Fareed Zakaria on Ronna McDaniel and Trump's Court Cases

I've gotten criticism from board members for criticizing NBC's decision to terminate Ronna McDaniel before she started. And for criticizing Letitia James and Alvin Bragg for their prosecutions of Trump in New York courtrooms.

Well, guess who agrees with me? Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria's sympathies lie with Democrats, and he's possibly the smartest of the main talking heads on CNN. Here are some excerpts from what he said this morning.


The hiring and firing of Ronna McDaniel as an NBC political analyst might seem like a small media tempest, but it does force a reckoning with a much larger issue that will come up again and again in this campaign. How to deal with Donald Trump and his supporters.

To recap, Ronna McDaniel was the chair of the RNC in November 2020 and tried to pressure local Republican officials not to certify the presidential election results. She also denied that the elections had been fair in a television interview.

....about one-third of Americans believed that the 2020 election was not free and fair. That is more than 85 million adult Americans. How do we approach them? How do we approach the people who have led them to these beliefs? Do we cancel them all? Should no one who has these views be allowed to speak on NBC News? I think the executives at NBC were trying to find a reasonable way to have the views of 85 million Americans represented on the airwaves.

I understand that dilemma. Ronna McDaniel acted in ways that were not conservative or Republican, but anti-democratic. She assaulted the constitutional foundations of the country. But the nature of liberal democracy is that we allow all kinds of people to express their views.

....Most high-profile elected Republicans who in some way oppose Trump are now former elected Republicans. But some do try to move away from the worst excesses of Trumpism. McDaniel, in a recent NBC interview, affirmed that Biden was the legitimate president of the United States.

Should we encourage this kind of return to normalcy or forever punish those who once espouse crazy conspiracy theories?

Liberal democracies should avoid the temptation of using illiberal means even when they confront views and positions that are forthrightly hostile to liberal democracy itself.

I worry about some of the court cases against Trump. While they may be technically legitimate some involve offenses that happened years ago, and for which he was not then charged. Would he have been charged for those were he not the controversial or political figure he is today?

So far these efforts to rule him beyond the pale are not working. Despite 88 felony counts and all the censure of the media elite, he is leading in many polls. After all, his supporters are fueled by the belief that a group of overeducated liberals with no regard for them run the country. So how do you think they'll react when a group of lawyers in big cities come up with clever ways to make Trump ineligible to run for the presidency?

As I write in my new book, "Age of Revolutions," the new populist right's disdain for liberal democracy is frightening. Constituting the gravest threat we face to our political future. But the left also has its excesses in this direction. Many want to dispense with some of liberalism's rules and procedures. They want to ban those who have wrong ideas from speaking. They want to achieve racial equality by quota or decree.

They want to use education or art to achieve political goals rather than educational or artistic ones. Convinced of the virtue of their ideas in theory, say the rights of asylum seekers, they're comfortable pushing this abstract notion of virtue onto a reluctant society. But top-down revolutionary actions from the uncompromising left or the reactionary right often cause more turmoil than progress.

Donald Trump's brand of right-wing populism is illiberal, xenophobic, often racist, and takes America into dark dead ends. But the way to defeat it in a liberal democracy is not by using legal mechanisms that take him off the political playing field and canceling those who support him. Rather, it is to debate his allies, put forward powerful and persuasive positions that show Americans that you can also address their concerns, and to confront Trump on the political battlefield and beat him.

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/fzg...-31/segment/01

... Zakaria there is just another liberal pin-wheel, who talks
from both sides of his mouth.

"Liberal Democracy"?? ... Where's that? ... Canada? ...

... But reckon it's somehow nice to see that the fellow
agrees-with YOU on some things, Tiny.
CNN is a good place for him.

#### Salty

Donald Trump's brand of right-wing populism is illiberal, xenophobic, often racist, and takes America into dark dead ends. But the way to defeat it in a liberal democracy is not by using legal mechanisms that take him off the political playing field and canceling those who support him. Rather, it is to debate his allies, put forward powerful and persuasive positions that show Americans that you can also address their concerns, and to confront Trump on the political battlefield and beat him. Originally Posted by Tiny

I understand the argument being put forth but the reality is by elevating lies as truth there can be no actual debate. It’s already been seen that Trump and the populists that support him have no interest in the truth.

They believe that the 2020:election was rigged. Not True.
They believe that Jan 6th was a bunch of peaceful protesters. Not True.
They believe that the FBI instigated Jan 6th. Not True.

I could go on. We can’t put those people who instigated the big lie on the air to justify their actions.

Yeah, she should be on trial, not on air.

Gentlemen, as a card carrying member of the ACLU back in the days when it was defending both Communists and Nazis, I strongly disagree.

I understand the argument being put forth but the reality is by elevating lies as truth there can be no actual debate. It’s already been seen that Trump and the populists that support him have no interest in the truth.

They believe that the 2020:election was rigged. Not True.
They believe that Jan 6th was a bunch of peaceful protesters. Not True.
They believe that the FBI instigated Jan 6th. Not True.

I could go on. We can’t put those people who instigated the big lie on the air to justify their actions. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Ronna McDaniel left the RNC because she wasn't sufficiently subservient to Trump. I don't think she believed any of that.

Yeah, she should be on trial, not on air. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

On trial for what? Recommending that Republican officials in Michigan wait to sign off until they speak with an attorney is not a crime.

Gentlemen, as a card carrying member of the ACLU back in the days when it was defending both Communists and Nazis, I strongly disagree.

Ronna McDaniel left the RNC because she wasn't sufficiently subservient to Trump. I don't think she believed any of that. Originally Posted by Tiny

I agree in the principles of the ACLU and the First Amendment. Government should not be allowed to limit speech. But that’s not what happened here. I don’t think Ronna Mcdaniel believed the lies she was telling either. But it does tell us something about her character. Why should she be put in a position that requires journalistic integrity . That’s what this is about. A newsroom pushing back against the addition of someone they felt would taint the integrity of the room. Apparently quite a number of people agree with that stance.

I agree in the principles of the ACLU and the First Amendment. Government should not be allowed to limit speech. But that’s not what happened here. I don’t think Ronna Mcdaniel believed the lies she was telling either. But it does tell us something about her character. Why should she be put in a position that requires journalistic integrity . That’s what this is about. A newsroom pushing back against the addition of someone they felt would taint the integrity of the room. Apparently quite a number of people agree with that stance. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Joy Reid on MSNBC aren't journalists, they're propagandists. McDaniel was more objective on her one appearance on NBC after the network committed to hire her than any of the preceding. And more objective than Laura Ingraham and some others on Fox too.

Propagandists tell only one side in the best light. She . . . fuckin' . . . LIES!

Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Joy Reid on MSNBC aren't journalists, they're propagandists. McDaniel was more objective on her one appearance on NBC after the network committed to hire her than any of the preceding. And more objective than Laura Ingraham and some others on Fox too. Originally Posted by Tiny

This is the most compelling argument you’ve made on this topic yet. You are correct that some journalists and commentators are biased and show that bias in the topics they cover and the facts they emphasize. However that doesn’t change my argument either. I guess for me the bright line that you should not cross is

2020 election denialism.
Jan 6th denialism.
Vaccine denialism.

There are a number of individuals who have worked in the Trump administration that have rehabilitated themselves in different ways. Ronna McDaniel has not done so yet. The journalists at NBC have a right to criticize her and the management at NBC if they so desire.

Maybe that’s not good for the national discourse but that’s not under our control.

I'd love it if Roger Stone had his own show on MSNBC and James Carville had one on Fox. Wouldn't that be the cat's meow! Neither one has a snowball's chance in hell of being redeemed in the eyes of the other side, which would make it even more entertaining. And they might just open some minds.

I agree in the principles of the ACLU and the First Amendment. Government should not be allowed to limit speech. But that’s not what happened here. I don’t think Ronna Mcdaniel believed the lies she was telling either. But it does tell us something about her character. Why should she be put in a position that requires journalistic integrity . That’s what this is about. A newsroom pushing back against the addition of someone they felt would taint the integrity of the room. Apparently quite a number of people agree with that stance. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Phooey! I guarantee you that Jen Psaki knowingly lied about things to spin them for Joe Biden. How is it she should be put in a position that requires journalistic integrity? And the idea that any of these network talking heads has any integrity in the first place is laughable.

Phooey! I guarantee you that Jen Psaki knowingly lied about things to spin them for Joe Biden. How is it she should be put in a position that requires journalistic integrity? And the idea that any of these network talking heads has any integrity in the first place is laughable. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Well Ducbutter, there are a couple of professions that the public believes have LESS integrity than journalists, specifically Senators and members of Congress,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gallup-...ssion-ratings/

And, as to Jen Psaki and MSNBC, remember the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Subsitute "she" for "he", and "liar" for "son of a bitch."

Phooey! I guarantee you that Jen Psaki knowingly lied about things to spin them for Joe Biden. How is it she should be put in a position that requires journalistic integrity? And the idea that any of these network talking heads has any integrity in the first place is laughable. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Got any documented proof of these lies. Please share. I’m sure that there are lies being told but i’m not sure that they are equivalent to election denialism.

Got any documented proof of these lies. Please share. I’m sure that there are lies being told but i’m not sure that they are equivalent to election denialism. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/27...s-about-lying/

Got any documented proof of these lies. Please share. I’m sure that there are lies being told but i’m not sure that they are equivalent to election denialism. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/27...s-about-lying/ Originally Posted by Tiny

I read the article and it appears that the editor is a bit biased. The links provided show no direct evidence of deliberate lying merely statements made that were corrected later, taken out of context, or overblown by the editor into something that they are not. If I missed something or I am taking something out of context please let me know, but I didn’t see anything there that would indicate otherwise.