FRIDAY: Citizen Scarborough, back from camp!

FRIDAY, JULY 5, 2024

What New York's correspondent has said: When we awoke this morning, C-Span 2 was re-airing this broadcast from a twelve-part series last year:

OCTOBER 9, 2023

Books That Shaped America
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass  

In part four of Books that Shaped America, historian, author, and Howard University professor Edna Greene Medford explored the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, the first autobiography of abolitionist Frederick Douglass after his escape from slavery, published in 1845...

We're going to go ahead and admit it. When the conduct of Edward Covey was described, it called Greg Gutfeld to mind. 

Yesterday, we spent a chunk of time attempting to research the peculiar claim which formed the basis for the second segment on Wednesday night's Gutfeld! program. 

The termagant—perhaps more accurately, the little chimp—and his usual assembly of hacks spent the segment making a joke of what's left of "our democracy." We'll have to postpone our report on the way they leaped about, flinging their poo, until tomorrow at best.

Today, there's only one report you should be reading online. We refer to the new post by Kevin Drum, a post which starts off like this:

The press and Joe Biden

Has the press been covering for Joe Biden over the past few months? Until now I've considered this to be little more than typical Fox News nonsense, but I'm beginning to wonder...

Why has Kevin started to wonder about what the (mainstream) press has been doing? At that point, he links to a lengthy report by New York magazine's Olivia Nuzzi—and he posts excruciating excerpts from her lengthy report.

Nuzzi's lengthy report sits behind a paywall. The excruciating excerpts which Drum has posted are available for all to see. 

As he starts, Kevin says he's beginning to wonder about the past conduct of the mainstream press. But if Nuzzi's detailed account is accurate, it's hard to believe that anyone would still have to wonder about President Biden—more specifically, about his fitness to continue to serve for almost five more years at this point.

For ourselves, we've always tended to place an asterisk next to Nuzzi's work. We've done so because of what we regard as the somewhat unattractive way she broke into the upper-end press, way back in the somewhat better old days.

That said, we agree with Kevin's assessment, except perhaps a bit more so:

DRUM: As Nuzzi acknowledges, she's been skeptical of Biden's stamina for years, and is hardly a Biden family favorite. Still, there's no reason to believe she's making this up.

"There's no reason to believe she's making this up?" For the record, Nuzzi's report takes us well beyond an assessment of "Biden's stamina." That said, we would tend to agree with what Kevin says.

For ourselves, we've seen footage of President Biden, again and again, in which he displays what we would regard as an unmistakable look. Such tape has been widely aired on the Fox News Channel, has been disappeared everywhere else.

We've been actively concerned about President Biden since last August. A few weeks later, major insider David Ignatius wrote the mild-mannered column in the Washington Post in which he suggested that President Biden shouldn't seek re-election.

(For the record: Even then, Ignatius was able to report this: "According to a recent Associated Press-NORC poll, 77 percent of the public, including 69 percent of Democrats, think he’s too old to be effective for four more years." That's what respondents were saying even way back then.) 

Few insiders stepped up to agree with that column by Ignatius. As the months went by, the president appeared in public less and less often.

He made few attempts to speak about the major issues which were dragging him and his party down. With respect to the cost of living, he chose to adopt a ludicrous focus on the evils of "shrinkflation."

Then came the amazing performance at last Thursday night's debate. The other candidate's performance was utterly ludicrous, though in a more familiar way.

Adding the little chimp into the mix, this is the state of "our democracy" on this Fifth of July. Regarding the workings of us the people, we'll direct you to two observable sources:

First, we'll suggest that you scroll through the comments to Kevin's post. It's filled with comments by angry partisans who insist that there's nothing to see here—that this phony point of concern has all been made up. 

Some don't seem prepared to believe their own lyin' eyes! Here are four of the first five original comments:

COMMENT 1: [This has] been going on for months and you're only now, just now, hearing about it, at this carefully choreographed, time-critical moment?

What this is they're trying to reflect back all the bad press Trump has been getting about his mental state, and there is nothing else here at all.

COMMENT 2: Or they all could be orchestrated anonymous GOP ratf*ckers. YOU make the call! PS: Remember how HRC was at death's door in 2016? Have we learned nothing?

COMMENT 4: Olivia Nuzzi was saying this in 2020, before Biden's impressive to very impressive accomplishments over the last three-plus years. And told in the first person? Who does she think she is, Hunter Thompson?

I'll give her gonzo points though for saying the President didn't know who she was, as if it was evidence of mental decline as opposed to evidence that she's extremely small potatoes, butt-hurt potatoes at that.

COMMENT 5: Sigh. Look, it MAY be that there really HAS been significant deterioration very recently. It hasn't been materially evident at other public events (deliberate barbering of things like video from the Normandy remembrances notwithstanding), but mmmmaybe so.

One thing that IS clear is the overt bias—hell, active favoritism—of much of the major media... I don't put ANY stock in what the Olivia Nuzzis of the world publish.

IF there is a "conversation" to be had, I have confidence in the people around Biden—Dr. Jill, Obama, his Three Wise Men, Schumer, et al.—to have it, and I have confidence in him to have the wisdom and self-awareness to listen to it—very much UNlike the Felon, I would add. And if it leads to action, we'll hear about it.

With respect to Commenter 1, are we hearing about this at a "carefully choreographed moment?"

For whatever it may be worth, the moment in question follows directly upon the most peculiar debate performance in modern political history.

Meanwhile, Olivia Nuzzi is small potatoes—butt-hurt potatoes at that! The commenters don't place any stock in what "the Nuzzis of the world" may report.

It could be that Nuzzi's just quoting GOP ratf*ckers! By way of contrast, we can trust the people around President Biden—and we can trust President Biden himself. If they decide to make a move, eventually we'll be told!

If we might borrow from Robert Frost at this point:

Trust us, The Voices said.

The fifth commenter has confidence in the people around the president. The commenter also has "confidence in him to have the wisdom and self-awareness" to do the right thing.

For better or worse, some people never stop trusting The Voices! Meanwhile, let's state a point which is blindingly obvious:

If President Biden has slipped around a type of bend, he now lacks the type of judgment required to make sound decisions. He would now lack that type of judgment, like Senator Feinstein before him.

Anthropologically speaking, it isn't clear that we the people—that our vastly limited species—is wired for this sort of work. The meltdowns which have brought us to this point have involved the conduct of many groups—but those of us in Blue America have been an active part of this process, dating back three or four decades, or possibly five or six.

Then too, there was this:

We were surprised to see Joe Scarborough back on today's Morning Joe. He'd been away, on what was described as "a vacation," all week. It was surprising to see him back on the air for just one show, on the Friday of a four-day holiday weekend no less.

To appearances, Scarborough was back from a successful stay in re-education camp, where he was taught to say different things about President Biden's performance. We'll offer examples of what we mean when the links become available.

Meanwhile, we human beings don't seem to be built for this type of work! In our view, the bitter and caustic E. E. Cummings pretty much had it right, though only in his reporting about humanity, not in his moral assessment.

Nuzzi's report is a kick in the pants, but it's one of many such reports emerging on this topic. We ourselves became actively concerned last August, based on something we saw right there on our TV machine as we watched a live event on CNN.

Along the way, Vladimir Putin seems to have placed a wager. He seems to have wagered that we won't be able to make this work.

The strongman seems to have paced a wager. As President Biden slides in the polls, is "Putin's wager" in the process of possibly paying off?

Tomorrow: What the chimp, and his court of baboons, offered this Wednesday night


123 comments:

  1. V Craig Jordan died last month.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I wanted a President with teeny, tiny hands the size of Trump's, I'd vote for my 4-year old niece.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Does anyone else agree with Bob that Democrats made a mistake not impeaching Ronald Reagan when they should have?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Somerby says he has been worried about Biden since last August and yet the presidency has been operating well and achieving good things for the American people during that past year, including dealing with the diplomatic challenges of Ukraine, Gaza, getting the government funded in the midst of conservative leadership changes, and keeping the economy on its course of improvement. All of that has been done by a supposedly demented president!

    Somerby cannot have this both ways. Either he must admit that Biden can do a good job while appearing comatose (to conservative journalists), or he must admit that he is wrong to be joining the chorus of right wingers and panicked Whitmer supporters who are saying Biden cannot function because he is too old. The achievements of Biden's presidency are the best argument for leaving him alone and letting him do his job. We will all benefit from that, as we cannot help but lose if those wishing to replace Biden get their way.

    If Biden goes, I believe the Democrats will descend into chaos (which the press with gleefully report) and Trump will be reelected. Or if Trump is defeated again, by some miracle, how will whichever Democrat takes over be able to duplicate Biden's many successes. These are not just happening because we hold the presidency but because our current president has the experience, wisdom, skill and lifetime of relationships to evoke good will (even from Republicans like Johnson) and encourage people to cooperate and get things done. We have had ineffective Democratic presidents before. Now we have a highly effective one, but Somerby wishes to throw that away because some reporter speculates he looked waxy (how is that a sign of aging anyway) and didn't remember her name? That is among the stupidest things I've ever heard (that didn't involve sharks and electrocution or nuking hurricanes).

    I dislike Somerby nearly as much as I dislike Trump, and for similar reasons. We all knew (upon reading Drum this morning) what Somerby would be saying. Just as it makes me sick the way the NY Times has been treating Biden (6 negative articles about him today, 1 against Trump), it bothers me to see so-called Democrats not sticking by Biden because that is apparently not the cool line for pundits who want to appear in-the-know. The better educated left-leaning pundits are defending Biden from what is obviously an orchestrated attack on Biden arising from the right wing and their wealthy billionaires and foreign agents.

    How did we sink so low that Democrats are joining the right in attacking the best president in decades? That is what boggles my mind -- this piling on with no evidence. If Democrats were sincere about this, they would ask for a cognitive test and medical report. Biden says he did that himself, right after the debate. He says the doctor found nothing wrong with him and said he was competent to continue as president. That should have satisfied Somerby and this rest, because a medical problem needs to be assessed by a medical expert, not a reporter like Nuzzi.

    The Democratic candidates capable of taking over the race have said they are sticking with Biden. The VP has said she is sticking with him. The Democratic governors have said they are sticking with him. All but a couple of low-level Democratic congressional members are sticking with Biden. The American people are sticking with Biden by donating huge amounts from the grassroots. Why then are people like Drum and Somerby abandoning Biden for Trump (because that is the effect of their actions)?

    I choose to believe it is because they are stupid. It would be worse to think that Somerby doesn't care what happens to the American people, is unaware of Biden's manifest achievements in office, or actually wants Trump to win. Drum is perhaps addled by his own cancer treatment. But whatever is motivating them, it would be a disaster to put Trump back in office and that is the best reason to stick with Biden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How well is the Presidency operating? I don't think the Presidency is doing well in Gaza and Ukraine.

      @1:10 says "the presidency has been operating well and achieving good things for the American people during that past year, including dealing with the diplomatic challenges of Ukraine, Gaza, getting the government funded in the midst of conservative leadership changes, and keeping the economy on its course of improvement"

      I measure the President's performance in terms of results. IMO Gaza and Ukraine are a mess. Innocent people being slaughtered. Human rights abuses. No end to these wars in sight. US military spending on these wars heling to drive this year's deficit up to $2 trillion.

      Delete
    2. This is a political disagreement about the results of the presidency, not anything related to cognitive problems, because a fully competent president would still be doing things Republicans don't like and criticize due to partisanship. Democrats pretty much agree that Biden's presidency has been successful.

      Frankly, if someone were being called mentally incompetent, I would expect there to be evidence of that in the details of the complex job the president does. What has Biden fucked up (from a Democratic perspective, not according to the Republican agenda)?

      If Biden were to ultimately broker a permanent cease-fire in Gaza, would that allay the complaints that he has "cognitive problems"? I doubt it. These are political attacks, not based on performance on the job.

      I won't bother asking David what control any president of the US would have over the human rights abuses of the Russians or Hamas. Students are not protesting on campuses because Biden is too old. They are pro-Palestinian and our nation's policy is to support Israel.

      Delete
    3. DiC is blaming Biden for Netanyahu's incompetence. Classic.

      Delete
    4. @10:50 - the President is extremely powerful. Many or most of his decisions and actions are not visible to the public. His people present things with spin and dishonesty as do his opponents. For that reason, it's hard or impossible for us to evaluate a President in terms of his day to day actions. That's why I look at results. Results are something I do see.

      Conservatives and Trump claim that Trump's policies would have prevented these wars from ever starting. Are they right? I don't know. What I do know is that the present situation sucks.

      Delete
    5. Biden has most certainly not been successfully dealing with the diplomatic challenges of Ukraine and Gaza.

      Delete
    6. Somerby and Drum are right wingers (people who endorse hierarchy and dominance over equality), and along with their new star Nuzzi, they generally get things wrong, which is why they lack relevancy. These are just clowns hanging out in the peanut gallery.

      Heather Cox Richardson interviewed Biden a few weeks ago and she said he is cognitively fine, alert, and on top of things. HCR is a no nonsense professor of history/public intellectual who plays it straight and has integrity.

      Biden should be better on Israel, he has done little to stop Netanyahu's ongoing psychotic genocide of 35k+ innocent civilians, half of whom were children.

      Biden is doing well with Ukraine; it is Russia that is the mess: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a strengthening of NATO, an increase to NATO, a massive depletion of Russia's military - both equipment and personnel, exposed right wing and fascist Putin as a paper tiger, a collapse of Russian economic power.

      Delete
    7. At this point we don’t know who has been running the government and for what length of time. Perhaps all the anonymouse odes to Biden should more accurately be given to Pres. Obama or Ben Rhodes or Hillary Clinton.and Valery Jarrett.

      Delete
    8. More paranoia and conspiracy theories.

      Delete
    9. Cecelia you appear to be operating under some misapprehensions, such as that the president is something like a king.

      The Executive Branch is but one of three and it is run by an administration.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia needs to watch past episodes of the West Wing to see how government works.

      Delete
    11. "Conservatives and Trump claim that Trump's policies would have prevented these wars from ever starting. "

      False. They claim these wars never would have started due to the immense regard world leaders have for Donald Trump. It's magical thinking.

      Delete
  5. I will be voting for Biden even if he stands aside and lets Harris or some other Democrat run. If others feel the same as me, that will damage an alternative candidate, so our party might as well stick with the old man. He is the people's choice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A liberal who followed conservative sources would have known about Biden’s cognitive problems a lot sooner. Everyone should follow both conservative and liberal news sources. Both sides limit, spin and lie. Sadly there are no unbiased major news sources any more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David has a point. If liberals had been paying attention to the "Biden is too old" campaign from the beginning, before Hur's smear, before the edited video, they would have seen the current ratfuck sooner and organized a better defense against it. They didn't because it was Biden who asked for the debate, not Trump.

      Note that I am talking about the focus on Biden's age, not saying he has cognitive problems. There has been no evidence of cognitive problems offered, even during the debate. The complaints are based on demeanor, stuttering, looking waxy, mouth hanging open, lots of nonverbals. The transcript shows that Biden was thinking, coherent (except for one gaffe about beating Medicare) and factual. That is not evidence of cognitive problems, but it does support Biden's claim of having a cold and being fatigued, because that is how people look when too tired to fake being animated and happy to be there. Trump looked grumpy too, sarcastic and mean-spirited, smirking and leaning on the podium. Is that how someone without cognitive problems looks? Why privilege such inappropriate demeanor at a debate? Because it is the right attacking the left.

      I disagree that there are no unbiased news sources, but I agree that the NYTimes, Politico, Axios, and now Drum & Somerby, have not been fair to Biden.

      Delete
    2. Here’s another point of view:

      https://www.eschatonblog.com/2024/07/is-this-going-well.html?m=1

      Delete
    3. David, they ALL knew. The entire media knew, let alone politicians and DC bureaucrats.

      Delete
    4. How can anyone say they knew something that is not true? Biden does not have cognitive problems beyond normal aging. Doctors have confirmed that.

      Delete
    5. Cecelia,
      Do you think they know the problem with who replaces Biden on the ticket yet?

      Delete
  7. "Nuzzi's report is a kick in the pants, but it's one of many such reports emerging on this topic. "

    This is silly. Nuzzi's report is not a kick in the pants. It is a display of self-importance and an obvious attempt at revenge when the president (who is a very important person) didn't recognize her (making her feel as tiny as she is).

    When I was 20 I met a top California politician at a party thrown by Los Angeles mayor Yorty. I was thrilled to shake his hand, but when I looked at his face, it was blank and robotic, much as Biden's must have been. He was going through the motions and thinking about something else, maybe even dinner. I didn't matter to him. And he was not elderly and not being accused of senility. Politicians have finite energy and they don't bother charming insignificant people, even nice ones like Biden. And I was young and pretty then.

    Somerby has had enough experience meeting important people to recognize and understand this description. So he is piling on Biden deliberately, instead of asking why Nuzzi thinks she is important enough for Biden to pay attention to her. Nuzzi got even today. What did the Democrats do to Somerby to make him hate them enough to go over to Trump and this current ratfucking campaign? He doesn't say but dissing Al Gore might warrant such an obsession if you were sufficiently attached to a college roommate from 50 years ago. Whatever Somerby's motives, they didn't start with Biden, not even a year ago. They go back to at least 2015, when Somerby couldn't say enough bad things about Hillary (the Democratic nominee and bulwark against Trump). So we had to go through covid under Trump and thousands died needlessly because of Somerby's pique.

    I read today that the Republicans are talking about testing nuclear weapons again. That should scare the pants off of both Somerby and Drum, but instead it is Nuzzi's social awkwardness with Biden that does it. I do not understand these men, but they are so completely stupid that it is hard to understand how they dress themselves in the morning. And they think Biden has the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Somerby (supposedly) said something bad about Hillary in 2015, and that is what caused her to lose against Trump? Who knew Somerby was so influential?

      Delete
    2. PP, one of your dumbest takes, among a sea of dumb takes.

      Delete
    3. That what “2015” said, not me. And it’s uglier than that - “2015” says that Somerby has blood on his hands, that he’s responsible for thousands of needless deaths.

      Delete
    4. PP, you are being excessively literal, that you are willfully and snarkily misunderstanding the point.

      Delete
    5. Commenters seem to feel free to say the most ridiculous but horrible things about Somerby, secure in the knowledge that there will always be some nitwit mouse hiding nearby ready to nip at the ankles of anyone who notices.

      Delete
    6. PP, commenters are free to say such things, but that is not what is happening.

      What is happening is you are taking selected quotes literally when they are clearly not intended that way, just so you can heroically defend Somerby.

      You are the very definition of bad faith.

      Delete
    7. So we agree that the ugly accusation that “thousands died needlessly because of Somerby’s pique” is totally false, if taken literally. But you believe it is meant to be taken metaphorically, rather than literally.

      OK - what does it mean “metaphorically”? Does it have any metaphorical meaning at all? I can’t discern one. Are you just spitballing here, doing whatever you can to defend this vicious, drive-by smear?

      Delete
    8. PP, if you had been around here much you would recognize the play on Somerby's own phrasing where he kept claiming that thousands died because the media mocked Al Gore, putting Bush into office where he then declared war on Iraq and soldiers on boths sides (and innocent bystanders) died in a needless war. Those who mocked Gore are about as guilty as Somerby, but the parallel reasoning was the commenter's point.

      You owe @10:23 an apology for getting it so wrong.

      Delete
    9. If it needs to be explicitly stated, the metaphor is Somerby's longstanding habit of saying that thousands died because Gore was mistreated by the press. It is just as right to say that thousands died because Somerby helped put Trump into office by his failure to stand by Hillary, his mockery of her campaign (here Somerby is equivalent to the press in Somerby's own parallel to Gore's campaign).

      Delete
    10. All you’re saying is that 2015’s statement echoes Somerby’s. So what? Somerby’s statement is literally true; 2015’s is literally false. It is not “just as right” to say the one as to say the other.

      If 2015’s false statement is to be taken metaphorically, then pray tell us what it means, metaphorically, that Somerby caused thousands of deaths?

      Delete
    11. Already answered. Fuck off.

      Delete
    12. go back to at least 2015, when Somerby couldn't say enough bad things about Hillary

      He wrote a piece in 2015 about hatred of the political press corps towards Hillary Clinton and how this affects the way her campaign is being covered.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/06/ever-so-slowly-we-turn-imagining.html?m=1

      Here's one from 2015 about the media's bias against the Clintons and Gore, and how liberals remain clueless about this bias.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/03/supplemental-on-hardball-we-encounter.html

      Here's one from 2015 about the NYT's history of bungled coverage of the Clintons, including the Whitewater scandal and by recent front-page reports that were journalistically ludicrous.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/08/23-years-later-leading-liberals-complain.html

      Here's one from 2015 about the Washington Post and New York Times unfairly reporting that Hillary Clinton did not sign a form certifying that she had returned all department paperwork when she left her position as Secretary of State because they don't mention the two secretaries of state before Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, also did not sign the form.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/03/supplemental-two-ways-of-telling-same.html

      Here's another one from Somerby's 2015 series on The New York Times problem covering the Clintons and unfairly critical edge when reporting on Hillary Clinton and how the liberal world failed to ask or pursue questions about the Times' coverage of the Clintons, with major journalists making little effort to challenge or critique the paper's work.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/08/23-years-later-does-new-york-times-have.html

      Here's another one from 2015 about discussions of potential sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton by MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Lawrence O'Donnell. Somerby suggests the hosts are not telling the truth about their own past misogynistic comments about Clinton.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/03/supplemental-stooges-assess-upcoming.html

      Here's another one from 2015 that criticizes an article in The Atlantic that compiled a list of the Clinton scandals, arguing that the author, David Graham, is biased and poorly trained and a product of a biased media system.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/07/supplemental-children-are-beautifully.html

      Here's a good one from 2015 where Somerby describes Washington Post's Ruth Marcus column criticizing Clinton's "compulsive speechifying" and notes Marcus has even referred to Clinton as a "gluttonous pig." Somerby argues that these same old stories and double standards have been used to attack the Clintons and Al Gore for years, and suggests that if you care about who becomes president, you should be concerned about the re-emergence of these stories.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/05/same-old-stories-marcus-and-bruni-have.html

      Here's yet another one from 2015 about the media's reaction to Hillary Clinton's announcement of her presidential campaign, arguing that it is too early for her to be campaigning and that the media's focus on the lack of substance in her announcement video is unwarranted.

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/04/supplemental-speaking-of-insultingly.html

      Here's one from 2015 where Somerby criticizes New York Times reporter Amy Chozick for her coverage of Hillary Clinton's involvement in her husband's sexual misconduct scandals. He argues that Chozick fails to provide important context and background information, and accuses her of being a "ludicrous pseudo-reporter."

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/01/supplemental-self-described-groupie.html

      Should I cite more? Somerby wrote literally almost 100 posts in 2015 defending Clinton. So what the fuck are you talking about?

      Delete
    13. 9:37 - Yes! I wasn’t even mentioning the absurd implication that Somerby was anti-Hillary.

      Delete
    14. Yes, Somerby equated press mistreatment of Hillary with the mistreatment of Gore but he also blamed Hillary for her persecution and called her a terrible candidate, worrying constantly that she would be unable to beat Trump and calling for her removal as nominee just as he is now doing with Biden. When she complained about Trump’s debate behavior, Somerby sided with Trump. Somerby has been defending Trump ever since.

      The cherry picked excerptslisted skipped anything that supports my view instead of yours. That isn’t how you do research.

      Delete
    15. I'm still going through all the articles. Here's one where yet again defends Clinton running and says "it would be hard to elect Candidate Sanders in a general election".

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/06/supplemental-we-people-speak.html

      Delete
    16. Defending Bill is not defending Hillary.

      Delete
    17. Back it up. Show us where "Somerby couldn't say enough bad things about Hillary in 2015." Where?

      Delete
    18. You're full of shit and a troll.

      Delete
    19. Somerby repeatedly expressed support for Sanders. He never expressed support for Hillary.

      Delete
    20. Clinton lost to Trump. She was a horrible candidate you fucking dumb shit.

      Delete
    21. "Somerby couldn't say enough bad things about Hillary in 2015." Where?

      Delete
    22. "Somerby repeatedly expressed support for Sanders. He never expressed support for Hillary."

      Where?

      Delete
    23. "The cherry picked excerpts listed skipped anything that supports my view instead of yours."

      That's false. They were all defending Clinton. Not one supported your view.

      Delete
    24. Do your own research.

      Delete
    25. (and there was almost 100 of them)

      Delete
    26. So to conclude, you make paranoid statements you can't back up and when presented with mountains of detailed evidence that contradict what you claim, you have nothing to say except to repeat your initial stance.🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻

      Delete
    27. There are pages and pages where Somerby repeats the attacks on Hillary, with no defense from Somerby. Somerby uses other people's statements to convey the negative info about Hillary, never refuting any of it. Then he says things like this:

      ""Hillary Clinton Has a Shouting Problem"

      Is it true? Does Candidate Clinton possibly "have a shouting problem?"

      We'd say she possibly does. " 6/2/2016

      The same for when Hillary is called Crooked Hillary or was accused of being a pig for speaking for money, and the various attacks on her. Meanwhile he says the election is lost because how will Clinton surmount the Clinton rules and narrative against her in order to beat Trump (which she did handily in the popular vote). Somerby never offers a single objection to any of these attacks, except to say that they are similar to what the media did to Gore (which is a defense of Gore, who was not running).

      So, not only does Somerby amplify the complaints about Clinton, he agrees with them, expresses doubts that Clinton can win, and trashes her for being a terrible candidate, as he later said about Biden and all of the Democratic nominees in 2020.

      Somerby has been doing this since 2015 -- amplifying the complaints against Democrats by repeating the criticisms appearing on Fox News. As he still does with Gutfeld and others, today Nuzzi.

      On 2/11/2014, Somerby goes on at length repeating all of the smears he heaped on Hillary Clinton and never stating that they were false, never refuting or defending any of them, never quoting her responses but quoting Matthews calumnies over and over. No defense of Clinton at all. Yes, Somerby is attacking Matthews, and yes he points out that this is what they did to Gore, but there is no rebuttal or correction or fact check of the lies aimed specifically at Clinton. And that is not how you support a candidate -- repeating the lies, never identifying them as false, and implying that Clinton is as bad as Matthews says but Matthews is bad for being a hypocrite and changing to support Clinton when his station demanded it, which makes Clinton look even worse, since the implication is that she is all of the terrible things Matthews said about her, which makes him especially craven for switching to promote her.

      This is how Somerby damns Clinton. It is not how a liberal supports a candidate he expects to vote for. It is how Somerby joined the forces trying to bury her. And it is the same tactic he has used with Biden. Joining the criticism and worrying that he will be too weak to prevail over Trump, while defending whatever criticism of Trump is raised by the left.

      On Nov 4, 2016, Somerby asks:

      "Why did some FBI agents want to execute the Clintons for their vile deeds at the Clinton Foundation? "

      Vile deeds is Somerby's term. He goes on to quote from Maddow describing a Breitbart.com book, including the url. No mention that it is pure garbage, no refutation or debunking or fact checking. Somerby is preoccupied with attacking Maddow for daring to discuss how Clinton was being attacked. Then Somerby says:

      "In Maddowvania, Fox was wrong to credit that Breitbart.com anti-Hillary Clinton book; the New York Times, not so much! But dearest darlings, please use your heads! It simply isn't done!

      Someone else may know what you need. The weirdly grinning Rachel Maddow seems to know what you want."

      The point for Somerby is not to defend Clinton before the election on Nov 10, but to portray Maddow as wrong because she blamed Fox for the defamation and not the NY Times (who also printed excerpts from the anti-Clinton book). Somehow Clinton gets lost in Somerby's haste to hate on Maddow and no one every mentions that the book is a hit piece and it contains untrue garbage -- right before election day!

      That is not how you support a Democratic nominee for President.

      Delete
    28. "Career liberals, guarding their nests: Hillary Clinton may yet get elected, of course.

      This week, though, we've begun to feel that the die has perhaps been cast. That sinking feeling may turn out to be wrong, of course. " Sept 15, 2016

      "...People are dead all over the world because Kristof and his colleagues did that. You'd think this might inspire him to be a bit more frank today.

      If you thought that, you don't understand the soul of these careful careerists. Like Krugman, Kristof feigns uncertainty about just what is happening now. (He wonders if his colleagues are at it again!) Eventually, he makes a striking statement:
      KRISTOF: There frankly has been a degree of unreality to some of the campaign discussion: Partly because Hillary Clinton’s narrative is one of a slippery, dishonest candidate, the discussion disproportionately revolves around that theme. Yes, Clinton has been disingenuous and legalistic in her explanations of emails. Meanwhile, Trump is a mythomaniac who appears to have systematically cheated customers of Trump University.
      In one way, that highlighted statement is perfectly accurate. The "narrative" about Candidate Clinton actually does hold her to be "a slippery, dishonest candidate." And that does explain why press coverage (euphemistically called "the discussion") "disproportionately revolves around that theme."

      Here's the problem. Kristof never tries to explain how Clinton acquired that "narrative." Much more importantly, he never explains why she, or any other candidate, should ever come to have "a narrative" at all."

      Somerby, again, never bothers to tell his readers that this narrative about Clinton is untrue. He doesn't care whether Hillary is being falsely attacked. He cares about Gore and Kristof's treatment of Gore.

      Delete
    29. "Allen’s piece is underwhelming, largely because he largely follows the press corps’ “code of silence.” He lists five basic ways in which, he says, the press corps systematically mistreats Candidate Clinton. But he provides virtually no examples of the journalistic behavior he alleges.

      He criticizes exactly one journalist by name—Maureen Dowd, who he cites, late in his piece, for something she wrote in January 2008. According to our arithmetic desk, that’s more than seven years back!

      Who would write an exposé in such a denatured fashion? In his underwhelming piece, Allen alleges the existence of the Clinton rules, but he unmistakably proves the existence of the code of silence!

      We can’t tell you how Clinton will be covered from here on out. But on the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, Ashley Parker and Amy Chozick displayed some of the lazy, hapless ways our upper-end press corps functions.

      We won’t say that they were subjecting Clinton to some sort of special treatment. But let’s look at two things they did."

      If you read this passage, would you conclude that Somerby thinks Clinton has been unfairly treated? His language is so equivocal, tentative, wishy washy: Allen's piece is underwhelming, he has offered only one item as proof, his expose is denatured (whatever that means), we [Somerby himself] can't tell you how Clinton will be covered, we [Somerby himself] won't say they were subjecting [Clinton] to some special treatment [being mean to her]. This is a non-defense defense, so spineless that you wonder what Somerby would say, in fact, what he did say. Nothing that helps Clinton in her fight to win the election.

      Somerby is the master of this and it is an abuse of language. Later, idiots like PP come along and find whatever they want in Somerby's writing because Somerby will not speak plainly.

      Perhaps Somerby understands that most people are not very good with complex language, such as double negatives and hypothetical and conditional statements, and the various ways people disguise their intentions in writing. Perhaps Somerby is just a dishonest fuck who uses language to hide what he wants to hint, to maintain plausible deniability. Whatever is the case, Somerby flies right over PP's excessively literal head. But that may not be hard to do.

      Delete
    30. Now Somerby is doing the same thing to Biden.

      Delete
    31. So ... not one example of Somerby saying bad things about Hillary in 2015 or Somerby repeatedly expressing support for Sanders,

      Somerby reporting what other people say about her while defending her and criticizing them is "saying bad things about Hillary".

      In other words, you reason like a 9 year old.

      You deserve everything you get.

      Delete
    32. Not advocating for Hillary is saying bad things about Hillary to these lost children.

      Delete
  8. Perhaps an 81 year old man who loves his wife did not give Nuzzi the attention she felt she deserved when she approached him. Why should the President of the United States of America give Nuzzi the time-of-day at a public function? Why did she think she was important enough to go up to The President and demand attention from him?

    Narcissistic ego and the idea that reporters can and should intrude everywhere, just because they feel the urge, may have motivated her to approach Biden, but what did she interrupt by doing so? What do each of us look like when thinking about something else and then interrupted? My mouth might hang open when I think. I doubt know because I don't look in the mirror. I am old too. Do I look waxy? I don't think so, but I know that Trump doesn't look normal either. Is orange OK but waxy not OK? What does that even mean? Did Nuzzi think she would evoke the spectre of death by describing him looking the way an embalmed corpse looks? I'll bet Biden looked the way he always looks (like any other 81 year old) and not waxy at all. Or maybe she accidentally wandered into a wax museum instead of the photo taking at the Washington Hilton.

    But I am very concerned at why Jill Biden would have looked panicky when Biden was apparently not doing anything to warrant full-blown panic, except looking vague. In the next paragraph Nuzzi makes her intention clear by speculating about "how dead, percentage-wise" was the President during that routine photo-op.

    Are we supposed to think that Jill Biden is the kind of person who looks panicky whenever her husband is standing around doing nothing? And if Biden himself looks waxy, shouldn't someone be calling for the Presidential makeup artist (who prepares him for photo ops) to be fired for incompetent make up? Even Trump looks alive, even when being compared to an orangutan.

    There is no cognitive condition, including dementia, that makes an elderly person look "waxy" or "dead". Wrinkly yes, waxy no.

    Somerby and Drum got played. The more you think about Nuzzi's article the sillier it becomes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Biden is a little slower and much more waxen. He has gotten a lot of things confused lately. And he does slur his words. He has a blank, dead-eyed stare sometimes. He walks like C-3PO on an ice rink. Watching him take even a short walk to his airplane becomes an emotional rollercoaster of anticipation as to whether or not he will make it without a violent, slapstick wipeout.

      But I don't think it's that bad. In two or three years though, it may get bad. I wonder why he has always been so disliked by so many Americans. He passed laws and created jobs. You would think they would be grateful.

      Delete
    2. “waxen” is not a thing

      Delete
    3. Sounds like you are describing Trump’s walk. Biden broke his foot awhile back which affected how he walks. Trump has no such excuse.

      Delete
    4. Waxy is also defined as meaning angry and ill-tempered.

      Delete
    5. No, that is not what anyone is saying about Biden. Look at the context. That is how you determine which of multiple meanings are intended by an author.

      Delete
  9. Look what our senile old President went and did this last month:

    "Job Growth In June Exceeded Expectations Again - The June jobs report is out this morning and it’s another good one: 206,000 jobs created, unemployment rate now at 4.1%. The goal of our policy now is to slow the economy, get inflation down without tipping into recession. With inflation zero last month and this sturdy report we are getting closer to where we want the economy to be - growing but with slightly lower inflation. From the Washington Post this am:

    “The labor market is still strong but not quite as strong as it was a year ago,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC. “If we see a bit slower job growth, a little bit of cooling competition for workers, slightly less wage growth, that should help get inflation back to the Fed’s 2 percent target.”

    Here’s our updated monthly jobs tracker:

    33.8m jobs = 16 years Clinton, Obama

    15.7m jobs = 40 months of Biden

    1.9m jobs = 16 years of Bush, Bush, Trump

    Biden's 15.7m jobs are 8 times as many jobs as were created in the 16 years of the last 3 Republican Presidencies, combined. Since 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the US has seen 51 million new jobs created. 49.5 million of those 51.4 million jobs - 96% - have been created under Democratic Presidents. Just 2 million jobs - 4% - have been created under Republicans.

    https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/joe-biden-is-a-successful-president-1bf?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1223483&post_id=146306187&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=brgvh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DiC - He’s right - 206K new jobs in June! Woo-hoo!

      Isn’t it weird how every report is a good one?

      Delete
    2. Actually 200,000 new jobs is decent, but not great. E.g., in Dec. 2018, 312,000 jobs were added.

      Also, note that this same economic report shows job figures for the two prior months were reduced. That's why the unemployment rate didn't go down. It ticked up from 4.0% to 4.1%.

      Also, one third of the new jobs are in government. This may not be sustainable.

      BTW neither Trump nor Biden created any jobs. Jobs were created by employers. I laugh at these popinjays taking credit for stuff done by the hard word of thousands of businesswomen and businessmen.

      Delete
    3. DiC - jobs are created by demand, not by employers

      Delete
    4. If a large apartment is built, and hundreds of people now want lattes, some employer will hire baristas. But the employer did not create the jobs, the demand did. And part of the President’s job is to manage demand.

      Delete
    5. The comparison with other presidents shows Biden’s results are great. They always adjust the jobs result after the first announcement.

      Delete
    6. I laugh at these popinjays taking credit...

      Oh, you laugh at popinjays, do you? And then you come here to quibble over the significance of one months job gains under President Biden. And then you try to cherry-pick one month from Trump's record to prove, what exactly???

      From:
      https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

      Job gains in Dec 2018 were 182,000,
      up from the previous month of 97000 in Nov 2018.

      Why don't we look at Dec 2020?
      -243000 negative job gains.

      President Biden is the first American president in my lifetime who has done anything significant to reverse the inequality of wealth distribution. This troubles right-wingers like DiC, who cannot admit that their theory of trickle down bullshit doesn't work and hasn't worked. So he is forced to come here every day and argue that no matter how good Biden has done with the economy, it isn't good enough.

      Delete
  10. What does Frederick Douglass have to do with Biden or Gutfeld? He is relevant to Trump because Trump was so ignorant about who he was that he said:

    “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.”

    Sean Spicer had to clean that up after him. But it is Biden who has cognitive problems? I don't think so. Ignorance and stupidity are cognitive problems too. Combined with Trump's stubbornness and bullying of his own staff, that makes Trump infinitely more dangerous than Biden (who has not been shown to have messed up anything on the job due to mental lapses or stuttering) because campaign debates are not any part of the job of being president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard that Frederick Douglass once stuttered while giving a speech. Did they make him go back to being a slave?

      Delete
    2. I don’t know if Douglass stuttered, but he really did an amazing job.

      Delete
    3. Finally! I was beginning to wonder if anyone would ever notice.

      Delete
  11. The right wing's attack on Biden using his age seems to have snuck up on Democrats. Their attack on women should not come as a surprise -- too much is at stake. Thom Hartmann lays out their plan, which they have expressed in writing in their 2025 Plan and the recent Supreme Court decisions. We cannot say we haven't been warned:

    https://hartmannreport.com/p/women-under-fire-the-gops-radical-4d5

    Women and the men who care about women need to defend against this attack, which is part of defeating Trump in November. Whatever you feel about Biden and his cognition, he is not Trump. If you need to think of voting for him as a vote for Democrat administration, then do so, as long as you recognize how serious it is that no one vote for Trump again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's very difficult for the partisan type of commenters at Drum's and elsewhere to come to terms with Biden's deterioration and how it has been kept from them by his administration. It will take along time to sink in. Politics has become a substitute for religion for them - a source of meaning and purpose in their lives, and a way to find a community. This makes any criticism heretical and causes the hyperbolic devotion and intolerance of any opposing views that you see replete in their comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet they still think women should make their own reproductive choices. Go figure.

      Delete
    2. I see the Right has fallen in line with protecting Antifa from any charges regarding January 6th.

      Delete
    3. Trump had his test when covid hit and decided to fucking lie and try to gaslight the American people. He doesn't deserve a second chance.

      Trump also handed 3 supreme court picks to unelected right wing christo-fascists to select. And consequently turned the country into a dystopian clusterfuck for American women.

      Go fuck yourself David.

      Delete
    4. Classic projection from 12:14, somewhat accurately describing right wingers while attempting to externalize it to Others.

      In reality, Biden's age and supposed decline has been the main thrust of Trump's campaign going back to 2020, whereas the candidate showing the most decline is Trump, who routinely glitches and short circuits and wanders off script in bizarre and incoherent rants.

      12:14 is looking for emotional comfort, selling off their integrity in exchange.

      Delete
    5. Like @1:07 I am pro-choice. I was in favor of Roe v Wade as policy. However, as law it was ridiculous IMO. Nothing in the Constitution addresses when life begins. The SC has no Constitutional basis for addressing the subject.

      It is unfortunate that a number of states are adopting harsh bans on abortion. It's also unfortunate politically for Republicans. Roe v Wade insulated them from being damaged by their unfortunate pro-life position.

      Delete
    6. David, the Constitution authorizes an army and a navy, but not an Air Force.

      Delete
    7. David, cut the bullshit. There is nothing in the Constitution about a President enjoying total immunity for crimes he committed in office, but your fucking corrupt supreme court, you know, the originalists, just invented it.

      You voted for that abomination who handed one of the most precious prerogatives of a President to a bunch of religious christo-fascists. Unfortunate you say. As I said, go fuck yourself.

      Delete
    8. @1:23 the Preamble to the Constitution says, " Provide for the common defense."

      Delete
    9. @1:27 You have a good point. Judges and prosecutors also have immunity for official acts. Do you know whether that's a legislated law or just due to a judicial decision.

      Delete
    10. 1:11 PM Actually, Biden's age was first made an issue by Democrats during the primaries of 2020. Now we know why it was an issue that deserved.

      Why Joe Biden’s Age Worries Some Democratic Allies and Voters
      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/us/politics/joe-biden-age.html

      Joe Biden says it's 'totally appropriate' for voters to consider his age.
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/07/politics/joe-biden-age-2020-race/index.html

      Delete
    11. Now the mainstream media is suddenly our friend and should totally be believed unquestioningly. Funny how that worked out.

      Delete
    12. "Judges and prosecutors also have immunity for official acts."

      Immunity from criminal prosecution? News to me. You base this on what, exactly?

      Delete
    13. Biden has few flaws so picking on his age means they have nothing else to criticize.

      Delete
    14. IIRC Dershowitz mentioned it. Wikipedia confirms it
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity

      We saw this with Democratic judge Alcee Hastings. He was impeached an removed from office for taking a bribe, but he wasn't criminally prosecuted. He later was elected to Congress.

      Delete
    15. Allegations and impeachment
      Criminal trial
      In 1981, after a sting operation by the FBI against attorney and alleged co-conspirator William Borders,[9] Hastings was charged with conspiracy to solicit a $150,000 bribe (equivalent to $502,709 in 2023) in exchange for a lenient sentence for Frank and Thomas Romano on 21 counts of racketeering and the return of their seized assets.[10] In his 1983 trial, Hastings was acquitted by a jury after Borders refused to testify in court, despite having been convicted in his own trial in 1982.[9] Borders went to jail for accepting the first $25,000 payment, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[11]

      What the fuck is wrong with you, DiC? Are you an affirmative action troll? You keep making mistakes.

      Delete
    16. Dershowitz was too busy getting massages from underage girls to be coherent.

      His penis may be small but its not going to ejaculate all by itself.

      Delete
    17. The Bible suggests life starts at first breath, and that a developing fetus in the womb is property, not a person with rights.

      Delete
    18. The Bible is wrong.

      Delete
    19. Plants are alive. Shall we forbid harvesting them for food and decorative flowers?

      Delete
    20. That's civil immunity, David. That's not total immunity from criminal prosecution.

      Delete
    21. 6:08 Welcome to the rotation of fact checking DIC's references, examples and links. Such efforts appear to be universally successful in refuting his various and sundry claims.

      Delete
    22. David in Cal,
      That's the same pre-amble to the Constitution that mentions "Welfare", correct?

      Delete
  13. Trump raped Katie Johnson, who was 13 at the time.

    Governor DeSantis signed a bill this year to release documents from the Epstein case on 7/1, which is why the issue has resurfaced.

    Epstein was given a "sweetheart deal" by Florida DA Acosta (with help from Alan Dershowitz), Acosta then later was handed the position of Sec of Labor by Trump.

    Epstein was eventually arrested in NY in a more serious effort to prosecute his crimes, at which point he mysteriously died in jail, supposedly by suicide. Epstein's partner in crime was also arrested and convicted and is serving a sentence in prison.

    Epstein and Trump had a long term friendship, others that associated with Epstein are; Alan Dershowitz, Steven Pinker, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, MbS, on and on...

    Biden has had no association with Epstein.

    Trump was eventually held to account for some of his crimes; he was found liable for sexual abuse (rape), and he was convicted of felonies related to covering up a sexual encounter with a porn star shortly after Trump's wife gave birth. Trump also raped his first wife after she mocked a bad hair transplant surgery, and Trump has expressed sexual interest in his own daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thomas Sowell says Trump is unfit to be president.

    ReplyDelete
  15. One can reasonably deduce that Democratic insiders and media knew about Biden's condition and hid the truth from us. Will they pay a price? Will supporters of the media and of the Democratic Party reduce their support and belief in them?

    I don't think they will. That's based on a sample of 1 -- my wife. She remains as attached as ever to the PBS. Newshour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you just get the fuck out of our faces this weekend, DiC. Please. We're celebrating the American revolution. You are supporting some fucking weird thing called the second revolution which will remain bloodless if the left allows it. So get the fuck out of here these next few days. You got some fucking chutzpah to deign to lecture us.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 1:40pm, how dare you. You don’t own or manage this blog, It’s not your private chatroom,

      No one is forcing you to read anyone’s posts. It’s you have an over abundance of chutzpah. Grow up.

      Delete
    3. Cecelia, no one likes you and @1:40 has a point about celebrating our nation’s birth as a group.

      Delete
    4. @1:56 “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
      Samuel Johnson

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 1:56, don’t go breaking my heart…

      1:40pm and everyone else should have no expectations as to who should or should not be commenting today or any other day.

      I know you exult in thinking that you’ve countermanded Bob’s blog, but that’s because that’s the sort people you are.

      Delete
    6. They didn't pay a price for lying about Russiagate, Hunter's laptop, or partisan lawfare against
      Trump, so probably not.

      Delete
    7. Cecelia, I asked him politely. I said please. Who are you, his mother?

      Delete
    8. Johnson wasn’t saying that patriotism is bad.

      Delete
    9. Cecelia doesn’t know what countermanded means. The word she needs is comandeered, which means something different. Is she perhaps senile, or a non-native English speaker (perhaps illegal)?

      Delete
    10. Cecelia has her word issues, but I love her. I love David, too.(He never misuses words.)

      Delete
    11. Cecelia is a man, pretending to be a woman.

      He is a troubled and lost soul, psychologically wounded and in need of care.

      DiC is just wrong, Biden's age has been a major issue since 2020. Nobody hid anything.

      Delete
    12. Comer's attempt to impeach Biden failed and the main result was that the star witness was revealed to be a Russian operative who is now criminally indicted.

      Trump did collude with Russia, and Russia did interfere with the 2016 election and likely played a significant role in Trump getting elected.

      Delete
    13. Russia may be behind this massive attack on Biden now, focusing on his age. The NY Times looks bought off.

      Delete
    14. Cecelia needs me, and if she plays her cards right, she can have me.

      Delete
    15. Anonymouse 6:43pm, and those are my good points.

      Delete
    16. "Cecelia is a man, pretending to be a woman."

      Where does one get a degree in gender-semiotic-forensics?

      Delete
    17. "Russia may be behind this massive attack on Biden now, focusing on his age. The NY Times looks bought off."

      Da, comrade.

      Delete
  16. “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

    That's rich, coming from you who supports a man who thinks dry humping the Flag on stage is patriotic. Go fuck yourself, David. You don't fool me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

      Trump is the manifestation of that quote.

      Delete
  17. Bob sites the poles and the journalists, you know, just like the poles and journalists indicated that Al Gore had a problem telling the
    truth. While examples seemed hard to site,
    this was a VERY big deal at the time, and
    Bob, rightfully, wrote that this was a
    manufactured notion. A campaign talking
    point the press enabled the Right to build
    on. Bill O”Reilly, who Bob always treated
    very respectfully, wanted Gore prosecuted
    for making a campaign related phone call
    from the White House. One day the Republicans
    would hold their convention in the White
    House, a very little remarked upon
    travesty.
    Biden is the first President, in our
    lifetime anyway, to be shouted at and
    heckled during the SOTU. Bob, determined
    now to PUSH the right talking point, has
    never had anything to say about this.
    Exculpatory evidence is rarely acknowledged
    by Bob when he had a notion to push.
    It’s important to notice Bob did not stop
    in saying Biden lacks the stamina to
    be President, he has said Biden does not
    DESERVE to be considered. He has suggested
    crime committed by illegal aliens are
    Biden’s fault. Somerby has embraced the
    Immigration issue, Trump’s great scare
    talking point, fully and with a certain rage.
    Don’t point out Biden hammered out a deal
    with Republicans on immigration that
    Trump killed because it might play
    well for Biden. Bob doesn’t like when
    you bring that up.
    Bob has shut up of late about Hunter
    Biden, but Bob embraced this ugly talking
    point for years.
    Bob says Trump’s performance was
    equally absurd but more familiar. Bob’s
    response to Trump’s ugliness is familiar
    too, The poor man is disoriented.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear King Charles,

    We're very sorry. Forgive us?

    ReplyDelete