LEADERSHIP DOWN: The mainstream press corps [HEART] those "gaffes!"


One aspect of Leadership Down:
Almost anywhere a person might look, he or she is likely to see some aspect of Leadership Down.

This morning, we looked at New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer site. When we did, we found a three-person discussion of mainstream press gaffe culture.

When did mainstream gaffe culture start? Did it start with Candidate Muskie's alleged or actual crying-based gaffe way back in 1972, when the world was still young? This ginormously-ballyhooed "gaffe" played a key role in bringing this Democratic front-runner down.

We may revisit that remarkable press corps incident in next week's award-winning series, The Rise of Leadership Down. We may also discuss the Bernie Shaw-engineered "gaffe" which helped bring Candidate Dukakis down four White House cycles later.

(Hiding in bushes outside his home, several journalists had already succeeded in bringing down Candidate Hart.)

Full disclosure! We've been told that next week's series will win awards by Future Anthropologists Huddled in Caves (TM), the disconsolate group of future scholars who directed our gaze to the aforementioned discussion of gaffes.

According to these future analysts, the mainstream press corps' devotion to gaffes was a leading sign that our self-impressed species, Homo sapiens, was never wired to perform its self-assigned role as "the rational animal." Eventually, this led us to the global conflagration known as Mister Trump's Lunatic War.

(According to these future scholars, the war began with a sneak attack on Nordstrom headquarters in Seattle. This followed buyers' refusal to purchase several parts of Ivanka Trump's spring line.)

"We were always 'too dumb to be self-governing,' " these morbid future scholars have said. They've told us that the press corps' silly devotion to gaffes was a leading sign of this anthropological problem.

Whatever! At New York magazine, the three participants discussed a particular question, as defined by their headline:
"Has Trump Rendered the Political Gaffe Obsolete?"
Needless to say, the focus was on Candidate Biden. Our analysts stared into middle distance when one participant discussed The Gaffes of Candidate Biden, which she'd found pitifully listed in this pitiful Newsweek report.

During the colloquy, this journalist mistakenly said that the list had been published by Time. Setting that pointless gaffe to the side, her comment about Biden's alleged gaffes went exactly like this:
COMMENT ABOUT BIDEN'S "GAFFES:" Most range from “meh” to kind of endearing when viewed through Trump-weary eyes. What is asking a paraplegic state senator to stand up so everyone can applaud him—and quickly realizing the error—when you have Trump’s infamous mocking of a disabled reporter? So yeah, I think a lot of these things aren’t even going to register. But as we saw with Hillary’s “deplorables” remark, if just one line catches on, it can make a dent.
What sort of comment counts as a "gaffe?" In the eyes of this early-30s journalist—she went to one of the finest schools—a gaffe might be a brief, fleeting, quickly corrected, utterly pointless mistake of a type any person could make.

That would count as a gaffe! Also, a gaffe might be a remark in which a candidate declares that thirty million American voters are "deplorable" and "irredeemable," due to their presumed participation in a stew of noxious attitudes. That too would be a gaffe!

A trivial error can be a "gaffe," but so can a sweeping denunciation of 30 million Others! Our press corps has always reasoned this way and, according to future scholars, our press corps always will!

At some point along the way, the denizens of our mainstream press began to focus on gaffes. According to the scholarly research of Future Anthropologists Huddled in Caves, this focus, and the failure to leave it behind, was part of the phenomenon which, in the aftermath of war, would be known as Leadership Down.

Also this: Later in the New York magazine colloquy, this exchange occurs:
JOURNALIST ONE: Okay, so let’s say there’s less focus among media and voters this time around on small-ball verbal miscues. (I’m not convinced this will actually happen.) Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Perhaps a rare salutary side effect of Trump’s domination of a political party?

JOURNALIST TWO: I’ll say yes, good thing. We’re living in Idiocracy, I don’t really care if a politician is caught saying “big fucking deal” on a hot mic. Everyone acting scandalized by comments like that was probably always a bit unnecessary.
What ever happened to fiery youth? Where do they find these kids?

Concerned about the approach of perdition, Journalist One sanely suggests that it might be a good idea to lose the focus on utterly pointless "small-ball verbal miscues."

Journalist Two tries to agree! She says that she no longer cares if someone like Biden says "big fucking deal" when, as far as he can tell, no one else is able to hear him. She no longer cares about that!

That said, how strongly does this journalist really "get" this point? Everyone pretending to be scandalized by nonsense like that "was probably always a bit unnecessary," she forces herself to say.

She's having a hard time quitting those gaffes, several future scholars have told us. When it comes to the problem of Leadership Down, it's hard to dispute what they've said.


  1. Is Somerby committing his own gaffes in a self-serving effort to prove his own thesis?

    Somerby cites a list of gaffes published by Newsweek, then says:

    "During the colloquy, this journalist mistakenly said that the list had been published by Time. "

    The journalist was not mistaken. Time also published a list of Biden's gaffes:


    How long does it take to use Google to check the journalist's attribution? 10 seconds?

    How lazy has Somerby become? Or is he perhaps demonstrating how easy it is to make a gaffe and thus the futility of criticizing others over them?

    Journalists are supposed to get things right. Somerby assumed this journalist was wrong, without checking, and introduced his own mistake into an article on mistakes. I think he hasn't proven anything about gaffes, but has demonstrated that he himself is not a journalist and doesn't have the temperament to be one, since he doesn't naturally check his facts.

    He seems to exist only to spew bile these days. Future anthropologists will refer to these columns as Somerby Down. He should be embarrassed, but he doesn't read his comments and thus won't get feedback about his errors, so he will go on making them and annoying people while he pretends that journalists are the problem.

    1. 12:50P,

      Somerby assumed this journalist was wrong, without checking, and introduced his own mistake into an article on mistakes.

      Damn, but it would have been so cool if you’d actually caught TDH in his own gaffe in taking the journalist (Margaret Hartmann) to task for attributing the Biden list to Time instead of Newsweek.

      “How long,” you ask, “does it take to use Google to check the journalist’s attribution? 10 seconds? Probably less, and the link in Hartmann’s remark points to Newsweek. You’re right that Time published its own list. The online version has no date, but the metadata indicates that the page is about five years old. If that’s so, it’s unlikely that Hartmann was referring to the Time list, and not the newer Newsweek list published last month. Hartmann just got her magazines mixed up.

      And since TDH thinks errors like this are inconsequential, it hard to see what your point is.

      I think he hasn't proven anything about gaffes, but has demonstrated that he himself is not a journalist and doesn't have the temperament to be one, since he doesn't naturally check his facts.

      Of course he hasn’t “proven” anything about gaffes. It his opinion that journalists run with gaffe stories because they’re too busy following scripts to do decent reporting. And of course, TDH isn’t a journalist. He’s a blogger. Your first clue should be the url blogspot.com

      I think TDH has his share of biases, and these do lead him astray in drawing inferences, but he’s obsessive about checking his attributions.

      TDH has been “spewing bile” for 20 years. Are you new here? And do you think he’s wrong about journalists?

      I can’t know for sure, but I think you’re right that TDH doesn’t read his commentariat. With the Mumbai movers and spell casters on the one hand, and David the local village idiot and Mao the local village troll on the other, why would he bother? So he can read Anonymous nincompoops like you and the other Anonymi making for him his point about tribal thinking? Hard to blame him.

    2. Don't forget Somerby's failed journalistic career writing op-ed articles for Baltimore newspapers.

      He didn't always spew bile. I've been reading him almost since he started. And yes, I think he is wrong about journalists. I think he is plucking low-hanging fruit today with this nitpick.

      As a blog owner, he should be moderating his comments so that we can have actual discussions here instead of being inundated by trolls.

      I disagree with the entire premise of tribal thinking, his anthropology conceit, his ramblings about Aristotle and his obsession about Rachel.

      He isn't trying any more and I think we deserve better. We could have interesting discussions in comments if he cared just a little more.

    3. Did Somerby attempt a “career writing op-ed articles”? Even if that’s true, why should I remember it? What does that have to do with your little “gotcha” that turned out not to be a gotcha at all?

      Yeah, he’s pretty much always been bilious. He links to all his blog entries, so you can check for yourself.

      The “nitpick” about Time/Newsweek is just an ironic aside. Deploring journalists obsession about “gaffes” is a long-running theme for TDH.

      Journalists are by and large, lazy, script-driven, and attracted to scandal and salaciousness. TDH is not wrong about that. You need to get out more, or at least read more widely.

      You're right that TDH’s ramblings about Aristotle are just ignorant; his failure to learn the slightest thing about math and science is puzzling; some of his favorite tropes (e.g., anthropology) are tiresome.

      And sure, he seems a trifle obsessed with RM. But he’s not wrong that she’s a simpering waste of space, a missed opportunity, and a prime example of the tribal thinking you don’t think exists.

      Also sure, this place is infested with trolls, and it would be a better place without David the Village Idiot and Mao the Village Troll, (not to mention the Mumbai Movers and the spell casters) but what makes you think we deserve better?

      TDH doesn’t owe anyone anything. If you want “actual discussions,” then provide a place for them at say, writeyourownfuckingblog.blogspot.com.

    4. It is just as likely Hartmann was indeed referring to the Time list as the Newsweek list, the Time list is the first link Google provides when searching for Biden gaffes. It is unlikely that she "just got her magazines mixed up", as not only is there a Time list, it is the first link when doing a Google search, and she mentioned it by name so she obviously knows about the Time list.

      You don't owe TDH or TDH commenters anything yet you insist on imposing yourself, if you don't want to engage in discussions, then start a blog at say, keepyourfuckingmouthshut.boringashellTracyFlickwannabe.com.

      TDH is interesting to read, less so lately, but Somerby is clueless on who has influence over the marketplace of ideas. Maddow is less harmful and has less influence than a long list of others in media, longer even than Biden's gaffes.

      Pour toi

    5. Let me walk you through it. I’ll type slowly so you can follow.

      If you go to the online NYmag article that TDH is talking about, you’ll find Margaret Hartmann saying, “ In preparation for this chat, I looked up some of Biden’s alleged gaffes.” The last three words are underlined, indicating they are a hyperlink, and its target is the Newsweek list.

      The Time list may show up first in a google for Biden gaffe list, but it appears to be old. The Newsweek list in second place was published last month, making it a much more likely hook for the NYmag piece.

      You don't owe TDH or TDH commenters anything yet you insist on imposing yourself….

      First of all, I’m not “imposing” myself on anyone. I have the courtesy to use a nym, so it’s easy to spot my comments and simply not read them. I know that this is easy to do because that’s what I do with Mao. Secondly, this fictional imposition isn’t even a yet to my not owing anyone here anything.

      I do “engage in discussions” (in your elegant phrase). We’re having one right now. And explain to me again why I need to keepmyfuckingmouthshut but you get to natter on.

      If I’m asboringashell, then just don’t read my comments.

      Tracy Flick? Thanks for that 20-year old cultural reference. Do you think I’m some sort of ruthless competitor for President of this blog’s commentariat? How would that even work?

      TDH may be clueless on who’s influential, but his targets are “liberal” media favorites who fall short of his standards. If that’s a waste of your time, what are you doing here?

      Yeah, Maddow is less harmful than others. She’s mostly just a cringe-worthy waste of opportunity.

      Merci, et à toi

    6. Is there even one “liberal” journalist or media person who meets Somerby’s standards? Is there a single liberal anywhere, media or non-media, who does? If your standards are perfection, everyone will fall short.

    7. You still don’t get how this works, do you? It’s a blog about the shortcomings of liberal media coverage. By the bloggers own lights, of course. And by those lights, there’s apparently plenty to cover. There’s no cheerleading for people doing what they’re supposed to be doing.

      That said, TDH usually speaks well of Paul Krugman. And the sporadic occasions for praise of a such-and-so are often prefaced with “Is such-and-so allowed to say that?” or “Such-and-so gets it right!” GIYF.

      As far as I can tell, here are TDH’s standards:

      1. Get your facts straight. If it’s Kamala Harris who’s suggesting alternative wordings, don’t put those words in Barr’s mouth.

      2. Editors, put subject-matter experts in charge of stories on subject matter; reporters, become subject-matter experts before filing stories on subject matter.

      3. Avoid script. (See “The Little School System That Could.”)

      4. Don’t cheer the misfortune of those who richly deserve it. Like former-governor McDonnell.

      5. When journalistic malfeasance occurs, name names. Even if that jeopardizes your chances at that sweet, sweet air time or op-ed slot.

      6. Don’t dwell on inconsequential trivia, including and especially the private lives of public figures.

      7. Do dwell on important things. (See “test score gaps.”)

      8. Don’t write gibberish. (This applies to most academese and writing about popular science. See also “test prep.”)

      9. Don’t make yourself the story, (He’s looking at you Rachel Maddow.)

      If you agree with this list, do you think following the prescriptions requires “perfection”?

    8. It might be instructive if Somerby could occasionally point out positive examples of journalism, or any kind of writing. Surely, some exist in Somerby’s world. Relentless focus on the negative is bad for the psyche.

      A post from him where he offers his own opinions as to the causes of and solutions for achievement gaps would be welcome. He won’t do that of course. But it seems to me he is missing an opportunity to steer the discourse he seems to find lacking. It’s far easier to criticize others than to offer constructive dialog.

      Your list is reasonable, but his readers may not always agree that his examples actually illustrate the points in his list. And you forgot an item: “We liberals are the problem now too! We’re lazy and we aren’t very smart. We exude a moral squalor.

      We’re lazy and dumb and our morals are bad. There’s little reason for people to like us. Presumably, nobody does.”

      That’s a frequent claim. You are free to explain what he *really* means outside the plain meaning of the text. You keep explaining that Somerby is primarily focused on media criticism, but statements like the above quoted show that it is more than that. He is concerned with “liberals” and “pseudo liberals” and thus has an idea of what for him constitutes true liberalism.

    9. Relentless focus on the negative is bad for the psyche.

      Maybe. But it’s his psyche, just like it’s his blog, so I think he gets to do what he wants with either one.

      A post from him where he offers his own opinions as to the causes of and solutions for achievement gaps would be welcome.

      Why do you think you would welcome his opinions on the matter? Does TDH have any applicable expertise?

      It’s far easier to criticize others than to offer constructive dialog.

      I agree, but that doesn’t make the criticizer wrong. And what makes you think that TDH is a dialog? It’s the sound of one man writing.

      [H]is readers may not always agree that his examples actually illustrate the points in his list.

      It’s my list, not his. I think it’s fair, but he hasn’t endorsed it. I’d say his examples mostly illustrate his points, but he is hopeless on item 8 when he talks about science or math.

      And you forgot an item: “We liberals are the problem now too! We’re lazy and we aren’t very smart.

      You’re right. That’s a frequent claim, and I think it means exactly what it says. I’m not sure it belongs on my list, which is a set of standards. This claim is the natural consequence of putting up with the failures to meet those standards.

      I don’t really believe in collective guilt, so I’m not prepared to embark on the guilt trip for which TDH has signed me up. I’m not even sure there’s something I could do to get rid of Maureen Dowd or Rachel Maddow.

    10. Somerby repeats too much Right-wing nonsense (and carries their water) for a guy who is a "media critic". And don't get me started on his misogyny.

    11. Nonsense, this may surprise you but Hartmann did not produce that link, that is not how it works, most likely the list she went by was from Time as it is not only the link Google provides but it is what she references. Later when someone made the link there was probably a decision to use Newsweek that was unrelated to the "research" Hartmann did. By the way, her fellow reporter even teased her about her "research", but some probably misunderstood the reference.

      You do not make comments, you make snarky responses to other people's comments, you clearly think your responses are brilliant but are actually pedestrian and trivial re-phrasings of TDH, this contradiction is amusing, the snarky attacks are sad.

  2. Yeah Bob, indeed Down syndrome is common among your zombie cult 'leadership'.

    But Bob, your rank and file is far more affected. All 100% of it. Why don't you care about that?

    1. Mao,
      Put the pacifier back in your mouth, and ridicule Elizabeth Warren because she threatens bankers.

      The Establishment Elite

    2. Mao, could you try to be more idiotic? That surely would be hard . . . but I think it's in you.

  3. Hillary's "deplorables" comment wasn't an ordinary gaffe. It was a Kinsley gaffe, accurately showing her prejudice against half the country.


    1. "While exhibiting umbrage or shock, and playing on the mistake, the 'offended candidate' must not exhibit anything resembling glee." -- from your link

      Trump certainly exhibited glee after Clinton's remark. His supporters made t-shirts and were proud of being deplorable (even the ones she wasn't actually talking about).

      This is another example of Trump breaking unspoken campaign rules and ignoring the norms of campaigning. This is why no one really considers him a victim when someone tells the truth about him.

      Trump supporters know he is a bad guy, a pussygrabber, a criminal and con artist. They say they don't mind that because he is doing things they want. That is one of the most deplorable things about his supporters.

      When people like Somerby chastise Clinton for her deplorables reference, instead of acknowledging that she was right about them, they do so for ulterior motives. They are her political opponents and want to see her diminished, or they dislike her for one reason or another. That's why Somerby's remarks about her deplorable statement are such a giveaway of his attitude toward her, his dislike of her.

      Democrats everywhere should have stood by her and stated that what she said was true. They didn't because they hoped to woo some of Trump's voters away from him. I doubt they had much success with that, but pretending that Hillary said something wrong is craven, in my opinion. Pretending that Trump's supporters are normal is a worse mistake.

    2. Look how casually with no hint of shame or conscience David lies about Clinton's remark. A portion of Trump's most virulent racist supporters - the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic... - are twisted maliciously and dishonestly into an attack on "half the country".

      This is a perfect illustration of how the media took one sentence out of context in a long speech she gave to misinform and reinforce the negative image that wish to portray.

      I bet most people don't even know the forum she was addressing, the LGBT Gala for Hillary.

      Just yesterday, fucking two and a half years into this nightmare presidency, Donald J Chickenshit, was unleashing a tweetstorm Defending White Nationalists Booted From Facebook

      That happened yesterday.

      But it is nice to know how open minded David is to not let a little racist shit spewing out of the open sewer that is Donald J Chickenshit's mouth bother him. So good to know you are able to look past that as long as trump continues to destroy our environment, bust the budget in order to enrich his family and friends.

    3. "But it is nice to know how open minded David is to not let a little racist shit spewing out of the open sewer that is Donald J Chickenshit's mouth bother him. So good to know you are able to look past that as long as trump continues to destroy our environment, bust the budget in order to enrich his family and friends."

      That sounds more like Mao, who runs interference for the establishment elite. David, OTOH, doesn't love Trump despite Trump's racist shit spewing. It's obvious David loves Trump because of Trump's racist shit spewing. David, like the majority of Right-wingers who are not corporate executives, is a bigot.

  4. @4:03 IMHO Trump is a bad person in a number of ways. But I am not a bad person. People who voted for Trump hoping he would improve their economic situation are not bad people. Insulting the opposing candidate is a time-honored strategy. Insulting millions of his supporters is not.

    1. Hate to break it to you, but you are indeed a bad person, you constantly post misleading and inaccurate comments here even after being corrected many times. Even though you are a bad person, liberals will still support policies to help you out, this is in sharp contrast to Republicans whose interests do not exceed beyond their own needs.

    2. "But I am not a bad person."

      Who do you think you're fooling? If you truly believe you're not a bad person, you're a bigger moron than the one you play on the internet.

    3. Meh. Just a garden variety liberal zombie.

    4. Indeed, David, had you bothered to accurately remember what Hillary Clinton said, you would have realized you are now repeating it. She did, after all, differentiate Trump's supporters into TWO "baskets", one being the so-called "deplorables" ("racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it"; a fair description of the alt-right and Neo-Confederates, like the Charlottesville "Jews will not replace us / Heil Hitler" shouters Trump would call "very fine people")....

      "But the 'other' basket [...] but that 'other' basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

    5. “Racism is evil?” Since when did Trump go all PC?

    6. "But, how do I know which half she would put me in?"

      You must believe she doesn't read TDH.

    7. David: "But, how do I know which half she would put me in?"

      Which s/h/o/e/ basket would best fit you?

      "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" (etc.)?

      Or "people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change"?

    8. None of the above. The basket I fit in is someone concerned about civil liberties, concerned about too big a government, concerned about education, concerned about the welfare of the underclass, concerned about corruption, concerned about too much government spending. Trump has fulfilled my goals on all but the last item. However, I don't think Hillary would have held down spending any better than Trump did.

    9. DinC: Recall that the previous Clinton administration ended with a budget surplus rather than a deficit.

    10. David is only play acting that he's a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Islamaphobe on the internet.
      I hope the same folks who bought Trump's playacting as a good businessman on a TV show, don't get confused.

    11. "concerned about too much government spending"

      Government spending was so low under the Great and Powerful Barack Obama (hat tip Mao) that the GOP gave a gigantic tax cut to corporations that were sitting on piles of cash.
      What else are you worried about, that not enough foreign governments are blackmailing our current President?

  5. What might be seen as a “gaffe” by some is seen by others as an insight into character.

    Trump’s mocking of a disabled man, putting down McCain, attacking a Gold Star family, his lies, etc, are hard to see as “gaffes”. Instead, they shed light on Trump’s character. (Or mental state, if you are Somerby).

    And, Somerby apparently believes that Hillary’s “deplorable” comment was not a gaffe, but instead revealed something about her character. It is of course possible that she misspoke, in which case it could be seen as a gaffe. But Somerby has decided, as Trump and many of his voters did, that Hillary’s comment was not a mere gaffe. And they get to decide that because the press reported what she said.

    1. Hillary's comment was pandering bullshit. Voters were sick of 8 years of the Democrat litany of "ists" and "phobes" and she stepped in it with that remark and made Trump president.

    2. 1:12, what other parts of her speech to the LGBT audience did you find to be pandering bullshit? You know, the people who have been under non-stop assault by this administration since the day he took office.

      The sad thing is, it is tRump and his party who hate more than half this country. Trump has governed since day 1 with a giant middle finger aimed at those who don't support his lying ass.

      Not a single motion of trying to heal the divide, just non-stop corrosive rhetoric exacerbating the divisions. At every opportunity he is given.

      When Democratic presidents govern in my lifetime they have always reached across and tried to work with the opposition. As Obama did his entire first term only to get kicked in the ass. There is a guiding principle for repubs and that is Democrats have no right to the presidency. There is no doubt that Hillary would have insisted on trying to reach out to both sides, a concept alien to the current band of liars, beggars and thieves running the federal government now.

      As my father always taught me, watch what they do, not what they say. It is ironic that we are always the ones getting tagged with the label that we hate half the country yet in actual actions, it has always been apparent who hates who around here.

  6. In what sense did Bernie Shaw bring down Dukakis? Dukakis was well behind in the polls most of the campaign and went on to get crushed in the general election. That indicates that Dukakis had more problems than a single so-called gaffe during a debate.

  7. ******
    David in Cal March 23, 2019 at 10:07 PM

    This is the new Democratic talking point, but it won't last long. First of all, just about nobody opposes releasing the Mueller Report - not even Trump.

    Trump says Mueller shouldn’t testify to Congress, escalating fight with Democrats


    1. OTOH Barr said several times he has no objection to Mueller testifying. Also, Mueller has not yet confirmed that he's willing to testify. It'll be interesting to see what happens

    2. BTW if Mueller does testify, is he permitted to discuss the material in his Report? It's my understanding that the AG has sole right to promulgate the Report. I suppose Barr could waive this restriction and allow Mueller to testify freely. Perhaps Barr has already done so implcitly by agreeing to allow Mueller to testify.

    3. "I suppose Barr could waive this restriction and allow Mueller to testify freely."

      This would be best practice, since Barr, himself, hasn't read the report.

    4. ******
      David in Cal March 23, 2019 at 10:07 PM

      This is the new Democratic talking point, but it won't last long. First of all, just about nobody opposes releasing the Mueller Report - not even Trump.

      The House Judiciary Committee has taken its first formal step toward holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller's unredacted report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as the underlying evidence. May 6, 2019

    5. Subpoena-schmapoena. Call Nancy Chickenshit Pelosi and demand impeachment, dembot.

      How many more must die while she's stonewalling and issuing subpoenas?

    6. Ha ha.
      Welcome to Benghazi Part II.
      Being total fuckfaces to Hillary has backfired bigly.

  8. Here's a good blog post, for dear Bob and his dembots' reading pleasure.

    1. Kunstler is upset, because the elite are now hurting white people too.
      Fuck that old racist piece of shit.

    2. Many thanks for reading and for sharing your imbecilic opinion, dear psycho-dembot.

  9. A befuddling web diary I visit this blog, it's incredibly grand. Strangely, in this present blog's substance made motivation behind fact and sensible. The substance of information is instructive
    Oracle Fusion Financials Online Training
    Oracle Fusion HCM Online Training
    Oracle Fusion SCM Online Training

  10. Effective Love Spell To Get Your Ex Back My advise reveal you all to contact Dr happy the best on love spell at happylovespell2@gmail.com, here is my relationship story. About a month ago I got back to my ex(after 2 and half years separated).Everything was ok and she was the most adorable woman in the world. she spoke about wedding ceremony, how many kids we would have, said that our relationship was the most important thing in her life and she was 100% sure about it…Then she traveled to work in other country for 3 weeks. she changed his behavior completely. she disappeared every night, was saying she had to do some work and would talk to me later, but disappeared the rest of the day and night… no explanation, when I asked why she was disappearing every night, she stopped answering me. she’s ignoring me since last week, April 15. she ignored even my birthday, that was April 16. Not even a message. I wrote to her a few times trying to understand what happened, she read but just ignored me.I feel so bad cause I couldn’t stop contacting and trying to understand what happened.i loved her so much and wanted to get her back, then i was told to contact happylovespell2@gmail.com who can help out with a love spell to reunite your relationship back, so instantly do contact him and give him a try and trust me he did an urgent effective love spell for me and with in 24hours promise he made to me, my woman was back, today i testify to you all that you should seek and contact Dr happy for his spell result is genuine sure and guarantee unite and get your ex back save your marriage/relationship problem now,
    You can also know more about his spell Blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/
    Email him now on.. happylovespell2@gmail.com If you want to talk for more info or consultation. Whatsapp/cal +2348133873774 For more assurance and spell guarantee, visit his website...happylovespell2.webnode.com/

  11. I was so depressed when my lover left me for another man after dating for 5 years. I tried to beg him to come back with me. She refused and said that she no longer had feelings for me. I became a sad man after everything we've gone through together, after all the love we have shared in the past, I could not imagine my life without her because my love for her had no price for commerce for any reason, one day, when I was surfing the Internet, I saw a comment of Dr. Peter. that he has the power to recover my former lover and I decided to try to see him only by contacting him and immediately he responded, I explained what was happening and he told me that the other guy used the voodoo spell with her. she left me for him despite taking care of her and Dr. Peter promised to help me get my lover back and also helped me to silence him, in less than three days the man was shot by unknown men in Florida and within five days my girlfriend was at my house waiting for me to return from work and when I did she started to beg saying that she was sorry she had not known what had happened to her. Thank you, Dr. Peter, now I am happy with my girlfriend and everything is going well. Contact Peter for any revenge spell, including the death spell and the ex-spell of recoil, spell to win any case in court and also spell to eliminate black magic from your body through noblespellhome @ outlook. com also chat with him on WhatsApp via + 2349059610643

  12. LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
    Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever

  13. UnoGeeks Offers the best Oracle Fusion Financials Training in the market today. If you want to become Expert Fusion Financials Consultant, Enrol in the Oracle Fusion Financials Online Training offered by UnoGeeks.