WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
Not that anyone cares: There was a time, at the dawn of the era, when the major candidates really knew their stuff.
Or at least, that's what Theodore White alleged in his famous, Pulitzer-winning book, The Making of The President 1960.
As we noted yesterday, Candidate Hubert Humphrey really knew his stuff! And that was just in the primaries, of which there weren't all that many at the dawn of the era:
WHITE (page 88): What is amazing about Humphrey is the wealth, the diversity, the detail of his knowledge, which runs from internal labor-union politics to the price of milk to the support price on peanuts to the tonnage on the St. Lawrence Seaway to his favorite Food for Peace plan to nuclear disarmament. Name a subject and somewhere, from his reading, Humphrey has picked up an expertise that he has digested and can now deliver, fused with intensity and passion within the frame of his own philosophy: that this is a nation of individuals, of yeoman and country merchants, and government’s job is to keep the big man from crushing the little man.
Candidate Humphrey knew it all, or at least so White alleged. As we noted last week, Candidates Kennedy and Nixon were also alleged to know their stuff—not that anyone cared:
WHITE (page 292): Kennedy’s response to the first question on Quemoy and Matsu was probably one of the sharpest and clearest responses to any question of the debates; in that response, actually, Kennedy was tentatively fingering at one of the supreme problems of American statecraft, our relation with the revolution in Asia.
[...]
[Footnote]: For a full development of this two [and a half] minute answer, one had to wait for days, until Kennedy’s extraordinarily lucid half-hour speech on Quemoy and Matsu in New York on Columbus Day, October 12th. That speech was heard only by a local audience, and its full text was reprinted, so far as I know, in only three newspapers in the country. It was as fine a campaign discussion of an issue of national importance as this correspondent can remember—yet its impact on the nation was nil.
Candidate Kennedy knew his stuff too (as did Candidate Nixon). Despite that fact, White reported that only three newspapers bothered to print the entire text of his "extraordinarily lucid half-hour speech" about Quemoy and Matsu.
For that reason, "its impact on the nation was nil!" Due to the indifference of the press, we the people were kept from hearing what Candidate Kennedy had said about this somewhat abstruse policy matter.
As we noted last week, that footnote by White seems to come from a vastly different country—from a whole different universe. In several weeks of reviewing White's famous book, that footnote seems to define the current state of play more than any other passage.
Imagine! Back at the dawn of the modern era, White was appalled by the fact that the nation's newspapers had failed to publish the full text of a half-hour policy speech.
White seemed to assume that we the people would actually have read the text of that speech had it only been published. We don't know if that assumption was accurate, but what a sign of the change in the times!
(The times they are a-changin', Bob Dylan soon said. He first said it three years later.)
By now, the times have thoroughly changed. Even in online editions where the cost of newsprint isn't involved, today's newspapers wouldn't dream of publishing any such text. Nor is there any sign that any of us the people would actually read some such text.
In the current presidential campaign, one candidate keeps stumbling around, offering truly weird pronouncements about major policy questions. For better or worse, it's very, very, very hard to find the published text of these very strange policy statements.
It's within that context that the other nominee will be making a speech today. At the Washington Post, Viser and Stein present this preview of today's address:
Harris to deliver major speech on the economy in Pittsburgh
Vice President Kamala Harris plans to outline in greater detail Wednesday an economic philosophy rooted in her own biography, attempting to contrast her vision with Donald Trump’s and win over voters in a crucial swing state who so far have viewed her skeptically on a driving electoral issue.
Harris, speaking at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh in what her campaign is billing as a major address, is expected to focus on the middle class, while also outlining the ways in which she views herself as a capitalist who believes there are limitations of what government can do, according to a senior campaign official. She will describe her economic philosophy as “pragmatic,” advisers say, stressing that her policies are practical and not “bound by ideology.”
[...]
During the speech, The Washington Post reported Tuesday, Harris is expected to call for new federal incentives to encourage domestic manufacturing, according to two people familiar with her plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe matters not yet made public.
Harris will point to Pittsburgh as essential to the rise of American manufacturing as well as the labor movement. She hopes to make a sharp distinction between her plans to spur production with targeted tax incentives and Trump’s plans to impose trillions of dollars in new tariffs, aides say.
And so on from there. For one thing, Harris is going to talk about tariffs—though at this point, it's not entirely clear that anyone actually cares.
We'll grant you this—the Post's report is just a preview of what will likely be said. That said, it's featured halfway down the front page of the Post's website, well below such thumb-suckers as this:
What we learned from Ellen DeGeneres’s Netflix special
Two years after the end of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” the comedian and former talk show host breaks her silence.
At the two major web sites of the New York Times, today's speech is getting even less play. Plenty of real news is being covered by the Times, but the print edition also invites readers to waste their time on this:
The Long, Strange Saga of Kamala Harris and Kimberly Guilfoyle
More than two decades ago, the future vice president and the future conservative firebrand were rising legal stars in San Francisco. Then Ms. Guilfoyle accused Ms. Harris of trying to deny her a job.
Attention! Possible catfight occurred, long ago! So says today's New York Times in a very lengthy report.
How will today's address be reported once it's actually given? We can't tell you that.
We can tell you this.
Thanks to the so-called democratization of media—thanks to the remarkable spread of undisguised pseudo-journalism—the coverage of policy matters is, for tens of millions of us the people, increasingly an undisguised gong-show.
That undisguised gong-show is delivered by arrays of undisguised flyweights. These flyweights arrive on the scene in fully loaded clowncars.
In our view, MSNBC is bad enough. What happens on the Fox News Channel is an unrelenting joke—an unrelenting joke which is leavened with the usual reference to one of the candidates as "Cackling McKneepads."
So it went again last night, right there in prime time, with Nancy Pelosi's appalling number of facelifts also pleasingly cited. So it went once again, as a corporate clownshow continued.
Over the course of the next two days, we'll try to show you some of what we've seen as we've watched one of the candidates make ludicrous claims. In Red America, those ludicrous claims are relentlessly cleaned up. At Blue America's major orgs, they're largely ignored.
All in all, a cancer has grown on the democracy, such as it ever was. As this cancer has grown, our finer news orgs have behaved like the famous frog in the pot of water which is slowly brought to a boil.
Blue America's orgs have averted their gaze as the temperature rises. That conduct has brought us to the point where gangs of incels, in prime time, lob sexual insults at one candidate while they mock the face lifts and the girth of other women they fear and oppose.
Hubert Humphrey knew his stuff. What explains the peculiar claims repeatedly made by one of the major candidates?
At the Fox News Channel, they work to hide those peculiar statements. At the New York Times, they don't especially seem to care.
Two reads diverged in a shallow wood, Robert Frost once alleged. Within the current context, our society has chosen to walk down a very long road.
It may be very hard to find our way back from where we've gone—to find our way back out of all this now too much for us.
What is truth? Pontius Pilate once said. The truth is, nobody cares, major top experts have said.
Tomorrow: What did "Cackling McKneepads" propose? And what about the other candidate?
Over the next two days, we'll try to lay some of it out...
Reminds me of the time David in Cal's "liberal media" (LOL), showed an empty podium, in order to ignore Hillary Clinton's policy speech.
ReplyDeleteSmart business move.
DeleteThose corporate tax breaks, weren't going to pass themselves.
Somerby yet again dumbly conflates the corporatization of media with the democratization of media.
DeleteEven while doing this, Somerby’s reasoning is poor and muddled.
He says media was not great back in the day (duh, our “gatekeepers” were in reality toeing the right wing corporate line), and at the same time the more recent democratization of media is a root cause of our problems. Somerby provides no evidence for his assertions, as is typical.
Somerby’s fuzzy and incoherent rambling is a function of his values; Somerby endorses a hierarchy of elitists dominating a cohort of lower classes.
In reality, the values Somerby finds comforting to his sensitivities, notions like neoliberalism and meritocracy, are being effectively challenged by the democratization of media; increasingly we see that corporate media has diminishing influence over society, and they and Somerby are pissed off about it.
"Somerby endorses a hierarchy of elitists dominating a cohort of lower classes"
DeleteDid you just make this one up out of whole cloth, or is it just fuzzy and incoherent rambling?
@1:27 Somerby complains because the full text of political speeches were not printed in the newspapers. He doesn't understand the economics involved in printing a profitable paper. Each page must be supported by ads sold, which means no additional space for long speeches that few people will read.
DeleteThere is no such limitation today, because webpages are infinite. The realities instead are that attracting clicks and subscriptions depend on having interesting content and lengthy political speeches are not interesting, even to people who are following the election, except wonkish voters.
The solution to this was to have a forum that was not dependent on financing that could print long documents with little public appeal. That was C-Span and non-profits like the League of Women Voters. But as I noted above, the speeches are readily available at each candidate's website. It is not hard to find them by googling them. So, I do not see why Somerby must insist that the NY Times reprint them when they do not have the means to pay for it and still make money (which keeps them in business).
Democratization is good because it enables everyone to participate if they want to. It does not demand that they do so, as Somerby seems to want. Somerby could be using this very website to repost and even analyze such speeches as they occur. He doesn't consider that sufficiently important to actually do it. So, I have to wonder what Somerby's ulterior motive is when he complains about the press. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual access to speeches, but a lot to do with discrediting the press, which is still one arm of our democracy. Somerby has said he doesn't believe the people are up to participating in a democracy, so maybe he is working instead toward some other form of political regime change. Who knows? Somerby won't say, so we can only form hypotheses and use his daily content to test them. PP is opposed to that. He thinks we only get to believe whatever Somerby says directly about his views. That isn't going to stop anyone from speculating.
Right. Somerby's "ulterior motive" is to overturn democracy and to surreptitiously promote some form of "political regime change." You folks have gone around the bend.
DeleteI suspect that Somerby adheres to this worldview:
Delete"The Identitarians, a.k.a. White/Pan-European Nationalists
“Identitarian” is the newest euphemism for White, or pan-European, nationalism. This is the crowd among the Alternative Right that gets the most mainstream media devotion, in part, it seems to be an orchestrated effort by the Fourth Estate to paint all Alternative Rightists as White supremacists and nationalists. This would be wholly false, however.
It is hard to gauge the extend and size of the White nationalists among the Alternative Right, in part, because many prominent figures—like Richard B. Spencer of the National Policy Institute, and editor of “Radix Journal,” and other notables like Jared Taylor (of “American Renaissance”) dominate the group’s public face. They openly claim the title “Alternative Right” as their own—even to the exclusion of other groups.
These White Nationalists are also internationalist, to some degree, which makes the label White nationalist misleading. Which is why they prefer “identitarian.” They seek to preserve the pan-European White culture and race. They are nationalist only insofar as if they exist in a White-majority nation they want to preserve that status, while in the broader picture, trying to preserve pan-European identity on a whole.
Like the neo-reactionaries and national populists, they share a deep anti-immigrant, anti-multicultural, and anti-globalist streak of a prideful isolationist mentality. Like the neo-reactionaries, they also tend to be illiberal in political orientation, which separates them from the national populists who promote nationalist liberalism. Economically, the group is diverse, ranging from national socialism to Austro-libertarianism; there is no agreement in economic policy among the Identitarians. Additionally, there is a diversity within religious views—some being very fundamentalist and ethno-centric Christian, to others being outright neo-Pagans (few are atheists or agnostics).
The neo-Pagan crowd shares an anti-Christian worldview, much like Friedrich Nietzsche, because they view Christianity’s theological universalism, promotion of theological egalitarianism, human universality (we are all children of God), and view of salvation history as the intellectual basis for progressive liberalism. This is not altogether controversial. Many philosophers, historians, and sociologists have long noted that liberalism and progressivism are nothing more than secularized visions of the Judeo-Christian theological tradition. But this is not uniform, as others within the movement are explicitly Christian, arguing that the neo-Pagan crowd is itself, revisionist. The neo-Pagan orientation is more popular in Europe than in the United States, and are exemplified by French philosopher Alan de Benoist and journalist Guillaume Faye.
A subset of this group would be contemporary neo-fascism, which is more explicitly nationalistic than the quasi-internationalism of the Identitarians."
https://minervawisdom.com/2023/12/08/understanding-the-old-right-new-right-and-alt-right/
I think this because of his regard for Nietzche, his fanaticism over Homer and the values embodied in ancient warfare, his anti-immigrant stance, his misogyny, and his doom/gloom view of the future, his racism and opposition toward civil rights, and his support for right-wing shooters and violence, coupled with his animosity toward the left, his statements that democracy is a failed experiment, his dim view of human nature, and his attacks on academia and expertise. These all fit the views expressed by others in this subset of the alt-right. I think he considers his masquerade as a liberal to be a hoot and believe he despises anyone taken in by it.
Crickets from PP.
Delete"I think he considers his masquerade as a liberal to be a hoot and believe he despises anyone taken in by it."
DeleteHow do you think he feels about nutballs like you?
He could say, but he chooses not to. And how do you know I am not right about him?
Delete5:13 - You really want me to comment about 3:51's screed? I'd say you folks are getting way, way, way out there.
Delete"He could say, but he chooses not to. And how do you know I am not right about him?"
DeleteBecause I can read and understand the English language.
Every right winger who watches Fox says the same thing.
DeleteSomerby keeps ignoring the fascinating documentary produced by Rachel Maddow, "From Russia With Lev".
ReplyDeleteDon't understand it, Somerby used to be so interested in her career.
Somerby should be writing about X.
DeleteSomerby should be writing about Twitter?
DeletePP, it's Somerby's blog. If there's something he's not writing about that you want, maybe you should start your own blog. I don't understand why you read his blog if you don't like what he's posting.
Obviously he should. Why doesn't he?
Delete1:54 - You must be new here. "X" as in a variable, not as in Xitter. An ongoing complaint about people who think they should be Somerby's assignment editor.
DeleteYou weren't clear on the distinction.
DeleteMy status is a reader of this blog is irrelevant and as a putdown, it's terribly weak. I know you can do better since that's all you do.
It wasn't a put-down. I've used this "Somerby should write X" formulation many times before, and so I assumed your unfamiliarity with it implied that you were new. But I apologize -- I meant no offense.
DeleteActually, I think I started using the formulation before Twitter became X. And you're right - now it is confusing, so I'm not going to use it any more. (And I'm sincere in my apology.)
Delete“ Hubert Humphrey knew his stuff.”
ReplyDeleteAnd…He suffered a crushing defeat in the electoral college, and lost the popular vote, in a year when George Wallace won several states.
Wallace won 5 deep-south states.
DeleteKamala Harris knows her stuff. By contrasting her upcoming speech with those given by previous politicians from his nostalgic past, Somerby seems to imply that she doesn't, but she does. To offset that strength (which Somerby doesn't acknowledge), he says that no one cares about major policy speeches. This, after both Somerby and the mainstream press endlessly complained that she wasn't supplying enough details about her policies, as if she were only about sunshine and joy and not economic policy. Women get dismissed as lightweights, even when they are not (think Janet Yellin, for example, or Hillary). Somerby has only ever applauded Harris's smile, not her acumen.
ReplyDeleteAs Sam Elliott is saying, it is time to be a man and vote for a woman. That applies to Somerby, perhaps more than to the other whiny jerks complaining about her lack of press interviews.
When you can't criticize anything Somerby actually says about Harris, you can always go with what he "seems to imply." Then you can add whatever you imagine and criticize that.
Delete"Kamala Harris knows her stuff. By contrasting her upcoming speech with those given by previous politicians from his nostalgic past, Somerby seems to imply that she doesn't, but she does."
DeleteIf anything, Somerby contrasts the likely reception of Harris' speech with the reception of previous politicians' speeches.
But there is no assertion, implication, hint or clue that could lead a rational thinker to conclude that Somerby thinks Harris doesn't know her stuff.
Yet that's what you typed. Why?
Yesterday Somerby alluded to Harris's imperfection. He didn't list the ways in which he considers her imperfect or even one way. He has previously called for her to give more interviews, supporting press editorials saying that. Beyond that, what are her flaws? Isn't it reasonabe to assume that when Somerby complains about her lack of policy statements, that he thinks she may be weak in stating policy positions? She gave a major economic policy speech a week or so ago, but crickets from Somerby. Maybe he doesn't think she is up to giving a speech like Humphrey did? Why else would he mention Humphrey first, explain that he lost, and then switch to discussing Harris and her speech?
DeleteSomerby says: "It's within that context that the other nominee will be making a speech today." Then he worries about how her speech will be covered by the media, switching to talk about Gutfeld yet again (he does this daily).
Later, Somerby says: "Hubert Humphrey knew his stuff. What explains the peculiar claims repeatedly made by one of the major candidates? "
If Somerby is talking about Trump's peculiar claims, why does he not say Trump's name instead of the murky "one of the major candidates?" Because he does not specify, he could be talking about Trump or Harris, letting the reader decide. This is one small example of how Somerby has it all ways at once, not saying what he means.
Nowhere do we get the impression that Somerby thinks Harris will do a good job of presenting her ideas, nor that her ideas are sound and a reason to vote for her. A person supporting Harris might go on to say that she is strong because of her economic plans. Somerby has instead reduced Harris to a catfight with Kimberly Guilfoyle of all people. How is a female candidate to be taken seriously as an economic policy wonk, when someone like Somerby, who claims he will vote for her, cannot bring himself to say anything positive about her at all?
"Isn't it reasonabe to assume that when Somerby complains about her lack of policy statements, that he thinks she may be weak in stating policy positions?"
DeleteNo.
"Why else would he mention Humphrey first, explain that he lost, and then switch to discussing Harris and her speech?"
Because he's contrasting press attention to serious policy at a time when there was no 'democratization of media' with the present. This has been his theme all week.
"If Somerby is talking about Trump's peculiar claims, why does he not say Trump's name instead of the murky "one of the major candidates?" Because he does not specify, he could be talking about Trump or Harris, letting the reader decide. This is one small example of how Somerby has it all ways at once, not saying what he means."
This is just silly, given how mercilessly Bob has gone after Trump the last few months.
"Nowhere do we get the impression that Somerby thinks Harris will do a good job of presenting her ideas, nor that her ideas are sound and a reason to vote for her."
Probably because he's discussing her upcoming speech, and doesn't yet know what ideas she will present. Did that occur to you?
As I said, you are taking Somerby at face value. I point out below why Somerby is not talking about democratization of the press because that makes no sense in either the past or the present, given the way the press works.
DeleteI notice you do not answer why Somerby didn't say Trump's name when it would have been shorter and clearer to do so.
You suggest that Somerby doesn't say anything good about Harris because he doesn't know what she will say. Yet she gave a major economic speech a week or so back. Are we to believe that Somerby didn't watch it or read anything about it, after he claimed he was put off that she hadn't stated her policy positions yet?
I know what Harris is going to say tonight because I have been paying attention to her campaign. If Somerby doesn't know, it is because he has not paid attention, but that undermines his standing as a critic. But you are guessing about what is in Somerby's mind, in order to defend him. That leaves you out on a limb.
"...you do not answer why Somerby didn't say Trump's name when it would have been shorter and clearer to do so."
DeleteFrom Bob's post today: "... as we've watched one of the candidates make ludicrous claims. In Red America, those ludicrous claims are relentlessly cleaned up."
So it's as plain as the nose on your face who 'one of the candidates' is.
As for discussing Harris' economic plan, at the end of his post Bob says he'll discuss it tomorrow. Is that soon enough for you?
"I point out below why Somerby is not talking about democratization of the press because that makes no sense...."
Bob clearly is talking about democratization of the press. You may not think he's doing it correctly or justifiably but he's clearly doing it. Why deny it?
"But you are guessing about what is in Somerby's mind, in order to defend him."
Two things:
1. As I did in this comment, I tend to quote Somerby, whereas snipers like you tend to make sweeping generalities, ignoring what he actually says;
2. It isn't so much Bob I'm defending as logic and reasoning. The attacks of people like you make so little sense that I feel obligated to do what I can to try to make you a better thinker.
Why should the reader have to guess?
DeleteI rarely find myself guessing with Bob. He has a playful, allusive voice that I follow easily and find entertaining. Others don't. To each his own.
DeleteYou go where he leads you.
DeleteDamn it. Unmasked for the mindless lemming I am. Curse you, 8:54!
DeleteSomerby repeats this stuff again and again:
ReplyDelete"In our view, MSNBC is bad enough. What happens on the Fox News Channel is an unrelenting joke—an unrelenting joke which is leavened with the usual reference to one of the candidates as "Cackling McKneepads."
Why does he never refute it? First, reducing a woman to a sex object is the go-to sexist approach to negating her value as a human being, setting aside her accomplishments in any field. It is what men do to threatening women. Second, she was a single woman -- was she not allowed a sex life? Are we living in the dark ages? Third, her relationship with Willie Brown was brief and ended years before she ran for her first public office, as DA of San Francisco. Fourth, there is no evidence that she ever needed kneepads -- that is an obvious male right wing fantasy, not arising from anything in her life or career.
And Somerby might have mentioned that the right has even more lurid sexual fantasies about Jill Biden and her step-son Hunter. They will say anything to diminish a woman they don't like, even malign the first lady, who has done absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment.
But Somerby doesn't have the energy to defend Harris from this kind of demeaning mistreatment, even though he claims he is going to vote for her. He obviously thinks it is enough to repeat the lie, to amplify it, to give it greater circulation than it might have appearing only on Fox.
"All in all, a cancer has grown on the democracy, such as it ever was." Somerby says this, but he does nothing to fight that cancer. Instead he helps it spread by repeating what the idiots say at Fox. How does that help anything?
DeleteYes, but can't you see that you yourself, by repeating Somerby's contention of a cancer growing on democracy, are yourself contributing to the growth of that cancer?
DeleteAre you blind?
The difference is that I refuted the attack on Harris, not just repeated it. I am asking that Somerby do that too.
Delete"why does he never refute it?
DeleteRefute what? That Harris' name really isn't Cackling McKneepads? Him calling out Gutfield and Waters and the joke that are their programs is him repudiating them, their childish antics, and Fox News for allowing it. I mean how much more do we need to be spoon-fed?
"Somerby says this, but he does nothing to fight that cancer."
This whole blog is Somerby pushing back against the cancer.
Boy...damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yes, why doesn't Somerby refute the right wing claim that Harris slept her way to the top in her career. She deserves to have that refuted not repeated daily, as Somerby does here. It is no excuse that he is quoting Gutfeld. Most rational people avoid watching Gutfeld because we know what he is, only to come here and have it shoved in our faces by someone who says he is going to vote for Harris.
DeleteSomerby does not help anything when he repeats Gutfeld's jokes. His effect is to send people over to Fox to watch the whole show, not to clean up media or whatever he thinks he is doing.
Similarly, Somerby spends more time here quoting Trump and Vance and others critical of the left, than he does repeating what Harris says in her speeches or explaining what the Democrats are doing.
Today, we had that article about Guilfoyle's attack on Harris shoved in our faces. It wasn't anywhere else I read news, but Somerby had to bring it to everyone's attention, in detail. Why? There are any number of ridiculous stories on Fox and in right wing sources. We all know where to find them. None of this is fighting any cancer. It is perpetuating it.
Somerby is a right wing operative working against the Democratic ticket. That is what he does here.
@2:04
DeleteHere is the end of Somerby's article today:
"Tomorrow: What did "Cackling McKneepads" propose? And what about the other candidate?"
Is this the way Somerby defends Harris from an ugly accusation, by repeating it in what he may consider a humorous or ironic way? If Somerby is opposed to Gutfeld calling Harris this, why does he repeat it himself? Does he think it is funny? It isn't.
And who is the other candidate? If McKneepads is not identified, how are we to know who the other guy is?
If Somerby were to speak directly, as some of his defenders here have been claiming he does, he would say:
Tomorrow: What did Harris propose? And what about Trump?
What would be wrong with that? It doesn't demean Harris and it makes it clear that Somerby will also talk about Trump's economic proposals (or lack thereof).
That is what direct communication looks like. It is also what someone says when they are not trying to be sexist and demean Harris (whether they claim they will vote for her or not).
I think Vance could fit the McKneepads description. I am going to start calling him that. This isn't a term that only applies to women, you know.
Delete"The truth is, nobody cares, major top experts have said."
ReplyDeleteSomerby is back to his annoying habit of inventing people to agree with his own opinions. There are no "major top experts" saying that there is a cancer on democracy etc etc. Just as there are no future anthropologists in caves, no analysts cowering in fear or rolling on the floor laughing.
Somerby could look up what experts have actually said and quoted them, but that might require some effort. He could also bravely let his opinions fly on their own merits, without putting his thumb on the scale by inventing agreement. He could even support his opinions with arguments and facts, as he does not do today with respect to Harris. His point is that Harris may have expertise which she expresses in a speech that no one cares about and no one will watch, because she, like Humphrey, will lose. And then he polishes that off by reciting the latest Gutfeld attacks on Harris and the Dems. Because that is what a liberal supporter of Harris does to help ensure she wins -- NOT.
"His point is that Harris may have expertise which she expresses in a speech that no one cares about and no one will watch, because she, like Humphrey, will lose"
DeleteIf you can find a single passage in this post supporting your assertion that Somerby's 'point' is that Harris will lose, I'll eat my keyboard.
If not, I suggest you eat yours.
It is implied by the fact that Somerby points out that Humphry had expertise and yet lost. He raises that point in order to suggest that Harris will lose, no matter how wonky she is in her speech. Somerby uses juxtaposition to state this, not an explicit and direct statement of his views. That has been one of my ongoing complaints about Somerby, that he never directly says what he means. But you have to ask yourself why else he would say what he did about Humphry.
DeleteYou don't have to eat anything you don't want to. I only ask that readers think about what I'm saying. If they disagree, as you apparently do, that's OK.
Can you find any single place in any of his essays where Somerby has said that no one should vote for Trump?
12:55 don’t worry, most of us agree with your formulations; obviously the fanboys will pout.
Delete"That has been one of my ongoing complaints about Somerby, that he never directly says what he means."
DeleteActually, I think Somerby almost always directly says what he means. One of my ongoing complaints about you and your ilk is that you make up stuff Somerby never said -- e.g., "Harris will lose" -- and then complain about that.
Your problem is your excessively literal parsing of a person who routinely uses figurative language and evades clarity in order to avoid being pinned down. What makes you think anyone commenting here cares what you think?
DeleteSomerby has explicitly said that he thinks Harris will lose (or Trump will win). Now that the polls are showing a lead for Harris comparable to Biden's in 2020, Somerby is still damning Harris with faint praise and complaining about her. She is so so so imperfect Somerby says.
Somerby endorses Harris in similar manner to when Hitler condemned antisemitism in a speech; neither are/were being genuine.
DeleteAll you fanboys are getting across is that you are easy marks for a con. Good to know!
So, again the haters compare Somerby to Hitler.
DeleteAnd yet you compared a commenter here to Martha, a crazy stalker in an irrelevant TV show.
DeleteYes. These stalkers come here every single day and make a scene. Somerby's theme today is that "the coverage of policy matters is . . . an undisguised gong-show." But we're not talking about that because these stalkers come in and make up ridiculous shit right from the get-go.
DeletePP you are a very poor thinker.
DeleteWe do not hate Somerby, and 1:32 is not comparing Somerby to Hitler, they are demonstrating that people are more than capable of being disingenuous, and that they prey on suckers like you who are incapable of employing good reasoning skills.
Somerby is a con, it is the duty of those of us that are not shackled by poor thinking to offer some protection to sad folks like yourself who are being abused and conned by Somerby.
I do think some here get amusement from triggering your predictably low brow responses, they think it is funny and laugh at you and how easily manipulated you are, but this seems kind of rude.
2:16 - The insult to content ratio of your comment approaches infinity.
DeleteUsing math to disguise your own insult doesn't fool anyone here.
Delete"It (Bob saying Harris will lose) is implied by the fact that Somerby points out that Humphrey had expertise and yet lost."
DeleteExcept that nowhere in his column does Bob mention Humphrey lost.
And while he offers an author's praise of Humphrey's expertise, he nowhere makes a comparison of Humphrey's expertise to his 1968 opponent, Nixon.
I think you owe Bob an apology.
OK. Continue on doing your patriotic duty of saving sad, gullible liberals from Somerby's wily deceits, which are paid for by Putin and designed to overturn democracy and promote some form of political regime change. You will earn the thanks of a grateful nation.
Delete(That was a response to 3:02.)
DeleteHector -- I think Somerby's view on Harris's chances of winning is explicitly stated in this afternoon's post:
Delete"Who will win the presidential race? Despite press corps devotion to frisking the polls, we have no idea."
Somerby has no idea who will win. That much should clear, even to those who like to imagine that Somerby speaks in tongues. So I guess the "implication" that Somerby is saying Harris will lose is thoroughly exploded.
If you say you don't know who will win, despite Harris having a solid lead, now equal to Biden's lead when he won in 2020, isn't that saying he thinks she will lose?
Delete3:32 -- This is so typical of the debate. Somerby says what he says quite clearly -- he has no idea who will win. But the haters say that he's "really" saying he thinks she will lose.
DeleteSo it never matters what Somerby actually says because the haters can always divine his secret intentions and implications.
More importantly, why has Somerby never said that he hopes Harris will win? No one expects him to know the outcome or predict who will win a future election. But if he is supporting Harris, he could occasionally say he hopes she will win. He doesn't do that.
DeleteI will say for myself that I am voting for Harris and I pray that she wins, not just hope for it. And I am doing as much as I can to help that happen. That is what someone does when they support a candidate. Somerby sits around and grouches that she is "imperfect". Why is the bar perfection for Harris while Trump gets to be a dangerous whackjob? Why are the polls as close as they are? Obviously it has nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidates but more likely is about the billionaires who expect Trump to do them favors if they back his campaign (ditto for the Russians), and they are illustrating how close you can come to winning with a dangerous whackjob for a candidate and plenty of money to recruit a cult following among people who believe in reptilians and the second coming.
Somerby should be ranting about what @4:32 said, not the press.
Delete"More importantly, why has Somerby never said that he hopes Harris will win?"
DeleteHe's said more than once he's voting for her. Isn't that close enough?
No
DeleteHaters gonna hate.
DeleteI am noticing that the better Harris does in the polls, the more open Somerby becomes about his opposition to her and the Democrats. His agenda is particularly obvious this week.
ReplyDeleteI just watched Baby Reindeer. These Somerby-haters remind me of Martha. They’re relentless.
DeleteBack to insult other commenters, without a thing to say for yourself?
Delete11:32 - If you can give a quote from this week's posts showing that Somerby opposes Harris, I'll eat my keyboard. If I can post a quote showing that he supports Harris, will you eat yours?
DeleteSee above.
DeleteHe said repeatedly that she is imperfect but spelled out no way in which he considered her lacking. That is like saying over and over that someone is bad, but never saying why. Everyone is imperfect, so calling Harris that must have some additional meaning, but Somerby doesn't say what it is. We all know that "imperfect" is bad not good, so when he repeats that over and over, he gets away with knocking her without having to specify what is wrong with her, in his mind. It is slippery, but Somerby's meaning is obvious. He is knocking Harris.
DeleteWhen you leave something vague like that, the reader will fill in with their own list of her perceived flaws. Does she smile too much, does she look fat in her pantsuits? Did you disagree with some policy she has stated? People can and will fill in Somerby's blank with whatever rises to their individual attention. If Somerby said she was imperfect because she gives too few policy statements, the reader would think about whether that accusation is true or not. When Somerby leaves it up to the reader, they won't question whether the flaws are true or not, because they thought them up themselves.
I don't know whether that was Somerby's intention or whether it is an accident arising from his unwillingness to say anything directly, but it is a device that harms Harris either way. Why would he go out of his way (repeating the imperfect claim over and over in the sam essay) to harm Harris when he says he supports her? You tell me.
4:03 -- Saying Harris is imperfect is not the same as opposing her. Duh. My keyboard is intact.
DeleteBarack Obama: "Kamala and Tim, they have lived amazing lives. And I am confident that they will lead with compassion, inclusion and grace. But they are still only human. They are not perfect. And like all of us, they will make mistakes."
DeleteI guess Obama must be opposing Harris too, right?
You must be dumb as a rock. Did you not understand what I explained about why calling her imperfect without specifying his problem with her, has a negative effect on her election chances?
DeleteObama is obviously defending Harris/Walz against criticism. Somerby didn't do that. He attacked her. If you cannot tell the difference, you are wasting everyone's time here by commenting on anything. Try thinking before typing.
I'm thinking, now I'll type. Read the speech. Obama "called [Harris] imperfect without specifying his problem with her."
DeleteThe rest of the context matters. Obama was defending Harris whereas Somerby is attacking her. That they both called her imperfect is trivial when their purposes for using the word (evident in the rest of what was said) differs so obviously.
DeletePerhaps Somerby's purpose was to tell us that, in his view, Harris is not perfect, but he supports her anyway; and Obama's purpose was to tell us, in his view, she is not perfect, but he supports her anyway.
DeleteAnd why wouldn’t he say that directly, if thay is what he meant? Obama did, Somerby didn’t.
DeleteThey both said they support her; they both said she's not perfect. As the prosecutor said in My Cousin Vinny: "Identical!"
DeleteSomerby says he is voting for her, not that he supports her. He says that but then does nothing to support her and takes every opportunity to undermine her and never says anything positive about her. That is way different than Obama who has endorsed her and is campaigning as a surrogate for her. Not identical.
DeleteWhen the press refuses to print the entire text of a speech given by a presidential candidate, as White says they did to Kennedy, these days you can go to the candidate's webpage and find the entire text. But most likely, the press will have the entire text (as released to them prior to the speech by the candidate's campaign staff) and will also provide a link to it, these days. That's because newspapers are no longer space-limited, as they were back in Kennedy's time. This is one of the ways digital technology has increased access to info by prospective voters, strengthening our democracy. Of course, voters have to want to read the speeches and there is no way to force them to do so.
ReplyDeleteTrump is telling lies about Haitians in other small towns in swing states:
ReplyDelete"The New Republic's Greg Sargent recently reached out to Charleroi Borough Manager Joe Manning to ask him about some of former President Donald Trump's claims about Haitian immigrants in his town of Charleroi, Pennsylvania.
It turns out that some of Trump's claims about immigrants in the town were so ludicrous that Manning at one point "burst out laughing" while trying to debunk them.
In particular, Manning was amused by Trump's claim that Charleroi, a town of just 4,000 people, "has seen a 2,000 percent increase in the population" thanks to Haitian immigrants.
In reality, said Manning, the number of Haitians living in the town is "between 700 and 800" and a 2,000 percent increase in population would have put the town's total population closer to 100,000.
Additionally, Manning debunked Trump's claims that the Haitian immigrants were stealing jobs from Americans.
"Many of the Haitians work at a local packaging plant whose owner could not find workers, and went to an employment agency for help," writes Sargent. "That agency got Haitians to come work in the borough."
Manning emphasized that the plant owner is still looking for more workers and that the Haitians who have come to work there "ain't taking anybody's jobs."
What's more, said Manning, the Haitian immigrants have helped revitalize the town as "they have occupied places that were vacant for years because a lot of people moved out of here."
"Guilfoyle studied at University of California, Davis, and the University of San Francisco School of Law, where she earned a J.D. degree. She became a prosecuting attorney in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. She was an assistant district attorney in San Francisco from 2000 to 2004."
ReplyDeleteHow did Harris deny her a job? The timeline is that Guilfoyle's husband, Gavin Newsom, at the time was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Harris may have thought that was a conflict of interest, especially if Guilfoyle was then in a romantic relationship with Newsom. Newsom and Guilfoyle were married from 2001 to 2006.
"In February 1998, San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan recruited Harris as an assistant district attorney. There, she became the chief of the Career Criminal Division, supervising five other attorneys. Perhaps that was when Guilfoyle applied for a job, but she was hired, so how did Harris block her employment?
In August 2000, Harris took a new job at San Francisco City Hall, working for city attorney Louise Renne. Harris ran the Family and Children's Services Division representing child abuse and neglect cases."
This strikes me as a manufactured complaint that Guilfoyle invented to attack Harris, given her current relationship with a Trump son. If anyone seems to have used relationships to climb in her career, it is Guilfoyle, not Harris.
Somerby refers to this manufactured conflict as a “catfight”, a particularly ugly sexist outburst from Somerby.
Delete"Attention! Possible catfight occurred, long ago! So says today's New York Times in a very lengthy report."
ReplyDeleteThis is sexist. When two women have a dispute, it is not a "catfight". Calling it that diminishes both women involved. It is not cute and not funny. It is demeaning.
Somerby knows better, so he is saying this on purpose, to thumb his nose at women, and specifically Harris, whose purpose in running for president is serious and not at all trivial, the way the word implies.
Somerby should be pulled over and given a language ticket by the Language Police, for sure.
DeleteOr he should learn to respect women.
DeleteClearly, Somerby is thumbing his nose at the NY Times coverage of the dispute that took place years ago and no one cares about.
DeleteThe NY Times didn't use the phrase "catfight". Somerby did that. It is also questionable whether coverage of a dispute between two political figures who were Asst. DA's in San Francisco at the same time is worth coverage during an election. Somerby thinks not, calling it a spat between women. Why is it reduced to that when it would be covered if two men were involved, one claiming that the other abused his power by trying to block his job prospects?
DeleteSomerby is applying a double standard and has introduced his own sexist term into that discussion. The article doesn't appear in my online version of the NY Times, but it is easy to find using Google.
Somerby relishes the murkiness of his posts, there’s nothing clear about them, they are designed to muddy the waters while giving him plausible deniability of any firm stance on anything.
DeleteSomerby could learn a few things from Jeff Tiedrich:
ReplyDelete"on Monday, Little Donny Fuckface got up in front of a crowd of cultists and bizarrely blithered on about how he’s going to be the “protector” of women.
now, I’m not a woman — but if I were, I sure as hell wouldn’t want “protection” inflicted on me by the adjudicated rapist who followed E. Jean Carroll into a dressing room and sexually assaulted her.
nor would I care to be “protected” by the degenerate who never stops trying to publicly grope the daughter he claims to want to quote-unquote “date,” if that’s what we’re charitably calling it.
nor by the predator who brags about grabbing women “by the pussy.”
nor by the pervert who was a perpetual passenger on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express.
nor by the creep who barged into the Miss USA dressing room while teenage contestants were half-naked.
and certainly not by the heartless asshole who never shuts the fuck up about having single-handedly killed Roe v Wade.
during an interview that aired yesterday on WPR’s “Wisconsin Today,” Kamala called for ending the filibuster to restore Roe and protect reproductive rights nationally."
This is why so many women are crossing party lines to vote for Kamala Harris. That must scare the shit out of guys like Somerby, judging by today's essay. A competent woman is giving a major policy speech AND she is going to reinstate abortion rights, empowering women to not only make their own health decisions but also participate outside the home and hold real jobs, without being ridiculed for liking cats.
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/kamala-has-a-plan-to-actually-protect
DeleteIs Kamala unware that a federal law regarding abortion would violate the 10th Amendment? It would be declared un-Constitutional.
Delete"This is why so many women are crossing party lines to vote for Kamala Harris. That must scare the shit out of guys like Somerby, judging by today's essay."
DeleteIf you can quote one thing from "today's essay" that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Republican women voting for Harris would scare the shit out of Somerby, I'll eat my keyboard.
Kamala wants to abolish the filibuster, but here's the letter she signed as Senator pledging to support the filibuster to ensure the Senate "continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body."
Deletehttps://instapundit.com/674236/#disqus_thread
I actually can't see Senator Harris' signature on this letter.
DeleteTrump raped a 13yo that reminded him of his own daughter.
DeleteIf you vote, there are only two viable candidates, you have you choose between Trump and Harris.
My moral compass prohibits me from voting for a rapist. How about you?
David,
DeleteAre you calling the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v Wade, after swearing that it was settled law, "liars"?
Biden supported abolishing the filibuster, so her views may have changed while VP, responsible for carrying out the president's policies. But the situation changed when the Supreme Court overstepped its limits and ignored stare decisis to overturn Roe v Wade. Abolishing the filibuster would enable the Congress to serve as a check and balance on the Supreme Court, as intended by the framers of our Constitution.
DeleteClarence Thomas better watch out. Federally protected Mixed race marriage also violates the 10th amendment, DiC. In fact, lots of conservative Supreme Court justices found laws, such as Roe v Wade, constitutional at one point.
DeleteClarence Thomas had hot fantasies about an attractive and accomplished woman named Anita Hill, but because Thomas is a repugnant person, he wound up marrying a repugnant woman. There’s no law against it, but it has likely contributed to his increasingly extreme positions, that conflict between being grateful for any woman accepting him and being disgusted by the horror of his wife. Of course, even back when he first became a Justice, he exclaimed that his primary motivation would be to “make liberals’ lives miserable”. What a guy!
DeleteKamala does not support getting rid of the filibuster, she does support a carve out for abortion.
DeleteA federal law protecting abortion rights would not violate the 10th amendment, which historically has been viewed as a mere truism; the Constitution is vague by design with the details hashed out in courts.
Our current extremist right wing SC would absolutely overturn a federal law protecting abortion rights, and be disingenuous in their misuse of doctrine, but we can all see the writing on the wall, their time is going to come; eventually national abortion rights will be restored.
@1:26 - the Constitution gives the Federal Government broad powers in the area of race. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments all deal with this subject. OTOH there's not a word in the Constitution about abortion or when life begins.
Delete@1:20 Yes. Or at least they were intentionally confusing in their testimony.
Delete@1:12 - Now that you mention it, neither do I.
DeleteMedia is dumbed down, in terms of knowledge and in terms of ability to reason. Education is similarly dumbed down. The public mind is dumbed down.
ReplyDeleteDoes this matter? We had a parallel period in the 1920's. It was followed by the Great Depression and WW2 -- two enormous catastrophes. Both were avoidable with proper policy choices. Will our ignorant age be followed by catastrophes?
"Media is dumbed down, in terms of knowledge and in terms of ability to reason. Education is similarly dumbed down. The public mind is dumbed down."
DeleteThanks Reagan.
Someone who thinks that education is "dumbed down" is spectacular ignorant.
DeleteAs a widely-recognized expert on dumbing down, David's comment carries great weight despite being unpersuasive.
DeleteWelcome back deadrat. We've missed you.
DeleteHuh?
DeleteOops, thought you were that other guy who was here in previous years. Missed the "r" in your nym.
Delete"Over the course of the next two days, we'll try to show you some of what we've seen as we've watched one of the candidates make ludicrous claims. In Red America, those ludicrous claims are relentlessly cleaned up. At Blue America's major orgs, they're largely ignored."
ReplyDeleteThe people who own and control the major media outlets [Red and Blue] will pay lower taxes with Donald Trump back in the White House.
What's your point?
DeleteToo late now 550. It whooshed right over your head.
DeleteGosh, I wish I could be as smart as you are.
DeleteThis is how an actual Harris supporter talks about her speech tonight:
ReplyDelete"Harris Is Making Important Gains On The Economy - As the Vice President prepares to give a major economic speech in Pittsburgh today, there is more evidence that the Harris-Walz’s campaign is making gains on the most important issue to many voters, the economy. Here’s the Washington Post this morning in an article titled Trump is losing his edge on the economy among voters:
Americans are finally starting to feel better about the economy, invigorating Vice President Kamala Harris’s pitch for the presidency as she narrows her Republican opponent’s longtime lead on an issue that is foremost on voters’ minds.
Although voters still favor former president Donald Trump over Harris on handling the economy, his advantage has dropped dramatically in recent weeks. Trump now averages a six-percentage-point edge on the economy, compared with a 12-point lead against President Joe Biden earlier this year, according to an analysis of five polls that measured voters’ opinions before and after Biden dropped out……
“She’s been very aggressive about laying out specifics, and that’s what people want,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. “It also helps that she’s a new face with a new set of life experiences, so people don’t assume her policies will be the same as Biden’s. And on top of that, inflation is abating. The fact that prices have stabilized and seem more predictable — that goes a long way.”
The shift in economic polling coincides with Americans’ improving views on the economy. Consumer sentiment, at its highest level in four months, has risen 40 percent from its low in June 2022, according to a closely watched survey from the University of Michigan. The latest figures show that Americans are feeling better about inflation, as well as the economy and their own finances. Researchers also noted that “a growing share of both Republicans and Democrats now anticipate a Harris win.”
This is good news. While here, I want to return to something we’ve discussed here a lot over the past few years - that someone’s “lived experience” on the economy is a political construct... "
He goes on to explain that there is an extreme partisan polarization of views of the economy, with right wingers strongly negative (95% saying it is poor/fair). This is obviously because of the way the economy is described by Trump and the media they consume. Harris is addressing this and making inroads to change this negativity about the economy, with some success visible in polling.
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/closing-strong-reasons-for-optimism
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteI will you a secret of getting rich on bitcoin investment “a wise person should have money in their head , but not in the heart.. Everyday is a day of new decisions. Its your choice to be rich or to be poor & keep struggling, start making larger funds in 72 hours with a legit & pro trader like Mr Bernie Doran,Investment plans are open now with a minimum investment of $200 you can earn $2000 in 72 hours.
Invest $200 earn $2,000
Invest $500 earn $5,000
Invest $700 earn $7,000
Invest $1,000 earn $10,000
Invest $2,000 earn $20,000
Invest $5,000 earn $50,000
Invest $7,000 earn $70,000
Do not miss this clear opportunity to achieve your financial freedom, those who are not ready to invest now are not ready to retire early, do not depend on a single source of income, let him trade for you today and start making profit for you. He can also help you RECOVER your lost/stolen funds Kindly contact Via WhatsApp: (+14242850682)
Email : berniedoransignals@gmail.com