 |
| Alisyn Camerota and Chris Cuomo |
I am watching Kellyanne Conway Live on CNN. She gives a lesson on how to handle a potentially difficult news event, where one's position directly contradicts earlier positions:
Never blink.
Never admit.
Don't give an inch.
Don't acknowledge "their" facts.
Accuse.
Win the conversation, at least with your own people.
Kellyanne Conway, campaign manager for the Trump campaign and now the primary spokesman for the Trump Transition is being interviewed live on CNN. She is being asked by CNN morning anchors about the morning's news, his decision to remain as Executive Producer of "The Apprentice."
The following dialog is a paraphrase from my immediate memory.
The following dialog is a paraphrase from my immediate memory.
 |
| Add caption |
Camerota: Wont this be a conflict of interest and didn't Trump campaign complaining of those?
Conway: President Trump is completely transparent about his financial affairs.
Camerota: Won't this take time away from the job he said he would hive 100% of his attention?
Conway: Well, I certainly didn't hear anyone complain about all the time President Obama spent on the golf course. If he can spend time on the golf course then it is only reasonable that Mr. Trump should be able to relax in the way that he wants in his free time.
Camerota: There was constant criticism of President Obama for the time he spent golfing. You yourself were highly critical of him for that very thing.
Conway: There are a lot of election deniers who just cannot accept the fact that Mr. Trump won the election. Mr. Trump won and he is organizing his team so that he can make America the great prosperous country that it can be.
Camerota: On another subject, is Mr. Trump revising the number of jobs he said he saved with Carrier in Indiana in light of news that the number Mr. Trump used was higher than the actual number?
Conway: Mr. Trump is extraordinary at reviving the American economy. He saved jobs that Mr. Obama could have saved and did not and I don't know the political agenda of the people using lowball numbers and what is their motivation but Mr. Trump will help all Americans even ones that did not vote for him and cannot accept the fact that Mr. Trump won.
CNN did something that is new to my observation: near-contemporaneous fact checking. Immediately following the interview another anchor, Chris stated flatly: "According to actual data and calendars Mr. Obama took fewer vacation days than any president in recent decades."
There are two different simultaneous world views relating to Donald Trump, the view of Donald Trump's supporters and the views of his detractors, and they have two different facts and different realities.
And meanwhile, on ABC, Conway is positioning her self as a victim of harsh political language, citing Hillary Clinton. This is an example of the very successful "swift boat" technique, in which you accuse the opponent of the action for which you are most vulnerable to attack. Clinton's language is inciting death threats, she says.
Thad Guyer notes the hypocrisy of American government objecting to overt subversion of foreign governments since it has been a matter of American policy for over a century.
And meanwhile, on ABC, Conway is positioning her self as a victim of harsh political language, citing Hillary Clinton. This is an example of the very successful "swift boat" technique, in which you accuse the opponent of the action for which you are most vulnerable to attack. Clinton's language is inciting death threats, she says.On another subject:
The burden of yesterday's post was that America suffered an attack by a foreign power which directly threatened the legitimacy of American government, the cyber espionage of a political campaign. The victim was the candidate of the political party of the incumbent president, but there has been little outcry and no Congressional Oversight Committee attention. Had the polarity of the attack been the opposite way, had Trump's campaign been hacked and its secrets revealed, would the Obama intelligence security apparatus have escaped scrutiny?
Guyer cited a different point, the role of America government doing equivalent things and the potential that Democrats would use Russian intervention as an excuse for avoiding the self-criticism necessary to regain a majority of Congress and the White House.
Excerpt from Guyer Comment. For the entire comment see the comment section of yesterday's post:
“But with little more than a month to go before the presidential election, one senior administration official said that Mr. Obama was ‘under pressure to act now’, in part because a declaration closer to Election Day would appear to be political.”
Makes sense. But the New York Times also noted a more overt political purpose in the October 7th indictment of Russia:
“Two days ahead of the second presidential debate, the announcement also puts the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, more on the defensive over his assertion last month that Mr. Putin is a better leader than Mr. Obama.”
Oh no! That one sounds a bit close to the line to me.
And indeed it did put Trump “more on the defensive”, but the deplorables, white nationalists, 30% of Hispanics, old Cubans, unemployed coal miners, and blue collar stiffs just didn’t care about Russia, maybe? Admittedly, Russia’s election interference pales in comparison to say, US interference in virtually every election in Central and South America until Oliver North was indicted on 16 felony counts in 1989 for Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal—the primary purpose of which was funding coups and assassinations of candidates and leaders. No question, military coups and assassinations remain the best methods for election interference, as Putin recently demonstrated in Reaganesque fashion in Crimea and Ukraine. Right?
So, if the Harvard forum can help us keep churning the narrative that Hillary lost because of Russia, then count me in, as long as we also keep trying to formulate the lessons learned as to the real reasons we lost.
Makes sense. But the New York Times also noted a more overt political purpose in the October 7th indictment of Russia:
“Two days ahead of the second presidential debate, the announcement also puts the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, more on the defensive over his assertion last month that Mr. Putin is a better leader than Mr. Obama.”
Oh no! That one sounds a bit close to the line to me.
And indeed it did put Trump “more on the defensive”, but the deplorables, white nationalists, 30% of Hispanics, old Cubans, unemployed coal miners, and blue collar stiffs just didn’t care about Russia, maybe? Admittedly, Russia’s election interference pales in comparison to say, US interference in virtually every election in Central and South America until Oliver North was indicted on 16 felony counts in 1989 for Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal—the primary purpose of which was funding coups and assassinations of candidates and leaders. No question, military coups and assassinations remain the best methods for election interference, as Putin recently demonstrated in Reaganesque fashion in Crimea and Ukraine. Right?
So, if the Harvard forum can help us keep churning the narrative that Hillary lost because of Russia, then count me in, as long as we also keep trying to formulate the lessons learned as to the real reasons we lost.
