film / tv / substack / social media / lists / web / celeb / pajiba love / misc / about / cbr
film / tv / substack / web / celeb


Morning Briefing: How Democrats and Republicans See the Exact Same Words in Wildly Different Ways

By Dustin Rowles | Politics | January 9, 2018 |

By Dustin Rowles | Politics | January 9, 2018 |


“LEAKED MEMO” was trending this morning on Twitter, and I figured from the ALL CAPSs that conservatives were responsible for making it trend. Sure enough, I was right. Right-wing Twitter was giddy because they believed, somehow, that they had Democrats dead to rights, that they’d exposed some sort of secret corruption after Fox News released the details of the “leaked memo” originally picked up by The Daily Caller. Here are the operative words from that memo, which was co-authored by former Hillary Clinton communications director, Jennifer Palmieri:

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” reads the memo. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”

What do you see when you read that? Because I see the Democrats appropriately suggesting that protecting DACA is a “moral imperative” and that our 2018 election prospects depends upon it because a large segment of our constituency are minority communities. We are the party of empathy. We care.

The Republicans see the exact same statement and see: Voter fraud.


Apparently the Democrats don’t care about people, they only care about their votes, even though DREAMers cannot actually vote. How unbelievably cynical do you have to be to view the world through that prism? And how terrified are these white people about the prospect of losing their majority status?

+ So, Mueller wants to interview Donald Trump, and Donald Trump’s lawyers are assessing the risk. Should Trump refuse, Mueller could issue a grand jury subpoena. Here’s the thing, though: If Trump lies to Mueller, he commits perjury, and Donald Trump is incapable of stringing more than three sentences together without lying. This is what tripped up Bill Clinton, and Clinton was a much better liar than Trump.

+ In other news, the White House is spending the week defending Trump against suggestions that he is mentally unfit for the job, so, you know, reminder: This is not normal.

+ Finally, along with all the talk of Trump’s mental fitness is a lot of talk about Oprah running for President in 2020. I don’t know if Oprah should run or not. I’m not thrilled at the prospect of the Presidency being turned into a celebrity contest, but I would definitely vote for Oprah, although I suspect that if Oprah were to follow Trump, Congress would probably slowly begin to transform the Presidency into a figurehead position. I’m not sure that I’m even opposed to that idea. It would certainly provide more safeguards for the country.

But all of the talk of Oprah for 2020 does demonstrate what I spoke to last year: That the Democrats need someone we can rally around, a standard bearer, and preferably someone who can successfully draw attention away from Trump. That’s Oprah. More than anyone, Oprah can steal the oxygen from the room and suffocate Donald Trump, and she could do so with positivity instead of fear. Oprah could remove a lot of the toxicity in our country. So, even if she doesn’t run, I hope she strings us all along for two years and steals as many headlines as possible from Trump. I’d love to see her just show up in a New Hampshire diner, and put the fear of God in Trump. Nothing would infuriate the man more than to turn on the TV every day and see Oprah’s face staring back at him instead of his own. You want to talk about the size of rallies? We’d have to open up arenas for Oprah.