A clown car fueled by the Post: Is the Washington Post staging a jihad about Hillary Clinton’s troubling wealth and deeply troubling gaffes?
We’ll report and you can decide! Using Nexis, we checked to see how many times two of our most famous newspapers have referred, in the past three weeks, to Clinton’s deeply troubling comment about having once been “dead broke.”
We used this search term: “Clinton AND dead broke.” Nexis churned these results:
New York Times: 3 citationsNo, that isn’t a typo. We got three hits for the New York Times, 62 for the Jihadi Post.
Washington Post: 62 citations
Some of the Post citations reflect types of double-counting by Nexis. But in the hard-copy New York Times, there has been only one reference to the now-famous outrageous comment by the obscenely wealthy Clinton.
In the hard-copy Washington Post, the count has now reached 15.
These are the hard-copy citations only. This doesn’t include a ton of blog posts performed by the famous newspaper’s seemingly endless assortment of hacks and obsessives:
Washington Post, hard-copy references to “dead broke” remarkThat is what jihad looks like. For reasons only the Post can explain, the paper has been creating a “narrative” for a White House election which is three years away.
June 10, page A2 (Rucker)
June 11, page A15 (Marcus)
June 11, page A4 (Rucker)
June 15, page A3 (Rucker)
June 16, page A2 (The Fix)
June 22, page A21 (Marcus)
June 23, page A1 (Rucker)
June 23, page A2 (Quote of the week)
June 27, page A1 (Rucker)
June 27, page A20 (Kamen)
June 27, page A21 (Gerson)
June 28, page A3 (Rucker)
June 29, page A2 (Balz)
June 29, page A19 (Marcus)
July 1, page A17 (Robinson)
(Joining with the New York Times, the Post did this same thing in March 1999, eventually sending George Bush to the White House. To this day, your favorite career liberals refuse to tell you that this ever occurred.)
The Washington Post created a narrative in the past few weeks. Elsewhere, the press corps’ assortment of hacks and buffoons rapidly swung into action.
Nowhere was the conduct dumber than on Erin Burnett’s nightly CNN program, Out Front. Simply put, Burnett went on full red alert about Clinton’s deeply troubling wealth in the wake of Philip Rucker’s initial front-page report in the Post.
We can’t record all the inanity on this cable program last week. But on Burnett’s first discussion of this topic, she played tape of something Bill Clinton had said, then threw to Margaret Hoover:
BURNETT (6/24/14): We all know he is now estimated to be worth $100 million. Here is what Bill Clinton said, though, is the real issue today.Hoover is very much down with the people. At the age of 30, she was on the board of overseers of the Hoover Institution at Stanford. She was also on the board of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Association in West Branch, Iowa.
CLINTON (videotape): I think I had the lowest net worth of any American president in the 20th century when I took office. But I still could have been tone deaf. And, you know, now I don't and we've got a good life. And I'm grateful for it. But I feel we go to our local grocery store on the weekend. We talk to people in our town. We know what's going on.
The real issue is, if you've been fortunate enough to be successful, are you now out of touch and insensitive to the agonizing struggles other people are facing?
BURNETT: Fair point, Margaret, that he makes. However—
HOOVER: How agonizing are the struggles of the folks in Scarsdale at the local grocery store he's going to?
BURNETT: Which would be, I'm sure, like a Whole Foods on steroids or something?
HOOVER: Well, I mean, he is in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country.
She may have held these positions because she is the great-granddaughter of Herbert Hoover, the most famously out-of-touch politician of the last century. She graduated from Bryn Mawr, then worked in the Bush White House.
Burnett, who is paid $2 million per year, instantly began to snark with Hoover about the Clintons’ wealth. Her own net worth is estimated at $12 million. Daddy was a corporate attorney. In 2011, she married her dream boy, the managing director in high-yield sales at Citibank, a highly-regarded social welfare agency.
For what it’s worth, the Clintons’ home in New York is worth $1.8 million. As we noted last week, many of Burnett’s cable colleagues have summer homes which are worth well more than twice that amount. Burnett herself is almost surely on rent control in New York.
In that deeply moronic exchange, you see the outline of one of our press corps’ greatest sleight-of-hands. We refer to the masterful way they keep their own wealth out of the public eye.
Our press corps is made up of a great many incompetent people who are on the air because of their vapidity and their looks. They’re paid obscene amounts of money for looking very good without being smart or honest.
That said, their entire guild agrees that their wealth must never be discussed. You almost never see discussions about these half-wits’ wealth.
On that basis, these folk are able to stage discussions in which they pretend to speak for the people. (We’ll offer more examples as the week proceeds.) Their viewers have rarely heard about the vast wealth they themselves command. They can snark as much as they like, secure in the knowledge that no one will ever suggest the oddness of a fatuous person who gets paid seven figures clowning in the way Burnett did.
In fact, Burnett continued to clown all week, pretending to stage concerned discussions about the Clintons’ troubling wealth. On Wednesday and Friday, she brought in the loathsome Sunny Hostin to play second banana to Hoover, her obvious social better.
Tomorrow, we’ll show you how a totally shameless clown behaves in such inane discussions. There’s a hoary old word we never use which is often employed at such times.
For whatever reason, the Washington Post swung into action last month. Childe Rucker was the principal tool, though many others screeched and wailed about the Clintons’ wealth.
There is no way to review all the clowning the pundit corps performed. But this is what jihad looks like.
As usual, the Drums, the Dionnes, the Walshes, the Robinsons agree that you mustn’t be told about what is going on—about what is going on again, same as it ever was. The silence from the liberal lambs has been astounding as this new jihad has formed.
They’ve always shut their traps in the past. Their traps have been shut very tight once again.
Your heroes are keeping their traps shut tight. At long last, why do you think they do that?