Connect with us

Politics

Comedian Faces Criticism After Controversial Remarks At D.C. Gala

Twitter was abuzz after the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, with several political journalists sounding off on comedian Michelle Wolf’s routine and soul-searching about the event.

Published

on

President Trump’s absence for the second year in a row from the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner may end up being the least controversial thing about Saturday night’s gathering of the White House press corps.

Chatter online amongst Washington, D.C., journalists and some in the administration’s orbit after the event was full of criticism for comedian Michelle Wolf, who was the evening’s headliner; criticism and soul-searching about the annual event itself; and an effort by former White House press secretary Sean Spicer to pressure the leadership of the White House Correspondents’ Association into answering for Wolf’s vulgar, personal jabs leveled primarily at the president and his inner circle.

The comedian spoke for roughly 20 minutes to a ballroom full of Washington’s top journalists and political operatives in remarks too lewd in many respects to be repeated here. The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi wrote Wolf’s remarks “swerved from raunchy to downright nasty.”

“She was particularly hard on the women associated with Trump,” Farhi also wrote, adding “several cracks about [White House press secretary] Sarah Huckabee Sanders landed poorly.” (Courtesy of two of Farhi’s colleagues at the Post, here’s a list of Wolf’s “harshest” jokes.) And Politico observed of Wolf’s performance that “it was a risque and uneven routine at first met with laughs but often greeted by awkward silence.”

The comedic routine laced with sexual innuendo and, at times, dominated by outright vulgarities was directed primarily at Republicans and conservatives — a fact not lost on those in the room who expressed their displeasure on Twitter afterward.

“My wife @mercedesschlapp and I walked out early from the wh correspondents dinner. Enough of elites mocking all of us,” Matt Schlapp posted on Twitter just before 11 p.m. Schlapp is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and his wife, Mercedes, is part of the White House’s communications team.

Former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus called the night an “R/X rated spectacle that started poorly and ended up in the bottom of the canyon. Another victory for @realDonaldTrump for not attending and proving his point once again. The room was uncomfortable. Trump lovers and even a large number of Trump haters were pretty miserable.”

Spicer’s critique was more pointed. “Tonight’s #WHCD was a disgrace,” the former Trump spokesman said on Twitter.

The criticism was joined by some well-known political journalists who sounded off both about Wolf’s remarks and the nature of the event more broadly.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was the particular target of harsh treatment by Wolf — as Sanders sat on the dais not far from the lectern where Wolf was speaking. Afterward, some of the journalists from outlets known to spar with the White House or be on the receiving end of pointed attacks directly from the president spoke out on Sanders’ behalf.

“That @PressSec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive,” tweeted Maggie Haberman of The New York Times. (Haberman said on Twitter that she did not attend the event in person but had watched it on TV.)

“Lots of critics but she has always been decent and professional to me — if not entirely forthcoming,” The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey posted on Twitter about Sanders, attaching Haberman’s tweet about the Trump spokeswoman.

“The spirit of the event had always been jokes that singe but don’t burn,” said Kelly O’Donnell of NBC News, “Reporters who work with her daily appreciate that @presssec was there.” Like Dawsey, O’Donnell included Haberman’s tweet praising Sanders’ composure under fire.

“Unfortunately, I don’t think we advanced the cause of journalism tonight,” Peter Baker, also of The New York Times, said online.

As Haberman’s tweet had, Baker’s set off a series of responses, subtweets and amens from fellow journalists.

“Couldn’t agree more,” CNN’s Jeff Zeleny posted on Twitter, “So much important and amazing journalism this year — that should be the focus, when truth matters and is needed more than ever. It was an embarrassment in the room and surely to the audience at home.”

“He’s talking about the White House Correspondents Assn dinner,” tweeted Fox News political analyst Brit Hume. “He’s right,” Hume said, attaching Baker’s tweet.

“The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is a deeply flawed event that doesn’t do what it aspires to do and is serious need of retooling,” wrote Robert Yoon, a political research expert and former longtime employee of CNN’s political unit in D.C., wrote online, also referencing Baker’s tweet.

Other journalists saw broader political implications stemming from the controversial remarks.

“Michelle Wolf — and the WHCD — really played into Trump’s hand tonight. Trump is vulgar and mean-spirited, but that doesn’t mean that Wolf needed to be the same,” tweeted D.C. fixture and longtime political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.

John Ward of Yahoo News called the comedy routine “a political gift to the Trump admin[istration].”

Echoing Ward, Rothenberg and Baker, Meg Kinnard of The Associated Press saw very specific implications for journalists, especially those working and reporting in predominantly Republican states. Saturday night’s event “made the chasm between journalists and those who don’t trust us, even wider,” Kinnard tweeted. “And those of us based in the red states who work hard every day to prove our objectivity will have to deal with it.”

In a trio of tweets early Sunday morning Spicer sought to elicit a response from the White House Correspondents’ Association to the criticism Wolf had received.

Comedian Kathy Griffin, who has herself been embroiled in controversy over her past comments about the president, took up Wolf’s defense and responded to Baker and Zeleny.

“Then don’t have a comic do a roast,” Griffin told the two longtime White House reporters on Twitter, “If you want to focus on the journalism do a boring awards show. Journalism is all about the 1st amendment..If you don’t see the import of what @michelleisawolf did tonight then you don’t get it.”

For her part, Wolf responded to Spicer calling the event a “disgrace” with a simple “Thank you!” on Twitter. And the comedian also challenged Haberman’s critique, suggesting The New York Times White House reporter was harboring unspoken concerns about Sanders’ appearance.

The controversy over Wolf seemed to steal headlines which the president had seemingly tried to steal for himself by absenting himself from the dinner for a second consecutive year and going to Michigan for a campaign rally instead.

In his remarks there earlier Saturday evening, Trump had called the press “very dishonest people” and “fake news.” He called the dinner in D.C. “phony” and said he had much preferred to be in Washington Township, Mich., rather than back in the nation’s capital in a ballroom full of the journalists who cover him and his administration.

He told the enthusiastic crowd of supporters that had he been at the dinner in the other Washington, he would’ve been forced to smile through attacks on him or face negative stories afterward about not being a good sport while being roasted by Wolf.

“You know, there’s no winning,” he said over cheers.

Back in D.C., Matt and Mercedes Schlapp articulated Trump’s concerns more philosophically — concerns widely shared by conservatives across the country who see themselves as losing out in a broader culture war despite their electoral victories in the Trump era.

“America was watching and it’s why they hate the swamp,” Matt Schlapp said in a tweet addressed to Sanders.

“It’s why America hates the out of touch leftist media elite,” Mercedes Schlapp tweeted, referencing her husband’s tweet about “the swamp.”

Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.

News

Trump threatens to withdraw from World Trade Organization

Published

on

President Donald Trump said he would pull out of the World Trade Organization if it doesn’t treat the U.S. better, continuing his criticism of a cornerstone of the international trading system.

“If they don’t shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO,” Trump said Thursday in an interview with Bloomberg News at the White House.

A U.S. withdrawal from the WTO would severely undermine the post-World War II multilateral trading system that the U.S. helped build.

Trump said last month that the U.S. is at a big disadvantage from being treated “very badly” by the WTO for many years and that the Geneva-based body needs to “change their ways.”

(Reuters)

Continue Reading

News

Michael Cohen Secretly Taped Trump Discussing Payment to Playboy Model

Published

on

 President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments to a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with the recording.

The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid on Mr. Cohen’s office. The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Mr. Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them.

The recording’s existence further draws Mr. Trump into questions about tactics he and his associates used to keep aspects of his personal and business life a secret. And it highlights the potential legal and political danger that Mr. Cohen represents to Mr. Trump. Once the keeper of many of Mr. Trump’s secrets, Mr. Cohen is now seen as increasingly willing to consider cooperating with prosecutors.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, confirmed in a telephone conversation on Friday that Mr. Trump had discussed the payments with Mr. Cohen on the tape but said the payment was ultimately never made. He said the recording was less than two minutes and demonstrated that the president had done nothing wrong.

“Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance,” Mr. Giuliani said, adding that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to the woman, write a check, rather than sending cash, so it could be properly documented.

“In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence,” Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Cohen’s lawyers discovered the recording as part of their review of the seized materials and shared it with Mr. Trump’s lawyers, according to three people briefed on the matter.

“We have nothing to say on this matter,” Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny J. Davis, said when asked about the tape.

(New York Times)

Continue Reading

News

The US is a whole lot richer because of trade with Europe, regardless of whether EU is friend or ‘foe’

Published

on

Greg Wright, University of California, Merced

President Donald Trump recently questioned the value of the long-standing United States-Europe alliance. When asked to identify his “biggest foe globally,” he declared: “I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade.”

This view is consistent with his recent turn against trade with Europe but ignores the immense benefits that Americans have reaped due to the strong economic and military alliance between the U.S. and Europe – benefits that include nothing less than unprecedented peace and prosperity.

As such, Trump’s trade war with Europe and his hostility toward broader Western alliances such as NATO portend a future of diminished standards of living – as a direct result of less trade – and greater global conflict – indirectly due to reduced economic integration. In the words of columnist Robert Kagan, “things will not be ok.”

Some of my research focuses on the impact of increased international trade on U.S. standards of living, which I show are causally linked during the late 20th century. Most of the trade in this period occurred among rich nations and was dominated by the U.S.-Europe relationship.

By calling Europe a “foe,” Trump makes clear that he simply doesn’t understand why rich countries trade with one another, which, to be fair, is something that also puzzled economists for many years.

Why rich countries trade

Though in some ways it seems obvious why the U.S. and Europe trade with one another – some might enjoy Parmigiana from Italy, while others prefer Wisconsin cheddar – economists initially had trouble explaining exactly why there was so much trade among rich countries. Surely, they thought, the U.S. can produce good quality cheese at a cost that is similar to producers in Italy, and vice versa, so why would we need to go abroad to satisfy our palettes?

In 1979, economist Paul Krugman provided a clear answer that would eventually win him the Nobel Prize in economics. The first part of his answer was simple but important and boils down to the fact that consumers benefit from having a wide range of product varieties available to them, even if they are only small variations on the same item.

For instance, in 2016 the top U.S. exports to the EU were aircraft (US$38.5 billion), machinery ($29.4 billion) and pharmaceutical products ($26.4 billion). The top imports from the EU seem almost identical: machinery ($64.9 billion), pharmaceutical products ($55.2 billion) and vehicles ($54.6 billion). Although the product categories clearly overlap, there are important differences in the types of pharmaceuticals and machinery that are sold in each market. Consumers benefit from having all these options available to them.

The second part of Krugman’s answer was that, by producing for both markets, companies in Europe and the U.S. could reap greater economies of scale in production and lower their prices as a result. This has been found to indeed be what happens when countries trade. And more recent research has shown that increased foreign competition can also lower domestic prices.

These benefits have been quantified. For instance, the gains to the U.S. from new foreign product varieties and lower prices over the period 1992 to 2005 were equal to about one percent of U.S. GDP – or about $100 billion.

In short, Krugman’s answer emphasized the extent to which international trade between equals increases the overall size of the economic pie. And no pie has ever grown larger than the combined economies of the U.S. and Europe, which now constitute half of global GDP.

Pfizer Inc. is headquartered in New York. Both the U.S. and the EU import and export pharmaceuticals.
AP Photo/Richard Drew

Largest trading partner

The European Union is the largest U.S. trading partner in terms of its total bilateral trade and has been for the past several decades.

Overall, the U.S. imported $592 billion in goods and services from the EU in 2016 and exported $501 billion, which represents about 19 percent of total U.S. trade and also represents about 19 percent of American GDP.

A key feature of this trade is that almost a third of it happens within individual companies. In other words, it reflects multinational companies shipping products to themselves in order to serve their local market, or as inputs into local production. This type of trade is critical as it serves as the backbone of a vast network of business investments on both sides of the Atlantic, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It is also a network that propels the global economy: the EU or U.S. serves as the primary trading partner for nearly every country on Earth.

A ship to shore crane prepares to load a shipping container onto a container ship in Savannah, Ga.
AP Photo/Stephen B. Morton

Shipping and new institutions

The U.S.-Europe trade relationship also laid the groundwork for the modern system of international trade via two distinct innovations: new shipping technologies and new global institutions.

On the technological front, the introduction of the standard shipping container in the 1960s set off the so-called second wave of globalization. This under-appreciated technology was conceived by the U.S Army during the 1950s and was perfected over Atlantic shipping routes. In short, by simply standardizing the size and shape of shipping containers, and building port infrastructure and ships to move them, massive economies of scale in shipping were realized. As a result, today container ships the size of small cities are routed via sophisticated logistics to huge deepwater ports around the world.

These routes eventually made it profitable for other countries to invest in the large-scale port infrastructure that could handle modern container ships. This laid the groundwork for the eventual growth of massive container terminals throughout Asia, which now serve as the hubs of the modern global supply chain.

At the same time that these new technologies were reducing the physical costs of doing business around the world, the U.S. and Europe were also creating institutions to define new international rules for trade and finance. Perhaps the most important one was the post-war General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, which eventually became the World Trade Organization, creating the first rules-based multilateral trade regime. A large body of research shows that these agreements have increased trade and, more importantly, raised incomes around the world.

Overall, these advancements contributed to the subsequent enrichment of hundreds of millions of workers in Asia, Latin America and Africa by helping to integrate them into the global economy.

And when the world gets richer, the U.S. also benefits for many of the same reasons noted above: demand for U.S. products increases as incomes rise around the world, as does the variety of products the U.S. can import, and the prices of these goods typically fall.

A cartoon Trump blimp flies as a protesters speak out against Trump’s visit to London.
AP Photo/Matt Dunham

Taking the long view

But it appears that President Trump sees the U.S. on the losing end of a failed relationship.

It is unsurprising that tensions with Europe have come to the forefront over perceived imbalances in trade, particularly for a president who is not afraid to take long-time allies to task.

This is because U.S. trade policy has arguably been overly optimistic in recent years, particularly with respect to China, whose accession to the WTO proved to be much more disruptive to labor markets around the world than was predicted. Previous U.S. administrations preferred patience over confrontation, leading to a perhaps inevitable backlash that has spilled into other relationships, such as the one with Europe.

However, the U.S. relationship with Europe is clearly different, primarily because it is longstanding and has been largely one of equals. But also because their shared values mean that there are many non-economic issues — such as the spread of liberal democracy and the promotion of human rights — that get advanced by the close economic ties.

It’s important to not underestimate what is at stake if the U.S.-Europe alliance is allowed to falter. Americans are likely in the midst of the most peaceful era in world history, and global economic integration, led from the beginning by the U.S. and Europe, has been a key contributing factor. Global extreme poverty is also at its lowest point ever, again in large part due to globalization.

The ConversationThese are the byproducts and legacies of seven decades of expanding international trade and should not be taken for granted.

Greg Wright, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of California, Merced

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Popular

Copyright © 2018 News This Second