Tucker Carlson exposes Joe Biden!


The silence of blue tribe lambs: We're losing a chunk of time today. And that's a shame, because the editors at Slate are giving us the chance to "get smarter" by reading these new reports from two of our tribal "dear friends:"

EMILY MCCOMBS / SEPT 28, 2022 / 5:55 AM
My Wife is a Total Slob—And Her Justification for the Mess Is Absurd

Help! My Ex Is Up to Something Suspicious With My New Boyfriend

Two more examples of Slate's good, solid, completely relentless, thought-provoking journalism!

Slate is a blue tribe publication; its work is aimed at blue tribe readers. As with the dumbnification of the online Washington Post, the relentless onslaught of such material tells us something about who we actually are over here within the tents of our own self-impressed tribe.

More on that possible problem below. First, a note about who the red tribe currently is, on the level of red tribe propaganda elites.

We strongly suggest that you read a new post by Kevin Drum. It appears beneath this headline:

I have a question about Tucker Carlson, Nord Stream, internet trunk lines, and the American power grid

The post concerns the opening monologue on last evening's Tucker Carlson Tonight (links below). We'll only say what we've said for the past twenty years:

When major figures present such material to millions of viewers, the fact that such reports have been offered should be treated as front-page news in our nation's major newspapers.

Essentially, Carlson's viewers were told that the Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged this week, almost surely, by President Joseph R. Biden. 

When millions of people are told such things by abandoned "lost boys" like the pitiful Carlson, that should be treated as front-page news in our nation's major newspapers. A modern nation can't hope to survive in the face of such relentless behavior. 

That said, our major newspapers are disinclined to engage in such reporting. One such paper, the Washington Post, is rather plainly in the process of dumbing itself way, way down.

To its credit, the New York Times continues to present itself as a traditional, serious newspaper. That's true in both its print and its online editions.

That said, the Times has published a letter today which merits blue tribe attention. The letter came from a reader in Vermont. Headline included, here is the letter's full text:

A Paper for the Elite?

To the Editor:

Every time I sit down to peruse The New York Times I feel conflicted. I appreciate the factual political analysis, but when I start meandering through other sections of the paper I have to conclude that most readers are a very rarefied elite whose lives revolve around choosing among multimillion-dollar real estate investments, building kitchens in back of their kitchens, or planning exotic, expensive and time-consuming meals.

As David Brooks rightly points out in “There Still Is No Strategy to Defeat Trump” (column, Sept. 16), the culture war we face boils down to a conflict between the “coastal elites” (e.g., readers of The New York Times) and the MAGA crowd and others who resent the elite.

The Times could do us all a favor by presenting its news and analysis in surroundings that look more like the lives of the 99 percent rather than a fabulously wealthy 1 percent. Doing so could go a long way toward creating a more welcoming environment for sharing political perspective with those who do not embrace such lavish lifestyles—as a matter of choice or necessity.

R— S— / Hinesburg, Vt.

It seems to us that this Vermonter's aim is true. 

Our blue tribe is currently losing a war with the likes of Tucker Carlson. In large part, he gains his cachet through the relentless appearance of self-involvement and class disdain which emanates, in various ways, from our own blue precincts.

(Our own cable stars continue to chirp our own inbred messages night after night after night.)

Our own blue tribe is famously self-impressed. At Slate and at the online Post, we're being shown that we may not be quite as impressive as we persistently claim.

In truth, we aren't all that, and it persistently shows! In part for that reason, the red rank and file won't listen to us when we tell them that they're being misled by the likes of Carlson. Also, as noted, our major newspapers are reluctant even to visit this topic. 

The red and rank and file won't listen to us. In fairness, we aren't a super-impressive group. We give these others plenty of reason to disregard the various things we say.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our tribe (like all tribes) is deeply flawed. The fact that we don't understand that fact about ourselves may be one of our tribe's fatal flaws.

Linkages to a lost child: To watch Carlson's monologue, see Drum's post. For the transcript, just click here

Instant transcripts! Remember them?

UPDATE, 9:30 A.M.: On the front page of the online Washington Post, these are top four news reports:

Ian nears Category 5 as Fla. governor warns of ‘nasty’ days ahead

West condemns staged referendums, calls Nord Stream explosions ‘deliberate act’

Why this cheating accusation in the chess world matters

7 ways a recession could be good for you financially

Three more news reports follow. Two of them are these:

Marijuana’s last taboo: Parents who get stoned

This jet suit could make you fly like Iron Man — if you’re rich

Some of that seems a bit "light." From there, it's quickly on to ADVICE and these four reports:

Carolyn Hax: Will she always be ‘The Mistress’ to her now-husband’s children?

Ask Jules: Should teachers let students follow them on social media?

Miss Manners: My daughter eats at a slower pace than the rest of the family

Ask Amy: I’m 32 years old and don’t know how to make friends

WELL + BEING then offers five reports, including these:

Try these emotional exercises if you can’t find a therapist

How exercising now could benefit your future grandchildren

We don't understand that last headline either. We'll have to read the report! 

At any rate, if you continue to scroll, you'll eventually reach the sections set aside for WORLD and NATIONAL news. 

We'd say this famous national newspaper is being dumbed way down. Indeed, to our practiced eye and ear, the online Post no longer has the feel of a real newspaper!

To its credit, the online New York Times hasn't dumbed its online edition down this way. That said, it seems to us that the letter writer's observation stands.


  1. What are you talking about, dear Bob?

    U.S. Blew Up Russian Gas Pipelines Nord Stream 1 & 2, Says Former Polish Defense Minister

    https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1574793478566977541 :
    Biden in Feb 2022: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
    Q: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"
    Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

    1. It is possible Russia blew it up by planting charges in advance, during pipeline construction, to be triggered when needed.

  2. "In part for that reason, the red rank and file won't listen to us when we tell them that they're being misled by the likes of Carlson."

    The left has been vilified by the right for decades. That is why its rank and file won't listen to us -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with how the New York Times approaches its readers or who it defines as its readership.

    Calling liberals names because of how the NY Times talks about kitchens is ridiculous. It takes a lot of money to live in NYC and surrounding areas. Those high income people who consider the NY Times their local paper dictate content, and they may have different interests than red tribe members, especially in lower income areas of the country. But that is not who the NY Times writes for. And it doesn't write for liberals either. It writes for those who can afford a New York lifestyle, as surely as other papers nationwide cater to their demographics.

    The red tribers are not typical either. Those who support Trump and claim the MAGA descriptor are 77% white, 55% male, over 55 yo and make over $50,000 per year. And they tend to be angry. This is who Fox News caters to, not salt of the earth types in the Midwest or South.

    But Somerby calls Tucker an abandoned "lost boy" and pitiful, as if to excuse his behavior. Carlson's father was divorced and remarried but Carlson grew up wealthy and was raised by a single parent and later his stepmom. That makes him no more "abandoned" than any other child of divorce. And it does not excuse what he has turned himself into for greed and celebrity. The question is why Somerby defends Carlson this way, when he doesn't bother finding out the parental status of any of the liberal journalists he castigates.

    I suspect that Somerby identifies with Carlson, because they both had mothers who they hate and perhaps a bunch of anger to be redirected toward political targets, such as the left. And they both seem to have become assholes who consider Trump a father figure who encourages them to display their worst traits and let loose their demons on unsuspecting liberals. In other words, they are both warped.

    1. What Somerby, Brooks, Drum, and the Vermont letter writer misunderstand, is that electoral politics does not hinge on persuasion. To the degree that ever existed, it is long gone.

      The correct electoral strategy is to motivate your voters to actually vote, and in this, Republicans have an enormous advantage due to the psychology of right wingers - even though they are well out numbered by Dems.

      Humans are not right wing naturally, it arose following the advent of modern society, when we transitioned to agriculture, to a surplus based society.

      People are right wing due to unresolved childhood trauma, this makes them obsessed with dominance, competition, self interest, authoritarianism, etc. Right wingers will never listen to anyone who does not present themselves as dominant and authoritarian.

      Unsurprising, their trauma-derived psychology leads them to bow down with servility to those that present as dominant and authoritarian. It is a cohort of cucks who then turn around and want to beat down whoever threatens their own sense of dominance, but who do not also present as dominant or authoritarian.

      Childhood trauma is a function of generational trauma and the harshness of capitalism. Corporate media like the NY Times, the Post, cable news - they will never be motivated to fight against the roots of our societal ills, nor will lost souls like Somerby and Drum, they are in on the con. Fortunately, thanks to Gore, we have the internet, so people can learn about critiques of capitalism; over half of millennials support socialism, and that number is trending up.

    2. Jonathan Haidt couldn’t have sait it better.

    3. They can’t persuade almost half the country because of childhood trauma AND the harshness of capitalism.

      Did Tip O’Neil not know?

    4. Trump lost in 2020 and would have lost in 2016 without Russia’s illegal meddling and Comey’s rule-breaking.

    5. Are you sure it's "unresolved childhood trauma" and not the Brown v. Board of Education decision?

  3. David Brooks knows the strategy being waged to fight Trump.

    What Brooks is getting at is that there’s no back channel discussion of who could replace Biden, if necessary.

    1. According to our constitution, the vice president takes over.

    2. I meant if Biden decided not to run or couldn’t run again.

    3. “As a liberal Democrat, I don't care whether the right ever cleanses its party of Trumpism or restores leadership by adults. That is their problem. That Brooks is worrying about it, tells us that too. Cecelia, you are welcome to worry about ridding your party of Trump, if you want, but this isn't the place to do it. We are supposed to be a bunch of liberals over here -- Somerby said so.”

      Oh, it’s exactly the place for me to discuss this.

      You’re exactly the sort of disingenuous person who needs to read it

      You’re the person who does 500 words accusing me of spreading memes because I stated that BIden might not be able to run again (obviously), and then pretends that it’s a foregone conclusion that the DNC would run Harris in that scenario.

      You know that it’s not, but you’re not here for discussion with anyone, liberal or Democrat. You’re here to denigrate and try to sully Somerby. That’s your JobOne.

    4. "You’re here to denigrate and try to sully Somerby."

      Somerby's got this.

    5. No, I did not say it was a foregone conclusion. I listed several Democrats preparing to run, including Bernie, Newsom, and Buttigieg. I also said I like Kamala Harris, but YOUR purpose is solely to suggest that Biden might not finish his term -- and then who would take over IF NECESSARY (you said).

      Why would my Job One be to correct Somerby's misinformation? Because he is working for the wrong side. Yes, an election is coming and I think it is important for people to know that Somerby is not anything close to a liberal, that Brooks is not speaking truth to Democrats, that Biden didn't sabotage a non-operational pipeline, and so on. Somerby is spreading disinformation while pretending to be liberal. That isn't good for our side.

      And YOU Cecelia, your Job One is to rehabilitate Somerby. Why would a conservative spend so much time doing that for a supposedly liberal blogger? Because he is not liberal, no matter what he might once have been. You have a job too, and it is obvious what it is. So, when you argue against me, you strengthen my case about Somerby's motives. Because how many actual liberals have such vocal conservative fans?

    6. Anonymouse 2:33pm, if this is not a liberal blog quit telling me that I don’t belong on it because this is a liberal blog. Quit saying that I am here to rehabilitate his image, yet this makes him look more suspect.

      Perhaps, it’s just what it is. it’s a blog by a guy who thinks our discourse has gone off the rails to the point that it endangers our future. He approaches it from his own side, because that’s where anyone must start.

      Why not take him at face value and just disagree rather than dismissing him as an deceitful imposter.

      You could learn something from this gentlemen. We all can.

    7. I fully explain why I don't take him at face value and why I disagree, every single time I write a comment. I also explain fully what I consider deceitful. I have already done this many times. You are a lost cause because you are not motivated to think about anything I've written.

      Go look at Kevin Drum's post. It does not accuse Biden of sabotage. Somerby added that. You can confirm this for yourself. That is dishonest. If Somerby wanted Biden's name to be there, and Carlson accused Biden, then he can quote from Carlson's transcript, not Drum. Instead, he puts Biden's name front and center, as if there were any evidence whatsoever of Biden's involvement. This is Somerby's dishonesty. Why? Because Drum is a respected source and Carlson is not, thus Drum will have more influence on liberal opinions than Carlson ever would. So he makes it seem like Drum said Biden engaged in sabotage, when Drum never mention's Biden's name at all and is defending Biden from such an accusation.

      Go look for yourself. It won't take long. And then come back and give me an apology, or we will all know for sure who you are and what you are doing here.

    8. Drum links to a video of Tucker’s program in order to call Tucker out. He does not mention Biden, he’s got the vid up and he’s making a point about Tucker. .

      Somerby links to Drum’s comments in order to give a prime example of why he ( Bob) has been on a three day tear about why your press needs to get off click bait and start talking to the entirety of the public.

      That Somerby mentions Biden is because you don’t get more significant than a Democratic POTUS in order to highlight the point he has been trying to make about talking to people who hear such things.

      You’ll keep pretending you don’t understand this or anything else he says. You should just put your fingers in your eyes and hum.

    9. Biden did nothing. I disagree with you and you don’t seem to have understood what I said because you address none of my points. Tucker Carlson did not expose Biden. That is a lie and Russian disinformation. Somerby is being dishonest and not acting like a liberal. Your attempt to excuse Somerby is a failure thay makes you sound like a moron.

    10. You issue nothing but declarations but Somerby is wrong when he says your media will feature articles on women sleeping with their step-fathers more than they’ll take on Tucker.

      Drum, who doesn’t get a tenth of Tucker’s audience, won’t even mention Biden’s name in defending him.

      You’re an idiot.

    11. Biden needs no defense when there is no evidence against him. Somerby accuses Biden and pins it on Tucker, again without evidence.

  4. "At any rate, if you continue to scroll, you'll eventually reach the sections set aside for WORLD and NATIONAL news. "

    As mh pointed out last week, Somerby could use the menu at the top of the page to go directly to the world and national news, without scrolling through any of the articles he considers dumb. It may be that Somerby is unable to figure out how to do that -- he is 75 now -- or it may be that he prefers to complain about what other people like to read.

    It makes the world a one-dimensional place to focus solely on politics and ignore the rich diversity of interests, entertainments, endeavors and activities other people pursue. I get it that Somerby may have little interest in grandchildren, having never had kids, but it seems churlish to deny such info to others. The same with cooking, relationship advice (which might have helped Somerby once upon a time), and discussion of the many situations faced by other people who are more social than he is. If you eat alone, it doesn't matter when other people finish their plates, and if you are resigned to eating alone, you may not care about making friends, but most people do not live like that, nor should Somerby urge them to. His extreme rejection of anything social is a symptom and those who care about him should perhaps talk to a doctor about it.

    Meanwhile, none of this soft content has anything to do with liberals or our blue tribe. I've heard that the South is more social, more conformist, and more intrusive in family life than any blue city. Why would Somerby attribute this content to blueness? For emotional reasons perhaps, but there is no causal explanation that makes any sense. We don't run so-called blue publications and we don't tell them what to print -- not even Slate. But if they choose to create publications aimed at human beings, I don't have any problem with that. Somerby should seriously think about why this irks him so, and make changes in his world view if he cannot abide the way others of his species live. That isn't normal.

  5. “I suspect that Somerby identifies with Carlson, because they both had mothers who they hate and perhaps a bunch of anger to be redirected toward political targets, such as the left. And they both seem to have become assholes who consider Trump a father figure who encourages them to display their worst traits and let loose their demons on unsuspecting liberals. In other words, they are both warped.”

    I suspect conservatives don’t listen to you because you say things like this in a creepily flippant manner.

    However, Somerby is wrong, conservatives care about what the Democrats in power do and say, not people trolling blogs to pay back their student loans and simultaneously sate their vicious streak.

    Conservatives know that if Trump were president and had said what Biden said and there was later sabotage of Nord Stream, the LEAST credulous Somerby would be was to say that the media shouldn’t get ahead of itself.

    Otherwise, far and wide, 24/8, ten panelists discussions, it would be a foregone conclusion that Trump had done it for fun and profit.

    1. I don't write for conservatives, Cecelia. If you are here at a supposedly liberal blog writing for conservatives yourself, you are a little mixed up.

      Only children believe that thoughts and words magically cause events. A child might say to his mother "I hate you" because she makes him go to bed early, but when she later stumbles and breaks an arm, only a child would feel guilty because he imagined his words caused the accident. It is a combination of grandiosity and magical thinking. People who believe Carlson's chain of reasoning are thinking like children.

      Saying that liberals would think that way, when there is no example of them doing that, is another slander, especially when this is what Carlson himself is doing. When liberals accuse Trump of things, they do it based on evidence, not childish speculation stated as fact.

    2. Yeah get it straight Cecelia. This is a liberal blog when convenient for argument's sake, otherwise he is carrying water for the conservatives. You can't win!

    3. Somerby needs to get it straight. He is the one who calls himself (and us) liberals. Then he introduces the conservative memes, over and over again. Today, it is via Brooks, who is no liberal. Cecelia thinks Somerby is brilliant. It is Somerby who has no integrity here, not his commenters who are right to be "confused."

    4. Anonymouse12:01am, no, your magical thinking..,is to say that Somerby feigns being liberal, then you simultaneously suggest that this is a tacitly restricted liberal salon.

      That’s not merely dubious. It’s obviously wrong. Otherwise, conservatives would eventually be screened out.

      There were and are a million accusations against Trump. He still is the major topic of conversation in the this country to the point where the Biden Admin is incidental to just about everything. As is the point.

      You’re fully aware of this. Your “magical thinking” is calculated and opportunistic.

    5. Anonymouse12:23pm, you’re not confused. You’re angry.

    6. Anonymouse12:06, well, we do win. Obviously, if it were their blog, we be out on our rumps, and they’d be singing the same chorus night and day like the militant Stepford wives they are.

  6. "It seems to us that this Vermonter's aim is true. "

    It is hard to argue that the coastal elites at the NY Times oppose the MAGA extremists when the NY Times helped put Trump into office by giving him uncritical publicity during his entire campaign, while publishing a series of highly critical articles about Hillary Clinton, including running front page articles about her e-mails, Benghazi hearings, her unlikeability, influence peddling to the Global Initiative, the Clinton Cash book, and finally the Comey disclosures about Huma Abedin's husband's computer. The NY Times helped elect Trump, together with Russian meddling and Comey's actions. Otherwise Clinton was on track to win. This idea that the NY Times is a liberal publication (after hiring numerous columnists who lean right in order to attract Trump supporters after his election) is revisionist and just plain wrong.

    Brooks is a bothsiderist red triber who calls himself a centrist who has no good will toward Democrats, so his comments are at best concern trolling and not in the interests of Democrats to heed. Somerby may fit that same description these days.

    Note the way Somerby continually pulls quotes he agrees with from random sources (C-Span call-ins, comment sections of newspapers or blogs) and acts as if they are the voice of the people, endorsing them as if he had not personally selected them because they exemplify his own views. That is about as honest as the blurbs on book jackets.

    1. Don't forget what Dwight D. Eisenhower said about pulling quotes from random sources.

  7. What could accomplished by headlining the raging posts of a lunatic basically every week? Would not this sow more division between us and them? It looks as if BS has finally ran out of ideas on how to deal with likes of TC.

    1. There is no evidence Somerby is trying to "deal with" Carlson. He has previously told us that Carlson says some things that make sense, and that he has the best facts and he has urged liberals here to go watch him. How is that "dealing with" him in any sense?

    2. Carlson is also the most watched opinionator on cable. Perhaps, Bob thinks such things need to examined in order to be countered.


    3. If so, then why doesn't he examine them, much less counter them?

    4. He linked to Drum’s comments on Tucker and talked about them today.

      He placed the Tucker piece in with the context of clickbait crap versus relevant information (dangerous in his book) that should be addressed and discussed. In other words, the stuff of which you anonymices have been determinedly missing the point about for three days.

      But then, that’s how you play it.

    5. No, he mentioned a few clickbaits, then explicitly changed the subject, saying:

      "More on that possible problem below. First, a note about who the red tribe currently is, on the level of red tribe propaganda elites."

      Then he added more clickbait as an update, not to provide context for Carlson:

      "UPDATE, 9:30 A.M"

      Meanwhile, Drum's column was about the numerous errors in Carlson's rant: (1) thinking the pipeline was operational when it wasn't, (2) trying to blame the US for sabotage, without evidence, (3) thinking that severing the transatlantic internet cables would affect our power grid in any way. In other words, Drum was calling Carlson an idiot who was spewing nonsense. Somerby doesn't discuss any of this -- he claims the NY Times should be calling out Carlson for such errors, even though Carlson makes errors like that every show, and the purpose of a newspaper is not to factcheck or debunk every fringe lunatic on the political scene. Somerby's other favorite theme is to blame philosophy professors for falling asleep at their posts (or abandoning them) by not calling out Carlson's garbage (where? in their classrooms? that would get them fired for being political).

      Somerby claims he wants to see Carlson refuted, but he certainly doesn't do it himself (as Drum did). Instead, he claims Carlson is a lost boy, poor poor Tucker.

      Then Somerby shifts his attention to someone attacking coastal elites, because it supports his own view that we should be singing kumbaya with the Republican others, not opposing their destructive tendencies.

      You, meanwhile, make up better essays than Somerby has written, in your effort to defend him from criticism. If Stepford Wives did sing, he couldn't ask for a better Stepford blog-wife than you.

    6. "Coastal elites", off the shelf reverse snobbery
      doesn't get much lazier. But Bob has because a
      very, very lazy man from when he started this

    7. You left out this first paragraph which set up the comparison and without which Somerby’s remarks make no sense:

      Slate is a blue tribe publication; its work is aimed at blue tribe readers. As with the dumbnification of the online Washington Post, the relentless onslaught of such material tells us something about who we actually are over here within the tents of our own self-impressed tribe.

      More on that possible problem below. First, a note about who the red tribe currently is, on the level of red tribe propaganda elites.”

      In other words, you have your clickbait that is generally prurient sexual situations and the Red Tribe has its political conspiracy theories being aired to a large portion of the voting pop, which makes it vital that the stuff be addressed (rather than Slate going with say..,the story My Two Dads Are Cheating With The Same Transgender man).

      Bob goes on to say that when you do try to talk about such matters, you do it with such contemptuousness that unaligned or less aligned viewers tune you out.

      I’m starting to think that I give you too much credit in thinking you deliberately twist Bob’s words. No, you really are this dumb and obtuse.

    8. Slate is not a blue tribe publication. There is no organized blue tribe and thus there cannot be such a publication.

      The discussion of Slate does not "set up" or provide context for Tucker Carlson, who is a red tribe disinformation spreader.

      None of the examples of soft news presented by Somerby were in any way political. That makes them not representative of anything that is relevant to Tucker Carlson's show. Calling soft news "blue" is silly because it has no political slant.

      You, Cecelia, try to rescue Somerby from incoherence by pretending to find a slant in advice columns, and you bothsides it by pretending that Carlson is equivalent to clickbait. No, Carlson is equivalent to Maddow in terms of popularity and cable news political commentary, and neither of them is engaged in soft news.

      Transgender issues are part of the red tribe's culture war, but you made up that story -- it isn't in Somerby's list of soft news, nor does Somerby relate soft news to the culture wars -- that is your idea. No one thinks having two kitchens is a culture war issue, or making Croque Monsieur for breakfast, or having 101 grandchildren.

      Nice try, but you are lying now and that seriously undermines the effectiveness of your argument.

    9. No, your clickbait is completely in that vein and your argument as to the status of Tucker makes it that much clearer that Slate and the NYT shouldn’t be wasting time or pixels.

      Why? Because you are a political Stepford Wife. You do say, “Yes, dear.” You do believe you’re perfection. You do say “Yes, dear” to the right people and you do march off to “war” when they tell you to march.

    10. Stepford wives didn't believe they were perfection. Their husbands created zombies who THEY believed were perfect women. You are as ignorant as they come and you make Boebert-style mistakes every time you open your mouth.

      The rest of your accusation is silly, given that the Democrats are notoriously undisciplined as a party and we don't have a Deal Leader that is equivalent to Trump on your side.

      This comment is a "I'm no puppet, you're the puppet" kind of response. You sound like a moron.

    11. Stepford wives believed everything in their lives, including themselves, should and could be made perfect.

      They were no longer in a world of striving or self-doubt. They didn’t struggle for perfection. They were conditioned to be that way. Theirs was the brainwashed mind befitting Eden, aka utopia. Just like you so often described your own as being.

    12. No, Stepford Wives is not about perfectionism.

    13. Yes, it is. It’s about the perfect woman- the perfect housekeeper, mother, manager, lover, devoted companion, cook, gardener, hostess, etc… as presented as the stereotype that society (men) expected of women, even as such a claim stereotyped men.

    14. mh, I haven’t read it, but have seen both movie versions.

      When anonymices go off on their self-congratulatory scolds as to how wonderful liberals are, it invariably causes me to picture them in hostess dresses and aprons, with the movement of their lips being half a beat behind their voices.

    15. This is why you are a Trump supporter. Tenuous grip on reality.

    16. That might be accurate if anonymices were the mainstream of anything.

      You’re not, that’s why you are evocative of fictional narratives.

    17. This is too stupid.

    18. Right, anonymouse 10:32pm, it would be wrong to compare the fictional act of men killing their wives and replacing them with the “we are wonderful” cant spouting cretins here on your side.

    19. This is nothing more than an excuse to call people names, Somehow it always seems to degenerate to that with you. It was a good book and a worse film that you have now spoiled with your distortions. It is sad that you cannot appreciate anything without running it through your filter of misunderstanding, much as Somerby cannot appreciate Dylan or even The Lady with the Lapdog in the way the author wrote it. No surprise Trump doesn’t offend you. You are birds of a feather.

    20. My comment about this disappeared. I can only assume it was purposely deleted. So I am reposting:

      Cecelia, have you ever read the Stepford Wives? They don’t choose their condition. They are forcibly turned into mindless robots by their husbands. It is a horror story about misogynistic men who want “perfect” wives, ie wives without individuality, who are not feminists.

    21. I replied earlier to your comment and replied.

      I watched the most recent version with Bette Midler and Nicole Kidman on Amazon or Netflix. It was ok.. I mostly enjoyed the gorgeous sets.

      I later watched the original on some streaming channel. I mostly enjoyed the beeeuuuutiful Paula Prentice.

    22. It occurs to me, mh, that if the movie had been about women changing men into their stereotypical Prince Charming, it would have been a female empowerment film.

  8. I hear Biden called DeSantis and repeated the words "Let's Go Brandon", until he hung up.

  9. Biden has been coordinating with mayors and DeSantis. This is a smear. Those politicians who claim he has not reached out have no direct involvement in preparations. They may become relevant if congress directs additional aid to their districts. Unlike Trump, Biden is not withholding aid based on politics. He has been coordinating with the people who do the work.

  10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/14/abortion-girl-rape-fox-carlson-watters-ohio/

    Kevin Drum tries to shrug off the usual ugly crap at
    Fox as meaningless, stories like the above are no doubt
    ignored by him largely, as they are by Bob. This
    does not even cover how scuzzy character Jesse
    Waters claimed President Biden had been lying
    about this story of this horrific rape.
    Almost all of our news outlets are balanced,
    for sales purposes, with human interest or lightweight
    content. As has been pointed out, even Murrow
    interviewed Movie Stars. For Bob this is an excuse
    to abandoned any seriousness in his
    own work.
    In any event, today he argues that a red state
    person cannot be reached because our journals
    feature some lightweight content.
    It's absurd on the face of it, but Bob's effort
    to excuse MAGA are consistently desperate.

  11. Imagine if Biden, president of the USA, had to personally call every local FL official running for reelection, to coordinate their window-boarding operations and make sure their feelings weren't hurt over being considered less important in the path of a category 5 hurricane rapidly approaching? Biden didn't call me -- wah wah wah says Marco Rubio.

    Tampa Bay is represented by Kathy Castor, a Democrat. Jane Castor is mayor of Tampa.

    "President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. held separate calls today with Mayor Jane Castor of Tampa, Mayor Ken Welch of St. Petersburg, and Mayor Frank Hibbard of Clearwater to discuss preparations for the potential impacts from Hurricane Ian. Hurricane Ian is expected to make landfall on the Gulf Coast of Florida as a Major Hurricane as soon as Thursday morning. The President spoke with the Mayors about the potential impacts of Ian and ongoing efforts Federal, State and local governments are taking to pre-position resources and continue to initiate evacuation operations, including the resources made available through the Federal Emergency Declaration President Biden approved over the weekend. President Biden said that he has directed FEMA Administrator Criswell to ensure that all available federal support is surged to prepare in advance and to respond in the aftermath of the storm to augment state and local emergency response efforts, and emphasized the importance of encouraging families to heed evacuation orders."

  12. Kevin Drum didn't mention that Biden sabotaged the pipeline, nor did he say that Tucker Carlson accused Biden -- he said he accused the US. It was Somerby who added Biden's name to the accusation. It may be that Carlson accused Biden by name and Somerby heard him say it, but Drum didn't say it. That means Somerby would have added Biden's name back in. Why?

    Does a supposed Democrat add the president's name to an opposing party's accusation of sabotage, thereby attacking the president explicitly? Is that how liberals behave? Or Democrats? Do you slander our own president and future presidential candidate by making sure his name is included in a discussion of red party wrongdoing?

    Is it accidental when something like this occurs? Of course not.


  13. "Who could believe a smear accusing the Biden administration of sabotage?"

    You don't have your talking points yet, dear government scientist.

    Consequently, you don't know whether Brandon didn't do it, or indeed he did and it was the right thing to do.

    So, you should keep quiet for now, until the talking points are distributed.

  14. Somerby titles today's essay "Tucker Carlson Exposes Joe Biden!"

    First Tucker didn't expose Biden because Biden didn't do anything.

    Second, why would a supposed Democrat be so enthusiastic (note the exclamation point !) about a false accusation against our president? Why would he repeat it like that?

    Somerby Reveals Himself to be an Asshole! Again!!

  15. Of course I know that Biden didn't do it. For one thing, the pipeline was non-operational to begin with. Secondly, an accusation requires evidence and none has been presented. Third, this is not the kind of thing Democrats do. Fourth, it is ludicrous to think that the US would become directly involved in the Ukraine war after our experience in Afghanistan and given the consequences of doing so. So, yes, I know that Biden didn't do it personally, and I know he didn't authorize anyone to do it, because why sabotage a pipeline that is not working, especially at the risk of creating an international incident?

    You don't need talking points when nonsense and disinformation are being spewed. And ask yourself, why are Mao and Somerby promoting the same accusation against Biden? Does it make any sense for a supposed liberal to be doing that?

  16. Yeah, just now we saw his spox spinning. So, now you do have the talking points.


  17. "For one thing, the pipeline was non-operational to begin with."

    "Some hundreds of Germans protested in the eastern German seaside town of Lubmin on Sunday [Sept 25], calling to put into service the halted Nord Stream 2 pipeline project that was designed to transport fuel from Russia to Germany but was put on ice after the war in Ukraine broke out.

    "Open Nord Stream 2" read one placard, "The government must go", read another. "When someone turns off a gas tap, turns off the heating, these are not normal conditions and they can't be. Germany is one of the richest countries in the world and then something like that is just not possible," said protest organiser Martin Klein. Lubmin is the city, where the Nord Stream 2 pipeline lands in Germany."


  18. Here, dear Bob, an excellent (as usual) analysis by Pepe Escobar of yesterday's NS2 sabotage. For your reading pleasure.

    Germany and EU Have Been Handed Over a Declaration of War

    1. I read the link and it is Russian propaganda.

    2. The link is by Pepe Escobar. Wikipedia says this about him:

      "The United States State Department's Global Engagement Center (GEC) has identified several outlets that publish or republish work by Escobar as being used by Russia for propaganda and disinformation.[30][31] In 2020, the GEC stated that both the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) and Global Research, two online journals where Escobar's work has appeared, acted as pro-Russian propaganda sites.[32] According to the GEC, "Pepe Escobar began writing articles for Global Research in 2005 and ten years later became an SCF author.[30]

      Escobar has also been a commentator for RT and Sputnik News; both outlets were highlighted in a 2022 GEC report as members of "Russia's disinformation and propaganda ecosystem."[31] Ukrainian journalist Volodymyr Yermolenko describes Escobar as an example of "anti-Western intellectuals" hosted by RT, adding that Escobar suggests "dividing Ukraine between Poland and Russia."[33]

    3. 6:25

      The issue is the substance of what he wrote in the article, something you avoid. Not whether or not Russia has linked to things he has previously written.

    4. There is no substance. He doesn’t know who did it. Speculation aligns with Russian propaganda.

    5. If it is Russian propaganda, then Russian propaganda does excellent analysis.

  19. "Top of mind." Blech!

    Does everything have to be a made up bullshit phrase for these people, trying to inject mystique into their idiocy?

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Mao Cheng JiSeptember 28, 2022 at 4:42 PM
    “Yeah, just now we saw his spox spinning. So, now you do have the talking points.”

    It’s an allegation and we don’t have anything that supports it other than a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” argument. Which is nothing.

    However, I hope their talking points are better than their usual one as expressed by Anonymouse 4:37pm:

    “Third, this is not the kind of thing Democrats

  22. “Third, this is not the kind of thing Democrats”

    Exhibit A- Stepford.

  23. Here is an example of the confusion among red tribers about strength and toughness versus cruelty and meanness:

    "Lara and Eric Trump live in Jupiter, Florida, which will not be hit hard by hurricane Ian. But Ian is big enough that its red circle encompasses the east coast of Floria such that it’s getting torrential rain and some serious blustery winds. Lara Trump saw an opportunity. Lara Trump took her son out, in just a t-shirt, to ride his powered car toy in the rain. This is, apparently, a “character building exercise.”


    Watch the video.

  24. @Cecelia:

    “Third, this is not the kind of thing Democrats …”

    Better talking points?

    You mean, as opposed to Carlson and the GOP who make grotesque false accusations without proof and say “This is the kind of things Democrats do…” to the nodding agreement of the pre-programmed rubes in their audience..I mean, Republicans don’t need actual evidence to accuse others, we know that.

  25. A child? In the windy rain? Goofing off? What bullies!
    Save us from these scolds.

  26. mh, Carlson said “if” Biden sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline.

    Trump never received even that level of caution.

  27. Biden didn’t do it. Trump is guilty and thete is evidence against him. That’s the difference.

  28. Anonymouse 9:42pm, no evidence other than Biden’s words that he could do it and in the right situation would do it?

  29. Not exactly what he said. But when do words cause deeds? If he said “I did it” you would have a case.

  30. Meh. It is exactly what he said. And it's clear from the video that no one was holding a gun to his head when he said it.

  31. He said it to deter Russia from invading Ukraine. Russia went ahead and Biden didn’t follow through except diplomatically. Why would he blow it up now, when the pipeline was already non-operational? Russia did this itself.