It’s a very odd phenomenon. It’s as though the 1960′s is being replayed on an infinite loop, but in tinier and tinier ways. Have you noticed that the whining and protesting today is often about complaints that affect smaller and smaller groups? And the media cover these things big-time, alongside celebrity trash — but pay almost no attention to the really serious issues of our age, such as the crushing debt burden of the government, the radically weakened US standing in the world, and the unprecedented cultural deterioration of the country. Every itsy-bitsy thing is the next civil rights movement, but the actually important issues go largely ignored. The tea partiers are extremists, even though their views and those of liberal icon JFK are pretty similar. Speaking of the 60′s, Jeffrey Lord has an interesting piece take on recent political events and how the snap judgments of the punditry and the media on Cruz and the sixhirb tea partiers may be all wet. Here’s hoping.
Archive for the 'Tea Party' Category
Medved on Cruz: “To use a military analogy, there is no glory in charging recklessly up a hill when you know your forces will be mowed down by enemy fire before reaching the top. Glory comes in making the enemy lose. The GOP shouldn’t pursue noble defeat.” We think the military analogy is incorrect. Rather, this is theater. What was it that famous fellow said? Ah yes, “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Sound advice, that.
It’s cold in the arctic. Don’t name your deer Giggles. Don’t brown bag your lunch. Pay no attention to Walter Williams because he’s obviously a very bad man. Here’s a discussion that makes more sense than anything coming out of DC. BTW, we could be wrong, but we don’t believe that Ted Cruz really believes the things he is saying that Charles Krauthammer is complaining about; it seems likelier that he’s positioning himself for 2016.
So the AP was investigated for a national security breach? Maybe it’s true though we doubt it. Such fealty to national security matters would be an aberration from business as usual for this crew, though it is excellent cover story for snooping on hundreds of journalists and their sources. Remember Blair Hull? Jack Ryan? Sharon Bialek? It’s the Chicago Way to have dossiers on everyone. Who knows when you’re going to need them?
A couple of other points. The AP story is fishy from a variety of perspectives, including that it focuses on phone calls but makes no mention of other electronic communications. What about all the text messages and emails, which is the way that much if not most of journalistic communication is done today? Surely if the government wanted blanket information it would have gotten all that traffic as well. Details dribble out, in scandal after scandal, from Fast and Furious to Benghazi and this. And the final point: what are the scandals that we still don’t know about?
The Waste Book:
Since the last budget was passed on April 29, 2009, Washington has spent $11.2 trillion and added more than $4.8 trillion to the national debt. With the national debt now over $16 trillion, never before have taxpayers needed a budget blueprint more to guide our nation away from fiscal ruin. Yet, the Senate Budget Committee has failed to produce a budget -– which it is required to do by law -– in over 1,200 days. In addition to not producing a budget resolution, the committee has also failed to hold many hearings, a key tool for Congress to conduct oversight, investigate problems, seek solutions, initiate conversation and debate, and advance an agenda. The Senate Budget Committee held a mere 12 hearings in 2012 – fewer than all but five other congressional committees from both chambers…
The National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), and the Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) classify themselves as non-profit organizations to exempt themselves from federal income taxes on earnings. Smaller sports leagues, such as the National Lacrosse League, are also using the tax status. Taxpayers may be losing at least $91 million subsidizing these tax loopholes for professional sports…NASA spends about $1 million annually “researching and building the Mars menu.” This year, NASA also awarded $947,000 to researchers at Cornell University and the University of Hawaii to study the best food for astronauts to eat on Mars. Six volunteers will head into a barren landscape in Hawaii to simulate a 120-day Mars mission. In exchange, they receive an all-expenses-paid trip, plus $5,000
There’s also a government subsidy to manufacture robot squirrels.
This is old news, but with Joe Biden seeming to channel aspects and stylings of Obama’s 2007 Selma speech, perhaps it’s time once again to take another look at its strangeness. Although the president was born in 1961 and the Selma marches took place in 1965, Obama says that his “very existence might not have been possible” without the marchers (at 1:50). Although he was conceived during the Eisenhower administration, he credits an “airlift” from Africa by JFK (at 4:40) for bringing his parents together. These statements are more than bizarre, and you can imagine what the media reaction would have been if Paul Ryan or George Bush had made such fantastical statements about their pasts.
(We note with amusement Obama’s mentioning of Artur Davis at 1:19; Davis has become a Republican since the speech, and no doubt would get as much courtesy today as the guy in the Romney shirt when Obama was buying beers in Iowa.)
The fluidity of Obama’s biography is disturbing. A month after he gave the Selma speech, his literary agency changed his CV in a material way from what it had been for a decade. A year after that Obama said that he was destined to control the tides, the economy and the healing of the planet. A year after that he lectured parents and students not to strive for the things he had gotten unless they did so selflessly and with purity of heart. Since then the economy has continued to founder, the GOP and Tea Party landslide of 2010 occurred, and the adoring crowds have dwindled to shadows of their lofty selves. Many people would choose to learn from failure, which is of course the best teacher, instead of doubling down. But what if he’s so rigid that he can’t?
Which brings us to a final point. It’s an excellent thing, as both left and right have said, for the election to be framed in such starkly ideological terms. A choice not an echo is in the country’s best interests. But we wouldn’t be surprised if there was also a psychological aspect to Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as VP. Ryan seems like a genial, normal guy whom a lot of Democrats really like and respect. But Obama can’t stand Ryan, a guy who knows the numbers and refuses to back down, as this encounter makes pellucid. Rock, paper, scissors. The Romney team is going after a guy who is narcissistic and emotionally brittle, and who has been accustomed to getting away with shading reality and ignoring arithmetic by a complicit media. It’s more than a campaign; it’s an intervention.
Paul Ryan says out loud some of what the media is thinking:
When Mitt Romney selected me as his running mate, I knew the Democratic attack dogs would come out in full force. They would say I’m a right-wing ideologue. They would say my views on entitlement programs are far too radical. They would say putting me on the ticket immediately kills Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming president because I’m a liability. But if we’re being honest with each other—if we’re able to put aside the talking points for a few minutes and say what we’re all actually thinking and feeling — I believe we can acknowledge the real truth here. I’m young, I’m handsome, I’m smart, and I’m articulate. And that scares the ever-loving shit out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.
It’s okay to admit it. You’re frightened to death of me. It might actually be healthy for you to face your fears now rather than later, when Mitt and I are leading by a few points in the polls and it looks like this thing might end badly for you. Face it: I’m not some catastrophe waiting to happen, like a Sarah Palin or a Dan Quayle. On the contrary, you have the exact opposite fear. I’m a solid, competent, some might say exceptional, politician.
Did you get nervous when you read that last sentence? Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that it’s 100 percent true? Is it because, even if you strongly disagree with my beliefs on Medicare, Social Security, women’s rights, and marriage equality, you know my talent as a speaker and my well-thought-out approach to these issues—no matter how radical and convoluted you find them—might just be enough to win over independent voters? Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?
I have another question for you: How scared are you that I can convince people I’m right? Because I’m good at it. No, I’m really good at it. You see, I know how to turn up the charm and charisma without putting people off. Then I back up what I’m saying with arguments that, when they come out of my mouth, sound completely accurate and well-reasoned. And I do it with such passion that people automatically recognize me as a man with deep convictions he will stand up for, no matter what. The American people love that shit. They love it. Passion, intellect, and a magnetic personality. Pretty damn intimidating combo, if I say so myself. You want to talk about polish? Man, I’ve got polish for miles. Oh, and by the way, I’ll go ahead and say this next thing because, if we’re being honest, why the hell not, right? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m white. Hoo, brother, am I white.
Yup, you should be scared shitless of me, because guess who isn’t? The people of Wisconsin. They love me. Republicans and Democrats there love me. Hell, I get Democrats to vote for me even if my policies make zero sense when it comes to their livelihoods. Do you know why? Because they like me. They like my story. Young, good-looking kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make something of himself. Christ, I’m a storybook candidate. I balance out this ticket so well it’s almost too perfect. The people of Ohio are going to think that. And seniors in Florida — the state we supposedly lost when Mitt picked me — won’t be so scared as soon they know that my mother lives in Florida, and that all I want to do is reform the health care system so she can receive care that makes good fiscal sense. Boy, I’m going to sell the shit out of that talking point. And I’m going to do a great job of it. Why? Because I’m Paul Ryan. That’s what I do.
And if we’re having trouble getting Pennsylvania on board, just wait until I absolutely wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the vice presidential debates. Don’t think for a second that I don’t know you’re terrified of us facing off, because in the back of your mind you know it could be a bloodbath up there. Well, that’s 77 electoral votes, and by my math that means you can kiss your golden boy goodbye after four short years. All that promise. All that energy. All that potential. Gone in one November night. I’m your worst fucking nightmare. Oh, and by the way, don’t even try to pretend you haven’t imagined me being elected president one day
One 24-year-old James Holmes killed a bunch of people in a movie theater. Within hours, ABC reported “there is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site.” A year and a half ago this appeared in the NYT: “A Democratic Congresswoman has been shot…’the whole Tea Party’ was her enemy.”
The Tea Party should perhaps consider renaming itself the Bake Sale or the Afternoon Social. Self identified Tea Partiers are typically over 30, conservative, married, sociable, and above average in education and wealth. In a Venn Diagram there is no overlap between young, male, loner, insane gunmen and Tea Partiers. Yet the media keep insisting. Perhaps that too is a form of insanity.
This piece is interesting despite its title. In a certain sense, the ACA doesn’t really matter, because the country is running out of money and many government programs are going to have to be restructured and reduced. Arithmetic doesn’t lie. How it plays out no one knows. For example, what happens to the relationships among the states if the high tax states generate zero net jobs for the next decade and most of the jobs and economic growth come from places like Texas? It could get very ugly in unanticipated ways.
Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do? “The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”
They’re worried over at PL, and other pundits wonder why a thing can be not-a-tax on page 15 of Roberts’ opinion and yes-a-tax on page 35. An unexpected set of rulings from the Supreme Court, but in the end, the mandate became a tax, and voters understand the word “tax” very well.
1. He lies to us constantly about who he is. Not in the way most politicians lie, spinning and shading events with self-serving half-truths. He lies with the arrogant bravado of a con man messiah. My grandfather was tortured by the British. My parents met because of the march in Selma. My white girlfriend wanted to be black. These aren’t lies that were forced out of him in a rough moment to defend himself from controversy — like the lie about terrorist William Ayers being just a guy in the neighborhood, or the one about never having heard the hate-mongering of Jeremiah Wright — these are intentionally crafted falsehoods. They were meant to do exactly what they did: to recreate Obama in the image of the black savior leftists had been waiting for, the man who would relieve them of the disfiguring guilt arising from their dreadful history of racism and justify the disastrous havoc their policies have wreaked on African-Americans.
2. He does not believe in the American way. When he is not lying, when he thinks he’s among friends, when he inadvertently announces his radicalism because it runs so deep he doesn’t even realize it is radicalism, when he thinks he can get away with it because it’s good politics, Obama reveals his philosophy to be antithetical to the exceptional American project of limited government, personal liberty and free enterprise. The Constitution needs to be falsely interpreted to allow wealth redistribution. The free market doesn’t work. His actions should not be hampered by Congress. The Supreme Court has no right to overturn his laws as unconstitutional. America is arrogant overseas. He can decide unilaterally which laws will be enforced. He can override the free practice of religion if he thinks the issue is really, really important. Again and again, he reveals himself to be wholly a product of the anti-American, anti-liberal and anti-democratic left at odds with the principles of our founding.
3. He has no clue how things actually work. Even if socialism did work, it would be wrong because it would strip people of the fruits of their labor and the property rights on which liberty depends. Thankfully, it doesn’t work, which makes the moral issue moot. But Obama has no clue of what’s been tried and found wanting. He surrounds himself with ideologues and tunes out anyone who’s ever made an honest dime in the real world. Thus every single idea the “progressive” president puts forward is a regressive throwback to notions that have been failing miserably for more than seventy years. The stuff he believes is just plain dopey. He thinks technology is the cause of unemployment. He does not understand that only private jobs create the wealth that makes public jobs possible. He thinks that wind and solar energy should be subsidized and fossil fuel production suppressed. He insists on bringing the European social model to the U.S. even as the model implodes in front of our eyes.
Hey, things could be worse, Andrew. You could be Arizona!
More of the same dreary economic news. But who cares, as long as the War on Women and the War on People continues to be waged by those evil opponents of all that is good and sacred to the community organizing community. We think a better plan is needed when unemployment is a disaster, and when the country is being taken down other perilous roads as well. Maybe the media can convince us and a majority of voters otherwise, but we’re dubious. Still, they’re going to try like heck to convince us that cockamamie ideas are respectable. So what we have is an election that will decide just how indoctrinated and ill-informed are the American voters of today.
Since at least the time of Rick Santelli’s Tea Party rant, we have been witnessing some seismic changes in American politics. Independents flipped by 33 points in 2010 after all. But to many of the powers that be, it’s as though that never happened. Flash forward to the extraordinary GOP primary season. Candidate after candidate has surged and they have been characterized in their turn by the punditry and the media as the latest anti-Romney. That characterization misses the point. In our view the Republican primary voters have been sending a clear message that has has not varied all that much, though the vessels for the message have come and gone.
The latest vessel is Newt Gingrich, obviously flawed in many ways. But take a moment to read what he’s saying. It’s less the messenger than the message that has the power. We think that GOP primary voters believe that a minimally acceptable candidate articulating that message clearly and unapologetically is electable by a sizeable majority of voters. After all, in the wake of the ridiculous Keystone decision, even staunch liberals are shaking their heads about the disastrous course the administration has set for the country. We don’t recall a recent analogy to this bubbling up of opinion from the grass roots. (Eugene McCarthy’s strong losing performance in the 1968 New Hampshire primary comes to mind.) If the insiders don’t quite get what is going on, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Obama made several recess appointments — a tactic that as a senator he once criticized — even though Congress was not in recess. In December, the president signed a $1 billion omnibus spending bill, but notified Congress that he might not abide by some of the very provisions he had just signed into law. During the Libya war, Obama felt that bombing Qaddafi’s forces did not really constitute military operations, and therefore he had no need to notify Congress under the War Powers Act. It is clear that Arizona is not trying to circumvent federal immigration law, but rather is desperately trying to find some way to enforce it, given that the Obama administration has selectively chosen not to do so. In response, the federal government is suing the state of Arizona, even as it assures illegal aliens that they will not be arrested if they have not committed a crime — as if Obama can by himself decide that illegally entering and residing in the United States is not a federal crime in the first place. President Obama argued that it was constitutional to force citizens to purchase federalized health care, and that all Americans would be subject to his new health-care law — except some 2,000 businesses and organizations that were given politically driven waivers. Obama decided to reverse the legal order of creditors in the bailout of a bankrupt Chrysler Corporation in favor of more politically suitable constituencies. The administration does not like the Defense of Marriage Act, and therefore announced that it won’t enforce it. When a federal judge struck down an Obama- administration ban on new leases for gas and oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama for a time ignored the injunction. When a BP oil leak in the Gulf outraged America, the president met with company executives and announced that they had agreed to set up a $20 billion “fund” to pay for imminent damage claims — as if our chief executive now meets with culpable private businesses to assess what he thinks they should pony up to avoid federal retaliation…
on any given challenge Obama assesses the politics of favoring his constituency of the “poor” and “middle class,” and then uses the necessary legal gymnastics post facto to offer the veneer of lawfulness. If someone is breaking a federal “law” by entering Arizona illegally from Mexico, there must be a way to make the enforcer of that “law” the real suspect — given that a Sheriff Joe Arpaio is by allegiance of the privileged 1 percent and those whom he arrests most surely are not. Consumers are deemed to need federal help more than do lenders; accordingly, Congress “really” is now in recess. In other words, we are witnessing with this administration the ancient idea of the supposedly exalted ends justifying the somewhat ambiguous means — albeit dressed up in trendy Ivy League legalese and progressive moralizing. Our postmodern president is not content with just picking and choosing which laws he will follow in advancing his social agenda. The war against the myth of disinterested Western jurisprudence extends also to free-market economics, as we see with the monotonous demonization of the so-called 1 percent and those who make over $200,000 per year. Sometime after January 2009, we learned that the “wealthy” did not gain their riches by a wide variety of what we once thought were legitimate means — luck, inheritance, work, health, intelligence, expertise, experience, education, or an overriding desire for money and status, coupled with an avoidance of classical sins like sloth, crime, and drunkenness. Rather, we were taught that there was something else going on, something innately unfair in the manner in which we are arbitrarily compensated. In some sense, we are back to the old notion of a labor theory of value (e.g., an hour of working at Starbucks is inherently no less valuable to our society in terms of how much the worker should be paid than an hour crafting a deal at Goldman Sachs). The role, then, of government is not to ensure an equality of opportunity — which is impossible, given inherent and unending race, class, and gender exploitations — but to strive for an equality of result. That utopian task demands that the best and the brightest in government redistribute capital, or rather use the state to make right what the private sector has distorted.
And this from the head of one of our political parties: “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular…has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.” Already, “the Department of Homeland has been operating a ‘Social Networking/Media Capability’ program to monitor the top blogs, forums and social networks online for at least the past 18 months.” Hard to imagine what 2013-2017 America is going to look like if these folks aren’t shown the door.
today’s tea party is less an ideological movement than the latest incarnation of an angry white minority — predominantly Southern, mainly rural, largely male — that has repeatedly attacked American democracy while trying to get its way. It’s no coincidence that the states responsible for putting the most tea party representatives in the House are the former members of the Confederacy. Others are from border states with significant Southern populations and Southern ties. This “no-compromise” right wing of today’s GOP isn’t much different from the evangelical social conservatives who began asserting themselves in the party during the 1990s and, before them, the “Willie Horton” conservatives of the 1980′s…America has had a long history of white Southerners who will stop at nothing to get their way: seceding from the Union in 1861, refusing to obey civil rights legislation in the 1960s
The worthies of the left actually believe this. It’s very peculiar after all this time that they continue to do so. The Telegraph attended one of the angry mob scenes. So did Glenn Reynolds. And of course there’s that noted Southern rural redneck Rick Santelli. And the “angry white men” that Reich imagines, um, they’re reportedly more than half women.
One lesson, however, has not fully sunk in and awaits final elucidation in the 2012 election: that of the Chicago style of Barack Obama’s politicking. In 2008 few of the true believers accepted that, in his first political race, in 1996, Barack Obama sued successfully to remove his opponents from the ballot. Or that in his race for the U.S. Senate eight years later, sealed divorced records for both his primary- and general-election opponents were mysteriously leaked by unnamed Chicagoans, leading to the implosions of both candidates’ campaigns. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in the history of public campaign financing to reject it, or that he was also the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street in general, and from BP and Goldman Sachs in particular. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in recent memory not to disclose either undergraduate records or even partial medical. Or that remarks like “typical white person,” the clingers speech, and the spread-the-wealth quip would soon prove to be characteristic rather than anomalous. Few American presidents have dashed so many popular, deeply embedded illusions
We expect to be surprised in 2012, and we’re not looking forward to it. In 2011 we learned aome unpleasant things: (a) how corrupt and brazen the two-card monte government has been on both sides of the aisle, with things like perfectly legal insider trading; and (b) however far left you think the administration is, the 12-to-1 legacy media are the same or more so, as evidenced by their continuing to largely serve as stenographers for the administration in defense of its horrible track record.
Chris Matthews described the country as he sees it from the Left. VDH sees the country a little differently from the Right. Same country, different visions, starkly stated from the point of view of each man. There are those who want to fundamentally transform the country like the administration, and those who do not.
It is odd that there remain those on the right who think that the last three years have been some sort of failure or series of mistakes. It’s too bad the economy isn’t doing better, but that’s not the priority of these folks. The priority is making things fairer, according to their enlightened vision.
The most remarkable thing about this administration is not incompetence; it is discipline. (As the man said: “We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”) They stay relentlessly on their message of the moment, positioning themselves as the reasonable ones in the center, amidst those on the left and right who take irresponsible positions — and all the while they are quietly executing their agenda, moistly through the federal agencies and cabinet departments. Clever, profoundly anti-democratic.
But the playbook is badly out of date. OWS isn’t random; it’s straight from the playbook. No doubt it will metastasize over the next year and show up at Tea Party events and so forth to cause no end of trouble. The most peculiar thing about this exercise is that it is happening at almost precisely the wrong historical moment. The USSR fell almost a generation ago, and the welfare states of Europe are crumbling under the weight of their entitlement burdens. What a bizarre moment to emulate them.
The second most peculiar thing, at least to us, is our discovery of the extent of the corruption. Many years ago we wrote about the temptation to corruption in declining industries such as the legacy media. We had no idea how bad it really is. Congressmen can legally trade on insider information; major media outlets ignore huge scandals when they are politically inconvenient. And on and on.
We don’t think this is going to end well for the left. We think that they total about a third of the electorate. though the media megaphone makes them seem much more populous. It’s not really a 50/50 country when very basic issues are in play. As evidence we point to Independents flipping by 33 points last November after they figured out they had been sold a bill of goods in 2008. However, we do not underestimate the lengths to which those in power will go to remain in power. Frankly, we’re not looking forward to what the next political year is likely to bring.
The NYT editorialized as follows just the other day:
The Occupy Wall Street protest continues to inspire demonstrators across the nation and beyond…As their numbers grow, the protesters seem to be increasingly welcomed…Occupy Wall Street is not merely yelling and screaming. The movement’s progress is heartening for all Americans suffering lost opportunity
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger
Physician, heal thyself. Time to refer to the checklist. We live in a world that seems to be precisely 180 degrees out of phase with that of the Times’ editorial board. Taranto has a helpful guide to the activities of the “increasingly welcomed” OWS crowd. We continue not to understand why on earth the Democrat party and its media affiliates choose to associate themselves with these people.
Toby Harnden in the Telegraph:
the media and Cain’s detractors have over-played their hand. By Friday night, Politico, which broke the original story, had published 94 articles on the allegations in under six days. Every other major publication had followed suit. Every time he stepped out of a room, Cain was mobbed by reporters. Yet despite the maelstrom, Cain’s accusers remain anonymous and the details of the allegations oddly vague. With many conservatives believing that sexual harassment lawsuits are an industry and that frivolous cases are often settled to avoid more expensive litigation, there was a growing sense that Cain was being treated unfairly. Cain’s very amateurishness became almost endearing. Rather than mouthing slick talking points, Cain got angry with the journalists (a profession loathed by most Republican activists) and claimed that he was the victim of a “high-tech lynching”…Those who leaked the details of the 1990s sexual harassment cases might have thought that they’d destroy Herman Cain and leave his campaign dangling from a tree. But, as befits this strange and unpredictable election campaign, a funny thing happened on the way to the lynching.
We haven’t commented on this pig-pile, because we’ve had nothing useful to say. However, it seems clear enough that a substantial portion of the electorate has revolted against — what exactly?
On the Thursday before election day in 2000, the Bush DUI’s were leaked to Fox and hit the airwaves. On election day, we seem to recall that some early predictions suppressed turnout in the Florida panhandle. In 2004, CBS and the NYT collaborated on a scandal story a couple of weeks before the election about a vast number of weapons that had dissappeared in Iraq. This was the same CBS that used obvious forgeries of documents from a troubled guy in an attempt to sink the Bush re-election campaign against a guy with some more fact-based problems. And Bush wasn’t very much of a conservative. In 2008 the 12-to-1 media fell all over themselves to praise their candidate, and couldn’t be bothered with his scandals and strange, outlandish rhetoric. The legacy media now seem to be paying the price for this behavior.
It would appear that a substantial portion of the electorate has adopted as a default position that a partisan narrative chosen by the establishment media is a lie until proven otherwise. That’s quite a big change in a short span of years.