ADVENTURES IN PARAPHRASE: Is that what the RNC said or meant?


Adventures in recitation: Two days ago, we made a confession:

We were surprised when Judy Woodruff said what she said. 

In truth, we shouldn't have been surprised; Woodruff was merely reciting a bit of Mandated Tribal Script, something she's done in the past.

That said, Woodruff hosts the PBS NewsHour, the mainstream press corps' most respected news program. For that reason, we'll admit that we were surprised—disappointed, even!—when she launched this adventure in paraphrase on last Friday night's program:

WOODRUFF (2/11/22): Well, speaking of politics, another question I want to raise with both of you, and that is the move by the Republican National Committee last weekend, David, to censure two of its own, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, because of their role on the January 6 investigative committee, and then their statement that what happened, the assault on the Capitol January 6, was just normal political discourse.

Really? Had the RNC really said that on the previous weekend? 

As everyone knows, the assault on the Capitol on January 6 involved a substantial array of vicious, violent physical assaults against members of the Capitol Police. Had the RNC really said that those criminal assaults were normal political discourse?

There was Woodruff, saying they had! And when it came his time to respond, Jonathan Capehart agreed:

WOODRUFF: What does it look like to you, Jonathan?

CAPEHART: "Wow" is all I can say. To hear that the RNC is saying that the insurrectionists were engaged in legitimate political discourse told me that the RNC had lost its mind...

Capehart didn't get where he is by disputing Guild Narrative! That said, Capehart was certainly right on one point: 

If the RNC had actually said that the assault on the Capitol was "legitimate political discourse," that would mean that the RNC really had lost its mind.

Capehart was quoting from the actual resolution which was being interpreted and paraphrased by high-ranking players like Woodruff. In that February 4 resolution, the RNC had made a rather murky reference to people who had engaged in "legitimate political discourse." 

But could they possibly have been referring to the people who conducted those violent assaults? Can that possibly be what the RNC said or meant?

One day before, another highly respected mainstream figure had made that very claim. Last Thursday morning, E.J. Dionne had authored this remarkable statement in the Washington Post:

DIONNE (2/10/22): [Todd Gitlin's] final public project, an “Open Letter in Defense of Democracy,” was released in October...It warned that liberal democracy faced “serious danger.”

It declared flatly: “The primary source of this danger is one of our two major national parties, the Republican Party, which remains under the sway of Donald Trump and Trumpist authoritarianism.” The Republican National Committee effectively ratified this claim this past week when it voted—the day before Gitlin died—for the already-infamous resolution describing the violent rampage at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “legitimate political discourse.”

According to Dionne, the RNC had explicitly said that the violence at the Capitol had been "legitimate political discourse." According to Dionne, the RNC had specifically defended the violence in its February 4 resolution, which by February 10 was already famous.

Dionne was certainly right on one point. By the time his column appeared, the RNC resolution was definitely famous.

By the time Dionne's column appeared every liberal pundit and his crazy uncle had engaged in this same adventure—and so had major mainstream reporters. A wide array of reporters and pundits had explicitly said, or had seemed to say, that the RNC had described the violent behavior at the Capitol as "legitimate political discourse."

The scripted stars of our own failing tribe had said it and said it and said it again. To cite one example, here was the highly excitable Lawrence O'Donnell, making the claim on the corporate "cable news" program for which he's paid untold millions:

LAWRENCE (2/7/22): Ronna McDaniel led the Republican National Community in a unanimous vote on Friday to censure Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for their participation on the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and to praise the people who attacked the Capitol, to praise criminals.

The Republican National Committee unanimously agreed, quote, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democratic-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse. 

They wanted to hang Mike Pence. They wanted to kill him. They wanted to kill others. They threatened to kill others. They threatened to kill Nancy Pelosi. They threatened to kill anyone they could get their hands on. And they are praised, praised by the Republican National Committee in a unanimous vote.

So said Lawrence, again and again and again and again, as he played videotape of the violent assaults. 

In a unanimous vote, Ronna McDaniel and the RNC had praised the violent criminals! Four nights later, Woodruff was now reciting the claim, with Capehart chiming in.

Everyone and his crazy uncle had said that they actually said it. As Capehart correctly noted, you'd pretty much have to "lose your mind" to make such a crazy statement.

At this juncture, a brief point of personal privilege:

In our view, the RNC has been a joke since at least the late 1990s. In our view, McDaniel has behaved like the ultimate party hack during her excruciating tenure as head of the RNC.

That said, had the RNC actually said it? Had McDaniel actually said it? Had they actually said that those violent criminals had bene engaged in "legitimate political discourse?" Had they actually said, or meant, anything so crazy, insane, nutty, daft?

Had the RNC actually said it? We can't say that they had.  Consider what the highly presentable Woodruff was failing to mention as she and Capehart rattled script on the PBS NewsHour that night.

Woodruff and Capehart performed their recitations on Friday, February 11. Four days earlier, McDaniel had published an essay which started off as shown.

Sadly, we think she made a somewhat decent point right at the start of the piece:

MCDANIEL (2/8/22): If corporate news media wants to know why Americans don’t trust it anymore, they should look no further than the shameful, outrageous, and patently false coverage of the resolution adopted by the RNC to censure Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

Let me be abundantly clear: as Chairman of the RNC, I have repeatedly condemned the violence that occurred at the Capitol on January 6th and do so again today. On January 6, 2021, the members of the RNC released a statement that read, “These violent scenes we have witnessed do not represent acts of patriotism, but an attack on our country and its founding principles.” I tweeted that the violence was “shameful” and condemned it in the strongest possible terms. 

The events of that day are deeply personal to me and our team as the FBI found a bomb outside of RNC headquarters that afternoon, and I will never forget what it felt like to know that my staff was in immediate danger. Violence has no place in our political discourse, period, and those who engaged in violence on January 6th and committed crimes should be held accountable with due process by the appropriate law enforcement authorities and prosecutors.

In our view, McDaniel started with a fairly decent point. The behavior of corporate players like Lawence,  Capehart, Dionne and Woodruff can help explain why "corporate media" are no longer trusted by tens of millions of voters, though absurd dissembling by partisan hacks has played a larger role.

At any rate, by February 8, McDaniel and a host of others had insisted, over and over again, that the RNC wasn't conveying legitimacy on the rioters in its February 4 resolution.

As we noted in last week's reports, the RNC certainly didn't make any such explicit statement in the resolution itself. What Lawrence had said was pure interpretation—an adventure in highly creative paraphrase.

Now Woodruff was saying it too! And as she did, she didn't bother telling her viewers about what McDaniel had said—about the many denials she and others had lodged.

In the hands of the highly presentable Woodruff, McDaniel's denials were disappeared. This is ugly, profoundly stupid behavior, the kind which loses the world.

We'll admit that we were a bit surprised when we saw Woodruff recite. We shouldn't have been surprised, of course. Just like that, we recalled her earlier recitation—her earlier bow to the tribe.

It happened on January 26, 2000, as she moderated the final New Hampshire debate between Candidates Gore and Bradley. She was showered with praise for the recitation she staged that night—showered with praise by the rest of the guild.

Last Friday night, she did it again. What she did was ugly and dumb, and it was thoroughly human.

Our humans brains are wired that way, a wide array of experts reliably say. "Man [sic] is really the tribal animal," these disconsolate scholars all say.

Do you believe that the RNC actually "said" it or meant it? We see no evidence that they did. What we did see may have been worse:

We saw a very wide range of major journalists take a dive into the tank. And we aren't even mentioning the things that Ed Kilgore did.

If just for once you could step inside our shoes, you'd know what a drag it is to try to unpack this conduct.

Day after day after day after day, it's a drag to see us rubes as we swallow this ugly and brainless conduct from our tribe's "thought leaders." 

But there's no chance this is going to change, top major experts repeatedly say. They also say that behavior like this very rarely ends well.


  1. We know what the RNC said, dear Bob: that the so-called "Jan 6 committee" is a show trial persecuting ordinary citizens.

    We know it, and you know it, and everyone else knows it.

    We also know what goebbelsian dembottery is. And you know it, etc.

    What else is there to say, dear Bob? Enough said. Case closed.

  2. "Really? Had the RNC really said that on the previous weekend?"

    Yes, not by explicit direct statement, such as "insurrection is part of normal political discourse" but by implication and juxtaposition. This meaning was clearly stated because langauge takes its meaning not simply from the words in a phrase, but from the context in which they are spoken, the overall paragraphs and the content of the entire resolution -- which, contrary to Somerby's complaint -- was provided by the press in several places, including the major newspapers.

    This is a matter of reference, in which the term "normal political discourse" refers not simply to the peaceful acts but the violent ones as well, because the resolution failed to limit or make specific its use of the that phrase.

    Somerby plays this game all the time. He pretends that if the exact words of a phrase he specifies are not found in an interview or statement, then that meaning is excluded. He does it with internet searches too. He pretends that if the exact search terms he used were not found using Google, then that entire topic has never been discussed or does not exist. A simple search using better terms usually provides the info he claims isn't there.

    What is the larger context of this particular resolution? It is one in which key Republicans have never disavowed or condemned the violence that took place on 1/6. It is one in which those arrested for committing violent crimes are being called "political prisoners" and defended by other Republicans, including some in the House and Senate. It occurs in a context where the President of the United States did nothing about the violence, called those committing it beautiful people, and encouraged their actions by his speech and support for the organization of the insurrection, including those who brought guns and other weapons to the event, stashing them nearby for use. Silence about the violence in such a context implies that violence is condoned, part of the resources being brought to bear by Republicans to achieve their goals. That same silence extends to failures to rein in those making death threats to public officials and Democratic members of Congress, failures to say or do anything to lessen the danger of Democrats who are doing their jobs.

    That is why the resolution, as passed unanimously by Republicans, aimed at punishing those who opposed Trump's participation in the insurrection, absolutely considers violent insurrection to be part of normal political discourse. The rest of the Republicans clearly consider it acceptable to engage in such violence, they have approved it after the fact, done nothing to censure or prevent such violence and continue to engage in it by attempting to portray those convicted of violent political crimes as unjustly treated.

    The only way that Somerby can claim this was not part of the resolution is if he shares the Republican views on this matter. No liberal feels the way Somerby does about this topic.

  3. "There was Woodruff, saying they had! "

    Judy Woodruff is a highly respected member of the press corps with a long record of covering presidential campaigns. She attended Duke University and interned with a Southern Democrat from Georgia, Robert Stephens Grier, Jr., who later became a House member. She grew up an army brat, living in several other countries.

    That background makes her far from a rabid liberal or progressive, politically speaking. She is a temperate voice.

    When someone like Woodruff says something, it is likely to be consensus belief, well-substantiated and solid reporting. She is far less partisan and far less bombastic than many of the hosts Somerby complains about. When even she is claiming that the Republicans have called the events of 1/6 part of normal political discourse, that suggests that the Republicans did exactly that, in so many words, if not in the explicit, limited statement that Somerby is demanding in his excessively literal lawyerese, designed to absolve Republicans of a meaning they clearly intended.

    Somerby has been riding his hobby horse about discrimination against Southerners, but today he throws one of that stigmatized group under the bus. Republicans won't get a fairer hearing from anyone than they have gotten from Woodruff. If she says Republicans said this, they did and I believe her more than Somerby's Republican-serving propaganda.

  4. Somerby says:

    "According to Dionne, the RNC had specifically defended the violence in its February 4 resolution, which by February 10 was already famous."

    But here is what Dionne is quoted as saying:

    "The Republican National Committee effectively ratified this claim this past week when it voted—the day before Gitlin died—for the already-infamous resolution describing the violent rampage at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “legitimate political discourse.”

    Note the word "effectively" in Dionne's statement. It does not mean "specifically", in fact, it excludes that meaning.

    Definition of effectively: "in such a manner as to achieve a desired result; actually but not officially or explicitly"

    Definition of specifically: "in a way that is exact and clear; precisely"

    Thus, when Dionne says that the RNC effectively called the violence "normal political discourse," he is saying that although they didn't exactly say that, their words had that effect.

    Notice the way Somerby puts his thumb on the scales by changing the word Dionne used (effectively) to specifically, which means the opposite. This was Somerby's deliberate attempt to put words into Dionne's mouth, to convey him as misrepresenting the content of the RNC resolution, because that is his intent with each of the people he quotes today.

    This is a lot of work to prove that Republicans didn't precisely say something that everyone knows they meant. Somerby himself calls their statement "murky" but he refuses to deal with the content of Republican beliefs about 1/6 and instead is off on this repetitive wild hare that liberals are portraying Republicans as unconcerned about the 1/6 violence, when they actually abhor violence. The only problem is that there is no evidence this is true.

    1. Good post. They effectively did say it.

      "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse"

      What else could this mean? Maybe someone will step up and explain what is meant by ordinary citizens in this context!

    2. In the piece, "effectively" is referring to a claim by Todd Gitlin which was:

      “The primary source of this danger is one of our two major national parties, the Republican Party, which remains under the sway of Donald Trump and Trumpist authoritarianism.”.

      Dionne was not saying "the RNC effectively called the violence "normal political discourse".

      You've made a very basic reading comprehension mistake. Do you do that on purpose, as a goof?

    3. Rationalist, read McDaniel's oped if you want to know what she meant by that. It's not all difficult.

    4. I'll tell you so you don't have to look it up. According to McDaniel, the committee is investigating people other than the ones that committed violent crimes that day. People that were just there and committed no crimes. She's even claiming that they are investigating people that were not even there that day. Those are the people to whom she was referring.

    5. 1:49:
      Which people are they “investigating” that were there but didn’t commit “violent” crimes? (The resolution said “persecuting”, by the way).

      We’re there crimes committed that weren’t violent, but should still be investigated?

      Which people who weren’t there are they investigating? You mean, the coup planners and facilitators? They are just as guilty as the ones who were there at the Capitol, maybe more so. And most of them weren’t ordinary citizens.

      But other than that, your post makes perfect sense.

    6. Meh. One doesn't need to read any opeds. It's enough to open the wikipedia page and see who they subpoenaed...

    7. They are asking for testimony to find out what happened, not persecuting people.

    8. It doesn't matter what I think. This is her claim. At least I'm not misunderstanding what her claim is. And that's the whole point of Somerbys post.

      If you think she's wrong in her claim and people who were not there are not being investigated or the ones that are should be investigated or if you feel like everyone there should be investigated, regardless of their actions, great. It doesn't matter. That's not the point.

      The point is she made a claim about ordinary citizens other than the ones who committed violence are being unfairly investigated because they were engaging in non-violent political discourse. Right or wrong, that's her claim. Her claim is explicitly not about the violence there yet journalists keep saying that it is.

    9. Yeah, right. And that's why they subpoena their phone records and emails.

      Did HUAC do anything similar, by the way?

    10. ...and that's also why they indict those who decline their "asking for testimony".

    11. No I didn't do a goof on purpose I am multi-tasking and shouldn't have posted without full comprehension. Lesson learned.

    12. That was not directed at you. I was asking the original poster if they had intentionally goofed in their original misreading.

    13. Fewer Anonymices might set their hair over Somerby’s posts if they bothered to read his links.

    14. @2:31

      The quote was:

      "The Republican National Committee effectively ratified this claim this past week when it voted..."

      Gitlin is referenced in the quote, Dionne wrote it. No, I didn't misread or goof. You did.

    15. @2:31 -- the entire passage comes from Dionne but Dionne quoted Gitlin in that passage. The parts in quote marks (within the inset attributed to Dionne) are the parts that Gitlin said. Notice that the part I excerpted are not in quote marks in Somerby's inset quote of Dionne. That means that Dionne said those words, not Gitlin. Yes, it is confusing, but I didn't goof about who said what.

    16. "Fewer Anonymices might set their hair over Somerby’s posts if they bothered to read his links."

      Reading Somerby's links (sometimes links to nowhere) is the best way to realize how full of shit he is.

    17. Dionne says that Gitlin’s statement on the RNC being a danger to country was EFFECTIVELY (no one actually voted on it) RATIFIED (confirmed) by McDaniel’s remarks.

      Dionne argued that McDaniel’s remarks SPECIFICALLY endorsed violence as political speech.

    18. Well as I mentioned I have limited time to wade through all this stuff today.

      But reading through this comment thread hasn't shed a lot of light on it.

      Am I supposed to care about someone's interpretation of someone's quote about someone's interpretation of what the RNC meant?

      Why all the complexity... is there a point to it?

      Again, apologies for coming to the discussion unfamiliar with all the twists and turns that have took place since the original RNC statement.

    19. “ Am I supposed to care about someone's interpretation of someone's quote about someone's interpretation of what the RNC meant?”

      Well, you have been asking the world what could McDaniel’s have meant but violence?

    20. I didn't bring up violence.

      I have pointed out a few times that "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse" has to refer to the people that entered the Capitol on Jan 6. Not all of them were violent.

    21. Cecelia is being obtuse. Here is what Somerby quoted Dionne as saying:

      "The Republican National Committee effectively ratified this claim this past week when it voted—the day before Gitlin died—for the already-infamous resolution describing the violent rampage at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “legitimate political discourse.”"

      That says nothing at all about what Gitlin said. It says there is support for Gitlin in what the RNC ratified. And yes, they did vote for it, unanimously by voice vote. Dionne was not talking about McDaniel but about the RNC, hence the words RNC in the quote, named as the people doing the ratifying of violence as normal political discourse. Dionne may have said that about McDaniel elsewhere, but that is not what Somerby's quote says. If he is going to argue that Dionne put words in McDaniel's mouth, he needs to quote the part about McDaniel. This part isn't it.

    22. "I have pointed out a few times that "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse" has to refer to the people that entered the Capitol on Jan 6. Not all of them were violent."

      Not all of them were violent, but those who entered the premises after the crowd broke into the Capitol were trespassing and illegally entering the building. They were charged with those crimes, not violent ones. So, they are not exactly innocent either. Further, they were surrounded by violence and had to know what was happening around them, regardless of what they themselves did. Some smeared feces on the walls and floor. Some stole a laptop belonging to Nancy Pelosi hoping to gain something from information on it. Some rifled through private papers and broke equipment and furniture. That is minimally property destruction. Some made violent threats against members of congress and Mike Pence (remember there was a gallows on the lawn). Some chased a law enforcement officer through the halls.

      You might call these semi-peaceful acts, but you cannot call them normal political discourse.

    23. "I have pointed out a few times that "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse" has to refer to the people that entered the Capitol on Jan 6. Not all of them were violent."

      Oh, dear. Open a list of the people they subpoenaed (in wikipedia), and count those who "entered the Capitol". Let us know.

    24. I said Dionne said that the RNC’s actions effectively gave an “aye, matey” to Gitlin claim about the RNC.

      The RNC did not literally give a yes vote on Gitlin’s claim about them.

      I was replying to an argument about the difference between the words”effectively” and “specially” and how they were used.

      What Dionne thinks specifically…actually…knowingly happened was that McDaniel (the RNC) specifically…actually…knowingly endorsed violence as speech.

    25. Wiggle, little Cecelia, wiggle away...

    26. ""The Republican National Committee effectively ratified this claim this past week when it voted—the day before Gitlin died—for the already-infamous resolution describing the violent rampage at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “legitimate political discourse.”"

      That says nothing at all about what Gitlin said"

      Yes it does "this claim" is literally "what Gitlin said".

      It's really hard for me to believe you ain't jivin'. People are not this dumb. There's no way you are really that dumb.

    27. "The Republican National Committee effectively ratified this claim this past week when it voted"

      To what claim is our humble columnist referring, my fair darling?

    28. Rationalist 4:15

      How would you answer this question from Bob re. the original statement - "Do you believe that the RNC actually "said" it or meant it?"

    29. 4:37 "It says there is support for Gitlin in what the RNC ratified".

      No, misreading-breath, the claim is what what is "ratified". Gitlin's claim.

      Dionne then goes on to claim the RNC was defending, specifically - his words, not theirs, a "violent rampage" with the resolution. Somerby is correct too point it out.

      These are very basic and dumb misreadings. You're putting me on, aren't you??? Lil devil!!

    30. “Wiggle, little Cecelia, wiggle away...“

      I’m 5’9” and you goofed.

    31. What a huge waste of time you trolls are.

    32. Somebody needs to teach you geniuses how to read.

    33. Maybe some of us should be more concerned with remedial phonics before modern media malfeasances.


    34. There are many ways to be a small person, Cecelia.

    35. Speaking of low IQ misreadings? Where's Greg?

    36. Corby, maybe you should spend less time on the Daily Howler this weekend and a little more time reading some Nancy Drew books or Googling adult reading websites. I think you need to bone up on some basic skills girl!!!!!!

    37. Rittenhouse had observed Rosenbaum earlier and then later Rittenhouse comes across Rosenbaum and starts chasing him, taunting him, yelling at him "Anybody need medical". Rittenhouse showed anger towards Rosenbaum, anger made righteous by being armed with the rifle of choice to mass shooters. Rittenhouse continued to taunt the small man with a bag, Rosenbaum, until they both came across a guy with a gun, a "good guy with a gun". Rittenhouse taunts them both, raising his gun and sarcastically saying "friendly, friendly", but when the good guy with a gun, whose gun remained at his side pointed down, stepped towards Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse's demeanor changed. He no longer felt powerful and dominant, so he stepped back, and then picked on the little guy (Rosenbaum was 5'3") pointing his deadly weapon at Rosenbaum while backing away, tauntingly. Rosenbaum, feeling threatened, follows Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse makes a threat, and the "good guy with a gun" says "You won't do shit", challenging Rittenhouse's dominance and masculinity. Rosenbaum then yells at Rittenhouse "Fuck you", and enraged, Rittenhouse immediately turns and shoots Rosenbaum when he is about four feet away, then shoots Rosenbaum two more times before delivering the kill shot into Rosenbaum's back as he lay on the ground writhing in pain.

      Rittenhouse is a psychopath but unlikely born that way, something triggered that, likely a childhood filled with abuse. American parents may be the some of the worst in history, but again, that is likely borne from the dog eat dog, wage slavery society we have.

      There is video of Rittenhouse chasing and taunting Rosenbaum on YouTube, it is not hard to find. That video and another showing Rittenhouse raising and pointing his gun at the good guy with a gun and Rosenbaum were not shown at the trial, but really the verdict was a foregone conclusion from that particular jury, as white people are determined to decriminalize murder for white people. To make an obvious point, it is not exculpatory for Rosenbaum that Rittenhouse chased him, mainly because, you know, Rosenbaum did not commit a crime. oh jesus, these right wingers are really emotionally wounded people.

      Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum, did not exhaust means of escape, killed Rosenbaum in anger, and seemed elated afterwards, galloping away like he was celebrating a touchdown.

      Now, y'all on the right can play your little games, bla bla bla, but we know you people are suffering, there is not much we can do to ease that, but for the love of god try to break that chain of abuse, treat your children with kindness and unconditional love, please!

      I'll be honest, I do not feel safe directly confronting a right winger, and I shall remain anonymous here from the frankly creepy aggressiveness and contempt of the right wingers that comment here. Right wingers are people with hair trigger violent anger, people with weapons, people who can now get away with murder.

    38. Anonymouse 6:49pm, I’m sure you’ve explored them all.

    39. Corby - ask the men that work there if they can bring you some young adult/pre adult books.

    40. There's video on Youtube of Maddow strangling goats and lambs - with her bare hands no less. All for some sort of perverted lesbian sacrifice ritual. She is in her underwear in the video and you can see artillery in the background. If you ask me that is not the type of behavior a talk show host should engage in. I don't care what side of the isle you hail from.

    41. This is a lie about Maddow, written by a troll who seems to think this is funny.

    42. 6:23,
      It's all good. She shot a cop.

    43. Ha-ha. Funny, about lesbian sacrifice rituals, performed in $50K underwear.

      But it's okay: she's sacrificing goats for the children. And, of course, for the Holocaust Remembrance Day.

    44. 10;39,
      It's heartening when "fight the tyranny of the government" folk take action.

    45. Ironically, the underwear is made from the underhair of the goats.

    46. If it was made from goats' tripe, it could be eatable. ...if not particularly appealing.

  5. I could try to give a charitable interpretation of the republicans resolution, but they do not deserve it. They will say or do anything to further the far white fascism including paper over their treasonous thuggery.

  6. "In a unanimous vote, Ronna McDaniel and the RNC had praised the violent criminals! Four nights later, Woodruff was now reciting the claim, with Capehart chiming in."

    Woodruff said that the RNC had called the insurrection "normal political discourse" whereas O'Donnell said that the RNC had praised the violence. Somerby equates these two as he attributes O'Donnell's remark to Woodruff, who said something I consider to be very different. She said nothing about the RNC praising violence. She said the RNC considered 1/6 "normal political discourse" (using the term that appeared in the RNC resolution itself). Calling the attempts to prosecute the criminal acts on 1/6 "persecution" implies that the Republicans do not consider such acts punishable. That isn't praise. Whether the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys are "ordinary citizens" is debatable too, since they appear on national security watchlists, engaged in coordinated military-style tactics, and had stashed weapons nearby. But Somerby ignores the obvious fact that O'Donnell and Woodruff were saying different things.

    Again, this is Somerby putting his own thumb on the scales to advance his thesis that all liberals are singing the same tune, and if they aren't, he will portray them as such. Even though that is exactly what Somerby is accusing the liberal press of doing.

  7. "Sadly, we think she made a somewhat decent point right at the start of the piece:

    MCDANIEL (2/8/22): If corporate news media wants to know why Americans don’t trust it anymore, they should look no further than the shameful, outrageous, and patently false coverage of the resolution adopted by the RNC to censure Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger."

    And here we see Somerby acknowledging that, effectively, his own series of essays on this topic has been marching in step with the talking points of the RNC itself, expressed by McDaniel.

    If Somerby had ever made any attempt to evaluate the truth of the claim that the RNC considers violence to be part of "normal political discourse" we might take his claim about misrepresentation of the Republican viewpoint more seriously, but he has never done that.

    Liberals are in widespread agreement about what the RNC's statement means "effectively" because of the many consistent views expressed by individual Republicans and the broad failure of Republicans to condemn the violence, repudiate Trump's conspiracy to overturn the election, and their consistent efforts to portray criminals who engaged in violence as "ordinary citizens" who were merely touring the Capitol building, wandered in out of curiosity, doing what Trump asked them to do, merely protesting and engaging in "normal political discourse" while committing a series of illegal acts, many of which were violent, some of which resulted in deaths.

    To deal with that, Somerby would have to discuss Republican behavior, perhaps critically. His unwillingness to do that should speak volumes about where he is coming from these days. One cannot advance a Republican talking point while analyzing Republican misbehavior, so Somerby will not engage in a discussion of what Republicans actually meant. It would probably void his contract with whoever is now funding his blog efforts. It would certainly be ineffective as Republican propaganda -- so he ignores the context in which the RNC resolution was passed and will not talk about what Republicans actually think about 1/6 at all.

    Meanwhile, Somerby supports another Republican lie by portraying mainstream media reports as a form of fake news. And who else says that all the time? Trump and his ilk.

  8. They did say the phrase. It's a direct quote. It's ambiguous enough that Republican terrorists can feel encouraged while the politicians can deny they gave them encouragement.

    In other news, the American government just stole 7 billion dollars from the people of Afghanistan. We're literally robbing the poor.

    1. Republicans are upset because the Stopgap Spending Bill signed by Biden today includes money to help the resettlement of Afghani refugees, taken from the unfrozen assets held when the Taliban took over Afghanistan.

      I suppose @1:08 considers the poor in Afghanistan, now the Taliban's responsibility, to be more important than the Afghani poor in the USA. That is their right and their opinion, but it is deceptive to leave out where the money came from and what it is going to be used for. Steal is not the right word here either. But, bottom-line, this is right in line with Republican propaganda and the spending bill.

      There are perhaps progressives who oppose what Biden and our government is doing on various issues, but as a liberal, I tend to support measures that help immigrants. I would also remind @1:08 that the messiness of the withdrawal is Trump's fault because the planning and much of the execution was enacted by the Trump administration. Biden did the best he could with a situation he inherited, after making the decision not to reverse Trump's decision.

      Choosing to help one set of poor people instead of another is not exactly "robbing the poor", much less literally, since the money was legally redirected by congress.

    2. America won't spend 7 billion dollars on refugees and you know that.

      Legally that money belongs to the people of Afghanistan, period. Even American families of 9/11 victims are arguing this.

    3. If that money had stayed in Afghanistan, it would have gone to corrupt government officials and not reached the people at all. Legally, it belonged to the regime that was overthrown by the Taliban.

      The US froze the funds because it did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Nothing has changed about that. The withdrawal of the US is not to blame for the poverty and other problems of the people in Afghanistan. The Taliban is to blame.

      It is difficult to impose sanctions on any nation without hurting innocent people who live in a country. That doesn't mean the US can stand by without intervening when governments engage in wrongdoing.

      When people like you discuss what is happening to women and others because of the Taliban's religious extremism, then I will take seriously your concern about the poor in Afghanistan. If the poor become sufficiently upset by the Taliban, perhaps they will change their government themselves.

      It is difficult to argue that the Taliban are the people of Afghanistan when they rule by force and oppress their people. Legally, the money does not belong to the Taliban. The Taliban won't spend 7 billion dollars on poor people and you know that.

    4. I see. We didn't steal from the poor. We rescued their money.

    5. No, Afghanistan's previous rulers stole from their own poor, then fled ahead of the Taliban. We do not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, so we froze their funds. Now those funds are being unfrozen (by the US Congress) to aid Afghani refugees (who are also from Afghanistan, and mostly poor). So we are choosing which Afghanis to aid with the money that does not belong to the Taliban and would not go to be people there either.

      At no time did we steal from any poor people by freezing that money. And I am noting that your concern for the poor does not extend to caring about what the Taliban are doing to them.

    6. I don't speak Taliban but when I learn it I will give them a piece of my mind.

      America is being condemned by the world for freezing this money since it could kick off mass starvation.

      You wrote this is a republican talking point but it's much bigger than that if you bother to read.

    7. If you don't speak Taliban, why are you going around to random blogs and commenting about them? You have no dog in this fight.

    8. I don't like seeing a genocide being carried out and I learned in school you're not supposed to be quiet about that. You know, genocide.

    9. First, it isn't a genocide when the entire population and not some racial or ethnic subgroup is being targeted. Second, there is a difference between deliberately killing people and having them die through lack of resources. Third, mismanagement that results in famine happens all over the world and is still happening in places where there is drought or crop failures or political disruptions. It even used to happen in Europe, most recently immediately after WWII. There are humane organizations now, and NGOs to help. I urge you to support them. Writing anti-Biden comments while pretending you are not a Republican is not the best use of your time, if you sincerely want to help anyone.

      But I have to ask why no one saw you here wailing about starvation in Sudan or Syria or Nigeria or Yemen or anywhere else in the world. And why now, when it is a Republican talking point, instead of last week, when people were just as hungry?

  9. "In the hands of the highly presentable Woodruff, McDaniel's denials were disappeared. "

    McDaniel doesn't have the authority to walk back or revise or change the meaning of any part of a resolution that was unanimously passed by the Republicans voting at that meeting. Just like Trump cannot claim that the U.S. Constitution gives him immunity from prosecution for any and all crimes committed while he was not in office, or the right to retain classified documents for personal use, or to ignore subpoenas.

    On what planet does Somerby think that McDaniels' interpretation of what people meant should take precedence over what was explicitly and specifically said in a ratified resolution? If the RNC members wish to change their resolution, they can reconvene and amend it themselves. McDaniels is just another individual with an opinion, no more credible than Somerby and his opinions, or anyone else commenting on the document.

    That's why Woodruff had no duty to report what McDaniels said. It wasn't part of the resolution.

  10. Bob is a sick dog with a sad bone on this one, perhaps his all time worse moment, going beyond his outrage that some that Mel Gibson had a problem with Jews. -Greg

    1. Even if she did say it that doesn't show a "deep hatred" of immigrants, stupid idiot.

    2. Here is what she said:

      "The Wall. The famous Wall. See Mr. Trump, I support that wall. I am not racist. In fact my grandfather came straight off the boat in Italy. Fought, struggled and had to prove his way to be an American Citizen. He went through the great depression, he then started a successful coil company here in MI where he employed other hard working Americans and paid them a good wage. I want every non-American that wants to live in this great country to have to go through the same process. I don’t even know where we went wrong with that, but if you want to be here, work here, live here damnit, fucking earn it and prove it."

      Later in the letter she says:

      "We are good fucking Americans that cannot get ahead. And what makes me sick, is people that come over here from other countries and get free everything."

      And later still she says:

      "My parents teach at a school where their kids come from illegal immigrant parents. Most of their parents are locked up. They don’t care about learning and threaten to kill my mom for caring about their grades. Do you realize Mr. Trump that they get free tutors, free tablets from our Government so they can succeed. Why cant my son get those things, do we as hard working Americans not deserve that too?"

      She signs herself:

      "A hard working Middle Class Law Abiding Citizen who is sick of getting fucked in the ass and would rather be grabbed by the pussy."

      This does show a deep hatred of immigrants, in my opinion. Why would you keep arguing a point that you know to be untrue, since you claim to have read her letter and that someone else misquoted it?

  11. Wittgenstein would be horrified that Somerby is defending the RNC’s word games.

    The RNC are like Humpty Dumpty when he says
    ‘“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

    The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."’

    No wonder Somerby never followed through on his promised “Wittgenstein Made Easy” series.

    He seems to be a troll, which is mostly what the GOP have become.

    Won’t The Others be so sad and offended that I just said that? I guess I just produced more Trump voters.

  12. "It happened on January 26, 2000, as she moderated the final New Hampshire debate between Candidates Gore and Bradley. She was showered with praise for the recitation she staged that night—showered with praise by the rest of the guild.

    Last Friday night, she did it again. What she did was ugly and dumb, and it was thoroughly human."

    Lately, Somerby has been accusing people of things without providing any evidence whatsoever to support his claims. His accusations are often aimed at female reporters or professors, perhaps because he regards them as interlopers who should not have the positions they hold, and so doubly guilty when they do something he dislikes.

    In this case, he calls Woodruff's actions "ugly" and "dumb" without specifying what she did. We are just supposed to take it on his authority that she actually did anything that would contradict the praise she received from others for whatever she did that night.

    This is lazy on Somerby's part, but it is also massively unfair to Woodruff, who is a public figure and has a career and doesn't deserve to be maligned without any support by another media figure (albeit minor) such as Somerby. How does anyone defend themselves against name-calling? Somerby's claim is so empty that it amounts to nothing more than a statement of dislike -- but what did Woodruff do? Who knows? And apparently it doesn't take much to get on Somerby's bad side. Just counting the buttons on Gore's suit will suffice.

    And notice that Somerby never forgets, never forgives, and carries a grudge to the end. And he has never been willing to examine the ways in which Gore contributed to his own defeat. It makes you wonder what Somerby and Gore did during those Harvard years to merit such extreme loyalty 50+ years later. I hate to say it, but Somerby's devotion to defending Gore just doesn't resemble any "normal political discourse" I've encountered.

    1. I have no problem, to say the least, with Bob trying to set the record straight on the Clinton/Gore years, as no one else is interested in doing it, it's laudable. But you notice Bob has backed off comparing NPD to claiming Gore said he invented the internet, which he never did speaking off the cuff or any other way.-Greg

    2. I had no problem with what Somerby wrote about Gore's treatment by the press at the time Gore ran for office, but continuing to discuss it year after year strikes me as a bit odd.

      Gore's hazing was no different than the treatment every Democratic candidate gets from the mainstream press. The right also complains about its treatment by the press, so it seems to me they have been pretty even-handed up to Trump's arrival, when there was an extreme imbalance between Hillary's treatment and Trump's, which I attribute to sexism coupled with the hatred of the Clinton's the right had worked hard on for decades.

      Gore should have been able to deal with the press handily. That is part of doing the job of president. I doubt the press made any difference in his election results at all. He had quite a few other problems.

      I voted for Gore, but unenthusiastically. Later, after watching An Inconvenient Truth, I cried because Bush was put into office in place of Gore, who would have done something about global warming early enough to perhaps make a difference. His film certainly did. But it is fair to ask why he couldn't have commanded the same compelling audience when running for president as he did later with his environmental cause.

      These nitpicks over issues no one cares about, such as who created the internet or inspired love story, or wore the best clothes, do not change the outcomes of elections. Now, they just make Somerby look like an obsessed old fool.

  13. The RNC had a duty to state their intent clearly the first time. (We know, they’re all incompetent idiots or nutcases, according to Somerby…they can’t keep themselves from producing shit documents, poor things.)

    And I haven’t heard that they withdrew the resolution in favor of a clearer one.

    So, the official doc still stands, I presume?

  14. I am reposting this from late yesterday because I think it illustrates how Somerby operates these days, and because it is interesting:

    Somerby is ever so offended by the reference to East Bumfuck County, calling it ugly and those using the term sleazes and slimy.

    But the term Bumfuck is derived from US military slang referring to the middle of nowhere.

    Collins Dictionary defines Bumfuck as "a remote or insignificant place".

    I came across the term today in a novel called Misjudged, by James Chandler:

    "swabbing the courthouse floors for the umpteenth time on this snowy day in Bumfuck, Wyoming,"

    So, Somerby's insistence that this must arise from prejudice against the South and dislike of the The Other is obviously mistaken. The word doesn't have the pejorative associations that Somerby ascribes to it.

    I do think Somerby is a bit prudish, despite his admiration of Bob Saget's rape and incest jokes, uncomfortable with the notion of bumfucking I suppose. The military used to be a man's outfit and has a lot of these colorful terms. In a spirit of patriotism and thanking our troops for their service, I think Somerby should cut our soldiers some slack on this one.

    All in all, he seems pretty foolish in his objection to this bit of Americana. But right wing hissy fits are always a little histrionic.

    1. Next time Kev is speaking of ethnic neighborhoods, perhaps he could shorten things by calling them the ghetto.

    2. Ghetto definition:

      "a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups"

      Is this what an ethnic neighborhood is to you? There is clear malice in calling an ethnic neighborhood a slum. There is none in calling a remote area Bumfuck County, unless you have Somerby's aversion to sex (except when Bob Saget talks about it).

      But this is the kind of remark that confirms me in my dislike of Republicans. You no doubt think your comment was clever or funny. It stinks in a way that Bumfuck does not.

    3. Not to mention the lingering associations of the word Ghetto with the Nazis and WWII. Republicans have no sensitivity when it comes to other people's deaths at the hands of white supremacists, now experiencing a renaissance due to Republican desire to have their own brownshirts.

      What a piece of work you are, Cecelia!

    4. Anonymices’ ironic reactions to my point, confirms to me that their “empathy” is very limited and based upon political considerations rather than on humanitarian ones.

    5. 6:55: Being a humanitarian means standing up for the forces of good, but also destroying the forces of evil. How else can humanity survive?

      After all, Jesus wasn’t all love and kindness. He vigorously condemned the forces of evil and corruption.

      So while you are busy never practicing what you and Somerby preach, remember that about liberals and the ones you condemn as “anonymice” and the rest of us.

    6. mh, I don’t condemn anonymices. They’re anonymices.

      They’re going to write posts that insinuate that Somerby had a gay relationship with Gore.

      They’re going to call people evil who don’t concur with them.

      They’re going to reference “studies” that label them the master race,

      They’re going to give odes to their empathy as they accuse others of mental and emotional pathology.

      They’re going to insist on their own way or you’re a nazi.

      They’re anonymices. We know they’re part of a political op and that they are paid by the word.

      No one condemns them. We just know they're tools.

    7. Sure you condemn anonymous commenters. You keep calling them mice even after you were asked not to.

      How do we know that Somerby's outrage over Drum's mention of East Bumfuck County is a manufactured grievance? (1) No one from any geographical Bumfuck has complained about it. (2) Somerby doesn't live in a Bumfuck -- he lives in Baltimore, a largish coastal city of some importance. (3) The word doesn't mean what he said it meant -- he exaggerated the offensiveness and ignored its origins in the US military as a reference to whatever area they were being sent to on active duty (military bases are not placed in cities but in geographically remote areas where land is cheap and there is lots of space).

      Cecelia changes this to her own version of Bumfuck, a historically fraught derogatory reference to a place where minorities live, religious or ethnic or racial. She chooses an actual offensive designation that Somerby might legitimately have objected to had Drum used it. But Drum didn't. Cecelia did that.

      And she has no clue what she did wrong. Because she is a Republican and doesn't care what is an actual insult and what isn't when it comes to other people. That is another aspect of lack of empathy. And no matter how much she insults other commenters here, it doesn't change the fact that she doesn't care about others. And that's why being a Republican appeals to those who choose that party. It gives supporters permission to insult and belittle and discriminate and shoot and kill other people who they stigmatize and treat as less than themselves. That is what being a Republican is all about.

      And I wrote this for free.

    8. Here’s some internet definitions for the impassive and neutral slang for- sodomy.

      “real or imaginary town, city, or other place considered to be remote, unsophisticated, or dul”

      1. An act of anal intercourse.
      2. A town or region of no importance.

      an imaginary place where all the residents are hicks, rednecks, or otherwise backwards.

      1. A place in the middle of nowhere.
      2. A place not worth mentioning, driving to, or remembering the name of

      No one hears the term bumfuck anymore because you’ve morphed into “the South” and “Redstate”.
      Yeah, Somerby flinched when Drum said it, but no one in your Bumfuck gives a damn.

      However, they will speak up when you do a disingenuous coy post on its meaning in order to suggest that it’s unreasonable for a good man to think that you’re calling people yahoos.

      Go run that ploy by some poor 7th grade captive audience that doesn’t know any better.

      It’ll take a generation before there’s any honest adult who doesn’t see thru your crap.

    9. You don't get to just make shit up.

      I did a Google search on slang terms for sodomy. I found buggery but not bumfuck. The word just doesn't mean that, in usage. And when you think about it, why would a word that describes a geographical location have anything to do with sodomy.

      But the right wing does attach sexual meanings to a lot of innocuous things, for its own purposes. For example, take that Pizza parlor, which Hillary never visited, and which never had a basement, and the conspiracy theory invented by the right wing to link Democrats with pedophilia, Hillary Clinton specifically.

      And then there are the m&ms that Tucker Carlson thought were insufficiently sexy, and the questions about Bert & Ernie's sexuality. And now there is a whole cottage industry trying to convince conservatives that liberals want to sexualize their children so that they can participate in sex trafficking -- meanwhile Matt Gaetz is tolerated by Republicans, as are other wife beaters and perverts who actually engage in deviant and illegal sex.

      Kevin Drum isn't at fault here. It is your deeply ugly mind that makes something dirty out of a word for a geographic location, just so Somerby can throw a hissy fit about how liberals look down on the South. If there is anything I dislike about the South and Somerby (who lives in Baltimore but is Boston Catholic), it is your dishonesty and your attempts to weaponize sex for your own political purposes. It is part of the attack on women via abortion and birth control, and your slut-shaming while extolling big hair and jokes about Hillary nutcrackers. You people are truly bent and you have the nerve to attack Kevin Drum.

    10. My “deeply ugly mind” was in response to a member of your coven, who wrote this:

      Molly 2/18/22 3:01pm

      “I do think Somerby is a bit prudish, despite his admiration of Bob Saget's rape and incest jokes, uncomfortable with the notion of bumfucking I suppose. The military used to be a man's outfit and has a lot of these colorful terms. In a spirit of patriotism and thanking our troops for their service, I think Somerby should cut our soldiers some slack on this one.”

      The definitions I pasted came straight from google.

      Stow it, you disingenuous blabbermouth.

    11. Cecelia,
      It's next to the Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry.

    12. Cecelia, you posted definitions of sodomy, not Bumfuck, which does not refer to sodomy at all, but to a geographical location in the middle of nowhere. Just because it evokes the idea of sodomy in your soggy brain doesn't mean that is the defintion.

      When you do a search on Bumfuck you do not get the word sodomy back using Google. There are better words for that.

  15. Kevin Drum posted this today:

    "Are you wondering how the Ukraine crisis is playing out in Russian media? LA Times staff writer Nabih Bulos reports from Kyiv:

    To hear Russian media tell it, the government of Ukraine is run by neo-Nazis waging a genocidal campaign against ethnic Russians in the country’s east, where Moscow-backed authorities regularly uncover mass graves full of the corpses of women and children with bound hands and bludgeoned heads even as they face the hell of constant shelling.

    Such false images and narratives have become a daily staple in Russia....The Russian media have gone into overdrive with stories depicting a government in Kyiv so cruel that Moscow has no choice but to swoop in and protect the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.

    “It’s a war between the Ukrainian government and its own people. ... People are dying there every day. Thousands of civilians died there. Thousands of children lost their limbs there, buried in little coffins,” Margarita Simonyan, head of the state-funded broadcaster RT, said on a talk show on the Russia-1 channel.

    I think living in Russia is what it would be like in the US if every channel were Fox News and every newspaper were the New York Post."

    I would add that this is why we should be sticking up for our mainstream press, despite it occasional excesses or errors (usually corrected promptly), instead of tearing it down as Somerby attempts to do every day here. The freedom of our democracy depends on access to reliable information about events, inside our country and worldwide, so that voters can make informed decisions, and so that they can urge their elected representatives to support the right choices. When a news station starts dealing in propaganda instead of reality-based reporting, our nation is in big trouble. Witness the damage Fox has been able to do by dividing our country, even with just one propaganda-based station. RT-Today staunchly supported Trump and provided on-screen time to numerous Republicans in 2016 and 2020, to the point that we had elected Republicans vocally supporting Putin's interests in Ukraine (echoing Tucker Carlson).

    Remember that when you hear Somerby echoing Republican talking points and repeating info from Fox News stories, telling us they have better facts over there, because they report different info than MSNBC or CNN or other sources. It matters where those alternative facts originate. We have already had Russia push false info upon voters via Facebook in order to pollute our electoral system and undermine our effectiveness as a world balance against Putin's conquest plans. Trump severed our ties with our allies, leaving us vulnerable to Putin in several ways, just as he did with North Korea, distancing our nation from South Korea and Asian allies. If Trump hadn't already been giving Putin whatever he wanted, who knows what might have happened to us in our weakened position?

    This is no joke and Somerby has been consistently on the wrong side, aiding Putin-loving Republicans by undermining public faith in our press, our universities, and those with the knowledge to comment on world events. There is a word for someone who does that.

  16. Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog, suggests that this RNC controversy arises because Republicans believe that no one should be held accountable for civil disobedience. He suggests that Jonathan Turley may think that MLK achieved civil rights breakthroughs by simply giving speeches, unaware that he was jailed many times.

    "I don't know if Turley genuinely believes that King strolled into D.C. one day, gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial, and effortlessly won civil rights for Black people, or whether he just thinks his audience believes that. But the additional message here is that civil disobedience should be consequence-free. You shouldn't actually be risking anything when you break the law for a political cause.

    And after all, right-wingers believe it's unfair for their kind to be held accountable at any time. It's not fair if the January 6 rioters are arrested and jailed. It's not fair if those who threaten people at school board meetings are investigated by law enforcement. It would have been unfair to hold anyone accountable for the lies that led to the Iraq War, or for the torture programs that were a key part of the War on Terror. And holding Donald Trump accountable for, well, anything? Unthinkable!"

    And given the reaction of Republicans to having to surrender records or answer questions when subpoenaed, it appears they don't think they should be investigated either. The government, doing its job after an insurrection, is persecuting ordinary people.

  17. Liberals mor or less own the mainstream media, higher education, most of the big foundations, and the enormous companies that control social media communications. So, liberals are free to perpetuate whatever interpretations they choose. The only reason conservatives ever win an election is that conservative policies tend to work better than liberal policies.

    1. Sure, sure. That’s why the msm pushed back so hard against the Clinton impeachment, why they loved Al Gore so much, and why they spent so much front page space worrying about Hillary’s emails.

      Now, you realize what I just said is sarcasm, don’t you?

      Have you actually read Somerby’s blog? You comment here, but his whole premise (at least when he started) was that the mainstream press is NOT liberal.

      How can you be a long-time reader here and not have understood Somerby’s point that he made like a million times?

    2. Thanks for your typically well-reasoned comment, mh. I think you have a good point regarding Gore. The media favored Bush more than Gore IMO. However, they haven't made that mistake again.

      BTW I should be careful to distinguish between "liberal" and "favoring Democrats". I think colelges tend to be liberal. Whether or not one considers media to be "liberal", I think they grossly favor Democrats. I could provide an number of examples. Here are a few.
      1. Look at Sheryl Atkisson's list of 156 verified media mistakes, which were biased against Republicans.
      2. Consider the Hunter Biden Ukraine story. It seems pretty clear that this sleazy energy company paid Hunter to get favorable policy from VO Biden. IMO Joe muast have known what Hunter was doing. Yet, this story was played in a way that didn't hurt Biden politically.

      3. Consider how the media played along, when the Democratic Governor and Lieutenant Governor were found to have done things that would have ended the career of a Republican.

      4. The media are making a big fuss over Musk comparing someone to Hitler. Yet, liberals and Democrats called Bush and Trump "Hitler" innumerable times, without a similar fuss.

      Regarding the question of Hillary's e-mails. Did the media overplay it, or was it truly important?

    3. Republicans overplayed the emails, did not a care a whit when it was their own team doing similar. Trump was the most corrupt president in modern history; did not directly murder that many people like Reagan, Bush, and Bush, but much of the hundreds of thousands of Covid deaths are blood on his hands. Republicans call Dems' efforts to improve society, corruption; call their own corrupt efforts to carry water for the wealthy, righteous.

      It is not necessarily unacceptable to compare people exhibiting fascist tendencies to Hitler, that is what a leftist might do, that is not what Musk did. Having said that, we on the left defend people's right to peacefully protest, whether it is for things we support or not.

      That Ukraine energy company was not sleazy and did nothing sleazy or anything out of the ordinary, Hunter was an appropriate selection, he had previously served in similar positions, this was his job. There was no policy VP Biden could have helped with.

      Atkinson is a known right winger.

      So is the owner of The Hill, who is a Trump supporter and a personal friend of Trump.

      Right wingers dominate media, it is not even close, they are the most popular on cable tv, the most popular on social media by a million miles. The reason why right wingers feel less dominant than their popularity is because what they stand for is demonstrably bad for society, serving to only increase power and wealth for the 1% - they currently hold 60% of all wealth and it increases every year. Y'all right wingers seem pretty proud about this, completely missing the writing on the wall.

    4. Go fuck yourself, David.

      Oh no, they called Trump "Hitler"? You mean the guy who a plotted a violent coup to overturn an election. How very unfair of them.

      This is your "liberal" media, in action.

      Now with the Trump document story, the press is being forced to confront the obvious hypocrisy. One year after the Clinton story broke in March 2015, But Her Emails was still be being covered like the Moon Landing. Yet just five days after the Trump story about smuggling out top secret documents (and reportedly flushing others down the toilet), the same D.C. press corps has already lost interest. On this Sunday’s “ABC This Week,” a panel of pundits had an extended debate about Trump’s impact on the Republican Party — there was no mention of the fact he stole top secret documents from the White House.
      Appearing on MSNBC, the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker stressed that stealing documents might not raise to the level of being “nefarious,” and that because Trump wasn’t a “traditional” president and because his aides were “frenzied” during the month of January 2021, the theft of the documents made sense. Why is there still a driving media need to normalize Trump’s criminality?

      News outlets such as CNN and CBS News even downgraded Trump’s stealing (and flushing) White House files, insisting documents had merely been “mishandled.” CNN wasn’t even sure “if” Trump had “mishandled” documents. And this was after CNN reported Trump often ripped up presidential papers.

      If the press had taken that same hands-off view regarding But Her Emails, Clinton would have been the 45th president. Instead, the press lost its mind and But Her Emails became a meandering genre of overexcited journalism that lost sight of what the Clinton wrongdoing was supposed to be.

      Harassing her with endless email coverage was a way to make sure Clinton’s possible historic victory didn't taste very sweet, and that she limped across the finish line. Part of that sprang from a never-ending attempt to criminalize the Clintons and the Beltway media’s long running distrust of them.

    5. David,
      It’s Antofagasta that is anti- the Republican Party. It’s right in their name.

    6. Republicans are suppressing the votes of black people again. Must be a day of the week that ends in "y".