Will Democrats win in Virginia next week?

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2017

Andrew Sullivan dissects the ongoing disaster:
Will Democrats win in Virginia next week? We have no way of knowing.

The fact that it's close is a sign of the zombified state of the liberal world. At New York magazine, Sully delivers the mail:
SULLIVAN (11/3/17): This is not a good omen. If Gillespie wins, or the result is close, it means the Trump-transformed GOP is electorally viable in every swing district in 2018. That it could win in the state where actual white supremacists marched this past summer and when the president is 20 points underwater is a sobering reminder of the actual state of play in our politics. I can only hope it’s a wake-up call to the Dems. In 2017, they are either useless or actively counterproductive in the struggle to resist right-authoritarianism. They have learned nothing from 2016. Their intelligentsia seems determined to ensure that no midwestern whites ever vote for the party again. Their public faces are still Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi. They still believe that something other than electoral politics—the courts, the press, the special counsel—will propel them back to power. They can’t seem to grasp the nettle of left-populism. And they remain obsessed with a Russia scandal that most swing voters don’t give a damn about.

They think they are “woke.” They are, in fact, in a political coma.
"Their intelligentsia seems determined to ensure that no midwestern whites ever vote for the party again?" Except for the lack of scare quotes around the word "intelligentsia," we'd say that's sad but true.

We were especially struck by Sullivan's reference to our dream for help from "the courts, the press, the special counsel." Increasingly, we liberals seem to have decided that we can never win a debate, or perhaps an election, thanks to the vile attitudes of all the bad people Out There.

Instead of learning how to talk to the public, we focus on our grandest dream—after we lose to Them at the polls, we'll try to get their winning candidates arrested and thrown into jail! It's nauseating to watch the Frankens, Leahys and Blumenthals chasing along, night after night, in pursuit of this losers' approach.

After we lose, we'll get them locked up! To our ear, Rachel Maddow has been broadcasting this sensibility for years. It's all about locking them up! Also, have you had a chance to listen to Governor Bentley's sex tape? (She'll mug and clown for us as we listen.)

The liberal world's "intelligentsia" is about as lacking in intelligence as it can possibly get. It's stunning to think that Virginia is close. That said, our team always knows the explanation:

The world is full of very bad people Out There. It makes us think of what Harrison Ford is told by Kelly McGillis' father-in-law at the end of Witness, as he prepares to leave his refuge in Amish country and return to the profane wider world:

"You be careful out there among them English."

It's the last line in the film.


That's the way we liberals are at this point. We're locked inside our tiny world, warning ourselves, day and night, about them English out there.

Maybe Rachel can bring Ana back to tell us more dick jokes about Them!

51 comments:

  1. I voted for McAuliffe and I'm voting for Gillespie. It's going to be close. Northam managed to attract more despicable advocacy groups than the KKK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's nothing, Gillespie has managed to attract the KKK and the Nazis.

      Gillespie has been running non-stop onslaught of gutter attack ads for months. Apparently, Ralph Northam who is a pediatric doctor likes child sexual predators, has joined MS-13 gangs, and is giving all the good VA State University slots to those brown Mexican rapists and other illegals.

      It is impossible for me to believe that anyone who voted for McAuliffe could now switch to that carpet bagging lobbyist.

      Democrats consistently outvote Republicans by a narrow margin in VA for the state legislature, yet republicans now have a 2 to 1 majority in the state house and a majority in the state senate. Give them the fucking governorship too and kiss VA goodbye for a long time.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. "after we lose to Them at the polls, we'll try to get their winning candidates arrested and thrown into jail!"
    The Republicans actually did that with Bill Clinton. They were proactive in their attacks on Hillary. Did we do that with GW Bush? Nope. Reagan? Nope. Bush 1? Nope. In this one case, there are serious issues surrounding Trump. So what is Somerby talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They are, in fact, in a political coma."

    Nah. They're dead, walking the earth. Because Hell is full.

    The walking dead. And that's all there's to it, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a certain troll wandering the streets of St. Petersburg, checking the vending machines for loose kopeks.

      Delete
  4. Why is Andrew Sullivan being quoted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's how low this blogger has sunk.

      Delete
  5. People like Franken are doing their jobs, protecting the people and our democracy from lawbreakers and traitors. This isn’t politics. It is subversion. Stop pretending this is an inept political maneuver. This is real wrongdoing.

    While we’re at it, Andrew Sullivan is conservative and he is not anyone to lecture Democrats on how to win.

    What is Somerby these days and why should any liberal listen to him?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In 2017, they are either useless or actively counterproductive in the struggle to resist right-authoritarianism."

    So, it's OK when Sullivan uses terms like "right-authoritarianism", but not the rest of us peons? How will The Others feel about that?

    It's nice that Somerby feels common cause with Sullivan. Unfortunately, the problem is not solved by simply blasting the Democrats from one's ivory tower.
    Average people, who might think about running for office as a Democrat, face the daunting power of the right wing attack machine, ready to swoop down and destroy them, slime them, using their vast stores of Koch/Mercer money and their goebbelsian media outlets.
    Most folks who aren't Lincoln or MLK might have second thoughts about entering the fray.
    Now if only Sullivan and Somerby could get off their asses and run for office...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent post. Bob should seek office. Unfortunately, he’s made an enemy of the media, so there’s that excuse.

      Frank Zappa suggests it for young people in this rather remarkable video at 17:20.

      I thought he was particularly prescient at 10:10 re fascist theocracy.

      The leftist, Tom Braden, sat agog throughout most of the interview.

      LINK

      Leroy

      Delete
    2. Somerby's post is a pathetic, bitter rant.

      Delete
    3. Somerby cannot run for office. He is entirely reactive and critical. He has no vision of positive action and he is so literal he cannot see the bigger picture. He would be a candidate like Trump, hating but suggesting nothing substantive to change people's lives. Somerby occasionally sings Kumbaya, in between calling us all stupid and ranting against Maddow. But that is a vague plea to be like Malala or Nelson Mandela or MLK, with no suggestions about how to do that under our current circumstances. Setting aside Trump, I cannot think of anyone less fit to hold office than Somerby.

      Delete
  7. Andrew Sullivan is a dumb, fat, temperamental has-been. With a drinking problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Radical actions by leftists help elect Republicans.

    Beginning with the Berkeley Milo Yiannopoulos riot of February 2, 2017 and continuing through shout-downs of Charles Murray at Middlebury and Heather Mac Donald at UCLA and Claremont, the second semester of last academic year kicked off the latest phase of the campus free-speech crisis. Trying to be as complete as possible, I’ve chronicled 10 shout-downs that took place in the spring semester of the 2016–17 academic year. That doubled the five shout-downs of the previous semester. The spring semester of 2017 will long be known for popularizing this fearsome technique of speech suppression. Remarkably, however, as we approach the halfway mark of the Fall 2017 semester, the rate of shout-downs is now nearly quadruple that of last spring. I count 19 shout-downs so far this year. At the current rate, that would make for 38 fall-semester shout-downs. This would nearly quadruple the 10 shout-downs of last spring, a semester already infamous for speaker disruptions.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453357/campus-shout-down-rate-quadruples-free-speech

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See comment (Anon 8:19pm)

      Delete
    2. Citing the National Review to support your baseless, wingnut conclusion. Sad.

      Concern troll's concern is duly noted.

      Delete
    3. I, for one, can't wait to do away with this PC culture.
      After all, there is no fucking chance in the world that those who rail against PC culture will be whining about people telling them that God is nothing but the figment of their dull-witted imaginations, and that they are sick of having atheism "shoved down their throats". Not a fucking chance at all. LOL.

      Delete
    4. @ 2:17 - what's wrong with personal computers?

      Delete
  9. Quote from Prominent Trump backer Bob Mercer:
    "in my opinion, the actions and statements by Mr. Yiannopoulos have caused pain and divisiveness undermining the open and productive discourse that I had hoped to facilitate. I was mistaken to have supported him, and for several weeks have been in the process of severing all ties with him."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Milo is intentionally provocative. But, most of the speakers being shut down are not provocative. Some are not even conservative. At William and Mary, they shut down someone from the ACLU who was trying to address free speech.

      Delete
    2. As usual, you are - like Somerby's post - full of shit.

      Delete
    3. Comrade DinC is very concerned about freedom of speech, 1st amendment rights, and shit like that.

      That is why he supports a fucking fascist abomination who says things like this continually:

      "Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!" he said in a message on Twitter.

      "It's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write," Trump said. "And people should look into it."

      ***
      At a rally in Phoenix on Tuesday night, Trump delivered a 30-minute diatribe in which he lambasted the “damned dishonest” press. The president accused the media of exacerbating racial divisions, attacking ordinary Americans, giving a platform to hate groups and of “trying to take away our history and our heritage.”

      “If you want to discover the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and the crooked media,” he said.

      “This was a hateful, derisive speech,” Scarborough said. “It was a frightening speech. He sounded like an autocrat trying to dehumanize his allies.”

      There are many adjectives to sum up Trump's speech. Petty. Incoherent. Defensive. Deceptive. But maybe the most important: Unhinged. Nicholas Kristof

      ****
      The Washington Post’s conservative opinion writer Jennifer Rubin said the address was “horrifying, dishonest and raises issue of mental stability.”

      Axios political reporter Mike Allen said in his morning newsletter that Trump had endangered the safety of reporters covering the rally by pointing them out to the crowd.

      White House press pool reporter David Boyer, of The Washington Times, noted in his dispatch that “during this portion, the crowd in front of the press section is turning around more frequently to glare at reporters and shout epithets.”

      “It was as if Trump, who was introduced by Vice President Pence, was taunting the rowdy crowd to turn on reporters,” Allen wrote.

      “In this fevered environment, some journalist could get beaten, or worse,” he said.
      *****

      Yes, DinC is very concerned about freedom of speech. That's why he supports a fucking fascist.

      Delete
    4. mm, you shouldn't confuse Trump's words with his actions. Talking about shutting down stations isn't the same as actually shutting them down. BTW as I recall, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama talked about shutting down conservative radio hosts.

      Delete
    5. David, he is the President of the US, arguably the most powerful single person on the face of this planet. His words have impact and his words are corrosive to civilized discourse. He words betray his total ignorance of our constitution and they reveal his fascistic instincts.

      Trump lies constantly. The news media accurately reports his false statements. Then he goes on a rant attacking the media calling it fake news. This is corrosive and is having an impact.

      More than three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent think the news media invent stories about Trump and his administration, compared with only 11 percent who don’t think so.

      You have repeatedly stated here in defense of trump's constant stream of lies that he does it for a purpose. What purpose is he trying to achieve by lying about the media? Answer that.

      Delete
    6. mm -- Some people think it's a violation of their Freedom of Speech when someone criticizes something they said. This characteristic is mostly seen among liberal college students. McCain, Romney and the two Bushes were too polite to fight back against biased media, so liberals are unaccustomed to Trump's (justified) rudeness

      IMHO the mainstream media deserve Trump's criticism. Jimmy Carter explained it:

      — President Trump has an unexpected defender: Jimmy Carter.

      “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. "I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

      Carter also defended Trump against claims that the current president's aggressive style is souring U.S. relations with the world.


      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/22/jimmy-carter-media-has-been-harder-trump-than-predecessors/788558001/

      As an example of spin, the next sentence in this article is:

      Perhaps Carter is seeking to placate Trump as part of a job interview:

      Business Insider reported,
      Some political pundits on the Sunday morning talk shows speculated whether Carter was positioning himself for a job in Trump's administration by complimenting the president in the press.

      If a Republican were defending a Democrat, the media would assume that the defense was sincere and valid. They would then follow up on the implications of that defense.

      But, when Democrat Jimmy Carter defended Trump, the media considered it their job to immediately provide a reason to doubt Carter's sincerity.

      Delete
    7. Evidence of media bias against Trump and his Administration is everywhere. Here's one I just came across

      No, Rick Perry Didn’t Say ‘The Best Way To Prevent Rape Is Oil’

      In their rush to smear a Trump cabinet member, the media once again not only exposed their zeal to mislead readers but their breathtaking hypocrisy and shameful lack of compassion.


      http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/03/no-rick-perry-didnt-say-best-way-prevent-rape-oil/

      BTW when I was in Zimbabwe and Botswana I was struck by how much better off the people would be with fossil fuel-based electricity. But, there's a school of thought that doesn't want these countries to develop coal or oil based electricity, on environmental grounds.

      Delete
    8. Comrade DinC is Exhibit A, the true blooded hardcore Trump fan. The kind of person who watches Fox NOOZ 24/7 or listen to right wing hate radio every day and come away with the belief that McConnell, McCain and Romney were too weak.

      Today he exposes he bizarre black is white upside down world view that Senator John McCain was unfairly treated by the media. Yes, you heard that right.

      The writer of this blog has spent years documenting in painstaking detail the candidate McCain received from the political press. And Comrade DinC has read it all. Yet he has the fucking colossal gall to shit down little turd on the comments of this blog, claiming her unfairly McCain was treated by the press.

      It is impossible to connect on any serious intellectually honest level with someone as seriously brainwashed as Comrade DinC. That is why TDH basic premise is wrong, someone like DinC is to be mocked and shunned. Outreach is not possible. I'm done.

      Delete
    9. David in Cal,
      You're not fooling anyone with your claims of not being a bigot. It shows through every time you post here. Accept it. We have.

      Delete
    10. This is the kind of unfair press Senator McCain received during his campaign:


      ******************************
      Richard Cohen finally took the ride that all of CelebCorps was talking about. Later, still excited from all the straight talk, the pundit described his experience:


      COHEN: Oddly enough, in all the analysis I've read of McCain's unanticipated success, the word "fun" is never mentioned. But the man is having fun. A trip on his bus is, well, a trip. You laugh and laugh—at least I do—and when, once, I asked him why in the world he would talk to the press hour after hour, totally on-the-record, he said it was "fun." He was having fun.

      Welcome to the Fantasy Camp of Election 2000 press coverage. Middle-aged pundits clamber on McCain's bus, and he rides them around, with free doughnuts. He even says how much fun it is to be able to talk with all of the scribes. Sometimes, he takes the flattery further. We reported this back in December (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/15/99):


      WILLIAM GREIDER: [C]andidate McCain's greatest asset is the friendly press...McCain returns the affection. He likes to be around reporters as much as other conservatives loathe them. "Most reporters are smart people," he explains. "I enjoy the exchanges."

      Most reporters are smart people? When we first read that, we knew right away—this guy will say anything to win!

      At any rate, we were surprised to learn from Cohen's piece that he hadn't seen anyone mention the fun. In fact, almost every profile of the Straight Talk Express explains how much fun it all is.

      Back in October, there was Greider: "In other words, [McCain]'s having fun." More recently, Maureen Dowd went on the tour, and came back with a joke to retell:


      DOWD: He reminisced about an exotic dancer he had once dated. "Marie, the Flame Thrower of Florida," he said. Asked what she was like, he replied, "She was pretty volatile," and then slapped his knee and laughed, "Har, har, har!"

      Maybe you just had to be there.

      Anyway, how "odd" was it that Cohen didn't know that other profiles had stressed all the fun? Pretty odd, because David Von Drehle had profiled the fun one week earlier, right in Cohen's own paper. We'll have to admit, we cringed a bit as Von Drehle described the "bull session:"

      VON DREHLE: Now a Happy Warrior is plying the roads of New Hampshire in a big white bus that rings with laughter...The rolling bull session has become the must-see show of the presidential campaign. In recent days, senior brass from the Wall Street Journal, ABC News and the New York Times have all scored tickets for the primo seat: an easy chair beside McCain.
      *******************


      VON DREHLE: Now a Happy Warrior is plying the roads of New Hampshire in a big white bus that rings with laughter...The rolling bull session has become the must-see show of the presidential campaign. In recent days, senior brass from the Wall Street Journal, ABC News and the New York Times have all scored tickets for the primo seat: an easy chair beside McCain.

      Delete
    11. "BTW when I was in Zimbabwe and Botswana I was struck by how much better off the people would be with fossil fuel-based electricity."

      Who knew there wasn't sun, water, or wind in Zimbabwe and Botswana?
      And yes, there is nothing like the spewing carcinogens into the environment, to show how you deeply care for others.

      Delete
    12. mm - you're half right. McCain WAS treated very well by the press as long a he was criticizing other Republicans. But, when he was actually running for President against a Democrat, the media turned on him and his ticket.

      I think you will recall considerable media criticism of his chosen VP candidate. Much of it was unfair. E.g., one could go back and find media who seriously reported that his VP candidate said she could see Russia from her house, when she had actually made the sensible statement that she had had dealings with Russia, due to the proximity of Alaska and Russia.

      Delete
    13. David, you mean the media that slandered Gore non-stop, lying about what he said about his work in Congress on the internet? That media? You think Sarah Palin was a qualified VP pick?


      "Mr. President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke." --Sarah Palin, on how President Obama should deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, CPAC speech, March 8, 2014

      That was back in the old days, before you voted for a Putin apologist and treasonous Putin puppet.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousNovember 4, 2017 at 2:42 PM -- I hope you some day get the opportunity to visit a family in Zimbabwe. It's hard to imagine all the things their lives lack that you and I take for granted. This family lives in adequate housing, but they have virtually no possessions except for the clothing on their backs and a few cooking pots. They don't have computers, TV, recorded music, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, running water, up to date medical care, up to date transportation, refrigeration, etc., etc. Yes, their air isn't polluted and they don't add too much CO2 to the atmosphere. But, if you ever visited them, you wouldn't be so snarky about their living conditions.

      Delete
    15. Troll November 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM - your man in the White House is trying his best to bring all that to the 99.999% here in this country.

      He and his chosen political party are working their asses off to make the .0001% wealthier and wealthier by making that transformation a reality.

      You're a real SOB for warping 2:42's comment to infer that he/she/it doesn't care about the people in Zimbabwe when the comment took issue with your callous comment that they'd be better off with more pollution in their difficult lives.

      You're a real SOB.

      Sad.

      Delete
    16. AnonymousNovember 4, 2017 at 7:44 PM - let me try to be clear. There is a school of thought that sub-Saharan Africa shouldn't develop fossil-fuel based electric power. Instead, they should go directly to other sources of power: solar, wind, hydro-electric, etc. E.g., I believe Secretary of State Kerry once made a statement to this effect. Your comment and the comment by AnonymousNovember 4, 2017 at 2:42 PM suggest that you both hold this view. Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong about your view.

      This is a controversial POV. I disagree with it, because there is an enormous cost to not having fossil fuel-based power in today's world. Scientist Bjorn Lomborg explains my POV better than I can. I recommend reading his article, which begins
      Environmental campaigners like to insist that Africa should meet its energy needs through solar panels and wind turbines. But as long as fossil fuels remain cheaper than renewable energy, such prescriptions – as well-meaning as they may be – would cripple the continent's economic growth and leave hundreds of millions in poverty.
      https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/africa-needs-fossil-fuels-by-bj-rn-lomborg-2016-01?barrier=accessreg

      I don't mean to accuse you two commenters of not caring about African people. I just disagree with you about what policies would help them the most.

      Delete
    17. The key phrase in Lomborg's statement is "as long as fossil fuels remain cheaper". The cost of solar panels has dropped substantially. Plus solar and wind do not depend on an infrastructure the way fossil fuel does. If there were solar and wind in Puerto Rico there wouldn't be people still waiting to have electricity restored, especially in remote areas.

      Delete
    18. "mm, you shouldn't confuse Trump's words with his actions. "
      David in Cal makes a great point about the gullibility of those who believe the words of Trump. Whether you call them "naive", "morons", or "typical Right-wing idiots", it's never a good look.

      Delete
  10. According to Bob, Trump and Gillespie know how to talk to "average people" and Democrats do not. What does it say about average people if they're swayed by what can only be called racist messages whipping fear and hatred against non-whites? Or is it offensive (too PC) to use words like "racist"?

    Bob seems to think the answer is simple. The Sullivan quote suggests "left-populism" will do the trick. But Russ Feingold, a left-populist, ran behind Clinton in Wisconsin, home of many white midwesterners.

    I guess Bob means Democrats should embrace a softer but still racialized appeal to whites, since the evidence shows that approach works better than a more inclusive liberalism. He should at least own up to this belief rather than advocate an ahistorical fantasy (were those words too big and elitist, Bob?) that a class-based message of love and unity will galvanize a diverse coalition.

    Such a campaign has never succeeded in the United States, and the reason is race. Bob may not like this fact — and he might think it divisive and sectarian to point this out — but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. This dark history now drives our politics, and there's no magic candidate or set of words that will make it go away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And those "average" salt-of-the-earth Republican primary voters had a choice of 17 candidates. They chose the the single most unqualified, most racist, most intolerant of the bunch, and they continue to purge the last vestiges of sanity from their party.

      Delete
    2. @11:32 PM writes:

      >>>Bob seems to think the answer is simple. The Sullivan quote suggests "left-populism" will do the trick. But Russ Feingold, a left-populist, ran behind Clinton in Wisconsin, home of many white midwesterners.<<<

      I, myself, am big on running on "left-populism" so let me post a few numbers. Using the latest numbers posted by Wikipedia Sen. Johnson beat former Sen. Feingold by a larger percentage margin in Wisconsin than Trump beat Clinton by there. Johnson got 50.2% of the total votes for senator to Feingold's 46.8% while Trump won 47.2% of the total votes for president vs. Clinton's 46.45%.

      Feingold's vote total was 1.380 million vs. Clinton's 1.382 million with 29,000 more votes cast in the presidential election in Wisconisn than in the senate election.

      Here's the thing, Sen. Johnson was the beneficiary of a major influx of television money late in the cycle that was not matched by money for Trump. The Kochs et al. supported Johnson with funds, not Trump.

      Wisconsin 2016 may demonstrate that an underfunded "left-populist" message for a down ticket candidate can not out perform an Establishment Democratic message for the top of the ticket- but it doesn't do any worse.

      LINK

      LINK

      Delete
    3. Shorter - much, much shorter CMike: unicorns can't get elected unless they have boatloads of cash.

      Delete
    4. 11:55 PM,

      Unlike when Tip O'Neill's, "All politics is local" insight was operative, we've long since moved into a "All politics is national" electoral reality. Even the most admirable Democrats aren't going to succeed outside today's blue states(/districts) with any consistency unless their party becomes associated with a concise message that resonates with a substantial majority of Americans.

      That message won't be one that resonates with the moneyed class, or one that the moneyed class is going to sponsor, or one that prioritizes the interests of minority identity groups, but it is one that can win elections for Democrats across today's purple states.

      Delete
    5. There isn't one message for all people. You speak to individuals about the things that concern them most.

      Delete
    6. 11:41 PM,

      You're right, there isn't one message that will be attractive to all people. That's why the Dems should settle on "a concise message that resonates with a substantial majority of Americans."

      Delete
    7. Politics doesn’t work that way.

      Delete
    8. Oh yes, that's the way it's been working for twenty-five years.

      Delete
  11. News flash: In most red states, there are no swing voters. Aside from Florida, that's especially true in the deep red Solid South. There are independents or undecideds, but not nearly enough to swing an election. You're left with an intransigent bloc of Fox viewers, always ready to run a liberal out of town on a rail.

    I am hereby issuing a challenge to Bob Somerby:

    You say we liberals don't know how to talk to The Others. Why don't you show us how? If you really are a liberal (though I have my doubts about it), then forego for one stinking post the childish, sanctimonious insults, the endless script-typing of "liberals bad", the Orwellian statements like "liberals always try to jail their opponents when they lose", and show us lesser mortals how it's done. Take an issue, say climate change or gun control, or some equally toxic issue for Republicans, and write a post showing how you would speak to "The Others" about it. Remember, they are salivating like a pack of angry dogs, ready to take you down for even daring to believe in climate change or gun control or whatever. It sure would be a nice change from the endless, pointless negativity that Somerby launches into the digital ether. I mean it's not enough that the entire conservative world wants to rip us apart, but Somerby has to pile on too.
    I suspect he won't do it, since I've never seen him actually advocate for any liberal cause.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Donna Brazile’s accusations have vanished from most liberal websites as a document contradicting her has surfaced. The question now is why did she attack Hillary like this? No one seems to be blaming Elizabeth Warren for jumping on her bandwagon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David, have you figured out why Papadopoulos lied? Did someone in a position of authority tell him to lie and not to worry about getting caught?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caesar -- that's a plausible suggestion. Your guess is as good as mine.

      Delete