Trump is the Biggest Failure in History As His Disapproval Rating Skyrockets to 58%
Apr 21, 2017 13:53:50 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
I guess the professor has been hired by left wing publications to spread there word. I don't bother to read them. Too predictable!
deebob wrote:
Left wing (communist) polls always support left wingnuts (communists). Third world, Pravda, Schiesters. Muslims fought for Hitler in WWII, now they fight for Communists. Is that a step up?
Apr 21, 2017 14:07:12 #
Dow says pesticide studies flawed
The chemical firm is pushing the Trump administration to scrap the findings.
ANDREW N. LIVERIS, center, Dow Chemical’s chairman and chief executive, is a close advisor to President Trump. Above, Liveris makes comments before a meeting with business leaders in the Cabinet Room at the White House on March 17. (Brendan Smialowski AFP/Getty Images)
associated press
Dow Chemical Co. is pushing the Trump administration to scrap the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species.
Lawyers representing Dow — whose chief executive also heads a White House manufacturing working group — and two other makers of organophosphates sent letters last week to the heads of three Cabinet agencies. The companies asked them “to set aside” the results of government studies that the companies contend are fundamentally flawed.
The letters, dated April 13, were obtained by the Associated Press.
Dow Chemical Chairman and Chief Executive Andrew N. Liveris is a close advisor to President Trump. The company wrote a $1-million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities.
Over the last four years, government scientists have compiled an official record running more than 10,000 pages showing the three pesticides under review — chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion — pose a risk to nearly every endangered species they studied. Regulators at the three federal agencies, which share responsibilities for enforcing the Endangered Species Act, are close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used.
The industry’s request comes after Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced last month that he was reversing an Obama-era effort to bar the use of Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide on food after recent peer-reviewed studies found that even tiny levels of exposure could hinder the development of children’s brains.
In his previous role as Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt often aligned himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations who supported his state campaigns. He filed more than a dozen lawsuits seeking to overturn some of the same regulations he is now charged with enforcing.
Pruitt declined to answer questions from reporters Wednesday as he toured a polluted Superfund site in Indiana. A spokesman for the agency later said Pruitt won’t “prejudge” any potential rule-making decisions as “we are trying to restore regulatory sanity to EPA’s work.”
“We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful consideration to sound science and good policy-making,” said J.P. Freire, EPA’s associate administrator for public affairs. “The administrator is committed to listening to stakeholders affected by EPA’s regulations, while also reviewing past decisions.”
The office of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the National Marine Fisheries Service, did not respond to emailed questions. A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, referred questions back to the EPA.
As with the recent human studies of chlorpyrifos, Dow hired its own scientists to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies showing the risks posed to endangered species by organophosphates.
The EPA’s recent biological evaluation of chlorpyrifos found that the pesticide is “likely to adversely affect” 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants accessed as part of its study, including critically endangered or threatened species of frogs, fish, birds and mammals. Similar results were shown for malathion and diazinon.
In a statement, the Dow subsidiary that sells chlorpyrifos said its lawyers asked for the EPA’s biological assessment to be withdrawn because its “scientific basis was not reliable.”
“Dow AgroSciences is committed to the production and marketing of products that will help American farmers feed the world, and do so with full respect for human health and the environment, including endangered and threatened species,” the statement said. “These letters, and the detailed scientific analyses that support them, demonstrate that commitment.”
FMC Corp., which sells malathion, said the withdrawal of the EPA studies will allow the necessary time for the “best available” scientific data to be compiled.
“Malathion is a critical tool in protecting agriculture from damaging pests,” the company said.
Diazinon maker Makhteshim Agan of North America Inc., which does business under the name Adama, did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Environmental advocates were not surprised that the companies might seek to forestall new regulations that might hurt their profits, but said Wednesday that criticism of the government’s scientists was unfounded. The methods used to conduct EPA’s biological evaluations were developed by the National Academy of Sciences.
Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Dow’s experts were trying to hold EPA scientists to an unrealistic standard of data collection that could only be achieved under “perfect laboratory conditions.”
“You can’t just take an endangered fish out of the wild, take it to the lab and then expose it to enough pesticides until it dies to get that sort of data,” Hartl said. “It’s wrong morally, and it’s illegal.”
Originally derived from a nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany, chlorpyrifos has been sprayed on citrus, apples, cherries and other crops for decades. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with Dow selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year.
As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at UC Berkeley found that 87% of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos.
In 2005, the Bush administration ordered an end to residential use of diazinon to kill yard pests such as ants and grub worms after determining that it poses a human health risk, particularly to children. However it is still approved for use by farmers, who spray it on fruits and vegetables.
Malathion is widely sprayed to control mosquitoes and fruit flies. It is also an active ingredient in some shampoos prescribed to children for treating lice.
A coalition of environmental groups has fought in court for years to spur the EPA to more closely examine the risk posed to humans and endangered species by pesticides, especially organophosphates.
“Endangered species are the canary in the coal mine,” Hartl said.
Since many of the threatened species are aquatic, he said they are often the first to show the effects of long-term chemical contamination in rivers and lakes used as sources of drinking water by humans.
Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation’s capital. There is no indication that the chemical giant’s influence has waned.
When Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, Dow’s CEO was at Trump’s side.
“Andrew, I would like to thank you for initially getting the group together and for the fantastic job you’ve done,” Trump said as he signed the order during an Oval Office ceremony. The president then handed his pen to Liveris to keep as a souvenir.
Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the company’s $1-million donation to Trump’s inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions made by the new administration is “completely off the mark.”
“Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws,” Schikorra said. “Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity.”
The chemical firm is pushing the Trump administration to scrap the findings.
ANDREW N. LIVERIS, center, Dow Chemical’s chairman and chief executive, is a close advisor to President Trump. Above, Liveris makes comments before a meeting with business leaders in the Cabinet Room at the White House on March 17. (Brendan Smialowski AFP/Getty Images)
associated press
Dow Chemical Co. is pushing the Trump administration to scrap the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species.
Lawyers representing Dow — whose chief executive also heads a White House manufacturing working group — and two other makers of organophosphates sent letters last week to the heads of three Cabinet agencies. The companies asked them “to set aside” the results of government studies that the companies contend are fundamentally flawed.
The letters, dated April 13, were obtained by the Associated Press.
Dow Chemical Chairman and Chief Executive Andrew N. Liveris is a close advisor to President Trump. The company wrote a $1-million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities.
Over the last four years, government scientists have compiled an official record running more than 10,000 pages showing the three pesticides under review — chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion — pose a risk to nearly every endangered species they studied. Regulators at the three federal agencies, which share responsibilities for enforcing the Endangered Species Act, are close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used.
The industry’s request comes after Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced last month that he was reversing an Obama-era effort to bar the use of Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide on food after recent peer-reviewed studies found that even tiny levels of exposure could hinder the development of children’s brains.
In his previous role as Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt often aligned himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations who supported his state campaigns. He filed more than a dozen lawsuits seeking to overturn some of the same regulations he is now charged with enforcing.
Pruitt declined to answer questions from reporters Wednesday as he toured a polluted Superfund site in Indiana. A spokesman for the agency later said Pruitt won’t “prejudge” any potential rule-making decisions as “we are trying to restore regulatory sanity to EPA’s work.”
“We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful consideration to sound science and good policy-making,” said J.P. Freire, EPA’s associate administrator for public affairs. “The administrator is committed to listening to stakeholders affected by EPA’s regulations, while also reviewing past decisions.”
The office of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the National Marine Fisheries Service, did not respond to emailed questions. A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, referred questions back to the EPA.
As with the recent human studies of chlorpyrifos, Dow hired its own scientists to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies showing the risks posed to endangered species by organophosphates.
The EPA’s recent biological evaluation of chlorpyrifos found that the pesticide is “likely to adversely affect” 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants accessed as part of its study, including critically endangered or threatened species of frogs, fish, birds and mammals. Similar results were shown for malathion and diazinon.
In a statement, the Dow subsidiary that sells chlorpyrifos said its lawyers asked for the EPA’s biological assessment to be withdrawn because its “scientific basis was not reliable.”
“Dow AgroSciences is committed to the production and marketing of products that will help American farmers feed the world, and do so with full respect for human health and the environment, including endangered and threatened species,” the statement said. “These letters, and the detailed scientific analyses that support them, demonstrate that commitment.”
FMC Corp., which sells malathion, said the withdrawal of the EPA studies will allow the necessary time for the “best available” scientific data to be compiled.
“Malathion is a critical tool in protecting agriculture from damaging pests,” the company said.
Diazinon maker Makhteshim Agan of North America Inc., which does business under the name Adama, did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Environmental advocates were not surprised that the companies might seek to forestall new regulations that might hurt their profits, but said Wednesday that criticism of the government’s scientists was unfounded. The methods used to conduct EPA’s biological evaluations were developed by the National Academy of Sciences.
Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Dow’s experts were trying to hold EPA scientists to an unrealistic standard of data collection that could only be achieved under “perfect laboratory conditions.”
“You can’t just take an endangered fish out of the wild, take it to the lab and then expose it to enough pesticides until it dies to get that sort of data,” Hartl said. “It’s wrong morally, and it’s illegal.”
Originally derived from a nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany, chlorpyrifos has been sprayed on citrus, apples, cherries and other crops for decades. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with Dow selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year.
As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at UC Berkeley found that 87% of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos.
In 2005, the Bush administration ordered an end to residential use of diazinon to kill yard pests such as ants and grub worms after determining that it poses a human health risk, particularly to children. However it is still approved for use by farmers, who spray it on fruits and vegetables.
Malathion is widely sprayed to control mosquitoes and fruit flies. It is also an active ingredient in some shampoos prescribed to children for treating lice.
A coalition of environmental groups has fought in court for years to spur the EPA to more closely examine the risk posed to humans and endangered species by pesticides, especially organophosphates.
“Endangered species are the canary in the coal mine,” Hartl said.
Since many of the threatened species are aquatic, he said they are often the first to show the effects of long-term chemical contamination in rivers and lakes used as sources of drinking water by humans.
Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation’s capital. There is no indication that the chemical giant’s influence has waned.
When Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, Dow’s CEO was at Trump’s side.
“Andrew, I would like to thank you for initially getting the group together and for the fantastic job you’ve done,” Trump said as he signed the order during an Oval Office ceremony. The president then handed his pen to Liveris to keep as a souvenir.
Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the company’s $1-million donation to Trump’s inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions made by the new administration is “completely off the mark.”
“Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws,” Schikorra said. “Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity.”
Apr 21, 2017 14:09:24 #
U.S. to investigate steel imports
The probe will focus on whether other nations’ sales threaten national security.
PRESIDENT TRUMP shows the signed memorandum to expedite the investigation of steel imports Thursday. It could lead the U.S. to impose broad tariffs. (Shawn Thew European Pressphoto Agency)
By Ana Swanson
The Trump administration directed the Commerce Department on Thursday to expedite an investigation into whether the way other countries sell steel compromises U.S. national security.
In a briefing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the review would consider how much steel the U.S. needs to defend itself, and whether current domestic capacity meets those requirements. Steel imports now make up more than 26% of the U.S. marketplace, and the report will examine to what extent those imports impinge on U.S. economic and national defense security, Ross said.
That investigation officially began Wednesday night, and President Trump signed the memorandum to expedite the investigation at a ceremony Thursday.
The investigation could result in a recommendation that the United States impose broad tariffs on the steel industry, Ross said. “The important question is protecting our defense needs. And we will do whatever is necessary to do that, but we’ve come to no conclusion yet because the study is just recently begun.”
The investigation — which was initiated by the Commerce Department, not the steel industry — revives a section of a little-used trade law, the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Section 232 of the law allows the government to impose a wide variety of barriers on steel imports for national security reasons. It does not focus on a particular country, but analysts say the order is likely to be wielded against China, which has about half of the world’s steel capacity and has flooded the global market with cheap steel in recent years.
Thursday’s executive order showed the administration pushing ahead with promises to use existing trade laws to crack down more heavily on what it considers unfair trading practices, coming a week after Trump appeared to walk back some of the most prominent economic promises of his campaign.
Last week, Trump declined to label China a currency manipulator despite campaign promises to do so, and he expressed support for the Export-Import Bank after previously criticizing the credit agency.
The president made bold and often inflammatory promises about trade policy on the campaign trail, pledging to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement and impose tariffs of 45% on imports from China and 35% on U.S. companies that moved manufacturing facilities to Mexico.
Since coming into office, his actions on trade have been more muted. The president signed an official memorandum withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Jan. 23 and signed two executive orders directing review of trade practices March 31.
The United States has not used Section 232 since 1995, when the creation of the World Trade Organization provided other channels to crack down on countries that violate international trade practices. Yet the Trump administration has expressed skepticism about the efficacy of the WTO and said it would consider going around the organization.
The current patchwork of steel-related cases brought under the WTO are “very, very limited in nature to a very, very specific product from a very, very specific country,” Ross said Thursday. “It’s a fairly porous system. And while it has accomplished some fair measure of reduction, it doesn’t solve the whole problem.”
Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which represents steelworkers and the industry, said the investigation “hopefully could provide some breathing space for the steel industry.”
“Getting at China’s overcapacity in steel and the scale of it is exceptionally difficult to do through conventional application of trade law. It may take an extraordinary measure, like Section 232, to make some progress and to prod China along as well,” Paul said.
The law gives the Commerce secretary 270 days to report the findings of an investigation to the president, and an additional 90 days for Trump to make a decision on the information, though Ross said the investigation probably would take less time than that.
The U.S. steel industry has been shedding jobs for decades, partly because of the development of steel furnaces that are increasingly efficient and automated, and partly because of the growing capacity in countries such as China.
Some analysts say that if the U.S. were to restrict steel imports, that could raise the price of steel for U.S. companies and make it harder for those countries to compete internationally.
In the briefing, Ross said this consideration would be weighed in the Commerce Department’s ultimate report. “It’s a question of balancing one’s priorities,” he said.
Swanson writes for the Washington Post.
The probe will focus on whether other nations’ sales threaten national security.
PRESIDENT TRUMP shows the signed memorandum to expedite the investigation of steel imports Thursday. It could lead the U.S. to impose broad tariffs. (Shawn Thew European Pressphoto Agency)
By Ana Swanson
The Trump administration directed the Commerce Department on Thursday to expedite an investigation into whether the way other countries sell steel compromises U.S. national security.
In a briefing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the review would consider how much steel the U.S. needs to defend itself, and whether current domestic capacity meets those requirements. Steel imports now make up more than 26% of the U.S. marketplace, and the report will examine to what extent those imports impinge on U.S. economic and national defense security, Ross said.
That investigation officially began Wednesday night, and President Trump signed the memorandum to expedite the investigation at a ceremony Thursday.
The investigation could result in a recommendation that the United States impose broad tariffs on the steel industry, Ross said. “The important question is protecting our defense needs. And we will do whatever is necessary to do that, but we’ve come to no conclusion yet because the study is just recently begun.”
The investigation — which was initiated by the Commerce Department, not the steel industry — revives a section of a little-used trade law, the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Section 232 of the law allows the government to impose a wide variety of barriers on steel imports for national security reasons. It does not focus on a particular country, but analysts say the order is likely to be wielded against China, which has about half of the world’s steel capacity and has flooded the global market with cheap steel in recent years.
Thursday’s executive order showed the administration pushing ahead with promises to use existing trade laws to crack down more heavily on what it considers unfair trading practices, coming a week after Trump appeared to walk back some of the most prominent economic promises of his campaign.
Last week, Trump declined to label China a currency manipulator despite campaign promises to do so, and he expressed support for the Export-Import Bank after previously criticizing the credit agency.
The president made bold and often inflammatory promises about trade policy on the campaign trail, pledging to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement and impose tariffs of 45% on imports from China and 35% on U.S. companies that moved manufacturing facilities to Mexico.
Since coming into office, his actions on trade have been more muted. The president signed an official memorandum withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Jan. 23 and signed two executive orders directing review of trade practices March 31.
The United States has not used Section 232 since 1995, when the creation of the World Trade Organization provided other channels to crack down on countries that violate international trade practices. Yet the Trump administration has expressed skepticism about the efficacy of the WTO and said it would consider going around the organization.
The current patchwork of steel-related cases brought under the WTO are “very, very limited in nature to a very, very specific product from a very, very specific country,” Ross said Thursday. “It’s a fairly porous system. And while it has accomplished some fair measure of reduction, it doesn’t solve the whole problem.”
Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which represents steelworkers and the industry, said the investigation “hopefully could provide some breathing space for the steel industry.”
“Getting at China’s overcapacity in steel and the scale of it is exceptionally difficult to do through conventional application of trade law. It may take an extraordinary measure, like Section 232, to make some progress and to prod China along as well,” Paul said.
The law gives the Commerce secretary 270 days to report the findings of an investigation to the president, and an additional 90 days for Trump to make a decision on the information, though Ross said the investigation probably would take less time than that.
The U.S. steel industry has been shedding jobs for decades, partly because of the development of steel furnaces that are increasingly efficient and automated, and partly because of the growing capacity in countries such as China.
Some analysts say that if the U.S. were to restrict steel imports, that could raise the price of steel for U.S. companies and make it harder for those countries to compete internationally.
In the briefing, Ross said this consideration would be weighed in the Commerce Department’s ultimate report. “It’s a question of balancing one’s priorities,” he said.
Swanson writes for the Washington Post.
Apr 21, 2017 14:10:19 #
O’Reilly scandal comes at a cost for Fox News
Conservatives react with divergent views
FOX NEWS is betting big on Tucker Carlson, above, the conservative pundit whose nightly show on the network will replace Bill O’Reilly’s starting Monday. (Richard Drew Associated Press)
By David Ng
It was a smear campaign orchestrated by liberal activists bent on censorship. It was a predictable reckoning for an arrogant man. It’s the latest sign that the old-guard conservative media need fresh blood to take on the left-wing establishment.
Following the firing of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on Wednesday on the heels of numerous accusations of sexual harassment, leaders in conservative media were in unanimous agreement that his departure represents a key victory for liberals — a major scalp in a growing pelt of conservative voices that have been silenced since Donald Trump won the presidential election.
But opinions vary widely over what O’Reilly’s downfall means for the conservative media in general and Fox News in particular. At a time when competing conservative news sites are attracting younger viewers and readers, the No. 1-rated cable news channel is at a crucial juncture over its programming and broader future.
The channel is betting big on Tucker Carlson, the conservative pundit whose nightly show on Fox News will replace O’Reilly’s starting Monday. Carlson has become a popular hit for the network, almost doubling the ratings of his predecessor, Megyn Kelly.
Some see the O’Reilly drama as a partisan attack from activists who care little about the victims of sexual harassment.
“The motives are deeply political,” said Alex Marlow, editor in chief at Breitbart News, the conservative, pro-Trump website. He said the advertiser boycott of “The O’Reilly Factor” — which saw numerous advertisers jump ship after the sexual allegations were made public — represents the creeping influence of corporate executives over what goes on in newsrooms around the country.
“It’s creating an America where corporations decide what can and can’t be said, and I don’t like the idea where the corporations have so much control,” Marlow said. “Corporations are under pressure to pull advertising from anyone who is right of center — it’s an attack on free speech.”
Advertisers, however, were responding to criticism and protests over persistent sexual harassment complaints at Fox News. The flight of advertisers from “The O’Reilly Factor” followed a report in the New York Times that Fox News and O’Reilly had paid $13 million to settle claims from five women who complained of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior by the TV personality.
O’Reilly’s departure marks the latest shake-up in Fox News’ evening lineup, which has seen the recent exit of hosts Kelly and Greta Van Susteren. Carlson will take O’Reilly’s 8 p.m. Eastern time slot, and Eric Bolling and Jesse Watters have also been promoted to more coveted slots.
“Fox’s prime-time lineup is actually becoming more pro-Trump,” said Marlow. “So the left is getting a Pyrrhic victory.”
But increasing partisanship among conservative outlets makes some media executives uncomfortable.
“There’s a lot of room in the center and center right that’s become ignored,” said Christopher Ruddy, who heads Newsmax, a moderately conservative news site. “The more you go to these extreme niches, the better your business will be. But I think it’s limited and short-term thinking. I’d rather grow to the center.”
He said O’Reilly represented a relatively centrist voice among Fox’s evening lineup, which includes Sean Hannity, who is overtly pro-Trump.
“Bill O’Reilly is really an independent,” he said. “Culturally, he was conservative and that irked a lot of people in Hollywood. But he was also good at interviewing Obama and [Bill] Clinton.”
The audience for “The O’Reilly Factor” skewed older, with a median age of 67, according to data from Nielsen. For many, he represented an older generation of conservatives and an old-fashioned way of doing the news.
“I don’t watch his show,” said Jack Posobiec, the Washington bureau chief of Rebel Media, a right-wing news site. Posobiec is one of a growing number of young, conservative news personalities who has embraced social media as a way to bypass traditional media that is reliant on advertising.
O’Reilly “should download a Periscope account, start digging up sources, and start bringing real news and hard-hitting journalism to the public like we do here at Rebel Media,” he said.
Conservative media executives have expressed optimism over Carlson, whose Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” debuted in November and has seen its popularity grow steadily.
“Tucker is a serious guy and he’s become a rock star,” said Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. “Some people make tremendous hosts, some make tremendous guests. Tucker was a great guest and he surprised everybody that he was a better host. He has charisma and goes in-depth.”
Carlson is more attuned to younger viewers, especially in the way he structures his show, Breitbart’s Marlow said.
“He’s structuring his show anticipating the viral YouTube clip that can appeal to a much broader and younger audience,” he said. Producers post those clips to Carlson’s Twitter account, where they are retweeted in the thousands.
“You can tell they are producing the show with that in mind.”
david.ng@latimes.com
Conservatives react with divergent views
FOX NEWS is betting big on Tucker Carlson, above, the conservative pundit whose nightly show on the network will replace Bill O’Reilly’s starting Monday. (Richard Drew Associated Press)
By David Ng
It was a smear campaign orchestrated by liberal activists bent on censorship. It was a predictable reckoning for an arrogant man. It’s the latest sign that the old-guard conservative media need fresh blood to take on the left-wing establishment.
Following the firing of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on Wednesday on the heels of numerous accusations of sexual harassment, leaders in conservative media were in unanimous agreement that his departure represents a key victory for liberals — a major scalp in a growing pelt of conservative voices that have been silenced since Donald Trump won the presidential election.
But opinions vary widely over what O’Reilly’s downfall means for the conservative media in general and Fox News in particular. At a time when competing conservative news sites are attracting younger viewers and readers, the No. 1-rated cable news channel is at a crucial juncture over its programming and broader future.
The channel is betting big on Tucker Carlson, the conservative pundit whose nightly show on Fox News will replace O’Reilly’s starting Monday. Carlson has become a popular hit for the network, almost doubling the ratings of his predecessor, Megyn Kelly.
Some see the O’Reilly drama as a partisan attack from activists who care little about the victims of sexual harassment.
“The motives are deeply political,” said Alex Marlow, editor in chief at Breitbart News, the conservative, pro-Trump website. He said the advertiser boycott of “The O’Reilly Factor” — which saw numerous advertisers jump ship after the sexual allegations were made public — represents the creeping influence of corporate executives over what goes on in newsrooms around the country.
“It’s creating an America where corporations decide what can and can’t be said, and I don’t like the idea where the corporations have so much control,” Marlow said. “Corporations are under pressure to pull advertising from anyone who is right of center — it’s an attack on free speech.”
Advertisers, however, were responding to criticism and protests over persistent sexual harassment complaints at Fox News. The flight of advertisers from “The O’Reilly Factor” followed a report in the New York Times that Fox News and O’Reilly had paid $13 million to settle claims from five women who complained of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior by the TV personality.
O’Reilly’s departure marks the latest shake-up in Fox News’ evening lineup, which has seen the recent exit of hosts Kelly and Greta Van Susteren. Carlson will take O’Reilly’s 8 p.m. Eastern time slot, and Eric Bolling and Jesse Watters have also been promoted to more coveted slots.
“Fox’s prime-time lineup is actually becoming more pro-Trump,” said Marlow. “So the left is getting a Pyrrhic victory.”
But increasing partisanship among conservative outlets makes some media executives uncomfortable.
“There’s a lot of room in the center and center right that’s become ignored,” said Christopher Ruddy, who heads Newsmax, a moderately conservative news site. “The more you go to these extreme niches, the better your business will be. But I think it’s limited and short-term thinking. I’d rather grow to the center.”
He said O’Reilly represented a relatively centrist voice among Fox’s evening lineup, which includes Sean Hannity, who is overtly pro-Trump.
“Bill O’Reilly is really an independent,” he said. “Culturally, he was conservative and that irked a lot of people in Hollywood. But he was also good at interviewing Obama and [Bill] Clinton.”
The audience for “The O’Reilly Factor” skewed older, with a median age of 67, according to data from Nielsen. For many, he represented an older generation of conservatives and an old-fashioned way of doing the news.
“I don’t watch his show,” said Jack Posobiec, the Washington bureau chief of Rebel Media, a right-wing news site. Posobiec is one of a growing number of young, conservative news personalities who has embraced social media as a way to bypass traditional media that is reliant on advertising.
O’Reilly “should download a Periscope account, start digging up sources, and start bringing real news and hard-hitting journalism to the public like we do here at Rebel Media,” he said.
Conservative media executives have expressed optimism over Carlson, whose Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” debuted in November and has seen its popularity grow steadily.
“Tucker is a serious guy and he’s become a rock star,” said Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. “Some people make tremendous hosts, some make tremendous guests. Tucker was a great guest and he surprised everybody that he was a better host. He has charisma and goes in-depth.”
Carlson is more attuned to younger viewers, especially in the way he structures his show, Breitbart’s Marlow said.
“He’s structuring his show anticipating the viral YouTube clip that can appeal to a much broader and younger audience,” he said. Producers post those clips to Carlson’s Twitter account, where they are retweeted in the thousands.
“You can tell they are producing the show with that in mind.”
david.ng@latimes.com
Apr 21, 2017 15:05:43 #
Why the White House Push on Health Care Risks a Shutdown
Apr 20, 2017
President Trump's desire for a signature achievement as he approaches his hundredth day in office has prompted the White House to revive the failed bid to repeal Obamacare as part of a must-pass spending bill next week. The gambit has thrown Congress into a state of confusion that further jeopardizes its ability to keep the government open.
Lawmakers return to Washington next week with a hard deadline of Friday to pass a plan that would keep the lights on at government agencies. Leaders in both chambers are scheduling conference calls in the coming day to brief lawmakers. But with the spending bill in flux and the White House pushing for a speedy vote on a third try to scrap and replace Affordable Care, there is no clear picture about what, exactly, is on the table.
The deadline comes with deep risks. The market for individual insurance plans is on shaky ground, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned the White House to tread carefully lest it send some providers into a death spiral. A hasty repeal could further undermine that marketplace. Shuttering the government could tank financial markets and send dangerous ripples around the globe. Neither would help Trump, who is especially mindful of public perceptions of his Administration as he nears his 100-day mark, or a Republican Party still trying to prove itself capable of governing,
Yet with the shutdown looming, the White House is discussing merging the spending measure with a repeal of Obamacare. A draft of the legislative language for the spending bill could circulate among lawmakers before they return on Monday. Separately, a compromise between the leaders of the House GOP's centrist and far-right blocs is also afoot to deal with health care. And some of the strongest social conservatives are urging colleagues to cut off all funding to Planned Parenthood—even though no one in party leadership is eager to take up that fight at this time.
Republican leaders in the House and Senate say that taking up two difficult challenges on a compressed timeline is simply not realistic. “This fell apart in the House last time. Why would they go down this road again, with the stakes this much higher?” asks a senior aide to Republican leadership in the Senate, noting the revised plan to kill Obamacare has not had a hearing, the nonpartisan budget office hasn’t had time to estimate its costs and the Senate is no more eager to take up a straight party-line bill than it was before.
Another sign that the party wasn't prepared for the health care reboot? Its chief champion of a do-over, Vice President Mike Pence, is in Asia. House Speaker Paul Ryan, meanwhile, is visiting Europe. And with Congress on recess, there aren’t many lawmakers around for the White House’s team of lobbyists to woo.
The funding bill might be the best option for the President's team to notch a win before the clock strikes 100 days, an event that will be furiously hyped on the cable news programs the President watches constantly. Two White House officials say the Obamacare repeal provisions are in the works, though they also stressed that nothing has been finalized. The President himself is pushing hard—and looking at a shutdown as a way to deliver on his campaign promises. He has sought to marry a scaled-back repeal plan with the government-funding plan as a take-it-or-leave-it gamble.
"We have a good chance of getting it soon," the President said Thursday during a press conference in the East Room. "I believe we will get it, and whether it is next week or shortly thereafter.”
Privately, Republicans who work in Congress are grousing that Trump still hasn't figured out how to guide legislation through their hallways. Pushing an Obamacare repeal alongside a government funding plan faces tough odds, if not impossible ones. One top adviser to House leadership suggested that the whole gambit was ill-conceived and might not even see the light of day. “The last time I checked, the White House doesn’t control our calendar,” the adviser says.
The Senate is similarly reluctant. The chamber is not prone to quick action, and that’s unlikely to change just because Trump wants a win in stories grading his first 100 days. “We are going to need Democratic votes,” a second aide in Senate Republican leadership says with exasperation. “Why would we piss them off with these sideshows?”
Democrats are not going to support a spending provision that includes anything resembling a repeal of Obamacare. Though many recognize the law needs tweaks, they are none too eager to give Trump a win on this. Nor will they allocate money for a brick-and-mortar border wall, or anything that looks like the “deportation force” that Trump proposed during his campaign to round up immigrants in the country illegally. They may, however, go along with a slight boost to Pentagon funding or even boosted technology to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border.
“If the President doesn’t interfere and insist on poison pill amendments to be shoved down the throat of the Congress, we can come up with an agreement," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters this week. "I want to come up with an agreement, I think my colleagues want to come up with an agreement. Our Republican colleagues know, since they control the House and the Senate and the White House, that a shutdown would fall on their shoulders and they don’t want it. We want to make sure it’s good budget that meets our principles. But so far, so good.”
With lawmakers scattered across the country, at home in the districts and states they represent in Congress, the plans for avoiding next week’s potential shutdown began to resemble a game of telephone: text messages and emails among colleagues distorting the realities with every iteration. Yes, a health care overhaul is part of it. No, it isn’t. Funding for a border wall with Mexico is part of it. No, it isn’t. More cash for the Pentagon is part of it. Again, no, it isn’t.
The result is broad confusion about what awaits with the clock ticking down. Deadlines are often the only catalysts for action in Washington. A crisis has to be on the horizon for lawmakers to take decisive action, and even then there’s no guarantee. The last government shutdown was in 2013, when Sen. Ted Cruz tried to use a funding deadline to scrap President Obama’s health care law. Instead he shuttered the government and tanked the GOP in public opinion polls, forcing the bruised party to relent with Obamacare still on the books.
Few Republicans want to repeat that debacle. As a backup plan, the party's leaders are preparing a one-week temporary funding measure to keep the doors open should things collapse. One senior aide likened it to an “in-case-of-emergency” parachute—no one really wants to use it. Instead, party leaders are trying to nudge their members to a compromise proposal that pushes these big-ticket ideas to the fall’s budget negotiations.
That’s right. Congress will have to do all of this again in in a few months, because the government has been running on an interim spending plan negotiated while President Obama was still in office. Lawmakers from both parties have said they would fund the government for the full fiscal year starting in October—a novel move these days.
— With reporting by Zeke J. Miller and Sam Frizell.
Apr 20, 2017
President Trump's desire for a signature achievement as he approaches his hundredth day in office has prompted the White House to revive the failed bid to repeal Obamacare as part of a must-pass spending bill next week. The gambit has thrown Congress into a state of confusion that further jeopardizes its ability to keep the government open.
Lawmakers return to Washington next week with a hard deadline of Friday to pass a plan that would keep the lights on at government agencies. Leaders in both chambers are scheduling conference calls in the coming day to brief lawmakers. But with the spending bill in flux and the White House pushing for a speedy vote on a third try to scrap and replace Affordable Care, there is no clear picture about what, exactly, is on the table.
The deadline comes with deep risks. The market for individual insurance plans is on shaky ground, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned the White House to tread carefully lest it send some providers into a death spiral. A hasty repeal could further undermine that marketplace. Shuttering the government could tank financial markets and send dangerous ripples around the globe. Neither would help Trump, who is especially mindful of public perceptions of his Administration as he nears his 100-day mark, or a Republican Party still trying to prove itself capable of governing,
Yet with the shutdown looming, the White House is discussing merging the spending measure with a repeal of Obamacare. A draft of the legislative language for the spending bill could circulate among lawmakers before they return on Monday. Separately, a compromise between the leaders of the House GOP's centrist and far-right blocs is also afoot to deal with health care. And some of the strongest social conservatives are urging colleagues to cut off all funding to Planned Parenthood—even though no one in party leadership is eager to take up that fight at this time.
Republican leaders in the House and Senate say that taking up two difficult challenges on a compressed timeline is simply not realistic. “This fell apart in the House last time. Why would they go down this road again, with the stakes this much higher?” asks a senior aide to Republican leadership in the Senate, noting the revised plan to kill Obamacare has not had a hearing, the nonpartisan budget office hasn’t had time to estimate its costs and the Senate is no more eager to take up a straight party-line bill than it was before.
Another sign that the party wasn't prepared for the health care reboot? Its chief champion of a do-over, Vice President Mike Pence, is in Asia. House Speaker Paul Ryan, meanwhile, is visiting Europe. And with Congress on recess, there aren’t many lawmakers around for the White House’s team of lobbyists to woo.
The funding bill might be the best option for the President's team to notch a win before the clock strikes 100 days, an event that will be furiously hyped on the cable news programs the President watches constantly. Two White House officials say the Obamacare repeal provisions are in the works, though they also stressed that nothing has been finalized. The President himself is pushing hard—and looking at a shutdown as a way to deliver on his campaign promises. He has sought to marry a scaled-back repeal plan with the government-funding plan as a take-it-or-leave-it gamble.
"We have a good chance of getting it soon," the President said Thursday during a press conference in the East Room. "I believe we will get it, and whether it is next week or shortly thereafter.”
Privately, Republicans who work in Congress are grousing that Trump still hasn't figured out how to guide legislation through their hallways. Pushing an Obamacare repeal alongside a government funding plan faces tough odds, if not impossible ones. One top adviser to House leadership suggested that the whole gambit was ill-conceived and might not even see the light of day. “The last time I checked, the White House doesn’t control our calendar,” the adviser says.
The Senate is similarly reluctant. The chamber is not prone to quick action, and that’s unlikely to change just because Trump wants a win in stories grading his first 100 days. “We are going to need Democratic votes,” a second aide in Senate Republican leadership says with exasperation. “Why would we piss them off with these sideshows?”
Democrats are not going to support a spending provision that includes anything resembling a repeal of Obamacare. Though many recognize the law needs tweaks, they are none too eager to give Trump a win on this. Nor will they allocate money for a brick-and-mortar border wall, or anything that looks like the “deportation force” that Trump proposed during his campaign to round up immigrants in the country illegally. They may, however, go along with a slight boost to Pentagon funding or even boosted technology to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border.
“If the President doesn’t interfere and insist on poison pill amendments to be shoved down the throat of the Congress, we can come up with an agreement," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters this week. "I want to come up with an agreement, I think my colleagues want to come up with an agreement. Our Republican colleagues know, since they control the House and the Senate and the White House, that a shutdown would fall on their shoulders and they don’t want it. We want to make sure it’s good budget that meets our principles. But so far, so good.”
With lawmakers scattered across the country, at home in the districts and states they represent in Congress, the plans for avoiding next week’s potential shutdown began to resemble a game of telephone: text messages and emails among colleagues distorting the realities with every iteration. Yes, a health care overhaul is part of it. No, it isn’t. Funding for a border wall with Mexico is part of it. No, it isn’t. More cash for the Pentagon is part of it. Again, no, it isn’t.
The result is broad confusion about what awaits with the clock ticking down. Deadlines are often the only catalysts for action in Washington. A crisis has to be on the horizon for lawmakers to take decisive action, and even then there’s no guarantee. The last government shutdown was in 2013, when Sen. Ted Cruz tried to use a funding deadline to scrap President Obama’s health care law. Instead he shuttered the government and tanked the GOP in public opinion polls, forcing the bruised party to relent with Obamacare still on the books.
Few Republicans want to repeat that debacle. As a backup plan, the party's leaders are preparing a one-week temporary funding measure to keep the doors open should things collapse. One senior aide likened it to an “in-case-of-emergency” parachute—no one really wants to use it. Instead, party leaders are trying to nudge their members to a compromise proposal that pushes these big-ticket ideas to the fall’s budget negotiations.
That’s right. Congress will have to do all of this again in in a few months, because the government has been running on an interim spending plan negotiated while President Obama was still in office. Lawmakers from both parties have said they would fund the government for the full fiscal year starting in October—a novel move these days.
— With reporting by Zeke J. Miller and Sam Frizell.
Apr 21, 2017 19:26:36 #
Progressive One wrote:
Why the White House Push on Health Care Risks a Sh... (show quote)
Good Job!!!!!!!!!!!
Apr 21, 2017 19:44:23 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Good Job!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks.....this administration is a disaster..........
Apr 21, 2017 20:01:43 #
Progressive One wrote:
Thanks.....this administration is a disaster..........
Trump is the best thing to happen, to the Democratic Party since JFK!
Apr 21, 2017 20:23:36 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Trump is the best thing to happen, to the Democratic Party since JFK!
I agree....I was calli him the gift that keeps giving but their smear campaign on Hillary worked...but the House may be lost by the GOP.......
Apr 22, 2017 13:15:06 #
Progressive One wrote:
I agree....I was calli him the gift that keeps giving but their smear campaign on Hillary worked...but the House may be lost by the GOP.......
".I was calli him the gift that keeps giving but their smear campaign on Hillary worked...but the House may be lost by the GOP..." - PO
LOLOLOLOL
Are you a mole or a gopher,PO? U B mighty blind. LOLOLOLOL
Still relying on the ABCNBCCBSCNNPBS channel?
Apr 22, 2017 19:39:59 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Hell yes. Trump's the best thing ever happened to you guys. Since he's been elected you stopped his Supreme court pick. Oh, that's right, you didn't. My bad. Let's see; will you stopped his appointment of that bad guy Tillerson for Secretary of State. Forgot. Tillerson somehow made it through. Well there is your leading from behind policy still in place. At least until Trump dropped missiles on Syria and the MOAB on ISIS. Oh yea, the main stream media has completely stopped Trump from talking to the people, except when Trump is twittering, which is everyday. Oh you did win a special election in Kansas? No, must of been Georgia, No but you get to have a runoff election. That's as good as a win for whiney liberals. You stopped the keystone pipeline. Right? Oh sorry. Um, let's see; you did get rid of General Flynn. One of the few Democrat's in Trump's administration. Well you did get to roast Trump at the press dinner, except he declined to go. Well maybe you can stop his next Supreme Court pick. I mean if he gets another pick the court could be Conservative for the rest of our lifetime, even if you impeach Trump or he gets beat next election. Thank God Reid showed the Republicans how to use that whole nuclear option thing. Yea but Obama kept an American locked up in Egypt for years because no one respected him. Same thing with Trump. What's that? The American has been released and not even a hundred days in yet. Looks like Trump is good at just one thing. Keeping you whiney liberal snowflakes whining.
Progressive One wrote:
I agree....I was calli him the gift that keeps giving but their smear campaign on Hillary worked...but the House may be lost by the GOP.......
Apr 22, 2017 20:27:06 #
JFlorio wrote:
Hell yes. Trump's the best thing ever happened to ... (show quote)
m
The rules are out the window...wait until it doesn't play into your favor....remember to stay as gracious.......
Apr 22, 2017 20:34:48 #
The court can stay conservative and the GOP can win....watch how poor white conservatives get fked while holding on to their stupid ass social issues...I will retire soon, i'm highly educated and compensated and will start new careers with plenty of loot...Houston,NY and CA with a little Hawaii in between is all I need....good luck to the rest of you..
Apr 22, 2017 20:56:34 #
Damn, florio really is that stupid!
"Don't hold me to the 'Ridiculous Standard' of getting something done in the first 100 days." Donald Trump
According to Trump he has accomplished nearly nothing in his first 100 days!
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/04/trump-don-t-hold-me-ridiculous-standard
"Don't hold me to the 'Ridiculous Standard' of getting something done in the first 100 days." Donald Trump
According to Trump he has accomplished nearly nothing in his first 100 days!
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/04/trump-don-t-hold-me-ridiculous-standard
JFlorio wrote:
Hell yes. Trump's the best thing ever happened to ... (show quote)
Apr 22, 2017 21:02:02 #
JFlorio wrote:
I guess the professor has been hired by left wing publications to spread there word. I don't bother to read them. Too predictable!
"there word."????????????????????
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.