HEALING: Sandburg, Lincoln believed in The People!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2026

CEO enters Hall of Fame: Good God! If we survive the likely madness of the next few years, our flailing nation is going to be badly in need of healing. 

In recent weeks, that had us thinking about that passage from Carl Sandburg's famous biography, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years.

It's one of our favorite passages in all of literature. It promotes a certain view of the way a nation's story should be told.

Sandburg was a poet historian. In an admiring essay in the Wall Street Journal back in 2020, Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer cited the beauty of Sandburg's prose, then brought "The People" in:

History Through a Poet’s Eyes

[...]

Sandburg’s work has long endured. It remains the most influential and popular life of Lincoln ever published, with “The Prairie Years” alone selling some 1.5 million copies. As of this Lincoln’s birthday month, “Prairie Years,” “War Years” and Sandburg’s 1954 one-volume abridgment all remain on Amazon’s current list of the 50 best-selling Lincoln books.

An explanation for their sustained appeal may lurk within the assessment that critic Mark Van Doren proffered in the Nation in 1926: “In spite of some rather obvious poetry stuck in here and there,” “Prairie Years” was “amply and profoundly beautiful.” Yet behind the Whitmanesque free-verse vernacular was evidence of deep research...

Sandburg endures not because he is cited by modern scholars, but because he continues to be read for sheer pleasure. In my own travels on the Lincoln circuit, I am often asked: “Do you like Sandburg’s books?” My affirmative answer invariably relieves questioners who find him a guilty and perhaps outdated pleasure. Such skepticism never inhibited Carl Sandburg. Writing in “The People, Yes,” he all but predicted his own durability in verse. 

And so on from there. And yes—Sandburg once wrote an entire book-length poem called The People, Yes. The late James Hurt, another Lincoln specialist, took the idea a bit further:   

Sandburg's Lincoln within History

[...]

Sandburg himself saw his book as an American epic as often as he thought of it as a mere biography. In a preface written for The Prairie Years but dropped before publication, he wrote, "The facts and myths of his life are to be an American possession, shared widely over the world, for thousands of years..." And in his "symphonic finish" to The War Years, Sandburg wrote, "Out of the smoke and stench, out of the music and violent dreams of the war, Lincoln stood perhaps taller than any other of the many great heroes. This was in the minds of many. None threw a longer shadow than [Lincoln]. And to him the great hero was The People. He could not say too often that he was merely their instrument."

In this and in many similar passages, the figure of Lincoln becomes merged with that of Sandburg's favorite abstraction, The People, and the book becomes a democratic epic celebrating not an individual but a collective hero.   

Sandburg saw his six-volume biography as American / democratic epic. For Sandburg, as for Lincoln himself, the central player in the American story was an abstraction: The People.   

It will be hard for this nation to heal under current arrangements. Under those arrangements, corporate entities deliberately pick and choose their material to appeal to the Reds or the Blues. In our view, the Fox News Channel is demonically guilty of this deliberate pursuit of tribal division, but those of us in Blue America could do better ourselves.  

We'd been thinking of that passage from Sandburg, the one in which the poet biographer cites a somewhat mysterious source of "healing and strength." Because we clearly need to develop a politics of human feeling, we've always admired Sandburg's portrait of Lincoln as a man of the people, but also as a person of deep human feeling as his journey to Washington nears.   

On Tuesday, we showed you the way the passage in question begins, with the president-elect riding in the caboose of a freight train as he goes to pay his last visit to his stepmother, Sarah Bush Lincoln.

Do we need to stop proselytizing, to learn how to feel? This is the passage in which Sandburg imagines a source of healing and strength:

Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years 

Chapter 163

[...]

The next day Lincoln drove eight miles out to the old farm along the road over which he had hauled wood with an ox team. He came to the old log house he had cut logs for and helped smooth the chinks; from its little square windows he had seen late winter and early birds.

Sally Bush and he put their arms around each other and listened to each other’s heartbeats. They held hands and talked, they talked without holding hands. Each looked into eyes thrust back in deep sockets. She was all of a mother to him.

He was her boy more than any born to her. He gave her a photograph of her boy, a hungry picture of him standing and wanting, wanting. He stroked her face a last time, kissed good-by, and went away.

She knew his heart would go roaming back often, that even when he rode in an open carriage in New York or Washington with soldiers, flags, and cheering thousands along the streets, he might just as like be thinking of her in the old log farmhouse out in Coles County, Illinois.

The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and there would be the silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.  

That's where the chapter ends.   

It's true! Traditionally, we humans have sometimes held hands and talked, have talked without holding hands. We humans have listened to each other's heartbeats. Sandburg is presenting Lincoln, the moral giant, as a deeply human being.

As for the possible source of healing, Sandburg cites the sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months. What role would the silence after snowstorms play? You're asked to puzzle that out. 

Will we The People find ways to heal if we survive the next two years? There's little silence and little feeling in the clatter of our public discourse as it exists today as we The People ae encouraged to split into warring camps.  

And then this week, this actually happened. No, we aren't making this up:  

Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott...Inducted Into Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame in Star-Studded NY Event

Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott and CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer were among the media heavyweights inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame at a star-studded ceremony in New York City Tuesday night.

Scott and Blitzer were honored at the Ziegfeld Ballroom alongside a roster of prominent television personalities and industry figures, including ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith, Bravo’s Andy Cohen, and celebrity chef Bobby Flay.

Scott’s induction came just days before Fox News marks its 30th anniversary on Oct. 7. Accepting the honor, the network’s first female CEO reflected on its growth from a single cable channel into a broader media operation.

“The real recognition belongs to my entire Fox News family,” Scott said. “Next month, we will celebrate our 30th anniversary.” 

For all we know, Suzanne Scott may be the world's nicest person. Unfortunately, she's also the person who puts the braindead garbage can known as the Gutfeld! program on the air each night. Also, she sends in the clowns each afternoon, asking them to destroy the nation's brain cells while touting themselves as The Five.  

For that, she's been sent to the Hall of Fame! And none of the Blue American journos we're trained to trust will ever say a single word about any of this. They don't want to fight with Fox. To a man, to a woman, they boldly refuse to serve.

We expect full services to return next week. Scott to the Hall of Fame!


199 comments:


  1. Interesting factoid: did you know that your idol Lincoln was the most hated president during his terms? The most hated of them all.

    I was surprised to hear this at first, but then I realized: after all, he started a war that killed nearly a million Americans. He ordered scorched-earth campaigns, the most brutal total-war tactics.

    It's not surprising that the ordinary folks on the ground have radically different perspectives from indoctrinated ideologs and retarded Dumbocrats...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How could a President who ended the chattel slavery of black people, possibly be the most hated President of a shit hole country?

      Delete
    2. Note the word "was" and not "is." Who do you suppose hates Lincoln now? Ask Nick Fuentes.

      Also, there are quite a few incorrect facts in this comment. The war had already started before Lincoln took office.

      As to scorched-earth tactics, AI says this:

      "• Field Decisions: The scorched-earth or "total war" policies—most famously Sherman's March to the Sea and the Atlanta Campaign in 1864—were conceived and executed by General William Tecumseh Sherman and General Ulysses S. Grant rather than direct, micro-managed orders from the Oval Office.

      • Congressional and Legal Framework: In 1861, Congress passed the First Confiscation Act, which allowed Union forces to seize or destroy property used by the Confederate States of America military effort, setting a legal precedent for targeting infrastructure.

      • Lincoln's Stance: Lincoln generally deferred controversial operational decisions in the field to his top commanders, recognizing that destroying Confederate railroads, factories, and supply lines was vital to breaking the South's capacity and will to fight. When Sherman presented the capture of Savannah, Georgia as a Christmas gift in December 1864, Lincoln expressed deep gratitude and support for the campaign's success."

      Why do we have a new commenter here who is advancing neo Nazi anti-Lincoln propaganda, including lies readily contradicted by historians? Why does Somerby's blog attract ugly racist flies like this to a so-called liberal blog? Obviously, because Somerby is discussing Lincoln, quoting Sandberg. But why does Somerby tolerate this shit? For the same reasons he tolerates trolls and other right wing assholes like David in Cal, the guys who come here to say women shouldn't vote, the anti-trans commenters, and other conservative and neo-Nazi filth.

      Note that this guy too spells it Dumbocrats not Trump's favored "Dumocrats". That makes him easy to identify. He might as well be using that as his nym.

      Delete




    3. He personally ended nothing, Dumbocrat. His administration conscripted people in the North, by force, and sent them down South to kill people defending their homes there.

      Compare to Haiti, where slaves revolted themselves, killed the slaveholders, and lived happily ever after. While in the US of A descendants of the former slaves are still unhappy and complaining endlessly.


      Delete
    4. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves.

      If you think the slaves didn't want to be free, you are crazy.

      Lincoln tried to end the war by negotiating with the secessionists, but the South fired on Ft. Sumpter so he was stuck with a fighting war and had no choice but to prosecute it and win, to preserve the union.

      Go away troll.

      Delete



    5. If proclaiming something is his greatest achievement, he could issue a million Proclamations without killing a million people, Dumbocrat.

      Although, ordinary people typically don't care much for any proclamations. Unlike you retarded Dumbocrats.

      As for going away, why don't you go, Dumbocrat bot?


      Delete
    6. The right hates Lincoln because he freed black people from slavery, of course, but i could also see them thinking Lincoln is a piker because he killed less people in the Civil War than than RFK, Junior will kill children this year alone.

      Delete
    7. Uh, @11:23. Lincoln was a Republican. The people who hated him were Democrats.

      Delete


    8. I strongly suspect that most of the people who hated him wouldn't give a shit about Republicans and Dumbocrats.


      Delete
    9. holy shit, dickhead in cal just did it again. you're fucking a genius dickhead, yes indeed, Lincoln was a Republican, LOL, who the fuck do you think you're kidding, asshole?

      Delete
    10. Republicans love Lincoln because he freed the slaves.
      Also, Trump has been a great friend to black people.

      These statements are so true, FOX News won't report it for some reason.

      Delete
    11. If FOX News reported those two statements as truth, the Republican Party and Trump would have an approval rating from Republican voters in the single digits, for some reason.

      Delete
    12. Lincoln was like Obama, bisexual.

      Delete
    13. Trump, like most Republicans, couldn't get laid in a whore house with a fistful of $100 bills.

      Delete
    14. In the whore house workers defense, there isn't enough money in the world to fuck a Republican.

      Delete

    15. Good confession, Dumbocrat.

      Delete
    16. It's no wonder Republicans have to rape children to get any sexual gratification.

      Delete
    17. This is fake news and was debunked the other day.

      Lincoln was relatively popular during his tenure.

      He became even more popular over time.

      The South seceded from the US and started the Civil War in order to preserve slavery.

      In the US, there was a partisan realignment: the Republicans of Lincoln's time are now the Dems, and the Dems back then are now the GOP, whose platform is fundamentally racist. This is known to most secondary school students but some trolls pretend to be not aware.

      Delete
    18. After Sherman blazed thru the South he should have turned around and shot dead every treasonous Southern Officer. Double tap those who took an Oath to The United States of America. Fuck 'em.

      Delete
    19. After they surrendered, Sherman was glad to make peace with them.

      Delete
    20. The simple reason Lincoln was the most hated is because he was a piece of shit weirdo Republican, just like the whole lot of them, DumBo.

      Delete
    21. Fuck off about Lincoln.

      Delete
    22. Lincoln was hated by the South because he stomped them because they were racist psychos.

      Lincoln showed no mercy and, through his actions, put all the blame on the South.

      Delete
    23. Where it belonged. FTFY

      Delete
  2. Somerby was once a vocal defender of the Duke Lacrosse team in a rape complaint that turned out to be false. Today Brad Slager (the new conservative at Mediaite) revives that old situation to discuss the Cornell rape case. Somerby also defended Brock Turner in a case where he was convicted after sexually assaulting Chanel Miller who was passed out by a dumpster. Somerby blamed the alcohol policies and Miller herself, for drinking too much before a frat party where she became too drunk to give consent. I fully expect Somerby to come back and support these poor Cornell gang rapers, again on the grounds that the victim shouldn't have drunk so much.

    As in the Chanel Miller case, the right wing defenders of these hapless college boys seem to have invented details that were not in the law suit filed or the statements given by the victim. For example, Slager claims the victim gave consent to have sex with four boys, including two she says she didn't know. She does not say that in the lawsuit. Slager also complains because her name is withheld from reporting, even though her complaint is that she was subsequently described all over campus as a whore who initiated the gang rape. Those two claims are incompatible.

    But I find myself wondering why conservatives always side with the men accused of taking advantage of inebriated women, despite being taught that women who cannot give consent are not sexually available. Brock Turner was convicted, given a very small sentence for which the judge was subsequently impeached by outraged voters. The Lacrosse team was found not guilty and the woman claiming to have been raped was found to be lying. But there is no doubt that this Cornell victim was gang banged and that she was too drunk (and drugged) to give consent, so what is there to defend in this case?

    It would be right to challenged fraternity culture and the drinking on campuses, but that doesn't automatically lead to women being raped. Why does Somerby defend these young men and the concept that women must not engage in the same behaviors as men without expecting to be assaulted with impunity, in cases that are not prosecuted. This woman's life has been destroyed, her college career derailed, her health endangered. Because she was assaulted. Should that be the inevitable result of a night out for women, but not men?

    Somerby has another opportunity to display his sexism and double standards. Slager beat him to it, including an article embellished by many added details in support of the men present, not found in the lawsuit itself. There will be a trial. But why do conservative men go out of their way to justify hurting women? The answer is obvious, but here it is again, in black and white reporting by new conservative propagandist, Brad Slager, at Somerby's favorite source, Mediaite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sunny Hostin, who is very liberal, and who has a background in cases like this, explained the law. If a woman voluntarily drinks or does drugs and then gives consent, there is no case against the men who had sex with her. That's why the those Cornell guys were not prosecuted.

      Delete
    2. go fuck yourself, dickhead in cal. just go fuck yourself and crawl back under your rock, you racist fascist freak

      Delete
    3. Incapacitated people cannot give consent. That applies regardless of the form of the incapacitation. Some men think they should be able to have sex with children (who are unable to give consent because they have not developed the capacity for judgment of consequences). They think they can have sex with mentally ill or developmentally disabled women, who are ruled out of bounds but are inevitably the targets of some men regardless of their obvious mental problems. Some men think it is OK to have sex with women under false pretenses, lying to them, misrepresenting their marital status, giving false names. Consent in response to fraud is not OK. Some men think it is OK to have sex with women who are grieving, confused, obviously upset and in need of help and consideration not sex. There exists a subset of men who consider sexual relations a game in which their goal is to obtain sex no matter what (roofies, an expensive meal, threats, promises) while it is the woman's job to protect herself from predators and con artists. That isn't how sex works and it is why there are laws, whether they work in every circumstance or not. When men are the only ones available to enforce such laws, they can be ignored, which is why it is important to have female officers, and women as DAs and prosecutors, and on juries. To derail this kind of corrupt game-playing with sex as the goal.

      Men who care about women don't behave this way.

      Delete
    4. Somerby always supports accused men, no matter what the circumstances, unless it is Biden being accused by an obviously deranged woman lacking credibility, in a Republican plot.

      Delete
    5. All this time, Republicans have been hot for children just because children are under the age of consent.
      Who knew?

      Delete

    6. "Incapacitated people cannot give consent."

      And yet somehow they do, all the time. And even attempt to fuck others, without worrying about their consent at all.

      Mystery...

      Delete
    7. Who knew?
      (Narrator: Everyone).

      Delete
    8. Cornell omitted key elements of the testimony given by the victim in its report to the local authorities and Cornell is being roasted for that, irrespective of the law. Nothing can put a smile faster on a Trump supporter than the knowledge that a woman can be gang raped with no impunity, thanks to a law that favors the rapist.

      Delete
    9. you mean gang raped with impunity

      Delete
    10. More fake news.

      Legally, if someone is incapacitated due to alcohol, they cannot give consent.

      The sexist ghouls here, inspired by Somerby, are repugnant.

      Delete
    11. Have no fear. Tish James is on the case.

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

      Delete
    13. Just when you think DiChead couldn't get even more vile and disgusting, he goes and shows his ass again. Fuck wrong with you man?

      Delete
    14. And yet Somerby brings up the bimbo attacks on Bill Clinton frequently. Why even mention them at all if he didn't want to imply that Clinton mistreated women, a frequent talking point of the right wing?

      The main problem with trying to exonerate Somerby is that he has so often repeated the slanders without debunking them. Repeating this stuff only helps the right. It perpetuates the stereotype of Clinton as a womanizer, even repeated on late-night comedy shows, and still offered by Gutfeld, even though today's audiences barely remember who Bill Clinton was.

      You will get no argument from anyone here that Clinton was wrongly accused, repeatedly, just as happened to Biden. Somerby also complained about the attacks on Gary Hart that led to him dropping out of the race, but those were true. Somerby's complaint was that the reporter in question had a beef with Hart for lying to him, so he laid in wait to trap Hart in his infidelities. As if catching someone in wrongdoing were dirty pool.

      Who did Somerby defend? The lacrosse team. The kidnapping accusations publicized by Al Sharpton. The security guard who told a black student she didn't belong in her own school dorm. Men accused of child abuse by wives during divorce custody hearings (they always lie, Somerby claimed). Roy Moore. Brock Turner and the judge who gave him a light sentence, blaming the university president instead (even though the frat was off-campus and many students were of legal drinking age).

      He has also declared #metoo over, although he did not have the guts to defend Bill Cosby, Louis C.K. or Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Bill O'Reilly. I believe he did defend Al Franken. He didn't defend Bernie Sanders but he did attack Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal, and it took him a while to defend Biden from sex abuse charges by a woman found to be "not credible" because she was telling falsifiable, unbelievable stories all over the place, about her own life and credentials. Perhaps the Biden accusations created a crisis of conscience for Somerby, who loves to attack women and defend men, but who disliked Biden and had a hard-on for removing him, long before 2020.

      The problem with writing a blog like this is that you create a long track record of statements about various people and topics, so that patterns and consistencies emerge over time. DG is a newcomer to that history, so he tries to build a picture of Somerby's views that doesn't fit his actual words over time.

      No, DG. Do not beg for quotes. Do your own searches of the archives. No one is going to play the game of producing quotes only to have you misread them or say they are insufficient.

      Somerby blamed Stormy Daniels for Trump's fraud, calling her a con artist and extortionist. Somerby does not believe E. Jean Carroll and never supported her against Trump. Somerby has never mentioned Epstein and the rape accusations against Trump. And Somerby never mentions the many sexual allegations against people like Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Elon Musk (other tech bros) and many others in Trump's administration. Crickets when it comes to Trump, Epstein, and other sexual assault charges against prominent Republicans (such as Max Miller and the asshole going around saying women's shouldn't vote).

      Delete
  3. "We expect full services to return next week. Scott to the Hall of Fame!"

    Somerby blames Suzanne Scott for Fox News. He should be blaming Rupert Murdoch, but a woman (in the Fox mold for female on-screen talent) makes a better scapegoat and Somerby will always attack a female journalist before he will place blame where it belongs, on guys like Roger Ailes, Murdoch, Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing noise machine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here’s how AI sums up Bob’s treatment of Roger Ailes. As far as I know, Ailes wasn’t a transman, but he did kinda have that flavor. BTW- you’re so obvious and lame.

      “The Daily Howler is one of the oldest political and media-criticism blogs on the internet. Launched in 1998 by writer and former stand-up comedian Bob Somerby, the blog primarily critiques what Somerby views as lazy, partisan, and "script-driven" coverage across both mainstream and conservative journalism.
      When analyzing Roger Ailes (the late architect and CEO of Fox News), Somerby’s critiques generally center on a few specific themes:
      • The Architecture of Modern Conservative Media: Somerby frequently analyzes the legacy of Roger Ailes as the man who revolutionized political "pseudo-news". He argues that Ailes understood how to use cable news to partition the American public into tailored information silos long before mainstream outlets adopted similar strategies.
      • The "Mainstream Media" Script: While Somerby heavily critiques the political impact of Ailes' Fox News empire, a hallmark of The Daily Howler is pointing out how the "mainstream" press (like The New York Times or NBC) often mimics or mishandles conservative narratives rather than effectively debunking them.
      • Historical Retrospectives: In his ongoing media critiques, Somerby routinely loops back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, tracing contemporary partisan polarization and media lawsuits directly back to the corporate strategies formulated under Ailes.”



      Delete
    2. The above is me. I accidentally hit the google thing.

      Delete
    3. Dude, nobody cares what a man pretending to be a woman thinks.

      Delete
    4. Somerby hasn’t mentioned Ailes in decades.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 5:20pm, because Ailes is dead. Susan Scott just happens to hold that role now and just happens to be a chick.

      Delete
    6. Oh, no mention of Lachlan MURDOCH who runs Fox Corporation?

      Delete
    7. Fuck off trannysorostroll.

      Delete
    8. Limbaugh is dead too, but people still mention him when they talk about the noise machine.

      Delete
    9. AI draws heavily on Wikipedia, which has been nicer to Somerby than he deserves.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 5:36pm, what does that have to do with the charge that Bob only goes after the delicate female flowers of creation? He went after Ailes back in that day and Scott in this era. Saying he should be going after Rupert or Lachlan is a different argument from saying he only targets women.

      Delete
    11. Somerby did not go after Ailes.

      Delete
    12. Facts nor reality will stop a troll, who are here to roll coal and nothing else.

      Delete
    13. Agree. Bob's issue with Fox News is that they are bad for Republican branding, worse so under Scott.

      Delete
  4. Without those rains, the prairie cannot bloom. Somerby and Sandburg portray them as an injury that requires healing but they are the lifeblood of plants without which there would be nothing for herds to eat, no fertile soil, just barren desert.

    This is what happens when poets try to write factual books without bothering to consider what may be true in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science is a bitch, to right wingers.

      Delete
    2. I am your science, cracka.

      Delete
    3. Who teaches these Eastern European trolls to spell?

      Delete
    4. Loam makes the most fertile soil, 40% sand, 40% silt, and 20% clay.

      Sand allows for good water infiltration and aeration due to its macropores. Clay provides good water holding and good porosity with its network of micropores.

      Delete
    5. And silt improves the flavor.

      Delete
    6. I dig what 3:43 is talking about and believe wholeheartedly that 6:19 speaks from experience.

      Delete
  5. David, Lizzie’s dad died last August, may his memory be a blessing. The obituary, listing relatives, doesn’t mention you. Just how are you related to her?

    https://www.volkleberfuneralhome.com/m/obituaries/eugene-skurnick/Memories

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am her dad's first cousin. That obituary does not mention his late wife Blanche, because Blanche predeceased him. It was courageous for them to marry in 1965, when mixed marriages were rare. Blanche was a rare jewel. I greatly miss them both.

      Delete
    2. It would be even more courageous to have a mixed marriage in 2026.

      Delete
    3. Hi, Dickhead in Cal. Question: Did Lincoln fly the Confederate flag, you fucking racist prick?

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 12:35pm, oh, sure.

      Delete
    5. David, it definitely mentions Blanche, and it says they got married in 1963.

      Just to be clear now, was your father the brother of Lizzie’s grandfather Morris Skurnick?

      Delete
    6. David is not a single person, "David" comments are generated by a troll farm, nothing "David" says is accurate or genuine, he is not related in any way to Skurnick.

      Delete
    7. mixed marriages were not rare in 1965.

      Delete
    8. I know some people who got mixed up in marriages back then.

      Delete
    9. Bullshit they weren’t rare. Loving v Virginia wasn’t even decided until 1967

      Delete
    10. @5:18, yes they were rare, around the same as in the 1950s. It wasn't until 1967 when the Supreme Court legalized mixed marriages nationwide, eliminating the bans against such marriages enacted by 17 states. The counter-culture of the late 1960s did help popularize mixed marriages and the mainstream culture embraced the concept when it discovered that ads showing a mixed marriage could appeal to both black and white markets with the same ad. Prior to that, separate ads were aimed at black and white audiences. Mixed race sitcoms started appearing too.

      Delete
    11. I was in a mixed marriage myself during that time period, in Southern California where there was more racial tolerance and less segregation (although still some) in the larger cities. As a student at UCLA, I helped build a list of unsegregated student housing vacancies (apartments adjacent to the dorms and campus) so that mixed couples and diverse students could find a place to live without a run-around from landlords.

      Delete
    12. I was in a mixed marriage with one of my fingers.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    13. Ha ha ha ha, you are so funny that I am surprised you even have fingers.

      Delete
    14. Yes, I have fingers. And I’ll finger you, but only with your consent.

      Delete
    15. "but only with your consent."

      Good Morning, non-Republican.

      Delete
    16. Mixed marriages are relatively rare even now.

      Before Loving mixed marriages were generally permitted and did occur, Loving insured that they were legal because after Civil Rights racists were feeling friskier.

      Delete
  6. Unlike Lincoln, Trump is the least popular president in history.

    Trolls seem to be feeling their oats a bit today, but the writing is on the wall. Someone is funding an effort to sway voters away from Dems, but, aside from electoral politics not working that way, it is too little too late.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The extreme poetic license taken by Sandburg in the passages quoted by Somerby is nauseating. There is an actual man revealed by history, who Sandburg could have described and would have been more than hero enough for our nation to admire without his mawkish embellishments.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "None threw a longer shadow than [Lincoln]. And to him the great hero was The People. He could not say too often that he was merely their instrument."

    This is called passing the buck. I think a greater hero doesn't shift responsibility for his own choices onto others, even some nebulous entity with no real embodiment, called "The People". We know now, and it was true in Lincoln's time, that the people are diverse, not one mind and one body at all, but many different individuals, including the ones who started and continued and were defeated in our Civil War. This renders Lincoln's remark pure nonsense. The same goes for Sandburg's favorite abstraction, which he imposes onto his view of Lincoln.

    Our heroes need not be such grandiose figures as Sandburg created.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cult of personality appeals to right wingers, because of their own lets say *unique* personality traits.

      Delete
  9. If Sandburg and Lincoln both believed in the people, to the point where Somerby is quoting them here about it, why doesn't Somerby believe in the people? He keeps saying that we the people were not built to succeed at democracy, that our system is failing because we the people are not up to it. Are these different people being talked about by Sandburg, Lincoln, and Somerby?

    The main person lacking faith in the people here today is Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This makes it explicit:

    "President Donald Trump said he feels "badly" for the men under investigation in an alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity.

    His comments came a day after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) signed an executive order naming state Attorney General Letitia James (D-NY) special prosecutor in the case, according to the governor's office.

    Trump spoke to reporters Friday as he headed to Marine One, bound for a Republican midterm campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama." [Rawstory]

    But what else would anyone expect of Trump, who doesn't know enough to feel bad for them, not badly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What woman in her right mind would agree to be drugged and raped for four hours, including by men she did not know? And if she is not in her right mind, there can be no question of consent. Women who are that drunk and drugged cannot give consent, so it is rape by definition.

    This particular woman had bruises from being slapped on the butt repeatedly, pictures of which were taken during her doctor visit after the gang rape. In addition to psychological trauma and the humiliation of becoming known campus-wide as a whore (which is what the boys claimed she was), she had ongoing consequences. Only by reporting the rape to authorities was she able to change the narrative from slutty behavior to assault to which she never consented.

    Depending on what you read, the men are still claiming she consented while she is claiming she did not consent. The law suggests that given her intoxication (10+ drinks) and the drugs forced on her (she was told it was Ketamine), periodically during the 4 hours, she could not have legally consented due to her drug-related cognitive impairment. The circulation of an email inviting men she did not know to "free sex" makes it clear she did not consent but was viewed as an opportunity to engage in sex with a woman incapable of objecting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incredible reporting from the NYT.

      The woman at Cornell did not consider herself a rape victim until she saw people making fun of her for being a slut.

      She went to her “big sister” in her sorority and confessed that she had been a slut. Then while texting one of the men she reassured him that she enjoyed the first part of it and nothing illegal had happened.

      Later, she texted him that she was traumatized. Not by the sex, but because everyone was laughing at her.

      One week after her “rape,” she was mad that she got disinvited from a party at the frathouse of her “rapists”!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. Just another young slut lying about being raped. Like lunatic source for the Rolling Stone article from about 10 years ago.

      Delete
    3. David, do you believe what you read in the New York Times?

      Delete
    4. There is a lot of fake info circulating that is not in the lawsuit’s statement of facts or the police report.

      No woman wants to be gang banged and would consent to what happened, even according to the version of the young men involved. There are photos of her bruises.

      Delete
    5. Denial is a psychological defense mechanism.

      Delete
    6. The signed statement did not claim she was drugged against her will, unconscious, or gang-raped, and that sex stopped when she asked.

      - Tompkins County DA

      Delete
    7. It was all so consensual that two of the frat bros were expelled from the University. Makes perfect sense that if they did nothing that wasn’t agreed upon by the victim they would have their academic records trashed by Cornell without a fuss by them and their parents. Sure, that’s how the world works.

      Delete
    8. What kind of man ties himself into a pretzel to justify the gang bang of a half-conscious girl by a group of privileged little pricks. To the voluminous catalog of David’s character flaws can now be added slut shamer, pervert cheerleader and staunch champion of sloppy seconds. Fuck off you demented geriatric germ.

      Delete
    9. I'm sick of these young, drug addict sluts making up claims of rape in order to get a big payout.

      Delete
    10. Post drunken sex regret is not rape.

      Delete
    11. Why in fucks sake does everything have to turned into a Blue v Red battle?

      Delete
    12. That's what the DNC bots are for.

      Delete
    13. It would help a lot if the drinking age were increased and enforced.

      There are other crimes committed under the influence of alcohol, and alcohol makes it easier to commit suicide and to attack others, such as in bar fights. It fuels domestic violence. Men mostly commit vandalism while drunk. We still have drunk driving deaths. Alcohol is a drug that alters consciousness. Why isn't it banned?

      I don't see anyone here arguing that those crimes didn't happen or that they are not really crimes. It is mainly when men abuse women that this discussion arises because men are allowed to engage in sex crimes while drunk, as if that were some kind of excuse. No one needs to be drinking. Why is this permitted to happen on college campuses every year?

      Why wouldn't a woman feel remorse about being sexually taken advantage of while drunk by a dozen men? Feeling remorse does not make this kind of gang rape any less of a crime. When men drink too much, they become impotent and ultimately pass out, as this woman did. So, the men were obviously not too drunk to take advantage of this woman. They knew she was not giving real consent. They are liable.

      Men have the ability to say no to a woman who is obviously too drunk to be able to consent to sex. Not every man in that fraternity had sex with the woman so some men exercised self control. All of them should have. If a man goes to a party and notices that his friend is drunk, is it OK for him to steal his friend's wallet and take all of his money, because he is drunk and won't stop him? Or is that theft?

      This is such an obvious crime that it makes me wonder why anyone is arguing over it. And that is where sexism comes into the picture. Why do men think women are fair game for sex whenever they can be taken advantage of? Why would anyone think that a sexual expression of affection were involved in this frat party scenario? This is so far from what women think sex is about, that it is astonishing any man would argue it was OK. And yet look at the men here and elsewhere on the internet who are trying to make this the woman's fault. She didn't rape herself. Men did that. Only men.

      Delete
    14. We should have a constitutional amendment banning liquor.

      Delete
    15. We should ban young, dumb sluts and their ambulance chasing lawyers.

      Delete

    16. Lawyers yes, but leave 'em young dumb sluts alone, cracka.

      Delete
    17. 10:23 - You and the Muslims agree!

      Delete
    18. I was in college when a young "slut" was invited over. When she came in eight guys where in the living room wearing towels and had been pregaming what order they would be raping her. When she entered I ran downstairs and directed her back to her car and said it wasn't safe. When I came back in I was told I was stealing her for myself and ended up with a busted nose among other things. Damn all you sick fucks defending these assholes to hell. It's not right and you know it.

      Delete
    19. That sounds like a made-up story and just like all of these young slut's made up stories. See the Rolling Stone campus rape article about "Jackie", who invented a ridiculous rape story out of whole cloth.

      Delete
    20. Offering odds 12:54/10:35/11:32 is no more than 14 years old. Any takers?

      Delete
    21. The young girl at Cornell consented to to take drugs and get double-donged.

      Delete
    22. 11:37 I could see why you would want to change the subject.

      Delete
    23. I also got in a fight with a roommate because when he felt like popping his load he called a girl who was not "attractive" and deserted her right after the blow job. That shit is nasty and wrong and gross. What the fuck is wrong with you defenders of rape?

      Delete
    24. The next Right-winger who cares about personal freedoms that don't involve treating non-white males as equals will be the first.

      Delete
    25. If a young girl is dresses like a slut and agrees to go do drugs with frat boys in a room in their frat house, she is basically consenting to be raped.

      Delete
    26. "these young slut's made up stories"

      should be 'these young sluts' made up stories."

      No hillbilly grammar, please.

      Delete
    27. 2:33 I could see why you would want to change the subject.

      Delete
    28. More fake news from David.

      A person incapacitated by drugs or alcohol can not give consent.

      Those mostly white men will be convicted.

      If they were black men, David would be siding with the victim.

      Delete
    29. If the woman turns out to be Jewish, look out. David will be positive this is proof of Cornell antisemitism

      Delete
    30. These are students at a university presumably to learn something in classes and obtain a degree so they can do meaningful work after graduation. If a student studies for a few hours in advance of an exam, drinking a beer will cause all of that info to leave their memory so they will do poorly on the test, despite studying. That is because alcohol interferes with consolidation of memories (their transfer from short term into long term memory). It does not impair previously consolidated memories, so it is not like amnesia, but it interferes with new learning, which is why people who drink a lot may lose their memory of what happening during their drinking bout. That is called alcoholic blackout.

      New students should be warned about this, not just the problems of consent and the impairment of judgment that leads to injuries and deaths during fraternity hazing of pledges. Drinking impairs the ability to earn good grades. If it is done with ketamine or some other drug, that is even more true.

      This is why I do not understand why drinking is still part of college culture. AI agrees:

      "Yes, college GPA shows a negative (inverse) correlation with heavy drinking, binge drinking, and frequent alcohol abuse. In general, the more frequently and heavily a student drinks, the lower their average GPA tends to be.

      Delete
    31. What if some of the boys were Jewish?

      Delete
    32. If she weren't too drunk to consent, there would be no guessing about that.

      Delete
    33. Suppose the boys were too drunk to give consent. Would she be guilty of raping them? I know that sounds ridiculous, but I wonder what the law says. Under the law, can a woman rape a man? I am pretty sur there were cases where a woman was convicted of statutory rape because she had sex with an underage boy.

      Delete
    34. The prosecution would have to prove she was physically able to do it. She wouldn’t claim it was consensual but that she didn’t do it. Statutory rape does not hinge on consent because underage children cannot give consent by definition. Why do you supposed men not know this? An underage male is called a boy, not a man. A woman could rape a man with a dildo or similar object, which would be assault. She could even castrate him by cutting off his dick. That would be illegal whether he have consent or not.

      Delete
    35. There is a ritualistic symbolism at work in sex crime that most women do not grasp and therefore cannot arm themselves against.

      Delete
    36. A woman can revoke her consent after the fact. Only a misogynist would deny that.

      Delete
    37. If you do, you will make your finger very unhappy, Corby.

      Delete
    38. As Joyce Vance (an attorney) says, at the point that a woman is intoxicated or drugged, she cannot give consent, but also sexual activity must stop. That is not revoking consent after the fact. It is recognizing that no further consent is possible.

      Going to a party to meet a friend to have sex is not consent. Consent must be affirmative and ongoing. So saying "let's have a few drinks and see where the night goes" is not consent because it is not specific. Saying "let's have sex later" is not consent if the woman becomes drunk and can no longer give consent. If a woman says "no" after previously saying "yes," that means there is no consent after that and sex must stop. If a woman becomes too drunk to give consent, sex must stop.

      Men who deliberately try to get women drunk, or who urge them to take drugs to get them to consent to sex are working against their own goals because women who are drunk or drugged cannot give consent. Men would do better to try to be nice and charming and even romantic, if they want sex, instead of trying to coerce it.

      Delete

    39. All heterosexual sex is rape.

      Delete
    40. It’s easier and safer to pay for sex.

      Delete
  12. Bob made a reasoning error saying Scott did not deserve some honor because of a bad show on FoxNews. People should be judged on the totality of what they accomplished, not the worst thing they did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People are often appropriately judged on the worst of what they have done. That is how they end up in a court of law defending themselves.

      Delete
    2. People get judged on whatever criteria the organization presenting the award has established.

      Delete
    3. Quaker in a BasementOctober 3, 2026 at 7:10 AM

      Pretty Boy Floyd was a considerate, generous fellow I'm told. Nevertheless, he is judged for just a few moments out of the rest of his life.

      Delete

    4. "People should be judged on the totality of what they accomplished,.."


      Somerby was doing that, you fucking racist asshole in cal.

      Delete
    5. David should be judged as a consulting actuary, not a senile, cranky commenter.

      Delete
    6. Based on the totality of his comments I would judge David in Cal to be a miserable, hateful, paranoid, and most of all racist piece of shit. Really no argument there.

      Delete
    7. Apart from the fake news they were fined for, Fox has been repeatedly demonstrated to be about as reliable a news conduit as the Cartoon Network. Their viewers have repeatedly been found to be less well informed than other network’s viewers, even those watching no news networks. So should a broadcasting organization be celebrating the CEO of such a business?

      Delete
    8. "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."

      Thomas Jefferson, 1807

      Delete
    9. What other sources existed in his time?

      Delete
    10. That quote wasn't Jefferson in 1807. That was Tuberville in 2026.

      Delete
    11. David was not an actuary nor related to Skurnick (notice the crickets when he is called out), he is a troll that makes up shit to own the libs. Best to ignore him, and ignore the pro rape comments filled with misinformation.

      Delete
    12. Please don’t question DiC’s ties to Skurnick. Against all other evidence, they prove that he is not a racist.

      Delete
    13. Aren't DiC's own statements enough to discredit him without digging into his personal remarks?

      Delete
    14. His statements aren’t interesting. His personal remarks are.

      Delete
  13. Quaker in a BasementOctober 3, 2026 at 7:24 AM

    "...none of the Blue American journos we're trained to trust will ever say a single word about any of this. They don't want to fight with Fox"

    There's the rub. Should those journos "fight with Fox"? Is that their job? How much of their airtime and effort should they devote to assessing and correcting the behavior on a competing network?

    I'd say practically none, unless that competitor does something that qualifies as news. Otherwise, blue "journos" should spend their time reporting the news.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Qualifies as news? You mean like having a propagandist inducted into the Hall of Fame? Does that qualify as news?

      Delete
    2. Settling a defamation lawsuit for three quarters of a billion dollars?

      Sure, yes.

      Delete

    3. Bob is complaining that ordinary people (via 'democratization of the media') and especially large media organizations (like the Fox News) are allowed to comment on politics/current events and make jokes in the manner he, Bob, finds unacceptable.

      He demands that his (alleged) soulmates in Dumbocart media whine and complain the way he does, and especially that routinely call Bob's political opponents "insane". And when they don't, or do but not enough, he perceives it as them not doing their job.

      That's all.

      Delete
    4. Yes, and Dumbocart too.

      Delete
    5. Idiot, many people know there is no "b" in dumb.

      Delete
    6. Don't forget Republitray.

      Delete
    7. Bob's main complaint is that Dems are too rough on the GOP these days focusing too much on Republican incompetence, sexism, racism, xenophobia, corruption, and criminality, but that also some in the GOP are too boorish and are damaging the reputation of the GOP.

      This is because he runs a right wing vanity blog.

      Delete
    8. An idiotic analysis.

      Delete
  14. Look how ugly Somerby's comment section has become.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog is a cesspool. Bob should shut it down.

      Delete
    2. Not anywhere near as ugly as the Trump administration.

      Delete
    3. Drain the cesspool.

      Delete
    4. Now, now. Let the witless hillbillies have their say.

      Delete
    5. Somerby runs a right wing vanity blog so it is unsurprising that it attracts a handful of right wing loons: David, DG, Cecelia, and the one formerly known as Mao.

      Delete
    6. I’m as rightwing as any other loon, but this blog is beneath me.

      Delete
  15. This will probably punch Strada's ticket for a Trump admin. job - maybe ICE's a good fit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/03/tennessee-christa-pike-frank-strada

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why most people think the Republican Party---whose spokespeople are white nationalists---is a cesspool of bigotry is a mystery which can never be solved.

      Delete
    2. Republicans are ghouls.

      Delete
    3. I’m a proud Republican and a proud ghoul.

      Delete
  16. From Digby:

    Democrats want a blue wave. New Hampshire is Exhibit A for why that may not happen

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/democrats-want-a-blue-wave-new-hampshire-is-exhibit-a-for-why-that-may-not-happen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NH leans a bit more red these days. It is not a bellwether state. It is a right wing state, when Dems are elected they are centrist/Republican lite. Relying primarily on the single case of NH and the issue of fundraising to build an argument, is weak and silly.

      NH: "As of 2025, the Republican Party controls the governorship, the Executive Council, and both houses of the legislature."

      The article has to confess that Dems are currently more popular than Republicans and Trump, since those are the numbers, but goes on to fearmonger about fundraising and that Dems "are too far to the left".

      Funding is less of an issues these days.

      Fear over funding is a way to push a neoliberal agenda onto Dems, since most big donors are neoliberal.

      No party has a shot at a Congressional supermajority anytime soon, so all that matters is winning the majority, which it looks like Dems will win in the House and quite possibly the Senate.

      Progressive Dems have found success while being tremendously outspent. This concerns some Dem leaders like Schumer and Jeffries, who almost seem like they want underfunded progressive Dems to lose and then use that to bolster their positions of power and their centrist stances.

      Delete
    2. It's crazy that the Blue Wave may not come after all.

      Delete
    3. What's wilder is that Dems are likely to take back the House and probably the Senate as well.

      It's crazy the ends people will go to cope with this circumstance.

      Delete
    4. 2:37's fake news aside, a Blue tsunami may or may not happen, a Blue Wave is definitely happening.

      Somebody has their head in the sand.

      Delete
    5. I'm just saying it's wild how much people hate Democrats. But I can see how if they win the House and Senate that could be considered wave.

      Delete
    6. It would be so disappointing for Democrats if they don't take back the Senate. That would be chaos. But it sounds like they definitely should take it without any problem.

      Delete
    7. Texas Democrats have the right idea. Run a gay fundamentalist Christian. Please both sides of the aisle. Smart.

      Delete
    8. Who’s the gay side for? The Moses Johnson side?

      Delete
    9. The left is gay. Ie. the left is pleased to run homos and blacks.

      Delete
    10. Nobody knows why Lady Lindsey was afraid to come out of the closet. Is Bessent a top or bottom?

      Delete
    11. How about Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn. Doesn't get any gayer than that. Republicans really are dimwits.

      Delete
    12. Not being to gay, running gay candidates. Do try to keep up.

      Delete
    13. Roy Cohn was gay.

      Delete
    14. I see a blue wave coming because people are fed up with the piss-poor leadership of the GOP. Take Tennessee for example, a state dominated at every level by republicans, including the governorship and two supermajorities in the state legislature. People are asking what sort of shithole political party can’t even execute a woman. Saudi Arabia, Iran and China are all putting Tennessee to shame and it is not lost on the electorate that it reflects poorly on all of us.

      Delete
    15. It could be a blue window. People are just sick of woke.

      Delete

    16. It could be blue balls. Because of all these Dumbocrat wet dreams, y'know.

      Delete
    17. US citizens have spent over $120 billion on excess gas and diesel prices since this illegal war got started. That plus the effects of tariffs on goods will drown the MAGGAts in their own tears in November. The country is done with this clown show.

      Delete
    18. It's kind of like blue undertow. The country is sick of Tump but obviously they still hate the Democrats. Biden, for example, was the most unpopular president in modern history when he was president. There's nothing exciting about Democrats that the country is turning towards. They're turning towards them because they're the only other choice out of two shitty choices .

      Delete
    19. Biden got us through covid and put our economy back on track afterwards. He deserves to be treated more respectfully.

      Delete

    20. @9:48 AM
      Well, you say there's nothing new&exciting about Dumbocrats. But what about all those DSA fellas popping up here and there? That's definitely new. I agree, it probably all amounts to nothing, just another psyop, but who knows. Unlikely, but something may come out of it. Time will tell.

      Delete
    21. DSA is a right wing talking point. Most of the people accused of being in DSA are not members (such as AOC and El-Sayed). But progressives are doing well because voters understand that they need a major change to put this country together again.

      Delete
    22. Why would anyone think AOC could put this country back together again?

      Delete
    23. Because she’s beautiful.

      Delete
    24. She is very smart, hard working, has a vision for the future that she can articulate, is willing to work with other people, and knows what she is doing. Her proposals make sense. She gives me a feeling of hope. I would vote for her if she were running in my area.

      Delete
    25. But I don’t like that red lipstick.

      Delete
    26. She's not a deranged fascist like Trump, JD, Rubio, dipSchmitt, etc. And if you heard Bernie the past 30 years explain that DSA wants extend our socialized government services in the mold of Western European capitalist democracies. Oh, I'm so scared of these DSA monsters. Christ the stupid..

      Delete

    27. Well,, yeah, obviously she’s better than any Republican. But I wish she could lose that lipstick.

      Delete
  17. Here is yet another analysis of Trump's symptoms by an experienced psychiatrist:

    https://www.alternet.org/trump-maniac-2677997884/

    ReplyDelete
  18. https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/october-3-2026

    "Both in person and in the live stream of the concert, artists urged Americans to remember that they have the power to throw the Trump administration out of office and, together, to build a better nation.

    The artists at the event pointedly demonstrated their right to free speech. They were explicit and thorough in their spoken descriptions of their anger at the Trump administration and billionaires who have taken over the country, and they chose songs that needled Trump—John Fogerty’s “Fortunate Son,” for example—or excoriated his policies: Baez and Rateliff sang Woody Guthrie’s “Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos),” Springsteen sang “Streets of Minneapolis,” and the Dropkick Murphys’ sang “Don’t Call Me a F*cking Terrorist,” the last two both written in the wake of the Minneapolis shootings by ICE agents.

    They emphasized their freedom to express themselves by singing Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World.”

    The ten-hour concert ended with the performers singing Guthrie’s famous anthem “This Land is Your Land,” written in 1940 as the Great Depression dragged on. Guthrie wrote it to reclaim the United States of America for its working people. “This land is your land,” he wrote, “this land is my land/From California to the New York islands/From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters/This land was made for you and me.”

    Tonight Morello sang a verse often left out of the anthem: “In the squares of the city, in the shadow of the steeple/By the relief office, I saw my people/As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking/Is this land made for you and me?”

    Famously, Guthrie painted on his guitars the words “This Machine Kills Fascists,” a slogan he took from the World War II machinists and workers who put stickers saying “This Machine Kills Fascists” on their heavy equipment to express their support for the war effort. Guthrie believed that music could fight the hatred, ignorance, and greed that built fascism just as powerfully as a gun.

    Tonight Morello reminded the audience: “Every act of art is an act of resistance.”

    Curiously, today’s concert took place on the anniversary of the day that Woody Guthrie died in 1967. And eighty-six years after he wrote “This Land is Your Land,” his work continues to echo.

    “This is still America,” Springsteen told the audience of the administration’s tyranny, “and this will not stand.”

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is this simple, and you don't need Abraham Lincoln to say it:

    "In 2026, you'd think would be a simple message: A Republican president is destroying the country and Republicans at every level of government are either helping him do it or praising him for it. A vote for Republicans is a vote for more of the same."

    Steve M at No More Mister Nice Blog explains how Democrats attack each other instead of focusing on opposing the right.

    https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2026/10/angela-paxton-isnt-cultist-shes-normal.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Trump said this, but it makes no sense:

    "Trump on Midnight Hammer strikes on Iran: They unloaded every single bomb—went right down air chutes into this uhhh drug factories, really, that's what they were doing. They were nuclear and drugs. They were doing drugs. These drug factories/nuclear factories were hit so hard..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, man! How do you not know about all the kids these days overdosing on the nuclear drugs man?

      Delete