02-21-2019 02:04:47 PM -0800
02-21-2019 11:01:19 AM -0800
02-20-2019 06:05:04 PM -0800
02-20-2019 04:41:47 PM -0800
02-20-2019 10:44:11 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Tuesday's HOT MIC

Here is today's HOT MIC.

If it's politics without policy, Oprah! wins.

Ricochet's Michael Graham has a great op-ed in the Boston Herald this morning, laying out the strengths of an Oprah Winfrey candidacy. Here's a snippet:

Hey, she’s a bigger celebrity than Donald Trump. She’s a more successful woman than Hillary Clinton and has a more traditional experience as a black American than Barack Obama. And she did all this without a rich daddy, a powerful husband or an Ivy League education. The only way Oprah could be a stronger candidate would be if she’d served in the military. And if she had, she’d probably have Jim Mattis’ job by now.

And check out the polls: Last March a Quinnipiac poll found voters gave Oprah a 52-23 percent favorability rating. A theoretical head-to-head match-up by Public Policy Polling around that same time had her beating President Trump 47-40 percent, and that was when The Donald’s approval rating was still above 40 percent.

Businessmen like her because she’s a billionaire ($3.6 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index). Stay-at-home moms love her because she talked to them on TV every day. Rich people like her because she’s a limousine liberal. Poor people because she used to ride with them on the bus.

But what would Oprah actually do as president? No one cares, Graham suggested.

That's an interesting point about our political moment: Democrats voted Obama to feel good about electing the first black president. Republicans voted Trump to stick it to the establishment (and especially Hillary Clinton). But there's another way of doing politics — voters actually caring about policy and what a president would actually accomplish.

Ironically, I don't think Graham is entirely correct. Republicans did also want Trump to cut the size and scope of government (especially taxes), pull back from "disastrous" trade deals, finally keep the government's promise by building a wall — and even move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. These policies are popular among Republicans (the trade issue much to the chagrin of libertarians). But Graham is right that Obama and Trump won because of their personalities more than their platforms.

Oprah indeed could win, and she may be an electoral juggernaut (if she chooses to run). But the complex discussion of what she would actually do, and why she wanted to be president, are not to be dismissed. Leftist allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have already raised objections about her political philosophy...

I discussed my recent story about what might be Oprah's biggest weakness — a photo you can see here — with Graham on his podcast released this morning. It was a great discussion. You can read the rest of Graham's article here.

Yeah, we haven't heard a lot about him for the last couple of #MeToo months.

Rhetorical question, right?

More from the original Daily Caller post:

And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”

Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”

In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.

Media bias takes on many forms and, given Google's ubiquity, this may be one of the more insidious yet. Google isn't just spoon feeding liberal nonsense to people, it's earth-moving it. The tendency to only check conservative sites mirrors exactly what the MSM does to Republicans in the White House. I was just thinking yesterday that I wonder what an exhaustive search of the 2009-2016 media would turn up in the way of President Obama being fact checked. Anything? President Trump can't say "Hello" without "news" outlets fact checking to see if that was, in fact, an appropriate greeting.

It is no secret that Google is a left-leaning corporate monolith, but it is also a for-profit enterprise. Maybe they're rolling the dice that people are so used to using the search engine that this kind of news won't affect them.

Then again, maybe a little more sunshine will shake things up.

As someone who was a friend of Andrew Breitbart (although we had a sometimes tempestuous relationship) and also of Larry Solov (Breitbart.com CEO), it's hard to see how Larry et al had any choice but to end Steve Bannon's tenure. Further,  anyone who thinks Bannon commands any kind of serious loyalty now or constitutes any kind of threat to Trump is being foolish or ginning up an imaginary conflict. That's over. My guess is Steve B. is stewing in his own juices now, filled with regret and trying to figure out how to get back in Trump's good graces. Maybe he has a chance — look at the Trump-Graham relationship now — but I tend to doubt it. Only an idiot disses a man's family — especially to an obvious sleaze bucket like Michael Wolff.

Ivanka Trump praised Oprah Winfrey's anti-harassment speech at the Golden Globes.

Apparently this wasn't enough for the #TIMESUP crowd:


Ivanka Trump failed to acknowledge that one of the men for whom time should be up, theoretically, is her father, who has been accused by more than a dozen women of alleged sexual misconduct and was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault. Some of his accusers spoke out as recently as last month, renewing their allegations in light of the #MeToo movement.

Trump herself has been the subject of her father’s sexist behavior: In 2004, Donald Trump told radio DJ Howard Stern that it was okay to characterize Ivanka as “a piece of ass” and famously said he would be romantically interested in Ivanka if she weren’t his daughter. Last year, then-candidate Trump said he thought his daughter should change jobs or careers if she were sexually harassed at work — not that the harasser should be held accountable.

Sheesh. Some people just can't take "yes" for an answer. Ivanka is not guilty of sexual harassment. But because of her father's questionable past, this somehow discredits her support? Where's the logic in that?

Some have pointed to this statement of "questionable" advice to women who may be sexually harassed.

Ivanka gave women some questionable advice for dealing with sexual harassment in her 2009 book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Business and in Life: “Learn to figure out when a hoot or a holler is indeed a form of harassment and when it’s merely a good-natured tease that you can give back in kind.”

Sounds like common sense to me. But then, I'm not a woman and don't get harassed. I'm sure some women are very uncomfortable having their sexiness and good looks commented on like that. I'm also sure that others enjoy the attention. Since most of us aren't mind readers and don't know what the reaction to a wolf whistle or catcall might be, good manners demand that we refrain from doing it.

Unless manners, too, are "sexist" in which case why should we care what women think anyway?