Per conservative blogger Jim Treacher, the Biden Campaign sent this out to supporters today…
Wow.
Observations:
- Note that there is not one thought in that message that suggests any genuine concern for the best interests of the United States of America. All that matters is “us” not losing. I glean from this that if the only way for “us” to win would be to offer one of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade balloons as the Democratic nominee, that would be the course favored by these people.
- Those believing that it is neither responsible nor wise nor patriotic to commit to running for re-election as U.S. President a man obviously suffering from progressive dementia are “bed-wetters.” What kind of values does such rhetoric signify? Unethical ones. Untrustworthy ones. Disgusting ones. Undemocratic ones.
- Biden won “overwhelmingly” in pre-rigged primaries, with no debates and no genuine opportunity for opposition. This is how the current Democratic party regards democracy.
- That “chaos” that the memo describes is also known as democracy. Among the U.S. Presidents who were nominated in chaotic conventions were James K. Polk, an excellent President, James Garfield, who would have been excellent if a maniac hadn’t shot him, and a strange-looking dude named Lincoln.
- Trump would get to speak ‘uncontested,” except for when the Democrats’ tactic of keeping him stuck in courts was in effect.
- Does it matter that the non-demented nominee would go into the election actually able to do the job if victorious? ‘Huh? What’s that got to do with anything?’
- I’ve been seeing the intellectually dishonest “the only person to defeat Donald Trump” taking point a lot, since the “convicted felon” label is not doing its job. Exactly two candidates have had the chance to defeat Donald Trump, and the one who lost still got more votes. Since the circumstances of this election and the 2020 election are completely different, one main difference being that Biden wasn’t disabled then, that talking point is the equivalent of telling everyone who hears or reads it to choose between “We think you’re stupid” and “We’re stupid.”
__________________
Incidentally, that song above (I’ve used it before) is from “Lil Abner,” which is really good Broadway musical—clever, satirical, funny. It is considered politically incorrect now, as its world is a hillbilly fantasy, and also because it was based on a comic strip by an angry liberal who later morphed into an angry conservative, Al Capp. Nonetheless, it is better than 75% of all Broadway musicals, and deserves to be remembered—and performed. The movie, which included most of the Broadway cast (which is how films of musicals should be made), is also excellent.
Ethics Alarms 
Anyone want to join my prayer group as we humbly beseech our Creator to insure the dems retain the Biden/Harris ticket?
Let us pray…đź¤
Oh, I think that’s one prayer that will be answered….
I will join you…
I also share that prayer.
Huh, and here I was thinking that some were calling for the bedwetter to drop out…
Also, I love the reference to the Garfield nomination. I would pay money to go back in time and watch that one. Candace Millard’s excellent Garfield bio (“Destiny of the Republic”) details it wonderfully. It’s been a few years since I read it, but Garfield went to the convention to speak on behalf of another candidate (James Blaine maybe) and walked out – 36 floor votes later – with the nomination.
That’s a favorite moment of mine in history, even ahead of the day in 1942 when Ronald Harker (chief test pilot for Rolls Royce) suggested that an Allison-powered P-51 Mustang be fitted with one of their Merlin engines.
I read that one. It was a great book (as well as her “River of Doubt” book about TR’s South America trip.
Every year at World War II weekend at Reading they tell that story as the Mustangs fly.
I have witnessed Merlin-powered Mustangs flying on two occasions and it has given me chills both times. It’s a glorious sound, and that decision changed the Mustang’s destiny, transforming it from a capable aircraft to the best piston-engined fighter that ever left the ground.
The only thing about which I’m envious of Tom Cruise. He owns a flyable P-51D and I don’t.
This message from the Biden campaign admits that the American people’s needs are irrelevant to them. The only priority is to beat Trump and retain power. The message recently from the Biden family also echoes this sentiment. It also shows that their patriarch’s health, well-being, reputation, and legacy are irrelevant. The retention of power and the acquisition of personal wealth are the only driving forces.
What I find ironic is that the career politicians and the media created conditions that gave rise to Trump’s popularity. If the politicians did their job of representing the needs and wishes of its citizens, Trump never would have happened. If politicians did not propagandize race relations, the environment, sexual orientation, and abortion, Trump would not be a political force.
Trump exists not because he is a visionary leader. He exists because he is not of the political ruling class. As was said in the movie Network, he exists because many in America feel “I’m MAD As Hell And I’m Not Gonna Take It Anymore”.
War occurs when at least one side wants something other than peace. When both sides want something other than peace, it gets really ugly. I beseech all to refrain from participating in the war between the politicians. No good can come from take-no-prisoners rhetoric amongst ourselves. The politicians are on record that you and your needs are irrelevant to them. Don’t add to the maelstrom.
A request of the Dem talking point generators in DNC central command HQ: Please stop using the disgusting “bedwetting” metaphor. It’s also inappropriate. Bedwetting is a totally involuntary, unconscious occurrence. If they want to be more accurate and even more disgusting, they should issue a talking point memo ordering people to “stop shitting their pants.”
And speaking of the Dem talking point industrial complex, where are jdkazoo and Not a Lawyer and all the other recent host of malicious commenters? Have they been let go as a cost-saving move by the Biden campaign? Their talking point memo receivers have died?
I’m in touch with JD; he’s probably gone for good, which is too bad. NAL is back, though how long he’ll last is an open question.
Hilarious! Right after writing that response, NAL farted out another stupid comment and banned himself! It is officially a good day!
Praise Allah!
Where did that happen, here in this post? Usually we see you announce it in the thread where the offender made their final comment.
A pity, I’d been hoping NAL would come around, even if he planned to be the replacement Chris.
No, he wasn’t going to come around: he’s a idiot. He was basically a walking catalogue of Democrat talking points, which were discovered truth to him, or something. His last comment is here.
There is something I think is missing in the dialogue between conservatives and liberals. Certainly one aspect of it is that new commenters come into the fray relatively fresh, by which I mean they haven’t (as far as I can tell) spent any time reviewing Jack’s enormous output on the blog. Before I ever dared to comment, I spent time reading through a chunk of Ethics Alarm’s history to see what Jack had already previously said on certain topics. I read the comment policy. I read through the rationalization list. And I still get blindsided every now and then by the fact that I haven’t fully imbibed what Jack has written here. I do think just jumping into the fray and shouting “You’re wrong, here’s why!” even when there are good arguments to be made is foolhardy, because it ignores the layers and layers of nuance that have been developed on the blog over many years.
And this leads to the central observation I’m making. One way of describing how any of us looks at the world is through our biases, but biases are just one part of the entire paradigm each of us exist within. Every foundational belief, every bias, every opinion, every experience, every bit of accrued evidence builds up this paradigm. Convincing someone from a different paradigm of something that runs counter to that paradigm is difficult because it involves breaking down that entire paradigm. Sometimes that does happen; that’s why people convert from one religion to another, or stop supporting one economic model for a radically different one, or change political parties, or decide that string theory isn’t the grand unified theory it has been touted as. But in an initial engagement with someone, the likelihood of getting someone to shift his paradigm from a few simple exchanges is highly unlikely. There is too much history there to overcome in a just a few paragraphs. And I say this to both conservative and liberal commentators alike. There’s a decent amount of understanding of our differing paradigms on Ethics Alarms because we have dialogued a fair amount. But when someone new steps in, not only do they not realize the paradigm into which they are entering, but also the commentariat here does not know what paradigm these newcomers bring with them.
The struggle between the veteran commenters and Not A Lawyer really exemplified this. Not a Lawyer could not conceive of why Jack and so many commenters would rush to defend Trump and vilify Biden, but the simple explanation is that the case for tolerating Trump and rejecting Biden has been built bit by bit over years, and there is a great deal of background behind every assertion that Not a Lawyer did not know about or understand. Similarly, the reaction against Not a Lawyer was harsh in part because he brought in the same tired talking points that have been roundly discredited over years of blogging and commenting, but also in part because no effort was made to understand what Not A Lawyer’s paradigm really was.
I think the argument over the high turnover in Trump’s administration versus the low turnover in Biden’s exemplifies this. Not a Lawyer brought it up as something he reasonably thought was a good metric, and was immediately batted down. It may have seemed laughable from the viewpoint of the veteran commenters, because the problems Trump went through just finding good help, and the very style of leadership Trump has shown, provide reasonable answers to his high turnover. Similarly, the DEI reasoning so in vogue in the Biden administration point to why even people who should be replaced have not been. But looking deeper, there is validity to what Not a Lawyer is pointing out. The amount of common wisdom out there says that people don’t leave bad jobs, but bad bosses is ample. In general, we do agree that bad bosses drive people people away, and that bosses who create a toxic atmosphere in the workplace, are poor leaders. Why would Trump, then, in this case get a pass? Without understanding the paradigm, it does seem incomprehensible. But then, we don’t tend to understand the paradigm which sees DEI as a positive thing, nor comprehend how anyone could not place results high up on the reasons for hiring or firing people.
I know I’m echoing a lot of what Extradimensional Cephalopod has worked on when he talks about building a common vocabulary and working on understanding each other and working to mitigate each other’s fears as a means of conflict resolution. I know there’s not a lot of interest into trying to extend such effort toward commenters that come in with nothing more than “Orange man bad!” diatribes, and I can appreciate not wanting to waste time on people who will not listen at all. The question is how to discern between the shrill shriekers and those who legitimately want to debate and extend their thoughts and experiences into the conversation. I think Not A Lawyer was in the latter category, and I hope he’ll rescind his self-ban and request to be reinstated again. That being said, any commenter coming onto the blog should be willing to give his points and then let the conversation move on instead of belaboring every point to death.
I’m belaboring this point about paradigms right now because I’m surprised at the reaction from the Left on Biden’s debate performance. My stance that Biden met expectations, only to have so many people shocked at his performance and crying “the sky is falling!”, is jarring. Or more simply, I’m shocked at their shock. In order to begin to understand that shock, I had to consider that for many, the debate was one of those pieces of evidence that could not be reconciled into their paradigms. The debate fit my paradigm just fine, because I have long bought into the “right-wing conspiracy theory” that Joe is suffering dementia and has been slipping for years. But for many on the Left, this was something that was incredibly at odds with everything they had experienced or been told by those they found credible. Like many faced with such a jarring contradiction, they were thrown out of sorts and had to face up to a reality they hadn’t considered. But even now, we’re seeing the ad hoc arguments cropping up to try to reconcile what they observed with their paradigm, because paradigms are not easy to shift.
I guess to wrap up, my fundamental point is that we should probably try a little harder to get new commenters to explain their paradigms, and to provide new commenters with more details on our paradigms before piling on. I appreciate having people I fundamentally disagree with forcing me to justify my positions, and at least ask whether I really do know what I think I know.
Comment of the Day.
I would add that you should consider that much of the reaction to the Biden meltdown was attempted CYA. The debate exposed how completely the public has been lied to by Democrats and the news media. “We were as surprised as you were!” was their only alternative other than, “Sorry, you caught us.”
I agree with pretty much all of this comment but am torn, trying to determine how much of my disagreement stems from honest analysis vs fighting my own biases.
I think where I come down, trying to be as honest with myself as possible, is that NAL (and others like him; they always seem very similar in arguing style) is not an idiot. True, I think he quickly turned away from good faith debating when met with resistance (and sometimes hostility) if he ever meant it, but the heart of the matter is that this country is like a bad marriage.
When someone is so fed up with a spouse to the point that divorce is the likely end result, they will usually, subconsciously or not, start to impute every action, every spoken word, and even every micro-action (“what was that look for?!”) with the worst possible motivations. This is largely an exercise in self-deception and any amount of self-reflection would reveal this, but it’s very difficult to stop that self-deception in the throes of it.
There’s a small contingent on both sides of the political divide that are like this–they will not budge an inch from the complete demonization of Trump or Biden. NAL couldn’t back away from the idea that Trump severely mishandled the pandemic or that he was responsible for Jan 6th–a position that can only be arrived at in that ex-spouse stage of having completely written someone off as irredeemable.
So, I think there’s plenty of room for good faith disagreement, and it would be nice to have more of it on this blog, but there’s a small contingent of people who CANNOT do that, because they are so far gone when it comes to unbiased observations about a situation.
Too bad; he (Kazoo) was at least pleasant. I suppose there’s a limit to the number of times one can say “There’s no evidence…” without others invoking Inigo Montoya.
Jeeze, I’d forgotten about, “there’s no evidence.” A classic. Needs to go in the talking point HOF.
What was Kazoo’s last conversation?
It was off-site, with me: we’re still planning on having lunch. Mostly he said that the blog was too time-consuming (welcome to my world) plus the complaint you would expect: I don’t want to betray a private exchange, but it was pleasant. This is a tough crowd, and the unwary visitor is often taken aback—which I view as (usually) a great virtue here. (As you know, Althouse and most blogs don’t let commenters debate each other—Ken White once reprimanded his followers when a fight broke out.
JD’s a professor and a prolific author and could handle himself—unlike some of the more recent ex-visitors. He’s still a Trump-Derangement sufferer, like my equally sharp and usually rational sister, and that troubles me, because smart and informed people should have immunity from TDS. But so many of them don’t. Is a puzzlement.
“It was off-site, with me: we’re still planning on having lunch.”
In today’s day-n-age, I’d call that a Win-Win!
PWS
Jack,
If you do have lunch with Jerry, please send along at least my regards. I know he doesn’t know me from Adam, but I am nevertheless very grateful for his willingness to engage, even temporarily, on Ethics Alarms.
Gotta love WordPress. One comment (granted, the short one) posts just fine, and the next comment gets marked for spam. WordPress continues to force met to log in every time, and the results are different each time.
It’s up. Sorry—I was otherwise engaged.
Comment, as my Dear late Appalachian American Great Uncle would’ve said got ‘et.
PWS
Joseph and the bed-wetters – “Wake me up before you go, Joe.”
“I know you’re planning on going real slow.”
are we sure it is a genuine message to the Democrats? It reads to me like something written by an angry child that got caught doing something wrong and is explaining that the world still spins on the axis I choose.
I don’t doubt that some or even all of the sentiment could be what the Biden team are thinking, but it just feels too on the nose of what Conservatives think of the Left.
(Full disclosure: I didn’t click through to read what the original actually said and am only reacting to this snipped in the EA article.)
Right now, they are exactly like children, throwing tantrums, holding their breath…
The Babylon Bee is just too scary sometimes:
https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-stick-with-biden-as-it-would-be-a-real-pain-to-reprint-these-ballots-they-already-filled-out
jvb
I rest my case. Spot on.
The entire paragraph is aimed at *their own people* who have valid concerns with Biden’s performance. I don’t think the best approach is to insult people you are trying to convince.