By Kevin Price, Editor at Large, USADC.
Virtually everybody, including some of President Trump’s strongest supporters, are buying into the ‘Trump blinked” narrative created by the media when it comes to the shutdown. This narrative says that Trump “lost” the shutdown battle because the government is being reopened without funding for the wall on the border of Mexico.
Ann Coulter, who actually wrote a book praising the Trump presidency has declared the President “lied about it” (the wall).
The “Pelosi wins” argument is journalism at its worst. It is not accurate, and it actually builds support for Trump as a sympathetic character because it shows the depth of the media’s bias.
Laura Ingraham of Fox News said on Twitter, “Trump’s re-opening the gov’t fostered such goodwill! Pelosi today asked ‘…what does Putin have on the President, politically, personally or financially?’ #ShutdownFizzle
Meanwhile on “Fox and Friends” on Thursday, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said: “”If we’re not going to fight now, when are we going to fight?” Meadows, who is the leader of the House Liberty Caucus, has been one of the President’s strongest allies on immigration.
Of course, the mainstream media has promoted the line that Pelosi “won” also. I heard one pundit say, there is simply no other way to look at it.
“…one of the main reasons Trump is in the White House today is because of the obvious bias the media has against the President. It is not subtle, but the type of attacks done in third world countries by government sponsored media against those who are fighting the establishment.
To me, the “Pelosi won” argument is ridiculous. Neither Pelosi nor the President have won, in my opinion, but if you have to say one got the better end of the deal, it is Trump. Here’s why:
- The hundreds of thousands of unpaid government workers was making it next to impossible to have a reasonable discussion around any of the issues surrounding the shutdown. A three week compromise allowed Trump to reduce the role of those angry workers in the debate.
- The “reset” is a way of justifying the President taking “emergency” actions to get his wall funded. It allows him to look deliberate, rather than reactionary. The White House is arguing they have found $7 billion ($2 billion more than Trump is asking from Congress) that can be used in an emergency role.
- This three week break, the identification by the White House of how it will pay for part of the wall, and the reduction of the role of angry workers creates a very dicey situation for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. She is looking at a situation where Trump gets more funding than requested and things returning back to “normal” for government operations. If Pelosi does not allow a return to normalcy, she would be seen as the “bad guy” in this debate, regardless of how the media postures it.
The media is declaring that the President does not have the right to pursue emergency powers in this context, but the history and the law on this is light at best and has virtually always favored the President. There is no explicit right for the President to exercise emergency powers, but such largely falls under the “necessary and proper” clause. Examples of its use (and arguably, abuse) have included Japanese internment camps, the President’s attempt to seize steel mills (overturned), and various states of emergency (such as after Sept. 11, 2001). Trump could take this action, get his funding, and begin the building process. It would go through the court system, but by the time it is adjudicated, it could be very difficult for opponents to leave a partially built wall on the border without more funding.
If the media wants to actually be effective against Trump (not the role of media, but it is clearly its desire), it would actually strive to be more objective.
Meanwhile, the momentarily chest beating by Pelosi’s supporters in the media and the declaration of defeat by those in Trump’s camp is binary thinking at its worst. There are so many shades in the decision making process that cannot even be considered in the current situation of political polarization. Furthermore it pushes Trump — who hates to lose — to the point where he will likely take the “emergency action” that very few of any ideological persuasion wants him to take.
The “Pelosi wins” argument is journalism at its worst. It is not accurate, and it actually builds support for Trump as a sympathetic character because it shows the depth of the media’s bias. In fact, one of the main reasons Trump is in the White House today is because of the obvious bias the media has against the President. It is not subtle, but the type of attacks done in third world countries by government sponsored media against those who are fighting the establishment. If the media wants to actually be effective against Trump (not the role of media, but it is clearly its desire), it would actually strive to be more objective.
Kevin Price is National News Editor of USA Daily Chronicles. He is also host of the Price of Business radio show, which is one of the longest running business shows in the country and is syndicated coast to coast. A frequent guest on numerous national media, Price is the two time recipient of the prestigious George Washington Honor Medal in Communications.
