BREAKING: King blames Russkies and Trump for "Woke Blacks!"

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2018

Fails to mention woke blacks:
In this morningt's Washington Post, Colbert King writes two-thirds of an important column.

Working from recent Mueller indictments, he describes part of the process which sent Donald J. Trump to the White House. Specifically citing the Russians' "Woke Blacks" site, he blames Trump and the Russkies for what occurred.

But alas! He forgets to blame the New York Times—and he forgets to blame woke blacks!

At the start of his two-thirds of a column, King describes "the efforts of the Trump campaign and the Russians to suppress the votes of groups likely to support Hillary Clinton" back in 2016.

He notes the way the Russkies "deceitfully created theme-oriented groups with names suggesting a connection to the Black Lives Matter movement...on social media sites." "Blacktivist" was the name of one such Russian-run group, King correctly notes.

By 2016 "the many Russian-controlled groups had attracted hundreds of thousands of online followers," King correctly notes, citing the Mueller indictments. At this point, he goes where the rubber meets the road, citing two-thirds of the problem:
KING (2/24/18): But just as the Russians attempted, according to the indictment, “to encourage U.S. minority groups not to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to vote for a third-party U.S. presidential candidate,” a similar operation was underway in the United States, as skillfully reported by Bloomberg’s Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg.

The Trump campaign’s digital nerve center in San Antonio set in gear its own strategy: Don’t expand the electorate; shrink it. Turn off likely Clinton voters found among blacks and moderate-to-liberal white women.

Russia and the Trump campaign were calling plays out of the same playbook.
Doggone it! The Russians were trying to suppress turnout among women and blacks—and the Trump campaign was playing the same game! As he continues, King mentions a particular play by the Russkies—and he blows past one-third of the problem:
KING (contiuning directly): Clinton, like most Democratic presidential candidates, needed the overwhelming support of black voters. So the Trump campaign went after a 20-year-old Clinton suggestion, made at the time of President Bill Clinton’s tough-on-crime criminal-justice overhaul, that some young black males are “super predators.” The Trump operatives figured that would chill the interest of black voters in going to the polls, especially in a key state such as Florida.

On Oct. 24, 2016, Bloomberg reported, Trump’s team began placing spots about the “super predator” line on select African American radio stations and through nonpublic Facebook posts controlled by the Trump campaign. It was laser-focused so that, as a Trump campaign operative put it, “only the people we want to see it, see it.”...

Around the same time, the Russian operation launched its fake “Woke Blacks” account to post the following message, as stated in Mueller’s indictment: “Particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.”
Doggone it! The Trump campaign was trying to discourage blacks from voting. So were the Russians, King says, through their "Blacktivist" and "Woke Blacks" sites.

They did so, King seems to say, through use of that stupid "super-predators" crap. Was this enough to let Trump win? King doesn't state a view on that point.

King is angry at Trump and Putin for all this "Woke Blacks"/"super-predator" crap. That said, he forgets to mention the parallel efforts in 2016 by any number of leading woke blacks, perhaps including the very group he named, Black Lives Matter!

Consider Patrisse Khan-Cullors' new best-seller, When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir. We've been recommending the book all week, and we'll continue to do so. But Khan-Cullors plays the "super-predators" card at various points in the book, including in this early passage, in which she describes the war on crime in the low-income Los Angeles of her childhood and youth:
KHAN-CULLORS (page 57): Kids were being sent away simply for being alive in a place where war had been declared against us. And the propaganda, the rationalizing of how much we needed to be destroyed, we the generation called super-predators, was promoted by people who were Republicans and Democrats, and, save for a few, Black as well as white.
On a recent C-Span After Words program, Toure challenged Khan-Cullors about the way Black Lives Matter, in effect, sat out the Trump-Clinton election. (Click here, move to roughly 44:00.) For better or worse—it's a matter of judgment—Khan-Cullors offered these thoughts as part of her response:
KHAN-CULLORS (2/10/18): Let me say this. The tactic of taking on the Democratic Party I think was very useful in that moment, and still is, because the Democratic Party has really milked the black voters, and has historically really not been on our side, and in fact have been some of the biggest proponents of mass criminalization of black communities. So it was very important to intervene on this idea that we were going to have our lives saved by Hillary Clinton...

But I think for folks across the country, including the Democratic Party, we didn't believe he was going to win. And that actually is the factor here. We didn't believe he was going to win, and so the time that people spent, the time that the Democratic Party spent—because I don't want to blame our movement for the reason why Trump got in office; I know you're not doing that, but some people might see it as such—they could have done a much better job at who they decided to run for president.
In the end, does that analysis make sense? In the end, that's a matter of judgment. Khan-Cullors knows much more about "mass criminalization" than most people do. It's a topic which won't be discussed on our "corporate liberal" cable news channel. On MSNBC, that part of the world simply doesn't exist.

Each person will have to decide whether Khan-Cullors' overall statement makes sense. For ourselves, the suggestion that Khan-Cullors might have taken a different approach had she realized that Trump could win tends to undercut the analysis. It tends to throw Khan-Cullors in with decades of feckless liberal/progressive elites, including the clueless thought leaders who kept insisting, right to the end, that Trump couldn't win that election.

King rails today about the way Putin and Trump were urging blacks not to vote. That said, a substantial array of "woke black" leaders took the same approach all through the Trump-Clinton election.

On one occasion, in 1996, Candidate Clinton had uttered the word "super-predators." She had uttered the word at a time when it was in fairly widespread use with reference to acts of hideous criminality which were occurring within various communities, at a time when overall crime rates were much higher than they are today.

It would be absurd to say, as Khan-Cullors might seem to have said in her book, that Clinton was branding a whole "generation" on the one occasion when she uttered that word. Nor was Clinton necessarily referring to young black males and to no one else, as King suggests in his column.

On the one occasion when she uttered the word, Clinton made no such declaration. In our view, Clinton was a weak candidate this time around, but many things which have been said about her have been very weak and extremely unhelpful—and those unhelpful declarations dated back almost twenty-five years by November 2016.

Khan-Cullors has every right to her overall view. It may or may not make sense in the end, especially if we agree to ignore the "we didn't think Trump could win" part of her overall statement.

Regarding King's column, we'll lodge a basic complaint. He's happy to hammer Trump and Putin for urging black voters not to vote—but he fails to note that many "woke black" thought leaders were advancing the same idea in 2016. That's where Putin got it!

At one point in his column, King also scolds Trump and Putin for "[seeking] to turn off young women by rolling out the women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual improprieties." Inevitably, he fails to mention the egregious way the New York Times played that card in September 2016. That conduct by the New York Times was part of a 24-year war which sent George W. Bush, then Donald J. Trump, to the White House. To this day, people like King and Chait and all the rest refuse to discuss that history-changing fact.

(Kevin Drum keeps citing one New York Times front page and pretending it's granted him sainthood. His work on lead abatement has been sensational. In our view, he still has a long way to go regarding the upper-end press corps.)

The Russians created the "Woke Blacks" site, then played the "super-predator" card. For better or worse, leading woke blacks had done the same thing for two years.

As always, such things can't be acknowledged or discussed. We happily blame The Others, breeze right past ourselves.

The "career liberal" world still won't discuss the long war the Post and the Times both waged. To this day, rank and file liberals cannot be told about the conduct in which they engaged. Has any group ever been more committed to the code of silence?

Final note: Rachel would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she'd discuss those decades of misconduct by the Post and the Times.

Dearest darlings, use your heads! When you're a major corporate star, it just wouldn't be prudent!

78 comments:

  1. Given that the Post and the Times were behaving just like everyone else, there is no reason for Maddow to single them out, or call them out.

    Somerby’s weak support for Clinton, justified by his false claim that she was a weak candidate, is the best example of why she lost. Somerby was taken in by Bernie’s Russia-funded attack on Clinton, cleverly disguised as a campaign. He too should have known better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was wondering which Perry this was, turns out it's "Tail-gunner Perry."

      Delete
    2. Turns out you're a legend in your own mind.

      Delete
    3. There’s only one Perry here. Either make an argument or shut the fuck up.

      Delete
    4. The reply at 5:01 PM is all the trouble you're worth Tail-gunner Perry, though I see at 11:55 PM you're trying to pose as bad-ass Perry (now that's a stretch), but here you go anyway LINK.

      Delete
    5. Right, you’re an asshole who thinks name-calling is discussion. Fuck off.

      Delete
    6. Ladies and gentlemen, The Resistance.

      Delete
    7. As opposed to the block-quoting revolutionary who wrote in a non-candidate for president in 2016.

      Delete
  2. By 2016 "the many Russian-controlled groups had attracted hundreds of thousands of online followers."

    So why didn't they announce that they had found Russian interference in our election back in 2016 (when it could have made a difference)? If this is a crime, why didn’t one of our 17 secret spy agencies (that collects every bit of data that exists) shut this stuff down and start making arrests back in 2016?! Didn’t the Obama government care about our democracy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arrests for what? Posting on Facebook? Being stupid enough to fall for postings on Facebook?

      Delete
    2. That's what I'm asking--are these crimes?

      Delete
    3. Did the Republicans and the rightwing really need help trashing Hillary and doing op-research from the Russians? That’s laughable! Hildabeast, Clintons have murdered, and various other smears have existed for decades on talk radio continuously around the clock since 1991.

      Delete
  3. Colbert King is "angry"? That isn't an accurate description of King's piece. He is merely examining the way the Russian meddling mirrored the Trump campaign stategy. It is one aspect of what went on in the 2016 election. He is not suggesting any definitive proof of collusion.

    "That said", why did Clinton lose? Let's examine Somerby's reasons: "woke blacks", The NY Times, MSNBC, Maddow of course, liberal elites etc etc.

    But then Mr Somerby says this: "In our view, Clinton was a weak candidate this time around."

    Hmm. How many other so-called progressives/liberals felt this way? If the statement is true (It must be because Bob said it), then all of those other so-called factors may have been outweighed by this one factor. But of course, the Howler demands liberals rally around their (weak) candidate without himself doing so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "How many other so-called progressives/liberals"? I can't quantify it, however, perhaps your head was in the sand if you believe it was not there. Charles Pierce at Esquire is one example. He said that she was "flawed," and she was due mostly to the propaganda and bullshit from the media since 1992.

      Delete
    2. Was she weak because she was weak, or because the media made her weak? Somerby says she was weak. That's all I know. One imagines a "strong" candidate could win, no? Whatever the cause of her weakness, Somerby doesn't say what you are saying. He didn't say "flawed", he said "weak." That seems to be an assessment of her political skills.

      Delete
    3. It seems pretty clear that what was weak was Somerby's support of Clinton. Yet he blames all other liberals but himself for her defeat. Including, I might add, Clinton herself.

      Delete
    4. Michael Moore warned that she would lose Michigan, and probably the election. Detroit dem votes were down from 2012 by 200k, that was enough to turn the election to Trump. Same story in Wisconsin, Penn, Florida, NC. Why didn’t Dems fight the voter suppression that they knew was taking place? Hillary spent a ton of money (way more than Trump) , did she spend it to counteract the suppression--make sure all dems have ID and are registered, and get them to the polls even if they have to drive them there?

      Delete
    5. She filed lawsuits and funded recounts. What more should she do?

      Delete
    6. "She filed lawsuits and funded recounts. What more should she do?"

      It doesn't matter what you do after the election. I'm talking about before the election. Dem leaders didn't protect their voters and make sure they turned out. Maybe they didn't want to win.

      Delete
    7. They did all of that. No one who has analyzed the election has faulted Clinton’s GOTV effort. She was in PA constantly and still lost there. She got rat-fucked and that was not her fault. Calling her weak is injustified by the facts but convenient for folks like Somerby who didn’t support her. History will be unkind to Bernie, I predict.

      Delete
    8. Bernie got 20% of all primary votes, 13 million, compared to Trump's 14 million and Hillary's 16 million. If years of leadership by corporate Democrats left that much disaffection among people who clearly despise the right and their policies then they are surely doing something wrong. 20% of Americans on the left side of the spectrum were clearly upset by the weak performance of corporate Democrats. They should be your strongest supporters. What did I do to alienate them--that's the question corporate Dems should be asking themselves--not blaming things on some obscure blogger.

      Delete
    9. Bernie owes his success to Russia as surely as Trump does and he helped make Trump president. I cannot see how that has helped our nation.

      Delete
    10. It had to be the Russians brainwashing Americans into believing they were unhappy when in fact they were extremely happy. Never mind that polls showed that more than 60% of Americans consistently thought that the country was on the wrong track throughout Obama's presidency. Never mind...or maybe it was 13 Russian bloggers sitting in an office that caused all that dissatisfaction. Yeah, that's the ticket!

      Delete
    11. Have fun playing with your “happiness” strawman. Then google Tad Devine, Bernie’s campaign manager. Explain how someone like that wound up in charge of Bernie’s campaign. Then explain Bernie’s unusually large number of FEC violations.

      Delete
    12. I voted for her but I thought she was extremely weak. She didn't stir the people's souls. She made the deplorables comment. She was literally weak in her favorabilty ratings which were some of the weakest in history. Rightly are wrongly, she had hella baggage. She picked a boring vice president and didn't engage Bernie supporters. Her slogan reeked of Madison Avenue bs which what is exactly what the electorate seem to be fed up with. You could see from the Trump crowds people felt powerless and we're looking for and alternative to entrenched power brokers that control the entrenched columns of power in our country and she seemed totally oblivious to this and plowed forth with her same old boilerplate bullshit that, I'm sorry, people could smell a mile away.

      She was a totally, totally shity can today. She was only there because she was married to Bill. She was a legacy. If she hadn't been, she would not have even been there, not even close.

      It's not hard to see what a weak candidate she was if you take your blinders off

      Delete
    13. Ask yourself where her baggage came from.

      Delete
    14. Why? It doesn't matter. She was weak regardless. It could've come straight from Saint Augustine. It could've come from the devil, doesn't matter. I know that she has been a victim and a scapegoat but that's exactly why she was a weak candidate. Fair or unfair, the reality is what matters.

      I wasn't surprised at all when she lost.

      Delete
    15. It does matter. Kerry didn’t deserve being swiftboated either.

      Comey, Russian Facebook propaganda, polling manipulation, hacking (Wikileaks/Podesta and DNC database), funding of Stein & Sanders by foreign govts, press malfeasance, none of these things are part of a normal election process, much less all of them combined. She was not weak — the election was stolen. When Mueller finishes we will know how and by whom. In the meantime, 538 has been documenting the deviance from normal. No analyst with campaign experience has called her weak. She would have won under normal circumstances.

      Delete
    16. There's an article from the Washington Post before the election where more than a dozen Clinton ­allies identified the glaring weaknesses in her candidacy that eventually contributed to her defeat.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-supporters-agree-clinton-has-weaknesses-as-a-candidate-what-can-she-do/2016/05/15/132f4d7e-1874-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.124e252d68f3

      I mean, are you stupid or what? Of course she was terribly weak as a candidate. So weak that they even rigged the primaries for her against a candidate that would've beat Trump.

      It's true she had to go up against a lot of nasty stuff. You think for an interference and pulling manipulation or new phenomenon? Hey, they don't give that job away, Junior.

      What the hell is the matter with you?

      Stop scapegoating.

      She was weak and you are weak

      Delete
    17. So you must be pleased with the way things are going since your preferred candidate has been president for a year, Anonymous 7:37 PM.

      Feel the orange!

      Delete
    18. So weak that they even rigged the primaries for her ...

      Hey, what a coincidence. That pretty much one of the strategies used by the Russians to sow distrust in the political process.

      **********
      By in or around May 2014, the ORGANIZATION’s strategy included interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of “spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.”
      ************

      It's amazing. Even with the Mueller indictments, clowns in the US are still pushing the same bullshit. You would think they would have the decency to shut the fuck up right about now. But they're too fucking stupid and clueless to realize what a bunch of stupid willing dupes they were.

      Yes, the primary was "rigged" by getting 4 million more voters to vote for her. You don't speak for the millions of voters who enthusiastically supported her as the Democratic Party nominee, asshole.




      Delete
    19. I guess it's true rigged is too strong a word. They preferred her. She controlled them which wasn't really proof of her weakness although it was another one of her many weaknesses because it didn't allow the party any flexibility to nominate a candidate that people liked who could win.

      She came damn close. But she didn't pull it off though. People didn't like her. You have to be someone upon whom people can project their highest ideals and the best parts of themselves. You were able to do that. But not enough people could. People don't like her. She was a weak, shitty candidate.

      If youI think Mueler is going to come along and offer you a scapegoat for her weak, campaign, I regret to inform you, you are going to be surprised again and again, be sitting there with your Dick in your hand, a loser. You're a permanent loser now. Democrats are permanently losers. Their problems are very very deep and they are very easy to beat. They were beat by one of the world's biggest huckster fools!


      Democrats have deep problems. This author tries to point them out. But they are too far gone I think.


      Anyway, let's hope I'm wrong.

      Delete
    20. Let's take the gun issue for example. I liked Al Gore, a good solid progressive with vision and foresight. He wasn't my first choice but he pretty much had a clear field for the nomination. Bradley, the darling of the media as documented here many times - well, it seems "people didn't like him".

      However, Gore completely ducked the gun issue - chickened out and virtually ran away from the NRA. Where'd that get him? He didn't even win his own state. The geniuses in WV were sold the bill of goods that he was coming to take their guns.

      One of the things I most admired about Hillary Clinton was her unblinking courage to take on the NRA directly without pulling any punches. Her opponent used that against her by suggesting on several occasions that 2nd amendment gun nuts might have to assassinate her. Dickheads like you who claim "people didn't like her" (yeah, no shit Sherlock, just Friday the president lead the CPAC audience in more "lock her up chants" on the very day his deputy campaign manager agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with Mueller) had her back a little more the results might have been different. But no, you let the wingnuts and media smear her throughout the entire election. The Democrats don't have deep problems, this country has.

      Delete
    21. The Democrats have deep problems my friend. I voted for her. The original poster in this string was trying to claim that she didn't have any weaknesses! One of her weaknesses was that people didn't like her. So tell him no shit Sherlock, idiot, true believing, faggot cunt dick.

      I'll come back to Lord over your dumb ass when Mueller is finished and it's proven that he's taking your stupid ass for the proverbial ride.

      Your a True Believer. You don't see it. You don't know yet. But you will see. I know you mean well. It's not really your fault at all that you are blind.

      Delete
    22. The problem with Democrats is they don't appeal to anyone except faggot dick heads like the guy here.

      Delete
    23. 10:34, I don't know why you keep implying that the Mueller investigation has anything to do with my opinion on this subject. Up until the time she began running in 2015, she had high favorability polling, greater than 60%.

      I do not disagree that her favorability polling numbers went down from then on. We disagree on the reason for that phenomenon. I saw a very coordinated deliberate campaign by the republicans aided and abetted by the mainstream media to accomplish that goal. It is interesting how the media started polling for "likability" and "honesty and trustworthiness" just about exactly the time she began her primary campaign and stopped for those vague ambiguous terms exactly the time the election was over.

      Delete
    24. Clinton''s "weakness" was in not telling the citizenry she, as President, will keep minorities in their place.
      It cost her the election, no doubt.

      Delete
    25. Here: Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It’s Important

      ...Adolph Reed Jr. begging (on August 18, 2016) the non-zombified Democrats out there to vote against Donald the Magnificent, and thus, alas, for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger (aka HRC).

      And that's the story in a nutshell: anyone who appeared to have voted for her - they all, in fact, voted against Trump, not for her.

      Liberal scumbag-bosses thought that hate-mongering was going to win presidency, and they lost.

      Now they believe that their super-amplified, squealing hate-mongering is going to win the midterm. We'll see.

      Delete
    26. Here: Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It’s Important

      The man was being sardonic, jackass, and you took it literally.

      Good read though, but I can't take a grown man who decided to sit out three consecutive elections too seriously.

      Often enough, the “never Hillary” stance is blinded by a demonization of Clinton that frankly seems irrational.

      Yes, it's called Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and it is incurable and terminal.

      In reality, most people vote against the other guy rather than for their candidate. I can't tell you how many people I know who voted for Trump said they had to hold their nose but they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary. How many people do you think voted for LBJ because it was unthinkable to vote for Goldwater.

      Negative advertising: how does it work.

      Delete
    27. mm - they were high before she announced she was running because people were happy with her because she wasn't running. they went down after she announced she was running because people don't like her and didn't want her as a candidate and they were not happy she was running. and of course the republicans and media are going to go after her and beat her to hell. that's another reason for people not to like her as a candidate. this is the real world son. The republicans and the media are always going to put the beat down on the Dem candidate. We have to put a person there that can withstand it.

      she came real close to squeaking it through. didn't make it though. too bad. it would have been better. trump got there by recognizing the powerlessness of the people. he engaged them. he stirred their souls. something she is not capable of and never was.

      she has to take the blame. scapegoating her weaknesses will make it harder for you to see the real picture next time. stop smoking so much dope.

      Delete
    28. DNC Lawyers Argue Primary Rigging Is Protected by the First Amendment.

      The defense counsel for the DNC appeared to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then it was protected under the first amendment.



      "The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case at a loss for words.

      The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz."

      Delete

    29. . To be clear, Defendants deny all allegations that they favored or were biased toward or against any candidate in the course of the 2016 presidential primary, but even accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations at face value as is appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage, the continued maintenance of this action threatens serious injury to the DNC’s—and to all political parties’—well-established First Amendment rights.

      Delete
    30. Haha. That's why they are being sued. If hey didn't deny it, they would lose the case and millions of dollars. They are lying. You are one stupid fuck aren't you? You believe anything!

      Delete
    31. There is no case, jackass. This hokey nuisance lawsuit has already been summarily dismissed twice. This is their final swing at the bat.

      Delete
  4. "the Russian operation launched its fake “Woke Blacks” account"

    There's nothing 'fake' about it. It's still (albeit probably not for long) the World Wide Web, where anyone is perfectly entitled to create any account they wish.

    Obviously, the US is now going the way of China, with the establishment endorsing censorship, monitoring, and repressions. However, until the legal framework is in place, any social network account is just as good as any other.

    As for 'suppressing the vote', yeah, some famous Russian trolls have done it before:
    "If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal."
    "Don't vote, it only encourages them."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Trump just stands idly by while the Establishment works its will. Poor, weak man. Hopefully he can stop them before it's too late.

      Delete
    2. 'Obviously, the US is now going the way of China, with the establishment endorsing censorship, monitoring, and repressions.'

      'Mao' says China rather than Russia since he can't really criticize his employer

      Delete
    3. "Obviously, the US is now going the way of China, with the establishment endorsing censorship, monitoring, and repressions."

      No, it is not obvious, because it is horseshit you pulled out of your ass. I honestly don't understand why you waste your time being an unconvincing troll on this crank's small website, everything you write is a waste of time.

      Delete
  5. Trump is a liar and a thief.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The superpredators were a real problem. Because of lead, there were unusually many depraved criminals. This problem receded in the 1990s, not because of the crime bill, but because leaded gasoline had been phased out in the 1970s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. This might be the best excuse yet.

      Delete
    2. May I suggest that liberal zombieism, as observed in these comment threads, can be easily explained by excessive glue-sniffing.

      Delete
    3. No you may not.

      Delete
    4. All the kids wanna sniff some glue.

      Delete
  7. Can’t much argue with with a word of this. If the DH was this good every day he might get his readership back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The hypocrisy! It burns, it burns!

      Delete
  8. “That conduct by the New York Times was part of a 24-year war which sent George W. Bush, then Donald J. Trump, to the White House….The "career liberal" world still won't discuss the long war the Post and the Times both waged. To this day, rank and file liberals cannot be told about the conduct in which they engaged. Has any group ever been more committed to the code of silence?”

    This 24-year war against the Clintons and their sidekick, Gore, by the corporate press is, of course, the thesis statement of your blog. You keep asking why, why, why didn’t the vague amorphous group you label “liberals” do something about it. You say why, why, why, don’t they try to make the anti-Clintons/Gore corporate press the center of discussion in American political life?

    You need to write a post giving us your vision of how such an absurd development would come about. Tell us exactly what you would like to see like “liberals” do. How about a top ten list? Why don’t you ever do this? You make whiny statements like those above and then you descend into snide remarks and snark.

    Not only have you failed to give us your solution, you have failed to ask such basic questions such as why the owners this country might have prefered Bush over Gore. I think the answers are quite obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I made a gratuitously snarky aside in the comment posted above which I have now deleted, that aside was made on the way to saying I think Gloucon X has it exactly right here.

      Delete
    3. Bob's schtick is to criticise (mostly) individual media clowns.

      It's true that he's missing the forest for the trees, and that - in part because of that and in part because of his own biases - he gets their motivations all wrong.

      Still, it doesn't hurt to document the atrocities, even from his myopic perspective...

      Delete
  9. Black Lives Matter inspired me to vote for Trump in a race I would not have voted in. I didn't like the trend of cop slaughter they and CNN caused. I live in Wisconsin. I haven't become a fan of Trump's since then but I am going to vote for him again because of the reaction since the election. I make no apologies and I don't care if you call me a racist or any of the other boring tactics. I think Democrats have lost their minds and are dangerous. There are millions like me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope your mother is very proud of you.

      Delete
    2. 1:00,
      The NRA says the 2nd Amendment is for fighting the tyranny of the government.
      -------
      "I don't care if you call me a racist..."
      Why would you?

      Delete
    3. "There are millions like me."

      Yes, we read all about you and "The Service" in Mueller's latest indictment.

      Delete
    4. 1:00,
      Still supporting Trump, after he shit all over the Florida cops?

      ""I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."
      Donald Trump's reaction to the police not entering Stoneman Douglas High School

      Delete
    5. "And what's your reaction?"

      The real one, or the fake one. The above is Trump's fake one. His real one is more relief for the elites.

      Delete
    6. Did you come up with this yourself, sweetheart, or your momma helped you?

      Delete
    7. My momma. Her genes gave me the ability to see and common sense.

      Delete
    8. Say what you will about Trump (grifter, self-proclaimed sexual predator, etc), but you can't deny he's the Establishments best friend. No siree.

      Delete
    9. You sure sound like she banged your head against the sink a few times too many...

      But don't let that discourage you, sweetheart: you're still the smartest lib-zombie around here.

      Delete
    10. Your gaslighting lies won't work on me, Mao. My mother no more banged my head against a sink, then Trump is anti-establishment.

      Delete
    11. Ha-ha, good. Funny. I like your style. What do I call ya?

      Delete
    12. "What do I call ya?"
      Usually, "liberal zombie", because I'm not a sucker, and I don't fall for the nonsense you spew here.

      Delete
  10. I’ve been watching Marty, which was on TVM recently. It astonishes me how Somerby could have so misunderstood the point of the film, which is that people shouldn’t judge each other romantically by their looks and sexual charisma. Marty has low self esteem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If liberals followed the Somerby playbook, they would win maybe 2 cities in the country -- Cambridge and Berkeley. But Somerby wants liberals to lose so he can complain incessantly for another 18 years about 2000.

    ReplyDelete