a real problem that it seems, to me, people like me are doves, we just wonder what is going to happen without Bannon there. At least, the one thing that Bannon did was escape from wars.
(....)
7:17 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS [TO KATTY KAY]: I'm a skeptic. I am a dove. I do not see where you go into these wars, you go in and you never can come home. We never say we’re going — and I understand why the general is generally opposed going to work because they know we’re going to get stuck. Then generals say we have to stay there because justifying blood and treasure justifies staying in. That’s my worry. Is it justified? Katy Kay, do you think we’re going in for a bigger war in Afghanistan tonight?
(....)
 7:23 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: This is my view of war. Katy, when you go in, if you're from here, and you're going there, you know you're coming back here. Eventually. The enemy over there, whether it’s Vietnam, or it’s Taliban, knows we are coming back here. All they have to do is wait us out. Now, we can say, in four years, it will be different. No, it don't because we’re coming home four years and they know home we’re coming home in four years. It changes the timetable but not the reality. It is their country and they will rule it. Just like the Vietnamese did. All the fighting and 60,000 guys of my generation getting killed trying to stop history from taking place. It’s their country. We’re coming home. It’s going to be their country. That's arithmetic fact that military guys and everybody else should get into their heads.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 All eyes were on President Trump Monday night as he addressed the nation about the country’s future actions in regard to the war in Afghanistan. And without giving too many details, the President declared that there would be some form of troop increase but noted that there were conditions to our aid and limits to the costs we were willing to bear. But that wasn’t enough for MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who bemoaned Trump’s address and eagerly awaited White House leaks of the details.
“Well, it was a speech like no other,” he mocked the President. “Tonight, the President announced that he will not announce an increase in troop strength.”
He then played a clip of Trump’s speech where he stated that:
I've said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military options. We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities.
O’Donnell claimed that Trump’s 26-minute-long address failed to “clarify anything” about the U.S. military’s mission in Afghanistan. “If this speech is meant to be interpreted as an increase in troop strength in Afghanistan, it's the first time a president has announced an increase in troop strength without actually announcing an increase in troop strength,” he sneered.
And to try and drive his point home, O’Donnell played clips of Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and even Lyndon B. Johnson announcing troop increases for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam respectively.
Just as O’Donnell was wrapping up the first segment, some 12 minutes later, he expressed his excitement for the potential of White House leaks on the matter. “The second stage of reporting on this, which I'm sure will start late tonight or tomorrow, it will be leaks from inside the Trump administration about exactly what the troop increase is going be and when it's going to happen, all of that,” he hyped.
Transcript below:
MSNBC
The Last Word
August 21, 2017
10:04:25 PM Eastern
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well, it was a speech like no other. Trump administration sources had indicated that he was going to announce a 50 percent increase in troop strength in Afghanistan by sending an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan. Tonight, the President announced that he will not announce an increase in troop strength.
DONALD TRUMP: A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I've said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military options. We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities.
O’DONNELL: “We will not talk about numbers of troops.” That is new for the American presidency. At no point, tonight did the President clarify anything about what would actually change militarily for the United States in Afghanistan. If this speech is meant to be interpreted as an increase in troop strength in Afghanistan, it's the first time a president has announced an increase in troop strength without actually announcing an increase in troop strength.
(…)
10:16:17 PM Eastern
O’DONNELL: The second stage of reporting on this, which I'm sure will start latetonight or tomorrow, it will be leaks from inside the Trump administration about exactly what the troop increase is going be and when it's going to happen, all of that. It will all have to come through leaks because it wasn't in the presidential speech.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
During a discussion on Monday’s Morning Joe about the upcoming debate in Congress over raising the debt ceiling, host Joe Scarborough and his entire panel of liberal journalists agreed that Republican leaders would have to make a “full capitulation to Nancy Pelosi” in order to increase the nation’s borrowing limit and overcome opposition from conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus.
The exchange began with Scarborough noting that President Trump has “a horrible calendar ahead of him” with “looming crises, legislative crises, coming up in September and October on the Hill.” USA Today Senior Politics Reporter Heidi Przybyla declared: “...there’s a whole faction in the House that is going to make this no easier on him than they did on President Barack Obama.” “This is how we spent the past five to eight years, Joe, was arguing over these spending bill increases, these so-called continuing resolutions, and that is what I would predict is that we’re going to have a food fight,” she added.
Later in the discussion, political analyst Mark Halperin proclaimed: “That’s why the most likely outcome is a full capitulation to Nancy Pelosi to let her get what she wants to raise the debt ceiling.” Scarborough agreed: “They are going to have to work with Democrats.”
Halperin went on to reiterate that the left’s demands were all that mattered on the issue: “The question isn’t, will the Freedom Caucus vote for a clean debt ceiling? They’re not going to be asked to. The question is, will the Democrat – what will the Democratic left demand Nancy Pelosi insist on to get her cooperation?”
Scarborough chimed in: “And which is why I said Donald Trump’s first call this morning needs to be Chuck Schumer. And they need to figure out how do they move forward and get 15, 20, 30 Democratic votes in a way that doesn’t sell out Donald Trump’s base.”
Ironically, throughout the conversation, Scarborough repeatedly voiced his support for the position of conservatives:
I'm just telling you right now, a lot of people think I’ve gone moderate or squishy, I wouldn’t make that vote unless I got a lot in return. If you're talking about long-term entitlement reform....So how does a member of the Freedom Caucus go back to their districts and go to town hall meetings through the end of the year and say, “Yeah, we did nothing on ObamaCare, we’ve done nothing on tax reform, and hey, look at me, I’m your guy, I just raised the debt ceiling so we can spend more than $20 trillion in debt”? Ain’t gonna happen, and it shouldn’t happen for those members of the Freedom Caucus....
There’s no – listen, let tell – let me just tell editorial writers, let me just tell, like EPs and people that run networks, just mark it down right now, if you’re a member of the Freedom Caucus, Jeremy, you can’t vote for a clean [debt ceiling raise]. You know and everybody’s going, “Just vote for a clean, the full faith and credit of the United States.” I’m just telling you, that’s like telling Nancy Pelosi to go to her people and say, “You know what? We really need to pass that pro-life bill.” It’s just – they can’t do it politically....
And by the way, I’ll tell you what, I didn’t vote to raise the debt ceiling. You know why? Because when they were trying to raise the debt ceiling, they weren’t doing anything in return. They were saying, “Oh, we just want a clean debt ceiling this time.” I think I – our vote was to like raise it $4 trillion, we're at $20 trillion. And they keep going, “Oh, oh, we need a clean – ” Why? Why do you need a clean debt ceiling increase? Why can’t people say, “You’re going to take care of America’s long-term entitlement program? Then show me how you’re going to do that and then talk to me about raising the debt ceiling.”
The biased discussion was brought to viewers by Honda, Purina, and Fidelity Investments.
Here are excerpts of the August 21 segment:
7:02 AM ET
(...)
 JOE SCARBOROUGH: And Heidi, horrible [poll] numbers, but also a horrible calendar ahead of him [Trump]. As you pointed out last hour, he can’t huddle everybody together and start talking about passing health care reform because he’s got some looming crises, legislative crises, coming up in September and October on the Hill.
HEIDI PRZYBYLA [SR. POLITICS REPORTER, USA TODAY]: Right, and like I said, there’s a whole faction in the House that is going to make this no easier on him than they did on President Barack Obama. This is how we spent the past five to eight years, Joe, was arguing over these spending bill increases, these so-called continuing resolutions, and that is what I would predict is that we’re going to have a food fight. We’re going to get some kind of a temporary patch that gets us through maybe til Christmas. But it’s going to be time consuming and consume a lot of the energy up here on Capitol Hill.
The President has not shown that he’s willing to go out and take to the bully pulpit and go to places like Arizona to stump for those things like infrastructure that could be the things that would bring both sides of the aisle together and get something done.
SCARBOROUGH: And, Harold, if you’re a member of the Freedom Caucus, you’ve got to go back to your district. And everybody’s gonna say, “Wait a second, we still have ObamaCare. You’ve been promising me for seven years we were going to get rid of ObamaCare. And, let me get this straight, we got a $20 trillion national debt and you voted to raise the debt ceiling?”
I'm just telling you right now, a lot of people think I’ve gone moderate or squishy, I wouldn’t make that vote unless I got a lot in return. If you're talking about long-term entitlement reform, I’ll talk about raising the debt ceiling. But I’m not going to do it by cutting 7% of the budget, I’m not going to do it by cutting funding for Big Bird, I’m not going to do it by National Institutes of Health. If you want to talk about real spending restraint over the next 20 years, then talk to me.
They’re never going to do that. So how does a member of the Freedom Caucus go back to their districts and go to town hall meetings through the end of the year and say, “Yeah, we did nothing on ObamaCare, we’ve done nothing on tax reform, and hey, look at me, I’m your guy, I just raised the debt ceiling so we can spend more than $20 trillion in debt”? Ain’t gonna happen, and it shouldn’t happen for those members of the Freedom Caucus.
(...)
HAROLD FORD JR.: I think Heidi’s right, they’re going to punt this debt ceiling and I would imagine those Freedom Caucus members are going to say, “We will not vote for a clean, permanent one for the bill into next year unless you deal with some sort of spending reform.” Because I don’t know how they do it. I’m agreeing with you, I don’t know how they do it.
SCARBOROUGH: There’s no – listen, let tell – let me just tell editorial writers, let me just tell, like EPs and people that run networks, just mark it down right now, if you’re a member of the Freedom Caucus, Jeremy, you can’t vote for a clean [debt ceiling raise]. You know and everybody’s going, “Just vote for a clean, the full faith and credit of the United States.” I’m just telling you, that’s like telling Nancy Pelosi to go to her people and say, “You know what? We really need to pass that pro-life bill.” It’s just – they can’t do it politically.
(...)
SCARBOROUGH: So if I’m running against a member of the Freedom Caucus who votes to raise the debt ceiling, just to sort of make this a little easier for everybody to understand, I would go out and say, “Look, look, look what he has done. Or what he hasn’t done. He said – for seven years he’s been telling us we’re going to get rid of ObamaCare. We haven’t gotten rid of ObamaCare. He said he was going to build the wall. There ain’t to wall. He said, you know, tax reform. Have they passed tax reform? No. Congressman so and so hasn’t done it, but you know what he has done? You know what he has done? He stole more money from our children and grandchildren. We had a $20 trillion national debt. He won’t do what it takes to save Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, but he will raise the debt ceiling.” I’m telling you –
MARK HALPERIN: That’s why the most likely outcome is a full capitulation to Nancy Pelosi to let her get what she wants to raise the debt ceiling.
SCARBOROUGH: They are going to have to work with Democrats. Because I’m just telling you, if you’re a member of the Freedom Caucus and you vote for a clean debt ceiling increase, all the do-gooders on editorial boards across the northeast and on both coasts, nothing they say is going to ring true to anybody.
KATTY KAY: And by the way, you probably signed a pledge saying that you were never gonna raise the debt ceiling.
SCARBOROUGH: And by the way, I’ll tell you what, I didn’t vote to raise the debt ceiling. You know why? Because when they were trying to raise the debt ceiling, they weren’t doing anything in return. They were saying, “Oh, we just want a clean debt ceiling this time.” I think I – our vote was to like raise it $4 trillion, we're at $20 trillion. And they keep going, “Oh, oh, we need a clean – ” Why? Why do you need a clean debt ceiling increase? Why can’t people say, “You’re going to take care of America’s long-term entitlement program? Then show me how you’re going to do that and then talk to me about raising the debt ceiling.”
(...)
HALPERIN: The question isn’t, will the Freedom Caucus vote for a clean debt ceiling? They’re not going to be asked to. The question is, will the Democrat – what will the Democratic left demand Nancy Pelosi insist on to get her cooperation?
SCARBOROUGH: And which is why I said Donald Trump’s first call this morning needs to be Chuck Schumer. And they need to figure out how do they move forward and get 15, 20, 30 Democratic votes in a way that doesn’t sell out Donald Trump’s base.
(...)
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 Over the course of last week, on NBC and MSNBC, host Chuck Todd gave a leg up to the violent Antifa movement by letting them defend their assaults on the policeand innocent peoplenot once, but twice. Todd’s interviews showed just how tolerant he was those who use violence to shut down free speech. And while Todd was absent from MTP Daily on Monday, Katy Tur picked up his torch and proudly pushed back against the First Amendment’s acknowledgment of a person’s right to free speech.
“And challenging the First Amendment,” Tur declared during the show’s opening tease.“Should extremist groups have the right to rally? We'll delve into the power and pitfalls of free speech.”
When Tur finally got around to targeting free speech rights later in the show, she began by bringing up the controversial rally in Boston, Massachusetts, and counter-protest that dwarfed it. “Over the weekend the debate over free speech raged on,” was how she described the events of Saturday, with no mention of the bystanders beaten or the police doused with bottles of urine by Antifa.
She defended the counter-protest claiming that they believed “the free speech event was a thinly veiled way to shield hate groups in the wake of the deadly crash in Charlottesville.”
Tur then trained her sights on the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. “The ACLU helped the unite the right group obtain a protest permit in Charlottesville and says it will continue to consider requests from hate groups seeking legal help to protest,” she said.
Reading from a New York Times op-ed, Tur seemed to suggest that defending free speech was the wrong side of history. “A recent Op-Ed in The New York Times argues, quote: ‘Sometimes standing on the right side of history in defense of a cause you think is right is still just standing on the wrong side of history,’” she stated.
ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Lee Rowland joined Tur to defend her organization’s commitment to battle for free speech rights. After introducing Rowland, Tur immediately hit her with an even more ridiculous argument made by the NYT op-ed:
Lee, that New York Times Op-Ed also goes on to say: “Prioritizing the First Amendment rights could make the distribution of power in this country even more unequal and further silence the community's most burdened by histories of censorship.” Do you agree or disagree?
“I can't say I agree because we've been through an entire century where we've seen the First Amendment play out,” Rowland responded. “And I'd like to think that the moral arc of the universe or the least our country is closer to justice than it was when we began decades ago.” She had to remind Tur that without the First Amendment, the progress made by the Civil Rights movement would not have happened.
Rowland explained that the beauty of the First Amendment and the goal of its advocates was “that all of us can speak truth to power no matter whether we're trying to change the status quo for better or worse in your eyes or my eyes, and still do that in a way that in the long run lifts up all voices.”
It’s 2017, and NBC and MSNBC are sowing doubts and skepticism of free speech while lifting up those who look to silence and intimidate their opponents with brutal violence.
Tur's skepticism of the First Amendment was brought to you advertisers such as Nissan, Advil, and Office Depot.
Transcript below:
MSNBC
MTP Daily
August 21, 2017
5:01:13 PM Easter [Tease]
KATY TUR: And challenging the First Amendment. Should extremist groups have the right to rally? We'll delve into the power and pitfalls of free speech. This is MTP Dailyand it starts right now.
5:38:29 PM Eastern
TUR: Welcome back. Over the weekend the debate over free speech raged on. A conservative group called Boston Free Speech organized a rally in the city. Rally organizers say their event was not intended for white supremacists, neo-Nazis or the KKK, and while dozens turned out for that event, an estimated 40,000 counter-protestors swarmed Boston common and spilled out into the streets. The counter demonstrations believe the free speech event was a thinly veiled way to shield hate groups in the wake of the deadly crash in Charlottesville.
The ACLU helped the unite the right group obtain a protest permit in Charlottesville and says it will continue to consider requests from hate groups seeking legal help to protest. But now the group which fiercely defends everyone's right to free speech and the right to protest is saying they will no longer defend hate groups who want to protest with firearms.
 But some critics on both the left and the right say it's time for the ACLU to rethink how they defend the First Amendment. A recent Op-Ed in The New York Timesargues, quote, “sometimes standing on the right side of history in defense of a cause you think is right is still just standing on the wrong side of history.” Chuck Todd spoke with the author of that critique, K-Sue Park.
K-SUE PARK: Historically we haven't achieved a democracy that protects all speech equally and freely. Even if the First Amendment has been applied to lots of different groups in an attempt to provide equal representation.
TUR: Lee Rowland is a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech and Privacy and Technology Project and she joins now. Lee, that New York Times Op-Ed also goes on to say: “Prioritizing the First Amendment rights could make the distribution of power in this country even more unequal and further silence the community's most burdened by histories of censorship.” Do you agree or disagree?
LEE ROWLAND: Well, probably with that statement I can't say I agree because we've been through an entire century where we've seen the First Amendment play out. And I'd like to think that the moral arc of the universe or the least our country is closer to justice than it was when we began decades ago.
 And we did that with a robust First Amendment, right, and nobody could say that the lines of the Civil Rights struggle didn't overcome the kind of power imbalance and structures of racism and oppression that people are pointing to today. So I actually, with all due respect to that critic and others, I think, frankly, it's asking the wrong question. I don’t think the First Amendment—
TUR (cutting Rowland off): What is the right question?
ROWLAND: The right question is what do First Amendment principles look like on the ground in our new factual reality? And I think that's something we'll have to grapple with and I think Charlottesville is an important turning point for those of us who do free speech work to think long and hard about whether or not we're going to represent groups who effectively seek to use the First Amendment, to wield it as a weapon of armed revolt. That's not what we're about at the ACLU. That's not what the First Amendment is about and it never has been.
So, the question now is: How do we effectuate these really fabulous principles, right? The principles that all of us can speak truth to power no matter whether we're trying to change the status quo for better or worse in your eyes or my eyes and still do that in a way that in the long run lifts up all voices.
And I know that I believe that defending armed groups who are hoping for a violent confrontation -- and by the way, that's regardless of whether they're white supremacists or not, but people hoping for a violent confrontation are not heroes of the First Amendment. And I do think there's a risk that if the ACLU starts representing people who are more and more heavily armed that it depresses free speech in the long run, right, because nobody wants to leave the house or go to a protest with their five-year-old and that's the world that they want to live in.
(…)
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment