By Stephen Arch email@example.com
(CNN/New York Times - July 23, 2009) -- President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "acted stupidly" in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week after a confrontation at the man's home. Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. talks Wednesday about his ordeal with Cambridge police.
Turns out President Obama's assumption was incorrect which led to the "beer summit" where President Obama had to step back on his initial stand and personally bring the two parties together. But what if he used Twitter instead of CNN or the New York Times to make this statement? Would it have made any difference? Would the damage caused by this misstatement been any less severe (I use this example because it was the first of the many President Obama gaffs where he spoke before he thought). Again, he used the ultra media to express his opinion, who were cuckolded into printing everything he said exactly as he said it without distorting his words, as Katie Couric did in her "doctoring" of the audio tapes during a Second Amendment discussion. (See Mollie Ziegler Hemingway's piece in The Federalist entitled Katie Couric Decried ‘Edited’ Planned Parenthood Footage, Then Doctored A Gun Owner Interview.
I admit, I do not like Twitter - at all. The few times I signed up for Twitter, I sent some "tweets" about some topics about "this and that" and received angry comments spewed back at me by faceless individuals afraid to reveal themselves or was immediately "blocked" by the party to which I sent the Tweet. I must admit that by today's standards, what I've seen and read about Twitter, my comments were extremely banal and really not offensive, or so I thought. They were just my opinions about something (even non-political), and I did find that reading about people's opinions about things (sort of mini "letters to the editor") bored me immensely. So the three times I "quickly signed up" and got on this communication problem child, I just as quickly "signed off." This time, though, for good, even though Twitter claims that 750 million people utilize this communication mode.
With this in mind, I have lived through the invention of the computer, the invention of the cell phone, the invention of the Internet, the invention of email, the invention of Facebook, the invention of SnapChat, the invention of Google and other search engines, and all of the other "communication inventions" that I had to learn to use as I grew up (much slower, mind you, than my son and daughter). Additionally, I do not like Facebook, email, or any of the others in communications, but I use them - I am using this blog that I am posting on Facebook to show you that I do use them (which doesn't mean that I have to like them). I kind of like reading books and the newspapers more. What I am saying is that even though I don't like them, they have made my life much easier and much fuller.
Facebook does provide me with a forum to express my opinions, and I regularly use Google to find out about everything I don't know. An example of this was recently my wife and I were watching the series "The Crown" on Netflix (go wonder) and all the while we binged the entire first season, I was on my phone Googling Winston Churchill, Princess Margaret, Lord Mountbatten, Nasser, and everything else going each and every time an event or person was mentioned so that I might understand the "real" story - as opposed to the artificial story I knew I was being fed through the Series. And I don't know how I could really live day to day without email.
But back to my point. Just because I do not like Twitter, neither do I condemn it. Just as I do not condemn the use of Facebook, email, the Internet, etc....
Many "never Trumpers" believe that Donald Trump should not be president nor is he capable of being a leader because he uses a medium used by 750 million people. Trump has stated that he has roughly 45 million followers on Twitter, and because of this, he can rally 20,000 people for a stump speech in Michigan at 12:00 midnight. Many on the left blame Trump's use of Twitter as unprofessional and not "presidential." As I have stated, it is 2017. What use of media is "presidential?" Facebook? SnapChat? Instagram? Email? Google? The point is that many "blame" Trump's attachment to this current way of communicating as being somewhat off-putting; yet, he won, in a landslide, no less. But blaming Twitter for Donald Trump winning the election this year is NOT correct. Donald Trump won the election by appealing to middle America, and many middle Americans, mistrusting of the media, attach themselves to Trump's Twitter account to get his direct views. But, I feel it is a long shot to say that Twitter won the election for Donald J. Trump.
But please don't take my word for it. Here is the Second in Command of the still standing (at the time of this writing) Democratic party, Vice-President Joe Biden: “We lost because of awful lot of hard-working Americans who live in areas where we did not pay much attention to,” he said at a reception celebrating a Hindu festival. “Barack Obama won these people. They are not racist. They did not vote for the Democrats this time.”
The angry, disturbed, and highly disruptive uber-left has condemned Donald Trump's every move, mostly because the Democratic elite cannot accept the fact that they lost. (And, since I haven't really written about this before, they lost because they ran their own version of a Manchurian candidate in Hillary Clinton, a severely flawed candidate whose main agenda, really, was that we, as a country, should elect her as our first "female" president). I call her the Democrats "Manchurian" candidate because she was, in face, ill-equipped to run for presidency simply because the bulk of her supporters live in the highly progressive Eastern and Western States (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California) to be exact and was what Biden alludes to was "forced to run for the highest office in the land.” (CBS News, November 17, 2016).
And then there's this: "When former reality television star Donald Trump won the election, almost no one saw it coming (except for Vladimir Putin). As the majority of Americans are still mourning and wondering just how an inexperienced imbecile like Trump was able to beat someone as qualified as Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden has some advice for the Democratic Party that we should all take into consideration.
"While there were many possible reasons why Clinton’s campaign failed – from Russia’s interference with the election on Trump’s behalf to James Comey to the racist, angry white people that ate up all of Trump’s false promises – Biden has another explanation. In speaking to the Los Angeles Times, Biden suggested that Clinton hadn’t won because she hadn’t clearly defined why she wanted to run for President in the first place. Biden said:
I don’t think she ever really figured it out. And by the way, I think it was really hard for her to decide to run.
“She thought she had no choice but to run. That, as the first woman who had an opportunity to win the presidency, I think it was a real burden on her. (Joe Biden Finally Speaks Out On Why Hillary Lost; Every Democrat Should Heed This Message - November 17, 2016 - Politicus).
Maybe, just maybe, if Hillary Clinton had not set up her illegal email account, she might have been able to turn to Twitter the way Trump did. But her misuse of email bogged her down, and she never got up enough steam (except by reports on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, etc... - maybe Clinton may have been more genuine using a Twitter account to honestly support her positions instead of engaging the media to do it for her.
The ultra-left news media (and, please, come on, go back and look at who they both supported and all of the "accurate polling" that they invented prior to Trump's "trumping" of Clinton) are becoming angrier by the day that President-Elect Donald Trump is using Twitter to advance his agenda and share his thoughts.
As Trump supporter Jeff Sheader mentioned the very obvious: what he says on twitter is directly from him (until he gets hacked). The media can't edit, twist or misreport his words. Actually, I like this. He can reach interested people without the hubbub of a press conference.
This point that Sheader mentions has merit. Trump even mentioned it several times after he won the election. Trump says of his use of Twitter and the way the left leaning media reports on him that they take the beginning, something from the middle, move it to the end, and then publish it, making any of his speeches sound different than they really are. Trump knows the media and their need for 5 to 10 second sound bites. Hence, he Tweets. No one can manipulate the Tweet - no reporter can change it. Now, however, instead of twisting the Tweet to say something that it doesn't actually say, they merely criticize the Tweet.
I argue this point: What is the difference between Ronald Reagan saying on a nationally televised speech regarding Russia and the Berlin Wall: "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!" So, Reagan said it. What if Twitter had existed during his Presidency? Could he not have Tweeted the same thing and meant the same thing? That's where I do not see a huge difference in mediums.
The "they" who make up the outward attack against our new President cannot stop him from using Twitter - nor should he be forced to stop. It is his 2017 version of communication. Again, the "they" (never Trump-ers) are angry that a President who was elected in 2016, the age of all things media-electronica, is using the exact same "tool" that hundreds of millions of people use throughout the world: Twitter. I can just see it now. Dateline 1976, Jimmy Carter accused of shamefully using Email to advance his political agenda. Or during the 1980's - Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush use the Internet and Email to advance their agendas. It seems odd to even write that. And these are the the exact same people who defended Hillary Clinton for using an unprotected, non-government server AND email address to advance her agenda - with people like her aides, her daughter, and Anthony Weiner looking on.
Before I wrote this blog, I took a look at outgoing President Obama's use of Twitter. It appears to me, while reading his recent Tweets, he is attempting to "persuade" the Twitter reading public that he was indeed a good president. His most recent Tweets: We brought home more of our troops & strengthened U.S. leadership—leading with diplomacy & partnering with nations to meet global problems: We brought home more & strengthened US Leadership - leading with diplomacy and partnering with nations to meet global problems: Facing the worst financial crisis in 80 years, you delivered the longest streak of job growth in history. Do I blame him for using Twitter to "vainly acknowledge and promote his legacy as President of the United States?" Not at all. It's there - use it. If he feels Twitter will make us all feel better about his presidency, why not? And, is this not the same thing Trump is doing? Using Twitter to advance his agenda?
One thing that I really do not understand is that politicians are different animals. And, I have not yet seen a politician who didn't use the most up-to-date, effective resources available to win a campaign. I would imagine that in the next presidential campaign all candidates will be using Twitter. It's simply not going away.
Why would those same people who defend Mrs. Clinton for her use of unsecured email even have the gall to attack Mr. Trump for his use of Twitter.
The point I am trying to make in this piece is that the left is tirelessly attempting to ridicule and defame Donald Trump's "illegitimate election" (their words, not mine) mostly because he lost the popular vote (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California) and won by the superbly well-devised Electoral College (who would have thought that our founding fathers could devise such an ingenious process, and it is a totally progressive and realistic way to run an election). Please see article entitled MIND THE FOUNDERS: GUEST BLOG: PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE EDITORIAL BOARD JANUARY 1, 2017 in the Daily Arch Collection in this blog.
Hence, they attack Trump's use of using Twitter when those who accuse him of using Twitter use Twitter all of the time, just as they use email, the Internet, and other social media. This is the 21st Century. We neither speak nor communicate our our founders did in the 18th Century, and, I guess, this is a good thing. I do not understand why President-Elect Trump shouldn't use a communicative device that instantaneously reaches 45 million people at the press of a button.
Folks, and I am speaking mostly to those who are denying Trump's legitimate presidency - get a grip. Don't criticize a person for using the most up to date communication available to him when we regularly communicate through Twitter, Email, Facetime, SnapChat, the Internet, etc...
The criticism of the use of Twitter as a tool to engage a debate or to start a political or social argument is being criticized by the very people who use it and who are obsessed with it. Remember Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore glorifying the invention of the Internet. Well, if the invention of the Internet can be held in high regard, then so must all other uses of technology in 2017 that is available. Again, I personally do not like Twitter, but I do not criticize those who do, and I certainly feel that this is another part of Donald Trump's genius that allowed him to become our 45th President. Please, Trump deniers and all those Sunday Morning "News" program talking heads - get used to it. Twitter is real. Twitter is here to stay. Even though I don't like it, I would never condemn "President" Trump for continuing his use of it.