September 13, 2016

Ham-handed Hillary-helping, continued.

"Yes, Most Donald Trump Supporters Are Deplorable and Irredeemable," by Jonathan Chait. ("Clinton committed a gaffe because she acknowledged a reality that literally every other person in America, including Donald Trump himself, is permitted to speak aloud.")

The post title references that quote from Bob Wright: "Well, my concern is that they are so ham-handed about it — they're so obvious about it — that it won't work."

"They" = mainstream media. "It" = pro-Hillary bias.

62 comments:

PB said...

What's deplorable and irredeemable are people who continue to applaud a sexual predator like Bill Clinton and would elect a criminal, dishonest person like Hillary Clinton who has zero record of achievement and a long-string of disastrous judgement.

mezzrow said...

Hillary's media 4H Club.

What kind of crop are they raising for us?

Is it tasty? Nourishing?

I have my doubts, but I'm a white male who thinks deplorable thoughts. Never mind me.

I don't count. Why would I vote?

damikesc said...

I liked that Wolf Blitzer tried to get Mike Pence with that.

Also glad Pence refused to play that game.

Chris said...

So, when will it be ok to start eliminating these deplorable people she speaks of? I mean, that's the goal right? Isn't this what happened with the Jews in Germany? Start denouncing a portion of the population....

Kristian Holvoet said...

Maybe Pence should have asked if Hillary would condemn any sexual predator that supported her, like, say, Bill Clinton?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Compare the media response here to the 47% remark. Trying and failing to remember the mainstream columns explaining 'well it's true, isn't it?'

roadgeek said...

Scott Adams has some interesting comments this morning; he believes that the collapse and her deplorable comments will act as a double whammy for undecided voters. He opines that voters don't want to vote for someone in such obvious ill health, but need a rational reason to justify their decision. Her comments last Friday will serve as that reason. A lot of undecided just switched to Trump, according to Adams. I concur with the doctors who suspect advanced Parkinson's. It speaks to her character that, having been diagnosed with a debilitating and ultimately terminal illness, that she won't step aside.

Dad said...

So what I'm hearing is, the great thing about Hillary is she comes out and says what they all wish they could say. I thought that was a stupid thing that people say about Trump.

damikesc said...

So what I'm hearing is, the great thing about Hillary is she comes out and says what they all wish they could say. I thought that was a stupid thing that people say about Trump.

Apparently, it's bad for a President to criticize illegal immigrants, but it is GOOD to criticize American citizens.

MayBee said...

"Irredeemable"

What shall we do with people who are irredeemable?

MayBee said...

Do you think being against gay marriage makes one deplorable?

Luke Lea said...

On morning Joe just now Trump is accused of inciting violence because a man at one of his rallies threw a punch at a protestor, the second time such a thing has happened in the last 15 months.

Earnest Prole said...

A skillful hack knows the task is to convert the undecided. The mainstream media thinks the task is to preach to the converted. Sad and lame.

rhhardin said...

Irredeemable just means solidly not PC. Only through PC can you be saved.

Not-PC is what is required to solve the piled-up problems of the last 50 years.

Kylos said...

Somebody needs to throw together a movie poster for "Les Deplorables" featuring Trump as Valjean.

Do you hear the people sing?

David Begley said...

Maybee: Iredeemable people need to be sent to the gulag.

MayBee said...

David Begley- right?

MayBee said...

Imagine some politician saying the people in the inner cities are "irredeemable".

Sebastian said...

""Yes, Most Donald Trump Supporters Are Deplorable and Irredeemable," by Jonathan Chait. ("Clinton committed a gaffe because she acknowledged a reality that literally every other person in America, including Donald Trump himself, is permitted to speak aloud.")" This is not "ham-handed." It is straightforward truth-telling, in the prog sense of truth. Including the "literally." They know most Trump supporters are deplorable and irredeemable. They would like to replace Americans with a better sort of people. They are trying to prevent the deplorables from having a voice at the national level ever again, and by federal control of policy, from choosing their own future at the state or local level. It is simply the rhetorical part of a single, consistent progressive strategy.

"The post title references that quote from Bob Wright: "Well, my concern is that they are so ham-handed about it — they're so obvious about it — that it won't work."" Depends on what the meaning of "work" is. Sure, a few sensitive law profs in Madison, WI, may take offense, and of course some deplorables will deplore it. But fiery rhetoric fires up the troops and signals to the squishy middle that they can prove their nondeplorable redeemability by voting against Trump.

David Begley said...

Question.

How did Trump get tagged as a racist?

The only thing I can think of is when he said some illegal aliens from Mexico are drug dealers and rapists. Some, in fact, are. And so are some Russians who overstay their visas. And white citizens are drug dealers and rapists. A 72.white guy was just arrested in Omaha as a drug mule. He was driving from CA.

I don't get it.

Crazy Jane said...

Deplorable, irredeemable. When people are that contemptuous, other people avoid getting into conversations with them. Such righteous certitude, repeated often enough, isolates people from broader discussions and the possibility, however slight, that everything they think they know may not be true.

(This can happen on the right as well, of course.)

Meeeea said...

The MSM Has even ramped up its semi-subliminal tactics. On the evening news last night, first they reported on the "violence" at a Trump rally, with lots of video and negative words, then onto Clinton's deplorable" statement in which they flashed various pictures back and forth of a smiling, younger, and energetic looking Clinton and unflattering pics of Trump looking older and angry. These biased pictures continued flashing Hollywood-reporter style as the reporter quietly and flatly read the "half of Trump supporters belong to what I call the basket of deplorables..." AND THEN they cut to the video of her (with increased volume compared to the reporter's level) BUT only starting at "they are racists, sexist, misogynous, homophobic..." thus omitting her calling them "a basket of deplorables."

So the takeaway for the average idiot is she's healthy, Trump's old and angry, and the biggest sell was the timing of the video--only stating and reinforcing what the idiots think--his supporters are racist etc. etc.

MayBee said...

Question.

How did Trump get tagged as a racist?


All Republicans have been tagged as racists. The charge is so ubiquitous nobody even has to explain it any more.

Anglelyne said...

David Begley: I don't get it.

It's easy to understand if you stop thinking that any of this is supposed to make rational, logical, fact-based sense.

None of this stuff is meant to appeal to the rational mind. The prog worldview has no coherence or consistency. So how could it?

But I know you knew that. Rhetorical questions are a means of expressing frustration with the behavior of crazy people. "I don't get it" is the polite rational man's way of asking "what the fuck is wrong with these people?".

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I've still been lumped in that bubble. So, am I the good or bad 50%?

Matthew Sablan said...

"How did Trump get tagged as a racist?"

-- First, he ran as a Republican. Second, people found things that fit. If he were still just a celebrity who gave lots of money to the Clintons, no one would care about whether or not he was racist. They certainly didn't prior to his declaring himself a Republican.

Meeeea said...

He was tagged as a racist because of the border wall, and the proposed moratorium on Middle Eastern refugee immigration.

grackle said...

I liked that Wolf Blitzer tried to get Mike Pence with that. Also glad Pence refused to play that game.

I am surprised but I guess I shouldn’t be. What they are saying on Morning Joe and I assume on CNN is that Pence is also a racist. This is because Pence refused to use the word, “deplorable,” when prompted to do so by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Not that Pence refused to disavow Duke, which Pence did immediately:

We don't want his support and we don't want the support of the people who think like him.

Where Pence apparently runs afoul of the MSM race-baiters is that he did not use the word they DEMAND that he use - “deplorable.” Pence must not only disavow Duke but Pence must also use the exact wording that they decree. No exceptions allowed.

So of course we have the official Clinton surrogates doubling down on the basket of deplorables gaffe, I expected that, but I guess I forgot – in reality they are ALL Clinton surrogates. Pundit, columnist, editorialist and talking head, it does not matter; they are all in the tank. And the GOP NeverTrumpers are right there with all of them, pointing fingers and not defending their own party’s nominee.

What arrogance! What complacency! How frighteningly confident they are in their treachery, which they perform without hesitation. Do we have ANY news left? Is it ALL pro-Hillary propaganda?

I concur with the doctors who suspect advanced Parkinson's.

They must be hoping she can, despite all, win in November, at which time she becomes a figurehead and Slick Willie takes over. Just get her through the debates, with some helpful “fact-checking” of Trump at every turn by the moderator, Lester Holts and they can fake the rest.

Meeeea said...

Anglelyne said..."...None of this stuff is meant to appeal to the rational mind. The prog worldview has no coherence or consistency. So how could it? ..."

And their worldview is impenetrable. It's at once frightening and mystifying. For a group that claims to value diversity, autonomy, "free-thinking" etc., they march in lock-step on every single issue, and share the same (undeserved) hate-filled vitriolic rage towards the right. They'd sooner see you dead (seriously) than have the capacity to make it to the voting booth.

GRW3 said...

So the guy hit a protestor? It's not like he bombed a marathon, shot up a gay nightclub, murdered people at a employee luncheon, etc., etc...

AOL has a map of violence associated with the Trump rallies, they fail to note that most of the violence is from protestors outside the rallies attacking Trump supporters.

Even among those who are not irredeemable, there is probably some sympathy for anger at somebody disrupting an event that people have been anticipating with for a while.

Kill a bunch of people - don't you dare blame the religion that was on the lips of the killer as he did it...

Hit somebody disrupting an event and its reflects on everybody involved from top to bottom. Yeah, I think that's a cumulative ham handed approach but it's one the elites believe in because, well, they know better.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It's perfectly acceptable to say that the people in the inner cities are irredeemable. You just have to be an NEA apologist explaining why the inner-city schools get such bad results.

clint said...

Question: Is "deplorable" an attribute of the deplored or the deplorer?

When Hillary Clinton calls millions of Americans "deplorable", is she saying more about millions of Americans or about herself?

Old and Busted: Hate is bad.
New Hotness: ???

JPS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JPS said...

MayBee, 7:05:

"Do you think being against gay marriage makes one deplorable?"

Being against it today does. Having been against it when Mrs. Clinton and President Obama were, however, does not. You just need to have made the switch promptly after they did.

Brando said...

Maybe if the media hadn't covered for Hillary so much--brushing off her scandals, assuming that her low ratings were simply the result of right wing lies rather than people genuinely bothered by her dishonesty and crookedness, and pushing the idea of her "inevitability"--the Dems would have had a real reckoning with her years ago and realized their best bet was to consider other candidates. Then they wouldn't be in the mess where she is heading towards a close finish with Donald Trump.

Look at where Trump's poll numbers are--generally in the low-40s. That would mean the Democrat is destroying him, normally. But Hillary is only a little above that, because the third parties are polling at a combined 10% to 15%--voters supporting them who just can't stomach voting for her. It's hard to imagine a generic Democrat turning off quite so many people (or a leftist like Stein getting around 4%).

They built this mess, and now they are facing the reckoning. Watch them use every type of denial as this progresses.

Chuck said...

Interesting.

Jon Chait seeks to prove that Hillary Clinton was essentially right, via polling data.

By that measure, isn't it assured that Mitt Romney was just as right in his "47%" comment?

And what did Jon Chait say about Romney? Behold:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/09/real-romney-is-a-sneering-plutocrat.html

Meeeea said...

David Begley: "Maybee: Iredeemable people need to be sent to the gulag."
Good article:
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2014/10/isaiah-berlins-critique-of-idealism.html Which I've poorly excerpted:

"...[Isaiah] Berlin began by noting the unexampled destruction visited on the world by Communism. I would add that, beyond the fact that Communism represented a form of idealistic madness, it was also a cultural enactment of atheism. ...

For Berlin, Communism was produced by ideas. It was created by those who latched on to a big idea, decided that it would solve all human problems and who concluded that if human lives and human behavior were an impediment to the realization of the idea, they could easily be dispensed with.

In Berlin’s words They were, in my view, not caused by the ordinary negative human sentiments, as Spinoza called them—fear, greed, tribal hatreds, jealousy, love of power. ... They have been caused, in our time, by ideas; or rather, by one particular idea. It is paradoxical that Karl Marx, who played down the importance of ideas in comparison with impersonal social and economic forces, ... caused the transformation of the twentieth century...

… in a debased form, the Nazi ideology did have roots in German anti-Enlightenment thought. There are men who will kill and maim with a tranquil conscience under the influence of the words and writings of some of those who are certain that they know perfection can be reached.

… If you are truly convinced that there is some solution to all human problems,... then you and your followers must believe that no price can be too high to pay... Only the stupid and malevolent [and deplorable!] will resist once certain simple truths are put to them. Those who resist must be persuaded; if they cannot be persuaded, laws must be passed to restrain them; if that does not work, [the "irremediable's"] then coercion, if need be violence, will inevitably have to be used—if necessary, terror, slaughter. ...

The root conviction which underlies this is that the central questions of human life, individual or social, have one true answer which can be discovered. It can and must be implemented, and those who have found it are the leaders whose word is law.


Berlin explained the problem: ...But complete liberty is not compatible with complete equality—if men were wholly free, the wolves would be free to eat the sheep. Perfect equality means that human liberties must be restrained so that the ablest and the most gifted are not permitted to advance beyond those who would inevitably lose if there were competition. Security, and indeed freedoms, cannot be preserved if freedom to subvert them is permitted. ...

Berlin did not mention it, ...but the progenitor of Western idealism was obviously Plato. In rejecting Platonism, Berlin was offering an exercise in Aristotelian thought.

[Berlin] recommended that we get over our adolescent enthusiasm for great ideas and set about the hard work of finding the mean between the extremes.

...So we must weigh and measure, bargain, compromise, and prevent the crushing of one form of life by its rivals. I know only too well that this is not a flag under which idealistic and enthusiastic young men and women may wish to march—it seems too tame, too reasonable, too bourgeois, it does not engage the generous emotions. But you must believe me, one cannot have everything one wants—not only in practice, but even in theory. The denial of this, the search for a single, overarching ideal because it is the one and only true one for humanity, invariably leads to coercion. And then to destruction, blood—eggs are broken, but the omelette is not in sight, there is only an infinite number of eggs, human lives, ready for the breaking. And in the end the passionate idealists forget the omelette, and just go on breaking eggs."

Matthew Sablan said...

"You just need to have made the switch promptly after they did."

-- Unless you were Dick Cheney, then you get no credit.

Lauderdale Vet said...

I'm beginning to feel affection for the "Deplorable" insult, much in the same way that I imagine my forefathers felt affection for "Yankee Doodle".

The more they use it, the more I want to take up the fife and drum and rally my neighbors.

YoungHegelian said...

Jonathan Chait has a bad habit of publicly proclaiming his hatreds.

Sam L. said...

Yep. Been more, More, MORE than obvious for years.

Brando said...

"-- Unless you were Dick Cheney, then you get no credit."

It's all the "team red, team blue" BS--they'll dispose of any standard they use the minute it no longer works for them. All that matters is who is on their cultural team, and they'll stretch any set of beliefs to make their point.

It's why Bush and Cheney could get no pass--they were rich, backwards cowpokes, you see. Not on Team Blue.

Titus said...

Romney and Clinton were both right.

47% and "basket" of deplorables.

I love the word basked in that phrase. I imagine a bunch of grossie rednecks in a basket.

John Tuffnell said...

JPS:
"Being against it today does. Having been against it when Mrs. Clinton and President Obama were, however, does not. You just need to have made the switch promptly after they did."

That's the redeemable part. While not admitting her own deplorability when she claimed she held such views a few years ago, she's now pure through redemption. You can be redeemed too, but only if you confess your sins and promise to sin no more.

But before we get to the question of the possibility of redemption, I am curious about who gets to decide who is in the basket.

Is it racist to be against affirmative action? To oppose unlimited funding for failing inner city schools? To not sufficiently acknowledge white privilege? To think that all lives matter? To support voter ID?

Is it xenophobic to be opposed to unlimited mass immigration? To want borders and current laws enforced?

Is it sexist to question the "women earn 72%" number? To be skeptical of the fairness of assault inquiries at colleges?

That's going to be a big basket depending on who gets to decide who else is deplorable.

Brando said...

"Romney and Clinton were both right."

I disagree to some extent. Hillary was right that there are some "deplorable" people backing Trump (of course there are "deplorable" people backing every candidate), but her "half" statement overstates the case. Likewise, Romney was right that a certain number of people will not listen to his message, though that number is lower than 47%. And while 47% of people don't pay income taxes, that ignores the wage earners who pay no income tax but pay payroll taxes.

Both are similar in that the candidate spoke to their choirs at fundraisers and got carried away and overstated their case, and revealed their inner thoughts about their opponents' supporters.

Bill said...

"Yes, Most Donald Trump Supporters Are Deplorable and Irredeemable,"
Huh, Chait ups the ante from half to more-than-half.

cubanbob said...

Perhaps Chait can explain what level of moral degeneracy it takes to support a fascist, grifter,criminal and traitor for president and the party that chose her?

cubanbob said...

Speaking of deplorable, I don't see Clintonites disavowing the support of the Communist Party of the USA.

Henry said...

I recently had a conversation with a 13-year-old Donald Trump supporter. He's one of my son's best friends. He comes from a family active in our community (scouts, church, business) who have consistently given their time and money to charitable causes.

So is the kid deplorable and irredeemable? Or just one of the two?

Brando said...

"So is the kid deplorable and irredeemable? Or just one of the two?"

The kid is obviously a hatemongering bigot. "Scouts", you say? More like Hitler Youth! "Church"? Try Westboro Baptist Church!

Next time you see him tell him your town has no room for hate. If he looks at you like he doesn't understand, that's just his secret Nazi hate code or something.

Yancey Ward said...

It is ok for pundits to be ham-handed. I don't consider Chait, Coates, Blow, or others to be journalists. However, here is the main point- they are preaching to the choir. I know they and their employers think they are thought leaders that making arguments that sway people- in this case undecided voters, but they aren't. They don't have any more influence in this regard than Althouse, or myself, which is to say any more than zip. All they do is sell media consumption to those that don't need persuasion.

There are very, very few pundits who have banked enough credit to persuade the undecided. As of this moment, I can't even think of one (Camille Paglia comes the closest, and I doubt 0.5% of the population even knows who she is, and she doesn't write enough to count as a pundit anyway). It is quite possible none of them are really relevant. The internet has largely undermined the reputations of all of them.

Brando said...

"It is ok for pundits to be ham-handed. I don't consider Chait, Coates, Blow, or others to be journalists. However, here is the main point- they are preaching to the choir. I know they and their employers think they are thought leaders that making arguments that sway people- in this case undecided voters, but they aren't. They don't have any more influence in this regard than Althouse, or myself, which is to say any more than zip. All they do is sell media consumption to those that don't need persuasion."

I get the feeling most pundits (the effective ones, at least) aren't so much trying to persuade the undecided but rather trying to shore up the "soft" support on their own side, by providing arguments that the less hard core partisans may not already have.

I'm partial to the pundits who seem to already understand the opposing side's arguments and can argue with them on the merits, rather than resorting to straw men and the usual boilerplate. Also helps if they show some intellectual independence to the point that you can't tell how they're going to come down on an issue before you read what they have to say.

Yancey Ward said...

Brando, you have a point in what they think they are doing, but then I still don't think they matter. Most of that soft support isn't engaged enough to even hear the arguments. It was a revelation to me, when I was younger, how unengaged most voters are, even late in the presidential cycle.

Now, the openness of the bias on the front page of newspapers does matter to the election, but in doing so, they are also undermining their influence in the long run, a process that has been going on really since the late 70s. I think it has reached the endpoint, and can be seen by the declining readership/viewership of the major news organs. The camps are largely separated and no longer open to persuasion. It really has made The Onion seem like the only legitimately unbiased organ left.

Michael said...

cubanbob

You have the right idea. The left should not only disavow communism but all Republicans should respond to questions about their supporters by asking the press to get the left to disavow all those 9-11 truthers on the left, all those against the first amendment.

Etc.

Fabi said...

Pence did a great job with Blitzer. The only way to win is to not play the game. Trump chose his running mate very wisely.

hombre said...

Whatever else, Trump has brought the light to our political circus.

First he exposes the extent to which the GOP establishment is out of touch with its base.

Now we are treated to a spectacle demonstrating the extent to which the liberal elite, particularly the mediaswine, have become parodies of themselves.

Char Char Binks said...

"How did Trump get tagged as a racist?"


By the color of his skin.

JAORE said...

What about the video of Hillary praising Robert Byrd to the skies as her mentor. Surely the KKK membership puts him in the deplorables.... Oh yeah, the all forgiving (D).....

damikesc said...

Serious question: Has there been any remotely large news story involving NYC that the press has downplayed more than this?

A closed lane on a bridge led to WEEKS of coverage. Presidential front-runner being unable to move and driven off in a hurry to her daughter's home to "recover" is a nothingburger.

I remember, as a kid, wondering why the hell I should care who Leona Helmsley was, but I assume she was based out of NYC, so the press thought she was really, really evil. They over-emphasize every damned thing involving NYC...except this.

William Chadwick said...

You know what's really deplorable, "liberals"? Statism. Kills millions.

Terry said...

Chait, Yglesias, and Ezra Klein all seem to have become notable pundits on the Left without exhibiting originality or above average intelligence.
"Irredeemable" describes something that has no value. When Romney talked about the 47% who do not pay income taxes, he was talking about economic circumstances. "Irredeemable" refers to a person who has no value and no potential value.

damikesc said...

Chait, Yglesias, and Ezra Klein all seem to have become notable pundits on the Left without exhibiting originality or above average intelligence.

I've wondered where they qualified to be a "pundit" since nothing they write is interesting. Then again, the Left pretends Friedman is a pundit and the NYT pays him very well to write the most mind-numbingly stupid drivel on Earth. Maybe they are just really impressed when people think just like they do instead of challenging them.

And I love seeing in some circles some concerns that conservatives might be going to more "ideologically closed" social media and media sources. Because the Left hasn't done that for decades...