Fox News Show Blows Up Over Whether Trump Is Racist or Not: ‘This Is Insane!’

Fox News Show Blows Up Over Whether Trump Is Racist or Not: ‘This Is Insane!’Fox News’ early-afternoon gabfest Outnumbered went completely off the rails Wednesday as lone liberal panelist Jessica Tarlov tangled with her conservative colleagues over whether or not it is fair to describe President Trump as racist.Discussing the president’s days-long attacks on Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Baltimore, things quickly heated up when co-host Dagen McDowell was openly miffed when fellow panelist Lisa Marie Boothe continued to correct her as she tried to make a point.Responding to a recent poll showing 51 percent of Americans and 86 percent of Democrats believing the president is racist, McDowell attempted to counter a point that Boothe made earlier that Democratic politicians are allegedly pandering to the left.“Here’s the problem—all those people you mention, Lisa, they’re not running for re-election next year,” McDowell said, prompting Boothe to note that Bernie Sanders is running for president. As McDowell conceded that point, Boothe further mentioned a member of Congress was also up for re-election, causing McDowell to snap.“I said president,” the Fox Business host sneered. “You corrected me once and you were right. Let’s move on.”That strange confrontation merely set the stage for an even more combative blow-up involving Boothe. After McDowell noted that a large number of black voters who voted for Obama stayed home in 2016, and that Trump’s race-baiting could come back to bite him, Boothe contended that Trump could simply argue that black unemployment is at an all-time low and tout criminal justice reform. This prompted Tarlov, the lone liberal, to jump in and insist that such a strategy wouldn’t erase Trump’s history of racism.“He could make those arguments but it won’t change the fact that he is a racist and he does racist things,” Tarlov declared as anchor Harris Faulkner said those were “two different things” and Boothe claimed she was “weaponizing words.”The liberal co-host, however, pushed forward. “A birther means that you’re a racist,” Tarlov said. “Telling women of color who are congressional representatives to go back to where they came from—when three of them are Americans from birth, one a refugee who is now a citizen—is racist. Thinking that the Central Park Five is still guilty even though they’ve been exonerated, is racist.”Moments later, after going back and forth with Faulkner over whether the so-called “Squad” was right to suggest Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is racist—even though Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has specifically said she doesn’t believe Pelosi is racist—Tarlov then found herself in a battle with Boothe.Having already noted that she’s been in countless Fox debates over whether Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are anti-Semitic or bigoted, Tarlov said they “need to be honest” that it was racist for Trump to describe Baltimore as a place where “no human would want to live.”“That’s what Bernie Sanders said as well—that it was a third world country,” Boothe responded, prompting Tarlov to bury her head in her hands and exclaim: “This is insane!”As Boothe insisted Tarlov was “playing a semantics game,” the liberal co-host said she would remember all of this the next time they had a discussion on Louis Farrakhan or Omar’s controversial “all about the Benjamins” tweet and they demand that she talk about that.The two would continue to argue a little bit longer over which political party was more racist until Faulkner stepped in.“I appreciate the passion, and I know we will go back and forth, but it’s a conversation,” the anchor said. “Okay? When you put your hands in the air and you roll your eyes and we kind of go back and forth, it feels less like a conversation. But that’s where we need to be.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.


Can Someone Please Vote CNN Off the Stage?

Can Someone Please Vote CNN Off the Stage?(Bloomberg Opinion) — Ten of the Democrats debated on Tuesday night. But the debate was dominated by Jake Tapper, Dana Bash and Don Lemon – CNN’s moderators. Norm Ornstein got it right:It’s not just that the time allocations were harsh. (The candidates were constantly being cut off, sometimes after being given all of 15 seconds to make their points.) And not just that the time allocation seemed somewhat arbitrary. No, it was the questioning that really fell short – very, very short. The CNN moderators, again and again, employed the very worst types of questions. One style that Tapper used repeatedly early on was interrupting to insist that the candidates stick to a portion of a topic that he found interesting (such as whether their health care plans would involve increases in taxes for the middle class) rather than what they wanted to talk about. The night also featured too many gotcha questions, in which a candidate is challenged about something they said.(1) But even worse was a constant theme of asking one candidate to fight with another. Candidate X, what do you think of Candidate Y’s plan? Those questions have superficial appeal because they appear to get to what separates the candidates. And they promise fireworks, with candidates forced to argue. But in reality, invitation-to-fight questions tend to emphasize the differences that the moderators select, which may or may not be substantively important ones. It leads the debate to focus on areas of internal candidate differences, leaving policy areas where they agree irrelevant – even if those areas are important, and contain real disputes with the other party. So for example late in the debate we had an extended exchange on nuclear no-first-use. Is that an important policy? Sure. Is it the most important thing to talk about in national security and foreign policy right now? I don’t think many experts would say so. It also created a frame of moderates squaring off against Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that worked well for the candidates running as self-professed moderates, especially John Delaney, and much less well for the candidates who straddle that divide (and, one might argue, therefore are best positioned to unify the party): Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke. Buttigieg and perhaps to a lesser extent Klobuchar got in a few good lines anyway, but the debate was stacked against them by the way the moderators thought about the candidates.What’s more to the point is that the framing wasn’t very good for the party as a whole. It pushed both the moderates and the more progressive candidates away from the center of the party, because they were all cast that way. All of that raises the question of how much longer parties will go along with it.Once upon a time, in the 1970s and 1980s especially, presidential nomination debates were fully decentralized: Some organization (usually from the news media, including local news media, but sometimes other groups) would invite candidates to debate, and if enough of them accepted, the debate was on. They weren’t necessarily televised nationally, and the sponsor would decide who to invite, what rules to use, and everything else – with the main constraint only whether candidates were willing to show up for whatever conditions were set. We still have plenty of group forums or town halls or whatever that work that way.Over the last four or five cycles, however, the parties have been taking over. This year the Democratic Party has decided a lot of the whens, wheres, hows and whos. After Tuesday night’s event, I have to believe that there are plenty of people at the Democratic National Committee – and plenty of candidates and their staff – who are fed up with debates that put the TV stars first. I wouldn’t be surprised, especially if things go badly over the rest of the cycle, if both parties start thinking seriously about running their own shows in 2024. Now, there would be plenty of pitfalls, just as there have been when the parties took over the scheduling and the invitations. It’s certainly possible the parties, if they did take over the debates, might come to regret it. But could they? Yup. Sure, the networks want to promote their own talent by having them moderate, but the events would still be excellent for them even without that, and the parties could still arrange some sort of limited MC role for network anchors. And while party-sponsored debates would presumably stick to topics that the party wants to talk about, I’m not sure – especially after watching what CNN just did – that voters would be worse off. So I don’t know who won tonight’s debate, but I’m pretty sure that CNN, and perhaps in the future the media in general, were the losers.(1) Gotcha questions may have their place in interviews, although even there they tend to substitute for substance, but they’re almost always a mistake in debates, where the candidates have each other to keep them honest.To contact the author of this story: Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.


Canada police shift manhunt for teen slaying suspects

Canada police shift manhunt for teen slaying suspectsCanadian police said Tuesday they have pulled out of a remote northern town after an intensive search turned up no sign of two fugitive teenagers suspected of killing three people — a college professor, a North Carolina woman and her Australian boyfriend. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police used dogs and drones, helicopters, boats and even a military Hercules aircraft to scour the area around York Landing, Manitoba, but were unable to confirm a possible sighting of the two men reported by members of a neighborhood watch group. Nineteen-year-old McLeod and 18-year-old Schmegelsky have been charged with second-degree murder in the death of Leonard Dyck, a University of British Columbia professor whose body was found last week in British Columbia.


Man accused of pushing boy under German train was wanted by Swiss

Man accused of pushing boy under German train was wanted by SwissBERLIN/ZURICH (Reuters) – A 40-year-old Eritrean refugee accused of killing an eight-year-old boy by pushing him under a train in Frankfurt was wanted by police in Switzerland, where he was being treated for psychological problems, authorities said on Tuesday. In Monday’s incident, which horrified Germany, the man first pushed the boy’s mother onto the track but she rolled away. On Thursday, he had also brandished a knife at a female neighbor in Switzerland and threatened to kill her, before fleeing, Romann said.


New York Extends Gun Background Checks, Bans Bump Stocks

New York Extends Gun Background Checks, Bans Bump StocksNew York gun buyers may wait up to 30 days for background checks under a new law signed Monday by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo.Cuomo signed legislation to extend the background check waiting period from three days to as much as 30 for gun buyers who are not immediately approved, as well as a ban on bump stocks, the governor’s office announced.“By signing these measures into law we are strengthening our nation-leading gun laws — banning devices whose sole purpose is to create the most bloodshed in the shortest timeframe and providing law enforcement the tools they need to stop firearms from falling into dangerous hands.” Cuomo said in a statement.The legislation passed both houses in January, according to the New York Post.New York gun dealers are required to perform National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background checks on potential gun buyers, resulting in notifications to “proceed,” “denied,” or “delayed.”The review typically took three days before the dealer could move forward or refuse the sale, a judgment they could make even if the background check came back “delayed.”