CHALLENGED: Kennedy spoke in Cadillac Square!

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2024

In a challenge to our system, Trump spoke of prisons and jails: Way back in 1960, Labor Day could still be said to be the start of the White House campaign. 

As Labor Day approached that year, Candidate John F. Kennedy was all tied up in Washington. Candidate Nixon was already out on the stump as part of the general White House campaign. But Senator Kennedy had to attend to his duties in a previously scheduled Senate summertime session.

Finally, he was released! In The Making of The President 1960, Theodore White described what happened next:

WHITE (page 251): He took off by chartered jet from Friendship Airport in Baltimore on Friday afternoon, September 2nd, as if he meant to swallow the country at a gulp. Friday evening he campaigned in Maine; by Saturday noon he was campaigning in San Francisco; Saturday night he flew to Alaska and then, with only four hours’ sleep, turned the big jet back to the continent and urged it on all day to Detroit, where on Monday, Labor Day, he would officially open his campaign. There, in recent times, Democratic candidates for the Presidency have always opened their campaigns with an appearance at Cadillac Square before the union men of Detroit’s assembly lines, who mass in thousands to hear the candidate make his traditional appeal for labor’s support.

The candidate "arrived two hours late, at 10:15, on Sunday evening at Detroit International Airport," White reported in his influential, iconic book. The candidate "attended a coffee reception at the Sheraton-Cadillac Hotel and then went to bed."

The next day was Labor Day! After three (3) breakfasts and several other ceremonial meetings, it was "out to Cadillac Square in the brilliant sun to address the cheering mass." 

At that point, the day's real stumping began. According to White, the Labor Day picnics were several in number. On the Democratic Party side, this was Labor Day 1960:

The Michigan State Fair first, for five minutes; then the Labor Day Picnic at Pontiac, Michigan (where he received a ceremonial Indian headdress); then the long drive to Flint, Michigan, and another Labor Day Picnic and another speech...; then an airplane flight in the dusk (he had now switched to his own Convair, the “Mother Ship” in which he was to remain for the rest of the campaign) to Muskegon airport; a seven-mile drive through a defile of cheering people holidaying on Labor Day to Pere Marquette Park, where he addressed another Labor Day Picnic, his voice hoarsening by now...and then on to the Dew-Drop Inn of Muskegon to give the Democratic candidate of Michigan’s Ninth Congressional District a lift. A short speech—mainly historical, intertwining Michigan’s history with the history of the Democratic Party—and then out to the airport, taking off at eleven in the evening and arriving in Pocatello, Idaho, at two in the morning...

That was Labor Day 1960 on the Democratic Party side. Due to the invention of new technologies, communication with "cheering masses" of voters is much easier now. 

This past Friday, as the Labor Day weekend began, Candidate Trump spoke to a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania-but what came next was a modern form of campaigning. As we noted yesterday, the candidate appeared as the sole guest on successive Fox News Channel programs—on the hour-long, Saturday and Sunday night broadcasts of the Fox News Channel primetime program, Life, Liberty and Levin.

The Fox News Channel is, by far, the most-watched of our nation's three major "cable news" channels. As we noted in this report, Nielsen reported these viewership numbers for the month of July:

Average primetime viewership, July 2024 
Fox News Channel: 3.5 million
MSNBC: 1.2 million
CNN: 856,000

According to those numbers, Fox came close to doubling the primetime viewership of MSNBC and CNN combined. It was in that context that Candidate Trump sat for two hours of conversation on this high-profile cable news program.

As we noted yesterday, what followed wasn't exactly an "interview," at least not as assessed by normal journalistic standards. An antagonist might even say that what followed barely qualified as "conversation."

The candidate spoke at remarkable length on these hour-long programs. Very few questions were asked, and quite a few of those "questions" barely qualified as such. As we noted yesterday, these were the first three "questions" Trump was "asked" on the Saturday night broadcast:

Question 1, 8:02 p.m.

LEVIN (8/31/24): ...Your book is heavy with firefighters, police officers, coal miners, people who drill for oil, truckers—common people. So let me ask you this:

You spent most of your life around these people. You were a developer. You were a builder. Electricians, plumbers, construction workers of every kind. You created thousands and thousands of middle-class jobs with pensions, medical insurance and so forth and so on. 

Why do you think your opponents get away with claiming to represent the little guy, the middle class, the blue collar worker, when they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with them? And you've spent your entire life around them?

Question 2, 8:11 p.m.

LEVIN: Let me follow up with you. In the book, you have some very compelling photos of the border.

You spent a lot of time on the border. You spent a lot of time working on the border, thinking about the border. Litigating to get the money to build the wall on the border. Opposition from people like Kamala Harris. 

She says if this so-called "bipartisan border bill" hits her desk, she will sign it. Not a single Republican in the House supported it. Three Republicans in the Senate—it was negotiated in secret. 

She never tells us what's in the bill. "Catch and release"—you put an end to that. That's in the bill. It would be a statute.

[...]

She's hiding out from the press.  Is she a liar? Is that why she's hiding out from the press? She doesn't want to tell the American people just how radical she actually is?

Question 3, 8:18 p.m.

LEVIN (holding up Trump's book): It's a fantastic book. [At] 45books.com, you can order it directly. I'm going to tell you, there's so many—I can't possibly cover it all.

TRUMP: No, I know. 

 LEVIN: But you loved being president. You can see it. You were excited about it. You were engaged about it. 

Those were the first three "questions." By the time those questions had been "answered," it was 8:28 p.m. and the Saturday evening program was already half over!

In effect, the candidate was delivering his stump speech, much as Candidate Kennedy had done in Cadillac Square. By now, the existence of "cable news" channels allowed the candidate to deliver his speech to millions of voters at a time, not to the smaller "cheering mass" which greeted Candidate Kennedy.

A critic could say that the rise of this new medium has created a type of challenge to our struggling American systems. That critic could refer to the stream of apparent misstatements delivered by Candidate Trump on this pair of hour-long programs—and to the way his host reacted, or failed to react, to these apparent misstatements.

Let the word go forth to the nations! Candidate Kennedy may also have made some misstatements when he spoke in Cadillac Square! If he did, no one was present to challenge or "fact-check" his statements on an immediate basis. The cheering mass would have heard what the candidate said without journalistic intervention of any immediate kind.

That said, there's little chance that Candidate Kennedy murdered sleep or mangled accuracy to anything resembling the extent that Candidate Trump seemed to do in his pair of hour-long broadcasts last weekend. 

We'll add this observation:

As can be seen from those first three questions, the Fox News Channel's Mark Levin cast himself in the role of advocate during those broadcasts, rather than in the more traditional role of objective journalist.

Tomorrow, we'll look at one of the many statements Candidate Trump made in the course of those two hour-long broadcasts. The statement in question came early in the Saturday program, at 8:07 p.m. 

Given the nature of the candidate's uninterrupted, rambling presentations, it's hard to say exactly where any particular statement began and ended that night. In this case, a mere seven minutes into the program, the statement in question might be said to have started with these remarks about Candidate Harris:

TRUMP (8/31/24): I saw today she wants to build a wall. She fought me, for years, on the wall. I built hundreds of miles of wall, but she was one of the people that fought me—one of the Democrats, but one of the people. And you look at how she's changed, and it's so phony, because— 

And all of this stuff— You know, with politics, it's usually their first thought, that's where they are. And her first thought is Marxism...

From there, it was on to familiar claims about the emptying of prisons and jails in Venezuela. These claims have been fact-checked a million times by now. Levin just sat there and listened.

(Further warning: Har Harris flipped on building a wall? As we'll note tomorrow, we'd say it isn't as simple as that.)

On Labor Day 1960, Candidate Kennedy made a speech in Cadillac Square, then journeyed to a series of Labor Day picnics. On Labor Day weekend 2024, Candidate Trump went on a major "cable news" program and spoke at remarkable length to a large number of voters.

He was taking part in a new kind of "journalism." It's a journalism which poses a major challenge to the basic functioning of the American system.

Can our system, such as it is, survive this kind of journalism? As we struggle toward November's election, some of our most important legacy mainstream news orgs don't seem strongly inclined to wonder or to ask.

Tomorrow: Emptying prisons and jails!


54 comments:

  1. At least the people who vote for Trump love his bigotry. I'm not sure what Levin thinks he's getting by kissing Trump's ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Levin is thinking about money, but taken literally, he is more likely to get some kind of infectious disease.

      Delete
  2. I'll buy Bob's description of Trump's "interview" degenerating into a rambling campaign speech, because that's his tendency,. It takes a strong interviewer to rein him and force him to answer specific questions. Instead, Levin encouraged Trump's rambling.

    Nevertheless, the faulty "interview" had no significant effect.
    FoxNews is small part of the media: ABC, CBS, and NBC each has a lot more viewers than Fox. In addition, many millions of Americans rely on social media for our news.

    Also Fox viewers include few undecided voters. Fox viewers are pretty much political junkies who've already made up their minds. I suspect this interview, or any interview on Fox, changed few, if any, votes.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All these candidate interviews are a waste of time, because the media doesn't want an informed public.

      Delete
    2. There is nothing informative about a Trump interview, unless you count the snapshot of his mental deterioration.

      Delete
    3. Levin "encouraged" Trump's rambling -- as if it were not Trump's own fault that he cannot follow a train of thought.

      Delete
    4. David puts his finger on why Somerby keeps repeating Trump and Gutfeld and various other right wingers here -- amplifying their limited audience by spreading the memes to whatever undecided voters might exist at this blog. It is the least Somerby can do, given his dislike of uppity women.

      Look at all the space he has wasted today by talking about JFK, reciting pointless trivia about his campaign without any relevance to today's politics. JFK went to picnics. Trump stayed home, but is that due to new politics or is it because Trump is an old fart who cannot be trusted to stick to a script anymore and perhaps has PTSD after watching people in his crowd get killed and is refusing to stand up in front of an audience any more. Or maybe he just doesn't care whether he wins or loses as long as he gets to grift, and his takeover after the election is more important to him than who votes for whom? His minions are plotting the next coup attempt, so it doesn't matter what Trump does with his time, waiting for the election to be over.

      Delete
    5. Donald Trump is too old to be president. He can't string one thought together ("weave" - HA!), he's heavily medicated, his memory is shot, and he's boring. Old, old, old!

      Delete
    6. 11:14 - When Somerby criticizes Blue media, he’s undermining their message. When he criticizes Red media, he’s promoting their message. He’s pretty tricky, isn’t he?

      Delete
    7. How has Somerby criticized red media? He mostly repeats red media then complains because Gutfeld is famous and he isn't.

      Is it any kind of criticism to say that Levin allowed Trump to give a large portion of his stump speech unimpeded? That is a feature not a bug. Somerby puts "question" in quotes but that isn't a criticism. It shows that Levin is saying "Take it away, Donald...". But where is the criticism of Levin's use of his show to promote Trump? It is what the right wing does and we all know it, and have known it for decades. So how is that criticism?

      Somerby notes that Levin just listened (as is the format of his show promoting Trump). Then he says (continuing directly):

      "(Further warning: Har [sic] Harris flipped on building a wall? As we'll note tomorrow, we'd say it isn't as simple as that.)"

      Lookee here! The criticism is aimed at Harris. Not by saying she did anything wrong, but by hinting (suggesting, implying) that she has flip-flopped on the wall. But no evidence whatsoever that she did. He says he'll talk about that tomorrow, but he often doesn't get around to that. It is enough to bury the dagger.

      Did Trump flip flop in his stump speech? Somerby doesn't say.

      Delete
    8. "Somerby puts "question" in quotes but that isn't a criticism."

      Actually it is. The quotes tell you it's not really a question, like you would expect a real journalist to ask. It's a little subtle for you, maybe.

      As for the Harris quote, Somerby seems to be saying Harris did something that approaches a 'flip' on building a wall, but isn't quite that.

      Given the problems that now center around the border, it would be surprising if Harris hasn't done something that could reasonably be construed as a flip.

      But when I typed that last sentence, I was commiting crimethink, wasn't I?

      Delete
    9. “How has Somerby criticized red media?”

      You’re kidding me, right?

      Delete
    10. Ask yourself, does Somerby need to quote so much of Trump to criticize Levin’s questions?

      Delete
    11. In today's post, the only Trump quote of any length was prefaced by Somerby's criticism of Trump's answers, not of Levin's questions.

      But to know that, you would have to read and comprehend the post.

      Delete
    12. No, he was critical of the questions & Levin letting the answers stand.

      Delete
    13. 4:34,

      Note that you prefaced your comment by saying 'no', as if what followed would contradict me. But nothing that followed did contradict me.

      Think before you comment.

      Delete
    14. I took issue with your statement that the preface contained criticism of Trump's answers.

      Delete
  3. What Somerby calls "a new form of campaigning" is Trump's low energy call-in from home. He is apparently not speaking before any crowds this week but is staying at Mar a Lago and playing golf.

    Why is Somerby, like Levin, giving so much space to Trump's tired performance? Do we really need him to transcribe this stuff, while ignoring the realities of the campaign?

    Meanwhile:

    "A federal judge has officially issued a temporary injunction against the Donald Trump for President campaign, preventing the campaign from using a song from the late musician, Isaac Hayes.

    Today's ruling impacts Hayes' song “Hold On, I’m Coming,” and comes after the estate of Isaac Hayes requested an emergency injunction preventing the Trump campaign from using the song at campaign events. This is the song that Trump typically "dances" to at the end of each of his rallies."

    It is about time the courts started giving relief to the various artists who Trump has stolen music from. That list includes ABBA most recently, who has sent him a cease and desist letter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As the democratization of media increases, the role of corporate media has shifted, becoming less of an influence and more of a mirror, a mirror for an increasingly minor slice of citizenry.

    The current state of media provides little explanatory value on the impact and status of Trump.

    No, there is something else going...will Somerby ever even bother to put any effort into puzzling this out?

    All signs point to: nope.

    And why not? Because the answer cuts against Somerby's worldview, so he prefers to put his thumb on the scale, muddy the waters, all in order to manufacture ignorance, all while attempting to maintain plausible deniability about his actual views.

    To be fair, there is the appearance that he has conned a handful of people, but you know, big whoop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So maybe you could take a thumb off the scale, clarify the waters, and manufacture some reality by telling us your theory of the cause of Trump’s impact and status.

      Delete
    2. Talk about an overly broad and vague question!

      Delete
    3. People in comments have been talking about this since 2016 but they are the ones PP always complains about.

      Delete
    4. Agree, PP's "question" here is in bad faith.

      Delete
    5. Sounds like a lot of deflection to me.

      Delete
  5. Do right wingers care about truth?September 4, 2024 at 11:26 AM

    David rushed to post yesterday that Harris was threatening to curtail Musk’s free speech “privileges”, like the tyrant she is, except it was false, just like so much of right wing bs. Here’s the story:

    “FACT FOCUS: Posts falsely claim video shows Harris promising to censor X and owner Elon Musk”

    https://www.seattletimes.com/business/fact-focus-posts-falsely-claim-video-shows-harris-promising-to-censor-x-and-owner-elon-musk/

    So, please, David, if you won’t apologize or feel any shame for posting these lies, at least try to find the truth and quit lying to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also:

      https://jabberwocking.com/kamala-harris-does-not-want-to-shut-down-twitter/

      Delete
    2. The link is behind a paywall, so I didn't read it. I can tell you this: denials that are too specific are usually covering up that parts of the allegation are true. Which parts of the allegation are true and which parts are false?

      1. When Kamala made that statement, she was referring to Trump, not Musk. FALSE

      2. Kamala did call free speech a "privilege". Not only does this misstate the Constitution, it tends to indicate a POV that the government can choose to give or not give a "privilege" TRUE

      3. Kamala did specifically say that the "privilege" of free speech should be withdrawn from a particular Social Media platform. TRUE

      Kamala's actual quote
      He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

      Delete
    3. David, are you saying that people should be able to abuse social media without consequences?

      Delete
    4. @12:35 Here's my position

      -- prior restraint of speech by the government is a big no no. It's a very, very rare situation that would justify prior restraint. Maybe someone who is about to divulge nuclear secrets.

      -- A social media platform should not be responsible for all the posts, just as the telephone company should not be responsible for bad things said on the telephone. The number of users is just too large.

      -- If someone uses social media in a way that's punishable, e.g., to make an illegal threat or to commit slander, the person who made the threat or committed the slander should be punished with the appropriate criminal or civil penalties. But, the social media platform shouldn't be punished.

      -- Politicians who want to censor social media are generally acting in bad faith. They want to force the social media to disallow only views they disapprove of, even if such view are accurate and their preferred messages are inaccurate. It's only a small step to forcing social media to support whatever group is in power.

      Delete
    5. Yawn, DIC the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit disagrees with your ridiculous views.

      Delete
    6. I don't see how censoring social media is going to get the MSM to treat the GOP like the criminal enterprise they are.
      Am I missing something?

      Delete
    7. " Supreme Court and the Third Circuit disagrees with your ridiculous views." How so?

      Delete
    8. The Supreme Court ruled in the Murtha case based on whether the plaintiffs had the legal right to sue—not where the govt censored free speech.

      Delete
    9. Censoring social media protects people from drinking bleach.

      Delete
    10. David, your points #2 and #3 are dead wrong. She was referring to (then) Twitter's terms of service and Trump's violation of them. The "privileges" she referred to were not in reference to free speech or the government, but to Trump's use of Twitter to suggest that the whistleblower who revealed his attempted extortion of Vladimir Zelenskyy should be treated as a spy and a traitor and executed.

      Really, man. You'll be much happier if you don't take everything you read on conservative media at face value. When these fantastic stories pop up, take a look around to make sure you're not being played for a sucker.

      Delete
    11. You have to take seriously witness intimidation. You have to take seriously an attempt to obstruct justice. You have to take seriously a threat to a witness and really to their safety and potentially their life.

      ....And we're talking about a private corporation, Twitter, that has terms of use, and as far as I'm concerned and I think most people would say, including members of Congress who he has threatened, that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.

      ....He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States.... And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.

      Delete
  6. Today Somerby is gushing over Kennedy, but JFK is not on the ballot. Are there any ignorant voters who will confuse JFK with RFK Jr.? Will the name association boost RFK's endorsement of Trump? The Kennedy family has maximally distanced itself from RFK Jr., endorsing Harris. It is possible someone on the right thinks that Somerby's nostalgia will help steer an ignorant voter Trump's way. There is no other reason for Somerby to embarrass himself this way.

    As for new campaigning, candidates like Harris are using social media and courting influencers, not wasting time with the legacy press doing interviews that very few voters in the demographics they are trying to attract will ever read. Somerby might more profitably discuss the news today that the right wing has noticed that they are massively losing women's votes (Trump's female support is in freefall they say) and Harris is donating huge amounts to down-ballot races in order to win control of the House and Senate, while Republicans are panicking because they are being out-spent. That is the reality while Trump spends his time playing golf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is possible someone on the right thinks that Somerby's nostalgia will help steer an ignorant voter Trump's way. There is no other reason for Somerby to embarrass himself this way"

      u r stoopid.

      Delete
    2. No, Somerby is stupid for blathering on.

      Delete
    3. no, reely, it iz u hoo r stupid.

      Delete
  7. Aaron Rupar today:

    Harris is no longer playing by the rules

    For over a decade, nearly every non-Trump candidate has played by the same rules in their interactions with the press. The first rule was the presumption that members of the “fourth estate” posed important and “tough questions” because the voting public needed answers to them. The second is that any politician who refused to fully engage with and answer the press’s questions was acting dishonorably and likely had something to hide.

    But what those rules didn’t take into account is a reality that’s only grown more apparent in recent years — that the press often asks insipid questions, and indeed can easily be manipulated to serve as conduits for entirely bogus claims and theories pushed by GOP partisans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shouldn't the focus be on improving the quality of the dialogue rather than avoiding it altogether? Doesn't avoiding dialogue create the perception that she has something to hide, thereby undermining her position? Who decides which questions from the press are insipid or irrelevant? How can the public be certain that in rejecting these questions, she isn't dismissing issues they might consider important?

      I'm not asking you directly, as you'll rationalize everything regardless, given this is a religious issue for you. We know this. But these are the kinds of questions people who haven't made a political party their religion or cult might ask themselves when encountering this strange, self-serving justification for avoiding the press.

      Delete
    2. @6:15
      If you want to look at it that way, then why is this criticism directed only at Harris? Shouldn't we have the same expectations for Trump?

      Our Host spends unending effort to demonstrate how our media often asks questions that are trivial and, yes, insipid. Harris is operating in a different way from previous candidates. Trump has flourished while refusing to answer questions (well, directly answer, anyway--he offers up a torrent of words in response to any question). We'll have to watch and see if Harris has miscalculated.

      Delete
    3. Because the subject is Harris, Dr. Whatabout.

      Delete
    4. Even Somerby has asked why Trump gets different treatment than Harris.

      Delete
    5. 6:15,
      Harris has been answering all the media's good faith questions.
      What standard that you won't hold other candidates to is she not meeting?

      Delete
    6. The public doesn't care if candidates might be hiding something. Trump's election after hiding his tax returns from the public already laid that claim to waste.
      So, what's the real purpose of having Harris jump through hoops for the media?

      Delete
    7. "Dr. Whatabout" is a good zinger.
      I'm going to use that when someone brings up babies during a discussion about abortion.

      Delete
    8. The abstract ideals of impartiality and truth are the kind of thing that are least likely to survive an environment that combines social conformity with limitless sarcasm.

      Delete
    9. The ideals of impartiality and truth are losing the battle to survive the environment of corporate-ownership/ conglomeration of the media.

      Delete
    10. I can't be the only one to notice the media, which makes BIG money selling political ad space during campaign seasons, never runs Op/ Eds calling for politically-funded political campaigns and elections.
      The ideals of impartiality and truth from our media were crushed when we stopped enforcing anti-trust/ anti-monopoly regulations.

      Delete
    11. 7:52,
      Are the abstract ideals of impartiality and truth the kind of things that are likely to survive an environment with the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United?

      Delete
    12. 10:24 Absolutely. In the same way the cycle of brain-dead sarcasm and irony in comment sections makes it impossible to have serious engagement with complex political issues.

      Delete
    13. They don’t say “The next good faith argument made by a Right-winger, will be the first”, for nothing.

      Delete