TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2024
But what were the main things she said? Senator Britt misled the world. Three days later, she refused to relent!
With substantial regularity, this is the way our broken national discourse currently works. In the case of Senator Britt, here's the way the whole fandango started:
Last Thursday night, Britt delivered the official Republican response to President Biden's State of the Union address.
At first, she was mocked, by red and blue observers alike, for the over-the-top delivery of her prepared remarks. Then, as Paul Krugman notes in today's column, a second problem arose:
KRUGMAN (3/12/24): Her overwrought performance has been widely mocked; that’s OK for late-night TV, but I’m not going to join in that chorus.
What I want to do instead is focus on the centerpiece of Britt’s remarks, a deeply misleading story about sex trafficking that she used to attack President Biden. Her use of the story—which turns out to have involved events in Mexico way back when George W. Bush was president—wasn’t technically a lie, since she didn’t explicitly say that it happened in the United States on Biden’s watch. She did, however, say: “We wouldn’t be OK with this happening in a third-world country. This is the United States of America, and it’s past time we start acting like it. President Biden’s border crisis is a disgrace.”
That’s a clear attempt to mislead—the moral equivalent of a lie—and the careful wording actually suggests that she knew she was being misleading, and wanted an escape hatch if someone called her bluff.
It's true! As you can see in the text of Britt's remarks, her specific "story about sex trafficking" was very carefully composed. (Though quite possibly not by her, we might be inclined to guess.)
The story she told involved no statements which were explicitly false. But as Krugman correctly notes, it conveyed a grossly misleading impression.
In that sense, the story Britt told was "the moral equivalent of a lie." (Though only, we'd have to say, to the extent that she understood the impression her story would inevitably convey.)
As he continues, Krugman calls the story "a de facto lie." And again—despite the absence of statements which were explicitly false, Britt's story did in fact convey a grossly inaccurate impression.
A large amount of our nation's failing discourse is built on similar models. In this case, Britt was given a chance to relent when she appeared on Fox News Sunday this past weekend.
Shannon Bream gave the young solon a chance to relent. It would have been extremely easy for Britt to say that she hadn't intended to mislead the public. At that point, she could have restated her main allegations concerning Joe Biden's border policies.
It would have been easy for Britt to relent. Instead, she doubled down.
In her initial question about the story, Bream gave Britt a chance to relent. In a lengthy, Biden-bashing response, Britt declined to address the problem at hand.
(To watch that exchange, click here.)
After that initial filibuster, Bream gave Britt a second chance to relent. When she did, Britt emitted an account of what she had said on Thursday night, as you can see right here:
BREAM (3/10/24): OK, but to be clear: The story that you related is not something that happened under the Biden administration. That particular person.
It would have been easy for Britt to agree with that statement, and to express regret if anyone got a different impression. At that point, Britt could have returned to the principal thrust of her allegations about President Biden's border policies.
It would have been easy to do that! Instead, Britt doubled down with an account of what she had said Thursday night which was too slippery by well more than half.
Britt relied with this absurdly slippery presentation, apparently of her own making:
BRITT (continuing directly): Well, I very— I very clearly said I spoke to a woman who told me about when she trafficked when she was twelve.
So I didn't say a teenager. I didn't say a young woman. A grown woman. A woman, when she was trafficked when she was twelve.
And so, listening to her story, she was a victims right advocate who was telling this is what drug cartels are doing. This is how they're profiting off of women, and it is disgusting. And so, I am hopeful that it brings some light to it, and we can actually do something about human trafficking, and that that's what the media actually decides to cover.
At that point, Bream gave up. Even given this second chance, Britt had cast herself in a type of victim's role, suggesting that anyone who listened carefully on Thursday night would have understood what she had been saying.
The chronology would have been implied by the italicized words. The italics come from us, but they correspond to Britt's points of verbal emphasis.
For ourselves, we would have given Britt a break concerning her initial overwrought affect. Last Thursday night, she had been cast in a new type of role. In such novel circumstances, people often perform quite poorly.
We would even have given her half a break concerning the misleading nature of that original story.
All of a sudden, Britt found herself being put forward as a possible vice presidential pick. Human nature being what it is, people routinely submit to whatever they're being told to do when such opportunities come along.
We would have done even that! But on Sunday morning, speaking with Bream, Britt doubled down, and doubled down hard, on her initial deception.
In her initial statement to Bream, she criticized "the liberal media" for the way it had corrected the obvious misimpression her original story advanced. In her second statement to Bream, she even seemed to say that the chronology implied by her story had been clear all along:
This was a ridiculous claim—one that falls wholly on Britt. In fairness, much of our failing national discourse works in similar ways.
It would have been easy for Britt to express regret if anyone was misled. Pugnaciously, she refused to do that—and her overwrought delivery style was still present when she spoke with Bream.
That said, something else happened when Britt spoke to Bream. The solon went into a bit more detail concerning her overall criticism of President Biden's border policies over the past three years.
Those criticisms will receive large play in the media world of Red America. Over here in Blue America, those criticisms will be disappeared.
On Thursday night, Britt's initial story was grossly misleading. It was, in fact, the moral equivalent of a lie.
That said, the main things she said, on Thursday night and Sunday morning, do not appear in Krugman's column. Nor will you ever see them repeated by major blue tribe figures.
The Trojan War brought two distinct populations—Achaeans and Trojans—together for a ten-year siege. As we noted yesterday, Hector, hero of Troy, said he knew what was coming:
"For in my heart and soul I also know this well:
the day will come when sacred Troy must die,
Priam must die and all his people with him,
Priam who hurls the strong ash spear..."
The blue tribe has no reason to relent, as they did not say anything that was a lie, unlike Britt. This is what Krugman was talking about. He assumed that people already knew certain facts about the issue when he published his opinion. The blue tribe has nothing to correct or apoligize for. We are discussing this issue entirely because the red team decided to try and perpetuate another lie about the Biden Administration, not because of anything the blue tribe did.
ReplyDelete"That said, the main things she said, on Thursday night and Sunday morning, do not appear in Krugman's column. Nor will you ever see them repeated by major blue tribe figures."
ReplyDeleteThe right has not been making valid criticisms of Biden's immigration policy. Why then should those "criticisms" be repeated by anyone? Like Britt's sex trafficking story, those criticisms are largely based on lies. The media is not in the business of repeating lies, nor is Krugman. That's why Britt's other statements are not being repeated.
Also too the victim was not sexually trafficked. She had a pimp. And was in Mexico. Either way an unimaginably horrible story, but at least have a couple facts correct.
ReplyDeleteAlso too, the offender wasn't a drug trafficker, he was a pimp.
Deletesex trafficking definition: "the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act"
DeleteIt doesn't matter whether she had a pimp or not, whether she was in Mexico, whether she was given drugs (used to coerce women into sex) or not. It is all sex trafficking if it was done without her consent.
For commercial purposes.
DeleteThis trafficking occurred entirely within Mexico. The president of Mexico's northern neighbor was George W Bush.
Delete
ReplyDelete"On Thursday night, Britt's initial story was grossly misleading. It was, in fact, the moral equivalent of a lie."
How awful. But no worries, Bob: eventually their politicians will learn to lie just as brazenly and shamelessly as your tribe's politicians do. It's not too difficult.
No, the red tribe politicians are all modeling themselves after their Dear Leader, Trump. Pretty soon, they will all lie as effortlessly as he does.
Delete10:51,
DeleteAre there any Deep State head-fakes you won't fall for?
Somerby offers a whole lot of excuses for Britt:
ReplyDelete"In that sense, the story Britt told was "the moral equivalent of a lie." (Though only, we'd have to say, to the extent that she understood the impression her story would inevitably convey.)"
"...For ourselves, we would have given Britt a break concerning her initial overwrought affect..."
"We would even have given her half a break concerning the misleading nature of that original story. "
"Human nature being what it is, people routinely submit to whatever they're being told to do when such opportunities come along.
We would have done even that! "
"This was a ridiculous claim—one that falls wholly on Britt. In fairness, much of our failing national discourse works in similar ways."
Look at all the excuses Somerby makes for Britt!
This woman has been suggested as Trump's VP but Somerby feels he must make multiple excuses for her behavior. He is willing to let her off the hook for all of it, including her fundie baby voice.
Why on earth would any liberal be this lenient toward a woman who is attacking his preferred candidate (he says) by telling a huge lie that she refused to recant? Is this how liberals behave? Not anyone I know.
One possible answer is given by Somerby himself, as he insists her criticisms of Biden's immigration policy will be disappeared on blue media. And why would he worry about that? He strongly implies that THOSE criticisms are valid, that they deserve to be heard. And what liberal joins the right wing in demanding that the right's criticisms of Biden on immigration should be heard?
And this is the problem. Somerby is not actually for Biden. He takes every opportunity to knock Biden. Today, he pretends to criticize Britt, while giving her a series of byes and excusing her big lie, but that turns out to be mainly an opportunity to repeat that Britt's immigration policy point is valid and should be trumpeted by both sides in this campaign. And then his ultimate complaint is repeated -- the so-called blue media tribunes are not repeating enough right wing disinformation against Biden because they are ignoring Britt's immigration policy complaints (which Somerby clearly assumes are true and not phony like her sex trafficking story).
And notice that when Somerby deals with a Republican woman, his usual complaints against the lefty female pundits are disappeared. Even her breathy over-dramatic voice is A-OK with him, as long as she is knocking Biden. Or perhaps she reminds him of the teen-aged Anne Frank, being made to say and do thngs she would never have done on her own (Somerby explains), because of course women have no agency, despite being ever so pugnacious.
"All of a sudden, Britt found herself being put forward as a possible vice presidential pick. Human nature being what it is, people routinely submit to whatever they're being told to do when such opportunities come along."
Somerby seems to miss the point that Britt's entire "performance" was a portrayal of female submission. But is that what anyone wants in a VP? Well, maybe Trump does.
Bob is fair to women.
DeleteUnfortunately, that is not true.
DeleteAs is par for the course with you, your entire post is one distortion of what the blogger says after another.
DeleteWe all get it that you disagree. If you aren't going to be more specific, there is no way to address anything you say.
Delete1:22 - It's difficult to be specific when false claims permeate your comment like fly larvae in garbage. Which false claim to pick?
DeleteHere, I think, is your core false claim: That in his post Somerby "repeats that Britt's immigration policy point is valid."
But in his post today, Somerby never said or suggested that Britt's policy point was valid. This is something you just made up.
Here are two things Somerby says:
Delete"That said, something else happened when Britt spoke to Bream. The solon went into a bit more detail concerning her overall criticism of President Biden's border policies over the past three years.
Those criticisms will receive large play in the media world of Red America. Over here in Blue America, those criticisms will be disappeared."
And then later:
"That said, the main things she said, on Thursday night and Sunday morning, do not appear in Krugman's column. Nor will you ever see them repeated by major blue tribe figures."
Then later:
"Senator Britt refused to relent. So will our blue tribe's tribunes."
And then he says he will talk about those main points tomorrow.
All of that implies that Somerby considers her main point worth discussing, having some merit, valid criticism. You do not advocate for repetition of points you consider unworthy. Somerby advocates very hard for lefties to discuss Britt's main point. The rest of us consider that as meritless, empty, fatuous, unworthy of discussion as the lie itself.
I didn't make these quotes up. If you do not understand what someone says when you read their words, that is your problem. You should not come here and call people names, such as liar, and even talk about garbage and flies, when you are incapable of reading and making sense of Somerby's words.
I think you are the fly on Somerby's heap of garbage. You need to read and think more and type less here.
It's simple, really. You said, falsely, that Somerby said that Britt's immigration policy point is valid.
DeleteYou won't admit your falsity, but pretend that Somerby implied (rather than said) that Britt's point is valid. That's also false. Implying that a point is worth discussing does not equate to implying that the point is valid.
Duh. I'm discussing your ridiculous criticism, but I don't mean to imply that it's in any way valid.
Yes Pied Piper is correct. anon 10:53, youi don't seem to realize that there is a difference between observing that an opponent's arguments are being ignored" and asserting that there is some validity to the opponent's argument.
DeleteIf he thought the points were unimportant he wouldn’t have urged we pay attention to them.
DeleteIf he thinks they are false, why should “blue” media air them? To debunk them? They were already debunking the clearly manipulated story about the sex trafficking, but that wasn’t her main point? I would suggest that tarring Biden as responsible for the girl’s death was indeed a main point.
DeleteI was thinking about the young girl’s murder when I wrote the previous comment. They are trying to call Biden a murderer, but I meant to say that Britt implying that Biden is responsible for the woman’s sex trafficking was a main point.
DeleteIt’s actually kind of a good day for Bob’s goofy defenders, as Bob’s both siderism is mostly muted on this story. But the notion that Bob isn’t even really for Biden is hardly far fetched. “Legitimate political discourse” anyone? Bob has gone to great lengths to let Trump off the hook for Jan 6th. Now that his party is running on Trump’s promise to release the “hostages” will Bob even mention the issue? Bob’s been awful quiet about Hunter of late, now that that story has collapsed into a vicious farce. His own writing on that subject has been applauding.
DeletePoor poor poor Britt. Those mean Biden supporters just won't give her a chance to explain herself, they are deliberately misunderstanding her, and Somerby is her gallant defender! Well, that part of the Republican ploy seems to have worked on Somerby, the guy who couldn't see a thing when Trump tried intimidation tactics on Hillary by stalking her around the debate stage.
ReplyDeleteanon 10:55, your characterization of the blogger's post is simply dishonest. It's not a defense of someone when you say their statement is the "moral equivalent of a lie." It's totally bogus to assert that he is "gallantly defending" her, when by saying she is dishonest. He doesn't say that "Biden supporters are deliberately misunderstanding Britt. His point is that "blue" pundits leave out what she said in criticizing Biden's immigration policy is valid (while not suggesting the criticism is the 'truth.'). Both sides do it - they zero in on a talking point and ignore the rest of what the varlet said. You are upset about the Clinton/Trump debate back in 2016 - TDH maintained that the narrative that Trump was intimidating Clinton wasn't valid - my recollection is that he had a reasonable basis for saying so.
DeleteI excerpted all of the parts that I consider to be a defense of Britt. I also explained why. You disagree. That's your right, but don't pretend I didn't explain myself.
DeleteAnd no, I do not agree that Krugman should have focused on Britt's points about immigration instead of pointing our her lie, which IS a huge, deliberate lie aimed at smearing Biden.
anon 1:47, you "explained" yourself, but as noted above, the explanations don't support your argument.
DeleteThat’s a matter of opinion. Some people can’t be convinced of anything.
Deleteanonymouse 5:04, some people can't be convinced by nitwit logic.
DeleteLogic doesn’t convince people. Smart people are convinced by facts and evidence. Others are convinced by emotion.
DeleteHere is another right wing lie. Robert Hur apparently lied in his DOJ report when he mischaracterized Biden's memory. Now the transcript has been released showing his lie, Hur has resigned from the DOJ, but will still be appearing before Jim Jordan's congressional committee, in an attempt to further smear Biden. From Alternet:
ReplyDelete"Robert Hur, as of Monday night the former Special Counsel who investigated President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, will testify before Chairman Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning to explain his report in which he claimed the President did not remember when his son, Beau Biden, died. Hur also characterized President Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory,” ..."
"...Ahead of his appearance, the transcript of President Biden’s five-hour-long interview with Hur was released. Critics are furious, saying it proves Hur’s claims about the President were inaccurate or false.
CNN’s Manu Raju posted excerpts from the network’s report on the transcript, including one noting that President Biden “told jokes and unfurled lengthy detailed stories from his decades-long political career as he parried questions from special counsel Robert Hur and his investigators over two days last October, a transcript of the interview reviewed by CNN shows.”
Hur is another Leo Leonard Federalist Society fascist. Constant complaining on the right about George Soros, but Leonard has been extremely successful with Judge appointments that will screw this country over for the next 40 years.
DeleteLeonard Leo, not vice versa. But go on.
DeleteI call him Lenny.
DeleteMeanwhile, the MAGAs are totally pissed that Hur didn't indict Biden, which him being such a Federalist Society lackey, you would have expected he would have done.
DeleteHe couldn’t find a crime because Biden didn’t commit one.
DeleteWhat’s your point, AC? Hur IS a Federalist Society lackey. His report tries to have it both ways: Biden committed no prosecutable offenses, yet Hur fills the report with the inuendo that Biden was suffering some form of dementia, or pretending to, and no jury would convict him. Hur knew he had no case, and even Federalist society lawyers may still believe in having actual evidence before prosecuting someone. Yet he still tried to smear Biden.
Delete"Two wholly separate populations had come together to engage in a ten-year war. "
ReplyDeleteAre members of the geographically close city states in the Greek islands and adjacent coast of Turkey really "wholly separate populations"? They warred and traded with each other for hundreds of years before becoming unified as the nations of Greece and Turkey.
Portraying them as "wholly separate populations" is Somerby putting his thumb on the scales in his insistence that the right and left in our own nation are too separate for words. We, of course, are not wholly separate populations in the US. We have a shared history, shared origins, and we work together in a single nation to ensure the common good for our people. At least half of us do. The other half is pondering joining Russia, apparently.
The Turks had nothing to do with it.
Delete"The ancient city of Troy was located along the northwest coast of Asia Minor, in what is now Turkey."
DeleteModern day Turks had nothing to do with it, and modern day Greeks had nothing to do with it either.
Ancient Greeks had everything to do with it. Ancient Turks, who lived thousands of kilometers away in Central Asia, were not involved.
Delete"The exact borders of Troy, Greece, and Türkiye have all changed over time. As a result, it was impossible to assign a contemporary nationality to the Trojans; they were not Turkish, and Greece was still a loose alliance of largely independent city-states."
DeleteSomerby however says that they were different populations, so how can they be all Greeks? I think perhaps Somerby doesn't know what he is talking about.
What were the main things she said?
ReplyDeleteSomerby says they were the things she said on Thursday night about Biden's immigration policy. There are many places where you can replay her rebuttal online. Google SOTU rebuttal.
DeleteNeither Bream nor Krugman repeated them because their points were about the lie Britt told, not a rehash of Republican complaints about Biden and immigration.
While you are at it, you might also google a fact check of the Republican talking points against Biden's immigration policy. Many of their points are total lies, just like Britt's unfortunate story.
Yes, I was curious why Somerby didn’t mention them.
DeleteHe says he’s going to discuss them tomorrow.
DeleteThe main things she said? That she and her husband fear for their childrens' future because caravans. Now listen to this story about "the cartels" raping children.
DeleteBritt waged a public campaign to become a US senator. She now is one. These are hardly things one does if you are uncomfortable with public speaking.
ReplyDeleteAlso, she could have demurred from giving the rebuttal, citing her inexperience or nerves. Instead, she wants to be seen as a rising star and possible VP. And she ought to be capable of understanding the innuendos she trafficks in. There’s no need for Somerby to treat her like some babe in the woods.
Where’s my disclaimer/square up? Here Bob reflects on the standard wretchedness of the Right but does not attach the standard “but MSNBC, blah blah blah…..”
ReplyDeleteDon’t expect Cecelia to put up with that for very long….
Anonymouse 11:25am, you're sweet for being concerned.
DeleteAs deeply as I feel every single negative utterance as to my side of the aisle, I guess I’ll manage to soldier on.
I do have the advantage of understanding that Bob is not and has never been a conservative Republican, so I’m not too bruised by the analysis and still manage to admire the blogger and enjoy the blog.
Try iI sometime. You’ll look better.
You can learn more from the comments here than you will ever learn from Somerby.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:55pm, the comments are identical every day.
DeleteTo an ignorant person like you, maybe.
Delete“ Nor will you ever see them repeated by major blue tribe figures.”
ReplyDeleteThis is … not true.
“ to the extent that she understood the impression her story would inevitably convey”
ReplyDeleteYou think she didn’t understand that?
She purred like a sweet little submissive lady Christian kitty kat. I wish my wife would always talk to me gently like that, instead of hollering about what an asshole I am. Only I should be able to howl about asshoolery.
ReplyDeletewhere is Not Corby when you need him (her?)
DeleteI'm not Corby. Katie Britt speaks for herself.
Delete“ Britt had cast herself in a type of victim's role”
ReplyDeleteWait. I thought Somerby did consider right wingers to be victims.
I thought there was a bill, worked out by conservative Lankford, among others, that Biden agreed to sign, that addressed any border issues. Whatever happened to that bill?
ReplyDeleteSomerby says: "WARS: Senator Britt refused to relent!"
ReplyDeleteThis idea that politics is war is ridiculous. Politics is about making decisions in the face of differing opinions, interests and needs. It is about compromise, not victory or defeat. It is about civility and diplomacy, not fighting. Somerby's ongoing allusion to Troy is unhelpful because it tends to widen the rifts, not close them.
The reaction to Britt's so-called rebuttal is to defend truth, not to attack the right. She said something untrue and it was corrected. She refuses to back-track on her deliberate lie, so that puts her in the wrong. Somerby refuses to admit that just as stubbornly as Britt. That puts Somerby in the position of defending a person who has told a deliberate lie to further her agenda. That too works against finding compromise, selecting the best person as president, and closing the gap between people in our country. That's why these sorts of lies are destructive to our democracy and shouldn't be encouraged, as Somerby keeps doing here.
anon 12:15, quite wise of you to point out that "politics is not war." After all, no drone weapons are being directed at each other, no tanks. no long-range missiles (at least not yet). I hope you'll take this further though, for example whenever a reference is made to a "price war." these are NOT wars!!!! Calling them "wars" is a LIE. Aside from lyingly likening the mere differences of opinion between reds and greens to a war, it's time that we confront the LIES calling things price wars, tug of wars, or the card game war!!!! Thank you so much!
Delete"reds and greens" ???
DeleteAre you an Eastern European troll who is unfamiliar with the red/blue designation in American politics and didn't bother to look it up while typing? Or are you a confused bot? No person interested in politics would have typed that, even as a mistake. Red and green are Christmas colors for God's sake!
No one would call this red versus green except someone who has been uninvolved in politics for 10+ years.
"Reds and greens." oops. I meant "Reds and yellows" or maybe "reds and mauves." Please forgive me, I'm color blind. You do seem to draw all kinds of conclusions though from the error. At least I got the "red" part right.
DeleteWhy would someone make that error? Please explain. Errors are not random.
Deletesenior moment
DeleteYou forgot the tribes are red and blue because you’re old? I doubt that.
DeleteI support red, white, and blue.
Delete"Tomorrow: The main things the solon said"
ReplyDeleteIt is a joke to call Britt a "solon". What does Solon mean?
Solon definition: "1 : a wise and skillful lawgiver 2 : a member of a legislative body"
There is no way in which Britt is wise or skillful as a "lawgiver". She gave a misguided political speech in which she presented herself as a joke and said nothing wise. She has been rumored as a potential VP pick on Trump's ticket, but she has no accomplishments to qualify her for such a position except ideological Christian Nationalist purity.
It would be tempting to say that Somerby is being ironic when he refers to her as a solon, but the content of the rest of the essay doesn't support that interpretation. In the rest of his essay, he defends her and calls for the complaints against Biden's immigration policy to be aired more widely.
Given who Solon was, it is obscene to refer to Britt that way. Who was Solon?
"Solon was an archaic Athenian statesman, lawmaker, political philosopher, and poet. He is one of the Seven Sages of Greece and credited with laying the foundations for Athenian democracy."
Unless Somerby has been instructed by his handlers to praise Britt, and this is his passive-aggressive way of protesting that assignment, given that he doesn't much like any women and there is no reason for him to support this one.
"In the rest of his essay, he defends her"
Delete"idiot" definition: "a stupid person"
Read more widely. Seriously.
Delete"Solon" is a not-uncommon shorthand for Senator.
She doesn't deserve the honor -- that was the very obvious point being made.
Delete2:36:
Delete"Solon" is pedantic and old-fashioned.
Someone who won’t relent when proven wrong is not a solon.
DeleteBritt is fundraising off of her ridiculous performance (from Rawstory):
ReplyDelete""My heart is broken," she added. "Not just for myself, but for my children, your children and the ENTIRE next generation of Americans. Why? Because I didn't prepare a 20-minute speech and stand up to Biden in front of millions of Americans for ME. I did it for them, for YOU and your children, Friend!"
Britt then tried a rhetorical trick often used by Donald Trump and claimed the attacks were aimed at her, but she was instead absorbing blows meant for her supporters.
"Friend, they're not just laughing at me," reads her fundraising pitch. "They're laughing at every single American who dares to stand up to their radical agenda. Every patriot who fights to defend their American dream."
"Friend, they're not just laughing at me,"
DeleteNo, we're laughing right at you, Kates.
"the day will come when sacred Troy must die,
ReplyDeletePriam must die and all his people with him,"
The goal is not to die before your time. Obviously everyone who lived in ancient times died a long time ago. It is hard to mourn them for engaging in pointless warfare and throwing away their elderly years.
You'd think Somerby would take that point, nearing his end as he is. This is the last moment for him to make sure he lived a good life and did not die without something in the positive column. Being a flunky for Trump and an apologist for Britt doesn't qualify, in my opinion.
"Those criticisms will receive large play in the media world of Red America. Over here in Blue America, those criticisms will be disappeared."
ReplyDeleteWill Red America listen carefully to the factual details of her criticisms on its way to making a reasoned analysis of border and immigration policy?
Simply, no.
Britt concocted a lurid, spectacular tale filled with deceptions and half-truths and hung it around the neck of president and candidate Joe Biden. That's all Red America needs to hear! "Biden is so inept he sleeps while 12-year-olds are sex trafficked!"
When Blue media attempts to correct the record by telling the rubes they've been played, Our Host scolds them for not addressing the deeper truths behind the salacious pack of lies!
The fact remains that the situation at our southern border was painstakingly negotiated by members of both parties. It was set to move forward until candidate Trump ordered it scuppered. That's the fact you won't see reported to Red America.
"Our Host scolds them for not addressing the deeper truths behind the salacious pack of lies!"
DeleteI don't think that's a fair criticism. Somerby did not suggest that Britt's critique involved any "deeper truths" - he did not describe or assess her critique at all. He simply predicted that her critique, whatever its validity, would not be presented to blue tribe media consumers. And he presented this as further evidence supporting his "silo" theory.
Somerby suggested that Britt had main points that were being ignored by Krugman and the "blue media". It was Somerby's own main point in today's essay. You seem to have missed it, or you are criticizing Quaker for no good reason.
DeleteSomerby suggested that Britt's main points were being ignored by blue media; he did not suggest that her main points were "true."
DeleteActually, let's get to the deeper point. Here's an empirical fact about the world - a whole lot of undocumented immigrants have entered the country in the past two or three years. Red media screams that this is all Biden's fault and scares us with tales of rape and murder. Blue media responds that Trump spiked a deal that would have alleviated the problem.
DeleteIs the blue response good enough to persuade even a small fraction of the undecideds? Is it possible to craft a better response?
I copied and pasted the quote I was referring to. When Our Host references "those criticisms" that will be disappeared by Blue tribe scribes.
DeleteNonetheless, my reference to "deeper truths" seems to befuddle PP. I'll try to clarify.
"That said, something else happened when Britt spoke to Bream. The solon went into a bit more detail concerning her overall criticism of President Biden's border policies over the past three years."
A couple of paragraphs down:
"That said, the main things she said, on Thursday night and Sunday morning, do not appear in Krugman's column. Nor will you ever see them repeated by major blue tribe figures."
These paragraphs seem quite clear to me. Ms. Britt's flawed presentation--and the subsquent criticism of it--were "the moral equivalent of a lie," but were peripheral to what she had to say. The "main things" she spoke about were ignored by Krugman and the rest of Our Blue Tribe.
Our Host doesn't yet specify what those "main things" were (he leaves that for tomorrow's column), but it's very clear that these "main things" to be named later deserve to be heard rather than ridiculed.
Thus, I characterized these "main things" as content deserving of critical analysis--"'deeper truths," by my word choice. You may choose others.
Here are some more facts. Trump instituted a policy giving asylum specificallyto Venezuelans and migrants for several other countries. The killer of Laken Riley was admitted under that program, transported by bus to NYC by TX gov Abbott, then went to GA. Did you know that? How is that Biden’s fault?
DeleteSomething went awry in that first paragraph:
DeleteI copied and pasted the quote I was referring to. When Our Host references "those criticisms" he's talking about that part of Britt's presentatio that will be disappeared by Blue tribe scribes,
My only qualm, QiB, is this: I don't read Somerby as suggesting that the undescribed points Britt made are "true," whether deep or shallow. It's possible he believes they are; we might find out tomorrow.
DeleteBTW - I agree with everything else you say.
DeleteHasn’t Somerby already discussed the border and given credence to right wing concerns?
DeleteYes, he has been expressing right wing concerns about the border for a whie now.
DeleteI think Britt called Biden something like "old and doddering". That is undeniably true.
DeleteIf you consider Politics as art, this was a beautiful piece of political dissembling. She left just enough accurate details in her story to have plausible deniability, at the same time tying the horrid business of sexual enslavement of a teenager to Biden's policies. You have to admire her pluck!
ReplyDeleteOnly a Republican would admire dishonesty. It is what their party stands for.
DeleteThis is the problem with the example set by Donald Trump -- weak minded individuals will use him as a role model:
ReplyDelete"Meeks Slams GOP Lawmaker for Calling Haiti a ‘Shithole’
March 12, 2024 at 1:39 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard (Political Wire)
House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Gregory Meeks (D-NY) denounced Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) for likening Haiti to a “shithole” country on social media, echoing the rhetoric of Donald Trump, Politico reports.
Said Meeks: “It’s insulting. It’s ignorant. That statement, in my opinion, is asinine.”
DeleteHaiti isn't a shithole?
No, it isn’t.
Delete3:59, tell us all you know about the history of Haiti. It shouldn't take long.
DeleteCalling a country a "shit hole" is unbecoming and inappropriate on the part of a POTUS (though as far as I know, evidence that he said it comes only from an anonymous source, plausible though it may be) or a US Congressman (albeit on social media. But Haiti does presently appear to be a failed state, a mess. It's a big problem for them, and for us.
Delete
DeleteSo, in your opinion "a failed state, a mess" is acceptable, while colloquial "shithole" is outrageous, even though both have exactly the same meaning? Is that it?
AC/MA says he disbelieves that Trump made the comment. Here is the news report about it:
Delete"WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump referred to Haiti and African nations as "shithole countries" during a meeting with a bipartisan group of senators at the White House, a Democratic aide briefed on Thursday's meeting told NBC News.
Trump's comments were first reported by The Washington Post, which said the nations referred to by Trump also included El Salvador.
The U.N. human rights office said the comments, if confirmed, were "shocking and shameful" and "racist," while Haiti's foreign minister summoned the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Robin Diallo for clarification.
Two sources briefed on the conversation say that during the portion of the conversation about Haiti — which came at the top of the exchange that led to the “shithole” comment — the president questioned why Haitians should be given specific consideration.
“Why do we need more Haitians, take them out,” he said, according to sources. Someone else in the room responded: “Because if you do, it will be obvious why.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-referred-haiti-african-countries-shithole-nations-n836946
Note that it was said before a bipartisan group of senators and several aides.
A "failed state" describes a government that has collapsed. A "shithole country" demeans everyone who lives there.
DeleteBut you know this.
anon 6:52, you seem to confirm that trump's alleged statement is evidenced by sources that didn't go on the record. Trump didn't say it publicly. People say a lot of things when they aren't on the record. That said, I did say it was entirely plausible that he did say it. sounds like something he'd say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall it was said about an African country, not Haiti.
DeleteHe said it to a group of senators. That means it counts. That anyone, much less the president, would say something like this makes him a person with a shriveled soul, who cannot be trusted with the welfare of others. He reveals his character and it is rancid. But we already know that Trump cares about no one but himself.
DeleteAC/MA, if you READ the source, it says Haiti and African nations.
Delete@6:53 PM
Delete"failed state" is reptiloids' euphemism for "shithole".
Alien reptiloids say "failed state". Earthly humans say "shithole".
Here's a recent release posted at GOP.gov:
ReplyDelete"The Biden Administration has admitted to flying as many as 320,000 illegal immigrants on secret flights into the U.S., in an effort to decrease the number of illegal immigrant encounters at the Southern Border. "
There are no links in this release to supporting information. But a little digging leads us to a story posted by the Daily News. It seems the 320,000 number refers to migrants admitted to the country under the CPB One program.
Under this program, migrants from select countries including Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Columbia can apply for asylum from their home countries using a phone-based app. Upon approval, these applicants are authorized to travel to the U.S.
This is the exact opposite of "illegal immigration." These people are applying for asylum before presenting themselves on US soil. They are entering with authorization after their applications are approved.
This same claim has been repeated by House Republicans on their own social media feeds. How is Our Blue Tribe supposed to counter this firehose flood of deliberate deceptions? Our Host would have us address each of these claims because "people believe them." Yet when that's done, the deceivers, like Katie Britt, simply double down and declare that those who insist on facts are putting our children's future in jeopardy.
Calling out Britt's deceptions--and even mocking her preposterous presentation style--has been more effective in undermining the power of her bogus story than any sober counterargument could ever hope to achieve.
“How is Our Blue Tribe supposed to counter this firehouse flood of deliberate deceptions?”
ReplyDeleteI don’t know the answer, but I do think this is the right question.
PP, You notice that Somerby never calls them deliberate deceptions. Step one, for him, is to do that. Second, recognize that this is a tactic of the right wing, to flood the zone with lies. They hope to hamstring the Democrats by forcing them to address this bogus shit, thus the Democrats would always be playing defense.
Delete