Bernie’s Q&A: Don Lemon, Katie Pavlich, Bernard Shaw, Bernie Sanders, and more! (1/31) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)
Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.
Editor's Note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you!
Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):
As a Jew, do you think that Bernie Sanders' chances of getting the Democrat nomination are reduced because of his religion? Personally I do. I think his socialist agenda is why he was given the bums rush by the Democrats in 2016, but I think his religion also played a part. Not much talk is made of it, particularly in the generations since the baby boomers, but I think anti semitism is alive and well in the older generations. I had a Political Science Professor in college many years ago, in the fifties to be exact, who said "I believe there will be a Negro President before there will be a Jewish President." This professor was a very, very, liberal Democrat and made no pretexes about it. He even predicted John Kennedy, although only a Senator at the time, would have problems if he elected to run for President, because he was Catholic. The religious attitudes, pertaining to political candidates, was stronger in those days, but I believe it still exists. What do you think? -- Charles
Interesting question, Charles, but we can't say for sure. Who knows what lurks in the hearts of voters. But we're not the same country we were back when you were in college. Anti-Semitism was much more prevalent back then. And the good news is I haven't heard anyone publicly make an issue of Bernie's religion. Maybe that's because Bernie's religion isn't Judaism so much as it's liberalism. He's very popular among the Left, even in places where there are few Jewish residents. Let's see what happens if he gets the nomination.
What did you think of the much criticized Don Lemon segment from a few days ago, where the CNN host laughed hysterically while his two guests mocked Donald Trump supporters with "redneck" accents. I thought it was pretty bad. At the same time it's hard to take seriously certain people's outrage over it, like on Fox News where hosts make excuses for Trump's really bad behavior quite often. Do you think Lemon should have apologized? -- Greg W.
If Lemon had apologized, I doubt it would have been sincere, so just as well that he didn't. But it was a very public glimpse into how a lot of liberals see Trump supporters. As for the outrage: I think it's legitimate ... but you're absolutely right: Sycophants on Fox routinely excuse the president's bad behavior. Everybody roots for their team. That's what it's come down to. Principles? They're on life support.
Mr. G, Since we know of a few Republicans who publicly go after Trump because we all know he’s quite flawed, how come there are no Democrats who publicly criticize the also very flawed Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Waters and host of others? -- ScottyG
Maybe it's because they so despise Donald Trump they'll tolerate just about anything those people say and do. But I agree with the sentiment of your question. The Left demeans Republicans for not standing up to Trump at the same time they look the other way when someone on their team says something hateful. There's a word for this, Scotty: Hypocrites.
Bernie, this past week a Republican running for state representative in Ohio revealed that, in 2013 when he was single, he had an account on the adult infidelity website AshleyMadison.com. The same day this was revealed, the head of the Ohio GOP, Jane Timken, an unwavering Trump supporter, said this, "I call for his (the state rep candidate) immediate withdrawal from the race. There is no place in our party for people that exercise such a gross lack of judgment.” I am a Republican, and I will vote again for Donald Trump, but I am pretty sure the Republican party conceded its "infidelity makes it impossible for you to hold office" argument when it decided to vote to "Make America Great Again." How can Timken make a comment like this about someone running for state representative and have zero issue with Trump's known infidelity? -- Joe M.
See above reference to hypocrites.
You make a very good point, Joe. I'm guessing the Ohio GOP chief figures the local Republican can't win so she's throwing him under the bus. But she -- and others -- dare not take on Donald J. Trump because his supporters will exact a price on them. The guy in Ohio isn't feared; Donald Trump is. The guy in Ohio doesn't have supporters who will make you regret abandoning him. Donald Trump does. That's the reality. But it doesn't take anything away from your point, which as I say, is a very good one.
Bernie, did you know Bernard Shaw the former, and in my opinion, the last legitimate news anchor at CNN? I'm curious as to what he must feel about his former shop having become a Liberal propaganda machine. -- John M.
Did not know "the other Bernie." But, depending on his politics, he's either offended by what CNN has become -- or not. And I'm not betting on which it is. But if he's liberal, he may think CNN is doing a great job. Especially if he hates DJT. It shouldn't matter what his politics are. But very often, it does.
Many on the left say Reagan is responsible for all the mental patients who are homeless and posing a danger to the public because of the budget cuts he made back in the day, which forced the mental institutions to release them out into the general public. Many on the right (like Ann Coulter) claim the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the mental institutions because many of their residents had never been convicted of any crimes, and hence these mentally ill people were being illegally locked up which is a violation of their civil rights; hence a mass release leading to mass homelessness. Which of these narratives is correct, in your opinion? Does either side have evidence? -- Rampant Homeless Regards from The Emperor
You never cease to amaze me with you questions, Emperor. But sometimes I wish you would cease to amaze me. My understanding is that there was a push long before Reagan to shut down many big mental institutions and replace them with smaller, neighborhood facilities. The former happened; the latter didn't. The result was a lot of mentally ill people on the street. But I'm no expert on this.
Did you happen to see the Fox News dust-up last Monday during impeachment coverage, when Chris Wallace angrily told Katie Pavlich (who's very pro-Trump) to get her "facts straight"? Wallace shot down her talking point about past impeachment proceedings (she was indeed inaccurate), but his sharp tone took back others on the set (and caused a frenzy from Trump supporters on the Internet). Did Wallace overdo it? Or was it an understandable response from a professional journalist frustrated with having to correct obvious partisan rhetoric? -- Jen R.
I didn't see it but nonetheless I'm on the side of Chris Wallace. And if his tone was a tad sharp, good. Katie Pavlich is a bright woman but, as you say, very pro Trump. She and others need to act more like journalists and less like partisans. As for the Internet frenzy, what else is new. Pro Trumpers on social media are fans of Donald Trump. They don't want fair and balanced news about their messiah. They want gushing praise for him. Chris isn't playing that game -- and good for him.
The reality is (from a right-leaning Independent) that Trump is just the wrong guy for the job on many levels. At his best, he's incompetent. At his worst, he is dangerous. Here's what I don't get (as you say) ... Why aren't the Dems looking to truly understand and help, in so many ways, the 49 million folks who voted for Pres. Trump? 40% of the better paying jobs in America don't need a college education. Announce to the world that the U.S. is building 1000 auto-body and automotive training centers, nation-wide; partner with the unions to build 100's of additional electrical, plumbing, and carpentry, apprentice facilities. We all get the picture. It's a start. Embrace your "adversary". I guarantee, you would win over large chunk of "the other" guys and gals. Throw in six-year term limits for every elected official, make sure that they "get" the same medical plan they vote in for the rest of us, and we are done. You with me? -- Aloha, Mike S.
Mike, the Democrats claim to speak for those blue collar Americans you ask about. So does Donald Trump. As you say, someone needs to stand up and say, "Not everybody needs to go to college." We can use more good, reliable plumbers and electricians and carpenters. All good paying jobs. But the Democrats are more concerned about the "existential" threat of climate change and trying to convince voters that the economy is only working for the top 1 percent and that America has racism embedded in their DNA. If Donald Trump weren't such a divisive human being, he'd win in a landslide. If ...
In light of the classy performance this past week by CNN's Don Lemon and his dimwitted guests, I was wondering whether "hate press" should be on the First Amendment chopping block with "hate speech" ( no doubt those who want to limit speech that subjectively triggers others also favor similar restrictions on so-called journalists who spew hatred every night that millions of us find offensive). In this vein, are you familiar with ( and maybe even a fan of) the Babylon Bee? -- Michael F.
I'm only vaguely familiar with Babylon Bee. Not sure what you want to do about what you call "hate press" but I don't want any restrictions placed on even stupid news people who say stupid things. If you think Don Lemon is a jerk don't watch him. But we don't need rules governing what news people can say and not say. That's not a road we want to go down. I'm not even sure that's what you're suggesting.
Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.