SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2024
Introducing Hurt: Through whatever fortuity, some people at the New York Times basically know it all.
Lucky for us, they're willing to share! For the latest example of this service, we introduce Nehamas and Epstein.
On Wednesday, Candidate Harris gave a speech at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh. Nehamas and Epstein were assigned the task of creating a news report about the candidate's speech.
Nehamas and Epstein were eager to share. Headline included, their report started like this:
Harris Casts Herself as a Pro-Business Pragmatist in a Broad Economic Pitch
Vice President Kamala Harris laid out a broad vision of her economic plan on Wednesday as she sought to bridge the political divide between the progressive senator who ran for president in 2019 and the pragmatic, pro-business candidate she is presenting herself as now.
During a speech in Pittsburgh in which she declared “I am a capitalist,” Ms. Harris promised to protect and expand U.S. manufacturing as she tried to convince voters that she will defend and lift up the middle class.
“From our earliest days, America’s economic strength has been tied to our industrial strength,” she said. “The same is true today. So I will recommit the nation to global leadership in the sectors that will define the next century.”
Speaking not with the trappings of a raucous campaign rally but in front of the sober signage of the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Ms. Harris delivered remarks seemingly tailored to voters sitting in wood-paneled offices reading the print edition of The Wall Street Journal. Such voters may have supported John McCain and Mitt Romney, and might believe the economy was better four years ago, but the Harris campaign appears to be hoping that many will now have trouble stomaching the idea of voting for former President Donald J. Trump.
As always, there were the things the candidate said. Then too, there were her motives.
It was in their account of the candidate's motives that the Timesmen's omniscience appeared. Their various insights came early and often. Here are some of the things the Timesmen revealed:
Paragraph 1: When she delivered her address, Harris was "s[eeking] to bridge the political divide between the progressive senator who ran for president in 2019 and the pragmatic, pro-business candidate she is presenting herself as now."
Paragraph 2: Harris was "tr[ying] to convince voters that she will defend and lift up the middle class."
Paragraph 4: Harris's remarks seem to have been "tailored to voters sitting in wood-paneled offices reading the print edition of The Wall Street Journal."
Paragraph 4: The Harris campaign appears to be hoping that many [such voters] will now have trouble stomaching the idea "of voting for former President Donald J. Trump."
Credit where due! By paragraph 4, the Timesmen were restricting themselves to reporting how matters "seemed" or "appeared." That said, also this:
Before the Timesmen tried to report much of what the candidate said, they were willing to build a framework around her reasons for saying the things they'd eventually have to mention.
In their next two paragraphs, they stooped to the task of mentioning some of what Harris had said. But then, in paragraphs 7 and 8, there they went again:
Ms. Harris made her pitch in a Democratic stronghold that was once a capital of American industry, in a top battleground state that could determine the winner of the presidential election. She has previously given economic addresses on her plans to lower costs and to help small businesses. Her emphasis on manufacturing on Wednesday was a return to a more traditional Democratic talking point, one often highlighted by President Biden before he dropped out of the race in July.
Her speech tried to weave her economic themes together into a broader vision. She said she was “not constrained by ideology,” an apparent response to polls that show some voters consider her too liberal...
The candidate wasn't saying something she believed or was pledging to do. Instead, she was giving voice to a "traditional Democratic talking point."
She was apparently responding to polls—polls which show that some voters think that she's too liberal.
Nehamas and Epstein were serving the public in a familiar way. They were telling us less about what Harris said, more about why she said it.
For the record, the ability to do this may have stemmed from the greatness of their preparation:
Nehamas is thirteen years out of Harvard (class of 2011). Epstein, a somewhat older man, was perhaps a leavening agent. He graduated from Emory in the class of 2001.
For the record, we aren't saying whether the Timesmen were right or wrong in their various assessments. Such assessments move us beyond our own pay grade.
It does perhaps seem strange to think this—to think that Harris believes she can win this race by appealing "to voters sitting in wood-paneled offices reading the print edition of The Wall Street Journal." Are those lucky duckies the targeted voters who "think she's too liberal" (according to polls)?
On Olympus, the gods know the answers to such questions. But as Homer once noted, most of us here on Earth by way of contrast know nothing.
Nehamas and Epstein were sharing their views. They did so early and often.
In a different neighborhood, Charlie Hurt would soon be sharing his views about Candidate Harris's Thursday interview with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle.
Charlie Hurt is a Timesman too—a Timesman of a different stripe. For the record, he seems like the nicest guy in the world. Also, his thumbnail reads like this:
Charles Hurt
Charles Hurt (born 1971) is an American journalist and political commentator. He is currently the opinion editor of The Washington Times [and] a Fox News contributor...Hurt's views have been considered to be Republican leaning.
...His first full-time job after graduating [from Hampden-Sydney] in 1995 was at The Detroit News where he became a replacement worker during a bitter strike. He worked at the paper until 2001, when he moved to the Washington, D.C. area to join the staff of The Charlotte Observer.
Hurt was The New York Post's D.C. Bureau Chief and news columnist covering the White House for five years.
From 2003 to 2007, Hurt covered the U.S. Congress as a reporter for The Washington Times before leaving to join The New York Post. In 2011, he rejoined The Washington Times as a political columnist. In December 2016, Hurt was named the opinion editor.
National Review editor Rich Lowry described Hurt as, "an early adopter of Donald Trump populism." Hurt has written numerous opinion pieces lauding Trump since the 2016 election.
For the record, everything there is legal. Specifically, there's no reason why Hurt, like tens of millions of other voters, shouldn't be allowed to hold a favorable view of Candidate Donald J. Trump.
As we've noted, Hurt seems like the nicest guy in the world. On Monday, we'll be looking at what he said about the Harris-Ruhle interview when he appeared on Thursday evening's edition of the Fox News Channel's primetime "cable news" show, Gutfeld!
At some point next week, we'll also look at the famous 2021 interview between Candidate Harris and NBC's Lester Holt. For the record, and for some strange reason, the interview was conducted in Guatemala City.
Harris has been mocked for something she said in the interview from that day right up to this. In a global first, we'll be suggesting that you look at Holt's performance that night, but also at the way the interview has been described by members of the mainstream press.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep. That said, it isn't clear that we the people—that we the humans—are actually built—are actually wired—for the daunting task of creating an intelligent discourse.
The brightest among us are sometimes too bright. Things can go downhill from there.
The Times style has long been to introduce articles with what the news means, before getting to the actual news. Especially when the story is about what someone said.
ReplyDeleteInstead of beginning with “so and so said such and such,” the story begins, “In a yadda yadda yadda, so and so said…”
Somerby said that understanding Harris was "above his pay grade". Perhaps that is why he is not offering his own critique, after demanding that she supply more details about her policies.
DeleteSomerby says: "For the record, we aren't saying whether the Timesmen were right or wrong in their various assessments. Such assessments move us beyond our own pay grade."
But Somerby just knows that they are exceeding their authority when they tell us things that are apparently within their pay grades. When reporters say things, the reader is supposed to think about what they have said, perhaps be stimulated by their ideas to think about topics themselves. No reporter is asking anyone to accept what they say whole cloth. They use the very words Somerby cites (seeking, trying, appears to be) to indicate that they are going beyond the mere fact that she said a sequence of words in a specific order. These are clues that the reporter is interpreting.
Most people learn to parse the meaning beyond face value in their middle school English classes. Somerby supposedly taught middle school, but math not English, so maybe he gets a pass on this, but I suspect (note the word cue) that he is being excessively literal because (1) he has no complaint of his own against Harris's speech/interview, and (2) he doesn't want to praise her, (3) he wants to attack the press, as he does every day, because that is his job -- to undermine democracy by weakening faith in the institution that protects it, our free press (where reporters are allowed to use words like "appears to" and "seems" and the reader is free to disagree, especially since they could have watched the speech themselves and formed their own opinions.
Somerby had a lot of fun demanding that Harris give more info, but he is proving today that he doesn't know what to do with it when he gets it. Why has he switched to talking about Holt's interview three years ago, while ignoring the interview she gave after her economic policy speech last week, or even the speech she gave at the border in AZ?
Somerby gets what he wants but he is not satisfied. The goalposts shift and he whines about something else, because the last thing he is willing to do is praise Harris for something she has done well.
Somerby concludes with his usual doom and gloom about humanity, but he doesn't explain how we can be too dumb yesterday but too smart today.
The article does present Harris as someone who, in 2019 (was) a progressive senator, but in 2024 is ‘presenting herself' as pragmatic and pro-business.
DeleteQ: how do they know she wasn’t ‘presenting’ herself as progressive in 2019, and now simply is pragmatic and pro-business?
Nearly all politicians run on more “extreme” positions in primaries and then pivot to more “centrist” positions as the nominee.
DeleteThis is generally accepted as normal by the electorate, unless it involves obvious hypocrisy, corruption, or over the top pandering. Trump, for example, has innovated holding multiple positions, often within the same sentence, and flip flops like it’s a compulsion, with the electorate increasingly tiring of his approach. Harris’ approach of pivoting is more traditional and the electorate seems more comfortable with her style, as indicated by the polls.
Harris was from CA, so her record is never going to be like that of a more purple state. She represented her state, which was her job. In 2020, there were 27 candidates (including Biden & Harris) vying for the nomination. She was up against Sanders & Warren who were both popular and better known. Some of her positions were intended to differentiate herself from the pack and attract progressive voters. Now she is running in a general election and needs to reassure centrist and moderate voters and attract never-Trumpers or disaffected, undecided, and Independent voters. She has stated that she changed her mind about several issues, including fracking, in the light of experience and because she came to realize we can achieve environmental goals without banning fracking. It is OK and not necessarily opportunistic for someone to change their mind, especially after 3 years as VP. This idea that she is "presenting" herself as something false is a Republican talking point. Obviously, Biden has been pragmatic and pro-business and there is no reason why she shouldn't be impressed with how well that approach has worked, have acquired the knowledge and skills to continue that policy, and bring both those goals and expertise to the table as president. These are good reason for electing her, not some sort of phony like Trump who will say whatever he thinks his MAGAs want to hear.
DeleteAnd here is the biggest flip-flop of the campaign. Trump has been alternating saying he lost by a whisker in 2020 and then denying he didn't win in a landslide, then admitting he lost again, then claiming he never said he lost and of course he won. If you care about "presentation" you should care about that and find it unacceptable. Harris has admitted the few changes in her policies and explained why she changed her mind, then stuck to her current opinions, plans and policies. And she has never said people from Haitia ever ate anyone's pets.
"At some point next week, we'll also look at the famous 2021 interview between Candidate Harris and NBC's Lester Holt. For the record, and for some strange reason, the interview was conducted in Guatemala City."
ReplyDeleteThis occurred when Harris was NOT a candidate. She was visiting Guatemala in order to address root causes of asylum seeking and border crossing into the US. She explained why she was in Guatemala and not at the US border.
Somerby should know this. Why is pretending to be mystified?
Harris gave an excellent speech and interview. It was so good that Fox can only criticize her use of the word "holistically" and not the ideas in her speech.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/27/2273240/-Fox-News-goes-to-war-against-Harris-for-using-big-words?pm_source=ICYMI&pm_campaign=ICYMI09272024
Thanks for the link. I found her two minute answer pretty weak. It was vague. One specific she mentioned was tax incentives, although she didn’t provide details.
ReplyDeleteYes, she was vague. She didn't mention Hannibal Lecter once!
DeleteQuestion: What actions will you take to ensure that our jobs stay in America?
DeleteTrump: I was honored as the man of the year. Maybe 20 years ago.. The fake news heard about it and said, it never happened.....
Go fuck yourself, Dickhead in Cal.
When a president takes office, he or she appoints cabinet members who in turn hire staff members. The president sets broad policy and the cabinet members carry it out, dealing with the specifics. These cabinet members report back regularly to the president, at cabinet meetings but also in one-on-one and group meetings with senior staff, and in written reports, so the president follows what each cabinet member is doing. When changes in rules or new regulations need to be imposed, the president either issues an executive order or works with congress to introduce legislation. But the president doesn't run he economy directly, micro-managing where tax incentives may be helpful and where other measures are needed to keep the economy on course.
DeleteAnd, of course, there is no room in a board policy speech covering a lot of mind-numbing territory to both give David's details and also keep the speech at a level that more people can understand. If you introduce a topic with detail but not enough detail to fully explain, you risk upsetting some part of the market or individuals without being able to tell them fully things will work. That is worse than being "too vague". For example, a speech about what Harris may do for the dairy industry might have time to mention specifics, but one on what she will do for the entire economy will not permit much detail and just casually throwing off a remark that dairy farmers may no longer get tax incentives in favor of pig farmers may upset someone without further explanation for which there is no time.
The person giving the speech works with her staff to figure out how to fit the most important points into the time allotted. You can perhaps contact her campaign office if you need more detail on a specifc subject (such as are actuaries receiving any kind of tax incentive?) or attend a town hall where you can submit your question, and unlike when Trump holds a town hall (without responding to a single question), receive an answer.
type correction: broad policy speech (not board)
DeleteOne part of Harris's answer was unusual: that the federal government would reduce state and local reds tape for home-building. It's rare for the federal government to change its laws and regs to reduce its own demand for red tape. But I cannot think of examples where the federal government somehow changed local laws and regs in a way that reduced theirs
DeleteThanks for your response, Not a Rodent. I agree with your description of how things work now. In the past there was more specificity.
DeleteI remember when Newt Gingrich would bring a vacuum tube as a prop and explain that the computers for some agency (Air traffic controllers) didn't use up to date transistors. His meaning was that the technology needed to be modernized He didn't just say, spend more money on air traffic control.
I recall Reagan giving responses that often began with an example. That helped explain the kinds of thing he was addressing. I would love to hear Harris point to an example of local red tape and explain how her Administration would improve that situation.
Props aren't details. I don't believe that air traffic control systems weren't using up-to-date technology. I do recall when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers because they went on strike.
DeleteI think Harris could provide such examples if asked, given her long experience as a district attorney dealing with housing issues in San Francisco, including the $18 billion redress for CA homeowners she obtained after the mortgage crisis due to bank malpractice. That was about bank red tape affecting people locally nationwide.
She is perhaps stating that her focus will be on reducing red tape locally and at the federal level in order to help people struggling with it. That means that when she takes office, she will instruct her cabinet members to seek out such obstacles and recommend changes. It doesn't mean she is walking around wish a slew of red tape changes she wishes to make herself upon taking office. It may mean she has heard stories at her campaign stops or offices that complain about specific red tape.
When a federal leader wants to change things at the local level, they do it by discussing the issue and encouraging change locally, sweetened by incentives that vary depending on who the local entity is. It could involve incentives for reducing red tape locally by giving federal relief or financial encouragement. That is how the federal govt got all the states to institute seat-belt requirements. Removing red tape might mean removing ID requirements for voting, for example. That is burdensome to voters. It could mean eliminating restrictions on travel to obtain an abortion -- it should be obvious that such red tape is not only burdensome to women but life threatening.
I suspect that Biden has already removed red tape on starting businesses, because of the flood of new businesses started under his administration. It could involve making it easier to obtain a SBA loan. The details reside with the people encountering the red tape, so I doubt they would mean a lot as examples to people not involved in specific industries or situations.
"But the president doesn't run the economy directly"
DeleteHe doesn't run the economy indirectly either. The president simply doesn't in any way 'run the economy'.
@11:06 - you alluded to actions helping jobs stay in America. One of Harris's specific promises was an action that would drive jobs out of America. Namely, raising the corporate income tax.
DeleteThat doesn't mean the president doesn't affect the economy.
DeleteJobs don't move out of America because of the corporate income tax.
DeleteIf you raise taxes but then provide a tax incentive for locating manufacturing in the USA, then those jobs would stay here. That would have the effect of increasing the leverage the government would have over where jobs are located.
DeleteThis reminds me of the time Trump brought all those grocery props signifying inflation to his speech and then never referred to them at all. People were wondering when he was going to pass around the snacks.
DeleteDIC seems laser focused on making Republicans seem like ignoramuses with chips on their shoulders, he is quite effective at it. Kudos!
DeleteThe president affects the economy through two channels. The president appoints members of the Fed, and the president proposes, negotiates, and ultimately signs tax and spending legislation.
DeleteDG - also regulators can affect the economy. Lina Khan is probably having a negative effect right now.
DeleteThe president also affected the economy via the recovery measures following covid, designed to help people stay afloat in their households while not working or facing business problems. Extended unemployment payments, child care credit, health insurance changes, free covid shots, and so on. A lot of what the govt does that is classified as other activity, has an impact on the economy. Environmental measures come to mind, encouragement of alternative energy. Trump is talking about getting rid of NOAA and its data collection in the midst of Hurricane Helene. How does that disaster impact the economy of FL and the other states it passes through? It may be that the govt will have to nationalize homeowners insurance, as the State of CA did with earthquake insurance following disasters there.
DeleteIf she has a concept of an economic plan that ought to be enough for the dumbass DiC.
DeleteLina Khan’s most significant impact has been in reducing inflation, because she understands the cause of inflation better than most (even better than know-nothing right wing trolls).
DeleteHeck, even Vance praises her.
There is zero empiric evidence that raising the corporate tax rate to 28% would drive jobs out of America. DIC is fabricating again.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeleteIf the corporate tax rate is raised, won't businesses just pass the cost along to their customers, like they do when they are fined for breaking the law?
Today Somerby is citing a report from the NY Times that appeared three days ago (9/25). Does Somerby believe that there should be no analysis, just straight reporting of such speeches? Why? It will be above the pay grades of most readers to evaluate what she said and put it into some larger context, as Somerby admits it is for himself.
ReplyDeleteI thin Somerby believes that reporters should report facts, and that speculating about motives is not reporting facts.
DeleteI thought his point was that through their word choices, the two reporters are showing bias by portraying her statements as politically motivated, expedient and self-serving rather than matters of conviction or principle. That didn't bother me about her, if true, because all policies should be subject to reevaluation in the context of the situation on the ground, and I think her interests, mine and the countries needs are pretty congruent. Plus, who knows what the editor told those guys to write, and where was Somerby when they were railroading Biden off the ticket?
Delete"The woods are lovely, dark and deep."
ReplyDeleteRobert Frost said this. He deserves to have his name mentioned, even if he is a fusty old conservative poet, long dead. Somerby needs to attribute his quotes and enclose them in quotation marks, so that no one thinks he was smart enough to write such phrases himself.
"On Monday, we'll be looking at what he said about the Harris-Ruhle interview when he appeared on Thursday evening's edition of the Fox News Channel's primetime "cable news" show, Gutfeld! "
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely certain that we will get lengthy excerpts from Gutfeld on Monday, but I doubt we will hear anything about the Harris's appearance with Ruhle. When the worst thing Fox can find to say is that Harris used the word "holistically" three times in a lengthy speech, and that word sounds kind of hippie, Somerby won't be able to find anything to criticize either. And this is getting to be really old news, when people are already voting in some states.
"...in a Broad Economic Pitch"
ReplyDeleteA broad economic pitch is like when Trump sends out offers to buy his new watches to all of his MAGA supporters. Outlining one's economic politics if elected isn't exactly a "pitch." It reduces the sense of her expertise and ability to guide the nation economically to the level of presenting a business idea to investors (at best). Harris may be exhibiting her knowledge and qualification, but more importantly, she is outlining her policies and plans as prospective president. Pitch is a crass word to use in that context, which may reveal the attitude of the reporter. But if anyone is selling a bag of whistles in this election, it is Trump. Harris knows her stuff, which should have been obvious from her speech and following interview -- indeed from every speech and interview she has given so far.
It must be confusing to Somerby and to guys who support Trump, to be confronted with a competent woman. They thought it would be sufficient to say "but she's a woman," but that isn't happening. Now they don't know how to knock her performance, so they are leaning on the racism and giggling because she said "holistically." Yes, Somerby too, since he said he would discuss her economic speech and hasn't done so at all. He is blaming two random NY Times writers for analyzing her speech instead of straight reporting it.
An actual media critic would be talking about the intentions of the NYTimes and why they keep putting their finger on the scales for Trump, their double standard for Harris. Those two reporters got an assignment and they wrote what their editor wanted. Why is the NY Times doing this after pushing Biden out of the race? Crickets from Somerby.
typo: economic politics should be "economic policies"
Delete"Why is the NY Times doing this after pushing Biden out of the race?"
DeleteSo let's see if I have this straight:
when a national poll showed 65% of Democrats wanted Biden to drop out of the race, that wasn't because it reflected the will of the voters, it was because the New York Times willed it so?
C'mon man.
The NY Times is not in the business of manipulating elections unless someone is paying them to do so, someone wealthy who was afraid of Biden's 28% tax bracket for the richest people. They started a campaign, coordinated with the Republicans, to portray Biden as old old old and senile. Even so, Biden had better polling than Harris vs Trump and he had the most support of any other Dem in 2020. This desire for Harris was not exactly what the richies wanted -- they were hoping for someone else to replace Biden, but Harris did replace Biden's tax bracket proposal to 23.5%. Even so, the NY Times is supporting Trump and attacking Harris, no matter how well she does. Just count the number of negative articles about her, compared to the sane-washing and softballing of Trump.
DeleteBut don't paint this as a populist movement to push Biden out. That isn't what happened. For one thing, the polls followed the NY Times, not vice versa.
Let me just suggest that the campaign to portray Biden as "old old old and senile" may have had an easy time of it, considering how old old old and senile Biden is.
DeleteYes, considering how ageist our society is too. When I was teaching a course on memory and cognition, my students read the studies and findings showing that healthy old people (65+) can learn and remember and perform at jobs as well as younger people. Biden is healthy. Trump is not. Biden was not showing cognitive deficits that would interfere with his performance as president. Several other experts have said the same thing in news articles and editorials, on the internet and in the news. It is primarily reaction times and episodic memory that show declines with age. Episodic memory is memory for events of your own life, with older events remembered better than more recent ones.
DeleteAt the end of each semester, I would put an essay question about cognition and aging on my exam. The students would routinely write horribly ageist things about the abilities of old people, showing no impact on their beliefs about the elderly. It was discouraging, just as it is discouraging to see people display other prejudices and biases. I believe that many old people are pushed out of their jobs because of such beliefs by the younger people who want their jobs and use stereotypes as an excuse.
Hector is more comfortable taking things at face value and not having to bother with context.
Delete1:47 shouldn’t you have a good understanding of why Hector has those traits, and how baked in and implacable they are?
Challenging Hector may edify others, but for him, it will only lead to consternation and frustration, which will likely manifest in negative ways.
I’m not as educated and smart as you, so your guidance here would be appreciated.
My original reply disappeared. I don't know Hector. Education is good for everyone, smart or less smart (all people are smart). The more you know, the better your life will be. I think it is good that Hector is participating in election debate -- everyone should test their ideas occasionally.
DeleteSomerby often complains about the lifestyle articles in his newspapers, but these provide info about dealing with life problems experienced by a lot of people. Reading them makes other peoples' lives better by giving them info and ideas to apply to their own situations. I don't see what is wrong with that. I also do not understand why Somerby doesn't see that all education may be useful at some future point, even if we don't know how or when.
Democrats tend to believe in the efficacy of change in producing a better future by addressing problems. Education is a means to that end. Hope and optimism emerge from the ability to imagine a better future. I suppose Republicans are hoping for the better future having Trump as Dictator on Day 1 would bring. I'm not sure that is going to help them on an individual level.
Hector,
DeleteLet me suggest that if the NY Times wanted to paint Trump as a senile, blabbering old moron, they'd have a lot more to work with, than they did Biden.
But, you being the wise chronicler at TDH, knew that, but played like you had no idea that was the point, instead.
Multiple CNN pundits, immediately after the debate, spoke of the number of texts and calls they were getting from people shocked by how poorly Biden had done.
DeleteHow is that to be blamed on the NYT?
Point, set, match to Hector.
As I said, the NYT created and reinforced (for weeks) a perception that Biden was senile, well before the debate, so the watchers were prepared to think that when he fumbled in his speech. If Biden had been a younger man and made the same mistakes, viewers might have accepted his explanation that he was recovering from a cold or jet-lagged or just had a bad night (as Obama did in his first debate). Biden got no benefit of the doubt because the NY Times and Republicans presented him as a doddering old man, using repeated articles and circulation of fake videos showing him confused. Those were FAKE.
DeleteI'm not going to explain this again, because you don't seem inclined to listen to what I'm saying. You do realize that you cannot play tennis by yourself, right? You haven't addressed what I said about the outright propaganda changing the perceptions of viewers about what the debate meant.
"Introducing Hurt: Through whatever fortuity, some people at the New York Times basically know it all.
ReplyDeleteLucky for us, they're willing to share! For the latest example of this service, we introduce Nehamas and Epstein.
On Wednesday, Candidate Harris gave a speech at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh. Nehamas and Epstein were assigned the task of creating a news report about the candidate's speech.
Nehamas and Epstein were eager to share. "
Somerby characterizes these guys as know-it-alls, show-offs, egotistical elitists with heads stuffed too full of expertise so that some falls out all over their readers and drips onto Somerby's sweatpants leaving a mark that won't come out, even with repeated washing.
In fairness, he does tell us that they were assigned to write this by their editor. They didn't beg and plead to write about a dry economic speech. They were perhaps asks to spice up their report in order to draw in readers. They were perhaps told to avoid the weeds in order to make it plainer for rubes like Somerby (who seems to have an excessively low pay grade). Who even knows whether their original copy was edited by their boss to give it the "right" slant?
But Somerby has it out for these guys anyway. How do we know that? He lists their schools and graduation years. He does that when he wants to portray someone as hopelessly erudite, offensively well-educated, too smart for anyone's good. Because Somerby is pretty much against education beyond middle school (we presume, since that is the highest grade he was willing to teach).
And if Somerby never took a course in economics at Harvard, whose fault is that except his own? Is Somerby really advocating that all people should keep their discussion dry as toast, superficial and literal, in case a reader might disagree because readers are too stupid to (1) separate fact from interpretation and analysis, (2) form their own opinions beyond what they are told, (3) deal with competing opinions and resolve controversies in their own minds, (4) enjoy thinking about complex subjects, (5) figure out their own beliefs using the comparison with what others believe, (6) seek out additional info if they become confused. This is what it means to be a literate person. School is supposed to teach you how to do this. People read the NY Times because they want to think. Somerby used to say that readers were being flattered into thinking they were smart, by stuff like this. Now he just ridicules the authors. How times have changed.
Fuck, this is a good comment especially the last paragraph.
DeleteIs that any reason for potty-mouth?
DeleteSounds like a compliment, with emphasis.
DeletePotty-mouth emphasis.
DeleteThose who read the transcript of the debate thought Biden handled himself well and didn't see the oldness that the NYTimes taught them to disparage. I know a lot of very sharp old people. Their ability to think has nothing to do with their ability to climb fence, whether they stutter, or how they look. They look old but there is nothing wrong with their thinking. Same with Biden, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHere's the coordination. The right wing created the edited video portraying Biden as confused and wandering when he wasn't (watching the unedited video). Those fakes were promoted by the mainstream media so a lot of people saw them and thought they were real. That's how you get higher numbers of people wanting a different candidate.
ReplyDeleteSomerby taught middle school; ergo, he is opposed to education beyond middle school.
ReplyDeleteThat’s some piece of reasoning there.
I find it astonishing that Somerby is advocating against education, as he plainly has been doing, after having been a teacher. But it is his anti-intellectualism, clearly expressed, not me attributing this to him. And because anti-intellectualism is a conservative attitude, not liberal, it is one more reason why I believe Somerby is right wing.
DeleteNote that Somerby left teaching after his stint in middle school, teaching math. He has never said why he left. It may be that the end of the Vietnam War draft in 1972 made it safe for him to stop teaching and pursue his comedy career. He has said that he became a teacher to avoid the draft. That doesn't suggest much dedication to teaching itself, so no surprise that he might stop as soon as it was advantageous and also that he might be cynical about his own teaching experience (especially after being infected with Holt and Kozol's attitudes via Teach for America).
Rather than calling people names, why not ask questions when you don't understand someone's reasoning. I tend to believe that everyone can connect an idea from one essay with a fact from another to form patterns, but maybe that isn't true.
I, personally, think Biden was the best president in my lifetime. I watched the debate until I couldn’t stand it anymore. I immediately wanted someone to replace Biden as the nominee. And my reaction was shared by millions.
ReplyDeleteThis post mentions Rich Lowry (part of the quoted bio of Hurt), Rich Lowry recently let loose the n word in an interview with Megyn Kelly and both acted as if it was perfectly natural. (Kelly once felt compelled to explain that Santa is most definitely White.)
ReplyDeleteTrump also reportedly uses the n word frequently, and notably none of the victims of his sexual assaults are people of color (sort of a silver lining). Trump stole his campaign motto, MAGA, from Reagan.
Reagan kicked off his run for president near Philadelphia, Mississippi, right by the KKK’s national HQ and infamously where three civil rights activists were murdered, by giving a speech about states rights, which is a well known euphemism and dog whistle for White Supremacy.
Lee Atwater, a top Reagan advisor and architect of GOP’s strategy that continues to this day, let the cat out of the bag in an anonymous interview:
“Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968, you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
"Manigault Newman, responding to Trump's tweets, said on "Velshi & Ruhle" that it was "sad, with all the things going on in the country" that Trump "would take time out to insult me and my intelligence."
Delete"This is his pattern with African-Americans," she said. "He doesn't know how to control himself."
Following Manigault Newman's interview on MSNBC, Trump tweeted that "Wacky Omarosa already has a fully signed Non-Disclosure Agreement!"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/omarosa-manigault-newman-reveals-recording-she-made-president-trump-day-n900066
That Hur report about Biden being a nice old man with memory problems came before the debate. So did the videos of Biden supposedly confused. The coverage after the debate, entirely ignoring the substance of Biden's answers and ignoring Trump's misbehavior, helpted to portray Biden badly. As I said, those who read the debate transcript didn't have the same negative reaction. But I'm not sure it would have been any different had Biden been more fluent and looked better.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think Biden was the best president in my lifetime. I thought Clinton was. But I was outraged by the way they treated Biden and because so few were defending him. I don't believe we should let major newspapers choose our presidents. I was lukewarm about Harris and would have preferred Newsom, but Newsom was adamant that he would not replace Biden, and that Biden didn't need replacing. So was Harris (until Biden stepped aside). I am very disappointed by Nancy Pelosi, but it perhaps shows her willingness to compromise and be expedient as a politician, strenghs in other contexts. I know your reaction was shared by millions but that doesn't make it right (correct) or fair to Biden. His lack of bitterness is a sign that we did the wrong thing, because it is one more sign of his character, which matters to me.
Hur report was a Leonard Leo hit job.
ReplyDeleteHurt's thumbnail (quoted by Somerby) says:
ReplyDelete"...His first full-time job after graduating [from Hampden-Sydney] in 1995 was at The Detroit News where he became a replacement worker during a bitter strike. "
Then Somerby says:
"As we've noted, Hurt seems like the nicest guy in the world. "
If you grow up in a working class Democratic family, you are likely to be taught at a young age that being a scab is bad. You learn that someone who crosses a picket line is putting his own self-interest ahead of the common good, the needs of the others who work there.
Hurt used the labor strife to jump-start his career. That makes him, by liberal definition, NOT a nice guy and certainly not the nicest guy in the world. Why would Somerby say this if he were himself liberal? He quotes Woody Guthrie, who always support unions. He surely knows that supporting labor is one of the core values among liberals.
When Somerby writes stuff like this, revealing his lack of principles central to liberal beliefs, I wonder how he thinks he can fool anyway, including his fanboys. But lauding a scab is apparently not repugnant to Somerby, and that suggests he is not what he seems. Teachers have unions too. So, even if Somerby missed pro-union upraising in his childhood due to growing up lace-curtain Irish, he sang Pete Seeger songs in the 60s, so he surely knows better, if he is liberal as he claims.
anyway = anybody
Delete"revealing his lack of principles central to liberal beliefs, I wonder how he thinks he can fool anyway"
DeleteBob has described himself as being a member of the Blue, or Democratic, tribe. Has he ever described himself as a liberal?
yes
Deletehe has also stated support for Bernie, which rules out strikebreaking as a hobby
DeleteHa, you beat me to the punch 2:36 on the scab thing, but you said it better than I could, thank you.
Delete2:44 makes a good point; everything is on a spectrum, there are indeed some Dems that are on the right wing spectrum. Having said that, it seems pretty ludicrous, considering the context of the arc of this blog, to take Bob’s word that he votes Blue, or his word on anything.
One of the major ways discourse in politics fails us, is that core stances such as Left and Right are poorly defined, especially by those with a self serving agenda.
Leftists support egalitarianism, right wingers support hierarchy and dominance; these definitions are based on history and behavioral science.
@3:07 - the history of Russia, China and just about all other Communist countries shows lefties supporting hierarchy and dominance.
DeleteCommunism doesn't map onto our American politics very well. There were some card-carrying members of the Communist International Party back in the 30s until Stalin when almost everybody quit in disgust. Our American left shows no resemblance to Russian or Chinese Communism. We are more like the Social-Democrat countries in Scandinavia in aspiration.
DeleteDavid, the reason those Communist countries support hierarchy and dominance is that they aren't really anything like the American left.
@3:30 Your comment is pretty close to the No True Scotsman fallacy. No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an a posteriori claim from a falsifying counterexample by covertly modifying the initial claim.
DeleteCommunism has long been tied up with American liberalism. My extended family were all liberals and most were sympathetic to communism. They hated Richard Nixon, because he had exposed Communists.
Values of today's left in the US resemble Communism in several ways: powerful government, suspicion of business, suspicion of religion and government control of speech.
David, Communism did not originate in the USA and it is not part of the American left. Nixon went after Alger Hiss but it was only the later exposure of Hiss as a spy by the Soviet Union itself (proving it by releasing records) that convinced the left that Hiss actually was a Communist. The left didn't believe he was a Communist or a spy, but was mistaken. It is the nature of spying that spies hide the fact that they are spies. That doesn't mean the left was itself Communist. It wasn't.
DeleteI could as easily say that the right resembles Communism because the right likes red and so does Russia. Your characterization of the left is incorrect. First, it is big business, especially monopolies and oligarchy that the left opposes. There is a religious left, just as there is a religious right. Like the Founding Fathers, the left wants a separation of church and state. The left doesn't want a powerful government, it wasnts the government to work for the people and not to benefit business exclusively. The left is not in favor of government control of speech. Lefties tend to donate to the ACLU. But if you are taking about lefties telling people not to use the n-word, the left is not in favor of using the govt to enforce such things. No one has gone to jail for saying it. If you are talking about disinformation, that is consistent with the 1st Amendment freedoms, so it is wrong to say the left favors control of speech any more than the right. No one thinks speech should be used to hurt others, as disinformation did during covid, for example.
You mischaracterized what liberalism is. I think any Scotsman can tell you more about what a Scotsman is, than a Northern Irishman disparaging his neighbor with mischaracterizations.
Calling Kamala Harris a Communist causes people to laugh at the Republicans.
Delete"Communism has long been tied up with American liberalism."
DeleteThis statement may have been true in the 1930s but its expiration date has long since passed. What's the pointing of pretending it still applies?
"Communism has long been tied up with American liberalism."
DeleteFalse. Phony. Bogus. Codswallop, also.
Accusations of communism have been a staple of American conservatism. And what a stellar cast of characters have engaged in throwing these accusations around.
Original Poster 2:36 performs outstanding work making Our Host's most salient point for him.
DeleteAs our tribal discourse continues to degenerate, we no longer argue the pros and cons of our various beliefs. We don't debate our beliefs and those of the Other. We denounce infidels. We denigrate folks who don't join us in our own perfect and pristine opinions as Very Bad People.
Commenter 2:36 serves up two heaping helpings here. First, Anon 2:36 exposes journalist Hurt as a strikebreaker, a scab who puts his own self interest ahead of the common good, showing that he is indeed Very Bad. For a finale, Anon 2:36 uses Our Host's application of one of his favorite nonjudgments ("a perfectly nice person") to condemn Our Host as well. Anyone who refuses to recognize a Very Bad Person must be one himself!
This is a drum TDH has been pounding for years. Yet some still struggle with the notion.
Assuming Somerby’s approval of Hurt’s character conflicts so deeply with liberal values that it questions his entire political identity oversimplifies both liberalism and human behavior.
DeleteDoes "struggle" mean disagree? I think it implies a lack of understanding. I understand Somerby (and you) and I disagree with him. I started out finding him interesting and liking him but my opinion changed, as I believe Somerby did too. I think you are distorting my arguments to support your own views, which can stand on their own without my help as an ill-fitting example. My point was that Somerby is a liar about being liberal, not that he is a Very Bad Person for not supporting unions. Liberals grow up being taught to support labor -- which I clearly stated. That scab experience would have stuck out to an actual liberal, so it seems unlikely to me that Somerby is one. I'm not saying he cannot be liberal because he likes scabs -- I am saying he is lying to us about his views, which are conservative and not anything like liberal on too many issues to be mere deviance from a norm.
DeleteMy own drum is that Somerby has no idea whether Hurt is a good or bad person at all, so on what basis does he say he is? I believe it is unwise to always believe someone is good until proven otherwise. There is survival value to us and foolishness in refusing to see what people are. There is no reason to believe this guy is good and decent, or not, when discussing what he has said, any more than there is any reason to state what school he went to.
I am not a member of the purity police when it comes to left wing beliefs. I've never complained about any lefties except Sinema and Manchin. I'm fine with Bernie and fine with more moderate Dems. Biden was not my first choice but I've come to admire him. It is ludicrous to suggest that I dislike Somerby because he isn't left-enough or for his position on Israel or for some political reason. He offends me because of his daily dance where he will not say anything direct and conceals his views to the point where he can be anything, laughing up his sleeve at the rubes while always advancing some right-wing talking point of the day.
Do you really think Somerby's approach helps discussion of political views? If so, why does he not discuss any actual positions, limiting himself to personal attacks on the press (a democratic institution in which fallible people do their best to inform the public) while calling Republicans good decent people, even when they are not?
@7:17 This would be true if liberal beliefs came and went, but growing up in a liberal family where politics are important dictates that certain strongly held values are part of your early learning, your tradition and culture, not just political opinions.
DeleteNo one who grew up lefty in the 60s, listening to Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie will not react to the scab job on Hurt's resume. It isn't an idea or opinion, it is a violation of strongly held values inculcated in youth. You can change such views but wouldn't lose the visceral reaction.
Somerby says he has no religion now, but he grew up Catholic. He cannot lose the urge to disapprove of slutty women and that reveals himself whenever he talks about Stormy Daniels or Chanel Miller. He can lose the dogma and belief but not the early learning that produces a knee-jerk reaction to the things you learn as a child. Scabs are like that for liberal families who feed their children Pete Seeger. A few decades later, it is "Free to be You and Me" but Somerby missed that era, so he is a misogynist who mocks feminists, not someone who wonders what the big deal is about it all or is shocked by incel crudity directed at women.
My questioning of Somerby's identity rests on a big picture in which there are lots of strong clues that he isn't who he claims to be. Here are a few more:
Most liberals support civil rights. There may be some disagreement about CRT or anti-racism efforts, but they support the Freedom Riders and desegregations efforts of the 50-60s. Somerby made a point of reintroducing discussion of early busing for school desegregation in Boston, continuing to object to adding more seats for black students to NYC's science high schools, claiming that black college students who go to competitive schools are bound to fail, objecting to reports of successful programs by saying that they are hoaxes, and finally claiming that Ketanji Brown Jackson was not qualified for the Supreme Court because she could not possibly be the MOST qualified person (he obviously must be white, whoever or wherever he is). And he has defended every police officer accused of wrongly killing an unarmed black person.
Liberals don't tend to believe that women who are raped deserved it and contributed to their rape in some way, excusing the perpetrator. They don't excuse right wing men saying misogynist things by saying that none of the right-wing women present objected. In other words, they don't believe that women must defend other women from being victimized, even at their own peril. Most feminists believe that it is up to men to change their behavior, not women (who do not have the power) to force them to do so.
Here's a third example. Somerby routinely defends gun owners who shoot and kill other people, including George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. There may be some gun owners who are Democrats (such as Kamala Harris, who has reasons for owning her gun, or hunters and ranchers in rural areas) but the need for reasonable gun control is widespread if not universal among Democrats. Somerby defends these shooters and has never supported or discussed gun control, even after horrifying events like Uvalde.
One more. When there were 27 candidates for the presidential nomination in 2019, Somerby said that all of the Democratic candidates are terrible. If anything, that would make Somerby the purity police, which may be true in a strange way, given his fetish for disallowing the gender gap in women's employment. He has still said nothing specific that is positive about Harris except for her smile, and was not one of the people praising Biden's administration after he stepped aside, and in fact, never says anything positive about anyone, except long ago saying he favored Bernie. No Democrats deserve any positive notice in Somerby's world. What kind of liberal does that make him?
No single stance on an issue like labor automatically defines one’s entire political alignment. Somerby's focus is media criticism not advocating for specific policies. It’s possible when he calls Republicans "good, decent people", he is focusing on individual character rather than ideological purity as a way of pushing back against polarization.
DeleteI think your frustration is understandable if you’re seeking more transparency from Somerby. His indirect approach can come across as evasive to some, and it’s worth discussing whether his media critiques obscure more important issues. However, it’s also important to consider that people’s political identities are complex, and one’s stances on labor or the media don’t necessarily make them deceptive about their broader beliefs. Such accusations ultimately weaken your political movement as a whole.
Your argument seems to be driven by strong emotions and assumptions that political beliefs, particularly liberalism, are fixed across individuals. While it's clear you have deeply held convictions, the perspective you’re offering implies that anyone deviating from specific values—like certain civil rights issues—can’t truly identify as liberal. However, this overlooks the complexity and diversity within political identities.
DeleteOne concern with this approach is that it overgeneralizes. For example, not everyone who grew up in a liberal household with exposure to Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie has the exact same political reactions, particularly decades later. People’s views evolve, and political identity is rarely a static set of beliefs. Labeling someone as deceptive or not truly liberal based on a few disagreements risks dismissing the nuances that exist within the broader liberal spectrum.
It’s also worth pointing out that making broad accusations like this can lead to unintentional consequences. It can deepen divisions within political movements, alienate moderates who may share most of the same values, and reduce the space for healthy, constructive debate. When people feel they’re being judged solely on whether they meet every ideological criterion, it can push them away from the conversation entirely, which in turn weakens the entire movement.
Rather than framing disagreements as proof of deception or dishonesty, it might be more productive to acknowledge that people can hold different views on certain issues while still sharing a broader commitment to liberal values. This kind of openness helps foster a more inclusive and adaptable political environment, where ideas can be debated without resorting to questioning someone’s integrity.
Thank you, TVC 15.
Delete"What kind of liberal does that make him (Somerby)?"
DeleteHe's not a liberal and I don't think he would claim to be. He's a centrist Democrat.
January 13, 2016:
Delete"Again and again, we liberals invented, embellished and disappeared facts in service to preferred story-lines."
"We liberals" means liberals + Somerby or it wouldn't be we, it would be you liberals or those liberals or some liberals.
January 26, 2016:
"When that occurs, the rest of us liberals have always seemed to know that we mustn't notice or speak."
"As so many people are saying, 2015 [aka The Year of the Liberal] was the year of our own tribe's embarrassment!"
We could be more general but "our own tribe" is pretty explicit about Somerby putting himself in the group he is discussing. He is savaging Rachel Maddow and Ta Nehisi Coates and Lena Dunham.
March 30, 2019:
"That said, the "rational animals" are running amok within our own liberal tribe."
April 17, 2017:
"In truth, we liberals rarely know squat or squadoosh about any policy matter. (We got played for decades about the Social Security trust fund.) Nor do we ever seem to notice the way basic information is withheld from us in our health care pseudo-debates—withheld from us by our own liberal leaders."
At some point Somerby began referring to us liberals mainly to excoriate us. But even then, he supported Bernie and said positive things about him, such as this one in 2017:
"Sanders called the miner a hero. Krugman calls him stupid and racist. We'd say that one of these men knows a great deal more than the other, human being-wise.
At least in his mind, Bernie Sanders has gone down in the mines. It's dark as a dungeon down in the mines. Somehow, Sanders knows how to respect the people who go down there."
Are we supposed to ignore Somerby's repeated statement including himself among we liberals because he doesn't say "I am a liberal."? It is in there somewhere, but I don't have time to search all of the many places he uses the term liberal over 10 years (and before that). He has stated that he planned to vote for Bernie (when he ran against Hillary) but unlike his attitude toward Kamala, he actively defended Bernie from criticism, such as when there was red-baiting against him. And he tells what he likes about Bernie -- he's a mensch. The contrast with Harris is pretty obvious, in my opinion.
But when your target is always liberals and the language used against "us" is so harsh, how can we believe that Somerby truly considers himself one of us? And I wonder how many readers know that Trump contributed to Bernie's campaign in 2016 and 2020? I think that confuses the situation when it comes to Somerby's actual allegiances party-wise.
I don't know many centrist Democrats who would repeat Republican talking points (on the same days as Republicans) over and over and over.
The purpose of divisions is to divide people. But who is doing that? Somerby criticizes liberals relentlessly. I criticize Somerby, often on the basis of the Republican talking points he is repeating. Which of us is more divisive? My main opposition in comment here has been the conservative trolls. I don't see any harm in alienating the people who are already MAGAs or troll farm workers (or bots).
DeleteSomerby refers to himself as "we" in order to maintain plausible deniability about being one of us liberals, since if he is more than one person, not all of them may be liberals. At least one may be conservative and doing all the mischief.
DeleteThe odds of winning the election are shifting in Trump's favor.
Deleteliar
Delete2:12 generally your comments are excellent. I’m surprised you prefer the neoliberalism of Clinton over Biden’s (surprising) progressivism. Biden also seems to have an advantage in character over Clinton as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest disappointment of Biden is his weird loyalty to Netanyahu’s version of Israel.
"Those who read the transcript of the debate thought Biden handled himself well and didn't see the oldness that the NYTimes taught them to disparage"
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell are you talking about? What people where and when 'read the transcript of the debate and thought Biden handled himself well'?
I am busy and I am not going to look that up for you. It was part of the discussion right after the debate. You can look up the transcript online and see if it is as bad as you personally thought. You might be surprised.
ReplyDeletePP,
ReplyDeleteNot only did I see the debate, I saw the NY Times treat the candidate who claimed there was a mythical epidemic of post-birth abortions at the debate, with kid gloves.
Did you see it?
The mumbles and the stutter, the doddering walk and vacant stare are all part of being an effective or ineffective leader. It's not just words on paper that matter.
ReplyDeleteAnd blaming it on the NYT is an odd choice since multiple CNN pundits, immediately after the debate, spoke of the number of texts and calls they were getting from people shocked by how poorly Biden had done.
Somerby has been complaining that Harris hasn't addressed the border issue. Here is how her fact sheet on border policy opens:
ReplyDelete"Vice President Harris will secure the border, stop the scourge of fentanyl on our streets, and fix our broken immigration system by working with Democrats, Republicans, and independents. She will embrace commonsense approaches as well as new technologies and modern solutions.
She is uniquely positioned to meet this challenge. As Attorney General of a border state, she prosecuted transnational gangs that traffic in guns, drugs, and human beings. She broke up a heroin trafficking ring with ties to Mexican cartels, took down a gang working with the Sinaloa Cartel to smuggle methamphetamine into the United States, and worked with the Attorney General of Mexico to prosecute more human traffickers. She also knows we need to reject the false choice between securing our border and creating a system of immigration that is orderly and humane. We can and must do both.
Donald Trump wants to sow chaos and disorder at the border. He prefers to run on the problem instead of fixing it. He blocked a bipartisan border security bill with the toughest reforms in decades, just to score political points. He did nothing to fix our immigration system in his four years as President, while ripping toddlers out of mothers’ arms and separating 5,000 migrant families at the border. Now, he is continuing to fan the flames of fear and division—saying immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” and promising a “bloody” round-up of millions of immigrants who have lived and worked in America for years, tearing families apart.
The American people deserve a President who cares about fixing these problems, instead of playing political games. Vice President Harris is committed to serious solutions to secure our border, crack down on fentanyl, keep families together, and fix our broken immigration system."
A link to the entire speech and a fact sheet released by the Harris campaign can be found at the following link (Simon Rosenberg at Hopium Chronicles):
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/vp-harris-goes-on-offense-on-the
Somerby may be surprised to hear how much she did on border issues while Attorney General of CA, a border state, if he genuinely cares about immigration and isn't just using that as a stick to beat Harris with.
Those things are cosmetic. He didn't have a vacant stare, he let his mouth hang open. He may have thought that was conveying disbelief or astonishment or he may have been having trouble breathing (his people said he had a cold, so he may have been congested). None of that means he is senile. I listed how many articles the Times was publishing back when it happened. It was outrageous. The attacks on Biden's age before the debate framed and biased the perception of people watching the debate. Yes, he looked old. But people didn't listen to what he said.
ReplyDeleteDoddering walk has nothing to do with leadership. FDR was in a wheelchair. He died in office. No one thought he was an ineffective leader (except the Republicans).
Perhaps the reason so many people have supported Trump for so long is that they think his looks matter, his suntan and fist raise and sneering demeanor and the way he stumbles out of his golfcart all proclaim youth and vigor when the man is batshit crazy.
We shouldn't be a nation that chooses its leader based on looks. Trump used to select his staff based on looks -- whether someone looked like a general or a CEO, not qualifications (which he may have found difficult to evaluate in his ignorance). That isn't leadership either. Did Stephen Hawking ever look like a top physicist or a smart person even?
People are living longer because they are healthier and because we have made progress against diseases that used to kill people in middle age. Are we seriously going to deny opportunities for people to participate in society because we haven't figured out how to make people look younger (short of plastic surgery)?
It is unclear to me why the testimony of those who work closely with Biden, who attest to his cognitive competence, don't outweigh the attacks by the media and Republicans when they clearly thought they'd have an easier time defeating Kamala Harris. I do understand why the right has underestimated her -- she is, after all, both black and female. That looks like a double-whammy to the right, but the crazier Trump gets, the better she looks to voters.
Note that Somerby's only praise of Harris has been her smile. He may have the same criteria for leadership as you do, refusing to see ability where it exists based on experience and qualifications.
Trump's weight tends to disguise his age. His face is fuller, less angular. Biden is healthier and not overweight so his face looks a bit gaunt, even in photos. Thin old people tend to look older than fat ones. Biden is not yet frail (he has not lost fat and muscle), but he may comes across that way compared to Trump, who is fat. Trump is 78 -- that is not much younger than Biden. It is silly to consider Trump any younger than Biden or Biden too old while Trump is not. Comparing Trump's health to Biden's, consider that there are probably reasons why Trump conceals his health status, he doesn't look healthy (his skin is gray when not made up), and he is not following a healthy lifestyle (extra important for elderly people). Biden has reported the results of his latest checkup and he is healthy. There is no reason to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on his health. Harris has no reported health issues and is the traditional for a president. If age matters to you, voting for Harris a slam dunk over Trump, who is not only physically unfit, secretive about his health, and not cognitively sound.
ReplyDelete"A 61-year-old man ended up in jail on Thursday after he attacked a Black U.S. Postal Service employee after she placed a political mailer for Vice President Kamala Harris in his mailbox.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a report from CBS Detroit, Russell Frank Valleau of Farmington Hills is facing charges of one felony count of ethnic intimidation and one misdemeanor count of assault and battery that could lead to "up to two years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000."
The CBS report notes Valleau grew incensed when a mail carrier left the flyer which led him to complain he didn't want "that "Black b***h" in his mailbox." [Rawstory]
Hate speech does have an impact on feeble minds. This guy probably wouldn't have known that Harris is black, if he hadn't heard his buddies talking about her using the n-word. He would have thought she was Asian, like Trump did.
"A sandwich shop outside of Pittsburgh refused to let Senator J.D. Vance host a planned campaign event, instead reportedly forcing the Republican vice presidential nominee to shake hands in a parking lot.
ReplyDelete...Audit The Vote Pa founder Karen Taylor said that the sandwich shop in North Versailles PA "just threatened to call the police on JD Vance if he got out of the car to spend time with about 50 people who came out to see him."
In an "update," Taylor later said, "[P]eople are calling the restaurant and they are being told no one threatened to call the police and Vance was absolutely welcomed… damage control?"
Is that the latest term for "lying"? This woman is a Republican operative who apparently failed to confirm that it was OK with the owner to hold a mini-rally at his shop. If the shop is saying no one threatened them with the police, I tend to believe them and not this woman. After all, they do have the right to refuse service to anyone, don't they?
It isn't surprising that Vance might want to skip the public encounter, after his reception when he tried to order donuts. The only question is whether the manager was black or not. He seemed to have some trouble talking with black people. Being refused service gives him a handy excuse if he just got cold feet.
It is a measure of Vance's character that we have to wonder what the real story is.
Theres some history that might have influenced the restaurant’s (or the corporate critters’) decision.
Deletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13758949/amp/kamala-harris-primanti-bros-pennsylvania.html
Sounds to me like the Harris campaign made arrangements ahead of time to hold an event and Vance just showed up.
DeleteIndeed. It sounds like Harris had a production number staged with the restaurant that meant the regulars had to leave to make room for the “diners” she bused in for the event. That stink probably caused some regrets with the management days afterwards.
DeleteI wonder if Vance knew about the earlier Harris event at the restaurant.
I think it is more likely the Vance staffer lied about what happened, since later phone calls to the place contradicted her story. Republicans are more likely to lie than random businesses with a reputation to protect. Cecelia is inventing a story -- that isn't anything she knows happened. It is her speculation but it needs to stick to known facts, like what the place said vs what Vance's person said.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:46pm, no, I linked to a story that I didn’t makeup or have published. I know that it’s just an article in a British rag and isn’t as “scientific” as “Republicans are more likely to lie…” However, its worth a quote and does generate questions as to what Vance knew before he chose that restaurant. “If true” that might be more than a little politically calculated and vengeful on his part, though you’re too dense to glean that so you’ll stick with pattycake version
DeleteThere's no indication the restaurant was coerced into renting their place out for what was labeled as a Harris campaign volunteer appreciation party.
DeleteSo if the 'regulars' were truly angry, they might better vent their ire at the restaurant.
But that wouldn't have made as good of a story.
Anonymouse 9:25pm, I never claimed the restaurant was coerced into a Comma La meet-and-greet and neither did the tabloid piece.
DeleteThere is no reason to believe anything published in the Daily Mail, given its conservative bias. If Vance wasn't allowed to just show up and hold a large party, why is the restaurant to blame?
DeleteYou must be aware that Trump stiffs everyone. For example, he goes into a restaurant and says free food for everyone, then leaves without paying for anyone else (nor does his staff pay). He goes into small towns and holds "rallies" but doesn't pay related expenses. Why should a small restaurant welcome that treatment? Those 50 people munching sandwiches but not paying might hurt them a lot financially.
More likely, they asked for payment in advance for the group and Vance refused to go in.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:34pm, have you got a mouse in your pocket that is saying that Harris and company showed up unannounced and that any political campaign should be able to co-opt a restaurant on a moment’s notice?
Deletestop lying
Delete"Indeed. It sounds like Harris had a production number staged with the restaurant that meant the regulars had to leave to make room for the “diners” she bused in for the event."
DeleteWhat? The campaign hired out a whole restaurant for a private event?
Shocking! Outrage! Communism!
9:29,
DeleteLearn to read. My point was that the 'regulars' anger was faux. Typical whiny Republicanism.
Anonymouse 9:36pm, or after a bit of local brouhaha over customers being informed of the upcoming Harris engagement and being asked to clear out by then, Vance orchestrated some more effrontery for Pennsylvania voters. Duh…
ReplyDeletelies
Delete“Without any advance notice, today's campaign stop caused some momentary confusion for our staff," the restaurant continued. "However, Senator Vance and his team were welcomed into our restaurant shortly after and engaged with our guests inside and on the property."
DeleteThe statement further claims that, "Senator Vance's supportive comments that our manager got a little nervous given the Secret Service, police and crowd accurately reflect the nature of what occurred, and we are glad that it was resolved quickly."
Anonymouse 10:39pm, priceless.
DeleteIt contradicts everything you said and it agrees with Vance’s latest statement.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:54pm, it doesn’t contradict a word of my theory as to why Vance may have chosen this restaurant.
DeleteIt looks like Harris’s team made advance arrangements and Vance’s just figured they would show up. Maybe they figured they could “one up” Harris. Awkward, as usual.
DeleteThe Daily Mail article referenced suggested that patrons were asked to leave the restaurant unexpectedly so that Harris could make a staged visit. The accompanying photo of dozens of Trump supporters picketing the place carrying posters in advance of the Harris event says otherwise. Clearly the restaurant made the event known to the public well enough in advance that the Trump supporters could plan to picket the place. The publication has been labeled untrustworthy by Wikipedia, and other fact checking organizations. It is a sensational right wing publication. It once, as an example, printed an article suggesting that a woman had given birth by mouth to baby squid after eating calamari. The article about the restaurant hosting a Harris campaign stop event is a hit piece, in essence, that purposely misleads the reader, suggesting that the Harris event bumped patrons unexpectedly when it was clearly arranged well in advance and booked the same as would be a private party.
ReplyDeleteThe Harris campaign is in deep trouble.
ReplyDeleteNope
DeleteYou'll see.
DeleteYou won't.
Deletefannyburp
Deleteyes
Somerby does not decry attacks on opponents as evil. He makes them routinely himself, largely against liberals. That is consistent with Republican behavior, as noted by Frum in a post by Yastreblansky:
ReplyDeletehttps://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2024/09/vance-attacked-walzs-character-because.html
This is another similarity between Somerby and right wingers.
Polling is being used by the right as a campaign activity, which makes it less useful as an information source. Simon Rosenberg (Hopium Chronicles) explains:
ReplyDelete"It’s Time To Acknowledge Red Wave Polling As A New Form Of Partisan Political Activity - One of the central arguments we made in our battle against the red wave in 2022 was that the explosion of GOP and right wing aligned polling made the polling averages unreliable. As I wrote to you on Thursday, it turned out to be true as the polling averages, gamed by a flood of right aligned polls, told us, falsely, that a red wave was coming. This problem of there just being too much right-aligned polling is still with us in 2024 and it may about to become a serious problem.
On Thursday I wrote to you that I felt we had already seen evidence of some early testing of right-aligned “narrative polling” in NC and OH in recent days. Here is a tweet of one of these pollsters bragging to a right wing polling propagandist that their new “poll” had just pushed the 538 polling average to Trump." [tweet could not be copied]
"In that Thursday post I also argued that a Republican pollster has just dropped a favorable poll for Moreno in Ohio to help blunt the negative fallout from a new ugly video that had surfaced, Every poll taken this cycle and all our internal polls have Sherrod Brown up a few points. In this new red wave poll all of a sudden Moreno was up. Yesterday the NYT found Brown up 4, where all other polls have been for months. It was a confirmation of the fuckery at play by RMG in Ohio last week, and also in Montana where somehow their new poll showed the race shifting 12 points to Jon Tester’s opponent in one month!!!!!
So how many polls and pollsters that we see in the averages have GOP or right-wing affiliations? I count at least 19:
American Greatness, Daily Mail, co/efficent, Cygnal, Orbital Digital, Echelon, Fabrizio, Fox News, Insider Advantage, McLaughlin, Noble Predictive, Public Opinion Stratgies, Quantus, Redfield & Wilston, RMG, The Telegraph, Trafalgar, TIPP, Victory Insights"
More details are provided at:
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/winning-the-house-with-derek-tran
Read down to the part about "red wave" polling.
"Another thing that decent men don’t do is tattoo serial numbers on the arms of children before transporting them to concentration camps. That, however, appears to be something close to what Donald Trump proposed he would do on Saturday.
ReplyDeleteWhen Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deported just short of a million “illegal immigrants” in the 1950s in his infamous Operation Wetback, an estimated 20,000 American citizens were swept up and deported to Mexico along with non-citizens.
Sinclair Broadcasting’s Sharyl Attkisson asked Trump how to avoid a similar legal and political disaster (this really hurt Eisenhower’s and America’s reputation), and his response was shocking, saying he’d be able to sort out the ”illegals” because they’d be given “serial numbers”:
“But we're getting the criminals out, and we're going to do that fast, and we know who they are, and the local police know their names, and they know their serial numbers.”
Trump added that the serial numbers are a critical part of his deportation plan, to avoid any blowback from the “liberal media” and “radical left lunatics”:
“You take a young woman with two beautiful children, and you put her on a bus, and it ends up on the front page of every newspaper. It makes it a lot harder. So, yes to mass deportation, even of women and children. You put one wrong person onto a bus or onto an airplane, and your radical left lunatics will try and make it sound like the worst thing that's ever happened.”
Source:
https://hartmannreport.com/p/this-is-not-what-real-men-do-8d3
Here is a fact check of the newly released info from ICE about criminal migrants in the US. Trump is already telling lies about the report:
ReplyDeletehttps://digbysblog.net/2024/09/29/fact-check/
I find myself wondering about the timing of the report, released on that day that Harris went to the border in AZ to make a speech about immigration policy. It seems to have been coordinated with Trump's campaign, but ICE is a govt entity that is not supposed to participate in political activity supporting any candidate.
Meanwhile, the union for Customs and Border Patrol agents have already endorsed Kamala Harris.
To further elaborate:
DeleteA spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a Saturday email: “The data in this letter is being misinterpreted. The data goes back decades; it includes individuals who entered the country over the past 40 years or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this Administration. “
For those who think the NY Times is a newspaper and pundits know anything about what is going on:
ReplyDeletehttps://driftglass.blogspot.com/2024/09/posterity-here-is-my-gift-to-you.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@2:04 comments on the difficulty of expelling the illegal immigrants who are in the US. I offer a somewhat alternative view.
ReplyDeleteOver time, we have developed a philosophy that we can't deal with bad guys if our actions would also harm some innocent bystanders. In fact, we can't deal with bad guys if our actions would harm the bad guys unduly. E.g., thieves can't be shot. This attitude applies both to criminals in the US and to foreign bad guys like Hamas and Hezbollah. E.g. Israel is faulted for harming civilians when attacking Hamas's military bases that were set up in civilian areas.
The trouble with this philosophy is that these restriction make almost it impossible to deal with domestic and foreign bad guys. That has led to an attitude that praises inaction.
We see that with @2:04's comment faulting Trump's approach to expelling illegal immigrants. Where's the criticism of Biden and Harris for failing to do their job? The Executive Branch is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law. The law requires that illegal immigrants be expelled. But, Biden and Harris don't even acknowledge this responsibility.
Trump will probably fail to expel many illegal immigrants, but at least he knows what his Constitutional responsibilities are.
He doesn't know what city he's in.
DeleteTry and keep up.
Imagine how well. Ex president word salad will be mentating , let’s say 2 years from now, if he manages to be elected.
DeleteThis is not a big deal. Candidates make so many speeches, they occasionally get something wrong. Remember when Obama said he had campaigned in all 57 states? Watch it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws&ab_channel=ObamaGaffe
Delete"...occasionally get something wrong..." If by occasionally you mean daily. LMAO, the demented old man cannot reliably finish a sentence.
Delete"This attitude applies both to criminals in the US and to foreign bad guys like Hamas and Hezbollah. E.g. Israel is faulted for harming civilians when attacking Hamas's military bases that were set up in civilian areas."
DeleteOr, you know, bombing central Beirut.
"...we have developed a philosophy that we can't deal with bad guys if our actions would also harm some innocent bystanders."
DeleteDeveloped? You mean like in the last 300 or 400 years?
"Innocent bystanders" are people who have rights. Who have families. Who have lives. So we kill a few while we're pursuing our righteous cause. That's the price of "freedom," eh?
40/44 Trump appointees have publicly stated that they will not vote for him, but DIC, purportedly an octogenarian retired actuary living in California, knows better. The recently released Woodward tapes do not necessarily reveal anything new, but hearing Trump say, of Putin, "He likes me. I like him." would be grounds for the most strident Republican censure if it were coming from a Democrat. Trump is a demented blowhard on a trajectory that cannot be predicted other than to say that his inability to formulate coherent sentences, which is common, will only get worse in the next few years, as he follows in his father's genetic footsteps into worsening dementia.
DeleteThanks for your response, Quaker. The change was more recent than hundreds of years.
DeleteIn WW2, when we attacked military targets in Germany or Japan, one didn’t see articles bemoaning the number of civilians killed. We ended the war by intentionally bombing two cities with atomic bombs — which probably saved Japanese lives as well as American lives.
Justifying the deployment of many hundreds of 2,000 lb bombs in densely populated civilian territory is typical Zionist claptrap regarding breaking laws of war enacted after WWII. The idea is palatable when you have dehumanized these people. The US, supplying so many of these bombs for Netanyahu to use them to kill 40,000 civilians, is unfortunately complicit. History will not be kind.
Delete10:59 and Quaker - We all deplore the harm to civilians due to Israel's attacks. The question I have for you is, what should Israel do?
DeleteIts enemies have fired thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians. These attacks are unprovoked. These enemies have thousands more missiles that they will use to continue attack Israeli civilians. What should Israel do? I can think of three alternatives
1. Do nothing and accept continuing attacks
2. Make all-out war on the attacking countries
3. Make limited war, aiming as much as possible at military targets. Warn civilians in advance to they can flee before Israel attacks.
They have to get rid of the immoral maniac Netanyahu and work towards a two state solution.
DeleteSeems to me their mouths are choosing #3, but their actions look more like #2. Dropping 2000 pound bombs on central Beiruit isn't what I would call "limited."
DeleteAs for "criminals in the United States," I'll refer you to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta of King John. For the first time ever, the king admitted that the laws apply to everyone--even the king himself. And that the crown could not imprison or kill subjects without a lawful process. Our government can't just shrug off "innocent bystanders" who are harmed by reckless pursuit of so-called bad guys.
DeleteDropping 2,000 lb bombs in Gaza is what Jared Kushner calls “creating an Opportunity Zone”.
DeleteSadly, the idea that no one is above the law has been rendered substantially inoperative in the US with the recent immunity decision, and the notion that we should not harm innocent bystanders is beginning to seem quaint with today’s Trump Republicans. It’s too “woke.”
DeleteQuaker and @3:53 -- Israel must choose among real world alternatives, all of which have flaws. What do you think Israel should do when their archenemy locates himself in a civilian area?
Delete1. Let him live and continue to mount terrorist attacks.
2. Do what it takes to kill him where he is, even though that effort will also cause the deaths of innocent civilians.
Regardless of what anyone else thinks, Netanyahu has chosen option 2. When the inevitable blowback appears, he will use it to justify further retaliation, regardless of the cost in civilian lives.
DeleteWhen a leader you support does this, it's unavoidable. When a leader you oppose does exactly the same, it's a war crime.
@Anon 3:54
DeleteQuite right. I have also read accounts of some evangelical Christian pastors who face criticism from members of their congregations for preaching the "weak" teachings of Jesus.
Times are weird.
Quaker - I agree that Netanyahu chose #2. However, I think #2 will lead to less blowback, rather than more. Being nice to its enemies hasn't worked for Israel. Being tough may work better.
Delete"...may work better..." if you're not an inconvenient bystander.
DeleteI agree, Quaker. It's a difficult moral decision. There is a horrific tradeoff.
DeleteKill Nasrallah now along with a number of innocent civilians. Or, let Nasrallah live. Letting him live spares the nearby civilians but dooms some unknown number of future victims due to future terrorist attacks organized by Nasrallah.
And, consider what this means in the future. Can a horrific terrorist leader simply stay in a populated area thus making himself protected from any attack?
You kill my child. You are now my target. For as long as I live.
DeleteThe callousness with which Israel has leveled Gaza and killed innocent people, and their blockage of humanitarian aid resulting in starving children, is profoundly immoral. A generation of Americans is growing into adulthood having witnessed this.
Delete@8:14 - Unfortunately, Israel must cope with an attitude of Hamas, Hezbollah, many Palestinians, the Houthis and Iran's leadership, which is, " You leave me alone and do nothing to harm me or my family. You are now my target. For as long as I live.
DeleteThe long history of Palestinian subjugation by the Israelis that has led to Israel being labeled an apartheid state by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, various members of the UN, multiple Israeli historians including Ilan Pappe, and Archbishop Tutu as well as Nelson Mandela, makes the Israel as victim motif simplistic and biased.
DeleteSome supporters of Israel mistakenly believe that because Hamas acted illegally and immorally, Netanyahu's government did not do the same. Leaders of both groups have to go and new, sane leadership has to work towards a two state solution. There's no other option.
DeleteNate Silver: Even a normal-sized polling error of 3 or 4 points across the board would make the Electoral College uninteresting. Harris beats her polls by that amount in every swing state, and it's the biggest landslide since Obama in 2008 (she maybe wins Florida, too).
ReplyDeleteAgreed. One thing not accounted for here is voter enthusiasm. My highly conservative neighborhood was littered with Trump signage 4 years ago. Now: one sign over 5 miles of county road where there were at least 20. This is significant.
DeleteNate Silver (cont.) If Trump beats his polls by that amount, it's the worst election for Democrats in the Electoral College since 1988.
DeleteSilver in a nutshell: The polls don't mean anything. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN! AND IT WILL!
DeleteNo, that is not his point at all. His point is the polls are telling us the race is really close.
DeleteNot sure I see the distinction.
Delete"...the polls are telling us the race is really close..." or that it could be a historic win for the Dems or, if not, a catastrophic loss. It's all withing the "margin of error."
DeleteYes, exactly. I was just putting a fine point on it. The polls mean something: the race is really close, it could be a historic win for the Dems or, if not, a catastrophic loss, etc.
DeleteThat covers the full range of possibilities, yeah? I mean, is there any outcome that won't fit between those two extremes?
DeleteThe distinction is in the attitudes toward the utility of the polls.
DeleteEpic memorandum says to stay at the hotel Dehrste for the profound deity revelation of source code. More to follow...
ReplyDeleteOK, who's the knucklehead who broke the blog?
ReplyDeleteHope Bob is alright.
DeleteWhy are you commenting this? Because no entry today?
DeleteYes.
DeleteWhen the main page loads showing Saturday's post as the most recent, I try to refresh. My browser spins for a minute and times out. Something is broken somewhere.
DeleteTwo straight days without Bob repeating nonsense Right-wing grievances.
DeleteIs our Somerby learning?
For Bob not even to mention his lack of post yesterday is worrying,
Delete“For Jamie McGregor, a businessman in Springfield, Ohio, speaking favorably about the Haitian immigrants he employs has come to this: death threats, a lockdown at his company and posters around town branding him a traitor for hiring immigrants.
ReplyDeleteTo defend himself and his family, Mr. McGregor has had to violate his own vow to never own a gun.
“I have struggled with the fact that now we’re going to have firearms in our house — like, what the hell?” said Mr. McGregor, who runs McGregor Metal, which makes parts for cars, trucks and tractors.
“And now we’re taking classes, we’re going to shooting ranges, we’re being fitted for handguns,” he said on a recent day, pulling up a photo of his 14-year-old daughter clutching a Glock.
A fifth-generation resident in the small city between Columbus and Dayton, Mr. McGregor was struggling a few years ago to fill positions for machine operators, forklift drivers and quality inspectors. Mr. McGregor, 48, began hiring Haitians who had recently settled in Springfield. They now represent about 10 percent of McGregor Metal’s labor force of 330.
But he has suddenly found himself in the middle of a political firestorm. Former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, denounced the Haitians in Springfield with false claims that they were stealing and eating pets. The rumors fed growing resentment over rising housing prices, crowded clinics and a town whose character seemed to be changing. Mr. McGregor, who had publicly praised his new employees for their hard work and willingness to learn, became a target.
A flood of threats was directed not only at him, but his family and his business.
They came by the hundreds — phone calls, emails and letters from white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other people they had never met.
“The owner of McGregor Metal can take a bullet to the skull and that would be 100 percent justified,” said one message left on the company voice mail.
“Why are you importing Third World savages who eat animals and giving them jobs over United States citizens?” another asked.“
It’s just entertaining hyperbole, eh, DiC?
One side makes anonymous threats. The other side actually shoots people.
ReplyDeleteOh, David. You're not referring to the assassination attempts are you? The first was a registered Republican. The second was registered Dem and supported Haley and Ramaswamy. Are they supposed to represent "the other side"?
DeleteQuaker -- the two assassins were nuts. But, nuts can be inspired to do crazy things, regardless of their party registration.
DeleteMy point is that the people making threats in Springfield were inspired by Trump's dishonest and provocative verbiage, and the people who tried to murder Trump were inspired by Harris's dishonest and provocative verbiage.
She doesn’t do that but Trump does.
DeleteI would add that the Dems were more provocative than the Reps. Trump lied about Haitians eating pets. Biden advocated squashing Trump like a bug.
DeleteIn another moment during his TV appearance, Biden appeared to have some fun with Whoopi Goldberg's analogy comparing Trump to an annoying "bug."
"I always felt you were going to probably do four years and then try to figure out where to go with Kamala," Goldberg said. "Then [Trump] just wouldn't- he was like a bug. He just kept being there. He was a like a bug right there," before pointing to the table and making a buzzing sound.
Biden then slammed his hand on the table, pretending to have killed the bug, prompting laughs and claps from his fans as the president offered a giant grin in return.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-says-trump-has-no-redeeming-value-pretends-squash-him-like-bug-amid-iranian-assassination-threat
David:
Delete1: Give us an example of Harris' "dishonest and provocative verbiage".
2. How does Trump know his "dishonest and provocative verbiage" will not lead to actual physical violence?
3. Whose "dishonest and provocative verbiage" may have encourage the maniac in El Paso, Texas who massacred 23 persons at a Walmart?
Crusius also admitted he wrote a manifesto, titled “An Inconvenient Truth,” and uploaded it to the internet minutes before he commenced his attack. In it, he characterized himself as a white nationalist, motivated to kill Hispanics because they were immigrating to the United States. Crusius admitted to selecting El Paso, a border city, as his target to dissuade Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants from coming to the United States.
DiC, Trump called his enemies “vermin.” Did you forget about that?
DeleteA couple of Harris’s provocative lies:
Delete— Trump will become a dictator if elected. Democracy will end.
— Trump said he supports Nazis
David Duke appreciated Trump's comments after Charlottesville.
DeleteNo, David, give me the specific quote where Harris says he supports Nazis.
DeleteBy the way I notice he have no answers to the other two questions, you fucking fascist.
David in Cal,
DeleteIf you were in a room full of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and "fine people" on the Right who assembled at the "Unite the Right" march in Charlottesville, how could you tell the third group from the first two?
David in Cal,
DeleteThose would be assassins only "tried" to kill Trump. You know, the way Trump only "tried" to overthrow the United States government on January 6th, 2021.
You'd think you'd have more empathy for those would be assassins, who were "cancel cultured" because the Right wanted to silence their political opinions .
@2:08 The point is that Biden and Harris lied over and over about what Trump said.
DeleteThe point is, it's impossible to differentiate between neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the rest of the Republican voting base.
Deleteعسل النحل يحتوي على مجموعة كبيرة من الفوائد الصحية، فهو يعزز مناعة الجسم بفضل خصائصه المضادة للبكتيريا والأكسدة، ويدعم الهضم بفضل إنزيماته الطبيعية.
ReplyDelete