Part 1—Concerning the brain of Gail Collins: The craziest statements we saw all weekend came from Jean Edward Smith.
Professor Smith's "mammoth new biography" of George W. Bush is largely praised in this review by the obedient Jason Zengerle. The review appeared in the Book Review section of yesterday's New York Times.
We haven't read the professor's whole book. Yesterday, we did read the two chapters in which the crazy, 84-year-old scholar attempts to discuss, or pretends to discuss, the events of Campaign 2000.
The craziest statements we saw all weekend came from Professor Smith's account of that campaign. We'll discuss the hapless professor's remarkable statements before the week is done.
That said, the professor's statements are one small part of a much larger journalistic narrative—a crazy, twenty-four year campaign which may yet send Donald J. Trump to the White House.
It's crazy to think that a person like Trump could actually get to the White House. For that reason, we should examine the crazy conduct which has made that possibility real.
In part, we can examine that conduct in Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece about Tony Schwartz, the "journalist" who went for the cash and wrote The Art of the Deal. To peruse Mayer's piece, click here.
Mayer's piece has largely been viewed as an expose of Trump's craziness—indeed, of his status as alleged sociopath. That said, it's also a striking portrait of journalistic misconduct of an egregious but rather common kind.
It helps explain how we got to this place. We'll review Mayer's portrait of Schwartz by the end of the week.
Schwartz helped bring us to this place through his journalistic misconduct. That said, let's return to Professor Smith's biography—and let's examine the brain of Gail Collins.
Among a range of remarkable statements, Smith repeats every crazy standard claim concerning The Many Big Lies of Candidate Gore. As with Melania, so with Smith! There is no part of that journalistic narrative he didn't copy-and-paste.
Yesterday, in the New York Times, Collins played the same destructive old game. Medical science should examine the brains of the people who have played this remarkable game for the past twenty-four years:
COLLINS (7/24/16): In 2000, when [Hillary Clinton] first ran for the Senate, the fact that New York had never sent a woman to the Senate was an afterthought, given all the other stuff there was to consider. “It was the first time I’d been a candidate and the first time I’d lived in New York,” she recalled in a phone interview. The very idea of that race was incredible—maybe outrageous. And it didn’t begin well. She had trouble with the carpetbagging issue. At one point, Clinton attempted to woo the locals by claiming that although she’d been brought up as a Chicago Cubs fan, she had always rooted for the Yankees because people need a team in each league. This was contradictory to every law of Midwestern fandom, which holds that no matter what else you do, hating the New York Yankees is a central principle of life.Incredibly, that's the fourth paragraph of the featured, front-page essay in yesterday's Sunday Review. It extends a deeply familiar, deeply destructive twenty-four year theme.
How compulsive is this behavior? Amazingly, the highlighted passage was written by a "journalist" who will vote for Candidate Clinton! Medical science should study the brain of the person who wrote that passage—a passage which takes us back to the period when Candidate Gore was being invented, by "the press," as The World's Biggest Known Liar.
Just for starters, let's note the sheer stupidity of what Collins wrote—of what she wrote in her fourth paragraph from one of the Times' highest platforms.
Collins starts with an accurate statement. In June 2000, Hillary Clinton did in fact say that she rooted for the Yankees as well as the Cubs when she was a girl growing up near Chicago. So far, Collins' statement is accurate—though a person might wonder why a journalist would bother with such a trivial point more than sixteen years later.
That person wouldn't understand the compulsions of our upper-end press—or their sheer stupidity. Let's start with the stupidity which comes into play when Collins suggests that Clinton's statement that day was just comically false.
Gail Collins grew up in the Midwest too; she grew up in Cincinnati, from which, alas, she was later allowed to escape. Apparently, Collins' upbringing in that locale has led her to reason as follows:
Since she didn't root for a team in each league, no one else in the Midwest could have done such a thing! According to this puzzling life form, that isn't the way fans root in the Midwest! No ten-year-old boy, no ten-year-old girl, could have disrupted this pattern!
No, that doesn't make sense. But as we've shown you for eighteen years, this is the way these life forms reason, when they pretend to do so at all. On this basis alone, medical science should make it a point to study their brains.
That said, another question intrudes. Why would a journalist instantly mention this sixteen years later, writing from such a major platform?
The answer to that is obvious. In June 2000, Collins and the rest of her guild were busy creating a powerful narrative, one which prevails to this day. For the previous fifteen months, they'd been inventing Candidate Gore as The World's Biggest Known Liar, a status which made him resemble Bill Clinton. And they were now inventing Hillary Clinton as The World's Biggest Known Liar too!
The chimps were in thrall to this powerful theme; in June 2000, they seized upon the Cubs and the Yankees as proof of their deathless assessment. One chimp after another screeched and flung poo around his cage concerning Clinton's disturbing false statement, which displayed her character problem, the one which persists to this day.
They ignored the fact that profiles written years before had affirmed and supported Clinton's claim. We cited those profiles in real time, but nothing keeps these hustlers and chimps from the story-lines they adore.
Tomorrow, we'll review the profiles which, years before, had said that Hillary Clinton, as a girl, was a fan of both the Cubs and the Yankees. For today, let's consider one other part of this deeply destructive tale. Let's consider an abiding love story—the love these chimps feel for trivia.
Earlier profiles say and suggest that Clinton's statement was true. Beyond that, the claim was ginormously trivial—but so what? Sixteen years later, the High Lady Collins rushes to bring it up again.
Consider the context of that remarkable conduct:
Candidate Trump seems to have been repeatedly lying his ascot off about a wide range of significant matters. He seems to have been repeatedly lying about his alleged opposition to the war in Iraq. We'll guess that he has repeatedly lied about his alleged birther probe.
On Friday, he restated his crazy claim about the way Rafael Cruz was firing from the grassy knoll on the day President Kennedy died. In his convention speech, he once again said that the United States is the highest taxed nation in the world, a crazy claim which he and his writers certainly know to be crazily false.
In short, one of the candidates in this race actually is The World's Biggest Known Liar! But nothing derails the treasured themes the chimps have built through the years.
For that reason, Collins typed the material we highlight above. She placed it right in paragraph 4, right there on page one, where it would continue to drive that destructive narrative.
As we'll see, Smith's book is full of crazy statements taken from that same destructive campaign. For her part, Collins couldn't wait to return to the Cubs and the Yankees.
Collins and Smith are hardly alone. In yesterday's hard-copy Washington Post, Glenn Kessler returned to the troubling claim that Clinton once lied about her own name! Just last week, PolitiFact displayed its standard journalistic incompetence when it reviewed that same claim.
It's entirely possible that Candidate Trump will be in the White House next year. The narrative we're discussing today sent George W. Bush to the White House. It could do the same for Donald J. Trump.
All this week, we'll review the ways our "journalists" and professors are keeping this theme alive. They've been pimping this theme for twenty-four years, but our liberal heroes refuse to complain. This is one of the basic ways we've all managed to get here.
Tomorrow: Snopes the God!