By Jeffrey Lord
The room in the local tavern – “Boomerang” by name – was packed with Trump supporters, the parking lot filled to capacity. Above the parked cars, the tavern’s gigantic, impossible-to-miss neon sign that towered over the nearby busy interstate highway flashed a red screen with the words “Trump 2020.”
Inside the tavern there was a sea of red hats. Trump-tee shirts were everywhere. And at the center of the room, above the bar, two large screen televisions were back- to-back ensuring a clear view of the Trump announcement rally in Orlando, Florida. The TV was, of course, tuned to Fox. I was asked to sign someone’s hat and it was pointed out to me that there was already one signature on the brim. I looked. It read: “Sean Hannity.” It was a souvenir from an earlier Trump appearance in nearby Harrisburg, where Sean was present to host Trump on his show.
As I stood on the side of the room chatting with some of the attendees, a voice arose calling attention to the screen. Out walked President Donald Trump with First Lady Melania – and the tavern erupted in cheers and applause. The volume was cranked up and as if on command the room fell silent.
Silent for the duration of the event as the on-screen President spoke- except for frequent outbreaks of more cheering and more applause. The introduction of out-going White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders brought a loud burst of cheers.
What was notable about this event was its location – the middle of Pennsylvania. And while there were local television crews there, this “Trump Watch Party” went unnoticed by the national media, understandably focused on the big event in Orlando. (Except, of course, CNN – which cut away from the decidedly newsworthy Trump kickoff rally six minutes in because the crowd had erupted spontaneously into a cry of “CNN sucks.” So much for the formerly “Most Trusted Name in News.”)
One political analyst after another over the last few months has – correctly – made much of the significance Pennsylvania will have in the 2020 election. With that in mind, the Trump gathering in the “Boomerang” tavern was an early indicator of the battle ahead.
Here is a primer on Pennsylvania. There are 67 counties in the state, the two largest being Philadelphia County and Allegheny County (Pittsburgh.) Both are teeming with Democrats. Suburban Philadelphia – divided into the four counties of Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware and Chester – were once Republican strongholds. Now populated with liberal Republicans these heavily populated counties joined Philadelphia and Allegheny in voting for Hillary Clinton.
Here’s why this gathering Tuesday night was significant. In 2016 those six counties were joined by only five others in voting for Clinton. Which meant that of the 67 counties, Donald Trump carried 56, Clinton a mere 11. And the way Trump defeated that coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans was to so motivate his voters in the 56 counties that a tidal wave of counties with smaller populations came together as one to overwhelm the two big counties and the nine others.
The very motivated crowd of Trump supporters at this Trump Watch Party came from the two counties where that tavern almost straddles the county line between York and Cumberland counties. In 2016, Trump supporters in York County came out in droves, overwhelming Clinton with over 62% of the vote. In neighboring Cumberland County, where I live, Trump won with almost 57%. That pattern was replicated across the state in those Trump-supporting smaller counties -with one after another and another giving Trump margins like these:
66%: Adams County – home to Gettysburg
74%: Armstrong County in Western Pennsylvania
82%: Bedford County in West Central Pennsylvania
71%: Blair County – home to Altoona
84%: Fulton County
And on and on went these kind of incredible Trump margins in a state that, to the astonishment of the supposed politically savvy “experts” was painted bright red on election night 2016.
Now compare these same counties with the results in 2012 for GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
The pattern is crystal clear. Mitt Romney simply did not energize enough Pennsylvania voters to carry the state. Everywhere he carried a county he was below the Trump 2016 numbers by three points or six points or seven points. This pattern applies as well to GOP nominees McCain in 2008, Bush in 2004 and 2000, Dole and Bush in 1996 and 1992. In fact, Trump became the first Republican to carry Pennsylvania since then-Reagan Vice President George H. W. Bush carried it in 1988 while running on Reagan’s coattails. Reagan, like Trump, carried Pennsylvania with the same Trump-sized margins in these counties.
Which brings us back to that Trump Watch Party filled with seriously enthusiastic Trump supporters from York and Cumberland counties. These were the people that drove the Trump 2016 margins in those two counties. And collectively, with similarly-Trump inspired voters surging to the polls in those 56 counties, they are the reason Hillary Clinton became the first Democrat nominee in 28 years to lose Pennsylvania.
I spoke with quite a number of them Tuesday night. They are absolutely passionate about Donald Trump. They are well aware that they are viewed as the “deplorables” – and they cheered Trump on when he touched on the subject in his speech. As this is written they are getting organized again for 2020.
Meanwhile? Joe Biden kicked off his campaign in Democratic Allegheny County – Pittsburgh. Crowd size? Six hundred people.
A few weeks earlier Trump appeared in Montoursville in Lycoming County, the crowd size estimated to be around 15,000 – in a town that has a population of 4,777. In 2016, Lycoming County gave Trump over 70% of the vote.
The 2020 election is now on in earnest. And without doubt, the Trump fans in that Pennsylvania tavern Tuesday night are getting ready. They have a serious emotional bond with their candidate – and there are thousands of them all over the state.
One can only wonder whether all those “experts” in the liberal media – they who got the 2016 election completely wrong – will understand what they are seeing in Pennsylvania as this campaign goes forward.
Don’t bet on it.
OP-ED: JEFF ZUCKER: President of the Leftist State Media
By Jeffrey Lord
Over the weekend my old CNN boss, Jeff Zucker, participated in an interview at the South by Southwest (SXSW) gathering in Austin.
According to news accounts he said this of Fox News: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=163609
“Frankly, it is really state-run TV. It is a pure propaganda machine and I think does an incredible disservice to this country. There are a handful of good journalists there, but I think they are lost in what — what is just a complete propaganda machine, and the idea that it’s a news channel is I think really not the case at all.”
Really? With all due respect, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Jeff Zucker has said on occasion that he has wanted to run for political office. (And one suspects he would not be running as a Reagan conservative.) But in fact he already holds office – as the de facto president of the Leftist State Media. Nominally he is the president of CNN, but in fact CNN is but one component part of the larger left-wing propaganda machine that composes the Leftist State Media.
One can go for one’s news to CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and countless internet outlets and see that Jeff’s presidential domain is considerable.
Every last one of those outlets is about pushing the left-wing agenda of the moment – and oh yes, in this day and age attacking President Donald Trump.
The Leftist State Media in modern America is what in another era, when the Soviet Union was alive and well, was called the Department for Agitation and Propaganda – or the ministry of propaganda whose sole function was shorthanded as “agitprop.” In those days there was only one official newspaper for the Soviet population – Pravda or “Truth.”
In today’s American media world the “Truth” comes from – and only from – the Leftist State Media.
Long before CNN – when Jeff Zucker was barely out of diapers – then-Vice President Spiro Agnew first discussed what he saw – way back there in 1969 – as a real problem with the media of the day. The Vietnam War was raging, and President Nixon had recently addressed the nation. Nixon had been followed by a collection of liberal television commentators who proceeded to tell the American people what they thought Nixon had really said.
In a then-famous speech in, of all places, Des Moines, Iowa, carried live by the television networks of the day (there were only three, and cable news did not yet exist) Agnew said this:
“The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues of our nation.
First, let us define that power. At least forty-million Americans each night, it is estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view ABC; the remainder being divided between NBC and CBS. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans, the networks are the sole source of national and world news.
In Will Rogers’ observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today, for growing millions of Americans, it is what they see and hear on their television sets.
How is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen “anchormen,” commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that is to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what forty to fifty-million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and the world.
We cannot measure this power and influence by traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break–by their coverage and commentary–a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure, and ignore others. For millions of Americans, the network reporter who covers a continuing issue, like ABM or Civil Rights, becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.
…A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official, or the wisdom of a government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the power of the networks to equal that of local, state, and federal governments combined. Certainly, it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.
What do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little, other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence, seemingly well informed on every important matter.
We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C. or New York City–the latter of which James Reston terms the “most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.” Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers, and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints.”
The media problem Agnew described all the way back in 1969 – a full fifty years ago, when Donald Trump was a mere 23 years old and barely a year out of grad school – has now metastasized, dominating the vast media complex of today.
The very prominence of New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the bartender-turned-congresswoman and media star, is the literal manifestation of Agnew’s point that the media “can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week.”
Jeff Zucker also said this of Fox anchors:
“They chose to work at Fox and they don’t get to hide behind the fact that they’re excellent journalists or anchors. The fact is they work at a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”
That statement all by itself is a perfect illustration of how President Zucker of the Leftist State Media sees his job – which is to arbitrarily declare his decidedly liberal opinion as fact. No wonder Jim Acosta feels free to do exactly the same thing.
It is worth recalling that Fox News was created in 1996 – during the Clinton presidency, when CNN’s lavish pro-Clinton coverage had won it the derisive nickname the “Clinton News Network.” Fox was followed three years later by Rush Limbaugh and the explosion of conservative talk radio.
The reason for the success of Fox News and talk radio is exactly the failure of the Leftist State Media. Millions of Americans, doubtless unknowing in absorbing Agnew’s long-ago point, have had it up to their eyebrows going from one “news” outlet to another only to get some version of the exact same liberal spin.
Here is CNN on the Clinton-Trump race. The headline: https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-of-polls/index.html
CNN Poll of Polls: Clinton tops Trump by 10
The story begins:
“(CNN)The post-convention polls are in, and they consistently show Hillary Clinton entering the next phase of the presidential election campaign with the upper hand over Donald Trump.”
Here is the New York Times in its “Upshot” column: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html
Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.
“The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls.
Here is The Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94
HuffPost Forecasts Hillary Clinton Will Win With 323 Electoral Votes
The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. RepublicanDonald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.
And on and on went this business of one Leftist State Media outlet after another all saying exactly the same thing – Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president and Donald Trump had no way open to win.
Change the subject from the 2016 election to, say, abortion, climate change, the economy or any of dozens of issues out there and time after time after time it makes no difference. You will get the left-wing agenda of the moment delivered by whatever outlet of the Leftist State Media you are choosing to watch or read.
Let’s cut to the chase. The real reason for Jeff Zucker’s angst is that Fox News and conservative talk radio, not to mention all manner of conservative internet sites have broken the stranglehold of information that once was the sole preserve of the Leftist State Media. And the only way the LSM chieftains see to get their monopoly back is to literally try and take out Fox News and conservative commentators one by one, with Media Matters and others doing the dirty work.
It is safe to say that that the Leftist State Media has in its midst “excellent journalists or anchors.” But when story after story after story is either wrong or obviously presented to further the Left’s favorite agenda item of the moment, (Hillary certain to win! Trump friend Anthony Scaramucci tied to Russian investment fund! Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress! Trump and son tied to hacked documents from Wikileaks! Climate change report contradicts President! Covington kids confronted Indian elder and Vietnam veteran!) then in fact the Leftist State Media, in Jeff Zucker’s words, is for sure “a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”
In fact, it is safe to assume at this point that the members of the Leftist State Media simply can’t help themselves. They are so far gone from journalism that they will say and do anything to push the Left’s agenda, damaging not only the country but themselves.
Which is exactly why Jeff Zucker’s CNN, the Washington Post and doubtless soon-to-be-others in the Leftist State Media now find themselves being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for libeling sixteen year old Covington student Nick Sandmann. They simply could not stop themselves from doing it.
And the irony? It is Fox News and conservative media that has assumed the journalistic task as described by CNN founder Ted Turner the day CNN first went on the air in June of 1980.
“To provide information to people where it wasn’t available before.”
Pick up Jeffrey Lord’s Swamp Wars: Donald Trump and the New American Populism. Out on May 28th. Click here.
OP-ED: POLITICAL BUNK... The Attack on Kellyanne Conway
The White House is a political institution – with a political affairs office
By Jeffrey Lord
Here was the headline from Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-recommends-firing-of-kellyanne-conway-over-alleged-hatch-act-violations
Special Counsel recommends firing Kellyanne Conway over alleged Hatch Act violations
The story said this:
“The Office of Special Counsel recommended Thursday that Kellyanne Conway be fired from the federal government for violating the Hatch Act on ‘numerous occasions.’
The Hatch Act is a federal law that limits certain political activities of federal employees.”
The story caused the inevitable media firestorm it was designed to cause. Kellyanne Conway committing politics in the White House? Ohhhh the horror!
To be blunt? What bunk.
What does the White House have that no Cabinet department or federal agency has?
That would be the White House Office of Political Affairs.
What does the Political Affairs office do? As its name indicates the office is filled with White House staffers who do politics. Every day. Every hour of the working day.
I know this because, yes indeed, I was once an Associate Political Director in the White House – the Reagan White House. As I have noted over there in NewsBustershttps://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2019/06/01/lame-liberal-media-attack-conway-is-political the White House is itself a political institution. Politics is practiced, as noted, every day.
When a president announces policy X, White House aides are on the phone or in front of cameras to make the political case for that policy X. I would often enough be dispatched to give speeches around the country to both defend the President – and, yes, to attack his opponents.
Example? On one occasion I was sent to North Dakota to give a speech for a Republican Senator running for re-election. The very reason for my presence was to support the Senator and go after his opponent. This was standard operating procedure.
And yet the hypocrisy here of this attack on Kellyanne Conway – whose title is Counselor to the President – is as bold as it can get.
Here is former Obama White House aide Valerie Jarrett as she recently appeared on Fox Business. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/hatch-act-violation-would-have-gotten-me-fired-fmr-obama-adviser-valerie-jarrett The headline:
Hatch Act violation would have gotten me fired: Fmr. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett
The story says this, in part:
“You can do whatever you want when you’re on your own time. But from the White House you are restricted from engaging in any political activity,” Jarrett said on “Cavuto: Coast to Coast.”
…Jarrett added that Obama would not have tolerated anyone who had violated the Hatch Act.”
Here’s another story in the New York Times from June of 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/us/politics/white-house-comeback-for-political-affairs-office.html The headline:
White House Comeback for Political Affairs Office
The Times story said this, in part, with bold print for emphasis supplied.
“WASHINGTON — President Obama has decided to bring politics back into the White House.
Such considerations are at the center of everything that happens at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, of course. But three years ago, Mr. Obama closed the longstanding Office of Political Affairs at the White House and sent his operatives to his Chicago campaign office and the Democratic National Committee as he prepared for his re-election campaign.
Now the West Wing is reopening the office and promoting David Simas, a top communications aide, to be its new director. Mr. Simas, a strategist from Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign, most recently served as one of the officials in charge of the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
The decision extends a restructuring at the White House after a politically disastrous year for Mr. Obama.”
In other words, the Obama White House, contrary to the impression Ms. Jarrett was giving in that Cavuto interview, was, exactly as the Times quite accurately reported, bringing “politics back into the White House” because political “considerations are at the center of everything that happens at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, of course.”
The Times was correct. And to be clear, the Obama White House did nothing wrong in doing this. For the entire existence of the American presidency politics has been at the very center of the institution. All presidents have had White House aides who quite specifically were in the White House to conduct presidential politics – to advocate for the president’s policies, to deal with his supporters – and his opponents. And not infrequently, after the President has left office they carry his political banner through their memoirs of their old boss.
To name just a few of Kellyanne Conway’s predecessors?
Lincoln’s John Nicolay and John Hay, Woodrow Wilson’s Joe Tumulty, FDR’s Louis Howe and Harry Hopkins, Truman’s Clark Clifford, JFK’s Ken O’Donnell and Larry O’Brien, LBJ’s Jack Valenti, Joe Califano and Bill Moyers, Reagan’s Lyn Nofziger, Ed Rollins, Lee Atwater, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels and Frank Donatelli.
In the case of LBJ’s Califano, the ex-aide wrote in his memoirs that once he joined the White House staff: “In the street fights over the Great Society legislation I learned that politics was not Ping Pong; it was played with metal bats and hard balls.” Indeed.
The real story with this demand from the government’s “special counsel” – an office populated by career bureaucrats with their own political agendas – is that Kellyanne Conway is superb at her job. So, of course, the bureaucrats want her fired.
Here’s a better suggestion. Abolish the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC). It is there for one reason and one reason only when you get past the mumbo jumbo of its stated mission to protect “merit” employees. The reason: to protect the federal bureaucracy from political staff appointed to carry out a president’s agenda. It is filled with bureaucrats who have won no election, bureaucrats who, in the timeless fashion of bureaucrats, have their own agenda. In this case that is the anti-Trump politics that is animating a federal bureaucracy that overwhelming gave their money and votes to Hillary Clinton.
And their agenda of the moment is to get one of the most effective presidential aides in history out of the White House.
They won’t succeed.