Weeping And Screaming At The Sky: Dear Democrats, Progressives, And “The Resistance,” Are You Embarrassed Yet? Why Not?

The emerging strategy of the traumatized and indignant Left since the debacle of last November 8 has been, it seems, to try to cause President Trump to snap, so he would do something that unequivocally justifies removing him from office. Actively trying to drive your elected leader nuts is border-line treasonous, of course, so this strategy is unethical, but never mind: so far, it’s not working. Instead, President Trump’s foes are the ones snapping like dry twigs in the woods. The spectacle is unprecedented in U.S. history, and should be so embarrassing to the un-snapped members of the President’s opposition that it is disturbing that they are not yet  wearing bags over their heads and thinking about witness protection.

The anti-Trump forces could justifiably be ashamed to be associated with all the academics who have thoroughly beclowned themselves, like Harvard’s deluded Larry Lessig, and the long-snapped government ethics specialist Richard Painter, who is back to peddling a false theory of how the 25th Amendment works in order to bootstrap an impossible plan to remove Trump. Then there is the risible  $10,000,000 ad campaign by frustrated billionaire Democratic donor Tom Steyer, calling for Trump’s impeachment without being able to articulate a single basis that would pass logical, legal or Constitutional muster. Maxine Waters is going full demagogue (you never go full demagogue) in her own obstinately ignorant proclamations that an elected President can and should be removed because the Congressional Black Caucus disapproves of his tweets, while the official leadership of her party—which, incredibly, just added disgraced cheat Donna Brazile to its ranks, signalling it vales and priorities— opposes the most uncivil and boorish of Chief Executives by routinely seasoning their own diatribes with words like “shit” and “fuck.” Meanwhile, the defeated Democratic standard bearer in 2016, Hillary Clinton, is on a tone-deaf “blame everybody” tour while multiple scandals surrounding her own campaign revive and emerge, as she establishes herself as the least graceful, whiniest, worst loser in American Presidential annals by approximately ten laps.

All of this and more is certainly bag-worthy, but compared to developments this week, they are badges of honor. Behold:

Newsweek—not The Onion, now, but Newsweek and other news outlets, are reporting that thousands of prgressives and Democrats in Boston and Philadelphia will commemorate the anniversary of Donald Trump’s election by...wait for it…”screaming helplessly at the sky.” Over 4,000 Facebook users in the Boston area have RSVP’d to attend the November 8 event at the  Boston Common, and another 33,000 have expressed interest.

The organizers’ Facebook post makes the cogent appeal, “Come express your anger at the current state of democracy, and scream helplessly at the sky!”

Johanna Schulman, an activist and one of the organizers of the protest, told Newsweek, “This administration has attacked everything about what it means to be American. Who wouldn’t feel helpless every day? Coming together reminds us that we are not alone, that we are part of an enormous community of activists who are motivated and angry, whose actions can make a difference.”

No, Joanna. Watching a large group of what presents itself as the opposition to Donald Trump literally throw a public tantrum and scream at the sky can only make sane and mature opponents of the President question if the progressives offer anything positive and preferable as an alternative. This is an epic example of incompetent dissent and counter-productive advocacy. It marks “the resistance” as juvenile, insubstantial, desperate and impotent beyond a reasonable doubt. Sreaming at the sky is not just the act of losers, but of silly losers.

The fact that the opposition to Donald Trump isn’t humiliated by resorting to such a self-debasing display is res ipsa loquitur for clinical, not merely metaphorical, Trump Derangement.

But wait, there’s more!

One can hardly speak of “the resistance” without including the anti-Trump mainstream news media. It also entered the Valley of Embarrassment this week.

CNN anchor Don Lemon, who has already explored depths of unprofessional journalistic conduct never before visited by members his profession by getting drunk on the job during the last two New Years’s Eves, decided it was appropriate to read an open letter he had authored  to President Trump and Gold Star Widow Myeshia Johnson regarding the partisan “gotcha!” the latter engineered to attack the President with the assistance of one of Maxine Waters’ Congressional Black Caucus cronies. Needless to say, Lemon is supportive of Johnson and condemns the President.

It is unprofessional enough for a journalist to personally take sides in a public dispute, especially one as jaw-droppingly cynical and phony as this one. This kind of partisan advocacy is right out of Keith Olberman’s playbook. Ironically, Lemon pulled his grandstanding stunt the same day CNN, of all places, announced that it was branding itself  the network of “Facts First.” But even that isn’t the most embarrassing aspect of Lemon’s conduct.

He became so overcome with the power of his own words that he broke down in tears. On the air.

When Walter Cronkite announced the death of President Kennedy live, his oaken voice shuddered a bit, and he appeared, as he took off his glasses, to perhaps just blink away a tear. Had he followed the new standard of professionalism pioneered by Don Lemon, he would have torn at his garments, pounded the desk, and shouted, “WHY?WHY? WHY?”

And then, of course, screamed helplessly at the sky.

Lemon’s deportment was so far from professional standards that it doesn’t qualify as journalism. It was self-indulgent political theater. If CNN had any professional integrity at all, it would tell Lemon that any similar outburst will send him to MSNBC via FedEx overnight express. CNN doesn’t, of course. If it did, Lemon would have been fired for getting smashed on the air while representing the network. But after all, when it comes to proclaiming opposition to Donald Trump on CNN, anything goes.

As with the Sky-Screamers, Lemon’s infantile display is a gift to Trump and Republicans. The President regularly behaves like a petulant child; if one wants to show the right way for leaders to conduct themselves, one does not scream at the sky. The President too often lacks self restraint; if one wants to make the case that this is unacceptable, one does not break down weeping on the air.

For almost a year, given the most easily criticized character ever to occupy the White House, the opposition mounted by Democrats and progressives and “the resistance” has consisted of escalating levels of alienating, ugly, unprofessional and undemocratic rhetoric and behavior, all having the effect of making Trump’s critics seem  more like what they claim to deplore every day. This is a betrayal of their duty to provide competent and respectable opposition. Now they have  reached the stage of self-destructive absurdity.

Even President Trump knows that it is ludicrous to scream at the sky. Why would a rational citizen prefer the leadership of people who don’t know that? Even President Trump knows that breaking down weeping on the job is unprofessional. Why should anyone heed the criticism of someone who can’t even grasp that ?

When will the Left be embarrassed enough by these pathetic, desperate, childish methods and indulgent spectacles to abandon its current course and become responsible?

Or is it, like the President, incapable of embarrassment?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to be ethical if you are incapable of embarrassment.


Graphic: Washington Times


66 thoughts on “Weeping And Screaming At The Sky: Dear Democrats, Progressives, And “The Resistance,” Are You Embarrassed Yet? Why Not?

  1. I might add, Jack, when you refuse to acknowledge the government or the elected leader as legitimate, all bets are off. That’s why some call the IRA traitors and others call them patriots, ditto other separatist movements, including the secessionists way back when. I’m sure you remember that South Carolina openly said, before Fort Sumter, that if a Republican president was elected, they were going to secede.

    Frankly, I just laugh at this screaming and other absurd behavior, but yesterday it was only moral luck that an activist only threw Russian flags and not something more lethal at the President when he arrived in the Capitol. It’s when the opposition stops being absurd and starts being deadly serious, as it already has been once in your hometown, that I’m going to be worried.

  2. “Come express your anger at the current state of democracy, and scream helplessly at the sky!”

    “scream helplessly at the sky”?

    Welp. that’s the adult, mature, solution-oriented approach, am I right?

    Lefties (most, not all) have been dangerously immersed in catatonic/apoplectic, pillow-biting, mouth-breathing, weenie-whiny, simpering-whimpering complete metaphysical, emotional, existential, psychological, philosophical, full-throated, freaking out, melting down, totally collapsing free-fall for 50 weeks now.

    This is NOT an enviable state of affairs, especially for those perilously close to a dark abyss to begin with.

    Forget about the great unwashed not having enough to eat, access to basic health care, adequate drinking water, or sufficient energy/power to eke out more than a subsistence level of existence.

    An infantilized Lefty has particularly unnerving 1st World problems to tend, and wants, nay expects, Civilization to take note.

    • “Pillow-biting?” Beware, Paul, lest someone grab hold of that and accuse you of homophobia. That said, one can’t blame someone for being a little down in the mouth after he bites a pillow…

  3. So, the resistance is officially revealing it’s members to be LESS rational then children. Even children don’t throw a tantrum over not getting what they wanted a year before…

  4. I’ve read people who think that a lack of education is an argument against universal suffrage.

    If there were a ranked list of reasons not to allow people to vote, I would think displays such as this by these cry-baby progressives rank much higher than not being fully educated in terms of revealing a lack of fitness for participating in republican democracy.

    • ”I’ve read people who think that a lack of education is an argument against universal suffrage.”

      Isn’t that argument only used to disenfranchise lower class EVIL Conservative White Y-Chromosomal Units, with extra disdain reserved for those with…um…complicating externalities: being Southern, overweight, & Religious?

      Similar lower class minorities?

      Not exactly.

      They’re victims of systemic racism and institutionalized discrimination…so long as they’re ideologically certified, leastways.

      There are some that argue against encouraging certain demographics to vote.

      (bolds mine throughout)
      ” ‘Stop encouraging people who don’t want to vote to vote.’ Low voter turnout is ‘not necessarily a bad thing’ if it reflects the nonparticipation of Americans who tune politics out.

      ” ‘Voters who don’t want to cast a ballot because they’re too lazy or uninformed should stay home . . . When we pressure people to vote, we’re diluting the democratic process, by bringing out those who are easily manipulated.’

      ”There is nothing wrong with not caring about politics, or with having better things to do than vote. There is something wrong with turning the franchise into a fetish. Voter turnout is not the acid test of democratic health, and nothing is improved when we go to extremes to coax nonvoters to the polls.

      ” ‘Some of these people really shouldn’t vote, (p)eople that are voting in the blind are doing a disservice to our country.’ ”

      So, who’s this EVIL bigoted racist hellbent on violating the sanctity of ALL people’s sacred right to vote?

      None other than NBA HoF & career Lefty Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; no Righty, he!


      • Some years back, I made a comment to my aunt about the election that was happening that year, I’m sorry I don’t remember exactly what year it was. She asked me what I was talking about, told me she didn’t know anything about it, and when I asked her how she decides who to vote for, she told me she never voted in her life.

        I decided that was probably for the best.

        I mean if she refused to care or even pay attention and I couldn’t change that, what’s left but to leave her alone?

  5. What came to mind when I read this is the notion of the “infantilization of America”, which actually came up second in the Google search by the time I typed in “infanti”.

    When I stop and question, not necessarily the ethics of the “aaargh!!!” resistance, but the motivation and the appeal to such tactics, I admit that my conclusions might be a bit biases. But when my 3-year-old wants something and doesn’t get it, she throws a tantrum. Sometimes she throws the tantrum before I say no, in anticipation of that very event. Other than the profanity, the “aaargh!!!” event very closely resembles my daughter’s tantrums.

    I am looking forward to the day, hopefully not far off, when my daughter and I might have a conversation like this:

    “Dad, may I have a cookie?”

    “No, it is past 4 o’clock, and the rules are no snacks after 4.”

    “Yes, Dad, I respect that. However, you admitted that dinner is going to be late, and the reason behind the 4 o’clock rule is so that I don’t spoil my appetite for dinner. I am, admittedly, very hungry, and think one cookie now, with two hours yet until dinner, won’t impact my capacity to eat my entire meal.”

    “That is very good reasoning, but spoiling your appetite is not the only reason not to have a snack at this point. Another reason is discipline, and training your capacity to resist indulging every desire the moment it appears. A little hunger is not going to hurt you, and your ability to withstand a little hunger now will help you withstand other temptations as you go through life.”

    “Wow, Dad, I hadn’t thought of that. So, can I have a stalk of celery instead, since it isn’t very filling?”

    “All right, you can have a stalk of celery. Hey, wait, why are you getting out the peanut butter?!?”

    “Dad, you can’t have celery without peanut butter, and you said I could have a stalk of celery.”

    “…grumble, grumble…”

    I think anyone who is a parent will quickly assure me that such a conversation is pure fantasy. However, who wouldn’t want to deal with his children in such a fashion? Who wouldn’t want to deal with other adults in such a reasonable fashion? Why then are we getting the “aaargh!!!” treatment? I think it is because we have, as a culture, infantilized ourselves.

    I could speculate ad nauseum as to the reasons why we have become largely a nation of children, and I’m sure I could rile everyone by suggesting that we’re too rich, we’re too entitled, we’re too accustomed to comfort, we’re too arrogant, we’re too secular, we’re too insular, we’re addicted to stimulation in the form of movies and TV and video games and tablets and smart phones, and we struggle valiantly to keep the dopamine gravy-train rolling. I admit, I am mostly like one of those infantilized. I’m 36, and I keep dreaming I’m still 16. I’m a father of two, working a professional career, and I keep wanting to make my own enjoyment a top priority.

    The Catholic view of mature love is the willing to give of oneself to others for the benefit of the other. A mature man is one who is willing to sacrifice himself for his wife and children. A mature woman is one who places the needs of her children and husband above her own. Our society today balks at such ideals, throwing around words like “sexist”, “medieval”, “brainwashed”, and so on, but if we stop and think, who is more inspiring? The man who strives to provide great things for his family at personal expense, or the man who philanders around? The man who faces adversity and chooses the right thing, even at personal cost, or the man who happily does everything unethical to achieve wealth? The man who patiently listens to his opponent’s objections and answers them calmly, or the man who just screams “You’re wrong, you’re wrong, I’m not listening, la, la, la, nyah, nyah!”?

    If those are so admirable, though, why do we see so little of it? I know from my own experience that good feelings from fun and games are nice right now. Giving of myself is painfully hard, and the satisfaction that comes is not immediate. But the dearth of role models also begets an even great famine of role models, whereas we have unending role models of fun and entertainment and examples of people who get what they want at the expense of others, and often get away with it if they have enough money. More, our ruling body behaves in a way that continues to encourage the infantilizing of our nation. I’m not suggesting this is a deliberate ploy, but a logical consequence of how we have been handling politics. Instead of encouraging the mentality of “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, our politicians, left and right, make their campaigns a long string of promises of all manner of goodies for their supporters. They appeal to our infantilization, and then continue to reward our infantilization once they are in office. And like infants, when our party loses and we don’t get our goodies, we immediately revert to “aaargh!!!”.

    I’m not convinced that, had Hillary won, the conservatives wouldn’t have been throwing their own, massive temper-tantrum. They would be more like the passive-aggressive child who holds his breath until he passes out (I apparently did this as a little boy), and not the screeching caterwauling we’re hearing from liberals, but it would be a tantrum nonetheless.

    I don’t have a solution to this problem. How can you make people want to grow up? Why, if wailing like an infant is so successful a strategy, would we ever want to abandon that tactic? Where is the reward in adulthood, in ethical behavior, in being a solid, inspiring role model, when it means personal suffering and sacrifice that apparently is not needed?

    • I’m not convinced that, had Hillary won, the conservatives wouldn’t have been throwing their own, massive temper-tantrum. They would be more like the passive-aggressive child who holds his breath until he passes out (I apparently did this as a little boy), and not the screeching caterwauling we’re hearing from liberals, but it would be a tantrum nonetheless.

      Did you not notice the whole Tea Party or Birther things?

      If you think about it, the Joe Arpaios and that ilk would have thrown very loud freak-out fests, Donald Trump would still be tweeting and calling President Clinton illegitimate, and the Mitch McConnells would have thrown passive aggressive refusals to hold any confirmation hearings. The form is based on personality not political inclination.

      • The form is based on personality not political inclination.

        I thought I was more or less agreeing that we are seeing infantilization across the board. But I do think political inclination factors into personality, and that we’d see more passive aggressive techniques from the right, and more expressive techniques from the left as a general trend. But, as always, I reserve the right to be up to 100% wrong…

        • I’d probably say it as personality factors into political inclination but yes we were mostly agreeing. You’re just… perhaps glossing over the more aggrieved, hateful parts of the right. The ones who hang out on Breitbart.

          • The ones who hang out on Breitbart.

            Since I don’t hang out at Breitbart, I don’t really know who frequents that house of ill repute…

            And to be fair, I get my news mostly through NPR on the way to and from work each day, and from Jack. He’ll probably cringe that I come to him for news as well as for ethical analysis…

      • You are on a terrible analogy roll.

        The “Birther thing” was a fringe, not representative of Republicans or conservatives. There were no mass birther protests. It was roughly analogous to the “truther” nonsense during the Bush administration. The Tea Party was a civic movement, no more, no less, like environmentalism or Bernie-ism. It was aimed at specific policies and winning elections, not reversing them. You really have to win arguments based on reality, not tailored distortions of it to get you over the rough spots.

        • There was an 8 year freak-out about President Obama and if you think birtherism is so fringe why did the republicans nominate the most famous of the birthers?

            • I know…all those social media posts about Obama dancing with Michelle, all those posts about what a good marriage they have, how scandal-free his administration was, how cool he is, the First Lady on late night TV, the President having a great time with numerous children in the White House, how hateful.

              • All those post about how Michelle Obama is really a man and Obama’s a secret gay Muslim who for some reason still drinks beer, how Michelle’s trying to impose an evil nanny state by saying, hey kids, eat your vegetables. How Jade Helm’s a secret plan to invade and occupy Texas. Government’s going to round up all your guns on inauguration day. People were telling my grandmother he was going to take away her social security because gods know democrats just hate the New Deal *eyeroll*. The Birthers. The talk of an apology tour. He’s not like us, he doesn’t really love America. Bill Ayres and reverend Wright. Our priority is to make him a one term president. No Bama. You lie. Failed presidency. Most divisive ever! Chris Christi a traitor for hugging Obama. And did I mention birthers birthers and more birthers?

                No doubt you’ll feel some of that was justified while at the same time think complaints against Trump are absurd. Doesn’t matter. It was a series of freak-outs.

                Hell, some people actually acquitted Cliven Bundy so it looks like freak-out has been the default mode for some time.

                • Valky,

                  I can only gather that the conservatives here are much more aware of the extreme left than they are of the extreme right.

                  The inverse is probably true of many leftists. We all have a psychological investment in focusing on the reasonable, intellectual sides of our respective movements and the nutty, fringe sides of the opposition.

                  That’s the only explanation for Jack’s comment that many of the examples you brought up weren’t “organized” or part of a larger social movement. They absolutely were. It was just a movement that rational conservatives like the ones here had a psychological investment in ignoring.

                  • Deluded and dishonest, Chris. There was no “resistance.” with Obama. There were no scholars claiming that he could be impeached. There were no boycotts of his Inauguration, or mass demonstrations by birthers, or daily, across the media rumor-mongering. Romney and McCain didn’t do book tours claiming that the elections were stolen. Nobody took obscure sections out of the Constitution and used it to manufacture wild hair impeachment claims. You and Valky are edging into dishonesty. Not a single GOP member of Congress held rallies demanding Obama’s impeachment. I resent having to waste my time even listing all this. Your positition is what is technically defined as “utter bullshit.” Stick to reality, please. The strained rationalizations insult my intelligence.

                    • Erwin Chereminsky and Laurence Tribe are excellent examples.

                      If the emoluments clause really meant that the President could not receive any type of payment from any foreign government for any reason whatsoever, why did they not go after President Obama?

                  • No Chris. It bleeds through in the comments here, you can’t miss it when they try to suggest that it’s the fault of a counter-protester if she gets run over by a Nazi or that it’s a false flag. Sometimes Jack shuts it down like when Obama gets called a Muslim. Sometimes he lets it pass like when someone insists the american left are all Marxists or trying to destroy America. But it all comes from the same place, and it’s all widespread, and they are perfectly aware of it happening. They freaked out about Obama and they have a Pavlovian reaction if you just mention Hillary Clinton’s name and then they turn around and call us deranged.

                    Us. Even though they should love you. You’re practically Alan Colmes.

                  • How can someone who’s supposedly rational have missed that there was an entire freak-out the time President Obama wore a *gasp* tan suit.

                • “No doubt you’ll feel some of that was justified while at the same time think complaints against Trump are absurd. ”

                  Belittling people is not a good way to convince them you are right.

                  I’m not a conservative…I’m slightly right of center. Every political quiz I take online puts me there. Because I disagreed with you, you decided that I’m conservative and agreed with the criticisms of Obama, no matter how harebrained. Wrong. I didn’t SEE many of them on my feed, and so no, I didn’t know about some of it, I just went looking for some of what you mentioned. My FB feed is 98% liberal, and liberals weren’t going around saying Michelle is a man…

                  There are people in this world that operate at such a low level, both intelligence-wise, and morally that they are beneath addressing. This is where I put the ‘Michelle is a man’ and ‘Obama’s a secret Muslim’ and birther crowds. Beneath contempt, and not worth giving attention to. So are white supremacists, and the Klan. “But, but, it’s the KLAN!”…one other thing that set me back on my heels after the election was the fact that so many members of the Democratic party seemed to be finding out for the first time that the Klan still existed…if they are such an outrageous threat, where has the indignation and anger been all these years? Oh, say the last 20? You know the Klan exists and people are being deported because the press got off their collective arses and are out there covering these issues, because Trump. Obama’s nickname among Hispanic activist groups was the ‘Deporter in Chief’, with a figure of 2.8 million deported. Who cared? Who was looking? He has a record of more drone strikes than any other President. How many times did you see his drone strikes covered? How angry were you when he said that his own bowling was like ‘the Special Olympics, or something’? Or how stupid did you think he was when he said there were 57 States in the Union? You didn’t…it was Obama, and you gave him the benefit of the doubt, as any decent person would. I bring these things up to show that a) everyone makes mistakes and b) bad decisions. If Trump traded five terrorists for Bowie Bergdhal without consulting Congress, do you think it would be forgiven?

                  Have you EVER seen anybody give Trump a break? Of course not! Covfefe! A typo is STILL being referred to months and months later.
                  How many times did you see criticism of Obama on CNN, of the type being leveled at Trump (and with headlines dripping contempt…tone is everything).You see nothing BUT criticism of Trump. The man can’t be wrong 365 days a year. I’ve said it once or twice and I’ll say it once more (as I considered the slight of hand as an example of signature significance) was how the meeting with Trump and 30 or so black leaders was reported. What was decided at that meeting? What did they talk about? You don’t know, do you? Why? The Conway on the Couch “scandal”. Are you really going to tell me that meeting was drowned out completely on all media except the point about the way Conway sat, by accident!?

                  I am not conservative, and I did not think Trump had either the temperament nor the intellect for the job; I simply am strongly anti-bullshit, and I can smell it a mile away. Until the Democrats can clean house and get rid of their own scandals, some of which are kind of serious (Russia and uranium, The Wasserman IT scandal) , they have no business taking the high moral ground.

                  • Don’t want to get flagged for piling on, but…

                    The self-anointed 4th Greatest President <EVAH Administration prosecuting more whistleblowers under the Progressive Espionage Act than all other Administrations combined?

                    Or the self-proclaimed Most Transparent Administration EVAH! accepting an award for transparency in ceremony closed to the press?

                    If you allow, things can get out of hand quickly.

          • Good point, Valkygrrl. I remember the numerous Obama fans who were physically assaulted going to or from his rallies and the events that were cancelled due to threats of physical violence from crazed right-wingers. I remember the press going crazy about Obama’s black activist followers and railing against him in every broadcast. The way they focused on Obama’s family was particularly revolting.

            Oh, wait… None of those things happened. Never mind: Let’s go with your theory anyway, concluding that the criticisms of Obama were comparable to those seen since Trump was elected.

  6. I have an idea. It may be a little cynical. It may be a little cruel. But it will absolutely teach everyone a lesson.

    Instead of screaming helplessly into the sky, why don’t they eat paint chips and lick windows? It will be far more helpful. And it will really get back at all of those capitalist pigs. They won’t have pretty buildings and they can’t see through those windows.

  7. To inject a little navigation into this discussion, let me note that I find Lemon’s conduct—and CNN’s tolerance of it— more disturbing than that of the Screamers. And just as I think Hillary should think about how showing the first woman to run for President in the general election as lacking basic sportsmanship skills and values plays into damaging stereotypes, so does an openly gay journalist like Lemon behaving like such a wimp. (Anderson Coopers silly giggle is also a problem, but not as substantive.)

    • I personally prefer the Maddow response to bad news:

      “You’re awake by the way, You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also, you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell. This is your life now.”

        • I think… And maybe I’m just cynical… But I think…. That tears are the new thing. There’s been a push in the media to make Trump a villain not because of what he says, necessarily, but because of his tone, or the perceived deficit in his compassion.

          Don Lemon might be the first anchor to go there, but he’s not the first Democrat. Was Obama, when he teared up after his gun control bill failed? Jimmy Kimmel made hay over the last couple of weeks after tearing up, and last week on gun control wasn’t the first time…. Jimmy breaking down recounting his son’s hart condition was… I don’t know, maybe it was sincere. It was still a cheap shot to include commentary about the AMA, but I think if a family member having open heart surgery is a great excuse to get emotional… But gun control in the wake of Vegas? Less so. And Tweets to people you don’t know? Give me a break.

          • ”That tears are the new thing.”

            Recall Chuckie Schumer letting loose with the crocodile tears because the democrat voter drive appeared to be getting derailed, I mean, because of the immigration ban?

            Homer (Simpson, that is) said it best:

            ”Sincerity; once you can fake that, the world is yours.”

            • 1997 was the last Year of the Tear, with the whole freakin’ world breaking down sobbing at the death of Princess Diana and the grief train just rolling on and on. Even 9/11 was less about grief and more about anger and justified revenge, America couldn’t just stand there sobbing anymore than it could after Pearl Harbor. This goes along with higher education’s attempts to turn adolescents into toddlers, who cry and scream at the drop of a hat, after all, everyone has sympathy for a good-looking woman or sympathetic beta male (especially if gay) crying. An American president isn’t supposed to be a sympathetic beta male, he is supposed to be a strong leader, which is why tears from a president don’t evoke sympathy, but rather a question of is this guy fit to lead. A Senate leader is not supposed to be a sympathetic beta male, he is supposed to be able to get things done. Crying is the ultimate admission that you CAN’T get anything done, so all you do is stand around and let your grief spill out. It has its place in life, there is nothing wrong with getting home from the funeral of a loved relative and crying into your pillow, just to take the emotional burden off when no one else can see you, but we don’t make policy decisions based on people publicly unburdening themselves emotionally.

              Lemon’s abuse of his platform to attack the President was everything you said and more, and CNN needs to turf him out the door forthwith. They won’t, though, because Facts First, as long as they are facts that hurt Trump.

              P.S. I’m surprised you didn’t pull up Howard Dean’s ridiculous scream in 2004, that represented the collapse of his hopes as a serious political candidate.

        • ”But at least Maddow didn’t break down sobbing.”

          Yeah, but that smug puss unable to mask her innards verily…um…screaming a primordial shell-shocked WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT ”this WASN’T supposed to effin’ happen” realization?


    • [Reply to Jack’s Oct 25 at 10:56 am]
      These goings-on are just more of the Howard Beale-ing of TV.
      It’s a business. The world is a business. Political power is a business.
      With political power, losing = death. Only winning = power.
      In politics, the ends justify the means. Let’s scream about that.

  8. Even President Trump knows that it is ludicrous to scream at the sky. Why would a rational citizen prefer the leadership of people who don’t know that? Even President Trump knows that breaking down weeping on the job is unprofessional. Why should anyone heed the criticism of someone who can’t even grasp that ?

    “Even President Trump”? Oh faint praise, where is thy sting? 🙂

    The Democrats have embraced the radical left, maybe because they seem to be the only people who are voicing their alarm over Trump with sufficient stridency. Sure, Jeff Flake and John McCain will lambaste Trump, and they’ll get the Democrat praise they yearn, but the Dems really have lost a lug nut. They’ve tossed any semblance of centrist thought into the bin, because centrism just doesn’t express their rage at being shocked in the last election and the elemental frightfulness of Trump, and statesmanship alienates their base. Remember when Dianne Feinstein suggested Trump “can still be a good president” and the left freaked?

    I think they’ve collectively decided that because Trump seems to have no decency when it comes to the norms of the Presidency, they have complete freedom to discard the norms that are associated with being the opposition, and embrace a no-holds-barred approach in the ultimate ends-justify-the-means partisan freakout. I guess they figure that as scary as Trump is, maybe most Americans won’t notice that the Dems have become even more scary by adopting an extreme leftist agenda. For all I know, they may be right about a bare majority of America, but I’m not sure, given their demographic issues, that’s going to be enough. In fact, most pundits think it will bite them in the backside.

    • Good comment, Glenn.

      Trump is a remnant of a type of Democrat (including the pussy-grabbing) that used to exist in Democrat Party leadership circles. He just made a switch to the Republican Party at the right time, to run for office as if he is a Republican. But in reality, Trump is a Democrat. I believe that is what first freaked-out the Democrat Party, because Trump “stole” voters who in the past had voted for Democrat POTUS candidates.

      From there, Trump proceeded to be himself – which is to say, he demonstrated more effectiveness with ad hominem attacks than most Democrats ever dreamed of having – more ad hominem attacks than any Democrat candidates ever dreamed of having hurled at them.

      Oh, but they’ve learned!

      You can bet your bottom campaign-finance dollar that anti-Trump Democrats will strive most mightily to out-Trump Trump from hereon. Trump has set a new standard for low. What we are seeing is not so much an ongoing freak-out, as a 24-7 competition to win hearts and minds against Trump with negative campaigning that is superior to his. Only time will tell, but I suspect that the negativity will work enormously in Democrats’ favor, come the next elections.

      • Trump is a remnant of a type of Democrat (including the pussy-grabbing) that used to exist in Democrat Party leadership circles. He just made a switch to the Republican Party at the right time, to run for office as if he is a Republican. But in reality, Trump is a Democrat. I believe that is what first freaked-out the Democrat Party, because Trump “stole” voters who in the past had voted for Democrat POTUS candidates.

        Yeah I think a lot of this is right, he reminds me of Bill Clinton politically (in all the ways you mention) who if transported to today from 1992 would be considered a moderate Republican. For that matter, the Jimmy Carter of 1976 wouldn’t be welcome in today’s Democratic party.

        Trump isn’t exactly a Democrat, though, at least as currently defined. He isn’t a current definition Republican, either. I don’t think he holds very many ideological positions. He seems to change positions at the drop of a hat, depending on where he perceives the most advantage. For that matter, the Jimmy Carter of 1976 wouldn’t be welcome in today’s Democratic party.

        He’s supported Democrats in the past because it was advantageous for him to do so living in New York, but I don’t think he’s ideologically a fit for either party. His opposition to illegal immigration and the Democratic decision to basically adopt an open-borders policy makes him look more Republican than he really is. I don’t trust any of his positions on most things to withstand the test of time.

        • I agree with Tex and Glenn. Trump is jazz – improvisational, structured but not rigidly so relative to other forms, delightfully (until expected to clarify policy) unpredictable, and especially hard on the ears (if you don’t make an assumption [along with great effort] that he has some actual goodwill [“good vibes”] beyond his obvious self-absorption).

  9. Originally I thought this event was a joke. I thought it was funny.

    But as an actual protest, yes, it is counterproductive and embarrassing.

  10. “the official leadership of her party—which, incredibly, just added disgraced cheat Donna Brazile to its ranks”


    HOW? Jesus Christ. Nothing. They learned NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. Their learning curve isn’t flat, it actually tapers down. They deserve to lose every single election, every single time.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.