Tim Graham's Year Of Anti-Media Rage

The Media Research Center executive spent 2024 whining that right-wing shenanigans were called out -- and he abandoned "media research" to go full right-wing partisan.

Media Research Center executive Tim Graham’s job is to yelp at the non-right media for not pushing right-wing narratives, while also denying that right-wing media outlets like Fox News engage in bias. This was an election year, so Graham was more active than ever on this front, lashing out at others while promoting pro-Trump bias, on top of his anger that fact-checkers check facts. Here are a few examples from the past year.

Trump and the Enquirer

A key revelation from Donald Trump’s New York trial was that the National Enquirer tabloid worked with Trump to kill the story of Stormy Daniels’ affair with him before the 2016 election. Oddly, the only reference to the Enquirer at the MRC regarding Trump’s trial appears in an April 26 column by Graham (also published at WorldNetDaily), who began thusly:

Eight years ago, the leftist media took great offense to being dismissed by Donald Trump as “fake news,” but they never seemed to grasp this is exactly how they painted the conservative media, as truth-defying propaganda outlets.

When the Trump trial turned to the National Enquirer, we could find national unity that the Enquirer defines “fake news.” The lefties are very excited to remind voters how the Enquirer was a Trump-allied tabloid full of garbage stories. But the liberal media spread some of them.

In May 2016, the Enquirer uncorked some garbage that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had cheated on his wife. ABC, CBS, and NBC spent a combined 15 and a half minutes spreading the word of this character assassination campaign.

Graham is lying. He and the MRC have treated the Enquirer as a very credible outfit … when it was reporting in alleged misdeeds by Democrats. They eagerly embraced the tabloid’s claims that John Edwards was having an affair; an August 2008 column by Brent Bozell (which was ghostwritten by Graham) cheered how “the National Enquirer has been trickling out the goods they collected on John Edwards having an affair and possibly a love child with campaign aide Rielle Hunter, staking out Edwards in a California hotel – and how he hid in the bathroom to avoid them,” further whining that non-right-wing media “sat on top of the dirty rug for months while the Enquirer dug out the Edwards affair.”

From there, Graham quickly moved toward whataboutism when it was pointed out that Trump colluded with the Enquirer to kill the Stormy Daniels story:

The pro-Biden “media reporters” are still upset this week about the Enquirer and how they played “catch and kill” with Trump accusers, squelching stories that might embarrass Trump. NPR’s David Folkenflik complained to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that burying salacious stories is “not a journalistic impulse, it’s not even a tabloid gossip impulse, this is essentially a partisan or propagandistic arm of the Trump campaign in all but name.”

This is coming from NPR, which aggressively trashed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a “pure distraction.” Folkenflik engaged with the story only to dismiss it as “a story marked more by red flags than investigative rigor.” When The New York Times and The Washington Post published stories acknowledging Hunter’s laptop was real in March and April of 2022, Folkenflik didn’t file a story with his regrets. He just kept attacking Fox News, his usual bread and butter.

So on the Hunter laptop, we can throw it back in Folkenflik’s face – NPR’s suppression was not a journalistic impulse, and NPR was essentially a propagandistic arm of the Biden campaign in all but name.

Worse yet, we fund it with our taxes. That gravy train should end.

As if the MRC is not a propagandistic arm of the Trump campaign, which should perhaps cause its beneficial nonprofit tax status to be re-evaluated. Graham then descended into a fit of Stelter Derangement Syndrome:

Ex-CNN reporter Brian Stelter said the same thing on Joy Reid’s MSNBC show about the Enquirer: “It has nothing to do with journalism.” David Pecker’s “not a news man. He’s an advertiser! He’s a marketer, and his product was Donald Trump.” Thanks, Sherlock Stelter. Nobody should define Mr. Pecker as a news man.

Like Folkenflik, Stelter squashed the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020 as a Murdoch plot, or as a Russian disinformation campaign, because CNN’s a marketer and its product was anyone but Trump (meaning Joe Biden).

Stelter also showed up on Alex Wagner’s MSNBC show. Wagner was hopping mad, asking what’s the point of a gag order on Trump when you have a “media-industrial complex that is effectively acting as a public defense line” for Trump? Once again, Wagner can’t imagine MSNBC acting as a “media-industrial complex” for the Democrats.

So does Wagner wish the judge could issue a gag order for the entire conservative media landscape? No criticism allowed of the get-Trump prosecutors and judge? I thought this was a democracy.

Stelter broke out the usual bravado that the liberals live on “Earth One,” and they must see what’s happening on “Earth Two,” which is an alternative universe of hallucinations. Stelter claimed “For Jesse Watters, Trump is God, and that is the programming every hour of every day on these other networks.”

That sounds like some crazy religion. Would Stelter survive a little fact check on whether Fox and Newsmax perpetually pray hourly to the Orange Lord and Savior?

Perhaps Graham, with all of that multimillion-dollar “media research” firepower behind him, can show us where Fox News and Newsmax have been the least bit critical of Trump in recent years? He seems to have forgotten that those outlets are currently being sued by Dominion and Smartmatic precisely because they placed their fealty to Trump above the truth.

Completely absent from Graham’s column are two words the MRC loves slinging at the non-right-wing media: election interference. It repeatedly declares anything that makes conservatives look bad — from calling out right-wing misinformation to purported search bias to Facebook fact-checking — to be “election interference.” The National Enquirer indisputably interfered in the 2016 election — by the MRC’s own definition — through its deliberate suppression of a negative story for Trump’s benefit. Why won’t Graham say the words? Or doesn’t he believe that right-wing meddling is “election interference”?

Trump’s alleged ‘joke’

Graham was weirdly angry in a June 10 post:

Donald Trump loves to make jokes during his rallies, especially about the press. At Sunday morning’s hot and sunny rally in Las Vegas, Trump joked about losing voters to heatstroke, and the press reaction:

“By the way, isn’t the breeze nice. Do you feel the breeze? I don’t want anybody going on me. We need every voter. I don’t care about you. I just want your vote. I don’t care.” His supporters laughed as he then said, “See now, the press will take that, and they’ll say, ‘He said a horrible thing.'”

Like clockwork, the clickbait hacks at Newsweek (and then the aggregators at MSN.com) posted the headline:

Donald Trump Jokes to Las Vegas Rally Attendees: ‘I Don’t Care About You’

This website is a desiccated shell of its former weekly-magazine self. This headline was actually an improvement from the first one! As the article now admits, they left “jokes” out in the original:

[…]

Reporter Natalie Venegas began: “Amid high temperatures at Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, the former president made a quip about the heat affecting his attendees by stating that he needed their votes, adding, “I don’t care about you.”

They ran a video tweet from Acyn Torabi from the Trump-trashing Meidas Touch squad:

But Graham offers no evidence that Trump was, in fact, making a joke. If the only people who insist that Trump was joking are die-hard Trump stans like Graham, is it really a joke? And if it was, what exactly was supposed to be funny about it? Graham’s huffing that “Trump loves to make jokes during his rallies, especially about the press” doesn’t really provide an answer. If Trump’s humor is so insular that it doesn’t translate outside the hardcore MAGA crowd that Graham clearly belongs to, it arguably fails as humor.

But Graham is paid well to defend Trump, so he defends everything about him, nonexistent humor and all, and he demands we treat him as a comedy legend because he has to find a way to excuse and distract from his amorality.

Bogus ‘bias’ study

The MRC loves its shoddy and biased media “studies,” and Graham found a new one to champion in a Sept. 22 post:

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is considered the crown jewel of “public” broadcasting. All global journalism in English seeks to mimic it. That’s not a good thing, since it is rife with leftist bias, and on the Israel-Hamas war, it can be difficult to distinguish from Al-Jazeera.

At FoxNews.com, lawyer Trevor Asserson explained his research into anti-Israel bias, and how the BBC “flunks Journalism 101.” Like PBS and NPR in America, the BBC is legally obliged to produce impartial news. For this, it is rewarded with $5 billion a year by British taxpayers. (PBS and NPR surely envy that.)

Asserson and a team of about 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists used artificial intelligence to analyze nine million words from the BBC on TV, radio, podcasts, and social media, starting on October 7, 2023 — when Hamas slaughtered innocent Israeli citizens and others (including Americans). At the MRC, we wouldn’t trust software to substitute for human reading, but knowing the BBC’s patterns, we doubt a different result.

In BBC’s English language TV output, they found while some programs were neutral, the remainder were between 90% and 100% pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli.

Graham plays down the fact that AI was used to compile the study, which is odd because the MRC has repeatedly attacked Google’s AI for purported bias — and it appears Graham should have similar skepticism here, as the AI usage is key to how much of a garbage study this is, as an analysis by the UK’s Media Reform Coalition found:

But there is little intelligence in the analysis itself and instead pages and pages of charts that attempt to prove just how badly the BBC has treated Israel and its supporters.

This is partly a result of a flawed methodology which relies on a very naïve conception of AI, not least its claim that ChatGPT is ‘not subject to inherent human subjective judgement’ (p. 23) and is instead an ‘unbiased proxy for the “casual everyday audience for news” that does not have an opinion on the conflict’ (p. 123). AI may not have an opinion on the conflict but those asking the questions do and, in any case, its language models are only as good as the content they depend on, a significant proportion of which is generated by major news organisations such as the New York Times who certainly do have skin in the game.

The Report’s reliance on ‘human sympathy analysis’ (carried out here by both humans and AI) is also flawed. Of course there was likely to be significant amounts of sympathy towards Palestinians at a time, after 7 October, when it was they who were being bombed, starved and forcibly required to leave their homes. Not even the mainstream media could fail to notice this. The Report’s finding that the ‘sympathy analysis showed a very marked pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli imbalance across all principal television news programmes’ (p. 41) is therefore hardly surprising and reveals the frustration of pro-Israeli voices that anyone should be sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians under siege rather than a breach of impartiality across four months of coverage.

It also turns out that Asserson brings a certain pro-Israel bias to the project, as well as a lack of actual researchers to do the work:

The background of the Report’s authors is revealing. Asserson himself is a long-time critic of the BBC’s coverage of Israel and has partnered with a series of Israeli lawyers and data scientists organised via a group called Research for Impartial Media (RIMe). There is no information about this group other than that its convenor, Dr Haran Shari-Narkiss is a neuroscientist whose most recent paper is on the ‘Stability and Flexibility of Odor Representations in the Mouse Olfactory Bulb’.

Crucially, it appears that no media researchers or indeed journalists were part of the research team and there is no reference at all in the nearly 400 pages of documents to studies, such as the CMM one, that have found systematic bias against Palestinians in mainstream media coverage of Israel and Palestine.

[…]

The Report’s conclusion that the BBC was overwhelmingly biased in its coverage of Gaza flies not only in the face of other specialist and academic reports and studies but reflects the authors’ frustration that there was ‘sympathy’ for a civilian population under attack. The authors appear to think that the BBC’s acknowledgement – however constrained and intermittent – that a deadly assault on Gaza was taking place was in itself a breach of impartiality regulations. In reality, and despite the Israeli government’s best effort to suppress this coverage by preventing foreign journalists from entering Gaza, the fact that these awful scenes have made their way into public consciousness, is actually thanks more to brave reporting from Palestinian journalists inside Gaza than it is to a BBC that is often reluctant to criticise Israel for its actions, let alone to describe them as genocidal.

Meanwhile, the BBC itself called the report discredited:

The BBC continued: “We do not accept that impartiality can be assessed using ‘sympathy’; nor by quantifying daily coverage of events or counting words.

“We believe the use of AI to measure impartiality in this way is unreliable and unproven. The methods used in the report fail to take account of basic journalistic principles and practice, and often rely on selective interpretations and incomplete evidence.

“We do not see any new evidence to suggest we have breached our obligations for due impartiality and accuracy during our coverage of this highly complex, challenging and polarising conflict.”

Instead of acknowledging the serious flaws in the study, Graham simply parroted Asserson’s discredited claims:

At this point, the BBC’s anti-Israel bias matches the ideology of the new Labour Party government. Asserson concluded his study “blows the myth of impartiality out of the water. The BBC doesn’t achieve impartiality and is not remotely close to achieving it. BBC management must either take back control of the ship, or the British people should demand a refund.”

Just like a shoddy “media researcher” to embrace the shoddy reaearch of others.

Rich Lowry’s N-word kerfufle

In September, during a TV discussion of Haitian migrants, National Review editor Rich Lowry said something that sounded very much like the N-word. There was a lot of backpedaling afterward from Lowry and his apologists, framing it as a mispronunciation and denying he would ever deliberately say such a thing. Regardless of intent, though, what Lowry did say is more important than what he meant to say, and all one has to do is listen to the audio.

Strangely, the MRC made no effort to defend Lowry, even though it usually rushes to the defense of any conservative even slightly justly accused. It wasn’t until two weeks later — when the situation could be used to bash someone in the “liberal media” — that the situation was first broached, in an Oct. 5 post by Graham:

National Public Radio still has an ombudsman, a “Public Editor,” to respond to public complaints. That’s appropriate, since the public pays for NPR. Often the liberals who dominate the NPR audience complain when they feel NPR is insufficiently “progressive.”

So it was a little shocking when Public Editor Kelly McBride admitted on October 4 that they botched an online story on September 17 attacking National Review editor Rich Lowry as bumbling into the N-word in Megyn Kelly’s podcast as they discussed Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.

NPR media reporter David Folkenflik wanted to boast that NPR ultimately came around to his sense that Lowry’s stumble over the word “immigrant” wasn’t a news story.

[…]

The headline [“When the facts are right, but the story is wrong”] is strange. The “facts” were not right in this story. McBride declared “We disagree with NPR on two points. First, the story as originally published wasn’t just unfair. It was inaccurate. The story told readers that Lowry ‘appeared to use’ the racial slur.”

The first headline smeared Lowry: “Conservative editor-in-chief appears to use racial slur to refer to Haitian migrants.” It currently reads: “Conservative editor-in-chief says mispronunciation led to accusations of using slur.”

Graham is being disingenuous here. The audio clearly backs up what the story said, that Lowry “appeared to use” the racial slur, so there was no actual smear. And Graham didn’t explain why Lowry deserved the benefit of the doubt when he would never do the same for a non-conservative in the same situation. He then attacked the reporter of the original story for being nonbinary, raging that they “repeated a hot story among the leftist Twitterati” and that “NPR messed up because they were ‘pouncing’ on a potentially conservative-wrecking narrative.”

Graham concluded by taking a shot at his employer’s better-run competition: “A leftist activist at that group that goes by ‘MMFA’ was the manure spreader that NPR joined. Never let the Left imply they don’t fall into ‘misinformation.'” He didn’t explain why he and his employer waited so long to come to Lowry’s defense — is it because they heard what everyone else did and didn’t want to be seen as defending it until others were able to explain it away?

Graham hates fact-checkers (like the GOP)

Graham began his Oct. 16 column by declaring: “Liberal journalists love to paint the Republicans as opposed to facts – which implies that liberal journalists own the facts and determine who is actually using them properly.” Given that one of Graham’s main jobs is to lash out at fact-checkers for fact-checking Republicans (and the MRC) — and he spent pretty much the entirety of the 2024 election season raging that fact-checkers have fact-checked Trump and Republicans — that implication is entirely accurate. Graham continued to whine:

The Washington Post put this aggressive headline on the front of the October 15 edition:

Campaign takes stand against fact checks

In live settings, Trump aims to let his falsehoods go unchallenged

Reporters Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey began by noting the Trump campaign has “waved an aggressive campaign against fact-checking in recent months,” pushing the media to “abandon the practice if they hope to interact with Trump.”

They described Trump’s resentment over PolitiFact joining the anti-Trump brigade at the National Association of Black Journalists beat-down and the “fact checking” that occurred during the ABC debate with Kamala Harris, as well as Trump skipping 60 Minutes over the CBS “fact checking.”

One crucial fact emerged very late out of this Republicans-hate-facts story – the dramatic imbalance of who is tagged as false. ABC’s debate moderators singled out Trump for five combative “fact checks.” CBS’s debate moderators said they wouldn’t fact-check, and then pushed around J.D. Vance on Haitian migrants in Ohio. The word “moderator” is a bad joke.

Graham omitted the fact that Vance lied about Haitian migrants in Ohio — and that his own writers endorsed that lie. From there, Graham was back to whining that Trump was fact-checked:

Parker and Dawsey returned to the old saw that “The Washington Post Fact Checker team tallied that by the end of Trump’s presidency, he had made 30,573 false or misleading claims – an average of about 21 false, erroneous, or misleading claims a day.”

They did not mention that Glenn Kessler, The Post’s “Fact Checker,” proclaimed in 2021 there would be no systematic counting of President Biden’s false or misleading statements. Doesn’t that suggest that “fact checking” is a weapon used against Republicans? And betrays a partisan tilt, that Democrats are remarkably more honest politicians?

A look at their “Fact Checker” homepage on October 15 demonstrates that this dramatic imbalance is still in effect. Just counting the cartoon Pinocchios on the first page shows Trump and his team have drawn 39 Pinocchios. Team Harris has….zero. There is one article where they daintily note “Harris flubs manufacturing jobs claim in MSNBC interview.” Seven articles on the Trump side get the maximum “Four Pinocchios” (pants-on-fire) judgment.

At no point does Graham offer any remotely resembling hard data to back up his argument — he did not name a single statement by Harris that should have been fact-checked, or one by Trump that shouldn’t have. Still, his whining continued:

A new Media Research Center count of fact checks at PolitiFact shows a similar aggression. There are 19 “Pants on Fire” rulings for Republicans from April through September (15 of them Trump) to just one for Democrats (Gov. Pritzker of Illinois). Overall, Republican politicians were judged as “Mostly False” or worse 79 percent of the time, while Democrats were only in that penalty box 36 percent of the time.

The Post reporters found a liberal expert to back up their theme. University of Wisconsin professor Lucas Graves gained the big bold and italic pull quote inside the paper: “Within the political establishment on the right, it is now considered quite legitimate – and quite legitimate to say publicly and openly – that you disapprove of fact-checking.”

It’s “tribalism” to oppose liberal fact-checking. But you can’t say it’s “tribalism” for the liberal fact-checkers to trash the Republicans much more often and much more harshly. They should be charged with ad police brutality.

None of Graham’s ranting has any basis in reality. Facts are not inherently “liberal,” which means fact-checkers cannot be inherently “liberal.” And nobody’s stopping Graham from using the MRC’s millions to create a right-wing fact-checker — indeed, the only thing that appears to be stopping him is that he has built a partisan narrative around “liberal fact-checking,” and he doesn’t want to blow that up by having the courage of his convictions.

He concluded with one more partisan rant:

This is the pose liberal journalists love to strike: We cannot be criticized. Object to us, and you hate facts, journalism, safety, sanity, and democracy. They have a monopoly on truth – whatever they decide it is.

Graham is lying — he thinks he and his fellow right-wing activists have a monopoly on truth. His employer spends millions of dollars a year to push his narrative that he’s right and all “liberals” are wrong.

Full GOP partisan

If it wasn’t clear already, Graham made it explicit with his syndicated columns this year: He’s a right-wing partisan, not a “media researcher.” He actually spent a June 5 column arguing that liberals are not allowed to invoke the Founding Fathers:

The front page of the June 3 New York Times was topped with an editorial – labeled “News Analysis” – from their White House correspondent Peter Baker. He picked Patrick Henry as the Trump opponent.

“The revolutionary hero Patrick Henry knew this day would come,” Baker began. Henry “feared that eventually a criminal might occupy the presidency and use his powers to thwart anyone who sought to hold him accountable.” In Henry’s words, “Away with your president, we will have a king.”

Never mind that historians pointed out Henry was inveighing against the Constitution before it was ratified. Baker channeled the Democrat line: “The notion that 34 felonies is not automatically disqualifying and a convicted criminal can be a viable candidate for commander in chief upends two and a half centuries of assumptions about American democracy.”

[…]

The Democrats and their media enablers use “History” to establish how there is a “right side,” and that is their leftist agenda. Undercutting democratic norms and co-equal branches of government is admirable when the ends justify the means. The Founding Fathers are just yellowed paper puppets in their relentless power games.

And Graham isn’t playing a power game by advancing the anti-media agenda — backed by millions of dollars each year — of his employer?

Graham groused in his July 19 column calling coverage of Trump’s legal problems “endless hours of noise”:

On July 15, the opening day of the Republican convention, federal judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictments of Donald Trump for misuse of classified documents. Legal arguments aside, it cast a shadow over all the breathless media hype that came before it.

Year after year, partisan “legacy media” outlets have churned out thousands of stories full of anticipation that the walls of scandal would close in on Trump. Once again, a litany of Trump “legal woes” haven’t damaged his political standing.

A new Media Research Center study of 2023 and the first half of 2024 by Rich Noyes revealed that the evening news shows of ABC, CBS, and NBC produced a whopping 1,608 minutes of airtime on Trump legal matters, and as you might expect, it was fiercely negative (95 percent).

[…]

In the end it can feel like endless hours of noise, like…Fake News. That’s not to say every fact is false, but the promotional hype turns out to be false. The Robert Mueller probe never achieved the expected Trump indictments that journalists so deeply desired.

We don’t recall Graham ever fretting that his employer’s years of obsessing over Hunter Biden’salleged crimes was “endless hours of noise” — indeed, he doesn’t mention Hunter at all, even though that is a logical comparison to make.

Graham’s Aug. 14 column was yet another whine that Trump gets fact-checked:

How do voters know the prestige press is hopelessly partisan? For three weeks, Kamala Harris has been refusing all requests for interviews or press conferences, and that goes unpunished. Donald Trump held a press conference, and he was absolutely punished.

Taxpayer-funded National Public Radio demonstrated their ultraliberal tilt for the millionth time – at least that’s how it feels. NPR political director Domenico Montanaro organized a team to pore over Trump’s August 8 press conference transcript, and “found at least 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies in 64 minutes. That’s more than two a minute. It’s a stunning number for anyone – and even more problematic for a person running to lead the free world.”

This scandalous figure had all that Glenn Kessler energy from The Washington Post. Remember when Kessler made a database that identified 30,573 “false or misleading claims” from President Trump? When Biden was elected, he proclaimed the Database Days were over. Kessler proclaimed on MSNBC, “I assume the Biden presidency will be a lot like the Obama presidency, and that they will be responsive, and will be able to quickly back up what they’re saying.”

The crucial word there is “assume.” Democrat journalists assume Democrats tell the truth.

As usual, Graham made no effort to prove his underlying assumption that Democrats lie as much as Trump does, nor does he disprove the accuracy of any of those Trump fact-checks. He does faux-graciously concede that “some of these 162 statements were inaccurate – Trump overstated his support in polls, and there’s some trolling Trumpian braggadocio, like suggesting his crowds are bigger than Martin Luther King’s.” He then nitpicked by inventing new standards: “Trump said Harris is ‘a radical left person at a level that nobody’s seen.’ NPR’s “fact” guy argued ‘It’s debatable how liberal Harris is.’ That’s not a fact check. That’s just an emotional reaction.”

Graham concluded by huffing: “The hard-earned dollars of non-liberal taxpayers help fund NPR launching emotional ramblings over how the Democrats aren’t radicals, and they won’t ruin the economy. As often happens, ‘fact checking’ is actually a lot of spin control and denial.” Graham’s column is all about spin control and denial to help Trump. Indeed, the headline on his column stated “NPR Proves They Despise Trump 162 Times.” Only in Graham’s right-wing bubble is fact-checking Trump considered a hate crime.

Graham used his Aug. 9 column to parrot the mandated right-wing narrative that Tim Walz is a “radical”:

Vice President Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her Democrat running mate, offering a balance of different races and genders – if you’re one of those traditionalists who still believes in those binaries. But their ideology is a pretty strong match. Walz is especially “progressive” on abortion on demand, on pushing “gender-affirming care” for kids, and on fawning over illegal immigrants with taxpayer-funded benefits like free college tuition.

They’ll claim Walz represents “Midwestern values,” and then you see he supported tampon machines in the male bathrooms in public schools, and he couldn’t oppose the idea that pedophilia can be blurred into a list of sexual orientations.

In his Aug. 28 column, Graham whined that “the pro-Democrat press just want to defeat Donald Trump” — as if he, as a member of the pro-Republican press, is not trying to defeat Harris.

Graham spent his Sept. 25 column complaining about a New York Times op-ed in support of Harris written by longtime “Top Chef” host Padma Lakshmi that made cooking comparisons that Graham didn’t like: “If Kamala’s cooking qualities naturally carried over to her political duties, wouldn’t she have a better record as vice president of uniting Americans? Instead, Democrats have spent their time in the White House bitterly dividing Americans.” And Republicans have not been trying to bitterly divide Americans by pushing anti-DEI propaganda that suggest anyone who’s not a white male is not deserving of the job they have.