5. “publicly sought“; Lower and lower: Trump needled Hillary about her missing e-mails, and facetiously suggested that Russia should hack them so we could find out what was in them. This has been a disgraceful trope in the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, and citing it identifies the writer or speaker as an untrustworthy hack.
6. “When national security officials raised alarm with Congress, before Election Day, leaders of the candidate’s party refused to act.”
It is nice that the columnist supplies the news links so we can read what he is falsely characterizing. This is a good example: a typically slanted post by anti-Trump Fury Jennifer Rubin blaming Mitch McConnell for not agreeing to sign “a bipartisan statement of condemnation.” If there is anyone who thinks that the Obama administration was prevented in any way from taking measures to protect the election from the Russians because McConnell wouldn’t sign a statement, raise your hand. It’s like the old telephone game: Rubin makes a highly dubious claim, and Leonhardt cites it to mean something more dubious still.
7. “The foreign assistance appears to have been crucial to the candidate’s narrow victory.” Appears to whom? There is absolutely no evidence that Russians played a crucial or even significant role in Trump’s upset. This is now Democrat cant, and wonderful example of bootstrapping: obviously Hillary’s loss proves the case, because they are sure that she shouldn’t have lost.
8. “He won with only 46.1 percent of the popular vote, less than 16 losing candidates over the years had, including Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Williams Jennings Bryan and the little-remembered Horatio Seymour.” Yes, the Left is still complaining about the Constitutional rules of the system that all parties have played by from the beginning, and which has worked out extraordinarily well. What is Leonhardt trying to say? Apparently that Trump isn’t legitimate, so everyone should be angry that they are being governed by an evil pretender.
Psst! Idiot!! 46.1 % is also more than some prominent Presidential winners, like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Bill Clinton (twice), as well as some not so prominent, like John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan In other words, the statistic is cherry-picked trivia, and proves nothing whatsoever.
9. Sigh. The Supreme Court seat was not “stolen,” which falsely implies something illegal. The GOP was within its legal rights not to allow Obama’s nomination come to the Senate floor. The plan was unethical, unfair and a ridiculous gamble that easily could have backfired, but “stolen” is a falsehood.
10. ” A brutal, partisan process that was made into the norm by Democrats during the Bork and Thomas hearings, and sent plummeting to new lows by the outrageous conduct of, again, Democrats, this time.” There, I fixed it for you, Leonhardt.
11. Lie after lie. The President is not an admitted sexual molester. He mocked Dr. Ford for her collaborated testimony. It has yet to be determined is she was truly a victim. Mocking her is not mocking a victim, and is certainly not mocking “victims of abuse.”
12. Super-legislature! Conservatives could have used this nonsensical accusation when the Court legalized gay marriage. The Warren Court literally legislated repeatedly, as when it decreed that certain words had to be spoken by police during arrests in its Miranda ruling.
By “political influence-buying,” the deceitful pundit is referring to Citizens United, in which the Court struck down a law that openly defied the First Amendment. That’s not legislating by the Court. That’s called “stopping Congress from ignoring the Bill of Rights, like the Court is supposed to do.”
What is the purpose of all the inflammatory, warped, historical revisionism from the Angry Left? The purpose is to create more anger still, dark, unreasoning fury, and to demonize anyone who opposes the current progressive and resistance effort to take power rather than earn it. The purpose is to fertilize false narratives that encourage distrust, division and hate, relying on the inattention, intellectual laziness, ignorance and poor education of the American public.
In that one section alone, Leonhardt’s “review” falsely spins reality to state as fact that Donald Trump was elected President because of anti-black racism, that the conservative media was complicit in bringing a racist to power, that the Presidential election was rigged by a Republican de facto alliance with a malign foreign power, that the election itself was illegitimate because only the popular vote should count, that political hardball by Republicans to block Merrick Garland was theft, but opposing the unprecedented Democratic effort to destroy Judge Kavanaugh by weaponizing #MeToo was “brutal and partisan,” that the Supreme Court is rigged.
Though Leonhardt’s official prescription for the anger and hate he is fomenting is political activism, he knows the dangerously unstable stage current progressive activism has reached. Conservatives have been attacked on college campuses; Rep. Steve Scalise was shot; Rand Paul was attacked by a deranged liberal neighbor. Many Republican officeholders have been confronted by mobs on the street and harassed in restaurants as Democrats like Maxine Waters egg them on, and yet writers like Leonhardt, and leaders of the Democratic Party, continue to preach hate. Surely you have heard by now about Hillary Clinton’s jaw dropping statement yesterday,
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”
I want to be fair: President Trump has the precision of language of a stroke victim sometimes, so maybe Hillary didn’t mean to sound like a totalitarian thug. Yet here words seem to say that until Democrats regain power, anything goes. Of course, once they do gain power, is the Gulag far behind, with people like her calling the shots? Does anyone have a more innocent and less sinister interpretation?
Let us not ignore the racist and despicable Charles M. Blow, another Times columnist has been holding a non-stop anti-Trump rant for two full years. Here he is this week:
…view the entirety of the battle in which you are engaged, and understand that Kavanaugh is just one part of a much larger plan by conservatives to fundamentally change the American political structure so that it enshrines and protects white male power even after America’s changing demographics and mores move away from that power….Liberals can get so high-minded that they lose sight of the ground war. Yes, next month it is important to prove to the rest of Americans, and indeed the world, that Trump and the Republicans who promote and protect him are at odds with American values and with the American majority…Folks, Kavanaugh is only one soldier, albeit an important one, in a larger battle. Stop thinking you’re in a skirmish, when you’re at war.
There it is: the same people who are falsely calling Republicans racist are openly racist, and sexist as well. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone calling someone as mainstream and traditional as Brett Kavanaugh a pawn in a plot to change anything, and impossible for me to understand how anyone could follow the Kavanaugh hearings and not suspect clinical insanity of a pundit who claims the it was the Republicans who showed themselves to be “at odds with American values,” when the Democrats’ desperate #MeToo ambush depended on the elimination of such core of American values as the presumption of innocence, due process, equal justice, and basic fairness. Is someone who swallows this Bizarro World interpretation stupid? Gullible?
Similarly, how can the claim that liberals are “high-minded” after everything we have witnessed since Trump’s inauguration not provoke derisive laughter? Is Hillary’s statement high minded? Is Eric Holder, who said, this week, “Michelle [Obama] always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. No. When they go low, we kick them,” being high-minded?
One side of the political divide, and only one side, either because of frustration, corruption, desperation, a fully developed “the ends justified the means” political culture on the Left, or simply a lack of imagination, is now embracing what was once called Hillary’s Clinton’s fatal gaffe, declaring that the opposition to Democratic power are deplorables, and in so doing, encouraging violence. It is the equivalent of throwing gasoline on a fire, and still the Times and the rest of the mainstream news media are full allies in the effort.