No one is going to ask them: We live in a nation which is now fighting the shithole versus shithouse wars. Meanwhile, in her review of the action for New York magazine, Margaret Hartmann makes this accurate point:
"Throughout the long weekend, the national conversation focused on whether or not the president said something racist, not the underlying policy issues."
When was it ever not thus? Meanwhile, discuss:
Is it possible that this continuing focus fits under our award-winning rubric, No Bait Left Behind?
However one assesses that point, this episode has had everything. Consider a few key junctures:
Last Tuesday, President Magoo said he'd favor a "clean" DACA bill (a bill involving no other provisions). He also said he'd sign whatever the heck Congress gave him.
Neither statement made any sense from the Trump perspective. For that reason, Magoo was forced to walk his statements back, perhaps with the help of distractions.
Two days later, he authored his "shithole or possibly shithouse" remarks, perhaps with a purpose in mind. Two Republican senators, Cotton and Perdue, have apparently built their defense of Donald J. Trump around the claim that he was misquoted, since he really said "shithouse," not "shithole," the way the Democrats said.
Trump's Magoo-like behavior is, by now, a given. We can't help wondering what Republican voters think of the distinction being sold by Cotton and Perdue. That said, it's long been clear that there's nothing so stupid that it can't be said as a major part of our discourse. Example:
In November 1999, Candidate Gore came under withering criticism for wearing suit jackets with three buttons, not the preferred number, two. That criticism was insane all by itself—but it led to escalating, crazy claims about what the three buttons meant. (Chris Matthews was especially crazy on that troubling point.)
This lunacy was being authored by mainstream and liberal figures, not by the right-wing machine. Fairly quickly, along came Arianna. In effect, she sewed a fourth button on Gore's suit jackets, saying this to Geraldo Rivera on his nightly CNBC program:
HUFFINGTON (11/9/99): Frankly, you know, what is fascinating is that the way he's now dressing makes a lot of people feel disconnected from him. And there was this marvelous story in one of the New Hampshire papers saying, “Nobody here—nobody here in Hanover, New Hampshire, wears tan suits with blue shirts.” You know, it's just—and buttons—all four buttons! You know, it's not just—it's just not the way most American males dress.Aside from the pre-existing craziness, there were no four-button suits. There was also no pushback from our liberal world about this whole insane discussion, which persisted for months. (Brian Williams played a leading role.)
Today, two senators are arguing shithouse v. shithole. They seem to be calling Senator Durbin a liar on the basis of this imagined distinction. For the record, there is no evidence supporting their apparent claim that Trump really said shithouse, not shithole. The entire discussion is patently nuts, and they may have invented their factual claim.
On its face, the behavior of Cotton and Perdue is insane. We can't help wondering what Trump voters think about this transparent lunacy, to the extent that average voters have heard about it.
That said, no one on cable is going to ask any voters. On cable, cable stars listen to cable stars talk. They virtually never ask Trump voters what they think, feel or believe about anything that happens.
They prefer to tell us what Trump voters think. They never quite bother to ask.
One last point. That talk about Gore's disturbing buttons was totally crazy too. But it happened in 1999, and it was performed by mainstream and liberal players, not by the right-wing press.
To this day. it's Hard Tribal Law. No career liberal will ever tell you that that lunacy occurred. That said, our culture turned crazy a long time ago, and our own tribe was deeply involved.
You will never hear those facts from our favorite corporate cable stars. They'll tell you that Cotton and Perdue are behaving crazily, which is perfectly accurate. They won't tell you that they themselves invented this culture of The Big Crazy quite a few years ago.
Our modern press culture is totally nuts. It's been that way for a very long time. It's low-IQ all the way down.
Many long years ago: The press corps spent November 1999 deconstructing Candidate Gore's deeply significant clothing.
His suits, his boots, his polo shirts? The number of buttons he wore on his suits? The color of that one brown suit? The height at which his pants were hemmed?
No part of the wardrobe went unfrisked. The motto of these giants was clear:
No Lunacy Left Behind
A few inane players extended this theme beyond that one crazy month. (On the whole, it gave way to December 1999, the month of Love Canal, the month which decided the race by cementing the GORE LIAR theme.) Brian Williams was one such wardrobe obsessive. Why not read Chapter 5 at How He Got There, our companion site?
You will never be told about this; it's neither allowed nor done. That said, this is what our species is like. Our species simply isn't real sharp, and that's at its less crazy moments.
"That talk about Gore's disturbing buttons was totally crazy too"
ReplyDeleteThe "crazy" discussion about shithouse/shithole stems from Trump's enablers, not the media. It is another in the long line of pathetic attempts at spin from those in power. The media is trying to shine a light on the Trump shitshow in this case. It is not a narrative, unlike those troubling buttons. Somerby's attempt to equate the two is an exercise in false equivalency, or propaganda.
What media are you watching?
DeleteThe one I have in front of me is talking about words, not policies. It's always he said/she said time on the tube.
Or, "Look what he's doing again!" Terrifically dumb and superficial.
Maybe you need to have a different media in front of you. Or recognize that it is news when Trump's enablers throw this shit out there, or flat out lie for him, and that mentioning the "hole/house" bs does not constitute the full discussion of this issue, even in the media you choose to have in front of you. In other words, it's not ALWAYS "he said/she said."
DeleteThe underlying policy issues of immigration are obvious.
ReplyDeleteNo one cares how the press covered Gore's wardrobe. He lost because he wouldn't challenge the results in Florida. He GAVE the election to Bush because he was too chicken to fight for what he had earned. He let them steal it from him.
Did he do that because of the way he dressed. We'll never know.
Trump is an abomination. There is nothing to press can say about him that will change that.
Meanwhile, some blogs are complaining that the only time black voters are interviewed about their responses to politics is on MLK Day. Has anyone asked immigrants how they feel about Tom Cotton?
WHO CARES ABOUT TRUMP VOTERS? No one. I don't. Their more rational family members don't. NO ONE CARES ABOUT THEM.
Somerby needs to lock himself in the bathroom and contemplate his sins, which are legion.
Sorry. Gore's close victory was the result of media insanity.
DeleteThat's an unproven assertion, @2:58.
DeleteDid the media cause him to lose his home state? Or ineffectively counter the stupid media coverage? Or pick Lieberman?
Or throw Clinton under the bus. Ir let Tipper attack rock n roll.
DeleteHi Bob,
ReplyDelete"Last Tuesday, President Magoo said he'd favor a "clean" DACA bill (a bill involving no other provisions). He also said he'd sign whatever the heck Congress gave him.
Neither statement made any sense from the Trump perspective. For that reason, Magoo was forced to walk his statements back, perhaps with the help of distractions"
President Magoo said this and president Magoo said that - that's all fascinating.
However, leaving acoustic waves aside: why won't your liberal brethren just pass a fucking DACA bill - one way or another? Clean DACA bill or a dirty one - any DACA bill?
Because, you see, the current program violates existing immigration laws, and thus any congressional opposition to killing it is pure demagoguery, the worst kind.
You don't seem to understand how the system works. The president has to sign a bill in order for it to become law. Trump was offered a bipartisan bill, a thing he claimed in his stable genius shitshow meeting that he would sign, but now says he won't sign this one, even though it addresses his concerns. He is the one being an ass. And using people's lives as political footballs.
DeleteThere is no bill - to sign or to refuse to sign. Pass a bill, put some shit in it that he would have to veto it, and only then act outraged.
DeleteBut I'll admit: lib-zombie outrage over president refusing to sign something that doesn't exist in nature might be a significant zombielogical discovery.
You still don't seem to understand. McConnell and Ryan determine what bills get to the floor, not the Democrats.
DeleteAre you talking to me, dear? If so, what does your silly caricature on congressional procedures have to do with President Magoo?
DeleteThe Democrats can't put forward their own bill, nor can they make changes to a Republican bill without Republican permission. You implied that the Dems should just pass a bill, or put some shit in it that Trump would veto. They can't do either. With President Magoo threatening to not sign the proposed bipartisan bill (he probably doesn't know the word "veto"), its passage is greatly in doubt, since they need far more votes to override a presidential "not-signing." Magoo's lack of leadership is jeopardizing the chance of any legislation. It's actually quite a simple matter to offer a clean bill and for Magoo to pledge to sign it. After all, Magoo proclaimed his love for the dreamers. So, he should show it.
DeleteDemocrats certainly can put forward their own bill. And work with the other side to pass it. That's exactly what their job is.
DeleteInstead, they bitch and whine and blame everybody else, and throw hissy fits because of some words uttered (allegedly) at a private meeting. The usual.
Graham(R)-Durbin(D) have a framework for a bill that Trump recently rejected. His attitude is important. Were he to have supported this approach, it had a good chance of passing. As it is, his flip-flopping will embolden the immigration hawks, who could torpedo any hope of a clean bill. Trump's supposed love for dreamers is looking like a sham. Surprise, surprise.
DeleteLike I said, Trump can't reject (in any meaningful sense of 'reject') a non-existing bill that hasn't been passed by the congress.
DeleteYou keep repeating bullshit talking points; why is that? Is that because it's all you have?
Mao, you're right, Trump can't "reject" a non-existent bill. It seems some democrat and republican senators came up with a proposed compromise which Trump said was a non-starter (after earlier saying he'd sign whatever compromise they passed). If Trump supported this there would be a better chance of something like that passing. If something like that passed, he could sign it or veto it. If he says right at the get go the compromise is a non-starter, that decreases the chances of it passing. As president, if he advocated for the compromise, even in its perhaps incipient stage, it certainly would increase the chances of republicans and others supporting it. If you were a nicer person, you'd refrain from the insults and (unwarranted) sarcasm over confusion about these fine points.
DeleteNothing says "anti-Establishment" like running interference for payday lenders. Amirite?
DeleteCongress' job is to pass legislations, in this case: a DACA equivalent. What Trump says or doesn't say is irrelevant.
DeletePresident's job is to enforce the laws. In this case, he feels that his job is to build that border fence he promised, the 'beautiful wall'. And he needs congress to finance it.
What you said:
"If he says right at the get go the compromise is a non-starter, that decreases the chances of it passing."
is a bullshit spin a demagoguery.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that if Democrats believed that he's definitely going to veto it, they would've rushed to pass it, get it vetoed, and then use that veto as an 'issue' to rally their pet zombies.
But they don't know for sure that he's going to veto it. And that's why they will try to stall it, and talk about shitholes, and about non-existing veto of the non-existing bill, and hope that their pet zombies will swallow it just the same.
All you have to do is ask if the Establishment wants it or not. If not, Trump will veto it, because Trump works hand in glove with the Establishment.
DeleteMao, I did a little checking, and see that Trump tweeted on Friday "The language used by me was tough, but this [use of word 'shithole' to describe certain countries/continents] was not the language used. . . . What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made - a big setback for DACA." So he called the compromise proposal from dem and GOP senators "outlandish" and a "big setback for DACA." After saying before he'd sign whatever was passed. What is different about this than what you characterize as a "bullshit spin a demagoguery?" If you think this stance about the proposed compromise decreases the chance of such a compromise passing as opposed to if he had embraced or endorsed the compromise, I have to disagree. (If what Trump says is irrelevant, his claim that it his job to build the border wall is similarly irrelevant, because for that to be done, Congress would have to vote for it).
Delete'and demagoguery', obviously.
DeleteNo, the congress doesn't have to vote for the border fence; border fence is not a law. It's a way to enforce the law. The congress allocates funds; it's a budgetary matter.
Now, DACA would be a new law. And, again, it doesn't matter what he says about DACA. If they, the congress, want to modify immigration law, they should do it. If it's popular and he vetoes it, he'll take a hit, pay the price. All there's to it.
Kind of weak, Mao. It's the same effect whether it's a new law that Congress must pass or for it to be done, Congress has to approve funding (and I'm assuming, arguendo, that Trump has executive authority to build a wall without a congressional act aside from the funding).
DeleteWell, it's "the same effect" only in the sense of the usual concept of 'checks and balances': president can veto a bill, congress can refuse to budget an executive initiative.
DeleteWhy can’t Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell bring a clean DACA bill to the floor of the House and Senate and pass it with bipartisan support over President Magoo’s veto? Every Democrat would vote for a clean DACA bill if it came up for a vote in the House and Senate. Why won’t Ryan and McConnell do that?
ReplyDeleteI am not a Trump voter. Tom Cotton is my senator (he said, gagging on his own vomit). I despise him. Does it matter what I think of him? Not to him it doesn't. And since I am not a Trump voter, it would seem that my opinion doesn't matter to Somerby either. The sea of red I live in enforces its own strict version of PC: liberals are the enemy; they are not to be seen or heard from. And no one from Fux News ever asked my opinion about anything, because they promote a caricature of liberals, one that, oddly enough, matches that promoted by Somerby on a daily basis.
ReplyDelete"They prefer to tell us what Trump voters think. They never quite bother to ask."
ReplyDeleteThis statement is a lie. I have seen discussions with Trump voters with my own itty-bitty eyes. Ad nauseam, as a matter of fact.
I'm surprised Somerby didn't take his 48,000 approach: There was a liberal talking about the 800,000 (Dreamers). But they weren't talking about the far larger number of the White Working Class, you know, those misunderstood souls sitting around in bars railing at immigrants. By Somerby's "logic", caring about the Dreamers means that libs don't care about those other poor stiffs. After all, you can't care about both. And you must always talk about every group every time you speak, else you open yourself up to the charge of not caring about whichever group you weren't discussing at that time. Anthropology!
ReplyDelete"On its face, the behavior of Cotton and Perdue is insane. We can't help wondering what Trump voters think about this transparent lunacy, to the extent that average voters have heard about it."
ReplyDeleteWe think it wouldn't have been covered at all if Obama said it, or dismissed as insignificant, so we don't care at all how it is defended or whether Cotton and Purdue are truthful on this point.
The same way the other side didn't care if Clinton committed perjury.
Perjury?
DeleteHe truly did not have "sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky..."
I think you have your answer, Bob.
DeleteThe behavior of Sen. Cotton and Sen. Perdue is not insane. They were there at Stephen Miller's behest to turn President Trump against the proposal to save DACA. The two Senators accomplished their mission, and hundreds of thousands of human beings will suffer needlessly as a result. This will make the Republican base very happy.
ReplyDeleteI learned all this from the media. The mainstream media. It's far from perfect but is usually still capable of publishing basic facts.
I heard, with my own ears, discussions for the past several nights on the hated MSNBC where the guest specifically said we shouldn't focus on the verbiage "hole/house" but on the policy. And lo and behold, they discussed the policy. I call bullshit on Somerby.
ReplyDeleteThey discussed it for 20 seconds before getting back to sex and scandal. Haha.
DeleteQuit lying to yourself fool.
Off topic: Another blogger has a well-written criticism of the NY Times. http://www.smartertimes.com/1581/centrist-lee-zeldin
ReplyDeleteWell, damnit, Trump got a perfect score on his exam for cognitive impairment. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have doctors go on TV and speculate. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/trump-health-exam-doctor-cognitive-test.html
ReplyDeleteThe mental status exam has questions on it like “Who is the President of the US?” and write your name in the space below. It is not an achievement to pass it.
DeleteIt's a test for cognitive impairment and Trump requested it even though it was not indicated. Trump is not suffering from dementia as everyone who isn't insane already knew. Now he gets to laugh at his opponents.
DeleteMaybe Trump's racism will reduce the surging murder rate of blacks in big cities that white liberals caused.
Delete12:40,
DeleteThat's what impeaching Obama for putting dijon mustard on his sandwich was supposed to do.
Brown v Board of Ed stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." From a legal POV that was a good reason to end the ugly practice of legal discrimination. In 1954 all black segregated schools were indeed unequal. But, is that inequality inherent?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. For one thing, in 1954, Dunbar High School, a black school in Washington, D.C., was providing outstanding education. In 1954, black schools received worse funding, worse facilities, etc. Today, that situation no longer exists.
IMHO it would be better to focus on how to improve education regardless of race.
No, it's not inherent any more than sex segregated schools. Theoretically blacks could learn and perform better if educated in segregated schools.
DeleteIt is unequal because of what it implies about social status in the US. That has not changed.
DeleteWhat do Trump voters think about Cotton?
ReplyDeleteThey wish it would have picked itself.
ReplyDeletehello!!!My name is Veronican schuler.
Am writing this article to appreciate the good work of DR Abiodun that helped me recently to bring back my wife that left me for another man for no reason for the past 8 months . After seeing a post of a woman on the Internet testifying of how she was helped by DR ABiodun. I also decided to contact him for help because all i wanted was for me to get back my wife happiness and to make sure that my child grows up with his mother. Am happy today that he helped me and i can proudly say that my wife is back with so much love and joy like never before thanks Dr contact email drabioduntemple@gmail.com