The Unmasking Continues: Kristof’s Unethical Tweet, And Pelosi’s Hypocrisy

Let’s start with the tweet yesterday from Times columnist Nick Kristof:


No, Nick, mustn’t do that. While a paper can print illegally procured documents that are leaked by others, it cannot encourage and call for illegal conduct. That’s conspiracy. Tax returns are private, and releasing them is a federal crime. With this tweet by its agent, The New York Times is soliciting a crime, and one against the President of the United States no less

By the time the Democrats, progressives and their confederates in the news media have completed their freakout, no one but fools and those in denial will have failed to recognize their exposure as frauds, whose posturing as supporters f proceess, democracy, fairness, decency and the rule of law was a cynical illusion since all they really believe in is “the ends justify the means.”

This is depressing and tragic, but it is also frightening. How thin the patina of principle is with these ideologues! Why would anyone trust them ever again?

Then there was Nancy Pelosi’s performance on CNN yesterday, disgracing herself and her party, as usual.

Asked by Jake Tapper to do what should have been easy for a proud feminist who had her female members grandstand at the President’s speech last week by wearing suffragette white: condemn the ugly remarks of Democratic Congressman Cedric Richmond, who implied that White Haous aide Kellyanne Conway was used to performing fellatio, Pelosi said,

“Well, I wasn’t at the dinner. I’m just finding out about this. But the fact is, I’m still in sort of a state of, what is going on here that the person who occupies the White House is a person who was on that Hollywood video that said the crude things he said about women.You all are criticizing Cedric for something he said in the course of the evening. And he maybe should be criticized for that. I just don’t know the particulars. But I do everyday marvel at the fact that somebody who said the gross and crude things that President Trump said — wouldn’t even be allowed in a frat house — and he’s in the White House.”


1.  What a miserable human being Pelosi is.

2. Sure, she is just learning about it. Who believes that? Hands?

3. How does a private conversation Donald Trump had years ago excuse or justify a Democratic Congressman making a misogynist joke in a public event?

4. Maybe? MAYBE? If a Democratic Party leader has to think for a nanosecond to decided whether to criticize a statement like Richmond made, then the entire feminist stance of the party is a cynical charade.

5. If you are counting rationalizations, which is how unethical jerks like Pelosi reason, she nicked “They do it too!” and “It’s not the worst thing!”

Tapper  tried again, asking if the Democrats’ “moral authority” is  undermined because they don’t criticize Democrats who make sexually crude comments toward women. (What moral authority? The Democrats lionize Bill Clinton and nominated his wife!)

“Well, I think everybody was making crude comments,” Pelosi replied. “I—I just don’t know…I wasn’t at the dinner.”

Everybody does it!


75 thoughts on “The Unmasking Continues: Kristof’s Unethical Tweet, And Pelosi’s Hypocrisy

    • Z, she’s from San Francisco…those people tried and may have succeeded to make it illegal to own a goldfish. They’re NUTS, every last one of them.

      • dragin_dragon wrote, “They’re NUTS, every last one of them.”

        I understand why your opinion is that way, but “every last one of them” is clearly unprovable hyperbole. I think what’s much more likely to be accurate is…

        The number of voters in Pelosi’s bastion of Liberalism district who are nuts clearly outnumber the number of voters who are not.

        I spent a little time in San Francisco back in my Army days a long time ago, I’ll never go back, and I mean never; in fact I make absolutely sure that any flight that transfers in the general region doesn’t go through there and is not likely to be diverted to there, I simply do not want to get stuck in that place for any reason.

        • I was in Davis a few years ago…5 years ago or so. We spent a couple of days going around SF. San Francisco or Science Fiction, take your pick. I stand by my original contention.

        • ”I simply do not want to get stuck in that place for any reason.”

          Can’t say I blame you, I used to have a commenting account at Bay Area Lefties (the ones posting, leastways) were a breed apart to say the least, and among THE most ideologically entrenched I’ve encountered.

          Factor in whence I hale.

          Oddly enough, according to WalletHub SF is the 6th “least stressed” city for families in the U.S.

          Perhaps because the term “family” has taken on a different…um…less traditional meaning?

          Anywho, San Jose is 5th; and 4th?

          None other than The 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality

  1. The ideologically consumed left-leaning media will continue to do what they do as long as they continue to get the dollars from the ideologically consumed left-leaning Liberals to fund it.

    You don’t have to try to cut the head off the snake that’s attacking you, all you have to do is contain it and starve it to death.

  2. Nancy Pelosi will be 80 in 2020, and should have been put out to pasture a long time ago. However, it seems that Democratic politicians only leave office when they are defeated (Carter, Specter), they are term-limited out (Clinton, Obama), they die (Byrd, Lautenberg), or they become too ill to continue (Kennedy).

    This is just more of some of the six basic truths in action. Both these people are partisan hacks. They despise Trump, they despise the GOP, and they despise everything both stand for. They are strongly in favor of the Democratic party and all it stands for and of course they stood foursquare behind Hillary and all she stood for. As such, Richmond gets the full benefit of any doubt, however thin that doubt may be. If he said something wrong, which is a big if, since Nancy didn’t hear him say it, it really was no big deal, and the right-wing press should quit picking on him. Besides, the target of his insult, if he said it, was another disgusting right winger, who also gets no protection. No harm, so no foul.

    Trump gets no benefit of any success, never mind of any doubt. If he succeeded at something, it was already headed that way thanks to the fine efforts of the Obama administration, and his only success was in not screwing it up. If he fails, it’s ALL on him.

    What’s more, he needs to do whatever we on the left say, and play by our rules. If he does that, maybe we’ll leave him alone as long as he’s a good boy, until 2020, when we get our next chance to correct this ridiculous last vote. If he places one corner of a well-polished, expensive shoe outside the strict parameters we set for him, we will be all over him like a pack of wolves. If he refuses to give us whatever we ask for, we will get it, by any means fair or foul, and slam him twice, once for whatever it reveals, twice for hiding it. We will also hail the scrappy reporter who got it and the principled bureaucrat who leaked it. They are heroes of the First Amendment, not like those shills for the right over at Fox or those obstructionist hacks Trump is installing now.

    Although some of this might appear unprincipled or underhanded or wrong, but it isn’t. Ours is the party that’s just been trying to make this nation and the world better places since 1932, after you guys and your uncontrolled capitalism sent the economy drilling deep into rock bottom and put tens of thousands out of work and into poverty. We’re the party that stopped Hitler, we’re the party that saved Europe from collapse with the Marshall Plan, we’re the party that pushed through the Civil Rights Act and would have built the Great Society to stand forever if you guys had gotten on board and its architect hadn’t overreached a bit. We’re the party that made the economy boom in the 90s and brought you healthcare in 09, and we took out bin Laden. What have you guys done? Stood on the sidelines while the Iron Curtain clanged down, made the economy tank twice, done your level best to keep burdens on people of color’s shoulders and barriers in place for women, done your damnedest to make sure the rich DON’T pay their fair share of taxes, helped Salvadoran soldiers kill guerillas and Nicaraguan guerillas kill soldiers, done a little adventuring of your own in Grenada and Panama (when your own guy turned out to be a drug dealer), brought the world to the brink of destruction in the 80s and taken us into a war based on lies in 2003. Oh, and there was that Watergate thing too. All in all, our record stacks up a lot better than yours, but somehow you managed to pull off a win this time. You better enjoy it, because it’s going to be your last. Your base of old, angry white men is shrinking every day. Ours is growing, and it will become unstoppable once we regain the White House in 2020 and finally make these fine people you keep wanting to deport like the racists you are into citizens. For now we can’t outlaw you, but we’ll fix that once we get back into power. A little adjustment for hate speech here and there, and you will be the party of the past. In the meantime, all we have to do is block you and smear you at every turn, and it’s kinda fun, to be honest.

  3. “This is depressing and tragic, but it is also frightening.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, and it is almost verbatim what I said when then Republican candidate, now President, Trump encouraged/joked/suggested? hacking of Hillary’s email during the Presidential campaign.

    Welcome to my world Jack. Unlike you, however, I wisely drink. It helps.

        • He wasn’t president when he said that.

          My point is simply that you’re rationalizing bad behavior by the Left. It’s the old one two you use so much. Appearing to agree with something Jack says and then punching him in the ear after you’ve gotten him in a cinch.

          Nick Kristof and Nancy Pelosi are supposed to be beyond reproach, Sparty. They’re lefty Democrats, for God’s sake. They’re supposed to be impeccable. Trump is reprehensible. How can you in good faith use Trump’s conduct to justify the conduct of pillars of lefty righteousness? That’s my point.

          • I’m NOT rationalizing. I agree that is deplorable behavior — regardless of who is doing it.

            I would argue though, and I hope that everyone agrees, that in ranking this horrible behavior, a President or President-elect must top the list, because that person sets the tone for everybody. Followed by any elected leader of course.

              • Sparty, you are rationalizing. I think you’re a repressed conservative. You have a great deal of farm bred common sense and you’re astute. Unfortunately in the U.S., the only choice is Democrat or Republican. Politicians are often scurrilous. But given the choice between Democrat identity politics and redistribution and “everybody gets a trophy in the game of life” and Republican interest in a viable economy to pay for all the important things government needs to do, I suspect given the fact you’re a taxpayer and a parent, you align with Republicans because there is no other viable choice. But you feel like a traitor for feeling that way. So you say you’re a libertarian. Which is a palliative. And you end up saying everybody’s terrible and I’m going where the air is cleaner. I just don’t think that’s a long term solution.

                • “Unfortunately in the U.S., the only choice is Democrat or Republican.”

                  “Independent” & you’re tantamount to a “free agent.”

                  But the perception sure has changed; Clinton & Trump your garden variety Democrat/Republican, respectively? Not exactly.

                  Michael Moore: “How else do you explain a socialist [winning 22 states]? This is not a socialist country. People didn’t care about the label.”

                  But I always thought that when it was your time, that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator Other Bill, Governor Other Bill, something.

                  • Not sure what your point is, Paul. My point is simply that the only viable candidates in the vast majority of U.S. elections are either Democrats or Republicans. Independents, Libertarians, Greens and all the others don’t win elections. If you vote for them, you’re throwing away your vote. My point is simply that we have a two party system here in the U.S. So all we can do as voters is pick one or the other. And by the way, Clinton is certainly a garden variety Democrat. And Trump was elected as the nominee of the Republican party.

                • I used to vote Republican, but I tend to vote Democrat now the vast majority of the time. While I do have a Libertarian streak, it is solely along the lines of Constitutional protections. For the most part, the Republicans lost my vote over their decision to run cretins in local and state elections over the last 15 years and their utter hypocrisy over government spending in DC. And then the Right’s decision to run President Pussy Grabber was the last straw. So, I don’t know if this makes me a Democrat, but it certainly doesn’t make me a repressed Conservative. Perhaps it makes me a Disgusted Conservative– along the lines of George Will.

                  This blog has disappointed me immensely lately. When Obama was President, I was one of the first to call him out for his drone program and other unconstitutional acts. I soundly criticized Clinton for her private email server. I thought Lynch should have resigned for agreeing to have a conversation with Bill Clinton while he and his wife were the subject of a DOJ investigation. The list goes on and on. But what am I seeing now that Trump is President? Hundreds of comments about : 1) Hey, look at what Democrats are doing!; or 2) Hey, look at what the media is doing!

                  Here’s my question. What about what this Administration is doing? Forget about Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of them. They are having a temper tantrum right now because it’s the only weapon they have (similar to Rand Paul and his ilk over the last 8 years). I want to see avowed Conservatives here criticize this President. Also, all of the hoopla over Russia right now might just be smoke and mirrors, but I can’t even imagine the shit storm that would be happening if the same rumors came out in connection with Obama or Clinton. So — what you call “rationalizing,” has a different definition in my book — it is a sliding scale with delusion on one end and hypocrisy on the other depending on the commenter in question. Some perspective would be a welcome change here right about now.

                  • I agree, Spartan.

                    I came here today expecting to see a post about Trump’s baseless allegation that Obama wiretapped his office, and Conway’s assertion that he “has access to information we don’t,” when by all accounts it seems like Trump got his information from Breitbart, not the intelligence community. Nothing.

                    It’s not like what Kristof and Pelosi are doing isn’t important. It is, and should be condemned. But I don’t remember this much condemnation when Trump also suggested that someone leak person information for his own gain.

                    There has been blog post after blog post here about how Lefties and the media are wrong to question Trump’s connections with Russia, but nothing about Trump stating as FACT that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower when he has absolutely no evidence for that claim.

                    The president is being held to a lower standard than anyone else in the country right now. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.

                    • It has disheartened me too to see so much vituperation here directed at editorial writers like Kristof and obvious partisans like Pelosi, compared with so much complacency when it comes to Trump’s egregious abuses. There is a distasteful eagerness here to catalogue every liberal offense no matter how marginal the malefactor (Cedric Richmond comes to mind; had anyone here heard of him before his disgraceful comments about Conway? I certainly hadn’t), as if the overwrought-ness of some of the left’s rhetoric were as consequential and dangerous as the vileness emanating on a daily basis from the chief executive. Don’t you guys care that the most powerful nation on earth is being led by a childish narcissist with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a habit of lying? But, of course, I forgot: Nick Kristof and that idiot dreamer who spoke to the press. Much more important.

                    • Chris, we’re to take it on faith that Trump has been complicit with Russia in “hacking the election” but we are to immediately doubt Trumps assertion the phones in his office in Trump Tower were tapped? Why?

                    • Other Bill:

                      Chris, we’re to take it on faith that Trump has been complicit with Russia in “hacking the election” but we are to immediately doubt Trumps assertion the phones in his office in Trump Tower were tapped? Why?

                      When have I ever argued that we should take it on faith that Trump has been complicit with Russia in “hacking the election?”

                      I’ve agreed with Jack that the phrase “hacking the election” is misleading. I have said I don’t know whether Trump colluded with Russia, but that the circumstantial evidence suggesting he has–including the Steele memo, the multiple advisors and cabinet members who have made false statements about their contacts with Russia, Trump’s inexplicably favorable comments about Putin, the fact that the only issue in the RNC platform the Trump campaign strongly pushed for was softening the language regarding Russia and the Ukraine, Trump publicly encouraging Russia to release hacked DNC e-mails–bothers me, and warrants an investigation.

                      There has been no such circumstantial evidence for Trump’s claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, and if Trump had any such evidence, he could release it immediately. Because he hasn’t done that, and because Trump is an idiot child who points the finger at others every time he is accused of anything, and because he trusts dishonest and extremist sources such as Breitbart over his own intelligence community, and because he has previously spread other lies and conspiracy theories about Obama, there is no reason to take this allegation seriously.

                      So if your question is “Why are the allegations against Trump more credible than the allegations against Obama,” there’s your answer. But you shouldn’t take anything on faith.

                    • Chris, me lad, you really have to stop speculating on the motives behind my posts. Today, for example, I woke up in Boston at 6 AM, and had two hours to review my lecture notes, eat something, get dressed, check out, make some phone calls and try to get a post up. I didn’t have time for one requiring extensive research and thought, which the Trump accusation does—and even now, I don’t know enough to write about it. I had the Pelosi part teed up, and the Kristof tweet made my head explode, so it was relatively easy to prepare that post in the time I had, except that I pushed the wrong button on my tiny laptop at the very end, sending 700 words into oblivion and requiring me to write it again, from scratch.

                    • I didn’t have time for one requiring extensive research and thought, which the Trump accusation does—and even now, I don’t know enough to write about it.

                      I don’t know if it does require extensive research and thought.

                      If Obama went on Twitter and baselessly claimed that it was a “fact” that Trump had colluded with the Russians to influence the election, I have little doubt that you would immediately condemn that as unethical–which it would be.

                      What else do you need to know?

                      I had the Pelosi part teed up, and the Kristof tweet made my head explode

                      I guess my question is, why isn’t this making your head explode? Is it just because you are used to this type of behavior from Trump?

                      The tone I’m getting from you is complacency–the idea that we should all just learn to live with the fact that our president makes absurd, conspiracy theorist allegations against his political enemies without a shred of evidence, just based on whatever he happens to hear on talk radio or see in Breitbart. And yes, I know that’s who he’s been all along–it’s how he started his political career, with birtherism. I still do not understand why anyone should accept it, and I think that kind of complacency is far more damaging to our country than the outrage from the left is.

                    • I look forward to it. And I appreciate your patience with me–I re-read some of my comments, and I have to apologize if at times I come off as if I’m telling you how to do your job. I will try to phrase my differences of opinion with you over our prioritization of different ethical issues in a less bossy way.

                  • “What about what this Administration is doing?” What’s it doing? Changing the direction the of the previous administration? “I want to see avowed Conservatives here criticize this President.” About what? “I can’t even imagine the shit storm that would be happening if the same rumors came out in connection with Obama or Clinton.” In the press? They’d cover for him furiously. The Republicans might be upset if there were any basis in fact, but the media and the Dems would all lie down.

                    • Warren, please list “Trump’s egregious abuses.” Cedric Richmond gets a pass because you’ve never heard of him? Is Charles Blow’s calling for a Pause in what Trump is doing simply over wrought-ness? It’s lunacy. Please clarify what you mean by “the vileness emanating on a daily basis from the chief executive.” You think Trump is “a childish narcissist with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a habit of lying.” He thinks his phones were tapped? Does that really make him a conspiracy theorist? “But, of course, I forgot: Nick Kristof and that idiot dreamer who spoke to the press. Much more important.” So you want Jack to join in the non-stop biased coverage pile onto Trump and his administration by the main stream media? Don’t you get enough of that from all the other usual suspects?

                    • (Trying to respond to Other Bill, but the thread’s rather long.)

                      Cedric Richmond does not get a pass. What he said was inexcusable and he deserved to be called out for it. I’m sure right now that there is some state legislator or congressman who you or I have never heard of who did or said something reprehensible today. Does that mean all of this rises to the level of national interest? Prioritizing what to talk about (what’s really important) is also a matter of ethics. I’m sure there’s *always* some public official out there on either side of the aisle doing something heinous.

                      Yeah, call me crazy, but I think for a President to be taking his cues from Mark Levin and Breitbart, as he appears to have done with regard to this wiretapping claim, qualifies as conspiracy mongering. Did you forget that Trump managed to convince half the country that Obama was not a U.S. citizen?

                      OB says: “So you want Jack to join in the non-stop biased coverage pile onto Trump and his administration by the main stream media? Don’t you get enough of that from all the other usual suspects?”

                      This is a very revealing series of questions. What you seem to be suggesting here is that because everyone else is calling Trump out for his horseshit, Ethics Alarms should lay off. But I thought we wanted this to be a non-partisan forum for ethical issues. If that’s so, then I’m sorry to say that Trump himself is the leading ethical crisis of the day. I think what’s driving some people crazy about this is that they can’t stand having to agree with what’s coming from the “mainstream media.”

                    • He thinks his phones were tapped? Does that really make him a conspiracy theorist?

                      Yes, of course it does.

                    • Chris responded to this, “He thinks his phones were tapped? Does that really make him a conspiracy theorist?”

                      Chris wrote, “Yes, of course it does.”

                      You are doing exactly what the left usually does, jump to conclusions without facts. Actually if his phones were tapped it’s not a conspiracy theory.

                      Trump doesn’t know how to keep his trap shut, he could actually be stating something that is fact that maybe would have been better off not being released. It’s not like Trumps Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome has never gotten him in deep water by creating unintended consequences before by shoving his foot in his mouth. This could get really interesting as actual facts begin to emerge, no matter what the facts actually prove.

                    • You are doing exactly what the left usually does, jump to conclusions without facts.

                      Donald Trump is part of the left now?

                      Actually if his phones were tapped it’s not a conspiracy theory.

                      And if Obama really was born in Kenya, then birtherism isn’t a conspiracy theory either.

                      Did you take birtherism seriously? If not, why are you giving the benefit of the doubt to Trump in this case? Did becoming president magically make him any less of a dumb conspiracy theorist?

                      Trump doesn’t know how to keep his trap shut, he could actually be stating something that is fact that maybe would have been better off not being released.

                      It is amazing to me that you are entertaining this. The FBI has already asked to DOJ to dismiss his claims out of hand. There is no available intelligence supporting his claims. He is a known liar and conspiracy theorist. Why are we talking about this as is it might be real? Why are people acting like this isn’t a transparent deflection from the Russia story? Why are you letting yourself be conned?

                      It’s not like Trumps Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome has never gotten him in deep water by creating unintended consequences before by shoving his foot in his mouth. This could get really interesting as actual facts begin to emerge, no matter what the facts actually prove.

                      The facts will prove that Trump is lying, as usual.

                    • Chris was told to dangle his bait in someone else’s pond, I’m not biting.

                      With almost every comment Chris posts these days he’s showing us just how much of a political hack he’s become and that trolling this blog is some kind of game for him. I wonder how much this Umgwana Chris fellow gets paid to write this useless drivel?

                      A mind is a terrible thing to waste, even a mind consumed by Liberalism.

                      It’s sad.

                    • Jack Marshall said, “I believe that Chris is seriously seeking perspective and testing his own assumptions and beliefs. That’s an excellent use for Ethics Alarms.”

                      I’ll take that perspective into account.

                      On the other hand; I think that we all need to constantly evaluate how our words are perceived by others and I’m no exception to that. That’s not to say that we have to become overly PC, which drives me nuts, we just need to be aware and consider that sometimes the change needs to begin within.

                      I’ve always been a hard man and the Army exacerbated that, I need to look inward sometimes too, today is one of those days.

              • [This is a reply to Warren’s comment immediately above Jack’s. I have no idea where this will pop up when I hit enter.]

                “Just to be clear, you’re suggesting that John Podesta and the Clinton family are collaborating with New York Times columnists on articles? That definitely makes sense.”

                Judging from you comment above, I assume Warren you were being sarcastic in the quote above. I think this show how diametrically opposed our views of the current disposition of the mainstream media’s biases and loyalties and modi operandi are. You genuinely believe the public should be more deferential to the media. You also really believe Trump convinced half the electorate Obama was not born in the U.S. Can you cite any polls or other support for such an assertion? Half the voters? Really?

  4. Welp, looks like after some (ahem) soul-searching, he’s issued an apology, which curiously makes no reference to racism

    ” ‘After a discussion with people I know and trust I understand the way my remarks have been received by many,’ Richmond said in a statement, according to reports. ‘I have consistently been a champion for women and women’s issues, and because of that the last thing I would want to ever do is utter words that would hurt or demean them.’

    ” ‘I apologize to Kellyanne Conway and everyone who has found my comments to be offensive.’ ”

    Hmmm, not everyone found it offensive, it only took him a week, and SanFranNan still doesn’t have all the particulars.

    Sooooooo, we good?

  5. I’m trying to figure out whether the Democrat party invented talking points. I don’t see Republicans spouting them but they’re all we ever get from Democrats. Pelosi’s answer was clearly drafted by someone else and provided her beforehand. It sounded like a Debbie Wasserman Schultz special. The incessant use of talking points, not to mention their contents, really, really annoy me. Whatever happened to truly extemporaneous speaking in politics and elected officials being able to, and expected to be able to, think on their feet?

    • There they go again about the Russians.

      There is no evidence that the Russiand actually aided and abetted voter fraud. what they are accused of doing is releasing information favorable to one candidate.

      How is that different than what NBC did? Or what Candy Crowley did in 2012? or what Dan Rather tried to do in 2004?

    • You have to at least give Charles Blow credit for actually articulating what it is that people want. Frankly, I’m glad to see it. I’ve been wondering for quite a while now what the endgame is. Interesting. He wants to address a questionable “problem” with a completely unprecedented “solution.” Interesting.

      • Not to mention a solution completely without Constitutional foundation. That said, Charles also wrote that he was going to essentially oppose Trump a la Ahab (“from Hell’s heart I stab at thee…”) so his piece is somewhat more easily dismissed with a “there he goes again…” than someone who hadn’t already painted himself as a banzai charger.

        • All true but I find it refreshing that this little kabuki theater thing seems to be coming to a conclusion. I think the entire effort has been choreographed. I’ve been really interested to see what the final act was going to be. Here it is. Completely without any legal or Constitutional underpinning, as you say. But at least it’s been articulated in all its preposterousness. Curiously refreshing.

                • Yup. They want Trump gone, and they want him gone before 2018. The fact that certain writers have talked about calling a special election should tell you all you need to know.

                  BTW, this is actually not the first step in this pattern of thinking on the left. Most folks don’t remember this article posted the day before Election Day 2014.

                  I do. The Democrats were about to get creamed and lose the Senate, together with some usually reliably blue governorships (MD, MA). The supposedly tough fight Mitch McConnell faced in KY was going to be the first publicly called race of the night as he put Allison Grimes away without even breaking a sweat. They knew it and they knew why, Obama’s second term had sucked so far. This professor’s solution? Adjust all Congressional terms to either four or eight (for Senators) years and make them run on the same cycle with the President. Of course they said it was to give Congress breathing room to consider complicated issues, but who were they kidding? They wanted to make it easier for a charismatic or populist or minority candidate to create a “wave” effect from the top of the ticket and then they wanted the results of that effect tightly secure in office for the full four years, with no chance in two to reduce that party’s power if the electorate decided they didn’t like what they saw. They knew damn well that when Obama himself ran, he won and his party won. When his policies ran without him, they lost and his party lost, resulting in 6 years with the House in the opposition’s hands and 2 with all of Congress in GOP hands. Obama himself knew, that’s why he said in off years that minorities should vote “like I’m on the ticket.” The authors of that article wanted to make sure that didn’t happen again and that the future looked more like 2009-10, with full control of everything and the ability to pass big stuff like Obamacare.

                  Two years before another academic argued for the elimination of the Constitution altogether.

                  His thought was supposedly that obsession with original intent vis-à-vis the idea of a law that changed with the times was inhibiting progress, but essentially he was arguing for soft tyranny, where anyone who had the votes could do anything.

                  Given these earlier thoughts, does it really come as a surprise that, after this election and also the 2000 election, where the Democrats lost precisely because of the Electoral College, that the left wrote multiple articles calling for its repeal? Not really, since it has been gravitating toward the idea that if the rules get in its way they should be changed for at least five years. Given that, do even more radical calls to “put the presidency on hold” or order a do-over on the election that was supposed to give us President Hillary before President Trump has even been in office a year appear any more surprising? I’m sorry to say they don’t, and in light of the fact they don’t, the Democratic Party’s hard-core obstructionist tactics, designed to stop Trump from even leaving the gate, look positively moderate by comparison.

                  The fact is that the left, and a large portion of the party that represents its positions, has arrived at a place where it honestly believes that those positions are the only legitimate positions and those who hold them are the only individuals worthy of respect. Years of your primary leader being hailed as some kind of messiah and your opponents’ positions being freely, openly, and repeatedly attacked as not just incorrect but racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and generally hateful will do that, just like a steady diet of any kind of thoughts will gradually move the reader away from seeing things differently.

                  That’s why young men who keep reading and watching porn eventually start to believe that all the pussy they want is just waiting for them to if only they reach out and take it, why racists can’t move past the view that whatever race they hate is simply unworthy, and why rage-a-holics who keep pounding bags at the gym and taking mixed martial arts classes eventually start thinking the solution to every problem is to kick its ass.

                  The fact is that if you become obsessed with moving ahead or moving to the next level, you may lose sight of where the road ends. Sometimes that end is in a very bad place. Jack pointed some of this out in 2013 after Hugo Chavez died of cancer, leaving Venezuela a hopeless socialist basket case after three terms of pushing the place ever farther left and centralizing more and more power in himself. The left wants to put the US on that path, come hell or high water, but the electorate isn’t biting…yet.

              • Just to be clear, you’re suggesting that John Podesta and the Clinton family are collaborating with New York Times columnists on articles? That definitely makes sense.

  6. Could Kristof’s tweet be equated to Trump’s “asking” Russian hackers to find Clinton’s deleted emails? After all, that was a literal (if you only look at the words, without accounting for tone or context) call for foreign hackers to engage in illegal espionage. What makes this case different?

    I’m not suggesting he was joking, mind you, only that it would seem (unless there is an issue I haven’t considered) that he could make exactly the same claim. And, since he tweeted it, one could argue the whole thing was written with an implied emoticon denoting sarcasm — or whatever comedians and pundits usually claim when people don’t “get” their sense of humor.

  7. While I agree Pelosi’s behavior in general is woefully lacking in decency & sense, is calling her a miserable human being or saying due to her age, rather than her capabilities, that she should be “put to pasture” ethical?

    Since the election I’ve had to take a good hard look at my own hate & hypocrisy. And my own foolishness for that matter. I’m not sure tearing down other people for tearing down other people for tearing down other people (ad nauseam) is going to help anyone. My humble opinion is that defining a person as a whole based on parts or saying biased phrases to make a point – is also lacking in decency and serves to further dehumanize. This exactly what those protesters are doing to conservatives & Trump and we shouldn’t sign off on such behavior. Nor should we use the same low level “they started it” argument either. It’s a rather poor excuse for justifying our own evilness. And all of us must face our own evil from to time.

    • She is, by definition, a miserable human being, and the episode posted amply shows the justification of that assessment. She never should have been allowed OUT of the pasture. Age has nothing to do with it.

      • Puzzled a little by the “out of the pasture” comment but got it. Hah. Might it be better to say “she never should have been let into the milk barn (if we’re talking milk cows) or never been allowed to run on the track (if we’re talking race horses), in the first place?” In any event, a very admirable turn of phrase.

  8. Oh, for God’s sake, Bill! It’s espionage nobody finds out about. If Nixon were alive, he could explain it to you.

  9. Kristof and the NYT should be prosecuted immediately. The White House and the Attorney General are being foolish if they don’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.