“All Norfolk need do is sign that paper and treason will have been committed…”
“Then let him sign it, and let it all be done.” from the movie Elizabeth
Every couple of days, I look at the Trump-bashing headline stories on various news sources that I follow, and I think … nah, they can’t possibly top this, for spittle-flecked, screaming, chew-through-the-restraints insane rage. Yet within days yep; topped, and topped again. I have never seen such spittle-flying rage against an American president, and I am old enough to remember the animus against Nixon, and especially Johnson. I was only in my early teens, and a serious consumer of the LA Times (back when it was a substantial newspaper), yet the sustained abuse of Johnson on every aspect of his person and character (both real and imagined) was so unbelted that I actually rather felt sorry for the man. Knowing of his faults then and later, much criticism of him was richly deserved, but the especially vile stuff, I think we could have all done without. Honest criticism can be done without the spittle-flecked irrational rage, although in the Age of Trump such clinical detachment seems again to have dropped even farther out of fashion.
Where was I, before I diverted into ’60s nostalgia? Oh, yes the latest Trump Flapperoo; the book by one Michael Wolff, alleged to be an account of the chaotic goings on in the early days of the Trump administration, as observed by Mr. Wolff. Although his resemblance to Dr. Evil is about the most remarkable thing about him, Mr. Wolff is alleged to be a reporter, who taped hours of interviews and observed much during the time that he had extensive access to the White House. However, a substantial portion of those quoted do not recall ever saying anything like what Mr. Wolff has attributed to them, and dispute his accounts of other matters. As the linked story points out, “… the way that Wolff’s account is written makes it impossible for readers to discern if Wolff was actually there or is recreating conversations based on interviews with unnamed sources.” Or to put it bluntly if he has just made stuff up.
The key thing is that much of the media and the desperately anti-Trumpers want to believe Mr. Wolff; fake but accurate, to resurrect the thinking during the great GW Bush/Texas Air National Guard memo fiasco. The more rabid anti-Trumpites wanted so badly to believe in the stupidity/insanity/malignity of Donald Trump that many of them fell, hook, line, and sinker for the Gorilla Channel spoof attributed to Mr. Wolff’s book. Just too delicious a tidbit to be skeptical, which raises the distinct possibility of much of the rest being just too delicious and confirmational to be skeptical about.
And why did such a reporter have such far-ranging access to the White House anyway? Did someone at the highest levels decide as it was put in the movie quote above to let Michael Wolff and his allies in the anti-Trump press run free and make credulous fools of themselves with shoddy and incredibly biased reporting? Has the Wolff book and its rapturous reception been an epic trolling of the establishment media? If so, should we crown whoever thought of this as the Lord Galactic Troll now … or wait a decent interval. Discuss.
Back when I was at Dartmouth in the early 90s, the Times had a practice of including email addresses with op-ed pieces so you could exchange messages with the writers.
I had some nice exchanges with a few writers. One had written about he abysmal state of LA USD schools. They were not as bad as they are now but we agreed on some of the oroblems.
There was a very left wing writer named, as I recall, Robert Scheer who even answered some of the emails.
His political stance can be judged from this:
In an April 7, 2010, article he wrote that Harry Truman perpetrated “the most atrocious act of terrorism in world history when he annihilated the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Scheer has repeated this assertion on the radio program
Now, there is no dialog and that is too bad. Talking, even to lunatics, is often helpful to see what the trouble is.
Now, there is no dialog and that is too bad. Talking, even to lunatics, is often helpful to see what the trouble is.
Trouble is the lunatics don’t see where there is any trouble ;-)
There are those on the interwebs who see a connection between Trump’s tweets about giving out fake news awards, and the publication of this book, that it is somehow a gigantic hoax to show how gullible the MSM is. Seems doubtful, but also not entirely unbelievable.
I know, Brian – not entirely unbelievable. Still – be interesting to see if my theory plays out, eh?
I read somewhere that many in the MSM get their “news” from the social media of the individuals. No fact checking, just read tweets. And as you said, they want to believe it so their is very little fact checking.
It would be funny to learn that this book was just a hoax, designed to suck them in. I think Mr Trump is having fun with them, and I am enjoying watching the spectacle.
At some point the slobber mouthed rants of no substance are going to drive most of the folks who have real lives to simply switch off. Many, including myself, have already done so. At first, prior to about this time last year or maybe a little later, I did pay attention because I feared some of this might actually be true. It soon became apparent to me, even being unfamiliar with Trump as a person, that this was just emotional emoting with a contextual story line.
Even if Trump has some serious blind spots and personal failings, I think any semi-objective person has to give him credit for some very significant achievements. That is unless you don’t actually value things like economic growth, judicial (rather than legislative) judges, fraying the regulatory knot, neutering O-Care, actually fighting terrorists with a will to win and moving our foreign policy to containing and eliminating security threats. At least the swamp is in drought if not pierced.
I think most folks would applaud these things. In the long run I think they might even come to believe that Trump deserves great credit for them. I liked George W a lot, but he was not very effective. He didn’t know how or where to fight. I disliked Barry and questioned his intentions and values. In his own way he was successful to our peril. I do not really like Trump, but I do respect his achievements and his basic intentions. Of the three Trump is the guy.
I put the main stream media and pop culture icons in the same category as the NFL, overcome by events and not important to waste time attending to.
Death6
The hostility of both sides is appalling. I have quit reading or commenting on two blogs the past year. One is Patterico, which I used to read and comment daily. I know the blogger Patrick Frey, personally and used to enjoy his blog, which did a lot of fact checking the LA Times.
He has a bad case of TDS and it has gotten no better. I quit his blog around the election but went back a couple of months ago to see if his rage had dissipated. It hadn’t and turned on me.
If I disagreed with him, I was “lying” and there was no middle ground. His blog now has kindred spirits who have TDS and left wing trolls that infest almost all conservative comment sections.
I have been a reader and commenter at Ann Althouse’s blog for years. I quit that before the election because the hatred and spite of the left wingers, and a couple of so-called conservatives, had gotten so nasty. I went back after the election but have quit again. It is just too ugly.
Both blogs have comment threads that go sometimes for 200 and even 400 comments. When they do, about half of them are angry left wingers.
I had skepticism about Trump early on, which I expressed here about two years ago.
Their panic was best articulated last week in The Daily Beast by GOP consultant Rick Wilson, who wrote that Trump supporters “put the entire conservative movement at risk of being hijacked and destroyed by a bellowing billionaire with poor impulse control and a profoundly superficial understanding of the world .?.?. walking, talking comments sections of the fever swamp sites.”
Some might take that as a backhanded compliment. Can the GOP really be so out of touch with the legions of out-of-work Americans ”” many of whom don’t show up in the “official” unemployment rate because they’ve given up looking for work in the Obama economy? With the returning military vets frustrated with lawyer-driven, politically correct rules of engagement that have tied their hands in a fight against a mortal enemy? With those who, in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino massacres by Muslims, reasonably fear an influx of culturally alien “refugees” and “migrants” from the Middle East?
The Daily Beast is not exactly the Republican voter and the “GOP Consultant” seems to be ignoring the possibility that his job prospects might be harmed by his contempt for the voters he is supposed to understand and convince.
There are now three wings of the right side. One was always Trump supporters and not all were Republicans.
One was skeptical, as I was, but became convinced as I was during th spring before the Convention.
Over the loudspeaker, we kept hearing somebody saying over and over that if we saw protestors in the crowd, please do not touch them or say anything to them, just alert security by yelling “Trump! Trump! Trump!” Initially, I thought this was ridiculous, but it worked. Random protestors would get in with the rally crowd and start yelling, and folks would shout, “Trump! Trump! Trump!” The very efficient security personnel would escort the protestors out. No violence.
Doesn’t this sound like the Tea party rallies in 2010 ?
The national polls now show closer numbers and Rasmussen has them tied. Given what I believe is a Bradley Effect, in which people being polled may conceal their real choice to avoid being labeled bigoted by a pollster, I think we might be looking at a Trump landslide. I have wondered if he would implode at some point but I don’t see it.
I voted for him but did not expect to see him win. I woke up the morning after the election, pleasantly surprised.
There is a third wing which has not accepted him, as exemplified by Jonah Goldberg of NRO.
And here we are a year later. I think the 2018 election is going to hold some surprises for the Democrats.
We will see.
Another local judge thinks he can set national policy with a ludicrous ruling that Trump can’t end DACA. According to the federal circuit court, Obama had the power to make laws with executive orders, ignore laws with executive orders, and basically act as if he was the supreme authority in the land. Trump, of course, isn’t allowed presidential power of any sort because of his tweets, of all things.
I agree with Death6. It does appear that all the obstructions from questionable investigations, absurd temporary injunctions, and overall fake news are gradually expending all their energy. More and more people are beginning to realize that a bureaucratic insider-led insurgency to overturn the presidency isn’t how the government is supposed work.
That judge’s ruling is legitimate Constitutional crisis behavior. Judges have the power to order the President NOT to do something, but this joker thinks he can tell the President he has to DO something. That’s completely beyond his power.
This guy comes so, so, so close (maybe? fingers crossed?), but whiffs in the end:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/10/its-almost-like-michael-wolff-is-trying-to-make-journalists-look-bad
As to the judge in San Francisco (I think), this is his second attempt to incorrectly thwart legitimate executive power.
My understanding is the the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is responsible for disciplining federal judges. This is in addition to the role of Congress for conviction and removal.
Roberts should get busy.