Musings on the “Unethical Quote of the Month” by MSNBC Columnist Steve Brenen

“[T]he Trump campaign seriously expects people to believe that Democrats are the “party of violence,” which is among the most ridiculous claims Team Trump has ever made.”

—-MSNBC columnist and producer/constributor to “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Steve Brenen.

I’m not going to dignify that “It isn’t what it is” piece of flagrant hyper- partisan gaslighting with a rebuttal or a debunking. If it isn’t obvious why that statement is deranged, there’s not much an ethics blog can do for you. (You might need a brain transplant.)

The statement, which just came to my attention, knocked a related post out of line by its sheer defiance of reality and the writer’s evident confidence that his addled readers would accept it. Wow. I would hope that you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who could both read and would be that incapable of critical thought. The real number is in the millions.

I was going to write about bitter, old, foiled but still raging ethics villain Hillary Clinton, who told fellow ethics villain Maddow yesterday that Donald Trump was a “danger to our country and the world” less than 24 hours after the second attempt on Trump’s life this year. Heck, it’s just self-defense to try to kill someone or something —you know, like Godzilla—that’s a danger to the country and the world. Everybody knows that!

“Americans need to understand that they have to take Trump both seriously and literally,” she told the ever-smirking Maddow. “He has said what he wants to do. He and his allies with Project 2025, his desire to be a dictator, at least on day one, all of that is in the public record. And I believe that more Americans have to be, you know, willing to endure what frankly is discomforting and to some extent kind of painful, to take him at his word and to be outraged by what he represents. We can’t go back and give this very dangerous man another chance to do harm to our country and the world,” she added.

I have considerable sympathy for Hillary, as I’ve written here before. I can’t imagine what it must be like to lose the Presidency after winning the popular vote, and to become a historical footnote like Samual Tilden because of one’s own stupid choices (like her super-secret server and the decision to stonewall about it rather than just to say, “Yeah, that was wrong. Sorry.”) It would have been nice if she had the character to take those metaphorical lemons and make yummy lemonade, but she has chosen to use them to make acid bombs (and book deals) instead. Too bad.

It also is too bad Hillary can’t elevate her conduct above even lower forms of Democrat Party life like Biden and Kamala by avoiding outright anti-Trump Big Lies, but she’s not up to that either. She actually resorted to that hoary claim that Trump promised to be a dictator because he told Sean Hannity that he would “only be a dictator on Day One”, when he would “dictate” that we close the border and “drill, drill, drill.” That one’s right there next to the “fine people” lie and the others.

I expect better lies from Hillary. Bill needs to coach her.

Other thoughts…

Continue reading

Integrity Check Coming: Will the Alleged ABC Whistleblower Report Be the Hunter Biden Laptop of 2024?

If you read conservative websites and news sources, but probably not if you get your news from MSNBC and the rest, you probably know that an alleged whistleblower has emerged to claim that Disney’s political mouthpiece ABC News conspired with Harris Campaign officials to rig the Presidential debate that Harris “won.” From the Hindustan Times (yes, it’s come to that…):

An affidavit, purportedly from an anonymous “ABC News whistleblower,” has sparked controversy after being circulated online. The document alleges close collaboration between the network and Kamala Harris’ campaign leading up to the recent debate against Donald Trump…

The affidavit alleges several serious claims regarding the debate preparation and ABC News’ role. One of the primary allegations is that Kamala Harris was given access to sample or similar questions before the debate. If true, this would have given her an unfair advantage over Donald Trump by allowing her to prepare more thoroughly for specific topics.

Another claim is that the Harris campaign actively blocked ABC News from questioning Joe Biden’s health. This issue has been a point of discussion throughout the election cycle, with some critics suggesting that Biden’s fitness for office should be more rigorously examined. According to the whistleblower, Harris’ team ensured that this line of questioning was off-limits.

The affidavit also asserts that the Harris campaign influenced ABC to avoid probing into allegations against Harris’ brother-in-law, who has been accused of embezzling billions in taxpayer money.

Additionally, ABC staff members are said to have been fearful of retribution from Trump, possibly implying that they felt pressured to comply with the Harris campaign’s requests to avoid conflict.

The whistleblower claims to have secret recordings that prove the Harris campaign pressured moderators to fact-check Trump during the debate. These recordings, if they exist, could provide key evidence in backing the whistleblower’s assertions.

Moreover, it is alleged that ABC News was given instructions about which questions to steer clear of during the debate, implying that the Harris campaign had significant influence over the content and flow of the event. This control over the debate, according to the whistleblower, included a demand for live fact-checking of Trump while Harris faced no such scrutiny, even when she made statements that were factually questionable.

The whistleblower reportedly signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, further raising the stakes as these claims are now in the hands of political leadership.

Bill Acker, the conservative billionaire who helped rid Harvard of Claudine Gay, sent a letter to Disney chair Bob Iger that has given the alleged whistleblower story a bit more visibility…

Continue reading

Perplexing Ethics Quote of the Week: Ann Althouse

“I have never trusted the people who want to be President, and I have despaired over the structural problem that we’re always stuck having to vote for somebody who has strongly desired the presidency.”

—-Ann Althousein a very strange blog post in which she sympathizes with Kamala Harris for what Althouse sees as a weariness and dislike of campaigning.

I suppose it is good to know that Althouse doesn’t comprehend the nature of leadership, leaders and the people who aspire to be leaders, but as someone who has studied leadership for a long, long time as well as having done my share of leading (and leadership is one of the major topics of this blog), I must say that her comment is perplexing to say the least.

Leadership is a special role that requires special traits, talents and abilities, and one of those traits is believing oneself to be a leader while being willing to accept the responsibility leadership requires. The greater the responsibilities a leadership position entails, the more essential it is that a leader be confident in his or her ability to meet those responsibilities, and seek the burden they confer.

Stating that one does not trust people who want to be President to be President is like saying you only trust a doctor who never wanted to be a doctor. It makes no sense. Every one of our best and most acclaimed Presidents demonstrated their leadership abilities at a young age and actively sought leadership, proceeding to the next stage after demonstrated success. We have had a few reluctant Presidents, all Vice-Presidents thrust into a job they didn’t expect, and some, notably Chester A. Arthur, managed to overcome their lack of an appetite for leadership to do a workmanlike job. Other so-called “accidental Presidents,” notably Teddy Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, were natural leaders and thrilled to become President.

There are plenty of reasons to distrust the so-called “leader type.” Most, if not all are narcissists. Power does corrupt, and many who seek power and who are skilled in using it are also often drawn to the abuse of power for to less than admirable motives. Nevertheless, leadership requires confidence, a willingness to accept accountability, the courage to take risks, and a belief in the likelihood of success based on a history of success. Not wanting to lead strongly suggests an absence of these essential leadership traits.

Observations on Tim Walz’s Advice On How Democrats Should Go About “Winning the Battle” of the 2024 Presidential Election

Walz, speaking at a Harris rally in Wisconsin, told the faithful that the key to a Democratic victory was their “trying to have that hard conversation in the produce aisle, with the person you saw there at the grocery store, and ask, ‘have you voted yet?”

Observations:

1. If someone I didn’t know were to ask me that “in the produce aisle,” my first response would be, “Who the hell are you?” and my follow-up would be “Bite me!”

2. If someone I knew asked me that as anything but incidental chit-chat preceded by “How’s the family?” and “Are you too disappointed in the Red Sox?,” I’d answer, “No, because I believe everyone should vote on election day unless it’s physically impossible to do so.”

3. The political Left’s fondness for trying to bully or harass people into accepting or adopting their political views is a marker of the totalitarian turn the whole port side of the political spectrum has taken. Maxine Waters urged Democrats to confront Trump officials when they were with their families or walking down the street. Black Lives Matter activists intimidadted diners to profess support for their racist scam “or else.” Starbucks briefly tried to get its barristas to engage customers in debates over social issues. Democrats also have issued guides to haranguing one’s family at Thanksgiving dinner. Has anyone on the political Right advocated this obnoxious and offensive strategy? If so, I missed it.

4. Several wags have noted that the grocery store should be the last place Democrats try to recruit voters…

5. Wow, is Harris-Walz really using “A New Way” as a slogan? How generic and clichéd can you get? In Robert Redford’s “The Candidate,” about the packaging and disillusionment of a Kennedy-esque Senatorial candidate, he was saddled with the fatuous “There’s got to be a better way” as his empty mantra. That movie was made in 1972. Using an old slogan doesn’t exactly make “A New Way” seem very sincere or genuine.

[WordPress wants me to tag this post “Marcel Walz” and “Frightfest.” Huh?]

The Legitimate and Important Ethics Conflict Behind the Springfield Cat-Eating Controversy

As he does so often, Donald Trump accepted something he read or heard as gospel truth and repeated it as fact, this time in a Presidential debate, and was promptly ‘factchecked” and subsequently ridiculed. The back-ground: a large number of Haitian “migrants,” who may or may not be here legally, seem to have ended up in Springfield, Ohio. One resident complained that they were eating pet geese and cats, her claim went viral, and the meme-makers have had a field day…

…as you can see.

Continue reading

Open Forum: Think, Write and Reveal…

…and I’ll be over here coughing.

Usually I introduce these Friday fora with some reference to current events, but I woke up sick for the second straight day, and this time I feel too foggy to focus.

So I’m counting on you while I have two cups of Italian roast and some DayQuil. Yum.

A Crazy Argument With A Trump-Deranged Friend Made Me Post This….

…so don’t blame me. Not too much, anyway.

I told my freind that I bailed on the debate when the ABC Axis hacks didn’t factcheck Harris’s repeating the Big Lie about Trump praising the Charlottesville white supremacists. My freind, who is about as Trump-Deranged as one can get, argued that yes, it’s true that Trump didn’t mean that and that the insinuation that he did had been debunked repeatedly, even on CNN and by Snopes. But, she said, Harris accurately quoted Trump, so she was technically accurate.

I reminded my freind, a lawyer who should know better, that using a fact out of context to mislead is called “deceit,” and that deceit is a variety of lie. Her response: “Well, Trump speaks imprecisely, so it’s legitimate to call attention to that.” But, I said, calmly, that wasn’t Harris’s purpose in using the quote. To that, my friend replied, “Then Trump should have explained what he meant.”

“So,” I said, “your theory is that it was Trump’s job to factcheck Harris, while the moderators factchecked him! That seems fair…” She also told me that her extreme-Left daughter saw the debate and thought that the moderators were clearly trying to help Trump.

Wow.

All of this leads me to quote Ann Coulter, whom I have scrupulously ignored for years once it became clear that she is a performance artist who concocts her opinions in order to get the most headlines and the most campus speaking gigs, and has no integrity whatsoever. I have no idea what she really believes, and I certainly don’t care. Ann is, however, not stupid. She has also credibly (to some) posed as a Never Trump conservative, so I found her observations about the debate interesting, and, as they appear to dovetail with mine, astute:

Trump is Trump, a known quantity. His scattershot delivery isn’t going to shock anyone. If you already detest the man, your view was confirmed. But if you don’t hate him, Trump put a lot of points on the board, while Harris said nothing, and said it smugly.

The debate sure didn’t give undecided voters what they wanted from Harris. As has been widely reported, they are waiting breathlessly for some hint of what she believes and what she would do as president. After the ABC debate, they’re still waiting. About all they learned is that Harris comes from a middle-class family…

But they know that life was better under Trump. And they know that Harris, like Clinton, is a nasty woman.

Who IS This Woman? Why Does CNN Let Someone This Dishonest Appear On A Panel? Do CNN Viewers Realize What the Significance of Her Argument Is?

There are so many frustrating aspects of this clip from CNN’s Newsnight, but let’s get to the main issue: what the Harris surrogate/Democratic Party mouthpiece/shameless gaslighter said:

I find it ironic where, in 2020, Republicans were screaming at the top of their lungs when people were changing rules because we were in a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic and we needed to do it to accommodate voters …I want to remove politics from this and talk about people being actually able to exercise the franchise. And it is disenfranchising North Carolina voters right now that they believe they can start voting today and they are not. That is how confusion is disseminated in communities. That is how mis and disinformation starts, that is how you start to see narratives that our system is not working, when you start to let politics play into the role of when people should be able to start voting. Follow the rules. He was on the ballot, he wanted to run, he decided he didn’t want to run, he should have made that decision 6 months ago, but disenfranchising voters is not right.

The issue being discussed is a Democratic Party that was once fighting to keep Robert Kennedy Jr. OFF the ballot in states where the party thought he would draw votes away from Biden is fighting to stop him from removing his name from the ballot because he has dropped out of the race and endorsed Donald Trump. NOW they want him on the ballot because they think he will take votes from Trump.

Continue reading

Ethics Alarms Is Ready To Predict the Winner of the 2024 Election…

And it is...Abraham Lincoln!

It’s just one poll, but it’s a New York Times poll, and if any left-leaning, biased polling result is likely to try to bury bad news for the Democrats, it’s this one. The New York Times/Siena national poll was released this morning, and showed Donald Trump starting to regain the edge he had before Joe Biden was forced out and the news media joined the Democrats in a “She Isn’t What She Is” campaign of excitement, joy, and virtually no substance whatsoever.

Trump now leads Kamala Harris nationally among likely voters by a 48–47 margin, and Trump hasn’t received as much as 48% at the ballot box yet, not in 2016 or 2020. Though Newsbuster’s analysis shows Harris getting over 80% positive press coverage in this period (for doing nothing but repeating boilerplate, non-substantive speeches off teleprompters and avoiding any one-on-one interviews with even friendly journalists), and though she has reversed many of her most radical positions (more on that in a second) while saying that “her values haven’t changed,” whatever that means, “the ruse isn’t working,” as Jeff Blehar says at the Never Trump National Review:

Continue reading

Unethical Quote of the Month: President Biden

“We should have named it what it was.”

 —President Joe Biden,  speaking Thursday at an event in Westby, Wisconsin this week, crowing about the “progress we’ve made together by our ‘Investing in America’ agenda.” Biden then said, “I’m proud to announce that my, uh, my investments, that through my investments, the most significant climate change law ever. And by the way, it is a $369 billion bill. It’s called the — uh, we, we should have named it what it was.”

Did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? Ah, but you can trust President Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats to tell the truth—you know, like deceptively naming a bill that had literally nothing to do with inflation (except to potentially make it worse) “The Inflation Reduction Act” because the regime was under fire for exploding inflation since it took over from the Trump Administration. “See?” the bill’s title was supposed to convey to members of the public with IQs below 90, “We’re fixing the problem!” Admitting that what was stated to the public as fact was really false after the goal of the lies has already been achieved is an example of how telling the truth can be almost as unethical as the lie itself. It is rubbing salt into the wound, like shouting “Sucker!” at the victim of a scam.

Continue reading