FRIDAY: "Multiple paths," the Cook Report says!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2026

Unless you're watching Fox: Who will control the Senate next year?  

We have no idea. If we were somehow forced to bet, we'd bet that the GOP will retain control, but it seems to us that old rules of thumb concerning such predictions have never seemed quite so old.   

In yesterday morning's report, we reported this new fact:

El-Sayed is ahead by sevenunless you're watching Fox!  

That bit of whimsy concerned one part of the clowning which had occurred on the previous day's edition of The Five

Leave it to the children! During their discussion of a recent statement by Chuck Schumer, Emily Compagno was incoherent and Harold Ford was an embarrassing mess, with Dana Perino ruling the roost. 

Along the way, we noted the fact that even if Michigan falls, observers have begun to say that there are now several ways Democrats could imaginably end up in control of the Senate.   

Today, Sarah Rumpf discusses this state of affairs over at Mediaite. Headline included, her report starts like this:   

Cook Political Report Finds Democrats Have ‘Multiple Paths’ to Take the Senate  

The Cook Political Report updated its ratings for the upcoming midterms, predicting that Democrats now have “multiple paths” to take back the Senate majority, especially with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) dragging down Republicans.

The GOP’s grasp on majority control of the House and Senate hangs in the balance this November, and political prognosticators and pollsters have been highlighting several states that are in play, including the Lone Star State, where Texas State Rep. James Talarico (D) is facing off against Paxton to succeed the incumbent, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). 

[...]  

The new shifts, [Cook's Jessica] Taylor said, mean “there are multiple paths now for Democrats to Senate majority,” so even if they lose tough races in Maine or Michigan, for example, they could still take the Senate.

It was “still a very narrow path” and Cook was now rating the overall Senate majority as a Toss Up, said Taylor. It “still might slightly favor Republicans,” she continued, “but it is an increasingly competitive opportunity for Democrats.”   

The Cook Report isn't always right. But that's what the Cook Report says.

Like the performers on The Five, we have no way of knowing what will happen in November. Unlike the silly stars of The Five, we do know how to describe what Chuck Schumer recently said to the Washington Post.   

Overall, the clowning on The Five is an undisguised assault on the very possibility of the American project. Last night, we forced ourselves to watch a large chunk of Jesse Watter Primetime, which operates from the sludge-filled basement found beneath the National Tabloid / Slag Heap Building.

The Fox News Channel is a disgrace. So are the endless Blue American news orgs which are unwilling to report and discuss what the messengers do over there.

Our stars are afraid to talk about Fox. They're graduates of the finest schools, but they simply aren't willing to serve.

HOPELESSLY DEVOTED/LIMITED JUDGMENT: "He felt compassion," Chekhov wrote!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2026

We Blues most likely won't: "Jesus Christ is down here on the waterfront?"

We ourselves don't hold religious or cosmological beliefs, aside from the belief that we humans don't know what we are or where we are or how we happen to be here.  

Other people do have religious beliefs. In the honored film, On the Waterfront, the Karl Malden characterFather Pete Barrytells a collection of angry longshoremen that Jesus Christ is right down there, is among them.   

Telephonically, and by happenstance, we had occasion last Sunday to discuss the film's female undercard. We spoke with a lifelong friend about the performance by Eva Marie Saint.

In that part of the film, the Brando characterTerry Malloyis able to see that Edie Doyle is a better person than he is. Remarkably, he tries to become more like her.   

It starts in the famous scene where the young pair walk in a park. He picks up the glove she has dropped and slips it onto his hand. 

Soon, she tells him how she would have treated him, back in their days in Catholic school when the nuns had treated him harshly:    

TERRY: The way those sisters used to whack me, I don't know what. They thought they were gonna beat an education into me, but I foxed 'em.   

EDIE: Maybe they just didn't know how to handle you.   

TERRY: How would you have done it?   

EDIE: With a little more patience? And kindness?  

We'd call that a very strong moment, and an unusual plea.

As the movie proceeds, Terry Malloy lets the deeply insightful female character help him discover the depth of his conscience. (That key word appears throughout). 

Inevitably, the film was destined to end with a furious fist fightwith the classic masculine solution. But in our view, it's this unusual gender undercard which makes the film so great.

We're recommending kindness today in one part of the conduct of our Blue political wars. Are you able to feel empathy for this new arrival on the front?   

Natalie Harp  

Natalie Harp (born 1991) is an American political aide and former television presenter who has served as special assistant to the president and executive assistant to the president of the United States since 2025.

[...]

Natalie Harp was born in 1991. Her father, Robert Harp, was a real estate broker who founded a consultancy for travel companies; he died by suicide in July 2020. Harp was raised in California. She is a practicing Christian. She and her brother were homeschooled. Harp graduated from Point Loma Nazarene University in 2012, and from Liberty University in 2015 with an MBA.  

By 2017, Harp had become vocally critical of healthcare in the United States after she began suffering from health issues, particularly chronic pain and complications incurred by a medical error involving intravenous therapy for stage II bone cancer. In a 2019 interview on Fox News, she praised Trump for signing into law a federal right-to-try law that she claimed allowed her to access experimental treatments which she credited with saving her life. However, The Washington Post cast doubt on Harp's story, citing experts that noted the law's limited scope and reporting that two months before the law was signed she had already made public comments about receiving the new treatment.   

Trump invited Harp to speak at the 2020 Republican National Convention... By that month, she had become a member of the advisory board for Trump's 2020 presidential campaign.   

And so on from there.

That background isn't much like ours. That said, can you imagine feeling empathy for someone whose father took his own life when she was 28for someone who apparently dealt with a life-threatening cancer condition when she was even younger than that?   

(For that Washington Post article, just click here. We've never seen anyone say that Harp didn't face a life-threatening cancer issue in the period described.)

Today, Harp will become a figure of ridicule due to the release of two letters she wrote to the president in recent years. In one of the letters, she expresses gratitude for the fact that she'd been able to travel to Ireland and Scotland as a Trump aide:   

"I’ll never forget when you made that promise to me after losing my Dad, and I know how happy he is right now that I did get to go to Scotland and Ireland, as he always wanted for me." 

Are you able to feel for that person? To read the letters in full, click here. For excerpts, click this.  

(Chekhov, writing of the male protagonist Gurov in The Lady with the Lapdog, a story widely considered to be one of the greatest ever written: "He felt compassion for this life, still so warm and lovely, but probably already not far from beginning to fade and wither like his own...He felt profound compassion.")  

Harp will be subjected to extensive ridicule. It's the way Homey plays.

Beyond that, she seems to have vastly imperfect political and journalistic judgment, as is true of many others in this dangerous, rage-filled time.   

It seems that Harp's conduct has sometimes, perhaps frequently, been highly unusual. According to Maggie Haberman, the Secret Service had become "alarmed" at one point by the content of her letters to Trumpand given the way the world sometimes works, it's hard to say that their concern was misplaced.   

That said, Natalie Harp is a person. On this morning's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough described this aspect of her person as he spoke with John Heilemann:

SCARBOROUGH (8/21/28): By the way, I've spoken to Natalie Harp a good bit, as most people havevery polite, and we have polite, kind conversations. I've been in the White House, and I’ve talked to Donald Trump, the president, and seen her there. Never once assumed anything inappropriate was going on...

Scarborough described an actual person, a person with whom he has routinely spoken in thoroughly normal ways. He seems to say that she traffics in kindness on the personal level, even when conversing with an aggressive critic of the highly disordered person she serves.

That said, her behavior has been unusual. She seems to have extremely bad judgment, much like the powerful person who has positioned her where she is.

Of course, other people have limited judgment too. For all the outstanding work he has done, Scarborough still refuses to tell the truth about the person for whom Harp works. 

Scarborough is hardly alone in that agreement not to speak. Many of us Blues are going to beat up on Harp while refusing to be forthright about the much more powerful man. And by the way:

Heilemann's elaborate claim todayhis claim that Jon Ossoff wasn't making an insinuation when he mentioned "Natalie" in his speechcould hardly have been much more clueless. We may discuss that cluelessness tomorrow.

In closing for today, we'll say this:

Harp's outsized devotion to the sitting president is one thing. Beyond that, her apparent lack of journalistic judgment is amazingly widespread.

Steven Cheung's ugly rage is something much more significant. Our heralded Blue American journalists all know the backstory here. 

They know the source of the destructive rage. Eagerly preserving their access to paychecks, they all agree not to name it.

Still coming: The rage of Trump and Cheung


THURSDAY: He knows how to buy good trees!

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2026

And he's very good at flagpoles: "I'm very good at flagpoles," the sitting president said.   

He said it yesterday, during a 32-minute press corps excursion. On CNN, Kasie Hunt described as "an impromptu tour of his various White House construction projects."   

The man is clearly out on his feet. The comment recalls what he said to Haberman and Swan when they interviewed him in the Oval Office at the start of the current war:

From Regime Change, Haberman/Swan:
As he greeted us, the war seemed the furthest thing from Trump’s mind. On the Resolute Desk, instead of a map of the Middle East, were printouts of maple trees. 
“I’m ordering trees for the White House,” Trump told us. “I know how to buy good trees.”   

Plainly, he's out on his feet. He says he knows how to buy good trees, and he's very good at flagpoles.  

The man is out on his feet. The press corps' refusal to come to terms with that fairly obvious fact is an astonishing part of our failing nation's journalistic culture.

It's especially amazing to see the press corps refuse to discuss this state of affairs in the wake of the situation which unfolded with the previous president.  

That said, nothing is going to make them change. And when academics (quite rarely) attempt to speak, they end up losing their jobs.

It's in this context that the peculiar behavior widely attributed to executive assistant Natalie Harp takes on obvious relevance, though we recommend generosity here, even a bit of kindness.

Very unusual behavior seems to surround the sitting president. We'll plan on detailing what we mean when we return to this topic tomorrow.


PITIFUL/INACCURATE: A new poll had the hopeful ahead!

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2026

Unless you were watching The Five: Another day, another pollthough of course, it's only one poll.   

The new Michigan poll is only one poll. But here's what the new poll says:   

SHOCK POLL: El-Sayed Opens Up 7-Point Lead Over GOP Rival After Recent Data Showed Him Trailing   

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed (D) came ahead with a healthy lead on his opponent Republican Mike Rogers in the latest polling following recent surveys showing a much closer race.

According to polling from Susquehanna released on Wednesday, El-Sayed is polling at 46% while Rogers is seven points behind at 39%.   

Other recent polling has shown a much closer race. A Fox News survey had Rogers leading El-Sayed at 51%-47%...

Last week, we took note of that Fox News poll. The new poll from Susquehanna has El-Sayed up by seven. 

Susquehanna Polling and Research has often been praised for its work in the past. That, of course, doesn't mean that this new poll has to be accurate. 

Is El-Sayed actually leading Rogers at this point? There's no way to know for sure! We do know that we all should feel sorry for the messenger children of the Fox News Channel, who found themselves forced to go deep into the blarney on the day that new survey appeared.  

Friends, is there anything Dana Perino won't say at this point? Surrounded by a gang of spear-chuckers, she was assigned the unlovely task of leading the second pseudo-discussion on yesterday's edition of The Five.  

Their mission, should the panelists choose to accept it:

Convince the largest audience in all of American "cable news" that El-Sayed's efforts are coming undone. 

Perino was hosting the segment. Because there's nothing she won't read from prompter for pay, she wittily started with this:  

PERINO (8/19/26): So he's Chucky [?] mission overboard! 

Chuck Schumer sure sounds like he's already hedging his bets on far-left Abdul El-Sayed, the candidate he did not back in the primary, telling the Washington Post [text appears on the screen]:

"A path to winning back the Senate clearly goes through Michigan, but we have a whole bunch of different paths." 

Inevitably, a witty Fox chyron said this: 

SCHUMER CHUCKS EL-SAYED  

With Perino politely reciting, that's what millions of viewers were told. 

Having said that, hold on! Did that statement really make it sound like Schumer has given up on the Michigan Senate race? As the segment proceeded, the other children agreed to pretend that it did. 

It didn't quite sound that way to us. When we went to the Washington Post report in question, this is the larger passage we found:   

Backlash in Michigan complicates Democrats’ road to retaking the Senate

[...]

Schumer said he was confident El-Sayed would win, citing the enthusiasm of his supporters. Still, Schumer and J.B. Poersch, the president of Senate Majority PAC, the lead Democratic super PAC in Senate races, both disputed that Democrats had no shot at retaking the majority without Michigan.

“A path to winning back the Senate clearly goes through Michigan, but we have a whole bunch of different paths,” Schumer said.  

We don't know what Schumer actually thinks, but that's the actual Post report about what he actually said. He may even believe, as some observers may be coming to do, that Democratic candidates suddenly seem to be alive in an unexpected number of traditional red states. 

(That would include some Independent candidates who would caucus with Democrats.) 

We don't know what Schumer thinks, but that's what Schumer said. Unless you were watching The Five, where Dana Perino was reading text designed to please Fox viewers.

Increasingly, we're struck by the things Perino seems to be willing to do on The Five. In that opening volley, she pleasured viewers with the thought that it's all over in Michigandid so on the very day when a poll arrived showing El-Sayed ahead by seven points! 

The new poll went unmentioned by Perino, but also by the day's other performers:   

The Five: Wednesday, August 19, 2026  
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered  
Harold Ford: increasingly hard to explain
Jesse Watters: host, Jesse Watters Primetime 
Dana Perino: co-host, The Five 
Tom Shillue: comedian

Her initial presentation hadn't seemed to make sense, but the other children played along as the segment continued. 

It fell to Harold Ford to say the following. Allegedly, he was sitting in the program's Democratic Party/non-MAGA chair. It fell to him to say this. 

PERINO: Harold Ford Jr., if Michigan is off the table, do the Senate Republicans breathe a little easier, even if they're having to spend a lot of money in Ohio and Texas?  

FORD: So, for the leader of the Democrats in the Senate to say that about Michigan, I think it gives a window, not only into his thinking, but I think some of the things Jesse said in his remarks about, his comments about, the swing vote there...  

Did Ford know what Schumer had actually said? Later, the persistently puzzling Emily Compagno improbably pitched in with this:

PERINO: Emily, Bernie Brosand Bernie Sanders himself strikes again. And I imagine that Chuck Schumer doesn't want to be seeing him in the lunchroom.

COMPAGNO: It's so telling that he's not sayingSchumer's not saying, "OK, come on, guys! We can still win!" Or, "We can still win without Michigan." 

He's explaining how they can win without Michigan. So this is not sort of cheerleading to me. This is not championing, this is crisis management.  

In fairness, Compagno is a famous fast talker. We aren't sure if the word "or" was included in her initial jumble or not.

Either way, we have no idea what she meant, and neither did anyone else. It was "close enough for cable news work" on the day when that new poll appeared.

("I think they've already given up" on Michigan, Compagno eventually said.)

Regarding Perino, she advanced two other points to tell Fox viewers what Fox News wanted its viewers to hear:   

Additional points from Perino: 

1) A 20-year-old staffer for El Sayed had made a stupid remark on X. According to several panelists, this would surely be enough to doom the campaign all by itself 

2) Back in May, the candidate had "compared himself to Jesus."   

The silly remark by the 20-year-old is likely to affect as many as zero votes. The children were really reaching when they wailed about that.   

Regarding El-Sayed as Jesus, Perino voiced that claim as soon as she had finished pretending to report what Schumer had said. We're going to leave it to you to decide if El-Sayed had drawn some such comparison in some sort of troubling way.   

You can click here to see what The Five's viewers were shown. For a somewhat fuller presentation of the interview session in May, you can simply click this.   

As for yesterday's presentation, we would tell you this:   

Schumer had told the Washington Post that El Sayed is going to win. Also, a new poll had him up by seven points:

Unless you were watching The Five!

Tomorrow: Days of "socialism" (and what the Sam Hill is that?)


WEDNESDAY: All we humans secretly want...

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2026

...is a chance to talk about this: We had planned to write, this afternoon, about the remarkable strength of the rhetoric.

The remarkable strength of Jon Ossoff's rhetoric. The remarkable strength of this:

SENATOR OSSOFF (8/16/26): In this White House, they view persistence in deceit as a virtue. You hear me, Atlanta?

And there's something uniquely despicable about lying a nation into war. Treating citizens as fools, and those who serve as pawns.

Aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, they've now been at sea for 240-plus days without a port call. It's a Navy record. And still—and still—

And still, they serve with excellence. 

And still, they serve with excellence! God bless the sailors, Marines, aviators and all aboard the United States Ship Abraham Lincoln! 

AUDIENCE: [Cheers]    

See, they don't expect luxury. They'll endure hardship. But they deserve competent leaders who send them into combat only when necessary, and with decisive clarity of purpose, not fools who lie about the purpose and progress of war.  

And while the sailors on the Lincoln fight his war, while he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs, and trades stocks. 

See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.   

To watch the speech, just click this. That passage starts at the 7:30 mark.

Good God! "They view persistence in deceit as a virtue?" Especially as delivered, that's a brilliant formulation.

And then, after praising the greatness of us the peopleafter praising the greatness of we who servehe actually delivered this string of stinging insults:

While he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs, and trades stocks.

See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.

"He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar?"

"On their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar?" Wow:

Like waves rolling in when you might even drown, those final twelve (12) words, all by themselves, deliver one stinging insult after another. And the fact that you've never heard anyone else say it that way suggests the possibility that he actually means it!

David Axelrod laments the presence of two widely cited words: 

"With Natalie." 

In a tweet, he says this:   

AXELROD (8/19/26): No one has been more consistently eloquent or incisive in exposing @realDonaldTrump than @Ossoff. The paragraph from his weekend speech that has gotten so much attention was a brutal takedown.

But two words in it, "with Natalie" seemed gratuitous and unnecessary.

They juiced the virality of it, I'm sure. Probably thrilled some in the base, who figured it was just giving Trump a taste of his own nasty medicine.

But they distracted and detracted from the power of the message.   

We agree with the words we've highlighted. That said, should Ossoff have included the two words in question? 

We can teach it flat or round.  

Of one thing you can be sure. Many people "in the base," and certainly in the mainstream press, did in fact hear nothing except those two thrilling words. 

It's what we were told, long ago, by a major player inside the Bill Clinton re-election campaign:  

It's all about the girl, she (very) sadly said, as the Lewinsky excitement was breaking. 

She meant that the national press wanted to talk about nothing elsewere going to talk about nothing else. It's clear from much of the current reaction that many of us the people today are reacting in a similar way.

We'd call that human, not wrong. Meanwhile, there's the enduring madness of the rhetoric favored by Steven Cheung. Let's consider that tomorrow.


CRAZY/IRRESPONSIBLE: "That horrific shell of a human," she said!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2026

Compagno does it again: In our view, Emily Compagno belongs on major "cable news" shows the way a flounder belongs on a bicycle.   

That doesn't mean that she's a bad person. By normal standards, the vast majority of people, ourselves included, would be un- or under-qualified for the prominent role afforded to Compagno by the gruesome corporate tools who run the Fox News Channel. 

Having said that, whatever! Last night, there the reliable firebrand sat, part of the stunningly undistinguished panel which had been assembled for the Gutfeld! show. 

(For the record, Gutfeld! isn't a "late-night comedy show," as the channel likes to pretend. It's a propaganda messaging program which airs in classic primetime slotsat 10 p.m. in the East, at 9 o'clock in the Central time zone, at 7 p.m. on the coast.)   

Last night, the usual collection of droogs had been assembled to pretend to discuss news topicsand before long, there she went again! During the program's second segment, Compagno piped up with this outburstwith an outburst we'll explain below.

She spoke with guest host Tom Shillue:  

SHILLUE (8/18/26): Has the corner finally turned on Fauci?  

COMPAGNO: I mean, it must have. Look, when I first saw this

First of all, none of us are surprised, and we've been covering it herethe abject fraud and corruption that that horrific shell of a human Fauci was wielding during Covid to really destroy our lives and lose lives. 

As you can see if you click that link, she ranted on, in this dangerous way, as she routinely does, attacking "that horrific shell of a human."

According to Compagno, Dr. Fauci had been wielding power during Covid "to destroy our lives." Given the world we're all living in, that of course is dangerous talk. 

For the record, we don't doubt Compagno's sincerity for a moment. Here's what she was talking about:   

Last week, Terry Moran described a report about the possible origin of Covid which he said he once prepared for ABC News. As Mediaite reports, Moran said this, along the way, about his own personal conclusion: 

Terry Moran Says ABC Gutted His Covid Lab Leak Investigation...

[...]

Moran pitched the story to Nightline, which producers accepted enthusiastically, and said the resulting investigation included interviews with molecular virologists and former Trump administration officials. He also claimed the reporting “broke a little news” that the Wuhan lab had received funding from the Chinese military, citing information from a U.S. intelligence source.

Moran said his reporting left him personally believing a natural origin was “probably a little bit more likely,” while adding that he would not have been surprised if the virus had escaped from a laboratory.

“But I didn’t reach that conclusion. I just laid it out,” he said.

Maybe a lab leak, more probably not. That was Moran's impression at the time.   

Needless to say, that part of Moran's recollection wasn't mentioned by Compagno or by anyone else last night. On the Gutfeld! program, the Covid virus will only be said to have come from the lab. Gutfeld! viewers are constantly told that everybody "knows" that.   

According to Moran, he created this report for Nightline in early 2021. On the very day it was slated to air, the report was heavily editedwas made "incomprehensible," Moran saysby ABC's lawyers and standards officials.   

Moran said he was told that the lawyers and standards officials had run the original transcript by Dr. Fauci. He stressed the fact that he doesn't know that for a fact.

At this site, we're not sure why the network officials wouldn't have done that. Moran isn't sure that they did.   

Moran didn't like the "incomprehensible" finished product. His judgment may have been good. But that podcast presentation by Moran formed the basis for the second segment of last night's Gutfeld! program. In the first segment, the obedient panelists wasted everyone's time pretending to discuss the latest pointless remarks by the irrelevant Hunter Biden, who's easy for MAGA to mock.

With respect to Dr. Fauci, Compagno engaged in her typical dangerous talk. These were the mutts on hand as she sounded off: 

Gutfeld!: Tuesday, August 18, 2026  
Rob O'Neill: Former member, Seal Team Six  
Kat Timpf: Comedian 
Tom Shillue: Guest host, comedian 
Emily Compagno: Co-host, Outnumbered  
Rich Vos: Comedian

We ourselves know Rich from long ago. We think of him as a very good guya very good guy who has no earthly business being on a major "cable news" program, pretending to discuss major, life-and-death topics.   

As for the ongoing attacks on Dr. Fauci manufactured by mutts like these, we direct your attention to the following recent articles:   

On August 16, print editions of the New York Times contained the following article. Online, the article was published three days earlier:   

Trump Officials Falsely Connect Covid Vaccines to Miscarriage   

Trump administration officials and other prominent Republicans falsely suggested this week that Covid-19 vaccines were linked to miscarriage, seizing misleadingly on old text messages of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s that were recently released by Republican senators.

In January 2021, when Covid vaccines had just been released, Dr. Fauci and other Biden administration officials discussed the limitations of the data then available about vaccination during pregnancy, as well as the theoretical risks for pregnant women based on information available at the time. Since then, studies of hundreds of thousands of women have shown that Covid vaccination is not linked to an increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth or preterm birth.

While those specific conversations were not public, health officials did not hide the uncertainty in early 2021. There was limited data because of a longstanding practice of excluding pregnant women from clinical trials. What was known then was based on women who happened to become pregnant while enrolled in a vaccine trial and on animal testing.

But pregnant women were becoming critically ill and dying from Covid infections, so the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that they talk to their doctors about vaccination, weighing the known risks of Covid itself—which, along with severe illness and death, included miscarriage and stillbirth—and the vaccine safety data that existed.   

The report continued from there. This is not the topic which Moran discussed, but it was an examination of the misrepresentations which have continued to emerge from within the MAGA worldand from the profoundly irresponsible if well-intentioned Compagno.   

On August 15, The Atlantic published a lengthy, nuanced report about the irresponsible MAGA behavior. We won't attempt to walk you through the whole thing, but Daniel Engber's lengthy report started like this:

Anthony Fauci’s Group Chat Is Making People Lose Their Minds

...Senator Ron Johnson announced this week that he’d retrieved tens of thousands of messages and hundreds of voicemails from Fauci’s government-issued device and made them fully searchable. In the meantime, though, Johnson has shared just a single set of texts: a Fauci group chat that he considered so explosive in its implications that it had to be released forthwith. “This is a blockbuster revelation,” the senator said on Tuesday. The public had to know.

The texts in question were from a short exchange that Fauci had with two other public-health officials—former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky—in January 2021. Murthy had asked whether either of them knew of “any data or theoretical reason” why an expectant mother might choose to vaccinate early versus late in pregnancy. Walensky answered no, that this was all “data free.”   

Fauci agreed, but a couple of hours later, he followed up. After asking around, he’d heard about a theoretical concern: A second dose of the vaccine could lead to fever and cytokine storm—an overactivation of the immune system, also linked to COVID itself—which in turn might lead to early-term miscarriage. In an interview that Fauci gave just one week later, he alluded to the need for balanced thinking on vaccination during pregnancy, given the lack of clinical-trial data. But he noted that thousands of expectant mothers had already gotten shots by then, and no issues had arisen. “We’ve got to be careful,” he said, but “I would rather take my chances with a vaccine than getting infected while I’m pregnant.”   

Fauci’s critics now assert that this was tantamount to murder. Fauci knew that COVID shots were killing babies, they argue—he said so in a private text—and then he went out and pretended that the shots were safe. Representative Anna Paulina Luna called this “a crime against humanity and the most evil thing that could’ve ever been done.” Meghan McCain demanded that the 85-year-old be handcuffed, perp-walked, and put in a jail cell for the rest of his life. (“This is not hyperbole,” she noted, rather unconvincingly.) Senator Roger Marshall called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the matter—either that, he said, or “a full 9/11-style commission.”

...In fact, the new material is unremarkable, unrevealing, and—worst of all—maddeningly irrelevant to the many, far more interesting questions that still surround one of our most important public-health leader’s behavior and decision making during the pandemic...

And so on, at length, from there. Crazy accusation is easy. Establishing facts is hard.

(For additional Republican bungling, click here.)

As Mark Twain once never said, accusations of murder get halfway around the world before nuanced assessment can get its boots on. And then, up will jump the well-intentioned Compagno with her latest irresponsible language, toying with life and death on a mutt-rich national stage.  

Our own Blue American journalists refuse to discuss the conduct of this "cable news channel." All too plainly, any society which functions this way has already become a failed state.

Tomorrow: Woke/Not Especially Fruitful