"Rick Wilson’s joke was second-rate and obviously pre-written, and yet Don Lemon reacted as if Wilson was Dave Chappelle — even going so far as to say he 'needed' it. This behavior is learned. Since Donald Trump was elected, a certain set of political 'strategists' — many of whom aren’t actually strategists, Ana Navarro — have come to see CNN as a clearing house for their bad one-liners, each sitting at home preparing zingers that they hope, once delivered, will go viral. This one has gone viral, of course, but for the opposite reason than its architects hoped: Because it is pathetic.
Writes Charles C.W. Cooke in "The Death of Cable News in One Clip" (National Review).
८७ टिप्पण्या:
Bulletin board material for deplorables...and other voters.
Has NR forgotten that they sided with CNN, and against the deplorables last time? Pepperidge Farm, and the deplorables remember.
National Review. What a joke they are.
"National Review. What a joke they are."
Please elaborate. I don't read it enough to know. I thought what I posted was good. I guess you could say that they have a stake in the humorless approach to political commentary and think comedy should be left to Dave Chapelle and other specialists.
...have come to see CNN as a clearing house for their bad one-liners, each sitting at home preparing zingers that they hope, once delivered, will go viral
They should just come to Althouse. Or maybe stick to Twitter.
Death in one clip? Where the hell have they been?
The referenced clip was featured on four of my bookmarked sites: Althouse, LI, Instapundit, and Ace of Spades. It may be the ‘deplorable’ moment of 2020.
A Modest Proposal:
Perhaps you've aware that Missouri claimed the bottom row Iowa counties as a (taxable) part of Missouri? The old saw goes:
"if we gave those counties to Missouri; it'd raise the IQ of both states"
Here's My Modest Proposal.
Our Poor Chuck should leave here; and go to work at CNN. It would raise the IQ there.
Please elaborate.
NR is infested with Never Trumpers. Its a bastion of the GOP-e that is more interested in getting invited to the right cocktail parties and going along to get along and preserving "muh principles" than actually fighting to win political and cultural battles. Probably because a lot of the "pundits" are financed by rich liberals via being appointed to various "chairs."
Please elaborate
The 4th anniversary of National Review's suicide
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-4th-anniversary-of-national-reviews.html
No more JOM Beast’s?
National Review and CNN are the two sides of the theater mask. In this particular show, CNN is playing the comedy roll and National Review is playing the tragedy but it's just one show and the theme is always the same. They hate the deplorables
To elaborate: it is ironic to witness National Review pushing back against CNN when they have engaged in equally baseless attacks on Trump’s supporters. It takes little effort to imagine three of the NR dandies performing those very exchanges.
p.s., hey donald - I check in on occasion. Good to see you!!
Carlson was making fun of this last night.
"Please elaborate."
Chuck.
"National Review. What a joke they are."
The flip side of the coin that this clip represents. You must either despise and ridicule Trump and his supporters or you must defend to the last breath Trump.
Maybe there are a bunch of VOTERS. (Remember them, those folks who help win elections) that aren’t true blue believers but will vote for Trump if only because what the Dems offer is crazy.
And maybe some of those voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (who previously voted for Obama) might make a difference in an election.
National Review proves that we are run by a uni-party cabal of insiders who sup on graft, and have sold national policy to a small group of oligarchs, and will fight tooth and nail against any changes in the deal that might put those trillions of dollars in private investments at risk.
Please elaborate.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/witless-ape-rides-escalator-kevin-d-williamson/
This was the opening salvo of a long war against all things Trump. Not just against all things Trump but against anyone who sided with him. A recent column by one of their elitist journalists basically said the Impeachment effort was all Trumps fault because he doesn't know how to be "Presidential". I still have use for a few of their columnists but have written off the rest.
NR still has a few good writers but the failure began before Trump.
Rich Lowry fired John Derbyshire because he published this article in another magazine.
Derbyshire's kids are mixed race (Eurasian).
Then came the notorious Michael Mann lawsuit in which Mann sued Mark Steyn and NR for an article Steyn wrote about "climate change" and Mann's data manipulation.
Mann's "climate change" hockey stick was the world's most famous and instantly recognizable scientific graph, tirelessly promoted by UN propagandists and mailed by governments around the world to each of their citizens as the pretext for whatever warmist boondoggle they had in mind. The hockey stick is a crock - but Mann likes to sue if you point that out, and enviable sinecures such as the high office of personal climatologist to Jessica Alba have ensured he has apparently bottomless pockets.
As a result, Steyn was no longer published in NR.
a few weeks ago, the indefatigable Anthony Watts broke the news that Dr Tim Ball had prevailed in Mann's defamation suit against him. As many of you know, the climate mullah's other defamation suit - against yours truly - is currently in its eighth year in the constipated bowels of the District of Columbia court system. So I was interested to learn the disposition of the Mann vs Ball case, now in its ninth year. Mann had sued Ball for reprising an old joke that the guy belonged in the state pen rather than Penn State. Jessica Alba doesn't diss him like that, and Doctor Fraudpants sees no reason why anyone else should be allowed to.
Well, Mann's suit is now well and truly dead.
The DC Circuit was packed with Obama judges so the suit lasted 8 years !
Then came the famous Trump issue of NR.
They sold out the industrial midwest years ago, and nobody is going to stand for Trump queering the deal.
I used to be a huge Jonah Goldberg fan. Now I just shake my head when I read the shit he writes.
"Ann Althouse said...
I thought what I posted was good. I guess you could say that they have a stake in the humorless approach to political commentary and think comedy should be left to Dave Chapelle and other specialists."
Did you read the whole thing? Charles C. W. Cooke (what kind of douchebag uses the C.W.?) doesn't want humorless approaches to Trump, he simply doesn't want bad humor. You can make fun of Trump or his followers all you want, but make it funny!
"I’m sure that I will be told that my disdain for this clip is the product of something other than a distaste for stupidity, laziness, and a desire for better TV. “You love Trump!” “You’re just envious!” “Lighten up!” But I don’t. I’m not. And I have no need to. The world is full of hilarious and interesting people, many of whom are extremely rude about the president, about Southerners, and about all manner of other topics. None of them, alas, seem to be asked on cable news."
Curious George said...
"Please elaborate."
Chuck.
This made me LOL. And sums up the answer in one word.
I’ve seen Laslo here this morning, and what this thread needs is more caviar.
Doesn't it bothered anyone else that the guy in the middle has his hair painted on?
Calling them "mediocrities" is being generous, don't you think?
NR have fingered out to defeat Trump, you can't mock his minions. They have zero self esteem and longer memories than scorned women. They require flattery and praise. Trump gronked that decades ago and is the Lynch pin of his success.
CNN: The Kimmel Show during a writer’s strike.
Ana Navarro and Rick Wilson are- top to bottom- two examples of what is absolutely wrong with our political lives here. They make a lot of money, they have huge egos, they are on tv all the time, but nobody can explain why any regular human should (or does) care what they have to say.
In retrospect NR has always been a hobbyist magazine.
It had a small circulation an minimal influence among any but insular aficionados misled into believing in their own significance.
It did have some fine writers, notably Florence King, who could not get published otherwise, and this was the main value in NR.
The Wall Street Journal was always vastly more important.
I suggest ignoring NR, no matter where it stands.
oward said...
NR have fingered out to defeat Trump, you can't mock his minions
NR has certainly "fingered" out how to defeat Trump but the Democrats won't cooperate. They keep running these clown auditions in places like Iowa.
What you need are guys in bow ties with Ivy League degrees in art history.
You cannot mock the people Howard.
You need them to like you, if you want to achieve something IRL.
Unless the reason you do this is some petty personal or cliqueish thing, pointless whimsy.
"Unless the reason you do this is some petty personal or cliqueish thing, pointless whimsy.”
Now you understand him! He thinks that he is backing the inevitable, so taunting is never going to backfire.
"They have zero self esteem and longer memories than scorned women.”
We are happy to have all of the clippings to post in the locker room that your side is willing to provide Howard.
The mulatto guy explained that he wasn't belittling people, because that would violate his high principles; he also explained that didn't actually hear the "joke", so he wasn't laughing at that either.
No problemo.
Is Howard still in the closet or did he make it to the steam room at the YMCA last night?
"They have zero self esteem and longer memories than scorned women"
Welcome to humanity. One of Dicken's best characters, being drawn from life, was Madame Defarge, who knitted her grudges in order to preserve them. To be unrolled, and read, come the day of retribution. This is very commonly the way history proceeds. Unfortunately the schools no longer care for Dickens, or history.
I used to be a huge Jonah Goldberg fan. Now I just shake my head when I read the shit he writes.
Without Pippa, he would be dead to me. But.
Those eyes, that tennis ball...
’...you must defend to the last breath Trump.’
Do you think I’m defending to the last breath a dude with a ridiculous scalp weasel combover or do you think I’m defending to the last breath his agenda? Spoiler alert: it’s the latter.
Judging from what I've seen of it and from Rich Lowry's newspaper columns, National Review is a mix of people who have different attitudes towards the president. Sure, they were all against him exactly four years ago - I mean in January, 2016, when it was still unclear to many that Trump was a serious candidate for the presidency, and when his manner and statements gave cause for concern - but I wouldn't say that the magazine was #NeverTrumper now. The writers have different attitudes and positions when it comes to Trump.
And I understand, for years National Review didn't care about illegal immigration or deindustrialization. The conservative movement and the Republican Party also didn't care much (not that liberals or Democrats cared either). Reagan and the Bushes and most of the politicians who supported or opposed them didn't make those issues a priority, and voters didn't force them to. The enthusiasm was for the free market, beating Communism, and democratizing and globalizing the world.
National Review tends to made a scapegoat for attitudes that were much more widely shared. There were dissenters of course. Some of them had problems of their own, saying things which alienated or outraged people. But most politicians and voters didn't care about immigration, or care enough about it to make it an issue. Some of the few who did were actually Democrats - outsiders in their own party. The case was similar with deindustrialization. When the Democrats were out of office, they made it an issue against Reagan and Bush (and they ignored the matter when they got in). And don't even get started about libertarians.
Also, it's not entirely true that the magazine didn't care about illegal immigration: if you'll recall, before Lowry became top editor, his predecessor John O'Sullivan was out in front in expressing concern about immigration rates, but it didn't catch on.
Aunty Trump said...
“I used to be a huge Jonah Goldberg fan. Now I just shake my head when I read the shit he writes.”
Yes... my feelings, as well. Same holds true for Stephen Hayes.
Trump hatred is rooted in status anxiety.
“Ana Navarro and Rick Wilson are- top to bottom- two examples of what is absolutely wrong with our political lives here.“
You’d better put her on the bottom, she’d crush that geek.
Google CNN viewership and you’ll find around 600,000 people regularly watching the network, roughly the same number (and demographics) of Americans who read quilting newsletters. It’s beyond me why anyone would assume CNN influences anything whatsoever in this country.
That's exactly my point Buwaya Puti and Auntie Trump. Excuse my cynicism, but you people are admitting that you think it's a good idea to to be played for a fool by flattery. I certainly recognize it as a practical necessity given the human condition, however, it is a mental disorder caused by enabling deadly sins of
pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth.
NR has a pretty diverse group of conservative opinionators. Victor Davis Hansen is a pretty full throated Trump supporter (though I’m not sure he’d call himself that.)
And to belie that CNN clip, he doesn’t have a Southern accent and is clearly well educated (and has been one of the most eloquent writers on the consequences of the unregulated illegal immigration into California.)
you people are admitting that you think it's a good idea to to be played for a fool by flattery
Howard is one of those who thought HD 28 would lead Texas left. If you think people are stupid, you get those ideas, like Beta O'Rourke, for example. Free markets rely on The Wisdom of Crowds, but the people, like Howard, who run todays's Democrat Party think a command economy is just great.
The book relates to diverse collections of independently deciding individuals, rather than crowd psychology as traditionally understood. Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts, draws many parallels with statistical sampling
Today's Democrat Party is opposed to the free market, which is what is usually called "Capitalism."
Great RNC ad based on the CNN segment.
Its not "being played for a fool".
It is simple human nature. One does not insult people whom one wants to persuade.
To then blame the people you have insulted for their natural reaction...that is foolish, or undisciplined, or divorced from reality.
Andrew Carnegie is your modern touchstone.
Or perhaps you should check out Cicero.
Put me in the column of former Jonah Goldberg fans. I have my doubts about Trump, but his administration has been successful despite incessant opposition, and I had expected Goldberg to at least acknowledge these successes, but his sniping, parsimonious "yes, it's good, but happened despite Trump" comments have simply turned me off of him.
There is a famous (?) story of Trump accusing him of not being able to buy pants. I used to consider this an absurdist indicator of Trump's lunacy; I now wonder what he meant by it.
Dale Carnegie. Sorry.
To add, it only makes sense to berate people if these are some minority, or best yet one or a few persons, that can be separated from the vast majority of their supporters. It makes sense to beat on Trump, but not on the @45%+ that backs him.
Even in a polarized political system it makes sense not to increase, or casually increase, the hatred the other side personally holds for you and your partisans. There are always evil consequences here, even if the immediate effect is to make your own partisans more loyal.
There is one side whose sensitivities are protected at all costs, by the news networks, late nite TV, in movie theatres, etc. You know why they often say that is? "Because the other side can take it."
It is simple human nature. One does not insult people whom one wants to persuade.
The Left isn't interested in persuading the Right. They simply want to replace or eliminate us.
Lemon’s response seemed completely faked to me. The laughter was staged, too long, and melodramatized. The line “I needed that” struck me as revealing. You would think all these Trump haters talking Trump hatred 24/7 in an anti-Trump bubble would not be “needing” relief humor. Guess they know Trump’s beating them daily.
As for Wilson, I hate the asshole and thought the “joke” was mean and stupid, but I credit his delivery. He did the accent well.
The fake accents serve to write off not merely segments of society, but States. Given the electoral organization of presidential elections, this is stupid. Ergo, Rick Wilson doesn't seem to be the sort of political consultant you would hire to win elections.
It's best to be skeptical of politicians, journalists and commentators. If you don't think that Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter or Dinesh D'Souza or David Brooks or Pat Buchanan or Mark Steyn or whoever can be right sometimes and wrong sometimes, sane sometimes and bonkers sometimes, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
Charles Cooke is a good writer and a pretty solid pundit, but part of the "NR is a joke" sentiment is that many of the people at NR are seen to feel the same way Rick Wilson does but simply be better at hiding it. Kevin Williamson has been pretty clear in his distaste, to put it mildly, for a lot of the Trump base. Jonah Goldberg on Twitter sounds more and more like a typical Leftist and is proud, I'm sure to now be NPR's favorite conservative.
The slightly more meta point is that Rick Wilson, Jen Rubin, Max Boot, Tom Nichols, and any number of other alleged conservatives who spend all their time now mocking and sneering at Republican base voters were supported, embraced by, and promoted by institutions like NR until very recently. This isn't some weird new aberration--this is how these people have thought for years (disdaining the Republican base "rubes") while happily taking all the cash and prestige that comes with being an accepted right wing pundit and public intellectual.
NR is seen as a joke in part because it hasn't come to grip with why it has failed (most writers there strongly opposed Trump and vehemently oppose right-wing populism) and what part it, and institutions like it, played in "making Trump happen." My go-to example is immigration: the Republican base BEGGED the party to take immigration reform and restriction seriously, literally for 2 decades, and most of the smart set (at NR and elsewhere) ignored that desire at best and more often sided with the left in calling those people racists, motivated by racism and hate, etc. That bred a great deal of resentment towards NR by the exact people they counted on for support--the exact people they're supposed to lead and persuade. Couple that with the belief that the right has lost every culture war fight for the last 3-4 decades while right wing pundits seem motivated mostly by their own prestige and what keeps the Chamber of Commerce happy (tax cuts while rural America is hollowed out, etC) and you get "NR is a joke now."
Nothing wrong with Cooke's article; he might mention that Wilson's views are different from a lot of Cooke's friends-in-good-standing's by a matter of degree only, and possibly not even that--Wilson said out loud what it's pretty clear a lot of NR-approved pundits and officials think.
Earnest Prole asks: "It’s beyond me why anyone would assume CNN influences anything whatsoever in this country."
Two small data points: CNN is blasted to a captive audience in the nation's airport. Even if they don't hear a word, the scrolling words injects the day's one-party narrative into people.
Also: In the newsroom I used to work in, they leave CNN on all day. It started after 9/11 in order to keep up on the day's news. Now, it acts to inject today's narrative into newspapers, just like we rely on The New York Times and The Washington Post to spread the narrative into the news pages.
Also: a number of NR big wigs jumped out early attacking the Covington High kids a year ago. On the NR site they put up an article saying the kids "might as well have just spit on the Cross."
They eventually pulled that article and apologized later, and most of the people who posted denunciations of the Covington kids on Twitter apologized, but to date I have not read any kind of explanation of HOW that happened--how media-savvy professionals who have life long experience dealing with media bias and unfounded attacks against non-Left causes and people could nonetheless "fall for" the Media narrative.
[The actual answer is the Covington kids' MAGA hats and the NR writer's visceral Trump hatred and disgust towards Trump supporters, but instead they fall back on "we acted to quickly" excuses that might fly for your average journalist but are in no way sufficient for professional right-wing political commentators/pundits.]
Is it weird that Don Lemon, the CNN guy in the middle, is still on the air? I mean this is the #MeToo era, isn't it?
Don Lemon Sued By Hamptons Bartender Over Alleged Assault
The accuser allegedly turned down a six figure settlement offer and has at least one witness.
Dustin Hice, a bartender in the Hamptons who was off work, said in court documents obtained by Mediaite that Lemon approached him after Hice had previously offered to buy him a drink, and "vigorously rubbed his [Lemon's] genitalia, removed his hand and shoved his index and middle fingers in Plaintiff’s moustache and under Plaintiff’s nose."
Lemon then allegedly asked Hice, “Do you like p---- or dick?” before Hice left the bar.
That's some Weinstein-level behavior, no? Seems like we ought to call him "accused sexual assaulter Don Lemon," just to be completely accurate.
most of the smart set (at NR and elsewhere) ignored that desire at best and more often sided with the left in calling those people racists,
I think it was more a response to donors who want cheap labor. The Koch brothers didn't hire many Mexican illiterates, I assume, but the net effect is to depress wages. Just like H1B visas, another favorite of the Libertarian right.
The "Knowledge Economy" was even a favorite of Peter Drucker. I never saw much discussion of what happened to the half of the population with IQs of 100.
Lurker21: National Review tends to made a scapegoat for attitudes that were much more widely shared.
I don't think "scapegoat" is the correct word here. You are absolutely correct that the views flogged by NR were "widely shared". But the audience eventually wised up. "Scapegoat" doesn't mean "someone who vilifies the people who used to buy his bullshit but no longer do". Or even "someone who is criticized by the people who used to buy his bullshit but no longer do".
NR has been purging anybody who displeased the liberal gatekeepers of "decent" opinion since Buckley's time. (The idea that Buckley would have been appalled at the current NR is laughable. His name would have been on that "Never Trump" cover.) You'd be correct to point out that NR's conservative readership base was a little slow on the uptake about what was going on here, but nobody is "scapegoating" NR.
Pointing this out was the first time Tucker Carlson really got on my radar as other than "George Will, Jr.". He had a classic column that is well worth a read even four years later:
Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.
Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents “an existential threat to conservatism.”
Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal.
People who write about National Review as though it is a monolith haven't read it, or haven't read it recently. Many regular writers disagree with one another about Trump and about other things. McCarthy has been one of the most interesting and insightful writers on legal aspects of the Trump Presidency, and if you are turning up your nose at all things NR, you are missing that important commentary.
Phil 314 said...
Maybe there are a bunch of VOTERS. (Remember them, those folks who help win elections) that aren’t true blue believers but will vote for Trump if only because what the Dems offer is crazy.
1/29/20, 6:32 AM
No "maybe" about that. I was one. I wanted ANY Republican but Trump and [not likely] but may have considered a right leaning Democrat if that were an option, but it was not. My choices was rude, crude, no political experience, former Democrat Trump or known criminal, liar, corrupt, leave US personnel to die and blame it on a video, secret email server Hillary. There will be MORE this go round as Trump has shown what he can do with a "stuck" congress and many will be wondering what he can do with a congress that is actually on his side.
No more JOM, Beasts? Hey Donald, I check in on occasion.
I try to read the threads at JOM but too often as they go on claustrophobic dread begins to make me anxious. Some of it may be Typepad, reminding me of the otherwise happily forgotten early years of the millennium.
Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
"Scapegoat" doesn't mean "someone who vilifies the people who used to buy his bullshit but no longer do". Or even "someone who is criticized by the people who used to buy his bullshit but no longer do".
There is historical scapegoating. After WWII, Britain's Labour Party blamed the Tories for not wanting rearmament before the war, even though Labour didn't want rearmament then either. I understand that voters were more concerned about immigration and trade than the conservative establishment was, and that NR still hasn't caught on, but a lot of the attacks don't take into account that Republican voters weren't making a major issue out of those things until recently. Yes, voters were misled or poorly led, but they weren't clamoring for change either. The spirit of the age or the climate of the times made other ideas and issues more prominent for both elites and the public.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
The slightly more meta point is that Rick Wilson, Jen Rubin, Max Boot, Tom Nichols, and any number of other alleged conservatives who spend all their time now mocking and sneering at Republican base voters were supported, embraced by, and promoted by institutions like NR until very recently. This isn't some weird new aberration--this is how these people have thought for years (disdaining the Republican base "rubes") while happily taking all the cash and prestige that comes with being an accepted right wing pundit and public intellectual.
But did National Review or the conservative establishment know that Wilson, Rubin and Boot would go the way they did? Most of time people don't think that far ahead. They may just have thought that these are people more or less on our side. I've got no doubt there was some sneering, but I can't quite see it as all or nothing. There has always been some sniping and sneering between factions, even among the rank and file. Somebody was always embarrassed by somebody else who was too loud or too ill-informed, but I'm not quite sure it was always one bad elite sneering at all the little people.
As for purges, yes some were bad. David Frum was always trying to purge people who disagreed with him. But isn't it possible that some people should have been at least reprimanded? Joe Sobran crossed some serious redlines. And NR's opponents didn't do themselves any favors. I thought the paleos were right about immigration and trade, but when they blamed everything wrong with the world on Abraham Lincoln they lost me.
Earnest Prole asks: "It’s beyond me why anyone would assume CNN influences anything whatsoever in this country."
Two small data points: CNN is blasted to a captive audience in the nation's airport. Even if they don't hear a word, the scrolling words injects the day's one-party narrative into people.
Maybe not for the next few weeks.
There might be less flying.
"NR big wigs jumped out early attacking the Covington High kids a year ago" This. I think that was the day I deleted the NR app and took the link off chrome after their excretable piling on over the weekend the incident happened. I might as well be reading The Atlantic at this point.
Sure I will read the occasional Andrew McCarthy or VDH article but that's about it. Don Surber rightfully routinely ridicules these faux conservatives, who are just a tax right off for wealthy liberals. Feh.
I never saw much discussion of what happened to the half of the population with IQs of 100.
The failure of "knowledge economy" proponents has been the inability to understand that half of voters have IQs of 100 or less. (For Democrats it's probably 80%). People with very modest cognitive ability need jobs that provide structure and promote a slow learning curve.
Smart entrepreneurs put their energy into creating these types of jobs. Trump, as a businessman, understands that. If you go back to Henry Ford and Frederick Taylor, you will find that America boomed when it created those types of jobs in manufacturing.
National Review has always been the purge machine of the right.
In a coup exploiting accusations of prejudice to consolidate his own power at NR, Buckley published a book called Against Semitism to purge conservatives he deemed anti-semites -- yet opened the book with an amuse bouche non-ironically recalling his own siblings spooking their Jewish neighbors with a cross burned on their lawn.
Buckley also purged the Birchers, smearing them falsely with accusations of prejudice (though they integrated racially long before NR or the DNC) and mocking them for statements made about communist infiltration of specific security agencies -- decades later, when the Venona records and other disclosures proved the Birchers completely right, he refused to address his libel of them.
Buckley, jealous of Norman Mailer's notoriety for freeing killer Jack Henry Abbott, used NR's clout to libel police and free rapist/torturer/ murderer Edgar Smith. In the course of freeing Smith, Buckley sexually smeared the 14 year old Smith snatched, raped, and stomped to death in a town dump. Years and many victims later, when Smith was caught after one victim escaped from his car, he thanked Buckley for helping him get wrongly acquitted so he could rape and kill more women. Buckley refused to help police recapture Smith and never apologized. Even Mailer apologized for Abbott's later murder.
From 2000 onward, NR has increasingly relied on secretive grant money from open borders libertarians who purged the paper of all but a few, too-popular, writers who are real conservatives on crime, borders, drugs, and so on. Mark Steyn was disgracefully purged. VDH keeps his hand in, I suspect, mainly out of duty to keep his ideas mainstream.
Gorked from pills, booze, Kennedyesque debauchery, and New York society approbation, Buckley invented cancel culture and birthed Hillaryesque contempt for the deplorables. He let libertarian anarchists destroy conservatism, for money. He is personally responsible for the rape and murder of several women. The cynical naifs who succeeded him are tasked to never let this legacy see the light of day. No wonder they're so morally fraught.
National Review is a joke because they are supposedly "Conservative" and yet attack the same people that the Liberals do. Look at the article, Cook's big complaint is that CNN has become like Fox News (from the opposite end)! So "Conservative" Cook thinks Fox is terrible - just like the LEft. And of course, Cook knows that Fox News has Chris wallace and several other round table guest that don't lke Trump. CNN is 99% Trump haters from top to bottom.
NR defends Google deplatforming Conservatives because they get $$ from Google. NR joined the Liberals to attack the Covinginton kids and had to be FORCED to apologize. Its impossible to see anything "conservative" about them except the like Big Business and a large defense budget. Plus, their writers are crap.
NR was shown to be irrelevant when they "Purged" Ann Coulter and she became even more popular. Their absurd 2016 "Never Trump" article convinced about 12 Old boomers who don't use the intertubes.
NR like all the Fake Cons (Rubin, Will, Boot, Erickson, Kristol, GOldberg, etc.) are financed by libertarians and liberals. They weren't elected by the Right to be our representatives. They stole the label "Conservative" because that's the only thing that distinguishes them from all the other Trump haters and social liberals.
NR hasn't been Right-wing for almost 20 years. Their only function is to police the Right for the liberals. "Look, Ann Coulter/Trump/Covington Kids are horrible. Even 'Conservative' NR agrees".
The world is full of hilarious and interesting people, many of whom are extremely rude about the president, about Southerners, and about all manner of other topics. None of them, alas, seem to be asked on cable news.
I don't understand the "alas." Does he want cable news to be filled with insult comedians, only funny ones? Michelle Wolf all the time? Also, his standards seem quite low. There are plenty of people who are rude about politics, but how many of them are really interesting or hilarious ? He's also not talking about decorum or gravitas. That horse ran out the barn door a long time ago.
“As for Wilson, I hate the asshole and thought the “joke” was mean and stupid, but I credit his delivery. He did the accent well”.
As a guy with the real deal accent (I’m Sen Kennedy from Louisiana if ya need a bench mark)...Oh hell no. I hate fake southern accents and I know ‘em when I hear ‘em.
Mockery is a fine art, and most people can't actually do it right.
What Cooke has to say rings true. But it's time to embrace the power of 'and,' by noting that one of Trump's signal achievements has been to destroy the power of legacy media. He's managed that by goading them (CNN in particular) into displaying what they preferred to keep under wraps. No one looks at CNN, the networks, the NYT, WaPo, Fox et al. post-Trump the same as the did before. He didn't start that process, but he made the underlying realities obvious even to the casual observer.
Transformational president, in ways that O and W never were.
Rick Wilson doesn't seem to be the sort of political consultant you would hire to win elections.
Well, in this election cycle there are dump trucks full of money being heaped upon political consultants. Yet Rick Wilson is unemployed. It might have to do with his lack of success.
Of course most of the money at present is for D candidates. Maybe Wilson is signaling, "Hey, I can be one of youuuuuu!".
FWIW, that was NOT a good southern accent. There are dozens of those. What Wilson gave was the Hollywood version of trailer trash.
Projection.
rcocean, I have been a libertarian (one of those weirdoes who believe their lives and property beong to themselves and not to the State) for decades, and "officially" left the conservative camp when I attended a conservative seminar and almost all the bigwig conservatives appearing there defended Nixon's wage and price controls. It was there that I heard Ernst van den Haag say, to the tacit approval of the others, "The State has the right to do anything it wants." And I thought, "Nah-ah."
Anyway, my point is where do I go to be sudsidized by these these behind-the-curtain libertarian sugar daddies? The only money I have ever made from being pro-freedom was from a few articles published here and there over the decades in libertarian journals. I feel the late humorist Jean Shepherd, hearing people being accuded of "selling out," asking his radio listeners, "Could someone please tell me where to go to sell out? I've been trying to sell out for years."
I've never been invited to the right cocktail parties, but thanks to journalism, if I ever was, I'd know exactly how to fit in - piece of cake.
The Trumpkins dismiss NR because it opposed Trump. The editorial is linked several times above, as proof of turpitude.
The fact is that NR is a varied mix of the good, the bad, the awful, and the indifferent. But purists demand purity.
Fernandistein’s link proves Lemon doesn’t even have the courage to stand by his own laughter. He didn’t hear!
Dawn Lemon needs to be Cosby-ed, and hard.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा