Cagle World

Let’s play a game. I made it up over the holidays.

I like to call it, “Name that Socialist.”

Let’s begin.

Who said this?

“Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world. When this country started, we were not a capitalist [nation], we did not operate on a capitalist economy.”

Vladimir Lenin, the Russian revolutionary, whose wealth and land redistribution policies and nationalizing of banks and industry sent Russia on an eight-decade death march would be a good guess. Incorrect, however.

Maybe it was Leon Trotsky, the Marxist revolutionary who once said, “Terror is a powerful means of policy.” Wrong again.

The capitalism quote above was uttered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described Democratic Socialist whom liberal media outlets are celebrating as the left’s answer to Donald Trump.

“In a multiracial, multiethnic district with a large immigrant population, she made the fight against Trump-administration policies central to her campaigning, which highlighted a call for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE),” wrote The Nation in June, following her surprising, upset victory in New York’s 14th congressional district. “Ocasio-Cortez championed a single-payer, Medicare-for-All health-care system, declared that housing is a right, and called for sweeping criminal-justice reform,” The Nation gushed.

More recently, Ocasio-Cortez appeared on “60 Minutes” and doubled down on some of her other ideas, such as free tuition at all public universities and the elimination of all fossil fuels in the U.S. in 12 years.

“It’s ambitious,” she told Anderson Cooper, who followed by asking the freshman congresswoman how she planned to pay for all of her giveaways.

“No one asked how we paid for a $2 trillion tax cut,” she responded.

That answer is code for, “I really have no earthly idea how we’re going to pay for it.”

Well, maybe that’s not fair. She did pull the leftist playbook off the shelf and blew the dust off the page to reveal the chapter title that reads, “How to Fund a Freefall into Mediocrity: Vilify the Wealthy.”

She wants to tax top earners at a 70 percent clip.

But don’t worry. She assures the American people that her version of socialism isn’t the scary kind, such as the Soviet or Cuban varieties. Her particular brand of economic redistribution will “resemble what we see in the UK, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden.”

I don’t know about you but that doesn’t give me a whole lot of comfort.

One of the problems with socialists ,’ from Karl Marx to Fidel Castro ,’ is that each of them believed that his version was the right one. You don’t have to be a historian to know that socialism didn’t work out so well for Russian or Cuban people, and neither will the somewhat sanitized iteration Ocasio-Cortez is selling. It especially won’t work in a country founded on the precepts of individual liberty and self-government, assuming there are still enough of us interested in such things.

First of all, there aren’t enough wealthy people to tax to pay for the Ocasio-Cortez agenda, unless she’s willing to constantly adjust the criteria for “wealthy” which, of course, she would have to do to fund her programs.

It’s absurd to think you can tax only billionaires and millionaires to give every American free health care, tuition, housing and, at the same time, eliminate the use of all fossil fuels to finance “green” energy.

In an analysis for National Review, economist Brian Riedl writes that there would be no way to raise enough tax revenue for Ocasio-Cortez’s green-energy and other initiatives without eventually taking it from the middle class. Riedl begins his breakdown by assuming, just for sake of argument, a 100 percent tax rate on all income over $1 million.

“Analysis of IRS data shows that this would raise 3.8 percent of GDP – not even enough to balance the current budget, much less finance a Green New Deal,” he writes.

The reason, Riedl points out, that we haven’t seen any specifics on how to pay for such fantasmagoric spending proposals is because it’s a lot easier to campaign on “taxing the rich.”

“Acknowledging this brutal middle-class burden would immediately end any public flirtation with ‘free-lunch socialism,'” writes Riedl.

In the “60 Minutes” interview, Ocasio-Cortez said she embraces the term “radical.”

“The equal right of all citizens to health, education, work, food, security, culture, science, and well-being – is what I wish for all.”

Who said this? Here’s a hint: It wasn’t Ocasio-Cortez. It was Fidel Castro. The same Castro who jailed and executed political opponents, confiscated private property and abolished a free press. But hey, everyone had “free” health care.

For socialists, the end always justifies the means.

–

Copyright 2019 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

I am on record as a staunch supporter of Christmas. However, this time of year, I like to borrow just one component from another tradition – Festivus.

If you’re not familiar, Festivus was created by “Seinfeld” character Frank Costanza. One of the highlights of the made-up holiday was the “airing of grievances” which, I believe, is a worthwhile, real-life exercise, at least once a year.

Thus, back by lukewarm demand, I give you my apolitical list of grievances, in ascending order, for 2018.

10. “Special Days” – I’m all for dedicating a day to honor an individual or event that played an important role in our country’s history. But now we’re just getting silly. National Pancake Day, brought to you by the good folks at International House of Pancakes. National Suckling Pig Day. National Hugging Day which, given the current climate, someone should consider postponing.National Ask a Stupid Question Day. Here’s a stupid question: What are your plans for National Tortellini Day?

9. Pooh-poohing rules – This might not qualify as breaking news but the domestication of the canine continues. You know those signs people put on their lawns, “Please pick up after your dog” or those clean-up stations you see in apartment communities and public parks? Those aren’t meant for “other people.” Those are for you.

8. Winter – It’s late December and I think I’ve seen the sun for a grand total of 15 minutes since Nov. 1. Every year, I try to fool myself into thinking it’s still warm outside by not wearing a coat deep into the winter. This has proven to be a flawed strategy. My mother said the other day that she “likes the seasons” and that’s why she’ll never move to Florida. Despite the fact that we share the same DNA, I would rather bake like a glazed ham under glass than endure another January.

7. Christmas light violations – What you do inside of your own home, as long as you’re not breaking the law, is your own business. But when your illuminated icicles are still hanging from your roof in March, I’m afraid I can hold my tongue no longer. “There’s no deadline,” you say. Yes, there is. The second week in January.

6. Fake food – For years, I’ve naively been under the impression most fine restaurants were preparing their food on the premises. That was until I received a wake-up call when, after ordering dessert at an upscale – and by upscale I mean expensive – establishment, I was informed by my server that my cheesecake was still in Houston, which was unfortunate because I was in Atlanta. How hard is it to make a cheesecake? If the restaurant was going to order out, at least the chef could have found a cheesecake somewhere in Georgia.

5. Zombie Awareness Month – (See above)

4. Runaway grocery carts – If ever there was a reason for reintroducing the pillory into the U.S. penal system, this is it. I’m hardly the first one to notice this but there is something seriously wrong with a person who would allow his discarded cart to meander across the parking lot into someone’s fender instead of depositing said cart into the return a few steps away. We shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve realized that most people will do just about anything to avoid walking another 15 feet.

3. Parking proximity – I recently bought a new car. I haven’t purchased many new cars in my life and I admit I’m a bit compulsive about keeping it dirt and dent free. Thus, in a parking lot, I usually park as far away from other vehicles as possible. Maybe I’m a little paranoid but I actually believe other drivers are going out of their way to park right next to me when there is a 100-yard radius of open spaces around me. I’m convinced that I could park in the middle of the Bonneville Salt Flats at 2 a.m. and someone driving an ’85 Crown Victoria would nestle in three inches from my door handle.

2. Postal problems – I can honestly say that I’ve never transacted any business in a post office that has taken longer than 30 seconds. Without fail, however, I always find myself in line behind someone with an incredibly complicated shipping predicament. “I’m shipping these live toads to Myanmar and I need a return receipt for each toad. I’d also like to pay in dimes.”

1. Distracted Drivers – Is it me or is virtually everyone you see behind the wheel of an automobile doing something else? I was behind a guy in a red pickup truck the other day. He had a cigarette in his left hand, a phone in his right and he kept veering off onto the shoulder. He should have just gone for the trifecta and tried balancing a beach ball on his nose. Hey folks, just a reminder: A 4,000-pound car is a dangerous thing, especially while it’s moving.

Now that that’s out of my system, Merry Christmas.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

The Satanists have their statue.

You might have heard that a Satanic sculpture was recently installed in the Illinois statehouse. A local group of Satanists decided that it needed to counteract the Nativity scene that also stands in the capitol rotunda during the Christmas season. The Satanic Temple applied to install a statue of an arm with a snake coiled around it, an apple in its hand. The base on which the statue sits reads, “Knowledge is the greatest gift.”

The state’s explanation was basically that it had no choice. In fact, it posted a disclaimer in the rotunda explaining that state officials “cannot legally censor the content of speech or displays.”

So, the Satanists have their statue. Who cares?

Apparently, the Satanic Temple thinks this is a big deal. On a GoFundMe page used to raise money for what it calls its “snaketivity” display, the temple posted: “The Satanic Temple – Chicago will no longer allow one religious perspective to dominate the discourse in the Illinois State Capitol rotunda during the holiday season… Please consider what you may do to help us bring Satan to Springfield!”

The “one religious perspective” to which it refers is Christianity.

The temple was trying to raise $1,500. To date, it has raised $1,810.

If you’re still wondering why you should devote another second thinking about this, consider some of the guest posts on the temple’s GoFundMe page:

“Happy inside.”

“This is utterly fantastic. Great message, compelling visual.”

“Beliefs should conform to ones best scientific understanding of the world.”

“Hail pluralism! Hail Satan!”

“I believe that TST is making a difference in the lives of marginalized people, fighting for their fundamental rights to be safe and be who they are in this country and this state. Therefore, I wish to support in any way I can… ”

As I read these posts, and researched what various atheist organizations have planned for the Christmas season – billboards declaring Christianity a myth and so on – a question came to mind. The question isn’t “Why do we care?” It’s “Why do they?”

If faith in God is folly and a waste of time, why aren’t atheists content to let us wallow in our ignorance? Why their proactivity? Why this strange desire to rid the public square of any mention of God or Christ? Is a Nativity scene really that offensive?

These are weighty, theological questions and I’m neither a theologian nor am I an expert in apologetics.

But I do know that what atheists seems to miss, or intentionally bypass, is the historical aspect of the Christmas story and the life of Jesus. A baby named Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He was raised in Nazareth and became an influential rabbi. He made spectacular claims about his divinity and eyewitnesses saw him perform several miracles. He was executed by crucifixion and his followers claim to have seen him alive after his death.

Atheists can reject the message and dismiss the Bible as myth. But they can’t get past the history and, perhaps, this is why atheists find the message of the Gospel and the claims of Christ so threatening and feel the need to fight against them.

Writer and atheist Aldous Huxley admitted that he had a specific reason for not believing in God – “moral and political freedom.”

At least Huxley was honest. Without any regard to accountability or eventual judgement, he could do whatever he wanted and thus, become his own God.

This is a great attraction for all of us and hardly a recent phenomenon. In the Old Testament, in Genesis 3, the serpent makes his offer to Eve about eating from the tree of life: “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

It seems we’re all faced with the same choice this Christmas and the choice is not knowledge versus faith.

The Christmas story says a savior has been born and he came to rescue us from our predicament.

Whether we accept or reject him is the choice, and a statue in a statehouse doesn’t make that choice any less obvious.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

Some things look worse over time – bread, milk, my hairline. Other things get better – wine, cheese, Tom Brady.

But time and history (and the media) are kinder and more forgiving to one specific group of individuals than they are to anyone else on the planet – former Republican presidents.

As I watched and read the mainstream media coverage of the life and death of President George H.W. Bush, a question came to mind: “Didn’t the media hate this guy when he was president?”

It can’t be. Do you mean to tell me that the same president the New York Times called “a man of uncommon grace” the other day was the same guy Newsweek dubbed a “wimp” in 1987? (By the way, the late president Bush was a fighter pilot in WWII but never let reality stand in the way of a good insult.)

The media’s revisionist history doesn’t apply only to deceased Republican presidents.

The late Bush’s son, George W. Bush, was called a war criminal and a racist when he was president. The Iraq War was “his Vietnam.” Hollywood lampooned him routinely as a thicko, dolt and master of malaprops.

Now? He’s the voice of reason, a statesman, a port in a political storm.

Last year, Esquire’s Charles Pierce wrote of a Bush speech, “It was very effective speech, and I agreed with every diphthong, and I have no idea how to feel about that.”

The praise for George W. became so effusive that liberals rebelled against one another. The New Republic ran a piece, a week after Pierce’s Esquire column, under the headline, “Liberals, Stop Applauding George W. Bush.”

What do we make of this altered perspective? Is it simply that the passage of time has allowed flaming liberal hackles to cool? Did Bush the younger get smarter by hanging out on his ranch painting pictures and keeping his mouth shut?

The truth is neither Bush was the person the media portrayed, though Bush ’43 did drive the press to pathological distraction during his two terms as president. But why the seemingly sudden appreciation for presidents reviled when they were in office?

In a March column, historian and author Victor Davis Hanson had the best explanation I could find.

The praise for past Republican presidents, he wrote, is strategic and not so much an organic coming-to-terms by the media.

“The supposedly failed Bush presidency was reinvented by journalists to contrast positively with President Donald Trump’s purportedly disastrous ongoing tenure,” Hanson wrote. “The public should grow wise to the progressive media’s formula: Once-awful Republicans are always renovated to make their party successors look worse – and thus less likely to be successful.”

So, this newfound affinity for the Bushes is really about Donald Trump, at least for now. Could it be that even Trump’s reputation, in time, will be restructured to make his Republican successor look worse?

That’s not as crazy as it sounds.

Hanson makes the point that Ronald Reagan, while he was president, was considered an extremist; a threat to launch an all-out nuclear war. Only after he was out of office for a while did Reagan reach emeritus status as a statesman.

Even Richard Nixon – yes, that Nixon – has been touched up by the media when compared to Trump.

In an LA Times story in 2017, in contrasting Nixon’s disdain for the media against Trump’s, Kurtis Lee wrote that at least “Nixon’s bitterest complaints were uttered behind closed doors.” Trump, on the other hand, wrote Lee, was different.

“Though presidents have long complained about the media, none have gone as far as Trump in their public derision.”

OK, so it’s not exactly a love letter to Nixon. But this is the same Nixon who had reporters wiretapped. The same Nixon who is caught on tape offering to pay for the silence of the Watergate burglars. The Nixon who orchestrated the cover-up that led to his resignation.

Either the media has an extraordinarily short memory and/or an appalling sense of history, or Hanson is right and this praise for President George H.W. Bush is a contrived attempt to make the sitting Republican president look worse than his predecessors.

Neither is a particularly appetizing possibility.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

‘Bah, Humbug’ to Social Media Trolls

I was one of the first to speak out against Twitter. In fact, I was one of the first to speak out against a lot of things – spaghetti sauce from a jar, shirtless men mowing their lawns, and the all-Christmas music radio format prior to Dec. 1.

No one listens to me, of course. The mass production of spaghetti sauce continues unabated. Unfit, middle-aged men continue to jiggle in public view while pushing their lawn mowers and the Carol of the Bells has been ringing in my ears for several weeks now.

But I don’t have time to deal with all of that, so let’s stick to Twitter.

Any medium can be used for good or evil and I’m of the belief that Twitter is used mostly for evil, such as spewing venom – anonymously in many cases – at those with whom we disagree, disseminating false or misleading information, destroying people’s reputations, among other things. This is why I no longer have a Twitter account.

Or, to break it down even further, consider basketball great Charles Barkley’s perspective: “Social media is where losers go to feel important.”

Barkley’s Exhibit A this week is Christmas decorations, specifically Melania Trump’s Christmas decorations.

As predictable as the eastern sunrise, Twitter has officially weighed in, much to the delight of left-leaning media outlets.

It seems the Twitterverse has taken issue with the First Lady’s red Christmas Trees. Imagine, red on Christmas. Oh, the horror!

Time ran a lifestyle piece which was basically a forum for tweeters who happen to despise the First Lady’s husband and are using her choice of Christmas decorations to take a few more gratuitous shots.

“How festive! Melania’s trees are covered in blood this year!”

“The image of Melania walking alone through the bloody handmaid trees seriously made my morning.”

“These white house xmas decorations are infested with demons.”

You get the picture.

At this point, allow me to pause for a moment so someone can begin composing an email taking me to task for defending Donald Trump. Type quickly. The rest of us don’t have all day.

I’m not defending Donald Trump. For that matter, I’m not even defending Melania Trump. I am, however, attempting to defend civility.

Last year, you might remember, the first lady was roundly criticized for her white Christmas trees.

White, red or Brazilwood, it wouldn’t matter.

Why?

For an answer, I go where I always go in moments of deep despair that require unique insight and perspective – to Pat Sajak.

“If she were married to someone the media approved of, it would be all Melania all the time,” said Sajak, in response to the critical tweets. “Every move would be breathlessly recorded and every outfit would be featured in multiple publications.”

Of course, Sajak is right. Those who don’t believe that are either living in an anger-induced state of denial or simply not paying attention.

Criticism comes with being a public figure. But attacking first ladies and the families of sitting presidents has typically been off limits for the media. No longer.

The media will gleefully play along with anything negative that has to do with Donald Trump. It’s easy. It’s lazy and it’s nothing more than clickbait, which apparently is acceptable as long as it has something to do with the Trumps. Which brings me back to Twitter.

Social media isn’t going anywhere. We’re stuck with it. And Twitter will continue to provide a forum for anyone with a beef about anything.

But Twitter isn’t a news organization. There are no credentialed Twitter reporters in the White House press corps. The problem is when the Huffington Post publishes a story under the headline, “Melania Trump’s Red Christmas Trees Conjure ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ For Twitter Users,” a news outlet becomes nothing more than an arm of social media, and if such an outlet is so inclined, it can cherry pick six or seven of the most vitriolic posts Twitter has to offer on a topic and make a story out of it.

I have a difficult time shoehorning such an approach into any definition of journalism.

The reporting about Twitter’s reaction to Melania Trump’s Christmas decorations is unhelpful and unnecessary. Worse, it’s divisive, mean-spirited.

Those are the last things we need more of this Christmas season. Or ever.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

We’ve been taught a lesson which we would do well to commit to memory.

It’s a lesson about love, respect and what is possible when, as one of my academic colleagues said, we see those on the opposite side as rivals rather than enemies.

This particular lesson emerges from ashes.

Wildfires in Butte County, California have killed at least 79 people. Some 700 more are still unaccounted for. Among the geographic casualties is the town of Paradise.

If you haven’t seen the video, it’s horrific. There’s almost nothing left. Home after home is burned beyond recognition. Now police, National Guard troops, coroners and anthropologists are engaged in the grim exercise of sifting through the ashes for human remains.

Amid such destruction, on Nov. 10, a girls’ volleyball game was played.

Forest Lake Christian School hosted Paradise Adventist Academy in a Northern California Division VI semifinal match. But no one will remember the game.

What will be remembered is what happened before the two teams played.

Many of the Paradise players had lost virtually everything they owned in the fires, including their volleyball equipment and uniforms. They were prepared to play the match against Forest Lake in their street clothes if necessary. So, they made the two-hour drive to Forest Lake.

What the Paradise players didn’t know was that the Forest Lake team members had asked the California Interscholastic Federation if, rather than charging admission, it could accept donations for Paradise Adventist Academy team members and for their families,” the L.A. Times reported.

Donations came in – $300 per Paradise player, along with gift cards.

But there was something else.

Awaiting the Paradise players when they arrived were brand new uniforms, knee pads, socks, donated clothes and dinner. It was all arranged by the Forest Lake players.

“This is truly awe-inspiring how in a time of our greatest needs, fellow students, schools and communities continue to step up and be a shining light for all of us,” CIF Executive Director Roger Blake told the Times.

“I’ve never been so overwhelmed by so many things I would have never thought possible, and this is one of the most amazing things I could ever have thought would happen,” Paradise Adventist head coach Jason Eyer told The Union newspaper. “Your community is awesome. We will be forever grateful.”

One of the Paradise players said she felt a sense of “overwhelming love” when she saw the new uniforms lined up on the bleachers.

This story has already faded from public view. What we do with it now is up to us.

We live in a time when lashing out is our default. We don’t listen to our adversaries – political or otherwise – but we shout them down. Those with whom we disagree must be silenced. We’d much rather with the argument that consider someone else’s perspective.

I’m not sure why this is, but it is.

“We are quick to jump to action without careful examination of all the facts,” wrote clinical psychologist Goal Auzeen Saedi in Psychology Today in 2013. Imagine what she would write today.

“We feel wronged, threatened, insulted, and find experiences in our environment that confirm this. If you want to feel insulted, there are numerous ways to ensure this does in fact happen to you. It is akin to sensitivity toward social rejection that clinicians reference when assessing their clients,” wrote Saidi.

I get a fair amount of hate mail. Hard to believe, I realize, but it’s true. The amazing thing is it’s almost as if the writers of such mail got together, compared notes and came up with a template. There’s usually a fair amount of name calling, which sometimes makes it first appearance in the salutation. My favorite was “Dear Mr. Boil on journalism’s rear.” You can imagine how the rest of the email read.

I usually laugh off the insults and I always respond, respectfully I hope. But it always fascinates me that most people who take issue with something I’ve written and respond simply want to argue. I read a lot of emails in all capital letters overloaded with exclamation points. I’ll rarely read something like, “Well, I don’t really see it that way but you might have a point.” Although, there are times when an angry emailer and I are able to find common ground. The writer of the “Dear Mr. Boil” email and I wound up wishing each other happy holidays.

My prayer this Thanksgiving, and this holiday season, is for a reappearance of empathy, the kind showed by the Forest Lake Christian volleyball team.

And in case you didn’t hear, Forest Lake won the match. But we should all remember that those girls took it upon themselves to make sure Paradise was not lost.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

CNN vs. President Trump: They’re Both Wrong

If you haven’t heard, or just don’t care, which would be understandable, CNN is suing the Trump administration.

The nonsense started last week when CNN’s White House correspondent, and boil on the president’s posterior, Jim Acosta, once again made a spectacle of himself at a press conference. President Trump then revoked Acosta’s press credentials.

This is one of those fights where it’s difficult to manufacture a rooting interest.

In one corner, you have a petulant, agenda-driven reporter who continues to violate one of the basic tenets of news reporting by making himself the story.

In the other corner, you have a thin-skinned president who will always take whatever chum Acosta tosses into the water. And Acosta knows it.

This is not about fact-finding or searching for truth, which is what journalism is supposed to be about. Instead, this is about Acosta deliberately creating a scene so CNN will have something to obsess over for the next week.

Of course, the president has the pulpit and the opportunity to defuse such situations. But as we know, Trump is not a defuser. He’s a teetering drum of kerosene surrounded by burning embers.

If you haven’t already chosen a side in this ridiculous schoolyard scrap, I have a suggestion ,’ don’t bother. They’re both wrong.

First, let’s deal with Acosta.

He used his time with the White House microphone last week to filibuster about the migrant caravan.

“You’ve said this caravan was an ‘invasion,'” Acosta began. “As you know Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion.”

Trump then attempted to cut off Acosta, who kept going.

“May I ask one other question… ?”

Another question? I must have missed the first one.

At that point, a poor White House intern jumped in and tried to grab the microphone from Acosta, who wouldn’t go down without a fight.

Then, instead of moving on and refusing to give Acosta the attention he so desperately wanted, Trump couldn’t help himself.

“CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them,” Trump said, as he pointed his finger at Acosta. “You are a rude, terrible person and you shouldn’t be working for CNN.”

Such a scene would be funny it wasn’t so pathetic.

Yes, a reporter has the right to challenge the president. And it’s not uncommon for a White House correspondent to ask a follow up question or two. But there is such a thing as decorum. A credential doesn’t give you the right to be rude or belligerent, much like buying a ticket to a football game doesn’t give you the right to throw a beer bottle onto the field. And Acosta isn’t the only reporter in the room with questions.

Nevertheless, this has worked out swimmingly for Acosta. Not only is he now a big story, but he has forged his way into the realm of journalistic martyrdom.

Which is one reason why Trump shouldn’t have taken his credentials away.

Trump has now turned Acosta into a sympathetic figure, a champion of free speech and protector of the people’s right to know.

“The White House has violated CNN and @Acosta’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press and Fifth Amendment rights to due process,” CNN tweeted Tuesday.

And there’s the story, front and center, on CNN.com.

“CNN sues President Trump and top White House aides for barring Jim Acosta.”

Let the 24/7 panel discussion begin.

The president also can’t ban journalists because they’re annoying. Part of a reporter’s job is to be annoying and to ask difficult, uncomfortable questions. We need an adversarial press which, by the way, was mostly supine during the Obama presidency. But acting like a jerk and wasting everyone’s time is not part of the job description.

I get it. These two don’t like each other. It happens. As Jerry Seinfeld once observed, “Not everybody likes everybody.”

But Trump and Acosta have more in common than their disdain for each other and their inability to recognize the high road if they were glued to it.

The conduct of both men, in front of the viewing world, was cringeworthy.

We talk a lot about the deteriorating level of political discourse in this country. In this case, both men had an opportunity to advance the dialogue. Instead, they made themselves part of the problem.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

That’s over with. And not a moment too soon.

It’s usually at this point when I start reviewing what I’ve seen and heard over the past several months and try to make some sense of it, not unlike what a psychologist might do with a particularly vivid and disturbing nightmare.

The problem with political campaigns in general, and TV ads in particular, is that there really are no rules anymore. It’s Thunderdome. Mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, quotes out of context – anything goes. You can say anything about anyone. And yet, they keep coming. Negative political ads are up 60 percent since 2014, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising.

As much as we complain about the process, the main reason candidates go negative is because it works. An Emory University study released in May revealed that a 1 percent increase in negative advertising by a candidate significantly boosts the candidate’s chance of winning.

Yes, that means it’s our fault. We’re evidently buying a good bit of what’s being sold, no matter how misleading or outrageous it might be.

By now we’ve seen just about everything short of someone photoshopping devil horns on his opponent. And that’s probably not far off.

This year’s campaign season featured a new wrinkle ,’ a candidate inflicting punishment on himself.

Far-left progressive, Levi Tilleman, of Colorado, who ran his campaign for Congress on the “Everything-is-Free-Forever” platform, was voluntarily pepper sprayed in an ad. He was attempting to demonstrate his support for non-lethal weapons in schools as an alternative to arming school employees.

Tilleman was rendered helpless. Apparently, so was his campaign because he lost in the primary.

This, and many other not-so-shining campaign moments are now committed to history.

But who will ever forget Minnesota Democrat Richard Painter standing in front of an actual dumpster fire saying, “There’s an inferno raging in Washington!”? Painter ran for Al Franken’s vacated Senate seat and was trounced in the primary.

Or how about rogue Republican Senate candidate Don Blankenship of West Virginia, who referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s family as his “China family”? He too lost in the primary.

As we take stock and digest Tuesday results, where are we?

Donald Trump is still in the White House. Republicans are still in control of the Senate. The Democrats now hold the majority in the House.

I’d like to believe that our elected representatives in Washington will see divided government as an opportunity to show some actual leadership and seek compromise on difficult issues. And I’m not the only one.

“I believe that there is an opportunity for Democrats to reach across the aisle and pass an impactful infrastructure bill and, believe it or not, a comprehensive immigration reform bill,” wrote Democrat and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell in an opinion piece for Foxnews.com. “Both infrastructure and immigration reform have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past and I think there is a real potential to hammer out positive responses to these two important challenges.”

Rendell is a smart guy and he knows it would be a mistake for Democrats to use their majority as a tool for both obstruction and further investigation of the Trump administration.

Rendell also knows that if the Democrats overplay their hand, the main beneficiary is likely to be Donald Trump in 2020.

Whatever motivation the Democrats might have for focusing on policy, I’m not exactly percolating with optimism that it will happen and here’s why.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, who has urged her supporters to harass members of the Trump administration, is set to become chair of the powerful House Financial Services Committee.

Outspoken Trump critic, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, is poised to assume leadership of the House intelligence committee.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi could wind up House speaker once again. Pelosi said Tuesday night that this election was about “stopping the GOP.”

These are not moderate Democrats searching for common ground with their Republican colleagues. This is the anti-Trump resistance and any legislative effort that ends with Trump receiving even a modest amount of credit will trigger a partywide reach for airsick bags.

Passing an infrastructure bill that actually does some good should be easy. Everyone wants good roads and bridges.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen too often, just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it will happen.

And not much will make sense to the rest of us until our lawmakers realize that checks and balances and obstruction are not the same thing.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

It might be that our political discourse is what it is because those involved are satisfied with the status quo.

The rest of us spend a lot of time wringing our hands over the apparent impossibility to find common ground on any important issues, at least until we realize that the loud voices on both the right and left aren’t really all that interested in compromise.

Political tribalism is evidently more comfortable and satisfying than actually trying to work through and find solutions to intractable problems.

Psychologists have a term for this phenomenon. It’s “reactive devaluation.” A June article in Psychology Today put it this way: “Once we discover it was the other side who said or supports something, then we withdraw or withhold our support. It doesn’t seem to matter what was said or proposed.”

That certainly explains a lot.

And it explains why, as we’re still recoiling in horror over the murder of 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue, we hear only demagoguery and no actual effort to reach across the aisle. No one can possibly accept a reasonable suggestion made by the other side, lest they be ostracized by their base.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, two solutions are immediately proposed: fewer guns or more guns. This debate, of course, has gotten us nowhere.

Can we begin by agreeing that neither the left nor right has the market cornered in inflammatory rhetoric?

Can we agree that President Donald Trump is no more responsible for the massacre in Pittsburgh than Democrats were for a gunman opening fire on Republican lawmakers at a baseball practice?

The desire to blame violence and abhorrent behavior on everyone other than the individual who made the conscious choice to engage in the behavior is irresponsible and somewhat ironic. You can’t decry the kind of hate that inspires such crimes and, at the same time, redirect hate toward your political opponents.

To my Democratic friends, I get it. You loathe Donald Trump. You don’t believe he’s fit to be president. His incessant tweeting is reckless, annoying and destructive. But none of that makes him responsible for every politically-tinted mass shooting.

————–

And the media, in particular, should know better.————–

CNN ran a story Tuesday about how the Pittsburgh gunman used the word “invasion” in social media posts about the Central American migrant caravan. The word “invasion” was also used by some Fox News commentators in describing the caravan. The shooter had posted on social media that he preferred the use of the word “invaders” to “illegals.”

The report was an attempt to draw a line from Donald Trump and Republican pundits to the synagogue murders.

And yet, said the reporter, “We may never know where the suspect heard these ideas or why he believed them.” And later, “Was the gunman watching? We may never know.”

There was a day when speculation would never have made it into a news report, much less provide the foundation for such a report. But what the heck, let’s do a speculative story anyway because it fits our long-established narrative.

But before Republicans mount their moral high-horse, they too need to face some realizations.

Not every regulation is a threat to our Constitutional rights. Banning one type of weapon or accessory is not a slippery slope toward nationwide gun confiscation. You can go into a pharmacy and buy a variety of drugs. But you can’t buy every medication because some, such as chemotherapy drugs, are more responsibly administered by health care professionals.

How’s this for a compromise? Let’s ban the AR-15, one of the firearms used by the Pittsburgh gunman. Sure, there are plenty already in circulation and a violent criminal will likely find a way. But does it make sense to make it more difficult for someone with murderous intentions to get his hands on such a dangerous weapon? Sure, it does.

Democrats, are you willing to admit that just because someone bent on mass murder can’t purchase a specific weapon doesn’t mean they’re likely to forget the whole thing? You’ll just create a more resourceful criminal who will find another firearm, or make a bomb, or use a vehicle. Are you willing to take a deeper look at mental health and how social media provides a forum for the unhinged to sow the seeds of anger and hate? Are you willing to admit that band-aid remedies such as buyback programs or worse, confiscation, will only disarm law-abiding citizens?

I’d like to believe compromise is possible. But to compromise, we have to listen. At the moment, we can’t hear one another over the shouting.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].

To all of my friends who happen to be Democrats – and I do have many – I offer the following: If you’re enjoying the presidential stylings of Donald J. Trump, keep doing exactly what you’re doing. And if you want to help cement the GOP majority in the Senate, don’t change a thing. Your current strategy is working beautifully.

Keep harassing Republicans in restaurants. Keep talking about the impeachment of Supreme Court justice Brett “I Like Beer” Kavanaugh. Keeping firing off those profane tweets. Keep producing DNA samples that allegedly prove your Native American heritage (as if anyone really cares). The people are really responding.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll shows that President Trump’s approval rating has risen to 47 percent, the highest of his presidency. That might not be reason for a parade for Trump supporters – and we know how the president loves a parade – but those numbers indicate a shift. In September, Trump’s approval rating was 44 percent.

“The poll results include signs that the widely predicted ‘blue wave’ of Democratic gains in the House in 2018 now is running into a ‘riptide of uncertainty [that] has been created with a surge of Republican intensity,'” according to the Journal.

In many influential Senate races, once-overwhelming Democratic advantages have melted away.

Charles E. Cook, Jr., publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, wrote last week that “the open Republican-held seats in Arizona and Tennessee are two places where Democratic hopes have backslid the most in this post-Kavanaugh period… Democrats had been over-performing but Republican and conservative voters are snapping back into position, a real setback to Democratic hopes.”

Why? Because Democrats went back into their playbook and pulled out a loser.

“One question that keeps coming back up is whether those who led the out-of-control demonstrations on Capitol Hill against the Kavanaugh nomination have any understanding of how much damage they did to Democrats and the party’s chances of winning a majority in the Senate,” Cook wrote. “My guess is they don’t. But Senate Democrats probably do.”

If I were a Senate Democrat, my message, two weeks before an election to my more activism-oriented constituents, would be, “If you really want to help me, stop trying to help me.”

In North Dakota, the race between Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic incumbent, and Republican Rep. Kevin Kramer, is now leaning Republican. And, at least according to Cook, it appears Heitkamp will be unable to turn things around by election day. Heitkamp voted against the confirmation of Kavanaugh. If you recall, Heitkamp said she opposed Kavanaugh because of his “body language” during his confirmation hearing.

In a column for Fox News, Democratic pollster and political analyst Doug Schoen wrote that Democrats are failing to acknowledge the, well, elephant in the room.

“Democrats have moved so far to the left that Republican attacks on them for being extremist and too far in the clutches of their tired, out-of-touch leadership have been working,” Schoen wrote.

Where does all of this leave Democrats less than two weeks before the election? What looked like a layup a month ago has now turned into two, pressure-packed free throws. And if the Democrats somehow blow this, one wonders how they will recover, if recovery is even possible.

Misdirected activism isn’t the Democrats’ only problem. The economy is strong. The Democrats can say whatever they want about Trump’s tax cuts and regulatory reforms but they have fueled growth and optimism. The U.S. Gross Domestic Product grew to 4.2 percent in the second quarter of this year. Unemployment is low and small business optimism has reached record highs.

The Index of Small Business Optimism rose 0.9 points to a record-high of 108.8, according to Forbes.com, breaking the 35-year-old record which, “signals a defining moment for the U.S. economy.”,Forbes added that “small business owners have never been this optimistic about the economy in the last 45 years.”

It would be an overstatement at this point to say that the Democrats are in trouble. Barring a total meltdown, they are still favored to take control of the House. They need a gain of 23 seats to take the majority. The Senate, however, is another matter as an increase in enthusiasm among Republicans has made winning a majority a long shot, according to Cook.

We won’t know until election day if the Democrats have found a way to win. But we already know they know how to lose.

–

Copyright 2018 Rich Manieri, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at [email protected].