Hey…is that a rising sun or a setting sun? Ben Franklin is asking…
On this date in 1886, the legendary Apache leader Geronimo finally surrendered to U.S. government troops. I was thinking about Geronimo last night as I watched “Hot Shots, Part Deux” (the first one is much, much better), by the “Airplane!” guys. In one of the better gags in the film, a special ops team is parachuting into Iraq. Two soldiers shout “Geronimo!” and jump out of the plane, then Geronimo, in full Native American regalia, jumps out shouting “ME!” I found myself wondering if any film maker today would dare to put that into a movie. Isn’t that sad?
In related news, Fox pundit-comic Greg Gutfield is beating all the cookie-cutter all-progressive pandering all-the-time late night comics in the ratings. Imagine: he makes fun of both parties and their supporters! What a ground-breaking concept! He does have a great group of writers, I hear—Mark Twain, Will Rogers, H.L. Mencken, Mort Sahl, Stan Freeberg, Tom Lehrer…
1. Oh, let’s start with the post-Biden Reichstag speech. (My favorite meme inspired by this debacle : that already iconic photo of Biden with his fists raised against the blood-red background with the legend: “It was better in the original German.)
- Last night, Trump called Biden “the enemy of the people” at his rally. Close one: I actually wrote that description of Biden is a post yesterday, and decided that it was too Trumpy. Not that Trump was wrong…he was also correct to call the mainstream news media “the enemy of the people,” and they are substantially responsible for inflicting Biden on the nation. Their lapdog reaction to the speech is also evidence.
- Ann Althouse has been in rare form in her blogging about the speech. A liberal Democrat by inclination and belief, she was obviously genuinely offended and angered by it. Apparently progressive historian (well, they are almost all progressives now) Jon Meachum (“American Lion,” which I read and liked very much) had input into the rant, which Politico called the “Democracy speech.” Althouse: “Democracy speech”? Is that what they want it called? The speech where he demonized half of American voters?…Ugh! Warning us about our fellow citizens. Accusing us of “assault.” Claiming to represent “democracy”….it was horrible.” Here, writing about Trump’s rally, she quotes the Times today—“The former president described Mr. Biden’s address as ‘the most vicious, hateful, and divisive speech ever delivered by an American president.’—and comments, “I don’t think the NYT wants us to think Trump is right about that, but I think he is.”
Of course he is.
- This section is getting deserved attention from the Right and anyone with an open mind:
MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger,” Biden angrily declared. “They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow lies together. That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a ‘clear and present danger’ to our democracy.”
Ricochet’s Jon Gabriel wrote that evoking ‘clear and present danger’ was as “deliberate as it was divisive,” noting that doctrine was “created by the Woodrow Wilson-era Supreme Court to curtail the free speech of Americans.” Conservative pundit Stephen Green calls the section
…A display of dangerously hubristic overconfidence in the administration’s own power. Their power not to govern but to rule. What else is there to call it when the Biden regime goes from surreptitiously silencing critics via social media back channels to openly floating a Wilson-era pretext for jailing us?If this scheming mediocrity believes he can use his signature to transfer up to a trillion dollars from blue-collar Americans into the wallets of lawyers, doctors, and Trans Deconstructive Lit Theory majors and call it “debt relief,” why wouldn’t he think he can use the coercive power of the state to silence his critics?
In sum, wow, what a stupid and inflammatory speech, and how completely addled by bias must all of those previously intelligent Democrats and progressives be to think its anything else.
2. More on that theme: In this excellent essay by Noah Rothman in Commentary, he writes, “Whoever conceived of this misadventure should be stripped of their capacity to debase the office of the presidency further.” The speech was far, far closer to an impeachable offense than either of the Trump episodes that sparked his impeachment. I still hold that the bar for impeaching a President for mere words has to be almost unattainably high, but is there any question that if the GOP controlled the House, it would be drawing up papers right now? I don’t think Biden would have given that speech if he faced a Republican majority in Congress, and if the predicted “Red Wave” arrives. this thing might lead to an impeachment yet. All that is needed is for some crazed Democrats to use the speech as provocation for actual violence, and the “resurrection” precedent will be in play.
3. This is what journalism has become. John Harwood, the leftist propagandist whom CNN and MSNBC promoted as a reporter for years after he had abandoned basic principles of journalism (the hacked DNC emails in 2016 showed Harwood advising the Clinton campaign) had this to say about Biden’s speech shortly before he announced that he had been canned:
Of course it was a political speech in a midterm reelection year. The issues that he’s talking about are inherently political, but I think it’s also important to say that the core point he made in that political speech about a threat to democracy is true. Now, that’s something that’s not easy for us, as journalists, to say. We’re brought up to believe there’s two different political parties with different points of view and we don’t take sides in honest disagreements between them.
But that’s not what we’re talking about. These are not honest disagreements.The Republican Party right now is led by a dishonest demagogue. Many, many Republicans are rallying behind his lies about the 2020 election and other things as well. And a significant portion, or a sufficient portion, of the constituency that they’re leading attacked the Capitol on January 6th violently. By offering pardons or suggesting people for those people who violently attacked the Capitol, which you’ve been pointing out numerous times this morning, Donald Trump made Joe Biden’s point for him.
No, Harwood made CNN’s point for them: he’s not qualified to be treated as a journalist. Imagine not recognizing the hypocrisy endorsing Biden’s flagrant demagoguery and justifying it by calling Trump a demagogue (which he is, of course, but how many political leaders in either party are not?)! More crucially, it is not the role of journalists to decree what position is “honest” and which is not. Their job is to present the facts objectively and let the public decide. Harwood and his ilk won’t do that: they claim to have some special wisdom and perception that entitles them to mold pubic views. They don’t.
What are those “other things”? Why should I trust anyone who says that a “significant portion” of Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol? That wouldn’t be a “significant portion” of today’s crowd in Fenway Park.