Are liberals allowed to admire James Lankford?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2024

We'll go with a solid yes: We've never voted for a Republican. That pretty much leaves Senator James Lankford (R-OK) off our future "might vote for him" candidate list.

Aside from that, we've always semi-admired Sen. Lankford. Our reasons would have gone something like this:

This week, Lankford is suddenly very high profile due to his role as one of the three senators who crafted the Ukraine / Southern border bill. In the past, he was much lower profile on the national stage, but he always struck us as very smart—and he isn't nasty, stupid, ridiculous, crazy or some kind of ugly name-caller., as many others are.

Are we liberals allowed to admire those who differ from our views? In yesterday's New York Times, Kayla Guo offered an intriguing profile of the suddenly controversial Sen. Lankford, parts of which we post below. 

Lankford's views are not our views. We're prepared to let them be his:

As His Border Deal Dies, a G.O.P. Senator Laments the Forces Against It

[...]

The plight of Mr. Lankford, 55, a slim, understated Baptist minister with neatly combed red hair, reflects the extraordinary rise and fall of the border and Ukraine deal that Republicans blocked in a test vote on Wednesday—and the political forces within the Republican Party that brought it down.

For months, Mr. Lankford, a staunch conservative, labored over the package alongside Senators Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, and Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent, demanding strict immigration policies his party insisted must be a part of any bill to send a fresh infusion of aid to Ukraine. But when Mr. Lankford managed to extract them, he found his fellow Republicans unwilling to embrace the plan, in a vivid illustration of how the political ground for any compromise on immigration has vanished for a party that has decided the issue is too valuable as a political weapon to resolve.

Lankford is "a staunch conservative." Here at this site, we aren't.

Also, he's a Baptist minister. We hold no religious or theological views. As a general matter, our cosmology could be summed up like this:

We humans have no idea where we are, or how we got here, or what we're doing there. 

In our view, it's all beyond our pay grade as humans. By way of contrast, the leading authority on the subject reports that Lankford's early life and formal education proceeded in the manner shown:

Lankford was born March 4, 1968, in Dallas, Texas, the son of Linda Joyce (née House) and James Wesley Lankford. His mother was an elementary school librarian. His maternal grandparents owned a small dry-cleaning business, his father and paternal grandparents a dairy farm. His stepfather was a career employee of AC Delco, the parts division of General Motors.

Lankford's parents divorced when he was four; he lived with his mother and older brother for a time in his grandparents' garage apartment. He became a Christian at eight. His mother remarried when he was twelve, and the family moved to Garland, Texas, with his stepfather.

Lankford attended Lakeview Centennial High School in Garland. While there, he participated in the Close Up Washington civic education program. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Secondary Education (specializing in speech and history) at University of Texas at Austin in 1990, and a master's degree in Divinity at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1994. Lankford is an ordained Southern Baptist minister.

That isn't our story at all. Lankford was born in Dallas, we were born in Boston and came of age in the San Francisco suburbs. We were talked out of religion in the ninth grade by the friend whose father created this amazing legacy as a musician, composer and painter

To see some of the paintings, click here.

Way back then, we would walk past Greg Gutfeld's Serra High as we ambulated down the Alameda de las Pulgas to visit that friend's (very challenging) home. Because he'd been stricken with polio, our friend's father was painting with a paint brush held in his mouth by that point in time.

Lankford graduated from Texas Austin, then went to Southwestern Baptist Theological. We graduated from Harvard in 1969, then began to teach in the Baltimore City Schools, looking for a possible way to possibly save the world.

Lankford became a Christian at age 8. Except in the most tangential ways, that description of an early life lies outside our frame of reference. 

That said, his upbringing produced a very bright man who isn't nasty or ridiculous or crazy—a person who doesn't go around calling everyone names.

The Beatles lived in a yellow submarine. By way of contrast, the rest of us live in a large continental nation. An array of different culture zones define and establish the complex fabric of that giant nation.

As we've often noted, Bill Clinton said he greatly admired the Arkansas Pentecostals, even though they rarely voted for him, because of the way he saw them live their faith. A nation like ours cannot exist unless people are able to admire neighbors and friends with different outlooks and worldviews.

(We also think that that passage from Clinton's book is the greatest primer of this era in the way to win elections and / or to advance the values and goals of your political party or your cultural tribe.)

Lankford is now on the firing line. "He could have seen it coming," Guo says. After that, she explains:

He could have seen it coming. Weeks ago, Mr. Lankford revealed on Wednesday, a “popular” right-wing media personality vowed to do “whatever I can to destroy you” if he tried to “move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year,” he said.

“By the way,” Mr. Lankford added, “they have been faithful to their promise, and have done everything they can to destroy me.”

The soft-spoken second-term Republican, who generally refrains from seeking the political limelight, did not volunteer to helm the border negotiations when they began in the fall. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, deputized him as the top Republican on the Senate’s border security subcommittee. Or as Mr. Lankford put it, he drew the “short straw when it came time to be able to negotiate all this.”

His Republican colleagues warned him to be careful.

“I told him he was going to be like a goalie on a dart team,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, who was supportive of the talks but came out this week in opposition to the bill. “He knew this was a treacherous path, but I have nothing but praise for Senator Lankford. I think he’s done the best job you could possibly do under the circumstances. It’s just a very, very, very difficult, complex situation.”

Just a guess—confirming the claim about that "right-wing media personality," and identifying who that person is, will now be the focus of a large journalistic hunt.

Lankford is soft-spoken, and also plainly quite smart. In a political world of endless invective, "soft-spoken" strikes us as good. 

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is full of praise for his Republican colleague. We think Murphy is one of the smartest, sanest Democratic senators. 

A nation like ours can't possibly function if we all insist on loathing The Others. Murphy's praise for his colleague Lankford is good enough for us. 


116 comments:

  1. Admire Langford? No.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are supposed to admire him because he appears to be a normal average human being, instead of your typical right wing Republican loon.

      However, typical right wing loons have little agency to escape their nonsensical views, as it is typically a condition that emerges from unresolved trauma.

      Even though religious indoctrination is a common source for that trauma, Lankford appears less captive to unresolved trauma, therefore less of a right wing loon, and therefore more culpable for his right wing views.

      Sure, he’s one of the good ones. Whatever.

      Delete

  2. "A nation like ours can't possibly function if we all insist on loathing The Others."

    You certainly shouldn't loath the others, Bob, but loathing politicians is a whole different story. Politicians of all stripes. "Murphy's praise [...] is good enough for us", it sounds dumb. Perhaps even mentally ill. What do you know about their wheelings-dealings?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Are liberals allowed to admire James Lankford?...

    We'll go with a solid yes:"

    But beware. It is a short step from admiring Lankford or being glad Nikki Haley stayed in the primary race, to being encouraged to vote for Trump.

    Sure, of course it is OK for liberals to vote for Trump. This is America. Liberals can vote for whoever they want, especially if it will piss off their parents or be an afront to woke progressives, right?

    But this is a slippery slope. Maybe it would be better to just say that politicians doing their job is a novelty, especially on the right, and should be encouraged, but not to the point of forgetting that if we had more Democrats in the House we wouldn't have to "admire" Lankford and we wouldn't care whether Liz Cheney adhered to her oath of office (shouldn't all politicians do that?) and we could just expect everyone to do their fucking jobs.

    I wonder how Somerby would feel if we told him that it is OK for good comedians to admire Gutfeld when he pisses on Joe Biden, since that is what Somerby does here too, in a more restrained manner, but piss is still piss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You hover near some good points but you always seem to end up abusing logic, common sense, and the english language.

      Tell everyone more about how this pissing on someone in a restrained manner works. What a tortured, contrived phrase.

      Delete
    2. Read what Somerby said about Biden in his other post today. You will find my comments there too, explaining in great detail how an actual supporter of Biden would behave, compared to what Somerby has written.

      I explained how I think about Somerby's essay first, then I explained how I feel about what he said. You are welcome to stop in the middle but none of us is pure thought and no feeling. I dislike Somerby for his dishonesty and for maligning liberals by pretending to be one, when none of us is as duplicitous as Somerby. Somerby angers me as much as Lankford, who if he is really a smart decent person, has no business being associated with these Republicans, much less doing their dirtywork for them, as he did when he worked on this bill that others knew would go nowhere. Where were hs smarts then? Good people don't help bad people do bad things.

      Delete
    3. That's fine and I apologize for being overly combative.

      I don't like this mindset of being a "supporter." I don't agree that anyone should be that way, sculpting their thoughts, priorities, and communications all with an agenda all the time. That's what starts the rot of politics in my opinion. It's no substitute for weighing each issue, each statement made by someone, etc on its own merits and without angling to prove some political point all the time.

      So we come from very different perspectives.

      Delete
    4. I don't think it is right for someone to claim to support a candidate and then go out of his way to manufacture trivial complaints that portray their candidate negatively. That isn't how elections are won and Somerby has said that he wants Biden to defeat Trump. If that is a true statement by Somerby, then he needs to stop undermining Biden. This is not a single occurrence but an ongoing practice with Somerby.

      Delete
    5. I do not abuse the English language.

      Delete
    6. A sentient handler of Biden would never have scheduled a special address in which the president dignified the special investigator’s comments.

      Delete
    7. It’s what is moving the polls to Biden, so of course a Republican is going to complain about it, just like their loudest complaints are towards those things that are most effective for Dems.

      Delete
    8. You should never get ahead of negative stories. Look how well that worked for Al Gore.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 9:27am, so how did Biden’s remarks work for Biden?

      Delete
    10. Biden is surging in the polls.

      Delete
  4. If only republicans admired Lankford. Tsk.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "but he always struck us as very smart—and he isn't nasty, stupid, ridiculous, crazy or some kind of ugly name-caller., as many others are."

    This is a very very very low bar for Somerby to be setting for his admiration. We should expect more from Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 2:48pm, it’s enough for us that you do.

      Delete
  6. If anyone could unpack Bob’s reference to the Beatles snappy children’s record I would love to hear it. Is it a slap at hippie elitists? You got me.
    We all use are person experiences, sometimes called anecdotal evidence, to form our take on the world. If we strain to use this as our only evidence, we slip into self regard, that seems to be at play here.
    I doubt I ever agree with Liz Cheney much. Should we survive, her book will become a classic in American history because, like me, She thinks that a lot of good is still being mined from the American expectant. Ten years ago such bedrock agreements were considered pretty normal. Let’s be honest: a fair hearing for Liz Cheney had proven pathetically beyond Bob Somerby. His own petty grudges and bitterness has not allowed that fair hearing. Some very bad things have come to light about his good friends and neighbors and he’s too small to admit it.
    Let’s also note that many, many of the people who have come forward against Trump are not of the blue “tribe” (does anyone’s take strive harder to separate us than Bobs?), and the closer these Republicans were to him the more likely they were to dismiss him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Beatles never lived together, much less in a Yellow Submarine. The Beatles believed in the value of diversity, journeying to India in real life to pursue spiritual awakening and incorporating Indian influences into their music. Somerby has stated that he thinks diversity drives us apart and is a problem for our sprawling continental nation. The Beatles came from Liverpool but John married Yoko Ono, a Japanese artist, and they moved to NYC (obstructed by immigration problems). The Beatles included many musically and racially diverse artists into their later albums. They argued a lot and broke up over musical differences. They are not the epitome of harmonious homogeneity implied by Somerby’s gratuitous remark. Who were the blue meanies anyway?

      Delete
  7. "Lankford is "a staunch conservative." Here at this site, we aren't.

    Also, he's a Baptist minister. We hold no religious or theological views. As a general matter, our cosmology could be summed up like this:

    We humans have no idea where we are, or how we got here, or what we're doing there. "

    This can be summed up as nihilism and it is the source of Somerby's negativity.

    Nihilism definition: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless"

    Philosophical definition of nihilism: "extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence"

    This is why Somerby says that everyone is a good decent person, even when they manifestly are not (he has no standard for assessing goodness or decency). This is why Somerby says that anything is possible, even when there are obviously things in our world that are not possible among those that are manifestly possible because we observe them happening.

    I do not know whether has adopted this nihilism as a pose or as a way of justifying narcissistic self-focus, but it is not seriously argued in his essays nor is it maintained consistently, so I suspect it is a game for him. It may be a trick he plays on his readers, much like Andy Kaufman's performance art, that lets him secretly laugh at other people without having to commit himself to anything meaningful. I find that sort of thing ugly, not funny.

    But why should Somerby admire or not admire Lankford given that he takes no position on anything meaningful to other people and refuses to participate in explanation of our world? For Somerby, there is no difference between Lankford or Trump or Biden or Bernie.

    The biggest fool here is Cecelia, because she thinks she knows what he really means.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! I nominate that last sentence for projection of the day. Let's see if more competition crops up though.

      Delete
    2. Cecelia is ignitive.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 3:27pm, cognitive r us.

      Delete
    4. I disagree with David as much as I disagree with Cecelia, but I respect him more because he’s more cognitive.

      Delete
    5. I am President Poopy Pants. I am totally cognitive.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 4:45pm, no, you don’t respect David and like everyone else, he doesn’t care.

      Delete
    7. As a matter of fact, I do respect David, precisely because he’s cognitive.

      Delete
    8. I am an elderly man with poor memory.

      Delete
    9. I am an elderly man with diminished libido.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 5:14pm, Gavin Newsom is cognitive, ignitive, not an elderly man with a poor memory, and possibly a presidential candidate.

      Delete
    11. Maybe Newsom is igNITive, but Cecelia is IGnitive.

      Delete
    12. Harold Ford is all that and handsome.

      With Newsom and Trump it’s the Battle of the Brassiest. With Ford it’s Obama II.

      Delete
    13. Newsom is the reason gay marriage is legal. That isn’t brassy,” it is getting good stuff done. Trump is a blowhard.

      Delete

    14. I am an elderly man with poor memory. I pooped my pants again.

      Delete
    15. 6:16,
      That shit in your pants is already the front-runner to be the 2028 Republican Presidential nominee.

      Delete

    16. Oops. I pooped my pants again. Don't judge me: I am just an elderly man with poor memory.

      Delete
    17. When Trump walks by he leaves a wake of stench due to his incontinence and poor hygiene.

      He reeks of shit both literally and figuratively.

      Delete
  8. “Just a guess—confirming the claim about that "right-wing media personality," and identifying who that person is, will now be the focus of a large journalistic hunt.”


    Jesse Kelly asserts this claim to fame.

    Kelly will likely see some competition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Cecelia, as a gentle reader may I ask if you agree with "The biggest fool here is Cecelia, because she thinks she knows what he really means?"

      Delete
    2. I never heard of Jesse Kelly.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 3:30pm, he’s trying to fix that.

      Delete
  9. The right wing personality Lankford mentions is obviously Trump, or someone carrying Trump's message to Lankford.

    Trump is not an elected member of congress and he is no longer president and not yet the presidential nominee. He has no standing whatsoever to influence the behavior of Republicans in congress, and yet he was able to impose his will on an important vote addressing an important national problem. Why was Trump able to do this? Because other Republicans are either afraid of him or hope to benefit from their loyalty to him. That is not how elected representatives are supposed to function, not how any of them are supposed to do their jobs. It is a corruption of the right wing members of Congress (along with many other Republicans at all levels of government).

    Lankford is right in there with the others. If he were a stand-up guy (as Somerby suggests), he would name Trump as the blackmailer-in-chief. He didn't do that. So, what is there to admire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available.

      Here we have a very constrained logical position that to be admired in any way, Trump must be named blackmailer-in-chief.

      Delete
    2. You misunderstand. I am saying that for Lankford to be admirable he needs to show enough character to name the person threatening him, instead of protecting that person in order to maintain good standing among a group of corrupt Republicans.

      Yes, there are other ways to be admirable, but you ignore the larger context of this discussion, which is about the work done on a border bill by Lankford, only to be undone by colleagues. Was Lankford's behavior admirable in that context? Chatbots may not be good at figuring out context and making such value judgments.

      Delete
    3. "an important vote addressing an important national problem."
      The vote was about the border.
      How important could it possibly be, when "the Others" don't care a whit about it?

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymouse 3:05pm, our foray into the Sen Lankford came via a walk thru the life of Emanuel Leplin and of Bob’s decision, with the help of Leplin’s son, to leave religion to the gods, since well, we aren’t gods, so how are we to know?

    I enjoyed this foray very much, as I enjoy all of Bob’s meanderings, as well as his focuses.

    I was moved and astonished by the story of Emanuel Leplin and see thru his life the power of the human spirit that is a reflection of the divine one.

    It was quite the Sunday drive to the place of Lankford’s life challenges and choices. I can’t think of a speech writer who could have done this more masterfully.

    Thanks, Bob. Poignant and, well, amusing too. You never disappoint. You got it all. From the hand of God, mister, you got it all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wish Bob could write a poignant post on a liberal he admires.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 3:49pm, perhaps Bob will one day walk us through the virtues and vicissitudes of Chuck Schumer via Tommy Lee Jones.

      Delete
    2. Tommy Lee Jones roomed with Al Gore at Harvard. He and Gore remained close friends, unlike Somerby and Gore. Jones introduced Gore when he announced his presidential campaign and participated in Gore’s Nobel Prize award ceremony. Somerby had no role in Gore’s campaign or later life after college. Jones is a staunch Democrat, unlike Somerby. Somerby likes to name drop but he never mentions Jones.

      Delete
    3. Coincidentally, Bob has also never been a famous and widely admired actor.

      Delete
    4. Somerby was certainly the least accomplished of that group.

      Delete
    5. That would not mean that he isn't the smartest.

      Delete
  13. Mojo Nixon has died.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I respect Langford for doing what he believed was best for the public. However, he should have kept abreast of Republican views. He shouldn't have agreed to a deal that was not acceptable to his party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He shouldn't have agreed to a deal that was not acceptable to Trump. Remember David, Trump before Putin, Putin before Party, Party before Country.

      Reply

      Delete
    2. D & C - I think you want to avoid addressing what Lankford said - that a well-known GOP media personality vowed to "destroy" him if he tried to move a bill that addressed the border crisis during this "presidential" year. What does that say about your party?

      Delete
    3. Have no idea of the relationship of these two in the fevered minds of the right. To me Netanyahu is an autocratic crook who clings to power to keep out of jail. After failing to protect his country he responded to the horrifying attacks with genocidal attacks on the Palestinians with US made bombs. Just a horrible mess that at least the Biden Admin is trying to slow. Do you honestly think "Muslim ban Trump" would do anything to help the Palestinians?

      Zelensky was elected President 5 years after Putin's genocidal war on Ukraine started. Armed by the west, they have taken nearly 400,000 Russian's off the battlefield, more than 6,000 tanks, a good number of the Russian Black Sea fleet and air force. 90 % of our money sent to them comes back to US arms manufacturers. Not saying it isn't awful, but Putin says Ukraine is the first step in restoring the Russian empire. That would include NATO countries like Poland. Every night Russia sends dozens of bombs at civilian targets. Nasty ass war criminals. But Putin is placing all his bets on Trump and likewise compromised RCongresscritters to allow him to flatten all off Ukraine and beyond. Just disgusting behavior to openly support this genocidal monster. But you are probably glued to corrupt Carlson's report from the Kremlin. An America hating creep...

      Delete
    4. I can only upvote what Arty said.

      Delete
    5. Arty, no, I believe that your bon mots about Trump and Putin are the stuff of the blogboards of Mediaite.

      I think your aforementioned absence of any mention of Zelensky, and Netanyahu in the bill is also reflective of that simplistic mentality. To the point where you say nothing of the cash that would go to a guy that you consider to be a crook and a tyrant.

      There are people who think this was a piss poor bill for reasons that directly addressed the border problem.

      There are people who are acting in strictly political ways. You’re one of them.


      Delete
    6. I agree with Arty not Cecelia.

      Delete
    7. The republicans love Netanyahu, and the failure of this bill undermines their support for him. Apparently, they are willing to sacrifice support for Israel for a political gain, to say nothing of the large GOP faction that wants to hang Zelensky out to dry, furthering the interests of Putin. At some point, republicans may realize that they don’t have the votes to enact a bill much different than this. At least, not right now. I do not expect MAGA to want to support a democratic state (Ukraine) against a murderous autocrat who wants to destroy it. Not your father’s GOP.

      Delete
    8. AC/MA I am not happy about Jesse Kelly's comment, but it's not a big deal to me that some obscure local talk radio person said something awful and provocative.

      Arty -- I may feel even more strongly than you about the importance of Ukraine defeating Putin. I wish Trump was making stronger statements in support of Ukraine. Trump's comment that he would settle that war quickly has been interpreted by some to mean that he'd force Ukraine to surrender. Maybe so, but my interpretation is different. I think it's just Trump's braggadocio. I don't think he has any idea right now of what he'd do about Ukraine if elected President. (Trump made a similar, wild boast that he would enact a compromise on abortion that would be satisfactory to all sides.)

      BTW you make yourself sound foolish when you talk about my supposed link to Carlson. Blast Carlson as much as you like, but I'm not a part of that.

      Delete
    9. Trump would never oppose Putin’s wishes on Ukraine because Putin is the alpha dictator, the big dog.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 9:29pm. Putin wanted war with Ukraine. Trump wanted mitigation.

      With Biden we got war.

      Delete
    11. Trump wanted whatever Putin wanted, which is why he agreed to let Putin keep Crimea and infiltrate Ukraine during his term. War started under Biden because Biden was not Putin’s puppet. There is no way for Putin to take over Ukraine without war because Ukraine didn’t want to rejoin Russia. It wasn’t about Biden except in the sense that Biden is not Trump.

      Your argument echoes the things the appeasers said about giving Hitler carte blanche — at least there was no war.

      Delete
    12. Yeah, “mitigation”, which was let Putin take what he wanted in Ukraine and force the Ukrainians to accept it by attempting to destroy their country. “Mitigation”. Such bull roar, Cecelia.

      Delete
    13. Putin likes Biden's natural gas moratorium, because it allows Putin to charge more for Russia's oil and gas exports.

      Delete
    14. Oh look, DiC trying to derail the subject of Trump's love for Putin.

      It's always dollars and cents for you, David.

      Delete
    15. None of this would be a problem, if Putin hadn't black-mailed Trump into doing his bidding.

      Delete
    16. Realize keeping track of all the messes is hard, but Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, over two years before Trump became President. About the only things Trump did about it was cozy up to Putin, attack NATO, and deny military aid to Zelensky unless he worked with Rudy and Russian agents to make up dirt on Biden.

      Delete
  15. Does President Biden need a new law in order to close the border? As a practical matter, I believe he has that power right now.

    Suppose President Biden declares that the border is an emergency and closes the border, who will try to stop him? Nobody.
    Republicans i will be thrilled. Democrats won't go against their leader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is this thing called the Google Dave. We are supposed to be a law abiding nation until Trump is reelected or you are the Govenor of TX.

      Delete
    2. People cross the border in both directions to work, visit family & friends, for tourism & shopping, to see doctors, etc. If you shut down the border, you shut down the economy of border regions and impose a hardship on non-migrants, including Americans living to the south but frequently going north for various purposes.

      Delete
    3. Does President Biden need a new law in order to close the border?

      When did closing the border become anyone's objective.

      Many of the provisions in the bill were things Trump himself advocated and asked for from Congress.

      Delete
    4. Mexico is a bigger US trading partner than China now. How will trucks get across if you close the border. I think NAFTA may say we can’t do it. But think of the consequences to commerce.

      Delete
  16. I’m half way through the Putin/Carlson interview. Quite good. Anyone who wants to understand Putin’s thinking should watch it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely Carlson is asking tough questions. I mean, what could Putin do to him? Have him thrown out a window? Poisoned? “Accidental” plane crash?

      Delete
    2. Tough questions bring confrontation. Carlson asked questions that led to Putin explaining his position. It was an informative interview.

      https://tuckercarlson.com/the-vladimir-putin-interview/

      Delete
    3. Why would we care about Putin’s self-justifications?

      Delete
    4. “Tucker Carlson is a propagandist carrying water for a Russian war criminal who hates the United States, and is committed to conflict with the west."
      —Steve Schmidt

      Delete
  17. “Putin held three cards against Ukraine:

    The first was Russian military might. That card was defeated.

    The second was dependence on Russian energy. That card failed.

    The third was Putin's hold on Donald Trump, and through Trump, the US Republican Party. That card is working.”

    —David Frum

    ReplyDelete
  18. I’m watching MSNBC.

    I say we all just watch for their and Bob’s lead,

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was reading comments at Gateway Pundit about airline diversity requirements. That is a right wing website. Again, there was no trolling and no disagreement with each other. They were mainly amplifying each other’s comments. The consensus was that (1) diversity is bad because diverse people are underqualified, (2) planes are going to fall from the sky, (3) people should stop air travel and drive instead.

    Why do these “other” blog comment sections look so different from here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 8:57pm, I’ve voted for local Democrats. Not once, but many times.

      Bob avows NEVER in his lifetime having done that.

      That’s more “amplification” than I’ve ever given anyone.





      Delete
    2. Wouldn’t sending you my address be more straightforward.

      Delete
    3. Cecelia is old and forgetful.

      Delete
    4. I’m not running for president this year.

      Delete
    5. Cecelia is tall but ignitive. Not ignítive, ígnitive. I'm an Iranian bot, but my pay is laundered through Russia. Qatar, the home of an important US base, is not involved.

      Delete
    6. You are funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar, Boris.
      There is no Palestine. I am an excellent bridge player.

      Somerby is no liberal.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
  20. “As we've often noted, Bill Clinton said he greatly admired the Arkansas Pentecostals, even though they rarely voted for him, because of the way he saw them live their faith.”

    What does “living one’s faith” mean? How would Somerby know, since he admits having no religious belief whatsoever, unlike Clinton? Does he admire Lankford because he’s religious? Does Lankford “live his faith?” I have no idea, but believing something in and of itself is nothing admirable. Religious faith can lead people to be intolerant and dogmatic. I do not know how lankford’s faith colors his world view, but there are plenty who feel that religion gives a higher, inarguable justification to their views which they deny to non-believers like Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it’s because Lankford renounced his fellow Republicans?

      Just sayin…

      Delete
    2. So did Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. Neither was admired by Somerby.

      Delete
    3. Langford foolishly believe what he was in a legitimate political party, not a branch of organized crime who bowed to a boss. He was very silly.

      Delete
    4. So is Lankford. Wtf?

      Delete
  21. Biden is too old and feeble to make it another 4 years. Democrats should embrace someone with a better memory and more mental acuity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kamala Harris?
      Or is she too black and female?

      Delete
    2. If one Democrat thinks Biden is too old and feeble, thats one more than the number of Republicans who care about the border.

      Delete
    3. Play whatever gender and race card you must. It can be whoever it may but it can't be Biden. There's no way he can make it another 4 years. Just look at yesterday's press conference. He will never be able to make it. It's a farce pretending that he can. The Biden campaign is over.

      Delete
    4. They could use a doppelganger for the pressers.

      Delete
    5. 9:17,
      I wouldn't worry too much about it.
      Biden will win the Presidency in a landslide. Again.

      Delete
    6. Why are you guys responding to what is obviously a troll comment produced by a bot?

      Delete
    7. Biden is too old. Much too old. There's no chance he will make it another 4 years. Why is he running?

      Delete
    8. "Why is he running?"
      The Republican Party is nominating a rapist.

      Delete
  22. Republican voters are jacked-up to vote for the self-admitted sexual predator, yet again.
    Some things never change.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I do admire him, but if he wants to solve difficult policy issues, he is in the wrong party.

    ReplyDelete