The previous post continues with the worst of the worst…
3. Charles M. Blow (New York Times): “It’s Bigger Than Mueller and Trump”
18 out of Charles M. Blow’s last 20 columns have been anti-Trump screeds, his ratio since the election is about the same. Not only is this res ipsa loquitur for Trump derangement, it’s also mind-numbingly repetitious. In addition to being consumed with hate and anger over the election of America’s President for nearly three years, Blow was an established pernicious race-baiter before that, when he assigned that label to anyone who criticized Barack Obama, among others.
Why does a highly-respected newspaper feel that “race-baiting hateful hyper-partisan”—Blow hates Republicans, though not as much as he hates the President—is a niche that needs filling on the op-ed page is a mystery.
In his latest anti-Trump column, Blow, as usual, is absurd as well as misleading. He writes,
“The report did not, however, exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. I submit that we witnessed that Trump obstructed justice in open view, from the White House and on social media. And while Trump waged a two-year battle of slander and misinformation to defame the Mueller investigation, the majority of Democratic leadership did nothing to make the case that he had already reached the threshold of accountability, even without the report.”
I submit that Blow is a hack, writing to deceive the dim and the biased. Trump’s tweets constitute obstruction of justice? Good luck with that theory, Bozo: why don’t you ask a second year law student—or even George Conway— who would set you straight? And for any member of the news media to complain about slander when so many of his colleagues—and he himself—have routinely stated as fact that the President was a traitor and a criminal when no such facts existed…well, Blow has always excelled at gall.
This time, however, he found a way to combine his two passions in a single rant, while adding several “resistance” Big Lie talking points for good measure. Good job, Charles! Be proud, New York Times!
The best case against Donald Trump and the age of Trumpism has always been, and remains, the moral case. Criminality is only one facet of that, although it is the one that the courts and Congress can use to punish him….
As for the people, the voters, it is the moral abomination of having a racist, sexist, child-caging, family-separating, Muslim-hating transphobe as president that must remain front and center. That is the only way to move beyond Trump in 2020….
The very symbols of Trumpism — the MAGA hats, the wall, etc. — are more than merely physical objects. They have long since transcended their original meaning and purpose. They are now emblems. They are now the new iconography of white supremacy, white nationalist defiance and white cultural defense.
They are a form of white pride credentialing.
In much the same way that the Confederate flag became a white supremacist signaling device, wearing the MAGA hat and self-identifying as a “Trump supporter” now serves the same purpose. The symbols are tangentially connected to Trump, but they also transcend him. They are a way of cloaking racial hostility in the presentable form of politics….
In America, this recent rise of white nationalism follows a historical pattern: Whenever black people make progress, white people feel threatened and respond forcefully.
If you say so, Charles. Count the lies, Big and small, everybody, if you want an ethics tune-up That last bit is Blow’s default cover for Obama’s failure as a leader and a President: it isn’t Obama’s domestic and foreign policy ineptitude voters objected to, or his sanctimonious cons, it was the fact that he was black.
4. David Brooks (New York Times) “We’ve All Just Made Fools of Ourselves — Again.”
Brooks is the #1 Stockholm Syndrome conservative among the Times pundit staff, though its other two tokens, Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat, exhibit similar symptoms. Once an ostentatiously reasonable conservative writer for the now-defunct Weekly Standard, Brooks now functions primarily as a device to give legitimacy to the Times’ routine adoption of Democratic talking points: after all, if a conservative like Brooks agrees, then it isn’t bias, it’s truth!
This time, while pretending to lecture his colleagues on their disgraceful fake-news orgy regarding “Russiagate” and the President’s inevitable exposure as a traitor (“If you call someone a traitor and it turns out you lacked the evidence for that charge, then the only decent thing to do is apologize,” he writes. My response to that is that if you are a self-styled, virtue-signalling, fair, reasonable and spiritual truth-teller who works for a newspaper that was a major player in deceiving the public while undermining the President and you said nothing, you owe everyone an apology. Wasn’t your role to be a whistle-blower? ), Brooks deftly shifts the spotlight from the media-assisted attempted coup to the general moral problem of scandal-mongering. Now he can criticize both sides, excepting himself of course:
And what about the rest of us? What about all the hours we spent speculating about the Mueller report, fantasizing about the Trump ruin or watching and reading speculation about these things? What about the superstructure of scandal politics we have built and live in today?
There it is! The shift! Clever boy…
The sad fact is that Watergate introduced a poison into the American body politic…you can destroy your foes all at once through scandal…The nation’s underlying divides are still ideological, but we rarely fight them honestly as philosophical differences. We just accuse the other side of corruption. Politics is no longer a debate; it’s an attempt to destroy lives through accusation.
No, the sad fact is that rather than honestly deal with the dangerous and unique phenomenon Brooks’ colleagues, and their political allies have been engaged in for three, Brooks is piling on rationalizations to distract from the real issue. “Everybody does it!” “They do it too!” No, in fact no party and no mainstream institution ever tried to do this: A Democratic President’s FBI used a fabricated document, paid for by his party’s candidate to succeed him, to illegally acquire legal authority to spy on the opposition party’s campaign, then used that same document to trigger a three-year fishing expedition based on a false presumption the now elected-opposition candidate had conspired with Russia to fix the election, and was now “Putin’s cockholster,” as Brook’s paper led the mainstream news media to support the attempted soft-coup, employing impeachment rather than and election to remove a President for purely political motives) by falsely hyping evidence that in fact wasn’t evidence at all.
No party, now any previous generation of the news media, had ever done THAT before.
Brooks complete’s his epic cover-up exercise that masquerades as a call for accountability with a final, exculpatory lie: no harm was done, really. We can move on! He writes, despicably, because I have to believe Brooks is too smart to believe this:
The Democrats won the 2018 midterms by focusing on the issues, not collusion. For most voters, politics is about their lives, not a self-righteous TV show.
The Democrats didn’t have to focus on collusion by the time election day arrived. It’s objective has been accomplished. This Big Lie turned up every day on my Facebook feed: ‘The Republican Congress is enabling and facilitating a “racist, sexist, child-caging, family-separating, Muslim-hating transphobe” who stole the election and is in Putin’s pocket, so a Democratic majority is desperately needed to save the nation.’ That was the wind in the Democratic sails in the 2018 election. David Brooks, truth-teller, really expects his readers to believe that his paper’s daily assertions (and those of CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the rest, of course) that the President would soon be proven a traitor had nothing to do with the 2018 “Blue Wave”?
I don’t even think the Times’ most Trump deranged fans believe that. I think they read that and chuckled, “Good one, Brooks!”