Connect with us
Jim Cutler Demos

BNM Writers

What Others Told Me About Freedom of Expression – Continuing the Conversation

I wrote a column on freedom of expression and the First Amendment for Broad and Liberty website, which has been pertinent since Elon Musk bought Twitter.

Avatar photo



Last week I wrote a column on freedom of expression and the First Amendment for the website Broad and Liberty. I’m passionate about the topic, which has been pertinent since Elon Musk bought Twitter. I couldn’t have anticipated the reaction or the wide range of opinions. 

Some complained that despite the title, there wasn’t much about my experiences with Stern. I should have explicitly stated that what I learned is I am a free speech absolutist, up to “imminent lawless action.” I’d rather tolerate speech I abhor without limits (even as I will self-censor later in this column). In the previous column, I also demonstrated how and why  I learned that hate speech is part of the American free speech covenant.

That’s it; those are the free speech lessons I learned in my years working with the Stern Show. If you want to hear Stern Show stories, I’ve got them; ask anyone who knows me. But there are only two points about free speech that stuck with me.

Former CBS President and CEO Dan Mason’s great Stern story dating from around 2014, demonstrates his commitment to free speech.

Mason told me one morning before seven he got a call from CBS VP of Programming Chris Oliviero. “They don’t bother you at that hour unless it’s something really bad,” he said. 

Oliviero relayed that Gary Dell’abate, Stern’s producer, was trying to reach Mason. Stern wanted to apologize for railing on Mason, on his SiriusXM show, over something he thought the CBS Radio honcho had said about him. During the rant, Stern called Mason the C-word (I am choosing to self-censor). A different Dan Mason made the offending statement about Stern, and he felt bad about the mistake and slur.

“Did he say I embezzled money,” Mason inquired.

“No” demurred Oliviero.

Did he say I committed fraud?

Again, no was Oliverio’s answer.

He can say that. It’s free speech, Mason exclaimed. He didn’t take the call because he didn’t think it was necessary, but he accepted the apology, never the less. 

Later that day, Stern’s agent, Don Buchwald, called Mason to ensure all was good.

“Look, Don, he didn’t call me an embezzler or say I committed fraud. He called me a C-word. It’s free speech.”

Mason’s wife, Kathy, is a Washington DC  dentist. Her patients shared Stern’s insults. She was furious. Mason went through the same spiel with her and had to add, “no, we’re not suing Howard.”

Four years later, Mason spoke at a Syracuse University Newhouse School seminar. The cab driver had Howard on. As the two spoke, Mason revealed his identity. The driver remembered the rant and said it was one of the funniest things he had heard. Again, Mason stood by his beliefs: “You can’t take Howard off because he calls me a C-word.” The driver said, “rides on me.” 

Dan Mason believes in free expression, even if it comes at his expense.

Robb Wexler, CEO of the National Aircheck, commented on LinkedIn, “If 1,000 people on social media insist that drinking Draino kills Covid, should we let that slide and attribute the deaths to survival of the fittest?” 

Wexler, who has analyzed news stories for both sides of the aisle for 30 years, notes “freedom of expression is not absolute” and sets up the debate by asking, “where is that line and who gets to draw it?”

If anybody is an expert on First Amendment issues, it’s Steve Lerman. He is the Senior Counsel to Lerman Senter, PLLC. Previously the Managing Member of the firm for 17 years. He was formerly the principal regulatory counsel to Infinity and served for ten years as General Counsel of CBS Radio. 

As principal regulatory counsel for Infinity Broadcasting, Lerman was a key player in the legal strategy when the FCC leveled indecency fines against the Howard Stern Show.

I first met Steve Lerman when I was in my early 20s. While I haven’t told any specific Stern stories, I will share one about Lerman. Soon after the FCC issued the first fines, I was trying to understand what it was reacting to. Lerman, who has an extremely dry delivery, even monotone – think Ben Stein, told me: “You have to picture me standing in front of the Supreme Court reading a transcript of the show to the justices. How will that go over?” It’s an image that, to this day, never fails to crack me up.   

Lerman wrote, “I read your article and agree with virtually everything you say.” He taught me most of the First Amendment legal theory I know, so logically we are simpatico. 

Lerman simplifies complex issues. “One problem with the contemporary, full-throated defense of the First Amendment is due to the changes in technology. Social media networks are a far cry from the means of dissemination even 20 years ago. There are many more bad actors—hackers, thieves, cyberbullies—than there used to be.  That makes undesirable speech more dangerous.” 

His answer is not to restrict speech via censorship but to enhance the penalties for speech that harms people. He believes that would lead to self-censorship. “If that constrains teenagers from bullying their classmates, and it constrains politicians from demeaning each other with false accusations, that’s OK. It would lead to a more civilized society.” 

Lerman dislikes that “politicians can say anything they want without consequence under the speech and debate clause and that political ads can be totally false and defamatory with no recourse for the damaged opposing candidate.” 

He blames that on the NY Times v Sullivan decision I cited in my previous article on freedom of expression. Lerman believes it makes it “harder for “public figures” to prevail in defamation lawsuits because they must show actual malice. They should have the same rights as everyone else when their reputations are falsely besmirched.” 

“I don’t want the government to censor my speech, but I want the bar to be lower for those damaged by false accusations, bullying, or other harmful speech, which should give rise to self-censorship, which is OK by me,” concludes Lerman.

I agree because self-censoring is not the same as content moderation.

Dave Van Dyke, president of Bridge Ratings Media Research, commented, “The American populous has become increasingly pessimistic about their sources of information as both sides claim they offer the facts on any issue.” 

For context, he provided data. “A recent poll of Americans 16+ found that only 42% did their own research into news stories with nearly 79% of those using sources that reflected their own political preferences.”

Steve Butler’s success as a News Radio Programmer can’t be overstated. For 25 years, he oversaw programming for KYW Newsradio, one of Philadelphia’s perennial ratings and revenue leaders. As VP of News for CBS Radio station, he worked with legendary brands, including 1010WINS, WCBS WWJ and WBBM.

Butler believes the controversy Musk is creating is performance art and calls Twitter “a journalist’s playground because they can do things there that they can’t do on their platforms – hence all of their focus on Twitter’s current situation.” This comment paints journalists as narcissists, demonstrating Butler’s insight.

“There are dangerous people out there. All they need is a spark,” he says. The comments I receive on columns confirm that many people see the danger. 

Butler continues, “dangerous people on Twitter and social media require some form of content moderation.” He doesn’t believe the government will become the arbiter of content. “Censorship is a term I reserve for when government cancels free speech.”

“As a radio news programmer, I saw that the 20-something-year-old media buyers painted with a broad brush and included all news stations in the ‘no-Limbaugh’ dictates — and there were many of them. Until we explained, we weren’t in that format. Eventually, the marketplace adjusted.” 

“Advertisers will decide content controversies. That’s how our system works,” he concludes.

Butler gets it right. 

From Davos, Switzerland: “Some of the world’s largest advertisers have joined forces with Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to attempt to prevent harmful online content from messing with their campaigns.”

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media representing 60 companies, agencies, and associations representing $97B in advertising, announced measures to keep harmful content (terrorist video, hate speech) away from their ads. 

Rock Radio pioneer, Lee Abrams, is working on reimaging video news called  NewsMovie. 

Abrams says, “I blame American news organizations for generating a tired and dated presentation that is unappealing to most under 50. Rather than modernizing their programming and story selection to engage younger mainstream viewers, they are driving them to questionable platforms, Tik Tok being the worst.”  

His vision for information delivery moving forward is bold. “It’s well past time to rework priorities to fact-driven realities, the good, bad, and ugly, without political correctness or fear of offending, which should drive information.”

Abrams is an absolutist regarding freedom of expression: “There is no line to cross. Citizens must experience a 360-degree viewpoint to engage in local and global realities.” 

What led Abrams to his views? “Diving deep into the DNA of news consumers, I find  censorship of any point of view  and selective rather than open  freedom of expression generates a wide-spanning negative response from mainstreamers.”

To get a legal perspective on freedom of speech, I spoke with Jeremy Mishkin. He is a First Amendment lawyer and partner at a significant Philadelphia law firm. (Full disclosure, Mishkin has previously represented me in legal matters). His opinions are not intended as legal advice. We spoke in general terms about freedom of expression.

I asked Mishkin about imminent lawless action. If someone says, “kill all (whatever group),” isn’t that an imminent lawless action? Mishkin thought that would, most likely (rarely are hypotheticals black and white in law) be viewed as a “nebulous into-the-ether remark, which is protected speech.” 

I wanted to know, where is the line? “If someone says, ‘kill them’(group) and people who belong to that group are in the room, it would be much more problematic,” he answered.

He continued, “the more precise, specific, and the sooner people are supposed to do what you ask them to do, the hazier it becomes,” which brought us to January 6th. 

The day started with Trump holding a rally at the Ellipse, also known as President’s Park, where he spoke from a podium. According to Mishkin, “most First Amendment lawyers agree that the speeches from the podium were protected. It’s grayer when you consider what happened on the days leading up to January 6th and by others such as the Oath Keepers.”

Mishkin adds that while the First Amendment may protect the speech from the podium at the Ellipse, that doesn’t mean he thinks Trump is without blame or shouldn’t receive punishment for his role in what happened at the Capitol.

I asked Mishkin about misinformation. “Misinformation is designed to foment fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which has successfully been, at times, a risk to national security,” he said.

No doubt, casting doubts on our elections is a risk to the nation’s security. In 2016 before the Russian collusion narrative began, there was consensus that Russia wanted to “sow seeds of discord and chaos into our election system.” Mishkin laments the results, “we are now yelling at one another.”

We discussed how information changed during the Covid pandemic. Miskin observed, “science is a process that constantly asks us to  re-evaluate our conclusions based on new information.”

I wondered if someone posting on social media that injecting bleach cures Covid would be a problem. Most likely, there is no imminent lawless action if only “injecting bleach to cure Covid” is posted. The speech is likely protected, depending on all the circumstances.

Mishkin says people must be conscious that misinformation exists regarding potentially harmful misinformation. People have to be able to apply critical thinking and take a breath before reacting.

“The last thing I want is for government to decide what is true and require us all to agree, but government can and should raise awareness of the problem and provide tools to avoid being duped.”   

What about letting Twitter and other media companies self-police?

The second release of “The Twitter Files” show why conservatives believe the media can’t self-police.

Mishkin disagrees; “I don’t view what Twitter reports as nefarious. They were trying to figure out what to do in a dicey situation, and that’s hard. The volume of the material is the problem. Content moderation is extremely hard when you have terabytes of info.”

If only it were that easy. A year ago, Twitter reported generating 400 billion events, a petabyte (PB), daily. A petabyte is 1000 terabytes. For context, that’s enough data for 500,000 hours of movies or 500 billion pages of text DAILY!

The concern about misinformation, hate speech, and calls for content moderation is generated mainly because of posts on Twitter and other social media platforms.

Lori Lewis is president of Lori Lewis Media, a social media management and content coaching firm. She says, “many view the Internet as an ‘unrestricted playground.’  Just because we can say everything we’re thinking out loud doesn’t mean we should.

It’s a reminder of another Stern parable. People frequently said they liked Stern because “he says things I think.” The comment implied that they would never actually say those things.  

Saying whatever they want has turned social platforms into “gateways for an increased lack of civility in society,” adds Lewis.

Lewis acknowledges, “we have every right to say what we want, but there is accountability for social incivility. ‘My bad’ is no longer sufficient,” she warns.

“Impressions of you are formed every time you speak. The words and images we choose have the power to redefine our brands in an instant.” 

Her reminders for self-censoring (my words – not hers) are:

• People walk around with “live mics” 24/7. A filter must be on at all times. 

• It is not “social media’s” fault when people post something inappropriate. They are the posters’ words. It’s illogical to blame the medium or distribution channel used. 

• Understand the implications of words. Feel the impact of the comments from every point of view. Look for conflict in tweets, posts, pictures, or videos, and at least reconsider before hitting send. 

I appreciate everybody who took the time to read both columns on freedom of expression. Thank you to those who contributed their time and comments to this follow-up piece.

I agree with those who have said that are some dangerous people spreading misinformation, even lies, and hate under the cloak of freedom of expression. Despite those who abuse the First Amendment, I, and others expressing their views in this article, remain free speech advocates.  

Technology will increase the calls to censor or moderate freedom of expression. “Deep Fakes” (a mashup of “deep learning” and fakes) are becoming more widespread and more difficult to spot. Through artificial intelligence (AI) and increasingly common software, anybody can appear to say anything.

Self-censoring is what we do in our human interactions every day. I encourage it online. The market will determine where the line is for legitimate media. I am unconvinced that censorship or content moderation will solve hate or misinformation.

If the American experiment in democracy is to continue, we must honor the free speech covenant, even if it includes speech we abhor. 

Sign up for the BSM 8@8

The Top 8 Sports Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox, every morning at 8am ET.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

BNM Writers

Dagen McDowell Is Ready For A New Adventure With Fox Business

“Every decision in America is born of policy, On the show, we bring that to our show. Talk about the news of the day.”

Jim Cryns



To know Dagen McDowell, you must understand what she comes from, where she comes from. You won’t know her until you know the lessons, kindness, and determination set forth by her parents.

Her parents operated a small grocery store, LW Roark and Company. Charles and Joyce McDowell were high school sweethearts and both went to college but decided to go back home and open a business. “This is in the middle of nowhere,” McDowell said. “It was a wholesale grocery store. They sold it in the late 90s.”

She said her parents were smart, encouraging, and took every opportunity to teach McDowell and her brother.

“They’d constantly talk up people who came into the store. Both of them have and had an insatiable curiosity about everything. They felt they learned things through their customers. It was more fun to learn about things from other people.”

McDowell’s parents never took a week off work. Never. The family took no vacations as most families would. Once while McDowell was in college at Wake Forest University, the family visited the Air and Space Museum on the Mall in D.C.

“Both of my parents were very interested in architecture and landscapes. We’d go to Williamsburg and just look at the buildings.”

McDowell joined FOX News Channel in 2003 and helped launch FOX Business Network as a founding anchor in 2007.

Her mother passed away three years ago and her father is still very much a part of her life. Her father was a constant teacher.

“One time my father, who we called Dowell McDowell, was putting up an outbuilding and asked me how long one line should be if the other line was such and such. He taught me the Pythagorean theorem when I was about 4 years old.”

McDowell was nurtured by parents with endless curiosity.

“I was raised by parents who would always debate and converse around the dinner table. We shared breakfast and dinner together every day. They loved learning, were always inquisitive, never afraid to ask a question. My parents shared a fearlessness and passed that on to me. I’ve never been embarrassed to ask people questions. I love talking to people and finding out about things.”

For a long time, McDowell had no idea what she wanted to do for a living. She knew if she worked at different jobs she’d eventually figure out what she was good at.

“I knew I was a decent writer, but I always tried to get information out of people, what they were doing. Ask if they were fulfilled and happy.”

At Wake, Forest McDowell majored in art history and had every intention of working in a museum, possibly as a curator.

“I interned at the Center for Contemporary Arts. I lived in Venice, Italy for a while. Wake Forest owns a house in Venice.”

After that it was Colorado. She moved back to New York during the recession of 1991 with a duffel bag. She took the Amtrak to New York City and sublet an apartment for six months.

“I had no TV, just a radio. I knew I could find something good to do in New York, there were so many jobs. I always wanted to live in the city. Either the city or way out in the country. Nowhere in between.”

She said being in New York made her feel anything was possible. This was January in 1994 when job ads were still in the physical newspaper, like the New York Times. McDowell interviewed at Institutional Investor through a referral from a friend.

“It was a brilliant magazine with terrific writing,” McDowell explained. “Very prominent in the industry. They were looking for someone to work with the newsletter written for the financial community.”

She’d cover topics like the bond business, Wall Street, and money management. The magazine made her take a reporting test where you’d make up a story and write it. She was offered a job and worked there for three years.

“I learned to be a journalist there,” McDowell said. “I could write but I became a better journalist. We’d break news, create our sources, and learn more and more about finance. People love to talk about what they do if you show interest.”

The next big job was, a resource and web newspaper for private investors. There McDowell wrote a personal finance column. She started doing commentary on television shows, the way a lot of people in different professions tend to do. “Then I started making more appearances on weekend financial or business shows,” McDowell said.

She got a call from Neil Cavuto about 20 years ago and he told McDowell, ‘Kid, you want a job? I know you don’t have much professional TV experience. We’ll give you some training and you’ll figure it out. If you do, you stay. If not, you go.’

McDowell said she was glad she was a writer first before she arrived at Fox. She writes her own scripts and has a background in finance and business writing.

“Before the business network was launched, they had only one business reporter and two senior business correspondents,” she said. “I’ve gotten to do so many different jobs, use different muscles, so to speak. As the years have passed I’ve discovered other talents I may have and I’m incredibly grateful for that.”

There’s a new show in town. McDowell and Sean Duffy will co-host The Bottom Line which will air on weeknights from 6-7:00 PM ET.

McDowell said she and Duffy come from extremely similar backgrounds. Duffy is from rural Wisconsin and McDowell is from Virginia.

“We know what small-town living is like, “McDowell said. “I might live in New York City but where I grew up affects the way I view the world. I’m still grounded in my hometown. On the show, we look south and west with everything we cover. You have to think of your audience. Rather than talking about them, we talk with them. That’s our shared background and vision. Sean is extremely down to earth and generous.”

McDowell said the show is not financially based, but steeped in business.

She said Duffy’s experience as a former U.S. Congressman, he understands policy as well as financial matters.

“Every decision in America is born of policy,” she said. “On the show, we bring that to our show. Talk about the news of the day.”

This is different from anything McDowell has done in the past.

“It’s a two-anchor show in the evening,” she explained. “This is not taking place during market hours. We tie all the business happenings together from the day. Again, it’s not about Washington or New York. It’s about the people we grew up with. We talk to them. Build a relationship with them on the air. For me, this is not just sitting in front of a camera. I can run off at the mouth as well as anyone, hang in there with the filibuster.”

McDowell says she is blunt, but hopes she isn’t rude. During a recent interview for the new show she used the terms ‘pig potatoes’ and ‘chapped backsides.’

“Those are terms I just made up,” she said. “I make up a lot of phrases and don’t always know what they mean. I have an entire repertoire of those kinds of phrases.”

Duffy assumed they were southern phrases he had to learn from McDowell, but she assured him she’d never heard them anywhere else.

“I’m just making stuff up,” McDowell said. “You can’t curse. Can’t say BS. At least you shouldn’t say BS on television. You don’t want to say manure. You never want to say something that makes people wince or evokes a smell.”

Dealing with people directly and bluntly seems to come from her mother.

“My mother had grit,” McDowell said. “She was also very kind, never syrupy. I used to say she had no magnolia-mouth.

That’s got to be a southern phrase.

McDowell said her mother was not a servile flatterer, but she was kind. Always there when somebody was in need.

“She had real grit. She’d stand and fight for her friends and family members.”

Her mother passed away after being diagnosed with stage-four cancer.

“She went through unimaginable pain,” McDowell said of her mother. “For nearly six years. You want to talk about somebody who was tough. There was nobody more pugnacious than my mother.”

She explained even with her illness, her mother was always on the go. Continuing to live her life. When questioned about being so active while she was ill, her mother continued to show grit.

“My mother would say she didn’t want to walk around looking like she had cancer. She asked, ‘What choice do I have? I could lay in bed and wait to die, or I can get up and do what I can .’”

McDowell said her mother’s illness taught her to be a caregiver in ways she never could have imagined. Her mother taught her to find moments of joy every single day, in the smallest of things.

“It can be as simple as telling a stranger to have a great day. Treat a perfect stranger with kindness. I do it all day long. I know it sounds corny, but I want to be known as a person who brings a casserole to a friend when they’re ill.”

A one-sheet from Fox tells you McDowell and the culmination of her background is perfect for The Bottom Line. The fact is, it’s true.

Sign up for the BSM 8@8

The Top 8 Sports Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox, every morning at 8am ET.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

Airing The Tyre Nichols Video Was A Necessity

There were hard moments to watch in those videos, hard sounds to hear. But they aired.

Avatar photo



Far be it for me not to address this outrageous and embarrassing instance in humanity. After the videos of Memphis police brutally beating Tyre Nichols were shown on television there really seemed to be more outrage emerging from society this time than from the media, for a change. One would think that’s how we wish things to be.

In instances like this, where the video and audio images are far from brief but are instead chaptered as they unfold, there are few options other than to let them run their course. Clocks — breaks hard and soft — are out the window, just as in live coverage.

Because that’s what this was, only the live this time was us, and as we all absorbed and reacted to actions disapprovingly familiar yet somehow foreign at the same time, the impact was still becoming apparent even though we already knew the outcome.

It’s happened before.

Not always like this but we’ve seen it before, police encounters shown on the news overtakes and become the news.

It takes effect as the sights and sounds are digested, dissected, and discussed, often before their potential impact could really be imagined.

In 1991, when the Handycam footage crossed screens for the first time and we learned Rodney King’s name, we didn’t know then but we had a feeling.

We were on the right track, though as newsrooms evolved and street reporting incorporated a different type of storytelling.

I was a cop in 1991. Changes came. Some.

It’s 2023, I’m no longer a cop. Changes will come again. Some.

Turning points — or the overused watershed moments — mean just as much to the news media as they do to law enforcement.

The “why’s” that make this a turning point are more society and community based this time around than they were in 1991.

At least I think so. And I don’t think it makes a bit of difference who’s involved this time.

There were hard moments to watch in those videos, and hard sounds to hear. But they aired. Where they couldn’t air, they were described in great detail; descriptions sometimes can be worse than the real thing. Sometimes, not this time.

And they should air, they shouldn’t stop airing. This is what happened and this is what people need to see and hear and this is exactly why we are here.

Warn them, provide them with a heads up that they’re not going to like what happens next. It’s life and we show life, and we show what some of us do with it when it’s someone else’s.

Overall, I would say the news platforms held their composure, even after the videos were released. I saw, read, and heard some refreshingly neutral coverage, even from outlets where I expected hard turns into the lanes on either side of the road.

Legitimate questions were asked by anchors and reporters and much of the time, the off-balance issues were raised more by those on the sidewalks and those on the other side of the cameras and microphones.

As much as I find myself in disagreement with what I often see on the cable networks — all the cable networks — I did find a sense of symmetry watching CNN’s Don Lemon speak with Memphis City Council Chair Martavius Jones in the hours after the videos were released.

Regular protocols be damned, Lemon and producers lingered patiently as Jones, visibly overcome by emotion, struggled to regain breath and composure enough to be able to speak. Rather than cut away or move to other elements, they stood fast and it became an example of what often requires no words.

There were fewer punches pulled on other platforms as well.

The sounds of the screams, the impacts, and the hate-filled commands were broadcast through car radios.

As were Tyre Nichol’s calls for his mom. They aired. They had to.

Sign up for the BSM 8@8

The Top 8 Sports Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox, every morning at 8am ET.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

Does the Republican Establishment Get It?

For many it seemed that the Republican establishment stood idly by as Democrats changed the rules and worked behind the scenes to alter elections.

Avatar photo



In a move that seemed to go against the wishes of the patriotic American grassroots, the Republican party on Friday re-elected RNC Chairperson Ronna McDaniel. 

The media immediately took notice, as many on television and radio are now wondering why the party would re-elect a chairperson who has been so unpopular with the base of its party. 

Grant Stinchfield discussed this issue Friday night on his program, Stinchfield Tonight, which airs on Real America’s Voice network.

“Ronna McDaniel holds on to her chairmanship of the Republican Party. By a whopping total of — what were the numbers– 111 to 54. Harmeet Dhillon only received 54 votes. Mike Lindell 4 votes. This is proof to me that the Republican establishment is dug in,” Stinchfield — formerly of Newsmax — said. “Don’t tell me they’re out of touch. See, you tell me they’re out of touch, that implies ignorance. They’re not ignorant about anything.”

As sentiment for Dhillon grew in the days leading up to Friday’s vote, many influential politicians and party donors publicly offered her their support and endorsement. These included Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), as well as donors Mike Rydin, Dick Uihlein, and Bernie Marcus.

Also on board were musician and outspoken conservative John Rich, along with the state GOP of Nebraska and Washington State. Countless journalists and media personalities, such as Charlie Kirk, Miranda Divine, and Lou Dobbs, also came out publicly in support of Dhillon. Former President Donald Trump remained neutral, not making a public choice of either of the three candidates.

For many of Dhillon’s supporters, the deciding factor was public sentiment across the party’s base.

“They’re reading the same chat boards. They’re getting the same emails I’m reading. I will literally post something about this race when I was supporting Harmeet Dhillon. There was not one comment – not one – that supported Ronna McDaniel. Everyone wanted change,” Stinchfield said, noting that the party elite saw the same groundswell of support for change.

“Now, nobody has an issue as Ronna McDaniel is some evil kind of person. I don’t believe she is. I believe, though, that she is part of the establishment. She’s been around too long as far as the establishment goes. And she’s been ingrained in doing business as usual. It’s not working.”

In making their choices known, many Dhillon supporters simply pointed to the scoreboard during McDaniel’s reign.

“Think about where we are. 2018, we lost the House. 2020, we lost everything. 2022, we won the House, but we should have really steamrolled the House and we should have taken back the Senate, which we didn’t do,” Stinchfield said. “That means we’re on a real losing track since she took over. I don’t like being on a losing track. I like being on a winning track.

“Something has got to change when you talk about all of this. So how does Ronna McDaniel get 111 votes and Harmeet Dhillon only get 54 votes, when everyone, every Republican voter I talk to said it was time for change?” pondered Stinchfield.

And even more than the losses, for many it seemed that the Republican establishment stood idly by as Democrats changed the rules and worked behind the scenes to alter elections. The most recent example of which came in Arizona, where presumptive gubernatorial favorite, Kari Lake, was “defeated” when countless voting irregularities occurred in some of the state’s most deep-red areas.

“Under her watch, Democrats instituted a mail-in ballot scheme. That may be even worse than losing, when you talk about the House and the Senate and all these things. The fact that we now have a junk mail-in ballot scheme across the country under Ronna McDaniel’s watch is serious trouble. Very serious trouble,” Stinchfield said on Friday. “And so the reason it is is because the Democrats are rigging the system.”

For years – until Donald Trump descended the golden escalator and took the world by storm – the Republican party had the reputation of being the party of the rich. Rush Limbaugh used to refer to this wing of Republicans as “the country club crowd.” President Donald Trump flipped the narrative completely, offering a clear vision of hope and patriotism to working-class America.

Reputable polling — such as Richard Baris’ Big Data Poll — consistently showed Trump running well ahead of almost every Republican candidate during the 2022 mid-term election cycle. In other words, Trump still maintains considerably more support across the country than most of the individual Senate or House candidates experienced.

Many experts believe this is because voters still view Trump as an outsider, while they view the Republican party much less favorably.

“Let’s tell you how out of touch they are, how elitist they are,” Stinchfield said, calling out the GOP establishment. “This meeting that went on, do you know where it is? It’s at the Waldorf Astoria Monarch in California. One of the most expensive resorts in America. You’re lucky if you get a room for a thousand dollars a night down there on Dana Point. Now, it’s a beautiful hotel, but why is the Republican Party holding an event there? Then I went back and I looked at what RedState did. RedState went back and looked at some of the expenses that the Republican Party under Ronna McDaniel’s leadership was spending money on.

“Take a look at this. $3.1 million on private jets. $1.3 million on limousine and chauffeur services. $17.1 million on donor mementos. $750,000 on floral arrangements. Now you compare this to the Democrats. The Democrats spent $35,000 on private airfare. A thousand dollars on floral arrangements. A thousand. Not $750,000. A thousand. And the $17.1 million they spent on donor mementos, the Democrats spent $1.5 million.

“Democrats know where to put the money. It’s not giving donors gifts. Donors shouldn’t want gifts. If you give money, give money. You don’t need the fancy pin to put on your lapel.”

Following her loss, Dhillon warned her party that it must listen to the base, saying, “if we ignore this message, I think it’s at our peril. It’s at our peril personally, as party leaders and it’s at our peril for our party in general.”

Sign up for the BSM 8@8

The Top 8 Sports Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox, every morning at 8am ET.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading


Upcoming Events

Barrett Media Writers

Copyright © 2024 Barrett Media.