Loading...
Title : IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF AXIOS'S JONATHAN SWAN
link : IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF AXIOS'S JONATHAN SWAN
IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF AXIOS'S JONATHAN SWAN
I see that I'm supposed to despise Jonathan Swan of Axios for his story yesterday about the White House proposal to end birthright citizenship.This birthright citizenship thing is so infuriating, because it exposes how access journalists become willing dupes through which policy is laundered. In this case Swan-dered. Here's how it probably worked:
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
There have maybe been "discussions" about ending birthright citizenship, amounting to a few hardliners bringing it up and getting shot down. They know they have an ally in Trump, they just have to get it over to him.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
So one of them chats up Swan, says "hey we've been talking about this." The guy knows Swan's interviewing Trump in a matter of days. Maybe he even encourages him to ask Trump about it.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
Swan complies, and Trump says "I thought I was the only one who knew that," feeding Swan's ego that he has a scoop.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
Once he runs it, the issue is Swan-dered. Now it's something "the president intends to do" rather than spitballing. And because it's public, the BS machismo of the White House dictates that they can't back down.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
By planting the trial balloon with an access journalist, it's now a debate, not than a few lunatics in the White House game-planning. The access journalist got played.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
I believe this is what happened. I agree that Swan was used to advance the hard-liners' agenda, and to inject this message into the conversation as Election Day approaches.
But why is that horrifying? I don't agree that the executive order is now inevitable -- whether or not tests would show that the president is clinically attention deficit disordered, he obviously loses focus a lot. (Where's that infrastructure plan?) He could easily lose focus on this. We have no idea whether the executive order is inevitable nowwill really happen.
Conversely, we have no idea whether it was inevitable before the interview. It's possible that the president was already determined to issue the executive order -- or would have done so on a sudden whim whether or not the interview took place. If that had happened, the order would have landed with little or no warning. Now we know it's under consideration in the White House. Isn't that how this is all supposed to work -- the press informs the public so the public can assess what elected officials intend to do and weigh in? Isn't it good to know about this executive order long before the White House has it ready to be issued?
I know what the answer to that is: No, it's terrible, because Trump is using this to sway the midterms. Swan enabled Trump to throw out another chunk of red meat, and now the mighty Republican electoral juggernaut will be even more powerful.
Do we have any evidence that that's the case?
A 2017 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 65% of respondents want birthright citizenship to continue. Republicans know it's not obviously a winning issue for them. Rick Scott, who's in a tight Senate race in Florida, walked away from a Miami Herald reporter when asked about the proposal yesterday. Other GOP politicians and operatives are clearly anxious:
Matt Viser writes ...: "Trump’s sharpened tone creates potential complications for some Republican candidates, particularly those in centrist suburban House districts where many GOP voters have grown uneasy about the president, as Trump embarks on a final week of nearly nonstop rallies where immigration is likely to be a frequent topic."We've been hearing for weeks that the all-powerful GOP noise machine has found the magic weapon to destroy the blue wave. Kavanaugh. The caravan. Now this. And in all this time the numbers for Democrats, at least in House races, have barely budged. Democrats are still strong favorites to regain control of the House. This won't change that. Plus, it's good we were forewarned about this. So why is Swan the villain?
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told WVLK radio that Trump “cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order . . . I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process.”
... Swing state candidate on edge: “I understand the President's frustration on immigration and border security because I am frustrated, too,” Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), in a tough reelection race, said in a statement that didn't mention birthright citizenship.
... It's Newt [Gingrich]: “I do not believe the 14th Amendment requires a constitutional amendment . . . but I think that this is late in the campaign ... this is too big of an issue for the president to jump and actually do anything so I think he's just expressing his opinion. But I would hope he'd ask Congress to hold hearings before he decided what path to take,” he told reporters.
Loading...
I see that I'm supposed to despise Jonathan Swan of Axios for his story yesterday about the White House proposal to end birthright citizenship.
I believe this is what happened. I agree that Swan was used to advance the hard-liners' agenda, and to inject this message into the conversation as Election Day approaches.
But why is that horrifying? I don't agree that the executive order is now inevitable -- whether or not tests would show that the president is clinically attention deficit disordered, he obviously loses focus a lot. (Where's that infrastructure plan?) He could easily lose focus on this. We have no idea whether the executive order is inevitable nowwill really happen.
Conversely, we have no idea whether it was inevitable before the interview. It's possible that the president was already determined to issue the executive order -- or would have done so on a sudden whim whether or not the interview took place. If that had happened, the order would have landed with little or no warning. Now we know it's under consideration in the White House. Isn't that how this is all supposed to work -- the press informs the public so the public can assess what elected officials intend to do and weigh in? Isn't it good to know about this executive order long before the White House has it ready to be issued?
I know what the answer to that is: No, it's terrible, because Trump is using this to sway the midterms. Swan enabled Trump to throw out another chunk of red meat, and now the mighty Republican electoral juggernaut will be even more powerful.
Do we have any evidence that that's the case?
A 2017 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 65% of respondents want birthright citizenship to continue. Republicans know it's not obviously a winning issue for them. Rick Scott, who's in a tight Senate race in Florida, walked away from a Miami Herald reporter when asked about the proposal yesterday. Other GOP politicians and operatives are clearly anxious:
This birthright citizenship thing is so infuriating, because it exposes how access journalists become willing dupes through which policy is laundered. In this case Swan-dered. Here's how it probably worked:
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
There have maybe been "discussions" about ending birthright citizenship, amounting to a few hardliners bringing it up and getting shot down. They know they have an ally in Trump, they just have to get it over to him.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
So one of them chats up Swan, says "hey we've been talking about this." The guy knows Swan's interviewing Trump in a matter of days. Maybe he even encourages him to ask Trump about it.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
Swan complies, and Trump says "I thought I was the only one who knew that," feeding Swan's ego that he has a scoop.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
Once he runs it, the issue is Swan-dered. Now it's something "the president intends to do" rather than spitballing. And because it's public, the BS machismo of the White House dictates that they can't back down.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
By planting the trial balloon with an access journalist, it's now a debate, not than a few lunatics in the White House game-planning. The access journalist got played.
— David Dayen (@ddayen) October 30, 2018
I believe this is what happened. I agree that Swan was used to advance the hard-liners' agenda, and to inject this message into the conversation as Election Day approaches.
But why is that horrifying? I don't agree that the executive order is now inevitable -- whether or not tests would show that the president is clinically attention deficit disordered, he obviously loses focus a lot. (Where's that infrastructure plan?) He could easily lose focus on this. We have no idea whether the executive order is inevitable nowwill really happen.
Conversely, we have no idea whether it was inevitable before the interview. It's possible that the president was already determined to issue the executive order -- or would have done so on a sudden whim whether or not the interview took place. If that had happened, the order would have landed with little or no warning. Now we know it's under consideration in the White House. Isn't that how this is all supposed to work -- the press informs the public so the public can assess what elected officials intend to do and weigh in? Isn't it good to know about this executive order long before the White House has it ready to be issued?
I know what the answer to that is: No, it's terrible, because Trump is using this to sway the midterms. Swan enabled Trump to throw out another chunk of red meat, and now the mighty Republican electoral juggernaut will be even more powerful.
Do we have any evidence that that's the case?
A 2017 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 65% of respondents want birthright citizenship to continue. Republicans know it's not obviously a winning issue for them. Rick Scott, who's in a tight Senate race in Florida, walked away from a Miami Herald reporter when asked about the proposal yesterday. Other GOP politicians and operatives are clearly anxious:
Matt Viser writes ...: "Trump’s sharpened tone creates potential complications for some Republican candidates, particularly those in centrist suburban House districts where many GOP voters have grown uneasy about the president, as Trump embarks on a final week of nearly nonstop rallies where immigration is likely to be a frequent topic."We've been hearing for weeks that the all-powerful GOP noise machine has found the magic weapon to destroy the blue wave. Kavanaugh. The caravan. Now this. And in all this time the numbers for Democrats, at least in House races, have barely budged. Democrats are still strong favorites to regain control of the House. This won't change that. Plus, it's good we were forewarned about this. So why is Swan the villain?
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told WVLK radio that Trump “cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order . . . I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process.”
... Swing state candidate on edge: “I understand the President's frustration on immigration and border security because I am frustrated, too,” Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), in a tough reelection race, said in a statement that didn't mention birthright citizenship.
... It's Newt [Gingrich]: “I do not believe the 14th Amendment requires a constitutional amendment . . . but I think that this is late in the campaign ... this is too big of an issue for the president to jump and actually do anything so I think he's just expressing his opinion. But I would hope he'd ask Congress to hold hearings before he decided what path to take,” he told reporters.
Thus articles IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF AXIOS'S JONATHAN SWAN
that is all articles IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF AXIOS'S JONATHAN SWAN This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF AXIOS'S JONATHAN SWAN with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/10/in-partial-defense-of-axioss-jonathan.html
0 Response to "IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF AXIOS'S JONATHAN SWAN"
Post a Comment