MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2024
Eating cake all the way down: When JD Vance initially said it, we reported what he had said.
He said it at an Atlanta rally. As we noted in real time, this is what he said:
VANCE (8/3/24): Eight years ago, Donald Trump had everything—fame, fortune, family, friends. He gave up the easy life so we could get our country back.
He traded everything he had for unjust persecution—for slander and scorn from the fake news, all for this country, for you and me.
They couldn't beat him politically, so they tried to bankrupt him. They failed at that, so they tried to impeach him.
They failed at that, so they tried to put him in prison. They even tried to kill him.
They even tried to kill him? It was such a remarkable statement that we quickly transcribed and posted it. We did so in real time.
We posted the transcript on August 5, then again on August 7. The background, of course, was this:
On July 13, a 20-year-old man had tried to kill Candidate Trump. It still isn't clear why he did that. He had no known accomplices.
By August 3, Candidate Vance had come up with a better way of telling the story. "They" had tried to kill Trump, he now said. He seemed to be referring to the same people who had "tried to impeach him."
(For the record, Trump was impeached, two times. He was impeached by the House, but he was subsequently acquitted by the Senate.)
Back to August 3! In Vance's telling, it almost sounded like Democratic office holders had tried to kill Candidate Trump! In our view, it was an extremely reckless thing to say.
It was a remarkable thing to say. At news orgs like the New York Times, they let the comment go.
Over the weekend, comments like that were suddenly back in the flow.
As is and was his perfect right, Candidate Trump staged a rally at that same site in Butler, Pa. late Saturday afternoon. On this occasion, Candidate Vance was a bit more circumspect—a bit less suggestive—as he floated his charge again:
VANCE (10/5/24): Just look at everything they've done to President Trump. First they tried to silence him. When that didn't work, they tried to bankrupt him.
When that didn't work, they tried to jail him.
And with all the hatred they have spewed at President Trump, it was only a matter of time before somebody tried to kill him.
Candidate Vance went back to the "they" just a few minutes later. But in this, his nugget statement, he only said that "somebody" had tried to kill Candidate Trump.
To appearance, Vance was rolling his language back. For a link to his speech, see below.
Did "they" try to kill Candidate Trump that day, or was it a single young man? Others who spoke at Butler this weekend returned to the slippery word "they."
That included Eric Trump. As for the principal, Candidate Trump said this:
TRUMP (10/5/24): Four years ago, the entire world respected us. They respected us more than they've ever respected us, and now they laugh at us. We can't have them laugh at us, can we?
Above all, you deserve leadership in Washington that does not answer to the lobbyists, to the bureaucrats or to the corrupt special interests, but that only answers to you the hard-working citizens of America, which there are a lot of them. We have a lot of them.
We have a lot of them!
Over the past eight years, those who want to stop us from achieving this future have slandered me, impeached me, indicted me, tried to throw me off the ballot. And who knows? Maybe even tried to kill me! But I've never stopped fighting for you, and I never will.
Who killed Davey Jones? In this case, it may have been the people who impeached then-President Trump and who indicted him later!
So the messaging went, all over again, this time from Trump himself.
To our own imperfect eye and ear, Candidate Vance seems to be a modern-day "Manchurian candidate." To our own eye and ear, Candidate Trump has long seemed to be disordered, in what is likely a clinical way.
That said, the messaging here is ancient and very powerful. At this point, we find it hard to believe that Candidates Harris and Walz will be able to overcome the power of this eternal messaging, though of course it may be that they will.
Candidate Vance floated this messaging back in early August. We transcribed and posted what he said, and the whole story died right there.
This morning, atop the front page of its print editions, the New York Times has begun to push back with a big bowl of warm tapioca.
In our view, the Times is taking the classic wet noodle to the classic knife fight. The tapioca-adjacent piece appears beneath this headline:
TRUMP REIGNITES QUESTION OF AGE WITH RAMBLINGS
In fairness, the report was surely written before this weekend's events. But in our view, the Times report is a great big bowl of highly self-protective tapioca. It's an imitation of human life, an imitation of journalism.
In our view, the Times has finally started to fiddle while Rome continues to burn. Putting it a different way, the finer people at the Times have decided to let their subscribers eat cake.
In our own post from earlier today, we started a series of reports which will appear under this heading:
TWO SILOS
All week, we'll be looking at what emerges from the silo housing the Fox News Channel. We'll also look inside the silo which houses the New York Times.
In our view, a classic "revolt of the masses" is being driven from the one location. Inside the other structure, a highly pampered royal court is letting us the people eat cake while "our democracy," limited though it always has been, rather plainly continues to burn.
In our view, people at Fox have had plenty to criticize, to complain about, in the past few years. That said, and borrowing from the early Dylan, we would ask you this:
But oh, what kind of revolt is this, which goes from bad to worse?
To watch the Manchurian speak: To watch Saturday's speech by Candidate Vance, you can just click here.
The candidate spoke for seventeen minutes. His remarks about the way "somebody" tried to kill Candidate Trump can be seen at the 8-minute mark.
At the 3-minute mark, you can also see the candidate saying this about the events of July 13:
VANCE (10/5/24): I believe as sure as I'm standing here today that what happened was a true miracle. And on that day, America felt the truth of scripture: Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.
I truly believe that God saved President Trump's life that day.
Do you believe that Vance believes that? For ourselves, we have no way of knowing if he does. We have no idea.
We have no idea! But primal impulses are being evoked as this ancient messaging is advanced—and on this morning's front page, it seems to us that Blue America's New York Times has taken its fiddles out.
Can Candidate Harris overcome this ancient, primal messaging? In our view, the feckless tribunes of Blue America have arrived at the scene extremely late, and some are selling tapioca pretty much all the way down.
Meh.
ReplyDeleteThat's what all the people who have sexual relations with furniture say.
Is that eyeliner on the cushion?
DeleteClarence? Is that you?
DeleteIt is irresponsible to talk about "they" attempting to kill Trump without making it clear that the Democrats have not engaged in any attempted assassination of Trump. That means pointing out that the various threats to Trump have not come from anyone known to be a Democrat, connected with any Democrat or the Democratic Party, and that there have been no overt threats made by any Democrat either.
ReplyDeleteSomerby's repeated quoting of Vance, with his "they," does not help cool down the violence that has accompanied this election, largely emanating from the right itself. That includes threats made by right wingers against Democrats, and these claims that the Democrats are somehow attacking the right -- which is not true and is unsupported by any evidence, including the backgrounds of the men who have attempted threats against Trump.
I don't know what game Somerby thinks he is playing today, but repeating this violent talk coming from Vance and others (MTG comes to mind) is unhelpful and possibly dangerous, but entirely undeserved by Democrats.
I think it would be a good idea for Somerby to take down this irresponsible post or at least explain himself more clearly. As it stands, it appears that Somerby is repeating Vance's craziness and engaging in amplification of the calls for more violence inherent in Vance's claim that the left has been attacking Trump, when there is no evidence of that at all.
At 1028, we should not let the problems with Bob’s positions drive us to paranoia. Bob isn’t trying to do anything tricky. He’s just sounding an alarm on right wing mendacity about 20 years too late. You can’t really argue that anything he is saying about Vance isn’t true. The problem is, why can’t Vance be let off the hook with the insanity defense, just as Bob has spent years doing with the top of the wretched ticket?
DeleteIt seems more likely that it is the Bob defenders/fanboys that are racked with paranoia or similar such emotional distress.
DeleteIt is pretty plain that Bob is up to no good, selling snake oil, as well explained by 10:28.
It is pretty plain that Bob is angling to seem like “you can’t really argue” with anything he is saying, employing well worn right wing rhetorical tactics not all that dissimilar in technique from the ramblings of Trump.
Anything is possible!
Vance’s crime is in lacking any charismatic appeal, so he is relegated to the category of corporate (Thiel) boy toy.
I can't argue that Vance is NOT a brainwashed automaton trained by communists to kill upon command? Somerby is calling Vance a Manchurian Candidate. In the film, the candidate was the person controlling the brainwashed soldier, the candidate favored by the Manchurians who did the brainwashing. If that is supposed to be Vance, then the target of the assassination plot is Harris, not Trump and not Vance.
DeleteShould Somerby be suggesting that Vance is targeting Harris? Today's whole Manchurian Candidate analogy makes no sense mapped onto the current election.
It is likey that Somerby has just grabbed this Manchurian nonsense because it had the word "Candidate" in the title and involved an attempted assassination in the film. Beyond that, the politics make no sense, especially not when applied to one of the candidates (Vance) and not to a bystander such as Raymond Shaw.
This just makes no sense but because it is talking about political violence, it also seems like a very bad idea to be pursuing here, where Somerby has no idea what addled minds might be reading his call to action (confused as it is).
"Did "they" try to kill Candidate Trump that day, or was it a single young man? "
ReplyDeleteGiven the way pronouns are being used these days, the word "they" can be applied to a single young man. Not all young men are "he/him" these days.
fuck off, troll boy
DeleteMarjorie Taylor Greene has been saying that "they" control the weather and sent Hurricane Helene to GA and other red states.
ReplyDeleteIs it a good idea for the MAGA right to encourage its followers to blame every one of their life problems on Democrats, immigrants, a global Jewish conspiracy, reptilians or whoever Q-Anon is targeting (pedophiles certainly) or Biden for major catastrophes like this. Not only is it not true, likely impossible to be caused by any single entity, but encouraging people to direct their negative emotions toward a scapegoat is dangerous to us all.
Somerby should be condemning this, not repeating it, as he does today with Vance's message. Shame on Somerby for repeating this stuff today.
MTG is a net positive…for Dems, it’s hard to believe she’s not a Dem plant, but hey, more power to the Repubs, if that’s the direction they want to go in their death spiral.
DeleteI agree that MTG is a net positive for Dems. That's only because the biased media give so much coverage to her nutty rantings. OTOH the intelligent comments and actions from Senator Cruz get little coverage.
DeleteThat's because Cruz makes so few intelligent comments.
DeleteMonday…Monday….can’t trust that day….
ReplyDelete"The Manchurian Candidate is a political thriller about a U.S. soldier who is brainwashed by communists and becomes an unwitting assassin:
ReplyDeletePlot: During the Korean War, a U.S. Army platoon is captured by the Chinese Communists and brainwashed. After the war, Sergeant Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is returned home and lauded as a hero by his fellow soldiers. However, Captain Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra) begins to have nightmares and suspects that Shaw is not the hero he remembers. Marco discovers that Shaw is a puppet of the Communists and is triggered to obey any instruction when he sees a Queen of Diamonds. The Communists plan to have Shaw assassinate the presidential nominee of an American political party, leading to the overthrow of the U.S. government."
Somerby says:
"To our own imperfect eye and ear, Candidate Vance seems to be a modern-day "Manchurian candidate."
Later, Somerby says:
"Do you believe that Vance believes that? For ourselves, we have no way of knowing if he does. We have no idea.
We have no idea! But primal impulses are being evoked as this ancient messaging is advanced—and on this morning's front page, it seems to us that Blue America's New York Times has taken its fiddles out.
Can Candidate Harris overcome this ancient, primal messaging? "
In this Manchurian Candidate analogy, Vance is a brainwashed assassin being aimed at the other party's candidate, and that would be Harris, not Trump.
Is this Somerby's disguised way of calling for Harris's assassination? That is a horrible thing to put into disturbed right wing minds, especially coupled with suggesting (via Vance's quote) that Trump is God's instrument. Or is Somerby calling Vance an assassin, by equating him with a movie character in which there is a plot to kill a leading candidate?
On whose back is Somerby trying to paint a target today? Is this kind of camouflaged talk about killing candidates really what we need in the overheated atmosphere of this election?
Frankly, I think Somerby has gone around the bend himself. Today's essay makes no sense and it is very difficult to untangle his references. Vance is a jerk but that doesn't mean he is brainwashed to react to a signal from controllers. Thinking in conspiratorial ways like this only encourages the crazies. Maybe Somerby is such a crazy, or maybe he wants them to crawl out and try again, or maybe he is trying to send them in a different direction -- who knows? Whatever is going on in Somerby's head strikes me as jumbled (to use his own word), unlikely to do anyone any good, and worse than whatever Somerby is complaining about in his confused brain.
Somerby could make a distinction between Trump being purely self serving, and Vance desiring to have a broader dominance over society; Somerby can’t be bothered with such efforts, it would interfere with the amplification of Republican talking points.
DeleteThe difference between Trump and Vance is not too dissimilar to the meager difference between Fox News and The NY Times. Somerby pretends to not notice.
Delete“They” live (lived)
ReplyDeleteWhite male
Republican gun enthusiasts
Heralding Trump
In the yard
In the voting booth
Tone deaf ear nicked by shrapnel
Cheated of cheating at golf
Feckless shooter of an
Amorphous blob
Absorbing our Life Force
Conservatives are also using the "Manchurian candidate" metaphor. They apply it to the Walz, the candidate who made dozens of trips to Communist China. He even chose to spend his honeymoon there.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot to like about China as a nation and as a people. Nixon loved it too. Was he brainwashed?
DeleteTrump loves Russia. In his case, perhaps he is being controlled in some way. It wouldn't be brainwashing because he doesn't have a brain to wash, but they may be blackmailing him and/or using money to control him. There has been some suggestion that Ivana introduced Trump to his first Russian handler, so his tie to Eastern Europe via women is there too.
DeleteWhy does none of that concern Republicans? It came up in 2015-2016 but they voted for him anyway. MAGAs do seem to like being exploited, just by white racist countries, not Asians.
If Republicans to point to any decision made by Walz that has favored China, they might have a point. On the other hand, it is easy to find examples of Trump decisions that have benefitted Putin.
Communist China?
DeleteNo thanks.
I hear they don't even love Hollywood or Disney.
11;54,
DeleteIn Trump's defense, he's far too stupid to realize Putin was setting him up to blackmail. Similar to the Republican Congressional Caucus.
Good point David. Somerby most likely heard that Manchurian Candidate reference on Fox News and is repeating it here as a right wing talking point. It doesn't make sense because we are trying to interpret it as liberals would, not in the way it is being applied by the right.
DeleteWhat would be the point of brainwashing Walz?
When I was a kid it was the Chinese that were eating the dogs (Koreans too), but now it’s Black immigrants, we’ve come a long way, baby.
DeleteDid Democrats try to kill Trump? Never in our history were there two attempted assassinations within two months. This is not totally a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteI think Dems and their allies committed something like manslaughter. Over and over and over they used provocative language that would inspire a crazy person to assassination. They even continued to use provocative language even after the first attempt. This was clear to many that this was happening. Long before the first attempt, some observers predicted an assassination.
Then there was the failure to provide proper Secret Service protection in Butler. Although the second assassination was thwarted by a sharp-eyed secret service person, it was closer than it ought to have been. If the assassin hadn't poked his weapon out of the shrubbery, it wouldn't have been seen, and he would have succeed in shooting at Trump.
When you’re done sharing your fever dreams, let’s talk about your mother.
DeleteDavid, there are many ongoing threats against presidents and candidates and other officials that are foiled by the secret service. These are not made public, so you have no idea how many there were or who attempted them. The attack on Trump in Butler was notable because the secret service did not stop it in advance. The other guy who was arrested near the golf course didn't get anywhere near Trump, which makes it more like other foiled attempts. It was notable only because Trump publicized it.
DeleteIf you want to make it a contest about who uses the most inflammatory language against its political enemies, Republicans will win. Democrats haven't told religious nuts that their opponents are Satan, for example. Democrats didn't blame Republicans for the hurricane. Democrats don't own nearly as many guns. And Democrats do not use violent rhetoric to the same extent as Trump does, telling people that they need to literally fight to save our country. Democrats don't have young people asking "when do we get to use the guns" at their rallies, as occurred at the conservative Turning Point conference.
The secret service messed up in Butler, obviously. The second assassination missed by a mile because the secret service did its job. There was nothing extraordinary in that incident. But you might ask yourself how that guy knew Trump would be there on that public golf course (not Mar a Lago), without inside knowledge about Trump's schedule.
Both of these two attempts to attack Trump were committed by Republicans, not Democrats.