Behar says Dem effort to reclaim men is a 'waste of money,' suggests 'teaching them to not be such sexists'
After their decisive defeat in November, Democrats are still figuring out how they should change their strategy and move forward as a party. The New York Times recently published a report claiming that Democrats are spending $20 million on a study called "Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan." The study is a project to "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" of male voters.
Co-host Joy Behar scoffed at the idea, deriding it as "20 million bucks just to talk to boys."
"You know what I think? I think it's a waste of money. Maybe these guys should spend their money on teaching men to not be such sexists," Behar said, as the audience applauded.
Democrats Need To Embrace Males With Affection, Not Political Strategy, Nyt Columnist Argues
"But the stats don't bear that out," co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said, arguing that Trump has done better with multiple demographics across races and sexes than his Republican predecessors did.
Read On The Fox News App
Behar suggested this was merely because he was "running against a woman."
"You think Democrats that were with Biden in 2020 left to be with Trump because they're sexist?" Griffin asked.
"I don't know the reason, but it's very suspicious," Behar replied.
Other co-hosts argued that Democrats have indeed alienated male voters.
Griffin mocked the idea of appealing to authenticity by hiring analysts and strategists to analyze how men speak, suggesting instead, "What made Joe Rogan or Theo Von or some of these manosphere guys huge was there's a level of authenticity."
Meanwhile, she noted Democrats not only have an "authenticity problem" but recalled that "Joe Rogan was a Bernie Bro. Democrats lost him. They had their own Joe Rogan and then alienated him with policies."
She added that men want to be able to speak about the issues they face as a group, particularly the phenomenon of men falling behind, without being accused of sexism or excluding women.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
Haines brought up the appeal of both Trump and the manosphere. "What drove people to this manosphere was people were saying, 'It's okay to be a man, you have value.' I think the language around men with 'toxic masculinity' were sometimes misunderstood to make men the problem."Original article source: Behar says Dem effort to reclaim men is a 'waste of money,' suggests 'teaching them to not be such sexists'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: How Sly Stallone and Gloria Gaynor explain Trump and his presidency
President Donald Trump would love cultural elites to sniff at his Kennedy Center honorees. He relished unveiling the stars he'll fete at the iconic arts center's annual gala later this year, after motorcading to the complex Wednesday through streets now patrolled, on his orders, by federal agents and army reservists. The line-up explains a lot about him, his power and why he's president. 'Rocky' star Sylvester Stallone, Broadway legend Michael Crawford, disco icon Gloria Gaynor, country crooner George Strait and glam rock band KISS are more populist than 'high' culture. That's not to say that they are unworthy. Who could argue that Stallone didn't leave an 'indelible' mark on his art form? That's one of the criteria for selecting nominees. And Kennedy Center honorees have been trending toward the popular arts for decades, under presidents of both parties. As always, Trump was setting a trap for his political foes. Any criticism of his choices as too lowbrow or undeserving will only bolster his claims to be a scourge of the establishment and endear him more to supporters who lionize him as the ultimate outsider. Trump's critics see his takeover of the Kennedy Center and his efforts to destroy progressive values in the arts, the universities and elsewhere as cultural warfare. He pretty much agrees, proclaiming that he'd scrubbed his list for 'wokesters.' He admitted he'd even considered using his newly seized power over the citadel of American cultural life to honor himself. No wonder critics — including, no doubt, many liberal Kennedy Center subscribers, given the capital region's progressive lean — perceive a would-be authoritarian who wants to dominate and dictate every aspect of American life. Presidents don't generally select honorees. You'd think the world's most powerful man would have bigger fish to fry. Most commanders in chief just throw a White House reception and turn up for the show. But Trump is a ravenous consumer of pop culture and is unusually skilled at leveraging it for political gain. He's the executive producer of his own life and political career. So there was no chance he'd pass up a chance to stage-manage this show — and even plans to host the televised gala himself. He professed to have been press-ganged into it by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. She probably didn't have to twist his arm for too long. More seriously, Trump's Kennedy Center Honors will also represent another important victory for his 'Make America Great Again' movement and his hostile takeover of Washington institutions. 'I would say I was about 98 percent involved,' Trump said, of the selection process. 'No, they all went through me … I turned down plenty. They were too woke. I turned them — I had a couple of wokesters.' There's an important political dimension to this. Trump's base voters, and many other conservatives, believe that liberal elites spent decades cementing an ideological takeover of multiple areas of US life — in the arts, the media, academia, and even in sports — and dragged them to the left. The anger of millions of Americans about this pulsated from Trump's rallies in three consecutive campaigns. Voters gravitated toward a candidate who was mocked for his brassy ways by sophisticated Manhattanites. This is why Hillary Clinton's ill-judged insult of Trump supporters in 2016 as 'deplorables' became a badge of honor and a source of power for the president. When Trump's critics bemoan what they see as a takeover of top political and cultural institutions, his fans think he's taking those entities back. On conservative media, hosts lash out at movie stars for demeaning Hollywood with progressive views, or socially conscious NFL or NBA stars for 'ruining sports.' Previously, Kennedy Center honorees were chosen by a nominally bipartisan panel of arts and entertainment industry luminaries. But try convincing a conservative that these judges were free of bias, since they were drawn from the liberal arts milieu that Trump is seeking to destroy by taking over the Kennedy Center. Trump celebrated his dominance of yet another liberal bastion by admitting he was politicizing it — in another show of his unchecked power. 'I shouldn't make this political because they made the Academy Awards political, and they went down the tubes,' he said. The president went on, 'So they'll say, 'Trump made it political,' but I think if we make it our kind of political, we'll go up, OK?' But while Trump aimed for levity, his actions are threatening. On its own, his takeover of the Kennedy Center would be unusual, even a little bizarre. Taken against the backdrop of everything else he's doing, it's more worrying. He's weaponized the Justice Department against his political enemies, including members of the Obama administration. Trump's federalizing of the Washington, DC, police and deployment of the National Guard on the capital's streets and endless offensives against judges mirror the tactics of authoritarian rulers. The administration plans to scrub exhibits at the Smithsonian so they don't conflict with Trump's hardline views ahead of America's 250th birthday next year. His attempts to control the curricula of elite universities and his attacks on the media along with his dominance of the Kennedy Center make it feel like he's trying to control what Americans see, learn and even do in their leisure time. It's easy to believe that Trump chose the honorees himself because they all reflect aspects of his own character and experience. Stallone plays rough guys like John J. Rambo and Rocky Balboa, who trampled political correctness. It's not hard to see that Trump sees himself in them. 'He's a little bit tough, a little bit different, I will tell you. He's a little, tough guy,' Trump said, noting that Stallone, too, has his star in cement in Hollywood. 'In fact, the only way that's a bigger name on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, they say, is a guy named Donald Trump.' Strait is a massive recording star known as the 'King of Country' and a titan of rural America whose traditional sound evokes the kind of down-home appeal that Trump seeks to emulate. Crawford, who starred in the original London and Broadway productions of 'Phantom of the Opera,' shows the president's affinity for musicals. Like Trump, the show was big in New York in the 1980s. And the score, composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber, was considered mass market by trendy elites, while being widely popular among the masses. Crawford is also famous for another role — PT Barnum, a 19th-century showman, impresario, businessman and ring master whose carnival-barker style foretold Trump's. 'Barnum's' most famous number is 'There's a sucker born ev'ry minute' and sums up the business philosophy of a hero remembered for publicity stunts and hoaxes that blurred truth and reality. Sound familiar? KISS, a band with a catalogue of platinum albums, is also known for over-the-top stagecraft. And there's no better anthem for Trump's life of personal, business and political scandals that almost but never quite destroy him than Gaynor's biggest hit: 'I Will Survive.'
CBS News
3 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trial over California National Guard deployment concludes as judge questions limits of president's authority
The trial over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer reached its third and final day Wednesday, as lawyers for the Justice Department and the state of California argued over the validity of Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawsuit and whether the Posse Comitatus Act — which generally bars the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement – applied to the troop deployment. Mr. Trump in June deployed 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, saying they were needed to protect federal property and law enforcement agents amid June protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Newsom did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and responded with a lawsuit requesting an injunction limiting the military's role in the city. In addition to claiming the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, argued that there is no precedent for the lawsuit, for injunctive relief or money damages under the act, and that Newsom and the state of California have not suffered the harm required to sue. "It is, in fact, the federal government who is engaged in unprecedented conduct," said Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, representing the State of California, explaining that the government has never used the military in this way before. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer seemed perplexed by several of the government's assertions, particularly what he called the apparent "absence of any limits to a national police force." He questioned the Justice Department's claim that the 19th century law at the center of this trial is not relevant, and the assertion that his court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the president. "So then what is the remedy?" Breyer asked Hamilton, raising the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. "You're saying there's a criminal remedy? The president can be prosecuted? You say that in light of the Supreme Court decision, the Trump decision. Isn't he immune?" "So that's it. Too bad. So sad. It's over," he added emphatically. "And that's the end of the case." California has asked Breyer for an injunction that would allow the military to protect federal property — such as courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." "The constitution and the law and the facts are on Governor Newsom's side," said Josh Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School. "But that doesn't mean he's going to win. Ever since World War II, the courts have embraced this military deference doctrine, which really is presidential deference in matters of military command and control." "We're going to see federal officers everywhere if the president determines that there's some threat to the safety of a federal agent," Breyer said to Hamilton. "And it's his determination. Not mine, it's his. That's what you're saying. That's what the law is." Hamilton said that wasn't "quite what I'm saying." He asserted the troops are not enforcing federal law, but providing protection, and that it is lawful for guardsmen and marines to provide protection for federal buildings – the one point he agreed with California's attorney on. But, he argued, there is no distinction between protecting federal property and protecting federal law enforcement working out in the field. Breyer pointed out that federal employees "are everywhere." The judge further questioned why any National Guard members remain in Los Angeles, and expressed concern about the justification for continued operations. Hamilton testified that 300 guardsmen remain, a 90% reduction in the force. Strong countered that it is still a significant number of soldiers, and certainly enough to violate the law. "Thank goodness for the National Guard, but why is the federalized National Guard still in place?" asked Breyer. "What's the threat today? What was the threat yesterday?" "I go back to the thing that I'm really troubled by: What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?" he said, "Once you have a force in place, and maybe legitimately do so, and the threat that gave rise to the force in that place subsides … how does one look at this national police force that goes out of where the threat was and starts executing other laws?" Breyer appeared to take issue with the Justice Department's argument that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, noting that a key witness, Major General Scott Sherman – who was at one point the commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles – had testified that the troops were trained to act within the bounds of that law. "Then why is it the excellent Major General sought assurance that the Posse Comitatus Act was followed?" said Breyer. "Why did I spend a day looking at slide after slide, and regulation after regulation, and reports after reports on conduct of the soldiers to ensure that they were in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act if the Posse Comitatus Act is irrelevant?" Strong argued that all of the Department of Defense's leaders agreed that the Posse Comitatus Act applied to the Task Force 51 troops in Los Angeles. She said they substituted the word "protection" for "security" when describing the troops' activities because they knew that "security" would violate the act. She asserted that the secretary of defense had released a memorandum invoking a constitutional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and affirmatively instructing soldiers to engage in activities that violated it — but the memo was issued after those activities had taken place. On Tuesday, Sherman testified that he was advised of a "constitutional exception" that enabled the troops to conduct certain activities that would normally violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Strong called this an attempt by the Department of Defense to justify their actions after the fact that "itself reveals a knowledge and awareness of their violations." The federal government is "disregarding the law, and so we need show nothing more than that," said Strong. She further argued that the Constitution seeks to make sure the president cannot control a standing army the way the king had in 1776. She said that it would deny the basic principles of federalism for the state to have "no legal recourse to challenge the conduct of these troops." "If you look at the plain language of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the fear of standing armies that existed at the time of the Constitution," Kastenberg said. "...One of the biggest issues in the state conventions and in the framing of the Constitution to begin with was to significantly curtail the president's authority over the standing army, and keep the standing army very small." Breyer did not give a timeline for his ruling, stating at the end of the day, "I will decide the case as soon as I can decide the case."Joe Walsh contributed to this report.
Associated Press
3 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Beach sprint rowing athletes prepare for their sport's debut at 2028 LA Olympics
The Associated Press is an independent global news organization dedicated to factual reporting. Founded in 1846, AP today remains the most trusted source of fast, accurate, unbiased news in all formats and the essential provider of the technology and services vital to the news business. More than half the world's population sees AP journalism every day.
