Newsbusters

MSNBC doled out some characteristically fractured wisdom on Wednesday’s The 11th Hour. Marc Dunkelman of Brown University’s Watson Institute blamed progressives for bringing the second Trump administration on themselves, claiming they had tied their own hands by impeding government power through no other means than, ironically enough, exercising government power. A revisionist history that got gooey praise from host Stephanie Ruhle.

Ruhle predictably opened up, lamenting that “Most Americans do not think that government is capable of solving big problems anymore, and a lot of people don’t trust the government at all. All of this led, in part, to the reelection of Donald Trump.”

She then introduced Dunkelman, who outlined his political philosophy and praised the public works of big government:

Well, we got to a point where we had built all these tremendous things- the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Social Security Administration, the highway system, you name it. And then… we saw that the people… who had made these big decisions, had also made a series of bad decisions… There were all these… terrible things that had happened. And Progressives… for the most part, switched to being more fearful of government than they were excited about deploying it to fix problems. And so for 50 years, we’ve had the… remarkable run of putting guardrails around public authority to the point that public authority no longer works.

Dunkelman seemed completely oblivious to the obvious- that “putting guardrails around public authority” was itself nothing but an exercise of public authority. It was also an exercise in revisionist history; suggesting they wanted to restrain government rather than restrain free markets and capitalism.

The irony was apparently just as lost on Ruhle, and, bringing in what had seemingly become MSNBC’s favorite subject in the world, she asked, “did that lead us to DOGE?”

 

 

Dunkelman responded:

Well, look, we Democrats are the party of government. And the general impression is that government doesn’t work…The reason that voters… accept all the disgusting things about Donald Trump, is that they believe that he is going to be their agent to break through this system that doesn’t work. We need… to be thinking about, how do we rebalance our priorities so that not only are we protecting people from the scourge of government… but that we are empowering government to make expeditious decisions that work in the public interest.

Still ignoring the laughable circularity of the whole argument, Ruhle asked how that could be done, to which Dunkelman all but argued that they need to become the party of small government:

[W]e have a series of tradeoffs we’re going to have to make… At the moment, progressives have created this long litany, this gauntlet, of protections… so everyone has, essentially, a veto, over the system that they don’t like. And what we need to do is find some balance, so that everybody has a voice… but they don’t have a veto over it.

But he still couldn’t shake the urge for governmental control. “And then we need to empower public officials to come and make big decisions…[G]overnment officials are elected to office, or appointed to office, to make decisions on our behalf. We need to trust them,” he proclaimed.

So, according to Dunkelman, the government had to expand its regulatory ability to protect itself from its habit of impeding its regulatory ability by expanding its regulatory ability, and so on apparently ad infinitum.

As though Dunkelman had shed light on a real problem, rather than spewing incoherent foolishness, Ruhle enthused, “Mark, I will vote for all of those things. Just let us know when and how to get that done.”

To read the full transcript, click “expand” to read:

MSNBC’s The 11th Hour
03/05/2025

11:38 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: NEW BOOK EXPLORES WHY GOVT. PROGRESS IS AT STANDSTILL]

STEPHANIE RUHLE: I am very excited to have this conversation. Most Americans do not think that government is capable of solving big problems anymore, and a lot of people don’t trust the government at all. All of this led, in part, to the reelection of Donald Trump. 

My next guest, Marc Dunkelman, argues: If Progressives put making government work, not on the periphery of the movement’s agenda, but at its center, voters might be less vulnerable to the sirens of the populist right. Here to discuss, Marc Daunkelman himself, fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and author of the new book Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Bring It Back.

I’m so glad you’re here. We built this country. We did huge things. What happened?

MARC DUNKELMAN: Well, we got to a point where we had built all these tremendous things- the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Social Security Administration, the highway system, you name it. 

And then in- sort of- this [sic]- late 60s, early 70s, we saw that the people- the men, largely- who had made these big decisions, had also made a series of bad decisions. They’d gotten us into the war, they’d done urban renewal- which was slum clearance- which turned out to be a disaster destroying urban neighborhoods, they put pesticides on our crops that had driven- you know- birth defects. There were all these, sort of- terrible things that had happened. 

And Progressives, on- for the most part, switched to being more fearful of government than they were excited about deploying it to fix problems. And so for 50 years, we’ve had the sort of remarkable run of putting guardrails around public authority to the point that public authority no longer works.

RUHLE: Did that lead us to DOGE? 

Because there are a lot of people out there that are rationalizing these cuts. Listen, you could always- you could always- find waste. You can find some fraud. And we are a hyper-regulated country.

DUNKELMAN: Well, look, we Democrats are the party of government. 

And the general impression is that government doesn’t work. And that’s a lousy political position to be in, right? If you’re selling refrigerators and the refrigerators don’t get to keep- keep your groceries cold- like- that’s- that’s a lousy advertising scheme. There’s no way to- there’s no way to talk around that. 

The reason that voters, I think, in the end, accept all the disgusting things about Donald Trump, is that they believe that he is going to be their agent to break through this system that doesn’t work. 

We need, as progressives, to be thinking about, how do we rebalance our priorities so that not only are we protecting people from the scourge of government, which is the way we’ve thought about it for most of the last 30, 40 years, but that we are empowering government to make expeditious decisions that work in the public interest.

RUHLE: But how do you do that? 

Because the mindset of Democrats has become, they want to be inclusive of absolutely everyone, and they want to be careful not to hurt anyone. But in that careful motion, stuff doesn’t get done. 

So how do you- how do you change a complete mindset?

DUNKELMAN: Well, that’s exactly right. 

The trick here is that we have a series of tradeoffs we’re going to have to make. Somebody needs to choose where the bridge is going to be built. And depending on where you build the bridge, someone’s house is going to have to be taken, someone’s going to have to move. Where is the transmission line going to go? Some piece of forest is going to have to be chopped down so that we can get clean energy from where it’s generated to where it’s used. And those are hard tradeoffs, like- those are tough decisions. 

At the moment, progressives have created this long litany, this gauntlet, of protections for all the people- so everyone has, essentially, a veto, over the system that they don’t like. 

And what we need to do is find some balance, so that everybody has a voice when it comes to a big decision that will affect their life personally, but they don’t have a veto over it. And then we need to empower public officials to come and make big decisions expeditiously, that can’t then be forever litigated in the courts- that aren’t subject to an endless number of community meetings and- opportunities for people to express their frustration. 

People- the- government officials are elected to office, or appointed to office, to make decisions on our behalf. We need to trust them.

RUHLE: Mark, I will vote for all of those things. Just let us know when and how to get that done.

DUNKELMAN: I- that- there’s no simple answer, except that we progressives need to understand that the solution in each case is not to put another check on government. That’s our, sort of, reflexive impulse. 

We need to get rid of that and say, in some cases, we need to allow people to make tough decisions. Someone needs to be able to ratify a tough tradeoff that doesn’t work to any- everyone’s benefit, but works to everyone’s.

RUHLE: Mark, thank you so much for joining us.

(…)

MSNBC doled out some characteristically fractured wisdom on Wednesday’s The 11th Hour. Marc Dunkelman of Brown University’s Watson Institute blamed progressives for bringing the second Trump administration on themselves, claiming they had tied their own hands by impeding government power through no other means than, ironically enough, exercising government power. A revisionist history that got gooey praise from host Stephanie Ruhle.

Ruhle predictably opened up, lamenting that “Most Americans do not think that government is capable of solving big problems anymore, and a lot of people don’t trust the government at all. All of this led, in part, to the reelection of Donald Trump.”

She then introduced Dunkelman, who outlined his political philosophy and praised the public works of big government:

Well, we got to a point where we had built all these tremendous things- the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Social Security Administration, the highway system, you name it. And then… we saw that the people… who had made these big decisions, had also made a series of bad decisions… There were all these… terrible things that had happened. And Progressives… for the most part, switched to being more fearful of government than they were excited about deploying it to fix problems. And so for 50 years, we’ve had the… remarkable run of putting guardrails around public authority to the point that public authority no longer works.

Dunkelman seemed completely oblivious to the obvious- that “putting guardrails around public authority” was itself nothing but an exercise of public authority. It was also an exercise in revisionist history; suggesting they wanted to restrain government rather than restrain free markets and capitalism.

The irony was apparently just as lost on Ruhle, and, bringing in what had seemingly become MSNBC’s favorite subject in the world, she asked, “did that lead us to DOGE?”

 

 

Dunkelman responded:

Well, look, we Democrats are the party of government. And the general impression is that government doesn’t work…The reason that voters… accept all the disgusting things about Donald Trump, is that they believe that he is going to be their agent to break through this system that doesn’t work. We need… to be thinking about, how do we rebalance our priorities so that not only are we protecting people from the scourge of government… but that we are empowering government to make expeditious decisions that work in the public interest.

Still ignoring the laughable circularity of the whole argument, Ruhle asked how that could be done, to which Dunkelman all but argued that they need to become the party of small government:

[W]e have a series of tradeoffs we’re going to have to make… At the moment, progressives have created this long litany, this gauntlet, of protections… so everyone has, essentially, a veto, over the system that they don’t like. And what we need to do is find some balance, so that everybody has a voice… but they don’t have a veto over it.

But he still couldn’t shake the urge for governmental control. “And then we need to empower public officials to come and make big decisions…[G]overnment officials are elected to office, or appointed to office, to make decisions on our behalf. We need to trust them,” he proclaimed.

So, according to Dunkelman, the government had to expand its regulatory ability to protect itself from its habit of impeding its regulatory ability by expanding its regulatory ability, and so on apparently ad infinitum.

As though Dunkelman had shed light on a real problem, rather than spewing incoherent foolishness, Ruhle enthused, “Mark, I will vote for all of those things. Just let us know when and how to get that done.”

To read the full transcript, click “expand” to read:

MSNBC’s The 11th Hour
03/05/2025

11:38 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: NEW BOOK EXPLORES WHY GOVT. PROGRESS IS AT STANDSTILL]

STEPHANIE RUHLE: I am very excited to have this conversation. Most Americans do not think that government is capable of solving big problems anymore, and a lot of people don’t trust the government at all. All of this led, in part, to the reelection of Donald Trump. 

My next guest, Marc Dunkelman, argues: If Progressives put making government work, not on the periphery of the movement’s agenda, but at its center, voters might be less vulnerable to the sirens of the populist right. Here to discuss, Marc Daunkelman himself, fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and author of the new book Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Bring It Back.

I’m so glad you’re here. We built this country. We did huge things. What happened?

MARC DUNKELMAN: Well, we got to a point where we had built all these tremendous things- the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Social Security Administration, the highway system, you name it. 

And then in- sort of- this [sic]- late 60s, early 70s, we saw that the people- the men, largely- who had made these big decisions, had also made a series of bad decisions. They’d gotten us into the war, they’d done urban renewal- which was slum clearance- which turned out to be a disaster destroying urban neighborhoods, they put pesticides on our crops that had driven- you know- birth defects. There were all these, sort of- terrible things that had happened. 

And Progressives, on- for the most part, switched to being more fearful of government than they were excited about deploying it to fix problems. And so for 50 years, we’ve had the sort of remarkable run of putting guardrails around public authority to the point that public authority no longer works.

RUHLE: Did that lead us to DOGE? 

Because there are a lot of people out there that are rationalizing these cuts. Listen, you could always- you could always- find waste. You can find some fraud. And we are a hyper-regulated country.

DUNKELMAN: Well, look, we Democrats are the party of government. 

And the general impression is that government doesn’t work. And that’s a lousy political position to be in, right? If you’re selling refrigerators and the refrigerators don’t get to keep- keep your groceries cold- like- that’s- that’s a lousy advertising scheme. There’s no way to- there’s no way to talk around that. 

The reason that voters, I think, in the end, accept all the disgusting things about Donald Trump, is that they believe that he is going to be their agent to break through this system that doesn’t work. 

We need, as progressives, to be thinking about, how do we rebalance our priorities so that not only are we protecting people from the scourge of government, which is the way we’ve thought about it for most of the last 30, 40 years, but that we are empowering government to make expeditious decisions that work in the public interest.

RUHLE: But how do you do that? 

Because the mindset of Democrats has become, they want to be inclusive of absolutely everyone, and they want to be careful not to hurt anyone. But in that careful motion, stuff doesn’t get done. 

So how do you- how do you change a complete mindset?

DUNKELMAN: Well, that’s exactly right. 

The trick here is that we have a series of tradeoffs we’re going to have to make. Somebody needs to choose where the bridge is going to be built. And depending on where you build the bridge, someone’s house is going to have to be taken, someone’s going to have to move. Where is the transmission line going to go? Some piece of forest is going to have to be chopped down so that we can get clean energy from where it’s generated to where it’s used. And those are hard tradeoffs, like- those are tough decisions. 

At the moment, progressives have created this long litany, this gauntlet, of protections for all the people- so everyone has, essentially, a veto, over the system that they don’t like. 

And what we need to do is find some balance, so that everybody has a voice when it comes to a big decision that will affect their life personally, but they don’t have a veto over it. And then we need to empower public officials to come and make big decisions expeditiously, that can’t then be forever litigated in the courts- that aren’t subject to an endless number of community meetings and- opportunities for people to express their frustration. 

People- the- government officials are elected to office, or appointed to office, to make decisions on our behalf. We need to trust them.

RUHLE: Mark, I will vote for all of those things. Just let us know when and how to get that done.

DUNKELMAN: I- that- there’s no simple answer, except that we progressives need to understand that the solution in each case is not to put another check on government. That’s our, sort of, reflexive impulse. 

We need to get rid of that and say, in some cases, we need to allow people to make tough decisions. Someone needs to be able to ratify a tough tradeoff that doesn’t work to any- everyone’s benefit, but works to everyone’s.

RUHLE: Mark, thank you so much for joining us.

(…)

With the Trump administration and Congress focused on cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from the federal budget, there’s an effort underway to make sure public broadcasting ended up under the microscope. The notion that public broadcasting would be held to any form of accountability, including the possibility they broke federal law, was apparently beyond the pale for former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron, who vented to CNN International’s Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday.

“And Trump is working in a very determined way to try to undermine the press in every conceivable way that he can. And we are only, well, not that many weeks into this administration,” Baron lamented. “You’ve got about four more years to go. And he’s going to continue doing that, and that is a real risk.”

Baron was fearful of the FCC scrutinizing the finances of NPR and PBS and recommending cuts to Congress. He also took issue with the examination of on those outlets for the possibility that they violated federal law barring commercials from their airwaves:

And, you know, there are other measures they’re taking too, one of them is to try to — the recommendations by the head of the FCC to Congress that perhaps they should cut off all funding to public broadcasting. That would be NPR and PBS. He’s also launched investigations of NPR and PBS for sponsorships that they have, claiming that that violates — that may violate the federal law against commercials on public broadcasting.

 

 

“If they were to lose that funding and use, lose government funding, you can only imagine they would be highly unlikely to survive,” he whined.

In that scenario, their funding would be cut predicated on them breaking federal law, which would mean it was their own fault. Clearly, Baron would prefer no accountability for how public broadcasting was spending taxpayer dollars.

That wasn’t the only time Baron mislead the audience on the scrutiny from the FCC. He tried to suggest that President Trump’s affinity for Fox News was sparing local Fox affiliates from scrutiny of broadcast licenses:

And at the same time, the head of the FCC is threatening the licenses of stations that are affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC. Fox oddly enough or obviously enough, is excluded from the — those threats. So, we’re moving in a very concerning direction, and I’m very worried about how much farther we’re going to go.

But here’s the problem with Baron’s assertions: of the 245 affiliates that use the Fox name, Fox Broadcasting Company only owned 18, and the remaining 227 were independently owned. That’s not to mention that Fox News being a cable network put them largely out of the FCC’s reach.

Trying to mislead the public about how the FCC, public broadcasting, and station licensing all work doesn’t help Baron’s case. In fact, it hurts it. And they wonder why public trust in the media is at an all-time low. It’s also a good reason to defund public broadcasting.

The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:

CNNI’s Amanpour
March 5, 2025
1:29:50 p.m. Eastern

(…)

MARTY BARON: And Trump is working in a very determined way to try to undermine the press in every conceivable way that he can. And we are only, well, not that many weeks into this administration. You’ve got about four more years to go. And he’s going to continue doing that, and that is a real risk.

And, you know, there are other measures they’re taking too, one of them is to try to — the recommendations by the head of the FCC to Congress that perhaps they should cut off all funding to public broadcasting. That would be NPR and PBS. He’s also launched investigations of NPR and PBS for sponsorships that they have, claiming that that violates — that may violate the federal law against commercials on public broadcasting.

If they were to lose that funding and use, lose government funding, you can only imagine they would be highly unlikely to survive.

And at the same time, the head of the FCC is threatening the licenses of stations that are affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC. Fox oddly enough or obviously enough, is excluded from the — those threats. So, we’re moving in a very concerning direction, and I’m very worried about how much farther we’re going to go.

(…)

After signing his latest batch of executive orders in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump declared Thursday afternoon that deranged, poisonous MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace should be forced to resign for their “disgraceful” comments smearing 13-year-old brain cancer patient and Trump speech guest DJ Daniel.

On Tuesday night, Maddow labeled it “disgusting” Trump invited and recognized Daniel while Wallace said that Daniel — who dreams of becoming a police officer and Trump made an honorary Secret Service agent — doesn’t die by suicide like police officers did after the events of January 6, 2021.

 

 

Breitbart’s Nick Gilbertson asked the question that prompted this response: “[W]e saw Democrats behavior during your joint address to Congress. Do you think it shows just how out of touch they are with the American people, especially given that 79 percent, according to a CBS poll, approved of your — of your speech?”

After a brief back-and-forth of Gilbertson introducing himself to Trump, he said Tuesday’s chicanery “was very embarrassing for the Democrats what happened the other night, and that’s not said for any other reason other than it’s obvious.”

Trump noted “even CNN fake news said that,” but “wors[e] than CNN is MSDNC, which is the worst and the good news is very few people watch them anymore.”

He then turned first to Wallace, whom this space has repeatedly dubbed the host of Rich, White, Liberal, Wine Mom Story Hour (aka Deadline: White House): “They have lost such credibility. Frankly, what Nicolle Wallace said, I’ve never been a fan of hers, but — and she’s not very talented, but I’ll tell you what she said the other day about that young man is disgraceful. She should be forced to resign[.]”

Maddow wasn’t spared either as Trump invoked her new, $25-million-a-year salary:

Rachel Maddow should be forced to resign. Nobody watches her anyway. I don’t know if — it’s not possible they pay her as much money as I hear, but certainly she’s lost all credibility, both of them, but what they — what they said the other day, they should be forced to resign about that young person, who is — who is suffering greatly.

To see the relevant transcript from March 6, click “expand.”

White House executive order signing
March 6, 2025
Time N/A

NICK GILBERTSON: This is a follow up. The other night, you know, we saw Democrats behavior during your joint address to Congress.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah.

GILBERTSON: Do you think it shows just how out of touch they are with the American people, especially given that 79 percent, according to a CBS poll, approved of your — of your speech?

TRUMP: I love this guy. Who are you with?

GILBERTSON: My name is Nick Gilbertson with Breitbart News.

TRUMP: I see. I really liked your questions.

GILBERTSON: Thank you very much, Mr. President

LUKE BROADWATER: Sir, regarding the executive orders —

TRUMP: The answer is — just — Nick, to — and I know your name very well. Good job, you do.

GILBERTSON: Thank you.

TRUMP: Yeah, the answer is, I thought it was very embarrassing for the Democrats what happened the other night, and that’s not said for any other reason other than it’s obvious. It’s a fact. Even — even CNN fake news said that. They came out and they said it. And worst than CNN is MSDNC, which is the worst and the good news is very few people watch them anymore. They have lost such credibility. Frankly, what Nicolle Wallace said, I’ve never been a fan of hers, but — and she’s not very talented, but I’ll tell you what she said the other day about that young man is disgraceful. She should be forced to resign, and Rachel Maddow should be forced to resign. Nobody watches her anyway. I don’t know if — it’s not possible they pay her as much money as I hear, but certainly she’s lost all credibility, both of them, but what they — what they said the other day, they should be forced to resign about that young person, who is — who is suffering greatly. Thank you, Nick.

Even in a hypothetical, The View’s Joy Behar couldn’t bring herself to care about the life of a Trump voter enough to want to save it. The ABC co-host wasn’t even answering someone else’s hypothetical situation; of her own volition, during Thursday’s show, she volunteered her position that she wouldn’t donate a kidney to save a Trump voter even if the person dying was her friend.

The cast was reacting to a scene from White Lotus where one character came out as a Trump voter, much to the dismay of the other characters. “I could be friends with a Trump supporter,” Behar proclaimed before adding that she wouldn’t want to save their life. “I won’t give them a kidney but I could be friends with them.”

She even went on to justify why their life wasn’t worth saving:

I meaning, the question — the thing about it is, it’s not just about politics, it’s about morality, ethics, it’s about cruelty, it’s about discrimination, and it’s about a lot of things. So, those are personal human values.

We’re not really just talking about “fiscal conservative” who pays more taxes. We’re talking about You as a human being. So, it’s hard to be friends with someone who signs on to something like that. On the other hand, open to discussion, I like to talk to them and find out what exactly do you know about this guy?

It certainly doesn’t sound like you’re living up to those “human values” you claim to be a proponent of, Joy.

In a move that would surprise no one who watched the show, co-host Sunny Hostin agreed with Behar about not wanting to save the life of a Trump voter. “Yeah, I agree with that because I think, you know, we’re in abnormal times. This is not the Republican Party of yesterday,” she said. “I think it’s the trumplican party in many respects. It’s so extreme.”

 

 

She too voiced her justification for why the life of a Trump voter was not worth saving:

And if someone is voting for someone that is hurting members of my family, members of my community, our elderly, our children, gutting our government, firing people, I do have a hard time being friends with that person.

Co-host Sara Haines offered a more reasonable take about how to co-exist with friends of different political persuasions. “But I think that also growing up where I grew up it’s very common to know people that vote differently,” she recounted. “I went from Midwest conservative life to super liberal east coast life and I also know that, Joy.”

She also explained that those people didn’t vote for the “awful human being you’re seeing” from their perspective:

HAINES: When you mention like how could anyone vote for that? When you go into their bubbles and see the coverage they’re watching –

BEHAR: That’s right. That’s right.

HAINES: — and their families and their churches, they’re not voting on this awful human being you’re seeing over here; they’re voting on the way it’s captured with their own beliefs.

“…I love people that did vote for him and I love them, that part is more important to me. So, I’m more curious as to why you made that decision and getting to that understanding,” Haines said.

This seemed to cause Behar to take a different tone, suggesting: “And I think basic people are good. I do. I believe Americans are basically good people and have empathy for, you know.”

The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:

ABC’s The View
March 6, 2025
11:15:49 a.m. Eastern

(…)

JOY BEHAR: I could be friends with a Trump supporter. I won’t give them a kidney but I could be friends with them. I meaning, the question — the thing about it is, it’s not just about politics, it’s about morality, ethics, it’s about cruelty, it’s about discrimination, and it’s about a lot of things. So, those are personal human values.

We’re not really just talking about “fiscal conservative” who pays more taxes. We’re talking about You as a human being. So, it’s hard to be friends with someone who signs on to something like that. On the other hand, open to discussion, I like to talk to them and find out what exactly do you know about this guy?

SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah, I agree with that because I think, you know, we’re in abnormal times. This is not the Republican Party –

BEHAR: You think?

HOSTIN: — of yesterday. This is sort of – I think it’s the trumplican party in many respects. It’s so extreme. And if someone is voting for someone that is hurting members of my family, members of my community, our elderly, our children, gutting our government, firing people, I do have a hard time being friends with that person.

But what I will say about the show because I love White Lotus, this is its third season. These are friends that used to be very, very close and they now have grown apart. One is living in Austin, Texas. That’s the Trumper. Sorry, the Trump voter. There’s another one who is a New York lawyer, and there’s another one that lives in Los Angeles, who’s an actor. So, they are now getting back together and realizing that their friendship has changed and that does happen.

SARA HAINES: But I think that also growing up where I grew up it’s very common to know people that vote differently. I went from Midwest conservative life to super liberal east coast life and I also know that, Joy, when you mention like how could anyone vote for that? When you go into their bubbles and see the coverage they’re watching –

BEHAR: That’s right. That’s right.

HAINES: — and their families and their churches, they’re not voting on this awful human being you’re seeing over here; they’re voting on the way it’s captured with their own beliefs.

I tend to show – what you said – is more curiosity. Cause if I share the values – which I love people that did vote for him and I love them, that part is more important to me. So, I’m more curious as to why you made that decision and getting to that understanding.

BEHAR: I think that you can talk to people because they don’t — they’re getting their information from sources —

HAINES: Very different silos.

BEHAR: Yeah, I know. And I think basic people are good. I do. I believe Americans are basically good people and have empathy for, you know.

(…)

CBS’s Taylor Tomlinson was distraught on Wednesday’s edition of After Midnight. Not only did she say President Donald Trump’s Tuesday address to Congress was full of “lies, propaganda, and threats,” but she also accused Democrats and the New York Times of not being able to stand up to Trump and his “fascism.”

Tomlinson remarked that “Trump’s speech was full of lies, propaganda, and threats. It was pretty scary. Luckily, Democrats stood up to him the only way they know how: by writing about it later in their diaries.”

 

 

Against the backdrop of a Photoshopped image of Pete Buttigieg, Tomlinson proceeded, “‘Dear diary, Donald is the freaking meaniest.’” 

Moving on to Democrats’ actual antics, she continued in her lamentations, “I really love that while Trump was saying the wildest [bleep] on Earth, Democrats just sat there with their little paddles. Like, you really should not stand up to fascism the way that we play ‘Is it caked.’ Trump could dig up FDR’s corpse, put makeup on it, and light it on fire, and Democrats would hold up a sign like ‘This violates norms.’”

Next, Tomlinson tried to act as if the media hasn’t spent the last ten years freaking out over Trump, “The media coverage is not effective either. The New York Times added a heading on their website in response to Trump’s plans titled ‘Is that legal?’ Next we’ll see headings for ‘Can he do that?’ And then it’ll be, ‘Uh oh, he did that.’ Followed by ‘10 fun new ways to spice up your gruel!’”

The problem for Tomlinson and the rest of the late night comedians who think that Democrats are being ineffectual is that the left has spent several decades warning about impending fascism and the last several years calling Trump a lying liar who lies all the time. Yet, voters haven’t reacted as they would like, so they are either the boy who cried wolf or they need to examine their own policies and become less insane.

Here is a transcript for the March 5-taped show:

CBS After Midnight

3/6/2025

12:37 AM ET

TAYLOR TOMLINSON: Trump’s speech was full of lies, propaganda, and threats. It was pretty scary. Luckily, Democrats stood up to him the only way they know how: by writing about it later in their diaries. “Dear diary, Donald is the freaking meaniest.” 

I really love that while Trump was saying the wildest [bleep] on Earth, Democrats just sat there with their little paddles. Like, you really should not stand up to fascism the way that we play “Is it caked.” 

Trump could dig up FDR’s corpse, put makeup on it, and light it on fire, and Democrats would hold up a sign like “This violates norms.” Don’t like that. 

The media coverage is not effective either. The New York Times added a heading on their website in response to Trump’s plans titled “Is that legal?” Next we’ll see headings for “Can he do that?” And then it’ll be, “Uh oh, he did that.” Followed by “10 fun new ways to spice up your gruel!”

For the late night comedians, last year’s news that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife flew an upside-down flag on their private property to protest their neighbors’ unneighborly behavior was simply too much for them to handle. However, for ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, fired Yosemite National Park locksmith Nate Vince doing that on public property to protest President Donald Trump and DOGE was enough to get him hired for Wednesday night to put a lock on sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez’s mini bar.

Kimmel declared, “You’ve been actively protesting these firings of yourself and your co-workers.”

 

 

After Vince affirmed he has been, Kimmel continued, “You are the guy who hung this, did you see this in the news, that flag hung upside down, a distress signal. Nate, you hung that flag.”

Amid wild cheering from the audience, Vince clarified, “A group of us, yeah.”

Kimmel proceeded, “A group of you. You guys have been protesting, you’re organizing protests. What we wanted to do, there’s only so much we can do. We want to give you a little job so you can make a little bit of money during this time. What I would love you to do, if you would be so kind, is, we’ve not had a locksmith on staff at our show. We would like you to put a lock on the mini bar in Guillermo’s dressing room because. We’re worried he may be drinking too much.”

While Kimmel is worried about that, other people might be worried that public employees flying upside-down flags means the civil service isn’t as non-partisan as its defenders like to claim it is.

Here is a transcript for the March 5 show:

ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live!

3/5/2025

11:50 PM ET

JIMMY KIMMEL: You’ve been actively protesting these firings of yourself and your co-workers.

NATE VINCE: Yeah.

KIMMEL: You are the guy who hung this, did you see this in the news, that flag hung upside down, a distress signal. Nate, you hung that flag.

VINCE: A group of us, yeah.

KIMMEL: A group of you. You guys have been protesting, you’re organizing protests. What we wanted to do, there’s only so much we can do. We want to give you a little job so you can make a little bit of money during this time.

VINCE: Okay.

KIMMEL: What I would love you to do, if you would be so kind, is, we’ve not had a locksmith on staff at our show. We would like you to put a lock on the mini bar in Guillermo’s dressing room because–

VINCE: Sure.

KIMMEL: — we’re worried he may be drinking too much. Guillermo, would you mind showing Nate to your dressing room?

GUILLERMO RODRIGUEZ: Okay, come on, let’s go.

KIMMEL: Yes, show Nate to your dressing room. Thank you, Nate. 

VINCE: Thanks.

KIMMEL: That’s Nate Vince. We’re going to check back on them in a minute.

Writing Thursday morning on his Substack, our friend and Georgia-based conservative talk radio host Erick Erickson took the liberal media and their allies to the woodshed for their behavior during and after President Trump’s Tuesday night address to a joint session of Congress, calling MSNBC “rich, white, neurotic women” and The New York Times a band of “neurotic women and gay men.”

Erickson first noted the refusal of Democrats to stand in applaud for anything, including Trump honoring child brain cancer patient DJ Daniel and making him an honorary Secret Service agent.

Calling this a sign they lack “normalcy or decency,” Erickson pivoted to the media: “On MSNBC, the rich, white, neurotic women who hold the Democratic Party captive let loose.”

Of course, he referenced the ugly hot takes from Rachel Maddow calling Daniel’s presence “disgusting,” Nicolle Wallace hoping Daniel, if he were to achieve a dream of becoming a police officer, doesn’t die by suicide like some did after January 6, 2021, and CBS host Stephen Colbert voicing frustration with Democrats more weren’t like Congressman Al Green (D-TX).

After knocking MSNBC’s Morning Joe analyst Steve Rattner for trumpeting the Biden economy, he noted all of these people though “everything was fine,” “Joe Biden was fine,” and “Kamala Harris was sharp.”

He later declared:

To Democrats, led by their media voices, the problem is the people, not the Democrats. The people are stupid, duped, racists, bigots, Nazis, desirous of whiteness, or otherwise bad….Guided by the voices of MSNBC, a network watched, on average, by just two-tenths of a single percent of the American public, and the neurotic women and gay men of the New York Times, the Democrats are not so much out of touch as they are outside reality. Democrats have built an echo chamber that is poisoning them.

To read Erickson’s full post, click here.

During his Tuesday night address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump touted recently-released record-low February border crossing numbers, boasting: “All we really needed [to secure the border] was a new president.”

Indeed, the Trump administration does appear to have almost completely eliminated illegal border crossings, solely through executive action and enforcing current immigration laws. Given the dramatic change, it’s worth remembering how many journalists spent the past four years lying that the Biden administration was powerless to address the border crisis without congressional action.

 

 

For the first couple of years of the Biden administration, both Democrats and the corporate media were unwilling to admit there was even a problem. Readers will recall the Biden administration’s common refrain of: “The border is secure.”

But as the 2024 election drew near, Democrats and their media allies slowly realized most Americans actually weren’t too pleased with the countless millions of third-worlders pouring into the country. Thus, the narrative shifted to something along the lines of: Biden’s doing everything he can to control the border, but it’s just so hard to do!

At first, the Biden water-carriers suggested that illegal immigration was so complicated that no president could be expected to solve it. In January of 2023, then-President Biden took a trip down to El Paso, which prompted CNN White House correspondent MJ Lee to offer this remark:

This entire visit today to the Texas border city really highlights just what an intractable problem this is for the President, with no easy solutions.

When that thin excuse failed to convince people, the corporate press began arguing Biden was powerless to solve the border crisis without Congress. Republicans, of course, pushed back and prompted a flurry of damage control from the pro-Democrat journalists.

In January of 2024, MSNBC’s 11th Hour host Stephanie Ruhle posed this preposterous question to New Yorker columnist Susan Glasser:

Republicans keep saying, ‘Biden doesn’t need Congress, he can stop what’s happening at the border all by himself.’ Can you fact check that for us? Because we here all know that’s not true.

Nice one, Steph.

Two months later, CBS senior White House reporter Weijia Jiang claimed on the network’s streaming platform, CBS News 24/7: “There’s only so much President Biden can do with executive action, and he did try to to do whatever he could!”

Given what’s happened in just the first six weeks of the Trump administration, it’s safe to say that all of the above media narratives were outright falsehoods. The only question that remains: Which journalists were duped by the Biden administration’s excuses, and which ones were knowing lying to their audience?

NBC’s Seth Meyers claimed on Wednesday’s episode of Late Night that President Trump’s Tuesday address to Congress bored him, but despite that, he claimed that it was “deeply offensive” for Trump to refer to Massachusetts Senator and fake Native American Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas.” Speaking of Massachusetts, Meyers would later welcome Gov. Maura Healey to the show to urge Democrats to do more to fight back against Trump and sing the virtues of DEI.

Meyers began his recap of Trump’s speech by recalling, “Of all the things I’ve said about Donald Trump over the years, you know, and I’ve said a lot. I’ve called him weird, racist, weird, fascist, weird, stupid, weird, a liar, weird, a moron, weird, and a weird weirdo who’s weirdly weird… Of all the things I said about Donald Trump, I never thought I would also call him boring. But guys, this speech, it was boring.”

 

 

When it came to Rep. Al Green being booted from the House chamber for lack of decorum, Meyers wasn’t having it, “Also, can we please cool it with the whole wither decorum dance? This guy changed the game, and these are the new rules. He literally called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas again last night, which is both deeply offensive and a film that is 20 minutes shorter than the speech last night.”

That is the pattern for the late night shows: the joke about Democratic misbehavior is the Republican reaction, not the misbehavior itself. Still, Meyers tried to paint Republicans as hypocrites on the issue while claiming Democratic unprofessionalism is better than Republican unprofessionalism:

I know we all long for the days when everyone was civil and polite, but we live here now. Lest I remind pearl clutching-Republicans of the multiple times Joe Biden’s speeches were interrupted by protests from Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, at least Al Green was interrupting last night to protect Medicaid, unlike Marjorie Taylor Greene who was demanding to know, you know, where are you hiding the dalmatians? 

Later, Meyers asked Healey, “I mean, most of it was him reflecting back on both his election victory and what he’s accomplished in the last, whatever, 43 days. Not a lot of planning ahead. And yet, as you watch it, you know, you can be outraged by it, but it sort of was, I think, maybe exactly what anybody could expect. Would you say that?”

Healey affirmed Meyers’s version of events, “Yeah, absolutely. There’s no plan. There’s no articulation of a vision for this country in a meaningful way.”

 

 

Meyers also sought to plot strategy with Healey, “I think it’s early days and you might say that the right path forward is to let Donald Trump do what he’s going to do and then find a response to it based on his actions. But do you feel as though the Democratic Party is at this point—has any plan?”

Again, Healey agreed, “I mean, look. It’s frustrating for me to see some of what’s gone on the last few weeks because I think it’s important for people to speak up, people in leadership, members of Congress. Get out to your districts, stand alongside folks in your districts, and listen to them about what they’re experiencing and also educate them about, like, what these cuts mean.”

 

 

Meyers also praised Healey for not running away from DEI:

In the aftermath of the election, there was a bit of a retreat from the Democratic Party on some issues as well. Or the concession that they were no longer going to be issues for Democrats. You stood up recently for DEI. Basically, I heard you in an interview say, like, “What are—what is so wrong about the ideas of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?” And that, to me, was refreshing to hear because, look, I think you can have, sometimes, criticism on the way those ideas are executed. But the core idea of DEI, I think, is something worth standing up for.

Healey replied by trying to claim that DEI just means allowing women to play sports in school, “Yeah. I totally agree. And look, I am the product of Title IX, which was the federal law passed in 1971, ’72, it’s around the time I was born, actually, that said people have got to be treated—treated equally when it comes to education. You know, that enabled me to go to school. And it enabled me to play sports. It enabled me to have a professional career, actually, in sports.”

She added, “We need to have women at the table. In schools, in the military, in business, in government. We need to have people of color. We need to have people with disabilities. We need to have gay people, right? Like, why is that bad for our country? And so, we need to get away from this caricature that’s been made of DEI. Say the actual words. Tell me what’s wrong with diversity, you know? It’s only made us stronger as a country.”

Meyers didn’t realize Healey contradicted herself. Allowing women to play sports in college, just like men, is not the same as saying we need to put people in certain jobs simply because they are a woman or gay or a racial minority.

Here is a transcript for the March 5-taped show:

NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers

3/6/2025

12:41 PM ET

SETH MEYERS: Let me tell you, of all the things I’ve said about Donald Trump over the years, you know, and I’ve said a lot. I’ve called him weird, racist, weird, fascist, weird, stupid, weird, a liar, weird, a moron, weird, and a weird weirdo who’s weirdly weird. I even have a new children’s book called about Trump in the NBC store called Where’s Weirdo. You can find it in the free bin right next to Dwight Schrute’s cookbooks. Of all the things I said about Donald Trump, I never thought I would also call him boring. But guys, this speech, it was boring.

…

Also, can we please cool it with the whole wither decorum dance? This guy changed the game, and these are the new rules. He literally called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas again last night, which is both deeply offensive and a film that is 20 minutes shorter than the speech last night. 

I know we all long for the days when everyone was civil and polite, but we live here now. Lest I remind pearl clutching-Republicans of the multiple times Joe Biden’s speeches were interrupted by protests from Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, at least Al Green was interrupting last night to protect Medicaid, unlike Marjorie Taylor Greene who was demanding to know, you know, where are you hiding the dalmatians? Or how about the time she showed up in full MAGA gear causing Biden’s eyes to nearly pop out of his head. 

…

MEYERS: Do you — I mean, weirdly, not a lot was said. I mean, most of it was him reflecting back on both his election victory and what he’s accomplished in the last, whatever, 43 days. Not a lot of planning ahead. And yet, as you watch it, you know, you can be outraged by it, but it sort of was, I think, maybe exactly what anybody could expect. Would you say that?

MAURA HEALEY: Yeah, absolutely. There’s no plan. There’s no articulation of a vision for this country in a meaningful way. And I think what really bothers me, Seth, as a governor, you know, every day I’m trying to deliver for folks in my state. How do I lower costs? How do I build homes? How do I make sure they have access to health care and good schools? 

And he — I didn’t hear him say anything about the needs of everyday Americans and how he’s going to do, like, any of those things. And that’s one of the things that’s so upsetting to me in addition to the continued recitation of all these lies and conspiracy theories that he told. But it’s the idea is, like, you’re the president of the United States. Your job is to deliver for Americans. You ran on a promise of lowering costs. And all you’ve done is make life harder and more expensive for people in Massachusetts and around the country.

…

MEYERS: I think it’s early days and you might say that the right path forward is to let Donald Trump do what he’s going to do and then find a response to it based on his actions. But do you feel as though the Democratic Party is at this point — has any plan?

HEALEY: People need to be active.              

MEYERS: Yeah.

HEALEY: I mean, look. It’s frustrating for me to see some of what’s gone on the last few weeks because I think it’s important for people to speak up, people in leadership, members of Congress. Get out to your districts, stand alongside folks in your districts, and listen to them about what they’re experiencing and also educate them about, like, what these cuts mean. You know, what this guy, Musk, is doing with DOGE, right? Which I think even if you voted for Trump, I don’t know how many people voted for the chainsaw, right?

MEYERS: Yeah.

HEALEY: And the complete wrecking ball, right, that he is. So, that’s where people got to be. And that’s been my frustration. It’s like, you know, you’ve got to get with people. The reason the Democrats lost is because the feeling, I think, was we weren’t with people. We weren’t empathizing with people. 

We weren’t recognizing everyday needs. Now is the time to run headlong into that, talk about these things, educate, and show them, too, how we are going to actually deliver. I cut taxes in my state. I’m working on lower costs every day. Massachusetts was just ranked number one in education, health care, innovation. Also ranked the best place to live if you’re a woman or to have a baby. So, cool stuff, right? 

MEYERS: Good things. Those are all good things.

HEALEY Good things. Yeah. And we’re gonna — I hope we win another championship too with the Celtics.

MEYERS: Yeah. I would like to see the Celtics win another championship myself. I also — I also appreciated that — ’cause I think in the, you know, in the aftermath of the election, there was a bit of a retreat from the Democratic Party on some issues as well. Or the concession that they were no longer going to be issues for Democrats. You stood up recently for DEI. Basically, I heard you in an interview say, like, “What are — what is so wrong about the ideas of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?” And that, to me, was refreshing to hear because, look, I think you can have, sometimes, criticism on the way those ideas are executed. But the core idea of DEI, I think, is something worth standing up for.

HEALEY: Yeah. I totally agree. And look, I am the product of Title IX, which was the federal law passed in 1971, ’72, it’s around the time I was born, actually, that said people have got to be treated — treated equally when it comes to education. You know, that enabled me to go to school. And it enabled me to play sports. It enabled me to have a professional career, actually, in sports. 

And I sure would not be governor today were there not in place laws that said, you know what? We need to have women at the table. In schools, in the military, in business, in government. We need to have people of color. We need to have people with disabilities. We need to have gay people, right? Like, why is that bad for our country? And so, we need to get away from this caricature that’s been made of DEI. Say the actual words. Tell me what’s wrong with diversity, you know? It’s only made us stronger as a country.