Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump emphasized the importance of "conservative values" and prioritizing the well-being of Americans over global interests during his speech at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference, Feb. 24. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

President Trump on Friday addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference, the event where he launched his political star in 2011. From the outset, he had one thing on his mind: the media.

Trump began his speech with a lengthy tirade against the press. We have annotated the president's remarks, using Genius.To see an annotation, click on the yellow, highlighted text. To addyour own, sign up for a Genius account.

TRUMP: Thank you, everybody. So great to be with you. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)

Great to be back at CPAC. It's a place I have really...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!

TRUMP: I love this place.

(APPLAUSE)

Love you people. So thank you -- thank you very much.

First of all, I want to thank Matt Schlapp and his very, very incredible wife, and boss, Mercedes, who have been fantastic friends and supporters and so great. When I watch them on television defending me, nobody has a chance.

So I want to thank Matt and Mercedes.

(APPLAUSE)

And when Matt called and asked I said, "Absolutely I'll be there with you." I mean, the real reason I said it, I didn't want him to go against me cause that...

(LAUGHTER)

... that one you can't beat.

So I said absolutely.

And it really is an honor to be here. I wouldn't miss a chance to talk to my friends. These are my friends.

(APPLAUSE)

And we'll see you again next year and the year after that and I'll be doing this...

(APPLAUSE)

... I'll be doing this with CPAC whenever I can and I'll make sure that we're here a lot.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You can do it!

TRUMP: You know if you remember my first major speech -- sit down everybody. C'mon.

(LAUGHTER)

You know the dishonest media they'll say, "He didn't get a standing ovation." You know why?

(LAUGHTER)

No -- you know why? Because everybody stood and nobody sat. So they will say, "He never got a standing ovation," right? (Inaudible).

They are the worst.

(APPLAUSE)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

TRUMP: So -- sit down.

(LAUGHTER)

"Donald Trump did not get a standing ovation."

(LAUGHTER)

They leave out the part, "They never sat down." They leave that out.

So I just want to thank -- but you know my first major speak was at CPAC and -- probably five or six years ago. First major political speech. And you were there. And it was -- I loved it. I loved the people. I loved the commotion.

And then they did these polls were I went through the roof and I wasn't even running, right?

(LAUGHTER)

But it gave me an idea. And I got a little bit concerned when I saw what was happening in the country. And I said, "Let's go to it."

So, it was very exciting. I walked the stage on CPAC. I'll never forget it, really. I had very little notes and even less preparation. So when you have practically no notes and no preparation and then you leave and everybody was thrilled, I said, "I think I like this business."

(LAUGHTER)

I would've come last year but I was worried that I would be, at that time, too controversial. We wanted border security. We wanted very, very strong military. We wanted all of the things that we're going to get...

(APPLAUSE)

... and people consider that controversial but you didn't consider it controversial.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: So, I've been with CPAC for a long time. All of these years we've been together. And now you finally have a president, finally. Took you a long time.

(APPLAUSE)

Took you a long time.

(APPLAUSE)

And it's patriots like you that made it happen, believe me. Believe me.

You did it because you love your country, because you want a better future for your children and because you want to make America great again.

(APPLAUSE)

The media didn't think we would win. The...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (OFF-MIKE)

(LAUGHER)

TRUMP: ... pundits -- you're right. They had an idea.

The pundits didn't think we'd win. The consultants that suck up all that money -- oh, they suck it up. They're so good.

(LAUGHTER)

They're not good at politics, but they're really good at sucking up people's money. Especially my opponents, because I kept them down to a minimum.

But the consultants didn't think we would win.

But they all underestimated the power of the people: You. And the people proved them...

(APPLAUSE)

... totally wrong. Never -- and -- and this is so true. And this is what's been happening. Never underestimate the people. Never.

(APPLAUSE)

I don't think it'll ever happen again.

And I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. It's fake, phony, fake.

(APPLAUSE)

A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people. And they are. They are the enemy of the people.

(APPLAUSE)

Because they have no sources, they just make 'em up when there are none. I saw one story recently where they said, "Nine people have confirmed." There're no nine people. I don't believe there was one or two people. Nine people.

And I said, "Give me a break." Because I know the people, I know who they talk to. There were no nine people.

But they say "nine people." And somebody reads it and they think, "Oh, nine people. They have nine sources." They make up sources.

They're very dishonest people. In fact, in covering my comments, the dishonest media did not explain that I called the fake news the enemy of the people. The fake news. They dropped off the word "fake." And all of a sudden the story became the media is the enemy.

They take the word "fake" out. And now I'm saying, "Oh no, this is no good." But that's the way they are.

So I'm not against the media, I'm not against the press. I don't mind bad stories if I deserve them.

And I tell ya, I love good stories, but we don't go...

(LAUGHTER)

I don't get too many of them.

But I am only against the fake news, media or press. Fake, fake. They have to leave that word.

I'm against the people that make up stories and make up sources.

They shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there. Let their name be put out.

(APPLAUSE)

"A source says that Donald Trump is a horrible, horrible human being." Let 'em say it to my face.

(APPLAUSE)

Let there be no more sources.

And remember this -- and in not -- in all cases. I mean, I had a story written yesterday about me in Reuters by a very honorable man. It was a very fair story.

There are some great reporters around. They're talented, they're honest as the day is long. They're great.

But there are some terrible dishonest people and they do a tremendous disservice to our country and to our people. A tremendous disservice. They are very dishonest people.

And they shouldn't use sources. They should put the name of the person. You will see stories dry up like you've never seen before.

So you have no idea how bad it is, because if you are not part of the story -- and I put myself in your position sometimes. Because many of you, you're not part of the story. And if you're not part of the story, you know, then you, sort of, know -- if you are part of the story, you know what they're saying is true or not.

TRUMP: So when they make it up -- and they make up something else, and you saw that before the election: polls, polls. The polls. They come out with these polls and everybody was so surprised.

Actually, a couple polls got it right. I must say Los Angeles Times did a great job, shocking because, you know, they did a great job.

(APPLAUSE)

And we had a couple of others that were right, but generally speaking, I mean, can tell you the network, somebody said a poll came out. And I say, what network is it? And they'll say, a certain -- let's not even mention names, right? Shall we?

(APPLAUSE)

Well, you have a lot of them. Look, the Clinton News Network is one.

(APPLAUSE)

Totally. Take a look. Honestly. Take a look, honestly. Take a look at polls over the last two years. Now you'd think they would fire the pollster, right? After years and years of getting battered, but I -- who knows, maybe they are just bad at polling or maybe they're not legit, but it's one or the other, look at how inaccurate -- look at CBS, look at ABC, also, look at NBC, take a look at some of these polls. They're so bad, so inaccurate and what that does is it creates a false narrative.

It creates like this narrative that is just like we're not going to win, people say, I love Trump, but you know, I'm not feeling great today, he can't win, so I won't go and vote. I won't go and vote. It creates a whole false deal. And we have to fight it, folks, we have to fight it. They're very smart, they're very cunning and they're very dishonest.

So just to conclude, I mean, it's a very sensitive topic and they get upset when we expose their false stories. They say that we can't criticize their dishonest coverage because of the First Amendment, you know, they always bring up the First Amendment.

Read more:
Donald Trump's CPAC speech proves it: He's totally obsessed with the media - Washington Post

Donald Trump got elected the 45th president of the United States thanks to one simple word: Change.

Voters desperately wanted something different than politics as usual and the same old politicians. Trump represented that something different. Hillary Clinton didn't.

The exit polls from 2016 tell that story powerfully. Nearly 4 in 10 exit poll respondents said that a candidate who can bring about real change was the most important quality in making up their minds. Trump won that group 82 percent to 14 percent over Clinton. Game, set, match.

"Change" is, of course, a very nebulous idea. It means very different things to different people. And one person's idea of the right change that needs to come to Washington might not necessarily or ever be another person's idea of it.

Now that Trump has been president for a month and people have gotten the chance to see what he meant by "change" (travel ban, building the wall, etc.) many of them don't seem to like what they are getting.

CompareQuinnipiac University polling from right after the election to now. In the immediate wake of the election in November, 46 percent of voters said that Trump represented the "right" kind of change, while 33 percent said he represented the "wrong" kind of change. In a Q poll this week, 38 percent said Trump represented the right kind of change, while 45 percent said he was bringing the wrong kind.

President Trump emphasized the importance of "conservative values" and prioritizing the well-being of Americans over global interests during his speech at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference, Feb. 24. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

And it's not just Quinnipiac with results like that. Take McClatchy-Marist University polling. In December, 44 percent said Trump represented change for the better, while 34 percent said he represented change for the worse. Now 44 percent say he is making changes for the worse, and 40 percent say his changes are for the better.

Those numbers should be concerning to Trumpworld. The central question of his presidency and particularly his chances of being reelected is whether voters believe he delivered on the change they voted for. That was always going to be a tough challenge because as I noted above change means different things to different people. And Trump was very, very vague about what exact changes he would institute, making it even tougher to figure out how to measure success or failure.

What is clear: Trump needs to be on the "right" side of change for his own political fortunes. And right now, he's not.

See original here:
Why it matters that Donald Trump is losing the 'change' fight - Washington Post

New York Times

Donald Trump, Gavin Grimm, Oscars: Your Friday Briefing New York Times Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump's chief strategist, told the audience that the deconstruction of the administrative state was underway, and Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump victory had led to the most important time in the history of our ...

Read the original:
Donald Trump, Gavin Grimm, Oscars: Your Friday Briefing - New York Times

TRUMP AGENDA: Caitlin Jenner vs. Trump

Vice President Mike Pence told conservatives at CPAC Thursday that the "Obamacare nightmare is about to end" and that the policy will be rolled back "despite the best efforts of liberal activists at town halls across the country."

Caitlin Jenner is taking on Trump over his withdrawal of federal guidance regarding school bathrooms for transgender youth.

From the New York Times: "Reduced to their weakest state in a generation, Democratic Party leaders will gather in two cities this weekend to plot strategy and select a new national chairman with the daunting task of rebuilding the party's depleted organization. But senior Democratic officials concede that the blueprint has already been chosen for them by an incensed army of liberals demanding no less than total war against President Trump."

Here's Alex Seitz-Wald's primer on how the DNC chair race will work.

From the AP: "White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump's campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official says. Priebus' discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said that the chief of staff was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations."

The New York Times, on Betsy DeVos: "[P]eople who have known and watched Ms. DeVos through the years as a leading advocate of charter schools and school vouchers, a former Michigan Republican Party chairwoman and a major Republican donor warn against thinking that she will be a meek team player. She may be publicly gracious, even in the face of setbacks, they say. But in her home state, she earned a reputation as a driven, relentless and effective political fighter, using her family's vast fortune to reward allies and punish foes, and working behind the scenes to pass legislation and unseat lawmakers who opposed her."

The Washington Post lays out the ongoing war over town halls - and how Gabby Giffords' name was invoked.

Another Jared/Ivanka leak about their influence to help save an Obama policy, from the Wall Street Journal: "At the request of President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his wife, Ivanka Trump, language critical of a global climate deal was struck from an executive order that Mr. Trump is planning to sign soon, according to multiple people familiar with the move."

"With each passing day, Donald Trump's Cabinet looks more like a clean-up crew," writes POLITICO. "The president's undiplomatic comments are repeatedly forcing his foreign policy and national security appointees into the awkward position of telling an anxious world that, basically, their boss didn't really mean what he said."

From NBC's Benjy Sarlin: "Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon, the White House's much-scrutinized top two aides, lavished each other with praise on Thursday in a friendly panel discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference where Bannon laid out President Donald Trump's "new political order."

POLITICO: "[A]nalysts now caution that Trumphoria in the stock market could soon crash into a harsh Washington reality."

The Wall Street Journal: "President Donald Trump's new strategy to accelerate the fight against Islamic State will, at least initially, tweak and add a little more muscle to the existing plan, U.S. officials said. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is expected to provide to Mr. Trump a series of recommendations for that plan in the coming days. Mr. Trump on Jan. 28 signed an order directing his new Pentagon chief to come up with a preliminary draft of the plan to fight Islamic State within 30 days."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said last night that "I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam."

Read more:
First Read's Morning Clips: Caitlin Jenner v. Donald Trump - NBCNews.com

By Pedro Gerson By Pedro Gerson February 23 at 3:51 PM

Pedro Gerson is a professor of law and economics at the Ibero-American University and the Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology (ITAM), both in Mexico City.

Over the past few months both as a candidate and in his new capacity as U.S. president Donald Trump has issued a series of provocations that have brought U.S.-Mexico relations to their lowest point since the Mexican-American War of 1846. His brash Twitter diplomacy moved Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto to take the unprecedented step of canceling a trip to the United States. Stepped-up raids by U.S. immigration authorities have stirred deportation fears in the Mexican immigrant community, and expressions of anti-Mexican sentiment have become so common that even a top Mexican diplomat recently endured public harassment. Last but not least, Trump has continued to vilify the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), raising doubts about its durability.

It would seem that there could be no bleaker scenario for the Mexican president. And yet Trump may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Pea Nieto. In fact, Trump may offer Pea Nietos only chance of salvaging his partys chances in next years general election and potentially even his own legacy.

At 12 percent, Pea Nieto has the lowest approval rating of any Mexican president in history. Since 2013 the administration has committed one blunder after another. Most notably, the president has borne the brunt of a major corruption scandal involving his wife and a lavish home, managed to mishandle the largest human rights tragedy in recent Mexican history and, perhaps most unbelievably, legitimized candidate Trump by inviting him to Mexico on what looked like a state visit. Pea Nietos responses to all of these cases and crises has seemed at best incompetent, in some cases downright negligent.

In a televised address Jan. 25, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said that Mexico will not pay for President Trump's border wall. (Reuters)

Nevertheless, Trump offers Pea Nieto a welcome distraction and, more importantly, an opportunity. On the first point, the existence of a new villain, if nothing else, has given Pea Nieto a break from the negative headlines ofthe past few weeks. An unscientific survey of the four most-read newspapers in Mexico showed that, since his inauguration, Trump has been mentioned almost three times more often than Pea Nieto.

[Mexico may strike back. Heres how.]

Now Pea Nieto is well positioned to strike back, and his options are many. Mexicans all along thepolitical spectrum are offering the president suggestions on how to do this. A leftist collective called on the government to start accepting refugees in defiance of Trumps Muslim ban. Jorge Castaeda, a former minister of foreign affairs, has said that Pea Nieto should accept deported migrants from the United States only if they can prove that they are Mexican citizens. Given that many immigrants lack any identification, this measure would severely hamper deportation efforts. Others have recommended that Pea Nieto should collaborate with officials in the United States who are openly pro-immigration, appearing in public with figures such as California Gov. Jerry Brown. Finally, some have even argued that Pea Nietoshould refuse discussions on NAFTA in order to avoid a potentially devastating period of economic uncertainty during the renegotiation. If this were to happen, Trump would have an answer for NAFTAs demise to the largely Republican constituency that benefits from it.

Policies like these would represent a total reversal of the Mexican administrations current timid approach. Rather than responding to Trumps bravado with strength, Pea Nieto dumped his minister of foreign affairs in favor of someone with ties to Trumps inner circle. He also vacillated on the cancellation of his trip to the United States even after Trump issued an executive order mandating the border wall construction. Finally, Pea Nieto continues to insist on having an open dialogue with Washington.

Politically, confronting Trump may be Pea Nietos last shot at securing a win for his party in the 2018 presidential election. Currently, the presidents Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) would seem to have no chance against Andres Manuel Lpez Obrador, the lefts candidate. Nevertheless, the PRI has a strong machinery that can guarantee25 to 30 percent of the vote. If Pea Nieto stands up to Trump, he may be able to tap into nationalist sentiment to win the hearts of that 5to 10 percent of the electorate that his party will need to win the election.

Also, it is likely that such actions turn out to be better policy options than the continuance of Pea Nietos overtures. Trump has demonstrated that he will not budge regardless of the number of olive branches that are thrown at him. A firmer stance may in fact be the only way to protect Mexicans abroad and to give Pea Nieto room to negotiate with Trump.

If Pea Nieto were to pursue a more confrontational route, he would be returning to some of his partys foundational ideas. The PRI was founded in the 1920s in the wake of the Mexican Revolution, and gained traction over the next decades by enacting nationalistic policies such as the nationalization of oil and the glorification of the Mexican race. The boogeyman of the story was, of course, the United States, a country that had unjustly taken a large chunk of Mexican territory. Eventually the party and the country shifted their tunes, opening Mexico to the United States and the world. Even so, suspicion of the gringos has never really ended.

[Ernesto Zedillo: Mexico can thrive without Trump]

Pea Nieto could thus leverage the same nativist sentiments that Trump and the Brexiters have exploited. The difference is that he must temper his nationalism with a commitment to openness to all those who seek collaboration with Mexico. And promises wont suffice he will have to follow up his rhetoric with policy measures that stand in contrast to Trumps: commitment to free trade, openness to immigration at home and defense of Mexican citizens in the United States. Given Pea Nietos current unpopularity, however, even this strategy may not be enough to make voters change their minds about him and his party.

Adopting such a confrontational stance undoubtedly runs counter to the Mexican presidents own nature, which favors caution and compromise. Yet the realization that he has nothing to lose may persuade him, in the end, to stand up to Trump. Pea Nieto and Mexico can only benefit.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump has given the Mexican president the biggest gift he could wish for - Washington Post