Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Stephen Miller vs. Jim Acosta: No Holds Barred
Despite CNN’s protests, there might be a reason White House staffers don’t call on Jim Acosta more often. On Wednesday, the aggrieved correspondent had an intense six-minute back-and-forth with Trump aide Stephen Miller on the administration’s immigration reform plan. It got … testy.
Throughout the exchange, Acosta seemed less a reporter than a Democratic candidate. Who do you think got the better of the debate: Miller or Acosta?
Published in Immigration, Politics
Short version, I agree with you, if we have a proper system in place to screen candidates for immigration, we win.
Jim Acosta is 46. Some people age well, gaining complexity, like good wine. Jim Acosta seems to be aging more like a big sack of bananas.
I’m stealing this.
Sorry but I like the press innterrupting government officials with questions even when I disagree with them. It’s the job of the press, I wish they would do more of it. Miller is a big boy, he did just fine.
Or at the very least ask better questions…
How about interrupting government officials with bilious speechifying?
Turn the cameras back off. Now. The reason the MSM hated it when they turned off the cameras is because with audio only, they sound exactly like the prissy little bitches that they are. Instead of looking at Miller react, you can only hear Acosta, and he is pathetic.
Acosta was simply desperate that as many viewers as possible could see why so many in the 4th Estate are held in such low esteem….Miller deserves an award for putting up with jerks like Acosta.
Probably caused by an excess of bilious humors, if you ask me. He might have a deficient sense of humor as well.
So now facts are white supremacy.
Its the lefts go to non sequitur.
See Sussman’s interview with Prager yesterday. The left, including their journalists really know nothing. Their assertions of racism, fascism etc. as we all know, are to cover the fact that they have no arguments. But it’s worse. Their faith prevents them from learning anything. We have to do what he did here, either ignore them totally, dismiss them as kooks not worthy of attention or strip them bare then pillory them, always keeping ones cool.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
(Call and raise)
Boy, the idea that the Statue of Liberty poem has ever characterized actual American attitudes toward immigration is so completely dishonest, it’s appalling. So of course that’s what the headlines are about: historical amnesia for everyone, I guess.
Ugh. What a putz. Do I really have to pay that guy’s salary?
I don’t know if anybody has pointed this out, but that’s an official from a Republican administration and he uses an argument that includes the phrase “living wage.”
Also, if you’re a politico and your explaining the Statue of Liberty, you’re already losing.
It’s bad optics, and certainly you’re bound to lose the spin. But this question from Acosta is amazing: “You’re saying that [the Statue of Liberty poem] does not represent what the country has always thought of as immigration coming into this country?”
That poem since its writing has never represented what the country has thought of as immigration coming into the country. It might have briefly represented ideas about a sliver of Western European migration between 1903 (when it was added to the statue) and 1917 (when the literacy test was added to head taxes to make the most restrictive bill to date), but it sure did not ever apply more widely than that. Certainly never after 1917. But that’s probably too much nuance to win the news cycle.
I think Acosta wanted to play the victim. Miller did eventually plow right through him, but if he had done so immediately it would have been a sign of the dark night of fascism.
Nope, my wife didn’t have to. I’ve taught her though.
Keep trying to spin this as a defeat. Miller won the debate.
Fred’s spin is so weak it’s getting no action.
Since for people like Acosta it’s all about fame and glory, I wonder if we play into their hands by helping spread their name around.
I realize it’s common for someone giving a press conference to call upon the reporters by name, but perhaps that practice needs to stop. Instead, just say “Yes, the reporter from CNN has a question?”
Absolutely diminish their own personal pride, and never use their names. Treat them all as faceless “reporter.” If you’re later asked about “Jim,” act as if you don’t know who they’re talking about. “You mean the reporter from CNN? Sorry, they all look alike to me.”
(They’re all part of the media hive mind anyway. No need to treat them as individuals.)
The effect of never acknowledging a reporter’s name (combined with turning off the cameras again) would help remind them that they are not the story.
This should also apply when you appear on their news shows. Don’t address them as individuals. Address them as their roles — people whose job it is to deliver the news, not be the news.
I don’t agree with the policy position at all, Fred. But from a strategic perspective, it’s a smart line of argument. If the White House is going to build consensus around their immigration policy, they will have to pick out anti-immigration Democrats. It’s a smart approach to a stupid policy.
Amen.
Possibly, but the media is going to say he treated Acosta unfairly no matter what. Miller has to accept that and speak directly to the people who are inclined to agree, rather than getting bogged down with idiotic race-baiting arguments by the media.
I completely disagree with the Administration’s proposed immigration policy. I’m not talking about the policy here, just Miller’s effectiveness. I think Miller recovered by the end, but I think he objectively looked weak for most of the exchange. He’s not the right messenger for the Administration.
Sigh. This is my cue to unfollow this post.
Also, does anyone else notice the irony of this commentator employing the term “putz” to a member of the Trump administration?
Won? Debate?
This was a two guys at the local tavern argument. Someone alerted me to this with the now to be expected, “You need to see the smack down etc etc”. I was expecting an earth shattering kaboom and instead was treated to a damp squib.
This is how you win the argument in 25 words or less:
There you go again.
or
Mr. Hart, here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer.
Nice Paper Chase reference. Kudos.
Well it’s certainly longer than 140 characters so it won’t ever be read and understood by the media who live and breath by Twitter.
I’ll take your opposition to the policy and panning of the spokesman to mean we have the correct policy and the right spokesman. Instead of anyone I should have said anyone except the media.