Drudge links to The Daily Caller. What is Chris Matthews accused of doing that got NBC to pay $40,000 to settle?
The woman complained to CNBC executives about Matthews making inappropriate comments and jokes about her while in the company of others... Based on people who were involved in matter, the network concluded that the comments were inappropriate and juvenile but were not intended to be taken as propositions.What were the comments? Blandly referred to like that, they seem like something almost anyone might have done. Should we all be cowering in fear?
Posts
124 comments:
On the Harvey Weinstein 10 point scale, this would be a 1. Franken was a 2, but maybe risen to a 3. Toback, Rattner, and others are also 10s. Hoffman is up to 5 or 6, but trending upward. Lauer is maybe an 8.
In 2017, you cannot make any jokes.
I get annoyed at all the news stories that refer to an amorphous "sexual misconduct" or, as here, something "inappropriate." What actually happened? Is a journalist really doing her job is she doesn't report what happened?
Should we all be cowering in fear?
Just the men.
"How modern life transforms men into wussies."
Matthews might have just been talking about the crease in her pants, and she got all upset about it.
Looks like "Sex Clam".
The lawyers at NBC have surrendered to terrorism. They figured it would be cheaper to settle than to litigate, but they didn't count on the settlement going public. Cowardice and stupidity always lead to disaster.
We have freedom of speech in this country, which includes the freedom to make rude jokes and "offend" people, but only if we assert and defend that freedom.
"Just the men."
I disagree. I think a lot of women have taken liberties and many have felt privileged to say sexual things, maybe just for fun or as a way to flex and show power. There's nothing to stop The Reckoning which picks up its own momentum.
Why was Robespierre guillotined?
I think a lot of women have taken liberties and many have felt privileged to say sexual things, maybe just for fun or as a way to flex and show power.
Duh, obviously, we know that. We're not saying you women are innocent. We're saying you won't be punished.
The look on his face. It perfectly captures the collective hivemind "oh crap, Hillary just lost" look.
I guess more than his leg tingles....
All of this pushed lucky Harvey Weintein, the big D-donor, off the front page. I thought the guy was going to be arrested for rape? His big money must be working backroom magic.
I pays to be a Clinton and a Weinstein.
"Ann Althouse said...
"Just the men."
I disagree. I think a lot of women have taken liberties and many have felt privileged to say sexual things, maybe just for fun or as a way to flex and show power. There's nothing to stop The Reckoning which picks up its own momentum."
Sure. Google Ellen DeGeneres and Katy Perry.
Not a peep.
Althouse becoming famous on Facebook....The second time one of her quotes was quoted... https://www.facebook.com/324179380953007/photos/a.324186447618967.68372.324179380953007/1521297594574507/?type=3&theater
And we need to remember that women are just as capable as men, of course, assuming that men don't use dirty words. We need to protect women from men who use dirty words but that shouldn't restrict women from using those same dirty words, I guess.
Agree the decision was probably cheaper to settle than litigate.
My take on sexual harassment if accused, you are guilty till proven innocent.
"Let's play Hardball!"
"You got it, brother."
Althouse: "Should we all be cowering in fear?"
A video (at the link above) that pretty much encapsulates all the mudslinging.
I am officially immune, and will no longer spend any time reading or thinking about all of these alleged 'sex crimes'. Show me actual evidence of an actual assault, then I'll engage.
The 'news' has become the shelves at the grocery store while waiting to check out, bombarded with tabloid magazine covers.
CNBC or MSNBC?- cmon journolists. It reads like she tattled to the parent that would do someting.
Live by SJW rules.
Die by SJW rules.
I've been reading Drudge since the days of Monica Lewinsky -- practically the entire life of the site -- and it's stuff like that that I have recently grown to hate about Drudge. "...SEX CLAIM..."? Did the claim have anything whatsoever to do with "sex," or was it merely gender?
Althouse seems to be asking the right question, and I always appreciate it when she does that.
And for me, I liked Drudge better when he wasn't a Trump apparatchik.
More and more, what I am getting is that all of these guys were vain, hot-headed, mercurial and sometimes abusive in the service of their intense focus on daily output and ratings. We've seen the outtakes of both Bill O'Reilly and Lawrence O'Donnell. I don't mind seeing all of the giant egos being taken down. Starting with Trump would be great by me, if there is a solid evidence-backed case to be made. I hope so.
btw, and fwiw; I don't see these kinds of claims peppering the sorts of principled movement conservatives whom I subscribe to. I see plenty of the Bill O'Reillys, the Eric Bollings and the Roger Aileses getting into trouble. Naturally, they are all good with Trump. I don't see the George Wills, the Bill Kristols or the Max Boots getting into trouble.
yes, we should be cowering. Once we dispensed with due process, it takes an allegation involving the word sex, regardless of when it happened, to destroy a career. Anyone with a lick of sense will keep talk as antiseptic as possible, and never be alone with a member of the opposite sex. It will make work a bore and uninteresting but the alternative is far worse.
I hate that women are treated as objects of entertainment in the workplace, and it needs to stop. This said, this current witchhunt atmosphere makes me nervous.
Matthews is famously a crude jerk - it's his on-air persona. So he made a crude comment that hurt someone's feelz, and NBC paid out $40k to make the problem go away.
Matt Lauer had a rape-lock on his office.
Charlie Rose basically abducted young women.
Harvey Weinstein raped and assaulted women for almost 40 years.
Kevin Spacey tried to rape boys in their sleep.
Mathews once hurt someone's feelings.
Let's try to keep some perspective here. And yes, I think Mathews is a jerk. I don't like him, and I don't like his show. I think he's actually quite intelligent, but he's always willing to use that intelligence to defend the Democrat screw-up de jour, even when he knows it's indefensible. He's just a hack foot soldier for the other side.
But all of that said, I will stand with him to defend the right of folks to have a bad day at work and be a jerk to an employee. Maybe there should be some consequences, but not firing. The national media scene is a tough place. Harden the fuck up.
So I guess #Istandwithchris
Yes, and despite the limited frame of the scientific logical domain in time and space (i.e. accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets), the statute of limitations is only practically limited by political leverage (e.g. democratic, congruence), dictatorial decree (e.g. twilight judgment), and force (e.g. occupation, regulation). So, go along to get along, and they won't abort you under a layer of privacy (e.g. baby trial), or, in America, in a public lynching (e.g. witch trial).
In the end* (after this fervor dies down somewhat) the tallies will find more liberals/Democrats standing in the bad boy doghouse than GOPers. There's a reason for that, but knowing that reason will escape most liberals.
*Allowing for the understanding that when it comes to the consequences of the male sex drive there is no end
Bay Area Guy is exactly right. $40k is chump change.
But how did this info get out? Surely non disclosure agreement. I say sue her to get the money back. But one problem: someone in NBC Legal or HR could have been the leaker.
Matthews should blast away on Monday.
As a famous man said “Make them live by their own rules.”
By my calculation Chrissieboy was 53 when he made those “inappropriate and juvenile” remarks. When you are 53 you are supposed to be all grown up. And save the wisecracks for when it’s just us guys. Not in the workplace.
Holdfast said..."So I guess #Istandwithchris"
I wouldn't go that far, you might be burned at the stake.
I expect it probably doesn't need to be said, but a $40k settlement of an employment claim in a high-powered Manhattan network television office is a nuisance settlement. If the lawyer took 1/3 of the settlement on a contingency, that's a grand $13,000 fee for the plaintiff attorneys. (We should acknowledge that perhaps a separate fee payment was negotiated; there may have been a negotiation for COBRA payments for health insurance, etc.; but no matter what, this kind of a settlement is less than the cost-of-defense for NBC.)
$40,000 wouldn't even rise to the level of an ass-grab.
It might be worth one awkwardly, unexpected sexualized joke in the office:
Matthews: How was your weekend, Sandy?
Sandy: Not bad, ran some errands, trying to finish my Christmas cards. How was yours?
Matthews: It was nice, but not as nice as that skirt you're wearing [chuckle]
Sandy: Er, thanks, ... I guess, Chris.
Matthews: My pleasure - say, Sandy, I wanted to tell ya that you did a great job on that Mueller piece, you really portrayed him as a straight-shooter, ex-Marine, just trying to find the truth about how the election was stolen, but do you mind if I ask you a question? Would you hold it against me, if I told you that ....you had a great body? (Bah-ha-ha-ha)
Sandy: You Brute! I'm calling Gloria Allred.
I am not Laslo
Mathews used to shred Bill Clinton’s alibis every weeknight on Hardball, in the nineties. I really liked him then. Even now you will see calls for civility from the Dems from him, and he will often note that the Democrats brought Trump on themselves, from calling Clinton’s accusers trailer trash to cackling about putting coal miners out of work.
I hope it really is nothing. Can you imagine all of the firings that would take place if women in the workplace were held to the same standard of never talking about the men in the office? Ha ha ha!
And save the wisecracks for when it’s just us guys.
Yeah, that would protect him, keep it in the “locker room”! “Powder room talk”? Exempt!
I now follow the Pence rules for being alone with any woman other than my wife. Sexual harassment claims are now a mania. All men in work environments are in jeopardy. If accused employers will immediately throw a male employee under the bus, pay a settlement and fire the man. They will not fight a sexual harassment claim. Businesses don't want the bad publicity and don't want to take a chance on a huge financial judgement.
NO jokes, NO compliments, NO kidding, NO idle banter, NO acknowledgement of anything personal.......and of course NO expressing Political opinions.....
Blogger glenn said...
"As a famous man said 'Make them live by their own rules.'"
Fen famously said:
”The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about."
Democrats brought Trump on themselves, from calling Clinton’s accusers trailer trash to cackling about putting coal miners out of work
Throwing "granny" off the cliff, while they form monopolies to sustain the inflated cost of medical care. And recurring, decadal economic resets.
Painting people with broad, sweeping strokes, while running diversity rackets to discriminate between individuals by the "color of their skin".
Calling people bigots (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrites), while enforcing political congruence ("=").
The war on women, while female chauvinist pigs collude with male chauvinist pigs to suppress and defeat female and male competing interests.
Social justice! What is it good for? War, diversity, redistribution, and leverage.
Back in 1999, $40,000 was a lot more money than it is today.
I now follow the Pence rules for being alone with any woman other than my wife.
This rule will not save you, given that a single witness (e.g. allegation, preponderance of allegations in independent cases), without a statute of limitations (e.g. scientific frame of reference) is sufficient cause to deny you due process, and bullhorn prosecutions (e.g. media) will destroy the innocent and guilty equally, with only a pleading of ignorance to restrict them from running amuck. It's a Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice world, where luck, leverage, and collusion are the orders of the day.
This whole thing.....the madness of accusing everyone (men mostly) of sexual misconduct for the slightest to the worst actions and treating all things as being equal has really gotten out of hand.
Like Pandora's box. Once it has been opened, the badness cannot be contained. The wildfire of hysteria is going to have to burn itself out. Burn the Witches....I mean sexual harassers. Unfortunately, many innocents and mildly No types of actions are going to be charred along with the very bad and very guilty. Soon only Mike Pence will be left standing :-D
Yes..... Men (and women) should be afraid. Normal social relations, which consist of joking around, mild flirtations are not going to be the same. We are all going to have to walk on eggshells.
Loose the HOUNDS!! say the SJWs Oooops...they have turned back on YOU. Unintended consequences.
Miranda warning, You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
Work warning, Anything you say can and will be used against you.....
There is no remaining silent, these are your coworkers you are required to interact with them and given enough time you WILL say many things a woman won't like. There are no courts and no attorneys available to you at work. There will be no due process, no need for proof beyond an accusation.... The whole sexual harassment process is about minimizing employer liability.
Why was Robespierre guillotined?
Because he tried to blow his brains out and failed.
I don't know who the Robespierre is in The Reckoning, but there's no shortage of Madame Defarges.
Johanna Lapp said...
Back in 1999, $40,000 was a lot more money than it is today.
Even in 1999, if the attorney for the claimant spent much more than 10 hours total on the case (meeting with the client, interviewing witnesses, obtaining documents, talking with NBC, negotiating a settlement, reviewing and executing a Release and Settlement Agreement), the attorney LOST money on the case. That's presuming that no one had to draft or file a complaint. Or exhaust other administrative remedies first. You can't operate a law office in Manhattan on $150/hour. You couldn't, in 1999. This case would have been a "defeat" for the plaintiff.
There may be lots of other reasons to take such a case. A good referral source; a client that is more than just the one employment case; an interest in other NBC cases, etc. But those aren't relevant questions here. The question here is whether the Matthews settlement represents a case of serious wrongdoing by Matthews. And the settlement amount is powerful evidence that it was not serious.
I am unaware of employers who enforce sexual harassment rules when a woman is the harasser. Women who are sexual harassers in the workplace have nothing to worry about.
1999 is not exactly the same as being caught up in current hysteria. Do love the photo, makes him look real sad.
Will others come forward with tales both true and false?
The woman who turned me in for a remark about kettle logic at the lunch table must be regretting she didn't ask for money.
Too early offended.
Women at work are taken as women. It's neither seriously nor unseriously.
This is optimal already.
Attempting to improve it is just acting like women.
I see plenty of the Bill O'Reillys, the Eric Bollings and the Roger Aileses getting into trouble.
People with brains saw those as a contract purge by the Lefty Murdoch boys. In preparation for the Disney buy-out. Fox approached the women to make claims.
"I don't see the George Wills, the Bill Kristols or the Max Boots getting into trouble."
I doubt any of those three have ever been laid. Just like you, Chuck.
I say we go for the universities next!
There is a huge power disparity there and a lot of unattractive men, as Ms. Althouse can attest. Plus a lot of unattractive lesbians, so maybe we should check them out too.
They have been espousing this nonsense, this lack of tolerance, this offensive level of investigation. So...let them live by the standards they espoused.
Ms. Althouse, how many of your former colleagues would be caught up in those nets?
It sounds to me that Matthews probably made a mean joke at someone's expense. Perhaps more than once.
"This business will get out of control- it will get out of control and we will be lucky to survive it!"
"Why was Robespierre guillotined?"
Because he was a man, of course.
1999?
They are not doing Matthews any favors by being mysterious about what was said.
Anyway Matthews makes inappropriate comments all the time. He calls it a TV show.
must be regretting she didn't ask for money... Too early offended.
Given sufficient incentive, there is no statute of limitations (e.g. practical limit of the scientific logical domain including forensic evidence) or double jeopardy prohibition. Anything and everything can be justified and rationalized at the twilight fringe.
I am unaware of employers who enforce sexual harassment rules when a woman is the harasser.
The traditional social construct for the ladies and gentlemen duality, required deference of the latter to the former. Of course, it assumed that women were ladies, and that men were gentlemen. With social progress, women are less ladies, and men are less gentlemen. Meanwhile, the traditional order is used to exploit, suppress, and defeat people with anachronistic expectations.
$40,000 is a lot of money to an illegal immigrant cleaning lady Mathews tried to do a "Costanza" on. ;-)
"I am unaware of employers who enforce sexual harassment rules when a woman is the harasser."
The truth of the matter is that unless the harassment is rabbit killing level stalking, no self-respecting man would report it anyway.
Hmmm..Althouse writes a post about a Leftwinger behaving badly, and Chuckles replies with a post attacking Rightwingers and defending the Leftwinger.....
Who saw that coming?
I think a lot of women have taken liberties and many have felt privileged to say sexual things, maybe just for fun or as a way to flex and show power
I know of one who calls male victims of fraud splooge stooges.
I want to see Mathews trashed. The bastard deserves it. The whole hive of scum at the NBC umbrella needs to be trashed. Its not the Nothing But Crap network for nothing.
George Will and Max Boot and that ilk are unsuited to lead and unable to inspire.
There was a saying among the Jacobins that two heads are better than one.......Matthews can survive one scandal, but if a lot of women he's worked with in the past take this opportunity to come forward and describe how brutish his behavior was, then he's toast.......There are some college kids that have been unjustly persecuted, but, among the celebrities, I can't think of any who aren't in some way responsible for the damage they've done to their reputations.....When you're a celebrity, you have to overtip the service personnel and refrain from pinching women. Noblesse oblige.
People forget that one thread through the French Revolution was feminism. Thats where it may have started actually. Quite a lot started then.
The first demands for female political equality, and popular manifestations for it, first emerged during the revolutionary agitation.
The revolutionaries were also, probably, the first government in western culture to formally try and execute women for political crimes.
"What were the comments?" Stuff a woman didn't like.
"Blandly referred to like that, they seem like something almost anyone might have done." Yes and no: just a man saying something a woman didn't like.
"Should we all be cowering in fear?" No: just men.
Maybe Althouse upthread is right: that women should be "cowering in fear" too. I will believe it when women start rounding up women. I will even take as evidence women outing other women as violating the sisterhood by putting out.
I would prefer to live in an Althousian world. That is not the world we live in.
Gahrie said...
Hmmm..Althouse writes a post about a Leftwinger behaving badly, and Chuckles replies with a post attacking Rightwingers and defending the Leftwinger.....
Who saw that coming?
You dumb jackass. I'll explain it for you. Althouse didn't write a post about Chris Matthews "behaving badly." Althouse, I take it, doesn't really know what Matthews did. Whether he "behaved badly" at all. And she questioned the nature of the story. Rightly, she did that. She asked explicitly; what was it that Matthews said? I join her in asking that. I'd have thought that any half-wit would have understood the essential nature of the Althouse post. To that extent, it was Althouse, who was "defending the Leftwinger," if anybody was stupid enough to listen to you.
And there's more. Althouse didn't "attack Rightwingers," and neither did I. I specifically held up my favorite "movement conservatives" for praise, and held up the sorts of Fox News nutjobs who have been railing against the Republican Party in the age of Trump for criticism.
This is all about the one-dimensional cult of personality surrounding Trump, and not about conservatism at all.
"I disagree. I think a lot of women have taken liberties and many have felt privileged to say sexual things, maybe just for fun or as a way to flex and show power. There's nothing to stop The Reckoning which picks up its own momentum."
LOL - no shit. I was at a Master Gardener event a few years ago chatting about plants, when the term "anther" (male plant part) escaped me. I was muttering "male plant part...male plant part...oh, anther!" One woman in the small group had been giving me stink eye for an unknown reason...then pipes up "That is a much nicer way of saying it". Da fuck? Male. Plant. Part. You'd think I was screaming at the top of my lungs: "What is the DICK OF THE PLANT...THE HEAD OF THE PENIS OF THE PLANT..."
This was a few years ago. I am amazed at how easily offended some women are - how can you navigate life in this way? So yeah, I do wonder if we have to quake in fear. Can I use the word "male" around women or do we have to come up with another term? The woman so easily offended at the term 'male plant part' has, I am sure, is mining her brain for an old insult for possible litigation.
The accuser did not feel a tingle in her leg. OTOH she probably felt Matthew's hairy paw.
Men get joked about at work much more often than women, probably at a rate of about 100 to 1. This involves disparaging their sexuality, strength, manliness, intelligence, looks, competence, hygiene, clothing, pretty much everything. How do we survive it? For men, this is the primary means for showing affection when blowjobs are off limits. Next up will be men making these claims for money. I mean, hey, it's easy money, and all of us have a valid claim.
Should we all be cowering in fear?
No only those of us with a penis.
" I am amazed at how easily offended some women are - how can you navigate life in this way?"
It is exactly how they navigate. Beyond sexual appeal, women exert power in two primary ways: Taking offense (victimhood) and being dissatisfied. These responses are designed to put others on the defensive, and to get them to do more for her than you may want to. It has always worked like a charm, and now it's being weaponized with lawyers. I wish this worked for men. It's a really easy, reliable tactic. The whole culture accepts and submits to it.
Forty grand is pocket change, both for the network and for Mathews. That amount smacks of "we know we'er going to win in court, but it's going to cost more than $40k even if we win."
I am amazed at how easily offended some women are - how can you navigate life in this way?
This should be no surprise, since women are incentivized to be offended by the current legal and social environment.
T Twister opines:
More and more, what I am getting is that all of these guys were vain, hot-headed, mercurial and sometimes abusive...
Hmm, kinda reminds me of some dumb jackass half wit commenter here, cannot quite put my finger on it..
The honor of Christina Mathews, of the leg tingles, must be defended. By the Bowe Berghdal wing of the Republican Party of course.
All the stone casters seem to be taking incoming rocks.
So many male feminists. So many female accusations.
The term "Hardball" is a double entendre with sexual overtones.
So is "black hole". Not to mention diverse. I wonder if Hawking intended or predicted its future.
Bad men. Very bad men. And the women who love and harvest them for social progress.
There are two types of claimants in The Reckoning the we critically deal with: there is the wounded sensitive souls that suffer type. They need closure 20 -30 years later; and the others are tough players seeking a long planned pot of gold.
The men are all the same type: just dumb aggressive guys who chase women as Labrador Retrievers chase sticks and run up their scores.
Chuck turns an article about Chris Matthews into another screed about Trump.
Seek professional help.
"I'd have thought that any half-wit would have understood the essential nature of the Althouse post."
You didn't, quarter-wit Titty Twister.
I've twice been threatened with a false accusation of harassment by young female employees of the firm I worked for, so my sympathies are with Matthews.
First, they came for Matthews, and he was collateral damage (a la Obama's trail of tears, or the female chauvinist selective-child), expendable for the cause. Then, they came for their real target, a competing interest. Who will they frame this time?
It's a game of hardball, full of bullhorn prosecutions, violations of civil rights, and even broken bones.
"Matt Lauer had a rape-lock on his office."
That allegation has been proven false. The lock was not installed by Lauer, and it doesn't lock anyone IN; it only locks people OUT. It's for privacy and security, and there's nothing rapey about it.
Do you really think a locksmith or security company would install a device that would keep people from escaping a burning building? Would NBC authorize that at 30 Rockefeller Center? Would their insurance company and lawyers approve?
I have no use for Matt Lauer, and I wish nothing but the worst for him, but let's try to be fair.
Igv said...On the Harvey Weinstein 10 point scale, this would be a 1.
--
Yep..need some sort of scale..or something akin to the fact check meter...maybe even borrow the "pants on fire" category for certain offenses.
But though it seems like ancient history, a sort of contemporary starting point in this pervnado might be Jian "Hate fucker" Ghomeshi..who happens to be back with a podcast.
I have no use for Matt Lauer, and I wish nothing but the worst for him, but let's try to be fair.
Well if we're being fair, rape lock is probably how Matt Lauer would have reported it had it not been about him or someone he cared about.
Right on, Kev.
"rape lock is probably how Matt Lauer would have reported it"
Gauzy, slo-mo reinactment with big, echoey "kachunk" sound effect as the button is pushed.
Ok..looks like Jian's podcast was quickly shut down due to public reaction.
However, as I listen to Iheart comedy 24/7, an uncontroversial Louis CK bit has re-entered rotation..
LLR categorically stated: "I don't see the George Wills, the Bill Kristols or the Max Boots getting into trouble."
Statements like this is why LLR is so universally mocked when he drops by. And deservedly so. Who are Wills, Kristol and Max Boot? Why they are never Trumpers, of course. Conversely, if you support Trump you are more likely to be a sexual harasser. Got it.
Humperdink said...
LLR categorically stated: "I don't see the George Wills, the Bill Kristols or the Max Boots getting into trouble."
Statements like this is why LLR is so universally mocked when he drops by. And deservedly so. Who are Wills, Kristol and Max Boot? Why they are never Trumpers, of course. Conversely, if you support Trump you are more likely to be a sexual harasser. Got it.
Feel free to try to over-simplify me. I actually don't want to try to get too complicated with this.
If you are someone who has been able to support Trump wholeheartedly, your moral compass is suspect. Trump's harshest critics on the right are by and large people of devotedly solid moral values.
Yes, it is a very large generalization, and therefore not a perfect one. And no, I am absolutely not joking about this.
Of course I am not talking about the people who hate Trump on the same partisan basis that they'd have hated Bush or McCain or Romney. Trump's left-wing critics. No; instead, I am talking about principled conservatives who would have happily lined up behind any decent Republican to oppose the Clintoncrats in 2016. And who have struggled so badly with Trump, precisely because Trump is a living caricature of a rich, lying, hypocritical, obnoxious, misogynist, amoral "Republican" as defined by the enemies of Republicans.
I see Drudge has backed off his "SEX CLAIMS" headline for the hyperlink to the Matthews story.
Now, Drudge calls it an NBC payout "for Matthews mouth."
Proving that Drudge is occasionally able to correct his own fake news output.
So, Chuck, what category would you put me in? I voted against Hillary Clinton much, much more than I voted for Donald Trump, however I am thrilled with the work done by Zinke and Mattis and Pruitt in cleaning up the mess Obama left behind in Interior and EPA and Defense. ISIS has been defeated, thanks to the leadership of Trump’s delegation to Mattis. The pipelines Obama stalled and Clinton would have shit-canned are being built. Trump has to deal with two more major hurricanes in eight months than Obama dealt with in eight years, and he must have done well because I don’t see any bitching in the press. I don’t see where any true Republican has any room to bitch about Trump’s performance of his fundamental job.
I plan to vote for Trump in 2020, this time voting for him and his policies.
"Proving that Drudge is occasionally able to correct his own fake news output."
Drudge is a news aggregation site and he isn't doing the reporting, so it can't be "fake news" of his own volition. Innacurate headline, if you like, but nothing more.
Proving that Drudge is occasionally able to correct his own fake news output.
Which certainly beats the Times and the Post, does it not?
Chuck responded: "If you are someone who has been able to support Trump wholeheartedly, your moral compass is suspect."
Chuck, you are such a tool. I support Trump. Do I agree with everything he has said or done? Of course not. Now, what was the alternative during election time? Hillary, the baby killer. Maybe for you, not for me Check your moral compass, Chuck.
What is the alternative now? Do nothing McConnell? You need to check your logic compass while you're er-calibrating your moral compass.
Trump may prove to be the most conservative president since Reagan and you will not recognize it.
If only we had a nice moral man like Kasich..whose Dad worked for the post office btw.
George Will and Bill Krystol would have a much easier navigation at the cocktail parties.
The talking heads are disposable.
Matthews can be replaced by hundreds of would-be's.
The real problem is with the masters, of which he is just a puppet.
THEY are as yet untouched.
" NO jokes, NO compliments, NO kidding, NO idle banter, NO acknowledgement of anything personal.......and of course NO expressing Political opinions....."
Alternatively, segregate men and women. It works remarkably well at my work where, within the group, we are free to say the most inflammatory shit imaginable. I'm guessing that the 2020's are going to have quite a bit in common with the 1920' s in terms of who we're likely to associate with professionally. With Asians and the tougher Hispanics as honorary White folks, natch.
Maybe that tingle up his leg was a referred sensation from having a master's hand up his __.
So, Chuck, what category would you put me in?
The key to Chuck's statement was the word "wholeheartedly". You may support Trump, but you must always do so with reservations. You may attack Hillary, or Barack, but you must always do so in a way that lets people know you see Trump's flaws as well. You may celebrate Trump's victories, but you have to always balance that with the insight that Republican X could have done just as well.
If you can do that, you can even vote for the guy and keep your morality intact. But only, as you will always remind them, because some other morally-fulfilling Republican wasn't on the ballot this year.
In all discussions about whether Trump tastes great or is less filling, you must answer "neither", but he's at least beer in a beer-is sense of the word and real beer was unavailable to you.
That's how you can call yourself a morally-uncompromised Republican in Chuck's World.
If you can do that, you can keep your LLR streak intact until 2020 when you can campaign like hell for anyone who challenges him in the name of "saving the party".
PS - if you think at this point in President Kasich's first term we'd have the individual mandate eliminated and corporate taxes cut, I have a bridge to sell you. It would have gotten in the way of "fixing" Obamacare toward single payer and infrastructure spending which would have pushed up the deficit and made tax cuts impossible "for now".
"What were the comments? Blandly referred to like that, they seem like something almost anyone might have done. Should we all be cowering in fear?"
Yes, precisely. That is exactly what the objective is.
If not just the men, then how do you explain Lena Dunham? She confessed to raping a child. Aside from making false rape accusations herself.
Fabi said...
"Proving that Drudge is occasionally able to correct his own fake news output."
Drudge is a news aggregation site and he isn't doing the reporting, so it can't be "fake news" of his own volition. Innacurate headline, if you like, but nothing more.
Of course, Drudge is an aggregation site. Sometimes (and sometimes not) with his own headlines. This time, it was a Drudge headline. In red, up at the top as part of the banner. All that was lacking, was the Drudge police flasher. And it was not lost on Althouse, assuredly. She didn't just link to the Drudge story; she bothered to screen-capture the Drudge home page as it appeared at the time. It was, as far as I can tell, one of the central bloggable features of the story.
I don't know why Drudge changed it, but I'd have to believe that he realized how unfair it was. No, Drudge doesn't have an ombudsman and no apparent editor-in chief, and he doesn't print letters to the non-apparent editor. Who knows what or who he responds to?
I made a point of it as "fake news" in order to be as aggravating and as provocative as possible regarding Trump's fans. When it comes to battling TrumpWorld, I don't feel much responsibility to them, to be accurate in my language, since Trump feels no such responsibility. I like to be precise in my writing, just for my own satisfaction. But as for Trump, and Trump's admirers, my attitude is, "fuck them."
Chris Matthews, Drudge..
"But Truuuummmppp!"
But as for Trump, and Trump's admirers, my attitude is, "fuck them."
Says the LLR. Got it.
I'm sure he approves of McConnell's corrupt deal with the Alabama governor that gave us Senator Strange. Strange had been the AG and might have seen that the Governor was prosecuted for some of his hijinks in office. Instead, McConnell got the AG appointed.
Then, when the election came up, Mo Brooks, a real conservative but not a fan of McConnell, declared for the seat. McConnell saw to it that all the money went to Strange and Brooks was blocked. The Alabama voters didn't like Strange like McConnell and the money men did, so we got Moore.
Chuck was all righteous about Moore and blames Trump for the new D Senator.
That's our chuck.
Michael K:
Yeah. Way to go Alabama primary voters. Nice job. You picked the only living Republican who could lose.
I was thinking about the old Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards*, in c;onnection with the Roy Moore campaign. Governor Edwards earned his place forever in the political Hall of Infamy with the quote, "The only way I won't win this election is if they catch me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
They needed to explain to Roy Moore that it was only meant as a joke.
*A Democrat.
But as for Trump, and Trump's admirers, my attitude is, "fuck them."
Well to be fair, you and the GOP Establishment has felt that way about us Deplorables since....forever.
Yeah. Way to go Alabama primary voters. Nice job.
Fucking Republican base, always fucking things up for the GOP Establishment.
Do you know how tiresome it is for Chuck to have to constantly defend himself on the cocktail circuit?
Shorter Chuck: "Trump made me do it!"
Will no one rid me of these turbulent Deplorables?
You do realize that aLred had as much admitted that Nelson was a fraud. We know the fellow who came in 2nd in the 2010 election worked out well (wait he was cavorting with his zecretary, that's Why We are in this mess)
Mary Beth kepner used a really depraved fellow William Allen to take down among others senator Ted Stevens. Now she was his fbi handler and had an interesting working relationship, ahem
Of course the agent that blew the whistle, Chad joy was the one that had to resign.The
"PS - if you think at this point in President Kasich's first term"
LLR Chuck's wet dream was to have Kasich nominated and then lose in a gentlemanly fashion to those on the left that Chuck adores so.
Adores.
I worked with men and women for 40 years and never had any trouble like this. I'll bet they're more incidents. He'll go down Franken style, sacrificing his last shred of dignity of a bit more airtime.
Latest from CNBC is that the figure was not $40,000, it was much smaller, and it was part of a severance package. Dunno if that’s true.
We got some reverse scarlet letter crap going on here. But once enough people are "convicted" in the court of public opinion, the charges won't mean anything anymore because everyone is a harasser.
I've got to admit, I like how Chuck admits to not caring about "be[ing] accurate in my language" while simultaneously criticizing Drudge for not being accurate in his language.
Post a Comment