Commentary
Regular readers may recall my November 2, 2023 commentary on news follow- ups. We often read a story and later wonder what happened, what was the outcome. Here are a few follow ups that may interest you.
A FOLLOW-UP – From time to time I quote from the Letters to the Editor column in the Wall Street Journal when their readers comment on a subject I wrote about here. If your read my February 12, 2024 blog on Anticipating 2024 Presidential Campaign Coverage, you may recall that I referred to Peggy Noonan’s Journal column and to the exhaustive essay in the Columbia Journalism Review on the bias Trump coverage in 2016.
Ulf Gustafson of Wellington, Florida wasn’t exactly optimistic over Noonan’s hope that reporters will provide readers with unbiased verifiable news, wishing she would have also mentioned “truthful.”
“Would that hard-nosed journalistic reporting make a triumphant return. But in the 2024 election, I fear it won’t make a difference,” wrote Marc Edelstein of Miami. He predicts that Trump will again “face the greatest onslaught of coordinated cultural opposition ever seen” from the usual sources – social media, Hollywood, and academia – “to frighten sane persons out of voting for Mr. Trump.”
Ralph F. Mullin of Prairie Village, Kansas believes that journalists already blew an opportunity to dig into the culpable President Biden revealed in Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report. Instead, they took the easy way out and spun that the conclusion as “political” and “gratuitous.”
Brandon Hussing of Flagler Beach, Florida also referred to Hur’s report suggesting the reformed journalists use his finding to determine “Who, then, is running the country?”
In my last blog, I wrote how the media and Biden sycophants used the administration talking points of “politically motivated” and “gratuitous” in their responses to the Hur report.
Speaking of being factual, I was struck by the comment of former four-star general and CIA director David Petraeus on Fox News Saturday morning, referring to Vice President Harris’ “powerful” speech in Munich Friday. Please.
If it weren’t for the new bright lights in journalism this go around, I would say I am not too optimistic that we’ll see objective reporting.
ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP – Earlier this year, commenting on the laughable charges being brought against former President Trump by New York Attorney General Latitia James with Judge Arthur Engoron in the bag, I wondered how the New York Bar Association could allow the trial to continue, understanding that there was no victim.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board, referred to the judge’s order that Trump must pay $355 million and be banned from being an officer for any New York corporation for three years as “political overkill,” and James’ role as an “abuse of the law,” was refreshing.
The board writes that under the circumstances, “voters are unlikely to hold this judgement against Mr. Trump as he campaigns for the White House,” noting that he will appeal.
However, just as Trump warned in his remarks following the decision, corporations in New York should take notice, the Journal says, “CEOs might wonder about doing business where elected politicians use the law to smash companies this way.”
THEN THERE’S THIS – Surely, you remember 2016 when President Trump jokingly triggered a firestorm when he called on Russia for help in finding Hillary Clinton’s missing e-mails. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.”
While Trump supporters saw the humor in his campaign rhetoric, there were those who wanted him indicted for seeking foreign intrusion in our election.
Last week, during a campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina, Trump threatened not to protect NATO nations that were delinquent in paying their dues, adding, “I would encourage them (Russia) to do what the hell they want.” Again, generating concern, causing Biden to become noticeably unhinged, pausing during a cringe worthy press conference.
Even before Trump took office in 2016, he voiced opposition to NATO, primarily complaining about U.S. spending and those countries not paying their fair share.
But NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and other officials got the message and embraced “Trump’s demands for great burden-sharing,” while increasing their contributions.
In May 2018, during a visit to the White House, Stoltenberg thanked Trump for his leadership, saying, “It is impacting allies, because all allies are now increasing defense spending.
In Washington last month, during an appearance at the Heritage Foundation, Stoltenberg spoke highly of working with Trump over his four years in office, adding that he was “confident that the United States will remain a staunch ally.”
While I expect Trump will again push his America First agenda if elected, NATO should be safe as long as nations are paying their fair share.
FINALLY, this follow-up to my continued criticism of Biden’s electric car mandate. Administration officials are quick to deny there’s an EV mandate but reviewing the EPA proposed emission standards it would effectively require that EVs make up two-third of automaker sales by 2032.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers has launched advertising in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada and Arizona to call America’s attention to Biden’s “back-door” mandate.
However, the progressive group, Climate Power, is lobbying broadcasters in those states to pull the ads, concerned that the public will see banning gas-powered cars is the administration’s end game. In their strategy, they are warning that the FCC could pull their licenses for airing false advertising. The deep state at work.
May God continue to bless the United States of America
